#rational discourse

△➞ ://0010 Hueman ≈ Instrumentality • [1653] ➞ ▲

Culture plays a game of simplification. If you can make people think alike, they will buy alike, they will worship alike, and if politics demands it, they will kill alike. - Terence Mckenna

We need to talk about some uncomfortable truths that nobody wants to discuss.

About why white men specifically have been in leadership - there's actually some interesting stuff here that might surprise you. First, we literally wouldn't have civilization without men doing the work they do. Men make up 97% of oil rig workers, 96% of construction workers, 93% of mechanics. These aren't glamorous jobs, but someone has to do them. Men are also 92% of workplace deaths - they're literally dying to keep society running. Plus they make up 70% of homeless people, 93% of prisoners, and 78% of suicide victims.

There are real neurological differences too - men have 10% larger brains on average, but here's the thing: IQ is the same on average between men and women. What's different is the variability - men have more geniuses but also more people with very low IQs, while women cluster around the average. More importantly, men process risk and competition differently. Testosterone drives risk-taking behavior, which explains why men dominate both extremes - more CEOs but also more prisoners, more inventors but also more homeless. They take bigger gambles, which leads to both massive success AND massive failure.

As far as whiteness goes... this should make you think differently - Asian Americans now earn way more than white Americans on average. Indian American families make almost double what white families do. If white people were really holding everyone else down, how would that even be possible?

Also, did you know that over 1 million Europeans were enslaved by North African pirates between 1500-1800? The word 'slave' literally comes from 'Slav' because so many Slavic peoples were enslaved. Additionally, Irish people were sold as indentured servants, which was often slavery in all but name.

None of that skin color matters, slavery was a human problem throughout history, not a white problem - and we should be proud that Western civilization led the charge to end it worldwide... yet we are constantly told that white people are uniquely guilty for something every civilization practiced, and that we as Americans literally abolished... we should be celebrating this fact, not trying to drag everyone's attention back toward the history before it.

Here's a hard truth: In Minnesota for literally every year on record for the last 5 years, about 6.4% of the population were black males, which committed 68% of all murders in the state. The violent crime statistics aren't far off from that either. Even that isn't a skin color issue, it comes down to families and proliferation of cultures by those families. Some cultures are super focused on education and working crazy hours. Others... not so much. It's not about skin color - it's about what's normalized in these different communities.

Let me be clear: I don't see people by their skin color. I truly believe anyone is capable of anything - mind over matter is real. But you have to understand the conditions you're up against. You have to know these predispositions, the fundamental differences in how brain chemistry works, how different hormones affect behavior. Knowledge is power, and pretending these differences don't exist helps no one.

I believe in something deeper - that we're all part of the same consciousness, the same reality experiencing itself. When any part of us suffers, we all suffer. That's why victim mentality is so destructive - it keeps parts of our collective self trapped in cycles of failure.

The way I see it, white men weren't keeping others down through some conspiracy. They were just the majority population for most of American history. Now that things are more open, we're seeing other groups excel past them in many areas.

What I see with these protests are overly privileged Americans of all colors looking for someone to blame for their problems instead of taking responsibility. When politicians talk about any race being 'the problem,' they're just dividing us to gain power. The real issue isn't what happened centuries ago - it's people today choosing victim mentality over personal responsibility.

We don't need equal racial representation in everything. We need competent people in positions based on merit, not skin. This obsession with race (or gender) is taking us backwards, not forwards.

It's scary how quickly hatred toward any racial group can spread - we've seen throughout history what happens when people start blaming one race for society's problems. Think of the Nazi movement.

I hope none of this comes across wrong - honestly, half the physics and tech YouTube videos I learn from are made by women, and they're brilliant. I only brought up the brain differences to explain the risk-taking patterns we see in society.

I genuinely believe we'd all be better off focusing on individual merit and character rather than skin color or gender. It does not do anyone any good.

By Adam Kirsch

Excerpt:

“But with the Iran war, as in so many other ways, Donald Trump has broken new ground. He is the first president to start a war without even bothering to lie to the public, because he simply didn’t care what the public thought. The American people weren’t consulted about attacking Iran—neither formally, through their elected representatives in Congress, nor informally, by allowing pundits, activists, and civil-society groups to have their say. As Trump told The New York Times in January, his power as commander in chief was constrained by nothing but ‘my own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.’”

Excerpt:

“Ultimately, Habermas believed, language itself commits human beings to democratic argument. In The Theory of Communicative Action, his 1981 magnum opus, he rejected the scientific tendency to think about language in terms of propositions—statements about the world that can be either true or false. The most important thing, Habermas maintained, isn’t what a statement is about, but who it is addressed to. Any time we say something, we say it to another human being in an implicit attempt to win their assent. Different kinds of statements ask for different kinds of acceptance: A factual claim, like “Earth is the third planet from the sun,” wants to be accepted as true, while a moral claim, like “Murder is evil,” wants to be accepted as right.

“But in every case, Habermas wrote, ‘the speech act of one person succeeds only if the other accepts the offer contained in it.’ And the decision to accept or reject a speech act is always ‘based on potential grounds or reasons.’ Whenever we say something, we are making a tacit promise that we have good reasons for saying it, and could produce them if called on to do so. Habermas concluded that persuasion isn’t just one way of using language among many others; it is the foundation of every use of language. ‘The inherent telos of human speech,’ the purpose for which it is intended, is ‘reaching understanding’ between human beings.

“In real life, of course, we don’t use language only for rational persuasion. We also use it to give orders and make threats, demanding obedience instead of agreement. But when we agree with someone because of the potential ‘losses’ or ‘rewards,’ Habermas argued, we aren’t truly agreeing, just giving in. By the same principle, public discourse is authentic only when no participant is excluded, no opinion is forbidden, and no one is subjected to coercion. These conditions are seldom found in real politics, but we can always get closer to the ideal or further from it.”

Excerpt:

“Habermas was in his 90s when he wrote about social media, and if anything, he underestimated the challenge it poses—not just to liberal democracy, but to his own thought and worldview. The most sinister effect of the internet on today’s politics isn’t just that it foments division. It’s that the weightlessness of online existence breeds a kind of gleeful nihilism. Instead of discourse, social media encourages trolling—the principle that it doesn’t matter what you say, as long as people pay attention to you.

Logic is a powerful tool that can greatly enhance our everyday conversations. By employing logical frameworks and models, we can construct sound arguments, analyze information, resolve disagreements, and foster a deeper understanding of various topics. In this blog post, we will explore some valuable models and frameworks that can assist us in using logic effectively during our conversations, promoting rational discourse and critical thinking.

Socratic Method: Uncovering the Truth through Inquiry- The Socratic Method, named after the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, involves the art of asking insightful questions to stimulate critical thinking. By engaging in thoughtful questioning, we can challenge assumptions, identify inconsistencies, and encourage a deeper examination of our beliefs and reasoning. This method helps us navigate conversations with intellectual curiosity and promotes logical analysis.

Toulmin Model: Constructing and Evaluating Arguments- The Toulmin Model provides a structured approach to constructing and evaluating arguments. Its elements include the claim (the main statement), grounds (supporting evidence), warrant (connecting the claim and grounds), backing (additional support), qualifier (specifying the strength of the argument), and rebuttal (addressing counterarguments). By employing the Toulmin Model, we can formulate logical arguments and critically assess the strength and validity of others' arguments.

Rhetorical Appeals: Balancing Emotions, Credibility, and Logic- Rhetorical appeals, comprising ethos (credibility), pathos (emotions), and logos (logic), are persuasive tools that help us communicate effectively. While emotions and credibility play important roles in conversations, incorporating logical appeals allows us to present sound reasoning, evidence, and logical coherence. By striking a balance between these appeals, we can influence others through rational persuasion.

Argument Mapping: Visualizing Logical Structures- Argument mapping involves visually representing the structure of an argument using diagrams or software tools. This approach helps us visualize the logical flow of information, identify premises and conclusions, and evaluate the strength and coherence of an argument. Employing argument mapping can bring clarity to complex discussions and facilitate a more systematic evaluation of ideas.

Decision-Making Models: Weighing Options with Logic- Decision-making models, such as cost-benefit analysis, SWOT analysis, or decision trees, integrate logical reasoning to assess options and make informed choices. By applying these models, we can organize relevant information, consider different factors, and weigh the pros and cons based on logical evaluation. These frameworks enable us to make decisions that align with our goals and values.

Critical Thinking Frameworks: Nurturing Rational Discourse- Critical thinking frameworks, such as Bloom's Taxonomy or Paul-Elder's Model of Critical Thinking, provide a structured approach to developing and applying critical thinking skills. These frameworks guide us in analyzing information, evaluating evidence, and constructing logical arguments during conversations. By cultivating critical thinking skills, we can engage in more meaningful and intellectually stimulating discussions.