I regard myself as someone who has a healthy respect for a fair argument, even if I believe the argument to be misguided or poorly founded. I contend there is something worthy of respect in the basic action of acknowledging that an argument made based on a scientific perspective requires some kind of scientific perspective in response, not simply “you are wrong because that isn’t how i want the world to be”.
In this video I give some background thoughts on how i observed this worrying type of argumentation (not arguing the science is wrong but effectively claiming the argument should not be made regardless of the science) in many (not all, by any means) of the responses to the Damore Google memo and then go on to look at a children’s book which has been criticised (and a craven apology made by the publisher for daring to say something which is almost certainly true versus something which hard line progressives would like to be true) by numerous people who make me gernuinely fearful for where we are going as a species*
To support my work, which i would love you to, please visit http://www.patreon.com/noelplum99
* If that sounds hyperbolic. Although these issues may be small the mindset behind them shows nothing whatsoever has changed within the human psyche despite living in a much less superstitious and religious world; despite living in a world where science has brought us so many wonderful things in our life it is still like dirty rags to some people when it suggests something that they find unpalatable. Honestly, if we are still no further on than this I am not sure (short of transhumanism) we have any hope of ever being: we are just too scared of our own shadows to even want to see ourselves in the cold light of day.