It's been a while since I last did one of these. And yes: in the intervening time, quite a bit of leftist stupidity has accreted on our discourse like rust on an abandoned and exposed bicycle. So let's break out some CLR, shall we?
10. Follow the science.
In the era of COVID-19, nothing has been abused more, I think, than the respect the average American has for scientific experts.
Last spring, I thought it reasonable to be a little more vigilant -- especially since MamaGeek and I both fell into high risk categories due to age and/or our comorbidities. But as of now, I no longer have patience for the fear-mongering that the left calls "the science." Why? Because the data are in: unless you are very old, obese, vitamin D-deficient and/or suffering from a preexisting medical condition, the chances that you will die from a COVID-19 infection are extraordinarily remote -- and the chances that you will need to be hospitalized are only slightly higher. This is not the Black Death; this is, at worst, a bad flu. It is of course tragic that hundreds of thousands of people have died; COVID-19 is not nothing. But hundreds of thousands of people also died of heart disease over the past year, and no one is suggesting we completely restructure our society on those patients' accounts.
"The science" has failed to provide proof that schools are significant sources of COVID-19 infection, yet it still demands we keep said schools closed to "safeguard" teachers and students. ("The science," in this case, is how the left chooses to cloak its obeisance to a bunch of lazy, not-very-smart women who've decided working from home in their jammies is a great way to escape the challenges of classroom management.) (Oh, is that insulting? Well, I'm not sorry. I know intimately the type of people the teaching profession attracts. Teachers are not all selfless public servants.) "The science" somehow justified closing parks and beaches even though, once again, it cannot articulate any likely mechanism by which COVID-19 can be spread in such outdoor settings. And "the science" has illogically declared that certain mass protests are perfectly fine while others are irredeemably evil. "The science," in short, is not science at all; it is an illegitimate appeal to authority.
Science - real, open science that actively seeks disconfirmation - is one of the best methods of knowledge generation we have. There's no question that it has dramatically improved both our standard of living and our understanding of the natural world. But that doesn't make it some idol we should worship and obey -- especially not when it is corrupted by extra-scientific concerns (as "the science" around COVID-19 certainly is). Furthermore, while science can tell us many useful facts about how things work, it can't tell us what we should do with that new information. Last century, for example, science figured out how to split the atom. But how, exactly, are we to "follow" that science? By building nuclear weaponry? Or by building clean power plants? On this question, science is mute.
Science is a tool meant to exist in a larger moral matrix. It should not - and cannot - be our sole source of guidance.
11. We need to have a national conversation about X.
This one wouldn't bother me nearly as much if leftists were being sincere each time they said it. But they're not. What leftists mean by a "national conversation" is a monologue. They get to yell at us about how horrible we all are -- and we're not at liberty to respond. If we do, we're being "fragile." Or we're "derailing." Or we're spreading "disinformation" and istophobia and need to be shut down.
Leftists accept nothing but 100% submission. See also: this post, in which I respond to a New York Times columnist who decided it was pointless to talk to Trump supporters essentially because they refused to admit they were wrong and agree with him. But as I said then, it's not a genuine conversation if you've already decided ahead of time that the other person has nothing worthwhile to contribute to the discussion -- that you yourself are in sole possession of the truth.
12. You're denying my right to exist.
Radical trans activists in particular are guilty of screaming this one -- usually at people who are raising thoroughly mild objections to their Cartesian dualism. But what, exactly, does it mean to "exist"? Does it mean to live in a world in which your every desire is satisfied? Does it mean to live free of upset, disappointment, inconvenience, or interpersonal friction? No.
As a borderline autist, I have trouble with sensory processing. I get distracted/irritated by noises (like chewing or the clacking of computer keys) that other people easily ignore. But imagine if, while out in public, I demanded that perfect strangers shut their laptops or spit out their gum because "I have a right to exist." Wouldn't I be seen as the biggest asshole on planet Earth? After all, those other folks also have rights -- including a right not to be accosted by a crazy lady for doing something perfectly ordinary.
No one is denying the reality of gender dysphoria. No one is denying that it causes real distress. But rights are multi-directional and must be carefully negotiated -- and sometimes that means you don't get everything you want. Sometimes that means you have to respect, say, the needs of biologically female athletes -- or the concerns of gender-critical parents.
The world doesn't revolve around you.
Okay, readers: what else should I add to this ever-growing list? Please comment below!
No comments:
Post a Comment