Author Archives: Garbanzo McArthur

Dissent: The Good Society, not the Good-Looking Society

Mr. York offers a wonderfully vacuous standard for when employment discrimination is unjustifiable: if the basis for discrimination is both an immutable and irrelevant trait. Denying someone opportunities based on a characteristic outside his control is just fine, it seems, as is discrimination based on a trait wholly unrelated to job performance. Yet somehow these

Essay: Open the Door Yourself

Of all the silly rituals that govern social life, perhaps none is sillier than that of holding open doors. We all go through it several times a day: As you prepare to enter a room or building, you must quickly determine whether anyone with the same plan of entry is following at a certain undefined,

Dissent: What’s Wrong with ‘What’s Wrong with the Internet’

Perhaps I’m one of the lucky few, but I feel relatively immune from this corrosive disease of completionism: generally, I’ll give a YouTube clip about 10 seconds to capture my interest before moving on to the next thing. I’ll give a news article or blog post a paragraph — at most — to prove itself

Concur: The Virtue of Second Life

The great evil of the Internet, if the dissents are to be believed, lies in its opportunity for anonymity (York: “Hotgrrl81 unreservedly proclaims what real-world Jennifer Smith dares not whisper”; Benavides: “[E]xtremists can foster pernicious ideologies when not checked by . . . socially regulating ‘etiquette.’”). When we are not held personally accountable for ours

Dissent: Consumerism does not Implicate Morality

Let’s say that in place of any harrowing revelation from the world of Indonesian forestry, Mr. Benavides’ acquaintance had let him in on a still darker secret: the owner of the antique store has an idiosyncratic policy of celebrating the sale of each Bodhidarma bust by going home and beating his wife. Would Mr. Benavides

Dissent: Sovereignty Survives Constitutional Change

The philosophical framework presented by Mr. York, while a novel and interesting approach to the debt forgiveness conundrum, ultimately misses the mark. Most problematically, for an argument that is cast in purely philosophical terms, it is strangely lacking in any normative justification: why, we are left wondering, is extra-constitutional change – or the putative emergence