Articles about Politics



Killing the myth that taxes are anti-democratic

If you think taxes are infringing on your rights, you don’t understand democracy.

Everyday socialism

You’re a socialist and you don’t even realize it.

The simple reason you can’t be against taxes and for human rights

See if you can counter this argument.

A frank conversation about making political progress

Josiah Jennings and Greg Stevens talk plainly about what liberals don’t get about those who support Trump.

Would you like to pay a unicorn tax?

Some insight into how incompetent our current federal legislative branch really is.

Liberals React to Beauty and the Beast

A play in three acts.

In defense of corporate jobs

Is being a consultant or entrepreneur hurting your social skills?

The rise of the Nihilist Party in the United States

Trump’s “Piss-Gate” and the problem of people without cats.

Three ways post-election liberals are terrifying me

Can we please try to think strategically about this?

Trump is my president

And this is why it’s important for him to be yours, as well.

Why I supported Black Lives Matter interrupting Gay Pride

It helps to talk to people who were there.

Democracy 2.0: technology can improve how we elect leaders

Surely we can use technology to do better.

So what are “trigger warnings” anyway?

My latest chit-chat interview with Josiah Jennings is about trigger warnings and political correctness in academia. It was really prompted by two articles, one from Vox and another in The Atlantic. Both articles talk about political correctness being the major force of censorship and limitation in classes. But Josiah and I talk about some of the drastic misunderstandings there are concerning what “political correctness” and “trigger warnings” really mean, and some of the motivations of the people spreading misinformation.

We must erect monuments to the Code of Ur-Nammu IMMEDIATELY
Tablets of the Code of Ur Nammu

For the last few years, conservatives in various states have been pushing to have monuments to the 10 Commandments erected on state property. The standard line is that it isn’t a “religious symbol” but rather is a tribute to the influence that the 10 Commandments have had, culturally, on our laws and legal system. But if we take that argument seriously, we have to consider: were the 10 Commandments REALLY the very beginning of these traditions? As it turns out, there is a legal system much older that, when you do the math, is even more strongly related than the 10 Commandments is to the laws we have today.

Is it ok for Reddit and Twitter to ban people for their political beliefs?
Journalists Greg Stevens and Allum Bokhari discuss Censorship on Reddit, Twitter and other social media

My latest chit-chat interview is with journalist and author Allum Bokhari about corporate censorship. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and other social media platforms have so much power, and such a wide audience, that if they decide to ban a politician or public figure from using their services they effectively cripple that person’s ability to communicate and get their message out. Should that be allowed? If a public figure is unpopular, is that a good enough reason to effectively censor him by taking away his access to an audience?

By 2050, everything in your home will have been invented by Elon Musk (and you will love him for it)

Elon musk was a co-founder of PayPal, is the CEO of both electric-car manufacturer Tesla Motors and the spacecraft company SpaceX, and he is chairman of SolarCity. He’s trying to make zero-emission electric cars widely available, launch spacecraft into orbit, invent the perfect battery, and create an effective solar-powered energy grid. These are incredibly broad “infrastructure-level” initiatives. Rather than throwing his power and money into inventing a gadget with his name on it that will appear in people’s homes, he is building the services that eventually all of the gadgets you use will completely and utterly rely on. And you will look back at the fact that he used your tax money to do it, and you will thank him for it.

The fallacy of incorrect scoping: manspreading, Muslim extremists, lying bitches, and gay sex fiends

I have been dealing with a common and recurring logical problem that I see in cultural and political discussions, and it has come up often enough lately that I’d like to actually give it a label and a definition. I’m going to call it the “fallacy of incorrect scoping”. I’m using the term “incorrect scoping” to refer to any time there is some trait X that is bad, and because that trait is correlated with group Y, people will identify it as a “Y problem” or as a “X&Y problem”, even though the only thing that is actually causing the problem is X. It happens constantly in political and social debates, and it is completely and disgustingly wrong.

What do I say if I can’t say “black people”?

Yesterday’s episode of the Chris Krok radio show, a local Dallas conservative talk show, was entirely dedicated to the extreme anguish that Texans apparently feel when confronted with the question, “What do I call someone instead of ‘black guy’?” Chris Krok spent a good 30+ minutes talking about this issue, and spoke with many listeners who called in to opine on the subject. And in that entire time, not a single person addressed the actual issue involved, or the way to solve it.

When is it offensive to use the word “faggot”?

The reason I haven’t been writing as much as I ought for this blog lately is that my time has been taken up by making weekly videos for my Youtube Channel. This is something that I had been wanting to do for a while, but never had the time because of other side projects like Liberal Bias. But now, I have the time. One of the series that I’m planning for my Youtube channel is a series of videos called “Unscripted Chit-Chat”, which will me chatting with people on various topics. I just published the first one, in which my friend Josiah Jennings and I discuss the word “faggot.”

The case for more feminine magic in politics

“Your political writing comes across as feminine,” he said. He meant it as an insult. His more specific criticism was that I spend too much time conceding points, demonstrating that I understand both sides, and trying to speak to people using a language and a tone that they sympathize with and understand. He said I should stop trying to reach people and simply allow my ideas to “stand up for themselves.” I suppose, at least in his view, that is what masculine political writing is: bold assertions, plain language, ideas that are devoid of subject or voice or context because they simply “stand up for themselves.” Who cares about “reaching people” when we are talking about IDEAS?

Trending Articles

Keep up with my writing!You will only be notified about new articles. No ads, no petitions, no digests, no nonsense.