A lot of contemporary progressivism is a theme park version of this position, namely the alief that one can change oneself and reality through sheer force of will.
Who do you mean with “contemporary progressivism”? Libertarians? A lot of people on the left don’t think that the poor can change themselves through force of will and therefore need help from the government.
No, but they believe that the poor can be changed through force of will, or by using the latest progressive educational theories or the latest anti-poverty initiative (never mind that the previous ~100 progressive education theories or anti-poverty initiatives didn’t accomplish anything and arguably make things worse).
Oh for fucks sake, The world can be, has been, and continuously is made better by political action and policy. This is obvious because the west exists. . There is many, many ways to govern badly, but that does not mean good governance does not exist. Obvious current events example: Police brutality can be addressed by building life-logs into police uniforms. This has been established by pilot programs with results way, way past the .05 sigma treshhold, and this will become common policy very shortly because the arguments against are just bloody well embarrassing in a world where minimum wage cashiers have to put up with being recorded on the job.
Far to many people confuse cynicism and pessimism with understanding. Is there a name for that fallacy?
Police brutality can be addressed by building life-logs into police uniforms.
Firstly, that’s a technological solution not a political one. Also it’s interesting that the example of “police brutality” currently in the headlines consists of a police officer shooting a black thug who had just robbed a convenience store and was charging the officer and grabbing for his pistol when he was shot.
Which is the point—The pilot programs are recording rather mind-boggling decreases in the number of complaints against the police. It’s of course unknowable which fraction of that is “bullshit complaints becoming impossible” and which “Police who are on camera behave better” but it doesn’t matter. As a social and political problem, it goes away. That should have positive long term social impacts, especially in neighborhoods where the police are currently little trusted, but that is speculative. The direct effect is certain. And will spread. As other very-high efficiency social/political innovations have before.
Thats how it works—Most social reforms proposed don’t do anything and never get off the ground or are repealed. The ones that do become a part of the background of existence. Like having a police force to begin with. Labor laws preventing employers from taking absurd risks with the health and lives of their employees, wages that do more than just barely keep body and soul together and so on and so forth.
Virtually all political solutions have an aspect of technology to them. The doctors in a single-payer health care system don’t heal via the laying on of hands and prayer. It doesn’t mean making use of that technology in a particular way is not a political decision.
That it would, but the distinction between political and technological solutions can’t be ignored within the context of neoreaction, which says that technological advances have masked political decline.
Also, comparable past experiences have to be taken into account here. Benjamin Crump, the Brown family’s lawyer, was also the lawyer for Trayvon Martin’s family—and he was involved with the media narrative around the Marco McMillian case. The McMillian case (gay black mayoral candidate got murdered) was a hilarious misfire since the real murderer (who was black and probably gay) had already been caught and had already confessed when media outlets started declaring it a probable hate crime, but the Martin case was a lot like the Brown case, and the entire narrative turned out to be false. That’s not a promising record.
Firstly, that’s a technological solution not a political one.
What do you mean? The technology to do that already exist and has existed for a while; the reasons why we aren’t doing that yet are political AFAICT.
Also it’s interesting that the example of “police brutality” currently in the headlines consists of a police officer shooting a black thug who had just robbed a convenience store and was charging the officer and grabbing for his pistol when he was shot.
That’s in a first-world country; there presumably are places in the world where worse examples of police brutality are so common that they don’t even make it into the headlines.
I think that’s very far from removed from the current political discourse. When looking at an issue such as black people getting payed less, then the modern leftist doesn’t think about how to change black people.
He thinks about how to change society in a way so that black people are payed more by passing anti-discrimination laws and instituting quotas.
The whole notion that the black person is to be changed just isn’t there.
When looking at an issue such as black people getting payed less, then the modern leftist doesn’t think about how the change black people.
He thinks about how to change society in a way so that black people are payed more by passing anti-discrimination laws and instituting quotas.
In other words they want to fix things by a combination of force of will and legislative fiat. While pretending that the underlying cause, racial differences in ability, doesn’t exist.
It’s still a very different philosophy than the one you spoke about above. When you treat all kind of different philosophies the as being the same you can’t meaningful talk about them.
Yes, employers have noticed that blacks tend to be less qualified than whites, even when the blacks have degrees (remember affirmative action is pervasive in colleges) and this effects who they decide to hire. So I don’t see your point.
Also, if you hire a white employee and he doesn’t work out you can fire him. If you hire a black employee and he doesn’t work out you risk a wrongful termination suite if you fire him.
Who do you mean with “contemporary progressivism”? Libertarians? A lot of people on the left don’t think that the poor can change themselves through force of will and therefore need help from the government.
No, but they believe that the poor can be changed through force of will, or by using the latest progressive educational theories or the latest anti-poverty initiative (never mind that the previous ~100 progressive education theories or anti-poverty initiatives didn’t accomplish anything and arguably make things worse).
The poor have been changed. They have gone from 0% literacy to 90%+ literacy.
Interestingly that happened before progressives started seriously meddling in education.
Oh for fucks sake, The world can be, has been, and continuously is made better by political action and policy. This is obvious because the west exists. . There is many, many ways to govern badly, but that does not mean good governance does not exist.
Obvious current events example: Police brutality can be addressed by building life-logs into police uniforms. This has been established by pilot programs with results way, way past the .05 sigma treshhold, and this will become common policy very shortly because the arguments against are just bloody well embarrassing in a world where minimum wage cashiers have to put up with being recorded on the job.
Far to many people confuse cynicism and pessimism with understanding. Is there a name for that fallacy?
Firstly, that’s a technological solution not a political one. Also it’s interesting that the example of “police brutality” currently in the headlines consists of a police officer shooting a black thug who had just robbed a convenience store and was charging the officer and grabbing for his pistol when he was shot.
To put it mildly, what led up to the shooting is disputed. It would be good to have a visual record rather than deductions.
Which is the point—The pilot programs are recording rather mind-boggling decreases in the number of complaints against the police. It’s of course unknowable which fraction of that is “bullshit complaints becoming impossible” and which “Police who are on camera behave better” but it doesn’t matter. As a social and political problem, it goes away. That should have positive long term social impacts, especially in neighborhoods where the police are currently little trusted, but that is speculative. The direct effect is certain. And will spread. As other very-high efficiency social/political innovations have before.
Thats how it works—Most social reforms proposed don’t do anything and never get off the ground or are repealed. The ones that do become a part of the background of existence. Like having a police force to begin with. Labor laws preventing employers from taking absurd risks with the health and lives of their employees, wages that do more than just barely keep body and soul together and so on and so forth.
Virtually all political solutions have an aspect of technology to them. The doctors in a single-payer health care system don’t heal via the laying on of hands and prayer. It doesn’t mean making use of that technology in a particular way is not a political decision.
That it would, but the distinction between political and technological solutions can’t be ignored within the context of neoreaction, which says that technological advances have masked political decline.
Also, comparable past experiences have to be taken into account here. Benjamin Crump, the Brown family’s lawyer, was also the lawyer for Trayvon Martin’s family—and he was involved with the media narrative around the Marco McMillian case. The McMillian case (gay black mayoral candidate got murdered) was a hilarious misfire since the real murderer (who was black and probably gay) had already been caught and had already confessed when media outlets started declaring it a probable hate crime, but the Martin case was a lot like the Brown case, and the entire narrative turned out to be false. That’s not a promising record.
What do you mean? The technology to do that already exist and has existed for a while; the reasons why we aren’t doing that yet are political AFAICT.
That’s in a first-world country; there presumably are places in the world where worse examples of police brutality are so common that they don’t even make it into the headlines.
I think that’s very far from removed from the current political discourse. When looking at an issue such as black people getting payed less, then the modern leftist doesn’t think about how to change black people.
He thinks about how to change society in a way so that black people are payed more by passing anti-discrimination laws and instituting quotas.
The whole notion that the black person is to be changed just isn’t there.
In other words they want to fix things by a combination of force of will and legislative fiat. While pretending that the underlying cause, racial differences in ability, doesn’t exist.
It’s still a very different philosophy than the one you spoke about above. When you treat all kind of different philosophies the as being the same you can’t meaningful talk about them.
Racial bias in employersnhas been proven
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/spring03/racialbias.html
....so who’s pretending ?
Yes, employers have noticed that blacks tend to be less qualified than whites, even when the blacks have degrees (remember affirmative action is pervasive in colleges) and this effects who they decide to hire. So I don’t see your point.
Also, if you hire a white employee and he doesn’t work out you can fire him. If you hire a black employee and he doesn’t work out you risk a wrongful termination suite if you fire him.
Or they have evidence that that isn’t the problem.