Here’s the key thing about the cuddling video that you guys have not addressed: I can accept that she wants the guy to be at least “making an effort” to push up against her boundaries, but guys have been endlessly told to NOT DO THAT! That they must respect women’s boundaries when they’ve explicitly said no. Once she says “NO”, you are supposed to back off, period, men have been told. Pressuring her is tantamount to coercion. There needs to be explicit affirmative consent. Yes means Yes. Etc, etc.
Men have actually had their lives ruined for “pressuring” women, and reasonably pushing up against their boundaries in the way this woman is asking them to do. See, for example, the Emily Yoffe Reason article about the journalist in China ('I'm Radioactive'), or the guy who got investigated by Michigan State for feeling up a girl he was making out with, who he previously had had sex with (https://archive.ph/ScAxx). Have we already forgotten how Aziz Ansari had his life ruined for trying to push past a woman's "no"s? I can cite twenty more such cases of men who did what this women is asking for and got in serious trouble for it. Do I need to remind you that many radio stations have stopped playing "Baby, It's Cold Outside" because it's been deemed 'rapey' in the way the male is trying to persuade the woman to stick around?
What the f@$k are guys supposed to do when they are told both that trying to push past a “No” is tantamount to sexual assault, and that women want them to do exactly that?
Move on until they find someone mature enough to be honest with themselves and others about what they want? Her date didn’t do anything wrong. She even opens the video by saying “I am the problem”, and she’s correct in that assessment.
I mean, we’ve both been reduced to having this conversation in an artisanal substack forum. That does not exactly speak well of the level of public discourse on this subject.
Apunaja, it kind of depends on what 𝘺𝘰𝘶 want. If you're only looking for sex, then there's absolutely no downside to allowing her to think that you're gay while you wait around to see if she'll eventually sleep with you - because what does it matter if she dates other people in the mean time, if all you want is sex? If you're upset that someone might actually feel this way (and you want something serious), then this person isn't for you and you should avoid them, as Gaudium suggests. As men we're not entitled to sex, so if you don't get what you want, all you can do is adjust your own behavior and try again elsewhere (or not).
Also: knowing - or trying to figure out - the type of woman that you're most compatible with - physically, emotionally, etc. - is also important if you want to avoid these types of situations. Men seeking women who don't value them is always going to lead to trouble.
I agree she doesn’t value him. What’s worse, she doesn’t empathize with him as a human being. She doesn’t try to put herself in his position and think about what he might want. She appears to see him as an extra who failed to deliver an imaginary scripted performance on cue in the movie of her life.
They were on a date, so within that context it's safe to assume that if he's inviting her back to his place, there's only one thing on his mind, and it's disgusting. (I'm kidding, sort of.)
What we can't say for sure is whether or not he is/was looking for something casual, or something serious.
I think I read it slightly differently. For whatever reason, he didn’t fulfill the role of “boundary-pusher” that she had cast for him in her head without telling him. Instead of being mature and understanding about it, she complains to the internet, on the unstated assumption that if people aren’t doing what she wants them to do they must be doing something wrong. I realize it’s a comedian doing a bit, but this is the gist of the unsympathetic character she’s playing.
This is more gender neutral than the discourse around it implies. If a man says “I’m not going to sleep with you”, and his date says “OK”, and he then complains because he wanted her to push him to sleep with her anyway, that’s also childish and silly.
It might be gender or sex neutral, but there is no doubt that men are much more easily aroused and more likely to want sex as a source of pleasure, and woman are less easily aroused and see sex as a means of affirmation of desirability. Its like engineering- it is sex/gender neutral but men gravitate to engineering. A man who tells a woman that I will not sleep with you means it 100%-- it means stop bothering me.
I know they think this is all hilarious, but I’ve been in front of two unrelated administrative tribunals at different institutions in different states over a decade apart trying to justify that I had a consensual conversation with someone. No sexuality involved at all. And then there was the one lady who invited me to her house and when I went, she was clearly furious that I didn’t try to have sex with her (she wasn’t single, either).
Borderline Personality Disorder is a thing, people.
The question is not how policies and norms affect the median person in a normal circumstance. Bad actors have elevated importance. And if I’m going to spend my whole life being treated as a presumptive violent felon in every interaction, I feel easily justified in treating every woman I meet as another possible case of the above madness.
My advice- if you sniff someone with borderline personality disorder, run away unless you are looking for a roller coaster ride and you can get off easily and not take things personally to an extraordinary degree.
I wonder if you listened to the episode where Diana Fleischman was saying to Meghan that "all women are a little bit borderline". To me, entering into any sort of relationship requires some generosity and some tolerance. Or perhaps, a lot of generosity and tolerance.
I hate to write off people with BPD or anything else. A person with Borderline Personality Disorder is still a person. The ones that I've encountered I don't hate personally, I just wish for better for them.
But perhaps the best thing for all involved is to stay away in some cases.
I do have an ACTUAL GRIPE to air. What's with the gatekeeping on "rationality" expertise? If a filmmaker innately lacks sufficient authority to teach rationality, who is innately qualified? A philosophy professor? A psychologist? Sociologist? I used to think Sam Harris, but it turns out he can be just as nutty as anyone else. There's nobody with a background that qualifies them, other than demonstrating a history of knowing principles of and employing rational thinking (which is more a function of discipline and self-awareness than rule sets). Hell, I'm a games industry artist and I think I'm a pretty rational person (I'm not particularly *smart,* but that's a different matter - when it comes to analyzing those ideas I'm capable of grasping, what few cylinders there are in my cognitive engine work fairly well).
I actually think the woman complaining about not being sexually assaulted is the same as the black woman Meghan talked about on some prior episode who made a scene after being bumped into in a grocery line or something. Or the trans activist demanding to be called by their special pronouns. It has little or nothing to do with the actual issue. It’s a power play. The point is the aggressor knows that the aggressee is bound by some soft social norms, which are obviously unreasonable, and is pushing to see how far the victim will go to play along with the rules and be polite.
And as a certified doormat myself, I can understand why for so many people the answer is: way too far.
Well at least the comedian chick opened with “I’m the problem”. I can’t help but be grateful that I did this whole dating song and dance in 2006-2017. Shit went sideways quick after that.
My most recent facepalm is seeing the complete lack of accountability for people getting blackout drunk or on drugs and then blaming anyone in sight for anything that happens afterwards. What a shit show.
Regarding the Secret Scholar: this episode marks the 2nd or 3rd time I've recently heard Meghan push back on the alleged excesses of the heterodox community. And she even used a term I've started hearing more in the last couple of months from commentators on the Left: "anti-woke".
Instead of suggesting an engagement with the substance of arguments, the term instead suggests an ad hominem epithet that gets casually tossed around. (i.e. "anti-woke podcaster John Doe"). I totally understand that legislative lunacy like the Stop Woke Act should be opposed for very good reasons. But we risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater if we allow the Left to re-frame the debate without adequate substitute for the craziness that we originally rebelled against.
Has Meghan re-visited some of own views and found heterodoxy lacking in coherence and logic? OR is she just exhibiting culture war fatigue?
EDIT: I just saw Kurmudge's post - he/she articulates what I couldn't: I detect of whiff of Leftist/MSM gatekeeping in Meghan's perspective.
I guess you can take the girl out of the MSM, but you can't take the MSM out of the girl. (That's an adaptation of an old urban saying "you can take the boy out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the boy".
I would love for Meghan to tell us why we're wrong.
Seems to me that there is an important distinction between being anti- and being non- with regards to woke or whatever we're calling it this week.
It often comes up in the atheist space: "oh atheism is just your religion". No it isn't. I'm merely taking the position that religious dogma isn't The Truth. That does not, in itself, imply any other position on anything.
And if social justice is a religion (the John McWhorter special) it amounts to the same distinction here. There is no unifying belief of being "not woke". Some subset of that very diverse crowd might try to form some new club, perhaps by inverting some social justice precepts, and that club could end up being just as dogmatic. But it has nothing to do with anyone that's not in the club.
I take Meghan's criticism of the Secret Scholar as pointing out it all seems a bit staged and shlocky. In this case maybe he chose the anti-woke perspective because it seems to be the "hot" intellectual space. After the first rush of push back against the woke, along come the carpet baggers.
Too many non-intellectuals want to be intellectuals. It's part of why I hate even posting comments. Most of us have nothing worth saying. And *that* is likely what we have in the Secret Scholar.
Even if the Secret Scholar guy and others have credibility and presentation issues, does that mean their underlying analysis is invalid? (Rufo comes to mind - I have yet to hear anyone prove that Rufo is "wrong" or even lying. I don't agree with all of his solutions but can anyone seriously argue with his identification of the problems?)
I can't imagine that the truth is ever "hot" or "trendy". A certain subjective interpretation can be "hot" then fade away to some extent (i.e. deconstruction/post-modernism of the 1980's). But simple truths being discussed by people in the heterodox space endure.
I'm curious as to who gets to decide who is and who is not an "intellectual". Is there some kind of accreditation agency where you submit an application - and what is the selection criteria? If such a thing exists, I'm sure Candace Owens, Donald Trump, MTG AOC, and Omar would be epic fails - but those are just the most obvious examples.
Maybe the truth isn't hot and trendy but everyone throwing in their hot-takes on Anti-Woke does seem to be a way jump on a subject. That Secret Scholar has certain views that we may agree with is fine, but does the world need yet another Brave Heterdox Thinker setting up another academy for Brave Heterdox Thinkers? I am not arguing he has no right or that he shouldn't. Just saying it's getting to be a crowded space. What is he bringing that is new? Will he bring his own laptop this time?
As far as deciding Who Is Intellectual: Maybe we all decide that for ourselved. If Mr. Secret can sign up enough people to follow him and support him, I guess they have decided. But boy, the internet is sure full of people with deep thoughts. So is the local coffee shop. At some point we are just a bunch of people talking with far too few listening.
That said, I appreciate your views and don't disagree. And at this point I am just contributing to the din so I will bid you adieu.
You know, Nick Fuentes supposedly says (not that I'm going to fact-check this) that men engaging in any sort of sexual activity indicates homosexuality. So maybe sleeping in the same bed as a woman and establishing your celibate bona fides by *not* making a move is actually *the straightest possible behavior*! (I cannot say with confidence that this perspective is 100% medically accurate.)
Ok, I did fact check it. Apparently the most germane quote is “If we’re really being honest, never having a girlfriend, never having sex with a woman really makes you more heterosexual...because honestly, dating women is gay, having sex with women is gay. And having sex with men is gay.” (I admit this does have a certain appeal, as it makes me out to be a super-straight outright chad.)
The new closing theme music; you’re going the route of the six o’clock news vibe for the change in tone/direction? What gives? 🤷♂️
Blocked & Reported just tried to change their theme; it was this super hokey-sounding 1960s police procedural TV show thing. We revolted en masse and they changed it back. 😂🎉🎉🎉
Please bring back the old Albright/Song intro.
Some of us have a Pavlovian response to it and associate it with the goodness that will follow. I have no plasticity in my brain to spare.
I think skepticism about a story that seems too good to be true is always a wise approach, but the certainty with which you guys deemed the Secret Scholar guy a fraud does not seem prudent. I found him very compelling.
Meghan, I appreciate your skepticism of the fired teacher, but I can't believe that you thought he was smug in the JK Rowling video. He was the very opposite of that, he was totally non-judgmental, very neutral and gentle in his questioning of the students assumptions, and even tried to placate the student at the end when the student said he felt stupid. How can you think that's smug and smarmy?
Also, in the firing video he explicitly says that he wasn't fired from Emerson, that that's a separate job from the place he was fired from.
"Yes. Young men need to know how to read the subtle signs that women give off in order to stand a chance in today's social world. Here - look at this video of a comedian doing a bit and tell me I'm wrong." Okay buddy.
To be fair, she does have a charming and convincing delivery. Though, even without looking at her social media, clearly she is acting, imo. But the idea(?) does touch upon a dynamic that is complicated, real, and worthy of discussion
Regarding erstwhile teacher Warren Smith- I agree. The whole thing feels manufactured. I’ve mentioned Lindsey Shepherd too many times, but that’s really the textbook case for me. In her case it was fairly obvious that the whole thing was orchestrated-
play a provocative Jordan Peterson video to an unreceptive crowd in an academic setting, get called into the administrator’s office, record the subsequent reprimand and go on to publish a “why I left the left” video. And all the while she played the part of the poor innocent twenty-something who was simply blindsided by all the pushback. She continued to play that part when she invited Faith Goldy to her university to debate immigration. Of course Shepherd would go on to tweet about the lack of white babies at her local mall but we’re supposed to believe that inviting Goldy to her campus and retweeting Stephan Molyneaux didn’t reveal anything about how she really felt.
The case of Bret Weinstein seems like it could have been orchestrated as well, but there’s an important difference. I think the environment at Evergreen really was completely intolerable and he decided to pull a stunt (of sorts) and just blow the whole thing wide open. Of course he would eventually go off the rails anyway, but his origin story seems sincere.
I’m also reminded of the time James Lindsay went on Bridget Phetasy’s podcast. This is before he turned into whatever he is now. But in that discussion he said (and I credit him for the self deprecating honesty) that somewhere in his trajectory he decided to become a ‘public intellectual’. I think he had seen himself as some sort of atheist personality before that. I guess he thought this was a natural progression. In hindsight, it proves to me that people like him are actively thinking about things like this. “Hey! I’m getting a lot of traction on Twitter. Time to hone my brand!” Pretty cringe, especially to those of us that actually have to work for a living. It seems indistinguishable from being an aspiring influencer.
The bottom line- there’s a ton of opportunism out there. It takes a trained eye to spot it. Well done. Cathy Young would really be the person to dig into this with. She’s been writing about this very thing over at the Bulwark (which I don’t love but whatever) and has probably gotten closer to identifying the problem than anyone else I can think of. I have some problems with the two recent pieces she’s done about it, but I agree with the spirit of her argument.
hmm. I think the lindsay shepherd thing (which happened in the town next door) *was* real but that, in the push back, she got over involved on the other side (the side that was supporting her). it's a common enough phenomenon: call me 'X' a number of times and I might as well be X
and btw, the 'provocative' video was straight from TVO's The Agenda hosted by Steve Paikan who was so honourable that when his me-too accusation came, the station investigated it thoroughly instead of the usual knee-jerk reaction of dumping him.
One more reason for women to prefer bears to men. You know a bear isn't going to wuss out and take no for an answer.
FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES
*DANCE IN END-ZONE*
SUCK ON THAT!
Magnanimous in victory, gracious in defeat. An inspiration!
Here’s the key thing about the cuddling video that you guys have not addressed: I can accept that she wants the guy to be at least “making an effort” to push up against her boundaries, but guys have been endlessly told to NOT DO THAT! That they must respect women’s boundaries when they’ve explicitly said no. Once she says “NO”, you are supposed to back off, period, men have been told. Pressuring her is tantamount to coercion. There needs to be explicit affirmative consent. Yes means Yes. Etc, etc.
Men have actually had their lives ruined for “pressuring” women, and reasonably pushing up against their boundaries in the way this woman is asking them to do. See, for example, the Emily Yoffe Reason article about the journalist in China ('I'm Radioactive'), or the guy who got investigated by Michigan State for feeling up a girl he was making out with, who he previously had had sex with (https://archive.ph/ScAxx). Have we already forgotten how Aziz Ansari had his life ruined for trying to push past a woman's "no"s? I can cite twenty more such cases of men who did what this women is asking for and got in serious trouble for it. Do I need to remind you that many radio stations have stopped playing "Baby, It's Cold Outside" because it's been deemed 'rapey' in the way the male is trying to persuade the woman to stick around?
What the f@$k are guys supposed to do when they are told both that trying to push past a “No” is tantamount to sexual assault, and that women want them to do exactly that?
Move on until they find someone mature enough to be honest with themselves and others about what they want? Her date didn’t do anything wrong. She even opens the video by saying “I am the problem”, and she’s correct in that assessment.
Taking that comment literally, I think the person “moving on” in this case is going to end up as a perpetual motion machine.
Too strong - mature adults exist, although they’re underrepresented in viral TikTok videos.
I mean, we’ve both been reduced to having this conversation in an artisanal substack forum. That does not exactly speak well of the level of public discourse on this subject.
Apunaja, it kind of depends on what 𝘺𝘰𝘶 want. If you're only looking for sex, then there's absolutely no downside to allowing her to think that you're gay while you wait around to see if she'll eventually sleep with you - because what does it matter if she dates other people in the mean time, if all you want is sex? If you're upset that someone might actually feel this way (and you want something serious), then this person isn't for you and you should avoid them, as Gaudium suggests. As men we're not entitled to sex, so if you don't get what you want, all you can do is adjust your own behavior and try again elsewhere (or not).
Also: knowing - or trying to figure out - the type of woman that you're most compatible with - physically, emotionally, etc. - is also important if you want to avoid these types of situations. Men seeking women who don't value them is always going to lead to trouble.
I agree she doesn’t value him. What’s worse, she doesn’t empathize with him as a human being. She doesn’t try to put herself in his position and think about what he might want. She appears to see him as an extra who failed to deliver an imaginary scripted performance on cue in the movie of her life.
They were on a date, so within that context it's safe to assume that if he's inviting her back to his place, there's only one thing on his mind, and it's disgusting. (I'm kidding, sort of.)
What we can't say for sure is whether or not he is/was looking for something casual, or something serious.
I think I read it slightly differently. For whatever reason, he didn’t fulfill the role of “boundary-pusher” that she had cast for him in her head without telling him. Instead of being mature and understanding about it, she complains to the internet, on the unstated assumption that if people aren’t doing what she wants them to do they must be doing something wrong. I realize it’s a comedian doing a bit, but this is the gist of the unsympathetic character she’s playing.
This is more gender neutral than the discourse around it implies. If a man says “I’m not going to sleep with you”, and his date says “OK”, and he then complains because he wanted her to push him to sleep with her anyway, that’s also childish and silly.
It might be gender or sex neutral, but there is no doubt that men are much more easily aroused and more likely to want sex as a source of pleasure, and woman are less easily aroused and see sex as a means of affirmation of desirability. Its like engineering- it is sex/gender neutral but men gravitate to engineering. A man who tells a woman that I will not sleep with you means it 100%-- it means stop bothering me.
You’re talking about the relative likelihood of the situation arising - I’m talking about whether the complaint is reasonable.
I think the more realistic solution is to find a woman who is not a product of the American educational system.
I know they think this is all hilarious, but I’ve been in front of two unrelated administrative tribunals at different institutions in different states over a decade apart trying to justify that I had a consensual conversation with someone. No sexuality involved at all. And then there was the one lady who invited me to her house and when I went, she was clearly furious that I didn’t try to have sex with her (she wasn’t single, either).
Borderline Personality Disorder is a thing, people.
The question is not how policies and norms affect the median person in a normal circumstance. Bad actors have elevated importance. And if I’m going to spend my whole life being treated as a presumptive violent felon in every interaction, I feel easily justified in treating every woman I meet as another possible case of the above madness.
My advice- if you sniff someone with borderline personality disorder, run away unless you are looking for a roller coaster ride and you can get off easily and not take things personally to an extraordinary degree.
I wonder if you listened to the episode where Diana Fleischman was saying to Meghan that "all women are a little bit borderline". To me, entering into any sort of relationship requires some generosity and some tolerance. Or perhaps, a lot of generosity and tolerance.
I hate to write off people with BPD or anything else. A person with Borderline Personality Disorder is still a person. The ones that I've encountered I don't hate personally, I just wish for better for them.
But perhaps the best thing for all involved is to stay away in some cases.
I do have an ACTUAL GRIPE to air. What's with the gatekeeping on "rationality" expertise? If a filmmaker innately lacks sufficient authority to teach rationality, who is innately qualified? A philosophy professor? A psychologist? Sociologist? I used to think Sam Harris, but it turns out he can be just as nutty as anyone else. There's nobody with a background that qualifies them, other than demonstrating a history of knowing principles of and employing rational thinking (which is more a function of discipline and self-awareness than rule sets). Hell, I'm a games industry artist and I think I'm a pretty rational person (I'm not particularly *smart,* but that's a different matter - when it comes to analyzing those ideas I'm capable of grasping, what few cylinders there are in my cognitive engine work fairly well).
I actually think the woman complaining about not being sexually assaulted is the same as the black woman Meghan talked about on some prior episode who made a scene after being bumped into in a grocery line or something. Or the trans activist demanding to be called by their special pronouns. It has little or nothing to do with the actual issue. It’s a power play. The point is the aggressor knows that the aggressee is bound by some soft social norms, which are obviously unreasonable, and is pushing to see how far the victim will go to play along with the rules and be polite.
And as a certified doormat myself, I can understand why for so many people the answer is: way too far.
She’s passive and entitled, not aggressive. She expects him to automatically go along with what she wants without her having to communicate.
People can be passive and aggressive at the same time. There’s even a word for it.
Well at least the comedian chick opened with “I’m the problem”. I can’t help but be grateful that I did this whole dating song and dance in 2006-2017. Shit went sideways quick after that.
My most recent facepalm is seeing the complete lack of accountability for people getting blackout drunk or on drugs and then blaming anyone in sight for anything that happens afterwards. What a shit show.
Skimming the Google Doc now. Favorite entry so far-
Kristin Hannah
Author of “The Nightingale”
Color Code- Red
Offense- “posted donation link to a pro Israel medical service”
I love meghan's BS detector. I also thought he was way too quick to monetize his viral video (by 'being fired' and getting a gofund me) to be true
it's weird to see a supposed genius like elon musk be such an easy mark
Regarding the Secret Scholar: this episode marks the 2nd or 3rd time I've recently heard Meghan push back on the alleged excesses of the heterodox community. And she even used a term I've started hearing more in the last couple of months from commentators on the Left: "anti-woke".
Instead of suggesting an engagement with the substance of arguments, the term instead suggests an ad hominem epithet that gets casually tossed around. (i.e. "anti-woke podcaster John Doe"). I totally understand that legislative lunacy like the Stop Woke Act should be opposed for very good reasons. But we risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater if we allow the Left to re-frame the debate without adequate substitute for the craziness that we originally rebelled against.
Has Meghan re-visited some of own views and found heterodoxy lacking in coherence and logic? OR is she just exhibiting culture war fatigue?
EDIT: I just saw Kurmudge's post - he/she articulates what I couldn't: I detect of whiff of Leftist/MSM gatekeeping in Meghan's perspective.
I guess you can take the girl out of the MSM, but you can't take the MSM out of the girl. (That's an adaptation of an old urban saying "you can take the boy out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the boy".
I would love for Meghan to tell us why we're wrong.
Seems to me that there is an important distinction between being anti- and being non- with regards to woke or whatever we're calling it this week.
It often comes up in the atheist space: "oh atheism is just your religion". No it isn't. I'm merely taking the position that religious dogma isn't The Truth. That does not, in itself, imply any other position on anything.
And if social justice is a religion (the John McWhorter special) it amounts to the same distinction here. There is no unifying belief of being "not woke". Some subset of that very diverse crowd might try to form some new club, perhaps by inverting some social justice precepts, and that club could end up being just as dogmatic. But it has nothing to do with anyone that's not in the club.
I take Meghan's criticism of the Secret Scholar as pointing out it all seems a bit staged and shlocky. In this case maybe he chose the anti-woke perspective because it seems to be the "hot" intellectual space. After the first rush of push back against the woke, along come the carpet baggers.
Too many non-intellectuals want to be intellectuals. It's part of why I hate even posting comments. Most of us have nothing worth saying. And *that* is likely what we have in the Secret Scholar.
Even if the Secret Scholar guy and others have credibility and presentation issues, does that mean their underlying analysis is invalid? (Rufo comes to mind - I have yet to hear anyone prove that Rufo is "wrong" or even lying. I don't agree with all of his solutions but can anyone seriously argue with his identification of the problems?)
I can't imagine that the truth is ever "hot" or "trendy". A certain subjective interpretation can be "hot" then fade away to some extent (i.e. deconstruction/post-modernism of the 1980's). But simple truths being discussed by people in the heterodox space endure.
I'm curious as to who gets to decide who is and who is not an "intellectual". Is there some kind of accreditation agency where you submit an application - and what is the selection criteria? If such a thing exists, I'm sure Candace Owens, Donald Trump, MTG AOC, and Omar would be epic fails - but those are just the most obvious examples.
Maybe the truth isn't hot and trendy but everyone throwing in their hot-takes on Anti-Woke does seem to be a way jump on a subject. That Secret Scholar has certain views that we may agree with is fine, but does the world need yet another Brave Heterdox Thinker setting up another academy for Brave Heterdox Thinkers? I am not arguing he has no right or that he shouldn't. Just saying it's getting to be a crowded space. What is he bringing that is new? Will he bring his own laptop this time?
As far as deciding Who Is Intellectual: Maybe we all decide that for ourselved. If Mr. Secret can sign up enough people to follow him and support him, I guess they have decided. But boy, the internet is sure full of people with deep thoughts. So is the local coffee shop. At some point we are just a bunch of people talking with far too few listening.
That said, I appreciate your views and don't disagree. And at this point I am just contributing to the din so I will bid you adieu.
You know, Nick Fuentes supposedly says (not that I'm going to fact-check this) that men engaging in any sort of sexual activity indicates homosexuality. So maybe sleeping in the same bed as a woman and establishing your celibate bona fides by *not* making a move is actually *the straightest possible behavior*! (I cannot say with confidence that this perspective is 100% medically accurate.)
Ok, I did fact check it. Apparently the most germane quote is “If we’re really being honest, never having a girlfriend, never having sex with a woman really makes you more heterosexual...because honestly, dating women is gay, having sex with women is gay. And having sex with men is gay.” (I admit this does have a certain appeal, as it makes me out to be a super-straight outright chad.)
The new closing theme music; you’re going the route of the six o’clock news vibe for the change in tone/direction? What gives? 🤷♂️
Blocked & Reported just tried to change their theme; it was this super hokey-sounding 1960s police procedural TV show thing. We revolted en masse and they changed it back. 😂🎉🎉🎉
Please bring back the old Albright/Song intro.
Some of us have a Pavlovian response to it and associate it with the goodness that will follow. I have no plasticity in my brain to spare.
Sincerely,
Single-issue Subscriber.
I think skepticism about a story that seems too good to be true is always a wise approach, but the certainty with which you guys deemed the Secret Scholar guy a fraud does not seem prudent. I found him very compelling.
Meghan, I appreciate your skepticism of the fired teacher, but I can't believe that you thought he was smug in the JK Rowling video. He was the very opposite of that, he was totally non-judgmental, very neutral and gentle in his questioning of the students assumptions, and even tried to placate the student at the end when the student said he felt stupid. How can you think that's smug and smarmy?
Also, in the firing video he explicitly says that he wasn't fired from Emerson, that that's a separate job from the place he was fired from.
"Yes. Young men need to know how to read the subtle signs that women give off in order to stand a chance in today's social world. Here - look at this video of a comedian doing a bit and tell me I'm wrong." Okay buddy.
To be fair, she does have a charming and convincing delivery. Though, even without looking at her social media, clearly she is acting, imo. But the idea(?) does touch upon a dynamic that is complicated, real, and worthy of discussion
Regarding erstwhile teacher Warren Smith- I agree. The whole thing feels manufactured. I’ve mentioned Lindsey Shepherd too many times, but that’s really the textbook case for me. In her case it was fairly obvious that the whole thing was orchestrated-
play a provocative Jordan Peterson video to an unreceptive crowd in an academic setting, get called into the administrator’s office, record the subsequent reprimand and go on to publish a “why I left the left” video. And all the while she played the part of the poor innocent twenty-something who was simply blindsided by all the pushback. She continued to play that part when she invited Faith Goldy to her university to debate immigration. Of course Shepherd would go on to tweet about the lack of white babies at her local mall but we’re supposed to believe that inviting Goldy to her campus and retweeting Stephan Molyneaux didn’t reveal anything about how she really felt.
The case of Bret Weinstein seems like it could have been orchestrated as well, but there’s an important difference. I think the environment at Evergreen really was completely intolerable and he decided to pull a stunt (of sorts) and just blow the whole thing wide open. Of course he would eventually go off the rails anyway, but his origin story seems sincere.
I’m also reminded of the time James Lindsay went on Bridget Phetasy’s podcast. This is before he turned into whatever he is now. But in that discussion he said (and I credit him for the self deprecating honesty) that somewhere in his trajectory he decided to become a ‘public intellectual’. I think he had seen himself as some sort of atheist personality before that. I guess he thought this was a natural progression. In hindsight, it proves to me that people like him are actively thinking about things like this. “Hey! I’m getting a lot of traction on Twitter. Time to hone my brand!” Pretty cringe, especially to those of us that actually have to work for a living. It seems indistinguishable from being an aspiring influencer.
The bottom line- there’s a ton of opportunism out there. It takes a trained eye to spot it. Well done. Cathy Young would really be the person to dig into this with. She’s been writing about this very thing over at the Bulwark (which I don’t love but whatever) and has probably gotten closer to identifying the problem than anyone else I can think of. I have some problems with the two recent pieces she’s done about it, but I agree with the spirit of her argument.
hmm. I think the lindsay shepherd thing (which happened in the town next door) *was* real but that, in the push back, she got over involved on the other side (the side that was supporting her). it's a common enough phenomenon: call me 'X' a number of times and I might as well be X
and btw, the 'provocative' video was straight from TVO's The Agenda hosted by Steve Paikan who was so honourable that when his me-too accusation came, the station investigated it thoroughly instead of the usual knee-jerk reaction of dumping him.