Keen vs. Webberley

Konstantin Kisin of Triggernometry hosted a debate between Kellie-Jay Keen (aka Posie Parker) and Dr Helen Webberley on the topic of transgender.  The sparks flew from the very start as it was clear that neither guest respected the views of the other.  Keen has been one of the most visible anti-transgender personalities for nearly a decade.  She holds that transgender is a mental disorder and that it is medical malpractice to treat them with hormone blockers or surgery.  She is particularly opposed to such treatment being given to minors.  By contrast, Webberley holds that transgender youth are able to decide their gender and that Keen was causing harm with her statements.

A good portion of the debate was Keen attempting to elicit exactly what age was appropriate for a child to decide on gender, how many encounters with a medical professional should be required before hormone blockers could be considered, whether gender dysphoria was a mental illness associated with other conditions (e.g., homosexuality, autism), and whether treatment resulted in permanent sexual disfunction.  Webberley refused to pick a specific age for treatment, though she offered 15 as a reasonable age, but would not categorically rule out 11.  She dismissed the idea of contributing conditions, even suggesting that the autism diagnosis might be in error.  Gender dysphoria is not a mental disorder and saying that it was is hate speech, which is illegal under British law.  Both ended the debate by declaring the other should be in jail, Keen for hate speech and Webberley for child abuse.  Lively!

Keen's big weakness was that she would refer to studies and then not cite them.  Which study?  She mentioned a few examples, but that is all anecdotal.  However, she was specific and clear in what her views were.  There was nothing vague or gray in her answers.  Webberley was hopelessly ambiguous and offered nothing specific except that the law stood on her side.  At one point she said that sex cannot be changed and at another point, she said that a trans-woman is indeed a woman.  Okay, which is it?  She would then explain the issue in such a way that it was entirely confusing.  She had a strategy of filibustering, denouncing interruptions and going on tangents.  She denounced Kisin for platforming Keen.

Keen's argument was far superior.  Webberley spent much of her time being offended and giving answers as clear as mud.  Comments on the debate massively favored Keen.  That said, it was not an hour well spent.  Much of this was the same old stuff gone over again, with Keen offering the standard litany and Webberley mostly offering non-answers with accusations of bigotry on the side.

Sam Harris on Triggernometry

Sam Harris appeared on the Triggernometry podcast and covered several topics.  Of note, his previous appearance (which I have not seen) figured prominently.  I am sure some of the comments went over my head for lack of that context.  The main topics were Trump, the irresponsible right, COVID, and Islam's incompatibility with the West.

To say that Harris is opposed to Trump is to massively understate his position.  Wow, is he opposed to Trump.  With the sole exception of getting hostages released by Hamas - for which Harris thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump is all bad.  However, when challenged on some topics, he could not provide the alternative.  The one that stood out for me was the immigration issue.  Harris is strongly opposed to how ICE is apprehended people from the streets, separating families, and so forth.  Yes, he agreed that the Biden Administration fumbled it badly and that was a large part of why Trump won.  Even so, the border could be handled much better.  The hosts noted that it had not.  One might not agree with precisely how Trump is handling illegal immigration and the border, but at least he is handling illegal immigration and the border.  Harris was still unhappy.  He views Trump as vastly more corrupt than Biden and brushed Hunter's laptop away as an irrelevancy.  Sure, it was handled poorly by social media, but he still views it as a nothingburger compared to Trump.  He stated that Trump is enriching himself with cryptocurrency and using tariff negotiations to enrich his family.  It is odd that this was the first I heard these accusations; why is that?

Harris views the right as more dangerous regarding violence and terrorism.  Yes, he admitted that incidents of mass looting are almost always a leftwing phenomenon, but still views the right as more violent.  In fact, a helpful graphic (from CSIS) was presented that showed rightwing terrorism has vastly outpaced leftwing terrorism since 1994, this year being a rare exception.  Hmm.  That looks like it needs more context.  Charlie Kirk, who was clearly killed by a leftist, figured prominently in this discussion.  He conceded that it was not good to label opponents as fascists and Nazis.

Harris was a COVID apologist.  Everything that was done wrong during COVID was just honest mistakes in addressing a new crisis.  He thinks that Joe Rogan misinformed the populace on this, convincing them the vaccine was bad.  Though he held that it was mostly honest mistakes, the outcome is that we are less prepared for the next pandemic.  The implication is that loss of trust in the institutions is more an issue of misinformation from the likes of Joe Rogan rather than the bad policy decisions of the institutions themselves.

Finally, the discussion found its way to Israel and October 7.  He was dumbfounded that Israel, which was clearly attacked, had lost the PR war.  Of all people for Hamas to kill, they had attacked the peaceniks who were inclined to side with them.  Even so, Israel was quickly the bad guy.  Harris is no fan of religion and particularly not Islam.  Where Christianity and Judaism have nixed some passages over the centuries - slavery, animal sacrifice, etc., Islam has not.  He views it as 14th century Christians who would still proselytize by the sword.  So, it just needs a reformation?  He would rather do away with religion.  As it stands, Islam is incompatible with Western societies.  On that, I agree.

Overall, it was an interesting discussion.  His strongly contrasting views on Trump vs. Biden convinced me that he is a TDS sufferer.  So eager to forgive the corruption of the last administration and strident in his denunciation of the current one.  It was too much.  I would think Trump killed his dog.

Hasan Piker, Communist Apologist

Triggernometry hosted Hasan Piker, a Twitch streamer who does political commentary.  Piker began his career by working for his uncle, Cenk Uigur of the Young Turks, before establishing himself as a political commentator on a gaming platform.  Piker is a self-described leftist.  During his discussion with Konstantin and Francis, he touched on several topics, but his affinity for communism was the standout.  Though Konstantin is from the first communist state, Russia, Piker offered the old refrain: that's not true communism.  Wow.  When asked where socialism/communism has been done right, he pointed to China.  Sure, it isn't perfect but look at the growth rate.  By contrast, the parties that aren't slipping toward socialism and/or communism are defined as nascent fascist parties.  He repeatedly described the Reform Party in the UK as a proto-fascist party, which provoked responses to the contrary from both hosts.

What is fascist?  Piker offered the definition of "palingenetic ultranationalism."  That's a mouthful.  Looking this up, it has five components:

• Palingenesis: Myth upon which national rebirth will rest
• Ultranationalism: Extreme nationalism with xenophobic tendencies
• Rejection of Liberal Modernity: The status quo sucks and has to go
• Totalitarian/Authoritarian: Led by single leader or party that suppresses pluralism
• Goal of the "New Man": Transformation of citizens by purging weakness or decadence

Unsurprisingly, he described the current Republican Party in the same way.  Both hosts confronted him on the use of fascism as a label for opponents.  The rise of another Hitler would demand that citizens take up arms and kill fascists before things get out of hand.  Calling someone Hitler is a permission slip for some crackpot to shoot him.

During the discussion, Piker often dodged questions by switching topics.  He dodged the issues with Islam in the UK; he is a Muslim.  In response to calling Nigel Farage a nascent fascist, he was asked if Keir Starmer could then be described as a nascent communist.  That got only a laugh.  So, right-leaning parties are likely to become fascists (in the long term) but left-leaning parties are just fine and no problem at all.  Of course, Piker has already declared his desire for a move toward Chinese-flavored communism.  Hmm.  The hosts pointed out that political critics in China, Russia, and even the UK are often locked up, while such is not the case in the US.  He argued the point by bringing up Eugene Debbs.  Really?  Debbs was locked up over 100 years ago!  That's the most recent example you have?  And it was Wilson - a Democrat - who jailed him.

It felt like Francis and Konstantin went easy on him.  It is somewhat alarming that this guy has a huge following and is an influencer.

UK on the Brink

David Betz, a professor of war studies at King's College, was a guest on Triggernometry.  He was clearly uncomfortable to be there and not a polished speaker.  His message is one that he is reluctant to deliver: the United Kingdom is on the brink of civil war.  What?  As one who has studied such things throughout his academic career, he sees all the signs of civil war.  The cratering of faith in the institutions of government.  The people no longer believe that the government can solve problems through the normal processes.  The troubles have grown worse despite multiple votes to address them.  He notably brought up Brexit, which was supposed to address the uncontrolled migration.  It arguably got worse in the wake of Brexit.  Then there is the admitted failure of multiculturalism.  This itself has created a crack in the country.  Where those who have grown up in the UK have a natural affinity and loyalty to the existing norms, the immigrants do not.  That several members of parliament - of foreign descent - voted to build an airport in Pakistan was a demonstration of factionalism.  These members were interested not in doing that which would benefit the UK as a whole, but their faction. Where the hosts were optimistic that Nigel Farage might reverse course, Betz was much less so.  He views Farage as a pressure release valve that may lower the heat for a time but not actually fix anything, essentially a Brexit 2.0.  The kindling for a fire has stacked up over 20 to 30 years and, sooner or later, there will be a spark that ignites it.  Rather than Royalist Cavaliers vs. Parliamentarian Roundheads, this conflict is between the 'We Want Out Country Back' faction and the 'Shut the F--- Up!' faction. Betz proposes that the civil war will begin - if it hasn't already - when an anonymous native group targets a judge, influencer, or such.

Betz noted that the cities were in one camp while rural areas in the other.  Cities are notably weak, as they depend on the produce of the rural areas to survive.  Disruption of power, gas, and food will cause the cities to explode in civil strife and the police will be powerless to quell it.

Dark days ahead.

The Game of Werewolf

Just encountered a brief clip from Triggernometry in which Graham Linehan details the game of werewolf, which is uncannily like the modern game of Among Us.  Cards are distributed among lots of players.  Most players will be villagers, but two will be werewolves.  Each turn, the werewolves pick someone to kill.  Then, everyone discusses who they think the werewolves might be and kill them.  The werewolves win the game if they kill all but two villagers.  The villagers win if they kill both werewolves.  Interesting, sure, but so what?  Well, it turns out that the werewolves usually win.  The game was designed as a sociological experiment to demonstrate that an informed minority will always win against an uninformed majority.

That our education system churns out uninformed voters is not accidental.  Back when Davey Crockett returned to his district in the 1830s, he had voters complain to him about voting for this or that bill when the Constitution clearly did not allow this or that provision.  Though they may have been farmers, they were clearly informed voters.  They held the government to account.  Today, we have voters who think 'hate speech' can be outlawed despite the 1st Amendment.  Having put education in the hands of government, the government has designed a curriculum to domesticate the population like a flock of sheep.

On another front, by curating what is and isn't news, the populace become the villagers while the news curators become the werewolves.  As shown, we know who wins that game.  Might cancel culture be a case of the werewolves killing the most troublesome villagers first?  As in a game of Among Us, are those who correctly identify the Impostor the first targets to be voted off the ship?