This morning, after scraping the ice off of my car windows well enough so that I could see where I was driving, I was reminded of the tendency of weathermen to be somewhat alarmist in their predictions, while attempting to sugarcoat their alarmism. For example, on the one hand, the radio weatherman stated the possibility of snow in the valley tonight, as a better option than the freezing rain that could otherwise knock out power in some parts of the area. On the other hand, there was the promise that this snow would lead to an early opening of various ski lodges in the area, which is not a pleasure I have yet had the chance to enjoy, largely on account of the fact that I am a somewhat inexperienced skier who tends to ski socially when I do, and who lacks any suitable equipment to ski, or the sort of regular company that enjoys it. As is often the case in life, there are activities I enjoy but do not enjoy doing alone, and so finding the right group of people is a matter of particular importance when it comes to my own activities.

This evening, I had the chance to muse over some poll results from the Pew Research Group that stated that about 40% of young adults between the ages of 18 and 34 support government censorship of speech that is judged offensive by various minority groups [1]. Although I do not tend to consider myself to be a particularly strong libertarian [2]. Nevertheless, despite the fact that I have often found the speech of others insofar as it relates to me, or to groups that I identify with, to be offensive, at the same time I realize that my own compulsive need to express myself freely requires me in the interests of justice and equity to grant that same right to others. Those who have lost many hours of sleep because of fears of an unfriendly knock at the door because of the repercussions of what I have said, or more often written, are not going to be people that wish to inflict the same treatment on others. Clearly, those who believe in the importance of freedom of speech and expression, even of those ideas that are neither popular nor particularly savory, need to do a better job of teaching the young that sometimes free speech might sting, but it is a lot more preferable than a state where even peaceful but somewhat noisy people face the crippling burden of exile or imprisonment merely for saying what is true, but not popular.

Tonight I happened to read most of a book that I hope to review soon about a particular man’s view of the most important books to have on one’s bookshelves, some of which I have read, and more of which I have heard of. In reading this person’s writings, much of which sought to glorify a certain reactionary paleo-Conservative political ideology, including neo-Confederate ideals, I was struck by the tension and contradiction in the author’s thought and worldview. On the one hand, the author spoke passionate against abortion, but had nothing negative to say about the way that the antebellum South completely denied the dignity of human beings who happened to look differently than he or come from different areas. His apparent belief in the duties of Christian love and outgoing concern notwithstanding, the author seemed to have an elitist view that held that freedom and honor and dignity were not universally owed to all created in the image and likeness of our Heavenly Father above, but rather that they belong to a particular heritage descended from European Christendom, which is rubbish. In seeking to deny a sort of “universal democracy” that ignores tradition and that which has stood the test of time, he attacks the basis of human dignity, which holds a place for a brotherhood of fellow believers in which there is no exclusion by gender, ethnic origin, or social class, but rather a genuine community of faith that exists in obedience to a common Lord and God and a universal and transcendent and eternal set of moral standards of unchanging worth and value, regardless of the shifting trends of thought and practice.

Tonight as well I happened to complete a week’s worth of assignments and lectures in a class I am taking on Chinese history, and the two questions asked were “Who reproduces?” and “Who marries?” in the context of universal female but selective male marriage and the practice of delayed childbirth and occasionally even female infanticide. It is little surprise that the data-driven approach of the class would indicate that marriage and family was more common for those who were of a certain socioeconomic status, and that elites in particular viewed having sons as a moral obligation of the highest order. Even Westerners occasionally have the same sort of old-fashioned understanding, however badly they manage the affairs of their own family. It was a worthwhile class, but certainly a grim one in the way that it pointed out the family context that influenced views of marriage and family, a reminder, if any were necessary, that our behavior is influenced by our experience and context, whether we embrace those effects or seek to counteract them. The winds and currents of our world cannot help but leave their mark on us, no matter how skillfully we seek to chart a course for a better world than we have ever known.

[1] https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/20/millennials-more-likely-to-support-censo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mattkibbe

[2] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/a-thin-line-between-libertarian-and-libertine/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/book-review-the-conservatrian-manifesto/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/in-those-days-there-was-no-king-in-israel-and-everyone-did-what-was-right-in-his-own-eyes/