Everyone stop reading and go over to the Blowhards to read their interview with architecture theorist — and I mean that in a good way — and Christopher Alexander disciple Nikos Salingaros. I can’t go down the line with Alexander, whose views are a bit totalitarian for my taste, though far less so than those of the people, like Corbusier, he’s trying to supplant, but Salingaros will refine your thoughts about architecture if nothing else. It’s a five-parter, best read in order. One, two, three, and four are up so far. Five will presumably follow shortly. Don’t miss the comments to Part Two, in which AC Douglas gets tossed for being, well, for being AC Douglas, mostly.
In unrelated news, just two short days after being accused of “stifling dissent,” I am now called a racist (“dim-witted” too, but that’s old news) for this. I’m still waiting on “fascist” and “Nazi,” but at this rate I expect to fill my bingo card by the end of the week.
Re: Christopher Alexander I don’t understand the significance of what he is saying. Can you point me to other sources than listed in the Blowhards?
Aaron wrote: "Don’t miss the comments to Part Two, in which AC Douglas gets tossed for being, well, for being AC Douglas, mostly."
Oh, you can do better than that, Aaron.
Go ahead. Give it a try.
There’s a good fellow.
ACD
"Silver Rights" just calls ’em as he sees ’em. Aaron is a dimwitted racist, and more people should have the insight of Laura Gleason. Here is the wisdom of the aforementioned Gleason:
"a) the plaintiff is a whiner, b) affirmative action is something America needs, and, c) Grutter should get over her rejection and move on with her life."
Aaron can only aspire to such sublime and subtly worded genius.
Frankly Aaron, I do think you’re responding to all this criticism in a somewhat fascist way.
There you go! Now you’re one word short of bingo.
If my jokes are lousy, AC, you now at least have my dim-wittedness to blame.
Floyd: Actually I agree with Laura that Grutter is whiny, as I pointed out here. Suing when you aren’t admitted to the professional school of your choice is unattractive. But the character of the plaintiff is a poor index to the merit of the claim. Compared to Escobedo, Miranda, or Gideon, Grutter is a saint.
Alexis: Thanks, I think.
If you really want to be called a fascist, Aaron, you need to concentrate on squashing dissent, rather than merely stifling it. Stifled dissent grows back, like a weed cut off too far above its roots. And the fascist descriptor is best not merely granted, but earned.
Aaron wrote: "If my jokes are lousy, AC, you now at least have my dim-wittedness to blame."
Not so lousy. Reading the quip again, it’s rather good, actually. Woulda been better, though, had you used the specific link to the relevant post on my site rather than the general link to my weblog. Woulda given the quip sharper point.
Know whadamean?
ACD
OK, AC, I can buy that.
Michael: earned, you mean like the other epithets? And as I pointed out, you don’t squash dissent, you crush it.
Well, you could explain how you would compensate people for all that American racism has costs and still costs them.
But that would conflict with your race ‘realist’ view that people of color deserve to be ill-treated, right?
J.G.: Pure groupthink. If X commits some tort on Y, why should A (of X’s race) compensate B (of Y’s), when A and B were not parties to the original tort? No one claims Grutter oppressed "people of color" personally.
Incidentally, have you got a cite for your claim that I think "people of color deserve to be ill-treated"? You could of course define being held to the same academic standards as the rest of the world as "ill-treatment," just as you could define cats as dogs. It’s not a very useful strategy, however.