Comments

  1. Josh says

    Has t.m. ever admitted an error?

    I don’t know, but I’m inclined to think probably not. I kicked him pretty hard in the ass at one point last fall when he implied I was an idiot. Not that I’m not an idiot, but the point he made to illustrate it was demonstrably false, and I spent a page or two clarifying that for him. He never responded. *shrug*

  2. Nick Gotts says

    @497 Haven’t read that one. I’d recommend “The Invention of Tradition”, edited by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Hugh Trevor-Roper’s chapter on Scotland is particularly amusing (for an Englishman living in Scotland): the kilt was invented by an English Quaker manufacturer who set up a factory in the west highlands in the late 18th century (his workers, who wore a long strip of cloth wrapped around them – the truly traditional plaid – kept getting this garment caught in the machinery), and the so-called “ancient clan tartans” date from the 1830s – a commercial scam dreamed up for William IV’s visit to Scotland!

  3. windy says

    Has t.m. ever admitted an error?
    I don’t know, but I’m inclined to think probably not.

    At least on some occasions like here – admittedly on a very minor point but it does include the words “you’re right” and “sorry”.

    when he implied I was an idiot

    “implied”? that doesn’t sound like t.m. :)

  4. SC says

    [Don’t know why this didn’t go through the first time, if it’s just been delayed, please excuse the double-posting]

    Nick Gotts,

    I’d recommend that one, too (though I’m still miffed about Hobsbawm’s superbly dumb caricature of Spanish anarchists in Primitive Rebels).

  5. Kseniya says

    Thanks, Windy. I’m pleased to see that. Never say never, eh?

    (Windy knows everything!)

    And LOL @ “implied?”

  6. Josh says

    re: implied

    I was being rather…uh, generous, in my characterization of the exchange…

  8. Josh says

    Yeah, he isn’t so much for ah, arguing at the point rather than at the pointer, now is he?

  9. Kseniya says

    Josh, I wouldn’t say that. Usually, it’s both. His on-point args are typically pretty formidable and correct. Sometimes this fact is eclipsed by the abuse; other times, the argument itself is dismissed by those who view him as little more than a vitriolic noise machine. Their loss, I suppose, but what cannot be dismissed is that cause-effect relationship.

  10. Josh says

    Kseniya, spot on as usual. Good catch. I guess I should have written something like “at the point to the exclusion of at the pointer” or some such.

  11. David Marjanović, OM says

    wasn’t it historically the case that Germany awarded citizenship based on jus sanguinis rather than jus soli

    Yes.

    a religious friend, who would not drink coffee or tea because they were “mind-altering substances”, and would order cocoa instead ;)

    Cocoa works the same, you just need much larger amounts :-)

    And tea doesn’t wake me up. Somehow it just doesn’t work. :-)

    (What is Flight of the Bumblebee?)

    If you want loyalty to principles, then have loyalty to principles. Of course, it does help if one can actually describe them. Why bring a nation into it? […] Even at its most benign, patriotism leads to ingroup bias based on the nation. A patriot always has a hard time believing that bad things could be done in the name of their nation. […] Patriotism makes that possible.

    That’s what I should have been saying all the time.

    By the way, we need to get truth machine and Walton to have a chat. So we can watch.

    Thanks — but — no, thanks. I can’t enjoy splatter movies.

    In contrast, America and Britain have never based their national identities on conceptions of race and descent. America is, of course, a nation of immigrants; and its national identity has, as I understand it, always been based on shared values and cultural bonds and shared loyalty to the nation, rather than to some concept of racial identity.

    That’s what one should think. But, unfortunately, it’s not the case. American patriots typically swear allegiance to the flag, not to the Constitution. The insane saying “my country, right or wrong, my country” was invented in the USA. Probably all American racists who aren’t Confederate patriots are US patriots.

    Hey, you even mentioned “shared cultural bonds”. American values in the best sense are those in the Constitution — and there’s very little, if any, culture in there.

    Being proud of one’s country does not make one a xenophobe.

    I didn’t say it does. I meant to imply it’s equally irrational. That’s all.

    Has t.m. ever admitted an error? Other than tacitly, I mean? Has he ever come right out and said “I was wrong,” or anything of the sort?

    I did remember something along these lines, but how did you find it so fast, windy?

    Sometimes this fact is eclipsed by the abuse;

    He also used to come into a creobot-infested thread and post at least 10 comments in a row on precisely how stupid that creobot was. This eclipsed the whole rest of the thread for several screens.

    I once suggested he had a few Asperger symptoms (not quite the same selection as mine). He got angry and said I hadn’t understood anything. Oh well, IANAΨ.

  13. J says

    It’s fashionable in leftist circles, and especially Pharyngula, to take a shit on the United States at every available opportunity. Obviously there are many ways in which the US can be improved, but this rampant, rabid anti-American attitude is developing into something like a creed.

  14. negentropyeater says

    Egotism :

    – primarily motivated to maintain and enhance favorable views of self
    – delusions of one’s own importance, at the denial of others
    – exploits the irrationality and ignorance of others
    – uses coercive force or language, can be vindictful

    With highly rational individuals, rationality can be at least somewhat subverted by messy subjective factors, egotism being the most common one.

  15. negentropyeater says

    J,

    pls describe what you mean with “to take a shit on the US”, and “anti-american attitude” (I guess they are synonyms ?).

    Is constructive criticism included in this ?

  16. Sven DiMilo says

    What is Flight of the Bumblebee?

    Rimsky-Korsikov. Well before the 1950s! :)

  18. windy says

    David:

    I did remember something along these lines, but how did you find it so fast, windy?

    Not through any special google-fu if that’s what you mean (the search function here still sucks) I re-visited that thread earlier looking for something else.

    What is Flight of the Bumblebee?

    Rimsky-Korsikov. Well before the 1950s! :)

    Yeah, what kind of pre-1960s music do you listen to, David? Perry Como? :)

  21. Nick Gotts says

    SC@504 – Well, Hobsbawm is a bit of a dogmatic Marxoid after all – what can you expect?

  23. David Marjanović, OM says

    Oh. Now that some people might read part of this thread again, I might as well comment:

    Yeah, what kind of pre-1960s music do you listen to, David?

    I don’t listen to music. I prefer reading. :-|

  25. SC says

    Oh. Now that some people might read part of this thread again, I might as well comment:

    Well, then I will, too.

    SC@504 – Well, Hobsbawm is a bit of a dogmatic Marxoid after all – what can you expect?

    In response to your query of 18 June, Nick: About that. Still miffed, though. I’m miffed just that Marxists are Marxists. I’m rather easily miffed.

    This was a fairly entertaining thread (just skimmed it again). I somehow neglected it when developing my compilations of J’s creepiest comments.