site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 213 results for

domain:web.law.duke.edu

It’s more along the general theme of Galt’s pirate radio speech in Atlas Shrugged.

I don't understand why you kept putting classical liberal in quotation marks.

I'm pretty adjacent to classical liberals. It might be the second or third term I describe myself with (an-cap and libertarian being the other words). I feel it necessary to respond to your descriptions of classical liberals.

"Classical liberals" like to hit sentimental ideologues with cold hard facts.

This is a fun thing to do. I think I liked doing it before I was ever an-cap/classical liberal/libertarian. Back then it was arguing evolution vs creationism with people in myspace groups. But other people like Ben Shapiro are not classical liberals, and that is like his whole shtick. The classical liberals are also sentimental about quite a few things, Adam Smith, the founding fathers, the enlightenment, etc. So I'd call this a weird and mostly uncorrelated description of classical liberals.

A true "classical liberal" would treat his ideas the same way he treats everyone else's, as hypotheses to be tested against reality.

I'd say that is more of the rationalist's shtick. Its again another weird description where it sorta fits, but fits other groups better, and also doesn't fit in some glaring cases. Most classical liberals will point to American and Britain in the late 1700s and 1800s as sort of shining beacon examples. They do in fact happily and openly privilege ideas coming out of those time periods.

"Academic freedom" sounds good and all, but what happens when it's implemented in real-world universities? As the "classical liberals" freely admit, the results are often not stellar. So what's their solution? Doesn't seem they have one.

The results have not been stellar, but they've also been fighting back against it longer than conservatives have even been aware that it is a problem. FIRE is one such organization. They have also carried out and implemented their solution. Classical liberals generally outnumber conservatives in the university. Ya they are both super outnumbered by liberals and the left. But the libertarianish/classical liberal guys have go on a targetted campaign to develop stellar academics and an academic support network that can allow their own to survive in an otherwise hostile environment. Do they have society wide solution for the problem? No, of course not, they don't have society wide power to even think about implementing such a thing. That is for the conservatives to carry out. But there is no point in trading one enemy for another.


Haidt seems to object not to the specifics of what DeSantis did, but to the notion that any radical changes could be made to even a single college unless they're driven from within the academic caste.

Quick aside: I hope you don't think Haidt is a classical liberal, here is a quote from the man:

"But it’s also that once I switched my research over from culture to politics, and once I began criticizing the ideas on the Left and the Democratic Party — for many years I was doing it to try to help them win."

He calls himself a political centrist these days, but I still think he is mostly a democrat that thinks the democrats went a little too far. Either way he is not a classical liberal.


There's nothing "classically liberal" about the notion that an institution is entitled to receive money from the taxpayer while not being accountable to said taxpayers' elected representatives. But that's the "classical liberal" brain-worm.

You are right in the first sentence. It is certainly not classical liberal. Which is why most classical liberals don't like it. Most classical liberals do not think universities should be subsidized at all. You'll find some that are sort of adjacent to classical liberals that think basic research should be funded (Tyler Cowen). But anyone with an ounce of understanding of economics can realize that education is a private good, and that private goods are handled just fine by markets. It misses the mark so badly that I can't help but think maybe you are again talking about some other group. Until I read your last few paragraphs, and you seem to have understood their actual ideology all along.

I don't know who you are reading that is calling themself a classical liberal. I'd read these guys if you want an actual example of classical liberals examining higher education: https://www.amazon.com/Cracks-Ivory-Tower-Higher-Education/dp/0190846283

God dammit. I was planning to head back home for a few weeks and now I'm genuinely worried about flights being canceled. Guess I'll just have to take the risk.

First the terrorist attack in Kashmir that my family missed by a few hours, now this. Can't catch a break.

What would be the ideal solution is to not use colleges as the source of knowledge and government policy. If you no longer have direct access to the ear of the king, the position no longer is useful for pushing ideology. If journalists investigated beyond just quoting the first professor they come across, again, it’s not useful to push ideology. At that point, the academy goes back to being a place where you do dispassionate research and teach students how to think for themselves.

So they just sit there doing what exactly? Universities have always produces knowledge and influenced government policy. They do in Korea and Mexico as well. They aren't captured by woke there because woke isn't a salient interest, but AFAIK they are captured institutions that are out of touch with the mainstream citizens of those countries.

There's nothing "classically liberal" about the notion that an institution is entitled to receive money from the taxpayer while not being accountable to said taxpayers' elected representatives. But that's the "classical liberal" brain-worm.

I 100% agree with this. There is no constitutional right for progressives to have their ideology subsidized by taxpayers, which is what has been happening to the tune of trillions of dollars over the last 3+ decades. This is one of those "sniff tests" so called centrists need to pass. If you can't comprehend that there is no free speech at modern universities, there hasn't been, and we need to force them 10 steps right before there will be a chance for free speech at universities, you just have missed the mark.

Another (right now) is if someone uses "woke right" unironically. If you are talking about the "woke right" you have fundamentally misunderstood the world. The actual woke was Google and Harvard discriminating against white men openly. They still are doing it, just a little less openly. The "woke right" is frogs on twitter, they have no hope of doing anything. If the right won for 20 years in the institutions then, perhaps, there would be reasonable reasons to worry about overreach by right wing extremists. As of now it is frankly laughable.

And this is the logic they use to justify it. Not "here's evidence of it" but "maybe it could be true."

Typically there's the belief that he was a philanderer and a cheat, but had a conversion experience.

At the very least, a near-death experience has been known to have that effect before. I wouldn't rule it out.

Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”

"My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many."

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

There are many evangelicals who believe that Trump is the fulfillment of some sort of prophecy.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FCGfE9yMnXc

AI DESTROYS THE HUGOS!!!

Okay, that's totally a clickbait title and not really accurate. But hey, it's not as high stakes as a potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, or Trump's tariffs, or even whether or not polyamory is ruining society, but it's my beat: nerdy sci-fi bullshit.

It's a year beginning with a 2, which means there is drama over this year's WorldCon.

What is WorldCon?

We're all nerds here, but I know not all of us are SFF nerds, so for @2rafa and the handful of others who'd never lower themselves to reading shit with elves, WorldCon is the annual science fiction convention, held in a different city every year, that awards the Hugos, at one time considered the most prestigious award in science fiction. The drama and controversies over past WorldCons and Hugo Awards have been enumerated here often; at this point, as my lede says, it's practically an annual tradition. I don't collect links but maybe if you ask @gattsuru nicely he'll post some of the past dirt.

Usually these controversies are something Culture War-related. The Hugos are widely perceived to have gone fully Woke, and I must admit that I am one of those heavy SF readers who not only no longer cares much about the Hugos, whereas at one time I would have at least checked out the latest Hugo winner, I now consider them to be almost an anti-recommendation.

Just to give you an idea of the state of the Hugos: it's been ten years since a man won the Hugo for best novel (Cixin Liu and his translator Ken Liu (no relation) for The Three-Body Problem in 2015), and most years since then have seen between 0 and 2 men even nominated. This year actually features three men on the ballot (including Adrian Tchaikovsky nominated twice)! I'm rooting for Tchaikovsky since I actually read his books but, well, John Scalzi is the last white guy to get a Hugo, in 2013 (for one of his worst novels, Redshirts).

So anyway, technically this year's drama is not (so far) about the Hugos themselves, but about WorldCon (which this year is being held in Seattle).

What did they do this time?

Short version: They used ChatGPT to vet WorlCon panelists. Several WorldCon committee members resigned in protest, and the list of authors and other program participants doing likewise is growing.

https://file770.com/seattle-worldcon-2025-hugo-administrators-and-wsfs-division-head-resign/

https://www.patreon.com/posts/128296070

https://slashdot.org/story/25/05/06/0139251/hugo-administrators-resign-in-wake-of-chatgpt-controversy

https://gizmodo.com/worldcon-2025-chatgpt-controversy-hugos-2000598351

Longer version: Reportedly there were as many as 1300 people applying to participate in various WorldCon programs this year: this would be book signings, readings, panels, workshops, etc. Obviously not everyone who wants to be on a panel can be, and WorldCon has to be selective about who it invites. The vetting is done by volunteers, and researching 1300 people must be pretty time consuming; apparently they had the bright idea of using ChatGPT do a search and summary of all prospective participants as a "first pass."

I assume they mostly want to weed out obvious crazies and literal Nazis and pedos, but given that WorldCon skews very woke nowadays, the vetting almost certainly includes looking for any "problematic" public statements or other transgressions in someone's background that might lead to a Cancellation or Drama.

Honestly, using an LLM to summarize and categorize your list of randos seems like a pretty good use of AI to me. Supposedly all final decisions were made by humans, but nonetheless, the concom is imploding.

If you're unaware, most artists and authors hate AI. This has also been covered extensively in past CW threads, but the stated reason for the disdain towards AI is that authors' and artists' work was "stolen" to train LLMs without compensation, but there is also a very real fear of being replaced.

This generalized antipathy has basically been extended to any use of AI at all, so even though the WorldCon committee is insisting there has been no use of generative AI, no final decisions made by AI, and that AI has nothing to do with any Hugo nominations or decisions, people are still Very Very Angry that it was used at all.

If you read the commentary, it's not just general AI-hate (though there is plenty of that), but also concern that the LLMs might have made Problematic Decisions. Obviously, people are bringing up hallucinations (what if ChatGPT made up a racist Twitter post?) and the possibility of false negatives, but, there is also concern about false positives. What if ChatGPT missed something Problematic? Again, supposedly humans were supposed to make the final decisions, but cynically, I think they're worried that ChatGPT might approve too many cishetwhitemales. Also much outrage at "Entering private data into an AI without permission" (i.e., typing someone's name into ChatGPT and asking it to do an Internet search).

This isn't as juicy as past WorldCon/Hugo dramas, but it's very Current Year. I cannot help finding it ironic that we're now at a place where science fiction fans are demanding that we ban AI tools.

Are you Catholic? And if so: were you raised by and around other Catholics?

Being offended by this seems really forced to me. I wonder if the people taking offense just come from a different culture?

Every Catholic I have asked in person has said some variation of this.

I think non Catholics have a really difficult time modeling the way that Catholics actually think about stuff.

Relatedly, there was a poster here who once explained that the main rationale for the separation of church and state was not to improve governance of the state, but to protect the church from the corrupting influence of power. Blew my mind at the time but makes total sense now.

For context, I am a cradle Coptic Orthodox in Canada.

This is the disconnect. I’m talking about the Eastern Orthodox communion, not the Oriental Orthodox communion. They have very different tenors and cultures, and the Eastern Orthodox church in the United States is having a bit of a moment right now where it’s expanding massively due to conversions from Protestantism, and more rarely Roman Catholicism. For what it’s worth, I’ve always found the Coptic Orthodox to be pious, humble, and friendly, both online and in person. (And St. Mark Coptic Orthodox church in Toronto is one of the most beautiful churches I've ever seen photos of!)

This is quite funny since your name is Pigeon.

Honestly, your experience doesn't match mine at all. For context, I am a cradle Coptic Orthodox in Canada. From my experience, most converts are either converts through marriage or through outreach on the part of Orthodox parishioners. Maybe its because Canada is more catholic, but I do not think I have ever seen a, as you say, "intellectual, introverted, evangelical, college-educated man" convert.

You characterize Orthodox parishioners as "odd" or "hippies", and priests as "intellectuals". This does not match my experience at all. Are there one or two crackpots? Sure, but what organization doesn't? The vast majority of parishioners where I'm from are perfectly normal members of society. The young people in Orthodox churches are even more approachable; they go to the same universities, work the same jobs, go to the same parties, do the same things for fun. The priests are nice, welcoming, and secularly educated. I feel that you've approached orthodoxy from an intellectual paradigm, and that's coloured your perception of the orthodox community. From my perspective, most Orthodox are normal western people, who just happen to be Orthodox. The median introduction to Orthodoxy is from an average young adult introducing their partner/friends to the Church, who play up the history and "connectedness" of the church to society and history in general.

You've mentioned that Orthodox communities seem like social clubs. I'd like to point out that it seems like that because Orthodox churches in the homeland actually are social clubs. They basically operate as NGOs that offer social services, and act as community centers.

Also, you've mentioned that joining an Orthodox church often feels like you're giving up your own culture. Sadly, I agree. Preferably, an indigenous Orthodox Church of America would be established that represents the culture, history and ethos of America. Unfortunately, establishing such a church is a centuries endeavor.

Hmm you make it sound so nice, but idk man. I still have a lot of trouble squaring the religious proscription toward monogamy with casual sex with an extramarital partner.

A true "classical liberal" would treat his ideas the same way he treats everyone else's, as hypotheses to be tested against reality. "Academic freedom" sounds good and all, but what happens when it's implemented in real-world universities? As the "classical liberals" freely admit, the results are often not stellar. So what's their solution? Doesn't seem they have one. Referring to DeSantis's takeover of the New College of Florida, Jonathan Haidt wrote that, "I am horrified that a governor has simply decided, on his own, to radically change a college. Even if this is legal, it is unethical, and it is a very bad precedent and omen for our country."[2] Haidt seems to object not to the specifics of what DeSantis did, but to the notion that any radical changes could be made to even a single college unless they're driven from within the academic caste. There's nothing "classically liberal" about the notion that an institution is entitled to receive money from the taxpayer while not being accountable to said taxpayers' elected representatives. But that's the "classical liberal" brain-worm.

I’m not convinced that “academic freedom” failed. We had university-like institutions across the globe for millennia. The philosophy schools of Greece, the Confucian schools, medieval universities. Even in modern times, it’s possible to have universities without them becoming captured. How many woke professors are there in Korean universities? Or Mexican universities? It doesn’t appear that this is universally true of universities with academic freedom. In fact, for most of history, colleges were not especially woke.

On the other hand, in America, universities have two direct lines to power. First, their research directly affects public policy as government cites research and the professors who do it. This means that any ideology injected into universities will eventually be reflected in government policy. Second is that the press will cite these things often without criticism, thus injecting the ideas directly into the veins of culture. Both of these things make American universities ideal for ideological purposes. It’s an easy way to get your ideas to be accepted as received wisdom by the masses whether or not they happen to be true.

What would be the ideal solution is to not use colleges as the source of knowledge and government policy. If you no longer have direct access to the ear of the king, the position no longer is useful for pushing ideology. If journalists investigated beyond just quoting the first professor they come across, again, it’s not useful to push ideology. At that point, the academy goes back to being a place where you do dispassionate research and teach students how to think for themselves.

This says something important about communication of conservative ideologies, though I'm not entirely sure what, and perhaps says even more about the terribleness of ideologies that are able to win within the attention economy.

I think the problem is that the attention economies cater to what people want to hear, instead of what they need to hear.

Does China even have much IP to steal? The key to their success primarily seems to be 'maximize inputs (skilled labour, R&D talent, state support) and throughput efficiency (massive industrial scale, quick manufacturing/prototyping stage, cheap energy)' rather than 'discover special secrets that let you achieve qualitatively higher quality products'.

The US knows the 'secrets' of building the Three Gorges Dam or Huawei or BYD. You just need a huge amount of concrete and construction workforce and the freedom to move whole cities out of the flooded areas. Or you just need a huge, clever, motivated workforce, cheap energy and well-targeted long-term state support. The US has versions of Huawei/BYD in the Magnificent Seven but struggles at the cost-efficiency stage due to lacking the needed inputs at the necessary scale.

China State Shipbuilding Corporation is just worlds ahead of the US, you'd need a Meiji Revolution to match them there, the necessary inputs just don't exist in America. There's no secret - big shipyards go brrr and produce a third of the world's ships... but replicating it is quite impossible for the US.

I heard it was a Mirage 2000...

Ha! One more for the list then. It's still possible that no aircraft was shot down at all, too.

Hypothetically, if India were to blow its hot nuclear load on Pakistan—in which case, as you mentioned, it would likely suffer the worst disaster in history—would India then have the (nuclear or conventional) wherewithal to prevent, say, a Chinese invasion of the contested northeastern borderlands? Or other violations of its territorial integrity?

If not, this may be reason enough for India not to pursue escalation to nuclear war, even if a nuclear exchange with Pakistan would technically be survivable.

If she's having fun with the new hot guy but didn't think you'd find a possible replacement for her

Sure, but now you're into the "this is just cheating with extra steps" failure mode.

Note that this is a failure mode because "being poly" is being used as a weapon/to get one over on the original partner and not actually in that partner's best interest at all. But then again, it's that [attitude], and not necessarily the object-level, killing the relationship; other than shits and giggles/not actually liking the partner I don't understand why anyone would do this.