I think a more likely fourth option for Kendi is something like "deluded", or, more charitably, "committed to an ideology I disagree with". It's not the same as "dumb", because sometimes intelligent people can be more deluded than less intelligent people. It's not consciously "lying", although it debatably involves self-deception. I think he genuinely believes the things he's saying, and that they are "true" from the point of view of his ideology, and for him to consider them false would require him to reject a whole, interconnected, self-reinforcing memeplex. (I suppose failing to do this could be called "lazy", but only by using a fairly contorted definition of "lazy" that demands higher standards of effort than we usually apply to ourselves or those we agree with.)
I also think this (deludedness, for want of a better word) is quite common - the same could be said of many people whose religious, economic or political ideology you strongly disagree with and who make claims that sound absurd but that follow sensibly from that ideology.
I think I agree with this more for things that are directly related to his ideology - I.E. his binary view of racism and his binary view of the causes of inequality/inequity. Those aren't factually falsifiable in the same way. It's similar to how I might not believe that Communism or some of the stock actions Communism usually demands we take are a great way to go, but I can't just flat-out show it to be incorrect; it's a different ideology completely. I think some nicer way of saying deluded is good here (definitely need another word but I think I get what you are trying to do with it) for things derived from an ideology but perhaps a couple levels removed from it - this looks wrong to me, but that's because it makes sense in socialism, which I don't believe in and can't disprove.
I don't think that's the case with what I'm talking about, though - this is a pocket instance of Kendi talking about why he doesn't have to debate McWhorter, and he ascribes motivations to McWhorter that aren't integral to his own ideology.
So I wouldn't (intentionally, correctly) use "Lying, Dumb, or Lazy" on something like Socialism or a belief that made sense within Socialism if you bought the baseline parts of it in the first place, because it wouldn't be in most cases a discrete, falsifiable claim.
In contrast, when Kendi says something that boils down to "John thinks my work is simplistic, which is good because simplistic means 'common people can understand it' and he hates that, because it will reveal him as racist", it's not clearly connected to his ideology. It's also, I think, pretty easy to prove factually false to the average reasonable person - John doesn't mean anything like that when he says simplistic about Kendi's work. Then the accusation of racism falls apart, because at least this particular accusation of racism is only supported by the misinterpretation of what McWhorter said.
In that situation I feel a lot more comfortable with using the LDoL standard, but I wouldn't include deluded because the misinterpretation and accusation I'm criticizing aren't part-and-parcel with Kendi's ideology. Antiracism doesn't speak to John's use of simplistic or that he's doing that to cover up his own racism (although it does speak to what "racism" means to kendi here), so what I feel Kendi did wrong here is disconnected from his overall worldview in a way I think "seize the methods of production" aren't for a Communist.
To be honest (and acknowledging tha the Lewis' bit is just a hook for the argument on Kendi), I don't think Lewis ever proved Christ himself, as the Gospels present him or even as Paul presents His doctrine, ever claimed to be God. I don't even see any point on the Gospels where his enemies charged him with having claiming that, which for standard Jewish mores would be a scandal and reason enought to be put to death, as opposed to (somewhat) more mundane things such as being a false prophet, having a pact with Satan, threatening the Temple, wanting to be a king or claiming to be the Messiah.
As far as I can see, the Gospels present him claiming go be The Messiah, Son of man, anointed one, above the disciples and the rest of mankind, an unavoidable brinde between man and God, but systematically, Jesus put himself below the Father and claimed not knowing all the Father knows. The Trinitarian worldview does not make any sense -- and hasn't ever been sensibly explained -- but seems to deny the plain facts on the ground.
Length Warning -- Sorry -- I think I will enjoy your Substack
I largely skipped Kendi / McWhorter b/c I don't know much about them nor that interested. I am unqualified to weigh in on Kendi/McWhorter. I believe, instead, their argument allows what is the complete history of the greater nation to be swept aside and ignored so that some point of order can be argued instead. They both seem, from the synopsis you provide as folks who "protesteth too much" as Shakespeare advised -- usually worth ignoring IMO.
As a lover of history and taking no position on the pernicious and special nature of racism, I'll have a go nevertheless. (1) Slavery was undoubtedly the original sin of this 'more perfect Union' IMO (2) Just finished a great book about the Fremonts and their role in the establishment of Texas and California and contribution to and inevitable Civil War after 75 years of incredible inhumanity driven and justified by the useful idiots providing coverage in Scripture (3) After about ten years and the worst conflict ever for Americans including the World Wars, we rolled up the tent and let abject inhumanity rein again for another ninety years with Jim Crow, the Klan, etal. These were far from Southern Institutions, they were American White men institutions. They were everywhere while it is comfortable for Americans to pretend otherwise. (4) Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 we had a new and profound chance to finally do the right thing. We enlisted black and white alike for WW2 and created the GREATEST TRANSFER of wealth opportunity in our history with the GI Bill. We had a chance to do the right thing. What happened? Guys like my Dad went to school and got a subsidized mortgage. African Americans who served were assigned dishonorable discharges at rates of about 90% conveniently excluding them from the American Dream, now with NEARLY 200 years in the rear view mirror. At every turn, since arrival, the consensus of the elite has always stomped on the head of a more perfect Union whether black, female, gay -- it never matters because what will always be true is the 70 year old people in charge will be PROFOUNDLY out of touch with the reality and will roll things back the first chance they get. (5) Finally the Civil Rights Act arrives in 1965 (+5 after my birth and +190 since the Founding). By 1980 good and honorable white men are sure the 15 years WAS WAY EXCESSIVE and its time for the end of Affirmative Action and decisions like Bakke. Our memories are short and our instinct consistently intolerant. This is best personified by a SCOTUS of inconceivable focus now nearly 250 years since the founding. I conclude Americans are profoundly uncomfortable with the mirror. (6) Against this backdrop it is perfectly reasonable for two men of sound mind to have settled about their worldview (Kendi & McWhorter) even though they seem wildly different in outlook. Both are true for people shaped by the very same world with very different entrance ramps.
I've read a lot of history books from a lot of different settings and points of view. It is VERY DIFFICULT to find an era of even 20 years wherein our better angels don't get pushed into the backseat and we reset to the calming good old days for the current 70 year olds in charge. It is the nature of our society for old men to remain at the apex and IMO that is the FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE to stability and progress. They have settled minds and they have settled in a past that no longer exists. Their ideas and worldview in the current age are SO ARCHAIC as to do profound damage to progress on matters of justice. For the same reasons they are unlikely challenged by their email, seeking their guidance is stupid IMO.
I am sure you might return to C.S. Lewis -- I look forward to it as his use of language and logic reminds me of some of the very slip-shod ways that Kendi/McWhorter seem to barge in and attribute motive to the person they are speaking of. The pattern repeats when anyone of arrogance tells someone else what they think.
Yes it does, and to be honest, there are so many ways to dice this as a meta-problem, but in short, here is a better way of phrasing it: everyone is either a soldier (dumb), a jester (lazy), or a grifter (lying). Scott Adams might be rude enough to articulate this well in the corporate environment, but it is useful to re-apply them debate typologies as well. https://archive.ph/TXit4
I think I might eventually consider replacing dumb with mistaken - or at least explicitly writing some nuance into dumb and lazy that aren't there now. I agree that there's some room for it - for charity - in the trilemma.
The main problem I have with including it is that when you run into something even as bad as here (I.E. Kendi accusing someone of being a hyper-racist anti-speech mastermind when that's clearly not the case) is that everyone who wants to defend Kendi and is operating in bad faith will use that definition, and about half of the people who want to defend him and are operating in good faith will as well, just to be nice.
I think we see that in the comments here - basically everyone who commented commented with some version of "Well, I mean, he publically smeared someone who disagreed with him as being a racist who wants books to be over-complex so he can keep abusing uneducated blacks, but let's not be to hasty and say he did anything wrong".
So I'm trying to balance those two things - certainly someone can make a good faith effort to be right and still end up being factually wrong. But if improved honesty norms are going to be a thing, we have to be really careful of constructing an all-purposes escape hatch that the liar, his friends and his good-faith over-charitable enemies can use to say "Well, yes, he said that he saw that person doing adultery whilst he burned down orphanages - but maybe he was just wrong".
There has to be some balance here, but it's going to take me a while to find it. I think a good first step is using "mistaken" as a gateway into the trilemma, but requiring a pretty heavy burden of proof - we can clearly see how a person could be wrong about that, and it's pretty clear they didn't have a vested interest in "intentionally" making that mistake. Something like that.
The idea of the trilemma is to force one of the options as logical necessity. Aristotelian logic I suppose.
Nothing about weighting how likely each option is - it's a frame for the general discussion.
The reality is that a trilemma in human nature here aren't going to work, as the 4th option exists. The frame of those 3 being the only options is fundamentally wrong, and so loses the strength of its argument.
Sorting out the different general possibilities may have value, but deciding between them is going to be more bayesian or intuitive.
Personally I'd sort the responses of the type Kendi used entirely differently:
1)unserious enough to warrant writing him off as worthless in general
Perhaps looking at it from Kendi's point of view might be enlightening. If he applies the trilemma to McWhorter's review, it appears that he views McWhorter as dumb and unable to appreciate his argument. As with many smart people who are convinced of their arguments, he might have decided to not bother writing a clear rebuttal.
I think it's similar to someone who vociferously argues that calculus isn't logically coherent to a mathematician--The mathematician doesn't bother to mount a coherent argument to someone who just doesn't understand calculus.
The unfortunate thing is that being so dismissive to people with other viewpoints rarely works to advance your own.
How about “dogmatic” as a category? Kendi is so convinced of the correctness of his ideas, that he believes that he simply does not have to address the challenger. I find this particularly ironic since that sort of dogmatism is usually at the core of racist ideologies.
I have thought about adding this or something like this. The one thing that's holding me back is that instead of dogmatic, I'd probably go with the more general "deceived", since what we are essentially saying the person has been fooled into the position from which they issue the untrue statement.
For example, we might imagine someone who is bright (a physicist) who has been surrounded by people who are absolutely sure of a dubious theory that can be made to seem right (a strawmanned string theory). He then runs into people who disagree with him and assumes that something must be horribly wrong with them, since he knows a bunch of experts who believe the way he does and knows of a body of evidence which supports or seems to support his stance.
What makes it hard for me is that someone like Kendi or the pretend physicist realistically must know of objectors, and almost certainly should have known of them from the beginning. To get to the deceived category, they either have to have skipped the step of seriously grappling with their opponents ideas or have some sort of extenuating circumstance that kept them from doing so.
I'm very in favor of a norm that builds an expectation that this step doesn't get skipped, but I because I think this norm already exists and it's called "expectation of and participation in debate to defend your ideas" I don't think we have to build a new one whole-cloth.
I also might very well be thinking about this wrong but it's hard to imagine Kendi being deceived by his own ideology in a way that makes him less culpable here, since he made up or popularized most of it. I need to spend some time thinking about that bit, though.
I believe that people can have different thought processes, and form different conclusions from the same starting points. This can be completely vocabulary. For example left and right wings have different meanings for the words fair, right, and insurance. Jonathan Haidt’s moral axis theory implies that people have different priorities in their decision making. Physics may be more definitive than other fluffier areas. I still think that Kendi can be a true believer. He simply doesn’t see any evidence that his viewpoint is wrong. He isn’t deceived because in the space he’s talking about there is room, from his perspective, for him to be correct and EVERYBODY else is wrong. It’s not a humble thought process, but conceivable.
There might be a negative connotation for someone who actively avoids anything that might contradict their point of view - the head in the sand approach. Kendi hasn’t talked with anyone that contradicts his point of view because he hadn’t talked to anyone who contradicts him. His epistemology is a closed circle.
I would do a reclass: lying = grifting, dumb = misinformed, lazy = inarticulate. If someone is not misinformed ("pragmatic ignorance") or hold malice, we can best wish that they are just unorganized with sincere thoughts. https://archive.ph/l4tjp
I think a more likely fourth option for Kendi is something like "deluded", or, more charitably, "committed to an ideology I disagree with". It's not the same as "dumb", because sometimes intelligent people can be more deluded than less intelligent people. It's not consciously "lying", although it debatably involves self-deception. I think he genuinely believes the things he's saying, and that they are "true" from the point of view of his ideology, and for him to consider them false would require him to reject a whole, interconnected, self-reinforcing memeplex. (I suppose failing to do this could be called "lazy", but only by using a fairly contorted definition of "lazy" that demands higher standards of effort than we usually apply to ourselves or those we agree with.)
I also think this (deludedness, for want of a better word) is quite common - the same could be said of many people whose religious, economic or political ideology you strongly disagree with and who make claims that sound absurd but that follow sensibly from that ideology.
--Rachael (from DSL)
I think I agree with this more for things that are directly related to his ideology - I.E. his binary view of racism and his binary view of the causes of inequality/inequity. Those aren't factually falsifiable in the same way. It's similar to how I might not believe that Communism or some of the stock actions Communism usually demands we take are a great way to go, but I can't just flat-out show it to be incorrect; it's a different ideology completely. I think some nicer way of saying deluded is good here (definitely need another word but I think I get what you are trying to do with it) for things derived from an ideology but perhaps a couple levels removed from it - this looks wrong to me, but that's because it makes sense in socialism, which I don't believe in and can't disprove.
I don't think that's the case with what I'm talking about, though - this is a pocket instance of Kendi talking about why he doesn't have to debate McWhorter, and he ascribes motivations to McWhorter that aren't integral to his own ideology.
So I wouldn't (intentionally, correctly) use "Lying, Dumb, or Lazy" on something like Socialism or a belief that made sense within Socialism if you bought the baseline parts of it in the first place, because it wouldn't be in most cases a discrete, falsifiable claim.
In contrast, when Kendi says something that boils down to "John thinks my work is simplistic, which is good because simplistic means 'common people can understand it' and he hates that, because it will reveal him as racist", it's not clearly connected to his ideology. It's also, I think, pretty easy to prove factually false to the average reasonable person - John doesn't mean anything like that when he says simplistic about Kendi's work. Then the accusation of racism falls apart, because at least this particular accusation of racism is only supported by the misinterpretation of what McWhorter said.
In that situation I feel a lot more comfortable with using the LDoL standard, but I wouldn't include deluded because the misinterpretation and accusation I'm criticizing aren't part-and-parcel with Kendi's ideology. Antiracism doesn't speak to John's use of simplistic or that he's doing that to cover up his own racism (although it does speak to what "racism" means to kendi here), so what I feel Kendi did wrong here is disconnected from his overall worldview in a way I think "seize the methods of production" aren't for a Communist.
To be honest (and acknowledging tha the Lewis' bit is just a hook for the argument on Kendi), I don't think Lewis ever proved Christ himself, as the Gospels present him or even as Paul presents His doctrine, ever claimed to be God. I don't even see any point on the Gospels where his enemies charged him with having claiming that, which for standard Jewish mores would be a scandal and reason enought to be put to death, as opposed to (somewhat) more mundane things such as being a false prophet, having a pact with Satan, threatening the Temple, wanting to be a king or claiming to be the Messiah.
As far as I can see, the Gospels present him claiming go be The Messiah, Son of man, anointed one, above the disciples and the rest of mankind, an unavoidable brinde between man and God, but systematically, Jesus put himself below the Father and claimed not knowing all the Father knows. The Trinitarian worldview does not make any sense -- and hasn't ever been sensibly explained -- but seems to deny the plain facts on the ground.
Length Warning -- Sorry -- I think I will enjoy your Substack
I largely skipped Kendi / McWhorter b/c I don't know much about them nor that interested. I am unqualified to weigh in on Kendi/McWhorter. I believe, instead, their argument allows what is the complete history of the greater nation to be swept aside and ignored so that some point of order can be argued instead. They both seem, from the synopsis you provide as folks who "protesteth too much" as Shakespeare advised -- usually worth ignoring IMO.
As a lover of history and taking no position on the pernicious and special nature of racism, I'll have a go nevertheless. (1) Slavery was undoubtedly the original sin of this 'more perfect Union' IMO (2) Just finished a great book about the Fremonts and their role in the establishment of Texas and California and contribution to and inevitable Civil War after 75 years of incredible inhumanity driven and justified by the useful idiots providing coverage in Scripture (3) After about ten years and the worst conflict ever for Americans including the World Wars, we rolled up the tent and let abject inhumanity rein again for another ninety years with Jim Crow, the Klan, etal. These were far from Southern Institutions, they were American White men institutions. They were everywhere while it is comfortable for Americans to pretend otherwise. (4) Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 we had a new and profound chance to finally do the right thing. We enlisted black and white alike for WW2 and created the GREATEST TRANSFER of wealth opportunity in our history with the GI Bill. We had a chance to do the right thing. What happened? Guys like my Dad went to school and got a subsidized mortgage. African Americans who served were assigned dishonorable discharges at rates of about 90% conveniently excluding them from the American Dream, now with NEARLY 200 years in the rear view mirror. At every turn, since arrival, the consensus of the elite has always stomped on the head of a more perfect Union whether black, female, gay -- it never matters because what will always be true is the 70 year old people in charge will be PROFOUNDLY out of touch with the reality and will roll things back the first chance they get. (5) Finally the Civil Rights Act arrives in 1965 (+5 after my birth and +190 since the Founding). By 1980 good and honorable white men are sure the 15 years WAS WAY EXCESSIVE and its time for the end of Affirmative Action and decisions like Bakke. Our memories are short and our instinct consistently intolerant. This is best personified by a SCOTUS of inconceivable focus now nearly 250 years since the founding. I conclude Americans are profoundly uncomfortable with the mirror. (6) Against this backdrop it is perfectly reasonable for two men of sound mind to have settled about their worldview (Kendi & McWhorter) even though they seem wildly different in outlook. Both are true for people shaped by the very same world with very different entrance ramps.
I've read a lot of history books from a lot of different settings and points of view. It is VERY DIFFICULT to find an era of even 20 years wherein our better angels don't get pushed into the backseat and we reset to the calming good old days for the current 70 year olds in charge. It is the nature of our society for old men to remain at the apex and IMO that is the FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE to stability and progress. They have settled minds and they have settled in a past that no longer exists. Their ideas and worldview in the current age are SO ARCHAIC as to do profound damage to progress on matters of justice. For the same reasons they are unlikely challenged by their email, seeking their guidance is stupid IMO.
I am sure you might return to C.S. Lewis -- I look forward to it as his use of language and logic reminds me of some of the very slip-shod ways that Kendi/McWhorter seem to barge in and attribute motive to the person they are speaking of. The pattern repeats when anyone of arrogance tells someone else what they think.
This sounds like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zizek_trilemma.png
Yes it does, and to be honest, there are so many ways to dice this as a meta-problem, but in short, here is a better way of phrasing it: everyone is either a soldier (dumb), a jester (lazy), or a grifter (lying). Scott Adams might be rude enough to articulate this well in the corporate environment, but it is useful to re-apply them debate typologies as well. https://archive.ph/TXit4
More trilemmas to sink your teeth in: https://nesslabs.com/ambition-trilemma https://paradox-point.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-troikas-finite-boundless-lines.html https://paradox-point.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-troikas-10-kantian-troikas.html https://paradox-point.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-troikas-9-republican-troikas.html
I'd add a fourth category: mistaken.
It happens, we're humans.
Bright people who have the mental capacity to understand something correctly, read it and understand it wrong.
Others have written arrogant, deluded, dogmatic, and referenced different world views, priors and data points.
I think "mistaken" adequately encompasses these, and is distinct from your trilemma.
I think I might eventually consider replacing dumb with mistaken - or at least explicitly writing some nuance into dumb and lazy that aren't there now. I agree that there's some room for it - for charity - in the trilemma.
The main problem I have with including it is that when you run into something even as bad as here (I.E. Kendi accusing someone of being a hyper-racist anti-speech mastermind when that's clearly not the case) is that everyone who wants to defend Kendi and is operating in bad faith will use that definition, and about half of the people who want to defend him and are operating in good faith will as well, just to be nice.
I think we see that in the comments here - basically everyone who commented commented with some version of "Well, I mean, he publically smeared someone who disagreed with him as being a racist who wants books to be over-complex so he can keep abusing uneducated blacks, but let's not be to hasty and say he did anything wrong".
So I'm trying to balance those two things - certainly someone can make a good faith effort to be right and still end up being factually wrong. But if improved honesty norms are going to be a thing, we have to be really careful of constructing an all-purposes escape hatch that the liar, his friends and his good-faith over-charitable enemies can use to say "Well, yes, he said that he saw that person doing adultery whilst he burned down orphanages - but maybe he was just wrong".
There has to be some balance here, but it's going to take me a while to find it. I think a good first step is using "mistaken" as a gateway into the trilemma, but requiring a pretty heavy burden of proof - we can clearly see how a person could be wrong about that, and it's pretty clear they didn't have a vested interest in "intentionally" making that mistake. Something like that.
The idea of the trilemma is to force one of the options as logical necessity. Aristotelian logic I suppose.
Nothing about weighting how likely each option is - it's a frame for the general discussion.
The reality is that a trilemma in human nature here aren't going to work, as the 4th option exists. The frame of those 3 being the only options is fundamentally wrong, and so loses the strength of its argument.
Sorting out the different general possibilities may have value, but deciding between them is going to be more bayesian or intuitive.
Personally I'd sort the responses of the type Kendi used entirely differently:
1)unserious enough to warrant writing him off as worthless in general
2) not unserious enough etc
Perhaps looking at it from Kendi's point of view might be enlightening. If he applies the trilemma to McWhorter's review, it appears that he views McWhorter as dumb and unable to appreciate his argument. As with many smart people who are convinced of their arguments, he might have decided to not bother writing a clear rebuttal.
I think it's similar to someone who vociferously argues that calculus isn't logically coherent to a mathematician--The mathematician doesn't bother to mount a coherent argument to someone who just doesn't understand calculus.
The unfortunate thing is that being so dismissive to people with other viewpoints rarely works to advance your own.
How about “dogmatic” as a category? Kendi is so convinced of the correctness of his ideas, that he believes that he simply does not have to address the challenger. I find this particularly ironic since that sort of dogmatism is usually at the core of racist ideologies.
I have thought about adding this or something like this. The one thing that's holding me back is that instead of dogmatic, I'd probably go with the more general "deceived", since what we are essentially saying the person has been fooled into the position from which they issue the untrue statement.
For example, we might imagine someone who is bright (a physicist) who has been surrounded by people who are absolutely sure of a dubious theory that can be made to seem right (a strawmanned string theory). He then runs into people who disagree with him and assumes that something must be horribly wrong with them, since he knows a bunch of experts who believe the way he does and knows of a body of evidence which supports or seems to support his stance.
What makes it hard for me is that someone like Kendi or the pretend physicist realistically must know of objectors, and almost certainly should have known of them from the beginning. To get to the deceived category, they either have to have skipped the step of seriously grappling with their opponents ideas or have some sort of extenuating circumstance that kept them from doing so.
I'm very in favor of a norm that builds an expectation that this step doesn't get skipped, but I because I think this norm already exists and it's called "expectation of and participation in debate to defend your ideas" I don't think we have to build a new one whole-cloth.
I also might very well be thinking about this wrong but it's hard to imagine Kendi being deceived by his own ideology in a way that makes him less culpable here, since he made up or popularized most of it. I need to spend some time thinking about that bit, though.
The terminology here as "pragmatists, idealist, and opportunists" (or "money, prestige, and power") are useful, and can be traced along the lines of Dilbert and Dancoland. Idealism and dogmatism are merely Russell's Conjugates, same goes for sociopathy and opportunism, ditto for pragmatism and loser-dom. https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/ https://archive.ph/TXit4 https://danco.substack.com/p/the-michael-scott-theory-of-social https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181
I believe that people can have different thought processes, and form different conclusions from the same starting points. This can be completely vocabulary. For example left and right wings have different meanings for the words fair, right, and insurance. Jonathan Haidt’s moral axis theory implies that people have different priorities in their decision making. Physics may be more definitive than other fluffier areas. I still think that Kendi can be a true believer. He simply doesn’t see any evidence that his viewpoint is wrong. He isn’t deceived because in the space he’s talking about there is room, from his perspective, for him to be correct and EVERYBODY else is wrong. It’s not a humble thought process, but conceivable.
There might be a negative connotation for someone who actively avoids anything that might contradict their point of view - the head in the sand approach. Kendi hasn’t talked with anyone that contradicts his point of view because he hadn’t talked to anyone who contradicts him. His epistemology is a closed circle.
I would do a reclass: lying = grifting, dumb = misinformed, lazy = inarticulate. If someone is not misinformed ("pragmatic ignorance") or hold malice, we can best wish that they are just unorganized with sincere thoughts. https://archive.ph/l4tjp