Often, it is what is not said, or not communicated, that can be the most revealing.
The darkness of silence casts its own bright light.
Often, it is what is not said, or not communicated, that can be the most revealing.
The darkness of silence casts its own bright light.
The other day, I wrote about my thoughts On Free Expression and Being Offensive. This morning, I came across an article on Vox.com with a video of J.K. Rowling defending offensive speech.
I thought she put it very well:
The tides of populism and nationalism currently sweeping many developed countries have been accompanied by demands that unwelcome or inconvenient voices be removed from public discourse. Mainstream media has become a term of abuse in some quarters. It seems that unless a commentator or television channel or newspaper reflects exactly the complainers’ worldview, it must be guilty of bias or corruption.
Intolerance of alternative viewpoints is spreading to places that make me, a moderate and a liberal, most uncomfortable. Only last year we saw an online petition to ban Donald Trump from entry into the UK. It garnered half a million signatures. Now, I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I consider him offensive and bigoted. But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there.
His freedom to speak protects my freedom to call him a bigot. His freedom guarantees mine. Unless we take that absolute position without caveats or apologies, we have set foot upon a road with only one destination.
If my offended feelings can constitute a travel ban on Donald Trump, I have no moral grounds on which to argue that those offended by feminism or the right for transgender rights or universal suffrage should not oppress campaigners for those causes. If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed a line to stand along tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.
There are times when I am simply stunned (by the way, that has been considered a derogatory term – I can recall in primary school, some pupils asking others, “Are you stunned?” meaning, “Are you stupid? A dunce?”) by the arguments put forth by some for “safe places,” and “trigger warnings” in universities. It has got to the point in some circles, where even discussing the merits (or lack of them) of so-called safe spaces and/or trigger warnings is considered “offensive.” Some apparently even see it as a lack of respect or lack of empathy to someone who has experienced a “traumatic” experience.
I for one don’t deny that traumas occur and can have dramatic effects on individuals. I’ve experienced more than a few traumatic experiences in my life. That doesn’t make me special, but it does mean I have some experience with trauma. I also get “flash backs” from one in particular – responding to a call of gunshots and being first on the scene to discover a young person shot in the head. His brains were oozing out on to the sidewalk. And I was pretty much helpless to do anything except remove my jacket and put it over his shivering body while we waited for the ambulance to arrive. I still have flashbacks from time to time, recalling how utterly helpless I was to save this individual.
Perhaps I should have posted a trigger warning alert before writing about that experience.
I’ve also had a few other traumatic experiences in my life that have included spending the better of a four year period as a child on strict bed rest and having to use a wheelchair when mobility was required. I had to learn how to walk all over again – and I did that on my own, against “Doctors Orders” at Sick Children’s Hospital in Toronto.
As a teenager, I experienced the shame (to me) of being sexually assaulted by another man, and I know first hand how these predators operate.
I am not writing about these traumatic experiences to ask for your empathy or to read your “Sorry for your experiences.” Indeed, I can recall from back in high school, some of my school mates expressing a sentiment of being sorry for my earlier illness and its consequences; but deep down, I actually felt embarrassed when the sentiment was expressed. I don’t doubt for one minute that they were genuine – but my perspective was that I was Very Happy to somehow have managed to overcome the illness and could walk when I had been told that I might never walk again. I also believed that the experience actually gave me some positive ways to look at life in ways others could not. In high school, I tended to try to make friends of some of the friendless and defend those who were bullied or made fun of for their own background or physical limitations. Yes – bullying did go on back then as well.
The reasons I am including my experiences is to show that I do have some ideas of what many people go through.
The Problem With Empathy
Actually, there is no problem with empathy, and it’s a very important human characteristic and one I value. I wish more of our law enforcement types understood and had empathy. I remember following the trial of Constable Forcillo in Toronto who shot a knife wielding young man. During the trial, Forcillo mused, “If you are pointing a knife and are refusing to do what I say, why will things magically be OK if I ask if he wanted a glass of water?”
I wanted to exclaim to Forcillo, “We don’t know if it would be magically ok, but you’re showing empathy and in doing so, immediately changing the dynamic of your relationship with Sammy Yatim (the man who was shot). You’re coming up with a surprise element that Yatim likely was not expecting. Yes, offering a glass of water while showing empathy could have changed the outcome of that event completely.
On the other hand, I don’t believe that empathy ought to be a consideration in universities when teaching difficult material. Universities ought to be places where professors and students have the freedom to express ideas, regardless of how some might find them offensive or “triggering.” Indeed, it seems to me that many students have missed out on some basic philosophy: that words and symbols are merely the expression of ideas, and neither ideas or words are “things.” A word or symbol in of itself cannot be offensive unless there is some offense in the mind.
Additionally, every word has at least two meanings. If someone uses a word in a way that expresses an idea that they are communicating, but you stubbornly refuse to accept that meaning of the word, and insist that somehow the word is “offensive” because you are refusing to consider other ways it can be used, it is you that is being childish and probably ought not to be in university. You are actually refusing to learn about other meanings that a word can have.
Learning and facing up to this fact – that words are merely an expression of ideas – might actually be helpful to you in your road to overcoming traumas. If you have been traumatized in life, that is your goal, isn’t it? To get past being a victim of trauma, and to find ways to thrive in life, despite your experiences? I don’t care what your therapists tell you: The best way to overcome your trauma is to meet them head on. Demanding empathy of others, and thereby requesting or forcing them to alter educational content is NOT going to help you get over your traumas.
Words indeed can have power – until one grows up and recognizes that words are expressions of ideas. You may not like the ideas being expressed, you may not agree with them, but so what? Are the only ideas that ought to be expressed are the ones you agree with, or that give you warm fuzzy feelings inside? Or only words that you’ve decided on because you reject that they can have more than one meaning?
You can never ever change this truth that words are expressions of ideas. If they offend you, it is you that needs to take ownership of your offense that is in your mind. Stating this is not a lack of empathy on my part. It’s just a simple fact. If by pointing out this fact, it offends you, that is your problem. It does not mean I am not an empathetic person. It does not mean I don’t have empathy for your traumas or life situations. While I do think empathy is very important, valuable, and a quality I admire, I have a higher value of defending the free expression of ideas.
In fact, I believe that the freedom of expression actually leads to more empathy and I respect your freedom to talk about your traumas and express them. When you, as a person who claims trauma or marginalization, demand a limit on words that are acceptable, or a limit on expression of ideas, so that no one’s feelings are “hurt,” you’re actually being tyrannical.
You are infringing on my right to hear someone else’s ideas, because you don’t want them to express them because of your “feelings.” How are your feelings more important than my right to hear someone’s ideas, just because they hurt your feelings?
On The Importance of The Expression of Offensive Ideas
I’ve changed my own beliefs over the years, dramatically. Some of my friends and family who have not come along on the same journey as I have, don’t appreciate how my core values and beliefs about many things have changed. That actually could be “trauma” for me; and indeed, sometimes it has been traumatic.
Reading and hearing the expressions of ideas that I once found offensive at one time motivated me to deeper thinking about my own premises. They challenged me, and I am glad those expressions were not censored. Some of those ideas expressed “hurt my feelings.” But those were my feelings, and I am the one who needs to take ownership for the projection and emoting that was in my mind.
There are also many ideas expressed that I have issues with – and would never support, but I support the right and the freedom of their authors to express them. Some of their ideas have motivated other ideas in me, and further argument and support for “negative rights” of human kind. I have learned to enjoy controversial subjects, and have learned, within myself, to not emote or project over them. I support and will continue to support the satire of anything, even so called “cherished beliefs.” If you want to regulate that, then perhaps a better place for you is in a cave; you can try to regulate it and you might be successful for a time, but you’ll never ever be able to universally and totally eliminate the expression of ideas that offend you.
The freedom to express offensive ideas is vital. It is vital to learning, it is vital to you, and indeed, to individuals who have somehow felt repressed or traumatized, this defense of freedom of expression of even ideas that might be “offensive” is vital to you.
It is vital to defend the expressions of that which you vehemently disagree with. Or even are offended by. And you ought to also have the freedom to express your own opinions – and the can all be tested by logic and checking premises.
Look.. don’t emote on what I have written here. I’m a man that’s had a challenging life at times. I’ve been in a wheelchair. I’ve been sexually abused. I’ve seen people die. I saved a son from being adopted out. I am not an “unfeeling” person but when it comes to the expression of ideas, feelings have nothing to do with it.
I invite offensive ideas. I often toss away those that have premises I know to be invalid, but I still accept their right to be expressed.
I’m very worried about this new idea of limiting expression based on “feelings” and trauma some have had.
Please feel free to comment and show me where I am wrong.
For many years, I’ve expressed my doubts in regard to the efficiency of solar energy. I have never been convinced that solar energy with today’s technology is cost-effective or energy efficient. In addition, here in Ontario, I question the use of arable land being turned into “solar farms.”
I have not been able to locate it, but there used to be a website where you could look at the project specs of all the solar and wind farm installations in the Province of Ontario. I am not sure if they have been removed or are just harder to find. But I do recall that many of the solar farms that were being planned or that were in operation seemed to generate about 10MW of power for every 100 acres of land.
To my mind, that is a total waste of land. Don’t forget that this figure of 10MW is a maximum amount, and on cloudy days or at night time, power generation from solar is zero. Yet we have a Liberal government led by a Nanny Stater, Premier Kathleen Wynne, who seems intent on taking this province down the road of inefficient, expensive, and economy killing “green energy.”
I am fully supportive of the use of “green energy” where it makes sense, and where it indeed provides an economical and clean source of energy. However, I believe that over the long run, today’s technologies do not have a net gain either in CO2 reduction or in energy production. There is also the problem of what to do with solar panels once they have reached their end of life. It is my understanding that many of them cannot be recycled, and under many of the governments’ environmental regulations, they cannot even be shipped off to landfills due to the toxic chemicals they contain.
Today, I came across a study that was published in the peer reviewed Energy Policy journal, entitled “Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation.”
The findings of the authors of the paper support my doubts and skepticism about the efficiency of photovoltaic sources of energy. We really need to re-examine the use of solar power as an energy source, especially when the findings include this:
In other words, an electrical supply system based on today’s PV technologies cannot be termed an energy source, but rather a non-sustainable energy sink or a non-sustainable NET ENERGY LOSS.
Of course, this paper was not covered much in the mainstream media – and I’m not sure why. From the stats provided by Altmetric, only one news outlet reported on the paper; nrc.nl.
Politicians and proponents of solar energy need to wake up, and fast.
Yesterday, I noticed that many of my friends and associates on Facebook where sharing some post by the owner of a Chiropractic clinic in Alaska, a Jennifer Lovdahl. Ms Jennifer Lovdahl is listed as a doctor on their chiropractic clinic website – http://www.movewellalaska.com/ and apparently graduated from the Palmer College of Chiropractic in Iowa.
The post by Dr. Lovdahl that so many of my Facebook associates were sharing contained a photo of a meal apparently purchased six years ago from McDonald’s, containing Chicken McNuggets and french fries. Dr. Lovdahl wrote in her post:
“It’s been 6 years since I bought this “Happy Meal” at McDonald’s. It’s been sitting at our office this whole time and has not rotted, molded, or decomposed at all!!! It smells only of cardboard. We did this experiment to show our patients how unhealthy this “food” is. Especially for our growing children!! There are so many chemicals in this food! Choose real food! Apples, bananas, carrots, celery….those are real fast food.”
I am astonished that a so-called “doctor” would publish such tripe. You would think that anyone today that is a graduate of a college that bestows the degree of Doctor, and that college is involved in human sciences, would have at least taught their students some basic chemistry as well as The Scientific Method.
Or perhaps Dr. Lovdahl is aware of The Scientific Method and some basic chemistry, but chooses to promote her own biases using the respect that most people would give a person with the degree of Doctor bestowed upon them. Whatever the case may be, this is where the rot is, and I can tell you why Dr. Lovdahl observed no rot in the McDonald’s food.
Let’s look at Dr. Lovdahl’s original post: “We did this experiment to show our patients how unhealthy this “food” is.”
How does this experiment show any such thing? It doesn’t show that it is “unhealthy” nor does it show, as Dr. Lovdahl claims that “there are so many chemicals in this food.” There likely ARE many chemicals in the food; but not in the way Dr. Lovdahl is trying to suggest. Everything that exists has a chemical makeup. Even apples. There is nothing sinister going on here whatsoever.
Now, if Dr. Lovdahl truly respected science (and apparently, the college she graduated from claims to hold integrity and science as high values), she would have conducted her experiment using multiple meals, as well as control subjects. For example, she might have made up some french fried potatoes at home, reduced their moisture level through freezing or refrigeration, (using only organic potatoes, of course!), deep fried them without the addition of any other chemicals but for a sprinkling of salt, put it in a bag and stuck in a dry cupboard for six years along with her McDonald’s purchased meal.
Now there’s an experiment that’s closer to reality.
Or, if she wants to compare apples, bananas, and carrots, she could have also dehydrated those, deep fried them, stuck them in a cupboard for six years, and checked to see if she found rot.
I suggest you try it at home before you go believing Dr. Lovdahl. Here’s some facts for you:
Food preservation can be done by reducing moisture and adding salt. Anything deep fried would have a lot of water moisture driven out of it, and replaced by oil. Now, the oil could go rancid if left for six years, open to the air, but you would not see this. But you would probably have food that appeared to have withstood the element of time, and showed little or no rot.
This experiment does not prove that this is not “healthy food,” nor does it prove that lots of chemicals were added to the food by McDonald’s. It is shameful that a person with the title “Doctor” would try to persuade you that her experiment was somehow a valid experiment. It’s not. It’s actually.. anti-science.
Food rot depends on a number of different things, including levels of moisture. Foods that have low to no water moisture and that are kept in a dry place, will not rot at the same rate as high moisture foods and in fact, can withstand against rot for a very long time depending on the conditions they are kept in. Does a doctor involved in human health not know this very basic fact?? It does not require the addition of any sinister chemicals to keep food from rotting.
Dr. Lovdahl owes her fans an apology for attempting to show something in a non-scientific manner, but present it to novices in such a way that it may be a valid experiment.
Or perhaps Dr. Lovdahl was never taught the scientific method. In that case, any person who has graduated from the Palmer College of Chiropractic is suspect, and I would not want to be treated by any graduate of theirs.
I have some challenges for Dr. Lovdahl:
Purchase the finest organic potatoes you can find. Cut them into “chip” (as called in the UK) or “french fry” shapes. Freeze them.
Heat up the finest healthiest oil in a deep fryer. Take frozen raw french fries and deep fry them until they are cooked. Remove french fries, allow oil to drain, sprinkle with salt, place in a paper bag, put in a cupboard in a dry place.
Come back and tell us what you see.
Dr. Lovdahl compares the McDonald’s meal to “real food” such as “apples, bananas and carrots.”
Okay, apples have a higher level of moisture than potatoes; if left out of some preserving condition, they will rot in a short amount of time, definitely less than six years. But here’s what I want you to do: Dehydrate the apples to the same moisture level as potatoes after cutting them into chip shapes. Freeze them. Then take them out of the freezer and deep fry them. Remove from the deep fryer, sprinkle some salt, put in a bag, and leave in a dry place for six years. Tell me what you see. Tell me if you will conclude the apples must have had chemicals added to them.
I doubt Dr. Lovdahl will take up the challenge. But if the good doctor wants to have some semblance of scientific credibility, the good doctor ought to take up the challenge, along with having some control subjects, as a proper scientific experiment would have.
I am sure Dr. Lovdahl means well, but pushing pseudo-science onto people, and pushing it in such a way that it apparently proves or shows something, is utterly irresponsible. I would hope that any regulatory agency or the good doctor’s school that apparently values integrity will have a little chat with the doctor about scientific integrity, and making false claims while using the title of Doctor, as apparently happened at the Chiropractic clinic.
The rot is not in the McDonald’s food; the rot is in the critical thinking skills that seem to be no longer taught these days.
I actually do quite of food preservation with my son – including dehydrating, fermentation, and canning – perhaps Dr. Lovdahl might be interested in learning more, and about food chemistry.