Four Major Pillars we should all Acknowledge, Agree On and Fight For.

Image credit: Moral Psychology — https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7wctvIosoQE/maxresdefault.jpg

I want to propose a roadmap for scientific thinkers, reason advocates, and social justice activists across our society. This would be a roadmap with a bold destination: How we can find a basis to move forward.

We are seeing an increasing divide between many who advocate scientific skepticism within political discourse, and those who strongly identify with social justice activism. Ideally, of course, such things should not be in conflict — we all supposedly support science and reason, and we should all support genuine forms of justice and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society. Sadly, however, the rift between the ‘skeptics/reason advocates’ and the ‘Leftists/social justice community’ (to paraphrase how its often described) is arguably worse than ever, with places like Evergreen, Portland State, NYU, Berkeley and others being the main battleground. Skepticism and social justice activism seem to be on an unsettling collision course. I firmly believe we can change that. However, it will require bridging a gap, through dialogue and mutual understanding — as well as voices on all sides separating themselves from toxicity and bad ideas. It will demand a convergence on what we can all agree on, and self-correcting growth through a new kind of intellectual humility.

This article lays out a roadmap for how such a thing can occur. How we can support common ideas and values we all cherish, while marginalizing some of the bad ones we should all reject. Many people are too ideological, partisan or entrenched in an all-or-none way of thinking to even entertain such an idea. However, many others, in all the groups mentioned above, are far more open to it — even eager at times to find a better basis for conversation, and more effective ways to seek answers.

This proposes an ongoing discussion that can occur on campuses around the country, and across academia. It can take place across podcasts and blogs within both the social activism world as well as the world of science and skepticism. In particular, I propose that skeptics, centrists and social justice advocates openly collaborate to reform our political map — and the very principles around which we think, organize and operate.

This ‘political map’ I am advocating is not about dogma or rigid ideology. It is not about pushing a partisan slant on any given issue. Instead, it is about a better basis for moving forward in the various debates on social justice — no matter where we are on the ideological plane. In this article, I lay out 4 major guidelines for what such a map could look like.

Finally, I openly invite anyone — especially the ideologically devout — into a discussion about why any of these major pillars are not greatly worthy of our support. I invite and encourage debate, openly and publicly, especially by people who identify strongly on the Left or who lean conservative. In my words to follow, I will start by giving a summary of the problem, and then an overview of the proposed roadmap ahead.

As a closing caveat to this intro (and on and important note), I urge people at different points on the political and ideological map to avoid feeling like this is an attack on them, or on their identity. I genuinely invite social and political activists into something that is long overdue: A real, ongoing and productive dialogue with skeptics and science advocates, to try and help refine our political discourse in a way that is more responsive to facts, evidence and the skeptical style of thinking. As well as to help more people see the need for justice and for supporting the vulnerable among us — a concern that warrants far more attention and common ground across science and social justice advocates than we currently see. We need to identify where all of us can refine our ideas, see our blind spots, and self-correct, as well as converge on common principles — the things we deeply value and share a passion for. Skepticism, scientific thinking, compassion and human dignity should be prime among them.

The longer we postpone this kind of conversation, the more all of us will suffer for it. No one is benefiting from our state of polarized identity tribalism or ideological modes of thinking — least of all the people most impacted by our failures to effectively tackle issues of human suffering and injustice.

Two Fundamental Gaps we must Address within Politics and Activism

I firmly believe that there are two major gaps — two fundamental disconnects — within our political discourse. One is a compassion gap, where our tribal ideology comes before our empathy for others outside our circle, leading to a dismissal of human dignity. The second gap is a scientific and intellectual gap, where tribal ideology and political identity come before skepticism, and even many times, before facts, reason and evidence.

First, we must address our gap in compassion and reassert the core value of human dignity. This means defending the very idea of individual worth, value and rights. It means putting the basic humanity of the individual human being above their place in a group identity, or their place in a ‘race realism’ hierarchy or on an ‘oppressive stack’. It means putting people before ideology, political dogmas or moral panics.

This is not a dismissal of the need to talk about identity. It’s not a denial of inequality and differences in how various demographics and groups are often treated. It is certainly not in conflict with the need to confront very real issues of systemic problems and group oppression. It is not meant to blur the differences between how, for example, blacks and whites, tend to be treated by profiling or the justice system. These issues matter, and we must not dismiss them — in fact, expanding these very conversations to more of the American population is an essential part of addressing our compassion gap.

However, we must continually remind others — and ourselves — that a defense of individual dignity and worth is not in conflict with addressing group oppression. Rather, it is the very basic for why we care. Groups are made up of people — of human beings. It is the dignity of the human person that gives us our starting point. It is why we care to begin with.

The second major gap — or disconnect within our political universe — is intellectual and scientific in nature. People are putting ideology and dogma before science, reason and skepticism. And it occurs across our political map. This trend we are seeing — especially in recent years — is a war against the very spirit behind science. The platitudes of dogmatic thinking and ideological platforms — as well as people’s visceral reaction to being challenged on their political beliefs by facts, evidence and argument —run diametrically against almost everything that makes science so wonderfully effective. The qualities that define our politics are in direct and violent conflict with the very things that most beautifully define science and skepticism. Especially the idea of being skeptical, of being curious, always seeking truth and evidence over dogma and wanting to change our minds when we are wrong.

Let’s examine, for example, some of the core features of science and scientific thinking. It involves a

(1) desire to be proven wrong;

(2) willingness to seek truth over dogma;

(3) willing exposure to a plurality of viewpoints;

(4) willingness to embrace dissent and peer review;

(5) ability to detach one’s ideas and theories from ones identity

This war against scientific thinking — and in perhaps simpler terms, against reality-based thinking — has hijacked the nature of American politics and corroded our conversations on some of the most important and consequential issues. We are struggling to figure out the best way forward on sensible police systems, drug wars, mass incarceration, healthcare, gun reform, racism, social conflict and extremism (such as the rise of the Alt-Right, and violent collisions with Antifa), political corruption, and humane, dignified immigration reform, just to name a few. We currently cannot even find a basis to start such conversations, much less find the tools to navigate these issues effectively with facts and reason. The very idea of a reality-based approach to politics and social problems has been swept under the tide of hyper-polarization and tribal ideology, making it near impossible to actually arrive at answers on any meaningful level.

The centrality of ideology and dogma within our political universe is, stated bluntly, an assault on our very way of life. It’s an assault on reason, on critical thinking, and on the underpinning ideas and values of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment that got us from the Dark Ages to the moon. Above all, it’s an arrogant assault on curiosity, humility, and scientific skepticism.

Four Major Building Blocks for a Roadmap Forward.

In military planning and operations, we start with a wider strategy — a statement about intent (what should happen) and guidance (things we need to do), driven by an overall vision that guides us to move forward. It is the greater intent and ‘end state’ (what we want to accomplish, and why) around which we plan our operations and missions, as well as ask the right questions to better visualize what we are seeing around us. For example, the intent that we worked toward during various OIF rotations was a stable and secure Iraq. Part of the end state was defeating terrorists and foreign fighters coming into Iraq across the Syrian border. This helped drive our planning and our missions, to accomplish the wider intent. The wider mission statement drives the operations and tactics. It is our starting point of reference.

Likewise, people who cherish ideals like civility, human dignity, science and reason within our social discourse and campus environments should have a mission statement. This should be driven by a larger vision — what are we fighting for, and why? I humbly and sincerely put forward the following as a set of basic ideas and goals around which we should organize.

1. Human Dignity — a starting point, standing alongside reason and skepticism. We need to start with the inherent value and worth of individual human beings. We care about the suffering of groups because groups are made up of people. This does not diminish the need to talk honestly about inequality and differences in how society treats people, nor nullify real issues of racism, bigotry and systemic problems in our society. We can express legitimate concern for group oppression and suffering while retaining a core respect for people as individuals. This applies across the board — be it white or black, gay or straight, Muslim or Jew, cis or trans, or any other distinction one might make. One does not lose one’s right to dignity, respect and fair treatment because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, or the kind of genitals they happen to possess. Full Stop.

2. Reason, logic, science and skepticism matter — especially in the domain of social activism and justice.

Rigid ideology — in its dogmatic form — is like a social virus with very harmful effects — it closes our minds and shuts down our capacity for curiosity, making it near impossible for us to change our minds — or even to want to. The ideological fringes of the Left and the Right have been waging a war — arguably a head on attack — against the very idea of skepticism, humility and intellectual curiosity. I know most will say that its far worse on one side (the side opposite themselves, of course), and they well may be correct — but that doesn’t dismiss the problem, nor should it be an excuse to avoid confronting it. We must acknowledge the root problem of ideological thinking within politics.

The centrality of ideology and dogma within our political universe is, stated bluntly, an assault on critical thinking, humility, and scientific skepticism.

What do I mean by terms like science, specifically? People often get confused by this word, as it tends to comprise very different meanings to different people who use the term, or hear the term. Some hear it and think of rigid standards in a laboratory, or overly mathematical thinking in the domain of human problems. They may see the idea of putting science at the forefront of social issues as a cold, heartless reduction of real, subjective human experience to hard data-points, without the needed openness to the intangible side of our world and our lived realities. Others hear it and think of a loaded word (after all, who openly doesn’t believe in science?), heavily skewed by bias and weaponized for partisan aims by dishonest actors and gullible ideologues. None of these are what I am advocating when I use the term. This is crucial in helping campuses and activists movements chart a roadmap forward on this issue.

‘Science’, and what people often mean by its application to problem solving, is widely misunderstood. Perhaps the umbrella term Scientia (Latin for ‘knowledge’) — which encompasses logic, reason, and observation — is a more inclusive term. It describes a process, a way of looking at the world, and a reality-based way of thinking — one which is not driven by emotional comfort, political orthodoxy, party platforms, talking points, social upbringing, dogma or ideology. It is a better way of arriving at answers, including answers to many of our most polarizing, emotional, and contested political issues.

Advocating ‘scientific thinking’ in these areas is not about us all agreeing on the right answers — it is about better ways to have conversations and seek those answers. Unfortunately, political dogma keeps us blinded: many arguments and ‘talking points’ across the idea spectrum are not organized around a genuine exploration of complex issues such as Islam, terror, radicalization, bigotry, and racism, nor around understanding the nuanced realities surrounding police practices and black communities. Rather, they are often organized around strengthening pre-exiting beliefs, defending the partisan ‘in-group’, and scoring points against the ‘other side’. Such contests of black-and-white thinking have serious social consequences. If we can’t properly understand our social problems, or ask the right questions and change our beliefs to match reality — we will inevitably lead ourselves to the wrong sets of answers. Scientific thinking and ideological thinking are deeply incompatible — they lead to two very different places on the roadmap of ideas and solutions.

This is a problem that should warrant the attention of our collective hearts and minds — and the voices of science and reason everywhere. Especially within social activism. This is a bridge of intellectual solidarity that needs to be built, at every opportunity.

3. Recognize that suffering and oppression is real, compassion is needed, and social activism is necessary. Some people really do suffer discrimination, bigotry, physical attacks, doxing, and various forms of hardship, and they should be generously listened to. The rise of the Alt-Right and various forms of hate are a real threat that many face, especially the most vulnerable among us. We need to stand up for these people. Conversely, such listening and conversation is being increasingly drowned in a tidal wave of tribal stupidity, echo chamber noise and shouting on both fringes of the conversation. We see crafty Alt-Right ideologues as well as trolls, ‘shitlords’ and provocateurs on the wider Right (or posing in the ‘Center’), fueling the flames of this ‘reciprocal radicalization’ between both sides, pushing against one another like a pendulum. On the rival end of this spectrum — a spectrum that comprises perhaps the worse false dichotomy to graze our conversation in decades — we see the far Left, with radical Leftist dogma pushing hard against people who dare to even question their ideas or tactics. This creates a binary opposition between fringes, and increasingly closes the space in which sensible and concerned people can be reasonable and nuanced in discussing these problems.

I’ve seen the effects of bigotry and hate all over the world, often in places the average campus student can only dream of. I want to combat neo-Nazis and hateful ideas as much as any activist at Berkeley or NYU. However, I don’t have to join Antifa to do so. And neither do countless concerned people across our campuses and our streets. We don’t need to choose between ‘Alt Knights’ and the Leftist Footclan. We need to create better options, and make them as visible as possible for social activists who want to be in the fight. This is a major gap that the emerging ‘center movements’ (of which I consider myself very much a part) need to address more frequently and passionately.

We must build on a new movement that recognizes the need to listen to the oppressed and fight for the vulnerable, while avoiding the fringes of toxic discourse and dogmatic ideology. This movement already exists, but we need to build a better, larger and more durable coalition around it, across the spectrum of sensibility and civil discourse.

4. Marginalize or discard dogmas and ideas that undermine human dignity.

I will skip a long list of reasons why we should all reject the ideas of racism, hate, white supremacy and white identitarianism. This will warrant a separate section entirely and is perhaps best served by the decades of writings and speeches that have acted to debunk it by shining the light of science, compassion, humanism and reason. There are also great videos online debunking some of the dangerous and harmful ideas within the white identitarian and political ‘race realism’ movements, which I am working to compile and amend this article with. I am currently operating under the assumption that most reading this article are already in agreement that the rise of the Alt Right is a bad thing, especially for minorities. For those who are on the fence in this area, I will deal with that separately.

Moving on for the moment, I want to give an example of a harmful idea on the Left. For the purposes of this proposed ‘conversation roadmap’, let’s unpack a bad idea that resides within a growing segment of the social justice community: Guilt and Atonement for one’s place in an oppressive group, and the reduction of one’s arguments and even their treatment as people to their innate identity. The idea that people should ‘atone’ for who they are, carry ‘transferred guilt’, or suffer for the ‘sins of their ancestors’- because of their race or their gender, for example- is one of the stupidest and most anti-Enlightenment ideas in all of political discourse. It should be permanently discarded into the wastebasket of cruel and ignorant ideas, forever abandoned by anyone with an ounce of sensibility and civility.

A caveat here is probably needed. Many of my Leftist friends passionately insist that this is not what the vast majority of Left-leaning and social justice activists actually believe. I feel that while this is true, its not that simple, and the problem must be address from within the Left itself. I address this in a separate article.

I propose a distinction we all need to make: We can humbly examine our privileges and advantages, and strive for self-awareness (as a white guy, straight guy, etc, I try to do this more and more frequently), but we should do so out of compassion, conviction and principle, not out of some stupid sense of ‘guilt’ or ‘atonement’ for being a certain race, sexuality or having the wrong type of genetalia. If people on the Left, Center or Right cannot see this basic difference, we are doomed to fail as a society.

An open invitation to join this coalition of ideas.

One thing should be crystal clear at this point to most sensible and civil observers of our current discourse: We must move away from the increasingly unsustainable model we are seeing overtake so much of our campuses and communities. This does not negate the very legitimate and often crucial role of protest and of making noise. It does not seek to silence the downtrodden nor take away from the aspirations of those seeking to be heard. It does not seek to diminish or demean people’s genuine frustrations and grievances. Rather, it is about moving away from a paradigm based around dogmatic thinking, closed mindsets, groupthink, echo chambers and rival tribes.

We need to build a better, larger and more durable coalition around this concept. We need to build on a new movement — and a new paradigm — that recognizes the need to listen to the downtrodden, fight for the vulnerable, and stand up for true equality — while avoiding the entrapment of dogmatic ideology or the toxic fringes of our discourse.

We need to start inviting more people outside of our own circle into this communion of ideas and civility. We should become better at listening, and extending olive branches to the thought communities we tend to double down on and attack — especially with Leftists, Classical Liberals, and Centrists. We have to build on this kind of self-correcting discourse. And we need your help doing it, if you share the basic principles and values laid out in this article. Anyone across the spectrum of sensibility and civil discourse — including those within circles of social justice activism — are invited to join this coalition of ideas. Or at the very minimum, to start an open conversation about it.

This is an invite to discuss, to critique, to self-reflect, and to open our minds, and the minds of others. It is an invite for more of us to converge on the most basic values of compassion, dignity, science and reason. We should build on this roadmap, together. “Vincit qui se vincit!”