4 ms·

So I went and read the Pinker's "rebuttal." He just casually avoided the claim about the entire base of their infographic being bogus, then went on to calling m

So I went and read the Pinker's "rebuttal." He just casually avoided the claim about the entire base of their infographic being bogus, then went on to calling mild centre-left socialdemocrats "far leftists". Why is _anyone_ treating that guy seriously?

Mirioron 8y ago
Because Pinker's rebuttal was initially supposed to be an email to somebody else. He recognized that Hickel was likely pushing an ideology and left it at that. Even in the email Pinker is saying that he's citing experts in the field. >then went on to calling mild centre-left socialdemocrats A central point in the criticism Hickel wrote was that markets don't work, but regulation, protectionism and state intervention does. I'm not sure that would qualify him as a "mild centre-left social democrat".
- andrepd 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure regulation, protectionism and state intervention in a market economy is the definition of social-democracy.
  - jopsen 8y ago
    No, not really. Social democracy is about solidarity. It does not conflict with a free market which needs regulation to stay free, it does not encourage protectionism, rather it seeks solidarity with others. I should know I live in one :)
    - esarbe 8y ago
      I too live in a Social democracy. And I'd say that the GP is pretty much spot on. Social democracy, from Wikipedia, an excerpt: "The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions." So, there you have regulation and and state-intervention. If you then consider that every Social Democracy in Europe has some sort of protectionist policy with regards to it's agricultural sector, I'd say that GP is spot on. For the European Union, the agricultural subsidies still make up about 38% of the budget. What's that, besides protectionist? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy) So, there you have all three; regulation and state-intervention by definition, protectionism by fact.
- LaGrange 8y ago
  > Because Pinker's rebuttal was initially supposed to be an email to somebody else. ...you can't really be serious? It's published. With his knowledge. He could have edited it, or at least quickly tweeted "omg this was terrible I'm sorry I had a heated gaming moment." > A central point in the criticism Hickel wrote was that markets don't work, but regulation, protectionism and state intervention does. I'm not sure that would qualify him as a "mild centre-left social democrat". That's literally the definition of a mild centre-left social democrat.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    A social democrat, at least when looking at Europe, is somebody who thinks markets work. They simply want a better safety net for people and maybe some additional regulation to keep the market more fair.
readittwice 8y ago
To be fair Pinker wrote that in a private mail. When you criticize this, then also let's not forget what on the other hand Hinkel wrote in his article published in the Guardian newspaper: > It is madness – and no amount of mansplaining from billionaires will be adequate to justify it. We can certainly discuss about the data and how to interpret it, but using such phrases in a newspaper-article isn't really helpful either.
- LaGrange 8y ago
  > wrote in his article published in the Guardian newspaper: [mansplaining] ...I mean, Hinkel's a dude too and should perhaps avoid the term, but these are men spouting nonsense and telling off more expertised people, so it's not too far off.
  - sooheon 8y ago
    It's drawing unnecessary attention to the sex of the human over the content of the argument. The way people casually (and self deprecatingly) throw it into conversation seems like a cheap way to win points with those who share a certain ideology, not a logical argument.
  - readittwice 8y ago
    Hinkel shouldn't have used this term, simply because Pinker was NOT mansplaining. And AFAIK Pinker isn't a billionaire either. Calling them mansplaining billionairs is IMHO a cheap shot. Pinker and Hinkel have different opinions - which is perfectly fine, experts disagree a lot after all. But accusing someone of mansplaining just because of having a different opinion is not correct. An expert in this area should argue differently.
5trokerac3 8y ago
> If people had willingly opted into the capitalist labour system, while retaining rights to their commons and while gaining a fair share of the yields they produced, we would have a very different story on our hands. That's straight out of Marx/Engels. I don't think far left is an unfair statement.

Mirioron 8y ago

Because Pinker's rebuttal was initially supposed to be an email to somebody else. He recognized that Hickel was likely pushing an ideology and left it at that. Even in the email Pinker is saying that he's citing experts in the field. >then went on to calling mild centre-left socialdemocrats A central point in the criticism Hickel wrote was that markets don't work, but regulation, protectionism and state intervention does. I'm not sure that would qualify him as a "mild centre-left social democrat".

andrepd 8y ago
I'm pretty sure regulation, protectionism and state intervention in a market economy is the definition of social-democracy.
- jopsen 8y ago
  No, not really. Social democracy is about solidarity. It does not conflict with a free market which needs regulation to stay free, it does not encourage protectionism, rather it seeks solidarity with others. I should know I live in one :)
  - esarbe 8y ago
    I too live in a Social democracy. And I'd say that the GP is pretty much spot on. Social democracy, from Wikipedia, an excerpt: "The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions." So, there you have regulation and and state-intervention. If you then consider that every Social Democracy in Europe has some sort of protectionist policy with regards to it's agricultural sector, I'd say that GP is spot on. For the European Union, the agricultural subsidies still make up about 38% of the budget. What's that, besides protectionist? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy) So, there you have all three; regulation and state-intervention by definition, protectionism by fact.
LaGrange 8y ago
> Because Pinker's rebuttal was initially supposed to be an email to somebody else. ...you can't really be serious? It's published. With his knowledge. He could have edited it, or at least quickly tweeted "omg this was terrible I'm sorry I had a heated gaming moment." > A central point in the criticism Hickel wrote was that markets don't work, but regulation, protectionism and state intervention does. I'm not sure that would qualify him as a "mild centre-left social democrat". That's literally the definition of a mild centre-left social democrat.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  A social democrat, at least when looking at Europe, is somebody who thinks markets work. They simply want a better safety net for people and maybe some additional regulation to keep the market more fair.

readittwice 8y ago

To be fair Pinker wrote that in a private mail. When you criticize this, then also let's not forget what on the other hand Hinkel wrote in his article published in the Guardian newspaper: > It is madness – and no amount of mansplaining from billionaires will be adequate to justify it. We can certainly discuss about the data and how to interpret it, but using such phrases in a newspaper-article isn't really helpful either.

LaGrange 8y ago
> wrote in his article published in the Guardian newspaper: [mansplaining] ...I mean, Hinkel's a dude too and should perhaps avoid the term, but these are men spouting nonsense and telling off more expertised people, so it's not too far off.
- sooheon 8y ago
  It's drawing unnecessary attention to the sex of the human over the content of the argument. The way people casually (and self deprecatingly) throw it into conversation seems like a cheap way to win points with those who share a certain ideology, not a logical argument.
- readittwice 8y ago
  Hinkel shouldn't have used this term, simply because Pinker was NOT mansplaining. And AFAIK Pinker isn't a billionaire either. Calling them mansplaining billionairs is IMHO a cheap shot. Pinker and Hinkel have different opinions - which is perfectly fine, experts disagree a lot after all. But accusing someone of mansplaining just because of having a different opinion is not correct. An expert in this area should argue differently.

5trokerac3 8y ago

> If people had willingly opted into the capitalist labour system, while retaining rights to their commons and while gaining a fair share of the yields they produced, we would have a very different story on our hands. That's straight out of Marx/Engels. I don't think far left is an unfair statement.