Change of tack

...and my take on the merits of thinking outside, and the drawbacks of remaining within, it’s boundaries.

There was a time, not so long ago, when a prevailing acceptable opinion was to think of homosexual behaviour as completely abhorrent. As a train of thought gains momentum it evolves and a decision was eventually made by some people, who were designated with some authority through our social structure, to try and ‘fix’ the ‘problem’. That particular acceptable opinion culminated in nice helpful ppl like Alan Turing being chemically castrated. Also many other, lesser but still negatively nuanced, interactions that will have happened between straight and what is currently know as LGBTQ+. By way of example, a related question for pondering; How many suicides may possibly be attributed to that particular ‘acceptable opinion’?

Acceptable opinion however, does change over time in response to new ideas/findings. When the biblical narrative was acceptable (in many places, still is), there were some passages... 

...that, being the word of god, suggested that those of the clergy who partook in slave ownership, given the prevailing acceptable opinion of the time, were within their right to do so. Not only were they within their right, but they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong. They were simply doing what many other ppl around them were also doing. It was normal. Acceptable.

I could also mention that previous acceptable opinions of the role of women in society has considerably changed, as has the status of dark skin. What I’m leading up to is; What are the aspects of currently acceptable opinion, ie. subjects or activities that are commonly discussed in conversation, that currently go without any liability or recourse, that ppl will find abhorrent in the future?

Are there any such aspects? Or would most ppl say that our current society perfect?

History shows that opinion is obviously transient. But, questioning your own lifelong accepted opinions is one of the most difficult things anyone can do. A related example would be Darwin needing to go completely against the grain to write what he did. Was he thinking inside, or outside this window, at that time? Facing a life of ridicule and personal attack as pictured in the famous half Darwin/half monkey caricatures, is an uncomfortable and life defining decision.

More formally evidenced in his autobiography. An excerpt;

Should Darwin have taken that knockback by his esteemed peers as an indicator to stop? ...no, I’m not comparing myself, or anyone else. But I’m taking ‘considerable length’ as a cue.

What I see is a theme emerging, it revolves around equality. There's been an equalisation of slave rights, women rights, gay rights and black rights toward that of everyone else. Some aspects are still ongoing in some walks of life, but it’s the direction of travel I’m trying to highlight.

You could also say that as time passes, we’re simply trying to be less cruel to each other. Despite having the headwind of whatever the prevailing acceptable opinion of the time was, the human spirit shines though. Eventually. Once the issue is understood.

The examples show current and transient acceptable opinions that are the basis for much discussing/doing/reading/thinking everyday and that could be describe as being utterly fundamental and unshakeable truths at the time, like religion or what slaves are worth, can stifle positive and progressive intellectual debate. They hold back, or slow down, our march towards equality and the resulting reduction of cruelty towards each other. Any human spirit is born with a desire to simply be decent towards any other human spirit, because we are empathic.

Simply put, empathy reduces cruelty and pre-existing opinions can get in the way.

I’m sorry for going to such lengths to explain, but a thorough understanding of my motives is essential.

So, why have I recently surfaced again?
(deep breath)
If you’d stumbled across an idea, or concept (as yet unmentioned), not exactly brand new, in fact with heritage going back to the great depression and beyond, and that the ideas have no scientifically testable basis, certainly non that I’m eu fait with, to provide repeatable and unequivocal results for proof. An overall concept that I’d describe as being at least as far outside the window of acceptable opinion as Natural Selection. Also, add in the fact that it’s current main proponent had prior connections with unacceptable opinions of conspiracy.
(another deep breath)
However, there seems to be enough reason/logic in the concept, and if one imagines it as being accepted as normal... immense overall benefits. Rapid reduction of most crimes and ghg emissions, to name just 2, making it too compelling to ignore.

So how would you go about starting to explain the merits of a concept to an audience that will instantly dismiss it? ...Just like prof Houghton of Dublin, and everyone else who saw the NS theory but didn’t respond meritoriously, coz it just seemed so effing bonkers.

It doesn’t matter how reasoned or logical it is/isn’t, coz it goes against your accepted opinions. It doesn’t matter if it turns out to hold water or not, coz the concept will be instantly dismissed. It'll become academic. And who wants to spend time thinking academically about something from someone labelled a conspiracy wacko?

Lets say I tried to explain a concept that we should all use wooden shingles in windows, instead of glass. That’s bonkers right. Agreed. But if there were some merits, how could I explain them without letting on that I’m talking about chopping up trees... or windows? I’d have to get so abstract or technical as to make it, or me, seem bonkers anyway. But as soon as you start to describe, say, cellulose fibres and architectural features, you’re already giving away indicators to where it’s going. The more merits you try to describe increases the chance of the conclusion being based on preconceived ideas. Therefore... idea dismissed as bonkers, “coz ya canny see th’ wood fer th’ trees mate!!!”

Part of the reason I played into the last exchange was I wanted to gauge the range of response to ‘this guys comin' straight from loonville’. I’m perfectly happy if this concept turns out to hold as much water as a sieve. What would be uncomfortable is if I get caricatures drawn about me simply for wanting to explore it's benefits.

Please be sympathetic to the ‘why’ I’m doing this, coz a large part is about the growing climate catastrophe and our seemingly inexorable path.

I realise you haven’t asked for any of this, but that’s a reason for it's own thread so it has the ability to fade in time.


...Otoh, if you’d rather I’d just shurrup coz u think I’ve totally lost it, that’s perfectly fine too. All I’m asking for is this lil' corner of the forum to jot down what I can. I can’t say it won’t drift into being a bit abstract sometimes, but I’ll try and make it a bit more bite sized.


P.S. I’m also now not necessarily looking for the ‘pulling apart’, I think I need to pull in private.
<editorial notes - re-write that last part b4 posting>


To sign off in Bill&Ted fashion, “be excellent to each other”