— On Assholes

A new GOP strategy–which includes a bill proposed in Virginia–apparently seeks to flip several swing states that went to Obama, by in effect giving greater weight to rural votes, presumably in order to counter-act the “demographic wave” that now threatens the GOP with perpetual minority status.  See here. (Rural areas have far fewer voters but more electoral districts.  The new approach would award state electoral college votes according to districts won, regardless of how many or how few people live in them, in effect diluting the more populous, more liberal urban vote.)

Now, this is brazen political assholery in a democratic society that works with a majority rule presumption IF the change has no basis other than partisan advantage.  “We want to win next time” plainly won’t do.  Even

I am pleased to report that there have been no conspicuous assholes in public life for much of this week (or at least the last few days, or parts of days, or parts of hours).  Hence blogging about said assholes has been unnecessary, freeing up valuable time for reflection about non-assholes, and other non-asshole-related subjects of inquiry.  Occasionally, the human social condition offers a much needed, if short, reprieve from its normal foulness, or at least from certain forms of foulness, as they are normally displayed to our senses.  All of which leads me to want to the play the ukulele, and to now play this classic song, by Louis Armstrong, “What A Wonderful World.”  Here.  What a lovely song!

“…provided it isn’t the work he is supposed to be doing at that moment.” — Robert Benchley

Philosopher John Perry explains, here, on the topic of “structured procrastination.” This issue isn’t directly about assholes.  It is related to the future of capitalism, as I hope to explain in a future book, which is partly about the alternative to Asshole Capitalism (to put the connection vaguely, for the moment).

On “To the best of our knowledge,” Wisconsin Public Radio/PRI, here.

Namely, that he hasn’t been paid the pension that is usually due to a former president in Liberia. (see here.)  Apparently war crimes don’t change things.  Not to mention that he’s wrong about Liberian  law (according to one correspondent, the pension is due only to a former president who has “honourably retired to private life.”)  But I guess it isn’t exactly news that he’s an asshole.

Well, the apology bodes well — assholes are usually won’t apologize.  But he sure went for lying and obstruction for a *long* time.  The nice guy image was always a public facade (see here), and he didn’t seem especially worried about living a lie during all those years.  If he’s not a proper asshole, because the apology now matters, he surely had a major asshole phase.

Or are they just wrong?

That is, assholes could simply be in error about what they are entitled to, in a “clear-eyed” way, with no confusion or incoherence to speak of.  Perhaps.  But here’s why the asshole might be not only wrong but also confused.

Proper assholes seem happy to admit that they are assholes.  As the onion.com headline

(A guest post by Dr. A. James Frisbee, an Advanced Scholar at the Center for Advanced Studies, California, U.S.A.)

As a real American, I believe that we should protect liberty at any cost.  We should especially protect my liberty not to be taxed, even if others (e.g. poor people) must be deprived of social services.  Ongoing poverty is a fact of life, but the slightest thought of

At least among professional philosophers, that is the almost universal feeling about the “philosopher” of the hour.  Whether you agree or disagree with her views, there’s little in Rand that isn’t better developed in Plato (in the mouth of Callicles or Thrasymacus), in Nietzsche, or in libertarians such as Robert Nozick.  The sanctimonious Rand is better if you’re young and looking for a religion, but not so good if you want a deep understanding of the issues.

I concede that this *could* just be a snob’s view of things.  To suggest that it isn’t, here’s some evidence from my own behavioral dispositions.

If you asked me what it means to call someone an “asshole,” a “honkey,” or a “pig” before the summer of 2008, I would have said “I have no idea.”  I might have suggested that these are just terms of abuse, and that they *merely* vent or express disapproving feelings, in a way that renders statements such as “Joe is an asshole/honkey/pig” as *neither true nor false.*  Having written a book about assholes, I now think that is completely wrong, not only about vice terms like “asshole,” but also about pejorative terms like “honkey” and slurs like “pig.”

What I’m now thinking is that we can divide much of foul language into three main basic categories, none of which admit of which admit of an “expressivist” rather than a “cognitivist” analysis.  The three kinds are

Read More