Category Archives: Polemics

The Libertarian Impulse

Libertarianism always struck me as a sort of stop-gap, allowing the children of old-style conservatives to say “I really do support liberty!” to their parents while fully embracing the most radically liberal beliefs that their far-left college friends already held.

In that theme, here’s an article that appeared in The Libertarian Republic today. Matt Walsh, a popular conservative speaker and blogger, has been very hard on the pornography industry lately and many of his supporters have pushed back. Here, we see a “libertarian Christian” defending the “freedom” to watch pornography and engage in sexual debauchery:

I would remind those who agree with Walsh that even if their motives are pure, to advocate for the government to pass laws regulating the sexual behavior of consenting adults is both an assault on individual liberty and, yes, I would even say not supported biblically.

The first part of the article boils down to this:

Christians who desire to use the government as a political weapon to enforce what they see as moral on everybody else, whether they like it or not.

This is the most common position I see regarding morality and government today. “You can’t legislate morality”. It works as a bumper sticker, but it has a severe flaw.

Every single law is moral in nature. Every law presumes a certain ethical worldview. The question is not “should we impose our morality on other people?” but “whose morality will win”? The author does not see this. Likely, he has never even considered this. He seems to think there is such a thing as a neutral government, as if a government which permits an enormous pornography industry that pressures the rest of society with huge sums of money is “neutral”.

A laughably naive view of ethics and politics aside, the really bizarre stuff comes later, when this “libertarian Christian” tries to use the Bible to argue that we ought to have tons of pornography:

However, to suggest that government must regulate pornographic films would be antithetical to the biblical teaching on free will, which is foundational to the Christian faith. Need I remind Christians in Genesis, according to the creation story, God told Adam and Eve “not to eat of the fruit of the tree, or they would die.” He didn’t build a wall around the tree with angels to guard it. Without free will, that would make God nothing more than an eternal tyrant.

If this “libertarian Christian” had continued reading, he’d find, a few books later, this same God whom he claims would be an “eternal tyrant” for establishing moral prescriptions… establishing moral prescriptions. And lots of them. Here is just part of  Leviticus 18:

“‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

“‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

“‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

“‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

“‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

“‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Given the author’s view on the opening chapters of Genesis, God is indeed an eternal tyrant. But we really didn’t even need to leave Genesis 1-3 to see the profoundly poor quality of his interpretation. God may not have “put up a wall”, but He did condemn mankind for the act. If this isn’t a perfect example of a law being broken, I don’t know what would qualify.

The author of the article goes on:

I am inclined to agree with Austin Petersen’s comment on the subject when he tweeted, “Calls by conservatives to ban pornography is a tacit admission that their churches have failed.” I will tell you from first-hand experience that too many churches in America today don’t talk about sex in a healthy manner – if they even talk about it at all. They don’t teach a truly biblical view of sex, that it is a beautiful thing created by God to be shared between a husband and wife. You will likely hear a list of commands about why premarital sex is sinful, and that’s as far as it goes.

This is a tired slogan that ought to be left behind. It may have been applicable 50-100 years ago, but not today. American churches go far, far, far beyond teaching a “truly Biblical view of sex”. American churches are rampant with sexual sin, with divorce and extra or pre-marital sex being very common. But not only is his description of the scenario perfectly incorrect, he also doesn’t seem to understand that finding two related phenomenon (the cultural decline into rampant pornography use and the church’s sexual sin that he doesn’t even acknowledge) does not allow the discoverer to assign causation in any way he wants. I suspect it is more likely that the culture is deeply infecting the church, not that the church has “failed” to teach a truly Biblical view of sex. Considering feminism and the sexual revolution both have polluted our churches and seminaries for decades (even those labelled “conservative”), this seems to be the correct explanation.

Instead of trying to ban everything that Scripture teaches is sinful, why not be the Church of Jesus Christ? Why not try to walk out the faith He demonstrated instead of trying to turn our Constitutional Republic into a theocracy?

Another common slogan. “Why do you Christians want to turn our country into a theocracy?” I see it from Christians as often as from secularists, but both seem to totally misunderstand what a theocracy is. England and many other European countries have national churches. None of them (save the Vatican) is a theocracy. A theocracy does not mean that the overwhelming moral view of a religious population is used to help determine the laws of a country. It means a country run by clergy. There is no country on earth that exists without some moral framework guiding its legislation and jurisprudence. But in the radically secular post-Christian West, only post-Christian morality gets to claim the sacred label of neutral, even if it is a false one.

If we have learned anything from Prohibition, it’s that banning porn would do nothing except effectively serve to make the problem worse.

This is a common libertarian retort to any ban on anything whatsoever. There was a falsehood behind prohibition that does not apply here. Drinking alcohol is not intrinsically evil. But pornographic material and its consumption is. In the same way adultery is evil intrinsically. In the same way that murder is evil intrinsically.

Banning intrinsically evil behaviors, whether the behavior totally disappears or not, is the duty of good government.

It’s here that the true nature of libertarianism as just another variant of radical secular liberalism becomes apparent. Traditionally (that is, going all the way from Socrates through the start of the French Revolution), good government was considered to be a government which made it easy for citizens to be good. Even the American founders understood this. They did not establish a Republic so that the naturally good citizens could do naturally good things. They established a Republic to minimize the damage that the naturally evil citizens would do when running the country.

Starting with the French Revolution and its proto-Progressive radicals, this view shifted. Libertarians inherit this same rotten foundation. They presume that good government is good when run by citizens because citizens are good. Best to let citizens have as much influence as possible because that means more goodness can be flexed. This is perfectly backwards. And it helps explain why a professed Christian is defending rampant sexual sin that makes Romans 1 look like a prophecy about America.

I fight for freedom for all people. Even the individuals whose decisions I disagree with most. Because that is the only time it truly matters or requires any courage.

One last presumption here worth noting. The author seems to think, in the tradition of the radical left, that “freedom” means “getting to do what I want”. The American founders, to whom libertarians pretend to swear allegiance, did not see freedom this way. Freedom, and rights in particular, are fundamentally related to what is Right (hence the overlapping terminology). Right implies a standard. An ethical standard in this case. Rights, therefore, are those privileges, values, and duties that we have by virtue of being human which enable us to live Rightly. To do good.

To say that the mass creation and use of pornography is a “right” is no more or less obviously false than saying that abortion is a “right” or that child abuse is a “right”. The “libertarian Christian” author should set down his false libertarian view that a man cannot commit a crime if he himself is the victim and adopt a Christian view. But he won’t, because his primary commitment is not to Christian ethics, but to secularism. And he cannot serve two masters.

Let people be free. Remember, the same government that can tell people who they can’t and can’t engage in consensual sex with could also control every other area of our personal lives. I assure you, legal porn will not plunge America into hell, but a tyrannical government will.

The New Testament never once suggests that a tyrannical government will plunge any nation into hell. The early Christians dealt with tyrannical governments often, but knew they could not last. But the New Testament makes it very clear that rampant sexual sin sends nations straight to hell. I referenced Romans 1 earlier. It’s worth reading in its entirety if you doubt this.

This “libertarian Christian” defends rampant pornography, adultery, sodomy, and every other “consensual” sexual act as fundamental human rights, and considers any restriction on them to be far worse than the acts themselves. I suspect many “conservative Christians” hold the same views.

Is it any wonder that the Left wins so many battles? Their opposition considers opposition to genuine evil to be far worse than the evil itself.

The Most Controversial Thing

Today, something short.

I used to be pretty prolific on social websites and would, several times a day, break the modern taboo and write scathing and inflammatory things about politics and religion. However, I reflected a while today and realized none of that stuff was anywhere near as controversial as The Most Controversial Thing.

What would that be? It’s the thing that cost me friendships. It ruined relationships with family members. It got me condemned by people I love and respect. It got me uninvited from all sorts of events.

The Most Controversial Thing? It’s simple: any genuinely good advice for women in their 20’s.

Suggest, for example, that young women find ways to be stay-at-home mom’s and prepare for that. Suggest that working in an office doing mundane office tasks is nowhere near as important as mothering children. Suggest that young women don’t sleep around and instead work hard at being the kind of woman that the sort of man they wish to marry would want to marry. Suggest that young women prepare for marriage and not life-long careers, because few women really want that. Suggest that women don’t travel abroad and take out a quarter-million in student loan debt. Suggest women avoid worthless degrees and 4 years of being indoctrinated to hate their church and their parents.

Make any of those suggestions and prepare to feel the wrath of everyone – “conservative”, “independent”, and liberal alike.

Diversity, Inclusion, Tolerance – Part 1

Contemporary culture may reject classical virtues that were nearly universal until last century, but it would be a mistake to think it rejects virtue and morality altogether. What’s happened instead is a replacement of real virtue with hollow substitutes. Faith, Hope, and Love are now Diversity, Inclusion, and Tolerance.

Importantly, whereas the classical virtues are truly Good (that is, they reflect transcendent Goodness, which is the Nature of God), the new virtues are totalitarian are are not, when understood to mean what they do to modern people, good in any meaningful sense. Lets consider each of them on their own, starting with Diversity.

The old definition for diversity is philosophical, and is the opposite of unity. It just means a collection of distinct things. Diversity in its historic sense is a description of the world, not a virtue.

Contrast this with the modern definition, taken here from a community college:

All of our human differences.

Here is the more full definition from the same site (emphasis mine):

The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.

Diversity is a reality created by individuals and groups from a broad spectrum of demographic and philosophical differences. It is extremely important to support and protect diversity because by valuing individuals and groups free from prejudice, and by fostering a climate where equity and mutual respect are intrinsic.

“Diversity” means more than just acknowledging and/or tolerating difference. Diversity is a set of conscious practices that involve:

  • Understanding and appreciating interdependence of humanity, cultures, and the natural environment.
  • Practicing mutual respect for qualities and experiences that are different from our own.
  • Understanding that diversity includes not only ways of being but also ways of knowing;
  • Recognizing that personal, cultural and institutionalized discrimination creates and sustains privileges for some while creating and sustaining disadvantages for others;
  • Building alliances across differences so that we can work together to eradicate all forms of discrimination.

Diversity includes, therefore, knowing how to relate to those qualities and conditions that are different from our own and outside the groups to which we belong, yet are present in other individuals and groups. These include but are not limited to age, ethnicity, class, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, sexual orientation, as well as religious status, gender expression, educational background, geographical location, income, marital status, parental status, and work experiences. Finally, we acknowledge that categories of difference are not always fixed but also can be fluid, we respect individual rights to self-identification, and we recognize that no one culture is intrinsically superior to another.

That’s a lot of content for a simple term, and interestingly enough, there’s no clear definition offered. In fact, the definition reads rather like an apologetic of “diversity” as a social imperative.

According to this definition, diversity entails acceptance, appreciation, recognition that some people have “privilege”, and the abolition of discrimination of all kinds. This makes diversity not a description of the world, but a modern virtue which must be actively pursued, and which compels total acceptance and appreciation of, presumably, all “ages, ethnicities … work experiences …” as well as other things not listed.

The definition is rife with self-referentially incoherent statements.

For example, we are to “recognize that no one culture is intrinsically superior to another”. Really? According to this definition, the modern Western “diversity” culture is vastly superior to the “discriminatory” culture it condemns.

Another example: Diversity includes knowing how to relate to members of groups we are not members of ourselves. But we must also recognize and respect the “right” to self-identification, which means group membership is fluid and essentially meaningless. All it takes to be a member of another group is to self-identify as such. If the boundaries of groups are meaningless, what does it even mean to relate to members of other groups?

Yet another example: We must eradicate all forms of discrimination. But we are also told that we must acknowledge institutionalized privilege and discrimination, which requires us to discriminate between people who have privilege and people who do not. But if we can only oppose discrimination by engaging in it, we have committed a logical fallacy.

A final example: We are told to move beyond tolerance and into embracing and celebrating people who are different than ourselves. But most people in most of the world do not hold that diversity is a virtue. In order to embrace and celebrate them and their culture, we must embrace and celebrate the idea that embracing and celebrating other opposing cultures is wrong. Another logical contradiction.

This statement was clearly not produced by a competent philosopher of ethics or religion given the multitude of contradictory demands, but by a bureaucrat or administrator at a local university. It reads like the incoherent drivel these sorts of people often write, as further evidence.

Even further than the incoherence of the modern view of diversity, though, is the fact that diversity is simply not always good. It is not good to have diverse views on adultery or murder. It is not good to have a diverse amount of competency among professionals. It is not good to have a diverse grasp of the English language when trying to write English. In these and many other areas, we should prefer merit and genuine virtue over diversity.

Consider the short definition above, that diversity is “all of our human differences”. Do we really want to celebrate, accept, and embrace all of our human differences? Like our criminal behavior? Our mental and physical illnesses? Our hatred for people?

But still further than this, diversity is rarely good in the first place. Other than among the most ardent adherents of diversity, diverse metaphysical, ethical, political, epistemological, and religious views do not lead to harmony, but disharmony. Unity on essential and important things is to be preferred. This is rarely possible to achieve perfectly, and so diversity may well describe many real scenarios where people of different belief systems and backgrounds live together. In such cases, though, there is still a requirement that everyone believe in the basic value of human life and the respect of other people. Diverse views of the value of other people or whether we ought to respect other people is not going to produce harmony.

For all these reasons, I think the modern definition of diversity can be safely rejected. You’ll notice, if you go back to the college definition, that the merits of diversity (that is, what good things naturally come about from it) is not mentioned at all. While diversity is defended in its own definition, instead of merely defined, the benefits are not listed. There are simply breathless threats that we must do this or that. The closest attempt to do so is this grammatically invalid sentence:

It is extremely important to support and protect diversity because by valuing individuals and groups free from prejudice, and by fostering a climate where equity and mutual respect are intrinsic.

I suppose in the twilight of Western civilization, you can’t expect college-educated college educators to be able to put a subordinate clause after “because” in a sentence.

But even though no good reasons are given for this worshipful attitude toward the total acceptance of everything other people do and are, it is extremely important to support and protect the concept anyway. I strongly suspect this is because there are many people who are paid to promote this material, and without protection and support, they’d need to get real jobs.

An Experiment in DNC Supremacy

A couple of stories regarding California’s wildfires and blackouts point to some broader truths.

First, this one on the Had Enough Therapy? blog (emphasis mine):

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blames it on climate change. For someone of such limited grasp of the facts, everything is climate change. As noted here and elsewhere California’s current fires seem to have been produced by bad government policy. Especially, by bad environmentalist policy. After all, California is deep blue. There aren’t any more Republicans left to blame. Thus, blame it on the climate.

In 2016, then-Governor Jerry Brown actually vetoed a bill that unanimously passed the state legislature to promote the clearing of trees dangerously close to power lines.

Because California accounts for less than 1% of global emissions, nothing it does will make a difference to climate, but its ratepayers shell out billions for wind and solar that might be better spent on fireproofing. A generation of ill-judged environmental activism has all but ended forest management in favor of letting dead trees and underbrush build up because it’s more “natural.”

Second, this one by the Federalist (emphasis mine):

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his political allies claim climate change is driving California’s increasingly intense and deadly wildfires.

That’s nearly true. Climate change assumptions drive the state’s energy and environmental policies. This has resulted in people being killed in terrible wildfires, electrical blackouts to millions of people causing $5 billion so far in lost economic activity, all while diverting limited resources to a fool’s errand.

For instance, California’s large and heavily regulated public utilities—PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE—prioritize wind and solar power, leaving little for powerline maintenance and upgrades. Simply put, the utilities are doing exactly what the regulators tell them to do. They make money for their investors on wind and solar; they don’t on powerline maintenance.

Largely because of the urban heat island effect, weather stations in California and Nevada were particularly affected. In California and Nevada, the temperature increase per decade from 1979 to 2008 was 0.04 degrees centigrade when using unperturbed sites, versus the official record increase of 0.24 degrees, a six-fold difference.

Back to the blackouts. To deflect blame from his administration, Newsom continues to point to climate change—along with capitalism, saying last Friday, “It’s more than just climate change. It’s about the failure of capitalism to address climate change.” Vox’s Ezra Klein picked up on this theme, tweeting in a pre-apocalyptic funk about the smoke and blackouts.

Both are worth reading in full, but I’m interested in the moment those “broader truths” I mentioned earlier.

California is a one-party state. Democrats possess super-majorities in both houses and even when Republicans win major elections (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger), they are far to the left of Republicans in other states. This situation provides a laboratory setting in which to judge the effects of a Democrat-dominated polity.

Among its myriad other problems (homelessness, illegal immigration, regulation, etc) are the two highlighted in these articles: a need for rolling blackouts, and a massive risk of forest fire. Democrats have been in complete control of the state for decades.

So what can we learn from this?

Modern liberalism, perfectly embodied in the Democrat Party, has two traits which separate are dangerous and together are catastrophic. The first is the uniform inability of modern liberals to take responsibility for their own actions. The second is an unmitigated lust for power. The first is dangerous because it prevents modern liberals from ever truly being held accountable because they will never acknowledge their own roles in whatever bad things happen. The second is dangerous because power is best wielded by those who don’t want it.

For Democrats, the operating procedure is something like this:

  1. If a bad thing happens and there are Republicans, blame Republicans. Demand more power.
  2. If a bad thing happens and there are no Republicans, blame something else. Demand more power.

This works so long as there are perks to hand out to people for votes. But eventually, probably even in California, that option will no longer compare to the sum of bad effects the Democrats have produced.

What’s striking about all of this is that it doesn’t even matter what the substance of Democrat party policy is. The party could have mostly good ideas about the world, and the traits mentioned above would still undermine all of it. But the Democrats don’t even have mostly good ideas to begin with.

Should the Government Recognize Marriage?

A while back in a comment section on another blog, I got into a debate with several other people about the role government ought to play in recognizing marriages. I argued that the government must be involved and was told by others that this was varying degrees of stupid, ignorant, or dangerous. The thrust was that “marriage worked fine before the state got involved” and therefore, the state ought to back off. It was “fantasy” to expect the state to honor and enforce any aspect of marriage, and I was a fool for defending the idea.

Although it might be fashionably libertarian to argue against state interaction with marriage, I don’t think anyone can reasonably defend that case. I think illustrating the situation will help, but first, some explanation.

In the West, there is a strong but recent tradition of radical individualism that sees every individual person as the fundamental unit of the society they live in. The French Revolution gave us the first taste of this, with disastrous consequences. Western tradition has a much longer-lived, deeper, and more attested view of society, however, which views the fundamental unit as the family. Instead of viewing a man, his wife, and their three children (for example) primarily as five equal individuals, this deeper tradition sees one family with a father, a mother, and children. All five are individuals, but not primarily. This is most obvious when it comes to young children, who are fully dependent on their mother and father just to survive each day. To see each person in the family as an interchangeable fundamental unit is laughable.

I think this view of family as fundamental is not just a part of Western civilization, but one of its axioms. I’d go further and say that this is fundamental to civilization itself, but I have not studied the East to the same degree or with the same interest, so I’ll hold back for now.

Marriage is the fundamental relationship within a family because marriage, by nature, bonds a father to a mother, and both a mother and father to their children.

There are two ways that the government can interact with marriage. It can either respect marriage or it can disregard marriage. In the former, the government treats the family as the fundamental unit, and outside of criminal justice, tries to deal with families instead of individuals whenever and wherever possible. The marriage relationship binds the family together, granting legitimacy to the children and – perhaps most importantly – giving the father rights over his own children.

In the latter, the government doesn’t recognize marriage at all, and simply ignores it. It treats all members of the family as atoms.

Here are two diagrams of the models. The irony here is that the people attacking government recognition of marriage are against no-fault divorce, which is exactly what the government ought to embrace if it disregards marriage. But the important thing here is that if you don’t like the government getting involved in your intimate relationships, you are making a grave mistake by inviting the government to ignore marriage relationships. It may sound like the best way to keep the government out of your marriage, but it’s quite the opposite. You all but invite them into your home:


Government involvement with internal family affairs when the government respects marriage.


Government involvement with internal family affairs when the government disrespects marriage.

Tech Wars

On display today is a series of lies and deceptive statements coming from Ars Technica to maintain credibility with the (leftist) mob. Like many pop culture “magazines”, the content is a kind of distillation of trash and gossip. The end of this article is to describe why one Markus “Notch” Perssons (the creator of Minecraft) was unwelcome at party for the 10th anniversary of his game. Apparently, his comments on Twitter “do not reflect [the opinions] of Microsoft”. Or Ars Technica.

Even before the article begins, the author’s byline says everything we need to know: “Transphobia, homophobia, and racism aren’t Microsoft’s core values”. However, not a single example is provided of any of those things.

So what are Perssons’ comments? We will get to those. What’s fascinating is the author of the article, his legionary horde of commentators, and their response.

For example, Perssons apparently made the comment that people face jail time for “using the wrong pronouns”. The author of the article calls this “false”. Politifact stumbles around like a drunkard trying to explain things away, but even this far-left “fact” checking website admits that there are fines for the California version of this bill. However, Canada has a much more open-ended version of this type of legislation, which can certainly lead to jail time. And then in the UK, someone is facing jail time now for this very thing. The author is on the “right side” of this issue, and so can make bald-faced lies.

Perssons also used a slogan sometimes used by the alt-right: “It’s OK to be white”. If you read the comments, you’ll find a contradiction brewing, but no one seems to notice it. The same people who condemn the statement have a lot of bad things to say about white people, including several oikophobes who say that they are doing well because of their skin color. The comment section is full of nasty things to say about white people, who have the “white privilege” of being subject to the comments and being disbarred from responding, lest they be accused of racism.

The author of the article goes further however, and simply assumes that there are “systemic racial biases and imbalance within Western society” by saying that this isn’t something Perssons merely disagrees with, but that he fails to recognize it. The author is again on the “right side” of the issue. He can make these assumptions because the mob already makes the same ones.

Perssons seems to go too far with this tweet: “If you’re against the concept of a #HeterosexualPrideDay, you’re a complete f****** c*** and deserve to be shot.”, but a glimpse at Twitter of some of the horrific things said by the LGBT+++ crowd against Christians is far, far worse, including real death threats. Such context would not help the case that Perssons is simply an insane person who hates people, so it is not provided.

So where was the “transphobia”, “homophobia”, and “racism” that the author promised was so obvious that Microsoft couldn’t risk being associated with Perssons? The comment section has defenders of the terms claiming that “phobia” doesn’t mean or imply fear, but instead “hate” or “discrimination”. These are open-ended terms that allows anyone who even merely disagrees with the forced celebration of same-sex acts or transgenderism to be called “transphobic” or “homophobic”. These are not useful words to have in a reasoned discussion; they are insults that bullies use to shame people.

There’s a cold war in technology today between those who want the freedom to say what they believe and those who, as part of the fascistic mob, want to destroy the lives and careers of those who disagree with them using lies and deception if necessary. Notch seems to belong to the former, which is a surprise to me. Peter Bright, the latter.

Discrimination In the Fight Against Discrimination

The BBC has published an article to apologize for hiring people based on their skill instead of their sexual organs.

We’re in excellent company. Both inside and outside of the BBC, more journalists and editors are realising that, while the media didn’t invent gender bias, it has a key role in perpetuating it. The BBC’s director-general has announced a target of 50:50 across all of the BBC’s programmes and sites by April 2019. The challenge is also being piloted by media organisations in the US and Europe.

The article is like an encyclopedia for feminists. Here’s a gem from The Atlantic they quote:

“Women in science face a gauntlet of well-documented systemic biases. They face long-standing stereotypes about their intelligence and scientific acumen. They need better college grades to get the same prestige as equally skilled men, they receive less mentoring, they’re rated as less competent and less employable than equally qualified men, they’re less likely to be invited to give talks, they earn less than their male peers, and they have to deal with significant levels of harassment and abuse.”

As I wrote yesterday, the feminist angle is to ignore any of the interesting causes that might lie behind the effects they are seeing, and to instead assign a cause, namely sexism.

The author is careful to avoid mentioning the female-only scholarships, the female-oriented primary schools, the female advocacy articles (like this one) for cushy jobs. No women are demanding equal representation to work on oil rigs or fishing ships.

The only way the BBC can have equal representation of both sexes is to systematically hire on the basis of sex. They have quotas. If ten qualified people apply to the BBC for open positions, the BBC will first look at the sex of each of those people to determine whether they can be hired. This isn’t sexism or discrimination, apparently, because only men can be sexist, and only women can be targets. This is the very definition of an unequal measure and of unjust discrimination, but that’s a point that’s been safely ignored for decades.

We started to make gender-even sourcing a requirement in all our commissions, something requested of our writers along with a deadline and word count.

The BBC is admitting that the quality of a source is less important than the sex of the source. This is beyond virtue signalling and into clear social Marxism.

The try to counter this with nonsense:

To make it clear, we will continue to interview, and reference, the most qualified people. That hasn’t changed, and nothing about seeking out female voices undermines that.

“Yes, my job is to serve readers by finding the best sources for my stories, but why assume that the best source isn’t a woman?”

Notice the false framing. No one suggested that we ought to presume men are the best sources. We just don’t want to presume that the best sources are equally men and women. There’s no warrant for that whatsoever. The BBC knows this, but can’t admit it, so they hide behind a defense against an obviously flimsy argument that no one has made.

What’s astonishing here, even for me, is how little self-awareness the author of this article or any of the quoted sources are. For all the moaning about unequal percentages of the sexes in every single metric that can be conceived, the authors refuse to acknowledge that men and women might be different. They hold two* contradictory notions at the same time:

  1. Men and women are exactly the same.
  2. Men are oppressors and women are oppressed.

They are forced to affirm (1) out of reverence to their false god, Egalité. They are forced to affirm (2) out of their commitment to the cult of Feminism.

They’d rather hold a contradiction at the center of their worldview than admit that the differences we see between men and women on various metrics is a result of innate differences between men and women and not from some evil spirit of sexism that haunts and guides the world.

That the BBC is so bold as to publish an article like this reveals just how far into the cesspool we’ve fallen.

*Granted, there are other contradictions held as well (e.g. women are better than men, women are naturally good and men are naturally evil, etc).