Is it fair to say that everyone is politically correct based on their ideas as to what is PC? Just like rejecting moral norm and going your own way is not antithesis of morality but to create your own version of morality?


No, I don’t believe that’s fair to say. I’m not saying it’s “unfair” – it might be unfair to you, because it will cause your meaning to miscarry. It’s not a fair rendering. It’s a pretty large distortion of how the term “politically correct” is used.

Political correctness is outward-facing and pertains to an established set of proposed norms: proposed as desirable for common and normal use. Someone who conspicuously adopts and uses the newest attitudes, euphemisms and buzzwords (for this or that group, behavior, condition or state of affairs) is being politically correct.

Most often, “political correctness” brings to mind the action of those who are correcting others, or otherwisepromoting the spread of new and approved terms and values, and the rejection of old terms and values.

So really, to refer to someone who speaks and acts without reference to current trends in what’s established-as-acceptable as “politically correct” would be deceptive, inaccurate and confusing. “Politically correct” – as it is used – means a participation in particular shared ideas for what’s acceptable. Even the term “political” should cue you what’s involved.

The moral comparison doesn’t hold. Morality can involve systems and tenets and paradigms held in common, but as you note, there’s no reason it has to. That consensus nature is not morality’s core or essence, merely one of its expressions. Morality is ultimately personal: we can choose what we choose to believe. We choose what and who we’ll obey, so we are responsible for our acts of obedience. Morality may rely on the counsel or guidance of others or of tradition, but it can equally be founded in our own conscience and judgment. Often it’s a potent mix of both.

Not so with “political.” “Political” necessarily entails coming together with others, working towards agreement and consensus on issues. Aligning in sides to advocate and decide.A correctness that is only one’s own, that relies on nothing others have shared and agreed in, is apolitical.

Someone who goes their own way could be apolitically correct, maybe.

Nobody would know what the hell that means. But trust me, if you use “politically correct” to mean that, nobody’s going to know what you mean, either. They’ll pretty much assume you mean what everybody else means by this generally-understood term in common use.


Not quite. The problem with that is, that the entire idea of declaring things or people to be “PC” or not, is a false narrative.

It is a good bit of progress for you to recognize that many people who point at others and declare them to be adherents to “political correctness,” are doing exactly the same thing themselves, but calling it something else.

That’s the kind of realization that it TRUE, but if one tries to stay with the “PC or not PC” picture of society, it won’t be USEFUL.

Similarly with the concept of morality, it is a step forward to recognize that there are a wide variety of “moralities” in the world, but if all you do with that recognition, is declare that therefore there is functionally NO “morality,” you’ve opted not to USE YOUR INSIGHT, and instead to become a passive victim of it.

Instead, I suggest you pursue your thinking further, for example, into learning WHY some people establish rule sets (which critics call political correctness by way of rejecting them), and as well, why those who oppose those rules, do oppose them.


We humans are complex beings in a very complex universe, about which we have been taught very little that is true in a cosmic sense!

There is Truth in the universe, but societal truths are usually false!

Our Egos, who think they ‘know it all’ tell us that we also ‘know it all’; but we don’t even know how little that we know. As a result, we usually follow our Egos and quit learning! After all, we already ‘know it all!’ How much is there to learn after that?

To think that you know enough to develop your own version of a morality is full proof that you have no idea that you are largely ignorant of how little that you know.

There are Cosmic Truths and the only morality that counts is based upon those Truths!

  • Healthy people constantly entertain new ideas to compare their world-view with reality. When they do not match they do the hard work of modifying their world-view with an absolute commitment to truth. Sick people avoid any ideas that conflict with their own so they never get their world-view challenged. Evil people are so afraid of having to change their world view that they attack anyone presenting an opposing view so they NEVER have to grow up. The current PC culture is evil people taking over the conversation in an attempt to get everyone outside reality with them.

How is silence associated with knowledge?


We humans have very busy minds and have not been well enough taught about ‘what’ comes into our minds, or ‘where’ it comes from; so that we can learn to ignore a vast majority that ‘appears’ in our minds!

We live in a field that our minds can, and often do, sample. Much of that field consists of the anguished thoughts of those who are experiencing unpleasant ‘things’ which can be thoughts, feelings, beliefs, actions of others, or inputs from the universe, etc. When we latch onto them, they become ours; but many should be ignored and are not at all useful to us! However, since few have been taught this, we mull most of them over and are changed by even that unwise action.

So, to truly understand what is going on, we have to learn how to quit ‘thinking’ about what comes into our minds, from others and, when we are quite enough we may hear the softer talk from the universe (and the source of this marvelous universe).

What we ‘get’ directly from the universe is useful knowledge and the universal source of wisdom as well. All humans can do this but we are inferentially taught not to do so; since many in society rely upon our staying ignorant; so they can more easily control us!

Both meditation and ‘contemplative prayer’ are useful; even necessary, for us to quiet our minds. This is a vast amount of useful advice on meditation on the web and we can sample what is there to find out what works for us. What works best will change as we grow!


We are sentient beings. We are sensitive to objects through 5 doorways. Seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling. Only one of these doorways is loud. If there is the precise understanding of one reality (through vipassana) then at that moment there is silence because sound is not the object.

For example. At the moment of smelling there is only smell, nothing else, no person, no outside world so smell is silent and dark when it is the object of insight. At that moment there is only smell.

  • There is only one type of knowledge associated with silence, and that is not the common knowledge of things in the world of concepts but that of knowing you are/exist. You cannot know your true nature while being controlled by a noisy mind.

What does it mean that a theory, to be valid, must be, among other things, also “falsifiable”?


This confuses a lot of people, because when you first think about it, saying that a theory has to be falsifiable implies it is only a good theory if falsified.

But all that it means is that the theory needs to specify what would make it false.

The problem with all theories is that very often we are making a prediction by it. And just because the prediction is true in some cases, does not make it true in other cases.

So even though we could define a theory like this

  • all the balls in this box are red

What we really should be doing is this

  • none of the balls in this box are not red

Note that both statements are equivalent in truth – meaning that they are saying the same thing logically.

But by stating it the second way, it is clear what the “test of truth” has to be. We have to test every single instance of “ball” for the quality “red”.

So now let’s go back to my explanation.

All that it means is that the theory needs to specify what would make it false.

So now let’s look at the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

  • A hypothesis is a STATEMENT that can be either true or false.
  • I hypothesize that this is a box of red balls. Note that this statement is a bit unclear about what would make it true or false.
  • A theory is a HYPOTHESIS that is falsifiable.
  • All the balls in this box are red – or none of the balls in this box are not red. Note that we do not have to make the statement a statement of falsifiability. All that is needed is that we can extract such a statement from it.

So now to recap, because the difference is significant.

  • A theory must be able to be expressed as a statement, or as a set of statements. That is clearly either true or false, but can’t be both.
  • In other words “the universe could be an onion” is not really that sort of statement. “The universe is an onion” is that sort of statement.
  • A hypothesis is also expressed this way, but with insufficient detail to be able to say whether it is true or false, even with more evidence.
  • A theory has to have enough detail to be able to say if it is true or false, with more evidence.

And we can see these distinctions when we consider something like “string theory”.

Note that many physicists, even if they support string theory, will agree that it is a hypothesis – so far as generally agreed what the evidence of it will be.

For example, one aspect of String Theory is that much of the “evidence” for it is also “evidence” of Standard Model.

And that is why I also now define for you a third concept – that of MODEL.

A model is the combination of theories, hypotheses, and evidence that compose an “explanation” of the evidence.

For example, the various models of man-made climate change. These often confuse the man-made climate change DENIER, because the evidence, the hypotheses, and the theories are constantly being all revised.

Suffice it to say that there are two problems with “String Theory”.

  • It is not really a theory. It is only referred to as such because once we have specific evidence of it – as the alternative explanation – that Standard Model can’t explain, we can start specifying the theory well enough to make it falsifiable.
  • And the reason we have a problem in specifying it that way is because the “dimensions” of the “strings” are too small to observe. It is an ELEGANT “theory” of sorts, but there is nothing we can say about it that is TESTABLE – just yet.
  • It is competing not just with another theory. It is competing with a MODEL, that has evidence for it, and that is being constantly revised and updated, as the component theories are being “falsified”.
  • The hypothesis is so far restricted to using the same evidence as the model. And the only “evidence” that it is the “better explanation” is that it is more elegant, which really just means that it is simpler to describe.

Having said that, since there is no “law” that says that a new MODEL can’t use the same evidence as an older MODEL, hopefully one day there will be more than just the hypotheses and evidence that is shared with the Standard Model, and we can start referring to the String Model.

But when we construct a theory, we need to describe it with enough detail to make it clear what we would need to do to falsify it.

And we can see this in Darwin’s Orgin of the Species book. The basic theory is easily described with two bullet points. Two statements.

  • All life is biologically evolved by a process of selection and natural variation (random mutation).
  • All species therefore evolved from earlier species, other than the very first species (plural).

And the theories (or should I now say MODELS) are still being revised all the time.

  • We can already see a slight revision to the first bullet point. We now have to include “genetic engineering” – where the DNA is “hacked” and not randomly mutated and then selected.
  • We already see evidence of the first bullet point, and Darwin knew this when he observed natural selection. The artificial selection of domesticated plants and animals.
  • We already see an overwhelming evidence of the second bullet point. As we can see by anyone who argues with me about that fact, when they demonstrate their ignorance of science.
  • And there is still some question as to the details. Is the first DNA “alive”? What was the first thing that we can say is “alive”? And was that the only “common ancestor”?

But in each one of these components of the model, we can say which one is a theory, which one is a “proved” theory (by being proved by compliance in all instances – for example, DNA is that sort of proof), and which one is still a hypothesis, even if reasonable.

Let me give you just two more examples of this.

  • I often say that DNA is the method of evolution, DNA is the record of evolution, and because of this DNA is the proof of evolution. We can PROVE the basic theory of Darwin just by demonstrating that what DNA does is evolution, and this would mean that every living thing evolves if it has DNA.
  • Which is why we define something as “alive” if it has DNA and can have descendants. Some evolutionary biologists may say that RNA only viruses are alive, but please remember Darwin did not know about viruses and did not define “life”.
  • But the informed speculation about the first life forms, referred to by the people that do not believe that such a thing is possible as “abiogenesis”, are better referred to as hypotheses.
  • Even though they can be quite specific in the details.
  • There is no way of “proving” it, because their DNA would have been so very simple there would be no detectable trace of it in our inherited DNA. We would not know what it is when we saw it, if we saw it.
  • There is no way of “proving” it because one strand of DNA and a few protein molecules do not fossilize at all. We would not know it was even there, if it time transported to the future and sat on a microscope slide.

But I could be wrong. Tell me how to falsify the hypothesis, even if only by time travel, and it becomes a theory.


The meaning of falsifiable is crucialto what is finally called a “theory”; in that once an idea (properly called a hypothesis) is presented, it must be presented so that it is possible to ‘prove that it wrong if it is wrong’. That presentation of some types of idea is very difficult to do! For others it is impossible!

Other Science types, often those whose older ‘theory’ would now be displaced/replaced if it passes the process, try to prove that the new hypothesis is wrong. If they can’tdo so, the hypothesis is moved up to what is now recognized as a new theory!

Being called a theory does notmean that it is ‘certainly correct’ but only that those with an interest in disproving it have not been able to do so! That is actually a very highstandard; if the process is properly done! Cheating sometimes happens!

Anyone who still believes that a theory is true, in any reasonable way, simply don’t understand what a ‘theory’ is; nor do they understand the demanding process that it had to go through and survive.

In my Books I present a few which suggest that it is better to say that Science tells such good stories that they can be relied upon to predict outcomes much better than an exhaustive series of tests ever could do.

Many with a poor education, or poor teachers/professors, disagree; because they don’t really know how Science ‘works’ at explaining ‘things and processes’ in the Energy/matter paradigm.

Many perfectly good and useful ideas in Philosophy cannot ever be written as acceptable hypotheses; so such ideas can never become ‘theories’!
They are still good and useful ideas though!


In order to ascertain whether a theory or hypothesis is valid or not, you must be able to test it. It is not enough to just test it to work, because you can easily set up a hypothesis which would always yield positive results no matter what test you throw it.

You must also be able to think up a scenario where, if a certain result comes up, your hypothesis or theory must be false. If there is no such scenario, then the hypothesis/theory is impossible to test.

Take, for instance, the interesting difference between the number of chromosomes of humans and the other primates. We know that chromosomes can fuse and split. So we can predict that either a chromosome pair split for each of the other primates, or that a chromosome pair fused once for humans. It is more likely that chromosomes fused once than split thrice.

Chromosomes also have these parts called centromeres where one chromosome of the pair link up to the other chromosome of the pair, and telomeres which protect the end of DNA.

That gives us something to test: in human chromosomes, there has to be an extra centromere (possibly inactive) in one chromosome, and a bunch of telomeres in the middle where the two predecessor chromosomes fused. If we can’t find that, then there’s something fishy about common ancestry with the other primates. And that also means that the theory of common descent is testable and thus falsifiable.

(And we find that in human chromosome 2, there are telomeres in the middle indicating a fuse at base pairs 114,455,823 to 114,455,838. There is an inactive centromere at base pairs 133,174,147 to 133,402,426 that corresponds to the centromere in chimpanzee chromosome 2B.)

A non-falsifiable theory would be “that is the way the Maker made it”, which was the how the defense responded in the Kitz miller v Dover Area School District trial.


Falsifiable = Testable.

A passport theorizes about who you are. When an immigration officer compares your face with the photo, they can assert whether that theory is true or false.

That small booklet that says “passport” theorizes that it’s a passport. When an immigration officer scans the book with their authenticator, they can assert whether that theory is true or false.

You just woke up and you’re theorizing you may be out of milk. You shake the jug and by the sound and weight can assert whether that theory is true or false.

Even after assertions are made, we can test again to confirm we are correct.

Now imagine if there was no test? You could never discover whether a theory is true or false. An untestable theory is falsifiable.

It’s important to note that here “theory” means “hypothesis”. Every mention of “theory” above can be replaced with “hypothesis”. This is not to be confused with “theory” as in “model” as used in quantum theory and string theory.

The next best thing to performing a test is to think up a test. These are thought experiments and are often enough to test for testability. If a test is not even imaginable, we call that hypothesis falsifiable, and proceed to classify it as inconsequential.

“Don’t take a decision unless there is disagreement”, what if people discourage you, won’t it make you indecisive when there is disagreement?

  1. Me? No. It won’t make me indecisive..

If I don’t see any compelling reason to choose one side over the other thatwill make me noncommittal. But it will because I suspend judgment pending compelling demonstration. It won’t be because I’m sitting there “oh, I can’t decide! Too many factors!” It’d be more like “Neither of you sides have jack nil reason within you why I should favor either one.”

I mean, if we’ve come to a fork and decision is forced, where action’s required and we have to do one thing or the other, I won’t have any trouble deciding. I can always lean to one side and assume it as a premise to act from. The action itself will be a test of the assumption’s validity. In such a case I decide only to test. To see what we get, acting from this premise.

Anyway, I’ve never noticed that anyone trying to discourage me came into it. Why would it? That person’s attitude towards me isn’t likely to weigh in the real decision.

In case it matters:

“Don’t take a decision unless there is disagreement”,

…all this means to me is that until something forces you to decide one way or the other, there’s no value in premature decision. As long as you don’t have to decide, you keep gathering Intel on the desirability of all options.

I don’t really see where discouragement comes into it. The only decision that should factor into is your decision to keep company with people who discourage you.

  • Your personal understanding about the Truth of your position should be coming from you growing ability to shut down your noisy mind and listen to the consciousness of the universe.

There are Cosmic Truths and you can access them after learning how to first quiet your noisy mind, but then go beyond the silence to access Consciousness itself.

To only go to the silence is failing to comprehend your place within the Universe and your ability to communicate it in a conscious fashion!

All of us unconsciously communicate with the Cosmic Mind to allow our own minds to make sense of the information streaming into us from both our five physical senses and our sixth senses (which many deny even exist).

Once you can access the consciousness of the universe, you no longer have to, or even can, be indecisive! Anything less is just an emanation from our Egos!

How should I act when I don’t agree with the majority of people because I think they don’t think deeply enough?


There are several possibilities for this, let’s first look at the possibilities when you are correct i.e. they are not thinking deeply about some topic why that might be:

  • They don’t have an interest in the topic. The fact is that none of us have the time or capacity to think deeply about every possible topic, we must prioritize where we focus our thoughts. For most topics it is not reasonable to expect people to care enough about it to dedicate a significant amount of thought to it.
  • They may not have sufficient background in the topic in order to form the necessary mental framework to think about the topic in any significant level of depth. This is not to say that they are not capable of deep thought, just that they are not well versed in a particular area, no one is an expert at everything, after all. If they tell you they don’t know much about a subject, you should be happy that they aren’t trying to pretend to understand something they don’t.
  • Perhaps you are over thinking things, perhaps it’s really a simple matter of preference, or worse you are forming mental connections that don’t really exist (i.e. it’s not that they aren’t thinking deeply enough it’s that you’re thinking too deeply).

Then it’s possible that they really are thinking deeply, yet you perception is that they are not. There are number of possible explanations for this as well, for example:

  • They do not wish to have a debate so they are feigning ignorance.
  • They may even agree with you, but for political reasons have chosen to pretend to hold the more popular opinion.
  • You mistakenly believe that if people think deeply about a topic they will come to the same conclusion, this is a fallacy.
  • Perhaps they have difficulty articulating their position, or they don’t want to spend the time necessary if their position is complex.
  • Perhaps they have done an excellent job articulating their position yet you still failed to understand them.
  • Perhaps you are simply making assumptions about them, and you really have no idea what they think. Have you even had a conversation with them about it, or do you assume you already ‘know’ what they are thinking and never bother to actually ask them.
  • Perhaps they didn’t realize you were interested.
  • Perhaps you are fooling yourself into believing that you are thinking deeply, if most people really do disagree with you, you have to at least entertain the possibility that it’s you, not them. Just because you put a lot of thought into something doesn’t mean that you really understand it, you could be making incorrect assumptions or there could be a flaw in your logic (of course the same is possible for other people but don’t be so quick to assume that it’s them).

Regardless of what the case may be, it’s important to keep an open mind. Be careful not to make assumptions or to over generalize. Be cognizant of the fact that disagreement is not an indicator of lack of thought, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they don’t have an equally well thought out reasoning to support their beliefs. Also realize that most topics lack an absolute truth, there’s just varying shades of gray; even if there is an absolute truth don’t be foolish enough to think you’re the only one who has figured it out.


Act with respect.

The more mature you become, the more you realize you know nothing at all.

Through life experiences, learning and general inquisition we expand, we realize that the reality we saw was in fact a small possibility in a universe of many.

As teenagers we think we know everything, we rebel and push boundaries in hopes of proving ourselves mature enough for the real world. As adults we laugh at that former self and realize that our parents were right. The older we become, the more people we meet etc layers of our naivety are shed one by one.

We are only as deep as we believe we are and in reality it’ll never be “deep” enough. We can only evolve and expand how we approach thought, but that is only possible when what we believed to be real is challenged.

Consider the example of two Englishmen from the 18th century (a time when duels were still fought).

Samuel Johnson, who single-handedly produced the first English dictionary, wrote poems and literary criticism that earned him a royal pension, presided over a literary club that included some of the most famous men of the age, and who was constantly followed around by a sycophantic friend who noted down his every word, was accustomed to telling anyone of whatever degree of wealth or social rank that they were ignoramuses and fools, if he disagreed with them.

He got away with that because so many influential men were in awe of him for the power of his mind and his command of the language. If you were in a room where he was and engaged in conversation, someone next to you might shush you with the admonition “Dr. Johnson is about to speak!” When he died, he was buried in Westminster Abbey, and those who knew him insisted that he was like no one else they had ever encountered.

You and I are not Johnson, no matter how smart we may be, and are not surrounded by an influential circle of admirers who will show, by their example, that it is their privilege to put up with any degree of verbal abuse from us if their thinking falls short of our exalted standards.

A man 15 years older than Johnson was Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield. Chesterfield had something of a career as a diplomat and pacified Ireland but, more importantly, he wrote a series of letters to his son that have defined politeness and social savoir faire for two centuries. (Johnson, with characteristic bluntness, described Chesterfield’s letters as teaching “the morals of a harlot and the manners of a dancing master.”) Chesterfield had this to say:

“But here let me, as an old stager upon the theatre of the world, suggest one consideration to you; which is, to extend your desire of praise a little beyond the strictly praiseworthy; or else you may be apt to discover too much contempt for at least three parts in five of the world, who will never forgive it you. In the mass of mankind, I fear, there is too great a majority of fools and, knaves; who, singly from their number, must to a certain degree be respected, though they are by no means respectable. And a man who will show every knave or fool that he thinks him such, will engage in a most ruinous war, and against numbers much superior to those that he and his allies can bring into the field. Abhor a knave, and pity a fool in your heart; but let neither of them, unnecessarily, see that you do so. Some complaisance and attention to fools is prudent, and not mean; as a silent abhorrence of individual knaves is often necessary and not criminal.”

Chesterfield had a point. I listened to a series of tapes some years ago and came away with a very useful phrase, “I can appreciate what you’re saying.” When you listen to someone explain that Obama is a secret Muslim or something equally nutty, you can say something like “I can’t really agree, but I can appreciate what you’re saying. His father was from another country, and his first two names are ‘Barack Hussein.’ Here is how I look at it…”

And then calmly make a sensible point or two, supported by something you’ve read, and leave it at that. Often, your calm manner will make more of an impression than if you cited every statistic out of the CIA Fact Book. And in the end, people will think what they think, no matter what better-informed people say.


If you make a show of going against the majority, flaunting your unconventional ideas and unorthodox ways, people will think that you only want attention or that you look down upon them. They will find a way to punish you for making them feel inferior. It is far safer to blend in and nurture the common touch. Share your originality only with tolerant friends and those who are sure to appreciate your uniqueness.

People who flaunt their infatuation with different ideas, different thoughts and different cultures are often looked at as expressing a disdain and contempt of the common ideas, thoughts and cultures. Otherwise they would act with more dignity and respect for those who do not share the same thoughts and ideas.

If you are the one with a different idea, it can become a dangerous idea or thought. If the majority don’t immediately like it, you risk becoming the black sheep. They keys are knowing when to present the dangerous ideas, how you present these dangerous ideas and thoughts and only doing it to the right people.

It is an old but powerful trick: You pretend to disagree with dangerous ideas, but in the course of your disagreement you give those ideas expression and exposure. You seem to conform to the prevailing opinion or thoughts, but those who know will understand the irony involved. This gives you protection.

It is inevitable in society that certain values, customs and traditions will fade away or become unacceptable. There will always be those who rebel against this. Wise people will realize that there is no point in making a display of your dangerous ideas if they are only going to bring back negative results upon themselves. Martyrdom serves little purpose, it’s better to live on in an oppressive world, even thrive in it. Meanwhile, find a way to express your ideas subtly for those who understand you. Laying your gold, unprotected, in front of a stranger will only bring you trouble.

“For a long time I have not said what I believed, nor do I ever believe what I say, and if indeed sometimes I do happen to tell the truth, I hide it among so many lies that it is hard to find”

-Niccolo Machiavelli

We all tell lies to hide our true feelings, for complete free expression is a social impossibility. Think about the cliché loaded questions like “Do these pants make my butt look big?” From an early age we learn to conceal our thoughts, telling the prickly and insecure what we know they want to hear, watching carefully to not offend them.

For most of us, this is natural. There are ideas and values that most people accept, and it is pointless to argue. We believe what we want to, but on the outside we wear a mask.

There are people, however, who see restraining like this as intolerable and an infringement on their freedom, and who have a need to prove the superiority of their values and beliefs. In the end, their arguments convince only a few and offend a great deal more. The reason arguments do not work is that most people hold their ideas and values without thinking about them. There is a strong emotional content in their beliefs: They really do not want to have to rework their habits of thinking (we’re creatures of habit), and when you challenge them, whether directly through your arguments or indirectly through your behavior, they become hostile.

Wise and clever people learn early on that they can display conventional behavior and mouth conventional ideas without having to believe in them. The power these people gain from blending in is that of being left alone to have the thoughts they want to have, and to express them to the people they want to express them to, without suffering isolation or ostracism. Once they have established themselves in a position of power, they can try to convince a wider circle of the correctness of their ideas – perhaps working indirectly, using strategies of insinuation and irony.

The herd shuns the black sheep, uncertain whether or not it belongs with them. So it straggles behind, or wanders away from the herd, where it is cornered by wolves and promptly devoured. Stay with the herd, there is safety in numbers. Keep your differences in your thoughts, not in your fleece.


This is a good question. Not trying to toot my own horn, but I’ve struggled with this. Just understand that 99% of the time you aren’t going to reach any of these people trying to argue rationally, or using an alternate outlook. Spare your effort for the ones who are worth it. Other suggestions I’ve heard is studying anthropology and communications as a way of understanding how to reach them.

What you have to understand is that it’s likely you grew up seeing the world quite differently from most of the population, and you can’t relate to how most see it. Accept that. You may have a better bead on what’s going on than most of them, but that doesn’t mean you can use a rational method to communicate what you see with most people.

Look at what people care most about, and get excited about: relationships/social connections, celebrities, musicians, sports figures, movies/stories that promote fantasy, etc. We can denigrate that and call it “stupid,” but you aren’t simply going to wipe it away. That reality is still going to impact on you. So find a way to either deal with the consequences of that for yourself, or a way to try to inspire those to aspire to something beyond the trivial, where that’s the only way they can relate right now. A hint is, if you choose the latter, you’re going to need to use some of those things I mentioned that people care most/get excited about. Take out the verbiage and deep thinking. Show some meaning, or what can be accomplished with deep thinking, and maybe some will become inspired to give it a try.

As an example, I’ve seen someone do what I’ve described, and it worked on me ( 🙂  though I can’t say how many others were inspired. All I can say for myself is that I was ready for some pathway into deeper thinking, and this offered that pathway. I was very thankful for the effort that was put into it.

What is wrong with Social Justice Warriors? And why do people having an issue with them?


Let me first start by saying that there is nothing wrong with social justice. We, as a society, should always strive to treat our fellow humans with compassion and fairness.

The term “social justice warrior” is a reference to somebody who does not genuinely care about social justice. What they really care about is painting themselves as being virtuous without really doing anything that involves sacrifice on their part. SJWs are all about whining and complaining about the problems of the world without actually doing anything about them. For SJWs, it’s a big contest to see who can whine the most to gain more status among the herd. They build up their credibility by finding things to complain about over social media, then post about them to see how many likes they can get. SJWs usually complain about things like racism, income inequality, homelessness, etc. But they don’t really DO anything to address those problems by putting their own money towards it, or donating their own time to solving the problem. SJWs are usually White people living in largely White, low-crime neighborhoods pretending to care about minorities in low-income neighborhoods. You’d think if they cared so much about the issues in those low-income, minority neighborhoods that they would actually move to those neighborhoods themselves. But no, they have no interest in living among low-income families in a high-crime area. At the very least, you think they would sacrifice some of their personal time by volunteering to do tutoring in those neighborhoods, but they don’t do that, either. They’d rather just complain about it on social media to show how virtuous and caring they are. They love to do things like attend marches, because this gives them the opportunity to take pictures of themselves marching with their picket sign to post on social media as a way of saying “Look at me! I’m showing that I am doing something!” After all, it costs nothing to attend a march, they can score points by posting photos, and they don’t have to make any further commitment, unlike volunteering to work in a soup kitchen every weekend.

In many ways, SJW culture is also a game of King of The Hill, as trying to shoot down others in their herd is a good way of propping themselves up in status, which is why they constantly eat their own. This is usually done by finding anything a member of the herd said or did that even slightly goes outside of the strict lines that they are expected to follow, then calling them out and getting the rest of the herd to dogpile on them.

For a SJW, no matter is too trivial to turn into something about “privilege”. Even the most positive things in our society can be turned into negatives in the mind of a SJW. Don’t believe me? I’ll give you a perfect example: Little Free Libraries.

In case anybody isn’t familiar with Little Free Libraries, it was all started by a man named Todd Bol. Todd was a man from Wisconsin whose mother was a teacher for many years, and she had a great love for reading. When she passed away, as a tribute to her, Todd built a little wooden structure in the shape of an old schoolhouse and filled it with books, then put a sign on it that said “Free Books”. This was the first Little Free Library. Todd got a lot of positive feedback from his neighbors, who also asked him to make ones for them as well, which he did. Before he knew it, the whole thing blew up and caught on like wildfire. Todd trademarked the Little Free Library and started his own non-profit organization under that name, and people can now buy their own online from his website, or just make their own, and if you want others to be able to find it, you can pay to register it on the Little Free Library website so that anybody can look it up on there to find one near them. Not only do Little Free Libraries help promote literacy, but one of the biggest impacts people have mentioned is that it helped them get to know their neighbors, as putting one up on their property got them to socialize more with the people that would stop and look through the books. In a world where in person interaction has decreased greatly, you would think that such a thing would be a nice change.

Now, you would think that with all of these positives, you’d say to yourself “How could anybody take something like that and turn it into a negative?!” Oh, but you underestimate the ability of the SJW herd to twist a positive thing into a negative.

According to SJWs, Little Free Libraries are a sign of privilege, as most of them exist in neighborhoods where people can afford to buy and register them. Of course, the average person would then say to themselves “Well, if that’s the case, then did the people complaining about this start pooling their money together to put more Little Free Libraries in poorer communities?” Of course not! Because that’s not what SJWs do! They just whine about the problem to portray themselves as actually caring about the issue. God forbid they should actually sacrifice their own money and free time to make things better!

BTW, while the SJWs moan and complain from their computers, Todd Bol has been making efforts to put thousands of Little Free Libraries all over Africa by teaming with another non-profit, Books For Africa, as well as making efforts to get more Little Free Libraries in low-income neighborhoods in the United States. You can read more about that here: Out of the Midwest: Books for Africa and Little Free Library Promote Literacy


Nothing is wrong with the social justice warrior thing but when different agendas come into play along with this then it becomes destructive to society and the people involved in these “social justice “ don’t even realize this as they get so consumed in their agendas .

At last these “warriors “are just pawns and played by big people for channeling their motives. Some take things like equality to such an extent that it poses as a threat to other gender (clearly I am talking about third wave feminism). Who doesn’t want these things to go away? If you come up with genuine innovative methods and steps everyone will welcome it with open arms and if they don’t THEN you have all the rights in the world to penalize them, even public will support you …. Isn’t this way better than shouting at each other without any conclusion? You can bring your steps in front of people as prospective for law and then everyone has to abide by them. But everything needs to discuss and everyone should be listened with respect, this way you can find even your flaws to improve.

But there are selfish propaganda all around and people are making business out of them. Be in media, politics, NGO this mindset is now very deep rooted. Just imagine this, you and me are good friends and good people in general and we respect everyone BUT due to these few people and their agendas, their fights, flashy news on social media, Provocative language and polarizing speech, we, good friends, who had nothing to do with them and their agenda, who were good in our life and already living like they “want to make the world”, we became enemies! We’ll start having debates and heated arguments, we’ll search and see on the internet only what we want to see thereafter.

And guess what, THEY GOT SUCCESSFUL IN WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO. Now they have more pawns to fight for them on posting just one video and more people to come on roads just for the sake of their agendas, these guys play such pawns buddy. None of them will ever meet you but you’ll remain loyal than a dog for them in your heart. Nowadays good and bad both talk humbly, “nicely”, they appear good people, it gets difficult to judge. But be in control of what you’re going to do, that’s all in our hands.

We need to look at a bigger picture, what do we want to make out of it? A peaceful and happy world equal for everyone? Then live it by example! It won’t come by creating groups and fighting, no one listens in debates.

Debates don’t have conclusions, that’s why have discussions, not debate.


Social justice warriors are often insincere, narrow-minded, but good intentioned activists without clear or working solution to an issue. The main problem here is not their insincerity, the method, the short reactive thinking process, nor their demographic makeup, but the result of their actions.

People in the social media gave them excessive attention, because social justice movements are often designed to guilt-trip bystanders for not supporting. It is high-pressure sales tactics that you all hate. Except, this time, they are not selling Multi-Level Marketing nonsense, they promise “something better”.

You know what it is like?

First comparison:

Charity muggers can take the enjoyment out of giving

-The Guardian

At least we know that “Chiggers” are paid. But we also know that they serve charitable purposes. So what’s the difference here?

SJWs often feign sincerity by being independent from monetary interests, which is all the more suspicious.

I briefly fundraised for several charity organization, from local ones, to global ones like WWF or UNICEF. You may or may not agree with their methods, the conduct of their caretakers, the lavish lifestyle of some of their expat “volunteers”, but we also see them work. We groaned that it takes millions of dollar to vaccinate a thousand kids in a remote village, but they are vaccinated nevertheless

SJWs barely achieve anything. I normally disagree with the anti-tech cartoon, but this is in line what SJWs are doing:

Giving likes to be people in need funny sad reality cartoon – PMSLweb

Your social media posts, cyber-bullying activities on “the deserving”, the speeches, all made difference. Yeah, right. There are even SJW movements that asked for donation. A Korean American gathered Asians, ask for our sympathy and donation, and so she can continue to give speech about racism to college campuses across the US.

I’d rather donate wasteful millions of dollars to UNICEF, knowing that there will be vaccinated, educated kids and water pumps build, than giving a cent to political cause peddlers.

While there are people who work hard on the real solution of the problem. SJWs rarely have any concrete solution or achievements.

Let me get back to my favorite past time: bashing USA.

US SJWs are the worst. They are as systemic and politically dependent as their military industry complex. They came to Vietnam in droves, occupy every 55 km from any direction with firebases, and just sit there doing nothing besides maintaining presence and occasionally picketing a 4-man patrol behind enemy lines to lure out VCs or NVAs. So, are you going to finish off communist Vietnam or not? Nope, we fear all-out war with China or USSR – well don’t do that in the first place!

Then there is the hypocrisy

The Nazis were once proud banner holder of the peak of white race. Such haughty attitude ought to be reflected in their armed forces, they should have the highest morale, discipline, tactics, aggressiveness, and maintenance. But along the way, they accepted literal sub-human scums among themselves, the Mengele’s, the Dirlewangers, the Freisler, the worse of the “proud Aryans”. They bragged so much about their racial purity and superiority only to be proven otherwise.

It applies to SJW movements. There is no vetting process here to join the activities, so unlike the SS. But there is strong cancel culture attitude among them as deterrence for people with impure records trying to preach sanity. So there is that. Hypocrisy ran rampant, what absolutism, internationality, everything is muddled to achieve basically nothing.

At least the evil Nazi had their model society. SJWs practically has none that they can even agree among themselves.

Amber Heard, a week after she recorded that confession audio with Johnny Depp, attended 2020’s Women’s March. While it doesn’t change the righteousness of the cause, it does raise a question about the people behind the movement. Can a hypocrite represents and be given a platform over actual victims?

Ricky Gervais said this in January 2020 Golden Globe ceremony:

So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.

So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God and fuck off, OK? It’s already three hours long. Right, let’s do the first award.

Time for another America-bashing, especially their celebrity-worshipping culture.

I have a problem with Hollywood-started me-too movements. Everybody there are well aware about Weinstein and the pervasive casting couch culture. But they all stayed silent and accepted the money. And what has been happening through those years:

But you all look lovely all dolled up. You came here in your limos. I came here in a limo tonight and the license plate was made by Felicity Huffman. No, shush. It’s her daughter I feel sorry for. OK? That must be the most embarrassing thing that’s ever happened to her. And her dad was in Wild Hogs.

I am glad he said it.

There is nothing smart, strong, scheming, or powerful in propping up a sex offender before “taking him down” from the inside. You are not an undercover agent, but an unwilling profiteering victim, a complicit participant that helps spread his influence in the industry. Any ambitious aspiring next generation of actresses have to go through the ordeal, thanks to those not saying “no.”

Why? There are actresses who said no, and were ousted because of it. They suffered. Their dreams crushed. But they did the right thing.

So for those other who came to the awards using limousine services, thanking Weinstein for the movie he produced, you should self-reflect more.You can’t complain about being “jailed” when you are quarantined in a multi-million dollar mansion.

I can’t say that I am completely 100% innocent when my government doesn’t make the right choice for certain people. Therefore, I should know my place before I say big things in front of other people, unlike Amber Heard for instance. People cynically call them “actress” for a reason, sometimes they act. But it would be unhelpful for an actual victimized actress, this is why they should shut up and not overcrowd the emergency voices.

Then there is this “equity, not equality”

I am speaking as a non-white third world, there is no way I would like to be placed in a “handicap” on a platform that gives me “equal footing” with the whites. If any, the western education I received should taught me that I should be proud with I have achieved, especially when I wasn’t cheating.

Equity applies like this:

When we set up the basketball rim, it stands at 10 feet. Everybody back then has to do 5 lay ups as part of national physical education curriculum-mandated exam. Sink all 5s, you got perfect 10. Each misses will deduct your score by 1. But this only applies for male students. Female got automatic 10s if they score at 3 out of 5 tries. The lowest they can score is 7, while male students can go as low as 5.

I don’t mind at all. My fellow high school basketball team were even taunted to perform the lay ups or dunks with style to “even out” the academic playing fields. Initially, we negotiated for an automatic 8. We can’t just shot under the ring or football carry the ball all the way like most other students, we need to dribble the ball in, avoid traveling or double dribble then flick the ball with either one-handed push or finger roll or dunk it in if you jumped high enough.

Other physical education exams are also structured similarly, a 100 meter sprint is 15 seconds for male, and 20 seconds for female. The football exam, the volleyball exam, the athletic exam, the gymnastics.

Equality should be what we are aiming for, and “fair” distribution of equity is how we shall achieve it. So, what is the catch here?

There is no such handicap application for other classroom subjects. There are no considerations for let’s say, if you are “mathematically gifted”, and therefore must be given a more challenging set of exam questions.

Social Justice Narrative has turned this effort to achieve equality into victimhood competition.

Some people do deserve it more than the others. But when it comes to equity, everyone blurs the picture and tries to paint themselves as the short guy. It is the system we are exploiting, not the outcome that we are aiming for. I mean, does a person like Donald Trump deserve all the wealth and popularity that society has given him? Not every person has the right character to be trusted with certain amount of power or wealth. So, equity seems like a nice idea, until everyone lies.

There is no incentive for working hard when whining is accepted as a form of effort to achieve your goal.

Paul Feig just blame it on controversy for his Ghostbusters (2016) remake, Elizabeth Banks begged “men” to see Charlie’s Angels (2019), and blame them for their sexism of not wanting to see “strong female character” made into a trope. People can’t no longer honestly voice their opinion without being second guessed for their non-SJW compliant point of views.

So what, do you think girls can’t score 10, just because they are females?

Well, why don’t you make a good female movie in the first place?

You may not have to score 5 layups to get 10, like I do, but creativity is a field where the playing field is almost level regardless of your gender or identity. There is no systematic belief about the inferiority of strong female character when Patty Jenkins blows Zack Snyder and David Ayer away for her DC movie. You don’t need extra testosterone to grow more muscle in order to write a good story.

Cleverly construed sociological excuse about “systemic preconditioning” with a lot of exceptions is not a good enough explanation. You are bound to repeat the same mistake. Your failure to cash-in on the SJW popularity and act, based on your marketing team’s observation of the significant activities of their cyber bullying, should be a reminding lessons for businesses trying to pander.


Martin Lloyd pretty much wrote what my answer would be, but his explanation is good enough for me. I have little problem with the core concepts behind feminism and social justice. Not all SJWs are the same, and neither are all feminists. I’m a men’s rights activist (a real one) and there are feminists I have more respect for than many men’s rights activists and antifeminists.

My most concerning issues are the people, irrespective of their labels, who use rhetorical arguments. This is concerning to me because conclusions are already made in advance no matter what the circumstances are. There has been a huge empathy gap in most cultures regarding the issues boys and men face, hence I see little ‘social justice’ where the latter is concerned.

I have always felt that economic class and hyper masculinity are the real culprits behind most of the world’s woes and I think there’s overwhelming evidence for this claim of mine. You know, there was a time when I used to think that despite our differences, most of us generally want the same basic things such a peace, tranquility, stability, etc. Today I now think that was a load of crock. I lost my motivation to write about these issues in detail, or at all, anymore.

We are now living in the information age, and instead of that bringing enlightenment, what we now have is another era — the age of gas lighting and misinformation. And I’m still trying to figure out how the increasing popularity of idealist-based New Thought and its positive-thinking mantra among the progressive crowd is in any way compatible with the concept of social justice. The former tells you to be positive and accept things as they are, while the latter is supposed to fight against injustice and support change. People such as Oprah Winfrey and Marianne Williamson really boggle me.

Is it better to be the most selfish, uncaring person than to be the caring and selfless?

Let us look into it.


It all depends on what you are caring about. If we are talking about caring about people, then it is obviously better to care and be selfless in the sense of not hurting others for your own interests and of not neglecting the interests of yourself. If we are talking about caring about the Gospel, then selfishness in salvation requires to care about the salvation of others.

If you are asking about whether it is worse to advance your good at the harm of others, which isn’t really very good for you in the long-term, or to advance the good of others without improving yourself, which is also not good for you in the long-term, then I would answer the latter. Because if others recognize your contributions, however small owing to your lack of self-development, then they will sometimes return to contribute back to you.

But in the end, in must be acknowledged that the best strategy focuses on balancing self-development with the development of friends and the conversion of enemies into friends; which strategy is in a way both selfish and selfless, and also neither of the two, depending on how you interpret them.


Never act contrary to your own best interests.

This does not mean that you should be insensitively selfish and uncaring of other people. Just learn how to tactfully withdraw from the situation when you get the feeling that someone is trying to take advantage of your kindness.

There is nothing wrong with being selfish as long as it doesn’t morph into piggishness and an inability to share things with other people.

Selflessness works if you’re getting paid to do something selfless, or if you’re getting some satisfaction out of it. Giving all you money and food away to charities would be completely selfless, but would not be in your best self-interest, since you would suffer homelessness and starvation.

You’ve got to use your head here.


Neither extreme is a good place to go. You have to find the balance in you between the two. You can be caring and selfless whilst valuing yourself enough not to let people step on you. You can be caring and selfless whilst still seeing worth in yourself and valuing your own person enough not to let anyone take advantage of you. No need to be cold or push away your feelings, this is an idea that will lead you nowhere. If anything, it will lead you to more suffering. Find this stability in yourself between your own needs and the people you wish to care for: if they’re worth your time, they will understand your wish to do things at your own rhythm. If they insist on you doing things that you don’t wish to do, it will mean that they don’t deserve that you dedicate time to them in the first place.


It depends on how aware of it you are.

If you are well aware of it, being selfish is better, you understand how society expects you to behave and will act accordingly in order to get the best of it. You will create the best opportunities to profit and will use all this opportunities in your favor, probably achieving great success with a little help of luck.

If you are unaware, then you will believe the world owe you everything and will be an asshole to everyone, in time they will get tired of you and you will be left to rot alone, you will need a huge amount of luck to succeed alone in the world.

If you are caring and selfless it doesn´t matter if you are aware or not, you will always put the needs of everyone else in front of yours. In this situation you need lots of luck to be recognized and so can achieve success and projection, or else you will just be a poor reliable tool.


Here’s the thing. Selfish, seemingly uncaring people devote themselves to those who matter to them, as form of enlightened self-interest.

Caring, selfless people pour themselves into causes helping those they may never need, and wasting their energy fruitlessly in pursuit of “ideals” that will never come.

Which is the more productive, useful person?

  • Not to me. Selfish and uncaring is pretty lonely and a lousy way to be. Also, these type of people invariably have self-esteem issues. But beyond that, it makes me feel good to care about others and to do altruistic things. Those are the kind of things that make you feel good about yourself and others.