Skip to main content

The Narrative is a Lie

“The Apollo program was designed by men, for men. If we do not acknowledge the gender bias of the early space program, it becomes difficult to move past it.”
—Tweet by the New York Times, today.

How many times do we read something like this and because it has a certain internal logic and sounds rhetorically reasonable we just nod and accept that something intelligent has been said instead of something suited to a stark raving lunatic?
There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING to 'move past'. It's a false, contrived dilemma with no attachment to either the real world or to people as they exist upon it, or off of it either. History is not holding us back. The men and women of the space program built it well for us and we've long built upon what they made. Name a single thing, even one thing, about the space program that we've been unable to "move past". There's nothing.
In fact, in order to support such counter-factual assertions about the power of the past we modern folk have to cleanse the past of participation, of the women who did the computing by hand, of all the heroism and triumph, of everyone who *at the time* was involved in an active and lively conversation about who ought to be an astronaut. And worse, erase those who ultimately have *won* that argument.
Because it's not even appropriating for ourselves the struggles of the past, but appropriating a version of the past that is shallow and twisted for our purposes.
So don't just read a "reasonable" statement and nod. Actually think it through, identify each element, both the facts claimed AND the claimed significance of those facts and figure out if you're getting smoke blown up your *ss by people who absolutely refuse to just be HAPPY about one of the most amazing and unequivocal triumphs of our nation.
(And don't suggest that they're doing it because they hate America, even if it's true.)


Dave said…
When will the northeast be able to move past the slave trade?

Popular posts from this blog


  Somehow I never got this colored and posted.  Anyhow, everyone should be honest about what their goals are and what they have as intended results.   ADDENDUM: When I added Popper's Paradox to the "labels" on this, I did a quick check that I had his name right and saw the fast and dirty definition on wikipedia, that unfettered tolerance simply means that the intolerant will always win.  This is baloney, of course, because we can *contend* without being intolerant.  We can still advocate for tolerance among everyone.  But even so, it struck me just how Popper's Paradox plays into the Progressive/SJW ethos. Intolerance isn't wrong. Racism isn't wrong. "Punching" isn't wrong. Political violence isn't wrong. Hate isn't wrong. Not even fascism is wrong. The Progressive/SJW ethos is that none of these things are wrong, they only become wrong based on who is targeted by those things. Those who like to quote Popper believe intolerance a moral ne

Why We Can't Have Unity

  Trump didn't divide the country. Let's get that out of the way first. There's several things that have divided us but the people who get elected are only the symptoms. Collective Identity is why we can't have Unity.  Don't believe me? 1) Dealing with groups is tempting because it's a force multiplier, and we've had "group politics" forever, but it's reached a tipping point. Everyone is considered primarily their group identity. 2) A failure to buy into this group identity ideology has been framed as racism. So we're told to believe that people with ideological differences or who question dividing everyone into group identities are not just people with different opinions, they are evil. Even arguing against the focus on group identity will get you called a racist. 3) Group identity defines nearly everything. Racism, right and wrong are no longer defined by actions or attitudes, at least by a critical percentage of the population. Right, wr

Why it doesn't matter what Parler allowed.

Because allowing people to say scary things in public (or mean things, or false things) doesn't inflame anyone.  It attracts people who are already inflamed. There used to be a joke that went more or less something like this:  There's a couple thousand white supremacist militia members in the US and two thirds of them are undercover FBI agents. And that's the second reason.  Because we actually want the scary conversations to happen in public. Driving those conversations underground doesn't make them go away. Inflamed people are still inflamed except now they are also legitimately aggrieved.  We have thousands of years of History that proves that this is true. Short of simply killing everyone of a certain mindset, ideology, religion, or culture, it's impossible to make them go away by forcing them to keep their scary ideas quiet.  Killing a few simply creates martyrs, not converts. Economic oppression, which was used against the Jews as well as endless other minorit