Our social intuition is strong. Here is one of my favorite quotes on this topic, by Sigmund Freud:
Psychological discernment is not as difficult as one might think: Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear soon become convinced that mortals cannot keep a secret. He whose lips are sealed talks with his fingertips; disclosure oozes out of his every pore.
"Fragment of an Analysis of Hysteria" (1901-5), VI, 148
Scott Barry Kaufman says this well.
I have this exact same thought many times every day. It's like we are trapped in blue-dress-brown-dress argument every time we open our mouths.
One fruitful solution to this mess is to re-learn how to have conversations using Heterodox Academy's HxA Way:
The above five points are merely the headings - the HxA Way is carefully thought out. Here's a more detailed (yet succinct) description.
Then again, this solution of the HxA way assumes that both parties are interested in having a conversation, which is not the case with many of today's tribally charged performative chants that only pretend to be conversations.
Conversations and performative chants look similar in that they both involve two people talking in the presence of each other. The way I distinguish the two is that to be a conversation, one or both parties is/are at least potentially open to changing the way they understand some aspect of the world. This is often extremely difficult to tell. And the likelihood that we are witnessing a meaningful conversation diminishes greatly as 1) more and more people actively participate as speakers, 2) one or more of the parties fail to accurately restate the other side's position, 3) one of the sides refuses to give up the floor, or 4) voices get louder or more impassioned. In other words, one's best shot at having a real conversation involves one-on-one conversation where people listen closely to each other's words, restate those thoughts accurately and want their thoughts and world-view challenged--they both seek a new version of truth and neither seeks to "win" the interaction. The opposite of a conversation can be found in a religious sermon.
I'll close with this quote by Nietzsche:
"Madness is rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, nations and ages it is the rule."
--Beyond Good & Evil, Aphorism #156
Reason Magazine recently published an article comparing "Stand Your Ground" doctrine to "Duty to Retreat." This includes a chart allowing you to see which doctrine your state follows. It's carefully described and helpful for those who want to better understand this issue. Title of the article: "3/4 of States Are Now Stand Your Ground; only 12 Are Duty to Retreat: But what exactly do these terms mean?"
What are the state of the art approaches for addressing homelessness in the U.S.? In his article, "The Limits of Housing First," Christopher Rufo offer lots of facts and figures but no optimism. Homelessness is a massively daunting problem and U.S. cities are struggling for answers. An excerpt:
In Los Angeles, this could spell disaster. In the most optimistic scenario laid out by the controller’s office, the city will build 5,873 supportive housing units at an initial cost of $1.2 billion, plus an estimated $88 million in annual service costs associated with the Housing First model. The recipients of this housing will not meaningfully improve their lives in terms of addiction, mental illness, and spiritual well-being — and there will still be 60,000 people on the streets across Los Angeles County. In other words, even under its own theoretical assumptions, Proposition HHH is doomed to fail.The City of Los Angeles did not return a request for comment.
A reader asked Bari Weiss why she recently gave a lot of space on her Substack site to the writings of Paul Rossi's and Andrew Gutmann (See here and here). I found her answer interesting in that she is describing many large-scale social shifts and realignments, many of which are not being covered by legacy media. Here is an excerpt from "The Goal of This Newsletter":
My goal is not to make a living publishing only my views — or ones that conform exactly to my worldview — on this Substack. (Trust me, it’d get boring.) My ultimate goal is far more ambitious. I want to run the most interesting opinion page in America, filled with fresh reporting and commentary.
In a sane world, you would have read Paul Rossi’s essay or Andrew Gutmann’s letter — remember, in 2012, when the Times ran this incredible resignation letter from the Goldman Sachs executive? — in the paper of record.
But such pieces will not appear in the Op-Ed pages of The New York Times or The Washington Post because those papers have mostly ignored the story of the ideological takeover of schools. In part, that is because they are implicated in the story: The same ideological force transforming schools like Grace Church and Brearley has also transformed the establishment press.
The forced political homogenization of schools and newsrooms isn’t the only story being overlooked, underplayed or disregarded by the legacy media. There are many untold stories including: The strange and still emergent political realignment between the Glenn Greenwald left and the J.D. Vance right. The alliance between woke ideologues and corporate America. Anti-Asian discrimination. Rising crime in American cities. The death — and possible revival — of local life and of organized religion. And so so much more.
This leaves a huge opening for writers and editors like me.