Capitalizing on Race

I'll start with this post by Mike Benz:

If one really wanted to diminish the importance of "race," one would not capitalize only one "race" but not others. But this is a minor skirmish. As I've written before, the very concept of "race" is a grift; the usage of the concept of "race" has never enhanced human flourishing. It only pits us against one another. It's time for all of us to wake up and abolish the use of "race." We can talk about each other perfectly well without use of the term "race," which, at best, serves as a proxy for other things.

Sheena Mason argues that "race" is not biologically real—she points to evidence showing extensive human migration and mixing, where traits like skin color do not reliably correlate with ancestry (e.g., two dark-skinned South Africans can be more genetically divergent than one is from a light-skinned Swede).

She argues that "race" serves to perpetuate racism, a hierarchical system that disguises itself as innate differences. She critiques both "anti-racist resistance" (which centers race in analysis, as seen in thinkers like Ibram X. Kendi) and "color-blindness" (which ignores race but still treats it as real) for inadvertently reinforcing racial categories.

For Mason, undoing racism requires dismantling the belief in race altogether. A central tool in her approach is the "racelessness translator," which "translates" race-based language into non-racial terms to reveal underlying issues (e.g., reframing "racial disparities in policy effects" as class-based inequities).

There is no such thing as "race," even though racism can still be found. There are people who will nevertheless assure us that "race" is a meaningful term and who discriminate against those of a particular "race." They should be prosecuted under civil rights laws. It's time for the rest of us to move on.

For more, see my previous post, "Race is like Astrology."

Continue ReadingCapitalizing on Race

People Tend to Value Pets More than They Value People

I've often assumed that many people have pets instead of riskier potentially unmanageable children.  And sometimes I've assumed that many people cherish pets more than they cherish people.  If a dog and a person fell overboard and you could only save one, who are you going to save?

Now we have this study: "Pet owners often see dogs as soulmates and value them more than human lives."

Abstract:

Dogs have ascended to core family members in American households. Across three studies, we show that modern dogs now occupy roles historically reserved for close human relationships and often receive greater moral concern than people. Approximately three out of four dog owners view their dogs as primary sources of emotional support and companionship, and this “soulmate” bond is associated with a tendency to prefer and prioritize dogs over people. Childless dog owners are especially likely to view their dog as a soulmate, and national and county-level analyses further reveal that declining birth rates are strongly associated with increased pet-related spending. This suggests that dogs may fulfill caregiving roles once reserved for children and close kin. To assess the implications of this shift, we presented dog owners with moral dilemmas pitting the welfare of dogs against humans. Owners who viewed their dogs as soulmates were more likely to feed, fund, and save the life of a dog over a person. More than half of dog owners chose to save their dog over a human stranger, one in five chose to save an unfamiliar puppy over a person, and one in four chose to give money to a puppy in need over a child in need. The moral elevation of dogs may reflect—and potentially contribute to—declines in human social connection.

Is there a downside to this pet worship?

This same study points out:

While dogs may seem easier than human relationships, favoring them could come at the cost of human connection. Research suggests that social connection can be zero-sum; forming deep bonds with some often results in less concern for others. Reflecting this phenomenon, owners strongly bonded to their pets often socialize less, opting instead to stay home with their pets.

Increased attachment to dogs may also have ethical consequences. Animals, especially dogs, are frequently cast as helpless victims and receive greater concern than vulnerable humans. Many report feeling more distress for dogs than for adult people, and dog owners in particular often prioritize their pet over a human stranger in life-or-death scenarios.

Continue ReadingPeople Tend to Value Pets More than They Value People

Today’s Testimony: Vaxed versus Unvaxed

Aaron Siri just revealed that a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study from Henry Ford Medical Center was buried because it showed unvaccinated children were healthier.

“Del Bigtree and I met with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center.”

“He was pro-vaccine, running clinical trials.”

“We argued this was the chance to shut the anti-vaxxers up about their claim that unvaccinated children are healthier.”

“To our surprise, he agreed to conduct the study.”

“Dr. Zervos recruited a chief epidemiologist and two statisticians. These were mainstream scientists with orthodox views about vaccines.” “

The study compared children enrolled at Henry Ford from 2000 to 2016 from birth onward — unvaccinated children versus those who received one or more vaccines.” “It was based on actual medical records.”

“Vaccinated children had 4.29x the rate of asthma, 3.03x the rate of atopic disease, 5.96x the rate of autoimmune disease, 5.53x the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, including 3.28x developmental delay and 4.47x speech disorder.” “ADHD: 262 cases in the vaccinated group. Zero in the unvaccinated group.”

“All of these findings were statistically significant.”

“After 10 years, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health issue — often multiple, only 17% of unvaccinated children did.”

“Had it found vaccinated kids were healthier, it would have been published immediately. Because it found the opposite, it was shoved in a drawer.”

“The findings didn’t fit the policy that vaccines are safe.”

“We urged the researchers to submit it. They admitted the study was well-designed and conducted.

But Dr. Zervos said he didn’t want to lose his job. Another said she didn’t want to make doctors uncomfortable.”

“This is a real-world example of how the science around vaccines gets corrupted — how only studies that confirm the belief that vaccines are safe get published. Everything else gets shoved in a drawer.”

This has been an afternoon of jaw-dropping testimony. What you see above is the tip of the iceberg.

Continue ReadingToday’s Testimony: Vaxed versus Unvaxed

The Characteristics of People who Commonly Engage in Ad Hominem Attacks

I asked Grok: "What characteristics would you attribute to people who refuse to engage on the issues and instead engage in ad hominem attacks?"

Grok's response (I think it's an excellent response):

People who consistently avoid substantive debate on issues and resort to ad hominem attacks—insulting the person rather than addressing their arguments—often exhibit a cluster of psychological, cognitive, and behavioral traits. These aren't universal, as context matters (e.g., stress or cultural norms can play a role), but based on observations from psychology, rhetoric, and social dynamics, here are some common characteristics I'd attribute to them:Intellectual insecurity or defensiveness: They may feel their beliefs or knowledge are under threat, leading them to deflect by attacking the messenger. This stems from a fragile ego or imposter syndrome, where engaging deeply risks exposing weaknesses.

1. Lack of substantive knowledge or preparation: Without strong facts or reasoning to back their position, they fall back on personal jabs as a shortcut. It's easier to call someone "stupid" than to research and counter an argument effectively.

2. Emotional immaturity or high reactivity: Prone to letting emotions override logic, they might have poor impulse control or unresolved anger issues, turning discussions into personal vendettas. This aligns with traits seen in low emotional intelligence (EQ).

3. Cognitive biases in overdrive: Things like confirmation bias (only seeking info that supports their view) or black-and-white thinking make them dismiss opposing ideas outright, viewing disagreement as a personal affront rather than an intellectual challenge.

4. Manipulative or bad-faith tendencies: In some cases, it's a deliberate tactic to derail conversations, common in trolls, propagandists, or those with narcissistic traits who prioritize "winning" over truth-seeking. They might enjoy provoking reactions for entertainment or control.

5. Poor communication or conflict resolution skills: Often stemming from upbringing, education gaps, or social environments that reward aggression over dialogue, they haven't learned (or choose not to use) tools like active listening or constructive criticism.

These behaviors can be self-reinforcing, as they alienate thoughtful interlocutors and surround the person with echo chambers. If it's a habit, it might indicate deeper issues like anxiety disorders or even cluster B personality traits (e.g., borderline or antisocial tendencies), though that's speculative without clinical context. On the flip side, everyone slips into ad hominem occasionally under pressure—it's the refusal to engage that's the red flag.

Continue ReadingThe Characteristics of People who Commonly Engage in Ad Hominem Attacks

Getting the Facts Straight First

On all topics we need to get the facts straight before we can have any meaningful conversations. Joe Rogan brings up two examples regarding immigration.

1. FAR more people were deported under Obama than under Trump I and II. Look it up or see the link in the comments.

2. Hillary Clinton position on illegal immigration in 2008: Re people in the US illegally,

If they've committed a crime, deport them, no questions asked. They're gone. If they are working and law abiding, we should say, "Here are the conditions for you staying: You have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally. You have to pay back taxes and you have to try to learn English. And you have to wait in line."

What changed after Hillary Clinton took this strong stand that would convince her to reverse her stand? And for most elected Democrats and their supporters, what changed? What changed that would reverse their positions on warmongering, censorship, immigration, COVID mandates, experimental transgender medical interventions and the "need" for primary school teachers to confuse their students about whether they are boys or girls? How is it possible that so many people would flip their positions without a massive revelation of new facts to justify the flip? I suspect that the mechanism is social contagion (of the type discussed by Abigail Shrier), but what was the driver of the contagion? I suspected it is the highly coordinated actions by NGOs, many of whom were financed through the federal government (though USAID). The evidence is starting to pour out, starting with the Twitter Files

Here are Grok's numbers of deportations under Trump and Obama:

During Barack Obama's presidency (2009-2017), the U.S. government carried out approximately 3 million formal removals (deportations) of noncitizens. This figure refers specifically to removals, which involve a formal court order and often carry long-term consequences like bars to reentry, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Some sources cite higher totals for Obama (around 5.3 million) when including voluntary returns at the border in addition to formal removals.

During Donald Trump's first term (2017-2021), approximately 1.2 million noncitizens were formally removed. Other estimates put this at around 2.1 million when including returns.

As of late August 2025 (about seven months into Trump's second term), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had deported nearly 200,000 people. When including actions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Coast Guard, and self-deportations, the total rises to nearly 350,000 deportations since January 2025. By September 2025, this number would likely be slightly higher but still far below Obama's totals.

Overall, far more illegal immigrants were deported under Obama than under Trump's second term to date (or even his first term).

Rogan's conclusion, we are being subjected to a "massive concentrated psyop."

Grok on PsyOp:

A psyop, short for psychological operation, refers to planned activities designed to influence the perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors of targeted audiences, often through the dissemination of information, propaganda, or other non-violent means. In a military context, psyops are used by armed forces—such as the U.S. Army's Psychological Operations (PSYOP) units—to convey selected messages that support strategic objectives, like persuading enemies to surrender or building support among allies. This can involve tactics such as leaflet drops, broadcasts, social media campaigns, or cultural engagements to shape opinions without direct combat.

The term is closely related to psychological warfare (sometimes called PSYWAR), which encompasses broader efforts to demoralize opponents or rally support using misinformation, rumors, or symbolic actions. Outside of official military use, "psyop" is sometimes invoked colloquially or in conspiracy theories to describe perceived manipulative campaigns by governments, media, or other entities, though this is more informal slang than a formal definition.

Also see Robert Malone's new book, Psywar.

Continue ReadingGetting the Facts Straight First