or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Obama Says Race a Key Component in Tea Party Protests
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama Says Race a Key Component in Tea Party Protests - Page 10

post #136 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
So you "read him" or you read the Road to Serfdom, a book for a popular audience and said that you "read him." Because, above it sounds like you read a good survey of his work and made a judgment, so I took it seriously. I don't have time for the rest now, but unfortunately this is all seeming a mile wide and an inch deep.
I read Road To Serfdom. A book for a popular audience that was also his most influential and widely-read political work. I still stand by my evaluation of it. Does it get a pass for being poorly argued because it was meant to be popular? Free to Choose was intended for a broad audience as well, but is far more persuasive. edit: and I didn't mean to imply that I read his oeuvre or anything. I think "I read him" is a fair thing to say after a reading one book, but I guess that's just different casual usage.
post #137 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
I don't know man. As I said, he seems smart and also to have some integrity, but I think there is a point at which people begin to add too many extra credit points for academic language while not looking enough at the underlying arguments, which happen to be reductive, simple and naive, and of the dismissiveness to other thinkers.

This, more or less, is what prompted my post. For which I have a mild lingering regret.

NameBack probably does deserve an "A" for effort, for what it's worth.

On a separate note, this thread did give me a good chuckle when Javyn expressed annoyed at my trolling.
post #138 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
As to the others, I appreciate his explanation of his points of view based on a perceived truth in "human nature," and I think he follows his premises well, as I said, his premises are disputed enough, including his basic ideas of a "human nature" and a "good" existing, that the ensuing explanations are almost nothing more than a grand question begging. On top of that, he reduces the premises to basically a single point, and the groups to three... progressives, conservatives, and the sweating masses with their emotional gurglings being played and catered to by the first two groups. Now, there are likely kernels of truth to much of this, though perhaps not to the existence of "human nature," but the reduction is a bit like the premises. It creates interesting, provocative and sometimes foamy discussion, but it neither does much to enhance our knowledge, nor is it able to handle a lot of the tougher questions dealing with how people live and things, politically and individually. When those questions which are not answerable come up is when we start to get the more us versus them, anger based rhetoric.

How do you square the above criticism of NameBack with your oft-stated belief that participatory democracy is a flawed system, because voters aren't obliged to inform themselves?
post #139 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Bardamu View Post
How do you square the above criticism of NameBack with your oft-stated belief that participatory democracy is a flawed system, because voters aren't obliged to inform themselves?
I'm not sure how they are related. If you clarify, I'd be happy to answer.
post #140 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
I'm not sure how they are related. If you clarify, I'd be happy to answer.

Does your "progressives, conservatives, and the sweating masses" comment not pertain to this passage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post
Primarily, I think the impulse to politics is very simple. It's "I belong to this group and my group deserves more stuff than the other guy." I think, at this core truth, conservatives and progressives are no different. It's how they define "my group" and "the other guy" that brings about the difference...

It's important to understand, though, that the great seething majority of voters do not have philosophical opinions. They have visceral emotions, they have right and wrong and justice and criminality and punishment and reward. They have deserving and fairness and betrayal and theft.
post #141 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Bardamu View Post
Does your "progressives, conservatives, and the sweating masses" comment not pertain to this passage?
Sure, but it is more a comment about his desire in this thread, and in every other I've seen, to reduce people to single motivation imitations of real people who see the world in many different ways, have conflicting motivations, needs, desires, etc. Just because I think people are generally uninformed and have little business controlling others with their votes, which isn't necessarily related to how informed they are or not, doesn't mean I think they are monolithic.
post #142 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Sure, but it is more a comment about his desire in this thread, and in every other I've seen, to reduce people to single motivation imitations of real people who see the world in many different ways, have conflicting motivations, needs, desires, etc. Just because I think people are generally uninformed and have little business controlling others with their votes, which isn't necessarily related to how informed they are or not, doesn't mean I think they are monolithic.

I think philosophical liberalism has made people over-estimate the complexity and uniqueness of human behavior.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Obama Says Race a Key Component in Tea Party Protests