Re: icymi above
 

I married an anthropology major, but please -- it's not a science.

Why? If you are trying a tort case, you don't need to consider the intervention of invisible aliens using technology we can't understand, even though it's a potential cause.

What if you just accept that systemic oppression is evil in part because it enlists its victims in their own degradation? Black policemen sometimes shoot young black men for no good reason. Women blame other women's clothes for sexual assault. And so on. You don't need science to acknowledge that. But you do need to explain why you think it matters.

Re: icymi above
 

Not in the interviews I've heard recently. He was not inclined to entertain challenges to his ideas.

Speaking as someone who has read several of his books.

Agreed, but in retrospect his desire to be provocative was a warning sign.

Re: icymi above
 

He's only been there a couple of years; I thought that was move was mostly about money, they were willing to pay him, give him a title, and not require that he teach.

I think he tries in a way.

Re: icymi above
 

I will confess I never cracked Pity of War. A few years ago, my reading group (when we were still ambitious) did a WWI reading project where we had three histories and a bunch of literature, and I actually suggested it because it looked interesting. But several people got to it before me and it got trashed enough that I didn't bother, and focused on the other stuff. The consensus of the group was that there was a ton of stuff in the other histories that he wasn't addressing that undermined his thesis, and that it might have been interesting if the other histories didn't make it all seem like bunk.

I wouldn't read too much Said now, his disciples have all passed him, though back in the day he was a mentor of mine. The best of them is Rosa Maria Menocal, and she should be read if you are ever going to a reunion and want to impress those rebellious sorority intellectuals (now there are three words I never expected to type in that order).

Re: icymi above
 

are any "soft sciences" science?

Re: icymi above
 

You know who else touts his affiliation with Hoover as a sign that he should be taken seriously as a scholar? Dinesh D'Souza.

Re: icymi above
 

You, sir, are a snob. The Greeks may not want no [rebellious intellectual] freaks, but there’s many a mile between tea and cookies rush early freshman year and engaging in Marxian dialectics junior year.

It starts, or so I hear, with the Bell Jar and Annais Nin.

Re: icymi above
 

The Jewish sorority at your large midwest football school was full of intellectuals?

Re: icymi above
 

I personally think Hoover is a step down and a nice way to isolate yourself from having to deal with people who disagree with you, but there are plenty of people there who are pretty bright, starting with Condi Rice.

I didn't realize they'd associated themselves with D'Souza. That's a great way to diminish your brand.

Re: icymi above
 

Look, I never experienced the large land-grant school thing, I consider myself educated by your posts.

As to the snob part, I prefer "Eastern Elite" or even just a simple "Globalist"

Re: icymi above
 

“Full of”? - perhaps Not.

“Devoid of”? - definitely Not. True, there were more in [redacted name of the other primarily Jewish sorority] (think UWS versus Five Towns), but still.

Re: icymi above
 

And you know what, how the fuck would someone like you know the run down on who is in the Jewish Sorority? I may try to get paig's to come back and help me ferret out whether this isn't bullshit in the extreme.


edit- I wouldn't have been allowed near the doors of any sorority but especially that one

Re: icymi above
 

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/sta...01188315492353

D'Souza and Ferguson are both there!

Re: icymi above
 

Damn, thanks for the reminder that we're all judged based on the people we associate with, even tangentially.

Now I have to go orchestrate another purge of some of my partners, and a couple of the people I sing with in choir.

Re: icymi above
 

I can assure you and Paigow with great confidence that, during my time at Podunkville University, the Five Towns-ish girls tended to pledge [redacted] and the UWS-ish girls tended to pledge [redacted].

And who said I was allowed near the doors of their house? By this point in the process, Ruth* was a sister in name only.

*A composite character based upon the girl who told me that her father was an insurance executive after I ranted about the evils of State Farm at an anti-apartheid rally and the girl in ENG 3797, the Mid-Century American Novel, who borrowed Portnoy’s Complaint on a Friday and returned it on a Monday filled with the joy of righteous rage.

Re: icymi above
 

Does the composite have tits intermediate the two, or did you default to the bigger?

Re: icymi above
 

An earnest young Not Robert would angrily respond that he never even notices that sort of superficial thing, but Not Robert’s Id would explain that that’s because the youngster is more of a leg man.

Re: icymi above
 

1. It uses the scientific method. It’s a soft science. But the only applicable one here.

2. Invisible aliens are not “potential.” The actual humans involved in these issues, and their actions, are real actors and facts to examine.

3. I do accept that. Who doesn’t? But that has nothing to do with the logical point made. And that members of oppressed groups may also be oppressors is of no moment here.

Stop using “victim blaming.” It’s not a valid construct in any logical assessment. It’s an appeal to emotion and an argument from authority, among other logical fallacies.

I stated my reason for concluding it matters. If blame is to be fully accorded and rigorously assessed, in ANY instance, all potential (non-invisible alien) inputs must be considered. To allow otherwise converts a complaint to a judgment (without mitigating offsets for any comparative negligence).* To allow otherwise is to determine something to finality without assessment all facts. Is that ever wise? If you see no danger in this sort of thing, I can’t discuss this any further.

——-
* True comparative negligence (the liable pay all of their share, with an offset only to the exact % of others’ acts), not that horrible and unfair form used in the bus case. I have always found that sort of arbitrary culpability shifting offensive and unjust.

ETA: You see how an allegation/narrative = judgment/proof dynamic is dangerous, and dangerously authoritarian, I’d add. The ultimate point here actually has little to do with the subject at hand. It’s that if we slide into a world where “credibly accused” becomes a standard against which mitigating factors including comparative liability may not be offered in defense - to allegations against or assessments regarding an indindividual or society at large - we’ve conceded our most essential freedoms. An unpopular view or defense may never be squealched because it’s impolitic. It must be beaten on the merits. That may be annoying, or offensive, but it’s also the only way to be intellectually honest, logical, and preserve freedom.

ETA2: I’m also defense oriented, personally. The same analysis that causes me to conclude our justice system is corrupt, discriminatory, and often rigged, is the same one that causes me to recoil at the suggestion certain logical arguments sounding in defense or skepticism should not be raised. Those are arguments over which the govt’s worst Torquemadas and Roy Cohns salivate. “Limit skepticism and defenses we don’t like.” Could anything be more Trumpian?

I’d die before I’d prosecute. Only the money got me through plaintiff’s work.

Re: icymi above
 

No. No, it doesn't. Wikipedia helpfully describes the principles of the scientific method:

As commonly understand, anthropology does not involve experiments.

Similarly, your notion of "assessing" a group's "responsibility" for its own subjugation is not something that be tested through the scientific method.

Now you're censoring me, right?

Again: you do need to explain why you think it matters. In what actual context in the real world is one of these defenses, "unpopular" or otherwise, relevant? What is it relevant to? You keep using the language of judicial proceedings, but groups are not put on trial in judicial proceedings. Are you talking about discussion of legislation? Cable-tv opinion shows? Elevator conversations? What are you talking about?

To put it differently, where in current discourse is it a problem that a group's responsibility for its own plight is not being discussed?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Probably not real, but it seems real.

Re: icymi above
 

Here we go, I'm calling bullshit. Some men pretend they don't see breast size, but the truth is we all do, even if we don't mention it. Bigger isn't better, but smaller certainly isn't.

Conf to NB. Did you look at the TMBD photos? Yes? No? I'm going to ask legal for an answer so be honest.

Re: icymi above
 

Yes it does, and there is one person posting here with a science degree. Your wife is way more a scientist than you. Sebby's demented theories, at least as I understand, have no connection, but he wins here. The Foundation series explains how these soft sciences become hard, but they are still science. Fuck climate science and evolution, as examples, are no "harder" than anthro.

Re: icymi above
 

I thought you had an engineering degree?

Re: icymi above
 

Fair enough. IIRC, they both appeared* to have “normal” sized breasts, not really much of a difference that I remember.

Conf to Hank: Yes, I did. I voted for Lingerie Girl. (Hi, Lingerie Girl!)

*Even then I was a gentleman, so let’s just assume** I merely made out with them.

**Not Robert’s Id: “Because it was true. The boy had*** no talent for closing.”

***Not Bob’s Id: “Plus ca change, etc.”

Re: icymi above
 

BSME, look that shit up.

Re: icymi above
 

I still think you're the E in STEM. Maybe a bit of the T. But not much to do with S and M.

Re: icymi above
 

The logic employed involves the testing of hypotheses. Is it pure scientific method? No. But again, it's the only science we have for this sort of thing. (And as someone else noted, if you quibble with it, you quibble with evolution and much of climate change science.)

Not in the least. You have every right to argue that invisible aliens are potential inputs. And I have every right to attack that, which I did.

This is how ideas are tested, as opposed to yours and Klein's view that some statements should not be challenged. I'm engaging the debate, rather than attempting to squelch it. And since the inclusion of invisible aliens as a potential cause of anything is absurd on its face, the idea has been rejected. This is how debate works. There's a back and forth, rather than a handicapper at the gate, saying, "Your skepticism is offensive and should not be offered, regardless of its merit."

My point is abstract and deals with how people communicate and exchange ideas. Arguing the social value of particular ideas, inquiries, or forms of skepticism is a different discussion.

You have advocated that, in certain situations, we should not entertain challenges. Klein argued something similar. This could apply to any subject, but as to the one we're dealing with here, you have asserted that once a group has been oppressed and consequently suffered disadvantages, inquiry regarding whether the continuation of those disadvantages is partly the group's fault is invalid. You have argued that such inquiry should not be given a platform, and should be avoided, even where it demonstrates merit.

This is, to come full circle to my earliest point, a form of sly censorship. It is an attempt to foreclose discussion and inquiry. And to the extent it bars an accused from arguing the victim's plight may not be entirely the accused's fault, it converts an allegation to a judgment, a verdict.

You are stating that you have the right to make a broad allegation about society, "This country has caused oppressed groups to be disadvantaged." That is a true statement. No problem with that. After that, however, you go off the rails into authoritarian-land. When you say that in response to that statement, no one may offer the reply, "But do the disadvantaged possibly bear some personal responsibility for their continued disadvantage?", you have become the judge of what speech is acceptable. You don't have that right. And if you don't see how that's drifting into authoritarianism, I fear this discussion has been a waste of time.

Actually, I know it's been waste of time. No one ever convinces another he's wrong.

That's a clever repackaging. But it's not the question on the table. It never was. Stop trying to shift the debate to a social value assessment of the inquiry. I've already conceded I'm not sure it has much. But whether it does or it doesn't, neither you nor I nor Klein nor anyone else has the right to dictate what ideas should not be discussed, or how controversial ideas should be discussed.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Real and spectacular.

Re: icymi above
 

I am quite obviously wonking, and I hope you've all moved past this, but I am floored that you can't see all the logical leaps and fallacies in what you wrote.

At a certain point in time, the decrease of oppression to a certain level means that the group being oppressed now bears some personal responsibility for their situation? What?

Even though groups can't be personally responsible by definition because it's a concept that can only apply to an individual, those groups have to take responsibility for their circumstances? Uh...?

You're not making any sense at all.

TM

Re: icymi above
 

No, no it doesn't involve the testing of hypotheses. It involve observation and explanation. There's no testing. It's not science.

Why am I dwelling on this? Because you keep invoking the idea of science to suggest that there is some way to be objective and precise about judgments that are ultimately highly subjective and imprecise. There is nothing scientific about deciding that a group that has been discriminated against is somehow responsible for its own victimization.

We're talking about anthropology, Sebby. Try to remember the last silly thing you said.

Relax, I was making fun of your misunderstanding of what the word "censorship" means.

Yes, and I'm asking for to address its concrete implications. The fact that you refuse to do so should be telling you that it's a bad idea, not to double down on the idea that an abstract notion might be a great one even if it seems awful in an real implementation.

Bull. shit. I am doing the opposite of censoring you. I am asking you to explain what the f*ck you are talking about. You refuse to do it. The only person censoring you is you. I am discussing and inquiring here, my friend.

Kumbaya, motherfucker.

Yeah, I actually haven't said that. Which is inconvenient for your schtick, I know. Please go back to the paragraph yesterday with the observation that black cops shoot black kids. Why don't you try thinking about what I'm saying instead of putting words in my mouth.

I've never said you're can't say (stupid) things. I've just asked you why you would want to

It's on the table because I asked you the question. Using your logic, aren't you now censoring me because you are stifling my discussion and inquiry. Now you're the authoritarian, right? (NOTE: I DON'T REALLY THINK THIS BUT AM ASKING IT TO EXPOSE THE STUPIDITY OF THE IDEA.)

You say you've conceding your ideas don't have "much" social value. Why do they have any?

Re: icymi above
 

Sebby, let's try it this way. What's a real, recent example of a disadvantaged group that you think has been partly responsible for its circumstances, and to what (a decision, proceeding, proposal, topic -- anything) do you think that responsibility is relevant? Just one good example, please.

Re: icymi above
 

That argument can be logically made. Refuting it is another issue.

Also, the argument wasn't that the oppression is the oppressed group's fault. It's that the group's disadvantages can be argued, after a time, to be partly the group's fault.

Totally agree that using groups here does not work when discussing allegations of personal responsibility. I made exactly that argument myself. But the issue was raised initially by Klein and Harris using groups, so we're stuck with a flawed hypothetical.

The Klein and Harris debate used groups. I agree groups do not work.

I'm pinning Ty down as advocating that certain arguments should not be made. At core, my point is very simple: If you wish to assert claims that certain groups have been oppressed and consequently suffer disadvantages, you invite a rebuttal that the groups may bear some responsibility for some of those disadvantages. Arguing whether it's true or not is of no interest to me. What is of interest to me is Ty's suggestion, and Klein's, that such rebuttal should not be raised or considered. That strikes me as soft censorship.

TM[/QUOTE]

Re: icymi above
 

You aren't getting off the hook here. The issue is abstract.

For the 50th time:

If you assert that someone is disadvantaged because of oppression, a person has a right to disagree with you. And within that disagreement, he has a right to offer the argument that the disadvantages accrue to some extent from the oppressed person's own actions.

Is it true? Is it not? I don't know or care. What I care about is you and Klein buying into the notion - the illogic - that certain assertions should be placed beyond skepticism.

You aren't weaseling out of this by demanding an example in a dispute regarding the abstract. Nor are you going to do so by turning it into a discussion of the "concrete" impacts. (I would say the potential harms to our free speech rights from people like Klein and you are enormous and quite concrete, but that kicks the door open for you to change the issue.)

Every assertion of every kind may be met with a defense or skepticism. There is no assertion of any kind, about any subject, which may not be met with a defense or skepticism. Do you agree with that? Or do you think certain defenses or skeptical replies should be off limits, taboo?

Re: icymi above
 

Observe, reach conclusion, observe some more to test conclusion. It's a process of reaching hypotheses and testing them.

That's a merits discussion you've been emphasizing.

Sure you have. The inescapable conclusion of your thinking is that certain things should not be said. That certain assertions should be immune to skepticism, or at a minimum skepticism of them should be marginalized, and never given a platform.

No. I've just flagged you for trying to change the subject. Carry on (and you will...).

They might not have any. I don't know. But I do know that deciding what should or shouldn't be said based on the social value assessments of you or me is a very fucked up notion. And one that stands free speech on its ear.

That sort of thinking is but a few steps divorced from those bizarre hate speech laws they have in Europe. Bad ideas die from exposure. Passively squelching them only causes them to fester.

Re: icymi above
 

Sebby, at some point, you need to take responsibility for your own gibberish. I don't care what your IQ is.

Re: icymi above
 

I'm not weaseling out of anything. Your whole idea here is stupid, from top to bottom. You have a stupid abstract idea. It's stupid because it's not science, because it's incoherent, because it's impossible to execute, and also -- here is the point I was getting to most recently -- because however attractive to you it may be in the abstract, it's fundamental stupidity is revealed when you try to find a concrete application.

On the very last point, prove me wrong: Describe a single meaningful and useful practical application of your abstract principle.

Re: icymi above
 

Re: icymi above
 

It's not stupid if my aim was to expose that, like Klein, you think you have the right to decide what sorts of skepticism and defenses may be raised and what ones shall be taboo.

You've proved it by pivoting to the argument, "your idea is stupid." The personal responsibility analysis discussed might indeed be stupid. Or it might not be. But how would we know unless it was aired? You'll never admit it, but it's inescapable: You believe in gatekeepers, and you think your sensibilities of what's stupid and what's taboo are decent ones to be applied. I think that's pretty arrogant, and more than a little Trumpian.

ETA: Holy shit... In 30 seconds of Googling, here's a study of data on exactly the types of issues discussed by Harris and Klein. https://socialequity.duke.edu/sites/...%20REPORT_.pdf Exactly the type of data you said could not be assessed. And to boot -- it supports the argument that personal responsibility is not a cause of the disadvantages referenced within it (wealth disparity).

Now it's time for you to subtly shift your position from "It can't be done or shouldn't be done" to, "See, it's pointless to do it. As you can see from this study (in which they do it), it proves that Harris was wrong to even consider personal responsibility."

You're going to contradict yourself on so many levels in the next post, let me just distill this to a neat final point: It's always a good thing to ask questions - to test things. And arguing against that is really, really stupid.

(I was not holding this to rope a dope you. I really found it in 30 seconds.)

Re: icymi above
 

If you are now saying that you can't think of any actual situation where your ideas would have any useful implication, then I too will stipulate that your ideas are useless.

This is how the marketplace of ideas works. Ideas are presented and tested by exposure to other ideas. You have presented your idea and it has failed.

That is not censorship. If I say, we could do cold fusion with a system I have designed that uses corn cobs as fuel, and we talk about it for a while and decide that it has no practical application and then we stop talking about it, that is not censorship or an affront to free speech, that is how the marketplace of ideas works. If you say, hey, here's a great idea, we can find a way to blame disadvantaged groups for their share of their responsibility for their disadvantages, and we talk about it for a while and decide that it has no practical application (for a whole host of reasons), that also is not censorship.

This reminds me of that famous court case where the one guy started yelling "fire" in a movie theater during a movie, and the government didn't do anything about it but a bunch of the other people who were trying to watch the movie said, "shut up, you jerk," and then the first guy said, "hey, I'm being censored, you're all authoritarians." Actually, it wasn't a court case, but in the end everyone agreed that the first guy was wrong.

I do think that you have discovered a potentially lucrative career, though. There is big money to be made in claiming to be a free-speech martyr on college campuses, and there is always support for the idea that minorities are to blame for the discrimination they have suffered (see, e.g., Charles Murray, who has been exploiting that schtick for many years). No one really cares about the actual ideas involved. If you can turn this stuff into a book and schedule some college speeches, Bob's your uncle. Just remember us when you're rich.

Re: icymi above
 

As an antitrust lawyer, I love me some natural experiments. But let's not pretend that what Sebby wants to do is science.