Paul Fiery

I agree completely that Republicans, under the still-forming banner of National Conservatism, have fascistic ambition to take control of these sectors. However, how can you not have noticed that Democrats, increasingly of the far-left variety, have already seized control of these sectors? Media, education, many corporations (via ESG), educators - educators! Where have you been? The entertainent industry, especially Hollywood? The radical left is dominant here already, today, right now!

Total fascistic control is now the ambition of both parties. Their ideologies could not be more different, but both have authoritarian goals. Each is striving to engineer a future that locks the other party out of office forever. This means that the best possible outcome of elections is gridlock. Gridlock, until one or the other party rediscovers individual rights and remembers that they are representatives, not rulers.

--

--

The redefinition of racism to exclude some people on the basis of their racial identiy's differential structural power in society is not going to stand forever against logic and reality. If an individual manifests racial prejudice or bigotry in the form of an action against a person, this is a racist act, period. Notice this: If they did the act, then they must at that instant have had the power to do it, regardless of the wider socioeconomic inbalances. Otherwise they could not have done the racist act. That's it, and this applies to each and every one of us -- regardless of race and color.

--

--

More and more I'm seeing how our common languages often distort our conceptual understanding of phenomena that fall outside the range of common experience. Syntactically the sentence above is well formed. However, it implies, one might say it "smuggles in," the idea that the AI "sees" the world. An AI sees nothing, not in the anthropic sense of seeing. I don't like the overuse of scare quotes, but the word "see" in the sentence at issue ought to be in scare quotes to signify that "see" is used in a strictly analogous sense. There is a looming danger that many will be either generous or gullible enough to believe that AI is sentient -- or that we are all really just like an AI and that human sentience is all conceit and illusion.

--

--

That's my opinion too! But he's a good example of why we need free speech. We need people on all sides who are over the edge of sanity to show us where those edges are. With "What is a Woman" this one twisted misanthrope manages to illuminate almost the whole terrian.

I suspect the vast majority of trans people quietly hope their vocal minority of provacatuers shut tf up. Most may not define themselves entirely by their transition. Most may not want the prefix 'trans' to be affixed ahead of "biologist" or "professor" or "pianist" or whatever their main focus is. The belligerents claiming to represent them are unelected. I suspect many would be "dis-elected" if there were some way of doing it.

--

--

Most of us on the receiving end of ideas outside of our particular area of expertise are amatuers in everything else. We do have professionals engaged in the dissemination of ideas, facts and news of the world. These are journalists. Their job is to inform us. Journalists are getting off far too lightly when it comes to diagnosing the malady you've highlighted here in your article. If our doctors were as bad as our journalists we'd be back to an average lifespan of 35 years. Isn't it so? Don't nearly all the false stories -- and the politicization of them -- trace back to our journalists?

--

--

Back then we had real liberals, individuals who would defend a principle even when the particular case was not in their pragmatic interest.* Today we have ideologically uniform authoritarians pretending to be liberals.

It could be argued that these charlatans held the free speech door open while they were in the minority in the institutions. Once they got in, they sponsored and hired their ideologial clones. Now ensconced and tenured they want to slam shut the free speech door against all dissent.

* (Consider 1988, when the ACLU defended Hustler Magazine's right to publish exploitative and pornographic images of women -- one prominent issue among many others of that era.)

--

--