SDF: Hallett suggests that Jacobson is an emotionalist because he said:: : "Maybe if you paid attention to what I was saying you'd actually say something worth responding to. Are you truly unable to follow conversations or is this some obtuse manner of changing around definitions or subjects? Either way is an exceptionally dishonest manner of conversing." (JJ, Feb 12th 1999, Capitalism & Alternatives)
SDF: And Jacobson responds:
: I think this was a response to Samuel Day where I was giving a structuralist narrative regarding ancient tribes and he jumped in accusing me of supporting The Holocaust. My language was emotive, and understandably so, as a jump of subject in this proportion simply abrogates any attempt at dialog. I was pissed and rightly so. Samuel was simply diverting the conversation into oblivion and implicitly accusing me of being evil.
SDF: One has to wonder, on what basis did I "implicitly accuse" Jacobson of being "evil." In this post I made this hypothetical speculation:
SDF: You have been made The Offer by the Gestapo, who seeks merely to annihilate you and your kind. Either turn in fifty of your friends, or we will kill you and the friends of yours we see here. How do you "maximize utility" in this situation?
SDF: Then later, here, I explained:
SDF: My point is that the "maximization of utility" is a nonsense phrase saying nothing about social conditions.
SDF: One has to wonder where in all of this is the accusation of "evil" directed against Jacobson. In the above post, of course, I did criticize Jacobson directly:
SDF: You're still passing off your opinions as fact, as you have been ever since you started posting to this forum. If there's an appeal to emotion in your every post, its an appeal to the emotions felt by you yourself -- "I'm such a great guy who knows everything." You don't give references, your philosophy of science has holes I could drive a truck through, and your criticisms are often childish.
SDF: None of this would directly implicate Jacobson in "evil," though my opinion of him is that I do think he's posing as the kind of arrogant, self-centered academic I've had to suffer through for far too long as a graduate student. I will freely admit that I have a chip on my shoulder about this sort of thing.
SDF: It isn't really Jacobson's politics, though I'm sure I would object to some of his political beliefs if I cared to do so. I've registered my objection to Jacobson's philosophy of social science all over this Debating Room, in a civil manner -- I've yet to read an answer that directly clashes with any of the simple declarative sentences I've posted so far. I'm sure Jacobson is a great guy to meet at a barbecue or something, as are many Libertarians I've met at barbecues. I don't have a lot of objection to what Libertarians are trying to do politically, and I can agree with Jacobson on the idea of abolishing the IMF. I just don't like his pose, as reflected in many of his posts here. Indeed, even Hallett has to ask:
: For the record, where have I said that your standpoint was evil?
SDF: To which Jacobson responds:
My apologies. Lark said this as did (I think) QX, SamD (certainly) and a couple of others.
SDF: Since Jacobson has already said here that "Socialism is a mental disorder anywhere one goes," one has to wonder in this regard if socialism causes any more paranoia than libertarianism...
None.
