Author: Crowhill Report

I never watch her, but this is interesting.

Maddow Edits DeSantis Remarks, Falsely Claims He Never Condemned Nazis

Will she be banned from social media for spreading fake news?

I like listening to Dr. Jordan Peterson, and over the months and years I’ve heard little things here and there that seem to indicate (to me, anyway) why he is having such an obvious and public struggle with the existence of God.

I make the case that a lot of the recurring elements in his lectures add up to a psychological case for God. I don’t know if Dr. Peterson is aware of this argument, and I don’t know if he would endorse it, but it seems that these ideas are rumbling around in his brain, and leading him in a certain direction.

Here’s my attempt to put it all together. The audio is about 27 minutes. It’s nothing fancy. Just me talking.

I wanted to get this out of my head and out of the way, because it’s been a bit of an obsession recently, and I need my brain for other things.

My understanding is that she said the Holocaust was not about race because it was white people against white people. IOW, in her mind there is no Jewish race. And if you look up race — how it’s used by the government, for example — that’s right.

But that perspective seems both reductionist and ahistorical. Just because we have reduced “race” to about five categories today doesn’t mean that’s how people meant the term back in the 1930s and 40s.

The Nazis were all about the Aryan race — which doesn’t appear on the census, and is regarded as an obsolete concept. But in their minds it was clearly a racial thing.

Somewhat along the same lines, there was a time when people from central Europe were not regarded as “white.” So what “race” would they be?

IOW, people used the term very differently in the past.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe Whoopi was trying to defend the Holocaust, or say anything negative about Jews. She was simply (wrong-headedly) applying modern definitions of “race” to the Holocaust.

In my opinion, she should be corrected about that, and she should clarify what she meant, but it’s not grounds for being suspended.

The new name doesn’t retain any of the Native American legacy. It doesn’t preserve “HTTR” or work with the fight song. It’s boring and stupid. And what’s with the black uniform? Washington has never had a black uniform, to my knowledge.

Disappointed, but not surprised.

John Adams famously said about the U.S. government:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

He said the government envisioned in the constitution wasn’t powerful enough to contend with unbridled immorality, avarice, ambition, etc. It only worked under certain preconditions.

A lot of people are concerned today about fake news, misinformation, “news” sites that are more focused on clicks and eyeballs and ad revenue than truth. But that doesn’t even tell the whole tale. If we were limited to “news” sites that had a profit motive, that might still be manageable.

Unfortunatley, on top of that we have wacky conspiracy sites, flat Earthers, people who spout ridiculous nonsense to get their five minutes of fame … or whatever. Maybe they only do it for the jollies.

Does free speech — like the U.S. system of government — have its own set of cultural assumptions? Does it only work with people who have certain characteristics?

I’m beginning to think so, and I’m trying to formulate a list.

Critical thinking is obviously an important thing. People need to be trained to ask “how do you know this?” and “what facts might go against what you’re saying?”

Some sort of regard for the witness of the majority is important, but I’m not sure how far to take that.

When it comes to social media, a commitment not to give or take offense seems like a good idea.

It’s also necessary to be fair in how you represent other views, and to hear people out.

You can’t jump to conclusions. You can’t put people in boxes. You can’t say “if you believe A then you believe B,” or “if you’re in this demographic, you believe C.”

The more I think about it, the more fragile free speech seems to be. It requires a commitment to quite a few public virtues that we’re not pressing on people these days.

What do you think?