Bits lifted from here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/103840576618549598514/posts/R374FkRcZ4y?cfem=1
First off, these debates help me stress test and sharpen my code so to speak. Thank you. I’m aware of the effort it takes on your part and I appreciate it. This is Always true of every debate I have. I just get tired of saying it even if I’ve never said it to you before.
Sidenote: I’m not repeating myself, I’m shining light on multiple touches or points of overlap from a single truth. Think venn diagrams. It’s like fixing a watch, one missing gear can ruin 30 adjacent systems. When I link to the same thing over and over, that’s because I’m trying to insert the missing part that addresses those 30 adjacent systems, not repeating myself 30 times. Savvy?
“Way to take the whole argument out of context.”
No, when you argue at this scale of social policy there is more context than what is apparently intuitive. You are missing that in the same way you are missing the meaning of scale. What is possible for a handful of people can be perfectly impossible for the species/culture as a whole or put another way, at the scale level above. That is where this debate must be had and that’s where I’m having it.
The policy that works in your back yard is not by definition viable for all back yards.
“it’s about the net force of the state, in respect to its citizens .”
You don’t get to just arbitrarily exclude non-citizens from the discussion when you’re talking about national, let alone global, policy.
I’m talking about the state plus those it interacts with et al. Not some hyper specific game theory scenario with highly constrained sets of participants.
“+Brandon Sergent’s writing is way too unfocused…”
By design. The point isn’t pithy bumper stickers, the point is to borrow a phrase “The accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment.“
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me ‘Bob’
If you want to datamine my work for pithy one liners be my guest.
Anything can be argued no matter how absurd. That’s why critical thinking and debate are skills that must be learned. Your ability to argue (as opposed to debate) with me doesn’t demonstrate anything.
“When I said he’s not a good writer, I mean he skips around a lot.”
That’s an illusion caused by unspoken context. I assure you there is logical connection and flow to my thoughts, it’s just that the hyper linear nature of language sometimes betrays that when applied to the fuzzy, massively parallel, and non-linear nature of reality.
Plus I’m a bastard who is a little insane with a fairly short temper. But I balance that with not holding grudges and being ultra-willing to reconsider my views in the face of evidence. It’s easy to make peace with me so long as you have intellectual spine. (Not even ability, just courage. I’m not an ivory tower dweller.)
“…when it’s conveyed linearly, and avoids repeating or rehashing points.”
Agreed, but again that’s a PR/stylistic concern. If you would like to paraphrase/datamine my work, I would be more than pleased. I’ve heard that kind of admonition my whole life. My goal is not to persuade (though I admit that was the initial hope) but to inform.
Think of me as the raw data, and what you’re talking about is a tidy chart. One which I lack the skill to create because if I had a brain conducive to said skill I would lose the ability to produce the data in the first place. They are I suspect mutually exclusive.
“My comparison to Nietzsche was for this reason– while Nietzsche’s writing is world famous and the subject of a great deal of analysis and debate, it’s also notorious for being difficult to read, understand, and interpret.”
I accept that backhanded compliment in the spirit in which it was given. I completely agree (about the difficulty.) My work is a chainsaw, not a scalpel. But then again I’m aiming it at redwoods, not blades of grass.
“…indeed, longer than I ever thought possible.” (http://underlore.com/an-argument-in-favor-of-the-state/)
Over 37,000 words when you include the quoted bits. Believe me, I’m aware of that problem.
“…express it in such a way that is dramatically more concise and elegant. I don’t want to read +/- 50 pages worth of writing just to appreciate (and respond to) what could have been 5+ pages of material.”
Data vs charts man, data vs charts. You’re right, but it’s also not my problem, more or less. Give me staff, and then see what I can do. I’m ineffectual because of divide and conquer. I’ve been isolated and then the consequences of my isolation are paraded as reasons for it.
It’s a catch 22. you’re asking for the product of a PR man, but if I was a PR man I’d have long ago been tricked into being someone with money’s tool. If you want Truth (or Underlore) this is the form it comes in.
“It would also be immensely useful to combine only the most essential parts of both your writing into some text to link to.”
So again, go for it. I can’t change the world alone, that’s exactly why my enemies have seen fit to de-fund and isolate me. I’m a specialist with no support in this context.
I’m disabled even irl by my mind. Not to come off as arrogant, just honestly trying to convey my situation, I’m like hawking without the chair.
Yeah it would be great if I could get to meetings and speak clearly, but if I could do that shit I wouldn’t have had the time to sit and figure out hawking radiation now would I?
The world demands the impossible from me. If you want that shit, you’re going to have to wheel my ass to the table and fit me with a voice box, or in this case help me refine the ore of my work into some useful exotic metal.