Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Is indoctrinating kids with pro-police propaganda more racist or more fascist? Hm. Either way, there is no Paw Patrol in our house although I’ve yet to figure out what to teach Tiny about the police beyond “it’s complicated.”

Anyway, I think there’s a distinction between something written in direct response to antiracist argument and something that merely passively upholds existing systems, so don’t much care how we label the children’s book as long as we’re thinking about its message and what other messages need to be included to put it in context.

Tiny went through a Richard Scarry phase. I cringed every time through the section on the police (even though the officer eventually winds up making a bottle for his kid in the night, which seems fairly progressive for the time) and we actively tried to skip the section on the work moms do.

It’s complicated. Tiny loves Lupita Nwongo’s Sulwe, about a little girl uncomfortable with her dark skin, but I’m not sure she’s getting the right messages from it yet. She likes that it’s about sisters but prefers Day to Night.

My kid's seen everything. All the National Lampoon comedies from the 70s, all the Apatow stuff from the last 15 years. All the raunch comedies from Old School to Wedding Crashers. And all the high end stuff, from Kubrick's catalog to Wes Anderson, to Paul Thomas Anderson and Terry Gilliam.

Books read are Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, McCarthy, Jane Austen, and a bunch of biographies.

Nothing's held back. All the jokes deemed too insensitive are offered. The child has also seen Carlin, Chapelle, Rock, Murphy (Delirious even), Lewis Black, etc.

All in baby... No effort to shield or massage views in the least.

And like me, the kid is incredibly open minded and intolerant of the intolerant. We've had discussions about racism, police, justice system, gay marriage, you name it.

It isn't fucking hard to raise a tolerant kid. Elevate reason to the highest virtue and explain that bigots are simply not the sharpest tools in the box.

But with that comes another admonition about the dim that must be offered to children by parents like me (moderates who smarter than most of the people around them): "Some crazy people are going to tell you how to think, or say this or that is shameful. These people are nuts. Ignore them."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Suppose his attack had merit? Is the fact that it's a weak or flawed attack the thing that makes it racist where it otherwise wouldn't be if it didn't have such flaws?



Here, you're flat out Orwellian. You don't know that it's "actively upholding racist systems." That's your opinion. A competing opinion with at least the same if not considerably more veracity can be offered that he is merely criticizing a concept he thinks is specious.

Also, what does it mean to "uphold a racist system"? Those are wiggle words. Speak like someone who has a coherent thought in his head.



Says you. Again, with exactly the same level of credibility it can be said that this is one antiracist attacking another antiracist's idea.



Orwellian again. You're telling us what conversations we are allowed to have about race. We must discuss racism in: (1) only a manner that aids antiracist aims (as you define them); and, (2) we must frame the conversations in a manner you think renders them substantive. By extension, this necessarily means that if we are discussing it in other ways, those are either unproductive or possibly counter to the goal and therefore racist, because that which does not advance things toward the antiracist goal is, as you have explicitly stated, racist.



To criticize the woke is racist too? So then if I say the following, I am suborning racism:

DiAngelo has a pretty insightful idea -- that Whites are defensive about racism, and this holds back useful discussion on the topic. But then there are uber-woke screwballs like Adder who take the idea to absurd ends and ruin it for everybody else. These wingnuts even think it's okay to stifle free speech on the topic. So now the concept of White Fragility and DiAngelo's explanation of it are harmed because reasonable people are led to conclude it's more like the bastardized crazy version people like Adder spout rather than the nuanced version DiAngelo offered.

But now consider this, my silly friend... You are harming White Fragility's chance at acceptance far more than Taibbi or me. I can explain to skeptics that Taibbi is being unfair and the concept is important. I can't explain away people who listen to you and think, "That motherfucker's nuts." Because I can't help but agree with them.

Look, we get it. You’re obstinate and obtuse and will write infinite words saying nothing (there’s a reason TM has abandoned this place) but you need to know this: I don’t read the vast majority of your words. You are unserious and do not engage in substance. You want endless “discussion” of the obvious. Nope.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

My kid's seen everything. All the National Lampoon comedies from the 70s, all the Apatow stuff from the last 15 years. All the raunch comedies from Old School to Wedding Crashers. And all the high end stuff, from Kubrick's catalog to Wes Anderson, to Paul Thomas Anderson and Terry Gilliam.

Books read are Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, McCarthy, Jane Austen, and a bunch of biographies.

Nothing's held back. All the jokes deemed too insensitive are offered. The child has also seen Carlin, Chapelle, Rock, Murphy (Delirious even), Lewis Black, etc.

All in baby... No effort to shield or massage views in the least.

And like me, the kid is incredibly open minded and intolerant of the intolerant. We've had discussions about racism, police, justice system, gay marriage, you name it.

It isn't fucking hard to raise a tolerant kid. Elevate reason to the highest virtue and explain that bigots are simply not the sharpest tools in the box.

But with that comes another admonition about the dim that must be offered to children by parents like me (moderates who smarter than most of the people around them): "Some crazy people are going to tell you how to think, or say this or that is shameful. These people are nuts. Ignore them."

Legit LOL. You are a clueless fool.

ETA: color blind tolerance was admirable, maybe, 20 years ago (not really, we should have higher standards for ourselves). It’s well past time to actually value integration, equality and anti racism.

Tolerance is easy. Anti racism is harder, maybe? I’m really not sure because once you see it, it’s not that hard either. The world is more complex though.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So serious question over here. Do Asians have real beet against whites? On FB there is a Chinese woman who started off railing against men, ran a storytelling show about awful shit men do. Mostly people seemed to let her go along, although she seemed quite angry, borderline insane.

With the recent protests she has stepped to lecturing white people about what we need to change. To me it tracks the white people telling other whites people what they need to do relative to interacting with black people.I just feel no one wants to engage her Cuz of the crazy card. Do you all think Asians have sone special place to speak?

No. She sounds like a garden variety lunatic.

Some whacko will say they do because Chinese indentured servants were used on railroads. But then the Irish would also have a special beef with Whites. The problem with that is obvious.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Legit LOL. You are a clueless fool.

I pray that child has the good sense to rebel.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You might call his position Orwellian. You'd be using the term based upon the poor extent of your knowledge of the man's work, but you might still use it.

MOST PEOPLE WHO BOTHER with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent, and our language−−so the argument runs−−must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half−conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Look, we get it. You’re obstinate and obtuse and will write infinite words saying nothing (there’s a reason TM has abandoned this place) but you need to know this: I don’t read the vast majority of your words. You are unserious and do not engage in substance. You want endless “discussion” of the obvious. Nope.

I just like slapping you around.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I pray that child has the good sense to rebel.

She’s got, “no justice, no peace” down. I look forward to the day when she realizes it applies to me too. The future should always be better than the past.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's a bit ellipitcal. But where it makes clear points, they seem to be:

1. Right wing trolls acting in bad faith deserve to be canceled
2. They're ruining it for everyone

On 1, agreed. On 2, no.

I don't think it's elliptical at all. He's responding to a bunch of people who have written a public statement fretting about the marketplace of ideas and urging, more or less, that the remedy to speech is more speech. He is saying, that only works if everyone is speaking in good faith, but many people are not, and it's not just right-wing trolls.

The extreme left is afraid of smart people who pick apart its arguments. The thread you cite lumps smart conservatives in with Nazis and slippery slope alarmists, and that's dishonest. The critics of the left are myriad and varied. We can separate the psychos from the reasonable people acting in good faith.

1) Holbo is not extreme left.

2) In what way does he lump together those people? What does he say about smart conservatives?

The mob is seeking to eliminate the smart debate that would put some of its shibboleths to the test.

I'm not talking about the mob. I'm talking about Holbo. What does Holbo say that -- you think -- seeks to eliminate smart debate?

I think Holbo is more than happy to have a debate with anyone who will defend their first principles. He's a philosophy professor -- that's what they do.

That Twitter thread goes a long way to defend this essential point none of the New Left dare say aloud:

We're doing this, dammit. All in or all out.

Honestly, I have no idea what in Holbo's thread you think says this.

I think he has his finger on a very real problem, which is, what do you do when you are debating someone who is not speaking in good faith. A specific example is the people who raise concerns about transgender people and bathrooms:

If you want a world in which a good faith argument is possible between Rowling and her critics (which I do!) work to bring about a world in which there is less bad-faith arguing from the right on trans rights. Let me be very specific about that. The bad faith arguments all have the same form. They are what I call 'downstream worries' arguments. If 'trans rights are human rights' we have pronoun trouble, or need new norms for bathrooms or women's sports or in womens' shelters. Or philosophical ideas about the metaphysics of gender will be problematized. All this is true and some of it may get bumpy. But there's really no point arguing about it without a high baseline of initial acceptance of trans rights. If trans rights are human rights, how are we going to run sports/use pronouns? But the bad faith arguers are not willing to debate the antecedent honestly. They have a sense they'll lose, and they are right. So they fuss about bathrooms to pollute discourse with issues that can only be reasonably discussed after we accept something they don't, but aren't willing to argue about honestly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

That GOP consultants and their candidates can’t break from 45 because they both fundamentally agree with him and it’s in their financial self interest if he loses anyway?

That the GOP base is so pro-Trump that GOP candidates cannot to move away from him for fear of losing them, even though they know he is so unpopular and losing the middle. That the consultants understand the damage he is doing and do not like him but are nonetheless motivating by grievances about the media and the left (not a surprise to me -- I think it's the essence of conservatism -- but still was surprised to see it said in this context).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Is indoctrinating kids with pro-police propaganda more racist or more fascist?

Is there a difference between a children's book with a benign depiction of a policeman the same as "indoctrinating kids with pro-police propaganda"? If the only tool in your toolbox is a sledgehammer, you certainly end up pounding on everything.

Anyway, I think there’s a distinction between something written in direct response to antiracist argument and something that merely passively upholds existing systems, so don’t much care how we label the children’s book as long as we’re thinking about its message and what other messages need to be included to put it in context.

Yes, of course there is. You may not care how you label things, but the point is that if you can label so much of everything as racist, the label carries less meaning.

Tiny went through a Richard Scarry phase. I cringed every time through the section on the police (even though the officer eventually winds up making a bottle for his kid in the night, which seems fairly progressive for the time) and we actively tried to skip the section on the work moms do.

It’s complicated. Tiny loves Lupita Nwongo’s Sulwe, about a little girl uncomfortable with her dark skin, but I’m not sure she’s getting the right messages from it yet. She likes that it’s about sisters but prefers Day to Night.

As Tiny becomes less tiny, em will like things that are not 100% groovy, and you will be pushed to compromise more. Just warning you.

Then your child is 19 and pledging a frat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

MOST PEOPLE WHO BOTHER with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent, and our language−−so the argument runs−−must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half−conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.

Google searches is not equal to doing the work😰🤬

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

She’s got, “no justice, no peace” down. I look forward to the day when she realizes it applies to me too. The future should always be better than the past.

The self loathing is really the icing on the cake.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So serious question over here. Do Asians have real beet against whites? On FB there is a Chinese woman who started off railing against men, ran a storytelling show about awful shit men do. Mostly people seemed to let her go along, although she seemed quite angry, borderline insane.

With the recent protests she has stepped to lecturing white people about what we need to change. To me it tracks the white people telling other whites people what they need to do relative to interacting with black people.I just feel no one wants to engage her Cuz of the crazy card. Do you all think Asians have sone special place to speak?

A lot of that going on out here lately: 1 2 3 4

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Perhaps an even better thread: https://twitter.com/popehat/status/1...591689221?s=21

Ken and John both identify problems with the Harper's letter, which is fine, but I think that John does a better job of identifying the problems caused by people arguing in bad faith than Ken does, perhaps because he is a philosopher and Ken is a lawyer. Focusing on the First Amendment gets in the way when you are thinking about how the marketplace of ideas is working when the government is not involved.