Rich, you have stated succinctly the essence of the problem, especially notable in sociology, that it is far easier to destroy and devolve rather than to build and evolve. The loud and constant appeal to greed, tribalistic identity, and winner-take-all unscrupulous politics is, as you eloquently demonstrate, effecting changes to our social behaviors and expectations, activating or reactivating previously suppressed traits and expressions in a manner that provides cover, if not acceptance for both proponents and adherents alike.
Despite past progress, and even after any contemporary successes against this societal cancer, the threat will always be with us - hard wired, only awaiting the stimulus that triggers its resurgence. The systemic error is complacency - a failure to "consolidate the objective" as the military says - illustrated in one instance and form by the ridiculous (or tragically premature at best) proclamation of the "end of history" a few decades ago. How naive!
Despair and its cousin, cynicism, are not the answer, however, nor are they justified in any respect by history, even in own time (the past 6-7 decades). But reestablishing social virtue today is greatly complicated by the capture of evangelicals and other religious traditions who appear to have taken Satan's third offer - power - despite the opposite lesson taught by their revered, but obviously unread and unheeded, holy book. Despite their voluntary defection, however, achieving virtue in society is possible without them. Universal values, common among both religious and humanist traditions, point the way forward. It is not an easy path, but one to which a previous generation dedicated their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. We can do no less.
"a previous generation dedicated their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." And the next generations will be the most diverse and liberal we've ever seen. We're in a dark moment but there are all reasons to know it won't last.
Wow, this is an amazing essay. The thing is, the people who ruin community spaces, what we'd call Trumpism today, have always been there. There's always been a contingent of parents in youth sports who won't admit to losing, a very small percentage of men who use community meetings to find women and children to sexually assault, and conspiracy theorists like the man who spent a Little League game telling me about chemtrails. They can spoil almost any community event. When I think about what happened to the Lions, Knights of Columbus, bowling leagues, and school board meetings, I think that the organization probably defended their bad actors instead of thinking of the rest of us, and that drove decent people away. You'd think organizations would've learned from the Catholic Church priest scandal, but nope, everyone seems to be doubling down on defending their sex offenders while whining about rainbow flags. When places aren't safe for decency, moral people leave. Nowhere in Trump's orbit is safe for decency or decent people.
Hi Chris, I had a feeling you (being an apparently thoughtful, intelligent guy) would respond along those lines. This isn’t really a good forum for an involved, detailed epistemological debate, but let’s talk…
It sounds like you’re talking about “objective facts“. I submit “objective facts“ is an oxymoron. Let’s try a couple of things…
Here’s a proposition: “human life begins at conception“. There are an awful lot of people in this country, billions in the world, that consider that proposition a fact, and too many people assert the factuality of that proposition so strongly that they’re willing to commit acts of violence to support it.
But I, and I’m presuming you, would look at that proposition a little more closely. We would think about what is meant by “life”; is it distinct from “a life”? How about from “a person“? Now, you and I can have a fruitful conversation about that, but any attempt at a conversation with somebody who insists on the factuality of that proposition about, say, when it’s appropriate to terminate a pregnancy, will not be fruitful at all, probably not even possible.
Here’s another. I, and presumably, you, grew up being taught that special relativity means that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. But then, in the 60s, along comes Bell’s theorem, and a few years later, the Aspect experiments, after which, slowly but surely, the proposition “superluminary effects are impossible“ starts to be less factual. Indeed, there now exists an entirely new technology — quantum computing — that’s based on the factuality of superluminary effects.
And one more: I’m currently in the middle of one of those Great Courses series about cosmology. It was produced in 2008. The lecturer is saying all these interesting things about the very early universe, talking about them as if they’re facts. In 2008. Then, a dozen years later, along comes the James Webb Space Telescope and knocks over the checkerboard.
“Superluminary effects are impossible“ was a fact 50 years ago; it’s not now. Was it ever? Can facts change? If a fact changes, was its earlier form ever a fact? What about so-called “objectivity”? What we thought we knew about the very early universe, what we thought were facts, are apparently such no longer. Were they facts at the time? Has reality changed? So much for objectivity.
My point is that facts change. Or more precisely, what we think of as facts changes (the key words being “what we think of”). I would argue that blows the whole “objective fact” thing out of the sky. What facts are being inferred from JWST data, and what the lecturer in the cosmology course calls a fact, or more precisely, “called“ a fact, are different. If we disagree on facts, until one of us changes his mind, or until we both come to agree on some other variation, as I said in my reply, a conversation — a fruitful one, anyway — is impossible.
Btw, a late addition, please let me pre-empt a possible misunderstanding. My initial response to your comment was not intended to provoke you. I don’t want you to get that idea. Since the plague, I’ve given a lot of thought to what constitutes a fact, and how that interferes with a fruitful discussion; so I was somewhat triggered. Anyway, I look forward to your response.🤔😉😊
What I find most offensive - even though only symbolic is the inability of Trump and his party to treat their political opposition with even a modicum of respect. And it happens so often that evidently nobody thinks it a big deal. There is no "Democrat Party" and I fault our media for not calling them out or even correcting them or even bothering to employ "[sic] when quoting. It is the deepest disrespect and has become so normalized that many people honestly believe that that is the actual name of the Democratic Party. It formerly had a little bit of use in that it was a way to gauge the sincerity of elected officials when they spoke of "bipartisanship" - such as the night in 2000 when Al Gore conceded and the future war criminal George W spoke of his reaching "across the aisle" to work with his colleagues from the "Democrat Party" to the media circle jerk fawning over the "moderate" Nikki Haley previously this year without noticing her exclusive use of "Democrat Party". She didn't fool me one bit - yet no one ever called her out or even bothered to correct her.
Remember "broken windows policing"? It was a 90s thing where even minimal signs of disorder, such as broken windows should be acted upon becsuse they encourage further disorder because they give the impression that no one is in charge and no one cares.
Can we please start using this principle and at least show America that we at least care about who we are - the Democratic Party - or even non-Democratic Party members - that we care about the civility and respect of those who engage in politics. And we need to convince the media of this. Don't they care? Sure could a fooled me. But why did we tolerate this from anybody? Use of the epithet "Democrat Party" needs to be made a huge red flag for those who use it and those who tolerate it
MAGA doesn’t think rules apply to them. They expect to be able to do whatever they want. Whether it’s parking in a handicap spot, driving in the bus lane, or waiting their turn in line. Trickle down works for rudeness and entitlement.
Rich, you have stated succinctly the essence of the problem, especially notable in sociology, that it is far easier to destroy and devolve rather than to build and evolve. The loud and constant appeal to greed, tribalistic identity, and winner-take-all unscrupulous politics is, as you eloquently demonstrate, effecting changes to our social behaviors and expectations, activating or reactivating previously suppressed traits and expressions in a manner that provides cover, if not acceptance for both proponents and adherents alike.
Despite past progress, and even after any contemporary successes against this societal cancer, the threat will always be with us - hard wired, only awaiting the stimulus that triggers its resurgence. The systemic error is complacency - a failure to "consolidate the objective" as the military says - illustrated in one instance and form by the ridiculous (or tragically premature at best) proclamation of the "end of history" a few decades ago. How naive!
Despair and its cousin, cynicism, are not the answer, however, nor are they justified in any respect by history, even in own time (the past 6-7 decades). But reestablishing social virtue today is greatly complicated by the capture of evangelicals and other religious traditions who appear to have taken Satan's third offer - power - despite the opposite lesson taught by their revered, but obviously unread and unheeded, holy book. Despite their voluntary defection, however, achieving virtue in society is possible without them. Universal values, common among both religious and humanist traditions, point the way forward. It is not an easy path, but one to which a previous generation dedicated their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. We can do no less.
Wow. Nice. You should write for us.
"a previous generation dedicated their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." And the next generations will be the most diverse and liberal we've ever seen. We're in a dark moment but there are all reasons to know it won't last.
Wow, this is an amazing essay. The thing is, the people who ruin community spaces, what we'd call Trumpism today, have always been there. There's always been a contingent of parents in youth sports who won't admit to losing, a very small percentage of men who use community meetings to find women and children to sexually assault, and conspiracy theorists like the man who spent a Little League game telling me about chemtrails. They can spoil almost any community event. When I think about what happened to the Lions, Knights of Columbus, bowling leagues, and school board meetings, I think that the organization probably defended their bad actors instead of thinking of the rest of us, and that drove decent people away. You'd think organizations would've learned from the Catholic Church priest scandal, but nope, everyone seems to be doubling down on defending their sex offenders while whining about rainbow flags. When places aren't safe for decency, moral people leave. Nowhere in Trump's orbit is safe for decency or decent people.
Thanks. Very true. You've given me more to think about.
"People are indeed entitled to their own facts"
No, they're not.
Facts are a social construct. If two parties disagree on the facts, no conversation is possible. 🤔😉😊
FACTS are not a social construct. They are accurate descriptions of reality.
“The sun rises in the east.” and “Biden won in 2020.” are not social constructs.
Trying to suggest they are is what people do when they want to claim up is down, Republicans are pro-life, and Trump isn’t a criminal.
Hi Chris, I had a feeling you (being an apparently thoughtful, intelligent guy) would respond along those lines. This isn’t really a good forum for an involved, detailed epistemological debate, but let’s talk…
It sounds like you’re talking about “objective facts“. I submit “objective facts“ is an oxymoron. Let’s try a couple of things…
Here’s a proposition: “human life begins at conception“. There are an awful lot of people in this country, billions in the world, that consider that proposition a fact, and too many people assert the factuality of that proposition so strongly that they’re willing to commit acts of violence to support it.
But I, and I’m presuming you, would look at that proposition a little more closely. We would think about what is meant by “life”; is it distinct from “a life”? How about from “a person“? Now, you and I can have a fruitful conversation about that, but any attempt at a conversation with somebody who insists on the factuality of that proposition about, say, when it’s appropriate to terminate a pregnancy, will not be fruitful at all, probably not even possible.
Here’s another. I, and presumably, you, grew up being taught that special relativity means that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. But then, in the 60s, along comes Bell’s theorem, and a few years later, the Aspect experiments, after which, slowly but surely, the proposition “superluminary effects are impossible“ starts to be less factual. Indeed, there now exists an entirely new technology — quantum computing — that’s based on the factuality of superluminary effects.
And one more: I’m currently in the middle of one of those Great Courses series about cosmology. It was produced in 2008. The lecturer is saying all these interesting things about the very early universe, talking about them as if they’re facts. In 2008. Then, a dozen years later, along comes the James Webb Space Telescope and knocks over the checkerboard.
“Superluminary effects are impossible“ was a fact 50 years ago; it’s not now. Was it ever? Can facts change? If a fact changes, was its earlier form ever a fact? What about so-called “objectivity”? What we thought we knew about the very early universe, what we thought were facts, are apparently such no longer. Were they facts at the time? Has reality changed? So much for objectivity.
My point is that facts change. Or more precisely, what we think of as facts changes (the key words being “what we think of”). I would argue that blows the whole “objective fact” thing out of the sky. What facts are being inferred from JWST data, and what the lecturer in the cosmology course calls a fact, or more precisely, “called“ a fact, are different. If we disagree on facts, until one of us changes his mind, or until we both come to agree on some other variation, as I said in my reply, a conversation — a fruitful one, anyway — is impossible.
🤔😉😊
I prefer Christopher.
As for the rest, I’ll get back to you after I have a little more time to read your full comment.
Sure, Christopher. Fair enough. I can respect that. 🤔😉😊
Btw, a late addition, please let me pre-empt a possible misunderstanding. My initial response to your comment was not intended to provoke you. I don’t want you to get that idea. Since the plague, I’ve given a lot of thought to what constitutes a fact, and how that interferes with a fruitful discussion; so I was somewhat triggered. Anyway, I look forward to your response.🤔😉😊
What I find most offensive - even though only symbolic is the inability of Trump and his party to treat their political opposition with even a modicum of respect. And it happens so often that evidently nobody thinks it a big deal. There is no "Democrat Party" and I fault our media for not calling them out or even correcting them or even bothering to employ "[sic] when quoting. It is the deepest disrespect and has become so normalized that many people honestly believe that that is the actual name of the Democratic Party. It formerly had a little bit of use in that it was a way to gauge the sincerity of elected officials when they spoke of "bipartisanship" - such as the night in 2000 when Al Gore conceded and the future war criminal George W spoke of his reaching "across the aisle" to work with his colleagues from the "Democrat Party" to the media circle jerk fawning over the "moderate" Nikki Haley previously this year without noticing her exclusive use of "Democrat Party". She didn't fool me one bit - yet no one ever called her out or even bothered to correct her.
Remember "broken windows policing"? It was a 90s thing where even minimal signs of disorder, such as broken windows should be acted upon becsuse they encourage further disorder because they give the impression that no one is in charge and no one cares.
Can we please start using this principle and at least show America that we at least care about who we are - the Democratic Party - or even non-Democratic Party members - that we care about the civility and respect of those who engage in politics. And we need to convince the media of this. Don't they care? Sure could a fooled me. But why did we tolerate this from anybody? Use of the epithet "Democrat Party" needs to be made a huge red flag for those who use it and those who tolerate it
MAGA doesn’t think rules apply to them. They expect to be able to do whatever they want. Whether it’s parking in a handicap spot, driving in the bus lane, or waiting their turn in line. Trickle down works for rudeness and entitlement.
I’m going to sue him for so much stress 🤢