Identity Politics and Human Rights

Another excellent essay by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsey of Areo magazine:
 https://areomagazine.com/2018/09/25/identity-politics-does-not-continue-the-work-of-the-civil-rights-movements/ 
There's just one point I would add: the left wing of "universal liberalism" -- the legacy of the Enlightenment -- includes more than traditional liberals. It also includes traditional socialists. After all, the communist maxim, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," assumes implicitly that everyone has individual abilities and individual needs that aren't reducible to their membership in a demographic group(s). 
In fact, the physicist Alan Sokal, who famously hoaxed the postmodernists on whose ideas identity politics are based, described himself to NPR as "an old-fashioned rational leftist" -- a phrase I loved as soon as heard it.

You Can't Build a Wall with Bayonets

So, President Trump has now (not for the first time) made a mockery of his Constitutional oath of office, by declaring a totally phony emergency in order to get his border wall built without having to deal with all that checks-and-balances nonsense.

This is an attack on America's working-class majority in two different ways. First, notwithstanding its imperfections, the US Constitution embodies major democratic conquests of the Revolution of 1776, made possible by the laborers, artisans, and farmers who fought for a republic.

At the same time, this  move is part of an ongoing effort to undermine any possibility of solidarity between US workers and our class brothers and sisters abroad. By demonizing and dehumanizing those divided from us by imaginary lines drawn by political representatives of the capitalists, the aim is to keep us from making common cause against them. It's the old strategy of divide and rule.

But we don't have to passively accept it. Workers' unions still have millions of members and play key roles in the econopmy. It will be difficult for Trump to build a wall without our cooperation, and we shouldn't give it to him.

Organized labor should proclaim that, in the name of our Constitution and of international working-class solidarity, it will boycott Trump's vanity project and will not assist in any way with its construction.

You can't build a wall with bayonets!

APA Critics Create Their Own Bogeyman

This article is typical of many that have come out recently criticizing the American Psychological Association's new "Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men": https://www.independent.ie/opinion/patricia-casey-men-are-the-new-women-in-world-of-us-psychology-37703969.html

The author is lying. She says that the guidelines conclude that "there isn't much difference in the basic behaviours of men and women." That didn't ring a bell, so I did a text search. This statement appears nowhere in the guidelines (you can read them here: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf). Similarly, I saw another person claim the document talks about "toxic masculinity" and calls on men to "check their privilege" to be allies to women. None of these phrases appear in the document either. It looks to me as if a lot of people are reading stuff into it based on their own expectations.

In reality the document acknowledges that there are a variety of "masculinity ideologies," and nowhere claims that masculinity is solely a matter of ideology. And it certainly doesn't, as this writer claims, try to "beat down" men's masculinity. On the contrary, it urges that psychologists adapt their style of practice to what male clients will be comfortable with.

P. 17: "Researchers have identified normative practices in therapy that can be iatrogenic for men. On one end of the spectrum, clinical methods that emphasize the language of feelings, disclosing vulnerability, and admitting dependency needs can create expressive difficulties for males who adopt and adhere to traditional masculine roles. On the other end of the spectrum, therapists can sometimes make harmful assumptions that men are unable to express emotions or are hypersexual or aggressive."

P.18: "Importantly, psychologists strive to attain a level of gender self-awareness that allows them to act with intentionality, resisting the imposition of their values and biases on male clients."

P. 19: "For instance, psychologists may overlook or discount important problems in men (e.g., depression, body image concerns) because those issues have historically been a focus among women. Thus, psychologists strive to recognize the relational style of many men and adapt by substituting other terms for psychotherapy such as consultation, meeting, coaching, or discussion; using less jargon; being more active and directive; and matching relational style to the client’s needs."

P. 22: "Psychologists also may strive to identify ways that psychological services can be more adaptive to the ways men have been socialized. Depending on the expectations, psychologists strive to correct erroneous assumptions about psychological interventions or change the structure of interventions to be more congruent for the male client."

P. 23: "Although most violence is perpetrated by men, most men are not violent. Consequently, men are often stereotyped as aggressive and violent. These stereotypes can have negative consequences for heterosexual men who experience violence in intimate relationships from their female partners. Although abusive women, on average, may do less physical damage than abusive men, physical assaults from female partners have been shown to create myriad psychological problems for men. In addition, male victims of intimate partner violence experience significant barriers to finding help because the domestic violence system has historically focused on helping battered women. Likewise, men who have experienced sexual abuse from women or men may face significant personal and professional barriers to seeking help."

First Millennium Problems

It turns out that some problems in the news aren't new at all. Reading _Beowulf_ recently, I found a passage concerning #FalseAllegations of sexual abuse (ll. 1931-44). This epic is over a thousand years old.

Chinese Bureaucracy Represses Young Marxists

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/21/669509554/in-china-the-communist-partys-latest-unlikely-target-young-marxists

Actually it's not at all unlikely, coming from a bureaucracy that's spent the past few decades busily trying to convert itself into a bourgeoisie.

And, as a survivor of a political cult myself, I object to Zhang Lifan's misuse of the term "brainwashing," which originated in China and properly refers to coercive persuasion or "thought reform." Its victims are rendered dependent on the cult leader for interpretation of the doctrine. Clearly these young Chinese Marxists aren't brainwashed -- they're thinking for themselves!

City Hall Sam Needs to Read His Constitution

In the latest edition of the Philadelphia Public Record, the columnist using the pen name "City Hall Sam" mentions the calls for the dismissal of Temple Professor Marc Lamont Hill over his  recent remarks at the UN, claiming, "Hate speech is not constitutionally protected nor is speech that can invoke [sic] violence, so it's difficult to understand how the anti-Semitic anti-Israel remarks of this professor are constitutionally protected."

CHS gets it wrong on both counts. As I've written the Record,

In his comments on the attempts to penalize Professor Marc Lamont Hill for recent remarks at the United Nations, City Hall Sam misrepresents both what Hill said, as well as what the First Amendment says. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has noted, “Hill’s speech is political expression afforded the most robust protection under the First Amendment. Because Hill spoke as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, the question turns to whether the content of his speech is protected by the First Amendment. Hill’s speech falls far short of any of the recognized categorical exceptions to the First Amendment, including incitement, and [Temple board chair] O’Connor’s invocation of a ‘hate speech’ exception is at odds with every American court to confront the question, including the Supreme Court of the United States.” (FIRE Letter to Temple University, December 3, 2018 - FIRE) Further, they note, “Federal courts have consistently protected public university faculty expression targeted for censorship or punishment due to subjective offense.”

FIRE Letter to Temple University, December 3, 2018 - FIRE

Subjective is the operative word here, as Hill didn't say what CHS attributes to him anyway. As he has made clear,

"I do not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people, or any of the other things attributed to my speech. I have spent my life fighting these things... My reference to ‘river to the sea’ was not a call to destroy anything or anyone. It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things. No amount of debate will change what I actually said or what I meant.”

It's pretty embarrassing that a Philadelphian who actually calls himself "City Hall Sam" would be so ignorant about the document that got its start here. Oh, well -- I guess it would be even worse if he called himself Constitution Hall Sam.

The Patreon problem

Here, Diana Davison addresses the problem of censorship on creator platforms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0DUxPI70Cw

Actually porn is fundamentally just as fuzzy a category as hate speech. Alfred Kinsey found that the single most reliable predictor of whether a subject categorized an image as pornographic wasn't any objective characteristic, but whether it induced in that particular viewer a response he dubbed "visceral clutch," in which certain muscles contracted involuntarily. And of course which images had this effect varied from subject to subject.

And, while Patreon may currently have the legal right to censor users, it doesn't have to stay that way. I agree with John Stuart Mill that not only censorship by the government, but also that by powerful private interests or mobs (often, in practice, it's the latter operating through the former through pressure groups like WAM), is inimical to maintaining freedom of discourse. The ultimate solution is making such platforms, like other essential public utilities, public property so that the First Amendment applies to them.

ERA Campaigners Need to Improve Their Game

The other day I received an update about the effort to get the Equal Rights amendment added to the US Constitution. It linked to a video which, it was promised, would explain the legal strategy planned.

The good news is that it does so. The bad news is that the campaigners are doing a piss-poor job of educating the public about this, which I believe hampers their efforts. Here's what I wrote to my Less Wrong meetup group about it.

I mentioned at a recent meetup that I had yet to see an explanation of how ERA campaigners expected to overcome the deadline attached by Congress to the version of the amendment it passed in 1972.

Yesterday I received an email from Equal Means Equal, linking to the video below, in which it was stated that the legal strategy is explained therein. So I started watching the video with some hope, but also with a wait-and-see attitude, since the text of the email went on to remind the reader of the centuries-long delay between Congress' proposal of the Madison amendment proscribing them from raising their pay during their own term, and its ultimate addition to the Constitution.

I expect any critically thinking reader would immediately think, as I did, "Why are you telling me this about the Madison amendment? Isn't the reason it could be adopted after such a long delay simply that it had no deadline attached to it, whereas the ERA did?" And, as a natural follow-up, "Is the reason you're mentioning this that you don't actually have a better, more relevant argument?"

Well, it turns out the first speaker at the event which this video records does mention the same fact about the Madison amendment -- but she also goes on to explain the actual legal argument they intend to use. That argument is that the purported deadline appears in the preamble Congress attached to the ERA when they  passed it, but not in the text that the states actually ratified.

Assuming this is factually true, and reviewing the language of Article V, it does indeed appear the "deadline" in the Congressional preamble has no legal force, and therefore the campaigners' strategy is a sound one.

Which prompts the question: why the heck wasn't this explained in the email in the first place? Why, instead, does it tell me something completely irrelevant about the Madison amendment?

In fact, in all the many months I've been receiving information from EME, not once has the legal strategy been explained, leaving me, until now, skeptical that, once the thirty-eighth ratification actually happens, it will have any Constitutional effect or be more than a symbolic victory.

Why don't EME and other groups involved in this campaign seem to understand that, if they want to build the maximum public engagement to put pressure on politicians, they need to explain as clearly and prominently as possible why this is constitutionally doable and won't turn out to be waste of effort? It makes me scratch my head.

https://www.facebook.com/WNDCLUB/videos/2192582534288386/

Manipulative Group Makes Another Appearance at Penn

The group calling itself the Christian Union is at 37th Street and Locust Walk again today, the first time I've seen them since March. In a previous post, I described my abusive though brief experience with them, in which they made evident that their method is to disingenuously use relativist arguments to try to undermine someone's sense of objective reality, merely so they can insert their own dogma in its place -- the old cultic "break down to build up" strategy.

I didn't engage them when I saw them again today. Once was more than enough.

"I Accidentally Joined a Cult"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVDZOeFVTxQ

There's a saying in the cult awareness movement: no one ever joins a cult. People join a group of friendly people who seem to be doing interesting, important things, and only later find that they're in a cult. The way I like to put it is that saying there's something wrong with someone because they joined a cult is like saying there's something wrong with someone because they stepped in quicksand. 

I definitely second the notion of some of the commenters that he shouldn't go back to that group -- for any reason.

Langston Hughes described a similar experience in this essay: http://www.spiritwatch.org/firelangsave.htm.

Quote of the Day

"The only time I'm offended by a comedian is when they apologise." -- Ricky Gervais

Credo

The Universe that began as a moral nullity has, by evolving us, given itself meaning and purpose. That's the miracle of reality.

And it will complete its redemption through us as we fulfill our potential as a species-being.

Genital Integrity for All

This week's Philadelphia Public Record is calling for a ban on infant genital mutilation -- but only for those born female. I've submitted the following letter:

There are a couple blind spots in your editorial about genital mutilation.

You write that female genital mutilation "is sometimes euphemistically called female circumcision." What this overlooks is that the word circumcision is also routinely employed as a euphemism for male genital mutilation.

Medical organizations around the world have rejected non-therapeutic infant circumcision as not medically indicated (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ ). From ancient Egypt to as recently as the Victorian era, it has been stated quite openly that its purpose is to reduce "excessive" sexual pleasure -- much the same as with female genital mutilation ( http://empathygap.uk/?p=519 ). There is scientific evidence that it does have adverse effects on sexual function, as well as increasing propensities for aggression.

The vast majority of this mutilation in Anglophone countries is not done for religious reasons, poor excuse as those are in any case. It's simply a customary, and lucrative, practice of many doctors.

In addition, thousands of infants born with "ambiguous" genitalia are likewise subject to genital surgery in which they have no choice and which is in no way medically necessary, simply to appease cultural expectations. These procedures, too, create great anguish. ( https://aeon.co/essays/people-born-intersex-have-a-right-to-genital-integrity )

There is no legitimate reason for you to be calling for an end only to female genital mutilation. All infants -- male, female, and intersex -- have a right to genital integrity.

I might add that the adverse effects on sexual function not only reduce men's satisfaction, but also that of their partners.

You can contact the Public Record at:

Philadelphia Public Record
21 S. 11th Street, Suite 205, Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: 215-755-2000
Fax: 215-525-2818
E-mail: editor@phillyrecord.com

NPR Promotes Internet Censorship Advocates

Yesterday's edition of All Things Considered featured an interview with representatives of several authoritarian groups with names like Data & Society Institute, Counter Extremism Project, and (most ironically) New Knowledge, all of whom want social media platforms to suppress "extreme" content. Of course, they want to decide for the rest of us what's "extreme." No one arguing the opposite case was given a platform, so I've submitted this comment:

In re: "Critics Say YouTube Hasn't Done Enough To Crack Down On Extremist Content": No, we are not comfortable with a paternalistic approach, and we shouldn't be. As John Stuart Mill explained a long time ago:

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them... he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” (On Liberty)

Social media platforms must justify their oligopoly by acting in the public interest, and that means not censoring content that is legal. What they can do is help keep us out of the "filter bubble" by showing us things we're likely to disagree, as well as agree, with on the subjects that interest us. This doesn't and shouldn't mean targeting any particular content; rather, it means using both people's "likes" and "dislikes" in the algorithm that decides what to show them next.

But we don't have to wait for the platforms to act. Any individual who wants to put in the time and energy can engage in their own freelance "cognitive infiltration" by finding people who may be getting dangerously "bubbled" and exposing them to contrary information.

Review: Two Souls of Socialism

Two Souls Of Socialism by Hal Draper

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


This is an interesting work in that it puts the idea of socialism in a much broader context than usual, tracing it back almost to the beginning of recorded history. It's thought-provoking to realize that some of the questions that have divided the modern socialist movement have much older antecedents.

My only complaint, as someone schooled in historical materialism, is that the contrast between socialism-from-above and socialism-from-below is almost too abstract; attempting a generalization across such a broad stretch of time seems to come at the expense of really situating the individual examples in their historical contexts.



View all my reviews

I Am Now on Gab

 I'll continue to also be on Facebook and Twitter for the foreseeable future.

https://www.gab.com/stripey7

Gene Editing, Food Insecurity, Voter Disenfranchisement, and More!

The new issue of One Step Away, Philadelphia's street paper, has articles on all these topics as well as contributions by several of the vendors, including my piece "'Identitarian Realism,'" previously published here. If you're in the area, please buy a copy from your favorite vendor and check it out!

Joke of the Month

Why is there no customer service on a ghost ship? Because it only has a skeleton crew.

#MeToo: Children Following the Bad Example Set by Adults

Children are now imitating the adults they see on TV in the destruction-by-accusation craze.

https://fundly.com/defense-fund-for-keith-bailey-1

 

Additional information about the case:

 

https://gazette.com/education/colorado-springs-area-eighth-grader-arrested-in-what-father-claims/article_e3fa3ec8-cc0e-11e8-bebe-67ec51720a6f.html

 

https://www.dangerous.com/49605/boy-13-arrested-cuffed-and-dragged-from-school-over-metoo-allegations/

 

 

We Only Have the White

Yesterday I asked someone serving me coffee for Splenda. She apologized, saying, "We only have the white." I resisted making a joke about the Jem'Hadar.