This action by FB should send a shockwave through America. Brett Weinstein is a good-hearted and extremely thoughtful voice that we desperately need. The curtain has now been pulled back and we can see that Private-Owner Social Media Wizards can flip a switch to cancel anyone without any stated reason. This comes on the heels of Brett's recent muzzling by Twitter, apparently for his spot-on criticism of our precious political duopoly.
So where is one supposed to lodge a complaint once FB and Twitter have both decided to become supervising nannies regarding the *content* of one's posts?
We are moving down an extremely dangerous slippery slope.
Critical Race Theorists are getting their way in many institutions in the form of forced "training" for unwilling students and employees. CRT advocates are largely getting a free pass on this trend. Many people who have serious concerns about CRT's ideological foundation and tactics are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs, for legitimate fear of being canceled in other ways or for a well-documented fear of being branded "insensitive" or "racist."
CRT advocates proudly embrace the idea that one can determine another person's character by simply noticing immutable characteristics such as skin color. In short, CRT advocates claim to be are fighting racism, but they do this by employing racism. CRT thus has a lot in common with astrology: both approaches assert that one can understand another person by reference to something purely accidental (whether it be a skin tone or a birth date). Both approaches lack scientific validity and CRT is setting the civil rights movement back by decades by trashing Martin Luther King's dream that we will one day judge each other by content of character. Unfortunately, CRT has gained critical mass in many schools, corporations and government offices, which now invite forced CRT indoctrination of their students and employees.
Christopher Rufo is a journalist who has declared war on this trend. He discusses CRT principles in this video, then bemoans the fact that thoughtful liberals are not able or willing to criticize the movement for fear of being called names or losing social status or employment:
15:31
Rubin: Do you sense that the liberals have any defense against this? I think this is where i have a bit of a difference with some of my friends in this where I think some of them still think the liberals have some defense mechanism against this. I simply don't believe that anymore. I think i it's either the conservatives and in a weird way, it's Trump or or bust. What do you think about that?
Rufo: Yeah, I 100% side with you. I think that what we've seen in Seattle and San Francisco and Los Angeles, that the kind of old-line liberals or the kind of moderate liberals really have no ability to push back or even restrain the most extreme progressive ideologues. That kind of experience in the last 10 years in these very liberal cities on the west coast is now being nationalized in our discourse and, frankly, Joe Biden is not going to offer any kind of restraint against this. It's completely naive and absurd to think so. It's also kind of naive and absurd to think that there's some great third party unity ticket that could fight against it. The kind of brass tacks of it is that dissident liberals, mainstream liberals--they have to to create an alliance with conservatives in order to stop this. I'm encouraging all of my friends on the center left to move over and forge an alliance at least on these critical issues with us within the conservative movement because the bottom line is really this uh kind of writing an op-ed no matter how good it is kind of appealing to civil discourse appealing to restraint, appealing to the center, is not going to change the minds of the fundamentalists who are running the kind of intellectual architecture of the left and they have to basically make the decision we are going to tactically align with conservatives to stop this.
Many of Rufo's conclusions align well with the opinions of many on the dark web, many of whom are now considered "dissident" liberals because they believe in traditional liberal values, but not the pernicious ideas of CRT. As far as defining "traditional liberal values," consider Jonathan Haidt's description:
I think young people are losing touch with some of the hard-won lessons of the past, so I’m not going to say “Oh, we have to just accept whatever morality is here.” I still am ultimately liberal in the sense that what I dream of is a society in which people are free to create lives that they want to live. They’re not forced to do things. They’re not shamed. There’s a minimum of conflict and we make room for each other. If we’re going to have a diverse society, we’ve really got to be tolerant and make room for each other. That’s my dream. I think in the last five or ten years, we’ve gotten really far from that.
For another lengthy and robust conversation regarding the danger of critical race theory, consider this Making Sense podcast, in which Sam Harris interviews John McWhorter: #217 - THE NEW RELIGION OF ANTI-RACISM. . Sam Harris has been a shining light on these issues of Wokeness for many months. Making Sense has a paywall, but I'd ask you to consider making the investment. If you can't afford it, write Sam an email and he'll give you free access for a year.
I'll end with this recent political development: Donald Trump "has just signed a full Executive Order abolishing critical race theory from the federal government, the military, and all federal contractors." This is an era of strange bedfellows. I can't think of a person I detest more than Donald Trump, yet I think this executive order is an appropriate step. Perhaps this order will provoke real and nuanced public conversations about the aspirations and dangers of CRT in lieu of institutional bullying and infinite varieties of ad hominem attacks in reply to sincere criticism. For more, see Rufo's article from yesterday (with the full executive order) here.
To clarify - Rufo and Rubin urge voting for Trump on this one issue. I have never voted for anyone based on one issue, and Trump's maliciousness, mendaciousness and corruption will keep me from voting for him even if I think he made one appropriate move on CRT.
Need I say this at the beginning of this post? Unfortunately, I might need to. On many topics I disagree with Tucker Carlson and his peers at FOX, or the current Republican Administration, because I lean left on many issues. That said, now on with the post.
I'm glad that Tucker Carlson is shining light on the use of critical race theory in the federal workforce. Carlson's guest, journalist Christopher Rufo, is gathering this information from hundreds of workplaces where CRT is taking the form of religious indoctrination. As Rufo indicates, "There is no place for this toxic, divisive, pseudoscientific ideology in our public institutions."
Rufo Tweeted yesterday: "In the past 18 hours, I've received more than 1,000 messages and 100 new sources for leaked government documents." Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
I'm posting Rufo's recent Tweet below, along with Geoffrey Miller's well phrased comment:
There are many reasons to resist this authoritarian urge to squash dissent. The first is that scientific progress, and by extension, the improvement of human well‐being generally, requires free thought and open discourse. As Jonathan Rauch explains in his book, “Kindly Inquisitors,” the scientific method breaks down when people become reluctant to ask questions, be creative, challenge each other, and seek out and understand evidence.
Further, as Thomas Chatteron Williams explained in a New Yorker interview, the culture of canceling signals to people what the boundaries of “acceptable” ideas are or else suffer severe economic and emotional punishment. Thus many “steer far clear of the boundary,” causing a “narrowing…stifling effect on not just speech but on thought,” he explained.
Yet silencing people and stifling free thought isn’t an effective long‐run strategy. It rarely changes minds. It just shuts down civil discourse and prevents people from having opportunities to modify their ideas in the face of new information. Instead, people hold onto their opinions, and just sweep them under the rug.
Political opponents’ disengagement doesn’t necessarily mean victory. Americans still vote. And their political views, silent or expressed, affect how they vote. Persuasion is necessary to change how people think and thus who and what they vote for. But persuasion is hard and requires open dialogue.
Social psychologists have found evidence that we aren’t very good at updating our opinions by ourselves. We need other people we respect to ask us to explain our views and then challenge us with new considerations. It’s typically through this back and forth process that we update our views when people we trust present us with new, compelling information.
But this only works when we feel comfortable to engage in a dialogue. Thus it is only with open dialogue that people’s opinions can be examined, understood, or reformed. Thereby, the best long‐term strategy is persuasion, not silencing. And persuasion requires open debate.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
