I’m not allergic to discussing these issues, but I find some people’s reliance on these terms reductive, bigoted, and a bit lazy, as if reaching for the proximate woke scapegoat (patriarchy = men bad; white fragility = white people bad). The terms feel dated and inadequate.
If we wanted to play the same game, we could point to Doyle as representative of the way liberal white women evangelize and fetishize the woke lexicon to the chagrin of everyone. A bit like Elena in Little Fires Everywhere, no? We would need a name for this :)
Point is, normalizing a term like “woke white women fragility” may have relevance in our culture, but it isn’t helpful. It swaps one of bigotry for another while putting the audience it describes on the defensive (and then gaslights them when they call you on it)
Anyways, @pronounced_ing’s latest book is out and I’m excited to check it out.
The common thread: Three men whose neurodivergence is part of their brilliance and also their greatest liability, leaving a trail of achievement and disaster in their wake. An under-discussed issue.
Many of us have friends and family like this: Brilliant sufferers who need behavioral guardrails in the worst way, surrounded by enablers. The only solution is loving decoupling and firm boundaries.
Celebrity + mental illness in a globalized info environment is... complicated.
Been thinking through a new approach to sustainability and climate issues driven by six principles.
Just playing around - let me know what you think...
Vision:
Resource abundance as global population surpasses 11b by 2100.
Ensure grandchildren's generation has access to clean air, water, food, energy.
Help developing nations pursue prosperity unconstrained by resource limitations.
Six principles for a different approach to sustainability:
· Abundance over scarcity mindset
· Results over virtue signaling
· Innovation over activism
· Capitalism & growth over socialism & stagnation
· Human life over abstract principles
· Technology over tree-planting
I agree about the rot on the Right. But here’s the thing: It presents a once-in-a-generation leadership opportunity to get the party back to a healthy place. This requires moving thoroughly & decisively post-trump and -trumpism.
As it stands, we are well down the path toward a one-party system. And maybe for good reason. But this isn’t healthy or sustainable either. The desired end state should be a healthy two-party system. It is to *disagree* constructively about how to serve American citizens.
The left’s approach of conflating genuine threats to democracy with partisan interests is very dangerous in itself. But this is harder to call out when the GOP is still in the throes of Trump & Trumpism.
Take a look at the study referenced in this @jawillick piece.
The problem with the sustainability movement is that it is based on a premise of scarcity instead of a dedication to abundance. It is driven by top-down policy instead of bottom-up innovation. Here's the result: wsj.com/articles/the-c…
A different approach would frame things around creating a resources-rich planet as we grow to 10 billion people. It would be much more technology-focused, and much more mindful of secondary effects. Fossil fuels are not the enemy, but a friend to help make the transition.
Today's intersection of energy geopolitics, climate/water issues, and carbon-neutral technology should open the door to new thinking on these topics, I would think. And hopefully engage more people's creativity and intellect.
Young guy asked me who to follow for life advice. My tip: Avoid guru worship. It will lead to disappointment. Instead, create an imaginary/parasocial board of advisors of 5 or so figures who bring different perspectives to the table. Swap them out as you evolve.
The phenomenon of “masculinity guru” is particularly fraught, yet there’s a hunger for masculine guidance in an era of rampant fatherlessness & feminized institutions. My advice: Identify *multiple* figures who speak to you. Seek perspectives not answers.
Jordan Peterson is an example of someone who’s has interesting perspectives, and may be worthy of your board of advisors, but probably isn’t someone to model yourself on. Putting a single guru like him on a pedestal will only set you up for disappointment.
“Surveillance capitalism” will become something much more sinister if we can’t appropriately regulate data.
This is a big issue for anyone wanting guardrails against authoritarianism.
The Left is correct that we need more proactive tech regulation, and the Right is correct to advocate for leading-edge innovation (esp when America faces an Innovator’s Dilemma). The question is how to square these objectives….