Tuesday, 28 November 2023
Disruption: the Stupidest Philosophy in the History of Political Science.
Quote, "This is buttercup, and she's someone, not something." [Timestamp = 1 minute 30 seconds]
ON SOME LEVEL everyone in the organization knows THIS DOESN'T WORK.
They did it a hundred times. Some of them did it a thousand times. It never worked.
They changed their methods without ever admitting that the old methods were wrong, and without setting out what their hopes and expectations were for why the new methods might be better.
And thus the cycle could continue: with the refusal to admit that the new methods weren't working, either.
Exactly the same pattern with X.R. in England.
For some mysterious reason DxE stopped running out into the middle of the field in the middle of a football game: they never admit why. They're spending a million dollars a year ON NOTHING, while promoting what could fairly be called the stupidest philosophy in the history of political science. And it's a million dollars they "earned" with stupid, fame-whoring stunts like running out into the middle of a stadium.
There never was any "social science research" to support ANY of their preferred methods —and there never was any recourse to social science research when switching from one method to the next.
It's a scam about a scam for the sake of a scam. And there are victims: unlike my philosophy, people's lives are ruined by putting Wayne's philosophy into practice.
Friday, 24 November 2023
And, irony of ironies, Wayne Hsiung is STILL anti-vegan in 2023… but nobody in the vegan movement seems to care!
This is Wayne writing in July of 2023, BEFORE going to prison in handcuffs, I should note:
In 2007, motivated by my readings in social movement research, I penned an article with an infamous title: Boycott Veganism. The title was clickbait. I was not, in fact, boycotting veganism but arguing that consumer activism was insufficient to create social change.
…
Multiple vegan forums exploded with angry responses after I posted an early draft. I was criticized for being oppressive, arrogant, traitorous, and – most commonly – downright stupid.
…
But something strange happened, over time. A small number of people actually read the article, rather than just the headline. And many were swayed by the logic. Two points were key. First, I argued that veganism, as a narrative strategy, could not inspire people to anger or hope - the key ingredients to social change.
…
What we needed, I argued, was something different: direct action. Giving aid to animals directly was the right narrative strategy because it focused on animal cruelty, and our ability to stop it. Unlike veganism, it had the power to enrage and inspire. And direct action could expand the scope of the movement’s support, by focusing on identities (e.g., animal lovers, families with pets) that were much larger and influential than vegan consumers. It was a movement strategy that could mobilize the masses, rather than just a small dietary niche. […]
[Digression:] Is there ANY EVIDENCE that Wayne's strategy has mobilized (or "inspired") large numbers of non-vegans, rather than a tiny cult group, much smaller than veganism qua "a dietary niche"?
In the early 2010s, effective altruism (EA) was just beginning to capture the attention of animal advocates.
…
A closer examination of good scientific research around leafleting and other forms of so-called impersonal outreach, i.e., trying to persuade someone you have no other relationship with, showed dismal results.
The Science or Science-y blog post, like Boycott Veganism, generated an enormous amount of hate. The leaders of a few prominent animal rights organizations called me a mole for the meat industry, publicly, and would tell everyone they met at animal rights conferences that I was damaging the movement. But as with Boycott Veganism, the critique gained a following. A prominent (non-vegan) effective altruist thinker, Jeff Kaufman, began to question the conventional wisdom on the effectiveness of vegan advocacy. And the leaders of Animal Charity Evaluators, a prominent EA organization that had been extremely hostile towards my work (and towards me personally, for reasons I never fully understood) eventually ran a study in 2017 showing that vegan outreach probably had no effect at all.
That left the movement in a tough spot, after years of focusing on outreach above all other interventions. What do we do instead?
[Commentary:] So, yes, the man who led the campaign "it's not food, it's violence", that consisted of teenagers (like Zoe Rosenberg) breaking down weeping in a restaurant while screaming at random patrons claims that his methods have scientifically verifiable outcomes, whereas his rivals' methods do not, etc.
The burden of proof still lacking to demonstrate that Zoe Rosenberg screaming at strangers or Cassie King pouring blood on herself (publicly) has positive outcomes is considerable: I do not mean this from a position of phony skepticism. I do not mean to insinuate that any kind of political action faces an insurmountable burden of proof as to its efficacy.
Genuinely, it is more difficult to believe that Zoe Rosenberg is succeeding in changing the world than it is to believe that the earth is flat: someone could show me scientific evidence that would change my mind about the shape of the planet, whereas it is genuinely impossible to imagine that there could ever be any evidence to vindicate the tactics used by Zoe, Cassie and Wayne.
It is not difficult to believe that what the Israeli military is doing right now will change the world: it would be phony skepticism indeed to ask aloud, "How can it possibly make a difference to hunt down and kill the leaders of a rival political faction, and to demolish their political-and-military infrastructure?" Although we may not be able to predict the outcomes in Israel, there is no doubt that there will be outcomes.
What Wayne has been advocating (for so many years) genuinely belongs in the category of political actions so counterproductive that we may question —after the expenditure of so many millions of dollars, and the ruination of so many people's particular lives— whether or not there are any outcomes at all.
Nobody has ever complained about the negative outcomes of my philosophy (and of their own attempts to put it into practice) as Rachel Z. now complains about DxE in retrospect —after the somewhat sobering experience of facing the possibility of a criminal conviction in a court of law (as a result of Wayne Hsiung's preferred method and mode of activism). The methodology set down in my books (all two of them) will not ruin your life, and will not cost anyone millions of dollars.
But here we are in 2023, when the evidence for the inefficacy of Wayne's philosophy has had quite some time to stack up, and he is still defending his anti-vegan (and frankly pro-violence) position from 2007.
The parallels to Roger Hallam's XR (Extinction Rebellion) and its sequels (Just Stop Oil, etc.) are so close that my refutation of one serves as a refutation of the other: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB33D8_jsrU
At what point do the proponents of empiricism admit that the empirical evidence is against them?
Delinquent: the Simple Heart Initiative suspiciously started by Wayne Hsiung…
…after he resigned his position as the leader of an organization with a budget of a million dollars per year created to do exactly the same thing.
I wonder if —formally or informally— DxE promised to transfer funds to support Wayne's new charity, as a sort of "golden parachute" package, when he handed over control to Cassie King, etc.
There is no "Form 990" information available for "The Simple Heart Initiative" created by Wayne Hsiung: if it had been delinquent in its paperwork before he went to prison, I assume it will only become more delinquent hereafter.
FEIN / EIN: 882248389 / 88-2248389 (sometimes you need to search with the hyphen, sometimes without it)
RCT NUMBER: CT0289351
A Crocodile on Dry Land.
All the evils men do to attain power are minuscule compared to what they they will do to remain in power, once they've become accustomed to it. A crocodile wandering on dry land is less dangerous than one that has become accustomed to your bathwater.
Source / context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bujT4WAK36M
Wednesday, 22 November 2023
Infighting: Victims of a Movement that Doesn't Move.
[My comment:] Dude, think about how petty this is: Roger Yates "canceled" you for saying something vaguely positive about Alicia Silverstone. Yates has grey hair with a PhD. And he came to the conclusion that you are "sexist and racist". You are playing on the wrong team within the wrong team. Yeah, you say that I'm hated and despised: can you imagine me insulting and reviling you in the way that Roger Yates did? One step further: do you think I'd ever be as unreasonable in criticizing you as you were in criticizing me? Different people are playing different games by different rules: the vast majority of vegans are playing by a set of rules that are —in brief— evil. Rachel Z. has turned around and said that DxE is a cult and she regrets losing 8 years of her life to it, and (of course) condemning Wayne Hsiung: do you think anyone has ever said anything like that about my philosophy? People like Roger Yates are stuck in the endless downward spiral of trying to rationalize a sunk cost fallacy: they're the greatest victims of the vegan movement (seriously: his life has been RUINED by this movement!) but they refuse to recognize their own victimhood (as Rachel has) so that they can continue pretending to be leaders (for an ever smaller number of followers).
[Note:] You do not need to watch the video, below, to understand the significance of the comment above, but… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aB8r9GAbe4
Repercussions: "I hope you die in jail" breaks on through to the other side.
DxE has burned through a budget of a million dollars per year, has done a lot of harm, and zero good, IMO: if you were actually willing to consider (1) what I've done with my life and (2) the model of activism I recommend (in Future of an Illusion) contrasted to Wayne's methodology (that requires millions of dollars and will put you in jail)... it doesn't occur to you that some percentage of intelligent people might actually think Wayne is on the wrong side here.
I'm not the one telling teenagers to chain themselves to machinery and get arrested: Wayne is. I'm not the one telling people to get naked and cover their bodies in blood, running on stage at a Bernie Sanders rally: Wayne is. You don't have one word of criticism for that.
Guess what? I learned Chinese within the last ten years: Wayne literally can't pronounce his own name in Chinese. Is learning Chinese a waste of time? Yes, but compared to what? Compared to sitting in jail?
Both what I've done and what I urge others to do (in Future of an Illusion) really is superior to both what Wayne preaches, and his own imperfect practice thereof.
And here's the link to the original video that inspired the criticism, titled: I hope you die in jail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prE_jmvkS3I
His reply:
Fair play. This is just a reaction to your one video. I'm actually a fan of your work in many ways. I'd love to have you on the preshift to talk with me some day soon if you'd be willing.
My reply to his reply:
If you had a daughter, you would not want her to turn out like Zoe Rosenberg. Nor like Rachel Z. You probably would not want your daughter to meet and spend time with Z.R. & R.Z.; you definitely would not want her getting arrested doing the same things that Z.R. & R.Z. have done. This may seem like an irrelevant reply, but it's devastatingly relevant, if you're willing to allow yourself to think it through and be devastated. :-/ @VeganofCourse
Monday, 20 November 2023
What we do next: the flow chart to end all flow charts.
THE SUMMARY TO END ALL SUMMARIES: THE FLOW CHART TO END ALL FLOW CHARTS
• Studying Latin
+ Possible at UVic.
- Not aware of anywhere BETTER THAN Uvic.
[Insert joke about Jordan Peterson University here.]
- Short term future difficult to endure.
- Long term future difficult to imagine.
- Professors would probably hate me; the other students, also, would
probably hate me.
+ Relatively meaningful in terms of "the meaning of life".
- Relatively dubious in terms of one's ability to make a positive
difference in the world.
• Studying Chinese
+ It's an excuse to live somewhere other than Victoria.
- Long term future difficult to imagine.
• Studying Spanish
+ It's an excuse to live somewhere other than Victoria.
- Long term future difficult to imagine.
• Studying French
+ It's an excuse to live somewhere other than Victoria.
- Long term future difficult to imagine.
• Studying Religion (i.e., critique of religion)
- Absolutely zero known options anywhere in the world.
• Studying Veganism (i.e., the politics of the vegan movement)
- Absolutely zero known options anywhere in the world.
NB: this was and still is my suggestion to Gail, if she's going to
talk to her contact at ________ or any other (English-speaking)
University, i.e., to ask under what department it would be possible to
make use of my expertise in the politics of the vegan movement (and
note that I already have a B.A. in politics, etc.). There are many
examples of other vegan demagogues doing this, either for an M.A. or a
PhD or both.
• Studying Cinematography a.k.a. filmmaking a.k.a film school.
- Absolutely zero known options anywhere in the world.
- This does not mean "zero options", but zero that we know of.
- Economically, the industry is currently in the process of contracting.
- The other students would probably hate me.
- Relatively meaningless in terms of "the meaning of life".
+ Very clearly useful in terms of one's ability to make a positive
difference in the world.
- However, very high cost, for even the most humble of film
projects: stand up comedy is cheap by contrast, writing a novel is
cheap by contrast, etc. etc.
• Studying something related to stand up comedy.
- We have found zero options related to talent management, being a
booking agent, etc., and there really should be many solid options
under this heading.
- We have, also, found zero options related to venue management.
- I am not aware of any options under the purely economic side of
the equation, but I think that would be a much worse preparation than
cinematography (already discussed above).
- Although comedy is cheap in many ways (writing itself costs
nothing, doing stand up costs little compared to filmmaking, etc.) the
indirect costs of the exercise are considerable: the center of the
English-speaking universe for comedy is (now) New York, and spending
five days on Manhattan Island is extremely expensive (even if you do
not include the cost of airplane tickets).
- The field still relies on entertainment lawyers (and contracts,
etc.), talent managers and venue managers that nobody can now afford:
the format of comedy has remained the same while the amount of money
to be paid has declined and declined. Splitting off 10% of a contract
for this role and that one has become impossible.
Sunday, 19 November 2023
Vegan Satan, Vegan Lucifer, Vegan Antichrist.
The people who hate Wayne paradoxically hate and fear his critics (i.e., me) even more: from their perspective, Wayne is a fallen angel, a disappointing exemplar of their beliefs, whereas I am actually their anthesis —their Satan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)