This is not a book review. It’s a post about dialectics, which is a formulation of rationality that was until recently the only allowed model of rationality in something like half of the Western world.
It’s a post about dialectics based on review of one book. Maybe the lessons from that book apply to all dialectics, maybe they don’t. You generalize from one example (or maybe two: Jacoby and Marx). Also, I have no idea how much this Jacoby guy is important (representative) or not; I think I have never heard about him before.
Although I agree with what you wrote, it is a political article, so there is an extra high burden of proof, which you don’t provide. (I agree with you because of the opinions I already have, not because your article is so convincing.) I wouldn’t want to see more political articles on LW based on this amount of data, or this kind of reasoning. I’d say it’s okay-ish for Discussion (you did good work and explained some things), but not for Main.
The main argument against is protecting a Shelling point: I don’t want to see people trying to use Main to defend their political ideas or to attack the opponents. And we already know that politics makes people stupid, so that fact that it made Jacoby stupid is not so educating.
...[dialectics was] a formulation of rationality that was until recently the only allowed model of rationality in something like half of the Western world.
Surely this is a joke. Please, let this be a joke.
It is a fact that much of academia and the mainstream media has been affected by very powerful special interests for a very long time that promote gatekeeping, as economist and Professor Thomas Di Lorenzo writes about in his book Lincoln Unmasked. He devotes a couple of chapters on it that is well referenced and very interesting as he goes through what historians tried to conceal versus the material facts.
If you haven’t read this book, you are missing some really interesting facts and observations.
We like to think as a society we’re better than everyone else and thus in situations like the civil war, we the Union was 100% correct and righteous in their ambitions and results. Obviously there is little truth in war other than some people win, usually the more wealthy and some people lose, usually everyone else, especially young males.
I don’t see why a book review about a topic that isn’t directly related to rationality should be posted to Main.
This is not a book review. It’s a post about dialectics, which is a formulation of rationality that was until recently the only allowed model of rationality in something like half of the Western world.
It’s a post about dialectics based on review of one book. Maybe the lessons from that book apply to all dialectics, maybe they don’t. You generalize from one example (or maybe two: Jacoby and Marx). Also, I have no idea how much this Jacoby guy is important (representative) or not; I think I have never heard about him before.
Although I agree with what you wrote, it is a political article, so there is an extra high burden of proof, which you don’t provide. (I agree with you because of the opinions I already have, not because your article is so convincing.) I wouldn’t want to see more political articles on LW based on this amount of data, or this kind of reasoning. I’d say it’s okay-ish for Discussion (you did good work and explained some things), but not for Main.
The main argument against is protecting a Shelling point: I don’t want to see people trying to use Main to defend their political ideas or to attack the opponents. And we already know that politics makes people stupid, so that fact that it made Jacoby stupid is not so educating.
Surely this is a joke. Please, let this be a joke.
It is a fact that much of academia and the mainstream media has been affected by very powerful special interests for a very long time that promote gatekeeping, as economist and Professor Thomas Di Lorenzo writes about in his book Lincoln Unmasked. He devotes a couple of chapters on it that is well referenced and very interesting as he goes through what historians tried to conceal versus the material facts.
If you haven’t read this book, you are missing some really interesting facts and observations.
We like to think as a society we’re better than everyone else and thus in situations like the civil war, we the Union was 100% correct and righteous in their ambitions and results. Obviously there is little truth in war other than some people win, usually the more wealthy and some people lose, usually everyone else, especially young males.
Thus, It’s not a joke.