I've been enjoying this thread, despite my lack of comments. This is applied philosophy, a major draw for a layman like myself, and pretty much all my fave posters on the forum are active in this thread.

Earlier a poster asked for examples of how 'woke' has affected real people negatively. Personal example, it takes me weeks to function these days, since I got cancelled for playing a Kendrick Lamar song in my high school English class.

You know Lamar, the first hip hop artist to win a Pulitzer for literature?

And I think of my colleague Richard Biltzsko, a retired gay principal who, like me, had returned to teaching (in his case, he'd retired) to represent kids during the pandemic. He was shamed during a woke PD session and killed himself. He had dared to challenge a presenter who claimed that Canada was more racist than the US.

Richard was a gay man, of an age that recalls the days when Canada was not yet a haven for gay people.

Yet my woke teaching colleagues wrote this off. Several told me 'there is more to the story'. They didn't know each other, but they knew the woke progpagandist answer - one of myriad examples of the 'predictability' of woke that was brought up by a previous poster. And, needless to say, there was no more to the story. There was just deflection until it could be forgotten.

Fortunately, for those of us not dogmatic on the topic, several posters have jumped in to demonstrate the predictability of wokeness in real time. Short, snide answers. Cherry picking details. Indiscriminate use of babyish emojis. Ignoring legitimate good faith questions. Weird insistence on importing binary US political positions globally, to vastly different countries.

Given that I had to read most of this thread in a couple of sessions of reasonable mental wellness, I have a different take on things than had I been in the weeds from day one.

People who are certain they are right at the least likely to be right. People who answer long, thoughtful comments with brief, snide ones are likely to be asshats.

Engaging with these people is like picking at a scab or scratching a mosquito bite. Briefly enjoyable, but ultimately toxic.

Woke is an activist control mechanism, not an actual philosophy. They aren't even trying to engage in good faith. They say this themselves. Check out any professional managerial organization, your associations of sociologists and your colleges of teaching and what not. They TELL YOU UP FRONT that they are activists, not academics.

(I can support any statement I made in this post with references, so ask me if you doubt me).

So there is no point debating the philosophical underpinnings - the average wokist can't articulate them anyway. I can outwoke these woke dimwits, despite despising woke.

And hey, snide wokist, prove me wrong! Articulate the best of woke. examples of cutting edge research, or vital insights? ANY exciting new thinkers, landmark studies, anything at all that show academic integrity in say, the past five years? Ten? This shit goes back decades, the 'long walk through the institutions'.

Nah, they won't do that. They will pick one misplaced word in my post, attack that, and pat themselves on the back while lauding their personal 'courage'.

Andrew Doyle, subject of the OP - who is a comedian and mainstream journalist, for the record - is more informed and insightful than full time woke academics - presumably, the cream of the woke crop. I read "The New Puritans" before jumping into this discussion, since it was the only book of his I had lying around. How many posters in this thread even know Doyle?

I can cross the political spectrum with references to worthwhile woke skeptics, from Marxist Adolph Reed, to heterodox black academics like John McWhorter and Coleman Hughes, to right-wing bugbears like Christopher Rufo, who have published meaningful works on the topic. I could name dozens more.

And yes, I have read all the books that I am referring to. Check out my Goodreads account.

To be honest, I imagine this the easiest litmus test for whether or not one is doctrinaire, woke or anti-woke. Have you read any books on the subject?

Has anyone tried to read woke? It's intolerable garbage. Judith Butler? Robin DiAngelo? Candy-ass X?

I have a lot more to say on this subject, philosophy to reference, posters to reply to, but I simply had to take advantage of one of the few 'windows of wellness' I might have per month to jump online and share my initial thoughts.

And props to you guys keeping TPF interesting and relevant.

Hey man, I've been meaning to write you back for a while, but I started reading "The Parasitic Mind" by Gad Saad, and he really dislikes postmodernism ... I thought I'd be more informed replying if I finished that first!

100%. History, and the best folks history could muster, are tools (if not wisdom), and we are robbing students today of so many great ideas and turns of phrase and experiences, in the name of trendy dalliances like patriarchy, and socially constructed body parts. Bring on the new ideas, for sure, but don’t throw out Shakespeare and Aristotle because a few things they said might offend certain western suburban sensibilities. — Fire Ologist

Yes!

Oddly, my kids always liked Shakespeare. The ESL kids maybe the most, perhaps because they were already used to decoding strange words? It was something of a right of passage. It was fun. The performances were great. And yet, Shakespeare is increasingly rare.

. But teenagers don’t need to be over-taught that challenging authority is a goal; most of them will challenge authority by nature as teenagers. My sense is that, if we reify the challenging of authority, and throw out all of the authorities and institutions before they get their own chance to rebel against them, they don’t ever really get past adolescence — Fire Ologist

Agreed again.

Better to give them a master and teach them to kill — Fire Ologist

I might steal this too ...

But in the end, the good is less about what you think and can teach, and more about what you do. And regardless of any religious beliefs, some people just do a lot of good. — Fire Ologist

I have a weekly phone conversation with my uncle, and when we talk social issues, he often challenges me to articulate a positive vision rather than just ranting about moral relativism and neo-liberalism. How about starting with aspiring to be more like the people who do a lot of good?

The post-modern is so relativist, they can be or value anything, including their own total self-contradiction, and with straight face be the right kind of absolute dogmatist when the mood suits them. — Fire Ologist

Going back to your previous post, this is where you, me and Saad all seem to align.

When the moral goal post of can be moved, there may as well be no goal post. — Fire Ologist

I remember asking my favourite prof of all time how to wrestle with relativism as a progressive. He replied that one should be 'whole-hearted and half-sure'.

To me, the goal post is out there. Just not sure of my vision yet.

I enjoy your posts man!

Hey man, sorry it takes me so long to reply. I re-read loads of this thread to try and get a better sense of things before replying to you here.

This is pretty long, sorry! Feel free to skip some if you need to, but whatever you do, take the length as a compliment!

I have been over this. It's becoming really frustrating(not you personally - but note if anything seems terse, it's not on purpose): — AmadeusD

Heck no. I admit, I have some adapting to do to TPF. I find some of the discussions fascinating, even the super irritating ones, but I'm not used to keeping up with arguments in this much depth. I'm gonna try mixing up my posting habits, keep on top of things, because I don't want to waste anyone's time. These posts take work. Some people bring their A game to this site and I'd like to step up.

I think I may have neglected the word 'universal' in the OP.

I don't believe that any moral system could ever be universal. It feels to me as if your responses have been towards that premise.

My argument is not that my moral orientation is 'right'. My argument is that without an 'aspirational' element, moral systems become static and irrelevant, or at least, ineffective. I think this is best seen on a personal level - how many people can you think of immediately if I ask you to think of people who are overtly woke but personally appear ammoral, or perhaps, immoral?

They don't have to do anything virtuous at all, it seems, but espouse the groupthink. A default position for the morally lazy.

Allowing each individual to simply shoehorn 'virtue' in to their moral system is extremely dangerous. — AmadeusD

I am not advocating this. This is not virtue ethics, to my mind? Of course, one could easily do just that rhetorically, but I'm talking genuine principles rather than rhetoric.

I have been working on an idea all year to help me explain the moral insanity of the universe that I currently see. I missed most of the past half decade battling the black dog, and generally avoided people. I feel like I missed a lot of the gradual, day to day changes. Obviously, this is anecdote from an unreliable narrator, but experiencing the new normal when it comes to moral discourse, in my super progressive neighbourhood / profession / city / country, was jarring.

Without a moral system that requires effort, one that remains in flux, we are stuck with the static relics of
a past that cannot keep up with our rapidly evolving world. Wokeness has calcified in place. How often do woke ideas surprise, or change, or evolve? To my mind, never. Wokeness is a clown car stuffed with an ever-growing collection of identities. It doesn't grow, it swallows. It encompasses.

Without the concept of a moral system that one should aspire to, that one can learn, practice and improve upon, people become worse at morality.

So my argument is not for virtue ethics. It is for belief in ethics, with the premise that virtue ethics might better be able to respond to our increasingly uncertain era. It might be more agile.

Aspiring towards goodness, I guess. Man, I put it like that, it sounds vague as hell, but it's an attitude first. You can convince me of alternative 'best practices' for sure.

Allowing each individual to simply shoehorn 'virtue' in to their moral system is extremely dangerous. It may be why its so popular - it requires next to no critical thinking and practically no self-accountability. There are those who do it 'properly' as such. But the dangers are so much heavier than the potential benefits. — AmadeusD

Who do you see doing this? People don't seem to even be aware of alternative moral concepts such as VE. The average person today is either a utilitarian (often, a moral relatavist outsourcing their morality to experts), or deontological (usually premised on religion). I think both of those, badly practiced, require no 'critical thinking and practially no self-accountability' as well.

I understand what you're saying, but there are no arguments which support anything else as, at least, a metaethical way of framing things — AmadeusD

I'm just an interested layperson when it comes to philosophy, and I find this stuff fascinating, so my thinking is sort of evolving in this thread even, but I guess I am advocating for people to chose to improve their morality, via practice, whatever method makes sense to them, while also sort of figuring out that virtue ethics might be a path for me personally, having come to a point where I can find no meaning aside from choosing to make a choice.

So yeah, personal stance. (As always, hit me with any recommendations that come to mind)!

This is absolutely the correct objection to that type of relativism (which isn't relativism, it's just self-involvement; not a serious moral thought to be found in those types). — AmadeusD

I've been calling it a 'default' relativism, and agree with you that it's not serious moral thought, although I imagine those you describe would object.

Hence the need for new conversations about morality. On a personal level, in terms of personal beliefs and actions, I think any moral system is better than none at all, generally, but see this as a personal choice.

To me, the problems of deontology are most obvious in terms of informing social policy - whose deontology?

Utilitarianism seems deontological as well, in a sense, because this too promotes a 'correct' moral action, assuming you can calculate the moral math. So, again, difficult to trust given the current candidates doing this sort of math. This feels very progressive / liberal to me, the idea that we can turn things over to experts who 'measure' unmeasurable outcomes.

Virtue ethics seems the only path that allows for rapid change, at least, on the social side of things. So, we try and get leaders who are best equipped to make hard decisions, and empower them to make those decisions. This seems to necessitate more forgiveness for making mistakes, because the premise of the 'right' choice of action is secondary - the right person to make the right choice is primary, and that involves moral practice.

I'm trying to apply this to the culture wars in my own head, and please tell me if I'm missing anything, but if we had people capable of breaking from tribal orthodoxy in positions of cultural and political leadership on Oct. 7th, perhaps we don't get the moral shit show of protestors worldwide supporting terror.

Am I right that virtue ethics might therefore be more agile than utilitarianism or deontology, and perhaps valuable in a world of social media + smart phones + AI, which just doesn't seem to have the time for utilitarian think tanks and experts to work through the permutations?

In broad strokes, I think of utilitarianism as the lefty default, and with many lefties being moral relativists, they seem happy to outsource moral thought to experts - a trend DEI types were happy to exploit.

I think of the religious as deontological, again broadly, and see 'right and wrong' as more representative of the right.

But woke true believers seem to be fire-and-brimstone hardcore religious fundamentalist at times. Hard deontologists, somehow?

This is the unholy alliance on the left - true believers drive the beliefs of default moral relativists, happy to outsource moral thought (too much cognitive dissonance) to technocratic experts, true believers themselves.

Which is all fine with our neoliberal leadership, who fancy themselves too smart to fall for culture war claptrap, and face no pressures to improve on the genuinely central drivers of inequality, the neoliberal world order that has them on top.

It was exploring how deeply woke McKinsey is that I made that final connection, but I'm borrowing here as well from John McWhorter and a bunch of those Nonesite Marxists, Adolph Reed Jr., Cedric Johnson
and others.

Re-reading that list and thinking about other possible names to add, I can't help but note that it appears only black academics can critique wokeness from the left.

Yeah pretty much. There's essentially four equal parts in professional philosophy.. roughly like 25% deontology (or some form of); 25% some form of consequentialism; 25% Virtue Ethics (its slightly higher for VE actually, i'm just simplifying) and the final slice for "alternate" — AmadeusD

If I ever teach high school philosophy again, I'm borrowing that breakdown, a handy way to think broadly.

What are some of the more interesting 'alternates' you have come across?

And I was curious about VE being higher than the other two, I assume this is just the nature of the profession? Everybody studies the Greeks?

I certainly don't see much evidence of virtue ethics in 'the wild'. I see tribal conformity and almost no disagreement, which is only likely in a virtue ethical model? At least today, given the risks of differing from your tribe? The permanence of your mistakes, now?

I don't really have a 'system'. What I think its 'right' applies to me and only me. I can try to enforce this where i think it is relevant but I am under no illusions that I should be persuasive, or be listened to. — AmadeusD

Fair point. You are obviously thinking about your 'relativism'? and therefore doing 'morality' well by my thinking. It's the considering of the questions that is important. You clearly do that more than most people. Perhaps philosophy itself can serve the purpose of a belief system.

Morality is just practicing morality, maybe? Always trying to chose morally, even if that is inherently a personal act?

Hey Jeremy,
I hope you don’t mind me hijacking your questions for Count. — Fire Ologist

Hey man, nope, I don't look at this as a hijacking. I appreciate your response!

I might say I see it as more of a method, than it is actual content. It’s like a metaphysical spell-checker. — Fire Ologist

Interesting. I haven't thought of it this way, but yes, I think that describes my experiences with the positives of postmodernism.

And artists are always the best at working the medium (creating the best content for irony’s sake), so if there is a lasting impact to post-modernist thought, I suspect it will be from the arts, and not from philosophy or the humanities. — Fire Ologist

I like how you put this. I still value and respect postmodern art, remain ambivalent around postmodern philosophy, and despise how postmodern humanities have weaponized relativism. How does your metaphysical spell-check resonate with that?

But really, post-modernism has no inherent content. Even existentialism had the human condition and history and a fading sense of pride as its focus, which is why Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky and Goethe and Camus and Satre are so much more compelling to read than Wittgenstein, Derrida, Foucault and anyone since, who tried to run with this spirit of meaningless meaning making — Fire Ologist

I like how you put this too. I'm a lay philospher, and haven't read as widely as you, but I enjoy Nietzsche and Dostoevsky and Sartre, and find it hard to respect Derrida and Foucault.

That's likely a result of my years in education.

If there is a discipline in which postmodernity fails most abjectly, I'd argue it is education. I'm a fan of challenging orthodoxy, but when you have 25 teenagers, the very premise that knowledge is forever relative is toxic and alienating.

In other words, I feel like we are projecting our own uncertainty as relativistic adults onto children who are not equipped to deal with premises such as the death of the master narrative.

because even post-modernists resist being called a relativists, and as such, have come up with some of the most rigid, oppressive moral codes and dogmatic systems (DEI/political correctness, race/women/sexuality/gender dogma, climate change social virtue, anything conservative and capitalist and republican and religious is evil/facist, etc.). The post-modern is so relativist, they can be or value anything, including their own total self-contradiction, and with straight face be the right kind of absolute dogmatist when the mood suits them. — Fire Ologist

Yes, 100%. We live in an era of the utterly judgemental relativist. I've had a hard time parsing that, but I think you put it perfectly.

Disruption for disruption sake is the virtue. — Fire Ologist

I may steal your phrasing here, I like it so much. Properly attributed!

I think your attitude towards the theist exemplifies my attitude toward the atheist; there is plenty of philosophy and science and practicality and wisdom to share in addition to or just without mentioning God or religion. — Fire Ologist

Thank you, and I don't even think you need to refrain from mentioning God or religion. I just straight out don't get people that reject things like faith outright.

isn’t a story told in love always more interesting and more revealing than whatever the brain state/behavior facts/functionalist emergence story could possibly be? — Fire Ologist

100%.

Religious institution and the word of God himself make it easier for many to accept that there is a true good we either seek or fail to have — Fire Ologist

Even as an atheist I can completely agree. I feel that is where we atheists generally fail. I don't think atheism necessitates rejection of a 'true good'. It just makes it harder to work towards.

if you don’t watch out God may show up yet. — Fire Ologist

I love this. I've had a few people over the years make that case to me, and I've respected every one of them. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm not ruling anything out.

How postmodern of me?

Trump is not a conservative in any meaningful sense. He’s someone who has hijacked conservatism for his own ends, and evicted many meaningful dissent from the Republican Party. There are some skilled Republican operatives who are using all of this as a vehicle, like remora fish around the great white shark, but none of the classical conservatives would recognise what the Republican Party has become. — Wayfarer

Hence a pomo conservative? One that questions master narratives, such as 'classical conservatism'?

Regardless, I agree that Trump is not a classic conservative. Neither am I, but I still find myself offended, on behalf of the classic conservatives I admire, by his actions.

I would probably agree, but further posit we are post-mass media to a degree, as the internet has allowed people to sink further and further into soloed entertainment. — MrLiminal

That is the screen-based outcome. Each additional 'screen' is an additional layer, one on top of the other, each distorting the previous frame, like those old anti-drunk driving adds where they just piled one beer on top of another beer to give the viewer a sense of the experience of driving drunk.

The mass-media age was Postman's, in the 80s. Smart phones + social media is a transformation akin to the printing press, perhaps greater, given that the designers are well aware of how to make their product more addictive. Nobody became 'addicted' to print.

The era of the screen is inherently siloed. That dissonant experience is the point, the only solution offered being the endorphin hit of participating, alone, isolated, in your tribe, virtually. The protestors in LA have more in common with international communities than they do with conservative Americans?

I would say that's what it's always been, to a degree. As I said above, I think the larger problem is that our increasing levels of internal navel gazing is making it difficult to see differing ideas as something to entertain. If everyone you know always agrees with you, why would you ever want to talk to someone that didn't? — MrLiminal

With enough degrees of difference, one enters a different category. It used to be pretty standard to encounter people across the spectrum from you that you could still find points of agreement with.

I think our current moment is unprecedented. Not, 'all history is unprecedented', but rather, a once in a millenia epochal change?

This "mostly peaceful" shit has got to stop. By numbers? Maybe. That isn't the point. — AmadeusD

I used to attend a lot of protests. Anecdotally, they were 'mostly peaceful' and this new strain of protests appears significantly less so.

It seems pretty clear to conclude that 'the woke' today condone violence in a 'by any means necessary' sense that is fundamentally different from protests of even a decade ago?

I am too late to this thread to jump right in, but I will say, great discussion. I was exposed to positions I agreed with and those I disagreed with, but the arguments were strong all-round.

I was surprised to see very little use of the term 'neoliberal'. It seems to me that many of the issues raised in this discussion are best exemplified as criticisms of neoliberalism?

I don't buy that the term 'neoliberal' is meaningless. It strikes me as a pretty clear switch towards the market and other technocratic innovations, pure rationality, per the technocrats, as the only legitimate guiding principals?

Morality as a personal brand?

Regardless, I think the OP is correct. Liberalism is myopic. Perhaps, per Chris Hedges, 'turning a blind eye' is an inevitable byproduct?

Subjectively — Vera Mont

So, to you, art is simply in the eyes of the consumer?

I don't mean to imply that intent is the only element that matters in art.

Okay. Which processes are art and which are industry or mundane life? — Vera Mont

It seems clear to me that intent is a necessary condition. Do people 'accidentally' create art? Per your subjective stance, perhaps you think yes? If enough people subjectively agree?

It feels like skill / authenticity / voice / intent are all likely candidates for 'artistry', and that all of these criteria are 'subjective', but when society after society settles on similar criteria for 'art' that we might be getting closer to the issue.

So, basically everybody who tells a story, whether you know what stories they told or not — Vera Mont

That's an uncharitable take. I am going by probabilities. Grandpa is definitely least likely, unless you think art is simply a product of chance.

You think grandpa is going to land on art when he is likely not to even think that what he is doing could be art? Please point to examples of this tradition of grandpa storytelling as artform?

Actually, I can't really tell what your stance is? That it is pointless to discuss art?

You have little alternative to using your own judgment, unless you simply go along with what the majority likes or what critics like. — Vera Mont

Personally, I use my own judgement, and am influenced by people I consider worth listening to, be they critics or the masses. You?

meatspace — MrLiminal

I have never heard this term before (admittedly, I am out of touch). It immediately resonated.

I'm a registered Independent who has never voted for Trump, but I find myself increasingly alone politically as I don't fully agree with either side, despite previously leaning more left. Neither party seems interested in much aside from getting re-elected by telling you how bad the other party is. — MrLiminal

I feel you. It is strange here in Canada that we have rushed to import this thinking - people were critiquing our Conservative candidate for PM because he was going to wage war on reproductive rights - despite the fact that he has never endorsed this position and Canadians generally don't endorse this position. We just took the talking point and applied it to our guy.

I read Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" last year, and have been obsessing about it ever since. His premise, if you haven't read it, was that the era of 'mass entertainment' was fundamentally different from the 'typographic' era that preceded it. As a student of McLuhan, he drew on his thinking to tackle the medium of television - which lead to the message of dislocation.

So what is the message of our screen-based era? I think it might be dissonance. As in, cognitive dissonance. A general, default state of anxiety? Does this play into your statement?

I suspect we are in the midst of another party realignment — MrLiminal

How do you see this playing out?

Trump is a textbook demagogue — Wayfarer

Agreed.

I think Matt McManus is onto something when he talks about 'postmodern conservatism'. I don't really think of Trump as conservative, but if he is, he seems a 'postmodern' conservative.

I think the Dems a postmodern party. Everything is relative, and yet for moral relativists, they sure are judgemental. They simply defer their moral judgements to technocratic moral 'experts'.

Neither party seems to actually believe in anything. Both land on 'stories' that resonate with their base.

Don't get me wrong - the worst party in this whole mess seems to be Trump. But Dems had plenty of chances to consider working class rural white concerns around immigration, for example.

They just defaulted to the easy narrative of ignorant and bigoted white deplorables.

Dems are definitely part of this problem. I generally support immigration, and used to be progressive. I fear that progressive stupidity is making things worse for the sort of immigrant most nations want to attract.

Progressives need to call out their own BS. Pointing at the failings of Trump isn't getting anyone anywhere. And the man is arguably not a failure - he's a hugely successful postmodern neoliberal opportunist.

Trump supporters and conservatives generally need to do this too. Hold your own tribe to account first. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Hi BC, thanks for the welcome!

Once, back then, I was looking for the hospital meeting room my quit-smoking group had been assigned to, and I mistook the number and opened the door on a Gambling Anonymous group. I was struck by how different the two groups looked! A totally different demographic. — BC

Interesting. I would have bet money (ha) on those two groups being more similar than different. I am a smoker, but fortunately never had a taste for gambling beyond a casual poker game. I don't think I've ever gambled without smoking, tbh.

I think it's an abomination when people at the supermarket buy stacks of lottery tickets. The odds are stacked heavily against their winning a ¢, and they aren't going to get an arts grant from the fund. Ditto for horse racing, sports betting, on-line gambling, or real slot machines and poker games, etc. — BC

I agree 100%. And now you carry a casino around in your pocket. It's wrecking lives, in particular, young male lives.

Public health, public order, law enforcement, and various community interests have conflicting goals and conflicting constituencies. Conflicts makes it difficult for legislators to decide what to allow and what to forbid -- for legalization of addictive substances, criminalization, and for harm reduction. Then there is tax revenue. — BC

I continue to think that most 'progressive' social policy is in danger of being too rigid. What worked in the past may not work now, in our post-liberal, social media driven new world.

Last year we had a tragedy in my neighbourhood in Toronto, a young mom walking around was shot and killed in a dispute associated with a safe supply site.

The pro safe-site crowd fail too often to consider the community impacts of sites such as these. The opioid crisis is categorically different than the drug crises of the past, in which the safe supply sites made more sense.

I have mixed feelings and thoughts about legalizing cannabis. On the one hand, pot doesn't do for me what it seems to do for other people, which is annoying. On the other, getting high is a form of intoxication. I have nothing against intoxication (been there), but driving high and driving drunk aren't all that much different. At least that's what I've gathered. I guess one should have a sober designated driver for pot, too.

I'm 78. Maybe it gets harder to get pleasantly high as one ages? — BC

I read recently that roughly one in seven people who try pot will never find it agreeable, which anecdotally feels consistent to me as a lifelong user.

Perhaps a low-dose edible would do the trick for you? The beauty of eating rather than smoking is that the substance has a gradual onset, rather than the kick in the head of a bong-hit, for example. Gives the body/brain more time to adapt.

I tried to get my 70 year old mom into edibles when her Parkinsons worsened. I am pro older people experimenting!

Yes to the pot DD. I can recall an era when pot smokers denied that it impacted your driving - it impacts your driving, just not to the same extent as alcohol, would be my non-scientific judgement.

Pot simply doesn't belong in the same category as any other recreational drugs. For me, it's closer to coffee and cigarettes than it is to alcohol. The two dangers I see are driving stoned and in young users - before the brain is done developing, it can lead to psychosis.

One can never attribute an illness like schizophrenia to just one cause, but I certainly believe that my brother smoking weed regularly from the age of 14 onward contributed to his psychosis at the age of 19.

Interesting discussion.

I am Canadian, and I often wonder about the role of the US two-party system in the 'culture wars'?

So, voters can have legitimate concerns about immigration - they are myriad.

And they can be appalled by the cruel bullying that is enabled by Trump's bull in a china shop routine. The Garcia case, the separation of young children from parents, the willingness to disregard laws and norms.

But the two-party system, and the past decade of social media/smart phone tech enabled tribalism, appears to make it dangerous / difficult to break from party orthodoxy, preventing people from improving their own 'tribe's' position, while it making it more important to despise the other tribe.

I think it is pretty fair to argue that wildly increasing immigration numbers while reducing safeguards and screening processes smacks of a technocratic, neoliberal solution to the aging Baby Boomer demographic and their associated entitlements.

Clearly, a post-liberal world order, in which the globe is increasingly navigable, when the external pressures that forced people to adapt to cultures they have immigrated to have diminished, there are conflicts emerging around a new kind of immigrant, one with much less connection, in the aggregate, to their new country.

So these are 'new' problems. Grooming gangs and blasphemy laws in the UK. Foreign influence in protests against Israel. People like our recently departed Justin Trudeau implying that any opposition to immigration is 'racist'.

Foreign interference - Canada's relationship with India is strained, because it appears the Indian government had links to assassins that killed a Sikh nationalist who had moved to Canada in the 90s.

India credibly accused Canada of providing haven for parties with ties to terrorists, Canada credibly accused India of aiding in the murder of a Canadian citizen. I see no clear answers in scenarios such as these.

I used to be a progressive, and now am a conscientious objector. I am sympathetic to newcomers, having taught high school ESL for a decade early in my teaching career, having lived in Tokyo myself for four years.

I think those who are in favor of humane immigration policy need to call out their own 'tribe', to fight the groupthink impulse, or we will continue to get these wild reactionary swings from one extreme to the other.

As for the riots and the protests, bad actors have always operated within the safety of the crowd, the mob, the protest. It just seems to me that the percentage of bad actors is increasing as it becomes easier to define violence as righteousness?

It seems the whole WEIRD world is defaulting to the US tribalistic binary? It sure felt like that to me when we imported the BIPOC hierarchy verbatim, despite our 'I' being in the wrong place. America's original sin may be slavery, but ours in Canada would be our treatment of our native peoples.

Hemingway's is; grandfather's isn't; Charles Dickens, yes; the Ojibway elder, no. If Chekov, yes, what about Roddenberry? Situational, comparative and subjective. — Vera Mont

But if situational, comparative and subjective, how can you dole out the 'yes' and the 'no'?

I do agree that 'art' is 'situational, comparative and subjective', but the process, not the product, is what I define as art. So, for me, yes to Hemingway (even though I've never read him), yes to Dickens (thousands of pages read), yes to Chekov and Roddenberry (though I dislike much Star Trek), and perhaps yes to both the grandpa and the elder.

Grandpa here is least likely to have aspired towards 'art', and to have taken any actions towards making his output 'art'. Most likely to agree that it is not art.

But since we both agree that art is 'situational, comparative and subjective', I am confused by your determinations.

I think art can suck. But I can't think that some sort of 'subjective' suckiness matters in defining it as art in the first place.

there is tattooing, which requires skill to do well, but the tattoo artist is usually working from a template, rather creating something original — Vera Mont

I've jumped into this 'art' form late in lifer, but this charge is no more true of tattooing today than of any art form that uses references. I consider my artists' best work highly 'original', but I also asked her to transcribe specific song lyrics. In my first session, I chose 'flash' art that she had completed earlier from her portfolio.

So, how do I evaluate different 'degrees' of art from someone I consider an artist in their best work?

But again, we are getting into whether or not it is good art, not whether or not it is art at all.

I would agree with you that the tribal tattooing rituals serve(d) a different function.

what if someone is just trolling? Or if someone misunderstands the definition of art entirely? Could we tell the difference between sincerity and insincerity? Also, choosing randomness is still a choice, and a meaningful one I think. — Pinprick

If someone is trolling, they are trolling themselves, perhaps? I mean, suckers might think a troll serious and value said trolls art. But the troll knows they are trolling. I guess I'm putting the concept of art into the hands of the artist, rather than than patron?

I don't think it matters if 'we' consumers of art can tell the difference between sincerity and insincerity in the artist, even though personally I very much value 'sincerity' in art.

Is popular culture, like pro wrestling? — Jeremy Murray

I haven’t considered it as art, because it seems to primarily be about entertainment. I don’t see much storytelling in it typically. But, I see how it could be viewed as a sort of loosely choreographed interpretative dance. — Pinprick

I don't really see it as art most of the time either, I got this idea from a Brett Hart soundbite in a documentary. But right after I saw the doc, I joined this discussion, and Hart, objectively one of the 'great' wrestlers of my lifetime, had described it as an art form. When I reflected on it, I did recall a match that I could see as 'art'.

So, I guess my primary question is, does it only become 'art' when it is done well?

Yes, I think violence can be an art. Case in point: martial arts — MrLiminal

What is the art here, aside from the semantic? Is it the outcomes or the life of the practitioner?

Did people start patronizing pain clinics because they had refractory pain and then got hooked on opioids (pull), or did they become interested in opioids because a pain clinic had opened nearby and a Rx was easy to get (push)?

Are prostitutes more or less available because men's demands for quick blow jobs for a fee (or whatever is desired) resulted in women (or men) becoming prostitutes (pull), or did otherwise unemployed women needing income initiate prostitution (push)? — BC

Vices and addictions aren't the same though, and while one can become a 'sex addict' per common understanding, it is a different type of addiction entirely. Opiates and gambling operate with similar processes in the brain - the quick high of a fix or a win, withdrawal, and the alleviation provided by a new 'high'.

(I still recall my prof telling us that heroin was the easier addiction to address than gambling, 30 years ago, and yet Ontario went full-bore into online gambling just a few years ago).

Sex, in this model of addiction, is just not as readily / predictably available. Marijuana, with no withdrawal symptoms, is essentially non-addictive, unless you categorize it as lifestyle-addictions like watching television or poor eating. Smart phones+social media, with the relentless little endorphin hits, are addictive in a profoundly different way than, say, television.

Easily the most sympathetic drug addict is the one with 'refractory pain and then got hooked on opioids'. That seems to be the primary cause of the crisis.

Another angle on pushing: One of the strategies of cutting down on overdose deaths and disease transmission connected to drug use is to open supervised shooting galleries where sterile equipment, dosage, and bad reactions can be properly managed on the spot — BC

We do that here in Canada. To me, it seems the problem of such sites 'pulling' consumers is that they were designed for a different drug crisis. Clean needles are not relevant for fentanyl addictions. The crisis is far greater, numerically, making it harder to manage said 'safe injection' sites.

We got to the point were these facilities would provide addicts with the pills, and the pills would be resold illegally. Because we let them take the drugs away from the site, which is crazy, in that the main benefit is supposedly assistance in case of OD.

Per the OP, I could say that these sites were introduced to deal with the relatively rarer addicts 'pulled' in by heroin addiction, but wildly addictive, readily accessible fentanyl has 'pushed' a different strain of bad actors into these spaces, along with the addicts who genuinely benefit from them.

So, an outdated social policy.

I find it easy to believe that some people have never experienced love. Harder to believe that they have never experienced love or beauty.

Shouldn’t we also consider the evolutionary function of love?

Greg, could the “things of God” not simply be what many religious people mean by God, essentially? I’ve certainly known religious people who this statement feels true for.

Love is an experience shared by all. — GregW

Do you know this for certain? I’ve worked with a lot of career criminals and gang members, and I would say that some people never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it. — Tom Storm

Really enjoying this thread guys. Prior to joining TPF, I would never have chosen to read something with the title 'a discourse on ...'.

That is a remarkable experience Tom Storm. I imagine a philosophical mind would be a great help in such a situation?

There is a part of me that defaults to big broad questions like this with 'how would I explain this to kids'? Years of teaching high school and other things brought me to that state, and kids react to storms, heavy winds, thunder, lightning in a different way than adults finding the divine, but the joy appears to be universal, in some ways, with perhaps different expressions.

If my curious little neighbour were to ask me 'what is beauty?' I'd remind him of that crazy snow day we had a few months ago and the big fort he built in his front yard.

I experience love as a given. Walking along the river on a beautiful sunny day can intensify that feeling of love. I feel loved simply because I feel love. I can totally relate to the Christian notion that God is love, even though I think the Biblical explanation of God. Satan and sin are messed up. Believing in a personal God has unpleasant consequences, necessitating deifying Jesus as a personal savior. — Athena

I really enjoyed this comment, although I do know many religious people who do not subscribe to literal interpretations of Christian theology, some of them quite devout. We had an atheist minister here in Toronto a few years back, although that one goes too far for me.

As an atheist, I feel not believing in a 'God', faith, personal spiritual practice or otherwise also has unpleasant consequences.

If there is built-in safety, is it violence? — Vera Mont

Good question. Pro wrestling is weird, I cannot think of another example of 'scripted' violence that involves some real violence in human history.

They do hit each other, throw each other off of things, etc. These actions cause pain - the goal is say, a loud slapping sound, or a big 'bump' - but they can be done relatively safely. Japanese wrestling has a particularly brutal reputation, but some of their veterans age just fine, because they are more likely to perform the theatrical, painful but relatively safe moves like a chest slap (chop, they call it).

If done incorrectly or carelessly, wrestling moves can cause devastating harm. There are some wrestling fans who no longer watch older matches with a 'chair shot' - for some reason, in pro wrestling, there a loads of metal folding chairs around for the wrestlers to hit each other with.

Now they hit the opponent's back, but prior to our understanding of concussions, they used to hit each other in the head. Many of these guys died young.

I think it is a kind of violent art? Does it land that way for you?

I know my theory may fall apart with, say, a matador - he might think it art, but the bull won't, and I do attribute the 'safety' value to non human animals. Was the cow in formaldehyde killed for the purpose of the art? That seems critical to me.

The movie "Cannibal Holocaust" I mentioned is an interesting test - it really is a devastatingly powerful work of art, overall, to me and other weirdos, but they actually killed several animals in the shooting (sadly, not rare 40 years ago). How does that rate?

The reason I can personally call that film art overall is simply the values of the era - they made a point of eating the animals afterwords, except for the poor snake. (I'm not condoning this, and it worsens the film for me).

Inquisitors don't belong in the ambiguous category. I can't think of any argument to call that an art form. Perhaps it again comes down to purpose? The inquisitor's primary purpose is to find answers, any 'artistry' in their vile work is secondary.

If designating oneself an artist makes it legitimate, so does designating oneself an art critic. — Vera Mont

Another good point, but I think to designate yourself an artist you must produce 'art', which seems different, harder, than just having opinions about it?

I don't really know excrement man, but I could see a case for that being art. Just, ahem, shitty art.

As I was replying to you, I kept thinking of the film quote "He's an artist. He does it with imagination". I couldn't place it till now - Zardoz, barbarian Sean Connery in a loincloth killing the 'immortals' who wish for death. Terrible, terrible movie, but so bad it's great, if you like that sort of thing.

Clearly, I have a soft spot for 'trash', and rambling responses. Hope it was worth your reading!

Thanks for another interesting response Count T.

I started with Nietzsche, the existentialists, and post-modern thinkers. I read a decent amount, but wasn't a huge student of philosophy. What got my into philosophy was studying the natural sciences, particularly biology and physics and the role of information theory, complexity studies, and computation in those fields. Most of my early threads on that sort of thing. I was of the opinion that useful philosophy stayed close to the contemporary sciences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting. It was Nietzsche and Sartre who inspired me to explore philosophy more deeply. I was immersed in post-modernity at university given my age and areas of study. The humanities in the 90s were flooded with these ideas.

Do you see post-modernism as inherently relativistic, morally? I loved the postmodern art I was encountering, Angela Carter, the Simpsons, the musician Beck, but I started to feel queasy as I encountered the moral relativism - I still remember clearly a prof telling us that we had no right to judge the practice of female genital mutilation - and I see that moral relativism everywhere today.

It was through studying information theory and semiotics that I got introduced to Aristotle and the Scholastics. I came to discover that, not only were their ideas applicable to "natural philosophy/science," but they also tied it together with metaphysics, ethics, politics, etc — Count Timothy von Icarus

I used to tell my philosophy students that the ancient Greek philosophers were the scientists of their era. I posit that many of our modern problems result from moving away from this generality into academic silos. I've just read Jesse Singal's "The Quick Fix" on the problems with social psychology, and he points out repeatedly how often some of the replication failures in this field could have been avoided if the social scientists in question had considered any evidence from other disciplines.

Philosophical Mysticism in Plato, Hegel, and the Present — Count Timothy von Icarus

$212 Canadian dollars on Amazon.ca . That seems high. I will look for it in the library.

Or, for a third direction, you could start with Dante (which is more fun!) — Count Timothy von Icarus

That is a fun suggestion! I have yet to read Dante beyond excerpts in lit 101.

it also tends to be heavy on theology. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I do not get why so many people think philosophy and theology are mutually exclusive. Ignore this if it is an overly personal question, but how important to you are your religious / spiritual beliefs in terms of the philosophy you are drawn to?

I consider myself a fairly staunch atheist. Having had more than my share of bad luck, the problem of evil (and why me?) is too large an obstacle, despite how appealing I find the idea of belief. I think this best explains my interest in virtue ethics. But we both seem drawn to similar ideas?

Regardless, I like theology. I had too many students who I cared for who were religious, and too many loved ones, to dismiss it. Yes, there are strong reasons to question some of the institutions and individual actors. But I find it hard to imagine any sort of moral system today without religion.

When it comes to epistemic virtues, it seems like it is easier for people to agree

I actually 'hmm'ed out loud when I read this.

consider the scientist who falsifies her data in order to support her thesis. She cares more about the honor of being seen to be right than actually being right, or perhaps she is more motivated by book sales, which allow her to satisfy her appetites, than she is in producing good scholarship

Half a dozen examples of this spring to mind from Singal's book alone.

how is it a given that moral virtue is an epistemic virtue?

Quoting myself seems silly, but yes, you totally answered my question.

Sorry for the long response. I have too much time on my hands ...

I enjoy your responses and your writing here in general. I inherited a box of philosophy books from my brother when he passed away. I'm now inspired to dig it out and look for some of the classics I'd considered beyond me. My brother and I thank you for that!

Trans activists fucked up. — frank

Agreed.

And honestly, I find it hard to wrap my head around the absolute shit tsunami of suffering that has been created by all of these invasive medications and procedures on children who may very well have been 'going through a phase'.

In a hundred years, people will be looking back at this in the same way we look back at lobotomies and witch burnings - like we are primitive savages. Perhaps we are. — Tzeentch

You guys are right. The alarming thing about woke dogma is how much it hurts the groups is claims to help by fueling tension, by complicating or obscuring, sometimes intentionally, because of the moral 'righteousness' of the cause.

It falls simply under the oppressor / oppressed rubric. Hence "Queers of Palestine". Hence BLM donating millions to trans groups. People justifying murder.

But these are just extreme examples.

A lot of people involved in tran-affirmative care are true believers, who think they are helping trans people.

It's the everyday, run-of-the-mill, banal expressions of ideas like 'gender is a spectrum' that are being missed as a problem. A fine sentiment, some inexact social science around it, but the ubiquity of it is making young, gender-questioning people think they have found a solution. This skews the population, rendering the interventions unproven. The interventions, based on highly motivated and screened populations, are still presented as if they are proven.

Ben Ryan continues to do great journalism on this, despite the risks, he's been targeted for cancelation campaigns for years.

"Diagnoses of gender dysphoria in English minors attending primary care practices increased by 50-fold from 2011 to 2021, according to a new study".

https://benryan.substack.com/p/gender-dysphoria-surges-50-fold-in

50 fold?

Something is wrong, and it can't simply be explained with the 'stigma has been reduced' argument.

https://benryan.substack.com/p/1-in-1000-privately-insured-17-year

"By age 17, about 1 in 1,000 privately insured minors were receiving gender-transition hormones between 2018 and 2022. This broke down to about 140 per 100,000 natal girls taking testosterone and 82 per 100,000 natal boys taking estrogen by this final year before teens hit the age of majority".

just the fact that it is natal girls in the majority, not boys like in previous generations, throughout human history, across cultures and continents. This sort of outlier screams for exploration. But the only 'screaming' we here is from the faux-woke, accusing journalists of bias.

I can't take anyone seriously on this issue who can't at least acknowledge there are major concerns with the radical-affirmation model. But again, it's because they view it a moral imperative, by any means necessary.

Another great journalist on the subject, talking about an active campaign to hide data contrary to woke trans narratives.

https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/new-england-journal-of-misinformation

This is not simply a 'philosophical' issue. Kids lives are being ruined. Legitimately trans kids are been targeted because so many act in bad faith on behalf of trans communities. Do trans soldiers recently targeted for job losses in the military feel good about radical trans acitivsts?

There is nothing 'kind' or 'on the right side of history' in woke activists medicalizing vulnerable kids.

Also, the other thing to keep in mind is art is intentional. Every movement potentially has purpose and is completed in order to achieve a desired result. Bob Flanagan chose to mutilate himself in certain ways, with specific utensils and settings and order of events. The same way a painter chooses certain paint types, colors, canvases, etc. — Pinprick

I agree with you on Flanagan, Pinprick. I found him in the documentary, as a fan of documentary. But he is, to his mind, making art. Is that not perhaps the best practical definition of art? You point to his choices, the choices all artists make, but perhaps you could be making random choices and still intend 'art', and have it be art?

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would tell someone dying with a horrifying illness that his 'shock art' is not art at all. Personally, I like art that makes me feel, and uncomfortable is a feeling communicated via violence in some of the 'art forms' I mentioned in an earlier post. Are horror films art? Is popular culture, like pro wrestling? I am happy to agree with Brett Hart that his career in WWE was 'art'. I don't think it's 'great' art, or even 'good' most of the time, but the wrestlers themselves view it as storytelling.

Is storytelling art?

Is there a class element involved in dismissing such works as art? "Silence of the Lambs" was marketed as a 'thriller' because of that bias.

Is documentary an 'art form'? I think of "Exit Through the Gift Shop" as an artistic meditation on art. "My Kid Could Paint That" is another fantastic doc on what is art, and it too changes midway through when the documentary filmmaker turns the camera on himself to wrestle with something he has learned.

Does his journalism become art when he chooses to participate midfilm?

Violence, to me, is art when it is intended as such and presented as such. In order to do so, the 'violence' must somehow be safe, as much as possible. So pro-wrestling, sure, why not. MMA? The 'martial arts'? There is a sense of artistry involved, but do they see it so?

But my insistence on 'safety', even for the consenting, is perhaps where my philosophy falls apart?

. I have a bit of an issue with legislating such "protections" — Banno

You have an issue with legislating against an ineffective, toxic, destructive medical practice? Big fan of leeching and bleeding the patient, are you?

Think medical science is a social construct?

"Popperian ad hoc social engineering".

These words mean nothing unless you provide examples. (and yes I know what you meant). That's an appeal to authority that you don't have.

The first finding in CASS is - lack of such an evidence base. Then noting "conflicting views among clinicians regarding appropriate treatment."

The recommendations lean in the right direction. — Banno

Banno, this issue is likely going to reverse in the next few years. You obviously live in the US or Canada, because the rest of the world, including the gold standard countries and the gold standard practitioners of affirmative care models, everyone credible already knows yours is, at best, an amoral stance that got things wrong.

At worst, your stance is 'evil', in the utilitarian sense.

And frankly, if I were a trans person reading your 'defense' of trans people, I'd be offended too.

I'm involved in health consumer advocacy hereabouts — Banno

Right. "Health consumer advocacy hereabouts".

So, not even an expert in the field you claim to be expert in

I asked you over and over again for either evidence or sophisticated argument. — Jeremy Murray

And ignored the reasons given for not doing so. — Banno

your reason for not doing so is that you 'think I'm a jerk' (have no evidence). You could prove me wrong at any point by providing evidence. You don't, so you continue with the sad ad hominems and the talking points delivered to you by groupthink.

Keep going, if you like. encourage me to admire your views even less. — Banno

I couldn't care less what you think of me, and you have no idea what my views are.

I view you as practice. Fish in a barrel, although I feel slightly guilty actually spelling that out. I'm not being kind. You are not being kind. At least my premise isn't destroying the lives of young people.

Do you actually work with trans people? Are you simply lying about that? I am forced to ask you that question because you refuse to provide evidence of anything you say.

Makes a mess of the conservative desire to force everyone into one of two fixed boxes because complexity and ambiguity make them uncomfortable. — Banno

So, is it fair to conclude that you are talking about me here?

I am not conservative, nor do I believe in the 'two fixed boxes' premise. As I have stated and written in my responses to you.

Perhaps your aim was to change my mind, but the result has been to reinforce my view of an unreasoning, wilfully ill-informed and ideologically driven opposition to trans discussions. — Banno

My goal is to improve outcomes for young people. And to improve outcomes for trans people. I'm not sure I'm the one with the unclear goals?

Your goal appears to be conforming morally, as it is written, so that conformists like yourself can feel good about themselves while doing nothing.

"wilfully ill-informed and ideologically driven opposition"

you must be a mediocre university professor? Or just, a shitty person?

quantum mechanics of gender my ass.

Your tone is confrontational rather than enquiring, your evidence one-sided and your logic dubious. — Banno

I asked you over and over again for either evidence or sophisticated argument. That's enquiry.

You sat here trolling people with comments that refused to reveal your position, or any evidence? That's confrontational.

My evidence is one-sided? How would you know? You didn't read or engage with any of it.

My logic dubious?

Leftish logic bro Banno? makes a bunch of pat rhetorical objections, fails to engage with anything?

All you had to do, at any point, was engage me with evidence.

You are refusing to do so. I assume that is because you can't. The evidence of our exchange reads for itself.

Listen man, sincerely, and no more trolling you back.

If you care about trans people, as you assert, and I believe you, steelman-style, then you need to know a hell of a lot more about trans issues than you do.

Some of those trans people you care about are going to call you out for not having had a critical eye on the single greatest failure of our medical system of the 21st century.

Respectfully, I'm not saying 'cheers' back to you. I do not enjoy lazy disingenuity.

You came here to prove your point, not to discuss the topic. That's fine, if tedious. — Banno

And yet you have no way to know if this assertion of yours is true. You can't know why I came here.

More evidence from me.

https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-last-four-years-were-the-most

To make it clear that this is not me googling a search and pretending I'm a big boy now, here's a quote from my link that gets at why I find your arguments not just 'tedious', but immoral.

The Tyranny of the Minority and the Spiral of Silence

Mill, it must be noted, is describing here a “tyranny of the majority,” whereas the “woke” social tyranny we have lately lived through and of which we are perhaps now breaking free may better be seen as a “tyranny of the minority.”

The economist Glenn Loury—writing in the Journal of Free Black Thought, the periodical of an organization some friends and I founded in 2020 to fight burgeoning woke racism and the tacit suppression in our public discourse of black viewpoint diversity—describes how a minority can exert tyrannical power over a majority:

German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann coined a term that describes this phenomenon: the “Spiral of Silence.” In a spiral of silence, when holding a certain view entails a stigma, then, for fear of being seen as having that view, most people stay silent. Thus, the masses believe they are alone or in a small minority of people with the stigmatized view, when in fact they are indeed in the majority, one of the masses.

You, sir, are contributing to the "Spiral of Silence".

And, again, sorry to be tedious, but you could just refute me with actual evidence.

Your refusal to produce any makes my contention that you have none more compelling.

Based on this review, there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after GAS." — RogueAI

How could there possibly be evidence, when there are no studies trying to follow up on this issue? When proponents of affirmative care do not track their patients? (As if doctors track their patients anyways? As if ideologues would consider the data?)

It is likely impossible to even have such evidence of a social trend that only emerged a decade ago. That's not how social science works. But I can hit you with evidence on my point if you'd like?

And yes, I anticipate Banno's dumb argument - there have always been trans people.

What there has not always been is an explosion of non-traditional trans-identifying girls, immediately after the smart phone became a ubiquitous portal to anxiety.

There are a LOT of detransitioners, and this is group is only going to grow, exponentially. There will be lawsuits. People will lose jobs. The whole trans-affirmative industry is a house of cards, and I feel genuinely sorry for the true believers in the bunch - they are the ones who have landed on the wrong side of history.

All the evidence on trans suicide suggests that their are complicating factors, and that trans identity alone is not in any way causal. It will take me more time to find this evidence, since Google does not allow for this search.

But if you guys want some evidence against the idea that 'you can have a living son or a dead daughter', I can definitely find it with some time.

Why so long? Slow internet connection? If you would be an instant expert you might need to upgrade your network.

I can do it too. — Banno

yeah, you quoted a google search. I quoted evidence I have read. Weak, man.

You say you care about trans people. So, show some evidence that that means more to you than having the 'right' position.

"Instant expert" is a pretty shitty ad hominem. Especially from the rhetoric police.

All you have to do is reply to ONE point of mine. But you can't / won't / somehow feel evidence is beneath you.

Share this thread with all the trans people you care about and ask them how they feel about the quality of your arguments. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with disagreement?

The 'shite' nature of this thread is coming from you.

I'm not seeing anything interesting accruing from this discussion. — Banno

That would be due to the lack of evidence. So here is some!

https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/yales-integrity-project-is-spreading

Do you know Jesse Singal's work? Perhaps some of the most important journalism on the subject happening now. He has paid a price for fearless reporting on this.

What is your opinion on the Cass report? In the above article, Singal outlines the results and the pro-affirmation communities dishonest responses to it.

If you do not know the Cass report, I think you are missing out on the most vital publication on the issue to date.

Here is more evidence. This one shows that this is not an exceedingly rare choice.

https://unherd.com/newsroom/over-5000-us-children-have-undergone-transgender-surgeries/

This is an opinion piece from a lesbian writer on gender non-conformity.

https://www.evakurilova.com/p/the-trans-movement-does-not-get-to?utm_source=multiple-personal-recommendations-email&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true

Here is a piece on detransitioners, who often report feeling pressured, or rushed into, a decision to pursue medical interventions.

https://nationalpost.com/news/young-detransitioners-abandoned?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Stokes%20longread%20eblast%20-%20SUBS&utm_term=NP_PAID_Current

Here is journalist Benjamin Ryan, a gay man, another critical observer on the subject. He too has been targeted by virulent attacks for pursuing honesty.

https://benryan.substack.com/p/how-common-is-detransitioning

It took me ten minutes to come up with this evidence, and I can go on.

Pretending that there is no evidence in support of the efficacy of puberty blockers is pretty poor. — Banno

There isn't any for the demographic group I've described repeatedly, this new cohort of people identifying as trans, as opposed to the much smaller cohort for whom puberty blockers could be beneficial, a point I have made repeatedly to you.

Questions for you:

-is there a difference between people who self-identify as trans today, and the people who did so prior to that convergence of smart phones and social media in the early 2010s?

-is there any proof that puberty blockers are safe, long term?

-what do you make of detransitioners, a growing cohort, one that we will see much more of in the years to come?

-how much time should be spent on trans inclusion in public schools? My premise is that we spend a wildly disproportionate amount of time on the issue, which tends to worsen, rather than improve, outcomes for trans people. (and, again, I can back this up if you want to see evidence).

If you have a more specific question, one that requires effort beyond posting links, I could research an answer.

But you have yet to provide any evidence at all. You just keep referring to the 'fact' that evidence exists.

The only way to prove me wrong is to prove me wrong?

Isn't there a danger there that someone who is serious about gender reassignment down the road could benefit from puberty blockers at adolescence and we're taking away that option? — RogueAI

Yes! That's what is so frustrating about this radical affirmative stance. The people who actually need the radical interventions have been subsumed into a group that is most likely NOT TRANS.

I mean, the value of the approach is what made it the gold standard in the first place. But it only works for people who used to be viewed as 'gender dysphoric'. Early onset (pre-adolescence at a minimum), persistent expressions of dysphoria, most often biologically male.

Plus, psychology is a 'hard' social science, not an actual science (or, at least, an actual science beyond its infancy). Correlation not causation. The replication crisis. Frankly, as a lay social scientist, I no longer trust social scientists.

They give them in early puberty and the consequences are permanent infertility and sexual dysfunction. — frank

The consequences are still not determined, but there is a substantial risk of both. Overstating the risks is not helpful.

I would argue that a few highly dysphoric, well-informed, well-vetted individuals should be making this sort of decision.

But a much, much smaller number than currently.

That's the thing. We already have the research to determine who is 'most trans'. There are two populations being discussed here. Legitimately trans people, and a bunch of people who have trusted clueless adults with well-meaning hearts and horrible historical legacies.

this forum is not the place to evaluate the evidence, and we are not the people to do the evaluation. Instant expert syndrome is at play here. — Banno

What good is philosophy if it does not help evaluate evidence? You might not be the person to do the evaluation, but a default to morally relativistic technocrats is moral failure in my eyes.

If you just want to spew philosophy, I know a bunch of Stalinists arguing with a bunch of Leninists down the street at the cafe.

Banno, I like you. You were one of the first people to welcome me to the forum. I engaged with you in that spirit.

If you care about trans people, you should want to engage with the best arguments that oppose your beliefs, no? I think I have presented some strong points. Do you have any?

You have worked with this population for decades, I would like to hear from that perspective, at least!

I am a layman in terms of philosophy, and new to TPF. When Count Timothy suggested "After Virtue" to me and I got a chance to buy it cheap, I bought it and read it.

Since then, I have been thinking differently about morality, and trying to pursue the 'virtue' of gentle kindness, in honour of my mother.

To me, that's the mark of good philosophy. I assume this sounds naive, but what good is philosophy if it doesn't inform actual life?

If your move is just the rhetorical one of calling evidence with which you disagree, "dogma", then there is no point in showing you the evidence. — Banno

Not my move.

You have not presented any evidence. Nor have I. But I can back up any statement I have made in this thread with compelling evidence. Non-partisan evidence. Ask me for some, or present your own. Referring to evidence you are aware of is not presenting evidence.

Whereas every 'talking point' I've expressed is well documented.

Now there is a rather large and growing body of evidence concerning puberty blockers. — Banno

Okay, share it. Or ask for mine, and then we can compare.

I have seen a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I believe I have been following the issue longer than you have, simply because you aren't saying things that show an understanding of the issue beyond a moral stance of 'live and let live'. Obviously, I could be wrong in my assumption, as you were in assuming I dismissed your 'evidence' (not evidence) as a rhetorical technique.

I know the history of how this trans affirmative stance came to be, have worked with trans students as a teacher, had gender questioning kids come to me for counseling, a lapsed progressive that saw the group think take hold, threatening kids I care about. I have skin in the game, and decades of experience. Do you?

The burden of proof is either on you, or for you to request from me.

As it stands, I don't think you have 'proof'.

Prove me wrong. Seriously, I do want a good conversation on this, and, frankly, anything I bother to write about here on TPF.

I didn't use an analogy — Banno

You compared a drug to gender affirmative treatment. I guess you mean just a 'puberty blocker' in which case the correct phrasing would have been something like 'an untested drug with potentially negative side effects'.

You are quite presumptive in your response — Banno

Come on man. You 'presume' I dislike trans people. That is categorically a worse presumption.

Some pro wrestlers view their 'sport' as 'art'. I just watched a doc on Vince McMahon and Brett Hart said exactly this - to him, pro wrestling is an art form.

The interesting thing to me, philosophically, is that wrestling is a scripted performance, but actual (safe, supposedly) violence is a part of it. So they do literally 'chop' each other to make the loudest sound possible without causing actual damage - just pain.

(And, if the moves go wrong, actual damage).

Punk rock fans slam danced, grunge rockers moshed, the violent 'dancing' was a response to a 'violent' music.

Horror films are another artistic genre that relies on violence as part of the art form. Film is an art form. Not all horror films aspire to 'artistic' violence, either in representation or aesthetic intent, but some do.

"Martyrs" is one of a handful of films that I, giant horror fan, repeat viewer of "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and "Cannibal Holocaust", found too violent, but that film is entirely about violence, and some horror fans consider it a philosophical masterpiece.

Me, I never need see it again, nor anything by Bob Flanagan.

No. He was making a spectacle out of physical and mental illness. — Vera Mont

Bob Flanagan disagrees with you - he saw his 'spectacle' as an artistic response to a horrible illness, as did I. Did you see the documentary on him?

I think violent art/spectacle is an entirely legitimate artistic response to actual violence, a 'violent' state, or, even in the case of Flanagan, a 'violent' illness.

Hi Banno,

Not sure you are reading what I write. I have no problem at all with trans people. Those bad actors are making things worse for trans people. If you care about trans people, you should care about bad actors and bad science.

Do you think that the State ought legislate to override the professional decisions of a child's carers and doctors, as well as parents, with a general piece of legislation that cannot take into account the context in which that decision is made? — Banno

So, the gold standard of trans affirmative care works for trans people who are actually trans. As in, children, usually boys, who insist they are the 'wrong gender', have felt that way since they were young, and it has persisted for years.

As opposed to this new cohort, sometimes referred to as suffering from ROGD (another stupid label), who are often teenage females.

So, this much smaller OG trans demographic group COULD benefit from puberty blockers, although the long term health risks here are only starting to emerge in visibility.

But a whole bunch of people who are autistic, or gay, or lesbian, or just different, have been convinced they are trans.

So, yes. The state should prevent puberty blockers for minors, as we prevent drugs that fail to work, haven't been tested, etc. Iatrogenesis. First do no harm.

Your analogy is false. Puberty blockers are not 'neutral drugs'. They are fad science, with limited evidence, that is being applied to large populations would not have been candidates for the approach in the initial development of the methodology.

I can back up any statement I make on this issue if you'd like.

But can you actually make a fact-based argument for puberty blockers?

Respectfully, until you do, it will appear to me that you are simply espousing dogma?

Hey man, I'm looking for a thoughtful conversation on this issue. But you have to actually know the data, the science, the psychology, the history, etc. This is not 'just' a philosophical issue.

So hit me with a fact-based argument!

Philosophically I don’t think anyone can jump the gap of their sex and become the opposite gender or non gender. The sex of a person is there for everyone to see unless there is significant surgery and synthetic hormones used. — Malcolm Parry

I agree with you Malcolm, I don't think there are philosophical arguments that negate biology. The whole 'trans women are women' movement is an example of what goes wrong when fringe views define the entire movement. There are lots of trans people who do NOT take that premise seriously - I remember Contrapoints talking about this issue thoughtfully on her (very interesting) Youtube channel.

I assume even the most radical trans advocate has acknowledged that female sports is not a place for trans women. — Malcolm Parry

Alas, not the case. Some of this woke stuff is a bit like research on doomsday cultists - the day of reckoning arrives, passes, and a number of cultists become even more committed to the premise.

A lot of people believe the IOC standards for testosterone are some kind of legit science. And a lot of people keep saying 'it's a tiny percentage of people' which, of course, ignores the fact that this 'tiny percentage' will only grow as trans kids grow up expecting to be able to play.

I have no issue with someone adopting the stereotypical norms of the opposite gender but that is cosplaying and does not reflect the reality that men and women can be whoever they like to be. — Malcolm Parry

Another failing of the fringe. Historically, cross-culturally, there have always been a small number of trans people - usually boys. Some societies are more tolerant, some less, but none of these people thought they were actually the other sex. That's a modern idea.

And of course, the genuinely trans people (likely a much smaller number than the number of people who claim the identity now) are getting hurt in the backlash.

Yes! Poor locker room design is the issue. Why do we have locker rooms that force us to differentiate on the basis of our genitalia? If the issue is modesty, why not have individual cubicles? — Banno

That would likely do it! But I'd rather see that going forward than as an imposed requirement, which is likely cost-prohibitive.

But this isn't just an issue of live and let live. There are bad actors self-identifying as trans to take advantage of vulnerable women. In fact, the best criticism of trans access to women-only spaces like prisons and locker rooms comes from second-wave feminists.

The whole 'they are deluded and needed to be disabused of their delusion' argument you see sometimes on the right is a useless red herring to me. Focus on bad actors, common sense on the sporting field and harm protection for youth and everybody does better, trans and cis alike.

The only people I can trust on this topic at this point are those that can identify problems with a radical stance on trans issues in progressive society AND who empathize with and support genuine trans people.

Do you view puberty blockers for youth as moral?

Why are you guys so focused on the issue of bathrooms, when the issues of locker rooms, prisons and sporting competition are so much more significant?

We don't have real evidence of trans people causing problems for anyone in bathrooms, to my knowledge? We do have lots of evidence of self-identified trans people causing severe problems in change rooms and prisons. Happy to provide sources, which seem lacking in this debate.

You guys know about the Cass report? How the 'gold standard' affirmative model has been subsequently rejected by the initial proponents of affirmation? How the demographics have shifted substantially, from roughly two thirds of trans children being boys to the current reversal, in which females are suddenly more likely to be trans? How this is unprecedented throughout human history?

Serious lack of actual facts in the philosophical debate here. Both are essential.

And of course the premise that hormone therapy levels the sporting playing field is just dumb. The source on this is the IOC. Anyone here trust the IOC? No? Good.

It feels to me as if epistemic arguments here sort of miss the point, or at least, fail to come up with answers timely enough to matter.

Some history.

In short, the affirmative model became the gold standard for treating young people with severe gender dysphoria in the 90s. These were highly self-selected young people who were adamant about their dysphoria, and demonstrated this throughout their childhood.

Four out of five gender questioning children will ultimately accept their 'assigned' gender, the majority being gay.

The 'gender affirmation' model worked for people considered 'trans' historically. For all of recorded human history, across cultures, trans people have existed. Anthropology is great for issues like this.

But, all of a sudden, trans people are suddenly completely different than they have ever been, historically, culturally?

So many people writing courageously on this right now.

You guys know that people like Jesse Signal get attacked for simple reporting, right? You know who Signal is, right?

Here's a lesser known critic of the subject with some smoking insights.

https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/embodiment-goals

Philosophical arguments for a trans affirmative stance are interesting, conceptually.

But practically? If you care about trans people, and gender-questioning kids, affirmation-by-default is objectively more harmful than helpful.

The premise that every person who asserts some sort of gender-questioning identity is trans is stupid, and, if I might say this as a lay-philosopher newly on TPF, contrary to the philosophical project.

Detransitioners are real, and sooner or later, they are going to start suing, and winning huge sums, from doctors with a default woke stance.

Hi CT.

I enjoyed your response, plenty to look up. Can I ask you why you are drawn to medieval philosophy? Not an area I know much about. Feel free to recommend any 'essential' texts, I got a lot out of reading your last one!

Prior to reading "After Virtue", I don't think I could have defined 'telos'. How does one land on the premise of a human telos, today? Is it simply moral pragmatism? Is 'excellence' fundamental to the premise of telos?

I resonate with the idea that their is something universal about being human. I am drawn to moral philosophy, as a layman, because I fear that the majority of decision-makers are either utilitarian or deontological, and that those positions are not able to respond in a timely fashion to the unprecedented changes of our globalized, neo-virtual world? Virtue ethics seems superior in terms of making decisions where the moral math, or the universal truth, is unclear?

One of my frustrations with 'wokeness' is that it seems to deny any sense of universal humanity. Wokeness seems a deontological morality, one often compared to religion, but it feels as if it fails, as moral deontology and as a substitute for religion, in its denial of anything that is 'essentially human'?

because moral virtue is also epistemic virtue, even the relativist cannot simply write it off. They will also need some virtues in order to become confirmed in their relativism or anti-realism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This might be a dumb question, but how is it a given that moral virtue is an epistemic virtue?

And I was under the impression that relativists write everything off anyway. Say a pomo relativist that rejects all 'master narratives'? I gather you are talking about philosophical relativists who have landed on that position after serious reflection?

Which differentiates them, to me, from the WEIRD majority, who seem to be relativistic by default?

Sorry for all the questions, I hope you take them as a compliment!

Morning,

I appreciate these thoughtful replies! I've been a depressed hermit for a few years now, and I am therefore rusty as I attempt to communicate with people and the world again, and I am already afraid I have written too much ...

Feel to free to skip it/parts of it, I've been working on some of these ideas for a while now in my personal writing, and got on a roll. Course, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

And, I want to be as respectful as possible in disagreeing with you as a 'privileged' white male in Toronto or simply as a human being.

I think "America is a racist country" is more of a meme, in the Richard Dawkins sense. And this meme has been weaponized in the hands of awful narcissists, while at the same time a collision of communication technologies monetized groupthink. It works the same way on the right, for sure, MAGA, as intentionally vague as 'racist country'.

The unknowable, hidden enemy can be anyone, can serve any purpose in the hands of the loudest of the voices found.

Because by all the best data, America is demonstratively much less racist than it has ever been, although the past five years are going to be hard to measure and parse, and it takes time to do social science like that. So, there is a lag-time in the data, but the best data continues to show all sorts of agreed-upon-across-the-spectrum demographic positives.

It's only the framing of the issue, not the data, that asserts the unique 'racism' of America. Since there is no data aside from outcomes-based data that 'proves' racism - we cannot 'prove' anything, scientifically, about any ideologies, we are left to make a best-case argument. Again, the woke are ahead of the curve, deconstructing objectivity, 'decolonizing' education (the irony. We are literally colonizing the minds of our students with this dogma).

Now all the best arguments against the woke are simply proof that the woke are correct, with devastating consequences for anyone who wishes to reference, say, philosophy, quality data, or anyone even speaking 'out of place' by opining on gender as a male, etc.

Coleman Hughes calls your statement and others of their ilk "The Myth of no Progress". I could rattle off a dozen sources though, that I've read in the past year (hermits have time for reading), from across the political spectrum, who see this meme (however they express this idea) as toxic, for everyone, for white people and for all the people it is supposed to help.

Heck, I could name a dozen black authors off the top of my head, if you include academic essays and such, who authoritatively denounce woke thought from across the political spectrum as illiberal, harmful, patronizing, racist, proven ineffective, etc, etc ... depends on the author. The acrimony towards woke is the common denominator. And this level of discourse, across the spectrum, a lateral discourse, with this much forceful argument is generally ahead of the curve on social trends.

The myth of no progress diminishes the real suffering of people who lived under Jim Crow, suggesting that their suffering is the same as those today. It breeds discouragement, resentment, an 'external locus of responsibility', that is robustly associated with poor mental health outcomes in psychology.

And yet, for me to seek out black perspectives on race that run contrary to woke narratives is racist by definition. I could get cancelled, easily, were I to return to the classroom, simply for sharing my GoodReads reviews.

Have you heard of the "Great Replacement"? This is the belief by right-wing whites that the white race is going to be literally fucked out of existence and replaced by minorities because we're not having enough kids. — RogueAI

Man, I know some of these people personally. Some are friends. It doesn't mean the same thing to the guys I know as it seems to mean to you.

First time I heard that spoken was over a decade ago, easily. From a guy whose been a friend since high school. The first smart MAGA type I ever encountered, even though there are differences here in Canada, the core beliefs and values of these new conservative types tend to be the same.

It sounded super creepy to me right away, but then I looked into it, and yeah, this is just a stupid conspiracy theory propped up by a few legitimate arguments and data points, a really stupid way to talk about immigration. I would posit that this is sort of an inevitable outcome of a society that is failing to even teach reading, but is unfailing in teaching dogma that casts these kinds of people as 'deplorables'.

That paranoid conspiratorial thinking was sweeping through the right back then for sure though, that language. The collision of social media and the smartphone in 2014 swept up both tribes, exaggerating outrage via algorithm. Society is no longer able to keep up with sourcing good information as our tech advances far outrun our cultural adaptations. Conspiracy theories on both sides is just one outcome.

I was talking to people on Quillette as Jan. 6 was taking place, heterodox types mostly, but the majority of the community seemed to be highly conservative, this new kind of conservative, and I was watching some of these conspiracy theories taking hold in real time. Within days I saw the same talking points around whether or not it was an insurrection coalescing around the same crazy stuff that was baked into the conversation from the beginning on the 6th.

I know conspiracy theories. 'White supremacy' is a conspiracy theory too.

The genius of it is the way is has co-opted morality entirely, despite their own morality being so opaque.

Broadly speaking, MLK was a deontologist. He believed the word of God taught him to understand that humanity is a shared experience, fundamentally. This belief gave power to the mans words and character, his ability to lead.

It appears to me that wokeists are, weirdly, deontological. I think the majority are likely moral relativists, which leads them to a technocratic, neoliberal outsourcing of morality to 'experts' for utilitarian ends. They claim to exist in the same moral tradition as MLK, but their movement and ideology is fundamentally secular, lacking that shared sense of unifying moral purpose embodied by MLK.

But can you point to anyone arguing woke arguments who isn't, by definition, exclusionary? Who doesn't feel of an entirely different category, morally speaking, from MLK? Who inspires you to difficult action through moral force of character?

Thus lacking the moral strength for their arguments, wokists turned to controlling language and education, storytelling and cultural expression. This, along with the beginning of our virtual age in 2014, allowed certain fringey people to gain an extraordinary amount of power fast, by advancing narratives perfectly suited to our shiny new virtual realities.

Wokism and MAGA are two peas in the same neoliberal technocratic dystopia that we now live in ...

(Haha, sorry. I also like to write horror stories as a hobby, and sometimes the existential dread I feel at the state of the world tends to bleed between the two).

Sorry man, this is too long. Overall, to come back to what you are saying, I don't dispute any of those experiences or observations you've shared. That thing about your partner teacher is frightening, appalling. I have never experienced such a naked, hatefully racist thing. Racism and hate of all kinds ARE real.

But this dreadful experience is simply increasingly less and less likely over time, has been for decades. And there will always be assholes. There are mentally ill people prone to racist outbursts. I've known a few. It is their psychosis talking though.

But pouring everybody's worst experiences of hate into one overflowing kiddie pool of prejudice isn't enough to outweigh the data, more and more of which emerges daily, on the failures of woke to accomplish anything at all, really, but division and wasted resources.

Heck, a principle here in Toronto killed himself after getting bullied for disagreeing with a wokist in PD that Canada was 'more racist' than the US. Disagreement with the dogma is killing people, literally.

This belief system, well-intentioned though she and her proponents may be, has had disastrous social consequences across the WEIRD world.

It is not even the best way to deal with the issues it purports to advocate for.

But the best argument, to me, remains that of Walter Benn Michaels and Adolph Reed Jr, who describe woke thought as a means of neoliberal elites presenting themselves as 'moral' by ensuring that the top ten percent of society is representative, thus dodging the need to do anything at all about economic disparity.

MLK himself argued for a movement based on social class, rather than racial essentialism.

The governor of Alabama, Darren Beattie, that dreadful weekend in Charlottesville, this stupid Afrikaner stunt which is obviously just a stunt, this is all a result of a conversation that has been weaponized and monetized by tech elites more powerful than many countries. Freaking Zuckerberg has blocked posting Canadian news for years, for example.

Your examples are of the worst of the worst sort of thinking, nefarious actors, often with agendas completely at odds with their words and actions. They take advantage of the weaknesses and blindspots of conservative, fan the flames of the worst fires, and sometimes it SEEMS like the FOX news talking heads are representative about what actual people think.

But these kind of people simply do not represent ordinary conservatives.

Do you think every woke person is represented by the extreme and seemingly insane fringes of their movement? Of course not.

Just last night I read about a decade-old study finding that exposure to conversations around white privilege lead white people to be more judgemental of poor white people as deserving of their poverty. We are teaching all sorts of people to be suspicious of white men. This seems stupid, given how many of us there are.

These trends I'm describing are sometimes decades old. That Richard Reeves book is new, but when Christina Hoff Sommers wrote about our schools' betrayal of boys twenty years ago, it was old news even then.

And Sommers is still vilified by wokists, despite two more decades of evidence piling up to vindicate her arguments.

Woke is a moral house of cards, and that shit's about to fall down.

If you made it to the end of this, thank you for reading, and I'd love to hear your thoughts!

I agree with a lot of what you said before this, but I wanted to expand on this. Obama's victory was so traumatizing to a large segment of white society that they had to "other" him with outlandish conspiracy theories that many still believe to this day (birtherism) — RogueAI

Hi Rogue,

I see this idea a lot in Democratic Americans, that 'large segments' of white society are overtly racist. I'd love to see some proof of this applying to 'large segments' of people.

I was very familiar with the 'birther' thing - we get a lot more US news than you do Canadian, I would assume, just given the two countries relative power. But to me, it seemed like BS lies from Trump were echoed by the right wing propaganda machinery and some naive / poorly informed people believed them.

There are racists and racism. But 'so traumatizing to a large segment of white society that they had to "other" him' seems a wild, unfalsifiable statement.

Which is partly why Trump got back into office, right? Woke arguments were/are so wildly overstated. I genuinely believe that this tendency on the left is HARMING the very populations they claim to support, and I say this as someone offended by their betrayal of principles I hold dear.

I mean, Democrats couldn't even beat Trump in 2024, when the man was super beatable. That's on Democrats as much as Republicans.

I believe that a lot of whites saw the election of Obama as irrefutable proof that their time as king of the mountain was coming to an end and they went into denial mode — RogueAI

Again, I see this repeated a lot, but NOBODY ALIVE THINKS LIKE THIS.

Even if you reject my capitalization, certainly, white people do not view themselves as 'white people' the way that minority groups might view them or themselves.

I grew up in a small, working class town. Mostly white. I went to the 'country' high school. Lots of pick up trucks in the parking lot. (I moved to Toronto as fast as I could). These people would be Republicans, generally, in the States. I do not recognize what you are talking about in any of the people I know.

We have to monitor who we suspend very carefully or we would get investigated by the justice department (not a danger with Trump in office) and/or lose funding from California. — RogueAI

The desire to not be offensive has certainly destroyed any kind of disciplinary standards in Toronto schools. I think 'wokeness' has done permanent, widespread, severe damage to a lot of children, with discipline being just one of the many ways it has been compromising schools over my 20+ year career.

My female principal banned football because the boys were playing "too rough". That really bugged me. — RogueAI

Have you read "Of Boys and Men" by Richard Reeves? It's great, and he talks about just how devastating that thinking is for boys. Hey, you could show your principal, nothing risky about that right :)

I believe that I am better positioned to make ethical decisions if i practice morality. I practice morality by aspiring to virtues. as do others who disagree with me on virtue considerations. the virtues are debatable, the premise is debatable. — Jeremy Murray

Yep. And that makes me extremely uncomfortable — AmadeusD

Why?

I don't claim anything based on that premise for myself. I guess the problem with my position is that I haven't defined 'virtues' or how to pursue them? I don't think we have to limit ourselves to religious virtues. The book "After Virtue" that Count Tim recommended to me harkens back to Homer and virtues that seem more grounded in citizenship than anything?

I just think that people who practice things are more likely to be better at them. I don't see in utilitarianism or deontology any requirement to 'improve' as human beings in order to improve their moral judgement, and I do in virtue ethics.

That's why I keep harping on aspirational, although that might not be the best word. We aspire to improve and we leave the possibility of being 'correct' to the realm of always aspiring, whereas utilitarianism and deontology seem premised on 'knowable' objective truths?

That necessity to work at being good really contrasts with the political extremes right now, in which 'goodness' is simply a matter of holding the right beliefs.

I see a kind of moral laziness in relativism, or at least, relativism-by-default. It is very easy to just dismiss moral considerations as lame or uncomfortable, for harshing the vibe. And thus people are happy to skip the question and defer to moral 'experts' without developing their own moral muscles. I see that happening a lot on the left - people who would view themselves as moral, who others would view that way, but who are actually amoral relativists who simply think what those around them do.

This sense of morality being 'thinking the right things' seems dangerously omnipresent at the moment.

I am not partial to any of the three systems hereabouts noted. — AmadeusD

Again, I'm not formally trained, but aren't these three moral systems the primary moral systems, generally speaking? What system, if any, would you endorse?

What do you think 'systemic racism' means? — night912

Hello night,

I think I have a pretty standard understanding of the phrase. Certainly, when I see it used, I read it to refer to, say "any 'system' having biases implicit within it, biases which naturally reflect those of the powerful agents within the system, past and present, and that manifest in the structure and nature of these systems maintaining said biases, as long as they continue to reinforce self-beneficial power structures".

Or something like that. But these sorts of terms are intentionally vague, which to me is part of the problem.

As a high school teacher for the past 20 years, I certainly saw no actual 'evidence' of any significant 'structural racism', aside from 'differential outcomes', which I do not believe are evidence enough on their own for this explanation to work.

Open to disagreement on my use of the term or thoughts on my arguments!

Did you guys have anything like separate-but-equal? I see systemic racism as simply meaning there are many racist people in positions of power in all walks of life that reflexively make decisions against black people. They may not even be aware they're doing it. For example, if two people are applying for an apartment — RogueAI

Hi Rogue,

The implicit bias stuff has been shown to be pretty unhelpful overall. Turns out results for early experiments were overstated and overly simplified. It's one of those studies that has to be taken with a grain of salt, which I think responsible social scientists did at the time, but even when I recall the idea first emerging in school PDs 20 years, responsible social scientists were increasingly scarce.

Not that there aren't some good examples. Coleman Hughes talks about the 'call back' studies for jobs that resonate with your point about names, citing them as one of the few genuinely robust examples of what he too perceives as an exaggerated premise. (going by memory, I lent his book to a neighbour, but I think I got this right). Those results are known to be robust.

Another problem with the concept of implicit bias is that it lends itself to a cultural of managerial control. I've seen a lot of fair questions around this concept by admin with a 'don't you want to help _____'?

And we don't see implicit bias informing meaningful self-reflection within marginalized communities themselves, which of course have their own issues with various isms. You'd think people genuinely motivated by woke principle would be self-reflective by nature, that seems the steel-man premise of the ideology.

It is far to easy to see the majority of people using such language to enforce managerial prerogative are acting in bad faith as they do so. I have certainly seen dozens of examples of this in action in high school teaching over a 20 year career, to go along with the myriad examples of, say, Justin Trudeau dismissing questions around racism as 'racist', to go along with powerful journalism and academic critique from across the political spectrum against wokeness, from Coleman Hughes and Glenn Loury and even Christopher Rufo on the right, to Marixsts like Walter Benn Michaels and Adolph Reed Jr.

Have you read any woke 'scholarship'? I've been able to swallow reading a representative few over the years, and it's hard to see any case for calling most of it 'scholarship' at all. I believe the vast majority of 'social scientists' in the modern sense would explicitly state that their primary purpose is advocacy. They reject and 'dismantle' objectivity. I can't see how this wouldn't impact scholarship negatively, and as you see with, say, the Sokal Hoax 30 years ago, this has been true for decades.

I started seeing 'wokeness' way back in the mid/late 90s as a humanities undergrad and then in teacher's college, and by the time I was teaching in the Toronto HS system in the early 2000s, it was already creeping in. My generation of teachers started to teach kids, including the newest generation of young teachers in public schools right now, to spread from the woke gospel. It feels like a failure of social science to me, speaking a a psych/soc/phil/history student and teacher, rather than an 'academic'

Also in both our lifetimes, we saw the first black president, legalized gay marriage and pretty massive improvements of standards of living for billions worldwide. Coleman Hughes again (just read it, so it's fresh) called out 'the Myth of no Progress', and John McWhorter has argued this as well. To both of these black men, to suggest this is an insult to those that experienced the worst of US discrimination. It is simply not true to suggest that 'inherited trauma' is equivalent to slavery, or that anything you use to fill in the blank '______ is the new Jim Crow' is comparable to the real Jim Crow.

Just examples, not suggesting you go this far in post!

In my line of work (teaching), I've worked with several very racist teachers. They got along well with black students who behaved themselves, but if you were black in their class, and you were a troublemaker, there was no mercy. — RogueAI

I'm sorry to hear that. I can't say that I ever worked with a racist teacher, nor ever suspected as much. And I have worked with teachers who failed on a bunch of different moral issues. Just not that one, and I've only taught in super-diverse urban schools.

I know more about California than many states, having been there to visit my brother in LA. Talking to him over the years has me up on the basics, I guess, and it seems easy to suggest there are some problems related to woke policy in the state? Has that penetrated the schools?

What scares me about the teaching ranks is that we are way more privileged than our students, and I question our own class/education privilege in expecting, say, a low literacy group of teens to be able to master 'new' pronouns without having even mastered the old ones?

In the U.S. Senate, out of 53 Republican Senators, 43 are men. The GOP is heavily evangelical Christian, so the fact they're not comfortable with women leaders isn't surprising.

There are 10 states in America with abortion laws with no exceptions for rape. Does Canada have anything like that? And the fact that Trump could survive the Access Hollywood tape, and win, says a lot. Are you familiar with Andrew Tate and his popularity in MAGA world? — RogueAI

We are similar to you guys in some ways, but very different in others, abortion being one. I think the major challenge to American politics is the forced binary of only two parties. We have a few, although only two with actual federal leadership potential, and that seems to diffuse the concentration of extremist views on issues like abortion that I see in the US generally; the fact that, say, GOP leadership is way out of touch with the majority of their own voters being an example.

So nothing like that. Some Liberals tried scare-mongering that our Conservative candidate for PM would restrict access to abortions, but that's just cheap political BS. They wouldn't touch it even if the majority wanted to, which itself is highly unlikely.

I know more about Tate than I should for someone who is almost entirely off social media and not currently working or participating much in the world. Something of a hermit.

What I see in Tate, and saw in the Access Hollywood tape, is elite entitlement first and foremost, which manifests in hateful misogyny. I don't think that sort of misogyny can exist without the power of elite class-based entitlement. Obviously, other forms of misogyny can and do proliferate more or less depending on confounding variables like social class. And non elites do act like this too.

It's just that I wouldn't infer from elite, entitled misogyny about the nature of say, poor, patriarchal misogyny.

The angry incel in the basement is a problem, but a frame like 'patriarchy' doesn't do much to explain how those opposite ends of the spectrum of class could experience something meaningfully similar from this term UNLESS you actually use intersectional thought to consider class intersections .

This conclusion, of course, does not fit within the 'white supremacy' framework. But like my fave article title from the 2010s implies, to 'Try explaining white privilege to a poor white person' is to see where popular applications of the theory fall apart, morally speaking.

Reed Jr. and Michaels' "No Politics but Class Politics" really solidified me on these anti-woke beliefs - these guys are the two Marxist profs, one black, one a white Jew, and their take is that wokeness is essentially a tool of social control wielded by technocratic neoliberal elites across the political spectrum.

And given that boys have been falling behind in schools for decades, I fear that woke teaching is actually exacerbating boys sense of alienation, as we see in Richard Reeves latest book. And that guy is no radical.

Premising masculinity itself as inherently toxic is nuts to me, as an educator of freakin' children, and yes, it is fair to suggest that this IS how masculinity is presented in some classrooms. I don't mean to suggest that this worst-case scenario is therefore a default assumption you can make about discussing masculinity critically. This can be done well, but like any teaching, it can be done poorly, ignorantly, unskillfully, whatever, and the consequences of getting it wrong are leading to boys turning to the hideous Tate's of the world.

Sorry for the long answer! I'm rusty at human interaction ....

Am I onto anything here? Missing something?

I agree with some of what you say regarding trans, but do you think there is still systemic racism in this country against blacks? Do you think the fact we've never had a woman president is indicative of anything? Do you think the fact that Congress and the leadership of Fortune500 companies are disproportionately made up of white males is indicative of anything? — RogueAI

Hey Rogue,

I have a problem with the term 'systemic racism', or at least, how the term is used. So no, I don't think we have 'systemic racism' in Canada or the US, because that implies someone has built this system, on racist principles, when I think the primary 'systemic' power issue is social class.

Racism? Real and dreadful. Systemic racism? maybe not a thing? I don't see it here in Canada, anyway.

Clinton and Harris were the only two female candidates for president, no? Both were pretty terrible candidates. Here in Canada, we had a female PM, briefly. She too was not a great candidate.

I don't know if that's the right question. I think the US would totally elect a female president today, were a strong candidate to appear.

the makeup of congress and the Fortune500 is of interest to McKinsey and technocratic neoliberals, but like Adolph Reed and Walter Benn Michaels argue, what does diversity in elite circles due to reduce inequality as a whole? Nothing.

Overall, I think the project of wokeness is neoliberal and technocratic, serving as a substitute for meaningful class-based social justice.

What do you think?

the point isn't what's 'right' or 'wrong', since both are unknowable, the point is being better positioned to answer and act when it matters.

I don't care that my aspirations don't match others, or are not obviously right or wrong.

I believe that I am better positioned to make ethical decisions if i practice morality. I practice morality by aspiring to virtues. as do others who disagree with me on virtue considerations. the virtues are debatable, the premise is debatable.

But what seems more 'true' to me in terms of virtue ethics is that virtue requires work.

my teaching colleagues happy to tell our boys that they are 'toxic' are not doing work. they are just repeating whatever is the dominant belief system.

I can still forgive them, work with them, do better for kids, in that we all believe we are pursuing virtue.

utilitarianism and deontology would prevent that, no?

so, if not, what then?

One thing to bear in mind is that in most pre-modern ethics "good" is predicated of something as respects some end — Count Timothy von Icarus

right. but, from a modern perspective, does that matter? I know the premise was that historical ethical systems are embedded in modern ones, but the fact that aristotelean ethics were embedded earlier means that they are inevitably fundamental today?

me, personally, I'm just looking for a belief system as an atheist. virtue ethics might be considered the best system, even if flawed? that sure felt like McIntyre's conclusion.

I assume the most positive human thing possible is to aspire to betterment. 'betterment' is historically contingent.

to me, as a default, virtue ethics is superior given the fact that equips someone to make 'moral' decisions in the moment, whereas both utilitarianism and deontology seem to imply that there is a 'correct' answer to arrive at, rather than the 'best' answer of virtue ethics?

Hi Michael,

I care about trans men in women's prisons, and trans women in reverse. I reject your implication that my statement was transphobic. I further assert that your statement is problematic for the LGBTQ+ community AND the trans community.

I just don't think you or the people who argue what you are arguing know what you are talking about.

I worked front line as a progressive teacher for two decades. the sort of teacher kids came out to.

I was destroyed for playing a hip hop song. kids relied on me. not, i should conform to having been there for them.

this happens all the time.

I call your position morally wrong.

Please, prove me wrong! for real man, I want strong disagreement and such. I do not reject you for thinking what you think. but i do think you morally wrong, and request that you prove your point with evidence