![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yesterday was devoured by locusts, and then I got into an argument over at Simberg's Flying Circus, but I repeat myself.
It was the typical argument - Rand supporting Jonah Goldberg'salternate history novel book Liberal Fascism and me pointing out that the Emperor (Goldberg) had no clothes. In the spirit of John Scalzi, let me re-post this little comment on the thread, slightly edited for this blog:
In general, in debating "Liberal Fascism" I feel like the guy trying to give a serious lecture on astronomy and some dudes in the back are cracking Beavis and Butthead jokes about Uranus. Embarrassed, but not for my actions. Rather, embarrassed that a bunch of seemingly-intelligent people have fallen for something only marginally slicker than a Nigerian 401 scam, AKA Goldberg’s book.
Seriously, if a guy with no training or background in investing wrote a book that said you could make 20% returns regardless of the market, wouldn’t you at least insist on some rigorous proof? But here some dude writes a book that attempts to reverse 60 years of history and y’all lap it up like frat boys standing around a free beer keg.
Lastly, I’m not arguing to convince Rand. He is supremely confident in his own correctness. Rather, I’m making a case for the people who may lack Rand’s certitude. That case is that the facts are not as Rand and Goldberg present them.
It's the trouble with stupid, episode 5,425.
It was the typical argument - Rand supporting Jonah Goldberg's
In general, in debating "Liberal Fascism" I feel like the guy trying to give a serious lecture on astronomy and some dudes in the back are cracking Beavis and Butthead jokes about Uranus. Embarrassed, but not for my actions. Rather, embarrassed that a bunch of seemingly-intelligent people have fallen for something only marginally slicker than a Nigerian 401 scam, AKA Goldberg’s book.
Seriously, if a guy with no training or background in investing wrote a book that said you could make 20% returns regardless of the market, wouldn’t you at least insist on some rigorous proof? But here some dude writes a book that attempts to reverse 60 years of history and y’all lap it up like frat boys standing around a free beer keg.
Lastly, I’m not arguing to convince Rand. He is supremely confident in his own correctness. Rather, I’m making a case for the people who may lack Rand’s certitude. That case is that the facts are not as Rand and Goldberg present them.
It's the trouble with stupid, episode 5,425.