Every once in a while, the curtain is pulled aside just enough to allow us to see what is actually happening behind the scenes. These are the moments I live for. As much as I loathe social media, which I believe is probably responsible more than anything else for the rise in mental illness in our world, it is quite useful at times (for those of us that have the ability to consume it without a side order of SSRIs). Here are two moments I noticed over the past week that helped to reveal what at least one person is thinking and one overlooked outcome of something many just take for granted.

On Twitter/X recently, Bret Weinstein, who became famous for having to leave his teaching job at a college that encouraged much of the “woke” garbage we see today (appears the monster he helped create eventually came for him), made comments about Pink Floyd founder Roger Waters’ upcoming speech at the University of Pennsylvania. He stated that he is convinced Waters is anti-Semitic, but he should still be allowed to give the speech at UPenn. How gracious of Mr. Weinstein! And thank you, sir, for pointing out that an institution being allowed to have someone speak there can be influenced by people who aren’t UPenn leadership or Mr. Waters. It also doesn’t escape me that Bret Weinstein, someone with a very Jewish last name, felt the need to give his opinion on whether someone who is critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is anti-Semitic or not. It’s almost as if his opinion should carry more weight than, say, mine.

Another conversation I witnessed had to do with whether birth control in any form should be legal in the US (yes, I perused some weird corners of Twitter). The argument for banning birth control was, of course, met with harsh criticism, but some felt the need to argue the exception. I’ll explain. When the subject of birth control (BC) pills was raised, more than one commenter mentioned that BC pills are often prescribed for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy. When I asked one of these people why a separate category and name weren’t designated for that purpose, they were dumbfounded. I had considered something long ago that they hadn’t.

I used to be acquainted with a woman who was prescribed BC pills shortly after her first menstrual cycle at age 13. This is commonly done if there is physical, and in some cases emotional, distress during the cycle. What my former colleague told me was that when she decided to take the pills, it occurred to her that she could now have sex without the risk of pregnancy. She was 13 years old. Hence my question as to why, if this product works for pain during a woman’s cycle, it isn’t marketed as such. Some may respond that the companies would have to come up with new names and packaging, and that would be costly. But it has been done for other products, such as those designed for male impotency, so why not for menstrual issues? Female promiscuity has been promoted for decades, so is it really a stretch to believe that by giving teens drugs labeled as birth control for one issue, would also put in young people’s minds that it is now safe to begin having sex?

When you start to examine people’s arguments for or against something, what is revealed can help you examine future conversations or pronouncements for what may be lurking behind their words. Whether it be someone’s perceived privilege because of their identity or the social engineer’s hand in manipulating our culture toward further deviancy, their intent is always there to be deciphered. At this point, the inevitable criticism that “you’re reading too much into it” is leveled. Maybe. But hindsight being 20/20 is almost undeniable. Using the method we use for hindsight should help provide us with some foresight when “solutions” are being floated by those who would wish us harm. It’s a muscle that should be exercised. Heading off the next propaganda attack should be second nature.