There are many crises facing the world today. There’s inflation and political populism and bigotry. There’s climate change and war and our dwindling resources. But there’s one crisis that compounds all of these; a crisis of thinking. In my article, Why Can’t Kids Think Anymore?, I lamented the state of thinking in education and the wider world.
I always mean to say "Thank you" after I read your posts. Your words make me feel like I'm not losing my mind and your arguments have come in handy for use when trying to approach some of these conversations. So, thank you for what you do.
Thank you, that means a lot. Those are two of the main things I'm trying to achieve here. Especially reminding people they're not losing they're minds. 😁
I'm going to quote a passage 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵 from Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" and then put it into the context of your Commentary.
Change 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 to 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 and 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁 to 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 and you have not only Walter but perhaps most of the people 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 these kinds of ideas. I currently have a good friend a bit pissed off at me because I called him out on calling everything he doesn't agree with a lie. He happens to be to my political right, but I see the same behavior in people to my political left. 𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘠 have warts, but not me. Did I just do that?
I see this as a source of so-called anti-CRT or "don't say gay" claims. The anti-CRT people say, "You are teaching my children to be ashamed of their white skin" and the CRT people are saying, "we want a non-whitewashed history to be taught" and then of course the ant-CRT people will say "You only want to talk about the warts on white people" and on and on it goes like the bloody Hatfield's and McCoys multi-generational feud that started in a dispute about a pig.
It might be helpful if people would say, "Let us not debate each other's straw men. Tell me exactly what you want. I'll tell you what I see as an issue, and you can tell me what you think is wrong with my perceived issue. We can do this in both directions." It would be really special if people occasionally spoke about good things, accomplishments and successes, rather than, "You evil bastards!" That is small scale, but it might be the best that we can do for now. A long running well thought public debate like The Federalists and anti-Federalists did with their papers would be just great, but if there is something like that out there, rather than attacks on straw men that you know of, I'd love to have you point to it.
"I see this as a source of so-called anti-CRT or "don't say gay" claims"
I think you've pointed accurately to the mindset of people like Walter, but the reason they have that mindset is that they're constantly being lied to (or at least half lied to) and they're convinced those lies are the truth. Worse, they're convinced that naybody who doesn't beloeve the same lies and half truths really is evil.
If you hear that there's a bill prohibiting an accurate teaching of racial history, how could you not be angry as a black person? If you hear there's a system of education designed to make your kids hate themsleves because of the actions of people hundreds of years ago, how could you not be angry as a white person?
Neither of these things is true. But the lie is ubiquitous enough in their echo chambers that each side believes their lie unquestioningly. That's why finding common ground is so difficult. And, of course, these lies are told by conflict hungry media who just want to drive clicks with a catchy-sounding, anger inducing name.
With regard to accurate history, how often does that go through a filter of, "We need to discuss your warts, but not mine"? Is the warts-and-all 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 "The Real History of Slavery" section of the book I mentioned what people mean when they speak of accurate history or is it the 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆'𝗮𝗹𝗹?
I'm not at all surprised by Walter's incorrect assumption about the Florida bill, because I have had friends make that same assumption. Why? Because of constantly seeing the phrase "'Don't Say Gay' Bill" in the *headlines* of news articles on the subject. No attribution or explanation, just presenting it as if that's the actual name of the bill.
At best, an article will say something like "critics call it the 'Don't Say Gay Bill'" but never mention who those critics are or what they are criticizing.
Of course, most people don't even get that crumb of information, because reading anything beyond the headline exceeds the average attention span. As a result, the formerly objective journalist becomes the sloganeering activist.
"Because of constantly seeing the phrase "'Don't Say Gay' Bill" in the *headlines* of news articles on the subject"
Yep, this is exactly the problem. If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true in the minds of some people. Especially if you demonise anybody who points out the lie. "Don't say gay" and "anti-CRT" are perfect examples of this phenomenon. Somebody comes up with a catchy name for a bill that doesn't fairly represent it at all, but lots of people don't look beyond the slogan.
"Of course, most people don't even get that crumb of information, because reading anything beyond the headline exceeds the average attention span. As a result, the formerly objective journalist becomes the sloganeering activist."
Ironically, CNN is undergoing some much-needed soul-searching now as they got rid of a popular show called Reliable Sources. I'm not sure what the show was like or whether it was reliable or not but it's part of what appears for now to be a new mandate to get back to *real* journalism, the way I was taught forty years ago in college. Find the facts, avoid emotionalism & your opinion, and clickbait (or 'grocery store tabloid headlines' as it was known back in the day) are for gossip rags. "CHER CAUGHT IN BRUSSELS LOVE NEST WITH HENRY KISSINGER!"
And....Twitter lost its mind over it this week, accusing them of 'Foxifying' and going right wing. No, I'm sorry, but there is NOTHING 'Foxifying' about trying to *report the news more accurately*, which CNN, like Fox, has had a problem doing in the last fifteen years. Maybe people don't understand what the new guard at CNN is stating they want to accomplish yet, or maybe the left's brains have gotten so addled by muddying male and female biological differences that they can no longer tell the difference between an alleged new commitment to *honest journalism*, and a notoriously dishonest network who claims to let 'you decide' after only telling you their side with its own firmly political spin, whose former sexually-disgraced TV commentator once claimed his now-defunct show was a 'no spin zone'.
Thomas St Thomas just wrote an article, "Sex is Not Assigned at Birth, and I Never Beat My Wife" on Medium that is about agenda driven word choices. He objects to "the sex you were assigned at birth". Not only is the sex of a child revealed at about 20 weeks by observation of genitalia with ultrasound, but it is also revealed at six weeks with analysis of a blood draw. Revealed, not assigned. There is even a paid service for it (https://sneakpeektest.com). In an effort to legitimize the idea that gender is a decision of a person about themself, a subtle "assigned at birth" seeks to make biological sex a decision made by someone else at the time of birth. Weasel wording is often a powerful tool.
Yep, that's a fair distinction. I will say I think right wing media is more consciously dishonest. Or maybe more *often* consciously dishonest. But that's certainly not to say that left wing media isn't sometimes consciously dishonest.
I'd call it highly consciously dishonest the way they uncritically report on the trans movement. I'll bet behind closed doors they talk about how crazy it is, the way 90% of Fox employees, including mostly likely Fucker Carlson, got vaccinated against COVID.
I don't think you've seen nor will you see anyone on here arguing that what the sloppy call "the left" in America is angelic or even free of the worst attributes of the far right. I know I've said several times that the SJWs are just MAGA in a mirror; "a trans woman is a woman" is every bit as nutty as "Trump won."
But "don't say gay" isn't a lie so much as a simplification; does not the bill forbid mention of sexual minorities? Headlines have to be terse and attention spans are shorter every decade.
We are not going to get people to demand depth and detail without some really fundamental changes in America. I would like to see fact checkers have police powers but then we would have to deal with their biases and I have no patience left (for the remainder of my LIFE) for "who gets to decide" discussions.
"But "don't say gay" isn't a lie so much as a simplification; does not the bill forbid mention of sexual minorities? Headlines have to be terse and attention spans are shorter every decade."
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
The bill only applies to kids in grade K-3, prohibts *instruction* not casual discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the majority of the bill deals with ensuring that parents are informed if there is a change in their child's behaviour or mental health in school. The only mention of sexual orintation in the legal section ofthe bill text is in the line I've quoted above.
The bill is mostly a reaction to the fact that some teachers were socially transitioning kids at school and keeping it secret from their parents.
I often use that, in the quotes, because I understand that it is too broad and sweeping to be accurate, but I cannot bring myself to refer to the illiberal people who call themselves liberals as liberals. What would you suggest that I call these people, who I'm sure that you understand that I'm referring to, who have falsely appropriated the label liberal?
I'm not trying to start either an argument or debate with this, but you frequently heap scorn on "𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦" without ever providing justification. I would dismiss it from most people, but I consider you to be very intelligent, so it is a source of puzzlement.
I first mentioned it in the context of who decided the lopsided composition of the Supreme Court which has created a near national crisis. You once mentioned that when someone complained about something that you wrote on Medium getting your account canceled which cost you a sizable amount of money. Who the hell decided to do that to you was of great impotence to you. If the people who comment here were "the deciders" you would still have that account and would have received the money owed you. Since it seems hard to deny that who decides matters and it is the reason so many are obsessed with politics, I must be missing the context or meaning of your frequent out of the blue references to it. What am I missing?
Just about any group of people you can name who want some major overhaul of their lives are going to be high on the suicide charts. They are already miserable and when some desperate move fails to provide relief they will seek other escapes.
Those who relocate, change their names, cut off contact with family and friends and find that they have still brought their misery with them ... I bet they're above average in taking their own lives too.
We're told that the explosion in teen "trans" is due to enhanced freedom to come out as "trans" ... pretty doubtful.
The anger and rage we see far more often than not in the expressive members of the "trans" community does not argue for joyous fulfillment.
We are living through the unhappiest times in memory, pessimism about the future is soaring, and for good reasons. So stop telling me kids are going to off themselves if we don't call them "they."
Superficiality will always be with us; people skimming headlines and only then in media that conform to their confirmation biases. And we have increasing objection to compelling people outside those biases. You mention several.
My generation grew up with books and great music; some of my high school friends went on to play in orchestras. The music kids hear now is disposable as gum wrappers and does nothing to encourage involvement in music; even the wonderful electronic devices that allow people to create music are inevitably paired with assurances that they don't need to learn music theory. I wonder who is going to be playing the contrabassoon in orchestras in thirty years.
Social media are hosting a rebellion against proper English; sentences are becoming passé, distinguishing your and you're is elitist. Anti-intellectualism has always been part of American life but now it's among the young and against superficial thinking the gods themselves contend in vain.
Gender ideology. There was a short column in the NYT, their ethicist responding to a gay man who is part of a group of friends who vacation together. They go to Mexico and have fun. One of their group came out as gay only a few years ago and has now come out as "trans." John is no longer a "gay man," he presents as a woman, and the rest of the group doesn't think he would fit in with their annual vacation anymore. Whether a real woman or one of those new ones.
I don't see anything unreasonable about this. John is not going to fit in with this vacation. But.
The majority of responses in the comments were excoriation of the writer for not using John's new name or gender pronouns, and calling him bigot/racist (??)/transphobic and blah blah blah. The word "deadnaming" appeared in a disturbing percentage of the responses. As if this was the most important thing going on. John's new name was never mentioned; after all, the writer has known him as a gay man named John for years.
John prattles on endlessly about his new "gender identity" and his hormones, and the group is getting tired of every conversation turning around to him. Sound familiar? Can you imagine taking this person along on a sexually adventurous vacation trip? They have not rejected John as a friend, though I can see that coming.
SO many of the responses used the same words and phrases, recitation of a catechism.
John is no longer congruent with the group. He needs to find a group of "trans" friends" and they can talk around the clock about their gender identities and the cruelty and insensitivity of a world that "deadnames" them.
Starting with a quote. 'The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling." -Thomas Sowell
The "Idiocracy" had come to pass. I doubt that the average adult has read a book this year. Memes are fun but their replacement of reading is distressing. Even Audible is concerning, where engagement with a book is too much and the content of books are reduced to background noise where parts of it are missed as the mind wanders. Concentration is just too hard for people.
Are intellectuals destroying intellectualism? When ideas cannot be discussed with any depth for fear of being thought of as a racist, bigot, somethingphobe how do we have meaningful discussions?
I could never read a book by listening. My hearing is really bad and interpreting speech is too much of an effort for a spoken book to hold my attention.
It's not just fear of being labeled a bigot. it's the lingering effects of postmodernism; any kind of negative value judgment is seen as hubris, as "just like the religious right."
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity
I'm almost done reading a book called "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains." The author, one Nicholas Carr, makes a decent case that a lotta problems are caused by outsourcing our memory to the 'Net. By being able to Google everything and pick up three or four-minute snippets of information, we lose the capability to think in depth.
And by seeing this as the *apotheosis* of processing information. Yeah, can *process* it all right. But I'm not sure how having "the attention span of a gnat" could possibly be *worth* it.
Another point. Back when I had to go to a library to find information I had to riffle through books and encyclopedias and by the time I found the facts I was looking for I had run into a lot of other new ones along the way.
Many times in my life, in libraries and bookstores or even in an unread book in my own collection, I would randomly read a paragraph that started me thinking for days. Lee Smolin got me reading real physics; Karl Popper got me thinking about much deeper ramifications of the Uncertainty Principle. And that's science alone. The opening to Tale of Two Cities fer chrissake.
Good piece, even though highlighting Walter was really shooting fish in a barrel - he's an easy target, but it's good that you engaged with him because you introduced some ideas he may not forget as easily as he blocked you. And that's the thing to remember with these types: They may get mad, they may throw a tantrum and call you a transracereligionculturespeciesvegetablephobe or something but you've introduced, or validated & perpetuated a message they've already heard before and rejected. You may or may not have planted the seed of critical thought, but you at least watered it and Walter may find himself one day resisting a stubborn little aster (a flower that symbolizes, among other things, *wisdom*) sprouting from his cranium, and yanking it out may only leave roots...to sprout again :)
We may not seemingly change others' minds, but we may contribute to it...and who needs the ego rub anyway that you did change a mind? :)
“ Good piece, even though highlighting Walter was really shooting fish in a barrel - he's an easy target”
Haha, I wasn’t picking on him, I’ve never heard of him before. But I posted his conversation precisely because he seemed reasonably intelligent until we got into the topic of gender ideology. It’s a pattern I’ve seen a few times with people, but not quite to that extent.
If I was only having these conversations for the ego boost of somebody telling me I changed their mind I’d have stopped long ago.
You sort of wonder if you've encountered another Pod Person. Someone who seems normal but then you realize you've encountered another person whose brain has been taken over by aliens. Perfectly rational, intelligent people who spout ridiculous nonsense and then point to Trump and QAnon as the 'real' nonsense-spouters.
I have been lucky enough to have been told once or twice by people that I changed their minds about something: feminism and gay rights, specifically. The women who changed her mind about feminism and I had many interesting conversations about feminism because she was curious and I wasn't didactic. The man who changed his mind about gay rights did so because he liked my partner and me, and we had exactly zero conversations about gay rights with him.
Never underestimate the importance of loyalty in many good people's minds/emotional landscapes. That's a fence where the conversation stumbles and what-about-ism and straw-man arguments ensue. When your walls are broken down and you look around and realize that you're on the wrong side, instead of welcoming the conquering army you double down, like the knight in Monty's Python's Holy Grail. Even thought it's hopeless. Because loyalty to and courage in defending a cause--even a wrong, stupid one--are still admired. You have to unstick yourself from the pleasures of standing strong with your cohort for a wrong cause, and that can take a long time when loyalties run deep. You have to want to change.
IMO, that's where almost all the problems in the world come from. Or, rather, change happens no matter what. But initiating personal change is so, SO hard. Who wants that?
People who can't stand to be the way they are anymore. Who get tired of constantly negotiating the difference between their values and the values of their family or peer group.
It's a tricky balance. I can't stand the Way I am right now, myself. I'm learning to have as much compassion for myself as I'd have for a friend, if they were struggling. I think if I can do that, I'll be able to stay in the eye of the hurricane that swirls around these days.
TY for the reply, M Nona. "May You find what You're looking for."
As usual I totally agree with everything you say. However, I was recently heavily censured, if not actually banned, by Medium for saying that being Trans met the dictionary definition of Delusion in that it involved a "firm belief" in something that was patently untrue. My post was removed for being "hate speech", although why they assumed that I must necessarly hate deluded people was not explained to me; why on Earth would I? Anyway, if Walter is mistaken in his beliefs, all I can say is, he's in good company.
For just a moment, I’d like to examine the context in which these conversations are taking place.
Here in America, white Christian culture is ensnared in a severe, destabilizing identity crisis. Rampant, epidemic pedophilia was the spark that lit the fuse. Like dynamite, white Christian identity has exploded again and again, for nigh on 40 years. The lethal fallout spreads in all directions, dropping like bombs on one innocent “outsider” group after another.
As they say, we can’t cure disease, by treating symptoms. Whether it’s a physical disease, like cancer, or social dis-ease, the cure begins by naming it, then identifying its source, then stopping the spread by containing it or removing it from the body politic. The source of dis-ease in this country, is white Christian culture. Nearly 90% of those convicted of sexually abusing children, are white men.
Americans have always been plagued by puritanical views on sexual intercourse. By puritanical, I mean the dictionary definition: rigid, unbending, harsh, intolerant, and unforgiving.
After 400 years, these puritanical views on sex and intercourse were so entrenched in American culture, most people thought they were normal, natural, innate, biological – universal. However, in white Christian culture, they’d become an identity. Even now, perhaps more than ever, white Christians identify themselves by their biological sex, and performing the roles assigned that sex.
And then, in 1985, something changed. Something so, drastic, so unexpected, so horrific, and so shocking, it was almost unbelievable. Data and statistics left no doubts and no way out: Nearly 90% of those convicted were white men. Without question, this was a white Christian dis-ease. Biology, DNA, genetics, evolution could not account for this phenomenon. Culture, and only culture, could explain it. Something was wrong terribly, terribly wrong in white Christian culture.
The identity crisis began in 1985, when reports of boys molested by Catholic priests and employees began surfacing. It was soon clear, that pedophilia was an epidemic in white Christian institutions. For the next 37 years, revelations have been stacking up, one after another. It is far from over.
In 1991, a major five-part investigation entitled "Scouts Honor" on sex abuse in the Boy Scouts of America, a Christian youth organization for boys, was released.
In 2002, investigative journalists at the Boston Globe published over 300 stories about the Catholic clergy’s sexual abuse of children, mostly boys, as young as 4.
In 2019, it was revealed that the Southern Baptist church had also been protecting pedophiles for decades. More than 700 documented cases of children (mostly boys) left in the church’s care had been sexually abused. Today, many of these Baptist pedophiles are still working with children.
In 2020, the Boy Scouts of America, filed for bankruptcy. More than 88,000 boy scouts had been molested by scout leaders. Many boys had been molested for years, beginning at age 10 when they joined the boy scouts.
By 2021, the Catholic church had identified an estimated 330,000 children who were victims of sex abuse committed by more than 3,000 priests and other church employees. Over 80% of the victims were boys.
I repeat this again, nearly 90% of those convicted of sexually abusing children, are white men.
For white Christians, the depth of cognizant dissonance is unfathomable. The assault on white Christian’s identity is brutally painful.
Rampant pedophilia is the context – the stage, the courtroom - in which these conversations about gender identity are taking place. There will be no fair hearing, no kindness, no empathy and no reason on a stage as foul as this one.
How does a group of people united by their religious identity, justify, reconcile, explain, or cope with hundreds of thousands of children who were sexually abused while in their care?
White Christians have coped with unchecked pedophilia in their midst, the same way they coped with slavery and racism – denial, avoidance, projection, distraction, deflection, gaslighting, rage, propaganda, intimidation, and violence.
And Bait and Switch. White Christian power depended on keeping people unified. White Christians needed a new identity, a cover, a mask. They were quickly re-united under the banner of the Moral Majority, an arm of the Republican Party.
White Christian leaders, particularly white evangelical leaders, began using the Republican Party to deflect attention away from themselves. Like the myth of the “Lost Cause” Christian leaders began manufacturing and marketing myths. From the welfare queen and her limousine, to today’s liberal pedophile rings, the gay agenda, conspiracy theories, QAnon, fake news, transgender sports and bathrooms controversy and Christian persecution – manufactured propaganda, deflects attention away from the unchecked epidemic of pedophilia infecting white Christian culture - and the Republican Party.
Government did not fail the people. The leaders of white Christian institutions failed white Christians.
I wondered how long it would take Walter to appeal on behalf of children. Sure enough, Walter moved there – fast. Unfortunately, this is the number one symptom of the deep, unresolved epidemic of pedophilia in white Christian culture.
Before I sign off, I am obliged to say this was not my idea. I had no idea this was even a thing. As a rural liberal my life is filled with white Christian conservatives. At first, I was in disbelief, but my white Christian, ultra-conservative friends refused to allow me to remain there. Slowly but surely, they helped me see what was happening inside their culture. Their reason? I am not a Christian or a Republican, and it was not safe for me and my family not to know.
I am very interested in learning other people’s opinions, views and experience.
I always mean to say "Thank you" after I read your posts. Your words make me feel like I'm not losing my mind and your arguments have come in handy for use when trying to approach some of these conversations. So, thank you for what you do.
Thank you, that means a lot. Those are two of the main things I'm trying to achieve here. Especially reminding people they're not losing they're minds. 😁
If we are, at least we have company.
Same here. Very lucid writing.
I'm going to quote a passage 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵 from Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" and then put it into the context of your Commentary.
"'𝘔𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮' 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴-𝘢𝘯𝘥-𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴-𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘯𝘰-𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴, 𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮--𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴--𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴--𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦."
Change 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 to 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 and 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁 to 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 and you have not only Walter but perhaps most of the people 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 these kinds of ideas. I currently have a good friend a bit pissed off at me because I called him out on calling everything he doesn't agree with a lie. He happens to be to my political right, but I see the same behavior in people to my political left. 𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘠 have warts, but not me. Did I just do that?
I see this as a source of so-called anti-CRT or "don't say gay" claims. The anti-CRT people say, "You are teaching my children to be ashamed of their white skin" and the CRT people are saying, "we want a non-whitewashed history to be taught" and then of course the ant-CRT people will say "You only want to talk about the warts on white people" and on and on it goes like the bloody Hatfield's and McCoys multi-generational feud that started in a dispute about a pig.
It might be helpful if people would say, "Let us not debate each other's straw men. Tell me exactly what you want. I'll tell you what I see as an issue, and you can tell me what you think is wrong with my perceived issue. We can do this in both directions." It would be really special if people occasionally spoke about good things, accomplishments and successes, rather than, "You evil bastards!" That is small scale, but it might be the best that we can do for now. A long running well thought public debate like The Federalists and anti-Federalists did with their papers would be just great, but if there is something like that out there, rather than attacks on straw men that you know of, I'd love to have you point to it.
Annnd, I left out the accusational name calling.
"I see this as a source of so-called anti-CRT or "don't say gay" claims"
I think you've pointed accurately to the mindset of people like Walter, but the reason they have that mindset is that they're constantly being lied to (or at least half lied to) and they're convinced those lies are the truth. Worse, they're convinced that naybody who doesn't beloeve the same lies and half truths really is evil.
If you hear that there's a bill prohibiting an accurate teaching of racial history, how could you not be angry as a black person? If you hear there's a system of education designed to make your kids hate themsleves because of the actions of people hundreds of years ago, how could you not be angry as a white person?
Neither of these things is true. But the lie is ubiquitous enough in their echo chambers that each side believes their lie unquestioningly. That's why finding common ground is so difficult. And, of course, these lies are told by conflict hungry media who just want to drive clicks with a catchy-sounding, anger inducing name.
With regard to accurate history, how often does that go through a filter of, "We need to discuss your warts, but not mine"? Is the warts-and-all 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 "The Real History of Slavery" section of the book I mentioned what people mean when they speak of accurate history or is it the 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆'𝗮𝗹𝗹?
I'm not at all surprised by Walter's incorrect assumption about the Florida bill, because I have had friends make that same assumption. Why? Because of constantly seeing the phrase "'Don't Say Gay' Bill" in the *headlines* of news articles on the subject. No attribution or explanation, just presenting it as if that's the actual name of the bill.
At best, an article will say something like "critics call it the 'Don't Say Gay Bill'" but never mention who those critics are or what they are criticizing.
Of course, most people don't even get that crumb of information, because reading anything beyond the headline exceeds the average attention span. As a result, the formerly objective journalist becomes the sloganeering activist.
"Because of constantly seeing the phrase "'Don't Say Gay' Bill" in the *headlines* of news articles on the subject"
Yep, this is exactly the problem. If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true in the minds of some people. Especially if you demonise anybody who points out the lie. "Don't say gay" and "anti-CRT" are perfect examples of this phenomenon. Somebody comes up with a catchy name for a bill that doesn't fairly represent it at all, but lots of people don't look beyond the slogan.
Bububut "say gay" rhymes, therefore it's profound.
Guess what else you can't say? 'Don't say straight!" Or if you want it to rhyme, "Don't state straight!"
"Of course, most people don't even get that crumb of information, because reading anything beyond the headline exceeds the average attention span. As a result, the formerly objective journalist becomes the sloganeering activist."
Ironically, CNN is undergoing some much-needed soul-searching now as they got rid of a popular show called Reliable Sources. I'm not sure what the show was like or whether it was reliable or not but it's part of what appears for now to be a new mandate to get back to *real* journalism, the way I was taught forty years ago in college. Find the facts, avoid emotionalism & your opinion, and clickbait (or 'grocery store tabloid headlines' as it was known back in the day) are for gossip rags. "CHER CAUGHT IN BRUSSELS LOVE NEST WITH HENRY KISSINGER!"
And....Twitter lost its mind over it this week, accusing them of 'Foxifying' and going right wing. No, I'm sorry, but there is NOTHING 'Foxifying' about trying to *report the news more accurately*, which CNN, like Fox, has had a problem doing in the last fifteen years. Maybe people don't understand what the new guard at CNN is stating they want to accomplish yet, or maybe the left's brains have gotten so addled by muddying male and female biological differences that they can no longer tell the difference between an alleged new commitment to *honest journalism*, and a notoriously dishonest network who claims to let 'you decide' after only telling you their side with its own firmly political spin, whose former sexually-disgraced TV commentator once claimed his now-defunct show was a 'no spin zone'.
Thomas St Thomas just wrote an article, "Sex is Not Assigned at Birth, and I Never Beat My Wife" on Medium that is about agenda driven word choices. He objects to "the sex you were assigned at birth". Not only is the sex of a child revealed at about 20 weeks by observation of genitalia with ultrasound, but it is also revealed at six weeks with analysis of a blood draw. Revealed, not assigned. There is even a paid service for it (https://sneakpeektest.com). In an effort to legitimize the idea that gender is a decision of a person about themself, a subtle "assigned at birth" seeks to make biological sex a decision made by someone else at the time of birth. Weasel wording is often a powerful tool.
Yes, I dislike that phrasing, except for intersex people who have been historically "assigned" their sex at birth.
"The motivations are different..."
I'd argue that the motivations are identical but the rationalizations are different.
Yep, that's a fair distinction. I will say I think right wing media is more consciously dishonest. Or maybe more *often* consciously dishonest. But that's certainly not to say that left wing media isn't sometimes consciously dishonest.
I'd call it highly consciously dishonest the way they uncritically report on the trans movement. I'll bet behind closed doors they talk about how crazy it is, the way 90% of Fox employees, including mostly likely Fucker Carlson, got vaccinated against COVID.
I just don't think they're that stupid.
I don't think you've seen nor will you see anyone on here arguing that what the sloppy call "the left" in America is angelic or even free of the worst attributes of the far right. I know I've said several times that the SJWs are just MAGA in a mirror; "a trans woman is a woman" is every bit as nutty as "Trump won."
But "don't say gay" isn't a lie so much as a simplification; does not the bill forbid mention of sexual minorities? Headlines have to be terse and attention spans are shorter every decade.
We are not going to get people to demand depth and detail without some really fundamental changes in America. I would like to see fact checkers have police powers but then we would have to deal with their biases and I have no patience left (for the remainder of my LIFE) for "who gets to decide" discussions.
"But "don't say gay" isn't a lie so much as a simplification; does not the bill forbid mention of sexual minorities? Headlines have to be terse and attention spans are shorter every decade."
Nope, it's a lie. Here's the bill text (full bill here - https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF):
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
The bill only applies to kids in grade K-3, prohibts *instruction* not casual discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the majority of the bill deals with ensuring that parents are informed if there is a change in their child's behaviour or mental health in school. The only mention of sexual orintation in the legal section ofthe bill text is in the line I've quoted above.
The bill is mostly a reaction to the fact that some teachers were socially transitioning kids at school and keeping it secret from their parents.
Oh, okay, apologies for being too lazy to look that up myself.
There is no reason to teach anything about sex in K-3. Why is this even controversial?
Excellent question. Mainly because the press tells half-truths to people who are looking for something to be mad about.
"𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵"
I often use that, in the quotes, because I understand that it is too broad and sweeping to be accurate, but I cannot bring myself to refer to the illiberal people who call themselves liberals as liberals. What would you suggest that I call these people, who I'm sure that you understand that I'm referring to, who have falsely appropriated the label liberal?
"𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 (𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘓𝘐𝘍𝘌) 𝘧𝘰𝘳 "𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦" 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴."
I'm not trying to start either an argument or debate with this, but you frequently heap scorn on "𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦" without ever providing justification. I would dismiss it from most people, but I consider you to be very intelligent, so it is a source of puzzlement.
I first mentioned it in the context of who decided the lopsided composition of the Supreme Court which has created a near national crisis. You once mentioned that when someone complained about something that you wrote on Medium getting your account canceled which cost you a sizable amount of money. Who the hell decided to do that to you was of great impotence to you. If the people who comment here were "the deciders" you would still have that account and would have received the money owed you. Since it seems hard to deny that who decides matters and it is the reason so many are obsessed with politics, I must be missing the context or meaning of your frequent out of the blue references to it. What am I missing?
"...I cannot bring myself to refer to the illiberal people who call themselves liberals as liberals."
Same here. I usually call them "the Left," but maybe "Progressives" is more apt. Or, actually, REGRESSives.
Just about any group of people you can name who want some major overhaul of their lives are going to be high on the suicide charts. They are already miserable and when some desperate move fails to provide relief they will seek other escapes.
Those who relocate, change their names, cut off contact with family and friends and find that they have still brought their misery with them ... I bet they're above average in taking their own lives too.
We're told that the explosion in teen "trans" is due to enhanced freedom to come out as "trans" ... pretty doubtful.
The anger and rage we see far more often than not in the expressive members of the "trans" community does not argue for joyous fulfillment.
We are living through the unhappiest times in memory, pessimism about the future is soaring, and for good reasons. So stop telling me kids are going to off themselves if we don't call them "they."
Brains are like muscles, they need to be exercised to be strong. I can think of no better metric for that exercise than reading, and children are doing a lot less of it than they used to. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/feb/29/children-reading-less-says-new-research.
So are adults.
Superficiality will always be with us; people skimming headlines and only then in media that conform to their confirmation biases. And we have increasing objection to compelling people outside those biases. You mention several.
My generation grew up with books and great music; some of my high school friends went on to play in orchestras. The music kids hear now is disposable as gum wrappers and does nothing to encourage involvement in music; even the wonderful electronic devices that allow people to create music are inevitably paired with assurances that they don't need to learn music theory. I wonder who is going to be playing the contrabassoon in orchestras in thirty years.
Social media are hosting a rebellion against proper English; sentences are becoming passé, distinguishing your and you're is elitist. Anti-intellectualism has always been part of American life but now it's among the young and against superficial thinking the gods themselves contend in vain.
Gender ideology. There was a short column in the NYT, their ethicist responding to a gay man who is part of a group of friends who vacation together. They go to Mexico and have fun. One of their group came out as gay only a few years ago and has now come out as "trans." John is no longer a "gay man," he presents as a woman, and the rest of the group doesn't think he would fit in with their annual vacation anymore. Whether a real woman or one of those new ones.
I don't see anything unreasonable about this. John is not going to fit in with this vacation. But.
The majority of responses in the comments were excoriation of the writer for not using John's new name or gender pronouns, and calling him bigot/racist (??)/transphobic and blah blah blah. The word "deadnaming" appeared in a disturbing percentage of the responses. As if this was the most important thing going on. John's new name was never mentioned; after all, the writer has known him as a gay man named John for years.
John prattles on endlessly about his new "gender identity" and his hormones, and the group is getting tired of every conversation turning around to him. Sound familiar? Can you imagine taking this person along on a sexually adventurous vacation trip? They have not rejected John as a friend, though I can see that coming.
SO many of the responses used the same words and phrases, recitation of a catechism.
John is no longer congruent with the group. He needs to find a group of "trans" friends" and they can talk around the clock about their gender identities and the cruelty and insensitivity of a world that "deadnames" them.
Starting with a quote. 'The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling." -Thomas Sowell
The "Idiocracy" had come to pass. I doubt that the average adult has read a book this year. Memes are fun but their replacement of reading is distressing. Even Audible is concerning, where engagement with a book is too much and the content of books are reduced to background noise where parts of it are missed as the mind wanders. Concentration is just too hard for people.
Are intellectuals destroying intellectualism? When ideas cannot be discussed with any depth for fear of being thought of as a racist, bigot, somethingphobe how do we have meaningful discussions?
I could never read a book by listening. My hearing is really bad and interpreting speech is too much of an effort for a spoken book to hold my attention.
It's not just fear of being labeled a bigot. it's the lingering effects of postmodernism; any kind of negative value judgment is seen as hubris, as "just like the religious right."
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity
TY. Love Sowell...
I'm almost done reading a book called "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains." The author, one Nicholas Carr, makes a decent case that a lotta problems are caused by outsourcing our memory to the 'Net. By being able to Google everything and pick up three or four-minute snippets of information, we lose the capability to think in depth.
And by seeing this as the *apotheosis* of processing information. Yeah, can *process* it all right. But I'm not sure how having "the attention span of a gnat" could possibly be *worth* it.
Another point. Back when I had to go to a library to find information I had to riffle through books and encyclopedias and by the time I found the facts I was looking for I had run into a lot of other new ones along the way.
Many times in my life, in libraries and bookstores or even in an unread book in my own collection, I would randomly read a paragraph that started me thinking for days. Lee Smolin got me reading real physics; Karl Popper got me thinking about much deeper ramifications of the Uncertainty Principle. And that's science alone. The opening to Tale of Two Cities fer chrissake.
None of this happens with Google.
When did John Horton Conway die? 2020. Done.
TYTY. Yeah, sometimes I get like that. That's half the fun of reading, to me anyway.
Quite a number of my books were not something that I was looking for, but they caught my attention in a bookstore.
Good piece, even though highlighting Walter was really shooting fish in a barrel - he's an easy target, but it's good that you engaged with him because you introduced some ideas he may not forget as easily as he blocked you. And that's the thing to remember with these types: They may get mad, they may throw a tantrum and call you a transracereligionculturespeciesvegetablephobe or something but you've introduced, or validated & perpetuated a message they've already heard before and rejected. You may or may not have planted the seed of critical thought, but you at least watered it and Walter may find himself one day resisting a stubborn little aster (a flower that symbolizes, among other things, *wisdom*) sprouting from his cranium, and yanking it out may only leave roots...to sprout again :)
We may not seemingly change others' minds, but we may contribute to it...and who needs the ego rub anyway that you did change a mind? :)
“ Good piece, even though highlighting Walter was really shooting fish in a barrel - he's an easy target”
Haha, I wasn’t picking on him, I’ve never heard of him before. But I posted his conversation precisely because he seemed reasonably intelligent until we got into the topic of gender ideology. It’s a pattern I’ve seen a few times with people, but not quite to that extent.
If I was only having these conversations for the ego boost of somebody telling me I changed their mind I’d have stopped long ago.
You sort of wonder if you've encountered another Pod Person. Someone who seems normal but then you realize you've encountered another person whose brain has been taken over by aliens. Perfectly rational, intelligent people who spout ridiculous nonsense and then point to Trump and QAnon as the 'real' nonsense-spouters.
I have been lucky enough to have been told once or twice by people that I changed their minds about something: feminism and gay rights, specifically. The women who changed her mind about feminism and I had many interesting conversations about feminism because she was curious and I wasn't didactic. The man who changed his mind about gay rights did so because he liked my partner and me, and we had exactly zero conversations about gay rights with him.
Never underestimate the importance of loyalty in many good people's minds/emotional landscapes. That's a fence where the conversation stumbles and what-about-ism and straw-man arguments ensue. When your walls are broken down and you look around and realize that you're on the wrong side, instead of welcoming the conquering army you double down, like the knight in Monty's Python's Holy Grail. Even thought it's hopeless. Because loyalty to and courage in defending a cause--even a wrong, stupid one--are still admired. You have to unstick yourself from the pleasures of standing strong with your cohort for a wrong cause, and that can take a long time when loyalties run deep. You have to want to change.
"You have to want to change."
IMO, that's where almost all the problems in the world come from. Or, rather, change happens no matter what. But initiating personal change is so, SO hard. Who wants that?
People who can't stand to be the way they are anymore. Who get tired of constantly negotiating the difference between their values and the values of their family or peer group.
It's a tricky balance. I can't stand the Way I am right now, myself. I'm learning to have as much compassion for myself as I'd have for a friend, if they were struggling. I think if I can do that, I'll be able to stay in the eye of the hurricane that swirls around these days.
TY for the reply, M Nona. "May You find what You're looking for."
As usual I totally agree with everything you say. However, I was recently heavily censured, if not actually banned, by Medium for saying that being Trans met the dictionary definition of Delusion in that it involved a "firm belief" in something that was patently untrue. My post was removed for being "hate speech", although why they assumed that I must necessarly hate deluded people was not explained to me; why on Earth would I? Anyway, if Walter is mistaken in his beliefs, all I can say is, he's in good company.
For just a moment, I’d like to examine the context in which these conversations are taking place.
Here in America, white Christian culture is ensnared in a severe, destabilizing identity crisis. Rampant, epidemic pedophilia was the spark that lit the fuse. Like dynamite, white Christian identity has exploded again and again, for nigh on 40 years. The lethal fallout spreads in all directions, dropping like bombs on one innocent “outsider” group after another.
As they say, we can’t cure disease, by treating symptoms. Whether it’s a physical disease, like cancer, or social dis-ease, the cure begins by naming it, then identifying its source, then stopping the spread by containing it or removing it from the body politic. The source of dis-ease in this country, is white Christian culture. Nearly 90% of those convicted of sexually abusing children, are white men.
Americans have always been plagued by puritanical views on sexual intercourse. By puritanical, I mean the dictionary definition: rigid, unbending, harsh, intolerant, and unforgiving.
After 400 years, these puritanical views on sex and intercourse were so entrenched in American culture, most people thought they were normal, natural, innate, biological – universal. However, in white Christian culture, they’d become an identity. Even now, perhaps more than ever, white Christians identify themselves by their biological sex, and performing the roles assigned that sex.
And then, in 1985, something changed. Something so, drastic, so unexpected, so horrific, and so shocking, it was almost unbelievable. Data and statistics left no doubts and no way out: Nearly 90% of those convicted were white men. Without question, this was a white Christian dis-ease. Biology, DNA, genetics, evolution could not account for this phenomenon. Culture, and only culture, could explain it. Something was wrong terribly, terribly wrong in white Christian culture.
The identity crisis began in 1985, when reports of boys molested by Catholic priests and employees began surfacing. It was soon clear, that pedophilia was an epidemic in white Christian institutions. For the next 37 years, revelations have been stacking up, one after another. It is far from over.
In 1991, a major five-part investigation entitled "Scouts Honor" on sex abuse in the Boy Scouts of America, a Christian youth organization for boys, was released.
In 2002, investigative journalists at the Boston Globe published over 300 stories about the Catholic clergy’s sexual abuse of children, mostly boys, as young as 4.
In 2019, it was revealed that the Southern Baptist church had also been protecting pedophiles for decades. More than 700 documented cases of children (mostly boys) left in the church’s care had been sexually abused. Today, many of these Baptist pedophiles are still working with children.
In 2020, the Boy Scouts of America, filed for bankruptcy. More than 88,000 boy scouts had been molested by scout leaders. Many boys had been molested for years, beginning at age 10 when they joined the boy scouts.
By 2021, the Catholic church had identified an estimated 330,000 children who were victims of sex abuse committed by more than 3,000 priests and other church employees. Over 80% of the victims were boys.
I repeat this again, nearly 90% of those convicted of sexually abusing children, are white men.
For white Christians, the depth of cognizant dissonance is unfathomable. The assault on white Christian’s identity is brutally painful.
Rampant pedophilia is the context – the stage, the courtroom - in which these conversations about gender identity are taking place. There will be no fair hearing, no kindness, no empathy and no reason on a stage as foul as this one.
How does a group of people united by their religious identity, justify, reconcile, explain, or cope with hundreds of thousands of children who were sexually abused while in their care?
White Christians have coped with unchecked pedophilia in their midst, the same way they coped with slavery and racism – denial, avoidance, projection, distraction, deflection, gaslighting, rage, propaganda, intimidation, and violence.
And Bait and Switch. White Christian power depended on keeping people unified. White Christians needed a new identity, a cover, a mask. They were quickly re-united under the banner of the Moral Majority, an arm of the Republican Party.
White Christian leaders, particularly white evangelical leaders, began using the Republican Party to deflect attention away from themselves. Like the myth of the “Lost Cause” Christian leaders began manufacturing and marketing myths. From the welfare queen and her limousine, to today’s liberal pedophile rings, the gay agenda, conspiracy theories, QAnon, fake news, transgender sports and bathrooms controversy and Christian persecution – manufactured propaganda, deflects attention away from the unchecked epidemic of pedophilia infecting white Christian culture - and the Republican Party.
Government did not fail the people. The leaders of white Christian institutions failed white Christians.
I wondered how long it would take Walter to appeal on behalf of children. Sure enough, Walter moved there – fast. Unfortunately, this is the number one symptom of the deep, unresolved epidemic of pedophilia in white Christian culture.
Before I sign off, I am obliged to say this was not my idea. I had no idea this was even a thing. As a rural liberal my life is filled with white Christian conservatives. At first, I was in disbelief, but my white Christian, ultra-conservative friends refused to allow me to remain there. Slowly but surely, they helped me see what was happening inside their culture. Their reason? I am not a Christian or a Republican, and it was not safe for me and my family not to know.
I am very interested in learning other people’s opinions, views and experience.