I didn’t get the memo on when we moved from that to this:
I don’t understand everything, so I can act like an imbecile who can’t understand anything.
And to absolve yourselves — you come up with the most asinine excuses I’ve ever seen. All those those precious principles you promote go right out the window when they’re inconvenient, but the second they serve you: You go right back to bitching about the opposition failing to follow the rules you just unconscionably abandoned.
The Right wants the Left and the black community to get its act together on matters deeply woven into the fabric of America’s long history of brutality and disgrace: Slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, murder, decades of civil rights violations, questionable shootings, and so on.
While the Right won’t even look at the material properties of a tube. What’s wrong with that picture — and this one?
Hmm, so the dimensions exactly match the tubes used in Iraq’s history of manufacturing the Nasser-81 mm artillery rocket (a reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa)
I didn’t say they shouldn’t get their act together:
All I did was draw a parallel to make a point. And if you’d abide by the principles you promote, you’d find that my efforts include how the opposition should consider your valid points (and how you should consider theirs).
Fanatics flooding the internet with Sowell’s fancy quotes to float — made a Maverick out of someone who flagrantly ignored irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty on the biggest & most costly lie in modern history (which shaped everything you see today). This man peddled partisan hackery that poisons political discourse to this day — and his crowd quotes him as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes.
Those who seemingly live to preach his follow-the-facts mantra — have a habit of running in the other direction: While acting like they just a walk-off home run for the win (without even knowing what the issue is, no less).
They come up with the most asinine excuses I’ve ever seen — and The Math Club ranks with my favorites. It’s a sign of the times that even on matters of math — there are competing camps for rigging your own reality. Sowell’s a well-mannered guy and you act like animals to honor him. How proud he must be of the legacy he’s leaving behind in your love for him: Carrying the torch to torture the truth. And that’s a fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation
On that note
If you’re gonna pull this shit — get the hell out of here right now:
And that is the legacy of the liar they’d put on Mount Rushmore if they could. Interconnected echo chambers are seemingly competing for fawning over this fraud. It’s impossible for you to fathom how pathetic this hero-worship horseshit is to me. Just sharp as a razor, this crowd: That thinks they’re part of some revolution in reason by ceaselessly Tweeting the tenets of Thomas Sowell.
Never mind they instantly abandon them the second he’s under scrutiny. I’ve never seen so much ass-kissing in all my life. Their behavior is an embarrassment to the entire history of human achievement.
Then again
I feel the same way about the whole shitshow of America:
To see the character of the government and the country so sported with, exposed to so indelible a blot, puts my heart to the torture. . . . Or what is it that thus torments me at a circumstance so calmly viewed by almost everybody else? Am I a fool, a romantic Quixote, or is there a constitutional defect in the American mind?
Were it not for yourself and a few others, I . . . would say . . . there is something in our climate which belittles every animal, human or brute. . . . I disclose to you without reserve the state of my mind. It is discontented and gloomy in the extreme.
I consider the cause of good government as having been put to an issue and the verdict against it.
Sowell’s a snake oil salesman who carved out a career craftily complaining about snake oil salesmen. It’s painfully obvious what this guy’s up to. He’s engineering an illusion — and you bought it. Like you buy everything else in a country where bullshit is increasingly valued as currency.
So you found one small crack in Sowell’s character where he defended Iraq having WMD, does that hurt his credibility?
This man muddied the waters of debate to serve himself: On a little matter of war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11. On top of unconscionably ignoring irrefutable evidence of world-altering consequence, he has a habit of toeing the party line. Not only did Sowell flagrantly fail to follow the facts on all-things Iraq — he brazenly ignored the debauchery in his own party to politely pounce on the other.
In light of his history being wildly out of sync with his sanctimonious claims: That “one small crack” is a wide-open window into his character and credibility.
I wouldn’t care if Sowell cured cancer:
You don’t get a pass for basking in baseless beliefs that cripple the country — and have the bottomless nerve to preach responsibility & accountability to boot. That is a cancer of its own. The poison he pumped into the atmosphere helped destroy the internal organs of America. So we have very different standards as to what qualifies as a “National Treasure.”
At what point does it dawn on you and your beloved genius — that blind loyalty to that cause would be colossally counterproductive to your others? I’m not brilliant and I figured that out all by myself. The Right treating Bush like the Second Coming of Christ — set the stage for the rise of the Rock Star they spent the next 8 years railing against.
That doesn’t strike me as sound strategy. Dumb, dishonest, and delusional wars don’t either.
Nice work!
Sowell’s hailed as a folk hero for calling out problems he helped create — and takes no responsibility for any of it. And yet he’s made a living acting like he’s a bastion of virtue.
Consequences matter or should matter more than some attractive or fashionable theory.
— Thomas Sowell
I couldn’t agree more
Except there were no consequences on the fiasco for the ages driven by this manifesto: The outcome of which fashioned a culture of no consequences.
Sowell played along and got off scot-free:
They all did
Anything by Thomas Sowell
Great! Let’s discuss:
8. Old information at the beginning of the sentence, new information at the end.
— Steven Pinker
How do you feel about no new information — anywhere?
In what parallel universe does this even remotely reflect anything like that:
A couple of 2-minute reads that never even mention the tubes that took us to war (or anything else of substance on this endless saga of absurdity). Touting technicalities as “facts” doesn’t get it done: Especially when you make a living selling slogans and catchy quotes about careful consideration.
If you only apply the principles you preach when it serves your interests — they’re just empty claims on a cup and a meaningless mantra touted on a T-shirt.
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell
The man’s a magician:
As I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t. Simply by virtue of writing those words, he couldn’t possibly do the same in service of his own ideals? And lo and behold — sleight of hand is how they pulled it off.
When you have absolutely no idea what’s going on here, on what basis are you so doubt-free?
I couldn’t agree more
But there’s another reason why so many people misunderstand so many issues. Professional know-it-alls like you pull stunts like this while peddling lines like that as cover: To whitewash your record of patently obvious hypocrisy and lies — all so you can be worshipped as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes.
Even in the face of you flagrantly failing to live up to those fancy quotes you float. If that’s not magical thinking — what is?
Taking on the entire country by myself is worlds away from what everyone else is doing. In reference to its opening image on Without Passion or Prejudice, I wrote: “Half the country is with me on this — and I just lost the other half. Had I started with the image below — it would be the opposite half.”
When you make up your mind on lickety-split perception alone: In what parallel universe does that qualify as critical thinking? Ann Baker’s article beautifully captures what critical thinking is and is not:
Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.
What does it say to you that across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere? These people taking endless delight in flooding the internet with ceaseless claims about their immaculate critical thinking skills.
But the second they’re challenged on anything that is even perceived as threatening their interests:
don’t do any of this . . .
Which is why I wrote this:
“Wut”
In my youth, I could not have imagined a world in which even people with PhDs would act like imbeciles in the face of information they don’t instantly understand. That an entire country could take satisfaction in insulting your own intelligence on a daily basis just astounds me.
Adulthood is about spending the time to think before talking . . . Adulthood is about controlling our emotions, learning to take a deep breath and modulating our moments of anger or frustration.
“WUT” reflects a society tuning in to people who perpetuate problems under the pretense of seeking to solve them. Some are sincere (or at least started out that way). But they all lose their way in the adulation and rewards from feeding the frenzy. I coined Star Wars Syndrome to capture the plague of allowing nostalgia to create the illusion that a movie is far better than it actually is. In and of itself, wildly exaggerating the quality of movies is harmless.
But when it becomes habit in how you see everything — either gushing with over-the-top praise or seething with over-the-top scorn:
That’s a plague!
You think I just come up this stuff out of thin air?
Echo chambers across social media worship channel hosts as “National Treasures” — treating them like they’re some of the greatest minds to ever live. At the helm of these cesspools of certitude — are people who peddle repeatedly rehashed insight their followers praise like they split the atom. To be sure, some of it is insightful. But these “geniuses” are so wise in their ways:
They’re oblivious to how they’re feeding the very problems they’re ostensibly trying to solve.
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity
— George Orwell
If evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is? There was a time when people saying, “Show Me the Evidence” would look at it when you did. Those days are long gone — eradicated by a world where authenticity amounts to flooding the internet with catchy quotes promoting principles you abandon the second they’re inconvenient.
Then crank out the hate-card when called to account, because you damn sure don’t have an argument.
Never mind this . . .
Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades:
You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? Never mind this story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot.
How so? How I’d love to live in a world where you’d ask not out of party-line pursuits — but because it’s on the trail to the truth.
Funny thing about information:
It can seem incoherent when you don’t take any of it into account. Would you browse a textbook then blame the teacher for your failure to understand the material? If you’re not gonna watch clips at the crux of the story, what’s the point? That the decline of America over the last 30 years in the Gutter Games of Government — doesn’t unfold for standard scrolling with ease, is not a flaw in my argument and array of illustrations:
It’s a flaw in your willingness to work through it — absorbing each building block of information your brain is well-equipped to handle.
Or at least it used to be before information became so funneled in a fashion to your liking — you don’t even know what to do with anything that isn’t. It astounds me that wading through unfamiliar territory on this site is somehow seen as complicated as quantum physics.
I assure you: What it took to acquire this information was infinitely more demanding than anything you face here — let alone the complexities in exposing systematic deception at the core of our country’s ills.
A.K.A.
[S]topping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.
If you won’t watch my doc then ignore excerpts from it: Thanks for stopping by, but it’s time for you to leave. No more crying about my website and how you can’t understand what you refuse to consider. Go back to playtime — as this is no place for you.
If you’re turned off by this — that’s the point (to weed you out).
I’ve got an idea that could turn the tide, and if I have to coddle you to see it — you’re not the type to take an interest in the first place. I beat the hell out of both sides, and if you can’t handle some heat — you don’t qualify (so I don’t need ya). Call me whatever you like, I don’t care.
For 20 years, I’ve been practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis. When it comes to self-satisfied scorn, I’ve heard it all and I’ve seen it all (and made the most of it by making examples out of hermetically sealed minds).
What I do takes work — time & effort to think it through.
This — is entertainment
A bit about work
Work is a Journey on Which You Welcome Challenge
Work does not instantly respond — work digs to discover and inquires to clarify. Work is difficult and demands discernment. Work wonders, pauses, listens, absorbs, and reflects. Work does not rest on who’s right and who’s wrong: Work wants to know if there’s something more to see, something to learn, something that sharpens the mind. Work never stops building on the foundation of your own work and what you learn from the work of others.
Work works its way through material that is not easy.
Work recognizes complexity and the demands of in-depth explanation. Work will go on a trip to ideas that take time and effort to understand. Work knows that you can’t see your way through to a solution without understanding the different dimensions of a problem.
Work does not defend before you consider
Work does not race to conclusions — work arrives at them through careful consideration. Work is willing is rethink what you think you know. Work takes integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, and decency. Work comes with the willingness to be wrong. Work is not self-satisfied.
Work does not sling snippets of certitude — work crafts argument on the merits:
Work is an exchange where each party takes information into account. Work does not issue childish insults — work demands that you act your age.
You’ll find that work is far more fruitful and fulfilling than ease.
Work rises & falls
As this is the prism through which we work:
How we weigh what we see and measure our response. We’ll fall short from time to time — but those willing to work will keep each other in check.
Work respects your intelligence by using it . . .
And shows respect to others as we work our way to mutual respect. Work won’t be pretty and might even get ugly — but work will do what it takes to work it out.
And if you wanna start solving problems — work is what it’s gonna take.
Anyone wanting to know the truth would not behave in ways that ensure they never will. Sowell’s fanatical followers are so bothered by how much I have to say: That nowhere in their minds does it dawn on them to wonder why he said so little. I’m not out to “DESTROY” Sowell. Quite the contrary! Stick around — you’ll see. Ask some questions, you’ll see more clearly.
But I’ve noticed Sowell’s crowd has no interest in seeing — only believing.
While I’m out not to destroy him or anyone else, lemme put it in terms you’ll understand: If Sowell stepped into a debate with me on this matter, the beating he’d take would be biblical. If you think you can challenge me on that, I invite you to try. I’ve been inviting you for a really long time:
If that title doesn’t tell you something my commitment to objective scrutiny, what would?
The rotor speed required to separate uranium isotopes doesn’t care who’s president, and when it comes to ascertaining the truth, neither do I. In order to maintain such speeds, the material properties of centrifuges are as critical as it gets. You don’t need to interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist to figure that out, but I like to be thorough.
To claim that Iraq WMD wasn’t a lie should be like saying we didn’t land on the moon. As I wrote and produced the most exhaustive documentary ever done on WMD, I would know. If I came across this and hadn’t done my homework, on the title alone — my first thought would be
I must be missing something pretty big!
You have other ideas:
Button your lip and don’t let the shield slip
Take a fresh grip on your bulletproof mask
And if they try to break down your disguise with their questions
You can hide hide hide behind Paranoid Eyes
If I came across someone so clearly in command of this material — I wouldn’t give a f#@k about format. They could write it down on napkins and I’d roll with it. I don’t need somebody to babysit me with the just the right formula for me to carefully consider something. I’m happy to put some time and effort into working it out on my own.
And for anything unclear, I’ ask questions. I’m old-fashioned that way.
Einstein borrowed from the one below:
The worth of man lies not in the truth which he possesses, or believes that he possesses, but in the honest endeavor which he puts forth to secure that truth; for not by the possession of, but by the search after, truth, are his powers enlarged, wherein, alone, consists his ever-increasing perfection. Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.
— Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
The difference between those quotes captures a key problem I’ll illustrate in the section on The Math Club: Where someone seized on the most simpleminded take on a quote imaginable — to take great delight in dismissing my work (without even establishing what the issue is or having a notion of the need to).
That’s par for the course with this crowd and their kin who came before them.
And all it took was seizing on a short and slick version a quote by Einstein talking about mathematics and reality: Conveniently allowing them to swat away reality to make up their own. As you’ll see, there’s more to the story on that quote — but with hermetically sealed minds, anything that doesn’t fit the narrative is outright rejected. And yet these people have the bottomless nerve as bastions of virtue as they incessantly bitch about the opposition behaving as they do.
Einstein’s version above is catchy, but the original one is demanding. But I discovered the latter by finding the former — a concept that that seems entirely foreign in a nation where easy is all the rage. The second quote requires work — and I sure as hell haven’t found anyone willing to do that. And about those kin:
Speaking of the moon
Simply for sharing this . . .
A 5-minute excerpt from my doc that exhaustively explains the biggest & most costly lie in modern history (that shaped everything you today) — where I take both parties to task on that topic and more:
I’m met with this . . .
Keep in mind, there was no website with an array of illustrations to gripe about. No correlating of multiple contexts to tell a larger story in this clip. No long story to take up your time. Just 5 minutes of your life to look at argument woven with surgical specificity. But without watching one second of my work:
I’d suggest heading on back to that backwater school, Purdue, for a little more indoctrination, er, I mean education.
“BACKWATER SCHOOL“
To call the Cradle of Astronauts “backwater” is award-worthy for asinine statements.
The “arguments” of “Expert” By Association — taking cue from his kin on Rolodex of Ridicule:
- “You use words like honor, courage and commitment as punch lines at liberal cocktail parties” — ripping off A Few Good Men and thinking I wouldn’t notice
- The “Get help!” routine
- “Academia”
- “I’ve stood on the wall — have you?” — Jesus, why not toss in “You weep for Santiago” while you’re at it?
What does any of THAT have to do with the price of tea in China — or THIS?
As I said in my doc:
Out of 31 tubes in subsequent testing, only one was successfully spun to 90,000 RPM for 65 minutes — which the C.I.A. seized on as evidence in their favor.
One D.O.E. analyst offered a superb analogy of that contorted conclusion: “Running your car up to 6,500 RPM briefly does not prove that you can run your car at 6,500 RPM cross country. It just doesn’t. Your car’s not going to make it.”
In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, these guys were playing horseshoes with centrifuge physics . . .
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
Facts don’t mean anything when defending the faith is everything:
And their kin who came before them:
It is as though with some people — those who most avidly embrace the “we are right” view — have minds that are closed from the very get-go, and they are entirely incapable of opening them, even just a crack.
There is no curiosity in them. There are no questions in their minds. There are no “what ifs?” or “maybes.”
— Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Or Not . . .
Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
Stirring Defense
Anything Goes for apologists trying to preserve what they perceive. I know their Rolodex of Ridicule rabbit-hole routine — all too well:
And Now for the Weather . . .
Not the tiniest trace of reasoning or molecule of courtesy can be found in anything I’ve come across in decades of dealing with the doubt-free on WMD. And of all those I’ve challenged — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.
There was a time when newfangled ways of “argument” wasn’t all the rage — where you furiously fire off some fashionable form of “You’re wrong!” and dish it all day long: Insisting on “affirmation independent of all findings” (borrowing from Peck who borrowed from Buber).
I don’t roll that way.
You’re wrong — and here’s why
That’s the discipline — to have a work ethic in the way you think. Without “here’s why,” you’re just whistlin’ Dixie.
It seems you have all the time in the world to complain about problems, but none for the time and effort it takes to solve any. America’s in perennial pursuit of ideologies: Warfare waged with galactic levels of baggage & bullshit bolstered by . . .
opinions lightly adopted but firmly held . . . forged from a combination of ignorance, dishonesty, and fashion
— Theodore Dalrymple, Life at the Bottom
This shitshow of America has eroded reason beyond recognition — eating away all that was once right and good. We could do something about that — but you’re busy.
You’re always busy!
As I have an idea that could turn the tide — all conversations on concerns over the country fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thank you! 🙏 It astounds me that even that courtesy is hard to come by anymore.
In a world where timeless truths are outdated — a lot of things are hard to come by.
In the face of all of the above:
Whining about my website, acting like a child, slinging asinine assumptions & excuses (all wrapped in rapid-fire ridicule for satisfaction in full): Is the best ya got? For over 3 years in telling this story on Thomas Sowell, I’ve seen savagery beyond anything that inspired the doc. Sowell’s a well-mannered guy and his fanatical followers act like act like animals to honor him.
After all that brilliance you broadcast about your beloved geniuses: You think blind belief and belligerence is the best way to represent what you have learned?
If I came into this cold: On that opening imagery alone — I’d know he has no chance. If you can’t see that something’s not right with Sowell by now, I don’t know what to tell ya. But I suggest you start putting some faith in people who have integrity instead of buying it from those who sell it.
There is no measure for how asinine these acolytes are in defending the indefensible — automatons devoid of rational thought & manners. Your behavior has not an atom of integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, decency, effort:
Or any virtue of any kind
On evidence involving artillery rockets and material properties of centrifuge rotors — the apostles of Sowell smugly cite his books on economics, race, and whatnot: Anything to glorify him as they abandon any notion of accountability:
Butchering his bedrock beliefs as they dance in delight behind their force field of fallacy.
These people do nothing but question my motives, mock my site, and assault my character — then proudly post quotes of Sowell looking stately as he condemns the very thing they’re doing.
- Repeat slogans: “Everybody believed Iraq had WMD”
- Question people’s motives: Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
- Bold assertions: Russians said so, British said so, Bill Clinton said so, Leaders of both parties said so . . .
No coherent argument, Repeat slogans, Vent their emotions, Question people’s motives, Bold assertions . . .
And yet somehow . . .
This Sowell supporter below had no trouble understanding my site (and even politely replied with the makings of what real conversation looks like). To be sure, he could have investigated it further and asked some questions on that front, but to get the ball rolling — this will do:
And is worlds away from what I’m used to.
- He acknowledges the marque evidence driving the story
- While he already knew the truth on the tubes — he’s keeping the door open on Sowell (as to whether he “fell for it or lied about it”)
- It’s the most clear-cut case of lying by omission imaginable, but right now — all the matters is that he’s allowing the conversation to breathe (which means we can build on it)
- He did something for me and now it’s my turn to respond in kind. Barking back with “No, No, No, he lied” — is not how it’s done
- Genuine conversation is a journey — and along the way in this pursuit of truth & understanding, are glorious discoveries in the willingness to be wrong
- Where you just must find that in acknowledging that you’re wrong (in part or in whole) — just might create a hairline crack in the convictions of your interlocutor (enough to shed some light on the truth you have to tell)
- And through that exchange — perhaps they’ll come around to realizing they’re wrong (in part or in whole)
And all that sounds a lot like this:
In over 3 years of telling this story on Thomas Sowell, that’s the first time I’ve seen a supporter express any disappointment at all. As for his question on the gender gap: I have nothing to say about that or anything else outside what I’m out to do. Just as I’m making a choice not to get directly involved on your areas of interest, you have the same choice in the face of mine:
As I have an idea that could turn the tide (which would serve your interests whether I agree with them or not): All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thx 🙏
Are you telling me . . .
That the Sowell supporter above and a handful of others — just happened to have a Rosetta Stone to reason through what you can’t? Would a reasonable person blow right by critical evidence at the beginning — so you can cite website style as your reason to outright reject it by the end?
I hate comic books — but because I’m not keen on that kind of layout, is that a valid excuse to say I can’t comprehend it?
There was a time when people understood how to understand — and didn’t blame the source because the material doesn’t magically unfold for standard scrolling with ease. It was a time when you stopped to think about things before breezing on by clips at the crux of the story — then bitching because you don’t understand what you didn’t stop to think about.
And there was a time when honoring something was reflected in what you do, not simply what you say. Those days a long gone — but in a world where advertising virtue magically equates to embodying it, you can believe whatever you want and get away with it with ease, because you’ve got friends. Anything Goes when going for gold in the Gutter Games of Government. And when you’re constantly reinforced by your fellowship of fury — you can promote principles in one breath and abandon them the next.
Or as I coined it
The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.
These five conditions specify the circumstances under which increased proselyting would be expected to follow disconfirmation.
A.K.A.
I point you to a 7-part, 2 hours and 40 minutes doc — that distills a story that demanded a massive amount of effort, thought, research, and writing: And you tap a Tweet with a talking point or two — thinking you can inform me.
I offered you overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that exhaustively exposes the biggest and most costly lie in modern history — taking both parties to task for it (on that issue and then some): You refused to even glance at the doc while deriding my efforts with pleasure. So with this site I tried another approach: Interweaving clips in conjunction with the behavior of those who slavishly defend the indefensible. The doc is structured to the hilt in 7 segments averaging 24 minutes apiece — so it’s much easier to digest.
But circular certitude is quite the convenient cop-out:
Allowing you to blow off the doc, dish your derision on issues you’re wildly unqualified on — then complain how you can’t follow the format of a site that wouldn’t be needed if you simply watched the doc in the first place. You think I wanted to chop up my doc into clips to accommodate America’s attention span of a child?
But still that wasn’t enough — as you won’t consider 160 seconds, let alone 160 minutes. I do all the work, you do nothing and consider nothing — then blame me for failing to convince you. In slinging your insults, you’re insulting your intelligence far more than you’re insulting me (not to mention being in gross breach of those precious principles you preach).
What you do in denying the undeniable daily would be unthinkable for me to do ever.
What works with you would never fly with me.
If you oversimplify an issue that clearly calls for careful examination, I know you’re hiding something. If you constantly complain about the other side and defend your own at every turn — you’re not playing by the rules you rail on others for failing to follow.
Occasional criticism of your own party doesn’t qualify as having a history faithful to objective scrutiny.
Just where should I begin?
Start with the evidence you gleefully ignore? Explain the problem by first showing you the belligerence I invariably face in offering that irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty (at which point circular certitude comes calling):
Where you cry foul with your “where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton.
Slinging “I’ll wait” with a smug smile (when I’d waiting till hell freezes over for you STFU for even 5 minutes). Or should I start off with what Sowell said so you can shamelessly roll out whatever you feel like from your rolodex of excuses? Sowell’s a well-mannered guy and you act like animals to honor him. How proud he must be of the legacy he’s leaving behind in your love for him:
Carrying the torch to torture the truth.
How about warding off your whataboutism with our shared disgust on the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke and rigging racially charged incidents for maximum outrage? But in showing you how objective scrutiny works (in applying the same rules to both sides):
You look at that
Coupled with this . . .
And incredibly
Act like it’s this . . .
I don’t understand. I don’t know understand. It’s all so incoherent and confusing with all these things I have to stop and think about.
That’s because you wallow in a world of paint by numbers:
Where people telling you what you wanna hear every goddamn day: Package it all neatly into nursery-rhyme narratives (turning your mind into mush). Isaac Newton and Einstein were brilliant — partisan hacks and high-minded influencers fueling your fix, are not. The notion that it’s my fault that you can’t find your way to the truth through my maze of a website — is preposterous (particularly because you have a choice):
You could knock out each of the 7 segments of the doc over coffee throughout 7 days, 7 weeks, 7 months, or 7 years (at least you’d get to the truth eventually — as opposed the likelihood of never). By why bother investing the time to elevate your mind when you can wallow in cesspools of certitude & self-congratulations.
And you’ve got company if your fight for freedom in bondage to bullshit:
Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.
— Blurb to On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt
V for Victory & Venom for Values
A fantasyland for fragile egos: Where you can win an argument without even knowing what the issue is about.
The image above is for my 15-part series on factions acting as force fields of fallacy for the Left & Right: Shielding you from the whole truth while you’re pursuing part of it believing you’re after all of it.
I don’t understand. I don’t know understand.
I’m not surprised!
In this shithole you call home:
The bullshitter . . . does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.
A lot of that goin’ around
There was a time when people understood how to understand — and didn’t blame the source because the material doesn’t magically unfold for standard scrolling with ease. It was a time when you stopped to think about things before breezing on by clips at the crux of the story:
Then bitching because you don’t understand what you didn’t stop to think about.
And there is no measure for how preposterous it is that people who can’t even get the self-evident straight: Have the bottomless gall to belittle me on making correlations in 3 dimensions while you wallow in one.
It’s not my writing, my graphics, or my doc:
The flaw is within you and it always has been (which does not discount how your your hatred by been invaluable to me in making improvements that won’t make a dent with you no matter what I do). Nevertheless, I had to try. You have no original ideas and not a molecule of courtesy or intellectual integrity for those who do. I have to spoon-feed you like a child while you spit it out and cry about being hungry. You have no imagination and are utterly devoid of any virtue that would allow for actual conversation to take place.
Not that lickety-split, self-satisfied crap you flood the internet with daily.
This nation has no such notion
I don’t do politics — I do reality. When it comes to ascertaining the truth, I don’t care what your cause is, who’s in the White House, who controls Congress or the courts. I learned early on in life that what you want gets in the way of what you see.
There is no amount of gain you could give me to believe something to be true that is false. When warranted, I will defend those I despise and call out those I like. I call a spade a spade, period. I love moments of truth that put my principles to the test. One of my favorites is the Florida election fiasco of 2000. I just wanted the right thing to be done — whether it served my interests or not was irrelevant.
That sense of fairness is so foreign I might as well be speaking another language.
I have no desire to believe I’m right about anything in which I am not. Acknowledging error is liberating and leads to enlightenment. And I would know . . . many times over:
“Why, thank you! I had no idea!” Why would people prefer to justify mistaken beliefs, behavior, and practices rather than change them for better ones?
From a lifetime of practice, “Why, thank you! I had no idea!” is protocol for me. I love to be corrected — even if it stings a bit at first. I’d rather feel foolish for 5 minutes than be a fool for a lifetime. I find changing my mind to be magical — that you can think one thing, take new information into account, and think another.
It’s fantastic!
I happily belong to an infinitesimal minority that feels we’re not informed enough to have all the answers to every controversial issue in America. We don’t have a monopoly on virtue — and don’t want one. We’re not only willing to change our minds, we welcome it and appreciate those who correct us.
I don’t know how people find the path of least resistance so satisfying — as I love the demands of difficulty and discernment. To not step up my game in the midst of opportunity or challenge:
Would be tantamount to treason upon my very existence.
Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . .
They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.
When we dig deeper, we understand better. We can compare different outcomes, examine, tear apart, and make cognizant judgments that are derived from different mental models.
Left and Right
I’ve yet to find a single person who digs beyond the depth of their immediate domain of interest. In our entirely transactional times, America endlessly rehashes topics of today — never once considering the totality of events that created them (or even having a notion of the need to).
With the issues I address — you might as well be saying the Civil War wasn’t germane to the assassination of Lincoln.
[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it
— M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
In a nation that incessantly blames and complains (seemingly for sport) — no one’s taking responsibility for anything. Imagine America as an engine and you come along with a cross-section of it to explain why it’s not working. Since your audience shares your concerns, you’d think they’d be interested in understanding the internals of the problem. But they spend all their time talking about parts made by people they don’t like:
Never considering the defects in their own parts.
And even though you’ve got a rock-solid idea for how to fix the engine (or at least make it run on reason): They’d rather spend the rest of their lives complaining about problems than take responsibility for their part in creating them.
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber — twice! He once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up. I’d like to think that’d at least give me a little credibility with his supporters. I’d like to think a lot of things. But just like Loury, they’re not too keen on the truth when I’m taking their hero to task:
Which flies in the face the principles upon which they put him on a pedestal.
I’ll return to that topic later.
I’ve always hated Twitter and every long-form version of it (Reddit, Substack, and anything and everything claiming to something it’s not). When I’m done doing what I gotta do — I’m never goin’ back. Until then, I’m sending out a certain set of messages looking for intelligent life (fiercely independent thinkers who want to solve problems — not endlessly talk about them).
Think of my signals as a poor man’s SETI:
I’ve got an idea — and it’s got teeth.
There’s a way we can harness folly from the past for the benefit of the future. A.K.A. Learning:
All ya gotta do — is do what you say you do. And my idea is a framework for debate that boxes you in to do exactly that. You won’t like it — but here’s the deal: Your opposition won’t either. And who knows, you might learn to love embracing challenge, changing your mind, and the fruits from demanding across-the-board accountability.
This — is not that
This is Broadcasting Beliefs About That
Going by the galaxies filled with rock stars of reasoning across the social media universe — I should have no shortage of people eager to examine my idea and discuss how we could improve on it and proceed.
You tell me where those people are and I’ll gladly send out my signals to them.
If you’re not interested in hearing me out and having in-depth discussion — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well. But if you’re game for good old-fashioned conversation — please contact me through the site, Anchor.Press.gg@gmail.com, or DM (Direct Message) on Twitter.
To the uneducated, abstract ideas are unfamiliar; so is the detachment that is necessary to discover a truth out of one’s own knowledge and mental effort. The uneducated person views life in an intensely personal way — he knows only what he sees, hears or touches and what he is told by friends.
As the unknown sage puts it, “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
But more than ever, even the most educated minds act in an uneducated manner in service of their interests — and do catastrophic damage by doing so. Even the best of the bunch are part of the problem they’re trying to solve.
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview. In talking about take a wild guess, he said:
He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement
A lot of that goin’ around
The likes of Loury & McWhorter miserably fail to see how they are conditioning people to behave exactly as McWhorter’s quote.
Explaining America’s decline over decades of delight in the Gutter Games of Government — is apples & oranges as it gets when compared to the transactional nature of news and social-media norms. Understanding how seemingly unrelated events impact one another takes time and effort to digest.
You are being conditioned to do the exact opposite — as all of America has been for decades.
And in truth — a lot longer than that.
Thank you for your time, but please don’t waste mine. And to make the bar abundantly clear: If you don’t want to carefully consider what I have to say and watch the clips at the crux the story, that’s your prerogative. But here’s the deal — if you don’t earn my time, you don’t get my time.
Anything short of specifically addressing my arguments and you will not hear from me. And to save us both some time: I won’t even read your reply if it doesn’t reflect the digging that separates the serious from the shallow. The first sentence I see that falls outside that domain — will be the last sentence I see.
My idea is simple:
Cutting through our Crap is King culture to get you to see it — is not.
Where infantile insults are celebrated
The doubt-free who don’t do their homework are the experts.
Those who belittle and outright reject correction — are the righteous and wise. The ones with courage to admit when they’re wrong — are the weak. Tireless dedication is mercilessly mocked — while intellectual laziness is esteemed. Original thinking and uniqueness are bashed — while conforming to the trite is trumpeted. Depth is discarded with disdain — while shallowness is embraced with love.
The honest & sincere are shunned — while manipulators & liars are welcomed with open arms.
This is my story — and if you read it in full, you’ll find it’s part of your story too. You’ve all dealt with the same behavior I have — the difference is that I get it from every direction.
You don’t really need to find out what’s goin’ on
You don’t really wanna know just how far it’s gone
Just leave well enough alone Eat your dirty laundry . . .
We can do “The Innuendo,” we can dance and sing
When it’s said and done, we haven’t told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
This is the larger story I’m out to tell — and Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell it.
[D]eep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.
Imagine!
There was a time when we did.
Just where do I go for in-depth discussion on original ideas with people who would never insult their intelligence with “WUT” in response to anything? When you’re all part of the same shitshow of America going out of its mind — is there anyone out there who can walk and chew gum at the same time?
Because it appears there’s not a person left who can process anything that doesn’t come in the form of fodder in a trough.
What am I to do with a country that requires the self-evident to be explained? Even that wouldn’t be so bad if you were actually listening. What am I to do with people who can’t even comprehend what actual objective scrutiny looks like: Not your empty claims reinforced by Like-minded friends who think in equally empty ways.
On a matter involving war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11 — the stakes don’t get much higher. For a Maverick who’s worshipped for following the facts — wouldn’t he take the trail to where they matter most?
As in the marquee evidence used to manufacture this fraud?
I did — Sowell didn’t
Which one looks like he’s on point?
A go-to tactic of the doubt-free is to make damn sure the debate never reaches the merits of the matter. I’ve seen highly intelligent people derail discussions by claiming that “everything’s just an opinion!” Nobody really believes that — it’s just a cop-out. And if you call ‘em on it, they fall back on Old Faithful — “agree to disagree.” How this hijacked-for-hackery catchphrase caught on over the years can be charted with the times:
Where things that once meant something, now mean nothing.
“Compared to What?”
That principle is built into the doc imagery staring you straight in the face. And since this issue involves an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter: My answer to “What hard evidence do you have?” is as concrete as it gets.
You can’t have “Compared to What?” without comparing what’s in question.
In the aftermath of 9/11, the marquee evidence used to sell a war in the Middle East is as critical as comparison gets. In my documentary and throughout this site: I address Sowell’s pieces littered with talking points. Mr. Sowell: Could You Tell Me What JAEIC Is? encapsulates my key arguments on that front (but there’s much more where that came from in the doc).
If I did cartwheels on TikTok to tell this story — you’d take issue with my form. We’ve created a culture that gripes over “flashy graphics” while worshipping liars in the images. Constant complaining has become a virtue — where everything of value is in the gain you get in the moment:
And easy is all the rage!
If you don’t like my illustrations, go read the bone-dry reports for yourselves: And I’ve got plenty more material to add to your reading list. But that takes work — and why bother when you can just ridicule those who did it for you.
One picture is worth a thousand words:
When you don’t want the pictures and you don’t want the words — what would you have me do?
And once I did it
We both know your next move . . .
My criticism of his Anger of the Left piece in the post below — has nothing to do with defending the Left. This is about his record being wildly out of sync with reality on the Right.
I didn’t write Mentality of a Mob from my imagination.
Sowell’s celebrated as a statesman for smugness under the guise of civility. He has a habit of painting the Left in the worst possible light — while acting as though “hostility and even hatred” are completely uncharacteristic of conservatives.
It’s all about framing the issue in a way that allows him to conveniently ignore the same behavior in other forms.
How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans?
I’ve been met with almost nothing but belligerence and belittlement for decades on WMD — but because I wasn’t shouted down in the streets, it doesn’t count? On that note, I didn’t write this poem from imagination either. I wrote it 3 years before Sowell’s piece behind that post — and for decades, this behavior is all I’ve seen from Republicans on Iraq and almost everything else.
It’s not anti-war — it’s pro-thinking
The self-importance of people like Sowell just kills me — how they sit there acting like they’re Senators from Krypton. That’s not knocking appearance just for kicks — as the look and the language is all part of . . .
The Presentation
Ripping on woke is all the rage . . .
And outrage industries of dish it but can’t take it — would talk about race and responsibility till the end of time. But heaven forbid we have a single conversation about war and responsibility. Glenn Loury once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up — I suggest you refrain from assumptions.
And if you were abiding by the principles they preach, should I really have to remind you of that?
Alas, Loury wasn’t too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task. You called my writing “brilliant” in I Don’t Do Slogans on The Yellow Brick Road — and you’re “blown away” by my site: As long as I don’t challenge you to live up to the principles you preach when it comes at a price.
Got it!
Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books — go ahead. I’m listening.
You confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you — and stand by that.
How noble of you
When you see a sentence like “Not a trace of Thomas Sowell’s follow the facts claim to fame can be found on the most world-altering topic of our time.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about . . .
Is not the mark of an intellectual giant — or an intellectual on any level. What part of “WMD,” “biggest and most costly lie in modern history,” and “most world-altering topic of our time” — do you not understand? Perhaps an inquiry or two for clarification was in order?
Sowell sold out to sell those books you stand by.
And I wrote “Water is Not Wet — And I Stand by That” with the likes of Loury in mind.
You said they had no argument against your [R]ebuttal to Brown University’s letter on racism in the United States. Neither do you on your National Treasure. Instead of listening and learning on things you know nothing about — you let pride consume you. Maybe you don’t know Sowell as well as you thought you did:
And heaven forbid you hold him to the same standards pushing your popularity. Loury wasn’t about to look at undeniable evidence warranting that he change his mind:
So he changed the rules . . .
Right on cue | Never fails
Living up to his hero who did the same:
In this world of unreason
The rules of argument you espouse on a daily basis don’t apply to you and your ever-growing audience of dittoheads.
The Next Generation
In their collective state, the Borg are utterly without mercy; driven by one will alone: the will to conquer. They are beyond redemption, beyond reason.
— Jean-Luc Picard
Such high praise from Loury is a helluva lot of incentive for me to think these people are the “geniuses” their audience thinks they are. I don’t roll that way. While I maintain a degree of respect for him — and I’m forever grateful for the inspiration he provided:
If you’re part of the problem, I don’t care who you are — I’m calling you out.
And that’s
Half the country took the word of professional know-it-alls over nuclear scientists. And when your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:
Shrewd!
Preach responsibility and take none
You can’t seem to comprehend that I don’t care what damage the truth inflicts upon politicians of any brand. I have this crazy idea that across-the-board accountability is always in the best interests of the nation.
As for my frustration — I have this thing about people who regurgitate nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that counters their baseless beliefs.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
How many laypeople have you ever come across who wrote and produced a documentary? In nearly 20 years of challenging people on these issues and others, I’ve never met a single one. And I defy you to find another doc that drills into all of America with surgical specificity that cuts to the bone.
What road have you taken to lose sight of such things deserving of at least a little respect? A modicum of courtesy perhaps? Doing your homework used to count for something. How about we just start with that?
Respect is not my concern
But if you showed some — it might be just enough to crack open a conduit to this quaint thing called conversation.
That is “Compared to What?” and “Show Me the Evidence”
This — is crap . . .
And so’s this:
Regurgitated Garbage
Everything that guy just said is bullshit!
Some of your favorite authority figures throw 99 items of shit on the wall to make damn sure you never discuss what matters most. And how eagerly you comply with the contempt they conditioned you to have for anyone exposing the truth and how they gutted it with your help.
So when someone comes along tell you a story about everything they conveniently left out: Offering a concrete case built by exhaustively detailed arguments rooted in mathematical certainty in centrifuge physics:
Right on cue . . .
Without an atom of courage, courtesy, conscience, or curiosity — you redirect the “debate” to authority figures who redirected the “debate” (giving you the blueprint for slinging the same bullshit). So, the guy who wrote & produced a 7-part series totaling 2 hours and 40 minutes (by far, the most exhaustive doc ever done on WMD):
Taking both parties to task on the biggest and most costly lie in modern history (along with other issues at the core of America’s decline) . . .
What do we have for him?
But for this guy
Who cranked out a couple of 2-minute reads less than 800 words each: Not one of which addresses the tubes that took us to war or anything else of substance on this saga of endless absurdity . . .
This is your gold standard for getting to the truth (no matter how many times he and his kind gutted it). In your “where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton — you blow off my doc that’s chock-full of facts on this fiasco for the ages:
To follow the facts to where there are none to be found.
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell
The man’s a magician:
As I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t. Simply by virtue of writing those words, he couldn’t possibly do the same in service of his own ideals? And lo and behold — sleight of hand is how they pulled it off.
When you have absolutely no idea what’s going on here, on what basis are you so doubt-free?
I put it all on a silver platter for you 10 years ago:
When I Saw the Writing on the Wall
I took on the automatons of the time (Left & Right). No one listened, and lo and behold — automatons exponentially multiplied. Those times were tame compared to today. The toxicity of venom has been taken to a whole other level with pride.
As it turns out though — that is an opportunity (to take a problem and turn it into a solution).
But the same people who proudly made it impossible to tell that story 10 years ago — are in the way now more than ever (and they’ve got friends). But with what I do, even their enemies are in my way. If you’d all just stop talking and start listening — you’d find that you’re in your own way.
At every turn . . .
The faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold Sowell to his own standards.
Hard to Imagine:
That I have to explain that quote to people who seemingly live to flood the internet with his words.
He and his flock incessantly complain about the media — and they don’t make policy. But the second I scrutinize Sowell — suddenly you have new standards.
180 — how fitting
You cry about being called “racists” to counter your criticism of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke and rigging race-related incidents. And yet, on a matter of mathematical certainty in centrifuge physics — you played the same games back then as you do now. For such fanatical fans of the man:
Why must I explain his own standards to you?
For instance
I’m not simply sharing this quote below — I explained the entire story behind it. You can’t even imagine the amount of work that took (while you’re not doing any). You don’t have even the curiosity to ask a question or inquire as to my purpose that you poison with your assumptions.
And in so doing — poison your own purpose.
I don’t understand the satisfaction in taking endless delight in embracing slogans and simpleminded narratives — designed to make damn sure you don’t look beyond the surface: While mocking my “juvenile” visuals for illustrating timeless truths and anything that might make a hairline crack in your hermetically sealed minds.
It is hard to fill a cup which is already full
Believe it or not, my aim is to make Thomas Sowell the catalyst who could turn the tide. But in order to do that, I gotta take him to task for his reprehensible record on Iraq (and then some).
Don’t shake your head. I’m not done yet. Wait till you hear the whole thing so you can . . . understand this now . . .
My Cousin Vinny is maybe the most hilariously educational movie ever — and this scene is at the core of our culture’s communication divide:
I once said to a Sowell supporter:
If you don’t wanna watch my documentary that’s chock-full of facts on this fiasco for the ages, that’s your prerogative. But don’t bitch about what you don’t see when you refuse to look.
And he did something as rare as unobtainium on Pandora these days: He looked! Instead of whining about it, he took the hit and rose to the occasion. Not long before this Tweet — he was condemning my efforts like all the rest that day (and every day).
And then he opened the doc . . .
“To learn to ask: ‘Is that true?’” . . .
Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind.’” . . . When is the last time you can honestly remember a public dialogue — or even a private conversation — that followed that useful course?
The ability to take criticism (harsh or otherwise) — is at the core of what this nation so desperately needs. Tough love used to be timeless: Now everything’s an assault on increasingly fragile egos. And so typical of the times — nothing has meaning anymore (which was predictable when you water everything down to the point where its original intent is conveniently forgotten).
Like the Left, the Right has gone out of its mind — but they’re not always wrong. The Right is right on the money on the impossibly stupid pampering of woke:
And don’t even get me started on how homelessness is a problem perpetuated by those most sensitive in their approach to solving it. Whatever their asinine ways on the Right, they make a helluva lot more sense on this subject than the Left.
If you wanna start solving problems instead of perpetuating them, it’s gotta get ugly.
Or as ol’ Bill perfectly put it:
The road to reality is blocked by detours designed to keep you going in circles. Purveyors of poppycock reroute you with narratives that avoid detail like Black Death. The way out is to start with an inconsistency or two that’s narrow in scope and take the trail where it leads.
To ascertain the truth on any topic: If you’ve got something concrete to go on — that’s your point of entry. By all means, keep the door open in every direction. But by nailing down the definitive first, it paves a clearer path to all the rest. This country does the exact opposite on everything:
Lumping it all together and never even approaching where you should have started in the first place:
What’s it gonna be now?
Ya gonna gripe about the incoherence of a sidebar showing you how I share some of your concerns? And that I’m out to tell a larger story (which has become a foreign concept in our entirely transactional times). Ya wanna debate the definition of “concrete”? You’re “not inspired” by my writing style? You don’t like my tone and my graphics?
Gonna cry foul over name-calling on “purveyors of poppycock” so you don’t have to concern yourselves with the poppycock? Or are you a proud member of the The Math Club (with the latest in fashion being the Philosophical Fluff Faction where’s no such thing): Finding meaning in “mathematical certainty” having no meaning. Or should I start with my idea that could turn the tide (on which Thomas Sowell is central to):
Only to have you pooh-pooh my multidimensional solution you can’t grasp while glued to repeatedly rehashing problems in a one-dimensional manner.
The solution to this problem is more truth, not less.
No, it’s not. You cannot forever beat something into the ground and think it’ll magically make a dent someday. And even if by some miracle it does, wouldn’t you want to know if you could have cut out years or even decades had you been smart about it? And what does it say to you that such simplistic thinking as “more truth, not less” — is canon across echo chambers that think they’re part of some revolution in reason:
Then outright reject it when called to account.
A.K.A.
How can you expect anyone to admit when they’re wrong if you won’t? And every time you allow emotion to run roughshod over reason, you further calcify habits at the other end of the spectrum from these:
Rather than assert that all opinions are equal, students in seminar learn to judge opinions on the basis of the reasons given for those opinions.
Nobody ever had to explain that to me. I’m sure you all feel the same:
And yet here we are
The smorgasbord of sub-cultures has created another dimension of delusion in America — hardening minds not broadening them. The commentary in these communities speaks volumes about social media and the state of society: Habitually hailing high praise for purveyors of virtue — virtues that vanish the second they’re called to put them to the test. For instance, the turbocharged idiocy of:
The Math Club
This gem is just priceless:
So, on an issue involving the separation of uranium isotopes (an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter): You wanna ignore the evidence to show off your math skills by splitting hairs over the meaning of “mathematical certainty”? And by the way:
Decorating your points with special punctuation does not make meaningless crap magically have merit:
It’s a sign of the times that even on matters of math — there are competing camps for rigging your own reality. It’s impossible for you to fathom the mountain of childish and spectacularly stupid shit I’ve seen for decades in dealing with the self-delusion of the doubt-free.
They deny the undeniable with glee:
Pulling off stupefying psychological gymnastics when going for gold in the Gutter Games of Government. And ah yes, the Philosophical Fluff Faction. Who cares about quantifiable fact as concrete as it gets — when you can seize on semantics to conform the facts to fit your formula:
- Facts you love (like all your beliefs) = solid gold
- Facts & beliefs you hate = Anything Goes
Couldn’t we just skip the semantics stage and go straight to discussing the evidence for the quantifiable fact that it is?
Negative, Ghost Rider!
“The pattern is full — [of shit]” . . .
As any proper scientist can explain to you, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence OR mathematical certainty.
Well, since I interviewed a world-renowned nuclear scientist (on a topic you have yet to even acknowledge): Perhaps we should discuss what HE said instead of “any proper scientist” as the arbiter of truth?
My surgical specificity in this clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone. But of paramount concern to you is debating the meaning of “mathematical certainty”? Do you wanna fuss over philosophical fluff that “there’s no such thing as as irrefutable evidence”:
Or look at it the light of something that seems awfully specific for someone “attacking the person not the argument”?
Trillion Dollar Tube
Oh, how they love their quotes in celebration of fact-free liberty. There’s more to Einstein’s quote below than meets the eye.
But even if there weren’t:
What these people miserably fail to understand is that magnificent minds of Einstein’s caliber took pride in keeping the door open. And yet, this crowd latches onto anything that allows them to keep the door closed (without any regard for context or possible gaps in translation). How come I know that and they don’t?
To them, it says everything you need to know right here. To me, it’s just a catchy way to capture something far deeper worth digging into.
Ya know — Like its origin:
I’m not at all interested in debating the article above or below. I’m simply saying it took me all of 2 minutes to discover a discussion around a quote that someone was dead certain in slinging with self-satisfied certitude.
Which flies in the face of the half-ass point he was trying to make.
I know the type, all too well
They’re as predictable as day and night. As I said in my doc:
The question comes down to whether or not you’re basing your belief on something in the realm of reason — not some fail-safe fantasy that allows you to believe whatever you want.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act III
Hide and Seek
I love you so much that I can’t leave you
Even though my mind tells me I should
But then you make me think that you still love me
And all my thoughts of leaving do no good . . .
You’ve got me heart over mind worried all the time
Knowing you will always be the same
You’ll keep hurting me I know but I still can’t let you go
Cause my heart won’t let my love for you change
One Voice Became Two 