M.A., J.H.: what benefits do you see resulting from "calling people on it", and what negative consequences from not doing so? Certainly your responding doesn't stop the other party from making the comments you don't like, and probably anyone who's persuaded by their comments isn't going to be moved by yours.
To me it seems like a dollar auction -- with each comment you act as if you'll get the last word, but then the opponent just fires back. Eventually someone gets tired of it, but really neither of you has won.
I think that the government has no business being involved in who, what gender(s), or how many people I can convince to engage in sexual congress with me, either on disparate or similar occasions.
But more sexual partners means statistically higher chance of getting an STD, so on average that would come calling back to the commons. I'm afraid we can't allow you to have that freedom.
Well, I don't disagree that there's a respectful and understanding way to approach this situation; but more often there's an undercurrent of self-righteousness and condescension, and also an inability to acknowledge that one's assessment may not actually be correct.
Yes, for some strange reason, people aren't ready to acknowledge that a complete stranger with no relevant credentials except his own overweening confidence in his own judgment has so much insight into their internal thought processes.
I had a similar experience after studying Russian in college. I had long since stopped writing in cursive on a regular basis, except when it came to writing checks -- someone at some point had taught me that cursive was the only appropriate method for them. But that fell by the wayside after my first year of Russian, because "p" automatically became "n", "s" became "c", "r" became "p", etc. The actual substitution was the only effect that bothered me -- my handwriting was and is so poor in any case that details such as the particular slant or curvature of a character are hardly worth worrying about.
In particular, the fact that Obama could take a stand supporting gay marriage and still handily win a national election is tremendous. No need for future Dem presidential candidates to run away from it.
No prediction, but I do have a question for anyone who's been following the polling closely. I just saw a CNN poll that showed the national numbers as very tight, but I noticed that the question that they asked was "Suppose that the presidential election were being held today and you had to choose between Barack Obama and Joe Biden as the Democratic Party's candidates, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as the Republican Party's candidates. Who would you be more likely to vote for?" Obviously that's not the same choice that the voter will be faced with in the voting booth -- seems like that would introduce inaccuracies for people who have some chance of voting 3rd party. Are any or many other polls set up this way as well?
Well, not anymore, now that you've outed her as a deep-cover Romneybot. I bet her RNC overlords are arranging to cut off the weekly payments even as we speak.
This reminded me of a passage from a book on insight meditation by Joseph Goldstein:
When I was in India training with my teacher, Munindra-ji, I sat in on many of his interviews with yogis to watch how he taught. After some of the interviews, he would describe which meditation subjects were suitable for different individuals. Once he said, "Oh yes, this one is suitable for intelligent people, and this one for stupid people." I had an immediate, strong reaction to this categorization. Because of a certain middle-class, Western conditioning, I was offended that anyone would be considered stupid.
It was freeing to learn that for spiritual practice there is no preference regarding intelligence. Some people are intelligent, and others are not. According to the teaching, if you are intelligent you do one thing, and if you are dull you do another.
It's been blowy all day, but the wind really picked up about an hour ago here in south-central Connecticut. The top of a vent blew off our roof, no other damage so far. We lost power for about a minute but it came back on, this time anyway. Looks like we're among the lucky ones in our town so far -- over 60% without power right now.
OTOH you're more likely to work at things that come easily to you, especially as a child. I don't think the mere fact that successful people have logged many hours in practice is a slam-dunk argument against natural talent.
Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy asked whether we'd be willing to give his books such respect if he had been an equally ardent and unrepentant defender of Nazism. Personally I think works should be judged apart from their authors regardless, but it's not hard to imagine that there'd be a much different attitude towards his books in that case.
I think the fantasy is the idea that there's a single "right way". The brand of libertarianism that I'm drawn to is based on this sort of epistemic humility. I can say that one or the other person was "wrong" in my opinion, but they each have their own opinion that apparently disagrees with mine -- who am I to enforce my standard on them?
And I didn't think Tod was particularly libertarian -- has he said he is?
I wonder if anyone ever polls businesspersons for specific regulations they want to overturn, instead of the regulation boogeyman.
This is what I used to think about objections to regulation as well, but my experience working closely with CMS and health plans over the last decade has taught me that there is such a thing as "too much regulation" full stop. It can get to a point where it's practically (or sometimes genuinely) impossible to stay compliant with all of the different rules. Every individual regulation can be perfectly sensible, but in the aggregate they can be unmanageable.
Ideally the lawmakers/bureaucrats would have some concept of a "budget" for regulations in a given area -- acknowledge that they each have a cost and that there's a cost ceiling, and then work to identify the best/most important set that will fit in the budget.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “A comments culture to strive for…”
My pleasure! :)
"
So it's OK when you do it to others but not when others do it to you?
"
M.A., J.H.: what benefits do you see resulting from "calling people on it", and what negative consequences from not doing so? Certainly your responding doesn't stop the other party from making the comments you don't like, and probably anyone who's persuaded by their comments isn't going to be moved by yours.
To me it seems like a dollar auction -- with each comment you act as if you'll get the last word, but then the opponent just fires back. Eventually someone gets tired of it, but really neither of you has won.
On “Continue to Dream. Continue the Dream.”
So you admit it - you plagiarized the whole thing! Been taking lessons from Biden?
On “Coca-Cola Is Just Bad For You”
But more sexual partners means statistically higher chance of getting an STD, so on average that would come calling back to the commons. I'm afraid we can't allow you to have that freedom.
On “Rod Dreher needs to shut up.”
It's just that easy. It's just that hard.
On “Thinking in Shorthand”
I think it’s revealing
As another commentator is fond of saying, peace out bro.
"
It’s not all about moralizing
Well, I don't disagree that there's a respectful and understanding way to approach this situation; but more often there's an undercurrent of self-righteousness and condescension, and also an inability to acknowledge that one's assessment may not actually be correct.
"
Yes, for some strange reason, people aren't ready to acknowledge that a complete stranger with no relevant credentials except his own overweening confidence in his own judgment has so much insight into their internal thought processes.
On “Comment Rescue: Once More, with Feeling”
Yes, the League prides itself on forcing commenters to come up with more artful and imaginative ways to imply "Fish you".
On “My Handwriting, My Self”
I had a similar experience after studying Russian in college. I had long since stopped writing in cursive on a regular basis, except when it came to writing checks -- someone at some point had taught me that cursive was the only appropriate method for them. But that fell by the wayside after my first year of Russian, because "p" automatically became "n", "s" became "c", "r" became "p", etc. The actual substitution was the only effect that bothered me -- my handwriting was and is so poor in any case that details such as the particular slant or curvature of a character are hardly worth worrying about.
On “On Markets”
Or as my thesis advisor used to say, the fact that mules exists does not invalidate the distinction between horses and donkeys.
On “Post-Election Instapundrity: Do the Democrats Have a New Coalition?”
In particular, the fact that Obama could take a stand supporting gay marriage and still handily win a national election is tremendous. No need for future Dem presidential candidates to run away from it.
On “Locking in Election Predictions”
No prediction, but I do have a question for anyone who's been following the polling closely. I just saw a CNN poll that showed the national numbers as very tight, but I noticed that the question that they asked was "Suppose that the presidential election were being held today and you had to choose between Barack Obama and Joe Biden as the Democratic Party's candidates, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as the Republican Party's candidates. Who would you be more likely to vote for?" Obviously that's not the same choice that the voter will be faced with in the voting booth -- seems like that would introduce inaccuracies for people who have some chance of voting 3rd party. Are any or many other polls set up this way as well?
On “An Emerging Staten Island Narrative”
Well, not anymore, now that you've outed her as a deep-cover Romneybot. I bet her RNC overlords are arranging to cut off the weekly payments even as we speak.
On “Touche”
This reminded me of a passage from a book on insight meditation by Joseph Goldstein:
On “Hurricane Sandy Open Thread”
It's been blowy all day, but the wind really picked up about an hour ago here in south-central Connecticut. The top of a vent blew off our roof, no other damage so far. We lost power for about a minute but it came back on, this time anyway. Looks like we're among the lucky ones in our town so far -- over 60% without power right now.
On “Disruption Junction, What’s Your Function?”
Weird, when I do that, all I get is:
C:\>uname -a
'uname' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
Mine must be broken.
On “More on Being a Woman in a Male-dominated Field”
OTOH you're more likely to work at things that come easily to you, especially as a child. I don't think the mere fact that successful people have logged many hours in practice is a slam-dunk argument against natural talent.
On “Visiting Heaven”
Hmm, I think my comment was much cleverer than yours. Thanks for giving me a new name to add to my list of people to feel smugly superior to.
"
God put believers on this earth for you, so that you'd have plenty of people to feel smugly superior to.
"
Dude, he was in heaven -- it was stored in the cloud.
On “A Word About Eric Hobsbawm…”
Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy asked whether we'd be willing to give his books such respect if he had been an equally ardent and unrepentant defender of Nazism. Personally I think works should be judged apart from their authors regardless, but it's not hard to imagine that there'd be a much different attitude towards his books in that case.
On “Violenceacrez, Reddit and Abuse of Power”
I think the fantasy is the idea that there's a single "right way". The brand of libertarianism that I'm drawn to is based on this sort of epistemic humility. I can say that one or the other person was "wrong" in my opinion, but they each have their own opinion that apparently disagrees with mine -- who am I to enforce my standard on them?
And I didn't think Tod was particularly libertarian -- has he said he is?
On “Mitt Romney for President”
This is what I used to think about objections to regulation as well, but my experience working closely with CMS and health plans over the last decade has taught me that there is such a thing as "too much regulation" full stop. It can get to a point where it's practically (or sometimes genuinely) impossible to stay compliant with all of the different rules. Every individual regulation can be perfectly sensible, but in the aggregate they can be unmanageable.
Ideally the lawmakers/bureaucrats would have some concept of a "budget" for regulations in a given area -- acknowledge that they each have a cost and that there's a cost ceiling, and then work to identify the best/most important set that will fit in the budget.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.