David Thompson
Subscribe
Blog powered by Typepad

« Rashly, He Appealed To Their Better Nature | Main | Friday Ephemeraren’t »

May 03, 2017

Comments

Jen

Sexy Fun Times

Wow. Dark sarcasm...

David

Dark sarcasm...

Grim incongruity seemed somehow appropriate.

John D

The word 'parents' isn't happy either.

David

The word ‘parents’ isn’t happy either.

Given the context, no, not really.

Professor Sanders is attempting to play Gotcha!, though not, I think, successfully. Since the trap he sets is not only contrived and unconvincing, but also draws unflattering attention to his own position, rather than that of his opponents.

And someone should tell Professor Sanders that his hat just doesn’t work.

WTP

Why, it's like they lack the capacity, the critical thinking skills, to think through their own arguments. And we've been losing to these idiots why?

David

Why, it’s like they lack the capacity, the critical thinking skills, to think through their own arguments.

Well, as attempts at deflection go, it’s not the best. I suppose the idea was to attach an air of revulsion to his opponent’s position by associating it, crassly, with paedophilia. But the (insincere) appeal to decency – and the welfare of very small children - doesn’t work, and backfires, for reasons that should be obvious, even to an academic.

Microbillionaire
And we've been losing to these idiots why?

Well, that has a hundred answers even after you define who "we" are. But I dare to speculate that one significant factor is failure to stop entryists. These idiots, it seems to me, are dysfunctional in the way they purge and witchhunt at the drop of a hat, but they do kick out "us" too, while "we" (at least for certain values of we) have been losing because we've been failing in the opposite direction by purging far too little. Rare is the man who stands up and says anything like "Communists get out". Instead we get Communists saying with a straight face "Curtis Yarvin must not be allowed to speak about technology at a technology conference because his political views worry me" and somehow the Communists aren't laughed out of the room.

Add some nepotistic hiring decisions, loyalty tests, affirmative actioning, et cetera, and you get a one-way ratchet. These idiots are practically never punished for trying, nor rolled back much, so they have very little in the way of downside risk. They can afford to demand stupid shit ten times, fail every time, succeed on the eleventh, and then fight tooth and nail to keep their gains while asserting loudly "THIS IS THE NEW NORMAL!"

Closely related is the pas d'ennemis a gauche, pas d'amis a droit principle. ("No enemies to the left, no friends to the right.") These idiots have plenty of moderates who stand by their violent extremists. Reasonable people have been terribly reluctant to stand by so much as Charles Murray for writing a book, and Murray in turn feels obliged to denounce Steve Sailer, while Sailer tuts terribly at Deogolwulf and I figure Deogolwulf wouldn't be caught dead with Anti-Communist Action streetfighters. But Anti-Fascist Action streetfighters can smash shit and throw fire and still get glowing reviews from the New York Times.

PiperPaul

"And we've been losing to these idiots why?"

"still get glowing reviews from the New York Times"

THERE'S YOUR REASON RIGHT THERE.

R. Sherman

And we've been losing to these idiots why?

Defining "we" as those who value classical liberalism and personal autonomy, I think the answer is, we desire to pursue principle. For those at the opposite end of the spectrum, it's solely about attaining power over others. For our opponents, philosophic consistency is something to be used when helpful and abandoned when not. Sadly, "we" presuppose a measure of good faith on the part of the other side, which the other side is quite happy to use to its advantage. How else to explain the feminist defense of Bill Clinton and his enabling spouse?

WTP

"we" (at least for certain values of we) have been losing because we've been failing in the opposite direction by purging far too little

I agree with you on the level of having principles to stand for. Communism has failed soooo many times in sooo many environments that there is no reason to treat these hammer-and -sickle (spelled it right that time...I think) flag waving idiots with any degree of respect. Communism should be regarded by society with the same revulsion, if not more, than Nazism, and certainly more than Franco-style fascism. NOT that I like the latter but such was the way the world has been able to function to some degree for millennia. However on the internal side, and specific to what the topic above was referencing underneath, on fuzzy issues such as when life begins/abortion, there is far more room for debate than many on the right want to admit. Don't want to start a fight over that issue except that it's such a political killer for the right, in the US anyway.

After I posted my comment above and then taking our morning walk, was thinking (probably over-thinking) about this post and the depth of the idiocy of this so-called professor's comment. I was wondering if this blatantly stupid comment wasn't really an attempt to draw attention to the subject of abortion and by extension, social conservative religion. It seems to me whenever the right gets some traction against the left, the media and such can gin up the more un-hinged side of the pro-life movement (and please note, I respect hinged pro-life arguments and agree with most of them) and similar religious extremists to undermine the rightward drift of the moderates, and especially the moderate women many of whom are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. Similar seems to occur in regard to other socially conservative issues, but none get up as much lather as abortion.

Wish I could word-smith that more as it's a bit rough for my point and I'm prolly asking for trouble here, but the millennial I work with has just showed up for work @ 9:20 so gotta get back to the salt mine.

WTP

OK, hes on potty break...
THERE'S YOUR REASON RIGHT THERE.

And the best we have opposing that is Fox News why? I would say it is an unwillingness among those on the right to actually stick their necks out and fight, and fight in such a manner as the left does. Reach out to the poor and downtrodden and shiw them how to succeed. Most of the pain and misery of the potential converts to rationality is due to their never hearing the other side of the story. And yes, it is a harder sell but not impossible. Not that we have much of a choice anyway.

Microbillionaire
THERE'S YOUR REASON RIGHT THERE.

There's no need to shout. But I would appreciate if you spelled out your argument a bit more.

(And perhaps noted that the indented text in my comment is a quote. I've taken to the blockquote tag over italics for that, because blockquote won't spill over into the next comment if left unclosed by accident.)

The original Mr. X
And we've been losing to these idiots why?

In addition to what others have said, the right tends to respect authority, whereas the left doesn't. So if you have an organisation where the people in charge are of the left and the lower levels are of the right, the lower levels are still going to obey the people in charge, because they're the people in charge and therefore ought to be obeyed. Conversely, if you have an organisation where the lower levels are made up of left-wingers, they're much more likely to kick up a fuss when their superiors do something insufficiently left wing. (Cf. the various student protests issuing demands to university administrators.) This means that, in general, institutions are going to face less push-back for heading left than they are for heading right. After a few generations of this, it's not surprising that the left ends up controlling almost all the major institutions in society.

Mags

But the (insincere) appeal to decency – and the welfare of very small children - doesn’t work, and backfires, for reasons that should be obvious, even to an academic.

That.

The original Mr. X

For example: Middlebury Students Vote To Protest Discipline Of Charles Murray Protesters.

Geezer

... personally pro-life but politically pro-choice ...

That would be me. As a self-described libertarian, I believe in keeping my nose out of other people's business. Unless a woman tells me so, just knowing that she is pregnant requires sticking my nose pretty far up her business. (A libertarian answer to the question "Are you pregnant?" is "None of your business.")

David

left-wingers, they’re much more likely to kick up a fuss when their superiors do something insufficiently left wing

We’ve talked before about a left/non-left asymmetry of attitude and temperament. Specifically, the fact that the “social justice” contingent is much keener to signal piety via public umbrage and hair-trigger scolding. As we’ve seen, it can get quite competitive, with quarrelsome little warriors interrupting lectures and derailing social gatherings, and generally imposing themselves on others. Bravely journeying to the centre of attention.

While many of the people here, I suspect, including your host, may be reluctant, in real life, to be a vibeslayer or drama queen or political pedant - someone who feels compelled to point out every infraction or point of contention, however minor, and however inappropriate the fuss. I, for one, don’t want to be that guy. Because in real life - as opposed to, say, blogging - being that guy is a ticket to bedlam.

Killer Marmot

The arguments from the left are becoming stranger and stranger, and increasingly detached from reality. There is a perverse tendency to say something bizarre, as if the very absurdity of the remark gives it legitimacy.

R. Sherman

...as if the very absurdity of the remark gives it legitimacy.

Those orthodoxies aren't going to deconstruct themselves.

WTP

I, for one, don’t want to be that guy. Because in real life - as opposed to, say, blogging - being that guy is a ticket to bedlam.

Agree. Don't want to be that guy either. But after years of never wanting to be that guy, I've decided, only after years of being subjected to the PC BS intruding into my personal life, that the risk is necessary. But what I really don't want to be, worse than being that guy is being that guy in the next Venezuela.

My take is the safest and most efficient way to get the point across without being TG, because once you are othered as TG your probability of influence is mighty low unless you are very, very good at not being TG while getting the point across, is to work from the bottom up. TG (or TG in the context of present company) can be of a tremendous service to those who struggle because TG generally knows stuff about how the world really works. More so than most people. YMMV, but my perspective for decades now is that the misunderstanding that rich get rich off the backs of the poor is extremely wide spread even among the middle and upper classes. This is extremely damaging to those struggling to come up form below who simply don't understand the rules of reality, not to mention to the rest of us.

Again...playing hooky here and would like to state that more clearly and less wordy but gotta go...

Ten

Professor Sanders is attempting to play Gotcha!, though not, I think, successfully. Since the trap he sets is not only contrived and unconvincing, but also draws unflattering attention to his own position, rather than that of his opponents.

This ilk's familiar psychosis has all the gravity of a kid on his first high, speakers thundering as he meticulously inspects a record album gatefold for the wealth of special insight it contains, an enlightenment known only - in that insular, lightbulb moment - to him.

Not that it's ever happened to me.

Ten

...we've been losing to these idiots why?

A stupendous question and one asked WAY too infrequently.

The answer is codependence.

Ten

There is a perverse tendency to say something bizarre, as if the very absurdity of the remark gives it legitimacy.

There's that special insight - that self-inflating, teenager response where suddenly after fourteen years the universe is crystal clear (in deep, infinitely narrow slices) ... and not a philosopher has ever before trod.

Which puts it mildly. It's really just a waking-state psychosis these freaks suffer from, a moral unconsciousness, the self-induced, posing, zealous, egotistical, amoral clinical condition that obviously escapes such scrutiny internally and isn't immediately labeled and vigorously shunned externally.

And that's the codependency.

Regarding the libertarian view, when it's not throwing away its birthright on pot and protesting fire departments it at least gets the personal moral dynamicism right - Geezer implies this above - and places personal responsibility directly on the individual.

Where this ilk can burn from it.

Geezer

... throwing away its birthright on pot ...

Is "pot" the same as "pottage"?

Where this ilk can burn from it.

Do ilks have tartans?

Surreptitious Evil

"Of that ilk" have plenty of tartans.

But if you want a new one specially for "ilk", I have a day job colleague who can help.

Geezer

But if you want a new one specially for "ilk", I have a day job colleague who can help.

I think the Guild of Evil™ qualifies as an Ilk, and should have its own Tartan.

Governor Squid

...they’re much more likely to kick up a fuss...

Therein lies the rub. We are, by and large, just decent people who would like to live and let live, and so we tolerate the outbursts and bad behavior rather than make a scene. Besides, who wants to jump into the path of some overgrown four-year-old's temper tantrum? I realize that the end result of this non-confrontational mindset is that we now must live with several generations of people who retain the mindset of the tyrannical four-year-old, but it happened so incrementally that we didn't realize the water was boiling 'til too late.

Any more, the best I can do is to cheerfully and patiently push back against the absurd inconsistencies in leftist dogma. I've found it very helpful to open with agreement, and proceed from there:

"I agree with you that a woman's right to choose is paramount. I also support a woman's right to choose where she sends her child to school, and her right to choose what kind of food she feeds her child, and her right to choose what sort of weaponry she uses to defend her child. Surely you agree that a woman's right to choose shouldn't be limited to just the narrow question of whether her child lives or dies?"
The trick is to beg the question; to make it so reasonable that your interlocutor can't help but agree. Take it from me: it's worth the effort, if only to see the cognitive dissonance swirling through their poor atrophied brains...
PiperPaul

"I think the Guild of Evil™ qualifies as an Ilk, and should have its own Tartan."


What, in addition to Chester's crest?
(I've spared everyone my animated GIF and explanatory graphic)

Killer Marmot
There's that special insight - that self-inflating, teenager response where suddenly after fourteen years the universe is crystal clear (in deep, infinitely narrow slices) ... and not a philosopher has ever before trod.

Which puts it mildly. It's really just a waking-state psychosis these freaks suffer from, a moral unconsciousness, the self-induced, posing, zealous, egotistical, amoral clinical condition that obviously escapes such scrutiny internally and isn't immediately labeled and vigorously shunned externally.

And that's the codependency.

Regarding the libertarian view, when it's not throwing away its birthright on pot and protesting fire departments it at least gets the personal moral dynamicism right - Geezer implies this above - and places personal responsibility directly on the individual.

I didn't understand any of that.

Geezer

What, in addition to Chester's crest?

Yes.

I didn't understand any of that.

Perhaps you are part of the Guild.

Squires

Those orthodoxies aren't going to deconstruct themselves.

Those orthodoxies aren't going to construct themselves.

Rich Rostrom

There is a historical parallel to Prof. Sanders' rhetorical trick. In Uncle's Tom's Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe chronicled all the crimes of slavery, including the sexual exploitation of slave women by white men. Some Southerners then denounced her because "no decent woman would write of such things".

Sam

Professor Sanders is attempting to play Gotcha!, though not, I think, successfully.

Made it through the whole video. The man's a clown.

David

The man’s a clown.

Well, it soon becomes clear that Professor Sanders has exactly the kind of politics (and vanities) you’d imagine. As when he starts grabbing at cameras, or screeching about Republicans being racists and liars, or when repeatedly implying that he himself is brave and heroic, a speaker of truth. Despite such intimations of moral heroism, the professor actually seems rather sly and evasive, and somewhat overwound. And when asked questions that are fundamental to the debate – “When does life begin?” “Is the foetus human?” - he dismisses both questions as “irrelevant.”

And that bloody hat.

Burnsie

The man is a Professor of Biology.

Let that sink in.

Jonathan

Related. NSFW

An Assistant School Principal loses his cool confronting Anti-Abortion Students quietly holding placards on the pavement outside the school. First he says that a fetus is ' not a child, just some cells..', then claims that an image of an aborted fetus is highly offensive and will cause traffic accidents. He then goes into full meltdown mode.....

David

‘not a child, just some cells…’

I wonder if the shouting educator has ever seen images of a foetus at, say, 24 weeks, the current limit of UK abortion law. Because it seems to me that by then what you’ll see, or who you’ll see, isn’t adequately described as “just some cells.”

PiperPaul


Summary.
And stupid hat.

Patrick Brown

...we've been losing to these idiots why?

Because they're not idiots exactly. They're emotional blackmailers, and emotional blackmail is very difficult to counter.

Jonathan

Because it seems to me that by then what you’ll see, or who you’ll see, isn’t adequately described as “just some cells.”

That's probably why he's so angry. He knows that if someone sees an image of an 18 week+ aborted fetus, they'll easily make the emotional connection between 'it' and a baby, and perhaps realise that they're being deceived by the pro-abortion side.
I'm pro-choice BTW, but it must be an informed choice.

R. Sherman

I'm pro-choice BTW, but it must be an informed choice.

That is the problem, isn't it? There is a desire to camouflage or eliminate information, in order to place a thumb on the "choice" scale. For me personally, I have much more respect for those on the pro-choice side who at least acknowledge that abortion involves the destruction of human life, but ask, "So what?" Let's lay the cards on the table: Personal expediency trumps all, philosophic consistency be damned.

That's Professor Sanders's conundrum into which he inadvertently stumbled.

Let's stop the masquerade and get directly to the Leftist agenda, shall we? They wish to eliminate those whose existence conflict with their pursuit of power over others.

Disclosure: I was once reluctantly pro-Choice many years ago. My personal philosophical hike led me to the conclusion that abortion is contrary to values which we purport to hold dear relative to the inherent value of all humans. Also, an emergency call from an OB/GYN about the absence of a heartbeat with the youngest offspring, followed by a joyful ultrasound helped kick me in the ass.

Pinkeen

I wonder if the shouting educator has ever seen images of a foetus at, say, 24 weeks, the current limit of UK abortion law. Because it seems to me that by then what you’ll see, or who you’ll see, isn’t adequately described as “just some cells.”

The 'just some cells' argument is silly, even offensive sometimes, but I don't think it makes sense to think of a 24 week foetus as a person either.

Pinkeen

That is the problem, isn't it? There is a desire to camouflage or eliminate information, in order to place a thumb on the "choice" scale. For me personally, I have much more respect for those on the pro-choice side who at least acknowledge that abortion involves the destruction of human life, but ask, "So what?" Let's lay the cards on the table: Personal expediency trumps all, philosophic consistency be damned.

It's more that there is a complex balance of rights and needs to be made than an easy 'so what'. Having a baby is no small thing, physically or emotionally. I suppose we can agree that foetuses constitute 'human life' although I am not sure where that takes us. I don't think a foetus is a human being and I am certain that we can all agree that at least some foetuses aren't.

David

If anyone has trouble with comments not appearing, email me and I’ll shake the spam filter.

Hal

It's more that there is a complex balance of rights and needs to be made than an easy 'so what'. Having a baby is no small thing, physically or emotionally. I suppose we can agree that foetuses constitute 'human life' although I am not sure where that takes us. I don't think a foetus is a human being and I am certain that we can all agree that at least some foetuses aren't.

© 1996

At the moment, abortion is accessible, but often involves nets of regulations. The argument against states that abortion is the murder of an unborn infant, the life of whom takes precedence over the mother. The argument in favor states that the individual rights of the mother take precedence over the child, who may or may not be a child anyway.

The latter argument becomes increasingly nebulous as medical capability advances. One can project, in time, a "Brave New World" scenario; a daily occurrence of conceiving and growing a human being artificially. With such, a governmental decision that abortion is immoral and illegal can be made, but still can not be enforced except at the cost of absolute domination of half the human race.

Of the extreme of an absolute ban, abortion would not be taught in medical schools. Both abortionists and recipients, in their various forms, would receive prison sentences on charges of murder. Individuals within the legal system would subvert that same system to help friends and family. What knowledge there is would be handed from person to person, with various levels of transmission accuracy. While there would be many who find themselves pregnant and have the child, history has shown that ban or not, there is an interest in abortion, and some would so choose instead.

Those infinitely capable would go to where abortions are legal or receive them from personal experts, be they doctors or otherwise. Those not so capable would be forced to rely on what network is available of those willing to perform abortions. Those willing would not always be able, and with a base layer of the difficulties of anything at the individual level declared illegal, there is the added layer of "The operation was a success, but the patient died."

Those even less capable would resort to what information sounds right, according to rumor, or what seems right, according to guesses. Margins of error would be almost nonexistent. Lastly, anyone involved would be potential victims of blackmail, which drags in just about anything else, depending only on those involved.

For those injured, there would be the added cost of medical care. For those injured and caught, there would be the costs of medical care on top of those of imprisonment. For both, even those not directly involved would be involved indirectly, through tax support.

In a further extreme case, those injured would be denied medical care, to prevent direct cost to taxpayers. This however would be counterproductive, as an additional level of surveillance would be required by medical personnel, police, or both. This surveillance would be to detect abortion caused injuries, and, to prevent false diagnoses, would require familiarity with the processes of abortion, such deliberate instruction to again be paid by the taxpayers.

Of the extreme of total governmental support, the procedure would be part of regular medical curriculum. Currently in China, couples are coerced into having no more than one child, which is causing side-effects of it's own. Abortions, supported by the government, would be at will and paid for by taxpayers. Resulting injuries to the mothers would be almost nonexistent as abortionists would be thoroughly trained and certified with back- up safety methods accessible at all times. The rate of abortion would be higher than if there is a ban, but those wishing to prevent abortion would support the governmental carrot of increased child care and support for those born.

The third possibility is government neutrality, where no government funds are paid for either abortions or any after effects or information either for or against, and all such costs are assumed by private parties. The extent of government involvement would be at the level of inspection and enforcement of safety and health regulations. Those totally in favor would have doctors competent at performing abortions, either in private or in group practice. Any insurance would be provided by private companies. Those against would only have general pregnancy and child care. Those neutral would have either both or just the obstetrics.

One of these is being chosen. By abortion's own nature, the choice requires the greatest individual freedom for all. If limits are chosen, they will ultimately be the most extreme possible, for that is their nature. Two times two, equaling four, involves one through four. Two times negative two, equalling negative four, involves one and two, zero, and negative one through four.

Geezer

I don't think a foetus is a human being and I am certain that we can all agree that at least some foetuses aren't.

I am certain that a rat foetus or a mink foetus is not a human being, but I am not at all certain that we can all agree that human foetuses are not.

The comments to this entry are closed.

For Amazon US use this link .

Your filthy consumerism supports this blog.

Blogroll