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.
Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
Labels
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.
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.
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.
Daily Centrist: Why 'Conservatives' Like Candace Owens are Questionable
Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a centrist and moral libertarian viewpoint. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday I talk about the frustrations of a centrist trying to navigate the deeply divided political landscape we happen to live in right now. I believe we need something like this to break up the echo chambers, which are threatening the health of our free market of ideas. If you agree with me, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.
Who is Candace Owens? And Why Do People Question Her?
Candace Owens is one of the most controversial conservative commentators out there right now. It's not that her opinions are particularly controversial. They're often just mainstream conservative views. The controversy surrounding Owens is mainly around how she became a conservative, and how sincere she is in her views. You see, Owens used to be left-wing, and that was just about two or three years ago. She used to work with SJWs, and she used to dislike Donald Trump. Suddenly, she flipped to the other side of the political spectrum. Now, it's not that people can't change, it's just that when people change abruptly like that, others will logically question the transformation. This past week, with Owens appearing on Fox News to talk about the controversial anonymous New York Times article, The Majority Report and The Young Turks both turned their attention back to Owens. And it was just fair. I mean, if Owens can question the lack of transparency around the New York Times article, why can't others question the lack of transparency around her sudden political change and subsequent rise to fame?
It's Not About Her Politics. It's About Keeping People Honest.
And let's not make it about the conservative views she espouses nowadays, or the direction of her political shift. I'm only interested in keeping people honest, especially influential people. I mean, some conservatives have welcomed her wholeheartedly, because they want to believe it as a win for their side. But accepting her story so easily, and even letting her be a spokesperson for conservatism, I mean, this is conservatives letting a supposed culture war victory blind their judgement in my opinion. Again, I'm not saying that Owens's conversion isn't real, I'm saying that there needs to be more transparency, she needs to demonstrate her change of heart in a more convincing way, before we can truly believe her. It's not that the other side would be better either: I'm sure if Ben Shapiro or Ann Coulter announced overnight that they were defecting to the left, the left would embrace them just as unquestioningly. The culture wars blind both sides. This is why, in this political climate, cool-headed centrists are needed like never before.
The truth is, our current political climate encourages people to be dishonest about their politics. Just last week, a popular conservative commentator on YouTube released a video talking about her experiences with dishonest political commentators, influential people who were being dishonest about their political opinions for their personal gain. Now, this kind of behaviour impairs our free market of ideas, and endangers liberty and democracy itself. People are right to be especially vigilant about fake commentators in this climate. Therefore, people are right to question the likes of Candace Owens. If she wants to be taken seriously, perhaps she should give a bit more transparency to her story of conversion. Until that happens, I encourage the media, both mainstream and independent, to continue to press on about their concerns regarding her politics. Again, it's not that I think she's insincere, it's just that I don't even know what to think, because I don't know enough. The point is, we need more transparency, especially in a world where fake people are everywhere.
That's all for today. I'll be back with more Centrist commentary and drama in three days' time. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.
Daily Moral Libertarian: Jordan Peterson and 'Postmodern neo-Marxism'
NOTE: I no longer support using the term 'neo-Marxism' to describe this ideology. For my latest thoughts on why criticalism isn't Marxism, see this 2021 post.
Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a centrist and moral libertarian viewpoint. Every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday I discuss a recent social or political issue from the moral libertarian viewpoint. I wish to build a sphere of conversation around our ideas, and to increase the dismal classical liberal representation. If freedom-centered, non-echo chamber commentary is your thing, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.
The Moral Libertarian Ideal: Equal Moral Agency for Every Individual.
Dr Jordan Peterson is known for his commentary on what he calls Postmodern neo-Marxism. Many people familiar with leftist theory have commented that the two concepts cannot be combined into one, because Marxism has a grand narrative of history and postmodernism rejects it. Ever since popular YouTuber ContraPoints illustrated this point in a video that has since gone viral a few months ago, there has been even more discussion of this subject. So who is right? We'll have a rational look at it. And since this show is all about classical liberalism, another thing we'll be looking at is, is what Peterson calls postmodern neo-Marxism threatening to classical liberal values, and if it is, how should we respond to it?
Marxism has a Grand Narrative of History.
Postmodernism does not.
Can the two still go together? Yes.
If we look at it from a factual point of view, what ContraPoints said appears to be correct. It is a fact that Marxism has a grand narrative of history and postmodernism rejects all such narratives. Contra also made the observation that Peterson appears to have overlooked the range of different positions existing on the left. Again, this appears to be correct, at least to an extent. However, the fact also remains that many of us know exactly what Peterson is talking about when he says Postmodern Neo-Marxism. Therefore, even if the words used are not 100% technically correct, they do refer to something concrete. And even some people familiar with left have agreed with Peterson that the modern far-left is full of both postmodern and Marxist influences. This is possible because they reject certainty in the grand narrative of Marx, but use his worldview of class oppression and class struggle, as well as his view of dialectical materialism, as tools of analysis, alongside more postmodern tools of analysis provided by figures like Derrida and Foucault. This allows them to, for example, combine a Foucaldian analysis of power relationships in society with the Marxist view of culture being rooted in material conditions, and the need for class struggle. This also allows them to mix and match other thinkers as well, for example, the idea of cultural hegemony that comes from Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci, and ideas from schools of radical feminism that are deeply influenced by postmodernism, creating a concept of hegemonic patriarchy that oppresses women. Furthermore, many of these syncretic ideas of the New Left are deeply influenced by Critical Theory, which was invented by Marxist thinkers in the Frankfurt School.
Now, all this remains a loosely organised network of ideas, still without a clear label, but with a clear demographic where it has strong support, and therefore a rising level of influence in our politics and culture. Therefore, it can and should now be considered its own broad school of thought, independent of both classical Marxism and classical postmodernism. As you see, when ideas from a school of thought need to be discussed, we need a label for it. The more traditional label for this school of thought was 'Cultural Marxism', but as this has certain negative connotations, some have been looking for a new term, and Peterson's 'Postmodern neo-Marxism' seems to work for many. To avoid the controversy, I usually just use 'neo-Marxism'. I guess that term is still open to the attack that this new school of thought is not actually Marxism. Therefore, maybe the best word for it is 'neo-socialism'. I will stick with neo-Marxism for now, because that's what people understand.
Is Neo-Marxism Against our Liberal Values?
Unfortunately, yes.
We must have a Good Answer to it.
As a classical liberal, and in particular, as a moral libertarian, what I am concerned about neo-Marxism is that it appears to be a systematic attempt to invalidate, discredit and turn people away from classical liberal values, using theories derived from radical thinkers. The emphasis on systems of oppression being everywhere, which I believe comes from a combination of the Marxist idea of class oppression and Focauldian power dynamics, perhaps with some radical feminism thrown in there, is a clear attempt at discrediting the individualistic focus of classical liberalism. It attempts to show us that, the premesis of classical liberalism, individual-level equality, is untenable, because there will still be some inequality in some way. And because we can't disprove what they say, classical liberal values will fall in an academic debate, especially one where utilitarianism is the yardstick.
To this, my answer is that, yes, there's a grain of truth in what the neo-Marxist say. There's always a grain of truth in any idea that has some support, and to deny this is usually not fruitful. Life is suffering, the world is imperfect, and whatever system we have, there will always be some form of inequality. To emphasize one form of equality is perhaps to sacrifice equality in another domain. Classical liberalism emphasizes one form of equality, neo-Marxism perhaps emphasizes other forms. So what form of equality does classical liberalism emphasize? To answer this question, we must look at the roots of classical liberalism. Liberalism arose because there was a need for religious toleration, freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is thus the foundation liberalism is built on. Of course, in the modern world, there are many non-religious people, and many people's consciences aren't as tied to religion nowadays. Therefore, this principle needs to be expanded so that it can apply to the modern world.
The Moral Libertarian Ideal: Equal Moral Agency for Every Individual.
The classical liberal demand for equality is one of equality of consciences. It exists on the moral level, the highest level of humanity. From what I can see, the neo-Marxist demand for equality is one of group-based standing, that is, every group in society should have the same outcomes. This is focussing on lower level equality at the expense of higher level equality in my opinion. It is also focussing on class-level equality at the expense of individual-level equality. There is a clear incompatiblity of worldviews here, and I can't help but stand for what I believe to be a superior way. May the best ideas win in the free market of ideas.
That's all for today. I'll be back with more moral libertarian commentary in two days' time. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.
Daily Centrist: Who is Faking Their Politics? Probably More People Than You Think.
Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a centrist and moral libertarian viewpoint. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday I talk about the frustrations of a centrist trying to navigate the deeply divided political landscape we happen to live in right now. I believe we need something like this to break up the echo chambers, which are threatening the health of our free market of ideas. If you agree with me, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.
Last week, a popular conservative commentator on YouTube said in her video that she knows of certain people who are being quite dishonest about their political opinions, because of financial incentives, or because they just say what their fans want. Some examples of very unacceptable behaviour were given in the video. People suddenly switching sides in their politics, likely because they were chasing the money, rather than because of a genuine change of heart. Fake opinions against LGBT people from someone who didn't actually believe what they were telling their fans. And even network news asking people to take a certain stance on their show, as well as to say certain things. In short, people were dishonest because they could benefit from it. The person making the video refused to name names, but in the comments section, speculation was all around, especially about famous centrist and conservative commentators who may be fake. Big names like Milo Yiannopoulos, Dave Rubin, Steve Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens and many more were thrown into the speculation. Well, I'm pretty sure that Ben Shapiro is a real conservative seeing his long track record, the others I can't really comment on because they haven't been around long enough. It could be the case that none of these people are fake, but many more out there are.
So, who is FAKE? We'll probably never know. But it's the bigger picture that matters.
Anyway, from a realistic perspective, I'm too old to be surprised by any of that anymore. However, from the perspective of concerned citizens who demand a healthy democracy, all of this is rather worrying. A healthy democracy can only arise from a functional free market of ideas, and when you have people, very influential people, faking their opinions, and fanning non-existent culture wars, there really can't be anything close to a healthy democracy. In fact, playing to your fanbase, playing to the echo chamber, this is the kind of behaviour that has caused our dangerous polarization of politics. And why do people do it? Because there is money in it. While this time the focus has been on conservatives, I'm sure the left has similar problems too. Because, hey, the incentives to be dishonest exist on the other side too.
In fact, as long as we have political echo chambers, we can't avoid this madness. As long as people wish to listen to somebody who preaches to the choir, this will continue to happen. The only way to change this is to change how people think about politics. And there is a glimmer of hope. Increasingly, I'm seeing people who say they don't want to hear the same things over and over from the echo chambers anymore. I'm seeing people who say they want to hear genuine and original thoughts. And this is what people like myself, independent commentators who don't belong to the echo chamber, provide. Sadly, we generally don't have much financial backing either, and we often get drowned out by the big money that creates the echo chambers. What people need to remember is this: commentators who play within the echo chambers often do so for personal gain. But when they gain, democracy loses, and the rest of us lose. Keep this in mind, because it will turn you off echo chamber politics forever. It will red pill you to the point of no return. And the more people get red pilled this way, the better, because this means the echo chambers will lose their popularity. Of course, many lucrative careers will be put on the line too, but who cares? People who profit from the destruction of democracy deserve their career ruin once people wake up.
We can consciously reject echo chamber politics, and the self-interested liars who play the game. We can consciously reject the people who fan the flames of fake culture wars to divide us, while they make a profit. We can reject it all. And for the sake of our democracy, for the sake of liberty itself, we must.
That's all for today. I'll be back with more Centrist commentary and drama in two days' time. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.
Daily Moral Libertarian: Tomi Lahren Cool Conservatism vs Cooler Free Speech
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a moral libertarian viewpoint. What I am trying to do is to take a stand for this particular brand of principled classical liberalism, to help build a sphere of conversation around our ideas, and to hopefully increase the currently dismal classical liberal representation in a world otherwise too full of identity politics and fake news. By the way, I talk about a new issue every weekday, so if truly freedom-centered, non-echo chamber political commentary is your thing, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.
The Moral Libertarian Ideal: Equal Moral Agency for Every Individual.
In recent years, conservatives have been trying to make their movement sound cool and countercultural. Or rather, sound cool because it's countercultural. And to an extent, they do have a point. To be conservative is to be non-conformist among young people nowadays, and to be a conservative on college campuses is almost like breaking a taboo. And that's sort of brave. Last week, Fox News's Tomi Lahren drew on this theme, urging conservatives to speak out, in a pitch that strongly references free speech and being unafraid to be controversial. Also, in the same week there was this video from Michael Knowles at The Daily Wire, titled 'How Did I Become A Conservative'. In the video, Knowles pointed out that being conservative is contrarian, and of course, being a contrarian is cool.
But is being a conservative the most contrarian, the most non-conformist, and hence the coolest thing around? I doubt it. I mean, it's more non-conformist than being a lefty, but it's still conformist. To what extent is conservatism conformist? You only need to watch some Fox News, or follow some right-leaning YouTube channels, to know that they generally have a similar viewpoint. To express any sympathy to any left-leaning viewpoint would be seen as heresy in conservative circles. In fact, the conformism in conservative circles is not that different to leftist conformism, except for the fact that conservatives run against the dominant positions in the wider world. In other words, conservatives are still conformist, but slightly less so than leftists. So while they may be slightly cooler than leftists, they are not completely cool yet.
Conservative Free Speech is 50% Cool
Moral Libertarian Free Speech is 100% Cool
So what's completely non-conformist, and therefore completely cool? It would have to be moral libertarianism, with its focus on equal moral agency for all individuals, on an individual-by-individual, issue-by-issue level. Why? We support every individual having the freedom to make up their mind and speak their mind on every issue, without social pressure from the tribe. While conservative free speech focuses on the ability of conservatives to speak out on left-leaning college campuses, moral libertarian free speech includes not only that, but also the ability of conservatives to speak in support of unconventional ideas in conservative circles, and lefties to speak in support of conservative ideas in leftist circles alike. I mean, Tomi Lahren should at least understand the importance of this, having gotten into trouble with some conservative circles for her views.
Leftists Grow Up to be Conservatives?
Conservatives Grow Up to be Moral Libertarians!
In his video, Michael Knowles pointed out that there is this idea that when you don't know anything you are Republican; if you learn a bit you become Democrat; if you learn more you become Republican again. And he himself did go through a leftist phase in his youth, before turning rightwards. But then, how can he be sure that, if you learn more, you won't change again? I personally experienced many shifts in my politics in all sorts of unexpected directions through learning more and more. Therefore, I would argue that, if you have learned enough, you should become a moral libertarian just by looking back at your own history and realizing how wrong you were at every stage in the past. You realize that, no camp is correct all the time or even most of the time, and that is the very justification for demanding equal moral agency for every individual. The fact is, if you pick a camp, you are forced to stay there, and it stunts your growth. By being a moral libertarian, we allow ourselves to learn more, and grow accordingly.
That's all for today. I'll be back with more moral libertarian commentary tomorrow. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.
Daily Moral Libertarian: Tribalism in Conservative and Anti-SJW Politics
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a moral libertarian viewpoint. What I am trying to do is to take a stand for this particular brand of principled classical liberalism, to help build a sphere of conversation around our ideas, and to hopefully increase the currently dismal classical liberal representation in a world otherwise too full of identity politics and fake news. By the way, I talk about a new issue every weekday, so if truly freedom-centered, non-echo chamber political commentary is your thing, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.
The Moral Libertarian Ideal: Equal Moral Agency for Every Individual.
Today, I want to respond to two recent videos by Theryn Meyer, one of my favourite political commentators, although I get an impression that she may not do much political commentary anymore. I think her journey through our fractured political landscape holds an important lesson for everyone interested in politics, especially for us committed moral libertarians. The Moral Libertarian Ideal is that there should be Equal Moral Agency for every individual. Every individual should be able to live out their sincerely held moral views, on an equal basis with every other individual. Part of living out one's moral conviction is of course the ability to promote your beliefs in the free market of ideas, and everyone needs to be able to participate in a fair and square way. We should especially make sure that this applies to individuals that don't neatly fit into the established tribes of politics. Now, Theryn certainly doesn't fit in the established tribes, and I think her rise and fall so far is an important lesson for us all.
For those of you who don't know who Theryn is, she first came to prominence as one of the few LGBT supporters of Donald Trump, and is also known for having held an interesting discussion with Dr Jordan Peterson that was widely talked about. Now, I like Theryn because she is a political rebel. When we first knew her, she was the trans conservative, in a political landscape where the LGBT community was increasingly moving left. She was also a supporter of the men's rights movement, in an era where the LGBT community was all about intersectional feminism. The fact that intersectional feminism ignored her showed us how they didn't really want to hear minority voices per se, but just leftist minority voices. Later on, she gave a few hints that she was perhaps not entirely right wing, that she held some left wing beliefs too. Early this year, she made a video apologizing to gender non-binary individuals, outlining her change of mind on this issue. She received strong negative reactions from some of her former fans. She stopped making videos afterwards, and only returned to YouTube in the last two weeks.
Theryn's Difficult Journey is Our Collective Shame
In her latest videos, Theryn tells us that she is not a naturally conservative person. And if you saw the videos, you would get that impression too. From what I have observed, Theryn just happened to gain a huge conservative following because she said some conservative and anti-SJW things. From there, she found herself being forced to feed the appetite of the conservative echo chamber. Later on, when she tried to break free and speak her mind, she received a backlash so severe that it forced her to retreat from making any more videos for a while. And even now, I get the feeling that she isn't too keen to speak about politics anymore. You know, I know this feeling, because I actually went through something similar, except in the opposite direction. Back when I was in college, I was on the left, but one day I alienated many leftists by daring to discuss issues around abortion and divorce. For the next few years, I retreated to writing about my political opinions in my own blog, and instead mainly focused on commenting on Hollywood celebrities. I fully regret my retreat, but that's what people do, especially when they are in their early twenties and they don't know how to handle the backlash of the echo chamber.
Free Speech is Useless when you have an Echo Chamber Culture
Viewers of this show would know that I am almost obsessive about free speech. You all know that I regularly oppose the far-left on their attempts to no-platform people or introduce safe speech rules. But what's the use of having free speech when the world is divided into echo chambers, when people are socially pressured to toe certain party lines, be they left or right? As a Moral Libertarian, I support everyone being able to speak their minds equally because we are all inevitably wrong sometimes, and to allow anyone to dominate over another means we allow the wrong to shut up the right at least some of the time. This applies where there is an actual absence of free speech, but it also applies where there is an inability to speak one's moral conscience because of social pressure. In other words, an echo chamber culture allows the objective truth to be shut up by falsehoods, at least part of the time. Hence, echo chambers are immoral. Hence, I am committed to the dismantling of all echo chambers.
Of course, in our deeply divided political landscape today, to even challenge the echo chamber is difficult. Theryn found out the hard way. And it is unrewarding too. In our media landscape today, it is easy to rise to prominence if you always say what your intended audience wants to hear. It is easy to make lots of money that way. As for people like myself, who refuse to go along? You see what level of 'reward' somebody like myself gets. But anyway, I will stick to what I am doing, because I think the world needs it. Echo chambers have to die, and somebody needs to make it happen. If not me, then who else?
That's all for today. I'll be back with more moral libertarian commentary tomorrow. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.
Daily Centrist: The Majority Report, Jordan Peterson the 'Right Wing Pundit', and Theryn Meyer
Welcome to the reborn Daily Centrist on TaraElla news. While I rebranded the main TaraElla news daily program to Daily Moral Libertarian as of last week, I have decided to revive the Daily Centrist name for something new: a daily segment looking at the frustrations of a centrist trying to navigate the deeply divided political landscape we happen to live in right now. I believe we need something like this to break up the echo chambers, which are threatening the health of our free market of ideas.
Recently, YouTube channel The Majority Report made another episode about how much they dislike Dr Jordan Peterson, titled 'Jordan Peterson's Right Wing Politics Will Sneak Up On You'. You know, the left has been going on and on about how Peterson is supposedly a deeply reactionary hard right wing person, without much evidence to back it up. And in this episode, I didn't find anything new either, aside from the annoying and offensive impersonation of the way Peterson speaks. And no, that was not funny at all. They may like to say how Peterson is 'just a right wing pundit', but rational thinking people like ourselves are still not convinced, because, hey, we need to have some evidence. Now, don't get me wrong, I am no blind Peterson fan, and I actually wrote a critique about Peterson back in April, pointing out areas where his beliefs are more conservative than liberal. Still, this doesn't mean he's hard right or reactionary. Besides, he is the biggest champion of some classical liberal ideals today, and that's why many liberals love him. Again, I don't ask that people agree with Peterson. I just ask them that they be fair to Peterson, so we can all have a constructive discussion about his ideas.
Predictably, the comments section for that video was full of accusations of Peterson being transphobic. Again, there is no evidence for this. His opposition to Canadian Bill C-16 was based on his fears for free speech, nothing else. Besides, he actually held a respectful and interesting conversation with trans woman Theryn Meyer in 2016. Which brings me onto my next topic. Theryn Meyer, who also is the subject of today's episode of Daily Moral Libertarian, recently returned to making videos after a seven month absence from YouTube. Once known as the trans conservative who supported Donald Trump, she says she is not conservative anymore in her latest videos. Anyway, she's always been sort of political non-conformist, and I like that. In this day and age of tribal politics, we need more political non-conformists to break up the echo chambers. Sadly, she hasn't had an easy time being an independent thinker. In today's episode of Daily Moral Libertarian, I explore her journey through the minefield of the YouTube political scene, and discuss the lessons we can all learn from her experience.
That's all for today. I'll be back with more Centrist commentary and drama tomorrow. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.
Daily Moral Libertarian: On President Donald Trump vs Google, Facebook, CNN and NBC
NOTE: I don't agree with much of Alex Jones's views. But this is solely about free speech and censorship.
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a moral libertarian viewpoint. What I am trying to do is to take a stand for this particular brand of principled classical liberalism, to help build a sphere of conversation around our ideas, and to hopefully increase the currently dismal classical liberal representation in a world otherwise too full of identity politics and fake news. By the way, I talk about a new issue every weekday, so if freedom-centered political commentary is your thing, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.
The Moral Libertarian Ideal: Equal Moral Agency for Every Individual.
The Moral Libertarian Ideal is that there should be Equal Moral Agency for every individual. Every individual should be able to live out their sincerely held moral views, on an equal basis with every other individual. There is also no exception for governments and elites, so there is no excuse for top-down social engineering. Now, from this perspective, let's look at the ongoing war between President Donald Trump, internet giants like Google, Twitter and Facebook, and left-leaning mainstream media outlets like CNN and NBC.
In recent days, perhaps since the banning of Alex Jones from multiple social media platforms, President Trump has been putting the pressure on internet giants like Google, Twitter and Facebook to uphold free speech, and to cease what he and many of us see as ideological censorship. Viewers of this show will know that I have been 100% behind Trump on this issue, even as I have had plenty of disagreements with him in the past. From a moral libertarian viewpoint, free speech and a working free market of ideas are indispensable for several reasons. Firstly, part of living out one's sincerely held moral views is to be able to promote them in the free market of ideas. Secondly, if every individual is to have equal moral agency, then there certainly shouldn't be some individual who gets to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't, which is what censorship is. Thirdly, the reason why we uphold equal moral agency is because we recognise that everyone is wrong at least some of the time. Therefore, our ideas need to be corrected and refined in the free market of ideas, so that they can become more correct. Now, this process needs to be unbiased and unrestricted to work properly.
In society, where we see something that's going wrong, it's our moral responsibility to speak out. And that's what President Trump was doing. So good on him for having done that. But now, the issue appears to be headed into a more problematic territory.
Skepticism of Government Intervention is in our DNA
With President Trump escalating his rhetoric over recent weeks, there is now speculation that the Trump administration may like to do something about the situation, using whatever power it has. Now, this idea has actually been brewing in many circles for a while. About two week ago, Sargon of Akkad released a video outlining his support for the government regulating social media, to controversial reception. I made a response video saying that I don't agree, because that would be supporting government intervention into ideological matters and essentially giving up on the free market. I also pointed out that administrations come and go, and one day you may regret giving the government this kind of power, because it would be used by an administration whose worldview you don't agree with. For example, I certainly wouldn't want a Jeremy Corbyn administration having any power to regulate social media.
Also, let's revisit the moral libertarian case against censorship. It rests on the fact that nobody should have the right to intervene as to what can be said, and what cannot. This is in recognition that, as human beings, we are all equally capable of being wrong. Now, I would argue that there should be no exception for the government, as they are just made up of human beings like you and me. Governments shouldn't be able to dictate the content provided by private platforms, even if their intentions are sincere. Of course, internet giants practising censorship is a major concern. But the proper way to get private corporations to change is by mechanisms of the free market. And to do that, we need to focus on winning the wider culture war on free speech. I don't feel like making this a government political issue, a political football, is going to help.
Applying John Rawls and The Veil of Ignorance
Political thinker John Rawls is perhaps most famous for his Veil of Ignorance. He believed that, if we are to make a fair decision regarding any issue, we must pretend that we do not know where our position in society is. For example, that we don't know what race we are, or what gender we are. Now, I would argue that we can apply this principle to any move to give the government more power, in that we should pretend we don't know whether the government in power is one we support or not. Now, many people on the right are, in my opinion, failing this test. We have the recent poll in which 43% of Republicans agreed that the President should be able to shut down misbehaving media outlets. We have people cheering for President Trump to take a more intrusive role in regulating our markets of ideas. Now, I believe most of them would have taken a very different stance to government regulation during the Obama administration. A recent piece in the New York Times said that the right are effectively arguing for their own form of affirmative action. And unfortunately, I have to agree here. This is a total meltdown of principles, I have to say.
Of course, this does not represent everyone on the right. Fox News analyst Howard Kurtz is one of the more principled people still standing. And he recently criticised President Trump for his remarks that the executives of CNN and NBC should be fired. Now, Kurtz has always supported Trump firing back at media outlets that have been unfair to him. But using the bully pulpit to suggest that private executives be fired is crossing the line, and as Kurtz pointed out, something Obama never did. If it's not OK for Obama, it's not OK for Trump, and it's not OK for anyone else.
That's all for today. I'll be back with more moral libertarian commentary tomorrow. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.
Moral Libertarians should Fight Political Correctness from both Left and Right
Many people say they hate political correctness. Of course, moral libertarians naturally hate political correctness too. The principle of equal moral agency requires that everyone be able to express and promote their moral views, which means that free speech is needed. Furthermore, we believe in the free market of ideas, which requires a lack of impediment to free speech to function properly.
Among people who say they hate political correctness, however, many fail to oppose all forms of political correctness, or worse, fail to even recognize all forms of political correctness. For example, in last year's Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, the 'no' camp said that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples was political correctness. But was that really true? After all, same-sex couples already lived in committed relationships recognised by society, and often had legally unrecognised wedding ceremonies. Same-sex couples already lived in marriage-like relationships, and their relationships were generally regarded across Australian society as not different in nature from heterosexual marriages, as evidenced by the landslide victory of the 'yes' camp. Hence the idea of marriage being a relationship between two people regardless of gender was already de-facto correct, it just wasn't legally correct, i.e. politically correct. Amending the law would bring legal and political correctness in line with the reality. Conversely, the idea that marriage could only be between a man and a woman had already become only politically correct, because it did not line up with lived reality in Australian society anymore. Hence, the 'no' camp was the politically correct camp, hoping to maintain a standard of political correctness that deviated from reality. As you can see, conservatives are not free from political correctness either, they are just blind to it: so blind that they often accuse the other camp of being politically correct instead.
In fact, the left is also responsible for some of the right's attitude that political correctness is whatever they don't like. A substantial part of the left have bought the idea that political correctness is who they are, so much that when former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders blamed Donald Trump's victory on political correctness, the comment were controversial within the left. In this case, the political correctness Sanders was referring to surrounded the lack of criticism of pro-corporate policy in mainstream media and politics, something both socialists and libertarians alike have been complaining about for quite a long time. Therefore, there was no reason why the left would disagree with him here. In fact, the left didn't disagree with Sanders at all, they were just not used to describing their opponents as politically correct. But Sanders was clearly correct here. Mainstream politics had presumed a 'correct' point of view and failed to represent other points of view, and this is political correctness by definition.
Having discussed two examples of right-wing political correctness, I believe I need to provide some balance here. Of course, the left is not without problems of political correctness either, to put it mildly. In recent years, the left has indeed taken leftist political correctness to new heights, with concepts like no-platforming and safe speech. Politically incorrect speech is now deemed unsafe, and must be no-platformed, i.e completely disallowed. This attitude, formerly believed only to exist in fascist dictatorships, is invading progressive circles at a worrying pace. Reviving the free speech culture and upholding the free market of ideas has arguably become our most urgent imperative, as moral libertarians. As a former US president liked to say, freedom is never more than two generations from extinction.
In conclusion, political correctness comes from both the left and the right, and perhaps even other directions too. To oppose political correctness sincerely is to oppose all forms of political correctness consistently. We cannot allow being against political correctness to become just a brand politicians use to attack opponents, or a slogan the right use to attack the left.
Among people who say they hate political correctness, however, many fail to oppose all forms of political correctness, or worse, fail to even recognize all forms of political correctness. For example, in last year's Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, the 'no' camp said that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples was political correctness. But was that really true? After all, same-sex couples already lived in committed relationships recognised by society, and often had legally unrecognised wedding ceremonies. Same-sex couples already lived in marriage-like relationships, and their relationships were generally regarded across Australian society as not different in nature from heterosexual marriages, as evidenced by the landslide victory of the 'yes' camp. Hence the idea of marriage being a relationship between two people regardless of gender was already de-facto correct, it just wasn't legally correct, i.e. politically correct. Amending the law would bring legal and political correctness in line with the reality. Conversely, the idea that marriage could only be between a man and a woman had already become only politically correct, because it did not line up with lived reality in Australian society anymore. Hence, the 'no' camp was the politically correct camp, hoping to maintain a standard of political correctness that deviated from reality. As you can see, conservatives are not free from political correctness either, they are just blind to it: so blind that they often accuse the other camp of being politically correct instead.
In fact, the left is also responsible for some of the right's attitude that political correctness is whatever they don't like. A substantial part of the left have bought the idea that political correctness is who they are, so much that when former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders blamed Donald Trump's victory on political correctness, the comment were controversial within the left. In this case, the political correctness Sanders was referring to surrounded the lack of criticism of pro-corporate policy in mainstream media and politics, something both socialists and libertarians alike have been complaining about for quite a long time. Therefore, there was no reason why the left would disagree with him here. In fact, the left didn't disagree with Sanders at all, they were just not used to describing their opponents as politically correct. But Sanders was clearly correct here. Mainstream politics had presumed a 'correct' point of view and failed to represent other points of view, and this is political correctness by definition.
Having discussed two examples of right-wing political correctness, I believe I need to provide some balance here. Of course, the left is not without problems of political correctness either, to put it mildly. In recent years, the left has indeed taken leftist political correctness to new heights, with concepts like no-platforming and safe speech. Politically incorrect speech is now deemed unsafe, and must be no-platformed, i.e completely disallowed. This attitude, formerly believed only to exist in fascist dictatorships, is invading progressive circles at a worrying pace. Reviving the free speech culture and upholding the free market of ideas has arguably become our most urgent imperative, as moral libertarians. As a former US president liked to say, freedom is never more than two generations from extinction.
In conclusion, political correctness comes from both the left and the right, and perhaps even other directions too. To oppose political correctness sincerely is to oppose all forms of political correctness consistently. We cannot allow being against political correctness to become just a brand politicians use to attack opponents, or a slogan the right use to attack the left.
Moral Libertarian Perspective: Power, Oppression and Liberation
Political philosophers throughout history have pondered questions of power, oppression, and how to liberate people from oppression. In recent years, such topics have also entered mainstream consciousness in an unprecendented way. There's one thing everyone can agree on: wherever there is power, there is great potential for oppression. And as Focault and many other philosophers have noted, power and power dynamics are to be found everywhere in life. Therefore, oppression is potentially everywhere. However, just how to liberate people from oppression is still one thing that we cannot find consensus on yet.
I believe the moral libertarian principle of equal moral agency should be central to any sincere attempt to liberate everyone from oppression. Under the principle of equal moral agency, nobody can have power over anybody, and hence there is no oppression. In other words, as long as we strive to achieve the principle of equal moral agency, we will be heading in the right direction to liberate everyone from oppression.
It is also therefore, the more we care about liberating everyone from oppression, the more we must oppose everything that runs contrary to the principle of equal moral agency. To this end, we must oppose all government policy deciding top-down for everyone that certain citizens shall be second class and afforded less rights, for example laws against the religious freedom of certain religious groups, or laws against the equal rights of LGBT individuals. We must also oppose structures that allow some people to control what others can say (or even preventing them from speaking up in the first place), like so-called safe speech and the so-called progressive stack. For those who believe in true liberation from oppression, there are should be no excuses for refusing to uphold the principle of equal moral agency.
Some conservatives may argue that certain 'traditional' policies are needed to uphold tradition, or to stop what they consider to be the left's 'long march through the institutions'. However, they clearly have too little faith in the free will and moral compass of the many individuals that exist in every society. Would they just sit there and allow a 'long march through the institutions' to occur? In fact, if somebody wanted to initiate such a 'long march', they would most likely start with the government, and then use government power to forcibly change every other institution. Weakening the ability of governments to define societies certainly prevents this approach.
On the other hand, some progressives argue that we need to give certain groups priority to speak up, and remove the ability of other groups to have a voice, to achieve equality. This view not only doesn't respect individuals as individuals rather than just members of groups, this view is also deeply misguided from a power and liberation perspective. Because such arbitrary systems by definition require policing by certain individuals, they effectively help create a power differential, and hence great potential for oppression. Some may think that this temporary inequality will help end oppression, but this idea has never worked in history. Rather, it just changes the oppressors to people who happen to identify as 'progressives'.
In conclusion, sticking to the principle of equal moral agency is the only way we can head in the right direction to end all power dynamics and oppression. Anything else is simply 'some are more equal than others', and will inevitably create dynamics of power and oppression.
I believe the moral libertarian principle of equal moral agency should be central to any sincere attempt to liberate everyone from oppression. Under the principle of equal moral agency, nobody can have power over anybody, and hence there is no oppression. In other words, as long as we strive to achieve the principle of equal moral agency, we will be heading in the right direction to liberate everyone from oppression.
It is also therefore, the more we care about liberating everyone from oppression, the more we must oppose everything that runs contrary to the principle of equal moral agency. To this end, we must oppose all government policy deciding top-down for everyone that certain citizens shall be second class and afforded less rights, for example laws against the religious freedom of certain religious groups, or laws against the equal rights of LGBT individuals. We must also oppose structures that allow some people to control what others can say (or even preventing them from speaking up in the first place), like so-called safe speech and the so-called progressive stack. For those who believe in true liberation from oppression, there are should be no excuses for refusing to uphold the principle of equal moral agency.
Some conservatives may argue that certain 'traditional' policies are needed to uphold tradition, or to stop what they consider to be the left's 'long march through the institutions'. However, they clearly have too little faith in the free will and moral compass of the many individuals that exist in every society. Would they just sit there and allow a 'long march through the institutions' to occur? In fact, if somebody wanted to initiate such a 'long march', they would most likely start with the government, and then use government power to forcibly change every other institution. Weakening the ability of governments to define societies certainly prevents this approach.
On the other hand, some progressives argue that we need to give certain groups priority to speak up, and remove the ability of other groups to have a voice, to achieve equality. This view not only doesn't respect individuals as individuals rather than just members of groups, this view is also deeply misguided from a power and liberation perspective. Because such arbitrary systems by definition require policing by certain individuals, they effectively help create a power differential, and hence great potential for oppression. Some may think that this temporary inequality will help end oppression, but this idea has never worked in history. Rather, it just changes the oppressors to people who happen to identify as 'progressives'.
In conclusion, sticking to the principle of equal moral agency is the only way we can head in the right direction to end all power dynamics and oppression. Anything else is simply 'some are more equal than others', and will inevitably create dynamics of power and oppression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
With the Trump administration embroiled in the unpopular Iran War, several online influencers known for peddling extremely distasteful antis...
-
People have long been saying that ethnic enclaves are a bad thing for society. As someone who likes controversy and debate, let me put my ow...
-
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...
