Motivational Sayings; Partial Truths Sleeping with Partial Lies

Due to the many ongoing challenges that living even the most routine of lives routinely presents, there are many times when we need to hear something positive, something to help us focus on things that are good and true.  Things that can help convince us to continue to carry on. 

From this was born the motivational saying. Such sayings which were then quickly joined to sunny, positive memes.  For many they do help and do good.  However, for myself, while they can help at times, most often I think of how while emphasizing a partial truth they also tell a partial lie.  And I can’t help but wonder if sometimes that embedded partial lie does more harm than the good done by the partial truth. 

To show what I mean, here are three motivational sayings with a short discussion of each. 

Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. 

This is one that I do “oh hell no” on. 

Often, frequently, and even possibly mostly, events that come close to killing you – physically, emotionally, intellectually, morally – leave behind harm, often making you weaker in some way without the solace of making you stronger or better in any way.  That’s not even considering the fact that they can, and have, broken people while still leaving them alive. 

For example, years ago I once played chess with a man who, due to a serious workplace accident, was a quadriplegic.  He could not move his arms or legs. He also could not talk.  He had learned to point with his eyes at different boards to communicate though.  When I played chess his wife, of necessity, was there to translate. 

He would communicate to her what his next move was to be and she told me.  Before the accident he had been a healthy middle aged man.  Now he was nearly helpless.  It was common for him to break down several times during our play, especially when I tried to engage in conversation – short, simple and to the point with easily signaled answers.  He was not made stronger by his accident. 

His experience is not uncommon.  Further, disease and accidents are not the only parts of life that can still make you weaker and not stronger.  Consider spousal abuse and child abuse.  Some manage to overcome.  Others do not and, instead, become less than they could have been.  Dysfunctional to a greater or lesser extent.  Or consider the number of suicides that occur every year.  People who were not able to deal with what life has tossed them even though it did not kill them.   

Sometimes this saying is true.  Often it is not. 

If you do  work that you love then you will never work a day in your life. 

Now this one, as well as its many variants, is a fail for me for two reasons. 

First, often what you love to do isn’t something that brings in enough money to survive on, especially with a family.  Further, even if it is possible there often is not enough demand to support all who love it and try to make a living at it. 

Second, even the most loved thing can, at times, become drudgery and work.   For example, many parents passionately love being parents.  But there are times when they are frustrated by the work of caring for their children and want a day or week off. 

When one door closes another one opens. 

No.  Just no.  The universe does not work like that.  There is no tally keeper saying that Joe here had this door closed so lets open up this door for him.  Further, is the door opening into something as good as the one that closed?  Will it open to something they love doing so that it won’t be work?  Can a door closing on better pay, better opportunities, and better working environment be considered the equal of a door opening on to a job with less money, boring work, and poor working environment?    

I think these three illustrate my point, one that holds for all motivational sayings.  Namely that they do not express reality.  Not fully, and often not even mainly. Which then brings up the question of why they are then so popular and ubiquitous?  The reason they are is that they provide something more important than reality. Hope. 

Humans are primarily emotional creatures.  And one of our most powerful emotions, a need even, is for hope.  Without hope nothing is possible.  Motivational sayings fill that need.  A quick note – saying that without hope nothing is possible is NOT the same as saying that with hope all things are possible.  The latter is another unrealistic motivational saying.  But one that highlights an important aspect of most, if not all, motivational sayings. 

As I wrote earlier, there is usually some truth in motivational sayings.  Some doors closing mean that a person has the time and need to explore other options that they may not have otherwise done.  And in so doing find something better. 

Something that doesn’t kill you can, at times, make you stronger.  Make you find new ways to cope and grow. 

And if you can find work that you love, then you are indeed in a much happier place going to work than those who do not love their work.  Because of that it might be a good idea to look a bit more and a bit more deeply at what you are doing, what you love to do, and what possible opportunities there are.  When times are rough we can all use words that help in moving through those times. 

Motivational sayings point to a possible aspect of reality.  They highlight that things could get better and provide a reason to continue on.  Where the problem comes in is when people take these sayings as reflecting more of reality then they actually do, and so wind up blaming themselves when times are hard and do not go their way no matter their trying. 

A popular saying is that the universe does not care about you.  That saying is true, the universe does not.  However, that lack of care cuts both ways.  It is not acting for you, but neither is it acting actively against you.  It is an equal opportunity non-carer.

This means that with a modicum of luck, effort, and hope you have a chance to have a good life.  In fact, for most people this is possible.  Motivational sayings, for all their lack of reality and problematic nature, help.  Especially when the uncaring universe displays its lack of caring in truly terrible ways. 

Read Full Post »

The Right to Speak Out

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.“

Jesus

This is wrong.  America, and all other countries, have a moral right to criticize and condemn no matter their past or present. 

Before explaining why let me enumerate some of the many moral failures of the United States before someone starts writing “were you aware of this” or “were you aware of that”.  In addition to those wrongs done against Native Americans outlined in the article there are these: 

Slavery.  Followed by Jim Crow, segregation and a long, long still on -going fight to correct the economic, educational, and legal injustices suffered by minorities today.

The internment of the Japanese during World War 2. 

The treatment, abuse, bullying, and deaths of LGBTQ. 

The second class status of women throughout most of our history, and the fact that this has not been fully corrected even yet. 

The toppling of governments we don’t like – such as in Iran in 1953 when we toppled its democratically elected government to protect our oil interests.  And as we have done numerous times in South and Central America.  

Our support of many brutal despotic governments. 

And since I want to focus on why I do not think these acts or the US disqualifies the US from making moral judgements and criticisms of other countries, let me just say these are only a few of the immoral actions of the United States. 

Let me also say that nothing I say here justifies these actions of the United States. That is not my intent, nor will ever be my intent.  These actions were wrong and immoral. 

But, they do not disqualify.  They do not disqualify for several reasons. 

First, I do not believe that there is a country in the world whose past actions and many of their present actions would be “without sin”.  Especially those who were powerful enough to influence the world.  Look into the history and actions of any country and you will find similar immoral actions, some more and more horrific, some less and less horrific.  But all still morally wrong. 

Second, norms are not static.  They become better morally.  They can and have also gotten worse.  Over the long arc of time they have changed for the better, become more just and moral and inclusive.  Disqualifying a nation today from being able to morally criticize another nation based upon actions and words from their past that were considered the norm at that time is irrational. 

Rather like denying all of what Lincoln said and did,  ignoring his words critical of slavery, due to the fact that he was racist, thought blacks inferior and did not believe whites and blacks could live together and that they should be sent back to Africa.  Or to ignore Darwin’s words about racist beliefs (he was much more enlightened than Lincoln on this) due to his misogynist views of women.  Both of these views were the norms for their time.  But that does not make their other words and writings and actions invalid and worthy of being ignored, much less condemning them for making such criticisms. 

So too with nations. 

Third, this disallowing of nations speaking out on moral issues due to their current or past actions is conflating two issues.  That of hypocrisy, and that of truth.  Just because a nation might be a hypocrite for daring to criticize another nation for actions it still does does not mean that its criticism is not valid and right.  To conflate the two and dismiss the claim is itself a moral injustice, one that often allows wrongs to continue by being ignored. I often see this happening with those denying the reality of climate change.

Deal with each separately.  State that the criticism is justified, but the person or nation making it is hypocritical.  And then deal with the more important of these two – which, to my mind, is going to be the criticism.  Is the US criticizing Hamas’s terrorist actions hypocritical considering the number of right wing terrorist groups they have funded through our history?  Possibly so.  Does that make their criticism of Hamas, that Hamas attack was evil, wrong?  Definitely not. Don’t use the one to dismiss and ignore the other. 

Finally, I would like to rephrase Jesus’s words some.  As true as the message it conveys is, it does not apply to all situations.  Short statements rarely do. 

Let they who are with sin cast the first stone.  And have them cast at them too by others with sin.

I mentioned earlier that I think the moral arc of time is generally positive and progressive.  However, it is so because of the sting of accurately cast stones cast by imperfect people and imperfect nations (there are no other sorts). 

Without the sting of those stones, no matter who cast them, no matter whether worthy or unworthy, we would still be killing all those who are other and thinking calling it good, would still be enslaving others and saying it is just and right, would still be torturing and burning, and oppressing and calling it good.  Although many of those things are still on -going, it is not nearly as widespread as they once were.  And it is not called good. 

If only those without sin were allowed to cast stones, the resulting silence about moral wrongs and injustices, about atrocities, would be deafening,  And the world would be the worse for such silence. 

Read Full Post »

Good Men Do Evil Too

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing.”

Edmund Burke

Edmund Burke’s words have a lot of truth to them.  They serve as a warning against apathy and complacency.  However, while displaying a truth his words also hide an equally, and possibly even more important, truth – that good men and women can support and even engage in evil actions.

This happens through two ways.  First, through ignorance and lack of information.  Second, through fear.  And by fear I do not mean fear of what is going to happen to oneself.  It can also be, and often is, an unselfish fear of what will happen to family, to friends, to their country, to humanity. 

Let me add one other way for good people to wind up doing evil.  Through the unquestioning use of one or two beliefs that all other ideas, beliefs, and information must be fitted around. 

Let me sketch an example of this.  While this good person is a hypothetical one it is one based on many of the people I have interacted with over the years.  And let’s use climate change as the evil. 

I think that most people, regardless of whether they think climate change is real or a real problem, would agree that the results predicted by science are evil.  Increased temperatures, in places so high they are an active risk to life and health.  Changing rainfall patterns – drought and floods.  Flooding coastlines and islands as sea level rises.  Food no longer being able to be grown where it once was.  Increased hurricanes and tornadoes. People forced to migrate elsewhere due to their home area no longer able to support them, and by doing so creating international incidents and pressures.  And on and on and on.  The result being hundreds of thousands of people dying who did not need to, and many more whose health is harmed.  Billions and probably trillions of dollars lost dealing with the effects – not only in regards to people but also infrastructure. 

I think everyone would agree that were all this to happen it would be evil. 

So, given this, then why would someone not support taking decisive and immediate action on dealing with climate change, to prevent it from happening or to at least reduce its coming effects? 

Often such reluctance begins with a strong and unquestioning belief in a certain truth about the world.  In this case it is often a distrust of the government.  Something that is very reasonable in most cases.  However, in this person it is so strong that this person – lets call him Fred – is automatically against anything that gives the government more power.  Fred sees a powerful government as one that is a threat to not only his rights and life, but that of his family, his friends, and his country.  He believes that any gain of power by the government will only cause it to continue to increase its power and take away the rights and freedoms of its citizens. And he views every issue through the lens of this belief. 

To be able to deal with the evil results of climate change increased government action is needed.  Which means that Fred is going to fight it.  He will do so in several ways.  Deny the evidence of its existence, or if that is not possible, deny that it is really going to be that bad.  Then Fred must come up with a story explaining the motives of all of the scientists who say otherwise.  As well Fred must come up with a story to explain what he is seeing not only in the news around the world but also what he is seeing around him. 

And Fred will do exactly that. Not only do that but sincerely and truthfully believe that story. Because of his unquestioning belief that government is the greatest threat to humanity.  So Fred then becomes an active supporter of actions leading to evil.  This despite him being a loving husband and father, giving to private charities and giving of his time to help others, even strangers as when he sees a car broken by the side of the road.  In other words, by the standards most use to judge people, most people would judge Fred a good man. 

As I said, this is a hypothetical based upon my interactions with several people, not only in regards to climate change but also things such as believing the 2020 election was stolen from trump, or that vaccines are dangerous.  Good people whose actions support evil outcomes. 

The details will vary between person to person on this hypothetical, but they are almost all based on the same combination of unquestioning belief in something, fear, and ignorance.  There are also often secondary motivations too – greed, being personally affected negatively, and so forth.  But the bottom line is that a person most would consider to be a good person supporting evil causes. 

Now, there are some questions I am not going to go into here because it would take too long, and also because I do not have a good clear answer.  For example, can a person be considered good if they supported the Nazi’s and their program?  If they were good to everyone else but that one group, would they be still be considered a good person?  My own quick take, no.  Some actions are so wrong that it doesn’t matter how good they live their life, it cannot make up for that one evil.  However, many Germans, most I think, tried to ignore and minimize and justify.   Those are a more open question.

However, one important point here is that just because good people support an evil cause does not mean their actions should not be opposed.  They should be, and strongly too.  But I do think we need to avoid caricatures and such. Calling good people evil shuts down thinking on the part of those called evil. They make the dialogue and work more difficult, as everything is when operating from incorrect beliefs. 

And here’s one other consideration, there are gradations. Some strongly hold these beliefs and are not going to be budged. Others, though holding on more strongly than they should, can be reached.  It is worth keeping in mind that all, or even most of those on the other side are not evil people, but good people supporting evil.  Calling good people evil loses those who might otherwise listen and change and then contribute towards working to a solution. 

Another certainty related to this is that all of us are holding views and ideas which are wrong.  Often these views might be very important to us, ones that we are emotionally invested in.  Views through which we interpret the world and events. The world is not a simplistic one where good people always only support good causes, and the only supporters of bad causes or bad people.  Where we are always right and others are always wrong.

Something important to keep in mind as we try to move forward in our polarized politics.

Burke’s words justly warn us of the dangers of apathy and complacency.  However, to prevent evil from triumphing vigilance alone is not nearly enough. Good people can do evil things. Which means that when good men and women are ignorant and closed off to other ideas, then it would be better for them to do nothing, for these good people’s actions can allow evil to triumph.  Even better would be to know they are good people and why they support actions that would result in evil, and then act on that basis. 

Read Full Post »

Context, Biologists, and Law

“Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said.

And with those words Supreme Court Justice nominee Ketanji Jackson set of a firestorm of conservative commentary, ridicule, and meme generation. 

However, this highlights a problem much more with conservatives, or at least the extreme conservatives and trump supporters than it does with Ms. Jackson’s answer.  Aside from the extreme partisanship and gutter tactics too often employed, this illustrates a problem they have with the idea of context.  It is a problem some liberal and such also share, but, to my mind, it appears to crop up much more often with the extreme conservatives.

So, what is context?  Or at least, what is context in the context of this blog? 

It is providing more information in order to better understood what is said.  We have a statement, the one Ms. Jackson made about needing a biologist.  Without thinking about or considering the context we are free to understand those words in ways that most make sense to our thinking, that best conforms with our views, our needs.  The problem though is that this is often not what is meant by the person saying those words. 

In Ms. Jackson’s case that understanding comes in two broad forms – either she truly is that ignorant or that she is so beholden or committed to progressive views that she is not going to answer and/or is genuinely confused.  These two categories by the way or not mutually exclusive, some believe both.  Both are wrong though, whether separately or in combination. 

Look at how she starts her response, “Not in this context…”  What context is that? 

Well, she is at a hearing to determine if she should become a Supreme Court Justice.  Which means, or so I would and do understand it, that she is talking about legal issues involved in defining a woman.  One thing anyone who has anything to do with law knows is that legal definitions are very particular.  They are rarely broad.  This is so because life is messy, complicated and confusing.  Any broad definition when it comes to dealing with a particular issue may be irrelevant or even wrong in a particular context. 

Now, let’s provide some broader context to this.  Here is a bit more of the transcript from that testimony. 

“I’d love to get your opinion on that, and you can submit that,” Blackburn continued. “Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg’s meaning of ‘men’ and ‘women’ as male and female?”

“Again, because I don’t know the case, I don’t know how I’d interpret it,” Jackson said. “I’d need to read the whole thing.”

“Okay,” Blackburn said. “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”

“Can I provide a definition?” Jackson replied, clearly bemused. “No. I can’t.”

“You can’t?” Blackburn replied.

“Not in this context,” Jackson said. “I’m not a biologist.”

“So you think the meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn said, obviously framing Jackson’s response unfairly.

“Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes,” Jackson said. “If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide. So I’m not…”

Now, I did not cut her off on the above.  That was Blackburn cutting her off and not allowing her to explain. 

So, some points here in regards to context on this issue.  Blackburn used Ginsburg’s words to try to corner Jackson.  However, not all of those words were Ginsburg’s.  And they were written in response to a specific issue.  And without reading that issue and how Ginsburg’s words applied to that issue Jackson quite honestly could not answer the question.  She needed to know more. 

Again, we are talking about legal definitions. 

Now, let’s provide some more contexts, even broader contexts. 

How do you define a woman?  At first glance it seems easy enough. A woman is a human being with breasts and a vagina.  Of it not breasts at least a vagina. Yet, that is not a complete and totally accurate definition.  It leaves out and ignores the messiness of life.   

This links leads to an editorial in Nature magazine, one of the premier scientific journals world, against an attempt to provide a legal definition of a woman solely on the basis of genitals.  I will let their words explain why this is wrong.

“The memo claims that processes for deciding the sex on a birth certificate will be “clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable”.

The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour.”

….

“By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have differences or disorders of sex development, such as hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia cannot clearly be classified as male or female. For most of the twentieth century, doctors would often surgically alter an infant’s ambiguous genitals to match whichever sex was easier, and expect the child to adapt. Frequently, they were wrong. A 2004 study tracked 14 genetically male children given female genitalia; 8 ended up identifying as male, and the surgical intervention caused them great distress.”

So, what this means is that if you have a legal issue come up in which the definition of a woman is  important, then a definition a woman solely on the basis of their genitals could be a very large problem and lead to a great injustice to those with “hormonal conditions, genetic changes, or anatomical ambiguities.” This is all an issue without even touching upon the transgendered.

Now, if they had asked Jackson what her personal every day away from the job views were on the definition of a woman, how she usually defines it in her life and away from any legal and societal issues, I would imagine that this she could do easily.  However, this was in the context of her possible future role as a Supreme Court Justice and referring to legal definitions applied to specific situations.  In that context, what she said is totally right. 

Context matters.  And context is what so many trump and extreme right people ignore.  Again and again and again.  Of course, it is often the only way they can defend their views and actions.  Views and actions that, when seen in context, are often a danger to our democracy and to many of our citizens. 

Read Full Post »

Holding Irrational Beliefs

Should everything that you believe be rational?  Does who you love, your political views, what you think about gays and racism and what you think about those who believe differently be totally rational? Should your thoughts on the reality of God or gods and in the afterlife be rational?  Should what foods taste good and bad be rational decisions?  What activities you think are worthwhile or worthless be rational decisions?  Should the irrational always be avoided and denounced? 

When I was 46 years younger, I believed that all of my beliefs had to be rational, had to be supported by reason and evidence.  As the years went by and I became a husband, father, worked at various jobs, sometimes two or even three at a time, been laid off twice, interacted with others who believed differently, read more widely about views different than my own, and experienced personal losses and setbacks, I have gradually softened that view.  Today I believe that believing in something that does not have any rational evidence to support it, that is irrational, is not always wrong. In fact, it can be both necessary and good.

I think that most people are like me 46 years ago, believing that a person’s beliefs should be rationally decided.  Until I mention such things as food and love.  Then most would amend this to all the important beliefs about the world and how it works should be rational. 

Leaving aside the crucial observation that who you love seems to me to be very important and one that is most often not the result of rational thinking, I would argue that even the more important beliefs about how the world works do not have to be rational. That they can be irrational and still be good and valid. 

Before going further let me define what I mean by irrational. Irrational in the sense I am using it here means a belief not supported by evidence, logic and empirical reasoning.  Let me further clarify by saying that this does not mean that such irrational beliefs are not supported somewhat by evidence, logic, and empirical reasoning. Just that it is not fully supported by such. And, of course, could be totally unsupported too.  Let me also note that this definition is about a lack of evidence for a belief, not a belief that is clearly contradicted by rational evidence. Although there are times when even beliefs that are clearly contradicted by rational evidence are still at least valid.

As an example of this, years ago I met a man who was a young earth creationist.  However, unlike every other young earth creationist that I know of, he did not try to convince me that the earth was only a few thousand years old, and that evolution is wrong. Instead, he openly agreed that the evidence fully supported evolution and the belief that the earth was billions of years old.  And that the evidence totally contradicted the belief of a direct creation of life on a young earth.  

But, because of his faith in his particular religion and his understanding of the Bible, and the important role that religion played in his own life, he also believed that someday evidence showing that what science had believe on this was wrong, and that the earth was indeed very young, and living creatures created.  However, he did not argue about this because he realized this was a matter of faith for him, and not everyone believed as he did. And that those without that faith should most definitely use reason and evidence to decide their beliefs. Which, in this case, meant evolution. 

Even though for years I have debated various sorts of creationists, complained to a high school principal about a science teacher’s dismissal of how old the universe is and how it came about when he asked my daughter did she really believe the big bang theory and evolution, and am a member of a group that defends the teaching of evolution in the schools, I have no problem with this.  It is honest. He does not proselytize his beliefs, does not try to change the teaching of science in the public schools.  Of course, he holds this belief for emotive rather than rational reasons. His beliefs are, most likely, inherited, and provide him comfort. And I think such a reason for a belief is valid.

Humans are, at their core, emotional animals. It is why Hume has said that “reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”   This does not deny the importance of reason and rational thought but is, instead, an awareness that being emotional creatures, emotions have a dominant role.

In this context, I believe there is nothing wrong if a person holds a belief solely or mostly because it gives them comfort and gives them support to get through hard times. To use a historic example, look at blacks in pre-Civil War America and their belief in the Bible and Christianity.

Due to their emotional needs and situation, blacks took the Bible and Christianity given to them by their white enslavers and found in it something that met those emotional needs, and so reimagined and redefined it.  They found much support and strength in the story of Moses and the Exodus narrative, and with Christ as the suffering servant.   Especially with the knowledge that both the Jews and Jesus were triumphant at the end of their sufferings.  This also provided them with a sense of group identity that allowed them to not only survive the atrocity of slavery, but to actively resist it. 

All of this due to purely emotional, irrational reasons.

Of course, I should also mention that just because something is believed due to emotional reasons, that doesn’t make it wrong.  After all, my wife initially rejected the Bible, because it is “silly”. 

Where I have a definite problem though with holding irrational beliefs is when they are clearly contradicted by the evidence, and when those holding such beliefs work to get others to believe the same way and take actions based on this belief.  A good example would be those who believe that trump won the 2020 election and was cheated out of a second term.  Due to their irrational belief and their attempts to persuade others and act on that belief, they have caused great damage to our country and their fellow citizens. 

So, when is holding an irrational belief considered wrong? What guidelines do I use?  First, they cannot obviously conflict with science, evidence, and reason. This would rule out creationism in all its forms. However, there are and will always be areas of mystery in our lives and universe.

It takes a great deal of hubris to think that we will ever know everything about the universe, including ourselves. And even more hubris to think that once we know everything that we will be able to understand it. We really do not understand what we currently know – for example quantum mechanics.  For all we know we might someday find ourselves in the position of our Australopithecine ancestors looking up at the stars and wondering what those points of light in the night sky are. And incapable of ever understanding the answer.  What’s more, we may not even realize that we have reached that point. However, let me say that even though I called the belief that we can ever know and understand all hubris, it is a necessary hubris if we are to continue to increase our understanding. We should though recognize this fact.  

But, there are things we do know with a great amount of certainty.  Others though still are much less certain. 

However, that is only one limitation to holding a belief based solely upon emotional reasons – no clear contradiction with the evidence.  A second limitation is that the person be clearly aware that the belief is irrational. This is something that many, and probably most, of those who hold a belief for purely emotional reasons fail. Those who fail at this are more likely to claim rational support when there is none, to wind up confusing what is evidence and what is emotion, and to proselytize when they should be silent instead. This is why the young earth creationist I mentioned at the beginning is redeemed. And why I have no problem with him and consider his belief valid.

A final limitation would be that the belief must be moral. While others might be willing to consider irrational beliefs that are immoral valid, for me I will not. Which means, for example, that the idea of hell as a place of eternal punishment is out.

And that is it. If someone wants to hold a belief that is irrational, and they recognize these limitations then I have no problem with that. I see nothing wrong with beliefs held because of a strong emotional connection or to provide hope. I do not see this as being a sign of weakness, or blindness. Such people are often and usually good people.

Bottom line for me, within the limits mentioned above, why shouldn’t a person hold a belief for reasons of strong emotions instead of reason and evidence? To my mind they should not be denigrated or made fun of.  Why denounce something that helps so many to deal with the hardships of this life, or of their life in particular? That gives them hope, or comfort, or identity. I believe everyone holds some sort of irrational belief about the world and how it works, but most are just are not aware of it. It’s called being human. 

Read Full Post »

Trigger Warnings and What Conservatives Lack

Trigger warnings. Many conservatives, especially the more extreme ones – trumpers and libertarians and others – like to make fun of trigger warnings, holding them up as an example of how we have become a nation of wimps, both weak and pathetic. A people who let mere words hurt them so that now they try to hide from the harsher aspects of life.  Usually this is linked to the idea that we need to be tougher in order to deal with life with its all too often conflicts and hardships – not hide and deny it.  However, this argument shows that they do not really understand the function and the need for trigger warnings. 

This came into focus for me recently when I came across a cartoon (I cannot find it now) using an animal but referring to child abuse. It was on a site that is normally very light and humorous. This cartoon was neither. The person doing the cartoon provided a trigger warning stating that some people who may have suffered abuse may find this cartoon distressing.  A commenter derided the trigger warning with the normal abuse that this just shows how we can no longer deal with the harsh realities of life but instead must try to hide from such. 

Yet, for most of these same criticizers you also see nothing but sympathy and respect for the soldier coming home from combat who is suffering from PTSD.  They would justifiably criticize anyone who took such a soldier to an event with fireworks or scenes of combat and not give them a warning first so that they could either be prepared or decline. 

Trigger warnings are the same. They are an acknowledgment that life is often hard and harsh, and leaves scars on the mind and soul. They are an attempt to be courteous and compassionate towards those who have experienced that harshness.  It is a realization that these sorts of scars are caused not just by war but by many experiences in life – rape, abuse, being the victim of violence or even witnessing it. Far from trying to deny that life is often harsh and cruel, it is a openly stated acknowledgement to that fact. Further, it is an attempt to deal courteously with those who carry scars from their encounters with this harsh truth.  It is an attempt to avoid dealing more harshness and pain. 

Several years ago a tornado hit downtown Fort Worth. My wife worked for that city then and was there that day the tornado hit. Knowing first aid she provided help to many during the tornado, and during the wreckage it left behind. But, ever since that day, she could no longer watch a show about tornadoes.  It triggered feeling of stress and helplessness. 

Or, early in our marriage we lived in a rental home that had a severe rodent infestation. Twice she reached into the washer to move the clothes to the dryer and picked up a dead, soggy rodent. With the other traces of them in the home, she developed a phobia to the r- critters.  She was bothered by the mention of rats and mice, and even more when they showed up in movies and tv shows. She closed her eyes when they did show them, and I would let her know when it was over. Or turn the show off if it was too r-centric. Before living at this house Ben was one of her favorite movies.  Or at least its song was. 

She also was able, after both events, to stop at a car wreck and with the help of others pull a man from the upside down wreck just moments before it caught fire. And then helped provide first aid. She was a woman who still stood up to her bosses on issues she thought they were wrong. 

Her need for trigger warnings – my job was to look out for r-critters in movies and tornadoes and let her know – means that, to these conservatives my wife was a wimp, weak and unable to deal with the harshness of life. She most definitely was not. Nor are the others who also need trigger warnings. To call them weak and wimps is to ignore their strength in surviving.  It would be the same as calling a soldier with PTSD a weakling and a wimp. 

Trigger warnings are not evidence of being wimpy, but of the harshness of life.  Their use shows that you are a concerned and compassionate human. One who recognizes that life is often harsh and hard and that many have been scarred by their lives.  And for those who are, this is not evidence of them being weak. They survived their trauma, whether in the past or on-going. They are still alive.  And many, and probably most, will read or look after seeing the trigger warning. This time though prepared. 

I have never understood why so many seem to be against common courtesy, whether in calling people by their chosen designations or the use of trigger warnings.  It costs them nothing. It does not harm them in any way.

I can’t help but wonder if it is because of their philosophy of extreme individualism, one that downplays the role and necessity of community.  One that seemingly does not understand that humans are both individuals and communal creatures. That standing alone and unsupported is impossible in this too often harsh and hard world. 

I do not understand why some feel that courtesy and support is a sign of weakness, and that those who display it must be ridiculed and condemned for it.  Perhaps we need to put trigger warnings on anything that shows compassion and concern for those who have been damaged by life so that these “tough” people will be better prepared.  If only such would do any good. 

Read Full Post »

So’s Your Old Man: Arguing Hypocrisy While Ignoring Substance.

Too often discussions and disagreements become a grown up version of “so’s your old man”.  I thought about this while engaged in a discussion on the above meme about President Joe Biden.  While every statement of this meme is wrong instead of showing why too many people were, instead, busy pointing out the hypocrisy involved in an assumed trump supporter making these claims about someone else.  Many argued the hypocrisy of the poster or of those who defended this meme for not holding trump to the same standards.  trump, according to those making this argument, did even worse.  And yet, even if that is true, if these claims about President Biden are true it makes them no less wrong and disturbing. 

Those arguing the hypocrisy seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are not refuting any of the claims.  Instead, they are attacking the person and not dealing with the message.  This is something I see frequently on both sides of the political spectrum.  A good example from those who deny climate change is pointing out the supposed hypocrisy of world leaders flying on carbon spewing airlines and living in large mansions that are not ecofriendly.  As with the case with Biden, so?  If these politicians are hypocrites how does that make the dangers of climate change any less dangerous?  Any less real? 

For myself, I don’t believe we should let others supposed hypocrisy determine the truth of a claim or cause us to not take action when action is needed.  If a person claims your candidate is a thief does the fact that the accuser’s candidate is a rapist make your candidate any less of a thief?  If you are in a leaking boat in the middle of the ocean would the fact that your companion is a hypocrite cause you not to bail? 

I think the reason this lapse is so common on all sides is because these discussions have a strong emotional component. We get mad or annoyed.  And as is the human tendency, we want to lash out.  Couple this with the fact that pointing out others hypocrisy is a quicker and easier tactic than actually dealing with what is being claimed then you have an unfortunately ubiquitous style of argument. 

Now, pointing out the hypocrisy can be appropriate at times. But, it should not be at the expense of dealing with the substance too.  In the Biden meme for example, deal with each of the statements and if they are wrong or out of context then show why they are wrong and provide the context and untwist them.  Don’t just leave it with “well so’s your trump!”  That does nothing at all.  Well, except provide a sense of moral superiority and righteous anger. 

Political, social and religious disagreements have a long history of generating more heat than light. But today that seems to be almost all they do.  If we can deal with the substance perhaps a little more light might be generated along with the heat.  And with light, there is the possibility of seeing.  With heat, we only get burns.  

Read Full Post »

Teaching Critical Race Theory in the USA and the Holocaust in Germany

“To accept one’s past—one’s history—is not the same thing as drowning in it; it is learning how to use it. An invented past can never be used; it cracks and crumbles under the pressures of life like clay in a season of drought.”

James Baldwin

Recently the conservatives have been waging war against Critical Race Theory (CRT)  being taught in public schools. 

Texas passed laws meant to prevent CRT being taught in public schools by preventing personal bias from influencing teaching and keep teachers from “unfairly blaming white people for historical wrongs and distorting the founding fathers’ accomplishments.”  This law urges teachers to teach that slavery and racism are “deviations” from the founding principles of the United States. 

To further the goal of eliminating CRT in our public schools the law limits the curriculum, bars students being given credit for advocacy work,  and discourages the open discussion of current events.  And if open discussion of current events must occur then the schools must “give deference to both sides”.  One interesting result of this is that in one school district the teachers were told if they teach about the Holocaust they must also teach the other side.  

Wisconsin has gone even further than Texas in this pursuit of this noble goal.  While its law barring the teaching of CRT is similar to other laws in other states on this subject, they added in a list of words to be banned.

“Wichgers, who represents Muskego in the legislature, attached an addendum to his legislation that included a list of “terms and concepts” that would violate the bill if it became law.

Among those words: “Woke,” “whiteness,” “White supremacy,” “structural bias,” “structural racism,” “systemic bias” and “systemic racism.” The bill would also bar “abolitionist teaching,” in a state that sent more than 91,000 soldiers to fight with the Union Army in the Civil War.  The list of barred words or concepts includes “equity,” “inclusivity education,” “multiculturalism” and “patriarchy,” as well as “social justice” and “cultural awareness.”

The only good thing about this bill is that it is not likely to pass their senate and is virtually certain to be vetoed by the Governor if it somehow does. 

Now, my question is why all this furor and outrage over CRT being taught in our public schools.  After all, it is most definitely not being taught in our public schools.  However, that is not what I am going to discuss.  Instead I am going to go over a more basic question – what is being taught that is causing such grave and angry concerns among many conservative. 

Let’s take a look at why some conservatives say they are concerned. 

Wisconsin state Rep. Chuck Wichgers explained what his support of this bill this way –

“It has come to our attention, and to some of the people who traveled here to Madison today, that a growing number of school districts are teaching material that attempts to redress the injustice of racism and sexism by employing racism and sexism, as well as promoting psychological distress in students based on these immutable characteristics. No one should have to undergo the humiliation of being told that they are inferior to someone else. We are all members of the human race.”

Condoleezza Rice said this about CRT and schools: 

“The way we’re talking about race is that it either seems so big that somehow white people now have to feel guilty for everything that happened in the past.

“…but in order to do that, I don’t have to make white kids feel bad for being white.”

“…but I don’t have to make white children feel bad about being white in order to overcome the fact that Black children were treated badly…”

Along with this is a strong push by conservatives to ban or limit books perceived to be promoting CRT. 

• A new ad for Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial nominee features a local mother, Laura Murphy.
• She fought to get Toni Morrison’s “Beloved” removed from her son’s AP English curriculum in 2013.
• Murphy said the book gave her son nightmares and argued for parents to have more say in curricula.

Another example is Texas State Representative Matt Krause’s inquiry to school districts. This about consists of a list of 849 books about which he wants to know if they are on that school’s campus and how much time is given to them.  As well he wants to find out other books on matters that “might make students feel discomfort, guilty, anguish or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex.”  A small sample of the books being investigated by this representative are ““Me and White Supremacy: Combat Racism, Change the World, and Become a Good Ancestor” by Layla Saad and, “The Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears” by Susan E. Hamen., 

This is all part of the common thread and theme woven throughout the outrage over CRT – it is making white children feel guilty and ashamed to be white. 

Ekene and Nene Okolo.

I agree wholeheartedly that no one should be taught to be ashamed of who they based on race. Nor taught to feel guilty about things that happened 50, 60, 100, 200 years before they were born.  However, is that what is actually happening?   

Before I buy into this narrative I want to know what was said that elicits these feelings of guilt and shame on the part of white children.  Are they being told “shame, shame on you for being white” or some sort of equivalent?  Or, are they being taught part of our history, both past and recent, that has been normally hidden and not spoken of. And because learning this feel distress? Or, perhaps more relevant, making their parents feel distressed. 

Let me just state a truth about history – if is often distressing and uncomfortable.  If it is not, then it is not history being taught but propaganda. 

So, my question is are students being taught that whites are inferior and they the student personally responsible for all the wrongs of our nation and that they should be ashamed of being white. Or, are they being taught a more complete and accurate history containing material that is distressing and uncomfortable? 

If the former, it should be stopped.  If the latter though, then it most certainly should continue on.  I have a strong feeling that it is the latter, that students are being exposed to uncomfortable truths about American history.  Truths that can engender guilt. They are being taught about:

• Lynchings.
• The difference between the VA benefits that black WW2 vets received and those that white WW2 vets received.
• The prominent role of slavery in the creation of the United States. 
• The fact that once slavery was abolished by the 13^th amendment other ways were found to bring it back: economic limits, vagrancy statues, preventing blacks from voting, arresting blacks more than whites and using prison labor, and more.
• The 1921 Tulsa race riot.
• The Tuskegee Study.

And the list goes on. 

Of course, when teaching this white students should not be told they should be ashamed of being white. However, this may be one of the results from such teaching no matter how objective and sensitively it is taught.  These are uncomfortable truths. 

Of course, all of this does not occur in a vacuum.  We are in the process of re-evaluating our past and our past heroes.  In deciding who deserves to be honored and who does not.  Confederate statues coming down has caused anger to flare up in the hearts of many conservatives.  The same ones who are so strongly against CRT being taught anywhere. 

I think it might be instructive to take a look at how another country dealt with and continues to deal with a shameful past – Germany and the Holocaust.

Teaching about the Holocaust is mandatory in Germany.  There are often trips to visit museums and concentration camps. 

A reddit comment on this subject.

“I think we began to learn about the holocaust in sixth grade (12-14 years old). It is the single biggest thing taught in history and other subjects. We read multiple books written by survivors (think Anne Frank’s diary) in German class, we visited synagogues and concentration camps and we learn all the gory details of the third Reich in history class. Multiple times in different depth.”

A Slate article on this included the fact that the students were uncomfortable and ashamed and guilty afterwards. Not because they were told they were personally responsible but because they were part of a nation that did this.   

“And when I saw these things that were taken from the prisoners (there is also one room just filled with hair), all the pieces came together in my mind, and I realized the first time on an emotional basis the whole horror. And I think I was not the only one. I found the toughest guy in our group, who would normally never show feelings, standing in front of a display cabinet with baby shoes crying. When the tour ended, we didn’t know how to look our Polish friends in the eyes again, because I think most of us felt unbelievably guilty as it was “our” grandparents who did that to “their” grandparents (together with many, many other innocent people). I remember us even talking about the fact that we were insecure on how to deal with that.”

Here are some various German students experiences in learning about the Holocaust from The Jewish World. 

In this article, in addition to German students telling what they were taught about the Holocaust, they also talk about how the Government and schools were trying to improve their coverage of this horrific part of their history. 

“A 2017 survey of German students found that 40% of students aged 17 and older had never heard of the Auschwitz death camp. Recently, Yad Vashem signed an agreement with the 16 German states in order to improve the state of Holocaust studies in the country and train teachers.

….

 “Some teachers, as with any subject, want to focus on the facts and we try to help them to teach through the prism of who used to live here, not just in Europe but in all of Europe; or to focus on who were these people, because most students never met a Jew,” she continued. “We want to encourage the teachers to recognize the heritage and history of the Jews in Germany. For that reason, oftentimes the curriculum begins from 1933 and examines the Jewish contribution to German society.”

……

She said that she feels that German schools do a good job of dealing with the past, albeit regarding German civilian cooperation with the Nazis, less so. “Sometimes they fail to understand that the story isn’t only about Hitler the murderer, but also about the collaboration of Germans during the Holocaust. Educated people who were involved in the plan and its implementation. Police, who were supposed to protect people but transformed into killers.

“Hitler did not shoot six million people by himself and we see a lot of ignorance in this matter,” she continued. “The expulsions by train did not occur at 3am outside of the city. Many people witnessed these events and the street where it happened still stands today. Therefore, local initiatives to commemorate this are very important. It is also important to connect the students with the places where they live. Sometimes they live in neighborhoods that in the past were populated by other people who didn’t simply disappear.”

Now, contrast this with what is happening now in American schools in regard to our horrific history in regards to slavery and race.  Or, more simply, consider the fact that there are no memorials to Nazis in Germany, no matter how personally honest and wonderful they might have been. There are though numerous memorials to the victims of Nazis.  In the United States the situation is reversed.  And that is indicative of a large problem. 

Bottom line.  From what I can see we are not teaching CRT in our public schools.  We are though trying to teach parts of our history that need to be learned and understood as they still impact those of us living today. Without such discomforting, uncomfortable knowledge we can never improve this country so that it can live up to its lofty ideals. And if it engenders a feeling of shame and guilt on the part of those learning this history, that is as it should be.  From such knowledge and feelings come needed change. 

Read Full Post »

The Varied Motivations of a Keyboard Warrior

Let me explain this blog a bit – it is very me centric. The reason I am writing and sharing this is because I think it also applies to a great many people who are on social media.  From all sides. And especially in groups where there are purposeful disagreements, and so even though focused on my experience, it is meant to help illuminate or comment on a group larger than just me.  I also think that understanding the motivations of others can help at times from descending too rapidly into name calling and blindly labelling, on both sides. 

I have been called, usually derisively, a keyboard warrior.  And I will admit there is some truth to that label if by it you mean someone who “battles” through the use of words for certain ideas, policies, facts, theories and against the other ideas, policies theories, and actions.  Note, I left out facts in regards to writing against because I never do.  I might fight for some understandings of some facts and against others, but the facts I never argue against. 

Anyway, in regards to being a keyboard warrior, I can accept that designation on two conditions.  First, awareness that my words reflect my actual and honest thoughts and beliefs based on as an objective assessment of facts and needs that I am capable of.  Too often I have been called dishonest, a liar, concerned on only promoting a political agenda and not really caring for people except for as how they can be used for my political agenda.  I try not to do this to others I disagree with because I know such claims are very wrong in regard to me. 

Second, being a keyboard warrior is not all of what I am and what I do.  I have a life away from the keyboard.  One in which I participate in a great many activities both social, political, and familial.  Too often when labelled as a keyboard warrior those doing such labelling mean that is all you are and nothing more.  You do not walk the walk and only talk, talk, talk, talk. Or rather type, type, type, type.

Like most people on most issues, I do not have a single source motivation.  Instead, I have several motivations, some more important, some less so, but all playing a role in why I do what I do. 

Motivation Number 1

Let me admit right off, I like a good argument.  I won’t engage in one solely for the sake of argument but give me a good and interesting issue then I will freely disagree with those I think wrong and enjoy the process.  This has been true going back to my junior high years when my father and I would get into political discussions around the dinner table while my mother and brother sighed and rolled their eyes with a here we go again expression.  Both my father and I greatly enjoyed these discussion and disagreements.  And that has carried on across the years and to other people for me. 

Now, while this is one of my motivations, it is not one of my main ones. If not for some of the other motivations this would not be enough on its own to keep me pounding away on the keyboard.  But, it definitely is a part of my motivation.

Motivation Number 2

I care. I care about my family and their issues.  I care about others. I care about our country.  I care about the world.  I care about justice and equality, about right and wrong, about treating people as people.  I care about freedom and rights, as well as responsibilities. It has been claimed that my political agenda is my all and that people don’t matter.  The reality though is that my caring for people is what forms my pollical agenda. This is something I think is true for most people, whether conservative or liberal or libertarian or anarchist or whatever.  While I know that there are some for which this is not true, I believe the great majority of people I engage with do fit this.    

Motivation Number 3

I very occasionally get someone to modify or even change their views.  This is the gold at the end of the rainbow for people such as me. Actually convincing someone to change their views. It doesn’t happen very often, but it does happen.  Happening a little more often is them acknowledging the validity of a point they had not considered before.  And while a smaller pot, it is still gold because someone who disagreed with me was actually listening.    

Motivation Number 4

I very occasionally wind up having to modify and, even more rarely but not unknown, have to change my view.  I find this a good process in which to double check my views and thoughts and evidence, and to be exposed to other\sources and ideas and arguments I would probably never have known about.  It is a good way to break out of the echo chamber. 

Motivation Number 5

I like to understand how people think, especially those coming from a very different view point.  For example, when getting my MLA, I wrote a paper on how the ancient Greeks really viewed the gods in the Iliad, – as symbols or real or something else.  This wanting to understand the thinking of other views is true in regards to different cultures and different times.  And in today’s world it is true when dealing with creationists, anti-vaxxers, and always trumpers.  I find the exercise good for me, as well as interesting. 

Along with this, I find being able to track the changes in views fascinating.  For example, I saw how several eventual trumpers changed their views of President Obama from being a nice guy but inept and incompetent to the leader of an evil conspiracy. Or even more interesting, the change from Comey being a good FBI agent doing the best he could when he knew his bosses would not support him to him having been always out to get trump. 

Motivation Number 6

Even when I do not even slightly change either another’s thoughts or mine, I still get to hone my arguments and words on the issues being discussed.  This is helpful in other contexts besides keyboard warrioring – writing letters to politicians or groups, talking with others, or in my blog. 

So, like most people on most things, I have multiple motivations. Something I think is useful when discussing issues as it prevents, at least somewhat, us from turning them into soulless persons with evil in their hearts and minds.  It keeps us in touch with the fact that we are dealing with another human, and not just a political or religious or philosophical or whatever agenda. Won’t mean that the discussion won’t turn heated and angry at times.  But, it can help it from devolving into something worse.    

Read Full Post »

Revisiting On the Limits of Atheism: The Limits of Labels

I first wrote this blog over seven years ago. After looking at it I decided it would be a good idea to update it a bit (very little actually) and repost.  In the interest of full disclosure, part of the reason I thought it a good idea is because two other blog ideas did not pan out when I started writing them and I really wanted to keep to my blog a week schedule as much as possible.  This was a quick and easy way to do so while I work on three blog ideas that, while they are good, are going to take a bit more work.  But, while true, this is only part of the reason. 

The other part of my reasoning is that it seems that we live in a time when labels are becoming more and more used as a substitute for actually knowing about a person.  While there is a valid and necessary reason for using labels when talking about others, we also have long had a tendency to misuse that need and turn it into a total substitution for actually knowing a person or group. And today that misuse seems to me to be a growing problem.  Which is why I thought this piece I wrote seven years ago on the limits of the term Atheist to describe me relevant today. Because although focused on the label atheism it applies to any and all labels – liberal, conservative, black, white, Asian, homosexual, evangelical Christian, and on and on.    

In my last blog (actually, now also over seven years ago)  I wrote about why I was an atheist. However, that is not really telling you much about me. In fact, it tells you very little about me; and the little it does reveal is among the least important aspects of me.  The reason for this is that atheism is a negative belief describing only a part of what I think and believe. It only tells you what I do not believe.

It does not say anything about my belief in both humanity’s and each person’s potential, about my belief that the world is actually getting better over time. The negative of atheism says nothing about my strong belief that a constitutional democracy is the best form of government, one that allows people the most freedoms, the best chance of happiness and fulfillment, while providing a needed structure for decisions, living and dealing with conflicts.

Young woman with a name tag on her forehead

Atheism does not speak to my belief that all people should be treated with respect first until shown that they do not deserve such treatment. Atheism says nothing about my conviction that all human life is sacred, even that of the most horrid and evil of humans. Atheism does not express the value that I place on love, on helping those in need, on treating people fairly   Atheism provides no reason for me to do any of this, to believe any of this.

I believe in the proven power of logic and reason in addressing many of the problems that face us today, both as a group and as individuals. I also, though, recognize the limitations of reason and logic. By themselves they cannot give us solutions and answers to all our troubles and problems. By their use alone we cannot find happiness, fulfillment, and joy. In fact, there are times and issues in which reason and logic are of only secondary importance. My atheism does not reveal any of this.

My atheism is not the reason why I love animals, enjoy walks in the woods, am an avid reader of everything from pure junk to literature to non-fiction.   My atheism says nothing about the fact that I hate ties and refuse to wear them (with one possible future exception), and that I enjoy watching movies and TV more than my wife, who is also an atheist, does.

Finally, I believe in mystery. Without it our lives would be poorer.

Atheism deals in none of this – no values, no ethics, no likes, no desires, and no hatreds can be extrapolated from the negative belief of atheism.   It is a comment on only one question, does God exist.  It is a comment; not a worldview, not a system of thought, not an ethical and philosophical system.

There are many religious organizations, and even more religious people, who hold similar beliefs and values as mine. However, where they and I differ is that I also believe that this world is all there is, that there is nothing beyond the natural. I consider our differences much more minor than our agreements. In fact, I  have at times found much more in common with these religious people and groups than I do with other atheists and some atheists groups.

This limitation of the label atheist to fully describe me also applies to any and all other labels.  And our overreliance on labels is why we so often get surprised by the actions of one labelled individual to act in ways we think contrary to what the label implies. Witness Liz Cheney’s recent actions.  Or why many progressives refuse to see how surprisingly liberal President Biden has acted so far. 

While a necessity in life, and a useful one at that, we need to keep in mind the limits of labels.  Otherwise we commit an injustice to individuals and groups, and miss opportunities for progress or, worse, wind up creating and/or magnifying areas of conflict.  There is more than enough of that today without us unnecessarily adding to it. 

Read Full Post »