Recent tweet from the rapper Zuby:
If an innocent person is brutally murdered and you need to know the 'race' and/or religion of the perpetrator and victim, before deciding if you should sympathise or not... Then you're part of the problem.
— ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) June 24, 2020
There's so much intellectual incoherence and outright insanity out there in the world. Yes, Twitter is a double-edged sword, but I've been hanging in there these days, using Twitter to help keep my head from exploding. But I'm also having this recurring thought: "If there is a God, I'm assuming that He/She/They are about to hit the reboot button for the universe." Here's a few of today's Twitter happenings:
In reaction to the Trump unhinged and xenophobic speech in Tulsa, "The Lincoln Project" tweeted: "Donald Trump told his administration to slow down testing. Now, 122,000 Americans are dead and coronavirus is rising in dozens of states. This is his legacy."
The rapper Zuby tweeted this response after learning about the "Black Only" zone being maintained in CHAZ/CHOP, Seattle: "Because racial segregation is obviously progressive."
Because we apparently have the inalienable right to tear down public art that offends us, Shaun King (1M followers) tweets: "All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down. They are a gross form white supremacy. Created as tools of oppression. Racist propaganda. They should all come down." That leads to this tweet by Finbad the Failer: "You want to destroy religious objects? Does this include Michaelanangelo’s Pieta and other masterpieces from the Renaissance?"
Finally, on Twitter today I learned that Author James R. Flynn was about to publish his newest book, "In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor," in which he "critically examines the way universities censor their teaching, how student activism tends to censor the opposing side and how academics censor themselves." Well, Flynn's book was cancelled by the publisher because, according to the publisher, the book might stir up too much trouble. Claire Lehmann (Founding Editor of Quillette) tweets: "For those unaware of who Flynn is: he is the strongest critic of what's called the "hereditarian hypothesis," and the discoverer of the Flynn effect (the observed increase of IQ scores across generations, likely due to improved nutrition & education)."
This TED talk by A.J. Jacobs inspires me.
I'm posting it especially for all the Dividers out there, including those on the political Left and Right. I hope it doesn't piss them off too much that every person on this planet is biologically related to every other person, regardless of what we look like.
I've been struggling to understand the contours of the recent dispute involving J.K.Rowling's tweets regarding transgendered persons. This issue caught my interest in that I know several people who transitioned and one who is transitioning as a 30 year old adult after being in a marriage. In the process of trying to understand the issues, I've read about a dozen articles from varying perspectives plus hundreds of tweets, many of them claiming to be authored by transgendered persons.
Interestingly, those postings claiming to be authored by transgendered persons seem to be much more sympathetic to J.K. Rowling. Many of the postings on social media are intense reads, leading me to wonder whether there is any way to satisfy all of the sides to the dispute. I doubt it and I think I now better understand why after watching the attached video featuring two evolutionary biologists, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. I found their comments on gender ideology and biology quite helpful to understanding these issues. I especially appreciate that their comments are well founded on biology, but also sensitive to the need to treat transgendered persons with kindness. I also appreciate that they both deal head-on with the political aspects of this issue, including the need to recognize over-stepping by the authoritarian left.
A girl in my grade school was repeatedly bullied, but the teachers (Catholic nuns) failed to intervene. Several of the boys formed a mob that picked on her, both in class and on the playground. They mocked her with nicknames. They chanted at her. They made fun of the way she looked, including the thick glasses she wore. They sneered at her, sometimes causing her to look very sad. Other students would sometimes try to intervene but it was at the risk of becoming targets themselves. Several decades later, this bullied girl had grown into a very impressive woman who told me that this bullying contributed to severe depression while she was a young adult.
As I reminisced about this sad chapter of grade school, I thought about how far we haven’t come. On social media (for me, FB and Twitter), I’ve seen similar boorish online behavior by numerous people, including intelligent people who I consider friends and who are offering ideas I consider valuable. The bad behavior is usually directed to people on the “opposing political team,” but that is no excuse. There is no excuse at all. Why do people who are generally decent and thoughtful stoop to the low bar set by the President? Do they think it’s OK to be like Trump?
Why do so many people think it’s OK to engage in name-calling, slurs, ad hominem attacks, guilt by association and numerous other fallacious and malicious forms of argument? These things are the broken windows and graffiti of social media and they are also symptoms of something much deeper. Why do grown educated adults make fun of the way other people look, including ridiculing the President’s obesity, lack of hair and skin color? Trump’s behavior repulses me, but I will keep my criticisms aimed only at his behavior, not his looks. What is the justification for doing otherwise in a civil society?
Many people justify their social media loutishness by pointing to the loutish behavior of members of the other political team, as though this justifies anything. We need to rise about this temptation and with a little discipline we can do it. Others have done it in much more trying circumstances. Ben Fainer, a friend of mine, died a few years ago. He was tortured and terrorized for six years at Buchenwald and other concentration camps during WWII. In his 2012 video, I asked him whether he hated the Nazis for what they did to him and his family. He said, “If I hate, I’m going to hurt myself.” The way that Ben discusses his survival in the camps is an inspiration to me (See minute 38:20). Truly, we can stay above the fray.
As new fault lines are becoming more apparent within the two traditional political teams, I’m seeing even more of this bad behavior online. Why is this OK? We don’t hurl weaponized language at each other in person. Why aren’t we taking special care on social media, given the increased risk of treating each other as floating words rather than as fully human?
Can’t we see that we are engaged in cheapest type of virtue signaling when we use low rent language and bullying tactics? For those of you who claim to be Christian how can you possibly justify this behavior? Is that how any of us were raised? Don’t we want to be good examples for our own children? Wouldn’t it be better for us to take our inspiration from real life great communicators like Martin Luther King rather than by plummeting to the coarse ignorance of Donald Trump?
In tumultuous times like this, when mortality salience is thick in the air, we are being poisoned by the ingroup bias. It binds and blinds far more than we realize. This group bias can make a pit of venomous snakes look like soft puppies and it can make puppies look like venomous snakes. Our deeply ingrained groupish tendencies can cause the confirmation bias run rampant and most of us are completely oblivious. Until we muster the discipline to take the red pill that allows us to see this cluttered world as a complex ecosystem rather than a Manichean battlefield, we will suffer a long succession of missed opportunities. Step one is to recognize the full humanity of each other while online.
If we have the better facts and persuasion, then let us educate and persuade each other. If our ideas are so undeniably correct, why not offer our ideas fairly and, yes, forcefully, after giving our opponents their best foot forward? Let’s make social media a place where we want to be both inspired and challenged. Let’s clean up all of this broken glass and graffiti. When we disagree with others, let us have the courage to work together to find out why we disagree. When we can’t seem to resolve our differences, let’s make sure that we always recognize the humanity in each other in the process. That is the only way we will stop this insanity.