I’ve been using the Freedom Fighter label for a while now. It’s more evocative than libertarian, less pejorative than market fundamentalist, and furthermore alliterative. In the following note, I am pleased to report some evidence that Freedom Fighters may become a sound meme.
Like many other ClimateBall episodes, it started at Judy’s. AndréF posted a video where the origins of political correctness (or PC) was discussed by Christine Brophy & Jordan Peterson, and then gloated a bit about Social Justice Warriors (SJWs):
One of the traits that characterises Leftists is so-called agreeableness (although its expression can turn out to be very disagreeable). Part of agreeableness is seeking consensus, which although nice-sounding, concludes by identifying those outside the consensus as a threat.
It took a few hours for a Denizen to appreciate the finding: Great stuff! PC authoritarians have a high incidence of personality disorders. Since I’m too impatient to watch a 15 mins video, I tried to find the paper presenting the results being discussed in it. I could not (and still can’t) but could find a review by Barry Kaufman, a researcher who works in the same field. I found this passage noteworthy:
While this study wasn’t specifically examining general political beliefs, they shed some light on overlapping policy issues. For one, the findings on PC-Authoritarianism highlight some similarities with right-wing authoritarianism. A common finding in the psychological literature is a positive association between conservative belief and sensitivity to disgust. In the current study, contamination disgust and the order and traditionalism dimension were all related, suggesting a greater similarity between PC-Authoritarians and Right-Wing authoritarians than either side would probably like to admit!
It made me conclude that the study revealed more about Freedom Fighters than about SJWs and underlined why we need to be thankful for contrarian concerns. AndréF contested that reading, claiming that the study was very specifically about SJWs, rather than freedom fighters (at least according to authors). SJWs being usually associated with the Left (see his first quote above), I quoted BarryK a bit more, under the heading “The 2 Shades of Political Correctness”:
The researchers found that PC exists, can be reliably measured, and has two major dimensions. They labeled the first dimension “PC-Egalitarianism” and the second dimension “PC-Authoritarianism”. Interestingly, they found that PC is not a purely left-wing phenomenon but is better understood as the manifestation of a general offense sensitivity, which is then employed for either liberal or conservative ends.
The whole tactics of blaming the Left (and by extension SJWs) for political correctness thus falters.
***
While waiting for this ClimateBall episode to subside, I searched a bit more on Peterson’s work. You may have heard of his role in the controversy over gender-neutral pronouns. But what caught my eye was his message to millenials. In it, Peterson recalls a piece by Jonathan Haidt, in which there is this gem:
Marx is the patron saint of what I’ll call “Social Justice U,” which is oriented around changing the world in part by overthrowing power structures and privilege. It sees political diversity as an obstacle to action. Mill is the patron saint of what I’ll call “Truth U,” which sees truth as a process in which flawed individuals challenge each other’s biased and incomplete reasoning. In the process, all become smarter. Truth U dies when it becomes intellectually uniform or politically orthodox.
One obvious problem with that dichotomy is that it’s self-serving. Fancy this: our most important heterodox academic in the world does not always takes sides, but when he does, he sides with Truth. And of course Mill (whose conception of truth deserves due diligence) gets opposed to teh Karl himself.
Haidt’s caricature is pure and unadulterated crap, since the issue is orthogonal to left-right orientation. For instance, many Freedom Fighters that self-identify as “cultural libertarians” are leftists. It misrepresents the main area of contention that we can find in just about every online discussion, or at very least my own experience: the fight between individuality and community. A similar opposition is expressed between self-transcendence and self-enhancement (H/T Moshpit):
[P]eople with a higher self-transcendence value demonstrated an interest in reading articles about the environment, and people with a higher self-enhancement value showed an interest in reading articles about work.
A priori, those who value more self-transcendence should emphasize social justice, while those who value more self-enhancement should emphasize personal freedom. No one owns Truth, except perhaps Nature verself.
The opposition between Justice and Freedom just looks more coherent to me. Choosing between Justice and Freedom seems less obvious than between Justice and Truth. Moreover, the opposition between Justice and Freedom is mostly rhetorical. Philosophers usually connect the two one way or another. For instance, Sen argues that:
[A] theory of justice based on fairness must be deeply and directly concerned with the actual freedoms enjoyed by different persons -persons with possibly divergent objectives- to lead different lives that they can have reason to value.
Thus, Social Justice Warriors, meet Personal Freedom Fighters, or Freedom Fighters, or even shorter FFs.
...and Then There's Physics 
> People may think they are fighting for freedom
People are free to think whatever they fancy, VeeV, and of course from their perspectives Freedom Fighters are indeed fighting for freedom.
When you talk about the needs of “a population,” you reveal your preference for self-transcendence. The correlation between scientists and impersonal talk should be obvious.
A population needs justice to protect its freedom.
“Freedom Fighters” is not a very fortunate term. People may think they are fighting for freedom rather than fighting freedom and herding us to a new feudal age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-feudalism
=={ PC-Authoritarianism }==
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2012/11/30/bill-oreilly-war-christmas-big-picture.html
=={ PC-Authoritarianism }==
Willard,
It seems that one thing that you’re suggesting is that those who, for example, attack Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) are essentially using what these SJWs are supposedly doing (closing down the debate, for example) to largely justify doing the same thing themselves.
You may run into some confusion as the far right has used Freedom Fighting for decades. The “Freepers” (Free Republic) are a radical rightist cult.
It has been my experience that if I ever say something effective, it is immediately distorted and adopted by opponents. Following on the fact that it is easier to destroy than to build, this imitation is rather a compliment, but it is frustrating and difficult to expose or deconstruct. That’s the problem with the PC stuff. It’s perfectly clear that the real disciplinarians of PC talk are stronger on the right than on the left.
Political Correctness: Social-Fiscal Liberalism and Left-Wing Authoritarianism
Christine Anne Andary-Brophy. Master of Arts. Department of Psychology,University of Toronto, 2015
Click to access Brophy_Christine_201511_MA_thesis.pdf
” … A 203-item PC scale measuring language and beliefs was created on the basis of accounts from news articles, books, and research papers on the topic. … ”
PhD canadate
https://steemit.com/freespeech/@ozwald/the-controversy-surrounding-professor-j-peterson-and-university-of-toronto
“Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and PhD student Christine Brophy have been researching political affiliation, personality and political correctness.”
So right person right place.
Jordan B Peterson University of Toronto , Toronto
https://jordanbpeterson.com/
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordan_Peterson2
Again right person, right place.
So, unless I missed something, no coauthored and published peer reviewed paper(s) to date.
The Reference Desk is always at your service. But I could also use some help (e. g. Hank Roberts).
Indeed. Here’s where everything should be, Everett:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordan_Peterson2
My guess is that the research is making conference rounds.
YouTube is changing everything. My sons watch more videos than TV. I think they watch 1 hour of TV per month at best.
Over here (the Conservative States of America), the push back to PC began circa 1980 (e. g. Ronnie Raygun administration) at ivory league institutions …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dartmouth_Review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cornell_Review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_Network
Fast forwards to today and we in the CSA have …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Caucus
FReepers and DUmmies …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground
> It’s perfectly clear that the real disciplinarians of PC talk are stronger on the right than on the left.
I’m not so sure. On one hand, the right is usually more disciplined. On the other, the left is numerous. Both are as vociferous as the other.
Nevertheless, it’s more a matter of semantic and thematic preferences than political orientation. Communicative style is also involved. Smarm versus snark.
Willard: “People are free to think whatever they fancy, VeeV, and of course from their perspectives Freedom Fighters are indeed fighting for freedom.”
All we know is that that is what they say. I had hoped that in the age of Trump people would stop equation what people say with what they think.
Victor Venema: “A population needs justice to protect its freedom.”
Willard: “When you talk about the needs of “a population,” you reveal your preference for self-transcendence.”
By now I hold nearly everything possible on the northern part of the American continent, but are you claiming that there are significantly more than zero people who claim that citizens can have freedom without them being equal before the law and a functioning rule of law?
Or do you mean that there are people who think you can have justice together with extreme wealth and income inequality? I think that is naive and you see in the USA the oppression extreme inequality leads to, but that is a debate to be had, but that was not what I was writing about.
Willard: “The correlation between scientists and impersonal talk should be obvious.”
My impression is actually that scientists more often explicitly say that something is just their impression/view/feeling. And that that also annoys the Freedom Fighters because they interpret that as egocentric, whereas for those scientists it is more to make clear that it is just their impression and not science. Once tribalism kicks in whatever you do it wrong.
Very much a US-centred concern. Actually Robert Hughes wrote about this very trenchantly back in the early 90’s in “Culture of Complaint” an exhilarating read. – He highlighted the equally stultifying nature of anti-intellectualism on both the Left and Right extremes of the sociopolitical spectrum.
We don’t have so much fun with this stuff in Europe.
Actually the fight between individuality and community is an interesting one when one considering some broad differences in US and European sociopolitical outlooks. As indicated in Robert Hughes book and the interesting links in the OP and messages on this thread this “fight” in the US can be drearily ideological as if the “individual” (from a “Rightist” perspective) becomes something akin to a frontiersman striving to express and better himself (“zeself”?) in a pure environment unadulturated by a confining social structure while the “community” is a Socialist – proto-Communist stranglehold of conformity and equal ownership…
In fact we would likely say, rather blandly, here in Europe that the communal social structures provide an environment that allows the individual to express zeself while having many of the essential things (educational and health structures) kinda sorted in the background…
Universities are quite good examples where a collective structure provides an environment for individuals to do their own thing (e.g. academic scientists!) although it might be a little tedious to do this in a University in which gender-neutral pronouns are enforced.
A little obvious and trite possibly??
> All we know is that that is what they say. I had hoped that in the age of Trump people would stop equation what people say with what they think.
Indeed – since teh Donald got elected, I stopped believing you meant what you said.
Look. Psychologists such as Peterson infer a psychological profile from the words we use. Their stoopid modulz have more explanatory power than many other we need to trust for our climatic and economic projections. Here’s
how Watson interprets your personality according to this blog post:
Compare and contrast with how Watson interprets myself after parsing SpeedoScience and Holy Tu Quoque, Batman!:
Watson doesn’t get my humor yet.
Stat-wise, you have 100% openness and 3% agreableness. You score above average on neuroticism and conscientiousness (ca 70%). Finally, you are sensitive to ownership cost when buying automobiles, have experience playing music, and like historical movies. FInally, you are unlikely to be influenced by social media during product purchases, prefer style when buying clothes, and are influenced by brand name when making product purchases.
How does it work for you?
Compare and contrast.
Freedom Fighters:
https://twitter.com/lukeoneil47/status/863459516482019332
George Michael:
In fact rather similar to these:
and:
Still toying with Watson, I get a “decent analysis” when I feed it this post, Holy Tu Quoque and SpeedoScience, i.e. 2352 words:
My scores: 99% Openness, 48% Conscientiousness, 46% Emotional Range, 21% Introversion/Extroversion, and 12% Agreableness.
Most of these words are quotes, but they’re still words I chose to quote.
Watson finds it unlikely that I like country music.
Willard has, in the OP, buried the lede:
Taking this one bridge further, I believe the difference shows up most markedly in measures of empathy. Watson lumps ’empathy’ together with ‘sympathy’ under the trait Agreeableness.
using twitter
“You are shrewd and somewhat critical.
You are philosophical: you are open to and intrigued by new ideas and love to explore them. You are solemn: you are generally serious and do not joke much. And you are independent: you have a strong desire to have time to yourself.
You are motivated to seek out experiences that provide a strong feeling of discovery.
You are relatively unconcerned with both tradition and taking pleasure in life. You care more about making your own path than following what others have done. And you prefer activities with a purpose greater than just personal enjoyment.”
96% on openness, 1% tradition, 6% agreeableness… DUH
> Taking this one bridge further, I believe the difference shows up most markedly in measures of empathy.
Interesting. Here’s the sunburst of Willard’s tweeter:
You can see the decomposition of the traits.
I never thought Willard was that sympathetic. He’s more than I am. I do hope I’m a little humbler than he is.
ADD. Corrected the image.
As long as Watson says nice things, I guess people will think he has skill. Although I am sure the diligent researchers made sure it is better than your horoscope, which also normally fits, even if you accidentally selected the wrong sign. I would say that my personality fits at least as well to Mosher’s twitter personality as to my blog personality.
Anyway, none of this proves that people with socially not accepted outcome-preferences do not make up shit to defend their policy-preferences. #Trump
> [N]one of this proves that people with socially not accepted outcome-preferences do not make up shit to defend their policy-preferences.
Agreed. Sometimes, slogans are just slogans. Yet there are intriguing relationships between which slogans work for which personality traits. Teh Donald’s overall campaign showed how a professional huckster proceeds to sell crap to a gullible audience. But very few are as dumb as we wish to portray them. We might argue that there’s a method behind his madness:
Also note that both Justice and Freedom matter to everyone. At least they should. As you said, they go hand in hand.
I guess it’s just hard for someone with high openness to empathize with the need for security that populist rhetoric tries to satisfy.
I do not have a twitter feed and I mostly comment rather than write blog posts, but I have a few essays that I’ve written available online. Putting them into Personality Insights yields:
I am often criticized for being too direct.
“… a strong desire to have time to yourself.” – No, not really.
“…seek out experiences that provide a strong feeling of stability” would seem to contradict unconventionality, seeking out and exploring new ideas, and making your own path.
No mention of intelligence, egotistical, procrastination, or love of competition — traits that most people that know me would probably agree on. I would rate the analysis at no better than 50-50 for what it does say and that it leaves out several defining personality traits.
> “… a strong desire to have time to yourself.” – No, not really.
Yet here you are.
Stop being so indirect and skeptical.
I put Trumpkin’s Twitter postings into Watson, Watson is now dead after getting out just one word … sh1tposter. Loser. Sad!
Just got basically the same personality profile as we got for Tim Ball. FAIL!
IBM’s Personality Insights is not the only tool available online. Apply Magic Sauce also analyzes Facebook, twitter, or imported text. Giving it the same text that I supplied to Personality Insights yields another personality analysis.
Apply Magic Sauce agrees with Personality Insights in several areas, but again, there are some important traits completely missing – the same ones noted for Personality Insights.It guessed my age as 31; I’m almost 58. But I have a harder time finding issues with this analysis and I think it’s actually a bit more subtle.
> Just got basically the same personality profile as we got for Tim Ball. FAIL!
😀
Watson lives once more, so I got all of the Trumpkin EO’s and put them all into Wadson and it died again after output of this single image …
Thanks, O’Neill!
Here are W’s tweeter results:
That’s O54, C44, E34, A39, and N46. Way more average than Watson.
MagicSauce says W’s an INTP – not far from my own ISTP. It overvalues my leadership potential at 46%. Unless commenters start using Freedom Fighters themselves…
And W’s 29, which is PRCT.
It may be interesting to note that Apply Magic Sauce is a product of Cambridge University and appears to be part of the suite used by Cambridge Analytica (????).
In my comment on Apply Magic Sauce’s analysis it guessed my age as 31 and I said I’m almost 58. I forgot that the essays I provided are 15 years old – so I was in my mid-40s at the time of writing.
Indeed. I noticed the Cambridge name.
Seems that Rachel’s older than you. She’s 33, and 33% masculine.
Who wants to go through now and supply the output of Personality insights to Apply Magic Sauce and vice-versa?
Openness to experience describes a dimension of personality that distinguishes imaginative, creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people.
Your digital footprint suggests that you are aware of your own feelings but don’t get carried away with your imagination either. You might say that you embrace change when it is necessary while still resisting it when you think it is not, and that beauty is important to you, but it’s not everything.
Conscientiousness concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses.
Your digital footprint suggests that you are random and fun to be around but can also plan and persist when life requires it. It appears that depending on the situation, you can make quick decisions or deliberate for longer if necessary.
Extraversion is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world, versus being comfortable with your own company.
Your digital footprint suggests that you are similar to
Magic sauce says “See yourself as OTHERS see you”
Facebook… a bit different
They think Im Liberal and artistic
Openness to experience describes a dimension of personality that distinguishes imaginative, creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people.
Your digital footprint suggests that you are intellectually curious and appreciative of what you consider beautiful, no matter what others think. You might say that your imagination is vivid and makes you more creative than many others.
Conscientiousness concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses.
Your digital footprint suggests that you are random and fun to be around but can also plan and persist when life requires it. It appears that depending on the situation, you can make quick decisions or deliberate for longer if necessary.
Extraversion is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world, versus being comfortable with your own company.
Your digital footprint suggests that you are similar to people who prefer low-key social occasions, with a few close friends. You might say that it’s not that you are afraid of large parties; they’re just not that fun for you.
Agreeableness reflects individual differences in concern with cooperation and social harmony.
Your digital footprint suggests that you can find it difficult to get along with others when you first meet them. You might be suspicious of others’ motives in this situation. It also looks like people warm to you over time, and you to them, although that doesn’t stop you telling them “how it is”.
Neuroticism refers to the tendency to experience negative emotions.
Your digital footprint suggests that you are calm and emotionally stable. You come across as someone who is rarely bothered by things, and when they do get you down the feeling does not persist for very long.
> Your digital footprint suggests that you are similar to
Tim Ball?
Your first comment is scrambled. Do I delete it?
How much do minutiae or seemingly trivial matters tell us about people? It’s interesting to compare my quotation of the Apply Magic Sauce output with Willard’s quotation and with Mosher’s quotation.
I used the blockquote tags and applied html formatting to the output before posting; setting the section headers distinct from the analysis. Willard used the blockquote tag, but the headers and the analysis run together. Mosher applied neither.
A) oneill has strong empathy for the reader and tries to make reading enjoyable
B) oneill has too much time on his hands
C) Mosher is a fan of Gurdjieff’s dictum to ‘bury the dog deeper’
D) Neither Mosher nor Willard has ever spent any time as a copy/layout editor
E)I didn’t even notice – was there a difference?
There was no difference, O’Neill. I do editing stuff, BTW, and your bold was Just Wrong. My paragraphs were better. Recall that I care about Beauty.
Machiavelli’s Prince is 33 years old, with 19% more masculinity, so 14% less than Rachel. His stats are: O62, C55, E36, A44, and N45:
Quite laid back for a Machiavellian.
Based on his I Have a Dream speech, MLK is 38 yo and is androgynous.
Now it’s O67, C67, E38, A38, N33. Only C varies over what we already saw:
MLK’s an INTJ, which doesn’t surprise me.
“Mosher applied neither.”
phone surfer.. most of the time.
I have a staff to make stuff pretty for me. when I care about the audience. hehe
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
“the findings on PC-Authoritarianism highlight some similarities with right-wing authoritarianism.”
Excellent find. I sometimes call SJWs neo-McCarthyites because they owe more to McCarthy than Mao—and nothing at all to Marx, who celebrated socialism’s ability to free the individual to do what he pleased.
“D) Neither Mosher nor Willard has ever spent any time as a copy/layout editor”
Its weird. My Dad did Layout for the newspaper so he taught me early on and throughout school I did all the layout and copy editing for yearbooks.
But it was PHYSICAL..
once stuff become digital I lost all interest in move stuff around and laying it out as I wanted to.
I picked up some web tools recently that give you the same kind of quasi physical feel of doing layout. But for me there is something completely different about physically moving things around on the page and doing it digitally. And also something different about writing.. putting it down
then picking it up days later with a blue pencil and doing mark up.. then re typing the whole thing
it was much more pleasurable and soothing when it was a physical thing.. hold the picture… move it around.. re arrange.. picture here text there..
Poor old grass on Boston Common/Public Garden is getting pretty tired with all these rallies, hence the 775 foot high-rise and their millions … (don’t ask) also (OT, sorry) GE new HQ in our dooryard. Willard, there’s no way I’m clicking on the Freeper site. I have enough trouble without helping them zero in on me.
> I sometimes call SJWs neo-McCarthyites
Next time, don’t forget to call the FFs who try to tone police you neo-MacCarthytes too.
SM writes: “…it was much more pleasurable and soothing when it was a physical thing”
Ironic that I have the opposite feeling; my initial experience was in the 70s with clay-backed paper, the IBM Selectric, and Kroy headline machines. The frustration of trying to cut small pieces out and replace them with corrected text while keeping everything aligned properly, or finding just the right font-size without wasting expensive headline tape, much less getting the whole thing to the printer without the shit just falling apart still rankles in memory.
A couple decades later I put together a monthly newsletter using MS Word and loved the ability to put together a finished product quickly, easily, and/or change it (often times dramatically) with little additional hassle.
I fail to see the point of this thread.
Sorta like reading a horoscope…
Will –
=={ I sometimes call SJWs neo-McCarthyites. }==
I’m hoping for more specificity. Who, specifically, reminds you of Joe? Have they accused people of being disloyal to the U.S. or launched government investigations of people based on their sexuality?
> I fail to see the point of this thread.
Aren’t you supposed to be one of Eli’s bunnies, DavidB?
The main point of entertaining a conversation is to express ideas without having to focus too much on a specific point. It’s an art form, and art is the shortest path between two unknown points.
Speaking for myself, this conversation helps me test AI psychometric tools. It also presents the OCEAN modulz. My main motivation is to promote the expression “Freedom Fighters”.
Hence the title and the lede I chose.
It’s the tactics, not the issues. The love of getting people fired, of preventing them from speaking, of discrediting them, of sending them anonymous threats. It’s not the Maoist approach of using the government. It’s the McCarthyite approach of pressuring the public in ways that may not be illegal, but that free speech organizations still oppose.
Here’s a bit from the ACLU that could easily be rewritten to describe SJWs: “In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.”
From https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship
While my brain is biased toward alliterations, systemically, freedom is simply the right to be responsible (as, in truth, it is defined by physics concerning the extinction of Homo sapiens!). To the degree this is so, the so called F “fighters” are engaged with physics as an ‘enemy’. This F behavior does not differ much from the SJWs who advocate (& practice) a let-them-eat-cake version of an otherwise shared practice of trusting delusional motivated reasoning regarding social economic behavior. IMHO, both iterations of motivated reasoning are better/more helpfully described as failures to mature psychologically … to the degree the problem wanting to be solved is the one defined by physics concerning CapitalismFail’s 6th planetary extinction event we are, as individuals and ‘communities’, fully engaged in as fools.
!END
sNAILmALEnotHAIL …but pace’n myself
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCeDkezgoyyZAlN7nW1tlfeA
>
> The love of getting people fired, of preventing them from speaking, of discrediting them, of sending them anonymous threats.
Interestingly, all these tactics have been used by the gender trolls who created and promoted the SJW meme.
Libertarian individualists can team up to do that kind of things too:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker
Is that a case of McCarthyst censorship?
I think the ACLU goes a bridge too far with their concept of censorship, otherwise their “but McCarthysm” guilt by association tactics would itself be a form of censorship.
> . This F behavior does not differ much from the SJWs who advocate (& practice) a let-them-eat-cake version of an otherwise shared practice of trusting delusional motivated reasoning regarding social economic behavior.
Wut?
I’m not following your logic. If you use the same tactics as someone else, it’s not “guilt by association.” It’s using the same tactics. For example, in WW2, the US declared the Japanese use of waterboarding to torture prisoners was wrong. After 9/11, the US used waterboarding to torture prisoners. It is “guilt by association” to point out that the US used the same tactics as the Japanese?
There are tactics that we decide are wrong–classic examples are torture and execution. For many of us, censorship and blacklisting are also bad tactics. But authoritarians love them.
Will –
=={ It’s the tactics, not the issues. The love of getting people fired, of preventing them from speaking, of discrediting them, of sending them anonymous threats. It’s not the Maoist approach of using the government. ]]==
(1) Using the government to investigate people based on beliefs or sexuality is a tactic.
(2) Using the government to investigate people based on beliefs or sexuality was a defining tactic of McCarthy.
(3) Comparing people to McCarthy while excluding McCarthy’s use of government to investigate people based on beliefs or sexuality seems to me like a self-sealing stretch
=={ It’s the McCarthyite approach of pressuring the public in ways that may not be illegal, but that free speech organizations still oppose. }==
I’m not sure what “pressuring the public” means, exactly, but in my imprecise understanding of your term I would say that pressuring the public is not uniformly opposed by free speech organizations.
I.e., would you argue that the lunch counter and bus boycotts of the civil rights era were, aside from the matter of “issue” focus, essentially like McCarthyism? What about the people who boycotted the Dixie Chicks? Neo-McCarthyites?
I don’t think that referencing the ACLU is relevant to OUR discussion. YOU offered an description of YOUR name-calling, and I was asking YOU about that. Please be careful, because if there are any “skeptics” about they might explain that name-calling is a sign of weak reasoning, and that appealing to authority is a fallacy.
How do you determine that these unnamed people “love to get people fired” as opposed to something on the order of… “feel that some people, based on their actions, shouldn’t be representative of organizations.”
Would people lobbying that O’Reilly should have been fired be an example of what you’re talking about were people advocated that he should have been fired were doing so because they “love to get people fired?” How about the people who thought Martin Bashir should be fired, or Bill Maher after his comments about 9/11. Were they people whose motivation could be explained by a love of getting people fired?
And you seem to have overlooked my first question to you, asking for come specificity as to who you are comparing to Joe.
If you’d rather not use McCarthy’s followers because Joe was a senator, note that the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan are private organizations that used those tactics.
As for civil rights workers, can you name one who advocated censorship? If so, quotes, please.
I will happily agree that civil rights workers believed in voting people out of public office. The distinction between public office and private employment matters. Voting someone out is not the same as contacting someone’s boss and demanding that they be fired. What has been called “weaponizing poverty” is another tactic of authoritarians.
Whether people love the tactics they use is irrelevant, so I won’t use the word again here. I assume people who use those tactics fervently love them, but perhaps they use them reluctantly. The degree of enthusiasm doesn’t matter to their targets: a censored person is a censored person.
> If you use the same tactics as someone else, it’s not “guilt by association.”
Of course it is. I’ve seen child pornography activists play the very same “CENSORSHIP!!!” card as the ACLU. Should I say the ACLU is just like Justiniano?
McCarthy was a public official who prosecuted people, and patriotic conspiracy ideation was the hallmark of McCarthyism:
It’s hard to associate a powerful man with mostly women who have little power. To me, it’s as shameless as accusing SJWs of *witch* hunts.
***
> For many of us, censorship and blacklisting are also bad tactics. But authoritarians love them.
I thought censorship was supposed to be the objective behind the McCarthyst tactics.
Tobacco advertising is banned in many countries. Is that censorship?
Censorship may not mean what Freedom Fighters make it mean. By their logic, refutation should be a form of censorship, and logic would only formalize self-censorship.
Egalitarians also love lists. At least I do.
Will –
I think that pretty much all of your arguments are pretty much self-sealing, unfortunately.
=={ If you’d rather not use McCarthy’s followers because Joe was a senator, note that the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan are private organizations that used those tactics. }==
YOU used McCarthyism as a reference point, and I am asking you about the reasoning behind that. It isn’t a matter of what I would or would rather not use, IMO. Making comparisons to the JBS or the KKK would bring an entirely different set of problematic features.
=={ As for civil rights workers, can you name one who advocated censorship? If so, quotes, please. }==
This is self-sealing. Censorship implies government prohibiting people to express their opinions. I don’t doubt that there are calls for the government to prohibit people from expressing their opinions to some extent across some variety of groups…but that is why I keep asking you for specificity, because there is a lot of cynical exploitation about “censorship” to advance ideological agendas going on these days. Let’s be clear. Who, specifically, are you talking about w/r/t advocating censorship? The term SJW is a pejorative that suffers greatly from a lack of specificity, IMO. So while you might be comfortable with your use of the term, it has no meaning for me when you do so if you don’t add any specificity. As far as I know, it doesn’t mean anything more specific than “Some people that Will doesn’t like because he disagrees with them to some degree about some number of issues.”
=={ I will happily agree that civil rights workers believed in voting people out of public office. }==
This seems to me like a self-sealing reduction of the advocacy of the civil rights movement.
=={ The distinction between public office and private employment matters. Voting someone out is not the same as contacting someone’s boss and demanding that they be fired. }==
This, as well.
=={ What has been called “weaponizing poverty” is another tactic of authoritarians. }==
This looks to me like pretty much a non-sequitur.
=={ Whether people love the tactics they use is irrelevant, so I won’t use the word again here. I assume people who use those tactics fervently love them, but perhaps they use them reluctantly. The degree of enthusiasm doesn’t matter to their targets: a censored person is a censored person.}==
I don’t understand that. I mean first I don’t understand why someone would be reluctant about using a tactic they love, but more importantly, how is a discussion of whether people “love the tactics they use” relevant?
This is really wandering a lot and I think that your comments are impenetrably self-sealing. I’d like to request that you read my first two responses again to see if you can narrow the discussion a bit. Otherwise, I’ll just go back out the garden.
IMO – an interesting overview of the Peterson situation:
http://torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-battle-gender-neutral-pronouns/
There’s a difference between lists and blacklists. If you don’t grasp that, google “blacklist”.
If you think tactics are good when your side does them and bad when the other side does them, all I can say is I disagree, and that’s the definition of hypocrisy.
Yes, censorship is censorship. I would not ban tobacco companies. I would tax the hell out of them and use the money to provide equal time for the facts about tobacco and cancer.
Free speech includes the right to refute. Only people who want to restrict speech try to limit anyone’s ability to refute.
When discussing waterboarding, would you ignore the Japanese example for fear that mentioning it would be “guilt by association”?
As for who I mean by “sjw”, I mean people who cite social justice when they dox, censor, blacklist, threaten, or insult people. The “warrior” is ironic; sjws do not follow the traditions of social justice workers like Dorothy Day and Helder Camara.
=={ I mean people who cite social justice when they dox, censor, blacklist, threaten, or insult people. }==
So clearly you have a different definition in mind than the common usage, where it is refers specifically to people on “the left?”
About how many people are there who fit your description, do you think?
Were civil rights advocates SJW’s when they called Bull Connor a racist? Who is “censoring” people? Who has been “censored?” Who has been threatened? What have they been threatened with?
I keep asking you to be specific and it seems to me that you repeatedly avoid doing so. Anyway, the sun is shining.
Who be a SJW?
–snip–
Peterson, however, kept poking the hornet’s nest. He requested that the university host a debate so the issues could be aired publicly. After much hand-wringing, the university finally scheduled a debate of sorts—they called it a forum—at the Sandford Fleming Building on November 19 at 9:30 a.m.
[…]
At the forum, Peterson was pitted against Brenda Cossman, a U of T law professor, and Mary Bryson, a language and literacy professor at UBC. Wearing a pale yellow button-down and cowboy boots,
[…]
In the days and weeks following the forum, Cossman reported that she received hate mail and physical threats, so many that she alerted campus police. “I have no doubt that Jordan Peterson really believes in free speech,” she told me, “but I can’t say the same thing for many of his supporters. I have received an overwhelming number of emails that essentially say ‘shut the fuck up.’ I just think, You guys are all for freedom of expression but only for the people you agree with.”
–snip–
I always loves me some irony.
> There’s a difference between lists and blacklists.
The difference being what the list signals. One problem is that the signalling doesn’t always pertain to the curator. For instance, I have a ContrarianMatrix list on Twitter. It helps me follow those in that ring without having to endure them on my timeline. I get blocked by those who accuse me of blacklisting them.
So it’s what you do with the list that matters. But that’s not enough: some blacklists could be put to good use. Rapists. Predatory publishers. Etc. So we need to distinguish the good tactics from the bad ones.
Free speech is related to public spaces. We’re on private property right now. WordPress TOS compels curators to moderate hate speech. Is that censorship?
Saying that censorship is censorship doesn’t say what censorship is. Neither does it say why it’s bad.
Mill’s argument was good but it has many holes. Online practices needed to patch them.
> When discussing waterboarding, would you ignore the Japanese example for fear that mentioning it would be “guilt by association”?
I wouldn’t, but I don’t think I’d accuse Obama of using Japanese torture. Why? It adds no emotive connotation.
From a Freedom Fighter standpoint, any collective action that threatens to infringe upon zir personal liberty can be interpreted as McCarthyism.
=={ As for who I mean by “sjw”, I mean people who cite social justice when they dox, censor, blacklist, threaten, or insult people. }==
Is “SJW” an insult?
=={ If you think tactics are good when your side does them and bad when the other side does them, all I can say is I disagree, and that’s the definition of hypocrisy. }==
Hmmm. What was that I was saying about irony?
“WordPress TOS compels curators to moderate hate speech. Is that censorship?”
Yes. It’s private censorship. Whether it’s good censorship is another issue. I do believe in “my blog, my rules” just as I believe in “my house, my rules”, and if you want to kick people out of your space for any reason, that’s your right. It’s when you try to kick them out of their space or spaces they’ve been invited into that you cross a line.
If Obama is using the same tactics that the Japanese did, I think it’s significant and I don’t see why you’d want to deny the historical context.
“any collective action that threatens to infringe upon zir personal liberty can be interpreted as McCarthyism.”
If the divide is authoritarianism versus small-l libertarianism, yes. McCarthy wanted to force people to conform to his vision, and he encouraged his followers to ruin people’s lives to accomplish that.
Joshua – Will has written a book on the subject How to Make a Social Justice Warrior:On identitarianism, intersectionality, mobbing, racefail, and failfans 2005-2014
“Is “SJW” an insult?”
It depends on the context. The problem is the angry people who cite social justice to justify behaving abominably do not have a name for themselves, so the internet gave them one. Their basic ideology is what Adolph Reed calls identitarianism, but they’re a subset of identitarians. I keep hoping someone will come up with a better name for them.
And since the far right has taken up the name, it can mean “anyone to the left of Sarah Palin”. It’s an extremely sloppy name, but it seems to be the best we’ve got so far.
> I keep hoping someone will come up with a better name for them.
The problem is worse when you try to find a name for those who misbehave while brandishing the Freedom flag.
Hence this post.
That problem won’t be solved with more definite labels. On the contrary, I surmise. Let’s embrace the fact that labels wear off and after a while stop meaning anything.
Using “Freedom Fighters” can’t hurt much, can’t it?
My problem with your use of “freedom fighters” is the phrase is ancient. Perhaps the only good thing about “social justice warriors” is the name’s fairly specific. Before the internet’s sjws showed up, people mostly spoke of social justice workers, not warriors.
> Whether it’s good censorship is another issue.
This issue matters quite a bit when we hear Freedom Fighters cry “CENSORSHIP!!!” over and over again.
If censorship ain’t always bad, then that word doesn’t mean what Freedom Fighters make it mean.
I’d rather stick to use censorship for public cases. For personal stuff, we have a better word. Moderation, which is a virtue.
Just checked. Once a term has a disambiguation page, there should be a moratorium on creating more meanings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Fighters
Yeah, English doesn’t work that way. 🙂
> My problem with your use of “freedom fighters” is the phrase is ancient.
I know. Most current usages clearly align with libertarian piffle and market fundamentalism, though.
I don’t seek a neutral, objective, clear term. Only something that clearly opposes to SJWs. The one I found fits the bill. It even helped me unmask Peterson’s and Haidt’s crap.
If a Freedom Fighter says SJWs, I will say FFs. If ze stops, I will.
Tit for tat is a robust algorithm.
> there should be a moratorium on creating more meanings:
CENSORSHIP!!!
Someone who opposes an illegitimate government fits my understanding squarely. You should see the art work of some of the Freedom Fighters Donald Something follows.
Moderation covers discussion in online spaces. It doesn’t cover things like private universities inviting speakers, then cancelling the invitation. When Clark University cancelled a speech by Norman Finkelstein, the ACLU wrote,
“…the cancellation of his speech violates the basic principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom which are so fundamental to an institute of higher learning. The existence of an opportunity to speak at another time or in another location does not remedy the wrong of censorship.
…Nor may complaints from those disturbed by Finkelstein’s writings about the post-Holocaust “industry” justify a decision to prevent the lecture from taking place. Indeed, even if demonstrators came to protest against Finkelstein’s views, the obligation of a university is to protect the speaker’s right to be heard and prevent disruption of the speech by others. By censoring speech because of complaints about offensiveness or the controversial nature of the speaker, the university has essentially allowed what the courts call a “heckler’s veto” over what speech can be heard.”
Will-
=={ It depends on the context. }==
Depending on context, nothing is an insult. Or everything is an insult.
SJW is a pejorative insult. No dancing around that, IMO.
=={ The problem is the angry people who cite social justice to justify behaving abominably …}==
All kinds of people cite social justice as a rationalization for their behavior, including people who throw around the label of SJW. Why do you use, SJW, Will? To complement people?
Citing social justice is ubiquitous among those who use the term SJW.
=={ The problem is the angry people who cite social justice to justify behaving abominably do not have a name for themselves, so the internet gave them one. Their basic ideology is what Adolph Reed calls identitarianism, but they’re a subset of identitarians. I keep hoping someone will come up with a better name for them.}==
Do you cite social justice? Are you angry? How many people use the term SJW who don’t cite social justice and who aren’t angry? I think that maybe “the problem” is something a bit less circumscribed. I think that “the problem” is identity-protective behavior.
=={ so the internet gave them one. }==
Like Soylent Green, “The Internet” is people, Will.’
=={ Their basic ideology is what Adolph Reed calls identitarianism, but they’re a subset of identitarians. }==
Who is not an identitarian?
=={ And since the far right has taken up the name, it can mean “anyone to the left of Sarah Palin”. }==
What excludes those who are to the right of Sarah Palin? What excludes Sarah? Isn’t she angry?
Doesn’t she cite social justice?
=={ It’s an extremely sloppy name, but it seems to be the best we’ve got so far. }==
The best we’ve got for what? What is it good for if it is extremely sloppy? Making those who use the the term feel justified in their anger in the name of social justice? I do think it is a good term in that sense. But I see no relative benefit in any other way.
Will –
I gotta say that I just love the idea that someone who would write a book about SJW’s (presumably to express his anger at them for the damage they’re doing to social justice) seems to distinguish himself from identitarians.
> It doesn’t cover things like private universities inviting speakers, then cancelling the invitation.
True, but censorship doesn’t cover cases like that, and Finklestein is just saying stuff until it goes to court. If he’s right, what the U did was illegal. Otherwise, their U, their rules.
Either disinviting is legal, or not.
If you want something even more absurd, check this out:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/just-when-you-thought-the-hypatia-affair-couldnt-get-any-more-sordid.html
It’d be hard to summarize (on a tablet) the furor of all this, but the short of my impression is that all these episodes are helping create new social norms, which in turn will be a Good Thing. I’m rather skeptical of all the analyses I read so far, and I throw poxes in all the houses.
“SJW is a pejorative insult.” If these people had a name for themselves, I would gladly use it instead.
I don’t cite social justice. I’m a socialist. “Social justice” is a very vague name—remember that the antisemitic Father Coughlin used it as the title of his magazine.
Universalists are not identitarians. Identitarians prioritize social identity. For example, Clinton feminists are identitarians: they supported her because they wanted a woman in office. Sanders feminists are univeralists; they supported him because they knew his democratic socialism would help more women than Clinton’s neoliberalism.
“Either disinviting is legal, or not.”
I disagree. Either disinviting is censorship, or it is not. The ACLU’s position, and mine, is that it’s private censorship, just like the Hollywood blacklists, and it’s therefore legal, but wrong.
Thanks for sharing the link about the Hypatia affair. They’re right; the editor misbehaved.
Will –
=={ If these people had a name for themselves, I would gladly use it instead. }==
I think it is rather ironic that you would seem to think that “these people“, who no doubt comprise a wide cross-section of individuals of all assorted stripes and beliefs, should seem to have some burden to better assign a “name for themselves” so that you could appropriately name-call them that as you assign to them collective guilt for some form of group behavior, which of course are behaviors that are widespread beyond that unspecified group which you have identified.
It is entirely your choice to use the term in a self-described “sloppy” manner. I see no reason why
“these people” should they have some role to lift that burden of responsibility from your shoulders. You have the choice to be more precise and specific, but you decline to do so. No one is censoring you in such an endeavor. In fact, I have repeatedly invited you towards specificity, yet you have yet to take me up on that offer
But rest assured, I will not disinvite you from doing so, as no doubt to do so would make me a censorious SJW.
.
Joshua, do you use nouns to refer to groups? Most people do.
Here are some traits of the people who are commonly called SJWs:
1. They prioritize social identity, which makes them part of the broader group Adolph Reed calls identitarians.
2. They cite social justice to justify what they do, but they do not believe in treating everyone with love and respect as history’s social justice workers did.
3. They believe in call-out culture. This is probably as good a piece to start researching that as any: http://offbeatempire.com/liberal-bullying/
4. They dox people.
5. They try to get people fired.
6. The worst of them send death threats.
7. They oppose free speech.
I may have missed some traits, but that’s probably enough. Do you think we should just make lists any time they want to discuss groups, or is it okay to use a noun? If the latter, what do you suggest for the people commonly called SJWs?
> just like the Hollywood blacklists
How so?
You need to stipulate why disinviting is wrong, and therefore acknowledge that Freedom Fighters overplay their hand with the “CENSORSHIP” card. If you don’t, your position would amount to say that wrong censorship is wrong.
Moreover, you need to say the common characteristic that Hollywood blacklists share with the U’s disinvitation.
I once was disinvited from a blog, BTW.
> They’re right; the editor misbehaved.
And Leiter’s hippie punching, yet again.
Slightly sideways to recent comments, but about McCarthyism. Bearing in mind that Trump’s earliest mentor was Roy Cohn, the Svengali of Joe McCarthy, it’s equal opportunity regardless. So when Trump claims the attacks on him are pure McCarthyism, he’s simply doing what deniers do all the time. They take your words and use them. They don’t answer them, they don’t use logic, they simply take the words and use them to claim they own them.
Hence Bernie’s “rigged” became Trump’s “rigged”. Those not paying much attention went with whatever they wanted to believe. That’s how it works, and why it’s such a steep uphill to get people to get curious about what the truth might actually be.
From the bit I quoted earlier: “Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period.”
I’m not talking about being uninvited from a blog–which is a curious way to refer to being banned from a blog, because I don’t know of any blog readers who were invited to a blog, though I’m sure some blog writers must invite their readers. As I said earlier, your blog, your rules. Ban who you please. When the ACLU talks about uninviting, they’re talking about uninviting people from speaking opportunities.
Ah, well. Time to let this go. I don’t think either of us is likely to convince the other.
If you or Joshua are interested in what Adolph Reed has to say about identitarianism, you could start with a piece that I was amused to find on the blog you linked to: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/reed-on-the-identity-politics-left-which-is-really-part-of-the-neoliberal-right.html
Shoot. The line at the top of that image is:
“The amount of energy necessary to refuse bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it”
Alberto Brandolini
We have friends who actually went to jail during the McCarthy era. It’s nothing to joke about.
Re the ACLU, one’s vision is colored by one’s opinions. I got disgusted when they supported Steyn, but recently they’ve been stellar at airports etc. with the immigration ban mess.
Will-
=={ 1. They prioritize social identity, which makes them part of the broader group Adolph Reed calls identitarians. }==
You wrote a book that prioritizes social identity of a disparate group by lumping them through arbitrary application of criteria.
=={ 2. They cite social justice to justify what they do, but they do not believe in treating everyone with love and respect as history’s social justice workers did. }==
Those characteristics are ubiquitous beyond any one particular group. Watch Hannity on Monday night.
=={ 3. They believe in call-out culture. This is probably as good a piece to start researching that as any: http://offbeatempire.com/liberal-bullying/ }==
Again, that characteristic is ubiquitous. Watch Tucker on Monday night.
And on and on. As far as I can tell, you keep repeating the same definitional error. As far as I can tell, your notion of “they” is ill-formed and that problem is reflected in your self-admitted “sloppy” use of the term and then compounded by a lack of accountability for that sloppiness (by shifting the burden of responsibility for a term that you use). As far as I can tell, your thesis is You could address that problem but have thus far not done so. As far as I can tell, your thesis is tautological, or employs circular reasoning, or begs the question. It looks self-sealing to me. There’s no entry point that I can see.
=={ Do you think we should just make lists any time they want to discuss groups, or is it okay to use a noun? {==
I think that until you define “they” with some better degree of specificity, then assigning to “them” a collective noun is inherently problematic.
=={ If the latter, what do you suggest for the people commonly called SJWs? }==
In general, I’d say that you are better off describing and commenting on specific behaviors by specific individuals. To the extent that collective nouns are useful, they are useful when they are based on a clear set of criteria. As “sloppy” terms, I think they are always sub-optimal, but more often than not counterproductive.
Joshua, I don’t think I can explain this to you, but I am the easiest person in the world to troll, so I will try:
1. Identitarian is not a social identity. Social identities are things like race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc.
2.Can you quote Hannity citing “social justice” to justify something he did?
As for the rest, do as you please. I find names for groups helpful, even though every group besides the groups of humans has members who do not fit perfectly.
> When the ACLU talks about uninviting, they’re talking about uninviting people from speaking opportunities.
Indeed, and you have yet to:
(1) distinguish “curator’s blog, curator’s rules” from “deans’ U, deans’ rules”;
(2) say why you believe the U’s disinvitation is wrong;
(3) specify why this bears any similarity with Hollywood’s blacklisting.
That’s where we are now. We can let this go if you please. It’s your argument, after all.
***
> I’m not talking about being uninvited from a blog–which is a curious way to refer to being banned from a blog […]
Lucia has her ways with words. I’m not banned – I’m just “disinvited.”
I’ll have to check but I think vox did more to popularize the term than most ottters
the forward by Milo is pretty good
The official list
https://sjwlist.com/Main_Page
You were added to the list because you publicly called for someone to be fired, disinvited, shunned, no-platformed, or otherwise punished or silenced for refusing to submit to the SJW Narrative. The particular incident is linked to your name in the list. Tortious interference is not a joke.
There are three criteria for inclusion on The Complete List of SJW:
Self-identifying as a Social Justice Warrior
Publicly advocating the disemployment or no-platforming of an individual for failing to submit to the SJW Narrative
Being a journalist and publishing articles that support the SJW Narrative or an SJW attack campaign.
Convergence
Convergence is a term coined by Vox Day in SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police while defining a principle described as the Impossibility of SJW Convergence: “The more an institution converges towards the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice, the less it is able to perform its primary function.”
The principle and the concept are derived from a quotation of John Stuart Mill’s 1861 book Utilitarianism.
“This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens should be made in the utmost degree to converge.”
haha I should invite Theo to come here.
Thad be some fun
> you could start with a piece that I was amused to find on the blog you linked to: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/reed-on-the-identity-politics-left-which-is-really-part-of-the-neoliberal-right.html
That’s the reason why I was reminded of the Hypatia episode. I don’t grok Reed style much. Watson’s analysis may indicate why : 71% in Conscientiousness, 82% in neuroticism, 66% in extraversion.
His “but what about dead whites” echoes the infamous “but what about men” crap that feminists had to endure for decades, and still do.
Leiter’s I know some readers are sometimes puzzled by my position on the far left in rather obvious ways with my rather limited tolerance for “identity politics,” “diversity” blather, and the like. attests for his hippie punching.
From my point of view, you’ve yet to be convinced that
1. It’s wrong for deans to uninvite people simply because protesters want to silence them,
2. Opposing censorship is valid, and
3; The ACLU is right to object to private censorship.
But that’s okay. Perhaps people you like will be censored and you’ll reconsider this, or perhaps you won’t. I’m content to let it go now.
As for this Lucia, some people think what you call something changes its nature. I’m with Shakespeare: banning is banning by any name.
> 1. It’s wrong for deans to uninvite people simply because protesters want to silence them, 2. Opposing censorship is valid, and 3; The ACLU is right to object to private censorship.
Providing reasons the be convinced about 1 would help.
Your 2 fails to distinguish which kind of censorship you’re talking about.
Your 3 shovels your own burden of proof. When the ACLU will stop fighting for absolute freedom of speech, it’ll stop being the ACLU.
> The principle and the concept are derived from a quotation of John Stuart Mill’s 1861 book Utilitarianism.
Freedom Fighters oftentimes forget that Mill’s Freedom argument needs to be reconciled with his Harm Principle:
Humans seem to have found ways to harm with words that escape Mill’s analysis. Also note that his analysis is also only laid out in utilitarian terms. It can’t replace the deontology we’d need to solve our quandary.
“Ironic that I have the opposite feeling; my initial experience was in the 70s with clay-backed paper, the IBM Selectric, and Kroy headline machines. The frustration of trying to cut small pieces out and replace them with corrected text while keeping everything aligned properly, or finding just the right font-size without wasting expensive headline tape, much less getting the whole thing to the printer without the shit just falling apart still rankles in memory.”
Ah my supplies were free either school paid or Dad brought me stuff from work.
Did you ever get into hanging pictures?
As a kid I did our house and all my Mom’s friends houses.
Oh say happy mothers day
Will –
=={ Joshua, I don’t think I can explain this to you, but I am the easiest person in the world to troll, so I will try: }==
Not sure that that means. Do you think I want to “troll” you in some fashion? What do you mean by that?
=={ 1. Identitarian is not a social identity. Social identities are things like race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. }==
What logical construct do you use to distinguish being an “identiarian” from having a particular “social identity?” To my way of understanding, a social identity is a framework for an individual’s identity within a group…based on shared behaviors, or other shared affinities or attributes. You seem to be very much focused on identifying individuals based on a particular group membership – based on a particular set of attributes or behaviors. But I can’t yet grasp what behaviors you use to distinguish that group. But more to this comment of yours, what is the logical construct by which you distinguish attributes such as religion, race, gender, ethnicity, etc. from that of being a “SJW” or identitarian? D you think that a social identity must necessarily by based on an inherited attribute and necessarily can’t be based on a non-inherited attribute? If so, how do you know that being a “SJW” is not an inherited characteristic? Do you consider someone’s religion to be an inherited characteristic?
=={ 2.Can you quote Hannity citing “social justice” to justify something he did? {==
Do you think that someone can only be advocating for “social justice” if they use that particular term? Would that exclude someone like, say, Gandhi? And, of course, Hanniity when he advocates for “conservatives” to be treated fairly by “the MSM,” or American citizens to be treated fairly by ICE (by deporting “illegal aliens” or for for Christians to be treated fairly by not having the government dictate that they are required to provide services to same-sex couples?
=={ As for the rest, do as you please. I find names for groups helpful, . }==
Helpful for what? For making you feel better about yourself? For communicating something meaningful? How can you communicate something meaningful to me about a group when you can’t even be specific about who belongs in that group?
=={ even though every group besides the groups of humans has members who do not fit perfectly. }==
Do you think requiring that the fit needs to be “perfect?” I don’t. I think I’m asking for a definition that logically holds up to distinguish your designated group members from other people.
“Humans seem to have found ways to harm with words”
Can you give examples?
> Can you give examples?
You’re in no position to play fetch, Will.
Read the Stanford entry.
Bernie would have passed this test:
If you replace anything with anything, you will sound like something else.
I grew up in the civil rights era. My family could not get fire insurance because word was out that the Klan would burn us down. I was bullied in school for speaking up for integration and for opposing prayer in school. I remember my mother shaking after she got an anonymous phone call—to this day, I do not know if it was a death threat or just someone being vile, but I suspect the latter—see the fact we could not get fire insurance.
One of the reasons I hate the tactics of the people who get called SJWs is those tactics were used on us by the Klan and their children.
Oops, I meant to say I suspect the former.
Where’s this Stanford entry?
> Where’s this Stanford entry?
There’s a link in the comment you sealioned.
> If you replace anything with anything, you will sound like something else.
Yet if you replace “Freedom” with “Social Justice,” many Freedom Fighters’ speech patterns sound exactly how you portray SWJs.
But in exchange for your testimony, here’s an example you asked earlier:
As I said earlier, GamerGate Freedom Fighters did every single thing to SJWs that you accuse SJWs of doing, and in more violent ways.
Sealioned? We’ve reached the point of insults? I should’ve bowed out sooner. My bad.
> We’ve reached the point of insults?
Wait. You come here to peddle a SJW strawman that you compare to Maccarthysm, refuse to substantiate your position regarding censorship, ask me examples whence the very page I quoted has some, have yet to acknowledge that “SJW” is an epithet promoted by those who victimized feminists in the very same manner you described, and now rip off your shirt because I said the word “sealion”?
Bernie may still have won this argument. He’d have had to work harder for it.
“Can you give examples?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse
Someone, in this thread, is harming me right now, that someone appears to be PC-Egalitarian.
“Identitarian is not a social identity”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
“Identity politics, also called identitarian politics,[1] refers to political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify. Identity politics includes the ways in which people’s politics may be shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organizations. Examples include social organizations based on age, social class or caste, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status. Not all members of any given group are involved in identity politics.”
Identitarian Violence and Identitarian Politics: Elections and Governance in Iraq
Click to access HILJ-Online_51_Hamoudi.pdf
So NO, the internets did NOT give them a name.
Just like Trumpkin, someone here needs a real history lesson.
Everett.
Ignorance is bliss.
correcting people and pointing out they are potentially mistaken is harmful
please stop killing his bliss, for the love of god
https://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks
Korea, pretty cool
In the beginning you assassinate a scholar on a bridge in what is now north korea
but not before you have a poetry battle
이런들 어떠하리 저런들 어떠하리
만수산 드렁칡이 얽어진들 어떠하리
우리도 이같이 얽어져 백년까지 누리리라
The scholars is better
이몸이 죽고 죽어 일백 번 고쳐 죽어
백골이 진토되어 넋이라도 있고 없고
임 향한 일편 단심이야 가실 줄이 있으랴
Then you kill your teacher who basically wrote the constitution
then you “manage” your little brother , the crown prince heir to the throne as part of the “strife of the princes”
Then you be king. Cool hat king
And your 3rd son, who you dont like so much
He grows up and invents the perfect writing system, the 8th wonder of the world
the elites dont like it, but it lets the peasants have the ability to read the laws they are being convicted of violating
And while your father may have been murderous.
you actually debate with scholarly factions to convince them,
and then you give your people their language
and support the sciences giving rise to the first rain gauge
I can count the number of times I have heard a winger claim his family supported integration and MLK… 100s. I can also count the number of wingers who had kids sitting at desks with my kids in the fully integrated Dallas/Houston Independent School District… zero. In my family, my Dad personally knew Harry S. Truman, JFK, McGovern, LBJ, Mondale, Carter, and Clinton, the number off family members who see a link between the tactics of SJW and the klan… zero.
If that’s a reference to me, here’s a link to a copy of a newspaper article about my dad: http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2009/02/bob-shetterly-only-liberal-in-levy.html
Interesting article, but maybe we can avoid making this discussion too personal.
Let’s stay classy, please.
Let’s also put the AI results above in perspective:
Another interesting test:
https://8values.github.io
Will –
That is an interesting story – and I enjoyed reading some of the other posts about your dad.
Best response:
https://twitter.com/gwyddbwyl/status/863972293751357440
The follow-up was even better:
https://twitter.com/gwyddbwyl/status/863974104243724288
Nice willard.
Now post the. Duck/rabbit. Thing
Then again some people can’t see the difference between sjw and ff.
It’s hard to capture in language haha. It’s like listening to music
I once taught a seminar course I titled: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist? – where we looked at cross-national and cross-cultural perspectives on criminality and justice
We would all be able to get along if only those poopyheads would stop calling us poopyheads.
My 8values results:
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=72.4&d=67.3&g=55.2&s=69.5
They’re almost a month old, and may have changed.
Trumpkins 8values results:
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=0.0&d=0.0&g=0.0&s=0.0
Economic Axis: Laissez-Faire
Diplomatic Axis: Chauvinist
Civil Axis: Totalitarian
Societal Axis: Reactionary
Closest Match: Capitalist Fascism
“Marx is the patron saint of what I’ll call “Social Justice U,” which is oriented around changing the world in part by overthrowing power structures and privilege. It sees political diversity as an obstacle to action. “=
Mill is the patron saint of what I’ll call “Truth U,” which sees truth as a process in which flawed individuals challenge each other’s biased and incomplete reasoning. In the process, all become smarter. Truth U dies when it becomes intellectually uniform or politically orthodox.”
Ain’t it the veritas-
trouble here is that Adorno’s minions reign absolutely over cultural antropology and assorted Deparments of the History of, so semantiic agression, PC included is the order of the day.
willard just won the internet.
please attend to the ransomeware now
> Ain’t it the veritas-
No. Really.
Have you ever read any Adorno, RussellS?
> Closest Match: Capitalist Facism
The Farest Match: Libertarian Communism.
I’ve no longer got the faintest idea what the argument here is about, but it sure seems to be Important.
Anyways, just to let W know that we’re within 5 points on every axis of the quiz.
Hmmm. Hockey. Now there’s a sport.
> I’ve no longer got the faintest idea what the argument here is about
W,
Could you define farest?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/farest
(archaic) second-person singular simple present form of fare
> Could you define farest?
Adj. See farthest.
Where you put “0,0” I put “100,0,” and then I got Chomsky’s caricature.
Mean words
Say something mean in Korea on the web and well you can end up in jail.
All the popular sites require that you enter your national identity number.
http://www.koreaboo.com/news/apinks-agency-will-zero-tolerance-stance-malicious-comments/
Further if you write a fictionalized version of history or get a historical fact wrong ( say from 1400 )
You can expect to get sued by the descendants.
W,
Thanks (I thought so).
Has Willard come down with a bad case of Halbbildung ?
Ever since Theory took hold, liberal lashings of the Frankfurt School have been inflicted on the young hereabouts. Chapters of Education After Auschwitz I ran into as an undergrad remain required reading here
> Chapters of Education After Auschwitz I ran into as an undergrad remain required reading here
“Here” being Harvard I presume, where the Frankfurt School never really dominated anything.
“Here” can’t refer to where I studied, for I never had to read that crap.
So much the worse for another leftist conspiracy.
Willard is invited to guess at the ratio of Marxistante to Millsian small magazines that have hit departmental library shelves in Postmodern times :
As to the question being on topic to the Climate wars. CF
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/02/dead-but-dreaming-at-cthulhucene-epa.html
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/01/does-this-mean-more-or-fewer-bathroom.html
If your claim rests on guesses, dear Russell, my guess is that it’s mere prejudice. This guess is reinforced by your comparison between a guy from the 19th century with research that was contemporary at the time. This research was adressing Mill’s utilitarianism, BTW – cf. Habermas.
Since you invoke Mill, let’s quote a bit from him that Freedom Fighters tend to omit:
Mill may not have meant what Freedom Fighters makes him mean.
Funnily enough I just did the Apply Magic Sauce test this week and after examining 263 Facebook posts and 299 Tweets it decided I was aged 34 and INTJ. Apparently my online behaviour resembles that of a 30-39 year old. I wasn’t sure whether to be offended by that or not. And supposedly I’m fairly androgynous but probably female.
Willard, ATTP, not I , introduced Mill in para 4 of this post.
As to “If your claim rests on guesses, dear Russell, my guess is that it’s mere prejudice. ”
the question put to you remains unanswered, but I think Yogi Berra trumped Habermas with;
You can see a lot just by observing.
> Willard, ATTP, not I , introduced Mill in para 4 of this post.
AT had nothing to do with this post, dear Russell, and I quoted Jonathan Haidt who quoted Mill. Because, presumably, Freedom Fighters. Also note that Yogi Berra tops my alter ego and your IRL friend more than Habermas. Search for “observation sentence.”
Intriguingly, here’s an abstract where the author pays lip service to most of the names dropped so far:
The article title is Social Justice and Communication: Mill, Marx, and Habermas.
I am not seeing how a libertarian is an authoritarian? Are we substituting a belief in personal liberties for authoritarianism? The two in my opinion are opposites.
Yes, it’s theoretical.
“…the findings on PC-Authoritarianism highlight some similarities with right-wing authoritarianism.”
The quote gets it more right, is that we are not right-wing. Libertarians and the left were supposed to be about free speech. The left was supposed to be an economic authoritarian, and yes there are shades of that. Look at the Clintons, they are darn near Republicans on economics. But to move to also socially authoritarian, it’s just wonderful and helps explain Trump’s election. You’ve make the libertarians look so much better every time you boo a commencement speaker. The authoritarian right is about treading water while the PC left move authoritarian with some anti-free speech derangement. Thank you. Maybe it’s frustration from the left and the right. Trump/immigration I think was frustration. You are a citizen of Mexico and not of the U.S. It’s economic authoritarianism and probably social authoritarianism. But it more than immigration. What other social issue has the right won on lately? I think immigration is social too. You can’t be here.
I like this one: http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article152933279.html
Two white women accused of cultural appropriation shut down their Oregon burrito shop
So the left say you get to be here, and no one can go to Mexico, bring a recipe or something like that back, be white, and sell it. The white women can’t make money while stealing your culture. Because we know who gets to hand out the your culture and that’s us. We’ll get your culture back for you. Because whites are stealing it.
Anyone know where potatoes came from?
Ragnaar,
There are at least two problems with “libertarian.” The first is is that its meanings vary from one continent to the next. As you may well know, Chomsky identifies himself as a libertarian:
The other is that it doesn’t borrow enough from classical liberalism. Not only it requires a position on private property, but also a position on the means to protect it. Here’s Chomsky on Rand, Nozick, Friedman, and Hayek, names the interviewer brandished as heroes:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/chomsky-on-libertarianism-and-its-meaning.html
It’s hard to have a political philosophy without some kind of authority. Beyond posturing on the Internet, that is. That’s why I think your graph looks more like a play of word on “-rian” than anything.
I thought the Greenspan fiasco spelled the end of the libertarian brand, yet here we are.
***
I could put “classical liberalism” in scare quotes because, like “libertarian,” it’s an appropriation. But this would be a bit silly: ism words have always been appropriated. This should harm no-one unless we consider confusing people as harm. I hope not, for I might get sued.
On the other hand, consider this case:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/05/29/cultural-appropriation-po_n_16869564.html
Under that light, the burrito case is simple. Two white girls going South to beg for family recipes in cheap Spanish may look cute to some, and offensive to otters. Social Justice Warriors blew it out of proportion. That Freedom Fighters like you try to exploit it is just too predictable.
Always consider the possibility that a plague can be wished on all houses involved.
Willard:
Thank you for your reply. Do you think I exploited the Oregon tortilla situation? Yes I admit it’s ammunition. Wraps (using tortillas) are quite a common thing here. We have a Mexican section at the local grocery store.
“He knelt over the coals of a small fire and warmed a tortilla in a skillet. He flipped it, and when it was brown on one side, he added a thin layer of salsa-finely chopped tomatoes and onions and peppers, all from our garden. It also contained jalapenos and chopped red peppers that had never been grown in the state of Arkansas.”
We took their salsa and made restaurant chains from that. Decades ago when in college I worked at one. The restaurant bought its tortillas from what looked to me like a Mexican owned business. Some woman whose whose name I do not recall had a company that made them, I think in Saint Paul. Can’t find it on the Google.
Yes, I wanted to derive a benefit. What benefit was derived in Oregon?
Ayn Rand was an earlier version of Trump. Still able to cause derangement syndrome to this day. Some of the reactions to her name tips me off, there’s some truth or wisdom to some of her writings.
It is theoretical but the required authority is people in their everyday lives saying yes or no. I am not at the extreme economically and closer to the extreme socially (see the above plot). Libertarianism breaks down at the extremes. Private roads, private police forces are a few arguments. That may be true for other political parties.
I think the answer is compromise. Yes, more towards my position. I have low expectations as a libertarian. Is it that freedom fighters do not compromise?
Appropriation applies to libertarians. I am the real libertarian and a bunch of people used the name I claimed for myself. But please still support these appropriators if you find them worthy of your beliefs. There’s aren’t enough of people like myself to convince anyone to take the name back. And hey, they probably make a few good points.
Looks like my team won a point. Minnesota will reduce income taxes on social security benefits. Many states do not tax them. I thought that put ours at a disadvantage. The taxability of social security benefits impacts middle and middle/lower income people in our progressive state. This after a Republican presidential candidate had their best showing here in a few decades.
Ragnaar –
=={ Libertarianism breaks down at the extremes. }==
In your opinions, what is the difference between a lefty and a non-extreme libertarian? I happen to agree with many libertarian ideals – for example, I’m not big on government/authoritarian/”statist” overreach. It’s always amusing to me when I agree with someone like Ron Paul more than I do with mainstream Demz on issues like the invasion of Iraq. Where I differ from people that I encounter that call themselves libertarians, is that, IMO, they carry libertarian ideals to extremes (combined with binary thinking and Utopian thinking, but that’s another issue). willard’s quote from Chomsky was on point, IMO. Do you suppose that your libertarianism is materially different than Chomsky’s? If so, how?
It was a food truck. Food truck can go out of business before they get to the next red light.
Joshua:
Thank you for your comments. The difference between a generalized lefty and a non-extreme libertarian is economic freedoms. I don’t have a problem with publicly traded corporations and we can compare that to the general left views of them. They are criticized a number of different ways. Workers versus corporations has been a long lived theme. Standard Oil whomever they are these days, ought to be congratulated for surviving so long if they did. Another difference I think is the average libertarian had a greater chance of supporting gay marriage 5 years ago compared to the average lefty. The left had something to lose (votes) while we didn’t have anything to lose. Hey we got 3% this election, that’s pretty good for us. As you mentioned, a lefty can be hesitant to criticize military responses and defense budgets.
Binary thinking. Yes. This or that. And that can be used against us, as they walk us to the extremes. Cutting more and more of government until we have only private roads. The reasons to reduce the size of government only ends at zero otherwise, I am wrong. Binary can be used to marginalize.
I am not that familiar with Chomsky and perhaps I should be. Seems that capitalism is about private power.
“They don’t call it that, but it’s basically corporate tyranny, meaning tyranny by unaccountable private concentrations of power, the worst kind of tyranny you can imagine.”
My best reply right now is property rights. Joshua, you have more property than I. I feel you have been unaccountable. There is a hard to determine line above which there is too much concentration of power. The estate tax supports this idea. That tax policy has gone forth and back. Minnesota and other states fought their own battle as many states have their own estate tax. Corporations can be big, let’s tax them. Didn’t some Europeans take a run at Microsoft? Or was it Google? I suppose property rights to me means, that’s your property. It is my feeling you have that right. We are done with that issue. Even if it’s a lot of property, it’s still yours.
Joshua:
I looked at Chomsky some more and in this age of the interwebs, that’s about 10 minutes. He admirably rips our government. For instance, the about 2008 bailouts. He might illustrate a case where libertarians are useful. I’ll say this, corporations do not return the favor to libertarians, which isn’t much of a favor given our small numbers. Some will engage in non-market based behaviours. Steel import restrictions. Some auto companies lobbied against Japanese imports along time ago. Corporations haven gotten relocation incentives. Short version, shake down some other state for long term tax property breaks and then move your plant there. Tax Increment Financing. They do this or not, but what if their competition is doing it too? I can blame governments in that case. What about public finanacing of professional sports stadiums? Are you against apple pie too?
Out in the shrubbery, I’ve never met a liberal who was for the invasion of Iraq, or ever opposed to gay marriage. Senators and representatives want to get reelected, so they make choices accordingly. In Ron Paul’s district, he was effectively invincible, so he could pretty much take any position he wanted to take. As a liberal, I disagree with Chomsky on a large number of things… the bank bailouts being a big one. They were absolutely necessary, and we would still be at the bottom of a deep hole if they had not been done.
JCH:
There were some democrats opposed, but it might have been more than 5 years ago.
This written in 2012:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/obama-gay-marriage-polls_b_1510153.html
shows a number of Democrats opposing it, but attitudes have since changed I think. I imagine some of the opposers were rural Democrats, some of them in my own state.
A prediction from 2008:
“What they prescribe is for the federal government to buy $700 billion worth of lousy assets from banks and other lenders, exposing taxpayers to a potentially crushing liability. This plan would nationalize the money-losing part of the financial sector, to the benefit of capitalists who have made spectacularly bad decisions—fostering more bad decisions in the future.”
While the majority supported the bailouts in general, the losing caplitalists benefited by being handed money from the government.
A prediction from 2008:
Except that is not what really happened.
No magic happens between an interest rate of 3% and an interest rate of -3%. The devil does not suddenly appear in the room. All the angst over nearly zero percent was abject lunacy.
Geithner and Bernanke saved the USA standard of living, and and that of the world… and the USA and the world could be more ungrateful.
JCH:
There isn’t much support for my position on the bailouts but a lot for yours. This is one of the few I could find. It has bias:
“When the financial crisis hit in the fall of 2008, the politicians in Washington had one response: start printing money and bailing out big businesses. First it was Bear Stearns, then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then most of Wall Street. But voters had a different response. Polls showed widespread opposition to the bailouts. When Congress prepared to vote on President George W. Bush’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, Americans made their opinions known in no uncertain terms. Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown reported, “Like my colleagues, my phones have been ringing off the hook.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-libertarian-surge-105446
Once again it’s stimulus spending and also spraying money on the problem. So often these same tools are hauled out. I would suggest they just borrowed the money. The actual paying for this solution is in the future. It’s not much of a trick. It’s not some great, aha, I figured it out thing.
Just from memory, Bear Stearns went belly up. Its shareholders lost most of their money. My Aunt lost about $180,000 after factoring in the JP Morgan stock she got out of the deal. It was an example, I guess, of what you think should have been done. We would still be at the bottom of a pit.
Maiden Lane Transactions
I am sorry about your Aunt. I have clients that lost a lot of money. A lot of times I think the problem is the brokers. Could be an example of trusting the experts.
No… my Aunt was wealthy. She started buying common stock when she was in high school in the 1930s. Also her class valedictorian. Her broker’s name was Moe. The problem was libertarian dummies Greenspam.
https://qz.com/989761/microsoft-msft-thinks-blockchain-tech-could-solve-one-of-the-internets-toughest-problems-digital-identities/
Ragnaar –
=={ I don’t have a problem with publicly traded corporations and we can compare that to the general left views of them. }==
Could you elaborate on what you see as the divergences?
=={ Another difference I think is the average libertarian had a greater chance of supporting gay marriage 5 years ago compared to the average lefty. }==
Really? Do you have some evidence to provide for that? And again, presuming that you have some way of delineating between the garden variety libertarian and your true-Scottsman libertarian, what evidence would you provide that libertarians aren’t more likely to opposes same-sex marriage even today?
=={ As you mentioned, a lefty can be hesitant to criticize military responses and defense budgets. }==
Again, we have definition problems here. Many lefties are generally critical of military responses and defense budgets, even as they might make exception in some circumstances – and the same would be true for many people who self-identity as libertarians. Of course, mainstream Demz are less inclined towards such views, but are they “lefties?” And are libertarians who are conditional about their views on those issues not true Scottsman libertarians?
=={ My best reply right now is property rights. Joshua, you have more property than I. }==
This gets to what I was talking about re: Utopian thinking. It’s easy to be theoretically in favor of property rights uber alles, as long as it’s theoretical. But in reality, it approaches living in caves and beating each other over the head with clubs to determine how property gets distributed. I don’t think you live in a cave? Unless you live in Utopia, you have to make real world compromise.
Joshua:
“Could you elaborate on what you see as the divergences?”
I see a corporations as something that makes me money from my investments. Something that provides many of the things we use everyday. Others want to stick high tax rates on them. To blame and fight with them.
“…what evidence would you provide that libertarians aren’t more likely to opposes same-sex marriage even today?”
“The Libertarian Party has supported same-sex marriage since its founding in 1971.[9]”
McSource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights
Refers to the U.S. There will always be flavors of libertarianism. Adaptations of it. A platform does not prove support is widespread.
“And are libertarians who are conditional about their views on those issues not true Scottsman libertarians?”
Theory meet practice in politics. You probably aren’t going to find me being too harsh to much of what Rand Paul does. He’s close enough to be on my team. What about my theory of human relations? I guess it’s patience.
Earlier I granted you property rights. How much did that cost me? We have clubs and then we have people like you and I granting each other property rights. If you have a neighbor, and they do not steal your lawnmower, even though it’s not that hard to do, they have granted you the right to own that lawnmower but limited to only that two person relationship. Rights are hard to define and explain and may not exist. It can include a refrain from using clubs. This lawnmower example may illustrate where order (from law and order) comes from. Not from the government, but from us.
Pingback: Going Nuclear | …and Then There's Physics
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE WARRIORS (SCWs)
“Social Conservative Warriors” (SCWs) might be a better term to parallel the pejorative “SJWs,” as opposed to the “Freedom Fighters” moniker suggested in this article.
Professor Jordan B. Peterson says that he’s working to defend, restore and strengthen what he calls the Dominance Hierarchy. In a Dominance Hierarchy, only the people in the upper levels of the hierarchy really have what most people think of as freedom.
“Freedom from oppression” (economic, political, or military oppression) is what most people think of when they hear “freedom.”
But in a Dominance Hierarchy, the people in the lower levels are inherently subservient and subordinate to the people in the higher levels of the Dominance Hierarchy.
In many societies, it is true that people in the lower levels have a legal right to study hard, work hard, and to try to compete with people in the upper levels, and so to join or supplant some of the people in the upper levels.
But the freedom to rise in the world by defeating other people in competitions (business, academic, political, or athletic competitions) isn’t what most people think of when they hear the word “freedom.”
Therefore, I don’t recommend using the word “Freedom” in any nickname for Conservative or Libertarian activists.
I recommend “Social Conservative Warriors” (SCWs) as a counter-pejorative to SJWs.
Professor Jordan B. Peterson’s intolerance (wanting to de-fund all Women’s Studies Departments), extremism (declaring that women are not individuals), incoherence, irrationality, shoddy scholarship (misuse of Nietzsche), and suspect motives certainly qualify him as a leading SCW.
The often hidden part of most Libertarian philosophy that, just like the Social Darwinist philosophy, it believes that a socio-economic hierarchy of inequality is natural and necessary, even if it means that the people at the lowest levels of the hierarchy generally have much shorter life spans due to harsh living and working conditions, and due to lack of the level of medical care available to people in the higher levels of the hierarchy.
By contrast, when most people think of “freedom,” they tend to think of a certain level of equality and solidarity as going along with that.
That’s why the French Revolutionaries grouped together Liberté, égalité, et fraternité. Stand-alone liberty isn’t something that most people find to be very desirable.
> Stand-alone liberty isn’t something that most people find to be very desirable.
Except Freedom Fighters.
I disagree with your suggestion: Freedom Fighters don’t fight for “social,” they don’t fight for “conservative,” and they’re not “warriors.” They just fight for (individual) FREEEDOOOM.
Pingback: Science Has Always Been Political | …and Then There's Physics
Pingback: Ceci n’est pas un Sokal | …and Then There's Physics
Pingback: Mario’s Room | …and Then There's Physics
Pingback: The Popper Ratio | …and Then There's Physics
Pingback: Contrarian Models | …and Then There's Physics
Pingback: How to Reason by Analogy | …and Then There's Physics
Pingback: True Contrarians | …and Then There's Physics