Chilling Orwellianism at NYU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

It was my hope that it would be obvious I was making a caricature - but no, I am not enamored with the current state of higher education, (public or private) nor the governments role in funding and subsidizing it. To be honest I don't have concrete solutions, nor have I given it the kind of thought that it deserves to put forth actual policy recommendations.

---

One can be unenamored of the current state and still recognize that "market forces" are never going to lead to anything like an adequately educated general population.

Quote:

---

I am not referencing legal courts here - there is unquestionably a place for them, even in my idealized libertarian utopia. I am talking about the courts of public opinion. Why what amounts to a minor contract dispute is making headline news and setting the Twitterverse alight is beyond me.

But maybe I've gotten to that stage of old man yelling at cloud.

---

Now you're making even less sense because any libertarian should have no problem whatsoever as a libertarian with people shouting and making whatever hullabaloo they want about anything they want. A right unexercised is a right a right given away. Trying to stop contracting parties or force them to do something is one thing, but exercising free speech to rant and rave in public venues and papers about their actions? As someone who just wants some peace and quiet, or as someone who doesn't see what the point of it is, or even as someone with an axe to grind against one party or the other, any of those might provide grounds for agitating but you specified you're talking about this use of speech "as a libertarian."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

One can be unenamored of the current state and still recognize that "market forces" are never going to lead to anything like an adequately educated general population.

---

I haven’t thought deeply about it, but I have the feeling that the general population is not being well served by the education they are currently being provided, and that the traditional college experience is probably not necessary for many to find happiness and success.

Quote:

---

Now you're making even less sense because any libertarian should have no problem whatsoever as a libertarian with people shouting and making whatever hullabaloo they want about anything they want. A right unexercised is a right a right given away. Trying to stop contracting parties or force them to do something is one thing, but exercising free speech to rant and rave in public venues and papers about their actions? As someone who just wants some peace and quiet, or as someone who doesn't see what the point of it is, or even as someone with an axe to grind against one party or the other, any of those might provide grounds for agitating but you specified you're talking about this use of speech "as a libertarian."

---

You aren’t thinking this through, Fuzzy. Libertarians don’t give up their opinions at the door because they believe other people can hold differing ones. I believe hate speech to be intolerable and repugnant. I also believe it should be legal. I am a teetotaler and have never taken any recreational drugs in my life, and would advocate that position to anyone I am close to. I still think drugs should be legalized. You confuse what beliefs I hold personally as virtues, (mind your own business) with the what I believe should be legal. I don’t think it is healthy or productive to spend your waking hours in constant outrage about the employment contracts of complete strangers, but I don’t think it should be illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I haven’t thought deeply about it, but I have the feeling that the general population is not being well served by the education they are currently being provided, and that the traditional college experience is probably not necessary for many to find happiness and success.

---

The form it takes may be open to question but the market by itself just isn't going to do it outside of highly priced and/or very specialized offerings. Not enough direct and immediate benefit. Education is a classic positive externality, just like transportation networks. Very few single parties derive enough return from it to justify the cost by themselves but the system as a whole over time does. But the system isn't geared to let more than one or two parties shoulder the cost of providing the total net benefit.

Quote:

---

You aren’t thinking this through, Fuzzy. Libertarians don’t give up their opinions at the door because they believe other people can hold differing ones. I believe hate speech to be intolerable and repugnant. I also believe it should be legal. I am a teetotaler and have never taken any recreational drugs in my life, and would advocate that position to anyone I am close to. I still think drugs should be legalized. You confuse what beliefs I hold personally as virtues, (mind your own business) with the what I believe should be legal. I don’t think it is healthy or productive to spend your waking hours in constant outrage about the employment contracts of complete strangers, but I don’t think it should be illegal.

---

I did think it through. That's why I listed those three alternative reasons (with a whole world of other potential justifications left implied if not explicit) but the key is that none of them have a thing to do with libertarianism. A libertarian can certainly hold them, but they aren't part of the libertarianism. They do not come to you "as something you should really agitate for" as a libertarian but rather as your inner Carl Fredericksen.

Liberals are outta control:

Twitter Link

There was a South Park episode about this many years back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

The form it takes may be open to question but the market by itself just isn't going to do it outside of highly priced and/or very specialized offerings. Not enough direct and immediate benefit. Education is a classic positive externality, just like transportation networks. Very few single parties derive enough return from it to justify the cost by themselves but the system as a whole over time does. But the system isn't geared to let more than one or two parties shoulder the cost of providing the total net benefit.

---

I'm reaching the extent of my knowledge and understanding here, but I also recognize that much of the actual signaling benefit to the student provided by a college education, (the so-called sheepskin effect) could likely be accomplished in other, less time intensive and cost prohibitive ways. I have heard good things about Germany's secondary education system, including their vocational system, but again, it is not something I have put in a lot of time thinking about or studying to any significant degree. I also recognize that Germany's education system is not private. Consider me an armchair critic without much of a clue.

Quote:

---

I did think it through. That's why I listed those three alternative reasons (with a whole world of other potential justifications left implied if not explicit) but the key is that none of them have a thing to do with libertarianism. A libertarian can certainly hold them, but they aren't part of the libertarianism. They do not come to you "as something you should really agitate for" as a libertarian but rather as your inner Carl Fredericksen.

---

Then I must profess my confusion. How else is a libertarian supposed to communicate their opinions and beliefs, if not by peacefully advocating for them, while not mandating government intervention? I am not saying as a libertarian those must be core to your beliefs, I am saying as a libertarian I believe that is the right way to express your beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Then I must profess my confusion. How else is a libertarian supposed to communicate their opinions and beliefs, if not by peacefully advocating for them, while not mandating government intervention? I am not saying as a libertarian those must be core to your beliefs, I am saying as a libertarian I believe that is the right way to express your beliefs.

---

So. . . not minding your own business but venting about other people expressing their opinions in speech and press? You objected to other people being upset about something and expressing their opinions. Something you've just said is, as a libertarian, the right way to express your beliefs. So is it the wrong way for them to express their beliefs because they're not libertarians? I posted because you responded to Loki saying (and I grant that you've said this is something of a caricature) that as a libertarian, you really ought to agitate for people to mind their own business rather than start speaking up about others' contract negotiations. Oh, wait, I see. Contract negotiations aren't anyone's business. But their exercise of freedom of speech is most certainly your business. Is it just me is the list of what counts as "not other people's business, they really ought to stay quiet" and what counts as "legitimate interest, people should feel free and justified to express themselves" a trifle biased there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

So. . . not minding your own business but venting about other people expressing their opinions in speech and press? You objected to other people being upset about something and expressing their opinions. Something you've just said is, as a libertarian, the right way to express your beliefs. So is it the wrong way for them to express their beliefs because they're not libertarians? I posted because you responded to Loki saying (and I grant that you've said this is something of a caricature) that as a libertarian, you really ought to agitate for people to mind their own business rather than start speaking up about others' contract negotiations. Oh, wait, I see. Contract negotiations aren't anyone's business. But their exercise of freedom of speech is most certainly your business. Is it just me is the list of what counts as "not other people's business, they really ought to stay quiet" and what counts as "legitimate interest, people should feel free and justified to express themselves" a trifle biased there?

---

I do not believe all roads lead to happiness, nor that all happiness is created equal. I imagine the dopamine hit one receives from a Twitter dog pile, or the rush I feel from blasting a perceived enemy is empty and transitory. If there are benefits, I simply don't believe they outweigh the drawbacks. Inserting yourself into other people's business, leaping to conclusions at the first opportunity - especially when they agree with your priors - and trying to make yourself part of the story somehow are all deeply harmful behaviors, and behaviors that seemingly are converging across nearly all social media. And in the vast majority of cases I don't think they benefit the individual or the wider society. If you choose to do something like that, (something that I don't personally agree with) you are more than welcome to do so - but I believe it comes with risks, and that the social ills and damage that I see happening to huge swathes of this country, (across the political spectrum) are looming ever larger. There is a fabric to countries and societies, a fabric we have been spending the better part of the 21st century teasing apart to dubious ends.

As an example, do I think that Aimless, someone who I have an immense amount of personal respect and admiration for, is making himself or society better by leaping into the fray whenever someone posts something he agrees with, or finds outrageous on Twitter? Not typically. And then I find myself wondering how that translates into people around the world without his level of mental acuity, moral judgment, and clear compassion. I believe that often times, especially in today's climate, the world would be much better served if everyone spent more time minding their own business, rooting out the beam in their own eye, and focusing on ways to improve themselves before they began searching for opportunities to destroy those around them. If you believe forwarding that as a virtue, (while clearly not minding my own business, or the beam in my own eye - fair enough) is hypocritical - a criticism I am by no means immune to - I will happily take your admonition to heart. I certainly have my own blind spots, faulty heuristics, and priors of my own, which is one of the things I appreciate most about this forum, and everyone that inhabits it. Which is a worthy distinction, I think. These are not the pages of the New York Times, or a Twitter drive-by. This is a community of people who have known each other, (for better or worse) for a decade or more.

I have no problem with you thinking, as a libertarian, that these people should mind their own business. The whole thrust of my response has been limited to the idea of linking libertarianism and agitating against other people agitating. Because to me, libertarianism has never been a particularly good fit for "fighting fire with fire."

Meanwhile in the UK a Jewish lecturer who has stood up against antisemitism before is being investigated for mocking antisemitism, with the Kafka-esque claims that he was the one being antisemitic.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ocking-corbyn-

Missed this thread during my hiatus!

Enoch, I know you consider yourself a "libertarian", but at some point you'll have to admit that definition has changed over the years. And you'll have to decide which definition fits your ideals. Privacy? pfft that was traded years ago for convenience and affordability--if you drive a car you know what that means regarding mandatory Insurance; if you use a debit or credit card (even to get cash) it's the same thing--there is no such thing as Privacy (total anonymity) these days.

We've had this age-old struggle between personal liberties and the common good for hundreds of years. It's the very definition of our Republic and how we define Freeeedoms vs restrictions/regulations, and interpreting the Constitution.

But if everyone just "minded their own business", no one would be an activist for change, and change wouldn't just be slow but detrimental to progress.

Texas Senate passes censorship bill intended to—among other things—cancel NHJ, by essentially banning schools from teaching her 1619 project:

Twitter Link

You can nitpick and look for nuance all you like, but, at the end of the day, this is just fucked up—no matter how you look at it.

When has Texas not sided with ignorance?

So neutral, very wow:

Twitter Link

There's a pretty hilarious/messed-up quote in that piece about Pulitzer-winning Southern white knights, but more interesting is the unsurprising revelation that Hussman believes journalistic integrity is about maintaining a pretense of neutrality—even as you leverage power to promote or sustain bias.

Well, at least we learned that for all the libertarian obsession with slippery slopes, they are not at all interested with what happens in the rare instance when the slippery slope already occurred.

The chilling Orwellianism continues... liberal college students are outta control

Twitter Link

Even veterans are being censored during a 'history lesson'!

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/...io/7508217002/

Damn 'liberals'

Twitter Link

Loki, how hard is it to teach college-level Political Science these days? Do you feel "censored" and have to choose between your job (and tenure) and historical truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Even veterans are being censored during a 'history lesson'!

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/...io/7508217002/

Damn 'liberals'

---

What the ever-loving fuck?

I'm surprised that you're surprised. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I'm surprised that you're surprised. :(

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Loki, how hard is it to teach college-level Political Science these days? Do you feel "censored" and have to choose between your job (and tenure) and historical truth?

---

I'm assuming you're referring to the intro class. For them to get offended at what I say, they'd have to show up to class and listen first. But seriously, it's hard to get offended at "here's how federalism works" or "these are the congressional powers."

I do refrain from explicitly criticizing Trump (or find a way to criticize someone else as well), not because I've worried about losing my job, but because my ability to get through to half the students gets compromised if they think I'm a partisan hack. I do criticize specific policies. Never got any pushback.

Is your intro class required for all freshmen?

More or less.

Too bad it's not required in K-12 public education. :( I don't think many HS graduates could pass the 2020 version of the Civics Test to become Naturalized Citizens

https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/2020test

Going by how much they know coming into the class, they definitely would not. Which is weird since they have to pass a civics class in high school.

Liberal attacks on freedom of speech are out of control (a thread):

Twitter Link

The first and second part of that clause aren't exactly consistent. :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The first and second part of that clause aren't exactly consistent. :noob:

---

It's illegal to make fun of idiots :downcast:

Twitter Link