If you have arguments, make them. What is your explanation of the sudden shift in Democrats' view of Biden? Was his condition much worse on June 27th than in the previous months? If not, was a problem obvious to viewers of the debate not seen by high status Democrats who observed Biden at first hand over the previous months and knew others who did so?
If it wasn't a preference falsification cascade, what was it? Most the leadership of a party reversing their view of who should be president in less than a month requires an explanation.
The problem I have is with your conclusion paragraph that asserts things about woke orthodoxy and DEI being merely a social contagion.
We have the records of right wing activists themselves, Rufo mainly just outright detailing how he would weaponize various terms like Critical Race Theory and DEI and broadly associate the entire left with a very loose mish mash of just stuff that is kind of meh.
Your usage of those terms is a social contagion phenomenon although it is very much contrived. No one even cared about DEI until like 2 years ago and now it is one of the core problems of our time. How real the issue is in your mind is totally manufactured.
I have another explanation for the current gnashing of teeth about the oppressor/oppressed framework and woke in general that people on your side hardly grapple with. It is a natural and atavistic framework. I see people generate these large tweet threads about oppressor/oppressed framework at the core of wokism and we utterly evil/destructive it is. Then, a couple of tweets later they will use the same framework implicitly to cheer on the Denver Nuggets to beat the Lakers or Jon Snow to kick Ramsey Bolton's ass because they are underdogs.
I checked my old blog for references to DEI and Woke. No references to DEI more than two years ago but multiple negative references to "woke" going back more than four years. References to "affirmative action" and "diversity," earlier euphemisms for racial preferences, go back more than seventeen years. So I don't think my concern with these issues is due to Rufo.
Are you arguing that support for DEI is not, as Albatross described it, a position that rose very rapidly to orthodoxy? That it doesn't have significant effects? That it did rise fast but the reason was new and convincing arguments for it? I'm not sure what substance of my argument you are disagreeing with.
DEI effects are assertions. No one has ever done any work to demonstrate a material impact on the economy. My general intuition of a white male having to go to BU versus Columbia is of insignificant importance to the economy. It mostly hits on our animal fairness/justice instincts.
Yes, I am claiming this is a contrived issue with very little effect on the "economy". It is in a class of things like, "whatever happened to MS-13" right wing issues.
So you are not disagreeing with anything either I or Albatross wrote. The post wasn't about DEI, it was about preference falsification and its collapse.
You just want to record your disagreement with his, and my, opposition to DEI.
Aside from the effect on college admissions, do you think the existence of an orthodoxy in college employment, requiring that one hold certain political views in order to be hired as a professor, might have undesirable effects, in particular make it harder to discover errors in the current orthodoxy?
It seems you are describing more than preference falsification in you are characterizing aggregate preferences, what is weakly believed, what is true/false, and which ones can be falsified... Your characterization is wholly different than mine. I see very little importance in the world of affirmative action, DEI, or woke. I consider those issues trivial.
I don't think political views are that important for professordom. I don't think they are that important to firms as well. In your abstract version of errors and orthodoxy; I want all this demonstrated first. The claims on DEI and woke; your side is making the extreme claims with almost no evidence and mostly sounds like "I just don't like it".
Bryan Caplan just made some post about DEI has been working because firms have the "slack" to implement bad policy. There's been a litany of posts attacking him with some argumentation that he would use liberally when it fits stuff he likes: which border on EMH the market has spoken, the easiest explanation is it is efficient, you aren't smarter than firms or the market
I'm sorry, but this whole post was just boomer conservative in a nutshell.
You are talking about others as if they are totally empty vessels, but I think you are.
If you have arguments, make them. What is your explanation of the sudden shift in Democrats' view of Biden? Was his condition much worse on June 27th than in the previous months? If not, was a problem obvious to viewers of the debate not seen by high status Democrats who observed Biden at first hand over the previous months and knew others who did so?
If it wasn't a preference falsification cascade, what was it? Most the leadership of a party reversing their view of who should be president in less than a month requires an explanation.
The problem I have is with your conclusion paragraph that asserts things about woke orthodoxy and DEI being merely a social contagion.
We have the records of right wing activists themselves, Rufo mainly just outright detailing how he would weaponize various terms like Critical Race Theory and DEI and broadly associate the entire left with a very loose mish mash of just stuff that is kind of meh.
Your usage of those terms is a social contagion phenomenon although it is very much contrived. No one even cared about DEI until like 2 years ago and now it is one of the core problems of our time. How real the issue is in your mind is totally manufactured.
I have another explanation for the current gnashing of teeth about the oppressor/oppressed framework and woke in general that people on your side hardly grapple with. It is a natural and atavistic framework. I see people generate these large tweet threads about oppressor/oppressed framework at the core of wokism and we utterly evil/destructive it is. Then, a couple of tweets later they will use the same framework implicitly to cheer on the Denver Nuggets to beat the Lakers or Jon Snow to kick Ramsey Bolton's ass because they are underdogs.
I checked my old blog for references to DEI and Woke. No references to DEI more than two years ago but multiple negative references to "woke" going back more than four years. References to "affirmative action" and "diversity," earlier euphemisms for racial preferences, go back more than seventeen years. So I don't think my concern with these issues is due to Rufo.
Are you arguing that support for DEI is not, as Albatross described it, a position that rose very rapidly to orthodoxy? That it doesn't have significant effects? That it did rise fast but the reason was new and convincing arguments for it? I'm not sure what substance of my argument you are disagreeing with.
DEI effects are assertions. No one has ever done any work to demonstrate a material impact on the economy. My general intuition of a white male having to go to BU versus Columbia is of insignificant importance to the economy. It mostly hits on our animal fairness/justice instincts.
Yes, I am claiming this is a contrived issue with very little effect on the "economy". It is in a class of things like, "whatever happened to MS-13" right wing issues.
So you are not disagreeing with anything either I or Albatross wrote. The post wasn't about DEI, it was about preference falsification and its collapse.
You just want to record your disagreement with his, and my, opposition to DEI.
Aside from the effect on college admissions, do you think the existence of an orthodoxy in college employment, requiring that one hold certain political views in order to be hired as a professor, might have undesirable effects, in particular make it harder to discover errors in the current orthodoxy?
It seems you are describing more than preference falsification in you are characterizing aggregate preferences, what is weakly believed, what is true/false, and which ones can be falsified... Your characterization is wholly different than mine. I see very little importance in the world of affirmative action, DEI, or woke. I consider those issues trivial.
I don't think political views are that important for professordom. I don't think they are that important to firms as well. In your abstract version of errors and orthodoxy; I want all this demonstrated first. The claims on DEI and woke; your side is making the extreme claims with almost no evidence and mostly sounds like "I just don't like it".
Bryan Caplan just made some post about DEI has been working because firms have the "slack" to implement bad policy. There's been a litany of posts attacking him with some argumentation that he would use liberally when it fits stuff he likes: which border on EMH the market has spoken, the easiest explanation is it is efficient, you aren't smarter than firms or the market
Por que no los dos?