https://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/progressive-professor-urges-white-male-students-to-commit-suicide-during-class/Great. They call for Walter Block’s head, and Hoppe’s head for things that they DIDN’T say, and this guy says evil nonsense directly, and we hear crickets.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-13 09:47:00 UTC
http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2015/05/walter_block_lawsuit_times.htmlEXPLAINING WALTER BLOCK’S NARRATIVE DEVICE
I have been a frequent critic of Walter and the Mises Institute that is his platform, despite knowing him personally for years, in no small part, because his technique for grabbing the audience’s attention is to use examples that are morally horrifying in order to illustrate economic, political, and moral principles.
The purpose of his parable that is to illustrate the spectrum of involuntary association.
He’s saying this: If you work voluntarily with other people to pick cotton for a living, that’s very different from picking cotton for someone else involuntarily. Lots of people in this world do horrible work. Lots of people have been, are, and forever will be poor. Likewise serving people in your business that you prefer not to, and that may be damaging to your business, is also undesirable. Just as paying taxes for things you don’t support is undesirable. Using these three data points he paints a spectrum of undesirable forced associations.
The Jewish tradition, and Jewish law, emphasizes separatism and individualism to preserve jewish group identity: ‘separate and apart’. The western aristocratic tradition emphasizes local universalism but preserves hierarchy. The western christian tradition emphasizes universalism and family. So Walter is, as are many jewish intellectuals, bringing his cultural traditions to the argument: he’s advocating in favor of separatism.
Just as there is a long tradition on the left of using parables of suffering for the purpose of illustration, there is a long tradition on the right of using absurdity in parables for the purpose of illustrating the long term consequences of everyone adopting a behaviour. The reason progressives use suffering (short term, and personal experience) and conservatives use humor (long term, exaggerated effects), is because that is our evolutionary division of labor at work: progressives perceive the short term and experience of individuals regardless of consequences, and conservatives perceive the long term consequences regardless of experience.
You will see the same thing from most popular conservatives, including Limbaugh – who specializes in this technique. For conservatives, two whom disgust is as influential a moral impulse as compassion is for progressives, these ‘horrific’ narratives are highly loaded with emotion: they are excellent pedagogical parables.
We cannot really understand each other, unless we understand that the moral spectrum evolved as an inter-temporal (across time) division of perception, comprehension, knowledge, advocacy and labor. And that one of the reasons we humans can adapt to circumstances, is that we each have biased perceptions. Some of us advocate for the short term to ensure offspring survive, and some for the long term to ensure the tribe competes against others. Conservatives can understand progressives. Libertarians understand a little of progressives and conservatives, but progressives cannot comprehend conservatives.
It’s only when we agree that we know we have made use of all available information. Because its voluntary exchange – expressed as the middle – that determines when we have made use of the entire moral spectrum, that concerns both the short (progressive nurturing), medium (libertarian production), and long term (conservative defense).
That is why centrism in democratic politics is so important, and why the middle road is so prominent an idea throughout political and philosophical history in all cultures. Those cultures did not, however, as Walter is trying to communicate, figure out that it is voluntary exchange that allows us to ‘compute’ that middle, not the wisdom of one or more rulers.
So his lesson is profound. And it is a lesson in the language; in the inter-temporal spectrum; of libertarians and conservatives who are his audience.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-13 02:18:00 UTC
http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2015/05/walter_block_lawsuit_times.htmlEXPLAINING WALTER BLOCK’S NARRATIVE DEVICE
I have been a frequent critic of Walter and the Mises Institute that is his platform, despite knowing him personally for years, in part because his technique for grabbing the audience’s attention is to use examples that are morally horrifying in order to illustrate economic, political, and moral principles.
The purpose of his parable that is to illustrate the spectrum of involuntary association.
He’s saying this: If you work voluntarily with other people to pick cotton for a living, that’s very different from picking cotton for someone else involuntarily. Lots of people in this world do horrible work. Lots of people have been, are, and forever will be poor. Likewise serving people in your business that you prefer not to, and that may be damaging to your business, is also undesirable. Just as paying taxes for things you don’t support is undesirable. Using these three data points he paints a spectrum of undesirable forced associations.
The Jewish tradition, and Jewish law, emphasizes separatism and individualism to preserve jewish group identity: ‘separate and apart’. The western aristocratic tradition emphasizes local universalism but preserves hierarchy. The western christian tradition emphasizes universalism and family, and hierarchy. So Walter is, as are many jewish intellectuals, bringing his cultural traditions to the argument: he’s advocating in favor of separatism.
Just as there is a long tradition on the left of using parables of suffering for the purpose of illustration, there is a long tradition on the right of using absurdity in parables for the purpose of illustrating long term consequences if everyone behaved as such. The reason progressives use suffering (short term, and personal experience) and conservatives use humor (long term, exaggerated effects), is because that is our evolutionary division of labor at work: progressives perceive the short term and experience of individuals regardless of consequences, and conservatives perceive the long term consequences regardless of experience.
You will see the same thing from most popular conservatives, including Limbaugh – who specializes in this technique. For conservatives, two whom disgust is as influential a moral impulse as compassion is for progressives, these ‘horrific’ narratives are highly loaded with emotion: they are excellent pedagogical parables.
We cannot really understand each other, unless we understand that the moral spectrum evolved as an inter-temporal (across time) division of perception, comprehension, knowledge, advocacy and labor. And that one of the reasons we humans can adapt to circumstances, is that we each have biased perceptions. Some of us advocate for the short term to ensure offspring survive, and some for the long term to ensure the tribe competes against others. Conservatives can understand progressives. Libertarians understand a little of progressives and conservatives, but progressives cannot comprehend conservatives. Progressivism is the most narrow moral code – a specialization of sorts.
Because of this division of advocacy, it’s only when we agree that we know we have made use of all available information. Because its voluntary exchange – expressed as the middle – that determines when we have made use of the entire moral spectrum, that concerns both the short (progressive nurturing), medium (libertarian production), and long term (conservative defense).
That is why centrism in democratic politics is so important, and why the middle road is so prominent an idea throughout political and philosophical history in all cultures. Those cultures did not, however, as Walter is trying to communicate, figure out that it is voluntary exchange that allows us to ‘compute’ that middle, not the wisdom of one or more rulers.
So Walter’s lesson for his audience is profound. And it is a lesson delivered in the language; addressing the inter-temporal spectrum; in the moral interests – of the libertarians and conservatives who are his audience.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2015/05/walter_block_lawsuit_times.html
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-13 02:14:00 UTC
http://www.newmarksdoor.com/mainblog/2015/05/free-speech-in-peril.htmlTHE END OF FREE SPEECH. THE SACREDNESS OF LYING.
—Second, the constant social pressure of having to monitor everything you say, lest some unguarded politically incorrect utterance loses you friends, dates, status, or even employment makes for (pardon the fifties’ expression) boring conformists, apparatchiks afraid to think for themselves—quite the opposite of the sturdily independent, resourceful, thoughtful, plainspoken, and creative character that used to be the American ideal. Take the case of Smith College president Kathleen McCartney, who joined her students’ “shared fury,” she said, as “we raise our voices in protest” against the grand jury decisions in Ferguson and Staten Island. Trouble is, she raised her voice in the wrong slogan, declaring that “All lives matter,” when the approved chant was “Black lives matter.” How could she be so disgracefully discriminatory in her nondiscrimination? her scandalized undergraduates exploded. A modern college president may be the very definition of an apparatchik, but there is something humiliating to human nature in the cringingly self-abasing apology that McCartney fairly sobbed out, without even having to be carted off in a dunce cap to a reeducation camp, as if she were her own Maoist cultural-revolutionary commissar. What would it take to make characters like this pull the lever at Treblinka?—
FROM
http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_2_free-speech.html
VIA:
http://www.newmarksdoor.com/mainblog/2015/05/free-speech-in-peril.html
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-11 10:23:00 UTC
NATE SILVER TELLS US SOMETHING WE KNOW: POLLS MANUFACTURE OPINION AND THEIR REPORTING IS HIGHLY BIASED.
—“[We fail to comprehend what Nate is telling us:] the same tools and models that allowed him to do good forecasting can be used for forensic purposes. And forensically, they’re telling him there was systematic bias by the polling firms.”—
What he is really saying is that polling firms are GETTING BETTER at manufacturing opinion and INSERTING MORE BIAS in their results.
What he is going to tell us next, is who biases their polls.
—“The fault, Silver claimed, was with the polling: “It’s becoming increasingly clear that pre-election polls underestimated how well Conservatives would do and overestimated Labour’s result,” the statistician guru wrote in the wee hours of the morning. (He also overestimated the Liberal Democrats’ result by roughly 20 seats).
But the problem went beyond the UK. “The World May Have A Polling Problem,” Silver asserted. “In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well.” Silver went on to cite four examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections, and even the 2012 U.S. presidential election, where “Obama beat the final polling averages by about 3 points nationwide.”
“[T]here are lots of reasons to worry about the state of the polling industry,” Silver concluded, citing a range of factors. “There may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry.”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-09 04:35:00 UTC
–“The World May Have A Polling Problem,” Silver asserted. “In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well.” Silver went on to cite four examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections, and even the 2012 U.S. presidential election, where “Obama beat the final polling averages by about 3 points nationwide.”
“[T]here are lots of reasons to worry about the state of the polling industry,” Silver concluded, citing a range of factors. “There may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry.”—
https://www.quora.com/Why-were-all-the-polls-in-the-2015-UK-general-election-so-different-from-the-results
–“The World May Have A Polling Problem,” Silver asserted. “In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well.” Silver went on to cite four examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections, and even the 2012 U.S. presidential election, where “Obama beat the final polling averages by about 3 points nationwide.”
“[T]here are lots of reasons to worry about the state of the polling industry,” Silver concluded, citing a range of factors. “There may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry.”—
https://www.quora.com/Why-were-all-the-polls-in-the-2015-UK-general-election-so-different-from-the-results
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2015/04/we-need-nationwide-st-scholastica-day.htmlAcademic Distributors of Deceit: Kill them.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 09:08:00 UTC
—“We have to punish liars. Suppressing lying the way we suppress aggression is probably enough.”— Roman Skaskiw
—“We have to punish liars. Suppressing lying the way we suppress aggression is probably enough.”— Roman Skaskiw