recent image
When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of...
Heather Mac Donald
 April 03 2024 at 02:59 pm
more_horiz
post image
Click here to join me Thursday, April 4th at 6pm EST for a discussion on this important topic. Does your workplace have too few black people in top jobs? It’s racist. Does the advanced math and science high school in your city have too many Asians? It’s racist. Does your local museum employ too many white women? It’s racist, too. After the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, prestigious American institutions, from the medical profession to the fine arts, pleaded guilty to “systemic racism.” How else explain why blacks are overrepresented in prisons and underrepresented in C-suites and faculty lounges, their leaders asked? The official answer for those disparities is “disparate impact,” a once obscure legal theory that is now transforming our world. Any traditional standard of behavior or achievement that impedes exact racial proportionality in any enterprise is now presumed racist. Medical school admissions tests, expectations of scientific accomplishment in the award of research grants, the enforcement of the criminal law—all are under assault, because they have a “disparate impact” on underrepresented minorities. When Race Trumps Merit provides an alternative explanation for those racial disparities. It is large academic skills gaps that cause the lack of proportional representation in our most meritocratic organizations and large differences in criminal offending that account for the racially disproportionate prison population. The need for such a corrective argument could not be more urgent. Federal science agencies now treat researchers’ skin color as a scientific qualification. Museums and orchestras choose which art and music to promote based on race. Police officers avoid making arrests and prosecutors decline to bring charges to avoid disparate impact on minority criminals. When Race Trumps Merit breaks powerful taboos. But it is driven by a sense of alarm, supported by detailed case studies of how disparate-impact thinking is jeopardizing scientific progress, destroying public order, and poisoning the appreciation of art and culture. As long as alleged racism remains the only allowable explanation for racial differences, we will continue tearing down excellence and putting lives, as well as civilizational achievement, at risk. Follow the link below to order a copy of my new book from amazon. When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives: Mac Donald, Heather: 9781956007169: Amazon.com: Books When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives [Mac Donald, Heather] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives a.co
recent image
A Guide for Social Justice Paradox - Part 4
Robert "RSnake" Hansen
 April 03 2024 at 01:01 pm
more_horiz
post image
Part four of the "Hilbert Problems for Social Justice" takes on gender vs racial politics and how the documented rules differ for different out-groups. It is precisely this lack of consistency we're after in this series. Our quest is to unravel the inconsistencies that pepper the moral landscape, seeking clarity amid the cacophony of social justice rhetoric. An anonymous reader shared a thought-provoking observation, noting the escalating 'ante' for social acceptance within these groups, "I do find it interesting that so much value of one’s leftist ideology comes from the ability to be accepted by a group that would have them. Where the blind (in poker parlance) was relatively small… a desire to find one’s self among the lost only took the desire to play dungeons and dragons or magic the gathering sneak a cigarette or the occasional hit of weed… now takes the desire to write off the entire history of your country, set aside all logic, and declare yourself as lgbtq+… the ante seems to has gotten quite larger to find a group that will have you." This reflection addresses the evolving nature of social conformity and potential alienation from mainstream norms. The goal post has moved for what is required to maintain friend groups, and perchance that is what younger generations are facing - a greater divide from normative behavior and FOMO to keep up with the out-group politic. Keep those comments coming! Today's issues stemmed from controversy arising from the Rachel Dolezal/Rachel Moore/Nkechi Amare Diallo story that broke in 2015 where she was outed for pretending to be Black, but born Caucasian. She was president of the NAACP in Spokane Washington until the story broke at which point she resigned in disgrace. In an odd irony, it turns out prior to this event, Rachel Dolezal once sued Howard University for racism against Caucasians, amongst other charges. - https://thesmokinggun.com/file/rachel-dolezal-lawsuit So with that background... People can identify as whatever they want if their strongly held belief is sincere AND Rachel Dolezal can never identify as black. - Someone else’s gender identity is whatever they say it is: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/ - Rachel Dolezal can never be black: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/03/03/518184030/why-rachel-dolezal-can-never-be-black These statements taken in totality create a disconcerting paradox: the societal decree that one's gender identity is sacrosanct, juxtaposed against vehement rejection of Dolezal's racial identity claim. The pitchfork wielders after Rachel’s job quickly changed their tune. No longer was her crime about her racial identity but about her honesty. Why the shift? Is it because of the obvious racism baked into the former complaint? Is trans-racial-phobia a thing? Calls for her job were despite any evidence that she would fail to work hard for the NAACP and yet: “We do not feel that she is in a position to properly reflect the values of our diverse community or the Spokane chapter of the NAACP. The questions surrounding her integrity may discredit the work that has been previously done to better the movement of social justice and equality in our community.” I ask you, dear reader, what is more diverse than a trans-racial woman? - https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/its-not-about-race-its Perhaps you're thinking that she has paved the way for more trans-racial persons in the future. If Rachel Dolezal is off the hook for representing herself as Black but was instead ostracized for not saying she was trans-racial out-loud, then perhaps it is okay for the next crop of would-be trans-racial persons to risk their job and reputation to appropriate another’s race. Knowing what happened to Rachel Dolezal, what naïve soul would test those shark infested waters? I wouldn’t bet on a warm reception, given that the verdict of public opinion is that Rachel Dolezal has created incontrovertible "harm" to the Black community. - https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/rachel-dolezal-s-claim-she-black-whitest-possible-way-deal-ncna871656 The uncomfortable questions become:If trans-racial people can harm the race that they are transitioning to, why would trans-sexual people be incapable of similar harm to the sexes they are transitioning to?If Rachel Dolezal is potentially bad at her job because she a liar, what about “closeted” people who lie about their sexuality? Are closeted homosexuals and transexuals similarly incapable of holding important positions? A kissing cousin to this line of thinking is: Cultural appropriation is racist AND replacing Caucasian characters isn’t racist. (E.g., The Little Mermaid) - Dressing up as another culture is racist: https://nativeappropriations.com/2013/10/so-your-friend-dressed-up-as-an-indian-now-what.html - Analysis: A definitive rebuttal to every racist ‘Little Mermaid’ argument: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/17/entertainment/little-mermaid-racist-backlash-halle-bailey-disney-cec/index.html To engage in discussions over Disney casting choices might, at first glance, appear to be inane or trivial. Yet, there lies a more profound ethical landscape - one that merits attention. The act of reimagining stories for a contemporary audience embodies a form of personal expression that is, in principle, ethically sound. Throughout history, storytelling has evolved, incorporating embellishments and adaptations that breathe new life into ancient tales and myths. This practice of reinterpretation is not only permissible; it is a testament to the dynamism of human creativity and cultural tectonics. However, the ethical waters become murkier when we consider fidelity to an author's original vision. The integrity of storytelling is compromised if adaptations misrepresent the foundational intentions of the original creator without explicitly saying so. Ethical quandaries emerge not from the act of reimagining itself but from the unethical intentions of the changes, where the author's intent is obscured or misrepresented in the pursuit of presentism and social warfare. Tension between innovation and authenticity is worth discussion. In The Little Mermaid for instance, Hans describes the Mermaid thusly (translated to English), “...her skin was as clear and delicate as a rose-leaf, and her eyes as blue as the deepest sea; but, like all the others, she had no feet, and her body ended in a fish’s tail.” - http://hca.gilead.org.il/li_merma.html One could consider the word “clear” to mean transparent rather than Caucasian but given that the Mermaid eventually seduces a human it is likely that he did not mean literal translucence where her blood and organs would be visible - a rather off-putting mental image. When Hans Christian Anderson wrote, “...holding out her white hands towards the keel of their ship...” he likely didn’t mean anything other than he imagined the Mermaid as being a Caucasian woman atop and fish on bottom, in all but the most charitable stretches of imagination. And surely by saying that her eyes were “...blue as the deepest sea...” he did not mean “brown” as Halle Bailey’s eyes appear to be in the 2023 release of The Little Mermaid. Is Hollywood appropriating Danish culture, or Caucasian fish-tales? If appropriating a culture was a thing that can be done against stories, folklore, fairytales, and/or religion, yes, it appears so. What describes culture? Perhaps beyond physical traits and beliefs, it is a way of life, customs or even food. Why then, would the progressive movement blissfully enjoy spicy food anywhere outside of the western hemisphere? Capsicum was only introduced to Europe and Asia by way of the Columbian exchange. Most spicy foods should, therefore, be rebuked as appropriation of western cuisine if there was any sense to this philosophy. Indian and Chinese and Vietnamese and Thai and Pakistani and Indonesian and Malaysian and Sri Lankan and Japanese and Korean and Nepalese and Filipino diets 500 years ago were vastly more tepid. If foods marked Halal or Kosher might be marked as unique to Islamic or Jewish foods respectively, recipes and ingredients can be discussed in a cultural context. A “Mediterranean diet” has no meaning without thinking about the culture and food available in that region of the world. Appropriation of things people love or enjoy could and arguably should be seen as a sign of enjoyment, interest, and respect. It should be cultivated not admonished. A child who cosplays their favorite anime is no more that anime character than an Asian restauranteur is a Native American when he makes a spicy meal and disrespect is meant in neither action. Nor is reimagining the characters with honest motives, showing a new take on an old story, recipe, apparel, etc. This discussion extends beyond mere casting choices, and forces conversations around the criteria for 'authentic' representation. During Halloween years back whilst accompanying a small Caucasian boy dressed as Spiderman, we happened across a black couple and their young boy also dressed as Spiderman. The Caucasian boy in my charge said he was the character Miles Morales who appears to be Black in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and subsequent movies. The Black couple was visibly upset that a Caucasian child would appropriate a Black character. The irony was lost on them, that the very character they are referring to was a re-imaging of other Caucasian variants of Spiderman. Does any of this matter to a child? Absolutely not - they just want to have fun and there is zero racism intended. When the intent is innocent admiration we need to drop our weapons. What is better - telling a child that they can't admire another child because of their skin tone? As a child I wanted to be a Ninja - did that make me racist against the Japanese? How is this thinking progress? However, if the intent is to misrepresent that characters have any physical or cultural aesthetic or to argue any counterfactual interpretation other than what the pages actually say, is dishonest. Re-writing or lying about the author’s provable intent is disrespectful to the work. Re-imagining works in a new light with a new aesthetic or with new characters, on the other hand, has no ethical issues. How many times has Shakespeare been re-done in a modern context, like the 1996 Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes version of Romeo and Juliette illustrates. The risk comes when the themes are perverted and seen through the lens of presentism and the intent lied about. And to what end? Similar paradoxes can be written: Cultural appropriation and colonialism is bad AND renaming a group of people Latinx is good. Why rename an entire group of people based on progressive US values when the bulk of Latin America does not agree with these values or appreciate the term chosen? Forget appropriation - be concerned with forcing your values on other cultures. - One-in-four US Hispanics have heard of Latinx but just 3% use it: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ These paradoxes could be more honestly and coherently written: certain groups feel that they are at risk of, and don't feel comfortable with, losing their culture; and why should they? The accompanying lies, presentism, and outright racism are unnecessary to accomplish preservation of culture. If anything, making curious people feel that appropriation is abhorrent pushes well-intentioned people from feeling welcome to educate themselves. There is a difference between cultural respect and cultural appropriation. I hope you found this article interesting. This series will document many of these conflated social justice issues and there will be more, God willing. Please subscribe, and comment, if you would like more of the same. If you want to know about me or my show, The RSnake Show, please visit https://rsnake.com/ for details.
recent image
Retrograde spins forward - tomorrow, tonight -...
DavidGetzin
 March 31 2024 at 05:01 am
more_horiz
So here we are - a new platform as tomorrow the sky spins "backwards" for the relative motion of Mercury as seen on Earth. It may be trite - but I love the story - when the (probably Logical Positivist midwits) were spouting off to Wittgenstein abut how the present was so much more clever than the past, saying "after all, they believed the sun moved 'round the EARTH!" Ludwig smiled and was said to reply, "yes, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the OPPOSITE were true?" It is not inconsequential how the apparent-motions in the sky mark out certain cycles, certain rhythms. Over on my X Platform spouts of text - ( @histofarch ) - I picked up today on Ralph Ellis noting how he thinks one tags the start of the Age of Pisces to 6 AD as the "metaphysical" birth of Jesus. (Ralph elsewhere solidly argues but it is controversial that the historical Jesus was the King of Edessa and fought in the Jewish Revolt (this makes the fig story in Mark make MUCH more sense) so - you have a ~40 year shift back that was made to align Jesus with the astrological age of Pisces.) Regardless of one's feelings about astrological meaning - there is a GENERAL sense that even though "all times are times of transition," the transition we are in now has a special color to it. I've felt it - I felt it when I was 17, wrote long-winded mystical creation myth poetry (that one was half-good) and when in college - would not SHUT up to anyone who would listen about asking them what they felt about emergent paradigms. If anything - the liquidating effects of technology have wrenched us out of old habits. Much of the social chaos we occupy ourselves with is part and parcel with such a historical season. As the industrial revolution reshaped how humans consider the body, the information age is reshaping how humans consider the mind. We are (sadly) leaving the "era of fact" that James Burke pointed out in the written companion to "The Day the Universe Changed" series. A few decades ago, he could write about medieval people being different in great respect to us because they did not live in a world of fact as we've known it. The common ground of trusted empiricism was just not THERE and it was holy tradition, authority and the word of trusted individuals that was relied on. Anything else was held to be suspect. Sound familiar? So, in the explosion of information and the attendant "game theory" sociopath-driven fakery - we find an uncomfortable affinity with the medieval mindset. Without the "justification by faith" in reason's access to "sola scriptura," and the Baconian scientific method, (Science as mainstream has become a sinister, cynical CULT Ponzi scheme) we are thrust back into the arms of Grand Authority. (The Science, NORMS, arrrr democracy! and so forth.) Much haș been made of the "sanctity of the individual" as the root of politics, and I like it that way, but this is becoming more and more old-fashioned. People who take the shift into Aquarius seriously speak (I think accurately) about a rise of lattice networks over tree-hierarchy, (the so-called rhizome organization) and also of more communtarian feelings. But let's not kid ourselves, the dark side of that coin holds cancel culture, groupthink, chaos and a general inability to scale up into large projects. And yes, we see all this, coincident with the age of Pisces fading. I am neither exuberant nor doomerish about this transition. I'd like to be AWARE of it and find like-minded people (am starting to) who want to think on long time scales, and have "big" families and really act like Italian householders who cultivate generous land with love and joy, understanding how the earth cycles integrate to cherries being only available really in May and June, figs coming ripe around Tish a B'Av (August 13 for 2024) - there's that MARK connection again - … and even integrating recent practices like the Olivetti Factory in the 70s being set up so that workers would go back home for more than a month every year in July(?) to tend to the upkeep of small, family agricultural plots. I myself any lucky enough to stand to inherit a share in a (by now 4th generation (Strauss/Howe anyone?)) family plot in Wisconsin. I fully intend to as much as is reasonable, run that place like an Italian. You know, in the GOOD way - not like movies but like Cicero would. We don't have any kind of "mass wealth" really at all and I'm bootstrapping a 4 year old LLC into *some* good growth with a team that gets more solid by the month, but this land is there - and UNLIKE the habits of the 1970s, I don't intend to rely on rent or seek or liquidate or sell. I intend to PRODUCE. All of us - land or not - are able to in some way - participate in cultural production of some sort. And I am convinced that the specific nature of the USA (I have been in business on several continents, post graduate school in Canada and I'd pick NOWHERE else but the USA (and I'm deliberately staying in California, at least seasonally) - nowhere else but the USA to start a business.) I need to cool it with these double parentheticals! Maybe some people like them. - this isn't audio, I'm very auditory. Bringing it back home - now is the time for Mercury retro introspection and reconsidering - for about three weeks - tie up loose ends - don't be hasty, don't be impulsive (this next one is big for me) don't over-communicate or bowl people over with "everything at once." There are decisive shifts coming this year and a furthering of a split I have noticed. Let's not mince words - this is a split into decadence vs growth. "Which way Western man/woman?" I affirm and choose the side of: not drugs, rooted families, trusted community leadership (yes we DO all create that together) good public transportation, and custom-tailor fit in *everything* as we step further away from the strictures of mass-industrialism. Do we welcome people who have lived under the "yes drugs, individual alienation, distrust authority, suffer with cars and parking lots, " And for all of this - I shall CONTINUE to abide in LA County, The Pasadenas have HEALTH, let the boomers flee, let Hollywood deflate. I walk to work and have a train near me and hire non-university-degreed apprentices because I live in The Future. It's just not evenly distributed yet. I will plant oranges, lemons, and (may G-d favor me so) see grandchildren play under the oak across the street while my grown children pour wine from their great grandfather's concord vine stock I transplant here from Wisconsin. These are my dreams. Sometimes I think I see the woman I share them with. Sometimes I worry I frighten her off. But I no longer fear she doesn't exist. I just have to not miss her. We shall see.
recent image
Immigration: Vox Populi, Vox Diaboli - Food...
Kaizen Androck
 April 25 2024 at 05:54 pm
more_horiz
post image
Many citizens in Western countries consider "immigration" to be the biggest problem their countries are facing. Former Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy reiterated this several times during his closed campaign. Donald Trump has spoken about this for years, too. For the past several days, I have seen many articles here on ThinkSpot about politics and the culture wars (degeneracy and intersexual dynamics). Then today, I read John Pepin's scintillating post about immigration titled Free Ride (do check it out; it's thought-provoking). That's when the idea of the following synthesis occurred to me or rather, when the exigence of this post compelled me. [Author's Confession—I have chosen to write this piece in an atypical conversational format instead of the typical expositional piece.] So, is immigration the biggest problem for the countries of the West? My answer is No! A big blatant no. Now that we have that out of the way, let's examine some facts about the issue. There are many "Wokies"/Regressives who have been harping on about the racial wage gap. There are many conservatives who profess vociferously that the racial wage gap is a myth. Interestingly, there are many Regressives (especially African-Americans) out there who also hate immigrants, claiming that they steal low-skilled jobs, which many Regressives consider their sacred birthright. Meanwhile, a lot of the recent discussions on ThinkSpot about issues between men and women also indicated the cultural change pervading the American consciousness today. Multiculturalism has certainly eroded American culture and continues to do so. However, is that the sole or even main contributor to the decline of the West? Additionally, an oft-quoted line in anti-immigrant rhetoric is about "getting these people here who hate our culture". Is this accurate? This brings me to my synthesis of this existential issue. The Racial Wage Gap is REAL! Yes, it is undeniable! There is a Racial Wage Gap in the United States. But, there is no Racist Wage Gap in the US. That's right! A Racial Wage Gap is not a Racist Wage Gap, regardless of how the Regressive vermin try to equate the latter with the former by using the first label. Words are the be-all and end-all of all human discourse. Our thoughts and ability to conceptualize things are completely dependent on the words we know and use. Everybody knows this or they ought to. So, what does that actually mean? And what does this have to do with the behemoth issue of immigration? Simple! Immigration is not the issue; Illegal immigration is. Many Americans sadly suffer from limited perspectives warping their comprehension, including several of us conservatives. Nonetheless, it is a fact that for the last several decades, many underdeveloped countries have been lamenting helplessly about the "Brain Drain" issue plaguing them. This, of course, refers to the fact that the best and brightest of their workforce were migrating abroad (mainly to the US) for greener pastures. What does this mean for the US? Well, when Regressives holler about how there is a racist wage gap in the US, they constantly cite how the African American earns around 70 cents for every dollar a White American makes or something around that number. Well, they conveniently ignore the fact that Asian Americans make more than White Americans, or they demean the Asians with derogatory pejoratives like "model minorities". They do this to try and refuse the logical implications of this fact. White Americans can't be racist en masse if they allow Asians to proceed while hindering only blacks and Hispanics. That's contradictory. Admittance of this error will force Regressives to admit the TRUTH about the racial wage gap and Illegal Immigration. Here is a look at the median US household income separated by ethnicity from 2021. Okay, so Asian American households are doing better than everyone else, especially blacks and Hispanics. But most Asian immigrants come legally while the Southern border spews out illegal immigrants who are mainly Hispanics and a few blacks. However, there are a few Asians who come here illegally too, through the Pacific human smuggling route, entering the US in the West. These illegals usually come from China. This is why the next set of statistics will be illuminating. That's right! The imbecilic habit of many Americans to misuse the word, Asian, to refer to only Oriental Americans/East Asians (who have epicanthic folds, or have the "Mongoloid" look as archaic and ignorant people used to call it) forget that Asia is the largest continent on earth, filled with several countries and ethnicities. This list puts Indians as the most financially successful ethnic group in the US with household incomes around 4 times more than the average African American household, 3 times the Hispanic household, and twice the White American household. Even when looking at the best-performing ethnicities, here is a list looking at the top twenty across the board. Do note how many Eastern European ethnicities feature in there. These are people from countries who were oppressed under the Iron Curtain while the pustulent Soviet Union was still alive and festering. Now, as significant as these stats are, no comprehension of culture or immigration would ever be whole and accurate without looking at per capita income as well. That's right! This was a look at average household income. Many homes have both parents working. Ergo, here we can take a glance at single income, albeit from 2018. These numbers show a more closer distribution between White Americans and Asian Americans while Hispanics and blacks still linger at the bottom. If we were to continue behaving logically, and look into the details of Asian Americans, the numbers look as follows. So, yes, not all Asian ethnicities are the same. Shocking, I know! There are low-performing ethnicities among Asians, just as there are in the US (Hispanics and African Americans mainly). Anyway, what does this all mean? Well, for starters, Indians are getting richer, as seen from the stats of 2018 and 2021. Well, Indians also have a 2% divorce rate, while black women have a 40% divorce rate. White Americans have a divorce rate of around 25%, while Asian Americans have a 12% divorce rate as a whole. The economy runs downstream from culture, after all. Finally, why are Regressives and Libtards (Never Progressives and Liberals: That's word theft) always hiding illegal immigration under the blanket term immigration? It's simple. Socialists hate legal migrants. Most of the legal migrants vote for capitalism, liberty, and meritocracy because Indians, Taiwanese, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, etc., have fled tyrannical socialist regimes. They build themselves up and, like the Cuban Americans of Florida, know first-hand how malevolent communism is. Therefore, no attempt by Democrats/Socialists/Regressives/Leftists to inflict demographic shift on the US will work with legal migrants in the fray. They need to swarm the area with illegal aliens, who will be beholden to the state, and when American women run around, refusing to have children and families, in a few years, it is quite likely that the demographics of the US will change. The voice of the people will no longer be the divine inspiration that created the greatest nation to ever exist. No, it will be a more diabolical voice. A voice of entitlement instead of enlightenment.
recent image
A Guide for Social Justice Paradox - Part 6
Robert "RSnake" Hansen
 April 18 2024 at 01:01 pm
more_horiz
post image
Our sixth edition of Hilbert Problems for Social Justice discusses a different sort of racism than previously discussed - a variant seldom acknowledged, thriving within progressive advocacy, this time specifically addressing Muslims. Our ongoing exploration unravels complexities of western progressive racism - a radicalized hellscape where intentions and outcomes often fail to align. There's a peculiar form of self-loathing permeating the ranks of U.S. progressives, a fervent desire to dismantle existing power structures, paradoxically, even when such actions might not redound to their benefit in the long view. This phenomenon is rooted in a profound distrust, manifesting as visceral antipathy towards conservatives—sentiment that, as numerous social justice advocates have self-reported, borders on outright hatred. This animus finds supposed justification in several conservative policies: from abortion, perceived as an affront to personal liberties, to immigration policies, decried as racist and xenophobic by progressives. There are logical fallacies afoot. Let's get into it! Consider the paradox encapsulated in today's couplet: Conservatives are xenophobic and anti-woman and that is bad, AND Islamists are just a different culture and should be respected.Republicans can’t keep getting away with racist and sexist comments: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/11/republicans-racism-sexism-tuberville-bolduc/Muslims deserve respect: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3216453,00.html On one hand, conservatives are vilified for being xenophobic and misogynistic—an indictment that, by progressive standards, is unequivocally reprehensible. The other assertion is that Islamists are extolled as mere exponents of an alternate and exotic culture, deserving of unqualified respect. This paradox ostensibly presents a contradiction between moral objectivism (the objective truth that women should be accorded equal treatment) and moral relativism (the imperative to respect other cultures, even when they contravene this principle). A more disconcerting interpretation suggests that those who harbor these two beliefs concurrently might be subtly endorsing a subtle unspoken form of racism: positing that Republicans are aware of the fact, or should know to be better, while Islamists cannot and/or should not know better. This perspective, although uncomfortable, provides a more coherent rationale when compared to the targeted demographics of progressive educational campaigns - notably not written in or even translated to Arabic or Farsi or Urdu or Turkish or Bengali or Indonesian or Hausa or Malay or Swahili or Kurdish - many speakers of which are literate Muslims. Islamists are somehow exempt from or incapable of complying with this expectation, or at minimum that is how progressives act. The discourse extends into religious modesty laws—like Haya—that predicate the adoption of the Burka, Niqab, Hijab, and Chador as feminine dress codes. More alarmingly, it encompasses potential realities under Islamist rule, such as child marriages, clitoridectomies, and death sentences for rape victims. The progressive standpoint, which concurrently ignores or even at times venerates these cultural practices while condemning Christian conservative views in the West, betrays deep-seated moral relativism, outright hypocrisy or blatant racism. This complex web of moral relativism makes me consider tangential ideas, such as the carnivore-herbivore dichotomy as a straw-man: Is the feline carnivore inherently immoral for consuming meat? Of course not - that is a cat's nature, so there is no expectation for them to act the same as another animal that cannot ingest meat. Recognizing and fully admitting this example's limitations as a potentially oversimplified comparison, afford me the latitude to compare that with Muslims vs Christians. Nature's moral compass is tortuous, especially when two fervently religious groups harbor diametrically opposed views on a singular issue: the treatment of women. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women are prohibited from driving and mandated to wear veils in public—restrictions without parallel in the United States. Does the mere accident of one's birthplace determine the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled? Can we, in good conscience, accept such a simplistic and deterministic view of human rights? The notion of categorizing cultures with fundamentally different practices in terms akin to distinguishing between carnivores and herbivores not only oversimplifies the discourse but also dangerously veers into the realm of dehumanization. Assigning different expectations and capabilities based on geographic or cultural origins echoes the darkest chapters of human history, where such classifications laid the groundwork for discrimination and injustice. Isn't that the very definition of racism? On a trip to Abu Dhabi I attempted to embrace a female colleague a customary and friendly hug, and I was immediately stopped by her, because she knew what I did not - it would be viewed extremely unfavorably by the Emirati who were watching nearby and could have caused legal action. She did not want to be incarcerated for what, in the United States, would have been an ordinary greeting betwixt friends. The cultural chasm: a benign intention to embrace a female colleague could have led to severe legal repercussions if deemed a “violation of public morals” under Article 58 of the UAE Penal Code. It is a culture profoundly alien to progressive sensibilities, as it was me, a progressive at the time. An odd feature of progressives is that they espouse the importance of protecting cultures no matter how different, unless the culture originates in the bible belt of the United States. The coddling of some cultures and hatred towards others implies that there may be underlying reasons for this confusing ideological dissonance. A honest assessment might posit that progressives aim to shield Islamist culture from obliteration upon its collision course with laissez-faire Western lifestyles. This confrontation pits devout and potentially extremist Muslims, adherents of Sharia law, against the emancipated lifestyles championed by progressive women—necessitating a reconciliation of progressive values with the realities of cultural diversity. This is the proverbial immovable rock meeting an unstoppable force. A darker hypothesis posits that the liberal approach towards Muslim ideology may be strategically motivated by the pursuit of Muslim votes in pivotal swing states, such as Michigan, where a large Muslim population could swing a vote towards progressives if they are appropriately pandered to. Choosing ugly politics is the slippery slope towards unsavory ideological views favoring political expediency over ideological integrity. It suggests a drift towards a form of subjective morality, where values are not fixed but are instead manipulated to suit immediate political needs. Our task here is not only to question the coherence of progressive stances but also challenge ourselves to consider the depths of convictions and the universality of values. As we navigate these intricate discussions, let us strive for a discourse without sacrificing the principles of equality and justice that define our shared humanity. You cannot have perfect equality and respect people's differences at the same time. I hope you found this article interesting. This series will continue to document many of these conflated social justice issues and there will be more, God willing. Please subscribe, and comment, if you would like more of the same. If you want to know about me or my show, The RSnake Show, please visit https://rsnake.com/ for details.
recent image
An End to Chamber Pots Presented as Urns: 20th...
DavidGetzin
 April 05 2024 at 03:00 am
more_horiz
post image
I'm doing Honor to the astringent legacy of Karl Kraus (and architect Adolf Loos) with this one. We are familiar with financial or technological booms and busts, but there are also social booms and busts, a big high and then crash, then desperate for a next wave. You can call them fashion, fads, disco, you know. With the internet having brought social media monetization and the selling of demographic marketing info - these trends, fads and disco have been ever more tightly-stapled to money. And the granularity ground more finely, the barrier to entry is low and because anyone CAN do it, those who want to follow "mimetic" fill in the blank will want to think (and say) "but EVERYONE'S doing it!" "Well if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you buy NFTs too?" Part of the "everyone is…" gets to be a feverish conviction that nothing online is serious - and that everyone is "always" BSing. Or at least they believe that one is advantaged by assuming others will be lying. That is one of the key thresholds of taking the USA into the third world - right there. But that's its own article. You see, all the social media "influence" all this "mimetic desire" this is something between sleazy sales, three card monty, propaganda, peer pressure and a manipulative, drug dealing "boyfriend." (These days, people say "gaslighting.") It sort-of-works until reality comes crashing in, the margin-call clicks on, the so-called business runs out of grants/investment to vampireize, really makes no money and descends into finger pointing and acrimony, the woman starts yelling and screaming in greater percentages of the day and night, not as docile or "coached" as she once was, the honey pot thirst traps STOP catching flies when a generation of young men have honor and standards again. It's really not worth it. But then, the internet and social media presented such a VAST array of fresh rubes and ever-changing ways to apply "Game Theory" to exploitation, (especially to people you would never meet and who had no way to punish/humiliate your anonymity) - it started with Nigerian Princes, and continues on in OnlyFans. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I tell you, this gold-plated toilet the grifters are busy licking, isn't bottomless. Myself coming out of Academia and Architecture - I have an unfair advantage of being in areas where artful lying has been business SOP for many decades. And so these areas are ahead of the curve in decrepitude. There is also, an immunity built up in me, made fairly bulletproof by having worked for (literally) conquistador-legacy sociopaths in Peru. My also coming out of Silicon Valley and theatrical performance means that I've seen "another side" of business and life, a better one, a side that "most Americans" born between 1930 and 1980 think is still the default, namely the Anglo Saxon West, aka the 1st world. A land of transparency and Work Ethic, what a Peruvian colleague of mine once said (sickly referencing the East German infra red machine-gun glacis of the Berlin wall) "you can't always live inside the German Safety Zone." And by the way, snide as he was, after his own 10 days of visiting Michigan (yes, just reg-lar Michigan) he and his partner were GLOWING to me about what a paradise on earth it was. (No Trespassing signs were a particular head trip for them, they the were accustomed to electric barbed wire in front of middle-class houses.) Why yes, it IS possible to run a civilization where people are NOT constantly scheming behind backs and following the Screwtape 48 Laws of Power and tearing each other down constantly. But demean me as he might try, my Peruvian colleague underestimated the stubbornness of German (a subset of Anglo/Saxon, and I would include Ashkenazic, which simply MEANS "German") culture. Someone was quoting Patrick Bet-David today on a podcast (who despite his excellent interview skills and provocative thought has ALWAS dripped used-car-sale level grifter-ethos to me) they quoted him about how he thinks paranoia is an ESSENTIAL part of leadership. Well, perhaps, but this IS a third world attitude. And paranoia is an attitude of weak and shrinking leadership. Nixon was paranoid in a way Eisenhower was not. Do we get ANY arguments that Nixon was the greater man, the better leader? Eisenhower ran D-Day and WON. Yet Nixon was the more paranoid. Patrick Bet-David has the wrong idea and he'd never get attention for it to begin with if the Anglo Saxons around here had not become so bloodless and sniveling. Someone like Bet-David decades ago would have been emulating the success of First World values instead of carrying in third-world values and hawking them to wannabe grifters aping his attitude to scramble at power, (Mostly just so they can get a woman, a car and a house. It's gotten that bad.) It's not Bet David's fault - he was BORN that way - and raised so too. It is OUR fault in the USA for not being better examples to him, and for not brushing him back when he sells this tripe for us to swallow and call it ice cream. You see, back to that business of artful lying: 1) academia and architecture vs the (pre social media) contrasted with 2) tech industry and Theatre. Category 1, you have a saturation of hidden agendas, chamber pots are urns and urns are chamber pots, merit and talent are secondary to kinship in the formation of a dominance hierarchy, and a "game" is always afoot. Category 2, For software development - and hardware, the things won't WORK when people scheme, hide and lie. (Unless you act like Amazon.com or Twitter 1.0, but you see my point.) As much as some people like to SAY actors are liars, no, they are PERFORMERS for an audience where there is a script and everyone knows it. Theatre on stage is crippled by a lack of honesty. It happens, but the toxic nature is amplified, as with theatre, the mind and body and emotions ARE the instrument and truth MUST be delivered and diplomatically. Unlike film, where a director will lie to someone to get a reaction and then shoot it, - you can't get away with that on stage - because such manipulations only work ONCE. And that is in a nutshell the problem with all this "strategy" in personal relationships and also in online generally. With grifts - one wears NUMB to the affect. Woke PC terminology is always shifting because like a card sharp, they need to rotate the deck and change the game to keep getting away with the con. What does all this mean to social media? I have said before, I live in the future, I live in LA County where I rarely drive. I walk to groceries past trees and nice things. I go to a cigar shop that's next to a soda fountain. I walk to work and only drive for client-visits and fun. In terms of how I react and act online, I also live in the future and will tell you why. The world is sick of con-games. Clients and customers VALUE honesty and transparency. Will someone who is honest like this scare the SHIT out of grifters and liars and draw their fire? Absolutely, especially if talent is there too. (This is a chief reason why universities became stvpid.) What do you think cancel culture is? Why do you think it exists? But this is the dying song of a rotten swan. It is already ending, thankfully. People (especially Zoomers) are more immune to these manipulations and Jedi mind tricks. So, word to the wise: give it up. Whenever we catch ourselves making a front, playing some game. Stop. To quote Glengarry Glenross: Jack Lemon: "Awwww, NO what're we going to tell the COPS?" Al Pacino: "The TRUTH! It's always the easiest thing to remember." So, in the coming years, (or even months) the social drugs will start to wear thin and there will be a BIG come down - there will be grifter "overdoses" and flame-outs. (we see it already, I suspect Candice Owens is in shock-jock relapse or recovery of some kind.) - But because of the pervasiveness of this grift, of the "fake it till you make it" attitude the the Xers and Boomers never thought the millennials would take SO much to heart, this system of lies and hiding is breaking. And the lies of the 20th century, the attitudes and skills that made La Camorra and the CIA powerhouses - these intimidation and gaslight factors FAIL in the internet age, or at least are blunted. I know from experience, that honesty, sincerity and transparency (even on the X Platform! (follow me @histofarch for yet more frequent blunt absurdity)) led to profitable businesses, and strong, healthy relations. And besides, just being frank and honest is much more relaxing than all this paranoia of falseness and constant strategy. Let's grow up, shall we? So, gird your loins. I'm going to enjoy this.
recent image
Disparate Impact Thinking Is Destroying Our...
Heather Mac Donald
 April 05 2024 at 09:02 pm
more_horiz
The most consequential falsehood in American public policy today is the idea that any racial disparity in any institution is by definition the result of racial discrimination. If a cancer research lab, for example, does not have 13 percent black oncologists—the black share of the national population—it is by definition a racist lab that discriminates against competitively qualified black oncologists; if an airline company doesn’t have 13 percent black pilots, it is by definition a racist airline company that discriminates against competitively qualified black pilots; and if a prison population contains more than 13 percent black prisoners, our law enforcement system is racist. The claim that racial disparities are proof of racial discrimination has been percolating in academia and the media for a long time. After the George Floyd race riots of 2020, however, it was adopted by America’s most elite institutions, from big law and big business to big finance. Even museums and orchestras took up the cry. Many thought that STEM—the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—would escape the diversity sledgehammer. They were wrong. The American Medical Association today insists that medicine is characterized by white supremacy. Nature magazine declares that science manifests one of “humankind’s worst excesses”: racism. The Smithsonian Institution announces that “emphasis on the scientific method” and an interest in “cause and effect relationships” are part of totalitarian whiteness. As a result of this falsehood, we are eviscerating meritocratic and behavioral standards in accordance with what is known as “disparate impact analysis.” Consider medicine. Step One of the medical licensing exam, taken during or after the second year of medical school, tests medical students’ knowledge of anatomy, physiology, and pathology. On average, black students score lower on the grading curve, making it harder for them to land their preferred residencies. Step One, in other words, has a “disparate impact” on black medical students. The solution, implemented last year, was to eliminate the Step One grading disparity by instituting a pass–fail system. Hospitals choosing residents can no longer distinguish between high and low achieving students—and that is precisely the point! The average Medical College Achievement Test (MCAT) score for black applicants is a standard deviation below the average score of white applicants. Some medical schools have waived the submission of MCAT scores altogether for black applicants. The tests were already redesigned to try to eliminate the disparity. A quarter of the questions now focus on social issues and psychology. The medical school curriculum is being revised to offer more classes in white privilege and focus less on clinical practice. The American Association of Medical Colleges will soon require that medical faculty demonstrate knowledge of “intersectionality”—a theory about the cumulative burdens of discrimination. Heads of medical schools and chairmen of departments like pediatric surgery are being selected on the basis of identity, not knowledge. The federal government is shifting medical research funding from pure science to studies on racial disparities and social justice. Why? Not because of any assessment of scientific need, but simply because black researchers do more racism research and less pure science. The National Institutes of Health has broadened the criteria for receiving neurology grants to include things like childhood welfare receipt because considering scientific accomplishment alone results in a disparate impact. What is at stake in these changes? Future medical progress and, ultimately, lives. Standards are falling in the legal profession, which came up with the disparate impact concept in the first place. Upon taking office in 2021, President Biden announced that he would no longer submit his judicial nominees to the American Bar Association for a preliminary rating. Why? According to a member of the White House Counsel’s Office, allowing the ABA to vet candidates would be incompatible with the “diversification of the judiciary.” This claim was dubious. The ABA, after all, cannot open its collective mouth without issuing a bromide about the need to diversify the bar. Its leading members are obsessed with the demographics of corporate law firms and law school faculties. This is the same ABA that gave its highest rating to a Supreme Court nominee who as a justice would make the false claim during a challenge to Covid vaccine mandates that “over 100,000 children are in serious condition [from Covid] and many are on ventilators.” State bar associations are also busy watering down standards to eliminate disparate impact. In 2020, California lowered the pass score on its bar exam because black applicants were disproportionately failing. Only five percent of black law school graduates passed the California bar on their first try in February 2020, compared to 52 percent of white law school graduates and 42 percent of Asian law school graduates. The lack of proportional representation among California’s attorneys was held to be proof of a discriminatory credentialing system. The pressure to eliminate the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) requirement for law school admissions is growing, because it too has a disparate impact. As a single mother told an ABA panel, “I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a lawyer just due to not being able to successfully handle this test.” Note the assumption: the problem always lies with the test, never with the test taker. The LSAT requirement will almost certainly be axed. The curious state of our criminal justice system today is a function of the disparate impact principle. If you wonder why police officers are not making certain arrests, or why district attorneys are not prosecuting whole categories of crimes—such as shoplifting, trespassing, or farebeating—it is because apprehending lawbreakers and prosecuting crime have a disparate impact on black criminals. Urban leaders have decided that they would rather not enforce the law at all, no matter how constitutional that enforcement, than put more black criminals in jail. Walgreens, CVS, and Target would rather close down entire stores and deprive their elderly customers of access to their medications than confront shoplifters and hand them over to the law, because doing so would disproportionately yield black shoplifters, as the viral looting videos attest. Macy’s flagship store in New York City was sued several years ago because most of the people its employees stopped for shoplifting were black. The only allowable explanation for that fact was that Macy’s was racist. It was not permissible to argue that Macy’s arrests mirrored the shoplifting population. Even colorblind technology is racist. Speeding and red-light cameras disproportionately identify black drivers as traffic scofflaws. The solution to such disparate impact is the same as we saw with the medical licensing exam: throw out the cameras. The result of this de-prosecution and de-policing has been widespread urban anarchy and, in 2020, the largest one-year spike in homicide in this nation’s history. Thousands more black lives have been lost to drive-by shootings. Dozens of black children have been fatally gunned down in their beds, in their front yards, and in their parents’ cars. No one says their names because their assailants were not police officers or white supremacists. They were other blacks. UNCOMFORTABLE FACTS We need to face up to the truth: the reason for racial underrepresentation across a range of meritocratic fields is the academic skills gap. The reason for racial overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is the crime gap. And let me issue a trigger warning here: I am going to raise uncomfortable facts that many well-intentioned Americans would rather not hear. Keeping such facts off stage may ordinarily be appropriate as a matter of civil etiquette. But it is too late for such forbearance now. If we cannot acknowledge the skills gap and the behavior gap, we are going to continue destroying our civilizational legacy. Let me also make the obvious point that I am talking about group averages. Thousands of individuals within underperforming groups outperform not only their own group average but great numbers of people within other groups as well. Here are the relevant facts. In 2019, 66 percent of all black 12th graders did not possess even partial mastery of basic 12th grade math skills, defined as being able to do arithmetic and to read a graph. Only seven percent of black 12th graders were proficient in 12th grade math, defined as being able to calculate using ratios. The number of black 12th graders who were advanced in math was too small to show up statistically in a national sample. The picture was not much better in reading. Fifty percent of black 12th graders did not possess even partial mastery of basic reading, and only four percent were advanced. According to the ACT, a standardized college admissions test, only three percent of black high school seniors were college ready in 2023. The disparities in other such tests—the SAT, the LSAT, the GRE, and the GMAT—are just as wide. Remember these data when politicians and others vilify Americans as racist on the ground that this or that institution is not proportionally diverse. We can argue about why these disparities exist and how to close them—something that policymakers and philanthropists have been trying to do for decades. But in light of these skills gaps, it is irrational to expect 13 percent black representation on a medical school faculty or among a law firm’s partners under meritocratic standards. At present you can have proportional diversity or you can have meritocracy. You cannot have both. As for the criminal justice system, the bodies speak for themselves. President Biden is fond of intoning that black parents are right to fear that their children will be killed by a police officer or by a white gunslinger every time those children step outside. The mayor of Kansas City proclaimed last year that “existing while black” is another high-risk activity that blacks must engage in. The mayor was partially right: existing while black is far more dangerous than existing while white—but the reason is black crime, not white vigilantes. In the post-George Floyd era, black juveniles are shot at 100 times the rate of white juveniles. Blacks between the ages of ten and 24 are killed in drive by shootings at nearly 25 times the rate of whites in that same age cohort. Dozens of blacks are murdered every day, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are just 13 percent of the population. The country turns its eyes away. Who is killing these black victims? Not the police, not whites, but other blacks. As for interracial violence, blacks are a greater threat to whites than whites are to blacks. Blacks commit 85 percent of all non-lethal interracial violence between blacks and whites. A black person is 35 times more likely to commit an act of non-lethal violence against a white person than vice versa. Yet the national narrative insists on the opposite idea—and too many dutifully play along. These crime disparities mean that the police cannot restore law and order in neighborhoods where innocent people are most being victimized without having a disparate impact on black criminals. So the political establishment has decided not to restore law and order at all. CIVILIZATION AT STAKE It is urgent that we fight back against disparate impact thinking. As long as racism remains the only allowable explanation for racial disparities, the Left wins, and our civilization will continue to crumble. Even the arts are coming down. Classical music, visual art, theater—all are dismissed as a function of white oppression. The Metropolitan Museum of Art mounted an astonishing show last year called the Fictions of Emancipation. The show’s premise was that if a white artist creates a work intended to show the cruelties of slavery, that artist (in this case, the great 19th century French sculptor Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux) is in fact arguing that the natural condition of blacks is slavery. Prosecuting this nonsensical argument required the Met to ignore or distort almost every feature of the Western art tradition—including the representation of the nude human body, artists’ use of models, and the sale of art. Only Western art is subjected to this kind of hostile interpretation. Chinese, African, and Indian cultural traditions are still treated with curatorial respect, their works analyzed in accordance with their creators’ intent. As soon as a critic turns his eye or ear on Western art, however, all he can see or hear is imperialism and white privilege. It is a perverse obsession. We are teaching young people to dismiss the greatest creations of humanity. We are stripping them of the capacity to escape their narrow identities and to lose themselves in beauty, sublimity, and wit. No wonder so many Americans are drowning in meaninglessness and despair. We must stop apologizing for Western Civilization. To be sure, slavery and segregation were grotesque violations of America’s founding ideals. For much of our history black Americans suffered injustice and gratuitous cruelty. Today, however, every mainstream institution is twisting itself into knots to hire and promote as many underrepresented minorities as possible. Yet those same institutions grovelingly accuse themselves of racism. The West has liberated the world from universal squalor and disease, thanks to the scientific method and the Western passion for discovery and knowledge. It has given the world plumbing, hot showers in frigid winters, flight, clean water, steel, antibiotics, and just about every structure and every device that we take for granted in our miraculously privileged existence—and I use the word “privilege” here to refer to anyone whose life has been transformed by Western ingenuity—i.e., virtually every human being on the planet. It was in the West that the ideas of constitutional government and civil rights were born. Yes, to our shame, we had slavery. What civilization did not? But only the Anglosphere expended lives and capital to end the nearly universal practice. Britain had to occupy Lagos in 1861 to get its ruler to give up the slave trade. The British Navy used 13 percent of its manpower to blockade slave ships leaving the western coast of Africa in the 19th century, as Nigel Biggar has documented. Every ideal that the Left uses today to bash the West—such as equality or tolerance—originated in the West. *** The ongoing attack on colorblind excellence in the U.S. is putting our scientific edge at risk. China, which cares nothing for identity politics, is throwing everything it has at its most talented students. China ranks number one in international tests of K-12 math, science, and reading skills; the U.S. ranks twenty-fifth. China is racing ahead in nano physics, artificial intelligence, and other critical defense technologies. Chinese teams dominate the International Olympiad in Informatics. Meanwhile the American Mathematical Association declares math to be racist and President Biden puts a soil geologist with no background in physics at the top of the Department of Energy’s science programs. This new science director may know nothing about nuclear weapons and nuclear physics, but she checks off several identity politics boxes and publishes on such topics as “A Critical Feminist Approach to Transforming Workplace Climate.” What do we do in response to such civilizational immolation? We proclaim that standards are not racist and that excellence is not racist. We assert that categories like race, gender, and sexual preference are never qualifications for a job. I know for a fact that being female is not an accomplishment. I am equally sure that being gay or being black are also not accomplishments. Should conservative political candidates campaign against disparate impact thinking and in favor of standards of merit? Of course they should! They will be accused of waging a culture war. But it is the progressive elites, not their conservative opponents, who are engaging in cultural revolution! Most conservatives today are not even playing defense. How about legislation to ban racial preferences in medical training and practice? How about eliminating the disparate impact standard in statutes and regulations? Conservatives should by all means promote the virtues of free markets and limited government, but the diversity regime is the nemesis of both. Lowering standards helps no one since high expectations are the key to achievement. In defense of excellence we must speak the truth, never apologize, and never back down. Originally published at imprimus.hillsdale.edu
recent image
Locked up without a trial
Bettina Arndt
 April 25 2024 at 05:24 am
more_horiz
post image
They are treated like animals. Life in jail is appalling. It is awful in ways that most people could never imagine.” This is an experienced criminal lawyer talking about the men, the increasing proportion of our prison population, who find themselves imprisoned without a trial. On remand and locked up in vile conditions with violent, dangerous people. They are being locked up because of changes to our bail legislation which are resulting in more and more men being refused bail – shut away for months, sometimes even years before their cases are determined. Yet as I write this our media is inflamed, demanding fewer men should be let out on bail. This is the result of the death of a young NSW mum, Molly Ticehurst, apparently at the hands of her ex-partner who was out on bail facing various domestic and sexual violence allegations. “This has to stop” – demanded the Daily Telegraph, calling for changes to the state’s “failing bail laws.” During an interview with the Shadow NSW Police Minister Paul Toole, Chris Kenny on Sky News was quick to blame the magistrate for allowing bail to the alleged offender. Toole called for a complete overhaul of bail laws to ensure that even fewer accused men are given bail. The NSW government has already caved in and announced a review. Every time a crime is committed by someone on bail, we see similar demands for tightening of the laws to ensure that everyone accused of any serious crime, particularly domestic violence, is safely locked away – even before there is any attempt to examine the evidence supporting the accusation at trial. It’s easy to see why public sentiment is behind the demand to do more to protect vulnerable women in these circumstances. But the price we pay for knee-jerk responses to a very complex issue is that thousands of, both legally and factually innocent, men are locked up in jails across the country. It is very easy to argue that there will never be an offence committed by a person on bail if nobody is ever granted bail. But the true cost of such a position needs to be understood. Sure, we can reduce the risk of offending by removing bail as an option. And we can increase the likelihood of convictions by implementing a reverse onus in what we perceive to be ‘problem’ areas of crime. In fact, we can absolutely ensure that all persons suspected of committing a crime are summarily convicted, just by removing the right to a trial. But do we want to live in such a place? Right now, across this country more than a third of men in Australian prisons haven’t had their case determined by a court. In national trends, the number of unsentenced people in custody almost doubled, reaching 16,000 in the past decade. The proportion continues to go up – with a 15.5% increase in the last five years. In NSW, 42% of prisoners are now on remand – which means that they are legally innocent. Yet they are behind bars. “They are presumed to be innocent and a lot of these offences are not offences where, if they were convicted, they would necessarily go to jail,” comments Lorana Bartels, a professor of criminology at ANU, a feminist who mainly advocates on behalf of female and indigenous prisoners. Her focus is ironic given that most of the recent astonishing increase in presumed innocent people being locked up is due to what we might call “feminist offences” - offences allegedly committed mainly by males which the women’s lobby has worked hard to ensure are punished severely. That means, ideally, putting the alleged perpetrator behind bars. This feminist campaign has been a great success with a record number of prisoners on remand. In NSW, the overall remand prisoner population has increased by 74% in last 10 years and is now 92% male. Naturally our biased media plays down the fact that mainly men are being impacted. The Sydney Morning Herald falsely claims that the changes which resulted in this increase “disproportionately affect Indigenous Australians, the homeless and women.” Yet the crimes the feminists have targeted - sexual assault, domestic violence, intimidation/stalking and the like – make up 98 per cent of the increase in remand prisoners in the last 4 years, according to data provided to us by BOSCAR. Domestic violence and sexual assault account for 83% of the increase. Of course, there are shocking cases of women on remand - like Maree Mavis Crabtree, the Queensland woman who was recently released after six years behind bars. Bail had been refused after she was accused of killing her son with a poisoned fruit smoothie. But these cases are rare compared to the huge number of men finding themselves in this situation. For instance, we never hear about the men now routinely imprisoned without a trial after accusations of domestic violence. For every two men in prison who have been convicted of domestic violence, there are three who have been charged but not tried. As we know, no actual evidence is required to make a domestic violence accusation and have a man charged. A mere allegation by an angry ex-spouse is often sufficient to have her partner given an apprehended violence order and then, by setting up a few breaches of that order, put into jail. The same applies to sexual assault, as we have seen from five judges’ comments in NSW which led to the audit of current rape cases. Two years ago, I wrote about a man – I called him “Peter” - who achieved a substantial malicious prosecution payout from NSW police and prosecutors after he was arrested at the airport and taken straight to prison on the basis of his ex-wife’s false rape allegation – an allegation eventually disproved when he produced video evidence of her very obviously enjoying shagging him. I’ve seen that amazing video and described her “sitting on top of him, bouncing cheerfully.” Peter spent a terrifying month in prison on remand, surrounded by frightening men: “You are permanently on edge.” He was initially put into a cell where the toilet was full of vomit, overflowing onto the floor. Even when moved to better accommodation he learnt to stand in the filthy shower on the plastic plate used for his meals. Hideous food, sadistic guards. He lost 15 kilos in the month he was imprisoned. Another lawyer explains how the humiliations for these men pile up: “For low level offences, the police should issue notices to attend court but instead they are arresting men wherever they can find them, i.e. at home or at work. Handcuffing them and transporting them to police stations where they can then be questioned for many hours before charging them. This is all done in the traumatic cell environment where they will be ultimately searched and fingerprinted and formally charged.” “Depending on the time of the day they will then be sent to a remand facility. These facilities are horrendous, with full strip searches, three men to large concrete cells, free standing toilets in full view, 24-hour lights on, thinnest mattresses on concrete slabs, atrocious food and no entertainment of any sort.” The cells were like “hosed-out dog kennels”, an ex-remand prisoner told me, describing the damp, freezing cells. Last December I spent hour after hour trying to get through to Parklea private prison, trying to confirm they had a Chinese PhD student locked up there – I wrote about his story here. The phone was simply never answered, there was no response to the online system for trying to contact prisoners. “That’s par for the course,” his criminal lawyer told me. “These places have no interest in facilitating contact for prisoners with friends or family. Contact with the outside is heavily restricted, calls are absurdly expensive. Inmates are routinely moved to locations hundreds of kilometres from their families – and from legal support.” Imprisoned men simply disappear into the system, and it can be a mighty task even for their lawyers to find out where they are. And they are certainly not safe. “People in jail live in the midst of violence. People are arbitrarily attacked and often severely injured,” the criminal lawyer explained. There’s a young Sydney man who certainly can vouch for that. The 22-year-old had been in a sexual relationship with an older (27), very sexually experienced woman who had a porn business, and persuaded him to appear with her in porno videos. When they fell out, she accused him of rape and choking her, and trying to suffocate their baby. The appeal case was handled by the high-profile criminal barrister Peter Lavac, and ultimately thrown out. “Her lies were exposed after 55 minutes of cross-examination,” Lavac explained. When she refused to come back and resume cross examination, the crown was forced to withdraw all ten charges. But this guy had initially been represented by legal aid, had his bail refused and spent 18 months in prison on remand. During that time, he was savagely beaten, and gang raped several times. The strangulation allegation would have guaranteed he had no hope of bail. A Queensland police officer explained that in that state the criminal code was recently amended to include a specific offence of strangulation. “Once this was law, the rate of women reporting strangulation increased dramatically. This is a strong ground for police to oppose or object to bail. What I saw was the courts immediately started to remand men if charged with strangulation as part of a dv. Women’s groups soon learned that to get a man locked up was as simple as mentioning strangulation. Most police even ask if it occurred to avoid missing it.” A similar pattern has emerged in other states. Then there’s the other feminist favourite, stalking – 57% of those imprisoned for intimidation or stalking are merely accused, not convicted. Think about that – most people jailed for stalking are there solely based only on an accusation. They haven’t even received a trial. Our state governments had better start building more prisons fast given the expected tsunami of men likely to be charged with the new criminal offence of coercive control, due in the next year or so. That one is a dead certanity for denial of bail, given how hard the feminists have worked to claim coercive control is linked to domestic homicide – no matter how strong the evidence showing that is not the case – see here. So, what was it that triggered this big shift towards locking people up without a trial? Following demands from the media similar to those occurring today, bail laws were reformed in 2013 and 2021 so that the presumption of bail was revoked for some offences, requiring that courts assess bail risk and a “show cause” test that puts the onus on people charged with the most serious offences to justify why they should be given bail. Only sexual offences involving minors are on the current list but the default position is already refusal of bail for most sexual assault offences. Now the push is now on for all sexual assault offences to be included in the “show cause” list, including allegations involving lack of consent. Can you imagine the consequences if all young men being accused of such crimes were immediately locked up without a trial? When it comes to domestic violence, the reality is that in the current culture most magistrates will err on the side of caution - “in case something happens”. They will rarely give bail if they perceive that there is any risk of violence. Even with less serious offences involving domestic violence breaches, risk-averse magistrates are (understandably) readily convinced to take the easy way out. The consequence of these changes to bail laws is that the rate of bail refusals has increased by 47.3% over last 9 years according to BOCSAR. This means more and more remand prisoners even though crime rates have been on a dramatic decline. NSW Greens MLC David Shoebridge commented that this change “undermines the presumption of innocence for every citizen in NSW, and is an attack on this fundamental principle in our criminal justice system.” In 2019 an ACT man, Atem Deng had a family violence order placed on him for damaging some property. On 30 August 2019, Deng was convicted, fined and “all related charges were finalised”. Nevertheless, in October he was arrested for being at the home he and his partner had shared, despite the fact he had not had contact with his ex. Bail was refused and he was held on remand for 58 days. The experience was horrendous, including a full-body cavity search, and having his life threatened by a cell-mate. The ACT Supreme Court found that there was no basis for the charge against him because there was no order preventing him from being there. Yet when Deng sought damages for false imprisonment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, saying that locking up people who were not guilty was “not uncommon.” The absolutely gobsmacking conclusion from the three court of Appeal judges was that locking up this innocent guy was “the system working, not failing.” The writing is on the wall, and it is very, very scary.
recent image
News of the Day Rising Star of Iran
DarrylN
 April 13 2024 at 11:22 pm
more_horiz
The news today is that Iran seized a cargo ship owned by a Jew, and launch drone attacks against Israel. why wouldn’t they? Queers for Palestine run Biden optic, and the White House is a joke. Inclusive includes mentally derelicts and the gender psychotic to the highest policy of the land. American policy is to hold up their bums and say drill here. As if manna from heaven would be any more of a miracle drop than Biden landing his gig as Leader of the Free Workd. This is Alfred E. Newman stuff, a total farce. Biden shoots duds. That is a guarantee. China and Russia are all on board. The time is right. Trump is no slouch, and tomorrow is a different world. BIPOC is all about the revenge against the West. Jordan Peterson often comes up with “why didn’t conservatives do nothing” as such a world came into being. The thing is in a 51 49 world, the useful idiots are the only ones that can really do any thing. consevatives can’t go more conservative, but it is liberals that have lost their collective minds. Bill Maher for example. He sees babies in ovens and nine month old babies stabbed in Australia just like the rest of us. So what? It is a 99 to 1 bet he is Biden 2024. And Iran has been chanting Death to America all the while, Maher voting for the Obama Biden Team that cozies to Iran. Alls conservatives can do, other than go Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex Jones’s crazy themselves, is to well, get married, have children, do the mom and dad thing and ride out the apocalypse. Negative birth rates, spiralling down, yea, conservatives can blame themselves for that. But nine of that won’t change liberal crazy one iota, and that is where the rot has set in. But liberals are enraptured by the reflections of their own virtuous beauty. Unlike deplorable conservatives, these students of Elaine Paegel refuse to demonize anybody, not even Hamas. But there are economic consequences of America being a joke, for Americans themselves. But liberals are gonna to liberal. Didn’t say boo about the white trash in Britain being turned into cum dumps for Asian predators, celebrate Hamas victory Oct 7, appease Iran, fund terrorism with those pallets of cash. And blame conservatives for the country going to hell in a hand basket.
recent image
The Stubborn Opposite of Sociopathy
DavidGetzin
 April 03 2024 at 05:05 am
more_horiz
This topic is a nerve I have an impulse to press lately. Our culture has been working though a social cycle of high-trust peaking, and then this trust being preyed upon and monetized by a kind of rent-seeking behavior, obsession with zero-sum game, and it may well have to do with dynamics of shrinking demographics. As a cohort (not always a population - it could be a race or subculture) declines in numbers - the rates of predatory sociopathy might increase. There has been a lot of talk about sociopathy lately - and (for now at least) I'm not done with either the concept or the experience. It seems none of us are. Michael Knowles was going on about the new "sociopathy awareness" book that came out, written by Patric Gagne. Beyond the usual "pathology grifter" suspicion that is totally warranted about such a book, there are underlying dynamics that people are just barely staring to pay attention to. Gagne herself notes that cases of sociopathy are rising and are undiagnosed. As much as I dislike her general (what I would consider to be enabling) approach, it is apparent via her statistics (and by my own personal observations) that the number is rising. So what is causing this? Surely it is not a case of "born this way." I remember the attitude coming out of the 80s that "some people are just like that" and even recently, what seems to be the mainstream notion is that children of a certain temperament, "not properly socialized" newer develop proper empathy or conscience. I don't think that is the case at all. Children must be born with some great degree of empathy. A child in the womb will hear and to a great degree feel what the mother does. Babies and very young children will laugh when others laugh, cry when others cry. It is the instance of trauma, and specifically unresolved trauma, that really tends to create sociopathy. Ani I don't think I am alone in thinking that the "cluster B" disorders are properly seen on a spectrum with psychopathy on one end tilting into criminal behavior, sociopathy being more circumspect, borderline being more subtle than sociopathy and PTSD being something that we can all at least identify with. All of us are able to understand the kind of numb shock or unmoved anger where we can for a time, feel disconnected from the humanity of someone who is considered an adversary, or a threat. As this spectrum tightens, that "for a time" becomes the "ongoing steady way of life" and the adversary becomes the whole world. But that's not the limit of what we have to deal with. Just as the now-famous example of the one vegetarian family member gets the whole family on tofu, a critical mass of sociopathy can oblige the surrounding individuals to behave in a sociopathic manner. NOW - add to this the fact that drugs (especially cocaine (with what music producer Steve Albini so-directly called "numbing both physical and spiritual") but even marijuana/THC) will induce a kind of trauma as part of the high and crash itself, and we see in the USA, a coming wave of socially corrosive temperament. Are we expected to do anything about this? I hope so. One answer would be to address the trauma. For some reason, I have seen and heard therapist say that there is no cure for Borderline, and certainly no cure for sociopathy. I don't think we should be accommodationist, but there are ways of addressing this trauma. Part or the trouble (as always) is if people won't want to admit to any of it. The zero-sum mindset tends to magnetize itself to people with high amounts of empathy who are also very diligent. Skeptical people who don't work hard make terrible con-marks. Part of the trouble is that the demoralized 3rd world mindset induced by a zero-sum view leads to a dominant signal in the culture of people who are skeptical and don't work hard. High conscientiousness, low agreeability… this is the combination that "spoils the Game" for all those game theorists hoping to get away with whatever machiavellian cluster-b thought they have at the moment. The trick for us would be to decrease agreeability while maintaining or increasing empathy. Late Victorian England is a good example of this. And famously enough, Georgian England and the early Victorian were famous enough for having a fair amount of sociopathic brutality. I think the same contrast can also be recapitulated going from Late Republican Rome where women like the wife or Marc Antony did things like stab the tongue of the deceased Cicero's head with her silver hairpin, just to make a point. We have been through these transitions before. I'd like to think that the spine (or upper lip?) stiffening is already underway. We see it in anything called "based" - the spine-reinforced refusal to be moved my manipulation. SO - we have choppy times ahead - but I am a bit of an optimist. None of this happens automatically. The "little games" need to stop, the stilted pandering and pretending to identity. The rise of social media greatly scaled and amplified the reach of sociopathic action. We find that in cancel culture, yelp reviews, constant-strategy-filled relationships between men and women. But I think an immunity is building - at least it feels that way.
recent image
Go Woke, Go Broke
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 April 07 2024 at 04:25 pm
more_horiz
post image
In today's culture, it often feels as though the collective sentiment and mainstream narratives outweigh the pursuit of truth. This pattern is visible in responses to COVID, political discourse, and even in discussions about gender and biology. It's as if our society is grappling with a malaise, having sidelined the value of truth, open debate, and diversity of thought. The consequence? Anyone stepping outside the mainstream narrative faces potential censorship, cancel culture, and targeted attacks—a reality underscored by countless examples. This is why I advocate for open discussion on my platforms, welcoming differing viewpoints. It’s an exercise in mental fortitude: engaging with opposing views without resorting to silencing or shaming. Today’s cultural sickness, as I see it, stems from a lack of mental resilience—a quality honed through embracing discomfort, much like physical strength is built through exercises like squats. Comfort may be appealing, but growth and understanding flourish in its absence. The societal trend towards prioritizing comfort over constructive conversation, frequently associated with 'woke' ideology, avoids the essential effort needed to face uncomfortable truths. Truth, however, is a complex construct, enriched by diverse perspectives and insights, underscoring the importance of open dialogue as both valuable and crucial. I stand firm in my convictions, resistant to pressures to conform, advocating for a balanced approach: be open-minded yet skeptical, and embrace the discomfort that comes with mental strength training. I refuse to succumb to mental fragility, viewing it as antithetical to the principles I hold dear. It’s not just unproductive; it’s a disservice to our collective well-being and, at its worst, a detriment to society. So, I ask you: How do you build mental strength in an era of conflicting narratives and pervasive propaganda? What are your strategies for uncovering truth amidst a barrage of competing voices? Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.
recent image
A Guide for Social Justice Paradox - Part 5
Robert "RSnake" Hansen
 April 10 2024 at 01:04 pm
more_horiz
post image
The topic de-jour for today's exploration of Hilbert Problems for Social Justice involves the US second amendment and the role of government. The crux of the matter lies in a peculiar contradiction espoused by many progressives: a profound skepticism of governmental authority coexists with an advocacy for that very government to undertake the disarmament of its citizenry. That leads us to the contradictory couplet: The government isn’t trustworthy AND let’s trust the government to ban guns. * Tuskegee experiments against the Black community: https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm * “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMVhL6OOuR0 This presents us with a deeply ironic dichotomy. On one hand, there's a pervasive distrust in the government's intentions and capabilities, underscored by historical abuses, which laid bare a willingness to exploit and harm its own citizens, particularly minorities. On the other hand, there's a call to entrust this same government with the power to ban firearms, driven by progressive political operatives. In 1932 through 1972, the now colloquially named Tuskegee Study demonstrates that the government's willingness to experiment on its own population. The actual experiment, gruesomely named the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” tested the progress of untreated syphilis in the minority Black population. We should never forget the government's capacity for malevolence. Why were these Black communities targeted, and what would the outcry have been had the affluent Caucasian neighborhoods of Beverly Hills or Martha's Vineyard been subjected to such horrors? - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/650716 The prospect of effectively disarming the populace raises logistical and ethical quandaries. The government's track record of managing illegal contraband within its own secured institutions, such as prisons, hardly inspires confidence in its ability to eliminate illicit firearms from society. If the government were able to provide evidence that they could, for instance, stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, or stop all crime within a prison, it might stand to reason that they could disarm the population in such a way that it wouldn’t leave the only remaining illegal weapons in the hands of criminals. During a 2017 congressional hearing, Frank Ciluffo offered a stark illustration of the challenges faced in securing our nation: "If you want to smuggle in a tactical nuclear weapon, just put it in a bale of marijuana." This provocative statement underscores a grim reality—if the current mechanisms in place to protect us from such existential threats can be circumvented with ease, what confidence can we have in our ability to control the flow of any illicit material, including firearms across borders when the black market will create demand for such materials given how porous the US boarders are? This observation compels us to confront a historical truth: the effort to entirely stem the tide of contraband has invariably resulted in costly, dangerous, and ultimately futile endeavors, doing little more than increasing the ingenuity, determination and bank accounts of those wishing to circumvent the law. The implication here is not trivial; it speaks to the heart of the debate over gun control and the dangerously naïve illusion of safety through prohibition. To believe that stringent controls and bans can effectively eliminate the illegal trafficking of firearms is to ignore the awful lessons proffered by history. Whether it's the prohibition era's boon to organized crime through the illegal alcohol trade or the contemporary war on drugs that has done little to curb the drug trade while enriching cartels, the pattern is unmistakable. As the joke goes, "I'd like to congratulate drugs on winning the war on drugs." Such measures, however well-intentioned, tend to shift the balance of power, placing it firmly in the hands of those least concerned with law and order. In the context of firearms, this means potentially conceding the monopoly on violence to those with criminal intent, allowing them to operate with a degree of impunity on American streets. That is also assuming that the government has our best interest at heart, and will never have any intention of doing harm to its population, to which we have ample historical evidence to the contrary. There are many examples of governments disarming the populace immediately preceding atrocities. Leading up to and during the Armenian Genocide of 1915, Ottoman authorities disarmed Armenian and other Christian populations. These disarmament efforts were part of a larger set of policies aimed at eliminating the Armenian presence in the Ottoman Empire, culminating in mass killings and deportations. The Young Turks movement decried that approximately 2 million Armenians were infidels and about 1.5 million were killed in totality. Throughout its history, the Soviet government maintained strict control of civilian firearm access. These measures were part of a larger apparatus of state control and repression. The disarmament of the population facilitated various atrocities committed by the Soviet state, including the Great Purge and forced famines, by reducing the public capacity for resistance. In the 1930's upwards of 1.2 million people were killed or died due to treatment resulting from incarceration in Gulags. Peruse The Gulag Archipelago for supplementary unsavory detail. After the Nationalist Chinese government established gun control in 1935, China’s Mao Zedong killed tens of million of Chinese. The real deathtoll may never be known but some estimates reach 65 million. The consequences of a disarmed population ripples to this day. The ongoing plight and genocide of the Uyghurs by the Chinese Communist Party is a good example. Today approximately 1 million Uyghurs live in Chinese internment camps. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, in 1930's and 40's Germany, prior to and during World War II, the Nazi regime implemented gun control laws, particularly targeting Jewish people. In 1938, the Weapons Law was enacted, which prohibited Jews from owning firearms and other weapons. This disarmament was part of the broader strategy of oppression, disenfranchisement, and the eventual mass murder of Jews and other groups considered undesirable by the regime. In total approximately 6 million European Jews were killed, along with millions of others. In the late 1970's The Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, after taking power in 1975, took steps to disarm the Cambodian population. The regime sought to eliminate any potential threats to its power, contributing to the mass executions, forced labor, and starvation that lead to 1.5-2 million deaths. In the lead-up to the Rwandan Genocide, the government implemented policies to disarm the Tutsi population, making them more vulnerable to mass attacks. While the genocide was largely carried out using machetes, the inability of the Tutsi population to defend themselves contributed to the scale of the atrocity. 500-800 thousand died. You may be thinking, dear reader, ah yes, but the US would never act so racist, or create laws out of fear. Alas, during WWII the United States interned 120,000 US-based Japanese, most of whom were US citizens, leading to more than 1,800 dead. California's ruling defined anyone with 1⁄16th or more Japanese lineage as a person who should be incarcerated and the internment only concluded after Congress ruled Ex parte Mitsuye Endo forcing the Roosevelt administration to capitulate in 1945, mere months before the end of the war. Reflecting on the United States' checkered past, we are wise to confront the uncomfortable truth that the United States government isn't immune to fear-driven malicious behavior. What might our political elite be capable when no longer in fear of their own constituents? Why trust the government to do anything that might have enormous negative civic impact given its history? The push for disarmament by progressives appears incongruous with historical evidence of governmental overreach and malfeasance. How can we reconcile the desire to curb gun violence with the potential risks of empowering the state to strip citizens of their right to bear arms? How is it that contraband—guns, knives, cellphones, drugs—find their way into prisons, environments designed to be impenetrable fortresses, surveilled ceaselessly? Is it because only law abiding people work in authority positions within the government and that the surveillance apparatus needs more financing, or is it simply that corruption exists virtually everywhere? This should drive profound skepticism towards governmental efficacy in eradicating illicit materials, even within the confines of what could be likened to a modern-day panopticon. - https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article277753228.html - https://nypost.com/2024/02/27/us-news/30-kentucky-prison-guards-had-sex-with-inmates-while-14-others-smuggled-drugs/ So knowing that the government cannot competently accomplish the task at hand, and has a storied history of abuse, why would progressives push for disarming the populace? Is there another reason entirely? The rather trite historical maxim that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely is countered by tales of the rare, enlightened rulers—like Marcus Aurelius—who wielded power with wisdom and restraint. The intriguing prospect of an imagined future leader, a philosopher-king of a kind, who could navigate the treacherous waters of disarmament while reining in governmental overreach, is a tantalizing idea. However, the pragmatist in me knows that such an occurrence within the polarized contemporary political sphere is an improbability to say the least. The government and political funding apparatus is loathe to give up power once procured and will back whichever political horse delivers that power... and ideally more. As we cannot rely on the government to get any sweeping firearms reforms right, I am compelled to pivot the discourse towards more practical and less utopian considerations. Questions around the specifics of gun ownership—determining who is fit to bear arms and who is not, enforcing regulations against the latter, establishing proper penalties for unauthorized possession, promoting responsible gun ownership through training, reconsidering the efficacy of gun-free zones, or perhaps bolstering security—are top of mind. Moreover, the potential for capitalistic technological solutions vs legal fiat, such as those proposed by companies like DoubleCheck, which aim to prevent firearm sales to individuals signaling immediate violent intentions, merits discussion. - https://www.doublecheckprotect.com/ These propositions offer a foundation for a constructive good-faith dialogue between advocates for and opponents of gun ownership—a dialogue that transcends the overly simplistic dichotomy of disarmament. Blanket calls for disarmament only serve to divide law abiding gun owners further from the progressive movement. The lawbreakers, those who pose a tangible threat to society, are invariably undeterred by legal prohibitions. Nothing prevents the criminal from stealing, building or buying firearms on the black market. Acknowledging this, the notion of disarming the entire populace seems an exercise in futility, a lesson bleakly illustrated by the inability to enforce absolute control even within the highly regulated confines of prison walls. Thus, the path forward necessitates a nuanced bipartisan approach to firearm regulation—one that recognizes the limitations and historic failures of government intervention, respects the rights of responsible gun owners, and prioritizes the collective safety and welfare of society. I hope you found this article interesting. This series will document many of these conflated social justice issues and there will be more, God willing. Please subscribe, and comment, if you would like more of the same. If you want to know about me or my show, The RSnake Show, please visit https://rsnake.com/ for details.
recent image
'Not tonight, i've got a headache'?
edXanthony
 April 01 2024 at 04:57 am
more_horiz
post image
When a woman tells her husband, 'I'm not in the mood', she is implying that her husband is a sex object whose sexuality is only relevant when she is 'in the mood' and wants to use it, and vice versa. Husbands and wives in love and marriage will never speak about 'mood' and will naturally want to please each other and are pleased to do so because they are together.All this talk about the 'woman's right to say no' detracts one from the spirit of a marriage where both the man and woman give themselves to each other' and serves to redefine marriage as an exploitative relationship that requires 'rights' for protection against each other.You can get rid of anything good by turning it into a ‘rights issue’, like, ‘You have the right to not help your girlfriend or wife up when she falls’, or, ‘you have the right to tell your girlfriend you are not in the mood to accept her present’, or, ‘i have the right to not appreciate anything you do for me’. Nonsense. But that is the ploy the corporation uses time and time again.This ploy and plot by the corporation is an effort to drive a wedge between men and women and husbands and wives so as to compromise marriage, love, and heterosexuality. Why? Because marriage becomes the greatest institution of democracy when the woman takes on her nature-endowed role as nurturer and carer, and through which, the man and sons learn virtue, and because of which they can recognise any evil outside because of its great contrast to the virtue of women. That is what drives Man to contend with it. That is the Golden thread that ties humanity to the heavens. It is no wonder that that the Indians, since ancient times, say, 'Matha, Pitha, Guru, Devam', meaning, Mother, Father, Teacher, God, with Mother being the first. Like i stated in an article i wrote elsewhere, God gave humanity the Mother so that the Mother may open humanity's eyes to God and thus achieve their humanity. edX
recent image
A Guide for Social Justice Paradox - Part 7
Robert "RSnake" Hansen
 April 26 2024 at 01:33 am
more_horiz
post image
On today's journey through the seemingly endless abyss of social justice paradoxes we will once again touch on race. I don't find much personal satisfaction in writing about race because growing up, I never felt any sense of groups being less than, or meaningfully different. Some of my best friends were Hispanic, Asian or Black growing up - one of the virtues of a boarding school where parents of wealthy families around the world could dispose of their children, and combine with the largely Caucasian and Hispanics of central California. Every morning, I'd talk with the black girl who would come in and as her job at the school she'd replace newspapers in the library. Every afternoon I'd hang out with my black buddy who I played lacrosse with. My asian friends taught me how to flip pencils and how to write my name with kanji. My hispanic crush and I would have long talks about her family life, and how she just wanted to move to a bigger town. Another hispanic friend and I spent hours talking about our auto-shop class and drafting class and what he wanted to do after he was out of school. That's a Gen-X life riddled with possibilities and where race conflict was a distant and terribly unimportant idea. Yet, despite my personal distaste for the topic, here we are. Before we jump in, I wanted to address a valid criticism of these articles: whataboutism. A brief aside. Whataboutism, is criticized as a diversionary tactic in arguments, but can also highlight inconsistencies and hypocrisy. It forces discussion to consider alternative contexts but similar situations, challenging the selective outrage or selective standards applied during dialectics. Whataboutisms are about consistent application of principles. Dialogues should never be selectively blind or cherry picked but coherent and genuine. I cannot apologize for this series, in the examples chosen, because they are of great utility. So with that... Here is today's Hilbert Problems for Social Justice: Listen to minority parents AND minority parents having school choice is racist.Minorities to schools: Listen to us: https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0821/p1s1-usgn.htmlRacist history of school choice: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/27/school-choice-developed-way-protect-segregation-abolish-public-schools/ Minority communities have long advocated for a more significant voice in how their children are educated, urging educational systems to be more responsive to their unique cultural and community needs. The call to "Listen to minority parents" stems from a history where these communities have felt marginalized or ignored by predominantly white educational policy makers and systems. This plea emphasizes the necessity for inclusive dialogue and tailored educational approaches that respect and integrate the values and expectations of minority families. Who could blame them given the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the Tuskegee experiments. Yet, conversely, the assertion that "school choice is racist" connects to a contentious history where policies like school vouchers were initially proposed as mechanisms to avoid desegregation, serving to perpetuate segregation under the guise of choice. This perspective views school choice not as an empowerment tool but as a continuation of segregationist policies, subtly repackaged. Critics argue that rather than offering genuine opportunities, school choice enables a select few to escape under-resourced public schools, which further deprives these institutions of necessary support and perpetuates educational inequity, and ultimately causes those underfunded schools to shutter. If a school is in shambles, and kids are unsafe or are unable to learn due to the school itself, or because if where it is located, why would we deprive families the opportunity to send their children elsewhere? Shouldn't we allow them to do whatever they feel is best for their situation? Yes, some schools will fold because of this, but these were schools with bad scores that were likely not redeemable. This is not about depriving children an education but by allowing market forces to dictate the best places for learning. I don't personally know a single parent who wants their children to go to a dangerous school or one where the scores are abysmal. Do you? When schools fail to provide a safe and effective learning environment, it raises a critical question: why should families be barred from seeking better educational opportunities for their children? The concept of school choice is not an indictment of public education; rather, it empowers parents to make informed decisions that align with their children's educational needs. This approach does not abandon struggling schools but introduces a competitive dynamic that encourages all schools to elevate their standards of performance and safety. Allowing families this choice is particularly imperative for minority communities, who may otherwise be constrained to underperforming schools. By fostering an environment where schools must compete for students, we promote a merit-based system that prioritizes student success and well-being. This isn't about dismantling public education but about ensuring that every child has access to quality education, free from the constraints of zip codes or governmental overreach. Such a system naturally drives improvements across the board, ensuring that no child is left in a failing school simply because of geographics or socioeconomics. If too many people try to get into the good school, the next school down will get the second best students, and so on - leaning on grades to make tie-breaker decisions. A capitalist meritocracy, free of racist decisions made by a government intent on meddling in family choice. And with that, I hope you found this article interesting. This is a series of posts that will address many of these conflated social justice issues - there will be more, God willing. So please subscribe, and drop a comment, if you want more of the same. That is the only way I will have any sense of how this is landing with you, dear reader. Also, if you want to know about me or my show,The RSnake Show, please visit https://rsnake.com for details.
recent image
And Root Ate Nine! - Female Submission & Why...
DavidGetzin
 April 07 2024 at 01:56 am
more_horiz
post image
So there was a pleasant and thoughtful comment a woman ( @liberty5300 ) posted to one of my pieces here - I glanced at several of her own think spot posts - and read one she wrote on Andrew Tate. It was almost entirely in positive regard of him and may have come out before the revelations of his abuse and pimping, I'm not sure. But all that aside, here I want to address why he was popular to begin with for saying what I would consider to be fairly obvious things, and really not going very far with them. Firstly, the "male responsibility" rhetoric - yes, this is positive, but it is at the level of a middle school football coach who doesn't really think very much or encounter a broad variety of life situations. "I kick ASS every DAY and I do it SO HARD 'cause I'm MAYNG!" - Considering that the "everyone is equal" rhetoric alongside Gloria Steinem's 1990s (extremely harmful, I think) invocations to raise boys like we raise girls (she had a distant father and didn't have a brother, shocker), I've personally felt in my life how suffocating masculine expression cripples men inside to the point of clinical depression to live daily life in a way that denies who they are as men, even as day to day they don't realize they are doing it. AND BESIDES - women who are not on birth control tend to enjoy and like the expression of natural masculinity - that brings us to the root of what prompted my reply - this woman writing about submission. She liked what Andrew Tate said that submission is natural. I agree. It isn't a straight jacket, but it is natural and women tend to be happier in a relationship where the man lives with a kind of Leading Strength. Note, I said "kind of leading strength" that gets a "not always equal to" sign for oh: owning houses, acting all "alpha," being a "high value male" or (I'm thinking of you here, Knowles,) never sitting in the front passenger seat of a car. You can read my reply in the linked article above to really see what I think about Tate and his ape-level views on submission. What I'd like to do here is to at least touch on what I feel is lacking - namely to give due credit to how genuinely beautiful female submission is. So often it is said that it is "natural" or "biblical" or some such. All of that rhetoric feels forced. The way that it should happen, what I have been fortunate enough to receive (at least before these relationships I was in floundered for… usually issues of money (my responsibility if not always my fault) and relapses of addiction (the women's own mistakes and old trauma resurfacing)). So, a woman's submission to a man in a relationship is much more than "duty" or "biblical" or "natural." It is poetic and sits in her like a heavy magnet, restless (or even dormant but ALMOST never unconscious to her) until finding a home as the correct man's strength draws it out. So often, she pushes against this release, (knowingly and even firmly so for the ones who are playfully passionate enough) to make sure she knows his strength truly does overcome her and sweep away all else until she knows she is his whole world and he is hers. This is what it's felt like to me, anyways. Women today have been for whatever reason pushed away from such intimacy. (I think simple jealousy of lonely women has gone a LONG way to motivate the delegitimization of female submission, but I am sure there are other reasons.) I remember WAY back to 2002, my final year of college, having this DEEP conviction that it was wrong for me to want to take care of a woman. (Can you imagine the absurdity? You probably can - it's the world we've come to live in) I told my girlfriend at the time (whom I was deeply in love with but she didn't want to stay with me or work towards marriage - it got complicated later when she whiplashed that around after some not-me trauma sent on her.) I told her I wanted to take care of her, and she had a feeling that it was wrong for a man to take care of HER! But as soon as I had said the words, that I wanted to take care of her, she just melted to me, leaning and said something like "I've wanted a guy to say that to me so much." Why has this blessing - this beautiful thing - this thing humans seem to LIKE and leads to married homes and babies, why has it been drained from our lives? Hard to say, exactly. And some years after that 2002 moment, - this must have been late 2006 - no - probably early 2007. The assertion of my more-natural self as leading in relationships - (physically, emotionally and socially) had been happening and surfacing intermittently (probably drove the women bats that "he's not GETTING it!" but it's not like they had presence of mined to tell me either, its isn't easy), the one who did say somehtig was an extremely kind woman, with me in a not-super-emotional-or-serious relationship. She one day after months of us together, said to me very directly, "you're always focusing on what I want when we're together. For a while, I just want you to think about and do what you want." This miracle of empathy from her was… something very alien and foreign to me. But I needed it. And she knew that. She was happy to observe and receive it all. And I'm forever glad and grateful for the shift this made in my life. And just as an aside - so many women fairly recently for whatever reason (the distance of online interactions, "mean girl" status-competition with other women etc,) they seem to not realize how HUGE a shift in a man's life the simplest kind things from a woman will do for a man. Treating a relationship like some kind of adversarial congressional lobbying seems to be a more preferred route these days somehow - or the Karen-route of "complain to the invisible manager" for whatever displeases you. Women remembering the natural instinct to kindness, and seeing that this actually IMPROVES their lives probably, instead of "getting taken advantage of" is important. Regrading getting taken advantage of - well, stop rewarding men like Andrew Tate. Stop saying of a man you reject "he was TOO nice!" That's a whole other set of pathologies: Look what has happened two generations into a social situation where men are taught that being nice to women gets you rejected. SO - we have to end the "escalating arms race of relationship strategy" somehow. And in many ways - when things are "safe sane and consensual" as they say, a woman in her own way, letting go and submitting to the man she gives herself to, and him properly stepping up to the plate - this should help. I've felt it help. I just haven't yet had it truly last. But we're all working on that one, aren't we? Thanks for reading - this was a a pretty involved one for me. I've been listening to "Exile in Guyville" a lot these past days, releasing old pain. Can you tell?
recent image
Don't Believe The Propaganda
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 April 11 2024 at 04:58 pm
more_horiz
post image
The tactic of repeating a falsehood until it's widely accepted as truth is a powerful form of propaganda, a concept highlighted by notable figures across history, including political leaders and even within totalitarian regimes. This method capitalizes on the psychological principle known as the availability heuristic, where the ease of recalling certain pieces of information leads individuals to overestimate their importance or truthfulness. As such, repeated exposure to the same falsehood can make it seem more credible over time, a technique leveraged in various domains including politics, marketing, and elsewhere. The role of media in amplifying these narratives is particularly concerning, as it lends an additional layer of credibility to the lies, making it more difficult for individuals to discern truth from falsehood. To combat the influence of such propaganda, it's essential to remain vigilant, question widely held beliefs, especially those propagated through repetition without clear evidence, and engage in continuous learning to broaden perspectives. Encouraging a culture of critical thinking, where authority is questioned and information is critically analyzed, represents a fundamental countermeasure to the pervasive spread of these malicious efforts. As for preventing oneself from being fooled by such tactics, it involves cultivating a habit of skepticism towards too-easily-accepted truths, diversifying sources of information to avoid echo chambers, and engaging in discussions that challenge personal beliefs. By adopting these practices, individuals can foster a more informed and discerning approach to navigating the complex landscape of information and "misinformation" in the modern world. How do you spot and defend yourself from propaganda? What's an example of repetitious propaganda that you see circulating today? @snowden Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.
recent image
Subscription to Scam
edXanthony
 April 01 2024 at 04:48 am
more_horiz
post image
Subscriptions for programmes, or applications, or 'apps' to some, is a scam, plain and simple. They produce it one time, and then expect money for your lifetime even though they aren't doing anything more for you, or even if you don't want any of their updates. Previously, they sold an application. If there were any new features, they sold it in the next version of the product and you bought it if you wanted it. Now, that choice is taken away simply because they own the company. That is when they can release an application with half the features, and then charge you monthly or yearly for the rest of the features they can then slowly release over a 100 year period. This is no different from paying a gardener a daily subscription for enjoying his one day of work throughout the month. This is no different from paying a restaurant an hourly subscription for all those hours it takes before you shit it out because you are benefitting from the food till shit happens. Alright then. Let's say we go for this 'subscription model'. How about working for a company for one day, and then charging them a daily subscription from profitting from whatever work you did for as long as they profit from it - which should be as long as the company exists unless they can prove that they did not profit from your employment in any way that would not have positive effects of their profits always? How about paying the road sweeper an hourly subscription for relatively cleaner streets throughout the time before he comes to clean it again, even though throughout that time he is out playing golf. Or how about paying a taxi driver an hourly subscription for the fun you are having at a pub for all the hours you are at the pub he took you too? Or how about a psychiatrist charging you a monthly lifetime subscription for enjoying better mental health for the rest of your life after that one hour consultation? That is no different from these scamming companies. If people need a product, and they are prevented from making it themselves because they are deprived of the money to do it, then the company should be handed to the people to continue to develop it and enjoy its products. This whole thing is a scam. The moment a company breaks even from the sale of its product, all those who bought the product have actually paid for the production of the product and become its shareholders. Profits should thereon be shared equally, not used to enrich its directors and whatnot at the expense of the people. That is the only true justice. All that happens if that does not happen is a scam. From this you know who your government, courts, and police, truly work for, if not by intention, damn surely by consequence. edX
recent image
For Three Days
Dre Carlan
 April 04 2024 at 05:21 am
more_horiz
Not long after my ninth birthday is when I first began hearing my father violently coughing up blood on a regular basis. Rarely did I hear anymore quiet that lasted longer than a few sparse minutes from the living room where he'd sleep alone in the fold-out bed. It'd been months since I last saw him in actual clothes as he now only wore different sets of the same bland pajamas my mom probably picked out for him in a few different colors. He'd probably never again wear a nice button-up shirt. What a non-issue that must be to a healthier man whose lungs weren't rotting of cancer. They probably wore very nice, really expensive shirts everyday, like my own dad used to do before he got sick. Now, he was on his way out. That much was obvious, even to me. So when one day after school, I opened my bedroom door to find my only aunt who I hadn't seen in years, standing there cheerfully humming to herself while cleaning up my toys for me, I should've put two and two together. She stayed for the next six months. In three my dad would die in his sleep and it'd be her who'd hear the loud gasp in the middle of some random night, not realizing until morning it was actually his last living breath before his body finally gave up fighting. She stayed another three months afterwards to look after her now-widowed sister. I don't remember much from that period of my life. Since I was strategically sent away to live with distant relatives who owned a condo in Queens, it's not like I was around to make many memories anyway. If I try to think back now, it feels like lifetimes ago. All I can tap into is seeing a lot of black clothes and faint whimpering. It feels like the sounds of sobbing were never too far off. It's eerily ambiguous though. Still, the days I was able to spend with my aunt seemed like miracles. Those were the only times during that period where I'd feel truly happy. Like a much-needed return to form for the younger me who laughed constantly as a child. I loved "Mamateta," and even though nobody knows why I gave her that nickname, I used it for years. She adored me and took every opportunity to prove it. Though I left Romania when I was four, I retained many more memories of my aunt than anyone else. How she'd play with me when everyone else was too busy, or how she'd nurse the many cuts and scrapes I'd get on my elbows and knees—, these things must've left quite an impact on my single-child consciousness. I specifically remember an instance where the paper cut on my index finger was so deep that I wanted to burst into tears just looking at it. While cleaning it and putting on a bandaid, I remember my aunt saying, "it feels like there's a tiny little heartbeat inside your finger doesn't it?" I nodded. "I know sweetheart, I've had this happen to me before too." This was her amazing charm. She was easy to talk to. Such a sweet, honest lady. Though she and my mother grew up side by side, they were different people. She took after their own mom, while mine walked in her father’s footprints out of pure admiration. They were sisters nonetheless. So when Mamateta was told that she had a tumor growing within her liver this past year, it was difficult knowing the treatment she'd get wasn't going to be the world's best by any means. As the months passed, her condition worsened and last Monday she fell into a coma. I heard the helplessness in my mother’s voice when she called to tell me. You try your best in these types of situations—, to console your loved ones and make sure they know that you'll be a rock-solid crutch for them during whatever may come. You try to think two steps ahead of whatever's currently happening, just in case. The spur-of- the-moment cross-Atlantic trips have to be every grieving family member's worst nightmare. Just the logistics of it all. And in their mental condition? Of course I was preparing to jump at any request my mom would make. Life does its thing anyway though and so, 24 hours later, her sister—, whose real name is Rodica—, passed away. My family isn't part of the ultra-wealthy in Romania. And because the country's still reeling from decades of deep corruption, the middle class is virtually non-existent. Economists can explain with much more elegance than I'm able to why this is utterly unfortunate for the bottom 99%. If you aren't part of the wealthy, you're part of the poor. And because what you do to one side of the equation, you have to do to the other, they're ultra-poor. It's a sad, sad thing. Either way, my mom begins to explain the finer details of a traditional Romanian mourning process. It's not something I know anything about or ever witnessed in person. After the dearly departed are moved into the living room, they are generally laid down on the center table for viewing. For the next three days, while the men and other experienced woodworkers craft a coffin from scratch, the family serves non-stop coffee and treats to an army of mourners who will randomly pop in and out at all times of the day and night and next day and following night and so on. All this to a constant background flurry of crying, sobbing, sharing stories of precious memories, wails of disbelief, loud prayers, and who knows what else. It's a pure emotional rollercoaster, a dramatic play in so many scenes filled with neighbors from five villages over who you may have never met before, but who've heard the tragic news and wanted to come pay their respects. It's touching but definitely not something an outsider would feel immediately at home around. "And is the body at least covered this entire time?," I ask my mom. "No. For three days, they live alongside it." "Seriously?" "They have no other options. No ambulance comes and takes them away like they do here. Over there, you look after your own dead. And when the coffin is completed, they’ll place her inside and carry it out into the countryside to her burial plot in a procession through town." As selfish as this next feeling was, I didn't want my mom to go. I didn't want her to be apart of it, not these days, not anymore. After so much, I wanted her to just be able to rest, not have to endure something of that magnitude. I can't imagine three hours of nonstop crying let alone three days. Somehow, the Universe seemed to hear my inner-hopes. Our entire family begged her to stay put, to stay home, that there was nothing more she could do. So instead of having to finalize last-minute plans of getting her from one continent to another, she was able to hop on an Amtrak and spend this past week here in Chicago with me. To recharge her batteries I guess. To just be able to find some mental quiet and emotional peace. Now, as I'm close to wrapping up this essay and seeing her off downtown at Union Station for her train back home, I'm sincerely trying to put myself in her shoes. I'm sure losing a sibling you've spent a lifetime growing up with is a weird feeling to have to go through. To outlive them, to think that they could've done a bit more with their life if only they would've had more time. Maybe it makes someone think about their own mortality and where they've gotten in seeing their own personal dreams coming true. Maybe my mom’s running over all of these things in her mind to the point where there's nothing left to think about. Maybe. All I can try and do is my part as her only child, her only flesh and blood, to try and live the best life I can in her name. Time will tell how successful I'll be in doing that, but an even greater feeling though, is when we can think of our loved ones who aren't here with us any longer and not feel a bit of regret. To feel a warmth and be completely calmed by just the mere thought of their name. To feel a deep need to smile because that's what they would've wanted you to do. Like even when you want to just give in to the sadness for a second and purge yourself of tears, your body physically won't let you. A familiar presence fills your immediate space and a gentle touch directly on your heart that makes you involuntarily inhale much deeper than you have in a while. Those are the types of things I hope my mother can feel as she sits down at her window-seat and readies herself for a deep meditative trip into her inner-consciousness for the next seven or so hours. Knowing the peace and tranquility she'll emerge on the other side of this experience with, how can anyone still harbor any doubt that our souls are indeed, things which don't adhere to either the human concept or limitations of "time?" That they transcend realms of possibility. That whenever there's even the smallest hint of real love, not even the giving up of one's own body and leaving it behind for greater vessels can break a bond between two sisters.
recent image
A Brief Reflection on Doubt
William E. Godwin
 April 07 2024 at 02:45 pm
more_horiz
post image
Storm on the Sea of Galilee, 1633 by Rembrandt. We cannot come to a comprehensive, indubitable “Truth,” but can only quest towards it. Holding this, the question becomes this: How might one captain his intellectual vessel such that he can journey on in confidence of his navigation and that of his fellow seafarers? What is the compass with which we ought to guide our charter for the interconnected islands of truth? Many answers have been supplied by merchants of method. From the most solipsistic rationalism to the crudest empiricism, the most naïve idealism to the basest realism, all retain an underlying dynamic duo between doubt and faith; this latter term carries with it substantial connotative weight, so trust may serve in its stead for our present purpose. Whether reason and/or reality, mind and/or matter, intuitions and/or institutions, one chooses to trust in the reliability of his and/or another's judgement so as to form a framework that affords some level of intelligibility to the cosmos about him, or he does not. To deny intelligibility at the outset, i.e., to begin by refusing to place trust in one's and/or another's ability to attain true knowledge, renders him adrift amidst a chaotic sea of possibility wherein he will die an epistemological death, drowned beneath the waves of what's and why's having been blown overboard by incessant skeptic winds. Inversely, to adopt dogmatic assent to propositions however construed and conceived is to go into this tempest of potentiality in denial of its strength; erelong the gale steals the sails, the tides takes the crew, and the ship of conviction is completely capsized. Thus, the matter is not of casting off doubt but of tying it to trust. Opposing poles guide a compass, and our judgement, to true north.
recent image
Censorship Is Weakness
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 April 17 2024 at 03:05 pm
more_horiz
post image
Censorship is a sign of weakness, not strength. If ideas must be protected from competition through suppression, then they stand on shaky ground. Unfortunately, the call to censor what's deemed as "misinformation" is becoming louder, with some arguing that differing opinions must be silenced. This stance is not just misguided but inherently arrogant, suggesting a monopoly on truth that simply cannot exist in a free and intellectual society. The true mark of intellectual strength is openness to dialogue, not the reflex to censor. Those lacking in intellectual fortitude are often the most vocal advocates for silencing dissent, a stance I cannot support. Such actions, while perhaps offering temporary comfort by eliminating opposing views, ultimately harm societal health and stifle progress. In a truly free society, open dialogue and intellectual discourse must prevail. Strong beliefs should fuel robust conversations, not attempts to silence. The ease with which ideas can be shut down online, often encouraged by social media platforms and sometimes even at government behest, reveals a disturbing trend towards intellectual conformity at the expense of freedom. Freedom of thought and speech are foundational to individual sovereignty. Thus, I remain committed to speaking my mind, regardless of discomfort or offense it may cause. True freedom does not promise comfort; rather, it challenges us to engage with and learn from each other, even in disagreement. So, I ask you: When you encounter ideas you disagree with, how do you respond? What approach do you believe is best for handling controversial opinions? And importantly, how can we shift our culture away from censorship and towards a more open and respectful exchange of ideas? @drjbhattacharya Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

[154176, 92022, 154137, 132224, 146843, 154147, 154175, 154157, 153593, 154173, 49133, 154163, 614, 154091, 60675, 154072, 153381, 1835, 147825, 148356, 33581, 153914, 48117, 2, 101422, 47054, 1822, 143287, 2314, 112609, 154143, 154152, 154099, 90996, 17088, 154124, 149783, 154074, 153792, 153803, 8305, 150682, 17119, 31713, 154026, 154022, 4583, 154071, 153956, 154021, 132294, 1271, 153807, 151207, 78089, 153787]

Recently Active Thinkers