At a kind of vibe level, I understand the picture you paint, and I can think of enough instances that fit it, to agree that there is a problem to correct.
But how far can you go to defend the premise that the retirement of some academics was a HUGE problem in this country — or more specifically, do you think that is causal for the choice of what has become the political right to go in for fascism, with its considerable elements of cynicism, anomie, and nihilism? Had there been “ideas” on offer from some university faculty, do you think these people would have wanted them? Or just wanted to burn that down too along with all the rest of it? As with many things I can kind of recognize at a vibe level, if I look at it more closely, I don’t know what I should understand the categories even to refer to. By which I mean, what should I attach to the word “conservatism”, as any range of things from a movement name, to a social group-label, to a domain or thesis of “ideas”. For instance, is it: 1. A backfilling of what is meant to look like argument, but anchored for real in the motive of holding onto power, wealth, and agency by those who have it, and further concentrating it, specifically to increase the asymmetry over those who don't? Certainly that goes on, and those who want to fight the C label as a label would say this is its essence. Is that its essence, or is that the essence of a corruption when the real C word has been lost? If it is part of the genuine thing, how far does it go toward efforts to cultivate the belief that people are constitutively different enough that there is no defensible right of agency and freedom for everybody on an equal footing, and there should be rulers and ruled? 2. A thesis that “move fast and break things” was not an admirable values system, and that seeking change merely for change’s sake is too harmful relative to what it achieves to be allowed to go on un-regulated or un-restricted? That would fit with the name C. Wendell Berry died a couple of days ago, somebody I knew a little and had some time with in person, and have also read some of though not nearly a lot. This was one of his theses. Close to the notion of upholding the Ordnung among the Amish, or a defense of Luddism as honorable precaution. 3. A notion that a category like “family” is robust only through cultural collective and cooperative effects, and that a type system needs to be built up, and most types excluded from participation in it, because otherwise it is so fragile that the admission of more than one form endangers it? So, for instance: we have no real way to distinguish abusive from supportive marriages, so as long as there is one man and one woman, so-identified by self and others (maybe a subset of who the others are allowed to be), we have to admit it all. But other kinds of unions need to be kept outside the perimeter as viewed by the protections of law and the rights of civil society? The argument being (?) that there are certain obligations the institution needs to enable people to keep (raising and support of kids being the obvious one, but you can imagine others, and I know of marriage customs that symbolically encode several different ones), and we know so little about how to do that, that some one form accepted at whatever level of consideration constitutes social convention is the only conceivable solution, so anything else needs to be presumptively excluded. 4. That people have to experience religious devotions, of whatever kind? The word “faith” has become very popular by people trying not to alienate any of those who go through life with a chip on their shoulders, the new PC (really the same old PC). If people just used it, it wouldn’t be such a sore thumb to me, but the pandering feels really blatant. Does that self-identified group, and any Greeks using it as a Trojan Horse for whatever else motivates them — since it is not clear how any “sincerely” motivated people police their own and keep the fakers out — get veto power? Are the mystics excluded, as the doctrinal religious people have often wanted them to be? Or are they religious enough that they are okay too? 5. That anybody who doesn’t live an entire life in the place he was born is automatically suspect? The view being that he hasn’t tied himself into any one local lifeboat, ergo there can’t be any way he can be counted on to defend it existentially? This is also close to one of Wendell’s views, though in person it was important enough for him to like people, that he didn’t go into his personal relations plastering doctrines of Original Sin on anybody to whom they could be applied. But as a core of ethnic tribalism, this impulse to reinforce mutual obligation seems to me to be one of the oldest and most universal cultural things people do, and if it is ever temporarily absent in some pocket, some of the people there will recreate it from whole cloth. 6. Is it a negotiation of how much of the completed past needs to be kept current as a debt, and how much needs to be let go? Meaning: when, by making extra effort to identify and support people who are on the wrong end of a structural exclusion or exploitation, are we actively working to dismantle the structure, and when have enough generations gone by and enough circumstances created new people, that there isn’t anything productive to be done by trying to trace an indefinitely long past of who-displaced-whom? I am emphasizing here, as possible C, the premise that there is a negotiation on that point to be carried out, as opposed to a dogma that to ever let go of anything is a sin. And if that is the C premise, is there a distinction that is also C between having that negotiation in good faith and having it in bad faith? Of how one tries to police against plain irresponsible self-interest hijacking the form with no moral or ethical anchor? I can imagine any of the above, or none of them, as being what “conservatism” is supposed to stand for. And I can imagine many combinations of people proudly advocating any of them at the same time as others would sharply distinguish what is okay and what is corrupt or degenerated. There’s another mid-length rant about how I watch the memes change, on timescales of about 1–4 years, and while each of them has some truth, I feel like they are substitutes for seeing a kind of paralysis and inability or unwillingness to actually do things that need to be done, across the whole of society, that feels to me like a better candidate for cause of the fascist and nihilist turn. But this note is too long already, and I should do work. Eric > On Sep 3, 2026, at 2:04, Eric Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > > I know I'm coming to it late, but I did not find that article very > convincing. The main problems are: > Nothing about the omnipresent DEI initiatives of the past few decades assures > viewpoint diversity, and, if you are only getting people deeply devoted to > DEI you are for sure actually quashing viewpoint diversity. And, by > deeply-devoted I mean that academic job applications require DEI statements, > teaching statements are required to highlight how your teaching relates to > DEI efforts, applicants are judged based on "diversity" goals at the college > and within departments, some members of hiring committees explicitly see it > as their goal to right past wrongs against certain groups with their > selections, etc. > In certain contexts there is very, very good justification to prefer a narrow > range of viewpoint diversity over maximal diversity. For example, having a > math department with different perspectives on what math "is" creates a > positive environment for students to learn in. For example, it might be nice > to have a math realist, someone with an aesthetic approach, a hard core > logician-mathematician, etc., and you certainly want people who study > different fields within math. However, you might not want someone who thinks > mathematics is a tool of colonialist oppression which should be rejected from > the curriculum. In fact, it might be problematic to have proponents of that > argument in decision-making roles anywhere within an educational institution. > I have seen (when I was full-time in academia), and continue to see (via > colleagues in academia) actual discrimination against academics with > conservative views, and a ton of self-silencing based on anticipated > discrimination. To use the DEI phrase, most faculty settings are not a "safe > space" for them. > Most of what the author asserts to be secretly implied or covertly assumed or > bad faith about the efforts seems very upfront and straightforward. > Frankly, the failure to replace conservative academics as they retire has > created HUGE problems in this country. The conservative movement used to have > decent group of hard-core academics and public intellectuals as a key part of > it. The current trainwreck of ideas that pass for "conservative" these days > could be, and could have been, greatly helped if academia broadly returned a > good chunk of the prior support it used to give to people doing serious > intellectual work from a conservative perspective. > While this obviously applies to humanities and social sciences, it applies in > all fields. It is good for a chemistry department to have some people who > believe in hard core merit and some who believe in actively supporting those > who might have had less opportunity growing up. It is good for a chemistry > department to have some people who see "less opportunity" in terms of > structural oppression rampant within a society and others who see it in terms > of individual hardship. etc. > <mailto:[email protected]>All that said, for sure the Trump > administration is acting in bad faith in many ways, about all things... but > that's a different issue. > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 8:57 PM Santafe <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Agree Siraganian is wrong. >> >> I believe the etymology of the expression “red herring” was not intended to >> be a compliment to the dogs that run off following it. >> >> In some lecture or interview or someplace, I remember Snyder making a >> connection that seems good for the current situation: Authoritarian >> gaslighting really works by adopting the main premises of postmodernism (as >> it has become in its now-degenerated form; I understand the defense of some >> of the original work). A thing Snyder didn’t say, which just calls out a >> further point of context, but that I think is also within the center of his >> point: in eras where postmodernism hadn’t spread as widely as it has here >> and now, the need was the same, but the authoritarian gaslighters had to >> build some of the infrastructure they wanted to use. For today, it is just >> there at the Ikea where you can go pick it up and assemble it the same day. >> Or, so widely distributed in Amazon warehouses that they can deliver it the >> same day, anywhere. >> >> Another nice little frame I saw, from some commenter on some article, was: >> >> For my friends, the Unitary Executive Theory. >> For my enemies, the Major Questions Doctrine. >> >> And then:I have heard (reasonable) people criticize Paul Krugman for having >> lots of public opinions in areas where he doesn’t have a lot of earned >> expertise. Okay; fair enough for that. But I think it is to his credit >> that he started calling out bad faith as the central issue, quite a long >> time ago (when I also thought that needed to stay the focus). Not leaving >> it to irony, as Siraganian sort-of does, but being plain that it is too >> frontal an attack to be winked at in irony. >> >> (And of course Glen’s point is also exactly right, but already said: it is >> just because the notion of what one wants from truth isn’t so easy that it >> can be handled lazily, and if we did less of that, maybe we would be better >> positioned to repel some of this other nonsense, or at least have a smaller >> vandal-group to repel over it. That could itself be an interesting article, >> but it would have a completely different aim (solving a new problem) than >> Siraganian’s evident aim in this piece, which was to contribute to a >> struggle.) >> >> I noticed, somewhere else, too, that Anne Applebaum has now started to use >> the term “predators” explicitly to refer to the various oligarchs and the >> relatively small and connected band of people trying to end the society and >> turn it into a CAFO. It has been about time for that term to be one of the >> standards for a while too. Not just in the generic term “predatory >> capitalism”, which is also correct in some ways but has been both >> long-enough used, and rhetorically over-used enough, to have become >> semantically bleached. Applebaum’s use is more specific and meant to draw a >> role distinction in a place and a time. The predator group are the thing >> that will still be here when trump is gone, and that is what the world both >> knows and needs to come up with some plan to deal with, if there is a path >> to be found through this that isn’t pretty miserable. >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> > On Sep 1, 2026, at 20:56, glen <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > >> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.aaup.org%2facademe%2fissues%2ffall-2025%2fseven-theses-against-viewpoint-diversity&c=E,1,b55AythETSm80UCsORPJraafH3z3tJu6asT6ZVhNKOP2vQ18isZEEIf7z4C3GPp5lj3OGTA_Qt38a-J92wtnOELDQdBiOHPtQqd5U3udVQ,,&typo=1 >> > >> > OK. I admit I've been a bit guilty in my emphasis on diversity. But I am >> > aware of Goodhart's Law. And given thesis 2, here, I think I'm going to >> > stop calling myself a "methodological pluralist" and use "instrumental >> > pluralist" instead. >> > >> > But 1) what Siraganian says here is simply wrong: >> > >> > "To promote viewpoint diversity is to be thrilled to have my views in the >> > mix, even if you think they are wrong, because either (a) they contribute >> > to more viewpoint diversity (the more views you have, the more viewpoint >> > diversity there is), or (b) they provide more views to choose from to >> > figure out which view is the most true. In the first position, you end up >> > not caring about whether a particular view is true or good, because you >> > care about viewpoint diversity intrinsically: What matters is having the >> > greatest possible variety of views. In the second position, you >> > instrumentally value a diversity of views; having viewpoint diversity only >> > matters until you can figure out which view is the best or most true, at >> > which point all the other views can be rejected." >> > >> > If the "best" or "most true" is relatively smooth from the 1st best to the >> > 2nd best, 3rd best, etc., then NO, you do not reject "all the others". >> > Such smooth grading has to remain contingent, defeasible. And my guess is >> > the gradation isn't smooth everywhere. It may be smooth for the first 2 or >> > 3 distinguishable ideas, but #4 might be batsh¡t. (cf. >> > SynthID<https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09263>) >> > >> > 2) Diversity remains a useful measure of the crosstrophic nature of >> > complex systems, circularity, industrial symbiosis, etc. So even in light >> > of Goodhart's Law, diversity is a reasonable *outcome*, even if it's >> > dangerous to optimize to that sole outcome. >> > >> > There are issues with all the theses she lays out. But persnickety nits >> > aside, her gist seems right. And you can't overlook the blatant hypocrisy >> > of objecting to DEI initiatives, but then arguing for "intellectual >> > pluralism", pointed out in thesis 7. >> > >> > This post is too long already. But I know many, here, have succumbed to >> > Haidt glazing. So I offer this as further demonstration of Bad Faith >> > rhetoric: >> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fassignedmedia.org%2fbreaking-news%2fjonathan-haidt-social-contagion-rogd-pbs%2f%2c&c=E,1,ngAIsHPbOX56tMD3TLOiPP3zB_rDDRBGj6yCaK5XLPuFc14XPOHo1PAnUmR0cgLwf_aU1VOVbz2Qm4aIIhJq35Fz9wAOItW1lSLlFynYJZWGIWmgx6evchreXotW&typo=1 >> > only peripherally about instrumental pluralism. >> > >> > -- >> > 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ >> > ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα >> > σώσω. >> > >> > >> > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,Z3MoIzr2_gYwXuX-WJtLvRPuw4lrhGeRqwGco_ktfU4qQxaHJOmOv8h7QMo4q3phH_1bmuxN1YrArL9vwsmrlwLg4h5aQ--jFIBIjkqUV_3dZSnq0Of_&typo=1 >> > to (un)subscribe >> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,o6A878gmRtPOn9RwEViePS_tcms3qTJcMqxXPZx3Tkb5VVsg3DN3BwRifub1Y27kD8BXA2EcIdTAA5u_ss_n-HeWoDOugHR7cAovqEIe&typo=1 >> > FRIAM-COMIC >> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,4L88HNZqyH91Pv-TjJN8ZBC5prMxsVmwbT8EnV2BL55YaGf9xpqybKKdZXevcT9vNGfnKXERh-TdHqJkFi9pu4vaShGSjiFDpS-sbMcf7zMfgrrV&typo=1 >> > archives: 5/2017 thru present >> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,dGOrN-AOox-kFvpdb0Dq2LmV2SHzDQkncfWAKefpZ-jFJiBypNbt-CvFkQf_lkDpmGDYeTJJ-klo5QXsqOKhhet4GxkDAa2L8OPx7YvTlbSWDCeIFEY,&typo=1 >> > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,1F9g4ESHX8fs-0GPkG4T3UFaH1at5g6XCjOraG48bvh5Z9SDVqgEX6KSX95vW4Od1tMWv7kvKgtkrHk2jvd0BT43zXQ3FHttOtfDaqpnLIi6&typo=1> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,hi4x7VA8xMlylLCreOwJrLHKbA058tbN0zbPxsT4sHa6zNkZ9_UoZs8qYuRQwyP1WkJGcdcOkqs__LvglQKuyzmnEMwEHujyKL3RSSmH0xNUA_XJB99BfA,,&typo=1> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,MCWEFyRGkX_zPgbamdYmsBnWqk91HHl0kAkO5ZGBbUH5h4rhZ-pPk-w9VbLOlCxcnXFqDCmkD1d4Cya0_L1uDoFMRsKOJ04Zp8P47Frhd8uFbscp1d6c4SE,&typo=1> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,41mZERuksfEvx_6YHrwe8pPfLcPnvhvHf4KnWNACCGlZ3JRuOI9r4juj-p7UwaToo72c0jc2A-M5SfMPOTjIV15fVEsGg851X1phCSKA4WV0HhqVTAgPezc,&typo=1> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... > --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,uvrW2KLjMhzw--eytVGiRPto8bH4EdfRopq_XQ7w2hUnntwbwE55w_SEPoryVnYnQJdkteR7DB-zGMCjjhIh0W6e_D2HPOb1CpNUsmBrSZBLsOE2&typo=1 > to (un)subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,-eIFcX5KDxQHC4jdw-0o-BvWPPVbQKCQNvwTwM1DIQCmsntRurHJ7boqQYHoUkeC5szOUlAXHN2_eg-Y1UepKI2hJ7WfOAgHF5FncEaRici5h4BLoQE,&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,BYNtQucCZC6Q0IL49uckOGFEXaUhGCI5pDptIIF4EwBi76y1xfMy-PZbA8SBP8--jaFvjLs2gC2jWYlA9Qu2qNVGVjpzM2fcrPG-bMjFmdtbXTvstsPzeo_f&typo=1 > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,ACG8gOlZyJ8vu0XnkngJ9S6_RPwh-ZiPu9IOHZsX1pygnIKXxArYw1okwcAo3w6FoDxvXNn2SFFzK3bYLMlSwZlcJj5yTf_2xjwng2Ghn7nM8c225niwrbOf&typo=1 > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
