“ Liberal establishments globally have made so many mistakes over the last twenty years—coupled with a pervasive failure to acknowledge those mistakes—that ordinary members of the public in significant numbers are intuitively applying an evidentiary principle to them, one that exists in both common law and civilian systems: falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”
It’s a bit surprising how many members of the public (mostly older and more prosperous one) have NOT reacted with skepticism to the establishment, given its profound and extensive failures (and deceptions).
1) perhaps most older and more prosperous folks have learned it is better to just let others alone and hope they do the same for you - although we are failing to obtain that condition more lately
2) and I am finding more instances of someone explicitly saying something that is "obviously true", but then recognizing that (rather than being ho-hum) it is an idea or viewpoint worthy of being repeated more frequently to better cement it in the public weal. We may very well just need a forceful reminding.
I read your Quillette piece and didn't expect that we would disagree so much on a topic. Nadine stressed and Greg lukianof have a new book that I haven't yet read and I'm going to, I expect to find some ammo to challenge you since now I don't have a chance. Hope u crush it at battle of ideas byw anyway.
I am known in Australia as a pretty resolute defender of free speech, but also as someone who gives fair play to her opponents. I am particularly (personally) down on the hate speech legislation I discuss in the piece, because it genuinely has been put to nefarious uses historically. That it came out positively in this particular matter was very much accidental, not by design.
“Both minorities have now been given an even-handed judicial slap.”
Always be wary of broadening quarrels or alliances with those not directly interested.
Never mind fighting it in another land. If you must then bring your own army… and it appears mass migration insufficient force in Australia, or America… which has our own teeth and claws.
It appears Helen is asserting that the courts and laws in Australia are much more resolute (and maybe wiser?) than we find within our more scattered (and scatter brained) collection of judicial officers in the US. I do wonder if there is some variation across their (fewer in number) states that we won't appreciate in the US without a substantial effort to find out?
I don’t know if she said all that, it’s more the Australian courts had enough and got real.
Our American Courts are resolute, they’re resolutely against Americans, in the main.
As is the legal profession that produced them - the courts are just elite law firms pretending to be “independent”. As are the law schools that birthed these monstrous children of Gramsci and Trotsky.
So they’re indeed resolute, but they have lost the very police and military and people who could enforce their decisions.
They wanted to be Globalists and instead are Stateless persons at the worst possible moment to be the men without a country. *
Apparently Australian Courts DO want a country.
How Noble.
*The man without a country” was taught in school all the way until the 80s …. Such a shame few have ever heard it.
The real man fled to Spanish territory and was later murdered by the Spanish colonial government,
"Accepting wrongness is a way to remind folk that no set of ideological commitments protects you from failing to think your thoughts through to the end. If you find those commitments get in the way of doing so, they are sabotaging your ability to think about how things really are."
Yes, another version of "reality is not optional". Great stuff. Too few of them (and us) take the time to think, let alone think through to "the end", either as a goal or as an expected result. Part of why you and Lorenzo are so attractive and sometimes compelling.
PS: on Law and Liberty, do you perchance know how or why or what happened to Comments in or around October 2018? I read and occasionally commented there, finding about 1/3 of the essays to be high quality, the rest middling to barely worthy. Actually that was probably a pretty high rating for most public fora? (Even if I did not appreciate it at the time). But I went on vacation/holiday for 2 weeks and when I came back no more comments allowed to be made or read, even for essays prior to this shut off date.
New editor? Sour grapes over less than fawning commentary? Cost/time issues? Or ???
“ Liberal establishments globally have made so many mistakes over the last twenty years—coupled with a pervasive failure to acknowledge those mistakes—that ordinary members of the public in significant numbers are intuitively applying an evidentiary principle to them, one that exists in both common law and civilian systems: falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”
It’s a bit surprising how many members of the public (mostly older and more prosperous one) have NOT reacted with skepticism to the establishment, given its profound and extensive failures (and deceptions).
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/intransigence
1) perhaps most older and more prosperous folks have learned it is better to just let others alone and hope they do the same for you - although we are failing to obtain that condition more lately
2) and I am finding more instances of someone explicitly saying something that is "obviously true", but then recognizing that (rather than being ho-hum) it is an idea or viewpoint worthy of being repeated more frequently to better cement it in the public weal. We may very well just need a forceful reminding.
Have long admired your writing Helen. Look forward to seeing you at Battle.
I read your Quillette piece and didn't expect that we would disagree so much on a topic. Nadine stressed and Greg lukianof have a new book that I haven't yet read and I'm going to, I expect to find some ammo to challenge you since now I don't have a chance. Hope u crush it at battle of ideas byw anyway.
I am known in Australia as a pretty resolute defender of free speech, but also as someone who gives fair play to her opponents. I am particularly (personally) down on the hate speech legislation I discuss in the piece, because it genuinely has been put to nefarious uses historically. That it came out positively in this particular matter was very much accidental, not by design.
The Australian courts properly defend Australia.
“Both minorities have now been given an even-handed judicial slap.”
Always be wary of broadening quarrels or alliances with those not directly interested.
Never mind fighting it in another land. If you must then bring your own army… and it appears mass migration insufficient force in Australia, or America… which has our own teeth and claws.
It appears Helen is asserting that the courts and laws in Australia are much more resolute (and maybe wiser?) than we find within our more scattered (and scatter brained) collection of judicial officers in the US. I do wonder if there is some variation across their (fewer in number) states that we won't appreciate in the US without a substantial effort to find out?
I don’t know if she said all that, it’s more the Australian courts had enough and got real.
Our American Courts are resolute, they’re resolutely against Americans, in the main.
As is the legal profession that produced them - the courts are just elite law firms pretending to be “independent”. As are the law schools that birthed these monstrous children of Gramsci and Trotsky.
So they’re indeed resolute, but they have lost the very police and military and people who could enforce their decisions.
They wanted to be Globalists and instead are Stateless persons at the worst possible moment to be the men without a country. *
Apparently Australian Courts DO want a country.
How Noble.
*The man without a country” was taught in school all the way until the 80s …. Such a shame few have ever heard it.
The real man fled to Spanish territory and was later murdered by the Spanish colonial government,
The Man Without a Country.
https://youtu.be/if8gqs7ZYDI?si=etFsbz2bJjmNfgW4
From your L&L article:
"Accepting wrongness is a way to remind folk that no set of ideological commitments protects you from failing to think your thoughts through to the end. If you find those commitments get in the way of doing so, they are sabotaging your ability to think about how things really are."
Yes, another version of "reality is not optional". Great stuff. Too few of them (and us) take the time to think, let alone think through to "the end", either as a goal or as an expected result. Part of why you and Lorenzo are so attractive and sometimes compelling.
PS: on Law and Liberty, do you perchance know how or why or what happened to Comments in or around October 2018? I read and occasionally commented there, finding about 1/3 of the essays to be high quality, the rest middling to barely worthy. Actually that was probably a pretty high rating for most public fora? (Even if I did not appreciate it at the time). But I went on vacation/holiday for 2 weeks and when I came back no more comments allowed to be made or read, even for essays prior to this shut off date.
New editor? Sour grapes over less than fawning commentary? Cost/time issues? Or ???
Thankyou.
Too many weird & threatening comments such that the then-editor gave them the chop. And yes, it was taking up a lot of the organisation’s time.