I recall that Will Baude, whom I've stopped reading for the sake of my sanity, had a post some time ago on the subject of wedding registries and asking for money (in the event of a cash-strapped couple) instead of goods and services, for which money can be exchanged. He was agin' it, and had some pretty tortuous reasoning to back it up. I can't recall exactly what it was but I think it basically boiled down to: it's in bad taste to ask for a check in the amount of a gift, but good taste to ask for the gift itself; in fact, it's in good taste to have a list of items which you consider worthy gifts. I think maybe the fact that, when you receive a check, you can immediately see how much money and from whom it is? (As if when you open your present you won't know who gave it to you, and roughly what it cost, since you yourself picked it out.)
One problem that some people—but not I—might have with your innovation is that it makes writing thank-you notes weirder: "Dear so-and-so, thanks very much for 12% of a plasma TV. The upper right corner is our favorite! Love, some tools."
There's really no reason to own an $80 boning knife, since a Victorinox knife will do just as well and be significantly cheaper. Most people have too many knives anyway.
I have had experience with this very wedding gift request. I once put $30 towards a canoe, which was great until the couple split up. I'm pretty sure the guy, who was not my friend originally, has the canoe. Had it been a gravy boat or a kitchen knife, I could have indefinitately operated under the delusion that my friend hung on to my wedding gift as part of the divorce.
There's really no reason to own an $80 boning knife
I think the apostropher just provided that reason. Inner Beavis is quavering on the boner-knife edge of sanity after seeing that. I should've known better than to check in here while my boss was standing three feet away from me, and I deserve a medal for Laugh Suppression.
Unless specifically intended for older relatives and family friends, wedding registries strike me as unforgivingly tacky (at least in our social class). Pretty much all the weddings I attend these days are for couples who have already lived together for many years, and, in many cases, already own a house together. (I'm not objecting to that aspect. On the contrary, I disapprove of anyone marrying for any reason other than in order to avoid people thinking they're hippies for living together for so long without getting married.) The point, though, is that for couples like these the function of a wedding registry is to allow them to get better versions of things they already own, or things that they want, but would never buy themselves, not to help them build their first household.
I think the convention should be that peers buy purely aesthetic gifts, or disposable items (e.g., wine), and that the supposedly practical gifts should only come from people your parents made you invite to the wedding.
pjs, your convention does not follow from your observations. You're saying that people should be compelled to invite unwanted guests to their sham weddings in order to score worthwhile gifts? You sure don't have a lot of faith in the possibility that people will be happy to see their friends get married.
When my wife and I got married, we were both in our late 20s and had been indepedent for at least 5 years. We shouldered the majority of the costs, and all of the planning, for our wedding. We invited whom we wanted, as many as we wanted. We set up modest gift registries for ourselves and didn't tell anyone about them unless they asked. (I know a few savvy people knew what we liked and figured it out themselves. I know this because our registries were fully subscribed without us telling more than half a dozen people about them.) Our parents made modest contributions and as such were in the loop on the main points of the event, but this was OUR wedding in OUR location. Rather than your cynical, provincial view, this is the reality of the modern wedding: it's a party you throw for yourselves.
And WTF is wrong with going off the board anyhow? Give a gift from your own heart and soul. There are precious few people for whom an immersion blender is the perfected expression of his affection.
Wait, I'm wrong. bphd may have meant "It is tacky to both register and ask people for money." Apologies. I'm not sure that that's what ogged is actually proposing, though. (Inner Beavis sez: "He said proposing!")
OK, now this time what you meant was "You're not the boss of me!" Isn't that much funnier?
(this would contain a link to all the occurences in the Filler Archive for "you're not the boss of me," except that as a cartoon Filler is ungooglable. I hate that.)
No, Matt, your first correction was correct. Ben said "both registering and asking for money", which are mutually exclusive choices in the context of Ogged's original post. This sentence could be correct if Ben meant to say "the two-step action of registering and asking for money is tacky", but in context, what he appeared to mean was "both courses of action are tacky". Therefore, as you originally stated, the verb does not match the subject.
I've been thinking about trawling through the Achewood archives and creating an, or a series of, XML file(s) describing what characters are present, the speech, the alt text, etc, so that at last I would be able to find specific strips easily.
I think a lot of cleverness can be profitably expelled on niggling bits of etiquette/manners/politeness, so I don't begrudge him an obsession with Miss Manners, but IIRC he doesn't distinguish, as must be distinguished, between things more on the etiquette end and things more on the manners end.
I will say, even though it would be better for me to hold my tongue, that I prefer Baude to the other two Chicago bloggers I've met in person, viz., James Liu and Phoebe Maltz (to whom M. Yglesias seems to link with disturbing frequency).
Well, I'm probably not one to talk, since I'm semi-obsessed with the modern day Miss Manners/ Dear Abby, the Ethicist. But in my defense, I read him with a presumption that he's wrong, while Will seems to assume that Manners is an authority worth citing to.
Wow... I just got that, Wolfson. Not bad, though I was thinking of the rather more pedestrian "make an ass out of u and me". This place is really the cat's balls. All the way from "stiff boner knife" to linguistic pseudo-deconstruction involving convoluted references to higher math, in a single thread. It just doesn't get any better than that.
Phoebe Maltz (to whom M. Yglesias seems to link with disturbing frequency)
I've noticed that myself. I guess the only way to determine whether Matt's linkage rate is legitimate would be for you to answer that most important of questions: is she as cute in person as she is in the picture on her blog?
The Ethicist is a hack. Miss Manners, however, is not. Do not put them in the same sentence.
Ok, I meant "are." Jesus. And yes, I meant realizing. Note, for instance, that I am implicitly begging for Amazon crap on my blog. But, being bourgeois as hell, I realize that it is tacky and I am embarrassed about it.
Understand that I didn't mean to criticize you for writing 'is' instead of 'are'; I meant to criticize Wolfson for failing to criticize you for that, and thus disappointing our reasonable expectations.
What definition of 'bourgeois' are you using, though? I thought that the bourgeois are those who turn everything into currency. Registering and asking people for money is déclassé (the true nobility have friends who know what the in thing is and supply it without prompting).
Enthusiastic agreement about Miss Manners and the Ethicist, though. My reaction to the Ethicist is like my reaction to 'smooth jazz'--here's some utter shit that's being mass-marketed under the name of something I care about. Grrrr.
The bourgoise do turn things into currency; at the same time, they are an aspirational class (historically; now socially dominant) who, in their quest for social dominance, emulate the manners and codes of the aristocracy.
Dialectic, my friend, dialectic.
(And I love how now everyone's afraid of offending me. Grr.)
Pssh, haven't we transcended or sublated or something the emulation of the aristocracy now. At least in America? Seems like someone ought to be quoting De Tocqueville here.
Clearly we haven't transcended the emulation of the aristocracy. I present as my witnesses Martha Stewart, Princess Di., and the popularity of ranting about how offensive reality tv is (even while we watch it obsessively). Ideology is all about holding incompatible unacknowledged beliefs. The more we deny our aristocratic aspirations, the more we reveal them.
#52: Yes, fine, but neither of those are *ethical* answers, even in the colloquial sense. They're legalistic. Plus he's smug and annoying.
Miss Manners is only tiresome because people ask the same shit over and over again. Every once in a while she gets something new and is really fun. Plus, there's an underlying tone of snarky archness that's really, really amusing (and aided by the third person--perhaps the bitch will have to start trying it. No, you're right, the third person thing is a bit tiresome).
I wrote extensively on this week's ethicist question, if anyone is interested. The top two posts on my blog are in response, and should probably be read in reverse order.
#61: Bah. It's perfectly possible to distill ethical concepts into actual advice. And I still maintain, sans references to Nozick or whoever the hell, that the Ethicist's responses are usually more about what you can get away with than they are about what is or isn't actually right.
#61: Are you making me an offer? B/c I'm perfectly willing to negotiate.
It's all about the bitch. What bluff? You mean my offer? You misunderstand: bitch throws self at ogged, ogged expresses interest, then he changes the subject.
WD, I can't open that page here, because of that weird technical problem, but I'll read from home. Looking forward to it. I think we should post the questions every week and say better things about them until the NYT gives us the Cohen contract.
B, could you say more about what would constitute a genuinely ethical response? Like, what it would take to meet that test? I don't see why RC's answers don't qualify.
Ok, I'm gonna be out of my depth here, Labs, so I am counting on you giving me a charitable reading, aight?
The Ethicist answer on the a-a question is better than they usually are; he at least mentions in passing the central ethical dilemma in the letter-writer's answer in saying As your experience with your essay indicates, however, race permeates American life for all of us -- it has certainly played a significant part in yours -- so perhaps you should re-examine your position. That, to me, is the real question here. And it's the student's real question too: I oppose a-a, but I feel that if I mention the role race has played in my life in my admissions eassy, I will be implicitly acknowledging that we don't live in a race-blind society. The student's decision--not to mention race in her essay--is far more ethical, to my mind, than the Ethicist's advice (which is that the student should rationalize away this dilemma). If I were handling the question, I'd have gotten into that second issue, rather than dancing around it and tossing it in at the end of a paragraph. It's fine for this student to oppose a-a; presumably, given that she acknowledges the role race has played in her life, she does so because she thinks it's a blunt instrument, or perhaps because of the class vs. race problem, or perhaps because she feels it implies inferiority on the part of those who a-a benefits (as opposed to the clumsier, easily disproved argument that we've achieved perfect racial parity). But I think that, if her position (which I'm inferring) is that "race does matter, but admissions committees should make a herculean effort to assess students' abilities and achievements without regard to race" (a defensible, and I suspect, possible goal, though my own position is that, given the realities of admissions, the blunt instrument of a-a does far more good than dismissing it entirely and relying on, say, test scores), then it is more consistent with her principles to ask her to make the same effort in writing her essay (which apparently she did; kudos to her) than it is to tell her that, well, mentioning race *probably* won't make any difference, so don't worry about it. Which is really what his advice amounts to, before he wanders off into offering his own views on affirmative action. That's why I stopped reading the column: he doesn't grapple with the actual issues presented, he evades them and then meanders off into some uninformed op-ed bullshit about whatever the issue is.
Matt, I like the incorporation of "pot, kettle" right into your name. I'm thinking, Unfogged, The Pot And Kettle Blog.
And to answer your question, point taken, but no married women. And, as Liz Penn, on whom I would otherwise have a huge crush reminds me, no cheap women (not that b is cheap, I'm just rounding off the list).
Ok, I'm ready to concentrate on the Ethicist now (although, a trend that dates back almost to the beginning of the blog: whenever I join a philosophy discussion here, it either dies, or people just ignore me. Nevertheless, I'm in.)
OK, this is going to 100 no matter what I do, so I'll bite: Why does Liz Penn remind you? Is it the answer to "What's the most expensive thing in your wardrobe" in this interview? 'Cause that seems cool to me. And not liking that doesn't seem compatible with not liking the high-maintenance (sense two, and b, it's the person who keeps wanting to bug other people about their footwear who's being high-maintenance. And you've confused senses one and two anyway. We already established that I'm sense one.)
Of course, for me to complain about such things would be pot-kettlism of the first order.
Might I submit that most of the vitriol directed at the Ethicist is in response to the very name, "Ethicist." If it were called "Navigating the Modern Bureaucratic State," no one would care, and some of the columns would be helpful.
(Ignoring Mitch. And no, not cheap. Nonetheless, I must object to your hangup about "cheap women," ogged, on the grounds that it is extremely silly and, dare I say, a little bit phobic.)
[Ignore us. "No cheap women" is silly? No cheap friends either, if that helps. Anyway, that doesn't seem like a particularly controversial one. What's the problem?]
#91: Disagreed re. bugging other people about their footwear. Making "high maintenance" a catch-all term for "having aesthetic preferences" denudes the term of any worth whatsoever.
Also, there's a third sense of "high maintenance": insisting on hashing things out to a conclusion no matter how much blood gets spilled in the process. I am not h-m in either of the senses originally proposed; I am excruciatingly h-m in this third sense, however.
Oh lordy. After looking at the Gothamist article, I realize that by "cheap" you mean "doesn't spend money on luxuries she deems unnecessary."
So you want a woman who (a) doesn't spend money on shoes and makeup and expensive haircuts; and (b) doesn't object to spending money on frivolities? Good luck, my friend.
Hey, you want comments, you got comments. You can always ban me. Anyway, that's high-maintenance, not cheap. Let's not start mixing up our pejoratives, now.
No, seriously, that hash-outer category is a good one, b. Hard to say this without it sounding personal, but I avoid hash-outers as much as possible because it drives me completely around the bend. I figure I make my point, you make your point--I'm willing to go 'round one more time, and them I'm out. I grant that this is purely a matter of temperament and personal preference.
by "cheap" you mean "doesn't spend money on luxuries she deems unnecessary."
You're really a joy, you know that? By "cheap," I mean what most people mean by "cheap:" unwilling to spend money. Of course the stingy person thinks that the spending would be on "luxuries she deems unnecessary," but people can differ: one person's frugal is another person's cheap. And, given that in my world, "cheap" is a pejorative on the order of "child molestor," someone who self-describes as "cheap" is probably "cheap" by my lights.
Right. Whereas I figure, it's not just a question of my point vs. your point; it's a question of, someone is right. Or perhaps we are operating from different premises. In which case, we need to unearth them. Anyway, I'm not offended by people not liking the hasher-outer personality type; I realize that, like good scotch, it isn't for everyone.
You're the one that's supposed to be a philosopher, right?
But the examples in the Gothamist interview are, she doesn't take cabs, and she doesn't eat in expensive restaurants. That's not unwilling to spend money. That's just not wanting to throw it away.
Why is "cheap" pejorative in the child-molestation sense? I have a cheap-ass sister in law. Admittedly, she drives me a bit nuts. But it ain't like I wouldn't leave my kid with her for an afternoon.
Huh. I almost never think that. I just want to hear what people have to say.
Or perhaps we are operating from different premises
Yes, and discussions geared toward finding them have a very different tenor from discussions in which one person is assumed to be right (though that's not to say that the "who's right" type discussion can't unearth premises--it's just an unpleasant way to do it).
Oh ogged, not at all: you can argue strenuously over unearthing premises. The presumption is that most people think what they think for reasons that are important to them. "Right" can also mean, "right for me, and that's important." You just shouldn't take conflict so personally, my dear.
Opposing the existence of an institution does not create an ethical obligation to not participate in that institution, There is an exception to that for categorical imperatives, but I don't think that's the right way to think about affirmative action. I don't really think it's the right way to think about anything, but it seems especially true for affirmative action. Though I suppose an argument could be made about affirmative action treating some people as merely a means, I don't think that's accurate.
You're then correct to go to into her specific reasons for opposing affirmative action as to whether or not they create an obligation to not mention race, I think it depends upon the actual type of affirmative action system in use at the institution she's applying to. The closer the system is to a quota system, the more likely it is that she should have mentioned race.
It's not that I take it personally: I want to strangle people when they argue among themselves too. Anyway, "strenuous" isn't what I object to. And now, see, I'm done with this one.
washerdreyer, I agree that opposing something doesn't create an ethical obligation not to participate in it -- absolutely! Else all of would have to throw ourselves on our swords. That wasn't my point (I did say I was out of my depth). What I meant, I guess, was as you're saying: that the question of whether or not she should mention race depends on her reasons for opposing a-a. But I would say that the question of whether she should mention it doesn't hinge on what the institution does (I presume that your point about the quota system is that mentioning race in her essay wouldn't matter if they were merely bean-counting checked boxes); it hinges on her own principles and how she understands them. And that's the issue that the ethicist never tries to unpack.
Which also ties into the question of argument: at the risk of being strangled by ogged (or, worse, not letting something drop when he's expressed a desire to do so, which is extremely bad manners on my part), it's that question of "what are the principles at stake, and how does one enact them" that usually interests me. It's h-m to want to pursue that at any cost (especially in personal relationships, and people argue heatedly b/c they have strong feelings attached to their principles--it's too much to expect them to always be "cool" about things that Really Matter); but then again, I maintain (I would, of course), that it's also, in its own annoying way, kind of noble.
And, given that in my world, "cheap" is a pejorative on the order of "child molestor," someone who self-describes as "cheap" is probably "cheap" by my lights.
Uh, what if, in their world, "cheap" is a mild pejorative at best? What if their threshold of cheapness isn't yours?
Oh, my point re: a quota system is that I think there's a really perverse effect under a it. I'm imagining that she believes that a-a is unfair to some of the people who would get in on strict "merit." Under a quota system, they're trying to accept around a certain number of students in some category. Let's call that number X. X doesn't change whether or not she she is counted as part of it or as part of the group getting in on "merit." So basically by not taking advantage of a-a, someone else will. She replaces a merit person, not an a-a person, and exacerbates the problem that she's worried about. Whereas if she gets in under a-a, she replaces an a-a person and it's not any worse for the people in the "merit" pool. I might be mis-conceiving this though, I'm not positive.
Aaaahhhh!!! washerdreyer, that's a horrible argument. The presumption you seem to be relying on is that a-a admits are *not* merit admits, which is ridiculous. (Not to mention that I'm pretty sure quota systems of the sort you're talking about don't exist any more). The very student we're talking about demonstrates that the a-a vs. merit model is a false one. Plus, it's not her personal responsibility to ensure that the university's admissions process, however it works (which really, she can't know) operates according to her lights. That's more illogical than the idea that opposing something means you can't participate in it.
If *she* wants to be admitted on merit, and she has reason to believe that mentioning race may compromise *her* idea of what constitutes "merit," then that is up to her. But it's ridiculous to try to game the system (or to encourage her to game the system).
Ogged: going your separate ways, fine. But there's a problem here still: (1) you eschew argument and are happy to have people agree to disagree/go their separate ways; and (2) you won't date her (I realize this is a purely academic argument) b/c she's "cheap." That's a pejorative, not merely a difference in opinion. It's kind of low, imho, to try to front that the difference is neutral while condemning the other person for not meeting your standards.
It's not that a-a students are people who wouldn't be merit students, it's that under a quota-like system they're counted separately, whether or not they would be merit students. And while explicit quotas are banned, any system which leads to approximately the same level of year-to-year enrollment of a-a assisted people is either:
a) functioning very similarly to a quota
b) based on the (remarkable?) fact that the number of students who are qualified based on merit + a-a who apply every year is substantially the same.
That's all speculation, for all I know there are huge disparities between year-to-year admissions for a-a eligible students, in which case my whole point falls apart.
Labs, but then the proper response would be to, say, list the possible alternatives and offer a couple of different solutions. Or hell, pick *one* alternative and work through it. Anything other than just blowing it off entirely.
Format is surely a problem. But I'm not letting Cohen off the hook on those grounds; formal constraints are there to hone and polish good writing, not to excuse failing to engage in it at all.
Ooh, I can usually stop a comment line dead in its tracks. Let's try it.
So you're saying that no matter how hard she tries to eliminate harm to others from a-a, she can't simply because she *could* possibly benefit from it?
I propose that we set up a progressive redistribution system whereby when a thread reaches a certain bloat point, discussion picks up and moves to one of the threads with few or no comments. That way everyone and ben gets to yack yack yack all they want to, AND no post feels neglected or abandoned.
It's not neutral, as I use it, and I don't mean to "front" that it is; I'm just conceding that the standard is personal, not universal. I recognize that. And I'm sorry if I'm picking on you. What I mean is that, to me anyway, saying "it's personal not universal" neutralizes it (or should). So it bugs me when you use stuff like that in terms that aren't neutral, but then say, "it's just a personal standard." It seems evasive. Feels like being provoked, then backing away from the provocation.
Labs: Hm. But as your own hesitance to use "merit grounds" instead of "race-blind grounds" shows (and not just b/c of the argument you cite), the fact is the things that we define as "merit grounds" (test scores, grades, even letters of recommendation) have been shown to be far from race-neutral. Also, btw, affirmative action benefits white women (like myself) and often veterans, first-generation college students, and the disabled, as well as ethnic minorities. So, to offer an example, I read somewhere recently (in connection with the Summers brouhaha) that in making questions for the SATs, the writers of the exam at one point threw out any question on which women scored higher than men, because the presumption was that those questions were somehow biased. And yet, questions on which men score higher than women, or whites higher than blacks, are deemed normative, because that is what we expect.
Now, its arguable that a-a is a blunt instrument, as I said, in addressing these problems; on the other hand, distinguishing between "merit" and "affirmative action" invisibly equates "merit" with "race-neutral"--which we know it isn't. And *not* just because race is sometimes part of merit (an argument I buy, in terms of social effect, ala the Bok book on the number of minority doctors, say, who end up practicing among underserved populations), but also because we know that test scores, grades, and rec. letters (the usual admissions package) aren't race-neutral. They should be, but they aren't.
I think the point is that "conventional standards" are themselves (and not just in their results) already influenced by race, so that "race neutral" (which means "race-blind," in your terms) is, in fact, discriminatory.
Ah, I see. You're right, it's a terminology issue. What I meant was that, in a-a arguments, it seems to me that people usually mean "merit-based" as an equivalent to "having nothing to do with race." What I'm saying is that the race-blind/neutral critera aren't blind or neutral, underneath. The admissions committee may not know the applicant's race (and, ok, we can use "race-neutral admissions" to mean this), but the test/grades/rec. letters/schools attended do. So, whether or not consciously, admissions processes that ignore race end up reinforcing the effects of racism: students whose lives have been least impacted by racism are more likely to have gone to "good" schools/scored higher/gotten better rec. letters/gotten higher grades.
I think I understand the point you're making, which, for present purposes, I neither reject nor endorse. I think this is a complex empirical question, or, rather, a series of difficult empirical questions. For example, race and SATs are probably related in some very complicated way, rather than in a simple way ("the test is racist").
I've taught classes that were specifically set aside for special admit students--which at the institution I was teaching, included not only ethnic minorities, but also first-generation college students and students from "bad" high schools (I don't remember what the criteria was for that, but you can probably infer). Sample size: I taught classes of this nature three times over seven years of teaching there.
I found, and I shit you not, that those students were *far better* than the students I taught in my "regular" classes. Some of them had more grammar problems. But some of them were among the best students I ever had, period. The vast majority were indistinguishable in terms of fundamental skills, but much better in terms of critical thinking, work habits, and learning curves. All my fellow grad students who taught in that program agreed. It was an immensely popular teaching assignment; we competed to teach those students.
And, of course, the students felt ashamed of being in that class, because they knew that it was considered "remedial." So you would have to tell them that it was *exactly the same* as the other classes you taught, if anything even more demanding because the students were more capable. The challenge in teaching them, then, was not in conveying knowledge or skills; it was in dealing with their inferiority complex.
I loved those students so damn much that thinking about them makes me want to cry.
So, to offer an example, I read somewhere recently (in connection with the Summers brouhaha) that in making questions for the SATs, the writers of the exam at one point threw out any question on which women scored higher than men, because the presumption was that those questions were somehow biased. And yet, questions on which men score higher than women, or whites higher than blacks, are deemed normative, because that is what we expect.
I would very much like to see the claim for this.
For example, race and SATs are probably related in some very complicated way, rather than in a simple way ("the test is racist").
This is what needs to researched for debate on the issue to consist of anything other than a series of ideological stances.
The perspective of bphd and the other people here who have taught college classes is/ would be a really interesting element to add to this discussion, but I want to return to an earlier part of the thread.
re 121 and my 119:
I think I'm right. As far as I can tell, the best way to mitigate the harm of a quota-like system is to participate in it. By mitigate the harm I mean the following:
I'm assuming she thinks a pure merit (and I understand that merit would not be race-neutral) system would be more just than a-a. If she doesn't think this, wouldn't she be an a-a reformer rather than an a-a opponent? So as an a-a opponent, she should want the system to approximate a pure merit (again noting that the way merit is currently measured is clearly problematic) system as closely as possible, because this will minimize the injustice.
In order to as closely approximate pure merit as possible, she should give the school full notice of her a-a eligibility. This will then cause her to subsitute for the least qualified other person who would have gotten in under a-a. If she gets in on the merits, the person she substitutes for is the least qualified person who would have gotten in had she used a-a. But this person, and people less qualified than her/him, would have gotten in in her ideal world.
The only way the last sentence isn't true is if there is nothing unjust about a-a, but she can't be basing her actions on that belief, since she believes the opposite.
I'm not following you, wd. I also have a problem with the idea that the student is trying to (should?) mitigate the harm (she thinks) a-a does, systematically, as opposed to simply making sure that her own admission doesn't have anything to do with a-a. The way to reform systems isn't to find covert ways of gaming them, and I don't see anything in the original letter that indicates to me that this is what she's trying to do. If it were what she were doing, I would say this is unethical: she is free, objecting to a-a, to try to remove herself from consideration on a-a grounds, but she is *not* free to deliberately undermine other students who, not objecting to a-a, are applying under the university's admission standards as they exist.
Not to mention that is was post #151. One-hundred and FIFTY-ONE!! In a thread that should have been dead long ago! Or at least decamped elsewhere! Where's that Lori person who supposedly kills threads? Oh wait, Lori already tried it. Damn.
I apologize for that last comment by Labs. We did let him join the giant-cocked crew because it didn't seem fair to hog all the fun, but I haven't had the heart to tell him that he was an affirmative action pickup.
ash, as it's you asking, I will actually exert myself to retrace my steps and find that claim for you.
Thank you. I am Very Interested because if it is true it Very Very Interesting. Interesting enough to cast serious doubt on SAT claims. It it is untrue, then someone is Making Shit Up. And the question has the highest vector of anything involved, since the SATs are administered so widely and are of serious importance to admissions.
The only testing instrument left would be counting noses to make sure everyone was 'equal', which does nothing to actually resolve the issue, although that may be one's preferred outcome.
Under a merit+ system, I cede my point. Under such a system, her beliefs do oblige her to ensure that a-a doesn't help her, since each additional person helped by a-a increases the (perceived) unfairness to those who aren't helped.
For once we're actually talking about something substantive in a long thread.
Well FL has talked about his cock being substantive and long in this thread, but then ogged cast some serious doubt on those claims. I just hope FL doesn't succumb to the soft bigotry of low expectations.
I recall that Will Baude, whom I've stopped reading for the sake of my sanity, had a post some time ago on the subject of wedding registries and asking for money (in the event of a cash-strapped couple) instead of goods and services, for which money can be exchanged. He was agin' it, and had some pretty tortuous reasoning to back it up. I can't recall exactly what it was but I think it basically boiled down to: it's in bad taste to ask for a check in the amount of a gift, but good taste to ask for the gift itself; in fact, it's in good taste to have a list of items which you consider worthy gifts. I think maybe the fact that, when you receive a check, you can immediately see how much money and from whom it is? (As if when you open your present you won't know who gave it to you, and roughly what it cost, since you yourself picked it out.)
One problem that some people—but not I—might have with your innovation is that it makes writing thank-you notes weirder: "Dear so-and-so, thanks very much for 12% of a plasma TV. The upper right corner is our favorite! Love, some tools."
Also, "newlyweds", not "newleyweds".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 10:16 AM
drop $80 on a Global boning knife
hey, I understand your objection, but dropping coin toward a TV really doesn't fulfill my inner Beavis remotely like ordering one of these.
Gravy boats, on the other hand, are purely gratuitous. And I own one from the first marriage.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 10:17 AM
There's really no reason to own an $80 boning knife, since a Victorinox knife will do just as well and be significantly cheaper. Most people have too many knives anyway.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 10:21 AM
Apostropher, how the hell did you find that so fast? Do you just have a list of Beavis links, ready to go?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 10:29 AM
I have had experience with this very wedding gift request. I once put $30 towards a canoe, which was great until the couple split up. I'm pretty sure the guy, who was not my friend originally, has the canoe. Had it been a gravy boat or a kitchen knife, I could have indefinitately operated under the delusion that my friend hung on to my wedding gift as part of the divorce.
Posted by Claudia | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 10:45 AM
That's funny. Maybe she got the water?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 10:51 AM
I gots skillz, Ogged. Mad Beavis skillz.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 10:59 AM
There's really no reason to own an $80 boning knife
I think the apostropher just provided that reason. Inner Beavis is quavering on the boner-knife edge of sanity after seeing that. I should've known better than to check in here while my boss was standing three feet away from me, and I deserve a medal for Laugh Suppression.
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 11:05 AM
Unless specifically intended for older relatives and family friends, wedding registries strike me as unforgivingly tacky (at least in our social class). Pretty much all the weddings I attend these days are for couples who have already lived together for many years, and, in many cases, already own a house together. (I'm not objecting to that aspect. On the contrary, I disapprove of anyone marrying for any reason other than in order to avoid people thinking they're hippies for living together for so long without getting married.) The point, though, is that for couples like these the function of a wedding registry is to allow them to get better versions of things they already own, or things that they want, but would never buy themselves, not to help them build their first household.
I think the convention should be that peers buy purely aesthetic gifts, or disposable items (e.g., wine), and that the supposedly practical gifts should only come from people your parents made you invite to the wedding.
Posted by pjs | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 11:09 AM
pjs, your convention does not follow from your observations. You're saying that people should be compelled to invite unwanted guests to their sham weddings in order to score worthwhile gifts? You sure don't have a lot of faith in the possibility that people will be happy to see their friends get married.
When my wife and I got married, we were both in our late 20s and had been indepedent for at least 5 years. We shouldered the majority of the costs, and all of the planning, for our wedding. We invited whom we wanted, as many as we wanted. We set up modest gift registries for ourselves and didn't tell anyone about them unless they asked. (I know a few savvy people knew what we liked and figured it out themselves. I know this because our registries were fully subscribed without us telling more than half a dozen people about them.) Our parents made modest contributions and as such were in the loop on the main points of the event, but this was OUR wedding in OUR location. Rather than your cynical, provincial view, this is the reality of the modern wedding: it's a party you throw for yourselves.
And WTF is wrong with going off the board anyhow? Give a gift from your own heart and soul. There are precious few people for whom an immersion blender is the perfected expression of his affection.
Posted by diddy | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 11:54 AM
Ogged, you're not bourgeois, or you would realize that both registering and asking people for money is tacky.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:10 PM
Isn't his failure so to realize confirmation that he's bourgeois? Or is the state of bourgeoisie other than I understand it to be?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:16 PM
Ben, that's not what you meant to say. What you meant to say is "ARE tacky."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:19 PM
Gingrich
Iverson
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:19 PM
You don't own me, m-wei.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:28 PM
Wait, I'm wrong. bphd may have meant "It is tacky to both register and ask people for money." Apologies. I'm not sure that that's what ogged is actually proposing, though. (Inner Beavis sez: "He said proposing!")
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:30 PM
OK, now this time what you meant was "You're not the boss of me!" Isn't that much funnier?
(this would contain a link to all the occurences in the Filler Archive for "you're not the boss of me," except that as a cartoon Filler is ungooglable. I hate that.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:39 PM
No, Matt, your first correction was correct. Ben said "both registering and asking for money", which are mutually exclusive choices in the context of Ogged's original post. This sentence could be correct if Ben meant to say "the two-step action of registering and asking for money is tacky", but in context, what he appeared to mean was "both courses of action are tacky". Therefore, as you originally stated, the verb does not match the subject.
Hehe-he-he-hehe... you said "Filler".
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:44 PM
I didn't say that. Bitch, PhD, said it. Come on. Let's do this right, people.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:45 PM
I've been thinking about trawling through the Achewood archives and creating an, or a series of, XML file(s) describing what characters are present, the speech, the alt text, etc, so that at last I would be able to find specific strips easily.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:47 PM
Oh, shit... I'm so used to Weiner saying something about you, I must have just assumed.
And we know what happens when you assume...
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:48 PM
You perform an action under the aegis of or in the role of the sum of the base of natural logarithms?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:51 PM
Oh shit, I'm so e-mailing Baude. And then it'll be on.
Actually, I really don't get his Miss Manners obsession either.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:52 PM
Yeah... and a pony.
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:52 PM
I think a lot of cleverness can be profitably expelled on niggling bits of etiquette/manners/politeness, so I don't begrudge him an obsession with Miss Manners, but IIRC he doesn't distinguish, as must be distinguished, between things more on the etiquette end and things more on the manners end.
I will say, even though it would be better for me to hold my tongue, that I prefer Baude to the other two Chicago bloggers I've met in person, viz., James Liu and Phoebe Maltz (to whom M. Yglesias seems to link with disturbing frequency).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 12:57 PM
Well, I'm probably not one to talk, since I'm semi-obsessed with the modern day Miss Manners/ Dear Abby, the Ethicist. But in my defense, I read him with a presumption that he's wrong, while Will seems to assume that Manners is an authority worth citing to.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 1:01 PM
Wow... I just got that, Wolfson. Not bad, though I was thinking of the rather more pedestrian "make an ass out of u and me". This place is really the cat's balls. All the way from "stiff boner knife" to linguistic pseudo-deconstruction involving convoluted references to higher math, in a single thread. It just doesn't get any better than that.
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 1:03 PM
I once wrote the Ethicist and asked him if soliciting ethical dilemmas from McSweeney's readers was ethical, and he assured me that it was.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 1:04 PM
Phoebe Maltz (to whom M. Yglesias seems to link with disturbing frequency)
I've noticed that myself. I guess the only way to determine whether Matt's linkage rate is legitimate would be for you to answer that most important of questions: is she as cute in person as she is in the picture on her blog?
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 1:13 PM
Substantially cuter, actually, if somewhat severe. (In fact the severity makes me want to say: not cute but pretty.)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 1:16 PM
I mean, that's a terrible picture.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 1:17 PM
Well, the one on the front page, yes. But then the one in the profile is better, and the one she used to have was even better.
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 1:18 PM
Not that I'm, like, obsessing or anything. Just observing.
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 1:19 PM
Oh, I didn't check the profile page. The angle of her head in that shot is not to her advantage.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 1:20 PM
You said "head".
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 1:21 PM
The Ethicist is a hack. Miss Manners, however, is not. Do not put them in the same sentence.
Ok, I meant "are." Jesus. And yes, I meant realizing. Note, for instance, that I am implicitly begging for Amazon crap on my blog. But, being bourgeois as hell, I realize that it is tacky and I am embarrassed about it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 4:49 PM
What about the sentence, "The Ethicist is a hack, while Mrs. Manners is not?"
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 7:36 PM
OH BURN ON BPHD (pronounced "bffd")!!!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 7:39 PM
Nope, washerdreyer, you'll notice I made a point of separating those independent clauses with a period.... ;)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 9:51 AM
Oh, and by the way it's "Miss" Manners. Not "Mrs."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 9:52 AM
Understand that I didn't mean to criticize you for writing 'is' instead of 'are'; I meant to criticize Wolfson for failing to criticize you for that, and thus disappointing our reasonable expectations.
What definition of 'bourgeois' are you using, though? I thought that the bourgeois are those who turn everything into currency. Registering and asking people for money is déclassé (the true nobility have friends who know what the in thing is and supply it without prompting).
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 10:16 AM
Enthusiastic agreement about Miss Manners and the Ethicist, though. My reaction to the Ethicist is like my reaction to 'smooth jazz'--here's some utter shit that's being mass-marketed under the name of something I care about. Grrrr.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 10:17 AM
The bourgoise do turn things into currency; at the same time, they are an aspirational class (historically; now socially dominant) who, in their quest for social dominance, emulate the manners and codes of the aristocracy.
Dialectic, my friend, dialectic.
(And I love how now everyone's afraid of offending me. Grr.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:20 AM
Pssh, haven't we transcended or sublated or something the emulation of the aristocracy now. At least in America? Seems like someone ought to be quoting De Tocqueville here.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:22 AM
They're not afraid of offending you, per se; they're worried that you'll have another meltdown, and we'll be left to pick up the pieces. FYI.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:22 AM
Oh pshaw. No one picked up nothing; I clean up my own messes.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:23 AM
Clearly we haven't transcended the emulation of the aristocracy. I present as my witnesses Martha Stewart, Princess Di., and the popularity of ranting about how offensive reality tv is (even while we watch it obsessively). Ideology is all about holding incompatible unacknowledged beliefs. The more we deny our aristocratic aspirations, the more we reveal them.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:25 AM
Why do you think, that when I start talking about jazz, I'm trying to avoid offending you?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:27 AM
I just want newer, shinier stuff.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:27 AM
No, when you start talking about jazz you are courting me. (JOKE. Unlike Ogged, I don't think the entire world wants to date me.)
Wish I could edit comments. I should have added, in #46, that meltdown or no, I still maintain that I had a point.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:30 AM
I only remember the meltdown.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:31 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:34 AM
Yes, well, I would expect that, given what the meltdown was about.
Anyway, I thought you said there were no hard feelings?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:34 AM
I think I've decided I'll never forgive you instead.
Labs, you've gone soft.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:36 AM
Oh, oops, you note that you used to hate him. My bad. Still, you've gone soft.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:37 AM
#52: Yes, fine, but neither of those are *ethical* answers, even in the colloquial sense. They're legalistic. Plus he's smug and annoying.
Miss Manners is only tiresome because people ask the same shit over and over again. Every once in a while she gets something new and is really fun. Plus, there's an underlying tone of snarky archness that's really, really amusing (and aided by the third person--perhaps the bitch will have to start trying it. No, you're right, the third person thing is a bit tiresome).
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:38 AM
Ogged, you are a lost cause.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:40 AM
B, why do you want to date me so much?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:42 AM
Because I think you have money and I'm hoping you'll pay off my credit card debt. Or at least buy me some shoes.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:50 AM
Ok, those are noble desires. What's in it for me?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:52 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:57 AM
I wrote extensively on this week's ethicist question, if anyone is interested. The top two posts on my blog are in response, and should probably be read in reverse order.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 11:58 AM
#61: Bah. It's perfectly possible to distill ethical concepts into actual advice. And I still maintain, sans references to Nozick or whoever the hell, that the Ethicist's responses are usually more about what you can get away with than they are about what is or isn't actually right.
#61: Are you making me an offer? B/c I'm perfectly willing to negotiate.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:01 PM
Second comment re. #60.
May I request an editing option? (And don't tell me about the preview button, I don't care.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:04 PM
Editing option = chaos. There's a preview button though.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:06 PM
I submit that an editing option would solidify unfogged's claim to the ne plus ultra of metablogging.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:18 PM
Submission noted. There will be no editing option. I think maybe we should do away with comments entirely.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:19 PM
You could do that but then would anyone read?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:22 PM
I echo my esteemed co-blogger.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:28 PM
And I echo: you have a posting strategy?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:32 PM
Cock joke, innuendo, politics, cock joke, ogged embarrasses self, wacky shit, cock joke.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:37 PM
That works. Don't forget "ogged bluffs, bitch calls him on it, he changes the subject."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:42 PM
It's all about the bitch. What bluff? You mean my offer? You misunderstand: bitch throws self at ogged, ogged expresses interest, then he changes the subject.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:45 PM
Everything is all about me. Like I said, make me an offer.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:48 PM
Amended: bitch throws self at ogged, ogged expresses interest, then he changes the subject, bitch continues to throw self at ogged.
I'll buy you shoes, b, just don't make me date you.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:51 PM
Ok, going swimming, which means I won't be deliberately ignoring you until later.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:53 PM
Ogged, offering to buy a girl shoes is an odd way of ignoring her. However, I'll gladly accept these (camel, size 8 1/2) in exchange for not dating you (who said anything about dating, anyway?). You may have them shipped to my boyfriend.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:56 PM
Fuck, forgot to close tag. Sorry.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 12:56 PM
Ok, those are noble desires. What's in it for me?
How long and counting?
Posted by Matt "pot, kettle" Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 1:02 PM
WD, I can't open that page here, because of that weird technical problem, but I'll read from home. Looking forward to it. I think we should post the questions every week and say better things about them until the NYT gives us the Cohen contract.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 1:03 PM
I've been working on that project since January, though whether or not my answers are actually better is open to debate.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 1:08 PM
Oops. I guess I should start reading, huh?
B, could you say more about what would constitute a genuinely ethical response? Like, what it would take to meet that test? I don't see why RC's answers don't qualify.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 1:15 PM
Ok, I'm gonna be out of my depth here, Labs, so I am counting on you giving me a charitable reading, aight?
The Ethicist answer on the a-a question is better than they usually are; he at least mentions in passing the central ethical dilemma in the letter-writer's answer in saying As your experience with your essay indicates, however, race permeates American life for all of us -- it has certainly played a significant part in yours -- so perhaps you should re-examine your position. That, to me, is the real question here. And it's the student's real question too: I oppose a-a, but I feel that if I mention the role race has played in my life in my admissions eassy, I will be implicitly acknowledging that we don't live in a race-blind society. The student's decision--not to mention race in her essay--is far more ethical, to my mind, than the Ethicist's advice (which is that the student should rationalize away this dilemma). If I were handling the question, I'd have gotten into that second issue, rather than dancing around it and tossing it in at the end of a paragraph. It's fine for this student to oppose a-a; presumably, given that she acknowledges the role race has played in her life, she does so because she thinks it's a blunt instrument, or perhaps because of the class vs. race problem, or perhaps because she feels it implies inferiority on the part of those who a-a benefits (as opposed to the clumsier, easily disproved argument that we've achieved perfect racial parity). But I think that, if her position (which I'm inferring) is that "race does matter, but admissions committees should make a herculean effort to assess students' abilities and achievements without regard to race" (a defensible, and I suspect, possible goal, though my own position is that, given the realities of admissions, the blunt instrument of a-a does far more good than dismissing it entirely and relying on, say, test scores), then it is more consistent with her principles to ask her to make the same effort in writing her essay (which apparently she did; kudos to her) than it is to tell her that, well, mentioning race *probably* won't make any difference, so don't worry about it. Which is really what his advice amounts to, before he wanders off into offering his own views on affirmative action. That's why I stopped reading the column: he doesn't grapple with the actual issues presented, he evades them and then meanders off into some uninformed op-ed bullshit about whatever the issue is.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 2:00 PM
Remember when seeing 100 comments was a big deal? Now days, ogged posts on wedding registries and he gets a century. Ah, growth.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 2:26 PM
Oh, there's still time to stop this from hitting 100. Not if people keep making comments like this one (that is, 85), though.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 2:42 PM
Remember when seeing 100 comments was a big deal?
It's the same five people posting, though--y'all have turned into a bunch of Chatty Cathys.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 2:46 PM
Can we turn this thread in to a searching discussion of how horrible The Ethicist is? Man, I despise that column!
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 2:49 PM
It's the same five people posting, though
Five...and chopper! Sucka.
Matt, I like the incorporation of "pot, kettle" right into your name. I'm thinking, Unfogged, The Pot And Kettle Blog.
And to answer your question, point taken, but no married women. And, as Liz Penn, on whom I would otherwise have a huge crush reminds me, no cheap women (not that b is cheap, I'm just rounding off the list).
Ok, I'm ready to concentrate on the Ethicist now (although, a trend that dates back almost to the beginning of the blog: whenever I join a philosophy discussion here, it either dies, or people just ignore me. Nevertheless, I'm in.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 2:55 PM
I promise to do everything I can to keep this thread from reaching 100 comments.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:03 PM
Who's with me?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:04 PM
OK, this is going to 100 no matter what I do, so I'll bite: Why does Liz Penn remind you? Is it the answer to "What's the most expensive thing in your wardrobe" in this interview? 'Cause that seems cool to me. And not liking that doesn't seem compatible with not liking the high-maintenance (sense two, and b, it's the person who keeps wanting to bug other people about their footwear who's being high-maintenance. And you've confused senses one and two anyway. We already established that I'm sense one.)
Of course, for me to complain about such things would be pot-kettlism of the first order.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:06 PM
Might I submit that most of the vitriol directed at the Ethicist is in response to the very name, "Ethicist." If it were called "Navigating the Modern Bureaucratic State," no one would care, and some of the columns would be helpful.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:07 PM
MW, just search for "cheap" in that Gothamist interview (more than once).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:08 PM
It would probably not be done for me to e-mail her a proposal right now.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:10 PM
Ok. So, how horrible is the Ethicist?
(Ignoring Mitch. And no, not cheap. Nonetheless, I must object to your hangup about "cheap women," ogged, on the grounds that it is extremely silly and, dare I say, a little bit phobic.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:10 PM
[Ignore us. "No cheap women" is silly? No cheap friends either, if that helps. Anyway, that doesn't seem like a particularly controversial one. What's the problem?]
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:13 PM
Oops, took too long to type that, I guess.
#92: Agreed, absolutely.
#91: Disagreed re. bugging other people about their footwear. Making "high maintenance" a catch-all term for "having aesthetic preferences" denudes the term of any worth whatsoever.
Also, there's a third sense of "high maintenance": insisting on hashing things out to a conclusion no matter how much blood gets spilled in the process. I am not h-m in either of the senses originally proposed; I am excruciatingly h-m in this third sense, however.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:16 PM
I thought you were ignoring me.
I'd have to know what you meant by cheap, actually, to answer that question. I was inferring "trashy." I may have been wrong.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:18 PM
Yeah, cheap as in stingy. I don't think I'd call a woman cheap in the other sense.
Unless she kept trying to hash things out on my blog.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:20 PM
Well, in for a penny, in for a pound.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:20 PM
Oh lordy. After looking at the Gothamist article, I realize that by "cheap" you mean "doesn't spend money on luxuries she deems unnecessary."
So you want a woman who (a) doesn't spend money on shoes and makeup and expensive haircuts; and (b) doesn't object to spending money on frivolities? Good luck, my friend.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:22 PM
Hey, you want comments, you got comments. You can always ban me. Anyway, that's high-maintenance, not cheap. Let's not start mixing up our pejoratives, now.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:23 PM
No, seriously, that hash-outer category is a good one, b. Hard to say this without it sounding personal, but I avoid hash-outers as much as possible because it drives me completely around the bend. I figure I make my point, you make your point--I'm willing to go 'round one more time, and them I'm out. I grant that this is purely a matter of temperament and personal preference.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:23 PM
Hmmmm, my mind control rays definitely need some tuning.
Sorry, Unfogged readers, I did the best I could.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:23 PM
by "cheap" you mean "doesn't spend money on luxuries she deems unnecessary."
You're really a joy, you know that? By "cheap," I mean what most people mean by "cheap:" unwilling to spend money. Of course the stingy person thinks that the spending would be on "luxuries she deems unnecessary," but people can differ: one person's frugal is another person's cheap. And, given that in my world, "cheap" is a pejorative on the order of "child molestor," someone who self-describes as "cheap" is probably "cheap" by my lights.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:29 PM
Right. Whereas I figure, it's not just a question of my point vs. your point; it's a question of, someone is right. Or perhaps we are operating from different premises. In which case, we need to unearth them. Anyway, I'm not offended by people not liking the hasher-outer personality type; I realize that, like good scotch, it isn't for everyone.
You're the one that's supposed to be a philosopher, right?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:30 PM
But the examples in the Gothamist interview are, she doesn't take cabs, and she doesn't eat in expensive restaurants. That's not unwilling to spend money. That's just not wanting to throw it away.
Why is "cheap" pejorative in the child-molestation sense? I have a cheap-ass sister in law. Admittedly, she drives me a bit nuts. But it ain't like I wouldn't leave my kid with her for an afternoon.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:32 PM
Might
I figure I make my point, you make your point--I'm willing to go 'round one more time, and them I'm out.
explain
whenever I join a philosophy discussion here, it ...dies?
I say that as one who really, really wishes he understood WTF the philosophy types were talking about (b/c it sounds important) but often doesn't.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:33 PM
it's a question of, someone is right
Huh. I almost never think that. I just want to hear what people have to say.
Or perhaps we are operating from different premises
Yes, and discussions geared toward finding them have a very different tenor from discussions in which one person is assumed to be right (though that's not to say that the "who's right" type discussion can't unearth premises--it's just an unpleasant way to do it).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:35 PM
That's a good point, scmTim; it might we just be me. Funny for an erstwhile debater/philosopher, now blogger: I hate arguments.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:36 PM
Oh, and Tim, I don't know what the philosophy types are talking about most of the time either, because they and I read such different stuff.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:38 PM
Oh ogged, not at all: you can argue strenuously over unearthing premises. The presumption is that most people think what they think for reasons that are important to them. "Right" can also mean, "right for me, and that's important." You just shouldn't take conflict so personally, my dear.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:43 PM
re: 83
Opposing the existence of an institution does not create an ethical obligation to not participate in that institution, There is an exception to that for categorical imperatives, but I don't think that's the right way to think about affirmative action. I don't really think it's the right way to think about anything, but it seems especially true for affirmative action. Though I suppose an argument could be made about affirmative action treating some people as merely a means, I don't think that's accurate.
You're then correct to go to into her specific reasons for opposing affirmative action as to whether or not they create an obligation to not mention race, I think it depends upon the actual type of affirmative action system in use at the institution she's applying to. The closer the system is to a quota system, the more likely it is that she should have mentioned race.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:46 PM
It's not that I take it personally: I want to strangle people when they argue among themselves too. Anyway, "strenuous" isn't what I object to. And now, see, I'm done with this one.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:46 PM
And now, see, I'm done with this one.
EXCellent! My efforts to keep this thread from getting to 200 seem to be working!
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:49 PM
washerdreyer, I agree that opposing something doesn't create an ethical obligation not to participate in it -- absolutely! Else all of would have to throw ourselves on our swords. That wasn't my point (I did say I was out of my depth). What I meant, I guess, was as you're saying: that the question of whether or not she should mention race depends on her reasons for opposing a-a. But I would say that the question of whether she should mention it doesn't hinge on what the institution does (I presume that your point about the quota system is that mentioning race in her essay wouldn't matter if they were merely bean-counting checked boxes); it hinges on her own principles and how she understands them. And that's the issue that the ethicist never tries to unpack.
Which also ties into the question of argument: at the risk of being strangled by ogged (or, worse, not letting something drop when he's expressed a desire to do so, which is extremely bad manners on my part), it's that question of "what are the principles at stake, and how does one enact them" that usually interests me. It's h-m to want to pursue that at any cost (especially in personal relationships, and people argue heatedly b/c they have strong feelings attached to their principles--it's too much to expect them to always be "cool" about things that Really Matter); but then again, I maintain (I would, of course), that it's also, in its own annoying way, kind of noble.
Sorry Mitch.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 3:57 PM
And, given that in my world, "cheap" is a pejorative on the order of "child molestor," someone who self-describes as "cheap" is probably "cheap" by my lights.
Uh, what if, in their world, "cheap" is a mild pejorative at best? What if their threshold of cheapness isn't yours?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:03 PM
What if their threshold of cheapness isn't yours?
Well, then we go our separate ways, no?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:06 PM
Oh, my point re: a quota system is that I think there's a really perverse effect under a it. I'm imagining that she believes that a-a is unfair to some of the people who would get in on strict "merit." Under a quota system, they're trying to accept around a certain number of students in some category. Let's call that number X. X doesn't change whether or not she she is counted as part of it or as part of the group getting in on "merit." So basically by not taking advantage of a-a, someone else will. She replaces a merit person, not an a-a person, and exacerbates the problem that she's worried about. Whereas if she gets in under a-a, she replaces an a-a person and it's not any worse for the people in the "merit" pool. I might be mis-conceiving this though, I'm not positive.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:08 PM
Dammit BitchPhD and ben! We're never going to not get to 200 if you keep up this behavior. Have you no heart? Don't you care?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:10 PM
Aaaahhhh!!! washerdreyer, that's a horrible argument. The presumption you seem to be relying on is that a-a admits are *not* merit admits, which is ridiculous. (Not to mention that I'm pretty sure quota systems of the sort you're talking about don't exist any more). The very student we're talking about demonstrates that the a-a vs. merit model is a false one. Plus, it's not her personal responsibility to ensure that the university's admissions process, however it works (which really, she can't know) operates according to her lights. That's more illogical than the idea that opposing something means you can't participate in it.
If *she* wants to be admitted on merit, and she has reason to believe that mentioning race may compromise *her* idea of what constitutes "merit," then that is up to her. But it's ridiculous to try to game the system (or to encourage her to game the system).
Ogged: going your separate ways, fine. But there's a problem here still: (1) you eschew argument and are happy to have people agree to disagree/go their separate ways; and (2) you won't date her (I realize this is a purely academic argument) b/c she's "cheap." That's a pejorative, not merely a difference in opinion. It's kind of low, imho, to try to front that the difference is neutral while condemning the other person for not meeting your standards.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:18 PM
I care deeply Mitch. But I care more about pursuing my point (see earlier post re. high-maintenance).
OTOH, I can be bought. Buy me those shoes, I'll let it drop :)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:19 PM
It's not that a-a students are people who wouldn't be merit students, it's that under a quota-like system they're counted separately, whether or not they would be merit students. And while explicit quotas are banned, any system which leads to approximately the same level of year-to-year enrollment of a-a assisted people is either:
a) functioning very similarly to a quota
b) based on the (remarkable?) fact that the number of students who are qualified based on merit + a-a who apply every year is substantially the same.
That's all speculation, for all I know there are huge disparities between year-to-year admissions for a-a eligible students, in which case my whole point falls apart.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:27 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:28 PM
I have no idea, either.
Dinner time! But I'll be back, Mitch! Think about those shoes!
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:28 PM
Labs, but then the proper response would be to, say, list the possible alternatives and offer a couple of different solutions. Or hell, pick *one* alternative and work through it. Anything other than just blowing it off entirely.
Format is surely a problem. But I'm not letting Cohen off the hook on those grounds; formal constraints are there to hone and polish good writing, not to excuse failing to engage in it at all.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:31 PM
I was assuming her desire is to avoid harm to others from a-a, not to avoid the benefit to herself. There are cases where the two diverge.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:32 PM
It's kind of low, imho, to try to front that the difference is neutral while condemning the other person for not meeting your standards.
It's not neutral, as I use it, and I don't mean to "front" that it is; I'm just conceding that the standard is personal, not universal.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:36 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:38 PM
Dammit BitchPhD and ben! We're never going to not get to 200 if you keep up this behavior. Have you no heart? Don't you care?
I was away from a computer all day, and now you expect me to refrain further? Have you no heart, sir?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:41 PM
(Whether this is a de facto, reverse-engineered quota is an interesting question.)
It is? Does anyone think it's not that?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:42 PM
Now I have to run, but I'd be happy to continue this in a couple of hours.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:44 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:50 PM
Ooh, I can usually stop a comment line dead in its tracks. Let's try it.
So you're saying that no matter how hard she tries to eliminate harm to others from a-a, she can't simply because she *could* possibly benefit from it?
Posted by Lori | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:54 PM
I propose that we set up a progressive redistribution system whereby when a thread reaches a certain bloat point, discussion picks up and moves to one of the threads with few or no comments. That way everyone and ben gets to yack yack yack all they want to, AND no post feels neglected or abandoned.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:56 PM
Plus, and this is a BIG plus, I don't have to buy BitchPhD those camel shoes.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 4:58 PM
That way everyone and ben
What's all this then?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 5:01 PM
It's not neutral, as I use it, and I don't mean to "front" that it is; I'm just conceding that the standard is personal, not universal. I recognize that. And I'm sorry if I'm picking on you. What I mean is that, to me anyway, saying "it's personal not universal" neutralizes it (or should). So it bugs me when you use stuff like that in terms that aren't neutral, but then say, "it's just a personal standard." It seems evasive. Feels like being provoked, then backing away from the provocation.
Labs: Hm. But as your own hesitance to use "merit grounds" instead of "race-blind grounds" shows (and not just b/c of the argument you cite), the fact is the things that we define as "merit grounds" (test scores, grades, even letters of recommendation) have been shown to be far from race-neutral. Also, btw, affirmative action benefits white women (like myself) and often veterans, first-generation college students, and the disabled, as well as ethnic minorities. So, to offer an example, I read somewhere recently (in connection with the Summers brouhaha) that in making questions for the SATs, the writers of the exam at one point threw out any question on which women scored higher than men, because the presumption was that those questions were somehow biased. And yet, questions on which men score higher than women, or whites higher than blacks, are deemed normative, because that is what we expect.
Now, its arguable that a-a is a blunt instrument, as I said, in addressing these problems; on the other hand, distinguishing between "merit" and "affirmative action" invisibly equates "merit" with "race-neutral"--which we know it isn't. And *not* just because race is sometimes part of merit (an argument I buy, in terms of social effect, ala the Bok book on the number of minority doctors, say, who end up practicing among underserved populations), but also because we know that test scores, grades, and rec. letters (the usual admissions package) aren't race-neutral. They should be, but they aren't.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 5:03 PM
Btw, I don't think that a-a is a "reverse engineered quota." For the record.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 5:07 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 5:26 PM
I think the point is that "conventional standards" are themselves (and not just in their results) already influenced by race, so that "race neutral" (which means "race-blind," in your terms) is, in fact, discriminatory.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 5:32 PM
Where's the apostropher today? Why does he hate minorities?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 5:33 PM
Ah, I see. You're right, it's a terminology issue. What I meant was that, in a-a arguments, it seems to me that people usually mean "merit-based" as an equivalent to "having nothing to do with race." What I'm saying is that the race-blind/neutral critera aren't blind or neutral, underneath. The admissions committee may not know the applicant's race (and, ok, we can use "race-neutral admissions" to mean this), but the test/grades/rec. letters/schools attended do. So, whether or not consciously, admissions processes that ignore race end up reinforcing the effects of racism: students whose lives have been least impacted by racism are more likely to have gone to "good" schools/scored higher/gotten better rec. letters/gotten higher grades.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 5:38 PM
Or, you know, what ogged said, more concisely.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 5:39 PM
I think I understand the point you're making, which, for present purposes, I neither reject nor endorse. I think this is a complex empirical question, or, rather, a series of difficult empirical questions. For example, race and SATs are probably related in some very complicated way, rather than in a simple way ("the test is racist").
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 6:18 PM
But y'all are professors, so question: have you found minority students to be less prepared for your own classes than white students?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 6:20 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 6:26 PM
I'll answer that question.
I've taught classes that were specifically set aside for special admit students--which at the institution I was teaching, included not only ethnic minorities, but also first-generation college students and students from "bad" high schools (I don't remember what the criteria was for that, but you can probably infer). Sample size: I taught classes of this nature three times over seven years of teaching there.
I found, and I shit you not, that those students were *far better* than the students I taught in my "regular" classes. Some of them had more grammar problems. But some of them were among the best students I ever had, period. The vast majority were indistinguishable in terms of fundamental skills, but much better in terms of critical thinking, work habits, and learning curves. All my fellow grad students who taught in that program agreed. It was an immensely popular teaching assignment; we competed to teach those students.
And, of course, the students felt ashamed of being in that class, because they knew that it was considered "remedial." So you would have to tell them that it was *exactly the same* as the other classes you taught, if anything even more demanding because the students were more capable. The challenge in teaching them, then, was not in conveying knowledge or skills; it was in dealing with their inferiority complex.
I loved those students so damn much that thinking about them makes me want to cry.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 6:45 PM
So, to offer an example, I read somewhere recently (in connection with the Summers brouhaha) that in making questions for the SATs, the writers of the exam at one point threw out any question on which women scored higher than men, because the presumption was that those questions were somehow biased. And yet, questions on which men score higher than women, or whites higher than blacks, are deemed normative, because that is what we expect.
I would very much like to see the claim for this.
For example, race and SATs are probably related in some very complicated way, rather than in a simple way ("the test is racist").
This is what needs to researched for debate on the issue to consist of anything other than a series of ideological stances.
ash
['Not that that's going to happen.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:10 PM
ash, as it's you asking, I will actually exert myself to retrace my steps and find that claim for you.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:12 PM
The perspective of bphd and the other people here who have taught college classes is/ would be a really interesting element to add to this discussion, but I want to return to an earlier part of the thread.
re 121 and my 119:
I think I'm right. As far as I can tell, the best way to mitigate the harm of a quota-like system is to participate in it. By mitigate the harm I mean the following:
I'm assuming she thinks a pure merit (and I understand that merit would not be race-neutral) system would be more just than a-a. If she doesn't think this, wouldn't she be an a-a reformer rather than an a-a opponent? So as an a-a opponent, she should want the system to approximate a pure merit (again noting that the way merit is currently measured is clearly problematic) system as closely as possible, because this will minimize the injustice.
In order to as closely approximate pure merit as possible, she should give the school full notice of her a-a eligibility. This will then cause her to subsitute for the least qualified other person who would have gotten in under a-a. If she gets in on the merits, the person she substitutes for is the least qualified person who would have gotten in had she used a-a. But this person, and people less qualified than her/him, would have gotten in in her ideal world.
The only way the last sentence isn't true is if there is nothing unjust about a-a, but she can't be basing her actions on that belief, since she believes the opposite.
That was a long comment.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:18 PM
I'm not following you, wd. I also have a problem with the idea that the student is trying to (should?) mitigate the harm (she thinks) a-a does, systematically, as opposed to simply making sure that her own admission doesn't have anything to do with a-a. The way to reform systems isn't to find covert ways of gaming them, and I don't see anything in the original letter that indicates to me that this is what she's trying to do. If it were what she were doing, I would say this is unethical: she is free, objecting to a-a, to try to remove herself from consideration on a-a grounds, but she is *not* free to deliberately undermine other students who, not objecting to a-a, are applying under the university's admission standards as they exist.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:26 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:29 PM
That was a long comment.
Not to mention that is was post #151. One-hundred and FIFTY-ONE!! In a thread that should have been dead long ago! Or at least decamped elsewhere! Where's that Lori person who supposedly kills threads? Oh wait, Lori already tried it. Damn.
I blame everyone and ben.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:35 PM
Oh come on, Mitch. For once we're actually talking about something substantive in a long thread.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:37 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:40 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:42 PM
I apologize for that last comment by Labs. We did let him join the giant-cocked crew because it didn't seem fair to hog all the fun, but I haven't had the heart to tell him that he was an affirmative action pickup.
Fontana, I'm so so sorry.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:51 PM
ash, as it's you asking, I will actually exert myself to retrace my steps and find that claim for you.
Thank you. I am Very Interested because if it is true it Very Very Interesting. Interesting enough to cast serious doubt on SAT claims. It it is untrue, then someone is Making Shit Up. And the question has the highest vector of anything involved, since the SATs are administered so widely and are of serious importance to admissions.
The only testing instrument left would be counting noses to make sure everyone was 'equal', which does nothing to actually resolve the issue, although that may be one's preferred outcome.
ash
['Much smoke, little light.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 7:51 PM
Bphd & FL-
Under a merit+ system, I cede my point. Under such a system, her beliefs do oblige her to ensure that a-a doesn't help her, since each additional person helped by a-a increases the (perceived) unfairness to those who aren't helped.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 8:12 PM
For once we're actually talking about something substantive in a long thread.
Well FL has talked about his cock being substantive and long in this thread, but then ogged cast some serious doubt on those claims. I just hope FL doesn't succumb to the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 8:24 PM
Mitch,
Thank you so very very much.
Love,
F. Labs
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 8-05 10:08 PM
I'm so proud.
I think.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 9-05 5:49 AM
Jeez, the cock jokes kill the thread. (One of those self-falsifying statements, like 'this page intentionally left blank'.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 9-05 9:31 AM