[FRIAM] Liberal dilemmas
Eric Charles
eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com
Thu Sep 2 13:15:24 EDT 2021
It didn't seem like you to be implying that sort of thing, which is why I
phrased it in terms of what I am used to seeing (rather than ascribing such
motives to you). Thanks for the clarification!
<echarles at american.edu>
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 12:56 PM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that I'm confident in the concept of
> progression. I'm not, as my rants against concepts like the singularity and
> risks of fascism in the US *should* indicate. I don't think anyone's better
> off, despite the empty rhetoric of Pinker et al.
>
> But I do believe in dynamism. The world today is very different from the
> world of yesterday. To think otherwise would be a bit foolish, I think.
> And, along with that, the *modes* of behavior of yesterday will mostly not
> apply today. ... "mostly" is an important, and purposefully vague, part of
> that sentence. I have no idea what modes translate across time (or space)
> and what modes do not. That's one of the sources of my pluralism and
> pragmatic rejection of monism.
>
> As for the particular of access to hot springs. I think it's kindof
> offensive for us to assume we should be able to pollute nature at will.
> Sure, the fittest and richest amongst us will always be able to pollute
> everything, toss cars into space, shit on Mt. Everest, etc. But if there
> are limits to access, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. I can't do as
> many pull-ups as I'd like. And Dave can't navigate to hot springs. Big
> deal. Get over it.
>
>
> On 9/2/21 9:45 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> > I'm interested in what's behind that "obsolete" and "left behind" talk.
> Usually I see that kind of language in a Progressive context, where it is
> used to indicate that things are moving in The Right Direction, and that
> they are Better Now than they were before, and that the people hurting
> and/or complaining just don't appreciate - gosh darn it - how much better
> off they are.
> >
> > Workers complaining that OSHA codes make it harder to electrocute
> themselves to death; fire codes making it harder for Mrs. O'Leary's cow to
> torch a whole city; etc.
> >
> > Is that what is happening in these situations? Or is it more like a
> bunch of automatons on a restless random walk, while some other
> automatons want to stay where they are?
> >
> > Where does: Making it harder for disabled people to access hot springs
> on public land fall on that spectrum?
> >
> >
> > <mailto:echarles at american.edu>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:50 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I do feel pity for Dave and the obsolete people/modes being
> left behind. Nostalgia is difficult. On his deathbed, with so much time to
> sit and think about dying, my dad finally admitted that his "type A
> personality" was an artifact of the circumstances within which he was
> reared ('30s). And it wasn't at all successful under the
> circumstances/times in which me and my sister were reared. My sister took
> something more like Marcus' stance, an unvarnished "get with the program".
> I took a more apathetic stance, "you're gonna to die soon, anyway, at which
> your pain will end."
> >
> > I feel the same way when I see lions at the zoo, once glorious
> masters on the Serengeti, now pathetic creatures burdened with claws and
> teeth and nobody to fight with. It's truly sad. But it's also terrifying to
> me. Am *I* capable of recognizing the signal when it comes my way? Or am I
> destined to be a scared little snowflake, hiding in my nostalgia? ...
> aggrieved, petulant, and burdened with my teeth and claws?
> >
> > I took a morning walk to downtown Olympia right after the pandemic.
> I walk/run around 6am. As I was returning, walking, a man in a black
> gaiter, sunglasses, and black hoodie, covered so well I couldn't see any of
> his flesh ... hell, I don't even know if it was a man. Was walking toward
> me. I didn't think much of it at the time. There was a new building across
> the street with some weird structure (e.g. a kitchen on the 1st floor with
> no other rooms attached ... WTF?). So I crossed to peer through the various
> floor to ceiling plate glass windows to see if I could figure out what it
> was for?
> >
> > When I was done peering into the windows, I noticed the man on the
> other side of the street, stopped, staring at me. That scared me. Did he
> intend harm? Was he offended that I crossed the street? Should I go back
> across and say something? ... well, a couple of women walked past me
> audibly wondering what this building was for and that distracted me. I
> talked to them for a minute. And when I looked back the guy was gone.
> >
> > Have I become just like the scared little old lady that lives next
> door? Afraid of progress? Afraid of diversity? Scared of my own shadow? I
> honestly don't know.
> >
> >
> > On 9/2/21 7:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > > The signal to the welfare rancher is “Find a new line of work and
> quit your whining.”
> > >
> > >> On Sep 2, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Eric Charles <
> eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "The fact that you agree with the policies and actions does not
> mitigate the harm caused."
> > >>
> > >> This seems to be a recurring theme in conversations I am having
> recently, in several venues. I make a factual claim about damages caused by
> a policy/action/decision. Someone objects to the factual claim because they
> agree with policy/action/decision. I'm never quite sure where to go in the
> conversation after that.
> > >>
> > >> Like, I saw someone post, non-sarcastically, a meme claiming that
> Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan was more peaceful that Trump's final
> days in office. When I pointed out how obviously wrong that was, the
> otherwise-sensible-seeming person couldn't do anything but insist that
> withdrawing was the right thing to do. Like... come on man... I get that...
> but what does that have to do with pretending things went well, or were
> "peaceful"?!?
> > >>
> > >> So, like... yeah... you might agree with restrictions on the uses
> of public lands... but that doesn't mean you need to pretend it has no
> negative consequences for individuals. Just own that those harms will
> happen, as part of your supporting the policy.
> > >> <mailto:echarles at american.edu <mailto:echarles at american.edu>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 8:09 PM Prof David West <
> profwest at fastmail.fm <mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm> <mailto:
> profwest at fastmail.fm <mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> __
> > >> Marcus, you seem to miss my point; perhaps just baiting me.
> > >>
> > >> Honors at Highlands: this was part of a policy, stated
> publicly at a Board of Regents meeting, "Highlands exists to provide
> degrees to Hispanic students that could never obtain one at any other
> university. Honors degrees, curricula, and courses are racist reasons that
> students from northern New Mexico cannot succeed at other universities and,
> as such, cannot be tolerated at Highlands."
> > >>
> > >> Posters: woman in question was a 30+ year old grad student
> (we shared the same advisor). The posters were in my office for my
> enjoyment, purchased at the university bookstore. Meeting was held in my
> office at her request. They were prints of Dali work considered "great
> art." The human figures are totally androgynous as well as being distorted
> in typical Dali style. Her motive for filing the complaint was, she stated
> in an email a year later, to discredit me with our advisor who she thought
> showed a preference for my work over hers. The HR office, because of their
> "enlightened liberal policies" accepted her complaint on its face, no
> investigation; as the same policy stated one was not needed because, as a
> male and academic staff, I had no defensible position to consider.
> > >>
> > >> Ranchers: this particular family took 'stewardship' seriously
> and made hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of improvements to public
> land. but my point is simply that bureaucrats, kowtowing to liberal
> environmental lobbyists set policy without regard to any 'facts on the
> ground' or any science, simply on liberal philosophy of how things "should
> be."
> > >>
> > >> Access: I too am a taxpayer. There are some very nice hot
> springs on BLM land near by. They are maintained and upgraded by a
> volunteer public group (pretty informal, word of mouth kind of stuff).
> Being old and feeble, my access is increasing dependent on the use of an
> ATV. BLM policy dictates constant reduction of motorized transport on that
> land, so it will not be long before my access is de facto denied. This is a
> personal example of a "woke" policy on increasing wilderness designations
> thereby denying access to elderly, handicapped, and otherwise marginally
> abled.
> > >>
> > >> You asked for examples of liberal actions/policies that
> caused harm, to me specifically, but by implication in general. These are
> tangible examples. The fact that you agree with the policies and actions
> does not mitigate the harm caused.
> > >>
> > >> davew
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, at 4:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Welfare ranchers, indeed. The rest of us have to
> constantly modernize our skills.. But freeloading off the public land and
> environment that’s “multigenerational” and must be preserved? Why?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Marcus
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:
> friam-bounces at redfish.com> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:
> friam-bounces at redfish.com>>> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> > >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:17 PM
> > >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com
> <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>>
> > >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Liberal dilemmas
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I owned 40 acres in Torrance County, NM which was adjacent
> to a national forest. Ranchers were charged $1.21 per acre per year to use
> the NF land for grazing. I could have made $48 per year by charging a
> little less than the feds. My property taxes were $40 per year.
> > >>>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> Frank C. Wimberly
> > >>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> > >>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> > >>>
> > >>> 505 670-9918
> > >>> Santa Fe, NM
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, 1:50 PM Marcus Daniels <
> marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> <mailto:
> marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Dave wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> < More significant: I have had my curricular materials
> censured and have had my job threatened on a number of occasions because it
> was deemed inconsistent with liberal values. Ironically, many of these
> events occurred when I was teaching at a Catholic university where I could,
> with impunity, challenge religious orthodoxy, but not liberal woke
> snowflake orthodoxy. I was once censured by the University of Wisconsin HR
> department because a female student filed a sexual harassment complaint
> because I had a meeting with her in my office where I had three Salvador
> Dali prints on my wall and "she was forced to look at breasts the entire
> meeting." Her complaint was upheld because neither the content of the Dali
> prints nor my intent or rational for having them in my office mattered —
> only her subjective feelings. At Highlands I was forbidden to offer Honors
> courses or any opportunities to earn extra credit in a class by tackling
> extra hard problems (these were software
> > >>> courses) because doing so was racist and unfair — simply
> because more non-Hispanic students obtained the extra credit or the honors
> designation. >
> > >>>
> > >>> So the university had the expectation that before
> advanced classes could be offered, there needed to an unbiasing of the
> candidate pool for those classes by adequately training everyone (every
> demographic) that was potentially feeding in to them? Ok. If the
> university wants to do this, or incentivized to do this, it is really just
> a matter of private/public strategy. If you don't want to work for a
> university that has this "fair" strategy, then don't. As for subjecting
> young students to strange imagery, I can see why one would not want to do
> that. Just as it would strange for a female professor to dress like a
> hooker. Organizations can have dress codes. Don't be a fool,
> universities are just another kind of business. You mess with the
> business, you will have a problem. It would be better if your department
> heads were "upstanders" and just said, "Hey Dave, how is this art helping
> your students?"
> > >>>
> > >>> < Not personal, but a relative: multi-generational ranch
> with Federal grazing right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years
> were spent enhancing the Federal land, containment ponds for water that
> reduced erosion and flash flooding without diminishing runoff contribution
> to watershed; planting of native grasses, elimination of deadwood, etc.
> etc. End result was the ability to safely and sustainably graze X number of
> cattle. About five years ago, BLM issued a new policy dictating the maximum
> carrying capacity of Federal lands. The math was based on lowest common
> denominator. The policy was, at the behest of preservation groups, written
> with the specific intent to minimize and eventually eliminate the use of
> public lands for grazing. (Also mining and motorized recreational vehicle
> use.) Bottom line, allotment was taken away because it violated the numbers
> — not because there was any evidence of actual harm. >
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm a taxpayer. Why should I want off road vehicles or
> cows on federal land? I don't care about either of those things. This is
> a weird entitlement that these folks have in mind. As far as I was
> concerned the Bundy principals in Oregon deserved to be met by A-10s.
>
>
> --
> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210902/a5c311c5/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list