There is one thing that could be added to this message.
The major deliberate inequities that we observe are due more often to “bias for” rather than “prejudice against.”
Decision makers favor their friends, basically people whom they are comfortable working with.
For hiring and promotions, Yalies favor Yalies, women favor women. Canadiens favor Canadiens etc.,etc., etc. (a long list).
Bosses, however, make a mistake when they promote someone with their identical Myers-Briggs code indicator. The boss will learn little that is “new.” And will continue with the same mishaps in thinking.
A boss who favors “a minority like me” just so “we” can “catch up” is not societally productive. Cheating someone with known better performance qualities from hiring or promotion is not socially productive.
Making decisions based on “well, maybe, he/she could learn on the job and be just as good or better as this other fellow whom I know right now can admirably do the job” is socially retrograde.
Some examples:
My father (with not even a HS education) solidly passed the intellectual and performance tests to be a plumber, but he was told his certificate would not come without paying a significant bribe. He refused even though he was responsible for feeding a family of seven.
My brother, just out of the Navy “Seabees,” and able to operate almost any piece of construction equipment, was able to join the “union,” but come winter he was told he would get no working assignments unless he provided a kickback of his earnings. Although he had a wife and child, he did what his Dad did. He said “No,” gave up a job career he would have loved and took the Fireman’s entry test. There were tests before each promotion, he always came in third or fourth when there were 14 openings, was leapfrogged by 6 to 8 people of “designated minority” status at each promotion level, and still became a highly respected Deputy Fire Chief in the City of Boston.
I was the top student in a rigorous high school in Boston, had all A’s, and smashed the SAT test. I certainly would have received a scholarship to Harvard, but I balked when I saw the application asked for my photo, my “race,” and my religion. I was going to say I didn’t know my race **, but I decided not even to apply to Harvard.
** I was fairly well aware of racial issues since my father grew up in the Irish and Black (Negro) district of Boston; he was a gym rat and a highly rated amateur boxer. He had a lot of respect for Black Americans. When his plumber plans (see above) were squelched, he began a sewer cleaning business, called the AAA Electric Drain Cleaning business (to be first in the yellow pages of the phone book). His “work crew” was usually represented by two of his three oldest sons (in HS or younger). We had no car and so he needed a cab to take all of the heavy coils, tool, and motor to jobs that were all around the City. We were in every ghetto, and that is where I had my first affirmative action awareness (with the aa words unaware to me at the time). There were nice people and slobs, independently of race.
I smashed the Naval Battery Test (more difficult than the SATs) and accepted their full “contract” scholarship plan, and this allowed me to go to Notre Dame, earn a few extra dollars on my own, and never have my parents pay a penny. I had a wonderful three years in the Navy, where we “contract” students had the same commission and commission date as the graduates of the US Naval Academy. It was a great boost in confidence to have successful responsibilities and achievements (specializing in nuclear issues). I received nothing but “4.0’s” in my ratings and upon leaving the Navy, I was rated in the top 0.5%. I had a perfect 2400 on the GRE and was offered a full NSF Fellowship that would take me all the way to a PhD – something I never would have imagined. But I still had no practical experience in the career I was choosing, and I accepted a job offer from Bell Telephone Laboratories. The plan was that BTL would support a work plan within which I could achieve a PhD. It was perfect. And since I had a growing family, the pay was much better than the stipend that comes with an NSF fellowship. When the proper time came for me to pursue a PhD, BTL was well into the aa (affirmative action) moral code, but, even more so into the AA (Affirmative Action) rules code. The Education Department now had Rules that white men could no longer be given education aid; aid was to be given only to women and to “designated” males. But my boss’s boss’s boss , the Lab Director and eventual Nobel Prize Winner – on his own, and unknown to me – arranged for me to attend Princeton daytime courses and to do my (still undecided) thesis work at BTL. The Director had talked with me only a couple of times, but he had seen my reports, and I have to admit I was definitely a “bias for” candidate, since the AA rules had treated me as unworthy meat. I would never have been so successful without my Director’s wisdom.
With my PhD I was a recruiter for BTL with a heavily slanted awareness for aa. I had a very successful career. As a boss, there was never a qualified woman or minority who was treated with less than equal respect. (For example, I wrote a letter of recommendation to MIT for an aa summer trainee. He returned with a PhD four years later and was hired by BTL. And there were many other such managers.) -- WTL
-- ... an ally said: “We need to be careful not to offend anyone!”
You and I know many people in the climate issue, I sure hope that ally was not anybody I know. One of my gripes about guys on our side of the issue is what I view as too defensive, or minimally, too neutral, of a posture on climate matter, when I advocate for going on sheer offense at every opportunity. Some of our most prominent speakers miss golden opportunities to illustrate to the public just how vulnerable enviros are when it comes to being incapable of defending their unsupportable assertions. For example, when a prominent enviro claims a 'scientific consensus' exists proving man-caused global warming, it is simply too neutral to say the studies rely on cherry-picked polling, it should be stated first that the idea of a "show of hands" validating a science conclusion is fundamentally an anti-science / anti-intellectual position to have. And when it comes to the egregiously false accusation that 'Big Oil paid skeptic climate scientists to spread disinformation,' it is not enough to say the accusation is false, the response should be that the accuser could not point to any evidence proving such a corruption situation exists if their reputation depended on it. This tactic shifts all the focus onto the folks who paint themselves into corners they can't get out of, but our side needs to aim the bright spotlight directly at them in their indefensible corners instead of letting them squirm out of them every time.
While John was writing "Our traditional Judeo-Christian standards ... are being attacked" the EU was busy electing a new parliament that will reject this attack, at least until the communists and fascists (but I repeat myself) work out a new destructive tactic. Brexit and Girogia Meloni and Geert Wilders started it in Europe. Javier Milei is MAGA too: "Make Argentina Great Again!" But Mexico just elected a communist.
Until this change takes firm root, "It's dangerous to be right when men of influence are wrong."
-- Voltaire
I've taken to writing "environism" because there's no "mental" in the middle of it. Then I discovered that Tom Blees beat me to it.
William Chameides was well connected in Washington and knew how to get lavish funding. On his watch the Nicholas school grew at the expense of the physics department. Squishy science replacing hard science.
It’s not about offending. It’s a meta-tool to train people into not speaking out. Whatever you think, don’t open your mouth.
Once the general population is trained not to speak their voices, phase two. You can do whatever you want because nobody spoke against it. In parallel to the consensus tyranny and peer-reviewed thoughts, it’s the largest mass-scale operation to train the collective mind into submission.
Worldwide scale. Wherever you come from. Your colleagues and neighbors will silence you, no need to antagonize the authorities. The huge push from the other side is already in place through social media, pressure varianting the most anti-social attitudes and the most socially useless behaviors they can support.
Chaos in the making. No more dreams about civilization or humanity or future.
“At a time when we’re so deeply divided as a society, and issues seem to grow more contentious daily, we can no longer treat environmental issues as solely scientific or technical problems. We have to wade into the complex value choices that are at the heart of policy decisions. Science will always be a central and essential input into the decision-making process, but policy decisions require choices. And choices reflect values.”
Ken: Yes, but I cite it as it is the basis for the perspective of many people on the Left. To be able to succeed, we need to know the thinking of our opponents.
"....The answer is to do Critical Thinking — and then speak the Truth. If it offends someone, that’s their problem...." << exactly: whether one is ("feels") offended or not is entirely that person's responsibility, not anyone else's.
regularly getting involved in a woke-ish, so-called politically correct discussion and the other person exclaiming "but hey, you can't SAY that!" I've found myself responding by asking "well, why not?" - end of argument. be well, love your work!
Insightful observation. I am not totally convinced the new religion is exclusively environmental, but it is “ecumenical” in its reach for allies of a common goal. The powers behind this push needed a unifying mission to sell the people in limiting oneself and his/her agency. Also, it comes with a timeline, an urgency for action.
You can’t sell feudalism and self-surrender on the self-same “merits”, so “climate commitment” is the perfect framework: one globe, one government, one size fits all. The “wizard” behind the curtain doesn’t give two wits about the environment. The iatrogenic effects of almost every initiative taken are in fact destroying the environment…wind farms and solar arrays papering over arable land, driving the whales mad in offshore wind farms, lithium and cobalt strip mining, etc.
There is a vision emerging of what this is.
It is not healthy and it is most definitely not the stewardship of our environment.
Stella: Indeed they actions of "environmentalists" are often contrary to true environmentalism. Think about the environmental degredation from industrial wind energy.
Indeed! Meanwhile, China is building coal-fired energy plants at an annual rate that exceeds the total remaining in the USA. We are selling China the coal. Stewards of the environment are not building coal-fired plants. Many of this energy is being applied to the factories that produce the prospective windmills, solar arrays, e-vehicles, and other artifacts of electrification that those of luxury-beliefs will consume and toss into waste piles when consumed/expired. Madness!
Excellent! They have no foundational truths, so everything, anything, or nothing is accepted depending on the philosophical trend of the moment. For decades they demanded we eat more natural foods. Now the Left is demanding should eat highly processed foods like fake meat. It never ends with these nitwits because nothing is truth.
“A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t."! ― Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey
There is one thing that could be added to this message.
The major deliberate inequities that we observe are due more often to “bias for” rather than “prejudice against.”
Decision makers favor their friends, basically people whom they are comfortable working with.
For hiring and promotions, Yalies favor Yalies, women favor women. Canadiens favor Canadiens etc.,etc., etc. (a long list).
Bosses, however, make a mistake when they promote someone with their identical Myers-Briggs code indicator. The boss will learn little that is “new.” And will continue with the same mishaps in thinking.
A boss who favors “a minority like me” just so “we” can “catch up” is not societally productive. Cheating someone with known better performance qualities from hiring or promotion is not socially productive.
Making decisions based on “well, maybe, he/she could learn on the job and be just as good or better as this other fellow whom I know right now can admirably do the job” is socially retrograde.
Some examples:
My father (with not even a HS education) solidly passed the intellectual and performance tests to be a plumber, but he was told his certificate would not come without paying a significant bribe. He refused even though he was responsible for feeding a family of seven.
My brother, just out of the Navy “Seabees,” and able to operate almost any piece of construction equipment, was able to join the “union,” but come winter he was told he would get no working assignments unless he provided a kickback of his earnings. Although he had a wife and child, he did what his Dad did. He said “No,” gave up a job career he would have loved and took the Fireman’s entry test. There were tests before each promotion, he always came in third or fourth when there were 14 openings, was leapfrogged by 6 to 8 people of “designated minority” status at each promotion level, and still became a highly respected Deputy Fire Chief in the City of Boston.
I was the top student in a rigorous high school in Boston, had all A’s, and smashed the SAT test. I certainly would have received a scholarship to Harvard, but I balked when I saw the application asked for my photo, my “race,” and my religion. I was going to say I didn’t know my race **, but I decided not even to apply to Harvard.
** I was fairly well aware of racial issues since my father grew up in the Irish and Black (Negro) district of Boston; he was a gym rat and a highly rated amateur boxer. He had a lot of respect for Black Americans. When his plumber plans (see above) were squelched, he began a sewer cleaning business, called the AAA Electric Drain Cleaning business (to be first in the yellow pages of the phone book). His “work crew” was usually represented by two of his three oldest sons (in HS or younger). We had no car and so he needed a cab to take all of the heavy coils, tool, and motor to jobs that were all around the City. We were in every ghetto, and that is where I had my first affirmative action awareness (with the aa words unaware to me at the time). There were nice people and slobs, independently of race.
I smashed the Naval Battery Test (more difficult than the SATs) and accepted their full “contract” scholarship plan, and this allowed me to go to Notre Dame, earn a few extra dollars on my own, and never have my parents pay a penny. I had a wonderful three years in the Navy, where we “contract” students had the same commission and commission date as the graduates of the US Naval Academy. It was a great boost in confidence to have successful responsibilities and achievements (specializing in nuclear issues). I received nothing but “4.0’s” in my ratings and upon leaving the Navy, I was rated in the top 0.5%. I had a perfect 2400 on the GRE and was offered a full NSF Fellowship that would take me all the way to a PhD – something I never would have imagined. But I still had no practical experience in the career I was choosing, and I accepted a job offer from Bell Telephone Laboratories. The plan was that BTL would support a work plan within which I could achieve a PhD. It was perfect. And since I had a growing family, the pay was much better than the stipend that comes with an NSF fellowship. When the proper time came for me to pursue a PhD, BTL was well into the aa (affirmative action) moral code, but, even more so into the AA (Affirmative Action) rules code. The Education Department now had Rules that white men could no longer be given education aid; aid was to be given only to women and to “designated” males. But my boss’s boss’s boss , the Lab Director and eventual Nobel Prize Winner – on his own, and unknown to me – arranged for me to attend Princeton daytime courses and to do my (still undecided) thesis work at BTL. The Director had talked with me only a couple of times, but he had seen my reports, and I have to admit I was definitely a “bias for” candidate, since the AA rules had treated me as unworthy meat. I would never have been so successful without my Director’s wisdom.
With my PhD I was a recruiter for BTL with a heavily slanted awareness for aa. I had a very successful career. As a boss, there was never a qualified woman or minority who was treated with less than equal respect. (For example, I wrote a letter of recommendation to MIT for an aa summer trainee. He returned with a PhD four years later and was hired by BTL. And there were many other such managers.) -- WTL
-- ... an ally said: “We need to be careful not to offend anyone!”
You and I know many people in the climate issue, I sure hope that ally was not anybody I know. One of my gripes about guys on our side of the issue is what I view as too defensive, or minimally, too neutral, of a posture on climate matter, when I advocate for going on sheer offense at every opportunity. Some of our most prominent speakers miss golden opportunities to illustrate to the public just how vulnerable enviros are when it comes to being incapable of defending their unsupportable assertions. For example, when a prominent enviro claims a 'scientific consensus' exists proving man-caused global warming, it is simply too neutral to say the studies rely on cherry-picked polling, it should be stated first that the idea of a "show of hands" validating a science conclusion is fundamentally an anti-science / anti-intellectual position to have. And when it comes to the egregiously false accusation that 'Big Oil paid skeptic climate scientists to spread disinformation,' it is not enough to say the accusation is false, the response should be that the accuser could not point to any evidence proving such a corruption situation exists if their reputation depended on it. This tactic shifts all the focus onto the folks who paint themselves into corners they can't get out of, but our side needs to aim the bright spotlight directly at them in their indefensible corners instead of letting them squirm out of them every time.
Russell: TY for insights from a person of great experience.
Right on the money! "Relativist" can always play the victim!
Terry: This business of relitivism is a major scourge of our time.
While John was writing "Our traditional Judeo-Christian standards ... are being attacked" the EU was busy electing a new parliament that will reject this attack, at least until the communists and fascists (but I repeat myself) work out a new destructive tactic. Brexit and Girogia Meloni and Geert Wilders started it in Europe. Javier Milei is MAGA too: "Make Argentina Great Again!" But Mexico just elected a communist.
Until this change takes firm root, "It's dangerous to be right when men of influence are wrong."
-- Voltaire
I've taken to writing "environism" because there's no "mental" in the middle of it. Then I discovered that Tom Blees beat me to it.
This is brilliant. I am going to figure out how-to, then print it, read it daily and ideally share with others. Is any of that offensive or illegal?
Thank you for your efforts.
W: No. feel free to print or pass on.
Thank you. There are gems in that piece that I do not want to forget and others should know and be aware of.
William Chameides was well connected in Washington and knew how to get lavish funding. On his watch the Nicholas school grew at the expense of the physics department. Squishy science replacing hard science.
GC: I'm not sure of Duke's inner workings, but would not be surprised.
It’s not about offending. It’s a meta-tool to train people into not speaking out. Whatever you think, don’t open your mouth.
Once the general population is trained not to speak their voices, phase two. You can do whatever you want because nobody spoke against it. In parallel to the consensus tyranny and peer-reviewed thoughts, it’s the largest mass-scale operation to train the collective mind into submission.
Worldwide scale. Wherever you come from. Your colleagues and neighbors will silence you, no need to antagonize the authorities. The huge push from the other side is already in place through social media, pressure varianting the most anti-social attitudes and the most socially useless behaviors they can support.
Chaos in the making. No more dreams about civilization or humanity or future.
Dan: yes that is an integral part of their response.
“At a time when we’re so deeply divided as a society, and issues seem to grow more contentious daily, we can no longer treat environmental issues as solely scientific or technical problems. We have to wade into the complex value choices that are at the heart of policy decisions. Science will always be a central and essential input into the decision-making process, but policy decisions require choices. And choices reflect values.”
Total b.s.
K.J.
Ken: Yes, but I cite it as it is the basis for the perspective of many people on the Left. To be able to succeed, we need to know the thinking of our opponents.
Sun Tzu
These dumbass “we’ll say anything, do anything, destroy anybody” power mongrels hate when we insult them. What to do, what to do!
MissLadyK: Call a Spade a Spade, they hell with what they think, or how they are "offended."
"....The answer is to do Critical Thinking — and then speak the Truth. If it offends someone, that’s their problem...." << exactly: whether one is ("feels") offended or not is entirely that person's responsibility, not anyone else's.
regularly getting involved in a woke-ish, so-called politically correct discussion and the other person exclaiming "but hey, you can't SAY that!" I've found myself responding by asking "well, why not?" - end of argument. be well, love your work!
Mary Lou: Thank you for your support. Yes, emulate John Hancock!
Insightful observation. I am not totally convinced the new religion is exclusively environmental, but it is “ecumenical” in its reach for allies of a common goal. The powers behind this push needed a unifying mission to sell the people in limiting oneself and his/her agency. Also, it comes with a timeline, an urgency for action.
You can’t sell feudalism and self-surrender on the self-same “merits”, so “climate commitment” is the perfect framework: one globe, one government, one size fits all. The “wizard” behind the curtain doesn’t give two wits about the environment. The iatrogenic effects of almost every initiative taken are in fact destroying the environment…wind farms and solar arrays papering over arable land, driving the whales mad in offshore wind farms, lithium and cobalt strip mining, etc.
There is a vision emerging of what this is.
It is not healthy and it is most definitely not the stewardship of our environment.
“Know them by their fruits.”
Stella: Indeed they actions of "environmentalists" are often contrary to true environmentalism. Think about the environmental degredation from industrial wind energy.
In "Apocalypse Never" Mike Shellenberger wrote "must we destroy the environment to save the planet?"
Indeed! Meanwhile, China is building coal-fired energy plants at an annual rate that exceeds the total remaining in the USA. We are selling China the coal. Stewards of the environment are not building coal-fired plants. Many of this energy is being applied to the factories that produce the prospective windmills, solar arrays, e-vehicles, and other artifacts of electrification that those of luxury-beliefs will consume and toss into waste piles when consumed/expired. Madness!
or the fight for cleaning up the environment (plastic all around!!).
Excellent! They have no foundational truths, so everything, anything, or nothing is accepted depending on the philosophical trend of the moment. For decades they demanded we eat more natural foods. Now the Left is demanding should eat highly processed foods like fake meat. It never ends with these nitwits because nothing is truth.
“A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t."! ― Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey
exactly: if all's "merely relative", then why should I believe your views? LOL
Rich: Well put. This is all part of that horrifically bad idea of relativism.