Friday, April 01, 2016

Eric Zorn comes out for pushing journalists around, ironically he is one.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-melissa-click-missouri-assault-protest-perspec-zorn-20160128-column.html
"The behavior of University of Missouri assistant professor Melissa Click on Nov. 9 was disgraceful.
You've probably seen the viral video. It was shot by student journalist Mark Schierbecker, who was covering a campus protest over the administration's response to alleged incidents of racism, a protest being closely watched by the national media because it also involved a boycott by the Mizzou football team.
The video, shot from Schierbecker's perspective, shows him slipping inside a perimeter established by students on a university lawn,"
Which they had no right to establish.
approaching Click and identifying himself as a member of the media.
" "You need to get out! You need to get out!" she says, moving the lens of his camera away from her face with her hand."
Which is illegal by itself, an infringement of his civil right to record public events.


" After he refuses to leave, she loudly calls for "some muscle" to help her eject him from the area, then mocks his assertion that he has a right to occupy a public space.
Click's lack of respect for or apparent understanding of Schierbecker's press freedoms under the First Amendment was not only disgraceful given her position in the school's communications department, but it was also embarrassing for the university and counterproductive for the protesters, whose tactics, not their complaints, quickly became the focus of the national media narrative.
But it wasn't criminal."
Well the judge disagreed, as did the prosecutor. It was plainly illegal to forcibly remove someone from a public space or incite others to do so.


"At least that's what we all assumed as the weeks went by without a peep from prosecutors about Schierbecker's bleat that he'd been the victim of an assault."
Firstly why would the lack of prosecutitorial action mean something is legal? Secondly charges often take a while to file, why is it a surprise that she was charged now.
"Monday, however, 2 1/2 months after the fact, Columbia, Mo., city prosecutor Steve Richey charged Click with misdemeanor assault in the third degree.
It's a minor offense as such things go — the maximum penalty is 15 days in jail and a $300 fine but overkill nevertheless given that the students who came to Click's aid barely touched Schierbecker as they led him outside the protective ring of students with locked arms, where he continued filming."
No it's not overkill, as you yourself acknowledge she broke the law and used force. How is one of the most mild charges available overkill?
"Technically, yes, you can make the argument that Click broke the law."
As I said, you acknowledge that she broke the law. So why is it "overkill" to charge her?
"Under Missouri law, "A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if … the person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury or … the person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."
It would be an assault, in other words, if the diminutive Click's call for "muscle" was an appeal for a group of protesters to come and administer a beating or some other kind of physical abuse to the student with the video camera. But was it?"
Well yes, because that's exactly what they did and Click didn't object. They literally pushed him around.


"Given the nonviolent nature of the protests to that point and the subsequent gentle bum's rush Schierbecker received"
The "bum's rush" is the use of force, it is physical abuse, so given the subsequent "gentle" bum's rush we can say she was doing exactly what the law prohibited.


" — students were calling him "bro" "
So what?


"as they tried to block his camera with their hands"
And also AS YOU ADMIT pushing him away.
" — that contention is dubious."
Actually it's confirmed.


"It would also be an assault if Click's efforts to get Schierbecker's camera out of her face, which seems to have included touching his hand judging from the images, was deliberately "offensive or provocative." "
Which they were. He was not being intrusive the camera was NOT "in her face".
"But were they? A fair viewing of the video suggests that, while Click was acting like a presumptuous ninny,"
No he was acting like a competent journalist.
" gently pushing aside the camera was more a defensive than aggressive act."
How? He was not beating people up with his camera. It is not "defensive" to use force to prevent recording public events.


"Click later apologized to Schierbecker for her "actions, language, strategies and behavior," but he did not accept the apology because, he said, "she did not seem entirely sincere."
"Laws against assault are meant to protect us from hostile, threatening, intimidating behavior that falls just short of physical violence, known as battery."
And that's exactly what Click did, if not more.


" They're not meant to protect us from every person who looks as us cross-eyed or warns us to get a move on or else."
Move on or else? What the fuck asshole, how is that not a fucking threat?
"They are certainly not meant to be used as bludgeons in political fights."
Which isn't happening here.
"Click's criminal offense, if any, was so minor that, in any other context — imagine similar circumstances but instead she was trying to escort a nosy interloper away from an outdoor wedding police wouldn't even file a report."
Firstly you don't know this. Secondly if you can't see why judges might view using threats and force to stop recording of a political protest more serious than to prevent filming a wedding you're an idiot. Do you really think that deliberate intimidation of the press isn't more serious than other offences.
"The "victim" would be told to get over himself."
Citation needed and so what?
"Here, the charges landed well after the fact and in the middle of a controversy over Click's professional fate that has split the campus and the state legislature, where Republicans are calling for her ouster.
And they resulted, Wednesday, in an emergency meeting of the university's board of curators that concluded with the announcement that Click "is suspended pending further investigation." "
What investigation needs to be done? She used force on the press, she should get the fuck out.


"As uncomfortable as I am with the idea of a communications department assistant professor creating controversy by displaying an arrogant disregard for the freedom of the press, I'm even less comfortable with the idea of a prosecutor using the cold letter of the law to play a role in resolving that controversy."

So you're admitting that she did break the law right? So why should she not be charged, because it has a political effect? So what? She is guilty and you basically acknowledge this.  

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Why Hanlon's Razor fails.

From rationalwiki:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

"Hanlon's razor is essentially a special case of Occam's razor. Occam's razor states that, assuming equal explanatory power, the simplest solution (formally, the one with fewest assumptions) should be preferred. Assuming intent is a pretty big assumption, but we all know that (other) people are idiots. "

The thing is that Hanlon's Razor ISN'T a special case of Occam's razor.  There is no actual evidence given that you need LESS assumptions to believe in stupidity than bad intent as a general principle.  Assuming intent isn't a really big assumption in all circumstances, in fact people have intent for all of their actions.  We do know that other people are idiots but we also aware that they act badly for their own benefit.  In fact we could reverse the rule and say "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.".  What does "adequately" mean in this context?  Well if it means "in a way that explains all facts better than any competing explanation" then the aphorism is redundant.  If it means something else it's simply wrong.  The fact that you can give an explanation based on stupidity that somewhat fits the facts isn't convincing if another explanation fits the facts better.

Say for instance we're trying to figure out the reason for a particular disasterous government policy.  Suppose that this policy was disasterous for poor working black people but relatively good for white, unionised, relatively well off workers.  Either the people who passed it didn't realise that this or they didn't care as long as it benefitted white unionised workers.  Now Hanlon's Razor would have you believe the former as long as it was an "adequate" explanation.  But how would that be determined?  Unless we have full details of the IQs, education and training of all the people making the decision how would we know how stupid they're likely to be?  It would be one thing if legislation were made only by those who were utterly ignorant, but it's not .  We do know that legislation is however made by people who want the support of various groups, including white, unionised workers.  So they might well try to gain that support whether or not it was bad for poor blacks.  And this leads to another problem with Hanlon's Razor, it assumes stupidity isn't the result of motivation.  But we know that how much thought people people put into a subject depends on what they are motivated by.  Therefore a policy that harms somebody could well be the result of malice because their interest was ignored in the formation of the policy.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Explanation for flat earther. This is as simple as I think I can make it.

Ok, so the black circle is the earth.  The yellow line is the light coming from the sun.  The green line is a line from the centre of the Earth to a point currently in nightime and continuing on.  The blue line is a similar line, but futher away from the point where it's the sun still only just hits the earth.  Notice how is you continue the line upwards from the Point where the green line hits surface you get to a place where you can see the sun.  Notice that the same thing happens with the blue line, but you have to go further from the surface of the earth.  This is why things high above the surface of the earth still recieve sunlight after thing things at sea level stop recieving sunlight.





Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Apparently the guy calling himself Kirk Tingblad on youtube is the same guy calling himself Kirk Tingblad on facebook and therefore probably the "real" one.

Which means he's been lying for months about not getting my message that I left on his facebook page.  So wow, apparently you can be an Emmy winner and still a pathetic loser.

The guy on youtube was the real Kirk Tingblad he could post his facebook page. Like I just did.


Friday, October 09, 2015

Tell me if this idea for screenplay is racism.

So there's a country that's usually run by white guys with particular (arbitrary) qualifications.  However other than the current ruler there are no white candidates that qualifies, so 2 black children are the heir appearants.  One of these children is magical.  Ok, yes, I know that makes her a magic negro but it's justified, I swear.  They are playing but one of them fails to listen to the other and is therefore critically hurt by him.  The ruler and his wife rush them both to a medical specialist who saves the injured one, let's call him Banna.  The medical specialist then removes all memories of magic from her and replaces them with other memories that are just as fun, but deeply misleading.    tell her she has to learn to control her power and that "fear will be her enemy".  Instead of taking this advice, the character, we'll call him Alsa shuts himself up in his room and does absolutely nothing to learn to control his power, other than try to suppress his emotions in the most neurotic war possible.

Neither brother attempts to learn about their potential role as future leaders.   They are not shown reading a single book.  They don't even talk to each other because Alsa is afraid he'll lose control of his powers and hurt him again.  The current ruler and his wife die, but the brothers are too young to take control so a substitute government (which is not shown and which we are told nothing about) is temporarily put in.

Eventually the older brother Alsa is made ruler when he turns 18 (or 21, probably 18).  He barely gets through the ceremony without his magical power going haywire.  When his brother announces that he wants to marry a woman hes just met, Alsa loses control of his power, and endangers people nearby.  He flees in terror, abandoning his responsibility, then sings about how happy he is to abandon his responsibilities.  Meanwhile his powers are altering the climate of his entire country in a way that would doom many of it's citizens.  So the country has a black ruler for less than 24 hours before going to hell.

Banna tries to fix this by running after Alsa with no plan other than talking to him, which is exactly what caused the problem to begin with. He almost dies because he has no experience in the new climate, which is worse in the areas Alsa headed into.  He has no plan for finding his brother, took no preparations, and left his fiance in charge, despite knowing her for less than 16 hours.  He gets help from a white woman who actually knows how to manage in this environment.  Her expertise and bravery are the only thing that keeps him alive because as pointed out before, he knows nothing about surviving in the environment he headed into.

When Banna gets to Alsa's new magically-created house he asks him to fix the climate problem.  Banna was unaware of it and in fact hoped to avoid having his power hurt people by running away from the capital.   However when he learns that his power is hurting people he simply decides to continue to mope.  He tells his brother to go, and lashes out at him, unconsciously hurting him with his power.

So have you got it yet?  Yes this is all Frozen, just gender/race flipped.  Notice how badly sickeningly racist it would be if it were about blacks not women.

Classically Liberal gets it so right.

Classically Liberal gets it so right.
"I have long contended that the conservative obsession with morality is the direct result of these individuals knowing their own heart all too well. They fear "sin" in others because they know exactly how corrupt they themselves happen to be. Conversely, the desire of those on the Left to impose charity, via the state, on others, is the result of their knowledge that they are not charitable when given the opportunity. Political groups tend to want the state to compensate for the moral shortcomings that they themselves possess."
http://freestudents.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/another-republican-in-morals-scandal.html
Control of others is the projection of the desire to  control themselves.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

A refutation of "FAQ: Don’t women have “female privilege”?" by tekanji

"Systems like the draft and chivalry often seem advantageous to women at first glance, "
They don't just "seem advantageous to women at first glance", they are advantageous to women.  I mean how the hell is not getting drafted not a privilege?  If a person is excused from having to forced labor that everyone else has to do, particularly dangerous, dirty, unpleasant work that's a privilege.

"but when examined more closely they in fact reinforce sexist institutions that keep both women and men from true equality. "
But the definition of privilege does not include "doesn't reinforce institutions that are generally bad for the person", even assuming that "patriarchy" is generally bad for women, which isn't exactly certain.  Many people get privileges from systems that are designed to keep them down, e.g. prison trustees, NCOs in conscript armies, mothers in sexist societies who get (often abusive) power over their children.

"This is because, although many strides towards equality have been made over the years, women as a class have not yet leveled the playing field,"
That depends on what you call "level".  But more importantly nobody is claiming that male privilege is evidence of female privilege.  People are saying that women being excused from duties or punishments and given things that men do not get is that evidence.

"While feminists do agree that the practices that are commonly ascribed to 'female privilege' (such as women being the recipients of chivalric practices) are expressions of inequality, they disagree that such practices should be considered a form of institutionalized privilege. "
But they are things that if given to any other groups would be considered privileges and are institutionalized.

"This is because being rewarded for not going against the status quo and being the recipient of institutional privilege are not the same thing. "
But these privileges aren't given for not going against the status quo, they are given for having a vagina and not a penis.  Many men do not go against the status quo (most actually) and they aren't excused from the draft.

" The system of privilege uses that kind of reward system in order to perpetuate itself, but the existence of a reward isn’t proof in of itself of privilege. "
But the reward system by definition is a dispenser of privileges.  It's not a reward if it's not a privilege.

"But the reason that benevolent sexism works and “female privilege” does not is because it better identifies the system behind the beliefs."
But again, the definition of privilege doesn't include a description of who give privileges.  A privilege is privilege regardless of who gives it.

". However, the difference is that the status quo for men is one which grants them status and power "
It gives _some_ men status and power.

"whereas the status quo for women is one which limits their power to the much smaller, and more specific, domestic sphere."
But there is still power and status there.  In any case some women certainly do get power and status from the status quo, and always have.  Hillary Clinton and Queen Elisabeth I have far more status than the average man.  The king's whore always had more status and power than 99% of men

"whereas men are presumed to possess the traits associated with competence at high-status roles "
And also at roles that are dirty, dangerous, violent and painful

"See, I think that some of the problems that men face now- some of the things that people like Burton complain about and see as examples of female privilege over males- are a direct result of the flaws a patriarchical system. "
If they were flaws why did they persist for the whole history of civilization?  Conscription has been a constant for thousands of years, only starting to die out in the late 20th century (and it's hardly dead).  The female privilege of exclusion from conscription has also been a constant for that long.  Hard to see it as a "flaw".  It's not like there hasn't been a chance to correct it.

"To summarize the point of this section: When it’s called benevolent sexism it’s recognized to be tied to the system of sexism, "
But when it's called female privilege it's also recognized to be tied to the system of sexism.  It's just that both types of sexism are recognized.

"I’ve seen the argument floated around that if there’s such thing as “male privilege” that there must therefore be an equivalent of 'female privilege'. "
By who?  Has made this argument?

"The tendency of most people is to think of “privilege” in terms of its common usage, which is an individual advantage that a person can earn and possess. "
You mean they think of privilege in terms of what it actually means.

"But the problem is that male privilege isn’t that kind of privilege; it’s a kind of privilege that is systematic, rather than something that an individual has control over."
All privilege is systematic, and the individual doesn't have control over any system of privilege.  Not even the ostensible rulers can do that.

"It’s different than the common usage because it’s specifically backed up by institutional authority "
ALL PRIVILEGE IS BACKED UP BY INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY!  God you're dishonest.

"Or, as it is put most commonly, the counterparts to privileged groups are that of the non-privileged groups."
So then for you privilege is all or nothing?  I guess you've never heard of intersectionality.

"To summarize the point of this section: Since the concept of privilege inherent in the term “male privilege” expresses a hierarchy (ie. an in-group/out-group dynamic), the placement of men in the in-group (because of the power that their class holds) necessitates placing women and other non-men in an out-group (because of the lack of power). Thus, “female privilege” doesn’t work as a counterpart to “male privilege” because it doesn’t fit into that dynamic."

But that only works if you assume that those in the out-group have no privileges.  But that is rarely if ever true.  Blacks in the USA for instance had the privilege of not having to live up to sexual norms like fidelity.  Women aren't expected to risk their lives for men like men are supposed to risk their lives for women.  Most famously of all Jews could become money-lenders.  I would guess that most out-groups have some form of privilege that the in-group doesn't have.  That it is less significant than that of the out-group goes without saying, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  This entire article has been nothing but an elaborate denial of facts known by any who care to see.

Monday, May 25, 2015

A rebuttal of "The Origin Of 'The World's Dumbest Idea': Milton Friedman" by Steve Denning


“In a free-enterprise, private-property sys­tem,” the article states flatly at the outset as an obvious truth requiring no justification or proof, “a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business,” namely the shareholders.

Come again?

If anyone familiar with even the rudiments of the law were to be asked whether a corporate executive is an employee of the shareholders, the answer would be: clearly not. The executive is an employee of the corporation.

An organization is a mere legal fiction

So if the organisation is a legal fiction the executive can't really work for it.  He can't be resonsible to something that doesn't really exist, because a nonexistant thing cannot hold power over a real thing.  The executive works for the shareholders because they are the ones whose money he is recieving, they are the ones whose benefit he is supposed to work for.  To say that he is doing something for the good of the corporation, but not the good of the shareholders is meaningless.  The corporations only has meaning as a collection of the interests of the shareholders.


"The executive “has direct re­sponsibility to his employers.” i.e. the shareholders."
Who else is he responsible to?  How is this not undeniable?

"What’s interesting is that while the article jettisons one legal reality—the corporation—as a mere legal fiction,"
The corporation IS a legal ficition.

"it rests its entire argument on another legal reality—the law of agency—as the foundation for the conclusions. "
Well yes, because that reality is actually a reality.  It is possible to make someone your agent, and that's not a "legal fiction" they really are your agent, you really have authorised them to make contracts and do other things on your behalf.  

"The choice depends on the predetermined conclusion that is sought to be proved."
No it depends on what is actually a legal fiction and what is not.

"How did the corporation’s money somehow become the shareholder’s money? "
It was always the shareholders money.  All money and assets the corporation has were either to the corporation on the understanding that the resultant returns would be given to the shareholders, or they are the resultant returns that should be given to the shareholders.

"That is the article’s starting assumption. "
No it's the stated fact in the companies own documents.  

"The article goes on: “Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers’ money.” One moment ago, the organization’s money was the stockholder’s money. "
Yes but now we're talking about the money paid by the customers, which is NOT the organisation's money.  It's the customer's money, and they're paying more because of the executives actions.  

"With another wave of Professor Friedman’s conceptual wand, the customers have acquired a notional “right” to a product at a certain price "
No he hasn't said they have a right to the product at a certain price.  What he has said is that the ill-effects of the executive spending money other than on production can impact customers, and he has no right to negatively affect them.  Why should they pay because he thinks money should be spent on something?  

"Now suddenly, the organization’s money has become, not the stockholder’s money or the customers’ money, but the employees’ money."
But again, this is not the organisation's money, it's the employees.  If he causes them to lose wages then he is causing them to lose THEIR money, not the corporation's.  

"One might think that intellectual nonsense of this sort would have been quickly spotted and denounced as absurd. And perhaps if the article had been written by someone other than the leader of the Chicago school of economics and a front-runner for the Nobel Prize in Economics that was to come in 1976, that would have been the article’s fate. "
Right because nobody ever dispute anything Friedman said.  Practically everything he said was attacked by someone.  The problem is that his logic is flawless.  

"The success of the article was not because the arguments were sound or powerful, but rather because people desperately wanted to believe. "
But almost nobody wanted to believe this.  Most people wanted corporations to act like nice guys, or they thought they did.  

"Underneath impenetrable jargon and abstruse mathematics is the reality that whole intellectual edifice of the famous article rests on the same false assumption as Professor Friedman’s article, namely, that an organization is a legal fiction which doesn’t exist "
That's not an assumption it's a clear fact.  A corporation does not have a physical existance.  

"and that the organization’s money is owned by the stockholders."
Ok firstly that's two things, and secondly neither is an assumption.  Both are clearly true for the reasons I've shown.

"In this way, the alleged tendency of executives to feather their own nests would be mobilized in the interests of the shareholders."
Alleged tendencies?  I'm sorry was there anyone anywhere who didn't know that executives feathered their own nests?  

"So for a time, it looked as though the magic of shareholder value was working. But once the financial tricks that were used to support it were uncovered, the underlying reality became apparent. "
So the problem isn't with shareholder value, but that executives FAKED shareholder value.  Great I hope that means you'll stop trashing the concept.  

"The rate of return on assets and on invested capital of US firms declined from 1965 to 2009 by three-quarters, as shown by the Shift Index, a study of 20,000 US firms.

"The shareholder value theory thus failed even on its own narrow terms: making money. "
Ah yes, the post hoc, promptier hoc fallacy.  Hello my old friend.

"Yet, precisely the opposite occurred. In the period of shareholder capitalism since 1976, executive compensation has exploded while corporate performance declined."
Which suggests that executives HAVEN'T been prioritising shareholder value have they?  

"”. It turned out that the fabulous returns of GE during the Welch era were obtained in part by the risky financial leverage of GE Capital, which would have collapsed in 2008 if it had not been for a government bailout."
So in other words Welch wasn't maximising shareholder value, he was just maximising what the value appeared to be if you didn't look at the risks.  So again this has nothing to do with what Friedman said.  

"Jack Welch...  said“On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy..." "
Yes and it's the result you're trying for.  Friedman didn't say that it was a strategy.  He said it was a GOAL, and the only legitimate one.  

Welsh continues "...your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products."
This is literally insane.  Does he honestly think that his products voted for him?  Or that they should?  Good thing he didn't manage a piggery.  As for employees being your constituents, no.  They did not hire you, they cannot fire you, they don't pay you and you're not responsible to them.  That this even needs to be said is astounding.  Customers at least could be argued to be paying executives, but they are not doing this because they control the executives or have rights over the executives, other than not being defrauded by them.  The purpose of serving the customers is to serve the employer. That is true for the lowliest fast food worker to the highest executive.  

"Managers and investors should not set share price increases as their overarching goal"
And Friedman didn't say they should  He did not mention share price but the VALUE of the company.  It's possible that this whole article is the result of this moronic misunderstanding.  Price is not value.  

"… Short-term profits should be allied with an increase in the long-term value of a company.”
Note that Friedman said nothing about the timeframe that value should be assessed in or how it should be discounted for time.  He never said that short term profits should be earned at the expense of long-term value.  In fact considering his other statements he would probably have considered the question unanswerable except by those whose money it was. 

"In an effort to win, they go up to the very edge of illegality"
Yes they should, that's why it's the edge of illegality, because they shouldn't go beyond it but it's OK to go right up to it.  If you're trying to say that firms have an ethical duty to stay away from these edges you're going to have to make the case.  

" or if they go over the line, get off with civil penalties that appear large in absolute terms but meager in relation to the illicit gains that are made."
Ok let's suppose that the penalty for a "crime" (whether it's actually a bad thing or not) is $1M.  That is effectively the price that government has put on doing that thing (or at least being caught at it).  Now either that price is too low to compensate for the damage to society from breaking the law or it isn't. 

If it isn't if the fine completely compensates for the damage to society then if the profit from crime exceeds the fine they should do it.  The shareholder benefits, the public in the form of the taxpayers benefit and since there's nobody else involved, society in general benefit.  The exception is if the benefits form the fine don't go to the people who suffered costs from the crime.  But that's hardly the companies or the executive's fault.  

If the fine doesn't completely compensate for the damage to society, this is STILL not the company or the executives fault.  It is not their job to correctly set incentives for corporate behaviour, but to recognise and act on those incentives.  Just like the worker isn't obliged to  tell his employer how to operate more profitably by firing him.  Just like the customer isn't obliged to tell the seller how to get more money out of him.  It makes no sense to impose a duty on executives that they have no expertise in, that is difficult or impossible to measure and that frankly nobody is paying them to do.  

"In such a world, it is therefore hardly surprising, says Roger Martin in his book, Fixing the Game, that the corporate world is plagued by continuing scandals, such as the accounting scandals in 2001-2002 with Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International, Global Crossing, and Adelphia, "
None of which were about maximising shareholder value, but faking it.  

"subprime meltdown of 2007-2008"
First of all there was a general meltdown in mortgages, not one specifically in subprime mortgages.  But the meltdown was caused by government interference in the market, and people ignoring shareholder value for quick paper profits.  

"Martin writes: “It isn’t just about the money for shareholders, or even the dubious CEO behavior that our theories encourage. It’s much bigger than that. Our theories of shareholder value maximization and stock-based compensation have the ability to destroy our economy and rot out the core of American capitalism"
Yet not a single one of these abuses relates to what Friedman said.  He never justified fraud in the pursuit of shareholder value.  He never justified lying to the shareholders to pretend value was greater than it was. 

"Peter Drucker made a sustained argument against shareholder value in his classic book, Management. In his view, “There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer. . . . It is the customer who determines what a business is. It is the customer alone whose willingness to pay for a good or for a service converts economic resources into wealth, things into goods. . . . The customer is the foundation of a business and keeps it in existence.” "
And if that doesn't result in benefit for the business owners, usually in the form of profit, how is that an overall good thing?  The customer is a means to an end, not an end in itself.  There are of course businesses where the customer is an end in themselves, formed by customers to serve them.  These are called buyers cooperatives.  That most businesses are not organised in this way shows that Drucker is clearly wrong.  

"Similarly in 1979, Quaker Oats president Kenneth Mason, writing in Business Week, declared Friedman’s profits-are-everything philosophy “a dreary and demeaning view of the role of business and business leaders in our society… Making a profit is no more the purpose of a corporation than getting enough to eat is the purpose of life. Getting enough to eat is a requirement of life; life’s purpose, one would hope, is somewhat broader and more challenging. Likewise with business and profit.” "
The difference is that it's your life but not your business.  If you consider creating profit to be too "dreary" then by all means quit and pursue something more meaninful.  Personally I would consider making the shareholders richer so that they can pursue their life goals more successfully to be pretty meaningful, but maybe I just care more about other people than him.  

"Power in the marketplace shifted from seller to buyer. "
When you see a buyer and a seller interacting, who is usually being nicer to the other?  Who acts as though they are the supplicant, and the other guy has their fate in their hands?  It's almost always the buyer that has the power and it always has been  So the claim that the power "shifted" to buyers is questionable at best, bizarre at worst.  True there are MORE options for consumers, but they always had multiple options in any free or near-free market.  

"A whole set of organizations responded by doing things differently and focusing on delighting customers profitably, rather than a sole focus on shareholder value. "
As though these were opposing goals.  

"In effect, shareholder value is obsolete. What we are seeing is a paradigm shift in management, in the strict sense laid down by Thomas Kuhn: a different mental model of how the world works."
And note that not one difference in how firms actually operate is listed, nor how that way would be inconsistent with shareholder value. So we can assume Denning is just lying here.