Archive

Posts Tagged ‘culture’

No More -isms

February 10, 2018 Leave a comment

I am often challenged about why I reject various beliefs, such as liberalism, theism, libertarianism, or feminism. My thoughts on this are, that if you identify with a particular doctrine with is described with a word ending in -ism then you are probably being needlessly dogmatic. But then I remembered that I often identify with two (and maybe more) of those myself: atheism and skepticism.

So why would I ridicule one person’s belief (like the belief in libertarianism or feminism) while I give myself a free pass to pursue beliefs of my own? Well, maybe I’m just a hypocrite – that’s certainly possible – but I would like to use a slightly more generous interpretation of the situation and say that my beliefs are more a lack of a commitment to a particular idea than a close allegiance to one.

So atheism isn’t really a dogma of any kind, in fact it’s the antithesis of that, because it specifically precludes acceptance of any dogmatic, religious belief. I do agree that skepticism is in a slightly more debatable category. It could be seen as a belief system in some ways – in fact one meaning of the word refers to a specific philosophical system. But that’s not the meaning I’m using here. In this context skepticism refers to the preference for treating new truth claims with a level of suspicion until good, objective evidence for them is demonstrated.

So I think I can defend my -isms fairly well, but what objection to I have to the others? Well, the main one is that they are just unnecessary. Not only do they provide no positive benefit, but undue adherence to them is potentially dangerous. People who take their beliefs too seriously might follow the belief’s dictates instead of looking at the facts of specific incidents in the real world.

For example, there might be a need to decide whether a new industry – let’s choose self-driving cars as an example – should be regulated to ensure safety standards. A libertarian (that is, someone who follows libertarianism) might be tempted to say that more regulation is always bad and that the market should decide.

But not only do we see numerous examples of market failures (in fact the phrase “market failure” has become a common one in these sorts of discussions) but it can be shown through pure logic that markets often don’t work.

That’s not to say that markets don’t work quite well in some situations, but they certainly cannot be relied on in every possible place they might be used. But a true follower of libertarianism will think they do work everywhere, or at least will think they work in a far wider range of situations than a careful examination of the facts would support.

So there’s really no need for libertarianism at all, because anyone looking at the facts and at the outcomes required in a particular situation could just use common sense, and logic, and examination of the consequences in the real world to see whether a market or a regulation is a better choice.

So let’s look at another -ism now, let’s really jump out of the frying pan and into the fire and look at feminism. Is feminism necessary? Well, as you could probably guess from the general tone of this post, I don’t think so.

I know many people claim feminism is just wanting equality for women, but of course that is often not true, just like libertarianism isn’t usually simply about the fair and appropriate use of markets. Feminism in many cases goes far beyond that and demands special privileges for women, equality where it already exists, and is generally biased towards a female-centric worldview.

I’m not saying that there have been no good outcomes from feminism, but I am saying that the usual realisation of it can easily produce many bad outcomes too. There are many situations where females are now enjoying benefits because the bias is now in the opposite direction to what many feminists imagine. For example girls seem to be getting more benefit from our education system, women enrol in universities at a greater rate than men, women live longer lives, and they get less punishment under the law, etc. Hell, maybe I should be a masculinist!

And the issues where feminism might be useful – such as equal pay, equal participation in society, etc – don’t require feminism, they just require fairness. And most people have an inherent sense of fairness. I want women to have equal rights, but I am certainly not a feminist!

I see the down-side of -isms all the time. I see people react to an event which is actually quite nuanced in simple-minded, thoughtless ways, simply because of a knee-jerk reaction they have caused by their favourite -ism.

Note that I have picked on that particular suffix because it is catchy, but other worldviews which end in a different suffix, like Christianity, should also be included in my argument for completeness.

I know they are not doing this deliberately – and that’s what makes the whole phenomenon even more scary and dangerous – but the sort of thought that is going on is like this: there’s an event I want to comment on; I am a (insert your favourite -ism here) so I should think this; I will write some tedious, biased crap on the appropriate discussion forum.

And when a more nuanced person, like myself (well OK, sometimes I take a hard line to make a particular point, but I do make an effort to see both sides of most stories) comes along and points out any deficiencies in these arguments there is rarely a reasoned rebuttal to those points, because the person makes that comment just because that’s the way things are always portrayed according to their -ism.

If I suggest we need a new regulation to decrease greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change the libertarians will usually disagree, saying government regulation never works and we need less government involvement, not more. But they could admit that the market is the cause of climate change, not the solution, while still maintaining that markets are a useful tool in society overall. But if you follow libertarianism you really cannot say that.

And if I dare to suggest that females are already doing well in our education system and they really don’t need any further assistance, then the feminists will attack me with allegations of sexism and mansplaining. If they just admitted that there are situations where women are given an unfair advantage as well as other situations where the opposite is true, then they would be easier to take more seriously. But if you follow feminism almost everything looks like an attack on women and sensible discussion is difficult.

So I say abandon your -isms. That doesn’t mean to switch to another, even worse, belief system which just doesn’t happen to end in -ism, of course. So those who libertarianism shouldn’t switch to anarchy, and if you currently follow feminism, please don’t become a feminazi!

Advertisements

Fake News

January 30, 2018 Leave a comment

Everyone has some bias, and it’s unrealistic to expect anyone to be totally neutral and fair, especially on topics which are very divisive, like race-based politics, or the performance of Donald Trump. But we do expect some effort on the part of certain professions to show a fair degree of impartiality. They should make at least a token gesture towards giving both sides a fair hearing. And maybe at the top of this list of impartial professions should be journalism – at least that’s what you might have thought.

But apparently not. Fake news is everywhere, and even when the news isn’t fake, it is so close to being fake – through biased reporting, uneven treatment of different aspects of a story, and selectiveness regarding what is reported – that it is often more pernicious than an obviously fake story.

Here in New Zealand I have always trusted Radio New Zealand (now called RNZ, I think, to reflect their new multi-media approach) as my preferred source. It wasn’t that they were necessarily more accurate – although they often were – but more that their professionalism and commitment to unbiased reporting was better than most others.

Well not any more, because RNZ is so overwhelmed by political correctness and a populist, leftist agenda, that they can no longer be trusted to the same extent. I still use RNZ as my primary news source, but I no longer trust anything they say without checking it against other sources.

My favourite interviewer on RNZ was always Kim Hill. She had an intelligent, and in most cases a well researched, interview style, and generally tried to keep her innate biases under control. But apparently this is not a priority for her any more.

To show how totally biased she is (and the same applies to most staff at RNZ) I could compare two interviews she has done recently. The first was with Don Brash about his fairly reasonable (at least in most aspects, although he definitely got one or two points wrong) criticism of the way the Maori language is used by the media, especially RNZ. And the second was with Michael Wolff, the author of “Fire and Fury” the just released book exposing the alleged dysfunction of the Trump presidency.

From the very start of the interview with Brash it was obvious that Hill was not going to listen to his alternative opinions, and that she was going to be very aggressive towards him. She didn’t listen to his points, and seemed to be more interested in pursuing her own agenda with no regard to what he said.

Brash is a very calm person, but that often doesn’t work well against a more emotional attack. An acceptance that his opponent’s view has some merit is often seen as weakness, especially when the opponent refuses to make the same concessions.

And he occasionally tries to make points based on what could be most charitably described as poor research, but that doesn’t mean other parts of his argument are totally without merit. He deserved a far better hearing than what he got on RNZ.

All that is bad enough, and it might even be excusable if it was applied evenly. But apparently that fairness is not part of RNZ’s makeup. Because the interview with anti-Trump author, Michael Wolff, was the exact opposite.

Although it is well known that Wolff’s style is confrontational and occasionally not well supported by objective facts, Hill’s interview with him was totally devoid of any incredulity. She never questioned his extreme comments which didn’t seem to be supported by very much more than an opinion, and he never offered a single challenge to any of his conclusions.

For example, saying that a major public figure like Trump is stupid and/or has major psychological issues – which don’t need to be formally diagnosed – really requires some form of challenge. This suggestion is just as bad as anything Don Brash said, yet Hill just loved it. Not only did she not challenge these obviously questionable claims, but she seemed to offer tacit approval for them.

Note that I am not saying I agree with everything Don Brash said, or that I disagree with everything Michael Wolff said. What I am saying is that public radio should be a forum where fair discussion of ideas is possible, even when those ideas are controversial. In fact it should be that especially when the ideas are controversial.

I know people who are a bit more oriented to the right of politics than me who used to listen to RNZ. Back when they were more balanced RNZ could maintain an audience with various political views. But I think that is far less likely now. The people I mentioned above now listen to some inane talkback show which is full of biased and ignorant opinions. But how can I criticise that when our premium news service is really not a lot better?

So the thing that really worries me is that by being so one-sided and by failing to encourage robust debate on contentious issues, the more left-leaning media are just pushing away any audience which doesn’t agree with their politically correct agenda. I have been close to abandoning RNZ myself but I still find enough valuable material there that I can stick with it.

But for how much longer, I really don’t know.

Trust Experts

January 8, 2018 5 comments

I recently listened to a podcast which discussed the trust (or lack of trust) we have in experts, and how that might have become a more significant issue in recent years. Many people interpret the election of Trump as a rejection of the “elite experts” in society, for example. Trump represents the average person – he was not a politician – but Clinton represented an experienced politician who had spent most of her life as part of the “political machine”, and she was rejected.

Experts which are usually trusted include doctors, scientists, and (dare I mention) computer professionals. In most cases people will trust what these people say. For example, the majority of people go to a doctor and trust the treatment they are recommended. But there are a significant number who don’t have such a high level of trust and prefer to be diagnosed by “Doctor Google” or be treated by a local practitioner of some form of alternative medicine which often has limited credibility (homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, etc).

In general it is best to trust the opinion of experts, and in most cases people do. But everyone has their weaknesses and there might be times when anyone would reject expert opinion or advice. So I started wondering which experts I might have trouble accepting and I think I have thought of a couple.

In fact, anyone who reads this blog should already know the areas of expertise I have the most problems with. The first is management, and the second is economics.

So am I just as bad as the person who ignores the facts presented by experts about global warming? Or am I just like the creationist who ignores the conclusions of experts in biology and evolution? Or am I just another conspiracy theorist who ignores the opinion of experts and thinks the WTC could not have been destroyed by an aircraft collision?

In some ways, yes, but there is one critical difference. Look at the example I gave in paragraph two where some people prefer to trust a homeopath instead of a conventional doctor. Is that person really rejecting expert opinion? Maybe not. Maybe they are accepting the opinion of one expert (the homeopath is presumably an expert in homeopathy) and rejecting that of a different expert (the doctor).

So this isn’t so much a rejection of expertise per se, it is more choosing which expert to accept as better.

And this gets to my three main points regarding trust in experts: first, not all experts are equal; second, not all fields of expertise are equal; and third, even the greatest expert in the most credible field can make mistakes and everyone should be treated with a certain degree of skepticism.

So accepting the expert homeopath’s opinion should be rejected based on point 2, above. That is, while it is true that homeopathy is a field of expertise, it is not one which can be taken seriously because homeopathy has been shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be ineffective.

The other points might also have occasions when they are important. For example, there is a geologist (who is presumably an expert) who thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old even though he knows all the evidence shows it isn’t. His opinion is clearly warped by religious faith so, even though he is an expert, he does not have the same status as experts with no bias. And there have been many occasions where the greatest experts failed to assimilate new evidence and rejected new theories which later turned out to be true, so no expert is infallible.

But the main point of this post is to discuss point 2, the fact that some areas of expertise have less validity than others making rejecting opinions of experts in that area more reasonable.

The big problem is trying to establish which areas are trustworthy and which aren’t How would we know? Should we ask an expert? That sort of just gets back to the same problem we had at the start!

I think there are various, fairly unbiased, ways we can evaluate different areas of expertise. These include their philosophical framework (are they based on empiricism, logic, faith, etc), has scientific research on the subject shown it to be viable, and a general evaluation of its practical contribution to society.

So with homeopathy I would say its background is highly questionable. There has been little positive empirical research, there is almost no logic in it, and the whole proposed mechanism for its action is nonsense. And research on homeopathy shows almost no positive results above placebo level which is exactly what we would expect if it was fake. Finally, using homeopathy has some significant negative consequences, including people wasting their money on remedies which don’t work, and using homeopathic remedies instead of real ones which leads to worse health outcomes.

Because of this, I think it is clear that a homeopath, no matter how expert he or she is on the subject, should not be taken seriously because the subject itself lacks any credibility.

But how does this apply to my two areas of skepticism: management and economics?

Well, I would say neither of those are totally based on a firm philosophical basis. I do have to say that some forms of economics, especially behavioural economics which uses a lot of psychology, do have a quite high degree of credibility, but economics in general not so much. And I’m fairly sure there has been a certain amount of empirical research applied to management practices but in general they seem to be uniformly corrupt, both morally and intellectually.

So I think I have some rationale in being doubtful about the opinions of many economists and managers. Sure, they are experts in their respective fields but those fields have limited credibility. Of course, that doesn’t mean they are always wrong and can safely be ignored, but it does mean that the default position should be neutral or even negative rather than being positive as it would be with other experts.

If a doctor recommends a certain treatment I would normally accept that unless I have good reason not to. I might have already tried it without success, or I might think it is bogus in some way for example (some doctors recommend alternative medicine which has poor scientific support).

But it a manager recommends a particular action I would be very doubtful from the beginning. In fact, I would begin with the assumption that it is a bad idea. Of course, I should also try to look at the idea fairly and accept it if it turns out to be the exception to the rule.

In an ideal world we would all have enough time and expertise to research all the knowledge we needed for ourselves, but that is totally impractical, so we do need to trust experts to some extent. And that trust should be moderated by some doubt. And that doubt should be apportioned according to the validity of the field of knowledge under consideration.

Everyone’s estimation of this validity will vary but there should be certain areas which are always out in front and some lagging far behind. Here’s an example of some fields of knowledge rated from highest to lowest: maths, physics, chemistry, biology, climate science, medicine, psychology, general social science, philosophy, economics, business, management, politics, marketing, alternative medicine, mysticism, religion.

Note that I’m not saying the stuff near the end of my list is less valuable or less interesting, just that it is less trustworthy.

In summary: you can trust experts, but trust some a lot more than others!

Management of Change

December 15, 2017 Leave a comment

My friend Fred (not his real name), who works in a similar organisation and role to me, recently regaled me with a tale of woe regarding the “restructuring” his organisation is going through (I use the word “organisation” here because I would prefer not to say what it is and whether it is a private company or a public institution, but it really doesn’t make any difference to the core message of this post).

One of the farcical aspects of this process is something called “management of change” which basically involves a propaganda campaign which attempts to persuade the participants what a good idea it all is, and to dispose of those who cannot be persuaded as quickly and quietly as possible.

A common complaint made by the perpetrators of these misdeeds against their unwilling victims is that they are resistant to change. That is, they just don’t like new ideas or new ways of doing things, and if they would just be a bit more open-minded and accepting they woud see that the new ideas are good and everything would be OK.

Of course, if the victims really were resistant to change in general then this would be a good point, but Fred always mentions one very pertinent point: that is that it is not change in general that he is resistant to, it is just the type of change which usually occurs.

The managers might say something like “But you don’t like any of the changes we want to make.” and Fred would respond “Exactly. You seem to be incapable of making fair and reasonable decisions, and everything you do is grossly flawed. If you started implementing changes that we actually wanted then we would be fully supportive. Until then, we will resist and sabotage your efforts as much as possible. You are grossly incompetent and we have no confidence in your decisions.”

I can see his point exactly, although he could be said to have a slight tendency towards ranting. I sometimes wonder about Fred’s ranting because it often tends towards the extreme, and having that degree of cynicism and distrust seems a bit unhealthy in some ways.

But here are sorts of changes Fred almost always sees and doesn’t like: more bureaucracy, paperwork, timesheets, accounting records, and other mindless time wasting; more control by management and less self-sufficiency for the actual professionals doing the work; budgets cuts making it harder to get the equipment necessary to work efficiently, to attent conferences, and to get training, at the same time as the organisation wastes huge amounts on pointless projects; and more extreme control and micro-management by managers even though they have no idea what is really required.

And here are the sorts of changes he would fully support: reducing paper-work so that the professionals could actually do the work they are both good at and are ultimately paid to do; letting the workers make decisions based on their expertise and experience instead of following dysfunctional policies devised by people entirely ignorant of the real requirements of the job; diverting some of the funds going to wasteful management projects and using it for basic equipment and training for the people actually carrying out the organisation’s core tasks; and giving the staff the freedom to work the way that works best for them and their clients.

If more (or any) changes came from the second list and not the first then Fred assures me he would be fully supportive of them.

But the saddest thing about these “management mongrels” (Fred’s words) is their total ignorance of how much their staff actually despise them. I mean, Fred often speaks with an air of genuine hatred towards these “worthless scum” (his words again) and he’s not the sort of person to be so negative in general.

He recounts an incident where he was treated with total disdain by the HR department of his organisation, including threats to possibly involve the police, and it was only the intervention of his lawyer which made them back off (and pay him a moderate sum for the stress they caused, because they were obviously wrong). Yet a week after that a senior HR staff member who had been responsible for his persecution casually greeted him on the street as if they were the best of friends.

It’s as if these people are sub-human monsters (his words) and cannot connect with real people. They like to think they are all part of the same team, all working towards the same greater goal, and all good friends, but the complete opposite is true. In fact, they are the enemy and must always be treated as such.

Thomas Paine said that “the duty of a patriot is to protect his country from his government.” Fred would say that it is the duty of every worker to protect his company, institution, etc from its management.

Racist Misogynist Xenophobe

December 13, 2017 Leave a comment

Apparently, according to some people, I am a racist and/or a misogynist and/or a xenophobe, plus there might be a few other vague insults I can’t recall right now. The people making these opinions known don’t really know me at all, and the opinions are generally based on single comments I have made on discussion forums, so I don’t take them too seriously.

I know I have discussed this issue before, that is, the ease with which these generic (and I would say ultimately meaningless) insults are used today, but I think it is one of the defining issues of the modern era, so I want to say some more about it here.

So first, what are some of the comments I have made to incur the wrath of these critics?

Well, one example might be recently where I said I didn’t like the religion Islam. Apparently, according to some people at least, that is racist, even though Islam is a religious and political idea rather than a race.

I also said I had no real interest in learning the Maori language simply because I have other things which I personally think are more valuable for me to spend my time on. And that is also racist, according to some, even though I’m not trying to stop anyone else learning Maori if they want to.

Plus there have been occasions when I said I was not impressed with the performance of certain female public figures, and (as you might be able to predict by now) that was labelled sexist, even though I make similar criticism of male figures without receiving any opprobrium at all.

Finally, if I mention various ways I disagree with some forms of overseas investment and excessive migration to New Zealand then I am also xenophobic, even when it is only when that criticism involves certain countries and when equally critical points are made about others it is considered OK.

It’s really quite disturbing what a terrible person I must be. I really had no idea!

But here are a few points which I really must make in defence of my comments, which I believe reveal a deeper understanding of my perspective…

First, I criticise ideas, not people. I have never said that I don’t like Muslims, for example. It’s Islam that I don’t like, and I know and like some Muslims, despite the fact that I don’t agree with their religion.

And I have nothing against the Race Relations Commissioner of New Zealand. I don’t criticise some of her statements because of who she is, or because she is a woman, it’s because I disagree with both her apparent underlying philosophy and many of her specific pronouncements.

And I don’t criticise some Chinese investments in New Zealand because of their country of origin. It’s because I think they are exploitative and not good for the country overall, and I also criticise many similar investments from the US and Australia.

Second, I don’t judge people based on one aspect of their personality. Sure, if a person is seriously religious (especially Muslim) it will make it harder for me to like them, but there are many parts which make up a person’s overall values, and everyone has positives and negatives. In fact, I welcome differences in opinion because that gives me an interesting basis for meaningful debate.

Third, I try to be consistent. So I think Islam is responsible for most of the terrorism in the world today and I condemn it on that basis. But I equally condemn Christianity for some of the atrocities it has been responsible for in the past. And the same applies to non-religious ideas such as Stalinism.

Fourth, I try to avoid trendy catch-phrases and ideas based on what is currently fashionable. So I try to avoid the unthinking condemnation of Donald Trump, even though I disagree with a lot of what he does. And I don’t use silly words like “mansplaining” or “white privilege”. These are often used in the wrong context and as a way to reject a person’s opinion without having to come up with any genuine objection.

Fifth, I try to offer some balance in a discussion I think is too one sided. So if I see a discussion where Islam is being excused of any blame for terrorism I will point out that it must accept some degree of responsibility because of the way its written material can be quite reasonably interpreted as being a call for violence. But I will also defend Islam if I think it is being excessively blamed, because there are equally parts of that material which are moderately tolerant and peaceful.

There’s a fine line between this and just being a troll, and it is easy to just cause trouble rather than offering a genuine alternative opinion, but it’s just something I do.

Sixth, I try to offer a nuanced view which avoids one extreme or the other. Nothing is totally good or bad so it is sensible to argue based on that perspective. For example, I might say that immigration is causing a lot of social problems here, but I don’t think it is totally bad and I don’t think we should shut it down completely.

Or I might disagree with many of the economic principles of libertarianism while agreeing with its emphasis on maximum individual freedom. The world is complicated and it’s too easy to over-simplify it.

Seventh, I enjoy debating for its own sake, and I enjoy being in the minority and being controversial. Sometimes this leads me to taking a side I am not totally committed to and sometimes this means my arguments are shown to be deficient. And this leads to my final point…

Finally, I do try to admit when I’m wrong, and when other people make good arguments, and when an issue is ultimately a matter of opinion. This does happen occasionally and I try to look at it as if I don’t correct my view on some issues then I am not really improving my overall philosophical perspective. If I still believed exactly the same things today as I did a few years ago then it would be disappointing in many ways, so being wrong about some things should be welcomed – as long as it doesn’t happen too often!

And sometimes a debate just has to end with a comment like: “well that’s your opinion, which I can appreciate, but I think mine is more reasonable. However, since we are both really just offering opinions on a matter which cannot be resolved through logic or facts I think we need to agree to differ on this issue and leave it there.”

If, after all of this, someone still wants to use an ad hominem against me then in many ways I welcome that. It’s almost like an admission on their part that they are wrong and are out of ideas. If they want to call me racist then fine, I embrace that label if it means I am being more honest and realistic.

I’m sure that is anyone examines my record of debating on Facebook, on YouTube, and in this blog, amongst others, they will find times when I have failed to live up to the high standards I presented here. But I do make the effort at least, and I do think that I am at least aware of these as being worthy of aspiring to.

If other people would just think about these (especially number 4) before they write a comment I think the general standard of debate would be higher. Then we would have less debates with meaningless words like “racist”, “mansplaining”, “white privilege”, “xenophobe”, and all that other stuff which is so over-used that it has lost any value it might have had.

So hopefully I will never again be accused of being a privileged, chauvinistic, close-minded, misogynistic, deluded, elitist, imperialistic, ethno-centric, fat-shaming, hate-mongering, heteronormative, hyper-masculine, Islamophobic, mansplaining, middle-class, straight, narrow-minded, nationalistic, heterosexual, nativist, Eurocentric, alt-right, oppressive, patriarchal, hateful, racist, transphobic, woman-hating traditionalist! (thanks to the SJW insult generator for this list of meaningless insults)

Good or Bad

November 18, 2017 Leave a comment

While I’m in the middle of a phase of religion bashing I thought it might be a good time to resurrect (an ironic choice of word) the old subject of religion in schools. This has appeared as an issue in the media here a few weeks back, so the subject is topical.

In the past, I have sort of shrugged off the issue saying something like, the young people nowadays are too smart to be taken in by some blatantly transparent myths and are likely to consign religion to the same category of fiction as the Lord of the Rings, or Game of Thrones.

This is no doubt true in most cases. Because, there is certainly reason to think that our civilisation’s childhood, where it relied on ancient traditional stories as a basis for cultural identity, is now starting to reach a conclusion, and we are growing up and abandoning the imaginary invisible man in the sky.

Here in New Zealand the “no religion” group is about to reach 50% of the population. Additionally, as I have said in the past, most people who indicate Christian as their religion on the census don’t really have any commitment to that belief and never attend church, read the Bible, or even really know much about it.

But it’s when previously powerful belief systems are threatened that they can become most dangerous. It’s a bit like a wild animal’s attack reflex when it’s cornered. So we should be especially careful now that churches don’t make a last ditch stand before they are consigned to the rubbish heap of bad ideas like all their predecessors. And maybe even more worryingly, we need to be careful that even worse religions, like Islam, don’t fill the void left by Christianity.

As I said above, most kids will not be taken in by the silly stuff they are taught in Bible in schools. But it is not the well-balanced, sensible, practical majority we need to worry about. It is the out of touch, emotionally and intellectually immature minority which are most at risk.

As I write this I realise that perhaps I have “shot myself in the foot” to a certain extent, because you might make a case to say that it is those who are not coping well who might have most to gain from joining a church and getting extra support and friendship.

I’m sure that there are some people who actually are better off joining a religion, and I have never argued for complete eradication of religion – at least I can’t recall an occasion, although I might have done during one of my more extreme rants! On the other hand, there might be more appropriate groups than a church those people could gain even more from, without the need to resort to superstition.

At this stage it is apparent that I am still conflicted on this subject. Don’t misunderstand, I am totally committed to the idea that religions are fake and have little purpose beyond that which can be provided far better by other knowledge systems (science for facts, philosophy for values), but fake stuff can still have value for certain people.

In the final analysis, this subject is just like every other: it is not a matter of black and white, or good and bad, just like I have so often said in past blog posts. I think that if kids were taught positive philosophical beliefs or given instruction in comparative religion in schools that would be of far more value than simple indoctrination in the dominant religion of the time, but maybe traditional Christian instruction – as along as it is controlled and doesn’t turn into aggressive proselytising – is OK.

Unfortunately the temptation to regress to aggressive conversion – with the threats of torture in Hell for unbelievers, etc – is just too likely according to many reports in the media. So maybe it would be be best just to expel religions from schools because of current bad behaviour.

Well, this blog post has certainly turned out to be one of my most indecisive ever! So, in summary, religion in schools. Good or bad? Well, yes… yes, definitely good or bad.

Too Much of a Good Thing

October 11, 2017 Leave a comment

I would broadly classify my political views as liberal left but, as you will be aware if you follow this blog, I have drifted away from a conventional view of that type and increasingly disagree with other people in that particular political camp.

I’m not suggesting at all that I have become a conservative, and when I do political surveys I seem to be just as far left as ever, but I do have difficulty with one area where the left have become intolerable recently: that is in their excessive political correctness.

I have heard the claim that there is no political correctness, just correctness, but this is total nonsense. The views that political correctness supports are all very much a matter of opinion and could easily be argued both ways. For example: is affirmative action just another way to treat one group unfairly in comparison to another? Does it simply create another instance of the problem it is supposed to solve? Even if you are a strong supporter of affirmative action you should at least admit that another interpretation is possible.

But that’s not what happens. In various environments where the PC left rule, even suggesting that an officially condoned measure, like affirmative action, might not be fair or reasonable automatically makes you the enemy and liable to a totally mindless barrage of abuse regarding what a “bigot” or “sexist” or “racist” you might be.

It has got to the point where I welcome those labels, because if you have to be a bigot, sexist, or racist to speak the truth, then that’s just what I will need to be.

But that is an example of another phenomenon the left are guilty of: concept creep. Originally to be a racist (for example but other insulting labels are equally relevant here) you would need to exhibit some fairly extreme behaviour, such as refusing to socialise with another racial group, or actively trying to stop that group participating in society, etc. But now all you have to do is suggest that the same group shouldn’t get extra privileges that others don’t get.

In fact it is the other side who are really the racists. I want everyone to be equal. And I know the argument that to make some groups equal they need extra help. Fair enough, but I disagree. But let’s have a reasonable discussion about this instead of just getting abusive.

The problem here is that by not being reasonable the left actually reduce the potential effectiveness of what they want to achieve. Many people are sickened by the ridiculous political correctness they espouse and that just drives them more to the right (it’s happened to me and to many others).

So it’s like too much of a good thing. Getting equal rights for everyone is good, but by giving extra rights to a group who, in the past were disadvantaged, they go too far and negate the good work already done.

And the failure to engage in reasonable debate about a contentious subject indicates to me that they maybe haven’t thought about it too carefully. I enjoy debating my beliefs because I am confident I can defend them, and if I can’t defend them that suggests maybe I was wrong and should change what I think is true. This is a healthy approach to arguing these points, but it’s not one you see very often from the PC left.

The underlying phenomenon powering this set of beliefs seems to be defending marginalised groups. These groups would include non-whites, women, LGBTQs, the disabled, and Muslims. That is OK. If certain groups have genuine disadvantages let’s try to fix that, but don’t go too far.

These groups should still be open to scrutiny and it should be OK to criticise them when it is appropriate and when the criticism is true. And this word, “true”, seems to be one the left are completely oblivious to.

So if I criticised Muslims because surveys show a large percentage of them partially or totally support some of the violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists, then answer that criticism. Show me why it’s not true, or justify it in some way. Don’t just call me a bigot.

And if I say a lot of the rhetoric created by the “Black Lives Matter” cause is nonsense because, in proportion to the number of crimes involved, blacks actually aren’t targeted by US police to any significant extent more than anyone else (despite there being a few clearly racist cops) then show me alternative statistics which show I’m wrong, or explain why the stats aren’t fair. But don’t just call me a racist.

And if I say that it is girls and women who are by far getting the best outcomes in our education system now and, why do we need to create new programs to make this advantage even greater, then show me the facts that counter this idea. But don’t just call be sexist.

But people very rarely even attempt to come up with points to counter mine, because they don’t know them. My opponents just follow an ideology because that’s what they hear in the politically correct echo chamber they live in. When they do see an alternative view their only reaction is pathetic name calling.

There are points which can be made to counter all three statements I made above, but I don’t think they are very compelling. But a person from the PC left stating those points really well might convince me I’m wrong. But that’s just not what they do.

Until this behaviour ends, the left are doomed I’m afraid. We’re just going to get more of the sort of politics that elected Donald Trump. That was mainly the fault of the left being completely out of touch: of refusing to criticise Muslims, of treating police actions unfairly, and of making the presidential campaign a feminist contest, which they lost.

So to anyone on the left still reading this, please take notice. Your excessive political correctness is just destroying your own opportunities to convert more people to your ideals. Do what you think is right, but avoid too much of a good thing.