vimothy
yurp
Well, that was pretty weird.
To be honest, after reading Zhao's post, I was certain that I never wanted to write anything here again. I mean, if people are going to compare you to a child rapist simply for advancing political and economic arguments, what's the point? I'm not sure at all actually. However, I've finished sulking and am prepared to at least try to think about what's happened here.
Firstly, I think that these disputes should be thoroughly depersonalised. Maybe I really am a massive fucking wanker, but it's orthogonal to the debate about whether command economics is better or worse than free-market capitalism, or whether military intervention is ever justified or necessary. If you have stronger arguments, it should be enough to make them. I'm here to discuss politics, not my biography.
Secondly, the desultory insults kind of ironically exhibit the same behaviour that Nomadologist and Zhao have been accusing me of (unfairly -- I would never, for e.g., suggest that someone read the Koran to help them understand what is happening in the world today): they're annoyed at "neo-conservatives" (I'm not going to get into whether the use of this term is appropriate) because of the actions of a small and briefly influential group of US policy makers; I am a "neo-conservative" in their opinion; therefore I am somehow responsible for the actions of the collective whole, or at least part responsible. (Exactly the same as: Some Muslims are fascist idiots, therefore Islam is the problem, or the problem is within Islam or unique to Muslims). It's clear that I have no influence in the White House, but someone's very upset about something, and I'll have to do.
Thirdly, I feel that I am becoming more entrenched in my views the more I post here, not less. This is a bad thing. But not very important in the greater scheme of things.
Finally, I think that there's a lot of cognitive dissonance stemming from the fact that there's a significant "bias" (I mean that in a positive sense) on the boards towards theory, which is great, but of very limited relevance beyond theory's borders. (And believe it or not, I say that as someone who enjoys reading theory, and, once upon a time, went to university to study it). For instance, I remember arguing that the division of labour is necessary and a Good Thing. The fact that I had to make that argument with someone who couldn't accept or see what is surely the basis of all civilisation and the foundation of our lives (without it we'd be hunter-gatherers) was shocking from my perspective, but clearly from another perspective it's not obvious or shocking at all. There's lots of slippage and lots of disconnect. Perhaps the real surprise is not how much invective and confrontation there is, but how little.
Or maybe not ...
Anyway, there's a bit in the start of the essay from Hyperstition that started one of these "you are a retard" non-arguments that I think is spot on and worth remembering:
The market isn't a "thing" that you can have a belief in. This is probably a good example of the disconnect I mentioned above. The "market" is human relationships mediated by exchange. I have more faith in the "market" than in government because I have more faith that individual people, given the localised and dispersed nature of knowledge, will be able to solve their own problems far more efficiently than a government committee, who probably won't even be able to correctly identify them.
Markets fail. It's their nature. If they didn't fail, we wouldn't need markets. Geddit?
Oh give over -- I want to have knife-edge arguments about politics with people who are committed and extremely well read. I don't care about your soul and do not expect anyone to change their opinions based on what I say.
I was thinking about this earlier, and it's the exact opposite of my impression. I don't think that there is a divide like that. When I look back over the threads, my arguments were with Mr Tea, Crackerjack, Guybrush, IdleRich, borderpolice and maybe Gavin the odd time. What Nomadologist (amusingly) refers to as the "academic" perspective (though literally Mr Tea is the academic and she an exec) is a humanities perspective, a theory perspective. It's not part of any debate except its own. Equally, there is no argument between Nomadologist or even HMLT and myself, there is just a lot of ire. On the other hand, there's fucking plenty of argument between me and Crackerjack or Mr Tea or IdleRich. (And probably a bit of ire too).
To be honest, after reading Zhao's post, I was certain that I never wanted to write anything here again. I mean, if people are going to compare you to a child rapist simply for advancing political and economic arguments, what's the point? I'm not sure at all actually. However, I've finished sulking and am prepared to at least try to think about what's happened here.
Firstly, I think that these disputes should be thoroughly depersonalised. Maybe I really am a massive fucking wanker, but it's orthogonal to the debate about whether command economics is better or worse than free-market capitalism, or whether military intervention is ever justified or necessary. If you have stronger arguments, it should be enough to make them. I'm here to discuss politics, not my biography.
Secondly, the desultory insults kind of ironically exhibit the same behaviour that Nomadologist and Zhao have been accusing me of (unfairly -- I would never, for e.g., suggest that someone read the Koran to help them understand what is happening in the world today): they're annoyed at "neo-conservatives" (I'm not going to get into whether the use of this term is appropriate) because of the actions of a small and briefly influential group of US policy makers; I am a "neo-conservative" in their opinion; therefore I am somehow responsible for the actions of the collective whole, or at least part responsible. (Exactly the same as: Some Muslims are fascist idiots, therefore Islam is the problem, or the problem is within Islam or unique to Muslims). It's clear that I have no influence in the White House, but someone's very upset about something, and I'll have to do.
Thirdly, I feel that I am becoming more entrenched in my views the more I post here, not less. This is a bad thing. But not very important in the greater scheme of things.
Finally, I think that there's a lot of cognitive dissonance stemming from the fact that there's a significant "bias" (I mean that in a positive sense) on the boards towards theory, which is great, but of very limited relevance beyond theory's borders. (And believe it or not, I say that as someone who enjoys reading theory, and, once upon a time, went to university to study it). For instance, I remember arguing that the division of labour is necessary and a Good Thing. The fact that I had to make that argument with someone who couldn't accept or see what is surely the basis of all civilisation and the foundation of our lives (without it we'd be hunter-gatherers) was shocking from my perspective, but clearly from another perspective it's not obvious or shocking at all. There's lots of slippage and lots of disconnect. Perhaps the real surprise is not how much invective and confrontation there is, but how little.
Or maybe not ...
Anyway, there's a bit in the start of the essay from Hyperstition that started one of these "you are a retard" non-arguments that I think is spot on and worth remembering:
This blog is not primarily political, in the sense of partisan.... For that reason it is easy to be distracted from topics which trigger intense partisan rancour, aiming somehow to avoid them. The trouble is, as everyone knows, such topics are precisely the ones everyone really cares about. Either we find a way to discuss them productively here, or we learn to tolerate perpetual seething hatefest - or we might as well give up.
Make your (non-political) choices I guess.* * * * * * *
I think having an iron belief in something like the market (or the state, for that matter) and assuming that it's gonna sort everything out is weird too.
The market isn't a "thing" that you can have a belief in. This is probably a good example of the disconnect I mentioned above. The "market" is human relationships mediated by exchange. I have more faith in the "market" than in government because I have more faith that individual people, given the localised and dispersed nature of knowledge, will be able to solve their own problems far more efficiently than a government committee, who probably won't even be able to correctly identify them.
Markets fail. It's their nature. If they didn't fail, we wouldn't need markets. Geddit?
He wasn't contrarian -- he was evangelical. He was trying to save our souls.
Oh give over -- I want to have knife-edge arguments about politics with people who are committed and extremely well read. I don't care about your soul and do not expect anyone to change their opinions based on what I say.
Around here? I would say it's about 50-50 with the academics on one side and the "commonsense-ists" (including Mr. Tea, Vimothy, IdleRich, you) on the other side.
I was thinking about this earlier, and it's the exact opposite of my impression. I don't think that there is a divide like that. When I look back over the threads, my arguments were with Mr Tea, Crackerjack, Guybrush, IdleRich, borderpolice and maybe Gavin the odd time. What Nomadologist (amusingly) refers to as the "academic" perspective (though literally Mr Tea is the academic and she an exec) is a humanities perspective, a theory perspective. It's not part of any debate except its own. Equally, there is no argument between Nomadologist or even HMLT and myself, there is just a lot of ire. On the other hand, there's fucking plenty of argument between me and Crackerjack or Mr Tea or IdleRich. (And probably a bit of ire too).
I disagree. This is a discussion board: it's all rhetoric.just natural born enemies, ain't no thang.