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.

Taking a Stance Against Woke vs Anti-Woke Accelerationism | Post Woke

The fundamentals of the Western Enlightenment is at stake here.

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.

Today, I want to talk about what I think is the biggest threat to Western society right now: woke vs anti-woke accelerationism. Let's start by talking about the third National Conservatism Conference ("NatCon III"), which has been in the news recently. The NatCon conference is home to a particular strand of conservatism, that is most known for embracing the power of governments to fight the culture wars. This strand of conservatism is clearly different from the old-school conservatism of people like Reagan and Thatcher, and is probably better thought of as the radical wing of the anti-woke movement.

Let's look at what the NatCon people believe. "The institutional left does not intend to leave anything of the old republic behind for us to salvage. Constitutionalism, scientific inquiry, individual liberty, civil society, voluntarism, patriotism, parental authority, free expression, free enterprise, religious pluralism, cultural diversity - they are coming for everything. So national conservatism must come for them," declared Rachel Bovard, who was speaking at the conference. This quote is notable because it demonstrates what NatCon-style thinking is justified upon: a vague picture that 'the enemy' is out to destroy everything, and hence we are in a state of emergency, which would require extraordinary, illiberal measures to combat.

I actually agree that there are strands of left-wing thinking that is exactly like Bovard described. I have previously said that the logical conclusion of postmodern critical theory is that everything we know and cherish is a social construct that serves the interests of the oppressors by holding the oppressed down, and hence it all needs to be deconstructed. I also agree with the more general concern that the postmodern critical theory wing of the Left seems to have the misguided belief that an unlimited 'liberation' from the constrains of reality as we know it is possible or desirable. I believe this is partially rooted in the pseudo-Freudian philosophy of Herbert Marcuse, which has no basis in objective reality. As I often say, what we have now is the result of centuries or trial and error, and we will certainly not be able to get anything as good by knocking it all down and rebuilding everything from scratch.

However, the problem with the NatCon-style approach is that they conflate everything on 'the left', used in a broad sense, with the aforementioned extreme radical views. Hence, in their view, mainstream center-left politicians, political parties, media and organizations are all out to achieve that radical vision, and are hence all dangerous. This view flies in the face of objective reality, and also leaves no room for rational and respectful debate.  After all, if you see those who you disagree with as not merely sincerely misguided, but actively being a threat to civilization, there is much less reason to treat them with fairness and respect, and more reason to defeat them at all costs. Similar has been said about so-called 'woke' activists in the past, who saw their opponents as evil oppressors working to uphold an oppressive system. In both cases, their worldviews leave them with no reason to allow free speech and due process for their opponents.

Hence, the most extreme 'woke' activists often resort to using cultural and institutional power to suppress their opponents, and now NatCons want to use government power to suppress them. If the NatCons win power and start putting their ideas into practice, it will end up making the postmodern critical theory approach to politics look much more justified and necessary to progressives. This will mean that even the most moderate progressives will start embracing the most extreme forms of wokeism. This, in turn, will certainly cause the NatCons to double-down on their authoritarianism in response. The extremism on both sides will get worse and worse, and respect for things like free speech will certainly cease to exist. This vicious cycle will lead to the complete annihilation of the Western Enlightenment project, if it is not stopped.

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 essence.

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.

Culture War Right Betrays 2010s Free Speech Movement | TER Post Woke

We Really Need to Talk About the Culture War Right

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

Today, I want to talk about the rise of the new 'culture war Right', and why a post-woke politics must confront and reject it. Let's start here: ever since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, arguments over the legality of abortion have been especially heated across America, with opinions varying greatly by state. It is in this context that Republican senator Lindsey Graham has unveiled a bill that would enforce a ban on abortions past 15 weeks, that would apply to every state. This, of course, means that the people of the blue states will have a law most of them don't agree with imposed on them, without giving them a democratic say. The controversial move has made many moderate Republicans uncomfortable, but it also has plenty of supporters. Justifying his actions, Graham said that "there is a consensus view by the most prominent pro-life groups in America that this is where America should be at the federal level."

I don't actually want to go into the abortion debate. You see, the biggest problem with this isn't even about abortion. What is important here is that this is essentially a culture war move. As many have pointed out, the Graham bill is not likely to have the 60 votes it needs to pass anytime soon, so it's more about making a statement. With this statement, Graham has made it clear that he cares only about what activist groups on his side of the culture wars want, and he will use government authority to impose it on the rest of society, even on a controversial issue without a clear consensus. My problem with this authoritarian culture war approach to politics is, it's almost like saying, who needs to have a rational and respectful debate, when you can simply use the force of authority to impose your will on everyone else?

Looking back, most of the Right were keen participants in the mid-2010s free speech movement, but along the way some of them came to recognize that authoritarianism is actually more efficient, for the purposes of remaking society the way they want it to be. Hence, they have essentially embraced what we once opposed together. This change is also not limited to the issue of abortion, or to America. Culture war issues were a big part of the recent British Conservative Party leadership election, even though abortion itself was not discussed. The new Prime Minister Liz Truss is well known for her culture war politics, as were several of the other leadership candidates. As far as I'm aware, this is the first time in my lifetime that the British Conservatives have had a culture war focused leadership contest.

Culture war authoritarianism has actually been on the rise in the Right for a while now. Back in 2019, there was the famous Ahmari vs. French debate, where Sohrab Ahmari argued against old-school conservative David French, that the Right should fight the culture wars with the aim of defeating the enemy and re-ordering the public square to reflect their own values. He also argued that the culture war Right should not shy away from using government authority to impose their will. More recently, the culture war activist Christopher Rufo, famous for supposedly getting President Trump to take action against critical race theory (CRT), said that the culture war Right should ignore, marginalize, and repel people like David French. I mean, I never thought I would hear someone say that conservatives should repel David French! I am also particularly angry with Rufo, because his politicization of CRT, and his attempts to link opposing CRT to an authoritarian politics that threatens free speech, has made it difficult for people like me to convince our fellow liberals that CRT is indeed misguided and potentially dangerous. Every time I get called 'right-wing' for opposing CRT, I think of how Rufo and people like him have made our work so much harder. Rufo has made no secret of his intention to attack ideas he disagrees with on 'financial, legal, and bureaucratic grounds, in addition to the more straightforward style of intellectual debate' (quoting Rufo himself). His worldview stands against everything the mid-2010s free speech movement represented, and is just as bad as, if not worse than, the most extreme 'woke Left' activists in this regard.

My point is, if you don't like the culture wars, and want us to move towards a truly post-woke, post culture war politics, then you need to recognize that the new culture war politics on the Right is one of our biggest obstacles today. The culture wars poison every issue and every debate, by polarization, tribalism, groupthought, and riling up people's emotions. It makes cultivating the post-woke values of decency, fairness and genuineness impossible. It is impossible to be fair or genuine when one takes a side in a tribalist culture war, and it also makes it difficult to treat those who you disagree with decently. Moreover, the culture wars are a useful tool for those with authoritarian agendas. Most importantly, it makes independent thinking and being committed to the objective truth impossible. The culture wars are literally turning society into a postmodern nightmare.

We need to put an end to the culture wars, as soon as possible. To do this, we need to confront the people who want to use the culture wars for political gain, whether they are on the Left or the Right. We need to call out their destructive behavior whenever we see it. As Rufo himself said, their plan is to 'set the preconditions' by driving public opinion and priming the politicians. We need to be there to thwart their attempts every step of the way. Such a campaign would surely be a worthy successor to the 2010s free speech movement.

The Post-Woke Case for Bringing Science and Philosophy Back Together | TER Post Woke

The Divorce Between Science and Philosophy is Causing the West to Lose Its Mind

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

Today, I want to talk about an overlooked reason for the woke vs anti-woke mess we are in: the historical divorce between science and philosophy. Historically, philosophy preceded science, but included it. That is, before science existed as an independent area of study, it was included under philosophy, in the Western tradition. Much of what we now think of as the scientific method originated within philosophy. However, science, mathematics, and several other disciplines eventually separated out from philosophy, so that by the 20th century, philosophy basically no longer included many areas of study that have a strong empirical basis, or have a strong emphasis on objectivity or logic. This is what I would call 'post-science philosophy'.

Post-science philosophy's exclusion of science naturally meant that it developed further and further away from empiricism, objectivity, and logic. Throughout the 20th century, some parts of philosophy also came under the influence of politically motivated thinking, like critical theory, postmodernism, and Marcuse's pseudo-Freudian view of psychology. Eventually, those parts of philosophy became irreconcilable with objective reality, and incompatible with what the science actually says. Yet, the fact that philosophy preceded science seems to have given supporters of these philosophies justification to dismiss scientific facts that disagree with their worldview. This is why, when you try to get them to acknowledge certain scientific facts, they might tell you to read some Foucault! As many of you would know by now, the point of bringing up Foucault in this context is that knowledge is constructed by power, and is in the service of the oppressors against the oppressed. Hence those raising objective fact not only need to be dismissed, they need to be resisted as agents of the oppressive system. This is the point of view much of the philosophy underpinning so-called woke thinking is coming from, and this explains why it has such a resistance to open debate and acknowledging objective facts.

As I have said before, the anti-woke movement has evolved to become just the opposite of woke, and that is a very bad thing. Like some people might say, the whole point of that movement seems to be just to 'trigger the woke'. Logically, this would mean that the anti-woke is merely a mirror image of the woke, and therefore inherits many of its faults. Hence, it is unsurprising that the anti-woke is similarly anti-science. Especially in the past year, it has become more and more common for the anti-woke to be dismissive towards, or even assign ulterior motives to, those who hold scientific educational credentials. This is basically the same 'power bad, so experts bad' attitude that is found on the postmodern Left, even if it targets different kinds of experts. It is just as anti-objective and anti-intellectual. [ For an example of how unscientific the anti-woke Right has become, just look at Matt Walsh's recent documentary 'What Is A Woman'. There is no sincere, in-depth exploration of genetics, biology, neuroscience or evolutionary psychology. It is all about reinforcing a certain black-and-white view of gender that is not well justified objectively. ] Therefore, in a way, it has the same 'philosophy overrides science' attitude that is at the root of the postmodern Left's thinking. If we let this trend continue, the West will eventually become a place where science is shunned, and subjective, tribalist philosophy that provides different 'truths' to different people will become the new normal. The post-woke aim should be to stop us from going down that road.

To fix this mess, I think we need to actively work to heal the divorce between philosophy and science. As I have suggested before, the solution of encouraging multi-disciplinary intellectuals, who are trained in three or more very different disciplines at the postgraduate level, can be a first step. Such intellectuals will help bridge the gaps between the very specialized disciplines, and reduce the echo chamber effect that ultra-specialization has caused. In the longer term, I also think that a more empirical and quantitative perspective needs to be re-introduced into philosophy. The supporters of this perspective need to be unafraid to challenge the currently established views, and be committed to providing a truly objective alternative.

A Negative Conservatism Can't Conserve Anything | TE Cons Report

Why the Right have become the New Radicals

Welcome to the TaraElla Cons Report, where we talk about things from an intellectual conservative point of view, and how we can apply this philosophy in the 21st century West. I come from a moderate, centrist viewpoint, which means I appreciate conservative philosophy and try to balance it with the need for progress.

In recent years, something weird has been happening among those people who politically identify as conservatives. Traditionally, conservatives have been the optimistic ones. President Reagan was famous for his sunny optimism, while the far-left of that era hated his attitude as much as his policies. The book 'The Power of Positive Thinking' and the ideas it promoted have been popular with conservatives for three generations, while Herbert Marcuse called for the appreciation of 'negative thinking'. Even just a few years ago, some people noted that postmodern critical theory activists were deeply negative, and conservatives seemed to be more positive in comparison at least. However, for some reason, the tables have suddenly turned, with political conservatives being some of the angriest and most negative people right now.

Relentless negativity and conservative philosophy don't go together well at all. Having an appreciation of what we've got naturally goes hand in hand with a desire to preserve it. On the other hand, being negative is the natural precursor to being destructive. This is the reason why radicals like Marcuse rejected positive thinking: after all, if everything is so great, there really isn't a case for radical change. Hence, conservatives being negative are actually making the radicals' case for them!

The increasing negativity among conservative circles has led some on the Right to believe that some kind of reset, or 'counter-revolution', is needed, because the West is in such a bad state right now. Even those who might not go this far might nonetheless be on board with suspending some norms of civility, respect and free speech because we're supposedly in some kind of 'state of emergency'. However, the use of the perception of emergency to justify radical measures that destroy long-standing norms has long been a favorite tactic of radicals, and it generally leads to the destruction of important values and institutions that is not going to be reversible. Radicals, of course, don't have a problem with this, but if you're coming from a conservative philosophical point of view, I really can't see how this kind of outcome can be justified. Moreover, a so-called reset or 'counter-revolution' is no different from wiping the slate clean and starting all over again, another favorite fantasy of radicals. The traditional conservative opposition to this is justified on the grounds that, even if what we currently have is not perfect, it is still the product of many generations of evolution and lessons learnt. If we were to re-build everything from scratch, there is practically no chance that we will end up with something better than what we have now. I can't see why this important insight should not apply to where we are currently at.

The other question we need to ask right now is, are things that dire right now? As I previously mentioned, those who want radical change have a habit of creating the perception of emergency to justify their actions. While the social fabric of the West is not in good shape, and the health of families and communities certainly need to be improved, it is still clear that all is not lost. To give it all up would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater indeed!

The Case Against Cafeteria Libertarianism | Lib Lib Report

Reactionary populism is not compatible with a sincere commitment to classical liberal values.

Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while aiming to make the social contract of Western society more libertarian moving towards the future.

Today, I want to talk about a disturbing trend: what I think could be called 'cafeteria libertarianism'. This term obviously borrows from the common saying of 'cafeteria Christianity', and just like cafeteria Christians, cafeteria libertarians pick and choose what issues they want to be libertarian on, while ignoring other issues, or even having sympathies to outrightly authoritarian stances on other issues. The ultimate effect of this is that anyone could claim to be 'libertarian' because every kind of politics has its libertarian areas, and thus people who actually have highly authoritarian agendas can falsely claim to be friends of liberty.

My regular audience would know that I am a 'libertarian gradualist', as opposed to the immediatists that make up the bulk of the mainstream libertarian movement. Libertarian gradualists, while not supporting immediate libertarianism in every policy area, are not 'cafeteria libertarians', because we are sincere about advancing liberty overall. What makes a 'cafeteria libertarian' is their lack of a wish or vision to progress things overall to the side of liberty. Instead, they identify as 'libertarian' as a reaction to something they don't like, for example wokeness, cancel culture, or some kind of government regulation. In other areas, however, they are totally OK with authoritarian policies, to the extent of heaping praise on people who are taking action to move the Overton Window towards authoritarianism. You know, like cheering on Ron DeSantis using his state power to punish Disney for disagreeing with him. Or nodding in agreement to online influencers who promote a populist 'post-liberal conservatism'.

I guess the reason why we have 'cafeteria libertarianism' is because of the mistaken belief that the status quo, minus the woke, is already libertarian, or even worse, that Western society used to be truly free in some past golden age. This attitude is basically reactionary conservatism. The fact is that Western society, up until now, has always been somewhat authoritarian, especially towards those who don't agree with the majority. Anyone who has read any history, political science or law would recognize this. A sincere commitment to classical liberal values simply isn't compatible with a reactionary populism that defends traditionally popular freedoms but denies or even opposes less traditionally popular freedoms. There was a reason why John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill were all progressives in their time, who argued for things that weren't necessarily popular. This was because their vision was one that hadn't been realized yet. Even today, we still aren't there yet. I believe that recognizing we aren't there yet is the key to building a sincere progressive libertarianism, and rejecting reactionary 'cafeteria libertarianism'.

Recognizing that the classical liberal project is one that still has a long way to go would also allow us to keep being committed to our long term goals of more freedom, and remember to play the long game in response to current events. For example, free trade and globalization as it existed in the past four decades has had unfairly negative effects on many working people. Global corporates benefitted at the expense of working families, and this has created massive backlash. Refusing to deal with these problems would be irresponsible, and politically suicidal for any movement. However, that doesn't mean that we should suddenly be allies with people denouncing free trade as inherently evil, promoting conspiracy theories about globalization, and advocating for a return to the regressive 'clash of civilizations' attitude towards the world. Instead, we should continue to maintain that free trade and globalization are good because they make the world freer, but also acknowledge that how it is executed matters. Ultimately, it needs to be made to benefit working people rather than global corporates, which I believe is very doable. Similarly, while we can acknowledge that liberals need to do more to acknowledge the importance of families and the social fabric, we still need to firmly argue against the absurd claim that liberal thinking, going all the way back to Locke, is to be blamed for current social problems like low birth rates and high divorce rates. Anti-liberal forces both Left and Right want the liberal project to fail, and they are going to blame everything on there being too much freedom, as if there was such a thing. To fight back, we need to have a clear vision of what we actually believe in, and why it will lead to good outcomes.

Why Conservatism and Liberalism are Actually Cousins | TE Cons Report

The polarization is artificial, and we just have to see through it.

Welcome to the TaraElla Cons Report, where we talk about things from an intellectual conservative point of view, and how we can apply this philosophy in the 21st century West. I come from a moderate, centrist viewpoint, which means I appreciate conservative philosophy and try to balance it with the need for progress.

In our mainstream politics, the concepts of 'liberal' and 'conservative' are often pitted against each other. However, anyone familiar with political philosophy would know that this binary opposition is not necessarily true. Moreover, just a few years ago, some moderate conservatives tried getting under the 'classical liberal' umbrella, while some liberals campaigning for gay marriage emphasized the conservative case for their reform. This kind of crossover messaging seems to have disappeared in recent times, but there is an important truth in there: there is plenty of room for liberalism in conservatism, and vice versa.

Conservatism is concerned with preserving traditional values, institutions and elements of the social fabric. However, we live in a world where circumstances inevitably change, and adaptive reforms are required to keep these things alive. Moreover, conservatives generally want society to function according to good order, and free speech and rational debate are conducive to building and maintaining good order. A framework that emphasizes free speech and freedom of conscience would allow adaptive changes to be made, in a safe and balanced way. Meanwhile, such a framework would also be very effective in resisting grand utopian schemes to remake society, because it would be impossible to get a majority of people to agree to such schemes under conditions of freedom. I believe upholding the liberal framework is a much more effective way to preserve the good things we have for future generations, compared to a reactionary culture war style approach. Furthermore, classical liberal values have been part of the mainstream political consensus of the West for more than a century, and it has served us well. Therefore, a conservatism dedicated to conserving the fundamentals of our social contract would also conserve these values. The so-called 'post-liberal conservatives' are actually radicals!

The case for liberalism having a conservative side is perhaps less often heard of, but in our current context, it is perhaps no less important. Firstly, core liberal values like free speech, freedom of conscience, equality regardless of immutable characteristics and so on require a conscious attempt to conserve, or else they get eroded quickly. Right now, forces on both the Left and the Right want to compromise these values when it suits them, and we need to actively defend these values. Secondly, I recently came to the realization that liberal values only make sense if we assume there is at least something worth preserving in the status quo. The freedom afforded by liberalism enables debates and experiments about what to preserve, and what to change. Postmodern critical theory activism has shown us that, if every existing structure is oppressive and needs to be dismantled, liberal values would actually be a hindrance. This actually makes sense, because the liberal framework resists radical change. Logically then, to be liberal would imply believing that at least some things are worth conserving.

The reason why I want to emphasize the philosophical common ground between liberals and conservatives is because the current polarization is making people lose perspective of the bigger picture. The polarization is created by both traditional and social media, and actively encouraged by those with various agendas, as well as those who stand to gain in one way or another. But if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, it suddenly looks more artificial, and even sort of ridiculous. I think this realization can be useful for disrupting the echo chambers on both sides.

Two Perspectives: Moral Panics and Hysteria | TER Post Woke

It's a universal problem we need to talk about more

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

Perspective 1: As a progressive, I am dismayed at the way our culture is evolving. Twenty years ago, progressives used to be the cool ones. Conservatives used to get upset about everything from hip-hop music to gay marriage, from video games to Harry Potter, and we used to laugh at that. In recent years, many people say that we have become like how the conservatives used to be like, and I honestly can't disagree with that. As an old-school progressive, I think that overreacting to everything and having a problem with people having fun is stupid, because it makes us unpopular and discredits us. I wonder how we became this way.

Perspective 2: As a conservative, my biggest problem with mainstream conservative politics is its tendency to embrace collective moral panics and hysteria over artificially amplified non-issues. This also seems to happen in cycles. For example, the 90s and 2000s conservatives were really bad in this regard, but things got more rational in the 2010s. I fear that we are seeing things turn bad again now. I wonder if there is a way to break free from this toxic tendency.

I guess the tendency towards collective panic and hysteria is present among both progressives and conservatives. While there have been better and worse times in the past for both sides, it seems that, right now, both sides are getting worse. Therefore, it really is a problem that we need to actively address. The fact that it is on both sides makes it somewhat easier, because this means we won't be targeting only some people in our criticisms.

The first thing we need to do is to acknowledge that the problem exists in the first place. We need to talk about it enough, so that it is firmly in the consciousness of most people. This way, when certain people want to encourage more hysteria for whatever reason, enough people can consciously say no to it, and put up a resistance that hopefully gets stronger over time. We also need to remember that, history has taught us that it takes bravery and courage to take a stand against moral panics.

The other thing we need to do is, of course, to address the problem of echo chambers. In the past, I've said quite a lot about the need to break the echo chambers and how we might do that, in the context of addressing political polarization. Breaking the echo chambers is also important for addressing collective hysteria, because it is easiest to build hysteria in an environment where everyone is under pressure to agree with certain viewpoints. I guess this is why the problem is getting worse on both sides, with the echo chamber effect being made worse by social media. This is why the hysteria problem is ultimately linked to the many other problems affecting the social and political landscape of the Western world right now.

We're all Conservatives, to Some Extent. And that's a Good Thing. | TE Cons Report

Why the c-word is unfairly maligned, and why this must change.

Welcome to the new TaraElla Cons Report, the counterpart to my Lib Lib Report. In the Lib Lib Report, I talk about liberal and libertarian ideas and visions, and how we can apply them in the 21st century West. In this new series, I will focus on conservative philosophy, in a similar way.

I think one of the things the early 21st century West is lacking is a robust and healthy intellectual discussion on conservative philosophy. Now, some of you might be surprised that I am saying this. After all, I have identified as a liberal, a Moral Libertarian, a moderate, a centrist, a practical progressive, but I have never identified as a conservative. Moreover, I have many disagreements with what is considered conservative politics in the contemporary West. So why would I have any use for conservative philosophy?

Let's be honest. If you are a moderate or a centrist of any kind, you are at least partially conservative, because you essentially believe in balancing conservatism with progressivism. If you are a liberal, then you are committed to be open-minded to conservative points of view, and if they are indeed the most sound views, you would allow them to win in the marketplace of ideas via the natural process of competition. If you consider yourself an evidence-based person, then you have to at least acknowledge that institutions and values based on many centuries of evidence at least count for something. Finally, if you are a practical progressive, you would base your progressive ideas at least partially on what has worked well in the past. Therefore, one can certainly be liberal or moderate and still be conservative to a significant extent. Indeed, without acknowledging the conservative parts of our philosophy, we would be left with a very weak defense against those who want to radically remake society using untested and unsound theories.

I guess the reason so many of us are reluctant to acknowledge the conservative parts of our philosophy is because conservatism doesn't exactly have a good reputation in intellectual circles right now. Indeed, I have the feeling that, if I told some of my acquaintances that there is a conservative part to my philosophy, they might react all weird, like 'so you're a conservative'? In the minds of many people out there, the word 'conservative' is associated with racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry. However, this does not have to be true. It is only this way because reactionary politicians have had a near monopoly on the term 'conservative' for too long. And this monopoly is undeserved too, because in recent years, reactionary politics have often been anything but conservative, in the original sense of the word.

Another reason why we shouldn't shy away from acknowledging our own conservatism, is that the ongoing lack of a healthy appreciation for conservative philosophy has led to the rise of a deeply reactionary style of 'conservative' politics. This is actually the biggest reason why I am speaking out on this topic now. Conservatism is part of the natural temperament of many people, and if it isn't allowed to be acknowledged and respected in a healthy way, it is going to be expressed in a deeply reactionary way, one that reflexively blocks all proposals for progress, and even yearns to turn the clock back by decades. The lack of a healthy conservatism, one that can reassure people that the fundamental things about their society are safe, will leave many people with no option but to embrace a reactionary attitude.

I think the lack of a healthy intellectual conservatism is not just a coincidence, nor is it just an accident of history. Rather, back in the 1960s and 70s, a generation of students became so disillusioned with society, they thought that everything radical was great, and everything conservative was evil. Some of them eventually became very influential among intellectual circles, and their efforts shifted the Overton Window there so far to the radical side that any kind of conservatism essentially became marginalized. I believe it's time we addressed this error, and actively seek to welcome a healthy dose of conservative philosophy back into mainstream intellectualism.

Our Culture is Meaningless. Let's change this. | TaraElla Culture

Why challenging popular culture should be part of the post-woke mission

Welcome to TaraElla Report Culture, where I take a step back from the more political talk, and look at things from the wider cultural perspective.

To explain the purpose behind this new series, we need to start by acknowledging the fact that political, philosophical, and sociological debates do not occur in a vacuum, but are immersed in, and strongly affected by, the mood of the wider culture. Of course, the process goes both ways, for example the toxic culture wars that originated in politics have also had a negative effect on the wider culture. The important thing is, the wider culture, including the popular culture, is an overlooked potential site of action, if we want to end the toxic culture wars.

When I first started blogging nearly 20 years ago, I actually focused on popular culture. As a singer songwriter, I was very plugged into the news of the music world. From there, it was natural to also be plugged into the world of movies, television, celebrities and so on. When I was a teenager, I actually thought these things were having a positive impact on people, simply because it made them happy, and made life easier for people in difficult times. I thought that, by somewhat 'participating' in that world and making it even better, I would be contributing to making people's lives better. Back then, I thought that the adults were underestimating the value of popular culture.

As I grew older, I became more passionate about important social issues. The 2003 Iraq War, which I strongly opposed, was the first time I passionately got involved in politics. Soon after, I also got passionate about several other things. The politics around the Iraq War got me interested in the impact of religion on politics, which was part of what led me to become passionate about gay marriage. There was also this big evolution vs intelligent design debate back then, which made me realize the importance of respecting scientific facts. I also realized that I really liked being immersed in these debates, which were debates about fundamental worldviews, morals, and truth. For me, these meaningful debates contrasted sharply with the lack of such meaning in the popular cultural world, and as the years went by, I gradually drifted away from popular culture.

During the late 2000s to the mid 2010s, I actually drifted in and out of popular culture for a while. While in earlier times, popular culture would generally avoid the big controversial questions of our time, things appeared to be changing by 2008 or so. More and more, movies and TV shows started dealing with these questions, and some celebrities started to take strong stances. At that time, I honestly thought it was an improvement. But later on, I would be disappointed again, because a lot of this would be superficial and therefore even counter-productive sometimes. In the case of celebrities taking stances, it honestly felt like virtue signalling a lot of the time, whether this was their actual intention or not. I realized that the superficialness of our popular culture meant that we couldn't actually be having truly meaningful debates within it. This was when I finally 'gave up' on popular culture.

Since then, popular culture has only gotten more superficial, with the rise of viral videos, meaningless trends, and influencers who don't stand for anything. In this world, popularity is about how you look, and not what you stand for, and taking a stance on anything would only alienate your fans. Some people have said that this is an inevitable consequence of the internet. However, is this superficial culture really inevitable? Or could we try to turn it around? I believe it's worth at least trying, because I think the toxic woke vs anti-woke politics ultimately stems from our culture being very superficial. I once thought that I could escape the superficialness by leaving popular culture behind, but now I realize that the superficialness is everywhere, because culture, politics and intellectualism are not separate things. This is why I believe the antidote to the current polarization is to bring back in-depth thinking and discussion. We need to do it across all of our culture, especially popular culture, which remains a strong influence in many people's lives. I still believe we shouldn't underestimate the value of popular culture, in terms of healing the social fabric, after all.

How to Build the Post Woke Movement | TER Post Woke

It won't be easy, and we need a plan.

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics. Previously, I have outlined what a post-woke alternative would look like. Today, I want to talk about how we can advance the post-woke alternative in the cultural discourse.

As I said before, the current cultural and political discourse of the West is dominated by two echo chambers, the so-called woke and anti-woke. The existence of these echo chambers essentially keep other ways of thinking at the margins, severely limiting the influence of any post-woke ideas. Moreover, the echo chambers are maintained by everything from confirmation bias and habitual behavioral patterns, to cancel culture, to deliberate organization and interests backed by lots of money. Therefore, the key to building a successful post-woke alternative is to pierce and disrupt the echo chambers on both sides. If we can do this, then we can truly end the woke vs anti-woke wars. If not, then post-wokeism will remain no more than a nice theoretical idea, with very little practical influence in the real world.

I guess the first thing to do is to accept that we are not operating on a level playing field, compared to the media personalities and influencers on both sides, who use their big platforms to reinforce the dominant ideas of the echo chambers. This means that we have to start small, be patient, and wait for it to snowball into something bigger over time. We need to insist on talking about the post-woke alternative, and providing the post-woke voice when it comes to various social and cultural debates. Some days we might get very frustrated, feeling like we are essentially shouting into the void. Other days it might all feel futile, as our well-reasoned positions get drowned out by the loud culture warriors on both sides. But we need to keep going, if we are to have any chance of changing things at all.

Next, we need to recognize that many people who are trapped in the echo chambers actually feel uncomfortable with the status quo too. This even includes people whose work are essential to holding up the dominant narratives of the echo chambers, like journalists, media personalities, intellectuals, influencers and more. They might be quietly questioning the dominant narrative in their echo chambers, the echo chambers they are otherwise helping to maintain. We need to help that questioning process along. For example, whenever a culture war flare up occurs between the two sides, it actually provides a good opportunity to intervene, to help people question the soundness of the whole thing.

Finally, we need to be able to regularly come up with unique and innovative solutions to the problems and controversies that make up the fault lines of our cultural landscape. This is the best way to demonstrate the advantages of the post-woke approach compared to both the woke and anti-woke orthodoxies. People generally pay attention to something new, and prefer fresh ideas to talking points that have been repeated over and over again. Moreover, many people out there are actually looking for ways to build bridges across factions, perhaps because they want society to function again, or perhaps just because they don't want their family and friends to keep fighting the same old fights all the time. Anyway, the post-woke movement should provide these answers, when the woke and anti-woke factions can't and won't. Many people will appreciate it, and it will make our movement bigger and stronger over time.

Summing up, this is my three step plan for building the post-woke alternative: firstly, we need a lot of patience and perseverence, and recognition that this isn't going to be easy. Secondly, we need to seek opportunities to help more people question the status quo. Finally, we need to provide solutions to build bridges and resolve conflicts where the woke and anti-woke won't.

Two Perspectives: The Need for a Post Woke Alternative | TER Post Woke

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

Perspective 1: I have long been passionate about equality for minorities, addressing climate change, and being open-minded about different ways to solve our social problems. That is why I've always identified as a progressive. However, in recent years, I feel like progressives have been shooting ourselves in the foot. For some reason, the most divisive, counter-productive and literally stupid so-called 'solutions' are given the most attention, and the most controversial voices are often given the biggest platforms, as if the more controversial the better. This has generated nothing but backlash, which has prevented the necessary consensus building to make reforms possible. What I want is for there to be a way to move beyond this tragic situation.

Perspective 2: I believe in the value of traditions and traditional institutions. This is why I'm a conservative. However, I also believe that traditions must remain adaptive to remain relevant and maintain widespread support. The way to achieve this is to have good faith and respectful discussions about how we should move into the future, and to resolve our differences. The problem is that, modern conservatism is more like a culture war tribe that reinforces each others' existing views, and is not that interested in having productive discussions. The result is that they often hold onto maladaptive solutions and policies, which can ultimately lead to the discrediting of traditional values and institutions.

I think the problem with the current social and political discourse is that people are divided into two main tribes, each tribe exists in its own echo chamber, and the worst ideas in each echo chamber are allowed to become dominant, because of the lack of real challenge from other perspectives. Call it progressive vs conservative, woke vs anti-woke, or whatever, this is actually very unhealthy, and will certainly not lead our society towards good outcomes. This is why we need a post-woke alternative, where we acknowledge all that has gone wrong since the rise of the current round of the culture wars about a decade ago, and come together for a sincere discussion on how we can do better going forward.

The key to this is to puncture and disrupt the echo chambers that are the root cause of the current dynamic. The trouble is, this won't be an easy task, because the echo chambers are maintained by everything from confirmation bias and habitual behavioral patterns, to cancel culture, to deliberate organization and interests backed by lots of money. This means we need to consciously aim to disrupt the echo chambers, especially the dominant narratives in each echo chamber that are repeatedly reinforced. This disruption will be key to building the post-woke alternative. This is why, going forward, I will be talking a lot more about the strategies we can use to disrupt the echo chambers.

On Wokeness, Anti-Woke and Intellectualism | TER Post Woke

Why we need to bring back sincere intellectuals

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics. Today, I want to talk about why both the woke and anti-woke positions are insufficiently intellectual, and why a truly intellectual atmosphere is essential for a post-woke movement.

Let's start with the woke position first. As we have previously established, wokeness is actually rooted in philosophy and theory that came out of academia. This is why, to some people, it has the veneer of being intellectual. However, since the woke theories are not products of unbiased discussion and debate, truly open-minded truth seeking, and a commitment to objectivity, I would have to say that they are not truly 'intellectual' in the traditional sense. Rather, I think they are more like activists' wishes phrased in intellectual language. Indeed, one could argue that a worldview that fundamentally sees language, knowledge and discourse as products of power, and objectivity as nothing more than pretense, would actually be incompatible with being 'intellectual' in the traditional sense.

Given the intellectual deficiencies of wokeness, the anti-woke position could naturally have been built on a foundation of restoring the meaning of being an 'intellectual' in the traditional sense. And to some extent, the early anti-woke movement did go a bit in that direction. There was plenty of discussion about the values of the Enlightenment, why free speech is essential, and so on. But ultimately, the anti-woke movement came to be dominated by culture warriors, who had no patience for proper intellectual exploration and argumentation either. I believe this is why anti-woke intellectual projects like the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) ultimately ended up quite hollow and unattractive after a while. The same talking points are repeated again and again, and the discourse seems to not be very open to unexplored possibilities. To be honest, I think many IDW figures sound more like culture warriors than sincere intellectuals nowadays.

I believe an important part of moving beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars is to actually bring back sincere intellectualism. We need people who are dedicated to exploring the objective truth of the world, rather than just seeing the world as they wish, or worse, selectively picking and choosing facts to build a biased narrative to suit their political agenda. We need people who actually want to have open-minded discussions about the important issues, rather than just wanting their side to 'win' and their 'enemies' to lose. A sincere intellectual today should be able to easily tell that both the woke and anti-woke positions are unsound. Sadly, too many people can't even see that right now.

The Problem with Anti-Woke and Anti-Anti-Woke | TER Post Woke

Why reaction is maladaptive, and will just perpetuate the problem

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

Today, I want to talk about two movements or perspectives that have arisen as a consequence of the rise of woke culture: anti-woke, and anti-anti-woke. I believe the 'reactive' nature of these movements have ultimately meant that they have just perpetuated the problems that were started by woke culture. I will illustrate how this happens, and what we should do instead to break the vicious cycle.

From what I see, the default stance of the anti-woke is to basically do the opposite of what woke culture demands every time, believing that this is an effective way to resist woke culture. Instead of critizing wokeness where it goes wrong, anti-woke culture prefers to 'trigger' the woke, by doing the opposite of what they want. For example, whatever woke culture wants to ban people from saying, the anti-woke will deliberately say it. Whatever groups woke culture upholds as 'oppressed' and hence worthy of special consideration above others, the anti-woke will deliberately dismiss their issues. The problem with this is, woke culture's enabling of the mistreatment of people based on immutable characteristics and group membership also transfers to anti-woke culture, because of its 'equal but opposite' response to everything woke. This inevitably leads to withholding decency, compassion and fairness from people by immutable characteristics and group membership sometimes. Furthermore, over time, because of its lazy reactionary posture, anti-woke has also developed into an increasingly conformist and predictable movement, and it has become effectively as unwelcoming of independent thinking as woke culture itself. Hence, anti-woke culture has replicated the two biggest errors of woke culture, i.e. the lack of independent thinking, and the normalization of dehumanizing people based on group membership.

The problems of anti-woke culture, and its ongoing association with elements of the authoritarian right, have led some people to adopt an anti-anti-woke stance in reaction. Anti-anti-woke starts with the position that the anti-woke movement is inherently bad, and whatever points they raise are inherently invalid or even dangerous. The problem with this, however, is that it leads to deliberately ignoring the problems brought by woke culture, and hence the normalization of these problems. This means that anti-anti-woke is basically complicit in the normalization of dehumanizing people based on group membership, and the erosion of the Enlightenment values of freedom of conscience, independent thinking and objectivity. Even if there are problems with the anti-woke movement, the answer is clearly not to ignore or suppress whatever they say.

The examples of anti-woke and anti-anti-woke demonstrate how taking a reactionary or oppositional stance is ultimately counter-productive. This is why it is better to go back to the roots of where woke culture went wrong, and address those problems directly. This way, we can be constructive rather than reactive. As I previously said, woke culture basically turned the desire for social justice into its opposite, through the application of theories rooted in postmodernism and critical theory. The way to stop this happening is to prevent those passionate about social justice from embracing these theories, and we can do that by upholding what I call the core post-woke values: decency, fairness and genuineness. By emphasizing these values, we can shine a light on how postmodernism and critical theory are flawed worldviews at their core, and hence begin to undo the problems that woke culture brought.

The Real Problem With Wokeness | TER Post Woke

How Wokeness Misdirected the Desire for Social Justice

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

I believe that, to truly move beyond wokeness, we need to understand where it went wrong. In my mind, the main difference between an anti-woke stance and a post-woke stance is that anti-woke only tries to 'attack' wokeness by doing the opposite of what it appears to demand, while post-woke actually aims to resolve the problem by correcting where wokeness went wrong, and putting things right again, so that we can move forward having conquered this obstacle.

So what is wokeness? While the term is now overused and has lost much of its clarity, going back to the way it was used before, we can argue that it refers to approaches to social change and activism rooted in postmodernism, critical theory, and adjacent ideas. These ideas are problematic because they often pit one group against another, and provide excuses for practices like cancel culture. The reason why they became popular was because they were offered as a ticket to improving social justice, even though this is clearly a false promise that can never be fulfilled. Hence, looking at it from a bigger picture perspective, wokeness is a misdirection of the impulse for social justice, that has driven a desire for compassion and fairness into its opposite, via a lot of misguided theory and philosophy. The misdirection of social justice into its opposite has caused both a well-justified backlash to postmodernism and critical theory, as well as a reactionary backlash to all social justice aims in general, with both parts of the backlash packaged into a broad 'anti-woke' movement. The overall effect of wokeness is therefore the confusion and defeat of social justice, as well as things like cancel culture, polarization, and the division of people by immutable characteristics.

As I just said, the biggest problem with wokeness is that it has turned the desire for social justice into its opposite. One of the most important ways this happens is through the routine description of certain groups as 'privileged', as in 'white privilege' or 'male privilege'. This is morally wrong for two reasons: firstly, to label a whole group of people, based on an immutable characteristic, is effectively an act of deliberately obscuring the differences in individual cases, which is very dehumanizing. This is clearly harmful from a justice point of view, if we are to truly care about there being justice for every individual. But even more importantly, to label a whole group of people as having unearned privilege is effectively an act of inviting people to treat them less favorably. To label people as privileged effectively says it is OK to treat them less well, less decently, less fairly. This psychological effect is undeniable, and is indeed consistent with some of what has been observed in real life in 'very woke' social circles in recent years.

The negative effects of calling people 'privileged' based on immutable characteristics may start with the groups being called privileged, but it surely doesn't end there either. Ultimately, the important thing here isn't which specific groups are being called 'privileged'. Rather, the important thing is that the normative value of treating everyone with the same decency and compassion, and the taboo against differential treatment of people based on membership of groups, are shattered. Once it becomes acceptable to treat people badly based on group-based perceptions, it can then apply in any direction, towards any group. Postmodern critical theory itself of course doesn't intend to allow this, as it clearly defines which groups are supposed to be 'oppressors' and which are 'oppressed' based on its analysis of history. However, human nature doesn't work like that, and there are strong evolutionary psychology reasons why people generally insist that the same rules and same conditions apply to everyone. Therefore, once postmodern critical theory breaks the normative values of liberalism, it unavoidably opens the floodgates to racism and bigotry in every direction. This is why, I believe, the rise of woke culture is the actual cause behind the recent rise in racism and bigotry across the Western world. This actually means we must put an end to woke culture if we want to end the current wave of bigotry targeted at minorities. This kind of analysis has sometimes been rendered taboo in so-called progressive circles, but it is clearly well justified, and I believe we need to give it much more attention if we want to make things better.

The other main problem with wokeness is that it often disrespects people's freedom of conscience and independent thinking. This is where things like cancel culture and deplatforming come from. This phenomenon, again, is rooted in theories based on postmodernism and critical theory. The overall worldview of these theories is that almost everything is changeable because they are all 'social constructs', and the barrier to radical progress is the current culture and its institutions, which form a power structure serving the interests of the oppressor groups against the oppressed. In this worldview, there is effectively no respect for the fact that people have an ability to think for themselves, and also no respect for the fact that people have reliable ways to discern the objective truth, even if they might be imperfect and might take some time. The denial of free thinking and free speech, as well as the denial of the importance of objectivity, are all clearly bad for justice, as history has shown.

As you can see, woke culture has been able to turn the desire of social justice into its opposite, through the application of theories rooted in the philosophies broadly described as postmodernism and critical theory. Therefore, the solution to stop this process from happening is to stop people who are passionate about social justice from embracing these faulty theories and believing in what they have to say. I think this can be best achieved by emphasizing certain values, which are a natural part of pro-social justice thinking, but are also an antidote to what is proposed in these theories. The values I propose are decency, fairness and genuineness. By demanding that decency and fairness be upheld at all times, there will be no room for things like calling people 'privileged' based solely on group membership. By demanding that genuineness and fairness be respected, there will be no room for things like cancel culture. The rise of woke culture reflects the failure of social justice advocates to uphold these values in the recent past, and the unconditional re-embrace of these values will rectify the problem. Therefore, I believe that decency, fairness and genuineness should be the three core post-woke values, the values that will lead us away from the mess created by woke culture.