On ContraPoints Pronoun Controversy & The Problem With Western Progressives Today

Welcome to Moral Libertarian View, a program where we discuss news events that are worth looking at from the point of view of the Moral Libertarian idea, that is, every individual should have Equal and Maximum Moral Agency in their lives. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I want to present some further thoughts on the recent ContraPoints pronoun controversy, and how that event was actually similar to the events that started the so-called anti SJW wave from a few years ago. Now, I know this sounds a bit controversial, with both sides of the ContraPoints controversy being firmly left-wing, and the anti-SJW movement being generally regarded as right-leaning. However, labels like left and right often obscure the underlying reality, so I think we should just forget them, at least for the purpose of this analysis.

At the heart of the recent ContraPoints controversy was Natalie's mixed feelings about the very new practice of the 'pronoun round'. My specific thoughts on this practice was outlined elsewhere, so I won't go into it here. Rather, I want to focus on the fact that, the pronoun round is a very new idea by any measure. A mere five years ago, most people wouldn't even have heard of this practice. I first heard of it in early 2015, and compared with most people, I am pretty up to date on new political and cultural trends. Regardless of the merit of an idea, to expect a consensus of adoption in that time frame would be impossible, if that consensus was to occur as a result of true freedom of thought. I mean, the gay marriage movement got started in 1993, and it took about 20 years for a clear majority support to emerge. And on the scale of social disruption, gay marriage would be way down the list, because nobody would be forced to attend a gay wedding in any case. On the other hand, where pronoun rounds are introduced, everyone would be expected to participate, whether they like it or not. Therefore, pronoun rounds would represent much more social disruption that gay marriage. If it took 20 years for a consensus to form around gay marriage, it would logically take even longer for any consensus to form around the idea of pronoun rounds.

In fact, vigorous debate and the required patience has always been part of the Western liberal way, with a cannon going back to the words of classical thinkers like Voltaire and John Stuart Mill. However, in the past few years, some parts of the left seem to believe that, not only can they short-circuit this process, social justice requires them to do so, because prolonged debate would represent oppression and harm to minorities. As I have said elsewhere, a lot of this comes from various academic theories rooted in the critical theory tradition, which often over-magnifies the negative effects of liberal processes, without a fair consideration of the bigger picture pros and cons of having these processes. Free speech and free debate are often the first victims of such biased analyses. In place of free debate, some activists have resorted to essentially using peer pressure, and the creation of unnecessary conflict, to advance their causes. I know it's unpopular to say this, but in the past few years some parts of the New Left have essentially been opposing fundamental liberal values in the name of 'social justice'.

Now, let's take a look at the Anti-SJW movement from a few years ago. While this topic can provoke quite a bit of negative emotion in some people, I hope that you can have a look at it with an open mind. I'm not saying that anti-SJWs were always justified or something like that, but I think there's a lesson in there to be learned. Anyway, if we look back to around 2014 or 15, a lot of the so-called anti-SJW movement also started out as resistance to this development on the Left. The characterization of that entire movement as conservative or reactionary is blatant historical revisionism. Back then, many anti-SJWs self-identified as liberals or even progressives, but were unhappy that the New Left was essentially using peer pressure to coerce people into adopting new ideas or refrain from criticizing them, using 'social justice' as their defense. These people weren't reactionaries in any sense of the word, they often supported liberal politicians like Obama and liberal policies like gay marriage and renewable energy. They were also not of a conservative worldview, many if not most of them were even atheists. But they did have a major problem with the New Left of recent years, in that they cherished free speech and free thought, and didn't believe in a version of justice without these essential freedoms.

Note that I'm not saying that the anti-SJWs provided a good 'response' to the problem. Some anti-SJWs did become a bit reactionary later on, but I guess that's probably out of frustration with the refusal of the Left to take their concerns seriously, and it just shows why only the way of liberty will bring positive change. Some anti-SJWs were also divisive and negative in their approach, and a lack of clear purpose also meant that their movement didn't survive the election of Trump, which fundamentally divided left-leaning and right-leaning anti-SJWs. What I'm saying is that, the anti-SJW movement was caused by a real and problematic change among some progressives, and the recent pronoun round controversy shows that the fundamental problem that sparked anti-SJWism is still present.

For many of us, the value of individual freedom, in particular freedom of conscience, is essentially sacred and baked into our moral foundations, for example as formulated in the Moral Libertarian idea of Equal and Maxiumum Moral Agency for all. In our view, there can be neither morality nor justice where this principle is violated. Of course, this means that we have to accept that the resolution of social debates are going to be messy and prolonged. As Moral Libertarians, we not only fully accept this trade-off, we will actively prevent any short-circuiting of the necessary process, as part of our defense of individual liberty. And no, that certainly doesn't make us reactionaries.

Joe Rogan Getting Andrew Yang Wrong is a Symptom of Much Bigger Problems | Moral Libertarian View | #YangGang

Welcome to Moral Libertarian View, a program where we discuss news events that are worth looking at from the point of view of the Moral Libertarian idea, that is, every individual should have Equal and Maximum Moral Agency in their lives. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I want to talk about the recent drama surrounding Joe Rogan and Andrew Yang, and realizations I've had through this episode. Basically, it all started when Joe Rogan mischaracterized something that Andrew Yang said. In a previous interview, when asked about the fact that cattle is responsible for a substantial amount of greenhouse gas emissions, Yang floated the possibility of putting a tax on cattle, which he then went on to predict that it would reduce beef consumption. It's not something I personally agree with, but I can see that it's a logical extension of his carbon tax stance, which is to put the economic costs of pollution back into market calculations. The part where he said it would reduce beef consumption was just basic market economics logic, where something that is more expensive becomes less in demand. There's no conspiracy to social engineer anything here.

However, Joe Rogan appeared to mischaracterize Yang's position as wanting to stop people from eating beef, or perhaps, even turning everyone vegetarian. Which is nonsense, because Yang isn't even a vegetarian himself! Anyway, Rogan went on and on about what would happen if people were not allowed to eat meat anymore, like how there would be nutrition deficiencies, and how cattle ranches everywhere are going to go out of business. I mean, relax Joe! Yang isn't going to lead society down that path, nor is any reasonable politician! Even if the carbon tax is extended to cattle, and that's surely a long long way away, the effect would be that beef would be slightly more expensive, and some families may decide to swap it for chicken or pork once a week. No cattle ranches are going to go out of business!

Many people in the Yang Gang have accused Rogan of smearing Yang here. I actually don't agree with this. Rogan was nothing but nice to Yang when he went on the podcast earlier this year. I think Rogan genuinely misunderstood Yang's position, and was genuinely worried. I think it's great that the Yang Gang mobilized to correct this misunderstanding before it could spread too far. But the fact that Rogan was so worried that a politician may stop people from eating beef deserves a moment of reflection.

Ten years ago, anyone making such a suggestion would just be laughed out of town. The idea that politicians would stop people from eating meat in a country like America used to be the stuff of stand up comedians. But it seems that some people aren't so sure anymore. Many people seem to have a very genuine fear of top-down social engineering from the elites. And I can't blame them either. The past decade has seen the introduction of many new social rules about what you can or can't say, what you can or can't do, what you can or can't buy ethically, and all of them in the name of some form of common good. The effect is that individual liberty has been limited for the sake of collective ends, and many people are genuinely worried where this might lead us. As a Moral Libertarian, I would say that people are rightly fearful that they are losing their fair share of Moral Agency as indepdently thinking individuals. Of course, I believe that Yang isn't the type who would support this social engineering, but then, many people out there have become so skeptical that they can't differentiate anymore. This has essentially created a climate where anyone raising any new idea could potentially be the enemy, which also explains why some right-leaning people have come to fear anything that is not standard conservatism. They've essentially become reactionary, in the face of those forcing change by peer pressure.

My point is, I don't think the road we're heading down here is good for either individual liberty or the social fabric. People rightly value their individual liberty, and using peer pressure to force social change is never a good idea. Moreover, it ends up scaring a lot of people towards the reactionary end of things, and through reducing mutual trust, fractures the social fabric in the process. While Rogan did misrepresent Yang, which I'm not very happy about, the fact that a credible public personality could raise the fear that a politician may stop people from eating meat tells us there's something really wrong with the way Western society is heading. We really need more unity in liberty, and less division and fear. The only way to do that is by repsecting that every individual should have Equal and Maxiumum Moral Agency in their lives.

Justin Trudeau in Cancel Culture Drama, Why the Right Responded Poorly | TaraElla News

Today, I want to talk about the recent drama surrounding Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and several blackface and brownface photos of him from many years ago that have recently emerged. I think there are several dimensions to this drama.

Firstly, like all instances of Cancel Culture, I think what we should do is to encourage forgiveness. Like I said regarding Andrew Yang's recent decision to publicly forgive a comedian who made a racial slur towards him, only to receive backlash himself, we may not be able to change culture all that much each time, but with each decision to forgive, we move the culture bit by bit towards a Forgiveness Culture and away from a Cancel Culture. The effects may not be apparent this month or this year, but if we make a concerted effort to bring back forgiveness, there will certainly be a noticeable effect several years down the track.

Secondly, I think the response from certain political observers is disappointing. I understand that a Canadian election is coming up, and supporters of each political party would naturally welcome news that puts their own party in some advantage. Therefore, it is unsurprising that conservative and hard-left people have been enjoying this drama quite a bit. However, if we are to move Western society away from Cancel Culture, which I think we definitely have to do, then we need to do it consistently. Otherwise, Cancel Culture will become normalized as a political tool against those on the opposite, and it will become a permanently entrenched part of the political culture. Therefore, people from across the political spectrum should refrain from using Cancel Culture to score political points. I know that the temptation is big, especially during election time, but please refrain for the sake of the future of Western civilization.

Finally, I believe the only way we can have a fighting chance to end Cancel Culture in the next few years would be to unite to push for forgiveness every time. Which is why I want to look at Dave Rubin's response to this latest drama. Rubin correctly stated that what Trudeau did wasn't that much of a big deal, because it was at a themed party, and there was clearly no racist intention. However, rather than to focus on calling for forgiveness, Rubin went on to discuss the issue of a double standard in Cancel Culture, where conservatives and Republicans have, in his view, been targeted more severely than Democrats. This is a view I don't share: from my objective observations, people across the political spectrum are targeted just as harshly in Cancel Culture, and those on the left are particularly vulnerable because their own fanbase are more likely to participate in it, as seen in the recent drama surrounding LeftTuber ContraPoints. In this incident, the left-leaning media around the English speaking world have also been quite harsh on Trudeau in general. There may be some partisan left-wing individuals who apply Cancel Culture only to the right because they want to score political points, but by and large, Cancel Culture is generally applied indiscriminately to everyone. Furthermore, it is unhelpful to bring up partisan divides when talking about Cancel Culture, especially when we are in the middle of Cancel Culture drama, when the constructive response should be to unite to call for forgiveness.

Another thing is, if some on the left are unfair in their application of Cancel Culture, some on the right are also unfair in their response to it. For example, some conservative commentators would be the first to defend someone like President Trump or Judge Kavanaugh against the Cancel Culture mob, but they would remain silent if someone like Joe Biden were to receive the same treatment for a similar thing, as if Biden deserved it because he's a Democrat. In this context, I worry that Rubin's divisive comments would be used as a justification for this kind of differential treatment, almost as if in the name of a perverse form of affirmative action. As I said, if Cancel Culture becomes normalized as a political tool against those on the opposite, it will become a permanently entrenched part of the political culture, and the future of political discourse in the Western world will suffer for it. As such, I vow to equally call for forgiveness when Cancel Culture is being applied, regardless of the political affiliations of the people involved.

Andrew Yang Forgives Shane Gillis, Sets Example to End Cancel Culture | TaraElla News | #YangGang

Today, I want to talk about Cancel Culture, and how we can 'cancel' it, using the recent drama surrounding comedian Shane Gillis, and 2020 candidate Andrew Yang as an example. Cancel culture is getting so big these days that it is engulfing commentators left and right, and even a socially progressive Canadian Prime Minister! Comedian Shane Gillis was fired just a few days after the announcement of him joining SNL, because people discovered some of his old material in which he used racist slurs. Some of the stuff he said was indeed very distasteful. One of these slurs was directed at Andrew Yang. In response, Yang said that he thought Gillis deserved another chance to keep his job. Yang said that society has become too punitive towards people who made distateful statements, and he thought that, by setting an example of advocating for forgiveness, it would be something positive.

As you may expect, I totally agree with Yang here. Of course, the decision by one person to forgive won't change much overnight, but if more prominent people decided to do the same, it would have the effect of gradually changing our culture, moving away from a Cancel Culture to a Forgiving Culture. The fact that Yang himself received backlash for his forgiving stance was particularly frustrating. Modern cancel culture is not just some people attempting to cancel individuals they find problematic; it is also a group mentality thing, where everyone is expected to agree to act together to achieve the cancellation. As Yang's example showed, there is plenty of peer pressure to participate in cancel culture or at least not oppose it. It is group-think power in action. This is why cancel culture is inherently anti-individual.

The other thing we should know about cancel culture, is that it is one tactic among many that are used to deliberately create polarization in society. I have already said plenty about why some people are deliberately polarizing society and how they are doing it, so I'm not going to go into the details here. What's important is that, those who believe in bringing people together, and ending the divisive culture wars, have plenty of reason to oppose cancel culture, and to bring about its opposite, which is of course a forgiving culture. Therefore, I think it is actually very fitting that Andrew Yang, a candidate who is all about building the big tent across political divides, is doing his part to bring about a forgiving culture. After all, there can be no bridging divides without forgiveness. I think we can all learn from Yang here. Next time a public figure says something controversial or distateful, try to see if you can advocate forgiveness instead of cancellation. Also, on a more personal level, next time someone in your life says something offensive, try and see if you can use a bit of forgiveness. It could go a long way.

The (Imaginary) Leftist Checklist | TaraElla News

You know, I have long considered myself a moderate who shares plenty of concerns from both the left and the right. However, after listening to 'The Leftist Checklist' by conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey, I have learned that I apparently don't share anything with anyone left of center nowadays. I never knew that my political beliefs were that much in clear opposition to everyone on the left. I never knew I was so staunchly right wing, even though I am a fan of Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard. I don't know how that could be possible, but thanks Allie, for teaching me something new.

Sarcasm aside, I think this latest so-called checklist from Stuckey is symptomatic of something I have come to be concerned about: that some conservative commentators are more interested in associating the most extreme and problematic ideas from the left with their political rivals, than actually creating a meaningful conversation to restore classical liberal values. According to the checklist, which Stuckey says is now taking over anyone left of center, everyone on the left these days believe in the following: 1) the oppression olympics based on some vaguely defined intersectional theory; 2) oppressed minorities should be entited to special treatment; 3) gender is a social construct; 4) we should decry toxic masculinity all the time; 5) a biological male can be a biological female; 6) legally forcing others to celebrate LGBT; 7) perpetuating white guilt; 8) America is inherently racist; 9) the wealthy should be hated because they stepped on others to get their money; 10) open borders; and finally, America should become communist. Needless to say, I scored 0/11, so according to Stuckey, I have nothing whatsoever in common with anyone left of center. But then, I guess people like Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Biden, and even Bernie Sanders would be right-wing too under Stuckey's rules, because they certainly wouldn't score full marks for that list! I mean, remember how much Bernie hates open borders, for example? In fact, college campuses are probably the only place where you'd find anyone who scored full marks for that list.

While Stuckey's list contained quite a few important problems, along with a few strawmen of course, I got the feeling that she was more interested in painting an unflattering picture of her political opponents, rather than examining why we have these problems in the first place. I mean, the oppression olympics, unfair treatment based on identity, social constructionism, conflict theory inspired feminism, an negatively biased view of American and Western history, and so on are all incompatible with the classical liberal values the modern West was founded upon. I believe we need to be able to use our rational reasoning, and our understanding of the various critical theories, conflict theories and postmodern theories that have led to those problematic views, to bring the cultural consensus away from those ideas and back to the classical liberal values of individual liberty, colorblindness, equality before the law and so on. But I didn't see any of that happening in Stuckey's video. Instead, from what I can see, she is essentially enjoying the problem, because it gives her ammunition to paint Democrats as crazy, which would serve both to unite her right-leaning audience and to attack their common enemies. And this certainly isn't the first time I have been concerned about this behavior from some commentators on the right. Instead of drawing attention to these problems and inviting a broad-based response, these commentators seem to want to turn these problems into a meme that they can unite their own tribe behind, or else a stick they can beat the other tribe with.

The erosion of certain classical liberal values in the West is a real problem, and one that can only be resolved with broad-based discussion and understanding. Turning it into yet another tribal game is not only wrong, it serves to delay important and long overdue cross-party discussions that are required to solve the problem at hand. The classical liberal heritage of the West is way too important to be used as a political football.

So Even Joe Biden is Racist Now? | BreadBusting #20

Welcome to BreadBusting by TaraElla, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and also LeftTube in general. I am indeed expanding the scope of BreadBusting to include all of LeftTube, because I am seeing more problematic ideas come out of news-orientated LeftTube channels in recent months. Subscribe if you're interested.

Apparently, an increasing number of people in the LeftTube world actually think that Joe Biden is racist. You know, the Joe Biden that President Obama hand picked as VP, and was able to work with for eight years. The Joe Biden who remains very popular with black Americans. I mean, Biden is certainly not my favorite 2020 candidate, but I feel like I can't just let the definition of 'racist' expand yet again, because we are at the point where further expanding the term will drastically water down its seriousness. What I mean is, if everything can be described as racist, then racism wouldn't be a serious thing anymore.

So why do people think Joe Biden is racist, all of a sudden? There are many reasons, and I suspect rivalry in the context of the primary could play a role too. But let's take the recent uproar over his comments during the recent debate, on disadvantaged black families, as an example. Biden listed a whole list of things he would do to address this disadvantage, including tackling the problem of red-lining, improving education, providing more school psychologists and social workers to help families, and he also gave the interesting advice of telling parents to make sure their young kids hear more words. Now, you may or may not agree that these measures are actually useful to help disadvantaged families, but they were at least sincerely presented. A real racist wouldn't care to even think about that, right? I thought it represented goodwill, if nothing else.

But no, what he said actually upset a lot of people on the left. Apparently, what some people heard was that Biden was blaming black families for not raising their kids right. Apparently, that's implied in the fact that they would need more school psychologists and social workers. Therefore, Biden was essentially repeating a racist trope straight out of the 1960s. But then, where's the logic in that? What Biden actually raised were solutions to address educational disadvantage. He merely saw some problems and suggested ways to fix them. He never applied blame on any party. The real problem is, people are in fact reading racist intention where none exists. I have even heard of people say that this represents 'paternalistic racism'. So people who want to help are now to be labelled 'paternalistic racists'. This is just ridiculous! It sounds exactly like how some people ask how they can be an ally of minorities, only to be told that they shouldn't expect free labor from the activists, and should therefore go educate themselves using Google. What a great way to turn potential allies away! Furthermore, it would be in effect to say that someone like Biden can't help in any way whatsoever, because he's white. You know, this discussion is moving us further and further away from Martin Luther King's dream that people won't be judged by their skin color anymore. This is actually very regressive stuff!

So what should Biden have said instead? Some people suggested that he could start by saying something like we as a society are responsible for this disadvantage. So, an admission of guilt. Sometimes, I feel as if the New Left would rather focus on historical wrongs and who's responsible, rather than to fix problems in the here and now. You know, let's focus on the historical conflict, rather than how we can move forward. It looks like the conflict theory of sociology has really gotten a grip on the leftist imagination. Most of you probably know by now I am not a fan of conflict theory, to put it mildly. The reason is, if we focus on the conflict, if we keep focusing on who has oppressed whom, if we keep relitigating history, we often lose opportunities to work pragmatically in the here and now, to resolve the problems in front of us. The wrongs and debts of history are endless, which is why applying a conflict theory view of history to social problems always leads to nowhere. Instead, we should look at the here and now, and see what we can do to make things better. The conflict theory of sociology belongs in the dustbin of history, because it certainly doesn't belong in a future where people are free to associate as equals regardless of race or gender.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on the internet. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Re-Thinking 'Postmodern Neo-Marxism': Could Jordan Peterson Be Right After All? | TaraElla News

NOTE: I no longer support using the term 'neo-Marxism' to describe this ideology. For my latest thoughts on why criticalism isn't Marxism, see this 2021 post.

 

Jordan Peterson and Natalie Wynn are two of the most influential figures today in the online political discourse, as I discussed a while back in my episode about Cults Of Personality. Furthermore, Natalie's video on Jordan Peterson had a lot of views, and was often used to so-called 'debunk' Peterson by the left. It would be interesting to hear what Peterson may have to say on the things Natalie said in that video.

Natalie stated in the video that this cannot represent a coherent concept, because postmodernism is skeptical of grand narratives of history, and Marxism has a grand narrative of history. Jordan Peterson has not satisfactorily responded to this point so far, in my opinion. However, I think that Natalie's simple view of the matter is also missing something. I have actually been thinking about this quite a lot in the past year. At first, I sort of defended Peterson, because many people seem to know quite well what he means by the term, even if it may be technically incorrect. I also remember seeing a left-wing professor say they sort of agree that what Peterson describes is a thing, even if the terminology may not be correct. But of course, this wouldn't be a good enough way to settle it. So I kept thinking.

In April this year, the concept was again revisited during the Peterson vs Zizek debate, where Peterson mentioned something about Foucault but Zizek simply stated the fact that Foucault was not a Marxist, thus apparently winning the argument. But this really didn't resolve anything. At that time, I made another video, explaining that while Foucault was definitely post-Marxist, there are plenty of contemporary self-identified Marxists who nonetheless use Foucauldian ideas in their activism, and even attempt to reconcile Foucault and Marx. I wondered if Peterson meant to describe these particular people with the term 'postmodern neo-Marxist', which would sort of make sense. I don't think Natalie has ever addressed the existence of this faction of the New Left, and how Peterson's term might apply to them. Still, this doesn't resolve whether the term itself could be correct or not.

Even more recently, I came to have an alternative hypothesis: that perhaps neo-Marxism was supposed to mean critical theory. The use of this terminology has precedent even among academics; I mean, I have seen sociology textbooks describe critical theory as 'neo-Marxism'. Or perhaps Peterson was referring to the conflict theory of sociology as a whole, which overlaps quite a lot with critical theory. It would be reasonable to describe conflict theory as neo-Marxism, because it was basically rooted in Marxism, even though it is applied to many cultural matters. Either way, because neither critical theory nor conflict theory are necessarily tied to the Marxist grand narrative of history, the incompatibility with postmodernism raised by Natalie is gone. Thus, 'postmodern critical theory' is indeed a thing. There is no inherent compatibility between the ideas of people like Foucault and Derrida on one hand, and critical theory or conflict theory on the other hand. If Peterson agrees that this is how he uses the term 'postmodern neo-Marxist', it would be sound.

In her video, Natalie raised the possibility that Peterson could be confused about the wide variation of views in left-wing politics, and hence lumped conflicting ideologies together. This suspicion isn't entirely without ground, seeing how right-leaning people often misunderstand the left, and vice versa. However, if 'postmodern neo-Marxism' is indeed defined the way I suggested, that is, it means either postmodern critical theory or postmodernism-inspired conflict theory, then so-called 'postmodern neo-Marxists' would represent only a faction of the wider left, and certainly wouldn't include most Democrats, old-school leftists, and the like. With this precise definition, it also becomes practical to mount a sound critique of so-called 'postmodern neo-Marxists', based on a critique around things like social construction theory, structure vs agency, moral relativism, the biological determinants of human nature, the potential paranoia around cultural hegemony, the wisdom of tradition, and the like. This critique wouldn't apply to, and would indeed be entirely separate from, the beliefs of people like Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders, Bret Weinstein and Sam Harris, even if they are generally considered quite left-wing. On the other hand, it would apply very well to some of the politics we see on college campuses today. This would make 'postmodern neo-Marxism' a valid and useful concept indeed.

From Tulsi Gabbard to Marianne Williamson - Is the Left 'Mean'? | TaraElla News

NOTE: Marxian doesn't mean Marxist. It is an academic term, and here it means something like pseudo-Marxist or Marxist-like. 

The recent poor treatment of Tulsi Gabbard by prominent members of the left, in the aftermath of her appearance on The Rubin Report, raises that question once more: is the left mean? Does the left like to eat its own? Tulsi certainly isn't alone in getting a taste of left-wing friendly fire. Another 2020 candidate, Marianne Williamson, whose Rubin interview was well received on the left and often used by leftists as an example of what they would have wanted Tulsi to say, has herself made comments about some people on the left being mean to her, which have been widely circulated in conservative circles. Furthermore, the recent drama surrounding left-wing YouTube icon ContraPoints shows that, you can be very left-wing and also a minority, and they can still turn on you like you're the enemy.

So why does the left like to turn on its own members so much? Some leftists think it's a natural result of always striving for more justice, while some conservatives think it's because the left is inherently disordered and chaotic. As a neutral observer, I disagree with both these stances. Instead, I propose that the answer can be found in the 'conflict theory of sociology', which has increasingly influenced leftist culture since the radical 1960s. Basically, this branch of sociology is heavily influenced by Marxian ideas, and sees the world in terms of group-based dominance, power and oppression, with conflict the inevitable result. Consensus is often seen as subjugation under the dominant class. On the other hand, conflict is welcome, because it is thought of as the driver of change. In this worldview, to create consensus is to continue oppressive dynamics, and to create opportunities for conflict is to create change and overturn oppression.

This worldview logically leads to a distain for anything that sounds vaguely bipartisan. I think this is why Tulsi Gabbard's friendly attitude towards people who are skeptical of the left, including Dave Rubin, Tucker Carlson and some others, has led to the conflict theory faction of the left not liking her so much. For these people, politics is an all-out battle between the oppressors and the oppressed, and negotiating with the oppressors is a bad look. They simply can't appreciate the constructive bridge-building Tulsi is doing. Furthermore, conflict theory people have a habit of over-focusing on history, which perhaps explains why they are still discussing Tulsi's past anti-gay comments, even though they were from 15 years ago. Similarly, even though Marianne Williamson is perhaps more consistently left-wing than Tulsi, her leftism is based in love and spirituality, and she refuses to think of the right as enemies or oppressors. This attitude also frustrates a lot of conflict theory leftists.

Rather than to say that the left loves to eat its own, I think it's more accurate to say that conflict theory is eating the left, one personality at a time. At this rate, conflict theory may as well end up eating all of the left one day in the not too distant future, like a maladaptive virus that kills its host. The only chance to avert this is perhaps for the left's immune system to kick in, and clear this virus from its system.

Cancel Culture and Free Speech | Moral Libertarian View

Why Young Minds Are Being Led Down The Extremist Pipeline | TaraElla News

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of upholding classical liberal values like individual freedom, equal opportunity and free speech. Subscribe if you're interested.

Today, I want to respond to a recent video by Faraday Speaks, where he elaborates on his idea that there is a far-right pipeline that stretches from centrist channels like the Rubin Report all the way to the far-right, where audiences of centrist and IDW channels can supposedly be converted to the far-right over time.

So, how on Earth can someone who watches Dave Rubin end up in the far-right? My rational mind tells me that a classical liberal, the kind of people who watch Rubin, is the furthest thing from the authoritarian far-right. But then, Caleb reminds us that Rubin once interviewed Stefan Molyneux, who also interviewed far-right figures like Jared Taylor on other occasions. However, we should also remember that Rubin interviewed Marianne Williamson just a few weeks ago. Are Rubin fans now major supporters of the Williamson 2020 campaign? I don't think so. The point is, people have independent thinking, and mature adults are generally skeptical towards unfamiliar ideas anyway. Moreover, most people, at least most mature adults, are pretty committed to their existing worldview, and those who watch Rubin and agree with his classical liberal worldview generally won't go far-right, even if they happen to come across such ideas. I guess then, the problem with some young people being easily influenced by what they see is that, many of them aren't firm enough in their worldview yet, which is why they could be easily swayed by anything they might be exposed to, and I think it's something many people probably aren't even very aware of. Many young people simply don't have the required life experiences to be firm about their worldview. But if that's the problem, then it's not a problem specific to Rubin having interviewed Molyneux or something like that. It's a much bigger problem.

Rather than there being a specific pipeline to the far-right, I think the problem is that, too many people are now becoming committed to extreme political ideologies at a very young age, well before they can judge the validity of ideas based on their life experiences. I won't name names here, but I do know of a online commentator who is only 26 years old, who has already been a liberal centrist, a conservative, a far-right adjacent, an anarchist, and finally now a communist. Imagine having had all these identities, many outside the political mainstream, at just 26! When I was 26, I didn't know many of the things I know now. Let's face it: most people in their early 20s are, generally speaking, not very experienced and knowledgeable. Yet many people in their early-20s or younger are already being committed to very radical politics of one brand or another. It seems to me that they want to join a club, any club, before they even learn enough to decide which club they really want to join. I think this is the real worry, rather than any single so-called pipeline going in any single direction. Perhaps we should be teaching our young people to learn more before they pick a side.

As for Rubin and other IDW-type classical liberals, they're certainly not part of any attempt to promote the far-right. This is a conspiracy theory that rational people simply shouldn't entertain. Rather, I think their major concern is a loss of freedom, and this is a very valid worry at the moment. What they fear is that the freedom to act and speak will be severely curtailed in the name of social justice, which, as I often say, is not real social justice but rather something called critical theory. There is indeed a movement out there, which broadly attempts to use some form of critical theory to justify restrictive cultural changes, in the name of so-called social justice. The recent viral video of a DSA conference, which included clips where participants used so-called points of personal privilege to demand things like people not use gendered language, where people were peer-pressured into using jazz hands rather than clapping, made this point very well. While the various behavioral alterations were enforced in the name of making things more comfortable for certain groups, this also represented peer-pressure to act a certain way, to restrict personal freedom to speak and act, with the implication that if you don't comply, you're anti-justice. Stuff like this makes me actually fearful for our future. I mean, what if this kind of critical theory inspired social engineering, enforced via peer pressure, becomes the norm of everyday society one day? This really reminds me of the phrase, freedom is only ever two generations away from extinction.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on the internet. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.