Acceptable Losses

 

There has been a great deal of outcry over policies meant to curtail the spread of COVID-19 as it is argued that said policies are an infringement of either natural or constitutionally guaranteed rights. However, as America’s conservative politicians were found of saying after 9/11, after the subsequent ‘need’ to wholesale spy on American citizens was revealed, freedom isn’t free. Have the COVID-19 policies up until now been legal? More importantly, are they ethical? How much freedom, if any, is it permissible to curtail in order to stem a pandemic that at least on occasion sees people die?

 

As of this writing, according to Worldometer, COVID-19 kills 3.4 people per 100 recorded cases. In the U.S. there have been 70 million recorded cases and 866,000 deaths due to the virus or complications due to the virus, for a 1.2% mortality rate, a lower overall percentage in the U.S. due to improved medical facilities. In the U.S. for the unvaccinated, there is a 1-in-85 chance that infection will require serious medical attention. For the vaccinated, there is an approximate 1-in-10,000 chance of infection leading to hospitalization. I am leaving out statistics by age, ethnicity, or gender because they are irrelevant to what follows as a life is precious regardless of age, ethnicity, or gender. Is this not the case? It is the case; this is what abortion rights opponents would like us to believe. And, this is the viewpoint we’re all supposed to tow as a supposedly civilized species. But how civilized are we, really?

 

Not just in the U.S. but globally authoritarianism has been on the rise while at the same time there has never been a greater outcry for protecting one’s freedoms, usually by those very proponents of authoritarianism. While we might forgive political extremists for their blatant hypocrisy – it’s just what they do – there is a more sinister undercurrent of human psychology at work here. While no reasonable person is denying the virus that causes COVID-19 exists, makes people sick and occasionally kills people, what the people protesting for their right to assemble without even the most basic precautions are essentially saying is that any single person’s right to behave as they want should not be infringed upon even if that behavior potentially means someone else might die. In other words, our right to socialize in all the ways we socialized before the current pandemic should be retained even if there is a potential for one of the people socializing to die. This is not only (supposedly) ethically incorrect, but constitutionally incorrect in the U.S. I’ll explain, but first a quick yet realistic thought experiment

 

In terms of numbers, let’s suppose there are 1,000 people attending a concert: there is the potential for anywhere between 12 and 34 of those people to die from COVID-19 (a scenario made more likely if the audience members are unvaccinated). Even in a best-case scenario, at least 10 of those concert-goers are going to require going to the hospital and it would be a safe bet to say at least one of those 10 people are going to die. The question becomes this; in order to maintain the freedoms we are accustomed to, like being in a crowd at a concert, how many people are we willing to let die (with ourselves being among the potential victims)?

 

We calculate these kinds of risk-assessment unconsciously all the time. We do it when we drive our cars, for example. According to Gallup.com, in the U.S. there are .012 deaths per 100 drivers in the U.S. annually (or approximately 38,000 driver deaths) in order to preserve every driver’s right (privilege, really) to drive, with most of these deaths being preventable seeing how most of them are not mechanically related, meaning, due to driver error and/or recklessness. In the case of our actual constitutional right to bear arms in the U.S. there are approximately .0059 homicide related deaths per 100 citizens (or approximately 20,000 citizens a year) according to the CDC. The number of gun-related deaths goes up into the tens of thousands, of course, if we factor in suicides and accidents. That aside, in 2021 alone, 68 people were killed or injured in school shootings [edweek.org]. To be allowed to drive and own firearms, these appear to be acceptable losses for our rights/freedom to these things, whatever ‘rights’ or ‘freedom’ means. So, this should probably be sorted out.

 

When discussing these alleged rights and freedoms, we are probably talking mostly about those rights the U.S. Constitution affords, such as the right to bear arms (and not even have to be in a militia, apparently). Also afforded or protected are the rights to assembly, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion (or not be religious), and importantly, the Ninth Amendment which states that rights afforded by the Constitution shall not infringe upon other rights. For most U.S. citizens the U.S. Constitution basically affords the right to go most anywhere and mostly do whatever we want so long as we don’t intentionally harm other people, least that be a violation of the Ninth Amendment. Certainly U.S. citizens have a level of freedom not seen in many other countries. Only how free are we as U.S. citizens, really? It might be helpful to think of all the ways in which we are not free and why this is important.

 

Let’s start with the First Amendment, which grants citizens the freedom of speech (among other rights). We are allowed to say whatever we want. Of course, this isn’t true – Explicit child pornography is not protected free speech and was ruled illegal by SCOTUS in 1996. Also ruled illegal is speech that incites violence/bodily harm, defames someone’s character, or tries to pass off someone else’s copyrighted work as your own, to name a few. The First Amendment is also supposed to allow us to practice religion as we see fit as much as protect us against state sponsored religion, only, several states’ laws contend that an atheist cannot hold office. (This is unenforceable according to the SCOTUS but has not been tested. Also, women have not been protected from religious zealots in Texas most recently and notably.) When it comes to the Second Amendment, which is supposed to hypothetically protect us against a tyrannical government, U.S. citizens can own assault weapons but not weapons of mass destruction such as a fully functional tank or nuclear weapon, which a hypothetical tyrannical government would be allowed to have.

 

We have a number of other federal, state, and local laws that limit our freedoms as well, and this is mostly for our own protection as well as the protection of our neighbors of whom it is irrelevant whether you like them or not. For example, while we don’t have to wear seatbelts, we can be ticketed for it and that fine will be enforced by a court of law. Also enforced by the courts is our responsibility to pay taxes; they have to be paid or we face fines or even jail. In most states, it is considered battery to spit on another person (without consent). In most states, we cannot marry a minor or marry multiple people at once. By law, we cannot arbitrarily discriminate against someone based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. (Yes, we know, this last one is broken all the time; people of color and women face gross inequities and mistreatment compared to their white male counterparts.) These are some of the more obvious ways in which U.S. citizens are not free.

 

Less obvious freedoms involve the widespread use of social media. The very people complaining about COVID-19 mandates are the same people who do not seem to realize that every time they use a search engine, log on to Facebook or other social media app, algorithms are tracking how the user behaves in order to keep that user engaged for as long as possible. Siri, Alexa – any smart devices we own – and the NSA are listening to us all the time. Everyone knows this. No one disputes the fact that major corporations and tech companies are doing everything they can to manipulate citizens into doing their bidding, and they often succeed. Oddly, or maybe I should be saying ‘unsurprisingly,’ no one cares and its never a part of the conversation regarding freedom(s).

 

These are but very few examples that are in place to reign in and control behavior for actors within a society for the safety of society. It is simply not true that a U.S. citizen can do whatever they want whenever they want unless they leave the country to become a king or queen of another country and they don’t use the internet.

 

What does any of this have to do with COVID-19? If it is not obvious by now, there is a pandemic affection millions of people, with almost one million deaths associated with the disease in the U.S. as of this writing. In order to stop the spread of illness – and possibly death –  it was asked of the general population to give up a small measure of freedom; wear face coverings, stay six feet apart, avoid large gatherings, and isolate if we felt the slightest bit ill or were in close proximity to a symptomatic carrier of the virus. It was also asked of the population to get a vaccine which would limit the number of people getting ill and more importantly limit the time during which an infected person is transmitting the virus. And none of this, so far, has become law. None of this has become law because if the population could not take the simple precautions first asked of them, making the precautions law would result in a nationwide riot. In short, Americans could not be asked to save the lives of almost a million of their fellow countrymen because individual ‘freedom’ is more important than those other people’s lives. That being the case, as with driving or being allowed to own firearms, we implicitly consent to acceptable losses. In actual numbers, for example, 2,462 school-aged children were killed by firearms in 2017; we consider this an acceptable loss of life so that the right to bear arms goes on uninfringed. The question is – when do the numbers start becoming unacceptable before we consider reigning in some freedoms? How do we arrive at those numbers if those numbers even exist? I ask because for some rights, it seems like no number will be too high for the U.S.

 

Concerning gun rights, the number did get too high for Australia. In 1996, a gunman killed just 35 people at a tourist destination with a semiautomatic weapon. Their gun laws changed within the following year and the country did not have another mass shooting until 2018 when 7 people were killed. A similar regard for life can been seen with Australia’s initial response to the pandemic.

 

When it was recognized in early 2020 that COVID-19 was going to be a problem, Australia closed its borders and required citizens returning home to isolate. The people who were required to quarantine were checked on by police. Some states and territories closed their borders to each other. Non-essential services were closed. There was bipartisan unity within the government to deal with the pandemic. Australia’s measures to protect themselves against COVID-19 was quickly implemented and clearly communicated to the public, resulting in nearly zero cases through the rest of 2020. Australia ended its zero-COVID-19 strategy in late 2021, citing that it was impossible to suppress the virus forever, which is probably not true had everyone (globally) initially taken similar measures. Australia, with its regard for its citizens lives, understandably wanted their people to return to life as it was before the pandemic. Unfortunately, they lifted their restrictions too soon, for instance opening their borders to COVID-19 carriers from less pandemically savvy nations. Fortunately, with high vaccination rates and occasional snap-lockdowns and other restrictions, Australia has kept their death toll below 4,000 for the time being. This is a vast difference from, say, the U.S. even despite the disparities in population.

 

It appears death tolls do matter to some nations. In contrast, the reason the U.S. has been so awful in dealing with COVID-19 has to do with the fact that compared to many other nations, U.S. citizens simply don’t care much about each other’s lives. Individual freedom must be maintained in the face of ridiculously high death tolls even when those numbers are largely preventable. It does not seem to matter how many people die in car accidents or are killed by gunfire. Recall that in one incident alone, in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, 61 people were murdered and 411 injured by gunfire. The numbers are astounding to everyone but gun rights advocates and politicians. If that incident did not change the nation’s mood towards the Second Amendment, we can gather nothing will. There does not seem to be any sense of national community. So, we should not be surprised that Americans do not care who they infect or kill by not taking any precautions against COVID-19.

 

Why is there no sense of protecting the greater community? Why do high death tolls that are preventable not matter to U.S. citizens? For starters, we can blame division on the internet that produces echo chambers for our worst human qualities, which itself is influenced by the larger tech companies that puts profits before people. We can also blame foreign regimes like Russia who have an interest in dividing Americans. The rich, such as the CEO’s of the afore mentioned tech companies, bear no love for the poor whom, they don’t seem to realize without, they would not be rich. (Also not a secret is that the rich and politicians only care about the poor long enough to exploit them, and this has been going on so long it’s accepted as just another part of life. My apologies for stating the obvious, which is apparently not obvious to enough people.) Blame may even lie with the American healthcare system, which only thinks in terms of dollars, in terms of putting a dollar sign on life, in terms of how not to pay for the medical care their insurance is supposed to provide. And, at the root for Americans, there is the false notion that the U.S. was a country born exclusively out of a need for individual freedoms to be had, with the nation as a whole to be burned to the ground should that notion be challenged. This is basically what the psyche of conservative America has been ever since people of color were allowed to voice their opinions and speak about their experiences with racism, jeopardizing white privilege. (To be certain, the current drive in conservative U.S. states to ban abortion is not because they care about life, rather, they fear being ‘bred out.’) Least we forget as well, history has demonstrated time and again that as human beings, we just don’t care about people beyond our immediate tribe(s). It appears frowned upon to say this forthwith, so history says it for us.

 

All this adds up to what I’ve come to call, again, ‘acceptable losses’ which in reality means ‘any amount of loss.’ Any amount of loss is acceptable to U.S. citizens to maintain their (alleged) absolute freedoms. Had the Las Vegas gunman in 2017 killed a thousand people, gun rights advocates and conservative still would not have seen a problem. There is no number of lives lost that would convince gun rights advocates and conservatives to willingly curtail their rights.

 

Realizing this, and out of curiosity, I’ve posed this question in my Ethics and A&P classes in relationship to COVID-19 or any other infectious disease: What death toll would be high enough for you to say we should curtail some freedoms in order to fight a deadly disease? Ebola for example will kill anywhere from 25% to 90% of the people it infects, allowing for various factors (with 25% being so low due to how the particular outbreak was responded to. Otherwise, Ebola’s mortality rate would be closer to at least 50%). Would sacrificing 25% of the population for our basic freedoms be acceptable? At what point would the death toll be so high it would cause you to say, “Perhaps we should curtail some freedoms so that there is at least a few people left to cook and serve me food at the restaurant”? Astonishingly, I’ve been given figures as low as 20% and as high as 80% of the population. While this perhaps speaks to an unspoken belief that there are too many people on the planet (I don’t disagree), I don’t think the people giving me that figure have thought through the consequences of 20-80% of the population actually dying. One student did mention that the allowable percentage would be based upon the freedoms lost, meaning, the more liberties that would be taken away, the more people we should let die because again, anyone’s possible and even preventable death does not supersede anyone’s right to liberty. Perhaps that 20% threshold isn’t being met?

 

While it can be argued that COVID-19 is not as deadly as Ebola, Americans have effectively said a loss of 2% of the nation’s population is perfectly acceptable in order not to have to wear a mask in public. While I understand wearing a facemask is uncomfortable, few people are willing to let a surgeon operate on them without one. In other words, if a surgeon can wear a face mask for several hours straight during surgery, why is the rest of the population so fragile that they cannot wear a mask in a supermarket for 20 minutes? Why is 20 minutes of someone’s time seen as too much to ask to save even one person’s life? Because masks and the other precautions aren’t effective? Then why hasn’t anyone criticized surgeons for wearing masks and washing their hands prior to surgery before the pandemic? 

 

I can understand vaccine hesitancy a little more. At the beginning of the rollout even I wanted to see what kind of side effects there were going to be as I had a bad experience with an injection in the military. (I had a sudden fever and passed out after a shot. To this day I do not know what they gave me that caused that reaction.) And, I can understand being hesitant of the vaccine’s long-term effects. But, I don’t understand being hesitant about the vaccine’s long-term effects when we do have a better idea of the long term effects of COVID-19 itself. Nor do I understand being told someone is worried about the vaccine’s long-term effects or being afraid of what’s in the vaccines when they are throwing back a Mountain Dew and a Hershey’s candy bar, as my students often do. There is also what I believe to be a reasonable suspicion of Big Pharma; while there is much money to be had by Big Pharma in the case of a pandemic like this, consider the fact that only Big Pharma had the capability to create a vaccine so quickly. Also, keep in mind that it does industries such as Big Pharma no good to intentionally kill the very people who would use their products, so that reasonable suspicion of Big Pharma only goes so far. At this point, it is a safe assumption that vaccine hesitancy and resistance is merely towing political lines and there is no actual valid reasoning against it, not when vaccines have been so effective in the past. I will not mince words here; it says something unflattering that almost half the U.S. takes its vaccine advice from a former hippie and Playboy model. (I’m referring to Jenny McCarthy, who started the anti-vaxxer movement back in 2007. And no, this is an ad hominin attack as McCarthy had no medical expertise back then and still doesn’t now.)

 

Now comes the catch-22: If vaccines did kill a small percentage of people, how many would be too many? How many lives lost are worth it to save more lives? Is there an acceptable death toll for vaccines but not for preventable infections? Hint – the answer is ‘yes’: Vaccines have not killed as many people as COVID-19, so it would make sense for the population to get vaccinated even if a few people would in fact die from the vaccine, as long as we’re making this comparison. There is no logical argument against how unsafe the COVID-19 vaccine might be as the numbers do not lie. Americans hesitant about vaccines because they’re allegedly unsafe is an outright hypocrite and again unapologetically towing political party lines. Getting COVID-19 is clearly more dangerous for everyone if a person is unvaccinated.

 

Now that we’ve cleared the air about what is acceptable in terms of losses, particularly those that are preventable, what I ask of people who will not take any precautions to stem the current (and future) pandemic(s) is this: I want to know who the toxic people are (both figuratively and literally) so I can avoid them. So, be honest and don’t hide behind rationalizations. Be honest in saying that you simply don’t care how many people die and that your individual freedom is more important. Be honest that human life does not matter to you. Be honest that what little is asked of you to protect human life is too much, that you are easily defeated, especially by a piece of cloth. But remember, you are the same people who (supposedly) are for the rule of law, and the rule of law is, at least in the U.S., that your rights end where mine begin. It’s literally in the Constitution. Read it from time to time.

Here we Go Again On The Teleological Argument

After tweeting a comment about the philosophical shortcomings of the act of praying, something I 'might' be wrong about, a Christian apologist offered to debate me in DMs. (And, for the record, I am tweeting and messaging as The Stranded Alien @TheStrendedAli2 because 1-More and more I don't believe I am from this planet and 2-Making comments from the perspective of an alien who seeks to understand humans keeps me civil.) What follow are the screen shots of our messages and additional thoughts as to what was going through my head as I was replying. 

Props to the Millennial Christian as he stays civil throughout this, or perhaps it is a ploy to gain  my trust and convert me. At any rate, once we pass the civility test, he comes across as your garden variety apologist who hasn't been in the game very long, as you can see in the very beginning when he refuses to define 'god.' I understand his reluctance, though. 

Rookie mistake; nature itself can't be evidence of things that are created when all we know about things that are created are the things created by humans.

His initial statement is silly. He's implying that having never been told about a god or creator, he has looked at the entire universe and thought, "One [entity] did this" which is a preposterous extrapolation. And no, knowing how we got here does not define our purpose, if any purpose besides reproduction can be said to exist. Animals don't posit the beginning of the universe to know they need to eat and take shelter to survive and reproduce. Second, why should I respect another person's life if I don't know about our origins? I can think of some good reasons. At least he concedes that his god could have been created (it's turtles all the way down) but goofs on the Fine Tuning Argument, not realizing that the second we find life on another planet, the Fine Tuning Argument goes out the window. Also, the earth is never in the same place.

(oops, goofed on the screen captures there...) The story of the Fall in Christian mythology is so ridiculous it boggles the minds. I might also add that nowhere in Genesis does it say Adam and Eve were 'perfect,' another word lacking description. I mean, I'm not surprised that another Christian apologist hasn't read the Bible they've allegedly analyzed, but c'mon. He started with the Teleological Argument, was shown it was faulty - thank you, David Hume - and then had to resort to scripture which no one worth their salt does. After this, the Millennial Christian no longer engaged, perhaps to practice his conversion techniques some more. Kid's got a long way to go. 

What If We're Wrong?

[Author’s note: Not to be confused with the Chuck Klosterman book of the same name, but does share the basic premise, that is, what if we’re wrong about many of our commonly held beliefs? I take a more practical approach to the question, whereas much of Klosterman’s commentary – which is nonetheless quite interesting – is more esoteric.]

 

I am guilty of doing it more often than I’d like, behaving like everyone else, much to my chagrin. While I often think about how I could help the world be a better place as it seems to descend further and further into madness, I usually come up empty-minded, with no easy solutions and quietly wishing for a comet to strike the planet ala Don’t Look Up. Then it dawned on me as I was reading Chuck Klosterman’s book, But What if We’re Wrong? – the title of the book; what if we asked ourselves that question before being so certain of our beliefs? For example, before hitting ‘send’ on that tweet, what if we asked ourselves, “What if I’m wrong about what I’m saying?”

 

The problem with old-timey Western European philosophers is that, by-and-large, their arguments are only successful in a vacuum and suppose common people en masse can be convinced to take the time and think philosophically, and then actually apply those ideas in the real world. This doesn’t happen very often if at all, and very few people enjoy the mental masturbation of thinking deeply about anything. This is perhaps due to human beings’ motivations not being all that deep or interesting. That said, it is no wonder that ‘academics’ are regarded with suspicion by authoritarian leaders…who really don’t have that much to fear from academics being that even the general population thinks of philosophers as bullshit artists. Why would this be the case? As I said, most people just can’t be asked to think very deeply about anything. But, if this is a case of conditioning, here’s where my idea can play a critical role in how we treat each other.

 

Suppose when interacting with other people, before we speak or act we ask ourselves, “What if I’m wrong?” Think about how far this question would go in beginning thought processes that go deeper. I might add that asking this question really should be our default position since – when considering human history – we’ve been wrong about far more things than right. (This is still the case today.) The only problem is that asking the question is likely to be cut off at the knees due to an overriding self-righteousness driven by our lust for power (however minor or illusionary).

 

But let’s say in the off chance that we’re able to stop ourselves and ask, “What if I’m wrong?” what follows? If we’re trying to make factual claims, such claims are easy enough to corroborate, at least until disinformation campaigns and deep fakes become even more prevalent. If we’re stating matters of opinion, we can ask ourselves why we hold the opinions we do, what is the opposing view and why does someone hold their positions, are there any other competing views that may illuminate a false dichotomy, and perhaps most importantly what is the consequences of stating my position? Am I stating a point of view for the sake of being right? Am I just trolling? Is it for the well-being of society? (Keep in mind just about everyone thinks this.) We might also ask ourselves, No, really, what if I am wrong and I get torched for it? Having the foresight to think of possible consequences is another trait most of humanity could stand to cultivate. Trust me, in the U.S. society is a disaster because both the left- and right-wings, and corporations prefer the lot of us to act on nothing but impulse. I could be wrong about why society is a disaster, but if I am wrong I’ll own up to it. And this is something else asking ourselves, “What if I’m wrong?” aims to do – foster some goddamn humility.

 

Few people are going to disagree that we need less humility in the world. I’m not saying anyone should be a pushover instead, but rather accept the reality that none of us are right about everything – again, we’re likely to be wrong about whatever we’re on about – and be willing to accept this fact (and I’m not wrong that our propensity for wrongness is a fact). But what if I’m wrong about how much better the world would be if we asked my important question? The consequences would not be dire; people would just resume what these days is normal behavior.

 

But let’s say I’m an oil executive who insists that fossil fuels aren’t helping to change the climate, that climate change is not being driven by human activity. What if I’m wrong about that? The consequences wouldn’t be that dire for me; I guess my fortunes would keep me comfortable at least for the rest of my lifetime. For everyone else, though, well, you’re screwed and I don’t care because I’ll be fine. Ah, but do I want my name (my genes, really) to go on? And would I’d rather send my progeny into a world where climate change isn’t an issue, giving them one less thing to worry about? So, there could be dire consequences, just not immediately. And there is a myriad of questions we could raise about being wrong in this instance which could give us insight into the consequences of being wrong. But if we don’t ask ourselves if we could be wrong we’d never be capable of any meaningful thought on an issue or be able to see into the future.

 

To be fair, on the other hand, what if climate scientists are wrong about climate change, that the earth is experiencing a normal, cyclic change in overall temperature? Let’s say the belief that humans are driving climate change drives us towards more and more renewable energy sources and away from fossil fuels, what are the terrible consequences of being wrong in this case? When you consider clean air and water, this alone would be enough for me to say I would accept the consequences of being wrong even if it meant a few people who work in the fossil fuel industry would lose their jobs. [People lose their jobs all the time; they can be retrained if they’re willing. I’d be willing to lose a job I had if it meant a more beautiful, and cleaner, less-toxic environment.] So, some consequences can be quite unfavorable and others favorable if we’re wrong on an issue. But – again – we’ve got to ask the question first.

 

We’ve all seen the consequences of a world in which people act without foresight and are reactionary in the moment. Does society have to behave like this, thus becoming less civilized? Impulses may compel us but the more reason is cultivated, the more we may dull the sword of impulse. As it stands, impulse is cutting all of our relationships to ribbons. Think about the consequences of continuing this course of behavior. Is it worth it? Let’s start by asking ourselves if its wrong to act like this; what are the consequences if we change our behavior so that our interactions have more favorable results (i.e. less harm)? My guess is even if we’re wrong to temper our impulses, if we’re wrong that causing less harm is actually doing more harm, we can see that makes no sense. I’d dare say that most of us would recognize this as insanity. I’d dare say most of us would not like to see society continue in this way. So, we should stop behaving in this manner, and all we have to do is ask a simply question.

 

Practice it. Practice it and it gets easier to do. If we find that asking ourselves if we’re wrong does not lead to better outcomes, we haven’t lost much and I can go back to wishing for a comet to strike the planet. I shouldn’t want to wish for that. But maybe I’m wrong.

By Definition

[Author’s Note: Before I begin today’s scree, let me start by saying I’m not on anyone’s side. Most likely I am opposed to whatever insane, cockamamie ideas you have. Well, maybe not ALL of them, but probably most of them. For example, while I take aim at the Woke Mob today, this does not mean I am on the side of right-wing Republicans who are, by-and-large, pretty big assholes. I’m on the side of reason, thought, and interesting discourse. If you’re not on the side of these things, you, too, are probably an asshole. Only, what defines an asshole…]

 

I should have known better than to get into a Twitter spat with a Woke Mobster. Much like your average Trump cultist, there is no reasoning with them. Much like that average Trump cultist, the Woke Mob operates on pure emotion and this is why there is no reasoning with them.

 

See, I made the white man’s mistake of pointing out that a Woke Mobster’s definition of ‘racism’ was being redefined for the sake of convenience in propping up the alt-Left’s narrative, a narrative in which they intimate that only white people can be racist. The mobster in question, allegedly a doctor (a term which used to presume a certain level of intelligence along with it), went so far as to say that white people invented racism. Of course, they couldn’t say where or when this happened probably because this alleged fact was in fact not a fact.

 

Now I’m not going to sit here like your average Trump cultist and tell you systematic racism hasn’t existed in the U.S. since its inception. Yes, some groups of white people in the U.S. have been guilty of oppressing people of color for two-plus centuries. Naturally, while the Woke Mob recognizes this, they neglect to notice that other groups of white people have been instrumental in advancing rights for people of color. To be sure, more effort is needed to make people of color truly equal in the U.S. among the predominately ‘white culture.’ The problem is, in the Woke Mob’s narrative, because of the oppression people of color have suffered, all white people and all their institutions are oppressors and it cannot be the case that white people cannot be racist. It is understandable that unfair treatment might result in this kind of mindset, but this is unreasonable thinking nonetheless. To actually point this unreasonableness, though, is only more proof of the white man’s racism. But what is racism?

 

As philosophers do, we should agree on our definitions before proceeding. Per Merriam-Webster’s definition* which has been the definition of racism for, I don’t know, a while now, “1-Unfair treatment of people of a particular race in a society to the benefit of people of another race (and) 2-The belief that certain races of people are superior to others.” This as opposed to a Woke Mobster’s definition which in not so unsimilar and goes something like this, “The systematic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of [white people].” The latter of these two definitions is the only one that will suffice for the Woke Mob since it excludes any group besides white people from being racist. This has to be the case because, as everyone knows, all other races around the globe treat each other with nothing but dignity and respect. Nevermind the hatred between the Chinese and Japanese. Nevermind Africa being the epicenter of genocides in the modern age. There’s nothing to see here.

 

[*I was challenged on this, my opponent asking me if I was going by Webster’s definition. Well, yes, I was. However, because Merriam-Webster was compiled by white men one assumes, the definition is not to be trusted, obviously.]

 

And so because I, as the white man in the conversation, was wrong by virtue of my existence. For this to be the case – forgive my poor white man’s ignorance – seems kinda racist, at least according to Merriam-Webster. Ah, but since white people hold most of the power in the U.S. I can’t be oppressed on an individual, much less societal, level. That’s the way the Left’s narrative goes, so it seems.

 

What would be interesting is to peer into the future and see the U.S. being headed by people of color – that day is coming – and see whether the Woke Mob’s current definition of racism holds. According to the logic, it shouldn’t if people of color wield most of the power in the country. In fact, according to the logic, it would only be people of color who could be racist then. But, you just can’t expect people who operate solely on emotion to conduct these kinds of thought experiments much less come to that conclusion.

 

It should not be forgotten that racism is an act, not an objective object that exists when no one is around. As such, anyone or any group can be racist, unless you change the definition to suit your narrative as the Woke Mob has done. Unfortunately, words are fluid in definition (and even spelling and pronunciation). Case in point, the word ‘literally’ literally no longer means ‘literally’ when used by lay people, and this is very sad. The same could be said of the word ‘theory’ when used by a scientist as opposed to the common citizen who doesn’t understand anything about science. But I digress; it is a time-honored tradition of Sophists to change definitions to win arguments. There’s not much that can be done about that unless we all start talking mathematics.

 

It should also not be forgotten that it was the philosophy of (mostly) old-timey European white men that argued for the equal treatment of all people. (To be fair, by ‘all people’ they were largely referring to ‘people’ who were only ‘people’ because they had dicks. It’s a matter of definition that was convenient for men at the time.) If not for those philosophers, the Woke Mob would not even be in a position to voice their displeasure about their systematic oppression. No other philosophers from any other continent or culture argued so fiercely for equal rights. I’M NOT SAYING people of color should be undyingly thankful to those philosophers but history is what it is. And, yes, I know that as a white man that’s easy for me to say.

 

Now, before any of this goes any further or before I get cancelled, let us argue over the definition of ‘definition.’ I’ll pour us some whiskey. Or is it ‘whisky’? Fuck.

Christians Against Dinosaurs

 A few months ago, I scanned a headline about a group seeking the removal of a dinosaur statue outside a McDonalds in Tucson, AZ. Having lived in Tucson and familiar with the landmark, I was intrigued to the point of actually reading the article.

The group is called ‘Christians Against Dinosaurs’ (aka CAD) which maintains a Facebook page with a dead link to christiansagainstdinosaurs.com (I guess the CAD admins don’t make enough money or haven’t heard about free web hosting). Per the Facebook page, the philosophy – such as it is – maintains: There is no evidence dinosaurs ever existed, that dinosaurs ever existed is based on assumptions, Jurassic Park is not a documentary (I wasn’t aware anyone thought that), dinosaurs in musea(?) are made of plaster, carbon dating is not reliable, and that chickens are not modern dinosaurs. The group admins repeatedly assert they have done the scientific research and have concluded – with no help from their faith – that dinosaurs never existed. Furthermore, to believe in dinosaurs is dangerous because, well, it’s false and naturally leads people away from the Christian god.

 

Of course, I couldn’t help but be tempted to join the group and weigh in on their discussions. I also knew it would be fruitless to change anyone’s mind, so why would I bother? Because insanity doesn’t get a free pass, ever, even when you can’t cure the ill. I’m glad I did join, though, because what I discovered is a potentially dangerous group of people.

 

Let’s begin with their denial of the evidence, of which there is a lot. What I mean is that we’ve recovered fossilized bones (NOT the bones themselves, which CAD members don’t seem to understand) of many exceptionally sized animals that would be classified as lizards. (Lizards being their classification based on anatomy and physiology, and in this case, supposedly their behavior; based on modern lizards). We’ve recovered LOTS of fossils of these lizards and as the evidence mounted, yes, assumptions were made that these fossilized bones belonged to (often large) lizards that we do not see anymore. Because what else could they be?

 

Ah, the ‘fossilized’ bones are either all fakes and/or were put in place by Satan to deceive all of us about there ever being dinosaurs, because the more time you spend obsessing about dinosaurs the less time you spend with God. (The devil couldn’t come up with a better plan than that? That’s disappointing.)

Certainly, nevermind that most adults spend more time at church than on dinosaurs even if they did go through a dinosaur phase as a child. I mean, no one is missing church to go catch the latest Jurassic Park movie. Sheesh. So we can dismiss the Satan Theory as being childish nonsense but to claim all the recoveries are fake? That would be a massive undertaking and human beings aren’t exactly known for keeping their mouths shut the larger a conspiracy becomes. BUT, the fakes are driven by money, prestige and power, leading us to the perpetrators of the conspiracy – Big Paleo. Ooo, scary.

 

I think CAD’s claim about Big Paleo being in it for the money is so ludicrous that it highlights the lack of research group members must avoid. Their assertion is that the field of paleontology makes so much money, that is what drives the industry to lie about what they’ve discovered and what they do. Now, I couldn’t find any estimates on how much money the field of paleontology makes annually, but literally no one thinks of paleontologists first when asked to make a short list of opportunistic careers. (Click here for a list of the most influential – not richest – paleontologists https://paleontologyworld.com/paleontologists-curiosities/12-most-influential-paleontologists ). By comparison, the faith industry in the U.S. alone makes approximately a trillion dollars a year. So, if money is the motivating factor for paleontologists, why aren’t they pastor instead? They’re in the wrong industry! And I won’t even mention the fact that you need at least a Masters degree to make any money in paleontology whereas you don’t need any education to lead a flock astray. So why go through the trouble? By the way, can you can name at least one mega-rich pastor off the top of your head? Who can’t! The lie about Big Paleo is an attempt to cash-in on the hysteria of phrases like Big Pharma and Big Oil which are seen as inherently evil, which in this case is an outright lie. (I know what you’re thinking, why would a Christian lie about something? Perhaps being Christian, they’re already immune to facts. I’m not sure. Actually I do know why but that’s not important right now.)

 

Could it be that Big Paleo is driven by prestige and power? That is possibly more likely since we know spiritual leaders are likely motivated by the same factors; it’s just a human thing to do, pretend you hold special knowledge. So that’s a possible explanation for the ‘lie’ but since that motivation applies to so many people in so many fields, the point is perhaps moot. Except when it comes to fossilized bones there is no special knowledge: We have a bunch of bones that when we compare them can be classified in a certain way and leads us to certain conclusions. As I mentioned the conclusion may be somewhat inexact, but the overall conclusion that really large lizards once roamed the earth is inescapable. (Or at least that’s what Satan wants us to think. I keep mentioning to CAD members that the evidence is there but they just don’t want to hear it; it would be too much mental work for them to draw any conclusions from it.)

 

I also point out that even if we take it as a matter of faith that dinosaurs existed, this is no different than any of them believing in God on faith. Naturally, they always counter this by saying matters of faith are not subject to scientific inquiry as if they’re being clever in avoiding the ‘evidence trap.’ So CAD gets upset that paleontologists tell everyone that dinosaurs existed based on the evidence. What they don’t realize is that, epistemologically speaking, ultimately every belief is a matter of faith, which circles back to my point about just believing in dinosaurs on faith as a non-starter. In other words, they shouldn’t be getting upset if, really, believing dinosaurs existed is a matter of faith since evidence isn’t required for beliefs. CAD doesn’t realize any analysis of their argument in dividing the beliefs undermines that argument. (I’d like to add here that there is evidence for every belief we have, though that evidence may be falsified or be a false claim. No one is born with a belief in God, though it seems human beings are born with an innate ability to believe in the nonsensical or the flimsiest of ‘evidence,’ like a book written by superstitious tribal men.)

 

But aren’t all the dinosaur bones in museums fakes, made of plaster? Many are because fossilized bones which really aren’t ‘bones’ in the way we understand them are very fragile. (This link speaks to the definition and fragility of fossils https://www.amnh.org/dinosaurs/dinosaur-bones#:~:text=The%20%22dinosaur%20bones%22%20that%20you,bones%20are%20turned%20into%20rock. ) Yet many real fossils do appear in museums around the world. Sure, some are plaster replicas made from molds or are guesswork where skeletons have been recovered incomplete, but even forensic scientists do the latter with human bodies. (So I guess we should consider human skeletons that aren’t recovered fully intact fake? I know, that’s a stretch, but it was fun to write.)

 

At this point I’m going to move on to their disdain for (radio)carbon dating which everyone knows can only date organic material back 50,000 years or so. Paleontologists use a different kind of radiometric dating to determine the age of the rock and sediment fossilized bones are found in and that helps estimate the age of a recovery. The most rudimentary research can point this out, so for a group that claims to be scientifically minded they goofed one of their primary talking points. Good grief, CAD’s not doing so well so far.

 

Hold on! You mean chickens aren’t modern dinosaurs? Let’s file this under ‘N’ for No Shit, Sherlock. Chickens aren’t even lizards. Alas, the evidence seems to indicate birds have descended from dinosaurs, because evolution. I won’t get into evolution here because many of its detractors either can’t grasp the basic concepts involved or refuse to believe it on religious grounds. Anyone who says chickens are modern dinosaurs means they are descendants, not that they’re actually dinosaurs. But leave it to CAD not to understand this.

 

Behind all their misleading and outright false drivel is something inevitably more sinister, however. Checking in on them this evening (you gotta keep an eye on these people) sees one CAD member going on a rant because he came across a dinosaur’s face plastered on a case of beer. That’s being a little triggered, wouldn’t you say? CAD members often post such pictures with such pithy captions as, “This is not okay!” or “Dinosaurs never existed!” Similarly, for every new report of a recovery, a CAD member will inevitably remark, “Jesus is really testing us,” making it clear that at least some members really do think dinosaur bones were put in place by Satan.

 

CAD’s desire to see dinosaurs erased from all aspects of culture indicate the worst tendencies of humanity. Among them, the inability to understand science, the declaration of special knowledge, and to be clearly divorced from reality while insisting their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their denial of the evidence. And the group is clearly religiously motivated, which can never be not troubling. Then there’s the fact that they are a group, having consciously sought each other out for the purposes of locking themselves into an echo chamber. Sure, you can try to reason with them, but the echo is too loud and we know by now that reason is not enough to make people abandon false beliefs.

 

Unsurprisingly, member as the group will go out of their way to lie and create memes such as the David Attenborough one here, giving a quote the man never said. Perhaps they missed the commandment (not optional) against bearing false witness? Called out on their lies, they never acknowledge it. Like so many people, their truth is the only truth that matters. Fortunately, science – and courtrooms to a lesser degree – don’t give a fuck about what you think is reality. This raises a question: Should people be allowed to believe their own ‘facts’? Both the far-right and far-left think so, and this is what has made such a cultural and political mess of the United States.

 

What is to be done with CAD, then, leave them to their own device? Ignoring them is more dangerous than fruitlessly trying to reason with them because if we can prevent even one more indoctrination, it’s worth it. Plus, it makes ourselves feel better to insult intentionally stupid people, does it not? It seems to work for them. Interesting that they don’t like it when the shoe’s on the other foot.

All Rights Reserved (C) Theory Parker Dec. 2020

F*** the USA

It seems so long ago I was what a modern ‘red’-blooded American would consider a patriot. When I joined the army when I was 18 (and for the better half of my military career) I was a Republican, I believed in the rule of law, I believed in the country’s elected officials, and I believed that – all things considered – the United States was a country every other country should be looking up to because her citizens warranted that respect. Three decades later, I could not have been more wrong. While I have figuratively renounced my U.S. citizenship years ago, this morning’s news item finally caused me to spit, “Fuck the USA.”

Various news agencies reported that the owner of a Massachusetts ice cream parlor decided to close his door one day after re-opening during the current pandemic due to the harassment of his employees because…because people had to wait in line to get ice cream. (Please read that again, pause, and let it sink in.) Apparently his best employee quit at the end of her shift due to the harassment. It is absolutely unbelievable that this happened because, again, ICE CREAM was at stake. Although the operation basically returned to ‘normal’ soon thereafter, what with a renewed emphasis on safety and ordering procedures, it cannot be dismissed that people simply forgot their manners after weeks of being in quarantine.

It’s a common criticism by the alt-right that the alt-left hates America and I dare say the alt-right is not totally incorrect. But the alt-left also has a point insofar is that a love of the U.S. is simply not warranted and in fact perhaps should be hated. Donald Trump’s favorite saying ‘Make America Great Again’ really gives a thinking person a moment’s pause as it is not known exactly when America was so great. (Perhaps briefly upon entering WWII?) While many of you reading this right now may think ‘hate’ is a bridge too far, let us not forget the very recent history in which a black man, Ahmaud Arbery, was peacefully jogging until he was hunted down by apparent white supremists and shot to death, and then his assailants went free for two months until a video of the incident surfaced. To be certain, the assailants were not arrested because Georgia law enforcement saw the video but because the rest of the country saw the video. So is this the ‘great America’ the current U.S. president thinks the country should be? If it seems like I’m digressing, I’m not.

The Polar Cave Ice Cream parlor incident is indicative of almost everything that is wrong with the U.S. (By the way, this happened on the same weekend a group of white men carrying large-caliber weapons went to a Subway sandwich shop in North Carolina in an apparent attempt to protest lockdown orders.) Because Americans are not particularly well known for their intelligence, I will briefly enumerate what makes the U.S. such a terrible place to be these days (assuming you’re a non-white, unarmed, non-male person, though, the alt-left is certainly not without problems given their philosophy).

·       The Polar Cave Ice Cream parlor incident reveals the utter entitlement Americans feel they have to everything they want and to have it immediately. (Surprisingly, Americans haven’t yet stormed Amazon warehouses because they have to wait two whole days for their Prime shipments to arrive.) Americans feel so entitled to everything – including ice cream – that to too many people it was acceptable to harass ice cream shop employees for having to wait too long (a few minutes?) with language that would embarrass a sailor. Americans feel so entitled to what they want that involuntarily celibate men think it’s okay to shoot up college campuses because they shouldn’t have to do anything to get laid. And naturally Americans feel entitled to the guns they use in such incidents because they are part of a well-regulated militia. FFS, these days, Americans even feel entitled to their own facts. And when Americans don’t get their way, the play the victim card.

·       Being entitled to their own facts demonstrates America’s now nearly complete war on intellectualism short of killing university professors. A friend recently posted a blog (here) on the intellectual dishonestly so often associated with memes that is, of course, so completely on point we should be thankful Americans are able to communicate through posting memes at all and not still smashing rocks together to make crude music. Can a country that made the Kardashians, creationists, and flat-earthers famous and can’t answer basic questions about how their government works but is somehow mind-controlling them really be considered great? The U.S. is a country whose citizens can’t be asked to wear a facemask for a few months for everyone’s protection. It’s not like these people are being asked to go off to war to fight Nazi’s – which they wouldn’t do now anyway – or suffer a famine ala The Great Depression or stop taking selfies. The U.S. is a country that elected a president that cannot maintain a train of thought for more than two minutes, which no one should have sought to do because most people should not be electing people like themselves to high office seeing how unqualified the average American is for such a task. Exerting power by fiat has never worked out well for anyone, but the average American has no idea what I mean when I say that anyway. America is the same country whose Republicans foam at the mouth when the word ‘socialism’ is spoken but gladly took their pandemic stimulus checks and think big businesses and farmers deserve government bailouts.

·       Anti-intellectualism and racism go hand-in-hand, so it’s no surprise that hate crimes increased dramatically after Trump took over the U.S. presidency. True, it’s not like many white Americans weren’t already racist, it’s just that the person they elected to high office emboldened them to act on that racism. While we probably didn’t have too many incidents during the

Obama Administration in which the police were called on a black cop searching for evidence in between houses, but today it’s basically the norm. White people are so willfully oblivious to what black people go through, they dare not take a moment to figure out what Black Lives Matters really means. Does that sound ‘great’ to you? America is simply an evil place for allowing racism to go unaddressed and unfettered. It is an evil place for what happened at the ice cream parlor. If Americans cannot get over the frustration of not having ice cream in a ‘timely’ fashion, then how are they great?

·       America no longer appears to adhere to any rule of law. Just this past week, the Trump Administration’s DOJ dropped charges against former national security advisor Michael Flynn, a man who admitted to lying under oath twice. There are various reasons for this which have nothing to do with Flynn being an honorable man, but as it is for many in the Trump administration, being legally accountable is laughable. (Yes, Bill Clinton lied under oath, too, but at least he paid for it.) Meanwhile, President Trump has routinely said he is above the law as president…which would mean all the crimes he’s accused Obama of committing in office are irrelevant. Meanwhile, white men are walking into capitol buildings and sandwich shops with guns in an attempt to intimidate elected officials, but they are not charged with domestic terrorism because white. Meanwhile, in the 1960’s the Black Panthers were charged with domestic terrorism for doing exactly this. Meanwhile, a white salon owner in Texas openly defies a court order and judge and is hailed a s hero while the people hailing her as a hero keep telling black people that they wouldn’t get shot if they just did what they are told by law enforcement. What officials in high office and white people get away with, to say nothing of corporations, is reprehensible, to be polite.

·       Not surprisingly, the current pandemic has exposed the weaknesses of capitalism, that weakness being that it cannot survive something like a pandemic without the aid of socialism as I mentioned earlier. The strange thing is, not even liberals are questioning the fundamentals of capitalism. I expect such a thing of Republicans, but not Democrats. Even Bernie Sanders is mostly silent about the recent turn of events. I’ll say that capitalism may be the best monetary philosophy going, but that is not the same as saying it’s good at all.

·       For those of you who have forgotten, the U.S. consistently lags behind other Western and some Asian countries in math, science, and reading. You don’t see the Trump Administration doing anything to rectify that situation. No, instead Trump installs a completely unqualified person (because that’s what he does with his cabinet) to head the DOE because she’s a campaign donor with a vested interest in college students repaying their student loans. No, trump doesn’t see to it that Americans get an education because that would disrupt his base, that being uneducated citizens. As we’ve seen from China, Japan, and the Scandinavian countries, an educated population is in a country’s best interest. That simply cannot be allowed in a country held hostage by mega-corporations, though.

So we’re left trying to figure out when the U.S. was great and deserving of being loved. Was it when it institutionalized slavery and even fought a civil war to preserve it? Was it during Prohibition when the government was poisoning beer so it could use the dead as propaganda? Was it during the Trail of Tears? Was it during the McCarthy era? Was it when it dropped TWO nuclear bombs on Japan? Was it during the Tuskegee Experiment? Was it during the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam? Was it when it lied its way into invading Iraq post-9/11? Was it when the wholesale spying on Americans by the NSA was greenlit? Was it when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were people or ruled that super-PAC money didn’t have to be transparent anymore? Was it when the employee of an ice cream parlor quit her job because of the harassment she received because people couldn’t get their ice cream on demand?

It might be argued that many countries behave reprehensibly but this means nothing more than the U.S. being a country no better than any other. Yes, the U.S. may have a higher standard of living and all the money and goods it could ever want (gotta have the latest iPhone!), but U.S. citizens seem to equate these enviable qualities with some kind of moral high ground. That is how stupid Americans are. That’s how undeserving of America’s status it is.

Is it really such a big deal to be an American, to live in the USA.? Not when your job at an ice cream parlor entails threats to your life. Not when it’s more important to re-start the economy than to save people’s lives. Not when Americans are too stupid to see that capitalism cannot survive without socialism. Not when a black man cannot go jogging without being hunted down by Trump supporters. Not when the alt-left has ruined any sense of fairness on college campuses (they’ve turned out to be almost as bad as their alt-right counterparts). Not when you’re considered a lower form of life because your credit score is terrible.

The next time you see someone post “We’re better than this” on social media in response to the next example of human depravity, please remind them that the U.S. is not and never has been. Given history, both past and present, you might even want to say to them, “Fuck the U.S.A.” I sure do.