Reading this feels like watching someone explain that water is wet while half the country insists, “Actually, it’s Antifa soup.”
The “five mechanisms” are spot on. Reality inversion, magical causation, scapegoating—basically Hogwarts for gaslighters. It’s political alchemy: turn failure into success, ignorance into wisdom, cruelty into patriotism. And somehow, Jason Calacanis becomes a moral weathervane spinning faster than a ceiling fan at a Florida Hooters.
Truth isn’t sexy in a world addicted to team jerseys. But here’s the joke: arithmetic doesn’t care who you voted for. Two plus two still equals four, even if your senator swears it equals “owning the libs.”
Sure, quite agree -- the thing nailed to the masthead here: "2+2=4".
However, I might point out that Kamala -- "she's for they/them" -- Harris gushing over Dylan Mulvaney "living authentically as a woman" is basically subscribing to and peddling transactivist dogma and article of faith that "trans women are women". Methinks that that has to qualify as a classic case of Orwell's "2+2=5" -- Houston, we have a problem that Mike may wish to give some thought to.
🙄 It was all over the goddam news, even on the steps of Biden's White House with some transwoman flashing "her" tits on the lawn there. Dylan Mulvaney's face on cans of Budweiser beer -- for which Budweiser lost some 20% of their share price, typical buyers of which having a better handle on what it takes to qualify as a woman than Kamala did.
🙄 Maybe because Biden and Kamala -- "she's for they/them" -- Harris have been advertising them, have them up on their party platforms and podiums, and as central features of their publically stated policies?
What the fuck do you think putting male transvestites into women's sports, prisons, toilets, change rooms, and spas is if not putting "shemale dicks everywhere"? 🙄
Maybe "always on my mind 🙄" because it's been the Democrats -- and all of their hangers-on, useful/useless idiots, and fellow-travelers -- who have been peddling that schlock, that fruit-salad, that bit of Orwell's "2+2=5" for -- "literally" -- dozens of years?
Y'all might want to get your heads out of your nether regions and do some reading and thinking with it.
More particularly, WTF do you think your own US Supreme Court case -- Tennessee & Skrmetti -- was all about? Whether your "medical profession", "Dr. Mengeles", the lot of them; what an effen joke -- had any sort of constitutional right to try "changing" the sexes of "boys" into female, and the sex of "girls" into male:
BBC: "Supreme Court to hear major Tennessee transgender case";
There it is -- front and center: "gender-affirming"; "transgender youth".
But unlikely to be just "something on my own mind" -- is it? -- when so many ostensibly credible sources are talking about it, when it affects so many. Many of whom clearly contributed to tipping the balance in favour of Trump in the last election. Which, in case you missed the news, the Democrats lost. Or have I been misinformed? 🙄
Excellent. Helpful as I struggle to understand how very intelligent people can contribute to and facilitate the “alternate reality” in which their tribe exists. I especially appreciate the recognition of the moral disengagement in addition to the cognitive reversals.
I suppose it's not a matter of how I think, though. The argument here is that there's some serious "psychological economics" going on, right? (not sure how I feel about that phrase, but it's very evocative)
I am with you on this point. Tribal loyalty has all kinds of hidden freedom traps built into it. Freedom of thought in tribal structures is a bit of an oxymoron to me….
I have self awareness and I’m reasonably intelligent, so this isn’t a concern for me at the moment on this issue. I know a fascist cult when I see one, and I’m completely justified in being disgusted by it. If you’re an American, you should be, too.
Oh my gosh! I just did a similar post. The Right (honestly, I’m not even sure what to call them any more) still think Trump will magically pivot to save them.
Clearly something of a "tipping point" -- some reason to argue that that issue tipped the balance in favour of Trump in the last election. Kamala -- "she's for they/them" -- Harris being a case in point.
Should maybe be an important question if not one of the hour.
I was thinking the same thing. Honestly all the examples this author gives feel like Mickey Mouse compared to the last 30 years of the Democrats doing the exact same thing. It’s not just the sex/gender debate - Biden wreaked waaaay more havoc on the Mexico border than Trump is right now w literally federally funding pimps and sex slaves and calling it righteous. Look at the ENTIRE United Nations and the rapists working for them who call themselves “humanitarians” I mean the list is endless! I feel like the Republicans have only begun their truth-burying campaign while the left has been mainstreaming and mainlining it for decades! Wow, Good grief.
Shulamis :> "... the last 30 years of the Democrats doing the exact same thing."
Being a Canuck -- a Canadian -- I can't say that I have much of a handle on that "30 years" bit, though that reminds me of a Canadian humour show -- "This Hour Has 22 Minutes", the section on "Talking to Americans" in particular. This is a classic case-in-point 😉🙂:
My focus has generally been the issue of transgenderism -- your "sex/gender debate", and somewhat more particularly putting transwomen -- AKA, male transvestites if they still have their nuts attached, and sexless eunuchs if they don't -- into women's sports, toilets, spas, prisons, and change rooms. Moot whether that is anything more than a tempest in a teapot, a Rape of the Lock, part deux; a Lilliputian civil war over egg (ova)-cracking protocols, something that affects no more than a small circle of friends. But some reason to argue, many in fact, that as erstwhile Economist journalist and author Helen Joyce once put it, in an interview by "she who must not be named (Substacker and UK/Aussie journalist and author Helen Dale)":
"transgenderism is a civilization threatening [Joyce]/ending [Dale] movement":
But the US hasn't been alone in that at least -- not that that is any kind of a commendation -- as Canada has likewise contributed to that clusterfuck -- excuse my French. The country is putatively bilingual, but that is more among the managerial class ... 😉🙂. In particular, our erstwhile fearless leader -- Justin Trudeau, Himself -- once insisted, on International Women's Day no less, that "trans women are women":
He and the whole Liberal party should be hung out to dry for that alone. Though it is at least nice that that page is only "archived" and apparently or presumably not still a matter of government policy. Not that I've seen much in the way of any changes to any policies that had been implemented in response to that particular "Papal Encyclical" -- news at 11:
"Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology; Lysenkoism and The Gangs Who Couldn't Shoot Straight":
Steersman, in the spirit of the article, shouldn't you be at least open to the idea that you may not have the whole story on this topic? I know, I know: "Everyone else but the people who agree with me is closed-minded, and the only way to prove you've got an open mind is to agree with me." But it's worth it to at least consider!
Sure -- though, arguably, none of us may ever "have the whole story on this topic", or any other one for that matter. At least short of the proverbial, "Last Judgement". Don't know about you, but I'm not in any rush to get there -- never can tell whether we'll wind up in the courtroom bleachers -- in the peanut galleries -- or in the docket ... 😉🙂
But I wonder just exactly which "story on this topic" you're referring to: which story?, on which topic? Transgenderism? Something of a rather large "umbrella". It is maybe rather moot as to exactly what is the "essence" of male and female, and something of a major bone of contention. But, to a first approximation, the "story" told by mainstream biology -- which many people subscribe to for generally solid reasons based on some very brute, if not brutish, facts -- to have a sex, to be male or female, is to have either testicles or ovaries. And there's no way on gawd's green earth that any transwoman is EVER going to replace his testicles with ovaries of "her" own. Something of an egregious contradiction, if not a great big fat flaming lie -- "2+2=5" caliber -- to say otherwise.
If you, or Mike, has a better one than mainstream biology, one that hangs together better than it, then maybe y'all need to be running it up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes. Clearly, a significant percentage of the population didn't think much of Kamala -- "she's for they/them -- Harris's alternative, her "flag" on that score.
Good questions, maybe ones of the hour in fact. On which your earlier "Everyone else but the people who agree with me is closed-minded ..." may have some bearing 😉🙂. The point being, or is subsumed by, the general discussion on many so-called experts not being worth a pinch of coon-shit, being charitable.
Major problem qualifying various such experts, particularly for matters of law, when there are often many schools, many supposed experts who say very contradictory or inconsistent things. And to choose between such schools, such "sects", means being obliged to give some thought to what are the principles that undergird their science, philosophy, ideology, or theology. Which most law courts - and most people -- are ill-equipped or unprepared to do. You and Mike might both consider Ricard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark":
Something of an occupational hazard, some rabbit holes being deeper than others.
But with that as a "preamble", as some pre-text, there's kind of a foundational principle in categorization on which the whole edifice of science and philosophy rests. As Steven Pinker once put it:
SP: "An intelligent being cannot treat every object it sees as a unique entity unlike anything else in the universe. It has to put objects in categories so that it may apply its hard-won knowledge about similar objects, encountered in the past, to the object at hand." [How the Mind Works; pg. 12]
And see also the classic, "Is taxonomy the world's oldest profession?" -- there goes prostitution's claim to (in)fame and fortune:
And things go into categories on the basis of which traits those things have in common and which are of some relevance. For example, things are labeled -- named, put into the categories -- "edible" and "poisonous" because, mirabile dictu, those things tend promote either one's survival or one's death. Something of an important distinction, one might reasonably argue ...
But likewise with the categories "male" and "female" -- they're foundational to the whole process of reproduction which is largely what has driven evolution over the last billion years or so, give or take a 100 million. And the brute fact of the matter is that absolutely literally millions of species each with trillions of members, including the human one with a mere 8 billion, share either of two quite distinct biological processes, i.e., oogenesis (the production of large reproductive cells [ova] by females) and spermatogenesis (the production of small reproductive cells [sperm] by males). Categories don't get much more foundational than those two, and with broader reach, import, and consequence -- why they're often deemed to be "natural kinds" which has been a central theme in philosophy going back at least to Aristotle:
But as something of a specific point of reference and/or specific answers to your questions, you might consider, first, these definitions for the sexes in the Glossary of an article on "Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" by Jussi Lehtonen, & Geoff A. Parker in the Oxford Academic Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction (Volume 20, Issue 12, December 2014):
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is DEFINED [my emphasis] as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is DEFINED [my emphasis] as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Secondly, several articles by (retired) philosopher of science Paul Griffiths, the first one in the scholarly PhilPapers Archive, the second in something of a more popular magazine:
Now, see, I would have pointed to something like Scientific American, or Nature - some publication that most people with even a slight interest in the subject would recognize - if I were to try to define what "mainstream" meant. That doesn't mean that either of these sources are *correct,* but at least it lets us set a standard for what "mainstream" is; if my argument involved a request that people question the very principles undergirding their understanding of a field, that doesn't really sound like a "mainstream" opinion, it sounds like a divergence from the "mainstream."
That said, I did enjoy some of these articles; I think you may want to read them a bit more closely. Looking at the Lehtonen, for instance, within the first two paragraphs, the article states "Although not the topic of this review, it is worth noting that reproduction is possible even in the complete absence of sex (for which there are many alternative definitions; see glossary, Losos et al., 2013; Lehtonen and Kokko, 2014)." If we go to their glossary, they "define" sexes like this: "The definitions of ‘sex’ and ‘sexes’ vary. Here we define ‘sex’ as the union of gametes and genomes from two individuals (or in some hermaphrodites, from the same individual), and ‘sexes’ (male, female) are defined by the type of gamete an individual produces (see above)."
You emphasize "define" when quoting from the article, but the more important word might actually be "Here": The definition of "sexes" according to "the type of gamete an individual produces" is useful *for the purpose of "studying the ancestral evolutionary divergence" of gamete sizes.* I think this speaks to a wider disconnect here, between the desire for concepts with stable definitions vs. the diversity of use-cases for any concept.
A definition of "sexes" according to gamete size or genitals or reproductive structure may be true (or, more accurately, useful) in one discussion, but there are other discussions. For instance, consider the irritation some feel when they see "people with uteri" where they expect to see "women," let's say in a public health announcement: If the medical issue being described concerns the uterus, then the term "women" unnecessarily includes women without uteri (who wouldn't be affected by the issue) while excluding younger females whom we usually refer to as "girls" (who may be affected by the issue). Maybe a better way to phrase all this, then, is that, in certain situations, defining "sexes" according to gamete size/genitals/reproductive structure/hormone levels etc. is the most accurate definition, which I don't think anyone seriously contests; rather, people are pointing out that *these are not the only types of situations in which one makes sex distinctions.* Given that one does not usually know the gamete size/genitals/reproductive structure/hormone levels of most of the people one meets, this seems intuitively correct to me. You may want to argue that alternative definitions of sexes are counterproductive and confusing in the proposed alternative contexts (like using "women" when one means "people with uteruses" would be counterproductive and confusing), but like you said, it's worthwhile to question one's foundational principles to make sure that what initially look like matters of scientific doctrine aren't really just matters of habit and convenience.
Where is the passion? Reason will never be enough. Look at The Prophet, by Gibran. They need each other. Reason will become a cage if left alone and passion will burn itself out. The rudder and the sail. Where's the sail, the drive forward found in the restful nest of reason? We can intellectualize till the cows come home, but without the pulse to make things go, what's the use?
Yeah, well, some "winds" are less useful or beneficial than others ...
One is reminded of the semi-popular concept of "The Divine Logos", and Einstein's elaboration on the theme, "God does not play dice with the universe" -- or not always in any case as later physicists have argued ...
Gibran: Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peaceful serenity of distant fields and meadows--then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."
And when the storm comes, and the mighty winds shake the forest and thunder and lightening proclaim the majesty of the sky--then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."
Divinity is on both sides of the relation: Reason, values and rationality; intuition, sensation and the irrational with our dual hemispheric brains and their distinct functional repertoires.
Staying in complex balance in the face of simplifying either/or favoritisms is our best shot forward. We need the full picture of humanity in the round, each of us with all of our elements accounted for. Then tell your story, one which covers all the bases of mind and heart, where we don't get lost in one or the other and can find the common ground to reset the story of the world around us!
Seem to remember reading bits and pieces in The Prophet -- a great many moons ago. Never did quite get the connection between Gibran's poetry and Mohammed and the latter's claim to fame and fortune. Kind of preferred the poetry of Omar Khayyam and his The Rubaiyat, at least the Fitzgerald translation:
But, speaking of Islam and it's lost "Golden Age", I'm reminded of this article -- in of all places, The New Atlantis, speaking of ends of ages and all that --
"Why the Arabic World Turned Away from Science; On the lost Golden Age and the rejection of reason":
The hegemony of left-brain thinking is not the way forward. We have to bounce off both sides, or the game is up. Like day without the night! Where's the dream in that scenario? Science by itself is just as unconscious of life as primitive tribes are of their deductive reasoning. Be square in the round and there may just be a future for humanity.
> "... there may just be a future for humanity. ..."
Rather surprising the species that have come and gone over the millennia -- literally millions, all of whom had their "place in the sun". Something from Google's AI, Gemini, on the topic:
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever" is a famous quote by Russian space visionary Konstantin Tsiolkovsky,
Remember reading that as a young or young-ish kid, probably in some science or sci-fi magazine. And seem to recollect Elon Musk quoting it as well not long ago. Has a nice ring to it, though I don't think it speaks, or very loudly, to the personal, to the proverbial "man-in-the-street".
"Where there is no vision, the people perish" -- Proverbs 29:18
Yes, the houses of the Earth are the cradleboard of our day to day, carrying forth our lives amidst all our relations. The Sky however is the realm of death, the dream, the wilderness, eternity. Not some sci-fi fantasy of rocket ships to a nearby dead planet, trying to escape what science has done with its technology to our homeplace.
We learn to think of history as something that is already happened to other people. Our own moment filled as it is with minutiae destined to be forgotten, always looks smaller in comparison.
This has the effect of making them essentially unimaginable and crafting the story of something that should never have been allowed to happen, we forge the story of something that could not possibly have happened. Or, to use the phrase only slightly out of context, something that can’t happen here.
A logical fallacy becomes inevitable. If this can’t happen, then the thing that is happening is not it. What we see in real life, or at least on television, can’t possibly be the same monstrous phenomenon that we have collectively decided is unimaginable.
The irony is damning! This country was founded and populated by refugees from this horseshit -- people with minds of their own, determined to see it through on their own hook. They are survived by a tribe of damned snowflakes afraid of their own shadow! Traitors to their own ancestors -- the shame! They've taken on the "sophistication" of Mark Twain's Duke and Dauphin -- what a repulsive joke!
Thanks for this. Too many dismiss this phenomenon with some version of "these people are just completely dumb." And while that may be true for some, it's certainly not true for all. And it just doesn't suffice as an explanation.
What you've outlined here are the most sane and cogent reasons for why so many of our smart, once-rational friends and family have seemingly been utterly subsumed by this intellectual buffoonery and moral soul-rot we call MAGA.
And I also appreciate that you've outlined a way out -- despite how utterly Sisyphean that may seem at this point.
It looks like maybe humanity has just run into a fundamental limitation. At least to the extent that this problem is worldwide and not resistible. To the extent it’s our problem let’s hope that we can serve as a warning for the remaining free people of the world.
My only criticism of this is "the center can be rebuilt". This is either meaningless or wrong. Meaningless if it simply refers to the fact that any discussion, even with multiple dimensions, can be represented as having some kind of central position, which may or may not be the closest to truth. Wrong, if it implies that Trump supporters are relevant to determining what constitutes the centre. The point about post-truth claims is that, even when they are factually correct, they are still made in the service of falsehood.
Better to say something like "the search for truth can be made central".
Yuval Harari talks about the power of stories in communication. The simpler the more appealing, he says. The truth on the other hand, is often complex and requires effort to identify or divine.
Sincere thanks. You have put into beautiful prose what I have seen and observed but could never have expressed so well.
This is great, but is missing an important aspect of what is happening in the disinformation stew that we all now swim in. My MAGA aquaintances could have written large portions of this post. They constantly say, "Do your research", "Don't accept what you hear from the media", "don't accept what you hear from the experts" and then point to all sorts of sites that "challenge the common wisdom" and show some new "truth" that they have now "discovered" and embraced.
My MAGA associates feel like they are just as much on a search for truth as you are describing here.
The problem is that truth is being ripped asunder through propaganda and miss information and the tribal aspects of the moment you so expertly describe.
If we are working on resistance to that trend but are not clear about our own shared commitment to established truths where does that leave us? If we don't speak up for the value of vaccines because we are not vaccine scientists and need to do the research, then who will? If we don't speak up for the value of liberal education because we are not college professors and need to do the research, then who will? If we don't speak up for the constitution and the rights of all people in our country because we are not constitutional lawyers and need to do our research, then who will?
We are not going to be able to do this if we are all atomized and all trying to find our own truth, especially when there are so many clear ways that we can already commit to shared values and yes dare I say some shared truth.
Another interesting perspective. Is the internet, and especially social media, taking us from a literate society where we get information mostly in writing, back to an oral, story telling society, where emotion drives our thinking and actions?
Reading this feels like watching someone explain that water is wet while half the country insists, “Actually, it’s Antifa soup.”
The “five mechanisms” are spot on. Reality inversion, magical causation, scapegoating—basically Hogwarts for gaslighters. It’s political alchemy: turn failure into success, ignorance into wisdom, cruelty into patriotism. And somehow, Jason Calacanis becomes a moral weathervane spinning faster than a ceiling fan at a Florida Hooters.
Truth isn’t sexy in a world addicted to team jerseys. But here’s the joke: arithmetic doesn’t care who you voted for. Two plus two still equals four, even if your senator swears it equals “owning the libs.”
Sure, quite agree -- the thing nailed to the masthead here: "2+2=4".
However, I might point out that Kamala -- "she's for they/them" -- Harris gushing over Dylan Mulvaney "living authentically as a woman" is basically subscribing to and peddling transactivist dogma and article of faith that "trans women are women". Methinks that that has to qualify as a classic case of Orwell's "2+2=5" -- Houston, we have a problem that Mike may wish to give some thought to.
🙄 It was all over the goddam news, even on the steps of Biden's White House with some transwoman flashing "her" tits on the lawn there. Dylan Mulvaney's face on cans of Budweiser beer -- for which Budweiser lost some 20% of their share price, typical buyers of which having a better handle on what it takes to qualify as a woman than Kamala did.
Steersman sees shemale dicks everywhere.
🙄 Maybe because Biden and Kamala -- "she's for they/them" -- Harris have been advertising them, have them up on their party platforms and podiums, and as central features of their publically stated policies?
What the fuck do you think putting male transvestites into women's sports, prisons, toilets, change rooms, and spas is if not putting "shemale dicks everywhere"? 🙄
I see that you deleted your previous comment in favour of a more politically palatable one? 🙄
Maybe "always on my mind 🙄" because it's been the Democrats -- and all of their hangers-on, useful/useless idiots, and fellow-travelers -- who have been peddling that schlock, that fruit-salad, that bit of Orwell's "2+2=5" for -- "literally" -- dozens of years?
Y'all might want to get your heads out of your nether regions and do some reading and thinking with it.
More particularly, WTF do you think your own US Supreme Court case -- Tennessee & Skrmetti -- was all about? Whether your "medical profession", "Dr. Mengeles", the lot of them; what an effen joke -- had any sort of constitutional right to try "changing" the sexes of "boys" into female, and the sex of "girls" into male:
BBC: "Supreme Court to hear major Tennessee transgender case";
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6ppp6y5e9zo
CNN: "SCOTUS conservative majority appears ready to endorse Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors"; https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/scotus-transgender-care-ban-12-04-24/index.html
NYTimes (yellow press? or newspaper of record? 🙄): Supreme Court Inclined to Uphold Tennessee Law on Transgender Care
The justices heard arguments on Wednesday over whether Tennessee can ban some medical treatments for transgender youth. More than 20 other states have similar laws." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/04/us/politics/supreme-court-transgender-care-minors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pE8.MdXI.GnK4Ksa5dB2Y&smid=url-share
There it is -- front and center: "gender-affirming"; "transgender youth".
But unlikely to be just "something on my own mind" -- is it? -- when so many ostensibly credible sources are talking about it, when it affects so many. Many of whom clearly contributed to tipping the balance in favour of Trump in the last election. Which, in case you missed the news, the Democrats lost. Or have I been misinformed? 🙄
Man, I really appreciate you Mike. THANK YOU for your truth-seeking, intellectual courage, and moral clarity. Seriously.
Yes. I feel the same way. SO GRATEFUL, MIKE.
Excellent. Helpful as I struggle to understand how very intelligent people can contribute to and facilitate the “alternate reality” in which their tribe exists. I especially appreciate the recognition of the moral disengagement in addition to the cognitive reversals.
Am I the only weirdo who finds tribal identity meaningless and cult like loyalty creepy?
You are a very rare human to think that way, yes.
I suppose it's not a matter of how I think, though. The argument here is that there's some serious "psychological economics" going on, right? (not sure how I feel about that phrase, but it's very evocative)
I am with you on this point. Tribal loyalty has all kinds of hidden freedom traps built into it. Freedom of thought in tribal structures is a bit of an oxymoron to me….
Nope
It's probably best if you assume that you aren't immune to this stuff, even if you're very sure you are.
I have self awareness and I’m reasonably intelligent, so this isn’t a concern for me at the moment on this issue. I know a fascist cult when I see one, and I’m completely justified in being disgusted by it. If you’re an American, you should be, too.
Oh my gosh! I just did a similar post. The Right (honestly, I’m not even sure what to call them any more) still think Trump will magically pivot to save them.
> "Rational discourse has been converted into magical thinking ..."
Yeah, well, you might give some thought to some of that "magical thinking" on the Left, notably that people can "change sex" ...
At some point, I will dive very deeply into my thoughts about gender, culture and the politics around them. But not today.
Clearly something of a "tipping point" -- some reason to argue that that issue tipped the balance in favour of Trump in the last election. Kamala -- "she's for they/them" -- Harris being a case in point.
Should maybe be an important question if not one of the hour.
I was thinking the same thing. Honestly all the examples this author gives feel like Mickey Mouse compared to the last 30 years of the Democrats doing the exact same thing. It’s not just the sex/gender debate - Biden wreaked waaaay more havoc on the Mexico border than Trump is right now w literally federally funding pimps and sex slaves and calling it righteous. Look at the ENTIRE United Nations and the rapists working for them who call themselves “humanitarians” I mean the list is endless! I feel like the Republicans have only begun their truth-burying campaign while the left has been mainstreaming and mainlining it for decades! Wow, Good grief.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. 🙂
Shulamis :> "... the last 30 years of the Democrats doing the exact same thing."
Being a Canuck -- a Canadian -- I can't say that I have much of a handle on that "30 years" bit, though that reminds me of a Canadian humour show -- "This Hour Has 22 Minutes", the section on "Talking to Americans" in particular. This is a classic case-in-point 😉🙂:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZE0TuKTpo4
My focus has generally been the issue of transgenderism -- your "sex/gender debate", and somewhat more particularly putting transwomen -- AKA, male transvestites if they still have their nuts attached, and sexless eunuchs if they don't -- into women's sports, toilets, spas, prisons, and change rooms. Moot whether that is anything more than a tempest in a teapot, a Rape of the Lock, part deux; a Lilliputian civil war over egg (ova)-cracking protocols, something that affects no more than a small circle of friends. But some reason to argue, many in fact, that as erstwhile Economist journalist and author Helen Joyce once put it, in an interview by "she who must not be named (Substacker and UK/Aussie journalist and author Helen Dale)":
"transgenderism is a civilization threatening [Joyce]/ending [Dale] movement":
https://lawliberty.org/podcast/when-does-sex-matter/
But the US hasn't been alone in that at least -- not that that is any kind of a commendation -- as Canada has likewise contributed to that clusterfuck -- excuse my French. The country is putatively bilingual, but that is more among the managerial class ... 😉🙂. In particular, our erstwhile fearless leader -- Justin Trudeau, Himself -- once insisted, on International Women's Day no less, that "trans women are women":
https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2023/03/08/statement-prime-minister-international-womens-day
He and the whole Liberal party should be hung out to dry for that alone. Though it is at least nice that that page is only "archived" and apparently or presumably not still a matter of government policy. Not that I've seen much in the way of any changes to any policies that had been implemented in response to that particular "Papal Encyclical" -- news at 11:
"Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology; Lysenkoism and The Gangs Who Couldn't Shoot Straight":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
Steersman, in the spirit of the article, shouldn't you be at least open to the idea that you may not have the whole story on this topic? I know, I know: "Everyone else but the people who agree with me is closed-minded, and the only way to prove you've got an open mind is to agree with me." But it's worth it to at least consider!
Sure -- though, arguably, none of us may ever "have the whole story on this topic", or any other one for that matter. At least short of the proverbial, "Last Judgement". Don't know about you, but I'm not in any rush to get there -- never can tell whether we'll wind up in the courtroom bleachers -- in the peanut galleries -- or in the docket ... 😉🙂
But I wonder just exactly which "story on this topic" you're referring to: which story?, on which topic? Transgenderism? Something of a rather large "umbrella". It is maybe rather moot as to exactly what is the "essence" of male and female, and something of a major bone of contention. But, to a first approximation, the "story" told by mainstream biology -- which many people subscribe to for generally solid reasons based on some very brute, if not brutish, facts -- to have a sex, to be male or female, is to have either testicles or ovaries. And there's no way on gawd's green earth that any transwoman is EVER going to replace his testicles with ovaries of "her" own. Something of an egregious contradiction, if not a great big fat flaming lie -- "2+2=5" caliber -- to say otherwise.
If you, or Mike, has a better one than mainstream biology, one that hangs together better than it, then maybe y'all need to be running it up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes. Clearly, a significant percentage of the population didn't think much of Kamala -- "she's for they/them -- Harris's alternative, her "flag" on that score.
So, what do you consider "Mainstream Biology"? If I wanted to know what the "Mainstream" opinion was, where would I look?
Good questions, maybe ones of the hour in fact. On which your earlier "Everyone else but the people who agree with me is closed-minded ..." may have some bearing 😉🙂. The point being, or is subsumed by, the general discussion on many so-called experts not being worth a pinch of coon-shit, being charitable.
Major problem qualifying various such experts, particularly for matters of law, when there are often many schools, many supposed experts who say very contradictory or inconsistent things. And to choose between such schools, such "sects", means being obliged to give some thought to what are the principles that undergird their science, philosophy, ideology, or theology. Which most law courts - and most people -- are ill-equipped or unprepared to do. You and Mike might both consider Ricard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark":
https://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
Likewise a rather "pithy" observation on the point by Nikola Tesla:
“One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Something of an occupational hazard, some rabbit holes being deeper than others.
But with that as a "preamble", as some pre-text, there's kind of a foundational principle in categorization on which the whole edifice of science and philosophy rests. As Steven Pinker once put it:
SP: "An intelligent being cannot treat every object it sees as a unique entity unlike anything else in the universe. It has to put objects in categories so that it may apply its hard-won knowledge about similar objects, encountered in the past, to the object at hand." [How the Mind Works; pg. 12]
And see also the classic, "Is taxonomy the world's oldest profession?" -- there goes prostitution's claim to (in)fame and fortune:
https://taxodiary.com/2013/07/is-taxonomy-the-oldest-profession/
And things go into categories on the basis of which traits those things have in common and which are of some relevance. For example, things are labeled -- named, put into the categories -- "edible" and "poisonous" because, mirabile dictu, those things tend promote either one's survival or one's death. Something of an important distinction, one might reasonably argue ...
But likewise with the categories "male" and "female" -- they're foundational to the whole process of reproduction which is largely what has driven evolution over the last billion years or so, give or take a 100 million. And the brute fact of the matter is that absolutely literally millions of species each with trillions of members, including the human one with a mere 8 billion, share either of two quite distinct biological processes, i.e., oogenesis (the production of large reproductive cells [ova] by females) and spermatogenesis (the production of small reproductive cells [sperm] by males). Categories don't get much more foundational than those two, and with broader reach, import, and consequence -- why they're often deemed to be "natural kinds" which has been a central theme in philosophy going back at least to Aristotle:
https://philarchive.org/rec/KHAASN
Some further "light" reading to follow-up on the day's lesson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatogenesis
But as something of a specific point of reference and/or specific answers to your questions, you might consider, first, these definitions for the sexes in the Glossary of an article on "Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" by Jussi Lehtonen, & Geoff A. Parker in the Oxford Academic Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction (Volume 20, Issue 12, December 2014):
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is DEFINED [my emphasis] as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is DEFINED [my emphasis] as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://web.archive.org/web/20221214064356/https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990?login=false
Secondly, several articles by (retired) philosopher of science Paul Griffiths, the first one in the scholarly PhilPapers Archive, the second in something of a more popular magazine:
"What are biological sexes?"
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Aeon: "Sex is real; Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other"
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Here endeth the lesson for today ... 😉🙂
Now, see, I would have pointed to something like Scientific American, or Nature - some publication that most people with even a slight interest in the subject would recognize - if I were to try to define what "mainstream" meant. That doesn't mean that either of these sources are *correct,* but at least it lets us set a standard for what "mainstream" is; if my argument involved a request that people question the very principles undergirding their understanding of a field, that doesn't really sound like a "mainstream" opinion, it sounds like a divergence from the "mainstream."
That said, I did enjoy some of these articles; I think you may want to read them a bit more closely. Looking at the Lehtonen, for instance, within the first two paragraphs, the article states "Although not the topic of this review, it is worth noting that reproduction is possible even in the complete absence of sex (for which there are many alternative definitions; see glossary, Losos et al., 2013; Lehtonen and Kokko, 2014)." If we go to their glossary, they "define" sexes like this: "The definitions of ‘sex’ and ‘sexes’ vary. Here we define ‘sex’ as the union of gametes and genomes from two individuals (or in some hermaphrodites, from the same individual), and ‘sexes’ (male, female) are defined by the type of gamete an individual produces (see above)."
You emphasize "define" when quoting from the article, but the more important word might actually be "Here": The definition of "sexes" according to "the type of gamete an individual produces" is useful *for the purpose of "studying the ancestral evolutionary divergence" of gamete sizes.* I think this speaks to a wider disconnect here, between the desire for concepts with stable definitions vs. the diversity of use-cases for any concept.
A definition of "sexes" according to gamete size or genitals or reproductive structure may be true (or, more accurately, useful) in one discussion, but there are other discussions. For instance, consider the irritation some feel when they see "people with uteri" where they expect to see "women," let's say in a public health announcement: If the medical issue being described concerns the uterus, then the term "women" unnecessarily includes women without uteri (who wouldn't be affected by the issue) while excluding younger females whom we usually refer to as "girls" (who may be affected by the issue). Maybe a better way to phrase all this, then, is that, in certain situations, defining "sexes" according to gamete size/genitals/reproductive structure/hormone levels etc. is the most accurate definition, which I don't think anyone seriously contests; rather, people are pointing out that *these are not the only types of situations in which one makes sex distinctions.* Given that one does not usually know the gamete size/genitals/reproductive structure/hormone levels of most of the people one meets, this seems intuitively correct to me. You may want to argue that alternative definitions of sexes are counterproductive and confusing in the proposed alternative contexts (like using "women" when one means "people with uteruses" would be counterproductive and confusing), but like you said, it's worthwhile to question one's foundational principles to make sure that what initially look like matters of scientific doctrine aren't really just matters of habit and convenience.
Trans obsessed weirdo
Where is the passion? Reason will never be enough. Look at The Prophet, by Gibran. They need each other. Reason will become a cage if left alone and passion will burn itself out. The rudder and the sail. Where's the sail, the drive forward found in the restful nest of reason? We can intellectualize till the cows come home, but without the pulse to make things go, what's the use?
Yeah, well, some "winds" are less useful or beneficial than others ...
One is reminded of the semi-popular concept of "The Divine Logos", and Einstein's elaboration on the theme, "God does not play dice with the universe" -- or not always in any case as later physicists have argued ...
Gibran: Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peaceful serenity of distant fields and meadows--then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."
And when the storm comes, and the mighty winds shake the forest and thunder and lightening proclaim the majesty of the sky--then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."
Divinity is on both sides of the relation: Reason, values and rationality; intuition, sensation and the irrational with our dual hemispheric brains and their distinct functional repertoires.
Staying in complex balance in the face of simplifying either/or favoritisms is our best shot forward. We need the full picture of humanity in the round, each of us with all of our elements accounted for. Then tell your story, one which covers all the bases of mind and heart, where we don't get lost in one or the other and can find the common ground to reset the story of the world around us!
Seem to remember reading bits and pieces in The Prophet -- a great many moons ago. Never did quite get the connection between Gibran's poetry and Mohammed and the latter's claim to fame and fortune. Kind of preferred the poetry of Omar Khayyam and his The Rubaiyat, at least the Fitzgerald translation:
https://victorianweb.org/authors/fitzgerald/rubaiyat.html
But, speaking of Islam and it's lost "Golden Age", I'm reminded of this article -- in of all places, The New Atlantis, speaking of ends of ages and all that --
"Why the Arabic World Turned Away from Science; On the lost Golden Age and the rejection of reason":
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science
The hegemony of left-brain thinking is not the way forward. We have to bounce off both sides, or the game is up. Like day without the night! Where's the dream in that scenario? Science by itself is just as unconscious of life as primitive tribes are of their deductive reasoning. Be square in the round and there may just be a future for humanity.
> "... there may just be a future for humanity. ..."
Rather surprising the species that have come and gone over the millennia -- literally millions, all of whom had their "place in the sun". Something from Google's AI, Gemini, on the topic:
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever" is a famous quote by Russian space visionary Konstantin Tsiolkovsky,
Remember reading that as a young or young-ish kid, probably in some science or sci-fi magazine. And seem to recollect Elon Musk quoting it as well not long ago. Has a nice ring to it, though I don't think it speaks, or very loudly, to the personal, to the proverbial "man-in-the-street".
"Where there is no vision, the people perish" -- Proverbs 29:18
Yes, the houses of the Earth are the cradleboard of our day to day, carrying forth our lives amidst all our relations. The Sky however is the realm of death, the dream, the wilderness, eternity. Not some sci-fi fantasy of rocket ships to a nearby dead planet, trying to escape what science has done with its technology to our homeplace.
You forgot Normality Bias.
—————
We learn to think of history as something that is already happened to other people. Our own moment filled as it is with minutiae destined to be forgotten, always looks smaller in comparison.
This has the effect of making them essentially unimaginable and crafting the story of something that should never have been allowed to happen, we forge the story of something that could not possibly have happened. Or, to use the phrase only slightly out of context, something that can’t happen here.
A logical fallacy becomes inevitable. If this can’t happen, then the thing that is happening is not it. What we see in real life, or at least on television, can’t possibly be the same monstrous phenomenon that we have collectively decided is unimaginable.
— M. Gessen , Surviving Autocracy
The irony is damning! This country was founded and populated by refugees from this horseshit -- people with minds of their own, determined to see it through on their own hook. They are survived by a tribe of damned snowflakes afraid of their own shadow! Traitors to their own ancestors -- the shame! They've taken on the "sophistication" of Mark Twain's Duke and Dauphin -- what a repulsive joke!
Thanks for this. Too many dismiss this phenomenon with some version of "these people are just completely dumb." And while that may be true for some, it's certainly not true for all. And it just doesn't suffice as an explanation.
What you've outlined here are the most sane and cogent reasons for why so many of our smart, once-rational friends and family have seemingly been utterly subsumed by this intellectual buffoonery and moral soul-rot we call MAGA.
And I also appreciate that you've outlined a way out -- despite how utterly Sisyphean that may seem at this point.
It looks like maybe humanity has just run into a fundamental limitation. At least to the extent that this problem is worldwide and not resistible. To the extent it’s our problem let’s hope that we can serve as a warning for the remaining free people of the world.
My only criticism of this is "the center can be rebuilt". This is either meaningless or wrong. Meaningless if it simply refers to the fact that any discussion, even with multiple dimensions, can be represented as having some kind of central position, which may or may not be the closest to truth. Wrong, if it implies that Trump supporters are relevant to determining what constitutes the centre. The point about post-truth claims is that, even when they are factually correct, they are still made in the service of falsehood.
Better to say something like "the search for truth can be made central".
Yuval Harari talks about the power of stories in communication. The simpler the more appealing, he says. The truth on the other hand, is often complex and requires effort to identify or divine.
Sincere thanks. You have put into beautiful prose what I have seen and observed but could never have expressed so well.
This is great, but is missing an important aspect of what is happening in the disinformation stew that we all now swim in. My MAGA aquaintances could have written large portions of this post. They constantly say, "Do your research", "Don't accept what you hear from the media", "don't accept what you hear from the experts" and then point to all sorts of sites that "challenge the common wisdom" and show some new "truth" that they have now "discovered" and embraced.
My MAGA associates feel like they are just as much on a search for truth as you are describing here.
The problem is that truth is being ripped asunder through propaganda and miss information and the tribal aspects of the moment you so expertly describe.
If we are working on resistance to that trend but are not clear about our own shared commitment to established truths where does that leave us? If we don't speak up for the value of vaccines because we are not vaccine scientists and need to do the research, then who will? If we don't speak up for the value of liberal education because we are not college professors and need to do the research, then who will? If we don't speak up for the constitution and the rights of all people in our country because we are not constitutional lawyers and need to do our research, then who will?
We are not going to be able to do this if we are all atomized and all trying to find our own truth, especially when there are so many clear ways that we can already commit to shared values and yes dare I say some shared truth.
"...these pressures affect everyone engaged in public discourse.
The difference isn’t immunity but conscious resistance."
Constant vigilance... Which is difficult
Another interesting perspective. Is the internet, and especially social media, taking us from a literate society where we get information mostly in writing, back to an oral, story telling society, where emotion drives our thinking and actions?
https://open.substack.com/pub/jmarriott/p/the-dawn-of-the-post-literate-society-aa1?r=1knb7z&utm_medium=ios