Monthly Archives: March 2020

The conservative critiques of social justice are, therefore, wrong on two different fronts.

If one were to rely solely on center-right or conservative media and public intellectuals for social commentary, one could be forgiven for thinking that the greatest threat currently facing Western Civilization is social justice. At this point, it is almost a starting point for any kind of discussion between the Left and the Right to discuss that some on the Left (the mythical social justice warriors) have gone too far in many cases. This, however, has not kept conservatives and libertarians from repeating the problem ad nauseamand publications on the Right are full of examples of this topic. If this were just an issue of conservatives simply repeating a similar point, I do not think it would be relevant. But more than the repetition, I think the social justice discourse perfectly highlights the intellectual poverty of a lot of the criticism of the Left that has been coming from the Right in recent years.

Browsing conservative magazines, it is easy to find various expressions of this phenomenon. The following series of examples is not intended as a specific criticism of one particular outlet, and I think doing the same with any other publication would not be difficult. However, I think that the almost obsessive attention that only one magazine can devote to one issue is telling. A recent article in National Review argues that the future is all but doomed barring turning the tide on social justice in higher education. In the same conservative publication, Noah Rothman, author of the 2019 bookUnjust: Social Justice and the Unmaking of America, argues thatmuch like the title of the book suggestssocial justice is not about the redressing of historical injustices but is essentially a tool used by the Leftto engineer oppressive, redistributive policies. In a similar vein, Jonah Goldberganother National Review contributor (and now a founding editor at The Dispatch)explains in a video for PragerU that social justice is little more than a term that the Left uses to signify anything that it finds expedient to further a political agenda at any given moment. Finally, Michael Brendan Dougherty, in a significantly more thoughtful piece than the others, addresses another important trope in the conservative discourse around social justice, namely, victim mentality. Dougherty does acknowledge that the use of victimhood for political purposes is far from exclusive to the Left, and he gives several examples of conservatives using this tactic. However, he does argue that left-wing activists currently engaged in social justice discourse and identity politics have taken this to unprecedented levels. All of this, is predictably (and perhaps correctly in a few cases) traced back to Marxism and other ideologies.

It is difficult to blame conservatives for hammering the same point. As Jordan Peterson readily admitted in one of his interviews with Joe Rogan, he found a way to monetize social justice warriors. As if self-conscious about giving away the game, Peterson prefaces his confession with I shouldnt say this, but Im going to because its just so goddamn funny. Clearly, it is not just Peterson that has profited from talking about this issue, as the examples above show. However, as I said before, I do not think that repetition on its own necessarily warrants criticism, but the poor level of analysis that produces it does. Now, it might seem unfairand it probably isto criticize anything that is acceptable for PragerU, an outlet that barely rises above the level of propaganda. And, after all, figures on the Right have reminded us often that we ought to steelman our opponents positions before criticizing them. In the interest of fairness, then, I am going to do just that and not use any of the previously cited pieces as examples of the most cogent conservative discourse about social justice.

A much better example of a conservative critique of social justice is Thomas Patrick Burkes The Concept of Justice: Is Social Justice Just?To be clear, the more recent examples (Burkes monograph is from 2011) do share the structure of the books argument in many ways. While it is difficult to say whether any of the contemporary critics read Burke or were directly influenced by him, it is reasonable to assume that Burkes ideas slowly permeated from academia to the mainstream, and, in the process, many became little more than tropes. In both cases, we find the core idea that social justice is unjust. As part of the supporting argument, both Burke and his contemporary exponents, cite notions of victim-mentality, the abandonment of the concept of personal responsibility, and the emphasis on the collectivity over the individual. The fact that Burke gives a much more coherent defense of his argument only means that if he is wrong, the same is true for these more recent critics, andin this latter caseperhaps even more so.

Burkes central claim is ambitious. In his view, any framework that accepts the contemporary version of social justice as just is essentially throwing a few millennia of moral philosophy out the window. The classical notion of justicethe one that has been built over many centuries of Western philosophy since the Greeksis based upon the idea that acts are the basic source of justice and injustice. States of affairs as a whole cannot be inherently just or unjust. That does not mean that we cannot ever judge a state of affairs. It only means that to know if one is truly unjust, we must know what were the individual actions that brought it about. An implication of thisand one that might make the point cleareris that the same state of affairs could be judged either way depending on the circumstances that brought it about. This is a view of justice, says Burke, that allows us to criticize obviously unjust states of affairs such as slavery or exploitation, as long as we can point to specific individual agents responsible, thereby saving the all-important notion of personal responsibility. On the other hand, the paradigm of social justice goes against all established philosophical canons because it judges states of affairs in themselves and throws away any notion of individual agency. Under this paradigm, then, any unequal state of affairs is judged to be unjust, and individual actions are attributed to circumstances. So, for example, a criminal can no longer be held responsible because it is his social and economic circumstances that moved him or her to act in such a way.

But is this an accurate characterization of what advocates of social justice believe? Of course, if conservatives were given the benefit of exposition by an academic philosopher, the same should be done for the side of social justice. One obvious choice here is Nancy Fraser. Not only is she a strong advocate for social justice, she is also a critical theorist, a Marxist, and a feminist. In other words, she is exactly the kind of academic that conservatives and libertarians have been warning us about as the current greatest threat to Western Civilization. In Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation, Fraser explores the two basic paradigms of social justice, namely, redistribution and recognition. The first of these she traces back to the traditions of socialism and social democracyand particularly to philosophers such as John Rawls (something she shares with Burke). The latter, she identifies with identity politics. The point of this article is to show how redistribution and recognition, even though they are often posed as opposites, are not so. Each is meant to address different forms of injustice. Redistribution addresses the familiar cases of unjust distributions, for example, between the Global North and the Global Southor between owners and workers. Recognition, on the other hand, is needed in those cases in which economic inequality is not the source of injustice, such as those in which cultural norms affect groups of people not defined by economic status. This might include sexual minorities.

Nothing in Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics really contradicts Burkes arguments about social justice. But nothing confirms his arguments either. It is true that only states of affairs are described as unjust, which is exactly what Burke criticizes about the concept of social justice. But even Burke admits that we can say that a state of affairs is unjust, provided it came about through unjust means in which we can identify individual agency. Nothing that Fraser argues here suggests that that is not the case or that these states of affairs are unjust in themselves. In the article, different forms of injustice are described, and different ways to apply justice to them are discussed; however, nothing is said about the sources of either justice or injustice. Fortunately, we have an answer to these questions, which Fraser addresses in another article, entitled simply On Justice. Here, Fraser analyzes Kazuo Ishiguros dystopian science fiction novel Never Let Me Go. It depicts a world in which clones are created for the sole purpose of harvesting organs for the people from whom they were created. For Fraser, this is a clearly unjust state of affairs. Here, however, she does explain what makes it unjust: In short, it is exploitation. Now, exploitation is a specific action (or set of actions) that can be directly attributed to individual people. In the case of Never Let Me Go, Fraser says that those in charge of the clones are engaging in exploitation. So, to say that social justice cannot establish specific causes of injustice is at least misleading, if not downright wrong.

This omission is all the more glaring because a part of Burkes book is dedicated to tracing the origin and transformation of social justice. This section of Burkes book does an excellent job of describing how the concept transformed from being a traditionalist idea predicated on preserving the established order, originally conceived by Italian Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli, into what it is today. Burke explains that, as soon as the concept lost its strict attachment to Catholic social teaching, distinct conceptions of social justice were adopted by different ideological groups. The result of this was that, for a long time, there existed a conservative, a liberal, and a socialist conception of social justice. This last one is the one that Burke identifies as the closest to what he views as the modern conception of social justice. However, he argues that even this one was still just ordinary justicemeaning, the kind that can be attributed to individual actionsbut applied to social issues. He attributes the socialist meaning of social justice to the English Christian socialists of the latter half of the 19th century, whose main concern was exploitation, defined by them as wages which they considered proportionally meager compared to the kind and amount of work that factory employees undertook. This, he says, is still simply justice applied to social issues, just like criminal justice is justice applied to violations of rights by other people. The reason is that it is still possible to specifically signal factory owners as the responsible party.

This is all very strange, of course because Fraser specifically mentions exploitation. So, in a way, it almost seems like a willing refusal to acknowledge what advocates of social justice, as defined today, say their own beliefs are. And it is not just a matter of taking them at their word. It is entirely possible that their beliefs could be inconsistent in a way that undermined the claim that exploitation is the source of injustice. However, in this instance, it is easy to see that that is clearly not the case. All one needs to do is look at some of the situations in which claims about social injustice are made. Two that Fraser mentions are the unjust distribution between owners and workers, and that between the Global North and the Global South. The first of these is essentially the same that the English socialists, whom Burke admits still had an appropriate definition of justice, were concerned about. The second one could seem closer to a state of affairs being judged as inherently wrong based on the fact that one set of nations has more economic resources than the others. But this argument falls apart with minimal scrutiny. There is a reason that the specific Global North-Global South division is made, even though there are large inequalities between countries that belong to the same group. The reason is thatin generalthere is a specific relationship between the two sets of countries based on the colonial past, which was largely carried out by countries in the North against countries in the South. Now, of course, the United States was a colony of Great Britain, as India was; however, in the former case, the bulk of those that constituted the new nation were the colonizing population whereas in the later, it was the colonized.

Evidently, colonialism was comprised of a set of actions carried that can be traced back to particular individuals acting on their will. To say, then, that social justice does not adhere to the traditional conception of justice, as Burke defines it, which necessitates assigning responsibility to people, is simply not true. Moreover, the failure to identify this seems like a glaring omission. Not only are these arguments about why certain states of affairs are unjust very straightforward, it is even possible to make the same argument from a right-libertarian point of view. In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick makes a very similar argument. Nozick famously argues that inequality is not unjust, provided that an unequal distribution was achieved only through voluntary transactions between consenting parties. But consistent with this, he also states that the only legitimate case for state-backed redistribution is when the present distribution is the result of acquisition through violence, coercion, collusion, fraud, or other illegitimate means, all of which can be attributed to individual actors. It should be evident that the anti-colonialist argument is fundamentally the same. It should be, of course, possible to contest the specifics social justice claims. What is not a valid criticism, however, is to say that social justice somehow throws out all classical notions of justice.

There is one last issue that illustrates this contrast between Fraser and Burke. There is one other way in which we could interpret advocates of social justice as judging states of affairs in themselves, as opposed to doing so based upon how they came about. Burke argues that the modern conception of social justice is mainly owed to John Rawls and his conception of justice as fairness. Nancy Fraser actually agrees with this. While she does not agree with all of Rawlss conclusions, in On Justice, she accepts Rawlss to basic starting points: namely, that justice is the first virtue of social institutions and that the primary object of justice is the basic structure of society. It could be argued that this proves Burke correct, but this is still not the case. Let us go back to the case that Fraser analyzes in said article. Of course, as I laid out before, Fraser does argue that the people in charge of the clones act unjustly; so, if one wanted to limit the scope of justice to individual acts of will, this should be enough to lay any concerns to rest. However, she takes the argument further. In accordance with her Rawlsian framework, she says that, ultimately, the caretakers act like they do because society is structured in such a way that sets them up to do so.

Nothing in Frasers argument takes personal responsibility away from the caretakers, as the novel does show instances of the characters having internal conflicts. So, the notion that personal responsibility is ignored is completely false. But it is hard to see the denial of the role that the social structure has in such situation as anything more than willful ignorance. The society in which the clones live is entirely built around the system of clones as spare parts for the originals. So, while individuals can sometimes see that there is something wrong with the systemfor example, when they are able to recognize that the clones are individuals in their own right with their own subjective experienceseach individual, including the clones, is still acting according to their social duty. If social duties require us to act unjustly, it is even irresponsible not to judge the structure of society to be unjust. And if anyone remains so narrowly committed to the idea that justice is solely a quality of individual actions, it is, of course, always true that social structures never emerge spontaneously. They are always the result of aggregated individual acts of will.

Finally, I believe there is another reason to be skeptical of this conception of justice defended by Burke. By this, I do not mean that it is flawedbut only that it is incomplete. As I have explained, what Burke refers to as the modern concept of social justice can be described entirely within his own narrow concept of justice. But the claim that the Western tradition has never attributed justice to states of affair in themselves is at least suspect. A review of Aristotles Politics and Nicomachean Ethics(or of Ciceros writings) shows that judging states of affairs in themselves is perfectly within the bounds of the Western philosophical canonat least to the extent that Rawls and Fraser do it. Both Aristotle and Cicero dedicate much of their writing in Politics and De Republica,respectively, to comparing different forms of political organization as wholes. They both conclude that the best one is what Cicero calls republic and Aristotle, (politeia) or constitutional government. While the term just is never explicitly used to describe them, it is worth noting particularly what Aristotle says about and comparing it to what he says about justice and equality in his NicomacheanEthics. For him, is the best form of government because it is a fusion of democracy (in the classical sense) and oligarchy. Therefore, it represents moderation as a mean between the two extremes. Neither the rich nor the poor have control over the government. But this is analogous to the way Aristotle describes justice, equality, and fairness in the Nicomachean Ethics, as he even admits in his discussion of constitutions.

In the Ethics, in Book V, Aristotle describes two kinds of justice: that which is based on proportionality and that which is rectificatory. The latter of these can be identified with Burkes own concept of justice. Justice requires reversing an action that resulted, for example, in an illegitimate acquisition of property through violence or fraud. But the former kind, Aristotle describes as that which is manifested in distributions of honor or money or the other things that fall to be divided among those who have a share in the constitution. About this one, Aristotle says that there is a certain proportional distribution which is just, and deviations resulting in some having too much and others too little of what is good are unjust. This, of course, is very similar to the kind of concept of justice that Burke describes as a judgement of states of affairs in themselves that go against centuries of Western philosophy. Yet, it is exactly what one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy advocated. This does not mean that because Aristotle said it, it must be true. But we now have two different reasons to be skeptical of the argument that the classical concept of justice can never judge states of affairs.

The conservative critiques of social justice are, therefore, wrong on two different fronts. Puzzlingly, it is two that are fairly easy to identify: social justice, as advocated by its adherents, does not dispense with personal responsibility. Furthermore, its judgements about states of affairs are done in a way that can always be traced to acts of will, and that perfectly falls within the bounds of the Western philosophical tradition. Now, it is possible that all these conservative critiques of social justice might only be directed at the less sophisticated and more extreme of its proponents, such as the mythical campus social justice warrior. If that were the case, however, these critiques would not only be at least slightly intellectually dishonest, but, also, I would argue, fairly irrelevant. But if that is indeed what the Right aims to criticize, it might be time that the Left starts treating PragerU videos and Turning Point USA graphics as the ultimate expressions of conservative thought.

Nstor de Buen holds an M.A. in social sciences from The University of Chicago. He has previously written at Quillette.

Continued here:

The Critics of Social Justice, from Jonah Goldberg to Jordan Peterson - Merion West

Life is suffering. It is complex and tragic and difficult.The price we pay for being is suffering.

We should not aim for happiness, because the purpose of life is not happiness. Happiness is done in by the first harsh blow that life deals you. If we make out happiness is the ideal state of being then anyone who experiences pain and suffering and tragedy will feel ashamed and think theres something wrong with them. If your philosophy is shallow and meaningless then when you suffer you will become resentful, hostile and self critical. And then you will become cruel and destructive and be a danger to yourself and others.

Instead we need to sacrifice current pleasures for long term future benefits. We need to believe in a future that is real, and to have confidence we will there be in that future. We then can make choices today that benefit us in the future but cost us today. If you have no future you will descend into anarchy, thats why gangs exist.

Instead of thinking the problems in the world all lie outside us, we need to recognise that the line between good and evil runs inside each of our own hearts. And given how much suffering there is in the world, we should first figure out how to tidy up our own room and beautify it. To fix ourselves and the part of the world we have influence over, and then find ways to reduce suffering not increase it.

So says Jordan Peterson, the Psychologist storming the internet for the last couple of years. The coronavirus crisis surely has helped many of us realise that the world is indeed a broken hurting place. We can be ignorant of the sheer amount of pain that exists in the world if we are comfortable and going about our business. But suddenly our eyes have been opened.

The truth is that many of us have no philosophical undergirding whatsoever on how to handle suffering. Right now many of us have had our lives interrupted. And in many homes the anguish being felt by others is still distant. But it could potentially come and touch you and your loved ones soon. If you have time to spare, why not invest five hours of that time listening to theone of the greatest intellectual thinkers of today. This may bring rewards not. just in the short term but over the rest of your life.

Jordan Peterson is not explicitly describing a specifically Christian outlook on life. But many of his assumptions flow directly from the the Judeo-Christian world view which formed the foundation of Western society for centuries. He weaves it in with insights from some of the great psychologists some of whom theorised and discovered truths many of which underlined and supported those ancient ideas.

Sadly many today have vandalised the very foundations of any real philosophy in the name of freedom concepts about human rights and oppression, and historical snobbery. This video will help you examine your own assumptions about life and thought, and his deep thinking will lead you if you are a Christian to also approach the Bible from a deeper perspective. Many of us are unconsciously and uncritically accepting modern philosophy. Peterson will help you question unhealthy assumptions you didnt even realise you had.

Video Guide:

Follow the linkto read all thearticles, or subscribe to ournewsletter to be notified as they are published.

Complete the form in the top of the right hand column, or below if you are visiting on a mobile device.

Link:

Five hours to change your life with Jordan Peterson - Patheos

This article is inThe Spectators April 2020 US edition.Subscribe here to get yours.

Since late last summer, Ive been experimenting with something pretty crazy. Its not drugs. Nor is it a trendy celebrity religion. Its meat. Like Jordan Peterson and other great apes, Im on the carnivore diet.

The carnivore diet is a lot simpler than keto, for example, which involves counting macronutrients. On carnivore, you merely refrain from eating anything that isnt an animal product. Beef, lamb, chicken, pork and seafood are all in, but vegetables, fruit and grains are out. Its reverse veganism, or the hunter-gatherer diet, but with more hunting and no gathering.

Apart from those who work at a zoo, most people know of the carnivore diet because of Peterson and his daughter Mikhaila. As the Petersons explained to Joe Rogan on his podcast, a meat-only diet had alleviated their chronic health issues. Rogan then tried the diet himself for a month. He lost weight, gained energy, experienced fewer aches and pains and even saw improvements in his vitiligo.

Ah, you might be thinking. So its a trendy celebrity diet youve been trying then. Gotcha.

I suppose thats fair enough. But celebrities are far from the only ones singing the praises of sinking your teeth into our foraging friends. Online carno-forums are growing like mushrooms (which I no longer eat). Reddits Zero Carb group apparently boasts more than 100,000 flesh-eating members.

Ive been on and off carnivore for about six months now. Ive had the same conversations over and over again with my friends and family about my apparently bizarre gustatory regimen. Im neither a doctor nor a nutritionist, so I cant help anyone there, but what I do know about is bathroom trouble and really good sleep. So theres that.

Why? Why would you do this? they ask, buttering another slice of toast.

For many people, the carnivore diet appeals for reasons of weight loss. White bread and potatoes are not part of the animal kingdom. While I have lost weight on the diet, that wasnt my reason for trying it. I was actually seeking relief from general health problems.

I wasnt always this way, but for the past few years Ive had almost no energy. I had trouble sleeping. I had an immune system so weak that I often referred to myself as Bubble Boy. Id come down with a cold or flu-like symptoms almost every month and was bedridden for at least three days each time.

I went to doctors and had all sorts of tests done, but nobody could explain what was wrong with me. Id heard about the carnivore diet from Peterson and was curious about it, but I finally decided to give it a try when a doctor told me to experiment with my diet because our microbiomes affect our general health .

Does it work? they ask, skeptically dipping a handful of French fries in ketchup.

I cant speak for anyone else but for me, the answer is a huge, resounding Yes! I started feeling different within the first week. My energy levels were off the charts. I had more concentration. I was falling asleep easier. I was waking up earlier than normal yet feeling more rested. After a few more weeks, I began to notice further changes. My runny nose was gone. I didnt feel as anxious as I usually did. And I stopped suffering those mysterious monthly illnesses. Im still no fitness model on Instagram, but I feel well enough to go to the gym now. This is a huge improvement.

Isnt that unhealthy? they ask, munching their kale.

I dont know whether Im technically healthy on a meat diet, but I know for certain that I feel healthier than I have in years. I actually feel like a 25-year-old (my actual age), rather than a middle-aged invalid who happens to have great skin.

I will get my blood tested for nutrient levels in the next few months, to check the long-term prospects of this diet. But frankly, regardless of what the tests say, I am not going back to the way I felt before. Health isnt just a bunch of numbers on a chart. Its also being able to live your life without feeling sick and tired all the time. Ill take 35 or 40 more years of feeling great over 50 more years of sickness, fatigue and anxiety.

Isnt it better to just eat a balanced diet? they wonder, eating pita chips and guacamole.

That depends on what you mean by better. I certainly didnt feel better when I was eating a balanced diet. Over the past six months, Ive relaxed the strict carnivore system and experimented with reintroducing certain food groups. I tried adding leafy greens into the mix for a week, and at one point I also embraced dairy. I even fell off the wagon for the holidays last year. My fall was broken by apple pie and mashed potatoes.

I wish it werent the case, but the more Ive strayed from the herd of carnivorous eaters, the worse Ive felt. I would love to eat bread, vegetables and fruit, and I do plan to keep experimenting with adding different items back into my diet. But the sad truth is that so far, whenever I reintroduce non-meat foods, even in small amounts, the more I start feeling like I used to. Which is terrifying.

Hows yourdigestion? the amateur bowel specialists ask.

This is by far the most common question I get about the carnivore diet. Is it because were taught that fiber (absent from animal products) is the be-all and end-all of our peristaltic movements? Or is it because the Petersons and Rogan shared with thousands of appalled listeners how starting carnivore caused tidal waves of diarrhea? Whatever the reason, everyone now knows that when you start carnivore, you get the runs.

Yes, I did go through a memorable and fluently productive transition period. As with most carnivores, the diarrhea lasted only about two weeks, like similar episodes in all-inclusive resorts in Mexico. Im now totally fine, and fully in control. Thanks for asking.

So, would you recommend trying the carnivore diet? they ask, despite the digestive transition.

You know what? No, I wouldnt. But not for the reasons you might think. Ive had great results with the carnivore diet, but if its taught me anything, its how differently diets can affect each of us. I felt terrible while I was eating healthy foods that make other people feel great. And even though I feel the best when eating only meat, I know vegans who say the same about their diets.

Im not telling anyone what to eat or not to eat. Experiment. Talk to your doctor. Find what works best for you. My only advice is that we should all be more mindful of how our diets affect our day-to-day wellbeing. Food is more important to health than we think. There may come a day when scientists create a brownie or Big Mac that helps our bodies run optimally. Sadly, that day is not today. Instead, I shall be eating smoked salmon, bone marrow and some grilled chicken breasts. It could be worse, and so could I.

This article is inThe Spectators April 2020 US edition.Subscribe here to get yours.

Go here to read the rest:

The carnivore confessions: I've never felt better than on my meat-only diet - The Spectator USA

Scientists and science writers are urged to participate more in public debates. However, when we do, we often get libeled and slandered.

Previously, I wrote about growing incivility at the University of Washington, where two instructors were ruthlessly cyberbullied and defamed because they dared to express opinions that were unpopular on campus.

For the thought crime of opposing a carbon tax, atmospheric sciences Professor Cliff Mass was called a blatant misogynist, a scary, dangerous person, and a racist. For the crime of writing an essay about why women arent as attracted to computer coding as men, lecturer Stuart Reges was called an obnoxious mole who should be whacked. Students tried to get both fired.

These aren't one-off events. If youre a scientist, the internet is an extremely dangerous place. Indeed, there are entire websites dedicated to defaming scientists and spreading disinformation, even on such crucial issues as public health and COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus.

DeSmogBlog Smears Scientists Like Freeman Dyson

One of these sites, called DeSmogBlog, is operated by Executive Director Brendan DeMelle and Managing Editor Ashley Braun. The websites stated aim is clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science. In reality, its little more than a vehicle to assassinate the characters of any scientist that they dislike.

The site recently targeted me, perversely twisting my two months' worth of articles on COVID-19 out of context to accuse me of "downplaying" threat and spreading misinformation on the coronavirus, with potentially deadly consequences. It also called me a climate science denier though I support nuclear power as a solution to climate change and implied I was a racist.

These lies went viral on social media and were subsequently parroted by other outlets, such as Skeptical Science, which is operated by George Mason University Professor John Cook. (See image on right. I contacted Dr. Cook, explained its gross inaccuracy, and asked him to remove it. I was ignored. Such is the state of the "skepticism" movement.)

But I'm hardly the only scientist that DeSmogBlog has ruthlessly smeared. Nobody is safe. For instance, the website went after the late Dr. Freeman Dyson, the widely beloved Renaissance man whose expertise included just about everything from mathematics and quantum physics to astronomy and nuclear engineering. He probably should have won a Nobel Prize for some of his work.

How could such a magnificent figure draw the wrath of DeSmogBlog? Though Dyson accepted the reality of man-caused global warming, he thought climate models were inaccurate and he did not believe climate change constituted an emergency. That was enough for DeSmogBlog to hang the moniker of denier around his neck a label typically reserved for people who deny the Holocaust.

The site has also gone after Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr, a professor of environmental studies and science policy at the University of Colorado. Dr. Pielke is perhaps best known for his evidence showing that climate change doesnt make hurricanes more dangerous. For heresies such as this, DeSmogBlog says he is playing footsie with denialists and right-wing ideologues.

The list goes on and on. DeSmogBlog has rap sheets on several high-profile academics, including psychology professor Jordan Peterson and atmospheric sciences emeritus professor Judith Curry. What they all have in common is that they have an opinion climate change-related or otherwise that upset the sensibilities of the people who operate DeSmogBlog. Therefore, they must be shamed and their reputations destroyed. Truth, incidentally, is usually destroyed in the process.

The websites strategy is clear: Throw ad hominem attacks as early and as often as possible. Why? Because it works. And the people most eager to spread the lies are "skeptical scientists."

See more here:

DeSmogBlog: Climate Activist Site Smears Freeman Dyson and Other Scientists - American Council on Science and Health

Tuesday night was another round of major losses in the Democratic presidential primary for Sen. Bernie Sanders. Ohio may have delayedits primary, but in the states that still had voting Florida, Illinois andArizona Sanders fell 8-12 percentage points below what he got in the 2016 primary race, despite having four years steadily building his national presence. Former Vice President Joe Biden is now so far ahead in the delegate count so far that for all intents and purposes, it's impossible for Sanders to catch up.

The Sanders ceiling is real. But that doesn't mean that there's no hope for the progressive movement going forward. On the contrary, on the same Tuesday night that likely ended the 2020 Sanders campaignthere was a major progressive victory in the Chicago suburbs, as Marie Newman finally ousted Rep. Dan Lipinski, a conservative Democrat who inherited the seat from his father, Bill Lipinski, and has been in the family since 1982.

For years, Sanders and his supporters have asserted that his candidacy is about building a movement, and is much more than cult of personality around Bernie himself. Sanders has even gone so far as to adopt the slogan, "Not Me. Us," complete with ads emphasizing the belief that this is a collective push towards a progressivefuture.

In the face of his evident primary defeat, therefore, the best thing Sanders can do to prove that this is about "us" and not "me" is to step back as the leaderand let others come forward, younger figures who may be better positioned than Sanders to expand the progressive base past that ceiling Sanders keeps hitting. Bernie can do one last, big thing for the progressive movement to which he's dedicated his life in politics:Let others take over, especially younger women, as we move into the third decade ofthe 21st century.

Newman's victory over a powerful and well-funded incumbentadvantage shows the path forward for progressives trying to pull the Democratic Party to the left. It's a progressivism that puts feminism and racial justiceat the center of its political vision, instead of dismissing them with the phrase "identity politics."

Advertisement:

Newman is, to be quite clear, extremely progressive, and was endorsed by Sanders himself. She supports Medicare for All, a $15 an hour minimum wage, the Green New Deal, robust anti-corruption legislation, and the 2% wealth tax first concocted by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and then embraced by Sanders himself.

But Newman's victory over Lipinski, who voted against the Affordable Care Act, wasn't just the result of support from Sanders and other progressive mainstays like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York or the Justice Democrats. Newman alsohad the support of feminist groups that are sometimes dismissed by the Sanders left as the "Democratic establishment,"including NARAL, Planned Parenthoodand Emily's List. Even though Lipinski was backed by pro-incumbent groups like the DCCC, the help of these feminist organizations helped push Newman over the top.

Newman obtained this support by being proudly pro-choice, while Lipinski was anti-choice. But the truth is that Newman's entire political history centers around causes with enormousappeal to the Women's March set that is sometimestreated with contempt by the pro-Sanders "dirtbag left."Newman got her start in politics by starting an anti-bullying organizationand spenttime as aspokeswoman forIllinois Moms Demand Action. She is every inch the "resistance mom" that gets mocked so heartily by the Chapo Trap House crowd.

But she also represents the path forward for actual progressive victories. By putting these so-called "women's issues" at the center of her political identity, Newman was able to attract the kind of broadsupport that has largely eludedSanders, and build the kind of coalition that can win big for the progressive cause.

Ocasio-Cortez herself is another example of this. The New York congresswoman revived Sanders' campaign with her early endorsement, and served as hisstrongest surrogate for months. But, as HuffPost reported last week, things appear to have gotten a bit strained due to those "identity politics" disputes. First, as Vanity Fair first reported, the Sanders campaign allegedly scolded Ocasio-Cortez for a speech she gave encouraging the audience to tip off immigrants in the community if they spot ICE agents. Then she was reportedly angry aboutthe Sanders campaign's much-discussedendorsement by Joe Rogan, whose dude-centric podcast has routinely featured lengthy interviews with blatant sexists and racists, including Alex Jones to Jordan Peterson.

The clash highlighted a real difference in the way that Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders approach progressive politics. For Ocasio-Cortez, these feminist and anti-racist concerns are not secondary to economic populism or democratic socialism. As she explained on Twitter recently, effective organizers "make new people feel like theirs is a movement they want to be part of," a strategy that requires asking themselves, "Who else can we include, and how can we listen and include them?"

As Newman's victory shows, a lot of voters who are primarily motivated by so-called "identity politics" can be brought on board but organizers need to take them seriously and treat them as full partners instead of the junior league.

The past fewweeks have shown other examples of how these female politicians really are blazing a new path forward for progressivism, one that doesn't treat feminism and social justice as boxes to be checked off but as central issues.

Along with Newman, for instance, Chicago prosecutor Kim Foxx won her election against primary challenger Bill Conway. Foxx was viewed as beatable because she had declined to prosecute "Empire" starJussie Smollett for filing a false police report, after he allegedlyfaked a hate crime against himself to get sympathetic press coverage. Foxx insisted on standing by her office's promise to prioritize prosecuting violent crime over minor infractions, a choice that was wildly unpopular after all the sensational media coverage ofthe Smollett case. She prevailed anyway, a show of faith from Democratic voters in someone who stoodby progressive principles, even when the going gottough.

Similarly, Rep. Katie Porter, a California Democrat who won her seat from a Republican incumbent and joined the Progressive Caucus, has been a standout star on Capitol Hill during the coronavirus crisis.Porter, who was a co-chair for the Warren campaign, has embraced that same kind of blended progressivism, where feminism is equal to and intertwined with economic progressivism. She's made her own struggle, as a single mother who escaped an abusive marriage, an inescapable part of hermessage.

Porter, who studied under Warren in law school, is a pointy-headed policy wonk like her mentor, and fully embraces her no-nonsense image. It doesn't read as "radical,"but that is Porter's strength like Warren, she presents progressive policies ascommon sense, andcan bring people along who might be wary ofSanders-style confrontational politics.

The power of Porter's approach was demonstrated last week, when sheused calm but relentless questioning (complete with a whiteboard)to cornered CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield, a Trump appointee with a controversial right-wing past. By showing up with her research in hand and an air of confidence about her, Porter forced the reluctant Redfield to commit to free coronavirus testing for every American who needs it.

Yeah, that's definitely mom-making-you-clean-your-room politics. But it works.Better yet, it's the kind of politics that can help make progressive ideasmore appealing to the kind of Democratic voters who have now turned to Joe Bidenbecause they worry that Sanders is more talk than action.

These women are the future of the progressive movement. They're ready to step forward not only to lead it, but to grow it into the future. So it's time for Bernie Sanders to let go. He gave it a good run in the primary, and he'll always be a history-shapingfigure on the American left. But he can't win. His energies should nowfocused on passing the baton to these younger women who can win next time around or many times and make the American future he has fought for a real possibility.

See the article here:

Bernie needs to step back and let other progressive leaders flourish especially women - Salon

(Official White House photo by D. Myles Cullen)

Recently, renowned essayist Thomas Chatterton Williams has taken some heat for mocking a prayer session headed by Vice President Mike Pence in the White House amid the coronavirus outbreak.

The world is angry at China. And with good reason. The current pandemic began as a result of Chinas gross mismanagement of public hygiene and information flow. But, it seems that the anger towards China, at times, goes beyond the coronavirus outbreak. Some people are angry, not just at the Chinese governmentbut also with the Chinese people, as a whole. Judging, for instance, by the responses to my earlier piece on China and the coronavirus, many are very bothered by the fact that the Chinese eat dogs. When the coronavirus outbreak began, social media was replete with people whoif not precisely happyat least felt vindicated. As is usually the case with major catastrophes, some social media users went beyond the search for natural causes (the pandemic began with someone eating a bat in Wuhan) and, instead, invoked supernatural or metaphysical causes: Coronavirus is karma (or perhaps divine punishment) for certain cultural practices. What goes around comes around.

China now seems to be controlling the outbreak; however, the virus is causing havoc in Europe. So, what now? Is it also karma for certain actions on the part of Europeans? Europeans do not eat dogs. What metaphysical explanation will these judgmental people come up with now? So far nobody has said anything, but I suspect thatsooner or laterthose eager to seek metaphysical or supernatural causes will find some fault among Europeans. Perhaps some on the Right will speculate that the coronavirus is punishment for so many European countries embracing socially liberal policies; maybe a few on the Left will say it is punishment for letting refugees die on European shores.

As it happens, throughout humanitys long history of struggle with epidemics and pandemics, supernatural and metaphysical explanations have been readily available. There may be variations as to who sends the plague, but the themes are consistent. Oriental religions might argue that populations hit hard by plagues bring it upon themselves based on past actions, and the universe has a way of getting back to you. Western religions might suggest that the gods are unhappy for whatever reason and, thus, have chosen to strike people with pestilence. Either way, one thing is clear: Suffering is deserved.

In fact, this may be the whole reason why man created God in the first place. It would naturally be depressing to see a four-year-old child hideously disfigured by smallpox or dying painfully from any number of diseases. So, what might one do? Try to cheer everyone up by somehow thinking that this suffering was deserved. Some impertinent (yet wholly sensible) person will ask: What could a four-year-old possibly have done to deserve such a fate? Yet, one can always come up with a range of spurious rationalizations. Perhaps that child was an evildoer in a past life. As such, one invents the doctrine of reincarnation. Perhaps his nation worshipped an idol, so one invents monotheism. Maybe everyone deserves to suffer from the moment they are born, so one creates the doctrine of original sin.

There is good reason to believe that this way of thinking is hardwired into our brains. The psychologist Melvin Lerner called it the Just World Hypothesis. We love to blame the victim. It is probably a defense mechanism seeking to bring some degree of order into the world. You can sleep comfortably thinking that those in Wuhan got what they deserved for eating bats, and you have nothing to worry about because Hey, you are a hip vegetarian in Portland.

Yet, it doesnt add up. Sometimes (actually, most of the time), victims are at no fault whatsoever, and the rationalizations for their suffering are nonsense. Even if people should not be eating bats, surely, there were some Chinese people who never ate a bat yet still died from the coronavirus. How is it their fault that their neighbor was in the bat-eating business? The Bible can be quite a nasty book (and indeed, Yahweh frequently decimated populations with plagues, sometimes over silly little offenses, sometimes simply for the heck of it). However, in fairness, some Biblical authors were not buying into the blame-the-victim ruse, and they spoke out against it.

Take the book of Job, for example. Job is a Mr. Nice Guy type, and everyone loves him. But then, his children die, he goes broke, and, finally, he gets the plague. Naturally, he is angry and is, thus, no longer a Mr. Nice Guy. Shortly thereafter, some of his friends seek to persuade him that he was never so nice in the first place and that he deserved what he received. But Job is not buying it. He was always a pious person, and, as far as he is concerned, this was all very unfair.

One might be tempted to think that God, the same being that sends plagues over seemingly-trivial things, would side with Jobs friends and be eager to point a judgmental finger at Job. But, no. This God is not happy with Jobs friends and lets them know that Job has always been righteous. Why, then, does God allow the righteous to suffer? He doesnt say. But one thing is clear: You can suffer a great deal in life and still not have committed many sins.

So, if God never explains to Job why the righteous suffer, what other answers might there be? In Oriental religions, they are fond of saying thateven if in this life you seem to be exceptionally moralperhaps, in some past lives, you were a thug. And now is the time to pay for that. To which I say: baloney. How can you deserve punishment now, for something thateven if you allegedly did ityou have no memory of it? Furthermore, according to this karma nonsense, everything that happens is deserved. So, what is the point of building hospitals to take care of coronavirus patients? If the doctrine of karma is true, then helping those patients is actually a way of obstructing cosmic justice. In fact, you should never help anyone in needbecause that is their way of paying for their past sins. It is not difficult to see where this psychopathic way of thinking leads to.

When the book of Job was written, the Israelites did not believe in an afterlife. But, the impact of the book was so enormous that eventually other Biblical authors had to come up with some explanation as to why bad things happen to good people. And so, while admitting that people like Job did not deserve what they got, they offered comfort by saying that God will settle the scores in heaven and hell. Again, this is nonsensical. Why wait until the afterlife to make things right? Besides, even if God tries to settle the score in heaven and hell, how can he make sure that the Hitler being fried in the infernal pan is the same person who ordered the Final Solution? Most philosophers will tell you that any notion of the afterlife must face the extremely difficult question of how to preserve personal identity in the hereafter.

Of late, Jordan Peterson is all the rage. He frequently likes to say thatregardless of whether or not there is actually a Godreligions are necessary because they give meaning in a world of chaos. Perhaps. But, too much meaning is also a problem. Sometimes, unfortunate things happen, and that is that. Too much religious meaning may ultimately serve to justify the unfairness of the status quo. Marx (Petersons bte noir, it seems) was definitely onto something when he wrote that Religion is the opium of the people. Sure, that Marxist formula is overly simplistic. However, to the coronavirus patient being told that he should not worry about the failures of his countrys healthcare system because soon we will all sing Kumbaya while sitting on a cloud, Marx no longer sounds so simplistic.

In fact, in the context of epidemics, the religious quest for meaning is the actual simplistic approach. Instead of taking meaningful steps towards improved hygiene during the Bubonic Plague, flagellants would whip their backs thinking that if they took Gods punishments, others might be spared. How many people did that delusion save?

In trying to find religious meaning, one might even search for scapegoats hoping for the plague to end. If Sophocles Oedipus the King is to be believed, Thebans were convinced that their plague was due to some man killing his father and marrying his mother, as this aroused the gods anger. So, what did Thebans do? They scapegoated their king for having done precisely that. During the Bubonic Plague, scapegoats included Jews becauseapart from poisoning wellsthey, the argument goes, had killed Christ.

Recently, renowned essayist Thomas Chatterton Williams has taken some heat for mocking a prayer session headed by Vice President Mike Pence in the White House amid the coronavirus outbreak. Sure, perhaps Williams was a bit too insensitive. In times like these, faith can be a nice uplift to actually get things done. But given the objectionable way the Trump administration has handled the outbreak, one does wonder if perhaps Williams was actually onto something. An excessive search for religious meaning can get in the way of effective action.

I am not in the business of militantly scolding and mocking people for their religious beliefs. I am not Richard Dawkins. All I ask is thatin the mist of this coronavirus crisisone uses religion or prayer for good purposes. Stop blaming victims. Say your prayers if you want, but take active steps in stopping this catastrophe: Stay home, wash your hands, support others if need be, and, in the future vote for politicians who are serious about competently handling pandemics. With or without the gods, that is our only hope.

Dr. Gabriel Andrade is a university professor. He has previously contributed to Areo Magazine and DePauw Universitys The Prindle Post. His twitter is@gandrade80

More here:

The Fraught Relationship Between Religion and Epidemiology - Merion West

Despite a judge's ruling against him, a university professor insists his First Amendment rights are being violated if he is forced to state what he doesnt believe.

Nicholas Meriwether, who teaches philosophy at Shawnee State University, sued the school after he was reprimanded and warned about further corrective action after he refused to call a transgender girl a biological male with a feminine title and feminine pronouns.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the professor, is filing an appeal on behalf of Meriwether after his lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Susan J. Dlott.

We, of course, believe the magistrate got the law wrong, ADF attorney Travis Barham says, and we intend to explain why."

Meriwethers legal battle began in January when he referred to the transgender female as sir during a classroom discussion, which angered the student who demanded he be recognized as female. When the professor refused, the student promised to get him fired and filed a complaint with the university.

Meriwether filed a lawsuit against the university after it concluded he had created a hostile environment for the student and threatened further action against him.

According to Barham, the professor risks suspension or even firing if he keeps refusing to bow to the students demands.

The professors refusal mirrors the plight of Jordan Peterson, the Canadian professor who became Enemy No. 1 of LGBT activists (see video below) when he publicly opposed a human rights law in his country that criminalized "misgendering" people, including his students.

Peterson has stated he might call students by their preferred pronoun but warned about Canada's Orwellian-like demand that punished people for refusing to do so. That is not outlawing so-called "hate speech" but also telling you, with the threat of punishment, what you must say, he argues.

"We keep reminding folks that this case is not just about a pronoun. It's about endorsing an ideology, Barham warns. The university's trying to force Dr. Meriwether to endorse and affirm a transgender way of looking at the world."

Visit link:

Prof still fighting school's demand to call he a 'she' - OneNewsNow

A common misconception people hold about Japan is that it is a weird place. Particularly where male-female relations and sex are concerned. The stereotype is padded with images of middle-aged men playing sexualized role-playing games on the Playstation, and kinky ladies in pleated high-school skirts and knee-high socks, fooling nobody.

The oft-derided Japanese man is held up as a singular creature among the men of the world. He, unlike his Adonis-like counterparts in the West with their great big bulging biceps and metrosexually perfected bodies, is laughed at and mocked if he decides he no longer wants to take part in the mating game and retires to his quarters. When a Japanese man goes MGTOW, hes reviled as a grass-eater herbivore or so-shoku danshi (no relation to Vegans).

Now, in a reversal of status, the Japanese herbivore man is praised online by sections of the Meninist community as visionary heroes. Solitary soldiers who have denounced a morally bankrupt society, going their own way by bravely forging a new, more enlightened path ahead.

MGTOW is an acronym for Men Going Their Own Way. MGTOW is part-online community, part-mens therapy center. It is not a centralized organization but an idea that flits in and out of existence, according to relevance. Its the haven that men seek when they feel alienated in the new post-modern feminist Western culture.

MGTOW comes to life online when Procter & Gamble releases a new Gillette advert/PR statement about how society must correct toxic masculinity. MGTOW also becomes too real for comfort when incels like Elliot Rodgers, take a gun and shoot people up because he cant get laid.

Broadly speaking, the Mens Rights or Meninist movement rose out of online forums like Reddit, where men felt safe enough to confide in each other about the ostracism they faced in postmodern society. It can be split into three subgroups.

The core belief they all share is some rendition of the idea of taking the bitter-but-true Red Pill. Taking the Red Pill as opposed to the Blue Pill is an allusion to the movie The Matrix, to see and to accept, to face reality.

But what is that reality? Well, it depends on who you are and what isnt reality?

According to Meninist philosophy, what isnt reality is that girls just want someone nice. Meninist philosophys take on girls is that they dont choose a man based on how nice or charming he is. Girls desire to be with the bad boy, the one who treats her with indifference. Further, as girls become women, they become more hypergamous, switching partners based on hard-nosed metrics, such as money, status (and fame), and looks. Women claim that personality is crucial, but it seems that by personality they really mean social standing. When women reach their 30s, they may come to realize their natural limits and finally settle down with someone nice.

So when a man takes the Red Pill, he will remove the blinkers on his mind shaped by years and years of sustained influence from Hollywood movies and pop music, as well as general social conditioning. Social conditioning? Heres an example from your author: I received social conditioning from my mother when I got into a physical fight with a very irascible girl in Saturday school at the age of nine. My mother stopped the fight and lambasted me, telling me I should not fight girls and that I must be nice to them. This is likely a generally accepted social principle, but stands in direct opposition to the principles of equality espoused in feminism.

Earlier I wrote, Reality depends on who you are, For me, my social standing was never particularly high, but I was ambitious and wanted many girls. I discovered online the PUA or Pick-up Artist community. Feminists typically detest this community, accusing the men of misogyny and deception to manipulate vulnerable women into bed.

PUA philosophy does have some countercultural qualities in its similarities to gangsta raps objectification of women and American pimping culture. But in its defense, PUA teachings also espouse valuable lifetime virtues, such as building mental strength and rolling with constant rejections important qualities for any businessman operating in a competitive environment. Successful PUAs discover for themselves approaches that work for them in capturing womens attention, and their hearts.

On the far end of the table are the incels, short for involuntarily celibate. Incels take the Red Pill and see a much more despairing reality: that they are genetically inferior men destined to fail in their search for a partner, and will ultimately be weeded out of the gene pool. Fighting against nature is futile. The incel community is where meninism is most controversial, with terrorists like Alek Minassian in the Toronto Van Attack, where the suspect ran over and killed 10 people and injured 16. The incel Reddit has subsequently been banned.

Somewhere in the middle lies MGTOWs. Under MGTOW philosophy, men are urged to rid themselves of the expectations foisted upon them by society. Their orientation is towards independence and freedom, with strong parallels drawn to the libertarian movements cause of reducing government, taxes, and harassment from others. Although there is no central authority, MGTOW exists as a hashtag used by MGTOW influencers like LFA, and even acknowledged by Jordan Peterson. Their slogans are awkward and funny, like disregard females, acquire currency a hat-tip to Tupac Shakurs classic F*** B****es, Get Money.

MGTOWs typically repudiate PUAs as piddling lechers, slaves to the twin sins greed and lust. Instead, MGTOWs aim to achieve financial independence as quickly as possible by avoiding female contact in sexual contexts, particularly single mothers looking for a long-term partner, for obvious reasons, so they can maintain financial independence.

The Japanese herbivore man is likely positioned somewhere in between MGTOW and Incel. As a half-Japanese with a Japanese mother and a native speaker of the language, I am quite aware of the cultural nuances of herbivore men. It seems that herbivore men find female companionship taxing and stressful, preferring to indulge in porn videos to satisfy sexual desire. I asked a self-professed herbivore friend of mine why he has not had a girlfriend for 15 years (he is 35). He gave three reasons:

He had actually read some Japanese PUA (nanpa-shi) materials online, but quickly lost interest.

Love as a concept itself is interpreted differently in Japan, and fidelity on the part of the man isnt so much expected as with women (sexless marriages and hostess bars are part and parcel). So trying to use the Meninist framework to compare Western men with Japanese is like comparing apples with oranges.

And any comparison of Japanese and Western men requires scrutinizing Japanese and Western women also.

One useful way of comparing Western to Japanese women is in analyzing the case of Julien Blanc. Blanc is a PUA who travelled to Japan to conduct boot camps for the local market (PUA influencers build a reputation online and meet with would-be PUAs offline for paid bootcamps). Blanc filmed himself picking up Japanese women by forcefully kissing convenience store clerks and even simulating strangulation on women he found on the street. He even claimed, If youre a white male in Tokyo, you can do what you want.

The curious thing about the case of Julien Blanc is that he was never formally prosecuted in Japan. None of the women he did this to filed charges of sexual assault. Yet, when videos of his antics went viral, there was an uproar in Australia and the United Kingdom. Demonstrations followed. He was subsequently banned from entering those countries (along with Singapore), despite the fact he was never prosecuted for a crime.

In Japan, Julien Blanc was not a big deal. Forgotten, like the last time you blew your nose.

The difference in the reactions of Western women and Japanese women to Julien Blanc is probably emblematic of the aggressive and antagonistic state of Western feminism. Japanese women may not think much of Julien Blanc, but he certainly doesnt trigger them.

One Japanese acquaintance of mine gave a fine third-party assessment of male-female relations in Western culture: Meninism and feminism seem very antagonistic and adversarial. Japanese herbivore men still love women. They just have a hard time dealing with the stress.

If hate begets hate, then passivity begets passivity. Japanese culture, ever tranquil, even in skirt chasing.

Author: Julian Israel

Former sushi chef. I have traveled throughout the world and found in those places good people. Belief in the goodness of people is core to my worldview.

Read this article:

Japanese Herbivore Men Become Unlikely Heroes of Mens Rights Movement - JAPAN Forward