Moral Libertarian View: How Critical Theory Ruined Anti-Racism

EDIT NOTE: This article was edited in May 2021, to clarify the concepts and terminology used.



Today, we're going to talk about how critical theory ruined our efforts to move towards a truly color-blind society. Traditionally, liberals believe in equality of opportunity for every individual, regardless of any personal characteristics, and this includes race and cultural background. It is just part of the long running campaign by historical liberals to make sure every individual is treated fairly, and that factors outside of one's control, like personal background, isn't a factor in the opportunity one is given. When we say we are for moving towards a colour-blind society, this is what we mean.

In the second half of the 20th century, great progress was made towards the colour-blind society. Discriminatory laws based on race were removed. Interracial marriage became legal, segregation was abolished, and racial discrimination became illegal. I think it's important to see that, while we've not become color-blind yet, we were getting there small step by small step. Things might not be great yet, but we were heading in the right direction. However, in recent years, our gains have been slipping away, and divisions based on race and cultural background have made a big comeback. From the idea of cultural appropriation to the label of White Feminism, it seems that many progressives no longer believe in the original mission of the anti-racist movement. And I think critical theory has a lot to answer for that.

How the Critical Theory Worldview Ruined Anti-Racism

The truth is, many critical theory based activists never believed in the classical liberal vision of a color-blind society. In the critical theory worldview, racism is seen as a system of oppression that arises from the class society of capitalism. Therefore, critical theory does not see any possibility of a color-blind society where the capitalist system still stands, as in the current Western world. Instead, as always, they believe the oppressed must struggle against their oppressors, and that this process will result in the dismantling of the oppressive systems. To achieve this state of struggle, they believe in raising awareness of oppression among the oppressed, and highlighting the contradictions in society. Therefore, critical theory effectively believes in working against our goal of reaching a colour-blind society through gradual reform and cultural consensus.

Divisive ideas, like how certain people should check their privilege and speak less, are a product of critical theory and associated ideas. In turn, these ideas have encouraged an identitarian movement on the far-right, leading to further erosion of the consensus that we should move towards a colour-blind society. The sad truth is, in the past decade, radical critical theory ideas have often been promoted as social justice, and naive social justice advocates have swallowed them without thinking about their origins and their implications. In truth, I am totally for social justice per se. Social justice has a long tradition going back to the early 20th century, and it used to have nothing to do with radical critical theory ideas. However, in recent years, radical criticalists have been able to use the language of social justice, and inject their ideas into popular social justice movements. But if you look at it objectively, radical criticalism is not real social justice. Critical theory is, at its root, all about power dynamics and identity or class-based power struggle, all of which leads to less justice for individuals, if you think about it.

To change things, liberalism must become more academic. In fact, what we are seeing now is the end product of at least several decades of development. A major problem we have is that radical critical theory worldviews have gained an upper hand in Western intellectual and academic discourse in recent decades. The psuedo-Marxist form of analysis core to critical theory has become the default system for analysing social relations and sociological reality. The fact that there have been very few prominent truly liberal intellectuals since around 1980 is illustrative of this. This must change. I propose that we call for the establishment of a new tradition of social analysis, where we analyse social relations based on the individual as the unit, and individual liberty as the highest good. The core Moral Libertarian principle of Equal Moral Agency for every individual would be a good starting point for this.

Let's return to the core Moral Libertarian question: is there Equal Moral Agency for every individual? Using a moral libertarian analysis, we can develop a more individual-based, and hence fairer, perspective on inequality. For example, if we are concerned about racial minorities having a harder time in accessing education or in participating in politics, what we need to do is to listen to the real experiences of individuals in those fields. We need to listen to what barriers they perceive as being in their way, and if these barriers are proven to be real, we need to fix them. However, we look at situations on an individual level, and we have no reason to generalise everything into a systems of oppression view. For example, barriers to accessing a good education may have cultural roots that differ by ethnicity, and lumping non-whites as a group disregards these cultural differences, leading to ineffective solutions. Another example is, while blackface is considered offensive generally, as an Asian I don't mind non-Asians wearing our traditional dresses, and every Asian that I know personally has the same view. The two cannot be equated in a category called 'cultural appropriation'. Each situation is unique, and we need to fix the inequalities in a case-by-case manner, looking at individual experiences in every case.

Moral Libertarian View: I'll Focus on What Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin Missed

NOTE: Rubin has really disappointed me over the years. I certainly do not support him anymore!

Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we build a centrist classical liberal awareness, one day at a time, one issue at a time. If you are interested in real intellectual discussions about issues, you've come to the right place, and I highly recommend subscribing. Today, we are going to look at the accusations by progressives of Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson of having a right-wing bias, contrary to their stated classical liberal positions. If you watch my show, you'll know that I think highly of both of them, and I certainly don't think they are very biased. But since this show is about looking at what other people say in good faith, I will take a deeper look at what the Left is saying here.

Is Jordan Peterson Right-wing?

As far as I know, Jordan Peterson has not identified as right-wing, nor given any indication that he is right-wing. But many progressives have identified issues where they believe he is right-wing. Some of the examples they give have no ground at all. For example, there is no evidence that Jordan Peterson is sexist, homophobic, transphobic. I mean, having an opinion on the gender pay gap isn't sexist, it's just having an opinion. Furthermore, whenever people say that Peterson is transphobic, I can just point them to his very respectful discussion with Theryn Meyer back in 2016. Surely, I have critiqued some of Peterson's arguments as not being entirely classical liberal, in the article I wrote about him back in April. I guess this is one of several points of disagreements I have with him. But overall, he appears to be a very reasonable man, and he's certainly not very right wing. From what I observed, it appears that many progressives' misunderstanding of Peterson comes from an incompatibility of language. When Peterson says one thing, progressives often think of something else. As with a lot of modern politics, language has come to divide us, and this is something I wish to fix.

Where I particularly agree with Jordan Peterson is that there is a place for left-wing politics, as well as right-wing politics, in society. He sees it as a balance between maintaining order, and compassion for those at the bottom of hierarchies, if I understand it correctly. I'm personally not into the order vs chaos way of thinking, but one thing I repeatedly explore on this show is how our political inclinations are in-born and are the result of adapative Darwinian evolution. I believe in bringing people with different inclinations together, because having people with different inclinations work together on issues will give us the best, balanced outcome, as intended by our evolutionary programming. Progressives keep us adaptive, while conservatives prevent dangerous change. Classical liberalism gives a voice to both, and provides a framework to let rational debate happen.

Is Dave Rubin Biased?

We'll have a look at the case of Dave Rubin now. His show, The Rubin Report, is all about interviewing people with different views on things, both right-wing and left-wing people. His style is to let his guests speak, and he usually doesn't challenge them much. Rubin and his fans see the show primarily as a platform where ideas can be discussed, where people with different opinions can share them with the world. On the other hand, The Left has been accusing him of letting people on the far-right speak, without challenging them too much.

Does Rubin have a responsibility to challenge his guests more vigorously? I guess not, because it is his show, and he can do whatever he likes. On the other hand, I guess we would benefit from having other platforms where ideas are not just broadcasted, but also actively debated. Rational debate and the exchange of ideas is another important part of practising classical liberalism. And this is my approach. I mean, I don't have a big enough platform to interview people like Rubin, but if I did, I would do more to bring the opposing sides together for vigorous debate. This is what I am already trying to do with my show here, in fact. Arguments from conservatives, SJWs, socialists, I deal with all of them fairly.

So, in conclusion, it is unreasonable to accuse Rubin of bias, just because he doesn't challenge his guests much. On the other hand, we would benefit from having maybe other platforms where ideas are in fact contrasted and challenged. I'm personally interested in hosting one such platform, if I ever get the opportunity to.

Moral Libertarian View: How Critical Theory Ruined Feminism

EDIT NOTE: This article was edited in May 2021, to clarify the concepts and terminology used.



Today, we're going to talk about how critical theory ruined feminism, and in particular, brought about the rise of trans-exclusionary radical feminism, also known as TERFism. Classical liberal feminism, the kind I personally subscribe to, the kind proclaimed by great classical liberal thinkers like John Stuart Mill, is all about equality between the genders, equality for both men and women. It is a natural extension of classical liberalism, which demanded equal standing and equal opportunity for every individual. Where every individual is to be equal, men and women are by definition to be equal, right?

In recent years, feminism has become controversial among some people. Many are concerned about a movement they see as pitting women against men all the time. In particular, many people, particularly progressive people, have become concerned about the rise of gender critical feminism, otherwise known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism or TERFism, and its deeply anti-trans attitudes, arising directly from their worldview of men vs women as a zero-sum game. The truth is, this divisive version of feminism is the contamination of feminism with the critical theory worldview. It was resisted by many great feminists during the second wave in particular, but unfortunately it found its way in.

So what is the critical theory worldview? It sees people not as individuals, but as belonging to classes or groups. It sees individual choices not as agency or empowerment, but as a result of systemic forces, acting out power dynamics between classes. In this worldview, men are seen as an oppressor class, and women are seen as an oppressed class. There must therefore be some sort of class struggle between the two. In the critical theory worldview, women are literally pitted against men.

But this is not the product of feminism itself. Classical liberal feminists like myself don't ever support gender wars. In fact, having a boys vs girls dynamic means that we will never get true gender equality, like real feminism actually promises. Rather, it is the product of a critical theory worldview. Therefore, what we should be opposing is the critical theory worldview. We need to insist that equality is to be examined at the individual level. We should be proud to reject analyses of group-based power dynamics, because these concepts serve to pit people against each other, while being not as relevant to individual freedom anyway. Of course, where there is real racism or sexism against individuals, we should face it. We should take it seriously. But we should do so in a classical liberal worldview, which will lead to the liberation of people as individuals. We should reject the group-orientated critical theory worldview, which will only lead to endless infighting, while promising a utopia that never ever comes.

A major problem we have is that the critical theory worldview has gained an upper hand in intellectual and academic discourse in recent years. Critical theory based pseudo-Marxist analysis has become the default system for analysing social relations and sociological reality. This must change. I propose that we call for the establishment of a new tradition of social analysis, where we analyse social relations based on the individual as the unit, and individual liberty as the highest good. The core Moral Libertarian principle of Equal Moral Agency for every individual would be a good starting point for this.

Using a moral libertarian analysis, we can develop a more individualist, and hence fairer, perspective on inequality. For example, if we are concerned about women having a harder time in politics or in STEM fields, what we need to do is to listen to the real experiences of women in those fields. We need to listen to what barriers they perceive as being in their career, and if these barriers are proven to be real, we need to fix them. However, we look at situations on an individual level, and we have no reason to generalise everything like critical theory loves to do. For example, while women are disadvantaged in politics, men are disadvantaged in custody battles. Each situation is unique, and we need to fix the inequalities in a case-by-case manner, looking at individual experiences in every case.

Moral Libertarian View: When Progressives Become Hypocrites About Equality

Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we slay the echo chambers, one issue at a time. Today, we're going to look at the issue of the Left's habit of labelling minorities who disagree with them as Token Minorities. You know, how they think that all non-whites and LGBT individuals must side with the Left, or else they are some kind of modern Uncle Tom. Popular YouTube commentator Roaming Millennial made a video about this last week, and I'm going to respond to that and also add my own thoughts too.

This is a cool-headed centrist show trying to reach out to everybody in good faith, so we can maintain an effective free market of ideas. Opening up conversations is what I do every day; if you agree with me, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel. The modern left is all about equality, as they often like to point out, and I will take this point in good faith. I mean, from what I see, progressives have often been truly passionate about some aspects of equality, especially for minority groups. I don't doubt that. But then, it remains a fact that certain minority individuals, like Roaming Millennial, have experienced unequal treatment at the hands of the Left. Let's look at what she had to say in more detail:

(Clip included in video)

Now, this is a clear case of unequal treatment. A clear case of discrimination. If Roaming Millennial wasn't a half Asian woman, she wouldn't have been called those disrespectful names. And if you think about it, Uncle Chen is a really racist nickname. I would certainly feel offended if you called me an 'Uncle Chen'. It appears to many people that the Left will treat minority individuals as equals, only where they toe the party line. It begs the question of what kind of equality the Left believes in. Certainly not the kind I believe in. I am a Moral Libertarian, and my core principle is that every individual should be entited to Equal Moral Agency. The Left, at the moment, appears to have a very weak appreciation for this kind of equality.

The Core Moral Libertarian Principle: Equality of Moral Agency

The core Moral Libertarian Principle is that every individual should have their fair, equal share of moral agency. A major part of this is, every individual should be able to think for themselves, rather than being pressured to follow the crowd. In this spirit, individual views that differ from conventional expectations should be equally respected, and every voice should be considered in good faith. Another important part of moral libertarianism is, every individual should be able to believe whatever they sincerely believe in, and preach what they believe. Every individual should be able to live according to their own moral consciences, regardless of their race, gender or orientation. This is clearly not happening with the Left, and their dismissive attitude towards minorities who think differently.

(Clip included in video)

For Moral Libertarians, Equality of Moral Agency is the first and most important equality. From our point of view, if the Left fails to even respect this kind of equality, then all their other equality talk is truly hypocritical. To choose economic equality over free speech, for example, would be a true act of cowardice. After all, in a world where one doesn't have an equal right to be outspoken, where one must toe the party line in whatever they do, people are essentially zombies anyway, so what's the use of having economic equality?

The point is, if a straight, white man were making conservative arguments, progressives will engage with the ideas. But if a minority individual is making the same arguments, progressives turn it into something about token minorities, refusing to take the arguments seriously. It's unfair and frustrating. And Roaming Millennial is certainly not the only conservative minority individual being unfairly treated by progressives. Just a few days ago I discussed the unfair treatment towards Dave Rubin and Blaire White in progressive circles. It is clearly a systematic problem. In the words of progressives themselves, this is a clear case of systematic oppression of certain minorities. How ironic.

Now, I'm not saying that progressives can't disagree with Roaming Millennial, or any of the other individuals she mentioned in her video. I mean, if they didn't disagree with conservatives, they wouldn't be progressives, right? The point is, they need to treat political opponents who happen to be minorities with the same respect, as they would any other opponent. The practice of labelling people as Token Minorities needs to end.

Daily Centrist: A Classical Liberal Feminist Response to a Progressive Feminist Activist

Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we slay the echo chambers, one issue at a time. Today, we're going to look at the issue of contemporary progressive activism, especially what passes for online feminism these days. Recently, progressive feminist Laci Green made a video titled 'In Defense of Online Feminism'. I guess it would be good for me to do a response to Laci's case. I certainly don't share her optimism about progressivism, but I do see where she's coming from. If we want to find common ground, we need to see where they are coming from.

I guess most classical liberals and even moderate conservatives feel uneasy about Laci's praise of progressive activism. But then, I'm going to look at it with an open mind, and I hope you do too. It's always worth listening to, and responding to, different opinions, so that we have an effective free market of ideas, and so that we don't descend into an endless cycle of culture wars. This is what I do every day: if you agree with me, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel. So let's listen to her in more detail:

(Clip included in video)

So Laci thinks that there is value in divisive movements, because they are effective. Now, before we get too worked up about her view here, let's face the fact that, many people on the left probably hold similar attitudes. We are talking about perhaps a third of the West here, and perhaps even a majority of those under 25. They are hungry for what they see as 'social justice', and they are going to back whatever program that gets us there. If we want to find common ground and communicate with this population, we need to see where they are coming from, and deal with their concerns.

I think the question we need to ask about divisive movements and identity politics is, do they REALLY work? Laci may think they work because she is sort of stuck in the left-wing side of society. I mean, she has made a great effort to reach out, but our view of the world is often shaped by the people we hang out with. What Laci is perhaps less aware of is that, in other parts of society, such movements are making people reactionary and turning people against the idea of social justice completely. With divisive events like the Colin Kaepernick controversy, progressives are preaching to the converted while alienating the rest of us. As I often say, progressives are making naturally conservative people allergic to social justice. And it's OK to be conservative! Seriously it's OK to be conservative. Something I often say on this show is that political orientation is somewhat inborn, and conservative people are nature's way to keep dangerous change from happening. Therefore, if moderate progressives want to get a discussion going, they need to include conservatives, and make them comfortable in the process. And Laci seems to agree here.

(Clip included in video)

I guess if moderates like Laci want their message heard, they should draw a clear line between themselves and the more radical parts of their movement. We certainly respect, and many of us actually support, moves to get more women into STEM fields, and moves to end the glass ceiling problem, for example. There is potential common ground for broad based co-operation. But we can't stand the whole 'struggle against oppression' attitude, and the bullying behaviour it sometimes leads to. As a moral libertarian, I am focused on individual-level equality, and I am essentially allergic to class or group analyses. If the moderates could draw a clear line here in ideological terms, it would be helpful. I mean, we used to have liberal feminism and radical feminism, and many people could clearly support the former but reject the latter. Nowadays, the line seems to have become blurred, and I am concerned about that.

Which brings me onto a related point. I am sorry to disagree with Laci that the presentation and the substance are separate: it's not. I am a classical feminist who believes in gender equality for both men and women, and modern feminsm has too much of an oppressor vs oppressed dynamic, both in theory and in practice. For example, whenever I suggest that the feminist movement should have a discussion with the Men's Rights movement to achieve real gender equality together, I am almost always with plenty of backlash, and there is often quite a bit of the oppressor vs oppressed language coming out of that. From what I see, the whole oppressed vs oppressor theory and the inability to have a civil discussion in practice are essentially cause and effect

p.s. For those people who don't get the context, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the very real effects of economic class. The kind of 'class analysis' that I oppose here refers to identity-based pseudo-classes.

Daily Centrist: Why Cameron Kasky and Generation Z may Save Politics

Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we slay the echo chambers, one issue at a time. Today, we're going to look at the fractured political landscape, and how Generation Z, those born after 1997, may be able to help fix it. I mean, every generation likes to diss the next one, right? But today, I'm going to break this bad habit, and try to look at Gen Z in a positive light. Because, let's face it, us Millennials haven't done a good job of healing society. It's sad, but true.

I've always said that this show is Centrist, in the sense that we listen to each side in good faith, and try to bring people together. If this is something you agree with, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel. The problem is, right now, we are having a difficult time in this fractured political landscape. The main problem is that people are shouting over each other. They are not only not keen to listen to the other side, sometimes their whole aim is to own the other side, make the other side look bad. As I like to say, the Culture Wars poison everything.

Cameron Kasky is already a controversial figure at just 17. He is the co-founder of March for Our Lives, the pro-gun control movement that was founded in the wake of the Parkland shootings. As a prominent gun control advocate, Kasky has come into conflict with many conservatives. And, as he admits it now, he used to handle his political opponents in quite an immature way, trying to own them, trying to make them look bad.

I think Kasky's previous behaviour is simply a reflection of the sorry state of our political scene right now. I mean, teenagers generally learn from what is in their environment, and if the top YouTube political videos are all about owning so and so, that's what they are going to learn. It's always the adults' fault. Luckily, Kasky has matured quickly, and now has a more healthy way of looking at politics. And he thinks that his generation is perhaps moving in that direction too.

I don't know if I can share Kasky's optimism just yet. But I think he might be onto something here. Coming of age in a fractured political landscape featuring as many as 30 distinct political tribes, it would be just natural if Gen Z are truly curious to find out more about everybody around them. I mean, when we older Millennials came of age, it was just plain-old conservatives and liberals; George Bush or John Kerry. Many of us picked Kerry simply because we didn't like the Iraq War, even those of us who moved rightward later. My point is, it was a simple choice, and there was not much to be curious about. We didn't have something as interesting as the Intellectual Dark Web, for example; and we didn't have shows like The Rubin Report. All this is perhaps making Gen Z truly wanting to take part in a meaningful political conversation.

Of course, it's still early days to say that this is definitely going to be the future. It is up to us, all of us, to help make or break the future. And I believe we, as responsible adults, can help put an end to the stupid culture wars, and instead start reaching out for meaningful conversations. Because our future depends on it. Besides, it's more fulfilling, it's more fun than just attacking the other side, I promise. Something I often say is that political orientation is an innate property of a person, and the fact that we have both progressive and conservative individuals is a result of Darwinian evolution selecting the optimum mix to ensure that our society stays on track. Therefore, productive and respectful discussions between progressives and conservatives are important.