Former Trump Administration Official: Trump Wants to Commit Illegal Acts

The Washington Post and other sources are commenting that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has commented on President Trump's character. WaPO writes in its article entitled Rex Tillerson on Trump: ‘Undisciplined, doesn’t like to read’ and tries to do illegal things:

“The fired secretary of state, who while in office reportedly called Trump a ‘moron’ (and declined to deny it), expounded on his thoughts on the president in a rare interview with CBS News’s Bob Schieffer in Houston.

It wasn’t difficult to read between the lines. Tillerson said Trump is ‘pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read’ and repeatedly attempted to do illegal things.

‘What was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented ExxonMobil corporation,’ Tillerson said, was ‘to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, ‘This is what I believe.’

‘He acts on his instincts; in some respects, that looks like impulsiveness,’ Tillerson said. ‘But it’s not his intent to act on impulse. I think he really is trying to act on his instincts.’

‘I will be honest with you: It troubles me that the American people seem to want to know so little about issues — that they are satisfied with 128 characters,’ Tillerson said.

He was quick to say that that wasn’t meant as a shot at Trump but our political system more broadly. Next to his other comments, though, it wasn’t difficult to see he was lumping Trump with all those Americans who aren’t intellectually curious enough about policy and the actual details of U.S. government.”

Two points merit comment. First, Tillerson is far too generous in arguing that Trump isn’t being impulsive, but instead says he isn’t trying to be impulsive. That is pure baloney. Trump does not care if he is impulsive, crude, vulgar or anything other than what he wants to be in each moment. In that regard, Tillerson seriously misreads the man he worked for.

Second, this reporting points to the possibility that although not all Trump appointed officials are utterly corrupt, Trump will weed less corrupt out and replace them with the more corrupt. That is cause for profound concern.

And, of course, Trump hits back with Trump brand blither. He Tweeted today that Tillerson is as “dumb as a rock,” was “lazy as hell” and “didn't have the mental capacity needed” as the nation's top diplomat.

There is a whole lot of projecting going on in Trump’s Tweets. They accurately describe Trump himself on those points, lazy and dumb.

Or, is that too harsh an assessment? If so, why?

As of September 2, 2018, Trump has visited his golf courses on 25% of his 590 days in office. That dwarfs prior presidents play time and it does not include hundreds of hours of Trump’s ‘executive time’ watching TV, Tweeting on people and just plain farting around like the clueless, uncaring boob that he is.

B&B orig: 12/7/18

A New Category of Lie: The Bottomless Pinocchio

Trump’s 14 Bottomless Pinocchio lies

The Washington Post fact checker has instituted a new category of political lie. WaPo writes:

“Trump’s willingness to constantly repeat false claims has posed a unique challenge to fact-checkers. Most politicians quickly drop a Four-Pinocchio claim, either out of a duty to be accurate or concern that spreading false information could be politically damaging.

Not Trump. The president keeps going long after the facts are clear, in what appears to be a deliberate effort to replace the truth with his own, far more favorable, version of it. He is not merely making gaffes or misstating things, he is purposely injecting false information into the national conversation.

To accurately reflect this phenomenon, The Washington Post Fact Checker is introducing a new category — the Bottomless Pinocchio. That dubious distinction will be awarded to politicians who repeat a false claim so many times that they are, in effect, engaging in campaigns of disinformation.

The bar for the Bottomless Pinocchio is high: The claims must have received three or four Pinocchios from The Fact Checker, and they must have been repeated at least 20 times. Twenty is a sufficiently robust number that there can be no question the politician is aware that his or her facts are wrong. The list of Bottomless Pinocchios will be maintained on its own landing page ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/fact-checker-most-repeated-disinformation/?utm_term=.5636f7c7acab ).

The Fact Checker has not identified statements from any other current elected official who meets the standard other than Trump. In fact, 14 statements made by the president immediately qualify for the list.”

It is good to see fact checkers applying rigorous standards to political lying.[1] This is more evidence that as a lying politician, Trump is both qualitatively and quantitatively different than any other politician. In his blatant contempt for truth and reason, Trump is unique, at least since the rise of fact checking, if not in all American history

. Footnote:
1. If it were up to B&B, the number of repeat lies to establish campaigns of disinformation would be ten. Once a lie has been repeated on ten separate occasions, that is sufficient evidence for rational people to call it a disinformation campaign.

B&B orig: 12/10/18

Post truth politics: A partisan echo chamber

A recent Washington Post article describes a real-world example of how detached from truth politics can be. It also reveals how financially successful that post truth politics can be.

WaPo interviewed Paris Wade and Ben Goldman, the founders of the post truth, pro-Trump website LibertyWritersNews.com. Wade and Goldman are recent university graduates who were unable to get jobs that paid more than low wages. On discovering that post truth journalism could be financially lucrative, they started their new careers. The following illustrate the cognitive power and appeal of post truth journalism as practiced by Wade and Goldman:

1. Before starting LibertyWritersNews (LWN), Wade's revelation about the power of false information came from an article he wrote in about 10 minutes claiming proof that North Korea was experimenting on humans. He backed his fake story up with what Wade called a “totally misleading” photograph of a fleshy mass. Wade published the story and it made $120. According to the WaPO article, Wade observed that “it was a revelation: You have to trick people into reading the news.” (That Wade referred to the fake story as news instead of a fabrication reflects disregard for that bit of nuance)

2. Wade commented on a LWN article titled “THE TRUTH IS OUT! The Media Doesn’t Want You To See What Hillary Did After Losing... .” Wade observed that “nothing in this article is anti-media, but I’ve used this headline a thousand times. Violence and chaos and aggressive wording is what people are attracted to.” Goldman added “our audience does not trust the mainstream media. It’s definitely easier to hook them with that.” Wade added that “there’s not a ton of thought put into it. Other than it frames the story so it gets a click.”

3. In response to LWN articles, readers respond with things like (i) “YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE I TRUST TO REPORT THE TRUTH” and (ii) “Arrest and hang him for war crimes” (in response to an old LWN article headline about George Soros, but with no connection to the article itself -- the old headline is reused because it keeps getting clicks). Wade and Goldman dismiss reader reactions like that. According to the WaPo article, “Goldman and Wade often tell each other they aren’t creating anything that’s not already there, that they’re simply fanning it, that readers know not to take their hyperbole and embellishments seriously. And even if the comments suggest otherwise, they try not to pay them too much attention.”

4. “There are times when Wade wonders what it would be like to write an article he truly believes in. ‘In a perfect world’, it would have nuance and balance and long paragraphs and take longer than 10 minutes to compose. It would make people think. But he never writes it, he says, because no one would click on it, so what would be the point?”

Indeed, why should any news or entertainment source bother with balance, nuance or any concern for truth in politics? What's the point? That's boring. And, it doesn't feel nearly as good as instantly responding to false realities that arouse irrational emotional responses. It require no conscious reason or effort but feels so very good.

Who knows? Maybe post truth politics is the ultimate in empty calories for the mind. It's just harmless brain candy, right?

B&B orig: 11/22/16

A New Contagious Disease: Trump Psychosis

Psychosis: a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

Tribalism: the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group, often in the face of underlying realities and reason that directly contradict tribe self-esteem or tribal political or social goals.

The December 7 issue of The Week magazine describes a new mental disease, that the medical division of B&B labels ‘Trump Psychosis’. The vector that spreads the disease is social media such as Facebook. The trigger is tribal political messaging, especially content that foments unwarranted emotions toward people and groups outside the tribe. The emotions typically constitute some combination of unwarranted fear, disgust, anger, hate, intolerance, distrust, xenophobia, homophobia, racism, bigotry and misogyny. The following true story shows just how severe this is for millions of Americans on the political right. How common TP is on the political left is not known, but is likely to exist to some extent.[1]

Christopher Blair's sarcasm gone horribly wrong: The Week’s story, Nothing on this Page is Real, describes how Christopher Blair, a liberal, decided to play a gotcha game with his Facebook page during the 2016 elections. It goes like this:

His wife had left for work and his children were on their way to school, but waiting online was his other community, an unreality where nothing was exactly as it seemed. He logged onto his website and began to invent his first news story of the day.

"BREAKING," he wrote, pecking out each letter with his index fingers as he considered the possibilities. Maybe he would announce that Hillary Clinton had died during a secret overseas mission to smuggle more refugees into America. Maybe he would award President Donald Trump the Nobel Peace Prize for his courage in denying climate change.

Blair had launched his website on Facebook during the 2016 presidential campaign as a practical joke among friends — a political satire site started by Blair and a few other liberal bloggers who wanted to make fun of what they considered to be extremist ideas spreading throughout the far right. In the past two years on his page, America's Last Line of Defense, Blair had made up stories about California instituting sharia, former President Bill Clinton becoming a serial killer, undocumented immigrants defacing Mount Rushmore, and former President Barack Obama dodging the Vietnam draft when he was 9.

"Nothing on this page is real," read one of the 14 disclaimers on Blair's site, and yet in the America of 2018 his stories had become real, amassing an audience of as many as six million visitors each month who thought his posts were factual. What Blair had first conceived of as an elaborate joke was beginning to reveal something darker.

Now he hunched over a desk wedged between an overturned treadmill and two turtle tanks, scanning through conservative forums on Facebook for something that might inspire his next post. . . . . He noticed a photo online of Trump standing at attention for the national anthem during a White House ceremony. Behind the president were several dozen dignitaries, including a white woman standing next to a black woman, and Blair copied the picture, circled the two women in red, and wrote the first thing that came into his mind. "President Trump extended an olive branch and invited Michelle Obama and Chelsea Clinton," Blair wrote. “They thanked him by giving him 'the finger' during the national anthem. Lock them up for treason!”

The white woman was not in fact Chelsea Clinton but former White House strategist Hope Hicks. The black woman was not Michelle Obama but former Trump aide Omarosa Newman. Neither Obama nor Clinton had been invited to the ceremony. Nobody had flipped off the president. The entire premise was utterly ridiculous, which was exactly Blair's point.

"We live in an Idiocracy," read a small note on Blair's desk, and he was taking full advantage. In a good month, the advertising revenue from his website earned him as much as $15,000, and it had also won him a loyal army of online fans. Hundreds of liberals now visited America's Last Line of Defense to humiliate conservatives who shared Blair's fake stories as fact.

“How could any thinking person believe this nonsense?” he said. He hit ‘publish’ and watched as his lie began to spread.

Shirley Chapian

It was barely dawn in Pahrump, Nevada, when Shirley Chapian, 76, logged onto Facebook for her morning computer game of Criminal Case. She believed in starting each day with a problem-solving challenge, a quick mental exercise to keep her brain sharp more than a decade into retirement.

For years she had watched network TV news, but increasingly Chapian wondered about the widening gap between what she read online and what she heard on the networks. One far-right Facebook group eventually led her to the next with targeted advertising, and soon Chapian was following more than 2,500 conservative pages, an ideological echo chamber that often trafficked in skepticism. Climate change was a hoax. The mainstream media was censored or scripted. Political Washington was under control of a “deep state.”

She lived alone, and on many days her only personal interaction occurred here, on Facebook. Mixed into her morning news feed were photos and updates from some of her 300 friends, but most items came directly from political groups Chapian had chosen to follow: Free Speech Patriots, Taking Back America, Ban Islam, Trump 2020, and Rebel Life.

Now another post arrived in her news feed, from a page called America's Last Line of Defense, which Chapian had been following for more than a year. It showed a picture of Trump standing at a White House ceremony. Circled in the background were two women, one black and one white.

"President Trump extended an olive branch and invited Michelle Obama and Chelsea Clinton," the post read. "They thanked him by giving him 'the finger' during the national anthem."

Chapian looked at the photo and nothing about it surprised her. Of course Trump had invited Clinton and Obama to the White House in a generous act of patriotism. Of course the Democrats — or "Demonrats," as Chapian sometimes called them — had acted badly and disrespected America.

"Well, they never did have any class," she wrote.

"Gross. Those women have no respect for themselves," wrote a woman in Fort Washakie, Wyoming. "They deserve to be publicly shunned," said a man in Gainesville, Florida. "Not surprising behavior from such ill bred trash." "Jail them now!!!"

Blair had fooled them. Now came his favorite part, the gotcha.

“OK, taters. Here's your reality check,” he wrote on America's Last Line of Defense, placing his comment prominently alongside the original post. “That is Omarosa and Hope Hicks, not Michelle Obama and Chelsea Clinton. They wouldn't be caught dead posing for this pseudo-patriotic nationalistic garbage. ... Congratulations, stupid.”

Blair didn't have time to confront each of the several hundred thousand conservatives who followed his Facebook page, so he'd built a community of more than 100 liberals to police the page with him. Together they patrolled the comments, venting their own political anger, shaming conservatives who had been fooled, taunting them, baiting them into making racist comments that could then be reported to Facebook. Blair said he and his followers had gotten hundreds of people banned from Facebook and several others fired or demoted in their jobs for offensive behavior online.

“That's kind of an ironic comment coming from pure trailer trash [Chapian just happens to live in a trailer she painted purple], don't you think? You're a gullible moron who just fell for a fake story on a Liberal satire page. Welcome to the internet. Critical thinking required.”

Chapian saw the comments after her post and wondered as she often did when she was attacked: Who were these people? And what were they talking about? Of course Michelle Obama and Chelsea Clinton had flipped off the president. It was true to what she knew of their character. That was what mattered.

A Muslim woman with her burqa on fire: like. A policeman using a baton to beat a masked antifa protester: like. Hillary Clinton looking gaunt and pale: like. A military helicopter armed with machine guns and headed toward the caravan of immigrants: like.

Instead of responding directly to strangers on America's Last Line of Defense, Chapian wrote on her own Facebook page. “Nasty liberals,” she said, and then she went back to her news feed, each day blending into the next.

That is Trump Psychosis. Ms. Chapian and millions of others on the political right have it.[1] It would be very interesting if the liberal mob that attacks people that Blair tricks would switch to tactics that treat misled people with respect and calmly explain the error and why it arose. Despite Blair's Facebook page stating that everything there is a pack of lies, thousands of people with Trump Psychosis ignore that and believe the lies because they feed the deranged fantasy the psychosis induces. Would calm, non-insulting explanations make any difference? There is no way to know. Mr. Blair and his army of gotcha minions would need to agree to try the experiment.

From what this observer can tell, this kind of mental disease was not possible until (1) the rise of social media, and (2) the rise of a tribal national leader like Trump who holds truth and sound reason in open contempt. Journalists and researchers have noticed the tribal, emotional contagion that Trump spreads and it seems that social media is the perfect vector for this tribal disease.

The social media basis for Trump Psychosis raises the question of what is the balance of social good to social bad of social media. Is it about 50:50? Or, could social media be more bad than good, say, about 40% good and about 60% bad? Maybe over time an answer to that might become clearer. Just how much deeper the disease will spread into American society is unknowable, so the matter of cost-benefit cannot be assessed.

Poor Ms. Chapian. She has been deceived and used by tribal Trump, tribal conservatism, tribal populism and a tribal republican party that can no longer accept or deal with reality, facts and reason. How much is she to blame for her disease? About 50:50? Or, is she about about 60% responsible and her tribe about 40% responsible? What responsibility, if any, do Mr. Blair and his attacking gotcha minions bear for anything? It is all based on constitutionally protected free speech. Some people make a living by posting empty brain candy online for political tribe members to mindlessly enjoy.

Finally, if Trump Psychosis isn't a real disease, then what is it? Is this really within the scope of what is considered normal mental functioning for adult Americans? Does it matter that people like this can vote?

Footnote:
1. Trump psychosis exists on the political left. Millions of Americans trust sources that pander to leftist political tribalism. Sites that defend Russia and spread anti-American and anti-European Union lies and propaganda influence many people.

B&B orig: 12/10/18

Israeli Lobby Power Quashes US Criticism of Israel

The Washington Post describes a brazen example of US pro-Israel lobby power: “Last week, Marc Lamont Hill, academic, activist and media personality, addressed the United Nations at its commemoration of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Hill’s speech was a bold call because it countered U.S.-led orthodoxy clinging to a two-state solution despite a one-state reality in which Palestinians are neither sovereigns of their own state nor citizens of Israel. Hill’s closing words, imploring international actors to support Palestinian freedom ‘from the river to the sea’, effectively demanded the dismantlement of an apartheid regime and the establishment of a bi-national state. In that sense, his views are commensurate with leading voices critical of the status quo in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet apologists for Israeli policies quickly mobilized a vicious smear and harassment campaign. CNN responded by firing Hill, and the chairman of Temple University’s board of trustees said he was searching for ways to essentially punish Hill, a media studies professor there.

His speech forms an important part of a renewed manifestation of Black-Palestinian solidarity, itself a component of a longer legacy of black internationalism and Third Worldism. In this sense, his speech echoed a discourse and vibrancy once emblematic of diplomatic revolutionary efforts at the United Nations that had receded in the folds of a collapsed internationalism.

The U.N. General Assembly established the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People in 1977 in the wake of systematic U.S. efforts to undermine an international resolution to the question of Palestine. This U.S. intransigence formed part of its imperial global role, ranging from military interventions in Vietnam to its diplomatic protection of apartheid South Africa in the U.N. Security Council.

Contemporary renewals of Black-Palestinian solidarity have faced aggressive attacks by the U.S. liberal establishment. In 2016, Black Lives Matter (BLM) member groups published a platform outlining domestic and international policy toward the advancement of black freedom. It squarely endorsed solidarity with Palestinians. In the section on U.S. foreign policy, it described Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as tantamount to genocide and endorsed the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel.

The concerted attacks on Hill not only represent a liberal heterodoxy and double standard on the question of Palestine. They also fit into a legacy of repressing black internationalists and the black radical tradition in the United States. Ironically, this episode is making vividly clear what a transnational movement has proclaimed for decades: Black and Palestinian struggles are entwined and represent a joint struggle for freedom. In its attempt to squash this trend, the liberal establishment, led by CNN, has inadvertently made this movement even stronger.”

Writing on the same incident, The Nation comments: “CNN fired its popular commentator the Temple University professor and public intellectual Marc Lamont Hill last week. Contrary to most reporting, Hill was not actually fired as a result of the speech he gave at the United Nations on November 28—he was fired as a result of powerful pro-Israel forces, most notably the Anti-Defamation League or ADL, who used the speech to demand that he be fired.

Dr. Hill’s comments were not anti-Semitic; they were anti-oppression, rooted in history and calling for a common humanity, grounded in the rights of all people, whether Palestinian or Jewish, African or European, black or Native American, Latinx or white.

Early in his speech Hill noted that ‘while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that all people are ‘born free and equal in dignity and rights,’ the Israeli nation state continues to restrict freedom and undermine equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, as well as those in the West Bank and Gaza.’”

As always, the Israel-Palestine dispute is bitterly contested and each side routinely accuses the other of lies, propaganda, bad faith and insane levels of brutality and hate. When Prime Minister Rabin was murdered by a political extremist with a gun in 1995, it seemed apparent then that the peace process was dead and would never lead to a solution. That turned out to be true from the end of 1995 until today, 23 years later.

Given the fact that there will never be a free and independent Palestinian state, America really should rethink the US-Israel alliance. At present, it looks like the Palestinian people are forever doomed to live in poverty, misery, blinding rage and actual imprisonment. Is that what America stands for? Apparently it is.

For context, the cost-benefit of the alliance to the US over the years since 1948 is in the hundreds of billions in aid and repercussions for the alliance. The total arguably approaches $1 trillion.*** The US also suffers political fallout from supporting Israel, which has hampered global US interests and arguably efforts at global peace.

***
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-u-s-foreign-aid-to-israel
https://www.wrmea.org/002-may/distorting-u.s.-foreign-policy-the-israel-lobby-and-american-power.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver (a significant part of bin Laden's rationale for attacking the US on 9/11 was the US-Israel alliance)
https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-afghanistan-war-timeline-economic-impact-4122493 (Afghan war cost)

B&B orig: 12/11/18

Are Political Moral Beliefs Out Of Control?

In 2004, Paul Graham, a computer scientist and entrepreneur, wrote an essay on his blog about the power of moral fashion. This topic seems timely and broadly applicable to society and politics. He wrote:

Have you ever seen an old photo of yourself and been embarrassed at the way you looked? Did we actually dress like that? We did. And we had no idea how silly we looked. It's the nature of fashion to be invisible, in the same way the movement of the earth is invisible to all of us riding on it.

What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed.

If you could travel back in a time machine, one thing would be true no matter where you went: you'd have to watch what you said. Opinions we consider harmless could have gotten you in big trouble. I've already said at least one thing that would have gotten me in big trouble in most of Europe in the seventeenth century, and did get Galileo in big trouble when he said it—that the earth moves.

I want to do more than just shock everyone with the heresy du jour. I want to find general recipes for discovering what you can't say, in any era.

The Conformist Test

Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?

If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think what you're told.

The other alternative would be that you independently considered every question and came up with the exact same answers that are now considered acceptable. That seems unlikely, because you'd also have to make the same mistakes. Mapmakers deliberately put slight mistakes in their maps so they can tell when someone copies them. If another map has the same mistake, that's very convincing evidence.

Like every other era in history, our moral map almost certainly contains a few mistakes. And anyone who makes the same mistakes probably didn't do it by accident. It would be like someone claiming they had independently decided in 1972 that bell-bottom jeans were a good idea.

Trouble

What can't we say? One way to find these ideas is simply to look at things people do say, and get in trouble for.

Of course, we're not just looking for things we can't say. We're looking for things we can't say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open. . . . . The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true.

Although moral fashions tend to arise from different sources than fashions in clothing, the mechanism of their adoption seems much the same. The early adopters will be driven by ambition: self-consciously cool people who want to distinguish themselves from the common herd. As the fashion becomes established they'll be joined by a second, much larger group, driven by fear. [9] This second group adopt the fashion not because they want to stand out but because they are afraid of standing out.

So if you want to figure out what we can't say, look at the machinery of fashion and try to predict what it would make unsayable. What groups are powerful but nervous, and what ideas would they like to suppress? What ideas were tarnished by association when they ended up on the losing side of a recent struggle? If a self-consciously cool person wanted to differentiate himself from preceding fashions (e.g. from his parents), which of their ideas would he tend to reject? What are conventional-minded people afraid of saying?

This technique won't find us all the things we can't say. I can think of some that aren't the result of any recent struggle. Many of our taboos are rooted deep in the past. But this approach, combined with the preceding four, will turn up a good number of unthinkable ideas.

Graham's essay continues in that vein.

Are moral fashions out of control in America in terms of undue bad effects on free speech? Graham points out that people with opinions that cannot be voiced can simply keep quiet, but with the caveat “I admit it seems cowardly to keep quiet.” People who voice such opinions sometimes face repercussions that include loss of a job or a whole career. Sometimes loss of life is the result.

This essay is striking in view of the four moral values that underpin the anti-bias ideology that B&B advocates. Belief in two of those values, fidelity to truth and facts and application of less biased or less flawed reasoning to truth and facts arguably constitutes a mindset that defines the contours of opinions that cannot be voiced.

But is that really true?

How does one evaluate perceptions of reality, thinking and opinions based on lies, deceit or unwarranted emotional manipulation? What is the balance of social and political good vs bad in that? More bad than good? Variable, depending on circumstances? In the beholder’s eye?

Probably mostly in the beholder’s eye under the circumstances the beholder is in when exposed to heresy.

What would the anti-bias ideology tend to do to people who express opinions that cannot be expressed? Based on the intent behind the ideology, that would depend on whether the opinion or thinking is based on dark free speech*** or honest free speech. If it is honest free speech that is speaking, anti-bias would do nothing about it other than confront honest mistakes in fact or reason, if any, and make whatever counter arguments there may be.

*** Dark free speech: Lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity, unwarranted emotional manipulation such as fomenting unwarranted fear, anger, hate, intolerance, disgust, bigotry, etc.

On the other hand, if heresy or contested ideas rely on dark free speech, should that be subject to repercussions? Does it matter if the person is working for a business when the speech is made? Why should society tolerate dark free speech, even if it is legal, constitutionally protected speech?

On some college campuses, speakers have been blocked from speaking due to the content of their messages. The term liberal snowflake bubbles up. What if the speaker's message is a mix of honest free speech and dark free speech? Does the ratio, say 20% honest and 80% dark, or vice versa, make any difference? The intent behind anti-bias is to make dark free speech less socially tolerable, and that could lead to acceptance of shutting off legal opportunities to squelch speech that contains ‘too much’ dark free speech.

In science there are some ideas that may have some science credibility, but are intensely upsetting to many people. One of those ideas is that whites are more intelligent than blacks. Another is that genetic factors lead to more men being more exceptional than women due at least in part to more genetic diversity among men compared to women. Jobs and careers maybe have been adversely affected by expressing those ideas, even though the speaker was employing honest free speech. Is that an out of control moral fashion?

Obviously, the difference between honest and dark free speech is the speaker’s intent. Honest mistakes have to be allowable because to err is human and always will be. But it is also human, at least for some humans, to lie, deceive and emotionally manipulate. Is there a justifiable basis for moral backlash against dark free speech? Who gets to decide? What backlash is acceptable, e.g., should a political speaker who uses non-trivial amounts of dark free speech to advance the speaker’s personal, political or economic agenda be subject to some form of censure or public rebuke? Should scientists subject to harsher penalties because the whole point of science is, in essence, an anti-bias endeavor? What about an employee who releases information embarrassing to a company?

B&B orig: 12/13/18