Wise words, Andrew Doyle. What’s striking is how both sides of the culture war are totally convinced they’re in the right. Moral certainty is a very intoxicating drug and potentially deadly, as we know from history. I’m not sure how this ends, but the hangover is going to be brutal.
These have been subverted. For the sake of 'feelings'.
As Alexander Grace has indicated, when feminine values are allowed to shape institutions, consistency is lost. There will be rule-bending and deception, for the sake of spurious 'equality'. Consistency is lost. One person will be punished, another excused. Justice becomes political. Trust is lost.
"Feminine values" are at fault? Humans have been fighting tribal battles since the dawn of time. The Nazis were the epitome of masculinity by your definition, and they didn't do much for civilization. What bollocks.
I breathed a huge sigh of relief when i found that Good wasn’t black. That’s pretty revealing of where we are. With so many apparently impervious to evidence and lacking capacity for doubt, the situation would have exploded - and right across the West. Thanks BLM! 🙌
How many men would possess the sense of entitled impunity which would make them goad armed officers, then drive off, after being instructed to stop and get out of a vehicle..?
"We should cultivate a more rational political sphere in which nuanced subjects are not reduced to a matter of Good vs Evil. Until we can achieve this, the conditions are sadly ripe for future loss of life."
The (oestrogen sensitive) dopaminergic left brain is binary in how it processes reality, and will tend to see situations as on/off, friend/foe, with us/against us. It can be seen clearly in the opposing corners of Good vs Evil in feminism. Also, it will tend to process for outcomes of its own utilitarian self-interest.
The (testosterone sensitive) adrenergic right brain is much more nuanced in its interpretation of reality. Iain McGilchrist's book 'The Master & His Emissary' explores this in immense detail.
Of course, women are emotional and unstable, men are rational and dependable. Men are also overwhelmingly the ones who resort to violence, women are more likely to work things out and compromise.
Talk about having a set world view that sees everything as confirmation of your own bias. Look in the mirror.
A much more likely outcome of conflict resolution from a female perspective is social exclusion, passive aggression, and reputation destruction, even to the extent of false accusation. Men have few defences against such weaponry.
Men will resort to violence against other men, rarely against women, even under severe provocation. There is probably an underlying programming, similar to Asimov's First Rule of Robotics: "A male may not injure a female, or, through inaction, allow a female to come to harm." There's some evidence for this.
I'm quite happy with what I see in the mirror. That includes my broken nose, bust by a female, decades ago (wooden sword, she wanted to join in on horseplay with male friends, who actually knew what we were doing). I knew she didn't mean it.
Indeed. Perkins has harboured a pathetic, petty, misogynistic grudge against all "females" for decades since a little girl accidentally bashed his nose with a toy sword. Boo hoo. He's still not over it 🤣🤣🤣
Yes, there’s plenty of data to tell you that men are superior. Remember the days when women’s brains were thought too small to handle logic? That was backed up by data. Yet I think it’s pretty comprehensively shown now that our brains are more than capable of thinking logically.
I think the point of this article is that we use the data we have to confirm our own biases. But perhaps your man brain has a higher reasoning and you have a better interpretation?
This is the wrong platform for complex discussions, but clearly "comments" sections are perfect for instant emotional responses. No one has said "men are superior" except your own defensive consciousness. Clearly the data show that men use violence more often, an obvious indication of anything but "superiority". Clearly also the data show that women use spite and reputation destruction more often. It's underlying personality structures and physiology behind this, as well as brain structures. There's no pseudo-political posturing or misogynism or something behind anything said by either Mr Perkins or me. You're just flying off the handle, basically.
I would point you to two thousand years of female oppression to counter your assertion that “no-one has said men are superior”. In fact many do, many have and almost definitely many will say exactly that. But hey, I have an inappropriate emotional (read: inferior) response, “flying off the handle” of course, me being female. You can’t see the misogyny because you are swimming in it.
I realize this is a waste of energy, as you have no intention of being rational about this. (I can also see the incredible irony in you being "exactly like a woman" in your swimming in your emotional intensity here.) However, of course there has been much historical oppression and condescension about women. Nobody is denying it. But that's largely history, in a slowly evolving civilization. It resulted in the backlash of feminism, of course, which despite its excesses has contributed to an improved civilization (in the West, anyway.) When I said "no one has said men are superior", I meant here in these comments on this post, that's all. If I were talking about my own family, and said "there hasn't been any child abuse", that wouldn't be generalizable to a comment on social history everywhere for all time! There is an immense amount of brain structure, physiology, hormones, social convention, psychological insecurity - as men are basically frightened of the power of the female in the subconscious and the emotions - and of dominance hierarchies, behind the sadness of history. But we're doing something about it. Personally, I don't have an ounce of this "misogyny" you are fantasizing about - I wonder if you even know the definition of the word. I love women. My wife is better than I am at answering questions on University Challenge, for heaven's sake, what is that, proof of "suppression" or "lack of education" or "condescension"?! Before I retired, the best bosses I had were women - how could I then regard them as having some kind of inferior competence or abilities, that would be ridiculous. But you really think that I am "swimming in misogyny"! Is that like the Americans who are convinced that despite having black lawyers and judges and millionaire movie and music stars and even having had a black President, that their society is "institutionally racist" and keeping black people down? For heaven's sake. Chill out. People, including men, are nicer than you think.
While I appreciate that this is all Rashamon with guns and videos, there are some other things we can know here for certain, that are relevant to any impartial assessment. First of all, ICE has no jurisdiction over US citizens: they had no right to tell Renee (let alone try to force her) to leave her car, and she had no obligation to comply. Secondly, Ross had his gun drawn before the car started moving: what is the rationale for that? Thirdly, the wheels of the car were turned away from Ross before the car started to move (clearly seen in the Ross's own video, she's turning the steering wheel to the right): she may have bumped him in trying to get away, but the wheels were not aimed at him. Fourthly, the car only started to accelerate after she was shot ---- there may be several ireasons for that, but decerebrate posture (look it up) comes to mind. Fifthly, the ICE agents got in their car and left the scene before the police turned up, surely an illegal act. Finally, I'm with Grace (who might be amused to hear that one of the oneline comments I saw was "This is why women shouln't have the vote".
ICE absolutely has the right to detain US citizens who are obstructing their duties. You think protesters should be able to just block roads and impede law enforcement until they get bored? Maybe ICE should bring them sandwiches? The American people voted to reverse the defacto open border policies of Democrats. Entitled protesters think they know better, but ignorance of the law is no defense.
We don't have enough information to determine that, and it is the perogative of the officers on scene. On what planet can you ignore commands of law enforcement, try to drive off, **hit** them with your vehicle and expect kid glove treatment? It was tragic, but 100% her fault and that of the professional agitators who egged her on.
Normally - you would be right. But your analysis misses a crucial point: there will be no independent and fair investigation. It was clear from Noem’s statements and from January 6 pardons. ICE has guaranteed immunity by this administration.
I don't think people have got worse I just think social media has unmasked how basically awful and stupid a lot of people are. It has even made me wonder if democracy can work when so many people are so hateful and irrational but - as Churchill said - all the alternatives are far worse.
In a country where anyone can carry a gun and law enforcement officers always do, it is very foolish to disrespect and disobey them as George Floyd discovered to his cost - resisting arrest never ends well. In gun toting America situations can and often do escalate rapidly because officers fear getting shot and killed.
In this tragic case the officer was already wound up because Renee's wife had been taunting him - not a sensible thing to do.
And he was still traumatised by a horrible experience he'd had when an illegal immigrant criminal had dragged him along the road in his car and caused him serious injury.
Did he shoot to kill? Or was he simply trying to make Renee comply with his legitimate request to exit her vehicle?
The video looks very bad for him but may not tell the whole story.
She definitely disobeyed him as Occupy Wall Street advises people to do.
Highly irresponsible unless they are deliberately hoping for just such a 'martyr' as Renee.
As to the rights and wrongs of Trump's immigration policy that is a matter for discussion but the fundamental truth remains that countries have a perfect right under international law to protect their borders and illegal immigrants are violating that right.
Nobody would be happy if they came home one day to discover a family of strangers living in their home, eating their food, using their things and behaving as if it was their home.
Many people are compassionate and do not want anyone to suffer but immigration - both legal and illegal - has an undeniable impact on the host nation and not always for the good and it is often the poorest who suffer - not people who are well educated and comfortable like Renee and her wife.
It is distressing how political discourse has descended even more deeply than usual into a clash of ad hominems and confirmation bias in the Trump era (as well as in an age in which people don't seem to appreciate the joy of objectivity), but, the Trump admin's egregious disrespect for reason, truth and fair and humane process in enforcing the law is also very much responsible. The degraded conversation and practice with respect to immigration law reform and enforcement in the U.S. is the best example of this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, the U.S. and the U.K. differ in that in the U.S. the vast majority of illegal immigrants, 10 million at least, have been allowed to live established, law-abiding, productive lives for ten years or more by the failure of government to agree on how to enforce the law. This situation dictates that law cannot be rigorously enforced without a large amnesty. This has always been a sine qua non of credible immigration reform. If the Trump admin is going to round up recent and criminal illegals, they have to identify who is not going to be deported. What has made people skeptical of amnesty as a prerequisite for enforcement is that in the last reform period in the Reagan era, after amnesty for a million or so, a much smaller problem than today, enforcement was undermined by the collusion of business and indiscriminate advocates. I recommend the book Losing Control: How a Left-Right Coalition Blocked Immigration Reform and Provoked the Backlash That Elected Trump by Jerry Kammer. Both the left and right also have something to be angry about.
There are millions whom the majority who elected Trump would not want deported when their case is considered individually. Without at least the establishment of a rule and process for identifying those first, to say nothing of due and humane process, the chaos caused by ICE invading communities will not end.
Countries have “hate speech” laws. These imply that a difference of opinion implies hatred.
Hatred is something an Ukrainian would feel towards a Russian.
Just because officers are performing their lawful duties and a citizen is protesting against them, does not imply hatred , yet the politicised use of the word causes extreme reactions by both parties.
No one has the right not to be offended. It is too bad that universities and the civil services do not permit debate. There is nothing wrong with a compromise.
Thank goodness there are some rational people left. Well done Andrew.
Wise words, Andrew Doyle. What’s striking is how both sides of the culture war are totally convinced they’re in the right. Moral certainty is a very intoxicating drug and potentially deadly, as we know from history. I’m not sure how this ends, but the hangover is going to be brutal.
"Facts are now considered subordinate to the upholding of political priorities."
Facts are (in fact) now subordinate to dogmatic identity politics in science, jurisprudence, and just about every realm of human endeavour. Deontic systems are based on meritocratic, competitive hierarchy. https://www.denisecummins.com/uploads/1/1/8/2/11828927/cummins_2019_encyc_ev_psy_sci.pdf
These have been subverted. For the sake of 'feelings'.
As Alexander Grace has indicated, when feminine values are allowed to shape institutions, consistency is lost. There will be rule-bending and deception, for the sake of spurious 'equality'. Consistency is lost. One person will be punished, another excused. Justice becomes political. Trust is lost.
Civilisation is lost.
"Feminine values" are at fault? Humans have been fighting tribal battles since the dawn of time. The Nazis were the epitome of masculinity by your definition, and they didn't do much for civilization. What bollocks.
And those bollocks understood the rules so helpfully summarised by Denise D Cummins.
I breathed a huge sigh of relief when i found that Good wasn’t black. That’s pretty revealing of where we are. With so many apparently impervious to evidence and lacking capacity for doubt, the situation would have exploded - and right across the West. Thanks BLM! 🙌
How many men would possess the sense of entitled impunity which would make them goad armed officers, then drive off, after being instructed to stop and get out of a vehicle..?
"We should cultivate a more rational political sphere in which nuanced subjects are not reduced to a matter of Good vs Evil. Until we can achieve this, the conditions are sadly ripe for future loss of life."
The (oestrogen sensitive) dopaminergic left brain is binary in how it processes reality, and will tend to see situations as on/off, friend/foe, with us/against us. It can be seen clearly in the opposing corners of Good vs Evil in feminism. Also, it will tend to process for outcomes of its own utilitarian self-interest.
https://thejollysociety.com/mcgilchrist-on-scheller-the-importance-of-value-in-constituting-reality/
The (testosterone sensitive) adrenergic right brain is much more nuanced in its interpretation of reality. Iain McGilchrist's book 'The Master & His Emissary' explores this in immense detail.
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300245929/the-master-and-his-emissary/
Of course, women are emotional and unstable, men are rational and dependable. Men are also overwhelmingly the ones who resort to violence, women are more likely to work things out and compromise.
Talk about having a set world view that sees everything as confirmation of your own bias. Look in the mirror.
A much more likely outcome of conflict resolution from a female perspective is social exclusion, passive aggression, and reputation destruction, even to the extent of false accusation. Men have few defences against such weaponry.
Men will resort to violence against other men, rarely against women, even under severe provocation. There is probably an underlying programming, similar to Asimov's First Rule of Robotics: "A male may not injure a female, or, through inaction, allow a female to come to harm." There's some evidence for this.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3995170/
I'm quite happy with what I see in the mirror. That includes my broken nose, bust by a female, decades ago (wooden sword, she wanted to join in on horseplay with male friends, who actually knew what we were doing). I knew she didn't mean it.
Indeed. Perkins has harboured a pathetic, petty, misogynistic grudge against all "females" for decades since a little girl accidentally bashed his nose with a toy sword. Boo hoo. He's still not over it 🤣🤣🤣
I think it's called "data". Perhaps you should also consider reading Dr McGilchrist's book(s).
Yes, there’s plenty of data to tell you that men are superior. Remember the days when women’s brains were thought too small to handle logic? That was backed up by data. Yet I think it’s pretty comprehensively shown now that our brains are more than capable of thinking logically.
I think the point of this article is that we use the data we have to confirm our own biases. But perhaps your man brain has a higher reasoning and you have a better interpretation?
This is the wrong platform for complex discussions, but clearly "comments" sections are perfect for instant emotional responses. No one has said "men are superior" except your own defensive consciousness. Clearly the data show that men use violence more often, an obvious indication of anything but "superiority". Clearly also the data show that women use spite and reputation destruction more often. It's underlying personality structures and physiology behind this, as well as brain structures. There's no pseudo-political posturing or misogynism or something behind anything said by either Mr Perkins or me. You're just flying off the handle, basically.
I would point you to two thousand years of female oppression to counter your assertion that “no-one has said men are superior”. In fact many do, many have and almost definitely many will say exactly that. But hey, I have an inappropriate emotional (read: inferior) response, “flying off the handle” of course, me being female. You can’t see the misogyny because you are swimming in it.
I realize this is a waste of energy, as you have no intention of being rational about this. (I can also see the incredible irony in you being "exactly like a woman" in your swimming in your emotional intensity here.) However, of course there has been much historical oppression and condescension about women. Nobody is denying it. But that's largely history, in a slowly evolving civilization. It resulted in the backlash of feminism, of course, which despite its excesses has contributed to an improved civilization (in the West, anyway.) When I said "no one has said men are superior", I meant here in these comments on this post, that's all. If I were talking about my own family, and said "there hasn't been any child abuse", that wouldn't be generalizable to a comment on social history everywhere for all time! There is an immense amount of brain structure, physiology, hormones, social convention, psychological insecurity - as men are basically frightened of the power of the female in the subconscious and the emotions - and of dominance hierarchies, behind the sadness of history. But we're doing something about it. Personally, I don't have an ounce of this "misogyny" you are fantasizing about - I wonder if you even know the definition of the word. I love women. My wife is better than I am at answering questions on University Challenge, for heaven's sake, what is that, proof of "suppression" or "lack of education" or "condescension"?! Before I retired, the best bosses I had were women - how could I then regard them as having some kind of inferior competence or abilities, that would be ridiculous. But you really think that I am "swimming in misogyny"! Is that like the Americans who are convinced that despite having black lawyers and judges and millionaire movie and music stars and even having had a black President, that their society is "institutionally racist" and keeping black people down? For heaven's sake. Chill out. People, including men, are nicer than you think.
While I appreciate that this is all Rashamon with guns and videos, there are some other things we can know here for certain, that are relevant to any impartial assessment. First of all, ICE has no jurisdiction over US citizens: they had no right to tell Renee (let alone try to force her) to leave her car, and she had no obligation to comply. Secondly, Ross had his gun drawn before the car started moving: what is the rationale for that? Thirdly, the wheels of the car were turned away from Ross before the car started to move (clearly seen in the Ross's own video, she's turning the steering wheel to the right): she may have bumped him in trying to get away, but the wheels were not aimed at him. Fourthly, the car only started to accelerate after she was shot ---- there may be several ireasons for that, but decerebrate posture (look it up) comes to mind. Fifthly, the ICE agents got in their car and left the scene before the police turned up, surely an illegal act. Finally, I'm with Grace (who might be amused to hear that one of the oneline comments I saw was "This is why women shouln't have the vote".
ICE absolutely has the right to detain US citizens who are obstructing their duties. You think protesters should be able to just block roads and impede law enforcement until they get bored? Maybe ICE should bring them sandwiches? The American people voted to reverse the defacto open border policies of Democrats. Entitled protesters think they know better, but ignorance of the law is no defense.
she was waving cars on in front of her. She was not actually blocking the road, or actively obstructing anything. I
We don't have enough information to determine that, and it is the perogative of the officers on scene. On what planet can you ignore commands of law enforcement, try to drive off, **hit** them with your vehicle and expect kid glove treatment? It was tragic, but 100% her fault and that of the professional agitators who egged her on.
Actually, I think it was "This is why we should never have given women the vote"
Normally - you would be right. But your analysis misses a crucial point: there will be no independent and fair investigation. It was clear from Noem’s statements and from January 6 pardons. ICE has guaranteed immunity by this administration.
I don't think people have got worse I just think social media has unmasked how basically awful and stupid a lot of people are. It has even made me wonder if democracy can work when so many people are so hateful and irrational but - as Churchill said - all the alternatives are far worse.
In a country where anyone can carry a gun and law enforcement officers always do, it is very foolish to disrespect and disobey them as George Floyd discovered to his cost - resisting arrest never ends well. In gun toting America situations can and often do escalate rapidly because officers fear getting shot and killed.
In this tragic case the officer was already wound up because Renee's wife had been taunting him - not a sensible thing to do.
And he was still traumatised by a horrible experience he'd had when an illegal immigrant criminal had dragged him along the road in his car and caused him serious injury.
Did he shoot to kill? Or was he simply trying to make Renee comply with his legitimate request to exit her vehicle?
The video looks very bad for him but may not tell the whole story.
She definitely disobeyed him as Occupy Wall Street advises people to do.
Highly irresponsible unless they are deliberately hoping for just such a 'martyr' as Renee.
As to the rights and wrongs of Trump's immigration policy that is a matter for discussion but the fundamental truth remains that countries have a perfect right under international law to protect their borders and illegal immigrants are violating that right.
Nobody would be happy if they came home one day to discover a family of strangers living in their home, eating their food, using their things and behaving as if it was their home.
Many people are compassionate and do not want anyone to suffer but immigration - both legal and illegal - has an undeniable impact on the host nation and not always for the good and it is often the poorest who suffer - not people who are well educated and comfortable like Renee and her wife.
It is distressing how political discourse has descended even more deeply than usual into a clash of ad hominems and confirmation bias in the Trump era (as well as in an age in which people don't seem to appreciate the joy of objectivity), but, the Trump admin's egregious disrespect for reason, truth and fair and humane process in enforcing the law is also very much responsible. The degraded conversation and practice with respect to immigration law reform and enforcement in the U.S. is the best example of this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, the U.S. and the U.K. differ in that in the U.S. the vast majority of illegal immigrants, 10 million at least, have been allowed to live established, law-abiding, productive lives for ten years or more by the failure of government to agree on how to enforce the law. This situation dictates that law cannot be rigorously enforced without a large amnesty. This has always been a sine qua non of credible immigration reform. If the Trump admin is going to round up recent and criminal illegals, they have to identify who is not going to be deported. What has made people skeptical of amnesty as a prerequisite for enforcement is that in the last reform period in the Reagan era, after amnesty for a million or so, a much smaller problem than today, enforcement was undermined by the collusion of business and indiscriminate advocates. I recommend the book Losing Control: How a Left-Right Coalition Blocked Immigration Reform and Provoked the Backlash That Elected Trump by Jerry Kammer. Both the left and right also have something to be angry about.
There are millions whom the majority who elected Trump would not want deported when their case is considered individually. Without at least the establishment of a rule and process for identifying those first, to say nothing of due and humane process, the chaos caused by ICE invading communities will not end.
Countries have “hate speech” laws. These imply that a difference of opinion implies hatred.
Hatred is something an Ukrainian would feel towards a Russian.
Just because officers are performing their lawful duties and a citizen is protesting against them, does not imply hatred , yet the politicised use of the word causes extreme reactions by both parties.
No one has the right not to be offended. It is too bad that universities and the civil services do not permit debate. There is nothing wrong with a compromise.
Succinct and powerful. Thank you