|
SedanChair posted:That's literally using economic coercion to shape the presentation of ideas, which is repellent. Think about how it's been applied to ideas you'd agree with in the past. True academic freedom has always been a myth, but I'd like it to become more real. Academic freedom is a noble ideal, but it's subject to limiting factors, like everything else in life. Supposing HHH did some good work as a PHD student/post-grad, survived a probationary period, and got tenure: that still doesn't mean he should be immune from any consequences from being whatever brand of awful he is within his chosen institution. Carte blanche for professors to say whatever they like, whenever they like, is a bizarre hill to die upon. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Mar 16, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Academic freedom is a noble ideal, but it's subject to limiting factors, like everything else in life. Supposing HHH did some good work as a PHD student/post-grad, survived a probationary period, and got tenure, that still doesn't mean he should be immune from any consequences from being whatever brand of awful he is within his chosen institution. Carte blanche for professors to say whatever they like, whenever they like, is a bizarre hill to die upon. I cannot condone this. If a university becomes run by actively awful people, such as for example public universities in a state where an evil fucker appoints the board, I would not be delighted to see a purge of everyone that loves goodness and/or the human race.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Academic freedom is a noble ideal, but it's subject to limiting factors, like everything else in life. Supposing HHH did some good work as a PHD student/post-grad, survived a probationary period, and got tenure, that still doesn't mean he should be immune from any consequences from being whatever brand of awful he is within his chosen institution. Carte blanche for professors to say whatever they like, whenever they like, is a bizarre hill to die upon. There are specific issues that spring from it being a state school, since that means that the university's actions are effectively government actions. And ultimately it looks like the school backed down. But it's still hilarious how upset he got about being punished for his beliefs about how great and important it is to punish people for their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The evidence does not suggest a more complicated answer - everything else is minor factors compared to the food availability. They primarily control how much farther things might go once the increased food availability has already happened and had time to settle. Then show that instead of just asserting it as true like some dipshit libertarian. Now that you've acknowledged that there are all of these other contributing effects, show that they're inconsequential or somehow show that your effect is the only one of importance. Or at least try to do that, don't just handwave and expect people to agree with you. Your laziness does not earn you the right to be smug, you get that right after you've done the work to prove your claim that all other effects can be ignored. Unfortunately, you've phrased your argument so weakly that I just need to provide at least one other thing that has a meaningful impact on average calorie consumption. I've already done this in the form of gut microbiomes, and since your gut microbiome is heavily influenced by what you eat it basically shows that what you eat has a big effect on how much you eat. But we can do something even simpler and point out that vegetarians have an obesity rate that is roughly half of non-vegetarians; these are people with availability to the same foods but who choose a restricted diet. Ergo, what you eat must have a significant impact on how much you eat (calorie-wise). If food availability was the only significant factor then vegetarians should have the same obesity rates as everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I cannot condone this. If a university becomes run by actively awful people, such as for example public universities in a state where an evil fucker appoints the board, I would not be delighted to see a purge of everyone that loves goodness and/or the human race. I imagined HHH as an anomaly who felt the need to insert homosexuality into a lecture about economics, and speculate about the intentions of one of the formative economists of the modern world order. I wouldn't want him suppressed, but if the administration took a dim view of him (i.e. class scheduling etc.), nothing would be lost. One might say the same approach could be applied to communist-type professors. But I've had communist professors. They've done their jobs (brilliantly, in two cases) without issue, because they've felt no need to slag off blacks or gays or whatever. Academic freedom is truly worthwhile, but it's no more absolute than the first or second amendments. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I imagine it was his supercilious, icy tone and what sounds like an extremely sarcastic follow-up lecture explaining how he is not a bigot that really caused his problems. But I think he should be free to do even that. It's certainly possible to grade professors on performance once they're granted tenure, but I don't believe that causing controversy or offense in classrooms should be criteria. Otherwise women's studies would be in serious trouble. Would you feel the same if a professor pointed to a black student and said "niggers like that young man are simply incapable of thinking past tomorrow"? Academic freedom is not a free license to say or do whatever the you want, especially if the content in question isn't relevant to the subject being taught. If a professor of women's studies came into class and lacquers for an hour and a half about how the "fourth reich needs to finish gassing all the kikes" then yeah, the college has every right to terminate her if they see fit. I don't think that Hoppe did anything near that bad, but being a professor isn't an unassailable position immune from criticism and they aren't entitled to their position as professor either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I cannot condone this. If a university becomes run by actively awful people, such as for example public universities in a state where an evil fucker appoints the board, I would not be delighted to see a purge of everyone that loves goodness and/or the human race. Neither would I, that'd be terrible. In a sense, this story boils down to an overlord saying to his vassal, "try to be slightly less awful to your serfs, or we'll have words."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Then show that instead of just asserting it as true like some dipshit libertarian. The science already shows that. This was covered in depth in multiple threads in the past. The whole reason this line of discussion even started is because we had yet another person in here post about "well it's the processing" which is long debunked bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The science already shows that. What science? You're refusing to post it because it doesn't exist, simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The science already shows that. THEN POST IT YOU loving DIPSHIT IT'S CALLED THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR A REASON
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What science? You're refusing to post it because it doesn't exist, simple as that. I'm not bothering to post it because it's already been gone over plenty. But y'all insist on defending the idiot who was like "it's the processing!!". (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I'm not bothering to post it because it's already been gone over plenty. But y'all insist on defending the idiot who was like "it's the processing!!". Reported for bad faith arguing (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Would you feel the same if a professor pointed to a black student and said "niggers like that young man are simply incapable of thinking past tomorrow"? Well no, any more than I would if he did it in the case I'm talking about. Hoppe didn't attack a student like that, he expounded upon the asinine reasoning on which he's built his entire career. Students are right to be offended, but slinking off and filing a complaint seems like the worst possible way to deal with it. Publish an article in the student paper, or nowadays you could just use social media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Reported for bad faith arguing Weird coming from someone who was actually arguing in bad faith, aka you. Seriously folks you don't need to cite things like "water is wet", "states are good" and "people have gotten fat because food has become more available".
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Weird coming from someone who was actually arguing in bad faith, aka you. Seriously folks you don't need to cite things like "water is wet", "states are good" and "people have gotten fat because food has become more available". "Water is wet" is tautological, so I'm going to ignore that, but "states are good?" That's a pretty damned nontrivial statement right there! You absolutely should have a supporting argument and evidence to back that up. And we do! Look at all the arguments we've had with JRod, and you'll find multiple substantial posts written on that very subject. All they're asking is for you to do the same. All I'm asking is for you to shut the gently caress up about food and talk about libertarianism, but I'm even less likely to get my wish than them, so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:"Water is wet" is tautological, so I'm going to ignore that, but "states are good?" That's a pretty damned nontrivial statement right there! You absolutely should have a supporting argument and evidence to back that up. And we do! Look at all the arguments we've had with JRod, and you'll find multiple substantial posts written on that very subject. All they're asking is for you to do the same. All I'm asking is for you to shut the gently caress up about food and talk about libertarianism, but I'm even less likely to get my wish than them, so whatever. No, "states are good" is a pretty obvious statement dude. While the anarchists of the 19th century were well meaning, they just couldn't think outside of what the typical pseudo-democratic European states of the day were doing,
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Too many arguments going on and I don't care about foodchat. So, regarding HHH and academic freedom: If The Game said something like "Keynes is a flawed economist, and much of his ideas were influenced by his homosexuality," and used this as a lead into a discussion about economics and/or homosexuality, then this is a controversial statement that I think should be protected and not punished. If The Game said something like "Keynes is a goddamned human being and faggots don't know poo poo about anything other than loving each other up the rear end, and you, [student] are a loving human being and will tear this country apart with your statist faggotry," then I think he should definitely be shown the door. If you're going to bring up controversial opinions in a class for discussion, you need to foster the environment for it, encourage students to speak their minds, challenge them on their beliefs, but not berate them. You can't shame a student for asking you to clarify a point. The answer to the question "Why?" should never be "Are you stupid?" In other words, if a professor walked into a classroom and started preaching his bigotry and bullshit; he should totally get the boot. On the flip side, students should learn to engage ideas that challenge their beliefs, or are uncomfortable and offensive; and learn to differentiate between someone engaging and challenging their ideas as opposed to someone being a racist asshat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, "states are good" is a pretty obvious statement dude. While the anarchists of the 19th century were well meaning, they just couldn't think outside of what the typical pseudo-democratic European states of the day were doing,  Tell me more you legendary historian of political thought
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Neither would I, that'd be terrible. In a sense, this story boils down to an overlord saying to his vassal, "try to be slightly less awful to your serfs, or we'll have words." That makes more sense and is a thing I am okay with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:
Ah, so you're an anrchist. How do you explain the fact that anarchism has always failed due to states being inherently better at getting their aims across than anarchist societies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We're talking about an Austrian economist, so behavioral studies are right out. UNLV doesn't get to complain about it either, because when you pay for an Austrian that's printed right on the label. And if he had presented "negroids have higher time preference" in a way that allows for discussion, the same standards should apply. I'll admit that I simply assumed he was charitably rephrasing the time preference concept, and that at the time he said it in a more glib or dismissive manner. It's likely that this "commissar" that Hoppe is so pissy about also did not explain that, e.g. the time preference idea implies that homosexual couples who adopt children can't be as concerned about their future as biological parents, which is a way gay people are often told they're less human. In this case, it was using  to diminish someone's ideas. No wonder the student thought the professor would his concerns away. But if he doesn't understand why it was insensitive, then just saying he's insensitive and needs training doesn't help him learn what was wrong with what he said, so of course he'll be resistant and flip out instead of cooperating and learning better pedagogy skills. I think that University faculty need sensitivity training training, which teaches sensitivity trainers to broach sensitivity training in a way that people who need the training can understand.
Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ah, so you're an anrchist. How do you explain the fact that anarchism has always failed due to states being inherently better at getting their aims across than anarchist societies? Actually I'm a communist that's getting really interested in anarcho-syndicalism, but I really couldn't give you much answer from that perspective either. Also drunk, but at least I don't make HUGE philosophical and behavioral assertions and never give evidence for them. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
For the record, I am an anarcho-statist. Smash the Individual.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:For the record, I am an anarcho-statist. Smash the Individual. Anarcho-syndical-statist-capitalist-feudalist-communist
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Actually I'm a communist that's getting really interested in anarcho-syndicalism, but I really couldn't give you much answer from that perspective either. Also drunk, but at least I don't make HUGE philosophical and behavioral assertions and never give evidence for them. Anarcho-syndicalism is another outdated proposition. You need a state so long as there's billions of people in the world and the resources aren't near equally spread around. Anarchism doesn't scale up high enough to work with the world of 1950, let alone 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I found a followup to the Hoppe article. It's Stephen Kinsella providing details on the assault on Hoppe by egalitarian Bolshevik totalitarian slobbish stupid college kids. Of particular note is where he calls mediation and sensitivity training "being sent to a reeducation camp." I love how everything in libertarian thought is always cranked all the way up. Nothing is ever an inconvenience, or poorly designed, or a bad idea. Everything that happens is always fascist thugs with guns dragging you away to the gas chambers. Speaking of which: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/walter-e-block/libertarians-trump/
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I'm not bothering to post it because it's already been gone over plenty. But y'all insist on defending the idiot who was like "it's the processing!!". Please show me on the doll where the food hippie touched you fishmech. Sorry guys there's no real way you could have known this but "processed" "organic" and "aspartame" are all pretty severe trigger words for fishmech here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
This is unsurprising to me: the shithead libertarian friends-of-friends I see on social media are mostly pro-Trump because he "tells it like it is". Turns out being big government isn't a problem at all as long as you hate all the right people and promise big government will spend its time suppressing them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ah, so you're an anrchist. How do you explain the fact that anarchism has always failed due to states being inherently better at getting their aims across than anarchist societies? If you're going to denounce anarchist Spain for falling to Franco you also need to denounce the liberal-democratic and socialist sections of the Republic as well. Same goes for the Free Territory and the various breakaway states that were eventually re-subsumed into the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Ormi posted:If you're going to denounce anarchist Spain for falling to Franco you also need to denounce the liberal-democratic and socialist sections of the Republic as well. Same goes for the Free Territory and the various breakaway states that were eventually re-subsumed into the USSR. There have been many more anarchist attempts than just Catalonia, dude. They all met a bad end, while there's been liberal democratic countries going for over a century and socialist states for at least half at one. Anarchism can only "work" at all in a world where states don't already exist, and are likely to be out maneuvered once states form again due to their inherent usefulness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
I'm a bad libertarian and never bothered cared about Hoppe or reading his poo poo. Is present or future time preference the bad one?GreyjoyBastard posted:I cannot condone this. If a university becomes run by actively awful people, such as for example public universities in a state where an evil fucker appoints the board, I would not be delighted to see a purge of everyone that loves goodness and/or the human race. Yeah. It's a very dangerous road to go down. I don't see how Hoppe's statement could get him fired without also firing Peter Singer for condoning infanticide but tenure exists for a really good reason. At one point in the past saying "it's okay to be gay or black" was super controversial and at times still is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 06:17
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
fishmech posted:There have been many more anarchist attempts than just Catalonia, dude. They all met a bad end, while there's been liberal democratic countries going for over a century and socialist states for at least half at one. I'm not aware of this staggering list of anarchist failures, just two experiments crushed in the midst of their civil wars, like all of their neighbors. Maybe you can include the Paris Commune on this list, and indict the EZLN for failing to surpass the living standards of the developed world in Chiapas. In any case, anarchist polities are subject to the same constraints as any state, and just because the two real examples couldn't survive in the particular context they arose in doesn't mean they failed because of their political configuration. It doesn't demonstrate a causal link between anarchism and military weakness– to say so is ideology. We don't make the same assumption about liberal democracy, and it's not because there are more of them, but because it's intellectually dishonest and something that liberal democracy and republicanism themselves had to endure for centuries from monarchists and other such reactionaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I'm not aware of this staggering list of anarchist failures, just two experiments crushed in the midst of their civil wars, like all of their neighbors. Maybe you can include the Paris Commune on this list, and indict the EZLN for failing to surpass the living standards of the developed world in Chiapas. In any case, anarchist polities are subject to the same constraints as any state, and just because the two real examples couldn't survive in the particular context they arose in doesn't mean they failed because of their political configuration. It doesn't demonstrate a causal link between anarchism and military weakness– to say so is ideology. We don't make the same assumption about liberal democracy, and it's not because there are more of them, but because it's intellectually dishonest and something that liberal democracy and republicanism themselves had to endure for centuries from monarchists and other such reactionaries. Iceland operated with no state for an extended period of time - it sucked hard. And anarchist communes have existed within many countries and have fallen apart on their own before any state intervention got involved. And I'm not talking about military weakness here buddy, I'm talking all around inability to function. In order to function long term, the number of people involved needs to be very low, else people start disagreeing and breaking off too quickly. And then it's a free for all, which usually means people with bad intentions can act with impunity. Essentially, long term anarchism can only exist in a dreamworld where everybody is already a committed anarchist who shares the same ideas as everyone else, and no one ever decides to change their mind that way. The second someone forms a statelet, they can quickly build power to overwhelm anarchists around them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Iceland operated with no state for an extended period of time - it sucked hard. And anarchist communes have existed within many countries and have fallen apart on their own before any state intervention got involved. The Icelandic Commonwealth was an example of warlordism under a common customary legal code, not anarchism. Anarchism, as a branch of libertarian socialism, necessitates an agro-industrial base of some kind, and mass worker organization. This means that people starting intentional communities based around various libertarian principles also isn't an example of anarchism; it is instead utopianism. So you're left with the two examples of Spain and Ukraine which people actually argue over in reality, and which were overran by Franco and Trotsky respectively before any of the claims you're making about them were made manifest to observers. Meaning you are, in fact, talking about military weakness as following from anarchist politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Ormi posted:The Icelandic Commonwealth was an example of warlordism under a common customary legal code, not anarchism. Anarchism, as a branch of libertarian socialism, necessitates an agro-industrial base of some kind, and mass worker organization. This means that people starting intentional communities based around various libertarian principles also isn't an example of anarchism; it is instead utopianism. So you're left with the two examples of Spain and Ukraine which people actually argue over in reality, and which were overran by Franco and Trotsky respectively before any of the claims you're making about them were made manifest to observers. Meaning you are, in fact, talking about military weakness as following from anarchist politics. Anarchism necessitates being unable societies in the millions of people, let alone global society of billions. States remain necessary unless you truly possess mind control. Also, nice dodge to try to say Iceland and various parts of 2000s Somalia don't count as anarchism because they weren't one of your preferred flavors! That's one of the problems with anarchism : you can't stop people from practicing a different sort of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Who could forget Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Northern Expedition, against the rampant anarchism tearing China apart. Just failures left and right!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
"Oh hey, 90 new posts! Something new must have happened-" Libertarian/Jrodefeld thread: Fat Foodchat
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Anarcho-syndicalism Oh boy!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I'm not bothering to post it because it's already been gone over plenty. But y'all insist on defending the idiot who was like "it's the processing!!". "evidence can only support my position, if evidence does not support my position then it's wrong, so I don't need to bother providing evidence" -- libertarian dipshits everywhere, also fishmech No one even made that "it's the processing" argument. No, seriously, go back and you'll find people saying "yes it's the overeating but the overeating has a lot of causes" over and over. At no point did anyone claim that people are fat solely because they eat processed food. At this point I don't even care anymore, you've made yourself look so stupid that there's not even anything else for me to do. You're at jrod levels of idiotic unawareness but in a lot fewer words, which is refreshing. With you it's like watching a dog chase its tail QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Less than 24 hours before Jrode is un-probated! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 09:41
|
|