GM Thuggery

[xbacksideslider]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/10/eri ... lly-roger/

Automotive journalist Eric Peters, despite a huge following of 20+ years, without explanation got his "press pool" access to test cars pulled by GM. His apparent sin? He knocked GM for putting PC over engineering.

No explanation = cowardice and a sense of guilt.

[SonicVenum]

Let's play devil's advocate here:

He's complaining about a car company focusing on things outside of engineering by hiring a VP of Diversity. He decides to publish these feelings in a publicly-available article. The company doesn't like the criticism of a car journalist that has nothing to do with their vehicles, so they pull his credentials. Don't they have every right to do that? And, wouldn't telling him the truth about why they did it just open them up for more bad press? He did this to HIMSELF. Oddly enough, I found his use of passive voice pretty ironic. He wrote, "Until that column appeared." As if evil PC gremlins snuck into his brain at night, typed out his thoughts, and published them without his consent or knowledge. HE wrote the article. HE decided to kick sand in the face of a company he needs something from. It seems pretty clear, this wouldn't have happened if he had just stuck to writing about the subject that is the very reason for his credentials... cars. Perhaps he could have still written about his issues with diversity in corporations without singling out one manufacturer? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences for that speech (outside of government agencies, that is).

On the other subject of PC culture, I'm stuck some where to the right of Berkeley students, but still left of center. I have faced some racism in my life, but have been relatively lucky. Some instances of racism I lived through I didn't even realize until I was much older and had a broader perspective. Yes, VPs of Diversity and affirmative action are flawed responses to prejudice, however, pretending racism, sexism, homophobia, and all other forms of prejudice don't exist is even more flawed. I've heard libertarians say something along the lines of striving for equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. In other words, start from a clean slate, everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve what they want. Unfortunately, that ignores a lot of human history. It just isn't a clean slate. On a societal level, it is not a fair race. You've probably heard/read this before, but it's a 100 yard dash with some people starting at the 50 yard line. No... it's not that. It's more like some people starting from the 100 yard line, and others starting from the 150 yard line. That is more apt.

Hopefully, we will all stop further dividing ourselves, and start to work toward coming together. Along the way, there will be many tough and uncomfortable conversations, but that is a part of growth.

[xbacksideslider]

Thanks for a considered thoughtful reply.
Peters' point was about engineering as the sin qua non of a company such as GM.
He deplores the fact that the company has become more politicized, the diversity honcho being the latest offense.

People, especially in their conduct, are not equal. Weren't, aren't, never will be.
Egalitarianism is a utopian offense against nature; too often it is driven by envy.
Egalitarians evade discussion of conduct. That's why egalitarians don't talk about equal opportunity; instead their focus is on equal outcomes, and that skips over the conduct between start and finish. Personal responsibility matters. All of that is an inconvenient truth for SJWs.

That is not to knock compensations, such as affirmative action, that adjust for disadvantages at the starting gate.
I'm all for it, in principle. In this instance, when engineering loses to politics, then it's gone too far.

Yes, GM has a right to retaliate. Even to do it sub rosa and without explanation.
And Peters had a right to write truthfully. Which, he did. GM ought to be big enough to take it.
If they were better, they'd reply to him/us. If they were less better, they'd ignore him. But no, that cowardice betrays their corporate shame, it betrays their knowledge of their own moral wrong.

I like Peters because, unlike most auto/moto-journalists, he doesn't pull punches.
He calls out the corporatist compromises.

[jhwalker]

Good honest discussion, I'll not try to add anything of value -- after re-reading the thread a couple of times. I may a little later this week. I have very strong feelings about the impact of family and culture on outcomes. I was raised in a very poor home (dad was making $4 a week with 4 kids under 7 years old), living in 'borrowed' house, parents scratching and clawing to make a living, and mom & dad trying to help folks worse off than we were (!). We knew we were poor -- tough to not know when being teased about wearing shirts made (badly) out of the latest Purina feed sack material and wearing Red Camel dungarees. In the 1940's they were not cool...
https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=red+ ... 68&bih=795

My mother was psychotically focused on her kids having a better life. Her highest aspiration was for us to be school teachers, or work in the church. . We had to excel in school because it was a way out. From the 1st grade on, every night was schoolwork, test prep. That was my parent's gift to me. Being the son of a hillbilly, I was in trouble a lot and got pounded back into good behavior. I never have hit my kids but the pounding worked on me until I was strong enough to take the belt away from mom. Even then I felt that I understood why she was so desperate to squash the 'evil' in me that seemed to appear out of nowhere. I started picking my 'bad times' better, as I began to outwork most of the other kids in school and sports -- and could see a future different than my current situation. I started feeling that I, even with nothing, had something to lose. Even with the pushing I had, I came very close to completely failing in life multiple times. But for the pushing, pulling, pounding (and maybe some serious luck) --- I could be posting from some form of lockup. All this to say that I feel very sad for all of the youth who have to make it on their own. It feels to me like many kids are growing up with bad/long odds for a chance of personal/social success. Growing up with no good prospects.
Post-stroke thought and typing is still hard, and don't know where I was going with this, but maybe I'll remember later.

[SonicVenum]

John, I agree that striving for equal outcomes is BS. In a vacuum, different people will respond differently to their circumstances. Someone not willing to work as hard does not deserve the same outcome as someone who is. But, there are ways to start leveling that starting line without simply trying to take from others. Let's start by getting rid of the remaining institutions of oppression that helped push the starting line back. Drug laws. Prison systems designed only to hold, not to rehabilitate. No consequences for gross police misconduct. Continuing to have open conversations, like this one, on a national level.

If any of you haven't, check out the documentary Crips and Bloods: Made in America. Very interesting look at how a system could help push impressionable kids in the wrong direction. It resonated with me because I grew up in a Blood neighborhood in LA. I grew up wondering, "Why the hell are these guys this way?"

James, you have climbed quite far. It makes sense that the James I know came from that background. It took something inside you to rise above, bite down on your mouthpiece, and slug it out with life until you came out on top. It's inspiring.

[jhwalker]

John, I agree that striving for equal outcomes is BS. In a vacuum, different people will respond differently to their circumstances. Someone not willing to work as hard does not deserve the same outcome as someone who is. But, there are ways to start leveling that starting line without simply trying to take from others. Let's start by getting rid of the remaining institutions of oppression that helped push the starting line back. Drug laws. Prison systems designed only to hold, not to rehabilitate. No consequences for gross police misconduct. Continuing to have open conversations, like this one, on a national level.

If any of you haven't, check out the documentary Crips and Bloods: Made in America. Very interesting look at how a system could help push impressionable kids in the wrong direction. It resonated with me because I grew up in a Blood neighborhood in LA. I grew up wondering, "Why the hell are these guys this way?"

James, you have climbed quite far. It makes sense that the James I know came from that background. It took something inside you to rise above, bite down on your mouthpiece, and slug it out with life until you came out on top. It's inspiring.

Juan thanks for the kind words but I walked the razor's edge and had a ton of luck/angels on my shoulder/whatever along the way. I have apologized to my kids as I see them encounter the demons I attribute to my gene pool.
I always feel that there is still much work to be done, that can be done, to "alter the starting line". A lot of truth would be required, and the lack of civil discourse makes it difficult.
I found in my Bell Canyon years as Board President of an 850 home community, I was incapable of mediating disputes.
I now find in a 6 home community I am incapable of mediating disputes.
Both experiences were/are in communities with relatively homogenous financial levels -- generally either a having lot , or faking having a lot. No real needs. Still constant attempts to B/F each other, or get an edge. If we can't have 'peace' and goodwill to all in small, homogenous groups, how in large, diverse groups?
I find myself pondering how I would address 'solving 'Chicago', for example, or South Central. I am not optimistic...
We have two families living in the campo nearby -- the Mexican Hattfields and McCoys. I know both senior men - good men -- and they can't clearly remember how it started generations ago. But they know they hate each other, and sort of live off that hate. and do not want to entertain the thought of not hating.
Humans are strange...

[xbacksideslider]

Wow. I'm honored that that dumb little link precipitated this discussion.

I agree completely, Juan, when you say

". . . there are ways to start leveling that starting line without simply trying to take from others. Let's start by getting rid of the remaining institutions of oppression that helped push the starting line back. Drug laws. Prison systems designed only to hold, not to rehabilitate. No consequences for gross police misconduct. Continuing to have open conversations, like this one, on a national level."

Drugs should be legal, no gatekeepers. Pharmacists and doctors hired by drug consumers for advice/monitoring.

Prisons should not be run like the DMV. They ought to be private, not bogus "contracted out" cronyism but multiple players all in competition with each other, with - and here is the key - "tail end" risk and reward. Dinged for recidivism and compensated for true rehabilitation. Social scientists claim they can do it, let em prove it and get rich doing so in a free market.

Police officers and police departments enjoy excess "qualified immunity;" if their occasional bad conduct went before juries more often, such misconduct as we now do have would diminish greatly. That said, I do believe that the MSM sensationalizes, exaggerates, and overstates the problem. Meanwhile politicians, captured by public employee unions, overprotect police to the point that we now have a problem, or at least a perceived problem.

Finally, it is the Left that quashes conversation. Exhibit 1 - political correctness, and to bring it full circle, an example - GM's refusal to explain itself to Peters.

[jhwalker]

Wow. I'm honored that that dumb little link precipitated this discussion.

I agree completely, Juan, when you say

". . . there are ways to start leveling that starting line without simply trying to take from others. Let's start by getting rid of the remaining institutions of oppression that helped push the starting line back. Drug laws. Prison systems designed only to hold, not to rehabilitate. No consequences for gross police misconduct. Continuing to have open conversations, like this one, on a national level."

Drugs should be legal, no gatekeepers. Pharmacists and doctors hired by drug consumers for advice/monitoring.
too Darwinian for me. I have known otherwise good people who become complete animals on drugs. Only fear of jail keeps them straight

Prisons should not be run like the DMV. They ought to be private, not bogus "contracted out" cronyism but multiple players all in competition with each other, with - and here is the key - "tail end" risk and reward. Dinged for recidivism and compensated for true rehabilitation. Social scientists claim they can do it, let em prove it and get rich doing so in a free market.
100 % with you

Police officers and police departments enjoy excess "qualified immunity;" if their occasional bad conduct went before juries more often, such misconduct as we now do have would diminish greatly. That said, I do believe that the MSM sensationalizes, exaggerates, and overstates the problem. Meanwhile politicians, captured by public employee unions, overprotect police to the point that we now have a problem, or at least a perceived problem.
I am a police groupie, while HATING the rare bad apple. The job terrifies me, and I applaud those who try to maintain order. I admit bias. Even having been unfairly pounded and jailed several times in my 20's

Finally, it is the Left that quashes conversation. Exhibit 1 - political correctness, and to bring it full circle, an example - GM's refusal to explain itself to Peters.
The liberals have lost their way. Thus it is spoken

[xbacksideslider]

Found this quote -

"The sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex is simplified, and reduced . . . . to a single principle."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

James, I only partly follow your reference when you say "too Darwinian." People can and do resist temptation; there are people who are able to indulge without addiction. Further, if addictive drugs were legal, and untaxed, they'd be cheap, eliminating the personal and societal dysfunctions that accompany illegality. In the late 1800s and on up until the first Food & Drug Act there were tens of thousands of opium and laudanum addicts who maintained themselves. People should be allowed to be self-destructive - fast cars, motorcycles, extreme sports, and couch surfing, for examples. Addictive and non-addictive illegal drugs are similar. After 40 years of the "war on drugs" it is now clear that the costs of enforcement, incarceration, fatherless families, and the many other side effects of illegality are too high.

I agree with you on police more than may appear from my comment; I just think that that rare bad apple might be deterred if he knew he had less civil and criminal immunity from the wrath of a jury than he presently enjoys. After all, the man on the street is told "if you're not committing a crime, whatdaya have to complain about."

[jhwalker]

Found this quote -

"The sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex is simplified, and reduced . . . . to a single principle."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

James, I only partly follow your reference when you say "too Darwinian." People can and do resist temptation; there are people who are able to indulge without addiction. And why would that be? At this stage of life believe less in free will and more in genetic determination. Tools exist that show two different brains react very differently to a substance (legal and illegal). Why? We don't know. But we know that some folks dabble with drugs and conclude that the high is not worth the low and the potential loss. To have a risk of loss, there has to be something to lose. Hopes, dreams, a future
Further, if addictive drugs were legal, and untaxed, they'd be cheap, eliminating the personal and societal dysfunctions that accompany illegality. I believe the dysfunction comes from a person being in an altered, unreal mental state, first.
In the late 1800s and on up until the first Food & Drug Act there were tens of thousands of opium and laudanum addicts who maintained themselves. People should be allowed to be self-destructive - fast cars, motorcycles, extreme sports, and couch surfing, for examples. Addictive and non-addictive illegal drugs are similar. After 40 years of the "war on drugs" it is now clear that the costs of enforcement, incarceration, fatherless families, and the many other side effects of illegality are too high.
Making addictive drugs readily, cheaply available without understanding and addressing the conditions that lead a person to choose to be disconnected and non-productive rather than productive
I agree with you on police more than may appear from my comment; I just think that that rare bad apple might be deterred if he knew he had less civil and criminal immunity from the wrath of a jury than he presently enjoys. After all, the man on the street is told "if you're not committing a crime, whatdaya have to complain about."