Glen writes:
< Such wilting rhetoric makes an actual individualist like the Unabomber seem
more upstanding and trustworthy ... and that inference is just plain dangerous.
>
He gave a coherent description of this aspect of the individualist psychology
and a need for dignity above all else. It's a self-indulgent mental weakness,
and one that can be broken with some effort. Unfortunately, it isn't broken
for people who live in monocultures, as exists in many small towns in the U.S.
flyover states. These folks aren't forced to confront social complexity or
even technological complexity. The only way to get away from that complexity
is to go live in a cabin in Montana. To have that kind of "personal
responsibility" means finding an environment where it makes sense. Such
environments will be reducing in number as the population increases. It's a
similar kind of thinking behind economic isolationism. It drives down
complexity, which is really what frightens the individualist that David
describes: Not knowing what to do or how to do it.
Marcus
From: Friam on behalf of ∄ uǝʃƃ
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 8:45:04 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: [FRIAM] strawman fallacy
In support (that he likely doesn't want) of Marcus' constraints on the wiggle
room allowed to "individualists", I've often wondered about the VERY common
accusation of "strawman!", as a response to criticism. To put my wonder in
context, I saw this article on a very liberally biased website (RawStory):
The Varieties of American Evangelicalism
https://crcc.usc.edu/report/the-varieties-of-american-evangelicalism/
wherein they use some seemingly strawman characterizations of some pretty deep
and interesting psychological pathologies. With names like Trump-vangelicals
and iVangelicals, even *if* their classification is useful, it's offensive (by
proxy, of course, since all that god stuff is obsolete to me).
Contrast that with an article to which it links:
Can Evangelicalism Survive Donald Trump and Roy Moore?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-evangelicalism-survive-donald-trump-and-roy-moore
The question I care about is: To what extent are tedious regressions into the
etiology of a toxin attempts to *treat* the disease and to what extent are they
a waste of time? I try to steelman whenever I can. But the snowflake
sensibilities of self-described individualists are a bit too irritating. It's
tough to imagine a canonical, self-sustaining, self-governing, morally solid,
archetype like John Wayne whimpering about how he's been strawmanned. Such
wilting rhetoric makes an actual individualist like the Unabomber seem more
upstanding and trustworthy ... and that inference is just plain dangerous.
Here's a fun exploration of whether it's OK to punch nazis:
https://youtu.be/iEyL1rDe60w
--
∄ uǝʃƃ
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
