The Real Dog Whistle
So, the Rand Paul kerfuffle. Is Rand Paul a racist for opposing one title of the Civil Rights Act? I don’t think so. Is he absolutely wrong on the merits? Definitely. (Julian Sanchez pretty much nails my take on the substance of the issue.) Was he trying to “dog-whistle” a racist message? I’m pretty sure not, either. The issue emerged only when he was asked the question by a journalist and the national media picked it up.
But isn’t the real lesson of this whole drama that if you’re a politician with deeply-held beliefs and you’re asked about a controversial subject ripe for mis- or over-interpretation, you should just obfuscate and seem as bland as possible? Or perhaps just not get into electoral politics at all?
I don’t want all my politicians to be Rand Paul but I do want one or two of them in the Senate. I also want Senators who want to nationalize banks and health insurers and airlines! One or two. I certainly think we’re not lacking for Chris Dodds and Max Baucuses.
When the controversy erupted, I don’t know how rural white kentuckians felt, but you can bet that the ears of every aspiring political office holder with outside-the-mainstream views perked up, big time.
Another proud moment.
I think no one should pretend Rand Paul is a libertarian.
He is a teabagger.
“Here’s the problem with Rand Paul’s statements over the Civil Rights Act. If he were truly a pure libertarian, they’d be defensible theoretical views, as you point out. But, as Time magazine notes:
Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn’t believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he’d support federal drug laws, he’d vote to support Kentucky’s coal interests and he’d be tough on national security.”
Libertarians just don’t say stuff like this…from his website.
“I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.
I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue.”
You cannot be a principled libertarian on a single issue, while advocating Big Government intervention on nearly everything else.
Stop pretending PEG.
— matoko_chan · May 22, 12:06 PM · #
And actually PEG….you are right.
The teabaggers deserve representation too.
But just be honest about it……Rand Paul is no libertarian.
He would be the Teabagger Senator.
He can also represent the Alex Jones info-warriors, birchers, and stormfronters that contributed to his campaign.
The right likes to pretend those people don’t exist since they are embarrassing and they drive out moderates…….but don’t they deserve representation?
Aren’t they citizens?
If they can get Paul elected, more power to them.
But just don’t try to spin who Paul would really represent.
It isnt mainstream america.
— matoko_chan · May 22, 12:35 PM · #
What the hell is tea-bagging?
— Adrian Ratnapala · May 22, 01:04 PM · #
“But isn’t the real lesson of this whole drama that if you’re a politician with deeply-held beliefs and you’re asked about a controversial subject ripe for mis- or over-interpretation, you should just obfuscate and seem as bland as possible?”
Well, if your views are wildly outside the mainstream, then… maybe you don’t get to be a US senator.
“I don’t want all my politicians to be Rand Paul but I do want one or two of them in the Senate.”
I am personally inclined to think that he is ethnocentric, unreflective, and ignorant about history and policy— I don’t think that he is racist, as I’ve seen nothing he’s said indicating an animus towards minorities. But who cares? His views aren’t disqualifying because he is a bad person; his views are disqualifying because they are wildly unreflective and ignorant. I don’t want anyone in the Senate who thinks the wrong side won WWII or the Civil War or the Cold War. Nor do I want anyone in the Senate who doesn’t understand that, human nature and history being what it is, the Civil Rights Act had to ban discrimination in places of public accommodation in order to be effective in finally making it possible for the country’s African Americans to live like humans. It’s kind of a big deal.
The argument isn’t that he should be beaten or arrested; it’s that he shouldn’t get to be one of the few hundred most powerful legislators in the country.
— Elvis Elvisberg · May 22, 02:54 PM · #
I’d tolerate one or two of these guys in the house, but not the Senate – individual Senators have too much power on their own to support someone like Rand Paul.
Just imagine it: a hold on all nominations until school lunches are eliminated. Several times a year, all business grinds to a halt as Sen. Paul pontificates on wealth creators and moochers and the rest of his college-freshman-who-just-read-Atlas-Shrugged philosophy. If anything, it would be tiring.
— rj · May 22, 03:10 PM · #
As Richard Epstein, Brink Lindsey, and David Bernstein point out, Paul’s view isn’t even necessarily libertarian doctrine: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/05/richard-epstein-says-that-rand-paul-is-brain-dead.html
Paul’s is the most juvenile, surface-level, reality-averse caricature of libertarianism. He’s not disqualified because he’s a libertarian (well, unless it affects him directly: (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/in-defense-of-rand-paul-kinda-ctd-2.html ); he’s disqualified because he is afflicted with Pailn/Bush-level ignorance and incuriosity.
— Elvis Elvisberg · May 22, 03:41 PM · #
I dunno…..i think Rand Paul is the avatar of the TPM. He selectively embraces the psuedo-libertarianism they do…and endorses the same conflicting memes….fiscal conservatism except for things his consituents want (like defense and foreign interventionism)….against big government except for federal solutions for socon issues (like abortion and SSM) and old people benefits like medicare……
He’s a Teabag Libertarian.
lawl.
But still….arent there enough teapartiers that they deserve representation?
They are citizens, right?
Don’t John Birchers, KKKmembers, birthers, snake-handlers, Phelps Baptists, Stormfront troopers and Alex Jones Info-warriors deserve a vote?
I mean….their ideology is icky, but they are still citizens.
Rand Paul is their candidate.
— matoko_chan · May 22, 03:47 PM · #
“you’re asked about a controversial subject ripe for mis- or over-interpretation”
Or, in this case, a subject ripe for simple interpretation.
It’s far from self-evident that Paul’s position is being widely mis-interpreted. The question of when government intervention of private enterprise is justified is a question that comes up constantly in legislation, and Paul disagrees with one of the circumstances that the overwhelming number of Americans consider one of the slam-dunk simple cases of necessary intervention. That quite naturally raises questions about his policy choices and governing philosophy.
To answer your question, yes, if you are a candidate that has deeply-held beliefs on significant issues that are opposed by the majority of the country then your chances of being elected will increase if you lie about or obfuscate your views. I have no idea why you think there’s something strange about that.
— Henry Calhoun Clay · May 22, 03:57 PM · #
I agree with Elvis Elvistown Elvisville.
It’ not that Rand (named after Anne Rand, Goddess of libertarian whack-jobs, get it?) Paul’s beliefs are out of the mainstream, it’s that his beliefs are stupid (and it’s not just civil rights). Anyone that would believe them is probably pretty stupid too, or unthoughtful, or brain damaged, or brain washed, whatever. And then his handeling of the aftermath has been pretty incompetent.
Of course stupid and incompetent people (like myself, actually) deserve representation, but we need to be represented by someone smart and competent who will make good desicions FOR and DESPITE us. That is what representative government ideally is about.
And PEG you say you want a couple Senators who want to nationalize crap, but I’m sure you don’t want them to represent you. So, while it may amuse you to have dumb-asses like RP in the senate, it wouldn’t really be fair to the people of Kentuky.
— cw · May 22, 04:04 PM · #
PS. This remindes me of a syndrome that libertarians are particuarly prone to. I call it call it My Principle is Warm and Reassuring Like a Mommy Syndrome.
In this syndrome, people (usually young and inexperienced high school and college students just begining to use thier brains) put full faith into a principle and then use it to guide their thinking unwaveringly. In RPs case it was the principal that governemnt should not interfear with private buisness. In general this is a pretty good principal but in certain cases, like the when business have formed a cartel to lock out whole classes of people from the normal life of society, Government needs to step in. But poeple with this syndrome are not mentally nimble or confident enough to examine their principle in the contexts of reality. The principal—governemtn should never interfear with business—is solid and reassuring. It is easy to apply. It requires making no messy judgements. To let go of it and venture out into the stormy sea of reality is terrifying.
You could of course, look at reality and reform your principle—gov should usually not interfear with business. But this is much more difficult to apply. You have to use your brain to decide when to make an exception and how to implememnt the exception. You might as well not even have principle at all, becasue a priciple with the possibility of excptions offers none of the mental solice of a rock solid, no-exceptions principle. A principal with exceptions is not a mommy, which is why you like these principles in the first place.
It is as I said above, this syndrome is pretty childish. That’s why it’s kind of hilarious to see it in an adult running for congress.
— cw · May 22, 04:28 PM · #
So, while it may amuse you to have dumb-asses like RP in the senate, it wouldn’t really be fair to the people of Kentuky.
O Dark Master cw
if kentuckians are mostly tea party supporters and activists, wouldn’t Paul represent them perfectly as the avatar of the TPM?
— matoko_chan · May 22, 04:43 PM · #
“I don’t want all my politicians to be Rand Paul but I do want one or two of them in the Senate. I also want Senators who want to nationalize banks and health insurers and airlines! One or two. I certainly think we’re not lacking for Chris Dodds and Max Baucuses.”
Maybe so, though I wouldn’t want to take this principle too far. While there may be a lot of fringe cranks in the populace, I wouldn’t see a need to give them proportional representation. However, PEG – I don’t mean to be offensive here, but aren’t you French? If so, what do you mean “we” and “my” with regard to American politicians? I’m all for being a citizen of the world and all, but we still live in a world of nations and borders, after all.
— Mark in Houston · May 22, 04:52 PM · #
Rand on the Run
lawl.
“That doesn’t necessarily mean that most GOP primary voters would have agreed with Paul’s position. It’s just that they weren’t going to have any traction for a fairly milquetoast Republican like Grayson who needed to show that he was as anti-Obama and anti-federal overreach as the next guy in the year of the Tea Party. Just wasn’t going to happen. So in addition to the press, there was a structural breakdown in the race itself that left a lot of Paul’s nuttier positions unexplored.
Which brings us to another point. I’m not at all clear how much or whether any of this stuff is going to hurt Paul in the Kentucky Senate. I think the Rasmussen poll that showed him like a million points ahead a day after the election was nonsense. And Conway seems like a strong candidate. But, again, it’s far from clear to me that this is going to hurt Paul in state.”
— matoko_chan · May 22, 05:10 PM · #
Elvis Elvisberg: “Well, if your views are wildly outside the mainstream, then… maybe you don’t get to be a US senator.” I think as long as you keep your issue positions mainstream, people should give you a shot. Paul will not attempt to bring the CRA up for a vote.
cw: “poeple with this syndrome are not mentally nimble or confident enough to examine their principle in the contexts of reality.” I don’t really understand what people mean when they say this. There were Southerners who appealed to “historical reality” against abstract liberal principles of equality, which I think makes at least as much sense.
Obviously, when supporters of the CRA look at reality, they do so with a set of principles in mind. They just think that they have a superior understanding of the meaning of liberty, or that the injustice of racial segregation, even if non-government endorsed, is so great as to justify restricting the liberty to discriminate.
— Aaron · May 22, 05:58 PM · #
i’ll rephrase this for my Dark Master….
Rand Paul is wholly isomorphic with the Tea Party positions as i understand them.
Should the TPM have senatorial representation in american government?
— matoko_chan · May 22, 06:32 PM · #
and that would be Ayn Rand, Sithlord cw.
amg you haven’t read Atlas Shrugged either???????
— matoko_chan · May 22, 06:40 PM · #
The “racism” trope is a distraction: I’ve seen exactly zero serious accusations that Paul is racist. The kerfuffle is the canyon between his views, and consensus political understanding of our recent history: in other words, “Boy! Is this guy out of the mainstream!”
— Scrooge McDuck · May 22, 06:51 PM · #
PEG, “…but you can bet that the ears of every aspiring political office holder with outside-the-mainstream views perked up, big time.”
Gee, ya think?
Seems to me that politicians, aspiring or otherwise, always have their ears a tuned for controversy. In this case the Republicans are trying to avoid the Paul provoked controversy and the Democrats are trying to exploit the controversy.
So, yes. Nothing new if those holding outside-the-mainstream views might be trying to downplay or repackage those views.
— Bob · May 22, 07:04 PM · #
It’s when you pick up your Social Security disability check in the morning and go to a protest about “big government” and entitlement spending in the afternoon.
— Chet · May 22, 10:12 PM · #
“There were Southerners who appealed to “historical reality” against abstract liberal principles of equality, which I think makes at least as much sense.”
Well, Rand Paul has said that he doesn’t support racial discrimintation. He also said something to the effect that we should tollerate racial discrimintation in the name of freedom of association (or whatever) the same way we tollerate offensive speech in the name of free speech. If he had the courage to actually examine his principal in the context of reality he would see that the consequences of offensive speech are not equal to the consequences of pervasive racial discrimination. Once he had this realization he would have to either accept the consequences of racial discrimination, or come up with some way of alleviating it. HE would have to examine the reality of the situation in order to figure out some way to change it. His principal, “the gov. shouldn’t interfear with business” would have to be examined as well, becasue if you truely wanted to figure out a way to alleiviate discrimination, then you would have to consider letting the gov interfear with business (and states rights).
This idea that all viewpoints are equally correct is another syndrome, one conservatives are always railing against. In actual fact, two opposing parties can have two opposing viewpoints, but most of the time one is going to be more correct than the other. Like ritual cliterectomy so that women won’t enjoy sex so that they won’t be temepted to commit adultery vrs. not hacking off cliteri (what is the plural of this word?). THese ar both strongly held viewpoints. One is actually more correct than the other.
— cw · May 22, 10:31 PM · #
Chet- Your rhetoric proves the point of the critic of Big Government.
Our current system forces people to rely on government (people have to pay into social security, which diminishes their ability to save on their own.) This dependence on government allows those who believe themselves to be part of the benevolent political coalition to dismiss their views about the way they ought to be governed- “let them eat social security.” In other words, it leads to them being treated as subjects, not as citizens….
How about this: “Hispanics in Arizona drive on state roads in the morning and protest the state’s immigration law in the afternoon.”
— Aaron · May 22, 10:36 PM · #
lawl Aaron that is just the Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance Contract With America.
government healthcare BAD…government healthcare medicare GOOD
federal government laws BAD…state government laws GOOD except for….federal anti-abortion laws!
I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue.”
federal government spending BAD…..federal government spending on defense and foreign interventionism GOOD.
get it?
— matoko_chan · May 23, 12:04 AM · #
If he had the courage to actually examine his principal in the context of reality he would see that the consequences of offensive speech are not equal to the consequences of pervasive racial discrimination.
The reason we tolerate offensive speech is NOT because it’s of little consequence. URL here .
— The Reticulator · May 23, 01:24 AM · #
The fact that Rand Paul clearly can’t handle simple, obvious questions pretty much says it all. Not really a quality candidate pool you have there, libertarians. Wonder why that could be.
— z · May 23, 01:44 AM · #
I agree with Elvis Graceland too.
In so far as Rand is exercising his libertarian sensibilities, he is failing to recognize the limitations of a single political philosophy in guiding all political judgement. We’ve recently experienced the pains of injecting dogmatic principles into the political process — it sucked. Our leaders should unequivocally recognize that the Civil Rights Act was a very good thing, even if that is hard for them to reconcile with their broader normative frameworks.
Obama embodies the sort of pragmatism that we aren’t seeing here. Or, you could say Obama is conservative about the unfettered institution of any one brand of political philosophy. Rand just gave us another reason to celebrate that.
— Walker Frost · May 23, 01:50 AM · #
Our leaders should unequivocally recognize that the Civil Rights Act was a very good thing, even if that is hard for them to reconcile with their broader normative frameworks.
Unequivocally? That’s a strange thing to say. There are a lots of very good things that have happened in this country that are good to equivocate about. There have been none that have been unmixed blessings.
In religion there are certain doctrines we’re not supposed to equivocate about. But in political life?
— The Reticulator · May 23, 02:57 AM · #
Say, here’s an idea: Why don’t we have an Inquisition to root out heresy about the Civil Rights Act? We could hold it right here in this comment thread. Anyone want to volunteer for the role of Grand Inquisitor?
— The Reticulator · May 23, 03:07 AM · #
“There are a lots of very good things that have happened in this country that are good to equivocate about.”
Yes, there are. But I don’t see how the Civil Rights Act is one of them. To equivocate is to avoid committing oneself, and this seems to be one of those rare issues that requires unabashed or unflinching commitment. That’s why Rand’s follow-up remark said just that:
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”
“I think that there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention in the ’60s. And it stems from things that I said, you know, had been going on, really, 120 years too long. And the Southern states weren’t correcting it. And I think there was a need for federal intervention.”
He just should have said that the first time.
— Walker Frost · May 23, 03:14 AM · #
even if that is hard for them to reconcile with their broader normative frameworks.
but Walker, as i just illustrated with the Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance Contract with America, Rand Paul has no problem reconciling a raft of inconsistant positions with his principled “libertarianism.”
What is special about racism, and not special about defense spending and the federal “Life at Conception Act”?
— matoko_chan · May 23, 03:26 AM · #
To equivocate is to avoid committing oneself
No, it isn’t. Lots of soldiers have gone to war, for example, even though they haven’t been completely convinced the war was right or necessary.
(Still laughing at a person who in one sentence complains about the insertion of dogmatic principles in the political process, then in the very next sentence proposes a dogma about which there should be no equivocation. It’s not everyone who would have the wherewithal to do that.)
— The Reticulator · May 23, 03:36 AM · #
Matoko, you’re right. Which is why he should be willing to live with inconsistency on this one too. I hope he stays closer to his libertarian tendencies on military and abortion. Those are just my contingent political/ethical commitments. But in the end, this just furthers the point that we are better off not using one philosophical framework for all political problems. And we are also better off with politicians who don’t even try.
Reticulator, Apple dictionary says it is:
equivocate |iˈkwivəˌkāt|
verb [ intrans. ]
use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself
I am not saying equality is always good. I am saying that the Civil Rights Act was an overwhelmingly good thing for which we should be willing to sacrifice any philosophical framework, and we should fear those who aren’t. You can’t dogmatically apply the lessons Civil Rights Act to tackle new issues — that would be equally dangerous as applying libertarianism to reject the Civil Rights Acts.
— Walker Frost · May 23, 04:09 AM · #
Walker Frost,
You’re right about the definition of equivocate. I had thought it meant something like Harry Truman’s two-handed economists. (On the one hand; on the other hand.)
But I’m still laughing at you. Now you’re advocating a philosophical framework under which we should be willing to sacrifice any philosophical framework.
— The Reticulator · May 23, 04:35 AM · #
Reticulator,
“a philosophical framework under which we should be willing to sacrifice any philosophical framework” makes sense to me. One of my philosophical frames works is that no philosophiocal framework is going to work all the time (including the previously stated PFW). THis means that I am prepared to abandon whatever PFW I usually operate by when results in reality tell me that it is no longer working. That way I don’t just keep banging my head against the wall.
MTKCHN:
me: “So, while it may amuse you to have dumb-asses like RP in the senate, it wouldn’t really be fair to the people of Kentuky.”
you: “if kentuckians are mostly tea party supporters and activists, wouldn’t Paul represent them perfectly as the avatar of the TPM?”
me again: “Of course stupid and incompetent people (like myself, actually) deserve representation, but we need to be represented by someone smart and competent who will make good desicions FOR and DESPITE us. That is what representative government ideally is about.
Teapartiers may want to be represented by someone with their incohearent beliefs, but if that actually happened, it would be to their detriment. Look at California. They have a all these referendums and the electorate gets what they want. And it is near disaster. Ideally, you get represented by someone who is smarter than you and actually spends time to understand the issues and also has the integrity to legislate in your best interests rather than pander to your worst instincts (I should be a speech writer).
— cw · May 23, 05:27 AM · #
It’s when you pick up your Social Security disability check in the morning and go to a protest about “big government” and entitlement spending in the afternoon.
I’ll bet you’ve got a pimp suit that you wear to put you in the proper frame of mind for talking like that.
Just the same, this is a damning indictment of the welfare state. What you’re saying is that when the government gives people disability checks, it is also buying their political views and is expecting them to stay bought. (I’ll bet you people didn’t say anything about that when you enacted these programs.)
— The Reticulator · May 23, 05:31 AM · #
One of my philosophical frames works is that no philosophiocal framework is going to work all the time (including the previously stated PFW). THis means that I am prepared to abandon whatever PFW I usually operate by when results in reality tell me that it is no longer working.
But have you ever abandoned the philosophical framework that says no philosophical framework is going to work all the time?
— The Reticulator · May 23, 12:32 PM · #
Motoko, Reticulator — get a room
— Snarkie McSnarksnark · May 23, 04:33 PM · #
cw: “The idea that all viewpoints are equally correct is another syndrome.” I didn’t suggest that all viewpoints are equally correct. Rather, I said that two particular viewpoints made equal sense to me- one was the South’s view that their particular history made segregation necessary and outweighed the rest of the country’s liberal principles. The other is the view expressed by many critics of Rand Paul, that he should have set aside liberal principles (as he interprets them) in light of particular historical realities. “Historical reality” doesn’t really tell us anything if we aren’t bringing principles to it. For instance, in your effort you write,
“His principal, ‘the gov. shouldn’t interfear with business’ would have to be examined as well, becasue if you truely wanted to figure out a way to alleiviate discrimination, then you would have to consider letting the gov interfear with business (and states rights).” Truly wanting to figure out a way to alleviate discrimination is based on a principle- the simple fact of discrimination does not get you there. So now the question becomes which good is greater- an integrated society/marketplace or absolute negative freedom of association.
Walker Forest- “is no longer working,” by what standard? Some Southerners would have said social stability is the standard by which abstract liberal principles are “no longer working.” WFB Jr. at one time would have said recognition of the contingent reality that one civilization is higher than another justified allowing “the white community to prevail,” in contrast to the supposedly immutable rights of man.
— Aaron · May 23, 07:35 PM · #
What I’m saying is that rank hypocrisy is neither worth celebrating nor mainstreaming as a political movement. What it’s worth is my derision, which the “teabagger” appellation pretty neatly encapsulates. That it’s what the teabaggers themselves wanted to be called just makes it all the sweeter.
— Chet · May 23, 08:06 PM · #
What I’m saying is that rank hypocrisy is neither worth celebrating nor mainstreaming as a political movement. What it’s worth is my derision, which the “teabagger” appellation pretty neatly encapsulates. That it’s what the teabaggers themselves wanted to be called just makes it all the sweeter.
You didn’t demonstrate that any hypocrisy was involved. The problem is that if you try to do so, you just undermine the moral authority of the leftwing welfare state even further. But go ahead, give it a try.
BTW if the term “teabagger” has a lot of emotional baggage for you, don’t expect everyone else to help carry the load.
— The Reticulator · May 23, 08:49 PM · #
Aaron, the White Patriarchy Social Cohesion model has been destroyed by cultural and demographic evolution….starting when blacks and women became citizens.
the new social cohesion model that is evolving is social democracy.
the only thing conservatives could do is offer a social cohesion model that works better for electoral majorities than social democracy. you cannot run evolution backwards…just like we can’t travel back to the 1800s when WPSC worked wonderfully….because of closed form time curves.
what you SHOULD have done, is invoked classical liberalism in 1964, instead of libertarianism.
But it is much too late for that now.
almost a half century of the southern strategy has rendered the dark of skin politically, culturally and physically inaccessible to conservatives.
and it doesn’t look like that is going to change.
— matoko_chan · May 23, 11:18 PM · #
Matoko,
I do not advocate a white patriarchy social cohesion model. I’m just saying, pragmatism is a double-edged sword.
Chet, that’s just another way of saying what the reticulator said; once government cripples people to the point where they depend on it (FICA taxes cause people to need social security,) they are no longer worthy of respect as fellow citizens, but rather should be treated as wards of the state. Only people who perceive themselves as part of the more benevolent political coalition have opinions that are entitled to respect (though, since these people also depend on government, perhaps they should all shut up, too.)
— Aaron · May 23, 11:27 PM · #
“But have you ever abandoned the philosophical framework that says no philosophical framework is going to work all the time”
It means that theoretically, out there somewhere, is a philisophical framework that works all the time. What about the 5 second rule? I have never gotten sick from eating something that has only been on the floor for five seconds.
— cw · May 24, 12:32 AM · #
“I didn’t suggest that all viewpoints are equally correct. Rather, I said that two particular viewpoints made equal sense to me-….”
What is the difference between “equally correct” and “made equal sense to me?” I can’t see any.
“…one [viewpoint] was the South’s view that their particular history made segregation necessary and outweighed the rest of the country’s liberal principles.”
This is the (tragically, laughably, retardedly) incorrect view.
— cw · May 24, 12:38 AM · #
I am only talking about two views, not “all views;” comparing two particular positions, not embracing a general relativism. Also, I don’t endorse either view, so it would be unidiomatic at the very least to say that I hold that those two views are “equally correct.” But under pragmatist assumptions, I don’t know how you decide between the two.
— Aaron · May 24, 02:37 AM · #
But Aaron….conservatives have no alternate social cohesion paradigm to offer.
like i said….they could have chosen classical liberal model instead of libertarian model.
they didn’t.
there is no pragmatist assumption involved at this point……we must have a social compact…the old one excluded half of the electorate….the new one, social democracy, is evolving.
their is no alternative, pragmatic or otherwise.
— matoko_chan · May 24, 03:48 AM · #
“But under pragmatist assumptions, I don’t know how you decide between the two.”
I don’t know what you are talking about. What do you mean by “unidiomatic?” What “pragmatist assumptions” are you talking about here? What do you mean you don’t know how to decide between the two viewpoints? You just think about it, come up with your best reasons and pick one.
— cw · May 24, 04:36 AM · #
Aaron: “By what standard?” By my own personal standards. I have no argumentative recourse for convincing anyone that racism is bad. There is no authoritative source to settle that dispute. I would just prefer to live in a world without racism, and fortunately I think the majority of Americans are moving in that direction too.
That contingent belief to me is far more important that my philosophical frameworks about political organizations, and I think it is for most Americans (and Obama), too. However, Rand Paul’s remarks (which seem to be outliers slightly taken out of context) suggest that for him, it is a lower priority than libertarianism. And especially after Bush, that’s scary (to me).
— Walker Frost · May 24, 04:41 AM · #
It means that theoretically, out there somewhere, is a philisophical framework that works all the time.
I don’t know about theoretically, but we have a proponent of one such on this very comment thread. If you have any doubts, you should take it up with him. He’ll make a true believer out of you, or else cast you into utter darkness.
— The Reticulator · May 24, 11:31 AM · #
I think I am already in utter darkness.
Hey, there was an article in the Madison paper about a blackhawk war site near Blue Mounds.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_4ab11a3e-6600-11df-9e21-001cc4c002e0.html
Not much there now, but I guess at one time there was a “fort.”
— cw · May 24, 01:18 PM · #
FICA taxes cause people to need Social Security? I never cease kicking myself for making the mistake of thinking I can come here and talk to adults. Jesus Christ.
Oh, I’m sorry, I thought anyone with an IQ higher than a raisin would have accurately perceived the most salient aspect of the classic teabagger chant “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” Well, fair enough. When talking with you in the future, Reticulator, I’ll try to keep in mind that you’re too stupid to understand the plain English meaning of words.
— Chet · May 24, 02:42 PM · #
cw: Oh, never mind.
Walker Forest: That’s a slightly different argument. You say racism is bad, Rand Paul says violations of negative freedom of association are bad. Those are both normative claims. You don’t differ from Rand Paul in your willingness to let your norms dictate your political decisions. You may differ from him in that he might believe that his norms are grounded in something other than his own preference, but that is a different matter.
— Aaron · May 24, 02:47 PM · #
Thanks for the Blue Mounds fort link, cw. I’ve ridden in the area looking for fort locations. There was one nearby that had no marker whatsoever. I’ll have to look at my photo collection to see if I already visited the site in the article or not. I was surprised to hear of 72 forts in Wisconsin, which is a number quite a bit larger than I had known about. But I guess shouldn’t have been surprised, given the large number in Illinois. Even in Michigan, there were fort locations as far east as Ann Arbor.
— The Reticulator · May 24, 04:48 PM · #
I think it’s amusing how Raud Paul is whining about liberal media bias when he, along his father, have always been propped up by MSNBC b/c of their anti-Iraq war and “we deserved 9-11” blowback theory. Both the Pauls want us to give them a gold star for their “honesty” and not being “cookie cutter” candidates, but when people have some serious questions about a controversial statement Paul makes, he runs for the tall grass and expects conservatives to warmly embrace him. This guy is more a liberterian, and he’s flat out kooky liberal on foreign policy, and so I’m a little amazed how how liberals are trying to label him a conservative now. Republican voters rejected his dad, and they believe the same things.
— Matt X · May 24, 04:55 PM · #
Chet,
I could have sworn that you pimped the following words, “It’s when you pick up your Social Security disability check in the morning and go to a protest about “big government” and entitlement spending in the afternoon.”
But maybe you’re right. Maybe I’m too stupid to understand the plain English meaning of words.
BTW, you still haven’t explained what’s hypocritical about picking up a SS disability check while protesting big government and entitlement spending. I’d like to know, because I’m all in favor of that kind of behavior.
As to your other topic, regarding the apocryphal person who says, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” how is that any different from President Obama talking about a plan to cut Congressional spending while he’s spending us into oblivion?
— The Reticulator · May 24, 04:56 PM · #
Speakin of hypocrisy, what about Obama not helping his half brother that lives in squalor in a hut in Kenya, while Obama lectures us about how we should be willing to support high taxation and government in the name of helping our fellow brothers and sisters? :)
— Matt X · May 24, 05:01 PM · #
I don’t understand your use of “pimped”, here. If I had pimped those words, wouldn’t Xzibit have shown up to install lifters, rims, and a navigation that pops up out of a dictionary?
Doing the thing you’re protesting against is the pretty traditional definition of hypocrisy. You know, like when you record a video against pre-marital sex, starring your own mistress.
Oh, if only they were apocryphal!
— Chet · May 24, 06:37 PM · #
I do not advocate a white patriarchy social cohesion model. I’m just saying, pragmatism is a double-edged sword.
what the hell are you advocating then?
— matoko_chan · May 24, 06:41 PM · #
Matoko: I don’t think I’ve advocated anything. I have disputed the idea that examining political principles in light of straight-forward reality will give us a lot of answers.
Reticulator: Our apocryphal “government off MediCare” friend is a product of the casual, paternalistic contempt most people on the Left have for the beneficiaries of government largesse. MediCare is popular because it is extremely generous, which worked for a long time; there was little downside to relying on government. Soon such generousity will soon no longer work, and we will have to fight each other politically over resources. Centralizing health care further, as under ObamaCare, makes the problem more accute. People have every right to take note and decide that they do not want to become more dependent on government than they already are.
— Aaron · May 24, 08:54 PM · #
Nonsense. I don’t have any problem with people on government assistance, and I hope that people help themselves to any sort of government assistance to which they qualify. My open contempt for moronic tea baggers has absolutely nothing to do with whether they’re on government assistance or not.
It’s about whether they take that assistance, and then with the other hand, try to pull the ladder up behind them. I don’t care that they’re o Medicare. I care that they’re the sort of ridiculous morons who don’t want “government health care” but love them some Medicare.
— Chet · May 24, 09:55 PM · #
“You don’t differ from Rand Paul in your willingness to let your norms dictate your political decisions.”
I agree that I don’t differ from Rand Paul in my willingness to let contingent influences dictate my political sensibilities, though neither of us have much of a choice there. But we have different ideas about how useful norms are as guide for action. For example, I think “racism is bad” doesn’t serve as a useful guide in answering tough questions about affirmative action, as both sides have a reasonable claim to the adage. A good decision on that issue requires a detailed exploration of the various causes and effects associated with such political positions, and a willingness to admit that an old adage could be useless. Doing that is much different than what Rand is doing, which is projecting a philosophical framework to criticize a political policy that, for me and most Americans, was overwhelmingly positive. And if he is willing to do it with the Civil Rights Act, then what is he not willing to do it to?
Of course at some point we all have to make decisions based on nothing but personal preferences. I guess that is why Dewey called pragmatism the philosophy of democracy.
— Walker Frost · May 24, 10:51 PM · #
“Those are both normative claims. You don’t differ from Rand Paul in your willingness to let your norms dictate your political decisions.”
Dude, your just plodding around in the same circle over and over. You’re a mule in a grist mill. The only thing you are saying is that, basically, “there are compeating arguments here.” That is understood. Now the next step is—if you disagree with one of the arguments—say why.
— cw · May 24, 11:39 PM · #
“Of course at some point we all have to make decisions based on nothing but personal preferences. I guess that is why Dewey called pragmatism the philosophy of democracy.”
Or we could look at another classic educator, Bloom and his taxonomy. At the top, judgment, evaluation.
— cw · May 24, 11:43 PM · #
The problem with pragmatism is that it never works. And as a philosophy, it requires considerable intellectual dishonesty.
John Dewey is someone who should be dug out of his grave and shot to make sure he’s really dead. The S.O.B. cost hundreds of millions of children a decent education.
— The Reticulator · May 25, 03:18 AM · #
I have disputed the idea that examining political principles in light of straight-forward reality will give us a lot of answers.
oh….i get it.
Aaron is jus’ talkin’ bulshytt.
Bulshytt: Speech (typically but not necessarily commercial or political) that employs euphemism, convenient vagueness, numbing repetition, and other such rhetorical subterfuges to create the impression that something has been said.
lawl.
— matoko_chan · May 25, 03:47 AM · #
It’s about whether they take that assistance, and then with the other hand, try to pull the ladder up behind them. I don’t care that they’re o Medicare. I care that they’re the sort of ridiculous morons who don’t want “government health care” but love them some Medicare.
So you DO think that government assistance is intended to buy people’s political views. You ARE really a government pimp, trying to break down the self-respect of the people under your “care.” Like I said, a damning indictment of the leftwing welfare system.
Your methods have a long and dishonorable history. They were also used by American treaty commissioners in their psychological war against the Native people whose lands they were taking away.
But this time it’s not going to work. My campaign is to get people to take the government assistance and use it to unelect the type of people who enacted the programs. Let Leviathan finance the destruction of Leviathan.
(BTW, whether or not you agree with that strategy, one thing we can all agree on is that people who criticize the “keep your government hands off my Medicare” kind of talk but who are oblivious to the fruitcake rhetoric of a President who wants Congress to cut spending while he’s increasing it more wildly than Bush are not the people we should look to for assistance in evaluating the adequacy of tea partiers’ intelligence.)
— The Reticulator · May 25, 12:54 PM · #
My campaign is to get people to take the government assistance and use it to unelect the type of people who enacted the programs.
Reticulator.
…
but you will fail.
you simply can’t fight cultural and demographic evolution and the Grand Experiment of the Founders.
the system is WAI.
your failure was set in motion 50 years ago when conservatives chose libertarianism and the southern strategy over classical liberalism and national appeal.
you are relying on fake statistics and identity politics demagoguery right now.
if you want an amerindian example, the 2010 midterms are Custers Last Stand for white christian conservatives.
you are never getting “your” country back.
Its OUR country now.
;)
— matoko_chan · May 25, 02:34 PM · #
i mean……we won.
we won already, when a black man got elected president 365 ec votes to 173.
its over except the weeping and gnashing of teeth.
could you be a little more gracious and and a little less fugly and hateful maybe?
— matoko_chan · May 25, 02:51 PM · #
Ah, yes, the “might makes right” principle. I’ve heard of that before. It was used to justify the conquest of the Native peoples of North America. Now it’s being used by the hardline leftists. `
— The Reticulator · May 25, 07:56 PM · #
no Reticulator, might doesn’t make right.
representation makes right.
its the American way.
btw im 1/32 cherokee.
;)
— matoko_chan · May 25, 11:02 PM · #
No, I really don’t, Reticulator, just as I think elections aren’t an act of violence, as you do:
“Might” is a funny way to describe millions of Americans peacefully announcing their preferences on ballots and then tabulating the winner. But, when you have so much trouble with words like “might”, it’s not so surprising you have so much trouble understanding me.
I’d actually be in favor of public finance of elections, with private finance disallowed, but somehow I don’t think that’s what you mean at all. Of course, it’s all but impossible to understand what you mean, since to you, spitting on a Congressman and calling him a “nigger” just because you don’t his vote is “self-respect.”
You reside in an alternate universe where up is down, left is right, black is white, and cashing that Social Security check (and asking for more) is the ultimate act of rebellion against the welfare state. You’re an unsalvageable wreck of personal idiocy.
— Chet · May 25, 11:03 PM · #
im tired of this discussion
PEG or someone, wake Manzi up so we can talk about Craig Venter’s digital DNA and synthetic life.
i think i just won the old complexity argument, on synthesizing life (but not on consciousness, free will, and determinism…..yet).
:)
— matoko_chan · May 26, 12:05 AM · #
Put out the Manzi bat-signal.
:)
— matoko_chan · May 26, 01:31 AM · #
representation makes right.
No, it doesn’t. Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights for clues.
btw im 1/32 cherokee.
According to the Anglo-European racist understanding of what it means to be Indian you might indeed be 1/32 cherokee. But how the Cherokee were pressured into adopting that system is a sordid tale in itself, a modern version of which you are participating in as one of the bad guys.
— The Reticulator · May 26, 03:03 AM · #
Of course, it’s all but impossible to understand what you mean, since to you, spitting on a Congressman and calling him a “nigger” just because you don’t his vote is “self-respect.”
Say, what? I think you’re getting the voices in your head all mixed up.
and cashing that Social Security check (and asking for more) is the ultimate act of rebellion against the welfare state.
Who said anything about “ultimate”?
— The Reticulator · May 26, 03:10 AM · #
You’re pretty dumb, huh? Did you forget we were talking about teabaggers?
— Chet · May 26, 05:04 AM · #
You’re pretty dumb, huh? Did you forget we were talking about teabaggers?
Listen, you’ve got a choice here. Withdraw your slander, preferably accompanied by an apology, or be reminded of it every day you post from now until The American Scene folds. I had thought that behind your rabid moonbat facade there was somebody with a point or two of intelligence and integrity. I may have been mistaken about that, but you’ve got one chance left to prove me wrong.
— The Reticulator · May 26, 08:28 AM · #
Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights for clues.
lol, I have……but i’m a Jefferson otaku.
i believe in the living constitution, not the-constitution-in-exile.
The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead.
That is why modern “conservatives” reject evolution and the Second Law….science carries the seeds of your destruction. The status quo is an untenable position.
Like Dr. Manzi, you could harness science, make it your tool, and use it to do your effing job.
Restrain the extremes of progressivism in the interest of incremental judicious change…..
But I think conservatives are too full of fear….they abandoned the bird view long ago for cheap tactical victories.
In the end, the strategy of the long game will beat any tactics.
Game theory 101.
— matoko_chan · May 26, 10:51 AM · #
wallah….this is extreme crazipants, PEG.
Do TAS conservative intellectuals actually support this?
Paul—>“I’m a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife’s a Deacon there and we’ve gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society. . . . 98% of us won’t murder people, won’t steal, won’t break the law and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day to day life.”
Paul is not a libertarian……he is a christofascist…..and a fantasist…he is just the XY version of Sarah Palin.
amg.
— matoko_chan · May 26, 11:07 AM · #
and one more thing, Reticulator.
im not some naive kid you can scam on history.
the horrific and inhuman one-drop law was a pure product of the white supremecist, racist, slave-holding South.
i don’t see much change in today’s teabaggers. Libertarianism and federalism are just masks to hide the true face of the Tea Party.
Some of the uninvited guests at the Tea Party are the birchers, stormfronters, hutaree-style christian warriors and alex-jones info-warriors…they recognize Paul, even if you won’t.
Paul is who they are sending checks to.
— matoko_chan · May 26, 11:19 AM · #
the horrific and inhuman one-drop law was a pure product of the white supremecist, racist, slave-holding South.
Mint juleps were also a product of that same culture. That doesn’t make them bad.
What makes the one-drop law bad is not WHO did it, but what it did. When you or anyone use racial prejudice against people, it doesn’t make it any better if you’re not a white supremacist from the south.
BTW, the Constitution is a type of treaty. America believed in living, breathing treaties when it dealt with the Native people. It changed the interpretation to reflect the times, steal more land, keep money it promised to pay, etc. Now it’s having to make amends for broken treaty promises. I say we should give the Black Hills back to the Lakota people and also start honoring the 9th and 10th amendments again.
And no, the Obamanites don’t get to do what they want just because they won an election. That’s not how our system works, nor is it how it should work.
— The Reticulator · May 26, 04:27 PM · #
/yawn
the constitution is not a treaty.
it is a recipe for building a representative government.
the Obama admin is just the current product of the recipe.
so yeah, we get to do what we want…until the next baking.
;)
Since you are so fond of amerindian history, i’ll draw an analogy for you.
Conservatives are like Wovoka and his ghostdancers….clinging to the status quo, yet hoping for a magical rescue in the form of a locomotive full of winchesters.
only you are hoping for a magical demographic of darkskinned voters.
both are equally likely, IMHO.
;)
— matoko_chan · May 26, 06:23 PM · #
i mean…..you are still waiting for that magical demographic full of darkskinned conservative voters.
Like Wovoka’s steam engine, it is not going to magically arrive on its own.
You are going to have to change.
And the first step to acknowledge you screwed up with your choice of boutique libertarianism and the southern strategy 50 years ago. That is going to piss off your base, because you have enabling them to lie to themselves for years.
But it can’t be helped.
And the second step is to divorce your party from religiosity. Right now conservative christians run the right. You cannot put forward a candidate that won’t publically profess to letting Jesus run america, creationism, and ensoulment of diploid oocytes.
And the third step is to champion a social cohesion model that supports ALL american families, not just white nuclear families.
— matoko_chan · May 26, 06:52 PM · #
Let me think about that… no. In fact let me reiterate that when I call you “dumb”, it is only because you are seriously the most mouth-breathing, sycophantic, power-worshipping, conspiracy-uttering racist dunderhead I have ever had the extreme displeasure to encounter.
And you think you’re owed an apology? Reticulator, I really couldn’t give a shit about your impressions of my intelligence or integrity. In fact, if you were able to arrive at the conclusion that I had either, it would be ample proof that I, in fact, lacked both.
— Chet · May 26, 11:13 PM · #
_the constitution is not a treaty.
it is a recipe for building a representative government._
Wrongo. One of those three is not like the other two. Constitutions and treaties are binding agreements. Recipes are not.
_the Obama admin is just the current product of the recipe.
so yeah, we get to do what we want…until the next baking._
No, you still have to obey the law.
— The Reticulator · May 27, 03:12 AM · #
Obama is NOT breaking the law, raping liberty, or shredding the constitution.
Stop this silliness now.
ALL the “teaparty movement” consists of is a white conservative christian grievance movement, protesting cultural and demographic evolution.
like Sanchez said, modern conservatism is an inferiority complex masquerading as a political philosophy.
Conservatism has memetically selected for creationists, nativists, racists, birthers, christofascists, homophobes, misogynists, patriarchists, neo-nazis, birchers, pre-trib fundamentalists, fake libertarians, neo-con revanchists, imperialists, soulless rapacious capitalists, and low-information voters that can be demagogued and scaremongered into voting against their economic interests.
And this is the result.
Selection for Stupid.
And voters that have been told for fifty years that they are not the “real” racists….yeah, its those other guys….they feel free to pass racist laws while the party is desperately attempting to reach out to hispanic swing voters.
Because the GOP is deaders if it remains whites only.
Take off your ghostshirt, Wovoka, it ain’t going to stop any demographic bullets.
The “ancestors” are not bringing you that magical steam engine either.
Get over it you WATBs and do your fucking conservative jobs.
It makes me ill to see Dr. Manzi and Conor and David Frum attacked for trying to be conservatives.
The GOP deserves extinction, and don’t kid yourself, the TPM is just the GOP-crazipants fringe.
Failure to evolve.
— matoko_chan · May 27, 01:36 PM · #
Obama is NOT breaking the law, raping liberty, or shredding the constitution. Stop this silliness now.
That’s not for you to decide, and it’s not for you to decide when people should stop talking. There are some differences of opinion on the question of whether he is breaking the law. In a constitutional democracy we get to discuss them and argue about them.
— The Reticulator · May 27, 09:14 PM · #
O Wovoka.
Blot your tears with the rags of your pride.
The world has moved on.
Conservatism is as dead as the dinosaurs….its just the hip brain hasn’t gotten message yet.
— matoko_chan · May 27, 11:49 PM · #
And you think you’re owed an apology?
You should read more carefully. The apology is optional. I thought it might help you regain your sanity, but if you don’t think it would help you can omit it as far as I’m concerned.
What’s not optional is taking back the following slander you wrote:
to you, spitting on a Congressman and calling him a “nigger” just because you don’t his vote is “self-respect.”
— The Reticulator · May 28, 02:24 AM · #
It’s “not optional”? No, my friend, it’s entirely optional, and I opt not to. And I’ll remind you of your own words: “You ARE really a government pimp, trying to break down the self-respect of the people under your “care.””
Did you, or did you not, write those words?
— Chet · May 28, 07:44 AM · #
matoko_chan,
Conservatism is as dead as the dinosaurs….its just the hip brain hasn’t gotten message yet.
I take it you haven’t heard of Moral Foundations Theory.
There was a recent item about it in SciAm.
Basically there are 5 innate moral systems, and liberals and conservatives differ on how they respond to some of them.
My guess: The difference is probably significantly genetically constrained.
— Keid A · May 28, 11:37 AM · #
MFT doensn’t matter.
Fifty years of the southern strategy and the demographic timer have neutralized it.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 11:54 AM · #
There is a biological substrate to all behavior.
— Keid A · May 28, 12:09 PM · #
Your problem is you keep confusing conservatism, which is a human universal, and probably innate, with the GOP.
— Keid A · May 28, 12:20 PM · #
Orly?
if you are going to quote me, plz get it right.
there is a biological basis to all behavior
do you know what a basis is in mathspeak?
basis: In linear algebra, a basis is a set of vectors that, in a linear combination, can represent every vector in a given vector space or free module, and such that no element of the set can be represented as a linear combination of the others. In other words, a basis is a linearly independent spanning set, or more simply put a “coordinate system”.
number is the ruler of forms and ideas and the cause of gods and demons.
i confuse nothing.
conservatism IS a human universal, and darkskinned conservatives have become physically, politically and culturally inaccessible to modern conservatism because of 50 years of the southern strategy.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 02:30 PM · #
No I wasn’t quoting you so much as deliberately rephrasing your pet slogan. It is the biological substrate which underlies all behaviour. That is the core belief of naturalism.
darkskinned conservatives have become physically, politically and culturally inaccessible to modern conservatism because of 50 years of the southern strategy
But that contradicts your earlier comment that conservatism is dead as the dinosaurs. At most it is exclusively white ethnic conservatism that is dead.
Now you may be right that this is what the GOP has become – the party of white ethnic conservatism. But then it follows only that the GOP as currently conceived is dead. It doesn’t follow that “conservatism is as dead as the dinosaurs”. That’s a much more extreme claim.
— Keid A · May 28, 02:55 PM · #
BTW call me paranoid, but I have a significant subjective prior (maybe 33%) that war is about to break out in Korea as a result of the sinking of the Cheonan. The coming month could be very tense.
— Keid A · May 28, 03:21 PM · #
okfine….white christian conservatism is dead…..but ……conservatism in toto may be obsolete.
‘membah the Third Culture?
The reason that conservative attempts at web-based social networking and memetic engineering fail…..like AOS and Michael Steeles RNC site…..is that american culture is becoming inaccessible to the right…in particular geekculture…so those websites became infested with webcreatures that the GOP couldn’t even imagine…..trolls, griefers, pranklinkers and mobies …..4chan avatars breathed into political life .
The entire ethos of conservative philosophy is becoming obsolete because of webculture, geekculture, youthculture, and the Third Culture— all parts of contemporary American culture.
The third culture mainstreams science and technology….with the flattening of knowledge anyone can be a sage….knowledge removes fear of the unknown.
Is the whole conservative schtick just becoming uneccessary?
— matoko_chan · May 28, 04:00 PM · #
It is the biological substrate which underlies all behaviour.
/yawn
you also forgot ima Tegmarkian.
What underlies the biological substrate?
the Holy Maths
:)
— matoko_chan · May 28, 04:06 PM · #
and I blame the Fall of Culture 11.
if Culture 11 had survived there would be conservative geeks.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 04:09 PM · #
Re Tegmark.
Didn’t you read my comment at Ghosts? I quoted from his recent paper to show that he is backing off from pure platonism. He is drifting towards the computationalist approach now. Everything is information. The Computable Universe Hypothesis.
And for what it’s worth geek culture is opaque to a large part of the left too. You think the granola-munching new-agers worry about third culture? They are too busy fine-tuning their feng shui and reading the Tarot. It’s been all about Twilight and vampires for a while now.
— Keid A · May 28, 04:34 PM · #
O Wovoka.
Blot your tears with the rags of your pride.
The world has moved on.
Conservatism is as dead as the dinosaurs….its just the hip brain hasn’t gotten message yet.
This is basically the messages the American treaty commissioners would use on the Native Americans whose land they were demanding to be ceded. And it’s the message their apologists used a generation later in an attempt to justify the wrongs that had been done.
— The Reticulator · May 28, 04:42 PM · #
awww Reticulator pity party!
shaddup, you WATB.
The system is WAI.
“Your” land is being ceded BY THE CONSTITUTION to the new generations of multi-hued, multi-gendered AMERICAN citizens, just as the founders and framers intended.
because your stewardship was crap.
More than two centuries ago, the electorate was different.
It is impossible to travel backwards into the past…..both Carroll and Hawking agree.
can’t fight demographic evolution.
You are the Protectorate….the old guard, the orthodoxy, the constitutional “originalists”.
The skeletal grip of a corpse’s hand round eggs trying to hatch.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 08:21 PM · #
im sry for being mean….ok…not very.
but let me make it easy for you Reticulator.
It is not “your” country…..its OUR coutry.
and its not “your” constitution…its OUR constitution….whatevah color, gender, and religion US AMERICAN CITIZENS might be.
;)
— matoko_chan · May 28, 09:53 PM · #
awww Reticulator pity party!
You’re right. No need for pity. If all the past oppressors who kicked out the small-time oppressors and put their own boots on the necks of the oppressed people had been at such an advanced state of development as you, the oppressed would have had no reason to feel sorry for themselves. Pity is the wrong attitude to have when lorded over by such exalted beings as yourself. As a token of our respect and admiration, here’s a cyber pat on the head for you.
— The Reticulator · May 31, 05:35 AM · #
Reticulator Butthurt Victimhood Warning!
Quit whining, you did this to your bigselves.
Fifty years ago you had a choice between doing the right thing and winning.
You chose winning.
Now pay up.
— matoko_chan · May 31, 04:56 PM · #
AND you have chosen winning ever since, with fake-libertarianism, fake-federalism and the Southern Strategy.
I don’t pity you.
You chose your Path.
— matoko_chan · May 31, 05:00 PM · #