Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The Paula Deen situation and the cost of the all-or-nothing mentality Previous entry: Quick, Someone Quote Martin Luther King!

Perhaps the ugliest Republican debate yet

I expected, going in to the Republicans having a debate on MLK day in the first state to secede and fire shots in the Civil War, that there would probably be a few jaw-dropping dog whistles blown to race-bait a crowd that's got a lot of people still bitter about a federal holiday honoring the civil rights movement. Seems to me that the whole point of the scheduling by Fox News was to stoke racial hostilities and keep Republican enthusiasm for kicking the black President out of office high, especially since Romney's presence is hurting Republican enthusiasm in the polls. So I was a bit surprised that Juan Williams broke the rules that require race to be discussed through dog whistles and insinuations, and tried to get it all out on the table. I mean, his personal motivations for that are obvious---the whole scheduling thing plus the candidates' increasingly racist rhetoric is just plain offensive, and the urge to call bullshit must have been high---but considering how much Fox pays him, I was still mildly surprised that he decided to use the debate to actually provoke the candidates into being more blunt. Of course, the flip side of that is that he had to have known that if he did provoke one of them into saying something super racist, his picture would be on the front page of every newspaper today.

Turns out that worked out better than even the most ambitious debate moderator could have hoped, because the crowd's naked hatred of Williams for daring to bring up race, instead of letting conservative candidates talk about it in euphemism, guaranteed he'd be the talk of political media today. Most of the coverage I've seen is of Gingrich taking the opportunity to really pull the string and let the asshole out in full force. 

Of course, Williams dropped the ball, because there's a number of ways to challenge Gingrich's lie about the President "putting" people on food stamps. You can ask, for instance, if he's saying that the better solution is for poor people to starve. You could ask how people are going to make it to that job training he's so up about if they're going hungry. You could ask him if he sincerely believes that we have 9% unemployment because people prefer to get $150 a month in food stamps rather than have a job, and if so, why did the number of people that he believes "choose" not to work has doubled in the past four years. You could ask him when he's getting a job, instead of living off direct mail donations. There's many fun ways to go about this.

That said, I honestly don't blame him for dropping the ball. It's got be unnerving being dressed down by a soulless monster while booed by a blood-hungry crowd of Southerners who are still pissed about the 60s and are looking for torches to light. And honestly, I don't care about why or how Williams went about this. I'm just glad he tried. The Republicans have really come to believe that they are entitled to race-bait without anyone calling them out on it, or even asking them an honest question about it, and they simply aren't. Someone needs to call bullshit on that. 

As far as that goes, one moment that really stuck out to me was how the crowd booed the idea of being born in Mexico.

In a report last week, NBC revealed that Romney’s great grandfather, Miles Park Romney, had fled to Mexico with other Mormons to escape persecution for polygamy. Romney’s father, George, was later born in the northern Mexico colony of Colonia Dublan.

When this was brought up, the audience booed simply at the mention of being born in Mexico. It was a naked moment of irrational hatred. What, do they think that the soil itself taints you? Would they refuse to travel there for fear of getting cooties? I'm rarely surprised at the ugliness that percolates below the surface in much of conservative politics, but even I was taken aback by how the mere mention of Mexico and being born there set them off. Interestingly, the Romney family and mine have this in common---my grandfather's parents were British citizens but my grandfather was born in Mexico and then moved to the U.S. as a child---and my grandfather is all about this Tea Party stuff. Wonder if they'd boo him, too. 

Romney's stock answer---that he supports immigrants who can claw through the mountains of paperwork and obstacles put in their way to move here legally---tends to satisfy a lot of people, but his family's story should really show why it's not good enough. It's not just that, but for Native Americans, we're all descended from immigrants. It's that most of them got here in ways that would now get them labeled "illegal". Moving back and forth between the U.S. and Mexico was actually really common back when the Romney's were doing it, mainly because you could do it without getting tied up in mountains of red tape that is now there because our government has decided to make it nearly impossible to legally immigrate here. And that doesn't even touch the problem of people who, like the Romneys when they were living in Mexico, are probably not looking to lay down permanent roots. Looking at the past with clear eyes makes it obvious that the purported dangers of having more permeable borders are just so much nonsense, and that increasing restrictions on immigration is pretty much always tied to racist hostility, which is why we've had laws aimed, at different points in time, at keeping out Germans and Irish, Italians and Eastern Europeans, then Asians, and now Mexicans and South Americans. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:01 AM • (82) Comments


The GOPTB finally took off the mask and showed the world how utterly, disgustingly racist they are.

Comment #1: DontFearTheReaper  on  01/17  at  11:12 AM

SC Repubs are still pissed about the ‘60s alright.  The 1860’s.

Comment #2: littleleaguecoach  on  01/17  at  11:12 AM

@littleleaguecoach: To be honest, I’m not even sure they wouldn’t want to go back further than that. They’d probably take us all the way back to divine right monarchy if they could. Also, I take Juan’s non-reaction to getting booed as proof of just how much he has drunk the conservative Kool-Aid. Most people would have at least showed some offense, even if they didn’t call the crowd out on it.

Comment #3: progrocker  on  01/17  at  11:22 AM

@progrocker- Juan’s sold his soul a long time ago.

Comment #4: DontFearTheReaper  on  01/17  at  11:30 AM

SC Repubs are still pissed about the ‘60s alright.  The 1860’s.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67666123@N00/5278562309/

Comment #5: Steve LaBonne  on  01/17  at  11:31 AM

Slight correction, Amanda, your great-grandparents weren’t British citizens, they were British subjects, and this was in their passports, as it was in my grandmothers’ until she became an America citizen by an Act of Congress because of her Chinese ancestry:

His Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of His Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.

Comment #6: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  01/17  at  11:34 AM

A lot of people still won’t see the republicans as racist based on last night’s debate - you have to be wearing a white hood and holding a noose while shouting the n-word to be truly racist,

Comment #7: Jimmy  on  01/17  at  11:36 AM

Well of course foreign soil is tainted.  Even soil from the wrong part of the US is tainted.
If only all these types had Daniel Day-Lewis’ mustache and wardrobe in Gangs of New York, I’d be much more entertained.

Comment #8: ganews_  on  01/17  at  11:41 AM

I watched the video and you can hear slight, but significant, laughter from the crowd after Gingrich says “first of all, Juan” and nothing else. Are they really that desperate to see a white man chiding a black man over racial issues? Do they think the name “Juan” is inherently funny? Both? Because there’s nothing remotely amusing about that.

Comment #9: Treefinger  on  01/17  at  11:48 AM

I guess one ‘conservative’ notion conservatives have left behind is pretty much anything associated with politeness or manners.

Being quick to anger was sorta-kinda thought to be a vice to our parents - but I guess conserfs had to throw that overboard to keep the ship of hatred afloat.

Yeah, you get the feeling what they really wanted to do was lynch Juan for being an uppity negro.

Comment #10: KingElvis  on  01/17  at  11:49 AM

*Are they that desperate to see the answer as a white man dominating a black man that they’ll laugh at/approve of anything he says regardless of its content, is what I really meant to convey with that first question.

Comment #11: Treefinger  on  01/17  at  11:50 AM

You know, I watched a little bit of this debate and some of the others and it makes me wonder, did anything happen in this country from 2000 to 2008? Did we have a Preesident, and if so, what was his name?

Comment #12: Mark  on  01/17  at  12:04 PM

Would they refuse to travel there for fear of getting cooties?

Yes.  These are people who never leave the country…

Comment #13: James  on  01/17  at  12:46 PM

@Treefinger:  I didn’t hear the laughter, but I thought the way Gingrich said “Juan” was very condescending.
@Mark: Yes, isn’t it interesting that the recession, the jobs crisis, and the deficit just appeared out of nowhere, through no fault of anyone, in January 2009?  Just when Obama was elected?  Must be his fault!
In the Economist’s live blog of the debate, they remarked that this audience was going to be upset to find that there wasn’t going to be a public hanging afterward.

Comment #14: gretchen  on  01/17  at  12:52 PM

@ganews_

Don’t forget the glass eye.

Comment #15: prufrock  on  01/17  at  12:56 PM

You know, I watched a little bit of this debate and some of the others and it makes me wonder, did anything happen in this country from 2000 to 2008? Did we have a Preesident, and if so, what was his name?

2000 to 2008 was a time of glorious American prosperity under President Mumblemumble. Then, in 2009, as soon as Barry Hussein Osama was inaugurated, the World Trade Center was destroyed in a terrorist attack, the economy fell apart under the weight of a socialist president, and a mob of black people raided the Department of Health and Human Services and stole all the food stamps.

Comment #16: Triplanetary  on  01/17  at  01:01 PM

”...you have to be wearing a white hood and holding a noose while shouting the n-word to be truly racist,”

...naw, it could still be a perfectly innocent college frat prank.  Really, the only way to know for sure someone is a racist is if they drag a black man behind a pickup for miles (under 1/2 mile still doesn’t count).

It used to be that burning a cross on a black family’s lawn was proof of racist intent, but I’m sure the SCOTUS will announce, any day now, a ruling that cross-burning is a form of political free speech and protected by law.  Naturally Clarence Thomas will write the majority opinion…

”...it makes me wonder, did anything happen in this country from 2000 to 2008?”

...except for NINE-ONE-ONE, THE WORSTEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO AMERICA, EVER!!!, no nothing of any importance happened during that mysterious gap in our collective memories.  Why do you ask?...

“Did we have a Preesident, and if so, what was his name?”

There are elite teams of political scientists still studying this, but the current working theory is somebody hit the fast-forward button on the country and we skipped right from The Clenis to the Kenyan Mooslim Usurper…

“These are people who never leave the country…”

...and in fact find people who have ever been outside the country to be suspicious. 

I’m sure it will be suggested soon that if someone ever left the country (even if in military service), this disqualifies them for presidential office.  As it should disqualify them — those traitors to everything good and fine and proper in America…

Comment #17: MikeEss  on  01/17  at  01:18 PM

Prediction: this won’t hurt the candidates with the Republican voters one yocto-iota

Comment #18: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/17  at  01:19 PM

It’s kind of hard to feel sorry for Juan Williams getting booed after his “Muslim garb” comment.  When you sleep with racist dogs, don’t be offended when their racist fleas bite you.

Comment #19: Albert Cirrus  on  01/17  at  01:21 PM

I’m shocked that Juan Williams went there. Considering how he makes his money I figured he walked around pretending like racism doesn’t exist to keep the checks rolling in.

Calling b-s on them is super important, but what I’d like to see is someone force these race baiting assholes to make a decision. If racism doesn’t exist and black people are just whining, why do they take such umbrage when someone even hints that they are racist? If racism doesn’t exist, then being called a racist should be about as insulting as being called the Tooth Fairy—a stupid thing to be called, but certainly not worth getting angry about. I would like to see someone ask one of them to break that one down for us.

Comment #20: serious bette  on  01/17  at  01:22 PM

Does it occur to these people that most of the southwest was part of Mexico once?  Many of the xenophobe Republicans were born in an area that was once Mexico.

Comment #21: Albert Cirrus  on  01/17  at  01:26 PM

I figured the booing about Romney’s dad being born in Mexico came from Romney supporters who felt the question was a cheap shot, but maybe I’m being too charitable. 

Amanda, are you for no restrictions on immigration at all?

Comment #22: DonnaDiva  on  01/17  at  01:27 PM

Looking at the past with clear eyes makes it obvious that the purported dangers of having more permeable borders are just so much nonsense, and that increasing restrictions on immigration is pretty much always tied to racist hostility, which is why we’ve had laws aimed, at different points in time, at keeping out Germans and Irish, Italians and Eastern Europeans, then Asians, and now Mexicans and South Americans.

This is a bit simplistic. If you haven’t already done so I recommend you read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. What you’ll find is that the rich have often used recent immigrants to undermine the conditions of workers who have been here longer. The opposition to this has indeed been put in derogatory terms on many occasions, but there has been an underlying reason for the complaints.

That is still true today. Big business are using illegal immigrants to put downwards pressure on salaries and working conditons. To say that immigrants are doing jobs Americans don’t want to do is true in a sense, but only because the salaries and working conditions are so bad. Big business , they just love the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants here and that should be a reason for leftists to reconsider their position. If you’re on the same side as them you’re doing something wrong.

The reasonable solution to this would be amnesty, followed by crackdowns on businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Just doing what we’re doing today with a significant amount of illegal immigrants in the US only serves Big Business.

Comment #23: librarian  on  01/17  at  01:39 PM

...except for NINE-ONE-ONE, THE WORSTEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO AMERICA, EVER!!!, no nothing of any importance happened during that mysterious gap in our collective memories.

You’re mistaken. There were no terrorist attacks while Bush was president. The 9/11 attacks may feel like they happened 10 years ago, but they definitely happened in 2009.

Comment #24: Triplanetary  on  01/17  at  01:57 PM

It’s kind of hard to feel sorry for Juan Williams getting booed after his “Muslim garb” comment.  When you sleep with racist dogs, don’t be offended when their racist fleas bite you

...and you wonder if he has just a bit of regret over calling NPR totalitarian or thought police or whatever when um…your new rethug friends want to…uh…lynch you.

Maybe NPR with its superego intact isn’t so bad compared to FOX’s monstrous, unbound Id.

Comment #25: KingElvis  on  01/17  at  02:35 PM

[M]y grandfather was born in Mexico and then moved to the U.S. as a child—-and my grandfather is all about this Tea Party stuff. Wonder if they’d boo him, too.

Yes.

Comment #26: Dr. Psycho  on  01/17  at  02:44 PM

21,

Does it occur to these people that most of the southwest was part of Mexico once?  Many of the xenophobe Republicans were born in an area that was once Mexico.

It’s cool because we totally took over the place when we decided we should have it.

Comment #27: ganews_  on  01/17  at  02:54 PM

Of course, Williams dropped the ball, because there’s a number of ways to challenge Gingrich’s lie about the President “putting” people on food stamps. You can ask, for instance, if he’s saying that the better solution is for poor people to starve. You could ask how people are going to make it to that job training he’s so up about if they’re going hungry. You could ask him if he sincerely believes that we have 9% unemployment because people prefer to get $150 a month in food stamps rather than have a job, and if so, why did the number of people that he believes “choose” not to work has doubled in the past four years. You could ask him when he’s getting a job, instead of living off direct mail donations. There’s many fun ways to go about this.

I don’t think that would work that well.  He’ll answer the two “hunger” points by claiming that people on food stamps have Cadillacs and large-screen TVs.  He will say that people prefer food stamps over a job because they’re free-loaders.  He’ll say that that much more people have chosen not to work over the past four years because of Obama.  And of course, he’ll say that he works more jobs than even Erick Erickson…

Comment #28: sacundim  on  01/17  at  03:01 PM

A caller on the Brian Lehrer show here in the NYC area said that all Newt Gingrich meant by his comment was that thanks to Obama’s mis-handling of the economy, more and more people need food stamps.  And that caller also complained about how people are always finding “subtexts” in comments, and they should only pay attention to the actual comment and not try to listen for dog-whistles.

So yeah.  What Jimmy (@#7) and MikeEss (@#17) said.

*

I guess one ‘conservative’ notion conservatives have left behind is pretty much anything associated with politeness or manners. - King Elvis

It’s “horrific impoliteness that indicates a shocking example of the decay of our culture” when someone dark skinned says/does it.  It’s “shrill” and “indicative of the divisive nature of liberal/progressive rhetoric as well as how hyper-polarized our political climate is” when a liberal/progressive says/does it.  It’s “refreshing honesty” and “a refusal to cow-tow to the forces of political correctness” when a white, male Republican does it (and more so when a token religious/ethnic minority or woman does it so long as whatever it is is offensive to members of the under-priviliged group in which the speaker is a member). 

Conservative “manners” are all about keeping people in their place and not about making social interactions pleasant.  The latter concept of manners and politeness is a communitarian notion that is, to reactionaries, “political correctness”.  After all social is the root of socialism, isn’t it? wink

Comment #29: DAS  on  01/17  at  03:07 PM

There is some magic tipping point where Republicans have pushed so many demographics out of their tent that it implodes.  Homophobic, racist white men are a shrinking proportion of population and like Fox viewers they are aging and dying out. These people don’t compromise and don’t play well with others, and at it is going to be interesting to see how the Republican party attempts to square the circle of attracting former minorities. and social liberal conservatives without alienating the crazies. At least I hope so anyway.

Comment #30: benjaminsa  on  01/17  at  04:35 PM

There is some magic tipping point where Republicans have pushed so many demographics out of their tent that it implodes.

Yeah. That’s why they’re freaking out so much now. They hit Peak Wingnut and kept on going when Obama was elected, not only because they’re shitting themselves over having a black president (though they are), but because they’re fully cognizant of what that fact represents. If a majority of Americans are comfortable with a black president, their racial fearmongering is more and more useless. But it’s too late to turn that car around. Here’s hoping they drive it right off the cliff.

Comment #31: Triplanetary  on  01/17  at  05:06 PM

Much if not most of the political, economic, industrial, and intellectual infrastructure that you hate so much will continue to persist under any (electable) Democratic administration.

Correct. If you think you’re making some kind of point, you don’t really understand the Pandagon user base. We’re not Democratic ideologues. When the Democrats fuck up, we’re just as critical. It just so happens that the Republicans fuck up a lot more, and in more dramatic ways.

Getting rid of the GOP won’t solve our country’s problems by a long shot, but it would be an incredibly helpful first step.

Comment #32: Triplanetary  on  01/17  at  05:30 PM

Re: Comment #34: Der Herr der Finsternis
You’ll be left with the Democratic Party i.e. the GOP.

No you will be left with four parties, a fractioned GOP and fractioned Democrates (the second Democrates cannot play the ‘vote for us or the wingnuts win’ card, Kucinichis/Nader/etc is no longer getting 1%): far right, right, left, far left. Which skews out the crazies and allows conservatives to be more liberal without having to drag the wingnuts with them, or at this point let them run it.

Comment #33: benjaminsa  on  01/17  at  06:38 PM

Like DonnaDiva said earlier, I figured the booing was of Juan Williams asking a question they didn’t like or considered a cheap shot, rather than of the concept that there’s an actual nation to our south, with people and everything.  Even so, it gets pretty close to booing the “uppity” “liberal media” guy for being uppity and liberal, which is gross in its own right.

Comment #34: FlipYrWhig  on  01/17  at  09:48 PM

Basically, IMHO they’re booing Juan Williams for his liberal bias and political correctness, both in this clip and in the Mexico one, which they’re on a hair-trigger about… because he’s black.

Comment #35: FlipYrWhig  on  01/17  at  09:50 PM

Isn’t it said that only Nixon could go to China?

You have to wonder if Juan thought he could pull this off and get unicorns and rainbows out of the GOP participants.

Comment #36: idiosynchronic  on  01/18  at  09:05 AM

Which scientific issues have the Democrats fucked up and not been called out on?

Comment #37: speedbudget  on  01/18  at  09:56 AM

Even more telling were the smirks of the faces of Bret Baier and…Mitt Romney.

Comment #38: Plantsmantx  on  01/18  at  10:44 AM

...“on the faces”, that is.

Comment #39: Plantsmantx  on  01/18  at  10:44 AM

librarian @ 23:
While it is true that the rich have always used newcomers to depress wages, having those newcomers be here illegally makes that so much worse and so much more easily abusive. 
If the workers are here illegally, they aren’t taking the jobs just because they are willing to work for less, but because they have few alternatives since higher paying jobs also tend to be more legitimate (and permanent) and have greater enfocement.  Legal immigrants can more easily leave a bad job, more easily complain of working conditions, more easily report actual crimes against them (assault, rape, false imprisonment via shop lockdowns, etc).
Amnesty wouldn’t solve the problems as those now legal would go to jobs covered by enforcement and a whole new batch of people would come in after them.  More permiable barriers would allow people to travel more freely, share more information of actual conditions, have legal redress, but yes, would like depress some wages in the open market.  The destruction of the underground labor market would make that worthwile IMO.

Comment #40: helen w. h.  on  01/18  at  10:50 AM

The only thing Teabaggers hate more than being called racist is black people.

Comment #41: Punditus Maximus  on  01/18  at  01:39 PM

Anyways, Juan Williams can go rot.  He picked his side.  He agrees with these people.

Comment #42: Punditus Maximus  on  01/18  at  01:39 PM

Correct. If you think you’re making some kind of point, you don’t really understand the Pandagon user base. We’re not Democratic ideologues. When the Democrats fuck up, we’re just as critical. It just so happens that the Republicans fuck up a lot more, and in more dramatic ways.

I think that’s the main difference between conservatives and ‘li-buh-rals,” if Obama or a Democrat does something I disagree with, I’ll say so. But the GOP will explain it away or rationalize how it’s not that bad because admitting they might be wrong means the leadership is fallible and this cuts off their manhood.

Comment #43: Neil C.  on  01/18  at  01:46 PM

The official GOP line is that 9/11 happened under Clinton.

Comment #44: Punditus Maximus  on  01/18  at  01:48 PM

No, but conservatives glorify it while liberals view it as one of many inputs into decisionmaking, and not a great one.

Comment #45: Punditus Maximus  on  01/18  at  02:30 PM

See here: http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/04/more-anti-science-democrats-or

Yeah, it’s a libertarian site and blah blah blah; too bad, the assertions in the article are sourced to relatively independent media.

Just read that article.

The anti-science that the right favors is not believing in evolution or not believing that climate change could be human-generated.

The “anti-science” that the left favors is being somewhat more opposed to nuclear power plants and *very slightly* more opposed to GM crops. 

In other words, the left is not ignorant of science.  They aren’t saying they don’t believe in nuclear power plants or GM crops.  They just don’t think they are as safe as the right does.

They’re choosing how we use science and saying “no” to these two specific examples of engineering.  This is very different from being stupid.  There is really no equivalence between the two positions.  “Believing” in evolution and “believing” in nuclear power are not comparable.

Both right and left are equally anti-vaxxer but supposedly the left started it or something so they are at fault.

Comment #46: oldfeminist  on  01/18  at  02:46 PM

yet unable to apply the same criticisms to critical theoretical notions that are fundamental to much of leftist politics in America, like “privilege”, showing that their acceptance or rejection of theories is not essentially based on epistemic principles like “making novel predictions” but “whatever supports my ideology”.

What’s your opposition to the concept of “privilege,” besides that liberals accept it? What makes it incorrect?

Comment #47: junk science  on  01/18  at  02:48 PM

junk science:

Exactly what I was going to ask. What’s wrong with the idea of privilege except that it makes some people feel dirty because it forces them to think about their place in the world?

Comment #48: BrianX  on  01/18  at  04:52 PM

Privilege is actually a straightforward concept, to the point of being blindingly obvious if you bother to let yourself think about it. It means that certain people are going to have an easier time of it in a culture than others, which means that those people need to be aware of how their own actions affect others with lesser privilege. There are things that, in our culture, that simply don’t happen to white males that are all too familiar to women or non-whites, that the white males seldom notice unless they’re alerted to them. That’s what privilege is, and to say it doesn’t matter is to imply that you really don’t care about anyone else’s experiences but your own.

Comment #49: BrianX  on  01/18  at  04:59 PM

I rarely if ever hear mention of recent economic findings from either side, like from econophysical modeling or behavioral economics (including behavioral game theory), just the same old-same old neoclassical vs. Keynesian debate. Why is this not happening?

1) You’re just flat-out wrong; discussions around saving for individual families rely on “Nudge,” for example, fairly often.

2) Econophysical modeling is a fancy way of assuming one’s conclusions.

3) Behavioral economics has nothing to do with the fundamental macroeconomic questions facing government.  Keynesian theory explains macroeconomic fluctuations well, but has to be rejected by conservatives for ideological reasons.  So we’re stuck with people who have a pretty good model (Keynesianism and neo-Keynesianism) being shouted down by people with an agenda. 

HTH; HAND.

 

 

Comment #50: Punditus Maximus  on  01/18  at  06:21 PM

Sorry, I don’t accept appeals to “obviousness”.

Okay, but I assume you aren’t going to bother to accept studies which consistently show that groups that Pandagon would list as “disfavored” facing worse job and health outcomes, then where are we?  You’ve rejected thought experiments, and you’ve rejected empiricism.  At that point, it’s just about what you want to believe.  So . . . congrats.  You don’t want to believe in privilege, so you don’t.  That’s perfectly sound, from your perspective, and so long as you don’t care whether or not you understand the world as it exists, you’re fine.

 

Comment #51: Punditus Maximus  on  01/18  at  06:24 PM

Shorter Der Herr:

Dance, monkeys, dance!

Comment #52: syfr  on  01/18  at  06:56 PM

Der Herr:

I accuse you of:

-misusing the term “ad hominem”
-playing the credential card when you know damn well we can’t verify that (the Essjay gambit)
-“what about teh menz”
-using condescension as an argument

Ladies and gentlemen of the grand jury, based on the evidence before you, I ask you to bring back a charge of trolling in the first degree against Der Her der Finsternis.

Comment #53: BrianX  on  01/18  at  07:21 PM

You should know I’m not actually debating you, because it’s pointless to debate someone like you. You already Know, so so I’m not keen on pissing up that particular flagpoles.

Comment #54: BrianX  on  01/18  at  08:03 PM

What the bloody hell is your point, except to make you look like even more of a troll (and a bit of a creeper at that)?

Comment #55: BrianX  on  01/18  at  08:34 PM

Nah, you know what, I don’t even need to know what your point is. The voices in your head must be a particularly loopy lot.

Comment #56: BrianX  on  01/18  at  08:39 PM

It’s about as relevant as trolling by leaving innocuous comments on an open blog to prove a point that makes sense only to you.

Comment #57: BrianX  on  01/18  at  08:50 PM

Again, you seem to think I’m debating you. I prefer not to pretend to deal in good faith with JAQoffs.

Comment #58: BrianX  on  01/18  at  09:02 PM

See, I know how this plays out, as does, I’m sure, everyone else on Pandagon. You come in, make your point, get it torn to shreds and refuse to admit it, then leave secure in the knowledge that you’re superior to all that rabble. You are literally every troll on an online skeptic’s forum ever. “The only way to win is not to play”... but maybe I don’t care about winning.

Comment #59: BrianX  on  01/18  at  09:09 PM

/me adds tone-trolling and straw men to the grand jury docket, then takes a drink

Comment #60: BrianX  on  01/18  at  09:18 PM

Also, please don’t lie about the contents of references you don’t like. You know damn well that page doesn’t say what you say it says.

Comment #61: BrianX  on  01/18  at  09:20 PM

1. Why should I respond in any substance? You’re not arguing in good faith.
2. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off Pay special attention to the bit about “leading questions”.

Fuck along now.

Comment #62: BrianX  on  01/18  at  09:28 PM

Get a life.

Comment #63: BrianX  on  01/18  at  09:33 PM

I’m done with this doofus. Anyone else want to take a few whacks?

Comment #64: BrianX  on  01/18  at  09:38 PM

Ahem.

The clear inability to understand the learned brilliance of my artesian analysis is typical of the thredonic anterior literal parsing endemic to the simple minisentience community, which is sadly all too common.

Were you asymmetrically threaded determinoids contelted to fanspan my Havian formulations it would be clear - as it would be to anyone who is not a hominid such as your selves - that the logical reputability of all that is said by an intelligence that is not my self is a clear usurpatation of the umbillicus school of logic.

This much is clear.

Comment #65: AugusteHenri  on  01/18  at  09:58 PM

I’m pretty sure unwarranted self-importance is, by definition, not earned.

Comment #66: BrianX  on  01/18  at  10:10 PM

How long have you been off your meds?

Comment #67: BrianX  on  01/18  at  10:18 PM

As noted, there have been repeated attempts to derail the sententient spodel reason of dermata.

Within the multi-phasic synecdoche approach, there is a classic ambiguation of elegance, obfuscating the relevance of neo-zoroastrian knowledge - in the strictest sense.

Therefore, for those of us who can follow - few enough it seems - the brilliance remains unparsed by meaning.

Expressing pre-lapsarian sense beneath the obscuring umbra of the RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) and the appalling inelegance of the C++ we are subjected to - nearly supple - removal of all that makes us able. We weep.

Comment #68: AugusteHenri  on  01/18  at  10:19 PM

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain
Doesn’t require much intelligence to be one.

Well played sir, well played indeed.  A resounding huzzauh and a bright sound of coronets.

A reposte that is erudite, yet without form or the constraint of palid sentience.

Withal we must acknowledge - even those of us also in the intelligence game - that a master of the pater linguas - the veritable armor vegetalis - has spoken. Spoken with glorious simplicity.

 

Comment #69: AugusteHenri  on  01/18  at  10:40 PM

Ah. Seroquel. Say no more. If I were you, though, I’d let the doctor know that isn’t working too well for you.

Comment #70: BrianX  on  01/18  at  10:54 PM

Indeed. How much time are you spending on your own ripostes? (Geez, you’d think someone with apparent pretensions to be a Francophile might be able to spell French words

Ah sir, I bow before your magnificence. You have tumbled it - my handle is but a sham. I am not in truth a Francophone. It is but a stolen garment.

I am of the suspicion that you are an eminence such as a Bernard Henri Levi. Do you - with swoons I ask this - perhaps neglect to fully fasten your shirt buttons?

I must only with humility ask this - did you perhaps err in your spelling of the name of the entity Jesus?

Aside, I am dazzled.

Comment #71: AugusteHenri  on  01/18  at  10:58 PM

@Der Herr, the problem with using behavioral anything in policy analysis is that there is almost no predictive capacity.  The primary findings of behavioral economics are:

A) Individuals do not utility-maxmize across known preferences with concave utility functions, so micro is pretty much all wrong, and

B) Ad-hoc functions used to describe (A)‘s deviations vary enormously across individuals, social groups, populations, and nationalities.

There’s no predictive capacity there, just a (vital) acknowledgement that the approximations of Marshallian Economics are just too heroic to leave insight behind.  We get some notions of trends (people have a hard time with nonsecured credit, for example) but few insights as to, for example, how one ends 9% unemployment in a robust and sustainable fashion.

Economics as a discipline exists because of the Great Depression.  The Great Depression proved two things: 1) Say’s Law* is false, and 2) The “short run” could continue indefinitely.

Right now, policy debates are between people who say Say’s Law is true and Keynesians.  That is, policy debates are nonscientific, because one side of the debate is about ignoring the data.

@BrianX: the meds comment was cobaggy.  If you don’t view Der Herr as worth engaging, then don’t.  If you think it’s useful to talk about some of the stuff he’s discussing without necessarily worrying about persuading him, then do.  But don’t do foolish ad homs based on mental health, which are an ancient tactic for silencing valid criticism and thus grant him status at your expense.

*Wiki it.

Comment #72: Punditus Maximus  on  01/18  at  11:14 PM

Punditus:

Having my own significant mental issues, I reserve the right. (No, I suppose you can’t verify that.) I don’t completely disagree with you though. And he did dox me.

Comment #73: BrianX  on  01/18  at  11:20 PM

@Der Herr—the answer for econophysics is just one based on personal experience with the modelers and watching them work.  The models are so complex, and the data so sparse, that very little gets effectively predicted that wasn’t built in.  It’s like trying to create models of weather with a thousandth the information the models that our meterologists use to manage to get five days ahead.  And don’t get me wrong!  That’s vital info.  But economists are here to make meterologists look good.

One of the most difficult questions of economics is, “Are the current prices in xxx market a bubble?”  Unfortunately, behavioral econ doesn’t seem to give us any special insight, even as it makes reactive claims about what did happen in the stock market.

The primary non-basic-research purpose of economics is to avoid and manage depressions.  The fact that we failed to avoid one, and are managing this current one poorly, is a profound indictment of the economics profession.  Now, the Keynesians have been proven right about what a “liquidity trap” means in important ways.  But the debate is so adulterated by the equivalent of tobacco industry smoking studies that the profession is collectively discredited.  And I say this as a practicing member.

Comment #74: Punditus Maximus  on  01/19  at  12:45 AM

Being a neckbeard isn’t in the DSM

“Narcissistic criteria

The grandiosity section of the Diagnostic Interview for Narcissism (DIN) (Second edition) is as follows:[3]

  The person exaggerates talents, capacity and achievements in an unrealistic way.
  The person believes in his/her invulnerability or does not recognise his/her limitations.
  The person has grandiose fantasies.
  The person believes that he/she does not need other people.
  The person overexamines and downgrades other people, projects, statements, or dreams in an unrealistic manner. 

  The person regards himself/herself as unique or special when compared to other people.
  The person regards himself/herself as generally superior to other people.
  The person behaves self-centeredly and/or self-referentially.
  The person behaves in a boastful or pretentious way.

Securely buttressed by such self-beliefs, ‘in a grandiose identity…all that is unpleasant to my self-image I can ditch. I can look down my nose with contempt at the child-like ways of my fellows, and I can get rid of my infantile self by pushing somewhere’[4] outside myself. However the downside to putting myself into a grandiose state is that ‘the grandiose self is extremely vulnerable, and…if something does not go my way, I make a great fuss, because I am a king who has been frustrated.”

Comment #75: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  01/19  at  01:42 AM

You know, one of the cooler bits of var’aq was that it’s close enough to PostScript that if you swap out the keywords and did a little tweaking of the parsing logic, you get a near-subset of PostScript that’s great for playing around with it on the command line instead of having to badger your printer about it. Either way, programming it has a nice little rhythm—it’s basically dataflow programming. The only thing that embarrasses me about that project is that I had to ask someone else to write the parsing logic because I couldn’t quite do it myself with my limited Perl experience.

Comment #76: BrianX  on  01/19  at  02:50 AM

Oh, look, another Internet psychiatrist. Too bad none of the four real psychiatrists I’ve seen in the past few months stuck me with that label.                 

Too bad I didn’t say I was a psychiatrist, but I’ve had paranoid ideation once, does that count?

I merely found a suitable description of what I’ve observed here about you, smart-ass, or should I say, Amy Pond.

Comment #77: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  01/19  at  09:32 AM

No, I just doubt that you yourself have intelligence in general, the Internets is full of stalkers who don’t have your vocabulary or education, so your point is?

Comment #78: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  01/19  at  09:50 AM

He’s been deleted and banned.

Comment #79: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/19  at  10:16 AM

I’m actually sorry to have missed this exchange section.  I don’t think I’d have taken part, but I could use an excuse for popcorn.  Does popcorn need an excuse?

Comment #80: helen w. h.  on  01/19  at  10:42 AM

Nah. Just a lunchbag and a microwave.

Comment #81: BrianX  on  01/19  at  12:07 PM

cool

Comment #82: helen w. h.  on  01/20  at  12:13 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.