Critical Thinker

1C Agenda 10-3-2019: UBI Part 2

Essay #2 

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Choice A

Watch Netflix documentary Ronnie Coleman: The King. Considered to be the greatest bodybuilder of all time, Coleman is now on crutches, faces a lifetime of excruciating pain, must take opioid pain medication, may have to be consigned to a wheelchair, and by most accounts the abuse he took to become a champion bodybuilder is the reason for his condition. The film celebrates Coleman’s life principle to persist in doing what he loves, but doing what he loves comes with a price: excruciating, life-altering injuries. Is doing what we love worth it? In this context, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the notion that in order to achieve exceptional success, we are justified to make sacrifices of our body, minds, and souls. Is Coleman’s current condition justified by his success and his heroic drive to do what he loves? Answer this question and be sure to have a counterargument section. 

 

Choice B

Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots. 

 

Choice C

Read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

 

Choice D

Read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and agree or refute Brennan's claim that we need an epistocracy. 

 

Choice E

Read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and develop a thesis that addresses how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

 

 

Choice F

Read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. Update: I found a better essay to address: "Should the Government Give Everyone $1,000 a Month?" by Spencer Bokat-Lindell in The New York Times. 

September 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin; Ronnie Coleman; debate on providing sleepover parking lots: Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis about the pros and cons of providing sleeping spaces for college students. Homework #5 for next class is to read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

September 19 Go over Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

Homework #6 for next class is to read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

September 24 Go over Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

Homework #7 for next class is to read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

September 26 Go over Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

Homework #8 for next class is to read Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” In 200 words, summarize the author's argument. 

October 1 Go over Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” Homework #9 is to read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. 

October 3 We will watch a YouTube video that explains UBI. We will go over Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. We will grade Portfolio #1, based on responses 1-9. 

October 8 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write introduction and thesis paragraph.   

October 10 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write 3 supporting paragraphs, your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph, and your conclusion. 

October 15 Essay 2 due on turnitin.

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Choice F

Read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income.

Update:

I found a better essay to address: "Should the Government Give Everyone $1,000 a Month?" by Spencer Bokat-Lindell in The New York Times. 

Suggested Outline:

Paragraph 1, Introduction: Summarize predicted unemployment crisis that could hit the world in the next 20-50 years. 

Paragraph 2, Defend or refute the claim that UBI is an effective solution to mass unemployment. 

Paragraphs 3-6: Your supporting paragraphs.

Paragraph 7: Counterargument-rebuttal

Paragraph 8: Your conclusion, a powerful restatement of your thesis.

 

A Primer or Introduction to Universal Basic Income

Economist gives us an introduction to UBI. 

Psychology Change Needed for Universal Basic Income

Arguments Against Universal Basic Income (UBI)

One. A dependent society is a dysfunctional society. 

Two. A lack of self-reliance diseases the soul and corrupts society. 

Three. Acute dependence leads to totalitarianism and dehumanization. See The Giver. 

Four. Acute dependence breaks down the family unit. Parents aren't responsible for their children; the government is. 

Five. Being "off the grid" makes one chronically depressed, non-productive, and unemployable. 

Arguments for Universal Basic Income 

3 Reasons for Universal Basic Income from Brookings Institute

Pro-Work Argument for UBI

Washington Post article that argues UBI won't make America great again. 

 

Challenging the American Work Ethic

There is a notion in America, from the beginning of its European history, that being a hard worker means being noble, virtuous, and successful.

The contrary is also assumed: If you're poor and unemployed, your life is evidence that you are a member of the damned. You are morally depraved and bankrupt. 

This notion comes from a form of Protestantism called Calvinism. John Calvin said evidence of being a member of God's elect was being a hard worker. German philosopher Max Weber said this became the "Protestant Work Ethic," the fuel of American capitalism.

Read "The Protestant Work Ethic Is Real"

Sample Thesis Statements

Universal Basic Income is doomed to fail because it is a concession of a failed economic system, a surrender to the oligarchy, and a miserable fake solution to poverty and human dignity. 

Failed or not, Universal Basic Income is the palliative dog treat that will be stuffed down our throats in order to pacify the masses from revolt in a new economy that will surely leave more and more people behind.

While sure to go through its growing pains, UBI must be embraced because we have no choice but to hinge our hopes for human dignity and humanitarian aid to the masses through UBI and be diligent as we perfect it over time. 

UBI is the stinky monster we must go to bed with because without that stinky monster we will have to go to bed cold, wet, and hungry. 

Conservatives and liberals alike rightly embrace UBI because it is the reasonable response to permanent mass unemployment and the need for a streamlined welfare program for the have-nots. 

Far-left pundits are correct to reject UBI as a crappy drug designed to shut up the masses who will be getting punk-fed while the 1% laugh their way to the bank. 

Even if UBI works on an economic level, human beings are not psychologically and spiritually hard-wired to live a life without structure, responsibility, and accountability, and as a result, UBI will spell the death to millions of the unemployed masses whose crap existence will be at its essence a condition of moral and intellectual dissolution. 

Sample Essay on UBI

Take What Sucks Less

Sure, UBI sucks. It’s hardly enough money to create economic justice. It’s surely a pacifier for the masses who are getting punk fed the bare minimum to live a half-decent existence. I’m also certain that UBI will relegate most of us to some sweaty, dank room where we’ll intoxicate ourselves with a myriad of unsavory substances while looking on with bloodshot eyes at some entertainment or other on YouTube or Netflix.

We will grow fat, complacent, brain-dead. We’ll become less than human. We’ll become more like zombies, slogging through life without an ounce of pride or dignity as we live a sedentary life without individual goals, responsibility, or life purpose. We will be soulless pods hooked up to our private entertainment centers while the 1%, the real people, pull the strings, create technology that advances civilization and enjoy the spoils of their efforts as full human beings flourishing in some opulent environment while the rest of us poor UBI-receiving bots live like crammed sardines in shared housing with our equally depressed, brain-dead zombie roommates.

So am I arguing against UBI? Hell no. Even if our lives are as crappy as the one I described above, the life without UBI as we head for the Great Unemployment Age presents an even greater hellish existence, one with starvation, a lack of basic medical supplies and treatment, and abject homelessness.

Yeah, UBI sucks, but not getting UBI sucks even more. Don’t count on the government to share the 1%’s wealth with the rest of us. The 1% will only share as much as they have to, and they have calculated that giving us just enough UBI so that we don’t become a raging, lawless mob is worth the 4-trillion UBI annual price tag. We should just admit we lost the class war.

We are now in the unenviable position where we can either take our UBI pittance, which sucks, or not take our UBI table scraps, which sucks even more. That is our dilemma. We must take this painful truth on the chin and move on with our crappy lives. The alternative is certain death. 

The Sucks Less Approach Is Hideous

The above argument, which essentially paints us as starving dogs that should be grateful for the table scraps of UBI is so full of grotesque logical fallacies that the person who wrote this specious argument should be thrown into  Logical Fallacy Prison.

For one, the writer gives us a false dilemma of only two choices: A crappy life with UBI or an even crappier life without UBI. There are other possibilities that the writer does not address because those possibilities present an inconvenience to his argument. For example, some people will continue to work and use UBI to supplement their income. Others will use UBI to fund their higher education, but the above writer is too busy enjoying his despair to consider these possibilities. Secondly, the writer presents a pessimism that is unfounded on evidence. He seems to think dehumanization from UBI is inevitable, yet he presents no facts to back up his claim. Rather, he indulges in his personal crapulent attitude and wishes to impose it on the rest of us, as if he’s doing us a favor by lavishing us with some universal truth, yet he is not. He is merely a Minister of Darkness contaminating us with his gospel of despair.

Finally, he assumes the worst case scenario of UBI and paints a broad brush over the human reaction to receiving guaranteed income to fulfill our basic life needs without addressing the complexities and unknowable, tentative outcomes. In short, the above writer is a grotesque nihilist who is hell-bent on infecting us with his anguish and despair. For the truth about UBI, I suggest we look elsewhere.  

Universal Basic Income Primer Part II (source: Annie Lowrey's book Give People Money)

You get a check, perhaps $1,000, every month with no questions asked and no questions. The money can help you barely survive and essentially protect you from destitution. You could live in a shared apartment, buy food, and have money for public transportation. That’s it. Everything above that would require some kind of job or side hustle.

Not all the details are ironed out. Countries haven’t agreed upon an age or a policy for recently settled immigrants.

UBI is response to shrinking middle class, shrinking real wages, unaffordable housing, overpriced education, technological-fueled unemployment, and an over complicated welfare system. Countries all over the world are seriously considering UBI. Some are already implementing it.

UBI will give workers more leverage with their employers. They won’t feel as desperate to work for a horrible boss and/or a horrible job.

UBI will give an escape route to abused spouse who needs to get out of a hellish marriage or relationship.

UBI may give protection to over 3 million jobs lost due to self-driving cars in the next 10-20 years.

Concerns

Some are concerned that UBI would motivate people to permanently drop out of job market and reduce productivity.  

Lowry estimates the cost of UBI to be $3.9 trillion to US government every year.

 

UBI Appeal

Lowrey writes that she is less interested in policy and more interested in the ethical foundation. She writes:

“What I came to believe is this: A UBI is an ethos as much as it is a technocratic policy proposal.” It contains within it the principles of universality, unconditionality, inclusion, and simplicity, and it insists that every person is deserving of participation in the economy, freedom of choice, and a life without deprivation.”

In other words, there is an ethical message: Deprivation and starvation are morally unacceptable. A fundamental safety net, no questions asked, must be made available to the citizenry. This is the least decent thing a society can and must do.

The above is Lowrey’s central argument.

Disruption in Employment

Lowrey shows evidence that more and more jobs are being permanently lost even during recoveries as AI is becoming more and more self-regulating and less dependent on human engineers.

At the same time, what job growth there is exists in the “crummy jobs” department with fast food and temporary work being the new boom. Over 40% of fast food workers are over 25; in other words, adults are supporting their families with “crummy jobs.”

American workers are becoming more and more part of the odious, dreadful gig economy, a life of hustle without good pay, stability, or benefits.

We have a “good jobs crisis.” That crummy jobs are on the rise gives employers leverage to punk people with those jobs. But UBI will take some of that leverage away.

On page 49, we read of growing economic disparity between 1979 and 2014 in a major study.

Bottom half of earners in 1979 had 20% of income; in 2014, they had gone down to 13%.

In contrast, the 1% top earners jumped from 11% to 20% in that same time period.

Hysteresis

We have a new class of unemployed who suffer from long-term unemployment, about 2-3 years or more. They suffer from hysteresis: They lag behind in every category and has permanent lower earnings even after a recession.

Temporary Jobs on Vice News Video

Why is not working so hard for Americans?

Let us set aside the economic need for work for a second and imagine being economically independent of work. Americans have a psychological dependence on work that does not exist in other countries.

Believe it or not, America has a relationship with work that is unique in the world. In other countries, people work for money, but the job does not define them.

Not so in America. We have cultivated a work ethic that makes one’s personal identity and spiritual virtue synonymous with the kind of work one does.

We see work, or industriousness, as a “social obligation and a foundation of the good life” (70).

This mindset makes us vulnerable for a variety of reasons.

One, should we make any job define who we are? Why is industriousness a “national religion”? Why do we have this mentality but other countries do not?

Two, is this a healthy mindset when crummy jobs are on the rise and desirable jobs are on the decline?

Three, is this a wise mindset in a world where technology could lead to massive permanent unemployment?

Four, have we been brainwashed to our detriment?

Consider the ancient Greeks and Romans argued that the highest quality of life was based on leisure and philosophical contemplation, not industriousness.

But Americans are under the spell of the Puritan work ethic which says idleness leads to the work of the devil.

Therefore, always be busy. Always strive for more. Always incorporate a side hustle.

While European countries see our social and economic class as a matter of fate and circumstance, Americans subscribe to the myth of the self-made man who lifts himself out of his bootstraps.

Unlike Europeans who see poverty as a trap from an unfair system, Americans see poverty as a matter of self-blame, the result of one’s character defects.

Social Validation

Unlike others, Americans are dependent on social validation that results from their job. Identity, self-reliance, moral and social obligation, and social validation connected with job status.

Social Stigma from Joblessness

Being jobless in America leads to shame, social stigma, ignominy, and chronic depression. It becomes a sort of death.

Americans recover from death of loved one, divorce, catastrophe. But they do not recovery from joblessness.

This mental state presents a challenge to UBI and future world of mass unemployment.

Freeloaders?

There is a work mindset in America that would resist UBI: Why should people get money for free? What kind of sick morally bankrupt system would allow such a thing?  

However, Lowrey points to program in Iran that is similar to UBI, and it did not result in increased unemployment as a result of making people too lazy to work (82).

Going to School, Caring for Ailing Parent, Parenthood

Another argument for UBI is that rather than make people lazy, people will have more freedom to attend college, care for a sick parent, or do the duties of parenting.

Perhaps it is too extreme to argue that UBI would destroy the labor force.

Why is the question about how UBI will affect our relationship with work “scary”?

Lowrey writes that this question is “scary” because employers won’t have as much leverage over their employees.

People wouldn’t have to do work they don’t want to do and they could gravitate to work they do want to perform.

 

What is the Hammock Argument?

UBI is dangerous. Why? Because when you give people a safety net, society will quickly fall asleep on a giant hammock. Handouts are the beginning of laziness and death to the soul. Drugs and a life of addiction will ensue. People need work and purpose. In their absence, people will become zombies.

But so far, UBI in Kenya and elsewhere is not having the Hammock Effect.

Lowrey says the opposite occurs: Less work abuse, less child labor, less starvation, more medical care, more school attendance (95).

Guaranteed money means less stress and a higher IQ.

Cash is superior to helping people than goods and services (108). Having villages make shoes, for example, leads to a shoe glut in the area, which hurts villages.

Hurting Poor Argument

What could be a harmful consequence of UBI to the poor?

Streamlining welfare into UBI will save the government money in various costs, including bureaucratic ones, but for many poor people, the UBI payment will be LESS than what they were making on welfare.

As we see in this Guardian article, UBI, while loved by the Left, is also loved by the Right as part of a campaign to get rid of welfare.

Some Critiques of Lowrey's Support of UBI

Statistical Analysis Lacking?

Financial Times argues Lowrey hasn’t used the data in depth enough to be convincing in her argument for UBI.

Does Lowrey Contradict Herself and the Very Premise of UBI?

Writing in the New York Times, Robert B. Reich makes this observation:

But how could America possibly afford a U.B.I.? A $1,000-a-month grant to every American would cost about $3.9 trillion a year. That’s about $1.3 trillion on top of existing welfare programs — roughly the equivalent of the entire federal budget, or about a fifth of the entire United States economy. Both Yang and Lowrey come up with laundry lists of potential funding sources — from soaking the rich (raising the top tax bracket to 55 percent, enlarging the estate tax and implementing new taxes on wealth, financial transactions and perhaps even the owners of the robots and related devices that are displacing jobs), to instituting a carbon tax or a value-added tax.

Whatever the source of funds, it seems a safe bet that increased automation will allow the economy to continue to grow, making a U.B.I. more affordable. A U.B.I. would itself generate more consumer spending, stimulating additional economic activity. And less poverty would mean less crime, incarceration and other social costs associated with deprivation. “You know what’s really expensive?” Yang asks. “Dysfunction. Revolution.”

If these measures still aren’t enough to foot the bill, Lowrey suggests making a U.B.I. less universal by taxing away U.B.I. payments to high-income earners and reducing other forms of social insurance (for example, eliminating food stamps and welfare programs). As a last resort, she writes, a U.B.I. could be implemented as a kind of negative income tax, by which government simply ensures that every person or household has a certain minimum yearly income. This is what Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman had in mind. Lowrey figures that the cost of such a guarantee would approximate the current total costs of the earned-income tax credit, supplemental security income, housing assistance, food stamps and school lunches. She notes that the simplest way to achieve this would be to transform existing antipoverty programs into unconditional cash transfers.

But there’s a logical flaw in her argument. Once a U.B.I. is no longer universal or even basic (what if the poor are worse off when other forms of assistance are stripped away?), it’s hard to see the point of having it in the first place. More troubling is Lowrey’s blurring of the distinction between a U.B.I. that redistributes resources from the superrich to the growing number of vulnerable lower-income Americans and one that merely turns programs for the poor into cash assistance. The latter may be warranted, but it wouldn’t touch America’s growing scourge of inequality and economic insecurity, which will be made worse as robots take over good jobs.

Is UBI a bad idea?

So says Josh Barro in Business Insider.

Post-Work Future a Nightmare?

Josh Barro rebukes UBI in his Business Insider article.

Annie Lowrey presents UBI on The Daily Show.

How does Lowrey argue that UBI may be superior to current welfare safety net?

We read that current safety net doesn’t catch many poor people who are left starving and destitute.

Part of the problem is a deeply rooted prejudice against the poor that says there is the deserving and the undeserving poor and this line is not clear.

She argues that the “safety net holes are not defects but design flaws but intentional features” (142).

Part of the “intentional feature” that punishes the poor are work requirements.

UBI Pro Argument: UBI is better than current welfare system, which includes work requirements.

Washington Post article addresses work requirements directly.

Economist article addresses how work requirements hurt poor children.

The Atlantic article also addresses the shortcomings of work requirements.

We see similar claim in this Washington Post article.

We see similar support of UBI in New Yorker synthesis of various UBI arguments.

 

Review Supports or “For” Arguments for UBI

One. UBI is better than welfare because UBI avoids the Cliff Effect in which people get trapped in cycle of poverty because welfare benefits add up to more than a job promotion or full-time job. Within ten years, we may lose one-third of the workforce.

Two. UBI would give employees more leverage to avoid hellish jobs and hellish bosses.

Three. Volunteer workers could now be compensated and be free to do their volunteer work.

Four. UBI would simplify welfare benefit labyrinth. By eliminating welfare, we can save about a trillion dollars, according to Ryan Rogers, author of The Citizens’ Dividend: A Case for Universal Basic Income (87).

Five. UBI would take a chunk out of poverty-induced stress, which is considered a huge health hazard.

Six. UBI would help people pursue higher education.

Seven. UBI would give people time and resources to pursue entrepreneurship, going into self-made business.

Eight. UBI would be necessary for future with permanent unemployment due to AI and technological advances. Engineers are developing software that will replace workers.

Nine. UBI would reduce or outright eliminate the stigma of those who get aid as “parasites.”

Ten. UBI is a moral response to people who have fallen through the welfare net’s holes and are suffering from starvation and destitution. According to United Nations, out of 10 developed countries America ranks last in creating a viable safety net for the poor. In any affluent society, many argue, abolishing poverty is a moral obligation and UBI is a necessary step in that direction.  

Eleven. The tech economy is created a stratified economic world with 15-20% of Americans enjoying comfortable income while the rest slog in penury, according to Tyler Cowen of George Mason University. In the new economy, there can be economic growth while 80% of Americans suffer decline in real wages.

Cons

One. Those who are doing “necessary” work will subsidize people who are doing “optional” work and living more casual, laid-back lifestyles. You’re working in a coal mine and your tax dollars are going to a guy who is training to be a yoga instructor. How does that feel?

Two. Millions of people will make decent money and won’t need Universal Basic Income, a waste of tax dollars.

Three. Many will find UBI is a work disincentive. As a result, work productivity will go down creating less goods and services, resulting in inflation.

Four. UBI may encourage people to a life of the hammock, entertainment addiction, laziness, and spiritual emptiness. But according to Ryan Rogers, the opposite is true. Studies show people work more and have less children (89).

Five. UBI doesn’t target specific poverty and health needs the way the current welfare does and in fact UBI will result in less aid to the poor.

Six. UBI cannot address the complexities of immigration; in fact, UBI may cause more anti-immigration sentiment.

Seven. No one has a clear explanation of how society will pay for UBI.

Eight. UBI is the precursor to communism.

Vox Counterarguments Against Two Main Objections to UBI

Excellent article: Critique of UBI: “A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty” by Eduardo Porter in The New York Times.

Liberal leaning Huffpost critiques UBI in “Don’t Buy the Hype.”

Argument that says Universal Basic Assets program is superior to UBI.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1C Agenda 10-1-19: UBI Part 1, Logical Fallacies, Whataboutism

Essay #2 

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Choice A

Watch Netflix documentary Ronnie Coleman: The King. Considered to be the greatest bodybuilder of all time, Coleman is now on crutches, faces a lifetime of excruciating pain, must take opioid pain medication, may have to be consigned to a wheelchair, and by most accounts the abuse he took to become a champion bodybuilder is the reason for his condition. The film celebrates Coleman’s life principle to persist in doing what he loves, but doing what he loves comes with a price: excruciating, life-altering injuries. Is doing what we love worth it? In this context, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the notion that in order to achieve exceptional success, we are justified to make sacrifices of our body, minds, and souls. Is Coleman’s current condition justified by his success and his heroic drive to do what he loves? Answer this question and be sure to have a counterargument section. 

 

Choice B

Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots. 

 

Choice C

Read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

 

Choice D

Read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and agree or refute Brennan's claim that we need an epistocracy. 

 

Choice E

Read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and develop a thesis that addresses how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

 

Choice F

Read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. Update: I found a better essay to address: "Should the Government Give Everyone $1,000 a Month?" by Spencer Bokat-Lindell in The New York Times. 

September 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin; Ronnie Coleman; debate on providing sleepover parking lots: Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis about the pros and cons of providing sleeping spaces for college students. Homework #5 for next class is to read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

September 19 Go over Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

Homework #6 for next class is to read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

September 24 Go over Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

Homework #7 for next class is to read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

September 26 Go over Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

Homework #8 for next class is to read Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” In 200 words, summarize the author's argument. 

October 1 Go over Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” Homework #9 is to read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. 

October 3 We will watch a YouTube video that explains UBI. We will go over Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. We will grade Portfolio #1, based on responses 1-9. 

October 8 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write introduction and thesis paragraph.   

October 10 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write 3 supporting paragraphs, your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph, and your conclusion. 

October 15 Essay 2 due on turnitin.

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Choice F (Updated)

Read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. Update: I found a better essay to address: "Should the Government Give Everyone $1,000 a Month?" by Spencer Bokat-Lindell in The New York Times. 

Suggested Outline:

Paragraph 1, Introduction: Summarize predicted unemployment crisis that could hit the world in the next 20-50 years. Or you can summarize the major pros and cons. 

Paragraph 2, Defend or refute the claim that UBI is an effective solution to mass unemployment. 

Paragraphs 3-6: Your supporting paragraphs.

Paragraph 7: Counterargument-rebuttal

Paragraph 8: Your conclusion, a powerful restatement of your thesis.

For other sources:

Read Oren Cass’ “Why a Universal Basic Income Is a Terrible Idea” and Universal Basic Income explained, UBI being used in other countries, UBI explained by Jordan Peterson as a life-purpose problem.  

Maslow Argument for UBI

Case for and against UBI in USA according to Vox

No Strings Attached in LARB, 2018

The Hill, 2018

 

Arguments in Support of Universal Basic Income (UBI)

One. 47% of the jobs will be lost in the next 10-20 years. We have a new paradigm that requires a new way of providing a livelihood to our citizens.

Two. UBI, which is a monthly stipend to everyone regardless of income, would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper a year than current welfare system. 

Three. UBI would eliminate need for minimum wage. Lower minimum wage would encourage more hiring. 

Four. Because UBI doesn't give more money for children, UBI doesn't reward one lifestyle over another. 

Five. Citizens would have more time and resources to train and get educated for more career options presuming they used their time and money wisely. 

Six. Most stay-at-home parents are women who have not been justly paid for their domestic work over the centuries. UBI would help remedy that injustice. 

Seven. UBI gives citizens an escape valve from an abusive job or relationship. Having guaranteed money makes it easier to bail when you have to. "This is jacked up, man. I've got to bail."

Eight. 13K a year isn't so much that you would be content to retire in your house. Most people would want at the very least to supplement their meager income with part-time or full-time work. More enterprising citizens would use their free time and money for education and job re-training. 

Nine. UBI would eliminate welfare abuses and welfare fraud because UBI spells the death of welfare as we know it. 

Ten. Providing for the citizens with UBI would lessen the risk of the kind of discontent that leads to nationalist nativism, a racist political movement that makes one ethnic tribe hate on immigrants as scapegoats for the country's woes. 

Eleven. Addressing the counterargument that not having to work would make us lazy depressed slobs, some would argue that technology is forcing us to change and adapt. Just as coal workers are inevitably going to become extinct in the next century, we must adapt to a new employment landscape. We must either adapt or die. We must not be chained to our "Calvinism hangover," the deeply American notion that work is salvation and unemployment is a sign of sin and depravity. 

Twelve. The rich know they have to share their wealth because the throng with torches and pitch forks will be knocking on their doors. In other words, UBI is much needed pacifier, a form of social control that augments the safety of the rich. 

Thirteen. The open debate about UBI--the biggest debate--is the philosophical question about the nature of work. Some say UBI will kill work and that without work people will descend into depression and pathology. Others say we will adapt to this new economic landscape. One argument in favor of UBI is that even if we don't know the answer to this question definitively, we HAVE NO CHOICE but to adapt to a world where close to 50% of jobs will be lost. 

Fourteen. Technology will change the human animal on a chemical level and we will be able to adapt to the new work environment as evidenced by Elon Musk's exploration into his new neural lace company. Such technologies will make us smarter and more adaptive as human beings. 

Fifteen.  Even if we concede that not working will turn us into lazy bums, that is the lesser evil of the economic injustice social chaos resulting from not having UBI. 

Arguments Against Universal Basic Income (UBI)

One. A dependent society is a dysfunctional society. Dependence, in other words, leads to laziness. 

Two. A lack of self-reliance diseases the soul and corrupts society. The dependent will drag down the producers. 

Three. Acute dependence leads to totalitarianism and dehumanization. Once you take a government handout, you become vulnerable to the government's control over every part of your life. See The Giver. 

Four. Acute dependence breaks down the family unit. Parents aren't responsible for their children; the government is. Why stick to your family, when you don't rely on them? 

Five. Being "off the grid" makes one chronically depressed, non-productive, and unemployable. Our identity and sense of wellbeing is tied to having a job. 

Six. There is no increment for children. Why not? Because you're not encouraged to have children to get more. Some find this a form of lifestyle control. Others like it. 

Seven. The estimated 13K a year isn't enough though some say that still puts people in the top 12% of all global earners.

Eight. Unless all countries had equal UBI, the more desirable UBI countries would be a magnet for people of other countries who'd swarm into "healthy UBI" countries to bilk their system.  

Nine. UBI is giving 15% of average national income. This would require tax revenue of 15% of national income. That is too much tax, some say, for such a small income. 

Consult the following:

Universal Basic Income: Side Effect of the Tech Revolution?

The Progressive Case for Replacing the Welfare State with Basic Income

We can afford UBI, but is it a good idea?

Why Universal Basic Income Is a Terrible Idea

A Primer or Introduction to Universal Basic Income

Economist gives us an introduction to UBI. 

Psychology Change Needed for Universal Basic Income

Arguments Against Universal Basic Income (UBI)

One. A dependent society is a dysfunctional society. 

Two. A lack of self-reliance diseases the soul and corrupts society. 

Three. Acute dependence leads to totalitarianism and dehumanization. See The Giver. 

Four. Acute dependence breaks down the family unit. Parents aren't responsible for their children; the government is. 

Five. Being "off the grid" makes one chronically depressed, non-productive, and unemployable. 

Arguments for Universal Basic Income 

3 Reasons for Universal Basic Income from Brookings Institute

Pro-Work Argument for UBI

Washington Post article that argues UBI won't make America great again. 

 

Challenging the American Work Ethic

There is a notion in America, from the beginning of its European history, that being a hard worker means being noble, virtuous, and successful.

The contrary is also assumed: If you're poor and unemployed, your life is evidence that you are a member of the damned. You are morally depraved and bankrupt. 

This notion comes from a form of Protestantism called Calvinism. John Calvin said evidence of being a member of God's elect was being a hard worker. German philosopher Max Weber said this became the "Protestant Work Ethic," the fuel of American capitalism.

Read "The Protestant Work Ethic Is Real"

 

 

 

 Sample Thesis Statements

Universal Basic Income is doomed to fail because it is a concession of a failed economic system, a surrender to the oligarchy, and a miserable fake solution to poverty and human dignity. 

Failed or not, Universal Basic Income is the palliative dog treat that will be stuffed down our throats in order to pacify the masses from revolt in a new economy that will surely leave more and more people behind.

While sure to go through its growing pains, UBI must be embraced because we have no choice but to hinge our hopes for human dignity and humanitarian aid to the masses through UBI and be diligent as we perfect it over time. 

UBI is the stinky monster we must go to bed with because without that stinky monster we will have to go to bed cold, wet, and hungry. 

Conservatives and liberals alike rightly embrace UBI because it is the reasonable response to permanent mass unemployment and the need for a streamlined welfare program for the have-nots. 

Far-left pundits are correct to reject UBI as a crappy drug designed to shut up the masses who will be getting punk-fed while the 1% laugh their way to the bank. 

Even if UBI works on an economic level, human beings are not psychologically and spiritually hard-wired to live a life without structure, responsibility, and accountability, and as a result, UBI will spell the death to millions of the unemployed masses whose crap existence will be at its essence a condition of moral and intellectual dissolution. 

Sample Essay on UBI

Take What Sucks Less

Sure, UBI sucks. It’s hardly enough money to create economic justice. It’s surely a pacifier for the masses who are getting punk fed the bare minimum to live a half-decent existence. I’m also certain that UBI will relegate most of us to some sweaty, dank room where we’ll intoxicate ourselves with a myriad of unsavory substances while looking on with bloodshot eyes at some entertainment or other on YouTube or Netflix.

We will grow fat, complacent, brain-dead. We’ll become less than human. We’ll become more like zombies, slogging through life without an ounce of pride or dignity as we live a sedentary life without individual goals, responsibility, or life purpose. We will be soulless pods hooked up to our private entertainment centers while the 1%, the real people, pull the strings, create technology that advances civilization and enjoy the spoils of their efforts as full human beings flourishing in some opulent environment while the rest of us poor UBI-receiving bots live like crammed sardines in shared housing with our equally depressed, brain-dead zombie roommates.

So am I arguing against UBI? Hell no. Even if our lives are as crappy as the one I described above, the life without UBI as we head for the Great Unemployment Age presents an even greater hellish existence, one with starvation, a lack of basic medical supplies and treatment, and abject homelessness.

Yeah, UBI sucks, but not getting UBI sucks even more. Don’t count on the government to share the 1%’s wealth with the rest of us. The 1% will only share as much as they have to, and they have calculated that giving us just enough UBI so that we don’t become a raging, lawless mob is worth the 4-trillion UBI annual price tag. We should just admit we lost the class war.

We are now in the unenviable position where we can either take our UBI pittance, which sucks, or not take our UBI table scraps, which sucks even more. That is our dilemma. We must take this painful truth on the chin and move on with our crappy lives. The alternative is certain death. 

The Sucks Less Approach Is Hideous

The above argument, which essentially paints us as starving dogs that should be grateful for the table scraps of UBI is so full of grotesque logical fallacies that the person who wrote this specious argument should be thrown into  Logical Fallacy Prison.

For one, the writer gives us a false dilemma of only two choices: A crappy life with UBI or an even crappier life without UBI. There are other possibilities that the writer does not address because those possibilities present an inconvenience to his argument. For example, some people will continue to work and use UBI to supplement their income. Others will use UBI to fund their higher education, but the above writer is too busy enjoying his despair to consider these possibilities. Secondly, the writer presents a pessimism that is unfounded on evidence. He seems to think dehumanization from UBI is inevitable, yet he presents no facts to back up his claim. Rather, he indulges in his personal crapulent attitude and wishes to impose it on the rest of us, as if he’s doing us a favor by lavishing us with some universal truth, yet he is not. He is merely a Minister of Darkness contaminating us with his gospel of despair.

Finally, he assumes the worst case scenario of UBI and paints a broad brush over the human reaction to receiving guaranteed income to fulfill our basic life needs without addressing the complexities and unknowable, tentative outcomes. In short, the above writer is a grotesque nihilist who is hell-bent on infecting us with his anguish and despair. For the truth about UBI, I suggest we look elsewhere.  

Recognizing Logical Fallacies

Begging the Question

Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.

Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.

Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.

Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.

Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.

Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.

Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.

Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.

I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.

I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.

I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.

I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.

Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison

Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.

A toxic relationship is like cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).

Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)

Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)

Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)

“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”

A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.

“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”

Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.

“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”

Straw Man Fallacy

You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.

“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”

Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)

“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”

“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.

Either/Or Fallacy

There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.

“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”

“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”

“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”

“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)

“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”

“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”

Equivocation

Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.

“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”

“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”

The seller is equivocating.

“I told you to be in bed by ten.”

“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”

“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”

“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”

“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”

“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”

Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.

“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”

“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”

“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”

Slippery Slope Fallacy

We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.

“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”

“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”

Appeal to Authority

Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.

Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.

Tradition Fallacy

“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”

“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”

Misuse of Statistics

Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.

“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).

“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)

Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation

Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?

The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?

You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?

You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)

Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)

The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.

Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.

McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.

Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.

Bandwagon Fallacy

Because everyone believes something, it must be right.

“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”

“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”

 

 

 

1C Agenda 9-26-19: Marriage of Mainstream Racism and White Terrorism

Essay #2 

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Choice A

Watch Netflix documentary Ronnie Coleman: The King. Considered to be the greatest bodybuilder of all time, Coleman is now on crutches, faces a lifetime of excruciating pain, must take opioid pain medication, may have to be consigned to a wheelchair, and by most accounts the abuse he took to become a champion bodybuilder is the reason for his condition. The film celebrates Coleman’s life principle to persist in doing what he loves, but doing what he loves comes with a price: excruciating, life-altering injuries. Is doing what we love worth it? In this context, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the notion that in order to achieve exceptional success, we are justified to make sacrifices of our body, minds, and souls. Is Coleman’s current condition justified by his success and his heroic drive to do what he loves? Answer this question and be sure to have a counterargument section. 

 

Choice B

Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots. 

 

Choice C

Read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

 

Choice D

Read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and agree or refute Brennan's claim that we need an epistocracy. 

 

Choice E

Read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and develop a thesis that addresses how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

 

Choice F

Read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. 

September 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin; Ronnie Coleman; debate on providing sleepover parking lots: Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis about the pros and cons of providing sleeping spaces for college students. Homework #5 for next class is to read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

September 19 Go over Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

Homework #6 for next class is to read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

September 24 Go over Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

Homework #7 for next class is to read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

September 26 Go over Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

Homework #8 for next class is to read Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” In 200 words, summarize the author's argument. 

October 1 Go over Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” Homework #9 is to read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. 

October 3 We will watch a YouTube video that explains UBI. We will go over Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. We will grade Portfolio #1, based on responses 1-9. 

October 8 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write introduction and thesis paragraph.   

October 10 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write 3 supporting paragraphs, your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph, and your conclusion. 

October 15 Essay 2 due on turnitin.

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

 

White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices

Ibram X. Kendi

 

5 Types of Claims

Thesis statements or claims go under five different categories: 

One. Claims about solutions or policies: The claim argues for a certain solution or policy change: 

The citizenry needs to organize and unite to force the issue of global warming because global warming is an existential crisis.

America's War on Drugs should be abolished and replaced with drug rehab. 

America's War on Drugs is an ineffective and morally bankrupt policy evidenced by _____________, ____________, ________________, and _____________________. 

Genetic editing needs regulation to keep the ascent of designer babies in the realm of health while not allowing genetic editing to become solely a consumer product. 

As long as Americans refuse to do America's dirty work and as long as America relies on immigrant labor for billions of dollars in revenue, America must adopt a sane, moral, humanitarian immigration policy that gives rights, decency, and dignity to the immigrant labor it uses on a daily basis.

A critical thinking professor seen gorging shamelessly at one of those notorious all-you-can-eat buffets should be stripped of his accreditation and license to teach since such a display of gluttony evidences someone whose lifestyle contradicts the very critical thinking skills he is supposed to embody, such hypocrisy has no place in higher education, and educators in such high-profile positions must be sterling role models for their students and the public at large. 

Two. Claims that critique the success, failure, or mixed results of a thing that is in the marketplace of art, ideas, and politics: a policy, dietary program, book, movie, work of art, philosophy, to name several.

Book Review

In her book iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy--and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood--and What That Means for the Rest of Us, author Jean Twenge attempts to analyze the causes of a dysfunctional generation, but her analysis lacks rigorous support, is larded with over simplifications, and ignores economic factors that are afflicting our youngest generation.  

Jason Fung's The Obesity Code is an invaluable book for learning to incorporate a ketogenic (low-carb, high-fat diet) to regulate one's insulin, stave off diabetes 2, and live a more healthy, vibrant life. 

Essay Critique

James Q. Wilson's polemic in favor of more access to guns is a catastrophe waiting to happen. If Wilson's gun laws are enacted, legal gun owners will kill innocent people in the line of fire, more and more legal guns will get into the hands of criminals, and the police will get so beefed up with guns and search and seizure policies that our country will turn into a military state. 

Three. Claims of cause and effect: These claims argue that a person, thing, policy or event caused another event or thing to occur. 

The desire for the death penalty resides in the child's fantasy that revenge can turn the tables, the delusion that sociopathic murderers will be deterred by the threat of capital punishment, and the primitive believe that society needs public spectacles of death in order to maintain the social order. 

Notice in the above analysis of the causes behind some people's support of the death penalty there is an implicit argument against the death penalty. 

Another Thesis Example

In spite of being proven grossly ineffective and even harmful to education, standardized testing remains the darling of administrators and politicians because it makes billions of dollars for the test makers, it provides a false bandage hiding deeper, systemic problems of structural inequality in education, and it makes know-nothing administrators and politicians feel like they doing something valuable when in fact the contrary is true.  

Four. Claims of value: These claims argue how important something is on the Importance Scale and determine its proportion to other things. 

Global warming poses a far greater threat to our safety than does terrorism.

Passive use of social media is having a more self-destructive effect on teenagers than alcohol and drugs.   

Five. Claims of definition. These claims argue that we must re-define a common and inaccurate assumption. 

In America the notion of "self-esteem," so commonly taught in schools, is, in reality, a cult of narcissism. While real self-esteem teaches self-confidence, discipline, and accountability, the fake American brand of self-esteem is about celebrating the low expectations of mediocrity, and this results in narcissism, vanity, and immaturity.

"Connecting" and "sharing" on social media does not create meaningful relationships because "connecting" and "sharing" are not the accurate words to describe what's going on. What is really happening is that people are curating and editing a false image while suffering greater and greater disconnection. 

White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices by Ibram X. Kendi

One. Rise of White Terrorism Since 2016

Kendi observes that since 2016 presidential election, white terrorism is on the rise. 

We read that 78% of domestic terrorism is from white supremacists in 2018.

We read that white supremacy propaganda has increased 182% in 2018. 

Kendi makes the reasonable conclusion that white supremacy-induced violence is a mass social ill. 

However, too many white people, Kendi claims, see white supremacy violence as a “fringe problem.”

Central Argument

It's convenient to see white terrorism as "fringe" because this delusion shields us from unpleasant truth: Normalized racism encourages violence against people of color. In other words, there is a marriage of normalized racism and white terrorism. There always has been since our history in the days of the KKK, America's first terrorists.

The KKK's racist worldview was embraced as "mainstream" by many whites and continues to be embraced today in some regions of America.

Venerated and respected organizations (not respected by me) such as The United Daughters of the Confederacy published racist textbooks for schools and championed the KKK. 

The above is a very specific example of mainstream racism encouraging the terrorism of a terrorist group: the KKK. 

Two. In the face of evidence that white terrorism is a pervasive threat, white killers like Dylann Roof are treated with kid gloves compared to blacks who aren’t committing acts of violence. 

We see articles about how the police took Dylann Roof to Burger King and accommodated his hunger and made him comfortable. 

It is not normal for police to treat Dylann Roof with the white glove treatment, which speaks terribly about racist double standards in America.

Moral Inversion and Gaslighting

We see a sort of moral inversion where the “endangered are seen as dangerous” and the dangerous paint themselves as embattled victims entitled to commit acts of violence against people of color in the name of “self-defense.”

Stand Your Ground laws allow white people to shoot people of color because they can claim they felt threatened.

Reality

The reality is quite different.

Terrorism in America is from white supremacists.

Mass shootings are largely from white males. 

White terrorists are continuing the legacy of terrorist groups such as the KKK and other movements that have been at certain times beloved by white America. 

Three. What is Kendi’s major claim?

Kendi is arguing that we must not create an imaginary gap between mainstream racism and white terrorism. We've normalized everyday racism by saying, erroneously, that white racist terrorism is a separate fringe phenomenon. 

He is arguing that there is a marriage of socially acceptable mainstream racism and Alt-Right white racist extremism. 

White terrorism is not crazy unicorn that exists in its own isolated universe but a predictable extension of mainstream racism. 

In other words, mainstream racism is fuel for white extremism; therefore, Kendi is arguing that mainstream racists and their apologists are accountable for the growth of white racist terrorism. 

Four. What are examples of how mainstream racism creates white terrorism against people of color?

For decades, mainstream racists, those who are accepted as legit and not seen as crackpots, have been normalized by a racist society that accepts their racism. 

The President of the Confederate States of America (1861-1865), Jefferson Davis, espoused a variety of odious, perfidious, racist beliefs. He believed, for example, that Africans were created by God to be enslaved and to be treated with violent punishment when they rebelled. This violence fueled the terrorism of the KKK, a terrorist organization, against people of color. 

Jefferson Davis enjoys high veneration today with a variety of schools, memorials, and statues dedicated to him. 

Throughout history, America has treated as normal racist acts that are anything but normal. 

Examples:

One. We can drive along streets and avenues named after champions of slavery. No other country has monuments to their fallen figures. Germany, for example, doesn’t name streets after Nazis. 

Two. We can walk along cities with statues of champions of slavery. Germany doesn’t have statues or flags paying tribute to Nazis done in the name of “preserving our history and our heritage.”

Three. Mainstream racists look at Civil War as an honorable fight of the South against “Northern aggression” and for “state rights.” This racist mythology has been accepted and is part of mainstream thinking in many parts of America. 

Four. Children in the southern states attend hundreds of schools named after slave owners and champions of Jim Crow racist philosophy. 

Five. In Germany after World War II, the German government educated its citizens, starting in elementary school, by teaching about the evils of Hitler and the Nazis. In contrast, after the Civil War, a group calling itself The United Daughters of the Confederacy went on a mission to rewrite American history and taught books giving praise to the KKK to school children among other things. Today this organization continues to enjoy mainstream approval in their community, yet they are full of racist, crackpot ideas and they use logical fallacies and obfuscations. 

The UDC published books and builds monuments praising KKK, they receive tax breaks, and they romanticize The Lost Cause, the idea that whites had reached their height of existence during plantation days when they enslaved people of color. 

United Daughters of the Confederacy enjoyed mainstream support of society as this Vox video shows. 

John Oliver makes a persuasive case that Confederate symbols are the best example we have of the marriage between mainstream racism as a way of normalizing violence and dehumanizing people of color, which is the aim of white terrorists.

 

 

Suggested Thesis for John Oliver video:

John Oliver's Confederacy video supports Kendi's claim that mainstream America continues to normalize the terror of racism evident by the following:

One. Gaslighting: "You can't change history."

Two. Being conveniently ignorant in one's opinion to put a sheen of the benign over evil.

Three. Narcissistic denial of racist past by being "wounded, injured, and offended at the dishonor of one's heritage." This is a moral inversion.

Four. Mainstream political support that romanticizes racist icons. 

 

Suggested Outline

Choice E

Read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and develop a thesis that addresses how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

Paragraph 1, Summarize Kendi's key points.

Paragraph 2, Develop an argumentative thesis that supports or refutes his claim that there is a marriage between mainstream and extremist white racism against people of color. 

Paragraphs 3-6 are your supporting paragraphs.

Paragraph 7 is your counterargument-rebuttal.

Paragraph 8 is your conclusion, a powerful restatement of your thesis.

You must have two sources for your Works Cited. 

Whataboutism:

 

Whataboutism is using faulty comparison, red herring, and non sequitur to deflect from the matter at hand. Users of this fallacy are essentially arguing this: "You can say So and So A is bad if you haven't addressed So and So B, so there's no point in addressing any moral issue." 

Example: 

Speaker #1: "Spousal abuse is a problem."

Speaker #2: "But what about animal abuse? How can we worry about spousal abuse when millions of animals suffer everyday?"

How can we address X if we haven't addressed Z?

 

 

 

1C Agenda 9-24-19: Epistocracy Debate; Pathos, Logos, Ethos; Logical Fallacies

Essay #2 

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Choice A

Watch Netflix documentary Ronnie Coleman: The King. Considered to be the greatest bodybuilder of all time, Coleman is now on crutches, faces a lifetime of excruciating pain, must take opioid pain medication, may have to be consigned to a wheelchair, and by most accounts the abuse he took to become a champion bodybuilder is the reason for his condition. The film celebrates Coleman’s life principle to persist in doing what he loves, but doing what he loves comes with a price: excruciating, life-altering injuries. Is doing what we love worth it? In this context, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the notion that in order to achieve exceptional success, we are justified to make sacrifices of our body, minds, and souls. Is Coleman’s current condition justified by his success and his heroic drive to do what he loves? Answer this question and be sure to have a counterargument section. 

 

Choice B

Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots. 

 

Choice C

Read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

 

Choice D

Read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and agree or refute Brennan's claim that we need an epistocracy. 

 

Choice E

Read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and develop a thesis that addresses how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

 

Choice F

Read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. 

September 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin; Ronnie Coleman; debate on providing sleepover parking lots: Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis about the pros and cons of providing sleeping spaces for college students. Homework #5 for next class is to read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

September 19 Go over Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

Homework #6 for next class is to read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

September 24 Go over Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

Homework #7 for next class is to read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

September 26 Go over Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

Homework #8 for next class is to read Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” 

October 1 Go over Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” Homework #9 is to read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. 

October 3 We will watch a YouTube video that explains UBI. We will go over Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. We will grade Portfolio #1, based on responses 1-9. 

October 8 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write introduction and thesis paragraph.   

October 10 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write 3 supporting paragraphs, your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph, and your conclusion. 

 

October 15 Essay 2 due on turnitin.

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Ethos, Logos, Pathos: The 3 Pillars of Argument

Adapted from Diana Hacker's Rules for Writers, Eighth Edition (99)

Ethos

Ethos is an ethical appeal based on writer's character, knowledge, authority, savvy, book smarts, and streets smarts. The latter is evidenced by author's savvy in using appropriate, not pretentious language to appeal to her readers.

Ethos is further achieved through confidence, humility, and command of language and subject. 

Confidence without humility is not confidence; it is bluster, bombast, and braggadocio, elements that diminish logos.

Real confidence is mastery, detailed, granular, in-depth knowledge of the topic at hand and acknowledgment of possible limitations and errors in one's conclusions. 

Ethos is further established by using credible sources that are peer-reviewed. 

Logos

Logos is establishing a reasonable, logical argument, appealing to reader's sense of logic, relying on credible evidence, using inductive and deductive reasoning, and exposing logical fallacies. 

Logos is further achieved by using sources that are timely, up to date, current, and relevant. 

To strengthen logos, the writer considers opposing views, concedes where those opposing views might diminish the claim, and make appropriate rebuttals to counterarguments. 

Pathos

Pathos is achieved by appealing to reader's emotions, moral sense, and moral beliefs. 

Pathos gets away from the brain and toward the gut. It makes a visceral appeal. 

Appropriate pathos uses emotion in a way that supports and reinforces the evidence. It does not manipulate and use smokescreens that depart from the evidence. 

Option D

In the context of Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?”, support, defend, or complicate the claim that an epistocracy is superior to democracy as we currently know it.

 

 

 

 

Essay Option D for Essay #2

Defend, refute, or complicate Jason Brennan’s claim that traditional American democracy should be replaced by an epistocracy. The texts for this option are online. You can refer to John Oliver video on Alex Jones.

In support of Brennan is an Atlantic essay on mob rule. 

Brennan critique from Notre Dame

Brennan critique from LARB

Brennan review from Washington Post 

 

Brennan critique from Notre Dame

Brennan critique from LARB

Brennan review from Washington Post

Against Democracy Lessons

Introduction: Democracy Is at a Crossroads 

Yuval Harari asserts that “Humans think in stories rather than in facts, numbers, or equations, and the simpler the story, the better.” Explain.

We develop stories or myths because they pull our emotional heart strings, and these narratives give meaning to our lives. The mean good be real or false, moral or immoral, but we are drawn to a sense of purpose even if that sense of purpose is based on false mythology.

Stories are what bind tribes together, what give us emotional intensity, and what inspire us to write music and poetry.

Since the twentieth century, the “global elites” have created “three grand stories” that explain our past and predict our future.

After World War II, the fascist story was killed as a competing story.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Communist story was killed.

That left is with one story: the liberal democracy story.

Turning Point

We grew up taking the liberal democracy story for granted. "Power of the people."

But in 2008, after the global financial crisis, liberal democracy mutated into illiberal democracy or Fascism Light. What is illiberal democracy?

Two. Explain the fascist, communist, and liberal story. 

The liberal story embraces the value and power of liberty. Life is the struggle between oppressors and individual rights. Democracies must replace dictatorships. An educated public can think for themselves and determine their society’s destiny. 

The move toward liberal society, opens us to the world. Harari writes: “Open roads, wide bridges, and bustling airports replaced walls, moats, and barbed-wire fences.” 

In the liberal story, we must value education and make sure the masses are educated so that the masses can think critically. Critical thinking for all is essential for a flourishing liberal society. 

On the other hand, tyrants oppose critical thinking. They want to be able to manipulate the masses and make “truth” whatever they want “truth” to be. 

If tyrants can make “truth” relative to their needs, then those tyrants need not be accountable to objective moral standards. 

In the liberal story, the spread of democracy will result in world peace and prosperity. Countries that live in tyranny will see the benefits of liberal society, and those tyrants will be overthrown and replaced with democratically-elected leaders. 

In the liberal story, nations work with each other and find common ground in liberal democratic values. 

According to the liberal story, writes Harari, “It may take time, but eventually even North Korea, Iraq, and El Salvador will look like Denmark or Iowa.” 

This story was famously published in Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man, which posits that liberal societies are spreading with no viable opposition. The book was written in the 1990s, and the book proved to be wrong. 

Challenge to the Liberal Story: 2008 Financial Crisis 

After the global financial crisis of 2008, the liberal story suffered a kick in the pants: “Walls and firewalls are back in vogue. Resistance to immigration and trade agreements is mounting. Ostensibly democratic governments undermine the independence of the judiciary system, restrict the freedom of the press, and portray any opposition as treason.” 

In 2016, Britain succumbed to the Brexit vote, a move away from the rest of Europe and the world; America voted for Trumpism, a nationalist, anti-global movement. 

Britain and America, some argue, are fighting against liberal democracy with nationalism, a variation of fascism, and this nationalist story argues, wrongly Harari writes, that “liberalization and globalization are a huge racket empowering a tiny elite at the expense of the masses” (5). 

Liberal Democracy Story Challenged:

One. Financial crisis in which regular Americans bail out big corporations.

Two. College puts young people into debt for life and puts them in ridiculous housing market so that the American Dream becomes a joke. 

Three. Voters less and less knowledgeable and more tribalistic as they gather in their social media bubbles. 

Four. Real wages going down every year since about 1980 as the 1% get the lion's share of wealth. 

The 3 Great Stories Mutated into 4 

One. Communism: All our problems result from not owning the means of production.

Two. Fascism: People are dumb animals and need to be controlled by rule of law, an autocrat, or an elite.

Three. Liberal Democracy: People can be educated critical thinkers capable of electing their own government.

Four. Illiberal Democracy, also known as Fascist Light: There is a veneer of democracy with underlying fascist elements.

We develop stories or myths because they pull our emotional heart strings, and these narratives give meaning to our lives. The mean good be real or false, moral or immoral, but we are drawn to a sense of purpose even if that sense of purpose is based on false mythology.

Stories are what bind tribes together, what give us emotional intensity, and what inspire us to write music and poetry.

The Signs and Symptoms of Illiberal Democracy

According to best-selling author Yuval Noah Harari in his book 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, since the twentieth century, the “global elites” around the world’s major cities, have created “three grand stories” that explain our past and predict our future. 

After World War II, the fascist story was killed as a competing story.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Communist story was killed.

That left is with one story: the liberal democracy story. 

But in 2008, after the global financial crisis, liberal democracy mutated into illiberal democracy or Fascism Light. What is illiberal democracy?

The Spread of Illiberal Democracy After 2008: Putinism and Trumpism 

1. Wage war against the free press in favor of state-run propaganda
2. Make truth a relative term so that government officials need not be accountable to objective truth by gaslighting the public with false moral equivalencies and other classic gaslighting methods.
3. Discourage education and critical thinking because an uneducated populace can be more easily manipulated.
4. Suppress voting through gerrymandering and other suppression methods.
5. Have mechanisms in place to rig the elections but make them appear to be legit so that the kleptocracy can stay in power.
6. Put an end to government transparency and accountability. Your country can, for example, use military might to take over another country for some imperialist enterprise, but your country says it was protecting national interests from a hostile foreign entity, and the public praises the leader.
7. Use the government for your own financial gain and that of your cronies, also known as a kleptocracy.
8. Suppress freedom of speech through persecution and intimidation.
9. Champion ethnic nationalism, nostalgia for a mythological glorified past by using racist dog whistles and other means to make a country hostile to diversity.
10. Scapegoat minorities and immigrants in order to make a closed society.  

Effects of Illiberal Democracy on the Citizens 

1. Apathy sets in so that you’re too tired to protest or try to affect any kind of meaningful change. You simply accept the status quo.
2. You live in fear and darkness because there is no free flow of credible information, only reports of political enemies being killed or disappearing.
3. You lack the education and critical thinking skills to even evaluate what the government is doing.
4. You lack historical context to even see where your country ranks in the democracy scale. Do you live in anything that even resembles a legitimate democracy? Is your country evil? Is your country normal? Why? Why not? You’re at a loss to answer these questions.
5. You become like a fish trapped in a small aquarium. Your reality becomes the enclosed world that is all around you. You can’t even imagine life outside the aquarium because murky water is all you have ever seen. There is no beyond to aspire to, no dreams to long for. The kleptocracy has sucked the life out of you, and power exists to perpetuate itself, so change is unlikely.

Our Faith in Governments Is Collapsing, So the Stories That Uphold These Governments Are Dying 

Harari observes that the three stories don’t always exist: In 1938, we had all 3; in 1968 we had 2; in 2019 we have zero. 

In 2018, there is no story. Without a story, there is just chaos. 

“Nothing makes any sense” in our current world. As a result, we are in a panic and fear Armageddon. 

Brexit, Trumpism, and new technologies such as AI and biotech (CRISPR, genetic engineering) are causing us panic with end-of-the-world scenarios. We feel we cannot control the world outside us and we are scared. 

Liberal democracies becoming illiberal, meaning they are hostile to diversity, public education, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and government transparency. 

Reality Bubbles 

Another source of craziness is we not only have different opinions; we have different “facts” because on social media information is algorithmically tailored to conform to our cognitive biases so we isolate ourselves in our custom-made information silos or reality bubbles, resulting in division and acrimony for other humans of different reality bubbles. 

The liberal democracy story is no longer challenged by communism and fascism but something far worse: nihilism. 

Nihilism is anti-world, pro-nation, so it closes the borders. Why? Because the outside is looked as a chaotic force that will bring upheaval to an already chaotic society. 

Oligarchy or Kleptocracy 

In a nihilistic world, we have societies like Russia, which Harari labels an oligarchy, also known as a kleptocracy: This is a corrupt government that allows a few oligarchs to monopolize most of the country’s wealth and power. Combine this with state-run media, and you can pull the wool over the people’s eyes. 

Russia is a fake country. It pretends to uphold Russian nationalism and Orthodox Christianity when in fact its real allegiance is to the oligarchy. Russia has unequal wealth distribution. 87% of wealth is concentrated in 10% of the richest people. 

Oligarchy creates artificial crises to distract public from real problems like lack of healthcare or overcrowded prisons. 

Three. Looked at in the context of history of competing stories and the Harari’s claim that it liberal democracy was conceived by global elites and imperialists, does liberal democracy have any credibility to the world as the only viable alternative for making the best society? 

Liberalism faces huge challenges. 

For one, Millennials don’t rely on it as the default setting for a better society in part because they feel burned by it. They may be more inclined to embrace socialism or some other variant. 

For two, liberal democracy has not addressed “ecological collapse,” structural inequality, and “technological disruption” in a way to garner confidence from anyone. 

For three, during the later part of the twentieth century, liberal democracies saw growth in real spending power for the middle class; however, in the last three decades, real wages have gone down every year as the middle class gets smaller and smaller. 

The liberal story isn’t looking so good these days. 

Competing stories such as nationalism and religion may get into the mix. 

Nihilism During Transition 

Harari asserts we are living “in the nihilist moment of disillusionment and anger” and we await the next story that will convince us that it has the power to take us to the promised land. Until such a story emerges, we languish in darkness, uncertainty, and despair. In this state, bad stories can emerge to deceive us. 

Harari’s subsequent chapters attempt to guide us out of the darkness. 

Infotech and Biotech 

Whatever story we embrace, Harari observes that infotech and biotech will be disruptive forces that shape the winning story. 

Infotech will according to many experts result in taking away billions of jobs and creating a massive “useless class” of people. Mass unemployment coupled with genetically-engineered “super babies” will have a huge influence on the Story we embrace. 

 

Chapter 1 in PDF

One. Why does Brennan question democracy in the context of other forms of government such as oligarchy, monarchy, and aristocracy? 

He wants us to question with critical thinking the assumptions we have about democracy being the best form of government, the type of government that encourages the “sharpest of minds” opposed to dull passivity. 

He explains this in the context of John Adams who was obsessed with a populace that was passionate about pursuing education and critical thinking. 

Based on the abundance of "dull minds," Brennan sees the American experiment in democracy as failing. 

Solution Worse Than Disease?

So his solution is not to help fund more education but to give more privileges to the already educated. Sound right to you?

Democracy means expanding voting population.

John Stuart Mill envisioned a voting populace that was involved with the process. Mill wanted more than privileged white men to vote. He wanted everyone to vote, and he believed or hoped that this privilege would make everyone thirst for knowledge and create a society of people with advanced critical thinking skills. 

Problems with Brennan’s Thesis.

One, is he preaching Rule by Vulcans? If so, who determines who gets to be a Vulcan and who is excluded?

Two, is he preaching nihilism and majority misanthropy? Most people are too dumb for democracy, so we should abandon ship.

We must surrender to this form of nihilism (no hope in a better future and a better populace) and find some patch-work political substitute for democracy.  

Three, Is Brennan guilty of either/or fallacy: Either the masses are smart enough for a healthy democracy or we should terminate the democratic experiment right now.

What if there’s a middle-ground? What if we should fight for education, critical thinking, and a better voting populace, and we don’t solve the problem on an absolute level, but we manage it? We take the edge off mass stupidity by fighting for democracy and its close relative education, which become like Prozac: They don’t cure the woes of ignorance and hooliganism on an absolute level, but they take the edge off those societal ills.

In other words, Brennan is saying democracy has created a dystopia so we should abandon democracy.

Some could argue that democracy creates a dystopia, but we can use education to make our society a dystopia light, which is a preferred outcome to Brennan’s elitism in which only the self-appointed Vulcans rule.

Four, what if Brennan is only partly right. The voting process does corrupt us, but not voting corrupts us even more?

Refuting Brennan's Epistocracy

Holes in Brennan's Argument

Hole #1 He fails to acknowledge Sturgeon's Law in his assessment of American citizens.

According to Sturgeon's Law, over 90% of everything is crap. So of course a tiny percentage will be Vulcans. This means we discard democracy?

What about marriage? Many say that most marriages are unhappy. Should we eliminate marriage? Only a tiny minority of marriages are healthy and happy.

According to Sturgeon’s Law, 90% of everything is ****. Should we ditch democracy because of Sturgeon’s Law? What if it’s the lesser of all available evils?

If Sturgeon is correct, then the education principle works 10% of the time.

If Sturgeon is correct, then only 10% of the epistocracy will be of high quality. Can we trust such a small percentage of the epistocracy to be gatekeepers of a healthy society?

Brennan is making a big deal that education and political engagement fail most of the time. He should also, then, consider that the making of an epistocracy, his claim for a better society, can be subject to the same rate of failure.

Hole #2: Brennan may be replacing one disease with a worse disease.

Even if Brennan is correct about "dull-minded" tribalistic Americans, is granting more privilege to the already privileged the answer? Elitism hardly seems like salvation for America's failing democracy. 

Hole #3: Brennan's elitism, giving more voting points to people based on their level of education, is a fatuous distraction from the real crisis of democracy: structural inequality in areas of education, housing, and healthcare.

When people have "skin in the game," because they have access to education, housing, and healthcare, they tend to be more responsible, educated voters. 

Hole #4: Brennan has no device for deciding who is a legit Vulcan ("qualified" voter) and who is not. 

Hole #5: Even if Brennan could provide an accurate measure of a Vulcan, which he cannot, Vulcans would be tribalistic within themselves and cannibalize each other so that the Vulcan world would be a microcosm of the the tribalistic world at large. In other words, Vulcans are as corruptible as everyone else. 

Conclusion:

Brennan's thesis is too larded with fallacies, half-baked plans, and fatuous solutions for us to give any credence to his argumentation.

Counterargument Section in Your Essay

Ways Brennan Would Rebuttal the Above Refutation of His Argument

How might Brennan’s opponents accuse his book of championing elitism?

Over and over Brennan rejects that education can be the cause of higher intelligence. Rather, he says explicitly in Chapter 3, that people of higher intelligence are drawn to education in the first place.

Going to college and being smarter is not a matter of causation but of correlation.

We can infer from his argument that only a very few people have the hard-wired smarts to be members of the epistocracy. The rest of society should be content being happy hobbits, shopping, online grazing, and the like, and leave government to the minority vulcans.

That, according to many, is elitism.

Elitism tends to be a dirty word, suggestive of autocracy, despotism, and other anti-democratic, anti-humanitarian forces.

How might Brennan defend accusations of elitism?

Brennan makes the case that thoughtful political participation, “deliberative democracy,” does not happen because people’s egos and tribalistic self-interests turns them into competitive hooligans who don’t want the truth. They want to dominate the discussion and assert their dominance politically.

Brennan is arguing that whatever elitism he is pushing, it is preferable to giving hooligans power in the political marketplace.

Brennan seems to be saying: Either take my softened variation of elitism in the form of an epistocracy or take our current democracy in which hooligans exercise way too much power, to the detriment of society.

Look at the rise of Alex Jones and his fellow trolls and hooligans and ask yourself if this is the direction you’d like to see your society follow.

In other words, there is a breed of people who are passionate about politics. Their identity is built on their political passion and identity. Most of us are not like this. We cannot compete with the political fanboys. These fanboys become hooligans and compromise the democratic ideal.

The above is Brennan’s argument in a nutshell.

I think it is one of his strongest arguments. I’m not sure I buy his epistocracy, but I’ll give him credit of his hooligan theory of democracy. 

 

 

Hooligans Spread Fake News

Racial Tribalism Is Breeding "Hooligans" who are spreading Fake News as we see in a dubious video that is all over YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. 

I saw the above video on my Facebook feed and questioned the person who posted on Twitter. Presumably the person saw my critical post because he soon after deleted it from his Facebook page. 

Pessimistic Vs. Optimistic View of America's Future

Pessimists will say that racial tribalism will get worse. Troll hate groups like the Alt-Right and Russian hackers of fake news will influence mainstream political parties and create a fascist society that enables a tiny group while oppressing the overwhelming majority of citizens. 

Optimists will look to Millennials who tend to object to racism and homophobia and tend to embrace inclusivism. Millennials are more and more diverse and their numbers will crush the Alt-Right and the racist interests of old-school tribalists who want to "make America great (white) again." 

Such a view is expressed in an essay, "The Next Consensus," by Jamelle Bouie. 

Bouie's essay, it could be argued, shows that the power of Millennial votes, not an epistocracy as defined by Jason Brennan, is the salvation of America's declining democracy.  

Are the Millennials America's hope?

See "The Next Consensus"

150 years later, we read in Brennan’s book, the results are in, and they’re not pretty. Mill’s hopes for an educated voting populace that is involved in democracy have fallen flat on their butt. Let’s look at some data: 

In the 2016 Election, 55% of qualified Americans voted, the lowest percentage in 20 years. Local elections are far worse with less than 10% 

In contrast, in the 1800s, 70-80% of populace voted for national elections.

Voting Populace Lacking Education: 

A literate voting populace is important to democracy, but that is not promising. 

We read in the Huffington Post: 

According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can’t read. That’s 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can’t read.

Lack of critical thinking skills leaves too many Americans ill equipped to detect fake news such as the Pizzagate atrocity, as reported in The Washington Post.

We read about a study in which millennials score an F in critical thinking.

Voting populace has become more tribalistic. 

Two. According to Brennan, what has America’s democratic experiment shown us?

That we have not smartened up; rather, we have dumbed down. Brennan makes his point by quoting economist Joseph Schumpeter:

“Thus the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests.”

In other words, the typical voter becomes a primitive again. His tribalistic self-interests contaminate his ability to think dispassionately, clearly, and fairly.

As voters, most of us are not fair. We vote in self-interest, and we use cognitive bias, cherry picking information that conforms to our preconceived notions while dismissing opposing views, to reinforce our biased beliefs.

This human tendency toward tribalistic self-interest and cognitive bias makes democracy, as presented as the ultimate ideal of a human society and part of America’s exceptionalism, a fantasy, not a reality.

Brennan is arguing that human nature, selfish and prejudiced, is too corrupt for democracy, and he is aware that his claim is in opposition to a beloved American belief, which has been held high like a great religious principle. To speak against democracy is to be guilty of being a heartless monster.

Brennan says, let’s hold our emotions for a while. Let’s step back and look objectively at America’s grand democratic experiment. How has this experiment fared? The results are ugly, disturbing, and frightening.

A second point that Brennan makes that he knows will get him into trouble is his belief that if a person lacks critical thinking and appropriate knowledge, that person should not be allowed to vote.

These two points: That democracy may not be compatible with human nature, and that we should not automatically give everyone, regardless of their ignorance or misinformation, the right to vote, make Brennan’s book controversial and iconoclastic. The word iconoclastic means shooting down society’s sacred cows. Democracy is one of those sacred cows.

Three. Why does Brennan want less, not more, citizens to vote?

He writes: “We should hope for even less participation, not more. Ideally, politics would occupy only a small portion of the average person’s attention. Ideally, most people would fill their days with painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain, or perhaps football, NASCAR, tractor pulls, celebrity gossip, and trips to Applebee’s. Most people, ideally, would not worry about politics at all.”

At first, I thought Brennan was being facetious, but in the context of his book, he seems to be saying that the majority of people are simply unqualified to vote and they should be left to their own devices, that ideally that should be absorbed by their trivial entertainments and distractions, and leave voting to the deep thinkers and “heavy hitters,” people with the intellectual muster to make the right decisions.

Additionally, Brennan’s point is that a life occupied by politics does not make us better people; it simply makes us more tribalistic as we dig our heels into our own self-interests.

Getting involved with politics doesn’t make us better people, according to Brennan; it makes us more prejudiced, biased, tribalistic people.

Four. According to Brennan, what are the three species of democratic citizens?

Hobbits: apathetic and ignorant about politics. They like to be consumers of everything, but the hell with politics.

On the critical thinking scale of 0-10, they score between a 1 and 2.

Hooligans: They are passionate about politics. They are the “sports fans” of politics. But they have horrible sources of information and no critical thinking skills. They consume fake news (Pizzagate), Alex Jones, and the works of other public trolls. In fact, hooligans are a form of trolls in their own right.

Hooligans are proudly biased in their views and ignorant of opposing views. They would never dare test their ideas by entertaining opposition. They are rabid Kool-Aid drinkers of their political ideology and live in a bubble with their fellow Kool-Aid drinkers.

On the critical thinking scale, they score a big fat ZERO. Or perhaps a negative TEN.

Vulcans: They use critical thinking, credible evidence, and science to reach their views. They are dispassionate and constantly checking their own biases at the door. They welcome doubt and opposition so they can wrestle with their ideas, and they are open to evolving their beliefs and opinions based on new questions, new evidence, and opposing views.

Vulcans avoid reaching political conclusions based on self-interests; rather, they try to be dispassionate and fair-minded.

Vulcans score high in their levels of metacognition and self-awareness. They thirst for knowledge.

On the critical thinking scale, they score at least a 7.

It was John Stuart Mill’s belief that getting everyone involved with politics would create a nation of Vulcans, which for him was a desirable outcome.

However, Brennan is making the case that Mill was wrong on a grand scale. Vulcans have not flourished. Their numbers have diminished.

Brennan’s book could have been titled Demise of the Vulcans.

Brennan’s claim is radical: Politics turns us into hooligans. We should stay out of politics.

This is problematic of course because if we should stay out of politics, WHO should be involved and at what cost to the rest of us?

Brennan had better answer these questions to our satisfaction, or his book is dead on arrival. We must hold Brennan to these questions as we continue reading.

Five. What is democratic triumphalism?

Most academics, Brennan points out, glory in democratic triumphalism, the belief that widespread involvement in politics makes all of us better citizens, better critical thinkers, and more highly evolved Vulcans.

Going against the grain of his colleagues, Brennan, a professor of philosophy and political science, argues that democratic involvement causes us to devolve or degenerate into a nasty primitive state of hooliganism.

He is saying we should give up on the democratic experiment; the results are in, and we failed.

 

 

Seven. How does an individual’s freedom to vote hurt everyone?

Brennan uses the example of a self-destructive Izzy character whose wanton lifestyle of junk food hurts only him. However, when the voting equivalent of an Izzy votes, the destruction is spread to everyone.

This is why the Izzy people shouldn’t be able to vote. This example is used as a case against democracy.

Izzy refutes the idea of proceduralism, the idea that democracy is intrinsically good.

The quality of democracy is dependent on the quality of its voters. A preponderance of Izzy voters makes for a hideous democracy.

Majority rule can be bad. In times of slavery, the majority of whites in the South believed slavery was a good, Christian institution. They were evil, delusional, or both. Evil, delusional majorities should not determine political outcomes.

Eight. What claim does Brennan make about an epistocracy?

An epistocracy is rule of the knowledgeable, or rule of the Vulcans.

In an epistocracy, citizens have to study and prove a baseline of intelligence, expertise, and competence to be qualified one vote. Greater qualifications can grant a citizen even more than one vote.

An epistocratic committee exists to veto stupid or bad or unjust laws.

Brennan does not have absolute faith in the epistocracy. Rather, he claims that if an epistocracy can show a better result than our current democracy, we may want to embrace some variation of it in spite of its “realistic flaws.”

Brennan does not want Vulcans to have authority over non-Vulcans; however, positing the anti-authority tenet, he claims we must deny authority of the ignorant and ill-informed by taking away their right to vote.  

As a champion of some form of an epistocracy, Brennan rejects the notion that political inequality is unjust.

Part 2 of Brennan:

One. What are the 3 levels of political knowledge?

Some know a lot; some know nothing; others know less than nothing, meaning they have wrong information.

35% of voters are “know-nothings.”

American voters are not stupid; they “just don’t care.” The issue is apathy or people are too busy making a living or too distracted by cat videos.

In fact, most of us engage in rational ignorance, not bothering with political information that has a direct effect on our lives. In other words, the expected costs of political information exceed the expected benefits.

If you’re poor, disenfranchised, and living on the margins, do you really feel there are high stakes in voting? Your life is a struggle regardless of the policies or who is in office.

If you are in the middle class or higher and you feel there are stakes, you may learn a modicum of politics.

There is knowledge stratification with infovores and political nerds hanging out with their own kind and the politically apathetic hanging out with theirs. With a shrinking middle class and with structural inequality, the stratification is going to get worse.

Also tribalistic stratification doesn’t create objective knowledge; rather, it creates bias.

In contrast, a vulcan is free of cognitive bias. The vulcan is free of “motivated reasoning,” developing thoughts to feel good about himself, to feel belonging, and to feel vindicated. These are not dispassionate thoughts.

Non-vulcans reason to win arguments, not to find the truth.

Two. What is political tribalism?

We are drawn to belong in groups, and we share our tribe’s biases and hostilities to outside tribes.

People don’t really study politics. They are more like fans rooting for their team.

Three. What is confirmation and disconfirmation bias?

We search for evidence (we cherry pick evidence) that supports our pre-existing views.

They will disconfirm or criticize views that don’t match their own.

Availability bias means we blow up shark attacks and other lurid sensations in news because their high ratings makes them visible. We ignore global warming because it’s not exciting and reported with same vigor as kidnapping or shark attack.

Four. Why do low levels of information matter in voting?

Studies show low-information voters support policies that impose prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination against those who are different than they are. They also want harsher legal penalties and a more aggressive foreign policy.

 

 

“Are American Voters Actually Just Stupid?”

“We Must Weed Out Ignorant Voters from the Electorate”

Book Reviews of Jason Brennan’s Against Democracy:

“Bleeding Heart Bullshit” by Jonah Walters

Rosyln Fuller’s review in LA Review of Books

“Democracy Vs Epistocracy” by Ilya Somin

“The Case Against Democracy” in The New Yorker, writer Caleb Crain

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews article by Thomas Christiano

Dickie Bellringer review

Stumbling and Mumbling review

Boston Review article

“What a Georgetown Professor Got Wrong When He Argued That Maybe Dumb People Shouldn’t be Allowed to Vote”

“The Smartest Person in the Voting Booth”

Recognizing Logical Fallacies

Begging the Question

Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.

Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.

Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.

Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.

Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.

Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.

Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.

Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.

I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.

I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.

I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.

I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.

Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison

Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.

A toxic relationship is like cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).

Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)

Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)

Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)

“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”

A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.

“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”

Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.

“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”

Straw Man Fallacy

You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.

“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”

Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)

“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”

“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.

Either/Or Fallacy

There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.

“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”

“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”

“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”

“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)

“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”

“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”

Equivocation

Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.

“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”

“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”

The seller is equivocating.

“I told you to be in bed by ten.”

“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”

“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”

“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”

“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”

“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”

Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.

“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”

“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”

“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”

Slippery Slope Fallacy

We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.

“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”

“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”

Appeal to Authority

Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.

Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.

Tradition Fallacy

“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”

“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”

Misuse of Statistics

Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.

“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).

“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)

Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation

Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?

The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?

You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?

You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)

Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)

The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.

Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.

McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.

Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.

Bandwagon Fallacy

Because everyone believes something, it must be right.

“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”

“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”

1C Agenda 9-19-19: Homeless Parking Debate & Why We Don't Change Our Mind

Essay #2 

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Choice A

Watch Netflix documentary Ronnie Coleman: The King. Considered to be the greatest bodybuilder of all time, Coleman is now on crutches, faces a lifetime of excruciating pain, must take opioid pain medication, may have to be consigned to a wheelchair, and by most accounts the abuse he took to become a champion bodybuilder is the reason for his condition. The film celebrates Coleman’s life principle to persist in doing what he loves, but doing what he loves comes with a price: excruciating, life-altering injuries. Is doing what we love worth it? In this context, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the notion that in order to achieve exceptional success, we are justified to make sacrifices of our body, minds, and souls. Is Coleman’s current condition justified by his success and his heroic drive to do what he loves? Answer this question and be sure to have a counterargument section. 

 

Choice B

Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots. 

 

Choice C

Read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

 

Choice D

Read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

 

Choice E

Read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and develop a thesis that addresses how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

 

Choice F

Read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. 

September 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin; Ronnie Coleman; debate on providing sleepover parking lots: Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis about the pros and cons of providing sleeping spaces for college students. Homework #5 for next class is to read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

September 19 Go over Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

Homework #6 for next class is to read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

September 24 Go over Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

Homework #7 for next class is to read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

September 26 Go over Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

Homework #8 for next class is to read Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” 

October 1 Go over Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” Homework #9 is to read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. 

October 3 We will watch a YouTube video that explains UBI. We will go over Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. We will grade Portfolio #1, based on responses 1-9. 

October 8 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write introduction and thesis paragraph.   

October 10 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write 3 supporting paragraphs, your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph, and your conclusion. 

 

October 15 Essay 2 due on turnitin.

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

 

Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots. 

Another LA Times editorial addresses unintended consequences. 

Bill AB302 was killed. 

 

 

"Why Not Less Homeless Students Park in Campus Parking Lots?"

 

Suggested Essay Outline for Homeless Debate

Paragraph 1: Explain the homeless crisis for California community college students.

Paragraph 2: Your thesis, defend or refute the case that community colleges would be doing a service to the community by providing overnight parking facilities for homeless students in their cars.

Paragraphs 3-6: Develop your supporting paragraphs.

Paragraph 7: Develop a counterargument and rebuttal. 

Paragraph 8: Your conclusion is a powerful restatement of your thesis.

Paragraph 9: Videos of homeless students can pull our heart strings by showing us very sympathetic people trying to get by, but do these portrayals encompass the full spectrum of homeless people who will be using the college service and if not, does this not constitute cheap propaganda? 

Some Points to Consider:

One. How can we enforce cars that never move and essentially create a permanent homeless encampment? 

Two. Will this policy create a homeless magnet that gets out of control and hurts other students?

Three. Is this well-intentioned policy punishing other students?

Four. Will lack of bathrooms result in people going to the bathroom outdoors and creating a health crisis and a repugnant environment?

Five. Will colleges be afflicted with liability for all the crimes committed in these parking lots? 

Six. Can colleges afford proportionate security to the growth of people living in the parking lots?

Seven. Should these encampments be allowed at colleges close to elementary schools?

Eight. Will the community become bitter and sour at the community colleges for allowing a festering wound to occur in their "backyards"?

Nine. Is this policy even a true solution to the homeless crisis?

 

“Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds” by Elizabeth Kolbert

 

Central Question:

Regardless of evidence, why do formed impressions stay with us?

One. We are afflicted with the Backfire Effect: The more others prove we’re wrong, the more we dig in our heels, fight back, and stubbornly hold to our erroneous opinions and obsolete beliefs. 

Two. When facts destroy our worldview, we react with physical threat, what is called the fight-or-flight response.

For example, for decades I thought yogurt was a “health food,” and then one day my wife told me that yogurt, the kind larded with sugar, is bad for you. Often, sweetened yogurt has more sugar than ice cream. When my wife told me this, I shouted in protest, but when I read the ingredients, I realized she was correct. I was upset and anxious for weeks after. How could yogurt be a diabetes supplement? I felt betrayed. 

Three. Some academics attribute our malformed, stubbornly held beliefs to an adaptation to fit with the tribe through cooperation and collaboration. We can only cooperate if we share values and beliefs. 

Four. Another cause of holding on to fallacious beliefs and opinions is confirmation bias in which we cherry pick evidence to conform to our pre-existing beliefs and assumptions. 

Confirmation bias is also called “Myside bias” because we tend to base our bias on “our team” or “our tribe.” 

Five. We also fail to adjust our opinions to the presented evidence because we suffer from the “illusion of explanatory depth,” meaning we are less knowledgeable about a topic than we believe. This is a polite way of saying we don’t know how ignorant we are.

A variation of the above idea is the Dunning-Kruger Effect (see Ted-Ed video), which states that the dumber we are the smarter we think we are. 

 

Choice C

Read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

Essay Strategy:

Write about the failure of changing people's minds in specific context.

For example, you might develop a thesis in the context of anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers. 

"Humans need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial" in The Guardian 

Measles Spells the Death of Critical Thinking

 

 

 

Sample Outline:

In paragraph 1, summarize Kolbert's essay "Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds" and explain why we remain biased even in the face of contrary evidence. 

Paragraph 2, your thesis: argue that Anti-Vaxxers or Flat-Earthers, or Global Warming Deniers or some other Irrational Tribe embodies the Backfire Effect.

Paragraphs 3-6 are your supporting paragraphs.

Paragraph 7 is your counterargument: You anticipate how the tribe in question will object to your criticism and you will refute their counterargument.

Paragraph 8: Your conclusion is a powerful restatement of your thesis. 

 

Metaphors to Explain How Misinformation Trolls Are Spreading Disease Throughout the World:

World War Z

Game of Thrones: Night King wants to kill Bran Stark because Bran represents memory. The Night King wants to erase memory and reign over kingdom of eternal darkness. 

 

 

Recognizing Logical Fallacies

Begging the Question

Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.

Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.

Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.

Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.

Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.

Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.

Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.

Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.

I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.

I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.

I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.

I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.

Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison

Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.

A toxic relationship is like cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).

Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)

Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)

Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)

“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”

A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.

“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”

Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.

“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”

Straw Man Fallacy

You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.

“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”

Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)

“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”

“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.

Either/Or Fallacy

There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.

“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”

“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”

“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”

“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)

“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”

“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”

Equivocation

Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.

“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”

“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”

The seller is equivocating.

“I told you to be in bed by ten.”

“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”

“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”

“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”

“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”

“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”

Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.

“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”

“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”

“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”

Slippery Slope Fallacy

We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.

“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”

“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”

Appeal to Authority

Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.

Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.

Tradition Fallacy

“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”

“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”

Misuse of Statistics

Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.

“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).

“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)

Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation

Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?

The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?

You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?

You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)

Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)

The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.

Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.

McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.

Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.

Bandwagon Fallacy

Because everyone believes something, it must be right.

“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”

“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”

1C Agenda 9-17-19: Essay 2 Options, The Complicated Case of Ronnie Coleman, Sleepover Parking Lots on College Campuses?

Essay #2 

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Choice A

Watch Netflix documentary Ronnie Coleman: The King. Considered to be the greatest bodybuilder of all time, Coleman is now on crutches, faces a lifetime of excruciating pain, must take opioid pain medication, may have to be consigned to a wheelchair, and by most accounts the abuse he took to become a champion bodybuilder is the reason for his condition. The film celebrates Coleman’s life principle to persist in doing what he loves, but doing what he loves comes with a price: excruciating, life-altering injuries. Is doing what we love worth it? In this context, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the notion that in order to achieve exceptional success, we are justified to make sacrifices of our body, minds, and souls. Is Coleman’s current condition justified by his success and his heroic drive to do what he loves? Answer this question and be sure to have a counterargument section. 

 

Choice B

Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots. 

 

Choice C

Read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

 

Choice D

Read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

 

Choice E

Read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and develop a thesis that addresses how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

 

Choice F

Read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. There are so many UBI essays that if you find one that you think is better for your purposes, I will probably approve of you using it. 

September 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin; Ronnie Coleman; debate on providing sleepover parking lots: Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis about the pros and cons of providing sleeping spaces for college students. Homework #5 for next class is to read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

September 19 Go over Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds. 

Homework #6 for next class is to read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

September 24 Go over Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy. 

Homework #7 for next class is to read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

September 26 Go over Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism. 

Homework #8 for next class is to read Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” 

October 1 Go over Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” Homework #9 is to read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. 

October 3 We will watch a YouTube video that explains UBI. We will go over Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. We will grade Portfolio #1, based on responses 1-9. 

October 8 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write introduction and thesis paragraph.   

October 10 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write 3 supporting paragraphs, your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph, and your conclusion. 

 

October 15 Essay 2 due on turnitin.

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Choice A

Watch Netflix documentary Ronnie Coleman: The King. Considered to be the greatest bodybuilder of all time, Coleman is now on crutches, faces a lifetime of excruciating pain, must take opioid pain medication, may have to be consigned to a wheelchair, and by most accounts the abuse he took to become a champion bodybuilder is the reason for his condition. The film celebrates Coleman’s life principle to persist in doing what he loves, but doing what he loves comes with a price: excruciating, life-altering injuries. Is doing what we love worth it? In this context, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the notion that in order to achieve exceptional success, we are justified to make sacrifices of our body, minds, and souls.

Is Coleman’s current condition justified by his success and his heroic drive to do what he loves? Answer this question and be sure to have a counterargument section.

Three Sources:

You need to cite two sources, the Ronnie Coleman documentary and Bourree Lam’s Atlantic article “Why ‘Do You What You Love’ Is Pernicious Advice.” This is based on essay, "In the Name of Love" by Miya Tokumitsu. 

Johann Hari: "Are Junk Values Making Us Depressed?"

From The Passion Paradox by Brad Stulberg and Steve Magness:

When Passion Goes Bad:

One. You become a slave to external results and validation.

Two. You become blind to everything but your passion.

Three. You burn out.

Four. You lose joy. 

Five. Everyone tells you how find your passion but no one tells you how to find it, or how to live with it.

When Passion Helps You Thrive and Be Your Best

One. You use passion to achieve self-determination, which means you are not dependent on external validation or external rewards like money and fame, but for the intrinsic joy of your passion.

Two. Your passion is accompanied by competency and mastery of your craft. In other words, passion without the discipline and focus to make the passion become actualized is worthless.

Three. Your passion is accompanied by autonomy and freedom to live your most authentic self, not a terrified shadow of yourself seeking outside approval. 

Four. Your passion gives you a sense of relatedness: your passion connects you to something larger than yourself. 

Developing a Thesis for Option A:

One. Of course, we should have some passion for anything we do. It is too self-evident to make a claim that we should have passion or not when making a career choice. 

Two. To achieve critical thinking in this topic, we have to talk about passion in terms of specific definition, a specific context, and a specific application. 

Definition

Your essay should discern between intrinsic and extrinsic passion.

Not all passion is equal. Some passion is deeply-seated in the core of one's soul. Other passions are superficial and transitory or short-lived. 

Specific Context

Your essay should discern between the passion of a noble pursuit, like recycling or saving the planet or developing renewable energy technologies or being passionate about something based on greed or hate or racism or some other despicable impulse. 

Passion is not absolute. Life often requires that we make compromises with our passion for our self-interests. For example, I might be a great artist, but I can't make a living doing studio art, so I have to compromise by using my artistic skills as a graphic designer for Honda or Lexus or the computer gaming industry. 

The idea that we must "live our passion" without restraint and in some absolute form is often unrealistic, absurd, childish, asinine, and self-destructive. 

Application

Your essay should frame passion as only one tool in your career toolbox. For example, passion that is not harnessed by discipline, structure, consistency, and common sense is not only worthless; it's dangerous. 

McMahon's "Hot Take" Thesis

To advise people to "follow their passion and do what they love" is an empty, even dangerous bromide unless we attach that advice to important caveats or conditions: People should follow their passion and do what they love if the love comes from an intrinsic place, if people have the discipline and guidance to develop competence and mastery of the thing they love, if people are willing to make compromises when the thing they love can't make them a living as they originally intended, and if people have calculated the net liability of doing the thing they love with its net benefits. 

In the case of Ronnie Coleman, the latter calculation is his individual choice. Personally, I would not subject myself to a lifetime of major surgeries, crippling injuries, and pain medications in order to be the world's best bodybuilder; however, unlike Ronnie Coleman, I am not a rare muscle freak who has the potential to reach the level of muscle freakishness that Ronnie Coleman was able to obtain. 

Counterargument

McMahon's rebuke of passion is nonsense. We are not mercenaries, robots, soulless android-like supporting our lifestyles with whatever jobs are available. We go to college in part to find a way to awaken passions within us that we can connect to the job market. Eliminating the passion component is foolish, cruel, and unwise because if we pursue careers solely based on financial interests, we will lose our soul, we will fall into depression, we will fizzle out, and we won't have the competitive edge against those who pursue the same fields we do and have authentic passion in what they do. 

Homeless Campus Lots?

Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis about the pros and cons of providing sleeping spaces for college students.

 

Recognizing Logical Fallacies

Begging the Question

Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.

Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.

Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.

Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.

Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.

Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.

Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.

Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.

I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.

I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.

I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.

I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.

Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison

Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.

A toxic relationship is like cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).

Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)

Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)

Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)

“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”

A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.

“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”

Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.

“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”

Straw Man Fallacy

You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.

“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”

Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)

“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”

“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.

Either/Or Fallacy

There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.

“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”

“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”

“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”

“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)

“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”

“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”

Equivocation

Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.

“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”

“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”

The seller is equivocating.

“I told you to be in bed by ten.”

“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”

“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”

“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”

“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”

“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”

Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.

“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”

“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”

“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”

Slippery Slope Fallacy

We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.

“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”

“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”

Appeal to Authority

Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.

Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.

Tradition Fallacy

“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”

“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”

Misuse of Statistics

Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.

“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).

“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)

Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation

Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?

The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?

You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?

You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)

Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)

The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.

Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.

McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.

Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.

Bandwagon Fallacy

Because everyone believes something, it must be right.

“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”

“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”

1C Agenda 9-5-19: Review of Harari's Critique of Agricultural Revolution, Workism, Signal Phrases & Logical Fallacies

September 5 Logical Fallacies and Signal Phrase review; Go over Sapiens to page 159. Homework #4 for next class: Turn in tentative thesis. 

September 10 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write introduction and thesis paragraph.   

September 12 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write 3 supporting paragraphs, your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph, and your conclusion. 

 

September 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin

Choice B

Support, refute, or complicate Harari’s assertion that the “agricultural revolution was the greatest crime against humanity.”  

You need minimum 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Sample Thesis and Outline 

Harari makes a persuasive case that the AR has been a curse to Sapiens evidenced by __________________, ________________, ____________________, and ______________________. 

Contrary Thesis

While Harari's observations about the AR are true and self-evident, he fails to persuade us to stay in the cave, to glorify foraging, and to embrace ignorance in the face of the human drive for innovation, which made the AR inevitable. 

Another Contrary Thesis

While Harari does an excellent job of showing the liabilities of the AR, his suggestion that Foragers lived in a relative paradise is myth-making of its own right that fails to account the brutalities of hunters and gatherers. 

 

Paragraph 1: Introduction explains the differences between foragers and inhabitants of the AR.

Paragraph 2: Thesis or claim

Paragraphs 3-6: Supporting paragraphs

Paragraph 7: Counterargument-rebuttal

Paragraph 8: Conclusion is powerful restatement of thesis

Counterarguments: Noble Savage Myth

Possible counterarguments in Quillette: “Romanticizing the Hunter-Gatherer” by William Buckner

Excerpt

But what about egalitarianism? In a 2004 study, Michael Gurven marshals an impressive amount of cross-cultural data and notes that hunters tend to keep more of their kill for themselves and their families than they share with others.¹² While there is undeniably a great deal of sharing across hunter-gatherer societies, common notions of generalized equality are greatly overstated. Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.¹³ When taking into account ‘embodied wealth’ such as hunting returns and reproductive success, and ‘relational wealth’ such as the number of exchange and sharing partners, Alden Smith et al. calculated that hunter-gatherer societies have a ‘moderate’ level of inequality, roughly comparable to that of Denmark.¹⁴ While this is less inequality than most agricultural societies and nation states, it’s not quite the level of egalitarianism many have come to expect from hunter-gatherers.

In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.¹⁵ Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.¹⁶ Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

According to anthropologists Douglas Fry and Geneviève Souillac, “Nomadic forager data suggest a human predilection toward equality, including gender equality, in ethos and action,”¹⁷ yet the available data do not support this notion in the slightest. On the contrary, in 1978 Robert Tonkinson had found that, among the Mardu hunter-gatherers of Australia, “Mardu men accord themselves greater ritual responsibility, higher status, more power, and more rights than women. It is a society in which male interests generally prevail when rights are contested and in the centrally important arena of religious life.”¹⁸ Among the Hiwi of Venezuela, and the Ache of Paraguay, female infants and children are disproportionately victims of infanticide, neglect, and child homicide.^19 20 It is in fact quite common in hunter-gatherer societies that are at war, or heavily reliant on male hunting for subsistence, for female infants to be habitually neglected or killed.^21 22 In 1931, Knud Rasmussen recorded that, among the Netsilik Inuit, who were almost wholly reliant on male hunting and fishing, out of 96 births from parents he interviewed, 38 girls were killed (nearly 40 percent).²³

A related criticism is in Will Day-Brosnan's book review: 

Elsewhere, I wondered the extent to which Harari was projecting an idealistic (even Rousseauian) vision of a noble savage on pre-state peoples. His depiction of a foraging lifestyle (‘A Day in the Life of Adam and Eve’) unencumbered by the complexities and worries of civilisational living could be read as reactionary atavism. In this section, the bibliography and citations are also problematic, Harari makes claims for which it is difficult to trace a source. For example, he affirms that ‘loneliness and privacy were rare [amongst hunter gatherers]’; that the human population ‘was smaller than that of today’s Cairo’; that the ‘average ancient forager could turn a flint stone into a spear point within minutes’; and that ‘hunter gatherers living today… work on average for just thirty five to forty five hours a week’ (52-6). If sources for these claims exist, they are very difficult to correlate with the text.

Sample Counterargument and Conclusion

While I love Sapiens as a life-altering book on how I regard the human race, where we came from, where we are today, and where we are going, I am not totally drinking the Noah Yuval Harari Kool-Aid. I in fact agree with those critics who observe that Harari commits a sort of implied Noble Savage Fallacy by suggesting that pre-agriculture society was vastly superior to the evils evident in a post-agricultural state. Ruthless tyrants indeed flourished in the Agriculture Age, but evil “shot-callers” have always been with us. Any microsociety has an Alpha who dominates the others. Where I agree with Harari is that the Agriculture Age scaled this evil because agriculture resulted in a population explosion. 

Secondly, it is too late to fret over our morbidly obese, tooth-decayed post-Forager condition. The Genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. Rather than long to run through jungles in animal skins with our ripped bodies, we need to look at how we might flourish in a world sodden with mono-crops and a growing appetite for mass-produced animal flesh. Here, Harari argues that that A.I. might navigate us out of our self-destruction if we don’t kill ourselves first. 

In sum, Harari’s Sapiens is a masterpiece, an unflinching critique of our violent and irrational appetites, our grand imagination, and our drive for dominance, which may or may not spell our demise. 

 

Feel free to compare Agricultural Revolution to Workism as defined in Derek Thompson's essay "The Religion of Workism Is Making Millennials Miserable."

Sample Thesis and Mapping Components for Your Body Paragraphs

In Derek Thompson's insightful essay "The Religion of Workism Is Making Millennials Miserable," we see there are parallels between the false promises of the Agricultural Revolution and Work Worship (Workism):  manipulating workers to work harder by celebrating overwork resulting in the workers' demise; making self-worth and identity dependent on the job; becoming a cog in the machine of structural inequality; embracing the false promise of finding life meaning through work; crashing into a state of job burnout resulting in mind-numbing "zombification"; forgetting the value of free time and not knowing how to enjoy free time. 

Sample Thesis Statements

Concurring with Harari, I propose that the Agricultural Revolution was the Mother of structural inequality, racism, and sexism, all wrapped in an inferior diet and lifestyle so that in total the AR was a curse to the human race. 

Contrary Thesis

Harari, McMahon, and others are guilty of scapegoating the AR when in fact human evil is such that structural inequality, racism, and sexism exist in all human lifestyles. It's just that AR exploded the human population so that evil grew on a mass scale. 

Choice A

Develop an argumentative thesis about Yuval Noah Harari's explanation of the Cognitive Revolution.

Importance of Counterarguments:

You need a counterargument section to show that you have submitted your thesis to rigorous opposition. This makes you seem more credible and persuasive. 

You can find counterarguments for Harari's notion of Cognitive and Agricultural Revolution in C.R. Hallpike essay "A Response to Yuval Harari's Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind." 

 

Essay Guidelines:

About 80% of your essay should be written in your voice with your words.

Another 20% of your essay will consist of quotations, paraphrase, and summary from the book Sapiens and credible source of your choice.  We call this "cited material."

When you introduce your cited material, you must use signal phrases. 

Example Link #1

Example Link #2

When you cite material, paraphrases and summaries are with few exceptions superior to direct quotations. 

Example Link #1

Example Link #2

You need minimum 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Signal Phrases

We use signal phrases to signal to the reader that we are going to cite research material in the form of direct quotes, paraphrase or summary.

We include the author's background information to give author credibility or ethos in our argumentation. 

After we cite the information, we present our own analysis to show how this material supports our argument. 

Examples of a signal phrases:

We are fools if we think we were put on Planet Earth to be happy. That is the fantasy of a four-year-old child. Ironically, this infantile pursuit of happiness makes us unhappy. In the words of John Mellencamp: “I don’t think we’re put on this earth to live happy lives. I think we’re put here to challenge ourselves physically, emotionally, intellectually.”

The idea of a meritocracy is that a healthy society allows people with merits, regardless of their economic privilege, to rise to the top of the power hierarchy. However, such a meritocracy does not exist as privilege, not merit, is the dominant force of acquiring power. As we read in Yale Law School professor Daniel Markovits' essay "How Life Became an Endless Terrible Competition": "Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale collectively enroll more students from households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution than from households in the bottom 60 percent. Legacy preferences, nepotism, and outright fraud continue to give rich applicants corrupt advantages. But the dominant causes of this skew toward wealth can be traced to meritocracy. On average, children whose parents make more than $200,000 a year score about 250 points higher on the SAT than children whose parents make $40,000 to $60,000. Only about one in 200 children from the poorest third of households achieves SAT scores at Yale’s median. Meanwhile, the top banks and law firms, along with other high-paying employers, recruit almost exclusively from a few elite colleges."

Variation of the above:

The idea of a meritocracy is that a healthy society allows people with merits, regardless of their economic privilege, to rise to the top of the power hierarchy. However, such a meritocracy does not exist as privilege, not merit, is the dominant force of acquiring power. According to Yale Law School professor Daniel Markovits in his essay "How Life Became an Endless Terrible Competition": "Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale collectively enroll more students from households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution than from households in the bottom 60 percent. Legacy preferences, nepotism, and outright fraud continue to give rich applicants corrupt advantages. But the dominant causes of this skew toward wealth can be traced to meritocracy. On average, children whose parents make more than $200,000 a year score about 250 points higher on the SAT than children whose parents make $40,000 to $60,000. Only about one in 200 children from the poorest third of households achieves SAT scores at Yale’s median. Meanwhile, the top banks and law firms, along with other high-paying employers, recruit almost exclusively from a few elite colleges."

 

 

 

 

 

Recognizing Logical Fallacies

Begging the Question

Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.

Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.

Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.

Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.

Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.

Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.

Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.

Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.

I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.

I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.

I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.

I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.

Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison

Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.

A toxic relationship is like cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).

Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)

Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)

Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)

“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”

A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.

“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”

Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.

“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”

Straw Man Fallacy

You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.

“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”

Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)

“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”

“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.

Either/Or Fallacy

There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.

“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”

“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”

“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”

“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)

“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”

“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”

Equivocation

Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.

“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”

“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”

The seller is equivocating.

“I told you to be in bed by ten.”

“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”

“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”

“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”

“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”

“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”

Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.

“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”

“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”

“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”

Slippery Slope Fallacy

We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.

“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”

“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”

Appeal to Authority

Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.

Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.

Tradition Fallacy

“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”

“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”

Misuse of Statistics

Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.

“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).

“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)

Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation

Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?

The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?

You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?

You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)

Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)

The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.

Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.

McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.

Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.

Bandwagon Fallacy

Because everyone believes something, it must be right.

“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”

“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of How Humans Were Degraded:

Farmers had to work more for less nutrition.

More people lived in concentrated areas under worse living conditions.

More people bought into AR as best way of life possible in spite of contrary evidence because of powerful mythology of the "homeland" and other shared collective delusions of the imagination (thank you, Cognitive Revolution).

Working harder to become a better person became the work ethic, all based on a lie. 

Animals underwent mass suffering as livestock (think factory farming) instead of prey.

AR encouraged greed and economic stratification. 

Farmers lived in artificial enclaves and homes.

Farmers were alienated from nature resulted in lost self-sufficiency. 

Farmers tortured livestock.

Farmers now had to constantly fret over future weather conditions whereas foragers could live in the present.

Farmers created a peasant society, which was an exploited class of people that joined the exploited animals. 

Can myths be eradicated by bloodshed? 

The short answer is no.

Even after a tribe loses a war, it clings to its false myth. For example, Harari observes that the institution of slavery in the United States based on the myth of white supremacy resulted in the Civil War against forces that rejected the white supremacy myth, but even in the loss of the Civil War, many whites still proudly brandish the Confederate flag, venerate Confederate generals in the form of statues and monuments of various kinds, and hold white supremacy beliefs. Such people embrace what is called the false religion of The Lost Cause. Even after losing a war, such people cling to a racist ideology that gives them identity and meaning based on tribalistic narcissism. 

Myths live because their adherents believe they come from God or are an “indisputable law of nature” or a necessary for keeping order or some other deeply held belief that the adherents share with their tribe. 

Myths imbue the culture in the form of art, fairy tales, poetry, literature, TV, movies, etc. Look at the Jim Crow Museum on Youtube and you will find how white supremacy saturated American culture with myths of white superiority. 

Dangerous Myths That Persist

The American myth of the masculine pioneer creates a deeply seated love for guns that does not exist in any other country. 

The American myth of “follow your passion” deludes Americans into believing they will have their “dream job” if they are simply “true to themselves and their real inner passion,” when in fact only about 2% of people have a career that could be called their dream job. Most people work jobs to support themselves and their families, and they make the best of it regardless of how unpleasant the job usually is. 

The myth of consumerism tells us we cannot be happy unless we work our butts off to buy lots of stuff we don’t need, and the myth works because the majority of people go down Consumer Road and often die there. 

The myth of consumerism has infected our notion of marriage so that we desire to experience our spouse as a “consumer experience,” and if the experience is less than our expectations dictate, we are entitled to seek a new consumer experience in the form of a new spouse until “we get it right.” 

What is the key question in understanding human history in the millennia after the Agricultural Revolution? 

How did humans organize in mass cooperation networks when they lacked the biological instincts, such as ants and bees, to do so? 

Humans created “imagined orders and devised scripts” (131). 

These scripts created artificial hierarchies or economic and social stratification with Haves and Have-Nots, lords and serfs, royalty and peasants. 

Harari breaks the system down into Superiors, Commoners, and Slaves, and this stratification was reinforced by some “divine code” or other. 

People in power and privilege like to talk about “justice and equality” but only as a smokescreen in order to perpetuate their advantage over others. 

Political and religious codes, Harari observes, are canards, deceptions, BS, that the powerful create to pacify and to shut up the masses. 

These codes help maintain civil order and control, but they do little to help promote equality and justice.   

Social codes, Harari observes, emphasize purity on one hand and pollution on the other. To scapegoat, marginalize, and eliminate a certain group of people (minorities, women, Jews, gays, to name a few Harari refers to on page 138), these people are dehumanized by the code. 

Harari points out that the morally repulsive and abhorrent slave trade in America was supported by phony codes that supported ideas of white supremacy and black inferiority in order to get white people to cooperate with the evil system of slavery. 

Harari further points out that many societies created codes that designated women as a man’s property. Universally speaking, humans have made man codes or patriarchal codes because, according one theory, men are more violent and aggressive (154). But in the end, Harari says no one theory can explain patriarchal systems. 

Seven. How does Harari’s argument above support his larger argument that the Agricultural Revolution is the greatest fraud perpetrated on the human race? 

Clearly, exploiting of the less fortunate is part of the social control and mass cooperation, and Harari makes the case these codes did not exist in forager society; rather, they flourished in the Agricultural Period.

Feel free to compare Agricultural Revolution to Workism as defined in Derek Thompson's essay "The Religion of Workism Is Making Millennials Miserable."

Sample Thesis and Mapping Components for Your Body Paragraphs

In Derek Thompson's insightful essay "The Religion of Workism Is Making Millennials Miserable," we see there are parallels between the false promises of the Agricultural Revolution and Work Worship (Workism):  manipulating workers to work harder by celebrating overwork resulting in the workers' demise; making self-worth and identity dependent on the job; becoming a cog in the machine of structural inequality; embracing the false promise of finding life meaning through work; crashing into a state of job burnout resulting in mind-numbing "zombification"; forgetting the value of free time and not knowing how to enjoy free time. 

Sample Thesis Statements

Concurring with Harari, I propose that the Agricultural Revolution was the Mother of structural inequality, racism, and sexism, all wrapped in an inferior diet and lifestyle so that in total the AR was a curse to the human race. 

Harari, McMahon, and others are guilty of scapegoating the AR when in fact human evil is such that structural inequality, racism, and sexism exist in all human lifestyles. It's just that AR exploded the human population so that evil grew on a mass scale. 

Choice A

Develop an argumentative thesis about Yuval Noah Harari's explanation of the Cognitive Revolution.

Importance of Counterarguments:

You need a counterargument section to show that you have submitted your thesis to rigorous opposition. This makes you seem more credible and persuasive. 

You can find counterarguments for Harari's notion of Cognitive and Agricultural Revolution in C.R. Hallpike essay "A Response to Yuval Harari's Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind." 

 

Sample Refutation Thesis

C.R. Hallpike's essay "A Response to Yuval Harari's Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" is an attempt to discredit Harari, but Hallpike's critique is too larded with Straw Man, non sequitur, semantic, faulty comparison, and other logical fallacies to be persuasive. 

 

Here is an excerpt that challenges Harari's notion of legal fictions with my interjections:

As an anthropologist who has trodden roughly the same path as Harari in a number of books (Hallpike 1979, 1986, 2008, 2016) I was naturally curious to see what he has to say, but it soon became clear that its claim to be a work of science is questionable, beginning with his notion of culture. Language is obviously the basis of human culture, but one of the central themes of the book is the idea that not just language but what he calls 'fiction' has been crucial in the ascent of Man:
 

. . . the truly unique feature of our language is not its ability to transmit information about men and lions. Rather it's the ability to transmit information about things that do not exist at all [my emphasis]. As far as we know, only Sapiens can talk about entire kinds of entities that they have never seen, touched or smelled . . . But fiction has enabled us not merely to imagine things, but to do so collectively. We can weave common myths such as the biblical creation story, the Dreamtime myths of Aboriginal Australians, and the nationalist myths of modern states. Such myths give Sapiens the unprecedented ability to cooperate flexibly in large numbers (p 27).
 

C.R. Hallpike committing semantic argument fallacy and non sequitur and Straw Man?

 

The claim that culture is fiction is not an important insight, but is simply a perverse way of stating the obvious fact that culture is a set of shared ideas, and ideas by their very nature can't be material objects. Language has been revolutionary because it has allowed human beings to be linked together by shared ideas into roles and institutions. One cannot see or touch the Prime Minister, for example, but only a human being, and someone who does not know what 'Prime Minister' means has to be told. This can only be done properly by explaining how this role fits into the British Constitution, which in turn involves explaining parliament, cabinet government, the rule of law, democracy, and so on. This world of roles, institutions, beliefs, norms, and values forms what we call culture, but just because the components of culture are immaterial and cannot be seen, touched or smelled does not make them fiction, like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, or the myths of Genesis or the Australian Aborigines. We can't see, touch, or smell truth because truth is not a material object, but that does not make it unreal or fictitious either.
 

Straw Man?

 

If Harari's test of reality is only what we can see, touch, or smell then mathematics, like truth, should also be a prime example of fiction. Maybe simple integers might just pass his reality test, since we can see groups of different numbers of things, but how 'real' in his sense are zero, negative numbers, irrational numbers like ? or imaginary numbers like the square root of-1? And if mathematics is fiction, then so is the whole of science including the theory of relativity and Darwinian evolution, which Harari would find very embarrassing indeed because he loves science. He is just in a philosophical muddle that confuses what is material with what is real, and what is immaterial with fiction. But the opposite of fiction is not what is material but what is true, and what is fictional and what is true can both only exist in the immaterial world of thought.
 

Does Hallpike ignore Harari's idea of mass cooperation?

 

When it comes to the task of explaining social institutions, the idea of culture as fiction is about as useful as a rubber nail:

 

People easily understand that 'primitives' cement their social order by believing in ghosts and spirits, and gathering each full moon to dance together round the campfire. What we fail to appreciate is that our modern institutions function on exactly the same basis. Take for example the world of business corporations. Modern business-people and lawyers are, in fact, powerful sorcerers (p 31).
 

Really? He takes the Peugeot motor company, with its image of a lion, and tries to argue that the company itself is no more real than an ancient tribal totem, but nevertheless can form the basis on which large numbers of people could co-operate:

 

How exactly did Armand Peugeot, the man, create Peugeot, the company? In much the same way that priests and sorcerers have created gods and demons throughout history . . . It all revolved around telling stories, and convincing people to believe them . . . In the case of Peugeot SA the crucial story was the French legal code, as written by the French parliament. According to the French legislators, if a certified lawyer followed all the proper liturgy and rituals, wrote all the required spells and oaths on a wonderfully decorated piece of paper, and affixed his ornate signature to the bottom of the document, then hocus pocus—a new company was formed (p 34).

 

But don't beliefs form conventions? And is Hallpike using more non sequiturs? 

 

Harari seems unable to distinguish a belief from a convention, presumably because neither is a material object. Beliefs in ghosts and spirits may be shared by members of particular cultures, but derive from the nature of people's experience and their modes of thought: they did not sit down and deliberately agree to believe in them. Conventions, however, are precisely the result of a collective decision, consciously taken to achieve a certain purpose, and as such are completely different from myths in almost every respect. Peugeot SA rests on the legal convention of a limited-liability company, which performs a very useful social function, and another very useful social convention is the  rule of the road by which in Britain we all drive on the left. Neither beliefs in spirits nor social conventions are material objects, but they are still quite different sorts of thing, as are legal documents and magical rituals, and Harari achieves nothing by confusing them.

Study Questions for Lesson Two 

One. Why does Harari call the narrative about human agriculture as a sign of progress a “fantasy” and one of the most stupid myths foisted on society? 

For 2.5 million years, foragers lived relatively healthy lives. They were self-sufficient, they didn't work a repetitive, mundane job, they didn't have an exploitative boss, they didn't live in societies defined by mass economic and social stratification with a few Haves and a majority of Have-Nots, they didn't succumb to the health problems of an agricultural diet. 

Things Changed

Then 10,000 years ago, Sapiens learned to “manipulate the lives of a few animal and plant species” with the belief that this domestication of plants and animals would make it easier to produce more fruits, grain, and meat. 

But only select areas of the Earth have the climate for agriculture, so that the remaining parts of the Earth are dependent on a small land mass for food. 

Inequality

Farming had prime areas so that people flocked to those geographical areas, causing crowding in those cities. Non-farming areas became dependent on farmed food for their survival. 

Secondly, there is no evidence that Sapiens had mastered the “secrets of nature” any better than foragers (79). 

Farmers Worked Harder to Get Less Nutrition

In fact, farmers worked harder, longer hours and ate a less nutritious diet than foragers (79).

Let's look at the equation again: Farming requires more time and more work to get less nutrition. This data could be used as evidence in a thesis that supports Harari's claim that Agricultural Revolution (AR) is a fraud and a delusion perpetrated on society. 

Foragers were in less danger of starvation and disease (79). 

Foragers

In many ways, foragers had a “more comfortable and rewarding lifestyle” than industrial Sapiens. In affluent societies today, people work 45 hours a week with little free time and few friends, are full of stress, and overworked to deal with declining real wages. In developing countries, people today may work 80 hours a week and are essentially work bots. 

In contrast, foragers had leisure time with one another and worked maybe 3-6 hours a day (50). 

Foragers had a more diverse, nutritious diet as opposed to a diet of monocrops, same crops, and same food for farmers. Today, we load up on processed food and sugar. 

Of course, Harari points out, foragers often led short, brutish lives, often rife with infanticide and similar atrocities, but on balance their lives could be richer and more affluent than the lifestyles of those in Agricultural and Industrial Periods. 

Two. Who or what was guilty of manipulating Sapiens into abandoning a foraging lifestyle for agriculture? 

The “culprits” were a “handful” of plants, such as wheat, rice, and potatoes.

These plants domesticated Sapiens. A glaring example is that in a few millennia, Sapiens spent night and day tending to wheat all over the world. Their work increased from 5 hours as foragers to three times that much as farmers. They got fat, over exhausted, and malnourished in the process. 

Wheat was horrible. It was high maintenance. It was attacked by bugs and rodents. It was greedy for water. It required animal feces for nourishment. 

The human body is not meant for farming. All the toil destroyed the body by damaging the spine, creating scoliosis, arthritis, hernias, and a host of other afflictions (80). 

Economically, wheat was a disaster. One bad crop or more could destroy a whole family and lead to starvation and destitution.

Failure of Critical Thinking 

To allow wheat to ruin society because it's supposed to be the best life attainable shows a flagrant absence of critical thinking. Slavish devotion to a principle that has no justification for existence is the opposite of critical thinking. It's living life in autopilot. 

Farming is sign of stupidity and de-evolution.

According to Harari, farming is not a sign of intelligence and evolution. Farming is a sign of stupidity and de-evolution. 

Keeping More People Alive in More Concentrated Areas Under Worse Conditions

The appeal or Faustian Bargain of wheat is that it offered more “food per unit of territory” and therefore allowed massive population expansion of Sapiens (82). We read: “This is the essence of the Agricultural Revolution: The ability to keep more people alive under worse conditions.” 

The Agricultural Revolution was not based on a legal fiction or a decision. The Agricultural Revolution was a “trap.” Harari calls it the “Luxury Trap.” I would call it the False Luxury Trap because I don't see any luxury. 

In this trap, babies died more often from disease and malnutrition (less milk and more gruel) but so many more babies were being born that the population continued to grow. Yet life was brutal. In farming societies, 1 in 3 children died before turning 20. 

Three. Why did Sapiens continue with the brutal farming life? 

Sapiens “could not fathom the full consequences of their decisions.”

Being unable to fathom the consequences of our decisions leads to our demise. Take, for example, that most people continue to use smartphones and social media without knowing the effects of these gadgets that are taking up so much of people’s time. Gadgets hack our brain to our loss of free will. 

The Lie of Working Harder Equals a Better Life

Another lie of agricultural age:  Sapiens drank the wrong Kool-Aid from the adage “If you work harder, you would have a better life.” 

With agriculture, we cannot cut our losses:

Harari observes that it is human nature that once we invest time and effort into something, we resist cutting our losses; rather, we continue to slog ahead in the face of our evident self-destruction and misery. He cites the example of modern day humans working hard to pay for elaborate lifestyles where they cannot afford and suffer immense misery as they try to live beyond their means, yet they cannot or will not choose any other way of life (87). 

Animals Suffer More as Livestock Than as Prey

Harari also observes that domesticating animals led to their widespread misery and we can infer our insensitivity to that misery has compromised who we are morally as human beings with souls (93). There is no comparing the misery of animals domesticated for slaughter with the quick death an animal suffers at the hands of a hunter.

Agriculture Made Us a Degraded Version of Ourselves

In other words, we were “successful” from an evolutionary standpoint, but we were also compromised. In the words of Harari, “This discrepancy between evolutionary success and individual suffering is perhaps the most important lesson we can draw from the Agricultural Revolution” (96). 

Life of Farmers Was Hideous

Farmers lived in artificial enclaves, were alienated from nature, tortured livestock, and were prone to greed. They also had to constantly fret over future weather conditions whereas foragers could live in the present. Farming created a peasant society, which was an exploited class of people that joined the exploited animals. 

Myths that feed the lie of agriculture:

Eventually, a myths about agricultural society emerged that glorified “the homeland” and some all-powerful patriarchal god in order to draw tens of thousands to these farming cities and create “mass cooperative networks.” These places use myths to create an “imagined order” as a refuge from life’s chaos even though this “imagined order” may present its own chaos. 

Social order is maintained through some religious code of absolute and eternal principles that also establish authority and hierarchy. For example, we can look to the Hammurabi Code, the Ten Commandments, or the Declaration of Independence to refer to “universal and eternal principles of justice,” which Harari argues are neither universal or eternal. Nor are they true. For example, he observes, we are not created; rather, we evolve. In addition, he argues we have no equality because evolution defines us by differences to sameness (109). 

So Harari is arguing that a lot of societal myths are designed encourage mass cooperation. Of course, one could argue that this is a manipulation of sorts. 

These myths are important because they create a social contract of cooperation, social reciprocity, and condemnation of brutality; in the absence of these myths, hordes of the human race may resort to being the “barbarian throng” that the philosopher Thomas Hobbes feared.