Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- A Better Example

Scrutinize Premises)

Over the last two posts we discussed two social movements which made their gains under slogans that were untrue. For feminism, its “what a man can do, a woman can do as well,” was explicitly false, describing an equivalency that never has and never will exist between the sexes. For the LGB movement, its “love is love,” was implicitly false, as the subtext of that statement was that “any romantic or sexual union was good and equal to any other,” which we easily disproved yesterday.

The fact that each movement was founded on a lie means that either the changes being championed were either motivated by the wrong reasons or were fundamentally wrong no matter the motivation. Since each movement prevailed by getting society to accept its false premises, society was then set on a track that could only lead to harm the further it was pursued.

As mentioned at the start of this study, every movement is trying to convince society of some premise, which, if accepted, naturally leads to the changes that the movement desires. We should highly scrutinize any such premise, as if it is accepted its effects will go far beyond its initial campaign. We need premises that are good and true. Even if our cause is just, but the premise is faulty, then the long-term damage will be worse than any short-term positive outcome. And if our cause is not just, then the premise will always be faulty, no matter how we try to work it.

Hate and Love)

To finish this series, I wanted to present an example of another campaign slogan, one that has at its core a truer premise. When I think of Martin Luther King Jr.’s branch of the Civil Rights, one of the key phrases that defined that movement was, “hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” This was a premise which, if accepted, would lead his followers to treat their foes with kindness, would encourage onlookers to join the cause of brotherly love, and would make his foes question their motivations. Thus, it was a premise which, if accepted, would likely lead to the changes that the movement sought for.

But we dare not only consider its short-term effectiveness, we also have to consider the truth of the statement itself. It wouldn’t matter how noble King’s motivations were, or how good his short-term objectives were, if the banner by which he got there was twisted against reality.

As with the “love is love” slogan, let us consider the subtext of these words. The “hate” that Martin Luther King Jr. is referring to is that of one group of people seeking to harm another, and the “love” that he is referring to is one group of people showing kindness and grace to another. King is presenting love and hate as opposites, and just as only light can illuminate the darkness, and only filling can remedy emptiness, and only good can overcome evil, so, too, only love can drive out hate.

Notice that hate is both a state and an action. If there is a state of hate in the world, and we attempt to erase it through more acts of hate, we leave those acts behind to be the new state of hate. Hate used as a cure produces more of itself—and invites another cycle. It is trying to wipe away filth with mud; thus, no matter how much we scrape away, we keep adding more grime. Hate therefore requires a different active force to extinguish it, an anti-hate. Something that can dispel hate, without regenerating it. Anti-hate means the opposite of hate, and as mentioned before, the opposite of hate is love.

To me, the underlying logic of King’s slogan was sound, and therefore worthy of being adopted. Not only for the changes that it would cause in the Civil Rights, but because any further changes downstream would likely be sound and positive as well.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- Trojan Horses

What is Love?)

In the last post we examined the feminist movement, and the explicitly false statement, “what a man can do, a woman can do as well.” As I pointed out, anything built on a twisted foundation was sure to lead to twisted outcomes down the road.

Now, let’s consider another example, one that is more subtle. Around 20 years ago the LGB movement (as it was known then) entered the mainstream and claimed many victories in social and legal status. If there were a single, defining slogan of this campaign, it must have been that “love is love.”

This is an interesting statement because it is, on the surface, obviously true. It is a tautology. If love is equivalent to anything, it must be love. But, of course, the slogan means more than just that. In addition to its explicit meaning is an implicit one. The “love” at the start of the assertion stands for the sexual and romantic relationships that the LGB community engaged in, and the “love” at the end stands for either traditional, heterosexual marriage, or for the abstract concept of love, which is considered to be one of the greatest goods. Thus, “love is love” is standing in for, “my relationship is just the same as yours,” or “my sexual or romantic relationship is always good.”

And these more specific claims are obviously false. I believe that all of us can think of multiple sexual and romantic unions that we would label as bad and different from the ordinary. Polyamory, incest, AI sexbots, pedophilia, and bestiality all come immediately to mind.

A Slippery Slope)

Of course, back when the LGB movement was really gaining traction, there were many who foretold of even worse sexual perversion being championed later on. This is the argument that is classically known as “the slippery slope.” It is important to note, though, that this slippery slope was not simply an argument of “once you given them some advantage, they’ll press it for more and more,” it was, “the premise by which you justify this change also justifies more.” It was therefore not idle fearmongering, but a reasonable analysis of the movement’s central logic.

Maybe those in the LGB movement of 20 years ago only meant “love is love” to secure legal marriage for gay couples, but once Pandora’s Box was opened, once the rising generation was inculcated with the belief that anything under the umbrella of “love is love” goes, then that logic would necessarily lead to further transformation.

In my last post I mentioned the transgender movement as being downstream from feminism. It is also clearly downstream of the LGB movement, giving that acronym its now-familiar T. If there is no difference between men and women, and every kind of sexual identity is good, then transgenderism has to be a logical conclusion of those two premises. Even as transgenderism has seen a sharp decline in popularity over the last year, it remains to be seen if the faulty premises of feminism and the LGB movement will also decline. If not, then you can be sure that we have not yet seen the end of their unintended consequences.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- Campaign Slogans

What a Man Can Do)

Today we are looking at an example of a campaign that was built on a faulty premise that led to extreme results beyond its original intentions: feminism. This movement has had a few campaign slogans, but arguably the most prominent were the ones that begin with “What a man can do…”

Interestingly, there have been three variations of this slogan, each going further than the last. In the late 19th century it was, “What a man can do, a woman can try.” Then, at the start of the 20th century, under the suffrage movement, it became, “What a man can do, a woman can do as well.” Then, still later, it became, “What a man can do, a woman can do even better.”

Obviously, the last two versions of the slogan are explicitly untrue. In reality, we understand that biological differences make certain things possible for men and impossible for women and vice versa. Of course, the falseness of the statements was part of the design, making them provocative and controversial. One might say these statements were never meant to be taken literally, just as a rhetorical flourish.

Fair enough, but that raises the question, “what are the long-term effects of founding a movement on a faulty premise?” Even if the faulty premise is tongue-in-cheek, can it really portend good things down the road when that is your foundation? Perhaps it is effective at getting the changes that you want today, but what sort of changes are likely to follow later on?

From Twisted Beginnings)

A movement that accepts a lie at its origin is a movement with a twisted foundation. It is somewhat misaligned with reality at the very beginning, and it is sure to become even more misaligned as more and more structure is built on top of it. This is especially true when we realize that yesterday’s rhetoric becomes tomorrow’s dogma. In my experience, there are many that have taken the provocative, tongue-in-cheek message of “what a man can do, a woman can do as well,” and actually believe it literally. They take it as an undisputed fact that men and women are totally equal in all regards, and that leads to some shocking conclusions.

Most recently, this line of thinking was clearly a main contributor to the transgender movement, which fully embraced the idea that there was little or no difference between a man or a woman, and that one could become the definition of the other at will. I think it’s safe to say that such a notion was far from the mind of old-time suffragettes, but this is simply the long-term consequences of the seeds that they, themselves, planted.

This is an example of a campaign built upon an explicit lie, but what about a campaign built upon implicit lies? We’ll look at an example of that tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- The Trend

A Recipe for Success)

Whenever people decide to push a social, political, or spiritual movement, they justify the changes that they seek by making certain truth claims. They try to get the world to accept that their core premises are true, or better yet get people to realize that they already agree with those premises. And then, if the premises are true, then the logical response must be to make the proposed social changes.

Every movement, whether its premises are true or not, depends on convincing people of them. Thus, the successful movements are the ones that identify what core premises most immediately lead to their desired outcomes and communicate them in a concise, memorable, and convincing way. When a movement is successful, the premise that was taught then becomes part of the societal fabric. It is now an assumed truth, an axiom for ethical and correct behavior, and future generations will be raised to trust it implicitly.

Unintended Consequences)

But that’s where these movements can start to unravel. The original evangelists of the movement may have only wanted to effect one, specific change, but the rising generations will always take things to their full logical conclusion. They will look at the premise and say, “well if this is true, and it justifies this first step, then surely it justifies the second and the third as well.” And so, they push the matter further than the original evangelists ever intended. Indeed, it is not uncommon for earlier-wave members of a movement to express shock and dismay at what their cause has become in the hands of the later generations. Some of them even express regret for having started the movement at all.

This is a pattern that should give us all pause as we consider the changes that we would wish to see in the world and the methods by which we would achieve them. Every one of us ought to give special consideration to the premises that precede those changes, and what their full potential effect could be, and whether they are even true to begin with.

Tomorrow we’ll look at a specific example of one movement that has gone off the rails, the premise that was indoctrinated in society to make it a success, and why that premise logically led to the unintended consequences we see today.