What a comment to unpack. I feel for you as a white man in todays society. You can do nothing right, even as far as complimenting a woman’s dress. How dare you?! I can’t imagine what it’s like to try to have a conversation, platonic or otherwise with women nowadays. I heard recently in universities males must ask for permission to speak to a female lest she find him unattractive and therefore labelled creep. Its absolutely ludacris!
When I first wrote this piece I said, “the far left” and changed it to “many people” because I didn’t want to lump all the far left into one category (as they like to do with us) just in case there was one sovereign critical thinker left!
You are right that rigorous debate accelerates learning. The open markets of ancient Athens where many cultures traded goods and services is credited for a swell of innovation and even the beginnings of Western Science. So many people mixing and getting to know each other, coupled with the innate desire to help others who are struggling with a problem, led to high volumes of ideas exchanged. Athens flourished economically and culturally as a result.
At the risk of responding to a rhetorical question, I would say, like most disappointing developments within our society, the change was incremental but steady. I would say political correctness was the beginning of it. It seemed pretty innocuous at the time, however I do recall an incident upon arriving at a sister factory/office in Paris, Ontario in the mid-nineties. I encountered a coworker who happened to be wearing a nice summer dress at work which was atypical for her. Without thinking I said, "What a nice dress!"
I immediately dreaded saying it. Could such a comment stemming from an authentic reaction be misconstrued as offensive or harassment? Being governed the same way as the fashion industry, the boundaries of political correctness movement were subjective, intangible, and ever in motion. I realize only now how much I had been squelching my reactions to people as early as back then. Of course we all must adapt our behaviour to the environments that we are in, however as young man in his late twenties who struggled to understand social expectations at times, I had always taken the most conservative approach at while at work.
My coworker blushed, smiled, and thanked me. We quickly passed each other in the hallway. It took a little over a week before my worry of blowback from her or perhaps some third parties subsided. Later on I wondered what effect upon the self esteems of girls and women this filtering out of genuine, heartfelt compliments from men had inflicted, if any. Fast forward to the present and my 22-year-old daughter opines that any man that attempts to start a conversation with her is a predatory creep. I guess grandchildren are out of the question for at least a while!
The 'offense industry' is now beyond the pale. If a person may be superficially grouped among the oppressors (regardless of their individual creeds and deeds), then almost everything that they say will be scrutinized for offensiveness. Confirmation bias reigns supreme in such situations and those seeking to find offense, either for themselves or on behalf of others, are never disappointed. Some of them even fabricating details just to fit their expectations.
Plato must have witnessed this same development within one of the ancient Hellenic city-states that he was familiar with because he delivers a note-perfect description of a late stage democracy such as ours (i.e. one ripe for transition to tyranny) in Book VIII of his "Republic". His description contains the mindless, outshouting drones who are invariably publicly funded that are analogous to the radical leftists of today. He describes how the true wealth creators are incrementally squeezed dry by the state in order to fund the growing swarm of drones who insist on living their lives consequence free and will foolishly use violence to secure such lifestyles. Finally, the majority working class (who usually ignore politics) rebels and stamps all drones out of existence, but the costs are higher the longer the drones are tolerated.
Plato states that the cause for such societal decay is the pursuit of freedom beyond all reason. Citizens reject all attempts by authorities to curb their behaviour. They want what they want and they better get it (which is similar to the attitude of Karl Marx who siphoned off resources from his reluctant parents and his friends so that he did not have to work to support himself and his family for his whole life).
Today some members of staff at York University, including an assistant professor, are outraged that anyone is holding them accountable for cowardly vandalizing an Indigo Bookstore. It is so shocking to them to learn that the police failed to recognize that Jewish ownership of a fleet of bookstores requires them to cause damage to said stores. This is a noble act according to them. Naomi Klein has openly called for Heather Reisman to drop the charges but please do continue to sell Ms. Klein's books. Irrationality reigns supreme, but it cannot reign indefinitely.
Since political correctness has grown to the concept that identity is the only thing that matters, the opposite of 'the content of one's character' dream of Martin Luthor King Junior, the radical left see no benefit to talking. Their view is that a person may only contain the thoughts that match their superficial identity. People cannot learn nor change their perspective. Therefore, nothing new may be learned from talking, so don't bother. Drown out and vilify any resistance. Seek the power to crush any opposition.
Most people have been obeying this harmful ideology publicly even if they do not follow it privately. The danger is that practice makes perfect and one day they will think the same way. Their children will grow up seeing and being directed to think the same way.
The 'good news' is that the incompetence inherent in this radical left ideology means that they can never achieve an enduring victory. They are doomed to lose. They are not builders. All that they touch will (and does) collapse like some anti-Midas touch.
So we just need to decide how much damage we are willing to tolerate before we take action and to ensure that the reaction does not go so far as to make us fall prey to a tyrannical person who would end all individual liberties - see Books VIII and IX of the "Republic" by Plato for more detailed observations and conclusions.
If your question, Kelsey, was a rhetorical one, then please accept my apologies; feel free to disregard all but the first paragraph.
What a comment to unpack. I feel for you as a white man in todays society. You can do nothing right, even as far as complimenting a woman’s dress. How dare you?! I can’t imagine what it’s like to try to have a conversation, platonic or otherwise with women nowadays. I heard recently in universities males must ask for permission to speak to a female lest she find him unattractive and therefore labelled creep. Its absolutely ludacris!
When I first wrote this piece I said, “the far left” and changed it to “many people” because I didn’t want to lump all the far left into one category (as they like to do with us) just in case there was one sovereign critical thinker left!
You are right that rigorous debate accelerates learning. The open markets of ancient Athens where many cultures traded goods and services is credited for a swell of innovation and even the beginnings of Western Science. So many people mixing and getting to know each other, coupled with the innate desire to help others who are struggling with a problem, led to high volumes of ideas exchanged. Athens flourished economically and culturally as a result.
At the risk of responding to a rhetorical question, I would say, like most disappointing developments within our society, the change was incremental but steady. I would say political correctness was the beginning of it. It seemed pretty innocuous at the time, however I do recall an incident upon arriving at a sister factory/office in Paris, Ontario in the mid-nineties. I encountered a coworker who happened to be wearing a nice summer dress at work which was atypical for her. Without thinking I said, "What a nice dress!"
I immediately dreaded saying it. Could such a comment stemming from an authentic reaction be misconstrued as offensive or harassment? Being governed the same way as the fashion industry, the boundaries of political correctness movement were subjective, intangible, and ever in motion. I realize only now how much I had been squelching my reactions to people as early as back then. Of course we all must adapt our behaviour to the environments that we are in, however as young man in his late twenties who struggled to understand social expectations at times, I had always taken the most conservative approach at while at work.
My coworker blushed, smiled, and thanked me. We quickly passed each other in the hallway. It took a little over a week before my worry of blowback from her or perhaps some third parties subsided. Later on I wondered what effect upon the self esteems of girls and women this filtering out of genuine, heartfelt compliments from men had inflicted, if any. Fast forward to the present and my 22-year-old daughter opines that any man that attempts to start a conversation with her is a predatory creep. I guess grandchildren are out of the question for at least a while!
The 'offense industry' is now beyond the pale. If a person may be superficially grouped among the oppressors (regardless of their individual creeds and deeds), then almost everything that they say will be scrutinized for offensiveness. Confirmation bias reigns supreme in such situations and those seeking to find offense, either for themselves or on behalf of others, are never disappointed. Some of them even fabricating details just to fit their expectations.
Plato must have witnessed this same development within one of the ancient Hellenic city-states that he was familiar with because he delivers a note-perfect description of a late stage democracy such as ours (i.e. one ripe for transition to tyranny) in Book VIII of his "Republic". His description contains the mindless, outshouting drones who are invariably publicly funded that are analogous to the radical leftists of today. He describes how the true wealth creators are incrementally squeezed dry by the state in order to fund the growing swarm of drones who insist on living their lives consequence free and will foolishly use violence to secure such lifestyles. Finally, the majority working class (who usually ignore politics) rebels and stamps all drones out of existence, but the costs are higher the longer the drones are tolerated.
Plato states that the cause for such societal decay is the pursuit of freedom beyond all reason. Citizens reject all attempts by authorities to curb their behaviour. They want what they want and they better get it (which is similar to the attitude of Karl Marx who siphoned off resources from his reluctant parents and his friends so that he did not have to work to support himself and his family for his whole life).
Today some members of staff at York University, including an assistant professor, are outraged that anyone is holding them accountable for cowardly vandalizing an Indigo Bookstore. It is so shocking to them to learn that the police failed to recognize that Jewish ownership of a fleet of bookstores requires them to cause damage to said stores. This is a noble act according to them. Naomi Klein has openly called for Heather Reisman to drop the charges but please do continue to sell Ms. Klein's books. Irrationality reigns supreme, but it cannot reign indefinitely.
Since political correctness has grown to the concept that identity is the only thing that matters, the opposite of 'the content of one's character' dream of Martin Luthor King Junior, the radical left see no benefit to talking. Their view is that a person may only contain the thoughts that match their superficial identity. People cannot learn nor change their perspective. Therefore, nothing new may be learned from talking, so don't bother. Drown out and vilify any resistance. Seek the power to crush any opposition.
Most people have been obeying this harmful ideology publicly even if they do not follow it privately. The danger is that practice makes perfect and one day they will think the same way. Their children will grow up seeing and being directed to think the same way.
The 'good news' is that the incompetence inherent in this radical left ideology means that they can never achieve an enduring victory. They are doomed to lose. They are not builders. All that they touch will (and does) collapse like some anti-Midas touch.
So we just need to decide how much damage we are willing to tolerate before we take action and to ensure that the reaction does not go so far as to make us fall prey to a tyrannical person who would end all individual liberties - see Books VIII and IX of the "Republic" by Plato for more detailed observations and conclusions.
If your question, Kelsey, was a rhetorical one, then please accept my apologies; feel free to disregard all but the first paragraph.