patrick.net

Anyways, rather than go about insulting my education, as you have done previous with others in your arguments, howabout you tell me what you learnt in Gov 101 and Soc 101, in a systematic manner.

well, i haven't insulted your education or others, for that matter... i've pointed out you don't seem to have covered certain areas, nor do you seem to have work experience in those areas, so perhaps you are less qualified to comment. i once pointed out what i HAD studied to FAB, when he suggested in an open comment that all 'liberals' only did junior HS science.

but apparently you want to me to paste in a semester's worth, or two or three years worth, of notes and years of thinking and engagement and experience into this forum now, in a SYSTEMATIC fashion, rather than attempting to head a few concepts off at the pass. i'll just start with the course notes and textbooks... i'll become the first free internet provider of college education, copyrights notwithstanding... sounds feasible...

(when university attendance was pretty well free, one effect was that there were perpetual students who just stayed enrolled for years, doing one course after another for nix... philosophy, history, you name it... ;) )

DS,

Seriously, I'm sure you're a nice guy, esp. in person. But everytime I follow a lengthy discussion with you, it's like going in circles -- I don't seem to get anywhere and I get dizzier and dizzier as the discussion continues. Can we just stop it before driving more people out of this blog? I promise to play nice and not refer to you as a postmodernist, if you promise to quit this line of baiting me as a false or stupid progressive. I don't necessarily mind being proven wrong or learning new things, but talking to you is just really really frustrating.

(Here's my response, but please don't reply to it here, please email me any on point replies you wish to give. Those points have already been raised elsewhere, and you didn't seem to pay them any mind. That's one of the main reasons why talking to you is really frustrating.

Systematic does not mean listing every nitty gritty facts. But it does require organizing thoughts and beliefs into a core or a system. Preferably while you acknowledge the existence of a greater world.

Most sciences, both hard science and social sciences, have categorizable approaches. Based on your earlier discussion, including the one we just had, you appear to have no such core beliefs. Nor do you do much linear discussions. Instead, you toss out a lot of random stuff, which becomes increasing frustrating for the other side to digest and follow. A jumble of approaches is not really knowledge, when you make no effort to make sense of them (that includes for other people, by contextualizing the information and making judgments based on them). If you cannot give a couple important takeaways from your basic level classes, then you've merely memorized facts without learning the lessons from them.

Furthermore, you've taken to criticize me as a "false progressive" when I've been open about my approach to knowledge and social policies. I've noted that my brand of progressivism and liberal ideals are far from the "orthodox." I characterize myself as a progressive and a classical liberal (not a "neo-liberal", whatever that means - I have not encountered the term from my casual readings), you can agree or disagree about my suitability to those points, but I've never seen any evidence that a progressive or a liberal need to be diametrically opposed to market based solutions, if those solutions are more effective.

What you've characterized as my "truisms" and "feel good" babble, I have in fact developed over years of reevaluation. I believe in them and approach situations with those ideas in mind, that doesn't mean I don't add nuances of specific situations as needed.)

bloody cial-is filter

a neoliberal is used in the rest of the world to mean someone who has rediscovered the writings of adam smith, not ‘liberal’ in the sense of a democrat…

my writing dosen’t go round and round in circles, i just find the truisms a little frustrating — trust me, educated people who work in govt and have liberal arts and soc sci backgrounds have a coherent world view, and it doesn’t contain truisms about markets and simple mantras about what’s best for everyone (it’s usually a deep distrust). but there is a lot to read and learn. like any special-isation, you can’t accuse people of being circular because you haven’t had the chance to get a solid structured grounding — it’s not their fault you haven’t done the theory… it’s like saying the French are speaking gibberish because they are talking too fast to understand, or the physics PhD is talking gobbledygook…

I’ve never seen any evidence that a progressive or a liberal need to be diametrically opposed to market based solutions, if those solutions are more effective.

that's fair enough. 'New Labour' in England got in by taking the 'middle way', i.e. not nationalising but often outsourcing in fact -- they argued that some functions and services could be outsourced to the private sector rather than just abolishing them like thatcher would've. that approach can work reasonably well. whereas british leyland etc always went into the doldrums when nationalised. i've seen both sides of the coin, and i currently work for a british multinational that takes on outsourced contracts of any kind whatsoever, and does it well... there simply isn't the space on a forum like this to cover all the ins and outs of governmentality with all their pros and cons... there is a whole body of theory of sorts around how to manage outsourced contracts, etc... and this is only one dimension of thinking in governmentality, there are any other number concernign the responsibilities of govt...

SQT Says:

July 11th, 2006 at 7:19 am
SQT,

Looks like the post has been removed. Care to summarize? I really could use a laugh.

Wow, that was fast! I was able to go back and bring the post up. Here it is.

SELLERS be Proactive not Reactive

——————————————————————————–
Reply to: hous-180660718@craigslist.org
Date: 2006-07-11, 3:19AM PDT

Many sellers are reacting to the softening of the market and are inadvertently making it harder for themselves, and are allowing buyers to come in and almost steal their homes from them at ridiculous prices. The result is that a softening of the market is being created even further.

If anyone has studied the history of real estate, you know that this market WILL eventually rebound. Ask any person who owned real state in the past who decided to sell because the market was bad AT THE MOMENT and you’ll find many statements of regret. In many cases you’d be better off holding out, refinaincing, if possible, renting out your place and just holding tight.

If you’ve got to sell, price your house fairly and offer some incentives, such as assistance with closing cost, buying down the buyer’s interest rate, home warranties, paying association or assessment fees for a given period. But please, don’t give your house away. Be willing to adjust other things, but avoid lowering the price of your house. Each seller that lowers the price on their house only eventually lowers the values of every other property in their neighborhood. Don’t be reactive, be proactive.

Most sciences, both hard science and social sciences, have categorizable approaches. Based on your earlier discussion, including the one we just had, you appear to have no such core beliefs. Nor do you do much linear discussions. Instead, you toss out a lot of random stuff, which becomes increasing frustrating for the other side to digest and follow. A jumble of approaches is not really knowledge, when you make no effort to make sense of them (that includes for other people, by contextualizing the information and making judgments based on them). If you cannot give a couple important takeaways from your basic level classes, then you’ve merely memorized facts without learning the lessons from them.

this stuff is just foolish and irritating. i've given more than a couple of 'takeaways' throughout my writing, i think most normal people would have got it by now. there seems to be a certain rigidity of thinking going on here -- i mean, like a straitjacket. (the very concept of a 'takeaway', although i suppose it is there in my writing, demonstrates the failed modernist project and a dependent craving for structuration in itself)

while most 'sciences' may have a 'categorisable approach' -- which is a questionable assertion, really, in the light of how knowledge is discovered and constructed -- and once again shows exactly the dead while male thinking you were earlier criticising -- and is the failed project of logical positivism -- our sociology professors very deliberately did not take a 'structured, scientific' approach to teaching us, because they were demonstrating how flawed that project really is -- they just taught ideas, which were at least self-consistent. this 'scientising need' is exactly the sort of trap that people like marx got into that you were also critiquing earlier. then you accuse me of being 'circular' when in fact your own arguments and worldview are inherently self-contradictory and tend to be circular and ill-considered.

you can make those remarks in spleen, but it really isn't valid. my approach has been consistent, self-consistent and grounded throughout, it's just that the average american joe doesn't get exposed to 'continental philosophy' too much. that's not my fault... however, that ignorance and lack of reflection and self-scrutiny is one of the main things that is going to bring down the US in the very near future...

DS,

You either don't read my responses at all or don't respect my queries at all. You're not interested in a dialogue with other people, you just want a chance to hear yourself type. If you really can't figure out why this habit of yours infuriates otherwise open minded people, I can't say I'm surprised.

SQT,

It's okay. I should know better by now. It's not even the threadjacking that bothers me the most (I don't bother reading his stuff unless he's questioning my position). What bothers me is that he pays no attention to the other participants' points and treats them like he's talking down to five year olds. That's not even a good strategy to get 5 year olds to listen to you.