Jump to content
swedishfished

Racism Good -- Impact Turning Racism

Recommended Posts

Wow, is this your version of an apology? Nice try, but you're not getting out of it now. I'm going to respond to each and every point you made and make you look exactly like the asshole that you're behaving as.

 

I'm not trying to get out of anything, in fact I probably won't respond to the post at all because this is not a productive discussion, I just felt like something needed to be said. If you point out something that I actually feel like I need to apologize for, than I will. You're making a defense for racism good, you go as far to say it's maybe ok even if people get offended by it and quit debate, you said something offensive, do not expect people to take that calmly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that respect is good, but the problem with your implementation of that idea is that your consideration of what constitutes discursive violence is so broadly understood that it makes it practically impossible for others to dissent against your ideas and your particular ideas of what privilege is and means. This is the argument that I was making to in my previous post, the one that you conceded happens as a general thing in progressive circles. This is a perfect example of that argument, because simply by making a request for arguments and more detailed conversation I've apparently put you into an incredible rage. If you're unable to respond to such requests then I can accept that, but I can't accept your choice to swear about a million times at me. I understand that there are many issues that people might be too personally involved in to have a conversation about, but if you're unable to handle even a request for more productive discussion then you're far too touchy.

 

I think that this is an important point, but not for the reason you think it is.  Discursive violence, as I see it through Ganondorf's posts, occurs when the content of your discourse is necessarily exclusionary to other identities.  I think that the examples in Ganondorf's posts are really good at explaining the distinction between discursive violence and dissention.  Examples of discursive violence are "[N word]s should all die and Muslims are all terrorists" because these marginalize and exclude certain types of individuals.  Another good example is calling someone wrong as opposed to calling them subhuman and undeserving of rights.  The first expresses one's opinion against the opinions that the other person holds, the second attacks their integrity as a person.  Dissention puts both arguments in a space that is meant to be inclusive in order to approach the truth, whereas discursive violence attacks the basis of this space by attacks individuals qua individuals.  

 

 

Wow, is this your version of an apology? Nice try, but you're not getting out of it now. I'm going to respond to each and every point you made and make you look exactly like the asshole that you're behaving as. I tried to keep my first post relatively polite, but since you've apparently chosen to double down I don't really feel much need for restraint anymore.

 

Interestingly enough, I see you as trying to "get out" of the original discourse by abstracting away from the specificity of the request you made.  You didn't just ask for an explanation of why a position is justified, but rather called for a discussion that makes discursive violence necessary.  This type of discussion necessarily papers over the ways in which racism has shaped the identities of certain people and your calling Ganondorf an asshole is especially problematic to me.  His original comment was pointing out the way in which, even though you may not have realized it at first, these types of discussions militate against certain individuals.  I find calling Ganondorf an asshole for describing the possible ways in which your comments could interact with different individuals and touching upon his own personal experience personally offensive.  

 

I also take extreme issue with you calling him "far too touchy" for not wanting to continue a discussion on racism.  Who are you to determine whether or not someone is being too touchy, especially with a topic that has such a large possibility of negative personal experience.  I think that this is indicative of you ignoring the point of the original comment, which was to point out the fact that this is a sensitive topic for many people. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this is an important point, but not for the reason you think it is.  Discursive violence, as I see it through Ganondorf's posts, occurs when the content of your discourse is necessarily exclusionary to other identities.  I think that the examples in Ganondorf's posts are really good at explaining the distinction between discursive violence and dissention.  Examples of discursive violence are "[N word]s should all die and Muslims are all terrorists" because these marginalize and exclude certain types of individuals.  Another good example is calling someone wrong as opposed to calling them subhuman and undeserving of rights.  The first expresses one's opinion against the opinions that the other person holds, the second attacks their integrity as a person.  Dissention puts both arguments in a space that is meant to be inclusive in order to approach the truth, whereas discursive violence attacks the basis of this space by attacks individuals qua individuals.  

 

Why is it that I'm the one who you think is being discursively violent, and not Ganondorf? He's been using far harsher wording and been trying to discourage conversation at every possible point he can. I don't think I'm doing anything which prevents Ganondorf from doing whatever he wants to do. In fact, I've encouraged him to do whatever he wants to do except swear at me. I'm totally fine with him not commenting, he doesn't owe me anything, how many times do I have to say this before I'm understood? That seems like almost the opposite of discursive violence.

 

I also take extreme issue with you calling him "far too touchy" for not wanting to continue a discussion on racism.  Who are you to determine whether or not someone is being too touchy, especially with a topic that has such a large possibility of negative personal experience.  I think that this is indicative of you ignoring the point of the original comment, which was to point out the fact that this is a sensitive topic for many people. 

 

You're misreading what I wrote. I'm totally fine if he doesn't want to discuss racism. But if he wants to swear at me and accuse me of ignorance without discussing why, I'm not okay. If this is discursive violence then I'm totally fine with being discursively violent, but I consider it more along the lines of discursive self-defense, though the metaphor is getting stupid unwieldy here. You're doing a great job of considering how what I wrote might hurt him, but a terrible job of being fair and considering how being sworn at and "publicly" implicated in racist beliefs might be discursively violent to me. This is very frustrating to me.

 

Additionally, my sentiments stated there are somewhat tongue in cheek. When I am frustrated I like to make jokes or act outrageous within certain limited ways so that my frustration doesn't boil into my argumentation and prevent me from communicating clearly. I tried to hint at this through my use of images, because stating explicitly would somewhat defeat the point. This is a ridiculously mild response to his post, I should sooner be congratulated for my self restraint than accused of being discursively violent against him.

 

Lastly, I'm not ignoring the original comment at all. I'm pointing out the many ways in which it is not responding to my position and in which it itself is ignorant and rude. Do you expect me to defend positions that I don't believe in here, or what? I totally agree that privilege exists, my beef is simply with the ways in which the concept has been deployed here and is sometimes deployed in other places.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that I'm the one who you think is being discursively violent, and not Ganondorf? He's been using far harsher wording and been trying to discourage conversation at every possible point he can. I don't think I'm doing anything which prevents Ganondorf from doing whatever he wants to do. In fact, I've encouraged him to do whatever he wants to do except swear at me. I'm totally fine with him not commenting, he doesn't owe me anything, how many times do I have to say this before I'm understood? That seems like almost the opposite of discursive violence.

I think the point you were responding to answers this pretty well.  Discursive violence is not about discouraging conversation, it is about making discursive space inclusive.  I understand that you don't believe you are preventing him from doing what he wants, but his original post was meant to point out why these types of discussions do exactly that.  They paper over the experiences that certain people have that make them unable to interact within this particular conversation and space.  If I interpreted his post correctly, it was not only about you asking him to discuss the badness of racism, but also about treating race and race relations like  a discursive game, like something we can examine just to see where it goes, even though the reality of racism is real for so many people.  I also think his problem was with your downplaying of the fact that racism good arguments cause people to quit. 

 

 

Wow, is this your version of an apology? Nice try, but you're not getting out of it now. I'm going to respond to each and every point you made and make you look exactly like the asshole that you're behaving as. I tried to keep my first post relatively polite, but since you've apparently chosen to double down I don't really feel much need for restraint anymore.

I think that there is some confusion with this part as it could be interpreted as him owing you a discussion.  If that's not what you meant then that probably needs clarification.

 

 

Why is it that I'm the one who you think is being discursively violent, and not Ganondorf? He's been using far harsher wording and been trying to discourage conversation at every possible point he can. I don't think I'm doing anything which prevents Ganondorf from doing whatever he wants to do. In fact, I've encouraged him to do whatever he wants to do except swear at me. I'm totally fine with him not commenting, he doesn't owe me anything, how many times do I have to say this before I'm understood? That seems like almost the opposite of discursive violence.

 

You're misreading what I wrote. I'm totally fine if he doesn't want to discuss racism. But if he wants to swear at me and accuse me of ignorance without discussing why, I'm not okay. If this is discursive violence then I'm totally fine with being discursively violent, but I consider it more along the lines of discursive self-defense, though the metaphor is getting stupid unwieldy here. You're doing a great job of considering how what I wrote might hurt him, but a terrible job of being fair and considering how being sworn at and "publicly" implicated in racist beliefs might be discursively violent to me. This is very frustrating to me.

 

Additionally, my sentiments stated there are somewhat tongue in cheek. When I am frustrated I like to make jokes or act outrageous within certain limited ways so that my frustration doesn't boil into my argumentation and prevent me from communicating clearly. I tried to hint at this through my use of images, because stating explicitly would somewhat defeat the point. This is a ridiculously mild response to his post, I should sooner be congratulated for my self restraint than accused of being discursively violent against him.

 

Lastly, I'm not ignoring the original comment at all. I'm pointing out the many ways in which it is not responding to my position and in which it itself is ignorant and rude. Do you expect me to defend positions that I don't believe in here, or what? I totally agree that privilege exists, my beef is simply with the ways in which the concept has been deployed here and is sometimes deployed in other places.

This is kind of a overview on all the stuff about swearing.  Ganondorf definitely swore at you, but not in a derogatory way.  His swearing was meant to emphasize the way that these issues are very personal, but nowhere did he use a swear word to characterize you.  The only place on the line here is where he said that you were "coming off as offensive as shit."  Even that, though, characterized your actions and not you as a person.  Discursive violence requires that attack or characterization of someone as an individual.  He even pointed out that you are not a racist, but you did make arguments or claims that have negative racial implications.  That being said, swearing was not necessary and I can see how that would be insulting.  The discourse Ganandorf used was not perfect and it could have offended you.  I recognize that I wasn't being completely fair at that moment, but my post was reactionary and somewhat quickly written.  I also want to note that discursive violence is not a metaphor.  It is actual violence, just not physical violence.  

 

I think that he did discuss why you original comment was ignorant.  It was ignorant of the effect that that type of discourse has on people with certain experiences. So yes, I believe that you were being ignorant when you posted that.  I'm ignorant too.  I don't know the exact effect racism has on people because I haven't experienced it to a great extent, even being Iranian-American (half at least, the other half is Irish).

 

Finally, I think that both of you understand how privilege is used, but what many people fail to realize is that privilege means something personal to people who experience the lack of privilege.  I think that your responses to his post try to explain why you don't defend racism being good, but don't answer the specific ways that your first post was exclusionary against certain types of people.  At the same moment, I want you to know that I've entertained the same thoughts before.  The important thing is to recognize the necessity for inclusion in discursive spaces and the way that racism touches upon that and other aspects essential to someone's identity.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I can respond to your post until I respond to all of Ganondorf's, and I don't think I'll get around to that tonight after all. I do appreciate that you're putting effort into mediating here, or whatever it is that you're doing. It's helpful. Regarding the clarification you asked for, which I can do now, I meant that I'm not going to allow him to save face after he's attacked me and my beliefs as racist. I'm not owed an explanation of his views on race but I am owed the ability to defend myself and I plan on asserting that right even if he wants me to drop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Aubtin doesn't want to have the debate, don't make him Spider.  Just let it go y'all.

 

I can't make him, and won't, and don't want to. But he's put his ideas forward and I want to put mine forward also. I'm not being an aggressor.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I'm now finished, the earlier message that was here has become useless. I'd like to edit this space and use it to address rteehas' comments. He had two sets of comments in two posts and I'll address both. There's going to be a lot of redundancy present here.
 

I think that this is an important point, but not for the reason you think it is.  Discursive violence, as I see it through Ganondorf's posts, occurs when the content of your discourse is necessarily exclusionary to other identities.  I think that the examples in Ganondorf's posts are really good at explaining the distinction between discursive violence and dissention.  Examples of discursive violence are "[N word]s should die and Muslims are all terrorists" because these marginalize and exclude certain types of individuals. Another good example is calling someone wrong as opposed to calling them subhuman and undeserving of rights. The first expresses one's opinion against the opinions that the other person holds, the second attacks their integrity as a person. Dissention puts both arguments in a space that is meant to be inclusive in order to approach the truth, whereas discursive violence attacks the basis of this space by attacks individuals qua individuals.


Initially, I was confused by this comment, because I didn't see any way in which my comments resembled your examples. I was upset that you had compared my comments to outright racism and dehumanization. However, I think I understand your point now. Just for clarification, this paragraph is not intended as an argument that I am discursively violent, it's intended as an argument that Ganondorf is not discursively violent. Is that correct?

If so, I appreciate your argument much more and understand where you're coming from. However, I still disagree and the reasons for that can be found scattered throughout my post. I'll repeat them if necessary but until then I'd rather avoid redundancy so that I don't make this thread any more disorganized than it already has become.
 

Interestingly enough, I see you as trying to "get out" of the original discourse by abstracting away from the specificity of the request you made.  You didn't just ask for an explanation of why a position is justified, but rather called for a discussion that makes discursive violence necessary.  This type of discussion necessarily papers over the ways in which racism has shaped the identities of certain people and your calling Ganondorf an asshole is especially problematic to me.  His original comment was pointing out the way in which, even though you may not have realized it at first, these types of discussions militate against certain individuals.  I find calling Ganondorf an asshole for describing the possible ways in which your comments could interact with different individuals and touching upon his own personal experience personally offensive.  

 

I also take extreme issue with you calling him "far too touchy" for not wanting to continue a discussion on racism.  Who are you to determine whether or not someone is being too touchy, especially with a topic that has such a large possibility of negative personal experience.  I think that this is indicative of you ignoring the point of the original comment, which was to point out the fact that this is a sensitive topic for many people. 

 

We have completely different readings of Ganondorf's comments. If I shared your perspective and believed that Ganondorf was simply pointing out to me that discussions of racism ignore certain people's experiences, I would never have called him an asshole or far too touchy. However, I believe that far from just bringing the issue to my attention, he wanted to make me regret having ever considered such questions. He seemed to take offense that I dared to try to understand racism or be interested in its operations and effects, since I am a white person, and apparently that means I can't have empathy. I felt like I was being attacked and that he was just using progressivism as a disguise to do it under.

Again, this sort of argument is what I tried to make in my above posts, so again, if you disagree, you might want to just quote the other post and ignore this one.

 

 rteehas, on 24 Aug 2013 - 6:19 PM, said: I think the point you were responding to answers this pretty well. Discursive violence is not about discouraging conversation, it is about making discursive space inclusive. I understand that you don't believe you are preventing him from doing what he wants, but his original post was meant to point out why these types of discussions do exactly that. They paper over the experiences that certain people have that make them unable to interact within this particular conversation and space. If I interpreted his post correctly, it was not only about you asking him to discuss the badness of racism, but also about treating race and race relations like a discursive game, like something we can examine just to see where it goes, even though the reality of racism is real for so many people. I also think his problem was with your downplaying of the fact that racism good arguments cause people to quit.

 

Some people will not want to participate in some conversations, but I don't believe that initiating such conversations qualifies as discursive violence. It certainly doesn't meet your earlier claim that discursive violence had to attack individuals. Also, I don't understand how opposing conversations that people don't want to participate in allows for any sort of conversation at all. Discursive space is not the end goal, that space only matters if someone tries to fill it, even if filling it results in displacing some of that space.

It's unfortunate if some people don't want to discuss race. But I don't have the ability to change that about them, and these conversations need to happen regardless because we can't simply ignore racism, but nor can we give it automatic priority over all other issues because it's not always of preeminent importance.

I haven't treated racism like a game and don't know why you claim otherwise.

I don't believe that many people have quit due to racism good arguments.

A large and noncontroversial reason for this belief is that I don't believe that racism good arguments appear frequently, if at all. I'd estimate that under 20 kids have ever quit because of racism good arguments, because such arguments barely ever appear. I would have made this argument somewhere above, but didn't see a good place to put it and I wanted to focus on other issues that I perceived as more important. But I can understand how its omission would frustrate someone who believed that quitting as a result of these arguments was a serious problem for debate, which is why I've now chosen to address it here.
 

I think that there is some confusion with this part as it could be interpreted as him owing you a discussion. If that's not what you meant then that probably needs clarification.

 

This part was answered in a previous post, but I'll repeat my answer here. I meant that he should be held accountable for what he chooses to say to me in public and that I intend to answer his arguments instead of ignoring them. I did not mean that he or anyone else owed me a discussion.

 

 rteehas, on 24 Aug 2013 - 6:19 PM, said: This is kind of a overview on all the stuff about swearing. Ganondorf definitely swore at you, but not in a derogatory way. His swearing was meant to emphasize the way that these issues are very personal, but nowhere did he use a swear word to characterize you. The only place on the line here is where he said that you were "coming off as offensive as shit." Even that, though, characterized your actions and not you as a person. Discursive violence requires that attack or characterization of someone as an individual. He even pointed out that you are not a racist, but you did make arguments or claims that have negative racial implications. That being said, swearing was not necessary and I can see how that would be insulting. The discourse Ganandorf used was not perfect and it could have offended you. I recognize that I wasn't being completely fair at that moment, but my post was reactionary and somewhat quickly written. I also want to note that discursive violence is not a metaphor. It is actual violence, just not physical violence.

 

I believe that you're right to say that he swore to emphasize that these issues were personal to him, but I think that's only part of the picture. I think he also did it because it allows him to seem intimidating and makes him appear more powerful, thus giving his argument greater "strength". Lastly, swearing a lot while arguing with someone, even if you're not using swear words about them or directed at them, is generally understood to be confrontational.

I think you're wrong to say that he wasn't attacking me as a person. You're drawing too much of a distinction between what a person believes and who a person is for my tastes. I think that accusing someone of having racist beliefs is functionally very similar to accusing them of racism, even if an abstract distinction can be made. Similarly, he argued that I cannot understand him or empathize with him and that I'm ignorant of the basics of racism. Even if you want to be charitable to him and suppose that he means only what he says and nothing more, his claims still at least have some negative implications about who I am as a person.
 

I think that he did discuss why you original comment was ignorant.  It was ignorant of the effect that that type of discourse has on people with certain experiences. So yes, I believe that you were being ignorant when you posted that.  I'm ignorant too.  I don't know the exact effect racism has on people because I haven't experienced it to a great extent, even being Iranian-American (half at least, the other half is Irish).

 

Finally, I think that both of you understand how privilege is used, but what many people fail to realize is that privilege means something personal to people who experience the lack of privilege.  I think that your responses to his post try to explain why you don't defend racism being good, but don't answer the specific ways that your first post was exclusionary against certain types of people.  At the same moment, I want you to know that I've entertained the same thoughts before.  The important thing is to recognize the necessity for inclusion in discursive spaces and the way that racism touches upon that and other aspects essential to someone's identity.  

 


Regarding the first paragraph, I agree that I'm ignorant of how exactly racism feels. I agree that my comment wasn't exactly accessible for some people with certain backgrounds. But I don't think that I was ignorant in the sense that my comment was completely misguided, which I believe he was trying to imply. 

Regarding the second paragraph, I've addressed most of this already, I hope. Your point about how privilege is personal reminds me of this post from a blog I read that you might enjoy: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/09/all-debates-are-bravery-debates/.

Regarding your last sentence, I would like to have as much inclusion as I can, but I don't want to be inclusive at the cost of investigating exactly how we should respond to the role of race in the debate community. Additionally, it's my hope that there aren't too many people who I've excluded from this conversation, although I do agree that there will probably be some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I can respond to your post until I respond to all of Ganondorf's, and I don't think I'll get around to that tonight after all. I do appreciate that you're putting effort into mediating here, or whatever it is that you're doing. It's helpful. Regarding the clarification you asked for, which I can do now, I meant that I'm not going to allow him to save face after he's attacked me and my beliefs as racist. I'm not owed an explanation of his views on race but I am owed the ability to defend myself and I plan on asserting that right even if he wants me to drop it.

 

I hate getting involved in other people's shit, but you're missing the point of Ganondorf's arguments. First, I'll go through those 3 reasons in the first post:

1. "It is immoral to defend arguments that have resulted in so much human misery in the past" - your main point is a distinction without a difference; if it's true that debaters should not impact turn racism in a round, that's a reason why the judge gets to intervene and prevent debaters from winning on these arguments.

2. "It makes people quit debate" - you're glossing over another important point by using this as a straw man: even if people don't quit, the prevalence or even mere acceptance of racism impact turns would stop people from joining debate. What person would want to join an already exclusive activity made worse by the presence of others who defend racism?

3. "It is offensive to minorities within debate" - your answer makes no sense because it lacks the very specificity you call for. You fail to ask the critical questions: who has privilege, and where do populations access this privilege? First, empirical analysis proves a direct correlation between race and relative privilege. Second, even if it's true that progressives overstate the importance of privilege, that's not the same as privilege in debate. The place where your argument simply falls apart is that debate is already an exclusionary activity. This point that the concept of "privilege" allows progressives to dismiss any argument doesn't really apply, because there is substantive evidence (history, studies, etc) about why racism is bad. You have not made a warrant as to why there is ANY basis for reading "racism good"

 

Now the part which I really have a problem with is your "view" of debate. Even if bias exists in all people, the POINT of debate is to divorce yourself from ideologies. That means not being racist, not being sexist, not being homophobic, etc. This whole "multitude of experiences" thing doesn't make any sense because the DEFINITION of racism or any form of discrimination is that one side's experiences aren't included. This is compounded by the fact that debate is inherently an exclusive activity for persons of privilege. 

 

Your argument that he attacked you and called you a racist is also wrong:

you do not have to be a racist to say racist things

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No, I think debaters shouldn't run it because it is a bad strategy and it will make people dislike them. It's not the judge's job to be the friendship police or to reject dumb arguments out of hand, and I don't think any judge does or reasonably could hold any other sort of paradigm. But coaches and peers should definitely discourage racist arguments, and it's in those capacities that I want others to oppose them.

2. I don't think very many people view debate as racist. I'd say there are more people within the debate community than without that see it as racist. I also don't believe that allowing racist impact turns will significantly effect public perceptions of debate, both because such impact turns are rare and because the debate community is hidden from the public eye. In general, coaches control what their novices see. Your argument seems more like you're grasping at reasons to disagree with me than well thought out disagreement.

3. I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. It's totally incoherent to me. It doesn't seem responsive, though.

I believe that debate is a space for learning and abandoning predispositions, just as you do. But your application of this principle is highly counterintuitive. If reading an argument from a certain literature base entails an attachment to that literature base's identity, then you ought to be intervening against the communist arguments, the capitalist arguments, the economist arguments, the critical theorist arguments, and literally everyone's arguments, as well as the racist arguments. That position is obviously untenable.

My implementation of that principle makes much more sense. If we as judges want to encourage debaters to explore the broad range of arguments and identities that are available to them, all that we have to do is avoid intervention and let them explore what they want to. If you support allowing debaters intellectual freedom then you should be a staunch noninterventionist. I'm actually very surprised that you endorse that principle but yet came down on the opposite side of me in this debate.

I recognize that Ganondorf made a distinction between attacking a person's beliefs as racist and attacking a person as racist, but from the receiving end they're emotionally identical, so that distinction doesn't hold up in this context. Similarly, having racist beliefs and being a racist are both perceived in a very bad light socially. It's largely an academic nicety that he's making, which is not a real comfort to me.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hans Hoppe's "Democracy the God That Failed" has some cards that could be construed as impact turns to racism (it actually has some great cards impact turning democracy, but Hoppe claims that racism is good because it prevents internal conflicts based on class, and that class conflicts lead to economically destructive policies, etc... basically, racial tensions good because they prevent class tensions - e.g.: poor people in the American south/throughout US).

 

Still probably not a strategic arg. Book's available on pdf online and is a good mine for other, more strategic evidence. Note that this is a guy who says things like "Whether intended or not, the welfare state promotes the proliferation of intellectually and morally inferior people and the results would be even worse were it not for the fact that crime rates are particularly high among these people, and that they tend to eliminate each other more frequently." But, if you're fine running that, play ball, I guess.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that this is a guy who says things like "Whether intended or not, the welfare state promotes the proliferation of intellectually and morally inferior people and the results would be even worse were it not for the fact that crime rates are particularly high among these people, and that they tend to eliminate each other more frequently." 

I read this and was this close to automatically neg-repping you on accident. This guy is terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this and was this close to automatically neg-repping you on accident. This guy is terrible.

Lol.

 

Guy's a tenured professor at University of Nevada Las Vegas, student of Jurgen Habermas, and fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Seems legit enough. :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...