The left-wing movement to label speech as violence is a perfect example of nominal fallacy - labeling things to avoid having to think about them, absolving yourself from listening. This is why so many progressives are bewildered by encounters with disagreement, which they find inexplicable.
The left-wing movement to label speech as violence is a perfect example of nominal fallacy - labeling things to avoid having to think about them, absolving yourself from listening. This is why so many progressives are bewildered by encounters with disagreement, which they find inexplicable.
Brad, you speak of the left-wing movement where they don’t want to listen or think about certain things, which makes them unprepared for disagreement. I can’t help but think that’s why Salman Rushdie was once president of American PEN; they are fighting the right-wing movement, who are banning books across this nation. Books that upset them or they disagree with, Books that express ideas that frighten or anger them. Unlike the left, the right uses state power to exercise censorship (cancel culture), so I can see why Salman Rushdie was once president of PEN!
Have there been some examples of this recently? I know that some communities would prefer not to have some books in their community library. I also know of "kids" books with pictures of explicit sex acts that some people would prefer not to have in their childrens' schools. But what books have been removed from, say, Amazon lately? This is a genuine question and not a rhetorical one.
That is a fair question, but it is of course answering a question with a question. My point is a request to you to provide examples of books that have been banned by the right-wing movement using state power to exercise censorship. Your comment suggested to me that you might have a few specific cases in mind. I think focusing on these specific cases and why these books were banned will help us understand the subject of book bans more thoroughly. By the way, I just googled "banned books" and found quite a list, but it seemed to include bans on books in schools which to me is a separate issue as those "bans" may be to prevent inappropriate images or issues from being seen by young children.
Awilson, no specific book, no specific subject, just in general, book banning should be prohibited, even in K-12, there needs to be an overwhelming reason to ban.
"The Index lists 1,586 book bans that have occurred in 86 school districts in 26 states between July 1, 2021 and March 31 of this year. These districts represent 2,899 schools with a combined enrollment of over 2 million students."
That's obtuse. It's simpler than this. The reason for labelling speech as violence is to legitimize answering speech with actual physical violence. "Speech = violence" ignores the difference between a disagreement and a broken arm.
This technique of obliterating critical distinctions is an old trick of the left. For example: "Property is theft." What distinction is ignored here? It is that property is honestly earned or created by effort, as against being stolen or acquired by fraud. "Property is theft" legitimizes the unjust seizing of property by force.
Note that most if not all applications of this technique result in justifying the use of violence where violence is not actually justified. There are many more examples of this on the left, but many on the right too. Actual sanity is in very short supply.
Paul, I agree what you describe has truth to it. I can’t fathom why you labeled Brad’s comment as obtuse. That didn’t add anything productive to the conversation here.
Because it isn't on point. It obscures what is actually going on. The nominal fallacy would be exemplified by mislabeling something truly serious with an unserious term, like the mafia's various euphemisms for murdering people. But please, I'm challenging the idea, not Brad Neaton personally. I'm not commenting here to demonstrate allegiance to any group. I would be against any such allegiance. I think such allegiances are very much the cause of distorted social discourse.
It's actually the exact opposite. For example, calling a murderer "evil" to explain their behavior absolves us of the need to confront the complex web of circumstances that led them to murder. Another example: Calling Trump supporters Nazis, fascists, racists, etc. to avoid actually thinking about all the complex reasons why someone might support Trump in the first place.
Brad - I think a murderer does commit evil to his/her victim and to the victim's family. Saying we must understand a murderer's circumstances is to, in effect, condone his behavior. We all have complex webs of circumstances. Does my complex web justify me killing you or vice versa? No!
Also, I don't think complex explanations are needed for someone to support Trump, in the first place or otherwise. It's called politics. People vote for whoever most closely supports their hopes for the future of themselves and the country, even if they have to hold their nose while doing it.
That doesn't make sense and is not "simpler." People call speech violence so that they can use violence against people who say things they don't like? They don't use violence, they merely shout them down and use social pressure to get those ostensibly in power to impose an agenda on others. They throw tantrums and use digital mobs. These are not people looking for physical confrontation. They're cowards.
Punch a Nazi, comes to mind. What’s a Nazi. Someone that says something that isn’t part of the progressive doctrine. So, to me, oh, yes, the reason that words=violence, is an excuse to commit violence. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but that is the ultimate use of the term. And as long as there is no pushback today, the term will be ingrained into people’s minds, so when the day comes when physical violence is needed, everyone will be comfortable with the violence because words are just as violent as physical violence is, we’ve all agreed, for years that words are violence. It is an Incremental acceptance of the idea.
How do you explain the violence of the antifa and blm rioters? Or the “CHAZ” group? Of course they use violence. If they can shout you down and cow you beforehand the violence is that much easier to effect.
Yes, I understand that and I 100% agree. But I'm talking about within the context of using "Your speech is violence" to justify violence. Those groups weren't committing violence in response to something someone said being equated to violence, they were using different, though no less wrong and idiotic, reasons to perpetrate violence. That's all I'm saying.
I guess the threat of mere 'social pressure' is why some controversial appearances require the presence of riot police? The mobs are not only digital. Many controversial speakers are shut down because the cost of providing protection against physical violence makes their appearance too expensive.
And a reminder: Defending free speech does NOT mean the defender agrees with the speech.
Sure, that happens on occasion. But the preponderance of examples have taken place online, where it's infinitely easier to gin up pseudo-outrage and get thousands of others to rally to the flag.
The word 'literally' adds absolutely nothing to your sentence and weakens its impact when reading it. "The 'Summer of Love in 2020' had nothing to do with speech." is a sentence with more impact.
Yes, the overuse of the word 'literally' drives me crazy.
Yes, because someone who traffics in burden of proof fallacy is someone who should be intellectually admired. LOL. Now, instead of me laughing at you, imagine if I believed your words constituted violence.
Brad, trust me when I tell you this: Your faux intellectualism does not mean your farts don't stink. They stink, Brad. They stink bad, Brad.
Matthew, trust me when I tell you this: Your inability to say anything other than sad attempts at insult reveals that you're not exactly the brightest star in the intellectual Orion. Use your big boy words and say something of substance.
Very interesting comment about a wonderful article. I agree. Tragic about Rushdie, who I admire.
I am interested in the subject of fallacies in logical reasoning.
Regarding inexplicability, I found my first encounter with a STEM Ph.D. friend-of-friend bewildering. The subject of the Koch brothers came up. I was surprised at her vehement condemnation, and innocently asked what among their writings had led her to conclusions inconsistent with what I had read of their own statements. Her response was, "Oh, I would never read anything those people wrote!"
I concluded at the time that she was surely a poor scientist and surprisingly unintelligent, so I wondered how such a person could obtain a STEM Ph.D. But subsequently, this type of rejection of thought has become distressingly apparent among many otherwise intelligent people, judging from their credentials, which require at least some ability.
I wonder if my bewilderment could be explained by some fallacy in my own thinking. I welcome pertinent comments in this regard.
Alice, Wonderfully illustrative incident regarding the Kochs. I knew both David and Charles through joint public policy and charitable organizations, and was always amazed but not surprised by the vitriol directed at them. While I was not always in agreement, they were both informed, thoughtful, very generous individuals.
Jonathan Haidt in "The Happiness Hypothesis," describes the process of why this happens. He describes the duality of our beings as "the elephant" and "the rider." The elephant is automatic. It reacts. The rider is the lawyer, the spokesperson for the elephant. It tries to rationalize the elephant's automatic, unconscious, immediate actions after the fact.
This is how a well educated scientific person can find a way to bend themselves into pretzel loops to support a highly prejudiced viewpoint.
I admire Jonathan Haidt's reasoning, commitment to evidence and independence even when I am sometimes, rarely, unconvinced of his conclusions. The metaphor of elephant and rider are useful.
You make a very good point. Sperry's split brain experiments showed that people confabulate explanations for their own behavior when they do not have conscious access to the impetus for that behavior. This well applies to much behavior of the crowd whose convictions outweigh their commitment to evidence supporting those convictions.
When I observe people behaving apparently irrationally in specific situations, even if the overall function served is more general, as tribalism is, I find it useful to ask if I do the same thing in other contexts. This is a way around my own blind spots. It encourages empathy and humility, as it appears to me that the allure of one's own envisioned superiority is a significant blinder.
Haidt has recently spoken and written about his belief in the need to regulate social media, based on evidence that mental health issues and self-harm rates among young women have risen significantly, in lock-step with social media use. Even he admits that it is correlation. Yet he argues for the European model of duty of care for minors.
Strong argument, yet not convincing enough to argue for a step I believe would be ineffective, heavy-handed, and premature based on our understanding of the phenomenon.
Very recent data allegedly confounds the causality argument. I can't locate it and my recollection is that Haidt himself mentioned it at the end of a "Reason" Soho Forum debate. So, open mind on this.
There is an epidemic of self-harm ... specifically among young women who identify as progressive, according to the allusion I recall. Conservative-oriented young women who use social media heavily are not correspondingly exhibiting mental anguish and self harm. (There is readily available research at least compatible with this, that conservatives are consistently happier than progressives, lower in neuroticism, for understandable reasons, whether one happens to be progressive or conservative or other.)
Good article on the distinction between suicidal depression and the attention-seeking, antagonistic, histrionic behavior underlying much though not all self-harm. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6328319/
One might therefore argue that there could be something about the promulgation of the set of progressive convictions that induces a negative frame of mind or validates self-harm among vulnerable adherents. One might argue, therefore, that we must regulate social media expression of progressive ideas. I would not support this for the same reasons I do not support Haidt's current position.
It will be interesting to see how the data-driven and open-minded Haidt responds to this additional information if it is verifiable. He is an outstanding thinker, yes, yet his opinions are not written in stone. I draw my own conclusions ... and look for challenges to them, to continually correct my views if uninformed or mistaken.
The tone of your inquiry, as well as one can judge the written "voice," was more compatible with rhetorical dismissal, like a dare, especially the "Really?", than with genuine curiosity. Perhaps I am reading too much into it, yet it is feedback. I believe I have sincerely addressed the content of your question, as well. More coffee, now.
Thank you Alice for your response. In support of portions of your comments above, while I think the connection between social media and the tremendous rate of incidence of mental health issues and self-harm issues is crystal clear, I do agree that regulating social media would be fraught with issues that would likely make it impractical. My issue with this entire topic is that the connection between social media and the rise of these problems is so clear from my observations that it is quite baffling to encounter people who doubt the connection. I certainly do not want to debate the issue as I appreciate your response but when I just sit back with a open mind and intake his commentary on the matter both in his books and podcast appearances it just truly resonates with me as a totally plausible and reasonable conclusion. The same applies to the tremendous book written by Abigail Shrier on the rise of people claiming they are "trans", or the latest offering from Johann Hari (which was really great)
The other thing is that I see the behavior in my own life: I clearly remember being in grade 8 in the mid-90's and suddenly, overnight I adopted the identity of the Kurt Cobain Nirvana crew. In extremely short order my life began to revolve around this band but more importantly the new and cool relationships I had with other people my age that were part of the trend. It really did almost happen overnight and this force of the identity became a central focus of my life in my mid-teens before I moved on. I see the same thing with social media. Instead of bands like Nirvana its now being "trans" or "ADD" or any other trend that creates a identity group for people to belong to and make what they really all looking for: Social connections with other human beings and validation
It's going to get worse in the STEM fields. Many universities and employers are demanding DEI, or DIE position papers before being let into programs or employment.
You make a good point. One of the big agendas is ensuring public support for funding. Twenty-five ago, eminent, older scientists were already publicly drawing attention to the problem of funding skewing scientific integrity. My researcher spouse finds the same thing, though he personally has a remarkable track record of grants. People are strongly discouraged from pursuing research that will invalidate previous career-making work by others, who now sit on grant committees.
If scientists are encouraged to not pursue work that could invalidate prior work, then we don't have a scientific community. We have a group of people calling themselves scientists but allowing their egos to get in the way of actual scientific progress. There is a term for this, but it is too vulgar to use. I would hope that scientists would be happy younger scientists are testing their work. Imagine having someone test your work in an effort to prove you wrong only to find out you were in fact correct.
Future generations will look back at this period as the dark ages of the scientific community. Sad for humanity actually. Think of the problems that could be solved if we had the willingness to actually follow the science.
Good point. My spouse is a senior, highly cited STEM academic researcher and there is increasing pressure to complete DIE compliance activities. One can't prove it but there is reason to suspect that research funding is partly dependent on specific racial composition of the team.
Alice - I think it's tribalism. I've heard the same thing from a few people, i.e. "He/She is awful/racists/etc-whatever and I have never and would never listen to anything they say!"
To which I reply that maybe they should listen just once and if they still don't like them, fine.
Would that people would actually defend their beliefs like lawyers defending their clients: presenting arguments and facts in support of their views. Far better that than calling anyone who disagrees a racist, sexist, abelist, ..., fascist, [fill-in-favored-group-or-notion-here]-phobe or [fill-in-notion-here] denier (one tribe) or a RINO, socialist, Marxist, one-worlder, or communist (the other tribe), then demanding they shut up or be shut up.
(Though I'll give a pass on calling someone a fascist if their policy prescriptions actually have a likeness to the original Fascist party's program, or a Marxist if their views are derived from Marx, even if by way of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Gramsci, Foucault and/or the Frankfurt school).
And why instead of explaining their position they immediately attack, call names, and seek in every way to shut down, demonize and pillory the person who questioned them.
I use to do the same thing (unsuccessfully) to my husband - I was wrong. We now get invited to fewer dinner parties, but you (and he) are right for speaking and fighting for truth.
You are correct. We have been attacked for our opinions, or shut off or censored. These are opinions, words, ideas to which every person is entitled to,and should be allowed to express freely.
Civility is now weakness. Unless you scream until the veins on your neck pop out you just are not taken seriously. No one will listen to the reasoned voice, at least not until they are dead!
The Leftist freaks who show up in front of Supreme Court justices homes, and those protesting for the killing of babies certainly fit this description. They are the ones described by Eric Hoffer in "The True Believer."
There is the other liberal/lefty or uncommitted person standing in the background. They are the ones who can eventually be persuaded by a reasoned discussion done in a civil, non-threatening way. Dan Bongino has talked about this many times. Our object is to persuade the observer to take another look. They won't if you are screaming and intimidating them.
Interestingly, I own a bright red (of course) "Save America" hat, which I wear religiously. I've actually kept track of comments, and much to my surprise, I have over forty positive and only two negative. People do notice.
At Starbucks about a month ago, three girls - fairly young, with the shredded jeans and typical attire of late high-schoolers or young college age, kept staring at my hat. I thought, "Oh boy, here it goes."
Finally one came over and said, "We just wanted you to know, we LOVE your hat."
I could've kissed her. I said back, "And I just want you to know: the fact that somebody your age feels that way makes me believe there just may be hope for us all."
Such a terrific reply thanks Jim strangely enough I have had only positive responses when ever my hubby are out and I’m “maggering” everybody I encounter either gives me a thumbs up sign or tells me “a great hat you wearing there love” I believe after this raid on MaLthis current administration fate is sealed we will only have 2 years left of them please God!
It is incredible the power the Presidency now has. I don't think it was meant to be this way; Congress has transferred power to the executive and abdicated its responsibility in nearly every way possible. This "presidency" is the perfect example of why the founders limited the executive's powers; I think the nation will probably survive in some form until Alleged President Asterisk is carried out on a stretcher or in a strait jacket, but God - I wonder just how much more damage the puppeteers who pull his strings can do in the next two years.
That's rather harsh. Not all people are equally comfortable with speaking out. My husband and my kids (because they take after their dad in that regard) would often rather that Mom not speak out. It may be frustrating, but I'm not going to eject them from my life for it.
I've thought about your comment all morning. A couple of things occur to me:
First, when the Democrat machine gets its 87,000 armed IRS agents, I will probably be one of the first targeted because I've probably already said too much - and I use my real name.
Second, to my eye the entire purpose of weaponizing the FBI, the IRS, the whole DOJ is to intimidate and silence us all, so if we ARE silent we actually help ensure their complete takeover. They get exactly what they want; we get a jackboot on our necks. So, again, in my opinion, while speaking out is a risk, silence is a sure thing - and just not an option. Easy choice.
Third, the globalist/socialist/elites/Democrats are using every means possible to goad us into armed retaliation. Yes, we could possibly win - depending on whether the military and police join their side, but if we let them do that, everybody loses.
*************
I saw a small roundtable discussion a few weeks ago - some real intellectual heavyweights that included a guy probably heir-apparent to Thomas Sowell. He said that the greatest hypocrisy of BLM, Antifa, et al, was their invocation of Martin Luther King, Jr. while denigrating all the white thinkers of times past, but that in his writings, MLK freely acknowledged that he had read nearly all of their writings before starting on his crusade for civil rights. I read a couple of hours every morning; maybe it's time I read those old white guys. We are in a similar position to MLK now, and we need the wisdom of those Dead White Men to guide us, lest we be goaded by evil men and women into doing things that will ensure we lose everything that makes life worth living.
Yes Jim. That is my thinking exactly. And we'll likely meet one another when they round us all up, as it feels inevitable they will. I've never written under any name but my own as well, we'll both be easy to find.
I agree with you on all points. Silence is not an option, not for me anyway.
And I pray (though I am an atheist) that it does not come to an armed conflict. Because the left fanatics will win, and because it will be a bloody tragedy for the whole country. Don’t underestimate the left. Power is in their hands, and they are better organized. Most of the Democratic political leaders have not held a real job but spent their entire lives as community organizers: Sanders, Biden, Di Blasio, Obama was a professor but not for long and focused on attaining DC power. The 2020 election also shows how well-oiled Democratic machine works. I have no knowledge or opinion on election fraud. They are just more goal oriented. Add to this a total absence of moral or ethical red lines, and we will have a national tragedy.
I do think they are engaging in a provocation That’s why we should resist being provoked.
I agree with you JAO we have to resist the provocation at every level. I’m not sure anymore if they are better organized, it’s just that the Democrooks have captured the airwaves like the Nazis and that’s where it’s going to be so hard to change the mindset of millions of Americans. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before you will be able to vote on FB or Instagram (for the younger voters), it’s not one man one vote it’s never been it’s about how to rig the system which the Democrats have mastered.
Brilliant post Jim you write exactly like 95% of people’s thought process on this site. We cannot remain silent, if we do it’s going to be the end of the world. America is home it’s a great place to be and it’s well worth fighting for we just have to keep our heads at least until November.
They'll get me too. I contribute on these threads and have made no bones about my conservatism. I have donated to candidates and organizations that are conservative. I support Trump and my illustrious governor, Don DeSantis.
I can't afford a defense so I'll just sit in prison. Hope they have a good library.
As a Canadian who lives in a country where millions are unable to travel freely in or out of the country, you might be very surprised at how many Canadians admire Trump. We're trapped in a WEF prison while our rights and freedoms are being eroded. Our corporate media is compromised and the effects of brainwashing are frightening. I like and follow Ron DeSantis and often wished I lived in Florida. My admiration for Trump is so great because he withstood pressure that would cause most to fall. I'm very sorry he didn't get all the support he deserved. His good works in the US gave investors confidence and rippled all the way into our economy in Canada, the stock market reflected that. Yes he calls them as he sees them but he didn't cause all the riots, they were planned and the bricks were delivered. It's hard to play nice when there are psychopaths behind the scenes. You don't want to end up like Canada or Australia. I wish we had a leader who didn't have an evil personal agenda like so many who have bankrupted the world. These really are the darkest times.
I'm a dual citizen G Gently, living in, well to be honest, trapped in Canada. US born and raised by Canadian parents in Canada Ive lived in a border city for 16 years now and have lived the life of Riley living, working and traveling for 65 years wherever my heart has taken me.
Until 2020. I've been very outspoken concerning everything to do with both Canadian and US politics my entire life.
Canada is going down faster by far than the US. And we despair that those few of us watching this happen will be the few that still remember what life was like before the Woke and WEF.
Much luck to us all as we continue this battle on both sides of the border. We need all the luck we can get.
I am glad we have Trump. He is just about the bravest man I have ever seen. 17 Republicans of high stature ran for the Republican presidential primary initially and he was the last one standing. In their heart of hearts I would guess most of them, if not all of them, are glad they didn't get the nomination. They have witnessed what the Left has put Trump through.
Then again, one has to wonder if Jeb Bush would have been more than cursorily attacked because he would not have challenged the Left, or gone back over improper things done under Obama. We forget that under Obama James Rosen's phone calls and texts and some AP reporters' were investigated, without a warrant. There was "fast and furious" and the misuse of the IRS. There is probably a lot more but the point is who among the 17 would have even questioned it. Who among the 17 would have tried regulatory reform? Etc.
They are still going after him to destroy him and his family so he can't run in 2024 and as a salutory lesson to any other Republican candidate who may try to root out the Deep State and the deep corruption.
Naomi I have often wondered how Trump withstood the onslaught. People say he loves the fight but it's got to wear a person thin. And beautiful Melania, a talented linguist who speaks five languages, did she deserve being shunned? The same people that ignored Salman Rushdie are only just waking up to the chaos around us and they blame Trump for everything. They voted for the very people that are making the economic collapse come a little quicker. I was never a fan of Obama who forgot all his promises and enriched himself instead, while spending his days in the oval office perfecting his golfing putt.
I know. I was not a Trump fan in 2016. I voted for him because he was not Hillary. I have never regretted voting for him. Interesting my two adult children were for him once Ted Cruz became non viable.
It’s not just Trump withstanding the vitriol and onslaught but his children. All under attack all the time.
Melania is the most beautiful First Lady we have ever had. Beautiful, intelligent, cultured, kind, and fluent in 5 languages. Where is her Vogue cover?
They got all our names Naomi, and if they apply a bit of pressure to Bari and Nellie I’m sure they will hand over their data of us. I doubt if the library will be any good in prison. They have even managed to ban Dr Seus, wardens probably force us to read Michele Obama’s Becoming or Hillary Clinton’s biography it’s not an option we have to stand tall and stand strong!
Same. No more polite silence. Considerate disagreement for me and the occasional outburst on the internet. More if needs be. I’ve got young kids and I’ll be damned if I let them grow up in a place where they have to trade their peace of mind and perspective and self-respect for conformity and acquiescence.
Celia the silence is growing darker by the day. The deep state just raided President Trumps house after having him silenced on the internet by big Tech the last twenty months. That is just for starters
So has Obama, Bush and Clinton for very similar minor infractions.
There is little doubt this is 100% banana republic political driven singularly by the single minded emotion of hatred. Don’t forget, it was the DNC and the HRC campaign that manufactured the documents leading to 20 months of “Trump/Russia” nightly news narratives.
Oh yes, I didn’t mean he is paranoid or has a conspiracy theory. And if internet browsing is a wide net, it is easy to identify paid subscribers to CS or simply anyone registered to a social media site since we typically have to provide an email address and/or phone number. I see no reason the government would not take this path if the left stay in power. Not based on the recent events. But if there are enough people who want to tell the truth, then there is hope. So I am staying here and will share the most interesting posts with my husband!
You bet it's terrifying especially as they are going to hire those people who want to carry firearms and will have no compunction about shooting. It was right there in the hiring criteria until it became publicized and they scrubbed the site.
I suppose they'll make it easy on themselves by perusing the donations lists of conservative organizations, and congressmen. The donation lists for congressmen and senators are public information and include addresses, emails, and phone numbers.
The purpose of doing this is going to be to intimidate supporters before the 2024 election.
I know many with his reaction to where we're at. That reaction is what makes me insist on posting what I think, and will not sit down and shut up. We cannot accept that it's OK to be frightened into silence. That is the sure road to the very things we fear the most.
Too many people afraid of what others will think and afraid of repercussions.
You are correct and you show bravery in your actions.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union by speaking the truth. It starts with one brave person willing to say the truth.
re: truth. I read "Cancer Ward" in college; I have not read "Gulag Archipelago." Lately I've read a few essays on Solzhenitsyn as we near the 50th anniversary of Gulag. What I keep taking away is his dedication to the TRUTH and the historical importance of the concept of truth. I never realized that the concept of truth has spawned over the centuries an entire philosophy. As I ponder on it, I believe that the labels conservative and liberal are irrelevant, obsolete. At the core, all that matters is What Is True.
I have a pretty good BS meter, and sometimes what I see from both sides of the aisle is nauseating - a thoroughgoing perversion of duty and submission to attaining Power, when it should be submission to Truth and dedication to their Nation - wherever it leads and whomever it hurts, even political allies. A nation where the leaders lie will always go off the rails; a nation where they speak the truth, cannot. Our "leaders" understand that we do not want globalism/socialism/communism/the Great Reset and that the only way to implement it is by lying. And that, I believe, is precisely why we are where we are.
The Cancer Ward BTW is considered by many his best novel. Gulag Archipelago is, of course, a different animal and cannot be overrated as a source of information on Stalin’s system of repression. Sadly, it may be relevant to study now to better understand where we are heading. The problem is, the younger generation, and especially left leaning crowd, are not interested in history, because they do not think history repeats itself. It does though.
You are right. But people like Solzhenitsyn are born one in millions. I mean both in literary genius and bravery. There were numerous people whose names we will never know who helped him hide from the KGB before he was exiled, copied his works and distributed via the underground system called Samizdat. They were harassed by the KGB, persecuted, jailed, some of them perished. They brought the system down too.
"This in turn raises the issue of the USSR and the role played by Gorbachev himself. Here most historians would concede that without a reformer taking over in the Kremlin, not only would there have been nobody with whom Reagan could engage, but there would have been no end to the Cold War either. The United States could raise its own military expenditures as high as it liked; it could have lent even more support to so-called “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan, but without a very different kind of Soviet leader responding to some very real Soviet problems it is impossible to envisage 1989 ever happening. The United States might have played its part in weakening the legitimacy of communism and exposing its weaknesses (of which Reagan was more aware than many American experts at the time). However, at the end of the day the corrosive work was not being done from outside the USSR but from within by an economy that could not innovate and an ideology in which fewer and fewer believed.
There is, in addition, another problem with the argument that an assertive Reagan fought the Soviets to a standstill and then wrestled them to the floor until they cried “Uncle,” and it is a problem that all teachers of history and world affairs confront on a daily basis in the classroom: complexity. What happens in history—as we all know—can never be explained in single-factor terms; and the end of the Cold War is no exception to this important rule. Indeed, this is why scholars from both sides of the Atlantic are still arguing about it. While some give Reagan his due (though it is never entirely clear which Reagan), they often go on to point out that one also has to take into account several other factors when thinking about 1989, including the central part performed by the ordinary people of Central and Eastern Europe in their own liberation; the important role played by some European leaders—among whom the West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was key when it came to pressing for German unification in October 1989; and finally, the quiet but critical role performed by misperception and misunderstanding. Here, the evidence is now clear. Was Gorbachev prepared to loosen Soviet control over Eastern Europe and let the states there choose their own way (the “Sinatra Doctrine”)? Obviously so. Did he, however, think that this would lead to the rapid and complete collapse of socialism in all its forms? Apparently not. It was one thing seeking a looser, and hopefully less costly, relationship with countries like Poland and Hungary. This did not necessarily mean that Gorbachev actually intended to lose control of the USSR’s “cordon sanitaire” completely. In reality, Gorbachev miscalculated and it was this miscalculation that brought the Cold War to an end."
You are correct. That is what has happened in essence with Tavistock in England, the clinic which did surgery on children (16 years +) because they claimed to be trans.
The left-wing movement to label speech as violence is a perfect example of nominal fallacy - labeling things to avoid having to think about them, absolving yourself from listening. This is why so many progressives are bewildered by encounters with disagreement, which they find inexplicable.
Brad, you speak of the left-wing movement where they don’t want to listen or think about certain things, which makes them unprepared for disagreement. I can’t help but think that’s why Salman Rushdie was once president of American PEN; they are fighting the right-wing movement, who are banning books across this nation. Books that upset them or they disagree with, Books that express ideas that frighten or anger them. Unlike the left, the right uses state power to exercise censorship (cancel culture), so I can see why Salman Rushdie was once president of PEN!
Have there been some examples of this recently? I know that some communities would prefer not to have some books in their community library. I also know of "kids" books with pictures of explicit sex acts that some people would prefer not to have in their childrens' schools. But what books have been removed from, say, Amazon lately? This is a genuine question and not a rhetorical one.
Awilson, I’m quite perplexed as to why you asked me instead of simply asking Google. You say it’s not a rhetorical question, so what is your point?
That is a fair question, but it is of course answering a question with a question. My point is a request to you to provide examples of books that have been banned by the right-wing movement using state power to exercise censorship. Your comment suggested to me that you might have a few specific cases in mind. I think focusing on these specific cases and why these books were banned will help us understand the subject of book bans more thoroughly. By the way, I just googled "banned books" and found quite a list, but it seemed to include bans on books in schools which to me is a separate issue as those "bans" may be to prevent inappropriate images or issues from being seen by young children.
Awilson, no specific book, no specific subject, just in general, book banning should be prohibited, even in K-12, there needs to be an overwhelming reason to ban.
"The Index lists 1,586 book bans that have occurred in 86 school districts in 26 states between July 1, 2021 and March 31 of this year. These districts represent 2,899 schools with a combined enrollment of over 2 million students."
https://pen.org/?s=book+bans+list
https://pen.org/press-release/report-1586-school-book-bans-and-restrictions-in-86-school-districts-across-26-states/
And in which progressives show very little tolerance.
That's obtuse. It's simpler than this. The reason for labelling speech as violence is to legitimize answering speech with actual physical violence. "Speech = violence" ignores the difference between a disagreement and a broken arm.
This technique of obliterating critical distinctions is an old trick of the left. For example: "Property is theft." What distinction is ignored here? It is that property is honestly earned or created by effort, as against being stolen or acquired by fraud. "Property is theft" legitimizes the unjust seizing of property by force.
Note that most if not all applications of this technique result in justifying the use of violence where violence is not actually justified. There are many more examples of this on the left, but many on the right too. Actual sanity is in very short supply.
Please, rather that automatically include the "right", please give some valid and EQUAL examples. Fairness, after all, requires it.
Paul, I agree what you describe has truth to it. I can’t fathom why you labeled Brad’s comment as obtuse. That didn’t add anything productive to the conversation here.
Because it isn't on point. It obscures what is actually going on. The nominal fallacy would be exemplified by mislabeling something truly serious with an unserious term, like the mafia's various euphemisms for murdering people. But please, I'm challenging the idea, not Brad Neaton personally. I'm not commenting here to demonstrate allegiance to any group. I would be against any such allegiance. I think such allegiances are very much the cause of distorted social discourse.
It's actually the exact opposite. For example, calling a murderer "evil" to explain their behavior absolves us of the need to confront the complex web of circumstances that led them to murder. Another example: Calling Trump supporters Nazis, fascists, racists, etc. to avoid actually thinking about all the complex reasons why someone might support Trump in the first place.
I get your point here. This is certainly a "thing". It's just not the principle motive behind calling speech violence.
Brad - I think a murderer does commit evil to his/her victim and to the victim's family. Saying we must understand a murderer's circumstances is to, in effect, condone his behavior. We all have complex webs of circumstances. Does my complex web justify me killing you or vice versa? No!
Also, I don't think complex explanations are needed for someone to support Trump, in the first place or otherwise. It's called politics. People vote for whoever most closely supports their hopes for the future of themselves and the country, even if they have to hold their nose while doing it.
That doesn't make sense and is not "simpler." People call speech violence so that they can use violence against people who say things they don't like? They don't use violence, they merely shout them down and use social pressure to get those ostensibly in power to impose an agenda on others. They throw tantrums and use digital mobs. These are not people looking for physical confrontation. They're cowards.
Punch a Nazi, comes to mind. What’s a Nazi. Someone that says something that isn’t part of the progressive doctrine. So, to me, oh, yes, the reason that words=violence, is an excuse to commit violence. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but that is the ultimate use of the term. And as long as there is no pushback today, the term will be ingrained into people’s minds, so when the day comes when physical violence is needed, everyone will be comfortable with the violence because words are just as violent as physical violence is, we’ve all agreed, for years that words are violence. It is an Incremental acceptance of the idea.
How do you explain the violence of the antifa and blm rioters? Or the “CHAZ” group? Of course they use violence. If they can shout you down and cow you beforehand the violence is that much easier to effect.
Yes, I understand that and I 100% agree. But I'm talking about within the context of using "Your speech is violence" to justify violence. Those groups weren't committing violence in response to something someone said being equated to violence, they were using different, though no less wrong and idiotic, reasons to perpetrate violence. That's all I'm saying.
Gotcha.
All I can say is the first person to call me “a person with a vulva” will need serious dental orthotics services.
So. . ..
I guess the threat of mere 'social pressure' is why some controversial appearances require the presence of riot police? The mobs are not only digital. Many controversial speakers are shut down because the cost of providing protection against physical violence makes their appearance too expensive.
And a reminder: Defending free speech does NOT mean the defender agrees with the speech.
Sure, that happens on occasion. But the preponderance of examples have taken place online, where it's infinitely easier to gin up pseudo-outrage and get thousands of others to rally to the flag.
Now do Antifa and BLM during the 2020 "Summer of Love."
Literally had nothing to do with speech.
Andy Ngo would disagree (look him up if you don't know who he is). He was beaten almost to death by Antifa for writing about them during the riots.
The word 'literally' adds absolutely nothing to your sentence and weakens its impact when reading it. "The 'Summer of Love in 2020' had nothing to do with speech." is a sentence with more impact.
Yes, the overuse of the word 'literally' drives me crazy.
It's a pointed turn of phrase. It was not overused in this instance.
Sure it didn't, Brad.
You are the unserious people we often talk about here. You're such a Chad, Brad.
Cute. Are you going to say something of substance or just embarrass yourself?
Dude, there is nothing I could say that would be more personally embarrassing to me than the utter nonsense you've said. Carry on, if you must.
Again, nothing. We've got a real titan of intellect here.
Yes, because someone who traffics in burden of proof fallacy is someone who should be intellectually admired. LOL. Now, instead of me laughing at you, imagine if I believed your words constituted violence.
Brad, trust me when I tell you this: Your faux intellectualism does not mean your farts don't stink. They stink, Brad. They stink bad, Brad.
Ruh roh. Looks like I've hit a nerve, Matthew.
Matthew, trust me when I tell you this: Your inability to say anything other than sad attempts at insult reveals that you're not exactly the brightest star in the intellectual Orion. Use your big boy words and say something of substance.
Very interesting comment about a wonderful article. I agree. Tragic about Rushdie, who I admire.
I am interested in the subject of fallacies in logical reasoning.
Regarding inexplicability, I found my first encounter with a STEM Ph.D. friend-of-friend bewildering. The subject of the Koch brothers came up. I was surprised at her vehement condemnation, and innocently asked what among their writings had led her to conclusions inconsistent with what I had read of their own statements. Her response was, "Oh, I would never read anything those people wrote!"
I concluded at the time that she was surely a poor scientist and surprisingly unintelligent, so I wondered how such a person could obtain a STEM Ph.D. But subsequently, this type of rejection of thought has become distressingly apparent among many otherwise intelligent people, judging from their credentials, which require at least some ability.
I wonder if my bewilderment could be explained by some fallacy in my own thinking. I welcome pertinent comments in this regard.
Alice, Wonderfully illustrative incident regarding the Kochs. I knew both David and Charles through joint public policy and charitable organizations, and was always amazed but not surprised by the vitriol directed at them. While I was not always in agreement, they were both informed, thoughtful, very generous individuals.
I never understood where the hate came from. It was unjustified as far as I knew.
Alice - I think this study will help explain it. It did for me. https://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/motivated_numeracy_and_enlightened_selfgovernment.pdf
PatriotD, This study looks fascinating. I am just diving into it. Thank you!
That explains a whole lot.
Jonathan Haidt in "The Happiness Hypothesis," describes the process of why this happens. He describes the duality of our beings as "the elephant" and "the rider." The elephant is automatic. It reacts. The rider is the lawyer, the spokesperson for the elephant. It tries to rationalize the elephant's automatic, unconscious, immediate actions after the fact.
This is how a well educated scientific person can find a way to bend themselves into pretzel loops to support a highly prejudiced viewpoint.
I admire Jonathan Haidt's reasoning, commitment to evidence and independence even when I am sometimes, rarely, unconvinced of his conclusions. The metaphor of elephant and rider are useful.
You make a very good point. Sperry's split brain experiments showed that people confabulate explanations for their own behavior when they do not have conscious access to the impetus for that behavior. This well applies to much behavior of the crowd whose convictions outweigh their commitment to evidence supporting those convictions.
When I observe people behaving apparently irrationally in specific situations, even if the overall function served is more general, as tribalism is, I find it useful to ask if I do the same thing in other contexts. This is a way around my own blind spots. It encourages empathy and humility, as it appears to me that the allure of one's own envisioned superiority is a significant blinder.
Unconvinced by his conclusions? Really? Such as?
Haidt has recently spoken and written about his belief in the need to regulate social media, based on evidence that mental health issues and self-harm rates among young women have risen significantly, in lock-step with social media use. Even he admits that it is correlation. Yet he argues for the European model of duty of care for minors.
Strong argument, yet not convincing enough to argue for a step I believe would be ineffective, heavy-handed, and premature based on our understanding of the phenomenon.
Very recent data allegedly confounds the causality argument. I can't locate it and my recollection is that Haidt himself mentioned it at the end of a "Reason" Soho Forum debate. So, open mind on this.
There is an epidemic of self-harm ... specifically among young women who identify as progressive, according to the allusion I recall. Conservative-oriented young women who use social media heavily are not correspondingly exhibiting mental anguish and self harm. (There is readily available research at least compatible with this, that conservatives are consistently happier than progressives, lower in neuroticism, for understandable reasons, whether one happens to be progressive or conservative or other.)
Good article on the distinction between suicidal depression and the attention-seeking, antagonistic, histrionic behavior underlying much though not all self-harm. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6328319/
One might therefore argue that there could be something about the promulgation of the set of progressive convictions that induces a negative frame of mind or validates self-harm among vulnerable adherents. One might argue, therefore, that we must regulate social media expression of progressive ideas. I would not support this for the same reasons I do not support Haidt's current position.
It will be interesting to see how the data-driven and open-minded Haidt responds to this additional information if it is verifiable. He is an outstanding thinker, yes, yet his opinions are not written in stone. I draw my own conclusions ... and look for challenges to them, to continually correct my views if uninformed or mistaken.
The tone of your inquiry, as well as one can judge the written "voice," was more compatible with rhetorical dismissal, like a dare, especially the "Really?", than with genuine curiosity. Perhaps I am reading too much into it, yet it is feedback. I believe I have sincerely addressed the content of your question, as well. More coffee, now.
Thank you Alice for your response. In support of portions of your comments above, while I think the connection between social media and the tremendous rate of incidence of mental health issues and self-harm issues is crystal clear, I do agree that regulating social media would be fraught with issues that would likely make it impractical. My issue with this entire topic is that the connection between social media and the rise of these problems is so clear from my observations that it is quite baffling to encounter people who doubt the connection. I certainly do not want to debate the issue as I appreciate your response but when I just sit back with a open mind and intake his commentary on the matter both in his books and podcast appearances it just truly resonates with me as a totally plausible and reasonable conclusion. The same applies to the tremendous book written by Abigail Shrier on the rise of people claiming they are "trans", or the latest offering from Johann Hari (which was really great)
The other thing is that I see the behavior in my own life: I clearly remember being in grade 8 in the mid-90's and suddenly, overnight I adopted the identity of the Kurt Cobain Nirvana crew. In extremely short order my life began to revolve around this band but more importantly the new and cool relationships I had with other people my age that were part of the trend. It really did almost happen overnight and this force of the identity became a central focus of my life in my mid-teens before I moved on. I see the same thing with social media. Instead of bands like Nirvana its now being "trans" or "ADD" or any other trend that creates a identity group for people to belong to and make what they really all looking for: Social connections with other human beings and validation
It's going to get worse in the STEM fields. Many universities and employers are demanding DEI, or DIE position papers before being let into programs or employment.
Part of the reason a lot of us no longer trust “science.” When you have an agenda you aren’t a scientist.
You make a good point. One of the big agendas is ensuring public support for funding. Twenty-five ago, eminent, older scientists were already publicly drawing attention to the problem of funding skewing scientific integrity. My researcher spouse finds the same thing, though he personally has a remarkable track record of grants. People are strongly discouraged from pursuing research that will invalidate previous career-making work by others, who now sit on grant committees.
If scientists are encouraged to not pursue work that could invalidate prior work, then we don't have a scientific community. We have a group of people calling themselves scientists but allowing their egos to get in the way of actual scientific progress. There is a term for this, but it is too vulgar to use. I would hope that scientists would be happy younger scientists are testing their work. Imagine having someone test your work in an effort to prove you wrong only to find out you were in fact correct.
Future generations will look back at this period as the dark ages of the scientific community. Sad for humanity actually. Think of the problems that could be solved if we had the willingness to actually follow the science.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Richard P Feynman
The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18867459-the-pleasure-of-finding-things-out
True and I can’t bring myself to “like” the comment ;-)
Good point. My spouse is a senior, highly cited STEM academic researcher and there is increasing pressure to complete DIE compliance activities. One can't prove it but there is reason to suspect that research funding is partly dependent on specific racial composition of the team.
That’s been true for at least a couple of decades.
Alice - I think it's tribalism. I've heard the same thing from a few people, i.e. "He/She is awful/racists/etc-whatever and I have never and would never listen to anything they say!"
To which I reply that maybe they should listen just once and if they still don't like them, fine.
You're absolutely right!
People often grow so attached to their beliefs that they defend them like lawyers defending clients, doing everything they can to keep on believing.
"Beliefs are hypotheses to be tested, not treasures to be guarded."
Would that people would actually defend their beliefs like lawyers defending their clients: presenting arguments and facts in support of their views. Far better that than calling anyone who disagrees a racist, sexist, abelist, ..., fascist, [fill-in-favored-group-or-notion-here]-phobe or [fill-in-notion-here] denier (one tribe) or a RINO, socialist, Marxist, one-worlder, or communist (the other tribe), then demanding they shut up or be shut up.
(Though I'll give a pass on calling someone a fascist if their policy prescriptions actually have a likeness to the original Fascist party's program, or a Marxist if their views are derived from Marx, even if by way of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Gramsci, Foucault and/or the Frankfurt school).
Very true.
Nope. It’s not you. It’s them. The project of the Left is destruction. End of story.
And why instead of explaining their position they immediately attack, call names, and seek in every way to shut down, demonize and pillory the person who questioned them.
Social media and particularly Twitter normalized that. The likes validate it.
Yes.
I use to do the same thing (unsuccessfully) to my husband - I was wrong. We now get invited to fewer dinner parties, but you (and he) are right for speaking and fighting for truth.
This is war - war for the very survival of the West and Western values and nothing less. The operative phrase is, "I don't care about your feelings."
We've done far too much self censoring. It's time we did speak up. Do it as politely and civilly as possible.
You are correct. We have been attacked for our opinions, or shut off or censored. These are opinions, words, ideas to which every person is entitled to,and should be allowed to express freely.
Civility is now weakness. Unless you scream until the veins on your neck pop out you just are not taken seriously. No one will listen to the reasoned voice, at least not until they are dead!
The Leftist freaks who show up in front of Supreme Court justices homes, and those protesting for the killing of babies certainly fit this description. They are the ones described by Eric Hoffer in "The True Believer."
There is the other liberal/lefty or uncommitted person standing in the background. They are the ones who can eventually be persuaded by a reasoned discussion done in a civil, non-threatening way. Dan Bongino has talked about this many times. Our object is to persuade the observer to take another look. They won't if you are screaming and intimidating them.
Not possible at this stage you silenced if you own a MAGA hat
Interestingly, I own a bright red (of course) "Save America" hat, which I wear religiously. I've actually kept track of comments, and much to my surprise, I have over forty positive and only two negative. People do notice.
At Starbucks about a month ago, three girls - fairly young, with the shredded jeans and typical attire of late high-schoolers or young college age, kept staring at my hat. I thought, "Oh boy, here it goes."
Finally one came over and said, "We just wanted you to know, we LOVE your hat."
I could've kissed her. I said back, "And I just want you to know: the fact that somebody your age feels that way makes me believe there just may be hope for us all."
Such a terrific reply thanks Jim strangely enough I have had only positive responses when ever my hubby are out and I’m “maggering” everybody I encounter either gives me a thumbs up sign or tells me “a great hat you wearing there love” I believe after this raid on MaLthis current administration fate is sealed we will only have 2 years left of them please God!
It is incredible the power the Presidency now has. I don't think it was meant to be this way; Congress has transferred power to the executive and abdicated its responsibility in nearly every way possible. This "presidency" is the perfect example of why the founders limited the executive's powers; I think the nation will probably survive in some form until Alleged President Asterisk is carried out on a stretcher or in a strait jacket, but God - I wonder just how much more damage the puppeteers who pull his strings can do in the next two years.
Self-censor or get rid of your sheeple wife!
That's rather harsh. Not all people are equally comfortable with speaking out. My husband and my kids (because they take after their dad in that regard) would often rather that Mom not speak out. It may be frustrating, but I'm not going to eject them from my life for it.
And if they really love you they shouldn't reject you for speaking out. That is not love, but FEAR!
My husband takes it one step further- he thinks I should never write what I think anywhere online because one day all of us will be tracked down.
I've thought about your comment all morning. A couple of things occur to me:
First, when the Democrat machine gets its 87,000 armed IRS agents, I will probably be one of the first targeted because I've probably already said too much - and I use my real name.
Second, to my eye the entire purpose of weaponizing the FBI, the IRS, the whole DOJ is to intimidate and silence us all, so if we ARE silent we actually help ensure their complete takeover. They get exactly what they want; we get a jackboot on our necks. So, again, in my opinion, while speaking out is a risk, silence is a sure thing - and just not an option. Easy choice.
Third, the globalist/socialist/elites/Democrats are using every means possible to goad us into armed retaliation. Yes, we could possibly win - depending on whether the military and police join their side, but if we let them do that, everybody loses.
*************
I saw a small roundtable discussion a few weeks ago - some real intellectual heavyweights that included a guy probably heir-apparent to Thomas Sowell. He said that the greatest hypocrisy of BLM, Antifa, et al, was their invocation of Martin Luther King, Jr. while denigrating all the white thinkers of times past, but that in his writings, MLK freely acknowledged that he had read nearly all of their writings before starting on his crusade for civil rights. I read a couple of hours every morning; maybe it's time I read those old white guys. We are in a similar position to MLK now, and we need the wisdom of those Dead White Men to guide us, lest we be goaded by evil men and women into doing things that will ensure we lose everything that makes life worth living.
Yes Jim. That is my thinking exactly. And we'll likely meet one another when they round us all up, as it feels inevitable they will. I've never written under any name but my own as well, we'll both be easy to find.
I agree with you on all points. Silence is not an option, not for me anyway.
And I pray (though I am an atheist) that it does not come to an armed conflict. Because the left fanatics will win, and because it will be a bloody tragedy for the whole country. Don’t underestimate the left. Power is in their hands, and they are better organized. Most of the Democratic political leaders have not held a real job but spent their entire lives as community organizers: Sanders, Biden, Di Blasio, Obama was a professor but not for long and focused on attaining DC power. The 2020 election also shows how well-oiled Democratic machine works. I have no knowledge or opinion on election fraud. They are just more goal oriented. Add to this a total absence of moral or ethical red lines, and we will have a national tragedy.
I do think they are engaging in a provocation That’s why we should resist being provoked.
I agree with you JAO we have to resist the provocation at every level. I’m not sure anymore if they are better organized, it’s just that the Democrooks have captured the airwaves like the Nazis and that’s where it’s going to be so hard to change the mindset of millions of Americans. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before you will be able to vote on FB or Instagram (for the younger voters), it’s not one man one vote it’s never been it’s about how to rig the system which the Democrats have mastered.
Brilliant post Jim you write exactly like 95% of people’s thought process on this site. We cannot remain silent, if we do it’s going to be the end of the world. America is home it’s a great place to be and it’s well worth fighting for we just have to keep our heads at least until November.
They'll get me too. I contribute on these threads and have made no bones about my conservatism. I have donated to candidates and organizations that are conservative. I support Trump and my illustrious governor, Don DeSantis.
I can't afford a defense so I'll just sit in prison. Hope they have a good library.
As a Canadian who lives in a country where millions are unable to travel freely in or out of the country, you might be very surprised at how many Canadians admire Trump. We're trapped in a WEF prison while our rights and freedoms are being eroded. Our corporate media is compromised and the effects of brainwashing are frightening. I like and follow Ron DeSantis and often wished I lived in Florida. My admiration for Trump is so great because he withstood pressure that would cause most to fall. I'm very sorry he didn't get all the support he deserved. His good works in the US gave investors confidence and rippled all the way into our economy in Canada, the stock market reflected that. Yes he calls them as he sees them but he didn't cause all the riots, they were planned and the bricks were delivered. It's hard to play nice when there are psychopaths behind the scenes. You don't want to end up like Canada or Australia. I wish we had a leader who didn't have an evil personal agenda like so many who have bankrupted the world. These really are the darkest times.
I'm a dual citizen G Gently, living in, well to be honest, trapped in Canada. US born and raised by Canadian parents in Canada Ive lived in a border city for 16 years now and have lived the life of Riley living, working and traveling for 65 years wherever my heart has taken me.
Until 2020. I've been very outspoken concerning everything to do with both Canadian and US politics my entire life.
Canada is going down faster by far than the US. And we despair that those few of us watching this happen will be the few that still remember what life was like before the Woke and WEF.
Much luck to us all as we continue this battle on both sides of the border. We need all the luck we can get.
I am glad we have Trump. He is just about the bravest man I have ever seen. 17 Republicans of high stature ran for the Republican presidential primary initially and he was the last one standing. In their heart of hearts I would guess most of them, if not all of them, are glad they didn't get the nomination. They have witnessed what the Left has put Trump through.
Then again, one has to wonder if Jeb Bush would have been more than cursorily attacked because he would not have challenged the Left, or gone back over improper things done under Obama. We forget that under Obama James Rosen's phone calls and texts and some AP reporters' were investigated, without a warrant. There was "fast and furious" and the misuse of the IRS. There is probably a lot more but the point is who among the 17 would have even questioned it. Who among the 17 would have tried regulatory reform? Etc.
They are still going after him to destroy him and his family so he can't run in 2024 and as a salutory lesson to any other Republican candidate who may try to root out the Deep State and the deep corruption.
Naomi I have often wondered how Trump withstood the onslaught. People say he loves the fight but it's got to wear a person thin. And beautiful Melania, a talented linguist who speaks five languages, did she deserve being shunned? The same people that ignored Salman Rushdie are only just waking up to the chaos around us and they blame Trump for everything. They voted for the very people that are making the economic collapse come a little quicker. I was never a fan of Obama who forgot all his promises and enriched himself instead, while spending his days in the oval office perfecting his golfing putt.
I know. I was not a Trump fan in 2016. I voted for him because he was not Hillary. I have never regretted voting for him. Interesting my two adult children were for him once Ted Cruz became non viable.
It’s not just Trump withstanding the vitriol and onslaught but his children. All under attack all the time.
Melania is the most beautiful First Lady we have ever had. Beautiful, intelligent, cultured, kind, and fluent in 5 languages. Where is her Vogue cover?
They got all our names Naomi, and if they apply a bit of pressure to Bari and Nellie I’m sure they will hand over their data of us. I doubt if the library will be any good in prison. They have even managed to ban Dr Seus, wardens probably force us to read Michele Obama’s Becoming or Hillary Clinton’s biography it’s not an option we have to stand tall and stand strong!
Think your husband is correct think they tracking us already
Time to start tracking them.
More of us, we're smarter and tougher.
Just not as malevolent.
I confess that I worry about that sometimes. But I do not have it in me to be silent.
Same. No more polite silence. Considerate disagreement for me and the occasional outburst on the internet. More if needs be. I’ve got young kids and I’ll be damned if I let them grow up in a place where they have to trade their peace of mind and perspective and self-respect for conformity and acquiescence.
Celia the silence is growing darker by the day. The deep state just raided President Trumps house after having him silenced on the internet by big Tech the last twenty months. That is just for starters
Trump flouted the law. It’s called detective work.
So has Obama, Bush and Clinton for very similar minor infractions.
There is little doubt this is 100% banana republic political driven singularly by the single minded emotion of hatred. Don’t forget, it was the DNC and the HRC campaign that manufactured the documents leading to 20 months of “Trump/Russia” nightly news narratives.
He’s not wrong. It’s already happening.
https://tech.co/news/fbi-access-browsing-history-patriot-act
https://www.csis.org/analysis/fact-sheet-section-215-usa-patriot-act
Oh yes, I didn’t mean he is paranoid or has a conspiracy theory. And if internet browsing is a wide net, it is easy to identify paid subscribers to CS or simply anyone registered to a social media site since we typically have to provide an email address and/or phone number. I see no reason the government would not take this path if the left stay in power. Not based on the recent events. But if there are enough people who want to tell the truth, then there is hope. So I am staying here and will share the most interesting posts with my husband!
I post as well but I am also aware that should Big Brother decide I’m of interest, my online activity is an open book for them.
Awareness is the first step in prevention.
I am concerned about the same. With thousands of new IRS men on the loose. Lists of how each one voted?
The first order of business of the new red wave must be to repeal this part of this law and direct the monies to severance packages for bureaucrats.
Terrifying!
You bet it's terrifying especially as they are going to hire those people who want to carry firearms and will have no compunction about shooting. It was right there in the hiring criteria until it became publicized and they scrubbed the site.
I suppose they'll make it easy on themselves by perusing the donations lists of conservative organizations, and congressmen. The donation lists for congressmen and senators are public information and include addresses, emails, and phone numbers.
The purpose of doing this is going to be to intimidate supporters before the 2024 election.
Knowing the lengths they will go to is definitely concerning.
My grown children are of the same opinion.
It's my way of lighting a candle. I can't do much but I can do that.
I know many with his reaction to where we're at. That reaction is what makes me insist on posting what I think, and will not sit down and shut up. We cannot accept that it's OK to be frightened into silence. That is the sure road to the very things we fear the most.
Too many people afraid of what others will think and afraid of repercussions.
You are correct and you show bravery in your actions.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union by speaking the truth. It starts with one brave person willing to say the truth.
re: truth. I read "Cancer Ward" in college; I have not read "Gulag Archipelago." Lately I've read a few essays on Solzhenitsyn as we near the 50th anniversary of Gulag. What I keep taking away is his dedication to the TRUTH and the historical importance of the concept of truth. I never realized that the concept of truth has spawned over the centuries an entire philosophy. As I ponder on it, I believe that the labels conservative and liberal are irrelevant, obsolete. At the core, all that matters is What Is True.
I have a pretty good BS meter, and sometimes what I see from both sides of the aisle is nauseating - a thoroughgoing perversion of duty and submission to attaining Power, when it should be submission to Truth and dedication to their Nation - wherever it leads and whomever it hurts, even political allies. A nation where the leaders lie will always go off the rails; a nation where they speak the truth, cannot. Our "leaders" understand that we do not want globalism/socialism/communism/the Great Reset and that the only way to implement it is by lying. And that, I believe, is precisely why we are where we are.
The Cancer Ward BTW is considered by many his best novel. Gulag Archipelago is, of course, a different animal and cannot be overrated as a source of information on Stalin’s system of repression. Sadly, it may be relevant to study now to better understand where we are heading. The problem is, the younger generation, and especially left leaning crowd, are not interested in history, because they do not think history repeats itself. It does though.
You are right. But people like Solzhenitsyn are born one in millions. I mean both in literary genius and bravery. There were numerous people whose names we will never know who helped him hide from the KGB before he was exiled, copied his works and distributed via the underground system called Samizdat. They were harassed by the KGB, persecuted, jailed, some of them perished. They brought the system down too.
"This in turn raises the issue of the USSR and the role played by Gorbachev himself. Here most historians would concede that without a reformer taking over in the Kremlin, not only would there have been nobody with whom Reagan could engage, but there would have been no end to the Cold War either. The United States could raise its own military expenditures as high as it liked; it could have lent even more support to so-called “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan, but without a very different kind of Soviet leader responding to some very real Soviet problems it is impossible to envisage 1989 ever happening. The United States might have played its part in weakening the legitimacy of communism and exposing its weaknesses (of which Reagan was more aware than many American experts at the time). However, at the end of the day the corrosive work was not being done from outside the USSR but from within by an economy that could not innovate and an ideology in which fewer and fewer believed.
There is, in addition, another problem with the argument that an assertive Reagan fought the Soviets to a standstill and then wrestled them to the floor until they cried “Uncle,” and it is a problem that all teachers of history and world affairs confront on a daily basis in the classroom: complexity. What happens in history—as we all know—can never be explained in single-factor terms; and the end of the Cold War is no exception to this important rule. Indeed, this is why scholars from both sides of the Atlantic are still arguing about it. While some give Reagan his due (though it is never entirely clear which Reagan), they often go on to point out that one also has to take into account several other factors when thinking about 1989, including the central part performed by the ordinary people of Central and Eastern Europe in their own liberation; the important role played by some European leaders—among whom the West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was key when it came to pressing for German unification in October 1989; and finally, the quiet but critical role performed by misperception and misunderstanding. Here, the evidence is now clear. Was Gorbachev prepared to loosen Soviet control over Eastern Europe and let the states there choose their own way (the “Sinatra Doctrine”)? Obviously so. Did he, however, think that this would lead to the rapid and complete collapse of socialism in all its forms? Apparently not. It was one thing seeking a looser, and hopefully less costly, relationship with countries like Poland and Hungary. This did not necessarily mean that Gorbachev actually intended to lose control of the USSR’s “cordon sanitaire” completely. In reality, Gorbachev miscalculated and it was this miscalculation that brought the Cold War to an end."
https://ap.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/age-reagan/essays/ronald-reagan-and-end-cold-war-debate-continues
No one ever talks about John Paul II’s role in the USSR’s dissolution. History “teachers” avoid that like the plague but I remember it well.
Of the multiple players in the fall of the USSR, where Would You place the Polish-born Cardinal Wojtyla?
You are correct. That is what has happened in essence with Tavistock in England, the clinic which did surgery on children (16 years +) because they claimed to be trans.
First they convinced them they were "trans" through counseling.
4
4?
Looks like a mistake on my part.
I read about Tavistock; I’m so glad it closed its “counseling” program. I wonder when the Woke here will wake up to their own idiocy.
Amen
I am familiar with that under the table kick
Next time, wear shin guards.
🤣🤣🤣