It's true that emotions often color our perception of facts, making it challenging to separate the two. Acknowledging this tendency can help us strive for a more objective understanding, but it's not always easy. Emotional intelligence and critical thinking skills can play a crucial role in navigating this balance.
“It’s not just stupid people, or narcissistic people. It’s normal, smart, stable adults too.” Absolutely, you're spot on. This phenomenon affects people across the spectrum of intelligence and emotional stability. It's a natural aspect of human cognition and psychology. Recognizing this can help us approach discussions and decision-making with greater awareness and humility.
Hate speech is a concept that I am at odds with. How can I control someone else’s thought or even emotions? I cannot.
If someone says: I hate you. Does it do me harm? No. Do I like that someone hates me? Also no.
Emotions must be separated from any conversations around facts. Instead we are hearing this nonsense now that there are no ultimate truths and we need to respect other ways of knowing.
It is exactly as if most of us have become socially and politically illiterate. Individual’s feelings trump everything. Objective facts are irrelevant.
In my childhood home, facts were contested when mother didn’t like those facts. If I gave a factually correct answer that my mother did not like, I would be punished. More, if my displayed emotions were not consonant with her emotions, I would be punished. By this method, the existence of fact itself was destabilized for me from a young age. It’s why I react so vehemently to those who pretend facts aren’t real, or who try to cover them up by emotionally guilt-tripping me.
I think it’s easy to see how this dynamic has become normalized in social discourse.
It's all so true; this gooey coating of every issue with a deep layer of emotion. Next to impossible to get past, a little bit like a tar baby.
As an attorney (guess I should add, as a white cis hetero fully-abled privileged woman), I was used to having vigorous debates and conversations with colleagues ever since law school. One professor from another college in the university dryly observed that he could always tell if he was in the elevator with students from the law school because they never shut up and were always in the middle of heated discussions. Anyway, I took for granted that I could get a fair back-and-forth with just about any issue of the day, legal or otherwise. That all began to change about fifteen years ago or so, when it became apparent that there were hidden third-rails that I suddenly wasn't supposed to touch upon.
I'm still upset at a reply I got to a Facebook post I did about six months ago. Although I avoid most political stuff on Facebook, I do post a few things that I think are well-sourced and important points. I linked to a long article about Dr. Jay Battacharya and his amazing efforts to determine what the actual Covid prevalence rate was in the local California population. He did this early in the pandemic, when such information was frustratingly missing from our public health authorities. Professor Jay knew that this info was vital and was always known to be Job #1 in standard pandemic response. The results of his study revealed several things, one of which was that the infection mortality rate was showing as an order of magnitude below what the CDC and other world health authorities were putting out there (about 3 in a thousand, instead of three in one hundred). But when he tried to get the results of his research published, he was censored and his research was ignored. I thought the story of his censoring, which happened at the beginning of the pandemic and was not tied in any way to any kind of political position at that time, was shocking and that it was something that no one could possibly be in favor of.
I was wrong. My post was mostly ignored, but one former colleague of mine replied: "How can you say the virus wasn't deadly when morgue trucks were stacked up in New York to handle all the dead?"
What I DID say in linking to the article was a brief summary of the facts and the censorship issue, including a mention of the fact that Dr. Jay's study showed that the actual IFR appeared to be much less deadly than originally feared.
Her response still shocks me because she has the exact background to NOT focus on irrelevant and misleading points. She was my immediate supervisor when I worked for years in the appeals division of the Philadelphia DA's office. Our job literally was to address convicted defendant's legal appeals, to take apart their legal arguments, research all of the facts in the case and all of the legal statutes and case law that would apply, and then write a legal brief in opposition (assuming that we opposed relief, which was usually the case). We would also appear in court to argue our positions before the judge and sometimes even have to hold a new evidentiary hearing. In other words, actual facts, actual law, to.the.letter., unaffected by emotional appeals or mis-direction. Her response to my Facebook post was the exact equivalent of an emotive defense-type of "argument" she routinely shut down at work; "How can you keep my client in jail when the police report had several typos?" Hmm, maybe because your client was caught on video robbing the store, and then caught five minutes later with a gun and the proceeds?? The case law is clear that this amount of quality evidence outweighs the weak evidence raised by the defense.
This brilliant woman, who I used to think of as a friend, is also married to a world-renown expert on infectious diseases. The go-to guy who was quoted in our major newspapers when Ebola became a concern, for instance. A power-couple who hosted Obama in their home for fundraisers.
I think the fact that my boss is part of that whole "elite" layer, associated now with the Dems, is exactly what the problem is. She has no problem evaluating facts in a legal case and identifying sound legal argument while rejecting bullshit arguments, and we had many conversations about life outside of law where she showed good sense, humor, and a generally caring attitude. It seems, though, that as soon as her crowd got on the Woke train, she's become willfully blind to anything that would challenge that world view. In a way I can't blame her; she'd lose all her prestige, most of her friends, and probably a lot of her family if she was to question the narrative.
I think that what you describe is one of the most tragic and also useful things to emerge from the covid catastrophe. I have no idea why, but somehow covid planted the fear of imminent death into the minds of many (as tho we are not all going out on a stretcher sooner or later) and people who were perfectly rational, even blessed, with a doubting and suspicious mind, suddenly succumbed. I’m not sure what separates the mice from the cheese, but this is a very obvious distinction that most helpfully wear on their sleeve. It has helped me to not waste my time with those who, fundamentally, don’t get it.
I particularly enjoyed and noted a segment of an episode a while back of Disaffected in which Josh and the woman civil rights lawyer—her name escapes me—agreed that the correct response to ‘I hate you’ is ‘Good for you, I hate you too’ and not ‘ I’m calling the police!’ Really is a far more dignified way to go about it.
This nonsense began with the creation of a new type of crime: "hate" crime, wherein a specific act is judged worse on the basis not of circumstance (e.g., malice aforethought as shown by evidence of plotting and scheming) but on the basis of an ascribed emotion. The Matthew Shepard case, now fully-exposed as mythical, illustrates this. Flash forward to "hate" speech, wherein a statement that hurts someone's feelings is tantamount to a "hate crime," and must be censored and, ideally, the person who spoke banished if not outright physically punished, one supposes, because the "victim" and his supporters are motivated by love. Meanwhile, malefactors at every level are to be excused for all manner of crime if they claim good intent and morally unassailable motive (national interests, health, safety.) Witness every instance of empire war making and mongering and the rising totalitarianism initiated in earnest with the Covid regime and now ramping up at an alarming pace.
A society steeped in such foul ignorance for 40+ years is a society of abuse whose victims do not--and increasingly will not--recognize their own suffering. They think it's normal to be on tenterhooks, despairing, and demoralized (ha, ha, they've never been "moralized"!). They call it being "caring 'n kind."
Look up Serpentine Ramp, a method of bringing cattle calmly to slaughter invented by Temple Grandin.
A few additional (related) modern conversational trends: (1) the unnecessary/irrelevant self-identification-"as a woman I think..." (2) the argument based on experience ' "I KNOW about mental health treatment policy... my AUNT was a SCHIZOPHRENIC... ' (3) the demonization of all opponents (too common to even need to exemplify) (4) the refusal to engage logically... usually after they've been backed into an epistemic corner - 'I know, but I just really feel like you're wrong'.
Not everyone has this problem. I'm sure you've heard Glenn Lowry speak. Janice Fiamengo sometimes succeeds, but she is not nearly as intellectually sophisticated as Lowry.
No, you're right. There are public intellectuals of many kinds who take a measured and objective view of issues... but I can't shake the suspicion that among most people feeling and presuming have taken the place of reasoning and debating when it coms to forming political beliefs.
If you read old letters from common people you're often struck by the eloquence and lucidity:
I have a decent job as an executive assistant... but I tutor students on the side, and I have a FL State Teaching certificate. I feel compelled to make a change soon and teach high school. My perception of the emotionalist rot in school and colleges and mental health providers is that it's very deep. I worry about the personal stress involved, though. I was willing to risk my life in the military but those were brief and isolated instances. Risking your happiness and your peace and your income by butting your head against a Kafkaesque administration is far more frightening to me than a tour in Afghanistan at this point.
Whenever I see a “ hate has no home here “ sign in someone’s yard I am so tempted to stop my car, get out and start stomping my feet on their property screaming. “I love hate! Hate hate hate! My home is full of hate, cuz I don’t have a sign to keep the hate away “
Dumbasses.
But I don’t do any of that because I am a grown up and not an emotional ruhturd.
My mutt and I walk past such a house every single day on our way down to the park by the river. Over a period of days when I was in a worse mood than usual (and that’s saying something) the sight of the thing started sending me into an inchoate rage. I eventually relieved my juvenile feelings by muttering as I walked by: “home has no hate here”; “here has no hate home”; “home hate here has no.” It’s was very dumb but it made me feel better.
Every time I see one of those stupid "Hate has no home here" lawn signs, or a "We believe..." sign, or a "Behind every mask is a person who cares" sign, the first thing I think is "you people are advertising that you have failed the IQ test." Fortunately, there aren't nearly as many lawn signs as there were a few years ago.
Don't forget about the Supreme Court's Brandenberg ruling, that even speech that is obviously intended to be filled with hate and aggravation is still principly protected.
Also, if you ever feel up to it, would you tell us what happened to your father?
Excellent piece. I've gotten to where I don't even want to try. One of the best examples of what Josh is talking about is when people say they fear for "our" democracy, which actually means "their" democracy, which isn't democracy at all, but merely their point of view yelling over all others. Admiral Ackbar comes to mind: https://youtu.be/4F4qzPbcFiA!
Here's a ? for you. If these are exceptions to free speech (as defined in Wisconsin v Mitchell)
"speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats"
How is it that those "peaceful" protest that happened back in the BLM days were not brought up on charges. Certainly they incited lawless action and were true threats.
Trying not to be emotional, but since, on the last show, you brough up the interdiction on the "From the river to the sea" chant as a potential violation of the First Amendment, I thought I'd offer a perspective. I can't determine whether it is hate speech or not (probably is), but it can easily be construed as incitement to violence. Essentially, it is a call to eliminate a nation state and a permission to be violent to those living in the diaspora. Not crying "fire" in a crowded theater, but still...
When they chant "From the river to the sea", it clearly means "we want to eliminate all Jews from that region, by whatever means possible". It's a statement not only of Jew hatred, but an incitement to violence.
I heard someone say recently that anti racism is the official state religion. You could also throw in anti sexism and anti homophobia. By padding everything we say with “not alls” and “buts”, we are essentially trying to keep the evil spirits away.
What good does an important legal right do you, if you allow crybully Marxcissists to guilt-trip you out of ever legitimately exercising it? Great post.
It's true that emotions often color our perception of facts, making it challenging to separate the two. Acknowledging this tendency can help us strive for a more objective understanding, but it's not always easy. Emotional intelligence and critical thinking skills can play a crucial role in navigating this balance.
“It’s not just stupid people, or narcissistic people. It’s normal, smart, stable adults too.” Absolutely, you're spot on. This phenomenon affects people across the spectrum of intelligence and emotional stability. It's a natural aspect of human cognition and psychology. Recognizing this can help us approach discussions and decision-making with greater awareness and humility.
I’ll help. THERE IS NO HATE SPEECH EXCEPTION IN FREE SPEECH FULL STOP. 🛑 You’re spot on. Thanks for the very clear explanation.
So well written.
Hate speech is a concept that I am at odds with. How can I control someone else’s thought or even emotions? I cannot.
If someone says: I hate you. Does it do me harm? No. Do I like that someone hates me? Also no.
Emotions must be separated from any conversations around facts. Instead we are hearing this nonsense now that there are no ultimate truths and we need to respect other ways of knowing.
It is exactly as if most of us have become socially and politically illiterate. Individual’s feelings trump everything. Objective facts are irrelevant.
This is no basis for a society.
The only thing left is to live off the grid.
With a goat. And chickens.
Sorry, sick and in a bad mood today.
Thank you, Josh. I especially get this:
In my childhood home, facts were contested when mother didn’t like those facts. If I gave a factually correct answer that my mother did not like, I would be punished. More, if my displayed emotions were not consonant with her emotions, I would be punished. By this method, the existence of fact itself was destabilized for me from a young age. It’s why I react so vehemently to those who pretend facts aren’t real, or who try to cover them up by emotionally guilt-tripping me.
I think it’s easy to see how this dynamic has become normalized in social discourse.
It's all so true; this gooey coating of every issue with a deep layer of emotion. Next to impossible to get past, a little bit like a tar baby.
As an attorney (guess I should add, as a white cis hetero fully-abled privileged woman), I was used to having vigorous debates and conversations with colleagues ever since law school. One professor from another college in the university dryly observed that he could always tell if he was in the elevator with students from the law school because they never shut up and were always in the middle of heated discussions. Anyway, I took for granted that I could get a fair back-and-forth with just about any issue of the day, legal or otherwise. That all began to change about fifteen years ago or so, when it became apparent that there were hidden third-rails that I suddenly wasn't supposed to touch upon.
I'm still upset at a reply I got to a Facebook post I did about six months ago. Although I avoid most political stuff on Facebook, I do post a few things that I think are well-sourced and important points. I linked to a long article about Dr. Jay Battacharya and his amazing efforts to determine what the actual Covid prevalence rate was in the local California population. He did this early in the pandemic, when such information was frustratingly missing from our public health authorities. Professor Jay knew that this info was vital and was always known to be Job #1 in standard pandemic response. The results of his study revealed several things, one of which was that the infection mortality rate was showing as an order of magnitude below what the CDC and other world health authorities were putting out there (about 3 in a thousand, instead of three in one hundred). But when he tried to get the results of his research published, he was censored and his research was ignored. I thought the story of his censoring, which happened at the beginning of the pandemic and was not tied in any way to any kind of political position at that time, was shocking and that it was something that no one could possibly be in favor of.
I was wrong. My post was mostly ignored, but one former colleague of mine replied: "How can you say the virus wasn't deadly when morgue trucks were stacked up in New York to handle all the dead?"
What I DID say in linking to the article was a brief summary of the facts and the censorship issue, including a mention of the fact that Dr. Jay's study showed that the actual IFR appeared to be much less deadly than originally feared.
Her response still shocks me because she has the exact background to NOT focus on irrelevant and misleading points. She was my immediate supervisor when I worked for years in the appeals division of the Philadelphia DA's office. Our job literally was to address convicted defendant's legal appeals, to take apart their legal arguments, research all of the facts in the case and all of the legal statutes and case law that would apply, and then write a legal brief in opposition (assuming that we opposed relief, which was usually the case). We would also appear in court to argue our positions before the judge and sometimes even have to hold a new evidentiary hearing. In other words, actual facts, actual law, to.the.letter., unaffected by emotional appeals or mis-direction. Her response to my Facebook post was the exact equivalent of an emotive defense-type of "argument" she routinely shut down at work; "How can you keep my client in jail when the police report had several typos?" Hmm, maybe because your client was caught on video robbing the store, and then caught five minutes later with a gun and the proceeds?? The case law is clear that this amount of quality evidence outweighs the weak evidence raised by the defense.
This brilliant woman, who I used to think of as a friend, is also married to a world-renown expert on infectious diseases. The go-to guy who was quoted in our major newspapers when Ebola became a concern, for instance. A power-couple who hosted Obama in their home for fundraisers.
I think your last sentence explains why she could blithely throw out her training and let her emotions have the say.
How does it explain anything?
Obama predates emotional BS.
I think the fact that my boss is part of that whole "elite" layer, associated now with the Dems, is exactly what the problem is. She has no problem evaluating facts in a legal case and identifying sound legal argument while rejecting bullshit arguments, and we had many conversations about life outside of law where she showed good sense, humor, and a generally caring attitude. It seems, though, that as soon as her crowd got on the Woke train, she's become willfully blind to anything that would challenge that world view. In a way I can't blame her; she'd lose all her prestige, most of her friends, and probably a lot of her family if she was to question the narrative.
I think that what you describe is one of the most tragic and also useful things to emerge from the covid catastrophe. I have no idea why, but somehow covid planted the fear of imminent death into the minds of many (as tho we are not all going out on a stretcher sooner or later) and people who were perfectly rational, even blessed, with a doubting and suspicious mind, suddenly succumbed. I’m not sure what separates the mice from the cheese, but this is a very obvious distinction that most helpfully wear on their sleeve. It has helped me to not waste my time with those who, fundamentally, don’t get it.
I particularly enjoyed and noted a segment of an episode a while back of Disaffected in which Josh and the woman civil rights lawyer—her name escapes me—agreed that the correct response to ‘I hate you’ is ‘Good for you, I hate you too’ and not ‘ I’m calling the police!’ Really is a far more dignified way to go about it.
A quote that has stayed with me (forget who said it) is on point: "Your opinion of me is none of my business." Visa-versa, of course.
Love it and will use it with relish when I get the chance!
I don’t know , Josh. I kind of like right wing freaks.
This nonsense began with the creation of a new type of crime: "hate" crime, wherein a specific act is judged worse on the basis not of circumstance (e.g., malice aforethought as shown by evidence of plotting and scheming) but on the basis of an ascribed emotion. The Matthew Shepard case, now fully-exposed as mythical, illustrates this. Flash forward to "hate" speech, wherein a statement that hurts someone's feelings is tantamount to a "hate crime," and must be censored and, ideally, the person who spoke banished if not outright physically punished, one supposes, because the "victim" and his supporters are motivated by love. Meanwhile, malefactors at every level are to be excused for all manner of crime if they claim good intent and morally unassailable motive (national interests, health, safety.) Witness every instance of empire war making and mongering and the rising totalitarianism initiated in earnest with the Covid regime and now ramping up at an alarming pace.
A society steeped in such foul ignorance for 40+ years is a society of abuse whose victims do not--and increasingly will not--recognize their own suffering. They think it's normal to be on tenterhooks, despairing, and demoralized (ha, ha, they've never been "moralized"!). They call it being "caring 'n kind."
Look up Serpentine Ramp, a method of bringing cattle calmly to slaughter invented by Temple Grandin.
You are on the ramp.
A few additional (related) modern conversational trends: (1) the unnecessary/irrelevant self-identification-"as a woman I think..." (2) the argument based on experience ' "I KNOW about mental health treatment policy... my AUNT was a SCHIZOPHRENIC... ' (3) the demonization of all opponents (too common to even need to exemplify) (4) the refusal to engage logically... usually after they've been backed into an epistemic corner - 'I know, but I just really feel like you're wrong'.
God help us.
Not everyone has this problem. I'm sure you've heard Glenn Lowry speak. Janice Fiamengo sometimes succeeds, but she is not nearly as intellectually sophisticated as Lowry.
No, you're right. There are public intellectuals of many kinds who take a measured and objective view of issues... but I can't shake the suspicion that among most people feeling and presuming have taken the place of reasoning and debating when it coms to forming political beliefs.
If you read old letters from common people you're often struck by the eloquence and lucidity:
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/142978714?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts
I blame it on today's horrendous education (and on the almost complete absence of male secondary-level teachers).
I have a decent job as an executive assistant... but I tutor students on the side, and I have a FL State Teaching certificate. I feel compelled to make a change soon and teach high school. My perception of the emotionalist rot in school and colleges and mental health providers is that it's very deep. I worry about the personal stress involved, though. I was willing to risk my life in the military but those were brief and isolated instances. Risking your happiness and your peace and your income by butting your head against a Kafkaesque administration is far more frightening to me than a tour in Afghanistan at this point.
Things are really bad when teaching high school feels more dangerous than a tour of Afghanistan ;)
Whenever I see a “ hate has no home here “ sign in someone’s yard I am so tempted to stop my car, get out and start stomping my feet on their property screaming. “I love hate! Hate hate hate! My home is full of hate, cuz I don’t have a sign to keep the hate away “
Dumbasses.
But I don’t do any of that because I am a grown up and not an emotional ruhturd.
My mutt and I walk past such a house every single day on our way down to the park by the river. Over a period of days when I was in a worse mood than usual (and that’s saying something) the sight of the thing started sending me into an inchoate rage. I eventually relieved my juvenile feelings by muttering as I walked by: “home has no hate here”; “here has no hate home”; “home hate here has no.” It’s was very dumb but it made me feel better.
Every time I see one of those stupid "Hate has no home here" lawn signs, or a "We believe..." sign, or a "Behind every mask is a person who cares" sign, the first thing I think is "you people are advertising that you have failed the IQ test." Fortunately, there aren't nearly as many lawn signs as there were a few years ago.
Don't forget about the Supreme Court's Brandenberg ruling, that even speech that is obviously intended to be filled with hate and aggravation is still principly protected.
Also, if you ever feel up to it, would you tell us what happened to your father?
Excellent piece. I've gotten to where I don't even want to try. One of the best examples of what Josh is talking about is when people say they fear for "our" democracy, which actually means "their" democracy, which isn't democracy at all, but merely their point of view yelling over all others. Admiral Ackbar comes to mind: https://youtu.be/4F4qzPbcFiA!
Here's a ? for you. If these are exceptions to free speech (as defined in Wisconsin v Mitchell)
"speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats"
How is it that those "peaceful" protest that happened back in the BLM days were not brought up on charges. Certainly they incited lawless action and were true threats.
Just asking if you know.
Sorry, but BLM is a bowel movement.
Trying not to be emotional, but since, on the last show, you brough up the interdiction on the "From the river to the sea" chant as a potential violation of the First Amendment, I thought I'd offer a perspective. I can't determine whether it is hate speech or not (probably is), but it can easily be construed as incitement to violence. Essentially, it is a call to eliminate a nation state and a permission to be violent to those living in the diaspora. Not crying "fire" in a crowded theater, but still...
When they chant "From the river to the sea", it clearly means "we want to eliminate all Jews from that region, by whatever means possible". It's a statement not only of Jew hatred, but an incitement to violence.
Yep. And not only from that region.
I heard someone say recently that anti racism is the official state religion. You could also throw in anti sexism and anti homophobia. By padding everything we say with “not alls” and “buts”, we are essentially trying to keep the evil spirits away.
What good does an important legal right do you, if you allow crybully Marxcissists to guilt-trip you out of ever legitimately exercising it? Great post.