Tag: politics

  • Forward March

    Forward March

    This is the first time I’ve posted since the election, but the final night of Barack Obama’s presidency seemed like a good time to write. Tomorrow morning, January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will take the oath of office and be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. For me and for many others, this will be a dark day. Nothing about Trump’s behavior since election day, or the people he has chosen to surround himself with as Cabinet members and advisors, gives me any comfort about the next four years. That’s why on Saturday morning, I’ll be in San Diego participating in my local Women’s March on Washington. It’s also why I am doing something that many of my friends refuse to do, and watching tomorrow as Trump takes the oath of office.

    The most common reaction I’ve received regarding my intention to watch the inauguration is one of disbelief. Why, people are asking, would you want to watch? I have yet to find another person opposed to Trump who says they will be watching. I understand. But I feel compelled to watch. I wouldn’t put this same burden on others, but for me it feels like a moral obligation. I love my country, and I think Trump is going to do things that will harm many people not just here, but around the world. I’ve always been the kind of person who has hoped for the best but prepared for the worst, and by watching Trump take the oath, I am preparing for the worst. I need to see him make a sacred promise to our nation that I don’t expect him to keep. I need to be clear eyed in the face of the threat I believe he represents. I am prepared to keep watch on him from the very beginning, as hard as it may be, so I can be ready to act when he does harm. Bearing witness to a moment that will be so very difficult will help galvanize me to take action for justice, equality, and truth. I will be standing strong in the face of fear and looking the embodiment of that fear in the eyes. I will not cower or turn away or try to ignore it or pretend it isn’t happening. I will watch.

    I don’t expect others to feel the same way. And I definitely don’t think you have to watch the inauguration to take action against the injustices that I am sure are coming. But for me it will be a moment for steeling myself for what is to come. It will be the first step of my forward march.

  • Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

    Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

    Well, the worst has happened, and the United States has elected a xenophobic, misogynistic, bigoted, bullying, narcissistic, thin-skinned, ignorant and unqualified demagogue to the highest office in the land and the most powerful position in the world. As the title of this post implies, I feel like the guys at the end of Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, singing about the bright side of life while being crucified. If I weren’t so shocked and frightened about Donald Trump being President (a phrase I am still having a hard time saying), I would appreciate the Python-esque absurdity of it all. I have spent the last few days feeling a whirlwind of emotions, dominated by disbelief, fear, and anger. I have devoured dozens of articles, analyses, and think pieces. I have made multiple social media posts and left countless comments. I have talked and texted and commiserated and comforted with friends and family, all of us dizzy with the implications of Trump’s ascendancy. I have cried – hard. BUT: I have also felt my spine straighten, my eyes open, and my shock and fear harden into strength, action, and resolve. And as I always do, I have begun to apply all my training and studying of human cultural behavior into an analysis of how we got here and what I think we should do about it.

    I struggled with what I wanted to write for my first post in this new reality because my head was spinning with too many thoughts and ideas, all intertwined and fighting for my attention. But tonight, as I found some time to relax and attempt to quiet my thoughts, it came to me that maybe I should try to look on the bright side of life. Don’t get me wrong: I have no illusions about how fraught the next four years are going to be. But I do think that in amongst all the awful, it is smart to look at a few positives, no matter how small they might seem. So here, in no particular order, are a few things that give me some hope.

    1. Hillary won the popular vote by a margin of around two million, or about 1.5%. Of course, she lost the electoral vote, which is why Trump will be President. And sadly, the voter turnout was not very high. But I think the results of this election will galvanize progressives to turn out for the midterms in 2018, and change Democrats’ tendency to not show up at the polls in non-presidential election years. And, although the map showing Millennials alone would have elected Hillary turned out to be not quite true (it actually showed the results of a poll that was taken in October, and as we all know too well now, polls can be wrong!), in general, young folks vote progressive, and there are a lot of them. So, in both two and four years, I think we have reason to be optimistic.
    2. The election has awakened people to the huge political divisions that exist in this country. Now, if you weren’t already aware of this, you weren’t paying attention – but at the same time, the level of shock that many people are registering with Trump’s win tells me that many people have underestimated how deep the divide truly is. No one should have thought a Clinton victory was a sure thing. While I don’t blame anybody who feels shock and dismay, I am heartened by the immediate calls for activism that I see springing up. I’m not talking about protests (although as long as they remain peaceful, I find the protest to be a useful tool), but about people actually taking civic action to protect those things they hold dear that are threatened by Trump’s presidency. I don’t necessarily think that progressives were complacent, but maybe we were a little too confident. So if anything positive has come out of our shock, it’s that we are now awake, and we will fight.
    3. Gun company stocks have tanked. It’s true. Gun merchants were doing huge business during the Obama administration, since many people feared that gun rights were going to be restricted or taken away completely. As a result, people were buying guns like never before. Now, I’m not completely anti-gun (that is, I don’t think gun ownership should be illegal), but I do think we need more regulations on the gun market, and the idea of people stockpiling guns makes me VERY uneasy. With Trump in office, I suspect that fewer people will be buying guns, which is obviously what the stock market thought today. Whether this trend persists remains to be seen, but if it does, I think that’s a good thing.
    4. The alt-right is probably going to fail. The alt-right’s whole raison d’etre is fighting against what they perceive to be a globalist establishment. Well, now their anti-establishment, anti-globalist champion has been elected. Who are the misogynists and bigots and racists of Reddit going to rail against now that they can’t point fingers at the holder of the most powerful office in the world? This is likely to be bad news for Breitbart, Drudge, Infowars, and World Net Daily (I won’t link to them – they don’t need help from me). Sure, they’ll revel in their victory for a while, but if they can’t wax conspiratorial about Barack Hussein Obama, Killary Clinton, FEMA concentration camps, and the United States’ role in the globalist cabal to bring on the New World Order, then what will their purpose be? To be honest, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Steve Bannon, who was executive chairman of Breitbart before he became Trump’s campaign chairman (and potential Chief of Staff – sorry, I know this post is supposed to be about the positives, but shudder) is actually disappointed that Trump won and they won’t be able to launch Trump TV, Trump’s planned media company to compete with Fox News. In any case, without a secret gay Muslim Kenyan terrorist demon-possessed black man in the White House, who will the alt-right have to blame for their grievances?
    5. This one might be a little controversial, but out of all the alarming pledges Trump made in his plan for his first 100 days in office, there are actually a few that I’m okay with. First is his plan for infrastructure spending. He wants Congress to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure spending package. Interestingly, when Obama attempted to pass an infrastructure plan, Congress blocked him, and they’ve signaled that they may not be happy with Trump’s plan either. In general, though, the country needs to repair and boost its vital infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and depending on the specifics of Trump’s plan, I think this is a good thing. Trump may not have political experience, and his construction projects have not always gone as planned, but at least this is something he has experience with. Another thing I like in the 100-day plan is the call for a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service, as well as changes to foreign lobbying rules. Apparently lobbyists themselves think this is unlikely to happen as it would require Congressional action, but many lobbying and political reform groups support the idea. It’s not a perfect plan – or really, a plan at all since he hasn’t fleshed out how his bans would actually get passed – but if it actually happened it would be a good thing.

    So there you have it. I still think there is much, much, much, much more to be worried about than positive about. And trust me, this will not be my last word on the subject. But if this is our new reality, we might as well take a brief moment to give a whistle, and look on the bright side.

  • (R)anthropology Class: Revitalization Movements

    (R)anthropology Class: Revitalization Movements

    Around 1870, when colonization of the western United States by Europeans and their descendants was reaching its zenith, a movement that came to be known as the Ghost Dance began appearing in Native American communities. Taught by a Paiute spiritual leader named Wokova, the Ghost Dance was a ritual meant to cleanse the spirit, promote clean living, and reunite the living with the spirits of the dead. With the help of these spirits, the living would ultimately drive the white usurpers from the land; bring back the buffalo; usher in a time of peace, prosperity, happiness, and unity; and restore the ways of life that had been crushed by colonialism. As the Ghost Dance spread, it changed somewhat in form depending on the culture that adopted it; amongst the Lakota, it invoked the promise of a total transformation of society. Perceiving the Lakota’s wish for a new and better world as a threat, in 1890 the United States Army slaughtered at least 153 Lakota at Wounded Knee in South Dakota. Over time, the Ghost Dance slowly petered out, and although it is still practiced by a few tribes today, it is no longer with the expectation that adherence to the dance and its teachings will usher in a new era.

    Phenomena like the Ghost Dance are a part of what anthropologists call revitalization movements. Similar to millenarianism, revitalization movements generally spring up in times of extreme social unrest, such as colonialism, war, or government oppression of citizens or social groups. The purpose of the movement is to usher in a new type of society; restore social values that have been repressed or denied; or return life to the way it “used to be.” They generally involve a ritual component and special rules that are adhered to by the followers, and can sometimes manifest as cults. A modern example is the Heaven’s Gate cult, in which the followers believed that a spaceship was concealed in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet and was coming to pick them up to take them to a better life away from Earth on a heaven-like planet. Unfortunately, validating your ticket to board this heavenly ship meant forsaking your life on Earth – via suicide. In 1997, 38 cult members dosed themselves with phenobarbitol, applesauce, and vodka, and left this earthly plane. I’m going to go ahead and assume that they did NOT make it to heaven’s gate.

    Sometimes revitalization movements are successful. There’s an excellent argument that Christianity began as a revitalization movement. Unhappy with Roman rule, many citizens throughout the Roman empire looked to prophets who promised a better life; Jesus of Nazareth was just one of those prophets, but he turned out to be one of the few with tremendous staying power. He promised that by following his teachings, a better life could be had – both in this life AND in the next one. In fact, that is the trick of Christianity’s longevity: unlike the Ghost Dance, which promised change in this life, Jesus promised the ultimate reward in the heavenly afterlife. Why is that important? Because unlike the Ghost Dance, where people eventually began to realize that the change they sought was not coming, no one has returned from heaven to either refute or verify Jesus’ teachings – therefore, people can keep believing because there’s no one around to say otherwise. (I realize this is a gross oversimplification of Christianity overall, but I believe it is key to why it is still around after 2,000+ years; and the same is true for all religions that promise rewards after this life or in the next one.) What of more recent religions like Mormonism and Scientology, or even New Age spiritualism? I think there are at least some aspects of revitalization movements in all of them.

    I’ve been thinking a lot about revitalization movements recently, because I think it provides a basis for analyzing not just recent religious movements and cults but the sometimes hysterical and irrational adherence of people to their particular political ideologies. We are living in a time, believe it or not, that is actually safer and more peaceful than any other time in history (an idea explained in great detail by many authors, but to great effect by both Steven Pinker’s book The Better Angels of Our Nature and Michael Shermer’s bookThe Moral Arc). BUT (and it’s a big but): people feel less safe. We feel threatened by conflict and violence. We fear the loss of our most cherished values. We see economic inequality, a loss of stability, a lack of trust, an increase in terrorism, a deepening of racial and cultural divides, greater political differences, more apathy, more protesting, more rioting, more destruction, more fear… In short, we see the things that the Indians saw during colonialism and that the Jews saw under the Romans. So it comes as no surprise to me that, in this election season, some people’s adherence to their candidate’s values has taken on the quality of a revitalization movement. And I admit that I’m a partisan, but I feel that this is more evident amongst conservatives – and particularly among Donald Trump’s supporters. Without doubt, it also exists amongst the die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters, or the third-party supporters of Jill Stein (Green) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian), but it seems to have reached a fever pitch on the far right of the Republican party. And it makes sense: the very dictionary definition of conservative is “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.” And is that not exactly what Trump is proposing with his slogan, “Make America Great Again“? The Ghost Dance movement sought the same thing: a return to previous conditions.

    I believe the revitalization movement concept also applies to terrorist groups such as ISIS (see here for other names for the group; some have started using the term Da’esh or Daesh specifically because ISIS doesn’t like it). Clearly, ISIS wants to see a different kind of world and intends to usher it in not through a dance or by committing suicide and boarding a spacecraft, but by terrorizing the world into accepting their extreme interpretation of Islam (one which, I am compelled to note, is not shared by the vast majority of Muslims). ISIS adherents tend to be disillusioned young men who feel ignored or unappreciated by their families, friends, and/or cultures, so they are easily drawn in to ISIS’ promise of a new and better life. I can’t think of a much better description of a revitalization movement.

    So why all these revitalization movements now? Some of these ideas deserve posts of their own, but in general, I think there are a few things at play. For one, human groups tend to operate at maximum efficiency with maximum communal cooperation at the hunter-gatherer level, when everybody knows everybody else, and the survival of the group and the individual are inextricably intertwined (I wrote more about this idea, and the overall concept of cultural collapse, here). With global population fast approaching 7.5 billion people, the hunter-gatherer model is all but extinct (there are still foraging groups, but they are heavily influenced by the modernized world in which they live). Plus, as noted above, people are living in fear, and it’s a fear that I think is massively exacerbated by the internet and social media and the ease of global information exchange we now have. We hear about everything that happens now, good and bad, which leads to the mistaken assumption that bad things happen more than they actually do. Finally (and trust me, this paragraph is not meant to be exhaustive of all the potential causes of revitalization-movement-like behavior), we are living at a time of economic and social inequality that has not been seen for generations. Many, if not most, historical revitalization movements have arisen in similar times. Put all this together, and we have no reason to be surprised that it’s happening again.

  • Poli-critical Thinking

    Poli-critical Thinking

    I’ve been off the blogging radar for a while. It’s not that I haven’t been inspired to write – I have ideas all the time. But I’ve been spending too much time in the noise. There are so many things to read, so many voices clamoring to be heard over the din, and sometimes I got lost and overwhelmed with it all and I despair that there will ever be any understanding. I know I have friends who read my posts, and I appreciate it, but when I started this blog I nurtured secret hopes that others might read it, too. I have no desire to be well-known for what I write; my goal is to simply to share ideas in the hopes that others might find them useful. And in spite of my calling these posts “rants,” I also had (have?) hopes that I can hear other people’s ideas, even if they disagree with me. I feel strongly about many things but I have never expected other people to automatically agree with everything I say, or worse, be afraid that if they challenge me I’ll respond with rudeness or condescension. I have been guilty of arrogance and pretension, but I’ve gotten better at recognizing those traits in myself, partly through writing this blog. I don’t want to be a smug liberal, the type of ideologue who assumes that because of education and experience I’m somehow better qualified than other people to offer my ideas. And I don’t want to make broad generalizations about people I disagree with, either. It is too easy to believe that people who are anti-vaccine, for example, are crazy or stupid or brainwashed rather than sincere people with sincerely held, even if mistaken, beliefs. I am strongly pro-vaccine, and the science is on my side – but has anybody ever won an argument where they started out by saying “You’re a terrible parent because you won’t vaccinate your kids”? This is why I am such a fierce advocate of critical thinking skills. And yes, duh, everybody thinks critical thinking is important, and most people probably consider themselves to be good critical thinkers already. But in reality, it takes constant practice to keep from getting tangled in the thorns of fallacious thinking.

    So why have I decided to write a post now, after being silent since January? Because I want to talk about critical thinking in online commentary about politics. I’ve considered writing posts about specific political topics, but I made a sort of informal decision to just stay away from politics during this election cycle. I don’t expect to change anybody’s mind about who to vote for. The few things I’ve posted on Facebook have mostly been my dismayed reactions to Donald Trump, or shared articles that address misconceptions about certain candidates or their ideas. And full disclosure, for the sake of this post: I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary, though ideologically I agree with much of what Bernie Sanders represents (and I have no space here to talk about why I decided not to vote for him in spite of that agreement). But as far as I remember I have not posted anything online exhorting friends to vote for Hillary or Bernie. Even the things I’ve posted about Trump have been mostly preaching to the choir, and the few online friends I have who are pro-Trump are certainly not going to change their minds based on anything I have to say. But if you are going to post about politics, the more you avoid logical fallacies, the stronger your argument will be. So here, in no particular order, are some of my observations and suggestions about how to think poli-critically.

    Facts. I’ve ranted about facts before, so I won’t get too detailed here, but people tend to confuse facts and opinions. Here’s the deal: a fact is a verifiable truth. An opinion is a judgement about a fact. So, politically, it is a fact that Hillary Clinton (whether through her campaign or the Clinton Foundation) has taken donations from Monsanto. It is an opinion that this makes her an unfit candidate for president. It is a fact that Monsanto manufactures the herbicide glyphosate; it is an opinion that this makes Monsanto an “evil” corporation. Don’t confuse the two. You can develop your own opinions, but you do not get to make up your own facts. (On a related note, I hope to soon write a post that’s been percolating in my brain for quite some time about Monsanto, glyphosate, the organics industry, and genetically modified crops. I have my issues with Monsanto, but glyphosate and GM technology are not among them).

    Ad hominem. Explained at length in this post, in politics ad hominem manifests itself almost exclusively as name-calling and insults. As I asked above, has anybody ever changed your mind by calling you an idiot? And even if you aren’t strictly trying to change somebody’s mind, have you had any interest in continuing a dialogue that involves name-calling and insults? Differences of opinion can be illuminating and constructive – and sometimes you actually do change your – or somebody else’s! – mind. That won’t happen if you engage in ad hominem.

    Fundamental attribution error. You can read about this fallacy in more detail here. In politics, this tends to manifest itself as a sort of ideological tribalism: me and my group are right because we are more knowledgeable or ethical or clear-headed or realistic. The other side is wrong because they are uninformed or ignorant or brainwashed or bigoted. You make right choices because you are smart and ethical; they make wrong choices because they don’t know any better or because they are morally flawed (this is also ad hominem). To avoid this error, it is wise to bear in mind that people with different political ideas think YOU are the one who is uninformed, etc. Consider that they may actually have a logical, rational, and well-thought-out basis for their beliefs, even if you don’t agree (see fact vs. opinion above). Obviously this isn’t always going to be true of another’s opinion – but it may also not be true of  YOUR opinion.

    Confirmation bias (aka the echo chamber). This is one of the biggies, which is why it has made multiple appearances in my writing. This is the classic human tendency to only remember the things that support our points of view, and to forget or reject everything else. It is what causes people to stop looking as soon as they find what confirms what they already think. People also have a tendency to surround themselves with like-minded people and sources of information, which is why confirmation bias creates an echo chamber of self-fulfilling opinions. It happens to all of us, all the time. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton is innocent of anything other than poor decision-making regarding her email server? You can find all the articles you want to support that opinion. Do you believe that the Democratic party’s elite stole the primary from Bernie Sanders? You can find all the articles you want to support that idea, too. And when someone points out an article or a set of ideas that refutes your opinion, you can reject it for any number of reasons to resolve the cognitive dissonance and continue confirming your bias.

    The Genetic Fallacy. One of the most common reasons to reject an alternative point of view is to impugn the source. This is an example of the genetic fallacy, wherein you reject or accept an argument based on its origins rather than on its merits. So in the case of politics, if an article in The New York Times points out Donald Trump’s many lies and inconsistent statements, a Trump supporter can reject it because it comes from a paper that is generally considered to be liberal. I have to say I find it highly amusing that people of all political stripes will use the epithet “lamestream media” to lambaste and reject any article with which they disagree. And the genetic fallacy works the other way when you use it to lend credibility to a source. This has echoes – pun intended! – of the echo chamber, because we tend to seek out the sources we already agree with. So to avoid this thinking error, rather than accept or reject a source because of where or who it comes from, weigh the argument on its actual merits. Sometimes even the sources we trust are wrong, and the ones we usually reject are right! I admit that this is one of the hard ones for me – I want to believe in the credibility of my go-to sources, but I have made it a habit to fact-check against multiple sources before forming a solid opinion.

    I’m going to stop here for now, but I may add to this list in a later post. I have no illusions about this little post making any difference to anybody, but it feels good getting it off my chest. And I make no claim whatsoever to being immune from these same mistakes, but I have made a conscious and continuing effort to be aware of them in my thinking and my writing. It’s why I continue to engage, civilly and respectfully, with the people with whom I disagree (although I generally won’t tolerate name-calling). It’s why I can debate somebody on politics or culture in one post, and post a happy face on a picture of that same person’s kids in another one. It’s why I teach anthropology. And it’s why, after being careful to avoid errors in my thinking as much as possible, I will ultimately reject certain ideas and embrace others, and defend my point of view logically but passionately. If I do come across as smug or condescending at times, well – that’s just something else to work on, and I have no doubt that this political season will give me plenty of opportunities.

  • Conspiracism

    Conspiracism

    As we begin a new year and approach a presidential election, I find myself wondering if the polarizing ideological conflicts that convulse our nation are going to become more extreme. I have read articles talking about how people used to be able to differ politically without also, apparently, hating each other. Yet today’s ideological differences are expressing themselves much less as reasoned disagreements than they are as vitriolic and insult-laden shouting matches, whether between televised talking heads or anonymous keyboard warriors. Rather than engaging in civil and open-minded debate, people align themselves with one position and cling to it ferociously, even in the face of rational arguments and clear facts to the contrary. I believe much of this has to do with the double-edged ease with which information now flows to people from so many different sources. I say double-edged because for every factual piece of information, there is a converse piece of utter nonsense, and because people are so easily swayed by their own confirmation bias (and I am not immune!) they find what they seek and then guard their bit of “proof” as tenaciously as a mother bear guarding her cubs.

    One of the reasons I keep this blog is because I am practicing being a better critical thinker. No one is immune from logical fallacies, but by writing about them (and, I hope, making them familiar to others), I hope to keep them at the forefront of my mind when I am confronted by new information and, especially, differences of opinion. I am just as likely as anybody else to scoff at a headline or article that does not align with what I already (want to) believe; but with practice, I am learning to recognize these errors and try to overcome them. So, I try to remember to fact-check ideas even if they support my point of view. I explore further when I am confronted with information that refutes what I already believe. I am especially cautious about sources that I know to be ideologically aligned with what I already think – in other words, just because an article comes from Mother Jones or Think Progress or Vox, I am still responsible for approaching it critically. There are certain sources I have stopped consulting, even though they purport to be progressive or liberal, because I have found with investigation that they are exaggerating, distorting, or omitting the facts. No side is blameless when it comes to this practice, so you always have to be cautious. Of course, when a preponderance of the evidence supports a point of view, like any good scientist I am going to be supportive of that view. This is simple enough when dealing with factual information, but less so when it comes to opinions and interpretations. Still, if you have the facts to support the opinion, the ground becomes pretty solid. And, I am more than happy to debate with people who can logically and rationally employ (sometimes the same) facts and come up with a different conclusion. That is what good civil discourse is all about.

    But now for the crux of this post: people whose beliefs in support of their ideologies have become so irrational and paranoid that no amount of countering factual information will possibly sway them. This way of thinking is called conspiracism, in contrast with rationalism. Do I mean to imply that conspiracism is irrational? Absolutely – but don’t try telling a conspiracist that. Just like belief in the supernatural, conspiracism is not subject to logical testing because there is always an answer to your rational counter-argument. As I noted above, every person is prone to using logical fallacies, but conpiracism elevates it to an art form. No lapse of logic is off-limits in defense of the conspiracy. You have a news account or article that refutes the conspiracist’s argument? That’s from the lame-stream media – you can’t trust them! Ask the conspiracist for factual proof in support of their hypothesis? I can’t show you – THEY are powerful and THEY don’t want us to know! Question the validity and objectivity of the conspiracist’s source? Of course s/he isn’t affiliated with a university or research institution or respected media outlet – OTHER people got rid of them because they were threatened by the truth s/he discovered! Just like people defending their belief in God, conspiracists have an answer for everything. Here are a few other characteristics of your typical conspiracist, courtesy of Michael Shermer’s wonderful book Why People Believe Weird Things (1997, p. 206):

    1. Absolute certainty they have the truth.
    2. America is controlled to a greater or lesser extent by a conspiratorial group. In fact, they believe this evil group is very powerful and controls most nations. (My addition: or, the conspiratorial group may be the government itself).
    3. Open hatred of opponents. Because these opponents (actually “enemies” in the extremists’ eyes) are seen as a part of or sympathizers with “The Conspiracy,” they deserve hatred and contempt. (My addition: the contempt often takes the form of the epithet “sheeple,” to describe people who aren’t “smart enough” to recognize the conspiracy – they are sheep).
    4. Little faith in the democratic process. Mainly because most believe “The Conspiracy” has such influence in the U.S. government, and therefore extremists usually spurn compromise.
    5. Willingness to deny basic civil liberties to certain fellow citizens, because enemies deserve no liberties.
    6. Consistent indulgence in irresponsible accusations and character assassination.

    It’s no coincidence that at least five of these characteristics seem to apply to that idol of the far right, Donald Trump! (The only one I’m not sure of is number 2.) But at the same time, I want to be clear that conspiracism is not limited to those on the political right. Whether you are anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, or anti-fur, or a Birther, a Truther, or a Holocaust denier, there is enough conspiracism to cover the entire spectrum of ideologies. We can even include non-political conspiracists like flat-Earthers! Not every conspiracist has all the characteristics listed above, but it only takes adherence to a few. And these aren’t the only typical characteristics. Conspiracists believe that they are special. They, in amongst all the sheeple, have been able to resist the lies. Only they have the mental toughness and intelligence to recognize the truth. They are immune to the conspiracy, and they may even be in danger because of their special knowledge – which is why they really can’t tell you how they know what they know. They are members of an exclusive club of the super-smart, the super-aware, and the super-prepared. They can’t be fooled. Just imagine what a powerful feeling this must be, and maybe it starts to make sense why some people become adherents of conspiracism.

    I don’t really have a point to end on here. Mostly, I’m dismayed at how widespread at least some degree of conspiracism has become. And let me stress that I’m not saying that I think every person who disagrees with me is a conspiracist! In fact, most of the people with whom I discuss opposing ideas do not fall into this category; or at least, they only exhibit one or two of the characteristics from the list. And I do have reason for hope. I frequently change my stance in light of new information, and I know other people do, too. Just this morning, I read this wonderful quote from one of my science heroes, Alfred Russel Wallace:

    Truth is born into this world only with pangs and tribulations, and every fresh truth is received unwillingly. To expect the world to receive a new truth, or even an old truth, without challenging it, is to look for one of those miracles that do not occur.

    A few days ago, a friend of mine and I civilly debated someone on her Facebook feed about an issue we feel passionately about (appropriation of Native American culture). He wasn’t buying our arguments, but the next day he posted on the original thread to say he’d done some reading and research of his own, and he had changed his mind. Moments like this give me hope – and I think when people are approached with civility and friendliness, when they aren’t insulted or bullied or accused but are instead invited to spell out their differences – well, when that happens, miracles CAN occur.

  • Daily Read: Liberal Triggers Part II

    Daily Read: Liberal Triggers Part II

    Today we have a response to yesterday’s Daily Read that brings up some important points. Amanda Taub addresses the focus on identity politics in Edward Schlosser’s article (which, as I failed to point out yesterday, is written under a pseudonym), and argues that identity politics aren’t the real issue. Taub stresses that the problem stems from fear of the university and its modern business model that treats students and professors as an “interchangeable means of production.” This means that liberal professors like the pseudonymous Schlosser aren’t actually afraid of their students; they are afraid of a system in which they could lose their jobs by exercising their academic freedom. I think Taub has an excellent point that we shouldn’t distract from this problem by deflecting it onto students who may have sensitivities to difficult subject matter. Blaming identity politics may only serve to further disempower and silence the voices of those who are most in need of acknowledgement. As Taub points out, “If adjuncts and junior faculty members feel insecure enough to censor their teaching or work, then that’s a problem in their relationship with their universities, not in their relationships with their students.”

    I was a liberal adjunct professor. My liberal students didn’t scare me at all.