Marc Defant: The Contradiction At The Heart of Gender Debates

"Gender identity has become one of the most pressing–and polarizing–topics in today’s cultural landscape. Major medical associations have embraced a variety of gender-affirming treatments, ranging from counseling sessions to lifelong hormonal therapies and even surgeries. Their rationale is that these interventions help alleviate severe distress among people who experience a disconnect between the sex they were born with and the gender they identify as. In the same breath, however, many of these organizations and prominent voices also describe gender as largely a “social construct”–something molded by cultural norms rather than by biology.

That claim raises a fundamental paradox. If gender truly rests on external expectations, why do some advocates support irreversible medical procedures–especially in children–as a primary response to gender-related distress? On the flip side, if there is a strong biological basis for gender identity, then why do we invoke social factors so frequently? For parents, policy-makers, and health professionals trying to do right by patients, these questions create a tangle of uncertainty. Even more critically, children and teenagers lie at the center of an ethical storm that involves decisions about their bodies, their long-term health, and whether or not they should receive life-changing medical treatments before they’ve reached adulthood.

The Rise of Gender-Affirming Care 

Over the past decade, a growing number of adolescents have presented to clinics with gender dysphoria–a term describing psychological distress that arises when someone’s gender identity does not align with their biological sex. Many point to increased visibility on social media platforms, greater cultural acceptance, and shifting diagnostic criteria as drivers of this trend. More public conversations have lowered the stigma that once surrounded topics of gender identity, thereby encouraging more families to seek out professional help... 

Source:Marc Defant with an article for Skeptic Magazine.

From Skeptic Magazine

So what Marc Defant is talking about here is the difference between what people define themselves as when it comes to their gender and what people actually are when it comes to their DNA and their physical equipment... the sexual components that they were born with that separates males from females. 

Most people, I'm sure most Americans, (at least) define their gender based on what it is. They define their gender as male, because they were born male, or female because they were born female. Or this is how straight people tend to define their gender. But for the 5-10% of us who aren't straight, it's not as easy. 

I wouldn't say this person was a friend, because we were somewhat friendly growing up in the few years that we went to school together and it turns out he was sort of friendly with a guy I hanged out with growing up as well and they grew up in the same neighborhood. 

And then the first guy that I mentioned here (let's call him Joe) and I got reconnected after going a few years without seeing each other, on Facebook, when I first joined FB back in 2009. To make a long story shorter (and I'm not going to mention his name, because he doesn't even know that I'm writing this) he came out to me as gay shortly after we reconnected on Facebook back in 09. And we exchange phone numbers, email addresses and started talking about a lot of different things, discovered that we had a lot in common, other than our sexualities. 

Joe for whatever reasons, seemed very comfortable talking about his own sexuality and what it was like being gay, with me. Maybe he knew I'm not a homophobe, and he was familiar with my liberal politics and how much I support individual's freedom of choice. But I always got the idea from Joe that he didn't equate one's sexual preference with one's sexuality. That they were 2 different things, that there was nothing related between both a gay man and a feminine man. That just because because you are gay doesn't mean you are also feminine as a man. And that's true in the sense... I mean Joe is what you could call a "bear" or a "masc" as a gay man. I mean he's 6'0, 300 pounds, looks like he could've been an NFL nose tackle, a very butch, looking and sounding, but gay man. 

But and I'm sure pop culture and social media has something to do with this, but when most people think of gay men, they don't think of Hollywood action stars, or tough cops, or private detectives, military drill sergeants, pro football players, etc. They think of guys who work at hair salons, who are fashion designers... they think of the queens (if I can use that word) that they see on those Bravo "reality TV" shows. 

And because of this, as far as how at least some gay men are so sensitive about how their sexuality is portrayed, or parodying, especially if they're either still in the closet, or they are like Joe and are a "bear" and hate the idea that they themselves, or gay men like them, are automatically seen as queens, (again, if I can use that word) just because they're attracted to men, instead of women, you have this new, left-wing political correctness movement, that apparently ignores science, or never took in school, failed every year of it, (to put it bluntly) who say there aren't really any genders anymore. Or there's more than 2 genders. 

So all those people who've transitioned from male to female and vice-versa... that didn't actually happen, if you bothered to take the no gender movement seriously on this. And while you are doing that, you might as well take every "UFO spotter" seriously as well. 

As I mentioned before, I'm a Liberal because I believe in freedom of choice... just as long as it comes to personal responsibility as well. Not the only reason why I'm a Liberal, but my belief in free choice and free speech, are at the top of my list. If men who don't see themselves as men, they have the right to do that and could go transition to a female, or live as a queen. (Again, if I can use that word) 

But let's not try to convince intelligent, sane, sober, people (who are more unique in America as everyday passes) that men aren't men and women aren't women, or there's some new gender going on, or genders don't even exist. Unless you are looking to become the newest members of the UFO Spotters Society. 

You can follow me on Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Michael Shermer: Why I'm No Longer Woke

Source:Skeptic publisher & blogger Michael Shermer.

"Before the transmogrification of the word woke into the pejorative slur against far-left politics it represents today, I would have called myself woke—and even a social justice warrior—inasmuch as I believe in civil liberties, civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, animal rights, and the continued expansion of the moral sphere to include all sentient beings. As the author of a book-length defense of the principles behind these social justice movements for which previous generations were woke to—The Moral Arc1—I think I have earned the moniker, and yet because of how the word and concept has devolved, along with the ever-leftward shift into lunacy of woke social justice activists—I must distance myself from the label, ultimately because of its flawed theory of human nature as a blank slate... 

This metamorphosis of “woke” from awareness of societal inequalities of opportunities to insistence on equality of outcomes was elevated to national prominence during the 2024 Presidential election campaign when Kamala Harris released an animated video story of two alpinists ascending a mountain in which one of them had a head-start over the other:

Not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me. … So there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.

Underlying the political policy of equal outcomes is the blank slate model of human nature, which holds that since people are inherently equal any inequalities in education, health, wealth, income, housing, home ownership, employment, crime, imprisonment, and the like, can only be the result of societal, political, and economic discrimination, rather than inequalities in intelligence, creativity, drive and ambition, personal responsibility, history, and of course luck, good and bad. Once such discriminatory policies are eliminated, blank slaters believe, such outcome inequalities should disappear." 

From Michael Shermer

I guess my response to Michael Shermer article would be: "I guess it depends on what you mean by WOKE". 

Similar to there's positive freedom and then there's negative freedom: 

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to privacy, freedom of choice, meaning that people have personal autonomy over their own personal and economic affairs, those would be positive freedoms. 

But if murder, rape, defamation, fraud, perjury, all somehow became legal, (perhaps America was on a national sugar, caffeine, and marijuana high, perhaps all at the same time) those would be negative freedoms. Because it's no longer about having the freedom to create a good life for yourself based on your own decisions. But now we would also have the freedom to hurt innocent people with our own choices. 

And similar with individual freedom where there's both negative and positive freedoms, there's positive WOKE and there's negative WOKE. 

I would argue that the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was a WOKE movement. Even the African-American Black Nationalist and Black Power movements of the 1960s was a WOKE movement. But those were about recognizing the injustices that happened to African people since the start when they're kidnapped from Africa and sent to North America to serve the Anglo-Saxons as their slaves. 

And what these movements were about were addressing the injustices that had happened to the Africans since they were brought to North America, simple because of their race and trying to right them. These movements weren't about (with some exceptions) tearing down the American system and form of government with something else, that's (lets say) WOKE militants would see as more just in America. So I would argue, at least, that the civil rights movement, even the Black Power movements of the 1960s, were positive WOKE movements. 

And then I would argue that the affirmative action laws of the 1970s, were negative WOKE. Because those laws simply punished and denied access for millions of Americans, simply for already being successful, like European, including Spanish-Latinos, and Asian-Americans. And trying to transfer those opportunities over to African-Americans, even if they were already off to a good start in life and didn't need those AA opportunities. Especially at someone else's expense. 

The Kamala Harris quote or paraphrase talking about two people climbing a mountain, is important here: 

"This metamorphosis of “woke” from awareness of societal inequalities of opportunities to insistence on equality of outcomes was elevated to national prominence during the 2024 Presidential election campaign when Kamala Harris released an animated video story of two alpinists ascending a mountain in which one of them had a head-start over the other:

Not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me. … So there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place."

I think what the basic message here is that we're basically all born equal as human beings. Meaning none of us are better than anyone else, simply because of our race, ethnicity, or gender. But we don't all start off life equally. 

If life is a steep mountain, then very few of us are close to the top of the mountain when they are just starting off life as adults. Most of us are born in the middle of that mountain. And too many of us are born close the bottom of that mountain. 

And of course life is not about how you start off, but how you finish. But the point is how can we help people who start off their lives as adults who are struggling. Maybe they just start adulthood buried in college debt. Which is bad enough, but at least they have a college degree. But then you have other people who simply couldn't get into college either financially, or didn't have the grades. And now are stuck working minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives, unless they're given a real opportunity to improve themselves. 

Again positive WOKE versus negative woke: 

The positive work solution (which I think is what Vice President Harris was talking about here) is about empowering people who are struggling in life to free themselves so they can get a good job, make a good living for themselves and their families. 

The negative WOKE solution here would be something like to blame the American system and argue that: "It's our racist and materialistic system that are holding people of color and others down. And you won't fix this problem, until you tear down the American system and replace it with something that's just."

I'm with Michael Shermer on this in the sense I don't define myself as WOKE. I much rather find ways to solve problems, than to look at the political calculations of them and try to blame the other side for the problem itself. Which is basically what WOKE has become. The WOKE militants seem to be more interested in exploiting the problems of America and finding ways to blame people they disagree with, including Democrats, then to actually solve the problems that they claim to care about.  

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Anthony Kronman: 'The Assault on American Excellence'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Michael Shermer: interviewing Anthony Kronman about his book.

"The former dean of Yale Law School argues that the feverish egalitarianism gripping college campuses today is out of place at institutions whose job is to prepare citizens to live in a vibrant democracy. In his tenure at Yale, Anthony Kronman has watched students march across campus to protest the names of buildings and seen colleagues resign over emails about Halloween costumes. He is no stranger to recent confrontations at American universities. But where many see only the suppression of free speech, the babying of students, and the drive to bury the imperfect parts of our history, Kronman recognizes in these on-campus clashes a threat to our democracy. Shermer and Kronman discuss:

• free speech vs. hate speech
• how language affects how we think about other people
• diversity of characteristics (race, gender) vs. diversity of viewpoints
• the search for universal truths vs. understanding other’s perspectives
• affirmative action in the academy: from the University of California to Harvard
• taking down statues of Hitler and Stalin vs. taking down statues of Confederate Generals
• the problem of applying current moral values to the past, and
• how to reform the academy to refocus on excellence.

Anthony T. Kronman served as the dean of Yale Law School from 1994–2004, and has taught at the university for forty years. He is the author or coauthor of five books, including The Assault on American Excellence; Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life; and Confessions of a Born-Again Pagan.

This dialogue was recorded on August 12, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California."

From Skeptic

Source:Skeptic Magazine- "Science Salon and Science Archives"

I realize I'm not on expert of college having not even gong through a whole year of college and I'll be the first to admit that, but if college is for anything it's to prepare young adults for life in the real world.

College is not a gigantic spaceship to the Planet Paradise or Planet Utopia where there's no such thing as any bigotry, including racism and life is supposed to be swell ( to use a 1950s word ) or awesome, ( to use a Millennial word ) for everyone on the planet. But college is supposed to represent life and what life looks like on both the outside, as well as in college. All the good, the bad, the in between, awards for performing well, consequences for doing poorly, steep consequences for breaking the rules. People who think like you that you even like or love. As well as people who just don't think like you, but where you're so far apart what the person believes and says angers you and you even hate what they have to say and what they think.

College is not a free ride, ( even for the athletes and cheaters ) everything that people are supposed to gain there is supposed to be justified. You're supposed to earn your good grades and other experiences there and suffer the consequences when you don't do well, or even do poorly, or even break the rules. And people who go there regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, culture, politics, etc, thinking that they're entitled to never have to see or hear anything that they don't like or disagree with, don't belong in college. And perhaps would be better off to moving to Planet Utopia or Paradise where they never have to see or hear anything that they dislike.

Sort of like hardcore Libertarians who believe they should never have to pay any taxes, because they've never personally approved of the programs that their taxes pay for: well: if you don't want to pay taxes in America or anywhere else, go look for, find, and move to a place where there's no taxation. Or get elected to office and try to make the case for why there shouldn't be any taxation. But until the Detroit Lions win the Super Bowl, if not even longer  ( to use an NFL analogy ) you have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

For these so-called Che Guevara a man they don't even understand, (by the way and yet somehow they got into college ) loving so-called social justice warriors, who really are just illiberal leftists, ( Neo-Communists if you will ) who believe that anyone who isn't of European background and who has dark skin is entitled to never having to see or hear anything that they disapprove of, you should find another platform or place to express your fascist views other than college. Which is supposed to be an arena of ideas and liberal democracy where all views are heard and debated. Not some social laboratory where the scientists there are supposed to design the perfect people ( in their minds ) as far as how humans are supposed to look and think. And where everyone else need not apply.   

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Dr. Donald Hoffman: 'The Case Against Reality'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Talking about Donald Hoffman's "Case Against Reality." Reality and reason.

"In his new book, The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes, the U.C. Irvine cognitive scientist Dr. Donald Hoffman challenges the leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality. How can it be possible that the world we see is not objective reality? And how can our senses be useful if they are not communicating the truth? Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally. His evolutionary model contends that natural selection has favored perception that hides the truth and guides us toward useful action, shaping our senses to keep us alive and reproducing. We observe a speeding car and do not walk in front of it; we see mold growing on bread and do not eat it. These impressions, though, are not objective reality. Just like a file icon on a desktop screen is a useful symbol rather than a genuine representation of what a computer file looks like, the objects we see every day are merely icons, allowing us to navigate the world safely and with ease. The real-world implications for this discovery are huge, even dismantling the very notion that spacetime is objective reality. The Case Against Reality dares us to question everything we thought we knew about the world we see.

In this conversation, Hoffman and Shermer get deep into the weeds of:

• the nature of reality (ontology)
• how we know anything about reality (epistemology)
• the possibility that we’re living in a simulation
• the possibility that we’re just a brain in a vat
• the problem of other minds (that I’m the only sentient conscious being while everyone else is a zombie)
• the hard problem of consciousness
• what it means to ask “what’s it like to be a bat?”
• does the moon exist if there are no conscious sentient beings anywhere in the universe?
• is spacetime doomed?
• quantum physics and consciousness
• the microtubule theory of consciousness
• the global workspace theory of consciousness, and
• how Hoffman’s Interface Theory of Perception differs from Jordan Peterson’s Archetypal Theory of Truth (Shermer’s label for Peterson’s evolutionary theory of truth).

This dialogue was recorded on April 8, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California." 

From Skeptic Magazine

I'm not a scientist ( obviously. What was your first clue? ) so I'm not qualified to get into one's brain as far as why they do certain things, especially when they're obviously wrong and go against their own personal interest, as well as the interests of the people around them. But I'm an observer of people and as a man myself I am qualified to speak for myself as far as why people do certain things,  including things that go against their own personal interests and why people even feel the need to try to escape reality and reason when making certain decisions. 

I'm not an Atheist and I'm not a Randian ( term named after author Ayn Rand ) but as an Agnostic and I believe even as a Liberal I believe in reason and reality and don't believe in the faith for the most part. Perhaps the least romantic person you've ever met ( assuming you've never met Ayn Rand ) and I believe that you always should go with reason and reality, over how you want things and people to be. I also don't drink alcohol and or use any other narcotics, so I'm always forced to live in reality and see things they way they are, at least to my best ability, because I'm don't have that escape to take me away from the way things really are, for good and bad. I'm not going to have  a bad day and then hit a bar to get wasted to try to get that day or whatever happened that day out of my mind.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on anything and I'm the best at anything including personal decision-making. I'm just saying reality and reason are my approach to how I choose to look at the world and then try to make the best decisions that I can based on what I'm personally seeing and hearing in life. Based not on how I want people, things, or places to be, but how they are based on the best available facts and evidence.

But for too many Americans reality is not good enough for them to the point that they just don't try to change it for them, but start seeing and hearing things that simply aren't there to make themselves feel better. The example I gave about not going to the bar when I'm having a bad time to get wasted and escape from my negative reality, that's not what a lot of Americans do and perhaps is a reason for alcoholism that people need to get wasted and feel better when they're going through tough times and see alcohol as their personal escape, regardless of the negative consequences that come from abusing alcohol.

For intelligent, sober, responsible, sane people, reality is all we need to do well in life: "these are the facts on the ground ( for good and bad ) and this is what can be done about it. And this is how we can make the best of it." Is how these people look at the world to make the world the best that they can make it for themselves.

The alcoholic, the celebrity culture crazed person who might not even be popular or even well-known in their own neighborhood, let alone the rest of the country, for them reality is not good enough. So they see things that simply aren't there, think more of themselves than they deserve too, and perhaps especially the alcoholic make a lot of bad decisions that come with really bad consequences for them and people around them. Because the real-world is not good enough for them and have mentally escaped reality.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState.

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Andrew Seidel: 'Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Michael Shermer: interviewing author Andrew Seidel. 

"In this important new book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American, constitutional attorney and scholar at the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), Andrew L. Seidel, begins by explaining what apparently religious language is doing in the Declaration of Independence. Does this prove that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Are the Ten Commandments the basis for American law? What, exactly, was the role of religion in America’s founding? Christian nationalists assert that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and advocate an agenda based on this popular historical claim. But is this belief true? The Founding Myth answers the question once and for all. Seidel builds his case point by point, comparing the Ten Commandments to the Constitution and contrasting biblical doctrine with America’s founding philosophy, showing that the Bible contradicts the Declaration of Independence’s central tenets. Thoroughly researched, this persuasively argued and fascinating book proves that America was not built on the Bible and that Christian nationalism is, in fact, un-American.

Seidel and Shermer also discuss:

• the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade and he explains how this could happen in the next 3–5 years
• new laws being passed in many southern states enacting the teaching of Christianity and the bible in public schools
• the thousands of letters that the FFRF receives every year from both secularists and members of minority religions who feel and believe that their rights are being threatened and even violated by Christian nationalists
• the “religious exemption” for vaccinations and why it’s nonsense
• why Christianity was not responsible for the abolition of slavery
• how the South justified slavery in the Civil War
• how Christian nationalists cherry pick biblical passages to fit current secular moral trends
• the historical treatment of women in Christianity
• the historical treatment of homosexuals in Christianity, and
• why moral progress must come from the bottom up from cultural change as well as top down from changing laws.

This dialogue was recorded on June 19, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California." 

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Author Andrew Seidel 

From Skeptic Magazine

If you want me to answer the question that is the title of this piece, I'll answer it for you anyway: Christian-Nationalism is Un-American, because it's Un-Liberal-Democratic, if not Un-Democratic all together. And I'm not talking about the Democratic Party, but the philosophy of liberal democracy and pluralism. Liberal values that the United States was founded on that all Americans are Americans and therefor have the right to be Americans ( which is as themselves ) and don't have to live the lives and live the way that Christian-Nationalists ( Christian-Fundamentalists ) believe they should be and should live. So Christian-Nationalism, is Un-Liberal Democratic, Un-Democratic, and anti-pluralist and therefor Un-American.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have their own fringes: or what I would call the escaped mental patient wings of their party's. The Democrats, have this growing Socialist wing that self-describes themselves as Democratic Socialists or Progressives, even though a lot of what they argue is actually not just illiberal, but regressive with their belief that speech and media that they disapprove of should be outlawed, that personal choices and personal freedom that they disapprove of should be outlawed, that Americans should be forced to subsidize choices that they approve of, like abortion and other things.

The Republican Party, has a wing of escaped mental patients that is perhaps even more illiberal and regressive, who advertises themselves as Conservatives and in some cases Christian-Conservatives, even though a lot of what they support is actually anti-conservative. They value the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, debt and deficits don't matter to them, morality and character doesn't matter to them, just as long as the person with poor morality and character is doing what they politically approve of. ( Like Donald Trump, just to use as an example )

Just to further the argument for why Christian-Nationalism is Un-American: could you imagine is these so-called Bible thumpers ( who really sound like people who landed in New Mexico yesterday coming from the Planet Zoltar, or some place ) actually came to power and not just had the presidency, the Congress with super majorities in both the House and Senate, and had the military behind them, what the United States would then become as a result: if you think Saudi Arabia and Iran are bad places for women, gays, and minorities, put the Christian-Nationalists completely in charge of the United States.

Christian-Nationalists, would create their own national time machine where once again being gay is not just illegal, but punishable by death either through the criminal justice system, or through private citizens. Women, would become second-class citizens and essentially slaves to their men. Minorities, wouldn't have the same rights as Caucasians, ( especially Anglo-Saxon-Protestants ) America, this great and gigantic mecca for freedom and pluralism would become a national hell hole for anyone who isn't an Anglo-Saxon-Protestant male, especially who comes from a rural background. 

I believe anyone who actually is a Christian regardless of what division they're from should either be insulted that they get lumped into the same group as Christian-Nationalists, or be very amused by it and I'm sort of debating which emotion they should feel here. You could argue most if not everything that Christian-Nationalists support is anti-Christian, just like most if not what Islamists support is anti-Islam. But then you could also argue that a lot of what Christian-Nationalists support sounds so crazy as if they're escaped mental patients that only see and believe in things that crazy people could see and support. So I will let actual Christians who actually believe in The Ten Commandments, morality and character make that decision for themselves.  

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Cass R. Sunstein: On Freedom

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Cass R. Sunstein: talking to Michael Shermer 

"In addition to discussing his book Sunstein and Shermer talk about what it was like to work in the Obama administration, the issue of free will and determinism in the context of his theory of libertarian paternalism and choice architecture, opt-in vs. opt-out programs related to everything from menu options to organ donations, the electoral college, term limits for Supreme Court Justices, free speech on college campuses (and trigger warnings, safe spaces, and micro aggressions), Universal Basic Income, taxes, and terrorism.

About Professor Sunstein’s principle, Dr. Shermer wrote in his book The Mind of the Market:

"Libertarian paternalism makes a deeper assumption about our nature — that at our core we are moral beings with a deep and intuitive sense about what is right and wrong, and that most of the time most people in most circumstances choose to do the right thing. Thus, applying the principle of libertarian paternalism to the larger politico-economic system as a whole, I suggest that the default option should be to grant people the libertarian ideal of maximum freedom, while using the best science available to inform the policy that gives structure to the minimum number of restrictions on our freedoms. Let’s opt for more freedom and add back restrictions on freedom only where absolutely necessary and with great reluctance."

This dialogue was recorded on March 4, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California."

Source:Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Cass R. Sunstein: On Freedom

From Wikipedia

"Freedom, generally, is having an ability to act or change without constraint. A thing is "free" if it can change its state easily and is not constrained in its present state. In philosophy and religion, it is associated with having free will and being without undue or unjust constraints, or enslavement, and is an idea closely related to the concept of liberty. A person has the freedom to do things that will not, in theory or in practice, be prevented by other forces. Outside of the human realm, freedom generally does not have this political or psychological dimension. A rusty lock might be oiled so that the key has freedom to turn, undergrowth may be hacked away to give a newly planted sapling freedom to grow, or a mathematician may study an equation having many degrees of freedom. In mechanical engineering, "freedom" describes the number of independent motions that are allowed to a body or system, which is generally referred to as degrees of freedom." 

Depending on what ideological faction your talking about, freedom can mean different things to different people: for example, Socialists tend to define freedom as individuals not having to make complicated decisions for themselves and not having to deal with private for-profits that are trying to get people to spend the most money as possible, even if they don't need what they're getting, or it's not good for them. Which is why Socialists tend to advocate for more government over individual, private choice. 

Or Religious Conservatives and Nationalists, who believe freedom is the ability for people to make sound, moral decisions and live a moral life. Which is why they believe that activities and choices that violate their religious and cultural values should be outlawed. But as along as people are living a sound, moral life and make sound moral decisions, ( according to Religious Conservatives ) they should be able to do whatever they want to. 

My personal definition of freedom is the ability for individuals to make their own personal and economic decisions for themselves, just as long as they're not hurting innocent people with what they're doing. My liberal definition of freedom is different from a Libertarian's definition because I believe the best freedom is having the freedom to make the best decisions for themselves that they possibly can based on the best available evidence and facts that are available. Which is why education and information is the best fuel for any freedom that you're talking about. 

That education and information is for human beings what gas is for cars, what electricity is for computers. That without that fuel and energy people would still have the freedom to make their own decisions, but not have the freedom to make the best decisions for themselves, because they don't have the knowledge to make the right decisions for themselves. Without education and knowledge, people are like pilots trying to lands planes in the night blindfolded without any lights. 

Freedom  and anarchism are not the same things, because most people who believe in at least some level of personal freedom aren't Anarchists. And every developed country of the world not have has one form of a democratic government or another where the people have at least some high level of personal freedom. So when the Far-Right or Far-Left puts down people who believe in freedom as being Anarchists, again most people aren't Anarchists, but that's not what we're talking about here at all. Just the freedom for individuals to make their own personal and economic decisions, just as long as they're not hurting innocent people with what they're doing. Not the freedom to harm innocent people with what they're doing without any legal consequences for them. 

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer & Amy Alkon: 'Unfuckology: A Field Guide To Living With Guts & Confidence'

Source: Skeptic Magazine- Amy Alkon, talking to Skeptic Magazine 

Source:Skeptic Magazine

I'm with Michael Shermer on this starting out in this interview where he says he doesn't know why publishers bleep cuss words in titles of books and or bleep one letter in the title of the book. Excuse my language ( if you want to ) but if you're going to say fuck or shit or whatever it might be, you should just say fuck or shit and not be a chickenshit about it, because you're worried it might offend overly sensitive people or deeply religious and culturally conservative people. If you don't want to say fuck or shit, but communicate anger with people, use a proper substitute like damn or hell, but don't say blankin which doesn't mean anything. Either use curse words or not. You gotta say shit or fuck, go for the gold and take a stand and say shit or fuck instead of saying you don't give an f or s. Words have meaning so if you're going to use them make you sure you what you're saying before you use them.

Source: Amazon- Unfuckology from Amy Alkon 

Amy Alkon, gets into self-help in her book ( to say the least ) her whole book is about self-help, but does it in a different way and isn't nice about it. She says one of the ways people can improve themselves is to do things that make them uncomfortable in order to conquer your fears. I think the common human reaction is to avoid people and situations that intimidate you and make you uncomfortable. Very common in school which is why good teachers will notice when one of their students is afraid of something and doesn't want to do it and tries to stay away from doing those things or being with those people. And what they'll do instead is try to get their students to deal with those situations and parts of their schoolwork where they are lacking do they can be better at it at and overcome those fears.

The only way you can overcome fear is to no longer to be fearful of whatever you're afraid of. Should sound simple enough but if that isn't then maybe you should go look for your brain, perhaps rent one or get a new one, but the point is the way to conquer fear is to realize your fear first and then take it on. Why are you afraid to speak in public or meet new people, be in crowded places where the only people you know there are the people you're meeting at the restaurant or public place that you're at. Whatever the situation is that you're afraid of and take it on. Practice being in the situation that you're afraid of and try to develop a comfort level there. Like when you're meeting new people relax and perhaps imagine that the people you're meeting you've known a while. And talk to them like you would talk to your friends, would be one example of how you can overcome a fear of new people.

Fear is not an excuse, to paraphrase Amy Alkon here. That just because you're afraid of something or someone is not good enough reason to do what you're afraid of or be with people who intimidate you. Because the reason why you might fear doing certain things or being around certain people, is your problem and your fault. That you lack the self-confidence that self-confident intelligent people have in order to be strong and feel that you can handle any situation and communicate with anyone that you need to do to be successful at life and win the game of life. ( To paraphrase Newt Gingrich ) Instead of saying life sucks and you suck at life and therefore you're just going to be a loser, because losing is so easy and you're so experienced at it and being successful and accomplishing things requires educated risks and taking real chances.

There's that old praise the highway of life and that might sound corny to some people, but it's so true and at this point is at risk of becoming cliche because it's been around for a long time and it's so true. But the point is that life isn't easy or hard. Life is not a picnic or a life sentence at a work camp. It's somewhere in between where things and times in life can be great for people like a great vacation. And there times where life can be a real struggle like when you're out-of-work or get in trouble with the law, lose a close relative or friend. The way you be good at life his though intelligence and with that knowing that you're smart and you're always learning and using those skills to be successful at life.

To make the good times last and always be around, as well as get though the deep valleys in life as well. To paraphrase President Richard Nixon and his farewell speech and he retired from the presidency in 1974 for well-known reasons, "only if you've been in the deepest valley can you know what it's like to be on the highest mountain." Meaning in order be where you want to be in life and be successful at it, you'll go though some struggles that you have to work through which will only make you better by the way if you play them right and perhaps even look back at those times at positive experiences, because it made what you accomplished worth it and feel like you earned your success.

Skeptic Magazine: How Michael Shermer Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic

Source: Skeptic Magazine-

Source:Skeptic Magazine

If you want to make this about religion, I come from a German-American family in Maryland, but my father is a hardcore card-carrying Atheist, who if anything has gone Communist when it comes to religion and perhaps other issues and perhaps would like to see religion outlawed in America as Communists tend to. Growing up my mother I believe was an Atheist as well, but not as hardcore and partisan about it. She's now officially an Agnostic herself. Or that is what she tells me. Germans tend to be Lutheran or Catholic, so I guess our family is unique when it comes to religion.

Myself having heard about religion being so great for people and people need to church to live well and only God can save you and all this nonsense ( outside of my family ) but on TV and in and around school and from friends families that I grew up with, I got the other extreme version of what religion is supposed to be about. So I get this argument and philosophy on one side that only morons and mental patients are religious, even though I knew a lot of intelligent people growing up who were religious. And then on the other side I get that religion is the only way of life and not just that but only moral people are religious and I know that's not true just from my own family alone and from other people I knew growing up weren't religious at all but were good productive people.

So that is why I'm not just an Agnostic but a skeptic as well. Not because I can't make up my mind or I don't want to offend hipsters who hate religion and see it as uncool or so not awesome or whatever and are people who claim to be spiritual but not religious as if there's any difference between being religious and spiritual. Like there's any difference between being tired or fatigue or two lemons, or crooks and liars. You might need Superman's X-ray vision to see any difference whatsoever. Or the fundamentalists who again believe only moral people are religious especially if they're not just Christian but Evangelical or Muslim when it comes to the eastern world.

I'm an Agnostic simply because like any other intelligent person who is of sound mind and has the right to free express them self who has ever lived on Planet Earth, (whether they care to admit it or not ) I literally don't know if there is a God or not. Or if there are multiple God's or not. Show me a God and I'll not only believe you but I'll believe there is a God. And then I might start believing in Santa Clause as well. While you're at that you might as well show me a plan for the Cleveland Browns to win a Super Bowl. I'll give you the rest of that decade to figure that one out and most of the next decade. Hopefully the Browns will have won another game by then. But on the other hand for you Atheists out there especially the hardcores, show me that there is no God and I'll become an Atheist. I'm an Agnostic because I'm skeptical I simply don't know if there is a God or not. It's that simple. 

Skeptic Magazine: Rachel Bloom- How Rachel Bloom Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic

Source: Skeptic Magazine-

Source:The Daily Review

I believe anyone who is a realist and just doesn't call themselves a realist because they have some need to have people believed they're smarter and more advanced than they really are, but literally lives by the attitude or practice of accepting situations for what they are and not over or underplaying things, but seeing everything for what it is based on the best available information at the time, is not just going to be a skeptic but a natural skeptic. As well as one of the least romantic people you'll ever meet. Not a bad person, necessarily but not someone who doesn't have big dreams generally.

A skeptic is Probably not a fan of romantic comedies and certainly not romance novels and not someone you want to spend a day watching a holiday movie marathon of romantic comedies on The Hallmark Channel or some other network. Not someone who is going to say, "dreams really do come true." But instead will be the person that not just tells you what they know and what they're thinking and will kick your butt verbally when you need it because they'll tell you when you screwed up and perhaps tell you how you can fix the problem or problems. They'll tell you what you don't want to hear, because they know its medicine that you need to know to improve yourself.

According to Wikipedia- skepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. A skeptic will be the last person who is going to get screwed over by someone or something, because the skeptic doesn't automatically take everything that they hear from someone else at face value. "That person must be telling the truth because they would't hurt me or are not stupid." Really? That might be true but if that person just happens to tell the same thing to a skeptic, the skeptic won't automatically take whatever that person said at face value, especially if what that person said doesn't match up very well with reality. Doesn't match up with the best available facts and evidence on the ground.

I believe skeptics are people who have generally been screwed over by others in the past and simply hate that feeling to the point that they don't want that to happen to them again. So a wealthy man lets say who perhaps isn't the best looking man around who has a history of being involved with beautiful sexy women who later get a lot of money and other property from the man and perhaps even win judgements against the man, that guy especially if they're still a wealthy man even after dating all the gold diggers, will have hopefully have learned their lesson. Especially after already being played by 3-5 gold diggers in the past and will think long and hard about getting involved with another beautiful sexy woman in the future, especially a younger woman and make preparations in the future. Especially if that guy already has kids who are grown up.

Now, someone who doesn't have a history of being screwed over but has been very skeptical all along just from being on Planet Earth especially in America and knowing that there are a lot of Americans who want the truth to be better than it is, as well as having a habit for telling people what they want to know instead of whatever the truth is, that is the person that you want to get to know. Even if you do love romance and even romantic comedies and holiday movies, because you'll always know where that person is emotionally, what they're thinking because they'll tell you. And you'll end up learning a lot from that person. You also might come down with a case of depression,  because a lot of news in the world and what's going on can be tough to hear. But if you're a mentally healthy intelligent person, you'll not only get a lot from that person but be able to handle that information as well.

I'm not saying people should be negative or positive, optimistic or pessimistic. I'm saying they should be real and always live on Planet Earth. Unless they're an astronaut and then I guess there will be times when they leave the real world. But seriously, always know what's going on so you can make the best available decisions and adjustments that you possibly can. The three most valuable tools that any person can have in life are their health, time, and information. Without your health, you really can't do anything and you might not even be conscience anyway. Without time, well you can't do anything either because you're always out of time.

But without valuable credible information even if you're healthy and manage your time well, you're going to make a lot of mistake simply because you don't know what the hell your'e doing. A person that Rachel Bloom might call can asshole. Someone who is skeptical or is a skeptic, will simply make the best decisions they possibly can because they're always operating under the best information. Thats all.
Skeptic Magazine: Rachel Bloom- How Rachel Bloom Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic