[FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Prof David West]

Mea Culpa - you are absolutely correct that the vegan straw man (pun kinda actually intended) was a silly thing to raise and makes me guilty of the same errors I chastise in others.

It would be an interesting exercise to enumerate the actual individuals I am lumping into "They," but it would have to be more nuanced than simply "in" or "out." Categories would include active story tellers, e.g. Schiff, bruised egos, e.g. Hillary, partisan sharks smelling blood in the water, pundits protecting a reputation, distancing opponents, e.g. the Democratic presidential hopefuls, etc. — because it is never black and white.

Pelosi would not make the collection, except maybe as a "prisoner of circumstances."

The most distressing, to me, aspect of what is happening is that the discussion - rational on both sides, critical of both sides, has been reduced to a pretty much exclusive focus on one office and one individual. It is impossible to have an informative discussion about actions taken by the individual, in historical context, in terms of philosophy, policy, and context. 

I was speaking recently with a friend whose profession is political historian. She was comparing Trump and JFK with regards actions in the areas of nepotism (and generally trusting family and "cronies" over political professionals) and the intelligence community (both men spoke ill of it and ignored it). Interesting stuff, but she could not imagine such a discussion getting attention, or getting published, in today's black and white rhetorical context.

davew


On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, at 5:52 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> I guess we don't disagree nearly as much as I inferred from your 
> earlier post. But I also worry about the narratives surrounding Schiff. 
> I agree that AOC is more rational. But many of the right-wing sites are 
> claiming Pelosi is as questionable as Schiff. And I disagree 
> completely. Pelosi is partisan. But everything I've seen her do seems 
> completely above board. So, if there are credible complaints against 
> Schiff, those making them should, themselves, be rational -- specific 
> and particular -- rather than painting all Democrats with the same 
> brush. If you're serious about your 500-1000 particular people, it 
> helps to name a few inside that set and name a few outside that set. If 
> you did that, you could come up with a better name for that set than 
> "they".
> 
> It's the over the top rhetoric that's causing the problem. E.g. when 
> you say things like:
> 
> On 11/10/19 1:26 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > They dismiss ideas, like solving the cow flatulence problem by banning meat and making everyone a vegetarian/vegan, as nonsense,  ...
> 
> You're installing that straw man, that anyone's seriously suggested 
> banning meat and forcing everyone to be veg, into your rhetoric. And 
> those little rhetorical injections color/weaken the whole argument. The 
> farmers and ranchers I've talked to are *also* committed to 
> conservation, including exploring ideas like no-till and organic pest 
> control. The same's true of sport hunters and fishermen, who often side 
> with environmentalists against things like motorcycles and atvs in the 
> woods.
> 
> So why inject the silly straw man? Why not try to construct your best 
> representation of the "other side"? E.g. it's clear that *reducing* 
> meat in the 1st world diet would help a little with climate change. But 
> removing meat altogether presents lots of problems, problems we could 
> work on if people would quit their bad faith characterizations of the 
> other side.
> 
> On 11/10/19 12:59 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > is dead on, with a minor caveat: ... rational people should welcome rational challenges ...
> > 
> > What Schiff, and the 500-1000 people I am including in "They" is not rational - it is emotional and ego-driven.
> > 
> > Based on her questioning of several Trump admin witnesses, Ocasio-Cortez should be leading the impeachment effort  - quiet, informed, questions that clearly demonstrate the errors of the other side — rational challenges absent all the ad hominen rhetoric. It would quickly be obvious to the majority of the population why Trump should be removed. And, in the short run, it would give the Republicans the grounds for actually supporting impeachment and convicting — something that will never happen with  the toxic-partisan Schiff-led efforts.
> 
> 
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>