Tit For Tat

A long time ago the late Steven Den Beste stopped posting on USS Clueless because he couldn’t take the stress anymore and anyway posting on anime was more fun.  The Conservative political world lost a great thinker and his posts are still relevant.  Anyway, he was posting about somebody commenting about one of his long dead posts and thinking that it should be changed on his anime blog here.

http://chizumatic.mee.nu/fang_mail

Steve also referenced a follow up post here, on negotiating based on threats implied or declared.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/01/Negotiatingwiththreats.shtml

What he was mainly talking about was game theory.  There’s an old algorithm out there that plays the prisoners dilemma emotionlessly.  The algorithm IE, every time the computer was cheated the algorithm would return the favor the next round.  The machine played tit for tat.  If the computer does this, there is not way you can win.  If you play tic tac toe with a computer program that’s been around since I was eight years old when I encountered it for the first time, you can’t beat the machine,you can only achieve a draw at best.

I think that to our current elites the general consensus is that there will be no consequences to themselves.  They have become so used to having things more or less their own way that they don’t seem to understand how to  deal with people not wanting all the blessings that the elites have deemed that we should have.

Since our elites never feel the pain of their actions or suffer the consequences all they see is the good stuff.  The approval of their peers, the good press coverage, the promotions, the money. They never suffer the negative feedback that most of us get when we do something wrong or even impolite.  It’s unlikely an elite should suffer losing their jobs because they refer to the peasantry as “unrepentantly racist.”  Why should they.

The problem is that if you keep up that behavior pattern you will hurt people and you will create resentment and general intolerance and distrust. When you call people racist or some other bad “‘ist” when they do not harbor any such sentiments they don’t like it very much. They will want to hit back.  This was brought out by the recent conflict in science fiction.  Now I can understand why people may not like Vox Day very much. Still hauling out and dumping the heavy artillery on somebody just because they wanted to engage in activities in an organization that  the target is a member of does not strike me as a really smart thing to do.

https://theartsmechanical.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/just-a-reminder/

I think that the doyens of science fiction didn’t really consider the consequences of smashing Vox. After all, they’ve probably smashed others before and certainly have smashed others since with no real consequence.  After all they controlled who got published and thus there was nothing the victims could do.

They never considered the power of an electronic press.  Considering the screams since, they have found out what Vox could do to them.  the thing is that Vox is just using a game theory response against the Puppy Kickers.  He’s giving back as much he gets and more.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/05/one-tit-is-never-enough.html

In a culture war, if you have the means to strike back at these people, you will have to engage with all your power and attention.  The problem is that the only thing  these people understand is the fact that somebody can inflict pain on them. We’ve seen case after case of the fact that these people are relentless unless stopped early.

In 2009, the subject of my student’s complaint was my supposed ideology. I was communistical, the student felt, and everyone knows that communisticism is wrong. That was, at best, a debatable assertion. And as I was allowed to rebut it, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. I didn’t hesitate to reuse that same video in later semesters, and the student’s complaint had no impact on my performance evaluations.

In 2015, such a complaint would not be delivered in such a fashion. Instead of focusing on the rightness or wrongness (or even acceptability) of the materials we reviewed in class, the complaint would center solely on how my teaching affected the student’s emotional state. As I cannot speak to the emotions of my students, I could not mount a defense about the acceptability of my instruction. And if I responded in any way other than apologizing and changing the materials we reviewed in class, professional consequences would likely follow.

I wrote about this fear on my blog, and while the response was mostly positive, some liberals called me paranoid, or expressed doubt about why any teacher would nix the particular texts I listed. I guarantee you that these people do not work in higher education, or if they do they are at least two decades removed from the job search. The academic job market is brutal. Teachers who are not tenured or tenure-track faculty members have no right to due process before being dismissed, and there’s a mile-long line of applicants eager to take their place. And as writer and academic Freddie DeBoer writes, they don’t even have to be formally fired — they can just not get rehired. In this type of environment, boat-rocking isn’t just dangerous, it’s suicidal, and so teachers limit their lessons to things they know won’t upset anybody.

The real problem: a simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice

This shift in student-teacher dynamic placed many of the traditional goals of higher education — such as having students challenge their beliefs — off limits. While I used to pride myself on getting students to question themselves and engage with difficult concepts and texts, I now hesitate. What if this hurts my evaluations and I don’t get tenure? How many complaints will it take before chairs and administrators begin to worry that I’m not giving our customers — er, students, pardon me — the positive experience they’re paying for? Ten? Half a dozen? Two or three?

This phenomenon has been widely discussed as of late, mostly as a means of deriding political, economic, or cultural forces writers don’t much care for. Commentators on the left and right have recently criticized the sensitivity and paranoia of today’s college students. They worry about the stifling of free speech, the implementation of unenforceable conduct codes, and a general hostility against opinions and viewpoints that could cause students so much as a hint of discomfort.

It’s not just that students refuse to countenance uncomfortable ideas — they refuse to engage them, period.

I agree with some of these analyses more than others, but they all tend to be too simplistic. The current student-teacher dynamic has been shaped by a large confluence of factors, and perhaps the most important of these is the manner in which cultural studies and social justice writers have comported themselves in popular media. I have a great deal of respect for both of these fields, but their manifestations online, their desire to democratize complex fields of study by making them as digestible as a TGIF sitcom, has led to adoption of a totalizing, simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice. The simplicity and absolutism of this conception has combined with the precarity of academic jobs to create higher ed’s current climate of fear, a heavily policed discourse of semantic sensitivity in which safety and comfort have become the ends and the means of the college experience.

This new understanding of social justice politics resembles what University of Pennsylvania political science professor Adolph Reed Jr. calls a politics of personal testimony, in which the feelings of individuals are the primary or even exclusive means through which social issues are understood and discussed. Reed derides this sort of political approach as essentially being a non-politics, a discourse that “is focused much more on taxonomy than politics [which] emphasizes the names by which we should call some strains of inequality [ … ] over specifying the mechanisms that produce them or even the steps that can be taken to combat them.” Under such a conception, people become more concerned with signaling goodness, usually through semantics and empty gestures, than with actually working to effect change.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419271/tide-turning-against-pc-charles-c-w-cooke

The Progressives and the rest need to understand that they are caught in a giant game of the Prisoners Dilemma. That both sides are armed and an attack will receive retaliation. That every business they close for not  being PC will cause a blacklist of one or more of  those trying to be PC.  That every time an employee of a company refers to their customers as racists will create a backlash.  For that matter, anytime somebody plays the race or any other intolerance card without justification will face the same fate if they are not as pure as the white driven snow.

It’s time for those of us on what’s typically called the right to stop accepting the labels that our opponent slap on us and play the game the way it should be played.  It’s time to read this and learn the lessons.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MFDX41Q/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

The consequences of surrender is that we will surrender our property, our sacred honor and our lives.  The 20th Century’s terrible history has taught us that all too well.  It’s time for tit for tat.

Advertisements

One comment

  1. spindlitis · November 3, 2016

    We’ve already surrendered our property to them. These same people are the bureaucrats in charge of state departments of natural resources. Just like those in the EPA,, they seek control of water and food. They demand you comply with vague regulations and the courts rubber stamp whatever they want.

    I have river front property, but I can no longer have a boat there. I have to find moorage for it elsewhere. They’ve forced us to remove a dock existing at that spot since the 70s. We are still fighting to see if we can keep a small residential dock. It won’t do a lot of good, as there’s not enough water to float a canoe there in the summer, due to the same bureaucrats filling in the area. But it would be something. And we can sell a second piece of property to pay off the lawyer the judge wouldn’t listen to. These people deserve whatever they get and I hope to see their lives ruined as they have ruined the lives of others.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s