The Lemon Fool

This is my first post on this board. I was just pottering about on the internet when I came across a review of this book. It seems to cover some interesting contemporary topics.

https://www.theoryculturesociety.org/bl ... -the-demos

I have not read the book, but if you wade through that review, it looks like the book has a number of flaws.

In particular it's arguments are based upon an externally applied label, leading unsurprisingly to inherent dichotomies of opinion in those that the label is applied to.

That review itself seemed overly fond of jargon and clearly had it's own political point to make. The author "quite rightly" argues "this" then later "quite rightly" argues "that".

The real irritation though is that the subject matter IS worthy of writing about. As you say, it is intended to cover contemporary topics (how the state interfaces with it's citizens).

By the way, the amazon synopsis is far more readable.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Undoing-Demos- ... 1935408534
Or the goodreads review.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3394033273

I would likely find myself in strong disagreement with the author. But of course it can still be a good book despite the fact that I have a different political opinion than the author.

Urbandreamer wrote:I have not read the book, but if you wade through that review, it looks like the book has a number of flaws.

In particular it's arguments are based upon an externally applied label, leading unsurprisingly to inherent dichotomies of opinion in those that the label is applied to.

That review itself seemed overly fond of jargon and clearly had it's own political point to make.

You gave it more credit and patience than I did. Frankly any opus with the word "neoliberalism" in it immediately screams left-wing ideological bias to me.

Lootman wrote:You gave it more credit and patience than I did. Frankly any opus with the word "neoliberalism" in it immediately screams left-wing ideological bias to me.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:You gave it more credit and patience than I did. Frankly any opus with the word "neoliberalism" in it immediately screams left-wing ideological bias to me.

If you are going to write a piece and hope to be taken seriously and objectively then it is probably better to avoid code and trigger words, designed to appeal only to those in your tribe who agree with you anyway.

That applies equally to both the left and the right, and I would say the same about "libtard" and "snowflake" as I would about "neoliberal" and "fascist"

Just the facts, ma'am.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:

If you are going to write a piece and hope to be taken seriously and objectively then it is probably better to avoid code and trigger words, designed to appeal only to those in your tribe who agree with you anyway.

That applies equally to both the left and the right, and I would say the same about "libtard" and "snowflake" as I would about "neoliberal" and "fascist"

Just the facts, ma'am.

I think "neoliberalism" IS a perfectly plain descriptive word with a fairly well accepted definition. No less so that liberal or conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

"libtard" is obviously an intentional slur or insult.

"fascist" is more complicated, because it is both a descriptive word with a pretty well defined (but commonly now, not accepted!) meaning and is also commonly used as a political insult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:If you are going to write a piece and hope to be taken seriously and objectively then it is probably better to avoid code and trigger words, designed to appeal only to those in your tribe who agree with you anyway.

That applies equally to both the left and the right, and I would say the same about "libtard" and "snowflake" as I would about "neoliberal" and "fascist"

Just the facts, ma'am.

I think "neoliberalism" IS a perfectly plain descriptive word with a fairly well accepted definition. No less so that liberal or conservative.

"libtard" is obviously an intentional slur or insult.

In practice both terms are used provocatively, and so are best not used if the intention is to be taken seriously rather than to energise one's base. It is not hard to use non-prejudicial language.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:I think "neoliberalism" IS a perfectly plain descriptive word with a fairly well accepted definition. No less so that liberal or conservative.

"libtard" is obviously an intentional slur or insult.

In practice both terms are used provocatively, and so are best not used if the intention is to be taken seriously rather than to energise one's base. It is not hard to use non-prejudicial language.

The context makes it plain that "neoliberalism" is being used seriously. There is no context in which "libtard" is anything other than an intentional slur.

How could one seriously discuss the subject of fascism without using the word "fascism"?

(I think we have been down this route before... (last time it resulted in TLF changing its rules.))

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:In practice both terms are used provocatively, and so are best not used if the intention is to be taken seriously rather than to energise one's base. It is not hard to use non-prejudicial language.

The context makes it plain that "neoliberalism"

No use of that word is being used seriously. All you need to know is that nobody who does not already agree with you is not going to read an article that uses a word like that.

So if you want to preach to the choir then go ahead.

If you want to convince others then find less prejudicial sources.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:The context makes it plain that "neoliberalism" is being used seriously. << Full quote

No use of that word is being used seriously. All you need to know is that nobody who does not already agree with you is not going to read an article that uses a word like that.

So if you want to preach to the choir then go ahead.

If you want to convince others then find less prejudicial sources.

Oh, Jeez!

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:No use of that word is being used seriously. All you need to know is that nobody who does not already agree with you is not going to read an article that uses a word like that.

So if you want to preach to the choir then go ahead.

If you want to convince others then find less prejudicial sources.

Oh, Jeez!

I accept your concession.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:Oh, Jeez!

I accept your concession.

How did I know you would say that, before you said that?

For what it's worth, Neoliberalism is both an accepted description AND used as an insult.

As I said, here it is applied to others. The way that the word communist is used in America to mean anyone who has left of rabid right political beliefs, rather than actually subscribes to the communist ideology. In this case neoliberalism is being applied to those who argue for free markets or laissez faire capitalism. Which I do think that we can argue is somewhat different to the explanation of the term and it's history linked to by Xfool.

From the Wiki.

Neoconservative ideology stresses that while free markets do provide material goods in an efficient way, they lack the moral guidance human beings need to fulfill their needs.

The author seems to have picked the term to be applied to those who see customer choice as a more valid position than the choices of elected officials, rather than the neoliberal position. So either they do not study political ideology, or..........?

Hence the use of terms in the review that are normally only used tongue in cheek, but seem to be honestly meant as real labels.

Homo economicus: the fictional creature who's choices are carefully weighed and, as often meant, dictated by price.
Homo politicus: another fictional creature who's every action is dictated by, in the old usage of the words, political correctness (before that too became an insult).

Apologies. I posted without sufficient reviewing.

Xfool's link was to a Wiki on Neoconservative's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

From the first paragraph.

Neoliberalism, also neo-liberalism,[1] is a term used to signify the late-20th century political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism, which had fallen into decline following the Second World War.[2][3][4][5] The term has multiple, competing definitions, and is often used pejoratively.[6][7] In scholarly use, the term is frequently undefined or used to characterize a vast variety of phenomena.[8][9][10]

So, either a catch-all term, or an insult.

Urbandreamer wrote:Apologies. I posted without sufficient reviewing.

Xfool's link was to a Wiki on Neoconservative's.

Correct! Sorry, I didn't notice that.

Urbandreamer wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

From the first paragraph.

Neoliberalism, also neo-liberalism,[1] is a term used to signify the late-20th century political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism, which had fallen into decline following the Second World War.[2][3][4][5] The term has multiple, competing definitions, and is often used pejoratively.[6][7] In scholarly use, the term is frequently undefined or used to characterize a vast variety of phenomena.[8][9][10]

So, either a catch-all term, or an insult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism is a political movement that began in the United States and the United Kingdom during the 1960s during the Vietnam War among foreign policy hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s. Neoconservatives typically advocate the unilateral promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, grounded in a militaristic and realist philosophy of "peace through strength." They are known for espousing opposition to communism and political radicalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism, also neo-liberalism, is a term used to signify the late-20th century political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism, which had fallen into decline following the Second World War. The term has multiple, competing definitions, and is often used pejoratively. In scholarly use, the term is frequently undefined or used to characterize a vast variety of phenomena.

Should have taken more time to read it properly!

So the term is as ambiguous in use as the word "liberal"? (Particularly wrt UK vs US use)

Reminds one of Alice in Wonderland. Or was it Through the Looking Glass?

Anyway, I should probably keep out of discussions that are above my pay grade...