Unless we use our reason, we`re done for

[prudencepuffin]

Just been listening to Jon Ronson on radio 4 - an episode about a conspiracy theory in US in the 80s claiming that satanists were abusing children in daycare services. A woman who had worked within daycare was charged and faced 47 years before being acquitted after completely ridiculous, fantasy claims were made against her. She said: (slightly paraphrased), these were educated liberal people who believed this and thought: "Perhaps if I dont go along with this they will come for me", and summed up: "Youre steamrolling over reality (when you believe this), doing enormous damage". And finally: Unless we use the better part of our brain, our reason, were done for".
Does this remind us of anything?!
Heres a link if anyones interested: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00120vp

And still John Ronson can not or will not see it.

We are done for.

Ronson has a pretty bad case of cognitive dissonance. I get women and girls aren't important enough for anyone to give a shit, but even so.

This series "Tales from the history of the culture wars" has been created a bit too early.

Wait a few more years, Jon. This present day sex/gender culture war is certainly worthy of an entry when it's all history.

It could be centuries, though, Gncq. Mythologies about souls and spirits (and indeed devils and witches) have lasted through most of human history.

We can but hope.

It does look like quite an interesting series, having said that. I will give it a listen.

How can he not see it? Some serious cognitive dissonance going on in the Ronson bonce.

There's plenty of interesting things in it. Here's a long thread talking about the whole series:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4395434-The-nerve-of-Jon-Ronson

We're waiting for the episode on gender identity ideology which will likely expose the weaknesses of Ronson's analysis and presentation.

I thought it was interesting also how perceptions (beliefs) grow legs and take over and whats behind that happening - money, the strength of a particular religious movement, whatever. Also occurred to me that children who were genuinely abused framed in a less dramatic context, may have been overlooked in the rush to join a highly publicised drama. She did mention the role of the press in this.

We're waiting for the episode on gender identity ideology which will likely expose the weaknesses of Ronson's analysis and presentation.

Is that episode 6? That's what I'm assuming from the write up.

That would be my guess too.

This sort of thing transmitted over the pond as well - www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/18/satanic-child-abuse-false-memories-scotland

NSPCC, Police and Social Workers caught the brain worms.

And then there's Diane Ehrensaft: twitter.com/stellaomalley3/status/1254664918479101952

The first book I ever read of Ronson's was Them: Adventures With Extremists.

I don't know where the Jon Ronson who spoke to Islamist extremists and far-right nutters in order to write that book went.

The modern Jon Ronson is frightened of talking to some women.

Glinner called him out a long time ago. I suspect since then he's had to try and prove he's nothing to do with Glinner and won't ever think anything that Glinner thinks.

@MonsignorMirth

Glinner called him out a long time ago. I suspect since then he's had to try and prove he's nothing to do with Glinner and won't ever think anything that Glinner thinks.

John Boyne managed to come back from that. But is Jon Ronson up to it? He may surprise us.

(Rainbow optimism hat on)

Would certainly be good timing - managing to get in just before the tidal wave of people walking back, so he doesn't look like someone following the herd. Not much time left in that window, I think.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Ronson has a pretty bad case of cognitive dissonance. I get women and girls aren't important enough for anyone to give a shit, but even so.

Exactly. There are only two ways the claim that we all have a gender identity can be true - either male and female brains, encoding preferences for sex stereotypes from conception, or male and female souls.

Both of these are bonkers ideas and yet seemingly clever intelligent people not only fall for this claptrap but condemn as bigots those of us who say it's nonsense.

Yes, it does remind me of something! I'm not keen on Ronson, so I only listened to the first episode.

One of the scariest things about the current plight we're in re the sex and gender debate is that so many professionals - doctors, teachers, lawyers, politicians, policy makers - have managed to detach critical analysis from their thinking. This means they are imperveous to reasoned debate.

I'm listening once again to the Nolan podcast in between reading Simon Edge's 'The End of the World is Flat' (a parody of the money-making and cynicism behind the current version of Stonewall) and I am furious and despairing in equal measure.

One of the unexpectedly depressing aspects of all this, as well as the obvious, is how disappointing it is to realise how unintelligent people are.

I remember these cases and my parents (who were a level headed pair) saying that it sounded very much like a witchhunt (no joke intended) and that the so called professionals were getting all over excited and egging each other on.

And my mum has a sixth sense when it came to ‘bad people’ - it’s like she had a radar for people that shouldn’t be allowed near kids or women (she called Rolf Harris waaay back).

The sceptic community embracing this nonsense was a real shock to me. Going from fairly militant atheism intent on scrutinising everything and questioning anyone making any kind of novel and/or ideological claims to unquestioningly embracing an ideology that is so allergic to scrutiny they made "no debate" into their rallying cry is incomprehensible to me.

And Dawkin's silence hurt. He's an evolutionary biologist, he knows they're talking crap. But in typical fashion, he has not merely called it out for the nonsense it is, he has gone all in and signed the Women's Human Rights Declaration.

So now I'm watching the sceptics turn on him like they've turned on everyone else who dared to disagree. And still they cannot see it.

The cognitive dissonance must hurt.

The problem is there's a hell of a lot of crap being written by woke thick scientists which blindsides most who actually are very clueless about biology.

They're using more recent scientific understanding around genetics, DSDs and hormones to argue the toss for sexist interpretations of science.

(Mostly) Nothing they write about is untrue in the context of what ever they're using as a prop, but none of it is anything to do with trans.

When a neuroscientist spouts forth, people think it must be true.

The DARVO is strong with this one:

blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

Attwood was referring to similar rubbish.

And then, as Emma Hilton and Colin Write found, when scientists risk their jobs to write rebuttals, the community is so terrified of the BeKind® mob, it gets vilified. For being accurate.

The sceptic community embracing this nonsense was a real shock to me. Going from fairly militant atheism intent on scrutinising everything and questioning anyone making any kind of novel and/or ideological claims to unquestioningly embracing an ideology that is so allergic to scrutiny they made "no debate" into their rallying cry is incomprehensible to me.

Here's someone with a reasonably high profile in the atheism community lashing out at everyone who doesn't share his faith including Dawkins:

twitter.com/Matt_Dillahunty/with_replies

If it wasn't so tragic is would be genuinely funny.

@ChiefInspectorParker

Might not be relevant but my dislike for Jon Ronson reached ‘can no longer read/listen’ levels when he was on Adam Buxton’s podcast talking about being in a porn film (or something). The whole thing reeked of privilege and ‘cool points’, it was really performative and I don’t think he have a damn about anyone in the porn industry.

I know what you mean ChiefInspectorParker. I didn't listen to his "Last Days of August" podcast about the porn industry. but I must have read an article or something. Somehow I garnered the impression that Jon Ronson was overly impressed at being surrounded by porn stars.. Exactly the vibe you're talking about, like he was getting to hang out with the cool kids and he couldn't get over it. I even got the impression his porn industry mates might have influenced his position on the trans debate - this must have all been happening at around the same time.

That all put me right off him, and it's a shame because I loved most of his books. He has a very enjoyable writing style.

I saw his tweets earlier nauticant. Runs a show on atheism but expects us to respect as an act of faith that a fully intact man is a woman on his say-so. And all to override the wishes of women and girls to have an exclusively female-only space. Not just without their consent, but in full knowledge that they have said no.