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

In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

heterodoxacademy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 235 posts

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#151

Post by WillPostForFood »

gertef wrote: post #95
coldtea wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hypocrisy. All they care is that she is "Politically Incorrect" -- they could not care less about the facts. Not to mention that when someone is wrong about facts you correct them, you don't fire them or ask for their condemnation. Professors are not supposed to be correct, just to probe for what's correct. In fact they should be encouraged to be boldly inquisitive and incorrect in that pursuit, and use dialog t…

Professors are expected to have some self-awareness and avoid stating their opinions as facts.

I totally disagree, but it was literally an "opinion" piece in the "Opinion" section of the newspaper, so not sure what your complaint is.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#152

Post by exelius »

weberc2 wrote: post #115
exelius wrote: post #75

I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with the original author's thesis: not all cultures are created equal. But the author does make a critical conservative assumption by implying that economic output is a proxy for "value". This is honestly the critical point: our culture defines how we value things. Some cultures are not bothered by things like social welfare or socialist policies because the base unit o…

Could you clarify your argument? It sounds like you're saying something to the effect of "The author is just upset that life is better for people with different attributes than her; no one can legitimately hold her point of view". I don't think that's what you mean, but I want to give you the opportunity to clarify.

I'm trying to say that her argument simply isn't very interesting :)

Look, the only people who think America was better off in the 60s/70s are the ones who benefitted from the systemic discrimination inherent of that era. It's perfectly reasonable for them to feel that way, and I'm not even saying I blame them for feeling left behind. Is America actually better off today? It depends who you ask.

It's just not intellectually very interesting to talk about. All she's doing is imposing cherry-picked aspects of her chosen value system as objectively "better" while ignoring the whole point that any definition of "better" relies on a subjective personal value system to begin with.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#153

Post by kelnos »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #130
exelius wrote: post #75

I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with the original author's thesis: not all cultures are created equal. But the author does make a critical conservative assumption by implying that economic output is a proxy for "value". This is honestly the critical point: our culture defines how we value things. Some cultures are not bothered by things like social welfare or socialist policies because the base unit o…

> But the author does make a critical conservative assumption by implying that economic output is a proxy for "value". I think she made a critical assumption that "ability to create economic output" is a proxy for "ability to lift people out of poverty". I consider that statement to be much more reasonable than its negation.

I don't think that's a great proxy. Just because a group has high economic output and an ability to lift people out of poverty, it doesn't mean they will. The rising income inequality in the US (without a desire to increase social welfare programs) coupled with the fact that the US's economy is still growing would seem like a counterexample.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#154

Post by stinkytaco »

gertef wrote: post #95
coldtea wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hypocrisy. All they care is that she is "Politically Incorrect" -- they could not care less about the facts. Not to mention that when someone is wrong about facts you correct them, you don't fire them or ask for their condemnation. Professors are not supposed to be correct, just to probe for what's correct. In fact they should be encouraged to be boldly inquisitive and incorrect in that pursuit, and use dialog t…

Professors are expected to have some self-awareness and avoid stating their opinions as facts.

I think in the world of economics, those are very fuzzy lines. Economics and law are full of conjecture, the belief that if one thing is true, others will probably be as well (see supply-side economics, Marxism, and so on), and the amount those views are clung to despite existing data is startling. I don't agree with the conclusions she comes to, but it's not a huge jump from what economists the Krugman do all the time.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#155

Post by Edmond »

erulabs wrote: post #84
wsxcde wrote: post #46

Let's not get bogged down by the all cultures are not equal strawman. That is not at all the key point here. Amy Wax/OP's argument is problematic because it conflates very different things using a subtly disingenuous argument. She starts off by saying something completely uncontroversial: kids from stable marriages do well in school. But she then plays on the audiences implicit biases to imply -- but not explicitly a…

I do agree completely, but it should be pointed out that she, before mentioning inner city blacks, also mentioned: > Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites Its a bit silly to split that along racial terms (both Wax and the offendees)... There are plenty of single-parent antisocial working-class blacks as well. In my mind the real conflation is the difference between an…

Small nitpick:

While Jazz is mostly an African American creation and most of it's most successful practitioners are black, most Jazz aficionados will bristle at lumping Jazz with hiphop... it would be like lumping Beethoven with Ozzy Osborne, doesn't compute....I am a big hiphop fan and a lover of jazz but they are different.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#156

Post by kelnos »

Veelox wrote: post #141
wsxcde wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think you're so focused on detecting a dog whistle that you're missing the key point being raised." There is no need to detect a dogwhistle. We have an explicit statement from Wax ( http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/amy-wax-penn-law-cultur... ) where she says Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior. "I don't shrink from the word, 'superior,'" she said, adding, "Everyone wants to come to the countries that…

An aside, I grew up in a small Midwest town. There was one black family in town. One of the sons was in the grade above me in school and people would joke that he wasn't really "black". This was because he had been raise in a small Midwest town and had small-town values and habits. He and his family were an accepted part of the community because they had the same values. If a member of the Bloods had moved in town, t…

You're assuming that "inner-city black values" is a thing, and that black people living in inner cities all have the same values. That's the part that's racist.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#157

Post by WillPostForFood »

padseeker wrote: post #87
coldtea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Already you lost me. There are plenty of single parents out of wedlock children in very white states like West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. How is rap culture or black people responsible for the actions of white people in these areas? Where did the author said it is? They said there are "single-parent, antisocial habits" that are prevalent among some working-class whites" AND an "anti-“acting white” rap culture of inne…

Amy Wax said it, quoted by the author. It's in the article. 7th paragraph down.

You are misreading it, she is listing three distinct groups, note the semicolons in the list. She is in no way saying one group is affecting the other, just that they all share non-bourgeois values.

Regarding being "not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment." she adds: Nor are:

the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites;

the anti-“acting white” rap culture of inner-city blacks;

the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#158

Post by TheCoelacanth »

leepowers wrote: post #81
wsxcde wrote: post #46

Let's not get bogged down by the all cultures are not equal strawman. That is not at all the key point here. Amy Wax/OP's argument is problematic because it conflates very different things using a subtly disingenuous argument. She starts off by saying something completely uncontroversial: kids from stable marriages do well in school. But she then plays on the audiences implicit biases to imply -- but not explicitly a…

> .... inner city blacks are incompatible with an advanced free market economy. We must have read different articles because that's not what I saw - I think you're so focused on detecting a dog whistle that you're missing the key point being raised. Values are race, gender, and class neutral. A value or system of values can be adopted by a person regardless of their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. Value…

Inner-city blacks don't have a lack of stable family life because of "culture". It's because we lock up vast numbers of young black men for minor crimes right when they would otherwise be forming families.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#159

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ianbicking wrote: post #79

From the article: "Of course we are always free to dispute each other; Wax’s colleagues could certainly have written essays or a collective essay debating her claims and pointing out flaws in her reasoning, but when is it morally and professionally appropriate to issue a collective public condemnation of a colleague? "I think such collective actions are only appropriate when colleagues have clearly and flagrantly vio…

Why is that an extreme assertion? Until maybe two years ago, it would have been considered extreme to call for a professor's head for anything short of real misconduct.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#160

Post by kelnos »

chrishacken wrote: post #48
danfolkes wrote: post #18

Here is a follow-up article written by one of the 33 members of the University of Pennsylvania Law School faculty to sign a letter criticizing Amy Wax: Don’t Care if Amy Wax Is Politically Incorrect; I Do Care that She’s Empirically Incorrect https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/09/03/i-dont-care-if-amy-w...

What concerns me is that people act like she doesn't have the right to write her opinion (it clearly is just her opinion; it was published to the opinion section), without her facing repercussion.

Tolerance only goes so far. You can have whatever opinion you want, but that doesn't mean you get to escape the consequences of having views that people find objectionable.

You can certainly walk around town telling everyone they are stupid, but you shouldn't be surprised when everyone hates you afterward. "It's just my opinion" is a weak excuse.

Post reply on HN