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

221–230 of 235 posts

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

#221

Post by angersock »

taylodl wrote: post #210
angersock wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building on this point, values for a single person/group can be ranked in terms of importance: I value easily drinkable water much more than I value easy access to cat pictures, and I value easy access to cat pictures more than I value Irish independence (for example). This being the case, two groups that might differ on some values can oftentimes work together if they have similar regard for highly-prioritized share…

In my argumentation and debate class I took at the University many years ago the professor made the somewhat provocative statement that there is a set of universal values which everyone holds dear. The problem is they rank them differently in terms of importance and that's where all the arguments stem from. The key to effective debate is to identify those values you share and show you have the same mutual concerns.

Yep. When arguing properly (as opposed to here, for example), I usually try to start with a common set of values or facts with my opponent--oftentimes just using theirs for convenience's sake--and try to reason back to my own position.

Rarely does this fail. When it does fail, it usually means that we both have an incomplete view of the world, or that there is some incorrectness in the chain of reasoning that becomes evident pretty quickly.

Unfortunately, people usually prefer to take the (quicker, sloppier, more quarrelsome) route of "I have my facts, you have your facts, you are evil for believing ".

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

#222

Post by rhizome »

Veelox wrote: post #94
rhizome wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this should all be short-circuited by the fact that cultures are not a fixed value that can be compared for equality. Congruence, perhaps, but there are too many moving parts in culture to be able to rank them, which is an implication of solving for a single (imaginary) term.

Lets imagine a culture that says anyone that has brown eyes is a non-person and can be owned. Once owned that person can be beaten, raped, or killed at the whine of the owner. Further more, any crime comes with a price tag, if you pay the price, you can do whatever you want with no legal repercussions. I think we can rank our current culture as better than that one. If we can rank two culture than it is possible to c…

Critical evaluation does not depend on linear rankings.

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

#223

Post by splintercell »

manofstick wrote: post #50
darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to compare a country like NZ to the US in a fair and meaningful way. NZ is a small, ethnically (and therefore more importantly culturally) homogenous country. Now, it's not completely homogenous, but it is much more so than the US. Being a democracy, the policies of the country are inseparable from its culture and demographics. You say universal healthcare might stem the tide of cultural breakdown. But we c…

>> NZ is a small, ethnically (and therefore more importantly culturally) homogenous country Not according to the CIA Factbook it isn't: NZ: European 71.2%, Maori 14.1%, Asian 11.3%, Pacific peoples 7.6%, Middle Eastern, Latin American, African 1.1%, other 1.6%, not stated or unidentified 5.4% USA: white 72.4%, black 12.6%, Asian 4.8%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.9%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2%,…

What about Hispanics? Where did you get that stat from, can you cite your source please?

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

#224

Post by s17n »

overgard wrote: post #168
s17n wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question that the article raises is, should the Amy Wax face professional repercussions for making a racist argument? I think that as a law professor, the answer is yes - she should be held accountable for incompetence in op-ed writing in the same way that a scientist should be held accountable for incompetence in conducting an experiment. If she were a math professor or something, I would say that she had the ri…

The idea that she made a "racist argument" is a HUGE leap. She argued that marriage is important. You might agree or disagree, but ruining somones career because they have social views you disagree with is just gross.

As a specialist in, among other related fields, "social welfare law and policy" her social views are the substance of her career. If a mathematician believed that 1 + 1 was 3, I'd want her fired. This is similar.

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

#225

Post by leepowers »

pdkl95 wrote: post #140
leepowers wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> .... 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…

> We can also imagine an inner city black who has a choice between two value systems Far too many black families do no have the luxury to choose a new value system. Extreme generational poverty is bad enough, but many are not allowed to even start on a path towards self improvement because 7.7% of adult black men are currently in prison . How, exactly, does "pro-family culture" improve social mobility for the 1-in-9…

This underscores an error that many conservative thinkers make - that "values are everything." I think values are an important part of achieving good outcomes, but values don't exist in isolation. The war on drugs criminalizes behavior that could be better treated through rehabilitation. Then it compounds this error by imposing large externalities, like felony records that make it impossible to find a job, excessive mandatory minimum sentences, etc.

Values multiply positively with other factors. So it's not "bourgeois values" + "economic opportunity" == "success". It's more like "bourgeois values" * "economic opportunity" == success (multiplication instead of addition). When "economic opportunity" = 0 values will have no impact. This is an idea that a lot of us in the U.S. grapple with, that you can be virtuous but still end up with a bad outcome.

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

#226

Post by anigbrowl »

narrator wrote: post #202
anigbrowl wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really didn't matter if they were morally justified or not by any philosophy. The point was is that they were opposed to the hegemony and that's all that mattered. Wait...you're saying that they pursue their own interests?! How dare they!

The problem is that non-hegemonic factions may have contradictory interests. For example the Islamists and homosexuals do not agree on important issues. This isn't really important to the political opportunists because they are primarily interested in creating as large a power base aa possible for their ambitions so these contradictions are ignored as much as is possible by them. The fight a few years ago within the…

And organizations are also capable of resolving, setting aside, or deprioritizing those contradictions when it is in their mutual interest. To pick up from where you left off, that's why you now see the Sierra Club coming out as a group to protest against the end of DAVA' no doubt there are Sierra Club members who don't agree wit this stance, but they've either given up on the argument or chosen to stay home if they don't agree with the organization's direction.

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

#227

Post by anigbrowl »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #165
anigbrowl wrote: post #107

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? Whenever the signatories of such a communication agree upon the idea, surely? Political agency only exists to the degree…

You are a little disingenuous - no one would be complaining if someone on the law faculty wrote a counter opinion piece. What's happening isn't an expression of disagreement, which would be fine, but an attack on Wax to try and suppress her POV. Her critics made no "moral argument" they simply condemn her. http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/open-letter-penn-law-fa...

First, I am absolutely sure that someone would complain no matter what the response.

Second, the letter which you linked to is very clearly an expression of disagreement. In what way is it 'an attack on Wax to try and suppress her POV'? It explicitly acknowledges both her civil rights and the security of her academic tenure, and explicitly rejects her claims rather than demanding she be fired or refrain from public expression of her views.

Third, they absolutely make a moral argument: We believe the ideal of equal opportunity to succeed in education is best achieved by a combination of academic freedom, open debate and a commitment by all participants to respect one another without bias or stereotype. To our students, we say the following: If your experience at Penn Law falls substantially short of this ideal, something has gone wrong, and we want to know about it.

I still fail to see why people who disagree with someone on a political issue should be required to express their disagreement in a particular form. It looks to me as if these academics consider Wax's arguments so specious as to be unworthy of discussion. Why should they feel obliged to respond in a forum or format of their opponents' choosing?

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

#228

Post by narrator »

anigbrowl wrote: post #226
narrator wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that non-hegemonic factions may have contradictory interests. For example the Islamists and homosexuals do not agree on important issues. This isn't really important to the political opportunists because they are primarily interested in creating as large a power base aa possible for their ambitions so these contradictions are ignored as much as is possible by them. The fight a few years ago within the…

And organizations are also capable of resolving, setting aside, or deprioritizing those contradictions when it is in their mutual interest. To pick up from where you left off, that's why you now see the Sierra Club coming out as a group to protest against the end of DAVA' no doubt there are Sierra Club members who don't agree wit this stance, but they've either given up on the argument or chosen to stay home if they…

It's interesting how all these groups get absorbed by the Gramscians whether they want to or not. They can't maintain their focus with all the money from the big donors at stake who are not really dedicated to their original mission and instead want to amalgamate them into the big hegemony smashing coalition.

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

#229

Post by colanderman »

chc wrote: post #101
theseatoms wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

meme : atom :: culture : physics I agree that it's best to inspect culture from the bottom up rather than the top down. Start with the most granular units. Is anyone here acquainted with the current sociological orthodoxy or is that population mutually exclusive with HN commenters? :)

I think you probably mean "meme : culture :: atom : physics" (i.e. memes have the same relationship with culture that atoms do with physics).

To be fair, in the pure mathematical sense of “ratio”, A ∶ B ∷ C ∶ D and A ∶ C ∷ B ∶ D are equivalent statements.

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

#230

Post by anigbrowl »

narrator wrote: post #228
anigbrowl wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And organizations are also capable of resolving, setting aside, or deprioritizing those contradictions when it is in their mutual interest. To pick up from where you left off, that's why you now see the Sierra Club coming out as a group to protest against the end of DAVA' no doubt there are Sierra Club members who don't agree wit this stance, but they've either given up on the argument or chosen to stay home if they…

It's interesting how all these groups get absorbed by the Gramscians whether they want to or not. They can't maintain their focus with all the money from the big donors at stake who are not really dedicated to their original mission and instead want to amalgamate them into the big hegemony smashing coalition.

You could say that we're applying lean startup principles to to social engineering :-)

There are still lots of dogmatic and theoretical Marxists of various flavors, but since the financial crisis the left has become more agnostic and pragmatic. Wait until you see the next phase of our cunning plan.

Post reply on HN