I have a Mises Daily up called Horwitz's Misreading of Mises.
Gene Callahan responded to it with a post on his blog titled "Don't Tell Me I'm Not Nuts!" that said this:
"Steve Horwitz tries to re-assure mainstream economists that Austrian economists are not as nutty as they might think. In response, Daniel Sanchez puts on a fake-arrow-through-the-head hat, jumps on a chair, and shouts, "We are so as nutty as they think!""
I posted in the comments, "You're such a troll."
To this, he responded:
"Daniel Sanchez, I don't think it is really possible to troll one's own blog. And I am certainly not trying to attract attention from the Mises.org crew by posting this. I posted it with a very specific purpose in mind. Perhaps *you* should try reading Horwitz a little more charitably if you don't wish to see things like this pop up."
"Daniel Sanchez, I don't think it is really possible to troll one's own blog. And I am certainly not trying to attract attention from the Mises.org crew by posting this. I posted it with a very specific purpose in mind.
Perhaps *you* should try reading Horwitz a little more charitably if you don't wish to see things like this pop up."
I submitted a comment, which he never approved, asking what exactly that "very specific purpose" was. I also submitted a comment that said something like this (I'm working from memory, because I was posting from my phone, and Gene never approved this comment either):
"That's rich. This original post of yours that "popped up" said nothing whatsoever about me not reading Horwitz "charitably". It simply mocked me for being "nuts" enough to agree with Mises on methodology. So your little "moral of the story" is completely irrelevant, and is probably nothing more than hand-waving to distract from the fact that this post was nothing but trolling."
Bob Murphy posted a clever comment that referred to Gene's post as "inflammatory and childish":
"Kinda like I might say, "Guys, Gene's really not a complete jerk. It's not like he goes out of his way to rip on Austrians, taking a perfectly valid article by a softspoken guy, and describing it an inflammatory and childish way." Then Gene puts on a skeleton suit, jumps on a chair, and says... "
"Kinda like I might say, "Guys, Gene's really not a complete jerk. It's not like he goes out of his way to rip on Austrians, taking a perfectly valid article by a softspoken guy, and describing it an inflammatory and childish way."
Then Gene puts on a skeleton suit, jumps on a chair, and says... "
Callahan responded to that:
"Bob, as far as I see it, every single point Sanchez makes is either plain wrong, or based on a very uncharitable reading of Horwitz. Let's take one: He says Horwitz is all wet to "confuse" economics and economic history. I think Steve knows which is which. In what department does economic history does economic history get done today? We call the guys who do it professors of...? So Horwitz simply conforms to current usage and does not make this theoretical distinction in what is after all a popular article. And Sanchez goes after him for this?!! That is rubbish. He is just looking to gun down one of the "bad" Austrians. "
"Bob, as far as I see it, every single point Sanchez makes is either plain wrong, or based on a very uncharitable reading of Horwitz. Let's take one: He says Horwitz is all wet to "confuse" economics and economic history.
I think Steve knows which is which. In what department does economic history does economic history get done today? We call the guys who do it professors of...? So Horwitz simply conforms to current usage and does not make this theoretical distinction in what is after all a popular article. And Sanchez goes after him for this?!! That is rubbish. He is just looking to gun down one of the "bad" Austrians. "
I submitted a response saying something to this effect:
"When people criticize Austrian Economics for not being empirical, they generally are frowning upon the fact that Austrians don't construct or support economic theory using empirical research. They aren't alleging that Austrians don't do economic history (using theory to interpret history). So Horwitz's attempt to answer such critics by pointing to Austrian work in economic history is beside the point, and is likely to mislead readers into thinking that those works are examples of Austrians deriving theory from historical research."
Callahan never approved this comment either.
And in another response (again I was posting from a phone, which is why I didn't combine my answers into larger posts) I said:
"You'd probably think I'd consider Robert Wenzel a "good Austrian", and indeed I am fan of his. But I "went after" Wenzel just as vigorously as I did Horwitz, when Wenzel made what I thought were errors concerning the theory of entrepreneurship. So stop trying to dismiss sincere differences as mere clubbiness."
He never approved this either.
Callahan added:
"And I could keep going, point by point, and show how every single point is like the above: e.g., is political science a branch of history or praxeology? Depends on how you do it: historically or with rational choice and game theory. Again, Horwitz is certainly glossing over some detailed distinctions for a popular article... as well he should. But he is a critic of the Mises Institute, and so must be shown to be stupid. "
"And I could keep going, point by point, and show how every single point is like the above: e.g., is political science a branch of history or praxeology? Depends on how you do it: historically or with rational choice and game theory. Again, Horwitz is certainly glossing over some detailed distinctions for a popular article... as well he should.
But he is a critic of the Mises Institute, and so must be shown to be stupid. "
I responded:
"Horwitz erroneously said that Mises meant by "praxeology" "all of the sciences of human action". This is not "glossing over". This, as I demonstrated in my article, is a misrepresentation. Moreover, it is a misrepresentation Horwitz uses to buttress his further misrepresentation of Mises being more of an "empiricist" than he really was."
He didn't approve this either. In fact, Callahan didn't publish any of my attempts to explain myself. He only published the first comment in which I called him out for trolling.
Instead, he deleted his entire post. The only reason I'm able to copy and paste exactly what he and Bob said is because I subscribed to the comments, and so they were emailed to me. Of course, these notifications did not include my comments, because he never approved them.
He replaced it with a post with the smarmy title, "Poor Danny Sanchez" that says:
"He seemed so upset at my post about his column on Horwitz that I've deleted it. The post had quite a different purpose than upsetting him, but, since it did so to that extent, we shall bid it farewell."
I responded with this (which he did publish):
"Nice. So instead of publishing the several comments I submitted, showing that, despite your protestations to the contrary, that your post was nothing but trolling, and that your subsequent attempt to dismiss my criticisms of Horwitz's essay were off-base, you just delete the whole thing, and replace it with a patronizing post that conveys nothing to readers except the false notion that I simply "got upset" like some child. I've seen you stoop pretty low before Gene, but this takes the cake."
He responded with the following 2 comments:
"ooh, there's no pleasing some people! You're comments were dumb: one can't troll one's own blog. Trolling would be if I came over and said those things in *your* community to disrupt it. This is *my* community. (You should look up the meaning of trolling.) Not posting them was doing you a favor. And, in any case, you were just getting whiny: "Are so a troll! Are so a troll!" And I took down the post because I thought: "OK, my goal was not to upset this guy, and he's upset: let me yank it so he stops feeling the compulsion to post these silly comments." But whinging is apparently your comfort zone, so whingers will whinge whatever one does, I suppose."
"ooh, there's no pleasing some people! You're comments were dumb: one can't troll one's own blog. Trolling would be if I came over and said those things in *your* community to disrupt it. This is *my* community. (You should look up the meaning of trolling.) Not posting them was doing you a favor.
And, in any case, you were just getting whiny: "Are so a troll! Are so a troll!" And I took down the post because I thought: "OK, my goal was not to upset this guy, and he's upset: let me yank it so he stops feeling the compulsion to post these silly comments." But whinging is apparently your comfort zone, so whingers will whinge whatever one does, I suppose."
And...
"I just thought of this -- it's not why I took down the post -- but my taking it down makes nonsense of your charge of trolling. A troll is seeking attention with his trolling. You sending all these comments to a troll would be just what he was looking for. He'd keep that post up forever! But I got attention, didn't want it, and so I took the post down. My worst fear was that lot's of people from mises.org would show up! Gene Callahan: the anti-troll."
"I just thought of this -- it's not why I took down the post -- but my taking it down makes nonsense of your charge of trolling. A troll is seeking attention with his trolling. You sending all these comments to a troll would be just what he was looking for. He'd keep that post up forever!
But I got attention, didn't want it, and so I took the post down. My worst fear was that lot's of people from mises.org would show up! Gene Callahan: the anti-troll."
And he also made the following edit in his "Poor Danny" OP:
"UPDATE: Now Sanchez is even more upset that I took down the post! He was accusing me (repeatedly) of trolling: posting provocative things to attract attention. But the fact was, I did not want his attention, or that of the bulk of mises.org readers, at all. When I got this unwanted attention, I removed the post to make it go away! That is some sort of trolling!"
"Are you seriously surpised it wasn't well received that you blocked all of my efforts to explain myself, and instead put up a patronizing "oh my, look who's upset" post with the even more patronizing title "Poor Danny Sanchez"? How would you receive it if I blocked all your attempts to explain yourself, and instead prominently posted a headline that reads, "Poor Gene Callahan"?
As of now, he hasn't published that.
Pursuant to Callahan's request, I did look up the definition of "troll". According to Wikipedia:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[3] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[4] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
As I read it, this does not exclude "trolling" potential readers of one's own blog. And anyway, even if it did, my meaning is clear enough. As Bob Murphy (who is not one to accuse people flippantly) himself said, Callahan's original post was indeed inflammatory and childish. Furthermore, it added nothing of substance to the online discussion of this important topic. It was pure mockery. That is what I mean when I say Gene Callahan trolls.
And his self-identification as an "anti-troll" is nonsense. Trolls aren't looking for responses per se. They're looking to aggravate. Responses to them are just welcome evidence that they've succeeded in aggravating their readers.
But trolls prefer to elicit emotional, impulsive, and unintelligent responses. They don't generally like being successfully rebutted or embarrassed. So it is entirely characteristic of a troll that Callahan blocked almost all my comments, deleted his original post, and replaced it with a post that had no trace of the substance of our debate, and only states that I'm "poor" and "got upset".
It is also characteristic of a troll that Callahan does not take down his "successful" troll posts, in which he goads young libertarians into embarrassing themselves with emotional, poorly-thought-out responses.
Thanks for reading. Just had to set things straight.
How do I see what you post on facebook?
P. S. Callahan is a well known troll, take a look at his posts on Bob Murphy's site.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
What do you mean? Are there any Facebook links above? Anyway, you can find my Facebook in my Mises Daily author bios.
Kind of annoying to see a grown man with at least some sort of academic recognition acting like this. You'd expect better out of him. Good post Danny.
I thoroughly enjoyed your article, Daniel. I have very recently heard of Horwitz, and only watched a few videos from the LearnLiberty site, and enjoyed them, but I had not heard his take on Mises or the Austrian method. Thank you for the Mises Daily.
Just throwing that out there.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Gene Callahan really needs to grow up.
Must be annoying to be muzzled because you disagree with someone with influence on that website.
Dave, I temp banned you for being extremely rude and mocking a senior faculty member, not for disagreeing.
You guys should fight about it.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Getting a PhD does not make you immune from being an ass on the internet. Gene Callahan taught me this when he called me something akin to a Mises Institute robot some time ago.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Esuric: You guys should fight about it.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Ouch. Looks like since the LvMI is so controversial on the net, it has its fair share of trolls. This is not good.
Schools are labour camps.
Who's ready to finally answer what happened to Callahan?
I'm sure there's plenty who'd really like to know, and probably quite a few who kind of deserve to know, given they've been the victim of his attacks, which probably wouldn't have come had whatever happened between him and Rockwell and/or LvMI not happened.
@Daniel James Sanchez
Like many on this forum, I enjoy your articles. I'm glad to see that you were able to post a record of what happened. The internet has a very good memory. Maybe Gene Callahan will clean up his act in the future.
Gene has almost zero interest in a rational discussion; he is only interested in making himself feel better by belittling others. If he ever manages to overcome his psychological problems, he will be terribly ashamed of his conduct.
gotlucky:The internet has a very good memory. Maybe Gene Callahan will clean up his act in the future.
Maybe he will clean it up now. Lol I just trolled a little bit and posted the following (we'll see if he approves it):
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
TTT, that's a great extension of the courtroom analogy. Thanks for the support, although you did get too nasty at the end.
Callahan took down the misleading, patronizing post, so as a gesture of concilation, I'm locking this thread.