My first post and my rules of engagement
I am a new lurker on your Substack -- my past brings a strong belief in ad-hoc hop-based hierarchies as a basis for understanding. The insidious underbelly has brought us, of course, to Snowden and Social Media. I am nearing a hopefully shortish Substack sabbatical to have a better sense of its Social Media pivot to Notes. Durably, I find the very best writing by looking two hops away from my most enjoyable reads. I always read the first post when I explore a Newsletter and yours is WONDERFUL. Eager to read more. Thanks. Your title is also smile-inducing. The contrarian as a property of people is rising quickly. I assume merely the breadth of expertise has overwhelmed our humble brains especially the hard-wired stuff in the depths of us. My thesis is contrarian is among the fastest growing property so perhaps you write for many :) as it brings serenity regardless of whether it is "right or wrong". I am so happy to have found this as I need a complement of new things worth exploring while I take a break from Substack, at least the writing and certainly the dilution of Notes (in my opinion).
One thing I noticed about Kendi's argument is that he interprets "discrimination" in a way that someone taking the General Social Survey might not. The average person taking the survey would likely interpret "discrimination" as someone making decisions about how to treat someone based on their color, whereas he seems to treat it as a synonym for systemic racism, which is far more expansive and doesn't necessarily require a system where individuals are currently racially biased.
For example, wealth -- and the lack of it -- is highly heritable. Racism from the past can limit the resources of previous generations, thus limiting the opportunities available to their descendants, even if those descendants live in a world where there is no present-day discrimination. Such a world would still be systemically racist.
With COVID vaccines on the horizon a contrarian view I have yet to see many take thus far in the debate over "who gets vaccinated first?", is the standpoint that "young" people should be first in line. Some arguements are as follows:
(1) One big result of COVID has been the exuberant increase in government debt, how has to bear the brunt of paying it off? younger generations.
(2) Though older generations are more at risk of hospitalization/death, how many human years are you saving by prioritizing the old vs the young?
(3) In both real and nominal figures, those aged 15-40 are far more likely to both catch and distribute the COVID virus, so if your goal is to stop the spread, should you not focus on the "super spreaders"?
Seems crazy to me that no one is taking this position, we always talk about how a parent's role is to leave their child with a better life than their parents had and yet I see the factual opposite being constantly reinforced through a multitude of policies.