FRIDAY, 17 JANUARY 2020
In my early twenties I had to choose:
Honesty and intellectual integrity, with “permission” to consider results of falsifiable theories exposed to tests and experiments,
OR
continued membership in a community of fundamentalist religious people.
The socio-political community of which I was more or less accepted as a member in my late twenties and thirties, and whose opinions and terminology I found acceptable and promoted myself, could be described as Left-Liberal.
By my early forties, the suspicion had struck me that I was once again approaching a crossroads. I would have to choose again:
Honesty and intellectual integrity, with “permission” to consider the results of falsifiable theories exposed to tests and experiments,
OR
to continue to use terminology and hold political views that are acceptable to a community of people who consider themselves liberal and progressive, but who pursue policies and trends that are the opposite of liberal, and certainly do not improve society nor make it more tolerant.
SATURDAY, 25 JULY 2020
As a student, and after graduation, I thought critical thinking meant you don’t accept an allegation on face value – you examine it as objectively as you can, and only come to a conclusion after proper consideration.
What Critical Social Justice (CSJ) means by critical thinking is something completely different. A CSJ disciple looks at data, or at a situation, or at something that happened in the past, and apply their “critical theory” to work out how the conclusion they have already decided on can be reached.
How would a Critical Social Justice detective solve a murder?
The usual way is to look at all the possible clues like DNA and fingerprints, and then see what suspects they lead to. Then the suspects are investigated. Then, after a thorough investigation, it is determined that one suspect is more likely to be the perpetrator of the act than any other person.
A Critical Social Justice detective will “know” who the culprit is from the start, namely the closest person who is part of a group that is historically guilty of criminal acts, regardless of whether that particular individual has an alibi, and despite the absence of fingerprints or genetic material that might connect the person to the case. Facts are therefore less important than the historical “guilt” of the group to which the suspect belongs. If actual clues substantiate the person’s guilt, great. If clues do not substantiate the person’s guilt, they are simply ignored. What’s more, if clues indicate the possible involvement of someone belonging to a protected group of historical victims, it would be considered the correct and appropriate action to reject these clues.
FRIDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2020
I wonder why I’m no longer so eager to argue these days. The following thought came to me as a reason:
Unless you can quote from memory passages from authoritative peer-reviewed books, and quote – again, from memory – numbers, dates, names, places and statistics, the confidence you display in argument is merely performance.
How do you argue if you can’t do the above, but you’re still convinced of what your position is? One way is to ask questions, and force the other person to quote from memory passages from authoritative books, as well as numbers, dates, names, places, and statistics. If they cannot, there is no reason to accept their argument, just as there is no reason for them to accept your argument if you cannot do so.
(The only exception is if you can make a logical argument, and can show how a certain conclusion is the only logical one.)
SUNDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2020
01:31
At 24, I wanted to be free and independent – which meant enough money to be able to do what I wanted every day, with no serious responsibilities. And what I wanted to do was write, travel, read, and learn things.
At 32, I wanted to earn a steady income in a stable job. I wanted to get married and raise children. I wanted to live in a three bedroom house in a quiet suburb with my wife and children, and our dog and cat.
Then I started writing with an unprecedented earnestness.
The result is that, at the age of 49, I am closer to the type of life I wanted to lead at 24 than to the one I had been craving for a while in my early thirties.
14:08
(Put differently…)
How did I end up at 49 with the life I dreamed of at 24, despite wanting a very different life at the age of 32? To a very large extent, the writing I produced in 2003 – coincidentally the year I turned 32.
THURSDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2020
Critical Race Theory: Because you’re white, you’re racist. Your individual life story and what you’ve done or have not done doesn’t matter.
Also: Because you’re black, you’re a victim. That means your tests at school and at university should be easier than those of people of other races. It also means you get the job because you’re black, not because you’re competent.
TUESDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2020
A guy on a scooter almost forces me (on a bicycle) off the road – almost as if it’s intentional. Then he blocks the gap where I’m supposed to squeeze past a car around a corner.
I’m instantly pissed. I want to yell at him. I want to confront him and ask him if he’s stupid.
Then I think: Stay in the moment. Don’t go into programmed mode for how to behave in this type of situation.
I ask myself: If I don’t have to act as my programming dictates – or perform my programming as if I’m a character in a play, how then?
Answer: As you choose to respond.
How is that? Shrug my shoulders, and continue the conversation I was having with myself in my head.
______________________