Hacker News Reader

> Second, he never addresses any other value than the unemployment rate as a number (for example, I can easily imagine an "apologist" being uninterested in his bet if they think he might be right about the numbers, but they value the regulation for other reasons). In never addressing their views, he dismisses them as unworthy.

Dr. Caplan reached out to the other economists and they didn't respond (which could have included proposing a different bet with different values). He is very judgy about public intellectuals that don't bet on their claims. I wouldn't call that dismissive because said intellectuals impose massive costs on society if they're wrong. It's not enough to hide behind unquantifiable hopes.

> I know nothing of the people or personalities involved...but this does not give me a good impression of the author. First, he never refers to anyone with a contrary opinion in any way other than "apologist".

Apologist is a bit of a brash word, but it's a possible conclusion if a public intellectual is unwilling to put their ideas to tests and revise if necessary.

There's a lot to be said for putting your money where your mouth is. People who aren't willing to risk being wrong can't be trusted to be right.

Absolutely! But in this case, someone might approve of the EU-style regulations WITHOUT believing they necessarily lead to a lower unemployment number (they might value other aspects, such as living wages, resistance to shocks, benefits, employee<->employer power balance, etc). In such a case, the bet doesn't represent their beliefs, but they still fall in to the "apologist" camp he is decrying.

Frankly I wouldn't trust anyone who brags this loudly about a $100 bet and home schools his children.

Seriously: "radical deregulation of Europe’s labor markets is long overdue" because you won a pub-sized bet? I'll take economic and financial advice with a tad fewer delusions of grandeur, thank you very much.

> First, he never refers to anyone with a contrary opinion in any way other than "apologist".

What's wrong with the term "apologist"? It simply means one who defends a particular viewpoint or belief. (It comes from the Greek ἀπολογία, which means a "formal oratory defense" of a position.)

That's just being deliberately obtuse. I don't believe I've ever in my life heard "apologist" used in a non-pejorative sense. Etymology is irrelevant here.

> That's just being deliberately obtuse.

What? That's rather insulting to assume; I'm being absolutely serious.

> I don't believe I've ever in my life heard "apologist" used in a non-pejorative sense.

That's genuinely interesting. I've always heard it used in a respectful sense. We must run in different circles. (I've always heard it used of Christian apologetics.)

Christian Apologists immediately come to mind for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

I wouldn't consider the term "apologist" to be pejorative at all.

Maybe the term "apologist" is uncollegial out of context, but apologia without stake is worthy of a ribbing when the apology matures into a confirmed failure.

Also why can't people have fun battling with words and bets? It seems better than revolution or fistfights to me.

> Also why can't people have fun battling with words and bets?

They can, and it is definitely better than violence, but I don't conflate "fun" with "belittling and demeaning" . (not to imply that you do, just showing the distinction I am making). I can think of a few other "I won a bet" posts I've seen over the years and they didn't have this negativity associated with it, despite their authors clearly feeling proven justified.

> They can, and it is definitely better than violence, but I don't conflate "fun" with "belittling and demeaning".

I'll let the targets... no... the victims of the world's gentlest ribbing speak for themselves.

You mean like this...

https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-65/ap...

The person you are responding to is correct. "Apologist" may be used as you say often in "modern" vernacular English, but it still is properly used as suggested.

To be fair, people such as GK Chesterton and CS Lewis are referred to as "Christian apologists" with no slight intended. But I would tend to agree that in modern times it carries a negative connotation, implying that the person is defending an incorrect or offensive belief.

I dug around a bit when you posted...and was surprised to find that "apologist" isn't generally considered rude. Then I return to the comments here and see at least one person also thought that it was.

I suppose it has to do with usage in different communities? Now I'll have to re-read this article to see if it changes the tone I read into it. (which will not be easy, because I'm definitely biased to view the author as mean/arrogant/dismissive now)

This is quite a coincidence. After many years of hearing the term "apologist" used exclusively as an insult, just today I looked into the etymology and found that its dictionary definition has no explicitly negative connotation.

But of course, usage in practice is what defines words. The dictionary catches up later.

But his enemies won’t fear him if he doesn’t salt the earth!