A Constructive Reply to Milo by an Army Information Warfare Veteran

I understand why Milo exists on the public scene — or at least, why he first came to prominence. As a skeptic and freethinker who despises dogma and ideology within academia, I really do. Steven Crowder rightly pointed out once that the excesses of the Left — in particular, on campuses and within some corners of the social justice movement — helped create Milo as a public figure. There is a dangerously closed and conversation-stifling atmosphere in much of academia at the moment, and this is harmful in many ways — it stifles important conversation, drives discourse underground and into the extremes, assists the pendulum effect of political reactionism that trolls feed on, makes the Russian propagandists’ job much easier, and fuels the recruiting of the far Right. It also creates a suffocating atmosphere for many students who feel they have no where else to go but Miloland in order to escape the toxic atmosphere of their classroom or university — in some cases, an environment where they can’t be authentic. A place where they can’t safely speak their mind on things as benign and scientifically sensible as evolutionary psychology of differences in male-female mating strategies.

However, I want to address why much of his approach is flawed when it comes to fighting some of the excesses on the far Left — and how we can find a better way to combat bad ideas and win over hearts and minds.

Ever since my return from Afghanistan in 2012, I have been simultaneously heartbroken and deeply disillusioned by the state of our discourse. Surely we can do better. Two key ingredients that are missing from the equation:

Intellectual humility and skepticism, as well as effective communication to get others to be willing to sit down and listen.

We need to foster incubators for honest discussion and self-reflection, to identify genuine problems within our own ‘idea community’, see our blind spots, and hear necessary criticism and different perspectives that enrich our own understanding. We do not need more Milo-style zero-sum conflicts between “SJWs” and “anti-SJWs”; we need to provide open, public alternatives to extremism, hate, combative discussion, and group bullying (on any side). We need to show people better alternatives. We need to create exchange spaces for fruitful discourse. We need to do this while encouraging reason, humility, compassion and skepticism.

That is our best way forward.

An Alternative to the Milo Model

Some of my friends have joking called this use of finding common agreement and deflating misunderstanding “The Kirbow Model”. I prefer to simply call it ‘the way of the Social Science Warrior’. Not only does this model emphasize building bridges, but it focuses on using this to expand our coalitions to more effectively combat dogma, hate and extremism. I hope this can become an alternative to the methods of people like Milo Yiannoppolis — as such alternatives are desperately needed right now. If we can create reasonable spaces for people to air out these issues and discuss them honestly — something they often feel they cannot do on their own campuses — we are bound to see more unproductive, narrow-minded ping-pong between the “social justice warriors” and the “Anti-SJW” crowd. We all deserve something much better.

For young critics of political correctness — especially college students who are seeking a path towards truth, reason, and civil discourse — that ‘The Kirbow Model’ is better than the Milo Model. The Kirbow Model will be better equipped to find the nuance in the human realities we face, build the bridges of open discussion, and ultimately win far more hearts and minds on ‘the other side’ over the long run. Or even the short run.

I only use the term ‘Kirbow Model’ here lightly and in good humor, and rest assured that most of these ideas and tools did not originate with me, but with countless points of research and hard-earned experience by those who’ve gone before me, and some who are doing this work as we speak. What I am attempting to do is combine these tools into a larger toolkit, and into a new paradigm for civil discourse and effective communication. A way to drive a wedge against the extremes, while teaching and empowering other people around the country to build bridges of empathy and understanding — something essential to the war of ideas.

In essence, this approach — if I may make a bold but well-backed proclamation — is categorically better than the kind we’ve been seeing across our campuses and social media by folks like Yianoppolis and many of the fanboys who mimic his tactics and style. There’s no denying that folks like Milo are often quite skilled at satire and entertainment, as well as impressively versed at quick wit and humor. But people like him are not well trained or equipped with the real tools to play this game at the adult level. They are less situationally attuned, less nuanced in their approach, and unseasoned in the things I will talk about in the next section of this book — the things I learned from real warzones, from actual dialogue in seemingly impossible environments, working with cultures thousands of years old and tribal systems born out of centuries of conquest and survival.

Learning firsthand about building trust and respect with influential former Mujahedeen warlords and power brokers, in a post-Taliban-era environment, using the tools of true engagement and effective communication, will get you light years beyond the amateur hour we see with many ‘anti-PC’ warriors. As will learning secondhand how to adopt these lessons within our society (something mature, intellectually serious readers of this book are certainly capable of). It will make Gavin McInnes’ or Milo’s methods look petty and childish by comparison. These people’s approaches may seem effective in the very short run, especially when they lay waste to the toxic versions of PC culture described above. However, they fail to acknowledge and build common ground with people’s genuine grievances and suffering. Discussion of things like ‘social justice’ and ‘PC culture’ cannot be a one-way street or zero-sum game of team sport. It must cultivate nuance and understanding if we are to move forward, and disentangle the good from the toxic. These nuances get lost in the amateur interplay of these belligerents caught up in shit-flinging matches with their sworn opponents, often at the expense of long-term gains for sensibility and reason. All of this will become clear in the proceeding articles on this topic.

The need to think outside the box of our campus debates

Last year, I wrote several articles on this subject, one of which was Die Hard with a Weinstein. It was about why a model of skepticism, reason and compassion should compete for campus hearts and minds — and why it can eventually win.

In this article, which lays out my response to the Evergreen incident from a counter-extremism and ‘psywar’ perspective, I open by explaining my use of the title.

“In the Die Hard films, the situation tends to be resolved with one or a few people taking the initiative and thinking outside the box, even against seemingly overwhelming odds. Perhaps an unconventional approach is what we need on campuses today. Outside-the-box thinking, creativity, and fortitude, combined with a defiant resilience exhibited by those lone few willing to go out on a limb, may be what’s truly needed to escape from our toxic state of campus discourse.”

The ability to have conversations and think critically about issues, as well as a willingness to listen and change our minds, is central to problem solving and social progress. We need the space of sensible and civil discourse in which to discuss practical answers to real life problems. To engage challenges with as little partisan ideology or sensational thinking as possible. The style of provocative conflict, blanketed dismissal and zero-sum opposition that I feel we often see in the Milo Approach is not conducive to this. Rather, it tends to solidify rival tribes and conflict mindsets, making it harder for people to see nuance on the other side. Or listen with the genuine desire to refine their views, acknowledge blind spots and ultimately find room to grow.

In particular, there are many areas where people actually could find agreement on important issues, but fail to do so due to the combative mindset that holds back openness to sensible agreement. The provocation model tends to increase sound bite culture and creates a kind of bifurcation between “SJW” and “anti-SJW”, both of whom are supposed to see one another as either terrible people (or empathy-lacking privileged jerks) or crazy-eyed overly-emotional ideologues. People often instinctively group dissenting opinions and messages into the ‘rival camp’, rather than listen proactively for nuance.

“You don’t like PC culture? You must be one of those Right wing Milo types”

“You think privilege is a real thing worth discussing? You sound like an SJW”

This creates a kind of dead weight within our conversation, where people become far more prone to conflict and disagreement than is actually necessary, and automatically assume disagreement or bad faith on opposing sides of an argument due to being primed by the spectacle of political pro-wresting that we see across campuses, YouTube videos and the media.

I want to combine a few key points from other articles, to summarize and give a concise breakdown for readers of my philosophy and approach.

My Main Points of Criticism to Milo’s Approach — A Summary

Moral psychology and political science is increasingly showing us something: an approach that feeds polarization and furthers the divide is likely to be ultimately unhelpful. Is is even likely to be quite unhealthy.*

In this regard, I do want to acknowledge something upfront. Many will point to the need for the jester, the provocateur, who is willing to expose absurdities and contradictions within dogmas and over-confident ideologies. People who can openly and crudely challenge the intellectual and ideological status quo of institutions — in this case, academia and parts of social activism and media. I actually share this sentiment — we do need forms of this, especially to help break the wall of conformity built around unwavering, dogmatic, rigidly suffocating ideologies that take themselves far too seriously. Revoking their immunity from sensible and honest criticism is one of the best things we can do to help society — including adherents to the ideologies themselves — move forward. However, there are better and worse ways to go about this. Good and bad, productive and unproductive ways to attack such ideas and present alternatives.

Like most people caught between the extremes of social media, I recognize limits. I recognize that the merits of using provocative tactics depends on the nature and scope of the provocations. I do not deny the need to occasionally — or in some parts of academia today, perhaps somewhat frequently — offend and provoke. But the reason for provoking should not be merely for the sake of provocation and offense — in fact, bridges of civility and mutual understanding, or merely willingness to be more open to listening — should be built whenever possible. When head-on collision and passionate disagreement is inevitable, however, there are better and worse ways to engage in provocative rhetoric.

Secondly, this false dichotomy brought on by excessively provocative, head-on approaches like we often see in Milo’s engagements tends to expand the illusion that we are more divided than we really are. While social attitudes and ideals are indeed quite divided and in a state of violent intellectual conflict among the fringes of our conversation, this conflict actually does not map onto the sentiments of most Americans. Nor most Britains. Or most of any population — fringe pendulums tend to swing back and forth at the expense of the average person. While most people may indeed be tired of the excesses of the Left, excesses of political correctness, and the condescension of much of our elites, this does not mean that the average person wants to swing to the further reaches of the opposite camp. Rather, most people seem to prefer to breath the air of civil discourse and reasonable conversation in the grey are between the fringes.

I write about this in my article on Principles and Values of a New Center Movement.

Finally, there have been a growing number of articles, studies and data to back up the fact that most people are not nearly as divided as the provocative fringes and echo chambers make us out to be.

From, Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture. Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness, and race isn’t either.

Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” most Americans don’t fit into either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest — including a general aversion to PC culture.

(please read also: An optimist’s guide to political correctness)

Reciprocity: The Pendulum Effect of Radicalization

Reciprocal radicalization (a term used by counter-extremism and terrorism researcher Julia Ebner, and discussed in her book The Rage, about islamists and the far Right in parts of Europe) is when two or more ideologically bonded groups feed off of one another, increasingly becoming radicalized and fueling more recruiting within their respective communities. The process drives more and more people to the extremes, and amplifies the fringes of discourse, where zero-sum thinking and tribal dynamics tend to set in and solidify. This is rarely productive. This can, on some level, occur on our own campuses, in our own cities, and within the online universe. People increasingly bond as opposing tribes, taking on a binary view of the world and closing the door to nuance and sensible discussion that is so essential for us to combat extremist thinking and bad ideas.

From Die Hard with a Weinstein,

“There is a vicious cyber component to this as well, that occurs with online communities, increasingly bonding together like ‘tribes’ inside an ‘ideological bubble’. Social media has arguably made us more polarized, as well as isolated and closed off from one another. This has nurtured an environment for people and movements to organize and recruit, and identify with one another. We are also — generally speaking — seeing increasing political polarization, not only in the US but parts of Europe as well.

Extremists on both sides seek to fill the vacuum left by the chilling effect of toxic and broken discourse. Hyper-polarization and radical recruitment on the fringes of our political spectrum are acting to undercut sensible discourse, fueling a kind of reciprocal extremism that makes us less safe, less intelligent, and less empathetic to those outside our immediate ideological circle. Universities, professors, public thinkers and even many students are seeking practical answers.

We need a plan of action. In the end, the war against tribal thinking, dogmatism, hive mentality, and empathy gaps will require a new set of tools. Not the conventional approaches of ideologues and bureaucrats, but of innovation, courage and scientific understanding. As well as compassion.”

Fueling the Echo Chambers: The Dangers of Overly Combative Approaches

I want to re-iterate something I wrote in The Way of the Social Science Warrior: A New Paradigm for Conversation.

The current model we see today is one of conflict and zero-sum thinking. It often leads even decent and reasonable people to talk past one another in a game of tug-of-war, where seeing and acknowledging one another’s concerns and nuances takes a back seat to ‘scoring points’ or echoing ideological narratives or repetitious talking points. As an example, I have seen people literally argue for hours around a simple misunderstanding: one person rightly attacks the excesses of PC culture, while the other rightly defends the need to be respectful and responsive to the dignity of vulnerable human beings. One is saying, “don’t hold back needed conversation because of dogma, ideology or sensitivity!”, while the other is saying “do you not see that hateful people exist?! Why be needlessly cruel to others?”

They are talking past one another, when one sentence could deflate the entire misunderstanding. In short, we need to learn to distinguish legitimate criticism of PC culture, vs merely being a jerk. This may seem overly obvious, but — in the echo chambers of social media or the heat of real-time conversation — it often is not. Encouragingly, there are ways around this. Even on occasions when the discussion is quite complex.

The Venn Diagram Drinking Game: An Entry Point for Changing Minds

With this said, I want to introduce what I call The Venn Diagram Drinking Game. It may well be a gateway to bridging one of the most harmful — and persistently annoying — divides that we face when trying to bridge even the most basic gaps on the “PC” debate.

As a warmup to such a game, we can use a set of tools un moral psychology to get one another to be more open minded and willing to listen to dissenting views — a practice we want to promote to more people. Social scientist and Righteous Mind author Jonathan Haidt talks about ‘dinner table conversation’ through a better understanding of moral psychology. The Open Mind Library — part of the Open Mind Platform from his website -encourages us to ‘explore the irrational mind’ — that is, to “learn a little bit of psychology to see the tricks the mind plays on us, making us all prone to be self-righteous, overconfident”.

Here’s how this drinking game would work.

Likewise, the other group (or person, if it’s a 1 on 1) would ask,

“What are some instances where ‘PC’ culture might go too far, or be misapplied? What are some instances where people are right to criticize it?”

From this, a row of the table is filled out for each side. Whomever gets their own row filled out first gets to drink first. Ideally, no one leaves until both sides drink a second round, and the entire table gets filed out.

Below, the “PC” 2x2 Table, part of the Venn Diagram Drinking Game.

The conversation on ‘PC culture’ and ‘social justice’ is deeply broken

Here are a few reasons why this occurs, and why our very paradigm for discussing social justice and political correctness is so terribly broken.

It keeps us intellectually stagnant. The current paradigm of binary discourse (‘Left vs Right’, or of Centrist vs Left, or “SJW” vs “anti-SJW”) is to avoid changing our minds, and to viscerally shun the very idea of being wrong. This is a problem: it keeps us in an intellectually vegetative state of conversational paralysis. Often, it also locks us, even unknowingly, into a state of moral judgementality and smug self-assurance.

It see things in overly simplified, All or None ways. When we look at things through the prism of dismissive tribal warfare, we put on the lens of simplicity, of all-or-none thinking — its all black and white, with no room for real nuance or growth. Little maneuver space to be wrong and see our blind spots. This is not healthy — and it holds back ur ability to communicate our values and ideas to those who most need to hear them. Do we want to ramble on about being right, or do we want to reach people and change minds?

It hurts our ability to self-correct and grow. The current paradigm does not facilitate self reflection or wanting to see our blind spots. We don’t pressure-test our own ideological bubble. Rarely do we distinguish between where people we oppose may be wrong on something, but in other aspects of the issue, be right. This failure — this giant blind spot — helps drive others further away from us, and into their own echo chambers and bubbles. No one is better off or smarter.

It runs on primal psychology. This tendency to see things in an all-or-none way (Binary Fallacy aka False Dichotomy), and have a visceral reaction to nuance, is an evolutionary feature of our primal hardwiring. It is often easier for the brain to split the world into a binary opposition of simple “good and bad”, “I’m right, you’re wrong”, than to entertain the nuance needed on sensitive, emotional topics. We have to learn how to recognize and adapt to this. A large portion of the secular community — which has long championed itself as the standard bearer for being reasonable — has been particularly harmed by this feature of our moral psychology.

As I recalled in The Way of the Social Science Warrior,

“I was having a rather in-depth dialogue with a Leftist friend about a week or so ago, and he raised the point that many self-described centrists and classical liberals often rail against ‘PC Culture’ and accuse the Left of lacking nuance and civility, but don’t always show this in return. While it is important for more on the Left to actually listen to what critics of PC Culture are saying, it’s also important for these critics to listen, and pay attention to why so many ‘SJWs’ feel its so important to be concerned about hurtful language or the consequences of a certain way of othering minorities. And he was right. Many critics of the Left do in fact come across as needlessly insensitive towards legitimate concerns of people whose inner lives and experiences they cannot relate to, and this tends to drown out any sensible point they may have. Effective communication crashes and burns like one of Donald Trump’s businesses ventures. And no one walks away smarter or more open-minded as a result.”

Let’s all think about this more. And reflect on it with integrity and moral honesty.

A Buffer against the Toxic Extremes: A Healthy Space for Mindful Conversations

Imagine for a moment if more of us felt the breathing space to have real conversations, without being funneled into toxic Manosphere echo chambers where genuine sexism runs rampant, or into radical Left circles where walking a tightrope is needed just to get by. To an extent, thankfully, this breathing space is starting to emerge. New conversation forums and discussions around the country — both on campuses and online — are starting to create this niche. It is this niche of honest conversation that will be our buffer against extremism, by giving more and more people a better option, and a more human outlet to find their footing amidst a landscape of tribal hostility to freethinking and dissent. This can also create the space for nuance — something needed even more in serious situations. Imagine for a moment if we, and others who disagree with us, could regularly start to see important distinctions, and embrace more edifying nuance that neither we nor our critics had seen before. Or even imagined seeing.

This can also perhaps help stop the swinging pendulum of toxicity between the fringes of conversation. By giving people who feel isolated by the suffocating environment of Leftist culture — be it online, on their campus or in their activism circle — we also give people more options for nuance, both in articulating their opinion, and in listening and hearing others. It would be a healthy place to go in order to be more honest, more authentic, and more able to speak and listen. If this mode of discussion were scaled up across our campuses, for example, this would become serious competition for the fringes that have planted their flags as the loudest and most vocal answers. By failing to create spaces for these conversations, we have essentially outsourced the discussion to these fringe groups, who all too eagerly fill the vacuum left by the rubble of our fractured society.

If more people had this ‘third option’ of nuanced, effective discourse, they would be far less likely have to ‘pick a team’ between sensational provocateurs like Milo Yiannopolous and the loud mob of Antifa footclan who look like they’re ready to move on from fighting Ninja Turtles. It would help people in gradually abandoning the rigid narratives and suffocating environment they all too often feel beholden to, socially and intellectually, and move beyond the status quo of narrow discourse.

Intellectually curious people everywhere will be surprised where this can lead us as a society.

Why University subculture harms our efforts against propaganda and extremism— and why Professors like Dr. Boghossian can help

I have been long weighing the need — and the risk — of writing an open letter to certain circles of the wider academic community, about very specific problems, their potential consequences, and the need to address them openly. My name is John. I’m a graduate of Fordham University with a Bachelors in political science, and a US Army veteran with time in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. I write as someone who loves the social sciences, and is deeply concerned about the rise of far-Right narratives and bigoted movements. I also write with a wide base of knowledge and experience to fall back on, from the war zone to the campus. I focus heavily on countering dangerous ideologies, recruitment and extremism. This includes several projects to combat fundamentalism and hate on various ends of the idea spectrum, from radical Islam in the Middle East to white nationalism in American cities. Understanding how to engage the Taliban and combat their narratives can bring a good bit of insight to addressing radicalization in our own backyard. Many friends and experts across relevant fields — including defense, cyber and anti-terrorism — share my feelings about certain blind spots within many of our universities. I sincerely invite faculty and students alike to discuss how we can best win the fight against extremism. I am here to express my concerns about how some of the culture seen and felt within academia is making potentially harmful mistakes in this fight.

I should start by saying that I have a (often misunderstood) military background in what is popularly known in the civilian world as ‘psychological warfare’. I do not stare at goats. But I do stare at Russian bots, at alt-right Twitter accounts, and radical left Antifa protests. I stare at and analyze propaganda of all kinds. I stare at the failure of conversation on social media and campuses, and see the areas where academia is often making huge mistakes that — in spite of good intentions — ultimately only help the extremists gain ground.

In the war of ideas, and the ongoing battle for hearts and minds, campuses are a battleground. The space in which we have conversations about social issues is a battleground — a key part of the ‘civil terrain’ in which millions can be swayed from the zone of reason and compassion and into the corners of hurtful ideas and radicalization. Or vice versa. Academia sets much of the tone for how we wage this war of ideas. This letter will put forth an argument which comes from my years of combating — or seeing firsthand — radical recruiting, extremism, hate, and dangerous ideologies around the world, and understanding success as well as failure in how to fight it.

Most of the leaders in academia have likely not heard the argument I am putting forward. With due respect, I offer it with sincerity of heart. I simply ask that it be received with openness of mind.

There is a dangerously closed and conversation-stifling atmosphere in much of academia at the moment, and this is harmful in certain ways that most are not seeing. Dr. Peter Boghossian — likely familiar to most who will read this letter — teaches philosophy at Portland State, with an emphasis on cultivating skepticism, critical thinking and the Socratic method. In light of his ordeal with PSU over the Grievance Studies Hoax, many students (and some prominent academics) have come to his aid, stating how his approach to critical thinking and discussion has been a breath of fresh air. Many have expressed (in support letters) how suffocating the atmosphere on their campus often feels, making honest and open discourse on important issues seem practically impossible. Regarding this, he recently said something that I have heard other academics reiterate: “I am deeply concerned that we are failing students.”

I can’t stay silent on this either, as I am deeply concerned that much of the social side of academia is failing the fight against extremism. I’ve seen what this failure of conversation does for extremist recruiting all over the world. Be it Islamists, white supremacists, or others. In environments where fear, dogma and ideology hold back honesty, bad ideas actually grow stronger — often right under the noses of those who seek to stifle conversation. In environments where good and decent people are afraid to have the important conversations, the fringes of discourse tend to thrive. Online recruiting and the power of social platforms can feed off this like never before. Academia is enabling this environment, and it is a serious problem. As someone with the requisite background, I have to say something.

I will try to keep this article as short as possible, and will not devote space to the backstory of the Grievance Studies Hoax and the pushback against Dr Boghossian, which is what prompted me to write this article. For those unfamiliar with the recent events at PSU, and their efforts to level charges of misconduct against Boghossian, details can be found linked here, here, here and elsewhere.

Rather, I want to make the case for why people who — like me — fear the rise of authoritarianism, despise hateful movements, and strongly oppose the far Right, should examine some of these problems within wider academia. Most importantly, why people should do this honestly and with an open mind, regardless of their views on Dr. Boghossian or the recent hoax. If we are to get serious about combating extremism, echo chambers, Russian propaganda, and far-Right recruiting, we need to be willing to see these blind spots.

Academia’s Blinds Spots: Failing against Extremism

I write as someone who understands the dangers of tribal thinking and echo chambers, and has seen the harm of this in many areas of our human landscape — from the university and various political circles, to disturbingly effective recruiting campaigns by various extremist communities — prime among them Islamists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis. I understand how extremists recruit, how their propaganda and narratives work, and how their messaging targets intellectually and psychologically vulnerable people who are susceptible to these bad ideas.

There are many reasons for why people get radicalized or drawn into the gateway zone of harmful ideas. Prime among these reasons include upbringing, life trauma, unstable family, identity conflicts, or a deeper void and psychological need for community (and, of course, harmful false certainties and beliefs passed on through ideology). However, in the case of modern online extremism and various far-Right communities, such recruiting may simply capitalize on the false choice that many young people feel when they don’t know where to go to speak their minds, or where to find a community that will allow them to express themselves.

For example, if people are afraid to honestly discuss evolutionary psychology (often due to being reflexively labeled as ‘alt-Right’ or branded a misogynist), this creates a dangerous opening — an ‘ignorance vacuum’ of sorts, as well as a kind of curiosity vacuum, for more people to be misled by pseudoscience masquerading for political ends. When the atmosphere in certain parts of academia discourages honest teaching or discussion of evolutionary psychology, in areas such as male-female mating strategies for example, countless young people will likely seek answers elsewhere — including in the ideological funnels of the ‘Manopshere’ and the more radical brands of the ‘pickup artist community’ online. An environment where students and professors are reluctant to talk about these things with scientific authenticity is very problematic — it makes it all the more dangerous when groups like the alt-Right misrepresent and weaponize the field of evolutionary psychology for their own ends. When there is not a buffer of reasonable discussion for people being lured in by bad ideas — when no alternative discussion space exists — closet radicals do their work far more effectively. As someone trying to share my knowledge and experience as a counter-propagandist, please believe me when I say that this dynamic is not something you want to take lightly. Stifling honest conversation will often assist the extremists, and hurt our ability to fight back.

Many people see a legitimate problem, such as the excesses of political currentness or the dogmatic toxicity in some social justice movements, but feel afraid to break the silence. Then, the far Right steps in and crudely breaks the silence, posing as the one to bravely call out the Emperor’s New Clothes. Had the more mainstream academic Left been upfront about problems within their own community, and called out the Naked Emperor themselves, it would make the job of people like Milo far more difficult, if not impossible. Yet the academic Left’s refusal to openly confront these problems tends to hand the job to extremists on the Right. This is the ‘Red Pill’ illusion that they create — and it is a dangerous false choice. Yet more and more young people on campus and online are falling for it, and the excesses of the Left are helping move them along this journey.

This occurs much to the delight of the far Right propagandists themselves, who target these people with their messaging. Extremists often rope in such people by posing as moderates, and falsely claiming that they are the answer, “bravely stepping in” to fill the vacuum. Of course, this is a false choice (and never a good excuse to go to the far Right). Sadly, however, such false choices can drive people to the extremes, and have made recruiting and propaganda much easier for political charlatans and hate communities. When nuance is crushed, it becomes harder for average people to navigate the landscape of ideas in a sensible way. Various forms of intimidation and silencing can also have the effect to driving needed discussion underground — often into the corners of extremist echo chambers. Not only off of campus, but on campus as well.

This atmosphere also increases academia’s blind spot when it comes to the best ways to combat extremism, propaganda and bad ideas. As well as when it comes to seeing their own mistakes, adapting, and refining their approach. I explain this in depth here, here and here.

Finally, there is a reality — so soberingly reflected by the Evergreen incident — that we have to talk about and address: Today, Professors themselves must fear intimidation from ideologues and fringe voices, and this is occurring on both sides of the political spectrum. Such intimidation includes being run off campus, sustained harassment, being fired, or worrying about being fired for merely voicing a view or point of dissent that departs from any number of ideological dogmas.

This is a categorical problem that sensible and honest people on different sides of the spectrum should come together to address.

What is my frame of reference to this problem?

I have admittedly never been to PSU, do not have a PhD (just a BS), nor spent more than an hour in Portland. However, I do see the wider patterns of radicalization and recruiting, in a way that transcends any one campus. In a way, in fact, that often transcends borders. I lived in Europe and speak a number of European languages, including German, Russian and Spanish — and have seen neo-Nazi gatherings and dangerous street protests in Europe well more than once. I’ve spent time in war zones analyzing population dynamics, sectarian strife, insurgent propaganda and messaging, and how militias form. Many others with military or defense, or anti-extremism backgrounds can help academia better understand how to respond and adapt to our modern battlefield of ideas. Many vets — including student vets on campus — have a great deal to offer this conversation. We’ve made countless friends across language and culture barriers, including with Muslims fighting for their own future against the toxic forces of fundamentalism. We’ve had to interface multiple times with less-than-friendly people among the civilian population.

Many of us are very well trained. Numerous wargames in the military — using live role players, mock villages and realistic scenarios that seem straight out of a Hollywood movie — have equipped myself and others in Psychological Warfare, Civil Affairs, and various Special Operations Forces, to understand these dynamics even more sharply. This has included more training scenarios in civil disturbance and protests than I can remember. The cyber domain is now an active ingredient in the mix, and this is being integrating into how many of our experts train as well in understanding the ‘human battlespace’. The point is, many of us know how radicalization and extremism operate, be it in the street corners of Baghdad or the online chat rooms of closet Alt-Right gateway platforms.

Red Team Analysis: Helping us learn, making us stronger

In the military, defense sectors, we have a term for helping organizations see their blind spots and exposing their unbeknownst weaknesses: we call it Red Teaming. A Red Team will try to expose areas where you are vulnerable, or susceptible to attack. Their ultimate goal, through red team analysis and wargaming, is to help you become better, to refine your defenses and cover down on your weak points. I have participated in countless wargames and can attest to the immense value of this process.

However it is process not confined to military ‘red teaming’. It can apply to any system that allows a serious feedback loop, and invites a learning process of ongoing refinement and improvement by wanting to see its mistakes. A system that works is one which allows itself to be pressure-tested, rather than remain in its own protective bubble — as such systems are prone to heightened vulnerability, and prone to fail their intended mission. As I write in The Reason Challenge, the key difference between a fantasy-based system and a reality-based system is its willingness to change and adapt, and its ability to pit itself against the resistance of the real world. This is where science — as well as mixed martial arts and Jujitsu — excel, and where American politics and ideology fail. This contrast is as stark as it is revealing — revealing of why the former areas function so well, and the latter so poorly.

Dr. Boghossian’s approach to pressure-testing can be found in his work teaching critical thinking to inmates in prisons, his love of Brazilian Jujitsu, and his promotion of Socratic discourse. His words on reliable epistemology underlie his reasons for seeking to expose blind spots and thought bubbles in academia: There are better and worse ways to arrive at answers.

Exploring this further might actually be the key to fundamentally changing our stagnant, inflexible and broken system of ideological conversation — not only in the University, but around the country. This environment does not only stifle conversation — more fundamentally, it stifles our actual ability to solve problems. To understand the nature and complex reality of issues and reliably arrive at answers. It hinders the very environment in which we try to tackle hate, extremism, radical recruiting and far Right movements.

Let’s work together to fix this. If more students and faculty step up and come forward, knowing its the right thing to do, this will change minds. It will inspire more to speak out, and act on what they privately feel to be correct, rather than being cowed into passivity by the fear of ideological ostracism. It will be a domino effect of edifying honesty. Let’s reevaluate how we see more of our critics, and ourselves. It will make us all stronger in the fight against harmful ideas. I invite Portland State students and faculty alike to step up and come forward in support of this.

A healthy space for mindful conversations (and a buffer against the toxic extremes)

We need to foster incubators for honest discussion and self-reflection, to identify genuine problems within our own ‘idea community’, see our blind spots, and hear necessary criticism and different perspectives that enrich our own understanding. Peter Boghossian’s approach to critical thinking crash course is a prime example. We do not need more Milo-style zero-sum conflicts between “SJWs” and “anti-SJWs”; we need to provide open, public alternatives to extremism, hate, combative discussion, and group bullying (on any side). Show people more visible alternative platforms and narratives, and the space in which such can occur on and off campus, as a way to draw away from extremist views, radical communities and toxic ideas. We need to do this while encouraging reason, humility, compassion and skepticism.

That is our best way forward.

Recently, Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun, 18, refused to fly back to Saudi Arabia for fear for her freedom and her very own life. She barricaded herself into her airport hotel room in Bangkok, attracting international attention. Her supposed ‘crime’ was leaving Islam, which is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia — and an informal death sentence in many other places. Thankfully, she was granted asylum in Canada, and more citizens and leaders in Western societies are now paying attention to the plight of women and dissidents in these parts of the world. There is a rising trend of dissent across places like Saudi Arabia, especially by women. Along with this comes a growing call to free nations to support people like Rahaf— and this call is rooted in more than human rights and compassion alone. It is also rooted in how free societies can fight fundamentalism and help spread better ideas, by supporting those who put their freedom and lives in danger doing it. Ultimately, only the people on the ground can change things, from the bottom up. We can support them.

My name is John, I’m a veteran, writer and science advocate. I have a diversified background in behavioral science, language, and social entrepreneurship — as well as in various issues across Islamic societies. Much of this has converged over the years on the subject of asylum reform here at home, and human rights and secular freedoms abroad. It is on these topics that I would like to share a proposal.

This is an open letter to my fellow veterans, as well as to Congress. This letter is about how we can support human rights and freedoms, and stand with human dignity. How we can support girls and women fighting for their basic rights, even their very lives, in many Islamic societies around the world. It is also about how we can combat Islamism, theocracy and extremism abroad.

My aim in writing this is straightforward: To get more of our Nation’s leaders, and the general public, to support freedom activists and dissidents from Islamic societies — especially those seeking asylum, who risk all for the courage of their voice, or their defiance of certain systems they live under.

Building a national dialogue between our war veterans and these brave dissidents can do several things. It can help raise awareness, support existing efforts and create new ideas.

Supporting freedom beyond our borders: A Summary

We can all support the immigrants and asylum seekers across the Islamic world who have risked their privacy or even their life to support change within their own societies. Not to impose change from the top, but to assist people from the ground up who are fighting for a voice, and for basic rights. It is ultimately about them, not us — such a cause transcends our political and religious differences.

We should stand with people who cherish freedom and fight for it to take hold abroad. We should support people who come to our shores wanting to stay in the fight for human rights, for women’s freedoms, for religious and political reform, and for science and reason in the darkest corners of closed societies. People who are fighting for religious minorities like the Yazidi, or the besieged Christian minority in Iraq, Egypt, or Syria, or for ex-Muslims facing death threats for leaving the faith. Women who fight to emancipate themselves — and countless other women — from the darkness of the forced veil, niqab or burkha, insisting on their own say in how they dress, marry, and live their life free of abuse, fear or coercion. Muslims courageously fighting extremism. People promoting science and reason as an alternative to theocracy, often at the risk of their very lives.

As a very brief backstory, for context, I have been long involved and focused on these topics — chiefly through the military and Defense Department, the science and skepticism community, human rights circles, and my personal experiences around the world. I started teaching myself Classical, Standard and Egyptian Arabic in my late teens, which included learning a sizable portion of the Quran. Farsi is arguably my favorite language, and I’m a lapsed (via Afghanistan) Pasto and Urdu enthusiast. While I myself am not a Muslim, I’ve long been involved in issues of Islam, human rights, and extremism, having immersed in languages and cultures around the world. Since my first Iraq deployment at the age of 22, I’ve been directly and indirectly connected to the issues of Islamism (political/theocratic versions of Islam), secular reformers, anti-Muslim bigotry, sectarian violence, terror, and the plight of religious minorities in many countries. Myself and several retired veterans made efforts in 2014 to (though fundraising sadly fell short) help support the Yazidi in Northern Iraq during the assault on their existence by the Islamic State. The uphill battles often seem overwhelming. Today, few things pose a more formidable and heartfelt challenge to me than the aim of supporting dissidents, outspoken women and human rights activists from Islamic societies.

How America and its People can Help

Specifically, we as a free society can help in several ways.

1. By prioritizing asylum for freethinking dissidents in Muslim nations (be they Muslim, atheist, agnostic, or of minority faith), who risk their lives by pushing for free, open and secular societies.

2. By supporting better asylum laws for brave women (such as those speaking out on social media in Iran and Saudi Arabia) who defy and protest against theocracy, forced marriage and abuse.

3. Finally, by encouraging the social and private sectors to support these voices and movements - including the reach of their media platforms and messages.

In other words, this is not only about helping people in need of refuge while they fight for better ideas within their native societies; it is about getting the power of ideas into the places where certain books are banned, and certain ideas and freedoms are shunned. This can help things change from the ground up.

As I detail towards the end of this article, there are several key spheres (within cyber, media, language, law and diplomacy) where professionals, entrepreneurs, and others can help build a culture in America that supports these efforts, and the people behind them. Chiefly, cyber security and secure communication tools; media support for human rights activists; language support; online tutorials for activists; legal and diplomatic support channels; and an openly shared ‘resource map’

My aim and passion here is driven in part by my experiences around the world, in and out of warzones, and within various human rights and dissident communities. I want to raise a greater awareness of these issues within the veterans community, and help get a wider veteran voice behind it. I am also hoping to foster a bridge of conversation, so to speak, between more of our war vets, and brave freedom activists from Islamic societies. This can appeal in particular to people from the Special Operations community, from Civil Affairs, language support, and other spheres, who worked with local nationals and understand the importance of movements, ideas and voices within a population.

In doing this, we would not only be supporting humane efforts for women and others in genuine need to protection; we would also be supporting the fight against extremist dogma, through the spread of knowledge — of human rights, skepticism, science and intellectual curiosity abroad. We can do this by working with activists and dissidents from places like Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and elsewhere. A prime example is the organization Ideas Beyond Borders, founded by a friend and Iraqi freethinker Faisal Saeed Al Mutar — a former refugee, science advocate, human rights activist and social entrepreneur. His organization has already helped translate important works of science and skepticism into Arabic (such as some of Steven Pinker’s work). Known and respected by many prominent voices in the scientific and human rights community, Faisal — like many others from around the Islamic world — has spoken about how to support freedom and combat extremism. His backstory speaks for itself.

Veterans Supporting the War of Ideas

From business and charity to social entrepreneurship and politics, our veterans have a seemingly limitless reservoir of skills, attributes and motivation that spans well beyond the warzone. Many of us also served with courageous people — Muslims and non-Muslims alike — from around the Middle East, Central Asia and other parts of the Islamic world. Supporting the voices of reason and human rights abroad, and helping fight fundamentalism and extremism, is another area where our veterans can help set the example.

Amidst the noise of our immigration debates, something gets tragically lost: the immigrants and asylum seekers that we should be supporting the most — the one’s risking life and family support to advance the ideals that make the world less fanatical, more secure and more free. In simplest terms, we as a nation have every moral and practical reason to support these people.

This letter proposes that we do this through a combination of sound vetting (the standard practice of security screening — examining who they are), cyber security (for their privacy and safety communicating across borders, against hackers and Jihadi threats online), financial support (for their travel/transition into safety zones, as well as basic website and media support), and ongoing dialogue with Muslim reformers, Muslim counter-extremists and ex-Muslim communities (who can all help advise and assist). This idea offers a crossroads — a strategic intersection — between compassion and counter-extremism. We can help these people, and help fight the war against fundamentalism and theocracy in doing it. It offers a definable way forward, one which allows us as a country to support the people at the tip of the spear in combating fundamentalism in the Islamic world. To assist those promoting an intellectual space for freedom to grow within their own societies, from the ground up. Perhaps more importantly, it outlines a roadmap of how to get there.

Finally, this is an invite to fellow Americans, including liberals and conservatives, to learn about this fight, find common ground, and truly examine this approach.

Policy Implications

To quote women’s rights activist Shappi Khorsandi, from an article she recently authored,

“And so this week I’ve seen two of my fellow countrywomen imprisoned. One is the unnamed Iranian woman jailed for the simple, powerful act of taking of her hijab and waving it on the end of a stick in protest at being forced to wear the thing by the Shia Islamist regime — this week she received a two-year prison sentence.”

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -

I want to discuss one of the most vulnerable yet important and pivotal groups in creating social change: women who speak out and fight for freedom. There are both strategically and morally compelling reasons why we as a society — as well as our policies — should strongly support female secular dissidents and reformers from Islamic societies. In particular, those women seeking asylum or help due to the threat of death or imprisonment if they return to their countries of origin. Often, this involves being hacked to death by the mob, beaten or killed by family members, or flogged in jail.

Female activists from these parts of the world are one of the most under-appreciated and under-supported groups in existence. I hope to persuasively make the case that our policies — and our media — should focus especially on the brave and vulnerable women who face oppression as an ongoing reality. Women in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Bangladesh who decided to speak out and seek freedom and a more dignified life.

We should also give far more attention to ex-Muslims, pejoratively labeled “Apostates” and often treated as sub-human by their peers and sometimes their government. Some choose to go public, rather than remain in hiding their entire life. Of these, many actively call for the values of freedom, reason and rights to take hold in their own societies. These people are defined by a strong, unquenchable desire to drink from the same fountains of dignity and freedom that countless other people in the modern world do — and driven by a belief that their societies are not beneath this possibility. They ask that more of us in the free world raise our expectations, and believe in them, and their societies, to move forward. To raise the bar in how human dignity is recognized in marginalized groups — ex-Muslims, religious minorities, women, homosexuals, and freethinkers.

These unsung heroes often face everything from family and social ostracism to abuse and death threats when they speak out against the status quo, or for support some of the most fundamental aspects of women’s freedom and dignity.

Specific spheres that can provide support

The following is a list of ways that more free and open societies can help. How we can help through social innovation and private ventures, as well as through our government, policy and mass media.

Cyber security and secure communication tools

Cyber security for dissidents, ex-Muslims, reformers and women to communicate safely across borders, and protect their privacy from others. Includes the tools to download, share and teach others how to use these tools (online tutorials to assist the common person to make use of secure communication apps). Cyber security for people dealing with death threats from Jihadis, extremists, and others.

Media support for human rights activists

Helping these people with media exposure and getting their stories and voices into notable publications and mainstream media. Supporting their grassroots media and YouTube projects as well.

Language support

Translation of books and ideas into various languages that will reach more people across borders.

Online tutorials

Effective video tutorials that can assist people across borders who are navigating these issues.

Legal and Diplomatic Support Channels

Legal assistance for asylum- and immigration-related issues. Engaging politicians and government officials for political support. Public awareness campaigns on the issue.

An Open ‘Resource Map’

Various asylum and human rights organizations can put together a Resource Map (ask other ex-Muslim and secular support groups what they already have in the way of this, as well as what’s needed).

I will expand on each of these items in a follow-up article. As well as a with stories and testimonials from real people facing the challenges above — stories of people and movements we should be supporting.

Conclusion

These dissidents are fighting to join the world of freedom and tolerance that we as Americans take for granted on a daily basis. They often risk everything to share in the fruits of secular pluralism and liberty that our words have paid homage to for generations. For decades, our leaders have expressed a desire for our foreign policy to reflect the ideals of more free and open societies, where extremism is less powerful and governments are less prone to theocracy and dangerous fundamentalism. There are increasingly widespread movements within Islamic societies now, seeking to finally make this a reality. This is a chance to help support it in real time, in concrete ways.

Let’s build this bridge — together.

“الحرية والكرامة وحقوق الإنسان”

— John Kirbow

— — Below is a sample Letter to Public Officials. One of many examples — —

Additional References for interested readers

1. Packer, George (11 September 2006).“The Moderate Martyr – A radically peaceful vision of Islam.”. New Yorker.
2. Gjelten, Tom. 28 January 2016.“Muslim Leaders Vow To Protect Rights Of Religious Minorities”. National Public Radio.
3. Whitaker, B. 29 June 2015. The Rise of Arab Atheism. Link: https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4898/the-rise-of-arab-atheism
4. Langendorf, M. May 29, 2013. The Middle East: Fighting for Women’s Rights. Fair Observer. Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/middle-east-fighting-for-womens-rights/amp/
5. Alami, Aida. March 16, 2014. Gender Inequality in Morocco Continues, Despite Amendments to Family Law. Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/africa/gender-inequality-in-morocco-continues-despite-amendments-to-family-law.html?_r=0
6. Shane, Scott (June 11, 2012). “Groups to Help Online Activists in Authoritarian Countries”. The New York Times.
7. Meri, Joseph; Bacharach, Jere. 2006. Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Routledge, ISBN 0415966906
8. Nawaz, Maajid. November 18, 2015. Je Suis Muslim: How Universal Secular Rights Protect Muslim Communities the Most. BigThink.com. Link: https://www.google.com/amp/bigthink.com/videos/maajid-nawaz-on-islamic-reform.amp
9. Egyptians protest award to controversial writer alarabiya.net, 13 July 2009. Accessed 23-September 2009
10. Warraq, Ibn. July 2008. Democracy vs Theocracy. New English Review. Link: http://www.newenglishreview.org/Ibn_Warraq/Democracy_Versus_Theocracy/
11. Kanazawa, S. January 10, 2010. What’s Wrong with Muslims? Being Muslim is unlike being anything else in today’s world. Psychology Today. Link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201001/what-s-wrong-muslims
12. Jabbar, Marwan. Last updated: October 2, 2015. The young Iraqis promoting evolutionary theory and rational thought to save Iraq. Your Middle East. Link: http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/culture/the-young-iraqis-promoting-evolutionary-theory-and-rational-thought-to-save-iraq_35450 Description: One of the more unusual, grassroots groups in Iraq today is Real Sciences. They are young Iraqis who translate scientific articles into Arabic, believing that a little more of this could combat violence.
13. Robinson, Neal. 1998. Ash’ariyya and Mu’tazila. Muslimphilosophy.com.
14. Irshad Manji, interviewed by Dirk Verhofstadt. Muslims Need Critical Thinking. Center for Inquiry. Link: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/secularislam/articles_and_books/muslims_need_critical_thinking_irshad_manji/.

Creating a Productive Schism for Reform and Change within the American Conservative Movement

This is a proposal for a wider breakaway movement within American conservatism. A movement where people come forward with their testimonials about problems within the Right. As well as ideas for moving forward.

I am an Army war veteran and science advocate, who wants us to build peace here at home. My bio and work is listed at the end of this piece. I recognize that the term ‘conservative’, like ‘liberal’, is very broad, and that the Left vs Right axis is an oversimplification (I use the general term ‘conservative movement’ nonetheless, for brevity). Above all, I identify as a skeptic before any political label. When pressed about my politics by liberals or conservatives, I would say that I value freedom, liberty, truth, scientific thinking, reason, logic and human dignity and rights above all partisan affiliations, and strive towards these ideals rather than membership in any one Ideological Tribe. I was raised in a relatively conservative part of the country, and currently identify as an independent, who shares some values and ideas across the isle. I only ask conservatives to read and reflect on my words and proposal. I encourage town halls for disillusioned conservatives to discuss reform within their own movement, and especially within Republican politics. Finally, from the bottom of my heart, I encourage liberals to find more conservatives that they can connect with and talk to, and help this become a national conversation. Find the moderates, the freethinkers, and drink a beer with them. Tear down this wall of hyper-partisan thinking and tribal politics. The future of our Nation may depend on it.

The #BreakawayMovement — Why A Freethinker Movement is Needed within the Right

There is a clear struggle*, with huge contradictions — contradictory notions of what makes America great, and how we should define American values themselves. This movement will be about helping more people — including people who wish to remain conservatives — move away from the narrow thinking, hateful messaging, dogmas, and toxic tribalism we have seen overtake modern Conservatism in America. This movement would not be an attack on anyone’s identity as a conservative, but a call to speaking out more honestly, and more freely, about problems that need addressing — and getting others to feel comfortable doing so. Ultimately, the aim would be to inspire, and motivate more of the country to aim for something better. To aspire for a better version of American Conservatism, through serious reform.

This article is based on a proposal I wrote, summarizing key points for moving forward. These are ideas that can be implemented by people across this country. Including, in particular, by public figures, and especially by former conservatives and disillusioned conservative moderates.

We are sitting at a critical juncture. Many modern conservatives have been either driven out of the movement, or put in a state of considerable cognitive dissonance by the mainstream Right — including by its failure to truly denounce and tackle its own fringe.

I remember being deeply engaged in the tribal politics of Iraq in 2005 and 2006, seeing how important it was to identify and hopefully work with reformers, moderates, peacemakers, and bridge builders who were willing to speak out against the wrongs within their own party, group, militia, or sect. Such people often faced heavy backlash, but were the one’s willing to speak out and go against the excesses of their own group when most seemed to remain silent through fear, conformity, intimidation, ideology, or desire for power and influence. This is a dynamic I came to realize was quite common not only to conflict and tensions across the Middle East and Central Asia, but around the world. Including here at home. The importance of people willing to come forward and denounce extremism from within their own side, and call for a healthy dose of self-examination and sobering reflection by others, cannot be overstated. Such people are already starting to make a presence from within the conservative movement, and it is having a ripple effect.

Steve Schmidt, longtime GOP strategist, top-tier Presidential aid and senior advisor to the McCain campaign, famously came out to refute his own Party and longtime political affiliation. He did this not based on a surrender or loss of his basic principles, but on seeing the need to stand up and reclaim them.

“29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of The Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life,” he Tweeted upon announcing his exit.

In both politics and religion, reformers and advocates for change from within are typically treated as heretics by their own camp, often suspected of having gone to the ‘opposing team’ or betrayed the Tribe. This is Team Sport thinking that has long held back needed progress — and sincere self-reflection — that we as a society so greatly rely on to make progress and address problems. Schmidt has stated that he left his Party for reasons of principle, not partisanship. He is clear and adamant that his criticism of the GOP is not coming from a partisan Left agenda, but from core principles we were founded on and have long celebrated. “I do not say this as an advocate of a progressive agenda,” he wrote. “I say it as someone who retains belief in DEMOCRACY and decency.”

There are other well-known critics of their own camp, who are willing to come forward and be outspoken. David Frum and Max Boot are among these names. However, there are many, many more everyday Americans, across this country — conservatives from all walks of life — who are feeling the same way behind the scenes.

In the aftermath of the 2018 elections, rallies, spikes in hate crimes and bigoted speech, paranoia and conspiracy, and incidents of far Right violence and terror threats, we have a situation that is boiling over. Many conservatives see the failure within their wider camp to address the extremes of ideological dogmatism, fundamentalism, rigid ideology, science denial, empathy gaps, hate, bigotry, vile rhetoric, and xenophobia that truly does exist, but which most conservatives tend to avoid directly addressing within their wider community. The tribalism of US vs Them has galvanized millions on the Right against the Left, making it more difficult to get people to call out problems of extremism and hate within their own ideological community.

…

This team sport mentality has bonded a lot of people together, but has also enabled a great deal of toxicity and corrosive thinking and behavior within the movement. Many conservatives see the problem, but don’t get much support when they try to speak out. Like serious reformers within Islam, or within the Left, they get pushback and distrust, often bordering on paranoia, from within their own camp. Many feel like they are politically homeless, and not yet connected to others who share their story of disillusionment.

Once these people become connected through the power of social media, YouTube and wider outreach and engagement, we will start to see more of a ‘coming out’ period for current and former conservatives who are deeply dissatisfied with the status quo for their movement and the Party that claims to represent their values. Many will try to re-take their principles from the fringes who claim to represent them — the extremes of the Right, who represent a comparatively very small proportion of Americans. I call these people Wandering Conservatives.

Giving more ‘wandering conservatives’ a voice in the conversation, and a means to come together with others like them, will be a big part of how we marginalize the fringes of the Right. It will also be how we get more to see the complicity of the mainstream Right in failing to sufficiently address these problems. We have to help give more people platforms to re-claim the narrative away from those who have been the noisiest and most tribal. Often, those waving flags the loudest and claiming to be the most in-touch with mainstream America, and the most populist, are often among the most out of touch with how mainstream Americans actually feel.

A recent report, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” notes that most Americans “share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest…”. Much research over the years has converged on similar conclusions.*

Sadly, the conservatives who are most reasonable in calling out these problems are also currently a relative few. Perhaps connecting them with one another, and with the general public, would give them more of a voice. This would go a long way in amplifying the effects of transparent dissent and honest conversation.

Many of these Wandering Conservatives are like outcasts, existing outside the tribe but still fighting to maintain its original ethos and higher principles, like the Ronin Samurai wandering freely without a master. Inspired by my friend Will’s analogy (which indirectly prompted this metaphor), I will use the term Ronin Conservatives to describe those who are actively fighting against extremism within their own camp, while existing as an independent thinker without an ideological master or party to answer to. People who can step out of the echo chambers, and go against the current.

Why are more and more conservatives ‘coming out’, and why is this so important? If you, the reader, happen to be a conservative and a patriot, why should you support it?

People are doing this, essentially, to help force the GOP and conservative movement to reform and change, for the good of the country and their own future. More and more see this zero-sum game of ideological extremism in so many corners of Republican politics and conservative media to be toxic, harmful and counter-productive, including for conservative Americans themselves. People see an assault on many of the classic values and ideals that many conservatives grew up with. They also see the fundamentalism and echo chamber tribalism in the GOP and wider American Right to be pushing us closer to Orwellian thinking and authoritarian politics, and in a way that is also harmfully fueling authoritarian streaks on the far Left. Most every science advocate I know considers the post-truth culture promoted by the current status quo to be deeply damaging and even dangerous to our stability, security and our future prosperity.

Finally, there is the growing threat of foreign influence and disinformation, which has shown itself to be very effective at targeting people on the Right, in particular*. When a propagandist or troll with a laptop can press the right buttons in our American psychology and so easily and viscously pit the Left and Right echo chambers against one another, we face a threat to civil society. Three things that help civil society function are reasoned discussion, a love of truth, as well as civility. And a desire to see the humanity in others we may disagree with. Systemic disinformation — and many forms of hostile propaganda — attack all of these things. And they do so in very skilled and hurtful ways. The aim is often to weaken the very basis along which we remain durable as a society. We must re-claim civil society. It is how we function, how we succeed as a nation.

I will now lay out the main content of a proposal I recently authored, on how we might be able to accomplish this.

How We Can Build This Movement

This is an overview of concepts, themes and narratives that can help allies to such a movement— liberals, centrists, and conservatives alike. This is a set of tools and ideas for effectively (and sincerely and honestly) engaging conservative-leaning audiences, as well as disillusioned Americans with conservative leanings, who are ‘on the fence’, as well as those who feel they face a lack of options.

It looks at various means of dissemination across the media, cyber and personal spheres of engagement. It employs moral psychology and emotionally-effective communication, as well as language, narratives and themes that are more likely resonate with mainstream America — especially with the conservative-leaning parts of America, including outside the cities (areas typically difficult for liberals to reach and engage with). When such discussion and messages are organic — coming from within the area itself, or across conservative-minded channels of conversation — they can take hold, sometimes by merely planting the seeds of curiosity, openness and willingness to voice privately held feelings.

This is why it is so important for reasonable, open-minded liberals and conservatives to build fruitful conversation, and break barriers.

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky has demonstrated somewhat of a roadmap for this, through working examples of it in his podcasts and writings. He has been engaging both Left-leaning people as well as conservatives on radio shows and podcasts, with the effect of getting people to see things in a way that they had not seen before. He outlines some examples and details in an article in Scientific American.

The ‘end state’ (the goal post, in non-military lingo), as I see it, is to get more current and former conservatives to call out and move against extremism and corruption within the Right. To have a visible schism, seen and heard across every form of accessible media, and freely discussed in cities and town across America.

The Premise.

One can both aim for short term outcomes (2018–2020) and also set the stage / shape the ‘idea battlespace’ for a true schism and reform within the Right. Getting moderate conservatives on board will be central in achieving this. Especially important will be to give more platforms to minorities and women within the wider movement, and allow for more dissent and freethinking. Many of these people support change, but do not feel like they have a ‘political home’ (what some call politically homeless). We should seek to give them a home, so to speak. To help them connect with one another through an online movement. We see this occurring from the Left and liberal side of the spectrum (the #WalkAway movement, Dave Rubin, and the Intellectual Dark Web), but it needs to happen more from within the Right. The Right needs more Dave Rubins, more breakaway movements, more freethinking and skepticism voices, and more science advocates. These things need to become more visible, and liberals and centrists can help amplify them, and get them more traction across conservative spheres of discussion. #AlternativesToEchoChambers is one such proposal I am working on (details to follow shortly). Perhaps the American conservative movement needs its own ‘Intellectual Dark Web’, one which acts as an exit point for people moving further towards the center, away from dogma, tribalism and hateful rhetoric within their Tribe.

Concepts.

As is true with the ‘ideological battlespace’ in general, we must distinguish between True Believers of an ideology (or those deeply fixed in an echo chamber), and those who are less ideologically committed (in particular, the ‘fence sitters’, as well as disillusioned people who feel they have a lack of options).

Many minds caught in echo chambers or ideological bubbles seem to be virtually impenetrable (as social research has shown us time and again). Our energy is better served at the independents and moderates. Those who can be reached.

Major Components.

-A breakaway movement that creates a space for far more Americans to reject the toxic elements of the modern GOP and conservative tribalism, while retaining their sense of pride, dignity and patriotism.

-This can bring tools for training others (liberals, centrists and reform-minded conservatives) to have the tools of effective engagement, especially in ‘middle America.

• Face to Face (F2F) + Online (YouTube, social media) component, and possibly even smartphone apps. Including lots of stories and testimonials from former conservatives and disillusioned conservative moderates. Other videos can show current and former conservatives talking to each other, as well as in humanizing, mind-opening ways with people on the other side (liberals, Democrats). All can be shared in video form.

*Due to the widespread distrust of the media among independent and conservative-leaning voters, one suggested project is to put together a video of various clips of disillusioned conservatives, conservative-leaning independents and former GOP voters who are willing to talk boldly and openly about the need for change.

*This would bypass the mainstream media outlets and be a direct-to-YouTube or direct-to-documentary approach.

*It would be authentic as well as speak the language of everyday Americans and conservative-leaning voters, even drawing on some of their more general values like patriotism, love of country, liberty, greater truth, and loyalty to the US Constitution over party and personality.

Additional considerations

• It should focus in particular on Red State areas where the GOP and talk radio seek an ideological or emotional monopoly on patriotism, love of country, etc.
• From a COIN (counterinsurgency) perspective, this is very similar to the dynamic I’ve seen many times over, with insurgents or radical clerics creating a false choice for disaffected and vulnerable populations of similar political-sectarian or ethno-confessional background. Breaking this false choice by offering alternative is crucial in the ‘hearts and minds’ battle, fought and won by who best conveys ideas and narratives to various segments of the population.
• We need to create a counter-narrative that respects people’s identity and allows them this, but without the deeply damaging tribalism, political dogmas and dog-whistle bigotry.

DRIVING A WEDGE, BRIDGING A GAP

A Summary of the Approach

Extremism and hateful insurgency typically require sanctuary by parts of the wider population. We can help revoke that sanctuary.

A key concept here, and used in COIN strategy, is engaging “fence sitters” — that is, folks who we can talk to in spite of not quite being on our side. Poeple who may reside in a grey zone of disagreement, but are not sympathetic to extremists, or not yet encamped in extremist ideology. These are people we can talk to — and with whom we must talk to.

· There are experiences taken away from Iraq during the formative planning stages of tribal outreach that because what is known as the Anbar Awakening. Engaging key leaders, tribal elders and influencers within the key parts of the population was a big part of the strategy to help drive out terrorists and foreign fighters.

· The parallel here, loosely speaking, is that we can engage key aspects of the American population, to try and help create a ‘buffer’ against far Right inroads and extremists movements, working to turn more of the population in Red State and other areas against them.

ILLUSTRATION

• One aspect of reaching “fence sitters” — or preventing / mitigating potential radicalization and the effects of various recruitment channels — is the touch of subject matter experts, who are typically under-consulted and under-used in the area of fighting local, homeland extremism. This includes the insight of some former extremists (the founders of Life After Hate, for example), who can continue to build on an understanding of how to engage people of various motivations.
• This kind of outreach occurs on the human level. While some people (we can call them the “Die Hards” for simplicity sake) won’t be reachable, and often need to be combated, others can be reached.
• This can focus especially on people (including those who reside near the ideological borders of Trumpistan) who are susceptible to harmful messaging and propaganda, but *not yet committed to its message*. They are ‘on the fence’, or in the workable zone. Cyber space and echo chambers are a piece of ‘key terrain’ where such intervening, outreach and engagement can take place.

Unlike much of the messaging and noise we see in the media and online, we would use the right tools (including emotionally effective communication, and moral psychology). This includes employing proven strategies for better reaching ideologically (or tribally, due to partisan or ‘team’ mentality) resistive voters. These approaches* help get people to lessen their resistance to being asked to change their mind. Done right (and with the right audience), they often enable more willingness to listen, and make the communicator (or message, video, etc.) more likely to reach the people they are trying to resonate with.

While some messaging will be blunt and offensive, these strategies (when appropriate) seek to avoid the Backfire Effect of directly undercutting one’s identity or beliefs

(*see Truth Seeker’s Handbook and the research and tools archived in The Rational Politics Project and Intentional Insights)

Conclusion

What is the point of all this? How will such a schism affect change? Ultimately, this is about “driving a wedge” against the extremists in order to revoke sanctuary — that is, to help encourage more of a given local population to refuse to house extremism, along with its channels and conduits of propagation and recruitment. Extremism often requires such tacit sanctuary in order to operate, hiding within the wider population, or nesting itself in the darker corners of it while people are afraid or unwilling to speak out. As in the warzones abroad, we must know how to work with local populations and communities, as formidable a challenge as that can often be.

Creating effective messaging and offering better narratives will be central in winning the human terrain. It is not only a way to counter extremism and dogmatism within the far Right, but a way to provide an alternative. It can give people who identify as conservatives something to identify with, in both their core values and their aspirations and hopes. Many Americans, including those who lean more conservative, do in fact share much in common with many who lean liberal. An indispensable part of creating such alternatives will be having a better set of narratives and messages for them, in a way that is both authentic and honest, and effectively tailored to reach them. It will be a way to give people more space to retain their identity and values, while speaking and voting against the problems within the modern Right.

This is about more than elections and Parties. Ultimately, this goes to the roots of how we see our own greatness, and what we aspire to. What we decide is worth fighting for, and worth living for. How we should define the heart and soul of America itself. Is it based on fear, tribal resentment, cults of personality, post-fact emotionality, and hostility towards scientific thinking? Or on much greater, transcendent and more noble things? Can we re-claim the values of reason, civility, and love of country over party? Can we revive the true patriotism of humble service, of clear thinking, and of placing truth-seeking above partisan loyalties?

It is my firm and sincere hope that we can. Such hope is as worth fighting for as anything I have ever done, in or out of the warzone. This hope is shared by millions in the rising silent majority — liberals and conservatives alike. We must re-claim the soul of our Nation, by going back to its most cherished principles.

About the Author

John Kirbow is a veteran, skeptic, science advocate, and social entrepreneur for community engagement.

He focuses on applying experience from the warzone to help build peace here at home. This includes countering various forms of religious and political extremism, and helping fellow Americans recognize and respond to propaganda and disinformation.

In addition to political panels, public debates and science-related talks, he writes for Medium, and has articles in Areo Magazine, The Humanist, and was featured in Red Hook War Stories and Skeptic Magazine.

Below, the “PC” 2x2 Table, part of the Venn Diagram Drinking Game.

My name is John Kirbow. I use the term social science warrior with a sense of humor and light self-depreciation. My background with both the Army and the Defense Department involved a heavy and wide use of multiple language skills, cultural understanding, and the practical application of social science and human psychology across countries, from the Embassy to the local village or mountainside. It is my firm belief that such ‘tribal engagement’ with the human terrain can help us here at home, from re-building our communities and reforming our police system, to helping disaffected and marginalized college students find ways to have humanizing and insightful conversations.

I often open with an analog to why political conversation is so broken. As I write in The Reason Challenge (a nod to the Grace Challenge which helped bring a reality-based approach of BJJ into martial arts during the 90s),

“The key difference between a fantasy-based system and a reality-based system is its willingness to change and adapt, and its ability to pit itself against the resistance of the real world. This is where science — as well as mixed martial arts and Jujitsu — excel, and where American politics and ideology fail. This contrast is as stark as it is revealing — revealing of why the former areas function so well, and the latter so poorly.”

Cooperative ‘grappling’ with others we disagree with should be done with a view to self-improvement, as well as both people walking away with better understanding than they did before. This may not be possible when dealing with some, but works beautifully with others.

With this said, I want to introduce what I call The Venn Diagram Drinking Game. It may well be a gateway to bridging one of the most harmful — and persistently annoying — divides that we face when trying to bridge even the most basic gaps on the “PC” debate. Michael Eric Dyson and Jordan Peterson would have done well to employ this during their recent debate. Both men are considerably intelligent and well-spoken individuals, well-accustomed to public discourse. Yet their discussion on political correctness seemed to hit a wall various times in the debate. Granted, it was a debate, which is combative by nature. However, the lack of seeing much public progress made at all across the divide on this topic raises a larger question: What are the rest of us to do? Must we have a PhD or years of education to hope to make progress on this topic? Do we need miraculous intervention from the ghost of Socrates? Or is there perhaps a set of tools we can use, through the science of emotionally effective communication? That, and the addition of a little creativity, in a way that brings the discussion down to earth.

As Dr. Peter Boghossian has explained in his research and field work on ‘street epistemology’, people tend to change their mind only from a position of safety. When we create the right conditions, the seemingly impossible often becomes possible, without the need for a miracle. Human psychology can give us the secrets to bypass the lower parts of our tribal brains when sensitive topics arise. But a paradigm shift in how we talk about social justice and political correctness is desperately needed.

The current model is one of conflict and zero-sum thinking. It leads even decent and reasonable people to talk past one another in a game of tug-of-war, where seeing and acknowledging one another’s concerns and nuances takes a back seat to ‘scoring points’ or echoing ideological narratives or repetitious talking points. For example, I have seen people literally argue for hours around a simple misunderstanding: one person rightly attacks the excesses of PC culture, while the other rightly defends the need to be respectful and responsive to the dignity of vulnerable human beings. One is saying, “don’t hold back needed conversation because of dogma, ideology or sensitivity!”, while the other is saying “do you not see that hateful people exist?! Why be needlessly cruel to others?”

They are talking past one another, when one sentence could deflate the entire misunderstanding. In short, we need to learn to distinguish legitimate criticism of PC culture, vs merely being a jerk. This may seem overly obvious, but — in the echo chambers of social media or the heat of real-time conversation — it often is not. Encouragingly, there are ways around this. Even on occasions when the discussion is quite complex.

Before I get to this drinking game, we need to identify the problem that countless people are facing.

Why the conversation on ‘PC culture’ and ‘social justice’ is deeply broken

The current paradigm of ‘Left vs Right’ discourse is to avoid changing our minds and viscerally shun the very idea of being wrong. This keeps us in an intellectually vegetative state of conversational paralysis, as well as moral judgementality and smug self-assurance. We look at things through the lens of simplicity, of all-or-none thinking, black and white. Rarely do we distinguish between where people we oppose may be wrong on something, but in other aspects of the issue, be right.

This tendency to see things in an all-or-none way (Binary Fallacy aka False Dichotomy), and have a visceral reaction to nuance, is an evolutionary feature of our primal hardwiring. It is often easier for the brain to split the world into a binary opposition of simple “good and bad”, “I’m right, you’re wrong”, than to entertain the nuance needed on sensitive, emotional topics. We have to learn how to recognize and adapt to this. A large portion of the secular community — which has long championed itself as the standard bearer for being reasonable — has been particularly harmed by this feature of our moral psychology.

As I’ve seen countless times in various parts of the atheist community in particular, the conversation (often among reasonable, well-educated people) on the topic of social justice has become nothing short of a dumpster fire. It is as if the parts of the brain that espouse reason, evidence and skepticism are instantly walled off and compartmentalized by visceral emotion and hypnotic ideology, the very second the term ‘social justice’ is brought up. When this occurs, both ends of the discussion often harken back to the very styles of closed thinking they have long mocked religious believers for. It has caused countless people who oppose Trump to lose hope for their very ability to be reasonable even amongst themselves, or to bridge the most basic divides. Much less to set the example for how to reach mainstream America or change our political landscape.

Many thousands of Americans — from the campus to the workplace to the kitchen table — face the same problem. At all levels of education and political exposure.

What if we could take a step back and see a better way? What if we actually had a refreshing opportunity, right in front of us, to find solace somewhere amidst all the noise and visceral polarity of our downhill discourse? To make meaningful connections with others on a different side of the conversation. In this process, perhaps we could — alongside further opening our own minds — actually help them see the blind spots and shortfalls that we’ve so long wanted them to see. What if we could genuinely create the breathing space to more effectively unpack these issues, and even connect with one another in the process?

Creating a breathing space for reason and compassion

In meaningfully connecting with one another beyond the moral matrix of our political camp, we also expand our own horizons, as well as those of whom we disagree with. This is a win for everyone. Imagine if thousands more of us could open our own minds and the minds of others, and find the breathing room to work together to truly confront extremism, hate, dogma and bad ideas. Not only against an opposing side, but within our own larger camp or movement as well. Moving from rigid ideology and closed narratives to an attitude of skepticism and independent thinking, we find the freedom to change our minds, reason honestly, and abandon an obligation to a collective hive. For thousands of people across the internet and the emerging ‘Intellectual Dark Web’, this is like a breath of fresh air, moving into the hills and open fields, away from the narrow halls of ideological conformity.

One reason this space for nuance is so important is that it allows people to stop and take a step back. To look at what may have been obvious, but was hard to see in all the haze and battle smoke of our toxic discourse. Sometimes, we talk at cross points on things we would actually agree on. Seeing this can be a matter of common sense rather than high-level conversation. Often, no grandiose concepts or higher level discussion is needed; its a matter of making common sense accessible, by taking a step back. Here is a common example I deal with quite a bit. On the subject of criticizing Islam, two people will talk past one another, because they are coming from two totally different vantage points:

“We should be able to criticize certain aspects of Islam without being automatically branded a bigot, or reflexively accused of Islamophobia by critics. No idea should be off limits or immune from reasoned criticism”

This needs to be clearly distinguished from the following,

“Some criticism of Islam from certain people is in fact bigoted, when based on stereotypes and used to slander Muslims as people”

Both are reasonable statements. Both are things we should be on board with. When we live in an all-or-none universe of absolutes and binary thinking, confusion blurs the obvious. Yet even the slightest amount of nuance and common sense can responsibly parse this out for the average person. They key is to create the space for taking a step back and simply showing it to the other person. Sometimes, eloquent wording is not needed — rather, being calm and sociable with the other person, and explaining it in simple and clear terms, goes a surprisingly long way. Granted, this is much harder to do when you’re on a national talk show sitting across from Ben Affleck, or dealing with any person of angry composure. If you’re dealing with some of the protesters at Evergreen, you may have more luck talking to a tree. But in many situations, I have found people quite willing to see the distinction above, when calmly presented with such. It’s obviously quite situation-dependent.

To be honest, there are time’s I’ve walked away in utter shock after making an honest effort at good-faith discussion, unsure how to even process who or what I just dealt with. One of my most unpleasant encounters was on a NYC campus dealing with a pair of students who made just about every cliche attack on me imaginable in spite of my best efforts at patience and clear communication; by the end of it I headed to the nearest bar for a few Jameson beverages and stared at the wall for an hour as I decompressed and let sane reality slowly sink back in. So, please don’t get discouraged. Such things happen. In the end, there are far more people willing to be reasonable about this than there are toxic trolls and rabid ideologues. On both sides of the debate. I sincerely encourage people to see this, and not lose hope.

(Also, for the record, I think Harris did an excellent job under the circumstances of his exchange with Affleck on Real Time. His arguments effectively revealed to many — including Dave Rubin at the time — where the disconnect lies. I honestly don’t know how his wording could have been more clear and effective. It convinced many; others who watched that incident remained in their foxholes, as hard as that is for me to grasp. Such is the reality of our conversations — we cannot reach everyone. But we can often reach many).

For effective communication on these issues, civility must go both ways

I was having a rather in-depth dialogue with a Leftist friend about a week or so ago, and he raised the point that many self-described centrists and classical liberals often rail against ‘PC Culture’ and accuse the Left of lacking nuance and civility, but don’t always show this in return. While it is important for more on the Left to actually listen to what critics of PC Culture are saying, it’s also important for these critics to listen, and pay attention to why so many ‘SJWs’ feel its so important to be concerned about hurtful language or the consequences of a certain way of othering minorities. And he was right. Many critics of the Left do in fact come across as needlessly insensitive towards legitimate concerns of people whose inner lives and experiences they cannot relate to, and this tends to drown out any sensible point they may have. Effective communication crashes and burns like one of Donald Trump’s businesses ventures. And no one walks away smarter or more open-minded as a result.

In our discussion, I eagerly acknowledged his point, as in fact I’ve long agreed with it. Proactively recognizing this early on in a conversation helps set the stage for establishing basic trust and understanding, and shows you both to be more reasonable than either of you may have previously assumed.

Indeed, the burden of moving forward on topics like this falls on both ends of the conversation. Mature, intellectually serious people of good faith and honesty — Centrists and Leftists alike — need to work towards this, together. Civility goes both ways, as does nuance. Both of these things get lost in the toxic, often robotic cross-talk between the excesses of debate.

The Venn Diagram Drinking Game

I want to talk about a drinking game I came up with, called the Venn Diagram Drinking Game. It is something that you and your friends can do at the local pub. Or at home — perhaps your place, or a friends house. Maybe even the living room of someone on the other side of the ‘PC’ debate that welcomes this kind of nuanced discussion, and is willing to host you over for a sit-down. Or perhaps you invite them. Here’s how this would work. Jonathan Haidt talks about ‘dinner table conversation’ through a better understanding of moral psychology. The Open Mind Library — part of the Open Mind Platform from his website -encourages us to ‘explore the irrational mind’ — that is, to “learn a little bit of psychology to see the tricks the mind plays on us, making us all prone to be self-righteous, overconfident”.

This can also help us recognize, even in real time, why we are so quick and eager to demonize “the other side”, even before taking the time to hear out where they may be coming from. There are things like this that can help us prepare for constructive disagreement — to “learn practical skills to turn the most difficult disagreements into productive conversations.” Acknowledging, early on in the conversation, something you actually agree with on their side of things, can create the space for them to reciprocate and start listening to you. Showing a willingness to see others as decent people who may be coming from a different vantage point than you think they are can also help a great deal. These tools can go a surprisingly (and pleasantly) long way.

Jonathan Haidt’s Heterodox Academy project has catalogued many such ideas, backed by research and insight into human cooperation and dialogue -and why it fails, and why it can succeed.

With this primer in moral psychology, generous listening and effective conversation, let’s discuss some specifics of this ‘Venn Diagram Drinking Game’. Coffee or tea can suffice for the under-age college students (at least for the ones who actually follow America’s archaic drinking age laws. For those who don’t, be careful when chugging beer out of a keg; please don’t do it upside down). Also, for course, coffee or tea can work for anyone who does not drink — or if it’s 2pm and you don’t start with the happy juice that early (or don’t want others to worry or judge you for doing so). Perhaps a plate of nachos and dip and a follow-on trey of buffalo wings can suffice in place of beer or whiskey rounds, when each side accomplishes the needed steps in the game. Slices of pizza are never a bad idea. So, here’s how this game works. It’s as much an experiment in good-faith discussion and intellectual curiosity as it is a ‘game’. And the more you set aside your political ego and resistance to changing your mind (or at least to opening it just a bit), the better you do — as do the others across the table. It’s not a competition against one another, but a contest with ourselves. The aim is for everyone to win. Remember, it’s a team exercise. We all want to win.

Sit 2–6 people down, with a relatively even ratio of people on each side of a buzz word like “PC” or “cultural appropriation”. Have them challenge themselves, after an informal and friendly ‘good-faith and honesty pledge’, to build this table, together as a team. This could be done over online Skype chat (up to 4 people is ideal, but perhaps more), or better yet, in person. At the living room table or the table at the local pub. No one gets a second round of beer (or fine adult beverage) until a row of the table is filled out, and they’ve identified both the sensible version as well as the toxic / excessive version of the key concept in question (“PC culture” in this case).

“What is a reasonable instance in which we might see ‘political correctness’ — where it is needed or indeed appropriate? What are some good arguments and cases for it being needed in some situations? What are some blind spots we had about it in the past? How can we improve our understanding?”

Likewise, the other group (or person, if it’s a 1 on 1) would ask,

“What are some instances where ‘PC’ culture might go too far, or be misapplied? What are some instances where people are right to criticize it?”

From this, a row of the table is filled out for each side. Whomever gets their own row filled out first gets to drink first. Ideally, no one leaves until both sides drink a second round, and the entire table gets filed out.

Lessons learned from my best and worst exchanges: Where things go wrong in the ‘PC’ debate

There are better and worse ways to criticize an idea, and clarity of communication is king. The takeaway above, I think, is that there are sensible versions of both ‘PC culture’ (as some think of it), and sensible versions of criticizing it in its toxic form. In other words, there are reasonable and necessary versions of what a social justice advocate might think of when they hear ‘PC culture’ (such as being decent to others, acknowledging hurtful words and actions, avoiding racist terms, shunning genuine bigotry and hate). We may not call this ‘PC Culture’ (isn’t it just called “being a decent human being”?), and most social justice Leftists don’t use the term either, unless hearing others use it in a critical way. But that’s what many of them think about when they hear people criticize it. “Why would someone criticize the idea that we shouldn’t use the N word, or the F word for homosexuals…?”

This may seem silly that the misunderstanding runs this deep, but surprisingly it often does.

There are also, of course, very sensible criticisms of the excesses of PC culture (what critics of “PC Culture” simply refer to as “PC Culture”, as its a pejorative term anyway). The sensible versions of anti-PC critique don’t dismiss “PC culture” in all its possible forms above (nor the good nature and intentions behind its more genuine expression), but acknowledges that there are both reasonable forms of it — shunning the use of racial slurs, for example — as well as toxic, excessive or shallow forms if it.

We may not like how one side or the other uses the term, or even like the term at all, but that’s not the point; people hear the word and think of different things. Unpacking this is crucial.

Here is a distinction that most in the Center and the Left should generally agree on, as a starting point.

(1) Don’t say hurtful things just to be a jerk. Hold bigots accountable. Help society move away from racism, misogyny and hate.

(2) Don’t stifle needed conversations. Don’t shun dissenting ideas in order to protect political dogmas. Don’t automatically assume the worst in someone’s motives for making an argument.

If we can get past this starting line, we’ve already traveled further in the race for civility and common sense than the majority of noise-makers on either side. The distinction above is critical. Just making this distinction upfront, in clear and honest terms, can salvage entire conversations. Or even at times, potentially fruitful public dialogues, or peoples’ professional relationships. It can even salvage friendships.

It is my aim here not to tear down or attack, but to offer what I hope is helpful advice for people on both sides who find themselves hitting a wall. To help give more people a map and compass with which to navigate the conversational landscape, in all its rigged and unpredictable terrain features. In my next article in this series, I’ll make the case for why I think the Left should embrace the Intellectual Dark Web — or else, make their own version of it.

Essentially, creating these breathing spaces for honest and nuanced conversation is something that can actually help achieve the very thing many on the Left constantly aim for: combating reactionary Fascism and the harmful ideas and excesses of the far-Right. A common concern is that the ‘troll culture’ and many of the Right-leaning over-reactions to the extreme Left can be a gateway to worse things, like the Alt Right, white nationalism or various forms of fascism (even if most Right-leaning trolls are not white nationalists or fascists). If this is the case, then why not make it much harder for these ‘gateway groups’ to recruit? “Milo is a gateway for many to flirt with the Alt Right”. So, let’s offer a better narrative that will realistically reach many of the people who venture into Miloland, in a way that will actually address their concerns. Do these approaches work? Yes, they do. They are cornerstones of counterinsurgency and combating extremism, both in warzones and in various countries where Islamist and far Right groups regularly recruit. I urge people who claim to hate the ‘Dark Web’ to at least try and listen to why it just might be filling the vacuum left by the failure of our conversations.

The IDW can help show people a better way — and in fact, many hundreds have already said that people in that space prevented them from going to the Alt Right, by showing them how the Right is not even necessary to address their confusion and concerns, when science and honest, compassionate conversation can do a much better job. It gives people something far better to model their lives around, than that offered by the troll culture that people like Milo and Gavin McInnes offer millions of young disaffected people who feel pushed to the edges of the conversation by political correctness and Leftist overreach. There is a third option. We need to make this third option more visible. If more on the Left would have built this kind of conversation and criticized their own excesses years ago, Milo may not even have gone viral. In short, the IDW, or at least the kind of conversations it is creating, can be a buffer against the toxic extremes. It can be a healthy space for mindful conversations. Dismiss it all you want — and you certainly don’t have to like it, or its key members, or me, for that matter — but please think more about why it is in such demand. Our conversation is broken, as is much of the Left’s modes of engagement. Dogma and rigid ideology, conformity, and groupthink really is a problem. Even if you hate the IDW, at least recognize some of the symptoms of the problem it is addressing. Such honesty can only be healthy for people on the Left. Addressing these problems will help you better combat the far Right. And in that fight, I will be one of your best allies.

An Alternative to the Milo Model

Some of my friends have joking called this use of finding common agreement and deflating misunderstanding “The Kirbow Model”. I only use the term ‘Kirbow Model’ here lightly and in good humor; rest assured that most of these ideas and tools did not originate with me, but with countless points of research and hard-earned experience by those who’ve gone before me, and some who are doing this work as we speak.

I prefer to simply call it ‘the way of the Social Science Warrior’. Not only does this model emphasize building bridges, but it focuses on using this to expand our coalitions to more effectively combat dogma, hate and extremism. I hope this can become an alternative to the methods of people like Milo Yiannoppolis — as such alternatives are desperately needed right now. If we can create reasonable spaces for people to air out these issues and discuss them honestly — something they often feel they cannot do on their own campuses — we are bound to see more unproductive, narrow-minded ping-pong between the “social justice warriors” and the “Anti-SJW” crowd. We all deserve something much better.

This next section is my attempt to reach critics of the Left and of political correctness, and help persuade people who follow the Milo school of thought that there is a much better way. In fact, if you are a university student who is being pulled into that camp — or know others who are — I urge you to read and share.

I can assure young critics of excessive political correctness on campus that ‘The Kirbow Model’ is far better than the Milo Model — and will win far more hearts and minds on ‘the other side’ over the long run. Or even the short run. Obviously, this isn’t “my model”, but the tailored and focused use of some of the best tools we have in front of us. What I am attempting to do is combine these tools into a larger toolkit, and into a new paradigm for civil discourse and effective communication. A way to drive a wedge against the extremes, while teaching and empowering other people around the country to build bridges of empathy and understanding — something essential to the war of ideas.

In essence, this approach — if I may make a bold but well-backed proclamation — is categorically better than the kind we’ve been seeing across our campuses and social media by folks like Yianoppolis and many of the fanboys who mimic his tactics and style. There’s no denying that folks like Milo are often quite skilled at satire and entertainment, as well as impressively versed at quick wit and humor. But people like him are not well trained or equipped with the real tools to play this game at the adult level. They are less situationally attuned, less nuanced in their approach, and unseasoned in the things I will talk about in the next section of this series, and in my book— the things I learned from real warzones, from actual dialogue in seemingly impossible environments, working with cultures thousands of years old and tribal systems born out of centuries of conquest and survival.

Learning firsthand about building trust and respect with powerful former Mujahedeen warlords and power brokers, in a post-Taliban-era environment, using the tools of true engagement and effective communication, will get you light years beyond the amateur hour we see with many ‘anti-PC’ warriors. As will learning, secondhand, how to adopt these lessons within our society (something mature, intellectually serious readers of this article are certainly capable of, and which I’ve seen others do quite well). It will make Gavin McInnes’ or Milo’s methods look petty and childish by comparison.

These people’s approaches may seem effective in the very short run, especially when they lay waste to the toxic versions of PC culture described above. However, they fail to acknowledge and build common ground with people’s genuine grievances and suffering. Discussion of things like ‘social justice’ and ‘PC culture’ cannot be a one-way street or zero-sum game of team sport. It must cultivate nuance and understanding if we are to move forward, and disentangle the good from the toxic. These nuances get lost in the amateur interplay of these belligerents caught up in shit-flinging matches with their sworn opponents, often at the expense of long-term gains for sensibility and reason. All of this will become clear in the proceeding articles on this topic.

In the meantime, it is my sincere hope that more people reading this can find some solace in better ways to have this discussion, especially among the social justice community and among its critics. You won’t reach everyone, but you will certainly gain more ground with many. You may even find allies you never knew you had.

Go play the Drinking Game. Use real beer, not that mainstream corporate shit. Preferably imported or local brew. Have fun.

Cheers!

Afterword Section: About the Series

Introduction to the Series: What is the Way of The Social Science Warrior?

(Please see also, The Reason Challenge)

The phraseology I use above — “The Ancestor’s hardship” — is a nod to the title of a classic book by Richard Dawkins called The Ancestors Tale, about the evolutionary journey of our primal predecessors across the harsh landscape of nature and Darwinian selection, as they adapted and found survival, paving the way for us to be here today to read about it. Contrary to some of the myths that some in our younger generation entertain today, the idea that hunter-gatherers from hundreds of thousands of years ago were somehow living a more compassionate, civil and peaceful life than we are today is far removed from reality. I decided to write a post on social media addressing this. I then turned that post into a article, one of several to come.

My intent in this series of writings is to help make a convincing case for the progress was have made since the advent of modernity and the Enlightenment — in social realms, such as equality and prosperity, and in public attitudes towards race, sexuality, gender, and human rights; in infant mortality and life expectancy; in the reduction of crime and violence around the world; and in the domain of ideas and values, through the combination of science, skepticism and our expanding circle of compassion for other sentient beings. This is not to downplay the very legitimate and deeply important hardships and injustices still faced around the world, nor to assert that we by any means have even come close to being where we need to be on the landscape of human equality, opportunity and wellbeing. Far from it. However, it is intended to support the claim — often strongly advocated by people like Steven Pinker — that human progress has, over the centuries, actually been positive, in spite of exceptions to the rule. Overall, we’ve become more civilized, more healthy, less poor, more prosperous, and more inclusive and tolerant than we’ve been in the big picture of human history. There is no assurance that this trend will continue, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that the moral compass continues to steer us in the right direction. We must safeguard ourselves and our descendants from ceding to the lower demons of hate, bigotry, resentment, cruelty and destitution that we have countless times proven ourselves aptly capable of. We also have many steps to take before we can claim a place on the hilltop of equality and justice.

However, we face a disturbing reality in our current discourse, not only here in America but in much of Europe and across the West. There are many arguments being made — both by the modern day far Left and the various branches of the far Right — against the idea of human progress and the values of the Enlightenment. My aim here is to help push back against these trends, and defend the idea that in spite of deep seated injustices and countless violent conflicts around the world, we have indeed made considerable progress.

In addition, I want to defend the core ideas of science, skepticism and humanism, as defined by our Enlightenment thinkers, as comprising the best roadmap for continuing to flourish. We have a choice to make: we can choose to value this tradition of science, reason, freedom and progress as the best way forward, or we can revert back to sectarian and tribal tendencies of the far Right, or the moral relativism and dogmas of the far Left.

Science, reason and progress did not arrive by accident, nor is their continuation guaranteed in the absence of diligence by current and future generations. We stand at a critical juncture, in which we must make a decision about how society moves forward. We are at a crossroads of competing answers to life’s hardest questions. Wisdom and skeptical prudence are more necessary now than they have been in a long time.

A cautionary tale in in order, and I urge everyone to hear it and echo it across the hilltops. In spite of imperfections and setbacks in our modern world’s track record, we have to keep moving forward. We cannot, we must not, regress back to a state of identitarianism and racial purism as advocated by the Alt Right, nor succumb to the toxic tribalism of their ideology. We must diligently and loudly reject their regression back to old ways: claiming that certain races and peoples are endowed, either by inherent superiority or by history and common destiny, with a privileged position in a society. The old tradition of drawing sectarian lines in the sand of human society based around race and ethnic belonging, at the expense of the innate worth of the human person or the creative potential of the individual, unshacked by identity hierarchies.

The roots of these kinds of ethnic fault lines are poisonous to the core, as evidenced by the countless episodes of harm, hate, cruelty, injustice, revenge and massacre that have been mercilessly visited upon people’s around the world in the modern age — not least of all in modern Europe. We deserve a better way forward — all of us, across the barriers of race and identity. The dignity and potential of the individual human being should be our roadmap. It contains the treasures of guidance and wisdom that we need in deciding how best to flourish on this planet and form a prosperous, free and compassionate society.

At the same time, we should also reject the toxic ends of the ideological Left, in their rejection of the Enlightenment and the discarding of untold prosperity brought about by the basic idea of free markets. While crony capitalism and corruption within capitalist (or supposedly capitalist, depending on your semantic definition of the term) societies is one of our defining problems, the overall idea of markets is rather widely accepted by economists and those who take a serious look at the data on human prosperity.

In spite of deeply unjust global power structures and exploitation across the less developed world by the hypocritical systems of top-down neoliberalism (something called out in great detail by world renowned economists like William Easterly, Joseph Stiglets, Paul Krugman, and many others), the concept of markets has been an aggregate good for humankind. The track record remains: freedom of trade, association and commerce, as well as freedom of movement for business and entrepreneurship, has led to a net positive for humanity. With this introduction, I want to now transition into making a case against the argument that some on the far Left make (hopefully comprised mostly of young and naive college students and soul-searching 20 year olds; but one can only hope) that romanticizes pre-modern ways of life over our modern prosperity, due to some perception that our ‘egalitarian’, sharing hunter-gather ancestors had a better or more compassionate way of life than we do today.

As a friend and fellow skepticism advocate in NYC, Jonathan Weiss, put it during a discussion,

“New centrism is about honoring evidence and reason over bias and tribal allegiance. The question of…when in human history has human flourishing and well-being been at its maximum…(the failure to understand this question) illustrates the intellectual and ethical failures of the Left and the Right. The correct answer to that question, supported by a reasoned evaluation of the evidence, is that the apex is more or less right now. The denial of such evidence was precisely the motivation for this very post.

Right wingers will often refute this and instead aver that the apex occurred at some point in modern history, one that can’t they exactly pinpoint, when we were no longer barbarians but when “Judeo-Christian values” had not yet been corrupted by the excesses of modern liberalism. Perhaps that date was November 5, 1955? Maybe Marty McFly can find it for us?

Left-wingers, on the other hand, might suggest that the apex occurred at some point before modernity, before evil was introduced to the world by the modern white Western man, when, as one of my leftist friends once claimed, no one ever went hungry or suffered from poverty because everyone was cared for in hunter-gatherer tribe.

Both positions here are operating under many delusions including the myths of the blank slate/ghost in the machine/noble savage that Pinker has laid out. I think much of our political discord arises from the indulgence of such myth and delusion.

The mission of the New Centre is to punch through this by honoring reality.”

Debunking premodern ‘egalitarianism’ as a nostalgic apex of human society.

I become simultaneously annoyed and amused when I see certain people romanticizing ancestral hunter-gatherer lifestyle as some kind of egalitarian hippie commune or peaceful safety net. People have no earthly idea how harsh and dangerous life was in this stage of our social evolution.

Cooperative behaviors and resource sharing were essential to survival itself. Average life expectancy was unthinkably low by todays standards, and infant mortality was mind-shattering by comparison to what we’ve become accustomed to in a modern, developed, civil society. Rape and physical violence were not mediated by anything resembling our modern standards of humanism and human rights. Such horrors were merely subject to the primal customs of deterrence and retaliation within the group. Old (by several thousand years, arguably) Pashtunwali systems of honor and respect in modern Afghanistan are far more evolved and civil than the what we would see in the average society of ancestral hunter-gatherers. Violence was not uncommon, as shown by archeological evidence of blunt trauma by stone tools and other forms of physical violence. Pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer culture did not have sophisticated customs or evolved norms of respect the way we see in, say, indigenous cultures after the agricultural revolution. Language and communication were in their infancy. Women did not have some ‘respected place at the table’ as people often imagine in revisionist Hollywood depictions of the primitive ‘noble savage’. It was human survival under unthinkably harsh conditions, amidst the constant threat of starvation, infant mortality, disease, death, and danger from other groups as well as a variety of natural hazards and wildlife that have a hundred ways to kill you.

The idea of romanticizing this life over modern forms of civil and developed society is, to put it bluntly, insane. The average poor person in a developed nation today has far more access to comfort, resources, safety, nourishment, and opportunity than their early Homo sapien ancestors had. This does not diminish the seriousness of modern poverty by any means. Rather, it merely gives it context. Due to specialization and the bottom-up evolution of markets and human societies, we went from a stone-tool wielding collection of hunter-gatherers to a civilization of iPads, nanotechnology and an unprecedented longevity of life. As Michael Shermer points out, many of those who benefit from our prosperous society are seemingly unaware of the origin of wealth. We are rich enough (in the aggregate, as a developed nation) that we have a moral obligation to help those in need.

In other words, the fact that modern nations start to push for better safety nets and more compassion and care for the poor, the elderly, the ill and the disadvantaged, is a reflection in some ways of how much better off they are than in the past: these societies are educated, civilized and prosperous enough to have the ability and moral willpower to do so. Today, in the majority of the developed world, the idea of leaving people to die of cold or illness is unthinkable. Or at least it certainly should be.

The deceptive roots of moral altruism: An evolutionary journey

I want to expand on this a bit more, from a behavioral, biological and game-theoretic/evolutionary perspective. Perhaps we can put a nail in this coffin of modern misunderstanding.

Many who express some sort of exotic fetishization or naive nostalgia for the egalitarianism and sharing among our primal ancestors likely misunderstand why these small groups lived this way in the first place.

Yes, it was egalitarian in the anthropological sense of the term, to denote a type of informal but socially necessary system of reciprocity (of both kindness and care as well as retaliation and violence), to ensure that small groups survived and flourished. These in-group behaviors were not driven by ‘pure’ altruism, but rather, they helped create the evolutionary niche in which altruism came about as an adaptive byproduct.

Of course, we should always seek to expand our circle of moral inclusion — what Peter Singer calls ‘the expanding circle’. We shouldn’t do things for others merely out of a selfish expectation of the favor being returned. We can and should cultivate a sincere form of compassion, and humans have managed to do this in beautiful ways across geography and culture, for thousands of years. As Pinker often talks about — citing a quote from Abraham Lincoln’s Inaugural address to the Confederate South prior to the start of the Civil War, foreshadowing the eventual prohibition of slavery — we can either cede to our lower selves or embrace (as the quote goes) the ‘better angles of our nature’. Pinker’s book of the same name makes the case for human progress by unpacking mountains of datasets over the expanse of human history, making a strong argument for the track record of modernity taking us virtually light years ahead of where we were. Indeed, we can be altruistic, and embrace higher forms of compassion. Neuroscientific studies on human brain states shows this to be not only possible, but desirable on the part of those living it out: expanding our circle of compassion and altruism actually makes us genuinely happier people.

However, let us not mistake the roots of altruism for what it is seen as today. We can now look at the moral necessity of altruism from a higher place, and strive for it (as we should!). But it didn’t arise because people were simply getting along. It emerged through a system we now call ‘reciprocal altruism’ — which in very simple terms means “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”. People helped others because they expected something in return. What we call “altruism” was far from pure -rather, it was a tool of human relationships that *allowed* people to get along, and survive. Trust, respect, and punishing defectors and free riders was essential for keeping the tribe together and helping ensure the longevity of the group under constantly harsh conditions, in uncertain and dangerous environments. Altruism was the glue that help keep the pack together.

These small hunter-gatherer bands essentially maintained a sharing economy out of necessity, not inherent kindness. In this system, cheaters, hoarders and game-defecting rule breakers were punished — shunned, beaten or killed by the rest of the pack — for eroding the cohesion of the group and its efficient use of limited resources, as such uncooperative behaviors lessened their chances of survival. This has been covered extensively by the work of countless anthropologists and social scientists, including greats like Jared Diamond. It has been expanded on down to the level of neuroscience and game theory by well-spoken science communicators like Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker. Bret Weinstein does a fantastic job of explaining in accessible detail some of the biological basis of morality and kin-based altruism, and how adaptive strategies and cooperative behaviors made the most sense (& continue to make the most sense) against the backdrop of our biological landscape.

The biological human-environment interaction, and the evolutionary strategies and ecological niches formed by our ancestors in order to adapt to their respective environments, gives us insight into something called phenotypes, a term quite familiar to any biologist or scholar of evolutionary biology. This is essentially the set of observable characteristics of an individual, as a result of the interaction of its genotype — aka genetic makeup — with its environment.

This gives us insight into the epigenetic reasons for why certain behaviors occur — something Richard Dawkins very beautifully and effectively communicated in the late 70s and 80s with ‘The Selfish Gene’ (widely regarded as groundbreaking for its time, and an early treasure of science communication for the masses) and ‘The Extended Phenotype’ (which Dawkins himself considered his most important contribution to biology, including the idea of niche construction and organism-environment interaction).

The wider point here is that many of the behaviors and adaptive strategies adopted by our ancestors were the byproduct of biology and human interaction with the environment around them. The construction of a nest by birds, or the construction of dams by beavers, are examples of how animals alter their environment and maximize their own survival rate by doing so. Likewise, humans also learned to adapt and maximize their survival, by adopting certain behaviors and strategies around them, including how they interacted with their environments. Creating a sharing economy and systems of hunting, gathering and provisions allowed them to survive and escape the more common fate of Darwinian elimination from the gene pool. Those humans who adopted the right cooperative strategies and material practices became the exception to the rule, and lived on. We are here today because of this.

Let us not mistake the egalitarianism of the hunter-gatherer for a measure of sheer kindness or altruistic compassion for fellow human being — that comes later. We are unthinkably lucky to be born into a time and place in which our existence on this fickle speck of a planet is defined by modern safety nets and vast forms of social entrepreneurship for the less well off. While far from where we should be, our journey has been a thousand miles upward of the hardship of those before us. Let’s continue to move forward, with compassion and moral resolve, leaving no genuine victims of circumstance behind in the process. But, in doing this, let’s keep a humble appreciation of the privileged context in which this moral progress occurs.

The key difference between a fantasy-based system and a reality-based system is its willingness to change and adapt, and its ability to pit itself against the resistance of the real world. This is where science — as well as mixed martial arts and Jujitsu — excel, and where American politics and ideology fail. This contrast is as stark as it is revealing — revealing of why the former areas function so well, and the latter so poorly.

Exploring this further might actually be the key to fundamentally changing our stagnant, inflexible and broken system of ideological conversation in our country.

I want to issue a challenge, to every ideologue across America’s political playing field:

“Show me something that Left or Right Ideology gets right, that can’t also be articulated through science, reason and compassion.”

When it comes to social issues like justice, inequality, guns, drug wars, and gender and race relations, ideological thinking and dogma within politics has long attempted a monopoly on public conversation. Ideology on the Left and the Right has claimed itself the placeholder of our more vocal discourse, increasingly asserting its platform beliefs and dogmas as truth and tradition beyond question: to be on the correct side of an issue, you must subscribe to our belief system.

The ‘Gracie Challenge’ (and the wider impact of the Gracie and Machado families in developing and advancing BJJ) was essentially about inviting various styles and practitioners to test the effectiveness of their system and skills, against the effectiveness of Jujitsu. This gave the world a living laboratory of sorts, in which a far more reality-based approach to martial arts could be established.

What I am proposing is a “Reason Challenge” — paying tribute to the spirit behind the Gracie Challenge as seen during the early days of modern MMA— as a way to test the idea that Left or Right ideology or political dogma is really the best or only way to understand social problems, or to arrive at answers to them. Let’s test this idea. Let’s see how often people can demonstrate that their system of political ideology is really a prerequisite to tackling these issues. Do we need platform ideology, radical politics or any form of dogma to meaningfully discuss issues of inequality, justice, and oppression? Or can skepticism and compassion achieve this without the need for partisan or radical ideology? MMA created a laboratory that showed that traditional beliefs within martial arts weren't necessarily the best way to arrive at answers, nor a prerequisite for achieving what sound technique could accomplish. Likewise, we need a Reason Challenge to expose the traditions and dogmas of the Left and the Right to the open laboratory of science, skepticism and reason.

What would this sound like when offering this challenge to others?

Essentially, anything that your ideology or dogma may get right about the world — be it in the domain of inequality, race and gender, gun, prison or drug policy, or other things — can also be articulated without the need for ideology or dogma to begin with.

Precision of language is important here, so people don’t misunderstand the idea behind this. Science, and scientific thinking, is a concept that still eludes most people, and this is something we should work together across political fault lines to change. By ‘science’, I am referring to a process, a repeatable and reliable way of examining ideas. It is also a style of thinking (scientific thinking), in which we seek evidence and remain open to changing our minds. This is where the term ‘skepticism’ is used, and the two are inseparable. They form a reality-based way of seeing the world.

If we see problems within our police system, for example, the best set of tools in existence to tackle this problem — to understand it, to research it, to give a voice to those suffering from it, and to arrive at solutions-can be found in scientific thinking and in various nonpartisan models of outreach, listening and compassion.

Specifically, I am talking about a combination of (1) empirical, evidence-based thinking and skepticism (which is an attitude of openness to evidence and a willingness to follow it, and change one’s mind if necessary), and (2) various models of human compassion and generous listening. One does not need partisan political ideology for either of these. Nor does one need partisan ideology or dogma to be a good person or fight for justice.

Often, the truth about an issue will indeed overlap with many aspects of an ideology. Sometimes your ideology will likely get things right — as will rival ideologies you don’t like. For example, far more conservatives need to admit that there are indeed many aspects of Critical Race Theory that are very real, and do accurately describe society; far more liberals and Leftists need to admit that there are actually some aspects of free market ideology articulated by conservatives that are well evidenced and map onto reality. The problem comes when some conservatives put their free market ideology before evidence and facts. It comes when some Leftists refuse to change their mind on any major platitude of Critical Race Theory, even if evidence to the contrary were to present itself. In both cases, people are putting confirmation bias before truth. It is a barrier to a reality-based way of seeing the world around us. It barricades us from understanding and solving problems.

As stated in the beginning of this article, the most important difference between a fantasy based system and a reality-based system is its willingness to change and adapt. Essentially, its ability to pit itself against the resistance of the real world. In the domain of mixed partial arts, jujitsu has long established itself as perhaps the most reality-based system of unarmed combat, for precisely these reasons. Politics and ideology should be looked at in essentially the same way. Skepticism, like Jujitsu, is not grounded in any dogma nor beholden to the constraints of any tradition; it refines itself over time based on an ongoing adaptation to reality. It constantly tests itself against reality, and from this emerges knowledge that has been tested, sometimes countless times.

A worldview should be amenable to evidence and argument, not a buffer against it. The skeptical way of thinking and the ideological way of thinking are two fundamentally different ways to arrive at answers to complex problems, and they are not on even footing; skepticism is inherently better at navigating the human and social terrain of our realities. If Starbucks wants to conduct the most effective Bias training it can, and understand the problem of diversity, bias and discrimination accurately, then ideology is the worst thing it can employ in its set of possible tools. Skepticism — combined with a basic measure of empathy-based personal outreach and a desire to listen to those it seeks to help — is a far superior tool for achieving these goals. This is because it constantly tries to map onto reality, rather than vigorously uphold itself as a set of sectarian beliefs. By its very definition, is not held back by tradition, dogma or an unbendable ideology platform. It doesn't resist effective change or shun new knowledge.

With that, I want to frame this in the same context that we saw during the early years of the Gracie Challenge, during the ascent of MMA in popular culture.

In effect, the Gracie Challenge was a living laboratory to test and discover which styles and techniques were most effective, and to truly examine what works in a fight between two skilled opponents. From this experiment emerged some clear patters, which helped refine how people saw the reality of martial combat. It was no longer mere theory and tradition, nor speculation and belief, but evidence-based understanding.

As I wrote about in the preceding chapter, it was Bruce Lee who very arguably solidified this concept in public discourse and popular culture, giving the world a new paradigm, and a new challenge: a reality-based refinement of how things really work — and how people should adapt — in the domain of unarmed confrontation. Also, as stated previously (and constantly throughout this book), people don’t like change. At least not when ideology or tribal forms of identity or group-based politics or beliefs come into play. They often have a visceral reaction to the idea of having to adapt and refine, and to evolve. Many respond with hostility to those who challenge their echo chambers or openly question their “sacred traditions”.

I used the analogy of Reagan Conservatism or supply-side economics for the Right, and Saul Alinski strategy, Herbert Marcuse’s New Left ideas, or modern offshoots of Critical Theory in the domain of race relations, for the Left. Conversely, many of Bruce Lee’s critics and enemies had the same change-resisting mindset with their Traditional Martial Arts. Change had to come when Bruce Lee set up a living experiment that transcended these platitudes of ‘sacredness’, directly challenged dogmatic thinking. Doing so forced a real examination of whats real and whats not — or, in many cases, of what works best. This leads me to my next question:

Can we achieve this within American politics?

A more specific question may be in order:

Can ‘freethinking’ become a revolution within American politics, breaking down the walls of our dogmas and our polarized conversation? Can scientific thinking, reason, freethought and skepticism become galvanizing points of convergence for people across the country?

Let me briefly unpack the term ‘science’, so as to minimize confusion. There is often a blurry zone of misunderstanding and cross talk around the term ‘science’, especially when applied to social issues or politics. I offer a section of a previous proposal and article I authored awhile back, titled A Roadmap for Campuses: A Partnership between Skepticism and Social Activism,

“What do I mean by this, specifically? ‘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.”

Examining the conflicts and collisions between scientific, skeptical thinking and ideological thinking is perhaps the best place to start, if we are to convince more people that a problem truly exists.

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

The underlying spirit behind our current political dogmas — on both sides — is not only at odds with every one of these things — it is often diametrically and militantly opposed to them. However, the traits above are the very things that gave us much of the progress we have seen over the last several hundred years of human history. They helped propelled us from the Dark Ages into Apollo capsules and nanotechnology incubators. They can help us revive our spirit of curiosity and humility we once had for venturing into space, and direct this into how we engage our political and social issues. Such things are traditionally relegated to the loud voices of competing ideologues, of political sound bites, of voting base dogmatism, and partisan extremists. We have to challenge this, at every level. At every genuine and productive opportunity. We have to disrupt the status quo with new way of thinking.

How Jujitsu and Skepticism can become natural allies against delusion

Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) traces its origins back through the Gracie family to their original teacher, Mitsuyo Maeda (Conde Coma), who took the teachings of Jigoro Kano, the founder of Judo. Kano was a highly educated man — in fact, he is considered the founder of the modern Japanese educational system. Being an older man with some physical hardships, he focused on maximal efficiency and minimal effort, seeking to economize how the human body can react and counter an opponent using sound technique and the skilled application of body mechanics. It was essentially the early stages of a living laboratory that would eventually become what is now Brazilian Jujitsu. As techniques and practices were refined against resisting opponents, the most effective ground fighting system in existence came about, carried on to the next level by the founding members of the Gracie lineage — Helio Gracie and Carlos Gracie.

This knowledge was passed along through the Gracie family, as well as the famed Machado family, and helped establish Brazilian Jujitsu early on during the advent of modern mixed martial arts. This included the Gracie Challenge in the early days of the UFC, and was a public way to demonstrate Jujitsu’s effectiveness against resisting opponents from other styles. In the end, it helped remove the blindfold from millions of people, and continues to open the eyes of new practitioners around the world every day. This is because, in the end, reality-based thinking and systems of practice trump dogma, when given the playing field to do so.

Unfortunately, political dogma within American politics keeps us blinded: It closes our minds and shuts off our curiosity, short circuits our desire to learn, to improve, and ultimately to grow. Like the rigidity within many early forms of traditional martial arts during the days of Bruce Lee, or of the pioneers of Brazilian Jujitsu soon after, it acts to deter a reality-based way of learning, and adapting.

Many arguments and ‘talking points’ across the political spectrum are not organized around a desire to seek what’s real, but to remain in comforting delusion. They are often not driven by any genuine exploration of complex issues — be it police reform, gun violence, poverty, inequality, Islam, terror, radicalization, bigotry, and racism — and certainly not around understanding the nuanced realities surrounding these issues. Rather, they are often organized around strengthening pre-exiting beliefs, and confirming a bias found in one’s desire to keep believing a certain way. Contrary to curiosity or reality-based, analytical thinking, they engage in defending the partisan ‘in-group’, and scoring points against the ‘other side’. Such contests of black-and-white thinking have serious social consequences: they undercut our very ability or even our willingness to engage in honest and informed conversations. By proxy, this means we are less likely to arrive at answers.

One of the beautiful things about an art like Jujutsu is that it can be practiced without the constraints of one’s economic or social standing — these things become meaningless on the mat. One’s money, celebrity status or social profile does nothing to assist them in the dynamic process of grappling with a Jujitsu opponent, nor does one’s race, skin color, or social or economic standing restrain a practitioner from throwing or submitting a less skilled opponent. The art has a beautiful way of leveling these things out in those key moments, literally within seconds of engaging in its reality-based concepts. Concepts of how one gains or loses ground against a resisting opponent, based on unchanging principles of leverage and body position— something which no amount of self-deception or social standing can cheat its way out of. Much like science and skepticism, it can also be embraced by anyone, from any background or walk of life.

Scientific thinking is also based on consistent principles, and is the most reliable, repeatable and reality-based way of looking at the world that we know of. It is essentially the best bullshit detector ever known to humankind. As freethinkers, skeptics, and lovers of science and reason (as with practitioners of Jujitsu), we come from all walks of life. We are not bound by race, nor by income. Nor by political leanings- in fact, we reside across the political spectrum. This transcends the Left-Right divide. And this is where The Reason Challenge can be born.

Let’s look at a few examples, in my next article. This will be an ongoing project.

The Reason Challenge, summarized

— — — — — — — — — — — — -

I would like more advocates of science and skepticism to join me, and help issue a challenge: Let people put their ideology or their political dogma up against a healthy combination of scientific thinking, reason, skepticism and basic compassion, and show me which approach better serves a given issue. Which approach best serves human wellbeing. Which approach is a better framework for understanding the world around us, analyzing its problems, and arriving at answers to how we address them?

Let’s discuss a given issue through the lens of rigid, radical or dogmatic ideology. Alongside this, let’s discuss it without these things, using instead science, skepticism and compassion as the main guide-rails.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Let’s take a number of issues, alongside an example of science and compassion being able to address each one, without the need for rigid ideology or dogma.

Inequality

Poverty

Policing in America

Oppression and Injustice

Reforming the Drug War

Justice System reform

Race and Gender issues

Discrimination and Bias

Gun policy

Drug Policy

Political corruption and finance reform

A Path Forward

One day, we will hopefully realize that the real fault line — the defining schism — should be between ‘reasoned compassion’ and the things that are harmful and antithetical to it.

Arguably, this struggle can be said to take place along two deeply important axes:

(1) Between Reason & Science versus Dogmatism, Emotional Tribalism & Ideology,

And,

(2) Between Human Dignity and the suppression of it, regardless of tribe or ideology

Let us dream once again, as a country. Let’s aim well beyond the rigid and tired confines of our political dogmas and our tribal traditions. let’s evolve. let’s grow, and let’s strive to be better than we presently are. We can take political discourse to the next level. It is stuck in a rigid system of inflexible, stifled forms and monotonous talking points, often though the filter of delusional idea bubbles. It is not willing to adapt to the real world, and this has to change. Let us build an unprecedented bridge between freethinking and American politics, in ways we never imagined doing, and set sail for undiscovered horizons.

Additional Link:

I want to start off with a bold and perhaps unpopular statement.

The resistance to acknowledging problems and shortcomings within our own political tribe is one of our societies single biggest problems. Reversing this trend should become an entire project in and of itself, as diligent as anything we are doing to make the world a better place.

I write this letter as a response to a common argument I hear by many on the Left who seem unwilling to openly talk about problems within their own movement. In summary, their argument tends to go as follows:

“Why should we focus on ‘problems within the Left’? Why is this a priority? The Right has far more power than we do. Why should we move yet further to the Right? Why should we cede ground to our enemies?”

My simple response to this line of thinking is this: Admitting one’s blind spots, and shifting away from fallacies and bad argument, or from bad trends, is, almost by definition, not shifting to the Right. Nor to the Left, per se. It is merely making a course correction. It’s making the Left better, not worse. Stronger, not weaker.

The remainder of this letter contains my longer response, which I urge everyone who identifies with the Left to read carefully. I have a similar Open Letter for Conservatives as well, as this issue transcends the Left-Right divide. it is a problem at the very heart of our discourse, and the soul of our conversations. This letter is not intended to offend, nor be viewed as an attack on you or even on your movement. It genuinely seeks better clarity and honesty in our discourse.

Why A Movement for Self-Reflection and Improvement within the Left is Essential — and Ultimately Helpful

Simply put, seeing — and openly acknowledging — problems and blindspots on our own side of the political fence is one of the best things we can do. As individuals, as well as for entire movements. It is a sign of strength, of intellectual curiosity, and security in one’s independent thinking. It is a cornerstone of productive discourse. It is, in fact, the very backbone of any good idea. It is a key pillar of a thriving and responsive political movement or wider philosophy.

Unfortunately, there seems to be common idea that admitting to problems on our side of the political spectrum is somehow ‘ceding ground’ to the other side. I beg and plead with people to reconsider this way of thinking. I genuinely ask people to notice it when it occurs. I truly believe that we can be smarter, more honest, sincere and ultimately happier people when we embrace this shift in mindset. When we are in touch with our biases, our natural instincts to clinch down on our views, our tendencies to avoid being wrong even when evidence or logic is stacked against us, we become free to grow. To evolve, to adapt. This may seem uncomfortable at first. But it is, in the end, one of the most intellectually satisfying and personally rewarding things we can do for ourselves. It is like learning Jujitsu for the first time — uncomfortable, even a bit intimidating, but a deeply enjoyable road to a new kind of sobriety — a reality-based way of seeing the world, with ego beautifully removed.

When our ego, our sense of identity, is no longer holding us back, when the facade drops and we are allowed to be vulnerable, to have our mistakes exposed, we are forced to see our our blindspots. Lifting this veil of ego will kindle in us a newfound desire to embrace the path of honesty with ourselves. Seeing blindspots is no longer a bad thing. It is something we can do to constantly learn from them, to grow, to mature and be more in touch with reality.

I cannot count the number of times that I have attempted, in good faith, to get people to take a step back and find at least something in the arguments of their critics that they can find merit in. Something on their side that just might be wrong. A blindspot within their wider community that may need more honest reconsideration. Sadly, this is typically met with even more resistance — an instinctive recoil, to avoid really exploring these gaps, and seeing such criticism as a threat. Worse yet, they often view the very idea of changing their minds and making corrections within their movement as ‘ceding ground’, or shifting further toward the ‘other side’, as if everything is a zero-sum contest between two opposites, with no room for improvement on their own side.

We desperately need a fundamental reversal of this mindset. Starting within our own side of the fence. In most cases, I can promise you — this will make your side stronger, better and more equipped to combat those you disagree with.

The very thing that makes science work, that makes MMA work, that makes evolution and innovation in our society work, is openness to seeing blindspots and making corrections. With a few exceptions, it is only in politics and religion that this is so widely frowned upon.

Why the Left must confront dogma and ideological thinking within its own camp

I should preface this by saying that I do not consider myself a Left winger, but not a Right winger either. I have written a great deal about problem with the Right. I am currently putting together a book about it. I also criticize the Center at times. The aim of this letter, however, is to focus on the Left. Not to berate or attack, but to try and help it improve and grow, and perhaps help more across the political spectrum grow out of our current ideological paralysis along with it.

Suffice it to say that any large idea community or movement will have blindspots. This no less includes the Left, and anyone denying this is deeply deluding themselves. Many on the modern Left seem to categorically ignore their own blindspots and issues, and avoid admitting that some of their critics actually have valid points. This is something that I want to encourage more people within the Left to seriously reflect on.

I hear more and more from current and former Leftists alike, with increasing frequency and concern, that dogma within the modern Left is terrible. And I’ve seen it firsthand. This is, to say the least, quite ironic. Dogma and dogmatic thinking used to be something seen as being rather unique to the Right, or at least to many traditional Conservatives, with the Left throwing off the shackles of dogma and shouting ‘free your mind’ from the hilltops. Dogma was seen by the Left as something to be avoided like the plague.

Now, however, a sizable portion of the Left is seeping with it. Especially within academia. And the willingness to be wrong and change one’s mind is on the decline. Movements of any kind — including movements for social justice — should strive to lead by example. With this said, the willingness to change our minds is arguably one of the most important things in our world worth preserving. It is one of the most precious cornerstones to human progress, over the centuries gone by. However, we tend to embrace the exact opposite ethos within our politics, even seeing it as weakness to be shunned. If ghosts were real, Carl Sagan would be rolling in his grave right now.

This does not bode well for the future of American discourse. Many will say that dogmatic thinking is so much worse on the Right, or that the Left can afford to ignore it in their own camp. There is a giant blindspot in this thinking the size of a black hole. Many of these same people seem to neglect the fact that dogmatic thinking itself is poison. It is a categorically flawed way of thinking — it fundamentally limits how we see and engage our world. If we don’t call out dogmatic thinking and false certainties within our own camp, we will be in less and less of a position to combat it elsewhere. We lose our edge for freethinking and reason when we abandon it within our own intellectual tents. Dogma should be called out, period.

Secondly, dogmatic thinking within the Left makes the Left weaker, not stronger. The modern Left is crippling itself by its refusal to tackle its own problems. Self-correction is a mechanism that allows us to grow. Resisting it makes us more vulnerable, not better off.

Many people tend to double down and avoid criticism out of a protective instinct, imagining that they are guarding against the other side gaining an inch of ground. Each rebuttal to ‘outsider criticism’ feels like a valiant effort to fight for every precious inch of dirt between two sides of a zero-sum battle. It is like an intellectual version of trench warfare, with a high attrition against open-mindedness and curiosity.

This visceral reaction that many Leftists have to ideological self-correction is crippling, rather than genuinely ‘protective’. It’s like they are saying “sweep the leg!”, but to themselves. They are actually taking out one of the legs of their own intellectual stool when they embrace this mode of discourse.

And its killing the very innovative thinking and creative dissent that allows ideas and movements to thrive. Including to thrive against rival ideas. Thus, this trend in dogmatic thinking within the Left — and the refusal by many to even admit its a problem — is actually hindering the Left, not helping it. Outsiders offering potentially helpful criticism are often viewed as ‘attacking the Left’ and viewed from a position of distrust, due to not being ‘in the Tribe’. (I’ve experienced this firsthand on campus and its absolutely disgusting, intellectually and emotionally).

This has created a culture in which self-awareness is shunned, and self-correction is dissuaded due to a reflexive tendency to double down, an almost tribal instinct to avoid ‘tapping out’. This is something that will eventually cripple our discourse into a vegetative state in which almost no one wants to admit there are problems on their side of the fence, or *even consider the idea of being wrong.*

Even if someone views self-correction as ‘tapping out’, we can still show why tapping can be good for growth and improvement.

In Brazilian Jujitsu, one of the most honest and reality-based arts in existence, the idea of tapping out is not bad or shameful — quite the opposite. It is necessary, its how you grow and learn and improve. Without constantly seeing our mistakes, we can never learn Jujitsu. Or any sport or physical art. Likewise, if we refuse to embrace this model of growth within our discourse, we are doomed to remain stagnant, forever wallowing and tweeting on the fringes of mediocrity in how we progress in our conversations, and improve out outlooks. Refusal to ‘tap’ is refusal to grow. This should be applied to politics just as much as in sports.

I argue with my heart and soul for this here, in my article about how Bruce Lee’s Jeet Kune Do philosophy can help revive American political discourse. There is a wonderful interplay — and analogy — between the process of reality-based martial arts, and skepticism. As people in both worlds are discussing more and more, it is something that highlights Carl Sagan’s message of skepticism and scientific attitudes towards life itself. If we could learn to apply this to our political discourse, we would start to truly breath the wonderfully sobering air of freethinking and open mindedness. It would take so much of the crushing weight of ideological dissonance and combative mindset off of our chests, and really allow us to really explore and grow. To be curious again, as we once were at the advent of the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution.

Moving beyond the Left-Right Dichotomy: Embracing Honesty and Self-Correction within Politics

I cannot count how many times a Leftist would reject a criticism about the Left, merely because of the person who was saying it. A blind spot or problem is not more or less valid because of the political shade of the person pointing it out. If Dave Rubin or Sam Harris says than the Left has a problem conflating honest criticism of Islam with racism and Islamophobia, and a Leftist says this *exact same thing*, should we accept it from the Leftist but reject it from Rubin and Harris? The answer should be a resounding “no”.

Another barrier to creating a culture of self-reflection and healthy skepticism within the Left is the idea of a zero-sum, ‘my team against your team’ game in which admitting to problems or areas for improvement on one’s own side is akin to ‘letting the other side’ win points. The toxicity of this mindset should be obvious to anyone, but sadly its becoming more and more mainstreamed within our discourse.

There is an argument by many on the Left that I have encountered more times than I care to recall. In essence, it goes something like this:

“There’s a big power imbalance. The Right has almost all of the power. There is so much at steak. So focusing on problems within the Left is a distraction and not even worth doing, in light of bigger priorities. Why should the Left be open to shifting even more to the right?”

There is a huge mistake in this thinking.

At the risk over being repetitious, I will restate my words at the beginning of this article, as they cannot be echoed enough. Admitting one’s blind spots, and shifting away from fallacies and bad argument, or from bad trends, is (almost by definition) not shifting to the Right. Nor to the Left. It is merely making a course correction. It’s making the Left better, not worse. Stronger, not weaker. Is this not a good thing?

The mindset of wanting to avoid ‘ceding ground’ to the enemy is one of the biggest fallacies in our entire discourse: it sees everything as being somewhere along a Left-Right spectrum. A binary opposition, a zero sum contest between two competing teams: admitting you’re wrong is allowing the other ‘team’ to score a point. This team sport mentality is one of the most toxic, mind-closing and dangerously stupid trends within our society. And it is hurting the Left. Many on the Left feel that even admitting out-loud that there is problems or bad arguments within the Left is somehow ‘conceding ground’ and ‘moving to the Right’. Nothing could be more off the mark.

This mindset traces back to a classic flaw in our tribal psychology — the ancestral tendency to band together with a tribe against a rival tribe, or against outsiders. It is a simplified kind of false binary — an “all-or-none” way of seeing things. Simply put, its another form of black and white, binary thinking that ideologically fueled discourse suffers from across the political spectrum. The Left-Right divide is perhaps the biggest and most dangerous False Binary in our discourse. It shackles our minds and keeps us from emulating the very habits and styles of thinking that best define progress. For example, the very thing that makes science work is the openness to seeing blindspots and making corrections. However, we seem to viscerally shun this very idea within politics. It so happens that the Left is not above this habit. Ironically, neither are many science and reason advocates within the secular movement, especially on either side of the ‘political correctness’ debate. It is as if the scientific, intellectual curious part of countless people’s brains shut down the very second a topic related to social justice is brought up.

That said, there may be ways to remedy this problem. It perhaps helps if we pose a question to one another during conversations:

‘Can we at least agree that admitting to blindspots, and saying ‘Lets fix this’ is a good thing? Can we agree that it’s not only an inherently good thing, but a point of strength, of growth? Perhaps, even, would it not be a better positioning of one’s side on the political chessboard?”

If we can reorient our thinking, perhaps we can reorient the conversation itself. Most of the time, it should not be about ‘moving Left’ or ‘moving Right’, but moving away from bad argument and bad trends, and refining one’s outlook to be closer to reason, logic, facts, evidence, and compassion. That should be the defining axis. If we could toss out the Left-Right dichotomy for one day across our nation, and simply reflect on where we may be wrong, it would be one of the best moments of intellectual clarity in decades.

Person A. “Check your privilege! You’ve never been oppressed a single day in your life!”

Person B. “Fuck you! You’re a social justice warrior, and I’m not falling bait to your Leftist ideology. I wont apologize for who I am as a human being — stop reducing me by my race and gender!”

Person A. “You don’t even care about justice, do you? Oh my GOD, why can’t you just fucking acknowledge that you’ve lived your whole life in a system that benefits you, and hurts others! You’re a shitlord and Right winger. I don’t talk to oppressors. BYE”

This is how a typical ‘conversation’ goes between two people on different ends of the issue of “privilege”. No one walks away smarter, better or closer to real solutions when this occurs. Yet it has become the norm

I offer my thoughts on how we might actually bridge much of this divide, for far more people.

The Problem, Summarized.

We do, in fact, need to have more conversations about privilege. But we need to do it in non-toxic ways. In healthy, productive, effective and helpful ways. This currently seems all but impossible. And this fact is hurting us, and holding back a much-needed conversation about justice reform and equality in America.

Understanding Why This Problem Occurs.

Leftists and social justice advocates do tend to be right about something that all of us should agree on: Many people (whites, if I may generally speak here) lack the empathy, the inner courage or even desire to reflect on this issue. However, we should also acknowledge (and I certainly think most Leftists tend to agree with this) that many others do not lack these human qualities. Millions of whites in this country — including those at the higher brackets of our economic ladder — do care enough to be a fruitful part of the conversation, and help build a more just and equal society.

By this measure, we should be making progress forward in our conversations about things like privilege. Yet this conversation seems to fail most of the time. In addition, more polarization and ideology on both ends of this discussion seem to be making this worse, not better. **

A key reason why this tends to fail, even among open-minded people, is that we often have a problem distinguishing two very different things: Ideology, Shaming and Guilt from Self-Reflection and Empathy for Others. People confuse one with the other.

These two sides of the coin seem to be indistinguishable in conversation: any suggestion (usually by Leftists) of examining one’s privilege is often viewed by critics as an ideological assertion of guilt and shame, and any suggestion (usually by critics of the Left) that one should not be coldly reduced to their race and gender is often seen Leftists as a refusal to examine ones privilege. These two groups are talking at cross-purposes, until the issue is only further sunk into the swamp of toxic discourse.

Genuine and thoughtful examination of privilege doesn’t have to be associated with shame, guilt, radical ideology, nor a reduction of someone’s person to their race or gender. It certainly doesn’t have to involve a denial or downgrade of their unique struggles or individual experiences. And it definitely doesn’t require political dogma anymore than transcendental meditation requires religion.

The bottom line is that an honest examination of privilege and inequality should not be associated with radical dogmas, or with white (or male) ‘shame’ or ‘guilt’.

Unfortunately, ideology and political dogma on both the Left and the Right (including the radical assertion of Leftist traditions and dogmas about white privilege, as well as a radical Rightwing denial of it) have blurred these two things together more than ever before in recent times. Many radicals on the Left have been promoting the former (ideas of shame and guilt, and coldly reducing others to their race or gender), at the expense of an honest and open-minded conversation about the latter.

To make matters worse, the far Right has long erected considerable resistance to this conversation. The far Left’s pushback against this in recent times has often taken on toxic forms (which I will describe in detail later in this article), leading to an allergic reaction by many moderates and centrists. All in all, the conversation has reached an epic point of failure. We have to expand our empathy circles for others whose lives and experiences we cannot fully relate to. This must, on some level, involve realizing that many of these people do not have the same everyday privileges we do.

Yet this has become inextricably intertwined with terrible ideas about shame, guilt and ‘atonement’, language which should be reserved only for religious creation stories and modern cults. We have to find a way around this problem — and separate a real conversation about privilege from its more toxic forms.

How do we do this? I will put forward an idea to answer that very question.

We need a better paradigm for talking about privilege and inequality

Let me start with an opener: Privilege is a real thing. So is inequality and discrimination. Millions of people are affected by injustice and inequality within our society. Some feel this in ways that others don’t, and as a result, we have a sizable empathy gap across our Nation.

However, as stated previously, there is a fundamental breakdown in how we have this conversation. Many reading this will reflexively wrote me off for the fact that I am white and showcasing na opinion on how this should occur. I address this at the end of my article. Let me say that I do not claim to have all the answers here, nor to even want to assert myself into the details of how this kind of national conversation should play out. I agree with many on the Left that women, trans, religious minorities, people of color, and others should be at the forefront of this discussion.

However, I do not see this as an absolute, all-or-none platitude that closes the door to dissenting thoughts and arguments by anyone who may not be included in the above category. I cannot remain silent on what I see as a clear and obvious breakdown of discourse, nor on some of the things that could very well resuscitate our national civility and empathy as a country. With human livelihood and dignity at stake, I cannot extricate myself from this conversation. Our current paradigm for how we talk about social justice — as well as how people listen to those advocating for it — is broken. It is broken at a fundamental level. So, without apology, I offer my input in how we might fix this. I urge critics to please consider the content of my argument, even if you don’t approve of my being the one to make it. I also urge conservative and centrist critics of social justice ideas to be open as well, and hear me out. A genuine gap may be bridged if we can do this.

Changing the fundamentals: Better ways to tackle the issue

Part of this problem will involve fundamentally changing how we have conversations about privilege, and how we get more people — for example, whites like myself — to examine this issue with an open mind.

Let me start with an important anecdote. Many people, myself included, do have certain privileges — for example, I don’t have to feel the same stigma or even concern for my own safety or dignity that many blacks feel when approaching the police, or walking past a cop car. I do not face the same level of profiling or discrimination in my day to day life. Being aware of this does not at all diminish my uniqueness as a human being nor my value as an individual. It does not take away from the fact that I have actually felt, in very real ways, the deeply indignifying effects of our widening inequality, and the crushing effects of poverty. I experienced this twice, once after the 2008 Great Recession and once after my initial attempt at a social business startup upon returning from a GS-13 position in Afghanistan in 2012.

By admitting that I have had certain privileges my whole life, I am not merely reducing myself to a category of race or gender. Examining my privilege is not to diminish the individual hardships that I have faced over the course of life. My experience during my post-Afghanistan struggle has defined me, made me grow as a human being, as well as, in some ways, left personal scars I will probably feel the rest of my life. Eventually, I was able to climb back on my feet (personally and professionally) and achieve initial success in my social impact project, in spite of considerable barriers and a sense of soul-crushing defeat and disillusionment with the reality of the nonprofit sector.

In addition to my DoD work in Afghanistan for the Human Terrain System, an applied social science program, I served active Army time in Iraq twice. I eventually felt what many war veterans feel when they return home: that they are being ‘taken out of the fight’ and lose a sense of purpose. I was determined to find a pathway to service beyond the uniform, and refused to accept defeat. Part of this is what led me to seek better ways to expand the conversation about inequality in America.

One of the most disheartening things along this journey was seeing how deeply and viscerally divided we had become on some of our most consequential issues of justice and human wellbeing. Millions of voices have been crying out for change within our society and its systems of justice, of prison and drug policies, of police practices, and of financial corruption at the very heart of our political system. Yet millions more were refusing to listen. The very conversation itself about ‘social justice’ — a term with very different meanings at its core — had become so toxic and unworkable that it seemed pointless to even try to bridge the gap.

It starts with respect for effective communication between humans.

There is a considerable breakdown of communication on both ends of this topic, and it needs to be addressed on both ends if we are to move forward. Let’s take the issue of “checking our privilege”, and how this idea is so often badly communicated, as well as badly received. We do in fact need to acknowledge that privilege, as I described it above, is a real thing. It really does exist. But we have to find more productive and less toxic ways to talk about it. We need to help more people examine their lives and privileges in a way that does not merely reduce them to their race, gender or identity. We cannot cruelly and coldly lump people into a collective whole -in fact, this very ideas has historically led to more injustice and oppression than most in free societies are willing to even imagine.

However, we can find ways to help more people open their hearts and minds to an examination of society, inequality and privilege that avoids this, and avoids reducing people to a mere category on a hierarchy of oppression. Sadly, there exists a considerable barrier to doing this: Both sides of this debate tend to talk past each other, and see their own side of the story in very different ways than their opposite.

To overcome this barrier, we must untangle two very different ideas, and make this distinction far more often: Ideology, Shaming and Guilt versus Self-Reflection and Empathy for Others

For this national conversation to work, there must be considerable reform and change within the Left

I write the following in my article, On the Principles and Core Values of a New Center Movement,

“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 acknowledge, quite eagerly, that most such people indeed don’t assert these ideas. However, there is a fringe but very vocal minority within the Left that does. There is also a very real sense of guilt and ‘atonement pressure’ felt by many people, especially on campuses. I’ve spoken confidentially about this with experts in clinical psychology and group therapy, and it is a real problem that the Left helped create and that the Left must address. And — in my opinion, and I hope to be wrong — most on the Left are not addressing this publicly.

A major obstacle to doing this arises when we look at the common response to this issue by many in the social justice community. Rather than admit the problem and offer to help move beyond it, countless people on the social justice Left (and I’ve seen it too many times to count) will dismiss the concern by accusing the other of white fragility, ‘concern trolling’, or subconsciously exerting their privilege by being ‘too concerned with feelings of white people’. They will say “Why are you concerned about the feelings of males / white people / cis-males / white males / etc? Shouldn’t you be more concerned with the feelings and realities of oppressed minorities?”.

Anyone with a 4th grade level of logic and Socratic thinking can see within seconds that this is a very obvious false choice — one can indeed be far more concerned (as I certainly am) with the hate and attacks experienced by the most vulnerable in our society amidst the rise of hate movements, for example, than the average white male at NYU being eviscerated for not properly ‘atoning’ for his identity and privilege — yet still address the problem I am describing. Is this problem my biggest priority? No, it’s not. I care about the suffering of vulnerable minorities amidst the rise of hate movements far more that I care about the problem of atonement and guilt mindsets fueled by the fringes of the Left. This does not mean I don’t care about both problems — especially since the latter problem makes the former one all the more difficult to address and have sensible conversations about across more of the country.

To move forward on this, we must put a nail in the coffin of bad argument on this issue: Saying that I am merely ‘seeking to defend my privilege’ by drawing attention to this problem is not only a form of uninformed mind-reading and simplistic binary (all or none) thinking, but it is an outright conversation stopper. Contrary to this routinely regurgitated talking point, this is not about defending the ‘feelings of white people’ nor about maintaining a privileging social order, however often these motives may exist for some. Rather, it is about discarding stupid and damaging ideas, and standing up for individual human dignity and wellbeing, regardless of skin color or genetalia. Period. Many on the Left refuse to see this problem or even have this conversation. — and this has to change.

Conclusion: An Attempt to Move Forward

We must learn, across the country and across universities and social media platforms, to separate ideology, shaming and guilt from genuine self-reflection and empathy for others.

Here is the 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.

We can be better than this. We are better than this. As individuals, as a people, and as a country. More of us need to prove it, to ourselves and our critics alike.

An Opening Note to the Reader. As an opening note to the reader, I cannot speak for everyone who identifies with the New Center. This is my best attempt to capture its core values and ideas. This is not an official ‘manifesto’ or anything representing an organization. It is merely my unofficial take on the movement — what its best ideas and minds actually stand for, and what the term ‘New Center’, on the whole, should stand for. It is my sincere hope that this article can bring clarity and even-handed dialogue to more people across the political map.

We are witnessing a crossroads in our political landscape. Millions of Americans — across the wider Left-Right divide — are seeking a better roadmap for conversations. A better way to reconcile the need for justice with the need for truth. A way to abandon the suffocating atmosphere of rigid platform ideologies and the pressure of the group, the tribe, the ideological narrative. People are seeking a space to think freely, and side not only with reason and evidence, but with human dignity.

One of the single biggest obstacles to this kind of clear thinking — and to sensible, humane conversation — is very arguably our attachment to rigid ideologies and dogmatic thinking. We, as reasoning individuals, as groups, as a society, and even as a species, can do better without it. We can embrace a new kind of politics — a kind that is organized principally around independent thinking, reason and compassion, and against all forms of bad ideas, groupthink and dogma. This radical idea is starting to make headway as one of the most profound underdog stories in modern politics, fighting for mere recognition amidst all the noise made by shouting partisans and ideological puritans. People are making reasonable noises and fighting to be heard. More than ever in recent times, millions of disillusioned Americans are listening, receptive and eager to hear alternatives to the standard ‘Left vs Right’ story we have been fed for so many decades. In short, we are starting to seek a better path — a new roadmap. We just don’t quite know what to call it yet.

Some time ago, at a social event on the NYC Waterfront, a friend of mine who teaches evolutionary psychology opened up about the pushback and visceral reactions he gets — quite regularly, it seemed — from some people on the Left, for discussing some of the basics of his field. When you tell people that science points to our human natures being more than just ‘blank slates’, some, for ideological reasons, double down in recoil. However, this apparently was not the only source of pushback for him — he also gets attacked by the Left for being a critic of Islam. He himself is an ex-Muslim, and hails from a Muslim country. Yet the reflexive reaction of many is to assume that honest criticism of the religious doctrine, or of problems non-Muslim minorities, atheists, gays and women in Islamic societies face, is somehow driven by a hidden bigotry, rather than any genuine argument. Even for people from these societies themselves. This same person is no stranger to being stereotyped, mischaracterized, or attacked by people on the Right, for ‘looking like a Muslim’ or rejecting traditional religious values and supporting a secular scientific worldview. He is too anti-Islam for much of the Left, and too Muslim-looking for much of the Right. The irony here cannot be overstated.

This man’s experience of feeling increasingly isolated by the tribalism and dogma of both groups is something shared by many of my friends, who come from quite a diverse range of countries and cultures. Many are caught between the dogmatism and political correctness of both ends, feeling like the ideological status quo has abandoned classical Enlightenment values of reason, science and humanism. This is not about lots of people whose views are ‘right in the center’; obviously, some lean far more to one side than another, and many have a patchwork of views across the divide that does not conform to a cut and paste checklist. In spite of this, they tend to share a common thread of disillusionment with the current atmosphere, and the predominant ideology platforms that seem to dominate discourse. In an atmosphere of toxicity that rewards closed thinking, people are seeking a better space for nuance.

Andrew Sullivan, a gay, English-born conservative who easily defies any simple political labeling, spoke with Sam Harris and David Frum on a Waking Up podcast episode. He drew a very agreeable reaction by a receptive crowd when he mentioned the considerable penalties people pay in today’s politics for changing their minds, and the visceral reactions many draw by even questioning rigid ideology platforms. Independent thinking is shunned, while conformity is socially and politically rewarded by one’s own ideological tribe. The very idea of being wrong, and recognizing the need to follow the evidence over one’s ideological or sectarian loyalties, is shunned by our popular discourse. Many of these people share a sentiment that I have heard from people like Iraqi-born science and human rights activist Faisal al-Mutar: In between the main narratives we are being sold, more and more feel ‘politically homeless’. Yet now, in the increasing spaces for nuance and freethinking we are starting to see across various forums, more of these people are finding a home.

New Centrism: An Introduction

In all the fog and battle smoke of our polarized quest for being right, millions of disaffected people across our political map are discovering that answers to human wellbeing are found not in political dogma or rigid ideology, but in the willingness to be wrong. In the very desire to change our minds by respecting the power of logic, reason and skepticism.

The path that many new centrists like myself are advocating involves taking on the same attitudes of humility and curiosity that make science such a beautifully powerful and consistently effective endeavor. If we can overcome our neurological barriers to skeptical thinking — our political egos, our natural resistance to being wrong, and our visceral reactions to being challenged on our beliefs and political platitudes, then we may actually start to see much of this smoke clear.

An analogy I explore in depth in The Reason Challenge (a nod to Brazilian Jujitsu and the Gracie Challenge of the early UFC days) perhaps captures the essence of how New Centrism is seeking to change our political landscape.

“The key difference between a fantasy-based system and a reality-based system is its willingness to change and adapt, and its ability to pit itself against the resistance of the real world. This is where science — as well as mixed martial arts and Jujitsu — excel, and where American politics and ideology fail. This contrast is as stark as it is revealing — revealing of why the former areas function so well, and the latter so poorly.”

The aim of being open to new centrism is not to forsake your principles or needlessly ditch your political identification — to the contrary, be who you are! The idea, rather, it is to put skepticism, science, reason, and evidence first, before your ideological tribe, party, team or political identity. Perhaps above all, be willing to change your mind. Strive, with diligence and intellectual honesty, to reject all forms of political dogma and tribalism, no matter whose ‘side’ or ‘team’ they arise on.

It is about a rejection of the team sport mentality that has so toxically hijacked not only our politics and our discourse, but also our very desire to be shown when we are wrong. A mindset that has poisoned our intellectual curiosity. My take on a New Center movement is to put skepticism, reason, compassion and human dignity before anything else, and help re-align how we envision our political axis. The ‘Left vs Right’ model is fundamentally not working for us.

What are some guiding principles?

There is no dogma, hierarchy or ideology platform in the New Center. It is guided by certain principles and ideas. For one, it rejects the idea of holding identity over truth, evidence, science, compassion or human dignity. It rejects the tribalism and identity-centered politics often seen on the far Left, and which occupies much of the Right, especially the Alt Right. While identity and struggle is certainly important in many contexts (such as some of the very real struggles and unjust hardships that many minorities still face), it should not be in conflict with truth-seeking and our precious gifts of reason and independent thinking.

In addition,

-We should value skepticism and science above dogma. Especially in politics.

-We should value an epistemology that seeks truth, being willing and even eager to change our mind.

-We should seek to always place the rights and dignity of people above group belonging or ideological narrative. While we can and should discuss things like privilege and inequality among groups, we cannot coldly reduce people to their identity in a group — people are far more than that. People have inner lives. People have struggles, and unique experiences.

-Group rights and the politics of groups do indeed matter, and cannot be ignored or dismissed — but they matter because individual human beings matter. This often gets lost in translation on both ends of our politically polarized spectrum.

-Most importantly, people have rights, people come first. Ideology is secondary.

I invite people — centrists and critics alike — to explore this, together. And to perhaps see if we can end up somewhere better off on the intellectual map.

A few main points about a New Center Movement, to help clear the air

Here are a few of the main areas of misunderstanding that I encounter from others, especially from the Left. It is my hope that this can clear up at least enough cross-talk to lead to real conversation

· It is important to understand that the emerging ‘Center movement’ is about rejecting extremism as a style of thinking, along with political dogma, tribalism and reflexive ideology platforms.

· It is not — contrary to a seemingly endless supply of repetitious memes and cliche strawman attacks by critics — about “always being in the middle”. It is not about reflexively taking a center position between any two ends of an issue. I explore that later in the article, and I strongly encourage people to read and consider this issue.

· It does not reject being ‘extreme’ about being on the right side of a moral argument or issue, in the sense that we should be passionate about fighting for truth and justice. Rather, it rejects extremism as defined by a tribal, closed and dogmatic way of thinking. This distinction is crucial.

· One can, in fact, have very progressive views (such as universal healthcare, single payer, more gun control, radical justice and police reform, much stronger safety nets, etc.) and still reject certain facets of Leftist dogmas — and the very idea of dogma within politics to begin with.

· Many in the New Center, including friends of mine, actually have some views that line up with much of the Left. There are Bernie supporters in the movement. There are moderate conservatives. There are Independents. It is not about any one political platform, or set of positions. It is about a style of thinking.

If there is a single sentence that encapsulates the New Center for critics on the Left, perhaps the following phrase will suffice:

It is the new non-druggie version of “freeing your mind”.

Sadly, it seems that relatively few understand what the term ‘New Center’ actually is, or represents. It is not about any one political platform, or set of positions. It is about a style of thinking. It’s about rejecting the hivemind — the herd mentality — that has defined so much of the modern Left and Right across today’s political landscape.

The term “The Center” — of which there are many forms, just as there are with “atheist” or “secularist” or “skeptic”, or “liberal” and “Leftist” for that matter — is a term that needs to be far better explained and defined in our conversations than it has been in the past. Many people — including a good number of my friends in the skeptic, science and human rights community — have done, in my opinion, a wonderful job of explaining it. However, this often gets drowned out by all the tribal noise, trolling and two-way vitriol that often accommodates the wider topic, especially across social media. We should all strive to create better discussion, not only for those leaving the echo chambers or dogmatic belief systems of a particular ‘political tribe’, but for critics of New Centrism. This invite to better understanding is how we evolve, grow, and thrive in our discourse.

New Centrism Decoded

There are so many language barriers and points of misunderstanding that a Universal Pocket Translator may be needed for conveying to the wider public what the idea of a ‘New Center’ is. I think an effort to go over its main principles would be best served by an explanation of some of its most misunderstood words and concepts. If I am to build a bridge with people reading this article, I need to make sure there is a chance to really think about and discuss this movement — and its set of ideas — without the confusion and cross-talk that often colors our discourse on just about anything having to do with “centrism”, “skepticism” or “freethinking”. These words are admittedly misused, badly referenced, and misappropriated for things unsuitable for a fair hearing on their true meaning.

Let’s start with science, and some of its related words — perhaps one of the concepts most in need of explanation. A problem often arises whenever people raise the terms ‘science’ and ‘skepticism’, or advocates for more ‘logic and reason. Many seem to get stuck on this crucial point, because we don’t always define it (or ask others to do so). It often becomes a stumbling block for misunderstanding, cross talk and confusion. Many tell me that talking about the need for ‘logic, reason and skepticism’, or for ‘science within our discourse’, is somehow redundant. We all ‘support science’, don’t we? Do we not all want to be ‘reasonable’? Everyone certainly claims to value these things, and almost no one will openly denigrate them. These terms are often branded by critics as being too redundant, too general and obvious to have any real meaning. “I find it pointless to emphasize ‘being reasonable’ and supporting ‘science’…because, it’s redundant; don’t we all support these things?”.

No, we don’t.

In fact, the majority of our political discourse and partisan tribalism is not only lacking in support of scientific thinking and skepticism, but often vigorously opposed to it. Therefore, defining this ahead of time is greatly important.

Here is a summary of what the term ‘science’ and scientific thinking should convey. As you read this, take a moment and imagine how this would apply in politics. Or should, but almost never does.

Science and scientific thinking involves

(1) A desire to be proven wrong;

(2) A willingness to seek truth over dogma;

(3) A willing exposure to a plurality of viewpoints;

(4) A willingness to embrace dissent and peer review;

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

The basic idea beneath the terms ‘science and skepticism’ cannot be shouted loudly enough, or from high enough hilltops. What does it mean to advocate for these things within politics, as a movement? What, specifically, does this involve?

Simply put, this involves following the evidence. It involves a willingness to change our mind. A desire to see where we could be wrong, and adapt to the facts, the evidence, and the logical side of argument. It is essentially the opposite of dogmatic or ideological thinking. This is a distinction we don’t make nearly enough, and this has to change dramatically within our politics.

Addressing common misconceptions: A starting point

I cannot ever recall how many times I’ve run across the same trip wires and battle lines over the (often fruitless) digital trench warfare of Facebook and Twitter.

“New Centrism is the language of bigots and Alt-Right sympathizers. It’s used to cover for bigots and racists”.

How often do we hear this as a sweeping dismissal of the New Center, and everything it stands for? I recall memorable and painful occasions of seeing people break down or fight back an onslaught of tears due to legitimate traumas or hardships they were reminded of by the language around them. There have been countless other times where simply being sensitive to the feelings and sensitivities of others around us is clearly the good and decent thing to do. Sadly, many people take a cruel and empathy-lacking approach, especially online, and use the term “fuck your feelings” as a blindly applied slogan of automatic fire rather than a selectively employed statement against political correctness in its excess. This is part of what exacerbates this divide: the dismissals by many of real human hardships that we as decent people should care about. This, in turn, often elicits a sweeping dismissal of ‘centrism’ as a whole by opponents on the Left.

I have seen this unfortunate dynamic more times than I can count. These sweeping dismissals by some on the Left seem to use a legitimate concern about toxic forms of centrism (or the misuse of what New Centrism actually stands for, or of bigots hiding behind its language) as an excuse to wholly dismiss its deeper ideas, its core values, even its intellectual and scientific principles. This is itself a serious point conversation failure that we have to address.

There is a critical distinction that we must make, right off the bat: our ideas and language can be misused, like most any set of ideas within the political and social domain. Terms like ‘freethinker’ have been used to provide cover to bigotry. The word ‘skeptic’ is misused — as well as misunderstood — at a tragic rate. The term ‘political correctness’ can be used to dismiss legitimate concerns about human dignity and suffering, while the pejorative use of the term ‘SJW’ has been taken to the extreme, to the point of the term losing almost any productive value in cooperative conversation. The ideas behind ‘centrism’ have been coopted in very unproductive ways. We must reclaim the term, and take it back from the echo chambers of tribal discourse and harmful misunderstanding.

Where Centrists and Leftists can bridge the divide

Let us unpack a few examples of how the common divide exists — in this case, between people on the Left and those who lean more towards the center — in very simple terms. Some criticism of Islam is not bigoted, but reflects honest efforts at important conversation, touching on things we cannot in good conscience simply ignore. Other criticisms of Islam by some are in fact driven by bigotry, or aimed to attack and slander Muslims as people. The difference matters, like night and day. This is a classic example of the wider gap we need to help show more and more people how to bridge through better communication. It is also a great starting point in showing how our broken communication can (and must) be bridged, as most reading this will likely agree on this basic distinction, as well as the importance of seeing the difference.

I recall a time a friend of mine from the Middle East was talking about the problems of theocracy and extremism that took hold during the elections following the Arab Spring protests in Tahrir Square in 2011. We were discussing my experiences in the Middle East and feelings about reform within Islam as well. Surprisingly, the topic changed course rather quickly: we had to contend with the problem of secular Westerners — specifically, Leftists — telling people like my friend that he was in fact bigoted for talking negatively about Islam and theocracy as he saw it in his own country. This is not an isolated phenomenon: many of my ex-Muslim friends, from a diverse range of cultures and countries, have told me and others about this problem. It has acted many times in our wider discourse to hurt the very conversations we need to have — long overdue conversations — about freedom of conscience and human rights across the Islamic world.

Many Left-leaning people who resist criticism or critical discussion of Islam or Islamic societies don’t seem to notice the difference between criticism of ideas and practices (such as the burkha, the persecution of homosexuals and ex-Muslims, or certain interpretations within Quranic and Hadithic jurisprudence), and bigoted attacks on Muslims as people. This difference should be obvious. Very often, however, in the smoke and fog of ideological tensions and conversational crossfire, it’s not obvious to those in the conversation itself. Why is this so? Many people see things from their own vantage point, not realizing that the other person may be bringing different concerns to the forefront of their mind, and seeing things from an entirely different vantage point. This is quite admittedly where more new centrists really need to reach out on this issue. We need to strive to separate the genuine and reasonable uses of these terms from the toxic ones. To separate the real freethinkers from the trolls and bigots in the eye of public discourse. We must operate by example, and always reflect and seek self-improvement — as individuals, and as freethinkers. This is more essential than ever, especially at a time when dogmatic thinking and tribalism are peaking, and skepticism and freethinking are under constant attack.

Here is a way to help visualize how this can work — let’s simplify and re-phrase the above:

Below is a simple 2x2 table to help convey this distinction, especially useful if you’re having an argument after your 3rd cocktail.

Here is another example — and a distinction that most in the Center and the Left should generally agree on, as a starting point.

(1) Don’t say hurtful things just to be a jerk. Hold bigots accountable. Help society move away from racism, misogyny and hate.

(2) Don’t stifle needed conversations. Don’t shun dissenting ideas in order to protect political dogmas. Don’t automatically assume the worst in someone’s motives for making an argument.

If critics are able to step back for even a moment and see these distinctions, it may open a gateway for far more fruitful discourse, perhaps for years to come.

Conclusion: A New Solidarity for More People across the Political Map

These ideas and principles above, to me and many others, comprise the heart and underlying spirit of The New Center. It is something that fellow freethinking centrists should voice in every public debate, defend across the internet, explain on every podcast and write about in the local and mainstream media. The value of these principles cannot be overstated, and the need for them in our discourse — across the ideological spectrum — is almost always ignored or understated.

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.

This model of human conflict is destined to break us if we don’t discover how to break away from it first. We must find a way to do this, if we are to combat increasing radicalization and the toxic effects of echo chambers. We need to give people, across the spectrum, a viable alternative to extremism and civil strife. 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. This movement already exists in its emerging stages — people across all walks of life are converging on a kind of ‘new center’, to try and put reason, science and human dignity at the forefront of the conversation.

A Post-Article Summary: Main points about a New Center Movement

The purpose of this table is to help clear the air on common areas of cross-talk, reduce mis-characterization, and start real conversation.