The Right Needs to be Held Accountable | TaraElla Report S6 E9

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Season 6. Today, I'm going to reflect on the generally broken state of affairs across the political landscape right now, where nobody cares about truth and accountability. I'm going to start with one of Andrew Yang's most profound insights yet, which explains why many of us have been disappointed with MAGA culture, as for example seen in President Trump's most controversial twitter drama episode yet. On a related point, I'm also going to talk about why Trump has set out on a dangerous course that may bring the end of internet free speech as we know it, and why the usual free speech warriors on the Right aren't even concerned about it at all. I'll end with why we should all take the real 'Red Pill', which is not the version that the conservatives are giving us. Before I continue, I have to warn any new viewers that, as someone who identifies with neither the Left nor the Right, I'm going to give harsh criticism to both sides. My show is not a safe space for people who can't think independently, or can't take criticism of their own side.

Recently, Andrew Yang made a profound tweet about accountability. He wrote that, 'one reason things seems so bleak is that there is so little accountability. Crash the economy? Bonuses and bailouts. Kill a jogger? Walk free for weeks. Botch a pandemic? It’s politics. Kill a man arrested for a nonviolent crime? People are fed up.' And I think people are surely fed up with those in positions of power having next to no accountability all the time. It's something that unites conservatives, progressives and moderates alike. One of the reasons many people don't like the establishment is that they believe the establishment shields vested interests from any demands of accountability, thereby perpetuating unfair situations everywhere in life. This is one major reason why many people voted for Trump in 2016. However, many of them now stand disappointed, because things just haven't changed.

In fact, the MAGA culture that surrounds Trump has discouraged his better instincts, and encouraged his worse instincts. I suspect that it's all a plot to use his character flaws to slowly push him towards the pro-war establishment neoconservative agenda, a topic I will leave for a future episode. And no, I certainly don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome, as seen in the fact that I was never excited about impeachment, and I vigorously defended Tulsi Gabbard's decision to not vote for it back in December. However, when things go wrong, people need to be accountable, and MAGA culture's unconditional support for Trump is a harmful thing. For example, the cultures of the Yang Gang and the Tulsi Train are much better. Those people love Yang and Tulsi very much, but they still speak up about their disagreements all the time. In MAGA land, if you take Trump to task, you get the mob running over you, and you get downvoted into oblivion. What I'm concerned is that, there can be no accountability in that kind of culture.

Let's start with the fact that the Right has many free speech warriors, and that's one thing I like about them. They rightly point out the free speech crisis on college campuses, and give it the attention it needs, while many progressives often avoid the topic altogether. Things like de-platforming people and so-called safe speech really need to be called out for the dangerous censorship it is, and I congratulate the Right for doing that. But how about Trump's recent executive order to water down Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and his calls afterwards for the repeal of Section 230 altogether? You see, Section 230 shields companies from being responsible for the content of their users, and it is the thing that allows social media to operate without censoring its users. The existence of Section 230 has long guaranteed internet free speech, because without it, every platform would be aggressively policing its users in fear of legal liability. A president threatening to repeal Section 230 is thus a much bigger problem for free speech than all the college SJWs in the world combined. The even worse thing is that Trump did that simply in response to Twitter putting fact-checking statements on his tweets, which essentially represents ill considered policy on the run done for personal reasons. It is disappointing that none of the free speech warriors on the Right have even shown the slightest care about this. Some people have even defended Trump, saying that the executive order was about properly enforcing Section 230, by forcing social media to be platforms that allow free speech rather than publishers that curate their content. But if that were Trump's real intentions, why would he be tweeting repeatedly calling for the complete repeal of Section 230? It just looks like some people really want Trump to be good for free speech, so they make up their own reality where this is the case. As people say, denial isn't a river in Egypt.

Here's another good example. Trump is known for his controversial tweets, but his most recent one is on another level altogether. Indeed, it led to some people interpreting it as calling for violence. Taylor Swift apparently saw it that way, among many others. Since then, Trump has come out and explained that he was only stating the fact, that 'looting leads to shooting'. Well, it certainly didn't sound like he was 'just stating the fact' to many people, including myself, no matter his intentions. I guess it's fair to say that, even if it wasn't his intention to stir up the tense mood, Trump should have apologized for the wording that led to the confusion, like a properly accountable politician would have, because it was his own words that started it all. Nobody likes to admit being wrong, but it's what accountability is. But then, Trump just ain't into saying sorry, it seems. Rather, he has taken up the victim mentality, painting a picture of people out to get him on social media. You know how much I hate victim mentality. I hate it when the critical theory and postmodernist Left encourage it in minorities, and I hate it equally when conservative politicians use it to deflect from being accountable. What I hate most about victim mentality is that, in every case, it leads to a cycle of cultural and political polarization. I've always believed that conservatives share my views on personal responsibility and victim mentality. But apparently, they don't really, as seen in their rush to defend Trump once again.

I guess all this is because many conservatives are effectively living in a simulated reality, like the one in The Matrix. Now, I know many so-called progressives are living in a simulated reality too, but let's focus on conservatives for now, especially since people on the Right like to talk about taking the Red Pill. You know, like taking the Red Pill in The Matrix, and getting to know the truth, breaking free from the lies the establishment tells you, and so on. It's a really attractive idea, and as I said two years ago, it's really a shame that people on the other side of politics don't use it too, because such a profound idea shouldn't only belong to one side of politics. But then, what the Right has prescribed is not the Red Pill, but just another Blue Pill. When you listen to right-leaning talking heads too much, you effectively enter a simulation like the one in the Matrix. It's a different program than the Woke Establishment's one, but it's no less a simulation, it's no less a blue pill. In the Right's simulated reality, everything is the fault of the Democrats, and college SJWs are the only threat to free speech. Trump is here to solve all this, and he can do no wrong. Keep watching your favorite right-leaning talking heads on TV and on the internet, and you keep taking the blue pill, to stay in this simulated reality. The result is they won't take Trump to account, even when his actions are literally dangerous to the free speech they say they cherish. It's why I refuse to drink the Right-wing kool-aid, like how I also refuse to drink the Left-wing kool-aid. I think it's time we all take the real Red Pill, and exit all simulations of reality set up to benefit partisan interests, left-wing or right-wing.

Why I Left the Left AND the Right #2: Biden Gaffes & Dishonest Culture Wars | TaraElla Report S6 E8

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Season 6. A few weeks ago I did an episode titled 'Why I Left the Right AND the Left', in response to Hunter Avallone's video titled 'Why I Left the Right'. In that episode I focused mainly on the issues Avallone raised, and I didn't really talk in-depth about why I became disllusioned with both the Left and the Right. Since then, I thought of doing a whole episode on why I became disillusioned with both sides, but there's just too much material to cover in one video. Besides, this disillusionment is an ongoing process. Which is why I've decided to turn the whole thing into an ongoing series. Given we're in the middle of a US Presidential election year, there's going to be a lot of stupidity from both the Left and the Right, so I expect I'll have a lot to say.

Today, I'll first talk about the latest Joe Biden gaffe and the over-the-top reaction to it. I'll then respond to the Rubin Report interview with Karlyn Borysenko, an ex-Democrat who 'left the left' after attending a Trump rally. Finally, I'll take a look at the controversy over a Bernie campaign post-mortem piece by Angela Nagle and Michael Tracey.

Firstly, let's look at the latest drama surrounding Joe Biden. While I would have prefered either Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard getting the nomination, I've come to realize the unexpected upsides of having Biden as the Democratic candidate this year. You see, Joe Biden is literally the most politically incorrect Democratic nominee in living memory, and he probably can't change himself to suit the culture warriors on the Left either. Whatever else you might say about Uncle Joe, he tells it like it is, which probably explains his folksy appeal that won him landslide after landslide in the midwest and the south. Biden's latest gaffe was that he said something like if you ain't supporting him over Trump, you ain't black. Now, this is, of course, not literally true; it's more like he's bragging about his popularity in the black community, which is, however, very much real. Of course, the politically correct cultural New Left is having none of this, they expect a much more deferential manner of speech, especially towards minorities, and they sort of want Biden to pay for violating their sacred speech rules once again. They don't want Biden to get away with being politically incorrect, but they don't want him to lose to Trump either; it's basically lose-lose for the politically correct crowd under Biden. I have to admit that I love watching the cultural New Left having to play along with Biden as the leader of their party, a man whose speech they simply can't police, no matter what. And to the frustration of the cultural New Left, nothing Biden has ever said has ever impacted on his polls, which is not that surprising since Trump got away with saying all kinds of controversial things and still won in 2016. The fact is, people vote on policies, words don't actually have the power postmodernism says they have, manner of speech don't matter that much for most people at the end of the day. In fact, I suspect Biden's gaffes may be part of his enduring popularity, because, let's face it, most people just aren't into Hillary Clinton levels of political correctness.

On the other hand, it's fun to watch parts of the Right, who have been posturing as the biggest defenders of politically incorrect speech, suddenly turn into SJWs at the sight of Joe Biden. Even Fox News has gotten into line, showing clips of Biden's politically incorrect gaffes, and getting someone on to complain that 'Biden ain't woke'. So Biden ain't woke, we all know that already, and I thought that the Right wasn't into performative wokeness. Well, I guess Biden's existence exposed their hypocrisy, which I guess explains why much of the Right never enjoyed the prospect of Biden being the nominee. Even right now, they fantasize that Hillary would somehow step in and replace Uncle Joe, so that they can play the 2016 game all over again, saying how the Democrats are now over-the-top politically correct and people are walking away because of this. It's what won them the election last time, but unfortunately for them, lightening doesn't strike twice.

One person who is still partying like it's 2016 is Dave Rubin. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Rubin, I watch his show regularly, but I'm concerned that he's settling into a pattern and getting out of touch with the reality out there. He's still complaining that the Democrats are full on SJWs who all have a problem with free speech, as if they were still playing in Hillary mode. Even though he had very reasonable Democrats like Yang, Tulsi and Marianne Williamson on just in the last year, he doesn't seem to get that Hillary-ism has now been abandoned by most of the party. I guess this might have to do with his now very comfortable relationship with the Right. With the recent launch of this book, almost all the people who came to congratulate him were on the Right, Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro, Douglas Murray, I don't even think there's anybody there that's not conservative. And Rubin himself even admits to identifying as part of the 'Right' now, whatever it means. Well, it probably means that he is swalloing the conservative kool-aid, willing to believe that the Democrats are still the party of Hillary circa 2016 no matter what. And he's got plenty of guests to reinforce his outdated view. Including, just last week, Dr. Karlyn Borysenko, who presented a view of the so-called left where people are always outraged, can't get along with people who disagree, and have Trump Derangement Syndrome all the time. But then, Borysenko lives in New Hampshire, the only non-caucus state where Biden didn't finish in the top 2. In fact, Biden had his worst result there in this entire primary, coming in fifth behind Elizabeth Warren. Looks like New Hampshire just isn't representative of America as a whole. Perhaps they are still SJW-ing like it's 2016 over there, but in the rest of the world, SJWs just aren't much of a thing anymore. Except for those on twitter and those on Fox News attacking Biden all day long.

When Rubin went on to ask Dr. Borysenko why the Left is 'so unreasonable' nowadays, she basically answered with Ben Shapiro's standard answer: the Left is about feelings and the Right is about facts. Well, I certainly agree that the Left is often clouded by feelings, as I said, look no further than how the culturally woke left is now struggling with having to rally around the politically incorrect Joe Biden. But I don't quite agree that the Right is that factual. For example, in the past two days, I've seen quite a few self-identified libertarians say that libertarians should support Trump this year, because he's even better for libertarianism than the Libertarian Party nominee Jo Jorgensen. I frankly don't know much about Ms Jorgensen at this point, and I'm still surprised she got the nod over Hornberger, but I trust that she wouldn't get us worrying about a potential war with Iran like Trump did earlier this year. Not even Joe Biden would have gotten the world into that situation! And somehow some people are trying to tell us that Trump is best for libertarians. That's really a case of putting feelings over facts, of the highest degree!

Of course, the Left is just as guilty of putting feelings before facts. As I said, the Left and the Right are both very unreasonable camps nowadays, which is exactly why I left both the Right and the Left. Last week, Angela Nagle, one of the few remaining independent minded political commentators, wrote a piece together with Michael Tracey, in which they dissected the Bernie 2020 campaign, and made several conclusions from that, including how pandering to the inner-city cultural radicals has made the campaign less attractive to working-class people. They're not even the first to complain about this: right after Bernie dropped out, there were plenty of articles saying how Bernie rallies had too many angry people who were just too unpleasant to talk with. Compare this image to the kind of people who attend Biden rallies. You wouldn't find anything but normally presenting everyday hard-working people at Biden rallies. No wonder Biden solidly won the middle America vote! Now, Nagle and Tracey were much gentler than myself in making their point, but this still upsetted a lot of inner-city DSA-types, you know, the kind of people who were caught at last year's DSA conference objecting to people saying 'ladies and gentlemen'. I'm sorry to have to hurt your feelings, but the fact is, if you keep on behaving like this, you're going to have to suffer many, many more defeats to come.

How Cringe Culture Poisons Politics | Re ContraPoints | TaraElla Report S6 E7

Hi everyone, welcome back to the sixth season of the TaraElla Report, where we try to come up with solutions to heal the polarized cultural and political environment in the West right now. Today, I want to continue my response to the recent ContraPoints video titled 'Cringe'. This time, I will be looking at the discussion around how online Cringe Culture affects the political landscape.

In the video, Natalie showcased multiple examples of so-called anti-SJW or anti-feminist cringe from back when this phenomenon was at its height, arguing that the purpose of these videos were to create contemptuous cringe for feminists and social justice activists through memefied versions of them. By and large, that kind of content produced its desired effect, making one side of politics have so much contempt for these people that they won't even take their ideas seriously, let alone debate them on an equal footing. This attitude in turn triggered a reactionary hostility from many supporters of feminism and social justice, who increasingly turned away from debate in the free market of ideas, and developed a somewhat paranoid attitude towards their critics.

To sum up, the biggest effect of this anti-SJW or anti-feminist cringe phenomenon was to polarize the debate around these issues so much that there is no appetite on either side for a healthy and nuanced discussion. To this day, three years later, both sides are still pretty much locked into their positions, with no appetite for conversation from either side, and with both sides continually policing the boundaries of acceptable opinion within their camp so that no one even dares to ask for a conversation with those on the opposite. I think the experience during 2015-17 serves to demonstrate how cringe culture can really poison the debate for everyone, dumb down complex issues, and force people into two neat camps that serve only the interests of establishment politicians one way or another. I really don't think it was a mere coincidence that political cringe culture peaked just around the 2016 US elections, and faded away quickly afterwards when it was no longer politically valuable. I was hoping Natalie would discuss this point more, actually.

The main problem with cringe culture is that it dumbs down everything, and turns every issue into essentially identity politics of some kind. For example, anti-feminist cringe doesn't actually deal with the merits or otherwise of feminist activists; it merely asserts that it would be cringe to be one of them.

There's no room for a nuanced take like, I support the value of gender-based equality on principle, but I also disagree with the critical theory view on patriarchal oppression, because it treats the genders like classes and thus minimizes the wide variety of individual experiences, and further because it essentially pits the genders against each other, which would lead to much unnecessary social conflict. In a debate where the terms are set up as whether feminism is cringe or not, there is no room for such a nuanced take. Instead, people are pressured into taking sides on whether feminism, without any qualifications, is cringe or not. Those of us who don't think that feminism is cringe would also end up getting lumped in with people who we otherwise vehemently disagree with, our important differences lost in this game we're forced to play. It's why someone like myself, who identifies as a moderate feminist but nevertheless disagrees with critical gender theory and its particular view of patriarchy, had such a hard time in those years. Meanwhile, the voices of those with views on either extreme became the most prominent ones, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle of cultural polarization.

If cringe culture is so bad, then how can we put an end to it, or at least make sure it doesn't return to its prominence during its recent peak? If I understood correctly, Natalie seems to suggest self-indifference as a way to combat cringe, since cringe thrives on insecurity and fear of embarrassment. However, some people have responded that this sounds too black pilled, too much like 'nothing matters anyway'. My alternative suggestion is that we should all think of life as a journey, an adventure. Don't think of life as a status competition, because at the end of the day, that is meaningless in the bigger scheme of things. Instead, think of life as what you can learn from it, what you gain as you go through the challenges while standing firm for your own values. I guess if everyone took this attitude, there would indeed be much less of a market for cringe culture, because there would be neither fear of embarrassment of the self, nor a motivation to harbor contempt for others.

Left Making The Same Mistake Conservatives Made? | Re Michael Shermer, Rubin Report | TaraElla Report S6 E6

Today, I'm going to talk about the part of the recent Micahel Shermer interview on the Rubin Report, where Shermer and Rubin discussed things around free speech. Shermer presented a history of the Left's support for free speech, from the early 20th century, through to the Free Speech movement by 1960s student activists. He illustrated that it was only more recently that the Left began to turn against free speech. I would even argue that it is an extremely recent phenomenon. Back when I was in college, the Left certainly tolerated a lot more of free speech, on issues from Bush-43's Iraq War, to gay marriage, and even rap music and video games. So, yes, I may be a lot younger than Shermer, but even I grew up in a world where the Left were relatively more tolerant of free speech and dissent than the Right. To this day, I still feel weird about some people on the Right championing free speech, while some people on the Left champion so-called 'safe speech'.

But is it true that, the Left doesn't support free speech anymore, that it has become what the Right used to be, shutting down dissent and so on? I don't necessarily think so. Just in the last year, we saw Tulsi Gabbard, who is clearly on the Left, make free speech one of the big issues of her campaign for the Democratic nomination. Furthermore, if you dive deeper into their politics, you will see that many online free speech activists actually have left-leaning economic views. And then, there's the anti-PC left, represented by new media like the Red Scare podcast, which has been gaining a lot of strength in the past 2 years. In other words, the culture of free speech and dissent is alive and well on the Left. What I think is happening, is that a small minority of loud individuals and well organized groups in the Marcusean and postmodernist part of the Left, are pushing the narrative that Shermer described, like how certain speech is harmful, and how harmful speech is a form of violence and so on. This is all based in Marcusean critical theory and postmodernist thinking, but these ideas are certainly not accepted by the whole of the Left.

I get the feeling that the majority of the Left probably don't agree with this 'controversial speech equals violence' view. However, they don't feel like pushing back either, perhaps because they think that it distracts from the economic issues, or perhaps because they fear that certain activists may come after them. This gives the false impression that the whole Left is now in agreement with this essentially fringe view.

As a Trad Lib, i.e. a 'traditionalist liberal', I think that we can advocate for New Deal style economics and free speech at the same time. We don't have to apologize for being a free speech absolutist, even as we advocate for things like a UBI and universal health care. There's no reason why these things don't go together. As I said in the last episode, in this brave new world of politics, where the traditional left and right factions are breaking into pieces, and where many of us increasingly identify as neither Left nor Right, it is much easier to stand up for what your own conscience believes. And my own conscience certainly believes there is not enough free speech right now. Just ask yourself, have there been times in the past year where you wanted to say something but didn't dare to say it, for fear of possible backlash or worse? There definitely have been times like these for me, and it's only increasing in frequency. While I care about the economic issues, I'm equally concerned about the state of free speech and the free market of ideas, and I can't pretend to not care. As Trad Libs, we can stay true to our values, both by supporting New Deal style economics, and by opposing the influence of critical theory and postmodernism. For me, personally, it is two parts of the same goal, the goal of restoring the liberal ideal as it existed before 1968 or so, before the post-68 cultural radicals and economic neoliberals alike ruined it.

Finally, I would like to remind people like Rubin and Shermer that, while the Right has come a long way in terms of free speech, they are still far from perfect there. Just last year, conservative intellectual Sohrab Ahmari kept making a big deal about the need for government intervention into culture. My argument was that, while you can certainly disagree with 'Drag Queen Story Hour', government intervention would still constitute a violation of free speech, and the widespread sympathy for Ahmari's position is of concern for libertarians of all stripes. While I certainly think the libertarian-Right is an important and worthy partner for us Trad Libs going forward on the issue of free speech, I still have my concerns about the authoritarian-Right.