Not only are some people egregiously dumb, they are proud to announce their dumbness to the world. Here is an example I found in an anti-TPP post. Before I proceed, I need to mention that this is not about “Bleh, TPP” or “Yay, TPP.” Both approaches are as dumb as the article I’m quoting, and I want neither of them to pollute my line of vision. Complex issues deserve of complex approaches. Having said that, here is the offending quote:
Public Citizen also has concerns. These include, among others, that the TPP would. . . tacitly permit human rights violations in partner countries (the agreement does not mention “human rights”).
The US has a long and painfully history of trying to introduce the language of “human rights” into trade agreements and making such agreements contingent on partner countries respecting those rights. Every single one of these attempts failed pathetically. Every single time, it led to extreme resentment and souring of international relations with zero gains. This happened all through the 1990s. It happened with China, it happened with Russia, it happened with many other countries. Russians, for instance, are still livid that Americans, of all people, tried to lecture them about human rights. Chinese are deeply resentful, too. Both countries stepped up human rights abuses to show Americans that they should stop butting into their internal affairs.
Since then, the language of human rights has been dropped from trade agreements because it leads nowhere but to fostering anger. This issue has been studied and discussed at length, and it’s unbelievable that “a fresh fool that has come in from the cold” would brightly chirp about the issue before reading anything about it. Dumbass.
By all means, be against TPP is you’ve managed to read the entire text of the agreement. I haven’t, so I have no right to an opinion. But don’t be against it or in favor of it for idiotic reasons.
Clarissa's Blog 
Enlightenment values for us, slavery for them!
How can one seriously support a treaty that has clauses like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html
Basically, corporations can sue governments for expenses and profits (including mythical future profits!) if a sovereign nation acts in some way to limit ‘free trade’ by, say, passing new health regulations or revoking the license of a company engaging in irreparable damage to the environment .
So, you can have situations where you pay off a corrupt government to get a license to poison a river for a decade. A progressive elected government comes along and says you can’t do it, and you can sue to recover what you would have made for ten years poisoning that river.
This shit is already happening. Undermining national sovereignty. Yay, liquid modernity!
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45381.html
“In early April, the Canadian Parliament acted to ban the import and interprovincial transport of an Ethyl product — the gasoline additive MMT — which Canada considers to be a dangerous toxin. Ethyl (the company that invented leaded gasoline) responded on April 14 by filing a lawsuit against the Canadian government under NAFTA. Ethyl claims that the Canadian ban on MMT violates various provisions of NAFTA and seeks restitution of $251 million to cover losses resulting from the “expropriation” of both its MMT production plant and its “good reputation.””
Remember folks, you’re allowed to support the most fucking regressive policies as long as you call them ‘free trade’.
LikeLike
How can one seriously have an opinion on a text one hasn’t read? I prefer not to opine if I choose not to get informed about the issue.
Our shared political space is what it is because people think they know better than qualified professionals how to resolve complex issues. It would be better for all if sometimes, on some issues we chose to reserve judgment until we actually get informed.
LikeLike
“How can one seriously have an opinion on a text one hasn’t read? I prefer not to opine if I choose not to get informed about the issue.”
What a strange response. Do you believe in climate change? Evolution? The speed of light? Have you read up on the science and math behind every scientific belief you have? Newton’s Principia in its original text?
“Our shared political space is what it is because people think they know better than qualified professionals how to resolve complex issues. ”
The first article was written by Elizabeth Warren. Is she qualified enough for you? Who are these qualified professionals must we defer to? Does this line of argument also follow for, say, terrible Bush era policies that you routinely criticize? After all, those policies were also drafted by trained lawyers/professionals/tax experts. By the way, did you pore through the hundreds and thousands of pages of text that make up these bills?
Sigh.
LikeLike
As for evolution, we had a long discussion here on the blog. As I said then, I’m not qualified to opine, I don’t understand it, which is why I defer my judgment to specialists in the field.
The concept of “scientific belief” is an oxymoron. Science is a matter of knowledge. I never offer any opinions on issues like climate change and, unlike many people, don’t consider my opinions to be more valuable than the consensus of scholars.
And the idea of me offering opinions on Newton’s contribution to science is bizarre. I don’t even know what century he lived in.
LikeLike
“I don’t understand it, which is why I defer my judgment to specialists in the field.”
Exactly. We all do. So, why are you criticizing people for not having read all the thousands of pages of TPP.
This bothsiderism is boring and is deployed precisely to stop any further discussion of an issue.
Example:
Pro-environmental people are freaks (insert five links highlighting some new age bullshitter talking about Gaia).
But people who deny climate change are stupid too (insert five links highlighting quotes from some republican congressman. Any republican congressman).
Blah blah stupid people on both sides. This is a complex issue, lots of nuances, gray areas, lots of ins lots of outs lots of what-have-yous. Shut the fuck up, case closed, blah blah. Status quo restored.
At some point you have to realize that yes there are stupid people on both sides of any issue, but one side has more stupid people.
LikeLike
I did want to include the full quote from Big Lebowski.
“This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous. And, uh, a lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder’s head. Fortunately, I’m adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, uh, limber”
Beautiful. I mean, this could’ve been written by any centrist democrat.
🙂
LikeLike
” did want to include the full quote from Big Lebowski.”
I have students who tell me that Francisco Franco was a communist or that the USSR and Hitler were allies in a war against the US in WWII or that Hitler is alive, etc., and when I try to explain to them why they are mistaken, they tell me, “But that’s my opinion!” It never even occurs to them that they are not entitled to have opinions on these subjects in my presence. It terrifies me to see that. And I obviously don’t want to be like them and express opinions on subjects I never studied.
LikeLike
“Exactly. We all do. So, why are you criticizing people for not having read all the thousands of pages of TPP.”
“At some point you have to realize that yes there are stupid people on both sides of any issue, but one side has more stupid people.”
LikeLike
Here: A leaked version of the TPP from November 16, 2015
The first google result for TPP text
LikeLike
Ok, interesting role reversal. A conservative arguing the more liberal person is not caring enough about humans rights. But the one issue I will ask for more information since you say it has been widely documented in studies.
“that russia and China increased human rights violations” in retaliation to the US putting those clauses in trade deals or simiar deals. that seems ridiculous, but I will admit I haven’t read the studies you say exist so am willing to be corrected. can you link to 2-3 since they are so copious and one-sided that this occured?
LikeLike
Michael Mandelbaum offers a long and detailed discussion of this in his recent book Mission Failure. It has a lengthy bibliography.
LikeLike
Ok appreciate the starting point
LikeLike
“But I do have to insist that the idea that everybody is entitled to an opinion on any subject is wrong. ”
You’re setting up a strawman argument here. Nobody’s arguing otherwise. I posted the opinion of a United States Senator with intimate knowledge of TPP who voiced her criticism of this deal.
Your response: “Read all of TPP and then come back” and ‘Don’t mess with professionals’
What kind of standard is that? I’ll ask you again: Did you read the thousands of pages of Bush era tax cut bills lovingly crafted by seasoned tax professionals and lawmakers before criticizing those laws? Can this standard be reasonably applied to anything?
Seriously, I’ve never heard this argument from you before and we’ve discussed thousands of government policies and laws on this blog. But when it comes to something you seem to tacitly support, instead of coming out and just saying it, you invent these purity litmus tests.
LikeLike
I absolutely do not support the TPP. I don’t know anything about it. Which is my whole point here. If Warren’s opinion is convincing to you, that’s fine. To me, it isn’t. I don’t see her as a serious politician. I’d be more likely to trust Obama who does support the TPP. But even his support is not enough to convince me TPP is good. If I read a detailed, well-informed analysis by somebody whose opinion in this area I respect, that would be one thing. But I haven’t seen anything of the kind. All I do see are dumb retellings like the one I linked in this post.
LikeLike
Sorry, you are missing the point. You are expressing your opinion on hundreds of topics. Every item in your weekly “encyclopedias” has some short opinion attached to it. Often including the word “freakazoids” 🙂 And you cannot possibly be a professional in all of those areas. No one demands that kind of divine all-knowing professionalism from you, everyone just treats these opinions as your opinions…
And then with respect to TPP in particular you suddenly become very reluctant to express your own opinion, hiding behind “I do not know enough”, and demand unusually high justification standards from the opponents. When things like that happen, people notice and start questioning why… Why this particular topic suddenly warranted some special treatment from Clarissa? How could this particular topic become so special for Clarissa while she claims she does not even know enough about it? Subconscious something?
LikeLike
Every item in my link encyclopedias is a text I have read. TPP is a text I have not read. Offering opinions on texts one hasn’t as much as glanced upon is a bizarre thing to do. It reminds me of those folks who publish endless posts about the Koran without ever reading it.
LikeLike
So, Obama should not have an opinion about TPP?
LikeLike
What makes you think he is unfamiliar with the text??
LikeLike
“What makes you think he is unfamiliar with the text??”
I thought it was common knowledge that those in office don’t really read most legislation – they have staff read it (in the best case scenario) and summarize it.
Often they simply vote as they’ve been told to by party leadership.
I seriously doubt that Obama has read the entire text of the TPP.
LikeLike
I can’t condemn a person for not having read a text when I have no evidence that they haven’t. Instead, I’m condemning people like the linked blogger who very clearly have no idea what they are blabbering about. Why not concentrate on them? My newsfeed is exploding with this kind of posts on all subjects. I see such people at work, in the classroom, everywhere. Their smug conviction that they are entitled to “opeenions” is beyond annoying and often dangerous.
LikeLike