Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thomas Sowell interview

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 457 posts

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#141

Post by ardy42 »

alexarnesen wrote: post #117
wry_discontent wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this community? Das Kapital. For something less rigorous and more accessible, probably something by Richard Wolff, but I'm not familiar enough w/ his writings to recommend anything specific.

I see you recommended the heavy work, not just the propaganda pamphlet - good. I haven't read Das Kapital and I should. However... My question: an oft repeated refrain, when Marx is touted as a reasonable alternative, is that any time anyone tried his ideas out, it was a total disaster (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez). I have watched some Wolff on Youtube, as well as other lectures on Marxism, because I'm interested an…

> My question: an oft repeated refrain, when Marx is touted as a reasonable alternative, is that any time anyone tried his ideas out, it was a total disaster (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez).

I've not read Marx, nor am I a Marxist, but my understanding is that most of his work is a diagnosis of a problem, not a plan for a cure. IIRC, Marx's own "plan" was basically more capitalism harder until it collapses and something ill-defined without its problems emerges from the ashes. Those people you cite (assuming they even wanted to improve anything rather than amass personal power), can probably be thought as a doctor who could correctly diagnose cancer but proposed a incorrect theory for a cure (e.g. something based on the four humors). Their failure to cure cancer doesn't mean the patient didn't have cancer or that cancer can't be cured.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#142

Post by rukittenme »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #81
deiznof wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that calling out systemic racism is like a Nazi propaganda tactic. Look up any of his other views on literally any social issues, it's just whatever Fox News-esque conservative would want to hear. Like, somehow it's not the government snatching people up in vans that is Nazi-like, it's actually the anti-racist protesters that are Nazi's to the genius brain of Thomas Sowell. How do people idolize this guy?

[flagged]

> To say things that white conservatives believe but suffer ridicule for saying.

This is so ridiculously racist and uninformed I don't know where to begin.

First, it assumes Sowell hasn't made any unique contributions to economics or politics. This is completely false but you presume it because... he's black? If he were white would you take him more seriously?

Second, you presume the only reason he is allowed to speak is to justify the racism of others. Which reduces Sowell to a useful idiot or a token. It completely strips him of his accomplishments. Imagine saying that a former member of government, a PhD, award winning economist, author of more than a dozen best selling books, and fellow at more than a dozen prestigious institutions is only listened to because he's black.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#143

Post by minikites »

mc32 wrote: post #51
kypro wrote: post #37

Thomas Sowell has had a huge impact on me and my views on economics. I'm from a poor working-class background and am often irritated by the needless language barriers of academics. > “Too many academics write as if plain English is beneath their dignity,” Sowell once said, “and some seem to regard logic as an unconstitutional infringement of their freedom of speech.” Sowell is unique in this respect. He's book, "Basi…

I wish other writers would take this to heart. Reading The New Yorker it’s as if their language is a shibboleth and if they didn’t use it, it would alienate their audience for using average language, yet they are the same people who pontificate and pretend they advocate for the lower classes.

I can understand this point of view but the point of elevated language and academic jargon is to allow for a more accurate and nuanced discussion without having to re-state assumptions and underlying principles. It's often not done well or used to obfuscate ideas, but the core principle has merit.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#144

Post by minikites »

hedberg10 wrote: post #71
mc32 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish other writers would take this to heart. Reading The New Yorker it’s as if their language is a shibboleth and if they didn’t use it, it would alienate their audience for using average language, yet they are the same people who pontificate and pretend they advocate for the lower classes.

Let them. If you have the psychological need to constantly show how smart you are, your life will be very stressful indeed. You will want to manipulate others to get confirmation of your acrobatics and always be on the lookout for disproof. This will lead to you limiting your life severely for fear of actually finding it. -former smartness showoff who now acts betterer

> Years ago my mother used to say to me, "In this world, you must be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#145

Post by chmod600 »

One important impact he had on my thinking is that he rejects groupings of people based on snapshots in time.

For instance, it is very common to use income as a proxy for your economic success, and then to group people into quintiles, calling the bottom quintile "the poor". It seems reasonable, but it's wrong enough to lead to very wrong conclusions. A college student living on their own will appear to be a "poor household", even though many are likely to be in the top quintile later on in their life. These scenarios seem like exceptions, but when you add them up (as Dr. Sowell does), they show a very different picture.

Following people (statistically) through their lives, and across generations, is a common theme in his work. It's harder to get good data than the snapshot-in-time approach, but he does the work, and it's so much more informative.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#146

Post by sbuttgereit »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #81
deiznof wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that calling out systemic racism is like a Nazi propaganda tactic. Look up any of his other views on literally any social issues, it's just whatever Fox News-esque conservative would want to hear. Like, somehow it's not the government snatching people up in vans that is Nazi-like, it's actually the anti-racist protesters that are Nazi's to the genius brain of Thomas Sowell. How do people idolize this guy?

[flagged]

So then, how does a black person adopt, of their own free will without a thought of "white belief", a conservative outlook an not run afoul of your complaint?

Are you suggesting that they stay silent? How is injecting race into the political discourse at this level not in itself patently racist? Are you suggesting that only whites are allowed such free choices in their beliefs?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#147

Post by ralusek »

deiznof wrote: post #17

His economics are sound, but I often find that his takes on social issues are extremely reductionist. His social views a lot of the time are just standard conservative views (and wrong IMO), I wish he wasn't being praised for that. One example being his view on systemic racism, which he described as: “It does remind me of the propaganda tactics of Joseph Goebbels in the age of the Nazis, in which he was supposed to h…

His social commentary is some of his most important work. If you had to isolate Sowell's most repeated, potent point, it would be that disparities in population outcomes are nowhere near sufficient to infer discrimination as a primary contributor. If people better understood this single fact, it would go a long way to disentangling the absolute mess of a concept that is systemic racism.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#148

Post by rukittenme »

BurningFrog wrote: post #125
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think Sowell is a very important thinker in his own right. At the same time, there is nothing conservatives love more than a black intellectual who strongly agrees with them. Perhaps for both good and bad reasons. That adoration does color the perception of people like Sowell.

Poor black people. You're either a token for conservative "racists" or a whip for liberal "racists" to flagellate themselves with.

Always the supporting actor. Never allowed to have ideas which inspire others to action. Just a tool for white people.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#149

Post by ardy42 »

marcusverus wrote: post #133
pjc50 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "Cancel culture" here and what specifically do you think might apply to Sowell?

'Cancel Culture' here seems to refer to the rash of firings and administrative punishments for academics who question the progressive dogma, especially w/ regards to BLM, the gender pay gap, institutional racism, etc. Here is an academic 'cancellations' tracking document by the National Association of Scholars: https://www.nas.org/storage/app/media/New%20Documents/academ...

> Here is an academic 'cancellations' tracking document by the National Association of Scholars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Schola...

> The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is an American non-profit politically conservative advocacy group, with a particular interest in education.[2][3] It opposes a perceived political correctness on college campuses and supports a return to mid-20th-century curricular and scholarship norms, and an increase in conservative representation in faculty.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#150

Post by Emma_Goldman »

BurningFrog wrote: post #116
Emma_Goldman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New Yorker is an upper-middle class publication. That is its target audience. Other magazines owned by the same media conglomerate, Conde Nast, are broadly similar in orientation: Vogue, Bon Appetit, Vanity Fair, GQ, Architectural Digest. I don't think they 'advocate for the lower classes', subjectively or objectively. I read very few socialists and communists in the New Yorker!

As OP said," pretend they advocate for the lower classes"

Hence why I wrote 'subjectively or objectively'. They have no pretence to being a working-class magazine, or to advocating a working-class politics.
Post reply on HN