UK Politics: Johnsons Hoaxy Yurt North of Hadrian's Wall

[Clueless Northman]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Racism is OK if you're a brilliant philosopher? You can't criticise people who are your intellectual superiors, even if - in addition and despite that brilliance - they held views that were demonstrably stupid, factually wrong and morally corrupt?

Quick note - Aristotle believed that women have fewer teeth than men. Are we allowed to say that was stupid and wrong, or not? I mean, I'm not on Aristotle's level of intellectual output, so... I'm not qualified to say he was wrong, I guess? Neither is any given dentist I can name, so there's that.

Saying it's stupid is OK. Deciding that we should stop considering him a quite brilliant man, on the other hand, goes beyond overreacting. There's basically no adult person, alive or dead, who shouldn't be blamed for some opinions or actions - it's just that with 99% of people, it stays unknown, or these people aren't important enough for people to care. As you said, Aristotle had plenty of wrong ideas. Bible and Quran are full of lunacies and just plain wrong stuff. Heck, if we read the New Testament carefully enough, I'm sure there's something to hold against Jesus. And I stand clear of the easier pickings, like Gandhi. There is no end to such a crusade, you'll always find someone new to blame, until you've burned all books, removed all statues, and given numbers to all places. That's the trick: most people are quite the scum, including most famous or important people; at some point, you have to assess the good they did, and not just the bad,

 

20 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It appears to be an argument in favour of limiting democracy to only allow the vote to those with a university education who have actually done something important with their lives.

Did I say we should emulate Ankh-Morpork "One Man - One Vote" system? Though, at this point, a simple travel on public transportation should be all that's required to be convinced that there are too many people who are too stupid or selfish for democracy to work well - granted, maybe not in NZ, there seem to be a few exceptions where the utter stupidity of mankind might not be that obvious. One might also point to a number of votes across the last century that test one's faith into humanity. Of course, how to fix this is a massive can of worms.

[The Anti-Targ]

30 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

Did I say we should emulate Ankh-Morpork "One Man - One Vote" system? Though, at this point, a simple travel on public transportation should be all that's required to be convinced that there are too many people who are too stupid or selfish for democracy to work well - granted, maybe not in NZ, there seem to be a few exceptions where the utter stupidity of mankind might not be that obvious. One might also point to a number of votes across the last century that test one's faith into humanity. Of course, how to fix this is a massive can of worms.

There are plenty of idiots here. We were lucky enough to have a govt in power who took a public health first approach to the pandemic. But for most of our history we have had govts that would not have acted in that manner. And we have plenty enough anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, racists, corporatists etc to slow down real socio-economic progress for the good of all.

[ants]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm wondering. If Johnson is saying the law-breaking legislation is necessary because the EU is trying to break up the union, and it is generally agreed that the legislation is breaking international law in order to stop this EU aggression, since this affront to UK integrity is only international law because the UK parliament voted in favour of it and Boris Johnson signed the agreement, does not that really mean the UK parliament and Boris Johnson are those who should be looked at as the instigators of the potential fracturing of the union? All the EU is saying is that the UK must keep its end of the bargain, and if it doesn't there will be consequences.

Well duh.  That's what anyone informed on this is saying.  

Boris signed the agreement.  The backstop was pretty much put in there so that the deal could be signed, and was one of the major issues for May getting anything through parliament.  Now Boris wants to pretend that the evil EU are somehow wrong to interpret the agreement the way it reads (and which everyone understood was what it meant) because it means the UK may start breaking up under his watch.  

I just don't understand what his end game is, unless he thinks the EU will miraculously fold.  Maybe the intention is to try and break the trade deal by exporting/importing goods via Ireland, in the expectation that the EU won't build a hard border due to the GFA?  Its a head scratcher. 

[mormont]

7 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Saying it's stupid is OK. Deciding that we should stop considering him a quite brilliant man, on the other hand, goes beyond overreacting.

You're quite right: I agree that would be overreacting. Let me know when anybody suggests we should stop considering David Hume to be brilliant. I used that very word about him in my last post. Can we agree that he was both brilliant, and a racist?

Renaming a building isn't quite the same as burning his books, though, and blurring the lines between these things isn't really an intellectually honest way of arguing IMO.

3 hours ago, ants said:

I just don't understand what his end game is, unless he thinks the EU will miraculously fold.  Maybe the intention is to try and break the trade deal by exporting/importing goods via Ireland, in the expectation that the EU won't build a hard border due to the GFA?  Its a head scratcher. 

It's trying to give himself some bargaining chips in a position where he currently has none.

[Chaircat Meow]

On 9/14/2020 at 12:34 PM, mormont said:

Well, check out the petition, then. But how many students need to be upset for this to be valid? 10? 100? 10,000? This idea that concerns are only valid if a certain threshold is reached is fraught with difficulties, IMO. If the concern is valid, then it's valid.

The petition has fewer than 2,000 signatures and in case anyone naively assumed it was a petition for UoE students it is not, anyone can sign it. So that's fewer than 2,000 people from wherever (the whole globe). I expect most of them were from the UK but who knows. So there's no evidence of meaningful support for the move at all. 

They originally wanted to rename the building after Julius Nyerere, ruler of Tanzania but he turned out to be a homophobe (in their view) so they dropped that. Now it will be named 40 George Square, which I would suspect takes its name from king George III, who was against the abolition of the slave trade. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

8 hours ago, mormont said:

It's trying to give himself some bargaining chips in a position where he currently has none.

Isn't it more like forcing no-deal and trying to pin the blame on the EU?

That's at least my understanding. Let's see, what happens when the EU sanction mechanisms kick in.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The petition has fewer than 2,000 signatures and in case anyone naively assumed it was a petition for UoE students it is not, anyone can sign it. So that's fewer than 2,000 people from wherever (the whole globe). I expect most of them were from the UK but who knows. So there's no evidence of meaningful support for the move at all. 

I repeat - how many signatures (and from whom, if you like) are necessary to make the support 'meaningful'? Show your working. Please be explicit about how signatures from members of the public, current students, staff, alumni, etc. are weighted in your calculation. Does this formula account for depth of feeling, or only breadth? 

Absurd questions, of course, but the point is that it's easy to dismiss any measure of objection you like by measuring it against some arbitrary, undefined standard of 'meaningfulness' or 'validity'. But that's not a substitute for explaining why the objections aren't valid. You've not repeated your original assessment of the objections as 'very silly', so that's good, but would it kill you to just accept that you can disagree with the renaming while still recognising that those who disagree with you have views that are meaningful and valid?

[john]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

They originally wanted to rename the building after Julius Nyerere, ruler of Tanzania but he turned out to be a homophobe (in their view) so they dropped that. Now it will be named 40 George Square, which I would suspect takes its name from king George III, who was against the abolition of the slave trade. 

No, it’s named after the architect’s brother George Brown the Laird of Lindsay. Unlikely to be a radical free thinker but without any known objectionable views. Plus, you know, that’s an address not a name. I doubt the university has the power to change Edinburgh street names.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Isn't it more like forcing no-deal and trying to pin the blame on the EU?

That's at least my understanding. Let's see, what happens when the EU sanction mechanisms kick in.

I’ve seen little evidence Boris has ever wanted No Deal. 

[Chaircat Meow]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I repeat - how many signatures (and from whom, if you like) are necessary to make the support 'meaningful'? Show your working. Please be explicit about how signatures from members of the public, current students, staff, alumni, etc. are weighted in your calculation. Does this formula account for depth of feeling, or only breadth? 

Absurd questions, of course, but the point is that it's easy to dismiss any measure of objection you like by measuring it against some arbitrary, undefined standard of 'meaningfulness' or 'validity'. But that's not a substitute for explaining why the objections aren't valid. You've not repeated your original assessment of the objections as 'very silly', so that's good, but would it kill you to just accept that you can disagree with the renaming while still recognising that those who disagree with you have views that are meaningful and valid?

In other contexts we are happy to use terms like meaningful/reasonable without a precise formula to quantify what we mean, for example reasonable doubt in court. We don't have any proof based on the petition that a reasonable proportion of people in whose interest the building was renamed care about this. We don't know how many people who signed it were students, BAME, live in Scotland, lived in the UK, etc

In this case whether the name is offensive is very subjective and depends on personal feelings. So it is relevant to know how many people are actually offended. 

A nation refusing to name university buildings after its finest philosopher because of a footnote in a work of his no one reads anymore anyway is very silly. I don't know I would want to say opposing views were not valid, because I don't know what you mean by that in this context.

 

 

[Chaircat Meow]

38 minutes ago, john said:

No, it’s named after the architect’s brother George Brown the Laird of Lindsay. Unlikely to be a radical free thinker but without any known objectionable views. Plus, you know, that’s an address not a name. I doubt the university has the power to change Edinburgh street names.

Ok, fair enough, didn't know that. It was built in the 1760s so I just defaulted to George III. 

Every day is a school day, etc. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I’ve seen little evidence Boris has ever wanted No Deal. 

You got that backwards I am afraid.

I've seen very little that suggests Johnson actually wants a deal. Reneging on agreements, insisting on conditions he can never ever get. Frost permanently whining and blaming the EU etc.

Now then, what is Johnson's agenda?

Johnson will do, whatever is necessary to make Johnson stay PM.

What is necessary for Johnson to stay PM? Make his party stay reasonably happy. His party is ERGtarded now.

The last parliament, that forced Johnson to at least get a withdrawal agreement done, looked significantly different from the one he has now (or from the one piggy Dave started this whole nonsense with). The last parliament was vehemently opposed to no deal. Johnson and his gang of ERGtards have more or less purged the Tories from those obstacles, and he won the GE with that motley crew of his. Yeah, there still is Theresa May, but who gives a fuck? So what deal can he bring home, that'd be acceptable to them? Serious question.

Small kicker/fun note. The new UK-Japan trade deal also contains clauses about state aid, which are presumably (according to the FT) even harsher than on what the EU insisted. So why pick that hill to die on with the EU, if it didn't bother him in his talks with Japan?

So what on earth makes you think that he truely wants a deal.

[Prue]

14 hours ago, ants said:

 

I just don't understand what his end game is, unless he thinks the EU will miraculously fold.  Maybe the intention is to try and break the trade deal by exporting/importing goods via Ireland, in the expectation that the EU won't build a hard border due to the GFA?  Its a head scratcher. 

Well, I did read once that the UK's negotiation style regarding Brexit is like that of a bank robber threatening to shoot himself if he doesn't get what he wants... Maybe Boris does think that crazy threats will make the EU want to appease him.  

[williamjm]

2 hours ago, john said:

No, it’s named after the architect’s brother George Brown the Laird of Lindsay. Unlikely to be a radical free thinker but without any known objectionable views. Plus, you know, that’s an address not a name. I doubt the university has the power to change Edinburgh street names.

You learn something new every day, I went to Edinburgh University for four years (although I never had any lectures in David Hume Tower) and always assumed that George Square was named after one of the Kings.

[Clueless Northman]

11 hours ago, mormont said:

You're quite right: I agree that would be overreacting. Let me know when anybody suggests we should stop considering David Hume to be brilliant. I used that very word about him in my last post. Can we agree that he was both brilliant, and a racist?

Yes. And him having been a racist doesn't mean he wasn't brilliant. At the end of the day, brilliant people like him were quite rare, one out of millions, when pretty much everyone before the mid-20 th century was racist, and still most of humans since then still were and are. Or should I stop thinking that Wagner was a great composer and, at the same time, a raging egotistical megalomaniac racist asshole? Does Caravaggio being a thug if not a murderer makes him less of a great painter? Should it even reduce the amazement we draw from his works? I can consider people to be total jerks and insufferable scum at some level, and to be absolutely great at their job, at bringing new ideas, technologies, works of art, and ultimately, to me, the former is of little importance, as long as it doesn't negatively influence the latter. There are too many who are just the former with barely any redeeming qualities, and too few of the latter who would pass purity tests for me to be picky - and most probably for mankind as a whole to be too picky.

[john]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

You learn something new every day, I went to Edinburgh University for four years (although I never had any lectures in David Hume Tower) and always assumed that George Square was named after one of the Kings.

That’s not my personal knowledge btw, I looked it up.  George Square in Glasgow is named after George III so it’s a fair assumption.

[Ser Reptitious]

2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Yes. And him having been a racist doesn't mean he wasn't brilliant. At the end of the day, brilliant people like him were quite rare, one out of millions, when pretty much everyone before the mid-20 th century was racist, and still most of humans since then still were and are. Or should I stop thinking that Wagner was a great composer and, at the same time, a raging egotistical megalomaniac racist asshole? Does Caravaggio being a thug if not a murderer makes him less of a great painter? Should it even reduce the amazement we draw from his works? I can consider people to be total jerks and insufferable scum at some level, and to be absolutely great at their job, at bringing new ideas, technologies, works of art, and ultimately, to me, the former is of little importance, as long as it doesn't negatively influence the latter. There are too many who are just the former with barely any redeeming qualities, and too few of the latter who would pass purity tests for me to be picky - and most probably for mankind as a whole to be too picky.

Hmmm.... you know, extreme examples do get over-used (Godwin and all that), but the bolded does beg the question: If rather than being very mediocre (at best) Hitler had been a brilliant artist instead, would you make the same argument for him? (And if not, where exactly do you draw the line?) 

And just to be clear, I’m specifically asking you this based on the bolded, not on the Hume discussion.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Hmmm.... you know, extreme examples do get over-used (Godwin and all that), but the bolded does beg the question: If rather than being very mediocre (at best) Hitler had been a brilliant artist instead, would you make the same argument for him? (And if not, where exactly do you draw the line?) 

And just to be clear, I’m specifically asking you this based on the bolded, not on the Hume discussion.

Hitler probably wouldn’t have gone into world domination and genocide if people liked his paintings.

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, john said:

That’s not my personal knowledge btw, I looked it up.  George Square in Glasgow is named after George III so it’s a fair assumption.

I knew George Street in Edinburgh was named after George III, although since that has no connection with the square there's no reason they both had to be named after the same George.

[mormont]

4 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

In other contexts we are happy to use terms like meaningful/reasonable without a precise formula to quantify what we mean

Yeah, but it's you who brought the numbers into it, I'm afraid. So the onus is on you to quantify. If 2,000 isn't enough, how many are enough? What's a 'reasonable proportion' and for that matter, who are the 'people in whose interest the building was named'? Students, presumably, but what about alumni? Staff? Former staff? The people of Edinburgh?

You can't dismiss the objections as not enough of the right sort of people to matter, and then refuse to define what is enough and who the right sort of people are, is my point.

4 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

A nation refusing to name university buildings after its finest philosopher because of a footnote in a work of his no one reads anymore anyway is very silly.

It's not because of a footnote. It's because he was a racist. That footnote is only one example. Hume is known to have made other racist comments, for example disparaging the Irish, in other contexts.

Again, I take the view that asking BAME students to study philosophy in a building named after a racist is not really acceptable in the modern age. It's a pity that you feel that view is 'very silly', but there we are. Some people have very silly opinions, I guess.

3 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Yes. And him having been a racist doesn't mean he wasn't brilliant. At the end of the day, brilliant people like him were quite rare, one out of millions, when pretty much everyone before the mid-20 th century was racist, and still most of humans since then still were and are.

This is nonsense: Hume's views were pointed out as being empirically wrong by his contemporaries and acknowledged as racist even at the time. Racism was not something that everyone agreed on before 1950: to say so is as factually ignorant as Hume's statements about black people.

Moreover, even if it were true that these views were held by 'pretty much everyone' (it's not true), Hume literally made his name as a man willing to challenge orthodoxy. It's not credible to excuse his racism, therefore, by claiming he was merely reflecting orthodox thought.