Objectively intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The problem with improving things via politics is most of the people who wish to do so aren't terribly bright. They may sometimes be credentialed (some even have advanced degrees), but they're not real elite thinkers.

When I want to tell Ty he is too dumb to be posting in an elite forum such as this, I say the words. But I guess this passive approach might be more polite?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When I want to tell Ty he is too dumb to be posting in an elite forum such as this, I say the words. But I guess this passive approach might be more polite?

There are not and never will be any elite thinkers here.

Ty would agree. If one finds himself in a room where a serious (not public, and certainly not publicly political — those people are jerk offs) thinker speaks, three thoughts come to mind:

1. I’m too dumb to be here;
2. I’m too drunk to be here;
3. It’s their fault for having that level of scotch as the well variant... I think I’ll mingle and make a fool of myself.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I change my mind. Like every afternoon. Flower can say that's lying. You can say that's me showing an underlying consistent bias. Ty can say its because I'm a closet conservative.

In actuality, I'm a somewhat rootless relativist. Almost any argument will appeal to me at some level, and so one day I'm here, the next I'm there. And if I think you really care deeply about something, I'll criticize it. Maybe it's jealousy... or perhaps your caring makes me have to reconsider my view that life is meaningless. I've banked a lot on the notion that it goes nowhere and one might as well just indulge and have fun. If I were to find there were an afterlife, even a good one, or some existential reckoning during which not having taken a stand of any significant kind or held any particular view shared by others would cause me suffering, I'd be seriously pissed.

It used to be an act, but the cynicism has caved in the roof of my personality and so when I say one thing one day, one thing the next, and I defend someone like Trump, it's because, Does it Really Matter?

None of the economic debates we need will ever occur. This divide and conquer game will be played by real elites, using red herrings like race to pit credulous wanna be elites and deluded deplorables against each other, while the real issues go unaddressed. It's painful to watch so many be so duped. But then you think to yourself... People are really fucking stupid.

You don't change your mind. You're highly consistent. You don't give a fuck about anyone but you. Sometimes you pretend or lie (don't know whether to yourself or just to us), but when when it's time to act, you only care about you.

Trump means less regulation and less taxes for you. There is nothing else you care about.

And race isn't a red herring. Jesus. It's 2020. (Please do not cite McWhorter or Chatterton Williams)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The problem with improving things via politics is most of the people who wish to do so aren't terribly bright. They may sometimes be credentialed (some even have advanced degrees), but they're not real elite thinkers. They're tinkerers, wonks -- people who are sure they know best, filled with big ideas and often able to communicate them in a manner that makes them sound credible to the credulous (or those who wish to seem 'adjacent' to what they think is the smart set).

...And then they almost always fall prey to the law of unintended consequences.

This is a statement of conservative ideology. We can't make things better because government never works. It's empirically untrue, but highly effective at defending the status quo.

And the reason for a lot of this is because the people who create policy on the Left are maleducated. Take the race issue of the moment. The problems in the communities have as much, if not far more, to do with class than they do with race. Trust me, having defended criminals -- the ladder of severity of sentence for kids committing identical crimes (1 being lightest, 4, harshest) is as follows:

1. Rich white kid
2. Rich black kid
3. Poor white kid
4. Poor black kid

The difference between 3 and 4 is thin enough that it's not worth discussing. But I can't say that to policy people who are reading DiAngelo. We can't have that conversation out loud. Why? Because the serious elites (the seriously monied classes who control policy through lobbying and media) don't allow it. They instead feed easily persuaded well-meaning but credulous people (some of whom you can read here) a new form of religion (anti-racism) and stuff like 1619 (some of which is true, but only tells a fraction of a much more complex tale) and use it to pit them against the Trumpkins.

"The people of color working toward equality are the real racists" is also a statement of conservative ideology, but you've done some impressive work to obscure your point here.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Flower, this is going to be really hard. But I'm trying. Really I am.

Nobody said this was going to be easy. In three days, Sebastian spewed over 2750 words onto this board, and two of those days were on the weekend. Two of his posts were each 700 or more words of stream of consciousness drivel, and each sentence was more unhinged than the last. It’s ... a lot.

Maybe this will help. Imagine you are at a Greek taverna for dinner, and you get a message informing you of Sebastian’s passing. Would you to continue your original plan to order the Saganaki? No. Despite all the lies and nonsense, you would remember that Sebastian is a human being, whose words have brought laughter and bemusement to this lawyer chatting board over the years. And you would know it would be wrong to persist in your decision to have a flaming cheese appetizer plate brought to your table under the circumstances. Instead, you would embrace your humanity and the complicated thicket of emotions that comes with it. You would get the Dolmathes. Out of respect.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Nobody said this was going to be easy. In three days, Sebastian spewed over 2750 words onto this board, and two of those days were on the weekend. Two of his posts were each 700 or more words of stream of consciousness drivel, and each sentence was more unhinged than the last. It’s ... a lot.

Maybe this will help. Imagine you are at a Greek taverna for dinner, and you get a message informing you of Sebastian’s passing. Would you to continue your original plan to order the Saganaki? No. Despite all the lies and nonsense, you would remember that Sebastian is a human being, whose words have brought laughter and bemusement to this lawyer chatting board over the years. And you would know it would be wrong to persist in your decision to have a flaming cheese appetizer plate brought to your table under the circumstances. Instead, you would embrace your humanity and the complicated thicket of emotions that comes with it. You would get the Dolmathes. Out of respect.

But the Saganaki is pretty good.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

But the Saganaki is pretty good.

Also, Sebby bullshits a lot, but he doesn't really lie, IMO. It's more of a reckless disinterest in the truth.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Also, Sebby bullshits a lot, but he doesn't really lie, IMO. It's more of a reckless disinterest in the truth.

Thank you, Ms Haberman, but this is a distinction without a difference

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Nobody said this was going to be easy. In three days, Sebastian spewed over 2750 words onto this board, and two of those days were on the weekend. Two of his posts were each 700 or more words of stream of consciousness drivel, and each sentence was more unhinged than the last. It’s ... a lot.

Maybe this will help. Imagine you are at a Greek taverna for dinner, and you get a message informing you of Sebastian’s passing. Would you to continue your original plan to order the Saganaki? No. Despite all the lies and nonsense, you would remember that Sebastian is a human being, whose words have brought laughter and bemusement to this lawyer chatting board over the years. And you would know it would be wrong to persist in your decision to have a flaming cheese appetizer plate brought to your table under the circumstances. Instead, you would embrace your humanity and the complicated thicket of emotions that comes with it. You would get the Dolmathes. Out of respect.

Thank you. This is so helpful. And you are right, and I might even go a step further, out of respect, and order myself a shot of ouzo so I could drink to him. Flaming ouzo.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Thank you. This is so helpful. And you are right, and I might even go a step further, out of respect, and order myself a shot of ouzo so I could drink to him. Flaming ouzo.

Man, when I get word my boy's gone, I don't wanna be eating any Greek food. I'll fucking sort out an opium house and lose a few days sniffing gasoline and smoking fucking tar rocks. It won't be cheese I'll be flaming, promise you that.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Also, Sebby bullshits a lot, but he doesn't really lie, IMO. It's more of a reckless disinterest in the truth.

O.K., sure! I have a proposition for you. The next time your company is involved in litigation and the other side raises an accusation of lying, see if you can get your outside counsel to put the following phrase, verbatim, in a submission to the court: “[He/she] did not really lie; instead [he/she] merely exhibited an ongoing reckless disinterest in the truth.”

If you can accomplish that and show me the proof, you sir will find yourself the recipient of a very nice bottle of scotch.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

O.K., sure! I have a proposition for you. The next time your company is involved in litigation and the other side raises an accusation of lying, see if you can get your outside counsel to put the following phrase, verbatim, in a submission to the court: “[He/she] did not really lie; instead [he/she] merely exhibited an ongoing reckless disinterest in the truth.”

If you can accomplish that and show me the proof, you sir will find yourself the recipient of a very nice bottle of scotch.

I am disappointed we're so far from a new board, because the next one has to be named "A reckless disinterest in the truth."

[Adder]

So that debate was a mess...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Also, Sebby bullshits a lot, but he doesn't really lie, IMO. It's more of a reckless disinterest in the truth.

It's neither. I change positions all the time and shift arguments. Flower has a set of positions. He's a pretty cookie cutter liberal/progressive. He toes a pretty predictable line. GGG is predictably neoliberal/progressive. His is a slightly different line, but fairly predictable.

You're open to suggestion. Mix of libertarian, tech bro, progressive, and classic old line liberal. Hard to put into any single category. This is a compliment, by the way. Hank is old school GOP/Dem moderate mixed -- a nearly extinct thing once known as a liberal/Rockefeller Republican.

I don't really know what I support from day to day, but as Adder noted, self interest is pretty high on the list. I only depart from self interest dependably on matters such as freedom of speech, on which I'm absolutist and kind of a zealot. And as you note, I am conservative in generally avoiding policy interventions. I don't believe in the state's ability to Make Things Better. But if it's the right policy (read: one I like), I'll take a liberal stance (UBI). (But that's also my neoliberal slip showing, as UBI is a placation policy for those losing out in the new economy, so I might simply be acting in self-interest there.)

This means I am highly undependable. You can't expect me to hold to much. Also, I don't pay attention to much of what I've written before and in exchanges with Flower will say just about anything. Because I don't care about those exchanges, which are usually ad hominen back and forths. You'll notice that in exchanges with you or Hank, I'll put a little more care into it. I'll make some effort at consistency and not just recalling things in whatever is the most expedient fashion for me at the moment. But it'll still fail because I'm not consistent.

But you can't call it a reckless disregard for the truth. I don't change facts on which we disagree. I can't. Trump said words last nite. I won't say he didn't say them, because I can't. I may try to argue what I think he actually "means" when he says something, but that's just my spin, my guess.

Where I think the reckless disregard accusation may be applied is I will say I argued something a certain way and in fact, I actually previously argued it differently, or in exactly the opposite fashion. But if you look back on most of what I've argued, you'll see a lot of it is trolling, and a lot of it is inconsistent, sometimes within the same post or series of posts. I'll disagree with and contradict myself endlessly. So I'd agree with your assessment I've authored a fair amount of bullshit.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This is a statement of conservative ideology. We can't make things better because government never works. It's empirically untrue, but highly effective at defending the status quo.

I'm selective. UBI seems smart. It's elegant and easy to deliver with limited admin costs. Most policy interventions aimed at helping people are run by untalented govt people and wind up bloated agencies that deliver little of value.

And let's be clear. Man's ability to fix things like poverty or poor judgment of the lower end generally is really limited. Throughout history in every society there have been loads of people living shit existences. It's a nasty mix of bad luck, bad govt policies of the past, and poor judgment. I see lots of poor people in this state and some are truly horrible cases of fate visiting cruel circumstances. But just as much can be blamed on these people making godawful choices.

We pretend the human condition can be significantly overcome when in reality it often can only be fixed at the margins.

"The people of color working toward equality are the real racists" is also a statement of conservative ideology, but you've done some impressive work to obscure your point here.

That's not what I said at all. How you reached that crazy assessment of the words I wrote I have no idea.