5 ms·

> That said, I heartily commend Quiggin for actually making our bet. He towers above all of the apologists for European labor market regulation who refuse to p

> That said, I heartily commend Quiggin for actually making our bet. He towers above all of the apologists for European labor market regulation who refuse to put their money where their mouths are. I know nothing of the people or personalities involved...but this does not give me a good impression of the author. First, he never refers to anyone with a contrary opinion in any way other than "apologist". Second, he never addresses any other value than the unemployment rate as a number (for example, I can easily imagine an "apologist" being uninterested in his bet if they think he might be right about the numbers, but they value the regulation for other reasons). In never addressing their views, he dismisses them as unworthy. I'm poorly versed in economics so I don't really have an opinion on the actual matter under debate...but I can easily see him writing a smug and self-congratulatory article on this topic that nonetheless gave me a better opinion of him.

TimTheTinker 8y ago
> First, he never refers to anyone with a contrary opinion in any way other than "apologist". What's wrong with the term "apologist"? It simply means one who defends a particular viewpoint or belief. (It comes from the Greek ἀπολογία, which means a "formal oratory defense" of a position.)
- gipp 8y ago
  That's just being deliberately obtuse. I don't believe I've ever in my life heard "apologist" used in a non-pejorative sense. Etymology is irrelevant here.
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    > That's just being deliberately obtuse. What? That's rather insulting to assume; I'm being absolutely serious. > I don't believe I've ever in my life heard "apologist" used in a non-pejorative sense. That's genuinely interesting. I've always heard it used in a respectful sense. We must run in different circles. (I've always heard it used of Christian apologetics.)
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    Christian Apologists immediately come to mind for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics I wouldn't consider the term "apologist" to be pejorative at all.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Maybe the term "apologist" is uncollegial out of context, but apologia without stake is worthy of a ribbing when the apology matures into a confirmed failure. Also why can't people have fun battling with words and bets? It seems better than revolution or fistfights to me.
    - ergothus 8y ago
      > Also why can't people have fun battling with words and bets? They can, and it is definitely better than violence, but I don't conflate "fun" with "belittling and demeaning" . (not to imply that you do, just showing the distinction I am making). I can think of a few other "I won a bet" posts I've seen over the years and they didn't have this negativity associated with it, despite their authors clearly feeling proven justified.
      - microcolonel 8y ago
        > They can, and it is definitely better than violence, but I don't conflate "fun" with "belittling and demeaning". I'll let the targets... no... the victims of the world's gentlest ribbing speak for themselves.
  - sbuttgereit 8y ago
    You mean like this... https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-65/apologetics-cs-lewis.html https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-65/ap... The person you are responding to is correct. "Apologist" may be used as you say often in "modern" vernacular English, but it still is properly used as suggested.
  - nemo1618 8y ago
    To be fair, people such as GK Chesterton and CS Lewis are referred to as "Christian apologists" with no slight intended. But I would tend to agree that in modern times it carries a negative connotation, implying that the person is defending an incorrect or offensive belief.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- ergothus 8y ago
  I dug around a bit when you posted...and was surprised to find that "apologist" isn't generally considered rude. Then I return to the comments here and see at least one person also thought that it was. I suppose it has to do with usage in different communities? Now I'll have to re-read this article to see if it changes the tone I read into it. (which will not be easy, because I'm definitely biased to view the author as mean/arrogant/dismissive now)
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  This is quite a coincidence. After many years of hearing the term "apologist" used exclusively as an insult, just today I looked into the etymology and found that its dictionary definition has no explicitly negative connotation. But of course, usage in practice is what defines words. The dictionary catches up later.
AbrahamParangi 8y ago
There's a lot to be said for putting your money where your mouth is. People who aren't willing to risk being wrong can't be trusted to be right.
- ergothus 8y ago
  Absolutely! But in this case, someone might approve of the EU-style regulations WITHOUT believing they necessarily lead to a lower unemployment number (they might value other aspects, such as living wages, resistance to shocks, benefits, employee<->employer power balance, etc). In such a case, the bet doesn't represent their beliefs, but they still fall in to the "apologist" camp he is decrying.
- craigsmansion 8y ago
  Frankly I wouldn't trust anyone who brags this loudly about a $100 bet and home schools his children. Seriously: "radical deregulation of Europe’s labor markets is long overdue" because you won a pub-sized bet? I'll take economic and financial advice with a tad fewer delusions of grandeur, thank you very much.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
schizoidboy 8y ago
> Second, he never addresses any other value than the unemployment rate as a number (for example, I can easily imagine an "apologist" being uninterested in his bet if they think he might be right about the numbers, but they value the regulation for other reasons). In never addressing their views, he dismisses them as unworthy. Dr. Caplan reached out to the other economists and they didn't respond (which could have included proposing a different bet with different values). He is very judgy about public intellectuals that don't bet on their claims. I wouldn't call that dismissive because said intellectuals impose massive costs on society if they're wrong. It's not enough to hide behind unquantifiable hopes. > I know nothing of the people or personalities involved...but this does not give me a good impression of the author. First, he never refers to anyone with a contrary opinion in any way other than "apologist". Apologist is a bit of a brash word, but it's a possible conclusion if a public intellectual is unwilling to put their ideas to tests and revise if necessary.
djakjxnanjak 8y ago
But his enemies won’t fear him if he doesn’t salt the earth!

TimTheTinker 8y ago

> First, he never refers to anyone with a contrary opinion in any way other than "apologist". What's wrong with the term "apologist"? It simply means one who defends a particular viewpoint or belief. (It comes from the Greek ἀπολογία, which means a "formal oratory defense" of a position.)

gipp 8y ago
That's just being deliberately obtuse. I don't believe I've ever in my life heard "apologist" used in a non-pejorative sense. Etymology is irrelevant here.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > That's just being deliberately obtuse. What? That's rather insulting to assume; I'm being absolutely serious. > I don't believe I've ever in my life heard "apologist" used in a non-pejorative sense. That's genuinely interesting. I've always heard it used in a respectful sense. We must run in different circles. (I've always heard it used of Christian apologetics.)
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  Christian Apologists immediately come to mind for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics I wouldn't consider the term "apologist" to be pejorative at all.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Maybe the term "apologist" is uncollegial out of context, but apologia without stake is worthy of a ribbing when the apology matures into a confirmed failure. Also why can't people have fun battling with words and bets? It seems better than revolution or fistfights to me.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    > Also why can't people have fun battling with words and bets? They can, and it is definitely better than violence, but I don't conflate "fun" with "belittling and demeaning" . (not to imply that you do, just showing the distinction I am making). I can think of a few other "I won a bet" posts I've seen over the years and they didn't have this negativity associated with it, despite their authors clearly feeling proven justified.
    - microcolonel 8y ago
      > They can, and it is definitely better than violence, but I don't conflate "fun" with "belittling and demeaning". I'll let the targets... no... the victims of the world's gentlest ribbing speak for themselves.
- sbuttgereit 8y ago
  You mean like this... https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-65/apologetics-cs-lewis.html https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-65/ap... The person you are responding to is correct. "Apologist" may be used as you say often in "modern" vernacular English, but it still is properly used as suggested.
- nemo1618 8y ago
  To be fair, people such as GK Chesterton and CS Lewis are referred to as "Christian apologists" with no slight intended. But I would tend to agree that in modern times it carries a negative connotation, implying that the person is defending an incorrect or offensive belief.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ergothus 8y ago
I dug around a bit when you posted...and was surprised to find that "apologist" isn't generally considered rude. Then I return to the comments here and see at least one person also thought that it was. I suppose it has to do with usage in different communities? Now I'll have to re-read this article to see if it changes the tone I read into it. (which will not be easy, because I'm definitely biased to view the author as mean/arrogant/dismissive now)
happytoexplain 8y ago
This is quite a coincidence. After many years of hearing the term "apologist" used exclusively as an insult, just today I looked into the etymology and found that its dictionary definition has no explicitly negative connotation. But of course, usage in practice is what defines words. The dictionary catches up later.

AbrahamParangi 8y ago

There's a lot to be said for putting your money where your mouth is. People who aren't willing to risk being wrong can't be trusted to be right.

ergothus 8y ago
Absolutely! But in this case, someone might approve of the EU-style regulations WITHOUT believing they necessarily lead to a lower unemployment number (they might value other aspects, such as living wages, resistance to shocks, benefits, employee<->employer power balance, etc). In such a case, the bet doesn't represent their beliefs, but they still fall in to the "apologist" camp he is decrying.
craigsmansion 8y ago
Frankly I wouldn't trust anyone who brags this loudly about a $100 bet and home schools his children. Seriously: "radical deregulation of Europe’s labor markets is long overdue" because you won a pub-sized bet? I'll take economic and financial advice with a tad fewer delusions of grandeur, thank you very much.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

schizoidboy 8y ago

> Second, he never addresses any other value than the unemployment rate as a number (for example, I can easily imagine an "apologist" being uninterested in his bet if they think he might be right about the numbers, but they value the regulation for other reasons). In never addressing their views, he dismisses them as unworthy. Dr. Caplan reached out to the other economists and they didn't respond (which could have included proposing a different bet with different values). He is very judgy about public intellectuals that don't bet on their claims. I wouldn't call that dismissive because said intellectuals impose massive costs on society if they're wrong. It's not enough to hide behind unquantifiable hopes. > I know nothing of the people or personalities involved...but this does not give me a good impression of the author. First, he never refers to anyone with a contrary opinion in any way other than "apologist". Apologist is a bit of a brash word, but it's a possible conclusion if a public intellectual is unwilling to put their ideas to tests and revise if necessary.

djakjxnanjak 8y ago

But his enemies won’t fear him if he doesn’t salt the earth!