|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
Neoliberalism doesn't mean anything close to what you think it does. |
Wrong again, northway. Neoliberalism is an extremely broad term that was used specifically by myself (“as a cultural doctrine”) to address the pervasive Western ideology that has caused people like yourself and Catman to be so uninformed. It’s also a modern dialectical code word, but I will leave that aside for now. If losing on substance made you believe that you could win on semantics, I will again remind you that you will lose on both and to not waste my time. |
You write in an fairly imprecise manner, though. I am not sure that most people would recognize the words you use as meaning what you use them to mean. Also, modern dialectical code word? What exactly are you trying to say, and perhaps consider saying so in a more concise, precise, manner? I mean it is just a message board, but we should aim to have higher standards than American Thinker here. |
You are starting to make me regret giving your own inconsistent writing a pass; inability to distinguish between ‘then’ and ‘than,’ making incomplete arguments, etc., and it seems like you are trying to spit back the same criticism I gave you in our discussion about gun crime. So, I’m not sure if you are the right person to be lecturing me about standards and precise writing, Leon. Thanks for the advice though. |
Sometimes I write in my phone, that hardly helps, I admit. My published work is better, but I think I do alright here. Modern dialectic code word, makes you sound like a Marxists by the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
This is the neoliberal era. It's much more than an economic doctrine.
| Quote: |
A similar dynamic is observable with respect to the cultural and political content of neoliberalism, conceptualized here as a broad range of cultural and political narratives and practices.
…
Neoliberalism has a wide range of meanings in current discourse and a strong left leaning political inflection. It is used far more by those who criticize the current economic order than by those who favor it. Indeed, neoliberalism all too often serves more as an epithet than as an analytically productive concept. We make no pretense to laying down some neutral and “scientific” definition of a concept that is essentially contested and will certainly remain so. But we consider it useful to distinguish four facets of the neoliberal phenomenon: neoliberalism as economic theory, neoliberalism as political ideology, neoliberalism as policy paradigm and neoliberalism as social imaginary.
…
The neoliberal social imaginary shapes individual goals and behavior while simultaneously making neoliberal political ideology and policy paradigms seem “natural” (see Somers, 2008). The prevalence of this social imaginary, even among those whose welfare has been undercut by neoliberal policies, helps reinforce the political power of neoliberalism as ideology and policy paradigm. |
http://sociology.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/faculty/evans/Evans%20Sewell%20Neoliberalism%20DRAFT%205-17-11.pdf |
Sure, but nothing in what you posted supports your definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
This is the neoliberal era. It's much more than an economic doctrine.
| Quote: |
A similar dynamic is observable with respect to the cultural and political content of neoliberalism, conceptualized here as a broad range of cultural and political narratives and practices.
…
Neoliberalism has a wide range of meanings in current discourse and a strong left leaning political inflection. It is used far more by those who criticize the current economic order than by those who favor it. Indeed, neoliberalism all too often serves more as an epithet than as an analytically productive concept. We make no pretense to laying down some neutral and “scientific” definition of a concept that is essentially contested and will certainly remain so. But we consider it useful to distinguish four facets of the neoliberal phenomenon: neoliberalism as economic theory, neoliberalism as political ideology, neoliberalism as policy paradigm and neoliberalism as social imaginary.
…
The neoliberal social imaginary shapes individual goals and behavior while simultaneously making neoliberal political ideology and policy paradigms seem “natural” (see Somers, 2008). The prevalence of this social imaginary, even among those whose welfare has been undercut by neoliberal policies, helps reinforce the political power of neoliberalism as ideology and policy paradigm. |
http://sociology.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/faculty/evans/Evans%20Sewell%20Neoliberalism%20DRAFT%205-17-11.pdf |
Sure, but nothing in what you posted supports your definition. |
Hah, northway, please; stop trying to play games. I never attempted to define it, first of all, but what I provided you with (a study by leftists no less…) fit nearly perfectly with what I said in the first place (“neoliberalism” as a cultural ideology) and was exactly what you asked me for (proof of a broad definition). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Modern dialectic code word, makes you sound like a Marxists by the way. |
*Marxist (sing.), Leon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Modern dialectic code word, makes you sound like a Marxists by the way. |
*Marxist (sing.), Leon. |
I feel like if you were typing on a tiny phone keyboard too you would be more sympathetic. But you understood what I meant with no trouble, correct? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Hah, northway, please; stop trying to play games. I never attempted to define it, first of all, but what I provided you with (a study by leftists no less…) fit nearly perfectly with what I said in the first place (“neoliberalism” as a cultural ideology) and was exactly what you asked me for (proof of a broad definition). |
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
You have yet to show that the application of the term is so broad as to encompass the cultural left born out of the 1960s. If anything, the article you posted contradicts your own definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Hah, northway, please; stop trying to play games. I never attempted to define it, first of all, but what I provided you with (a study by leftists no less…) fit nearly perfectly with what I said in the first place (“neoliberalism” as a cultural ideology) and was exactly what you asked me for (proof of a broad definition). |
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
You have yet to show that the application of the term is so broad as to encompass the cultural left born out of the 1960s. If anything, the article you posted contradicts your own definition. |
Just stop. You are not going to will your ignorance into a win here, northway. You are wrong. And all you are doing now is wasting thread space and my time. Look into it yourself. Here’s a book on it:
“Neoliberalism co-opted the 1960s counter-culture”: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/cr/rR3QAQ4UJ2DRU8H
Here’s another one:
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1781680795
And another:
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=140948386X
Read up, pal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Modern dialectic code word, makes you sound like a Marxists by the way. |
*Marxist (sing.), Leon. |
I feel like if you were typing on a tiny phone keyboard too you would be more sympathetic. But you understood what I meant with no trouble, correct? |
Have you tried MyScript Stylus, the handwriting keyboard? That plus a cell phone stylus produces pretty good results (for English, anyway; the Korean text recognition is not as good, since stroke-dense syllables are often misinterpreted as hanja for some bizarre reason), and editing previously-inputed text is a joy. I write rather than type a lot on my phone these days, and the result is that I make fewer bizarre errors, I notice them more readily when I do, and the entire experience feels a bit more relaxing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Hah, northway, please; stop trying to play games. I never attempted to define it, first of all, but what I provided you with (a study by leftists no less…) fit nearly perfectly with what I said in the first place (“neoliberalism” as a cultural ideology) and was exactly what you asked me for (proof of a broad definition). |
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
You have yet to show that the application of the term is so broad as to encompass the cultural left born out of the 1960s. If anything, the article you posted contradicts your own definition. |
Just stop. You are not going to will your ignorance into a win here, northway. You are wrong. And all you are doing now is wasting thread space and my time. Look into it yourself. Here’s a book on it:
“Neoliberalism co-opted the 1960s counter-culture”: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/cr/rR3QAQ4UJ2DRU8H
Here’s another one:
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1781680795
And another:
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=140948386X
Read up, pal. |
I realize that responding with condescension can be a pretty effective troll technique, but I really have to wonder whether you actually read any of those links. None of them prove your point. The final one is citing the Seattle riots as a rejection of neoliberalism (which they were), the same riots that hewed pretty closely to the counterculture message of the 1960s. The second link refers to how right wing parties promoting neoliberal policies "flummoxed" left parties that "had been confident they were finally making headway after decades of neoliberal encroachment." Your first link refers to such leftists as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Augusto Pinochet as being "the famous faces of neoliberalism". Are you next going to lecture us on the real purpose of the pyramids? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Hah, northway, please; stop trying to play games. I never attempted to define it, first of all, but what I provided you with (a study by leftists no less…) fit nearly perfectly with what I said in the first place (“neoliberalism” as a cultural ideology) and was exactly what you asked me for (proof of a broad definition). |
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
You have yet to show that the application of the term is so broad as to encompass the cultural left born out of the 1960s. If anything, the article you posted contradicts your own definition. |
Just stop. You are not going to will your ignorance into a win here, northway. You are wrong. And all you are doing now is wasting thread space and my time. Look into it yourself. Here’s a book on it:
“Neoliberalism co-opted the 1960s counter-culture”: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/cr/rR3QAQ4UJ2DRU8H
Here’s another one:
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1781680795
And another:
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=140948386X
Read up, pal. |
I realize that responding with condescension can be a pretty effective troll technique, but I really have to wonder whether you actually read any of those links. None of them prove your point. The final one is citing the Seattle riots as a rejection of neoliberalism (which they were), the same riots that hewed pretty closely to the counterculture message of the 1960s. The second link refers to how right wing parties promoting neoliberal policies "flummoxed" left parties that "had been confident they were finally making headway after decades of neoliberal encroachment." Your first link refers to such leftists as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Augusto Pinochet as being "the famous faces of neoliberalism". Are you next going to lecture us on the real purpose of the pyramids? |
Okay. I’m going to break our conversation down for you, without condescension, in the hopes that you might learn something from it.
You told me in one sentence that “neoliberalism” didn’t mean “anything close” to what I thought it did. I explained to you that it is a broad term and meant exactly what I had intended it to.
You told me I was wrong and asked me to cite proof of its broad usage. I provided you with a study explaining several different usages of the term, one very similar to how I was using it.
You told me, again in one sentence, that I was still wrong. I again explained that I provided you with exactly what you had asked for.
You then told me that I should prove how it was “born [sic] out of the 1960s.” I provided you with a link to a review of book titled “A Brief History of Neoliberalism” which states in its heading that the book explains how “neoliberalism coopted the 1960s counter-culture,” and provided you with two more links that might help explain neoliberalism to you, a subject you clearly do not understand.
You then asked me about the pyramids.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should reformat your methods of argumentation. If you desire to see me proven wrong, then try to prove me wrong through discourse. It’s not my job to jump through your hoops and enlighten you on subjects you do not understand. As it stands, your initial assumption was incorrect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
Okay. I’m going to break our conversation down for you, without condescension, in the hopes that you might learn something from it.
You told me in one sentence that “neoliberalism” didn’t mean “anything close” to what I thought it did. I explained to you that it is a broad term and meant exactly what I had intended it to.
You told me I was wrong and asked me to cite proof of its broad usage. I provided you with a study explaining several different usages of the term, one very similar to how I was using it.
You told me, again in one sentence, that I was still wrong. I again explained that I provided you with exactly what you had asked for.
You then told me that I should prove how it was “born [sic] out of the 1960s.” I provided you with a link to a review of book titled “A Brief History of Neoliberalism” which states in its heading that the book explains how “neoliberalism coopted the 1960s counter-culture,” and provided you with two more links that might help explain neoliberalism to you, a subject you clearly do not understand.
You then asked me about the pyramids.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should reformat your methods of argumentation. If you desire to see me proven wrong, then try to prove me wrong through discourse. It’s not my job to jump through your hoops and enlighten you on subjects you do not understand. As it stands, your initial assumption was incorrect. |
A) "Born" is the correct word in this case. "Borne" is not. If you're going to be a grammar nazi, at least get your grammar right.
B) "Neoliberalism coopted the 1960s counter-culture" does not mean that neoliberalism is a product of 1960s counter-culture, unless your definition of "co-opt" is as inappropriately broad as your definition of neoliberalism.
| Quote: |
Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Augusto Pinochet - these are the famous faces of neoliberalism, the economic (and, to some extent, philosophical) doctrine that advocates unregulated capitalism, free trade, small government (and hence low taxation) and the marketization of virtually every aspect of life. In this book, David Harvey does a good job of analysing the resurrection and rehabilitation of neoliberalism in the mid/late 1970s (with Paul Volocker at the US Federal Reserve Board, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and Deng Xiaoping's acension to the leadership in China); and he brings it right up to today, as China steams ahead in economic expansion and outsourcing of jobs becomes an evermore noticable aspect of dislocation in 'the West'.
Essentially, Harvey's thesis is that neoliberalism is a form of class war: it involves a massive transfer of wealth from the developing/underdeveloped world to the developed world. |
| Quote: |
| Consequently, neoliberalism found a receptive audience in the individualistic generation that came of age in the 1960s: their various forms of 'rebellion' could be easily absorbed into the cool, ironic and self-reflexive capitalism that neoliberalism unleashed.(Thomas Frank has written a lot about this, the 'commodification of dissent'.) |
This is from your link. Again, this usage is the opposite of the way you originally used it:
| Quote: |
| It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. |
Anyway, I'm done with this Dunning-Kruger nonsense. I'll go back to doing what I do and you can go back to doing whatever it is you do, which I assume is (thankfully) far, far away from anything involving policy formation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
Okay. I’m going to break our conversation down for you, without condescension, in the hopes that you might learn something from it.
You told me in one sentence that “neoliberalism” didn’t mean “anything close” to what I thought it did. I explained to you that it is a broad term and meant exactly what I had intended it to.
You told me I was wrong and asked me to cite proof of its broad usage. I provided you with a study explaining several different usages of the term, one very similar to how I was using it.
You told me, again in one sentence, that I was still wrong. I again explained that I provided you with exactly what you had asked for.
You then told me that I should prove how it was “born [sic] out of the 1960s.” I provided you with a link to a review of book titled “A Brief History of Neoliberalism” which states in its heading that the book explains how “neoliberalism coopted the 1960s counter-culture,” and provided you with two more links that might help explain neoliberalism to you, a subject you clearly do not understand.
You then asked me about the pyramids.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should reformat your methods of argumentation. If you desire to see me proven wrong, then try to prove me wrong through discourse. It’s not my job to jump through your hoops and enlighten you on subjects you do not understand. As it stands, your initial assumption was incorrect. |
A) "Born" is the correct word in this case. "Borne" is not. If you're going to be a grammar nazi, at least get your grammar right.
B) "Neoliberalism coopted the 1960s counter-culture" does not mean that neoliberalism is a product of 1960s counter-culture, unless your definition of "co-opt" is as inappropriately broad as your definition of neoliberalism.
| Quote: |
Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Augusto Pinochet - these are the famous faces of neoliberalism, the economic (and, to some extent, philosophical) doctrine that advocates unregulated capitalism, free trade, small government (and hence low taxation) and the marketization of virtually every aspect of life. In this book, David Harvey does a good job of analysing the resurrection and rehabilitation of neoliberalism in the mid/late 1970s (with Paul Volocker at the US Federal Reserve Board, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and Deng Xiaoping's acension to the leadership in China); and he brings it right up to today, as China steams ahead in economic expansion and outsourcing of jobs becomes an evermore noticable aspect of dislocation in 'the West'.
Essentially, Harvey's thesis is that neoliberalism is a form of class war: it involves a massive transfer of wealth from the developing/underdeveloped world to the developed world. |
| Quote: |
| Consequently, neoliberalism found a receptive audience in the individualistic generation that came of age in the 1960s: their various forms of 'rebellion' could be easily absorbed into the cool, ironic and self-reflexive capitalism that neoliberalism unleashed.(Thomas Frank has written a lot about this, the 'commodification of dissent'.) |
This is from your link. Again, this usage is the opposite of the way you originally used it:
| Quote: |
| It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. |
Anyway, I'm done with this Dunning-Kruger nonsense. I'll go back to doing what I do and you can go back to doing whatever it is you do, which I assume is (thankfully) far, far away from anything involving policy formation. |
This is a pathetic way to lose an argument, northway. You were wrong, are wrong, and you are now stubbornly wrong ... and that’s all there is to say. You should thank me for not harking on how you kept reframing the argument you continually failed to make.
Born “of” typically doesn’t use the ‘e’ at the end, but borne “out of” in most cases (including this one) is more grammatically correct if spelled with the ‘e’ at the end, for future reference.
“The only correct (if antiquated) use of “born out of” is in the phrase “born out of wedlock.””
https://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/borne.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| You write in an fairly imprecise manner, though. I am not sure that most people would recognize the words you use as meaning what you use them to mean. Also, modern dialectical code word? What exactly are you trying to say, and perhaps consider saying so in a more concise, precise, manner? I mean it is just a message board, but we should aim to have higher standards than American Thinker here. |
You are starting to make me regret giving your own inconsistent writing a pass; inability to distinguish between ‘then’ and ‘than,’ making incomplete arguments, etc., and it seems like you are trying to spit back the same criticism I gave you in our discussion about gun crime. So, I’m not sure if you are the right person to be lecturing me about standards and precise writing, Leon. Thanks for the advice though. |
Hello Swartz,
Quick grammar question.
Your comment on 'then' and 'than'...did it refer to Leon's post above? If so, could you please explain the mistake? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| You write in an fairly imprecise manner, though. I am not sure that most people would recognize the words you use as meaning what you use them to mean. Also, modern dialectical code word? What exactly are you trying to say, and perhaps consider saying so in a more concise, precise, manner? I mean it is just a message board, but we should aim to have higher standards than American Thinker here. |
You are starting to make me regret giving your own inconsistent writing a pass; inability to distinguish between ‘then’ and ‘than,’ making incomplete arguments, etc., and it seems like you are trying to spit back the same criticism I gave you in our discussion about gun crime. So, I’m not sure if you are the right person to be lecturing me about standards and precise writing, Leon. Thanks for the advice though. |
Hello Swartz,
Quick grammar question.
Your comment on 'then' and 'than'...did it refer to Leon's post above? If so, could you please explain the mistake? |
Hello The Cosmic Hum. No, it did not refer to the post above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
