Wokeism: the triumph of emotion over fact
The ability of humans to overcome our feelings (including rage, fear and lust) and make evidence-based decisions is the single most important reason for our progress.
The woke command to placate the feelings of select groups and fanatically pursue trendy causes while rejecting empirically grounded knowledge will only set back the flourishing of society. This is already happening.
However, we are affluent in both social and financial terms. It is only when this wealth is seriously depleted that the pursuit of knowledge will once again become the principal aim of society.
Until then, get ready for some suffering.
The damage done by making feelings more important than facts is unfolding in real time in the cradle of wokeism: the US.
In response to the abhorrent killing of an African-American, George Floyd, by a white police officer, lobby groups (such as Black Lives Matter) called for the disestablishment of police forces.
Rather than urging for Floyd’s killer to be appropriately punished and for police to be better trained, these activists actually felt it would be a good idea to defund the police.
Now think (don’t feel) about that for a moment. It is incontestably one of the stupidest ideas in history. Criminologists have known for decades that the best deterrent to criminal activity is to instil in people the belief that if they commit crimes they will be caught. This is best achieved by ensuring a high police presence.
This has been repeatedly proven by empirical studies.
Moreover, a number of natural social experiments (including the 1923 Melbourne police strike) showed that if the police numbers are radically reduced, chaos will ensue.
Despite this, many police departments across the US have been progressively starved of resources.
The result is unsurprising. The rate of violent crime and homicide has had its largest increase – more than 30 per cent in some US cities. This is on the back of a declining crime rate in the US for much of the past 25 years.
Now, just like that, crime is suddenly the second biggest concern of Americans (behind inflation).
Liberal cities such as San Francisco that aggressively defunded police departments are now furiously “refunding police” as a result of unprecedented levels of crime.
The surge in crime was utterly predictable. Every one of the thousands of law professors and criminologists in the US knew that no other outcome was possible.
The incredible thing is that the “defund the police” movement met no effective, expert pushback explaining how this policy would result in the preventable deaths of thousands of innocent people, many of them African-Americans.
Many criminologists did not speak up because they knew they risked being “cancelled” from their jobs and social circles if they expressed views contrary to this “social justice” cause.
This highlights the paradox of the internet. Its theoretically free flow of communication has not led to enhanced knowledge.
Rather, it has provided a vehicle for enhanced venting and emotional manipulation.
The internet gives every person a podium and the noise emanating from millions of daily posts hampers the ability of many people to distinguish between fact and agenda.
Truth is no longer binary but now depends on the extent to which people can stimulate the feelings of others and drown out opposing views by inflicting damage on the careers and social standing of people with dissenting views.
The thudding hypocrisy of woke-ism is that the advocates of social justice causes have become ruthless tyrants and oppressors.
They have shown no restraint in seeking to dismantle free speech (a cornerstone of democracy), the presumption of innocence and proportionately in punishment.
Former US president Barack Obama had no luck getting woke warriors to temper their blind rage.
In 2019, he pointed out that the “idea of purity and that you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke (is misguided). People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids, and share certain things with you.”
To this day, the smartest analysis of free speech dates back to British philosopher JS Mill who stated that “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race … If the opinion is right, (people) are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.”
Of course, no principle is absolute. Free speech can be limited, but only when it is necessary to prevent harm to others - for example, words that incite violence or defame others. In all other circumstances, suppressing free speech causes more damage to society and individuals than any emotional hurt (real or perceived) among those who decide to be offended.
Feelings are not unimportant but the trajectory of human progress demonstrates that stifling free speech and thereby compromising the search for knowledge is too high a price to pay for allowing rule by emotions.
https://fifthestatepress.com/posts/status-2021122909907
*********************************************'There are innumerable gender identities': JK Rowling is forced to defend herself in new trans row after she hit back at claim on US website that she believes there are only two genders
Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling is today at the centre of a fresh trans rights row after clarifying her views on sex and gender, telling fans: 'There are innumerable gender identities'.
The British author, 56, who has previously come under fire for her public views on trans issues, last night tweeted 'I've never said there are only two genders'.
The comment came in response to a US news website article reporting on a poll claiming that most Americans supported her views on gender.
But the Gloucestershire-born author, who last month had to call in police after activists posted pictures of her address online, said the question in the poll did not reflect her opinion.
Responding to the article, titled 'Most Americans Agree With J. K. Rowling, There are Only Two Genders', she wrote: 'Small but important point: I've never said there are only two genders. There are innumerable gender identities.
'The question at the heart of this debate is whether sex or gender identity should form the basis of decisions on safeguarding, provision of services, sporting categories and other areas where women and girls currently have legal rights and protections.
'Using the words 'sex' and 'gender' interchangeably obscures the central issue of this debate.
'If you're interested in what I actually said, see this - (in which I literally say 'trans lives matter' and 'trans rights are human rights.').
The article, featured on American news site CNS News, reports on a poll by US conservative polling group Rasmussen Reports in which it is claimed that 75 per cent of American adults 'agree with JK Rowling that there are only two genders'.
The poll reportedly was carried out via telephone and online, with 63 per cent said to have 'strongly agreed'. A total of 18 per cent are reported to have disagreed.
The article also includes a quote from a piece, penned by Rowling and posted on her website in June last year.
In the article, which remains on her website, she write: 'It's been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it's pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.'
The CNS article, acknowledges that 'Rowling does not dismiss transgenderism', but says that 'she has questioned how, politically, it is eroding the legal definitions of male and female'.
Rowling's Twitter response to the article sparked a mixed reaction last night, with some praising her comments, and others criticising.
One person to reply, Lucie Westenra, wrote: 'No, my social legal and medical existence is not a matter of debate, nor is my life the product of some kind of ideology.
'I have an involuntary, lifelong condition, and live in a society that recognises and protects that, which some wish to undermine.'
Another, Emerald Wilkins, wrote: 'You basically said… "I see that there are different gender identities… BUT I don’t think people who identify with them should have legal protections."
'The most pressing point of advocating for trans rights is to ensure legal protection from discrimination. Trans rights now!'
Another Twitter user wrote: 'I don't see you as transphobic. What I didn't like in part was the way you got your point across. With your reach comes a certain responsibility not to step on people's toes and hurt them - unlike in your private life when you talk about it with friends.
'Please don't get me wrong - just like you (probably). I think it's very important to stand up for your opinions - even if many people see it differently.
'That is democracy, that is freedom of opinion. I would have wished only, you would have bought them more often so over, as above.'
Another added: 'I wish both sides of the debate could see the nuance. It makes me sad that people seem to think perspective on this is either "you're with us or aganist us".
'You be almost entirely with someone but have a caveat or two.'
Though Rowling voice concerns as early as 2018, she became embroiled in the row over trangender rights in June last year after posting tweets which took issue with the phrase 'people who menstruate' used in place of the word 'women'.
She later Tweeted: 'If sex isn't real, there's no same-sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased.
'I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives.'
Rowling's comments were applauded by some, but heavily criticised by others, who accused the author or transphobia.
*******************************************
China tell their footballers they must have their tattoos REMOVED 'to set a good example for society', as young players are banned from playing for the national team if they are inked
I think tattoos are a disfigurement so I have some sympathy for the Chinese view
Chinese footballers will need to undergo the painful process of having tattoos removed or risk being snubbed by the national team following a new order banning the body work.
The General Administration of Sport (GAS) have gone a step further than they did in 2018 when players were forced to cover up tattoos to continue playing.
In their latest move GAS have outlawed tattoos altogether and want any player with pre-existing tattoos to get them removed in order to 'set a good example' for Chinese society.
'The national team and the U23 national team athletes are strictly prohibited from having new tattoos, and those who already have tattoos are advised to remove them themselves,' the GAS statement said.
'If there are special circumstances agreed by the team, (players) must cover up the tattoos during training and matches.'
China has previous in wading into the appearance of its players with a women's football match in 2018 called off after players were told they were prohibited from playing with dyed hair.
'Athletes are not allowed to dye their hair, grow long hair [for boys], wear weird hairstyles, or wear any accessories,' rules of the Fujian Provincial Department of Education, reported by the South China Morning Post (SCMP), stated at the time. 'Otherwise, they will be disqualified from the competition.'
Tattoos have been treated with disdain in China but their popularity has increased among young adults, and many footballers.
Zhang Linpeng of Guangzhou FC is one such player known throughout Chinese football for his extensive ink.
But new rules look set to prove problematic for younger players with any fresh tattoos likely to result in expulsion from the national team.
Players in the national team have previously been seen playing with tape covering any visible tattoo areas.
The GAS went on to add that China's national teams, throughout age groups, should organise 'ideological and political education activities' that would 'strengthen the patriotic education' of its players.
The statement is headed 'Suggestions for strengthening the management of football players'.
It is anticipated that the Chinese FA will be charged with setting out disciplinary requirements for future national team call-ups.
**********************************************
Fur and foie gras set to be banned within months under new British Bill
Imports of fur and foie gras are set to be legally banned within months, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, an environment minister, pledged on Friday.
A new Animals Abroad Bill to be debated in Parliament in early 2022 will also seek to ban the import of 7,000 species of animal hunting trophies.
The announcement sparked a backlash, with the main fur industry body saying it was not popular and would damage relations "with fur producing countries like Canada and the US".
The head of France’s foie gras producers’ association has also been up in arms about the prospect of a ban, saying that she was “shocked and outraged”.
Lord Goldsmith set out the plans for the wide-ranging ban on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. The new legislation would cover "a whole bunch of issues like foie gras imports, fur imports, elephant attractions", he said.
One of the ‘toughest’ bans in the world
On hunting trophies, the peer said: "We are introducing a ban - it will be one of the toughest bans in the world, covering around 7,000 species, with no conservation exemptions.
"We will be legislating early [this] year. I am pushing very hard for us to get the earliest possible slot to do it."
The Animals Abroad Bill will also ban the import and export of shark fins and companies in the UK would be legally stopped from advertising "low-welfare animal practices abroad, such as elephant rides" for tourists overseas, government sources said.
Since the UK outlawed fur farming in 2003, more than £800 million worth of animal fur has been imported to Britain, according to figures from HM Revenue & Customs.
It is often used for hat bobbles, hood trims, boots and slippers, as well as coats from high-end stores.
However there has been growing pressure for a ban on fur imports and in May 2021 ministers launched a call for evidence on the implications of a block on importing and selling real fur.
The Telegraph disclosed in March 2021 how Guardsmen had splashed out tens of thousands of pounds on new pelts for their black bearskin hats ahead of any potential ban.
Last night Frank Zilberkweit, the chairman of the British Fur Trade Association, accused Lord Goldsmith of using the issue as a "personal hobby horse designed to appeal to a cabal of animal rights supporters".
"Such a move is not supported by other senior members of the Government including the Ministry of Defence that recently confirmed its support for natural fur.
"It beggars belief that there are those in the Conservative Party who think this is a priority rather than tackling the pandemic and cost of living crisis.
"We will not hesitate to challenge this nonsensical and personally motivated attack using all avenues open to us and have made clear that the Government should instead work with us on the existing welfare programmes already operating that guarantee standards in animal welfare."
He added that "banning fur in the UK would make no difference to animal welfare but would cost thousands of jobs, shut hundreds of businesses and effectively criminalise millions of consumers whilst damaging relations with fur producing countries like Canada and the US.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/31/fur-foie-gras-set-banned-within-months-new-bill/
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment