We need to challenge the woke on “unity”

A side note in the Spotify / Rogan story is the use of the word “unity,” which came up in a few of the twitter comments.

What does the woke left mean when they say “unity”?

I think it’s something like this: All Americans should be united behind fundamental principles of fairness and decency, and we should exert public pressure on people who don’t conform to those standards.

That sounds about right because it’s both a genuinely good sentiment and completely useless without more information.

Where is this list of fundamental principles? Shouldn’t we all know what those principles are? Who adjudicates it? How much pressure is appropriate when?

Is free speech a fundamental principle of fairness? Is allowing a speaker to speak without interruption part of fundamental fairness and/or decency? Is it fair or decent to try to get a person fired because you disagree with him about who should swim in the women’s swimming events?

To me, this illustrates one of the main weaknesses of wokeness. They take a grade-school level platitude, that everyone should agree with, but then they import a hundred other assumptions they won’t be honest about.

It’s like Twitter or Facebook with their “community guidelines.”

Tech: “You’ve violated our community guidelines.”

Innocent person: “Really? Which ones? How did we violate them?”

Tech: “We determine that, you peasant. Shut up.”

“Unity” is one of those values that only makes sense in a certain context, within prescribed limits. There’s a lot of unity under a tyrannical dictatorship, but we don’t want that kind of unity.

Wokeness requires a shallowness of thinking that’s unworthy of a sixth grader — which is why it’s catching on. Nobody’s learning how to think any more. Or if they are, they’re allowing undisciplined sentiment to have the upper hand.

I love the sound of gunfire in the morning

Not really, it just seemed like a good title.

A short distance from my house there is a private gun range. I think it’s for the Secret Service. Maybe the FBI. Most mornings I hear the sound of somebody practicing.

It doesn’t bother me, and if people are going to carry guns, they should definitely practice.

But I often wonder what my neighbors think. Some people have strong reactions to guns.

When I was a kid, my father had just won another shotgun. (He had incredible luck in the gun-club raffles.) That evening, his best friend from his childhood was coming by with his wife, and Dad wanted to show Howard the gun, so he put it behind the couch. Unloaded, in a box, etc.

Half-way through the evening, Dad pulled the box out from behind the couch to show Howard the gun. Julie, Howard’s wife, almost had a fit. She couldn’t believe that she had been sitting “so close to a gun.”

I was very surprised by this. Howard and Julie were both very intelligent people, and I would sit in and listen to their conversations with my parents.

An unloaded shotgun is about as dangerous as an aluminum baseball bat, and … we were all friends. Nobody was at any risk at all. But Julie seemed to have an emotional reaction to the very idea of a gun somewhere close to her.

That stuck with me (obviously), and I factor it into my expectations of how people will react to gun-related stories.

Even rational, intelligent people can have some strange hang-ups.

(BTW, names have been changed.)

The “reject intolerance, hatred and racism” message may be losing its appeal

By all means let’s reject intolerance, hatred and racism, but it’s become “the boy who cried wolf.” People are realizing that just because someone calls something intolerant, racist or hateful doesn’t make it so.

Trudeau’s words v. reality

I take no position on this trucker thing in Canada, because I don’t know enough about it. But I am sick of certain politicians defaulting to the same stale message every time they disagree with something.