What Graham Norton Getting Cancelled Over Trans Comments Teaches Us | Post Woke

Opposing cancel culture should be untied from the woke vs anti-woke lens

In a recent interview at the Cheltenham Literature Festival, Graham Norton shared his views on cancel culture. Basically, he thought that those of us who decry 'cancel culture' are using the wrong word. "I think the word should be accountability," he said, echoing what many others who are in denial of cancel culture have said. But then, this being in the UK, the topic of JK Rowling and trans issues inevitably came up. Norton responded by saying that he is only a 'bloke on the telly', and those who want to explore those issues should talk to trans people, doctors, and psychiatrists, people who can 'illuminate this in some way'. Which is totally sensible and fair. However, because of some kind of association of his words with the Rowling controversy (which had something to do with musician Billy Bragg apparently), Norton ended up receiving a barrage of abuse on Twitter, forcing him to shut down his account. I think this kind of shows how the Western cultural landscape is extremely dysfunctional right now. Anyway, Graham Norton, who did not believe cancel culture existed, has now been ironically cancelled himself.

Some commentators have said that Norton should have learned a lesson about cancel culture now, and I agree with them. Cancel culture isn't simply holding someone accountable. The aim of cancel culture is silencing people, rather than holding people accountable. It's an attempt by activists to silence voices and ideas they don't like, with an intention to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace of ideas. The (unspoken) logic of cancel culture is simple: if the opposition's argument isn't heard, it would be easier to win the debate. It is therefore basically a form of cheating. As I previously said, the promise of free speech is that it will get us closer to the truth, and lead to good order in society. However, this would only work if ideas are truly put on a level playing field, and the flow of information isn't hindered or distorted. This is why cancel culture is the enemy of truth and good order. It's a shame that too many 'intellectuals' in the West don't seem to understand this nowadays.

However, there is another lesson about cancel culture here that everyone, especially the 'anti-woke' people, should learn: cancel culture can come from all sides, including from people who are not usually considered 'woke'. In this incident, Norton was basically cancelled for being perceived to be supportive of trans people and trans rights. The people doing the cancelling could be broadly described as 'gender critical', and these people are not generally considered 'woke' for some arbitrary reason. (Gender critical feminism is considered part of the 'non-woke' Left, even though it is a form of identity politics, for reasons I don't fully understand.) I guess this is why this incident has received lower than expected levels of attention, compared to say, last year's controversy over Dave Chappelle. Many 'free speech activists' who fought for Chappelle's free speech back then simply failed to come out and support Norton this time. Far too often, cancel culture that comes from the supposedly 'non-woke' is not taken as seriously. It's like how when, earlier this year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis used the power of the state to 'punish' Disney for speaking up against his Don't Say Gay law, and 'anti-woke' free speech forces didn't unite to oppose the move as some might have expected. This just shows how the 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' lens is of limited utility in defending free speech, and well past its expiry date, in a time when cancel culture can almost equally come from all sides.

This is why it's time we moved away from a 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' narrative, towards a narrative that opposes cancel culture and defends free speech on the grounds of traditional classical liberal ideals. We should highlight the fact that free speech holds the promise of getting us closer to the truth, and also therefore building sound consensus and good order in society. Cancel culture destroys this promise, no matter what direction it is coming from, and no matter who is being targeted. Moreover, taking sides in culture wars would also harm this promise, because this would make it impossible to be committed to the objective truth, and building a good order for all. This is also why we need to be very wary of people who want us to join a tribe and play the culture war game. 

Why Western Politics has Gotten So Abnormal | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article We Need a Normie Trans Rights Discourse by TaraElla.

Like deBoer, and also many other people out there, I have been frustrated at how a particularly loud faction in the left is consistently pushing anti-normie politics into the mainstream. It is making many people confused and scared, and culture war reactionaries have been increasingly able to make inroads with these people. The reactionaries argue that liberalism, in its pursuit of individual autonomy, inevitably leads to extreme 'wokeness'. However, not only is this reasoning absurd (given how 'wokeism' isn't pro-free speech, for example), it is also easily debunked by an analysis of the ideologies involved. So-called 'wokeism' is rooted in postmodernism and critical theory, philosophies steeped in a worldview where power and oppression is everywhere, and liberation from oppressive social constructs is the highest goal. I think this hostility towards social institutions and paranoia about power means that what we are dealing with is a form of anarchism, not a form of liberalism. However, unlike old school anarchism, this new, postmodern neo-anarchism locates power not only in government and organized religion, but also in culture, which they believe is full of social constructs that enable privileged groups to oppressed marginalized groups. This line of thought is clearest in the call by Foucault to 'cut off the King's head' in political theory, but it is also present in the works of other thinkers like Althusser and Marcuse. This worldview explains the 'movement' to deconstruct most of what we consider common sense. This, in turn, is why postmodern critical theory politics is inherently anti-normie (and hence anti-liberal).

We Need to Call Out the Biased Coverage of Trans Issues | Post Woke

The credibility of free speech liberalism depends on it

Welcome to TaraElla's Post Woke series, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

In the previous article in this series, I focused on the LGBT community, and argued that it is strategically wrong for the LGBT community to embrace critical anarchism and abandon the classical liberal consensus. If you look at the history of the West, you would see that it was the rise of classical liberalism that gradually put an end to arbitrary exercises of power based on superstition. The core of my argument was that the destruction of classical liberal norms would allow the return of religious authoritarianism, which would be disastrous for LGBT people.

However, elsewhere, I have also said that I fully understand why critical anarchism is appealing to many LGBT people, especially trans people, at the moment:

"Many trans people feel like the current social order does not treat them fairly, and as a trans woman myself, I think it is fair they feel this way, unfortunately. As a result, a substantial number of trans people have rejected society as it currently exists, and embraced postmodern anarchist ideas."

So how can we change this, and encourage the LGBT community to embrace the classical liberal consensus again?

***

In the previous article, I argued that the postmodern critical theory approach to politics, which has been behind what some have described as extreme 'wokeness', is essentially a kind of anarchism. Elsewhere, I expanded on this argument, focusing on the fact that it is the rejection of all forms of coercion and hierarchy, and the intention to deconstruct the status quo (without a concrete goal to build something else) that makes postmodern criticalism a form of anarchism. I also said that:

"...the order upheld by liberal society must be a good order, one that is fair to all and one where individuals living under it can truly thrive. Critical anarchists in particular have used liberal society's past and present injustices to justify attempts to dismantle it. The best way to disprove the case for critical anarchism is therefore to maintain a good and just order. This is why reactionary 'anti-woke' culture war politics isn't helpful."

To summarize, the best argument against all forms of anarchism, including this new postmodern critical anarchism, is to demonstrate that order is conducive to justice in practice. We need to demonstrate that, in practice, the social contract of the classical liberal consensus can fulfill its promises of liberty, equal opportunity and the chance to pursue happiness for all. Including for LGBT people.

***

This leads into the most important part of what I want to say today: the so-called 'anti-woke' cultural forces are not being helpful here. Previously, I have said that I am becoming increasingly concerned about 'the uncritical treatment of gender critical views, and the effective silencing of moderate pro-trans views, in the genre of new media that prides itself on free speech, skepticism and giving a fair hearing to de-platformed or censored people'. As I explained then, gender critical views might be excluded from the liberal wing of mainstream media, but they are prominently featured in basically every conservative media outlet, plus all the aforementioned 'free speech' orientated media outlets. However, reasonable trans people are almost never featured on the kind of media that eagerly promotes gender critical perspectives, and this imbalance, for some reason, hasn't bothered free speech activists too much.

As I said before, the best way to persuade the LGBT community to stop embracing critical anarchism is to demonstrate that the classical liberal approach works as promised in practice. In particular, the promise of free speech is that it will help everyone come to a fair and objective view of things. With truly free speech, the best ideas will prevail, and we can build a better consensus moving forward. However, for this to work effectively, ideas and perspectives must be placed on a level playing field in the first place. This is why de-platforming certain ideas and perspectives is bad. Whilst not as directly authoritarian, biased coverage can have a similar effect. This is especially true when it comes from media outlets backed by lots of money, that can easily drown out independent voices when they 'move in the same direction'. In recent years, the coverage of trans issues in many 'anti-woke' leaning media outlets has not been a level playing field, to put it mildly. There has been a strong emphasis on covering the most extreme parts of trans activism, while everyday, reasonable trans people who just want to get on with their lives are rendered non-existent. Consumers of this media often end up with very skewed perceptions of trans people. The skewed media coverage has essentially made us into 'the enemy', and a tool for negative partisanship, and dehumanized us in the process. This is very different from simply disagreeing with postmodern queer theory, or the tactics of certain trans activists. Moreover, the selected examples of trans activism often fit right into the most extreme gender critical stereotypes of trans people, and help to bolster the most hardline gender critical arguments, while examples that would support the case against gender criticalism are left out. This means that gender critical ideology is being placed in a much more favorable position in the trans discourse, and the playing field is clearly not equal.

To effectively make the case for the classical liberal social contract, we must make it work properly in practice. This includes making an effort to correct things that are not working well. At the very least, we need to call out the aforementioned unfair coverage of trans people and trans issues. If nothing else, free speech liberals taking a firm stance on this issue would at least stop the critical anarchists from painting all of us as hypocrites driven by a 'right-wing' agenda. This will save the reputation of classical liberalism in the long run, long after the current culture wars end up discrediting the ideologues on both sides. Moreover, by trying our best to call out bad practices, we might even end up changing them, at least to some extent. If we can use classical liberal means to fight the 'anti-woke' culture war reactionaries, and limit the damage that they can do, we will gain credibility among the LGBT community and its allies, and young people more generally. This will be a win-win situation, for both the LGBT community and classical liberal values like free speech.

We Need to Understand the Postmodern Left | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article Dismantling Liberal Norms Endangers the LGBT Community by TaraElla.

To consciously return to being committed to the classical liberal consensus, we also need to understand why that consensus was being eroded in the first place, so as to stop it from happening any more from now on. Much has been said about the illiberal ideology of the 2010s identitarian far-left, including where those ideas came from, and even what the ideology itself should be called. Much of the discourse has focused on the roots of this ideology in various philosophical traditions. However, what is most important is the core essence of this ideology, as reflected in its substantive goals. The fact is that this ideology essentially aims to 'deconstruct' all existing social norms, justified on grounds of liberation from power and oppression, and the various postmodern critical theories basically serve this purpose. I've argued that this focus on power, coercion and hierarchy, and the denial of the possibility of a liberal social contract to make society just, means that what we are dealing with is a form of anarchism. Anarchism has always been opposed to the liberal project on ideological grounds, and anarchists have long attempted to overturn liberal norms.

Dismantling Liberal Norms Endangers the LGBT Community | Post Woke

The only way to stop us going over a cliff is to rebuild the liberal consensus. ASAP.

Welcome to TaraElla's Post Woke series, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

It is something I have been warning of for many years now: the dismantling of liberal norms puts LGBT people in danger. The fact is, liberal norms like upholding free speech, respecting everyone's freedom of conscience, and respecting individuals' right to privacy, are essential to preventing minorities from being crushed by the tyranny of a misguided majority. Most importantly, the liberal consensus protects everyone from being subject to arbitrary authority, something minorities are most vulnerable to. Despite my warnings, supposedly progressive activists went ahead and trampled on the long standing liberal consensus of Western society during the 2010s, often in the name of 'social justice'. Perhaps it felt good and righteous for some, to help 'de-platform' voices they deem hurtful to minorities. However, what these people didn't (and still don't) understand is that this erosion of liberal norms is bound to have future implications. Implications that are much uglier than having to put up with the occasional homophobic or transphobic speaker.

Indeed, today, the tables have turned, at least to some degree. The reactionary culture warriors are on the march, and the weakening of liberal values and norms has given them much more room to trample on minorities, including LGBT people. In Florida, Ron DeSantis has repeatedly used the power of the state to enforce his beliefs on everyone else, often to the detriment of the LGBT community. He has punished Disney, simply for speaking up against his controversial 'Don't Say Gay' law. His administration has also ended Medicaid coverage of trans related health care. Most concerningly, he has even indicated that he might send Child Protective Services after parents who take their kids to drag shows. Now, I personally don't think it's a good idea to take kids to drag shows, but to use government power to meddle with families for this is scarily authoritarian indeed. Even some conservatives and Republicans have voiced their concerns over this. In the current climate, many LGBT people and families living in states like Florida and Texas are seriously considering whether they might have to leave.

As you can see, the weakening of the liberal consensus has begun to really hurt LGBT people. I believe the only way to turn it around is to re-embrace and re-strengthen the liberal norms and values that were eroded during the last decade. We need to take a firm, fair and consistent stance for free speech, against cancel culture, and especially for freedom of conscience and the right to privacy. This must be applied to individuals, ideas and actions on the Left and the Right alike, in exactly the same manner, because liberal norms are only credible when they are truly unbiased, when they truly provide a 'level playing field' for all. Right now, on the Left, this would mean opposing cancel culture in all forms, and encouraging the return of respectful and rational debate as the norm. I've heard several people on the Left say that to be in the Left nowadays, you just have to accept its limitations on free speech. This kind of nonsense should be challenged every time we see it. On the Right, we need to be especially wary of those who justify an increasingly authoritarian program on anti-woke grounds. We need to firmly insist that woke excesses are to be dealt with using liberal means, rather than illiberal means. Our resistance against cancel culture on the Left would give us the credibility needed to argue against 'anti-woke' authoritarianism from the Right.

To consciously return to being committed to the classical liberal consensus, we also need to understand why that consensus was being eroded in the first place, so as to stop it from happening any more from now on. Much has been said about the illiberal ideology of the 2010s identitarian far-left, including where those ideas came from, and even what the ideology itself should be called. Much of the discourse has focused on the roots of this ideology in various philosophical traditions. However, what is most important is the core essence of this ideology, as reflected in its substantive goals. The fact is that this ideology essentially aims to 'deconstruct' all existing social norms, justified on grounds of liberation from power and oppression, and the various postmodern critical theories basically serve this purpose. I've argued that this focus on power, coercion and hierarchy, and the denial of the possibility of a liberal social contract to make society just, means that what we are dealing with is a form of anarchism. Anarchism has always been opposed to the liberal project on ideological grounds, and anarchists have long attempted to overturn liberal norms.

What we need to remember is that liberalism has been responsible for basically all the social progress of the West since the Enlightenment. The liberal dedication to individual liberty, equality and the objective truth has been essential in the fight against arbitrary power based on superstition, which is what is at the root of the religious right's opposition to LGBT equality. The anarchist wish to overturn liberal norms would lead to the return of the pre-Enlightenment dark ages, and empower the religious right's authoritarian tendencies. It must therefore be resisted tooth and nail by those who support LGBT rights.

 

A Conservative Liberal Approach to Social Progress? | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article Standing Your Ground and Being Fair in an Age of Polarization by TaraElla.

My views on most issues haven't changed much since 2003, the year I started college. It was at that time, with things like the Iraq War in the background, that I began to understand the importance of liberal values like free speech and freedom of conscience, and started being seriously committed to them. Since then, the political landscape of the Western world has shifted multiple times, but my core values have remained the same, and my views on most issues have remained largely the same. I guess, over the years, I also gained an appreciation of a certain strain of conservative philosophy. I became aware of the fact that people are naturally attached to what is familiar, and continuity is an important thing in life. This conservatism also informed the way my more progressive, reformist impulses pointed: back in 2012, then British Prime Minister David Cameron famously stated that 'I support gay marriage because I'm a conservative'. I think that quote sums up what the best kind of progress looks like: an emphasis on the continuation and refinement of tradition and commonly held values, while making society truly inclusive of everyone. I also came to see that approaching issues of social justice this way helps us to avoid going down paths where we could inadvertently make things worse.

What Free Speech and Classical Liberalism is About | TaraElla Clips

As I have previously said multiple times, the anti-woke movement has evolved to become a mirror image of the 'woke' movement, and thus inherited most of its problems. Two of the biggest problems with the woke movement are its inability to be committed to objective reality, and its deliberate use of exaggerated language to rile up people's emotions. These features stem from the postmodern view that language and discourse are about power. It is a rejection of the classical liberal premise that discourse should be about getting us closer to the objective truth. In recent years, some anti-woke activists have, by mirroring the most extreme forms of woke culture, effectively adopted the postmodernist view that discourse is about power, and the NatCon style of politics is the ultimate culmination of this view. Hence, from the (classical) liberal viewpoint, woke and anti-woke, cancel culture and NatCon politics, might be different, even opposite, in content, but they are very similar in essense.

The problem with this false 'choice' between woke vs anti-woke, criticalism vs NatCon-ism, is that they ultimately represent only one choice on the most important issue: whether you believe that discourse is about getting to the objective truth, or about power struggle. Whether you believe that the outcome of the competition of ideas should be determined by merit, or by might means right. The false 'choice' between woke and anti-woke leads to the obscuring of this question, and the default acceptance of the power struggle, might means right worldview. Therefore, those of us who are still dedicated to the view that discourse should be about the objective truth need to clearly take a stand on this most fundamental of issues, and call out those who essentially want to put an end to the Western Enlightenment.