Getting Out of the Jordan Peterson Trap

He was the perfect trap the far-left set for us

Back in 2018-19, when Jordan Peterson was at his peak, and going around promoting his criticism of what he called 'postmodern neo-Marxism', the far-left mounted a campaign against him, with the maximal amount of drama involved. They tried to cancel Peterson wherever he was scheduled to speak, and passed around media that was supposed to discredit Peterson, including that famous ContraPoints video (which was how she shot to viral fame, and ultimately became a target of far-left revolutionary bullies for many years, but that's another story). Back then, I thought that the far-left was doing what they were doing, because they were afraid that Peterson would be able to expose their real agenda, which would make their more moderate supporters turn away from them. Eager to expose the revolutionary bullies' deceitful and harmful agenda, I thus gave some support to Peterson's 'campaign', even as I knew we didn't see eye to eye on many political issues. I thought that someone had to stop the revolutionary bullies, and if Peterson is the only man we have, we couldn't afford to be picky. (Also remember that Peterson hadn't become his worst form at that point yet.)

Over the years, however, my original views on this matter started to crack. Firstly, there were other people who were doing more effective and accurate criticism's of the (LINK) critical anarchist left, without resorting to clunky and inaccurate terms like 'postmodern neo-Marxism' and Jungian metaphors all the time. Yet the revolutionary bullies didn't react much to those people. Secondly, I began to realize that Peterson wasn't even an effective critic of the critical anarchist left at all. There was a good reason he lost that infamous debate to Slavoj Zizek. In the debate, he kept conflating actual Marxism with what he called 'postmodern neo-Marxism', but he couldn't explain how or where the two were related in a convincing way to an intellectually serious audience. It appeared that he couldn't even give a good answer to the retort 'but Foucault wasn't a Marxist'. All this meant that he really posed no threat to the critical anarchist left's theory or worldview, except in a superficial sense. It was about as ineffective as using penicillin to kill Covid. Thus logically, the far-left wouldn't actually be afraid of what he had to offer. Finally, Jordan Peterson's zone of influence, so to speak, only shifted further and further to the right over time, and he became more and more irrelevant in liberal circles over time. This meant that he was never actually a threat to the far-left's plan to recruit impatient and Trump-frustrated liberals into their movement.

What we've concluded so far is that Peterson wasn't effective in even putting a dent in the far-left critical anarchist philosophy and worldview, and their plans to radicalize and recruit left-liberal people into their movement. So why did the far-left react in such a strong way against Peterson? My current, updated view is that they essentially picked a quarrel with Peterson because he was an easy opponent, in order to inoculate their peripheral followers and their potential future followers in the center-left against more robust criticisms of their program. Firstly, Peterson was already suspect in many left-of-center circles, for his opposition to trans rights legislation in Canada, his skepticism about climate change, and his strained relationship with feminists. All this, combined with his intellectually unconvincing talk about 'postmodern neo-Marxism', meant that he never had much credibility in the center-left. For many in the center-left, especially those who weren't aware of how extreme the far-left could go (which was the vast majority back then), Peterson was someone to be mocked for his alarmism about the left's supposed extremism, not someone to take seriously. He was the professor who supposedly conflated campus trans activists with Stalinist revolutionaries, while bullying feminist presenters on live TV. For many mainstream liberals, he sounded too similar to the far-right cranks who decried that gay marriage and multiculturalism were New World Order or 'cultural Marxist' conspiracies back in the 1990s and 2000s, his word salad about 'postmodern neo-Marxism' certainly not helping his case here.

What the far-left was doing was actually very similar to what right-wing influencers often do in their propaganda videos, where they choose the worst examples of feminists, LGBT activists and liberals in general to put on display, to convince their audience that these people are too ridiculous to even listen to. Using Jordan Peterson as their example, the far-left successfully convinced many liberals that criticisms against the 'woke left' are the stuff of far-right crankery, and are not worthy of listening to. The result was uncritical acceptance of the 'woke left' agenda, until at least late 2021 (the turning point apparently being the election of Republican Glenn Youngkin as Governor of Virginia, which caused the Democrats to actively pivot away from the 'woke left' as a whole). Thus the far-left were very successful in avoiding, or at least delaying, legitimate criticisms of their agenda from being widely heard and considered, by painting any such criticism as both cranky and in league with the far-right. Jordan Peterson was simply a tool they used for that purpose, and with great success too. The rejection of Jordan Peterson led to the automatic rejection of any and all similar criticisms of the 'woke left', even if they were much more robust and without the problematic baggage Peterson had. The Jordan Peterson trap meant that, whenever critics of the far-left sounded even a bit like Peterson, which was basically inevitable when we were talking about the same phenomena, we were often greeted with 'clean your room', 'something something bucko', or other Peterson-themed insults, and dismissed for supposedly being brainwashed Peterson fans.

While the whole drama about the attempts to 'cancel Jordan Peterson' are now mostly history, the effects of the Jordan Peterson trap that the far-left has set for its critics are far from over. While I'm glad that the ability to criticize far-left and specifically 'woke left' ideas in mainstream liberal media has been fully restored, the 3-4 years the far-left bought through the Peterson trap meant that their ideas now have many more adherents than they otherwise would have. There is also still a lot of resistance to any and all criticisms of the 'woke left' agenda in some circles, resistance that was likely built up back in Peterson's heyday. What we need to do now is to fully overcome the Peterson trap, by showing our potential listeners in liberal circles that we don't share Peterson's flaws. This will have to include both a serious and intellectually sound critique of the postmodern critical theory worldview, as well as a convincing demonstration that a liberal reformist agenda devoid of postmodern-critical influences is actually the best way to improve lives and bring about justice, including for disadvantaged minorities. We need to show our sincerity towards social justice in the first place, if we are to succeed in this. Boosting someone as flawed as Peterson to fight the far-left out of desperation was a mistake. Now we need to make the case for old-school pro-free speech liberalism, on our own terms and values, like we should have done in the first place

Breaking Free of the Left-Right Binary

What we need to remember is that the ‘non-left’ is not necessarily the ‘right’. Operators working for the political right, from YouTube influencers to those working in think tanks, make it look like you must pick a side, that if you are ‘non-left’ you need to join the right. They only say that because of their political incentives. There is no truth to this. In fact, the corralling of non-left people into the ‘right’ has only served to limit their individual free thinking, and lead to more tribalism and polarization, with power-hungry politicians and the vested interests they serve being the only entities that benefit from this. This is why I believe ‘non-left’ people need to not only resist joining the ‘right’, but also to critique and challenge it way more than we do now. But this is something I will leave for another article. My point here is that, ‘non-left’ doesn’t equal ‘right’, and a ‘non-left’ worldview and political program does not need to be right-wing or reactionary. This must be made clear.

I think that, going forward, what we need to do much more is to articulate a philosophically non-left progressive vision. One that can serve as an alternative to both the woke-left’s philosophy and activism, as well as the ‘populist’ right’s reactionary politics. One that is based on non-left philosophical traditions like classical liberalism, libertarianism, reformism, and Burkean conservatism, but strives to look forward and make things better for everyone.

I would call the worldview and its associated reformist program a ‘philosophically non-left progressive vision’. It is ‘philosophically non-left’ because we are not going to be beholden to the many maladaptive philosophical assumptions of the contemporary Western-left. On the other hand, it is still a ‘progressive vision’ because we still believe there should be less discrimination and more freedom for everyone, and we still wish to end racism, sexism, anti-LGBT and other forms of bigotry (using liberal means). The goals of this vision are ultimately going to have some common ground with the progressives on the left, even if there are still going to be plenty of differences, like our absolute commitment to free speech and freedom of conscience, things which the contemporary left clearly don’t respect enough. The most important thing is that the way we are going to get there is going to look very different.

What we need to remember is that the ‘non-left’ is simply those who are philosophically in disagreement with the ‘operating system’ of the contemporary Western left. This ‘operating system’ includes things like using an identity-as-class oppressor vs oppressed lens to examine things by default, seeing almost everything as interlocking oppressive social constructs rather than allowing that some things might have evolved as useful adaptations, seeing tradition as inherently oppressive and to be deconstructed, celebrating rebelliousness and subversion for the sake of it, hating on the ‘neoliberal logic of the market economy’ even in contexts where no worker is being oppressed or exploited, and so on. There are really too many of these philosophical assumptions that are generally accepted in the left as it exists, which have accumulated over the 100+ year history of the left. I oppose having to work within this ‘operating system’, because it polarizes society, compromises free speech, and most importantly, has proven to be generally ineffective, and even counterproductive in some cases. Instead, I primarily take my inspiration from older philosophical traditions, like classical liberalism, reformism, and yes, even Burkean conservatism, because it ensures that progress is sustainable rather than chaotic, and minimizes the resulting backlash that can actually hurt real people in the real world. This is why I’m ‘non-left’.

A philosophically non-left progressive vision would necessary involve ending racism, sexism, anti-LGBT-ism, and all other forms of bigotry, and would also necessarily involve an aspiration for world peace, rather than the forever acceptance of the ‘might makes right’ status quo among countries. Despite being constantly critical of the philosophical left, there is logically no way for those committed to these goals to fall into the trap of right-wing reactionism, due to the very clear incompatibilities. This means a program of critiquing wokeness that is committed to these goals would definitely not see a repeat of what happened to 2010s anti-wokeness.
 

In Praise of the Politics of Rejection

Rejection is often thought of as a negative word. However, it recently dawned on me that the formative events of much of my own politics were actually rooted in rejection. In the aughts, my politics revolved around rejecting the Iraq War and the broader 'War on Terror' narrative. Later on, it also encompassed rejection of the religious right, because they insisted on re-electing the administration responsible for the war as long as they opposed gay marriage. By the teens, it was the left's turn to be the target of my rejection, with the rise of cancel culture, oppressor vs. oppressed critical theories, and anti-science postmodern philosophy. More recently, the populist right's divisive culture wars, willingness to use authoritarian state power to wage these culture wars, and general anti-science attitude have become the latest targets of my rejection.

While all three groups of phenomenon that I rejected were promoted by different political factions, there are actually several things common to all of them. Firstly, all three were attempts to seize on very real frustrations and worries in the community to justify a grandiose, unjustifiably broad, and deeply authoritarian agenda. Secondly, in all three cases, those promoting the grandiose authoritarian agenda tried to shut down free speech that questioned their agenda. This is because the agenda simply wouldn't survive rational scrutiny. Thirdly, the grandiose authoritarian agenda in question is actually rooted in deeply ideological and philosophical positions, rather than being actually rooted in the immediate issues and frustrations. This means that their promotion as a solution to these issues and frustrations is deliberate and opportunistic, rather than honest and organic. This is another reason why those promoting the grandiose authoritarian agenda have been unfriendly to free speech, in all three cases. Finally, in each case, to stand against the grandiose authoritarian agenda being presented is (was) actually essential for the preservation of free speech, freedom of conscience, objectivity, scientific integrity, compassion, and more. 

All three examples are very good examples that demonstrate the necessity of rejection of bad ideas, especially where they are packaged into a broad 'transformative' agenda to be achieved by authoritarian means, in protecting our long-standing freedoms and values. They demonstrate that skepticism towards grandiose authoritarian agenda, especially when they are backed by the forces of well-funded media outlets, limitations on free speech and/or peer pressure in any shape or form, plays a crucial role in preserving our freedoms and values. Far from being negative, rejection is the immune system of society, defending what we have from being destroyed by rogue actors and actions. This is why I believe it's time we actually formally recognize the importance of rejection as part of our arsenal of political tools to defend and promote freedom, and give it the pride of place it deserves in history. 

Why We Need to Seriously Talk About AI

Vested interests don't want us to talk about the negative effects

Many people are saying that the 2020s are the age of artificial intelligence, or AI. Since ChatGPT went mainstream in late 2022, the AI hype has only gotten bigger and bigger. There are also many vested interests trying to keep the AI train rolling along, despite the many negatives. These vested interests include people making money from AI, people who are afraid that the burst of the AI bubble could bring on a recession, and politicians trying to court the AI industry. But there appear to be serious issues with AI. And we need to seriously talk about them. Now.

The first reason I'm worried about AI is because it uses a lot of electricity. This, in and of itself, is a major problem. Right now is literally the worst time to have a surge in energy demand, because of the whole thing about climate change. We all know that if we keep relying on fossil fuels, we will destroy the future of the planet. Yet, I have also been sympathetic to phasing in the energy transition in a way that would not impact the livelihoods and cost of living of everyday working people. Unlike the climate purists, I think this needs to be a priority too. Therefore, it is crucial that we maintain a delicate balance here. The rise of power hungry AI data centers severely upsets this balance. It could mean the worst of both worlds: surging power prices, and irreversibly damaging the planet too. AI at the expense of everything is both unjust and unjustified. If this means that the development of AI needs to be slowed down, so be it. I seriously think more people need to be informed about this, and think seriously about where they stand on this.

The second reason I'm worried about AI is it takes up a lot of memory, literally. Right now, DRAM prices are surging. This is actually abnormal, because we would expect the price of technology to drop over time. When I was growing up in the late 1990s, computers and their components kept getting cheaper like every month. I remember that, during that era, the only time when prices rose was during the earthquake in Taiwan in 1999, when supply of many chips became scarce so prices rose for a few weeks. And that was highly abnormal for those of us who were observing these things back then. We even told our friends to delay buying that new computer. I'm using this example to show how unusual it is that we have a price surge for RAM, even in the absence of supply chain issues like earthquakes. It is happening because all the RAM is being hoarded to build AI. Again, I think we have a right to say no to this. Ordinary consumers matter too, if we aren't already living in a neo-feudalist oligarchic dystopia. And I hope for the sake of humanity that we haven't gotten there yet.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I'm very worried that AI is having a negative effect on independent thinking. If people form a habit of simply getting their answers from AI, they won't be doing their own research. I actually don't like that Google defaults to displaying AI results on top of search results, for this reason. If someone has to go through the top 10 Google results to find their answer, they are likely to have encountered two or more different opinions and perspectives on the topic. They would have to decide for themselves, which one is correct, or more commonly, which aspects of which perspective is correct, and to what extent. There is a process of judgement and synthesis there. AI takes all that away. Without independent thinking, things like rational debate, pursuing the objective truth, and even freedom itself are all threatened. If AI leads to this, then I think it's not worth having at all.

It's time we start talking about these, and perhaps other, serious issues regarding AI. I'm fundamentally pro-tech, and have always been, since the time I got excited about Windows 98 as a kid. But AI is not the only future of tech, nor is the current iteration of AI the only possible one. We need to do better to challenge potentially harmful developments from the AI and tech industry. After all, tech serves people, not the other way around. 

Will Anti-Woke Go Too Far? Here's my Answer.

I think the most important thing to ensure that anti-wokeism doesn’t go ‘too far’ is to maintain a truly intellectual critique of wokeness. Both the right-wing culture warrior version of anti-wokeism, as well as the new Democratic-aligned avoidance-based anti-wokeism, are ultimately rooted in a knee jerk reaction judgement of whether things could be deemed ‘woke’, while never truly engaging with the phenomenon on an intellectual level. As I’ve said many times, the problem with wokeness is that it is ultimately rooted in postmodern critical theory ideology, and ultimately in a worldview that I would classify as ‘critical anarchism’: critical because it uses (bad faith) critique as its weapon, and anarchism because it ultimately wants to deconstruct all existing social structures, without differentiation as to whether those structures actually serve a useful function or not, because their ideological theories tell them that all such structures are oppressive. Radical identity politics, cancel culture and the rest are all strategies in service of this overarching goal.

To maintain an intellectual critique of wokeness, and importantly, to resist lumping normal liberalism into wokeness and hence becoming subconsciously opposed to liberalism itself, we must be able to differentiate between critical anarchism and liberalism. For example, supporting gay marriage and accepting LGBT people is liberalism. Attacking family values and deconstructing gender is critical anarchism. Acknowledging that racism is still a problem that needs to be dealt with, while insisting that racism is a problem that lives within individuals and that individual responsibility is key to ending racism is liberalism. Saying that racism is ‘systemic’ and the only way to fix it is to discredit entire systems of education, law enforcement and justice, as well as overturning the entire paradigm of individual merit and individual-level fairness, is critical anarchism. Critical anarchism’s agenda has been soundly rejected by the general public across the West because it is offensive to our long-standing values. On the other hand, liberalism is still broadly popular, and we should aim to revive a version of liberalism that is completely free of critical anarchist influences. Building a robust critique of critical anarchism is the first step to get there. 

My Disagreements with the Activist Left are about De-polarization and Free Speech

It's certainly not just arguing over ideology and philosophy

Tara: I'm actually very frustrated that the left seems to keep misunderstanding where I'm actually coming from. Sometimes, they even mistake me for those who pretend to be centrists but actually always sides with the right on purpose. Given my strong opposition to the 'populist right', I'm certainly not one of those people. But the left keeps misunderstanding me.

Katie: As I've said before, maybe it's because you keep criticizing the left all the time. The left already feels defeated, and fearful of the rise of the far-right. They're not going to take constant criticism well at the moment. Perhaps you just need to understand this.

Tara: I understand how they feel. But that doesn't mean I can stop critiquing where the left is going wrong. What I'm ultimately trying to do is to reduce the polarization, so that the center can hold. I believe that individual freedom is safest when a moderate politics prevails. As I've said before, a strong moderate presence in the political landscape is essential for safeguarding free speech. The problem with the activist left is that its tactics, based on its theory and worldview, are leading to more polarization. They have been both radicalizing young people to refuse to compromise, and also providing fuel for right-wing culture warriors. This is why I can't just stop critiquing the left.

Katie: Is your objection to the activist left based primarily around differences in ideology and worldview then? If so, how is it any different from all the pointless culture war-style debates out there? I mean, how is it different from those jumping up and down about people saying 'Seasons Greetings' instead of 'Merry Christmas'?

Tara: My objection to the activist left is because their ideology and their tactics are fuelling polarization, and in many cases, harmful to free speech. This, in turn, poisons the discourse, prevents a true understanding of the issues, and leads to either stalemate or bad outcomes. While I have fundamental philosophical differences with them, my objection is ultimately not rooted in philosophy, but rather rooted in practical outcomes. I personally believe that pointless squabble about language and philosophy, like the Merry Christmas vs Seasons Greetings example that you cited, are counterproductive. But being concerned about practical results, especially in terms of polarization, free speech and policy outcomes, is actually another thing. I think this needs particular clarification and emphasis.

This is why, going forward, I intend to describe more clearly where exactly my disagreements with the activist left's ideology are, and why I'm disagreeing for the sake of practical outcomes. I hope that this will show that I'm not arguing for the sake of language and philosophy. What I wish for most is a turnaround in the polarization of the Western political landscape generally, as well as the restoration of a healthy marketplace of ideas. Going forward, my critique is going to be focused on this vision, and what we need to do to get there.

 

Three New Arguments to Support a Libertarian Politics | Moral Libertarian Talk

One of the reasons why libertarianism isn't doing so well right now is because the application of the non-aggression principle (NAP) in real life isn't always straightforward. Don't get me wrong, I think the NAP is still valuable and important. But it appears that we really can't build a whole politics on that alone. Therefore, I suggest some other arguments that can be used to support a freedom-orientated politics:

1. The Truth Argument

This one is simple. People should be free to discover the truth, via debate and experimentation, free from undue influence or coercion. This is the only way we will get to know the objective truth better. Any prohibition on this process would necessarily distort the functioning of the marketplace of ideas, and hence our understanding of the truth. This alone should be enough to justify the case for maximizing freedom.

2. The Compassion Argument

Top-down rigid policy prescriptions often have unintended consequences, that actually harm people in real life. In Western two-party system states, the government tends to be biased towards one tribe in society or another, making this problem worse. On the other hand, when you give people freedom, they tend to know what to do with their lives most of the time, and they tend to know how to solve their own problems better than the government does. This is why it is almost always the objectively compassionate thing to do to give people more freedom.

3. The Extended Religious Freedom Argument

This is a more philosophical argument, and is closely aligned with the Moral Libertarian philosophy of 'equal moral agency'. Basically, freedom of religion traditionally requires the right to identify one's religious beliefs, to espouse one's religious beliefs, and to practice one's religious beliefs to the extent that other people's rights are not adversely affected. The reason why such a premium was placed on religious beliefs was because this idea came during a time when almost everyone was deeply religious, and the Western world was torn apart by sectarian religious conflicts. In this day and age, where not everyone is deeply religious, there is no reason to just prioritize religious beliefs. Moreover, while not everyone's beliefs are rooted in religion these days, the West remains a culture of competing beliefs, and if we don't extend the application of freedom of religion to non-religious beliefs, the historical problem of sectarian conflicts based on conflicting worldviews would likely recur. 

Therefore, I believe we should extend the religious freedom guarantee to all sincerely held philosophical beliefs, i.e. there should be a right for everyone to identify one's philosophical and moral beliefs, to espouse one's philosophical and moral beliefs, and to practice one's philosophical and moral beliefs to the extent that other people's rights are not adversely affected. If anything, I think this is the only way that we can maintain the peace in Western countries for the foreseeable future. 

Why the Left has a Problem with 'Culturally Normal'

It's a natural consequence of the critical anarchist worldview

Recently, California Governor and likely 2028 candidate Gavin Newsom called on the Democratic Party to be 'more culturally normal'. This has sparked controversy in some corners of the left. Some of them are saying that calls for the Democrats to be 'more culturally normal' are a dog whistle to move the party to the right, and throw some vulnerable minorities under the bus in the process.

However, does being 'more culturally normal' necessarily mean a wholesale shift to the right, and/or throwing minorities under the bus? This, I think, is what we need to examine here. To embrace normie politics, which is necessary to become 'more culturally normal', certainly does not involve becoming more like the Trumpified right, or moving closer to their positions at all. It would instead look more like moving back to 2012, the year when President Obama publicly supported gay marriage. That's certainly not a right-wing year, by the way.

Nor does being 'more culturally normal' necessarily mean throwing minorities under the bus. The LGBT community was certainly more 'culturally normal' during its campaign for gay marriage in the 2000s and the 2010s, compared with the so-called 'gay liberation' era of the 1970s. The weirdness of the 1970s queers turned the mainstream off, paving the way for the religious right of the 1980s to attack the community during the AIDS crisis. In contrast, the 'more culturally normal' approach of the 2000s and 2010s won public sympathy for the cause of equal rights, resulting in the legalization of gay marriage in almost every Western country by 2020. This, I think, is a very good example of being culturally normal actually also being good for advancing the civil rights of minorities.

The current controversy over calls to be 'more culturally normal' is actually reminiscent of the controversy over 'family values', back when I was in college in the 2000s. Back then, the right used to use 'family values' as a dogwhistle to signal their uncompromising opposition to gay marriage. I was, of course, a strong opponent of this kind of politics. But that didn't make 'family values' itself a bad thing. Nevertheless, many in the aughts left seemed to actually take issue with 'family values' itself, rather than just the dog whistling. 

The cultural left's aversion to family values and normie values in general has also been on full display in the recent discourse regarding Taylor Swift. We all know that Swift has criticized Trump on multiple occasions, declared her support of the LGBT community, and endorsed both Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. Yet, it appears that the rumors about her being secretly right-wing have returned. Why? It's because she's engaged to an NFL player, wants marriage and kids, has supposedly pro-MAGA friends, and sings that she likes her friends canceled in her latest album.

Although there is plenty of evidence (like the gay marriage example above) supporting the idea that embracing a normie politics is better for advancing and defending the civil rights of vulnerable minorities, certain parts of the left just won't acknowledge this. It seems that they have an inherent aversion to normie politics, that is rooted not in empirical results from history, but in ideological commitments to empirically unsound philosophy. It turns out that, when you believe that the status quo is made up of invisible interlocking 'systems of oppression', this hinders an objective assessment of how things actually are, and prevents constructive action to try and improve things for real people living in the real world. This, again, is why I'm so passionate about critiquing and exposing the 'theory left', in the hope that people will return to their senses and work with the real world as it exists, to achieve practical progress that actually benefits people, for real. 

The Problem with Leftist Video Essays

I think the biggest problem with leftist video essays is that they are full of theory. Like whatever issue they talk about, it's almost always just an excuse to talk about theory. And I think this prioritization of studying theory over looking at situations objectively, without prior bias, is one of the biggest faults of the contemporary left.

The problem with force-fitting events in the world out there to pre-existing philosophical theories is that you inevitably end up with a biased view of events. You end up with a biased and incomplete understanding of what is actually happening. And that is not helpful for achieving anything. It would just make everyone confused, which would make progress and good outcomes even more out of reach. Thus the theory left, far from being 'progressive', actually leads to pointless and needless detours in our quest to understand the truth and make things better.

Moreover, leftist cultural theories are often rooted in postmodernism and critical theory, which is under the umbrella of what is called the 'conflict theory of sociology', which sees human relations as driven more by conflict than by consensus. Thus leftist cultural theory has a strong tendency to pit one group against another, which would only lead to more polarization in the real world. This polarization is harmful if what we want is to find some common ground to move forward on. What I'm most worried about is that the polarization caused by leftist theory makes a rational and productive discourse essentially impossible, thus prolonging the conflict and suffering on all sides needlessly.

Furthermore, leftist theory is ultimately tied to a wider agenda. I think there are actually many people out there, like myself, who are fed up with people with an agenda in general, and just want us to be free of all these agendas. Both the left and the right have a set agenda that is rooted in their long-running ideological obsessions. The clash of these obsessions are the root of the culture wars, which, let's face it, normal people don't want at all. This is why many of us wish that those agendas and those ideological obsessions would just go away. From this point of view, leftist cultural theory is certainly part of the problem, and not part of the solution. 

Two Philosophical Arguments Against 'New Left' Politics

The Enlightenment liberal tradition provides the most apparent arguments to rebut the postmodern critical theory worldview. That free speech is conducive to understanding the objective truth, and that understanding the truth is necessary for practical progress, is itself a self-evident truth that is provable by the study of history alone. It is for this reason that we must always stand firm for free speech. Also, there are good reasons why we should require objective evidence before we can agree that claims being made are sound. Postmodern critical theory's insistence that society is made up of interlocking systems of oppression simply doesn't meet this standard, and thus should be rejected. Besides, viewing society as being made up of interlocking systems of oppression is simply counterproductive, if we want to bring people together to resolve society's most sensitive conflicts, by finding solutions that would be satisfactory for every party. 

The conservative philosophical tradition, going back to thinkers like Edmund Burke, also provide important arguments against the postmodern critical theory worldview. It speaks to how the top-down, inorganic imposition of social change, driven by abstract philosophical doctrine, can be harmful to freedom, and also make things worse in unexpected ways in reality. This is why change must be gradual, rooted in practical need rather than abstract philosophy, and implemented in a way that respects society's long-standing values as much as possible. This lesson is one that progressives would do well to learn. This, in turn, is why I have long argued that the philosophical insights of the conservative cannon should be re-integrated into progressive thinking, and this would make for a good foundation for a sustainable reformist politics. Note that the conservative philosophical tradition is very different from what is wrongly called 'conservative' politics in the contemporary West, which is clearly more authoritarian-reactionary than conservative. True conservative philosophy would lead to a moderate reformist politics. 

Why Moderates are Necessary for Free Speech

It is an objective fact that both the left and the right have gotten more extreme in the past decade. Ideas previously considered taboo have been increasingly mainstreamed from both directions. What all these ideologies have in common is that they have no use for studying the objective truth as it is, or learning from the viewpoints of other people. They are already certain of their own correctness and righteousness, and the only thing left to do is to impose their vision on the rest of society, by force or other illiberal means if necessary. Such ideologies have no use for free speech.

On the other hand, moderates have a consistent interest in defending free speech. This is because moderates don’t have a pre-established commitment to an extreme ideology. This makes it more possible to be truly open to the different viewpoints that exist out there. After all, it is only natural that, when coming to a topic without preconceived commitments, one would want to gather as much evidence as possible, in order to arrive at a more accurate understanding of the objective truth. Moreover, given the lack of commitment to an overarching view of how things must be, moderates don’t always agree with the ideas of any one tribe. I mean, moderates don’t even always agree with each other on every topic! The fact that moderates don’t ever feel comfortable to join a tribe, and that disagreements are a normal part of life for moderates, also mean that they would have more incentive to embrace free speech. This is because free speech is both a mechanism for resolving our differences, and also a way to agree to disagree peacefully when we must.

Herein lies an important paradox: free speech allows people to reject moderation. Putting it another way, free speech must allow people to not be moderates, but if too few committed and outspoken moderates remain, free speech itself might cease to exist. In this way, some doomers might even say it is inevitable that free speech eventually digs its own grave.

Is there a way we can resolve this paradox, so that free speech doesn’t end up digging its own grave? I guess we can both uphold free speech, and also promote the virtues of political moderation within the bounds of respect for free speech. There is no contradiction in these things, as long as we are using the free market of ideas to promote moderation, rather than using censorship to force people to be moderate. Indeed, I believe one of the biggest mistakes of the 2010s free speech movement was a lack of discussion about the virtues of the kind of political moderation which would naturally support a culture of free speech. In the 2010s, free speech activists often talked about things like respecting the ‘marketplace of ideas’ when we opposed de-platforming and cancel culture, but we didn’t talk enough about why we should respect the marketplace of ideas. This, in turn, allowed bad faith actors to pretend to be one of us, in order to defend the speech of people they agreed with, only to later turn around to support anti-free speech actions from their own tribe, thus discrediting the whole movement, and setting the cause of free speech back even further. 

The Moderate Argument Against Leftist Politics

As I've pointed out many times before, the whole politics of the 21st century Western far-left is rooted in two branches of philosophy: postmodernism and critical theory. Therefore, the key to winning the argument against the far-left is to intellectually win the argument against these two worldviews. The way we can approach this is two-fold: firstly, by demonstrating the intellectual unsoundness of these worldviews, and secondly, by demonstrating the real world harms of activism and political action rooted in these worldviews. 

Postmodernism rejects the pursuit of objective truth, and sees speech and discourse primarily as exercises of power. Identity-based critical theories, often drawing on postmodernism, imagine society as being made up of interlocking 'systems of oppression', where people are defined as oppressors or the oppressed based on their immutable characteristics. Together, these two overarching philosophical views lead to seeing culture as constructed to oppress the marginalized rather than organically evolved to serve the needs of the people, seeing society as a sphere of powerplay rather than a marketplace of ideas where the objective truth can be pursued, and seeing people as inherently divided into oppressor vs. oppressed groups rather than individuals with their own needs, desires and agency. 

Unsurprisingly, a politics rooted in this outlook is often hostile to free speech, and is generally counterproductive in terms of resolving society's most sensitive conflicts. One needs to look no further than 2010s wokeness, its harmful impacts on free speech, and the backlash it ultimately brought, to prove this point. Other previous instances of the far-left causing similarly deleterious effects include the 1960s-70s New Left (which led to the backlash of the 1980s), the 1930s left in Europe (which led to the rise of fascism and World War II), and the actions of the Jacobins during the French Revolution (which led to Napoleon and the restoration of the monarchy). The far-left's formula has produced the same result again and again, and I think it would be irresponsible to allow them to experiment with society one more time. 

Building Bridges is the Key to Stop the Reactionary Tide

Dear Left, We Need to Build Bridges, Not Burn Them!

Katie: You often say you are very concerned with the rise of the reactionary populist right and its culture warrior politics. You know, the left is actively fighting this. Do you see them as fellow travelers, then?

Tara: Yes and no. Yes to the extent that we should all speak up on the threat of rising authoritarianism, in whatever way we can. But also no, because firstly, I think what the left is doing could be counterproductive, and secondly, the left's failure to keep its own authoritarians in check discredits their whole effort.

Katie: Where do you think the left is being counterproductive?

Tara: The first thing is building bridges. I believe the best way to resolve our political polarization, which would be the key to stop the rise of all kinds of extremism, is to build bridges. This is why I actually want to build bridges with people who have different views. However, with the way the left is right now, it isn't easy at all. It's like how some people already have a pre-conceived notion of what I believe in, based on their impression of some of the things that I've said, even though they don't actually understand my position. It happens on both the left and the right, but to be honest, I've encountered a lot more of it on the left, especially in the past decade.

Katie: Can you give some examples of what you're talking about?

Tara: It's like how some people who identify as 'leftists' would automatically assume that I'm the 'enemy', just because I've described my politics using words like 'centrist', 'moderate', 'classical liberal' or 'libertarian'. I think that's very tribalist. I use these labels because I think they help me describe for others where I'm coming from, and the philosophical traditions that have influenced me. But I think using labels to automatically exclude people is very unhealthily tribalistic. It also makes building bridges basically impossible.

Katie: Could it be because they have had bad experiences with people who identify with those labels, especially those who do so in bad faith?

Tara: I think that could be part of the reason. Like every true libertarian I know is very frustrated with the populist right's attempt to hijack that label these days. Some populist right influencers have also self-identified as centrist, moderate, or even classical liberal, during various phases of their evolution. However, just because questionable people self-identify with these ideologies, it doesn't make these ideologies bad. We have no choice as to who chooses to identify with what label, and short of just ceding the whole ideology to these bad actors, which I believe would be a big mistake, there is no way we can fix this situation. On the other hand, I think it is still incumbent upon everyone who wants to participate in the political discourse, to learn the truth for themselves, rather than just rely on mistaken stereotypes as an excuse to refuse to build bridges. Which means my criticism of the left still stands. 

Political Labels are Encouraging Tribalism? | TaraElla Clips

The Moderate Argument Against Reactionary Right Politics

If we look at history, reactionary movements have a uniformly bad track record. They always lead to irrational policies, gross injustices, and often conflict and war. This is because they are emotionally charged and irrational, and often deliberately so. 

Reactionary politics often takes advantage of widespread frustration with a certain phenomenon (wokeness being the most recent example), and turn it into fuel for a destructive politics that serves those with a questionable agenda, by using emotion to bypass rationality. In moments of reactionary emotion, the normal rational function of humans is impaired, and what would normally be rejected can often be accepted. This effect is often deliberately enhanced further by the use of peer pressure, tribalism, and exaggerated portrayals of the 'enemy' or the issue causing concern. 

Moderates need to be able to neutralize the tactics used to build reactionary political movements. We also need to be able to address the frustrations being seized upon by reactionaries, in order to stop them from being able to mass recruit people to their cause. I believe moderates are much more effective at doing this than the far-left, simply because we are practical, empirical and evidence-based, and aren't blinded by ideological dogma like much of the far-left is.