Re: icymi above
 

I've heard it said one should never trust the intelligence of a man who salts his food before first tasting it. This seems an arbitrary grouping, but it also tends to hold true.

I'd say the same applies to a person who holds strong group identification and places it ahead of or commensurate with private, individual critical thinking. "I'm a proud this..." or "I'm a proud that..." is a statement that one has self-limited. One should have principles, of course. But one should also be open to changing his mind, to thinking differently based on circumstances. To self-contradicting as necessary.

It's unfortunately both human and incredibly dimwitted to assess a person based on his last name, or his skin tone. These regressive heuristics probably aren't going to end any time soon. But for God's sake, we shouldn't enable and encourage them.

The frictions between groups (of all sorts -- racial, political, religious, sex) only abate when people start viewing each other as a clean slates. In a truly evolved world, you'd meet another person with no preconceived notion of what his politics, interests, or views would be. He'd get as fair a shot at being accepted by you as you would by him. (This is why I loathe Trump's immigration policy -- it frustrates this progression.) A big step in this direction is abandoning group identification and favoring a more relativist view of everything. Have a few bedrock principles, but don't let any party, organization, religion, or heritage drive your thinking any more than minimally, if at all.

I know, pie in the sky. But it's where we ought to be going as humans.

Re: icymi above
 

So why are you suggesting that we need scientific studies assessing the responsibility of a given group in its own oppression?

Re: icymi above
 

I would rather that schools not try to fire idiots, because I don't trust schools to make that decision well, and worry that they will use it as a pretext. If a school can't figure out how to avoid giving tenure to an idiot, it seems unlikely that they will exercise discretion in firing idiots any better.

Re: icymi above
 

So don't ignore it, but don't give too much weight to it. Be discriminating, but don't discriminate.

Well, now that we have that solved, let's fix the Syrian refugee crisis.

Re: icymi above
 

I don't think we do, except in one instance: Where the argument is raised that an oppressed group does not bear some [personal]* responsibility for its circumstances at a later point. If one says that, he's necessarily employing such an analysis and has to also measure comparative responsibility. Any effort to measure or examine one without considering the other doesn't work.

ETA: * Removed. “Personal” should not be there. See subsequent posts.

Re: icymi above
 

Who ever says, no one in x group bears any personal responsibility for where he or she finds him or herself or for his or her actions because of the history of that group's treatment? (Hint: Exactly no one.)

Re: icymi above
 

That's not what was said. What was said is that it is invalid to examine a group's responsibility (not personal responsibility) if that group was oppressed, as that group cannot be responsible for its own circumstances, as all actions responsive to or following the oppression are still entirely the fault of the oppression.*

I agree with what you have said here, but it's a different point.

______
* ETA: This is wrong both because the "group" construct is invalid, and for the reasons your point makes. (If it's absurd to say no individual of a group bears any personal responsibility for his own circumstances, it's absurd to say no entire group bears any for its.)

ETA2: My bad... I just noticed I inadvertently included “personal” in the sentence to which you replied. It should just be “responsibility” alone. No group can have personal responsibility.

Re: icymi above
 

I think every school tries to avoid hiring idiots in the first place. There is a process, by which a department of people who have some idea of what they are doing interviews candidates who have something to say for themselves. This process is designed to weed out idiots, and perhaps even, at some schools, to establish standards reasonably far above idiocy.

Like all processes, it is far from perfect, and mistakes are made. When a mistake is made, you have to fire someone. Hopefully that is before giving them tenure, but, certainly, sometimes idiots get tenure for various reasons (for example, Harvard regularly gives conservatives tenure because they want to have some, even if their work is sub-par).

But we all fire idiots on occasion, as imperfect as we may be. The hard part is not firing idiots. When you make a mistake and hire an idiot, it's usually pretty easy and a bit of a relief to get rid of them. The problem is when you have to fire someone who is not an idiot, for some reason wholly extrinsic to them (like a downturn in the economy or a decision you need different expertise). Firing idiots is, and ought to be, relatively easy.

Re: icymi above
 

Let's just assume that you got through the Albanian quiz for all Albanian gypsies and did all your math for the group. You're at Nuremberg.

Prosecutor: General von Badguyberg ran a concentration camp and executed gypsies. He is responsible and should be serve the appropriate sentence.

Defense lawyer: Albanian gypsies as a group were also responsible (not personally responsible)* so their oppression is not fully the fault of General von Badguyberg and he is not fully responsible.

You're the judge. What do you do and why?

*WTF does this even mean?

Re: icymi above
 

I have no real idea what Sebastian is saying, but I think you’re really afield here? One might ask if the General was justified in something more limited, say economic, based upon actions. Extermination might be a bit much.

It is interesting though, your hypo, what if after escaping these same camps some of these gypsies set up a country, and neighbors started trying to exterminate them. Would you support them shooting back? In other similar fact patterns you do not iirc?

Re: icymi above
 

I'm just trying to translate Sebby's concepts into something concrete, but since they don't make sense to me maybe I'm not doing a good job.

I don't see how it makes a difference if an out-group is 3% or 30% responsible, whatever that means, if you can say that what the in-group did was wrong. What follows from that number?

Pretty sure I am in favor of self-defense when someone is trying to exterminate you. But the use of violence must be proportionate to the threat. If some dude in Warsaw tweets that he is trying to destroy the United States, that doesn't mean we nuke Poland, nor do I think you disagree.

Re: icymi above
 

The only crime the general would be on trial for at Nuremberg would be the killing of the Romany person.

He couldn’t be charged with the preceding impacts of local bigotries on that person’s life.

Identically, using my hypothetical, which is more appropriate, if that general had merely imprisoned the two Romany brothers, and was caught 30 years later, and the claim were brought at that at that point, that the general was entirely culpable for all the disadvantages the fisherman brother suffered, the general’s culpability would be mitigated to the extent superseding causes (fisherman's own subsequent choices) contributed to his disadvantages.

And, in any logical forum, where a person’s (or group’s, if we’re throwing rigor and care out the window) situation is alleged to be exclusively or near exclusively the result of outside forces, there will always be an offset against that charge to the extent personal responsibility comes into play.

I’ve actually litigated this case several times. Even asserting fraud, the other side will often use a “sophisticated plaintiff” defense (“your guy was sharp and only got taken because he wasn’t observing adequate diligence”). One counters with “you don’t have a right to defraud my guy, regardless.” But it is an accepted defense. And it works, and should work.

Re: icymi above
 

Ty, if you want to see “narrative creation” and “fact shading,” this is it. This is a perfect MSNBC/Fox talking point. (Just reverse it for Fox.)

Now, academia being littered at least 5:1 with liberal and progressive idiots versus conservative idiots, the example cited is cherry picked to make a point suiting the speaker’s incorrigible bias. Harvard of course has some conservative morons, but does anyone doubt the # of conservative morons is significantly higher?

And yet they are cited, transparently, as though they’re the majority of idiots. Nevermind the armies of liberal idiots at Harvard (or any decent school) who dwarf them.

This is j.v. shit, and I’m slumming to flag it. But this is “narrative creaton.” Fox-style anti-factual narrative creation.

There’s no false equivalence. What GGG did is only transparent if your IQ gets to triple digits. That’s a thin slice of Fox’s demographic. So Fox is far more blunt and embarrassing in the way it does this same thing, as the bar for getting away with it is incredibly low. But it’s all on the same continuum of bullshit.

Re: icymi above
 

For someone who doesn’t know what I’m saying, you’re doing a great job of offering the responses of someone who exactly gets my points and endeavors to counter them.

Re: icymi above
 

This is exactly what I'm saying.

Re: icymi above
 

Nice. But fair. I fucked that up.

*believe

Re: icymi above
 

Sebby, There are very, very few conservatives who go into academics, with the exception of a few disciplines that tend to be homes to a lot of them, like economics. And this makes sense: most of them would prefer to get rich, and subscribe to a philosophy where getting rich is an innate good, where teaching youngsters is for suckers. For every seat that opens in a history department, there will be four Marxist applications, a half dozen traditional liberals, a couple Democratic socialists, a few applicants from abroad, and, every blue moon, a conservative. So, yes, there are many fewer idiots in tenure track positions on the left in academe (at least proportionately) because they have to compete for seats, where a conservative with half a pulse will find a seat. Indeed, if you go looking for, say, American history books by conservatives in the last three quarters of a century, you don't find very many good ones (probably the highest quality works are by Eugene Genovese and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, both Marxists who turned to conservatism later in life under the influence of conservative Catholicism).

By the way, conservatives are also highly favored in undergrad admissions. The next time you write a recommendation, throw in a line about the kids conservative politics, see how fast he or she gets accepted to a reach school.

Re: icymi above
 

Because the situation of the victims in society is not relevant to the general's crime.

Like a true defense lawyer here, your objective seems to be minimizing the extent to which any individual perpetrator can be held responsible for the lousy situation of his victim. You are not trying to find a way to make the victim whole. Fair?

"There will be always be an offset." When? What is the point of this whole intellectual exercise? There is never a case ("a logical forum") where a group is put to the test you describe?

Re: icymi above
 

From what I know, GGG is not making this up out of whole cloth.

Re: icymi above
 

Contrarily, you keep ignoring many of my questions and points, because they show that the whole concept is nonsense.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Today i must pass on my moniker. I hoped to move the Ty in this time frame with my work here, make him as smart as me, but earlier than I got there. But I had the opposite effect. this time's Ty is as fuzzy brained as he was, and had none of the growing up that i enjoyed. I was smart enough to get on team trump early, and have a great cabinet position. President Trump let me enter one of the codes the second time we bombed a country. I'm somebody, not the nobody this Ty remained. And he can only blame me. Today today's ty turns 50. I retire now, hoping Ty w/o me, can grow up. Maybe be a second term cabinet member.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Don't go! Soon you'll seem young and sprightly.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

It's remarkable that people in government positions of importance who should know better do not seem to understand the First Amendment.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Aww, jeezzz, this is the Ty raising my/his kids in this time wrinkle and he earns his living as a lawyer, and his education is so shaky that he doesn’t get the 1st isn’t absolute especially when applied against minors. I haven’t looked at this time’s Ty: is he a Cooley or Florida Coastal grad?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

My first year as a lawyer my BFF was Willis, another first year. Willis loved Aretha, and brought me around to that. Then a miracle! Aretha got sued for copyright infringement. Some local Detroit singer claimed she copied Freeway of Love from some obscure song he had written. Willis and are I were assigned to be the cannon fodder first years running through the piles of documents. Of course she didn't write the song, and the real defendant sorted out, but the case continued. Our entire goal was to try to keep the case moving so she would get deposed and we could meet her!

Instead, in a typical big firm move we swamped the local guy in discovery requests, and the lawsuit went away. We never met her, but I suppose by ending the case Willis and I have some small part in her legacy?

Detroit and the world are lesser for her passing.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Pancreatic cancer is a bitch.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Sorry, this thread is about me.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

What you talking about, Willis?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

The National Review made sure to point out that Aretha Franklin was no Kelly Clarkson or Linda Ronstadt. So, that threat to white hegemony has been put in its place.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

maybe the NR writer includes "TCB" potential in his analysis? and I am not going to let people vote on "top 5 female singers" w/o including wendy o.

Re: What a loser
 

Bad politics, bad taste.

Prelude to a Coup?
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/o...ol-left-region

In times of crisis, the leaders of the military and intelligence communities try to put aside their differences, often many and sundry, and work together for the good of the country. That’s what’s happening today with a remarkable group of retired generals, admirals and spymasters who have signed up for the resistance, telling the president of the United States, in so many words, that he is not a king.

Thirteen former leaders of the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. have signed an open letter standing foursquare against President Trump, in favor of freedom of speech and, crucially, for the administration of justice. They have served presidents going back to Richard M. Nixon mostly without publicly criticizing the political conduct of a sitting commander in chief — until now.

“We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case.”

They rebuked Mr. Trump for revoking the security clearance of John Brennan, the C.I.A. director under President Obama, in retaliation for his scalding condemnations and, ominously, for his role in “the rigged witch hunt” — the investigation into Russia’s attempt to fix the 2016 election, now in the hands of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. The president’s latest attempt to punish or silence everyone connected with the case, along with his fiercest critics in political life, will not be his last.

First he went after his F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and the acting attorney general, Sally Yates. Then he came for Mr. Brennan. Now it’s Bruce Ohr, a previously obscure Justice Department official targeted by right-wing conspiracy theories, a man who will lose his job if he loses his clearances. Tomorrow it may be James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, a cable-news Trump critic and a co-signer of the letter. It’s clear there will be more.

The president aims to rid the government and the airwaves of his real and imagined enemies, especially anyone connected with the Russia investigation. Somewhere Richard Nixon may be looking up and smiling. But aboveground, the special counsel is taking notes.

The list of the signatories to the open letter defending Mr. Brennan is striking for the length and breadth of their experience. I never expected to see William H. Webster — he’s 95 years old, served nine years as F. B.I. director under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, then four more as C.I.A. director under Reagan and President George H. W. Bush — sign a political petition like this. The same with Robert M. Gates, who entered the C.I.A. under President Lyndon Johnson, ran it under George H. W. Bush and served as Secretary of Defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. These are not the kind of men who march on Washington. These are men who were marched upon.


Robert M. GatesPool photo by Brendan Smialowski
The text was equally striking: “You don’t have to agree with what John Brennan says (and, again, not all of us do) to agree with his right to say it, subject to his obligation to protect classified information,” they wrote. “We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case.” The president sent “a signal to other former and current officials” to refrain from criticizing him, the letter continued, and “that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable.”

“Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views,” they conclude.

In a separate six-paragraph open letter published by The Washington Post Thursday afternoon, a few hours before the national-security emeriti weighed in, retired Adm. William H. McRaven, head of the Special Operations Command during the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden, dared the president to pull his security clearance as he had Mr. Brennan’s. “If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken,” Admiral McRaven wrote.


Retired Adm. William H. McRaven.Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly, via Getty Images
It’s clear that Mr. Brennan’s fierce political and personal attacks rattled the china in the Oval Office. The president essentially has accused Mr. Brennan of lèse majesté — the crime of criticizing the monarch, tantamount to treason. Remarkably, this relic of the days when kings were deemed divine remains on the books in some European monarchies as well as nations like Saudi Arabia, where a critique of the crown is considered terrorism.

It’s not a crime in the United States. That’s why we fought a revolution against a mad king.

For nine months now, the president has been ranting about the “Deep State.” He sees it as a coterie of present and former leaders of F.B.I. gumshoes and C.I.A. spooks who are out to get him through leaks and lies. There is no deep state in America — at least, there hasn’t been the threat of one since J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972, six weeks before the Watergate break-in. But in the mind of Donald Trump, if any group of retired military and intelligence officers could serve as the shadow cabinet for a silent coup, it’s men like Bill McRaven and Bob Gates. They worked for Obama! (Yes, and Reagan, too.)


Look how things have turned around on the Criminal Deep State. They go after Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam, and end up getting caught in a major SPY scandal the likes of which this country may never have seen before! What goes around, comes around!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 6:54 AM - May 23, 2018

You don’t need a secret decoder ring to see what’s happening here. John Brennan, who knows whereof he speaks, believes that the president is a threat to the security of the United States — a counterintelligence threat, no less, in thrall to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The president attacks him, severing Mr. Brennan’s access to classified information. The deans of national security rise up to defend him — and, by implication, intelligence officers and federal investigators who are closing in on the White House.

They are sending a message to active-duty generals and admirals, soldiers and spies. Remember your oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Think twice before following this man’s orders in a crisis. You might first consider throwing down your stars.

Tim Weiner, a former reporter with The Times, is author of “Enemies: A History of the F.B.I.,” and “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the C.I.A.”

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

Re: icymi above
 

I addressed your points. The impasse came when you adopted Klein's argument: "There's no good reason to engage in analysis of cultures that may provide people with a basis to avoid doing more for them."

The hypothetical you offered was, as I explained, inapplicable.

I'm not revisiting this subject again. I'm exhausted with it. It's a third rail conversation the best result of which is, "we agree to disagree."

Re: icymi above
 

This is terrifically biased horseshit. The caricature of all business people as philistines is below even your tribal generalizations.

This is interesting math. I'd assume with that many ardent liberals and Marxists, few if any of whom have any real world experience (ever met a pure academic who's made a payroll?), the chance of filling the slots near exclusively with idiots rises considerably.

I wouldn't disagree with this. As a corollary, I'd add there are very few good history books written in the last 3/4 of the century, period, as most have been written by scholars with a bias.

That's not to say if conservatives wrote the books, the books would be any better. They'd likely just be biased in a different direction. If you hear a person openly describe himself as a liberal, conservative, progressive, etc., you should be suspect of what he authors. It's like journalism by a pundit. No matter how hard they try for objectivity, it eludes them. The only question is, how biased is the narrative? Within acceptable borders -- easily discovered and discounted from the book's actual facts? Or flatly revisionist?

YMMV, but I've found being able to pay full tuition is the most compelling factor for universities today. Those darling academics run their organizations like General Motors in the 80s. The fact that we not only allow, but encourage, young kids to borrow hundreds of thousands to spend at universities run by academics (most of whom could bankrupt a lemonade stand) is mind-bending. We give the least sophisticated borrowers cart blanche to fatten the wallets of people who have no concept of value or budgeting, and who see the student loan system as an endless, bottomless cash cow. It's criminally stupid. But that's another discussion, for another day.

Re: Prelude to a Coup?
 

With these dog whistles from the intel community, and Trump's dog whistles to his "movement," all of which seem intentionally transparent, I have to wonder, When does the fourth wall break? When does Brennan or Clapper openly call for a leak of Trump's taxes? When does Trump announce, "Everybody who shuts his mouth gets a pardon"?

I understand we needed a little Kabuki to provide the public with a fiction that political games were legitimate, but Trump nakedly told Manafort he'll be getting a commutation last week, and Brennan's charge of treason is the CIA chief calling the President a Russian asset. Do we really need the dog whistles anymore? Brennan and Clapper should call for more leaks, and impeachment. Trump can return that serve with a declaration of pardons and commutations for all, and then revoke Mueller's security clearance. Nobody has complete faith in any of these institutions or these people anymore. Let's get the real dialogue out there, in plain English.

Re: icymi above
 

Let me know if you'd like to read some good history books; there are some great ones being written these days. Of course, I did not characterize business people as philistines, but, then, we understand your reading comprehension issues so it's probably not worth dwelling on.

It strikes me reading this that you have little or no interaction with academia.

Re: icymi above
 

I've litigated a resolution of an effort to expel a student for academic fraud. (The prosecution was dismissed, the professor leading it having raised absurd charges.) Also sued a college on behalf of a professor.

It's hard not to run into academics. Those who come to it as adjuncts, or following real world experience, are fine. Those who've never known anything but the soft measurements applied in that safe (save political infighting) world of theirs are booksmart and not much else. (Exempting of course most professors of hard science, math, physics, etc.)

Thinking is important, but thinking too much without doing will inevitably think you up your own ass... and render you utterly clueless in matters involving how the world actually operates.

Re this subject, on a humorous note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

Re: icymi above
 

Thanks for confirming my impression.

Re: icymi above
 

Along with my belief that the views of any person calling himself a "Proud" conservative, republican, democrat, progressive, liberal, whig, libertarian, anarchist, etc. should be strongly scrutinized, I believe George Bernard Shaw's famous saying holds as much heft as it does humor: "Those who can, do. Those who can't teach."

Woody Allen improved upon it in Annie Hall: "Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym."

Re: icymi above
 

I have yet to hear you say why, in the real world, you would ever want to be able to say that an oppressed group is x% responsible for its circumstances (were that even possible to "assess," which it is not, with "science" or otherwise -- which is the point of my Albania hypothetical, which you ducked). Why? You've talked about tort cases, but there are no tort cases for systemic, societal discrimination -- the design and operation of the courts is part of the problem, not the solution. So what's the point?

If you're exhausted with trying to explain the pointless and inane, that's fair.