I was wondering what had happened to Uncommon Descent’s owner, lawyer Barry Arrington. Having bought the blog from “Intelligent Design” theorist* William Dembski, he established a reputation as a bit of a martinet, quick to delete comments and ban commenters he didn’t like. But recently, things have been much quieter and moderation has been light to non-existent, with no contributions from Arrington.
But he must have been saving himself up for a relaunch, as now a long (in comparison to Arrington’s other opening posts) post by him, What Must We Do When The Foundations Are Being Destroyed?, has appeared. I wonder initially who Barry means by “we” but the article soon makes it clear the call to arms is for the religious authoritarian right. It’s an annoying read as there is an inaccurate, misleading, selective point in almost every sentence so that, for me, it almost achieves the status of being so polarized in its essence as to be not worth responding to. But then that fulfils Barry’s prophesy and puts me on his level, on the other side of the barricade he is keen to erect.
An ID critic makes the following point in the comments: Authoritarians – whether secular or religious – often achieve power by whipping up fear of a disaster which they say they alone can prevent. Prevention usually means doing what they say – or else. As the author points out, democracy is a fragile state, easy to lose and very hard to recover. You give it up at your peril. This is fair and reasonable, but I suspect it will fall on deaf ears at Uncommon Descent.
US politics, from the point of view of this outsider, seem so binary, with extreme views leaving little opportunity for compromise or stability. How do we deal with other people’s certainties in a binary World? Compromise, argue, or fight? If anyone can bring themselves to read Arrington’s piece, I’d be interested to hear if they found anything to agree with, compromise with, argue with, or resolutely oppose with arms if necessary. Or should we ignore him as an insignificant voice in the wilderness?
I invite your comments.
I found Barry quoting Solzhenitsyn somewhat ironic, in the light of current events in Ukraine, Putin’s embracing of the Russian Orthodox Church and that Church’s vigorous support for the invasion of Ukraine:
I did read Arrington’s piece. I was underwhelmed.
He complains about authoritarians on the left, but fails to see the authoritarians on the right.
The way it looks to me, right wing student clubs have been deliberately inviting provocative speakers to campus to stir things up. And left wing students see through this, and try to boycott those speakers. This seems to be where “cancel culture” started.
Arrington also complains about materialism. But he fails to notice the materialism of the right. For Arrington, science is materialism. But when I look at the right, I see so many grifter. And that grifting is the materialism of the right. Or I notice FOX new spreading lies, because that increases their profits. Again, I see that as materialism on the right.
In short, Arrington is himself an authoritarian and a materialist. But he fails to see this.
Arrington’s essay is fractally wrong — it is wrong at every scale of resolution, from the sentence up to the entirety. It is correct only with regard to grammar and spelling.
If authoritarianism is on the rise, it has more to do with right-wing populist like the UD regulars than it has anything to do with the non-existent “cancel culture” or “woke left”. Seversky makes this perfectly correct point but it is of course ignored.
Arrington has no comprehensive of “materialism” and accepts as obvious truths ideas that are hugely contentious, such as the idea that objective ethics cannot be grounded in a naturalistic metaphysics. There’s a massive tradition of philosophers, social theorists, cultural critics, and political actors who demonstrate exactly how objective ethics can be grounded in a naturalistic metaphysics. Either Arrington doesn’t know of this tradition, in which he is culpable because he ought to know of it, or else he does know of it and he is deliberately ignoring it.
Likewise, Arrington (and the rest of the UD crowd) misunderstand the very nature of gender dysphoria. They describe it as “a man thinking that he is a woman”, as if he simply has a false belief about himself. That is not it at all. It is the bone-deep, intuitively felt certainty that the gender one knows oneself to be does not match the gender that society sees you as and expects you to be. This is why people who feel that their gender is not affirmed by others experience depression, trauma, addiction, and other forms of self-harm: they don’t love themselves because they don’t see themselves as lovable, because who they are is not recognized and valued by others.
In some cases Arrington is omitting relevant facts, such as what Ilya Shapiro actually said that provoked such an intense reaction at UC Hastings Law. In other cases, he is straight-out lying, as when he says:
False — he is making this up. Liz Guzman’s proposed bill (which she has been forced to drop due to conservative backlash) would expand the definition of child abuse to include parents who refuse to accept a child’s LBGT status. This has nothing to do with elective surgery that would affect that person’s gender status.
In the vast majority of cases, people under 18 who experience gender dysphoria and want gender-affirming medical care and have been deemed competent by a panel of medical and psychiatric experts get hormonal therapy, not surgery, and hormonal therapy is fully reversible.
LBGT minors are hugely at risk of emotional and physical abuse from parents and guardians and are at risk to become homeless, to engage in self-harm, to become addicted to alcohol and other drugs, and to commit suicide. Guzman’s bill would have added a layer of protection to those at-risk kids. The conservative backlash has meant that more children will be harmed and killed.
To be entirely blunt: I absolutely do think that objective ethics can be grounded in naturalistic metaphysics, and it is precisely for that reason that I think that conservativism is evil.
To answer the question in the OP:
Arrington himself is a ignoramus with a tiny audience, but he represents a much larger and growing trend of right-wing populism that is incredibly dangerous and that must be opposed by any means necessary. It may very well become morally necessary to oppose them with force if they were to acquire state power — which is very likely to happen, not because they will be elected but because they will determine who can be elected.
I especially liked this from Mr. Mullings.
” You don’t know or care that you are dealing with someone who literally put his life on the line on matters of truth and who cut his eyeteeth dealing with marxist subversives.”
It always strikes me as amusing — but also sad — that Kairosfocus presents these facts of his autobiography as having probative weight with others, when at the same time he writes under a pseudonym, which prevents anyone from confirming anything that he claims he’s seen or done.
I have no evidence that he’s lying, but I have no reason to believe he’s being truthful, either.
Alan Fox,
The problem is money as a corrupting force. Both parties raise huge amounts of money based on the polarization. Until there is real control of complain spending, lobbyist bribes, and big Pharma influence we are in for very rocky times. Web 3 may help a little with more individual privacy.
The foundations in a free civilization are freedom of thought and speech. The cats at uncommon descent do not obey this and indeed ban people, thoughts, speech, and probably rock and roll. Its right to oppose the bad guys out there but you can;t copy them and expect to persuade the public. I don’t read this blog anymore but it will not contribute or get the credit in beating the bad guys and wrong guys.
By the way the accusation of authoritarian religious people went out with communism.
So this blog has screwy ideas too. All there is in human affairs is people imposing thier will and god imposing his will and then clashes. nobody is any different from anybody. TSZ imposes its will. sure they do. Instead its about the laws of God and man and thus governance on who imposes thier will.
Anyone prepared to stay within TSZ’s moderation policy (which is hardly onerous) can contribute here, Robert.
You were banned from Uncommon Descent for your antisemitism.
Fortunately for you, TSZ does not consider antisemitism to be a bannable offense.
Sure, antisemitic remarks can go in Guano but all the moderators can do is gently chide the bigot to refrain from their bigotry. Which they never, ever do.
Kantian Naturalist,
I was unaware Robert was banned at UD for posting racist remarks. We won’t tolerate racist comments here and anyone continuing in such a vein after fair warning will incur a suspension.
Sure, TSZ prides itself on allowing free expression of views but we do not condone racism.
As far as I am aware, Joe G is the only one to be banned here. As he has been banned almost everywhere else he posted.
Speaking if Joe (Frankie, Virgil, ET) has anyone heard from him lately? I haven’t seen him comment at UD or anywhere else for quite some time.
Its not onerous and I was only saying all these forums blogs practice speech control and wrongly. I was not complaining about here.
No thats not true and very strange to say so. Prove it. I was banned for , I think, saying something not feminist correct. I was right but there you go.
You don’t get yopur facts right and anyways don’t support freedom of speech.
I was not banned for sucj thingds. i said something not feminist friendly. Maybe false accusations from these posters should get them banned if they don’t prove thier accusations. Naw i don’t agree with banning anyone except malicious comments or obviously immoral; ones.
In fact this accusation against me proves a point. Freedom of speech is suppressed by those who want it for themselves or anyone and based on concepts of rightful speech. All speech is free unless malicious etc. there is nothing beyond debate in a free nation(s). Even false accusations are free but they should be demanded to provide sources or retract them if the accuisation matters. In short the principals of legal jurisprudence based on centuries of english law. A problem however for those who run these forums/blogs.
Freedom of speech is just about guaranteeing no government repercussions about what a person says. It has never been about being able to say what you want without any social consequences.
Mel Gibson made some drunken antisemitic rants and his career suffered. Celebrities say some offensive things and they lose their sponsorships. Businesses deny services to LGBQ individuals/couples claiming religious freedom and other customers boycott their businesses. None of this is a violation of free speech.
Whatever you were banned for, it seems to serve you right. Looks like you tend to think that you have all rights and no obligations. It will be better for you to grow out of it.
On the internet, it depends on the platform how free speech is applied. The platform is owned by somebody and this somebody has own aims with the platform. Good for you if you fit in with the general atmosphere of the platform and with others who have joined there. But if not, then you can easily be kicked or banned, because every platform-owner behaves like a little fuhrer, which is natural because they are the owner. Trump bans people on his Truth thingy also. It does not matter how right you are. Your rights stop mattering when you are on someone else’s territory. The constitutional free speech does not apply on private internet platforms. You can appeal to a court of law who can draw lines with more precision if you want, but it will mostly be a version of what I just said.
It depends on the topic also. Ideological and other hot topics tend to be touchy and moderators can be trigger-happy. It is easy to get banned on the likes of Conservapedia or UD. It is harder to get banned on tech forums. But either way, you do not have a right to not get banned. The ban can arrive even for no reason at all, e.g. on IRC it can be for “lurking” i.e. doing nothing.
Platforms have a reason for their existence, some topic that they pursue. There needs to be reasonable communication on the given topic so that the platform sees a benefit in having you around. TSZ is so liberal (as in free-minded) and unmoderated that only those with severe social incapacity could possibly feel oppressed here.
As to B. Arrington, TLDR but he is clearly afflicted with the saddest form of partisan projection syndrome. Pretty much everything Barry describes as an evil totalitarian plan of Nancy Pelosi and authoritarian liberal elite of the Democratic Party is what Trumpite Republicans have actually recently done and attempted and show no sign of relenting. You’re entirely full of partisan nonsense, Barry.
Erik,
Just letting you know I liked your comment.
It is of little help to say that men have forgotten God when the concept of God means so many different things to so many people. People haven’t forgotten God. Terms such as “God” and what it means is, and has been, at the forefront of debate ever since people began to argue with each other.
The real problem is that people, no matter what religion or world view they hold, including Christianity, have ignored the message of Jesus Christ. And the message stands whether or not one believes in Christ.
In Matthew 16:24 Jesus said, “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me”.
And in Luke 6:36, “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful”.
In Galatians 2:20, Paul said: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me”.
The Christian message is simple, we must be prepared to sacrifice our own pleasures and desires for the sake of others. The acquisition of wealth or power should not drive us, and we should not wish evil on anyone whatever their relationship with us is.
Putin is a perfect example of someone who is Christian in the shallowest possible sense. He shows by his actions that he is truly anti-Christian. Instead of loving his enemies he eliminates them. He has no feeling whatsoever for the suffering of others. He cares for his own people as little as he cares for his enemies.
Bill Browder
Browder set up a fund which, at one time, was the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia. He campaigns for the global Magnitsky Act to be sanctioned in countries throughout the world, and it is this act which allows for the freezing of the assets of Russian oligarchs by the US government among others.
This is not true. Freedom of speech is a part of mankinds fgreedom period. The freedom to speck and act against what is immoral or wrong. This freedom of thought and speech is the essence of Anglo American civilization. Its a right oif we have any rights. its SOOO much a right even the government elected by the people can not infringe on this right. so its impossible for anyone to do it. They all do it but its really illegal. NOW we still have our historicval rights to prohibit speech. lIke lying, malice etc etc. We can not speck back to mom and dad. so we do have a social limit to speech. yES therefore society can oppose or punish speech . However nobody can in a organization.in short we have fredom of speech but not freedom of speech to speak with malice or lies or great i,immorality. . Both work together. God never gave us freedom of speech but he gave us fredom to speak rightly and so freedom of speech.
No this is not true. Freedom of speech is the law. Nobody can ban you for saying what they say is wrong or immoral unless they prove it. The teritory is a peoples country. The law is fredom of speech. obey it. Only malice or immoralitu or getting off topic should lead to deletion of comments or finally banning.
No judges of our thoughts and speech. INDEED those who ban salways say its because of evil speech. they never admit to banning etc because of disagreement or mere insults.
We won this freedom long ago. The world doesn’t agree and lots of folks but thats the way it is. If a forum or blog makes exact prohibitive rules of speech then thats a contract. thats okay. by the way everybody complains and this blog TSZ came into existence because of illegal unjust unkind censoring and banning.
From what I have seen of attempts to ground objective ethics in naturalism, the outcome is usually way shallower and cannot hold a candle to the so-called traditional ethics. Often enough atheist musings about the ground of ethics or morality stay somewhere at the level of animal behaviour, failing to rise up even to basic legality.
On the other hand, the more philosophical musings a la Enlightenment, such that affirm the existence of reason and spiritual needs that need to be nourished analogously to the needs of the body (starvation bad, therefore eating is good, but overeating and eating the wrong things is bad again; similarly orderly education and behaviour in accordance with the learned values is good, also helping others towards what you have found good is good, while disorder, inconsistency and incoherence are bad) without even hinting at something like Christ as a sacrifice for the sins of manking, seem barely distinguishable from conservatism.
I would only say reactionism, like the completely partisan anti-Democrat trends in current American politics, is evil, whereas conservatism is something different. Do you acknowledge the difference between reactionism and conservatism?
By the way, Enlightenment figures were (rightly) called liberals (i.e. free-thinkers) at the time. Nowadays the exact same ideas look very conservative and some of them outdated, but are they evil?
Exactly.
This idea that trans people are in denial of their own biology could not be more wrong. Trans people are all too aware that their biology does not match their inner sense of the gender they belong to.
So it is ironic that Barry also scoffs at “materialist” notions of “consciousness”. So often the objection from the left to the concept of gender identity is that it is an appeal to some kind of woo woo “gendered soul”. That shouldn’t be a problem for Barry.
But nor should it be a problem for materialists, because argument about consciousness is, as you say, fractally wrong:
Barry seems quite happy with the notion of “having an inner self and free will” that is somehow independent of “the chemical processes of the brain”) so he ought not to have a problem with it.
But I do. Sure Particles are not aware, and they do not choose. But particles are also not crystals, and they don’t grow. Plenty of arrangements of “particles” have properties not possessed by the particles. Why should that not be true of the collection of particles we call a person? Especially given what we know about what human organisms can do, and how they do it.
Which includes being able to recognise themselves as the agent of their own actions, and the subject of their own experiences.
And of course, the “mental” is a separate category from the “physical”, just as running is in a separate category from legs.
And gender ID is in a separate category from the cocktail of biology that led your body to be classified at birth as “male” or “female”.
There are courts of law so you can put your theory to the test. But here’s the thing: It has been tried before you and the outcome is what it is, namely, yes they can ban you not just with a reason but also without.
I am fully aware that I can be banned here without being proven wrong. Heck, I can even argue a totally irrefutable case for myself, but there are certain taboo topics in society that scare people out of their wits so they can never rationally discuss them exhaustively and the cancel culture banhammer prevents them ever improving their lot. (I’m very happy to have a more taboo-free atmosphere in my own country for the time being.)
Think: What if you start preaching Christ on a tech forum? Permaban, no matter what you think the law says about freedom of speech. It is the same with taboos in general. They are beyond the pale.
You must have no self awareness whatsoever to not notice how obviously reactionary your diatribe on LGBTQ+ issues is.
I will emphasise once more: LBGTQ+ topics are not taboo at TSZ, and “rational discussion” is absolutely fine.
What is not fine are posts that treat “LBGTQ+ people” as some kind of societal problem for which a less extreme solution than “extermination” has to be found, apparently because they aren’t enough of them to make a viable business case for granting them human rights.
More rights were invented specifically to accommodate them. For example same-sex marriage was not a thing, but was invented for them, whereas prior to their priding marriage was not a human right in the first place. Moreover, same-sex marriage is an incoherent social construct because on the LGBTQ+ spectrum it only explicitly includes L and G, but not for example B.
So… yeah, I know the only response to this is some name-calling. Therefore I conclude that you are also wrong in saying that the topic is not taboo. It clearly is taboo.
Now to the administrative matters. Under your response post, titled the way it is, you make a very good emotional case for how horrified you are at the word of the title, which is understandable from the point of view of the legal consequences that may threaten you. But here’s the thing: I did not put it on the title. You did. In your emotional irrationality, you have exacerbated your own situation.
I offered a compromise to remove the offending word from my text along with some sentences around it altogether. Instead, my post is now hidden and only yours is visible. So the entire onus is on you now. You can de-escalate by removing the offending word from your own title (change it to something random like “Open thread”) and by emptying your main text in the post. This way nobody needs to recall the offending word again.
These measures should be okay if you are reasonable and not a bigot and hypocrite. But I am also okay with the conclusion that I erred against your taboos over there. It’s a big lesson for me. I won’t repeat the mistake, but I also do not see any reason to ask any forgiveness from anyone. It was not that kind of mistake. It’s you who are exacerbating it. Over here I have a bit more freedom of thought.
Marriage didn’t have to be reinvented to accommodate same-sex marriages. All that was needed was the right to marriage not to be denied to same-sex couples. There’s nothing incoherent about granting any two people the right to marry rather than withholding it to some couples on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Suggesting that an entire minority group are a “problem” to which “extermination” might be thought an appropriate way to “deal” with it is certainly taboo.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I titled my piece with the word that horrified me in yours, and explained why. I have no idea what the legal consequences are, and it hasn’t occurred to me to care. I AM worried about the consequences to my daughter of a world in which “extermination” is even mooted as not the “way” to deal with the perceived “problem” of her existence.
My daughter and her community are not a “societal problem”. What IS a problem is a society that sees her community as some kind of “fringe” group of “negligible” importance who nonetheless pose some kind of threat to children.
And your article was promoting precisely that society.