The Orwell quote is perfectly placed here. What’s saddest about this for me is that people are so blind to their own insecurities and judgment. The need to lash out and project is becoming stronger than our ability to think critically and deeply, and it’s causing such a storm.
It's because of things like DEI and "words are violence", this idea that we're all equal (we are, we're all human), but we all have to be the *same* equal. One can't be "better" than someone else. Only, who decides what "better" is? Usually the person getting upset. Who then turns on and attacks the person they think is "getting ahead" or "getting out of line".
I remember school debate teams that actually debated; that encouraged disparate ideas in the classroom because talking things out there was safe and healthy. Now any sort of "dissent" is immediately attacked. And even the definition of "dissent" has changed for most people.
YES! LET'S GO. Not worth it to stay quiet anymore. The quote you attribute to Orwell is actually from Selwyn Duke—it's commonly misattributed. I reached out to Selwyn last week and he confirmed this is the correct wording: "The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." :)
“You talk about politics so much now.” These events aren’t really about politics anymore. They’re about community values, mental health, the spiritual state of our society, human relationships, etc. so how is anyone supposed to ignore it? I can’t help but talk about it. From the covert virtue signaling amongst work colleagues to the hard silences at dinner tables with friends, it’s infiltrated every aspect of our lives.
Sadly I think it’s not that we don’t change and stay the same, we become even more extreme in our sameness. That’s the rabbit hole we retreat into, at the expense of nuance.
Love everything you've been sharing the past couple posts so much. I too used to be a self appointed liberal/left leaning, yet always held certain beliefs that we completely contradictory to the whole narrative. The past 5 years made me reasses all of it and now, I feel free to think for myself. Such a relieve to not be pissed all the time
Haha... being pissed all the time was so real, wasn't it? Always reacting, always outraged, always being personally attacked (but not really). I'm glad to be in a position where I can read the news, go do some research, skip eating the narratives and just decide for myself what *actually happened* and how I feel. I wish there was more tolerance for that.
Absolutely. I'm from Colombia and did my undergrad in the Bay Area. Everyone in college always talking about latinos and "our struggles" and I was like what are you all even talking about, none of this has happened to me ever lol. So yeah, that victim mentality will get nobody nowhere. Yes to reading the news and not feel attacked immediately
I’m one of those experiencing clarity, one of those people waking up.
I’m ending a 20-year relationship. Of course, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge - relationships are complicated… messy… and I’m no angel.
But the last election forced me to break the glass and grab the fire extinguisher. I’m not reliving the President’s first term all over again: The apocalypse-du-jour hysteria…
The bewilderment over how I fail to see the truth…
How I drank the kool aid and am being bamboozled by a wannabe dictator…
The pendulum-swing was so predictable, but also not going to happen. LMFAO.
The challenge is, we are being led to believe the group speak (concept beautifully put by Ayn Rand in Anthem) is the only way of intellectual conformity. I is actually being replaced by WE. That’s why the popularity among religion, feminists, incels, or extremists. The minute I disagree with the WE, there is problem.
So, Stepf, I need your help putting these two things together, if they even go together:
1. "What we’re witnessing now is the swing back. The side that was once in cultural control—academia, Hollywood, newsrooms, the digital left—overreached. They institutionalized emotional coercion, and called it justice. They rebranded dissent as harm, and called it safety. They canceled nuance, and called it progress."
Q for 1: you address the "overreach" on, I'm assuming, the left, since you name "digital left."
Is there a place for "overreach" on what isn't "the left?"
Thanks for the questions, Ariane. To answer 1: yes, there's absolutely overreach on both sides. Without getting into the weeds too much, because I think we can both agree that it *does* happen, I'll just give one current example from the right (since it might seem as though I'm picking on the left lately): Pam Bondi talking about "going after people for hate speech" is, in my opinion, overreach. I like this example bc in a lot of ways, it's doing the exact thing I'm accusing the left of these past couple of days. Silencing dissent, forcing obedience, etc.
Which leads me to your second question: when I was writing this, and typically when I am referring to "they" — I'm talking about anyone who is doing said overreach. Anyone who is trying to silence dissent. By being silent, you let "them" win.
I believe in the marketplace of ideas, and as such, I believe the best idea will always win. Good ideas can withstand argument. Only fragile ideologies require euphemisms. If you truly believe your idea is the best one, there is no need to silence the other ones—truth will come out on its own.
Does this make sense? Have I adequately answered your questions? I do realize how confusing using "they" might be... something to keep in mind for future pieces, so thank you for that :)
Definitely, Stepf, you answered exactly as I imagined: balanced, respectful, clear. I really appreciate your mind and how you've chosen to use it. I don't have time to read much on SubStack, but yours, and Kendall Lamb's Touching The Elephant, are my weekly go-tos. Both of you offer sanity in what's becoming an increasingly pretty insane world these days.
The Orwell quote is perfectly placed here. What’s saddest about this for me is that people are so blind to their own insecurities and judgment. The need to lash out and project is becoming stronger than our ability to think critically and deeply, and it’s causing such a storm.
I'm sure they will prove our points beautifully in the comments soon enough.
Definitely.
It's because of things like DEI and "words are violence", this idea that we're all equal (we are, we're all human), but we all have to be the *same* equal. One can't be "better" than someone else. Only, who decides what "better" is? Usually the person getting upset. Who then turns on and attacks the person they think is "getting ahead" or "getting out of line".
I remember school debate teams that actually debated; that encouraged disparate ideas in the classroom because talking things out there was safe and healthy. Now any sort of "dissent" is immediately attacked. And even the definition of "dissent" has changed for most people.
Yes, absolutely. I've yet to see a convincing argument in favor of "equity"
They literally change the definitions so they can win in the shaming department not the debate department.
And that is about control.
YES! LET'S GO. Not worth it to stay quiet anymore. The quote you attribute to Orwell is actually from Selwyn Duke—it's commonly misattributed. I reached out to Selwyn last week and he confirmed this is the correct wording: "The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." :)
Omg yikes! Thanks for pointing that out—I just updated the piece to reflect proper attribution.
you're so welcome! I posted on it last week and did some research.
“You talk about politics so much now.” These events aren’t really about politics anymore. They’re about community values, mental health, the spiritual state of our society, human relationships, etc. so how is anyone supposed to ignore it? I can’t help but talk about it. From the covert virtue signaling amongst work colleagues to the hard silences at dinner tables with friends, it’s infiltrated every aspect of our lives.
THIS. Yes, exactly. Ignoring it is actually harder than just addressing it at this point.
"silence is how they win"
Exactly right. For too long we have been cowed into submission.
No longer.
Sadly I think it’s not that we don’t change and stay the same, we become even more extreme in our sameness. That’s the rabbit hole we retreat into, at the expense of nuance.
Yes—the peer pressure of not speaking out against XY or Z narratives causes conformity to the extremes you speak of (imo)
Love everything you've been sharing the past couple posts so much. I too used to be a self appointed liberal/left leaning, yet always held certain beliefs that we completely contradictory to the whole narrative. The past 5 years made me reasses all of it and now, I feel free to think for myself. Such a relieve to not be pissed all the time
Haha... being pissed all the time was so real, wasn't it? Always reacting, always outraged, always being personally attacked (but not really). I'm glad to be in a position where I can read the news, go do some research, skip eating the narratives and just decide for myself what *actually happened* and how I feel. I wish there was more tolerance for that.
Absolutely. I'm from Colombia and did my undergrad in the Bay Area. Everyone in college always talking about latinos and "our struggles" and I was like what are you all even talking about, none of this has happened to me ever lol. So yeah, that victim mentality will get nobody nowhere. Yes to reading the news and not feel attacked immediately
Oh, no. I fear I am one of the psychos who's still talking. 😬
I stay yapping
I’m one of those experiencing clarity, one of those people waking up.
I’m ending a 20-year relationship. Of course, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge - relationships are complicated… messy… and I’m no angel.
But the last election forced me to break the glass and grab the fire extinguisher. I’m not reliving the President’s first term all over again: The apocalypse-du-jour hysteria…
The bewilderment over how I fail to see the truth…
How I drank the kool aid and am being bamboozled by a wannabe dictator…
The pendulum-swing was so predictable, but also not going to happen. LMFAO.
Yeah, even us fascists appreciate humor.
Thank you, Stephanie.
The challenge is, we are being led to believe the group speak (concept beautifully put by Ayn Rand in Anthem) is the only way of intellectual conformity. I is actually being replaced by WE. That’s why the popularity among religion, feminists, incels, or extremists. The minute I disagree with the WE, there is problem.
Love what you have written.
So, Stepf, I need your help putting these two things together, if they even go together:
1. "What we’re witnessing now is the swing back. The side that was once in cultural control—academia, Hollywood, newsrooms, the digital left—overreached. They institutionalized emotional coercion, and called it justice. They rebranded dissent as harm, and called it safety. They canceled nuance, and called it progress."
Q for 1: you address the "overreach" on, I'm assuming, the left, since you name "digital left."
Is there a place for "overreach" on what isn't "the left?"
And:
2. "Because silence is exactly how they win."
Q for 2: Who is the "they" you're referencing?"
Thanks for the questions, Ariane. To answer 1: yes, there's absolutely overreach on both sides. Without getting into the weeds too much, because I think we can both agree that it *does* happen, I'll just give one current example from the right (since it might seem as though I'm picking on the left lately): Pam Bondi talking about "going after people for hate speech" is, in my opinion, overreach. I like this example bc in a lot of ways, it's doing the exact thing I'm accusing the left of these past couple of days. Silencing dissent, forcing obedience, etc.
Which leads me to your second question: when I was writing this, and typically when I am referring to "they" — I'm talking about anyone who is doing said overreach. Anyone who is trying to silence dissent. By being silent, you let "them" win.
I believe in the marketplace of ideas, and as such, I believe the best idea will always win. Good ideas can withstand argument. Only fragile ideologies require euphemisms. If you truly believe your idea is the best one, there is no need to silence the other ones—truth will come out on its own.
Does this make sense? Have I adequately answered your questions? I do realize how confusing using "they" might be... something to keep in mind for future pieces, so thank you for that :)
Definitely, Stepf, you answered exactly as I imagined: balanced, respectful, clear. I really appreciate your mind and how you've chosen to use it. I don't have time to read much on SubStack, but yours, and Kendall Lamb's Touching The Elephant, are my weekly go-tos. Both of you offer sanity in what's becoming an increasingly pretty insane world these days.