Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
Probably Trump was talking about nuking Los Angeles, and that sort of thing. Meadows doesn’t want to have to lie on television about it. From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:52 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant Speaking of January 6, are you all watching CNN which is reporting on the communications among White House insiders on that day as revealed by Mark Meadows' documents. Their supposedly private discussion is very different different than what they report publicly was said. How did Meadows not know this was going to cause chaos? Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 8:39 PM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote: Well, I'd classify the middle-aged crazies on Jan 6th as not-so-special snowflakes as well. -Original Message- From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:13 PM To: friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant On 12/13/21 2:24 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > Maybe we should work harder to adopt *their* shared state, rather than > coercing them to adopt ours? I could start by finding ways to internalize them better? I *do* enjoy my avocado toast (toasted everything bagels actually) and am practicing gender-neutral pronouns, but it feels like an (even) harder pull than getting Archie Bunker to learn Meathead's sensibilities and language. I definitely am very tired of the tropes of my own generation and appreciate the genX/Y/Z voices when I can hear/parse them. I was happy to see the handful of 50 and under voices in the Democratic Presidential Primary and Congress but find the Republican version (Boebert, Greene, Hawley, Gaetz, Cawthorne, et al) absurd parodies of their "elders". Maybe there is a new signal in there, but I can't find it. .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 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/ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 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/ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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/
Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
Speaking of January 6, are you all watching CNN which is reporting on the communications among White House insiders on that day as revealed by Mark Meadows' documents. Their supposedly private discussion is very different different than what they report publicly was said. How did Meadows not know this was going to cause chaos? Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 8:39 PM Marcus Daniels wrote: > Well, I'd classify the middle-aged crazies on Jan 6th as not-so-special > snowflakes as well. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of Steve Smith > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:13 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant > > > On 12/13/21 2:24 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > > Maybe we should work harder to adopt *their* shared state, rather than > coercing them to adopt ours? > > I could start by finding ways to internalize them better? I *do* enjoy > my avocado toast (toasted everything bagels actually) and am practicing > gender-neutral pronouns, but it feels like an (even) harder pull than > getting Archie Bunker to learn Meathead's sensibilities and language. > > I definitely am very tired of the tropes of my own generation and > appreciate the genX/Y/Z voices when I can hear/parse them. I was happy to > see the handful of 50 and under voices in the Democratic Presidential > Primary and Congress but find the Republican version (Boebert, Greene, > Hawley, Gaetz, Cawthorne, et al) absurd parodies of their "elders". Maybe > there is a new signal in there, but I can't find it. > > > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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/ > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > 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/ > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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/
Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
Well, I'd classify the middle-aged crazies on Jan 6th as not-so-special snowflakes as well. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:13 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant On 12/13/21 2:24 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > Maybe we should work harder to adopt *their* shared state, rather than > coercing them to adopt ours? I could start by finding ways to internalize them better? I *do* enjoy my avocado toast (toasted everything bagels actually) and am practicing gender-neutral pronouns, but it feels like an (even) harder pull than getting Archie Bunker to learn Meathead's sensibilities and language. I definitely am very tired of the tropes of my own generation and appreciate the genX/Y/Z voices when I can hear/parse them. I was happy to see the handful of 50 and under voices in the Democratic Presidential Primary and Congress but find the Republican version (Boebert, Greene, Hawley, Gaetz, Cawthorne, et al) absurd parodies of their "elders". Maybe there is a new signal in there, but I can't find it. .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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/ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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/
Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
On 12/13/21 2:24 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: Maybe we should work harder to adopt *their* shared state, rather than coercing them to adopt ours? I could start by finding ways to internalize them better? I *do* enjoy my avocado toast (toasted everything bagels actually) and am practicing gender-neutral pronouns, but it feels like an (even) harder pull than getting Archie Bunker to learn Meathead's sensibilities and language. I definitely am very tired of the tropes of my own generation and appreciate the genX/Y/Z voices when I can hear/parse them. I was happy to see the handful of 50 and under voices in the Democratic Presidential Primary and Congress but find the Republican version (Boebert, Greene, Hawley, Gaetz, Cawthorne, et al) absurd parodies of their "elders". Maybe there is a new signal in there, but I can't find it. .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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/
Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
On 12/13/21 1:13 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: It's interesting that you went to guns in response to court packing. It's been in the news a lot with Newsom's response to SB8 and the SCOTUS ruling: https://www.vox.com/2021/12/12/22830625/newsom-california-guns-texas-abortion-law-supreme-court I *thought* I was going from Amendment I to Amendment II, the fact of using guns (and other practical leverage) to assert one's opinions/preferences and/or suppress those of another. I am acutely conflicted because I *do* experience the attraction of blunt persuasion and the threat of it (by others) at the same time. The whole category of adversarial policy-making evokes tit-for-tat, maybe no longer the absolute optimum strategy, but still a good candidate inside the fast, good, cheap triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle I find the adversarial model of just about anything tired. It *might* be the only common ground we can find when other strategies fail, but it falls short not only of optimal, but desirable for the most part. Discussing this in parallel to the (not just Popper's) idea that *criticism* is necessary for the modulation of metaphysical frames seems telling. On the surface, tit-for-tat seems like a terrible way to run the government ... gerrymander for your party because they'll damn well gerrymander for their party ... appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS because you know they'll appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS ... etc. But, really, maybe tit-for-tat is the BEST strategy for governing? Take that you consistency hobgoblins, overly committed to your Modernist [ptouie] paradigms. >8^D Certainly *most* simple examples of feedback governance (population dynamics, steam engine speed controls, etc) ARE pretty simple tit-for-tat in their stylization. If the "guilds" of subsystems interacting are more complex than say rabbits-coyotes or right/left politics then I think there *must* be more sophisticated governance systems. The Constitutional (US) formulation of separation of powers, checks and balances, separation of church and state, etc. seemed to start out just a tad more sophisticated but a little gaming over a couple of centuries has collapsed it back to (nearly) a simple push and pull on singular axes. On 12/13/21 10:36 AM, Steve Smith wrote: Thanks for the link to this specific treatment of intolerance. In my youth, I was known to claim: "I am tolerant of everything except intolerance" which of course was at best aspirational and more likely just plain delusional. While it applies well and obviously to the "culture wars" somewhat unevenly but not without exemplary exceptions, it also seems to apply by extension to the elaborated context of the 2nd Amendment. As a "western man" raised on guns, guts and glory, I am comfortable around guns and know that they can in fact be "useful tools" though less and less so in modern society and most especially for a vegetarian like myself. What I am *intolerant* of is their use as tools for bullying. Among my gun loving acquaintances (some to be called proper friends) there is a habit of brandishing the fact of their guns (and ammo and ability and willingness to use both) in the face of those they disagree with or disapprove of. The ones I call friends probably don't even realize that their "gun talk" has a bullying undertone they don't recognize it is so "under". I have a plethora of anecdotes (really, me?) on this topic but the general theme seems to be to alert and remind others that they have the willingness and ability to assert their will through deadly force *at-a-distance*. These are not (just) varmint guns (e.g. .22 single-shot rifles suitable for exterminating nuisance rats, squirrels, gophers, skunks, bunnies, raccoons, and even coyotes and bobcats from a dozen yards away) or even "deer rifles" (small capacity, medium caliber, bolt action, possibly scoped, suitable for killing a medium sized animal from up to 100 yards away), but instead most often weapons designed for *modern* warfare variously with the potential for *very* high capacity magazines, rapid-fire shooting (even without a low-tech bump-stock), specialized ammunition (variously for piercing armor and/or causing extreme hydrostatic shock) and precision targeting at a great distance (high-velocity rounds, extreme optical magnification and even night-vision). When noted that such are not useful for any obvious *legal* or *sane* application, they stakes get raised to implying the need to "throw off government tyranny". My "local" police department (Pojoaque Pueblo) has all of these weapons as well, and more, including armored personnel carriers handed down from the military (yay?). They had them on prominent display for years but recently seem to have found a garage somewhere to keep them in, I doubt they have relinquished these "toys", I think I see them out for maintenance now and then. I don't
Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
I'm reminded of the quote "A month in the laboratory can often save an hour in the library." Mostly we are redundant. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 1:25 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant Yeah, OK. But both identifying/pushing-back against corruption and finding something useful to do depend on some sort of intersubjectivity ... some indoctrination into a shared psychology. And while I tend to agree *personally* with the others (here and at the pub) in their shouts of "Get off my lawn!", I can't help but think: Maybe the Gen-Z (and later) intersubjective shared state simply doesn't match *our* old people shared state. This Faith we have in the Truthiness and Rightness of *our* shared state (e.g. Enlightenment blahblah, meritocracy blahblah, equality of opportunity blahblah, buy a house and retire blahblah, get healthcare ... insurance ... through your nonexistent day job blahblah) is misplaced faith. And that shared state has been thoroughly falsified ... debunked with data from the world. Maybe we should work harder to adopt *their* shared state, rather than coercing them to adopt ours? On 12/13/21 1:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > An advantage of cracking down on fake news and minimizing the tit-for-tat is > so that average people can understand and to some extent participate in > government. > If things escalate to political violence and terrorism, then it is difficult > to make consensus decisions as conversations are often emotionally charged. > Another problem is that when people tune out -- because the conversations > about governance are so unproductive and chaotic -- then there is nothing to > push back against corruption.It isn't the violence per se that bothers > me, it is the never-ending cycle of it. And, like the tolerating the > intolerant, this always seems to end one way. > > A few years ago, I subscribed to CBS streaming because it was where I could > watch the latest Star Trek series. I'm a loyal Trekkie, but I find it > almost unwatchable. Why? For example, in recent episodes there is much > reflection by the crew on their feelings and their vulnerabilities. The > Gen-Z crewmembers seem particularly self-absorbed.The whole point of Trek > is to seek out life and new civilizations. It is not to examine internal > feelings during a crisis that could kill everyone. The crew has obligations > to the mission, and they act in good faith.What happened to the stoic > Spock or the detached Commander Data? This is how I am beginning to feel > about democracy in the U.S. Quit your bitching and find something useful to > do. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 12:14 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant > > It's interesting that you went to guns in response to court packing. > It's been in the news a lot with Newsom's response to SB8 and the > SCOTUS ruling: > https://www.vox.com/2021/12/12/22830625/newsom-california-guns-texas-a > bortion-law-supreme-court > > The whole category of adversarial policy-making evokes tit-for-tat, > maybe no longer the absolute optimum strategy, but still a good > candidate inside the fast, good, cheap triangle: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle > > Discussing this in parallel to the (not just Popper's) idea that > *criticism* is necessary for the modulation of metaphysical frames > seems telling. On the surface, tit-for-tat seems like a terrible way > to run the government ... gerrymander for your party because they'll > damn well gerrymander for their party ... appoint partisan hacks to > SCOTUS because you know they'll appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS ... > etc. But, really, maybe tit-for-tat is the BEST strategy for > governing? Take that you consistency hobgoblins, overly committed to > your Modernist [ptouie] paradigms. >8^D > > > On 12/13/21 10:36 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> Thanks for the link to this specific treatment of intolerance. In my youth, >> I was known to claim: "I am tolerant of everything except intolerance" which >> of course was at best aspirational and more likely just plain delusional. >> >> While it applies well and obviously to the "culture wars" somewhat unevenly >> but not without exemplary exceptions, it also seems to apply by extension >> to the elaborated context of the 2nd Amendment. As a "western man" raised >> on guns, guts and glory, I am comfortable around guns and know that they can >>
Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
Yeah, OK. But both identifying/pushing-back against corruption and finding something useful to do depend on some sort of intersubjectivity ... some indoctrination into a shared psychology. And while I tend to agree *personally* with the others (here and at the pub) in their shouts of "Get off my lawn!", I can't help but think: Maybe the Gen-Z (and later) intersubjective shared state simply doesn't match *our* old people shared state. This Faith we have in the Truthiness and Rightness of *our* shared state (e.g. Enlightenment blahblah, meritocracy blahblah, equality of opportunity blahblah, buy a house and retire blahblah, get healthcare ... insurance ... through your nonexistent day job blahblah) is misplaced faith. And that shared state has been thoroughly falsified ... debunked with data from the world. Maybe we should work harder to adopt *their* shared state, rather than coercing them to adopt ours? On 12/13/21 1:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > An advantage of cracking down on fake news and minimizing the tit-for-tat is > so that average people can understand and to some extent participate in > government. > If things escalate to political violence and terrorism, then it is difficult > to make consensus decisions as conversations are often emotionally charged. > Another problem is that when people tune out -- because the conversations > about governance are so unproductive and chaotic -- then there is nothing to > push back against corruption.It isn't the violence per se that bothers > me, it is the never-ending cycle of it. And, like the tolerating the > intolerant, this always seems to end one way. > > A few years ago, I subscribed to CBS streaming because it was where I could > watch the latest Star Trek series. I'm a loyal Trekkie, but I find it > almost unwatchable. Why? For example, in recent episodes there is much > reflection by the crew on their feelings and their vulnerabilities. The > Gen-Z crewmembers seem particularly self-absorbed.The whole point of Trek > is to seek out life and new civilizations. It is not to examine internal > feelings during a crisis that could kill everyone. The crew has obligations > to the mission, and they act in good faith.What happened to the stoic > Spock or the detached Commander Data? This is how I am beginning to feel > about democracy in the U.S. Quit your bitching and find something useful to > do. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 12:14 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant > > It's interesting that you went to guns in response to court packing. It's > been in the news a lot with Newsom's response to SB8 and the SCOTUS ruling: > https://www.vox.com/2021/12/12/22830625/newsom-california-guns-texas-abortion-law-supreme-court > > The whole category of adversarial policy-making evokes tit-for-tat, maybe no > longer the absolute optimum strategy, but still a good candidate inside the > fast, good, cheap triangle: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle > > Discussing this in parallel to the (not just Popper's) idea that *criticism* > is necessary for the modulation of metaphysical frames seems telling. On the > surface, tit-for-tat seems like a terrible way to run the government ... > gerrymander for your party because they'll damn well gerrymander for their > party ... appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS because you know they'll appoint > partisan hacks to SCOTUS ... etc. But, really, maybe tit-for-tat is the BEST > strategy for governing? Take that you consistency hobgoblins, overly > committed to your Modernist [ptouie] paradigms. >8^D > > > On 12/13/21 10:36 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> Thanks for the link to this specific treatment of intolerance. In my youth, >> I was known to claim: "I am tolerant of everything except intolerance" which >> of course was at best aspirational and more likely just plain delusional. >> >> While it applies well and obviously to the "culture wars" somewhat unevenly >> but not without exemplary exceptions, it also seems to apply by extension >> to the elaborated context of the 2nd Amendment. As a "western man" raised >> on guns, guts and glory, I am comfortable around guns and know that they can >> in fact be "useful tools" though less and less so in modern society and most >> especially for a vegetarian like myself. What I am *intolerant* of is >> their use as tools for bullying. Among my gun loving acquaintances (some >> to be called proper friends) there is a habit of brandishing the fac
Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
An advantage of cracking down on fake news and minimizing the tit-for-tat is so that average people can understand and to some extent participate in government. If things escalate to political violence and terrorism, then it is difficult to make consensus decisions as conversations are often emotionally charged. Another problem is that when people tune out -- because the conversations about governance are so unproductive and chaotic -- then there is nothing to push back against corruption.It isn't the violence per se that bothers me, it is the never-ending cycle of it. And, like the tolerating the intolerant, this always seems to end one way. A few years ago, I subscribed to CBS streaming because it was where I could watch the latest Star Trek series. I'm a loyal Trekkie, but I find it almost unwatchable. Why? For example, in recent episodes there is much reflection by the crew on their feelings and their vulnerabilities. The Gen-Z crewmembers seem particularly self-absorbed.The whole point of Trek is to seek out life and new civilizations. It is not to examine internal feelings during a crisis that could kill everyone. The crew has obligations to the mission, and they act in good faith.What happened to the stoic Spock or the detached Commander Data? This is how I am beginning to feel about democracy in the U.S. Quit your bitching and find something useful to do. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 12:14 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant It's interesting that you went to guns in response to court packing. It's been in the news a lot with Newsom's response to SB8 and the SCOTUS ruling: https://www.vox.com/2021/12/12/22830625/newsom-california-guns-texas-abortion-law-supreme-court The whole category of adversarial policy-making evokes tit-for-tat, maybe no longer the absolute optimum strategy, but still a good candidate inside the fast, good, cheap triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle Discussing this in parallel to the (not just Popper's) idea that *criticism* is necessary for the modulation of metaphysical frames seems telling. On the surface, tit-for-tat seems like a terrible way to run the government ... gerrymander for your party because they'll damn well gerrymander for their party ... appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS because you know they'll appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS ... etc. But, really, maybe tit-for-tat is the BEST strategy for governing? Take that you consistency hobgoblins, overly committed to your Modernist [ptouie] paradigms. >8^D On 12/13/21 10:36 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > Thanks for the link to this specific treatment of intolerance. In my youth, I > was known to claim: "I am tolerant of everything except intolerance" which of > course was at best aspirational and more likely just plain delusional. > > While it applies well and obviously to the "culture wars" somewhat unevenly > but not without exemplary exceptions, it also seems to apply by extension to > the elaborated context of the 2nd Amendment. As a "western man" raised on > guns, guts and glory, I am comfortable around guns and know that they can in > fact be "useful tools" though less and less so in modern society and most > especially for a vegetarian like myself. What I am *intolerant* of is their > use as tools for bullying. Among my gun loving acquaintances (some to be > called proper friends) there is a habit of brandishing the fact of their guns > (and ammo and ability and willingness to use both) in the face of those they > disagree with or disapprove of. The ones I call friends probably don't even > realize that their "gun talk" has a bullying undertone they don't recognize > it is so "under". > > I have a plethora of anecdotes (really, me?) on this topic but the > general theme seems to be to alert and remind others that they have the > willingness and ability to assert their will through deadly force > *at-a-distance*. These are not (just) varmint guns (e.g. .22 single-shot > rifles suitable for exterminating nuisance rats, squirrels, gophers, skunks, > bunnies, raccoons, and even coyotes and bobcats from a dozen yards away) or > even "deer rifles" (small capacity, medium caliber, bolt action, possibly > scoped, suitable for killing a medium sized animal from up to 100 yards > away), but instead most often weapons designed for *modern* warfare variously > with the potential for *very* high capacity magazines, rapid-fire shooting > (even without a low-tech bump-stock), specialized ammunition (variously for > piercing armor and/or causing extreme hydrostatic shock) and precision
Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
It's interesting that you went to guns in response to court packing. It's been in the news a lot with Newsom's response to SB8 and the SCOTUS ruling: https://www.vox.com/2021/12/12/22830625/newsom-california-guns-texas-abortion-law-supreme-court The whole category of adversarial policy-making evokes tit-for-tat, maybe no longer the absolute optimum strategy, but still a good candidate inside the fast, good, cheap triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle Discussing this in parallel to the (not just Popper's) idea that *criticism* is necessary for the modulation of metaphysical frames seems telling. On the surface, tit-for-tat seems like a terrible way to run the government ... gerrymander for your party because they'll damn well gerrymander for their party ... appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS because you know they'll appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS ... etc. But, really, maybe tit-for-tat is the BEST strategy for governing? Take that you consistency hobgoblins, overly committed to your Modernist [ptouie] paradigms. >8^D On 12/13/21 10:36 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > Thanks for the link to this specific treatment of intolerance. In my youth, I > was known to claim: "I am tolerant of everything except intolerance" which of > course was at best aspirational and more likely just plain delusional. > > While it applies well and obviously to the "culture wars" somewhat unevenly > but not without exemplary exceptions, it also seems to apply by extension to > the elaborated context of the 2nd Amendment. As a "western man" raised on > guns, guts and glory, I am comfortable around guns and know that they can in > fact be "useful tools" though less and less so in modern society and most > especially for a vegetarian like myself. What I am *intolerant* of is their > use as tools for bullying. Among my gun loving acquaintances (some to be > called proper friends) there is a habit of brandishing the fact of their guns > (and ammo and ability and willingness to use both) in the face of those they > disagree with or disapprove of. The ones I call friends probably don't even > realize that their "gun talk" has a bullying undertone they don't recognize > it is so "under". > > I have a plethora of anecdotes (really, me?) on this topic but the general > theme seems to be to alert and remind others that they have the willingness > and ability to assert their will through deadly force *at-a-distance*. > These are not (just) varmint guns (e.g. .22 single-shot rifles suitable for > exterminating nuisance rats, squirrels, gophers, skunks, bunnies, raccoons, > and even coyotes and bobcats from a dozen yards away) or even "deer rifles" > (small capacity, medium caliber, bolt action, possibly scoped, suitable for > killing a medium sized animal from up to 100 yards away), but instead most > often weapons designed for *modern* warfare variously with the potential for > *very* high capacity magazines, rapid-fire shooting (even without a low-tech > bump-stock), specialized ammunition (variously for piercing armor and/or > causing extreme hydrostatic shock) and precision targeting at a great > distance (high-velocity rounds, extreme optical magnification and even > night-vision). > When noted that such are not useful for any obvious *legal* or *sane* > application, they stakes get raised to implying the need to "throw off > government tyranny". My "local" police department (Pojoaque Pueblo) has all > of these weapons as well, and more, including armored personnel carriers > handed down from the military (yay?). They had them on prominent display > for years but recently seem to have found a garage somewhere to keep them in, > I doubt they have relinquished these "toys", I think I see them out for > maintenance now and then. > > I don't talk much with my gun-nut friends about their arsenals, I'm prone to > end up saying things like "Come the Apocalypse, while I don't own any guns, I > know lots of people who do, and where they keep them and whether they > actually properly secure them". This really raises hackles, so I don't even > start down that path. It all (including my implied threats) seems to be a > (re)assertion/corollary to "Might makes Right" which is obviously compelling > to the logic that builds and maintains bullies. > > The paradox of intolerance applies acutely to the reality of bullies... > > - Steve > > On 12/13/21 10:07 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: >> Pack the Court >> https://electoral-vote.com/#item-3 >> >> Don't pack the court: >> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3982144 >> >> This evokes the paradox of tolerance: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance >> >> As Trump et al have shown us, that sect of the right *will* pack the court >> when/if it suits them. Biden will probably decide *not* to make the attempt. >> But there will be no political will to pass a law *preventing* court >> pa
Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
Thanks for the link to this specific treatment of intolerance. In my youth, I was known to claim: "I am tolerant of everything except intolerance" which of course was at best aspirational and more likely just plain delusional. While it applies well and obviously to the "culture wars" somewhat unevenly but not without exemplary exceptions, it also seems to apply by extension to the elaborated context of the 2nd Amendment. As a "western man" raised on guns, guts and glory, I am comfortable around guns and know that they can in fact be "useful tools" though less and less so in modern society and most especially for a vegetarian like myself. What I am *intolerant* of is their use as tools for bullying. Among my gun loving acquaintances (some to be called proper friends) there is a habit of brandishing the fact of their guns (and ammo and ability and willingness to use both) in the face of those they disagree with or disapprove of. The ones I call friends probably don't even realize that their "gun talk" has a bullying undertone they don't recognize it is so "under". I have a plethora of anecdotes (really, me?) on this topic but the general theme seems to be to alert and remind others that they have the willingness and ability to assert their will through deadly force *at-a-distance*. These are not (just) varmint guns (e.g. .22 single-shot rifles suitable for exterminating nuisance rats, squirrels, gophers, skunks, bunnies, raccoons, and even coyotes and bobcats from a dozen yards away) or even "deer rifles" (small capacity, medium caliber, bolt action, possibly scoped, suitable for killing a medium sized animal from up to 100 yards away), but instead most often weapons designed for *modern* warfare variously with the potential for *very* high capacity magazines, rapid-fire shooting (even without a low-tech bump-stock), specialized ammunition (variously for piercing armor and/or causing extreme hydrostatic shock) and precision targeting at a great distance (high-velocity rounds, extreme optical magnification and even night-vision). When noted that such are not useful for any obvious *legal* or *sane* application, they stakes get raised to implying the need to "throw off government tyranny". My "local" police department (Pojoaque Pueblo) has all of these weapons as well, and more, including armored personnel carriers handed down from the military (yay?). They had them on prominent display for years but recently seem to have found a garage somewhere to keep them in, I doubt they have relinquished these "toys", I think I see them out for maintenance now and then. I don't talk much with my gun-nut friends about their arsenals, I'm prone to end up saying things like "Come the Apocalypse, while I don't own any guns, I know lots of people who do, and where they keep them and whether they actually properly secure them". This really raises hackles, so I don't even start down that path. It all (including my implied threats) seems to be a (re)assertion/corollary to "Might makes Right" which is obviously compelling to the logic that builds and maintains bullies. The paradox of intolerance applies acutely to the reality of bullies... - Steve On 12/13/21 10:07 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: Pack the Court https://electoral-vote.com/#item-3 Don't pack the court: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3982144 This evokes the paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance As Trump et al have shown us, that sect of the right *will* pack the court when/if it suits them. Biden will probably decide *not* to make the attempt. But there will be no political will to pass a law *preventing* court packing. So the moderate Dems won't pack the court. But they'll happily leave the option open to the next Republican administration. It's an excellent example of how tolerance eliminates tolerance by tolerating intolerance. .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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/
[FRIAM] tolerance of the intolerant
Pack the Court https://electoral-vote.com/#item-3 Don't pack the court: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3982144 This evokes the paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance As Trump et al have shown us, that sect of the right *will* pack the court when/if it suits them. Biden will probably decide *not* to make the attempt. But there will be no political will to pass a law *preventing* court packing. So the moderate Dems won't pack the court. But they'll happily leave the option open to the next Republican administration. It's an excellent example of how tolerance eliminates tolerance by tolerating intolerance. -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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/
