Thursday, June 29, 2023

Jordan Peterson, intellectual dark web

Who is Jordan Peterson?

Lisa Sugiura's book The Incel Rebellion: The Rise of the Manosphere and the Virtual War Against Women (2021) is open access.

When Canada proposed a nondiscrimination bill for gender identity and expression, Jordan Peterson opposed it, claiming that if everyone has to respect everyone else's pronouns, there's no free speech. That's why he's famous today.

Sugiura explains that the "rejection of identity politics" is behind the so-called "intellectual dark web." These are academics who "view themselves as dissidents and mavericks and position themselves as truth tellers," principally Peterson, now a bestselling author with a "subscription-only, ‘anti-censorship’ website called Thinkspot" he launched in 2019. Peterson is

"notorious for his seething critiques against feminism and ‘cultural marxism’ – the (conspiracy) theory that Marxist Jewish academics at the Frankfurt School in the 1930s are responsible for devising the ideas underpinning multiculturalism and critical theory – essentially embedding Marxist ideals into cultural values (Neiwert, 2020). According to opponents such as Peterson, the influence of cultural Marxism is so significant that it dominates contemporary academia and culture, with feminism being one of the products of this duplicitous cabal. ... [His books] normalise and rationalise the patriarchial social order..."

He says there's no "gender wage gap" and he cites "bunk statistics" on that, Sugiura says. He bases his arguments on "gender role stereotypes – that women aren’t in high-pressure leadership roles because they don’t want them as it would be a conflict with women's 'agreeable' nature. Peterson also validated incel violence as a means to counter rejection, in the New York Times in regard to Minassian’s Toronto attack – 'he was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges'," Sugiura writes of Peterson's comments. Peterson later claimed he hadn't meant to endorse the incel demand to provide them with women for their use, but rather was explaining the norm of monogamy.

Annika Brockschmidt tweets: Jordan Peterson, rape apologist. When I didn’t think he could sink any lower, he just keeps digging. He truly has become the go-to guru for the modern incel who 'likes to think of himself as a bit of a philosopher'

Peterson is saying that men won't defend assaulted women unless they think of the woman as their property. That's the only way — according to him — they can empathize or otherwise believe that her rights and dignity are important.


Emily Qureshi-Hurst tweets: It fills me with despair that for many people ~this fucking guy~ is the only reference point for an academic. His use of concepts is sloppy, his arguments are lazy, he is deliberately inflammatory, and almost all the time he's just plain wrong.

Peterson is saying:

"Let's say you have a non-standard gender identity. What the hell are other people supposed to do about that? ...if I don't know whether you're male or female, what the hell should I do with you? You don't know, because you don't know what the rules are. And so the simplest thing for me to do is just not do anything with you. The simplest thing for me to do is just go find someone else who's a hell of a lot less trouble."
nihility tweets: bro literally can only be a misogynist

Update: This is what he's up to, June 27, 2023.

In 2018, David Brooks wrote: 'My friend Tyler Cowen argues that Jordan Petrson is the most influential public intellectual in the Western world...' On June 27, 2023, Peterson tweeted: 'Call me cis to my face and see what happens.' Ari Drennen responds in 2023: 'Jordan Peterson needs to log off and clean his room'

July 3, 2023. He's saying that anyone who categorizes transgender people with the genders in which we live or with which we identify is someone who is very far from "deserving any politeness."

Jordan Peterson tweets July 3, 2023: 
Trans 'women' are men
And all the woke whining about 'misinformation'
Which in this case is just the simplest, most basic and obvious truth
Won't change that
To hell with you 
You bloody manipulative narcissists 
You've gone way beyond
Deserving any politeness
Ari Drennen @AriDrennen This is without a doubt the worst poem I have ever read

August 2023

Book reviewers complained after he took positive-sounding phrases from their overwhelmingly negative reviews and used them for his book jacket.

October 2023

Apparently taking a page from Peterson's playbook, J.K. Rowling (then 3.5 years into her own transphobic Twitter campaign) tweeted that she'd "happily do two years [in prison] if the alternative is compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex." It isn't an innovative framing. Peterson has been on this horse for years.

Further reading

In one video I examined, he says stereotypes are necessary. See: "Helen Joyce in conversation with Jordan Peterson: That Transphobic Peterson/Joyce Video" (Medium; paywalled)

See also: "When you claim that experts don't know their stuff" (on Medium)

Tuesday, June 27, 2023

The 'Intellectual Dark Web' isn't being silenced

Lisa Sugiura's book The Incel Rebellion: The Rise of the Manosphere and the Virtual War Against Women (2021) is open access.

female baseball player points finger at referee in old-style black-and-white photo

Sugiura explains the Intellectual Dark Web's complaint against what they call "grievance studies," modern academic pursuits that they see as driven by biased political agendas:

"In 2017, three scholars linked with the intellectual dark web – James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian, who describe themselves as left-leaning liberals and seemingly have more time at their disposal than most academics – coordinated a scam against gender, queer, critical race, masculinities studies, amongst others nicknamed Sokal Squared. Heavily influenced by the Sokal Hoax, the ploy involved the creation of 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon submitted to various journals in these fields, with the aim of exposing ridiculous conclusions."

Alt-right figure Milo Yiannopoulos pushes the envelope with his overtly antisemitic and racist comments. Along with Jordan Peterson, he claims his right to speak is being curtailed:

"Yiannopoulos rationalised his comments, emphasising his homosexuality and alleging that he is a victim of child abuse, as well as referring to his Jewish mother and being raised Jewish...In 2019, he was permanently banned along with other far right commentators – Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Louis Farrakhan and Paul Nehlen, from Twitter and Facebook for breaching their hate speech rules."

In March 2021, Yiannopoulos declared he is now ‘ex-gay’ and his husband is now his housemate, Sugiura said.

They aren't being silenced

Sugiura explains this:

"Loud claims about being silenced from people with significant political and institutional power demonstrate that the exact opposite is occurring. If they were truly silenced, as those who are oppressed, then we would not hear or see them, and they certainly would not have the wealth of access to the public consciousness in the manner they do. As Sara Ahmed so eloquently puts it 'whenever people keep being given a platform, or whenever people speak endlessly about being silenced, you not only have a performative contradiction; you are witnessing a mechanism of power'. Claiming to be silenced amplifies and distributes reactionary forms of speech generating outrage. This is how figures such as Jordan Peterson and Milo Yiannopoulos have created platforms, by alleging they have none." [emphasis mine]

By the way:

"There is a current loophole within the proposed law, that protections for free speech could result in perverse outcomes, where a user could complain that legal racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic content has been removed and therefore should be re-uploaded on a platform."

However

On August 23, 2023, an Ontario court upheld a November 2022 order from the College of Psychologists of Ontario which said Peterson must take social media training to improve his professionalism in his public statements.

Also: Climate change denial

"Magatte Wade, who heads an internal Atlas project called the Center for African Prosperity, frequently cites de Soto as an inspiration for her take on Africa and climate change. In multiple op-eds over the past few years, and in an interview this year with Canadian professor and right-wing figurehead Jordan Peterson, Wade, who was born in Senegal but moved to Germany when she was 7, describes climate activists as the new colonialists, arguing that climate action will keep Africans poor and deprive them of access to energy. Wade often depicts those who would deny the continent its current fossil fuel boom as out-of-touch elitists and regularly claims that climate action will kill a billion Africans—all while refusing to engage with the fact that African climate activists are being arrested at an alarming rate."
Meet the Shadowy Global Network Vilifying Climate Protesters For decades, the Atlas Network has used its reach and influence to spread conservative philosophy—and criminalize climate protest. Amy Westervelt and Geoff Dembicki, New Republic, September 12, 2023.

On which point, I encourage you to purchase a Medium membership so you can read my article: "When you claim that experts don't know their stuff", about Jordan Peterson's January 2022 appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast in which he claimed that climate scientists have no idea what they're talking about because "climate" doesn't refer to anything in particular.

20th-century beginnings of the 'men's rights movement'

Lisa Sugiura's book The Incel Rebellion: The Rise of the Manosphere and the Virtual War Against Women (2021) is open access.

surreal painting of two people in a boat flying in the sky
Čeština: Nebeská etapa, 2007. Art by Eugene Ivanov.
Creative Commons license


Originally, what did 'men's rights' mean?

To start with, Sugiura considers movements like Fathers for Justice (FFJ), whose

"primary focus...is actual men's problems rather than espousing vitriol against women, progressiveness and feminism. FFJ is concerned with paternal rights and ensuring that fathers have access to their children when relationships break down, when Criminal Justice Systems entrenched in sexist, conservative ideals ordinarily operate in favour of the mother. In this respect, the continuation of traditional gender roles, the desire and ideal of other groups in the manosphere, marginalises men and devalues their status as parents."

Some men feel disappointed because they were somehow — overtly, by individuals? implicitly, by systems? — led to believe they'd be more powerful and successful than they are.

"Pleck (1974, 1995) attempted to navigate this complexity by asserting that though they hold institutional power in patriarchal societies, most men do not actually feel powerful, creating a further conundrum for men to reconcile with – why do they not feel powerful when they are supposed to?"

An early idea of a "male mystique" and recognition that some men want custody of their kids:

"Marc Feigan Fasteau’s The Male Machine discussed the emotional impacts of restrictive masculinity, borrowing from Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. Feigan Fasteau (1974, p. xiv) wrote that men's 'denial of dependency ... and emotions leads to silence and the creation of a male mystique'. Feigan Fasteau is also famous for his egalitarian marriage with Brenda Feigan Fasteau, a feminist lawyer who co-founded the Women’s Action Alliance with Gloria Steinem, and with whom he set up a law partnership, representing gender cases such as fathers who sought custody in divorce cases."

Later, especially "pre-web in the 1980s or as part of Web 1.0 from the 1990s to 2000s," men's rights organizations focused on political issues like whether family law (child custody, visitation, and child support) favored "women's interests" and whether that was a legislative attack that was part of "feminism's perceived attack on fatherhood" (Gotell & Dutton, 2016; Kimmel, 2017; Maddison, 1999).

"The previous ‘feminist hero’, Warren Farrell, had taken umbrage against NOW's stance in divorce cases, in declaring their support of providing child custody to the main caregiver, who was usually the mother, and having been through a divorce himself, came to the conclusion that feminists were more interested in power than in equality, a view that was being echoed by many more men. The disillusionment with feminism continued to escalate with the growth of women entering the workforce."

Saturday, June 24, 2023

Republican support for gay relationships dropped 15% last year

Quote:

"Yet Christian extremists would have you believe that LGBTQ people are the 'groomers.' That simply being LGBTQ in public is a threat to children. They say this even as church after church across multiple denominations are exposed for covering up and enabling decades of abuse.

Unfortunately, it appears that these same Christian extremists are making inroads. Following the Religious Right's anti-LGBTQ 'grooming' narrative, more and more Americans consider LGBTQ relationships "immoral," finds a new Gallup poll. Today, practically all groups are less tolerant, but Republicans are the demographic where support has eroded the most. Their support for same-sex relationships has dropped 15 percentage points over the past year, with a majority of them now against LGBTQ couples."

— Atheist News, email newsletter from American Atheists, June 24, 2023

The second link goes to a Business Insider article that says: "In the poll last month, the latest edition of a survey that Gallup conducts annually, just 41% of Republicans said gay or lesbian relations were morally acceptable, a 15-percentage-point drop from 2022. ... Democratic approval also fell to 79% from 85%. ... The sharp drop in support among some Americans follows an especially aggressive year of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and politics. ... Last year, the crisis-monitoring group ACLED found that right-wing extremists had held at least 55 protests explicitly targeting LGBTQ people, with the rise in such actions correlating with a spike in violence against them."


I also recommend James Finn's essay, "Support for Same-Sex Marriage Falls as Right Intensifies ‘War on Trans’: Let me tell you why that matters to me. I hope it matters to you." It's a 7-minute read on Medium.

old-style photo of person posing in a leotard

Unpack the court!

Quote:

"The Constitution does not limit the Supreme Court to nine justices. In fact, Congress has changed the size of the Court seven times. It should do so again in order to remedy the extreme partisanship of today’s Supreme Court.

Some may decry this as 'court packing,' but the real court-packing occurred when Senate Republicans refused to even consider a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court on the fake pretext that it was too close to the 2016 election, but then confirmed a Republican nominee just days before the 2020 election.

Rather than allow Republicans to continue exploiting the system, expanding the Supreme Court would actually unpack the court."

— Robert Reich, Three reforms to restore trust in the Supreme Court: On the anniversary of Dobbs, and the revelations about Alito, Substack, June 24, 2023

dinosaur skeletons arranged in a museum as if they were battling

Friday, June 23, 2023

Transphobia by Alex Jones of InfoWars

Knowledge Fight is a podcast primarily covering Alex Jones of InfoWars infamy. These episodes mention transphobia in the brief written description of the episode.

  • #16: February 24, 2017 - "Does Alex want to kill trans people?"
  • #127: February 8, 2018 - "...the painful episode of The Alex Jones Show from Feb. 8, 2018...lashing out aggressively at the trans community."
  • #575: July 4, 2021 - "check in on the Baby Bigot section of his website to see what kind of content Alex is associating himself with these days. (Content warning: transphobia, homophobia...)"
  • #643: January 28, 2022 - "In this installment, Alex loves the Canadian trucker convoy, gets deeply transphobic (probably because of Minnie Mouse)"
  • #658: It's Pretty Easy Being Greene - "this episode does cover a fair amount of transphobic territory"
  • #668: April 8, 2022 - "In this installment, Alex gets transphobic, takes some calls, and compares the Globalists to cartoon bugs."
  • #795: April 4-5, 2023 - "...see how Alex covered Trump getting arrested. As it turns out, Alex got really transphobic..."
wicked witch of the west from the wizard of oz: let me introduce you to my evil plan

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

2020 "Open Letter on Justice and Open Debate" in Harper's

Aidan Comerford tweets: In 2020, a group of prominent writers, including @jk_rowling, signed an open letter to @Harpers defending free speech and argument against 'reprisal' for 'bad ideas,' and I guarantee you not one of them will say anything about this.

Aidan went on to say:

"Prominent people who speak about the important of "free speech" rarely, if ever, mean free speech for the proles. "Free speech," generally means THEY want the right to say hurtful, dangerous, frankly stupid things about minorities, without consequence or censure. It's a ruse. t's ridiculous that a useful word that simply means "not trans" would be banned on this platform, especially given that people can call trans people all manner of transphobic slurs on here without consequence now. Calling trans people "troons" etc. isn't a "bad idea," it's hate speech that increases transphobia, which destroys trans people's lives. Transphobic hate speech leads to dead trans people. Saying that non-trans people are non-trans doesn't lead to dead non-trans people. And just look at how clunky that last sentence of that last tweet was, because, now, we don't have the freedom to use a useful word in debate. ... We generally agree on what words are dangerous slurs. We know those slurs have rung in the ears of minority people as they are beaten to death by bigots. That, alone, is a powerful argument to suspend people from social media who use slurs to attack those who "lack power." To ban people for using an elegant word that means "not trans" is frankly farcical. People who aren't trans don't "lack power." They actually have huge power over trans people's lives, and trans people often have to prostate themselves for a modicum of empathy in return."
Frankie Huang, Sept 24, 2023, on Twitter: I want to read about how bigots harness being 'cancelled' by marginalized folks to trigger a surge of support from fellow bigots that lead to increases in wealth & standing? I’m interested in how we get tricked into dishing up outrage that power the 'post-cancellation comeback'

What was the Harper's Letter? Learn more.

These stories may be paywalled. Consider a paid membership on Medium.

David Palumbo-Liu
Jul 8, 2020
Why “Justice” and “Open Debate” Don’t Fit Together in Trump’s America Why “Justice” and “Open Debate” Don’t Fit Together in Trump’s America “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” (aka “The Letter”) published in Harper’s online edition of 7 July 2020, has become the latest, and perhaps worst, instance of celebrities thoughtlessly piling on to sign a ridiculous, ill-conceived, attention-getting “Open…

Aaron Huertas
Jul 8, 2020
How Did the Organizers of the Harper’s Letter Mislead Some of the Signers? (It’s About Ethics in Open Letters) Harper’s “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” has gotten a lot of attention and there are some fine responses out there already, including this very funny one. But I wanted to dive into a few specific claims about the letter itself, who signed it and whatever (possibly odd!) process…

Holly Lyn Walrath in Write Weird
Jul 8, 2020
Erasure of the Harper’s Cancel Culture Letter “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” —

Cassidy Routh
Jul 9, 2020
Harper’s Letter on Justice and Open Debate Explained Hi, if you’re like me, you had a hard time reading the infamous letter because it was so pompous you rolled your eyes after each sentence and constantly lost your place. In this rewrite, I skip many of the parts where the signees try to save face (i.e. “protests are…

Julie Hotard
Jul 7, 2020
Response to A Letter on Justice and Open Debate There’s been much ado about a letter than appeared in Harper’s today. A Letter on Justice and Open Debate | Harper's Magazine July 7, 2020 The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine's October issue. We welcome…harpers.org It seems everyone just loves the idea of free speech — even Nazis — as long as one doesn’t say precisely what one is talking about. I certainly hope the signatories to the letter will read some of…

Kali Tal
Jul 8, 2020
Thoughts on “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate,” JK Rowling, and Caping for Inequality in the… Thoughts on “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate,” JK Rowling, and Caping for Inequality in the Guise of “Freedom of Speech” About 150 public intellectuals and literary figures recently signed a letter, published in Harpers, that protests the “constriction” of the “free exchange of information and ideas.” While on…

Faith O. Potts
Jul 13, 2020
The Harper’s Letter is an Example of Privileged Individuals Exaggerating the Power of the Marginalized Harper’s Magazine released “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” — but its message is incredibly vague, and many of the 150 signatories have a history of oppressive discourse — On Tuesday, Harper’s Magazine released a new letter — “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” — that includes 150 signatures by a variety of writers, journalists, and academics, all of whom have semi-prominent to extremely prominent platforms. The letter starts out sounding positive — “Our cultural institutions are facing…

Alex Steullet
Jul 8, 2020
What if Cancel Culture Were Just Our New Reality? To be honest, I never really believed that cancel culture was a thing. Most of those complaining seemed to be privileged elites being denied insane salaries and prestigious positions for legitimate reasons. While I’m a firm believer in freedom of speech, I don’t believe in...

Keaton Weiss
Jul 16, 2020
Calling Out Bad Actors Doesn’t Hurt Open Debate: A Response to the Harper’s Letter “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” was recently published in Harper’s Magazine and co-signed by dozens of writers, authors, and academics from all corners of the political spectrum.

Stacy Becker
Jul 18, 2020
A Rewrite of “A Letter on Just and Open Debate” Why oh why do we believe that debate is good for society? — Have you read “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate”? It set off a firestorm of opinion about whose voices the authors were privileging. The letter

Rashmee Roshan Lall
Jul 15, 2020
What is the deal with ‘woke’ culture and writing letters? A battle of letters is under way on the broad and bitterly contested theme of “justice and open debate” and a truce seems unlikely anytime

Though Ron DeSantis in 2023 said the word "woke" seven times in less than a half-minute, Donald Trump said: “I don’t like the term woke. Half the people can’t define it; they don’t know what it is.” (This juxtaposition was pointed out by Lawrence B. Glickman.)

The New York Times Pitchbot is a parody account on Twitter that jokes about NYT headlines that aren't but should be. In this tweet, it is claiming victory for a successful prediction.

Sept 4, 2023 tweet from New York Times pitchbot: How it started. How it's going.
Joke headline, proposed July 19, 2020: The Cancelling of the American Mind by George Packer and Andrew Sullivan
Greg Lukianoff tweets: Nice surprise shout out from the NYTimes for my forthcoming book The Canceling of the American Mind, with co-author Rikki Schlott and foreword by Jon Haidt!

See here. One of the signers of the Harper's Letter, recognizing that it was "a cause of the right" (that is, right-wing), is in 2020 calling for NYPD to arrest faculty members who are participating in a nonviolent political protest.

Caitlin Flanagan a couple years ago:

[image or embed]

— Dave Levitan (@davelevitan.bsky.social) Apr 23, 2024 at 3:43 PM

Exactly, these ghouls spent years defending racists and transphobes by saying that it had nothing to do with the content of their speech, they simply had a content-neutral dedication to free expression. They were lying! They agreed with the far-right views and were too chickenshit to say so.

[image or embed]

— Michael Hobbes (@michaelhobbes.bsky.social) Apr 24, 2024 at 5:00 AM

We have two sets of speech rules in this country: one for the far right, which must be protected in case they turn their wrath on others, and one for everyone else, who are subject to the immediate punitive power of the state for any reason or no reason at all

— jesse (@jesseltaylor.bsky.social) Apr 26, 2024 at 6:22 AM

Monday, June 19, 2023

'Mend the World': A course to become 'someone more useful to the world'

Mend the World course image

From Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg's Substack today, I learned she:

"did a whole audio course where I took like 15 years’ worth of work on this stuff and pulled it into eight sessions on using the tools of spiritual practice to transform into being someone more useful to the world; finding your role in the work; navigating interpersonal stickiness; accessing your prophetic voice; community and solidarity; and a whole lotta other stuff."

The course is called Mend the World and it is for sale in the Sounds True catalog.

Sunday, June 18, 2023

"Debate me": Rogan wants to host Hotez vs. RFK Jr.

Because of course he does

When someone is a expert in public health facts and values public health outcomes, they don't want to participate in a disinfotainment war. It degrades the dignity of their actual knowledge, and it may contribute to bad outcomes. Who "wins/loses" the debate is subjective and is not the point. Even if the audience at home judges that the scientist sounded better (which is unlikely), the entire event is a loss for science.

broken glass window

The audience wants to know who won this "debate," for the same reason they want to know who won an Oscar or an Olympic medal. It's part of knowing how to make and join conversations in society. In the process of trying to "keep up" with the current megalogues, however, they begin to assume that listening to the show would be a path to wisdom. The show's producers don't care if anyone absorbs that idea, as long as they listen to the show. It's the wrong idea.

BTW, RFK is transphobic.

"In a recently unearthed video interview, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the noted anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist and a Democratic challenger of President Joe Biden’s 2024 reelection bid, claimed chemicals in the water supply are turning boys trans.

“A lot of the problems we see in kids, particularly boys, it’s probably underappreciated how much of that is coming from chemical exposures, including a lot of sexual dysphoria that we’re seeing,” the scion of the Kennedy political dynasty said during an interview with Canadian psychologist and ring-wing pundit Jordan Peterson."

— "RFK Jr. claims chemicals in the water are turning boys transgender," Christopher Kane, Washington Blade, June 19, 2023

Also BTW — this is a July 17 update — as shown by "Kennedy's first FEC filing, the lion's share of Kennedy's biggest donors have previously only donated to Republicans." (Judd Legum, Popular Information)

On Angry White Men: Tracking White Supremacy (June 18, 2023), there's a list of all the anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists who have appeared on RFK Jr.'s podcast. He's made 143 episodes since 2021.

An MD PhD on Twitter criticizes Joe Rogan's vaccine misinformation. Rogan responds that he'll donate $100,000 to a charity of the MD PhD's choice if he'll come on the show to publicly debate RFK Jr, who is a conspiracy theorist. In response to that, Dr. Danna Young tweets: The incentive structure is broken. Folks. Science cannot 'win' a media performance because science is not entertainment. Science is a practice, a method of pursuing truth. And in our current political media environment it is at a disadvantage against performative 'whataboutism'.
The appeal of RFK jr or even Rogan is the psychological needs they fulfill, not because they get anyone closer to Truth. But because they offer simple intuitive answers in a seemingly incomprehensible world. They offer a sense of agency and control, and a  sense of community.
Scientific reasoning is only possible when people operate in good faith, are transparent,  are solely operating in pursuit of truth, and never remove themselves from doubt.
The goals of political media (or “political-ISH media”) like Rogan is not truth-seeking ... but meaning-seeking, pleasure-seeking, community-seeking.
To show up there as a scientist to argue the merits of claims that are fundamentally NON-falsifiable (which all conspiracy theories are) is a fool's errand.
It’s like if I were a fish and I agreed to a duel. Folks. I'm going to lose but NOT because I'm a bad gunslinger, but because I CANT BREATHE ONCE I LEAVE THE WATER FFS (and I don't have hands)
POINT BEING: the purpose of MOST contemporary media has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH. Think about it- How does Rogan HAVE all those dollars to pay a scientist to debate RFK? Because the purpose of contemporary media is attention-based profit. And in that arena, Rogan is winning.

By the way, to follow up on an idea above: Conspiracy theories give simple explanations for complex phenomena, and thus make some people feel reassured. Similarly, people want definitions of themselves. These don't even require conspiracy theories — which are elaborate stories that boil down to relatively simple explanations — but just dictionary-style definitions. These definitions can be used as part of conspiracy theories.

Christine Gritmon tweets: Obviously you know this already—but because if we go around loosening the definitions of male and female (and the expected roles and presentations thereof), it messes with the societal power imbalances that make them feel safe. They desire to feel 'defined.'

It's so blatantly obvious that tech billionaires are pushing RFK Jr. to weaken Joe Biden and try to usher in fascism with DeSantis. His biggest fans are all right wingers, which should be an immediate tell. They're trying to replicate Russia's oligarchy.
And the worst grifters who claim to be on the left are trying to replicate 2016 and do this all again with RFK Jr. and Cornell West. They don't want leftist policies. They are nihilists who just want to tear it all down without any vision for a better society.
Thomas Lecaque in a 5-tweet thread: Here's the thing, anti-vaxx conspiracy theories isn't just a bad idea, it's a toxic worldview, and consequently nothing else about RFK Jr.'s policies or plans or beliefs or rhetoric can be trusted. Once you adopt a far right anti science worldview, all your other beliefs are tainted. You think you could trust him on fiscal policy or foreign policy or public healthcare or literally anything else? No, no you couldn't. So no one needs to debate him, once you adopt magical thinking in service of getting kids killed by preventable illness you don't get to demand to be treated like a good faith adult in the room. Oh and asshole podcast hosts and billionaires demanding you debate him actually makes him infinitely LESS serious. If other people have to scream 'debate him bro' on Twitter it's because he's not a serious person and the adults in the room all know it.
Michael Hobbes, two-tweet thread: 'Why won't you debate?!' is such a perfect distillation of the dumb-guy's-idea-of-a-smart-guy ideology that has taken over American culture. No effort to discover the truth, understand the research or listen to experts. Just the hollow fetishization of counterintuitive 'ideas' and endless argument. *Actual* smart people can acknowledge the gaps in science and move forward anyway. Vaccines work. Shut the fuck up.
Ben Collins tweets: As president, I will replace double blind studies with debates against Joe Rogan. America's No. 1 problem, erectile dysfunction, will be cured in my lifetime.
Nate Silver tweets: Turning down a 'debate me' challenge isn't the own that people think. Having rhetorical skills in an adversarial format before a large audience is a nice but fairly niche skill that doesn't really correlate with underlying accuracy or really even courage of one's convictions.
It's like: sometimes I've been tempted to publicly challenge someone whom I'm in a statistical argument with to a poker match. And believe me, I'd be thrilled to play and I'd have a big edge. But I've also spent 10k+ hours playing poker. It's not exactly a neutral playing field.

When one commenter seemed not to understand Silver's analogy, another paraphrased it:

A live debate between a professional conversationalist and a research professor, not to mention when it’s on the professional conversationalist’s home turf, is extremely lopsided in favor of the conversationalist, regardless of the factual evidence.

In other words, Joe Rogan knows his side has a big advantage, completely apart from the factual evidence.

Sometimes at least one of the proposed interlocutors is a bad person

Seth Abramson: FFS this explains literally everything. If you give RFK Jr. the time of day after learning that he’s advised by the biggest ratf*ckers in the MAGA cult—Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone—just admit you’re a rabid Trumpist interning with a psycho psyop collab
It’s so transparent: Rogan needs self-styled MAGA alphas for money; Musk needs a GOP White House to do the borderline illegal anti-monopolistic garbage he wants to do with “X”; all these charlatans have an angle for supporting actual lunatic RFK Jr., and in every case it is money
Radley Balko tweets: Fun to think about backslapping tech billionares amplifying RFK Jr. to amuse themselves while driving by the street that's still closed because an unhinged man radicalized by the kind of 5G paranoia RFK peddles flattened two blocks of my city with a bomb.
Hell, even the bomber had the decency to avoid injuring other people. RFK Jr. isn't just a crank, he's a crank whose ideas could kill millions. This smarmy tech/podcast bro effort to elevate him is one of the ugliest, most cynical episodes in US politics in quite a while.

Seth Abramson tweets: The Hotez-Rogan-Musk silliness in a nutshell: 1. Experts of whatever political stripe should always be willing to debate other experts of whatever political stripe. 2. Experts should never debate abject fools posing as experts—because they haven’t earned experts’ time/attention.
Those who call Hotez a coward or charlatan for not immediately agreeing to play PR games with Rogan, Musk and RFK Jr. are just trolls whose toxic-masculine bullsh*t makes them think every man can be persuaded by calling him a chicken. They don’t know how to *earn* attention. When Tucker Carlson wanted to debate me on his show I said no—instantly—despite knowing it would’ve afforded me significant attention and (eventually) money. Why did I say no? Because we should never demean ourselves by debating people who haven’t earned our time or attention. Hotez owes Rogan, Musk, and RFK Jr. *nothing*. They haven’t earned anyone’s time/attention—let alone an expert’s time/attention—on the subject of vaccines. And Hotez owes Rogan’s audience nothing because it *wants* to be lied to about vaccines. RFK Jr. is doing that just fine. I get secondhand embarrassment watching grown-ass men like Musk and Rogan humiliate themselves on topics of import for years—insisting they know better than experts—only to beg experts to “debate” them for money. They should crawl back into their rich-boy safe spaces, instead.
If you think an expert refusing to debate a nonexpert for cash proves themselves a liar—or that they don’t care about charity, or that they can’t substantiate their expertise—you‘re a goon who lacks critical thinking skills and should avoid thinking and walking simultaneously. I understand it’s hard for stupid people to know they’re stupid—so I *do* have empathy for avid fans of Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. But at a certain point you’ve had it explained to you by experts *why* you’re stupid so many times that your recalcitrance becomes a character flaw. The armchair alphas who think they know more about vaccines than those who’ve studied them for decades are the same people who falsely told everyone VAERS is a database of confirmed adverse post-vaccine events and *kept saying so* after they were told that was laughably wrong. Hotez made a mistake when he went on Rogan’s show the first time, but can be forgiven because he’s a doctor not a PR expert and at the time was rightly desperate to get accurate data to *any* audience he could. But at *this* point neither Rogan nor Musk deserve his attention.
Rogan is an expert on MMA—that’s it. I’d listen to him on that topic.
Musk *also* has areas of expertise: (1) sealioning (Google it); (2) gaslighting; (3) destroying companies; (4) bad parenting; (5) taking credit for others’ good ideas; (6) cult construction and management. If you’re listening to Rogan on any subject other than MMA, congratulations—he played you. You’re now his cash register. Just so, if you listen to *Elon Musk* on any subject beyond those I listed above, you’re yet another mark for the richest man on Earth, congratulations. The list of subjects on which I know nothing is virtually endless, but let’s take woodworking as an example. What kind of a****** would I be if I went around demanding that woodworkers interface with me as an equal? Rogan and Musk are the worst kind of fools: arrogant ones. Everybody really has to think about this: what’s happening here is that Rogan and Musk are *so* rich and *so* privileged and *so* out of touch with consequences that they’d rather see hundreds of thousands die than have their Big Important Feelings not be publicly validated.
I’ve no idea if Rogan and Musk were always unwell. Maybe so, maybe not. But both have been poisoned by wealth and celebrity into a level of toxic narcissism that’s galactically cringeworthy to any observer not so affected. It’s tragic, embarrassing, and profoundly dangerous. If these men had friends rather than cultists, an intervention would’ve happened a long time ago. So my question has nothing to do with Hotez debating a crank, but whether Rogan and Musk *chose* to have no authentic friends or did it just happen? It affects how I judge them. Also this: while lawyers can frame facts/precedent differently—it’s key to our adversarial justice system—and scientists may have slightly different reads on how some data project forward, debating anything subject to the scientific method is lunacy.
So if your big issue today is being mystified at why Dr. Hotez isn’t eagerly agreeing to debate a random moron about vaccines, understand that you have one or more of these issues: 1) You lack critical thinking skills. 2) You’re in a cult. 3) Ideologically you’re a fascist. For the rest of us, the prescription is simple: determine the expert consensus on any question that interests you. Everything else—especially circus sideshows orchestrated by rich men obsessed with their Big Important Feelings—is just *noise* that wastes your valuable time.

The interlocutors

They have to share enough common ground to have a conversation. They need to share the same sense of reality.

Richard Nanian tweets: I've taught logical argument for over 20 years. I tell students argument is the fundamental skill of civilization, even ahead of agriculture. It’s not conflict but a way to manage conflict. But it’s only productive when the participants share certain epistemological assumptions.
Thomas Lecaque (June 19, 2023):  The problem with debating people in the parallel reality is that your facts won't impact them and so the appearance of the debate will be that you're losing, even when they are unhinged.

As well as the same values intertwined with that sense of reality.

David Frum tweets: 'Rabbi, I'll offer you $100,000 to come onto my popular podcast to debate whether the plague is or is not caused by Jews poisoning wells.'

Each of them has to have a relevant knowledge base, even if those bases have significant differences.

Dave Vetter: Musk, Rogan and the entire Debate Me Bro community are just this cartoon. Cartoon says: We'll talk to a well researched and respected expert...And in the interest of balance we will also talk to an idiot.
Hamilton Nolan tweets: I know you did a PhD and wrote a book on this complex topic but if you don't debate my horse on stage at the county fair, why should I believe you? my horse can clomp his hoof once for yes and twice for no

If the interlocutors interrupt and talk over each other, then change the topic, how can that be winning?

Clan Malkavian parody acct tweet: That's literally how Ben Shapiro does it. Because when he's in a 'debate', he doesn't give you time to dissect and break down why he is wrong. He just interrupts and changes topics. But there are literally hours and hours of videos out there of why he's wrong.
Talia Lavin: I was president of my high school yeshiva league debate club and I won every time with minimal prep by Talking Fast Using Big Words. thats it. that's the skill. the merit of ideas has nothing to do with it. it's a wpm contest.

Why does the interlocutor with less expertise pressure the more knowledgeable one to debate?

Why would a non-scientist want to debate a scientist about science?

Mikel Jollett tweets: Instead of bringing scientists on podcasts, how about we force podcasters to prove they can do basic science? Do you know what 'double-blind' means, my dude? Can you define p-value, bro? Without googling it, give me the basics of polymerization. Can't do it? You lose.
John Scalzi tweets June 18, 2023: Why won't that beef-witted podcaster write a peer-reviewed scientific paper? What is he scared of? Is he too much of a coward to present his findings to a group of experts in the field for their critical examination? Why is he hiding?

The audience

A mass audience doesn't share a scientist's expertise either. They may not even share the same awareness of what facts might be relevant, fidelity to truth about those basic areas, or active pursuit of advanced knowledge.

Thomas Lecaque: You're an expert when your ideas have been reality tested by other experts, not because you engage in a social media yellfest with a public that doesn't share the same objective reality you do.

They do, however, become zealous, to the point of harassing the participants outside the debate.

Alex Rosen tweets: I confronted @PeterHotez and asked why he is too scared to debate @RobertKennedyJr on the @joerogan podcast!  In response, Elad Nehorai tweets: They came to his house. Of course. This is the thing about the “debate me” culture. It’s abuse posing as intellectualism. They don’t give one sh*% about debates: what they demand is access to you whether you agree to it or not. It’s about power and domination, nothing else.
Amy Maxmen, PhD tweets: 'Debate me' is not communication. 'Debate me' is an invitation for scientists to subject themselves to severe harassment, doxxing & death threats.  >32 kids died in Samoa after RFK Jr visited & convinced parents that measles vaccines are dangerous, 2000+ sick.

If someone's making unfounded claims of knowledge and epistemic purity, public debate can be a performative response to help smoke that out. It doesn't "resolve intellectual disputes." It resolves annoying performativity disputes.

Nate Silver, June 23, 2023 tweets: There's a robust middle ground between not wanting to engage in a theatrical debate against people with more experience and adopting a posture of 'I'm a Scientist and therefore Pure as the Driven Snow' (particularly if you often tailgate in the politics/science middle lane). I've tried to take a principled stand against 'debate me, bro' as being a good way to resolve intellectual disputes. It's not. But there's a degree of grenade-throwing behind the wall of credentialism, and other motte-and-bailey tactics, beyond which it becomes more appropriate.

The Political News Media Still Doesn’t Know How To Interview Trump, So I’m Going To Show Them, Todd Lombardo, Substack, September 26, 2023:

"In my previous Substack, I described four theories about how the political news media is getting it wrong in covering MAGA more broadly, and Donald Trump specifically: bothsidesism, doomsdaying, access journalism, and fascist-normalizing."

In this post, these ideas are applied retroactively to a Trump interview.

RFK Jr. will run as an independent in 2024

In October 2023, RFK Jr. announced he would stop challenging Biden in the primary and instead run as an independent.

Robert Reich writes, distinguishing the father from the son (Substack, October 10, 2023):

"I worked in Robert F. Kennedy’s Senate office in 1967. ... Robert F. Kennedy would never have suggested or even thought that a deadly virus was targeted at certain races. He wouldn’t have repeated the trope, dating at least to the Middle Ages, that Jews unleashed a plague on non-Jews. ... RFK Jr is not an independent. He is a right-wing tool being used to help elect Trump. His candidacy has been backed by a PAC that also funds Marjorie Taylor Greene and George Santos."

Do Republicans like debate?

I dunno, maye they do, but then why does their leading candidate insist on no debates?

Trump Demands That The RNC Stop Hosting Debates For His Rivals Or Be Revamped: NOW!!! The coup-attempting former president has skipped all three debates to date but has been getting more agitated about them as the GOP primaries draw closer. S.V. Date, Huffington Post, Nov 20, 2023.

Read this article by Julia Serano

Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth Is Neither New nor Experimental: A Timeline and Compilation of Studies (32-min read), Julia Serano, Medium, May 16, 2023.

The article came to my attention because she tweeted on June 19, 2023: "since we're talking about anti-vaxxers & calls to "debate me", I will add that anti-trans activists use this exact same playbook. you can't "debate" a scientific consensus, b/c it's not based on one study & can't be undone w/individual "questions/concerns""

Saturday, June 17, 2023

Climate disaster and other frightening things

In case you missed it

Have you seen inside the book 'To Climates Unknown'?

The alternate history novel To Climates Unknown by Arturo Serrano was released on November 25, the 400th anniversary of the mythical First ...