"that the common meaning of texts really is held together more by a sort of gentleman's agreement than by the words on the page"
While I haven't even spent a fractional number of years of my life reading on or about postmodernism, I have to disagree. There's certainly a limiting factor about how far you can go with a discussion with someone because you don't want to spend the time necessary. But with enough time spent in reasonable discussion, and perhaps fact-finding, any two rational people should be able to come to an agreement over any matter. Now, deliberate dishonesty on either side is going to really muck things up, but if that's what you mean by "gentleman's agreement" then I think you're boring.
"But with enough time spent in reasonable discussion, and perhaps fact-finding, any two rational people should be able to come to an agreement over any matter."
It's not a joke, but neither am I sure that *any* people are rational, and the time I have in mind approaches infinity. And I am sure that many people are definitely *not* rational. My reasoning is mostly based on this.
My understanding is that most of the commenters are expressing vehement disagreement with pdf's initial comment (in various silly ways).
I have to kind of agree with the vehement disagreement -- pdf: hadn't you noticed that a premise of the post was the assumption of bad faith? Putting the possibility of bad faith to one side really changes the subject under consideration.
But what was there to disagree with? If dishonesty is presumed, as I said, then ogged is boring. QED. The rest of my post is going on about the more interesting instance.
In general, I'm extremely reluctant to presume bad faith (though not so much in public officials) where others are not so reluctant. I'm convinced that too often bad faith is presumed where none is present. That's the road to demonization of the other and the end of rational discourse.
On another note, I'm surprised at how many results this search turns up. The first one even has a rather nice illustration on the first page.
Dude: if you're bored, you're bored. The fact that you're bored by this indicates either an unusual set of values, or a certain amount of missing the point.
The fact that communication can break down to the point of impossibility in the presence of bad faith, and that this sort of breakdown of communication appears to have taken place between, say, the Justice Department and the American electorate is disturbing, and I think fairly interesting in itself.
The point is well illustrated by the fact that rational people rarely, if ever, disagree.
For instance, I like those miniature cabbage things, whereas my girlfriend does not. So we had some rational discourse as to whether they are pleasant-tasting -- with some fact-finding thrown in -- and as it turns out, we broke up.
To be clear, I don't think there's much doubt that the torture memos are an obvious instance of bad faith, nor the two links in the main post. I am interested, though, in the more general tendency for those on the left and right of the blogosphere to presume bad faith in many or most of those on the other side.
In general, I'm extremely reluctant to presume bad faith (though not so much in public officials) where others are not so reluctant. I'm convinced that too often bad faith is presumed where none is present. That's the road to demonization of the other and the end of rational discourse.
Strikes me as awfully lazy and unpleasant in the current context. While it's easy to say that one shouldn't leap to attribute bad faith to others, you do have to realize that the administration's statements about torture ("We don't torture" "Oh, you found out that we waterboard? That's not torture, really now, is it?") indicate a level of confusion that it is difficult to explain without bad faith.
If you have a non-bad faith explanation for that confusion, it would be interesting to hear. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you probably aren't interested in the subject matter of this post, and don't have much useful to say about it. Pious generalities about not rushing to bad faith as an explanation for everything are awfully condescending without some kind of argumentative support.
I've only read the first couple of pages of the Hanson article you cite, but it appears to me that a lot of the work in it is done by the "common priors." Those "common priors" sound awfully analogous in type to ogged's "gentlemen's agreement." (And I'd love Weiner's estimation of their attempt to avoid "justified belief," as I think they're trying to jump a fence they can't get over.)
Hrm. I was crosser than I should have been in my last, and I apologize -- you just seemed to be missing the point that the post is about current events, rather than centrally about philosophy.
I do still think that this:
I am interested, though, in the more general tendency for those on the left and right of the blogosphere to presume bad faith in many or most of those on the other side.
or rather, the position that this tendency is improper, is not well supported. I see a lot of cross-ideological discourse breaking down along the following lines:
A: You can't believe X, it makes no sense for reasons Y and Z.
B: But I do. I'm not going to justify it, I just do, and it is offensive of you to claim that you have some kind of 'argument' that shows that I'm wrong.
If it is improper to identify a bad-faith argument when you see one, then no one can enforce social norms in favor of good faith argumentation.
(Now, I'm in favor of being formally polite about such identifications, but not in favor of failing to identify nonsense as such.)
How's that now? Isn't what's quoted the anti-nino? Or will we come crawling back in our desperation for stability? The lure of the dark & pudgy side is strong, I cannot deny.
re 24. text, your scenario, perhaps intended as a counterexample, leaves my argument pristine and unscathed. There are, in reality, two questions of fact involved. One, whether you find the taste of miniature cabbage pleasent. Two, whether your girlfriend finds the taste of miniature cabbage pleasant. There is no objective, inherent pleasantness to cabbage--pleasantness arises as an interaction between the chemicals in the cabbage and your tongue, nose, nervous system, and brain.
LB, I'm sorry I didn't make it clear from the beginning that I don't doubt that virtually all of the administration's public statements are completely dishonest. There's no reason to doubt that, and many strong reasons to believe it.
LB, I don't think that the reply in B is often what you find, though. It appears that way from one side, simply because the reasons proferred in B are so ludicrous-sounding from one's own perspective. I believe there's a wide mental divide between one side and the other, not easy to breach, but probably worth trying.
I think sometimes that the only honest way to defeat a bad-faith argument is with sound reasoning. The only reason bad-faith arguments so often win is because they're repeated so much. Thus the "echo chambers" of both the left (according to the right) and the right (according to the left). Given equal time, I don't think there's any rhetorical need to allege bad faith, and don't think such allegations are useful to an underdog in a debate either. They're an effective tactic for the more powerful or assertive party, sure. But no matter how much one suspects bad faith, for those that agree with the arguments you oppose, allegations of bad faith are worthless. And for those that agree with you, those allegations only serve to promote groupthink.
I agree that it's extremely troubling when groupthink has progressed to the point where the torture memos would have any serious defenders, but this fact in itself doens't make allegations of bad faith necessary or useful, except insofar as one is stating the obvious to those who remain in the reality-based community.
I also believe those 10,000 words I'm working on culling down by a factor of three or four would probably do a good job of explaining all this in a more sympathetic way.
"If it is improper to identify a bad-faith argument when you see one, then no one can enforce social norms in favor of good faith argumentation."
The danger here is fracturing the community into groups, each of which can't believe in the other's good faith. I don't think there's any good way to enforce norms in favor of good faith argumentation without leading to this problem, except perhaps by ignoring those who you don't think are arguing in good faith. And when they're too big to ignore, well, alleging bad faith still doesn't become any better of an option.
"Now, I'm in favor of being formally polite about such identifications, but not in favor of failing to identify nonsense as such."
Ah, but nonsense is a completely different matter. And hypocricy? Oh, I love, love someone's getting skewered by their own words. But allegations of bad faith are an end to discussion, unlike allegations of nonsense or hypocricy, both of which (especially when put politely) are the bread and butter of rational discourse.
Not really. Scalia recognizes that meaning is a gentleman's agreement of sorts, but prefers an agreement reached by gentlemen considerably deader than himself. That he can fuck up the linguistic dispositions of long-deceased politicians, without recourse to texts extra-constitutional or -statutory, is the real marvel.
Now, one area where I think discussing the bad faith of the other side can be useful is when one isn't discussing directly with them, but instead trying to understand them. If some of them do indeed hold to things in bad faith, then understanding who, how, why, and when can be essential. On the other hand, this sort of practice is very much prone to error, and can be a bit self-indulgent. It's usually more entertaining than useful since it's so hard to validate theories. (For a good, non-political example of this, see here, and especially here.)
"I've only read the first couple of pages of the Hanson article you cite, but it appears to me that a lot of the work in it is done by the 'common priors.'"
I wouldn't say they do much work, but they are a pretty uncertain assumption. But I think (and I'm really talking out of my ass here) it's likely that, ultimately, priors, insofar as they exist in human cognition, are more or less a product of our neurobiological development, and thus don't vary significantly among the healthy population.
"And I'd love Weiner's estimation of their attempt to avoid "justified belief," as I think they're trying to jump a fence they can't get over."
I think stepping around the problem of justified belief doesn't really hurt their argument insofar as most everyone steps around the problem of justified belief in pretty much all situations. But Weiner's free to take me to task.
So you're saying, SB, that Scalia's position isn't "this is what it means," but "this is what they decided it means, and we have to abide by that, or we'll have chaos"? If that's the distinction, I don't see that there's ultimately a difference.
Anyway, in case it isn't clear, I started off by ignoring ogged's whole post except for what I quoted. Now that I've actually read the whole thing, I have this to say:
"their tendentious readings of the law and its history in effect did away with both."
Yes. It seems to be yet another manifestation with the current administration's infatuation with raw, unreality-based power.
"that the common meaning of texts really is held together more by a sort of gentleman's agreement than by the words on the page"
From a societal context (which, I should have recognized, is implied by the qualifier "common"), this is probably true. It's the reason people can be led into believing things that are so much against their interest when people manipulate what they say and break that "gentleman's agreement". And I'm a firm believer in the possibility, and actuality, of doublethink.
And finally, the final two statements of my first comment, in retrospect, were gratingly and inappropriately glib in light of the subject matter of the post. Sorry bout that.
Text: I'm on record as saying that no one likes those miniture cabbage things (i.e. Brussels sprouts). Two people have claimed to be counterexamples but they were in bad faith. Your girlfriend was in bad faith, and it's a good thing you broke up with her before she maxed your credit cards and screwed all of your friends one at a time.
It's important that you prepare brussel sprouts properly. They must be purchased on the stalk to maximize freshness; less than fresh brussel sprouts are exceedingly bitter. After they are removed from the stalk, brussel sprouts should be cut with an x fashion at the base to promote interior cooking; brussel sprouts that are not cooked to the core are exceedingly bitter. Finally, brussel sprouts should be removed from simmering water, tossed into ice water, then brought back to warm temperature in simmering water (this is blanching, yes?) before serving—for reasons that I don't entirely understand but assume prevents excessive bitterness.
They're really tasty when they're made right! They're delightfully bite sized.
Yeah, ogged -- if she had invited all three of them over at the same time it would have been a single event, but by doing it on successive evenings she could draw out the suffering while allowing the gossip juices to blend properly, as in a fine soup.
In order for this method to work, you need an authentic community (gemeinschaft), such as a small American town. In a diffuse group of metrosexuals and ironists (gesellschaft), the revenge event might not even be noticed; or the avenger might even become a figure of ridicule.
And yes, The Mineshaft is not a gemeinschaft. But I imagine that that's already been covered here.
Actually, they should be sliced into rounds (which will fall apart a little as they cook), sautéed in olive oil, and tossed with plentiful fresh-ground pepper, grated parmesan, and a little balsamic vinegar.
Or blanched and then cooked in an oven with some butter and pepper.
Also, the first step in preparing brussels sprouts is brushing off all the aphids and other bugs. If you don't have to do this, they're not organic and full of toxins. Don't squash the aphids unless you like the flavor.
It's attached to apostropher, but it regularly makes ingress and egress from ogged's butt, and, in doing the latter, said butt is its source. That's what I was going for.
I am relieved that this thread finally took up the important question of how to prepare brussels sprouts. On a single taste test, I found them icky, but I have wanted to try again under more controlled circumstances.
Since "controlled circumstances" and "icky" also describe much of the current political debate about torture, I hereby declare this comment On-Topic.
I don't think that Tyler Cowen and Robin Hansen and acknowledged enough people in their paper. They won't go far. They did put the acknowledgements in front, though, so none of the people acknowledged would have to flip through the paper. I'm sure that was appreciated.
Talking about the "right" way to cook Brussels sprouts is exactly the kind of implausible hypothetical question which I object to most in contemporary academic life. It's like grue-bleen and brains in bottles.
The opposite of an oyster would be a non-seafood food item which isn't enclosed in any kind of shell, goes badly with cocktail sauce, and is known for its libido-diminishing powers. Namely, Circus Peanuts.
To this day, when I buy a bag of Circus Peanuts, I'll leave them sit out open for a couple of days so that they will get stale and remind of those days at my grandparents house. ~ Jim from Indiana
I spent a while trying to think of a funnier thing (than the not funny at all thing which I wrote) to write after "Namely," but everything else I was thinking of involved cannibalism of prominent Republicans.
Or blanched and then cooked in an oven with some butter and pepper.
Or hashed. With a strange implement I forget the name of.
Bad news, guys: being interested in cooking is lame again.
1> It was 'interesting' when I was 15. (Actually I think it was 'gay'. I didn't notice. I didn't notice Rob Halford was gay either, actually.)
2> It was out of fashion, I think, during Gulf War I.
3> Later it was back in fashion again.
4> Never mind, I guess it was in again a coupla years ago. Comfort food for distraught yupsters or something. Never noticed.
5> Now, it's out again, evidently. Perhaps. If you're running perpendicular to the cool curve, tho, this is GOOD news. 'Aha. I am out of style. The hipsters have decreed it. Most excellent. I never liked those guys anyways. They're really gay.'
6> In any event, Julia Child could drink your ass under the table.
Cook brussels sprouts largely in the manner ash describes, but then finish in a warm bacon and shallot vinaigrette.
Yum.
[I don't care if cooking is cool or not cool--being interested in cooking means that I get to eat better food, cheaper, than I would if I weren't interested in cooking.]
[I don't care if cooking is cool or not cool--being interested in cooking means that I get to eat better food, cheaper, than I would if I weren't interested in cooking.]
Learning to cook beats going hungry. And you might as well do it right.
Nero Wolfson: When you start out at least six feet under the table, that's not so hard.
Marrying someone who likes to cook beats learning to cook.
So you're looking for a extremely wealthy woman, who likes sports, cooking and doing housework in lingerie, is between 18 and 21, 5'6" or so, weighs 110 pounds and has a double-D chest? Does she also have to be a submissive who is addicted to oral and anal sex, or are you not picky?
Also, I do trade sex for well-cooked meals. Which good cook wants to sex apostropher?
This is one of those speed-seduction techniques, isn't it?
"that the common meaning of texts really is held together more by a sort of gentleman's agreement than by the words on the page"
While I haven't even spent a fractional number of years of my life reading on or about postmodernism, I have to disagree. There's certainly a limiting factor about how far you can go with a discussion with someone because you don't want to spend the time necessary. But with enough time spent in reasonable discussion, and perhaps fact-finding, any two rational people should be able to come to an agreement over any matter. Now, deliberate dishonesty on either side is going to really muck things up, but if that's what you mean by "gentleman's agreement" then I think you're boring.
So nyah.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:01 PM
the common meaning of texts really is held together more by a sort of gentleman's agreement than by the words on the page
Sadly, the truest thing you've ever written on this blog. And I think we can now assume that pdf23ds is eight.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:21 PM
I can't tell if the above is a jest or no.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:22 PM
3 to 1
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:23 PM
The above?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:25 PM
I like those miniature cabbage things.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:26 PM
"But with enough time spent in reasonable discussion, and perhaps fact-finding, any two rational people should be able to come to an agreement over any matter."
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:29 PM
come, on. admit that's a joke, and I'll admit that I've been pwned.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:30 PM
And I think we can now assume that pdf23ds is eight.
Or possibly zombie-Leibniz. Let us calculate!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:30 PM
It's not a joke, but neither am I sure that *any* people are rational, and the time I have in mind approaches infinity. And I am sure that many people are definitely *not* rational. My reasoning is mostly based on this.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:33 PM
(Though, I have to admit, there's a lot in that paper I don't understand.)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:35 PM
I like those miniature cabbage things.
It's not as efficient as going to the car wash first and bowling second.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:36 PM
which is, none of it, nearly so fulfilling as scraping one's foot with a scapula.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:42 PM
I just re-read #2, and it reads stupid, pathetic, and a bit mean. Sorry about that. I picked the wrong week to give up cocaine.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:45 PM
I picked a pretty good week to start, as it turns out.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:47 PM
oh god, what are they talking about?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:47 PM
I have no clue.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:49 PM
Googling "miniature cabbage" didn't help any.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:50 PM
Although it did turn up a very helpful link to ebay: "Great deals on everything Miniature Cabbage themed."
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:52 PM
My understanding is that most of the commenters are expressing vehement disagreement with pdf's initial comment (in various silly ways).
I have to kind of agree with the vehement disagreement -- pdf: hadn't you noticed that a premise of the post was the assumption of bad faith? Putting the possibility of bad faith to one side really changes the subject under consideration.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:52 PM
But what was there to disagree with? If dishonesty is presumed, as I said, then ogged is boring. QED. The rest of my post is going on about the more interesting instance.
In general, I'm extremely reluctant to presume bad faith (though not so much in public officials) where others are not so reluctant. I'm convinced that too often bad faith is presumed where none is present. That's the road to demonization of the other and the end of rational discourse.
On another note, I'm surprised at how many results this search turns up. The first one even has a rather nice illustration on the first page.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 6:59 PM
You know, I have 10,000 words of (my own blog) comments I want to turn into an essay on this very subject. I should stop slacking so much.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:03 PM
Dude: if you're bored, you're bored. The fact that you're bored by this indicates either an unusual set of values, or a certain amount of missing the point.
The fact that communication can break down to the point of impossibility in the presence of bad faith, and that this sort of breakdown of communication appears to have taken place between, say, the Justice Department and the American electorate is disturbing, and I think fairly interesting in itself.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:04 PM
The point is well illustrated by the fact that rational people rarely, if ever, disagree.
For instance, I like those miniature cabbage things, whereas my girlfriend does not. So we had some rational discourse as to whether they are pleasant-tasting -- with some fact-finding thrown in -- and as it turns out, we broke up.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:04 PM
Huh? What am I bored by, now?
To be clear, I don't think there's much doubt that the torture memos are an obvious instance of bad faith, nor the two links in the main post. I am interested, though, in the more general tendency for those on the left and right of the blogosphere to presume bad faith in many or most of those on the other side.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:11 PM
Baked in cream they're awfully yummy.
And this:
In general, I'm extremely reluctant to presume bad faith (though not so much in public officials) where others are not so reluctant. I'm convinced that too often bad faith is presumed where none is present. That's the road to demonization of the other and the end of rational discourse.
Strikes me as awfully lazy and unpleasant in the current context. While it's easy to say that one shouldn't leap to attribute bad faith to others, you do have to realize that the administration's statements about torture ("We don't torture" "Oh, you found out that we waterboard? That's not torture, really now, is it?") indicate a level of confusion that it is difficult to explain without bad faith.
If you have a non-bad faith explanation for that confusion, it would be interesting to hear. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you probably aren't interested in the subject matter of this post, and don't have much useful to say about it. Pious generalities about not rushing to bad faith as an explanation for everything are awfully condescending without some kind of argumentative support.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:12 PM
I'm a giant ass.
welcome, pdf. Most threads here tend to disprove your thesis, though it would be nice if it were true.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:12 PM
the common meaning of texts really is held together more by a sort of gentleman's agreement than by the words on the page.
Now you come crawling back to Nino!
Posted by NinoS | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:16 PM
pdf:
I've only read the first couple of pages of the Hanson article you cite, but it appears to me that a lot of the work in it is done by the "common priors." Those "common priors" sound awfully analogous in type to ogged's "gentlemen's agreement." (And I'd love Weiner's estimation of their attempt to avoid "justified belief," as I think they're trying to jump a fence they can't get over.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:17 PM
Hrm. I was crosser than I should have been in my last, and I apologize -- you just seemed to be missing the point that the post is about current events, rather than centrally about philosophy.
I do still think that this:
I am interested, though, in the more general tendency for those on the left and right of the blogosphere to presume bad faith in many or most of those on the other side.
or rather, the position that this tendency is improper, is not well supported. I see a lot of cross-ideological discourse breaking down along the following lines:
A: You can't believe X, it makes no sense for reasons Y and Z.
B: But I do. I'm not going to justify it, I just do, and it is offensive of you to claim that you have some kind of 'argument' that shows that I'm wrong.
If it is improper to identify a bad-faith argument when you see one, then no one can enforce social norms in favor of good faith argumentation.
(Now, I'm in favor of being formally polite about such identifications, but not in favor of failing to identify nonsense as such.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:19 PM
Now you come crawling back to Nino!
How's that now? Isn't what's quoted the anti-nino? Or will we come crawling back in our desperation for stability? The lure of the dark & pudgy side is strong, I cannot deny.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:21 PM
re 24. text, your scenario, perhaps intended as a counterexample, leaves my argument pristine and unscathed. There are, in reality, two questions of fact involved. One, whether you find the taste of miniature cabbage pleasent. Two, whether your girlfriend finds the taste of miniature cabbage pleasant. There is no objective, inherent pleasantness to cabbage--pleasantness arises as an interaction between the chemicals in the cabbage and your tongue, nose, nervous system, and brain.
LB, I'm sorry I didn't make it clear from the beginning that I don't doubt that virtually all of the administration's public statements are completely dishonest. There's no reason to doubt that, and many strong reasons to believe it.
"Most threads here tend to disprove your thesis"
Eh.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:21 PM
"B: But I do. I'm not going to justify it..."
LB, I don't think that the reply in B is often what you find, though. It appears that way from one side, simply because the reasons proferred in B are so ludicrous-sounding from one's own perspective. I believe there's a wide mental divide between one side and the other, not easy to breach, but probably worth trying.
I think sometimes that the only honest way to defeat a bad-faith argument is with sound reasoning. The only reason bad-faith arguments so often win is because they're repeated so much. Thus the "echo chambers" of both the left (according to the right) and the right (according to the left). Given equal time, I don't think there's any rhetorical need to allege bad faith, and don't think such allegations are useful to an underdog in a debate either. They're an effective tactic for the more powerful or assertive party, sure. But no matter how much one suspects bad faith, for those that agree with the arguments you oppose, allegations of bad faith are worthless. And for those that agree with you, those allegations only serve to promote groupthink.
I agree that it's extremely troubling when groupthink has progressed to the point where the torture memos would have any serious defenders, but this fact in itself doens't make allegations of bad faith necessary or useful, except insofar as one is stating the obvious to those who remain in the reality-based community.
I also believe those 10,000 words I'm working on culling down by a factor of three or four would probably do a good job of explaining all this in a more sympathetic way.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:33 PM
"If it is improper to identify a bad-faith argument when you see one, then no one can enforce social norms in favor of good faith argumentation."
The danger here is fracturing the community into groups, each of which can't believe in the other's good faith. I don't think there's any good way to enforce norms in favor of good faith argumentation without leading to this problem, except perhaps by ignoring those who you don't think are arguing in good faith. And when they're too big to ignore, well, alleging bad faith still doesn't become any better of an option.
"Now, I'm in favor of being formally polite about such identifications, but not in favor of failing to identify nonsense as such."
Ah, but nonsense is a completely different matter. And hypocricy? Oh, I love, love someone's getting skewered by their own words. But allegations of bad faith are an end to discussion, unlike allegations of nonsense or hypocricy, both of which (especially when put politely) are the bread and butter of rational discourse.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:40 PM
Isn't what's quoted the anti-nino?
Not really. Scalia recognizes that meaning is a gentleman's agreement of sorts, but prefers an agreement reached by gentlemen considerably deader than himself. That he can fuck up the linguistic dispositions of long-deceased politicians, without recourse to texts extra-constitutional or -statutory, is the real marvel.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:48 PM
Now, one area where I think discussing the bad faith of the other side can be useful is when one isn't discussing directly with them, but instead trying to understand them. If some of them do indeed hold to things in bad faith, then understanding who, how, why, and when can be essential. On the other hand, this sort of practice is very much prone to error, and can be a bit self-indulgent. It's usually more entertaining than useful since it's so hard to validate theories. (For a good, non-political example of this, see here, and especially here.)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:50 PM
"up-is-downism"
A person should not believe in an ism.
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:51 PM
"I've only read the first couple of pages of the Hanson article you cite, but it appears to me that a lot of the work in it is done by the 'common priors.'"
I wouldn't say they do much work, but they are a pretty uncertain assumption. But I think (and I'm really talking out of my ass here) it's likely that, ultimately, priors, insofar as they exist in human cognition, are more or less a product of our neurobiological development, and thus don't vary significantly among the healthy population.
"And I'd love Weiner's estimation of their attempt to avoid "justified belief," as I think they're trying to jump a fence they can't get over."
I think stepping around the problem of justified belief doesn't really hurt their argument insofar as most everyone steps around the problem of justified belief in pretty much all situations. But Weiner's free to take me to task.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:56 PM
I don't know which fake marvel my comment is opposed to. I must have stopped thinking before I reached the end of my sentence.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:58 PM
So you're saying, SB, that Scalia's position isn't "this is what it means," but "this is what they decided it means, and we have to abide by that, or we'll have chaos"? If that's the distinction, I don't see that there's ultimately a difference.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 7:59 PM
Anyway, in case it isn't clear, I started off by ignoring ogged's whole post except for what I quoted. Now that I've actually read the whole thing, I have this to say:
"their tendentious readings of the law and its history in effect did away with both."
Yes. It seems to be yet another manifestation with the current administration's infatuation with raw, unreality-based power.
"that the common meaning of texts really is held together more by a sort of gentleman's agreement than by the words on the page"
From a societal context (which, I should have recognized, is implied by the qualifier "common"), this is probably true. It's the reason people can be led into believing things that are so much against their interest when people manipulate what they say and break that "gentleman's agreement". And I'm a firm believer in the possibility, and actuality, of doublethink.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 8:42 PM
Must we mean what we say?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 8:49 PM
And finally, the final two statements of my first comment, in retrospect, were gratingly and inappropriately glib in light of the subject matter of the post. Sorry bout that.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 8:49 PM
42: I'm afraid you'll have to be straightforward with me--I'm a bit of a simpleton. Though it seems out of character for you to be straightforward.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 8:53 PM
Text: I'm on record as saying that no one likes those miniture cabbage things (i.e. Brussels sprouts). Two people have claimed to be counterexamples but they were in bad faith. Your girlfriend was in bad faith, and it's a good thing you broke up with her before she maxed your credit cards and screwed all of your friends one at a time.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 8:57 PM
(And I didn't mean that in a snarky way.)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 8:57 PM
44: It's the name of an essay by Stanley Cavell.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 8:58 PM
screwed all of your friends one at a time
Is this supposed to be worse than all at once?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 8:59 PM
and it's a good thing you broke up with her before she maxed your credit cards and screwed all of your friends one at a time.
Well, before she maxed out your credit cards, anyway.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:04 PM
I'm on record as saying that no one likes those miniature cabbage things (i.e. Brussels sprouts).
They're stillborn cabbages. They're aborted cabbages. They're...fetal cabbages!
Nummy.
ash
['Scraping foetus off my teeth.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:05 PM
It's important that you prepare brussel sprouts properly. They must be purchased on the stalk to maximize freshness; less than fresh brussel sprouts are exceedingly bitter. After they are removed from the stalk, brussel sprouts should be cut with an x fashion at the base to promote interior cooking; brussel sprouts that are not cooked to the core are exceedingly bitter. Finally, brussel sprouts should be removed from simmering water, tossed into ice water, then brought back to warm temperature in simmering water (this is blanching, yes?) before serving—for reasons that I don't entirely understand but assume prevents excessive bitterness.
They're really tasty when they're made right! They're delightfully bite sized.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:08 PM
I've got foetus on my breath.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:08 PM
Foetus or faeces?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:09 PM
Yeah, ogged -- if she had invited all three of them over at the same time it would have been a single event, but by doing it on successive evenings she could draw out the suffering while allowing the gossip juices to blend properly, as in a fine soup.
In order for this method to work, you need an authentic community (gemeinschaft), such as a small American town. In a diffuse group of metrosexuals and ironists (gesellschaft), the revenge event might not even be noticed; or the avenger might even become a figure of ridicule.
And yes, The Mineshaft is not a gemeinschaft. But I imagine that that's already been covered here.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:10 PM
Actually, they should be sliced into rounds (which will fall apart a little as they cook), sautéed in olive oil, and tossed with plentiful fresh-ground pepper, grated parmesan, and a little balsamic vinegar.
Or blanched and then cooked in an oven with some butter and pepper.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:11 PM
Also, the first step in preparing brussels sprouts is brushing off all the aphids and other bugs. If you don't have to do this, they're not organic and full of toxins. Don't squash the aphids unless you like the flavor.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:12 PM
maxed your credit cards and screwed all of your friends one at a time.
"And then you've got the situation with the old husband leaving his wife for the younger girl, and the lady sitting at home crying. Well, now she has a place to go, and say, 'Right back at you, buddy, and on your credit card.'"
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:12 PM
Bad news, guys: being interested in cooking is lame again.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:14 PM
Heidi did call me, but I have too much self-respect for that. Maybe for 3 or 4 times what she was offering.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:15 PM
Fortunately, everyone here knows better than to take ogged's word as to what is and isn't lame.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:18 PM
Lame? Never.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:19 PM
No no, this just happened, and I heard it from a reliable source.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:20 PM
That's not a reliable source, that's your butt.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:21 PM
Now now, SB, ogged's butt is reliable source for some things.
Like apostropher's dick.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:22 PM
True, apostropher's dick is a reliable source for some things, like the precise shape of your tonsils.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:25 PM
Yeah, shoulda wrote "Your butt is a reliable source." More punchy, more true, more funny.
Doesn't apostropher's dick come from apostropher?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:25 PM
Doesn't apostropher's dick come from apostropher?
I'm sure it comes for apostropher.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:27 PM
It's attached to apostropher, but it regularly makes ingress and egress from ogged's butt, and, in doing the latter, said butt is its source. That's what I was going for.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:27 PM
What is this, the comment workshop?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:30 PM
Sorta.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:31 PM
I am relieved that this thread finally took up the important question of how to prepare brussels sprouts. On a single taste test, I found them icky, but I have wanted to try again under more controlled circumstances.
Since "controlled circumstances" and "icky" also describe much of the current political debate about torture, I hereby declare this comment On-Topic.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:32 PM
I don't think that Tyler Cowen and Robin Hansen and acknowledged enough people in their paper. They won't go far. They did put the acknowledgements in front, though, so none of the people acknowledged would have to flip through the paper. I'm sure that was appreciated.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:34 PM
it regularly makes ingress and egress
Appropriately, apostropher anagrams to "to-phro spear".
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:35 PM
Talking about the "right" way to cook Brussels sprouts is exactly the kind of implausible hypothetical question which I object to most in contemporary academic life. It's like grue-bleen and brains in bottles.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:36 PM
Who will be our James Lipton? Somebody's got to ask "What is your favorite curse word?" before the audience q & a.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:38 PM
Brussels sprouts are disglicious: disgusting if cooked or consumed by John Emerson, delicious otherwise.
Oysters with moustaches, on the other hand, are delusting.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:38 PM
Oysters with moustaches
Is that like steak or something?
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:44 PM
Is that like steak or something?
More like oysters with cold heads.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:51 PM
The opposite of an oyster would be a non-seafood food item which isn't enclosed in any kind of shell, goes badly with cocktail sauce, and is known for its libido-diminishing powers. Namely, Circus Peanuts.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:55 PM
shouldn't it be something that you can't eat that is seafood?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:58 PM
Those are the saddest testimonials ever.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:58 PM
I spent a while trying to think of a funnier thing (than the not funny at all thing which I wrote) to write after "Namely," but everything else I was thinking of involved cannibalism of prominent Republicans.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:59 PM
The ingress and egress seem to have tired the guys out.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 9:59 PM
I love how you can only buy cases from that website.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 10:00 PM
Say what?!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 10:02 PM
people will associate just about anything with blowjobs these days.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 10:05 PM
I want to know why trying Circus Peanuts will make me beg for Linda. The drooling is beside the point.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 10:11 PM
Their orange puffiness will remind you of her bosoms.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 10:13 PM
Or blanched and then cooked in an oven with some butter and pepper.
Or hashed. With a strange implement I forget the name of.
Bad news, guys: being interested in cooking is lame again.
1> It was 'interesting' when I was 15. (Actually I think it was 'gay'. I didn't notice. I didn't notice Rob Halford was gay either, actually.)
2> It was out of fashion, I think, during Gulf War I.
3> Later it was back in fashion again.
4> Never mind, I guess it was in again a coupla years ago. Comfort food for distraught yupsters or something. Never noticed.
5> Now, it's out again, evidently. Perhaps. If you're running perpendicular to the cool curve, tho, this is GOOD news. 'Aha. I am out of style. The hipsters have decreed it. Most excellent. I never liked those guys anyways. They're really gay.'
6> In any event, Julia Child could drink your ass under the table.
ash
['Have a nice day.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 10:46 PM
6> In any event, Julia Child could drink your ass under the table.
When you start out at least six feet under the table, that's not so hard.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 10:51 PM
Wow. I missed an entire conversation about my dick.
Appropriately, apostropher anagrams to "to-phro spear".
Even more appropriately, my real name, Russ Barnes, anagrams to "ass burners." Put that in your tailpipe and smoke it.
than the not funny at all thing
I thought it was funny.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 11:22 PM
No it doesnt!
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:34 AM
The real problem with Circus Peanuts is that they attract rats.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:46 AM
I imagine many of you may already be aware of Circus Penis but, just in case...
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:26 AM
I was there first, yo.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:54 AM
Cook brussels sprouts largely in the manner ash describes, but then finish in a warm bacon and shallot vinaigrette.
Yum.
[I don't care if cooking is cool or not cool--being interested in cooking means that I get to eat better food, cheaper, than I would if I weren't interested in cooking.]
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:18 AM
finish in a warm bacon and shallot vinaigrette
Even rabbit pellets taste good in that.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:22 AM
Even rabbit pellets taste good in that.
I so wish you had put a "would" or a "probably" in that sentence.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:31 AM
You're still coming over for dinner though, right?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:35 AM
Only so long as I can come early and see the entire cooking process from start to finish . . .
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:36 AM
I'd better start limbering up.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:39 AM
Being cool is still cool, but less so than it was a few years ago.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:00 AM
[I don't care if cooking is cool or not cool--being interested in cooking means that I get to eat better food, cheaper, than I would if I weren't interested in cooking.]
Learning to cook beats going hungry. And you might as well do it right.
Nero Wolfson: When you start out at least six feet under the table, that's not so hard.
So ogged is dead? Or undead? Wild!
ash
['I knew there was something up with that guy.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:02 AM
Learning to cook beats going hungry.
Marrying someone who likes to cook beats learning to cook.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:52 PM
Marrying someone who likes to cook beats learning to cook.
But knowing how to cook means that you can ensure a limitless supply of bacon.
Plus, you can trade well-cooked meals for sex.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:03 PM
I know how to cook bacon, silly. Put in pan, wait, turn over, wait, take out of pan.
Also, I do trade sex for well-cooked meals. Which good cook wants to sex apostropher?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:10 PM
Chopper? There's an opportunity here.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:14 PM
I don't know who Apo thinks he's fooling--he'd present for half a cigarette and a wink.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:31 PM
Marrying someone who likes to cook beats learning to cook.
So you're looking for a extremely wealthy woman, who likes sports, cooking and doing housework in lingerie, is between 18 and 21, 5'6" or so, weighs 110 pounds and has a double-D chest? Does she also have to be a submissive who is addicted to oral and anal sex, or are you not picky?
Also, I do trade sex for well-cooked meals. Which good cook wants to sex apostropher?
This is one of those speed-seduction techniques, isn't it?
Chopper? There's an opportunity here.
apostropher 0, universe 7, 2nd QTR
ash
['ATM.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:32 PM
apostropher 0, universe 7, 2nd QTR
NO! Fuck the universe! Apostropher is the hero.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:39 PM
Can the universe cook?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:45 PM
Yes, but it isn't addicted to anal sex. More's the pity.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:49 PM
apostropher 0, universe 7, 2nd QTR
This score and time seems to indicate that you can still come from behind, Apo, thus obviating 112.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:57 PM
I'll onside kick to start the second half.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:59 PM
This weekend I found out that a turkey sandwich with grape jelly is very fine.
Weird, yeah, but it works.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 3:05 PM
This weekend I found out that a turkey sandwich with grape jelly is very fine.
Wow. That sentence is like the Willy Wonka meal-in-a-pill version of a Lileks column.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 4:47 PM