Archives For political discourse

At the very least, this demonstrates that decreased democratic turnout had as much if not more of an impact in the election than Trump’s ability to rally supporters. Of course, none of this is to absolve Trump supporters for making unwise voting decisions, but if Coates wants to prove that white supremacy was the dominating force fueling the rise of Trump, he must demonstrate that all other possible motives are implausible—which he doesn’t.


The danger of proceeding in this way is not simply the acceptance of logical fallacies. Using a single factor to explain the election forfeits a golden opportunity to grapple with the layered motives that are always in play in human affairs. And a popular discourse that assumes the worst about Americans has a chilling affect on the rest of the country, tears at the fabric of our institutions, and accelerates the disintegration of our social and civic bonds.


Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.

Ironically, the media response to the memo simply validates the now ex-employee’s point when he writes:

unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber


silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

What is left unsaid in most of the coverage is that the memo’s ideas are also a deadly threat to thousands of jobs in the “diversity” industry (e.g., Google’s VP of Diversity). People whose jobs depend on an uncritical acceptance of an ideological position naturally react badly to any critique of it.

Original memo:

Which is to say that, regardless of one’s view on the contents of the memo, the ostensibly “neutral” position is not likely to be a neutral position at all. Or, put another way: One can’t avoid delving into this in depth by contending bluntly that the details don’t matter, when, for better or worse, they absolutely do. As I wrote a couple of years ago, I am quite happy for private companies to respond to their customers and the culture in which they exist, and I do not wish to impose any laws that would prevent them from doing so. But to acknowledge that this is what they are doing is merely to move our point of inquiry from the companies themselves to the forces that inform their decisions. There is a severe imbalance in those forces, and one that’s worth remarking on. There’s no neutral position here, I’m afraid.

 Do we find that “countries that lack gender equity in school enrollment” and “stereotypes associating science with males” have fewer women in tech?

No. Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality.

I recently was entangled in a contentious discussion with a mutual acquaintance in which a political topic was dissected namely whether there is more credence with the social selection versus the Darwinian sexual selection theory. At the conclusion of this discussion the individual proceeded to espouse the belief that I am not only bigoted but not taking politics seriously and thus giving off “bad vibes.” To this balderdash I am perfectly content to not have this individuals approval. I believe that everyone ought to not seek the approval of other men but rather the eternal and this is why I have no qualms with disagreeing with anyone in my life even those I love. On the surface it may seem a bit rigid of me to not concede a point in an attempt to be conciliatory but I believe in standing behind your convictions. If there is anything I have learned from my walk in life as a 21st century Christian is that certain tenets and positions are not going to be wildly accepted by the masses and I accept this reality. In today’s relativistic society we live in it is viewed as a moral imperative to not judge others on their actions or question the popular activist ideologies of the day. The political left leaning ideologies in particular have shown an intolerance to evidence that counters their dogmatic claims about how societies are and function. They place human pleasure, disguised as personal autonomy, higher than anything else. To be accepted in public life as a good person, any man or woman must publicly accede to certain pillars of secular faith, above all personal autonomy in matters of sex and cohabitation, (and drugs). This is why I am not particularly interested in serious political discussions nor do I take them especially serious. Often they involve discussions between opposing views that are so entrenched that neither is willing to step off their ideological cliff into the abyss which leads to a stand still from the start. Moreover these discussions involve a particular party in the discussion appearing to be interested in conversing but in actuality is more interested in attempting to set an ideological trap under the guise of genuinely being interested in your thoughts. These kind of silly games that take place on social media disinterest me which is why I rarely if ever commentate on the postings of others. The political landscapes and evolution of political ideas interests me greatly but in practice it is merely dreary and dull partisan games. Furthermore I see constantly on social media platforms where individuals are clearly far too emotionally invested in the particular topic to discuss it in any meaningful way. This is why although I can empathize with the individual I am addressing I am in large part unable to be that emotionally invested in a position even one where I am personally effected. Many cannot do this.

I thought in this second part I would address another personal happening which is that lately I have had multiple sources relate that I make someone uncomfortable either due to body language or otherwise. This seems to be a new phenomena which I have not really dealt with but I will do my best to explain my thought processes. Firstly I often feel that I am living in a bygone age whilst still trapped in the modern society that we have today. I believe this is in large part manifested by my love of antiques as well as history coupled by the fact I learned the classics in school (Roman and Greek). My rather stoic demeanor was in large part effected by the environments which I lived in and the experiences that I had during my childhood. When I was younger I like many people was a very talkative individual who spoke when it was not wise and refused to be quiet unless told. However this greatly changed as I have matured over the years. I have since become far more introspective of a person and much more prone to thinking than talking. After all countless proverbs give the great wisdom which I agree with that silence is often one of the greatest tools that you can use. vir sapit qui pauca loquitur (that man is wise who talks little),  qui moderatur sermones suos doctus est (He that hath knowledge spareth his words), stultus quoque si tacuerit sapiens putabitur (Even the fool, if he holds his tongue, is considered wise), si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses (If you had kept silent, you would have remained a philosopher.) These are just some examples off the top of my head. This is in large part why I am rather cautious when speaking around groups of people especially if the topic of discussion is something outside of my knowledge or expertise. Unfortunately this approach seems to be getting construed as an inability to conduct conversations or address individuals at all which I believe is utter nonsense. I simply speak when I have something to say and believe that by saying little it magnifies the impact when I do speak. I reject the idea that I must behave in certain ways to appease individuals whose approval I care nothing for. Other than my significant other whom I adore and cherish I have little desire to be predictable for others to digest easily. I see no issue with listening intently to conversations and contributing what I see fit. 

Apologies for the rather long screed but I felt compelled to write these thoughts down as I reflected on this interaction and respective feedback. Perhaps if I can think of more to address I will add a part two.

You can make of the recent transformation of the United State’s morality what you may, however I can only deduce that it doesn’t bode well for the future. I did find the low approval of extramarital affairs to be interesting as I thought it would be higher. The fact that these acts are rapidly becoming morally permissible in the minds of the people  is pretty incredible and even more incredible are that these changes are occurring in less than two decades. Perhaps at the very least people can now visibly recognize that there is not a clear consensus on several contentious moral issues.

The Dartmouth came out with an interesting survey which measured the political landscape of the campus. Firstly the disparity between the comfort levels in a roommate’s political views is not surprising given the vast majority of students are Democrat leaning. It does show though the lack of political diversity on campus as well as the overemphasis Democrats place on being surrounded by like minded people. Simply put a Democrat it appears would be unable to set aside their political identity and coexist on common grounds. I was glad to see the students on the whole were supportive of speakers being allowed to speak on campus.

Highbrow Fascism on Campus