Hello,
Happy Halloween!
Obligatory shilling. This month I wrote at THE ZONE about Candace Owens, smartphone addiction, EDI, hatred, Christian culture, prison justice, The White Lotus, JA Baker, getting engaged, gooners and doomers, a visit to Britain and the politics of trolling. Next month I’ll try and write half as many pieces but make them twice as memorable. Hell, even I can’t remember what I wrote about Candace Owens.
For The Critic, I wrote about the Manchester synagogue attack, relationships podcasts, the NHS, bad journalism, Tim Westwood and Piers Morgan’s new book.
For AmCon, I wrote about Tony Blair.
All Saint’s Day. Tomorrow, Poles will visit graveyards. We should all visit graveyards more. I enjoyed writing this piece last year:
Remembrance need not be a passive exercise, entirely focused on the past. We can look backwards at least partly to look forwards again — with a new direction, perhaps, or just with fresh determination.
The problem with wordcels. Speaking of death, I was irritated by this left-wing review of Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares’ new book advocating AI doomerism. The review goes on, and on, and on arguing that Yudkowsky is strange and bad without ever getting to whether he is right or wrong to think that AI will lead to human extinction. Hey, there’s nothing wrong with talking about other things as well. AI doomers are interesting from a sociological perspective, even if the reviewer is not terribly interesting on this theme. (Did you know that the idea of the apocalypse can give people meaning? Do sit down if that revelation was too much for you.) But it also seems important to face the question of whether they are right to think that AI entails doom. Quite possibly not. But are they?
Croaks from a small island. The great Fred Skulthorp assesses the death of Bill Bryson’s England:
Nearly every bestselling travelogue in the past decade has concerned itself with the rural, the pastoral, a cult of anodyne heritage that has turned the old broadcasting establishment into a sedative. Yet at the root of these obsessions is one of the country’s unspoken anxieties we still refuse to reckon with: will there always be an unchanging national character passed down through the generations and its national touchstones, with its recognisable set of quirks, idioms, eccentricities and jokes? Or is it fading into the future of a new country — that of the third England we have always quietly feared and never really wanted?
Relativism and realism. Chris Bayliss punctures universalist follies:
States, nations and markets are objectively superior to clans as the basis for society. We should insist that cousin marriage in order to perpetuate kinship networks is incompatible with our civilisation, and that those who wish to persist with it can never be English and must leave. The same is doubly true of the barbarian practice of female circumcision. But an insistence by Western liberals that everybody basically wants the same as we do ourselves is dishonest and cowardly, and will bring us no closer to understanding why such things go on.
American psychos. Ed West reports from a troubled America:
As we finished our burgers in a small park by the bay, we headed up the path to the road. In front of us, almost blocking our way, a man stood with his arms outstretched, staring at us intensely. As we walked past, avoiding eye contact, he muttered in a gravelly voice: ‘that’s why I had to kill him’.
Symbolism and sensibility. An all-timer of a hatchet job from Becca Rothfeld:
For her, becoming an independent seems to be less of a strategy than a style. “Independent” is a primer in the rhetorical tactics that have served Democrats so poorly of late, full of squishy and congratulatory therapy-speak. Jean-Pierre reports that she “protected [her] peace” by tuning out much of the 2024 Democratic convention — not a comforting admission from a public official tasked with listening to the citizenry. She praises Harris for instructing her to “take time to focus on you,” advice she has apparently been taking ever since.
Rothfeld also has tough words for Steven Pinker (who I admire, but who does occasionally write as if “scientism” is a compliment):
This is the kind of public intellectualism that makes the public hate intellectuals. Instead of showing what ideas have to teach us about life, Pinker holds a gun to life’s head and demands it conform to his thought experiments.
Staring at the sun. Scott Alexander considers the Fatima Sun Miracle and reports (at exhausting length) that it is actually quite hard to explain in materialist terms. I appreciate this. We shouldn’t reach for “it’s supernatural” as an easy answer when something is hard to explain, but sceptics often behave as if nothing is hard to explain. Scott writes:
I hope this post doesn’t inspire another round of “miracle believers TOTALLY DEVASTATED by IRREFUTABLE debunking”. I don’t think we have devastated the miracle believers. We have, at best, mildly irritated them. If we are lucky, we have posited a very tenuous, skeletal draft of a materialist explanation of Fatima that does not immediately collapse upon the slightest exposure to the data. It will be for the next century’s worth of scholars to flesh it out more fully.
What’s wrong with soc cons? Don Fox argues that social conservatism is not going to fly in Britain:
You would think that after the success of Vote Leave, any insurgent campaign trying to shift popular opinion would be searching desperately for this sort of argument which appeals to voters where they are rather than appealing to the sentiments of the campaigners themselves. Instead, the Christian Right consistently decides to make arguments that nobody will listen to based on premises nobody accepts.
I’ve argued similarly (while accepting that political viability and philosophical value are separate matters).
How Schopenhauer can change your miserable life. Andy Owen reflects on the great pessimist:
Schopenhauer believed we could achieve temporary peace through aesthetic contemplation, but not the mindless distraction of technology. Art should transport us out of our state of striving to a state of contemplation, allowing us temporary respite and a glimpse of the eternal that we can never really know.
Cosmic responsibility. Wessie du Toit reflects on parenthood:
Having a small infant around is a delightfully strange, enthralling, often hilarious experience. It’s hard work, yes. But the real difficulty, for me, is trying to understand what exactly I have embarked on. When I think that I have to raise this creature – this unspeakably precious creature – into a child, an adolescent, and ultimately an adult, I am baffled that the cosmos has entrusted me with such a responsibility. Never have I felt so conscious of my shortcomings, so unworthy of a privilege
Chai-na. James Lachrymose visits China:
In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams described the Total Perspective Vortex, an execution device which destroyed victims’ minds by giving them “just one momentary glimpse of the entire unimaginable infinity of creation, and somewhere in it a tiny little marker, a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, which says ‘You are here.’” Visiting China with open eyes has a similar effect. It is the greatest reality check we can inflict on ourselves.
Have a lovely month!
Ben
orable. Hell, even I can’t remember what I wrote about Candace Owens.
For The Critic, I wrote about the Manchester synagogue attack, relationships podcasts, the NHS, bad journalism, Tim Westwood and Piers Morgan’s new book.
For AmCon, I wrote about Tony Blair.
All Saint’s Day. Tomorrow, Poles will visit graveyards. We should all visit graveyards more. I enjoyed writing this piece last year:
Remembrance need not be a passive exercise, entirely focused on the past. We can look backwards at least partly to look forwards again — with a new direction, perhaps, or just with fresh determination.
The problem with wordcels. Speaking of death, I was irritated by this left-wing review of Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares’ new book advocating AI doomerism. The review goes on, and on, and on arguing that Yudkowsky is strange and bad without ever getting to whether he is right or wrong to think that AI will lead to human extinction. Hey, there’s nothing wrong with talking about other things as well. AI doomers are interesting from a sociological perspective, even if the reviewer is not terribly interesting on this theme. (Did you know that the idea of the apocalypse can give people meaning? Do sit down if that revelation was too much for you.) But it also seems important to face the question of whether they are right to think that AI entails doom. Quite possibly not. But are they?
Croaks from a small island. The great Fred Skulthorp assesses the death of Bill Bryson’s England:
Nearly every bestselling travelogue in the past decade has concerned itself with the rural, the pastoral, a cult of anodyne heritage that has turned the old broadcasting establishment into a sedative. Yet at the root of these obsessions is one of the country’s unspoken anxieties we still refuse to reckon with: will there always be an unchanging national character passed down through the generations and its national touchstones, with its recognisable set of quirks, idioms, eccentricities and jokes? Or is it fading into the future of a new country — that of the third England we have always quietly feared and never really wanted?
Relativism and realism. Chris Bayliss punctures universalist follies:
States, nations and markets are objectively superior to clans as the basis for society. We should insist that cousin marriage in order to perpetuate kinship networks is incompatible with our civilisation, and that those who wish to persist with it can never be English and must leave. The same is doubly true of the barbarian practice of female circumcision. But an insistence by Western liberals that everybody basically wants the same as we do ourselves is dishonest and cowardly, and will bring us no closer to understanding why such things go on.
American psychos. Ed West reports from a troubled America:
As we finished our burgers in a small park by the bay, we headed up the path to the road. In front of us, almost blocking our way, a man stood with his arms outstretched, staring at us intensely. As we walked past, avoiding eye contact, he muttered in a gravelly voice: ‘that’s why I had to kill him’.
Symbolism and sensibility. An all-timer of a hatchet job from Becca Rothfeld:
For her, becoming an independent seems to be less of a strategy than a style. “Independent” is a primer in the rhetorical tactics that have served Democrats so poorly of late, full of squishy and congratulatory therapy-speak. Jean-Pierre reports that she “protected [her] peace” by tuning out much of the 2024 Democratic convention — not a comforting admission from a public official tasked with listening to the citizenry. She praises Harris for instructing her to “take time to focus on you,” advice she has apparently been taking ever since.
Rothfeld also has tough words for Steven Pinker (who I admire, but who does occasionally write as if “scientism” is a compliment):
This is the kind of public intellectualism that makes the public hate intellectuals. Instead of showing what ideas have to teach us about life, Pinker holds a gun to life’s head and demands it conform to his thought experiments.
Staring at the sun. Scott Alexander considers the Fatima Sun Miracle and reports (at exhausting length) that it is actually quite hard to explain in materialist terms. I appreciate this. We shouldn’t reach for “it’s supernatural” as an easy answer when something is hard to explain, but sceptics often behave as if nothing is hard to explain. Scott writes:
I hope this post doesn’t inspire another round of “miracle believers TOTALLY DEVASTATED by IRREFUTABLE debunking”. I don’t think we have devastated the miracle believers. We have, at best, mildly irritated them. If we are lucky, we have posited a very tenuous, skeletal draft of a materialist explanation of Fatima that does not immediately collapse upon the slightest exposure to the data. It will be for the next century’s worth of scholars to flesh it out more fully.
What’s wrong with soc cons? Don Fox argues that social conservatism is not going to fly in Britain:
You would think that after the success of Vote Leave, any insurgent campaign trying to shift popular opinion would be searching desperately for this sort of argument which appeals to voters where they are rather than appealing to the sentiments of the campaigners themselves. Instead, the Christian Right consistently decides to make arguments that nobody will listen to based on premises nobody accepts.
I’ve argued similarly (while accepting that political viability and philosophical value are separate matters).
How Schopenhauer can change your miserable life. Andy Owen reflects on the great pessimist:
Schopenhauer believed we could achieve temporary peace through aesthetic contemplation, but not the mindless distraction of technology. Art should transport us out of our state of striving to a state of contemplation, allowing us temporary respite and a glimpse of the eternal that we can never really know.
Cosmic responsibility. Wessie du Toit reflects on parenthood:
Having a small infant around is a delightfully strange, enthralling, often hilarious experience. It’s hard work, yes. But the real difficulty, for me, is trying to understand what exactly I have embarked on. When I think that I have to raise this creature – this unspeakably precious creature – into a child, an adolescent, and ultimately an adult, I am baffled that the cosmos has entrusted me with such a responsibility. Never have I felt so conscious of my shortcomings, so unworthy of a privilege
Chai-na. James Lachrymose visits China:
In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams described the Total Perspective Vortex, an execution device which destroyed victims’ minds by giving them “just one momentary glimpse of the entire unimaginable infinity of creation, and somewhere in it a tiny little marker, a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, which says ‘You are here.’” Visiting China with open eyes has a similar effect. It is the greatest reality check we can inflict on ourselves.
Have a lovely month!
Ben