My wife has PTSD from the way I have been targeted and attacked for speaking against CRT here in Vermont. The attackers are toxic, vicious, lying people with serious mental health problems and a deranged misunderstanding of reality. Yet they want to rule the world and crush anyone who questions them.
Yet I know of people here who have endured worse, and who were vulnerable to job or business loss (I'm a farmer so I'm immune). I have learned two important lessons that this commentary affirms:
1) Don't be silenced. As James Lindsay says. "They call you a racist when they want you to shut up." Don't -- talk more and louder. Since I have the facts and law on my side (and I'm an attorney), I simply keep writing and proving they are manipulating statistics and seeding racism. And the attackers have mostly gone silent -- they can't shut me up, and they can't win an argument. So they try to deplatform and ignore me..... Bullies seek vulnerability and people to victimize, not people who stand up to them.
2) It is imperative that we counter their toxicity with tolerance, and not stoop to their level. I embrace their free speech rights -- the more they speak, the more they prove themselves to be deluded, uninformed morons. (Just sayin'....)
As I've told everyone I come into contact with, I will always defend your right to speak. I may not agree with what you are saying, but I don't have to agree for you to be treated like a human being with your own thoughts. When everyone thinks and speaks the same, we have given up our humanity and decided to be programmed robots. The biggest problem I've seen on all sides is that people who claim to be for free speech won't even speak up to defend it when it is their side doing it. People listen to people they agree with more than others. It's cowardly to remain silent.
Yes, yes, yes, and walk the talk. Hypocrisy should be anathema to all reasoning people. The climate change mantra is an obvious example. To preach against the use of fossil fuels yet use the products of those same fuels each and every day without thought. To turn a blind eye to the negative aspects of “green” energy-environmental damage, child labor, habitat destruction, increased cost of living, etc.
For my part, I have decided that there is no reasoning with some people and that, as I am in my waning years and have no time to waste, I will not even try. Shunning and “the cut direct” should come back into style. Everyone has the right to their voice just as everyone has the right to not give them their time.
IMO, the root cause of the cancel culture that has emerged, first on the left and now beginning on the right, is our willingness to assume "high volume" = "high credibility". How often have we heard something along the lines of "S/he speaks with such passion that there must be truth in what they say." What we should be saying is "Shallow brooks make more noise than deep rivers."
I am almost in a continuous state of head shaking because of the deference we give to voices of people just because that person is visible or because the voice is very loud. So if we want to be heard, we must be louder. So now every transgression, almost no matter how small, is labeled "Hitlerian". I'm not sure there is any civil way back from this hole.
I'd like ad hominem attacks to stop being considered legitimate arguments. This goes for claiming someone is automatically bad or not believable, either, based on their.... ethnicity, sex, religion, etc. or even who has listened to them. For gender, the NYT and WP keep holding back on facts, or making it political -I believe it helps them argue conservatives want this so you shouldn't even look at anyone's data or lack of it. Rather than reporting how much and how many doctors are concerned giving medical reasons such as benefits aren't shown to outweigh risks, outcome studies are lacking so terrible harm is reported but MDs haven't checked how often it happens etc. or even that the latest study claimed to show improvement has resulted in no psychosocial improvement for MTf, small relative to placebo improvement for ftm, 2 suicides and for 6/8 protocol outcomes....oops.....forgot to mention them. Why is this not a story?
They are pushing for these interventions and yet don't want to tell anyone how kids are doing when they're on them for a short time? By 4 years the us study that tracked them found almost 30% stopped hormones. Regret times seem to be 3-5-10 years on average depending on intervention.
Instead MDs wave the conservative flag on top of those they disagree with and the press shuts its eyes or hammers on the fact that some people are political.
Nice read, and a few comments - when you started out “on social media…” the game was over before it began. I have used internet based social media (usenet) since the early 80’s, when it was distributed on ARPANET, and I observed four principles which I call “1 - Cesspool of Melancholy”, “2 - Suppuration of Trolls”, “3 -Recordings, not Conversation”, and “4 - Demonic Speed”. 1) Communications which make people unhappy are the most popular, which drive the most attention. 2) All collections of communication which are not aggressively edited always attract Trolls whose only contribution is to upset for pleasure. This reinforces principle (1). 3) People treat social media as a conversation, instead of a recording. Their speech is used at just the wrong moment by (2) to drive (1). 4) Social media are transmitted so quickly that it is impossible to respond to (1) generated by (2) via (3), which amplifies despair very quickly.
I feel so sorry for teenagers who have no clue how these principles are deployed, and surprised at psychologists who are mystified why social media causes depression.
Free speech is not totally free - it is constrained from allowing “fire in a theatre” messages, or constrained by editorial boards in. Publications. Taylor Swift deepfakes, your mob experience, and other versions are simply the 1 - 2 - 3 -4 system doing what it was designed to do without any ordinary curation.
I am hyperdigital (let me introduce you to my conversational Abraham Lincoln AI some day), but I totally avoid social media, even Substack is less attractive by the day - its poorly managed commentary is tilting into (1) and (2). Consider what it would be like to work with a purpose-built mailing list with comments managed via an editorial team and no mass communication among members. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 are gone. Life is good.
I'm glad you did find your voice, and I love how you emerged from this stronger and more assertive than before. Excellent observation on how once you identify a bully, they lose their power. Getting featured somewhere else later was a big f**k-you to your critics. I have wondered all through this cancellation mania *why* everyone is taking so seriously a bunch of anonymous trolls who post and tweet rather a lot like moronic 14-year-olds in their parents' basement.
Like, how did America become so cowed and conquered by a bunch of anonymous losers? Like, what would have happened if some big corporation had said, "F**k you, we don't care if our VP of Finance did black face in college, he's 37 now so get over it!" Like really, the trolls and whiners would have driven this company into the ground?
Great piece. I have noticed that writers (and thinkers and introverts in general) tend to be more censored than others. It's wonderful you have found your outlet with your writing.
I have felt outrage towards the language used by right (in decades past) and plenty of outrage toward most of the crazy rhetoric used by the progressive left since 2020. Recently I found myself in a sympathetic conversation with a new acquaintance who was infuriated by a man in his monthly men's group who called him a racist. He plans to kick the man out of the group. I can empathize with him, of course. Nobody wants to be called a racist. But our own intolerance to intolerable words can become a slippery slope in and of itself. I reminded him that freedom of speech means tolerating speech you find intolerable even abhorrent. Also as a practical matter we have to beware of mobs vs minority voices and those who proffer viewpoint diversity. Mobs who drown out minority voices should be checked to some degree. Individuals who dare to express a viewpoint that runs counter to the group should probably be heard. My two cents!
On defending free speech. I'm very much a believer in free speech.
BUT: What's the best long-term strategy to defend free speech? Is it to always and consistently support speech, even when those speaking would not support your speech? Game theory suggests that's not the best long-term strategy. (Google 'tit for tat' and 'iterated prisoners dilemma') A better strategy is to in general support free speech, but also "punish" people who do not support other's free speech by not supporting their speech. You have to create an incentive to change the position of non-supporters.
People mainly do these things, bullying, cancelling, doxing, all forms of persecution when they feel they can’t be seen. Which is easy today with social media. We should not only not stay silent, but we should shine light on those who do these things. If the perpetrators believe they are right in what they’re saying and doing, then they should be held accountable to defend and justify their behavior.
Shine light on them, not in a bullying way, but have them answer for their deeds. It seems only fair.
I enjoyed reading this essay. Since grade school, I have lived by the bedrock principle one can disagree without being disagreeable. I continue to approach all interactions with others in this fashion. As for bullies, my personal rule is do not engage bullies. I usually give a writer or commentator three chances to prove they are not a bully. The third time for me is the charm, however. I gracefully bid the bully adieu and move on. Life is too short to consume negative energy from bullies.
Great piece, and dead on!
My wife has PTSD from the way I have been targeted and attacked for speaking against CRT here in Vermont. The attackers are toxic, vicious, lying people with serious mental health problems and a deranged misunderstanding of reality. Yet they want to rule the world and crush anyone who questions them.
Yet I know of people here who have endured worse, and who were vulnerable to job or business loss (I'm a farmer so I'm immune). I have learned two important lessons that this commentary affirms:
1) Don't be silenced. As James Lindsay says. "They call you a racist when they want you to shut up." Don't -- talk more and louder. Since I have the facts and law on my side (and I'm an attorney), I simply keep writing and proving they are manipulating statistics and seeding racism. And the attackers have mostly gone silent -- they can't shut me up, and they can't win an argument. So they try to deplatform and ignore me..... Bullies seek vulnerability and people to victimize, not people who stand up to them.
2) It is imperative that we counter their toxicity with tolerance, and not stoop to their level. I embrace their free speech rights -- the more they speak, the more they prove themselves to be deluded, uninformed morons. (Just sayin'....)
As I've told everyone I come into contact with, I will always defend your right to speak. I may not agree with what you are saying, but I don't have to agree for you to be treated like a human being with your own thoughts. When everyone thinks and speaks the same, we have given up our humanity and decided to be programmed robots. The biggest problem I've seen on all sides is that people who claim to be for free speech won't even speak up to defend it when it is their side doing it. People listen to people they agree with more than others. It's cowardly to remain silent.
Yes, yes, yes, and walk the talk. Hypocrisy should be anathema to all reasoning people. The climate change mantra is an obvious example. To preach against the use of fossil fuels yet use the products of those same fuels each and every day without thought. To turn a blind eye to the negative aspects of “green” energy-environmental damage, child labor, habitat destruction, increased cost of living, etc.
For my part, I have decided that there is no reasoning with some people and that, as I am in my waning years and have no time to waste, I will not even try. Shunning and “the cut direct” should come back into style. Everyone has the right to their voice just as everyone has the right to not give them their time.
IMO, the root cause of the cancel culture that has emerged, first on the left and now beginning on the right, is our willingness to assume "high volume" = "high credibility". How often have we heard something along the lines of "S/he speaks with such passion that there must be truth in what they say." What we should be saying is "Shallow brooks make more noise than deep rivers."
I am almost in a continuous state of head shaking because of the deference we give to voices of people just because that person is visible or because the voice is very loud. So if we want to be heard, we must be louder. So now every transgression, almost no matter how small, is labeled "Hitlerian". I'm not sure there is any civil way back from this hole.
Progressives only seem to wake up to the perversions of their fellow travelers when the fellow travelers come for them . Better late than never
Thank you!
I'd like ad hominem attacks to stop being considered legitimate arguments. This goes for claiming someone is automatically bad or not believable, either, based on their.... ethnicity, sex, religion, etc. or even who has listened to them. For gender, the NYT and WP keep holding back on facts, or making it political -I believe it helps them argue conservatives want this so you shouldn't even look at anyone's data or lack of it. Rather than reporting how much and how many doctors are concerned giving medical reasons such as benefits aren't shown to outweigh risks, outcome studies are lacking so terrible harm is reported but MDs haven't checked how often it happens etc. or even that the latest study claimed to show improvement has resulted in no psychosocial improvement for MTf, small relative to placebo improvement for ftm, 2 suicides and for 6/8 protocol outcomes....oops.....forgot to mention them. Why is this not a story?
They are pushing for these interventions and yet don't want to tell anyone how kids are doing when they're on them for a short time? By 4 years the us study that tracked them found almost 30% stopped hormones. Regret times seem to be 3-5-10 years on average depending on intervention.
Instead MDs wave the conservative flag on top of those they disagree with and the press shuts its eyes or hammers on the fact that some people are political.
Nice read, and a few comments - when you started out “on social media…” the game was over before it began. I have used internet based social media (usenet) since the early 80’s, when it was distributed on ARPANET, and I observed four principles which I call “1 - Cesspool of Melancholy”, “2 - Suppuration of Trolls”, “3 -Recordings, not Conversation”, and “4 - Demonic Speed”. 1) Communications which make people unhappy are the most popular, which drive the most attention. 2) All collections of communication which are not aggressively edited always attract Trolls whose only contribution is to upset for pleasure. This reinforces principle (1). 3) People treat social media as a conversation, instead of a recording. Their speech is used at just the wrong moment by (2) to drive (1). 4) Social media are transmitted so quickly that it is impossible to respond to (1) generated by (2) via (3), which amplifies despair very quickly.
I feel so sorry for teenagers who have no clue how these principles are deployed, and surprised at psychologists who are mystified why social media causes depression.
Free speech is not totally free - it is constrained from allowing “fire in a theatre” messages, or constrained by editorial boards in. Publications. Taylor Swift deepfakes, your mob experience, and other versions are simply the 1 - 2 - 3 -4 system doing what it was designed to do without any ordinary curation.
I am hyperdigital (let me introduce you to my conversational Abraham Lincoln AI some day), but I totally avoid social media, even Substack is less attractive by the day - its poorly managed commentary is tilting into (1) and (2). Consider what it would be like to work with a purpose-built mailing list with comments managed via an editorial team and no mass communication among members. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 are gone. Life is good.
I'm glad you did find your voice, and I love how you emerged from this stronger and more assertive than before. Excellent observation on how once you identify a bully, they lose their power. Getting featured somewhere else later was a big f**k-you to your critics. I have wondered all through this cancellation mania *why* everyone is taking so seriously a bunch of anonymous trolls who post and tweet rather a lot like moronic 14-year-olds in their parents' basement.
Like, how did America become so cowed and conquered by a bunch of anonymous losers? Like, what would have happened if some big corporation had said, "F**k you, we don't care if our VP of Finance did black face in college, he's 37 now so get over it!" Like really, the trolls and whiners would have driven this company into the ground?
Great piece. I have noticed that writers (and thinkers and introverts in general) tend to be more censored than others. It's wonderful you have found your outlet with your writing.
I have felt outrage towards the language used by right (in decades past) and plenty of outrage toward most of the crazy rhetoric used by the progressive left since 2020. Recently I found myself in a sympathetic conversation with a new acquaintance who was infuriated by a man in his monthly men's group who called him a racist. He plans to kick the man out of the group. I can empathize with him, of course. Nobody wants to be called a racist. But our own intolerance to intolerable words can become a slippery slope in and of itself. I reminded him that freedom of speech means tolerating speech you find intolerable even abhorrent. Also as a practical matter we have to beware of mobs vs minority voices and those who proffer viewpoint diversity. Mobs who drown out minority voices should be checked to some degree. Individuals who dare to express a viewpoint that runs counter to the group should probably be heard. My two cents!
On defending free speech. I'm very much a believer in free speech.
BUT: What's the best long-term strategy to defend free speech? Is it to always and consistently support speech, even when those speaking would not support your speech? Game theory suggests that's not the best long-term strategy. (Google 'tit for tat' and 'iterated prisoners dilemma') A better strategy is to in general support free speech, but also "punish" people who do not support other's free speech by not supporting their speech. You have to create an incentive to change the position of non-supporters.
People mainly do these things, bullying, cancelling, doxing, all forms of persecution when they feel they can’t be seen. Which is easy today with social media. We should not only not stay silent, but we should shine light on those who do these things. If the perpetrators believe they are right in what they’re saying and doing, then they should be held accountable to defend and justify their behavior.
Shine light on them, not in a bullying way, but have them answer for their deeds. It seems only fair.
I enjoyed reading this essay. Since grade school, I have lived by the bedrock principle one can disagree without being disagreeable. I continue to approach all interactions with others in this fashion. As for bullies, my personal rule is do not engage bullies. I usually give a writer or commentator three chances to prove they are not a bully. The third time for me is the charm, however. I gracefully bid the bully adieu and move on. Life is too short to consume negative energy from bullies.
Kudos on your book!
I know this feeling pretty well. Although it hasn't necessarily gone as good as this person.