I have to agree that his method undercuts his aims. By leaning so hard into inflammatory rhetoric he creates reflexive resistance among people who, from their moral outlook and boundaries, would be his natural allies. But because these people lack the depth of awareness to place Lindsay’s language in proper context, he just loses them. He successfully gets their attention and then squanders it by presenting as a partisan troll rather than a serious advocate for a crucial public good. So frustrating.
I think both you and Leah have this wrong. I listen to his podcasts. I have been at one of his events in person. I have read his entire oeuvre. The behavior you describe is only on Twitter. You know, Twitter--the place where you can get banned for saying "men aren't women". Twitter, the place where there are algorithms designed to do nothing but foment outrage addiction. Twitter, the place where until like a week ago everything was limited to 280 characters. The idea that he or anyone else is morally or strategically required to take that people and the leftoids who populate it seriously, treat them in good faith when they're full of nothing but bad faith, etc., seems laughable to me. His Twitter persona is very different from his persona in the rest of his life and work, and it is, in my view, wholly appropriate for the demonic hellpit that is Twitter.
Your argument here would work for most people, but not him. His work is rigorous and intense. People who can't parse 280 characters in context and suspend their emotional judgment long enough to hear him have zero chance of reading one of his serious, scholarly books or making it through one of his three-hour podcasts. The number of realistic candidates for support that he's lost because someone found him on Twitter is, if not zero, in the single digits. It's like saying someone who hears me griping about how tricky some trig equations are will be put off from majoring in math. Those people never would've had a prayer of getting through a math program anyway.
Yes, I've listened and watched him, too. I have Cynical Theories. I think he is brilliant. And I think Twitter, as a primary driver of news cycles and public debate, unfortunately has outsized influence in reputation-making. So it's his Twitter persona and behavior that gets aired in legacy outlets, such that many normies end up introduced to him by hit-job critiques. Many of those people don't realize they might agree with him because they don't watch/listen to/follow him and won't, because they've been conditioned to perceive him as a dismissible trollish "right-winger."
To be clear, I'm not arguing he has a moral obligation to handle himself differently. I'm simply saying I think his decision to use Twitter—where contextualization is already handicapped—as a flame-war battleground isn't helping his reach. And I think that's unfortunate given how on top of the cultural pulse he is. But c'est la vie. I'm not in charge.
I think I made a slightly different argument than SCA. But as to your reply, I know people who might easily be able to handle his intellectual content but wouldn't bother because his reputation precedes him. That's what makes this whole topic so frustrating: I suspect MOST people would want to err on the side of safeguarding children but very many of those people aren't exposed to the good arguments against gender ideology because they're too easily cast as "bigoted" and "rightwing." Trollish behavior on a major (the major?) reputation-making social media platform doesn't allow him to cast the widest possible net on a critically important topic. It's his choice. But we reap what we sow.
Actually, I enjoy what I've watched of your show and read of your Substack. I plan to become a paid subscriber soon because I'm appalled by your cancellation and want to support your voice. While I don't agree with everything you say or how you say it, I do cheer much of it and value your honesty. I think more people need to hear your unique perspective. Frustration and discomfort are part and parcel of growth, IMO. I can deal. :-)
Because if people took action instead of critiquing other people's internet niceness factor, they'd be opening themselves up to judgment on their effectiveness. Did you see the above, where my "frustration" and "extreme emotion" was invoked? You've actually been around me in frustration and extreme emotion, LOL. I sort of fear for people whose experience is that limited. God help them if they ever do have to deal with someone like me when having actual extreme emotions. 😂
I am always amazed when people come at you or me with some sort of psychoanalysis, especially when it's badly done. It's like, if there are two people on earth who are MORE capable of and willing to own their psychological issues, bullshit, etc., admit to emotional biases, cop to being damaged, acknowledge the possibility of their damage influencing their views, etc. -- I don't want to meet them, y'know?
Thank you, friend. The one benefit of my life's trajectory may be all the time I have spent pondering these things, to try to understand my life. I'm glad I can write about it with some level of success.
The effects of terrorism are brought about by undermining people’s basic sense of security. And the crusade that is currently underway to undermine children’s basic instinctive perceptions of reality are accomplishing that result. In its 2021 report on Youth Risk Behaviors, the CDC reported that 30% of high school females “seriously attempted committing suicide”. When children are taught that they cannot trust their own basic instincts regarding when things are somehow askew, they are ushered into confusion. And when confusion reigns at fundamental levels, generalized anxiety rises. The predators are operating in many institutional positions, but they have an umbrella of protection in the Democrat government. Why do we not hear a single Democrat politician voice alarm or challenge this attack on America’s kids? For essentially the same reasons that the Taliban didn’t chastise Al Qaida when they were developing their terror campaign on the US - they had embraced them and were intertwined with them.
Yup, I just quizzed my almost-16 year old. “Remember when you guys were little? Who did I always tell you to ask for help if you got separated from me?” “A mom with kids,” said she, immediately.
Excellent as usual, more important than anything you’ve done, perhaps. I said this as a father of young daughters… Thank you, sharing the article far and wide.
On the argument that opposition to the crime against humanity of child mutilation and sterilization should be more measured and polite to gain more adherents:
Successful political action always requires voices across the spectrum, from spittle-flecked outraged shouts of "OK Groomer!" to close careful reasoned analysis of facts such as provided by Jesse Singal or Lisa Selin Davis.
Different parts of this presentation spectrum will resonate with different people. Some will indeed shy away from the outraged shouting, others need their complacency jolted by seemingly (but not actually) extreme claims, such as "crime against humanity".
Each of us should work in whatever part of the presentation spectrum feels most honest.
This is a reasonable perspective to be sure. And my (mostly) agreeing with it is why I refrain from criticizing Singal and others of his ilk right up until the point when they pause their attacks on gender ideology just long enough to beg everyone who follows them to please please please vote for the people who are committed to enshrining it further. The more "moderate" voices who stop short of begging people to vote for more of it are ok with me, even if I prefer to support more intense and front-line fighters like Jim and Josh.
OK, but you wrote a piece saying you might not vote at all any more, so I could count that as half a vote for "more of it". As you are well aware, voting against gender ideology (at least here in the US) almost always means, in practice, also voting against (for example) abortion rights. So if someone like Jesse comes down on voting for abortion rights, I get it.
Me, at age 67, after a lifetime as a Democrat, I now vote straight Republican, entirely because of gender ideology.
This would only (potentially) hold water if the Republicans were effective fighters against it. They are not. The only Republican I've heard mention it at all is Trump, who will not win in 2024. They have other priorities.
Republicans are introducing laws in mulitple states to restrict gender alignment surgeries on minors; one just passed in South Dakota, and was signed into law by Republican Governor Kristi Noem. Florida's "don't say gay" bill, pased by Republicans, usefully restricts what children can be taught in public school about gender ideology. Republicans are usually reliable voters against gender self-ID at both the state and federal (the Equality Act) level.
Read these laws carefully before boasting of them. Some allow such things with a diagnosis of "gender dysphoria."
Second, gender ideology and forcing raped children to incubate their rapists's offspring come from the same place: the belief that children exist to be the sexual objects of adults. One child on puberty blockers is too many. One child forced to carry her rapist's offspring to term is too many. They are equally evil and I will not support either. If the Republicans actually *REALLY* made this a true priority--a first sign of which would be all of the potential POTUS candidates talking about it, a lot--I might have to reconsider the numbers involved. (Possibly; I live in a cobalt blue area where votes for Republicans are meaningless, but it may still be worth considering at that point, were things to change that much.)
But that won't happen. Republicans won't stop it for the reason I've outlined--they see children as tools for pedophiles to use to have babies. They aren't that different from Democrats, in that.
I only listen to James via his long-form podcasts and YouTube videos. He's always come across to me as scholarly and quiet-spoken. Sometimes his frustration and disgust bleeds through, but he is human, after all, and the topics he addresses, especially the sexual grooming of children behind the auspices of education, is disgusting.
People who judge others by what they say on Twitter are either naive or uninformed. Granted, I don't use Twitter and never will, but I know enough about it second-hand from people I admire and trust (one would be you, Holly) to know that Twitterland is not the place to gain understanding of almost anything.
Correct. It is a distortion lens, and a crazier one the more high-follower and high-interaction an account gets. At Jim's level, the distortion lens bears no resemblance to reality at all. I've been on psilocybin and gotten closer to seeing reality than Twitter gets to showing who a person that uses Twitter a lot really is.
I think there's a third argument that will/can be made. The argument is akin to the "transwomen are women" one that says that transwomen are discriminated against when they are forbidden from entering female only spaces (jails, changing rooms, rape crisis centers etc.) and is that you a teaching children to distrust transwomen (and other queer/non-binary etc.) and thereby ensuring that the next generation is also primed to discriminate against the transgender and other queer/non-binary etc.
The answer to this is that nothing stops criminals, such as pedophiles, from pretending to be something other than what they are but they cannot pretend to be a convincing woman and even harder for them to pretend to be a convincing mother with children. Hence the advice to start with a woman with children as a person to ask for help from and then devolve to other women and so on. While it is true that women do abuse children too, the overwhelming majority of abusers are male and therefore the actual advice is to avoid men no matter how they are dressed up.
This is classic risk management and is based on the mathematics of probability. The probability of a child abuser being male is high (say 90%). So even if child abusers are rare your chances of encountering a male one is ~10x the chances of encountering a female one
I’ve been back and forth on Lindsay’s Twitter persona. His books and New Discourses Materials are pure signal. And his Twitter can be at least a bit noisy. People take Bird App too seriously- especially those are are promoting this stuff or the useful idiots.
The more the delusions are exposed , the better. The attempt at throwing back the “OK Groomer” accusation at him when that photo of him with Nicki Clyne was instructive.
I will note, although it is significantly less critical than "protecting the children" as an effect, that your ladder of "Who to talk to if you get lost" for little kids has the added benefit of being safest for the solitary adult males as well, having read more than one account of an adult man who was attempting to help a lost child find their parents being assaulted and battered for their efforts.
As a responsible adult male with more than a small streak of white knight present, I obviously *would* help a lost child who asked me for assistance... but *I'd* rather they asked the lady with kids, too. And actually, after having read this post, in that situation, I'd probably try and find one to help *me* help the kid, just to keep *myself* safe. So, excellent job.
I have to agree that his method undercuts his aims. By leaning so hard into inflammatory rhetoric he creates reflexive resistance among people who, from their moral outlook and boundaries, would be his natural allies. But because these people lack the depth of awareness to place Lindsay’s language in proper context, he just loses them. He successfully gets their attention and then squanders it by presenting as a partisan troll rather than a serious advocate for a crucial public good. So frustrating.
I think both you and Leah have this wrong. I listen to his podcasts. I have been at one of his events in person. I have read his entire oeuvre. The behavior you describe is only on Twitter. You know, Twitter--the place where you can get banned for saying "men aren't women". Twitter, the place where there are algorithms designed to do nothing but foment outrage addiction. Twitter, the place where until like a week ago everything was limited to 280 characters. The idea that he or anyone else is morally or strategically required to take that people and the leftoids who populate it seriously, treat them in good faith when they're full of nothing but bad faith, etc., seems laughable to me. His Twitter persona is very different from his persona in the rest of his life and work, and it is, in my view, wholly appropriate for the demonic hellpit that is Twitter.
Your argument here would work for most people, but not him. His work is rigorous and intense. People who can't parse 280 characters in context and suspend their emotional judgment long enough to hear him have zero chance of reading one of his serious, scholarly books or making it through one of his three-hour podcasts. The number of realistic candidates for support that he's lost because someone found him on Twitter is, if not zero, in the single digits. It's like saying someone who hears me griping about how tricky some trig equations are will be put off from majoring in math. Those people never would've had a prayer of getting through a math program anyway.
Yes, I've listened and watched him, too. I have Cynical Theories. I think he is brilliant. And I think Twitter, as a primary driver of news cycles and public debate, unfortunately has outsized influence in reputation-making. So it's his Twitter persona and behavior that gets aired in legacy outlets, such that many normies end up introduced to him by hit-job critiques. Many of those people don't realize they might agree with him because they don't watch/listen to/follow him and won't, because they've been conditioned to perceive him as a dismissible trollish "right-winger."
To be clear, I'm not arguing he has a moral obligation to handle himself differently. I'm simply saying I think his decision to use Twitter—where contextualization is already handicapped—as a flame-war battleground isn't helping his reach. And I think that's unfortunate given how on top of the cultural pulse he is. But c'est la vie. I'm not in charge.
Replied to SCA, please see. :-)
I think I made a slightly different argument than SCA. But as to your reply, I know people who might easily be able to handle his intellectual content but wouldn't bother because his reputation precedes him. That's what makes this whole topic so frustrating: I suspect MOST people would want to err on the side of safeguarding children but very many of those people aren't exposed to the good arguments against gender ideology because they're too easily cast as "bigoted" and "rightwing." Trollish behavior on a major (the major?) reputation-making social media platform doesn't allow him to cast the widest possible net on a critically important topic. It's his choice. But we reap what we sow.
Replied to the reply below.
Prepare to be even more frustrated. You'll want to stay away from my show because that's exactly what you're going to get.
Actually, I enjoy what I've watched of your show and read of your Substack. I plan to become a paid subscriber soon because I'm appalled by your cancellation and want to support your voice. While I don't agree with everything you say or how you say it, I do cheer much of it and value your honesty. I think more people need to hear your unique perspective. Frustration and discomfort are part and parcel of growth, IMO. I can deal. :-)
And yet, truth is still truth even if a fool speaks it. He may not win any converts, but harsh methodology is not an effective counterargument.
Oh for Christs sake . Why don't YOU do something half as important as James instead of pecking?
Because if people took action instead of critiquing other people's internet niceness factor, they'd be opening themselves up to judgment on their effectiveness. Did you see the above, where my "frustration" and "extreme emotion" was invoked? You've actually been around me in frustration and extreme emotion, LOL. I sort of fear for people whose experience is that limited. God help them if they ever do have to deal with someone like me when having actual extreme emotions. 😂
I am always amazed when people come at you or me with some sort of psychoanalysis, especially when it's badly done. It's like, if there are two people on earth who are MORE capable of and willing to own their psychological issues, bullshit, etc., admit to emotional biases, cop to being damaged, acknowledge the possibility of their damage influencing their views, etc. -- I don't want to meet them, y'know?
Yeah it's as if they think that somehow that's not going to make me despise them. It does. I immediately ignore them and put them out of my life.
I think it's self evident that James Lindsay isn't the model twitter user, on the other hand what he does on twitter isn't counter productive.
God damn. You really tied up these concepts. Brilliant.
Thank you, friend. The one benefit of my life's trajectory may be all the time I have spent pondering these things, to try to understand my life. I'm glad I can write about it with some level of success.
Hell yes, it is war. Great piece.
Dead on accurate and brilliant. Thank you.
Absolutely, it’s war. Fantastic writing.
Terrorism
The effects of terrorism are brought about by undermining people’s basic sense of security. And the crusade that is currently underway to undermine children’s basic instinctive perceptions of reality are accomplishing that result. In its 2021 report on Youth Risk Behaviors, the CDC reported that 30% of high school females “seriously attempted committing suicide”. When children are taught that they cannot trust their own basic instincts regarding when things are somehow askew, they are ushered into confusion. And when confusion reigns at fundamental levels, generalized anxiety rises. The predators are operating in many institutional positions, but they have an umbrella of protection in the Democrat government. Why do we not hear a single Democrat politician voice alarm or challenge this attack on America’s kids? For essentially the same reasons that the Taliban didn’t chastise Al Qaida when they were developing their terror campaign on the US - they had embraced them and were intertwined with them.
meant to say "seriously considered attempting suicide"
Fantastic work. And when I nannied, it was exactly the same plan.
Right?!? How is the need for this not obvious to everyone, and the fact that it hinges on children's innate ability to differentiate the sexes?
I’m always so grateful on the rare occasion a lost child approaches me. It’s OK to be the second best option: Good job, and let’s find your mom!
Yup, I just quizzed my almost-16 year old. “Remember when you guys were little? Who did I always tell you to ask for help if you got separated from me?” “A mom with kids,” said she, immediately.
Excellent!!! Keep it up!!!
Excellent as usual, more important than anything you’ve done, perhaps. I said this as a father of young daughters… Thank you, sharing the article far and wide.
Thank you, sir. I am honored.
On the argument that opposition to the crime against humanity of child mutilation and sterilization should be more measured and polite to gain more adherents:
Successful political action always requires voices across the spectrum, from spittle-flecked outraged shouts of "OK Groomer!" to close careful reasoned analysis of facts such as provided by Jesse Singal or Lisa Selin Davis.
Different parts of this presentation spectrum will resonate with different people. Some will indeed shy away from the outraged shouting, others need their complacency jolted by seemingly (but not actually) extreme claims, such as "crime against humanity".
Each of us should work in whatever part of the presentation spectrum feels most honest.
This is a reasonable perspective to be sure. And my (mostly) agreeing with it is why I refrain from criticizing Singal and others of his ilk right up until the point when they pause their attacks on gender ideology just long enough to beg everyone who follows them to please please please vote for the people who are committed to enshrining it further. The more "moderate" voices who stop short of begging people to vote for more of it are ok with me, even if I prefer to support more intense and front-line fighters like Jim and Josh.
OK, but you wrote a piece saying you might not vote at all any more, so I could count that as half a vote for "more of it". As you are well aware, voting against gender ideology (at least here in the US) almost always means, in practice, also voting against (for example) abortion rights. So if someone like Jesse comes down on voting for abortion rights, I get it.
Me, at age 67, after a lifetime as a Democrat, I now vote straight Republican, entirely because of gender ideology.
This would only (potentially) hold water if the Republicans were effective fighters against it. They are not. The only Republican I've heard mention it at all is Trump, who will not win in 2024. They have other priorities.
Republicans are introducing laws in mulitple states to restrict gender alignment surgeries on minors; one just passed in South Dakota, and was signed into law by Republican Governor Kristi Noem. Florida's "don't say gay" bill, pased by Republicans, usefully restricts what children can be taught in public school about gender ideology. Republicans are usually reliable voters against gender self-ID at both the state and federal (the Equality Act) level.
Read these laws carefully before boasting of them. Some allow such things with a diagnosis of "gender dysphoria."
Second, gender ideology and forcing raped children to incubate their rapists's offspring come from the same place: the belief that children exist to be the sexual objects of adults. One child on puberty blockers is too many. One child forced to carry her rapist's offspring to term is too many. They are equally evil and I will not support either. If the Republicans actually *REALLY* made this a true priority--a first sign of which would be all of the potential POTUS candidates talking about it, a lot--I might have to reconsider the numbers involved. (Possibly; I live in a cobalt blue area where votes for Republicans are meaningless, but it may still be worth considering at that point, were things to change that much.)
But that won't happen. Republicans won't stop it for the reason I've outlined--they see children as tools for pedophiles to use to have babies. They aren't that different from Democrats, in that.
THIS.
I only listen to James via his long-form podcasts and YouTube videos. He's always come across to me as scholarly and quiet-spoken. Sometimes his frustration and disgust bleeds through, but he is human, after all, and the topics he addresses, especially the sexual grooming of children behind the auspices of education, is disgusting.
People who judge others by what they say on Twitter are either naive or uninformed. Granted, I don't use Twitter and never will, but I know enough about it second-hand from people I admire and trust (one would be you, Holly) to know that Twitterland is not the place to gain understanding of almost anything.
Correct. It is a distortion lens, and a crazier one the more high-follower and high-interaction an account gets. At Jim's level, the distortion lens bears no resemblance to reality at all. I've been on psilocybin and gotten closer to seeing reality than Twitter gets to showing who a person that uses Twitter a lot really is.
I think there's a third argument that will/can be made. The argument is akin to the "transwomen are women" one that says that transwomen are discriminated against when they are forbidden from entering female only spaces (jails, changing rooms, rape crisis centers etc.) and is that you a teaching children to distrust transwomen (and other queer/non-binary etc.) and thereby ensuring that the next generation is also primed to discriminate against the transgender and other queer/non-binary etc.
The answer to this is that nothing stops criminals, such as pedophiles, from pretending to be something other than what they are but they cannot pretend to be a convincing woman and even harder for them to pretend to be a convincing mother with children. Hence the advice to start with a woman with children as a person to ask for help from and then devolve to other women and so on. While it is true that women do abuse children too, the overwhelming majority of abusers are male and therefore the actual advice is to avoid men no matter how they are dressed up.
This is classic risk management and is based on the mathematics of probability. The probability of a child abuser being male is high (say 90%). So even if child abusers are rare your chances of encountering a male one is ~10x the chances of encountering a female one
As Andrew Breitbart often repeated, politics is downstream of culture. That is why "OK Groomer" works.
Here's a 2011 article from writer Lawrence Meyers published on Breitbart emphasizing that point. https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2011/08/22/politics-really-is-downstream-from-culture/
Another great piece. Thank you, Holly.
I’ve been back and forth on Lindsay’s Twitter persona. His books and New Discourses Materials are pure signal. And his Twitter can be at least a bit noisy. People take Bird App too seriously- especially those are are promoting this stuff or the useful idiots.
The more the delusions are exposed , the better. The attempt at throwing back the “OK Groomer” accusation at him when that photo of him with Nicki Clyne was instructive.
I will note, although it is significantly less critical than "protecting the children" as an effect, that your ladder of "Who to talk to if you get lost" for little kids has the added benefit of being safest for the solitary adult males as well, having read more than one account of an adult man who was attempting to help a lost child find their parents being assaulted and battered for their efforts.
As a responsible adult male with more than a small streak of white knight present, I obviously *would* help a lost child who asked me for assistance... but *I'd* rather they asked the lady with kids, too. And actually, after having read this post, in that situation, I'd probably try and find one to help *me* help the kid, just to keep *myself* safe. So, excellent job.
What a gift for explaining you have. Thank you for shining a light on this very very dark topic.
Thank you! And thank you for reading. :-)