To the FAIR community, We are long overdue for a formal introduction. My name is Angel Eduardo. I’m a writer, musician, and visual artist, and I am passionate about using my skills to build a better world. This passion is why I joined FAIR’s Board of Advisors in July of 2021 and signed on as FAIR’s Director of Messaging & Editorial in January of 2022.
Well said. If we are unable to tolerate diverse viewpoints as well as feeling offended, we will be unable to think, make good decisions, and make progress as a society.
No one in the FAIR community, including subscribers to this stack, should be afraid to voice or encounter diverse viewpoints. And we certainly don’t need to foster a chilling effect on speech here. Keep up the good work, Angel and crew!
Thank you so much Angel. I am so happy to be a part of this group. I have really been enjoying the different perspectives because they have been challenging me to see issues in new ways. I really appreciated the pro life voice. I am Catholic but I believe that we need to have the choice with the mom and her God at least in the first trimester. The pro life people I know are very caring and thoughtful and I appreciated FAIR giving that viewpoint a platform. Keep up the great work!!
Thanks very much for your support. It is a difficult and challenging topic, and it is possible for good faith disagreement to come from all sides. I appreciate your openness, and I hope you'll contribute to our Substack in the future if you have a perspective you'd like to share!
Jul 29, 2022·edited Jul 29, 2022Liked by Angel Eduardo
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.” J-S Mill
I like FAIR and this platform on substack. It is liberating to have the freedom to call out egregious ideological bs in an environment where open minds are encouraged to re- think or even find common ground.
Thank you, Polly. Finding common ground is essential to building the future we want to build. As Pauli Murray said, “When my brothers try to draw a circle to exclude me, I shall draw a larger circle to include them. Where they speak out for the privileges of a puny group, I shall shout for the rights of all mankind.”
While FAIR has an open editorial policy, that shouldn't mean that the editors have no standards and that they will publish anything and everything sent to them. I imagine FAIR has received numerous complaints about a recent anti-abortion article that was very poorly reasoned and found unequal rights for women morally acceptable – a stance which would appear to violate the mission of FAIR.
FAIR's standards for members on its board of advisors is apparently another problem area. The problem there is admitting someone who promotes "Transpersonal Psychology" (TP) and apparently Postmodernism (he has deconstructed the concept of "forgiveness" to the word "no.") TP is anti-science and consists of a collection of invalidated, high risk practices that have the potential for causing serious harm. I hope this situation becomes a concern for FAIR.
FAIR absolutely has editorial standards, and for a variety of reasons there are and will be plenty of submissions that we will choose not to publish.
There were numerous complaints about both of our pieces related to abortion this week, which I think highlights how difficult this topic is, and how necessary it is for us to attempt to have conversations across our divides on it. I disagree that the article you reference indicates moral acceptance of unequal rights for women, but I understand and respect the fact that you are reading it that way. This again speaks to the need for dialogue—because people's intentions and perspectives on this issue can so easily be mischaracterized or misinterpreted.
I encourage you to contribute your own perspective to the conversation. I would be happy to work with you on it so that we can foster and model a healthy discourse on this and all other topics.
Let’s agree for a second that that article was “poorly-reasoned”. If an article gets its facts straight, but reasons poorly from those facts, that’s something that should spark lively responses in the comments section, and often I learn more from the responses to a poorly-reasoned article than the article itself, which for me makes the original article, though poorly-reasoned, worth the read. Whether FAIR believes that’s a worthwhile trade-off is up to them to decide, but I think it has less to do with standards.
The bigger issue is when an article gets its facts wrong, like in the case of the recent pro-abortion article. In that article it was unclear based on what the author said that she had actually read the Dobbs decision, but then she went on to read the minds of Justice Alito and Ben Shapiro, apparently finding information there that contradicted what they had publicly written and spoken. In cases like this, it doesn’t even matter how well- or poorly-reasoned the article is, because it’s built on a foundation of sand. The only useful thing this article brought forth were comments pointing out that she grievously misunderstood or misinterpreted what she was confidently writing about, but I’d argue this isn’t more useful on net balance than simply not publishing the article. In general, an article that is factually wrong probably should not be published.
Finally, I have to point out that it sounds in your first paragraph as though you believe that certain CONCLUSIONS are unacceptable, regardless of the reasoning used to reach them. Please correct me if I’m wrong, though. Is it actually the reasoning of the article that bothered you or is it the fact that the article supported the overturning of Roe vs. Wade? If the former, then I must ask if you would be willing to accept a well-reasoned argument in support of the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.
"...often I learn more from the responses..." Perhaps a publication shouldn't depend on public comments to salvage a dim-witted article.
The tortured reasoning in this article is that the Dobbs decision is a welcome improvement over Roe because it allows individual states to determine essential rights from women, rather than having those rights guaranteed constitutionally, thus magically easing tensions between pro-choice and anti-abortion factions. Somehow, being deprived of rights by states is going to make women more accepting of opposing opinions?
And is it reasonable to suggest that if women don't like living in a state with no full reproductive health services available, that they can simply move to another state – to a state that has these services now but could have them taken away by the state legislature at any time? That's the old "Love it or leave it" message – also guaranteed to ease tensions, right? Nor do the women who need an abortion today have the time to lobby, as the article suggests, for reproductive rights.
What's the next Orwellian fare at FAIR? "Curtailing free speech could reduce community tensions on CRT issues." "Outlawing firearms predicted to lower NRA membership."
“Somehow, being deprived of rights by states is going to make women more accepting of opposing opinions?”
As I mentioned before, it sounds as though you already have an entrenched opinion about abortion and are unwilling to consider opinions opposed to your own. If that’s the case, I don’t see how it would matter how well- or poorly-reasoned the argument is. It sounds more like you’re perturbed that the argument was given a platform, period. Once again, if I’m wrong about that, please clarify.
To answer your question, though, yes. After Roe vs. Wade the answer was settled. Not by the people, obviously, but by 9 supreme court justices. Since the matter was settled, pro-abortion women had absolutely no incentive to listen to opposing opinions. Why would they? Their side won on the national level.
Unlike what many supposedly well-informed people have said recently, the Dobbs decision did not ban abortion. Rather, it removed the question of the legality of abortion from the purview of the supreme court, since it never should have been their purview in the first place. Now that issue has returned to the states and is to be legislated. Some states already have in place bans on abortions. Other states have essentially the opposite. Some states are in the middle. Most importantly, however, is that laws can be changed based on the will of the people.
Since state laws can be changed through legislation which involves the popular vote, there is a clear incentive to argue ones case. There is also a clear incentive to listen to others’ arguments, HOPEFULLY in good faith with the intent on actually hearing the other person out. But even if not for that reason, it will be worthwhile to listen to opposing arguments so that you can understand them better, and be better equipped to pick them apart and hopefully prove your own case in the process. To obstinately deny the reality of the current situation and refuse to engage with the “other side” is going to hurt your side, not help it.
Regardless of ones personal opinions about abortion, Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision. RBG knew it. Pro-abortion constitutional lawyers knew it. Now it’s gone. The issue wasn’t anywhere close to settled when Roe was decided. Most people fall somewhere in the middle, saying abortion should be legal but with restrictions. Why not take up that conversation that was foolishly cut short back in 1973?
Take up the conversation about laws to limit abortion?
You apparently have missed a lot. For decades people have been trying to combat the many myths about abortion generated by the anti-abortionists and have tried, year after year, to stop states from nibbling away reproductive rights.
I know state legislators who are idiots about basic female anatomy and pregnancy, yet feel entitled to make decisions affecting women's health care. Reproductive health care is solely a matter to be discussed between women and their physicians -- this is a basic right, not subject to tyranny of any group with the power to intervene.
It sounds like you’re taking as foregone conclusions issues that are actually still (obviously) unsettled in this country, even among women. For example, I’m not sure why the father or the unborn child wouldn’t also be included in the matter of that child being brought into the world (or not). Saying that something is a basic right does not make it one, as you might have noticed. Claiming that whatever anyone says who disagrees with you is a “myth” also does not make it one. The fact that you are convinced that your own ideas are right isn’t surprising, but there’s no reason to think that others are equally convinced. Hence the value of discussion.
And to be clear, the discussion topic isn’t whether or not abortion is worth discussing. It obviously is. What I’m trying to tell you, is that by saying that the conversation is over, all you’re doing is passing by an opportunity to make actual points. “It’s not worth discussing” isn’t an actual point. “The matter is settled” isn’t a point. This sort of tactic might have worked from 1973 until about a month ago, because “no discussion” meant that your side won. That is no longer the case.
Anyway, this is my second attempt to make the same point, so if you don’t understand this time, I don’t have a third strategy. Hope I made sense.
It certainly is a futile exercise to discuss this issue with you, after witnessing your penchant for dreaming up quotes and distorting points made by your opponent.
I do hope for FAIR's sake that your aren't formally connected to the organization.
Well said. If we are unable to tolerate diverse viewpoints as well as feeling offended, we will be unable to think, make good decisions, and make progress as a society.
Thank you for your support, Sharon. I hope you'll contribute something of your own to the Substack soon!
No one in the FAIR community, including subscribers to this stack, should be afraid to voice or encounter diverse viewpoints. And we certainly don’t need to foster a chilling effect on speech here. Keep up the good work, Angel and crew!
Thanks very much! We will continue to try our best, and appreciate your support.
❤️☦️. Truth. Angel is a job title. Someone was properly catechized. 😁
¡Bienvenido, caballero!
I didn't make it to Confirmation, but I do consider my name a job title. Thank you!
Thank you Angel. We are in desperate need of sanity and a pro-human approach.
Thank you, Jo. FAIR is doing its best to provide it—with your help!
Thank you. I support and appreciate your approach. It seems to me exactly right.
Thanks very much for your support, Wayne! I believe that with curiosity, courage, and compassion, we can make a pro-human future into a reality.
Thank you so much Angel. I am so happy to be a part of this group. I have really been enjoying the different perspectives because they have been challenging me to see issues in new ways. I really appreciated the pro life voice. I am Catholic but I believe that we need to have the choice with the mom and her God at least in the first trimester. The pro life people I know are very caring and thoughtful and I appreciated FAIR giving that viewpoint a platform. Keep up the great work!!
Thanks very much for your support. It is a difficult and challenging topic, and it is possible for good faith disagreement to come from all sides. I appreciate your openness, and I hope you'll contribute to our Substack in the future if you have a perspective you'd like to share!
I will think about that.
Thank you, Angel. Dialogue is a very humanizing activity. ❤️
Thank you, Ann. Without communication, we are doomed. I hope to do my part to ensure that doesn't happen.
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.” J-S Mill
To both sides: Cheers!!
Excellent approach! Thanks for what you do Angel.
Thank you for your support, Matt! I hope you'll contribute something to our Substack soon!
Thank you Angel, I may. Although I have published many magazine articles about my traveling adventures, I will need your editing skills if I do!
Looking forward to reading what you send!
I like FAIR and this platform on substack. It is liberating to have the freedom to call out egregious ideological bs in an environment where open minds are encouraged to re- think or even find common ground.
Thank you, Polly. Finding common ground is essential to building the future we want to build. As Pauli Murray said, “When my brothers try to draw a circle to exclude me, I shall draw a larger circle to include them. Where they speak out for the privileges of a puny group, I shall shout for the rights of all mankind.”
While FAIR has an open editorial policy, that shouldn't mean that the editors have no standards and that they will publish anything and everything sent to them. I imagine FAIR has received numerous complaints about a recent anti-abortion article that was very poorly reasoned and found unequal rights for women morally acceptable – a stance which would appear to violate the mission of FAIR.
FAIR's standards for members on its board of advisors is apparently another problem area. The problem there is admitting someone who promotes "Transpersonal Psychology" (TP) and apparently Postmodernism (he has deconstructed the concept of "forgiveness" to the word "no.") TP is anti-science and consists of a collection of invalidated, high risk practices that have the potential for causing serious harm. I hope this situation becomes a concern for FAIR.
Hi Linda,
FAIR absolutely has editorial standards, and for a variety of reasons there are and will be plenty of submissions that we will choose not to publish.
There were numerous complaints about both of our pieces related to abortion this week, which I think highlights how difficult this topic is, and how necessary it is for us to attempt to have conversations across our divides on it. I disagree that the article you reference indicates moral acceptance of unequal rights for women, but I understand and respect the fact that you are reading it that way. This again speaks to the need for dialogue—because people's intentions and perspectives on this issue can so easily be mischaracterized or misinterpreted.
I encourage you to contribute your own perspective to the conversation. I would be happy to work with you on it so that we can foster and model a healthy discourse on this and all other topics.
Thank you for your response. Where might I find your policy/standards for 1.) publication, and 2.) membership on FAIR's Board of Advisors?
Let’s agree for a second that that article was “poorly-reasoned”. If an article gets its facts straight, but reasons poorly from those facts, that’s something that should spark lively responses in the comments section, and often I learn more from the responses to a poorly-reasoned article than the article itself, which for me makes the original article, though poorly-reasoned, worth the read. Whether FAIR believes that’s a worthwhile trade-off is up to them to decide, but I think it has less to do with standards.
The bigger issue is when an article gets its facts wrong, like in the case of the recent pro-abortion article. In that article it was unclear based on what the author said that she had actually read the Dobbs decision, but then she went on to read the minds of Justice Alito and Ben Shapiro, apparently finding information there that contradicted what they had publicly written and spoken. In cases like this, it doesn’t even matter how well- or poorly-reasoned the article is, because it’s built on a foundation of sand. The only useful thing this article brought forth were comments pointing out that she grievously misunderstood or misinterpreted what she was confidently writing about, but I’d argue this isn’t more useful on net balance than simply not publishing the article. In general, an article that is factually wrong probably should not be published.
Finally, I have to point out that it sounds in your first paragraph as though you believe that certain CONCLUSIONS are unacceptable, regardless of the reasoning used to reach them. Please correct me if I’m wrong, though. Is it actually the reasoning of the article that bothered you or is it the fact that the article supported the overturning of Roe vs. Wade? If the former, then I must ask if you would be willing to accept a well-reasoned argument in support of the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.
"...often I learn more from the responses..." Perhaps a publication shouldn't depend on public comments to salvage a dim-witted article.
The tortured reasoning in this article is that the Dobbs decision is a welcome improvement over Roe because it allows individual states to determine essential rights from women, rather than having those rights guaranteed constitutionally, thus magically easing tensions between pro-choice and anti-abortion factions. Somehow, being deprived of rights by states is going to make women more accepting of opposing opinions?
And is it reasonable to suggest that if women don't like living in a state with no full reproductive health services available, that they can simply move to another state – to a state that has these services now but could have them taken away by the state legislature at any time? That's the old "Love it or leave it" message – also guaranteed to ease tensions, right? Nor do the women who need an abortion today have the time to lobby, as the article suggests, for reproductive rights.
What's the next Orwellian fare at FAIR? "Curtailing free speech could reduce community tensions on CRT issues." "Outlawing firearms predicted to lower NRA membership."
“Somehow, being deprived of rights by states is going to make women more accepting of opposing opinions?”
As I mentioned before, it sounds as though you already have an entrenched opinion about abortion and are unwilling to consider opinions opposed to your own. If that’s the case, I don’t see how it would matter how well- or poorly-reasoned the argument is. It sounds more like you’re perturbed that the argument was given a platform, period. Once again, if I’m wrong about that, please clarify.
To answer your question, though, yes. After Roe vs. Wade the answer was settled. Not by the people, obviously, but by 9 supreme court justices. Since the matter was settled, pro-abortion women had absolutely no incentive to listen to opposing opinions. Why would they? Their side won on the national level.
Unlike what many supposedly well-informed people have said recently, the Dobbs decision did not ban abortion. Rather, it removed the question of the legality of abortion from the purview of the supreme court, since it never should have been their purview in the first place. Now that issue has returned to the states and is to be legislated. Some states already have in place bans on abortions. Other states have essentially the opposite. Some states are in the middle. Most importantly, however, is that laws can be changed based on the will of the people.
Since state laws can be changed through legislation which involves the popular vote, there is a clear incentive to argue ones case. There is also a clear incentive to listen to others’ arguments, HOPEFULLY in good faith with the intent on actually hearing the other person out. But even if not for that reason, it will be worthwhile to listen to opposing arguments so that you can understand them better, and be better equipped to pick them apart and hopefully prove your own case in the process. To obstinately deny the reality of the current situation and refuse to engage with the “other side” is going to hurt your side, not help it.
Regardless of ones personal opinions about abortion, Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision. RBG knew it. Pro-abortion constitutional lawyers knew it. Now it’s gone. The issue wasn’t anywhere close to settled when Roe was decided. Most people fall somewhere in the middle, saying abortion should be legal but with restrictions. Why not take up that conversation that was foolishly cut short back in 1973?
Take up the conversation about laws to limit abortion?
You apparently have missed a lot. For decades people have been trying to combat the many myths about abortion generated by the anti-abortionists and have tried, year after year, to stop states from nibbling away reproductive rights.
I know state legislators who are idiots about basic female anatomy and pregnancy, yet feel entitled to make decisions affecting women's health care. Reproductive health care is solely a matter to be discussed between women and their physicians -- this is a basic right, not subject to tyranny of any group with the power to intervene.
It sounds like you’re taking as foregone conclusions issues that are actually still (obviously) unsettled in this country, even among women. For example, I’m not sure why the father or the unborn child wouldn’t also be included in the matter of that child being brought into the world (or not). Saying that something is a basic right does not make it one, as you might have noticed. Claiming that whatever anyone says who disagrees with you is a “myth” also does not make it one. The fact that you are convinced that your own ideas are right isn’t surprising, but there’s no reason to think that others are equally convinced. Hence the value of discussion.
And to be clear, the discussion topic isn’t whether or not abortion is worth discussing. It obviously is. What I’m trying to tell you, is that by saying that the conversation is over, all you’re doing is passing by an opportunity to make actual points. “It’s not worth discussing” isn’t an actual point. “The matter is settled” isn’t a point. This sort of tactic might have worked from 1973 until about a month ago, because “no discussion” meant that your side won. That is no longer the case.
Anyway, this is my second attempt to make the same point, so if you don’t understand this time, I don’t have a third strategy. Hope I made sense.
It certainly is a futile exercise to discuss this issue with you, after witnessing your penchant for dreaming up quotes and distorting points made by your opponent.
I do hope for FAIR's sake that your aren't formally connected to the organization.
Bravo.