Matt Taibbi’s Commentary on the Tearing Down of Old Twitter and (Hopefully) its Rebirth

As I've expressed repeatedly on this site (but more often and with detailed substantiation on my website, Dangerous Intersection), I have no little respect for much of what passes as "journalism" at America's best known legacy media outlets. They have repeatedly preached to us and censored dissenting views on major stories instead of letting the facts fall where they may and inviting us to evaluate those facts on our own. That is why trust in major media is at an all time low: only 11% of us have a lot of confidence in our newspapers and television news. For years, Twitter has been the water cooler for those seeking to shape media narratives and jam them down our throat. That is changing and I am ever cognizant of the wailing and gnashing of teeth, along with the gaslighting, I am hearing from the increasingly disempowered "journalists" who have been the most active at censoring. I applaud the efforts of Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Michael Shellenberger and others who are now revealing the many ways in which Twitter has been falsely presenting itself as a forum for free speech.

Today, Matt Taibbi posted background on the ongoing Twitter revelations. I expect that many people will appreciate these revelations but will not comment publicly (though many will applaud these development privately to me, as they have been doing for several years on many contentious issues). I also expect that more than a few people will publicly respond to Taibbi's comments (and my own) with a creative barrage of ad hominem comments--that's exactly what people do when can can't make honest arguments. Every time I see this behavior, I recognize it as stark symptoms of Nietzschean ressentiment. Here is an excerpt from Taibbi's most recent article, "Note to Readers on the "Twitter Files"":

A lot has been made about the line about how I “had to agree to certain conditions” to work on the story. I wrote that assuming the meaning of that line would be obvious. It was obvious. Still, the language was just loose enough to give critics room to make mischief, and the stakes being what they are, they of course did. That’s on me, and a lesson going forward. For the record, the deal was access to the Twitter documents, but I had to publish on Twitter. I also agreed to an attribution (“Sources at Twitter”). That’s it.

Everyone involved with the project, including myself as well as Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger, has editorial control. We’ve been encouraged to look not just at historical Twitter, but the current iteration as well. I was told flat-out I could write anything I wanted, including anything about the current company and its new chief, Elon Musk. If anything, the degree of openness on that front freaked me out a little initially, being so far from any other experience I’ve had.

In our initial meeting, Musk talked about how he thought a “full confessional restores faith in the company,” and everything I’ve seen since seems to confirm he’s sincere about his desire for full open-kimono transparency with the public. He says we’re “welcome to look at things going forward, not just at the past,” and until I run into a reason to believe otherwise, I’m taking him at his word. I’d be crazy not to, considering the access we’ve already been given. This is a historic opportunity, and I think we’re all trying to treat that opportunity with the appropriate respect, which among other things means staying as focused as we can be on the documents, and trying to make as much sense of them as we can, as quickly as we can....

In this particular instance, the story has to come out on Twitter. There’s the obvious deep irony of using the familiar drip-drip-drip format and uncontrollable virulality of Twitter to roast Twitter itself. We’re also using an inherently destabilizing medium to expose efforts to turn Twitter into an authoritarian instrument of social control. There’s genius in this. Now I would feel wrong even thinking of doing it any other way.

This is especially the case since a major subtext of the Twitter Files project is what a burn it is on conventional/corporate media, whose minions tried for years to turn Twitter into a giant conformity machine, and cheered each new advance in censorship and opinion control. Those same people now have to watch in helplessness as one horrifying revelation after another spills out, guerrilla-style, into what was not long ago their private playground. This, too, couldn’t be scripted better. It’s like sending an intercontinental shit-missile screaming into the dais of the White House correspondents’ dinner at 15,000 m.p.h. If you can’t see the humor in this, you probably never had a sense of humor to begin with.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi’s Commentary on the Tearing Down of Old Twitter and (Hopefully) its Rebirth

Michael Shellenberger’s Concern with Nihilism

Tucker Carlson recently interviewed Michael Shellenberger. The first third of the interview has been released. I highly recommend watching/listening/reading it. Shellenberger once identified as a liberal, but now he declares himself an independent, taking good ideas wherever he finds them and rejecting bad ideas. I agree with much of what he has to say in this part of the interview. Here is an excerpt from the interview where Shellenberger argues that a big part of our problem is nihilism:

Michael: I'm really interested in defending the pillars of civilization and the pillars of civilization are, as I see it, cheap, abundant energy, law and order, and meritocracy. My first book, Apocalypse Never, addresses the attack on abundant and cheap energy. San Fransicko describes the attack on law and order and meritocracy. You start attacking those pillars of civilization and you just don't have a civilization left anymore

Tucker: Can you repeat those?

Michael: Cheap energy, law and order, and meritocracy. All three are under attack in a really systematic way. This is why I find myself as somebody that's traditionally been on the left and is now independent. I see what conservatives are doing and the role of conservatives as important. They have the role of defending civilization. The role of the left has always been to demand change and push for change. And in some cases, I support that. But, right now, you see that the left has gone so far that even more moderate liberals have been radicalized and are undermining the bases of our civilization.

Tucker: But the alternative to civilization — and I've seen glimpses of it a couple of times — is so horrifying. It’s the total domination of the week by the strong. A 15-year-old with an automatic rifle can rape, can do whatever he wants, and you have no power. We spent millennia trying to build an alternative to that and we now have it. Why would you ever want to revert to the 15-year-old with the automatic weapon being in charge?

Michael: That's maybe the most important question of our time. And it's not an academic question.

Tucker: It’s a very practical question! And there are parts of the world where there's no civilization. I have personally seen them so I know. You can just buy a plane ticket and go there if you're interested. Why would anybody want that?

Michael: That is a huge question. I think one question is, “Do the people who are undermining civilization really want that? Do they know what they want?” To some extent, I think they do. But where all of my work has led me, and this is where my third book is going, is that what we're dealing with — and it's a bit of jargon, but I can't figure out how else to say it — a crisis of nihilism, meaning that as people stop believing in traditional religion, as people stop believing in God, they start to adopt new religions.

Nihilism has two meanings that are related. The first is that life has no purpose or value. We're just like animals. We're born, we reproduce, and we die. There's no point to any of it. And so it doesn't really matter what you do. You're not going to be judged at the end of your life to determine whether you go to heaven or hell. So that's the first nihilism. But then this turns people toward a kind of will-to-power. It turns into a desire to feel powerful, which itself is just a kind of hedonism when you get right down to it.... And it’s not just from the radical activists. We see it among elite media basically saying, “Unless we go back to pre-industrial energy sources, we're going to end up in a climate apocalypse.” They've constructed a new apocalyptic religion out of nihilism. I think that is what's driving this crisis of civilization. It’s a crisis of nihilism that arguably began a couple of hundred years ago....

Continue ReadingMichael Shellenberger’s Concern with Nihilism

The Correct Treatment for Gender Dysphoria

On the issue of gender dysphoria, I have followed Jesse Singal closely. I admire his willingness to dig deeply into the numbers and to let the numbers speak louder than the many one-size-fits-all "experts" out there (on both sides of the political spectrum). An enormous problem facing therapists and health care professionals is that the data is not clear yet. There are a lot of studies that are highly suspect for methodological reasons. Yet families are demanding treatment now and they want certitude. What should a therapist do when the evidence is not clear? To put it another way, where should they set their default? I'm not a therapist or health care professional, but I would set the default here: Don't surgically and permanently cut off an adolescent girl's breasts and inject her with male hormones (which will almost certainly render her sterile) when there is a reasonable possibility that the gender dysphoria is a consequence of other psychological and health issues that can be treated (or a consequence of cultural pressures). Do no harm. Singal recently summed up his current position, which is well worth considering:

My understanding of social transition is that it is a psychological intervention that may itself have downsides, such as making it harder for the kid to grow out of his or her gender dysphoria (I don’t think this is established, but I do think you can make a circumstantial case that it’s sometimes true from the available evidence). So even that shouldn’t be approached lightly — you should be certain the kid’s gender dysphoria is durable, severe, and causing problems. Is it “many” kids who fit these criteria? I dunno. Same deal with medical treatments. They really, really shouldn’t be taken lightly. The evidence base sucks, regardless of what major liberal media figures keep saying. A kid should go on blockers or hormones only if they’ve been assessed very carefully.

I don’t think there’s any evidence that treating gender dysphoria qua gender dysphoria with “therapy and medication” will do much good in most cases. I do think that in some subset of instances in which a kid tells a therapist they have gender questions, or definitely feel they are some “other” gender than their biological sex, basic exploration of other factors will reveal some other issue. Sometimes it might be recent trauma, sometimes it could be anxiety or depression, and sometimes it could be other issues involving, say, the onset of puberty. I think those issues probably can be treated with therapy and drugs, at least in a lot of cases, and that doing so may cause the gender issues to abate, because they weren’t the root issues in the first place.

There’s a lot of disagreement among clinicians over whether the causal chain (1) is always gender dysphoria → other psychological issues, or (2) whether it can sometimes go in the other direction. This is a pretty high-stakes question, because it obviously will affect the direction of therapy. If a kid has gender questions, anxiety, and depression, then a therapist operating under (1) will assume that ameliorating the GD will in turn ameliorate the other issues (so no need to pay them much mind at first), while a therapist operating under (2) will have more of a winding road to traverse.. ..

Anyway, all of this is to say that no, I haven’t been swayed from the idea that on balance, these treatments are probably good for kids who would otherwise suffer from severe, unremitting gender dysphoria. But even in these instances, no one should act like they know exactly what they’re doing. Sometimes even severe, prolonged cases of GD go away!

I am concerned that much of what passes as dysphoria is cultural dissing of women, passed by contagion. The following Tweet thread was well articulated.

Much of this resonates with me. Society has, in many ways, belittled women. If you think this is overstatement, go turn on your TV. Our culture continues to do this in thousands of ways. If I were about to be born and you could choose your sex and you would be growing up in the United States, what is the likelihood that you would choose to be a girl in our current cultural stew?

Continue ReadingThe Correct Treatment for Gender Dysphoria