The Danger of Dismissing Dissenting Opinions: Groupthink, Wrongthink, Thoughtcrime

J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books and architect of the franchise, has been doing herself no favors lately.

Twitter is not the place to voice or discuss difficult and nuanced positions on delicate topics – something that the author herself acknowledges in her subsequent essay addressing the furor over her tweet. The echo chamber is too loud and powerful and emotional for anything other than blind agreeance with the hivemind.

Rowling got into trouble on Saturday with the following tweet:

‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate https://t.co/cVpZxG7gaA

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 6, 2020

There is no question that her delivery was glib and she should have chosen her words more carefully and sensitively.
However, in today’s world it is just not true anymore that only women menstruate. In fact there are natal women who cannot menstruate due to medical issues or procedures or who never have due to the way they were born, and insisting that “Only women menstruate” forces the counter-argument of “well I guess they aren’t women if they don’t menstruate.”

I consider myself a relatively conservative and traditional female for someone my age, but with modern, Millennial sensibilities and the understanding that the world and its society can and does change. Science itself changes, history changes. The science and history that I learned in school is not the same science and history that teenagers today are learning – this is not a bad thing, this is just the nature of our world. We are constantly discovering new things about our existence, world, galaxy, and universe that must change what and how we think about everything.

It is not the nature of humans to stay the same – thus we cannot expect everything around us to remain static as well.

I do understand what Rowling is trying to say, and she clarified and expanded on her views in an excellent mic-drop essay on her website.

What it seems most people have failed to realize is that her message is not anti-trans, but pro-women – all women – and concern for the pushing aside of women and girls – trans included – by the attempted eradication of the fact of biological sex by extremist “trans activists” who, in point of fact, are not representative of the trans community as a whole – just as a few violent protesters are not indicative of the protests as a whole, and cops who abuse their power are not indicative of every police officer.

The problem is that our entire society has its emotions on a hair-trigger and that is what we base our decisions on, rather than thought or reason. It’s easy to read a headline, think we know the details of the situation, get angry, and hit the share button or retweet that information until it snowballs out of control. It is a giant game of telephone that goes horribly wrong for the person with the original message. No one gets to say “let me clarify” before being tarred and feathered.

Rowling went on to say the following which clarifies and honestly clears up – for a rational, reasonable person – what she means. And while you may not agree with her opinion, between these tweets and her essay she is not transphobic or anti-trans people (and before you make a judgment on that, go read the essay.)

We all want instant gratification, all want to add our little voice to the crowd and be observed to be agreeing for fear of being accused of not supporting X, Y, or Z.

It has come to the point where, if you do not voice your adamant support, you are automatically against that cause. And this is wrong.

As the title says, it is dangerous to disregard a dissenting opinion.

So often these days a person who dares to disagree or even question something that the Twitter Police deem WOKE is immediately vilified, their credibility becomes nil and they are shouted down before their point was even made.

When did discourse become something that was discouraged? Since when are people not allowed to have civil discussions about their opposing views? Why do we all have to blithely agree with what the Mainstream Media and the Social Justice Warriors deem “right?” This is leading to groupthink and this is dangerous.

It is becoming so that anyone who does not subscribe to groupthink is guilty of wrongthink and thus a thoughtcrime.

We are truly in the beginning stages of Orwell’s 1984: I suggest we all give that book a read again right now, and then re-evaluate how our society is going forward.

It is important to have dialogue with those who have differing opinions. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they are wrong, doesn’t mean they are not allowed to speak, or that they don’t deserve to have an opinion. You don’t have to like that opinion, but rather than decrying them as evil, racist, bigoted, etc – just ignore it, or better yet – engage in a civil, thoughtful discussion instead of shouting them down.

No one is going to listen to you when you are screaming at them; they are just going to want to get away from you and then neither of you will have learned or gained anything meaningful and you both will have behaved like children.

C

Obviously, opinions that are criminal in nature or threatening violence do not have to be tolerated and should be reported – but those kinds of opinions are not the ones I am discussing here.

The Ginger Experiment

Currently accepting suggestions for a name…

Some weeks ago, there was a sale on fresh ginger root at my local grocery store. I bought quite a bit to freeze, but, being inspired by a recently-viewed youtube video of a person propagating a ginger plant from a node, I decided to give it a shot.

I used the pot that once housed a struggling dieffenbachia sprout that was from a parent plant which I – unfortunately – gradually and accidentally killed. The pot now being vacant, I snapped off a few nodes from my ginger root and nestled them in the dirt.

Nothing happened.

I accidentally let it dry out quite a bit…a few times. Then I would water it.

Still nothing happened.

Until – the temperature warmed.

Feeling disheartened, I dug around in the pot, looking for any signs of life. Lo and behold….some green.

I fetched my watering can and gave the pot a soak. Life! I had created life! Well, at least….helped it to continue.

Finally – a small green point, sticking up from the dirt. And over a matter of just a few days, the point has grown several inches.

My only concern now is accidentally killing it – I’m afraid that the newly-installed air conditioner may be detrimental to its happiness as a tropical plant. Perhaps when the nights are more consistently warm I shall take it outside.

I hope to provide a positive update on its thrivation in a month, and not a memoriam.

Wish me luck!

Opinion: “Acknowledging White Supremacy” Only Makes it Stronger

merriam-webster.com

I have been seeing demands for everyone from people to corporations to educational institutions to “acknowledge white supremacy.”

What those who use this phrase seem to be demanding – based on the wording – is for the person/business/institution to say that they acknowledge white supremacy, i.e. believe that whites are superior to other races, and are therefore guilty and complicit in racism.

Their true desire is for these persons/businesses/institutions to acknowledge the existence of the belief in white supremacy – which is a moot point because most people or people who run these businesses/institutions would not argue against the fact that there are people who are white supremacists. This nuance of language may seem petty, but it is very important.

Here is the thing: Having large corporations and brands, household-name educational institutions, and public figures “acknowledge white supremacy” only lends credence and strength to white supremacists’ cause. By “acknowledging white supremacy,” these figures in the public eye are validating the claims touted by white supremacists.

Do not ask people/businesses/institutions to “acknowledge white supremacy” because white supremacy does not exist. The belief in white supremacy exists, but the supremacy of whites over other races does not exist because whites are not better than any other race.

No race is better than any other.

Only a fool would argue that the belief in white supremacy doesn’t exist, and only a fool believes that one race is superior to another.

Instead, ask people/businesses/institutions to denounce white supremacists and the belief in racial supremacy. Ask them to publicly stand up for equality and justice for all good people, regardless of race, sex, gender, creed or affiliation – and to denounce those who do wrong, regardless of race, sex, gender, creed or affiliation.

The message of standing up for what is right and honorable is a more powerful message, and empowering for both the asker and the askee, than merely acknowledging the existence of something that we all know exists.

And if standing up for what is right and just is what is actually being asked, then say that, instead of asking non-racist white people to “acknowledge white supremacy.” We already acknowledge it and decry it as wrong, and being asked to publicly state the obvious is not helpful to the person/business/institution stating it, or the cause asking it to be stated. In many recent cases, businesses and corporations must “acknowledge white supremacy” and publicly support the Black Lives Matter movement to avoid being “canceled” – it is done out of fear, not because they actually care about the message or support the movement. They couldn’t care less; they just don’t want their profits to dip or their reputation damaged.

I would argue that “racial pride” is detrimental, whether white, black, Asian, Islander, or Native. One’s identity should not be based on one’s race, because our race does not define who we are as people or as humans. We are not that simple.

Instead of being proud of one’s race, we need to refocus to being proud of one’s heritage or ethnicity. The one exception is this: “Black” in the United States is the only race that has become equated with ethnicity and one could argue that this should remain, as historical racism is to blame for the synthesis of the “black” ethnicity. It is no wonder that members of the black community took the term and appropriated it as a cultural catalyst to bring themselves together in the face of the oppression and racism that they faced. The black community have a unity and a collective strength that few, if any, other races have (except perhaps American Indians), and that is a result of the oppression and societal racism in which they have persevered for several generations.

For other races, it is primarily ethnicity that provides the aspects or source of pride for an individual. One’s culture is not dependent upon one’s race, but usually (but not always) on one’s ethnicity – and each race contains multiple “ethnicities” usually born of different geographical areas.

According to the US Census Bureau, the five “race categories” are as follows:

American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

White or Caucasian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Notable in the above list, peoples of the Middle East and North Africa are racially categorized as “White or Caucasian,” while most people nowadays would include a person from Iraq or Egypt as a “Person of Color” a.k.a. “non-white.”

“White” is becoming synonymous with “of European descent.” Which, as listed above, includes countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Turkey…all countries with peoples who might be categorized as “People of Color” based on the modern connotation, yet who are, by definition, “White.” The term itself has been criticized as problematic.

This is why, instead of focusing on race and equating race with ethnicity, we must differentiate the two and realize that race is not synonymous with and does not need to dictate one’s identity. Wikipedia’s list of contemporary ethnic groups seems to go on forever. This list is far more representative of the incredible diversity of humans than five racial categories. Just as Americans cannot fit their political beliefs into two political boxes and be accurately represented, billions of humans cannot fit their individual identities into five boxes and be accurately represented.

My favorite quote (aside from this one) from the wonderfully-bad Kevin Costner-version of Robin Hood comes to mind: It is spoken by Morgan Freeman’s character. When asked by a small child “Did God paint you?” and why, Azeem answers “Because Allah loves wondrous variety.” And that, my friends, is truly all we need know.

There is no doubt that we must celebrate and take pride in our cultural and ethnic identities if we feel inclined to do so. Our culture is what brings us together as people – it helps give our lives and our existence meaning, and us a sense of belonging in the world.

However, anything – including ethnic pride – when taken too far becomes a negative and harmful thing. Countless examples of “ethnic cleansing” all over the world and throughout history are proof of why focusing too much on how we are different leads to violence and death – to one group’s killing or harming of another based on the fallacy that their group is superior to the other, or that a group represents a threat and is exiled or imprisoned or exterminated based on ethnicity alone. Examples that come to mind: Serbians and Croatians killing each other in the 90s, the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus, Nazi Germany’s genocide of Jews, Slavs, the Roma, the disabled, homosexuals, Polish Catholics….the Armenian Genocide, the Holodomor of Soviets against Ukrainians, the Cambodian Genocide, the Trail of Tears, Japanese Internment Camps…and so many others.

This is why we, as humans, must focus on our similarities rather than our differences. It is human nature to hate “the other,” but truly we are none of us “other” because we are all human and we all have common ground to stand on.

Right now, we can all stand on the common ground that racism is wrong. We can stand on common ground that all peoples are equal and important, and demand equality for all and justice for wrong-doers. We can stand on the common ground that no race or ethnicity is superior to another – that we share some attributes and are unique in others but that this diversity is what makes us great.

We must unite in order to continue to prosper

Divided, we will destroy ourselves.

A Female POTUS: Pipe Dream or Possibility?

Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern

When I saw this picture on Reddit, my first thought was “Why can’t we have one like that?”

My second thought turned to how shameful it is that the United States has yet to have a female President.

Unfortunately, the fact that we haven’t doesn’t surprise me. Our Presidents are following the same path as the right to vote was gotten: Men of every race gained suffrage before women did, so why would one think the US would have a female POTUS before an Hispanic, Asian, or black man had held the office?

The aspect that makes this such a travesty is the face which the US has put on of being the top Western country in freedom, civil liberties, and women’s rights. At least that is the America I was sold growing up.

Don’t get me wrong; American women have far more freedom and autonomy than millions of other women in the world and for that I am very grateful. My secondary education, desire for a career, ability to drive a car were never in question. That does not change the fact that the “Can’t have a woman President because PMS once a month har har might set off some nukes” joke is even tossed around as a partly-viable reason to not have a woman President in that it represents a mentality wherein women are too temperamental, too emotional to run a country – and many many countries have proven that to be false.

Credit jjmccollough.com

The above graphic is a list of the female leaders of countries as of 2015. This article details the current female leaders of countries. Get this: Serbia…Serbia has an openly-gay female Prime Minister. Wanna place bets on how many decades before the US can say the same? This is a list of female leaders of countries since the 1960s – countries that all did it before the US.

Africa, considered by many to be a “third world” and thus must have third-world ideas, has had quite its share of female leaders of its countries. Pakistan, which many Americans might consider a “backwards Middle Eastern country full of Muslims and they hate women” elected Benazir Bhutto in 1988 – thirty years ago.

So where is the United States? Why have we not mustered up the ability to have enough confidence in a woman to be President? Are we too obsessed with the status quo? Can’t deviate from the two-party, male-dominated system we know and hate? Or are American men really that sexist?

I don’t think, on an individual basis, that American men – or women for that matter – are misogynists to the point of not wanting to support a female candidate on the basis of her sex, just as they wouldn’t vote for one because of it. I heard many women say in 2016 “I’m not going to vote for Hillary just because she’s a woman.”

Instead, in a subtle way, the idea that “the leader of the free world must be a man because countries like Russia and China wouldn’t respect a woman” has permeated our collective consciousness, and that keeps Americans both from believing a woman could do the job, as well as keeping qualified women from trying because they have been indoctrinated with the idea that it is impossible.

Still, Vladimir Putin doesn’t seem to have any trouble respecting and dealing with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel.

If this is how we view our women, it really any surprise, then, that a toxic undercurrent of racism is rampant in our country? And not just white vs. black; in moving around this country, I have observed racism and prejudice towards other groups by almost every ethnic or racial or religious group represented in the United States. From Eastern Europeans to Indians, Arabs to Italians, Irish to Korean, Jewish to Catholic, Mormon to Muslim, those of German, Scandinavian, African, British heritage – everyone is capable of racism. Paradoxically, racism doesn’t care what race you are. It is not more prevalent in one race over another, in spite of what the Mainstream Media would have us believe. It is people who hate each other for being different; for being “other.” I have also witnessed sexism from both men and women towards other men and women from people of all races and ethnicities. Again, people hate the “other” for their differences, instead of making the effort to find the common ground. Hate is the path of least resistance.

When you meet someone for the first time in a social setting, the first thing you do is try to find some commonality between you – and it is on this commonality that a friendship can be built. It is the same with us all, in every situation that requires cooperation – we must find our similarities, rather than focusing on our differences.

The sooner we do that, the sooner we will heal….and the sooner we will have a President who will “do a little dance” when her country comes through a crisis united, instead of divided.

Link to the campaign website for Dr. Jo Jorgensen – Libertarian Party candidate for President.

Freedom of Speech is Freedom for All Speech – Not Just the Speech You Agree With

In recent days I have observed a nefarious and dangerous phenomenon – the favoring of certain ideologies’ freedom of speech over another.

Our Constitution does not qualify who may speak freely; it states, in the Bill of Rights:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment

Newark, NJ Mayor Ras Baraka wants to categorize white supremacist groups as “terrorists” and thus have them banned from the city. He also announced a desire to create a database of American hate groups – defined as those that “vilify entire groups of people based on immutable characteristics such as race or ethnicity.”

Of course those listed in the article are Nazi groups, the KKK and white supremacy groups.

Will that also include the New Black Panther Party or the Nation of Islam, which the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights all consider to be hate groups? What about Holocaust denial groups that are also considered hate groups? How about the Westboro Baptist Church? Antifa? Are these all going to be categorized as terrorists and banned from Newark’s city limits? I certainly hope so, or else Mayor Baraka may be accused of unconstitutionally curtailing white supremacist groups’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble.

In another worrying episode, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton’s NYT Op-Ed was decried and an editor resigned over it, while an article defending pedophilia ruffled not a single feather. Is this further evidence that the media continues to cover up pedophilia in the highest offices?

Anti-Lockdown protests have been vilified as “based on white supremacy” and discouraged by healthcare professionals while Black Lives Matter and anti-police protesters have been encouraged.

There is a definite anti-conservative bent to the Mainstream Media and the general online paradigms one finds. Every article by a major news source that mentions Trump or is about him uses sometimes blatant, sometimes subtly-negative language to subversively further a negative connotation that the reader already has, or create one.

I don’t offer my own views on the views listed above – what concerns me is the erosion of freedoms and rights of some groups in favor of others, and the overstepping of government on Americans’ rights – All Americans. This goes for the existing injustices and inequalities that are rampant in our systems and must be changed, as well as new ones.

We can and should move forward together, and do that we have to focus on our similarities rather than our differences.

Race vs. Culture as Primary Influence on One’s Behavior

I was reading this Axios article earlier and it raised the question in my mind: “If the number of non-white cops has increased but the amount of police brutality incidents against non-whites has not decreased, perhaps the problem is not race, but culture.”

I have had this theory for some time – that it is one’s culture that influences one’s behavior more than one’s race.

I think that many would agree with this statement, yet it then raises more questions.

Culture can refer to much more than one’s national or ethnic group’s behaviors, traditions, etc. Culture is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

1a: The customary beliefs, social forms and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group

1b: The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization.

merriam-webster.com

It is the second definition there that is applicable to a police force.

If there is a culture of force and disregard for human life in a department or unit, regardless of an officer’s race she or he will be susceptible to adopting that culture and the associated behaviors. A black officer is just as likely to use needless force as an Hispanic officer if the culture of which they are both a part glorifies and encourages such actions.

It is an age-old argument of nature vs. nurture. I argue that in most cases, nurture conquers nature.

If a black child who was born to parents who lived in the ghetto and subscribed to the stereotypical “ghetto” culture was adopted, as an infant, by Korean parents and taken to live in Seoul, what culture and behaviors would it exhibit at age 10, having grown up in the traditional Korean culture?

Attributing a person’s behavior to their race is quite an archaic idea. The very thought that increasing the number of non-white police officers would decrease the abuses of power that police are accused of is frankly insulting to everyone involved. The non-white officers are somehow meant to be more sensitive to other races? Which implies then, that all white officers are more likely to be insensitive to other races. Does this take into account the number of white officers who might be married to a non-white person? Who may have been adopted or had role models who were non-white?

In Nazi Germany, Germans killed other Germans who were not loyal to Hitler’s cause. When the ideology is strong enough and differences are emphasized over similarities, men will kill their “own kind” for not holding the same belief system.

Too much emphasis is put on race, and on our differences. Race is not what separates us, as humans; the color of our skin or the shape of our noses or eyes or the texture of our hair is not what truly distinguishes us from one another – what does that is our culture – and what brings us together is our beliefs.

Our beliefs are not dictated by our race or ethnicity. I do not have to be a Christian or a Republican because I am white; I can choose to be Muslim or Hindu, a Socialist or a Libertarian.

Beliefs are more important than one’s race. More people throughout history have died for or been killed for their beliefs than for their race. We must bond through our shared beliefs, rather than be driven apart by our physical differences. Even those who disagree politically can find some common ground through a respectful discussion of beliefs.

I have witnessed racism from people of many different races and ethnicities; it is not a white problem, it is a human problem and it should be addressed as such. A single race is not responsible for all the racism in America or the world – it is cultures that allow racist ideas and glorify one group’s culture over others that are the problem.

In the end, we are all more alike than we are different, and we must move forward together rather than continue to be pushed apart.

Down with the Duopoly

Earlier this year, the Libertarian Twitter-verse exploded when Congressman Justin Amash (L-MI) announced his intentions for an exploratory Presidential campaign.

In spite of various factors that contributed to his declining to declare an official campaign, Amash’s involvement injected energy to thousands of fired-up young people, and led to a burgeoning in support for the Libertarian Party and cause as a whole.

In addition to a slew of purple & gold profile pictures, dozens of new accounts and the growing chant of #Amash2020, something else came out of his brief yet impactful exploratory campaign: Support for a multi-party system.

The cry of “Down with the duopoly” is beginning to be heard from more than just the Libertarian camp. Democrats and Republicans alike are becoming disgruntled with the corrupt and self-serving parties they have to choose from at nearly every election.

Two of the most oft-quoted topics from George Washington’s 1796 “Farewell Address” are the danger of political parties, and avoidance of foreign involvement.

Political parties were well underway even in George Washington’s time, and the foreign involvement advice, well….that lasted slightly longer.

During our country’s nascent years, there were multiple political parties which changed names and views over the years, and eventually solidified into the Republican and Democrat Parties that we have today.

Why this dual-party system developed in our nation, I have not delved deeply enough to discover. But I do know that other nations with democratic forms of government have multi-party systems, and what this creates is choice — choice for the nation’s citizens, and the freedom to not be forced to sort themselves into two neat little boxes.

In my experience, people do not fit into boxes — much less only two. The views of an individual are many and nuanced, and those nuances deserve recognition.

With Dr. Jo Jorgensen now carrying the Libertarian torch forward into the 2020 Presidential Election, the possibility of a third-party President is one step closer. A third-party President would be the catalyst for a landslide of change in our great nation, and the gasping end of the corrupt, pathetic duopoly that has kept Americans under the government’s boot for decades.

With the end of the D&R duopoly, Americans would find their voices and be empowered to affect change, knowing that their unique position finally had a chance at a platform.

With the election of a Libertarian Party candidate, more Libertarians would be elected to local and state office, which would dramatically affect States’ Rights and result in greater freedom and representation for the American People.

As a result of a third-party President being elected, other parties in the United States that have not had a voice would find themselves emboldened to run for office, knowing that now there was a chance they could win.

We must stop regurgitating the poisonous “third party’s always a spoiler” rhetoric that the duopoly has fed us. The time for change is now. A vote for a third party is a vote for liberty.

Americans are ready to take back our nation from the stranglehold of corrupt politicians and remind them that it is We, The People, who have the power.