We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not a power struggle. Trump is trashing institutions and individuals who might pose a threat to him.

And they're powerful institutions, using their power to fight back. They wish to succeed in preserving certain norms. He wishes to-- I don't know what he wishes to do. But he is severely abnormal, and he wishes to force the institutions around him to follow his abnormal behavior.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We don't. But if one says it's impossible to do so, or a violation of logic to attempt to do so, we have a duty to flag that as untrue.

OK. No one is saying that, but I'm sure you can find some more windmills to tilt at, Mr Quixote.

An allegation of causation.

Like what, when?

Not its own abuse. Its disadvantages. One can never argue that any person is responsible for his own abuse or oppression, as they were things he could not control. But logically (I know, broken record), one can always argue that a person is partly or fully responsible for his disadvantages. To state otherwise requires one to assert that a group or person once oppressed is consequently absolved of any responsibility for all disadvantages that group or person has going forward. I believe you disagreed with that earlier.

If you're wondering where this goes, the argument over whether one can do something and whether one should do something are very different things. You can't go mixing those notions. It invites the worst sorts of sophistry.

As a practical matter, why do you think any of this is important?

You don't see very concerned that we don't use "science" to "assess" the extent to which a given group has been disadvantaged by pervasive bias. Shouldn't you start there, if you're that worried about intellectual consistency?

For my part, I think it's pretty clear that there are systemic harms that have been done to different groups in this country and others, and I generally don't see a need to try to shift the "responsibility" for some of that harm back to the victim, unless it's something other than an exercise in blaming the victim and absolving society. Maybe it isn't, but if you think there's a case to be made you're doing a piss-poor job of making it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ferguson and D'Souza do not belong in the same sentence. Ferguson may be sloppy and lazy in some texts, but he's still respectable. D'Souza is an Anne Coulter. He's dealing in fiction and lurid advocacy.

Both of them could have followed a path to academic respectability, and both of them have passed that up to sell books to the masses. You're just quibbling about the degree to which each has sacrificed respect for sales -- the market segment each chose when they sold their soul.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And they're powerful institutions, using their power to fight back. They wish to succeed in preserving certain norms. He wishes to-- I don't know what he wishes to do. But he is severely abnormal, and he wishes to force the institutions around him to follow his abnormal behavior.

Preserving norms is, in its way, the opposite of a power struggle. Your constant insistence of finding dubious equivalence between different parties, to turn them into parallel and competing sides, leads you to say some stupid things. The intelligence community is not trying to run the country. Trump is. In that way, they are very, very different. Unclear why you feel a need to describe their struggle in a way the avoids this difference.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Both of them could have followed a path to academic respectability, and both of them have passed that up to sell books to the masses. You're just quibbling about the degree to which each has sacrificed respect for sales -- the market segment each chose when they sold their soul.

The chasm between their self degradations has its own zip code.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The chasm between their self degradations has its own zip code.

You have no respect for D'Souza because he's selling himself to proles, and you don't particularly value what Ferguson has given up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Preserving norms is, in its way, the opposite of a power struggle. Your constant insistence of finding dubious equivalence between different parties, to turn them into parallel and competing sides, leads you to say some stupid things. The intelligence community is not trying to run the country. Trump is. In that way, they are very, very different. Unclear why you feel a need to describe their struggle in a way the avoids this difference.

Only if you’ve concluded the norms are valid. If you believe the institutional norms are part of the problem, and I think the Trumpkins do (Trump himself is just blundering forward like a Chainsaw Al Dunlap in the White House), then you’ve got the definition of a power struggle.

The Trump people believe the intel agencies’ and systemic DC norms need to be overturned. They do not seek to ruin the country as they see it. They think it’s already ruined.

It’s a power struggle between agencies and the exec branch.

That you and I think the current norms are valid and Trump an aberration doesn’t mean it’s objectively right versus wrong, or ruin versus stability. It just means we see it that way. But really, it is a power struggle. A lunatic versus the entrenched system. I see no winning, as we need reform, but not of the Trumpian kind.

The casino always wins. Trump will disrupt, but in the ultimate game, he loses. The agencies are just going to have play some really nasty cards (leaking his returns) to put this to rest. They’re reluctant to do so for obvious reasons. But they’ll be pushed to it sooner or later.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You have no respect for D'Souza because he's selling himself to proles, and you don't particularly value what Ferguson has given up.

I have no respect for him because I’ve seen him interviewed and he’s a frothing loon, indistinguishable from Coulter.

Also, his birtherism and insistence Obama is a socialist Alinsky apostle puts him in the land of the crazy. Id say he’s a right wing Michael Moore, but Moore only exaggerates, and his core messages tend to be valid criticisms. D’Sousa is simply and entirely full of shit.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK. No one is saying that, but I'm sure you can find some more windmills to tilt at, Mr Quixote.



Like what, when?



As a practical matter, why do you think any of this is important?

You don't see very concerned that we don't use "science" to "assess" the extent to which a given group has been disadvantaged by pervasive bias. Shouldn't you start there, if you're that worried about intellectual consistency?

For my part, I think it's pretty clear that there are systemic harms that have been done to different groups in this country and others, and I generally don't see a need to try to shift the "responsibility" for some of that harm back to the victim, unless it's something other than an exercise in blaming the victim and absolving society. Maybe it isn't, but if you think there's a case to be made you're doing a piss-poor job of making it.

I think it’s important to revere logic in all discussions because if we eschew that, we’re fucked.

The right lives in an alternative reality. The left wishes to squash logic they don’t like. Neither should be allowed to engage in any of this.

You’ll of course see this as false equivalence. I see no daylight between people who’d eschew logic and fantasists. Both lead to “alternative fact” based realities, to borrow from Conway at her nadir.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Only if you’ve concluded the norms are valid. If you believe the institutional norms are part of the problem, and I think the Trumpkins do (Trump himself is just blundering forward like a Chainsaw Al Dunlap in the White House), then you’ve got the definition of a power struggle.

The Trump people believe the intel agencies’ and systemic DC norms need to be overturned. They do not seek to ruin the country as they see it. They think it’s already ruined.

It’s a power struggle between agencies and the exec branch.

That you and I think the current norms are valid and Trump an aberration doesn’t mean it’s objectively right versus wrong, or ruin versus stability. It just means we see it that way. But really, it is a power struggle. A lunatic versus the entrenched system. I see no winning, as we need reform, but not of the Trumpian kind.

The casino always wins. Trump will disrupt, but in the ultimate game, he loses. The agencies are just going to have play some really nasty cards (leaking his returns) to put this to rest. They’re reluctant to do so for obvious reasons. But they’ll be pushed to it sooner or later.

The intelligence community is not struggling for power. In other words, it's not a power struggle.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’ll of course see this as false equivalence.

No, I see it as yet another dodge of the very basic questions about your intellectual exercise.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ferguson and D'Souza do not belong in the same sentence. Ferguson may be sloppy and lazy in some texts, but he's still respectable. D'Souza is an Anne Coulter. He's dealing in fiction and lurid advocacy.

This is fundamentally correct - Ferguson indeed has found his conservatism can be a substitute for rigor, and he is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of conservatives who maintain a position in academe because schools want a token conservative, despite his work being of poor quality. If Ferguson were moderate or liberal, he would have struggled to get tenure at a modest midwestern school. Just about every notable school has a Ferguson or two they can point to (other than Dartmouth, which buys them wholesale).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Both of them could have followed a path to academic respectability, and both of them have passed that up to sell books to the masses. You're just quibbling about the degree to which each has sacrificed respect for sales -- the market segment each chose when they sold their soul.

To be fair, choosing the neo-Nazi market segment over the Wall Street lap dog market segment is a meaningful distinction.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You don't see very concerned that we don't use "science" to "assess" the extent to which a given group has been disadvantaged by pervasive bias. Shouldn't you start there, if you're that worried about intellectual consistency?

We absolutely do use science to determine that. The basis of the settled argument that certain groups have suffered pervasive bias and attendant disadvantages is rooted in anthropology.

For my part, I think it's pretty clear that there are systemic harms that have been done to different groups in this country and others, and I generally don't see a need to try to shift the "responsibility" for some of that harm back to the victim, unless it's something other than an exercise in blaming the victim and absolving society. Maybe it isn't, but if you think there's a case to be made you're doing a piss-poor job of making it.

You can't do A without doing B. I mean, you could, but it's incomplete. To assess the reasons for current disadvantages, logically, you have to consider all potential causes. This isn't unique to the issue at hand. This is logically applicable to any discussion of causation of anything. All potential reasons must be considered.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The intelligence community is not struggling for power. In other words, it's not a power struggle.

It's struggling to retain power. Trump is the insurgent here.

It's a power struggle.