Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Was reading back over severian‘s recap of something…
I’ve often said that the fastest way to expose a leftist talking point is to take it completely seriously. For instance, lefties claim that all sorts of economic problems are caused by “deregulation.” Watch what happens when you ask them, “which regulations?” They don’t have the slightest idea. “Wall Street fatcats make obscene profits!” What’s the profit obscenity threshold, to the nearest $1,000?…
I’m drawing a blank here. Many have made this observation before, that there are arguments out there so fragile that they require outright-denial from the opposition in order to survive; merely take those arguments seriously and you devastate them structurally.
Raising the minimum wage is another such argument. “Okay you’ve convinced me! $15 an hour! In fact, let’s raise it to $30, and why not $60?” This is reductio ad absurdum. At some point, the advocate of the errant argument will have to admit to the deleterious effect the policy called out by its opponents, which is productive because after that there is agreement that some line has to be drawn somewhere. After that, discussion can proceed about the where and why and how…and, what’s the functional difference between fifteen and a thousand? What’s the moral difference? What’s the defining difference?
Hopefully, the liberal might see the conservative viewpoint, which is that the “How dare you tell me what I should pay” umbrage must begin at a penny an hour, because it can begin nowhere else. (Tellingly, that’s also the conservative position about when life begins, but that’s a whole different topic.) That’s not too likely though. Devastating an argument so quickly and so completely is not unlike pouring ice cold water into a glass emerging too soon from the dry cycle in the dishwasher. The likely outcome is a bunch of BadFeelz and contention and consternation…which, in a populated environment, is going to be blamed on the person who did this “devastate it by taking it seriously” thing every time. This happens a lot. Liberal arguments are incubated over time, and they’re incubated in environments in which people aren’t responsible for their bad thoughts, bad deeds or bad ideas. Someone else is to blame. Always. That’s at the heart of liberalism itself, on the philosophical plane.
Speaking of philosophical planes. Some of what belongs in The Blog That Nobody Reads, will now & then start out on The Hello Kitty of Blogging, which is a bad habit I have. Not that there isn’t a method to the madness. Jesus said to go where the sinners are. There is also value to it, too, occasionally; I am sometimes baffled by the storm of “likes” I get by things that I was sure would amount to nothing more than wind-shouting. This observation about the recently departed Justice Scalia’s viewpoint on textualist interpretation of the Constitution, to my great surprise, drew ten likes within a few hours, most of those within just a few minutes…
The disagreements between conservatives and liberals exist on many layers, and some of these layers are philosophical. They have to do with different recognitions of truth itself. This goes all the way back to the founding of the republic.
Back then, the “liberal” argument had to do with a “liberal” interpretation of “all men are created equal.” Then, as now, the liberals did their thinking backwards — “Okay, our conclusion is to be that slavery is allowable even though the document that declares our independence has this ‘all men created equal’ thing in it…how do we get from here, to there?” And then, as now, they came up with a whole bunch of “if”. Like, If we accept that all of the legal authority is tied up in the Constitution, which just has “WE THE PEOPLE” and not that business of all-created-equal…and If we proceed from the premise that these aren’t people at all, they’re property…THEN we can reach the conclusion we want. And keep our slaves. Aren’t we smart??
See how nothing has really changed?
And then, as now, the whole thing was undone by conservatives who asked what they continue to ask now: “Uh…why should we assume these things? Also, if you’ve got these rationalizations to deprive that person of his rights today, why am I not to assume you will be coming after mine, tomorrow?”
So I go on some rant about all the hot teevee weather girls being in other countries, while America’s weather girls look like boring old banker-ladies about to deny your home equity loan…nobody bats an eye, I guess I’m marching down that road all by myself. How come that is, anyway? “Weather girls,” in America, have to look like they’re at work? At a stuffy law firm or a bank? Who decided that? Looks like laziness…shouldn’t we be calling them “weather women” if we’re playing the don’t-tick-off-the-feminists game? But what’s wrong with a weather girl who’s pleasing to the eye? How come that’s a crime? And only in the USA?
But I get philosophical about interpretation of the Constitution, here comes an avalanche of the coveted “like.” You know, go figure. Anyway, to re-emerge from the bunny trail within the bunny trail…that’s the allure of social media. Fact is, none of us really know for sure what’s going to happen next. We just didn’t accomplish as much, before the medium came along, as we thought we had. We don’t really know that much about each other. I suppose that’s a good thing in a way. If we figured everybody out, and instantly, there’d be no desire to know more.
On the “aren’t we smart” thing. This is the truly toxic thing about liberalism. So enamored have liberals become of the tired old litany…”We can see a dimension or two past the quaint, flat world of conservatives, as is evidenced by our disagreement with them over here“…like, the above-mentioned minimum wage. AND the thing about “If we’re all free, then that must include slaves.” It often lures them into a bad habit of their own: Figuring out what common sense would say, and then lunging for the opposite.
Barack Obama: “You didn’t build that.”
Joe Biden: “We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.”
Ekspurts: Higher minimum wage results in more jobs.
There are more examples to be found and not much would be accomplished through any effort to add them here. It’s a persistent pattern. Liberals find out what common sense would say, choose something that goes in the opposite direction, and then start cherry-picking the evidence to support this conclusion that goes against common sense. As noted in the Facebook post, they do this exactly backwards, starting with the conclusion they want to reach first and then figuring out how they can get there. But “there” is inclined to be something antithetical to common sense. So the big takeaway is: They’re doing more-or-less twice as much damage as they would be doing, if “there” was a position chosen at random.
They end up painting themselves into a corner this way. Usually, the way that works is they find themselves propagating a talking point about “right wing extremism,” when to anybody who takes the time to find out what this adversarial right-wing position is, they’re going to find — far from any sort of extremism — a textbook case of sensible moderation. In the case of minimum wage, what they find is the foundational principle of economics itself, that when something costs more you need to expect fewer willing people are going to buy it.
But my question is: What is the name for these arguments? Arguments that are so fragile, that you completely ruin them just by taking them seriously. “Yes feminist sister, you are right; gender is a big nothing, an artificial societal construct, an illusion. And one of these genders is so much better than the other.”
I always assumed there was a name. We have names for the rebuttals, like the reductio ad absurdum mentioned above. But what about these overly-delicate, beached-whale arguments themselves, structurally incapable of bearing their own weight?
Related: I left it out on purpose because it shouldn’t be necessary…that was kind of the point. But I suppose I should go ahead and link to the actual facts regarding this business of “Experts say raising the minimum wage causes faster job growth.” As stated before, the position being taken is essentially that you have more buying when the price of something is pushed up, so we don’t need to get into some huge back-and-forth about whether our experiences would bear this out, in a situation that could be isolated from all other factors. It’s not worth the argument, that’s just not how economics works.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I call these kinds of “arguments” swillogisms — a portmanteu of “swill” and “syllogism.” The origin of the term was a survey where some huge number of liberals said they thought astrology was scientific. Leaving aside the folks who thought they heard “astronomy,” I hypothesized that “science” is one of those cognitive kill switches for liberals — when a word like that hits their eardrums, their forebrains take a little vacation. So: liberals like touchy-feeling “spiritual not religious” baloney like astrology; liberals “fucking love science;” therefore, astrology is scientific.
And so it goes with the minimum wage. It’s axiomatic for liberals that The Minimum Wage Must Be Raised, and they like Jobs; therefore, raising the minimum wage creates jobs. And “deregulation,” and every one of the fine micro-distinctions they seem capable of making at a moment’s notice on any subject under the sun — they like X, they like Y; therefore, X causes Y.
- Severian | 02/15/2016 @ 09:32I’d call them “bubble beliefs.” (or bubble faiths? something along those lines)
Essentially, like bubbles these beliefs can exist only by floating about in the air but the slightest effort to get even the gentlest grip on them causes them to pop.
It’s one of my favorite ways of dealing with liberals though it’s even funnier when they try to do it because they usually end up spiraling off into crazy town. (like, “no minimum wage? while that will lead to employees having to pay their bosses to come to work!”)
- Nate Winchester | 02/15/2016 @ 11:40I guess the terms “Sand Bagging”, and “GIVE ’em the rope….” are passe?
- CaptDMO | 02/15/2016 @ 19:07How about “Singing The Indian Love Call”? SEE: Mars Attacks
Bell the Cat ?
Smear the Queer? (variation of King of the Hill)
Gleaning the Chaff?
Polishing the turd?
Give ’em a Tribble? (or rabbits) Hmmmm Tribbling?
Planting their Zucchini (or Kudzu, or milfoil)
“Overwhelm the System”?
I nominate something involving “Nurturing their back yard Kudzu” (for US based sandbaggers)
“Swillogism” defines something else, which is also in need of definition. But that thing is slightly different from what’s being probed here…
I was reading that when you first put it up and it made me think about Kyle’s Dad with his fancy new hybrid.
The name “Potemkin” might figure favorably into what I seek to define here. If one perceives the Potemkin village as intended by the person who put it together, one keeps one’s distance from it, admiring it from perhaps an opposite riverbank. To actually use it as a village would necessarily involve approaching it and entering it, which would cause the illusion to immediately disintegrate (or at least, to lose all of its impressive effect) and in so doing reveal the deception.
- mkfreeberg | 02/16/2016 @ 05:31mkfreeberg: Then, as now, the liberals did their thinking backwards — “Okay, our conclusion is to be that slavery is allowable even though the document that declares our independence has this ‘all men created equal’ thing in it…how do we get from here, to there?”
Defenders of slavery weren’t called liberals then, and aren’t called liberals now —except by a small number of revisionists who redefine words to suit their prejudices.
mkfreeberg: But I suppose I should go ahead and link to the actual facts regarding this business of “Experts say raising the minimum wage causes faster job growth.”
From your citation of fact: “The causes of growth, and the business cycle as well, completely swamp (increases to) the minimum wage,” said Neumark, director of the Center for Economics and Public Policy at the University of California Irvine.
Also, “There’s also the question of whether or not minimum wage has actually increased. Yes, the sticker price gets higher, but those increases have not kept up with inflation. Adjusted for 2013 dollars, the current minimum wage is a couple of bucks lower than it was in the late 1960s.”
- Zachriel | 02/16/2016 @ 08:19I’d say “Potemkin argument” would work, then. Or, since “Potemkin” is already in the lexicon, how about “Quicksilver” or “FUSAG,” after the cardboard tanks and whatnot that fooled the Germans before D-Day:
They look like real tanks, and there are real tanks moving among them, and real radio transmissions, and all of that, but overall it’s a big fake, and if you could see one of these tanks at a height of less than 30,000 feet on a fast photoreconaissance run, you’d know it was just cardboard.
- Severian | 02/16/2016 @ 09:03Oooo…
- CaptDMO | 02/16/2016 @ 16:34Potempkin village.
replace with “rainbow”.
I LOVE Mad Libs!
Defenders of slavery weren’t called liberals then, and aren’t called liberals now —except by a small number of revisionists who redefine words to suit their prejudices.
We’ve been over this. (That’s an active-voice sentence by the way.)
Defenders of slavery used the exact same arguments liberals use today. It’s a fact. (Two more active-voice sentences; subjects, verbs, objects, all distinctly identified, in that order.)
- mkfreeberg | 02/16/2016 @ 17:53Defenders of slavery used the exact same arguments liberals use today
True. And here, children, let me show you how the “link citations” thing is done — you can find elaborate, avowedly socialist defenses of slavery in George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All! and Sociology for the South. You can get ’em both on Kindle for a whopping $1.99 (Cannibals All! is free, and so is the Kindle app, so you have no excuse not to read it).
- Severian | 02/16/2016 @ 18:05mkfreeberg: Then, as now, the liberals did their thinking backwards — “Okay, our conclusion is to be that slavery is allowable even though the document that declares our independence has this ‘all men created equal’ thing in it…how do we get from here, to there?”
mkfreeberg: Defenders of slavery used the exact same arguments liberals use today.
That’s funny. You have your conclusion, and then bend definitions to fit your conclusions.
Your original statement was that liberals and slave owners reached a conclusion first, then found evidence to support it. That’s not an argument, but a form of argument. Dr. King may have started with the conclusion that the universe bends towards justice, then looked for evidence to support his conclusion. The U.S. Declaration of Independence starts with the premise that “all men are created equal”, then reasons from there. That doesn’t mean these are the same arguments as those introduced by slave owners.
Furthermore, your usage is simply contrary to how people use the terms liberals and conservatives. Slave owners were conservatives, and were intent on preserving their peculiar institution. They looked towards the past to justify holding slaves. Even Lincoln was considered a conservative within the context of the Republican Party, because he only wanted to prevent the spread of slavery, not abolish it.
- Zachriel | 02/17/2016 @ 08:12Huh. So the guys who wanted to preserve slavery were the “conservatives.” And the guy who wanted to stop the spread of slavery — who went to war with the preserve-slavery guys — was also a conservative. Yes, that makes total sense. That whole Civil War thing was just a big misunderstanding — if only they’d had Zachriel to explain to them that they were both really on the same side!
- Severian | 02/17/2016 @ 08:29M: Then, as now, the liberals did their thinking backwards — “Okay, our conclusion is to be that slavery is allowable even though the document that declares our independence has this ‘all men created equal’ thing in it…how do we get from here, to there?”
M: Defenders of slavery used the exact same arguments liberals use today.
Z: That’s funny. You have your conclusion, and then bend definitions to fit your conclusions.
No bending required at all, this has been explained already. See excerpt. Right by the picture of the Mexican weather girl.
That’s funny. Y’all send me off to go read studies for explanations. Then y’all say things that show y’all are ignorant of, not studies, but things y’all are supposed to have been reading before commenting…still right in front of y’all’s fishy faces.
In order to believe defenders of slavery were “conservative” and abolitionists were “liberal,” we would have to say the arguments used by liberals today, used to be used by conservatives, and arguments used by conservatives today, used to be used by liberals.
Quite bendy.
- mkfreeberg | 02/18/2016 @ 06:44That’s what happens when an ideologue runs into someone who knows what he’s talking about. Or has basic reading comprehension skills. After all, you can read Fitzhugh for yourself; he’s a pretty clear writer (in fact, he used to tour the North giving lectures on his views, and he corresponded regularly with abolitionists). He said that slavery is superior to the “free market” — yep, that term — because slavery provides a social safety net. Black workers that would otherwise be used up and left in the gutter to starve by Northern industry are fed, clothed, and cared for from cradle to grave in the South. He was quite explicit that this was socialism, and the hottest new scientific thing (that’s what “Sociology” means in Sociology for the South, btw, as well as Henry Hughes’s Treatise on Sociology). Similarly, Josiah Clark Nott was a physician, who used the latest advances in physical anthropology to justify slavery as a”Positive Good” (American anthropology spent the first half-decade of its existence tied up in the slavery debate). Albert Taylor Bledsoe was a mathematician. Etc.
And that’s just what you can find with a few moments’ googling. Race essentialism and the social safety net — sounds like every Humanities 101 seminar, or Democratic campaign speech, in America these days.
- Severian | 02/18/2016 @ 07:39mkfreeberg: See excerpt. Right by the picture of the Mexican weather girl.
The problem with the argument is that it mangles the definition of “liberal” so that it assumes its conclusion.
mkfreeberg: In order to believe defenders of slavery were “conservative” and abolitionists were “liberal,” we would have to say the arguments used by liberals today, used to be used by conservatives, and arguments used by conservatives today, used to be used by liberals.
You ignored our response, which was that you are conflating the form of an argument with the argument itself.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2016 @ 04:47The problem with the argument is that it mangles the definition of “liberal” so that it assumes its conclusion.
It supports the conclusion. New experience for y’all?
In addition to supporting the conclusion, it calls out an unworkable conundrum involved in sticking to the incorrect, legacy definitions: What y’all call “conservatives” back then, use the same arguments as what y’all call (and everybody else calls) “liberals,” today. What y’all call “liberals” back then use the same arguments as conservatives, today.
You ignored our response, which was that you are conflating the form of an argument with the argument itself.
Let’s look at what y’all said:
The U.S. Declaration of Independence admits that it’s doing this. Religion itself, generally accepted by conservatives & liberals alike as being a conservative institution, operates according to this; it uses faith — and, admits that it is doing this.
Liberalism is craven and dishonest, just like the slaveholders of the antebellum era. It goes through the motions of starting with evidence first, let the facts lead where they may…but those arguing, and those hearing the arguments, understand implicitly that the conclusion is established first. Examples abound.
The form of an argument is important. A conclusion that inspires respect, and commands authority, relies on a structure of thinking that commands authority. For example: “That isn’t how most people use the terms” is a dishonest statement. It does not rely on any sort of poll, or any other measuring exercise that would assess the actions of “most people.” It is a command to dismiss targeted ideas, masquerading as something else.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2016 @ 07:00Examples abound.
And the cool thing is, they’re all on the internet, so checking them is easy. Five minutes’ googling, for instance, shows that the most prolific slavery defenders thought they were using the hottest, latest, greatest ideas in philosophy and, ahem, science.
Seriously, children — “scientific racism” is one of the most worked-over topics in American cultural history.
And, the Southern political class thought of itself as the true heirs of the Revolution. So…. yeah: Scientific racism and shout-outs to the Declaration of Independence. How are we to explain these seemingly contradictory facts? I’m no “expert,” but it seems to me that a combination of the following three things must be true:
1) “Liberal” and “conservative” don’t have simplistic definitions like “favors increased inequality.”
2) “Liberal” and “conservative” change over time.
3) Real people are way more complex than simple tags like “liberal” and “conservative.”
I know, I know — normal people are going “well, DUH!” But autistics don’t process nuance, and spergy little trolls who live online because nobody can stand to be around them don’t understand basic human interaction. This is a public-service announcement.
- Severian | 02/19/2016 @ 08:18mkfreeberg: The U.S. Declaration of Independence admits that it’s doing this.
It’s explicitly stated as a premise, if that is what you mean.
mkfreeberg: Liberalism is craven and dishonest, just like the slaveholders of the antebellum era.
Even if true, that’s still the form of the argument, not the argument itself. Furthermore, liberals and conservatives both can be craven and dishonest.
mkfreeberg: For example: “That isn’t how most people use the terms” is a dishonest statement. It does not rely on any sort of poll, or any other measuring exercise that would assess the actions of “most people.”
That is incorrect. It is standard usage as determined by practical lexicographers, as well as most scholars in the field.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2016 @ 14:05[…] wonders what to call those liberal “arguments” that fall apart the second you take them […]
- Captain Opaque | Rotten Chestnuts | 02/19/2016 @ 14:17Morgan: ““That isn’t how most people use the terms” is a dishonest statement.”
Zachriel: “That is incorrect. It is standard usage as determined by practical lexicographers, as well as most scholars in the field.”
By the transitive property of equality, “That isn’t how most people use the terms” is “standard usage as determined by practical lexicographers, as well as most scholars in the field.”
Nice reading comprehension skills, retards.
- Severian | 02/19/2016 @ 14:22It’s [“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”] explicitly stated as a premise [in the Declaration of Independence], if that is what you mean.
It is clearly stated. Because it is clearly stated, the writer and the reader are on the same page. Difficult to illustrate this for the benefit of someone who isn’t jiggy with the concept of clarity. I would compare it to: The car has been involved in an accident, although it doesn’t look like it. Or, someone died in the bedroom of the house that is being sold. Or maybe was murdered. The honest seller will disclose these facts to prospective buyers.
But that has to do with sincerity…honesty…ethics. Respect. There is also the matter of clarity as it applies to thinking. See, starting with the premise stated, the Declaration of Independence works forward. Because the reader was treated by the writer with sincerity, and respect, reader & writer remain on the same page. The understanding remains intact throughout the many indictments against His Majesty King George III, and at the end of it the reader understands not only the content of the idea, but the foundation upon which it rests. In other words, the rationale.
This is contrasted with this year’s liberals and yesteryear’s slaveholders, who started with the conclusion and worked backward. I’ve explained this already (“It is a command to dismiss targeted ideas, masquerading as something else”). Supposedly, the facts are gathered and then mulled-over to produce the quite rational conclusion that slaves are property & not people…the aborted fetuses are “tissue” and not people…but this bit of forensic theater is put together for the casual observers and the willfully ignorant.
Which brings us back to the original topic. Whoever wades into the river and crosses to the other side to inspect the “Potemkin village” of these arguments, will discover as an absolute certainty that the arguments are nothing but papier-mâché. Whoever does not, may merely suspect this…possibly dismiss the possibility as hurriedly as possible…for reasons that have much to do with the fact that this traversing the river was never attempted.
Liberals rely on an awful lot of Potemkins arguments, arguments not built to be inspected closely. They as much as ‘fess up to this when they use passive-voice statements, often intentionally concealing the subject-of-the-sentence that would have to be explicitly named in an active-voice variant. A bit of rhetorical trickery I notice y’all are still doing, today, with great frequency, even though everyone watching is wise to it at this point. It’s a bit embarrassing to watch.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2016 @ 16:58How meta. The whole proslavery argument was actually two of these Potemkin arguments running in parallel. The first, which you’ve explored at length, was the conclusion-first “reasoning” that slaves are property, not people, and therefore the Declaration of Independence doesn’t apply. That was still the official, legal argument at the outbreak of the Civil War.
The second, though, which was far more prominent, was called the “Positive Good” argument, and it started from the premise that slaves were people — people who would be crushed by the combined forces of capitalism and evolution, and so the only way to preserve them was to enslave them. Again, you can google this; slavery is the most elaborated topic in American history.
As to how one and the same person could defend both views, to the point of risking his neck on the battlefield for them, is an exercise I leave to the reader. (Hint: if you can’t figure it out, you’re autistic).
N.b. to his credit, George Fitzhugh, probably the most prolific advocate of “Positive Good,” stated outright that the Declaration of Independence is false, and that all men aren’t created equal. Which makes him a “conservative,” no doubt. But after the war, he worked for the Freedman’s Bureau, and was noted by ex-slaves for his integrity and impartiality. Which I guess makes him a “liberal.” Man, this is confusing!! But I’m sure Zachriel’s mad mind-reading skills can clear it all up.
- Severian | 02/19/2016 @ 17:31mkfreeberg: Because it is clearly stated, the writer and the reader are on the same page.
The premise is clearly stated. That doesn’t mean the reader agrees with the premise, though.
mkfreeberg: This is contrasted with this year’s liberals and yesteryear’s slaveholders, who started with the conclusion and worked backward.
This is why it’s called handwaving. You ignore the argument, and just repeat your position. The form of an argument is not the argument itself. Some liberals and some conservatives certainly start with the conclusion and work backwards. However, many do not.
Furthermore, you mangle definitions in order to make it fit your narrative. It’s easy to look at media and scholarship and see that your definitions are not consistent with historical usage or usage today. Professional practical lexicographers study word usage systematically, and your definitions are inconsistent with how people use the terms.
mkfreeberg: Which brings us back to the original topic.
mkfreeberg: Then, as now, the liberals did their thinking backwards — “Okay, our conclusion is to be that slavery is allowable even though the document that declares our independence has this ‘all men created equal’ thing in it…how do we get from here, to there?”
Defenders of slavery weren’t called liberals then, and aren’t called liberals now —except by a small number of revisionists who redefine words to suit their prejudices.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2016 @ 08:29It’s easy to look at media and scholarship and see that your definitions are not consistent with historical usage or usage today.
Shame on you, Morgan — there you go noticing stuff again, and thinking for yourself! Steve Sailer nailed it — modern liberalism is, above all things, a war on noticing.
Defenders of slavery weren’t called liberals then,
Where, pray tell, did anyone here say “slavery’s defenders were called liberals back then?” The dispute is not about names; the dispute is about the content of the argument. And the most prolific and respected slavery defenders could in no way be considered modern conservatives, as race essentialism and socialism are NOT conservative positions. They are exclusively the preoccupations of the 21st century Left.
I’ve already pointed you to several primary sources — with links — so you have no excuse for not informing yourselves about some fairly basic cultural history. Seriously, children — slavery has been the subject of serious academic study since the turn of the 20th century.
I know, I know — your reading comprehension skills are patheticall subpar. But please do try to inform yourselves; carrying on like this is just embarrassing.
- Severian | 02/20/2016 @ 11:11This is why it’s called handwaving. You ignore the argument, and just repeat your position. The form of an argument is not the argument itself. Some liberals and some conservatives certainly start with the conclusion and work backwards. However, many do not.
Isn’t “Some liberals and some conservatives do this, but many do not” a form of hand waving? As I understand the rebuttal, y’all have acknowledged that I called out this pattern, involving forms of arguments from certain locations along the ideological spectrum; and y’all have…waved the observation aside, with a bit of pablum about the all ideologies use all forms, no such correlation existing or something.
I see no examples.
How is that not “hand waving”?
- mkfreeberg | 02/21/2016 @ 03:36mkfreeberg: Isn’t “Some liberals and some conservatives do this, but many do not” a form of hand waving?
No. It directly addresses the claim about what “liberals” do. It points out that the behavior is not universal to liberals, or restricted to liberals. Or are you saying that conservatives never engage in the behavior of starting with a conclusion then finding evidence to support that conclusion. That seems to be the entire modus operandi and raison d’être of Fox News.
- Zachriel | 02/21/2016 @ 07:17Heh. Here’s a simple “form of argument” for you:
If A, then B. A, therefore B.
Like so: If Seattle raises its minimum wage to $15/hr, its economy will crash. Seattle raised its minimum wage to $15/hr. Its economy crashed.
Meanwhile, employment in Seattle suburbs has hit new highs.
QED.
- Severian | 02/21/2016 @ 07:30M: Isn’t “Some liberals and some conservatives do this, but many do not” a form of hand waving?
Z: No.
Alright then. “Hand waving” has nothing whatsoever to do with actual hand-waving. Y’all have a script in y’all’s heads about how the exchange is supposed to go, and “hand waving” is a ding you level at your opposition when it wanders outside of the script.
This is why we don’t want liberals running anything. They aren’t ready to learn. Not ready to absorb new information, confront new ideas. This is easily proven by any random selection of when y’all have used the phrase “hand waving,” of which there are many.
- mkfreeberg | 02/21/2016 @ 14:04mkfreeberg: Alright then.
Ironically, you ignored the part which says “It directly addresses the claim …” Are you saying that conservatives never engage in the behavior of starting with a conclusion then finding evidence to support that conclusion.
mkfreeberg: Y’all have a script in y’all’s heads about how the exchange is supposed to go
If you mean we expect a give and take of information and ideas, that is how we hope the conversation will go.
- Zachriel | 02/21/2016 @ 14:43Z: “If you mean we expect a give and take of information and ideas, that is how we hope the conversation will go.”
That is what Morgan means, no doubt, but as we’ve repeatedly seen over the long, weary years, it’s not what you mean – it’s only what you say. In practice, any information and ideas that don’t fit your script are immediately classed as “handwaving” instead of information. Therefore, what you do doesn’t match at all with your description of it, but you insist, ad absurdam, that it does merely because that’s how the words are defined.
Here, an example:
Even to disagree with the premise, the reader and the writer have to agree on what that premise is – their definitions match, even if their conclusions eventually don’t. Two squirrels fighting over one nut at least agree on one thing – the nut. If one of them thought the nut was a rock, they wouldn’t be fighting over it. Just because one small group of goofy squirrels is off hoarding pebbles doesn’t mean that the rest of squirreldom is suddenly wrong about the difference between them, or on the importance of telling them apart.
The goofy squirrels are going to starve come winter because of this. Getting the definition wrong on a concept like feminism or liberal – not noticing when one claims the label while behaving in the opposite fashion – is not so dramatically fatal, but it tells in the end. Same with not being able to tell the difference between “clear” and “agreed upon.” If you show me a green hat and I say I prefer the yellow, it means I’m clear on what green is just as you are, but I don’t agree it would look good on me. If your reply then is “But this hat is GREEN, don’t you see?” then you’ve got a problem that no color chart can solve.
This is another example of what Morgan is talking about by saying that for certain people, conclusions come first. Your failure to understand it and the reason why you fail to understand it are both examples of the problem – you’re fractally wrong. It’s actually a marvelous accomplishment that impresses me in spite of myself, rather like marveling at the power of a hurricane that’s tossing your home into the sea.
Let’s use another example from up the thread:
Z: “This is why it’s called handwaving. You ignore the argument, and just repeat your position.”
…
Z: Defenders of slavery weren’t called liberals then, and aren’t called liberals now —except by a small number of revisionists who redefine words to suit their prejudices.”
This is you, in the selfsame comment, defining handwaving as just repeating your position, and then … just repeating your position, verbatim, from up in comment five, right down to the punctuation. Nor is it an isolated incident.
Then it comes full circle, when Morgan’s states that liberals aren’t ready to “absorb new information and confront new ideas,” and you reply by saying “We expect a give and take of information and ideas,” inadvertently parroting his words at the end of a long conversation where you prove yourself incapable of recognizing information or ideas at all. The writer wrote, and the reader doesn’t grok at all what was written… but will try to argue about it anyway. Squirrels hoarding rocks, criticizing the other squirrels who are debating the merits of pecans vs. almonds.
- nightfly | 02/22/2016 @ 10:59nightfly: In practice, any information and ideas that don’t fit your script are immediately classed as “handwaving” instead of information.
No. Handwaving is when you ignore facts or argument rather than addressing them. Indeed, mkfreeberg will almost never answer a direct question about his position.
nightfly: Here, an example:
To which we clarified by mentioning that being on “the same page” in this case doesn’t necessarily mean accepting the premise.
nightfly: This is you, in the selfsame comment, defining handwaving as just repeating your position
We’d be happy to look at evidence to support the claim that slave owners were considered liberals. That’s never been provided. On the other hand, we have supported our position by reference to dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly works, and media articles from various periods. For instance, Lincoln was considered a conservative within the Republican Party for not supporting abolition, and the Abolitionists as the non-conservatives.
Let’s try a simple example. Would you consider segregationist George Wallace to be a liberal?
- Zachriel | 02/22/2016 @ 13:08nightfly: In practice, any information and ideas that don’t fit your script are immediately classed as “handwaving” instead of information.
Z: No. Handwaving is when you ignore facts or argument rather than addressing them.
You then spend the rest of your comment not addressing a single thing I wrote… indeed, going out of your way to merely pick parts of sentences instead of the whole, and pretended that when you do that, you’re addressing the whole argument. In other words – “Handwaving.” Such as when you repeat, verbatim, sentences you’ve previously written twenty comments prior. It’s a blatant attempt to simply reset the conversation back to when you think you had the upper hand, erasing everything between the iterations because it made your position look ridiculous.
But then you just repeat – heh, AGAIN – “We’d be happy to look at evidence to…” Pardon me, folks, but no. No you are not happy to look at any such evidence. You had twenty comments’ worth of evidence that you ignored. What you SAY and what you DO are diametric opposites, and I reserve the right to call shenanigans on that.
So, in the example where all you quoted was my saying “Here, an example…” you SAY “being on ‘the same page’ … doesn’t necessarily mean accepting the premise.” I saw it the first time. I then saw you follow up with an argument that conflated the concepts of clarity and agreement. My rebuttal was to that conflation, which you now pretend never happened merely because you SAID, quite incorrectly I fear, that you understood the difference. And since my response doesn’t fit your mental picture, you can’t see it.
You’re having the same issue conflating names with behaviors just about everywhere. Severian pointed this out three days ago, but here you are once again: “Liberal” meant one thing in 1860 to the New York Times, therefore it means the same thing when you use the label in 2016. Tell me again how you’re happy to consider new evidence or respond to rebuttals.
- nightfly | 02/23/2016 @ 11:59nightfly: You then spend the rest of your comment not addressing a single thing I wrote
nightfly: Even to disagree with the premise, the reader and the writer have to agree on what that premise is – their definitions match
That is correct. We agree that premises are best established clearly and concisely. However, we would point out that the phrase “on the same page” often implies agreement, not merely acceptance arguendo. For instance, we probably wouldn’t say that King George III was “on the same page” as the Founders with regards to the premises of the Declaration of Independence — hence the clarification. Otherwise, we agree with your oint.
nightfly: This is you, in the selfsame comment, defining handwaving as just repeating your position
As already noted, we have referenced multiple sources to support our claims. Those sources have been ignored, just as you ignored the specific quotation from 1860 that we provided.
nightfly: “Liberal” meant one thing in 1860 to the New York Times, therefore it means the same thing when you use the label in 2016.
Notably, you merely assert it, not support it.
The political center has moved considerably to the left. Abolition, universal suffrage, the regulation of child labor, are all norms, while once upon a time they were the dreams of misty-eyed reformers. However, the basic concept of conservatism hasn’t changed, that is, advocating the preservation of traditional institutions, and moderating change. The Republican Party of 1860 was on the political left, but Lincoln was not as far left as Abolitionists, meaning that within the context of the Republican Party, he was more conservative. None of this takes some remarkable revamping of the language to comprehend. It’s the same way the terms are used today.
Notably, you didn’t answer a simple question, which should have helped clarify the issue. Would you consider segregationist George Wallace to be a liberal?
- Zachriel | 02/23/2016 @ 13:54nightfly: “Liberal” meant one thing in 1860 to the New York Times, therefore it means the same thing when you use the label in 2016.
Z: Notably, you merely assert it, not support it.
Why should I support it when you, yourself, support it? You’re the one who quoted the 156-year-old-article, not us. You’re the one who introduced this evidence. You are trying to present this century-and-a-half definition as current. What more could I do that you haven’t already done?
Z: Notably, you didn’t answer a simple question, which should have helped clarify the issue. Would you consider segregationist George Wallace to be a liberal?
First things first, Squirty. You haven’t even been able to come to an agreement on what “liberal” means now. You have to answer the dozen or so questions still sitting around that render your “simple” question entirely irrelevant. As it is, you’re like someone at a party who wants to play Settlers of Catan, while everyone else votes for Monopoly. Then, twenty minutes later, when the board is set up, everyone’s picked their tokens, and we’ve finally settled the house rules, someone passes you the dice and you demand to know why nobody wants to trade wood for sheep.
- nightfly | 02/23/2016 @ 14:35“So you can’t answer the question, then.” -Z in five minutes
- nightfly | 02/23/2016 @ 14:36*eyeroll.gif* -me
nightfly: You’re the one who introduced this evidence.
Sure. Over several threads, we’ve introduced evidence from dictionaries, encyclopedias, media sources past and present, and scholarly works. The article from 1860 is quite understandable to modern readers. It doesn’t take a special dictionary to understand how the term “conservative” is being used. Lincoln was more conservative than Abolitionists on the issue of slavery.
nightfly: What more could I do that you haven’t already done?
You could either acknowledge the point, or refute it with evidence. You suggested the definition of conservative has changed. We provided a substantive reply when we pointed out commonalities in the usage then, and the usage now, and provided a specific example from 1860 to support that position.
nightfly: You haven’t even been able to come to an agreement on what “liberal” means now.
The standard definition of liberal is someone who balances the advocacy of liberty with egalitarianism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal
We asked about a specific case for the purpose of discussion. Would you consider segregationist George Wallace to have been a liberal on the issue of civil rights?
- Zachriel | 02/23/2016 @ 14:51We asked about a specific case for the purpose of discussion. Would you consider segregationist George Wallace to have been a liberal on the issue of civil rights?
Let’s answer that question with a question. Is it “conservative” to stand in a schoolhouse doorway in violation of the rule of law? How does one justify such a thing? It’s pure emotion and no reason, right? “Hell with that, I want what I want.” Just like today’s radicals…anarchists…liberals.
When JFK sent in the National Guard to end the standoff, was that a liberal move? Or a conservative one?
I’m sure liberals would like to live in a bubble of unreality in which all bigotry and racism is conservative, all open-mindedness and egalitarianism is “liberal,” and there’s no need to distinguish this modern plague from classical liberalism (which in many cases is the opposite of the modern plague). But the fact remains, whenever liberals have conflict with conservatives, invariably the conflict is over how to think through the pressing problems, more than over the conclusion that is eventually produced.
Liberalism pushes the envelope of what can be sold. It is like Maxwell Smart saying “Chief…would ya believe??” And it’s been like this from the very beginning. “Chief, would ya believe slaves don’t have rights, because they’re property and not people?” Just like (as I’ve seen myself and others explain to y’all already, this is exactly the same mode of thought “Chief, would ya believe that that’s a clump of cells, just a mass of tissue, and not a human being?”
Conservatism is the rebuttal: No Max, unless you can bring something really convincing and compelling, I’m not buying that. Note that the first Supreme Court decision that declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, was conservative in nature; it labored to find reconciliation between the statute and the Constitution, and professed an inability to do this. That is as distinguished from the decisions that came later, liberal “landmark” decisions, effectively saying “Chief…would ya believe that this is unconstitutional?” Except without the question mark at the end, since this was The Supreme Court Speaking…
But to a liberal, liberalism is whatever is new and exciting…as long as it is helpful to the agenda. Not — what is new, and frees people who were previously not free. If that were the case, Newt Gingrich would be a liberal. It is a mental enfeeblement, and frankly, part of the reason y’all are having a tough time with this is y’all are listening too much to consensus that is formed, in part by liberals. This is a mistake.
We do not allow alcoholics to define for the rest of us what alcoholism is.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2016 @ 18:01mkfreeberg: Is it “conservative” to stand in a schoolhouse doorway in violation of the rule of law? How does one justify such a thing?
For the record, Wallace moved aside when the marshals instructed him to do so. However, Wallace objected to the federal intrusion, which he felt was encroaching on the prerogatives of the state, a violation of federalism under the Constitution, and a threat to the long-standing institutions of Southern culture.
mkfreeberg: When JFK sent in the National Guard to end the standoff, was that a liberal move?
Kennedy was an avowed liberal, and his action was meant to increase both liberty and equality.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/
mkfreeberg: “Chief, would ya believe slaves don’t have rights, because they’re property and not people?”
Conservatism with regard to the slave issue was the preservation of the existing institution, which was allowed to exist under the U.S. Constitution.
Now, try to answer the question. Was segregationist George Wallace a liberal on the issue of civil rights?
- Zachriel | 02/23/2016 @ 18:17mkfreeberg: Let’s answer that question with a question. Is it “conservative” to stand in a schoolhouse doorway in violation of the rule of law?
The article says “The staunch conservative demonstrated his loyalty to the cause … ” So your own citation makes clear that Wallace was considered a conservative.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2016 @ 18:28For the record, Wallace moved aside when the marshals instructed him to do so.
“When Wallace refused to budge, President John F. Kennedy called for 100 troops from the Alabama National Guard to assist federal officials. Wallace chose to step down rather than incite violence.” Seems it took a bit more than that.
However, Wallace objected to the federal intrusion, which he felt was encroaching on the prerogatives of the state, a violation of federalism under the Constitution, and a threat to the long-standing institutions of Southern culture.
True, but as I’ve explained already, when liberals have conflict with conservatives, invariably the conflict is over how to think through the pressing problems, more than over the conclusion that is eventually produced.
It seems like y’all are saying Wallace was a conservative because he had isolated a clause in the Constitution and portrayed himself, perhaps with some sincerity, as being a defender of it. No doubt there are many today, as there were then, who use the word “conservative” to describe Wallace using this rationale. But how much have they thought through this description? Does it really work?
Today’s liberals see themselves as guardians of certain selected portions of the Constitution, do they not?
Now, try to answer the question. Was segregationist George Wallace a liberal on the issue of civil rights?
I said I would answer the question with a question, and I did. Y’all have not answered the other question.
So your own citation makes clear that Wallace was considered a conservative.
But again, by whom? Same problem as always with passive-voice statements. This, too, has already been explained to y’all many times.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2016 @ 18:52mkfreeberg: It seems like y’all are saying Wallace was a conservative because he had isolated a clause in the Constitution and portrayed himself, perhaps with some sincerity, as being a defender of it.
Wallace was a conservative on civil rights because he wanted to conserve the traditional hierarchical social structure.
Zachriel: So your own citation makes clear that Wallace was considered a conservative.
mkfreeberg: But again, by whom? Same problem as always with passive-voice statements.
YOU provided a citation.
WE read the citation.
The citation SAID that Wallace was a “staunch conservative”.
Those are active voice sentences. In any case, you hilariouisly refuted your own position.
mkfreeberg: Y’all have not answered the other question.
Indeed we answered all three questions.
mkfreeberg: Is it “conservative” to stand in a schoolhouse doorway in violation of the rule of law?
Yes. Wallace was trying to conserve the traditional hierarchical social structure.
mkfreeberg: How does one justify such a thing?
Wallace argued that the federal government was overstepping its legal bounds under the banner of States’ Rights.
mkfreeberg: It’s pure emotion and no reason, right?
That is incorrect. While based in racial prejudice and fear of modernity, the action was rationalized based on States’ Rights and tradition.
As for the question, Was segregationist George Wallace a liberal on the issue of civil rights?, you provided an answer when you cited a contemporary news source which calls Wallace a “staunch conservative”.
- Zachriel | 02/24/2016 @ 06:37YOU provided a citation.
WE read the citation.
The citation SAID that Wallace was a “staunch conservative”.
Those are active voice sentences.
The book I’m writing about The Zachriel Weltanschauung already has a chapter about statements that are technically true and still completely miss the point; so this latest example is not exactly helpful. Yes your sentences immediately above are active voice, but the point y’all have made is passive-voice. It is, and I quote, “your own citation makes clear that Wallace was considered a conservative.” Which, as I’ve said already, raises the question. By whom?
It matters, because when people actually look into this person and put their names underneath their statements about him, suddenly the narrative changes and not just a little bit.
So it’s well known how the dialogue is supposed to go — you box in the opposition with this business of “was Wallace a conservative,” and if I say no then I’m going against established consensus, if I say yes then this proves conservatives are segregationists.
Let us charitably ignore the fact that y’all’s example isn’t as good as y’all thought it was. George Wallace was a scheming political opportunist who lost an election to a KKK sympathizer and retooled his message after that. Let us even more charitably ignore the fact that George Wallace didn’t accomplish an awful lot in 1968, certainly didn’t make an impact on conservatives. At the end of it, the liberals lost the White House, their lead diminished in the Senate and they lost the Supreme Court as well.
As I’ve said before, the issue is how the conclusions are produced. In order to conclude conservatives are more fairly aligned with segregationists than liberals, we have to label a certain system of values, and scheduling of priorities “conservative” back then, and the exact same things “liberal” today. This doesn’t work. You can’t say you’re accurately using the terms in all scenarios, when your position is that “everybody should know their place” is a liberal value in 2016, but in the 1850’s that was supposed to have been a conservative value.
Another thing we should consider is that although there is widespread use of the words “conservative” and “liberal” today, and a great deal of passion about what these terms are supposed to mean, there isn’t very much confidence in these definitions, especially in the United States. What is confidence? We might test it by asking willing participants to predict how closely their ideas would line up with the prevailing consensus, perhaps by way of written exam. And then fill that exam with ever finer, ever dicier questions. I’m sure liberals would pass such a test with flying colors — if, and only if, all of the fellow test-takers were other liberals.
Because if we’re going to argue then let’s do it honestly. That is how one concludes conservatism has something to do with segregation. You ask liberals, and nobody but liberals.
- mkfreeberg | 02/24/2016 @ 06:57Holy tap-dancing Crom, y’all. First we get an assertion that Lincoln, a Republican, was “conservative,” because he only wanted to stop the expansion of slavery. (But watch what happens when you ask them, “so the Republicans were the liberals back then?”) Then we’re told that “Wallace [a Democrat] was a conservative on civil rights because he wanted to conserve the traditional hierarchical social structure.” Which really makes one wonder what that whole “Civil War” thing was about, don’t it? Since these guys were on the same side and all. But then again, this was before the Great Magic Party Switch of 1964, so I guess the Democrats were still where all the racists hung out (but watch what happens when you ask them “so the Democrats were the conservatives then?”).
Jeezey petes, do y’all really want to go through another 300 rounds of this? You already know exactly how it goes; you’re calling their moves before they make them. All we’re missing is a link to their favorite picture of a segregated water fountain.
- Severian | 02/24/2016 @ 07:04Funny, someone else tweeted that picture at me a few days ago, about a different argument. Claimed I was making the same arguments they were. Entirely wrong, but seems to be a classic of the genre.
- nightfly | 02/24/2016 @ 09:27Heh. Ever notice how it’s the “smart” people, who love dressing up as Science’s BFFs, who think that a .gif is some kind of argument? It’s play 6 of 6 in the Zachriel handbook — post something “racist” from 60-100 years ago, claim moral superiority, run away.
No wonder SJWs love Twitter — as folks like Zachriel have amply demonstrated, their poor brains can’t process more than 160 characters.
- Severian | 02/24/2016 @ 10:18mkfreeberg: Yes your sentences immediately above are active voice, but the point y’all have made is passive-voice.
Heh! Now you are redefining the terminology of grammar.
mkfreeberg: Which, as I’ve said already, raises the question. By whom?
YOU provided the citation!! The article is from U.S. News & World Report.
mkfreeberg: if I say yes then this proves conservatives are segregationists.
No. That doesn’t follow. While segregationists were conservative on the issue of civil rights, not all conservatives were segregationists. While most rational conservatives recognize that institutions may need to change, they generally want that change to be moderated and orderly. For instance, Dr. King took flak from his more conservative brethren for insisting upon immediate change.
In any case, your previous citation, and even your latest citation, refutes your position.
- Zachriel | 02/24/2016 @ 14:07It’s not all dark, Sev. You’ll notice that they observed the potential in an argument I used, and now, suddenly, they’re trying to use it on Morgan. They notice that they really had no response to it, so they naively assume that nobody else will either… as if it was a magic talisman that must work the moment you say the right words in the right order, notwithstanding anything else.
If they can get wise to that little bit, there’s a small glimmer of hope. Maybe their collective shrinks by one. Perhaps one poor little cuttler swims off, drags himself up on land, and starts a new kind of life.
- nightfly | 02/24/2016 @ 15:41Meh. They’ve always done that. “as if it was a magic talisman that must work the moment you say the right words in the right order, notwithstanding anything else.”… or, as if they are redlining the autism spectrum.
It’s just a particularly noxious combination of dishonesty and Asperger’s. They’re over here trying to argue that George Wallace, a Democrat, was a conservative. They’re up in the other thread trying to argue that because 1 in 5 farmers (or whatever their current iteration of the lie is ) voted Democrat, those farmers must all be liberals… and their evidence for this is… wait for it… campaign contributions. I’d feel really bad about sucking up all of Morgan’s bandwidth one would need to detail just the obvious flaws in that line of “reasoning.”
Again, remember that these are the tards who spent most of a day over at Vox Popoli trying their cut-n-paste routine to “prove” Vox Day is a racist, THEN spent the other half of the day over at John C. Wright’s, begging people to tell them who this mysterious “Vox Day” character might be.
That’s a level of stupid that can’t be reached, IMHO.
- Severian | 02/24/2016 @ 16:16If you’ve got the stomach, you can read the whole sad story here. Notice that they’ve made a lot more comments than that — I just linked to the comment where they get publicly called out on their dishonesty…. and keep powering on for another zillion comments or so.
John C. Wright ended up banning their dumb asses, which seems to be the standard result.
- Severian | 02/24/2016 @ 16:31Severian, bad link man. Try again.
- Nate Winchester | 02/24/2016 @ 16:33Sorry. Try this: http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/04/an-open-letter-to-the-science-fiction-writers-of-america/comment-page-1/#comment-96310
Looks like you were in on the trollbusting over there too, briefly.
- Severian | 02/24/2016 @ 16:59Z: For instance, Dr. King took flak from his more conservative brethren for insisting upon immediate change.
To expand on this point: During the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, eight white clergy in Birmingham wrote an open letter decrying King’s civil disobedience campaign, and his role as an outsider. They thought legal means should be used to effect change, and that the problem should be addressed locally. This led to King’s seminal “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”. To justify the former, he wrote “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all’.” To justify the latter, he wrote “I am in Birmingham because injustice is here… Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Consequently, the white clergy were deemed more conservative than King.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2016 @ 06:57That convo at John C Wright’s, alas, was before my time there. It certainly stands as a classic of the genre.
- nightfly | 02/25/2016 @ 09:18Huh. Ctrl-F… yep, nobody here talking about “Dr. King” but you. Do you think you get some kind of bonus virtue points for saying “Dr. King” while having a nice chat with your selves?
Try that on Vox Day, why don’t you. He still seems unconvinced that he’s a racist, despite all y’all’s yeoman work cutting and pasting.
- Severian | 02/25/2016 @ 09:18[…] all of a piece with taking liberal arguments seriously. Pronounless, passive voice word salad is the first and most obvious liberal tell online. A […]
- Nouns vs. Traits | Rotten Chestnuts | 02/26/2016 @ 16:21[…] Rationale being… […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/27/2016 @ 16:17