On ContraPoints Pronoun Controversy & The Problem With Western Progressives Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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