Depends on how you DEFINE gender. IF it's defined such that it's synonymous with personalities and personality types -- as even Colin has suggested -- THEN it's a bit of a stretch to argue that "personality is a faith movement":
Certainly a dearth of reason in much of transgenderism.
Though one might reasonably argue that the same thing might be said of "gender-critical feminism", of those who make incoherent "arguments" against "gender ideology" ...
Whole concept of "gender" is something of a dog's breakfast, a pile of unscientific claptrap. But there's some merit in DEFINING it as more or less synonymous with personalities and personality types. Pigheadedly refusing to address that perspective doesn't seem terribly "reasonable", and just contributes to the whole transgender clusterfuck.
Very well done. The passing of hate crime laws was the Pandora's Box. It was the first massive anti-Americanism mistake, because it opened up the door for the mindset of words being violence, and we keep paying the price.
Defining things as hate crimes encourages this group vs group mindset--if something happens, you can assume that group dynamics played a role. Then, certain groups get special treatment, where crimes committed against them are "known" to be worse/oppression/motivated by hate. We shouldn't embed these distortions/mind-reading/inequality into our laws. It creates special classes of people, and could very well plant seeds for more postmodernism in government.
>>Consequently, geographic location became strongly linked to belief systems, with Puritans congregating in New England, Anglicans dominating Virginia, and Pilgrims choosing Plymouth.
The Pilgrims were Puritans, and Plymouth is New England.
The Puritans were a bunch of intolerant, totalitarian, religious killjoys in the 17th century who, after the English Civil War, took control of England and forbade everyone from innocent pleasures such as wearing silk clothes, eating meat, or even celebrating Christmas. They were eventually driven out of England and fled to the New England where they found the "religious freedom" they were seeking.
The Pilgrims were just the first Puritans to reach North America and Plymouth was the first permanent New England colony. The way the author phrased it made it clear that he doesn't understand that.
I agree that Pilgrims (separatists, got to the colonies first, were in Plymouth) are not the same as non-separating Puritans (wanted reform from within, were not separatists, were pushier about their beliefs, were all over New England). But in any case, I've asked for the line about Plymouth to be removed, since I don't think I need to litigate the distinction between Puritans and Pilgrims in order to make my main points.
If people want to read more on the distinctions between separatists and non-separatists, some notes can be found here:
A large part of the problem is the enormous bloating of the federal government. The Founding Fathers *never* intended to federal government to grow to anywhere near the size that it has. With its being such an enormous, all-encompassing entity expected to provide for people and manage every little detail of their lives, it is inevitable that people will struggle for control of it and abuse its power to cram down their dogma onto society.
Dawkin's idea of the meme is brilliant, especially considering it was invented decades ago, and he is rightly held in esteem for his science, but I have to agree with Haidt. I tried to read a book on atheism by Dawkins a decade ago expecting to really like it and couldn't make it through the first chapter. Dawkins had turned his belief in atheism into a religion, and an ugly one. Dawkin's disdain for non believers in his doctrine was really off putting. He had taken the worst of organized religion for himself, not the best.
I have deep respect for Dawkins, but his tendency to think of organized religion like a virus makes it sound like religion always hurts people/groups.
But, communities can potentially utilize dogma for their benefit. Or, individuals can utilize dogma for their (selfish) benefit. This opens up a couple more questions. Is it okay to teach something potentially simplistic/overconfident if it helps groups function? Does our need for social rules necessitate some arbitrariness that dogged truth-finders have difficulty accepting? And, if humans have a tendency toward religious maneuvering, is there a risk that atheists will fill the hole where religion might go with other dogmatic manipulation?
I believe "drinking the Kool-Aid" came from Tom Wolfe's book "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test", in which there was an account of a Grateful Dead event in the 60's. Kool-Aid was spiked with LSD in one barrel, and was not in another. The barrels were clearly labeled so people wouldn't drink from the wrong barrel. "Drinking the Kool-Aid" then came to mean you were willing to ingest the drug by drinking the Kool-Aid from the LSD-labeled barrel.
Yes. The book Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test is where the phrase originated in the 1960s. But the phrase became widely known by everyone in the late 1970s when the San Francisco cult leader Jim Jones made almost one thousand of his followers (men, women and children) of his People's Temple cult kill themselves by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid in Guyana.
Matt, thank you for a well written article that I hope challenges people from varied backgrounds and ideals to come together. Bickering between individuals/groups over things more trivial than what is truly facing our civilization is nothing more than wasted breath.
Me too. Whenever I hear a politician try to justify self ID for trans whilst protecting single sex spaces, I think of Orwell “ doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them.”
I’m in the UK. Hearing your perspective has been really interesting and informative. I do believe these are very dark times. We must do all we can to protect and nurture free speech
Nice. I definitely appreciate the lineage of nominalism from where you entered it at the invention of the 'movable' printing press, and your documentation of selected offshoots. America was founded on nominalism, and the extreme ontological individualism that naturally accompanies it. The original idea of democracy (ancient Athens) was a means to appease those who opposed rule. The use of rhetoric combined with the 'appearance' of ways to bridge the chasm between dualistic stances was the intention of America's founding fathers. Nominalism was prominent at the time of the establishment of our government, but the fragmentation that followed was inevitable. So, here we are. It's not rocket science. It has happened because we have worshipped words and suppressed the teaching of true history. .... Here's a revealing article that just barely touches on what we are going to have to deal with over the next few decades. Logos will 'do Its thing' with analog, and it will be harsh. ..... https://www.wired.com/story/unbelievable-zombie-comeback-analog-computing/?fbclid=IwAR0Gt8BKt8RcOUFJDYeQEMtfMO9oTZ077I-04teN7bfqIQRzt-JVH1HFzZk
I know somebody will roll their eyes at what Im about to say but....
You just completely skipped over the founding fathers need for power and their use of religion to that end. You stated that there were women who became idols but you did not acknowledge that the FF were also idolized. And you completely skipped over slavery which called to question each and every leaders since of moral standing and decency. Was it logical? (Use other humans to do the work you don't want to do even though you understand they just as human as you are because...money) Maybe. Was it right? (Using religion to justify it and teach them that they were born for it and treat them like animals so they believe it) Nope.
"What happens when an idea comes into vogue that isn’t just tinkering with the Great Experiment–but actively dislikes the entire enterprise, including its scientific ideals?"
I think I understand what you've getting at with this question. That activism have become a complete dislike of fundamental principles of America. But think about the fact that slavery was a core foundational enterprise that made America into a powerful nation and the richest nation. There had to be people who not only disliked the enterprise but hated it enough to tear it down! And I'm glad they did.
"Lincoln realized that social enforcement mechanisms can be just as effective at suppressing ideas as laws. He knew that changing laws and hearts was necessary to combat injustice."
Social enforcement mechanisms don't change the desire for power and greed though. Changing hearts? People don't change other people's hearts. Consequences and laws change behaviors.
I agree with much of what you shared about identity and the internet, but you dont seem to recognize the distinction between reasonable and logical activism toward social change and illogical weaponization of activism for individual glorification.
Thank you for writing out this thoughtful response. I appreciate constructive criticism and I try to be open to hearing different views.
I should mention that my piece is trying to paint a picture of something. It is nowhere close to the whole picture of US History, but rather an attempt to establish a basis of intellectual humility. It’s making the case that stitching together different approaches/places and letting them compete led to scientific progress, civil rights progress, as well as laying out checks and balances.
If you are up for reading the book “Sacred Liberty” by Steven Waldman, it makes some similar arguments to me on the development and importance of the 1st Amendment, but it also has full chapters on the founding fathers, religion among blacks in America (how the courts came to side with them and Native Americans), as well as the circumstances that led to the 14th Amendment/abolition.
In terms of religion and its history with slavery, I see it this way. A dark side of human nature tempts people into greed, excess conflict over resources, and strategic (evil) dehumanization. Then, some people use religion (like Christianity) as an excuse or moral overlay in an attempt to perpetuate those things. But other people can use the same religion to make arguments for abolition, women’s rights, etc. If Christianity is popular in a place, orators work through the lens of that faith to make some arguments you would like and some you would not. The same could be said of any other faith or even Atheism. People will proselytize, but frequently belief systems are squishy enough that they can be turned to good or bad. So by letting people “shop around” for different belief systems, you can weaken the corruption that happens when someone has a monopoly on what people are supposed to think.
I’m not against a form of activism where people make the case for the changes they want, convince enough people, and work it into action. I’m against cancel culture, which I see as an attempt to undermine people’s duty to scrutinize “sacred” ideas—in other words, I’m against forcing people to fear becoming “heretics” of a religion they never agreed on.
Thanks for replying. Based on what you've stated here about how people use/used religion is the reason I was surprised that you didn't include the oppression of the enslaved. I think it would have strengthened your claims. I will look into the book you recommended.
In my opinion, America is in a steep decline. I’d love to be more optimistic, however, until postmodernism runs it’s course (and we’ve somehow survived) and we have one or two generations of studies done on the effects of transgenderism and the narcissistic views of identity politics on our culture and society as a whole, the push to destroy faith and family, and eliminate our illustrious history continues.
“while Republicans endorsed philosophies like “greed is good”, promoting selfishness as a moral obligation.”
What????????
“Greed is good” was a line in the movie Wallstreet not from any Republican belief.
If selfishness is a belief of Republicans, then why do Republicans give more to charities than Democrats?
Republicans belief is that a “hand up is better than a hand out” which originates from the Bible which says something like “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime “.
In terms of charities, I think it's a bit complex. For instance, are we counting it against poor people that they have less to give? It’s also possible for people to be play favorites with charities, donating to their “team”, which has its pros and cons. On the downside, this might be tied to in-group biases and neglect people outside that group. But on the other hand, I think community can be a bit like sports—of course there has to be a bit of rooting for the home team to bind you together.
In terms of Wall Street, I’m glad there are films lampooning their greed. I really like “The Big Short”, which interprets what happened leading to the 2008 crash where a bunch of people were taken advantage of by greedy real-estate scammers. In my view, Republicans often try to deregulate industries like real-estate and Wall Street (Bush was at the helm for much of this, but we still saw it under Trump). In particular, when politicians allow corporations to obscure their inner workings, this creates situations where it is harder to hold people accountable, and harder to encourage a community-mindset.
You are right that family-oriented Republicans are usually willing to push back against organizations like WEF. Not every faction out there is weakening our communities. Corporations and some politicians, including some Republican politicians, do not set up our communities for success when greedy orgs are in their pockets. Certainly Democrats have their own (arguably greater) problem in this regard—with the decline of left-wing churches and community hang-outs, this left an opening. It seems that hole was largely filled with Postmodernism.
I think there is a lack of understanding, in the main, of conservative philosophy around money and the Federal government’s role in charitable programs (among many other things.)
We used to be able to agree about the problems but disagree about the solutions. Now, we can barely agree on the problems.
When I read the statement “republicans think greed is good”, I immediately questioned the validity of the rest of the article (which I agree with a lot of points.) That statement is ridiculous.
Conservatives do not like programs such as charities/welfare managed at the Federal Government level. It doesn’t mean they don’t like charities. And it doesn’t mean they don’t care about people who need help. They believe it should be run at the state or local level.
They also don’t like over regulation at the Federal Government level. But it doesn’t mean they are okay with corporate corruption.
They don’t like Illegal Immigration but it doesn’t mean they are racist. They just want immigration to come here Legally.
They also believe that politicians work FOR the people. They are not rulers. They cannot allow or disallow anything. We get our rights from the constitution not politicians.
The Federal Government employs 9 million people (including contractors) now. It has become way to big and corrupt.
Republican politicians have done many things against conservative values but that doesn’t mean conservatives agree with or condone what they have done.
Questions:
We’re all “greedy” real estate scammers republicans?
We’re all corporations who scammed people owned by republicans?
There is no point on the Haidt side of the first table that Dawkins would not agree with. Saying they have opposing viewpoints is an indefensible invention.
I agree the "opposing viewpoints" phrasing is likely too strong. I love my editor and he was a great help, but during the process of editing, perhaps in an attempt to be succinct, the phrasing you criticized was born. The initial text I went for, lost to the sands of time: "it is elucidating to pit modern thinkers Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Haidt against one another." I didn't want to claim them as opposites.
So, are there similarities in the two men's beliefs? Sure. They are both atheists, and would agree that dogma running roughshod is a problem. But I've gone to see Dawkins speak, and unless he's changed his tune, he's willing to blame religion for things like war and terrorism. Haidt would probably blame human nature for things like war and terrorism, with religion sometimes used *as an excuse or moral framework* that is overlaid onto human nature.
So there is a difference in their approaches that is worth discussing.
Let me put it this way. Time and time again throughout history, people have thought they could outline a way of thinking that is the one right way. Haidt sees that "the one right way", when taken too far, stifles scrutiny/resilience/openness to outside ideas. Dawkins makes it seem like atheism combats this--but if wokeness or whatever other Godless dogma is just the newest excuse for tribalism and dogmatic thinking, then I don't see this as progress. Dawkins is welcome to tout his atheism, but it's pluralism that saves us from ideological overreach--not Atheism+ or some such as the new "one right way".
The gender cult is most definitely an emergent American faith movement.
Depends on how you DEFINE gender. IF it's defined such that it's synonymous with personalities and personality types -- as even Colin has suggested -- THEN it's a bit of a stretch to argue that "personality is a faith movement":
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
Don't think it helps much -- in fact, it contributes to the problem -- to reject more plausible and useful conceptions and definitions of the term.
Certainly a dearth of reason in much of transgenderism.
Though one might reasonably argue that the same thing might be said of "gender-critical feminism", of those who make incoherent "arguments" against "gender ideology" ...
Whole concept of "gender" is something of a dog's breakfast, a pile of unscientific claptrap. But there's some merit in DEFINING it as more or less synonymous with personalities and personality types. Pigheadedly refusing to address that perspective doesn't seem terribly "reasonable", and just contributes to the whole transgender clusterfuck.
Very well done. The passing of hate crime laws was the Pandora's Box. It was the first massive anti-Americanism mistake, because it opened up the door for the mindset of words being violence, and we keep paying the price.
Defining things as hate crimes encourages this group vs group mindset--if something happens, you can assume that group dynamics played a role. Then, certain groups get special treatment, where crimes committed against them are "known" to be worse/oppression/motivated by hate. We shouldn't embed these distortions/mind-reading/inequality into our laws. It creates special classes of people, and could very well plant seeds for more postmodernism in government.
Excellent article.
"Gender affirming care" is the Piltdown Man of the 21st century.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-eleven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes/
>>Consequently, geographic location became strongly linked to belief systems, with Puritans congregating in New England, Anglicans dominating Virginia, and Pilgrims choosing Plymouth.
The Pilgrims were Puritans, and Plymouth is New England.
The Puritans were a bunch of intolerant, totalitarian, religious killjoys in the 17th century who, after the English Civil War, took control of England and forbade everyone from innocent pleasures such as wearing silk clothes, eating meat, or even celebrating Christmas. They were eventually driven out of England and fled to the New England where they found the "religious freedom" they were seeking.
The planet is so overcrowded, now we have no place to send the crackpots.
The "Pilgrims" were closely aligned to the Puritans but formed a distinct group; at least for a while. Plymouth was it's own place in the beginning.
The Pilgrims were just the first Puritans to reach North America and Plymouth was the first permanent New England colony. The way the author phrased it made it clear that he doesn't understand that.
I agree that Pilgrims (separatists, got to the colonies first, were in Plymouth) are not the same as non-separating Puritans (wanted reform from within, were not separatists, were pushier about their beliefs, were all over New England). But in any case, I've asked for the line about Plymouth to be removed, since I don't think I need to litigate the distinction between Puritans and Pilgrims in order to make my main points.
If people want to read more on the distinctions between separatists and non-separatists, some notes can be found here:
https://www.history.com/news/pilgrims-puritans-differences
A large part of the problem is the enormous bloating of the federal government. The Founding Fathers *never* intended to federal government to grow to anywhere near the size that it has. With its being such an enormous, all-encompassing entity expected to provide for people and manage every little detail of their lives, it is inevitable that people will struggle for control of it and abuse its power to cram down their dogma onto society.
Dawkin's idea of the meme is brilliant, especially considering it was invented decades ago, and he is rightly held in esteem for his science, but I have to agree with Haidt. I tried to read a book on atheism by Dawkins a decade ago expecting to really like it and couldn't make it through the first chapter. Dawkins had turned his belief in atheism into a religion, and an ugly one. Dawkin's disdain for non believers in his doctrine was really off putting. He had taken the worst of organized religion for himself, not the best.
I have deep respect for Dawkins, but his tendency to think of organized religion like a virus makes it sound like religion always hurts people/groups.
But, communities can potentially utilize dogma for their benefit. Or, individuals can utilize dogma for their (selfish) benefit. This opens up a couple more questions. Is it okay to teach something potentially simplistic/overconfident if it helps groups function? Does our need for social rules necessitate some arbitrariness that dogged truth-finders have difficulty accepting? And, if humans have a tendency toward religious maneuvering, is there a risk that atheists will fill the hole where religion might go with other dogmatic manipulation?
I believe "drinking the Kool-Aid" came from Tom Wolfe's book "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test", in which there was an account of a Grateful Dead event in the 60's. Kool-Aid was spiked with LSD in one barrel, and was not in another. The barrels were clearly labeled so people wouldn't drink from the wrong barrel. "Drinking the Kool-Aid" then came to mean you were willing to ingest the drug by drinking the Kool-Aid from the LSD-labeled barrel.
Yes. The book Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test is where the phrase originated in the 1960s. But the phrase became widely known by everyone in the late 1970s when the San Francisco cult leader Jim Jones made almost one thousand of his followers (men, women and children) of his People's Temple cult kill themselves by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid in Guyana.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Peoples-Temple
It was grape Flavor-Aid™ IIRC. [/pedant]
Yummy!
Matt, thank you for a well written article that I hope challenges people from varied backgrounds and ideals to come together. Bickering between individuals/groups over things more trivial than what is truly facing our civilization is nothing more than wasted breath.
Excellent. In-depth analysis. Bravo. Good read. I’m plowing through The War on the West right now and it covers some similar ground.
For an in-depth discussion on Orwell: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/george-orwell-a-life
A fascinating article about a fascinating man, thank you.
I've been meaning to check that out! I love Douglas Murray; his other book "The Madness of Crowds" is already on my shelf and one of my favorites.
I'll be sure to read your piece about Orwell. 1984 is a book I reread every few years.
Me too. Whenever I hear a politician try to justify self ID for trans whilst protecting single sex spaces, I think of Orwell “ doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them.”
I’m in the UK. Hearing your perspective has been really interesting and informative. I do believe these are very dark times. We must do all we can to protect and nurture free speech
Nice. I definitely appreciate the lineage of nominalism from where you entered it at the invention of the 'movable' printing press, and your documentation of selected offshoots. America was founded on nominalism, and the extreme ontological individualism that naturally accompanies it. The original idea of democracy (ancient Athens) was a means to appease those who opposed rule. The use of rhetoric combined with the 'appearance' of ways to bridge the chasm between dualistic stances was the intention of America's founding fathers. Nominalism was prominent at the time of the establishment of our government, but the fragmentation that followed was inevitable. So, here we are. It's not rocket science. It has happened because we have worshipped words and suppressed the teaching of true history. .... Here's a revealing article that just barely touches on what we are going to have to deal with over the next few decades. Logos will 'do Its thing' with analog, and it will be harsh. ..... https://www.wired.com/story/unbelievable-zombie-comeback-analog-computing/?fbclid=IwAR0Gt8BKt8RcOUFJDYeQEMtfMO9oTZ077I-04teN7bfqIQRzt-JVH1HFzZk
I know somebody will roll their eyes at what Im about to say but....
You just completely skipped over the founding fathers need for power and their use of religion to that end. You stated that there were women who became idols but you did not acknowledge that the FF were also idolized. And you completely skipped over slavery which called to question each and every leaders since of moral standing and decency. Was it logical? (Use other humans to do the work you don't want to do even though you understand they just as human as you are because...money) Maybe. Was it right? (Using religion to justify it and teach them that they were born for it and treat them like animals so they believe it) Nope.
"What happens when an idea comes into vogue that isn’t just tinkering with the Great Experiment–but actively dislikes the entire enterprise, including its scientific ideals?"
I think I understand what you've getting at with this question. That activism have become a complete dislike of fundamental principles of America. But think about the fact that slavery was a core foundational enterprise that made America into a powerful nation and the richest nation. There had to be people who not only disliked the enterprise but hated it enough to tear it down! And I'm glad they did.
"Lincoln realized that social enforcement mechanisms can be just as effective at suppressing ideas as laws. He knew that changing laws and hearts was necessary to combat injustice."
Social enforcement mechanisms don't change the desire for power and greed though. Changing hearts? People don't change other people's hearts. Consequences and laws change behaviors.
I agree with much of what you shared about identity and the internet, but you dont seem to recognize the distinction between reasonable and logical activism toward social change and illogical weaponization of activism for individual glorification.
Yvonne,
Thank you for writing out this thoughtful response. I appreciate constructive criticism and I try to be open to hearing different views.
I should mention that my piece is trying to paint a picture of something. It is nowhere close to the whole picture of US History, but rather an attempt to establish a basis of intellectual humility. It’s making the case that stitching together different approaches/places and letting them compete led to scientific progress, civil rights progress, as well as laying out checks and balances.
If you are up for reading the book “Sacred Liberty” by Steven Waldman, it makes some similar arguments to me on the development and importance of the 1st Amendment, but it also has full chapters on the founding fathers, religion among blacks in America (how the courts came to side with them and Native Americans), as well as the circumstances that led to the 14th Amendment/abolition.
In terms of religion and its history with slavery, I see it this way. A dark side of human nature tempts people into greed, excess conflict over resources, and strategic (evil) dehumanization. Then, some people use religion (like Christianity) as an excuse or moral overlay in an attempt to perpetuate those things. But other people can use the same religion to make arguments for abolition, women’s rights, etc. If Christianity is popular in a place, orators work through the lens of that faith to make some arguments you would like and some you would not. The same could be said of any other faith or even Atheism. People will proselytize, but frequently belief systems are squishy enough that they can be turned to good or bad. So by letting people “shop around” for different belief systems, you can weaken the corruption that happens when someone has a monopoly on what people are supposed to think.
I’m not against a form of activism where people make the case for the changes they want, convince enough people, and work it into action. I’m against cancel culture, which I see as an attempt to undermine people’s duty to scrutinize “sacred” ideas—in other words, I’m against forcing people to fear becoming “heretics” of a religion they never agreed on.
Thanks for replying. Based on what you've stated here about how people use/used religion is the reason I was surprised that you didn't include the oppression of the enslaved. I think it would have strengthened your claims. I will look into the book you recommended.
In my opinion, America is in a steep decline. I’d love to be more optimistic, however, until postmodernism runs it’s course (and we’ve somehow survived) and we have one or two generations of studies done on the effects of transgenderism and the narcissistic views of identity politics on our culture and society as a whole, the push to destroy faith and family, and eliminate our illustrious history continues.
“while Republicans endorsed philosophies like “greed is good”, promoting selfishness as a moral obligation.”
What????????
“Greed is good” was a line in the movie Wallstreet not from any Republican belief.
If selfishness is a belief of Republicans, then why do Republicans give more to charities than Democrats?
Republicans belief is that a “hand up is better than a hand out” which originates from the Bible which says something like “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime “.
In terms of charities, I think it's a bit complex. For instance, are we counting it against poor people that they have less to give? It’s also possible for people to be play favorites with charities, donating to their “team”, which has its pros and cons. On the downside, this might be tied to in-group biases and neglect people outside that group. But on the other hand, I think community can be a bit like sports—of course there has to be a bit of rooting for the home team to bind you together.
In terms of Wall Street, I’m glad there are films lampooning their greed. I really like “The Big Short”, which interprets what happened leading to the 2008 crash where a bunch of people were taken advantage of by greedy real-estate scammers. In my view, Republicans often try to deregulate industries like real-estate and Wall Street (Bush was at the helm for much of this, but we still saw it under Trump). In particular, when politicians allow corporations to obscure their inner workings, this creates situations where it is harder to hold people accountable, and harder to encourage a community-mindset.
You are right that family-oriented Republicans are usually willing to push back against organizations like WEF. Not every faction out there is weakening our communities. Corporations and some politicians, including some Republican politicians, do not set up our communities for success when greedy orgs are in their pockets. Certainly Democrats have their own (arguably greater) problem in this regard—with the decline of left-wing churches and community hang-outs, this left an opening. It seems that hole was largely filled with Postmodernism.
I think there is a lack of understanding, in the main, of conservative philosophy around money and the Federal government’s role in charitable programs (among many other things.)
We used to be able to agree about the problems but disagree about the solutions. Now, we can barely agree on the problems.
When I read the statement “republicans think greed is good”, I immediately questioned the validity of the rest of the article (which I agree with a lot of points.) That statement is ridiculous.
Conservatives do not like programs such as charities/welfare managed at the Federal Government level. It doesn’t mean they don’t like charities. And it doesn’t mean they don’t care about people who need help. They believe it should be run at the state or local level.
They also don’t like over regulation at the Federal Government level. But it doesn’t mean they are okay with corporate corruption.
They don’t like Illegal Immigration but it doesn’t mean they are racist. They just want immigration to come here Legally.
They also believe that politicians work FOR the people. They are not rulers. They cannot allow or disallow anything. We get our rights from the constitution not politicians.
The Federal Government employs 9 million people (including contractors) now. It has become way to big and corrupt.
Republican politicians have done many things against conservative values but that doesn’t mean conservatives agree with or condone what they have done.
Questions:
We’re all “greedy” real estate scammers republicans?
We’re all corporations who scammed people owned by republicans?
"The eventual switch to an Anglican Britain came too late for many. Under duress, a hodgepodge of British migrants fled to the American colonies"
Anglicanism was founded in 1534. The pilgrims first came to America in 1620.
What do you mean "The eventual switch to an Anglican Britain came too late for many"? Seems like the pilgrims were fleeing Anglican Britain.
I've had this line fixed.
There is no point on the Haidt side of the first table that Dawkins would not agree with. Saying they have opposing viewpoints is an indefensible invention.
I agree the "opposing viewpoints" phrasing is likely too strong. I love my editor and he was a great help, but during the process of editing, perhaps in an attempt to be succinct, the phrasing you criticized was born. The initial text I went for, lost to the sands of time: "it is elucidating to pit modern thinkers Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Haidt against one another." I didn't want to claim them as opposites.
So, are there similarities in the two men's beliefs? Sure. They are both atheists, and would agree that dogma running roughshod is a problem. But I've gone to see Dawkins speak, and unless he's changed his tune, he's willing to blame religion for things like war and terrorism. Haidt would probably blame human nature for things like war and terrorism, with religion sometimes used *as an excuse or moral framework* that is overlaid onto human nature.
So there is a difference in their approaches that is worth discussing.
Let me put it this way. Time and time again throughout history, people have thought they could outline a way of thinking that is the one right way. Haidt sees that "the one right way", when taken too far, stifles scrutiny/resilience/openness to outside ideas. Dawkins makes it seem like atheism combats this--but if wokeness or whatever other Godless dogma is just the newest excuse for tribalism and dogmatic thinking, then I don't see this as progress. Dawkins is welcome to tout his atheism, but it's pluralism that saves us from ideological overreach--not Atheism+ or some such as the new "one right way".