The unimportant news thread

[Ken B]

And yet I remember Frederick Douglass thinking his experience as a slave gave him some standing on the issue of slavery.

[drogulus]

And yet I remember Frederick Douglass thinking his experience as a slave gave him some standing on the issue of slavery.

     He didn't think slavery was something people should experience in order to understand the meaning of life. Slavery did give him great understanding of the meaning of freedom, no one doubts that. The contrast with Solzhenitsyn is stark, I would say.

[Florestan]

     He didn't think slavery was something people should experience in order to understand the meaning of life. Slavery did give him great understanding of the meaning of freedom, no one doubts that. The contrast with Solzhenitsyn is stark, I would say.

I strongly suspect that you have not read one single paragraph written by Solzhenitsyn, let alone a whole book --- and this would actually be in your advantage, because if you have indeed read him and came to the conclusion that he promoted the idea that people should experience Gulag in order to understand the meaning of life or freedom then your reading comprehension skills are way below those of a newborn.

[drogulus]

I strongly suspect that you have not read one single paragraph written by Solzhenitsyn, let alone a whole book --- and this would actually be in your advantage, because if you have indeed read him and came to the conclusion that he promoted the idea that people should experience Gulag in order to understand the meaning of life or freedom then your reading comprehension skills are way below those of a newborn.

     I'll bet you do. I read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and In The First Circle, both many years ago. There's nothing in the books that would indicate how he would turn against free people when he had the opportunity to live among them. I was surprised when I learned of his diatribes against the West. Perhaps I thought he would understand freedom as well as he understood imprisonment. He did not.

[JBS]

I strongly suspect that you have not read one single paragraph written by Solzhenitsyn, let alone a whole book --- and this would actually be in your advantage, because if you have indeed read him and came to the conclusion that he promoted the idea that people should experience Gulag in order to understand the meaning of life or freedom then your reading comprehension skills are way below those of a newborn.

Go back and look at the quote.  He was not condemning his Canadian interlocutor for being sympathetic to Communism. He gives no indication what the man's opinions are.  He was condemning him for enjoying the comforts of Western capitalist society, and claiming that his suffering in the camps in and of itself made him superior to the other man.

It is at the least consistent with his criticism of EuroAmerican materialism.

[Florestan]

     I'll bet you do. I read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and In The First Circle, both many years ago. There's nothing in the books that would indicate how he would turn against free people when he had the opportunity to live among them. I was surprised when I learned of his diatribes against the West. Perhaps I thought he would understand freedom as well as he understood imprisonment. He did not.

This is wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. I'd better not begin at all, you're obviously clueless.

[drogulus]

     Trivially pursuing ones own conception of the good life is one of the virtues of freedom. It's not all there is to it, certainly not for me it isn't. I would rather people not be forced to live on the edge of an existential crisis every day to enhance their moral worth.

[JBS]

This is wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. I'd better not begin at all, you're obviously clueless.

Drogulus is right.  His books were mercilessly accurate depictions of life in Soviet Russia, and displayed everything that was wrong with life under totalitarianism.  One would assume from them he was a supporter of liberal freedom.

Yet when he lived in the West, he hated the society he saw around him, and took refuge in classic Russian nationalism. He ended his life as a supporter of Putin.

[Florestan]

Go back and look at the quote.  He was not condemning his Canadian interlocutor for being sympathetic to Communism. He gives no indication what the man's opinions are. He was condemning him for enjoying the comforts of Western capitalist society, and claiming that his suffering in the camps in and of itself made him superior to the other man.

This interpretation is far off the mark and frankly I'm surprised that you obstinately cling to it. But nevermind, go ahead, think what you want. I'm not going to get into a polemic with you, or anyone else, about that. I will make one last point, though: I'm greatly puzzled by your (plural) accepting left-wing ciritiques of the West as an expression of freedom in an open society while at the same time denouncing right-wing critiques of the self-same West as an expression of hatred and contempt for freedom in an open society. And taking into account that, as I said previously, while Solzhenitsyn is dead and he never thought of turning the West upside down anyway, the number of those who want precisely that is legion, the puzzlement is even greater.

And this is going to be my last post on the issue.

[Florestan]

Drogulus is right.  His books were mercilessly accurate depictions of life in Soviet Russia, and displayed everything that was wrong with life under totalitarianism.  One would assume from them he was a supporter of liberal freedom.

Yet when he lived in the West, he hated the society he saw around him,

No, he did not. I'm sorry to say it but you're as clueless as drogulus. Don't bother to reply, see my post above this one.

[drogulus]

     I want to tinker with a free society just like other people on the left and right do., by trimming a little here and adding a little there. It's worth arguing about from a common perspective of supporting a free society that remains open to such debates about how a free society can evolve.

     Personally my conception is neo-Darwinian, that the future comes out of course correction with no fixed end state like heaven or hell or Atlantic City. There's lots of improvisation within a capacious rule set.

clueless as drogulus

As if....!!

[Ken B]

The vaping threat was bogus.

https://reason.org/commentary/cdc-started-a-vaping-panic-now-its-admitting-vitamin-e-acetate-in-illegal-products-is-to-blame/

This is actually pretty big. The CDC screwed up badly. Vaping is an important form of harm reduction.

[drogulus]

The vaping threat was bogus.

https://reason.org/commentary/cdc-started-a-vaping-panic-now-its-admitting-vitamin-e-acetate-in-illegal-products-is-to-blame/

This is actually pretty big. The CDC screwed up badly. Vaping is an important form of harm reduction.

     In Massachusetts we have a ban in effect on all nicotine e-cigs. Undoubtedly some damage is being done as smokers relapse.

[Ken B]

The return of proof texting. Take JBS's comment about the Ukraine. AS did deny the Holomodor was genocide, because he didn't think the reason for it was genocidal. But to proof text like that is misleading. He never minimized or excused it in any way.
"It was a system which, in time of peace, artificially created a famine, causing 6 million people to die in the Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. .... they died on the very edge of Europe. And Europe didn't even notice it. The world didn't even notice it—6 million people!"
AS was calling attention to it at a time when most leftists denied it ever happened.
There can be other reasons for mass murder than genocide. Mao starved 30 million.

AS hated a lot of what he saw in the west. (Raise your hands those who hate Trump being president, or hated Jim Crow) But he also valued and praised its liberty and freedom.

[JBS]

The return of proof texting. Take JBS's comment about the Ukraine. AS did deny the Holomodor was genocide, because he didn't think the reason for it was genocidal. But to proof text like that is misleading. He never minimized or excused it in any way.
"It was a system which, in time of peace, artificially created a famine, causing 6 million people to die in the Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. .... they died on the very edge of Europe. And Europe didn't even notice it. The world didn't even notice it—6 million people!"
AS was calling attention to it at a time when most leftists denied it ever happened.
There can be other reasons for mass murder than genocide. Mao starved 30 million.

AS hated a lot of what he saw in the west. (Raise your hands those who hate Trump being president, or hated Jim Crow) But he also valued and praised its liberty and freedom.

The full quote refers to the famine that happened during the Russian Civil War as being equal in scope and equally caused by the Bolsheviks. It was part of his  premise that Russia was not the same as the Soviet Union, and that the Russian people were as much a victim of Communism as any other group.

But you managed to omit the context of my criticism, which was that while he didn't want to call the Holomodor genocide, he happily slapped the label of "genocide" on America's involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Ken B]

The full quote refers to the famine that happened during the Russian Civil War as being equal in scope and equally caused by the Bolsheviks. It was part of his  premise that Russia was not the same as the Soviet Union, and that the Russian people were as much a victim of Communism as any other group.

But you managed to omit the context of my criticism, which was that while he didn't want to call the Holomodor genocide, he happily slapped the label of "genocide" on America's involvement in the Vietnam war.

But I am not arguing we should accept his judgment. I am refuting the false claim he simply hated the west, tout court. 

I don't know enough about 1921 to judge his claim.

[SimonNZ]

Learning just now that The First Circle was at some point made into a miniseries with Christopher Plummer and F Murray Abraham:



The First Circle was probably my favorite book when I was in my late teens, so it surprises me that I never picked up on that.

[drogulus]

Learning just now that The First Circle was at some point made into a miniseries with Christopher Plummer and F Murray Abraham:



The First Circle was probably my favorite book when I was in my late teens, so it surprises me that I never picked up on that.

     I just ordered the DVD.

     I'm not aware of any balancing AS did that would indicate he hated some things about the West but appreciated others, unless you count the fact that he lived in Vermont for 20 years without protest against his neighbors. He wrote a letter thanking them. Maybe he liked some Americans as individuals. He didn't bite their hands at least.

[Ken B]

     I just ordered the DVD.

     I'm not aware of any balancing AS did that would indicate he hated some things about the West but appreciated others, unless you count the fact that he lived in Vermont for 20 years without protest against his neighbors. He wrote a letter thanking them. Maybe he liked some Americans as individuals. He didn't bite their hands at least.

You read one book, right? His shortest one?
Just checking.

[SimonNZ]

You read one book, right? His shortest one?
Just checking.

     I'll bet you do. I read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and In The First Circle, both many years ago. There's nothing in the books that would indicate how he would turn against free people when he had the opportunity to live among them. I was surprised when I learned of his diatribes against the West. Perhaps I thought he would understand freedom as well as he understood imprisonment. He did not.