Part of an ongoing series, while I get around to it.
Previously I talked about Jeffrey S's strangely selective blindness when coming to the defense of National Review's article about white towns, and how they're stocked with morally impure degenerates whose culture needs to be wiped out. Again, Jeffrey S parsed this as Williamson 'daring to be blunt' about how people in those cities need to move. Kind of an understatement bordering on flat out dishonesty, but let's move on.
Jeffrey S unleashes this quote in defense of the eradication of suboptimal white neighborhoods:
For these and other reasons, it is widely accepted that U.S. manufacturing “decline” has been limited to employment, and that these loses were primarily cause by productivity gains, not trade. Indeed, even the most pessimistic academic studies on imports and manufacturing jobs have found only a limited connection between the two. Autor, Dorn, and Hanson found in 2013, for example, that “import competition explains [only] one-quarter of the contemporaneous aggregate decline in US manufacturing employment” between 1990 and 2007. Other studies have been even more sanguine. For example, a recent Ball State study attributed almost 90 percent of all U.S. manufacturing-job losses since 2000 to productivity gains. “Had we kept 2000-levels of productivity and applied them to 2010-levels of production,” the authors write, “we would have required 20.9 million manufacturing workers. Instead, we employed only 12.1 million.” Thus, it is simply wrong to blame import competition for the disappearance of American manufacturing jobs of the supposed destruction of U.S. industrial capacity.Let's take the claim at face value for a moment: it's primarily an increase in productivity (automation, etc) which has resulted in job losses. Let's even put aside the fact that, even at a supposed quarter of the losses, that's still a rather sizable amount of jobs being lost - even if it's clearly outweighed by other factors.
My question is this: since when is it viewed as why-even-argue acceptable to literally destroy and dismantle whole communities in the name of productivity gains?
Before you come at me, I want to be clear the position I take here. I'm a lover of technology and efficiency. The benefits of having a more productive workforce are tremendous, and not to be discounted lightly. But so too are the benefits of a stable and economically healthy city. Jeffrey S and friends are not just asking us to celebrate gains in productivity, not just to accept that some jobs will necessarily be lost when a given industry becomes more efficient, but to accept - with a big ol' smile - the utter destruction of entire cities (so long as they're white cities, I'll add) in exchange for it.
Pardon me, but something seems wrong there. Dare I say it - it smells a bit modernist. It smells like what's really wrong with the world.
Now, that's not to say I'm not in favor of a bit of fire and brimstone when it comes to an 'industry'. For instance - I'm on record as believing that the university system as we know it should be destroyed. Burnt to the ground and made not just a whole lot less liberal, but - God help us - more efficient. More *productive*. We live in an age of wireless communication where whole libraries can be transferred in seconds. Why the hell are we sending children off to re-education camps so their minds can be molded by SJWs of the worst variety?
Funny thing. I brought this up at WWWtW once upon a time (with emphasis added):
I believe Marc is right about one thing: Vox's (and Larry Correia's) strategy worked. It helped that they actually concocted a plan and worked on it, rather than satisfied themselves with complaining in relative privacy. They used their respective positions as popular authors and the format of the Hugo awards to raise a little hell, and raise a little hell they did - in the process illustrating the hypocrisy not only of the leftists, but of a pretty major industry in general. (Well, major for now - it's on the decline.)
As for the OP, I'm sad to say that my general opinion of academia is 'burn it all to the ground'. The APA in particular is an intellectual joke at this point, and the best thing Christians can do is undermine respect for such organizations - and academia in general - in their own communities. If they want to be jokes, then the least we can do is laugh at them. Loudly.So, with WWWtW defending the utter destruction of Garbutt being approved of by WWWtW - remember, Williamson declared that it was morally imperative that these depressed regions be destroyed - you'd think my humble suggestion would be celebrated, wouldn't you?
Let me give you a sample of some of the responses - again, with emphasis added:
I hold no brief for the APA, but being married to a professional philosopher (perhaps you didn't know that, Crude?) I am not at all likely to agree that we should burn all of academia to the ground. I still think that good things can be and in some cases are taught in philosophy classes and many other classes in higher education. I also have many professional philosophers for friends who do a darned good job. My sympathies are with any normal philosophers who just wanted to do good work in the University of Colorado, and even though (as I said in the OP) I don't actually know who they are or what their work is (and deliberately avoided looking it up for purposes of this post), it is more than a purely theoretical possibility that there were such. Nobody in the department was looking to be taken over by an APA Committee of Harpies. Obviously. So just being cynical and saying, "Who cares?" is not going to do it for me, here. There are people trying to do good work in the academy, and the Committee of Harpies would like to stop them from doing it with this kind of totalitarian junk. As for what to do about it, if they try it on you, I think Mike Adams has had a good approach: Sue the bastards. And he won, too. He more or less told them that they were going to take his freedom of speech from his cold, dead hands, and he won. I'm cheering for FIRE on this one, and I hope some of the UC philosophers are in touch with them, too.Ladies and gentlemen, my star witness - Lydia McGrew. Arch-libertarian Lydia McGrew, no less.
In case you were keeping score at home:
The complete destruction of largely white, typically Christian communities like Garbutt, with its residents scattered to the winds and forced to relocate the urban areas to eke out a living in a whole new field: justified on the grounds of efficiency and greater value to all and sundry.
The complete destruction of largely liberal, typically secular-atheist SJW hellholes like Missouri State, with education made more accessible and affordable for all, at vastly more convenience for everyone who desires an education: now you just hold your horses Crude, some of us have family there, and there are some good people doing good work at those jobs!
Greater efficiency and net productivity, it seems, is only so valuable.
Funny how that works.