So apparently, in NYC, there are schools all the way down to the Kindergarten level that are 'all gifted' (i.e., 97th percentile plus only). This isn't terribly surprising except for one thing---they're PUBLIC schools where admission is by exam. This has predictable consequences in terms of 'disparate impact', but since it is NYC, they get away with it.
Where I grew up, in Florida, if you tried this your adult:student ratio would skyrocket from all of the federal law enforcement minions that would descend, blackening the sky. But somehow, in NYC it is all kosher?
We can take from this 'prima fascist' evidence that the Left isn't about any coherent universalist ideology, but rather all about Who...Whom. In the South if you want a school like that you have to pay hardcore private school tuition and they still growl at you about 'diversity'. In the Pacific Northwest, you're still looking at hardcore tuition, but mostly a blind eye will be turned to your 'appalling lack of diversity'.
I have a dream, where one day who...whom conflicts will be settled through honest and straightforward slugfests of self-interest, free of the sanctimonious scolds who insist that everything be laundered through mendacious universalist cant. I have a dream, where anyone attempting to claim the moral high ground was scrutinized brutally, and, whenever found lacking, vigorously mocked if he was lucky. As bad money inevitably drives out good, so does counterfeit morality drive out the Real.
Are people really getting smarter?
9 hours ago
I must agree. (Agreeing a lot today...I really must be ill. :P)
First let me add my own version in rant form, then I'm gonna move on into meat.
I do have issues with blatant selfishness, but they're utterly dominated by my issue with lying.
My go-to example is that if you tell me you're being selfish, we can at least stop wasting time discussing that we should be fair. If you're just trying to be selfish but lie about it, then I spend time demolishing the arguments only to find that you never cared about the rationalizations in the first place. I get muddy and annoy the pig.
The problem isn't really that people lie, though, its that other people swallow the lies and ask for seconds.
So, I have a dream that anyone who swallows a lie is mocked mercilessly for being a patsy. It runs counter to the chivalry principle, but in this case I think not violating chivalry is better for the weak in general, even if not these weak in particular.
I've come to realize that the overwhelming majority of people are extremely selfish, and I don't exclude myself from that despite being objectively less selfish than most on several quantifiable indices. But I've got no non-theological use for anything which describes 99.99% of humanity as particularly wicked. It'd be like the filthy man telling the man covered with pink slime that he is dirty.
Three words: enlightened self-interest. Altruism usually is the best long-term strategy. E.g. firm management, happy workers are vastly more productive, don't sabotage or get sick, and will freely offer their ideas for improvement.
It's weird how using different words makes me think of the concept from different angles. Or: no matter how you come at this selfishness thing, it's obviously not a real priority. Some particular liars just like to use it as a bludgeon to ram their lies down your throat.
In-group and reciprocal altruism is a fairly good long term strategy. It's when one attempts to shoehorn it into a 'noble universal' paradigm that it get wonky, and worse, when one sets it up so that only certain groups are expected to adhere to it.
I fix the universal stuff by a simple algorithm. If you wish me harm, you're not eligible. Altruism in these cases is exactly what got Rand worked up, and she was right.
I would never expect anyone to adhere to it. The whole point of enlightened self-interest is that it is self-punishing. Parochial self interest is less effective by definition.
I figured out what I'm really trying to say here.
If my opponent is selfish, there's no reason I shouldn't simply default to my own selfish desires. By symmetry, neither can be better than the other.
It is only if my opponent is selfless that I should concede, because if I win, I'm causing a lot of collateral damage. Except 99.999etc% of claims of selflessness are exactly attempting to get me to concede, out of selfishness.
Post a Comment