4 ms·

Why are you talking about > classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics when our conversation was about > Liberali

by wyager 4y ago

Why are you talking about > classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics when our conversation was about > Liberalism and pluralism (your words)? > State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society This is not an even approximately correct model for why the state bankrolls public education in the US. Not trying to diss you here, but you very clearly have the fully-indoctrinated understanding of someone who's been inducted into the western state-secular religion and isn't even aware of it (same as most of its adherents). > I don't see awareness of historical or educational context. This is deeply ironic, although I don't expect you to be able to notice why. I suggest reading Albion's Seed and A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations.

xpe 4y ago
> Why are you talking about >> classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics > when our conversation was about >> Liberalism and pluralism > (your words)? I'm going to make a few points in different threads to ease replies. First, let's step back. We are different people having a conversation. I often see people claiming the other person is off topic. Such a claim assumes that one person gets to define what on topic is. One person is not granted that power here. Not you, not me. I have hope that better discussion is possible with a better tone. I'll do what I can to help.
- wyager 4y ago
  I have a habit of ignoring "tone" in discussions on relatively intelligent message boards because I think most of the people I'm talking to can handle it, and it makes the discussion vastly more likely to transmit valuable information. I'm not trying to police the topic of your commentary; I'm just not letting you swap out "liberalism and pluralism" with "classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics". I don't know if you did this intentionally or subconsciously, but this is an extremely common (and dishonest) rhetorical strategy used by your religion. Don't expect me to let it slide.
  - xpe 4y ago
    > I have a habit of ignoring "tone" in discussions on relatively intelligent message boards because I think most of the people I'm talking to can handle it, and it makes the discussion vastly more likely to transmit valuable information. Thanks for sharing that. I can relate, but I do it in a more targeted fashion. As I get to know someone better, I adjust my communication style. This is an ongoing process. For example, I can increase my "bluntness factor" or rely on shared understandings to skip over lengthy explanations. Paying attention to tone and emotions in communication is tremendously important. Relatively intelligent people still have emotions, and they still underly what is being said, particularly around topics close to home like religion and philosophy. Also, paying attention to tone doesn't have to degrade the quality of information conveyed. It might require a few more words -- or a bit more clarity, such as being careful who you are addressing. (See your other comments, where your intended recipient wasn't clear.) It does require more energy and skill to pay attention to emotion and content. I happen to think it is worth it.
xpe 4y ago
>> State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society > This is not an even approximately correct model for why the state bankrolls public education in the US. I'd be interested to hear about your model. Please tell me what kind of model you mean. Are you familiar with the phrase: "All models are wrong, but some are useful?" In what ways is your model useful? In what ways is my model useful? Are you irritated? What are some ways to make this a kinder discussion? I'm sorry if I insulted you somehow.
- wyager 4y ago
  The first-order reason the current regime funds education is that it is a pork-barrel jobs program (especially for college-educated women). The second-order reason is that the regime is mostly staffed by religious adherents to state-secularism, and the public education system is their pulpit. And no, I'm not irritated - I don't think there's an efficient way to have a worthwhile discussion about someone's religious beliefs over the internet without coming across as slightly hostile. Apologies.
  - xpe 4y ago
    > And no, I'm not irritated - I don't think there's an efficient way to have a worthwhile discussion about someone's religious beliefs over the internet without coming across as slightly hostile. Apologies. Thanks. Yes, it is hard without knowing much about the cultures and communication style of the other people. But I think there are some simple things that help: write, then wait a few minutes before posting. Re-read and edit if you think the tone can be fixed. Etc.
xpe 4y ago
> Not trying to diss you here, but you very clearly have the fully-indoctrinated understanding of someone who's been inducted into the western state-secular religion and isn't even aware of it (same as most of its adherents). Don't worry, I'm not insulted. In any case, your assessment of me -- which you talk about as if it is binary (i.e. pass/fail) -- is way off the mark. Let me suggest a productive direction. How about you tell me in more detail what this kind of indoctrination means to you. If you make a list of sub-points (perhaps questions) that roll up into some kind of indoctrination score, I'll take a look.
xpe 4y ago
> western state-secular religion We have not using the word religion in the same way. But I know what you mean.
- wyager 4y ago
  I think we actually are. The main difference between the current state-secular religion and, say, progressive quakerism, is that state-secularism doesn't have an identifiable God. But this is, it turns out, a pretty minor difference in practice (and it's state-secularism's primary competitive advantage in the modern legal environment).
  - xpe 4y ago
    You can define it that way, but I do not. I go with a more widely recognized definition; e.g. via M-W or Wikipedia. I can appreciate a similarity, of course. But a person can hold a belief / value a worldview (e.g. representative democracy) without believing in a supernatural power. Conflating similar words is often an intentional rhetorical strategy. Perhaps you are trying it because you hope to conflate political philosophy with religion? But to do so glosses over key differences between them ... e.g Which are descriptive? Which are normative? What is the nature of truth? How does one seek, find, and assess truth?
xpe 4y ago
> This is deeply ironic, although I don't expect you to be able to notice why. Are you trying to insult me? If not, I'd suggest leaving out "although I don't expect you to be able to notice why."
- wyager 4y ago
  No. That comment isn't really addressed at you; it's addressed at our readers. It's just that people with your parochial (in the literal sense) educational background (which I can infer clearly from your comments) habitually accuse others of ignorance, from a position of relative ignorance. I don't think this is a moral failing on your part or anything; it's just something we see all the time, and eventually you kind of just have to find it funny. Once you identify this response as a component of the state-secular-education-instilled memetic defense mechanism, it's funny to see its (frequently ironic) activation.
  - xpe 4y ago
    Please define how you are using "parochial (in the literal sense)". Here's a common definition: pa·ro·chi·al | pəˈrōkēəl | adjective relating to a church parish: the parochial church council. • having a limited or narrow outlook or scope: this worldview seems incredibly naive and parochial.
  - xpe 4y ago
    > ... habitually accuse others of ignorance, from a position of relative ignorance Yes, ignorant people do sometimes accuse others of ignorance. Consider this: If I tell someone their shoe is untied, even though my shoe was untied sometime last week, does that make me a hypocrite? No. It is also true that people can be ignorant about different things. Minh might tell Alex he is ignorant about some topic. Alex might tell Minh she is ignorant about some other topic. No problem there. Neither is being hypocritical. P.S. Telling someone else they are ignorant tends to not go well, but if it is done carefully and kindly, it doesn't have to be a bad thing.

by wyager 4y ago

xpe 4y ago

> Why are you talking about >> classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics > when our conversation was about >> Liberalism and pluralism > (your words)? I'm going to make a few points in different threads to ease replies. First, let's step back. We are different people having a conversation. I often see people claiming the other person is off topic. Such a claim assumes that one person gets to define what on topic is. One person is not granted that power here. Not you, not me. I have hope that better discussion is possible with a better tone. I'll do what I can to help.

wyager 4y ago
I have a habit of ignoring "tone" in discussions on relatively intelligent message boards because I think most of the people I'm talking to can handle it, and it makes the discussion vastly more likely to transmit valuable information. I'm not trying to police the topic of your commentary; I'm just not letting you swap out "liberalism and pluralism" with "classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics". I don't know if you did this intentionally or subconsciously, but this is an extremely common (and dishonest) rhetorical strategy used by your religion. Don't expect me to let it slide.
- xpe 4y ago
  > I have a habit of ignoring "tone" in discussions on relatively intelligent message boards because I think most of the people I'm talking to can handle it, and it makes the discussion vastly more likely to transmit valuable information. Thanks for sharing that. I can relate, but I do it in a more targeted fashion. As I get to know someone better, I adjust my communication style. This is an ongoing process. For example, I can increase my "bluntness factor" or rely on shared understandings to skip over lengthy explanations. Paying attention to tone and emotions in communication is tremendously important. Relatively intelligent people still have emotions, and they still underly what is being said, particularly around topics close to home like religion and philosophy. Also, paying attention to tone doesn't have to degrade the quality of information conveyed. It might require a few more words -- or a bit more clarity, such as being careful who you are addressing. (See your other comments, where your intended recipient wasn't clear.) It does require more energy and skill to pay attention to emotion and content. I happen to think it is worth it.

xpe 4y ago

>> State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society > This is not an even approximately correct model for why the state bankrolls public education in the US. I'd be interested to hear about your model. Please tell me what kind of model you mean. Are you familiar with the phrase: "All models are wrong, but some are useful?" In what ways is your model useful? In what ways is my model useful? Are you irritated? What are some ways to make this a kinder discussion? I'm sorry if I insulted you somehow.

wyager 4y ago
The first-order reason the current regime funds education is that it is a pork-barrel jobs program (especially for college-educated women). The second-order reason is that the regime is mostly staffed by religious adherents to state-secularism, and the public education system is their pulpit. And no, I'm not irritated - I don't think there's an efficient way to have a worthwhile discussion about someone's religious beliefs over the internet without coming across as slightly hostile. Apologies.
- xpe 4y ago
  > And no, I'm not irritated - I don't think there's an efficient way to have a worthwhile discussion about someone's religious beliefs over the internet without coming across as slightly hostile. Apologies. Thanks. Yes, it is hard without knowing much about the cultures and communication style of the other people. But I think there are some simple things that help: write, then wait a few minutes before posting. Re-read and edit if you think the tone can be fixed. Etc.

xpe 4y ago

> Not trying to diss you here, but you very clearly have the fully-indoctrinated understanding of someone who's been inducted into the western state-secular religion and isn't even aware of it (same as most of its adherents). Don't worry, I'm not insulted. In any case, your assessment of me -- which you talk about as if it is binary (i.e. pass/fail) -- is way off the mark. Let me suggest a productive direction. How about you tell me in more detail what this kind of indoctrination means to you. If you make a list of sub-points (perhaps questions) that roll up into some kind of indoctrination score, I'll take a look.

xpe 4y ago

> western state-secular religion We have not using the word religion in the same way. But I know what you mean.

wyager 4y ago
I think we actually are. The main difference between the current state-secular religion and, say, progressive quakerism, is that state-secularism doesn't have an identifiable God. But this is, it turns out, a pretty minor difference in practice (and it's state-secularism's primary competitive advantage in the modern legal environment).
- xpe 4y ago
  You can define it that way, but I do not. I go with a more widely recognized definition; e.g. via M-W or Wikipedia. I can appreciate a similarity, of course. But a person can hold a belief / value a worldview (e.g. representative democracy) without believing in a supernatural power. Conflating similar words is often an intentional rhetorical strategy. Perhaps you are trying it because you hope to conflate political philosophy with religion? But to do so glosses over key differences between them ... e.g Which are descriptive? Which are normative? What is the nature of truth? How does one seek, find, and assess truth?

xpe 4y ago

> This is deeply ironic, although I don't expect you to be able to notice why. Are you trying to insult me? If not, I'd suggest leaving out "although I don't expect you to be able to notice why."

wyager 4y ago
No. That comment isn't really addressed at you; it's addressed at our readers. It's just that people with your parochial (in the literal sense) educational background (which I can infer clearly from your comments) habitually accuse others of ignorance, from a position of relative ignorance. I don't think this is a moral failing on your part or anything; it's just something we see all the time, and eventually you kind of just have to find it funny. Once you identify this response as a component of the state-secular-education-instilled memetic defense mechanism, it's funny to see its (frequently ironic) activation.
- xpe 4y ago
  Please define how you are using "parochial (in the literal sense)". Here's a common definition: pa·ro·chi·al | pəˈrōkēəl | adjective relating to a church parish: the parochial church council. • having a limited or narrow outlook or scope: this worldview seems incredibly naive and parochial.
- xpe 4y ago
  > ... habitually accuse others of ignorance, from a position of relative ignorance Yes, ignorant people do sometimes accuse others of ignorance. Consider this: If I tell someone their shoe is untied, even though my shoe was untied sometime last week, does that make me a hypocrite? No. It is also true that people can be ignorant about different things. Minh might tell Alex he is ignorant about some topic. Alex might tell Minh she is ignorant about some other topic. No problem there. Neither is being hypocritical. P.S. Telling someone else they are ignorant tends to not go well, but if it is done carefully and kindly, it doesn't have to be a bad thing.