JayBall.name – Page 3

There are two COVID camps. And they’re both wrong.

The two camps being, COVID is not serious, it’s an excuse for authoritarianism. And the other camp being COVID is extremely serious and the authoritarianism isn’t authoritarianism, it’s public health.

[The following remarks are my condensed version of a train of thought presented by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying's recent Darkhorse livestream #94. Video posted below.]

We have to ask the question: To what extent are the narratives that we are battling over being fed to us by something that does not have our best collective interest at its core? This does not mean that we’re being fed narratives from somewhere, but that is at least a possibility that would explain in part why this pandemic is being managed so badly.

Both of these are wrong.

It is quite clear that COVID is a very dangerous disease. On the other hand, it does seem to be the excuse for an awful lot of authoritarianism that makes no sense. I suggest there is a litmus test that we can use to detect that there is something about the way this being handled that makes it evident that this is absolutely not about public health.

Consider the typical diminishing returns curve in complex systems. Imagine a simplified diminishing returns curve where the x-axis is investment. The y-axis is return. There is a shallow early phase that then curves up and becomes a steep, effectively a cliff face, in which your investment is low relative to the returns that you get for it. For example, in the early stages imagine you are trying to figure out how to skateboard, or whatever it may be, and it’s tough at first and then you hit some point where you are, like, “Oh, I’m getting this, I’m getting this!” And then what happens? At the inflection point in the curve you get the emergence of a plateau, where larger and larger investments net smaller and smaller gains. There are still returns on investment, but they get less and less.

The reason that you get a diminishing returns curve in a complex system in which there’s an objective, is that you have a hierarchy of interventions. You’ve got some stuff that’s actually “no-brainers” that work really well, and you do those things first. This is obvious, of course, because why wouldn’t you? The more of those “most evident” things you’ve already done, the more of the low-hanging fruit you’ve found, the more you’re forced to do things that, yes, work. But at increasingly larger costs. And so you get this reliable pattern because a reasonable person, or system, attempting to solve a problem will go after the low-hanging fruit first. Eventually you will be left with smaller and smaller interventions that are more and more expensive, eventually getting to a point of near pointlessness.

Our response to COVID does not show an indication that we have gone after the low-hanging fruit. At all. It’s completely insane with respect to the low-hanging fruit that we have left on the table and not invoked. For instance, the most obvious one, and the thing that I would suggest that we use as a litmus test, is the question of vitamin D. Now the vitamin D question is not simple. It’s not a simple matter of, take vitamin D = avoid COVID. You can take vitamin D and still get COVID. But the evidence strongly suggests that vitamin D deficiency makes you much more vulnerable to COVID. This is completely unambiguous. And what’s more, that people who live far from the equator, as many of us do, are very likely to be vitamin D deficient during the winter months. Why? Because vitamin D is naturally produced on the skin in response to sunlight, and so what that means is that vitamin D deficiency, which might not be inherent to humans, is very common amongst modern humans because of the way we live. Because we spend a lot of time indoors where climate control allows us to continue, but we are then chronically underexposed to sunlight that would produce vitamin D. And therefore vitamin D supplementation has tremendous value in terms of fending off COVID for people who are likely to experience deficiencies. What’s more, vitamin D is inexpensive, vitamin D is readily available, and not only does vitamin D not have serious downsides, but if you take reasonable amounts of vitamin D you are very likely to fend off other diseases because vitamin D is basically immunosuppressive. All this makes a great deal of sense, and yet we are somehow still not widely recommending vitamin D to everybody who are likely to have that deficiency in the winter. In spite of the fact that we have a raging pandemic and we could reduce the number of cases substantially by simply making that one intervention.

So the question is, how on earth is this not our first public health recommendation to people? That if you have any danger of a vitamin D deficiency, you should do something about it. That includes making vitamin D while the sun shines – by going outside and exposing yourself to sunlight. And as that becomes less and less useful as an intervention, supplementing with biologically available vitamin D that would compensate for a deficiency. I would say that’s a litmus test. Why is it a litmus test? Because it’s the lowest hanging fruit on the tree. There is no good reason not to address the question of vitamin D deficiency first. It should have been our first intervention. And the fact that we didn’t do it, and still are not doing it, is evidence of one of two things. It is either evidence of absolutely jaw-dropping levels of incompetence (which I admit is possible). Or, that something else is driving our policy that isn’t really obsessed with preventing COVID.

Who Else Wonders What is Going on With the COVID Vaccine?

How any given individual evaluates the risks of receiving or refusing the offered vaccine should be their health choice.

Does anyone else sense there seems to be something peculiar or off with the COVID-19 vaccination? Approaching this from a viewpoint of risk, there are a number of things to consider. How any given individual evaluates the risks of receiving or refusing the offered vaccine should be their health choice. An intelligent person could very much want to get the vaccine, and should not be condemned or called foolish for that choice. But an equally intelligent person could decide to delay or refuse the vaccine, and they should also not be condemned or called foolish for the opposite choice. An important question we should be asking is Why has this choice become such a charged, divisive issue?

Here’s what has me perplexed. Lawyers sue doctors and pharmaceutical companies all the time when they screw up and injure people. Even if they do so negligently with the best of intentions, lawyers sue these health professionals.

As a result of the injuries caused while providing health care, the medical industry has chosen to shift the risk from themselves to those they treat through warnings. If you are warned, and you choose to proceed, then if there is an injury you assumed the risk. You can’t blame anyone for the injury you chose to accept.

As an example, I take Vitamin C every day. I noticed that it has a warning:

Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C): You should not use ascorbic acid if you have ever had an allergic reaction to a vitamin C supplement. Ask a doctor or pharmacist about using ascorbic acid if you have: kidney disease or a history of kidney stones; hereditary iron overload disorder (hematochromatosis); or if you smoke (smoking can make ascorbic acid less effective). Your dose needs may be different during pregnancy or while you are breast-feeding a baby. Do not use ascorbic acid without your doctor’s advice in either case.

Look at warnings that you find on other common products like Asprin, and Benadryl.

And this one on Vitamin E: Ask a doctor or pharmacist if it is safe for you to use vitamin E if you have other medical conditions, especially: anemia (low red blood cells); a bleeding or blood clotting disorder such as hemophilia; liver disease; kidney disease; any allergies; an eye disorder called retinitis pigmentosa; a vitamin K deficiency; high cholesterol or triglycerides (a type of fat in the blood); diabetes; a history of cancer; a history of stroke or blood clot; or if you need surgery, or have recently had surgery. FDA pregnancy category C. It is not known whether vitamin E will harm an unborn baby… (and the warning goes on)

Here are the same kinds of warnings you get for childhood vaccines we may have all received:

Measles: Applies to measles virus vaccine: subcutaneous powder for injection. Local: Local side effects have included injection site burning/stinging, wheal and flare, erythema, swelling, and vesiculation. Hypersensitivity: Hypersensitivity reactions have included anaphylaxis, anaphylactoid reactions, angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema), and bronchial spasm. Cardiovascular: Cardiovascular side effects have included vasculitis. Dermatologic: Dermatologic side effects have included Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, erythema multiforme, urticaria, and rash. Gastrointestinal: Gastrointestinal side effects have included diarrhea. Hematologic: Hematologic side effects have included thrombocytopenia, purpura, regional lymphadenopathy, and leukocytosis. Musculoskeletal: Musculoskeletal side effects have included arthralgia and/or arthritis (usually transient and rarely chronic), polyneuritis, myalgia, paresthesia, and rarely chronic arthritis; these symptoms may also occur with natural rubella. Nervous system: Nervous system side effects have included measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), encephalopathy, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), febrile convulsions, afebrile convulsions or seizures, ataxia, and ocular palsies. Significant central nervous system reactions such as encephalitis and encephalopathy have been very rarely temporally associated with measles vaccine (occurring within 30 days after vaccination); however, causality has not been determined in any case. A certain number of encephalitis cases unrelated to vaccines is expected to occur in a large childhood population; however, there is the possibility that some of these cases may have been caused by measles vaccine. The risk of measles vaccine-associated serious neurological disorders is much smaller than the risk for encephalitis and encephalopathy due to natural measles. Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) has been very rarely reported in children after measles vaccination. Some of these cases may have been due to unrecognized measles during the first year of life or possibly due to the measles vaccination. The results of a retrospective case-controlled study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that measles vaccine has had the overall effect of protecting against SSPE by preventing measles with its greater risk of SSPE.

Mumps Vaccine also carries warnings about side effects that include risks of local injury, hypersensitivity, cardiovascular, dermatologic, endocrine, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, hematological, nervous system, ocular, and respiratory. (I’m omitting the details for each of these categories.)

Rubella Vaccine has similar potential side effects and warnings as measles and mumps, and also adds additional warnings about musculatoskeletal risks and and even deafness.

We know about the risks for these products because human trials allowed us to learn about the side effects through control groups (who do not receive the medication/vaccination) and those who are tested. Large samples over years of testing allow the risks to be identified. Not everyone is susceptible to each risk, and some people are more likely to suffer from specific side effects than others.

Unlike all other compounds, vitamins, medications and vaccines, this is what we are told about the COVID-19 vaccine (which has not undergone human trial testing-unless you consider what is happening at present to be that test): Covid-19 risks: COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. You may have side effects after vaccination, but these are normal.

How can that be? There is nothing yet documented to justify the claim it is safe, so why tell us that? What does it mean that something has “normal” side effects?

By taking the effort to post these questions, what I am hoping to do is inspire the logical question: “What the hell is going on?” (Rather than just trust the appeal to emotions, shaming, and social pressure used today to influence a health decision.) Think this through for yourself. And choose wisely. But if someone makes a different choice than you, refrain from using emotion, shame and social pressure to confront them. Let them go in peace. Every person has the right to choose to be vaccinated, and to choose against it. And every person has the right to then live with the consequences of their choice.

One last matter to consider: Because all these vaccinations were developed with emergency authorization, and normal FDA requirements were waived, the pharmaceutical companies are not liable for any injuries caused by the vaccines. Even if they tell you they are “safe and effective” and the vaccines later prove to be neither safe nor effective, you can’t sue the manufacturer.

Living Polar Bears and Dead Frogs – My Learning Model

We learn best from experience that captures our imagination…

[Note: I created an updated version of this model on 19 June 2024 titled Jay’s Learning Model Revisited.]

“A position that begins with an inflexible conclusion and seeks ‘evidence’ to support it is impervious to reason”

This is a quote that I have adapted from something written by Steve Cuno over five years ago. He has since removed the statement from his site, but not before it left it’s impact on my mind. I added the word “inflexible” to the statement so that it more correctly reflects truth.

This quote was the impetus for the creation of the following model. I’ve developed this tool to help explain how I prefer to confront new information that I am faced with.

At the top I have labeled “rigid”, and the bottom I have identified with “flexible”. A person can find themselves leaning toward one extreme or the other on any given subject. Dividing this line in the middle, on a horizontal axis, to the far left I have given the label “skeptical”, and to the far right, “accepting”. When presented with new information one can approach any given topic with a perspective ranging from being skeptical about it to being more inclined toward believing and accepting it. It is valuable to consider where you fall in this spectrum when confronted with new information.

The top of the model can be epitomized with this quote from Mark Twain:

“Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul.”

Or this one:

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

The top left quadrant I have identified as “blind skepticism” while the top right is labeled “blind faith”. Either way, it should be evident that neither method is considered a good approach to learning. A sincere student of truth should seek to orient him or herself toward the flexible end of the model. The bottom left quadrant I have designated “open skepticism” while the bottom right is “open faith”.

In LDS scripture we read:

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. (D&C 88:118)

What this tells us is that the preferred method of learning is by faith. But “as all have not faith”, then seek diligently to learn from best books etc., while still striving to employ faith in the process. In other words, learning from a skeptical frame of mind is still a useful model, as long as you can remain flexible and allow your thinking to be influenced by truth. Be willing to let go of what is false. Always approach learning with the intent to move toward the bottom right of the quadrant in the above model.

Another example of this idea is given by Alma in the Book of Mormon. What Alma is asking us to do (in Alma 32) is something different than how we are taught in school. Alma was saying, “Hey, why don’t you just experiment with this thing, and plant it as if you believed it. Plant it as if you had faith in it. So forget about the pros and cons, accept the Book of Mormon at face value, and let the Book of Mormon define itself; let the Book of Mormon be the source from which you evaluate whether or not it enlightens you, whether or not it appeals to your heart, to your soul, and to your mind.” Or, if you are not Mormon, use the Bible, or whatever other Holy Book that you trust as foundational to your faith.

For the non-Mormon Christian audience, we see ample evidence from the Bible that support these ideas as well.

For we walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Cor 5:7, see also 1 Thes 2:13)
Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge. (Proverbs 23:12)

There are a number of ways that faith can be defined. In the context of this model, I’m defining faith as a principal of action. Faith is the moving cause of all we do. The principal that excites or gives energy to any activity or pursuit, mental or physical, is motivated by what I am referring to here as faith. Would you exert yourself to pursue any activity unless you believed it would return the desired result? As Napolean Hill defined it in his book Think and Grow Rich:

Faith is the ‘external elixir’ that gives life, power, and action, to the impulse of thought.

To this I would add that faith, as a moving cause of action, is not limited to temporal concerns, but applies to spiritual concerns as well.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Heb 11:6)

For these reasons I submit that the preferred method of learning is by faith, but that as long as you can be flexible in your approach, a skeptical frame of mind is still a useful model for discovering truth.

The top of the model could be represented simply with a period. The period closes the sentence. A period makes a statement, dot, the end. No more to be said, no more to learn, no more divine wisdom to be gained.

The bottom of the model, on the other hand, could be represented with a question mark. A question mark opens. It’s only when we ask questions that we get answers.

On the left is a skeptical approach to learning. Many fear (and justifiably so) being taken advantage of. The critical approach is employed to protect against this. The right side of the model represents an accepting or believing approach. This may seem counterintuitive to the skeptic, but it is precisely this approach that is encouraged in many religious texts and spiritual practices.

Read the following statement by Hugh Nibley and consider the top of the model where you see “blind skepticism” and “blind faith”:

If I come down and say, “I just saw a polar bear in Rock Canyon,” what are you supposed to say? “If you say you saw a polar bear in Rock Canyon, Brother Nibley, I believe you.” Well, that’s terrible. I don’t want to hear that. That takes all the wind out of my sails. I want you to go up and see for yourself. Or you might say, “Of course, there’s no polar bear. You didn’t see anything of the sort. No polar bears are found below a certain latitude. Polar bears just aren’t found in these regions, so you didn’t see any polar bear.” Well, I might have; there might have been one that escaped from the zoo. But you don’t know. The thing for you to do is not just take it because I say so, or not to reject it because you are being scientific and you don’t think it can be possible. Find out for yourself.
Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semester 2, pg 351-352

The bottom quadrants of the model encourage exploration and application. As John Seel writes:

We learn best from experience that captures our imagination and which we subsequently reflect upon analytically: hand, heart, and head.
The New Copernicans, page 23

The left bottom quadrant is where I would place the working principal of knowledge, as oppose to wisdom to the right. By way of illustration, there is value in the knowledge gained by dissecting a frog to learn about its organs, muscles, and bones. But approaching it from the bottom right quadrant, there is much wisdom gained from appreciating the beauty of the living frog – hearing its song, observing how it moves, or trying to capture its color on canvas.

Religious Convictions

I’m starting to think you don’t have to believe in God to be religious.

I like Mark Twain’s quote:

“Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul.”

The sad thing is when petrified opinions are given power to destroy:

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
Blaise Pascal

It seems clear to me the chaos we are seeing in 2020 is politically motivated. But what is most disconcerting are the politically motivated actions being discharged with such religious convictions.

Black Lives Matter

Being a peacemaker at heart, and deeply disturbed by the anger and animosity on display in protests and riots in current and recent news, I was inspired by this Facebook post by songwriter John Stringer:

What if sharing #blacklivesmatter was a way to say “I love you” to the slaves that built this country but were never thanked? #blacklivesmatter

What if it were a way to say “thank you” to those who gave their lives to bring equality in human relationships, in civil rights, in education and economic opportunity? #blacklivesmatter

What if simply acknowledging #blacklivesmatter was one way to send love to the black ancestors and their descendant – the current generations; a way to say thank you for being the glorious children of God that you are and have always been? #blacklivesmatter

What if it were a simple way to support and encourage the descendants of those who were dehumanized, oppressed, demonized, lynched and murdered just for being black? #blacklivesmatter

What if it were a way to show unity, acknowledging that black lives deserve the same care and respect as ALL LIVES? #blacklivesmatter

What if it were a simple way to shift the collective consciousness of this world by shining a light of love and VALUE on something that has been systematiclly devalued, both consciously and unconsciously, intentionally and unintentionally? #blacklivesmatter

What if it were a way to put ointment on a wound that takes the collective love of humanity to heal? #blacklivesmatter

What if it were all of this and more just by you choosing it to be?

In this moment, that is exactly what it means to me. #blacklivesmatter
#limitlessloveandlight

The use of one simple slogan to say so much is an idea I happily embrace. Many who are unfamiliar with the history of what has been termed “anti-blackness” in America may be tempted to add “only” to the beginning of the slogan “Black Lives Matter”. And then dismiss it by responding with “All Lives Matter”. What the Black Lives Matter movement spends a lot of time trying to get people to understand is they are not saying that only blacks matter, but that blacks matter equally as much as all other lives. Instead of adding “only” to the front of the slogan, they suggest we add “too” to the end of it. I like the example one person gave by asking, “Do people who change #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter run thru a cancer fundrasier going ‘THERE ARE OTHER DISEASES TOO’?”

Last year on my return trip home from visiting my daughter in Washington state, I made this note in my journal:
“I saw a red haired white man sitting across from me at the airport while I was waiting for my flight. He was wearing a shirt that said, ‘All Lives Don’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter’. Regardless of what I may think of the statement, I admired how he apparently cares about others outside his own race. What a beautiful sentiment. God bless him!”

When used in this way, I agree with and readily embrace the idea the slogan Black Lives Matter promotes. On the other hand, showing support for the organization Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is an entirely different thing altogether for me.

The Problem with Fighting Evil

From their About page (blacklivesmatter.com):

Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.

Browsing their site you will find statements encouraging a fight to “combat anti-Black racism across the globe“, create “a world free of anti-Blackness“, and “whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy“. The founders state, “We have fought like hell for our freedom and we will continue to fight like hell.”

“What on earth is wrong with any of that?” you say.

While I admit there is much good in these as ideals, I would respond with the same line of reasoning I used three years ago to question the value in fighting against porn. There seems to be something inherently wrong with attempting to eradicate evil. Ask yourself, doesn’t fighting against something, still encourage fighting?

I love this quote from Mother Teresa, “I was once asked why I don’t participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I’ll be there.”

Is it better to hate war, or love peace?

When you institutionalize a fight against evil, the organization becomes a machine that takes on a life of its own. Like wolves in nature that never fully consume the stock of prey it feeds on because it relies on it for its survival, the engine of the institution requires the resource that fuels it. In the case of “Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc”, that resource appears to be anger and racism.

Quoting from my post from three years ago:

Something about capitalizing on fighting against anything “bad” makes me tend to question motives (“non-profit” doesn’t mean that nobody is profiting from it). I’m reminded of the documentary, Pink Ribbons Inc., Capitalizing on Hope.
“The film documents how some companies use pink ribbon-related marketing to increase sales while contributing only a small fraction of proceeds to the cause, or use “pinkwashing” to improve their public image while manufacturing products that may be carcinogenic.”
(wikipedia article, Pink Ribbons Inc.)
I believe it is the nature of institutions to take on a life of their own. Over time they tend to protect themselves and fight to survive just like any other living thing. In the case of Fight The New Drug, for example, if any solution emerged that could actually eliminate porn, it would threaten the life of the organization. There are people whose livelihoods depend on the existence of the organization, and, because it’s mission is to fight against it, the organization requires the existence of porn in order to survive. (Perhaps Mother Teresa really does make a good point)
The story of the March of Dimes gives a better example of what happens when an organization, whose mission was to find a cure for polio, struggled to survive after the cure was found.
“In his book Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach, sociologist Professor James M. Henslin describes March of Dimes as a bureaucracy that has taken on a life of its own through a classic example of a process called goal displacement. Faced with redundancy after Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine, it adopted a new mission, ‘fighting birth defects’, which was recently changed to a vaguer goal of “breakthrough for babies”, rather than disbanding.”
Greenwald, Howard P. (2007). Organizations: Management Without Control. Sage Publications, Inc. p. 369. (reference given in wikipedia)

What I am NOT saying when I say Black Lives Matter

While I embrace using the slogan to show my love and support for black lives, we should recognize that not all who wave the banner “Black Lives Matter” are on the same page with what they mean when they say it. What I do NOT embrace is the use of the slogan to promote an agenda that would turn the tables on oppression.

Nothing exemplifies this better than the controversy at Evergreen State University in March 2017 involving Bret Weinstein . He was a professor of biology at the time, but as a result of the events that took place there, Weinstein has since resigned. The story of Evergreen has important implications to what we see happening in the Black Lives Matter movement today, and I encourage the reader to research it more. For the purposes of this article I will only highlight some relevant points. Bret describes himself as a progressive.

“I lean left BIG TIME,” Bret explains. Then later he laments over the overt display of aggression witnessed on the Evergreen campus:

“The issue here is that the mere thought — the skeptic mindset — is being criticized… Since when is rejecting skepticism universal and acceptable? It seems identical to extreme right wing regimes, but should not be the case in liberal democracies.
Liberal minds simply cannot act this way… It needs to be okay to disagree on political matters and still remain to be civil with one another. That is what we should expect from a democracy.”
The Controversy of Bret Weinstein Explained — The Evergreen Scandal, Jakub Ferencik, Jan 8, 2018, Noteworthy – The Journal Blog

In a May 2018 speech to Students For Liberty conference in Vancouver, B.C., Brett remarked:

Were it the objective of this social justice movement to confront the much more difficult problems and to confront them at the full level of nuance, I would be interested in seeing those problems addressed. But I cannot sign up with a movement that is attacking those people who have come the greatest distance toward creating an equitable situation.

So what is it that this movement is actually trying to achieve? Now remember I’m arguing that there are actually two groups embedded in one movement. One of those groups is really hoping to achieve some kind of equality. Hopefully they’re pursuing equality of opportunity not equality of result. But nonetheless, equality is something I would guess everybody in the room here would sign up for as an ideal that would be worth pursuing. But then there’s the other faction. The faction that I’m arguing is actually driving the agenda of the movement. What do they want? Well it’s very uncomfortable, and in fact I got into big trouble for tweeting that the movement at Evergreen was actually involved in achieving black supremacy. Now it’s interesting, I must have been challenged 20 times over having used the term “black supremacy”. Not once did anybody tell me that that was not what they had seen unfolding during the protest at Evergreen. They told me effectively that that was an impolite term for it. But we had all seen it. We had all seen the circumstance where people would walk into a room and they would say, the food, the chairs, the water – That’s not for white people. If you’re a white person, stand in the back, don’t sit in the chairs, don’t eat the food. This was actually said out loud. So in some sense it’s undeniable that what was being pursued was a kind of supremacy. My feeling is I’m against any kind of supremacy. I would like to see everybody have access to the means to get ahead through achievement. I don’t want to see any population advantaged in any population disadvantaged. So I’m “anti supremacy”. And that means that I have to be offended – if I’m to be consistent with that principle, I have to be offended when any population seeks supremacy over everybody else. Nonetheless we find ourselves trapped in a situation where we can’t even use the terms that naturally apply.
Bret Weinstein, How the Magic Trick is Done, starting at 29:09 min

If the intent is to encourage diversity and inclusion in our society, then any suppression of speech, even if it’s in an effort to temper disagreements, will be counter-intuitive to the very objectives we are trying to promote. As President Obama said:

“[E]fforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities… the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech.”
President Obama’s speech to the UN general assembly – full transcript Delivered to the UN in New York on 25 September 2012

In other words, it seems to me that in an effort to create a peaceful environment, it’s possible that an attempt to suppress conflict can engender a climate where people feel unsafe, rather than feeling safe, in expressing their views. I’ve recently become aware of something known as the shame of white silence, often embodied in phrases like “white silence equals white consent” or “white silence is violence”. The best way to ensure that people feel empowered to speak up, express their concerns, and try to understand others, is to allow for the expression of tolerant views, even if those views may offend or give insult to others.

In a speech given at TEDWomen 2018, Eldra Jackson gives an excellent example of how this kind of open and empowered expression of views is a powerful benefit. In his speech, Eldra attributes “24 years of a life sentence in prison for kidnapping, robbery, and attempted murder” on “a disease that has come to be known as toxic masculinity.” See Eldra Jackson – TED Women 2018, How to break the cycle of toxic masculinity. (starting at :38 min mark.)

Eldra found a cure through Inside Circle, an organization founded by Patrick Nolan to combat gang violence in the prison yard. Through an exercise called Circle Time — “men sitting with men and cutting through the bullshit and challenging structural ways of thinking” — Jackson learned that “characteristics usually defined as weaknesses are parts of the whole, healthy man.” It is because men can share candidly and openly without worrying if their words might offend that the program was able to make such impact in these men’s lives. Yet in our our society today this type of environment seems to be harshly discouraged rather than encouraged. It’s as if we’re saying that it’s OK for a bunch of men in a prison yard to be thrown into a situation where brutal honesty can bring reconciliation and healing, but we can’t allow it in society where some minority might be offended?

We may give lip service to ideas of exploring our differences in a safe, positive and nurturing environment, but how do we implement them in fairness to everyone when we place higher value on “not offending” over tolerance? Tolerance requires disagreement. Insisting on agreement is not tolerance, but its opposite.

The subject of free speech and safe spaces on college campuses was the topic of Bret Weinstein’s testimony given to congress on May 22, 2018. In his testimony Bret explained that the crisis isn’t primarily about free speech, and won’t be limited to college campuses for long.

Where others may suggest the culprits of injustice and inequality are an authoritarian wealthy class of elite masters of the global economy, Bret’s investigation of his experiences at Evergreen leads him to conclude the true culprits are not so easily identified.

“Am I alleging a conspiracy? No. What I have seen functions much more like a cult in which the purpose is only understood by the leaders, and the rest have been seduced into a carefully architected fiction. Most of the people involved in this movement earnestly believe that they are acting nobly to end oppression. Only the leaders understand that the true goal is to turn the tables of oppression. Something is seriously and dangerously amiss. At this moment in history the center does not hold. Partisan polarization and political corruption have rendered government ineffective, predatory, and often cruelly indifferent to the suffering of American citizens. Tribalism is the natural result.”
Bret Weinstein Testifies to Congress on The Evergreen State College riots, Free Speech & Safe Spaces