The unimportant news thread

[Ken B]

Yo, Florestan!

https://www.thecollegefix.com/columbia-professor-who-fled-communism-resigns-says-university-is-becoming-communist/

Plus, empty your mailbox...

[Florestan]

Yo, Florestan!

https://www.thecollegefix.com/columbia-professor-who-fled-communism-resigns-says-university-is-becoming-communist/

I've read about that already. He's an excellent theatre and opera director.

Plus, empty your mailbox...

Done.

[SimonNZ]

By what definition is that "communist"?.

It might be time to break out that humpty dumpty quote again.

[drogulus]

By what definition is that "communist"?.

It might be time to break out that humpty dumpty quote again.

     I recall Ayn Rand used to think everything she didn't like was Communist. She liked atheism, though. I guess she didn't like any form of thought control that didn't have her at the center.

[Florestan]

By what definition is that "communist"?.

The ideological diktat fits in the bill quite nicely. Just substitute "bourgeois" for "white, heterosexual, married-with-kids male" and "proletarian" for "woman, minority or gay" and you get exactly the discourse of the Party Secretary of the National Theater in Bucharest, any time between 1948 and 1989.

It might be time to break out that humpty dumpty quote again.

Actually, his choice of words is careful and accurate.

I felt like I was living under communism again.

Spot on, Mr. Șerban, spot on.

[SimonNZ]

The ideological diktat fits in the bill quite nicely.

Okay...now imagine the school was "dictating" creationist history and obligatory prayer and placed hiring practices on this preference over experience and talent. "Communism"?

I'm not arguing that the story as reported (though it seems to have been reported in a way to maximize anti-"PC" knee-jerk reaction which makes me suspicious of many of the details) makes the administration sound stupid. But "unbending authority from above" does not on its own equal "communism". Its a sloppy use of language.

[Ken B]

"his choice of words is careful and accurate "

Indeed.  "I felt like I was living under communism again" is not an assertion about an economic system. He is referring to the kind of political interference and mind control that he had previously experienced under communism. A man who had lived under Pinochet could likewise have said "I felt like I was living under fascism again".

[Florestan]

"his choice of words is careful and accurate "

Indeed.  "I felt like I was living under communism again" is not an assertion about an economic system. He is referring to the kind of political interference and mind control that he had previously experienced under communism. A man who had lived under Pinochet could likewise have said "I felt like I was living under fascism again".

Good point.

[SimonNZ]

No, that's not what he's saying:

" "on its way toward full blown communism," is a quote in the text.

"...says university is becoming communist" is right there in the title.


"careful and accurate"...?

[drogulus]

No, that's not what he's saying:

" "on its way toward full blown communism," is a quote in the text.

"...says university is becoming communist" is right there in the title.


"careful and accurate"...?

   

     Part of the left revolted against the post modernists in the '90s. They thought they were fighting extreme relativism and debased French philosophy.

     Sokal affair

     I loved the Sokal Hoax. I took Sokal to be entirely correct that there was nothing progressive about the implicit intolerance, obscurantism and complete divorcement from rigor of academic postmodernese. Now that the right has adopted "alternative facts" and the assault on objectivity we upholders of standards get it from both sides.

[SimonNZ]

the reason I'm being a bit touchy about this here is that there is a lot of loose talk flying around from the right just now that:

left equals socialism equals communism

and:

progressive equals socialism equals communism

and:

green equals socialism equals communism

and etc on specific policies where x equals socialism equals communism

[Ken B]

   

     Part of the left revolted against the post modernists in the '90s. They thought they were fighting extreme relativism and debased French philosophy.

     Sokal affair

     I loved the Sokal Hoax. I took Sokal to be entirely correct that there was nothing progressive about the implicit intolerance, obscurantism and complete divorcement from rigor of academic postmodernese. Now that the right has adopted "alternative facts" and the assault on objectivity we upholders of standards get it from both sides.

There were a couple good books out of that too. I read the one about Impostures; I forget the title but it is mentioned in the wiki.

I fear you have fallen for spin about "alternative facts". The way she used it and talked about it was actually quite right, there usually are alternative, that is *other* facts which are relevant to any complex issue. If you only look at 5he facts supporting one side of an argument you aren't doing it right. Example. Is Trump doing a good job on the economy? Fact 1, high employment, fact 2 astounding deficit. Both facts are relevant.

Coyne on his sire why evolution is true often has good stuff on the Pomo craziness. And Helen Pluckrose has a site; she is really good. She was part of 5he team that perpetrated the Grievance Studies hoax, aka Sokal Ii

[drogulus]

I fear you have fallen for spin about "alternative facts". The way she used it and talked about it was actually quite right, there usually are alternative, that is *other* facts which are relevant to any complex issue. If you only look at 5he facts supporting one side of an argument you aren't doing it right. Example. Is Trump doing a good job on the economy? Fact 1, high employment, fact 2 astounding deficit. Both facts are relevant.

     There were not alternative crowd sizes at the Trump Inauguration, and alternative falsehoods are not facts.

     The example you give of other facts to be considered is a different thing. No facts are alternatives to each other, there are alternative arguments that use different facts.

[Ken B]

     There were not alternative crowd sizes at the Trump Inauguration, and alternative falsehoods are not facts.

     The example you give of other facts to be considered is a different thing. No facts are alternatives to each other, there are alternative arguments that use different facts.

You can look only at one set of facts, but in that case there are alternative facts you might consider. That is perfectly correct. Her perfectly coherent remark was distorted by partisans. Playing dumb and pretending words cannot properly be used in multiple senses.

Indeed falsehoods are not facts. That is a clue that "alternative facts" really refers to other facts I could have considered. That's how the word works. If I listen to Karajan's Beethoven, and you tell me there are alternative recordings, I think you mean there are other recordings I could have listened to.

Actually this reminds me of the twaddle about Rumsfeld 15 years ago. I heard people who claim to be intelligent ridiculing his talk about known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, which is actually perfectly sensible. But the allure of mockery was too strong.

[drogulus]

You can look only at one set of facts, but in that case there are alternative facts you might consider. That is perfectly correct. Her perfectly coherent remark was distorted by partisans.

     She had no business suggesting that a set of facts existed that Shawn Spicer had to show that visible facts were wrong. She deserved the ridicule. The Trumpists use lies as alternative facts. They are not just using different facts to make alternative arguments. They are not saying "on the other hand, these facts show...".

     

"his choice of words is careful and accurate "

Indeed.  "I felt like I was living under communism again" is not an assertion about an economic system. He is referring to the kind of political interference and mind control that he had previously experienced under communism. A man who had lived under Pinochet could likewise have said "I felt like I was living under fascism again".

     I find this argument unpersuasive. Too much is excluded that we know is true about how social systems in open societies evolve. The older you are, the less you're willing to accommodate it, or the harder you find doing it. It's especially hard for people to admit the equal human worth of people who assumed to be by their very nature objects of ridicule and scorn.

     How do I handle it? It's easier for me since I'm not expected to be an authority figure that sets a good example I don't believe in. It's also easier because I don't have any rigid counterdogma to get pissed off by a different one. They all piss me off. When I recently visited a "men's room" with women in it I thought it was a novelty and mused that this was the future. It didn't seem Communist or fascist or even postmodern.

[drogulus]

     Rumsfeld is awesome! He had a conversation with Warren Mosler that helped him develop MMT.

[SimonNZ]

If anyone needs a reminder:

[...]

CHUCK TODD:

--excuse and you did not answer the question.

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

I did answer--

CHUCK TODD:

No you did not.

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

--your question.

CHUCK TODD:

You did not--

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

Yes I did.

CHUCK TODD:

--answer the question of why the president asked the White House press secretary to come out in front of the podium for the first time and utter a falsehood? Why did he do that? It undermines the credibility of the entire White House press office--

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

No it doesn't.

CHUCK TODD:

--on day one.

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What-- You're saying it's a falsehood. And they're giving Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that. But the point remains--

CHUCK TODD:

Wait a minute-- Alternative facts?

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

--that there's--

CHUCK TODD:

Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered, the one thing he got right--

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

--hey, Chuck, why-- Hey Chuck--

CHUCK TODD:

--was Zeke Miller. Four of the five facts he uttered were just not true. Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods.

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

Chuck, do you think it's a fact or not that millions of people have lost their plans or health insurance and their doctors under President Obama? Do you think it's a fact that everything we heard from these women yesterday happened on the watch of President Obama? He was president for eight years. Donald Trump's been here for about eight hours.

Do you think it's a fact that millions of women, 16.1 million women, as I stand here before you today, are in poverty along with their kids? Do you think it's a fact that millions don't have health care? Do you think it's a fact that we spent billions of dollars on education in the last eight years only to have millions of kids still stuck in schools that fail them every single day? These are the facts that I want the press corps to cover--

CHUCK TODD:

I--

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

--and these are-- this is why I'm here at the White House--

CHUCK TODD:

--but I understand this.

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

--to change awful--

CHUCK TODD:

What I don't understand is--

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

--numbers like that.

CHUCK TODD:

--that is not what yesterday was about. So you--

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

Yes it is.

CHUCK TODD:

--have not answered the qu-- you did not answer the question the--

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

It's what this presidency's going to be about.

CHUCK TODD:

--you sent the press secretary out there to utter a falsehood on the smallest, pettiest thing.

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

I don't think that anybody can prove the--

CHUCK TODD:

And I don't understand why you did it.

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

--look, I actually don't think that-- maybe this is me as a pollster, Chuck. And you know data well. I don't think you can prove those numbers one way or the other. There's no way to really quantify crowds. We all know that. You can laugh at me all you want. But I'm very glad--

CHUCK TODD:

I'm not laughing. I'm just--

KELLYANNE CONWAY:

--look, Chuck, I'm--

CHUCK TODD:

--befuddled.[...]

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-01-22-17-n710491

[Ken B]

     She had no business suggesting that a set of facts existed that Shawn Spicer had to show that visible facts were wrong. She deserved the ridicule. The Trumpists use lies as alternative facts. They are not just using different facts to make alternative arguments. They are not saying "on the other hand, these facts show...".

     
     I find this argument unpersuasive. Too much is excluded that we know is true about how social systems in open societies evolve. The older you are, the less you're willing to accommodate it, or the harder you find doing it. It's especially hard for people to admit the equal human worth of people who assumed to be by their very nature objects of ridicule and scorn.

     How do I handle it? It's easier for me since I'm not expected to be an authority figure that sets a good example I don't believe in. It's also easier because I don't have any rigid counterdogma to get pissed off by a different one. They all piss me off. When I recently visited a "men's room" with women in it I thought it was a novelty and mused that this was the future. It didn't seem Communist or fascist or even postmodern.

"I find this argument unpersuasive"
So a man who lived under Pinochet could NOT say something reminded him of life under fascism?

What does your being or not being an authority figure have to do with how a man felt? It like saying "I have blue eyes and therefore he is lying when he said it felt to him like ..."

[drogulus]

"I find this argument unpersuasive"
So a man who lived under Pinochet could NOT say something reminded him of life under fascism?

What does your being or not being an authority figure have to do with how a man felt? It like saying "I have blue eyes and therefore he is lying when he said it felt to him like ..."

     I'm not denying feelings. I'm denying that his feelings are useful in determining fascism if the case is like the one in the article about Serban quitting.

     When I was young not only did I walk a thousand miles to school in blinding snowstorms, I also watched William Buckley on TV. He used to have refugees from Communist countries on (Ayn Rand included) and I got the idea that America was supposed to be going Communist. I didn't believe it, for good reason as I look back.

      Buckley was opposing Communism as much from a rival dogmatism as he was from the standpoint of an open society, which he disliked. I picked up on it.

      The other reason is that people who are experienced about Communism get that part right and open societies wrong. I never thought it was possible for my country to go Communist by being overenthusiastic about social change. I look at the countries that had gone Communist and they don't look at all like democracies in evolution.

[Florestan]

         I find this argument unpersuasive. Too much is excluded that we know is true about how social systems in open societies evolve. The older you are, the less you're willing to accommodate it, or the harder you find doing it. It's especially hard for people to admit the equal human worth of people who assumed to be by their very nature objects of ridicule and scorn.

     How do I handle it? It's easier for me since I'm not expected to be an authority figure that sets a good example I don't believe in. It's also easier because I don't have any rigid counterdogma to get pissed off by a different one. They all piss me off. When I recently visited a "men's room" with women in it I thought it was a novelty and mused that this was the future. It didn't seem Communist or fascist or even postmodern.

     I'm not denying feelings. I'm denying that his feelings are useful in determining fascism if the case is like the one in the article about Serban quitting.

     When I was young not only did I walk a thousand miles to school in blinding snowstorms, I also watched William Buckley on TV. He used to have refugees from Communist countries on (Ayn Rand included) and I got the idea that America was supposed to be going Communist. I didn't believe it, for good reason as I look back.

      Buckley was opposing Communism as much from a rival dogmatism as he was from the standpoint of an open society, which he disliked. I picked up on it.

      The other reason is that people who are experienced about Communism get that part right and open societies wrong. I never thought it was possible for my country to go Communist by being overenthusiastic about social change. I look at the countries that had gone Communist and they don't look at all like democracies in evolution.

You're clueless. Utterly clueless. I'm not surprised, though.