Standing opposed to something is easy, standing FOR something is more difficult.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

The website Poynter, which specializes in journalism news and education, published a selection of excerpts of various editorials curated together from several newspapers across the country.  The curation had a theme: opposition to President Trump.

Click the image below to be redirected to the curation.

Screenshot_2018-08-16 America, help The freedom of the nation depends on you, hundreds of news outlets write
David Beard, “America, help!  The freedom of the nation depends on you, hundreds of news outlets write,” Poynter (2018).”

Newspapers should be oppositional to governments because opposition and dissent is fundamental to the concept of free speech, but opposition should not be the sole purpose of an organization.  Standing opposed to something is easy, standing for something is usually more difficult.

Chicago Sun Times: “We are the enemy of societal failings.”

What does that mean?  What societal failings?  Can newspapers decide what makes a society fail?

I don’t think news organizations should not be proselytizing a particular ideology, they should simply be outlets for truth (facts only).

The “enemy of racism?”

There will always be racism and bigotry in any society, that is a part of human nature.  To hate is a part of being human.  To fight against racism is to fight against a part of humanity.  Ideologues with a utopian vision of a so-called “perfect society” fight against their view of evil by fighting against the darker sides of human nature in an attempt to mold humans into a tool for their utopia.  Instead of moralizing about human emotions, we need to accept the positive aspects of our humanity with the more negative aspects and live with a decent balance.

Kids say the darnest things!

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

Throughout the United States, the age for sexual consent ranges between 16 years and 18 years.  In my state (New Mexico), the age consent in 17 years.  Consent laws are reasonable enough – they are a deterrent against adults seeking to take advantage of a child usually in a sexual manner.  Prosecutions are carried out under these laws regardless of any defense made by the child (or children) for the predator(s).  It is generally understood that if you have sex with a person whom has not come of age, you’ve committed a crime regardless of your under-age partners pleas on your behalf.  The case of Roman Polanski (1978) is a famous example of this kind of crime.

Why are the words of the under-aged not taken into account during these kinds of criminal cases?  Because it is also generally understood that young humans with under-developed brains lack the full capacity to reason due to the fact that the frontal lobe of the human brain is the last part of the brain to develop in adolescence.

In short, children are (generally) stupid.  This is why children must receive their parents’ permission to sign legally binding contracts as well as wait until a specific age to receive a drivers’ license or vote for their representatives in our governments.  A child’s under-developed brain combined with their short supply of life experience prevent them from comprehending the long-term consequences of their actions.

All this said, why does there seem to be a growing consensus among the LGBTQ(+ whatever) movement in favor of medical emancipation of children from their parents?  Why should a child be able to permanently alter their body because he puts on a dress one day?  Children say something one day and say the opposite the next day, may do something one day and do something contradictory the next day, because children rarely think beyond one fleeting moment.  Children are notorious for their short-attention spans as well as their fervor in fighting to get what they want in any one moment.  So, why don’t we let children live on their own, handling their own money, making important decisions that will impact the rest of their lives?  Because children are incapable of thinking a decision through to the rest of their lives.  Parents take care of their kids for 18+ years because the kids do not know how to live on their own yet.

If a child is unable to consent to sexual intercourse, why should they be allowed to permanently alter their sexual organs?

“Biological sex is not assigned. Sex is determined at conception by our DNA and is stamped into every cell of our bodies. Human sexuality is binary. You either have a normal Y chromosome, and develop into a male, or you don’t, and you will develop into a female. There are at least 6,500 genetic differences between men and women. Hormones and surgery cannot change this.

An identity is not biological, it is psychological. It has to do with thinking and feeling. Thoughts and feelings are not biologically hardwired. Our thinking and feeling may be factually right or factually wrong (Michelle Cretella, The Daily Signal (2017).”

One more thing on these transgender post-modernists who often make the absurd claim that there is no such thing as biological sex.  If sex and and gender are socially constructed, then how can sexism be real?

North Carolina Clashes With U.S. Over New Public Restroom Law
Image from Fortune magazine.

 

 

 

Satire or bad video game journalism? Can you tell?

American politics has become so polarized that people are injecting their own political rhetoric into every activity, no matter how mundane. This is why identity politics is cancer to multi-partisan discourse. Ideologues are so intent on controlling culture that they will suppress individual expressions of art in an attempt to make entertainment reflect a specific view of the world and nothing else.

Whatever happened to “live and let live?”

The Left is no longer liberal and liberals need to stand up.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

There is a particular ideology in America today, fostered by the Left-wing of the political spectrum, so intent on giving voice to minority populations that it seemingly idolizes victimization while proclaiming their distaste for and their distrust of populations of privilege.  Some proponents of this ideology have even driven it to an extent of advocating for a dismantling of Western political and judicial systems on claims that Western civilization was founded on nothing more than the exploitation of minority populations.  Nevermind that individuals in the West today enjoy a relatively peaceful society as well as longer lifespans compared to other parts of the world, contemporary Leftists focus on negative aspects of human history while dismissing anything positive that has arisen from a cultivation of social norms.  As if humans would be better off without civilization, roaming the wilderness just like any other animal.

Western civilization is not perfect (of course), no civilization is perfect.  Human history is littered with violence because humans have a proclivity towards violence.  However; despite what post-modern ideologues would have you believe, power struggles are not the only thing that drive human actions.  Any (reasonable) scholar of history will recognize that some of the worst atrocities have been committed in pursuit of an utopian ideal.  In other words, some of the worst things ever accomplished were carried out with the best of intentions.  A pragmatic leader governs a society as humans are, not as humans ought to be.

Contemporary Leftists are indeed pushing an idealistic agenda and it seems eerily reminiscent of the old Marxist rhetoric leading up to the Russian Revolution which formed the Soviet Union.  These new “cultural Marxists,” or neo-Marxists, are driven by a desire for a utopia in which no group of people is prejudiced toward another group of people and all individuals live in harmony with one another with no hatred, jealousy, or exploitation.  This is a fantastical, pathological idea and it is most evident on college campuses (more so with large universities) where Leftist, student organizations will rally protests against specific people with a so-called controversial opinion simply for having the audacity to speak to a crowd of supporters.  Leftists students today are so “triggered” by differing opinions that they wish to limit individual freedom of speech to protect their own asinine sensabilities.  The political Left is no longer liberal and liberals must stand up against these neo-communists.

Liberalism is about individuality, liberty, entreprenuership, and the ability of one person to forge his/her own destiny regardless of the circumstances of his birth.  Liberals advocate for free speech for individuals, accountability for governments, separations of power, divisions in the structures of governments, and egalitarianism throughout a population.

The problem with idealistic, utopian ideologies like Marxist socialism/communism or Nazi socialism/fascism, as “well-intentioned” as they may be, they create “in-group” mentalities amongst specific populations which foster exclusiveness in pursuit of inclusiveness.  In pursuit of a so-called inclusive society, the ideologues advocate to silence any rhetoric that goes against their ideology (any rhetoric that they label as hateful).  Nevermind freedom of speech for individuals and the marketplace of ideas, any speech that may be interpreted as “hate speech” will not be tolerated by the contemporary neo-communists.  This pro-censorship stance is antithetical to classic Enlightenment values.  Censorship advocates are not liberal.

Examples of these pathological neo-communists can be seen in video recordings of public speeches by Milo Yiannopolous and Ben Shapiro.  Milo Yiannopolous is a former reporter/editor at “Breitbart News” who organized a tour of college campuses a couple years back during which he spoke to his supporters publicly.  Ben Shapiro is the current editor-in-chief of “The Daily Wire” who occasionally partners with various conservative organizations to speak to his supporters publicly at various American colleges.  Both Yiannopolous and Shapiro have had contact with protesters at their events, people who were protesting them simply because they were speaking publicly.

A reasonable person encounters a public speaker whom they disagree with and perhaps crafts an argument against the speaker, engaging in a debate.  However; the post-modern neo-communists do not believe in values of free speech and debate, they only care about asserting their own influence in the public sphere and obtaining power over our society.  They do this under a belief that truth does not exist and that power dynamics are all that matter in human relations; this belief justifies their own use of power.

Free speech only matters if it applies to every person.  Every person deserves the right to speak his mind regardless of how hateful it may be.  I write this as a person who used to describe himself as a socialist.  I used to describe myself as a socialist because I bought into the idealistic rhetoric of Marxism, “workers of the world unite,” and all that shit.  I did not understand the bitter pathology behind a strive for utopia.

Post-modernist, neo-communism must be stopped before human history repeats itself.  We do not want another Soviet Union to rise to prominence on the global stage.

Drug usage, individualism, and the spirit of a libertarian.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

Since I’ve been old enough to question the meaning behind the words, “land of the free and home of the brave,” I have pondered over classic American ideas of freedom , specifically the apparent contradictions between the idea that Americans enjoy more freedom from tyranny than any other rationalized peoples and the punitive practices of American law enforcement agencies against non-violent criminals.  If America really is the “land of the free,” why is it a crime to light up a pipe filled with cannabis in the privacy of one’s own home?  What exatly is the American ideal of freedom?

In the interest of fairness, I do acknowledge that (in general) the United States of America is a decent place to live compared to many other countries across the globe.  While it is not logical to act prideful in the facts of your birth (no human chooses the circumstances of their birth), I am a little prideful about the relative prosperity of Western Civilization.  No society is perfect but there is prosperity relative to other countries.  The West’s top rankings on global freedom indexes are no accident – they are partly due to a a general culture that respects individualism and democratic-republicanism.

However; the United States has also been catalogued with the highest prison in the planet’s western hemisphere.  (See the International Centre for Prison Studies: World Prison Population List – ICPS).  Amongst Western nations, that is a poor ranking and Americans can do better.  I think a major factor in this high population of prisoners is the so-called “war on drugs,” which was initiated under President Richard Nixon.

The argument in favor of drug prohibition is an emotional one consisting of exclamations like, “we need to prosecute these drug addicts,” “get these lazy pot heads off the street,” people shouldn’t be using drugs,” and more.  All of these exclamations are irrelevant to individual freedom.  A legal case may be argued for limiting drug use in on public property reserved for the general population but, on private property, it is a simple case of individual property rights and personal freedom.  Regardless how one feels about drug use, it affects no one but the individuals involved and, if tobacco and alcohol use are not criminalized actions (two drugs much more dangerous than other drugs like cannabis) there is no consistent reasoning to criminalize less dangerous drugs.

Fortunately, there seems to be a growing shift in American cultures regarding durg use (at least regarding cannabis use).  More than half of the states in the union have legalized medical-based cannabis; eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized it recreationally.  Opinion polls show that more than half of the general public is now in favor of full legalization at the federal level.  Trends are moving in a more libertarian direction.

Content creator and YouTube pundit Wizard of Cause expresses his satisfaction towards this trend in the following video:

I think any person harboring some preconceived ideas about drugs and drug users should at least make an attempt to flip the argument around onto themselves and then ask themselves if they would want anyone else busting down their doors in a police raid for a minimal amount of cannabis.  Is that kind of environment really in line with an American ideal of freedom?  Are citizens really free if we have to fear law enforcement because of a personal decision on private property?

Optimism for the future from the Wizard.

Can YouTube’s “Skeptic Community” put aside the memes and extend an olive branch to the “social justice warriors?”  Can a feminist like Laci Green reconcile with a skeptical humanist like Sargon of Akkad?  Actually, that already happened at VidCon 2017:

<https://twitter.com/gogreen18/status/878673441158594564?lang=en>

“A good number of SJW’s, for instance, as stupid as they may be, are not necessarily the evil manipulative creatures that say Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quin, or Brianna Wu is.  To them, their ideologies and their notions are genuinely good.  They’re trying to do good for the world and make it a better place, even if the actual practice and function of their ideas much like communism would result in widespread suffering and abject failure.  This being the case though, why not take on those arguments more directly?  Why not, instead of showing everyone how clever we can be, show them how smart we really are?  Because there’s a whole lot of batshit, dumb-fuckery out there to be combated by smarter people and the better angels of our nature can shine through if we let them (Nick Goroff a.k.a. the Wizard of Cause, 2017).”

Repost: “The Sickness in the Left”

I think this piece of writing by Nick Goroff in Occupy.com is still relevant today.  Being a “liberal” means valuing civil and political rights for each individual.  We should not be restricting the freedom of those in the majority population to protect those in minority populations.  Advocating for individual rights is synonymous with advocating for minority rights because civil rights for each individual creates a consistent standard amongst the total population.

Continue reading “Repost: “The Sickness in the Left””