Winning Arguments (To Feel Better)

 

 "This is what oppressed peoples do: they make up stories to make themselves feel better." 

   

 "Trans people make-up words to win arguments."

 

New Day (Same Shit) II

Ideas A Nation, Fueled By Hysterics, Won't Grapple With

“The human capacity for self-delusion is boundless, and the effects of belief are overpowering.”  

-- Michael Shermer

The Symphony Of Science: A Wave Of Reason

I Never Stood A Chance (In Hell)

Clearly, I have the correct amount of dopamine in my brain, so I can avoid seeing most of the wrong patterns that others fall victim to regularly. One of the patterns they imagine is I think I'm better than they are for this, when the truth is I only call them stupid because they've punished me, my whole life, for being different in this way. For me, it started with a foster brother who - after I innocently admitted I didn't believe in God - knocked the fuck out of me for saying so.

That's always been the way it is: I'd try to have a nice, calm, rational discussion with someone (after they'd corner me about my "beliefs") and, once they see I don't dabble in the irrational, they'd lash out - and usually, though not always, with violence. (Plotting with others against me, betrayal, and abandonment, are other popular fallback positions.) To this day, I am convinced that my ex-wife's (and our friend's) behavior at the end of our marriage were merely payback for me never being capable of going along with their NewAge view of the world.

Now that I've had a chance to digest all of this, I'm sure that my marriage never stood a chance, because I was always outnumbered by people too arrogant to question why, in some areas of their lives (religion/spirituality, etc.) they were willing to give up the knowledge they possessed when, in every other area, they knew better than to let go of their educations.

To illustrate this, I'm putting these videos (one of which I've posted before) of how our military leaders have been thinking (Don't forget: I'm a veteran) so you can see exactly how far outside of the mainstream I am, and how my ex - who once claimed she could walk through walls - was right in the thick of it, before she went on to kill three people. I think these videos also explain why I think the Oprah Winfrey-led society at large is just as responsible for the destruction of my marriage - and the deaths that followed - as my ex-wife was. They also explain the cultish election of a no-talent nobody like Barack Obama. These, to me, are exposé's of popular madness:

Spiritual: Deepak Chopra Is The Only Asshole On Stage Who Interrupts Others And Won't Shut Up

Why (Strange) People Believe In Strange Things

It's A SHAM - I Mean Shame (I Meant Shame)

Well, well, well,...this is interesting:

Steve Salerno, author of SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless, and his own Shamblog, has been banned from Rick Ross' anti-cult message board.

How funny.

And it's ironic, since I called Rick Ross as soon as I discovered my ex-wife was in a cult. The man's serious business, and I'll always appreciate that he was willing to fly in and help where everyone else gave me feminist-inspired excuses. But, unfortunately, it was too late: My ex had flew away to France before Mr. Ross could do anything, only to later kill two innocent people.

If Rick Ross' folks have banned Steve Salerno, it's no fluke. I've thought for a long time, as James Randi said when he discovered he couldn't reason with Andrew Weil about the "powers" of Uri Geller, Steve "could have been an ally — but we lost him."

See, I was banned from Steve's site a long time ago - right around the time he joined The Cult of Obama and seriously asked me (in a private e-mail) if I was taking my anti-Obama stance because I hated my own skin and people. I knew then the guy had seriously lost it and said so.

Cultism is this bizarre phenomena that get's people to thinking and saying such wild, twisted, shit:

Sure, I become the self-loathing nutcase because Steve Salerno, this former conservative and Wall Street Journal writer, had been guilt-tripped into joining up with "hope" and "change" liberals while I was determined to stay an MKL-inspired black conservative, right? Thinking for myself and not as one with "my people" (and staying true to what Steve, and I, had agreed was the right position to take, now, on the race issue) was simply out of the question - even though it was he who had written screed after beautifully-American screed about how simple-minded and useless the whole race thing is - not me.

No, Mr. Race Doesn't Matter, all of a sudden, had to have this arrogant prick for A Black President. For the sake of the country, for payback for slavery, for "healing", for some other imaginary reason. The fact that Obama had no real qualifications and, more importantly, was stumping with that crazy woman, Oprah, be damned: all of a sudden Steve Salerno was a shruggie when it came to race, cultism and Oprah's role in American life, and he demanded I not notice or call him on it.

These days, I wonder why he does the Shamblog because it stopped making any sense right then. To me, Steve Salerno has no integrity left.

I mean, how can he diss Oprah - and keep a spot on his blog for following her activities - and then vote for the candidate she was personally stumping for? Why, I wouldn't be surprised if, pretty soon, he's telling us Eckhard Tolle and Tom Cruise are geniuses.

Really, Steve Salerno's ever-widening lunacy since Obama ran for office has been breathtaking - and this is from someone who, once, truly admired him. But I'm sorry, as his mental framework came apart before my eyes, I saw the man become as intolerant of rational thought - and even his own book's positions - as the weirdest NewAger:

Trying to convince me that Bill Ayers' current lies and 60's terrorism were no big deal - and, he once said, maybe justified.

Recently devising an "open-minded" defense of pedophilia (I shit you not). Word to Steve: Not only won't I have an "open-minded" day about such things, but I'll never adopt NewAge/Shamland language, either. That's, partially, why I swear: No one's ever going to confuse me for one of them.

Steve also swears when he wants to, but demands nobody else does, because he claims to find it idiotic (When he's doing it, of course, it's a legitimate means of expressing oneself). The fact that's a obviously hypocritical stance - especially in a country defined by Freedom of Speech - is ignored by the former english professor.

Even worse, as he continued to slip the bonds of reason, he gave me the ol' "Keep my name out of your mouth!" business - demanding I don't write about him - when he writes willy-nilly about whatever he wants. Yea, he must have known that was going to work. Idiot.

And, now, an entire group of equally-determined anti-cult folks (who apparently like me) have discovered they can't stomach him. Somebody's, quite obviously, on the wrong side of some very-important issues.

Steve's now written three different posts trying to explain himself to the Ross folks - while also attacking them as intolerant (like this anti-cult business requires an "open-minded" attitude, instead of The Macho Response) but Steve, of all people, should know there's no explanation for what he's been up to.

Well, there is - he's become part of Obama's "open" NewAge political cult - but he ain't gonna cop to that: He still fancies himself a journalist. It doesn't matter that everyone who's still sane is saying journalism's become a cabal of Obama-sucking pod people; he'll hide his madness behind that title as tightly as Jon Stewart hides his liberalism behind "comedian". He probably thinks appearing in Michael Shermer's Skeptic Magazine is a good cover, too, but - another word to Steve - there is no cover for cultism. You're either out or you're in, and blatant hypocrisy - followed by lots of angry excuses - is one pretty good sign that someone's in it. You've gone loopy, dude.

Look, I'm no journalist, but I like SHAM. It practically saved my life and has a prominent place in my library of anti-cult lit. I also have a library of cult lit, and would seriously hate to have to put it in there, so I'm going to give Steve-O (who I used to think of as an online friend) some advice in the TMR style - and, if he's smart, his dumb ass will take it:

Dude, Man Up. Don't be like my ex-wife, who, after declaring she could walk through walls, started hating on me for pointing out that isn't so. You've drank the Kool-Aid so just admit it. Take your head out of your ass and say you were wrong - and apologize, openly, for disappointing people who put their trust in you. All the folks at Rick Ross wanted was for you to further expose Byron Katie because, supposedly, you might be good at it. As far as I'm concerned, you're a dick for not doing it:

Katie deserves it.

Otherwise, go play baseball, or sit quietly with your wife, listening to the "inspirational" messages of Joel Orsteen, and just hang up the Shamblog, man, because you've destroyed anything that was "real" about it, just as your chosen leader is trying to destroy what's real about America.

And, nowadays, that's not what "real" men are about - we can see through it all - or haven't you noticed?

Michael Shermer: Why Darwin Matters

Get some popcorn: This is a lecture, kids.

Cultism, Confirmation Bias, The Left, And TMR

In light of the 30th anniversary of The Peoples Temple massacre, I've been trying to figure out how to discuss the societal cultism I see, but in a way everyone can understand - without Leftists deciding I'm condemning each and every liberal.

Fortunately, good ol' Michael Shermer (probably the nicest scientist on the planet) has taken a shot at it - and done a pretty good job - in The Los Angeles Times, allowing me to merely add a few comments that can help define the position, and individuality, of TMR better. Here's part of what Shermer's written:

"Belief systems are coherent and logically consistent when you are inside them. It is not until you step outside the group and gain a different reference point that the coherence and logic vanishes,...

There also are well-known social psychological effects at work in these groups -- such as the loss of individuality and the compliance of behavior and conformity of thought under group pressure, along with the diffusion of individual responsibility and group think.

But there is something deeper going on here that I think touches on cognitive processes in all of us as members of non-cult groups, such as political parties: confirmation bias. This is when we look for and find evidence to support what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away evidence that does not. And because we are so tribal by nature, we employ confirmation bias with extra vigor when it comes to defending the groups we belong to.

Republicans tend to listen to conservative talk radio, watch Fox News and read the Wall Street Journal, gathering data and noting arguments that support their political beliefs.

Democrats are more likely to listen to progressive talk radio and NPR, surf liberal blogs and read the New York Times. Everyone does it.

[Note: TMR takes issue with the "everybody does it" argument: I read, and listen to, everything - right and left, Rush and NPR, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times - always noting wherever cultism is found: that's TMR's confirmation bias. I've noted that, though a conservative, I don't fit in any group - including skeptics - and, I think, that's the strength of this blog.

Despite that, which I think is obvious, liberals regularly use confirmation bias to dismiss my work because - like The Peoples Temple was a leftist group - I see most (though not all) of the cultism on the Left and, as a former Leftist, I'm determined to expose it. I'll let others rail about religious belief on the Right because there are many groups (from the left and right) doing that already. And, being a former leftist, I'm positive cultism on the Left is getting a free ride,...]

Confirmation bias explains why so many rumors about candidates were eagerly embraced recently. On the left, commentators glommed onto false gossip about Sarah Palin's ignorance (she doesn't know that Africa is a continent) and bigotry (she tried to ban books from the public library) because liberals think that conservatives are dumb and dogmatic, and after eight years of George W. Bush's malapropisms and Palin's interview fumbles, such rumors merely confirmed what liberals already believed.

On the right, conservatives were primed to process hearsay about Barack Obama being a Muslim or Arab as true, or that his tax plan -- indistinguishable from that of most Democratic candidates in recent decades -- confirmed that he's a socialist, even while Republicans were nationalizing the financial industry and running up record debts.

[Here, I think, Shermer makes the mistake of taking the one-time emergency event of the bailout and using it to confirm the idea that conservatives endorse socialism - an idea liberals support as an organizing principle of our society. This idea - that conservatives are endorsing socialism - is a bogus argument that, unfortunately, has gained a lot of traction.]

Research on confirmation bias has found that when subjects are presented with evidence that contradicts their deeply held beliefs, they dismiss it as invalid, while other subjects treat the same information as valuable when it confirms what they believe. In one study, for example, subjects were shown a video of a child taking a test. One group was told that the child was from a high socioeconomic class; the other group was told that the child was from a low socioeconomic class. The subjects were asked to evaluate the academic abilities of the child based on the results of the test. The child believed to be from the high socioeconomic group was rated as above grade level, but the child believed to be from the low socioeconomic group was rated as below grade level. Same data. Same kid. Different interpretations.

The confirmation bias sways us all, especially when it reinforces our inner tribalism. Most of us will never join a cult, but all of us are subject to the pull of believing that the evidence supports our most cherished beliefs. Inside Jonestown, Jim Jones' daily barrages confirmed to members that their cause was right and that ultimately death would bring about peace and justice.

It is for this reason that we need to look for disconfirmatory evidence, to listen to the arguments of those with whom we disagree, to ask for constructive criticism of our beliefs, and to remember Oliver Cromwell's words to the Church of Scotland in 1650: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.'"

And this is exactly what TMR is trying to do. It's critics (who even deny cultism exists in politics) can't get past my admitted-conservatism to see I'm attacking the cultism within liberalism - even after I admit I can't stand with the religious zealotry of those on the Right.

Liberals insist I have to hate George W. Bush in order to be O.K., and I say, no, demonizing the president is a symptom of the Left's cultism that does not allow them to see anything for what it is - especially the good the president's done. (Funny, how people who are always against hate don't mind it when they want to, isn't it?) That's their "confirmation bias" at work, and it's hurt the country, because very little has turned out as they say. (Iraq's a failure? Anyone?) The result of all that hate is the saddest commentary on our cultish times I can think of:

With Obama's presidency based on empty religion-based ideas of "believe" and "hope" and "change" - and produced as an antidote to a wrong-headed idea about Bush - I know America is now being prodded along by cultish beliefs and behavior. But they got what they wanted.

And Jim Jones couldn't have asked for a better memorial than that.

Note: Though I've collected information on a lot of important, crazy and related subjects, today's one post will have to do it for now. Without a significant increase in donations my attention has to be placed elsewhere (though there are 2, 350 posts here that need to be updated, linked, formatted, etc.) so you know what what I'm going to say - other than asking "How do liberals regularly find millions to fund their nonsense?" - this is The Crack Emcee for: