Language - The Great Equalizer

[ginny]

For god's sake's, Robert, do you know anything about Jewish history? Become informed. You'll find that being Jewish has less to do with god that with associating with a group that has perennially been outcast. It's probably ethic, but what other people has had to do this in order to survive? PS - I do not presume to speak for Baal.

[BaalChatzaf]

]

Whatever his motivation, the issue is that he is making broad and extreme generalizations about millions of individuals who might not self-identify or behave according to the "rules" of his rather absurd ethnic and anti-individualist narrative. I wouldn't presume to speak for him, so I ask that he return the favor by not presuming for speak for anyone other than himself.

I know the "program" Through purely accidental means Jews have discovered how to program their young to assure the maximal group solidarity. Given the violent aspects of anti-semitism this is literally a pro-survival strategy. This has little to do with theology and a great deal to do with co-operative interaction. Judaism, a religions go, is relatively non-theological. It is more centered on ethical and aesthetic tropes.

In any case the end result has been to make the Jewish people very, very tough. In a knock down drag out do or die survival struggle the best advice I can give is: Don't fuck with the Jews.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Serapis Bey]

As Albert Einstein once put it:

Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group.
The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world...
the root cause is their use of enemies they create in order to keep solidarity..

Ginny, you have to keep in mind RB is/was something of an unruly adolescent (from what I can gather), and I think that has something to do with our friendship.

[Robert Baratheon]

For god's sake's, Robert, do you know anything about Jewish history? Become informed. You'll find that being Jewish has less to do with god that with associating with a group that has perennially been outcast. It's probably ethic, but what other people has had to do this in order to survive? PS - I do not presume to speak for Baal.

That's all fine as long as he isn't making outrageous claims like once somebody has been born into a Jewish family they literally have no choice but to behave and think according to a universal Jewish mental programming. Views like this would be laughable if they weren't so unfair and historically dangerous.

According to Baal, because I was born to Jewish parents I'm now a robot for the rest of my life who can't make his own decisions or disassociate myself from that culture even if I so choose. As an individualist and somebody who doesn't view himself as Jewish, do you see how I might have a problem with that perspective? I personally believe that our actions define us and that nobody has the right to speak for us but ourselves.

Ginny, you have to keep in mind RB is/was something of an unruly adolescent (from what I can gather), and I think that has something to do with our friendship.

I was in most respects "ruly," but at the same time I rejected a lot of the social traditions and canons of my upbringing that I found to be stupid. It was a "phase" that I was constantly told I would grow out of but never did. That's why I have a proverbial stick up my ass about being told by Baal or anyone else how I have to feel and behave. Freud might have gone a step further and speculated it's the reason for my lifelong resentment of authority, but I view that as more of a chicken and egg problem, i.e., it could have resulted in my clashes with traditionalism and authority in the first place.

[tmj]

tmj, BaalChatzaf, and dglgmut -

While I don't object to any of your specific points, I'd prefer to not allow Michael Marotta to control the conversation by making it *about* the subject of racism when nothing I've said could reasonably be construed as racist in the first place. By delving into these "what's-the-harm" arguments in response to his post, we are effectively handing people like Michael power to sideline any substantive arguments we make when they find them difficult to rebut at face value. I say we instead demand that he "put up or shut up" by producing evidence of this "racism" before engaging him on his own loaded terms. If he can't produce any evidence, then that really says it all, and let's not even dignify his accusation by discussing it further.

That was in a round bout way the point of my comment, the French aren't a race, are they??

[Brant Gaede]

You have no idea about how deep one can be programmed to be Jewish. Even Jews who no longer believe in God are steeped in Jewish cultural and moral tropes. There is no such thing as an ex Jews. There are observant Jews and non-observant Jews, but no ex-Jews. Once programmed, one is Jewish for life. One can choose just how observant one is but one can never clear the ethical and cultural factors out of mind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Oh, goodness. One needn't wonder why this site has been drawing racists and antisemites out of the woodwork with statements like this on display. I accept that these threads often function as springboards for broader discussions, but what the heck does this have to do with the original topic of this thread?

RB, disregarding Kolker's "hardcore-ness" for a moment, you ought to give some thought to why an esteemed member here holds such a view. He is after all paternalistically looking out for his People.

SB

...Bob's your uncle!

He is not an "esteemed member," he is a tolerated member. His general anti-philosophical views preclude being esteemed except, maybe, in scientific matters. His military viewpoints are even worse. The reason I put in my profile what I did in the army was people would know I know what I'm talking about when the likes of him starts yakking away about the glories of righteous war and I call him out. If he had any serious hangers-on about that, I'd stop posting here. He posts a lot and I do sorta like him.

--Brant

esteemed member (except . . . )

[Brant Gaede]

tmj, BaalChatzaf, and dglgmut -

While I don't object to any of your specific points, I'd prefer to not allow Michael Marotta to control the conversation by making it *about* the subject of racism when nothing I've said could reasonably be construed as racist in the first place. By delving into these "what's-the-harm" arguments in response to his post, we are effectively handing people like Michael power to sideline any substantive arguments we make when they find them difficult to rebut at face value. I say we instead demand that he "put up or shut up" by producing evidence of this "racism" before engaging him on his own loaded terms. If he can't produce any evidence, then that really says it all, and let's not even dignify his accusation by discussing it further.

That was in a round bout way the point of my comment, the French aren't a race, are they??

They're a language informing the body.

--Brant

and the rest of us

[tmj]

well i guess they at least know their way around a grape and spoiled milk

[syrakusos]

The reason I put in my profile what I did in the army was people would know I know what I'm talking about when the likes of him starts yakking away about the glories of righteous war and I call him out.

I had to look it up. "SF Aidman" - special forces corpsman (medic) ... you ran toward gunfire to serve the wounded... shuts me up.

[Robert Baratheon]

Thought we ran you off from this thread for good, Michael.

In any case, there now exist two possibilities: either you have some evidence to support your earlier claim that I am a racist afraid of minorities, or you have no evidence. Since you bothered enough to post again here, you can bother now to tell us which is the case.

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant Gaede, on 02 Jun 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

He is not an "esteemed member," he is a tolerated member. His general anti-philosophical views preclude being esteemed except, maybe, in scientific matters. His military viewpoints are even worse. The reason I put in my profile what I did in the army was people would know I know what I'm talking about when the likes of him starts yakking away about the glories of righteous war and I call him out. If he had any serious hangers-on about that, I'd stop posting here. He posts a lot and I do sorta like him.

--Brant

esteemed member (except . . . )

I envy you a bit. Thrice did I try to enlist and thrice I was rejected --- chronic bronchial asthma. So I did the next best thing. If I could not be a warrior I would help to arm the warriors. So by indirection I claim the blood my brain children shed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

The reason I put in my profile what I did in the army was people would know I know what I'm talking about when the likes of him starts yakking away about the glories of righteous war and I call him out.

I had to look it up. "SF Aidman" - special forces corpsman (medic) ... you ran toward gunfire to serve the wounded... shuts me up.

Actually I didn't have the occasion to. I could have. You are describing an unarmed combat medic. I was a combat medic combatant. I went armed.

--Brant

[syrakusos]

Thought we ran you off from this thread for good, Michael.

In any case, there now exist two possibilities: either you have some evidence to support your earlier claim that I am a racist afraid of minorities, or you have no evidence. Since you bothered enough to post again here, you can bother now to tell us which is the case.

Spoken like a true king, except that a true king would have real followers who actually obeyed in return for protection.

Speaking of neighborhood crime.... So, one of the neighborhood troublemakers pulls a stocking over his face and goes in to rob the liquor store. The clerk says, "Robert, what the hell are you doing, man?" The robber replies, "Hey, with this mask on, I'm not me!"

You are hiding behind the words.

(And sit up straight.)

[syrakusos]

Robert Baratheon: "It's the same reason why grades and test scores are requiredd when applying to colleges, or why they ask whether you were fired from your last job. Prohibiting employers from even asking the question is progressive paternalism of the worst kind. It's saying both that convicts need to be granted special status under the law,"

No, the reasons are different in each case. Furthermore, an objective analysis of each of those easily bares the erroneous premises.

Education - admission to college - is based on class standing. I mean that in all of its puns. If education were a market, price would be the primary determinant with other factors letting providers seek markets. An "exclusive" school would charge a million dollars a year and have the greatest minds doing the actual teaching. But anyone with a million dollars could go, just like shopping in Beverly Hills.

Among their findings: The grades students achieve in high school are the best predictor of how well they will do in college.

The authors also say that based on their findings:

• The type of high school a student attends isn’t a great predictor of whether he’ll finish college
• When it comes to most colleges, a student’s SAT and ACT scores don’t help predict whether he will earn a college degree
• Students who finish high school with a grade point average of at least 3.0 are a lot more likely to graduate from college than those who don’t, and
• Four-year colleges are a surer route to a degree than community colleges.

The book also says that among the students studied, white men were 6% more likely to graduate than black men with similar scores and grades, and women were much more likely to graduate than men.

Higher Ed Morning for September 15, 2009 here.

So, really, the best thing based on statistics is to let white women in first. That, of course, is a basic collectiivist error, that individuals can be aggregated into significantly predictable populations. Sometimes we can be. Such tallies, of course, submerge the individual.

I have been fired from every job I did not quit. Even on a pure performance contract, someone has to say that we are at the end of the road: the contract has been fulfilled. It's over. Employers do not ask if you ever quit, i.e,, fired your customer. Employment is too often premised on medieval ideas of class status. The boss orders you; and if you obey the orders, you get food. Try going to McD's and ordering a taco. Wave a million dollars at them - call the police if you want; call the Marines. Business transactions are voluntary and beneficial to both parties.

What would an interview be like if you handed a hiring manager a form to fill out demanding to know if they ever fired an employee? Or were sued by a supplier? Or were ever charged with a violation by a regulatory agency? This problem is basic to our society because it reflects a deep vestigial desire for control over others. It would take science fiction to describe a truly individualist society.

On the last point above from Robert, convicts are by definition creations of the state. That is why private prisons are wrong in concept. The state cannot be allowed to buy and sell human beings. No one has that right. It is a famous quote from Atlas Shrugged that the only power any government has is to crack down on criminals and the government can always create more. It might be argued that anyone who is convicted of a felony is entitled to public support for the rest of their life. It is not much different from being drafted into the Amy, really: you have been captured by the government, forced to live in ways against your will, and at that point, the state has assumed full moral responsibility for its actions. Anything less is unjust.

Yes, in some hypothetical rational society with objective laws where individualism is truly a fundamental value of most people, being convicted of harming others would be a deep statement about that person's character, or lack of it. But here and now, when people become criminals for not harming others, such standards cannot apply.

[Robert Baratheon]

No, the reasons are different in each case. Furthermore, an objective analysis of each of those easily bares the erroneous premises.

Education - admission to college - is based on class standing. I mean that in all of its puns. If education were a market, price would be the primary determinant with other factors letting providers seek markets. An "exclusive" school would charge a million dollars a year and have the greatest minds doing the actual teaching. But anyone with a million dollars could go, just like shopping in Beverly Hills.

Higher education is clearly a market according to its most common definition as a system of buyers and sellers. Your error is in holding all business models as equivalent and failing to recognize the true value of the service being provided. When a student attends a college, he isn't simply paying to receive instruction as one would order a McChicken sandwich off the dollar menu. The student is paying for certification by the school that he meets certain standards and is fit for use of the school's brand. Evaluating the quality of applicants and predicting future success are integral parts of that business model. Admitting anyone who applies to the institution based on a simple price mechanism would dilute the value of the certification and thus reduce the degree to which buyers would be willing to pay for it in the first place. Despite your assertion that this is an "erroneous premise," it's the same fundamental reason why businesses conduct interviews, review resumes, call references, and yes, check criminal histories. All of this is highly relevant information that the employer considers to predict likelihood that the applicant will be a value-adding employee and not do anything to harm or embarrass the employer. You personally might not consider that "fair," but life often isn't.

So, really, the best thing based on statistics is to let white women in first. That, of course, is a basic collectiivist error, that individuals can be aggregated into significantly predictable populations. Sometimes we can be. Such tallies, of course, submerge the individual.

I have been fired from every job I did not quit. Even on a pure performance contract, someone has to say that we are at the end of the road: the contract has been fulfilled. It's over. Employers do not ask if you ever quit, i.e,, fired your customer. Employment is too often premised on medieval ideas of class status. The boss orders you; and if you obey the orders, you get food. Try going to McD's and ordering a taco. Wave a million dollars at them - call the police if you want; call the Marines. Business transactions are voluntary and beneficial to both parties.

What would an interview be like if you handed a hiring manager a form to fill out demanding to know if they ever fired an employee? Or were sued by a supplier? Or were ever charged with a violation by a regulatory agency? This problem is basic to our society because it reflects a deep vestigial desire for control over others. It would take science fiction to describe a truly individualist society.

On the last point above from Robert, convicts are by definition creations of the state. That is why private prisons are wrong in concept. The state cannot be allowed to buy and sell human beings. No one has that right. It is a famous quote from Atlas Shrugged that the only power any government has is to crack down on criminals and the government can always create more. It might be argued that anyone who is convicted of a felony is entitled to public support for the rest of their life. It is not much different from being drafted into the Amy, really: you have been captured by the government, forced to live in ways against your will, and at that point, the state has assumed full moral responsibility for its actions. Anything less is unjust.

Yes, in some hypothetical rational society with objective laws where individualism is truly a fundamental value of most people, being convicted of harming others would be a deep statement about that person's character, or lack of it. But here and now, when people become criminals for not harming others, such standards cannot apply.

Again, you're failing to make some necessary distinctions. Rational employers recognize that the presense of one variable doesn't mean that the variable is dispositive in outcome. It's the difference between thoughtful consideration a politician's stance on, say, narcotics sentencing, and being a single-issue voter for marijuana legalization while ignoring that the candidate is running under the banner of the Marxist Party.

I am in no way advocating that employers treat race, gender, or even criminal history as a dispositive factor to crowd out all other considerations surrounding an applicant. But to involve the state to enforce my own, or your own, moral preference about what may be considered in an otherwise voluntary transaction is statist paternalism. Being an advocate of liberty means accepting that others may at times use their liberties to do things you don't like. Presenting all criminal histories as arbitrary state action is a rather ridiculous position that ignores the fact that if somebody is willing to regularly violate the law - especially in violent or deceitful ways - that tells you extremely relevant information about that person.

[Brant Gaede]

Thought we ran you off from this thread for good, Michael.

In any case, there now exist two possibilities: either you have some evidence to support your earlier claim that I am a racist afraid of minorities, or you have no evidence. Since you bothered enough to post again here, you can bother now to tell us which is the case.

Spoken like a true king, except that a true king would have real followers who actually obeyed in return for protection.

Speaking of neighborhood crime.... So, one of the neighborhood troublemakers pulls a stocking over his face and goes in to rob the liquor store. The clerk says, "Robert, what the hell are you doing, man?" The robber replies, "Hey, with this mask on, I'm not me!"

You are hiding behind the words.

(And sit up straight.)

You accused Robert of "veiled racism" in his "law and order rant." This is a "veiled" way of calling him a racist, which you have just done again. I'd guess what is really going on--this is "veiled"--is you think he is a conservative and are trying to run him off OL. The last person run off OL was Kacy, who ran himself off. Kacy's problem was he didn't (couldn't?) argue effectively in support of his sundry ad hoc positions. Robert makes detailed, integrated arguments and seemingly factual statements, probably better than anyone else here.

--Brant

detected no racism

[syrakusos]

Presenting all criminal histories as arbitrary state action is a rather ridiculous position that ignores the fact that if somebody is willing to regularly violate the law - especially in violent or deceitful ways - that tells you extremely relevant information about that person.

A cogent point and I stand corrected. Myself, personally, while I intellectually recognize drug sales as nominally "victimless" many problems remain. It is illegal and that is no surprise to anyone. Unlike Ken Dannager's mining coal for sale to Hank Rearden, showing an objective value in productive and creative effort is harder with drugs. Anyone who is engaged in drug use or sales today is clearly outside the norm. Yes, a cancer patient should be allowed to smoke marijuana. No, someone with terminal cancer smoking pot is not an easy candidate for most jobs. I did, indeed, complete a contract reviewing websites for a major corporation from home. Just to say, not every crime is deleterious to the victim or the perpetrator. As you note, the essential determinants are up to the determiner.

Again, though, the essence of Objectivism is to provide the individual with objective knowledge, not just to validate every whim that pops into their head.

[syrakusos]

You accused Robert of "veiled racism" in his "law and order rant." This is a "veiled" way of calling him a racist, which you have just done again. I'd guess what is really going on--this is "veiled"--is you think he is a conservative and are trying to run him off OL. The last person run off OL was Kacy, who ran himself off. Kacy's problem was he didn't (couldn't?) argue effectively in support of his sundry ad hoc positions. Robert makes detailed, integrated arguments and seemingly factual statements, probably better than anyone else here.

--Brant

detected no racism

I did not notice Kacy's absence. I read his posts. I did not disagree with them for several reasons, not the least of which was a basic emotional agreement with his intellectual context. He was derided as a "progressive" but I found him sterling as an objective observer and thinker.

Robert is less compelling, but I grant, as above, that I have unfairly tarred him. He is a conservative, but he is deep and thoughtful. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[tmj]

For god's sake's, Robert, do you know anything about Jewish history? Become informed. You'll find that being Jewish has less to do with god that with associating with a group that has perennially been outcast. It's probably ethic, but what other people has had to do this in order to survive? PS - I do not presume to speak for Baal.

have some decorum

For g-d's sake, has less to do w/g-d

c'mon woman fer chri-t's sake

I would never presume to speak for anyone, but only cause after what they see of what i said...

[ginny]

What?

[tmj]

What?

late night dumbass attempt at humor from the dumb cousin, sorry

[Robert Baratheon]

You accused Robert of "veiled racism" in his "law and order rant." This is a "veiled" way of calling him a racist, which you have just done again. I'd guess what is really going on--this is "veiled"--is you think he is a conservative and are trying to run him off OL. The last person run off OL was Kacy, who ran himself off. Kacy's problem was he didn't (couldn't?) argue effectively in support of his sundry ad hoc positions. Robert makes detailed, integrated arguments and seemingly factual statements, probably better than anyone else here.

--Brant

detected no racism

I did not notice Kacy's absence. I read his posts. I did not disagree with them for several reasons, not the least of which was a basic emotional agreement with his intellectual context. He was derided as a "progressive" but I found him sterling as an objective observer and thinker.

Robert is less compelling, but I grant, as above, that I have unfairly tarred him. He is a conservative, but he is deep and thoughtful. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Since Kacy has self-deported from OL, I won't dwell too much on him here, but on the broader subject of what makes one a "conservative" or a "progressive," I found Monday's EconTalk episode interesting (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/kling_on_the_th.html). Within Kling's values framework, Kacy clearly operated from the progressive axis of "opressor versus oppressed" (hence his position that psychics should be prosecuted) and I from the libertarian axis of "freedom versus coercion" (hence my position that they should not be). SB operates primarily on the conservative axis of "civilization versus barbarism." It's true that I am a conservative-type personality according the "constrained versus unconstrained" framework also discussed within the podcast. I was planning an OL topic on it for later this morning - we'll see if it actually gets written or not.

[Serapis Bey]

Thanks for the Econotalk link. I enjoyed it, although I was already familiar with many of the concepts by way of Jonathan Haidt and Thomas Sowell.

I think the most fundamental distinction is Sowell's Constrained vs. Unconstrained "visions." Basically, it speaks to the issue of Man's nature. Is Man good or corrupt? Is he "perfectible" ,or limited by his nature? Objectivism stands with Progressives on this issue, but for different reasons. I think this precarious balance in Objectivist ideology shakes out in actual practice when we see the various factions within the Oist movement. Here, more fundamentally, is the issue of free will. Advocating an "unconstrained vision" in the context of liberty requires a staunch defense of the doctrine of free will. And that topic is far from settled...

Incidentally, even though you have gone some way towards qualifying your nuanced political positions, I still reserve the right to call you a libertardian.

[BaalChatzaf]

Man is neither Good nor Corrupt. The shortfalls of Mankind are shortsightedness, impatience and laziness, with a dash of procrastination added.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

I think the schism between conservatives and progressives is they both over compensate in an attempt to get as far away from their opponents views.

Conservatives fall into the trap of seemingly fighting for impunity for businesses, while progressives lean towards the use of force in the name of civility.

If the difference is not in value-premises, as Sowell asserts, and both sides are fighting for similar results by different means, then it would likely be more effective to focus on the good in both positions.

For example, conservatives seem to react badly to organized social pressure used against businesses. If no illegitimate legal pressure is being used, consumers should be empowered to use whatever non-violent methods at their disposal to influence businesses as is their prerogative within a free market.

Somewhat recently the Abercrombie & Fitch CEO made some inflammatory comments in regards to his company's accommodation of certain body types--which represent "uncool" people. Someone made a video calling out the company for burning their unsold clothing rather than giving it to charity (even though this is standard practice for any brand name clothing company), and urged people to collect any A&F clothing from their own wardrobe, their friends, or buy up what they can find in used clothing stores and give it away to the homeless.

Conservative leaning people, instead of empowering this legitimate (though misguided) social endeavor, ridiculed those buying into it for being naive and essentially implying that it is wrong for consumers to apply any pressure on a business for any reason.

For a capitalist economy to have any sort of market regulations, and therefore any chance at gaining the necessary sanction of society (and a democratic government), consumers must have confidence in their ability to influence businesses within the limits of the non-aggression principle.