#heterodox

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

I am so sick of Christians making everything into a Conservative vs Liberal debate thing. Please chill out. There are Orthodox Christians (not the denom), Heterodox Christians, and Heretics. That’s it. Stop screaming about what conservatives believe vs what liberals believe vs what progressives believe vs what evangelicals believe.

It’s exhausting. Maybe this is just cause im Protestant (for now) but there are just biblical (orthodox and heterodox) Christians and heretical Christians. That’s it.

Also stop confusing political and religious conservatism/liberalism. They’re not the same. Many conservative Christians and politically liberal (me and my fav bible scholar actually) and many liberal Christians are politically conservative (Nazi “Christians”)

[faithless-faithful]

Welcome, sibling! 🙏🏻❤️

My name is E, I use they/it/he/she pronouns, and I am 25 years old! I'm a current art history major at university, and I have a special interest in religion!

I am always a spiritual seeker and have been pagan for ~9 years now. I am interested in eclectic and syncrectic faiths, especially Christopagan and Ozark folk practices.

I do have a set of non-negotiable beliefs: I am an omnist/pluralist (all paths are equally valid and ultimately lead to God), a panentheist, and universalist. I am very much going down a heterodox/heretical path, as I am interested in Christianity from a polytheistic perspective! I also have interests in process and liberation theology, as well as queer theology.

DNI: TERFs/radfems and debate-bros or proselytizers. I'm not here to debate my religion or my existence, I'm here to worship my God/s and learn. I'm pro-autonomy all the way - people can make their own decisions on what is best for them and I respect that, and I expect others to do the same.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The Cost of ‘Free Black Thought’

By: Randy Souther

Published: May 24, 2024

In December of 2022, I published on our university library website a research guide consisting of a bibliography of black writers with heterodox views on a wide variety of topics. By May of 2023, five months later, I had been labeled a racist, placed on administrative leave, and targeted for firing.

The bibliography was created and compiled by folks at an organization called Free Black Thought[1] whose mission is, in their own words, to represent the rich diversity of black thought beyond the relatively narrow spectrum of views promoted by mainstream outlets. Although their website contains a variety of resources, my librarian’s eye was immediately drawn to their bibliography, which they named the Compendium of Free Black Thought.[2] They presented it as an open access work and encouraged folks to use it as they see fit.

What I saw was a fascinating compendium of writers, some of whom I recognized, but most of whom I was not familiar with, that I thought would be a useful resource at my library. We try to promote marginalized voices, particularly black voices, but this seemed to be a subset of those voices that we don’t often promote.

In the fall semester of 2022 I worked on converting a portion of this bibliography into a LibGuide, and by December, my work on the bibliography was mostly complete. I announced the bibliography to my library via Slack, a business communication and social media app that we use extensively. The first commenter on Slack set the tone indicating numerous concerns, including that some of the bibliography entries seem to them anti-black and some seemed outright racist. There were concerns that the bibliography did not represent our values and that it sought to undermine black activism. There were concerns that I had not consulted with anyone inside or outside of the library with expertise in Black studies. I was asked, “does the devil need more advocates?”

Over the holiday break, I received an email from a university vice provost indicating that they had received complaints about the bibliography and that they would set up a meeting with me to discuss the situation. That this had jumped from the library to the upper levels of the university administration was alarming. I felt at this point that my job was in jeopardy, so I turned my focus from my library colleagues to the administration and asked for union representation at the forthcoming meeting. At the meeting, the vice provost suggested that they were neutral in this dispute and were simply relaying the concerns of the librarians who had made the complaints. The concerns now were that the bibliography was not rigorous or academic, that I had not consulted with subject experts, that I hadn’t critically evaluated the bibliography, and that the bibliography would cause reputational harm to the library. At the end of the meeting, the vice provost said they would be in touch with next steps.

With this meeting over, I turned my attention back to my library colleagues. After consulting with my union representative, I made the decision to take down the bibliography as it simply was not worth all the trouble that it was causing. I wrote an email to my colleagues stating that I had taken down the bibliography and hoped that gesture would allow us to have a discussion. I explained my reasons for publishing the bibliography, using the Heterodox Academy principles of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement[3] as the context within which I valued the bibliography. I talked about my personal interest in terms of intellectual curiosity and the delight that I found in discovering certain authors. I also talked about my regrets in how all this unfolded, and my wish that I had managed constructive disagreement better.

This was not what my colleagues wanted to hear, and it made them even angrier. I was accused of inappropriately centering myself instead of my colleagues. The next day, with no warning, my colleagues from a department that shares reference desk duties with my department began boycotting their reference desk shifts, later stating that they had done so because I had not acknowledged the harm done to my colleagues, and further stating that they did not feel safe when anti-black and racist ideologies are platformed. I later learned that the library dean was aware of this action beforehand and did nothing to prevent it. Finally, I offered a brief apology to everyone, sincerely stating that I was sorry for the hurt that the bibliography had caused, that the manner that it had been introduced had been poorly managed, and that overall its publication had been a mistake. All of this I felt was true. I did not apologize for the content of the bibliography, however, because there was nothing improper about it. There was no response and the boycott continued.

At the end of January, I met with the library dean and he asked me for an update on the situation. I said I was waiting for the next steps that were promised by the vice provost. He informed me that there would be no further involvement from the administration at any level and that and that it was up to me to resolve things. I then held a meeting to update my department on the news from the dean. I let them know that after taking down the bibliography, explaining my reasoning for publishing it, and offering an apology, I was at a loss as to how to move forward.

Instead of offering help, they informed me that they would be asking the dean to replace me as department head and to disallow me from serving at the reference desk. At that, I adjourned the meeting. It must be said that although this meeting was emotionally intense, it was also calm and respectful on both sides. No voices were raised, and no harsh words were spoken. Nonetheless, a few hours later, I received a text from the union president telling me to expect an email from the library dean placing me on administrative leave. He said a number of librarians had told the dean that they were concerned for their safety. The email followed placing me on leave and banning me from the university, but it did not state for what reason. To this day I have not received a direct answer about this but have discovered that it followed from the department meeting detailed earlier.

With no explanation and no investigation, I was removed from the university for several months for being a threat to my colleagues. During this time, I had almost no contact with anyone in the library, but the attacks from my colleagues continued. They wrote a letter to me and the union leadership demanding that I step down from my position as one of the union representatives for the library. In the letter, they characterized me as, quote, “someone who espouses or condones racist and harmful views.” In short, I was branded a racist. In April, the library dean proposed that I could return to the library stripped of all librarian duties and performing instead duties of vacant staff positions and with an extreme schedule of late nights and weekends. In response, the union filed a grievance on my behalf. The grievance process forced movement from the administration and my eventual return to the library appeared likely.

With my return on the horizon, my colleagues mounted one last attack. A long letter to human resources that reframed their complaints as violations of HR conduct policies, and included a new charge: plagiarism, as well as a request that HR fire me from the university. I wrote a robust rebuttal, and HR ultimately determined that I violated no policy, no rule, no regulation or law. Administratively, I was cleared. In July, I returned to the library as a librarian, but minus my department head roles. My relationships, with a few notable exceptions, were in tatters, and the library environment was cold and unfriendly.

In the aftermath, I’ve asked myself how how this might have happened differently. With so many variables, I find it difficult to answer this question. The library administration could have chosen to mediate this dispute, but instead they fanned the flames and ultimately lost control of the situation. This was the most significant factor that prevented us from finding a way forward. That nearly all communications occurred electronically rather than in person was a significant factor impeding progress also. In particular, Slack, with its social media elements rewarded emotional responses. This isn’t a problem when the emotions are positive as they normally are, but when they’re negative, things spiral downward very quickly. And as I said to my colleagues on multiple occasions, I agree with them that consulting with others before publishing the bibliography might have changed the tenor and direction of this situation.

I have learned that constructive disagreement is hard and clearly requires more practice.

--

Watch video:

==

"Critically evaluated" is a codeword meaning that it doesn't comply with Critical Theory, which views black disagreement with oppressor-vs-oppressed dynamics as "false consciousness" and "internalized racism."

"Harmful views" and "reputational harm to the library" are phrases deliberately invoked in an attempt to circumvent having to explain themselves, when really they just disagree.

[irreplaceable-spark]

A Resurgence of Vision | Vivek Ramaswamy | EP 380

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and 2024 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy discuss his ongoing campaign, the long-growing hunger for depth in political discussion, the dire need for a renewed American vision, and how Vivek plans to strip the Washington administrative agencies of their unconstitutional powers. Vivek Ramaswamy is an entrepreneur, author, and political activist. Vivek has been making headlines since announcing his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election, running on a platform in part to dismantle the expansive and corrupt bureaucracy that has seeped into nearly all facets of American government. Prior to this, Ramaswamy was the founder and CEO of the biopharmaceutical company Roivant Sciences. Leaving in 2021, he published “Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam.” In 2022, he co-founded Strive Asset Management with Anson Frericks, which focuses on an alternative to the now-pushed ESG investment framework. That same year Ramaswamy published “Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence.” and has since been deemed one of the “Intellectual Godfathers of the anti-woke movement.”

[sheepskinnedgoat]

If you're comfortable answering, how would you describe Sophia and your relationship with her? ☺️

Oh gosh, well, lemme try.

Sophia is Wisdom. Not just a personification or an embodiment of it, but the path to it. I think through this Wisdom, we can strive for better things for ourselves and the collective of humanity and earth and the world around us. It could even bring an individual closer toward "transcendence" or something like that, where our soul finally finds it's full way back to ultimate Oneness spiritually? But first, Oneness comes materially; I feel like that's the Wisdom test, really.

Anyway, she's also like, the mom to our mom. Since I was raised by my grandmother, both Earth and Sophia give me "your grandma, but raises you like a practiced mom" feelings and so I cherish both very much. And to make things harder to formulate into words, Sophia in all her wise momness gave us a creator/crafter to give us earth and the universe and our entire existence.

And like a good mom, "bridges" the gap between the self still forming and the self still growing and the self that finds completion.

So I guess that's how I would describe my relationship with Sophia.

[shotbyshe]

Words of the Day - sometime in June

fisisenate: word i made up in dance class

anglophone: consisting of or belonging to an English-speaking population especially in a country where two or more languages are spoken

uterus universe: phrase i made up

credulous: Disposed to believe too readily; gullible.

logomachy: A dispute about words.

prose:

Ordinary speech or writing, without metrical structure.

Commonplace expression or quality.

heterodox:

Not in agreement with accepted beliefs, especially in church doctrine or dogma.

Holding unorthodox opinions.

esoterica:

things that are impractical or specialised.

Secrets known only to an initiated minority.

[eli-kittim]

Is the Authority of Scripture Biblical?

Eli Kittim

I have a high view of Scripture. But my authority is a Person, not a Book. My authority is God himself, as he reveals to me his will and purpose through spiritual communications. It’s one thing to say that the Bible is “authoritative,” in the sense that it’s reliable and truthful. But it’s quite another thing to say that it’s our highest authority. I think people mistakenly conflate the authority of Scripture with Cessationism, the Calvinist doctrine that spiritual gifts and prophecy ceased with the Apostolic Age. They often cite Jude 1:3 for support. But all that verse says is that “the faith” was revealed to us at some point in human history. It doesn’t say that the Godhead went out of business, took a Sabbatical, or died and left a will. The phrase—“the faith delivered once for all to God's people”—can be disambiguated by examining the context. The other passage cessationists love to quote is 1 Cor. 13:9-10. But all it says is that “we know in part and prophesy in part” because “when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with.” But not before the complete comes. That’s the key! It doesn’t say that prophecy has ceased. That would be a misinterpretation. Besides, Acts 2:17 says that people in the end times will prophesy and see visions.

Many people are confusing Scripture’s inspiration, revelation, truthfulness, and inerrancy with the concept of “authority,” which the Oxford languages dictionary defines as “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.” In short, our highest authority is not the Church, tradition, councils, committees, or even the Bible itself. Our highest authority is Jesus Christ! In Matt. 28:18 (NASB), Christ says:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has

been given to Me”

Where does 2 Tim. 3:14–16 mention the authority of Scripture? It says that “the sacred writings … are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” In other words, Scripture gives us wisdom and leads us to salvation which can only be found in Christ Jesus. The fact that Scripture is “inspired” doesn’t mean it represents the final authority. 2 Tim. 3:14–16 reads:

“continue in the things you have learned

and become convinced of, knowing from

whom you have learned them, and that

from childhood you have known the sacred

writings which are able to give you the

wisdom that leads to salvation through faith

which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is

inspired by God and beneficial for teaching,

for rebuke, for correction, for training in

righteousness.”

The fact that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) doesn’t mean that the Bible has the final say in all matters. The Spirit that inspired the Bible is the ultimate authority on all matters, not the Bible. Scripture itself does not claim to have all authority. Jesus does.

Moreover, the concept of the Sufficiency of Scripture implies that Scripture itself is all we need to interpret Scripture. But Scripture can be interpreted in 30,000 different ways. Just look at all the Protestant denominations that split due to interpretative differences. Thus, Scripture is neither sufficient to interpret itself, nor is it the final authority. Without the Holy Spirit to illuminate us, we will inevitably misinterpret it (Jn 16:13)!

Where does 2 Pet. 1:20–21 mention the authority of Scripture?

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy

of Scripture becomes a matter of

someone’s own interpretation, for no

prophecy was ever made by an act of

human will, but men moved by the Holy

Spirit spoke from God.”

All it says is that prophecy and its interpretation should be revealed by the Holy Spirit, not interpreted by human beings. If anything, it demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture!

The fact that the Bible contains the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the final authority, or that it’s sufficient in and of itself, so that we don’t need anything else. If the Bible is entirely “sufficient” and adequate for all purposes, we wouldn’t need to be reborn. All we would need to do is read our Bibles. But Scripture cannot save anyone. Jesus does. The Spirit is what we need. We can be saved by the Spirit without the Bible. But we can’t be saved by the Bible without the Spirit.

The Bible does not attest to its own authority. Revelation of the Word does not mean ultimate Authority. The fact that God’s Word is true (Jn 17:17) doesn’t mean that the Bible is the highest authority in our lives. As Christ said, it is the Spirit that perfects us, not the Scriptures (Jn 16:13). Luke 24:49 reads:

“But remain … until you have been clothed

with power from on high”

John 3:5 says categorically and unequivocally:

“unless someone is born of … the

Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Likewise, Romans 8:9 puts it thusly:

“But if anyone does not have the Spirit of

Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

In John 5:39-40, Jesus demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture by saying the following:

“You examine the Scriptures because you

think that in them you have eternal life; and

it is those very Scriptures that testify about

Me; and yet you are unwilling to come to Me

so that you may have life.”

When Jesus says that all will be accomplished according to his Word (Matt. 5:18), he’s talking about prophecy, not the authority of Scripture. I’m not suggesting that Scripture errs or is contradictory. Absolutely not! But let’s not confuse the issues. The fact that the Bible contains the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s our final authority, or that it’s entirely sufficient. That would be equivalent to Bibliolatry. The Bible is not a paper Pope. Truth and trustworthiness is one thing. Authority is another.

[lesbiancosimaniehaus]

So many of you absolute numbskulls misuse and misinterpret sociological terms such as socialization and intersectionality, and it’s not even a little bit funny. Socialization is a lifelong process. It’s a dynamic process. Females receive “female” socialization by virtue of being female. An individual is either more receptive to it, or less receptive to it, or the input is more or less intense. The most masculine woman still “receives” female socialization. Socialization simply refers to the process be which an agent is exposed to and by which it receives social information such as norms and rules and mores. It’s basically the way people react to culture. I can’t stand all these feminist-ish “critical thinking” women using the term and not even having a basic sociological definition to work with. Same with “social construct”. Same with “intersectionality”. Yashar Mounk (sp?) had a very interesting conversation on the unspeakable podcast about how absolute idiots butchered the idea of “intersectionality” to an extent that Kimberle Crenshaw couldn’t even trace the prevailing use to what she’d originally written on the subject.

[zephyr-salamander]

What would you do if all your basic needs were covered? If there was a UBI and work and labor were not associated with survival, but with status or the goal of luxury?

[euphorial-docx]

did i make up two political parties for the wizarding world? yes. yes i did.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Honestly, nothing shows someone's ignorance more (to me) then when they insist that some philosophy they hold MUST be held by everyone in order to be Christian because just like. let me introduce you to sooooo many other Christians.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Salomé Sibonex

Published: Jan 29, 2024

I’ve been seeking a reprieve from the ugly sides of our world lately and I found it in Hogwarts Wizarding School of Magic.

Even though Harry Potter’s world isn’t utopian, the whimsy of magic and the drama of a battle between good and evil helped wash away the ugly banality of the real world’s problems. There was one problem I couldn’t find a reprieve from, though. In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry encounters a problem I’m all too familiar with and that lives at the core of many societal issues. At this point in the series, Harry’s known for his infamous past as a child who survived a direct attack from the embodiment of evil, Voldemort, and his battles against evil and chaos conquering Hogwarts. And yet, even Harry Potter in a world of elves and flying brooms can’t escape the ever-present human problem of conformity.

Watching Harry Potter struggle to overcome other people’s desire for conformity and disdain for anyone who threatens it made me realize: many people cheering this fictional protagonist on would fight against him in real life.

Despite having proven his loyalty, courage, and inclination to fight against evil, Harry Potter’s warning that Voldemort has returned is met with annoyance and disbelief from everyone but his close friends and the embodiment of wisdom, Dumbledore. This problem introduces a crucial element of what causes a lot of today’s destructive conformity: motivated reasoning. Similar to confirmation bias, motivated reasoning happens when someone is motivated to either agree or disagree with new information based on their current beliefs, thus letting that motivation shape their response more than whether the information is true.

You often hear people lament how, despite having access to all the information in the world, it seems like people are getting dumber. A big part of why access to information alone doesn’t reduce ignorance is because of motivated reasoning. People today are inclined to fight against information that challenges their worldview, often because it’s just easier than updating it.

It would be easier for his peers and the authorities if Harry Potter was wrong about danger on the horizon, so they decide to believe he’s wrong, regardless of whether he’s wrong. They deride and dismiss him with accusations I’ve faced myself when sharing inconvenient truths; his classmates scoff “he just wants to be famous!”, which our culture has shortened to “grifter!” Harry Potter—the infamous beacon of hope and repeated warrior for good over evil—is accused of grifting by his own classmates simply because it’d be easier if that were true. Unfortunately for them, it’s not. 

J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series is a masterpiece for many reasons, but one reason is that her characters and the stories they live out are so real despite happening in such a surreal world. Watching the scene where Harry Potter tries to warn people about a problem he’s proven himself trustworthy and competent to assess—only to be shouted down by people who want the easy route today at the risk of hardship tomorrow—felt uncomfortably real.

I criticized the manipulative pressure activists used to make people pledge allegiance to BLM without researching the organization (which turned out to be corrupt) or the movement itself (which turned out to be a guise for spreading destructive ideas in the name of “anti-racism”). When I speak about that today, I’m praised. But then the Israel attack on October 7th happened and suddenly the same message against letting social pressure rush you to pledge allegiance to positions you don’t understand now got me derided for not “using my platform” properly. The pattern repeats.

You can be the same person with the same message, but other people will respond to you differently based on where the winds of culture have blown them this week.

Unprincipled people are constantly shifting their targets because their worldviews aren’t tethered to anything deeper than seeking social approval and avoiding cognitive dissonance. They will wish death on you for not posting a flag emoji while claiming to hold the moral high ground.

Unprincipled people believe their frantic rushing from Current Thing to Current Thing is proof of their moral character, but it’s actually proof of how unreliable the opinions of anyone but your close friends and personal Dumbledores can be. Just look at J.K. Rowling’s experience. 

While the fact that people with Harry Potter tattoos were the quickest to turn on the creator of their favorite story simply because her opinions didn’t sway with the ever-changing winds of culture (she maintains the once-uncontested reality that trans-women are trans-women and biological women are biological women), that’s only one example of a conformist culture that hates heroes. Harry Potter himself is the perfect litmus test for whether we have a culture that praises heroes or villains.

Forget about Harry’s magic abilities. What truly makes Harry Potter a magical character isn’t his ability to wield magic, which most of the magic world can do—it’s his character that makes him stand apart from all others. If Harry Potter were a real, non-magical person in our society today, his unusually strong character would make him a pariah. Unlike most of the magical world’s people, Harry Potter is pursuing a goal far bigger than himself; this makes him the target of both disgruntled plebs and power-hungry tyrants. People who don’t have a strong and honorable mission in life hate seeing people who do—it either reminds them they’re wasting their lives or threatens their ability to fulfill their evil mission. A lot of arm-chair internet activists and government officials would hate Harry Potter. 

It’s not just that Harry has a unique destiny that makes his character compelling—it’s the fact that he has the courage and determination to pursue that destiny and develop the necessary skills to do so that makes his character admirable. Every person—especially in an individualistic culture that valorizes people who make their own way in life—wants to feel like they have a unique life path that leads to greatness. Luckily for those living in a free society, they do. Unlike in centrally-planned economies like Cuba and China, where your destiny is mostly determined by what your government allows, people in free countries can determine the course of their lives.

The government doesn’t dictate what you can study, what businesses you can open, how many kids you can have, or how much money you’re allowed to make. We’re free to imagine a future for ourselves and set out to develop the skills needed to achieve it. Of course, that doesn’t mean everyone will.

Businesses fail, personal tragedies happen, and obstacles appear. The people who give up on their journey or never get going but believe they could’ve done otherwise harbor regrets, and those regrets easily turn to resentment. These are the bitter people who see the hope and success of others as a stinging reminder of their failures. People who’ve given up or never tried to forge the future they wanted would hate some as determined and ambitious as Harry Potter.

Despite being an orphan, a victim of neglect by his step-family, stalked by a violent gang of death-eaters working for Voldemort, and a childhood victim of assault, Harry Potter doesn’t wear the label of victim.

In a culture like ours that sees victimhood as a hierarchy that dictates your treatment, an individual who refuses to identify as a victim is inherently subversive.

Instead of demanding special treatment because of his hardships, Harry Potter strives not just to overcome them, but uses his hardships as fuel to make him stronger than he would be without them. One might argue it would’ve been better if Harry Potter’s parents were never killed by Voldemort and thus he would’ve never been fated to fight him—and if your idea of a good life is ease and subsistence, that would be true—but your life would make a terrible story. Harry Potter’s victimization by Voldemort’s evil is what imbued him with the ability to become a hero. With darkness comes light, but in a culture that doesn’t believe in light, many people linger in the dark and resent anyone who reminds them their darkness is a choice.

Harry Potter is the archetypical hero. He pursues a mission that starts with his personal journey of understanding himself and helping those close to him, which leads him to help the world. He goes above and beyond what others do to become worthy of the future he wants. He never identifies with the many ways he’s been victimized, but instead transmutes his hardships into victories. And for all these heroic qualities, Harry Potter would be maligned by our culture as privileged, “alt-right,” and much like his creator has experienced, his efforts to do good would be met with hostility and accusations of grifting from people who care more about the ease of clinging to their worldview than discovering the truth. 

Entire countries end up on the wrong side of history when they stop cheering for heroes.

[constance-mcentee]

Sunday, 7 January 2024

An Episcopalian priest I know shared the following quote on her Facebook page today for Epiphany:

“Once we meet Jesus, we all go home by another way.”

There wasn't a source attributed to this quote, but it stuck with me nonetheless. And, I'm sure this quote is a reference to the story of the Magi going home by a different route so they could avoid King Herod (Matthew 2:12).

I'm a heterodox Christian, a heretic. My beliefs are nonstandard, to say the least. As I'm trying a journal practice this year revolving around the Gifts of Advent (Hope, Peace, Joy, and Love), I found this quote really put me at peace with my strange faith.

I'm not really sure what I truly believe, but this idea that I'll still find my way "home" (whatever that might fully entail) after my experiences with what Jesus embodies (the Gifts of Advent) is just really comforting.

[dhaaruni]

Ohhhhh my god you identify as heterodox? Should we tell everyone? Should we put out an ad in The Free Press? Should we invite Jonathan Haidt?

[uququ]

people are always so resistant to the idea that being transgender is a social contagion but like you don't have to be all-or-nothing about it, i think it's clearly a LITTLE bit social contagion. like i would guess it's some split between innate sex/gender dysphoria & resistance/resentment of gender roles & social contagion plus maybe some other stuff, with different people individually being weighed towards different motivations. maybe the social contagion bit controls the specific presentation of "being transgender" or something. i guess social contagion is kind of a loaded term? it's like a meme in the classic sense i guess

[alanshemper]

In the twenty-first century, realizing that economics is totally fucked is a rite of passage for every serious intellectual. It’s more or less a precondition for doing anything actually interesting in the social sciences. But after a certain point, it’s not enough to just bash this politburo, boys’ club, or priesthood and its dogmas. To do so is merely to define yourself in opposition to the enemy.

What we need is an actual science of the economy, one which we presently lack. Without it we will be unable to do the kind of planning which is necessary in order to establish economic democracy, build up new industries, achieve full employment, and complete a green transition. Economics clearly has dropped the ball. Who will pick it up? And how do you avoid making the same mistakes?

July 2023