tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.comments2023-09-23T08:56:47.362-07:00Grime and ReasonUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-85096088476452119052022-11-26T01:49:09.066-08:002022-11-26T01:49:09.066-08:00Apprecciate your blog postApprecciate your blog postLakewood Home Staginghttps://www.staging-homes.com/us/stagers-california/lakewood-home-staging.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-78168858018472510292022-04-23T07:56:05.436-07:002022-04-23T07:56:05.436-07:00Great post thankksGreat post thankksRogerhttps://www.rogerspringer.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-18885546763053056462014-04-04T11:01:52.614-07:002014-04-04T11:01:52.614-07:00Thanks a lot thesis, it was a lot of fun researchi...Thanks a lot thesis, it was a lot of fun researching it (if you discount the horror of what you are reading. Going through a huge pile of declassified docs is just like an adventure story or something.Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-43459438539580969332013-10-02T09:41:29.040-07:002013-10-02T09:41:29.040-07:00Thanks for the reply. I don't doubt x does inf...Thanks for the reply. I don't doubt x does influence y here. That's part of the problem. What I reject is the study AND conclusions of political economy that is not founded on the correct scientific framework, namely complex adaptive systems. <br /><br />It isn't just the current orthodoxy of any particular country I object to. It is ALL established theories of political economy that have been incorporated as ruling ideologies.<br /><br />Regarding ideology-free debate. I regard it as a spectrum, and I think there is FAR more scope to head in the right direction. I would consider myself far more ideology-free than the majority, and the ideological constructs that are still apparent are sought out, examined, and recognised as the cultural pollution it is. Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-15369033030609315272013-08-31T10:00:46.341-07:002013-08-31T10:00:46.341-07:00I think you're confusing "political econo...I think you're confusing "political economy" (by your definition, 'the study and use of how economic theory and methods influences political ideology') with the current, orthodox theory which purports to be informed by political economy.<br />Your argument seems to reject "political economy" rather than what I think you mean, "the mainstream approach to the economy". To reject political economy is to reject the assertion that economic theory and methods have an influence on political ideology. <br />I don't think there's any doubt that x does influence y, the doubt should be in our current view of what exactly that influence is and how it works.<br />It sounds like you are rejecting the study of a field, because the field has come to wrong conclusions. Reject the conclusions, not the field.<br />Also, how can you even hope to illicit "ideology-free" debate? Unless you have an unusual definition of ideology, you must admit that one cannot be ideology-free.JSladdenhttp://facebook.com/JSladdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-45608283169396541132013-02-07T09:38:53.874-08:002013-02-07T09:38:53.874-08:00I'm glad you feel you can speak for what "...I'm glad you feel you can speak for what "the movement" needs. Not at all an indication of what I am talking about.<br />Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-4486548659382458522013-01-28T04:44:14.702-08:002013-01-28T04:44:14.702-08:00I am interested in dicussing this further, but I a...I am interested in dicussing this further, but I am tending to agree with the OP. <br /><br />Regulation is a response to organisations starting off with a free reign, and not using the opportunity to regulate themselves. There will always be groups which can manage themselves honestly, and also other groups who use an unregulated arena to take as much as they can, giving little back. Some regulation is neccesary, but too much is seen to be counter-productive to healthy competition.<br /><br />The problem, as I see it, is that deregulation is practically synonymous with less accountability. less accountability leads to riskier decision making; risk which is not borne by the risk takers.<br /><br />There are essays and studies regarding the effects of deregulation which seem quite interesting. <br /><br />B-Larnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-86930710007501207352012-09-11T16:46:21.425-07:002012-09-11T16:46:21.425-07:00Ben, add alonzo's recent Atheist Tribes, where...Ben, add alonzo's recent <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2012/09/atheist-tribes.html" rel="nofollow">Atheist Tribes</a>, wherein he says "I told you so".Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13748895633134916275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-53711248407450759872012-08-28T15:04:32.221-07:002012-08-28T15:04:32.221-07:00The non-formalised present of which you speak isn&...The non-formalised present of which you speak isn't fully what i hope to achieve though. Unspoken ideologies still create a naturally emerging formalisation e.g. Consider the proportion of influential skeptics who are vocally against neoliberal foreign policy compared to the global population. Extremely large discrepancy - that's not to provide a judgement one way or the other, merely to point out that our lack of diversity allows us to remain within the same fenced-garden of discourse, generating group-think which allows (particularly political) ideologies to remain unaddressed . Our shared culture outside of skepticism provides the undesigned formalisation that should be provided by a shared methodology. This will always lead to splits and conflict. Address these, and we can allow a fully non-formalised culture to develop. Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-77359173678083753862012-08-28T08:29:00.329-07:002012-08-28T08:29:00.329-07:00I think you've touched on the reason for the b...I think you've touched on the reason for the backlash over atheismplus. It's almost as if an evolutionary "non-formalized" process can be the only way (for now anyway) to achieve anything resembling a community. The atheismplus camp had the audacity to become exclusive (by design). They did not require consensus, they insisted on group-think. It's no wonder it ruffled so many feathers.Undoctrinatednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-71493054675422568852012-08-28T04:00:17.574-07:002012-08-28T04:00:17.574-07:00Thanks for the comment. I understand your point: i...Thanks for the comment. I understand your point: ideally these 'rules' wouldn't even be formalised, they would simply be how we act. In such a case, we could be content knowing that the sustainable community aspect of it would simply emerge "undesigned".<br /><br />This I feel is several evolutionary steps ahead of where we are now though. Working with what we've got (a society whose members are currently unable to escape exposure through their development to many sets of ideologies and unfounded beliefs), were we to want to consciously attempt to advance to such a stage I feel we would have to do it via a consensus method. If this limits the number who feel they can join, then so be it; numbers will grow over time through the example set by those who *have* consented to the rules.Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-73836979483120526172012-08-27T22:14:38.227-07:002012-08-27T22:14:38.227-07:00I admire your passion and the breadth of the thoug...I admire your passion and the breadth of the thought you've given to this. I very much agree with a few key points (devils advocacy, no taboos, wiki, etc.), while simultaneously missing the overall goal of a "community" that requires this degree of "structure" and or adherence to such a specific format. <br /><br />In my opinion, there will be no "official community" for atheists. I believe that Secular Humanism is about the closest we will see to such a community. That being said, I feel as if the merits of critical, rational, logical, reasonable, skeptical thought are self evident and beneficial to everyone, no matter the "community. Simply finding, testing, promoting and adhering to demonstrably effective processes that lead to the discovery and application of truth in an empathetic manner should be paramount.<br /><br />Thanks for the intellectual feast. I enjoyed it and will continue to "chew" on it.Undoctrinatednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-41223765357219724672012-08-25T00:02:08.119-07:002012-08-25T00:02:08.119-07:00Nice reply. I agree Steve, though the focus on rel...Nice reply. I agree Steve, though the focus on religion at the expense of politics (except where religion appears a motivating factor) is imo the most dangerous aspect of the group-think involved in the skeptical and atheist community. I seriously worry that as time goes by, it will be ever harder to ignore and become a source of constant conflict. As things stand, influential skeptical thinkers can't even agree whether skepticism is even applicable to politics! <br /><br />Regarding new dogma emerging, I think at this stage it is still almost inevitable. My own preference is for a community whose only *consesus derived* shared culture, the minimum entry requirements if you will, consist of optimally reduced axioms designed to do nothing more than to counter group-think and establish grounds for respectful debate. No conceptual 'content' should, imo, be made inviolable and dogmatic from the out-set: no taboos, nothing off the table. Such agreements must be the result of emergent consensus derived fron reasoned debate of the evidence.Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-73071910948606996372012-08-24T14:01:08.967-07:002012-08-24T14:01:08.967-07:00I don't disagree about the need for rational d...I don't disagree about the need for rational discourse, both amongst skeptics/atheists and with even the most aggressive and dogmatic theists. Regrettably I don't follow that advice with the latter group and often use Twitter to vent spleen I could not in face to face conversations.<br /><br />I find the sniping amongst atheists and agnostics about the minutia of how we define ourselves to be laughable and disturbing. Dogma in the making.<br /><br />I think even defining skepticism/atheism as a "movement" might be considered arrogant and dangerous. <br /><br />My sole position is that religion is, on balance, a negative influence on humanity with consequences that range up to and including global war and environmental Armageddon (with apologies for the religious imagery!). <br /><br />In that regard I am interested in empowering atheist and agnostic individuals to self-identify and make their voices heard since religious institutions have had free reign to vilify and create false images of "us" for centuries and since only in this way will we begin to have avoide in public policy and views.<br /><br />In summary, I agree that finding ways to promote and enable effective, rational and civil discourse will be beneficial to MY objective, I do not support the concept that there is or should be a broader movement of "rationalists" as our respective views and beliefs are too divergent, IMO, and it will lead to dogmas and orthodoxies like the ones most of us, I think, despise.<br /><br />Excellent article. Thanks for doing it!<br /><br />SteveShillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757363240305888767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-54303497298289557802012-08-24T11:36:39.196-07:002012-08-24T11:36:39.196-07:00There is still a hell of a lot of innovation still...There is still a hell of a lot of innovation still to come with regard to virtual tools for facilitating debate. What I really crave is a culture that embraces debates like rappers to battles, with an emphasis on etiquette, real-time audience-led facilitation with visual representation of crowd-sourced reactions to each argument and counter-argument... the possibilities are endless. <br /><br />When you consider what we lack currently: tone, body-language, structure, shared and applied rules... in a hundred years we will wonder how we managed to get through a single day without starting wars all over the place.<br /><br />Thanks for commenting btw you two!Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-83197804662888516622012-08-24T11:15:10.891-07:002012-08-24T11:15:10.891-07:00I was thinking shiny tech tools. For instance, the...I was thinking shiny tech tools. For instance, there are times that I dream of shunting all side conversations on to separate threads.<br /><br />Sometimes I'm sad that I can't mute, filter or block folks in real life. (I end up just leaving the room a lot if conversation gets too loud for me.)<br /><br />What real life really needs is a pause button.smhllnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-71833300859943170012012-08-23T22:10:24.439-07:002012-08-23T22:10:24.439-07:00Oh absolutely, though I don't really see the n...Oh absolutely, though I don't really see the need to distinguish between internet discourse and other discourse. Other than the internet needing much more work in that regard.Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-36970273061691878792012-08-23T19:21:22.017-07:002012-08-23T19:21:22.017-07:00Better internet discourse tools and better interne...Better internet discourse tools and better internet discourse manners would probably help us move towards better discourse.Smhllnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-69246518254778626552012-05-29T10:33:29.283-07:002012-05-29T10:33:29.283-07:00TBH, with the market-fundamentalist chicago school...TBH, with the market-fundamentalist chicago school of economics being central within neoliberal evolution, they are indistinguishable on economic grounds.<br /><br />Certainly having an SOB as dictator in chief aint great, but it isn't a separate issue. Oftentimes these dictators received support from the U.S. so that these reforms could be forced through, often for geo-political (stopping them going commie)as much as economic reasons.<br /><br />I aint no fan of government, neoliberal or not (in the same way I'm not a fan of corporations or organised religion). I fully accept their necessity *up till now* of course.. but I do not think that status should go unquestioned much longer. The longer we go, the more immoral and corrupt they become since they are not evolving at the same rate as civil society.<br /> <br />Were you to establish a government from scratch, using today's technologies, it would be utterly different to the current 18th century relics that are struggling to remain relevant.Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-75111444857167768812012-05-29T05:50:04.030-07:002012-05-29T05:50:04.030-07:00See, I would consider the idea of the viewing the ...See, I would consider the idea of the viewing the "free-market" (in pedant-quotes b/c there's really no such thing IMO as a "free" market) as a panacea is more a "market fundamentalist" perspective than a "neoliberal" perspective. But regardless, i tend to agree, but there's definitely an overwhelming amount of evidence that there's a benefit to reducing government involvement in the economy to an extent. <br /><br />It's like most things in life - i.e. it's a balancing act. Too little "G" in the macro economic equation is bad, as is too much. <br /><br />The correct ratio seems to depend largely on the type of government you're dealing with. i.e. it has to be fine tuned to based on the country you're dealing w/. <br /><br />In the USA, our central government was designed to be a loosely organized, inefficient mess, and therefore I think the ideal level of government involvement here is relatively less than in Europe (government spending of around 20% of GDP seems to be ideal in my estimation). <br /><br />Whereas in Europe, where you have smaller, more concentrated population masses and stronger central governments, I'd say the ideal level of governemtn spending would be closer to 30-35% of GDP. <br />That's just my own rough estimate though.<br /><br />As for third world hegemony based on neoliberal ideology (e.g. Pinochet in Chile), I'd say that there was some undeniable economic growth as a result, but there was also a lot of suffering and injustice (i.e. atrocities). But that could be due more to having an SOB as dictator in chief than economic freedom...skepoliticalhttp://www.skepolitical.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-76046922098622232842012-05-28T15:08:24.534-07:002012-05-28T15:08:24.534-07:00A working definition of neoliberal here would be t...A working definition of neoliberal here would be the form of democratic governance seen in the west pretty much since Reagan and Thatcher, that is ideologically bound to the idea of the free-market as a panacea.<br /><br />Economically they follow the theories of Friedman, and through the neoliberal IMF force foreign countries to open their markets to US companies, privatise all sectors and slash all public welfare. It is a one-size-fits-all approach with zero evidential success. Indeed, it has led to many a dictatorial ruler being supported in order to implement these plans.<br /><br /> Theoretically framed in such a way as to invoke its benefits to the greater good, there is no evidence to suggest this is true. Inequality has skyrocketed the whole time.Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-38538388819125439802012-05-25T06:10:54.321-07:002012-05-25T06:10:54.321-07:00I agree with the gist this post and there is a lot...I agree with the gist this post and there is a lot to talk about here, but I'm not sure I understand exactly what neoliberalism is, or what you mean it to mean. Not to say you haven't made a cogent point, it's just that neoliberalism is one of those words that seems to mean different things to different people. Like "post-modernim" or avant garde. what exactly do those words mean?skepoliticalhttp://www.skepolitical.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-28221547832750330802012-02-10T06:13:27.998-08:002012-02-10T06:13:27.998-08:00I grew up in Papua New Guinea on what I refer to a...I grew up in Papua New Guinea on what I refer to as the "free side".<br />More interestingly I am a direct line descendant of Captain John Parker of Lexington fame through my grandmother who was a Parker. I don't believe the author needs to have credentials. His report is one of the most accurate I have read to date on the oppression of the indigenous people of West New Guinea! I am currently working with my local congressman in Ohio to get attention to the huge injustice which our country shares a huge responsiblility for. Our Revolutionary Forefathers would role over in their graves if they saw the injustice we have caused against a free nation who desired nothing more than the same independence our own forefathers fought and died for! Henry Kissenger who played one of the largest roles in this injustice has 5 other nations holding 5 arrest warrants for him for his part in other injustices! around the world. He is an evil man who has through his foreign diplomacy efforts killed thousands of innocent people in different countries. He sits on the Board of Directors to the largest gold mine in the world which happens to be in the same country he sold out their right to self rule. His brother is the law firm representing the mine which has been accused of human rights violations and the deaths of over 200 indigenous people! In one human rights report this gold mine locked some of the indigenous men in steel shipping containters for an entire week, this is in a country that commonly experiences afternoon temperatures over 100 degrees at times. Needless to say the internal temperature of those containers would well exceed 100 degrees and those men would never be the same after this torture applied by that gold mine! This mine has polluted the river all the way to the sea and the results of this pollution are visible on Google! If this mine was operating in the United States the owner would be arrested for the extent of this environmental damage had it occured here! The irony here is that the owner of the mine lives here in the U.S. and is a citizen of the U.S. He lives in Denver, Colorado and should be arrested for human rights abuses perpertrated by his mine!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-87078902226535478222011-11-15T14:39:51.419-08:002011-11-15T14:39:51.419-08:00Isn't special pleading where you claims untest...Isn't special pleading where you claims untestable extenuating circumstances for every failure? <br /><br />Ideology - wiki: "...or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society"<br /><br />Libertarian? Isn't that like calling in a priest to answer my questions on why it isn't scientifically based? Why not a skeptic? Oh, yeah... tried that.<br /><br />You were right about that blog... I will read it but first point is wrong straight off the bat. No one committed a crime? Then why have the Goldman and Citigroup settled a string of cases, despite clear evidence of intentional fraud? A Judge has questionned the latest Citigroup one as preposterous given the evidence... were the will there (i.e. the double-standards in application of the law), people could have, and should have, been in prison. That's the point.Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-70021121254514288582011-11-15T08:57:13.722-08:002011-11-15T08:57:13.722-08:00I don't see how something with such far-reachi...I don't see how something with such far-reaching consequences as mortgage mandates could be considered "special pleading". It seems to me that you are applying a double-standard to evidence. <br /><br />As I said, I am not interested in discussing this further. Please ask a knowledgeable Libertarian to discuss it with you. They do exist, I just don't happen to be one of them as I don't believe that their solutions are any better or less oversimplified than those of other parties. I've said what I wanted to say.badrescherhttp://icbseverywhere.comnoreply@blogger.com