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

Encountering Thomas Sowell

lawliberty.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 272 posts

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#191

Post by throwawaysea »

glasss wrote: post #30
f154hfds wrote: post #2

> Many people wondered last summer why, for example, on the Black Lives Matter website the organization declared (and has since deleted) a “disruptive” stance on the nuclear family. What did that have to do with mobilizing against police violence? For a long time I was very sympathetic to BLM, I would even have considered protesting with them. It was the above that caused me to rethink my position and eventually deci…

I do hope everyone would be at least sympathetic towards other human beings wanting justice and equal treatment. I would be wary about that website and I would take whatever you see about a central organization relating to BLM with a grain of salt. I've been involved in local protests and other events in Chicago and I've never once been directed to or heard of a centralized website. I hope you reconsider your stance…

It may be decentralized, but it does have a shared slogan (which is repeated and amplified by individuals and organizations affiliated with the movement), and it does have an agenda expressing their ideology. BLM deleted the "What We Believe" page once it became controversial but you can find a copy of the original online (https://uca.edu/training/files/2020/09/black-Lives-Matter-Ha...). You can also see the "13 guiding principles" that are commonly adopted and implemented by institutions like schools (https://www.blacklivesmatteratschool.com/13-guiding-principl...) or the NEA (https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/black...), which is the main teachers' union in the US and also the largest labor union in the US. Even if there are many organizations and actors, the widespread and uniform adoption of their agenda resembles the long march through institutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_ins...), and is turning our institutions into channels for indoctrination (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/should-bla...),

Also tellingly, they are far from an organization focused on just policing equality, which is ostensibly where BLM began. If you look at the latest updates on their website (https://blacklivesmatter.com/blm-demands/), you'll see them advocate for various explicitly political goals aligned with the Democratic party, such as wanting Trump banned from digital platforms (censorship), wanting to expel legislators who challenged election results (violating their political rights), and more. The 13 principles and "what we believe" manifesto I mentioned above also encompass the vast majority of the progressive political platform rather than focusing on the policing issue.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#192

Post by hajile »

TomatoDash wrote: post #171
freedom42 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that measure have an inherent bias? Is it like saying kids with parents that tolerate each other are successful? When they don't tolerate, they separate and are not a two parent household anymore and so don't show up in the measure. Maybe it just means kids in peaceful households fare better?

It does. This text picks it apart concisely. https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/03/01/the-success-...

That text doesn’t actually dismantle anything (and ignores mountains of other evidence) and doesn’t defend its own alternative either. Put simply, if redistribution worked, we’d see poverty rates decrease rather than stagnate or increase.

In contrast, single parent households drastically reduce the chances of success in life along a ton of metrics. Those kids get worse grades, drop out early, suffer learning and mental disorders at a much higher rate, are much more subject to domestic violence, etc. A shocking statistic is that around 85% of people in prison had no significant father figure in their life. This isn’t a one-off statistic either as incarceration rates do seem to track with single mothers over time. It even affects the mothers themselves who report higher rates of mental health issues (this tracks over time and across racial and ethnic groups).

Note: This probably would occur with single fathers too, but fathers are unlikely to be granted custody unless the mother has extreme issues going on and the father has a pristine record in comparison. Likewise, with 90+% of elementary teachers now being women (this wasn’t always true), finding a male role model is more difficult during the early, formative years.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#193

Post by pluto9 »

tptacek wrote: post #168
rayiner wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alliance of necessity between social liberals and racial justice advocates creates this problem. There is not anything inherent about “people of color should be treated equally” that also requires buying into “we should disrupt the nuclear family.” That’s just how the political alliances have worked out. The latter ideology in practice works to undercut the former ideology. The contribution to racial inequality i…

We've been through this argument, recently, and I'm a little disappointed that you're framing this observation as if that discussion hadn't occurred already. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23766155 The implication of your comment is that the alternative to "the nuclear family" is "single-parent families". But the other alternative to nuclear families is "extended families", which you yourself have written about…

So what, you set him straight and now he's never allowed to hold that opinion ever again? Maybe he didn't accept your argument.

What a ridiculously pompous comment. Tptacek has spoken, everyone. The matter is settled. We can all go home.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#194

Post by pwdisswordfish0 »

zo1 wrote: post #70
runako wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my question is: to whom did all that money go? (The link you provide outlines where the money went.)

The point is that this "decentralized" movement has a central organization that has a lot of money donated to it, and that the central/important tenets of that central organization probably has some measurable influence in deciding which "decentralized" parts of the organization get funding/donations/focus/marketing. So if the "BLM" organization views the nuclear family as something that has to be abolished, then one…

> With this whole "decentralized" argument, we might as well say the Republican/Democratic parties are decentralized and that what the RNC and DNC

It's worse than that; it's a classic motte-and-bailey.

Try to address some issue with the Black Lives Matter organization, and you're apt to see a retreat to the banner of lowercase "black lives matter" as a principle. This is like trying to address some issue with the "Democratic Party", and then those being criticized scurry over to an excuse like, "What, you don't believe in democracy?" Of course, no one makes that kind of mistake, because such a defense wouldn't be possible. It's well understood that the capital-D Democrats comprise a concrete organization with an actual platform, etc that is identifiable by the proper noun, which is distinct from democracy as a principle, even though they share a root. In the case of Black Lives Matter, it's more than just a shared root, and this is less clear overall, so people who can benefit from the halo effect strengthening their foothold knowingly exploit it for gain.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#195

Post by claudiawerner »

ctrlp wrote: post #170
claudiawerner wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm yet to see anyone describe themselves as simply a 'trained Marxist' without any indication as to what that might mean specifically, other than these BLM leaders. A 'trained Marxist guerilla'? Sure. A 'trained Marxist economist'? Sure. 'Educatied in Marxism'? Sure. Even just a 'Marxist', sure. But even with the Leninist part (which the quote doesn't specify - there are plenty of non-Leninist Marxists about) it's u…

Right, if you haven't seen it it must not exist. Are you from Missouri? If that level of radical skepticism works for you, good on ya. Personally, I don't conflate things that I don't know with things that can't be known. A trained Marxist is an activist, it's really that simple. The point is not to interpret the world but to change it yada yada yada. A Leninist is a Marxist who believes the proletariat is too econom…

>Right, if you haven't seen it it must not exist. Are you from Missouri? If that level of radical skepticism works for you, good on ya.

There's no need for a confrontational tone. In the past I've interacted with many Marxists, activists, organizers, and academics. I'm more trying to apply my experience to the topic, not to suppose that nobody describes themselves as a 'trained Marxist'.

>A trained Marxist is an activist, it's really that simple.

Why do we see people describe themselves as 'Marxist activists' etc. more than 'trained Marxists', then? If somebody learned Marxist philosophy in private, does this make them a 'trained Marxist'? Who trained them, in that case?

>A Leninist is a Marxist who believes the proletariat is too economically comfortable

I know it's a technicality, but this is not the reason behind the vanguard party. The idea of a proletariat which is too comfortable with capitalism is more of a Frankfurt School flourish on Marxism, and bypasses Lenin entirely. The vanguard party, at least in Leninist theory, is not a specially trained force of revolutionaries, but a party (in the normal sense of the word) open to anyone to join. It's not a group of trained revolutionaries (and perhaps you recognize this by the fact you put 'trained' in quotes). In theory, the vanguard party could be completely transparent (in the sense of not even being a formal party, but encompassing all who share in the ideals), or even non-activists (such as academics) and untrained people (such as those who have come accross Marx without any outside influence or instruction) could be a part of it.

Obscuring 'trained Marxists' into 'Marxist activists' requires a non-obvious interpretation of 'trained' and 'activism' which misses out on the nuance of both. An activist for animal rights along Peter Singer's philosophy is not a "trained utilitarian", nor even a "trained animal rights activist". An an activist for Stallman's free software philosophy is not necessarily a "trained free software activist". If all 'trained Marxists' are 'Marxist activists', then the obverse would have to be true as well, but I can think of many 'Marxist activists' who have a very poor grasp on Marx and Engels, to the point where it would be farcical to call them 'trained Marxists', much in the same way a 'trained programmer' who can barely write more than a fizzbuzz would be a farcical designation.

People can be trained guerillas, trained activists, etc. - because those are things you do, and the origin of the knowledge is inherently practical and handed down by someone external. Marxism, however, does not provide practical guidance (at least not in any sense, as Marx admits, to be relevant after he initially wrote the Manifesto). It's theory, and you're reading 'activists' into it in a way that has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of 'training' or 'activist'.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#196

Post by TomatoDash »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #65
lbj wrote: post #21

Great piece. I have to admit I'm a bit of a fan when it comes to both Friedman and Sowell. They seem to have the rare gift of understanding subjects so well and intuitively that they can explain those subjects more plainly than anyone else. Where most economists have disappointed me greatly in their understanding of math, Sowell has done to opposite.

I have this feeling Sowell isn’t liked/respected by AOC/Pelosi because of how hard he disagrees with them. Can anybody tell me how he is perceived by liberals? Not trying to get political. Genuinely curious if he is an outcast to the left because a ton of what he says seems to fall into “conservative views”.

I have in the past read a few short pieces by Sowell. Impression: weak normative reasoning, shaky empirical claims. I'd be happy if you steelman Sowell for me. Point to at most 10 pages of text where you think he is at his best, giving an argument for something supported by sound reasoning and strong empirical evidence. It might update my view of him.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#197

Post by m0llusk »

bopbeepboop wrote: post #116
m0llusk wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is amazing that people are always projecting these ideas of organization so aggressively. Here BLM is portrayed an organization with founding documents that are have important guiding philosophy from which the rest emerges. Actually looking at the people and what happened shows that there was very little organization involved and what little there was got conjured up late in the game by the most extreme involved p…

Yes, it matters what the group espouses: a group using the death of George Floyd to attack the nuclear family using trickery is a second problem.

What group is this? Protesters used the slogan and there is now an organization that uses that slogan. Does that mean that the protestors and their protests can be conflated with the organization that makes use of the name? Sharing a negative reaction to cops murdering citizens is not the same as being an organized group. Slogans have great power, but not that power.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#198

Post by jjeaff »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #95
zpeti wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dig at fathers in the first paragraph, and a diplomatically stated rejection of the nuclear family in the second. You need to be very generous to interpret this as anything other than an attack on the traditional family.

And across all the KPI's we know of - kids in a two parent household are more successful by every measure.

Which is why it says they reject the "requirement". No one is denying that a 2 parent home is better.

But if you are a kid that grew up with one parent, we need to have alternatives to help those kids thrive. Harping on the fact that 2 parents are better than 1 does nothing for kids with only one parent (except maybe make them feel defective and disadvantaged).

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#199

Post by chumich1 »

tryonenow wrote: post #31
chumich1 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of somebody being a "trained Marxist" is very funny. Personally, I'm a 4th degree Historical Materialist and I'm training for the 2nd level Communist obstacle course

I can see how it's "funny" if one is trying to minimize and deflect, but if they're hanging around characters like maduro then they're probably referring to more than just economic or government theory - these people see themselves as full blown subversive revolutionaries. And then if you consider the spread of critical theory and postmodernism and the general influence of the Frankfurt school through our institution…

I don't think you have much to worry about in the US. From my experience, those who call themselves "Marxist" have a hard time organizing a barbecue, let alone a revolution. They are mostly revolutionary LARPers. I think the internet and media sometimes magnify the size and power of these groups and it warps with our perception of reality. The largest Leninist group in the US is the PSL and they're a joke. A bunch of weirdos with no friends but the ones they found online
Post reply on HN