Alan Turing

[willia...@gmail.com]

Hey
I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
So, of course, I am writing about a lot about books where Turing is a character (actually, it's the main topic of my dissertation) like the Cryptonomicon, Breaking the code, Enigma (even if he is not really the character)... maybe I forget some...
But, Turing and his works have directly inspired a lot of science-fiction writings.
Of course, the most obvious is The Turing Option by Harrison and Minsky.
But you also have the Voigt-Kampff test in Do androids dream of electric sheep? which clearly a modification of the Turing Test. It's basically the same issue, but where the Turing Test is about the intelligence of the IA, the Voigt-Kampff is about the emotional capacity of the IA.

What do think you of this?
Have you any idea about it?

[Cryptoengineer]

I'm reposting this to rec.arts.sf.written, which is probably a better
group for the task. I'm also setting followups to go there, so you'll
need to check that group.

pt

[willia...@gmail.com]

Ok, Thank you!

[Martha Adams]

================================================

Hi, Bill. Well, I think a Master's thesis wants to rest upon multiple
bases; and to reach not only the immediate topic, but a little into
related and future topics. Else, it gets too bland and academic.

Of the points you mentioned, I think Turing, his life, his work and its
centrally important character, and how his life ended, are all matters
for your thesis. I think it's good you have computer resources to work
in, for that enables you to save your work for future reference, or
perhaps to pick it up again when you've lived two or three additional
decades which improves your perspectives.

To me, 'The Turing Option' is centrally interesting, for in it, Minsky
sets out his thinking about how the human brain works. It is a
perspective getting mighty little acknowledgement from today's brain
researchers; but if you read about today's researches, Minsky seems to
have got something very right. Which makes 'The Turing Option'
something of a visionary but centrally useful look into what the future
may bring.

I think that in your thesis, you're onto a topic good for an academic
lifetime, because it's so relevant to today's world and to what today's
world may become. But also controversial, because 1) few people know or
have ever met a member of Turing's beyond-genius caliber; so you get a
lot of inappropriate stereotyping there; and 2) because minority people
generally, experience damage and attempted destruction from others --
look at Obama's experience with the Republicans today.

So hang in there; and if you happen to publish your thesis online (as a
*.pdf file, for instance) I'd like to know of this so I can see how your
topic turned out for you.

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2013 May 17]

[Keith F. Lynch]

Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
> . . .

Let me be the first to welcome you back. This was your first post
since October. I was afraid something had happened to you.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Martha Adams]

On 5/17/2013 8:47 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> . . .
>
> Let me be the first to welcome you back. This was your first post
> since October. I was afraid something had happened to you.

====================================================

Hi, Keith. Something did, sort of. I got older. It brings change,
even to the self. And I get to turn 82 in about a day: this provokes
thinking about things. Seems to me, rasff here stands *far* to the
political right of anywhere I'd care to be; which makes to post here or
to not to post here, is a vexed topic. The turning point for me, is
silence is a bad strategy for asserting self.

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Sun 2013 May 19]

[Cryptoengineer]

I'd be curious what fora Martha thinks are centrist or leftist. I was
boggled that she could take a neutral query about Alan Turing, and
turn it into a swipe against Republicans.

pt

[David Friedman]

In article
<eafc73df-aedd-46dc...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Two points struck me about the comment:

1. A newsgroup doesn't have a political position--it contains a bunch of
individuals with a variety of different positions.

2. Identifying "care to be" with "engage in a conversation with." I
wouldn't care to be a Nazi, a communist, or even a socialist, but it
might be interesting to converse with any of those.

I doubt I have ever been in a newsgroup where a majority of the
participants, or even a sizable minority, were close to my
political/philosophical position.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Dan Goodman]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:21:35 -0700, David Friedman wrote:

> In article
> <eafc73df-aedd-46dc...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 10:00 pm, Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > On 5/17/2013 8:47 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> >
>> > > Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > >> . . .
>> >
>> > > Let me be the first to welcome you back.  This was your first post
>> > > since October.  I was afraid something had happened to you.
>> >
>> > ====================================================
>> >
>> > Hi, Keith.  Something did, sort of.  I got older.  It brings change,
>> > even to the self.  And I get to turn 82 in about a day: this provokes
>> > thinking about things.  Seems to me, rasff here stands *far* to the
>> > political right of anywhere I'd care to be; which makes to post here
>> > or to not to post here, is a vexed topic.  The turning point for me,
>> > is silence is a bad strategy for asserting self.
>>
>> I'd be curious what fora Martha thinks are centrist or leftist. I was
>> boggled that she could take a neutral query about Alan Turing, and turn
>> it into a swipe against Republicans.
>
> Two points struck me about the comment:
>
> 1. A newsgroup doesn't have a political position--it contains a bunch of
> individuals with a variety of different positions.

Some might be monolithic or close to it.

> 2. Identifying "care to be" with "engage in a conversation with." I
> wouldn't care to be a Nazi, a communist, or even a socialist, but it
> might be interesting to converse with any of those.

I've conversed with all of these; though the Nazi later left the faith.

> I doubt I have ever been in a newsgroup where a majority of the
> participants, or even a sizable minority, were close to my
> political/philosophical position.

I'm more conservative on a few issues than many conservatives; consider
the Libertarian Party weak on individual freedom; am more in favor of
change than many progressives.



--
Dan Goodman

[David Dyer-Bennet]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:

> In article
> <eafc73df-aedd-46dc...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 10:00 pm, Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > On 5/17/2013 8:47 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> >
>> > > Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > >> . . .
>> >
>> > > Let me be the first to welcome you back.  This was your first post
>> > > since October.  I was afraid something had happened to you.
>> >
>> > ====================================================
>> >
>> > Hi, Keith.  Something did, sort of.  I got older.  It brings change,
>> > even to the self.  And I get to turn 82 in about a day: this provokes
>> > thinking about things.  Seems to me, rasff here stands *far* to the
>> > political right of anywhere I'd care to be; which makes to post here or
>> > to not to post here, is a vexed topic.  The turning point for me, is
>> > silence is a bad strategy for asserting self.
>>
>> I'd be curious what fora Martha thinks are centrist or leftist. I was
>> boggled that she could take a neutral query about Alan Turing, and
>> turn it into a swipe against Republicans.
>
> Two points struck me about the comment:
>
> 1. A newsgroup doesn't have a political position--it contains a bunch of
> individuals with a variety of different positions.

It doesn't in some sense have a position; but it has a tone, and some
things one can say are remarkable in that context, and others aren't.

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Friedman]

In article <UaqdnTGKYe0A0QfM...@iphouse.net>,

Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:

> > 2. Identifying "care to be" with "engage in a conversation with." I
> > wouldn't care to be a Nazi, a communist, or even a socialist, but it
> > might be interesting to converse with any of those.
>
> I've conversed with all of these; though the Nazi later left the faith.
>

I think the closest I've come to the Nazi was a frenchman who other
people claimed was a fascist (the other people had withdrawn from a
conference I was invited to as a protest against his inclusion). My
guess is that he was part of Le Pen's group, although I do't know.

He was quite interesting, but not a Nazi or even, I think, a fascist. He
wasn't really anti-semitic, since he was equally anti-Christian, viewing
pagan classical antiquity as the high point of European civilization.
His picture of the U.S. was more or less wall to wall MacDonalds, so I
had fun telling him about the SCA.

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfkmwrp...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> > Two points struck me about the comment:
> >
> > 1. A newsgroup doesn't have a political position--it contains a bunch of
> > individuals with a variety of different positions.
>
> It doesn't in some sense have a position; but it has a tone, and some
> things one can say are remarkable in that context, and others aren't.

Probably true. Maybe I just have a thick skin.

But that raises the question of how one defines the position of a
newsgroup, since doing so assigns a point value to a range.

Suppose one could locate all statements on a left/right line from -1 to
1. Newsgroup A conversation normally contains, without remark,
statements from -.1 to +.1

Newsgroup B conversation, from -.5 to +.5

One observer, who is on the right, says "look at the extreme left wing
positions that are being made on group B--obviously a left wing group."
He doesn't pay attention to the right wing positions, since they don't
strike him as odd. Another observer, on the left, makes the opposite
observation.

And one could do something similar with group A, noticing what positions
do get (negative) attention. It's only noticeable for the ones you agree
with, since for the others the attention is obviously deserved.

[Dan Goodman]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:29:21 -0700, David Friedman wrote:

> In article <ylfkmwrp...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> > Two points struck me about the comment:
>> >
>> > 1. A newsgroup doesn't have a political position--it contains a bunch
>> > of individuals with a variety of different positions.
>>
>> It doesn't in some sense have a position; but it has a tone, and some
>> things one can say are remarkable in that context, and others aren't.
>
> Probably true. Maybe I just have a thick skin.
>
> But that raises the question of how one defines the position of a
> newsgroup, since doing so assigns a point value to a range.
>
> Suppose one could locate all statements on a left/right line from -1 to
> 1. Newsgroup A conversation normally contains, without remark,
> statements from -.1 to +.1
>
> Newsgroup B conversation, from -.5 to +.5
>
> One observer, who is on the right, says "look at the extreme left wing
> positions that are being made on group B--obviously a left wing group."
> He doesn't pay attention to the right wing positions, since they don't
> strike him as odd. Another observer, on the left, makes the opposite
> observation.
>
> And one could do something similar with group A, noticing what positions
> do get (negative) attention. It's only noticeable for the ones you agree
> with, since for the others the attention is obviously deserved.

It could be argued that ALL posts on alt.history.future are hopelessly
reactionary.



--
Dan Goodman

[Keith F. Lynch]

Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> I'm more conservative on a few issues than many conservatives;

> consider the Libertarian Party weak on individual freedom; ...

How so?

> am more in favor of change than many progressives.

Not surprising. They heyday of progressivism was about a century ago.
They're really very old-fashioned. Basically, they want more of what
we've already got lots of -- labor unions, government regulations, etc.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
> And I get to turn 82 in about a day: ...

Happy birthday. Many happy returns of the day.

> Seems to me, rasff here stands *far* to the political right of
> anywhere I'd care to be; which makes to post here or to not to
> post here, is a vexed topic.

Huh? This is not a political group. Some people here occasionally
express political opinions, but they're all over the spectrum.

I can't think of *any* conservatives here, at least in the "religious
right" sense. There are a fair number of libertarians and a handful
of anarchists. The latter are usually considered to be on the left,
not right.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <knelso$ruu$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>I can't think of *any* conservatives here, at least in the "religious
>right" sense.

David Loewe may not be on the *religious* right, but we often see
him repeating Republican party lines.

--
David Goldfarb |
goldf...@gmail.com | "End of the universe. Have fun. Bye-bye!"
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |

[Alan Woodford]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:29:21 -0700, David Friedman

<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

>In article <ylfkmwrp...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> > Two points struck me about the comment:
>> >
>> > 1. A newsgroup doesn't have a political position--it contains a bunch of
>> > individuals with a variety of different positions.
>>
>> It doesn't in some sense have a position; but it has a tone, and some
>> things one can say are remarkable in that context, and others aren't.
>
>Probably true. Maybe I just have a thick skin.
>
>But that raises the question of how one defines the position of a
>newsgroup, since doing so assigns a point value to a range.
>
>Suppose one could locate all statements on a left/right line from -1 to
>1. Newsgroup A conversation normally contains, without remark,
>statements from -.1 to +.1
>
>Newsgroup B conversation, from -.5 to +.5
>
>One observer, who is on the right, says "look at the extreme left wing
>positions that are being made on group B--obviously a left wing group."
>He doesn't pay attention to the right wing positions, since they don't
>strike him as odd. Another observer, on the left, makes the opposite
>observation.
>
>And one could do something similar with group A, noticing what positions
>do get (negative) attention. It's only noticeable for the ones you agree
>with, since for the others the attention is obviously deserved.

That's true in the in the real world too...

In the current car headlight threads, I'd be willing to bet a weeks
beer money that most people seriously overestimate the percentage of
"problems", whether they be suicidal pedestrians, maniac drivers, or
badly set headlights.

Most days, i probably see a couple of really dangerous pedestrians,
who register clearly and sharply on my consciousness, and hundereds of
other pedestrians where my response is "Ah another pedestrian. Are
they going to do something stupid? No, no, no, no, they haven't" and
they never get filed or noticed at a conscious level.

The result is that it looks like there are a lot of dangerous
pedestrians, when in fact it is a tiny minority, probably less than
one percent.

It's one of the neat tricks the brain does, ignoring the ordinary and
harmless, while devoting more attention to the unusual and potentially
dangerous, but it does make the unusual seem more common...

Alan Woodford

The Greying Lensman

[Alan Woodford]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 03:38:13 GMT, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
Goldfarb) wrote:

>In article <knelso$ruu$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>I can't think of *any* conservatives here, at least in the "religious
>>right" sense.
>
>David Loewe may not be on the *religious* right, but we often see
>him repeating Republican party lines.

It seems to me that what we do have here is a lot of political
non-euclideans :-)

[Dan Goodman]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:33:00 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> I'm more conservative on a few issues than many conservatives;
>> consider the Libertarian Party weak on individual freedom; ...
>
> How so?

Not completely opposed to immigration restrictions.

>> am more in favor of change than many progressives.
>
> Not surprising. They heyday of progressivism was about a century ago.
> They're really very old-fashioned. Basically, they want more of what
> we've already got lots of -- labor unions, government regulations, etc.

Not entirely true. There are areas in which progressives want fewer
government regulations.



--
Dan Goodman

[Dan Goodman]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:22:46 -0700, David Friedman wrote:

> In article <UaqdnTGKYe0A0QfM...@iphouse.net>,
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> > 2. Identifying "care to be" with "engage in a conversation with." I
>> > wouldn't care to be a Nazi, a communist, or even a socialist, but it
>> > might be interesting to converse with any of those.
>>
>> I've conversed with all of these; though the Nazi later left the faith.
>>
>>
> I think the closest I've come to the Nazi was a frenchman who other
> people claimed was a fascist (the other people had withdrawn from a
> conference I was invited to as a protest against his inclusion). My
> guess is that he was part of Le Pen's group, although I do't know.
>
> He was quite interesting, but not a Nazi or even, I think, a fascist. He
> wasn't really anti-semitic, since he was equally anti-Christian, viewing
> pagan classical antiquity as the high point of European civilization.

> His picture of the U.S. was more or less wall to wall MacDonalds, so I
> had fun telling him about the SCA.

Yes, some people from outside the US have odd ideas about this country.
Including Canadians.

And Americans from one part of the US can be clueless about other parts
of the US. Including, sometimes, political experts brought in to run
campaigns.





--
Dan Goodman

[Keith F. Lynch]

Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> There are areas in which progressives want fewer government
> regulations.

Name three.

[Scott Dorsey]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> There are areas in which progressives want fewer government
>> regulations.
>
>Name three.

Well, I can certainly name more than that, but if you want three, we can
talk about regulations that restrict free speech, and all manner of
regulations that restrict personal activity (ie. sodomy laws, etc.).

But... my absolute favorite example is the War on Drugs. How in God's
name did a bunch of conservatives (who claim to want to reduce government
interference in people's lives) come up with that? It's terrible from
many different standpoints. Even from the financial conservative's
viewpoint it's a phenomenally expensive thing to prosecute with little to
no actual return.

I find it absolutely hilarious when self-professed "Libertarians" come out
in support of the WoD, because it's very much contrary to everything that
Libertarian philosophy promotes.

How is it that we have liberals promoting reduction in regulations here,
conservatives arguing for more stringent regulation? It is a weird world
we live in.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Friedman]

In article <knh3ct$63i$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> I find it absolutely hilarious when self-professed "Libertarians" come out
> in support of the WoD, because it's very much contrary to everything that
> Libertarian philosophy promotes.
>
> How is it that we have liberals promoting reduction in regulations here,
> conservatives arguing for more stringent regulation?

As far as I can tell, practically no high level politician supports
abolition of the war on drugs. So far as libertarians not in office and
liberals not in office are concerned, I would have said that the
libertarians are more likely to oppose the WoD than the liberals, not
less.

I'm not sure how the comparison would go with conservatives. I remember
that in one of the Bush elections, one of the western states, possibly
Montana, went for Bush by a sizable majority and for medical marijuana
by an even larger majority.

Of course, those voters might well be libertarian conservatives, but I
doubt a large fraction of them would self-identify as libertarians.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> There are areas in which progressives want fewer government
>>> regulations.

>> Name three.

> Well, I can certainly name more than that, but if you want three, we
> can talk about regulations that restrict free speech,

I thought progressives were in favor of campus speech codes.

> and all manner of regulations that restrict personal activity
> (ie. sodomy laws, etc.).

How long have progressives been opposed to such laws? They certainly
weren't during the heyday of progressivism.

> But... my absolute favorite example is the War on Drugs.

How long have progressives been opposed to such laws? They certainly
weren't during the heyday of progressivism. And I'm not aware of any
evidence that they are now.

> How in God's name did a bunch of conservatives (who claim to want to
> reduce government interference in people's lives) come up with that?

Good question. It's basically an outgrowth of alcohol prohibition,
which was certainly championed, not by conservatives, but by
progressives. I'm pretty sure it was mostly progressives who
first favored banning other drugs also.

> I find it absolutely hilarious when self-professed "Libertarians"
> come out in support of the WoD, because it's very much contrary to
> everything that Libertarian philosophy promotes.

Anyone can call himself a libertarian. I'm sure no member of the
Libertarian Party supports the WoD.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>> There are areas in which progressives want fewer government
>>>> regulations.
>
>>> Name three.
>
>> Well, I can certainly name more than that, but if you want three, we
>> can talk about regulations that restrict free speech,
>
> I thought progressives were in favor of campus speech codes.
>
>> and all manner of regulations that restrict personal activity
>> (ie. sodomy laws, etc.).
>
> How long have progressives been opposed to such laws? They certainly
> weren't during the heyday of progressivism.

Huh? I'd have said "all the time", with the usual exceptions (no
political group of more than three people has ever been absolutely
self-consistent for more than 10 minutes).

There's also sometimes a problem of supporting laws popular with the
population that you think you have no chance of opposing, in the hopes
of appeasing your constituents some. Senator Wellstone voted for DOMA
on that basis, though he eventually decided it had been the wrong thing
to do.

>> But... my absolute favorite example is the War on Drugs.
>
> How long have progressives been opposed to such laws? They certainly
> weren't during the heyday of progressivism. And I'm not aware of any
> evidence that they are now.

Wow, we sure do live on different planets. Blue, Neil Armstrong over here!

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfkip2b...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> > Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >>>> There are areas in which progressives want fewer government
> >>>> regulations.
> >
> >>> Name three.
> >
> >> Well, I can certainly name more than that, but if you want three, we
> >> can talk about regulations that restrict free speech,
> >
> > I thought progressives were in favor of campus speech codes.
> >
> >> and all manner of regulations that restrict personal activity
> >> (ie. sodomy laws, etc.).
> >
> > How long have progressives been opposed to such laws? They certainly
> > weren't during the heyday of progressivism.
>
> Huh? I'd have said "all the time", with the usual exceptions (no
> political group of more than three people has ever been absolutely
> self-consistent for more than 10 minutes).

I think you may be projecting backwards inaccurately. The famous "three
generations of imbeciles are enough" line was by Oliver Wendell Holmes,
a Justice very popular with progressives. It was in support of eugenic
sterilization, and Eugenics was in general pretty popular with
progressives. Try googling for [progressives eugenics]

And I think it is correct that progressives were generally in favor of
prohibition.

...

> >> But... my absolute favorite example is the War on Drugs.

> > How long have progressives been opposed to such laws? They certainly
> > weren't during the heyday of progressivism. And I'm not aware of any
> > evidence that they are now.

> Wow, we sure do live on different planets. Blue, Neil Armstrong over here!

May depend on who you know. I associate opposition to drug laws mostly
with libertarians, but of course those are the opponents I'm most likely
to be familiar with. I think the movement for abolition tends to attract
people from both right and left.

[Philip Chee]

On 22/05/2013 14:09, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Wow, we sure do live on different planets. Blue, Neil Armstrong over here!

Azure, Daniel McGregor Dare.

Phil

--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.

[Alan Woodford]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:23:23 +0800, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>
wrote:

>On 22/05/2013 14:09, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Wow, we sure do live on different planets. Blue, Neil Armstrong over here!
>
>Azure, Daniel McGregor Dare.
>

Have a Gold Star - that made me laugh out loud :-)

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <6jevci....@news.alt.net>,
phi...@aleytys.pc.my "Philip Chee" countered:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Wow, we sure do live on different planets. Blue, Neil Armstrong over here!
>
>Azure, Daniel McGregor Dare.

- *vbg*

- and sir hubert guest, and dapon, and the [s]elektrobots...

- and sondar!

- love, ppint. "not to mention aunt anastasia!"
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"There's something wrong with the world. I'm becoming a hazy memory."
- C.Speed, the ultimate velocipractor, on alt.sex.reptiles 11/2/98

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Yes, it was. Seemed like a good idea at the time; we've learned better
and, shock horror, changed our opinions, eh?

> And I think it is correct that progressives were generally in favor of
> prohibition.

Well, a huge majority overall were, on that one. And it's quite a while
ago now, you know?

> ...
>
>> >> But... my absolute favorite example is the War on Drugs.
>
>> > How long have progressives been opposed to such laws? They certainly
>> > weren't during the heyday of progressivism. And I'm not aware of any
>> > evidence that they are now.
>
>> Wow, we sure do live on different planets. Blue, Neil Armstrong over here!
>
> May depend on who you know. I associate opposition to drug laws mostly
> with libertarians, but of course those are the opponents I'm most likely
> to be familiar with. I think the movement for abolition tends to attract
> people from both right and left.

There are a bunch of people for whom its a personal issue, but "law and
order" meaning "suppress the damned hippies" was an anti-progressive
stance through my childhood and adolescence.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> writes:

> On 22/05/2013 14:09, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Wow, we sure do live on different planets. Blue, Neil Armstrong over here!
>
> Azure, Daniel McGregor Dare.

So it came considerably later ther? Since Dare wasn't born until 1967?

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <ylfkk3mq...@dd-b.net>,
dd...@dd-b.net "David Dyer-Bennet" queruled:

> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>Wow, we sure do live on different planets. Blue, Neil Armstrong over here!
>>
>>Azure, Daniel McGregor Dare.
>
>So it came considerably later ther? Since Dare wasn't born until 1967?

- though he was in his mid-twenties or early thirties,
in 1951; and i distinctly remember his not being sig-
nificatly older in 1955 or '56...

- love, a ppint. now rerunning vorga and the black cats

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"Only one human captain has ever survived battle with a Minbari fleet.
He is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives, be somewhere else"
- delenn, babylon 5

[Dan Goodman]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:12:53 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> There are areas in which progressives want fewer government
>> regulations.
>
> Name three.

Voting restrictions
Immigration restrictions
Consensual sex

--
Dan Goodman

[Kevrob]

On May 22, 6:54 pm, Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:12:53 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> There are areas in which progressives want fewer government
> >> regulations.
>
> > Name three.
>
> Voting restrictions

Poe-tay-toe/Poe-tah-toe, Voting Restrictions/Eligibility requirements.

Unless voting is come-all-ye, with NO requirements, you are likely to
find progressives* of different minds on these questions.

Frex, in some American municipalities, non-resident property owners
can vote, at least in a limited fashion. While they might have to
vote for their congresscritter in the district they live in, they
might be able to vote on the property tax levy (UKish - "the rates"?)
since they will be directly affected. USAns on the leftish side of
the monopolar political "spectrum" usually oppose this, while at the
same time championing letting non-citizen aliens vote for city council
or scholl board.

> Immigration restrictions

Many a progressive in the labor movement is against liberal (in an
honest sense of the word) immigration rules.

> Consensual sex

You are on stronger ground here, though the new DoJ & DoE proposals
might make it tough for anyone on a collee campus to ask for a date,
let alone sex:

See:

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/05/15/lukianoff-unconstitutional-speech-code-m

with link to source:

http://thefire.org/article/15763.html


Kevin R

*Progressive/progressive is one of those morphing terms, anyway.
There's Progressivis as in the Progressive Movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

.. which does not map to decentralised 1960s New Leftism at all, at
all.

"Progressive" was also used by the old Comintern crowd as a weasel
word for what the US Cold Warriors would have called pinkos and commie
symps.

"Progressive forces" was the usual circumlocution.

The word may soon be as decanted of meaning as "liberal" was.

[Kevrob]

On May 22, 8:03 pm, Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:


school board (not scholl)

College (not collee)


Progressivism (added the "m")

Tired. Signing off, now.

Kevin R

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>>> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> and all manner of regulations that restrict personal activity
>>>>> (ie. sodomy laws, etc.).

>>>> How long have progressives been opposed to such laws? They
>>>> certainly weren't during the heyday of progressivism.

>>> Huh? I'd have said "all the time", with the usual exceptions (no
>>> political group of more than three people has ever been absolutely
>>> self-consistent for more than 10 minutes).

>> I think you may be projecting backwards inaccurately. The famous
>> "three generations of imbeciles are enough" line was by Oliver
>> Wendell Holmes, a Justice very popular with progressives. It was
>> in support of eugenic sterilization, and Eugenics was in general
>> pretty popular with progressives. Try googling for [progressives
>> eugenics]

Once again you beat me to it.

> Yes, it was. Seemed like a good idea at the time; we've learned
> better and, shock horror, changed our opinions, eh?

Learned better in what sense? Eugenics is is disrepute not because of
new science, but because of changes in morality. Progressives were on
the trailing edge of that change, not the leading edge.

To the extent that gay sex is no longer in disrepute, that too is not
because of new science, but because of changes in morality. I'm less
clear on where the progressives were on that issue. Until recent
decades it *wasn't* an issue -- anyone who was taken seriously
thought gay sex was an abomination, or claimed they did. Even Thomas
Jefferson thought it should be a felony and punished with castration.

I see progressivism as mostly a historical movement. There are still
progressives around, but most of their influence was between about
1880 and 1940. They took some positions which are still politically
correct, such as the 40-hour work week and a ban on child labor. But
they also wanted a ban on female labor. Basically, they believed
in scientific management of government. There was a best way to do
everything, and that way could be discovered by scientists and should
then be imposed on everyone by government. The ideas that either the
scientists or the government might be dishonest or self-serving, and
that checks and balances or individual rights were a good idea, were
completely absent.

Among much else, they claimed they put racism on a firm scientific
footing, and made common cause with unreconstructed southerners in
writing the Jim Crow laws.

I've read lots of non-fiction written in that era, praising our new
age of enlightenment consisting of electricity, Jim Crow laws, paved
roads, eugenics, scientific management, assembly lines, alcohol
prohibition, wireless telegraphy, etc.

It was a very arrogant attitude, almost totalitarian. It still is.

ObSF: This mind-set can be seen in lots of early SF, especially
Gernsback.

>> And I think it is correct that progressives were generally in favor
>> of prohibition.

> Well, a huge majority overall were, on that one. And it's quite a
> while ago now, you know?

Alcohol prohibition was a while ago. Its vile offspring, drug
prohibition, is still very much with us.

> There are a bunch of people for whom its a personal issue, but
> "law and order" meaning "suppress the damned hippies" was an
> anti-progressive stance through my childhood and adolescence.

The War on Drugs is another non-issue, in the sense that everyone in
power is totally in favor of the war. If the progressives differ from
others, it's in that they want treatment rather than prison for users.
Of course like everyone else (except the Libertarians) they want
prison for the sellers, and continued midnight no-knock SWAT team
raids on the homes of alleged sellers.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Not true, I don't think. Doubts about the definition and testing of
intelligence, and about the genetic basis of a lot of the things
eugenics were against, have come up since then. ALSO, we have observed
and noticed the concept of "ethnic cleansing" and become much more aware
of issues of racism, and noticed how those related to the eugenics
movement.

> To the extent that gay sex is no longer in disrepute, that too is not
> because of new science, but because of changes in morality. I'm less
> clear on where the progressives were on that issue. Until recent
> decades it *wasn't* an issue -- anyone who was taken seriously
> thought gay sex was an abomination, or claimed they did. Even Thomas
> Jefferson thought it should be a felony and punished with castration.

And thus it's hard to tell what people's real attitudes were. Anybody
who was taken seriously knew enough not to take on impossible issues
that weren't central to their own lives, and were often forced into
saying things they didn't like to remain relevant. Or so it seems.

But there's actually new science there, too -- 450 species are known to
have homosexuality today, whereas none were in Jefferson's time, for
example. The myths about various birds being inherently monogamous for
life have mostly been exploded by actual data, too. So the arguments
about it being "unnatural" are no longer tenable.

> I see progressivism as mostly a historical movement. There are still
> progressives around, but most of their influence was between about
> 1880 and 1940. They took some positions which are still politically
> correct, such as the 40-hour work week and a ban on child labor. But
> they also wanted a ban on female labor. Basically, they believed
> in scientific management of government. There was a best way to do
> everything, and that way could be discovered by scientists and should
> then be imposed on everyone by government. The ideas that either the
> scientists or the government might be dishonest or self-serving, and
> that checks and balances or individual rights were a good idea, were
> completely absent.

Whereas using the constituion as interpreted by the supreme court as a
core area for advancing individual rights actually available in society
seems to me to be a core progressive enterprise.

> Among much else, they claimed they put racism on a firm scientific
> footing, and made common cause with unreconstructed southerners in
> writing the Jim Crow laws.

US politics doesn't divide by parties, or didn't until about 1980.

> I've read lots of non-fiction written in that era, praising our new
> age of enlightenment consisting of electricity, Jim Crow laws, paved
> roads, eugenics, scientific management, assembly lines, alcohol
> prohibition, wireless telegraphy, etc.
>
> It was a very arrogant attitude, almost totalitarian. It still is.

The idea of applying new knowledge to society was, of course, co-opted
by people looking for arguments for the positions they held. Happens to
physics, too -- the clockwork universe and the great clockmaker, whereas
now people try to find free will somehow on quantum mechanics.

> ObSF: This mind-set can be seen in lots of early SF, especially
> Gernsback.
>
>>> And I think it is correct that progressives were generally in favor
>>> of prohibition.
>
>> Well, a huge majority overall were, on that one. And it's quite a
>> while ago now, you know?
>
> Alcohol prohibition was a while ago. Its vile offspring, drug
> prohibition, is still very much with us.

And that was kind of the third rail for a while -- nobody could touch it
and live. But from where I sat, it was a core republican program and
something the democrats often were ambivalent or outright opposed to but
had no way to attack.

>> There are a bunch of people for whom its a personal issue, but
>> "law and order" meaning "suppress the damned hippies" was an
>> anti-progressive stance through my childhood and adolescence.
>
> The War on Drugs is another non-issue, in the sense that everyone in
> power is totally in favor of the war. If the progressives differ from
> others, it's in that they want treatment rather than prison for users.
> Of course like everyone else (except the Libertarians) they want
> prison for the sellers, and continued midnight no-knock SWAT team
> raids on the homes of alleged sellers.

No, the ACLU is a core progressive organization and is about the only
people *opposed* to midnight no-knock SWAT team raids, at least without
more safeguards.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") writes:

> - hi; in article, <ylfkk3mq...@dd-b.net>,
> dd...@dd-b.net "David Dyer-Bennet" queruled:
>> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> writes:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>>Wow, we sure do live on different planets. Blue, Neil Armstrong over here!
>>>
>>>Azure, Daniel McGregor Dare.
>>
>>So it came considerably later ther? Since Dare wasn't born until 1967?
>
> - though he was in his mid-twenties or early thirties,
> in 1951; and i distinctly remember his not being sig-
> nificatly older in 1955 or '56...

I didn't read the comics, just did some research, but I believe they
were set in the future, not contemporary to when they were published.

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> Learned better in what sense? Eugenics is is disrepute not because
>> of new science, but because of changes in morality. Progressives
>> were on the trailing edge of that change, not the leading edge.

> Not true, I don't think. Doubts about the definition and testing
> of intelligence, and about the genetic basis of a lot of the things
> eugenics were against, have come up since then.

Doubts, yes. Hard evidence, no.

> ALSO, we have observed and noticed the concept of "ethnic cleansing"
> and become much more aware of issues of racism, and noticed how
> those related to the eugenics movement.

Exactly. Changes in morality, not science. It's not that it's been
firmly proven that the races are equal in intelligence, criminality,
or any other attribute. It's that any such differences have become
irrelevant. Rights have nothing to do with attributes.

> And thus it's hard to tell what people's real attitudes were.
> Anybody who was taken seriously knew enough not to take on
> impossible issues that weren't central to their own lives, and were
> often forced into saying things they didn't like to remain relevant.
> Or so it seems.

True, but don't fall into the fallacy of thinking everyone in history
thought just like present-day people but kept their opinions to
themselves lest they be metaphorically or literally burned as witches.
That's as wrong as the even more common idea that whenever they did
something legal at the time that we consider evil (e.g. keeping
slaves), that they considered it evil too.

Probably most people throughout history said what they believed,
believed what they said, and thought of themselves as good people
doing the right thing.

> But there's actually new science there, too -- 450 species are
> known to have homosexuality today, whereas none were in Jefferson's
> time, for example. The myths about various birds being inherently
> monogamous for life have mostly been exploded by actual data, too.
> So the arguments about it being "unnatural" are no longer tenable.

Irrelevant, since what's natural for one species isn't necessarily
natural for another. What's changed is not the idea of what's
natural, but the idea that what's natural *matters*.

Or perhaps I'm unfairly projecting my libertarian views onto other
advocates of reforming sex laws. I know that a big part of the gay
rights effort has been the claim that gays are born that way and
can't change, and that any therapy which attempts to change them is
fraudulent. I don't know and I don't care, as I don't think that's
relevant. Gay sex should be legal whether some people are born with
that orientation or whether everyone is free to choose on a whim.

Do gays really want to depend for their rights on the nonexistence of
orientation-change therapy? Even if it's true that it doesn't exist
today, that doesn't mean it won't be invented someday.

> Whereas using the constituion as interpreted by the supreme court as
> a core area for advancing individual rights actually available in
> society seems to me to be a core progressive enterprise.

Not to me. For one thing, progressivism is very much an international
movement, and always has been.

>> Among much else, they claimed they put racism on a firm scientific
>> footing, and made common cause with unreconstructed southerners in
>> writing the Jim Crow laws.

> US politics doesn't divide by parties, or didn't until about 1980.

You seem to be assuming that they were arguing on a political,
bad-faith basis. I think they believed what they said and didn't
think it was controversial or had anything to do with politics.

> The idea of applying new knowledge to society was, of course,
> co-opted by people looking for arguments for the positions
> they held.

Again you seem to be assuming bad faith. I think people often changed
their opinions when they were told that science had made a new
discovery. They had no practical way of determining whether the
alleged new discovery was bogus, and they trusted authority.

> Happens to physics, too -- the clockwork universe and the great
> clockmaker, whereas now people try to find free will somehow on
> quantum mechanics.

They're looking in the wrong place. Free will isn't the opposite of
determined, it's the opposite of coerced. The only thing quantum
randomness and free will have in common is that both result in actions
that are hard to predict. There's no incompatibility between free
will and determinism. Free will is part of the causal chain, not
something somehow separate from it, working on it from outside.
There is no outside.

>> Alcohol prohibition was a while ago. Its vile offspring, drug
>> prohibition, is still very much with us.

> And that was kind of the third rail for a while -- nobody could
> touch it and live. But from where I sat, it was a core republican
> program and something the democrats often were ambivalent or
> outright opposed to but had no way to attack.

Why couldn't they directly attack it? I think the Democrats would
have done much better had they made drug legalization a plank of
their party platform.

> No, the ACLU is a core progressive organization and is about the
> only people *opposed* to midnight no-knock SWAT team raids, at least
> without more safeguards.

Rubbish. The ACLU is non-partisan. The mentions of "progressive" on
its website are of its "progressive allies." There are also mentions
of its "conservative allies."

[David Friedman]

In article
<69348945-4dbe-49a0...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> > Consensual sex
>
> You are on stronger ground here, though the new DoJ & DoE proposals
> might make it tough for anyone on a collee campus to ask for a date,
> let alone sex:

I think a clearer example, already in place, is the attempt to broaden
the definition of rape to include, among other things, people who get
drunk and then have sex.

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfkobc2...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> >> > How long have progressives been opposed to such laws? They certainly
> >> > weren't during the heyday of progressivism.
> >>
> >> Huh? I'd have said "all the time", with the usual exceptions (no
> >> political group of more than three people has ever been absolutely
> >> self-consistent for more than 10 minutes).
> >
> > I think you may be projecting backwards inaccurately. The famous "three
> > generations of imbeciles are enough" line was by Oliver Wendell Holmes,
> > a Justice very popular with progressives. It was in support of eugenic
> > sterilization, and Eugenics was in general pretty popular with
> > progressives. Try googling for [progressives eugenics]
>
> Yes, it was. Seemed like a good idea at the time; we've learned better
> and, shock horror, changed our opinions, eh?

The point being that that was an example of progressives being in favor
of regulations that restricted personal activity. That's separate from
the question of whether they had good reasons to be.

>
> > And I think it is correct that progressives were generally in favor of
> > prohibition.

> Well, a huge majority overall were, on that one. And it's quite a while
> ago now, you know?

Look at the top of this. "it's quite a while ago now" isn't a rebuttal
to a post responding to the exchange "How long have ..." "I'd have said
all the time."

Which is why I suggested that you were projecting backwards.

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfkobc2...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> > Learned better in what sense? Eugenics is is disrepute not because of
> > new science, but because of changes in morality. Progressives were on
> > the trailing edge of that change, not the leading edge.
>
> Not true, I don't think. Doubts about the definition and testing of
> intelligence, and about the genetic basis of a lot of the things
> eugenics were against, have come up since then.

On the other hand, the scientific evidence that whatever IQ measures is
largely heritable is much better now than it was then. A lot of those
"doubts" are ideology, not science.

It's worth noting that the most important opponent of eugenics was the
Catholic Church.

> ALSO, we have observed
> and noticed the concept of "ethnic cleansing" and become much more aware
> of issues of racism, and noticed how those related to the eugenics
> movement.

The way you put it makes it sound as though the change was in knowledge.
The changing attitude on racial matters was a change in ideology, or if
you prefer morals.

...

> But there's actually new science there, too -- 450 species are known to
> have homosexuality today, whereas none were in Jefferson's time, for
> example. The myths about various birds being inherently monogamous for
> life have mostly been exploded by actual data, too. So the arguments
> about it being "unnatural" are no longer tenable.

On the birds, I don't think your description of the change is quite
right. What the evidence suggests is that pair mated birds practice
monogamy tempered by adultery--the same pattern as pair mated humans.

...

> Whereas using the constituion as interpreted by the supreme court as a
> core area for advancing individual rights actually available in society
> seems to me to be a core progressive enterprise.

I don't believe Justice Steven Field was generally viewed as a
progressive, and I don't remember progressives being enthusiastic about
Lochner.

To put it differently, whether what progressives wanted was to advance
individual rights or retard them depends largely on what individual
rights you think people have.

[David Friedman]

In article <knjumu$igc$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> Do gays really want to depend for their rights on the nonexistence of
> orientation-change therapy? Even if it's true that it doesn't exist
> today, that doesn't mean it won't be invented someday.

That a good point.

Suppose homosexuality really is hardwired. We are learning more and more
about how the brain works and how genetics work. So it wouldn't be in
the least surprising if, within our lifetime, someone figured out how to
change the hard wiring.

[Scott Dorsey]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>To the extent that gay sex is no longer in disrepute, that too is not
>because of new science, but because of changes in morality. I'm less
>clear on where the progressives were on that issue. Until recent
>decades it *wasn't* an issue -- anyone who was taken seriously
>thought gay sex was an abomination, or claimed they did. Even Thomas
>Jefferson thought it should be a felony and punished with castration.

There are many things that I believe are immoral and bad, but which I
don't think should be made illegal. In part this is because I believe
that in most cases they would be laws which could not be enforced, and
enacting unenforceable laws weakens all the other laws. (This is not
a Progressivist stance although it is one that some Progressives would
endorse.)

>I see progressivism as mostly a historical movement. There are still
>progressives around, but most of their influence was between about
>1880 and 1940. They took some positions which are still politically
>correct, such as the 40-hour work week and a ban on child labor. But
>they also wanted a ban on female labor. Basically, they believed
>in scientific management of government. There was a best way to do
>everything, and that way could be discovered by scientists and should
>then be imposed on everyone by government. The ideas that either the
>scientists or the government might be dishonest or self-serving, and
>that checks and balances or individual rights were a good idea, were
>completely absent.

This isn't Progressivism, this is Technocracy.

>It was a very arrogant attitude, almost totalitarian. It still is.

Technocracy was a very totalitarian thing, now somewhat hard to find
today.

>ObSF: This mind-set can be seen in lots of early SF, especially
>Gernsback.

You can still find it in plenty of Niven and Pournelle, etc.

[David Friedman]

In article <knl6a5$f30$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> >I see progressivism as mostly a historical movement. There are still
> >progressives around, but most of their influence was between about
> >1880 and 1940. They took some positions which are still politically
> >correct, such as the 40-hour work week and a ban on child labor. But
> >they also wanted a ban on female labor. Basically, they believed
> >in scientific management of government. There was a best way to do
> >everything, and that way could be discovered by scientists and should
> >then be imposed on everyone by government. The ideas that either the
> >scientists or the government might be dishonest or self-serving, and
> >that checks and balances or individual rights were a good idea, were
> >completely absent.
>
> This isn't Progressivism, this is Technocracy.

I think part of the question is whether that is one of the things that
progressivism was, whether or not it still is.

[Kevrob]

On May 23, 12:42 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article <knl6a5$f3...@panix2.panix.com>,

>  klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > >I see progressivism as mostly a historical movement.  There are still
> > >progressives around, but most of their influence was between about
> > >1880 and 1940.  They took some positions which are still politically
> > >correct, such as the 40-hour work week and a ban on child labor.  But
> > >they also wanted a ban on female labor.  Basically, they believed
> > >in scientific management of government.  There was a best way to do
> > >everything, and that way could be discovered by scientists and should
> > >then be imposed on everyone by government.  The ideas that either the
> > >scientists or the government might be dishonest or self-serving, and
> > >that checks and balances or individual rights were a good idea, were
> > >completely absent.
>
> > This isn't Progressivism, this is Technocracy.
>
> I think part of the question is whether that is one of the things that
> progressivism was, whether or not it still is.
>
>

American Progressivism (of the late-19th and early 20th century
variety) has a kinship with Comte's positivism, much as Marxism does.
"Technocrats," "scientific socialists" - the woods were thick with
such creatures in such days. This thread powers the likes of Herbert
Croly (The New Republic), and resulted in such barbarism as "anti-free
market `liberals.' "

Kevin R

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <ylfkk3mq...@dd-b.net>,

dd...@dd-b.net "David Dyer-Bennet" requeruled:

> "ppint. at pplay") writes:
>> dd...@dd-b.net "David Dyer-Bennet" queruled:
>>> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> writes:
>>>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>>>Wow, we sure do live on different planets. Blue, Neil Armstrong over here!
>>>>
>>>>Azure, Daniel McGregor Dare.
>>>
>>>So it came considerably later ther? Since Dare wasn't born until 1967?
>>
>> - though he was in his mid-twenties or early thirties,
>> in 1951; and i distinctly remember his not being sig-
>> nificatly older in 1955 or '56...
>
>I didn't read the comics, just did some research,

- *do* read the first ten volumes - and some of
the later ones are also worth checking out, though
by then, the original publishers had been taken
over, and the take-over publishers themselves taken
over, and the flagship story, as well as the comic
as a whole, went rapidly into its sad decline.

- but the standards of story-telling, plotting, and
attention to detail of its first ten years were un-
rivalled in english language sf comic publishing
'til the mid-seventies or early eighties, those of
pencil and penmanship among the very best, and the
colouring, initially limited as to palette and in
fineness of detail, was pushed by frank hampson and
his team - he built what was i think the first ever
comics' cartoon studio of artists for hulton press
and then odhams - who regularly descended upon the
printers en masse, avid to learn every technical
detail of the process and improve the end result of
their work, and to demand ever-better production
values, consistent quality and range of colour inks,
and more accurate registration, as advances in the
printing industry improved through the two decades.

- this is what ipc destroyed, when they took over
odhams and tried to milk eagle for all it was worth,
whilst simultaneously cutting production costs, inter
alia by dismantling hampson's painstakingly built-up
studio system. frank bellamy was brought in to work
with hampson & then take over from him (frank hampson
was very shabbily treated), doing an arguably over-
due style redesign on the series pretty well; but
the committment to the long term in story lines -
stories taking anything from eighty to three hundred
full pages to tell, with all the twists, turns, char-
acterisation and background details and to sub-plots
this allowed - and to the job itself - bellamy's was
a relatively short term task - was gone, at the new
management's direction: and pretty soon, the spirit
had also faded, only ever to return in short flashes,
and then it died out completely. :-(((

>but I believe they were set in the future, not contemporary to
>when they were published.

- but "though" did not indicate disagreement with his
date of birth, merely add extra, albeit on the face of
it temporally infeasible, information from the time of
publication, and the point of view of the reader. the
five to six-, later ten to twelve-year old reader, who
would only towards the end of that period be wondering
how temporal infeasibilities might demand time-travel,
and so might create time paradoxes, and these might be
the occasion for endless hours of fascinating reading
in anthologies in, and borrowed from, public libraries
everywhere i went to school in london, or on summer
holidays, in the lake district...

- love, ppint.

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"...for there is hope in two women, help in three women, strength in four,
joy in five, power in six and against seven, no gate may stand."
_Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ - Sheri S. Tepper (p) 1996

[Scott Dorsey]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <knl6a5$f30$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> >I see progressivism as mostly a historical movement. There are still
>> >progressives around, but most of their influence was between about
>> >1880 and 1940. They took some positions which are still politically
>> >correct, such as the 40-hour work week and a ban on child labor. But
>> >they also wanted a ban on female labor. Basically, they believed
>> >in scientific management of government. There was a best way to do
>> >everything, and that way could be discovered by scientists and should
>> >then be imposed on everyone by government. The ideas that either the
>> >scientists or the government might be dishonest or self-serving, and
>> >that checks and balances or individual rights were a good idea, were
>> >completely absent.
>>
>> This isn't Progressivism, this is Technocracy.
>
>I think part of the question is whether that is one of the things that
>progressivism was, whether or not it still is.

No, Technocracy came about in part as a response to the Progressive movement.

As far as whether it has been rolled into Progressivism today or not, I cannot
say.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:

> In article <ylfkobc2...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> > Learned better in what sense? Eugenics is is disrepute not because of
>> > new science, but because of changes in morality. Progressives were on
>> > the trailing edge of that change, not the leading edge.
>>
>> Not true, I don't think. Doubts about the definition and testing of
>> intelligence, and about the genetic basis of a lot of the things
>> eugenics were against, have come up since then.
>
> On the other hand, the scientific evidence that whatever IQ measures is
> largely heritable is much better now than it was then. A lot of those
> "doubts" are ideology, not science.
>
> It's worth noting that the most important opponent of eugenics was the
> Catholic Church.

Before 1980, say, they were on the right side of quite a few issues.

>> ALSO, we have observed
>> and noticed the concept of "ethnic cleansing" and become much more aware
>> of issues of racism, and noticed how those related to the eugenics
>> movement.
>
> The way you put it makes it sound as though the change was in knowledge.
> The changing attitude on racial matters was a change in ideology, or if
> you prefer morals.

I think it was largely a change in knowledge -- discovering how racists
would use the concepts.

> ...
>
>> But there's actually new science there, too -- 450 species are known to
>> have homosexuality today, whereas none were in Jefferson's time, for
>> example. The myths about various birds being inherently monogamous for
>> life have mostly been exploded by actual data, too. So the arguments
>> about it being "unnatural" are no longer tenable.
>
> On the birds, I don't think your description of the change is quite
> right. What the evidence suggests is that pair mated birds practice
> monogamy tempered by adultery--the same pattern as pair mated humans.

When I was in school we were told they didn't re-pair even if one died,
for example. A very extreme example -- implicitly held up as a model of
proper "natural" behavior.

> ...
>
>> Whereas using the constituion as interpreted by the supreme court as a
>> core area for advancing individual rights actually available in society
>> seems to me to be a core progressive enterprise.
>
> I don't believe Justice Steven Field was generally viewed as a
> progressive, and I don't remember progressives being enthusiastic about
> Lochner.
>
> To put it differently, whether what progressives wanted was to advance
> individual rights or retard them depends largely on what individual
> rights you think people have.

No, I think there's a VERY strong swing towards the progressives for all
work towards realizable choice for a wide range of individuals.

[Dan Goodman]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 00:22:12 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> To the extent that gay sex is no longer in disrepute, that too is not
> because of new science, but because of changes in morality. I'm less
> clear on where the progressives were on that issue. Until recent
> decades it *wasn't* an issue -- anyone who was taken seriously thought
> gay sex was an abomination, or claimed they did. Even Thomas Jefferson
> thought it should be a felony and punished with castration.

In the 1950s, if my memory is correct, progressives considered
homosexuality a mental illness rather than an abomination.

obSF: In Clarke's _Empire Earth_, both heterosexuals and homosexuals are
considered mentally ill.

--
Dan Goodman

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfk8v35...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> >> ALSO, we have observed
> >> and noticed the concept of "ethnic cleansing" and become much more aware
> >> of issues of racism, and noticed how those related to the eugenics
> >> movement.
> >
> > The way you put it makes it sound as though the change was in knowledge.
> > The changing attitude on racial matters was a change in ideology, or if
> > you prefer morals.
>
> I think it was largely a change in knowledge -- discovering how racists
> would use the concepts.

Hard to see how anyone familiar with slavery in the U.S. could not know
the potential implications of the belief that different races were
fundamentally different.

> > ...
> >
> >> But there's actually new science there, too -- 450 species are known to
> >> have homosexuality today, whereas none were in Jefferson's time, for
> >> example. The myths about various birds being inherently monogamous for
> >> life have mostly been exploded by actual data, too. So the arguments
> >> about it being "unnatural" are no longer tenable.
> >
> > On the birds, I don't think your description of the change is quite
> > right. What the evidence suggests is that pair mated birds practice
> > monogamy tempered by adultery--the same pattern as pair mated humans.
>
> When I was in school we were told they didn't re-pair even if one died,
> for example. A very extreme example -- implicitly held up as a model of
> proper "natural" behavior.

I don't remember being told anything about that in school.

I believe there are species that pair mate for life, although I would be
surprised if they didn't re-pair when one died. But others pair mate for
(I think) one breeding season.

> > ...
> >
> >> Whereas using the constituion as interpreted by the supreme court as a
> >> core area for advancing individual rights actually available in society
> >> seems to me to be a core progressive enterprise.
> >
> > I don't believe Justice Steven Field was generally viewed as a
> > progressive, and I don't remember progressives being enthusiastic about
> > Lochner.
> >
> > To put it differently, whether what progressives wanted was to advance
> > individual rights or retard them depends largely on what individual
> > rights you think people have.
>
> No, I think there's a VERY strong swing towards the progressives for all
> work towards realizable choice for a wide range of individuals.

As a simple example of the problem of different views of rights,
consider the question of "fair housing" laws--I think that may have been
the issue over which my father resigned from the ACLU, on the grounds
that they were now against rights instead of for them.

Supporters of such laws see them as increasing choice for people who
want to rent housing. Opponents see them as decreasing choice for people
with housing to rent, by depriving them of (some of) the choice of who
to rent it to.

More generally, many of us see legitimate choice as requiring the
consent of both parties--I shouldn't have my choice expanded by forcing
you to relationships with me that you are not willing to accept. That,
from the choice standpoint, is what was wrong with slavery, after all.
It expanded the choices available to the slaveowner, reduced those
available to the slave, but the expansion was illegitimate.

A lot of the things the progressives supported were substituting the
rule "you make those choices the government approves of" for the rule
of mutual consent.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> In the 1950s, if my memory is correct, progressives considered
> homosexuality a mental illness rather than an abomination.

I don't know what progressives thought, but it was officially a mental
illneess until 1973, when it was removed from DSM II, not because of
new reasearch, but because of political activism.

As an aside, DSM V came out (heh!) yesterday. So as of yesterday
morning, Aspergers', which some fans claim is common in fandom, no
longer exists.

> obSF: In Clarke's _Empire Earth_, both heterosexuals and
> homosexuals are considered mentally ill.

I've always wondered why nobody (?) suggests that you should try both,
just as many people say you should try different kinds of foods, since
you don't know if you like it until you try it.

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:

>> It's worth noting that the most important opponent of eugenics was
>> the Catholic Church.

> Before 1980, say, they were on the right side of quite a few issues.

What happened in 1980?

They still oppose the death penalty. Is that the wrong side?

> I think it was largely a change in knowledge -- discovering how
> racists would use the concepts.

That's a stretch.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> There are many things that I believe are immoral and bad, but which
> I don't think should be made illegal.

Me too. One unfortunate side effect of the apparent attempt to make
everything that's immoral or unsafe illegal is that it causes people
to believe that everything legal must be both moral and safe.

We've probably all met smokers who insist that it can't be all that
bad for you or it wouldn't be legal. And of course spammers and
telemarketers insist that repeatedly annoying millions of people and
refusing to ever stop is perfectly okay because it's legal -- or they
claim it's legal. And indeed nobody seems to be jailing them.

> In part this is because I believe that in most cases they would be
> laws which could not be enforced, and enacting unenforceable laws
> weakens all the other laws.

Thread crossover: Jury nullification is a classic example. It's
illegal, but since eavesdropping on deliberations isn't allowed,
nor is questioning jurors about the reason for their verdict, there's
no way to convict unless a juror blabs about it.

Another example was that until 2003 oral sex was a felony here in
Virginia, even in private with your spouse. But convictions were very
rare, for obvious reasons. One conviction was due to a divorce case
in which the husband testified, in an attempt to show what a good
husband he was, that he had frequently given the wife oral sex. Her
lawyer then had him charged and convicted, since he had "confessed" on
the stand under oath. Once he was a convicted felon, the divorce went
much more smoothly for the wife. (Why she wasn't charged also, I
don't know.)

> Technocracy was a very totalitarian thing, now somewhat hard to
> find today.

Maybe so. In the '80s and '90s, "Technocracy Briefs" were widely
distributed at cons. Does anyone else remember those?

>> ObSF: This mind-set can be seen in lots of early SF, especially
>> Gernsback.

> You can still find it in plenty of Niven and Pournelle, etc.

I don't think so. Anyhow, Pournelle is very much a conservative.

[David Harmon]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:23:35 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,

>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
>>
>> The way you put it makes it sound as though the change was in knowledge.
>> The changing attitude on racial matters was a change in ideology, or if
>> you prefer morals.
>
>I think it was largely a change in knowledge -- discovering how racists
>would use the concepts.

Nope, I don't accept that. DDFr is right.

[David Harmon]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:16:11 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,

>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>>> It's worth noting that the most important opponent of eugenics was
>>> the Catholic Church.
>
>> Before 1980, say, they were on the right side of quite a few issues.
>
>What happened in 1980?
>
>They still oppose the death penalty. Is that the wrong side?

" 'He deserves death'.
'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death.
And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then
do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the
very wise cannot see all ends.' "
-- Gandolf

[Paul Dormer]

In article <20130523.153...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>,

v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:

> - but the standards of story-telling, plotting, and
> attention to detail of its first ten years were un-

I suppose that would be up to 1960? My collection of Eagle comics start
in 1960. I started reading it earlier, but didn't start saving my copies
till then.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:

> In article <ylfk8v35...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> >> ALSO, we have observed
>> >> and noticed the concept of "ethnic cleansing" and become much more aware
>> >> of issues of racism, and noticed how those related to the eugenics
>> >> movement.
>> >
>> > The way you put it makes it sound as though the change was in knowledge.
>> > The changing attitude on racial matters was a change in ideology, or if
>> > you prefer morals.
>>
>> I think it was largely a change in knowledge -- discovering how racists
>> would use the concepts.
>
> Hard to see how anyone familiar with slavery in the U.S. could not know
> the potential implications of the belief that different races were
> fundamentally different.

One could lose track of how people on other bubbles still believed that
nonsense pretty easily.

>> > ...
>> >
>> >> But there's actually new science there, too -- 450 species are known to
>> >> have homosexuality today, whereas none were in Jefferson's time, for
>> >> example. The myths about various birds being inherently monogamous for
>> >> life have mostly been exploded by actual data, too. So the arguments
>> >> about it being "unnatural" are no longer tenable.
>> >
>> > On the birds, I don't think your description of the change is quite
>> > right. What the evidence suggests is that pair mated birds practice
>> > monogamy tempered by adultery--the same pattern as pair mated humans.
>>
>> When I was in school we were told they didn't re-pair even if one died,
>> for example. A very extreme example -- implicitly held up as a model of
>> proper "natural" behavior.
>
> I don't remember being told anything about that in school.
>
> I believe there are species that pair mate for life, although I would be
> surprised if they didn't re-pair when one died. But others pair mate for
> (I think) one breeding season.

It's more like "extended multi-year periods often" than "for life".

Just like with humans.

>> > ...
>> >
>> >> Whereas using the constituion as interpreted by the supreme court as a
>> >> core area for advancing individual rights actually available in society
>> >> seems to me to be a core progressive enterprise.
>> >
>> > I don't believe Justice Steven Field was generally viewed as a
>> > progressive, and I don't remember progressives being enthusiastic about
>> > Lochner.
>> >
>> > To put it differently, whether what progressives wanted was to advance
>> > individual rights or retard them depends largely on what individual
>> > rights you think people have.
>>
>> No, I think there's a VERY strong swing towards the progressives for all
>> work towards realizable choice for a wide range of individuals.
>
> As a simple example of the problem of different views of rights,
> consider the question of "fair housing" laws--I think that may have been
> the issue over which my father resigned from the ACLU, on the grounds
> that they were now against rights instead of for them.
>
> Supporters of such laws see them as increasing choice for people who
> want to rent housing. Opponents see them as decreasing choice for people
> with housing to rent, by depriving them of (some of) the choice of who
> to rent it to.

Both views are true. When people are being stigmatized randomly, it's a
clear-cut injustice, and I'm willing to invoke the state to fix it.

> More generally, many of us see legitimate choice as requiring the
> consent of both parties--I shouldn't have my choice expanded by forcing
> you to relationships with me that you are not willing to accept. That,
> from the choice standpoint, is what was wrong with slavery, after all.
> It expanded the choices available to the slaveowner, reduced those
> available to the slave, but the expansion was illegitimate.

That argument legitimizes segregation, and I can't accept that.

> A lot of the things the progressives supported were substituting the
> rule "you make those choices the government approves of" for the rule
> of mutual consent.

A lot of the things the progressives supported were and are finally
having some effects on old common bigotries, which nothing else has much
helped with.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>>> It's worth noting that the most important opponent of eugenics was
>>> the Catholic Church.
>
>> Before 1980, say, they were on the right side of quite a few issues.
>
> What happened in 1980?

Just a rough estimate of a turning point.

> They still oppose the death penalty. Is that the wrong side?

They oppose it on overall moral grounds. I'm not completely sure that I
do. *I* oppose it because our criminal justice system is nowhere near
good enough to apply such overwhelming penalties.

>> I think it was largely a change in knowledge -- discovering how
>> racists would use the concepts.
>
> That's a stretch.

Came as a big surprise to a lot of people I think.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> In the 1950s, if my memory is correct, progressives considered
>> homosexuality a mental illness rather than an abomination.
>
> I don't know what progressives thought, but it was officially a mental
> illneess until 1973, when it was removed from DSM II, not because of
> new reasearch, but because of political activism.

Yes, the research was settled somewhat earlier than that really. Then
it required political activism, because the clinicians weren't
responding to the research.

> As an aside, DSM V came out (heh!) yesterday. So as of yesterday
> morning, Aspergers', which some fans claim is common in fandom, no
> longer exists.

I'm sure many people will be devastated.

>> obSF: In Clarke's _Empire Earth_, both heterosexuals and
>> homosexuals are considered mentally ill.
>
> I've always wondered why nobody (?) suggests that you should try both,
> just as many people say you should try different kinds of foods, since
> you don't know if you like it until you try it.

Well, there's a theory that everybody is really bisexual, just with
somewhat different weightings for the two sides; that's kind of related
to what you ask.

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article,
<memo.2013052...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>,
p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk "Paul Dormer" had a wild surmise:

> "ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>> - but the standards of story-telling, plotting, and
>> attention to detail of its first ten years were un-
>
>I suppose that would be up to 1960? My collection of Eagle comics start
>in 1960. I started reading it earlier, but didn't start saving my copies
>till then.

- 1960 was the turning-point, yes. frank hampson's
signature is on every page he was responsible for,
and that disappeared some time around then, during
the "terra nova" story that the manglement the new
owners brought in ordered be curtailed, and future
story-lines be simplified and much briefer, as well
as the overdue restyling of the strip's look begun.

- there were still some good stories to come, but
none so ambitious, so painstakingly researched and
presented, nor so sense-of-wonder evoking and en-
thralling, as those first ten years.

- the original expedition to venus, with the flame
belt and dapon and the atlantines, as well as the
theorons, the treens and the mekon; the red moon;
them getting "blown" to mercury, and what and who
they found there; blasco, the black cats, mimas &
the other moons of saturn (and the first life they
found on one) - not forgetting vorga! (nor the pi-
rates); the reign of the robots; and the _weakest_
of those original stories had the pesquods (sp? -
pescods?) and their bobbly module ship(s), that
only digby was sure he'd spotted - it was the mag-
maficently explosive conclusion, that spoiled that
story; and then the first two-thirds or three-
quarters of hampson & co.'s magnum sf opus, the
man from nowhere, his ftl spaceship, his appeal
for help for his people; the cold-sleep trip to
cryptos and the space-living perils enroute; the
kraa - the space ark - of the crypts, and the in-
vading, slaver phants - and stripey! - not to men-
tion meeting the warrior-priest kruels - and then
orak... - the humans' long, cold-sleep trip home
and return to several unpleasant discoveries, in-
cluding the elektrobots... the safari in space &
their kidnapping off in a mcwhoo ship that looks
like blackpool or brighton pier with spacedrive,
which turns into a chance to track dan's father's
footsteps out far into deep space, and to a new
earth-like planet, with alien humanoid and non-
humanoid species, including a hive culture...

- <fx: big breath>...

- i'm going to have to dig up my collected reprints
of these, now, or *very* soon; i've not reread them
yet, this century... (all the above was from what's
left of my memory - no responsibility can be nor is
accepted for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies.)

- love, a ppint. as regards the first ten years of
eagle as one of the golden ages of science fiction

[n.b. cross-posted rasff & rasfwr; follow-up is set to rasfwr]

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"Six years of living in the Discworld has wrecked me for this one!!"
- kerryann pankhurst, 24/10/96 (10/24/96 for merkins)

[Paul Dormer]

In article <20130524.161...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>,

v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:

> [n.b. cross-posted rasff & rasfwr; follow-up is set to rasfwr]

Which I'm not currently in, and don't wish to join.

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfkzjvk...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> >> obSF: In Clarke's _Empire Earth_, both heterosexuals and
> >> homosexuals are considered mentally ill.

(Keith writes)

> > I've always wondered why nobody (?) suggests that you should try both,
> > just as many people say you should try different kinds of foods, since
> > you don't know if you like it until you try it.
>
> Well, there's a theory that everybody is really bisexual, just with
> somewhat different weightings for the two sides; that's kind of related
> to what you ask.

I think the evidence suggests that that is more true for women than for
men--a less sharp division.

One obvious answer to Keith's question is that one gets evidence on
one's sexual tastes prior to acting on them, from what one finds
arousing.

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfk4nds...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> >> I think it was largely a change in knowledge -- discovering how
> >> racists would use the concepts.
> >
> > That's a stretch.
>
> Came as a big surprise to a lot of people I think.

None of whom knew that black slavery had existed in the recent past?

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfk8v34...@dd-b.net>,

Hard to judge the direction of causation there. Do people become less
confident of the strength of gender related differences, to take one big
example, because discriminating on the basis of them is illegal, or does
it become illegal because other factors, most notably technological
changes that make producing and rearing children no longer a nearly full
time profession for almost half the adult population, result in a lot of
women doing things that used to be done mainly by men?

I think in at least one case, "progressive" policies have the opposite
of the effect you describe--affirmative action. It's much easier to get
into a top law school if you are black. The result is that, on average,
the black students in top law schools are less able than the white
students. Some of those involved in running schools may be reluctant to
admit that in public, but everyone knows it is true.

What is the effect on the bright white student of observing that the
bottom of the class distribution is largely black?

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article,
<memo.2013052...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>,

p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk "Paul Dormer" dismissed:

> ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>>[n.b. cross-posted rasff & rasfwr; follow-up is set to rasfwr]
>
>Which I'm not currently in, and don't wish to join.

- fair enough; ime the topic'd drifted from fannish,
in my post, to sf written (& graphical)-ish; bycicbw.

- love, ppint.

pp.s, stop press: the rcfs admits gnomes: has the sky fallen,
and no-one here reported it?

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"the life of a vegetable is of no interest whatsoever,
and this includes, to the vegetable in question
- i speak from experience."
- yr hmbl srppnt, c. autumn 1990

[Dan Goodman]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:10:19 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> In the 1950s, if my memory is correct, progressives considered
>> homosexuality a mental illness rather than an abomination.
>
> I don't know what progressives thought, but it was officially a mental
> illneess until 1973, when it was removed from DSM II, not because of new
> reasearch, but because of political activism.
>
> As an aside, DSM V came out (heh!) yesterday. So as of yesterday
> morning, Aspergers', which some fans claim is common in fandom, no
> longer exists.

Except in people who've already been diagnosed with it. As I understand
it, old diagnoses now abolished have been grandfathered in.

>> obSF: In Clarke's _Empire Earth_, both heterosexuals and homosexuals
>> are considered mentally ill.
>
> I've always wondered why nobody (?) suggests that you should try both,
> just as many people say you should try different kinds of foods, since
> you don't know if you like it until you try it.





--

Dan Goodman

[Dan Goodman]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:06:55 -0700, David Friedman wrote:

> In article <ylfkzjvk...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> >> obSF: In Clarke's _Empire Earth_, both heterosexuals and
>> >> homosexuals are considered mentally ill.
>
> (Keith writes)
>> > I've always wondered why nobody (?) suggests that you should try
>> > both,
>> > just as many people say you should try different kinds of foods,
>> > since you don't know if you like it until you try it.
>>
>> Well, there's a theory that everybody is really bisexual, just with
>> somewhat different weightings for the two sides; that's kind of related
>> to what you ask.
>
> I think the evidence suggests that that is more true for women than for
> men--a less sharp division.
>
> One obvious answer to Keith's question is that one gets evidence on
> one's sexual tastes prior to acting on them, from what one finds
> arousing.

However, sometimes what seems arousing turns out not to be when tried.



--
Dan Goodman

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in
news:xridnQAgZYMoTwLM...@iphouse.net:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:10:19 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> In the 1950s, if my memory is correct, progressives considered
>>> homosexuality a mental illness rather than an abomination.
>>
>> I don't know what progressives thought, but it was officially a
>> mental illneess until 1973, when it was removed from DSM II,
>> not because of new reasearch, but because of political
>> activism.
>>
>> As an aside, DSM V came out (heh!) yesterday. So as of
>> yesterday morning, Aspergers', which some fans claim is common
>> in fandom, no longer exists.
>
> Except in people who've already been diagnosed with it. As I
> understand it, old diagnoses now abolished have been
> grandfathered in.

Plus, it hsan't gone way, it's just had its name chagnes (and
expanded, like everything else).

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in
news:ddfr-3C8DBC.1...@news.giganews.com:

> In article <ylfkzjvk...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> >> obSF: In Clarke's _Empire Earth_, both heterosexuals and
>> >> homosexuals are considered mentally ill.
>
> (Keith writes)
>> > I've always wondered why nobody (?) suggests that you should
>> > try both, just as many people say you should try different
>> > kinds of foods, since you don't know if you like it until you
>> > try it.
>>
>> Well, there's a theory that everybody is really bisexual, just
>> with somewhat different weightings for the two sides; that's
>> kind of related to what you ask.
>
> I think the evidence suggests that that is more true for women
> than for men--a less sharp division.

So, even vat girls won't get Quaddie laid?

[Mark Zenier]

In article <knmc7p$k96$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>Thread crossover: Jury nullification is a classic example. It's
>illegal, but since eavesdropping on deliberations isn't allowed,
>nor is questioning jurors about the reason for their verdict, there's
>no way to convict unless a juror blabs about it.

Depends on the juror's oath and the results of not following it. As I
remember the last time I was a juror of municipal court, the oath was
written such that a jury nullification would violate it.

Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:

> In article <ylfk8v34...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> > A lot of the things the progressives supported were substituting the
>> > rule "you make those choices the government approves of" for the rule
>> > of mutual consent.
>>
>> A lot of the things the progressives supported were and are finally
>> having some effects on old common bigotries, which nothing else has much
>> helped with.
>
> Hard to judge the direction of causation there. Do people become less
> confident of the strength of gender related differences, to take one big
> example, because discriminating on the basis of them is illegal, or does
> it become illegal because other factors, most notably technological
> changes that make producing and rearing children no longer a nearly full
> time profession for almost half the adult population, result in a lot of
> women doing things that used to be done mainly by men?

This isn't technological, it's social. When all household work of the
middle class and up was done by servants, the wife still didn't mostly
go out and work (and was officially forbidden to in a lot of areas, such
as teaching). The change was clearly social.

> I think in at least one case, "progressive" policies have the opposite
> of the effect you describe--affirmative action. It's much easier to get
> into a top law school if you are black. The result is that, on average,
> the black students in top law schools are less able than the white
> students. Some of those involved in running schools may be reluctant to
> admit that in public, but everyone knows it is true.

The only argument I've heard that makes any sense for affirative action
is to break a really solid stranglehold and let people demonstrate what
they can do. Once people have seen blacks, jews, women, or purple
people, doing a job, it's harder to hold the belief that they "can't".
I'm reasonably sure that the policy of encouraging gays to "come out",
let their friends and family know they are gay, is at the basis of the
HUGE progress gay rights has made; people can stigmatize gays as "other"
a lot more easily if they don't realize they know some.

Long-term affirmative action doesn't seem to be productive, for the
reasons you give. I know people who personally suffer from having to
demonstrate that they *deserve* their jobs to people over and over and
over again because they're in a category that gets affirmative action,
and they rather resent it.

> What is the effect on the bright white student of observing that the
> bottom of the class distribution is largely black?

Yes, it can help some people support their prejudices.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:

> In article <ylfk4nds...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> >> I think it was largely a change in knowledge -- discovering how
>> >> racists would use the concepts.
>> >
>> > That's a stretch.
>>
>> Came as a big surprise to a lot of people I think.
>
> None of whom knew that black slavery had existed in the recent past?

Slavery doesn't seem to me to connect to eugenics much.

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 24, 3:06 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article <ylfkzjvkz6gq....@dd-b.net>,

>  David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > >> obSF:  In Clarke's _Empire Earth_, both heterosexuals and
> > >> homosexuals are considered mentally ill.
>
> (Keith writes)
>
> > > I've always wondered why nobody (?) suggests that you should try both,
> > > just as many people say you should try different kinds of foods, since
> > > you don't know if you like it until you try it.
>
> > Well, there's a theory that everybody is really bisexual, just with
> > somewhat different weightings for the two sides; that's kind of related
> > to what you ask.
>
> I think the evidence suggests that that is more true for women than for
> men--a less sharp division.
>
> One obvious answer to Keith's question is that one gets evidence on
> one's sexual tastes prior to acting on them, from what one finds
> arousing.

...and why people differ in '...what one finds arousing' is another
area in which we know very little. Many gays and straights take an
ideologically based position that they were "born that way". This
allows straights to claim that straightness is 'natural' and all else
is perversion. It allows gays to hold that gayness is not the result
of some kind of moral lapse, that it can't be 'cured' and that
'recruitment' can't happen.

At the moment, there's not much research to support that positions on
either side. Humans are not blank Turning machines at birth, but
neither do we run off of ROMs. Neither nature nor nurture has an upper
hand. It seems plausible that most people are born with a drive to
seek sex once they reach maturity. Possibly, there is even a
evolutionary preference to include hetero relationships in that drive.
However, the culture one is embedded in, as well early experiences,
can cause a person to start to go one way or another, and they then
find cultural reinforcement to keep on that path. The middle path,
that of ambiguity, change and free will is regarded as betrayal by
both camps.

pt

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I certainly don't remember "deciding to be" straight. Or ever feeling
anything vaguely related to sexual attraction towards a man (which I
realize is fairly extreme on that side -- Kinsey 0, can't find recent
studies saying what proportion of the population are there).

> At the moment, there's not much research to support that positions on
> either side. Humans are not blank Turning machines at birth, but
> neither do we run off of ROMs. Neither nature nor nurture has an upper
> hand. It seems plausible that most people are born with a drive to
> seek sex once they reach maturity. Possibly, there is even a
> evolutionary preference to include hetero relationships in that drive.
> However, the culture one is embedded in, as well early experiences,
> can cause a person to start to go one way or another, and they then
> find cultural reinforcement to keep on that path. The middle path,
> that of ambiguity, change and free will is regarded as betrayal by
> both camps.

Which is one of the great benefits of urbanity -- we city-dwellers don't
feel so driven to camp! :-)

Pretty clearly, lots of people feel at least some attraction to both men
and women, especially if you add "at various times in their lives".
Which is fine with me; while I'm a Kinsey 0, I've never had a less
pleasant interaction with a gay man about sex than "No thank you" "Oh
well".

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfka9nj...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
> > In article <ylfk4nds...@dd-b.net>,
> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >> I think it was largely a change in knowledge -- discovering how
> >> >> racists would use the concepts.
> >> >
> >> > That's a stretch.
> >>
> >> Came as a big surprise to a lot of people I think.
> >
> > None of whom knew that black slavery had existed in the recent past?
>
> Slavery doesn't seem to me to connect to eugenics much.

No. But it connects to racism.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/

Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfkehcv...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
> > In article <ylfk8v34...@dd-b.net>,
> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > A lot of the things the progressives supported were substituting the
> >> > rule "you make those choices the government approves of" for the rule
> >> > of mutual consent.
> >>
> >> A lot of the things the progressives supported were and are finally
> >> having some effects on old common bigotries, which nothing else has much
> >> helped with.
> >
> > Hard to judge the direction of causation there. Do people become less
> > confident of the strength of gender related differences, to take one big
> > example, because discriminating on the basis of them is illegal, or does
> > it become illegal because other factors, most notably technological
> > changes that make producing and rearing children no longer a nearly full
> > time profession for almost half the adult population, result in a lot of
> > women doing things that used to be done mainly by men?
>
> This isn't technological, it's social. When all household work of the
> middle class and up was done by servants, the wife still didn't mostly
> go out and work (and was officially forbidden to in a lot of areas, such
> as teaching). The change was clearly social.

Until the reductions in infant mortality of the last couple of
centuries, bearing and rearing children consumed a lot of the time of
women, and made many careers impractical for them. And "the middle class
and up" wasn't a very large fraction of the population.

...

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/

[Keith F. Lynch]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> This isn't Progressivism, this is Technocracy.

> Technocracy was a very totalitarian thing, now somewhat hard to
> find today.

I agree. Today I read, in Charlie Stross's blog, at

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/06/fuck-every-cause-that-ends-in-.html

He was intensely political, and he infused his science fiction with
a conviction that a future was possible in which people could live
better -- he brought to the task an an angry, compassionate, humane
voice that single-handedly drowned out the privileged nerd chorus of
the technocrat/libertarian fringe and in doing so managed to write
a far-future space operatic universe that sane human beings would
actually want to live in (if only it existed).

So, does "technocrat" mean something very different in the UK than in
the US? Or does "libertarian"? Or is Charlie hopelessly confused?

In US usage:

Technocrats are people who think there are experts who know the one
right way to do each thing, and that those experts' choices ought to
be imposed by government force on all of us.

Libertarians are people who think every individual has the right to
make all his own choices, even if there is no doubt that those choices
are very bad for him.

In other words, these are exact opposites.

I'm CCing Charlie.

[Dan Goodman]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:27:26 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> echnocrats are people who think there are experts who know the one right
> way to do each thing, and that those experts' choices ought to be
> imposed by government force on all of us.
>
> Libertarians are people who think every individual has the right to make
> all his own choices, even if there is no doubt that those choices are
> very bad for him.

Note that not all people who label themselves as libertarians are
consistently libertarian.

--
Dan Goodman