They need to replace it. Weakening tax enforcement combined with new complexity invites evasion and massive illicit tax savings for the rich. By expanding the scope of savings accounts, the GOP gives the wealthy another way to cut their taxes. Weaker disclosure rules at the Treasury Department are just one part of a big-money campaign to keep political spending in the dark—even as foreign money fears spike. A new bill supported by both Democrats and Republicans is yet another deregulatory action that gives Wall Street room to run in dangerous directions.
In an effort to marginalize his nation's large far-right party in the wake of attacks by Islamist radicals, the president of France teams up with an old foe. Posted 4 days 22 hours ago.
Sign up here to receive exclusive, daily writing from Bob Kuttner and Harold Meyerson straight to your inbox. After three weeks, prisoners will have ended their work and hunger strikes, but their demands are no less powerful. No matter how bad this presidency gets, administration officials are unlikely to face consequences.
Skip to main content. Home Magazine Blogs Tapped: Bernanke, Geithner, and Paulson's Lessons of the Crash. Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Sequel: Kavanaugh Will Further Divide Us.
Economic insecurity and an influx of migrants have pushed Swedish politics to the right. Will lower corporate taxes generate an investment boom? The evidence suggests not. But advocates want detainees freed, not sent to for-profit jails. Now, he is more known for lying about the extent of his work. Now more than ever, libraries are in search of authentic leaders because we have pressing problems. Budgets are being slashed around the country.
In a study of employees and their direct supervisors, researchers found that supervisors who demonstrated authentic leadership characteristics led more motivated, empowered teams than those who were not authentic leaders. Because followers can identify with authentic leaders, they feel more empowered to make change as well Walumbwa et al. We need employees who are willing to go above and beyond to ensure our users are being served in spite of the cuts all around us.
Motivated employees who feel empowered are great, but all of that energy needs to be synchronized, and therein lies another role for the leader: Business guru John Kotter found that of the eight reasons why firms fail, three of them had to do with vision. Firms that failed underestimated the power of vision, undercommunicated the vision, or permitted obstacles to block the new vision.
Vision can be a powerful motivator if it appeals to major stakeholders in an organization, including staff, customers, and community members. The business world has a variety of examples of successful visions. The vision is something that is easily pictured. The vision is something the appeals to a variety of stakeholders, not just a single group of people. Visions that ignore one group of stakeholders in favor of another will eventually demoralize followers and invariably spark resistance.
The vision should not be so farfetched that it appears unattainable. In order to develop a vision that will seem feasible, it should be rooted in reality. That said, it should not be an incremental change, as this will not be inspirational.
The vision should provide a clear direction to work towards. Just as a vision should not be too vague, it should also not be too prescriptive, limiting the options an organization has for achieving the vision. The vision is easy to communicate. If the vision is too complicated to communicate, it will eventually lose its power as others in the organization try to adopt it as their own.
In looking at library vision statements posted on websites, it is clear that there are not a lot of what Kotter would define as good — and without a good vision statement, it will be difficult to align a whole library to achieving change even with a good leader. It is clear that that the library world has yet to embrace a single definition of what constitutes a vision.
These statements range from long, multi-page documents that more closely resemble a mission statement what a library does and its purpose to one-liners than seem more like a slogan.
The Libraries provide information resources and services that are essential to research, discovery, and learning at Kent State University. Activities of our information professionals include synthesizing, organizing, evaluating, and providing access to the corpus of human knowledge and experience. We are committed to the broad-based support of our primary users — students, faculty, and staff — while also recognizing our role in ensuring and maintaining the Carnegie Research II status of the University.
We also provide leadership in cooperation with other University offices in the visioning and management of new and more effective information resource services to the University community. Our vision embraces this ideal while acknowledging that we are bound by available fiscal resources.
It goes on to list seven statements of belief too long to include here. Obviously, this vision statement is much too complex to be easily communicated. The UT Arlington Library … the best choice for navigating the world of ideas.
This one is definitely communicable. However, it does not have enough focus to guide individuals in the organization. Mason Library partners with the campus community to prepare citizens ready to engage in the world. The Library is a knowledge center where students learn information literacy skills that empower them to navigate a rapidly changing environment. The Library offers a welcoming space at the heart of the intellectual endeavor integrating materials, technology, place, and teaching in the tradition of a public liberal arts institution.
This vision statement is a good balance between focused and flexible. It highlights a distinct direction for the library: New technologies, shrinking budgets, the growth in the demand for ebooks and several other converging forces are changing the landscape for library work.
Clearly, libraries operate in a volatile environment that demands strong leaders to unify an organization and set a path for success. Authentic leadership describes how leaders can interact with followers to overcome organizational inertia and inspire action through purpose, values, relationships, self-discipline and heart.
These leaders have integrity and emotional intelligence, and they rally entire organizations around common, heart-felt goals using a clearly articulated vision of the future. Leaders are not always the director. They can be found throughout the library and are identified by the way they are able to influence others to create a new future for the organization.
Northouse identifies those who do not hold formal authority but who exhibit leadership qualities as emergent leaders. They are passionate and involved. Never stooping to engage in petty tribal conflict like that silly Red Tribe, but always nobly criticizing my own tribe and striving to make it better. That means that, although my critique of the Blue Tribe may be right or wrong, in terms of motivation it comes from the same place as a Red Tribe member talking about how much they hate al-Qaeda or a Blue Tribe member talking about how much they hate ignorant bigots.
I had fun writing this article. People do not have fun writing articles savagely criticizing their in-group. I can think of criticisms of my own tribe. Important criticisms, true ones. But the thought of writing them makes my blood boil. That is how I feel when asked to criticize my own tribe, even for correct reasons. And if I want Tolerance Points, my own personal cross to bear right now is tolerating the Blue Tribe. I need to remind myself that when they are bad people, they are merely Osama-level bad people instead of Thatcher-level bad people.
And when they are good people, they are powerful and necessary crusaders against the evils of the world. The worst thing that could happen to this post is to have it be used as convenient feces to fling at the Blue Tribe whenever feces are necessary. Which, given what has happened to my last couple of posts along these lines and the obvious biases of my own subconscious, I already expect it will be.
But the best thing that could happen to this post is that it makes a lot of people, especially myself, figure out how to be more tolerant. Tolerance is, indeed, a pretty stupid thing to value. Tolerate what is tolerable and intolerate what is intolerable. The class markers in this conception however popular it is are the complete opposite of reality.
It might describe urban vs. There is always an extremely high chance you are on the wrong side of the conflict and are accidentally making things worse. At equilibrium half the resources are being spent on the evil team. A much better strategy is to try to make things marginally better.
This requires tolerating alot of horrible situations. For example I think everyone for jail on drug charges is a victim of prolonged kidnapping and depending on conditions torture. What good option do I have but to tolerate this horror and the many people I know who support it. There is also the historical angle. In many cases things that seemed intolerable heresy, witchcraft, etc were in fact very tolerable. I am not suggesting non resistance to evil.
But I am suggesting being very open minded. Is tolerance merely an observational quality? A synonym for forbearance. Do you tolerate things on the assumption that inaction may resolve the problem or reveal a solution?
As I am understanding things the opposite of tolerating something is trying to change it. This is dangerous and difficult. Your efforts will frequently fail or cause unindented conseuqences that make things worse. In many cases I might change things if I had an effective method.
And I was suffiently confident my changes were good despite my brain running on defective hardware as elizier puts it. But I usually I do not. What I usually can do to help people is make them more comfortable, even if I should not try to fix serious problems.
I was confused as well. My guess is that they were suggesting that conservatives are actually rich and progressives are poor, despite what the lines about arugula and bottled water would tell you about their incomes. Well, a lot of poor people are progressive, and quite a few rich people are conservative. In America, this IS a class divide: Secondly, of course, it has a strong north-south component. I, not being American , was rather surprised that it was the Republicans as opposed to the Democrats who were instrumental in the emancipation of the slaves.
There was a pretty massive shift in the s and s when northern Democrats starting supporting the civil rights movement among other things. This alienated the conservative Southern Democrats, who defected to the Republican party making it more conservative in the process. Carter won the South in , and Reagan did worse in the South in than his national average.
Bush improved on that in , getting higher-than-nationwide in all Southern states but WV. By the time Clinton won in winning only 4 Southern states , the transition was pretty much complete. But what, specifically, does this entail? The worlds are just too separate for that to sting. Blue team people could block Red Team on Twitter or something. So is engaging in a debate. So, what options left to express this intolerance and differentiate it from grudgingly or even angrily tolerating the existence of the other side?
Only when you look at details, different people differ in their selection of which kinds of intolerance they realy hate outgroups intolerant to ingroups , and which kinds of intolerance are okay or even useful for some greater good ingroups intolerant to outgroups.
In practice I would recommend being tolerant of most things, getting cut off in traffic, etc. This leads to collective action problems which virtue-signaling helps to solve.
Not singling out the site or its moderators, who, my personal dislike aside, at least try to do a somewhat decent job.
Yes, equal rights for women are incompatible with equal rights for men. When Martin Luther King Jr. I think everyone would agree that black skin contains a lot more character than white skin. They have the same IP as a much less annoying poster. I will give the other poster the benefit of the doubt for now, but if there is another annoying person with the same IP I will stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and IP ban as well. It seems to me that blocking Red Team on Twitter is indeed a form of refusing to tolerate them.
How about trying to find conservative students and scholars, and sponsoring them for academic positions. How about encouraging conservative speakers to appear on campus, or looking for conservative schoolteachers or text books. That would definitely be expressing viewpoint tolerance. I very rarely interact with reds, outside of my family.
But even aside from not describing my family at all, I just have no reason to trust a description of Reds given by Scott. Where could his knowledge of them come from? I was pretty glad when bin Laden was killed. I literally worked for the blue team the DNC , and I felt good about that death though I feel guilty about that feeling. Also felt slightly sad about Thatcher. They are in general members of the same main tribe, but have subtle differences. Incidentally, you can see a similar internecine divide on the Blue side between Labor and Tech.
On the Red side you can see differences between, say Mormons and Southern Baptists. Which leads me to the question: That is clearly also a real phenomenon. I think a lot of it is to do with the degree of danger that groups perceive themselves to be in from outer-outgroups. All of these people were 1 male and 2 not originally from the Bay Area. All of these people were 1 female and 2 born and raised in the Bay Area.
Another big red divide at the moment is between tea party and non tea party, or between libertarian conservatives and religious conservatives. All would consider themselves conservatives, and all would intensly dislike leftists and liberals, but they also have some pretty big arguments with each other. On the other hand, I found the data on how people are more biased on the basis of party than race to be fascinating, and very much worth further thought. Iirc New England c.
Other nations in this hemisphere need not apply it to themselves. Remind me to tell you sometime about the time I tried to hit on the astonishingly beautiful woman whose favorite books list was… more than a bit heavy on Austrian economics. Just as gay people can have internalized homophobia and oppressed proletarians can nonetheless defend capitalism, POC can perpetuate racism. True, but the percentage of Autistic people in this community is undoubtedly far greater than average. So the stereotype undoubtedly has a degree of truth to it.
Except that property damage stopped quickly when the Korean shopkeepers started defending their stores with guns. Of course things exist for reasons.
I found that strange. This justification confuses me. Do they think that white people somehow created racial prejudice? The justification is that racism is the institutionalized system of prejudice against a minority race. Since white men are the ones in power, females cant be sexists and poc cant be racist. Yes, and it is even defensible: Which group of people traveled so much around the world to feel the need to group European ethnies into a white category, African ones into a black one etc.
My bet would be the British. Here this grouping was unnecessary, because they just did not travel much, so they could just work on the ethnic level. I tried to think of examples of groups which it would make my blood boil to criticize. Tried the obvious targets, including neoreactionaries, conservatives, libertarians, white people, Christians. I have yet been unable to find a group which I would be unwilling to criticize due to that sort of feeling.
Not really sure if this counts. But it was interesting to find out. Maybe we should form our own non-in-group in-group. When are you printing the T-shirts? It might depend on the group who would hear the criticism. For example, you might criticize your romantic partner or your child to a trusted friend and feel fine about it, but sweat bullets if you did it in public.
Especially if you are facing a majority of people you know they will disagree. Well, I identify with them to a reasonable extent to perceive them as allies. However, I was sweating blood last time on facebook, while trying to tell the group, that chemical induction of birth while unpleasant and not to be abused does not increase the rate of cesarean sections. I was trying to say, that randomised trials show this, and randomised trials are higher evidence than observational studies.
I sayed that, otherwise, I am a loyal member of the group and doctors need oversight, because they ignore randomised trials in other questions. It was just a minor disagreement, not a real criticism, but my blood pressure went up.
I probably would not dare to post on their forum a lengthy article about what I dislike about that movent. But here at SSC I can complain about them, knowing this audience will praise me for scientific thinking.
I am just not sure how to do that properly. As an analogy, imagine someone criticizing racists by saying that their overly racist behavior will actually backfire against their own race, so to win against other races in long term, it is strategically better to become sincerely tolerant to other races. Though I am not sure, in this specific situation, which group I would choose, so maybe I am again merely criticizing an outgroup.
Cogitators prioritise system 2 to an insane degree and that has lots of harmful consequences. Hows that as a criticism? Such a universe would not contain humanity as we know it. Disdain for the less-educated is just a class-signaling move for some tribes. As a Christian, I find it somewhat painful to criticise other Christians. Over here in the UK we evangelical Christians do a lot of distancing ourselves from American Republican evangelicals, a lot of apologising for what the Bible belt do and say.
Any large community will produce a fair number of embarrassing statements and actions and this provides fodder for anyone who wants to cherry-pick these instances and make the group in question look like the embarrassing uncles and aunts.
But hey, you obviously have made your judgments and I fully recognize that those are not often changed by comments on a web page. I find myself in the tricky situation of being an evangelical Christian in the UK sense while also having left-wing politics. Most of what I read on the internet is more influenced by left-wing politics than evangelical Christianity.
This means that a lot of what I pick up about what happens in the USA is filtered by left-wing news sources, and so USA Bible-belt evangelicalism comes across very badly. If you find examples of Bible belt, evangelical Republican Christians who are not an embarrassment, then you are the one engaging in cherry-picking.
Thus justifying in your own mind the level of bigotry you express towards their group with vehemence. And ALL right thinking people know that X is absolutely abhorrent. I actually agree with the rest of your post, but this is questionable on at least two levels: When donations to specifically religious organizations are excluded, New England launches ahead of the Bible Belt in charitable giving. I work in the south. I work with evangelical Republican Christians.
If you thought of to criticizing people who cannot find anyone to criticize, how would that make you feel? A nitpick from someone who sitting 10 feet from box-set DVD copies of all 7 seasons of the West Wing, and binge-watches it on a regular basis: Hence the square brackets.
I really hate the blue tribe and the gray tribe, both of which I have ties to, and I find the red tribe sort of humorous and adorable despite disagreeing with most of their positions and having no ties to them.
I wonder what this makes me. Probably just an asshole. And if someone did have that criticism, then they probably would not choose that group to begin with. People on LW criticize LW all the time.
I feel like you, Scott, are especially unwilling to criticize your in-group because you are a prominent voice for a group that you feel is under attack. Men — are too angry, have unhealthy desires for competition and domination, like sports too much. Frat bros — Often misogynistic, perpetuate hookup culture which imho is bad, certain fraternities though absolutely not mine seem to actually have rape culture like the recent story about TKE at University of Wisconson-Milwaukee which is beyond appalling and reprehensible.
Atheists — A lot of them are self-righteous and overly convinced of their own intelligence, a lot of them fail to see the good sides and certain truths of religion. Clearly your real ingroup is people who make lists of bad things about people!
Believe it or not I was about to make the last one that, but then I decided not to because imho meta-jokes are played out. People who can say bad things about all their ingroups — assholes, contrarians, are unable to properly integrate into their surroundings.
Why do you think hookup culture is bad? Hookup culture is bad because it has deleterious psychological consequences for all involved. The ability to handle this is, of course, a quantity that varies on a distribution, and some people deal with it better than others. But what else is new. I can demystify it for you. I note that a lot of the anti-hookup culture was enforced by women who exactly wanted to stigmatize acts that would make it harder for them to get and hang onto their husbands.
It was all supposed to be essentially the same for boys and girls: It was especially the lessening of gender polarity that kept the girls entranced …. And the dream for the girls at base was a dream of a sexual and social empathy that negated the strictures of gender….
It was a desire for a sexual community more like childhood—before girls were crushed under and segregated…. It was—for the girls—a dream of being less female in a world less male; an eroticization of sibling equality, not the traditional male dominance….
Wishing did not make it so. Acting as if it were so did not make it so. Proposing it in commune after commune, to man after man, did not make it so.
Baking bread and demonstrating against the war together did not make it so. Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: Its purpose—it turned out—was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints, and in that it was successful. IMO she was right. AFAIC all feminists like me really wanted was fairness.
When your System 1 is strongly opposed to something, you should be suspicious when your System 2 comes up with reasons to justify that. You are arguing with his motivation for presenting you with evidence. This does not, actually, dispute the evidence. I can chime in as someone with strong anti-sacredness, anti-traditionalist leanings, who has a strong aversive reaction to hookup culture.
I do not form close bonds with others easily, but I take very seriously those bonds that I do form, and this tends to be true of people I get along with. This means that people in hookup culture are selecting their partners for sex-value looks, status instead of love-value personality.
This leads to a much poorer optimization algorithm in terms of finding a life partner, which is of course much more important to the individual and society than having lots of casual sex. Good point about the drunk sex and rape, though. We need a lot more good education about consent and a healthier attitude to alcohol. It means that everyone, man and woman, who participates is making it harder for everyone else to find a partner. Neither does being accused of rape, for that matter.
I completely agree with all of these. But historically, short-term mating strategies were prohibited, especially for women. During the sexual revolution, women became free to pursue short-term mating strategies and they increasingly entered the workforce. Thanks to hookup culture, young women have basically a buffet of short-term, medium-term, and long-term options. Armstrong and Hamilton had come looking for sexual victims. Instead, at this university, and even more so at other, more prestigious universities they studied, they found the opposite: Yes, there may be less long-term mates available, because young men are rationally switching to short-term mating strategies.
Whether this development is a good thing or not is another question, but hookup culture is not bad in an unmitigated way. For example it is cheap and easy to criticise the internet-brand atheist for being loud and obnoxious, but much harder to criticise the brand of atheism I think you or I would identify with.
This also seems fundamental to hipsters. A hipster is always a member of a similar out-group, but virtually never functions as an in-group identity. The only exception is for frat bros simply because the bad eggs are too egregiously bad to be ignored. I tried to limit my criticisms to failures of understanding or wrong-headed attitudes. The ones that are failures of understanding or wrong-headed attitudes are invisible to me.
That would be like identifying negative characteristics of people whose names start with the letter A. Similarly, I think if you showed them pictures of hipster icons or other hipsters and asked them if they identified with them, they would say that they would. Why is tolerance a virtue? That was my thought too. Judging fairly is an important virtue. The other options seem to be 1 organized violence, 2 applying a painful social sanction or 3 angry disagreement.
Option 1 has obvious problems. Option 2 is infeasible. Senator Sanders might vehemently disagree with Senator Cruz. But, short of a duel on the Senate floor, the two are tolerating one another. Option 2 is perfectly feasible, at least if one thede controls some high-status institutions and can apply known social sanctions there and has the ability to throw someone up against the wall every once in a while so everyone in the elthede gets the message.
Now, the same thing can happen in Red territory: But that college had a history of Blue-initiated symbolic aggression against townies: This place was Methodist, and had a chapel on the highest point in the town. This was told to me by a very anti-Red professor, who otherwise seemed to be under the impression that Reds hated Blues because they were backwards and racist.
Blue areas, however, include most colleges, and much more so the more prestigious and useful ones, so this is not at all symmetrical. And both of them are acting reasonably, which is something that seems to have been missed downthread. I see your link as fairly orthogonal to the claim and remain agnostic as to the original question.
Friend of mine was a mid level product manager on Firefox. The problem was explicitly the negative publicity from the media harping on his views. So, turns out all the mobbed are equal, but some are just more equal than others. B This was the thing that surprised, and then upset, me the most about this: At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
I think tolerance is a scalar virtue, not a binary one. At least unless the sanction against this activity is almost absolute across cultures. People who are in a minority have no choice but to cultivate tolerance if they want to excel in mainstream society.
I personally think jailing people for drug use is kidnapping and depending on the conditions extended torture. The vast majority of people support what I view as a hellish mistake. Unless I cultivate tolerance how can I function in society? The same goes for conservative muslims, many ethical vegans etc. To a greater or lesser extent. At the first level: At a second level: The UK treating Indians terribly was obviously pretty bad for the Indians, and also came with a bonus chance to be shot in a turf war.
At a first meta-level: But we might even be the more specialized sort of out-group that lacks its own Parallel Dimension to safely gawk at the Other from. If the Blue Tribe decides that outspoken atheism is gauche, that ends up being a big problem for those individuals. At the second meta-level: Worse, even the most politically-apt people of the time could not predict the speed or rate in which these matters changed. Evangelical Baptist, almost certainly creationist, active in local Republican politics before moving abroad 2.
Atheist, very liberal 3. Nondenominational Protestant, very liberal 4. Devout Catholic, moderately liberal to centrist 5. Pentecostal, unsure of politics 7. Atheist raised in extremely conservative Christian family , libertarian 9. This probably goes a long way to explaining why my experience diverges so sharply from yours.
Path dependency is a big thing. I may have written that in an unclear fashion. I speak Russian but I was born in the United States. Slatestarcodex has ruined my ability to get really upset with conservatives. Unless you have giant robots and LGBT equality, not interested. If they were more of the authority figures in your life, I think you would find it quite easy to be upset with them.
Both are, in fact, entirely sensible. Where are all of these reactionaries? Most of them are pretty incoherent by the way. Spandrell and James A.
Donald used to comment here, but Scott banned them. Konkvistador, Nyan Sandwich, Michael Anissimov, Nydwracu, and Anti-Democracy Activist have all made at least one comment here and remained unbanned, so they may make more comments in the future. Those are just the major neoreactionaries, mind you; men with blogs and twitters and ask. You can also find a lot of minor neoreactionaries around, like Piano and Steve Johnson.
Before Scott wrote his faq attacking neoreaction, he wrote this piece outlining what he felt were its strongest arguments: I felt he did a good job making sense to a progressive reader and not being too gratuitously offensive. If, like me, your real motivation in reading these things is enjoyment of reading them, I certainly recommend it.
It starts out pretty well though it only explains what NRs believe, not why they believe it , but it very quickly devolves into some sort of a historical morass that is of tangential relevance to the discussion at best. I admit that I am kind of fascinated by NR. Also, this is probably a better introduction. I could list some of the issues I have with it in terms of methodology, not conclusions , but maybe this thread is not the place to do that?
I have my theories on why the IRS scandal is a big piece , but that is the sense I get. I have seen several invariably from the right people make this claim now, and I disagree.
I think this is one of those things where everybody at least in the post-Enlightenment context thinks their own tribe believes the other side is ill-informed and thinks their enemies believe that they are evil. Your first and second sentences are somewhat at odds with each other. I formed this view from a sustained campaign of consuming equal quantities blue and red news.
They believe most of the other side is ignorant, and mildly evil in a banality-of kind of way, but that the people calling its shots are seriously, deliberately, maliciously evil. The progressive tendency is confidence in the ability to correct a fallen world.
I thought just the opposite. Or, to put it more succinctly: Progressives want to improve the world by passing laws that improve it directly. Conservatives want to improve the world by encouraging traditional virtues. Libertarians want to improve the world by setting up a framework in which optimization processes improve the world. Your stated goal for reactionaries seems like of subgoal of your stated goal for libertarians.
Also, it seems like a lot of progressive programs are designed to stop optimization processes from running wild.
Superficially, yes, but their approaches are very different. In contrast, reactionaries think that the optimization process is dangerous, and that the most important thing is to prevent it from being able to do too much damage, and the libertarian approach lets it run wild. They are evil, and they disagree with you. You have not blocked off the second, which requires that you believe that the goodness of both your aim and your plan are self-evident, and the effectiveness of the plan is, too.
But in modern American politics, even boring moderate conservatives often attempt to cast themselves as reactionary revolutionaries with grand plans to Make America America again. The quarter century old joke about Republicans being the Stupid Party and Democrats the Evil Party suggests the opposite view. This has never been my experience. Yes, Republicans telling this joke are explicitly saying that they consider Democrats evil. I have a fairly republican family.
Every one of them thinks that progressives are well motivated but wrong. In the US, we have two, the stupid party and the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called bipartisanship. Before , it was at least as much a quip on the near permanent minority status of the republicans a majority in 4 of the previous 62 years as anything else.
Funny, the opposite stereotype is used for the two main parties in the UK, the Conservatives right of centre are evil but competent, Labour and Liberal Democrats when people remember them are well meaning but inept. As to the commonplace balance between opposition and government, the election will have little effect upon it.
The government are as strong as any government can wish to be, as far as regards those who sit facing them; but in truth the real opposition of the present day sit behind the treasury bench; and it is by the stupid old Tory party, who bawl out the memory and praises of Pitt while they are opposing all the measures and principles which he held most important, it is by these that the progress of the government in every improvement which they are attempting is thwarted and impeded.
On the Catholic question, on the principles of commerce, on the corn laws, on the settlement of the currency, on the laws regulating the trade in money, on colonial slavery, on the game laws … on all these questions, and everything like them, the government find support from the Whigs and resistance from their self-denominated friends.
However, the young squires are more liberal than the old ones, and we must hope that heaven will protect us from our friends, as it has from our enemies. Hurrah for the honest Whigs. Thank God the cold-hearted Tories, who as J Mackintosh used to say, have no enthusiasm except against enthusiasm, have for the present run their race. I would not be a Tory, if it was merely on account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian Nations, Slavery.
Interestingly, my view is the other way around. That is, my lefty buddies think the right wants the same things as them, and is just incredibly shitty as implementing it. By contrast, my righty buddies simply round off the left as the anti-right. So if they are Pro Life and the left opposes them then the left must be Pro Death.
Nice try, Anti-Merit man! No preferences, less minorities, why would you think removing the AA policy will get us more minorities in colleges? Obviously if we add SAT points to how we rate them more minorities will get in.
Look at these studies, where it was actually tried and actually resulted in more minorities attending! Reminders of your past triumphs will not daunt me! Everyone will be judged on their own merits if I have anything to say about it. And on and on. This implies that the left veiw certain values as universal but think people disagree on matters of fact, and the right think people genuinely disagree on values. Sometimes it flips, though.
Plenty of libertarian conservatives and neocons think liberals and doves are just sincere but ignorant dopes. And a few chin-stroking Douthat types think social liberals are making analytical errors. But I think outside of policy elites and pundits, most FOX News type conservatives just think socialists as they see it and social liberals are straight up evil, or at least immoral.
Abortion and taxation seem to stick out me as cases where the reverse applies. Also, not saying anything new, just supplying relevant old links, but Robin Hanson on tolerance. In my experience, conservatives are the only group about which it is possible to say something disparaging and earnestly mean it.
Apparently this prejudice is not merely idle talk, either: If you ask a liberal academic why there are hardly any conservatives in academia, you typically get a reply alluding to lack of interest or lack of brains.
The question I always want to follow with is: Such a great post. BTW the link to midas. And so in some sense should be admired. For an example there exist dorms on many campuses that are open to anyone but cishet men.
Even the thought of such a dorm makes me a mixture of sick and angry. This either requires a mindset totally different from mine or alot of humility. Even in the cases where I decide the discrimination is worth it some affirmative action, maybe those no cishet-men dorms, etc the whole thing makes me feel a little disgusted.
Presumably the white people writing those articles need to suppress their disgust at least? Related semi-alternate hypothesis to this and alternate hypothesis to Scott:
Thank you for visiting the homepage of this five-part series on the individuals and ideas shaping my worldview. I have gained a lot of knowledge from these truly great minds, and the purpose of this series is to share what I have learned with you, my readers. I’m confident that the writings that.
WRITE MY PAPER FOR ME - WE CARE ABOUT QUALITY OF OUR SERVICE. We promote ourselves as college paper writing service that has earned its popularity by delivering outstanding quality articles.
Worldview Matters provides materials for training teachers in Christian schools and parents in the home, with an emphasis on the Christian worldview. The goal of Sudoku is to fill in a 9×9 grid with digits so that each column, row, and 3×3 section contain the numbers between 1 to 9. At the beginning of the game, .
@laughlovelogan oh. na dann fuhlst du den selben schmerz wie wir.:/ ich muss sogar in den "ferien" ein essay schreiben und 2 bucher lesen.. Fallstudie beispiel essay. @dwightxjim someone told me once their english tests are literally "who did romeo kill a.) whoever b.) etc" like theres no essays. lalla essaydi after ingres grand personal narrative vs essay.