Very worrying to see a faith group visiting a school to talk about “Faith in Science”. The slide shown appears to ask “What scientific evidence is there for God?” – then provides a range of answers. There’s just one answer: NONE. https://t.co/PX3VVvnijZ
Instructive is surely an understatement by 100 fathoms.
It teaches us that skeptics are human, of course, but also teaches us that individuals are subjective and prone to biases. The value of good science is that it doesn’t depend on the subjective nature, and actually is designed to overcome the individual biases of the investigators. One of the most difficult problems in science is reporting the difficult findings, and that is especially true of skepticism. It’s easy to be skeptical of cryptozoology, scientology, religious claims, moon hoaxers, medical quackery, and all the topics that skeptics write about when we are feeling smug and superior.
It’s much more difficult to be a skeptic when it comes with a social cost. And that’s a big problem when it comes to reporting on gender ideology. It bears a heavy cost to go against the grain. It’s been disappointing to see that people we thought were honest skeptics are human after all, and are being disingenuous now. It’s also illustrative to see how many people continue to accept what they are saying, and it’s almost a form of hero worship. It’s engendered a level of distrust that I don’t think that I will ever be able to get past, but that’s actually a good thing. Damn if I’m going to be happy about it, but I’m going to quote Reagan: “Trust, but verify.”
Mike has it right. Even self-proclaimed skeptics devolve into tribalism. Left vs. right, young vs. old, red vs. blue. It’s hard to go against your tribe, especially in the Age of Twitter.
The bizarre new religious belief in the Gender Soul isn’t the only strange dogma to pop up on the left. Try disagreeing with the article of faith that police murder of innocent Black people is rampant, or worse yet pointing out that BLM has resulted in the death of more innocent Black people by chasing the police out of poor neighborhoods, where murders have increased as a result. Try saying that Affirmative Action hasn’t achieved its objectives, and mostly benefits Black students who are already upper class (my son did this in a college class, and the professor tried to make him apologize for saying something so white supremacist).
Liberalism used to mean believing not just in everyone’s right to express themselves, but in one’s own obligation to consider what they say. If we disagreed with an idea, we could – we were expected to – explain why. Today, in the new world of no debate and words hurt, disagreement is no longer tolerated. The mere fact of disagreement is proof of evil.
I grew up under the shadow of a totalitarian Christianity, which held that doubt was the work of the Devil. Today’s progressive movement is not so different.
Ah, Papito: Heresy! Don’t you know “communities” can police themselves without those racist c ops? Look at Rio favellas controlled by drug gangs! peaceful paradises (although the Brazilian policia militar can be a menace). Snoop Dogg says so!
@Nullius: Unfortunately, the only drag names I can come up with are Auntie Capitalist or Mina Production. I’m sure there are brilliant ones escaping me.
Nullius, I must disagree. Marxism is a valuable part of political and economic theory.
Much of this late-stage capitalism eating itself alive was foreseen by Marx. The demise of Socialist Parties around the world provided cover for The Thugs of Capital to hoard almost all the wealth.
I was at KJK’s Adelaide rally, along with two other Marxists. The opposition to KJK was not Marxist, it was very Stalinist.
wow – a catpion-image/meme quite possibly to meta for many to parse?
A consideration of further irony – aside from Smith’s mentions of “capital” – are there any terms that the profiteers rant about that weren’t first defined by Karl and Friedrich?
Long ago, back in the dark ages of my undergraduate education, I had a professor who insisted that linear control theory was proof of the existence of the christian god. It was very bizarre. He once gave a 90 minute “optional course presentation” on the topic. I always wanted to return and ask him if the existence of chaotic dynamics were proof of the existence of the christian satan.
I agree with the Rev David Brindley that the analytic part of Marx’s writing is valuable and provokes thought (whether one agrees with everything Marx writes is beside the point, as is the case with any political thinker, whether of the left or the right), and shall also say that it is undiscriminating nonsense to pretend that ‘today’s progressive movement’ is ‘yesterday’s progressive movement (i.e., Marxism) in drag.’ I wonder if Nullius knows anything about the history of the labour movement in Britain, for example. It had little to do with Marxism, and members of the Labour Party were firmly against Communism. It seems to (forgive me for saying this) a very American habit – at least on the American right – to equate social democracy, about which Karl Polanyi wrote so eloquently, with Communism. It is quite as bad as pretending that all conservative political thinkers or supporters of conservative parties are fascists.
Watching so many loud proud skeptic-atheist types immediately bend the knee for gender creationism has been…instructive to say the least.
Instructive is surely an understatement by 100 fathoms.
It teaches us that skeptics are human, of course, but also teaches us that individuals are subjective and prone to biases. The value of good science is that it doesn’t depend on the subjective nature, and actually is designed to overcome the individual biases of the investigators. One of the most difficult problems in science is reporting the difficult findings, and that is especially true of skepticism. It’s easy to be skeptical of cryptozoology, scientology, religious claims, moon hoaxers, medical quackery, and all the topics that skeptics write about when we are feeling smug and superior.
It’s much more difficult to be a skeptic when it comes with a social cost. And that’s a big problem when it comes to reporting on gender ideology. It bears a heavy cost to go against the grain. It’s been disappointing to see that people we thought were honest skeptics are human after all, and are being disingenuous now. It’s also illustrative to see how many people continue to accept what they are saying, and it’s almost a form of hero worship. It’s engendered a level of distrust that I don’t think that I will ever be able to get past, but that’s actually a good thing. Damn if I’m going to be happy about it, but I’m going to quote Reagan: “Trust, but verify.”
Mike has it right. Even self-proclaimed skeptics devolve into tribalism. Left vs. right, young vs. old, red vs. blue. It’s hard to go against your tribe, especially in the Age of Twitter.
The bizarre new religious belief in the Gender Soul isn’t the only strange dogma to pop up on the left. Try disagreeing with the article of faith that police murder of innocent Black people is rampant, or worse yet pointing out that BLM has resulted in the death of more innocent Black people by chasing the police out of poor neighborhoods, where murders have increased as a result. Try saying that Affirmative Action hasn’t achieved its objectives, and mostly benefits Black students who are already upper class (my son did this in a college class, and the professor tried to make him apologize for saying something so white supremacist).
Liberalism used to mean believing not just in everyone’s right to express themselves, but in one’s own obligation to consider what they say. If we disagreed with an idea, we could – we were expected to – explain why. Today, in the new world of no debate and words hurt, disagreement is no longer tolerated. The mere fact of disagreement is proof of evil.
I grew up under the shadow of a totalitarian Christianity, which held that doubt was the work of the Devil. Today’s progressive movement is not so different.
Ah, Papito: Heresy! Don’t you know “communities” can police themselves without those racist c ops? Look at Rio favellas controlled by drug gangs! peaceful paradises (although the Brazilian policia militar can be a menace). Snoop Dogg says so!
That’s because it’s yesterday’s progressive movement (i.e., Marxism) in drag.
And now I’m picturing Karl Marx in drag. Yowza.
@Nullius: Unfortunately, the only drag names I can come up with are Auntie Capitalist or Mina Production. I’m sure there are brilliant ones escaping me.
The two that you’ve named right there are brilliant, if you ask me, Helicam.
Nullius, I must disagree. Marxism is a valuable part of political and economic theory.
Much of this late-stage capitalism eating itself alive was foreseen by Marx. The demise of Socialist Parties around the world provided cover for The Thugs of Capital to hoard almost all the wealth.
I was at KJK’s Adelaide rally, along with two other Marxists. The opposition to KJK was not Marxist, it was very Stalinist.
Nullius in Verbia–for you.
https://img.ifunny.co/images/578727e64d060c642bd4897d3f093b03864e096737c8255065d851cf86b035a4_1.jpg
” – Lady Mondegreen
Nullius in Verbia–for you.
https://img.ifunny.co/images/578727e64d060c642bd4897d3f093b03864e096737c8255065d851cf86b035a4_1.jpg”
wow – a catpion-image/meme quite possibly to meta for many to parse?
A consideration of further irony – aside from Smith’s mentions of “capital” – are there any terms that the profiteers rant about that weren’t first defined by Karl and Friedrich?
Long ago, back in the dark ages of my undergraduate education, I had a professor who insisted that linear control theory was proof of the existence of the christian god. It was very bizarre. He once gave a 90 minute “optional course presentation” on the topic. I always wanted to return and ask him if the existence of chaotic dynamics were proof of the existence of the christian satan.
@Helicam: I think I prefer Auntie Capitalist, but both are good.
@Lady Mondegreen: I will admit to having loled.
I agree with the Rev David Brindley that the analytic part of Marx’s writing is valuable and provokes thought (whether one agrees with everything Marx writes is beside the point, as is the case with any political thinker, whether of the left or the right), and shall also say that it is undiscriminating nonsense to pretend that ‘today’s progressive movement’ is ‘yesterday’s progressive movement (i.e., Marxism) in drag.’ I wonder if Nullius knows anything about the history of the labour movement in Britain, for example. It had little to do with Marxism, and members of the Labour Party were firmly against Communism. It seems to (forgive me for saying this) a very American habit – at least on the American right – to equate social democracy, about which Karl Polanyi wrote so eloquently, with Communism. It is quite as bad as pretending that all conservative political thinkers or supporters of conservative parties are fascists.