Blaise, point to where I've suggested anything but that the 50s economy was pretty darn good, and then you can tell me anything you've just said is relevant to what I've said.
If you must know, I think the 50s were a mess, culturally, though I focused on segregation and the rise of the military industrial complex, rather than your preferred targets, which is not to say that I disagree with you on the Cold War. As I said to Bob, the 50s were the beginning point of a cultural awakening -- the civil rights movement, the counterculture, a new wave of the women's rights movement, etc., that would carry us up to the 80s, and to some extent through today, though I tend to think much of what began there has been lost, at least in the form of momentum (there's my nostalgia). But with the exception of the civil rights movement, those things were mostly seeds or seedlings in the 50s, so the 50s still remained a bit of a social and cultural wasteland. So, if you think I disagree with you on the 50s generally, feel free to argue that. I just don't see what you'd be arguing against, or for.
Chris and the Dense One want to paint me as some Roosky Lover. It’s like watching so many barky chihuahua dogs. Would that either could write his way out of a paper bag, for there are substantive arguments against my points, any of which would be a welcome change from this ill-mannered Poo Flinging.
Haha... It's funny to see you flustered, Blaise. Since I haven't said anything about Russia, and really haven't said anything about the space industry, you've clearly lost it here. But whatever you need to tell yourself to keep going, General. It's also funny to see you bitch and moan about personal attacks in lieu of arguments when you've yet to actually address what I've said about the 50s, instead tearing down completely unrelated claims (like, say, the 50s were perfect).
By the way, I'll say this again, but the only personal comment I've made about you (you've now made several about me), is the suggestion that you might tell a tall tale now and then (you might, if you haven't already, look up Ivolgin). Everything else was directed at your statements here: that they were exaggerated, that they were further and further from the topic (the 50s economy), that they were unrelated to your theses, etc. If you can't recognize the difference between personal attacks (you're a teller of tall tales) and criticisms of what you've said (you haven't presented arguments, and what you have presented is a piss poor substitute for arguments), I don't know how to help you.
You, on the other hand, have suggested I'm a bad writer (never claimed I wasn't), that I ignore facts that don't conform to my opinions (which facts, I'm not sure, since you haven't given any related to my point, yet), that I resort to personal attacks because I have no argument (see above), that I'm a yappy dog, and I'm sure I'm missing a couple. So, to recap, I've accused you of telling tall tales, and otherwise addressed what I've said, whereas you've done little more, in relation to my point (that the 50s economy was pretty darn good -- again, massive increases in employment, massive increases in GDP per capita, and hell, the creation of the modern middle class, just for good measure) than call me names. What you think is a high horse is really just a toddler's rocking horse, dude.
Blaise, since you haven't argued that the 50s economy wasn't pretty darn good, merely stated it as fact, I don't know which facts I'm ignoring. I do, however, know that you are ignoring one fact: the actual meaning of ad hominem. My comments on you, which are limited to the nickname, aren't related to your argument, and my claim that your arguments are irrelevant to the original point isn't a personal attack.
Blaise, I wasn’t intending, in that particular analogy, to imply that you were lying. The analogy was just that, an analogy: bad arguments are like lies in that you have to keep covering the previous one with a new one, so that you get to the point that you don’t even know what you were arguing for in the first place. I suspect most of us have done that, at one point or another. That you are doing it in this case is evident by the way that nothing you say is related in any way to your original point, or to much of anything.
The hypocorism “General Ivolgin,” on the other hand, does imply…
On point: since we’re only talking about the 50s economy, and since the 50s economy was pretty good by pretty much any measure, especially when compared to the previous and subsequent decades (seriously, a 100% increase in GDP per capita is pretty fishin’ good, by any standard), and since you haven’t suggested any reason to think otherwise (though trashing the space program(s), talking about vaccines in Africa, etc., is a nice way of avoiding doing so), I’m not sure what you think you’ve accomplished. But I’ve wasted time on you when my policy is to ignore you, a mistake for which I apologize to you and myself. I'll go back to letting you tell your tales in peace.
At some point, the word phrase "non sequitur" becomes to weak to describe a lack of a relationship between the thesis and the arguments for it. You've reached that point, passed it, and moved on to a world in which you're basically talking to yourself about who knows what.
By the way, I don't think Krugman has ever suggested that the 50s were perfect, or even the best of times (though economically, in the U.S., they were pretty darn good, especially when compared forward and backwards), but they were good times in certain ways -- ways that Krugman is clearly nostalgic for, me less so (I wouldn't mind the tax rates, though).
But dude, you keep arguing whatever it is you're arguing at this point, 'cause man, it's kinda funny to watch you dig holes. I could put music to it, or even make it into a serial: "Next week, on General Ivolgin theater: The General tells us of his time saving stranded Ross Seal Pups from melting melting pack ice during a raging storm off the coast of Antarctica, and how it relates to the negative impact of Republican policies on pricing structures in the pop gun industry. You don't want to miss this episode!"
He's just stuck arguing for a wildly hyperbolic claim that he almost certainly didn't mean, but used in defense of an earlier wildly hyperbolic claim that he may or may not have meant (the bit about the 50s space program, which was, in a way, in defense of his wildly hyperbolic claims about the 50s economy). Bad arguments are like lies; in order to keep the first one going, you have to tack on another, and then another, and then another, until you have no idea what you're arguing for anymore.
I think you're wrong to identify spirituality with Christianity, or even organized religion. Other than that, sure, good and bad, all of that comes with being human, and in fact is a product of being human.
Yeah, my view of the 50s, spiritually, is probably very different from yours, since I associate the “spiritual” character of that age precisely with that segregation and misogyny, though I also see it as the age when people began to say enough is enough. There was something of a spiritual awakening going on, to be sure, though again, I suspect that awakening coincides with precisely the post-50s mindset that you see as inferior.
Besides, this generation is incapable of ever making a movie like “Casablanca.”
So was that one, though they made some pretty good films that were much more subversive (I think of Spartacus or Paths of Glory (yeah, I'm a Kubrick fan).
I also know quite well that the generations that grew up before the 50s thought the 50s were nothing compared to the 20s or 30s. My great grandfather was fond of pointing out to my grandfather that, sure, he (my grandfather) fought and lost an eye in Europe during the Second World War, but he (my great grandfather) fought in the First World War twice (for Italy, then for the U.S.), was wounded twice (once by the Austrians in the Alps, once by the Germans in the Argonne), and when he got home, he worked for the same mining company until he couldn’t work anymore (as a result of the black lung that eventually killed him), because that’s just how it was done back then. I’m not sure working yourself to death in unhealthy conditions, just to make enough money to get by and maybe buy a used Model-T someday is an ideal we should be shooting for, any more than is a heavily racially segregated, misogynistic culture that gave rise to, among other things, our wonderful military-industrial complex. Progress may not always be good, and good progress may not be inevitable, but a desire for an idealized past is rarely, if ever, very productive.
Nostalgia is the disease that generations suffer when they’re no longer defining the culture. And it’s one we’ll all be infected with at some point.
Oh, I don't think the 50s were perfect, but painting such a dire picture of a decade in which GDP per capita doubled, and employment skyrocketed, seems odd to me.
Scott, I agree that Alex's approach is pretty counterproductive, and it plays right into Tom's hands, to boot (if nothing else, it justifies Tom's sense of persecution, and allows him to continue to avoid actually presenting a case for his position).
I agree to an extent. There’s a bunch of interesting research (some of which I’ve done myself, yay me) on the effect of labeling an individual with a particular label. The most relevant effect is essentialism: saying someone is exhibiting bigotry, or even that they are being bigoted, produces a very different representation than saying someone is a bigot. The latter suggests something essential, and something lasting, whereas the former at least admits that the offense might be context specific. On the other hand, if someone refuses to let go of an obviously bigoted opinion, I’m not sure the perception of permanence is all that unfortunate.
Eh, I don't recall any top level poster using it, but it was a frequently used word in a threat not to long ago, in which Tom took repeated offense to it (others did as well, to be fair). I honestly think "bigot" is a pretty damn good word, when it's used well, which is to say, when its use is backed up with reasons. I also think it's as problematic to cut off the legitimate use of a word because it's used illegitimately at times as it is to use such words illegitimately. It's unfortunate that, when such words are used, the conversation becomes about the words themselves, but that's rarely if ever the fault of the people using the word legitimately; more often than not, it's the fault of those who take offense to legitimately having such labels applied to them.
I think "bigotry" came up as an analog to "warmongerer," which E.D. (I think it was E.D.; I'm too lazy to go back and look) used at some point. Tom took it as an invitation to rail against effrontery on the part of those with whom he disagrees, so that he could cry "winning," leave in a huff (multiple times), and never actually present an argument for his position.
It's a strange world that Tom lives in, in which moral outrages like torture are immune to criticism for fear of offending their proponents. We'd do well not to try to comprehend that world.
This is his tactic in pretty much every debate. That he uses it in this one only puts its absurdity in stark contrast.
I actually think it's possible to discuss torture rationally, with an open mind. That is, while I think torture is self-evidently evil, and that it is blatant moral relativism to argue that it can be a moral good, or at least a lesser moral evil, when a.) it produces results that are good for us, and b.) it's not being done by the other guy, I could possibly be convinced otherwise. Tom, however, will never be the person to convince anyone of anything of that sort, because he's not, and never will be, arguing in good faith. But it is fun to watch him leave in a huff, only to post again 5 minutes later. "I say good day, sir!"
What I find odd in this discussion, by the way, is the position that it is somehow cowardly, or at least a cop out, to argue that torture is ineffective in addition to being immoral, when torture's effectiveness is the only possible argument that its proponents can use to defend it as a method of interrogation. I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any other topic of dispute for which one side argues on a particular dimension, and at the same time suggests that dimension is off limits for the other side to even address.
I enjoyed Hum back in the 90s, though I don't think they've held up well over time, but I think of a band like Kyuss (definitely underappreciated, but not the least bit accessible), and I wonder about calling Hum "the best guitar band of the 90s."
I do enjoy seeing Tom demand that every opinion be on the table, except those that are overly or too directly critical of his own.
By the way, I am a big fan of civility, but certain views and opinions, while they should in no way be directly silenced, should be treated with words like bigotry and warmongering, because that's what they amount to. Can such labels be misused? Of course, but their misuse is no more likely than that of the tactic Tom is using to avoid ever having to address then.
Generations of Democrats got elected by promising to stay on the straight and narrow to the folks back home and then get their freak on when they got to Washington. Mr. Clinton was no exception.
This, of course, is even more revisionist than the bit about Clinton getting rolled.
It must be nice to have as much faith in a team as Koz does, though.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Nostalgia & Freedom”
Blaise, that got a chuckle. Thanks.
"
Blaise, point to where I've suggested anything but that the 50s economy was pretty darn good, and then you can tell me anything you've just said is relevant to what I've said.
If you must know, I think the 50s were a mess, culturally, though I focused on segregation and the rise of the military industrial complex, rather than your preferred targets, which is not to say that I disagree with you on the Cold War. As I said to Bob, the 50s were the beginning point of a cultural awakening -- the civil rights movement, the counterculture, a new wave of the women's rights movement, etc., that would carry us up to the 80s, and to some extent through today, though I tend to think much of what began there has been lost, at least in the form of momentum (there's my nostalgia). But with the exception of the civil rights movement, those things were mostly seeds or seedlings in the 50s, so the 50s still remained a bit of a social and cultural wasteland. So, if you think I disagree with you on the 50s generally, feel free to argue that. I just don't see what you'd be arguing against, or for.
"
Chris and the Dense One want to paint me as some Roosky Lover. It’s like watching so many barky chihuahua dogs. Would that either could write his way out of a paper bag, for there are substantive arguments against my points, any of which would be a welcome change from this ill-mannered Poo Flinging.
Haha... It's funny to see you flustered, Blaise. Since I haven't said anything about Russia, and really haven't said anything about the space industry, you've clearly lost it here. But whatever you need to tell yourself to keep going, General. It's also funny to see you bitch and moan about personal attacks in lieu of arguments when you've yet to actually address what I've said about the 50s, instead tearing down completely unrelated claims (like, say, the 50s were perfect).
By the way, I'll say this again, but the only personal comment I've made about you (you've now made several about me), is the suggestion that you might tell a tall tale now and then (you might, if you haven't already, look up Ivolgin). Everything else was directed at your statements here: that they were exaggerated, that they were further and further from the topic (the 50s economy), that they were unrelated to your theses, etc. If you can't recognize the difference between personal attacks (you're a teller of tall tales) and criticisms of what you've said (you haven't presented arguments, and what you have presented is a piss poor substitute for arguments), I don't know how to help you.
You, on the other hand, have suggested I'm a bad writer (never claimed I wasn't), that I ignore facts that don't conform to my opinions (which facts, I'm not sure, since you haven't given any related to my point, yet), that I resort to personal attacks because I have no argument (see above), that I'm a yappy dog, and I'm sure I'm missing a couple. So, to recap, I've accused you of telling tall tales, and otherwise addressed what I've said, whereas you've done little more, in relation to my point (that the 50s economy was pretty darn good -- again, massive increases in employment, massive increases in GDP per capita, and hell, the creation of the modern middle class, just for good measure) than call me names. What you think is a high horse is really just a toddler's rocking horse, dude.
"
Blaise, since you haven't argued that the 50s economy wasn't pretty darn good, merely stated it as fact, I don't know which facts I'm ignoring. I do, however, know that you are ignoring one fact: the actual meaning of ad hominem. My comments on you, which are limited to the nickname, aren't related to your argument, and my claim that your arguments are irrelevant to the original point isn't a personal attack.
"
"word phrase" is a really funny typo, by the way.
"
Blaise, I wasn’t intending, in that particular analogy, to imply that you were lying. The analogy was just that, an analogy: bad arguments are like lies in that you have to keep covering the previous one with a new one, so that you get to the point that you don’t even know what you were arguing for in the first place. I suspect most of us have done that, at one point or another. That you are doing it in this case is evident by the way that nothing you say is related in any way to your original point, or to much of anything.
The hypocorism “General Ivolgin,” on the other hand, does imply…
On point: since we’re only talking about the 50s economy, and since the 50s economy was pretty good by pretty much any measure, especially when compared to the previous and subsequent decades (seriously, a 100% increase in GDP per capita is pretty fishin’ good, by any standard), and since you haven’t suggested any reason to think otherwise (though trashing the space program(s), talking about vaccines in Africa, etc., is a nice way of avoiding doing so), I’m not sure what you think you’ve accomplished. But I’ve wasted time on you when my policy is to ignore you, a mistake for which I apologize to you and myself. I'll go back to letting you tell your tales in peace.
"
At some point, the word phrase "non sequitur" becomes to weak to describe a lack of a relationship between the thesis and the arguments for it. You've reached that point, passed it, and moved on to a world in which you're basically talking to yourself about who knows what.
By the way, I don't think Krugman has ever suggested that the 50s were perfect, or even the best of times (though economically, in the U.S., they were pretty darn good, especially when compared forward and backwards), but they were good times in certain ways -- ways that Krugman is clearly nostalgic for, me less so (I wouldn't mind the tax rates, though).
But dude, you keep arguing whatever it is you're arguing at this point, 'cause man, it's kinda funny to watch you dig holes. I could put music to it, or even make it into a serial: "Next week, on General Ivolgin theater: The General tells us of his time saving stranded Ross Seal Pups from melting melting pack ice during a raging storm off the coast of Antarctica, and how it relates to the negative impact of Republican policies on pricing structures in the pop gun industry. You don't want to miss this episode!"
"
He's just stuck arguing for a wildly hyperbolic claim that he almost certainly didn't mean, but used in defense of an earlier wildly hyperbolic claim that he may or may not have meant (the bit about the 50s space program, which was, in a way, in defense of his wildly hyperbolic claims about the 50s economy). Bad arguments are like lies; in order to keep the first one going, you have to tack on another, and then another, and then another, until you have no idea what you're arguing for anymore.
"
That's pretty much the opposite of what Kant said about rational devils and government.
"
I think you're wrong to identify spirituality with Christianity, or even organized religion. Other than that, sure, good and bad, all of that comes with being human, and in fact is a product of being human.
"
Yeah, my view of the 50s, spiritually, is probably very different from yours, since I associate the “spiritual” character of that age precisely with that segregation and misogyny, though I also see it as the age when people began to say enough is enough. There was something of a spiritual awakening going on, to be sure, though again, I suspect that awakening coincides with precisely the post-50s mindset that you see as inferior.
"
Besides, this generation is incapable of ever making a movie like “Casablanca.”
So was that one, though they made some pretty good films that were much more subversive (I think of Spartacus or Paths of Glory (yeah, I'm a Kubrick fan).
I also know quite well that the generations that grew up before the 50s thought the 50s were nothing compared to the 20s or 30s. My great grandfather was fond of pointing out to my grandfather that, sure, he (my grandfather) fought and lost an eye in Europe during the Second World War, but he (my great grandfather) fought in the First World War twice (for Italy, then for the U.S.), was wounded twice (once by the Austrians in the Alps, once by the Germans in the Argonne), and when he got home, he worked for the same mining company until he couldn’t work anymore (as a result of the black lung that eventually killed him), because that’s just how it was done back then. I’m not sure working yourself to death in unhealthy conditions, just to make enough money to get by and maybe buy a used Model-T someday is an ideal we should be shooting for, any more than is a heavily racially segregated, misogynistic culture that gave rise to, among other things, our wonderful military-industrial complex. Progress may not always be good, and good progress may not be inevitable, but a desire for an idealized past is rarely, if ever, very productive.
Nostalgia is the disease that generations suffer when they’re no longer defining the culture. And it’s one we’ll all be infected with at some point.
"
Crap, that didn't work. The "/ thread" got cut off.
"
Lawn Darts.
"
Oh, I don't think the 50s were perfect, but painting such a dire picture of a decade in which GDP per capita doubled, and employment skyrocketed, seems odd to me.
"
That's a weird picture of the 50s economy.
On “A Few Good Men”
Scott, I agree that Alex's approach is pretty counterproductive, and it plays right into Tom's hands, to boot (if nothing else, it justifies Tom's sense of persecution, and allows him to continue to avoid actually presenting a case for his position).
"
I agree to an extent. There’s a bunch of interesting research (some of which I’ve done myself, yay me) on the effect of labeling an individual with a particular label. The most relevant effect is essentialism: saying someone is exhibiting bigotry, or even that they are being bigoted, produces a very different representation than saying someone is a bigot. The latter suggests something essential, and something lasting, whereas the former at least admits that the offense might be context specific. On the other hand, if someone refuses to let go of an obviously bigoted opinion, I’m not sure the perception of permanence is all that unfortunate.
"
Eh, I don't recall any top level poster using it, but it was a frequently used word in a threat not to long ago, in which Tom took repeated offense to it (others did as well, to be fair). I honestly think "bigot" is a pretty damn good word, when it's used well, which is to say, when its use is backed up with reasons. I also think it's as problematic to cut off the legitimate use of a word because it's used illegitimately at times as it is to use such words illegitimately. It's unfortunate that, when such words are used, the conversation becomes about the words themselves, but that's rarely if ever the fault of the people using the word legitimately; more often than not, it's the fault of those who take offense to legitimately having such labels applied to them.
"
I think "bigotry" came up as an analog to "warmongerer," which E.D. (I think it was E.D.; I'm too lazy to go back and look) used at some point. Tom took it as an invitation to rail against effrontery on the part of those with whom he disagrees, so that he could cry "winning," leave in a huff (multiple times), and never actually present an argument for his position.
It's a strange world that Tom lives in, in which moral outrages like torture are immune to criticism for fear of offending their proponents. We'd do well not to try to comprehend that world.
"
This is his tactic in pretty much every debate. That he uses it in this one only puts its absurdity in stark contrast.
I actually think it's possible to discuss torture rationally, with an open mind. That is, while I think torture is self-evidently evil, and that it is blatant moral relativism to argue that it can be a moral good, or at least a lesser moral evil, when a.) it produces results that are good for us, and b.) it's not being done by the other guy, I could possibly be convinced otherwise. Tom, however, will never be the person to convince anyone of anything of that sort, because he's not, and never will be, arguing in good faith. But it is fun to watch him leave in a huff, only to post again 5 minutes later. "I say good day, sir!"
What I find odd in this discussion, by the way, is the position that it is somehow cowardly, or at least a cop out, to argue that torture is ineffective in addition to being immoral, when torture's effectiveness is the only possible argument that its proponents can use to defend it as a method of interrogation. I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any other topic of dispute for which one side argues on a particular dimension, and at the same time suggests that dimension is off limits for the other side to even address.
On “Two Neglected Greats”
I enjoyed Hum back in the 90s, though I don't think they've held up well over time, but I think of a band like Kyuss (definitely underappreciated, but not the least bit accessible), and I wonder about calling Hum "the best guitar band of the 90s."
On “A Few Good Men”
I do enjoy seeing Tom demand that every opinion be on the table, except those that are overly or too directly critical of his own.
By the way, I am a big fan of civility, but certain views and opinions, while they should in no way be directly silenced, should be treated with words like bigotry and warmongering, because that's what they amount to. Can such labels be misused? Of course, but their misuse is no more likely than that of the tactic Tom is using to avoid ever having to address then.
On “The Meaninglessness of Claims that Torture “Worked””
If all trade is coercion, then "coercion" is a meaningless word.
On “There Is No Offseason”
Generations of Democrats got elected by promising to stay on the straight and narrow to the folks back home and then get their freak on when they got to Washington. Mr. Clinton was no exception.
This, of course, is even more revisionist than the bit about Clinton getting rolled.
It must be nice to have as much faith in a team as Koz does, though.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.