OK, You Win. You Have Convinced Us.

(NOTE:  Read this to the very end!)

Well, after doing some deep thinking and soul-searching, it looks like the pro-21 crowd was right all along for the most part.  And thus we have decided to join them in their long and noble fight to save lives and protect the next generations.  We have even decided to attempt to join MADD, if only they would have the mercy to forgive us for our decades of obstinate contumacy against them. 

Our recent "come to MADD moment" hit us like a ton of bricks the other day:  the science on the 21 drinking age is at least as settled as the science on climate change, if not even more settled.  Therefore, those who deny it are just as bad as climate deniers.  That is true not only for its effect on drunk driving, but also the state-of-the-art findings about the adolescent brain from some of the finest neuroscientists in the world as well.  Like C.S. Lewis in regards to Christianity, we've been spending decades trying to debunk and disprove the truth, only to end up discovering the truth all along.

As corny as it sounds, if it saves even ONE life, it's worth it.

Our ONLY gripe with MADD today is that they still refuse to welcome their founder, Candy Lightner, back into the fold after her ignominious ouster long ago.  If anything, they should seriously be canonizing her as a secular saint!

Channeling the late, great Thomas Hobbes, we have also come to realize that the 21 drinking age, though far from perfect, is most analogous to a palliative treatment for a hopelessly incurable disease.  But even then, we will work to hopefully defy what are taken for granted as the laws of human nature to not only reduce, but thoroughly eradicate the horrible and deadly scourge of underage drinking.  And we must of course exorcise the ghosts of John Locke and especially the fiendish John Stuart Mill as well.

We are still keeping the legacy name "Twenty-One Debunked", of course.  That's because we think the current 21 drinking age is if anything too LOW.  It needs to be raised to AT LEAST 25, yesterday, with NO grandfather clause and NO LOOPHOLES.  May MADD accept that as our penance.  And while we are at it, we should seriously consider bringing back Prohibition for all ages, this time with teeth!

Because we have also learned that, actually, Prohibition was a success according to the best evidence.  And had it been properly enforced, and not sabotaged by those who put personal gratification ahead of the common good, it could have been even more successful to this day.

And all of the above shall apply a fortiori to cannabis and tobacco as well, by the way.  Those should never have even been legalized at all.  Thus, we need to redouble our efforts and renew the War on Alcohol And Other Drugs, and stop our "retreat and defeat" strategy.  Yesterday.

And finally, dear reader, as a wise college administrator once said, we DARE NOT let alcohol or any other substance blemish your bright promise.

(Scroll down)

(Scroll down)

(More)

(More)

(More)

APRIL FOOLS!

Of course we would never in a million years agree with any of what we said above, not one iota.  We will never, EVER sell out like that!  But you have to admit, with that sort of satirized sophistry, we sure had you, didn't we 😉

A Message To Those Who Still Support The 21 Drinking Age And Other Ageist Policies

Here's a message to those who still support the 21 drinking age and other ageist policies:

(Mic drop)

Ding Dong, The Troll Is Dead!

We at Twenty-One Debunked would like to announce some news.  We have just learned belatedly that a certain pro-21 troll who would come onto our blog from time to time has finally passed away, as of November 18, 2024.  His name was Randall "Randy" Kovar, along with a number of silly aliases that he would use to relentlessly troll us with.  We were wondering why he hasn't been trolling for the past two years or so, and now we know why.  

So pop the champagne, everyone! 

And make the following toast:

"Ding dong, the troll is dead!"

And finally:

May his name and memory be forever blotted out.

Young People Have Too LITTLE Personal Autonomy, Actually

With the Epstein scandal now finally in the foreground at long last, many people are wondering how the hell were these atrocities allowed to happen for so long?  There are a number of reasons, of course, but the two biggest ones are 1) power of the perperators, and 2) lack of personal autonomy of the victims. 

The first is painfully obvious, as power lets perpetrators get away with far more than they would have without such power.  And of course, they are surrounded with rape apologists, enablers, and guilty bystanders as well.  Natch.  But denying young people autonomy and civil rights in the name of "protecting" them also not only fails to really protect them from predators, but actually puts them at greater risk.  As a very different Dr. Robert Epstein (no relation!) has famously noted, teens have fewer rights than convicted felons, and in fact have ten times more restrictions.

True, it is very nuanced, and the correlation is probably NOT linear or even monotonic.  Sometimes, a supposed "middle ground" is in fact the most dangerous place of all.  Recall the "most murder in the middle" theory, where the midpoint (known as anocracy or semi-democracy) in the transition between full democracy and full autocracy is in fact the most violent of all.  A similar analogy likely holds here as well, as in the abysmal status quo where young people are granted JUST barely enough agency to be blamed, shamed, and gaslighted for being victimized, but not nearly enough agency to actually empower them.  And the solution is NOT to take more rights and autonomy from young people, but rather to give them MORE rights and autonomy.  And of course, we must actually hold the perpetrators fully accountable regardless of their wealth, power, and social status.

So what are we waiting for?

P.S. And let's not forget to "thank" the peddlers of the previous moral panics from the Satanic Panic all the way to Pizzagate and QAnon, for crying "WOLF" so many times, that now that the wolf actually IS at the door, people are hesitant to believe it now.

(Mic drop)

Never Ask Meme (Re-Post)

There is a good meme that I found recently on Reddit about the, shall we say, shadow side of so many famous and otherwise "great" philosophers throughout recorded history:

And to that, we would like to add the following:

Never ask 57% of Michiganders, what they voted for in November 1978.  

(Hint:  it set into motion a sweeping national trend since then, a very dubious, toxic, illiberal, and ageist trend that might not otherwise have occurred, and without it, the USA would have most likely been more like Canada in that regard.  Seriously.  The agony of regret indeed....)

The Law of Eristic Escalation Revisited (Re-Post)

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

Happy New Year, everyone!  Just thought we should share this re-post of a very timeless article that remains just as relevant now.

There is an eternal law of nature that at once explains just about everything, and even makes politics possible to finally understand. It is called The Law of Eristic Escalation:

Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos

By that, it pertains to any arbitrary or coercive imposition of order, which at least in the long run, actually causes disorder (chaos) to escalate.  Fenderson's Amendment further adds that "the tighter the order in question is maintained, the longer the consequent chaos takes to escalate, BUT the more it does when it does."  Finally, the Thudthwacker Addendum still further adds that this relationship is nonlinear, thus rendering the resulting escalation of chaos completely unpredictable in terms of the original imposition of order.

We see the real world consequences of this in everything from Prohibition to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to zero tolerance policies to Covid lockdowns to sexual repression and so much more.  And, of course, especially in the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  Any short-term benefits that these arbitrary and coercive impositions of order may provide is entirely outweighed when they inevitably backfire in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and Males (1986), etc. illustrate this very nicely in the case of the 21 drinking age.

Perhaps that is why most bans on various things have historically had a track record that is quite lackluster at best.  Ironically, bans tend to give more power to the very things that they seek to ban.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, you finally understand politics.

P.S.  The Dutch seem to understand this better.  They even have a proverb:  "when you permit, you control", which is the antithesis of the American proverb, "when you permit, you promote".  Carl Jung would also likely have a field day with that as well.