Alternatives to “Likes” on Social Media

Most social media platforms invite users to reply "Like" a Tweet, Post or Photo. It might be fun, for instance, when a dozen people "Liked" a photo of my salad. As argued, in "The Social Dilemma," however, piles of like can serve to steer people into tribes. This can happen when people post conclusions rather than thoughtful discussions.  It can happen when people make ad hominem attacks on their least favorite politicians and simplistic cartoons of complex social issues, such as immigration.

What is social media for?  That's a good question and it might evoke ten different answers from ten people.  Is it for cat videos and photos of one's children or is it appropriately used for discussing critically important social issues?  The suggestion that I'm about to make is for those of us who see social media as an opportunity to engage in serious conversations about important issues of the day with others in our network. Those not interested in serious discussions are invited to continue sharing cat photos.

I would suggest that in addition to the "Like" option, we add a few other options, including the following:

  • Your post merely parrots a talking point of one of the two political parties.
  • You are making an ad hominem attack on a person, not providing me with useful information.
  • You are engaged in a [cognitive bias] [logical fallacy].
  • Your post caused me to think about a topic in a new way.
  • Your post made me less certain of an opinion that I had.
  • Your post made me realize that this topic is more complex than I realized.
  • Your post states the facts fairly, but I still disagree with you.
  • You provided me with new intriguing information that I appreciate.
  • Your post made me angry, but I am glad you read it.
  • Your post irritates me, I disagree with you, but I value you as a friend.

I'm sure there are others that should be considered.  The main question is whether we are satisfied hoot panting for each other to display tribal loyalties or whether we want to be challenged to understand out world better . . .

Continue ReadingAlternatives to “Likes” on Social Media

Dennis Kucinic Discusses Partisanship

Matt Taibbi sat down to talk to Dennis Kucinich about his new book, ""The Division of Light and Power," a long detailed and instructive tale of abject city corruption. In the course of that discussion, Kucinich gave his views on partisanship:

MT: A theme that runs through your book is how you found partisan labels confining…

Dennis Kucinich: I did.

MT: I ask because in recent years, there have been multiple profiles of you that have taken the angle, “Dennis Kucinich was proven right.” The Washington Post says you were the “future of American politics,” we just didn’t know it at the time. The question I’m getting at: is there something predictive in this book, too, that people don’t realize yet about that lack of partisan distinction? Because it feels like the country is moving in this direction of being less interested in labels.

Dennis Kucinich: When I stood on that presidential platform, when you covered me in the campaign, most people weren’t aware of where I’d been, because I didn’t wear it on my sleeve. But I knew I had to tell the story.

When I was campaigning nationally, I detected something that was different than I was reading about in terms of the public. I detected an underlying unity. Now, that’s not where the attention is today. Because the polarization’s been so extreme and pile-driven into the bedrock of American politics, that we come to believe that you’re either left or right or liberal or conservative. But I still think that there are a lot of Americans who see their country in a more gentle way, in a way that they connect to the heart of the country, that they feel the country in a different way. It’s a sense of sadness about where America is at the moment, and it’s turmoil that we’re in.

But I don’t think that really reflects who we are as a nation. I think there’s another America waiting to be evoked, and part of it is an America that is not partisan, that is not saying that the fount of all truth, love, and mercy rests in one political party or the other.

When you move away from this inelegant Punch and Judy show called the national political scene, with Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other, hey, it becomes this incestuous, internal game that is largely irrelevant to the concerns of people.

In this book, I write where the Democratic party was pushing for the sale of the light system, that the Democratic party was criticizing me for going after the banks, for challenging the banks. I was made to appear to be un-American for raising questions about the right of banks to redline communities. And I don’t forget for a minute that it was the Democratic party that chopped up the 10th District, which I had the privilege of serving for 16 years.

MT: No monopoly on gerrymandering, apparently.

Dennis Kucinich: Look, my feeling is that there’s a point at which partisan politics becomes its own game apart from the reality that most people have to live with, and that causes people to just tune out. And so, do I think that a new form is emerging? Yeah, I think so. It is, but where it’s going to go when it appears, I don’t know. But I do know that there is another America out there that is not always heard from, and that could end up becoming decisive at some point in the future.

Continue ReadingDennis Kucinic Discusses Partisanship

Circular Thinking 101: Ibram Kendi’s Definition of Racism

Ibram X. Kendi is exulted as an intellectual leader by most people who peddle in Critical Race Theory. The movement is purportedly concerned with "racism." What is racism? Click the image of John McWhorter's Tweet below to watch a one-minute video:

Here is Kendi's definition of "racism" in writing: "A collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas"

Now ask yourself whether Kendi answered the question or whether he completely evaded answering the question. It should be clear that "racism" is a key term. If his definition wobbles, his entire thought process wobbles. I should also note that I've read other passages by Kendi in which he is similarly (and I suspect, coyly and consciously) circular. 

Consider the definition of circular reasoning:

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.. . . Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.

Let us substitute to illustrate.  What is Communism? "A collection of communist policies that lead to communist inequity that are substantiated by communist ideas"

What is activism? "A collection of activist policies that lead to activist inequity that are substantiated by activist ideas"

As McWhorter suggests above and elsewhere, Ibram Kendi is not a serious thinker (and see here). McWhorter's point in the Tweet is to the extent that people don't hold Kendi to high standards for rigorous thinking, to the extent that they avert their eyes when Kendi embraces circular reasoning of a foundational term of his expansive theory, this is the "soft racism" of assuming that Kendi can't cut it because he is "black." Kendi is thus widely celebrated among the Woke and he commonly gives highly-compensated lectures discussing something he cannot define. Again, Kendi is vigorously embracing circular logic to underpin a term upon which he constructs his entire system. What other highly celebrated "thinker" would be given a pass for such an abject failure?

Notice that Kendi's "definition" or "race," he doesn't mention the common understanding of racism: treating someone badly because they are of another "race." What is "race"? According to Merriam-Webster, "race" refers to "any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry." In short, "racism" is treating someone badly because they are seen as part of a group of people who look different than other groups of people. You will not hear Kendi ever basing his theory on this common understanding of "racism" because there is so little of it remaining in American society.

IIn many articles at this website, I've attacked the concept of "race.  Dividing people by "race" is as irrational as dividing them on the basis of astrology or phrenology. That is why I use so many scare quotes when I discuss "race." That said, "racism" is a real thing in our society, a disgusting and festering attitude with a long history. I've consistently held that even though I do not recognize "race" to be a legitimate way to characterize the personality, history or skills of any person, those who engage in "racism" should be socially ridiculed and sued for any harm they cause.  My approach is thus grounded.  I'm aware that there are some people who still treat each other badly based purely on personal appearance (e.g, skin tone, hair texture or facial features). This is a bad thing because is impairs human flourishing and harms people, including financially. I have presented a problem that was formerly prevalent, much less so in modern times. I personally know this because I lived through the 50's and 60's. I see how American culture has increasingly and exuberantly embraced "black" people, setting many incentives for hiring minorities and recruiting them as students. 61.2% of "blacks" are now economically categorized as middle class.  Kendi rejects every empirical approach to "racism," however, because he wants lawmakers to assume (in the absence of evidence) that all "racial" disparities are the result of racial attitudes.  Multivariate analyses are an anathema to Kendi. To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

For these reasons, Kendi has constructed his entire "anti-racism" theory on his circular definition of "racism" and he doesn't care that he is peddling such slop. And in a stunning display of the soft bigotry of low expectations, Kendi is not called out on this blatant circularity, arguably among the lowest hanging fruit on the tree of logical fallacies.  Another key part of Kendi's theory is "structural racism" or "systemic racism." Those terms are equally problematic, as John McWhorter points out in his article, "CAN WE PLEASE DITCH THE TERM "SYSTEMIC RACISM"?" Here is an excerpt from McWhorter's article:

First let’s review what systemic racism means. There are inequities between whites and blacks. The reason is not that blacks are inherently less capable than whites. This presumably means that the discrepancies are traceable to devaluation of black people of some kind at some point in the pathway. This devaluation, even if not conscious, is a kind of racism, and this means that the society “is racist.” Thus the way to get rid of this kind of discrepancy is to undo the racism in the system.

But note that if we take this as a succession of logical statements rather than as a musical sequence valuable primarily because the term racism is intoned within it, then we hit a snag. Just what do we do to undo “racism” that is bound up in a complex system, and especially given that the system has a past that is unreachable to us now, as well as a present?

Here, The Elect burn to insist that, well, systemic racism exists anyway! And you the reader may want to reiterate that systemic racism exists. It does. There are indeed such discrepancies. The question is not whether they exist, but what one does about them.

“Undoing the racism in the system,” in this light, is word magic, not an intelligent prescription for change in the real world. Grouchy? Not really – just grounded.

In Ibram Kendi's world, ubiquitous "systemic racism" is the Holy Spirit.

Continue ReadingCircular Thinking 101: Ibram Kendi’s Definition of Racism

Twelve Fallacies About Free Speech, Refuted

At Areo, Greg Lukianoff (An attorney who is the President and CEO of FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) wrote this article to refute twelve fallacious arguments about free speech. Here are the fallacies:

  • Free speech was created under the false notion that words and violence are distinct, but we now know that certain speech is more akin to violence.
  • Free speech rests on the faulty notion that words are harmless.
  • Free speech is the tool of the powerful, not the powerless.
  • The right to free speech means the government can’t arrest you for what you say; it still leaves other people free to kick you out.
  • But you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre.
  • The arguments for freedom of speech are outdated.
  • Hate speech laws are important for reducing intolerance, even if there may be some examples of abuse.
  • Free speech is nothing but a conservative talking point.
  • Restrictions on free speech are OK if they are made in the name of civility.
  • You need speech restrictions to preserve cultural diversity.
  • Free speech is an outdated idea; it’s time for new thinking.
  • I believe in free speech, but not for blasphemy.

Visit Areo for Lukianoff's responses to each of these fallacies.

In response to the fallacy that free speech is an outdated concept, Lukianoff gave this succinct defense of John Stuart Mill, from On Liberty (available from free at this link):

John Stuart Mill’s central arguments in On Liberty remain undefeated, including one of his strongest arguments in favour of freedom of speech—Mill’s trident—of which I have never heard a persuasive refutation. Mill’s trident holds that, for any given belief, there are three options:

A) You are wrong, in which case freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you.
B) You are partially correct, in which case you need free speech and contrary viewpoints to help you get a more precise understanding of what the truth really is.
C) You are 100% correct. In this unlikely event, you still need people to argue with you, to try to contradict you, and to try to prove you wrong. Why? Because if you never have to defend your points of view, there is a very good chance you don’t really understand them, and that you hold them the same way you would hold a prejudice or superstition. It’s only through arguing with contrary viewpoints that you come to understand why what you believe is true.

Lukianoff ends his article with this:

Free speech is valuable, first and foremost, because, without it, there is no way to know the world as it actually is. Understanding human perceptions, even incorrect ones, is always of scientific or scholarly value, and, in a democracy, it is essential to know what people really believe. This is my “pure informational theory of freedom of speech.” To think that, without openness, we can know what people really believe is not only hubris, but magical thinking. The process of coming to knowing the world as it is is much more arduous than we usually appreciate. It starts with this: recognize that you are probably wrong about any number of things, exercise genuine curiosity about everything (including each other), and always remember that it is better to know the world as it really is—and that the process of finding that out never ends.

Continue ReadingTwelve Fallacies About Free Speech, Refuted

What Should be Done about the Way Many Schools are Preaching Critical Race Theory to their Students?

Bari Weiss has written a column that includes a comprehensive discussion with Christopher Rufo and attorney/writer David French. It is a highly civil and insightful discussion. She begins her column with this:

If you are reading this, I suspect you are disturbed by an ideology that segregates people by race; that insists on a racial hierarchy in which entire racial groups are monolithically good or bad; that does away with race-blind tests in the name of progress; and that insists that any inequality of outcome is evidence of systemic discrimination.

Those are bad ideas at odds with our most foundational American values. On Friday, Andrew Sullivan published an essay arguing that CRT removes the “bedrock of liberalism.” I agree.

The question is: What should be done about it? . . . The idea of banning ideas should make any American shudder.

In my discussion below, everything I write is a paraphrase other than the bits of text that are in quote marks.

At min 35 in the discussion French asserts that the many new statutes banning there teaching of critical race theory "flat out violate the constitution." I agree with Weiss and French. There is a big difference between teaching about a subject and preaching that subject in a way that makes students feel that they are compelled to agree. French disputes that the CRT movement has deep radical control over America's institutions, even though it is influential. He believes that we have the means, including our legal system, of addressing this ideology. He worries that overblowing the force of CRT is mustering a anti-First Amendment pushback on the political right (e.g., regulating big tech and anti-CRT legislation).

Rufo "strongly disagrees, urging that CRT is overwhelming American institutions from coast to coast, and that these are extraordinary and dangerous times. He argues that the State does not have free speech rights. They, through public schools, have a state run monopoly and a captive audience (that consists of children, even young children) upon which they are forcing compelled speech that takes the form of "racial poison." Children should not be compelled to express belief in racial essentialism, racial discrimination, the need for collective guilt or the need to acknowledge that one is responsible for the crimes of one's ancestors. He argues that the State, though Departments of Education, already have the power (and obligation) to implement the school curricula.

French responds (at min 45) that much of the proposed legislation is not necessary in that there are already robust Constitutional protections against compelled speech. Further, many of the bills are not limited to K-12 education. Unconstitutional grant-making is already illegal by the theory of "unconstitutional conditions." We need to take these bills "bill by bill." There might need to be a lot of litigation about this, in that many of these bills are wildly vague. French completely agrees that compelled CRT speech is improper (with or without the new bills). Some of these bills improperly take aim at some of the foundational principles of traditional liberalism.

Rufo argues that these new ("race neutral") laws are necessary to protects one's right to conscience. He argues that communities ought to be able to enforce their own values in their own institutions, which they fund. He argues that many of the laws allow the teaching of CRT as a theory, in a contextual way, but you can't force your students to believe them. You cannot teach CRT as a dogma. He argues that the State has much more "shaping power" in K-12, grades that students are required to attend. He argues that the public should also do whatever it can to shape the values instilled by public colleges, including criteria for grant-making, which many of these new laws seek to protect.

French compares to teaching religion. The Constitution allows teaching about Christianity, but not teaching it "as truth."

Weiss asks French what he would suggest to combat CRT if these new state laws are unconstitutional. He suggested local courageous control of schools. Get involved in your child's school. Many non-elite public schools are not steeped in CRT. There are many opportunities to speak up. In K-12, the state is already given lots of leeway to determine curriculum. Laws affecting that cannot be unconstitutionally vague.

French: The question is not whether these ideas are good. The question is what are the limits of constitutional protection? Many of these bills attack compelled speech, but the First Amendment already protects students from compelled speech. Right now, no school has the right to force a student to wrote a letter of apology to students for one's "white privilege."

Rufo urges that these bills are necessary because students are being forced to do such things. Rufo states that he has a database of more than 1,000 institutions where students are currently being forced to engage in such behavior.

French responds: "Then file a lawsuit." He admits that only the Idaho statute comes close to being constitutional. The other statutes ban the expression of particular viewpoints. (Min 1:02:00). This is lawful only in narrow circumstances (re state employees). The universities do not have First Amendment rights, but the professors do, and based on French's experience as an attorney, most of these new laws will be struck down as speech codes, if challenged in court.

French "wants to hear" from those who promote CRT. He disagrees with many of these ideas, but he wants to hear them, understand them and, I many cases, reject them. But he does not want to ban these ideas from the marketplace of ideas.

Weiss to French: Aren't the CRT promoters trying to erase the ability of people like French to reject CRT?

French: There is no doubt that many of these people want to shut him up. There are speech codes and they generally fail in the courts. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) indicates that at one time 80% of colleges had speech codes.  As a result of litigation, only about 25% of them currently have speech codes.

At min 111, both French and Rufo, who have Multi-racial families, describe how they talk with their own children about their "identities and about what it means to be American." It was a heartfelt ending to a vigorous and engaging conversation.

Follow up Tweet by David French:

Continue ReadingWhat Should be Done about the Way Many Schools are Preaching Critical Race Theory to their Students?