I only meant to point out that you and EricS both seemed to think that I had an:
over-reliance on the meaning of "conservative"
There *is* a thing that used to be much better represented within acamedia, and
it was systematically eliminated. Call it what you will. I certainly don't
think that any particular person who retired is at fault for that, it is the
lack of replacement that *might* be considered a problem. And, of course, I am
talking about it because it's what the article that was shared was talking
about 🤷 . If I'm begging any questions, they are doubly begged there.
Of course, if we are going to nitpick the language, one of the big conceptual problems in this country for several
decades now is that are parties identify is "liberal" vs. "conservative".... but the opposite of
conservative should be "progressive", and the opposite of liberal should be "autocratic." You
either want to err on the side of protecting past ways of doing things (conserving) or err on the side of trying new
things in hopes they will move society towards some better state (progressing). And you either want to err on the side
of letting people do what they want (liberty) or err on the side of restricting what people can do (dictatorship).
In the late 1800s and early 1900s in the U.S. the liberals and the//progressives mostly had the same agenda,
and that somehow got everything confused, and the terms locked into place in a really weird way. If anything,
this time around, the Trump administration is solidly "progressive autocratic", but our zeitgeist
can't really handle that designation. A large number of the headline grabbing things that the Trump
administration has done for the last 2 years are not "conservative" in any proper sense, the
administration is boisterous with new (mostly shitty) ideas. Heck, the "unitary executive" theory
is about as anti-conservative as you can get.
Best,
Eric
On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 11:11 AM glen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I don't understand what you're attributing to me, here ("how I'm interpreting that").
The splintering of "conservative" is evidence that intellectual conservatives have been
systematically excluded from their natural place in society? What? No.
Being excluded (systematically or not) encourages the development of the subculture.
The reactionary/rebellious take of a subculture like punk rock can only really thrive and
acquire meaning when it's *not* the "natural" narrative. To *be* or *become*
the majority is the death knell for such a subculture.
That is how I'm interpreting the splintering. The splintering is *not*
evidence of oppression. The splintering is evidence of their 15 minutes of
fame. They've *got* their Project 2025 administration! Yay! The conservatives
are in charge. Let's see what happens.
I think it's just a bit fantastic to see conservatives like Rand Paul
embarrassing themselves going after Fauci - another conservative. MTG, Candace
Owens, & Tucker Carlson going after Trump. Etc. It's their day in the sun.
We're seeing that they can't muster even 1/10 the cooperation and collaboration it
takes to get anything big done.
As one "does the work", one becomes more "woke" because in order to herd a
large cohort of cats into *doing* anything requires a system that manages all the persnickety burrs
around the edges. The controller must be at least as complex as the system being controlled.
The conservatives whispering their ideas under their breath *is* the
controller controlling the system, not something to bemoan but something to
celebrate. The best thing to ever happen to grass was the invention of the lawn
mower.
On 9/7/26 6:34 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
> Yeah.... contra how you are interpreting that... The fact that
"conservative" has an increasingly splintered definition, as you demonstrated,
actually evidences how problematic it is that the intellectual conservatives have, for
several decades now, been systematically excluded from their natural place in the society...
that is /exactly /the type of problem they would help with 🤷
>
> Best,
> Eric
>
>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 5:50 PM glen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>
> EricS' response to EricC's over-reliance on the meaning of
"conservative" was better than anything I could have said. But the 6 proposed
definitions were too long for my tiny context window. So I asked Ellydee to shorten them for
me. (I also asked Mistral. But she did a terrible job.) I think these are pretty good:
>
> Ellydee.ai says ---
>
> **1. Power Hoarding** — Argument-form masking the real motive of
those who already hold power to keep and concentrate it, widening the gap over
those who don't.
>
> **2. Prudent Restraint** — The view that change for change's sake is too
harmful to go unregulated; "move fast and break things" is not an admirable values
system.
>
> **3. Institutional Gatekeeping** — Fragile categories like "family"
survive only if their defining form is rigidly held, so alternative forms must be
presumptively excluded from law and civil rights.
>
> **4. Doctrinal Veto** — The devout get authority over who else qualifies for
the group — leaving open whether mystics, or fakers under the "faith" label, are
in or out.
>
> **5. Rooted Locality** — Anyone not living their whole life in one
place can't be trusted to defend it; local tribal obligation is the oldest form of
mutual accountability.
>
> **6. Generational Accounting** — A negotiation (doable in good or
bad faith) over how much of the past must be kept current as a debt versus let go
once enough generations have passed.
> ---
>
> I was inclined to change "Rooted Locality" to "Rooted Subjectivity" or "Perspective" ...
in a lame attempt to tie in the other sub-thread. But I didn't feel like this task was worth the cost. They have a handy
ellydee.ai/usage <http://ellydee.ai/usage> <http://ellydee.ai/usage <http://ellydee.ai/usage>> page for those of us
who give a damn. >8^D
>
> On 9/2/26 2:04 PM, Santafe wrote:
> > 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]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I know I'm coming to it late, but I did not find that article
very convincing. The main problems are:
> >>
> >> 1. 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.
> >> 2. 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.
> >> 3. 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.
> >> 4. Most of what the author asserts to be secretly implied or
covertly assumed or bad faith about the efforts seems very upfront and straightforward.
> >> 5. 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.
> >> 6. 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] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <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]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[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
<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>
<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
<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>>
<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
<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>
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.aaup.org%2facademe%2fissues%2ffall-2025%2fseven-theses-against-viewpoint-
<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 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09263>
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09263 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09263>> <https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09263 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09263>
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09263 <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
<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>
<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
<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>>
<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
<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>
>
<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
<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://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
<http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
<https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
<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/
