The Purple Koolaid Playtime Show!

Denialism Knows No Ideology

There used to be a link on my sidebar, that I finally got around to removing (since Typepad doesn’t make it obvious how to edit the sidebar links). Long time ago, there was this outspoken biology professor who wrote a smart and witty blog (at that time) until he apparently fell down a rabbit hole, got caught up in petty partisan politics and now frequently authors defensive, fallacious screeds which demand absolute adherence to the idea that “gender identity” is one and the same with biological sex; while dismissing those who belong more to the substance-over-style camp with childish namecalling. [“TERF” apparently being a “wokist” dismiss-all a la “cuck” and “libtard”]

If this looks like a TLDR, I just want to make my position clear:

1. Yes, there can be biological reasons for individuals who don’t conform to gender stereotypes, behavior-wise - albeit the human mind is complex and can also be influenced by learning/environment.
2. This does not make them the opposite sex. It means that humans are multi-faceted and do not all conform to a stereotype.
3. Gender stereotypes wrt categories like fashion, jobs, roles, etc. are cultural (man-made) constructs, not biology. Physical anatomy, OTOH, is biology.
4. Challenging cultural norms about fashion, jobs and so on is one thing; but claiming you’re something that doesn’t align with your physical, material makeup is denying reality. Expecting others to play along is gaslighting.
5. But then perhaps we shouldn’t be “gendering” certain personality traits. A person’s psychological makeup is the result of complex interactions involving both biology and environment. But since environment and experience are subjective and not universal, then perhaps we need to reconsider and re-evaluate what we can expect from both men and women.

When the winners of the women’s sporting event stand together and one individual has a very marked and obviously taller, more aerodynamic and higher-center-of-gravity masculine physique, the VAST majority of the population (not just “right wingers” and “TERFs”) see this dystopian absurdity for what it is - unfair. A kindergartener could immediately see how absurd it is — even without Big Bird helpfully pointing out that “one of these things is not like the other!”  No one is going to stop to ponder and muse upon the idea that we’re “equating humans to one-celled gametes”. Unfortunately any time one of you tries to explain this farce away with such disingenuously bad logic , the Republicans gets a boost in the polls.

The unfortunate political proponents of this issue rely on conflating and obfuscating the issue du jour by throwing in a bunch of diversionary nothing burgers, “whatabouts” and false equivalencies. If this was meant to throw a Gish-gallop of logical fallacies designed to overwhelm the opponents, then let's trot these arguments out and address them one by one:

“But, but whatabout XY females and intersex people and so on etc.?” Are Lea Thomas, et al. XY females? …No? Then this argument isn’t relevant.

These are all rare anomalies and do not represent the majority of “trans” cases that have caused controversy. FYI XY females typically don’t even know they carry a “Y” chromosome until it’s discovered during a DNA test. …And it’s true that some individuals may possible have conditions that affect cellular receptivity to certain hormones. But how do these pertain to the high-profile cases that involve individuals with more normal and typical genotypes and phenotypes?

“Sex is a spectrum; therefore ‘transgenders’ are the opposite sex.” Does anyone see the inherent contradiction here? TRAs will claim there’s dozens of “sexes” yet cling to the “binary” model at the same time. If “sex” is a “spectrum”, then why not just identify and name all those dozens of different “sexes”? …Or just assign each “sex” a different Pantone number based on colors of the rainbow!

"Certain fish and other animals can change sex" Changing sex actually means that the gametes and physiology change as well.  This is unheard of in mammals.

“Transphobic hateful bigot etc.” These are weaponized words that were originally used by leftists during the Civil Rights movements, now used for anyone who calls their logic into question. Crying "bigot" has had the effect of silencing critics, since liberals/leftists don't want to appear as what they accuse right-wingers of. ...Oh, no.

The kid who points out that the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes wasn’t doing so out of “hate”; it was in the interests of truthfulness . If there’s any “hate” towards anyone (or perhaps “disdain” or “cruel indifference”), it’s apparently towards biological women who were cheated out of opportunities for athletic awards and scholarships, and continue to lose their reproductive rights courtesy Republican politicians who get elected due to their strategically spotlighting this issue as evidence that left-wingers are something parents should fear. It’s also hatred towards men, which these individuals apparently hate so much that they don’t even want to associate themselves with them.

It’s a cringe-embarrassment for anyone on the Left who doesn’t automatically buy into the dogma of the Opposite Day Adventists and their faith-based hope that the rest of the world is going to accept that level of gaslighting. (…That’s right, I’m blaming *you* for the rise of fascist dweebs like Ron DeSantis.)

“They’re reducing us to gender essentialism“ The issue is not about “defining people according to cultural gender stereotypes* The issue is about what the definition of “sex” is, point blank. Both advocates and conservatives tend to conflate “sex” with “cultural notions of gender roles”. How many “trans” people expressed first and foremost the desire to contribute their DNA in a different way? Probably close to zero. “Trans” seems to be more of a rejection of cultural roles - many of which at one time were practiced out of necessity. Our notions of “masculinity” are based on the historical reliance on men’s physical labor and fighting prowess. This in turn stems from the anthropoid-ape model — which happens to be specific to many mammalian species, but not all. (In other species, males also nurture offspring).

Ironically, it's the trans activists who are promoting the idea that personality/behavioral gender stereotypes equate to biological sex.

“They’re reducing us to our reproductive functions!”. CONTEXT, people. Pay attention. The context here isn’t about “personhood” - it’s what distinguishes a “male” from a “female”. …Because there’s this thing within the lexicon of human referred to as “categories”. And there are various categories of systems within an organism’s anatomy. …“Respiratory”; “Digestive”; “Nervous system”. Among those systems is the reproductive system, which is shared by basically everything that reproduces. Within sexually reproducing species, there are two tangible, identifiable entities (gametes) which are the respective substances behind reproduction - systems which are empirically, profoundly and inextricably linked to the perpetuation of living things. This game of survival strategy has resulted in accompanying secondary physical characteristics

The “Reproductive system” is, yes, about reproductive functions. Are we supposed to ignore that very real part of biology? Are there any similar issues with how we define “respiratory” systems, “digestive” systems and so on? Or how we distinguish different species?

“It’s the equivalent of what the early feminists fought for” Feminism was not about claiming to be the opposite sex; it was about rejecting cultural gender roles and stereotypes. “Equality” is about equal rights and opportunities in society — not the idea that everyone is completely equal and interchangeable. Feminism wasn’t about “identity”, it was about the experience of being regarded as a second-class citizen in society.

“Some feminists are aligning with Republicans on this issue. They must be right-wingers”. It’s OK to be a leftist and acknowledge facts - really, it is. Historical inequities in society - which sparked civil rights movements - are largely about granting rights to classes of people who were historically more disadvantaged due to being less powerful. Women are literally less physically powerful than men and are physically more vulnerable. The “trans” movement threatens the societal gains women have made by pretending that a male-bodied person (who is typically bigger and stronger) actually IS a woman, thus negating a class-based protection. If you erase the idea of biological sex then it’s basically making this all about who is physically stronger and louder. It doesn’t “level” the playing field, it’s allowing the playing field to favor the individuals who are inherently bigger, stronger and more aggressive.

“Since gender identity is psychological, that mean that the brain is a sex organ. Which means…”. If we think about eating food, does this mean that the brain is part of the digestive system, too?

“A biologist said that!” Keep in mind that creationists also have their share of “biologists”.

"The science says so!" The idea that personality is what defines biological sex can clearly be falsified. If a woman decides she’s going to “identify” as a man, is that going to give her the physical characteristics of a man? Will she become stronger, more muscular, increase her blood-oxygen intake etc.? Of course the answer will be “no”, which falsifies the idea that sex = personality.

Sports are about physical performance, not “identity”. if “trans women” allude to “being born in the wrong body”, and “there is a mis-match between brain and body”, then it follows that they are bringing “the wrong body” to the competition.

“Transwomen in sports actually benefits women because we don’t want to show that women are weak, right?” This assertion makes no sense, since it's common knowledge that women are physically not as strong as men -- hence women having their own separate category. Presumably the argument is trying to re-interpret the word "woman" to mean "those with feminine behaviors", which is basically promoting the idea that a cultural gender stereotype is what defines sex.

"Opponents are all unattractive, etc." This is an ad hominem fallacy and does nothing to validate your argument.

Most who debate this topic tend to frame this issue incorrectly because the majority of people have not studied this topic in depth, and most seem to only have a layman’s level of understanding on the subject of sex and gender. Many (especially politicians, lawmakers and others who haven’t studied biology or evolution) associate “male” and “female” with cultural stereotypes. My position is that it’s normal and expected that some individuals are not going to conform to a gender stereotype. This is because stereotypes are shaped via natural selection or selective breeding; but the modern human population has largely removed itself from the forces of natural selection and aren't always that picky when it comes to choosing a partner.  Without that strict selective process, we can expect that there will be greater individual variance in the population. Someone who isn’t gender-stereotypical doesn’t mean they’re the opposite sex; it means they’re less dimorphic. This perspective is actually the most humane, accepting and progressive viewpoint, but we may never arrive at that understanding as long as people continue to associate gender with cultural stereotypes that had their roots in pre-modern times.

IMO one of the main problems is that we don’t have good conceptual terms in the English language that are ascribed to subsets of style characteristics that are often associated with “male” and “female” - that are not also attaching a “gender” qualifier to them — and so people are forever confusing laymen’s superficial gender stereotypes and archetypes — specific to Homo sapiens and hominids — with biological sex in general . The closest I can think of is the Far East concept of Yin and Yang. (Note that although they symbolically use a black-and-white symbol, the concept is fluidity.)

[Originally written in May, 2023]

Creative Exercise: Conspiracy Theories!

 

Here's my own little "conspiracy theory" that I've made up just for fun, based on my experiences in the manufacturing sphere. The first part is true. The last few paragraphs are the conspiracy theory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The term "left wing" traditionally meant "in favor of the common man/working class", while the term "right wing" meant "in favor of authority (i.e ruling class/business owners)".

Anyone who cries that the USA is slanted towards "leftism" hasn't looked around them.  America is basically run by Big Business, especially Big Oil. The post-war infrastructure - particularly in the suburbs - is designed to make Americans dependent on cars. This requires higher wages and a higher standard of living for the average American. Suburban lots often aren't big enough for anyone to grow their own food and live a little bit more independently, and you can't just walk down to the corner store as was possible in your grandparents' or great-grandparents' time.

The modern American economy has been built on consumerism. In order to provide affordable goods to the consumer, a manufacturing-based economy requires a source of dirt-cheap labor. In the 19th century that dirt-cheap labor was slavery. In the northern states, it was low wages and poor working conditions. But in the earlier part of the 20th century, Democrats started to enact various worker protection laws, including minimum wage and banning child labor. Such protections meant that American workers would be paid higher wages than their counterparts in less developed countries.

In a more “leftist” society, labor unions would have more power and ensure workers were being paid and treated fairly, and more focus would be placed on making sure average citizens had their needs met.

Americans also associate “right” and “left” with presidential figureheads, although that’s largely been an illusion in more recent years. Both Republican and Democratic candidates are funded by - and work for - corporate interests. The lip service Democrats pay to various civil rights issues are more than likely crumbs tossed to get votes. Jimmy Carter might have been the last president who was even remotely considered more left-of-center.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There's been a lot of talk recently about various entities having "ties with China". Those who see this as a secret conspiracy might want to check to see where a lot of their consumer goods came from...

Source: Panjiva

 

Despite China calling itself a "Communist" country, a more accurate term might be "single-party capitalism", as there does happen to be a strong private sector while business and manufacturing seems to take precedence over peoples' rights. Many factories still pay workers the equivalent of a few hundred dollars a month while the factory owners live in luxury.

China actually presents a lot of opportunities for the enterprising business person/capitalist, and so has been a mecca for corporations ever since Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and George W. Bush normalized trade relations with that country back in 2001. (Yes, you read that correctly. It was actually a bipartisan effort that enabled China's rise). China’s stellar economic success in the global arena no doubt has been the envy of many corporate CEOs.

The manufacturing exodus began in earnest in the 1990s when the Feds strengthened the U.S. dollar while the value of the Chinese Yuan was lowered. In order to maximize profits while minimizing margins, corporations will seek out the lowest bidders; and as long as the dollar remains strong against other currencies, those bidders might be found overseas. This made China a very attractive option for manufacturing and production.

During the Bush era, placing restrictions on corporate business practices was seen as "liberal/leftism" because it interfered with free trade. True "leftists" such as Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore opposed exporting jobs out of the country. While America's jobs were leaving out the door, the GOP instead focused America's "winning" on bombing Iraq, while our economy tanked.

Meanwhile, big-box retail such as Walmart, Home Depot and Target were transforming the American landscape with more cheaply made products, which American consumers readily flocked to buy. They put many smaller competitors out of business, and continue to dominate the American landscape. America’s economy began evolving from a manufacturing center to a corporate/retail/service/warehouse/transportation hub.

Meanwhile, Chinese nationals -- also playing the game of free market capitalism -- found themselves wealthy enough to buy up real estate and businesses in the USA, and opportunistically steal U.S. intellectual property. I've been seeing a kind of osmosis thing playing out in which there is greater disparity between rich and poor in both countries, while China is growing a middle class and may soon become an economic competitor to the USA.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now Here Comes the Conspiracy Part:

It's not that corporations WANT to send jobs overseas, mind you. In fact, it's kind of a hassle, because it involves extra time, shipping and transportation fees. The better situation would obviously be to bring manufacturing back to the United States.

But in order to bring all those manufacturing jobs back to America, the Fed would have to weaken the dollar. …I mean, really weaken the dollar so it would once again be cost-effective to produce lower-cost goods. …Plus, perhaps, remove certain regulations and protections that made American labor more expensive than foreign labor. …Basically turning back the clock to the late 19th century.

 

source: Wikipedia

The official platform of some state Republican parties (such as Texas) is to eliminate minimum wage and many worker protections, which were authored by Democrats in the earlier part of the 20th century.  Without minimum wage and worker protections, corporate manufacturers would be able to bring low-wage manufacturing back to the USA. Further measures such as banning abortion may result in population increases which would help fill the need for cheap labor and make us more competitive with nations that have greater numbers in the work force.

Subsequently, the USA could once again host sweat shops as it did in the 1800's, and not have to rely on overseas countries to provide goods that are currently not cost-effective to produce in the USA. We would also be an exporter of goods to other countries instead of the other way around, which would eliminate the trade deficit. In the future, American sweatshop workers might be producing goods to be purchased by Chinese consumers.

So corporate-backed pro-business mouthpieces like FOX News continue to demonize "leftists" and "liberals" (even though there are very few real leftists and liberals left in Congress, thanks to right-wing propaganda). …Because leftists tend to point out class disparities, and the wealthy oligarchs don’t want a French Revolution-like mistake to happen again.

Their incessant propaganda continues to get pro-business Republicans elected, who pay lip service to "freedoms" -- when in fact such "freedoms" mainly extend to Big Business while not benefiting the average American worker. Eventually, voters may be so deceived by this ruse that they end up voting against their own interests (such as repealing minimum wage and worker protections). When those protections are repealed, cheap manufacturing will be returning to the USA - but most will be very low-paying jobs -- if those jobs haven't been replaced by automation yet.

The Trusty Go-To Tactics of Political Darwinism

This post is for my Democratic/left-leaning friends.

I wrote the below essay back in 2006 and this observation has proven to be a formula that you can almost always count on when it comes to political candidates and trends.

Today's Democrats seem to be kind of clueless about appealing to Joe and Jane Average, while Republicans have taken a very calculated Darwinian approach ("Darwinian" referring to the underlying subtext of survival and perpetuation of one's "tribe"). Darwinian tactics include focusing on children, safety, family, "pro-life"; alpha male archetypes, "We're #1", etc . Republicans used to be a party associated with stodgy old men, but gave themselves a makeover in the 1990s by incorporating attractive women as their “spokespeople” in addition to a more cocky and rebellious attitude. The winning formula seems to be "Survival of the Most Potent" with a message delivered via a path-of-least-resistance (which very often comes down to a playground-style mentality). In fact, in more recent months they've almost been blatantly trumpeting themselves as the "party of fertility".

…Unfortunately there are certain political issues that fly in the face of all of the above, and that's why being positively associated with them tends to be political suicide.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Survival of the Sexiest: Another Reason Why the Right Succeeded...

...and Why the Left Can't Return to Old Tactics

Generally speaking, cultural and political movements succeed one another based on which has the more potent form of symbolic sexual power. "Symbolic sexual power" is any kind of vital force or energy that might improve or advance one's population. It need not imply sex per se; promiscuity, etc. -- even conservative religious movements are a kind of sexual power, because they can represent order, solidarity, strength in numbers -- all ways to advance one's population. To summarize:

- Id represents our unconscious drives; our irrational "gut feelings" rooted in ancient primal instincts. We often tend to be directed or motivated by what our gut feelings tell us.
- Remove the Id force, and your side will fall out of favor.
- Rebellion against a repressive power is sexy.
- Whatever reminds you of your parent's generation isn't as sexy as the newer generation.

The success of the Left in the 60's, as a cultural force, succeeded in its day because of the climate that preceded it.

The cultural zeitgeist of the prior era was to repress the sexuality of both men and women -- but especially women. The "American Dream" of moving into a box-like house in a bland suburb created a homogenous, overly-domesticated atmosphere devoid of sensuality or individual expression. The "ideal role" promoted for women at the time was to be a wife and mother, and media imagery everywhere portraying women as little more than cheerful, brainless housemaids.

At the time, the Republican Party was represented by fogeys and neurotics, whereas JFK represented a fresh, youthful direction for the Democrats and the country.

Baby Boomers rebelled against what they perceived as a stultifying conformity and embraced a culture that celebrated sexuality and rebellion. Feminism became a political force to be reckoned with after books such as Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" and Germaine Greer's "The Female Eunuch" -- which described women's frustration with being confined to narrow social roles -- became best-sellers. The Left became the dominant political force from the late 60's onward.

However, one of the many mistakes the Left made in the 1970s was to embrace the philosophy of certain feminists that there were no differences between men and women; that traditional roles should be downplayed. The effect of trying to make everything more "equal" resulted in a desexualization of both men and women. This time around, it was the feminists who tried to repress men's sexuality, and so men predictably ended up rebelling.

After the failure of the Carter Administration to secure the hostages in Iran, the right wing shifted back into power by identifying with the masculine Id. The United States, as represented by the Democratic Party, as represented by Carter this time was seen as ineffectual and impotent, unable to stand up against a much smaller country. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was suggestive of the "cowboy" archetype -- in American mythos, an image symbolizing a rugged, potent masculinity.

Because the Democrats/left wing have been more concerned with "civil rights" and other protectionist policies, the Democrats have been defined as the "Mommy Party" while the Republicans are the "Daddy Party". Metaphorically speaking, a "Daddy" is always going to be viewed as more potent than a "Mommy", and a masculine Id is always going to be viewed as a more potent force than a feminine Id. Because of this, the Left cannot return to old slogans and strategies that might have worked in a previous era. The right-wingers have even tried to caricature left-wingers as little more than children, further symbolically emasculating them.

The cultural climate of the GWB era identifies with a very primitive, alpha-male type Id: "Might makes right, and we will stomp on you in order to secure resources and be King of the Hill." Not surprisingly, this is also the reason the ultra right's favorite targets are those which symbolically undermine the country's metaphorical virility (e.g. gays and abortion). The female cheerleaders of the Ultra Right have tapped into a similarly primitive female Id. These "new" right-wing women aren't passive June Cleaver-like housemaids happily pushing the vacuum around. These women have embraced their inner She-Wolf: "we will attack and kill anything that dares trespass onto our territories, threatens our security or attempts to harm our children." It's a primitive Truth that strikes a primal cord in many.

A tribe at war will return to its more primal behaviors because it can't afford not to. When an enemy doesn't want to follow more civilized rules, then there is often no other recourse but to fall back on the "Might is Right" principle. The New Right almost gets the formula right, were it not for their often transparent and ham-handed approach (see: Bill O'Reilly, etc.)

I digress on the idea that the current crop of right-wingers have been the "Daddy Party" -- more like the "school bully party" with their dishonest tactics, bullying, blame-shifting and inability to owe up to accountability. A man of real maturity and character would be more concerned with solving problems along a far more rational and objective course.

...and Why the Left Can't Return to Old Tactics

Generally speaking, cultural and political movements succeed one another based on which has the more potent form of symbolic sexual power. "Symbolic sexual power" is any kind of vital force or energy that might improve or advance one's population. It need not imply sex per se; promiscuity, etc. -- even conservative religious movements are a kind of sexual power, because they can represent order, solidarity, strength in numbers -- all ways to advance one's population. To summarize:

- Id represents our unconscious drives; our irrational "gut feelings" rooted in ancient primal instincts. We often tend to be directed or motivated by what our gut feelings tell us.
- Remove the Id force, and your side will fall out of favor.
- Rebellion against a repressive power is sexy.
- Whatever reminds you of your parent's generation isn't as sexy as the newer generation.

The success of the Left in the 60's, as a cultural force, succeeded in its day because of the climate that preceded it.

The cultural zeitgeist of the prior era was to repress the sexuality of both men and women -- but especially women. The "American Dream" of moving into a box-like house in a bland suburb created a homogenous, overly-domesticated atmosphere devoid of sensuality or individual expression. The "ideal role" promoted for women at the time was to be a wife and mother, and media imagery everywhere portraying women as little more than cheerful, brainless housemaids.

At the time, the Republican Party was represented by fogeys and neurotics, whereas JFK represented a fresh, youthful direction for the Democrats and the country.

Baby Boomers rebelled against what they perceived as a stultifying conformity and embraced a culture that celebrated sexuality and rebellion. Feminism became a political force to be reckoned with after books such as Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" and Germaine Greer's "The Female Eunuch" -- which described women's frustration with being confined to narrow social roles -- became best-sellers. The Left became the dominant political force from the late 60's onward.

However, one of the many mistakes the Left made in the 1970s was to embrace the philosophy of certain feminists that there were no differences between men and women; that traditional roles should be downplayed. The effect of trying to make everything more "equal" resulted in a desexualization of both men and women. This time around, it was the feminists who tried to repress men's sexuality, and so men predictably ended up rebelling.

After the failure of the Carter Administration to secure the hostages in Iran, the right wing shifted back into power by identifying with the masculine Id. The United States, as represented by the Democratic Party, as represented by Carter this time was seen as ineffectual and impotent, unable to stand up against a much smaller country. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was suggestive of the "cowboy" archetype -- in American mythos, an image symbolizing a rugged, potent masculinity.

Because the Democrats/left wing have been more concerned with "civil rights" and other protectionist policies, the Democrats have been defined as the "Mommy Party" while the Republicans are the "Daddy Party". Metaphorically speaking, a "Daddy" is always going to be viewed as more potent than a "Mommy", and a masculine Id is always going to be viewed as a more potent force than a feminine Id. Because of this, the Left cannot return to old slogans and strategies that might have worked in a previous era. The right-wingers have even tried to caricature left-wingers as little more than children, further symbolically emasculating them.

The cultural climate of the GWB era identifies with a very primitive, alpha-male type Id: "Might makes right, and we will stomp on you in order to secure resources and be King of the Hill." Not surprisingly, this is also the reason the ultra right's favorite targets are those which symbolically undermine the country's metaphorical virility (e.g. gays and abortion). The female cheerleaders of the Ultra Right have tapped into a similarly primitive female Id. These "new" right-wing women aren't passive June Cleaver-like housemaids happily pushing the vacuum around. These women have embraced their inner She-Wolf: "we will attack and kill anything that dares trespass onto our territories, threatens our security or attempts to harm our children." It's a primitive Truth that strikes a primal cord in many.

A tribe at war will return to its more primal behaviors because it can't afford not to. When an enemy doesn't want to follow more civilized rules, then there is often no other recourse but to fall back on the "Might is Right" principle. The New Right almost gets the formula right, were it not for their often transparent and ham-handed approach (see: Bill O'Reilly, etc.)

I digress on the idea that the current crop of right-wingers have been the "Daddy Party" -- more like the "school bully party" with their dishonest tactics, bullying, blame-shifting and inability to owe up to accountability. A man of real maturity and character would be more concerned with solving problems along a far more rational and objective course.

Lumpy Thinking, Confuscation and False Dichotomies

As discussed elsewhere in this blog, it's only human nature to harbor personal cognitive biases; and thinking in term of an overly simplistic "us vs. them" dichotomy where one side is favored over the other.

One recent very notable example was liberals' kind of blase attitude towards President Obama, who continued George W. Bush's military policies, torture and privacy issues despite the initial hope that he would put an end to those and focus on economic recovery. This example loudly and clearly demonstrates just how powerful cognitive bias can be.

Also discussed elsewhere in this blog: the brain has a tendency to condense information (like a jpeg) in order to process it quickly and economically. Mental jpegs are roughly defined as a subset of ideas, assumptions, traits or characteristics. Conversely, a partial or incomplete set of ideas or characteristics can elicit a mental jpeg label with the assumption that all other ideas, characteristics, etc. are associated with them.

Advertisers routinely utilize this power of association through branding. For example, Nike engineered its reputation to be associated with professional sports.  Now, Nike can simply drop its logo onto a variety of products to make the consumer feel as if they're associated with celebrity athletes. Notice that some of the most famous brands utilize a simple logo to invoke a particular identity or emotion.  The brand logos are a form of mental jpeg.

Politicians and pundits have similarly followed these marketing strategies.  Basically, they take advantage of the falsely dichotomous, "us vs. them" kind of thinking by first establishing a divisive narrative based on a tribe or "team" analogy. For example, one is EITHER "conservative" OR "liberal"; the narrator  "branding" themselves as being associated with certain virtues, while demonizing their opponents.

Issues that may be associated with one faction of these "teams" may end up being associated with the entire "brand" in either a positive or negative way. This is why Republicans like wrapping the flag around themselves and loudly associate themselves with Christianity. They're basically "branding" themselves with symbols and imagery.

A representation of this oversimplified "liberal vs. conservative" false dichotomy might look something like this:

I call this "lumpy thinking".  Not only does it imply "lumping" ideas and notions together, but it evokes the sort of intellectual laziness associated with making these kinds of broad assumptions. And the lazier the thinking, the more rudimentary and more caricatured their notions become.

But the fact is, each of the above topics are not necessarily mutually inclusive.  As we can see, all of these concepts can and should be addressed independently of the other, as ideas or issues.

Lumpy thinking by association can also involve a muddling or confuscation of facts. Among countless examples: associating the Iraq War as having something to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 is one famous example. ...Or assuming a statement such as "open our borders to information on sustainable technologies" had anything to do with literal geographic borders or immigration. ...Or racist attacks on Asians because the coronavirus initially became a pandemic in Wuhan, China.

Before the expiration of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, it was required on news and radio programs to present both sides of an issue.  The pros and cons of each issue were discussed in detail. The dividing of American political factions and presenting them like a sporting match arose in the subsequent years.

Now, instead of focusing on the various issues and exploring the "pros" and "cons" in a problem-solving manner, you have media outlets focusing on who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are in the political arena.

To be certain, there are going to be conflicts in a big country with such a diverse population. But problems will never be solved if its leaders insist on dividing its people instead of focusing on trying to approach issues in a more analytical and constructive manner.

So if your thinking is currently dominated by who is a "liberal" or "conservative", and you tend to react a certain way to those individuals (or certain issues) then congratulations -- you’ve just fallen for one of the oldest, most rudimentary ploys in the book: “us vs. them”. As soon as you start viewing your fellow Americans in terms of one group against another, you’ve lost. WE’VE lost. You're playing along with a with a narrative concocted by the pundits you watch or listen to.

And that might make for good ratings points for them -- especially during a time when there aren't any real wars or foreign "bad guys" making headlines right now.  So the collective American conscious - primed by years of hawkish narratives - is now in the throes of a cultural auto-immune disorder.  When we have nothing else to attack, we turn on ourselves.

https://govtrackinsider.com/restore-the-fairness-doctrine-act-would-require-broadcasters-give-airtime-to-all-sides-of-an-issue-1f3117e20d03

[This essay was originally posted to the "Evolution Debate" section and modified in order to encompass a more general scope].

Elia Kazan Called It

This prescient scene from the classic 1957 film, "A Face In The Crowd", foretold of the rise of advertising and marketing tactics in the broadcast era; how that would influence American politics... and how it was savvy to appeal the lowest common voting denominator.  (This entry would have been more towards the beginning of the blog if this particular clip had been on YouTube back then).

 

 

 

Koolaid: Have It Your Way!

I’m back.

Hard to believe that 15 years have passed since I started this blog, during the height of the Bush era. 2005 was also the year YouTube and Reddit launched. Twitter didn’t launch until the following year; as did the public debut of Facebook (which eventually edged out earlier platforms such as MySpace and LiveJournal).

The iPhone had yet to be introduced; making its consumer market debut in 2007.

In late 2008 I landed a job which occupied most of my waking hours and involved international travel. So the blog pretty much went dormant. During this time, I was privileged to experience — and gain some timely insights into — overseas manufacturing, global trade and market competition.

Approaching Narita Airport

Then the current Covid-19 situation upended that schedule, and here we are again, at this, Post #100.

Surprisingly - no, actually unsurprisingly - many of the entries written in the previous 12-15 years have aged well. The events of the past several years (especially the rise of social media platforms) have made it all quite relevant. …Very, very relevant, in fact.

But while I spent the last decade occupying most of my time with work matters and the world-at-large, it seems like a significant portion of the American public has retreated into various insular virtual worlds enabled by social media platforms.

The effect is not unlike leaving an experiment 10 years ago and then returning to see the results. Or maybe like that Mike Judge movie, although not quite as dramatic.

One thing I was wrong about was the prediction that our country would be able to “inoculate”ourselves against mind-viruses through education. The keyword here is “education”, and that takes time. It also requires a more dispassionate mindset, when emotion is often the easiest way to influence people.

What’s rather disconcerting is the fact that the American psyche seems to have been hacked very easily by the most rudimentary of tactics. “Us vs. them” is one of the oldest narratives in the political playbook, but even more than that, it’s a “dumbed down” version that seems to channel people's inner 8-year olds.  In just a few short years, it’s become the norm for politicians and grown adults on major media networks to fling grade school insults at each other. It’s like a Twighlight Zone episode in which a satirical writer for “The Simpsons” or “South Park” wakes up and finds real life imitating their scripts.

I blame certain media empires which have decide to turn politics into a sporting match where one cares more about their “side” winning over all else. (Also the impulsive and graffiti-like Twitter). Everyone and their grandma now thinks they’re being edgy and relevant by name-dropping various political references even though they probably couldn’t pass a pop quiz on the Constitution if their life depended on it.

Anyhow, enough rambling. Here we go…

 

 

New Definitions

Lumpy Thinking:

Another term for the Fallacy of Composition.  It's famously employed by politicians, pundits, and anyone who wants to paint an overly simplistic "us vs. them" scenario.

It's closely associated with bait-and-switch tactics that attempt to associate one idea with another. Such as:

Godbranding:

A bait-and-switch tactic in which the presenter uses God and the Bible in association with their personal opinions and ideas -- which leads to followers assuming that if someone criticizes the presenter's ideas, they are also criticizing the idea of God.  (E.g.:  "You're trying to disprove God by criticizing Harun Yahya's skull identifications" Reply: "You're Godbranding your ignorance".)

Pee-Wee Herman Creationist

A creationist who believes that by utilizing the playground tactic of hijacking the opponent's accusations and turning it back on them  ("I know you are, but what am I?") it will make them even with their opponent.  For example, creationists accusing scientists of not doing "real science". (This tactic has also become a favorite of right wing pundits).

Ouroborass

Similar to the concept of a snake eating its tail, except the ends are switched. Kind of like this famous picture:

This is in regards to the phenomenom of writers, philosophers, political pundits, etc. who have taken an insightful idea off onto a tangent and beyond the realm of batfoolery:

I'm reminded of reading a lengthy essay by Dave Sim, the creator of a once-celebrated independent graphic novel (Cerebus the Aardvark). Entitled "Tangents", Sim goes off on an elaborate, misogynistic diatribe where he describes -- in laborious and excruciating detail- -- topics like spanking, buttocks and women oogling over pet poodles... eventually wrapping it all up to the earth-shattering "conclusion" that all white women consider black men to be the equals of cats and dogs.  O_o

This practice can be found across all political persuasions, when the pursuit of an idea eventually becomes an exaggerated and corrupted caricature of said idea.

Fundies are famous for plumbing its deepest depths, but unfortunately, I've even seen Richard Dawkins descend into Ouroborassness. Perhaps no one is immune to this... I think it demonstrates the limits of human comprehension and the mind's tendency to want to organize and simplify information vs. the messiness and vastness of reality (although it might make for amusing premises and plot devices in cartoons and science fiction). 

When in doubt, simply consider that there might be exceptions to the rule!