Glenn Greenwald:
Either @SecBlinken is one of the most self-deluded government officials on the planet, or he is off-the-charts when it comes to willingness to spout brazen propaganda, or both. Whatever it is, nobody outside of the US/UK media falls for this blatant deceit.
I've followed the works of E.O. Wilson for many years, starting with his book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975), which I read as a teenager. His recent death is both a great loss and an opportunity to remember his substantial contributions to evolutionary biology.
Gad Saad offers this excellent homage to E.O. Wilson's work. One thing that stood out to me is Saad's coinage of the term "human reticence effect." Here is Saad's explanation of this critically important term (and phenomenon):
The human reticence effect: It's perfectly okay to apply evolutionary principles to explain one million nine hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine species, but if you apply to study one species called humans, well then, you are Himmler and you're a nazi. And so E.O. Wilson, in daring to apply incredibly rigorous and profound evolutionary principles to explain incredible animal behavior, including some very puzzling animal behavior, once he used that framework to apply it to human behavior, then he was a persona non grata which, of course, is exactly what you see 45 years later with evolutionary psychologists. If you apply a principle to study the evolution of mating behavior of the salamander then bruh, you're a great scientist. If you apply the exact same mechanism the same methodology, the same epistemology, to study the evolution of human mating in humans, well then, come on bro that's just faux science. It's "nazi science" it's "pseudoscience." I have written about why people have these emotional and cognitive obstacles to accept the application of evolutionary principles to the study of human behavior in much of my scientific work.
Sam Harris appeared on stage with Scott Galloway to discuss many topics, including "race." I am using these scare quotes because I do not recognize "race" to be a reality-based category, but only an extremely toxic temptation for both well-meaning people and power-seekers. I'm convinced that from Day One, recognition of "race" was always a bad idea and it continues to be a bad idea that needlessly tears people apart, often causing physical violence and sometimes causing death. The concept of race has the scientific validity and reliability of astrology--both concepts are gross miscategorizations, attempts to silo complex human beings (and all human beings are complex) on the basis of immutable irrelevant characteristics. The less credence we grant this concept, the better, in my view. Here's what Sam Harris had to say about his view of the best endgame for the concept of "race."
The goal has to be to get to a society where we care less and less about the superficial differences between people. It seems to me patently obvious that there can't be a matter of caring more and more about these differences. [There are] people who were actually living in a post-racial society in the sense that they weren't they did not care about the color of anyone's skin or anyone's sexual preference or gender identity. There were many people living truly ethical lives having broken out of this this truly toxic past with respect to those forms of bigotry. They're getting pushed back. They're being told by this corner of the culture “No no no! It's too soon to say that. It’s always going to be too soon to say that you're post-racial or blind with respect to these differences among people. These differences have to be ramified. They have to be acknowledged. You as a white person have no standing with which to say anything about race.” That's madness. It's absolute madness.
The goal for us ethically and intellectually has to be to arrive at a time where we don't care about these things no more than we care about hair color. Just imagine if we were coming from a time where people had been discriminated against based on hair color. That would be totally perverse.
From a London Times article (praising the bravery of J.K. Rowling):
A friend believes people divide into sheep and goats. The sheep will never stray too far from their flock’s received wisdom because lone dissenters are picked off by wolves. Sheep are pleasant, biddable, placid, and panic when cornered. Sheep mainly aspire to a quiet life.
Goats are not nice: they’re cussed, belligerent, solitary. They scrabble and climb, cling to frozen rock faces. It’s not bravery that leads them far from low-hanging fruit and shelter into barren places with precipitous drops, or to ram their heads into hard objects and bigger foes. It’s their nature. They’re goats.
This conversation is two years old, but it is a fascinating look into the strategies Twitter was using to navigate the two challenges of allowing free expression and preventing harm. Jack Dorsey is at the table along with Vijaya Gadde, who serves as Twitter's global lead for legal, policy, and trust and safety at Twitter. It's important to note that Dorsey recently stepped down as CEO of Twitter, replaced by Twitter's chief technology officer, Parag Agrawal, who has sent signals that he will not be as accommodating to free speech as Dorsey.