Languish.org

If anybody quotes lines from a Star Wars prequel, I'm going to be pissed off . . .

Weimar collapsed in part because of a constitutional infirmity - broad emergency powers granted to executive authority. Carl Schmitt argued that these provisions rendered democracy an illusion because ultimate authority resided with the person who had the power to decide when and how to declare an emergency. Schmitt was a shit, but his analysis was sound. Weimar's survival ended up turning on whether Hindenburg would refrain from invoking emergency powers and despite his misgivings, he did invoke them in response to a faked incident. That was the constitutional fig leaf used to entrench Nazi power and end democracy in Germany.

American constitutional democracy is based on separation of powers. At the core is the separation between Congress' lawmaking authority and the President's power to carry out those laws (or veto as appropriate). The key limitation is the House's exclusive power to authorize expenditure of money. Without the ability to access funds, the President cannot act alone.

What that means is that the House of Representatives lawsuit against Trump on "emergency" wall funding is by far the most consequential legal action in America since the habeas corpus suits during the Cheney-Rumsfeld administration. If, as Judge McFadden ruled from the DC District Court, the House lacks standing to enforce its exclusive power over money bills, then we (Americans) longer live in a functional constitutional democracy.  Nothing stops the President from doing whatever he wants and acting without any meaningful constraint. We will be reduced to an elective dictatorship - and one where the elected dictator was elected by a minority.  I've mentioned Judge McFadden's decision before in a snarky way, but this transcends snark.  There is a lot at stake.

The good news is that it's likely the DC Circuit reverses Judge McFadden, it's probable that the Supreme Court reviews it otherwise, and probable the Supreme Court would permit the House to sue. But the good news is also the bad news.  "Likely" and "probable" is not certain. "probable" that we avoid an elective dictatorship is not assuring.

The argument that a President wouldn't abuse that kind of authority because of "unwritten rules" or an innate sense of restraint doesn't work anymore.  We don't have that kind of President. If an envelope can be pushed it will be pushed.

Watch what happens with this case.

I guess you guys shouldn't have voted Republican. Actions have consequences.

Quote from: The Brain on August 06, 2019, 10:21:19 AM
I guess you guys shouldn't have voted Republican. Actions have consequences.

(https://images1.houstonpress.com/imager/u/original/9327721/o0ujojz.jpg)

I've been pushing and pushing for my colleagues and I to organize pop up Constitution workshops in shopping mall parkings, and sports events. Apparently, this is less important than writing an article about nuns in a 14th century convent. I admire the dedication to the ivory tower, but there are times when it's no longer enough to resist by publishing erudite commentaries. These are that kind of times.

Just make sure your DSA comrades use correct pronouns.

It's out of concern for others. I imagine such considerations do not rank very high amongst your fellow grand wizards.

I sometimes think the exact legal mechanism of the infolding disaster isn't all that important - the American system, like all systems, ultimately relies on a sufficient number of people having loyalty to the goals of the system. The real issue is understanding how that loyalty is cultivated and how it can be lost.

In the case of America, somehow a sufficient number of people became convinced that the American system doesn't work and set out to wreck it. By wrecking it, they then demonstrate that it doesn't work, leading others to lose loyalty to it in turn (why should 'we' play by the rules if 'they' don't, and get away with it with success?).

Eventually, what had seemed like virtue (abiding by civility and decorum in politics, for example) will just look like naivete, or even deliberate selling out to the 'enemy'.

I wouldn't underplay mechanics too much.  Institutional mechanisms exert a powerful inertia, especially when executive power is effected by and through a bureaucracy.

Trump's attempt to circumvent the House's authority is one that has caused genuine uneasiness among fellow Republicans.  They have raised the prospect of a President Warren or Sanders (or gasp! Ocasio-Cortez) simply enacting universal health care (or a Green New Deal) by decree.  And rightly so.  If the President can unilaterally spend $10 billion to build a useless wall in response to a fake crisis, surely the President can spend $10 trillion to address a true emergency like global warming or millions of uninsured Americans.  But without a legal mechanism to check this, that unease cannot manifest in a concrete and politically effective way.

Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2019, 11:17:15 AM
I sometimes think the exact legal mechanism of the infolding disaster isn't all that important - the American system, like all systems, ultimately relies on a sufficient number of people having loyalty to the goals of the system. The real issue is understanding how that loyalty is cultivated and how it can be lost.

In the case of America, somehow a sufficient number of people became convinced that the American system doesn't work and set out to wreck it. By wrecking it, they then demonstrate that it doesn't work, leading others to lose loyalty to it in turn (why should 'we' play by the rules if 'they' don't, and get away with it with success?).

Eventually, what had seemed like virtue (abiding by civility and decorum in politics, for example) will just look like naivete, or even deliberate selling out to the 'enemy'.

I don't think this is a mere legal mechanism.  This is a rejection of the American system of government. 

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 06, 2019, 10:34:14 AM
I've been pushing and pushing for my colleagues and I to organize pop up Constitution workshops in shopping mall parkings, and sports events.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/809828aa-4642-4dc3-be91-b67ca16a1856

I'm kinda thinking that if we're slouching towards some kind of dystopia, the Running Man universe might be my leading candidate.  :(

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 06, 2019, 12:32:45 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2019, 11:17:15 AM
I sometimes think the exact legal mechanism of the infolding disaster isn't all that important - the American system, like all systems, ultimately relies on a sufficient number of people having loyalty to the goals of the system. The real issue is understanding how that loyalty is cultivated and how it can be lost.

In the case of America, somehow a sufficient number of people became convinced that the American system doesn't work and set out to wreck it. By wrecking it, they then demonstrate that it doesn't work, leading others to lose loyalty to it in turn (why should 'we' play by the rules if 'they' don't, and get away with it with success?).

Eventually, what had seemed like virtue (abiding by civility and decorum in politics, for example) will just look like naivete, or even deliberate selling out to the 'enemy'.

I don't think this is a mere legal mechanism.  This is a rejection of the American system of government.

I don't think it is a "mere" mechanism either; I simply suspect that the important issue is the erosion of loyalty to the system. Once that erodes, I don't think any system can long stand, no matter how it is constituted.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 06, 2019, 12:32:45 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2019, 11:17:15 AM
I sometimes think the exact legal mechanism of the infolding disaster isn't all that important - the American system, like all systems, ultimately relies on a sufficient number of people having loyalty to the goals of the system. The real issue is understanding how that loyalty is cultivated and how it can be lost.

In the case of America, somehow a sufficient number of people became convinced that the American system doesn't work and set out to wreck it. By wrecking it, they then demonstrate that it doesn't work, leading others to lose loyalty to it in turn (why should 'we' play by the rules if 'they' don't, and get away with it with success?).

Eventually, what had seemed like virtue (abiding by civility and decorum in politics, for example) will just look like naivete, or even deliberate selling out to the 'enemy'.

I don't think this is a mere legal mechanism.  This is a rejection of the American system of government.

You are just repeating his argument, without acknowledging that you are doing so.

Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2019, 01:04:58 PM
I don't think it is a "mere" mechanism either; I simply suspect that the important issue is the erosion of loyalty to the system. Once that erodes, I don't think any system can long stand, no matter how it is constituted.

One of the nicknames of the Weimar Republic was "democracy without democrats". German has a word "staatstragend" which is basically describing those parties loyal to the constitution. However, in the Weimar republic you did not only have Communists, Monarchists and Nazis that were not loyal to the constitution. Even the Social Democrats and the Catholic Centre party were only lukewarm supporters of the democratic liberal order and still considered "democratic socialism" or a Catholic-dominated monarchy as their ideals.

That's one of the reasons the Weimar Republic eventually failed.

Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2019, 01:04:58 PM
I don't think it is a "mere" mechanism either; I simply suspect that the important issue is the erosion of loyalty to the system. Once that erodes, I don't think any system can long stand, no matter how it is constituted.

I think that you are 100% correct.  In both the US and the UK, what we are seeing is the dismissal of the idea that a party's policies can be rejected by the people, indicating a need to change policies.  Instead, the rejected party sets out to prove that the public hasn't rejected their policies at all, that their policies are in fact correct, and that the public rejection is simply a distortion created by a hostile press.

This is just a belief that there is a "silent majority" in favor of any given set of policies; that one's own policies are, in fact, supported by the majority of the "real citizens" no matter the result of polls or elections.

Quote from: grumbler on August 06, 2019, 01:13:15 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 06, 2019, 12:32:45 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2019, 11:17:15 AM
I sometimes think the exact legal mechanism of the infolding disaster isn't all that important - the American system, like all systems, ultimately relies on a sufficient number of people having loyalty to the goals of the system. The real issue is understanding how that loyalty is cultivated and how it can be lost.

In the case of America, somehow a sufficient number of people became convinced that the American system doesn't work and set out to wreck it. By wrecking it, they then demonstrate that it doesn't work, leading others to lose loyalty to it in turn (why should 'we' play by the rules if 'they' don't, and get away with it with success?).

Eventually, what had seemed like virtue (abiding by civility and decorum in politics, for example) will just look like naivete, or even deliberate selling out to the 'enemy'.

I don't think this is a mere legal mechanism.  This is a rejection of the American system of government.

You are just repeating his argument, without acknowledging that you are doing so.

You misunderstand.  The Court's ruling that Congress cannot bring suit is not a mere legal technicality.  Even if the Trumpists behave as Malthus states, it should not matter because the Courts are supposed to be there to protect against such things.  If the Courts do not fulfill their constitutional role then that is not a "legal mechanism" by which democracy dies.  It is an abdication of constitutional responsibility.

Quote from: grumbler on August 06, 2019, 01:18:51 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2019, 01:04:58 PM
I don't think it is a "mere" mechanism either; I simply suspect that the important issue is the erosion of loyalty to the system. Once that erodes, I don't think any system can long stand, no matter how it is constituted.

I think that you are 100% correct.  In both the US and the UK, what we are seeing is the dismissal of the idea that a party's policies can be rejected by the people, indicating a need to change policies.  Instead, the rejected party sets out to prove that the public hasn't rejected their policies at all, that their policies are in fact correct, and that the public rejection is simply a distortion created by a hostile press.

This is just a belief that there is a "silent majority" in favor of any given set of policies; that one's own policies are, in fact, supported by the majority of the "real citizens" no matter the result of polls or elections.

"Erosion of loyalty"  matters not one jot if the judiciary fulfills its constitutional role.  In the UK the Courts did so by pointing out that Parliament must decide (not a referendum).  And so there is still hope for that country.  Whether the Courts will fulfill their constitutional responsibility in the US is very much an open question.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 06, 2019, 01:23:54 PM

Quote from: grumbler on August 06, 2019, 01:13:15 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 06, 2019, 12:32:45 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2019, 11:17:15 AM
I sometimes think the exact legal mechanism of the infolding disaster isn't all that important - the American system, like all systems, ultimately relies on a sufficient number of people having loyalty to the goals of the system. The real issue is understanding how that loyalty is cultivated and how it can be lost.

In the case of America, somehow a sufficient number of people became convinced that the American system doesn't work and set out to wreck it. By wrecking it, they then demonstrate that it doesn't work, leading others to lose loyalty to it in turn (why should 'we' play by the rules if 'they' don't, and get away with it with success?).

Eventually, what had seemed like virtue (abiding by civility and decorum in politics, for example) will just look like naivete, or even deliberate selling out to the 'enemy'.

I don't think this is a mere legal mechanism.  This is a rejection of the American system of government.

You are just repeating his argument, without acknowledging that you are doing so.

You misunderstand.  The Court's ruling that Congress cannot bring suit is not a mere legal technicality.  Even if the Trumpists behave as Malthus states, it should not matter because the Courts are supposed to be there to protect against such things.  If the Courts do not fulfill their constitutional role then that is not a "legal mechanism" by which democracy dies.  It is an abdication of constitutional responsibility.

You misunderstand.  Malthus (and I) are explicitly not arguing that the court's current ruling is a mere legal technicality.  The reason to be worried about this development is because the Republicans have had a campaign for two decades to place in the courts only judges that will defer to Republican political authority and will reject Democratic political authority.  The abdication of constitutional responsibility is the entire point of the exercise.

Now, you can disagree with that assessment, or agree, but you cannot say it is wrong and then propose your own identical assessment as the right one.

... with thunderous applause.

You made me google this.  :P

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2019, 11:34:59 AM
I wouldn't underplay mechanics too much.  Institutional mechanisms exert a powerful inertia, especially when executive power is effected by and through a bureaucracy.

Trump's attempt to circumvent the House's authority is one that has caused genuine uneasiness among fellow Republicans.  They have raised the prospect of a President Warren or Sanders (or gasp! Ocasio-Cortez) simply enacting universal health care (or a Green New Deal) by decree.  And rightly so.  If the President can unilaterally spend $10 billion to build a useless wall in response to a fake crisis, surely the President can spend $10 trillion to address a true emergency like global warming or millions of uninsured Americans.  But without a legal mechanism to check this, that unease cannot manifest in a concrete and politically effective way.

The counterargument to this being a crisis:

Congress has authorized defense spending, and there is some discretion in how that is spent. Yes the border crisis is a fake crisis, and yes the wall is a ridiculous solution. The question is whether the courts will be willing to call shenanigans on that, when Trump ran on the border being in crisis, and the wall being a solution (whether the border is in crisis and if so, what should be done is to an extent judgmental and is a current political topic).

It wouldn't be equivalent to a president spending $10 trillion on global warming because $10 trillion hasn't been authorized to be spent.

I think the longer term crisis is that the 18th century method of appropriating spending has been creaking very loudly for some time because there are too many checks in the system. In an increasingly divided country you need a majority in the house, a supermajority in the senate, and the president to pass a bill, and there is increasing concern a more political court will strike down even those bills if you lack a court majority. If the constitutional system makes action too difficult, politicians will proceed at first on the edge and then beyond what it allows.

Strict interpretation of the Constitution was supposed to be fundamental to conservatism. I mean I get things like laws are no use to the President but surely the conservative judges in the judiciary feel differently.

Can't I count on the conservatives for anything? I have some faith in them. They will not hand the power of the purse over to the executive.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 06, 2019, 01:39:28 PM

I think the longer term crisis is that the 18th century method of appropriating spending has been creaking very loudly for some time because there are too many checks in the system. In an increasingly divided country you need a majority in the house, a supermajority in the senate, and the president to pass a bill, and there is increasing concern a more political court will strike down even those bills if you lack a court majority. If the constitutional system makes action too difficult, politicians will proceed at first on the edge and then beyond what it allows.

Yes. This is indeed the problem and what has provoked the Executive to seek ways around the gridlock so it can carry out its policies.

Quote from: Valmy on August 06, 2019, 01:40:27 PM
Strict interpretation of the Constitution was supposed to be fundamental to conservatism. I mean I get things like laws are no use to the President but surely the conservative judges in the judiciary feel differently.

Can't I count on the conservatives for anything? I have some faith in them. They will not hand the power of the purse over to the executive.

They will if it delivers the theocracy they now desire.

Quote from: Valmy on August 06, 2019, 01:40:27 PM
Strict interpretation of the Constitution was supposed to be fundamental to conservatism. I mean I get things like laws are no use to the President but surely the conservative judges in the judiciary feel differently.

Can't I count on the conservatives for anything? I have some faith in them. They will not hand the power of the purse over to the executive.

You shouldn't.  Because this Constitutional crisis takes on the guise of strict legalism, i.e., if there are no rules, it is allowed.  Meanwhile, bent rules, rules emptied of their actual object and meaning, will remain rules, and ergo, you will find enough conservatives for whom superficial respect for rules, not to mention the fact that it sticks it to their enemies, will trump respect for the Spirit of the Laws.

Seriously, you all can mock me about my involvement with the DSA, but this ought to be a good time to get involved in direct democracy for all of you. Especially if you self identify as a Conservative, and are worried about current developments. Show up for meetings and town halls, challenge incumbents whose respect for institutions is weak, or lacking. You are all articulated, not to mention opinionated, and politicized. Don't wait it out on the sidelines. It's not going to get better without you.

Quote from: grumbler on August 06, 2019, 01:35:15 PM
You misunderstand.  Malthus (and I) are explicitly not arguing that the court's current ruling is a mere legal technicality.  The reason to be worried about this development is because the Republicans have had a campaign for two decades to place in the courts only judges that will defer to Republican political authority and will reject Democratic political authority.  The abdication of constitutional responsibility is the entire point of the exercise.

Now, you can disagree with that assessment, or agree, but you cannot say it is wrong and then propose your own identical assessment as the right one.

I guess my follow up question is this: why is it that in (say) Canada the government of the day, Liberal or Conservative, doesn't "stack" the courts with judges guaranteed to toe the party line?

This paper suggests that is indeed the case: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013560

In short - what keeps politicians here loyal to the notion that such appointments should go to people for reasons other than party advantage, even though the PM has considerable power to appoint judges? What keeps judges, once appointed, from becoming (or staying) as party shills?

I don't actually know, but I suspect the answer is important.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 06, 2019, 01:39:28 PM
The counterargument to this being a crisis:

Congress has authorized defense spending, and there is some discretion in how that is spent. Yes the border crisis is a fake crisis, and yes the wall is a ridiculous solution. The question is whether the courts will be willing to call shenanigans on that, when Trump ran on the border being in crisis, and the wall being a solution (whether the border is in crisis and if so, what should be done is to an extent judgmental and is a current political topic).

You would have a point IF the district court had ruled that emergency powers had been invoked under statutory authority, addressed the merits of the question whether the wall was a legitimate military construction as contemplated by Congress and ruled for Trump on the merits.  That would just be a single dumb court decision and the republic can (and has) withstood thousands of those.

The problem is that the Court refused to reach the merits because it ruled the House doesn't have the right to be heard at all in Court on the issue.  Since the Supreme Court recently indicated it believes private parties also can't sue to enforce the spending power, that would mean there is no viable enforcement mechanism at all.  There would be no institutional mechanism in place to check untrammeled Presidential power other than a sense of decency and public opinion.  Malthus and grumbler's point addresses the shortcoming of the latter as a useful check and the entire Trump presidency addresses the limitations of the former.

Quote from: Valmy on August 06, 2019, 01:40:27 PM
Strict interpretation of the Constitution was supposed to be fundamental to conservatism.

Correct but conservatism is now a fringe movement in American politics.  Trumpism has put it on terminal life support.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 06, 2019, 01:39:28 PM

The counterargument to this being a crisis:

Congress has authorized defense spending, and there is some discretion in how that is spent. Yes the border crisis is a fake crisis, and yes the wall is a ridiculous solution. The question is whether the courts will be willing to call shenanigans on that, when Trump ran on the border being in crisis, and the wall being a solution (whether the border is in crisis and if so, what should be done is to an extent judgmental and is a current political topic).

It wouldn't be equivalent to a president spending $10 trillion on global warming because $10 trillion hasn't been authorized to be spent.

I think the longer term crisis is that the 18th century method of appropriating spending has been creaking very loudly for some time because there are too many checks in the system. In an increasingly divided country you need a majority in the house, a supermajority in the senate, and the president to pass a bill, and there is increasing concern a more political court will strike down even those bills if you lack a court majority. If the constitutional system makes action too difficult, politicians will proceed at first on the edge and then beyond what it allows.

If the suit was dismissed on merit then I think you would have a point.  It certainly could be argued that building a wall falls under defense and is a reasonable use of defense spending.  It was dismissed for standing, which means it wouldn't matter if the President wanted to spend the money on building Trump hotels Congress couldn't resort to the courts as a remedy.  I guess to get their time in court they'd have to pass a specific law saying that federal money can't be spent in that specific way (and Trump would have to sign it or get overridden), which gets down into rabbit holes way worse than what we are in now.

BTW unrelated but fun originalist constitutional parlor game:

1) Locate the place in the US constitution where the US government is given power to control immigration (i.e. as opposed to naturalization)
2) Enumerate the federal immigration restrictions put into place by the First US Congress and all other such restrictions enacted over the next century.
3) What is the accepted source of federal power to regulate immigration today?  What constitutional clause is it associated with, if any?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2019, 01:54:03 PM

You would have a point IF the district court had ruled that emergency powers had been invoked under statutory authority, addressed the merits of the question whether the wall was a legitimate military construction as contemplated by Congress and ruled for Trump on the merits.  That would just be a single dumb court decision and the republic can (and has) withstood thousands of those.

The problem is that the Court refused to reach the merits because it ruled the House doesn't have the right to be heard at all in Court on the issue.  Since the Supreme Court recently indicated it believes private parties also can't sue to enforce the spending power, that would mean there is no viable enforcement mechanism at all.  There would be no institutional mechanism in place to check untrammeled Presidential power other than a sense of decency and public opinion.  Malthus and grumbler's point addresses the shortcoming of the latter as a useful check and the entire Trump presidency addresses the limitations of the former.

That makes no sense. I'd expect that would get overturned.

The Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence is a bit of a mess.  I would think it would be overturned but can't really be sure.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2019, 01:54:03 PM
The problem is that the Court refused to reach the merits because it ruled the House doesn't have the right to be heard at all in Court on the issue.  Since the Supreme Court recently indicated it believes private parties also can't sue to enforce the spending power, that would mean there is no viable enforcement mechanism at all.  There would be no institutional mechanism in place to check untrammeled Presidential power other than a sense of decency and public opinion.  Malthus and grumbler's point addresses the shortcoming of the latter as a useful check and the entire Trump presidency addresses the limitations of the former.

Congress could change the law granting the president that particular emergency power.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2019, 03:12:29 PM
Congress could change the law granting the president that particular emergency power.

In theory Congress could eliminate the power entirely but it still wouldn't be able to enforce the limitation.  The President could just declare innate Article II emergency powers and the House still wouldn't have the standing to sue to restrain his expenditure of money on unauthorized projects. That isn't a speculative assumption BTW - Trump has declared publicly he believes that his Article II powers are unlimited.

In any event, the Senate as currently constituted as the Moscow Mitch Chamber isn't going to change any laws. The power to initiate money bills however, is exclusive to the House, and thus its enforcement should not turn on whether the Senate is cooperative or not.

Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2019, 01:50:17 PM
I guess my follow up question is this: why is it that in (say) Canada the government of the day, Liberal or Conservative, doesn't "stack" the courts with judges guaranteed to toe the party line?

This paper suggests that is indeed the case: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013560

In short - what keeps politicians here loyal to the notion that such appointments should go to people for reasons other than party advantage, even though the PM has considerable power to appoint judges? What keeps judges, once appointed, from becoming (or staying) as party shills?

I don't actually know, but I suspect the answer is important.

My belief is that Canadian politicians and parties still generally hew to the idea of the loyal opposition; that, if they aren't in the majority at the moment, their job is to serve the public interest and prepare to govern if/when the opportunity arises.  I suspect that many of them consider it a badge of honor to accept defeat gracefully.  Obviously, if judicial appointments become politicized, that's a double-edged sword, because, if one party does it, then the others will have to, out of self-defense, and everyone will see their "justice" reduced to the random draw of the judge.

In the US and the UK, it seems that the response to defeat is to sabotage the polity and hope the winning side gets the blame.

Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2019, 01:50:17 PM

Quote from: grumbler on August 06, 2019, 01:35:15 PM
You misunderstand.  Malthus (and I) are explicitly not arguing that the court's current ruling is a mere legal technicality.  The reason to be worried about this development is because the Republicans have had a campaign for two decades to place in the courts only judges that will defer to Republican political authority and will reject Democratic political authority.  The abdication of constitutional responsibility is the entire point of the exercise.

Now, you can disagree with that assessment, or agree, but you cannot say it is wrong and then propose your own identical assessment as the right one.

I guess my follow up question is this: why is it that in (say) Canada the government of the day, Liberal or Conservative, doesn't "stack" the courts with judges guaranteed to toe the party line?

This paper suggests that is indeed the case: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013560

In short - what keeps politicians here loyal to the notion that such appointments should go to people for reasons other than party advantage, even though the PM has considerable power to appoint judges? What keeps judges, once appointed, from becoming (or staying) as party shills?

I don't actually know, but I suspect the answer is important.

There was a recent attempt at selecting judges to meet policy objectives under our former Justice Minister where a large number of fully vetted and qualified appointments to the s.96 courts were not appointed.  But those efforts were thwarted because our system of appointment is depoliticized by and appointment process through the judicial council.  And memory serves the latest amendments to that process post date the article you linked.

And so there is a comforting thought that even if there is a decaying of commitment you have identified in the US, it would have to be so wide spread here that the decay has to get to the core to make a difference in our system.

Quote from: grumbler on August 06, 2019, 03:34:10 PM
My belief is that Canadian politicians and parties still generally hew to the idea of the loyal opposition; that, if they aren't in the majority at the moment, their job is to serve the public interest and prepare to govern if/when the opportunity arises.  I suspect that many of them consider it a badge of honor to accept defeat gracefully.  Obviously, if judicial appointments become politicized, that's a double-edged sword, because, if one party does it, then the others will have to, out of self-defense, and everyone will see their "justice" reduced to the random draw of the judge.

In the US and the UK, it seems that the response to defeat is to sabotage the polity and hope the winning side gets the blame.

Quaint view entirely inaccurate but more importantly misunderstands the process of how our judges are vetted and appointed.  Parliamentary politics is blood sport both amongst the parties and within them.  If we left appointment decisions to the politicians we would have the same problems as the US.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2019, 01:55:40 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 06, 2019, 01:40:27 PM
Strict interpretation of the Constitution was supposed to be fundamental to conservatism.

Correct but conservatism is now a fringe movement in American politics.  Trumpism has put it on terminal life support.

I blame Trump for a lot, but in this case, that fringe movement has been going on for a lot longer than he's even considered running for President, much less been President.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 06, 2019, 01:48:10 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 06, 2019, 01:40:27 PM
Strict interpretation of the Constitution was supposed to be fundamental to conservatism. I mean I get things like laws are no use to the President but surely the conservative judges in the judiciary feel differently.

Can't I count on the conservatives for anything? I have some faith in them. They will not hand the power of the purse over to the executive.

You shouldn't.  Because this Constitutional crisis takes on the guise of strict legalism, i.e., if there are no rules, it is allowed.  Meanwhile, bent rules, rules emptied of their actual object and meaning, will remain rules, and ergo, you will find enough conservatives for whom superficial respect for rules, not to mention the fact that it sticks it to their enemies, will trump respect for the Spirit of the Laws.

Seriously, you all can mock me about my involvement with the DSA, but this ought to be a good time to get involved in direct democracy for all of you. Especially if you self identify as a Conservative, and are worried about current developments. Show up for meetings and town halls, challenge incumbents whose respect for institutions is weak, or lacking. You are all articulated, not to mention opinionated, and politicized. Don't wait it out on the sidelines. It's not going to get better without you.

Thanks Oxy, that's a good challenge all of us here should give some consideration to.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2019, 02:18:48 PM
The Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence is a bit of a mess.  I would think it would be overturned but can't really be sure.

Although not an American, a lawyer, or someone who normally participates in these discussions I would like to chip in here (as I was browsing recent Supreme Court decisions yesterday afternoon instead of working :blush:) -

The Supreme Court recently threw out "Virginia House of Delegates vs. Bethune Hill" as the House of Delegates lacked standing; partly because Virginia's state law gives the authority for redistricting to the General Assembly, of which the House of Delegates is only part.

The Origination clause seems pretty straightforward in that all revenue bills must start in the House of Representatives but that the Senate may propose or concur with any amendments it chooses. So the two Houses share responsibility for how money is raised and, more importantly for this case, spent even if the original bill must originate in the lower House.

Trump is, I believe, using emergency powers to redirect the use of existing monies, which is a matter for both Houses, not raising new monies which is a matter (initially) for the House of Representatives. Would not the entity with Standing in this case be the whole of Congress, ie. the corporate identity of both Houses, rather than the House of Representatives alone?

This would seem to agree with recent Jurisprudence in the Court concerning both Virginia and Arizona's state governments.

Agelastus - Bethune Hill, as you noted, involved redistricting.  The issue was not a conflict between the legislative and executive branches of state government. It was between private plaintiffs challenging the districting plan on constitutional grounds and the State. Virginia law specifically provides the Virginia AG has exclusive authority to act on behalf of the state with respect to such litigation.

The case does, however, state the principle that "a single House of a bicameral legislature lacks capacity to assert interests belonging to the legislature as a whole."  The question would then be whether the expenditure of funds for a purpose other than that for which the funds were appropriated implicates the House's Article I spending authority.  The District Court for DC responded to this question in 2015 in a case brought by the GOP-controlled House challenging certain reimbursements to insurance companies under Obamacare.  The constitution prohibits the President from spending money without a valid appropriation under law, and the House must initiate any valid appropriation.  Put those two provisions together and the House has standing to sue when there is an expenditure they haven't authorized. There is no dispute that the House didn't authorize expenditure of funds on the wall.

McFadden, however, brushed aside the 2015 case on spurious grounds. 

You are right though that the Bethune Hill decision, and the Supreme Court's messy standing jurisprudence generally, raises real concerns over how they would rule on this issue. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2019, 03:22:00 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2019, 03:12:29 PM
Congress could change the law granting the president that particular emergency power.

In theory Congress could eliminate the power entirely but it still wouldn't be able to enforce the limitation.  The President could just declare innate Article II emergency powers and the House still wouldn't have the standing to sue to restrain his expenditure of money on unauthorized projects. That isn't a speculative assumption BTW - Trump has declared publicly he believes that his Article II powers are unlimited.

In any event, the Senate as currently constituted as the Moscow Mitch Chamber isn't going to change any laws. The power to initiate money bills however, is exclusive to the House, and thus its enforcement should not turn on whether the Senate is cooperative or not.

Just imagine if Trump was someone with ambition.

After reading through Article II, I don't know what you're talking about Joan.

And to clarify, the ruling you object to says that in no case does the House have standing to challenge the president's emergency powers?

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 06, 2019, 11:09:49 AM
It's out of concern for others. I imagine such considerations do not rank very high amongst your fellow grand wizards.

I'm applauding you, but with jazz hands 😀

Article II is the Presidential powers clause.

Article I section 9  clause 7 states that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law"
An appropriation by law requires assent of both houses.  In addition, a money bill (raising revenue) must be initiated in the House (Section 7, clause 1).

In U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, 130 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2015), the court considering the House's challenge to allocation of reimbursement funds under Obamacare, held:

QuoteThe Court concludes that the House of Representatives has alleged an injury in fact under its Non–Appropriation Theory—that is, an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. Article I could not be more clear: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law...." U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. Neither the President nor his officers can authorize appropriations; the assent of the House of Representatives is required before any public monies are spent. Congress's power of the purse is the ultimate check on the otherwise unbounded power of the Executive. . .  Disregard for that reservation works a grievous harm on the House, which is deprived of its rightful and necessary place under our Constitution. The House has standing to redress that injury in federal court.

The Trump wall case is the same challenge - only the partisan identification of the House and the President is switched.  Judge McFadden's full opinion in here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6128249/House-v-Mnuchin-opinion.pdf

He hold that the House can sue to enforce its investigatory powers (subpoenas, etc) but not the Appropriations Power.  he addresses the prior Burwell decision, says it is non-precedential and refuses to follow it.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2019, 03:22:00 PM
In theory Congress could eliminate the power entirely but it still wouldn't be able to enforce the limitation.  The President could just declare innate Article II emergency powers and the House still wouldn't have the standing to sue to restrain his expenditure of money on unauthorized projects. That isn't a speculative assumption BTW - Trump has declared publicly he believes that his Article II powers are unlimited.

I was referencing this post.

Oh - you're right, there is nothing in the text of Article II that gives the President the power to do that. But this President has never read that text and never will.

I read (most) of that ruling you linked.  I don't claim to understand everything that the judge wrote, but it seems to me the crux of the argument is the distinction between "constitutional" and "statutory" harm.  He seemed to be implying (please correct anything I get wrong) that the House does have standing in the latter, but not the former.

Doesn't it stand to reason that if Donald started declaring non-existent states of emergency to justify grabbing Food Stamp money to pay for spray tans and combovers that would be the statutory variety?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2019, 06:01:24 PM
I read (most) of that ruling you linked.  I don't claim to understand everything that the judge wrote, but it seems to me the crux of the argument is the distinction between "constitutional" and "statutory" harm.  He seemed to be implying (please correct anything I get wrong) that the House does have standing in the latter, but not the former.

Doesn't it stand to reason that if Donald started declaring non-existent states of emergency to justify grabbing Food Stamp money to pay for spray tans and combovers that would be the statutory variety?

It's a hyper-technical argument about pleading - the way in which the lawyers draft the initiating document that opens the lawsuit.  At the end of the complaint is a series of counts or causes of action that states the legal theories being sued under. What the judge said in 2015 is that the House can't sue for "Violation of Statute X" because the House doesn't have special interest in the laws being followed simply because the House passed them in the first place.  The House can sue for violation of Article I of the Constitution, because that goes to their particular constitutional authority.  What's tricky is that the same conduct or facts can fit multiple theories and the lawyer has to make sure the complaint uses the right magic words - in this case: "Count I - Violation of Article I Appropriations Power" as opposed to "Count I - Violation of 10 USC 2808".

McFadden is throwing some shade on the earlier ruling suggesting this distinction is confusing or unworkable because the same conduct could be both a statutory or constitutional violation. But that's the whole point - as long as the conduct does involve a constitutional violation AND the lawyer makes sure to include a count with the right magic words then the pleading suffices. McFadden is conflating the substantive question of standing with the discussion of pleading technicalities.

A couple of thoughts:

1. You guys reminded me of the book I recently read on Julius Ceasar. There the author was highlighting how it was more important for senators to stop rivals from solving big issues, than having those issues solved, and how this helped undermine their country and system of government. I guess that very much applies to the US toda.

2. You talk about Conservatism as if that was still a major thing or behind the ruling party. No. It is dead and gone. You have Reactionaries in control both of politics and ideology of the Right. Conservatism is more dead than liberalism.

Quote from: Valmy on August 06, 2019, 01:40:27 PM
Strict interpretation of the Constitution was supposed to be fundamental to conservatism. I mean I get things like laws are no use to the President but surely the conservative judges in the judiciary feel differently.

Can't I count on the conservatives for anything? I have some faith in them. They will not hand the power of the purse over to the executive.

The real conservatives in this country are on the right of the Democratic party. The Republicans, especially those being appointed to the judiciary range from golden age style reactionaries to fascists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9izBu9-248&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2mWcnXiPgqLr7rEp7oGThKg2v_eEGDeokoGAx09GOtpEdXswo6w_Ma6Yg

This is insane.

If you want people to take you seriously, you should start by taking yourself seriously.

Predators strike when the prey is weak and fat.

Quote from: Berkut on August 08, 2019, 07:28:45 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9izBu9-248&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2mWcnXiPgqLr7rEp7oGThKg2v_eEGDeokoGAx09GOtpEdXswo6w_Ma6Yg

This is insane.

If you want people to take you seriously, you should start by taking yourself seriously.

I assume you mean the guy whining about gendered language and not the guy whining about the noise being distracting? Sadly, there are people who take that stuff seriously.

DSA membership: 60 000

US population: 329 387 258

If you're focusing on what the fringe of a movement that represents 0.018% of your population is doing, you must have a LOT of time on your hands.

Quote from: Zoupa on August 09, 2019, 12:57:01 AM
DSA membership: 60 000

US population: 329 387 258

If you're focusing on what the fringe of a movement that represents 0.018% of your population is doing, you must have a LOT of time on your hands.

I wasn't aware they were that fringe, but if the left by and large considers them fringe, then good. They are pretty whack-a-doodle.

But its not like their antics are unique to them. The identity politics silliness has been going on for some time, and it is damaging, politically, to the left. Teachers being fired, people being fired or forced out of jobs for speech violations of some stupid code. It is Orwellian - this is not about being nice to people, it is about power and using language to enforce conformity and suppress viewpoints. And the scary thing is that it isn't really an attempt to suppress views people disagree with (I doubt gendered language guy was saying anything substantive that anyone in that room would object to) but about making sure that any language that doesn't conform is suppressed so you can control the content of debate.

ANd this is not the fringe of the left - the fear of saying the wrong thing is real. Gendered language, making sure your views align with the most radical of the twitter Dems, it is all there. And it is having a political cost in votes, and without any political upside that I can see. I don't think anyone who actually cares about identity politics and gendered language and not clapping and triggering is in any danger of voting for Trump.

Yes, you stand on this soap box all the time. What are you doing to change it?

Quote from: Zoupa on August 09, 2019, 12:57:01 AM
DSA membership: 60 000

US population: 329 387 258

If you're focusing on what the fringe of a movement that represents 0.018% of your population is doing, you must have a LOT of time on your hands.

Well they were brought up recently.

In any case "guys" is kind of a weird idiom, as it is often used just to be "you" kind of like y'all.

Quote from: garbon on August 09, 2019, 07:40:54 AM
Yes, you stand on this soap box all the time. What are you doing to change it?

Standing on this soap box and arguing with people who insist it is all made up fake news.

Was there something else I should be doing?

Isn't AOC part of that group? You'd think membership would have skyrocketed in past year.

Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2019, 08:01:38 AM

Quote from: garbon on August 09, 2019, 07:40:54 AM
Yes, you stand on this soap box all the time. What are you doing to change it?

Standing on this soap box and arguing with people who insist it is all made up fake news.

Was there something else I should be doing?

Donate your time and money to the National Democratic Socialists of America. We're a small organization devoted to ensuring the DSA gets nowhere. Please remit all donations of money via PayPal to [email protected].

Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 09, 2019, 08:56:17 AM
Isn't AOC part of that group? You'd think membership would have skyrocketed in past year.

Yeah they have three members in Congress, but virtually no members anywhere else. No mayors, barely any state legislators, no real political base of power anywhere.

Which kind of shows where the power of the right wing really is in the US, and the primary weakness of everybody else. They control most of the local governments where most of the decisions that impact people's lives are actually made.

It is also something that really frustrates me is whenever we get a rising star locally they are almost immediately stolen from us and kicked up stairs to run for a more glamorous national office (And lose...because it's Texas). The priority is always on the national government, but I think this is wrongheaded.

Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2019, 07:23:52 AM
ANd this is not the fringe of the left - the fear of saying the wrong thing is real.

It's more that nowadays, you cannot say whatever insensitive shit you want without receiving criticism from previously silenced groups who in the past had to just grin and bear it. That leads to some people crying that their "freedom of speech" is being limited because their words now actually have consequences.

Quote from: Solmyr on August 09, 2019, 09:04:25 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2019, 07:23:52 AM
ANd this is not the fringe of the left - the fear of saying the wrong thing is real.

It's more that nowadays, you cannot say whatever insensitive shit you want without receiving criticism from previously silenced groups who in the past had to just grin and bear it. That leads to some people crying that their "freedom of speech" is being limited because their words now actually have consequences.

One would think people who had been silenced would be more sensitive to creating an environment where words carry dire consequences. But I guess their problems was that the wrong people were being silenced?

Quote from: Valmy on August 09, 2019, 09:14:18 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on August 09, 2019, 09:04:25 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2019, 07:23:52 AM
ANd this is not the fringe of the left - the fear of saying the wrong thing is real.

It's more that nowadays, you cannot say whatever insensitive shit you want without receiving criticism from previously silenced groups who in the past had to just grin and bear it. That leads to some people crying that their "freedom of speech" is being limited because their words now actually have consequences.

One would think people who had been silenced would be more sensitive to creating an environment where words carry dire consequences. But I guess their problems was that the wrong people were being silenced?

I don't think the consequences today are as dire as you claim. Sure, someone might lose their job (and rightly so) if they spew outright racist hate, but even that is not a given, what with your President still having a job. That's a far cry from what women, ethnic or sexual minorities had to endure in the past.

Quote from: Valmy on August 09, 2019, 07:58:18 AM
Well they were brought up recently.

In any case "guys" is kind of a weird idiom, as it is often used just to be "you" kind of like y'all.

I see almost every week in school a female address an all-female group starting with "guys, ..."  It has long lost its gendered meaning when used that way.  Personally, I try to teach students to avoid the use of meaningless phrases ("uh, guys.." or "listen up" and, in writing, "be advised that..." "this is to let you know that..." and the like).  But it's hard and people use "hey guys" as a stalling tactic while they get their thoughts in order.

Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2019, 08:01:38 AM

Quote from: garbon on August 09, 2019, 07:40:54 AM
Yes, you stand on this soap box all the time. What are you doing to change it?

Standing on this soap box and arguing with people who insist it is all made up fake news.

Was there something else I should be doing?

So you really do have a lot of time on your hands  :P

Quote from: Solmyr on August 09, 2019, 09:04:25 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2019, 07:23:52 AM
ANd this is not the fringe of the left - the fear of saying the wrong thing is real.

It's more that nowadays, you cannot say whatever insensitive shit you want without receiving criticism from previously silenced groups who in the past had to just grin and bear it. That leads to some people crying that their "freedom of speech" is being limited because their words now actually have consequences.

I think that is a gross over-simplification. If that were the case, people like me wouldn't have a problem with it.

While it is true that previously acceptable insensitive bullshit now gets called out, what *also* gets called out is people simply expressing perfectly reasonable, not insensitive thoughts that have the form or resemblance, often in trivial ways, with supposedly insensitive shit. Like referring to a group of people as "guys".

Quote from: Solmyr on August 09, 2019, 09:17:30 AM

Quote from: Valmy on August 09, 2019, 09:14:18 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on August 09, 2019, 09:04:25 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2019, 07:23:52 AM
ANd this is not the fringe of the left - the fear of saying the wrong thing is real.

It's more that nowadays, you cannot say whatever insensitive shit you want without receiving criticism from previously silenced groups who in the past had to just grin and bear it. That leads to some people crying that their "freedom of speech" is being limited because their words now actually have consequences.

One would think people who had been silenced would be more sensitive to creating an environment where words carry dire consequences. But I guess their problems was that the wrong people were being silenced?

I don't think the consequences today are as dire as you claim. Sure, someone might lose their job (and rightly so) if they spew outright racist hate, but even that is not a given, what with your President still having a job. That's a far cry from what women, ethnic or sexual minorities had to endure in the past.

What about people losing their jobs for saying things that are not hateful or racist?

Like the Netflix exec using the N word to actually illustrate insensitivity? Or educators being forced to resign because some left wing nuts decided their class was not woke enough?

This is language policing - the attempt to control the content of conversation by making subjects taboo. It is bizarre and disturbing how fast the left has come to embrace a culture of controlled speech.

Somehow I doubt this is actually as widespread and major a problem as you claim. Sure, when it happens it's stupid. But it does not give any cause to equate "the left" embracing controlled speech and the right enabling racism and white supremacy.

He said nothing whatsoever about the magnitude of the problem.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 10, 2019, 01:40:57 AM
He said nothing whatsoever about the magnitude of the problem.

The way he whines about it on the forum you'd think it's the biggest problem ever.

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 01:41:49 AM
The way he whines about it on the forum you'd think it's the biggest problem ever.

Or....

he thinks it's the one societal problem that his own efforts can impact most positively.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 10, 2019, 01:46:46 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 01:41:49 AM
The way he whines about it on the forum you'd think it's the biggest problem ever.

Or....

he thinks it's the one societal problem that his own efforts can impact most positively.

Really? Is Berkut reaching out to the DSA or something?

Quote from: Zoupa on August 10, 2019, 03:59:45 AM
Really? Is Berkut reaching out to the DSA or something?

Languish chapter.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 10, 2019, 01:46:46 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 01:41:49 AM
The way he whines about it on the forum you'd think it's the biggest problem ever.

Or....

he thinks it's the one societal problem that his own efforts can impact most positively.

I whine it about it because it is a problem that is resulting in the left politically damaging itself at a time when that is really, really consequential.

I think I've stated about a dozen times that I don't think there is any kind of equivalency between the scale of how fucked up the rights crazies are and the lefts crazies. Its getting pretty tiring repeating it, just to have someone make the exact same accusation again.

But whatever.

The left woke silliness is normally something to just laugh at. But right now, it results in them losing elections (not just the Presidency, there are lots of OTHER elections in this country, and the fucking oh so brilliant elite woke left loses most of them) to a populist party of douchebags dominated by faux religious dumbasses and truly radicalized anti-intellectual bigots.

So while the dumbass left is not nearly as horrifying as the dumb ass right for a variety of reasons, I don't care about the dumb ass right, because I want them to lose lose lose lose. I want the left to win, so I care more about them doing things that I think are stupid anyway, AND result in them losing.

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 01:41:49 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 10, 2019, 01:40:57 AM
He said nothing whatsoever about the magnitude of the problem.

The way he whines about it on the forum you'd think it's the biggest problem ever.

You seriously look at what I post on this forum, and conclude that I think this is the biggest problem ever? Do you read what I post rather regularly about Trump and modern right?

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
But right now, it results in them losing elections (not just the Presidency, there are lots of OTHER elections in this country, and the fucking oh so brilliant elite woke left loses most of them) to a populist party of douchebags dominated by faux religious dumbasses and truly radicalized anti-intellectual bigots.

You mean like the 2018 elections, where AOC and her ilk have achieved extreme popularity and the left won handily?

I'm just not seeing this "woke silliness" as being damaging to the left like you claim. Sure, right wing craziness is on the rise, but that's not the result of left wokeness.

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 08:45:55 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
But right now, it results in them losing elections (not just the Presidency, there are lots of OTHER elections in this country, and the fucking oh so brilliant elite woke left loses most of them) to a populist party of douchebags dominated by faux religious dumbasses and truly radicalized anti-intellectual bigots.

You mean like the 2018 elections, where AOC and her ilk have achieved extreme popularity and the left won handily?

Oh, well, the Dems won a mid term election out of cycle. I guess we can all just relax.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/10/upshot/republicans-dominate-state-politics-but-democrats-made-a-dent.html

""Over the last decade, because there's no policymaking in Washington, the state of policymaking in America has been set at the state level, and it's been set by Republicans," said Drew Morrison, the co-founder of EveryDistrict, a group helping Democratic candidates. "And it's been set with a pretty aggressive conservative vision of what the world should be.""

Good for the AOC crowd. I am cheering for them.

It is nice that she can win in a insanely left wing dominated demographic. That doesn't help them win Wisconsin, or Michigan, or Georgia. Which is actually up for grabs, believe it or not.

Trump is a once in a generation opportunity for the Dems to reverse a couple decades of losing over and over and over again at most political levels. He is the best candidate the Dems could ever hope for, and they are going to do well because he is so despised by most people.

IMO, it would be a huge mistake on their part to think that means the most radical parts of the left wing agenda or the silliest identitiy politics crap is being embraced by the electorate. It is not. It is just people realizing that Trump is actually that bad.

I keep repeating this, and people keep carefully editing it out of my posts when they respond. 13% of those who voted for Trump voted for Obama in 2012. That is a huge number, and those are people who can be convinced. The left should be focusing on how to convince them. And those same people, I believe, are people who find a lot of this woke/social warrior silliness ridiculous, and have concerns that the left, right now, is ignoring. One of those concerns being immigration.

The left is not ignoring all of those concerns - the other biggy for them is health care, and most of those middle voters in swing states who can and will vote for either party want to see some kind of public health care option, and Trump has spectacularly failed there.

This isn't about what *I* think about these issues. The Dems have me locked up. They can trot out whatever fruitcake left wing socialist they want, and they will get my vote.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2019, 08:57:54 AM
I keep repeating this, and people keep carefully editing it out of my posts when they respond. 13% of those who voted for Trump voted for Obama in 2012. That is a huge number, and those are people who can be convinced. The left should be focusing on how to convince them. And those same people, I believe, are people who find a lot of this woke/social warrior silliness ridiculous, and have concerns that the left, right now, is ignoring. One of those concerns being immigration.

So these people are asked to choose between people who ask them to occasionally use correct pronouns and to be okay with trans people using bathrooms according to their gender identity, and people who espouse racist and white supremacist views. And they have to think about which one to vote for?

Also, addressing immigration concerns requires there to be something to be concerned about. Is there an actual immigration crisis (that wasn't there before) that requires drastic action, or is this just a talking point pushed by the right? How is the left supposed to address it?

It's the economy, stupid.

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 09:05:26 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2019, 08:57:54 AM
I keep repeating this, and people keep carefully editing it out of my posts when they respond. 13% of those who voted for Trump voted for Obama in 2012. That is a huge number, and those are people who can be convinced. The left should be focusing on how to convince them. And those same people, I believe, are people who find a lot of this woke/social warrior silliness ridiculous, and have concerns that the left, right now, is ignoring. One of those concerns being immigration.

So these people are asked to choose between people who ask them to occasionally use correct pronouns and to be okay with trans people using bathrooms according to their gender identity, and people who espouse racist and white supremacist views. And they have to think about which one to vote for?

Also, addressing immigration concerns requires there to be something to be concerned about. Is there an actual immigration crisis (that wasn't there before) that requires drastic action, or is this just a talking point pushed by the right? How is the left supposed to address it?

Those people don't actually believe you when you tell them over and over and over again that they are racists for caring about immigration or think that people being fired from their jobs for saying words that are objectively not offensive is ridiculous. Nor do they just accept that because the entire left sits back and pats each other on the back because everything that *could* be racist is painted as *definitely* racist that in fact every single thing is racist.

I don't even think most of them care about gendered bathrooms.

And you are responding to me, and the points *I* am bringing up - it is not very fair to turn around and cite as counter examples points I have not brought up. I don't think asking people to "occasionally use correct pronouns" is a problem, nor do I think that 13% does. When they see people getting all ballistic because someone refers to a group of human beings as "hey guys" they most certainly do care, and the right gets to trot that out and say "See, see! This is what OAC and Bernie want for all of us!" It's a stupid own goal that is politically dumb AND is actually pretty scary if that is the future of where the left wants to take us.

And there is certainly something to be concerned about with immigration. And again, you are making the same damn error. No, there is no crisis as the dumb ass right claims. But of course immigration is a concern for middle and lower class people. It has an effect, and people are in fact worried about that effect. And when the right blows it 100x out of proportion, but the response form the left is to insist that there is nothing to worry about at all, then people who are concerned are forced to choose between one side that is exaggerating the problem and the other that is ignoring it because the left will crucify them if they even acknowledge it at all. Why force that choice on anyone?

Same thing with islamic terrorism. One side blows it grossly out of proportion, the other side pretends it doesn't exist because to do so means the radical left will label you a anti-muslim bigot and you get your name on a list at the SPLC. Again, I know where *I* come down on that choice, but its still ridiculous PC bullshit that the left cannot just be honest and measured about these problems, rather than having to tip toe around them because of the fear of offending the twitterati left.

You are, with me, making the exact same logical error that the left as a whole is making. There are legitimate problems to be discussed in some areas, and the right has owned the supposed solutions with bigoted, racist, and just plain stupid answers. Build a wall. Ban muslims. Destroy Obamacare. But the left has gotten themselves into a place where to respond in any way other than to deny that any issue exists at all is social suicide. They have stifled the ability to actually have a discussion on the topic, because the moment it is brought up, you are assumed to somehow own the arguments of the idiotic right.

This entire exchange is a perfect example of it. I didn't argue that people should not use some particular bathroom, so why are you demanding that I defend that?

Okay. Well, I guess we are dealing with different lefts, because I certainly don't see any stifling of discussion, only condemnation of outright racist and offensive rhetoric.

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 01:39:25 AM
Somehow I doubt this is actually as widespread and major a problem as you claim. Sure, when it happens it's stupid. But it does not give any cause to equate "the left" embracing controlled speech and the right enabling racism and white supremacy.

When it comes to things like that, the damage is not just measured by number of people losing their jobs, but also the number of people self-censoring themselves out of real fear of unwarranted consequences.  The Twitter left is holding as self-evident a number of beliefs that are actually false or essentially false due to lack of subtlety, because it's impossible to argue against them without being shunned (and no, I'm not going to say what those beliefs are).

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 09:29:46 AM
Okay. Well, I guess we are dealing with different lefts, because I certainly don't see any stifling of discussion, only condemnation of outright racist and offensive rhetoric.

I don't think many people believe themselves to be stifling discussions, they just all have different definitions of what it means to be racist or offensive.  The problem is that a lot of true things are racist, sexist, or offensive these days among certain crowds.

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 09:29:46 AM
Okay. Well, I guess we are dealing with different lefts, because I certainly don't see any stifling of discussion, only condemnation of outright racist and offensive rhetoric.

Then you are not paying attention.

A Netflix exec was forced to resign because he used the N-word during a meeting.

The context? He was the communications director of the company, and Netflix had aired a stand up routine where the comedian had used the word "retard". This was found objectionable by many people and they complained to Netflix. So far, so good.

He and Netflix decided to be more careful about vetting the content of shows they produce, and during the meeting where this was being discussed, the exec basically said something like "The use of the word 'retard' is seen by many in the disabled community as being just as offensive as black people finding the word <insert n word here since I don't need someone slicing and dicing this quote to claim I did the same thing he did>".

So he actually used the word to illustrate how objectionable it was - this is as benign and un-offensive a context as one could imagine - indeed, it is actually the opposite of offensive. He didn't call anyone that, and his entire point was to illustrate just how they needed to be more careful about how they consider the use of offensive language. Nobody at the meeting felt offended or targetted by his use of the word, or asked that he be disciplined. Nobody in the room found the use of the word worthy of firing. He probably should have just used our socially agreed upon substitute, but he actually wanted to invoke a sense of shock in his audience so that they could understand why they were going to take the same attitude towards terms like "retard". Oops.

But that doesn't matter. Word got out, and the twitterverse exploded or this white guy using the word at all, and he was forced to resign. The president of Netflix issued the left wing form letter of abject hari kari and the world moved along.

Now, I don't really care that much about some uber rich netflix exec. I am sure he is going to survive. But these stories make their way into the social firmament, and they most certainly change the way we talk to one another, and not in a good way. We have to be careful to not say the wrong thing, even if saying it is objectively and clearly NOT offensive in any rational analysis - even the form of offense is taboo.

And there are plenty of examples of this. The Harvard profesor getting shouted down, the admin in southern California getting fired, etc., etc.

Each of these is ammo in the right wing "See, the left is intolerant and will censor you and are a bunch of crazy identity politics warriors!". You might dismiss that as so much bullshit, but there are plenty who do not. And they care, and they vote.

Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 10:10:27 AM
Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2019, 10:26:32 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 10:10:27 AM
Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Freedom of speech is a principle, not just a constitutional protection.  Constitutional protections guard against the state infringing on your freedom of speech, but you're not going to have a free society if private lynch mobs still successfully shut people up without state's help.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 10:41:51 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2019, 10:26:32 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 10:10:27 AM
Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Freedom of speech is a principle, not just a constitutional protection.  Constitutional protections guard against the state infringing on your freedom of speech, but you're not going to have a free society if private lynch mobs still successfully shut people up without state's help.

Back up a bit.  Of course people must accept the consequences for that they say.  Freedom of speech and expressive rights are constitutionally protected from state interference.  But there are all kinds of ways one can suffer adverse impacts and even legal liability in the course of exercising those expressive rights.

A large part of the population do not think that it's OK to have opinions different from their own. Which sucks, and I don't think this will change any time soon since at least in Sweden people and institutions that should stand up for an open dialogue-based society are either silent or baying with the hounds.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 11:13:30 AM
Back up a bit.  Of course people must accept the consequences for that they say.  Freedom of speech and expressive rights are constitutionally protected from state interference.  But there are all kinds of ways one can suffer adverse impacts and even legal liability in the course of exercising those expressive rights.

There are limits to the freedom of speech, because that freedom conflicts with other important freedoms, that is true.  The issue is with the Orwellian word salad that draws a distinction between freedom and consequences, as if freedom means being physically enabled to do something rather than being allowed to do something without retaliation.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 11:13:30 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 10:41:51 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2019, 10:26:32 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 10:10:27 AM
Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Freedom of speech is a principle, not just a constitutional protection.  Constitutional protections guard against the state infringing on your freedom of speech, but you're not going to have a free society if private lynch mobs still successfully shut people up without state's help.

Back up a bit.  Of course people must accept the consequences for that they say.  Freedom of speech and expressive rights are constitutionally protected from state interference.  But there are all kinds of ways one can suffer adverse impacts and even legal liability in the course of exercising those expressive rights.

And some of those ways are clearly in opposition to the culture and society we should want.

Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a good thing. Surely gun control would teach us that.

*Progressives* of all people should be militant about protecting peoples ability to speak freely and express ideas without fear of having your livelihood or personal integrity attacked, rather than the ideas that speech expresses attacked.

We are seeing examples of people being forced out of their jobs at univerisities of all places because they said something that some minority decided to take objection to - if you cannot speak your mind in academia, where can you? That should be the LAST bastion of free exercise of ideas, even bad ideas!

I don't disagree that you have to deal with the consequences of your speech. But I think as a society we need to be, we MUST be, careful about what we decide those consequences ought to be, and be much less tolerant of a vocal and impassioned minority deciding that the way to win the battle of ideas is to simply make ideas they don't like (or even ideas that meet some form of ideas they don't like even if the ideas themselves are harmless) too dangerous to articulate because you will lose your job, rather than lose the debate.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 11:48:30 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 11:13:30 AM
Back up a bit.  Of course people must accept the consequences for that they say.  Freedom of speech and expressive rights are constitutionally protected from state interference.  But there are all kinds of ways one can suffer adverse impacts and even legal liability in the course of exercising those expressive rights.

There are limits to the freedom of speech, because that freedom conflicts with other important freedoms, that is true.  The issue is with the Orwellian word salad that draws a distinction between freedom and consequences, as if freedom means being physically enabled to do something rather than being allowed to do something without retaliation.

Freedom of speech relates the the limit the state may place of expressive rights.  Those restrictions are minimal.  Therefore, as a matter of law, there are very few things a person living in a free and democratic society is prohibited from saying.  However, there can, and should, be consequences, for exercising that freedom of expression in ways that harm others.  What kind of world would you create if there was no responsibility for what one says.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2019, 11:49:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 11:13:30 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 10:41:51 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2019, 10:26:32 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 10:10:27 AM
Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Freedom of speech is a principle, not just a constitutional protection.  Constitutional protections guard against the state infringing on your freedom of speech, but you're not going to have a free society if private lynch mobs still successfully shut people up without state's help.

Back up a bit.  Of course people must accept the consequences for that they say.  Freedom of speech and expressive rights are constitutionally protected from state interference.  But there are all kinds of ways one can suffer adverse impacts and even legal liability in the course of exercising those expressive rights.

And some of those ways are clearly in opposition to the culture and society we should want.

Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a good thing. Surely gun control would teach us that.

*Progressives* of all people should be militant about protecting peoples ability to speak freely and express ideas without fear of having your livelihood or personal integrity attacked, rather than the ideas that speech expresses attacked.

We are seeing examples of people being forced out of their jobs at univerisities of all places because they said something that some minority decided to take objection to - if you cannot speak your mind in academia, where can you? That should be the LAST bastion of free exercise of ideas, even bad ideas!

I don't disagree that you have to deal with the consequences of your speech. But I think as a society we need to be, we MUST be, careful about what we decide those consequences ought to be, and be much less tolerant of a vocal and impassioned minority deciding that the way to win the battle of ideas is to simply make ideas they don't like (or even ideas that meet some form of ideas they don't like even if the ideas themselves are harmless) too dangerous to articulate because you will lose your job, rather than lose the debate.

Regarding your first point, sure.  I certainly don't agree with everything that private actors, businesses and citizens do and say about what others do and say.  But that is all part of what we accept in a free and democratic society that assiduously protects expressive rights.

The question of expressive rights at universities is a special case because, as you point out, that engages principles of academic freedom which, in my view (helped along with the kind of assistance of Oex for providing some source material for some work I was doing) is different from freedom of expression and is of a different nature worthy of even greater protection.  The difficulty I have with your assertion that academics do not enjoy academic freedom is simply not borne out.  If anything academic freedom is more assiduously protected by universities now than it ever has.  You may an article that was posted on Languish some time ago that had the stats on that.

In the relation to your last paragraph "We" don't decide the consequences.  That is the whole point of the strong protections in law against the state interfering with expressive rights.  Private actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

Yup. Berkut, there is no such thing as civil society. Shut up about it already.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
In the relation to your last paragraph "We" don't decide the consequences.  That is the whole point of the strong protections in law against the state interfering with expressive rights.  Private actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

I mean bullying and fear are a great way to control the marketplace of ideas and make sure only proper ideas are expressed but I would not really call that a marketplace.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 12:23:55 PM
Freedom of speech relates the the limit the state may place of expressive rights.  Those restrictions are minimal.  Therefore, as a matter of law, there are very few things a person living in a free and democratic society is prohibited from saying.

You may disagree with my statement that freedom of speech as a concept extends beyond the legal protections, but it's not going to be a productive conversation if you don't acknowledge what I said.

QuoteHowever, there can, and should, be consequences, for exercising that freedom of expression in ways that harm others.  What kind of world would you create if there was no responsibility for what one says.

You can't both have freedom and prohibitive consequences for exercising that freedom.  If you think that prohibitive consequences are warranted, have the courage to be open about denying the freedom.

QuotePrivate actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

Ever marketplaces have prohibitions against boycott, coercion, or intimidation, in advanced countries anyway.

Okay, so I looked up the info about that Netflix firing. According to the media I read (at least CNN and WSJ), he used the n-word on multiple occasions despite being told it was inappropriate. Nowhere does it say that his words were taken out of context. Sounds like he has only himself to blame here.

About freedom of speech. It means that you can say whatever crap you like, sure. If you then get called out on it, get told to fuck off and shut up, etc., is simply other people exercising their freedom of speech. And of course, if your speech is actually harmful, like promoting racism or genocide, then you certainly should suffer more severe consequences. With freedom comes responsibility and there needs to be some way to protect those who could be harmed. That's true in many spheres of life, otherwise we'd be living in some fucked-up libertarian dystopia.

If only there was something about sticks and stones.

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 01:04:21 PM
About freedom of speech. It means that you can say whatever crap you like, sure. If you then get called out on it, get told to fuck off and shut up, etc., is simply other people exercising their freedom of speech. And of course, if your speech is actually harmful, like promoting racism or genocide, then you certainly should suffer more severe consequences. With freedom comes responsibility and there needs to be some way to protect those who could be harmed. That's true in many spheres of life, otherwise we'd be living in some fucked-up libertarian dystopia.

Huh. But who gets to decide if my speech was harmful? Who gets to decide if I was promoting racism and genocide? Is there a tribunal? Someplace I can appeal to?

Of course not. It is mob rule. You are guilty until proven innocent (I guess...I am not exactly clear how you could do that). There is no justice in such a system.

That sounds like a "libertarian dystopia" to me. No laws and no rules.

Anyway this has resulted in the destruction of many innocent people's lives but is unable to actually stop white supremacy or Donald Trump getting elected so what fucking good is it? Is this idiom of twitter mobs actually making the world more just? Better?

Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2019, 12:37:23 PM
Yup. Berkut, there is no such thing as civil society. Shut up about it already.

If one wishes to impose one's view of a civil society that can certainly be achieved.  But it is at the cost of freedom of expression.  It is the great irony of those who rely on freedom of expression arguments to argue that expressive rights of others ought to be restricted.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 01:17:53 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2019, 12:37:23 PM
Yup. Berkut, there is no such thing as civil society. Shut up about it already.

If one wishes to impose one's view of a civil society that can certainly be achieved.  But it is at the cost of freedom of expression.  It is the great irony of those who rely on freedom of expression arguments to argue that expressive rights of others ought to be restricted.

I don't think you understand the discussion.

Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2019, 12:45:33 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
In the relation to your last paragraph "We" don't decide the consequences.  That is the whole point of the strong protections in law against the state interfering with expressive rights.  Private actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

I mean bullying and fear are a great way to control the marketplace of ideas and make sure only proper ideas are expressed but I would not really call that a marketplace.

Fear of making a stupid comment - yep is exactly how part of it works.  Not sure what you are characterizing as "bullying" but be sure that if anyone here starts spouting white supremist views here on Languish, they are likely to feel bullied when we reply.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 12:55:56 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 12:23:55 PM
Freedom of speech relates the the limit the state may place of expressive rights.  Those restrictions are minimal.  Therefore, as a matter of law, there are very few things a person living in a free and democratic society is prohibited from saying.

You may disagree with my statement that freedom of speech as a concept extends beyond the legal protections, but it's not going to be a productive conversation if you don't acknowledge what I said.

QuoteHowever, there can, and should, be consequences, for exercising that freedom of expression in ways that harm others.  What kind of world would you create if there was no responsibility for what one says.

You can't both have freedom and prohibitive consequences for exercising that freedom.  If you think that prohibitive consequences are warranted, have the courage to be open about denying the freedom.

QuotePrivate actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

Ever marketplaces have prohibitions against boycott, coercion, or intimidation, in advanced countries anyway.

You have just undermined about 200 years of thought regarding freedom of expression and the limits that freedom has.

Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2019, 01:16:54 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 01:04:21 PM
About freedom of speech. It means that you can say whatever crap you like, sure. If you then get called out on it, get told to fuck off and shut up, etc., is simply other people exercising their freedom of speech. And of course, if your speech is actually harmful, like promoting racism or genocide, then you certainly should suffer more severe consequences. With freedom comes responsibility and there needs to be some way to protect those who could be harmed. That's true in many spheres of life, otherwise we'd be living in some fucked-up libertarian dystopia.

Huh. But who gets to decide if my speech was harmful? Who gets to decide if I was promoting racism and genocide? Is there a tribunal? Someplace I can appeal to?

Of course not. It is mob rule. You are guilty until proven innocent (I guess...I am not exactly clear how you could do that). There is no justice in such a system.

That sounds like a "libertarian dystopia" to me. No laws and no rules.

Anyway this has resulted in the destruction of many innocent people's lives but is unable to actually stop white supremacy or Donald Trump getting elected so what fucking good is it? Is this idiom of twitter mobs actually making the world more just? Better?

Most civilized nations have laws about hate speech, as it happens. They seem to work fine.

Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2019, 01:18:55 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 01:17:53 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2019, 12:37:23 PM
Yup. Berkut, there is no such thing as civil society. Shut up about it already.

If one wishes to impose one's view of a civil society that can certainly be achieved.  But it is at the cost of freedom of expression.  It is the great irony of those who rely on freedom of expression arguments to argue that expressive rights of others ought to be restricted.

I don't think you understand the discussion.

Yeah, that's a really productive thing to say.  While you're at it, why don't you tell a man in a wheelchair that he's not walking?

There seems to be a lot of different things being discussed at the same time - things that are intimately intertwined, of course - but in this sort of discussion, nuances come to matter a lot.

The concept of "Freedom of speech" was initially developed in incredibly tightly-knit societies of the 18th century, where princes employed spies to report back what was being heard - usually in taverns, or in context of what was then being called "sociability", i.e., having a dinner party. What mattered *then*, was the context of utterance, and the possibility of repression - not so much the place where this speech was being uttered (nor, it should be said, the reaction of the crowd. This came to matter a lot more during wartime in the young American or French Republics). 

Ever since then, however, my sense is that concept of property has come to bear a lot more on the issue of freedom of speech. We readily accept that the person who owns a space gets to control who gets to say what, and how, and when. Whether that space is a mall, or a place of employment, or even a virtual one like Facebook. This came to matter a lot more than before: industrialization created spaces that were a lot more crowded, for a lot longer, than anything the 18th century had ever known (with the considerable exception of plantations). For a lot of the aggressively elitist regimes of the 19th century, this was great. The "right kind of people", got to speak their mind, and "the mob" - their workers - got to shut up for most of the day.

Over the course of that time, freedom of speech was also being intertwined with freedom of the press -- but they were not intended to be exactly the same thing.

And for most of the 19th and 20th century, "freedom of speech" was always severely curtailed for certain parts of the population. Whether through state violence, or systematic repression, or private violence tolerated by the state, a lot of people were indeed deprived of the actual means to exert their freedom of speech, even as regimes proclaimed their commitment to the principle. To claim that women, or free people of color, were free to express their opinions, in the 19th century can be technically true, but they often exposed themselves to grievous harm if they did. In short, "freedom of speech" is always easier when your ideas are uncontroversial, and is always more comfortable when enforced through threats uttered by others. You can be a pacifist racist in the 19th century: both satisfied at your own open-mindedness, and safe from having to dirty your hands. Others will do it for you.

The problem we seem to be having now, to me, is this:

if we focus on freedom of speech as the sole protection against state censorship, we abdicate quite a bit of its control in the hands of private players, whether it is mall operators, or gated communities, or Facebook, or Twitter. Does "freedom of speech" mean much, when it has to be exercised in increasingly narrow, residual "public" spaces? Are we comfortable with the fact that so much of the limits of expressions are set by a few players (who have no clear idea of what they are doing with it).

On the other hand, if freedom of speech means the capacity to express ideas freely, what do we do with heinous ideas? Should we do nothing? Should we ensure that Nazis feel safe, and protected, in spouting their trash? Should we be happy that gay people feel threatened with violence, or with job loss, or ostracism?

It was much easier to defend maximal freedom of speech when heinous ideas - that is, ideas that seem utterly at odds with the project of a democratic society - were always a fringe movement, a few isolated nutters. When the consensus was clear. The state usually got those nutters in other ways, anyways - infiltrated their groups, monitored their activities, beat them up in demonstrations, or roughened them up in gay bars, etc. And some historically marginalized groups have also remarked that it was easier to defend maximal freedom of speech when you never had to deal with consequences. There was no price to pay for being an abject racist, or a reactionary chauvinist, or a raging homophobe. Or, the price to pay was not commensurate with the price paid by those ostracized.

I don't know what the solution is.

I understand why "doxxing" emerged, or why groups want to flex their muscle against the expression of racist ideas: it is an opportunity to turn the tables. To have people, who historically enjoyed the full extent of their freedom of speech, to live with the consequences. Part of the problem is that our communities are a lot more ethereal than they ever were in the 18th century, our corporations, a lot more powerful, and our state, a lot more committed to surveillance. Doxxing can be ruthless now, because you may never have to deal with that racist asshole, face-to-face. Speech can now be monitored a lot more closely than ever before by state officials, but I don't know on what grounds I should defer to Mark Zuckerberg's conception of acceptable speech.

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 01:04:21 PM
Okay, so I looked up the info about that Netflix firing. According to the media I read (at least CNN and WSJ), he used the n-word on multiple occasions despite being told it was inappropriate. Nowhere does it say that his words were taken out of context. Sounds like he has only himself to blame here.

He used it once in a meeting to show how shocked people could be over the use of the word "retarded."  He used it again when describing to HR what happened the first time.  He does have only himself to blame.  He's in communications, so he has to know how quickly the lynch mob can form.  In neither case was he actually using it as a slur, but that doesn't excuse his failure to understand how the mob mentality works.  Can you imagine Mark Twain lasting five seconds in today's world?

QuoteAbout freedom of speech. It means that you can say whatever crap you like, sure. If you then get called out on it, get told to fuck off and shut up, etc., is simply other people exercising their freedom of speech. And of course, if your speech is actually harmful, like promoting racism or genocide, then you certainly should suffer more severe consequences. With freedom comes responsibility and there needs to be some way to protect those who could be harmed. That's true in many spheres of life, otherwise we'd be living in some fucked-up libertarian dystopia.

In the case of the Netflix exec, there wasn't the issue of actual harm.  No one was referred to by the use of the term.  It was a matter of speech codes.  You'd think that an executive would understand that his skin color determines what he can and cannot say, not whether anyone was harmed.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 01:26:36 PM
You have just undermined about 200 years of thought regarding freedom of expression and the limits that freedom has.

Maybe, but the 200 years in question were 1300-1500.

Quote from: Solmyr on August 10, 2019, 01:47:35 PM
Most civilized nations have laws about hate speech, as it happens. They seem to work fine.

Not really, as the silencing of dissenting voices through fear and intimidation, by actors on both sides of the political spectrum, have shown.  Hate speech laws only operate against hate speech.  Non-hate-speech, like arguing that male white students should not be directed to stay away from a college campus so that non-white-male students can enjoy a "day of absence," results in mob action shutting down the school and threats against the speaker.  Though, I suppose, one could argue that the fact that that particular college saw enrollment collapse means that the marketplace of ideas has some role to play.

Hate speech isn't the question.  It is illegal and, in mainstream communities, not tolerated.  The question is stifling free speech when it isn't hate speech.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 01:20:36 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2019, 12:45:33 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 12:34:33 PM
In the relation to your last paragraph "We" don't decide the consequences.  That is the whole point of the strong protections in law against the state interfering with expressive rights.  Private actors can and do decide how they will react.  That is part of how the marketplace of ideas works.

I mean bullying and fear are a great way to control the marketplace of ideas and make sure only proper ideas are expressed but I would not really call that a marketplace.

Fear of making a stupid comment - yep is exactly how part of it works.  Not sure what you are characterizing as "bullying" but be sure that if anyone here starts spouting white supremist views here on Languish, they are likely to feel bullied when we reply.

That isn't the problem - the problem is if someone doesn't like something you say, so they call your boss and tell them that unless they fire you, they are going to lose your business.

Multiplied by a bunch.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 01:58:27 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2019, 01:18:55 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2019, 01:17:53 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2019, 12:37:23 PM
Yup. Berkut, there is no such thing as civil society. Shut up about it already.

If one wishes to impose one's view of a civil society that can certainly be achieved.  But it is at the cost of freedom of expression.  It is the great irony of those who rely on freedom of expression arguments to argue that expressive rights of others ought to be restricted.

I don't think you understand the discussion.

Yeah, that's a really productive thing to say.  While you're at it, why don't you tell a man in a wheelchair that he's not walking?

I don't think explaining to him how to walk would be helpful, but YMMV.

How one tweet can ruin your life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI)

Berkut, your beef should be with the employers who fire those people.

Why don't you bitch about them instead of the woke crowd as you call them?

Isn't the woke crowd exercising their freedom of speech?

Quote from: Zoupa on August 10, 2019, 04:52:47 PM
Berkut, your beef should be with the employers who fire those people.

Why don't you bitch about them instead of the woke crowd as you call them?

Isn't the woke crowd exercising their freedom of speech?

I do think that people who are cowardly in the face of lynch mob should be held much more accountable than they are, but most employers are ultimately answerable to faceless shareholders who just care about the bottom line.  Even if some manager decides to take a principled stand, sooner or later someone in the reporting chain is going to say that no one is worth the hassle. 

I would say that people behaving immorally and forming lynch mobs are more responsible for what results than innocent bystanders who are drawn into someone else's fight and don't sacrifice themselves.

Quote from: Zoupa on August 10, 2019, 04:52:47 PM
Berkut, your beef should be with the employers who fire those people.

Why don't you bitch about them instead of the woke crowd as you call them?

Isn't the woke crowd exercising their freedom of speech?

I was thinking of something nice to say and I think your tribal loyalty is impressive. :)

Quote from: Zoupa on August 10, 2019, 04:52:47 PM
Isn't the woke crowd exercising their freedom of speech?

Not when the woke crowd is engaging in hate speech.  Why won't you denounce hate speech when it is uttered by the "woke crowd?"

I'm unclear on something.  Are we proposing to protect freedom of speech by removing the ability to criticize and the right to free association?

Quote from: grumbler on August 10, 2019, 05:15:19 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on August 10, 2019, 04:52:47 PM
Isn't the woke crowd exercising their freedom of speech?

Not when the woke crowd is engaging in hate speech.  Why won't you denounce hate speech when it is uttered by the "woke crowd?"

I'm not even sure what we're talking about here anymore.

Is the twitter mob (which apparently is only comprised of lefties) engaging in hate speech? Do we have any examples of this?

I'm not on twitter. Never saw the point. All these talks of mobs and crowds, do we have any metrics? Do these guys actually represent a sizable portion of the population?

Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2019, 05:07:30 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on August 10, 2019, 04:52:47 PM
Berkut, your beef should be with the employers who fire those people.

Why don't you bitch about them instead of the woke crowd as you call them?

Isn't the woke crowd exercising their freedom of speech?

I was thinking of something nice to say and I think your tribal loyalty is impressive. :)

K

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2019, 07:04:41 PM
I'm unclear on something.  Are we proposing to protect freedom of speech by removing the ability to criticize and the right to free association?

We are proposing nothing of the sort. At least I am not.

What sorts of ways of removing the ability to critisize and the right to free association have been proposed?

Quote from: Zoupa on August 10, 2019, 07:33:38 PM
(which apparently is only comprised of lefties)

Whataboutism. Nice.

Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2019, 07:37:11 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on August 10, 2019, 07:33:38 PM
(which apparently is only comprised of lefties)

Whataboutism. Nice.

It was an obvious dig at Berkut dude. This whole subject just seems like lots of wasted ink and electrons. Une tempete dans un verre d'eau, non?

Only the leftist Twitter mobs have the potential to ruin someone's career (unless you work in some rightist groupthink tank or something of that nature).  In that a way that's a good thing, the world would certainly suck a lot more if the hard right rather than the hard left had the power to bully the corporate world into shunning some individual, but that does make the phenomenon quite disproportionate between the two sides.

Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2019, 07:35:47 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2019, 07:04:41 PM
I'm unclear on something.  Are we proposing to protect freedom of speech by removing the ability to criticize and the right to free association?

We are proposing nothing of the sort. At least I am not.

What sorts of ways of removing the ability to critisize and the right to free association have been proposed?

Then what is being proposed here?

By whom?

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 08:22:21 PM
Only the leftist Twitter mobs have the potential to ruin someone's career (unless you work in some rightist groupthink tank or something of that nature).  In that a way that's a good thing, the world would certainly suck a lot more if the hard right rather than the hard left had the power to bully the corporate world into shunning some individual, but that does make the phenomenon quite disproportionate between the two sides.

They also have disproportionate influence on the issues of academic independence, the debate about the assault/come on line, and the whole shitstorm about gender identity.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2019, 08:56:41 PM
Then what is being proposed here?

Well all I have proposed is the new and exciting idea that mob justice is arbitrary and unjust.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 08:22:21 PM
Only the leftist Twitter mobs have the potential to ruin someone's career (unless you work in some rightist groupthink tank or something of that nature).  In that a way that's a good thing, the world would certainly suck a lot more if the hard right rather than the hard left had the power to bully the corporate world into shunning some individual, but that does make the phenomenon quite disproportionate between the two sides.

That was true in the past but I'm not so sure now.  See the reaction to The Hunt, or the job that got done on James Gunn.  The left adapted to it first, but the right is becoming adept at pulling the levers as well.

My first rather visceral reaction to the Twitter Mob actually came from the Gamergate stuff. So the right does it as well. I am not sure that helps the case that it is a great thing that helps bring justice to our society though.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 06, 2019, 11:09:49 AM
It's out of concern for others.

it is pure sillyness from activists in ivory towers.

Activists =/= Ivory Tower. The two are mutually exclusive.

Activists aren't immune to living in a bubble or grasping on to impractical ideas.

No, they aren't. It's just not what the Ivory Tower is.

I've said it before, but the main damage the "ivory tower" academics in the humanities have done to our society, is that they have undermined the notion that objective truth is a worthwhile thing that can change minds, or is even possible to seek; everything becomes a matter of perspective, everyone is biased. This leaves us desperately vulnerable to people who care nothing for objective truth.

If everything is just a clash of values, then there is nothing to stop a guy like Trump from supporting his abhorrent values, other than the power to do so.

This situation also gives force to twitter mobs, left or right; if enough people are outraged, their outrage equals truth. What's to stop that, if everything is just a clash of values? The twitter mob is just a lot of people expressing some values.

To be clear, I don't blame the "ivory tower" for creating guys like Trump or twitter mobs. I blame them for failing to arm people with the intellectual tools to fight guys like Trump, or twitter mobs. 

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 09:48:45 AM
I've said it before, but the main damage the "ivory tower" academics in the humanities have done to our society, is that they have undermined the notion that objective truth is a worthwhile thing that can change minds, or is even possible to seek; everything becomes a matter of perspective, everyone is biased. This leaves us desperately vulnerable to people who care nothing for objective truth.

If everything is just a clash of values, then there is nothing to stop a guy like Trump from supporting his abhorrent values, other than the power to do so.

This situation also gives force to twitter mobs, left or right; if enough people are outraged, their outrage equals truth. What's to stop that, if everything is just a clash of values? The twitter mob is just a lot of people expressing some values.

To be clear, I don't blame the "ivory tower" for creating guys like Trump or twitter mobs. I blame them for failing to arm people with the intellectual tools to fight guys like Trump, or twitter mobs.

Yes.

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 09:48:45 AM
To be clear, I don't blame the "ivory tower" for creating guys like Trump or twitter mobs. I blame them for failing to arm people with the intellectual tools to fight guys like Trump, or twitter mobs.

How can professors arm people with the necessary intellectual tools when the shift in post secondary education has been away from liberal arts degrees to STEM and business degrees?

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 09:48:45 AM
I've said it before, but the main damage the "ivory tower" academics in the humanities have done to our society, is that they have undermined the notion that objective truth is a worthwhile thing that can change minds, or is even possible to seek; everything becomes a matter of perspective, everyone is biased. This leaves us desperately vulnerable to people who care nothing for objective truth.

How many people attended advanced classes that dealt with this (sloppy version of) constructivism in college? Or has it impacted the other classes that did not dealt with this topic?

How has it impacted the tens of thousands of people who come out of business school, or engineering school, or science major?

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 09:48:45 AM
I've said it before, but the main damage the "ivory tower" academics in the humanities have done to our society, is that they have undermined the notion that objective truth is a worthwhile thing that can change minds, or is even possible to seek; everything becomes a matter of perspective, everyone is biased. This leaves us desperately vulnerable to people who care nothing for objective truth.

If everything is just a clash of values, then there is nothing to stop a guy like Trump from supporting his abhorrent values, other than the power to do so.

This situation also gives force to twitter mobs, left or right; if enough people are outraged, their outrage equals truth. What's to stop that, if everything is just a clash of values? The twitter mob is just a lot of people expressing some values.

To be clear, I don't blame the "ivory tower" for creating guys like Trump or twitter mobs. I blame them for failing to arm people with the intellectual tools to fight guys like Trump, or twitter mobs.

This vastly overrates the cultural influence and effect of the academics - particularly on the sorts of people who support Donald Trump; it also overrates the influence of postmodernist thought in world of academia.

Critical thought - to the extent it focuses on how ideological cultures create their own realities and facts - has some use in examining our present day world.  Simply telling people "The Facts' or deploying scientific evidence has been spectacularly ineffective in the political sphere. And the people who are not being persuaded are not holding out because of an intellectual commitment that there is no objective truth; rather, they are completely convinced that their "alternative facts" are the objective and higher truths.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 12, 2019, 10:40:48 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 09:48:45 AM
I've said it before, but the main damage the "ivory tower" academics in the humanities have done to our society, is that they have undermined the notion that objective truth is a worthwhile thing that can change minds, or is even possible to seek; everything becomes a matter of perspective, everyone is biased. This leaves us desperately vulnerable to people who care nothing for objective truth.

How many people attended advanced classes that dealt with this (sloppy version of) constructivism in college? Or has it impacted the other classes that did not dealt with this topic?

How has it impacted the tens of thousands of people who come out of business school, or engineering school, or science major?

The point is that the humanities ought to act as the place people look to for rational thought. Not that it is supposed to train everyone individually and universally.

Though even those who come out of business school or engineering ought, in a perfect world, to have at least some inkling of the humanities. Isn't their job to create well-rounded thinking individuals?

As it stands, it is no wonder people have become so compartmentalized. Why bother with a field filled with impenetrable jargon, that makes no pretence at arming people to actually sift facts for objective truth. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2019, 10:41:09 AM


This vastly overrates the cultural influence and effect of the academics - particularly on the sorts of people who support Donald Trump; it also overrates the influence of postmodernist thought in world of academia.

Critical thought - to the extent it focuses on how ideological cultures create their own realities and facts - has some use in examining our present day world.  Simply telling people "The Facts' or deploying scientific evidence has been spectacularly ineffective in the political sphere. And the people who are not being persuaded are not holding out because of an intellectual commitment that there is no objective truth; rather, they are completely convinced that their "alternative facts" are the objective and higher truths.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand: I'm not claiming the humanities had any influence on the people who support Trump.

I'm claiming this trend in the humanities has undermined those who would attack people like Trump. It has rusted the intellectual tools of Trump's enemies.

I think that a good university undergraduate program challenges its students' beliefs and makes them rethink what they believe, and why.   I'm not sure that this is the way American university education approaches beliefs anymore.  It's great to have students realize that "history is written by the winners" and that the received wisdom they have grown up with isn't the whole story.  It's better to expand that to "before you tell anyone to 'check their privilege', check your own."

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 10:53:49 AM
I'm claiming this trend in the humanities has undermined those who would attack people like Trump. It has rusted the intellectual tools of Trump's enemies.

I understand the claim; I just dispute that a firm grounding in Popperian rationalism is that useful for responding to Twitter tantrums and "liberals can't meme."

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 10:50:48 AM
As it stands, it is no wonder people have become so compartmentalized. Why bother with a field filled with impenetrable jargon, that makes no pretence at arming people to actually sift facts for objective truth.

Is that a fact, or is it rather the expression of a personal bias?

(oh, the irony of a lawyer complaining about impenetrable jargon!  :lol:)

I have no idea what these classes would be, or if they have existed.

First, because the idea that an English class, or an anthropology class would be about sifting facts for objective truth to be a gross misunderstanding of what these disciplines, or even, what the humanities, are. The list of facts, in history, or English, or even in social sciences, like political science, or economics, are as tedious as they are, *in themselves* meaningless. What matters is what you do with them. How you weave them together, how you create interpretations, propose hypothesis, etc.

Second, because in no classes I have ever attended, nor any classes I have taught, or seen my colleagues taught, have I ever witness such gross brushing aside of truth and fact. I have never seen anyone argue that everything is equally worthwhile (if so, dept. meetings would be a breeze...), nor teach that crap to students. And bear in mind, I am now basically a scholar of "historical ontology" - of the ways societies have created, and validated truth, over the centuries: I have read this stuff, including some of the regular bugbears of the "decline of truth" lamentors - Foucault, Latour, Deleuze.

Knowing battles or kings, or birth of authors, or the details of a Balinese cockfight, or the GNP of Britain -- these are all things we teach - but we teach them in the service of an interpretation. There is no way around it, in the humanities and social sciences. Good profs will teach the interpretations for what they are: the product of debates and scholarship, and perhaps part of a highly dynamic and conflict-filled field. Bad profs will teach them as gospel.

What I have seen, however, from students, is an obsession over uncovering bias. It's the idea that, once you have discovered the hint of an author's perspective on things, or an ideological orientation, or even some weakness in the overall architecture of an author's argument, the thesis can be safely disregarded. It's always done in the name of truth and objectivity. 

Now, this, the idea of "unmasking" as the end-all, be-all of critique, I have seen academics do. But I have seen a lot of people do it - it's been a political trick since at least the 18th century. Whether or not this current incarnation of unmasking-as-critique is the product of academia, we can perhaps debate, and there might be more grist to your mill there. My own sense is that "unmasking" is first and foremost, a political gesture, answering a political climate - not an epistemological crisis about the nature of truth.

Mm, interesting legal thread started by Joan derailed by Berkut into an ignorant Facebook style argument over triggered people and PC culture.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2019, 11:28:11 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 10:53:49 AM
I'm claiming this trend in the humanities has undermined those who would attack people like Trump. It has rusted the intellectual tools of Trump's enemies.

I understand the claim; I just dispute that a firm grounding in Popperian rationalism is that useful for responding to Twitter tantrums and "liberals can't meme."

If you understood the claim, why did you attack it by saying "This vastly overrates the cultural influence and effect of the academics - particularly on the sorts of people who support Donald Trump"?

Well, one thing is for sure - attempting to fight Trumpism by shaming his supporters isn't all that useful, either. They are shameless.

If everything is just a clash of interests, the sides are really no different - all Trump is doing, is stating openly that he's out for "his side" - White Christian nativists.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 12, 2019, 11:39:41 AM

(oh, the irony of a lawyer complaining about impenetrable jargon!  :lol:)

The law is a profession which has in part indulged in jargon as a barrier to entry to protect its professionals from competition. The best lawyers of course avoid jargon, particularly in drafting agreements and the like, because they are more concerned with creating things that actually work that with preserving their monopoly, and jargon leads to sloppy drafting. I can't tell you how many contracts I have reviewed that contain boilerplate clauses filled with jargon that no-one who included it had actually thought about.

So yes, I complain about impenetrable jargon, because I know exactly what it is - a shield for the incompetent and a trap for the user.

There is also this that the law has going for it: if someone drafts a contract, other people are going to have to rely on it, in perhaps desperate circumstances in the future. Real people's livelihoods will hang on the results. So sloppy thinking is likely to be ruthlessly punished by real-world consequences.

You have an interesting interpretation of the word "openly".

Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 12, 2019, 01:00:03 PM
You have an interesting interpretation of the word "openly".

It's hardly a secret.

He will deny the accusation. Coded language and/or dog whistles isn't "open".

Look at it this way - if a lawyer indulges in sloppy thinking, the correction is likely to come - the client will eventually suffer. The individual lawyer may or may not suffer, in losing clients and possibly being sued, but that isn't certain. The real loser will be the client, but the loss may not be manifested for a long time - for example, when a real life disagreement arises between the parties to a contract drafted by the sloppy lawyer. Over a large number of contracts though, the probability of damage approaches certainty.

If a professor in humanities indulges in sloppy thinking, there may be no consequences at all, at least in the short term. That depends on how his or her institution is structured. If sloppy thinking is endemic in his or her field, the professor may indeed be rewarded for it, with grants and tenure. Arguably, that's happened to an extent, the extent of which is its own topic of debate. The students are generally not likely to care - perhaps the thoughtful ones will steer themselves into the hard sciences rather than the humanities (and the decline of prestige of the humanities vs. the sciences may itself be a consequence), but most students care only for marks, and will as happily parrot back sloppy thinking as not if that will earn them grades.

The suffering is felt at the societal level, as sloppy thinking becomes slightly more endemic than it was before, rather than slightly less. Because we have, at least in the past, looked to the humanities for help in thinking problems through.   

I thought this way back when I was a humanities undergraduate - and the current tsunami of sloppy thinking tends to support the notion. Of course, it isn't a sole causative factor, this is a disaster with many parents; it may not even be a particularly important one. But I do believe it's had a bad effect. 

I know Right wingers have used the idea that liberals deal in subjective truth for decades, but that's not root of this madness.  The seeds were sown in during the Vietnam war as a political strategy of the Nixon administration.  Every night there were news stories that were showing fighting in Vietnam and bloody young American boys being evacuated by Helicopter to hospitals.  The Nixon administration couldn't well say that it wasn't happening.  Everyone could see it.  So instead they decided to focus on the press.  The problem was that the media was biased and only showing the bad parts.  When the Watergate scandal started they used the same strategy.  It failed.  Vietnam was lost and Nixon was forced out, but the American Right-had a new weapon.  Liberal Media bias.  It was used liberally in the Reagan administration and when Fox News came on the air back in 1990's they banged that drum every day.  The result was the the American right unmoored from reality.  Loopy conspiracy theories couldn't be disproven because the media was biased.  A constant refrain was "the media doesn't want you to know".  In the Bush administration Fox news viewers believed that substantial caches of WMDs were discovered when no such thing happened.  Hell, polls showed that Fox News viewers were less aware of actual events than the people who watched the Daily Show, a comedy show.  Every year the American Right is becoming more and more divorced from reality.  Large numbers of people believe that Clintons are satanic cannibals.  They believe that Obama left the US military to die at Benghazi and that Hillary Clinton sold 20% of the US stockpile of Weapons Grade Uranium to the Russians.

We seem to be reaching a critical point where the President is endorsing a view that a former President is a murderer.  The shooter in El Paso wasn't targeting human beings, he was targeting phantoms.  Imaginary invaders that he believe were out to get him and destroy America.  The Synagogue shooter a few months ago was doing the same thing.  This is only going to get worse.

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 01:19:43 PM
Look at it this way - if a lawyer indulges in sloppy thinking, the correction is likely to come - the client will eventually suffer. The individual lawyer may or may not suffer, in losing clients and possibly being sued, but that isn't certain. The real loser will be the client, but the loss may not be manifested for a long time - for example, when a real life disagreement arises between the parties to a contract drafted by the sloppy lawyer. Over a large number of contracts though, the probability of damage approaches certainty.

If a professor in humanities indulges in sloppy thinking, there may be no consequences at all, at least in the short term. That depends on how his or her institution is structured. If sloppy thinking is endemic in his or her field, the professor may indeed be rewarded for it, with grants and tenure. Arguably, that's happened to an extent, the extent of which is its own topic of debate. The students are generally not likely to care - perhaps the thoughtful ones will steer themselves into the hard sciences rather than the humanities (and the decline of prestige of the humanities vs. the sciences may itself be a consequence), but most students care only for marks, and will as happily parrot back sloppy thinking as not if that will earn them grades.

The suffering is felt at the societal level, as sloppy thinking becomes slightly more endemic than it was before, rather than slightly less. Because we have, at least in the past, looked to the humanities for help in thinking problems through.   

I thought this way back when I was a humanities undergraduate - and the current tsunami of sloppy thinking tends to support the notion. Of course, it isn't a sole causative factor, this is a disaster with many parents; it may not even be a particularly important one. But I do believe it's had a bad effect.

Your premise is flawed.  Most clients will have no idea their lawyer has engaged in sloppy thinking.  If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.  In short, lawyers are much more likely to get away with sloppy thinking.

The problem isn't with universities it is with a society that perceives words like 'palpable' to be difficult to understand  ;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2019, 01:42:44 PM
If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.  In short, lawyers are much more likely to get away with sloppy thinking.

How did the sokal hoax happen?

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 01:49:19 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2019, 01:42:44 PM
If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.  In short, lawyers are much more likely to get away with sloppy thinking.

How did the sokal hoax happen?

I don't know.  Perhaps you have an opinion on the matter?

if those reviewing scholarly work have similar views, then it would still pass muster wouldn't it?

In comparison to lawyers trying to prove a contract flawed to make money.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2019, 01:50:10 PM

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 01:49:19 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2019, 01:42:44 PM
If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.  In short, lawyers are much more likely to get away with sloppy thinking.

How did the sokal hoax happen?

I don't know.  Perhaps you have an opinion on the matter?

You tell me, you are the one who told us that sloppy thinking will "immediately be detected"

A quick Google search suggests the sokal hoax happened because nobody reviewed his work before it was published.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2019, 01:42:44 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 01:19:43 PM
Look at it this way - if a lawyer indulges in sloppy thinking, the correction is likely to come - the client will eventually suffer. The individual lawyer may or may not suffer, in losing clients and possibly being sued, but that isn't certain. The real loser will be the client, but the loss may not be manifested for a long time - for example, when a real life disagreement arises between the parties to a contract drafted by the sloppy lawyer. Over a large number of contracts though, the probability of damage approaches certainty.

If a professor in humanities indulges in sloppy thinking, there may be no consequences at all, at least in the short term. That depends on how his or her institution is structured. If sloppy thinking is endemic in his or her field, the professor may indeed be rewarded for it, with grants and tenure. Arguably, that's happened to an extent, the extent of which is its own topic of debate. The students are generally not likely to care - perhaps the thoughtful ones will steer themselves into the hard sciences rather than the humanities (and the decline of prestige of the humanities vs. the sciences may itself be a consequence), but most students care only for marks, and will as happily parrot back sloppy thinking as not if that will earn them grades.

The suffering is felt at the societal level, as sloppy thinking becomes slightly more endemic than it was before, rather than slightly less. Because we have, at least in the past, looked to the humanities for help in thinking problems through.   

I thought this way back when I was a humanities undergraduate - and the current tsunami of sloppy thinking tends to support the notion. Of course, it isn't a sole causative factor, this is a disaster with many parents; it may not even be a particularly important one. But I do believe it's had a bad effect.

Your premise is flawed.  Most clients will have no idea their lawyer has engaged in sloppy thinking.  If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.  In short, lawyers are much more likely to get away with sloppy thinking.

The problem isn't with universities it is with a society that perceives words like 'palpable' to be difficult to understand  ;)

From what you quoted:

QuoteThe individual lawyer may or may not suffer, in losing clients and possibly being sued, but that isn't certain. The real loser will be the client, but the loss may not be manifested for a long time - for example, when a real life disagreement arises between the parties to a contract drafted by the sloppy lawyer. Over a large number of contracts though, the probability of damage approaches certainty.

About peer review:

Quotedepends on how his or her institution is structured. If sloppy thinking is endemic in his or her field, the professor may indeed be rewarded for it, with grants and tenure.

Peer review has nothing to do with how the university is structured.  I don't understand what point you are trying to make there.  Are you suggesting that universities activity give tenure to professors who engage in sloppy thinking and as a result don't publish?

Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 12, 2019, 01:55:19 PM
A quick Google search suggests the sokal hoax happened because nobody reviewed his work before it was published.

Their more recent counterparts targeted peer-reviewed journals.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2019, 02:28:33 PM
Peer review has nothing to do with how the university is structured.  I don't understand what point you are trying to make there.  Are you suggesting that universities activity give tenure to professors who engage in sloppy thinking and as a result don't publish?

The point is that peer review will not detect nonsense if the peers are themselves believers in nonsense, or overly indulgent of it.

You don't have to believe me, it has been demonstrated.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 01:19:43 PMIf a professor in humanities indulges in sloppy thinking, there may be no consequences at all, at least in the short term.... [...] (and the decline of prestige of the humanities vs. the sciences may itself be a consequence)

The idea that somehow the humanities are uniquely to blame for the decline of belief in truth, as both Joan and I remarked, relies on both a "sloppy" understanding of constructivism (or postmodernism, if you insist), and a wild overestimation of the reach of such ideas outside of academia. It is, however, the sort of narrative that is trotted out precisely to undermine the humanities, and mark them as useless.

Undermining the humanities as somehow uninterested in truth has been a narrative that emerged in reaction to certain political points made from within humanities department. The change in some of the ethical project within departments suddenly flew in the face of stuff that had been received as "true" for years - but were, in fact, not much more than the projection of past ethical projects.

This was the reaction in the 60s, against social history, for instance, that was seen as somehow less important than Great Men. Social history defended itself from such accusations by investing massively in quantitative methods, which enjoyed great prestige as markers of truth. Since then, women's history, or history of race, have been invested in making new stories emerge, which suddenly change time-honored narratives. Conservative commentators thus deplore that these are "falsehoods". Students arrive in the classroom, ready to pounce upon "false" history being taught by the professor. But numbers are not the only marker of truth - else, Great Men history would be utterly discredited. What is the "truest" account of WWI, for instance? The experience of the soldier, that of the general, the economic analysis, or the political context?

The humanities are part of an ethical project. It is one that is committed to truth, but it is not commensurate with truth. 

Sloppy thinking is bad. It happens in every field. Many fields reward it with grants and tenure: this is not a remarkable findings, or else, there would be no story of "misunderstood geniuses", or of misguided superstar CEOs. It's also quite present in the sciences as well, where a considerable number of reviews are done through checking the math, and not much more. I am sure you can find it in your own business, from lawyers who do reasonably well.

But we didn't start with "sloppy thinking". Your claim was about the status of truth, and how the humanities have undermined its value.

Way I see it, lawyering of the transactional kind is sort of like (say) science in one single way - only of course on the microscale, while science is on the macroscale.

That way is that both will result in bad things visibly happening if sloppy thinking is indulged.

Bad lawyering could, and does, go undetected for years. The client isn't likely to be able to tell the difference between (say) a good contract and a bad one; that's why they hire lawyers, at vast expense.

However, one day that contract may be put to the test. A problem arises in the relationship. The client tries to rely on the contract, only to discover it is badly drafted and doesn't afford the protection the client was told to expect. So the client suffers. While this may not happen with every contract - over a large number of contracts, the probability of a disaster approaches certainty.

Similarly, people are free to indulge in bad science, and they may not live to see the problems of (say) climate change (though it is increasingly likely that people around now will, as they are already happening now). Reality will not be mocked.

The humanities are different, in that the bad effects of indulging in sloppy thinking are a lot harder to see than (say) a bad contract tested by a lawsuit, or climate changing. But that doesn't mean there are no bad effects. The argument is that we are seeing some of them happening now.   

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 02:34:21 PM
The point is that peer review will not detect nonsense if the peers are themselves believers in nonsense, or overly indulgent of it.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753

Indeed. Peer-reviewed is deeply flawed.

But that also concerns the sciences. "Replication", the cornerstone of the natural sciences, is in fact, almost never attempted. In many cases, the "review" aspect is concerned with checking the math - but not its underpinnings.

https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/123/9/1964/282957

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 12, 2019, 02:55:18 PM


Indeed. Peer-reviewed is deeply flawed.

But that also concerns the sciences. "Replication", the cornerstone of the natural sciences, is in fact, almost never attempted. In many cases, the "review" aspect is concerned with checking the math - but not its underpinnings.

Okay since universities can't do their job they should close down.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 12, 2019, 02:55:18 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 02:34:21 PM
The point is that peer review will not detect nonsense if the peers are themselves believers in nonsense, or overly indulgent of it.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753

Indeed. Peer-reviewed is deeply flawed.

But that also concerns the sciences. "Replication", the cornerstone of the natural sciences, is in fact, almost never attempted. In many cases, the "review" aspect is concerned with checking the math - but not its underpinnings.

https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/123/9/1964/282957

Absolutely. The mechanism has weaknesses, they are not specific to the humanities.

I was posting this purely in response to CC's point:

QuoteIf a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process.

... my point being peer review is not the panacea he claimed.

The difference though between the humanities and (say) hard sciences, is that while fraud or sloppy thinking may slip through peer review in both cases, eventually the hard science does have to "work". Cold Fusion famous example of junk science in physics - but there is a natural limit to how far they can go with that. At some point, it has to be shown to be true to reality, or it will be (and was) discarded.

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 02:59:33 PM
Okay since universities can't do their job they should close down.

Cool.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 12, 2019, 03:02:03 PM

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 02:59:33 PM
Okay since universities can't do their job they should close down.

Cool.

Have you quit your job then or are you going to continue being a thief?

My impression is that many lay people think that if something is published in a peer-reviewed form it can be considered scientific fact. This is obviously not the case, but it may not be so obvious to lay folks. Part of the problem may be that peer review simply doesn't do, and isn't designed to do, all that lay society expects of it.

Society should retaliate by cutting off funding for universities until they get their shit together.

We should do the same for every institution in society that fails to meet its aspirational standards.  The military, all federal and state governments, the courts, all corporations, all Churches and other religious establishments. For starters.

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 03:01:10 PMThe difference though between the humanities and (say) hard sciences, is that while fraud or sloppy thinking may slip through peer review in both cases, eventually the hard science does have to "work". Cold Fusion famous example of junk science in physics - but there is a natural limit to how far they can go with that. At some point, it has to be shown to be true to reality, or it will be (and was) discarded.

You seem to be applying the same metric very differently. A ton of published studies in science will not be replicated, nor will they ever be used to further a research program. They are, in effect, "junk science" that will just sit there, awaiting to be shown to be junk - which may never happen. And rarely, they foster a full research program dedicated to showing they are right/wrong. Likewise, a ton of humanities article will be published - and be forgotten. And others, which are either controversial, or bring about some remarkable understanding of the human condition, will foster dynamic exchanges - usually on the basis of people arguing whether they are right, or wrong!

So yeah, Sokal published a mock article, thirty years ago. Would that article have garnered attention? Would it have fostered the field? Would it have made it on a course syllabus? That's the essence of "work", in the humanities - and it takes more time to reach an audience, especially now, than the few months it took for him to gloat about it. It certainly did achieve *one* purpose, which is that it got people talking about peer-review process. It did another, which is it gave fodder for years to anti-humanities rhetoric, as if, somehow, this was inherent to the humanities, while all the science scandals in the peer-review world (see: vaccination and autism, the Lancet) are always seen as dysfunctions.

I can certainly agree that there is a lot of time, and energy wasted in publishing crap articles in mediocre journals. But that's a structural problem of universities, and it concerns all disciplines. 

Many universities certainly engage in plain pseudoscience. A few years back Gothenburg university complained in one of the major Swedish newspapers about the "excessive faith in evidence-based methods" (övertro på evidensbasering) displayed by people who questioned the retarded pseudoscience BS they produced. Which is hilarious and sad.

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 03:19:10 PM
Society should retaliate by cutting off funding for universities until they get their shit together.

This makes no sense, in a 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' sort of way. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2019, 03:24:39 PM
We should do the same for every institution in society that fails to meet its aspirational standards.  The military, all federal and state governments, the courts, all corporations, all Churches and other religious establishments. For starters.

Universities have nothing except aspirational standards.

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 03:19:10 PM
Society should retaliate by cutting off funding for universities until they get their shit together.

I retaliated against everything that isn't perfect by cutting off contact with everybody and collapsing into a ball and covering myself with a blanket.  Then I got out of bed.

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 03:05:16 PMHave you quit your job then or are you going to continue being a thief?

Of course not. With my considerable ill-gotten gains, I run a weekly course on how to undermine all of the United States institutions through the use of gender-inclusive vocabulary. Next week, we begin with throwing Discipline and Punish at the Constitution.

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 03:27:14 PM

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 03:19:10 PM
Society should retaliate by cutting off funding for universities until they get their shit together.

This makes no sense, in a 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' sort of way.

Every university professor has the responsibility to enforce the ethical standards of his peers. If Albert Einstein allows one of his colleagues to teach Flat Earthism as fact then Albert Einstein does not deserve his position.

Quote from: frunk on August 12, 2019, 03:28:05 PM

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 03:19:10 PM
Society should retaliate by cutting off funding for universities until they get their shit together.

I retaliated against everything that isn't perfect by cutting off contact with everybody and collapsing into a ball and covering myself with a blanket.  Then I got out of bed.

There is a difference between imperfection and lying.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 12, 2019, 03:25:22 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 03:01:10 PMThe difference though between the humanities and (say) hard sciences, is that while fraud or sloppy thinking may slip through peer review in both cases, eventually the hard science does have to "work". Cold Fusion famous example of junk science in physics - but there is a natural limit to how far they can go with that. At some point, it has to be shown to be true to reality, or it will be (and was) discarded.

You seem to be applying the same metric very differently. A ton of published studies in science will not be replicated, nor will they ever be used to further a research program. They are, in effect, "junk science" that will just sit there, awaiting to be shown to be junk - which may never happen. And rarely, they foster a full research program dedicated to showing they are right/wrong. Likewise, a ton of humanities article will be published - and be forgotten. And others, which are either controversial, or bring about some remarkable understanding of the human condition, will foster dynamic exchanges - usually on the basis of people arguing whether they are right, or wrong!

So yeah, Sokal published a mock article, thirty years ago. Would that article have garnered attention? Would it have fostered the field? Would it have made it on a course syllabus? That's the essence of "work", in the humanities - and it takes more time to reach an audience, especially now, than the few months it took for him to gloat about it. It certainly did achieve *one* purpose, which is that it got people talking about peer-review process. It did another, which is it gave fodder for years to anti-humanities rhetoric, as if, somehow, this was inherent to the humanities, while all the science scandals in the peer-review world (see: vaccination and autism, the Lancet) are always seen as dysfunctions.

I can certainly agree that there is a lot of time, and energy wasted in publishing crap articles in mediocre journals. But that's a structural problem of universities, and it concerns all disciplines.

You aren't really addressing the distinction I made.

I agree there is lots of junk science out there. I also agree much of it will go nowhere, a pure product of the 'publish or perish' incentive system.

I also agree that the same systemic and institutional problems affect sciences and humanities. Further, I will also agree that Sokal and Sokal Squared gave fodder for right wing hits on the 'ivory tower'.

However - in the end, sloppy science will run up against reality, however painful the damage it may do along the way (see your vaccines cause autism article: no they don't, and those who believe that they do, and avoid vaccinating children, will cause us lots of damage until this nonsense is squashed).

Sloppy humanities won't suffer the same obvious punishment from reality.

If 'I' disbelieve in vaccines, and refuse to get my kids vaccinated - eventually, if there are enough of people like 'me', we will see infant mortality rates spike up. Because diseases will propagate without vaccines whether 'I' believe in their relative value or not.

Sloppy humanities thinking won't cause such obvious observable damage. Bad social theories, even if widely believed in the academic world, won't cause kids to visibly die of diseases.

My point is that it does cause damage to society, but that the damage is long-term; it erodes our ability, as a society, to fight sloppy thinking in general. It isn't causative of our current ills (that has many parents), but it isn't helping.

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 03:44:58 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 12, 2019, 03:25:22 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 03:01:10 PMThe difference though between the humanities and (say) hard sciences, is that while fraud or sloppy thinking may slip through peer review in both cases, eventually the hard science does have to "work". Cold Fusion famous example of junk science in physics - but there is a natural limit to how far they can go with that. At some point, it has to be shown to be true to reality, or it will be (and was) discarded.

You seem to be applying the same metric very differently. A ton of published studies in science will not be replicated, nor will they ever be used to further a research program. They are, in effect, "junk science" that will just sit there, awaiting to be shown to be junk - which may never happen. And rarely, they foster a full research program dedicated to showing they are right/wrong. Likewise, a ton of humanities article will be published - and be forgotten. And others, which are either controversial, or bring about some remarkable understanding of the human condition, will foster dynamic exchanges - usually on the basis of people arguing whether they are right, or wrong!

So yeah, Sokal published a mock article, thirty years ago. Would that article have garnered attention? Would it have fostered the field? Would it have made it on a course syllabus? That's the essence of "work", in the humanities - and it takes more time to reach an audience, especially now, than the few months it took for him to gloat about it. It certainly did achieve *one* purpose, which is that it got people talking about peer-review process. It did another, which is it gave fodder for years to anti-humanities rhetoric, as if, somehow, this was inherent to the humanities, while all the science scandals in the peer-review world (see: vaccination and autism, the Lancet) are always seen as dysfunctions.

I can certainly agree that there is a lot of time, and energy wasted in publishing crap articles in mediocre journals. But that's a structural problem of universities, and it concerns all disciplines.

You aren't really addressing the distinction I made.

I agree there is lots of junk science out there. I also agree much of it will go nowhere, a pure product of the 'publish or perish' incentive system.

I also agree that the same systemic and institutional problems affect sciences and humanities. Further, I will also agree that Sokal and Sokal Squared gave fodder for right wing hits on the 'ivory tower'.

However - in the end, sloppy science will run up against reality, however painful the damage it may do along the way (see your vaccines cause autism article: no they don't, and those who believe that they do, and avoid vaccinating children, will cause us lots of damage until this nonsense is squashed).

Sloppy humanities won't suffer the same obvious punishment from reality.

If 'I' disbelieve in vaccines, and refuse to get my kids vaccinated - eventually, if there are enough of people like 'me', we will see infant mortality rates spike up. Because diseases will propagate without vaccines whether 'I' believe in their relative value or not.

Sloppy humanities thinking won't cause such obvious observable damage. Bad social theories, even if widely believed in the academic world, won't cause kids to visibly die of diseases.

My point is that it does cause damage to society, but that the damage is long-term; it erodes our ability, as a society, to fight sloppy thinking in general. It isn't causative of our current ills (that has many parents), but it isn't helping.

I agree.

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 03:44:58 PM
My point is that it does cause damage to society, but that the damage is long-term; it erodes our ability, as a society, to fight sloppy thinking in general. It isn't causative of our current ills (that has many parents), but it isn't helping.

But I (mostly) agree with all that (we could quibble about the kind of reality science runs up against).

My point wasn't that the humanities have no influence whatsoever on the fabric of society - but that the very thing that (initially) irks you - the decline in the value of truth - cannot so simplistically be attributed to a specific trend within the humanities as academic discipline that would have, somehow, rendered us collectively helpless against Trumpism. 

Now, if you would rather argue that, rather than the cause of it, it "isn't helping", it's a slightly different discussion, and it is one that is precisely discussed rather seriously within academia. Mostly because no one really know what "helping" would look like. To sum up grossly some of the terms of the debate, the problem we, collectively, seem to have, is that we haven't really found a good way to tie together "matters of fact" with "matters of concern". While matters of fact contain a lot of "knowledge", they also contain some components of "politics" - because a fact is meaningless if it isn't attached to some collectively recognized way to be recognized as true. And while "matters of concern" contain a lot of politics, they also contain some components of "knowledge", because concern cannot emerge without data of some kind. To be able to express both, in a way that recognizes individual, and collective actors, seems to be our current predicament.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 12, 2019, 11:39:41 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 10:50:48 AM
As it stands, it is no wonder people have become so compartmentalized. Why bother with a field filled with impenetrable jargon, that makes no pretence at arming people to actually sift facts for objective truth.

......

What I have seen, however, from students, is an obsession over uncovering bias. It's the idea that, once you have discovered the hint of an author's perspective on things, or an ideological orientation, or even some weakness in the overall architecture of an author's argument, the thesis can be safely disregarded. It's always done in the name of truth and objectivity. 

Now, this, the idea of "unmasking" as the end-all, be-all of critique, I have seen academics do. But I have seen a lot of people do it - it's been a political trick since at least the 18th century. Whether or not this current incarnation of unmasking-as-critique is the product of academia, we can perhaps debate, and there might be more grist to your mill there. My own sense is that "unmasking" is first and foremost, a political gesture, answering a political climate - not an epistemological crisis about the nature of truth.

Thanks, interesting.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2019, 10:26:32 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 10:10:27 AM
Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Freedom of speech means nothing if it is limited to your living room.  Or I was told a prominent leftist of this forum.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 11, 2019, 05:36:41 PM
Activists =/= Ivory Tower. The two are mutually exclusive.

whatever.  people from the likes of social sciences at UQAM.  People who don't work and don't have to study to get a pass, so when they don't plan rebellions or vandalize stores, they send threatening letters to people who don't use a totally new gender neutral pronouns or get them fired from their jobs.

As demonstrated by the latest crisis we suffered over here, these people have at least lots of sympathizers in the teaching and political corps.

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 03:27:14 PM

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 03:19:10 PM
Society should retaliate by cutting off funding for universities until they get their shit together.

This makes no sense, in a 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' sort of way.

Please stop feeding the troll.

Thanks.

Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2019, 03:44:58 PM
However - in the end, sloppy science will run up against reality, however painful the damage it may do along the way...

Indeed.
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130128212657-challenger-disaster-1986-file-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg)

Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2019, 05:55:03 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 11, 2019, 05:36:41 PM
Activists =/= Ivory Tower. The two are mutually exclusive.

whatever.  people from the likes of social sciences at UQAM.  People who don't work and don't have to study to get a pass, so when they don't plan rebellions or vandalize stores, they send threatening letters to people who don't use a totally new gender neutral pronouns or get them fired from their jobs.

As demonstrated by the latest crisis we suffered over here, these people have at least lots of sympathizers in the teaching and political corps.

Oex is arguing, correctly, that "Ivory Tower" intellectualism is criticized precisely because it is not concerned with practical outcomes to practical concerns.  Activism is the opposite of that unconcern.

Now, criticism of the Ivory Tower approach isn't always accurate or valid, because there is value to having people think about issues that have no immediate practical applications (say, theoretical physics), but to accuse Ivory Tower intellectuals of being absurdist in their activism is a contradiction in terms.

Chip, you seem pretty hostile toward universities. You're not a grad student by any chance?  ;)

I didn't get scammed that hard.

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 09:14:03 PM
I didn't get scammed that hard.

So you think your college education was a scam?   :hmm:  I can see why you would think that.

Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2019, 09:29:35 PM

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 09:14:03 PM
I didn't get scammed that hard.

So you think your college education was a scam?   :hmm:  I can see why you would think that.

^_^

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2019, 01:42:44 PM
If a scholar attempts to publish their sloppy thinking it will immediately be detected through the review process. 

if that were true, there would be so much bad studies out there - in all fields, even hard sciences.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 12, 2019, 10:40:48 AM
How has it impacted the tens of thousands of people who come out of business school,

The master race is immune to that.   :ph34r:
It has impacted a lot of them, in many faculties.  But it is hard to discern between those that never received good teaching and those who should never have studied there *points at a certain recent scandal*.
But people coming out of law school, practicing in a business and not knowing the basics of the law as it applies to construction projects, that I have seen.  People coming out of business school, working in a bank, and having no idea what to do besides pushing a button and repeating what they've been told, I have seen my fair share.  And unfortunately, the weaker ones aren't always chaffed out.
Same goes for engineers.  I have seen some really, really bad engineers, totally incompetant, borderline dangerous.

But you can easily spot them and challenge them.  And eventually, many of them are caught.  But in social sciences, not so much.  Even some accounting teachers can get long carreers spouting crap just because they work with the social science departments to publish their crappy work...

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2019, 10:35:09 AM
How can professors arm people with the necessary intellectual tools when the shift in post secondary education has been away from liberal arts degrees to STEM and business degrees?

a) not a universal truth

b) slightly misleading.  More people receive post secondary education today than 100 years ago.  I don't think there's a shift away from liberal arts degrees.  But we most likely do have less students in philosophy than in the late middle ages.  Not sure it is an apt comparison, though.  :P

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2019, 10:41:09 AM
Simply telling people "The Facts' or deploying scientific evidence has been spectacularly ineffective in the political sphere.

you don't say...  #Syt's sisters# :P

Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2019, 05:50:36 PM

Freedom of speech means nothing if it is limited to your living room.  Or I was told a prominent leftist of this forum.

La critique du gauchisme du salon par un gauchiste de salon ?  :hmm: :D

Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2019, 01:25:08 AM

But people coming out of law school, practicing in a business and not knowing the basics of the law as it applies to construction projects, that I have seen. 

To be fair, law school is unlikely to teach a student anything much about construction law. It's a pretty specialized field (all that stuff about liens and trusts for subcontractors - not my area), and law school isn't really intended to teach students the entirely of the law = more like the tools they need to learn these areas on the job. That's why, in Canada at least, law students are expected to undertake a year's apprenticeship ("articling") in the workforce under lawyers wo are supposed to know their stuff before they are licenced ... so the real problem here is not that the school didn't teach them, but that despite their apprenticeship, they didn't learn (or were set to some menial tasks rather than being taught).  ;)

Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2019, 05:50:36 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2019, 10:26:32 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2019, 10:10:27 AM
Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Freedom of speech means nothing if it is limited to your living room.  Or I was told a prominent leftist of this forum.

I think we were talking about freedom of religion in that case and it concerned state action against a private citizen.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 12, 2019, 03:30:01 PM

Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2019, 03:05:16 PMHave you quit your job then or are you going to continue being a thief?

Of course not. With my considerable ill-gotten gains, I run a weekly course on how to undermine all of the United States institutions through the use of gender-inclusive vocabulary. Next week, we begin with throwing Discipline and Punish at the Constitution.

:lol:

Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2019, 07:53:57 AM
(or were set to some menial tasks rather than being taught).  ;)

you mean they went to them to ask for copies?  No way!  :D

Quote from: Razgovory on August 13, 2019, 09:25:59 AM
I think we were talking about freedom of religion in that case and it concerned state action against a private citizen.

Did Quebec start shutting down/burning down churches? Mosques? Temples? Spiritual sanctuaries?
Ah I forgot.  Somewhere, someone started asking that human sacrifices had to be forbidden and animal sacrifices had to be done in a "humane way", similar to how a slaughterhouse operates?  Actually, the first part has been true for a while now, but I can't remember where.  I guess in the US, human sacrifices are ok, so long as they are practiced with a semi-automatic weapon? :)  FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!!

Quote from: grumbler on August 12, 2019, 06:10:05 PM

Oex is arguing, correctly, that "Ivory Tower" intellectualism is criticized precisely because it is not concerned with practical outcomes to practical concerns.  Activism is the opposite of that unconcern.

in any business, legit or not, you have muscle and you have brains.  It does not mean that one is cleaner than the other, they just do things differently.

Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2019, 11:47:43 PMI guess in the US, human sacrifices are ok, so long as they are practiced with a semi-automatic weapon? :)  FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!!

Nah, you're allowed to use revolvers, too.

Quote from: dps on August 17, 2019, 02:13:32 AM

Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2019, 11:47:43 PMI guess in the US, human sacrifices are ok, so long as they are practiced with a semi-automatic weapon? :)  FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!!

Nah, you're allowed to use revolvers, too.

it's good to see that at least some traditions do survive in the US :)

Quote from: grumbler on August 12, 2019, 06:10:05 PM

Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2019, 05:55:03 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 11, 2019, 05:36:41 PM
Activists =/= Ivory Tower. The two are mutually exclusive.

whatever.  people from the likes of social sciences at UQAM.  People who don't work and don't have to study to get a pass, so when they don't plan rebellions or vandalize stores, they send threatening letters to people who don't use a totally new gender neutral pronouns or get them fired from their jobs.

As demonstrated by the latest crisis we suffered over here, these people have at least lots of sympathizers in the teaching and political corps.

Oex is arguing, correctly, that "Ivory Tower" intellectualism is criticized precisely because it is not concerned with practical outcomes to practical concerns.  Activism is the opposite of that unconcern.

Agree. Also I think academia in the humanities (or at least in English Lit which is the corner I know) descriptive or at best predictive. It's not active or setting up a goal for how the world should be. It may be different with philosophy or politics etc.

Also with truth and Trump I often think about football. I think people are engaging with politics (and other bits of reality) as fans and I think football's a little bit ahead of where we're going.

A couple of football examples I've seen in the last year and found really striking.

Man City won the league playing amazing football that was universally praised, but Liverpool ran them very close. City got 98 points; Liverpool got 97. Whenever any journalist posted a piece about City, underneath it there would be thousands of messages from people all over the world losing their shit over the biased coverage. Now I think there is a bit of a pro-Liverpool bias in the English media (but, then, I'm an Everton fan) but to the extent there's bias I think it's for a title race and an exciting competition because that makes being a football journalist a lot easier. But they weren't recording City's season in the way that fans experience it, which, I think, was the issue for the fans - especially because they now have other sources of coverage, there's always been zines but there's now fan TV, fan podcasts, plus loads of club-produced content. I don't think it'll be long before clubs get rid of dealing with the media entirely and just deliver their message through club and fan media.

The other side of the City story is they're owned by Abu Dhabi to sportswash that regime. I've only noticed this in the last few years but articles about Abu Dhabi and, say, their human rights record get loads of comments from Man City fans about how it's other examples of the media attacking their club. I understand the same happens with PSG and Qatar and I'm sure there are other examples. But this seems new, that being a fan is beyond your support for the football team and is actually demonstrated (and performed for the other fans in the comments) for the ownership structure of your club. It's odd.

That feels like the direction we're in and it's all about identity. Fans' identity is linked to the product they consume or team they support and it might not be a million miles away from politics of class identity, it's just more individual and volatile. But I'm not sure.

Let me guess: You were litterally unable to access Languish for the last 2 years? ;)

Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2019, 11:47:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 13, 2019, 09:25:59 AM
I think we were talking about freedom of religion in that case and it concerned state action against a private citizen.

Did Quebec start shutting down/burning down churches? Mosques? Temples? Spiritual sanctuaries?
Ah I forgot.  Somewhere, someone started asking that human sacrifices had to be forbidden and animal sacrifices had to be done in a "humane way", similar to how a slaughterhouse operates?  Actually, the first part has been true for a while now, but I can't remember where.  I guess in the US, human sacrifices are ok, so long as they are practiced with a semi-automatic weapon? :)  FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!!

Turn down the stupid a few notches, okay?

Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2019, 06:45:49 PM

Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2019, 11:47:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 13, 2019, 09:25:59 AM
I think we were talking about freedom of religion in that case and it concerned state action against a private citizen.

Did Quebec start shutting down/burning down churches? Mosques? Temples? Spiritual sanctuaries?
Ah I forgot.  Somewhere, someone started asking that human sacrifices had to be forbidden and animal sacrifices had to be done in a "humane way", similar to how a slaughterhouse operates?  Actually, the first part has been true for a while now, but I can't remember where.  I guess in the US, human sacrifices are ok, so long as they are practiced with a semi-automatic weapon? :)  FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!!

Turn down the stupid a few notches, okay?

it seems to be the only thing you understand.

Well, it ain't working because you aren't making any sense.  I know you have a contempt of religion and more than willing deprive them of rights if they don't conform to your culture.  I have a contempt for Nationalism and thus have little interest in allowing people to be persecuted for failure to conform and a willingness to destroy Nationalist movements as was done between 1939-1945.  So you see, we are starting at two very different positions.  I don't think we can come to a sort middle ground here.  I know, I know, it's very Anglo-Saxon of me not to want to persecute people for their language, race, or religion, but I guess I was just raised wrong.  Quite frankly, I don't really care what you have say anymore, anymore than I would care about what the AfD or the FPO has to say.

Hi Sheilbh. Good to see you post again :cheers:

Sheilbh! :wub:

Quote from: FunkMonk on August 28, 2019, 09:14:12 PM
Hi Sheilbh. Good to see you post again :cheers:

Indeed.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2019, 08:55:57 PM
I know, it's very Anglo-Saxon of me not to want to persecute people for their language, race, or religion, but I guess I was just raised wrong.

:lol: The delusion is strong in this one.

Quote from: dps on August 28, 2019, 09:37:12 PM

Quote from: FunkMonk on August 28, 2019, 09:14:12 PM
Hi Sheilbh. Good to see you post again :cheers:

Indeed.

:cheers:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/opinion/trump-white-voters.html?fbclid=IwAR1TvQv2ZyVZPhdvDmnK6FDOq8WJz80v2VoQM02pTqW0_fg1S8FT1IRI-Lk


This is really interesting. It doesn't really have any answers though.

But the key take away, I think, is that it isn't just racism in its most insipid form that is driving white voters to Trump. There is more to it than that.

One thing to note:

Most well off, non-college educated whites voted for Trump. This is a group that is traditionally associated with the Democratic Party - think trained white collar tradespeople. Union workers...

Well off, college educated whites did not.

Anyway, there is a lot there, and it is definitely worth a read for those who want to understand this beyond TRUMP SUPPORTERS BAD RACIST.

Their indifference to the racism being propogated under Trump isnt something to celebrate.

The article didn't offer much new insight...

QuoteThe authors tested the questions in a sample of more than 40,000 white voters conducted during the 2016 primary elections by the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

They found that Trump voters, as opposed to voters supporting other Republican candidates, were "less empathetic (angered by racism), they were more likely to deny Whites have an advantage in America and expressed far more fear of other racial groups."

And yet the author concludes:

QuoteAnd if Democrats want to give themselves the best shot of getting Trump out of the White House, it is toward these voters that they must make concerted efforts at pragmatic diplomacy and persuasion — and show a new level of empathy.

Jesus fucking Christ. It's ALWAYS the Dem's task to reach out to them poor white folks who are just so misunderstood. It's NEVER about the GOP machine feeding fear and gaming the system every way they can.

Bleh.  :yucky:

Quote from: Zoupa on August 29, 2019, 02:06:52 AM
The article didn't offer much new insight...

QuoteThe authors tested the questions in a sample of more than 40,000 white voters conducted during the 2016 primary elections by the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

They found that Trump voters, as opposed to voters supporting other Republican candidates, were “less empathetic (angered by racism), they were more likely to deny Whites have an advantage in America and expressed far more fear of other racial groups.”

And yet the author concludes:

QuoteAnd if Democrats want to give themselves the best shot of getting Trump out of the White House, it is toward these voters that they must make concerted efforts at pragmatic diplomacy and persuasion — and show a new level of empathy.

Jesus fucking Christ. It's ALWAYS the Dem's task to reach out to them poor white folks who are just so misunderstood. It's NEVER about the GOP machine feeding fear and gaming the system every way they can.

Bleh.  :yucky:

The job of both parties is to win elections.  The Democrats can't win without a decent level of support among non-college educated white males--indeed, as Berkut pointed out, they're one of the traditional pillars of the Democratic coalition. 

What's the solution? Tell them Trumpesque lies about how lovely everything will be for them if the Dems are in power?

Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2019, 09:45:08 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2019, 08:55:57 PM
I know, it's very Anglo-Saxon of me not to want to persecute people for their language, race, or religion, but I guess I was just raised wrong.

:lol: The delusion is strong in this one.

I am sure the Irish can confirm about this "Anglo-Saxon" (whatever that means) inclination.  :lol:

PS: bienvenue à la maison (des fous ?) Sheilb !

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2019, 02:56:22 AM
What's the solution? Tell them Trumpesque lies about how lovely everything will be for them if the Dems are in power?

If they are unresponsive to the substantial improvement in their lot that a non-insane healthcare system would be, then perhaps other economic incentives could be found?

IMHO the "proletariat" is much more suspect to sympathise with the simple messages of fear and comfort of the populist right than the progressive (and thus by nature new and unfamiliar) ideas of the progressive left, and this has been true forever. But in the past, the progressive left was representing tangible economic benefits to the working class (non-slave wages, less inhumane working hours, pension and benefits, etc), that made them the preferred choice DESPITE the progressive political ideas.

But of course with the economic battle of the left largely won decades ago, that incentive just doesn't/didn't exist anymore.

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2019, 02:56:22 AM
What's the solution? Tell them Trumpesque lies about how lovely everything will be for them if the Dems are in power?

I don't know.  Maybe trying to curb the rhetoric about "white privilege" (because the guy making minimum wage or just above it doesn't feel very privileged) and the pseudo-intellectual climate that makes using "white men" as a insult seem like a good idea.

Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2019, 04:19:08 AM

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2019, 02:56:22 AM
What's the solution? Tell them Trumpesque lies about how lovely everything will be for them if the Dems are in power?

If they are unresponsive to the substantial improvement in their lot that a non-insane healthcare system would be, then perhaps other economic incentives could be found?

IMHO the "proletariat" is much more suspect to sympathise with the simple messages of fear and comfort of the populist right than the progressive (and thus by nature new and unfamiliar) ideas of the progressive left, and this has been true forever. But in the past, the progressive left was representing tangible economic benefits to the working class (non-slave wages, less inhumane working hours, pension and benefits, etc), that made them the preferred choice DESPITE the progressive political ideas.

But of course with the economic battle of the left largely won decades ago, that incentive just doesn't/didn't exist anymore.

"A riot! The proles are breaking loose at last! When he had reached the spot it was to see a mob of two or three hundred women crowding round the stalls of a street market, with faces as tragic as though they had been the doomed passengers on a sinking ship. But at this moment the general despair broke down into a multitude of individual quarrels. It appeared that one of the stalls had been selling tin saucepans. They were wretched, flimsy things, but cooking-pots of any kind were always difficult to get. Now the supply had unexpectedly given out. The successful women, bumped and jostled by the rest, were trying to make off with their saucepans while dozens of others clamoured round the stall, accusing the stall-keeper of favouritism and of having more saucepans somewhere in reserve. There was a fresh outburst of yells. Two bloated women, one of them with her hair coming down, had got hold of the same saucepan and were trying to tear it out of one another's hands. For a moment they were both tugging, and then the handle came off. Winston watched them disgustedly. And yet, just for a moment, what almost frightening power had sounded in that cry from only a few hundred throats! Why was it that they could never shout like that about anything that mattered?"

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2019, 02:56:22 AM
What's the solution? Tell them Trumpesque lies about how lovely everything will be for them if the Dems are in power?

That is certainly a start, but hardly the end.

It is politics. It is the art of convincing people who can be convinced.

I know just writing off those who disagree with you as racist morons is emotionally satisfying. But it is both untrue and not terribly useful.

Quote from: Berkut on August 29, 2019, 09:17:05 AM

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2019, 02:56:22 AM
What's the solution? Tell them Trumpesque lies about how lovely everything will be for them if the Dems are in power?

That is certainly a start, but hardly the end.

It is politics. It is the art of convincing people who can be convinced.

I know just writing off those who disagree with you as racist morons is emotionally satisfying. But it is both untrue and not terribly useful.

I wish people on the right would stop trying this "You just call everyone you don't like racist/a nazi/whatever".
We're all well aware there are a wide range of views out there.
Finding issue with those of racist morons doesn't mean everyone with a different view is a racist moron.

Quote from: Berkut on August 29, 2019, 09:17:05 AM

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2019, 02:56:22 AM
What's the solution? Tell them Trumpesque lies about how lovely everything will be for them if the Dems are in power?

That is certainly a start, but hardly the end.

It is politics. It is the art of convincing people who can be convinced.

I know just writing off those who disagree with you as racist morons is emotionally satisfying. But it is both untrue and not terribly useful.

According to the NYTimes article you posted a large number of Trump supporters are in fact racist morons.  The other bulk of his white voters, according to the article are evangelical Christians who are not racist themselves but who are perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to the racism so long as their own policy objectives are achieved.  Those groups, according to the article are write offs for the Democrats.  No point in the Democrats lowering themselves to attract anyone from those groups - they would lose their own supporters if they did that.

The article unhelpfully ends with the observation that there are 7% of undecided voters up for grabs that need to be convinced but I didn't see an analysis of the characteristics of that 7%.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 29, 2019, 04:18:20 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2019, 09:45:08 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2019, 08:55:57 PM
I know, it's very Anglo-Saxon of me not to want to persecute people for their language, race, or religion, but I guess I was just raised wrong.

:lol: The delusion is strong in this one.

I am sure the Irish can confirm about this "Anglo-Saxon" (whatever that means) inclination.  :lol:

PS: bienvenue à la maison (des fous ?) Sheilb !

It's based on something Viper said a few months to me.

Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2019, 09:27:56 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2019, 04:04:08 AM
Cause I looked at his cartoons.  You did post a link to them.

yes, but what makes you think he support the PQ or that he is a strong nationalist, in the negative aspect you confer to the word, like most anglo-saxons?  Specifically, how many of his drawings (around 200 per year) are pro-PQ, or nationist in that negative sense you confer?  And what more, what has it to do with that supposed conspiracy theory that he delibaretly applied a Free Mason symbol on the arm of his Alabama cave man to awoke the anti Free Mason conspiracies in his generally nationalist audience?

I will admit, I got confused by the political party, the cartoonist in question was a Right-wing Nationalist.

My "Anglo-Saxon" heritage apparently not to appreciate the "funny pictures" that Viper was so found of.

(https://i.imgur.com/iTEwirC.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/NXK0c8B.jpg)

Damn those evil Jews! 

I don't tolerate the nationalism bullshit in America, why should I tolerate it come from Quebec?

Raz n'est pas très Charlie, qui l'eût cru ?
:yawn:
Not only religious Jews on the first cartoon, and it's the retarded, sexist religious prescriptions which are mocked, so fair game pas par une femme !, it applies implicitly to devout muslims or fundamentalist christians (in short supply in Europe) as well. There's also a jab at PC e.g accommodements raisonnables. This requires some foreign language skills which obviously are not an inclination for "Anglo-Saxon" people like Raz.
Given Raz's long history of cyber-bigotry against Francophones, this is not surprising.

OTOH, arguing with a self-confessed nutcase...

Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2019, 10:48:39 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 29, 2019, 04:18:20 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2019, 09:45:08 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2019, 08:55:57 PM
I know, it's very Anglo-Saxon of me not to want to persecute people for their language, race, or religion, but I guess I was just raised wrong.

:lol: The delusion is strong in this one.

I am sure the Irish can confirm about this "Anglo-Saxon" (whatever that means) inclination.  :lol:

PS: bienvenue à la maison (des fous ?) Sheilb !

It's based on something Viper said a few months to me.

Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2019, 09:27:56 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2019, 04:04:08 AM
Cause I looked at his cartoons.  You did post a link to them.

yes, but what makes you think he support the PQ or that he is a strong nationalist, in the negative aspect you confer to the word, like most anglo-saxons?  Specifically, how many of his drawings (around 200 per year) are pro-PQ, or nationist in that negative sense you confer?  And what more, what has it to do with that supposed conspiracy theory that he delibaretly applied a Free Mason symbol on the arm of his Alabama cave man to awoke the anti Free Mason conspiracies in his generally nationalist audience?

I will admit, I got confused by the political party, the cartoonist in question was a Right-wing Nationalist.

My "Anglo-Saxon" heritage apparently not to appreciate the "funny pictures" that Viper was so found of.

(https://i.imgur.com/iTEwirC.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/NXK0c8B.jpg)

Damn those evil Jews! 

I don't tolerate the nationalism bullshit in America, why should I tolerate it come from Quebec?

You do not understand the context, nor the drawing, yet you insist on drawing ridiculous conclusions...

The frist cartoon mocks the PQ and their supporters, as well as the fundamentalists against it.It also mocks the then Premier, Pauline Marois, and her overinflated ego.
Even without understanding the text, you can see that positioning a political leader as some kind of Liberty Statue signifies a greater than normal ego.
The punk representation of a Quebecer speaking a garbled French that Google Translate would never recognize is also a dead giveaway.


The second drawing references an incident were integrist Jews asked a gym to cover its windows so that their "young males" would not be provoked by the ladies in training.

But by your mindset, religious freedom must prevail, so hey, let's cover our women and block our windows so that we do not infringe on extremist religious practices all around us.

Might as well remove girls from schools since that is clearly offensive to many religious groups.

Should we also ban abortion?  Ban people of colour from voting since they're descendants of Cain?  Or should we contend ourselves from simply legalizing discrimination, like, allowing a doctor or a nurse to not provide a medical treatment because it is against their own religion?  Should we allow a private corporation to not cover abortion as part of their insurance plan? 

Basically, you want us to be as tolerant as Alabama so that we do not infringe on religious freedom.  I'd say deal with your own sillyness, but you seem to enjoy that, so keep at it :)

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 29, 2019, 11:15:36 AM
Raz n'est pas très Charlie, qui l'eût cru ?
:yawn:
Not only religious Jews on the first cartoon, and it's the retarded, sexist religious prescriptions which are mocked, so fair game pas par une femme !, it applies implicitly to devout muslims or fundamentalist christians (in short supply in Europe) as well. There's also a jab at PC e.g accommodements raisonnables. This requires some foreign language skills which obviously are not an inclination for "Anglo-Saxon" people like Raz.
Given Raz's long history of cyber-bigotry against Francophones, this is not surprising.

OTOH, arguing with a self-confessed nutcase...

What danger are Muslims and Jews to Quebec's identity?  I have a problem with Nationalism.  It just so happens that many Francophones are Nationalist.  I don't know why that is so.  If it was an American cartoon I'd respond the same way.  "Anglo-Saxon" was Viper's term.  I think it means someone who does not fully appreciate the civilizing foot on the neck of a someone different than you.  My ancestor's were German by the way.

I'm going to tentatively side with the Frenchies here. I can't read the captions and don't think the drawings by themselves are proof of racism.

Here's a somewhat more nuanced article about the Jewish experience in Quebec in historical perspective:

https://vigile.quebec/articles/quebec-anti-semitism-and-anti-semitism-in-quebec

On two specific "edgy" editorial cartoons specifically:

QuoteDo such cartoons cross a line, and could they be in any sense considered anti-Semitic? They appear instead to be hard-hitting, fair comment and not anti-Semitic in any real sense. At the same time, it seems highly unlikely that such cartoons, and certainly the one with Reid depicted as a Hasid, would appear in English papers in Canada or the United States. Many Jews would indeed find such cartoons offensive. A delegation of the Montreal Jewish community met privately with the editors of one of the papers to discuss the matter, and received a fair and responsive hearing.

In short - there exists a wider degree of tolerance for using Jewish images in editorial cartoons in Quebec, which isn't per se anti-Semitic, but may easily appear as such to those used to the situation in English North America, which has less tolerance for such imagery. Consider for example a cartoon showing a politician who supported some cause relevant to the Black community in "blackface"; the cartoon would be perfectly legitimate (a cartoonist is allowed to comment on a politician supporting a specific policy) but using "blackface" would be bound to cause offence nonetheless. The use of Jewish images has a similar power, due to unfortunate 20th century events.

The actual situation in Quebec is complex - the Jewish population is more isolated from the Quebequois population than (say) the Jewish population in English Canada is from non-Jews, leading to more tensions, as Jews get lumped in with Anglos; "money and the ethnic vote" is the relevant quote here. Plus, immigration from North Africa has had a bigger impact in Quebec, adding another source to the mix.

The article is somewhat old (it refers to Bush as president!). More recent events are somewhat alarming in this regard:

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/anti-semitic-incidents-in-quebec-increased-by-50-in-2018-audit-shows

Anti-Semitism as measured by "incidents" is up everywhere in Canada (on average, by 16%) but is up by nearly 50% in Quebec, which has significantly more such incidents than Ontario despite having less Jews.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2019, 11:52:08 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 29, 2019, 11:15:36 AM
Raz n'est pas très Charlie, qui l'eût cru ?
:yawn:
Not only religious Jews on the first cartoon, and it's the retarded, sexist religious prescriptions which are mocked, so fair game pas par une femme !, it applies implicitly to devout muslims or fundamentalist christians (in short supply in Europe) as well. There's also a jab at PC e.g accommodements raisonnables. This requires some foreign language skills which obviously are not an inclination for "Anglo-Saxon" people like Raz.
Given Raz's long history of cyber-bigotry against Francophones, this is not surprising.

OTOH, arguing with a self-confessed nutcase...

What danger are Muslims and Jews to Quebec's identity?

You're the only one saying they are.  No, not true.  There are people from various far right movements who also say the same.  And some from the far left too, but less so than it used to be.

QuoteI have a problem with Nationalism.

Like most anglo-saxons, in the cultural sense.

Yet, are you not proud to be American?  Do you not resent any pride at all at where your country is now compared to how it began?

QuoteIt just so happens that many Francophones are Nationalist.

Yes.  Apparently, that is a crime to you.

QuoteI don't know why that is so.

Read on.

Quote
If it was an American cartoon I'd respond the same way.

Unlikely.

Quote"Anglo-Saxon" was Viper's term.  I think it means someone who does not fully appreciate the civilizing foot on the neck of a someone different than you. 

It means someone living in English speaking country, more aptly, someone from the US, UK or a former colony.

QuoteMy ancestor's were German by the way.

Glad for you.  Mine were French.  How does that change anything?

Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2019, 01:17:54 PM
Anti-Semitism as measured by "incidents" is up everywhere in Canada (on average, by 16%) but is up by nearly 50% in Quebec, which has significantly more such incidents than Ontario despite having less Jews.

QuoteB'nai Brith proposes an eight-point plan to tackle anti-Semitism, which includes establishing dedicated hate crime units in every major city, holding universities accountable for campus anti-Semitism including "far-left activism against Israel," and adopting a national action plan for anti-Semitism.

Ya know, if they are considering all these events anti-semetic (and while I agree that a lot of opposition against Israel has anti-semetic roots), it is no wonder they are seeing such a huge increase... ;)

But I agree things have gotten worst for Jews and Muslims since 2016.
Here is an newspiece in French with hard stats: Link (https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1166888/discrimination-antisemite-juifs-groupe-ethnique-racial-religieux)


    2018 : 2041
    2017 : 1752
    2016 : 1728
    2015 : 1269
    2014 : 1627
    2009 : 1264


There's a spike right there... not a coincidence, imho, that it happens around the same time as the Mosque shooting in Quebec city.  And I trace the influence to right south of the border: the empowerement of all these neo nazi groups gave wings to many here.

While the media were entirely focused on a benign group, La Meute, other, nastier, groups reformed their rangs.  Pegida, Soldiers of Odin and Atalante, namely.  But they're spreading, like the far left, into smaller units so they're not decapitated when the police strike.  This is a lot more worrysome than some cartoon mocking extremists -of all sides- positions on a political subject.

As for the "money and the ethnic vote" quote, that was one isolated incident, in 1995.  Get over it.  Besides, it wasn't entirely false, given what we know of the LPC's tacticts during the referendum campaign.  But still in bad paste, especially from a Premier.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 29, 2019, 12:08:51 PM
I'm going to tentatively side with the Frenchies here. I can't read the captions and don't think the drawings by themselves are proof of racism.

I didn't say anything about Racism.

Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2019, 06:56:29 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2019, 01:17:54 PM
Anti-Semitism as measured by "incidents" is up everywhere in Canada (on average, by 16%) but is up by nearly 50% in Quebec, which has significantly more such incidents than Ontario despite having less Jews.

QuoteB'nai Brith proposes an eight-point plan to tackle anti-Semitism, which includes establishing dedicated hate crime units in every major city, holding universities accountable for campus anti-Semitism including "far-left activism against Israel," and adopting a national action plan for anti-Semitism.

Ya know, if they are considering all these events anti-semetic (and while I agree that a lot of opposition against Israel has anti-semetic roots), it is no wonder they are seeing such a huge increase... ;)

But I agree things have gotten worst for Jews and Muslims since 2016.
Here is an newspiece in French with hard stats: Link (https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1166888/discrimination-antisemite-juifs-groupe-ethnique-racial-religieux)

Code Select Expand


    2018 : 2041
    2017 : 1752
    2016 : 1728
    2015 : 1269
    2014 : 1627
    2009 : 1264


There's a spike right there... not a coincidence, imho, that it happens around the same time as the Mosque shooting in Quebec city.  And I trace the influence to right south of the border: the empowerement of all these neo nazi groups gave wings to many here.

While the media were entirely focused on a benign group, La Meute, other, nastier, groups reformed their rangs.  Pegida, Soldiers of Odin and Atalante, namely.  But they're spreading, like the far left, into smaller units so they're not decapitated when the police strike.  This is a lot more worrysome than some cartoon mocking extremists -of all sides- positions on a political subject.

As for the "money and the ethnic vote" quote, that was one isolated incident, in 1995.  Get over it.  Besides, it wasn't entirely false, given what we know of the LPC's tacticts during the referendum campaign.  But still in bad paste, especially from a Premier.

The quote is simply indicative of the concern that underlies all of these things: that certain minorities in Quebec, in this case Jews, tend to feel that when the chips are down, the majority of the population considers them the "other" in a way that isn't true in the rest of Canada.

This feelings can of course be self-reinforcing. Jews in Quebec overwhelmingly oppose Quebec being a separate nation. Why? Because they would rather remain part of a nation where they are considered "one of us" than one on which they are not. By opposing Quebec as a separate nation, however, they fuel the feeling that they are the "other" in Quebec: "money and the ethnic vote". 

Needless to say, an increase in anti-Semitic incidents doesn't help. One trick that anti-Semites play is lumping all Jews on together in one category, so every Jew is responsible for every dumb thing some ultra-orthodox Jew does, and of course all Jews everywhere are responsible for every bad thing done by the state of Israel. Never mind that the ultra-Orthodox tend to hate the existence of the state of Israel (they believe it is blasphemous), Jews get to be characterized by both (just as Jews could be simultaneously the power behind the excesses of both capitalism and communism ... ).

Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2019, 07:44:46 AM
Needless to say, an increase in anti-Semitic incidents doesn't help. One trick that anti-Semites play is lumping all Jews on together in one category, so every Jew is responsible for every dumb thing some ultra-orthodox Jew does, and of course all Jews everywhere are responsible for every bad thing done by the state of Israel. Never mind that the ultra-Orthodox tend to hate the existence of the state of Israel (they believe it is blasphemous), Jews get to be characterized by both (just as Jews could be simultaneously the power behind the excesses of both capitalism and communism ... ).

The YMCA incident was from an Hasidic Jews community, I think.  Don't know if they believe in Israel or not.

Nevertheless, it is  worrying that we see an increase in anti-semetic incidents, and yes, all Jews are often lumped together, just like Muslims are often lumped together, and the actions of a few extremists are reflected on the entire community.  You'd be surprised at the number of people who believes all Jews look -not just act- like an ultra orthodox.

I know the Sûreté du Québec raided a few of these neonazis scums, but they're not always easy to arrest.  What is being said in a closed Facebook group has little chances of reaching the police eyes, unless members of said group are themselves alarmed at what they see.  It happens, but not that often, and only for the worst.

As for the harassment, when there's no official police report, there is no action there.  And even then, without visual evidences (camera), it's hard to find the culprit, a "white man, of average height and build". ;)

But yeah, there's been a lot of work done over the years, trying to bridge the communities, documentaries were made, but you can't change 300 years of history overnight.

Hopefully, with decent governments in place in both Quebec and Ottawa, things will return to normal.

Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2019, 10:18:17 AM

The YMCA incident was from an Hasidic Jews community, I think.  Don't know if they believe in Israel or not.

That depends on which group. Most Hassidic groups, but not all, oppose Zionism (one often stated reason: creating a secular 'state of Israel' is considered a violation of religious prohibitions, as the 'three oaths' prohibits conquest through violence; more generally, a "state of Israel" ought to be a Hassidic theocracy, and it isn't).

For an absurdly abstruse discussion of the "Three Oaths":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths

Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2019, 10:31:51 AM
Most Hassidic groups, but not all, oppose Zionism

But it states at your link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths

QuoteA faction of the Haredim who are strongly anti-Zionist often view this midrash as not being fulfilled, whereas the majority of the Haredim as well as Religious Zionists view it as being fulfilled and maintained, and now obsolete.

It sounds like you have it precisely backwards and the majority of Hassidic groups support Zionism.

Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2019, 10:47:33 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2019, 10:31:51 AM
Most Hassidic groups, but not all, oppose Zionism

But it states at your link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths

QuoteA faction of the Haredim who are strongly anti-Zionist often view this midrash as not being fulfilled, whereas the majority of the Haredim as well as Religious Zionists view it as being fulfilled and maintained, and now obsolete.

It sounds like you have it precisely backwards and the majority of Hassidic groups support Zionism.

Not necessarily - what it means is that the majority of Hassidism don't oppose Zionism because of this particular interpretation of the "Three Oaths". There are still other reasons unconnected with the "Three Oaths" for opposing Zionism: for example, that the nation of Israel is secular, and not religious (often stated that the State isn't moral and can't be, because it isn't religious). 

As said before, the "Three Oaths" is only one oft-stated reason (among others) why most, but not all, Haridim tend to oppose Zionism.

As far as actual numbers go, this person - an advocate for Zionism eager to minimize the number of religious Jews who oppose Israel and who (correctly) states that most merely Orthodox Jews do support Israel - estimates that there are some 400,000 Haridim of whom 300,000 oppose Zionism.

In short, "most" Hasidim oppose Zionism - 3/4.

http://www.israeladvocacy.net/knowledge/judaism-and-zionism/orthodox-jews-support-israel/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/opinion/republicans-democracy-play-dirty.html?fbclid=IwAR0F0qQvBq8Hm_koFNYBJ9eZQPDDiAVjMiRNCi6Kr62_luqJlQ-1MUq4OLs