domain:parrhesia.substack.com
vorpa-glavo
26m ago
I'm perfectly happy to accept the official narrative, if investigators say that it wasn't arson.
However, we live in an era where the internet has created so many different epistemic bubbles that question whatever the experts and authorities say, on both the right and left. On one hand, I think this can be a healthy thing. If you're a woman in the 1940's, and the medical authorities are telling your husband that he should get you a lobotomy to deal with your various issues, is it better to be married to a sheep who follows everything the authorities say, or a contrarian who maybe rubs some people the wrong way but whose questioning of authority leads him to rejecting lobotomies (maybe without any good evidence or reason for his actual rejection)?
I agree that objective facts matter. It is my hope that all people will embrace the idea that even if deferring to experts and authorities is often a necessary shortcut for getting by in the world for most people in most circumstances, you should be prepared to do your own research and have the independent conscience to depart from the crowd if that is what your reason or character tells you to do. On the other hand, sometimes you're going to lose to reality, and it will turn out the experts were right all along.
But it's all about humanity not putting all of its eggs into one basket. It is positively good for humanity as a whole if a small portion of us become Amish, or reject modernity for religious or ideological reasons, or join cults, or have their children die of diseases we have reliable vaccines for, because the diversity of practices maximizes the odds that there will be at least one group of humans available to inherit the ashes after the sheep do something so stupid and destructive that it kills billions of humans, or leaves most of humanity infertile, or does anything that almost wipes out the whole species.
There should be room for normie rule-followers, of course. They're the salt of the Earth, and society would be intolerable and impossible without them, no matter what shape society takes. But I think we should feel grateful for the insurance policy that groups that are often easily mocked or not taken seriously because they depart so far from consensus reality provide.
All this to say, I think it is completely fair to mock lefties that are so caught in their epistemic bubble that they can't conceive of the idea that fires just happen, and there's no need to invent an arson conspiracy with corresponding government conspiracy. Probably, they are just wrong, and they're just departing from objective, consensus reality for no good reason. But that's also not the worst trait a group can exhibit.
zoink
33m ago
I don't think the imbalance for leftists in the justice system should be all the surprising. It's been decades of leftist having literal terrorists with tenure. Marxist and Communists with tenure outnumber Nazis and Fascists by about... what? 100x? 1,000x? 100,000x? All while calling the most milk toast Republicans like Romney fascists.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
39m ago
I'm sympathetic to your argument, but even if porn is disgusting that doesn't mean one should show disgust for the young men who watch it. You need to show them compassion to get them to change, not go "ewww" as so many tend to do.
crushedoranges
Can Marx explain the used panties market?
39m ago
That's already happened. If you go to his subreddit, it's full of people who do nothing but hate him, like Joe Rogan. I think Reddit is a pretty good barometer as to one's current bona fides in the Democrat party.
This is the problem, right?
Maybe? Democrat messaging is really, really, really, abysamally, unfathomably bad. It is so bad that getting back at the people responsible for terrible Democrat messaging is a substantive policy position of the Republicans.
I mean, just look at this shit. Marginal improvements won't fix this, but a complete paragidm shift might.
crushedoranges
Can Marx explain the used panties market?
41m ago
You would think that gay men would have a better grasp of straight men, of the internal theory of mind of their fellows. But that doesn't happen. Why?
daguerrean
48m ago
The slightest glimpse into real violence leaves a lasting negative taste in one's mouth (unless you're a psychopath). That's why well adjusted men don't make violent threats easily.
I think it is most likely those that have engaged in violence are most likely to make threats and follow through to engage in more violence, I’m basically talking about the low IQ criminal underclass. I don’t think experiencing violence turns them into prudent philosophers on the subject. And of course I’m as effete and faggy as they come, but am horrified by the prospect of political violence in any direction.
Cirrus
50m ago
Looking at the DNC leadership page, Jason Rae is gay. Stuart Appelbaum and Chuck Schumer are Jews. Only Ken Martin and Chris Korge appear to be straight, white men.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
55m ago
You, personally, have an assuredly principled line in the sand -- or a consideration of factors -- that allows you to move abacus beads on the appropriate exchange-pogrom language scale. I agree that this is not pogrom language. I don't think the gap is as wide on this reportedly accidental, unprompted exchanged, but my point was the accurate placement on the pogrom scale is not so important to the politics.
We The People transcended opprobrium. The Motte is not supposed to partake in the enlightenment, so in that regard you deserve kudos for working on the details. There is a lot of grievance bleeding in. Voters, not party, will get the chance to decide how much such things matter anyway. That's probably for the best or worst.
I'm speaking of young men aged 18-35. My opinions are colored by personal anecdotes from deep-blue cities.
I haven't met a non-communist straight man who has 'volunteered for the democrats' or 'worked on the campaign'. On the other hand, I know multiple women and LGBT men who have done so. I am the eldest of a family of male cousins. The college aged (18-25) cousins only express positive emotions about democrats when around women their age (reasons obvious).
I could be in an echo chamber. But, it sure feels like the truth.
I was not aware of this. Good rule. I went back and looked at the numbers. Now seems as good as time as any to be a young man in democratic party. A healthy number (~50%) of the young democratic leaders (major mayors, house reps, senators) are under 45 men. Try as I may, the real numbers don't match my intuitions.
I still have my suspicions. But, I stand corrected.
More options
Context Copy link