“Is the trans movement anti-gay?” In honor of Pride Month, Peter Boghossian begins this conversation with an investigation into the increasing rejection of trans ideology by the LGB (without the T) community.
I admire Doyle's ability to pinpoint issues with both satire and concise, direct takedowns. The discussion about the importance of art was another one of his fresh new perspectives that was really appreciated.
A vision of what to work toward and what to stand for as opposed to getting caught up in anger and despair will be a vital tool for the rational portion of society to win the fight against Woke. Thanks for having him on, this was fantastic.
I love the stance you are taking towards people who are caught up in the social justice (and any other) ideology. Everyone screws up from time to time, so everyone has an incentive to foster a society that values admonishment and forgiveness. I don’t have a methodology for getting woke friends and family members to engage in conversation, but I do have a few ideas that may be pieces to the puzzle.
1. People don’t like getting intentionally deceived and exposing deception is a non-harmful way to evoke emotion.
After listening to more Keri Smith content, it was apparent that emotional experiences are an important part of triggering periods of contemplation. The only way that occurred to me for evoking emotion in a harmless fashion would be to ask them how they would feel if they discovered someone they trusted intentionally deceived or manipulated them?
2. White Fragility intentionally deceives its reader and uses a method to manipulate that is easy to recognize in hindsight.
The emotion intentionally evoked in the introduction and chapter 1 is not the same emotion one would experience if one has already read chapter 2. If the reader already knows the author is using a different definition of racism, the reader will not experience the same emotional reaction to being called racist by the author. The author, however, knows she is using a different definition of racism in the introduction and chapter 1. In other words, by intentionally waiting until chapter 2 to provide the new definition of racism, she evokes an emotion related to the definition of racism expected by the reader. Since the author is aware of both definitions before printing the book, it could not have gone unnoticed that the emotional effect does not work in reverse order (redefining racism, then calling the reader a racist), it means the confusion of definitions for emotional effect is intentional manipulation.
3. After exposing the deception, acknowledge the merit of experiencing those emotions and provide better reasons for why one would experience those emotions and how their instinct as good people was correct but then misguided. We can learn from history, without having a residing fear that we are ignoring today’s current injustice. The way to be confident that you are not unknowingly perpetuating injustice, is to treat everyone as an individual.
This all boils down to your question regarding the term “wrong side of history”. At 56:20 in your conversation with Andrew Doyle, Andrew mentions that intention is everything and one can’t be accidentally racist, in his view. The woke fundamentally disagree with that and that is the fundamental disagreement that is rooted in emotion and may require emotion to uproot.
When I first heard the phrase “wrong side of history”, it reminded me of George W. Bush responding to critics of his decision to invade Iraq, saying that history will decide. I don’t subscribe to the idea, so my attempt to reproduce the reasoning and feelings behind the concept is primarily from piecing together concepts from White Fragility. I was inspired to pick up the book again by your interview with Keri Smith and something she said during an interview on Triggernometry. Thank you for introducing me to her content. She was asked if social justice theories were presented to her more as fact or theory? https://youtu.be/uVSgVlZjk8c?t=412 She replied that it was presented as undiscovered knowledge, that would make the world a better place if only more people read authors like Robin Diangelo, because authors like her “had it figured out”. That really stood out to me because my loved one suggested I read White Fragility as well. I found it hard to read because it seemed overtly racist and manipulative to me. This time when I picked it up, I carefully considered the subconscious and emotional appeal of what I was reading and tried to discover how a reader would get the impression Diangelo “had it figured out”. I think that stood out is that Diangelo evokes emotion in the reader, then immediately acknowledges the emotion and tells the reader how to interpret that emotion. Calling out the emotion one has just invoked in the reader subconsciously gives the reader the impression that the author is so knowledgeable on the subject that she can know the reader’s thoughts and reactions beforehand. I suspect this is where the impression that the author “had it figured out” comes from. I don’t know how accurate my analysis is. Hopefully, my thoughts below are accurate enough to be useful. I also made a diagram to help me think about the emotions being generated by various statements in White Fragility and a portion of the diagram resembles what I imagine must be the emotional reasoning behind the phrase wrong side of history. https://ibb.co/GRHs383
The Wrong Side of History
If you were given the choice of being a slave owner or an abolitionist, which would you choose? Since the only information provided is which side of the moral question each person lands on, if you favor one person over the other, then you are acknowledging that a person in history can be on the wrong side of a moral issue, even if it is not generally considered immoral at the time. No one wants to be that person because that person is acting immoral by our current standards. This would mean that at any moment, it is possible to be that terrible person existing on the "wrong side of history".
The injustices of the past that went unrecognized by the majority suggest that there not only could be, but almost certainly are, undiscovered injustices in existence at any moment. If one does not recognize the current injustices and actively oppose them, it means that person is as immoral as the slave owner, which people of the future will judge to be on the wrong side of history.
Again, this is not actually what I believe, It is just my best guess right now for where that phrase comes from. I think Social Justice ideology can generate a fear derived from the combination of this "understanding" and wanting to be considered a good person. The judging, evolving, yet to be discovered, concept of justice also reminds me of the alter to “the unknown god” in Athens, mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:23.
The unknown god can judge based upon currently unknown moral laws, that you may unknowingly be sinning against (the more advanced concept of justice of the future) that could be judging you right now. Without knowing how to appease it, you must remain hyper vigilant to not act in any way that any hypothetical society may imagine, nor associate with those who do, ever, just in case. This new god knows no mercy, wielding the power to judge you even after death and even the most famous and powerful, living after death in the memory of human history can be condemned and erased.
“Most recent research in affect has considered its informational value. That is, at the moment of judgment or choice, decision makers consult their feelings about a target or option and ask “how do I feel about this?” (Schwarz & Clore, 2003). These feelings then act as information to guide the judgment or decision process.” - Ellen Peters https://www.academia.edu/2790178/The_functions_of_affect_in_the_construction_of_preferences
Being a Trans lesbian is not very accepted from the "traditional" lesbians to say the least from what I've witnessed. Being gay I would never, ever be attracted to a Trans gay. What straight man or woman would be into being with a Trans either., none that I've ever known. All in all, to be Trans would be an existence that is very lonely, alienating and difficult, hence their high suicide rate. All you can do is pray for them.
They really do not belong being lumped in with the gay/ lesbian communities. The Trans activist's recent actions have caused a backlash for the gay/ lesbians' communities that is already happening and is increasing. How one goes about separating from the Trans movement will not be easy and would be very messy - if it is even possible at this point.
I want to push back a bit on the idea that ChatGPT is totally woke. First off, a good question to ask is, "compared to what?". Bard, Google's AI, is far more woke than ChatGPT. It says outright that it is biased and was trained on biased data.
As far as ChatGPT is concerned, I think it does have bias but seems to be more reasonable and, frankly, will admit things that are unlikely to be admitted by a transgender activist. Here's an example conversation I had: https://chat.openai.com/share/145f6208-4bc9-4a92-b3d5-c133b478f188
I don't have any expectation that you'll check it out, but you should. Either way, I leave it here so others can see it too.
There was a part during this conversation where Peter tries to make the case that the trans movement is different, whether categorically or incrementally, than other irrational/religious movements. He brought up the idea of a crazy meter and where the trans movement would land compared to other movements. Andrew rejected the idea entirely. I think Peter's on to something, though. The question is: how are they different? I'm going to briefly give an example where I think they're different.
Take a Christian idea, such as Young Earth Creationism. At one point the idea was accepted uncritically, but as science progressed as a field, and the scientific method developed into a powerful tool, it was applied to Young Earth Creationism and found to be lacking. This didn't kill the idea, though. Proponents of the idea attempted to do their own research and use the tools of science to show that actually it made sense. There are still people today who are doing this, though they don't have much to stand on. The important point here, though, is that Young Earth Creationists are arguing their case WITHIN the bounds of the scientific method.
The fundamental difference with the trans movement is that they're not just arguing their case within the bounds of the scientific method. If they did that they would likely lose. Therefore at the same time they're attacking science itself. They're trying to undermine the idea of evidence, objectivism, and so on. They're trying to "queer" science as a discipline, make it so subjective that their own ideas are no longer falsifiable. Unlike the Young Earth Creationists, they're not satisfied in attempting to make their case within a rational framework.
That's what makes them, in my opinion, far more dangerous than other religious movements. Even in Andrew's book the Salem Witch Trials more or less came to a stop when a similar appeal was made to jurisprudence. These newer movements are trying to remake law, science, the medical field, and so on; they're attempting to bend reality to accommodate their ideas.
cant say the same about some of the "friends" mentioned. How did Peter, such a smart guy, get hoodwinked into the miserable deception of the age that "materialism = rational"? ....When Materialism itself has been thoroughly disproven?
Tom Campbell, Bernardo Kastrup, Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin, Ed Kelley, Jim Tucker, Bruce Greyson,
Wolfgang Smith - anyone who ever used psychedelics etc.
The logical position isnt that materialism is true from the bottom up so psychology proceeds from biology which proceeds from chemistry which develops out of physics...its that we only know that the consciousness is real and we should act and indeed "do science" as if materialism is true, to the limits of the system. The fear of the sane side here, would be that the destruction of materialism seems to invite the postmodern dystopia we can see snowballing now. But that isnt the case. Even though materialism is clearly ultimately wrong - that doesnt have impact on daily life - which is still an apparently objective consensus. Am surprised that Prof B didnt learn in Philo101 that "the solipsists have a point" all that can be known is your own mind, but that isnt reason to act like a prick, as Prof Peterson has said, after age 2.
Its unfortunate also to dismiss homeopathy with the confidence of having studied it, without doing the research too.
Titania McGrath is the funniest satirist of woke culture. Big fan of the street epistemology too!
Thank you for having such an enlightening discussion with Doyle. You’re both two of my faves.
I admire Doyle's ability to pinpoint issues with both satire and concise, direct takedowns. The discussion about the importance of art was another one of his fresh new perspectives that was really appreciated.
A vision of what to work toward and what to stand for as opposed to getting caught up in anger and despair will be a vital tool for the rational portion of society to win the fight against Woke. Thanks for having him on, this was fantastic.
I love the stance you are taking towards people who are caught up in the social justice (and any other) ideology. Everyone screws up from time to time, so everyone has an incentive to foster a society that values admonishment and forgiveness. I don’t have a methodology for getting woke friends and family members to engage in conversation, but I do have a few ideas that may be pieces to the puzzle.
1. People don’t like getting intentionally deceived and exposing deception is a non-harmful way to evoke emotion.
After listening to more Keri Smith content, it was apparent that emotional experiences are an important part of triggering periods of contemplation. The only way that occurred to me for evoking emotion in a harmless fashion would be to ask them how they would feel if they discovered someone they trusted intentionally deceived or manipulated them?
2. White Fragility intentionally deceives its reader and uses a method to manipulate that is easy to recognize in hindsight.
The emotion intentionally evoked in the introduction and chapter 1 is not the same emotion one would experience if one has already read chapter 2. If the reader already knows the author is using a different definition of racism, the reader will not experience the same emotional reaction to being called racist by the author. The author, however, knows she is using a different definition of racism in the introduction and chapter 1. In other words, by intentionally waiting until chapter 2 to provide the new definition of racism, she evokes an emotion related to the definition of racism expected by the reader. Since the author is aware of both definitions before printing the book, it could not have gone unnoticed that the emotional effect does not work in reverse order (redefining racism, then calling the reader a racist), it means the confusion of definitions for emotional effect is intentional manipulation.
3. After exposing the deception, acknowledge the merit of experiencing those emotions and provide better reasons for why one would experience those emotions and how their instinct as good people was correct but then misguided. We can learn from history, without having a residing fear that we are ignoring today’s current injustice. The way to be confident that you are not unknowingly perpetuating injustice, is to treat everyone as an individual.
This all boils down to your question regarding the term “wrong side of history”. At 56:20 in your conversation with Andrew Doyle, Andrew mentions that intention is everything and one can’t be accidentally racist, in his view. The woke fundamentally disagree with that and that is the fundamental disagreement that is rooted in emotion and may require emotion to uproot.
When I first heard the phrase “wrong side of history”, it reminded me of George W. Bush responding to critics of his decision to invade Iraq, saying that history will decide. I don’t subscribe to the idea, so my attempt to reproduce the reasoning and feelings behind the concept is primarily from piecing together concepts from White Fragility. I was inspired to pick up the book again by your interview with Keri Smith and something she said during an interview on Triggernometry. Thank you for introducing me to her content. She was asked if social justice theories were presented to her more as fact or theory? https://youtu.be/uVSgVlZjk8c?t=412 She replied that it was presented as undiscovered knowledge, that would make the world a better place if only more people read authors like Robin Diangelo, because authors like her “had it figured out”. That really stood out to me because my loved one suggested I read White Fragility as well. I found it hard to read because it seemed overtly racist and manipulative to me. This time when I picked it up, I carefully considered the subconscious and emotional appeal of what I was reading and tried to discover how a reader would get the impression Diangelo “had it figured out”. I think that stood out is that Diangelo evokes emotion in the reader, then immediately acknowledges the emotion and tells the reader how to interpret that emotion. Calling out the emotion one has just invoked in the reader subconsciously gives the reader the impression that the author is so knowledgeable on the subject that she can know the reader’s thoughts and reactions beforehand. I suspect this is where the impression that the author “had it figured out” comes from. I don’t know how accurate my analysis is. Hopefully, my thoughts below are accurate enough to be useful. I also made a diagram to help me think about the emotions being generated by various statements in White Fragility and a portion of the diagram resembles what I imagine must be the emotional reasoning behind the phrase wrong side of history. https://ibb.co/GRHs383
The Wrong Side of History
If you were given the choice of being a slave owner or an abolitionist, which would you choose? Since the only information provided is which side of the moral question each person lands on, if you favor one person over the other, then you are acknowledging that a person in history can be on the wrong side of a moral issue, even if it is not generally considered immoral at the time. No one wants to be that person because that person is acting immoral by our current standards. This would mean that at any moment, it is possible to be that terrible person existing on the "wrong side of history".
The injustices of the past that went unrecognized by the majority suggest that there not only could be, but almost certainly are, undiscovered injustices in existence at any moment. If one does not recognize the current injustices and actively oppose them, it means that person is as immoral as the slave owner, which people of the future will judge to be on the wrong side of history.
Again, this is not actually what I believe, It is just my best guess right now for where that phrase comes from. I think Social Justice ideology can generate a fear derived from the combination of this "understanding" and wanting to be considered a good person. The judging, evolving, yet to be discovered, concept of justice also reminds me of the alter to “the unknown god” in Athens, mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:23.
http://www.eveandersson.com/photo-display/large/italy/rome-roman-forum-palatine-hill-area-museo-palatino-altare-al-dio-ignoto-inizi-dei-i-sec-ac.html
The unknown god can judge based upon currently unknown moral laws, that you may unknowingly be sinning against (the more advanced concept of justice of the future) that could be judging you right now. Without knowing how to appease it, you must remain hyper vigilant to not act in any way that any hypothetical society may imagine, nor associate with those who do, ever, just in case. This new god knows no mercy, wielding the power to judge you even after death and even the most famous and powerful, living after death in the memory of human history can be condemned and erased.
“Most recent research in affect has considered its informational value. That is, at the moment of judgment or choice, decision makers consult their feelings about a target or option and ask “how do I feel about this?” (Schwarz & Clore, 2003). These feelings then act as information to guide the judgment or decision process.” - Ellen Peters https://www.academia.edu/2790178/The_functions_of_affect_in_the_construction_of_preferences
What an incredibly thoughtful post. Thank you, Abraham.
Being a Trans lesbian is not very accepted from the "traditional" lesbians to say the least from what I've witnessed. Being gay I would never, ever be attracted to a Trans gay. What straight man or woman would be into being with a Trans either., none that I've ever known. All in all, to be Trans would be an existence that is very lonely, alienating and difficult, hence their high suicide rate. All you can do is pray for them.
They really do not belong being lumped in with the gay/ lesbian communities. The Trans activist's recent actions have caused a backlash for the gay/ lesbians' communities that is already happening and is increasing. How one goes about separating from the Trans movement will not be easy and would be very messy - if it is even possible at this point.
ideology by the LGB (without the T) community == LET'S GO BRANDON!
That was awesome! I love him, too!!!
I want to push back a bit on the idea that ChatGPT is totally woke. First off, a good question to ask is, "compared to what?". Bard, Google's AI, is far more woke than ChatGPT. It says outright that it is biased and was trained on biased data.
As far as ChatGPT is concerned, I think it does have bias but seems to be more reasonable and, frankly, will admit things that are unlikely to be admitted by a transgender activist. Here's an example conversation I had: https://chat.openai.com/share/145f6208-4bc9-4a92-b3d5-c133b478f188
I don't have any expectation that you'll check it out, but you should. Either way, I leave it here so others can see it too.
Andrew Doyle's latest book is a gem and is one of the best in summing up Woke.
There was a part during this conversation where Peter tries to make the case that the trans movement is different, whether categorically or incrementally, than other irrational/religious movements. He brought up the idea of a crazy meter and where the trans movement would land compared to other movements. Andrew rejected the idea entirely. I think Peter's on to something, though. The question is: how are they different? I'm going to briefly give an example where I think they're different.
Take a Christian idea, such as Young Earth Creationism. At one point the idea was accepted uncritically, but as science progressed as a field, and the scientific method developed into a powerful tool, it was applied to Young Earth Creationism and found to be lacking. This didn't kill the idea, though. Proponents of the idea attempted to do their own research and use the tools of science to show that actually it made sense. There are still people today who are doing this, though they don't have much to stand on. The important point here, though, is that Young Earth Creationists are arguing their case WITHIN the bounds of the scientific method.
The fundamental difference with the trans movement is that they're not just arguing their case within the bounds of the scientific method. If they did that they would likely lose. Therefore at the same time they're attacking science itself. They're trying to undermine the idea of evidence, objectivism, and so on. They're trying to "queer" science as a discipline, make it so subjective that their own ideas are no longer falsifiable. Unlike the Young Earth Creationists, they're not satisfied in attempting to make their case within a rational framework.
That's what makes them, in my opinion, far more dangerous than other religious movements. Even in Andrew's book the Salem Witch Trials more or less came to a stop when a similar appeal was made to jurisprudence. These newer movements are trying to remake law, science, the medical field, and so on; they're attempting to bend reality to accommodate their ideas.
Love Peter and Andrew of course,
cant say the same about some of the "friends" mentioned. How did Peter, such a smart guy, get hoodwinked into the miserable deception of the age that "materialism = rational"? ....When Materialism itself has been thoroughly disproven?
Tom Campbell, Bernardo Kastrup, Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin, Ed Kelley, Jim Tucker, Bruce Greyson,
Wolfgang Smith - anyone who ever used psychedelics etc.
The logical position isnt that materialism is true from the bottom up so psychology proceeds from biology which proceeds from chemistry which develops out of physics...its that we only know that the consciousness is real and we should act and indeed "do science" as if materialism is true, to the limits of the system. The fear of the sane side here, would be that the destruction of materialism seems to invite the postmodern dystopia we can see snowballing now. But that isnt the case. Even though materialism is clearly ultimately wrong - that doesnt have impact on daily life - which is still an apparently objective consensus. Am surprised that Prof B didnt learn in Philo101 that "the solipsists have a point" all that can be known is your own mind, but that isnt reason to act like a prick, as Prof Peterson has said, after age 2.
Its unfortunate also to dismiss homeopathy with the confidence of having studied it, without doing the research too.