Maybe, the grift of "cancel culture" or "wokeism" or "DEI" and "ESG" are all cut from the same cloth. Seems to to me. We know, you don't, so listen and learn. Sound "Fauci" familiar?
"Maybe, the grift of "cancel culture" or "wokeism" or "DEI" and "ESG" are all cut from the same cloth. Seems to to me. We know, you don't, so listen and learn. Sound "Fauci" familiar?"
I think those policy measures have distinguishing features that keep them from being "all cut from the same cloth."
Appeal To Authority arguments have more relevance and positive utility in some realms than others- and the realm of Medicine is one of those. When Medicine and Law contact each other, there's often a lot of friction; the two disciplines have different priorities, and work in ways that aren't always compatible. And Public Policy most often involves Law, official moves by governments.
Hence, controversies over Public Health Policy. There isn't anything new about either officially ordained quarantine restrictions or the resistance to them. There isn't anything especially new per se about vaccine mandates, either; they've long been required in connections with passports and visas, or for employees in government service. Public health policies contain an inherent quotient of controversy, because no medical intervention is guaranteed to produce the desired outcome in every case. Medical science is a process, a work in progress. Whereas Law- Public Policy- relies on settled conclusions in order to make decisions. A novel virus epidemic involves a lack of medical certainty practically by definition. But public policy demands decisive responses--very quickly--even in the absence of that certainty. So I never found the changes of messaging and recommendations by the CDC particularly bewildering, especially in the early days. It's to be expected that the scientists and medical practitioners would tend to err on the side of caution when advising government officials on a policy response to a novel virus epidemic; there isn't anything nefarious about that. The official government response was facing an array of possibilities--which included the notion that a more laissez-faire approach may have produced a public health catastrophe. In retrospect, a policy with aspects more akin to the approach taken by Sweden would have mitigated the casualty toll to a similar extent without leading to massive disruptions in retail businesses, workplaces, and schools. But that perspective has the benefit of hindsight. Prevailing medical opinion was, necessarily, a best guess that was nowhere near certain. But it was a best guess by professionally trained medical authorities, and as a rule, professionally trained medical authority is more trustworthy on questions of epidemiology than the random guesswork of amateurs.
Dr. Fauci may be wrong on some things. His purview may be an overreach. But I need a lot more evidence that he's part of some Grand Unified Conspiracy than a name-check connected to a veiled insinuation.
The political position that advocates shutting down or preempting open discourse, cancelling speech, and demonizing and criminalizing speakers for their words addresses an entirely different realm of public policy than the emergency response to a disease epidemic. Cancelling is in principle forbidden as an official government action by the Constitution. But Cancelling is nonetheless a Public action- because of the implications in relationship to respect for the rights of free speech, due process, and the ability of the citizens in an open society to hear out disputed positions to their fullest extent. That realm is Constitutionally protected- for good reason- and has no business taking on the restrictions of an emergency quarantine event.
As for diversity-equity-inclusion efforts: in principle, I'm not opposed to any of those goals per se. They only assume their negative aspects when DEI gets capitalized in association with the inauguration of a bureaucratic regime dedicated to addressing the problems. It's axiomatic that the top priority of all bureaucracies is the preservation of their own permanence (this has been observed repeatedly, going back to Max Weber's study of 19th century Prussia.) This doesn't loom large as a problem when the duty of the bureaucracy is keeping the pipes fixed, because that's an unending challenge. When applied to DEI, however, bureaucracy doesn't solve problems; it implicitly guarantees their perpetuation. Following Harry Truman's integration of the US military in 1948, the diversity and inclusion situation was in the process of being resolved on an ad hoc basis. Affirmative action measures were sometimes put in place, but in most cases the untoward consequences were minimal, and the cases where unfair impacts were significant and controversial were subject to litigation and reversal. It's sometimes a messy situation, but the legacy of injustice that necessitated the policy decisions was worse. The ambitions of Capital DEI are much more sweeping- and, I think, foredoomed to being counterproductive.
I don't view environmental, social, and corporate governance measures as identical to DEI. DEI can at most be viewed as a subset of the Social part of ESG. Furthermore, ESG is almost entirely about corporate decisionmaking; the directives are not found in educational or governmental institutions. I happen to prefer the inclusion of Environmental priorities in corporate decisionmaking. It beats wastrel rapacity, and the bogus priority of guaranteeing the highest quarterly monetary returns to the shareholders, which is an exclusive private end of the worst sort. Effective stewardship of environmental priorities by private sector decisions also lessens the need for government intervention to keep the wells from being poisoned. If only there were more of it. In any case, those are boardroom decisions; however they might affect the public square, as a practical matter, the only proper response to them is in the marketplace. Unless, that is, someone insists on passing laws to forbid ESG, or to forbid governments from doing businesses that include ESG provisions in their corporate policies. I mean, it's possible to advocate for such a law. But no one should deceive themselves that doing so amounts to responsible conservatism.
I am among the few people who actually enjoys Twitter under Elon’s regime. I see so much more acknowledgment of reality there than when censorship ruled. Trying to turn Substack into the old Twitter would kill it. If someone doesn’t want to see something in either place, fucking block it yourself you lazy wuss.
This recent story of a list of books supposedly removed because of the Florida law is wholly unverified. It evidently originated with an advocacy group which furnished a list to the Orlando Sentinel, which in turn published it without any independent verification. There’s no telling how the list of “removed” titles were collected, but the process could simply have involved “removals” reported by teachers who opposed the law because it curtailed their authority. There’s simply no telling, and until there is I think the notion teachers were forced to or thought they had to remove Dickens and Dante can be taken with a grain of salt. Just my two cents.
You claim your book was banned by Orange County Public schools then you link to a website that links to "700 titles that lacked a "lowest approved grade" designation upon review" and your book is not on the list. Your book is found on Osceola County's list of "rejected" books but the article clearly states this designation does not mean the book is "banned" like you claim, and a teacher can request a review of the book to get it approved. Be a little more honest with your readers and fix the error above.
People love telling other people what to do, especially those who are inferior or are just too stupid to think the way they do. In the great circle of life it just depends on who has the upper hand at the time. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Resist. Or knuckle under.
Psychologically speaking, the behavior of critical theory activists is similar to that of Puritans because it is about superego aggression (driven by moral values)and/or narcissistic aggression carried out in the name of moral concerns. The aggressors are generally True Believers, and in both cultural contexts, people with authoritarian, repressive values. Both superego aggression and narcissistic aggression justified by moralistic arguments were also prominently featured in the Inquisitions perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church, and more recently by Islamists.
I really enjoyed the balance of this article. I think this age suffers from an unwillingness to look at both sides of an issue to have an informed discussion without name-calling.
Maybe, the grift of "cancel culture" or "wokeism" or "DEI" and "ESG" are all cut from the same cloth. Seems to to me. We know, you don't, so listen and learn. Sound "Fauci" familiar?
"Maybe, the grift of "cancel culture" or "wokeism" or "DEI" and "ESG" are all cut from the same cloth. Seems to to me. We know, you don't, so listen and learn. Sound "Fauci" familiar?"
I think those policy measures have distinguishing features that keep them from being "all cut from the same cloth."
Appeal To Authority arguments have more relevance and positive utility in some realms than others- and the realm of Medicine is one of those. When Medicine and Law contact each other, there's often a lot of friction; the two disciplines have different priorities, and work in ways that aren't always compatible. And Public Policy most often involves Law, official moves by governments.
Hence, controversies over Public Health Policy. There isn't anything new about either officially ordained quarantine restrictions or the resistance to them. There isn't anything especially new per se about vaccine mandates, either; they've long been required in connections with passports and visas, or for employees in government service. Public health policies contain an inherent quotient of controversy, because no medical intervention is guaranteed to produce the desired outcome in every case. Medical science is a process, a work in progress. Whereas Law- Public Policy- relies on settled conclusions in order to make decisions. A novel virus epidemic involves a lack of medical certainty practically by definition. But public policy demands decisive responses--very quickly--even in the absence of that certainty. So I never found the changes of messaging and recommendations by the CDC particularly bewildering, especially in the early days. It's to be expected that the scientists and medical practitioners would tend to err on the side of caution when advising government officials on a policy response to a novel virus epidemic; there isn't anything nefarious about that. The official government response was facing an array of possibilities--which included the notion that a more laissez-faire approach may have produced a public health catastrophe. In retrospect, a policy with aspects more akin to the approach taken by Sweden would have mitigated the casualty toll to a similar extent without leading to massive disruptions in retail businesses, workplaces, and schools. But that perspective has the benefit of hindsight. Prevailing medical opinion was, necessarily, a best guess that was nowhere near certain. But it was a best guess by professionally trained medical authorities, and as a rule, professionally trained medical authority is more trustworthy on questions of epidemiology than the random guesswork of amateurs.
Dr. Fauci may be wrong on some things. His purview may be an overreach. But I need a lot more evidence that he's part of some Grand Unified Conspiracy than a name-check connected to a veiled insinuation.
The political position that advocates shutting down or preempting open discourse, cancelling speech, and demonizing and criminalizing speakers for their words addresses an entirely different realm of public policy than the emergency response to a disease epidemic. Cancelling is in principle forbidden as an official government action by the Constitution. But Cancelling is nonetheless a Public action- because of the implications in relationship to respect for the rights of free speech, due process, and the ability of the citizens in an open society to hear out disputed positions to their fullest extent. That realm is Constitutionally protected- for good reason- and has no business taking on the restrictions of an emergency quarantine event.
As for diversity-equity-inclusion efforts: in principle, I'm not opposed to any of those goals per se. They only assume their negative aspects when DEI gets capitalized in association with the inauguration of a bureaucratic regime dedicated to addressing the problems. It's axiomatic that the top priority of all bureaucracies is the preservation of their own permanence (this has been observed repeatedly, going back to Max Weber's study of 19th century Prussia.) This doesn't loom large as a problem when the duty of the bureaucracy is keeping the pipes fixed, because that's an unending challenge. When applied to DEI, however, bureaucracy doesn't solve problems; it implicitly guarantees their perpetuation. Following Harry Truman's integration of the US military in 1948, the diversity and inclusion situation was in the process of being resolved on an ad hoc basis. Affirmative action measures were sometimes put in place, but in most cases the untoward consequences were minimal, and the cases where unfair impacts were significant and controversial were subject to litigation and reversal. It's sometimes a messy situation, but the legacy of injustice that necessitated the policy decisions was worse. The ambitions of Capital DEI are much more sweeping- and, I think, foredoomed to being counterproductive.
I don't view environmental, social, and corporate governance measures as identical to DEI. DEI can at most be viewed as a subset of the Social part of ESG. Furthermore, ESG is almost entirely about corporate decisionmaking; the directives are not found in educational or governmental institutions. I happen to prefer the inclusion of Environmental priorities in corporate decisionmaking. It beats wastrel rapacity, and the bogus priority of guaranteeing the highest quarterly monetary returns to the shareholders, which is an exclusive private end of the worst sort. Effective stewardship of environmental priorities by private sector decisions also lessens the need for government intervention to keep the wells from being poisoned. If only there were more of it. In any case, those are boardroom decisions; however they might affect the public square, as a practical matter, the only proper response to them is in the marketplace. Unless, that is, someone insists on passing laws to forbid ESG, or to forbid governments from doing businesses that include ESG provisions in their corporate policies. I mean, it's possible to advocate for such a law. But no one should deceive themselves that doing so amounts to responsible conservatism.
Wow, that Rising segment sure was something!
Wrote about that here! https://twitter.com/glukianoff/status/1747734630101299652
That lefty lady sure rang your bell, Greg. You're gonna have to get a whole lot tougher in such encounters (make 'em cry!).
I am among the few people who actually enjoys Twitter under Elon’s regime. I see so much more acknowledgment of reality there than when censorship ruled. Trying to turn Substack into the old Twitter would kill it. If someone doesn’t want to see something in either place, fucking block it yourself you lazy wuss.
This recent story of a list of books supposedly removed because of the Florida law is wholly unverified. It evidently originated with an advocacy group which furnished a list to the Orlando Sentinel, which in turn published it without any independent verification. There’s no telling how the list of “removed” titles were collected, but the process could simply have involved “removals” reported by teachers who opposed the law because it curtailed their authority. There’s simply no telling, and until there is I think the notion teachers were forced to or thought they had to remove Dickens and Dante can be taken with a grain of salt. Just my two cents.
You claim your book was banned by Orange County Public schools then you link to a website that links to "700 titles that lacked a "lowest approved grade" designation upon review" and your book is not on the list. Your book is found on Osceola County's list of "rejected" books but the article clearly states this designation does not mean the book is "banned" like you claim, and a teacher can request a review of the book to get it approved. Be a little more honest with your readers and fix the error above.
In Puritan America, ostracization amounted to a death sentence. Take a ride on the Hutch.
People love telling other people what to do, especially those who are inferior or are just too stupid to think the way they do. In the great circle of life it just depends on who has the upper hand at the time. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Resist. Or knuckle under.
That's an interesting coincidence: in 2016 I posted a paper titled "The New Victorianism".
https://openanthropology.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/forte_new_victorianism1.pdf
Psychologically speaking, the behavior of critical theory activists is similar to that of Puritans because it is about superego aggression (driven by moral values)and/or narcissistic aggression carried out in the name of moral concerns. The aggressors are generally True Believers, and in both cultural contexts, people with authoritarian, repressive values. Both superego aggression and narcissistic aggression justified by moralistic arguments were also prominently featured in the Inquisitions perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church, and more recently by Islamists.
I really enjoyed the balance of this article. I think this age suffers from an unwillingness to look at both sides of an issue to have an informed discussion without name-calling.