Why Free Speech Shouldn't be an Anti-Woke Thing | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

Far too often, cancel culture that comes from the supposedly 'non-woke' is not taken as seriously. It's like how when, earlier this year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis used the power of the state to 'punish' Disney for speaking up against his Don't Say Gay law, and 'anti-woke' free speech forces didn't unite to oppose the move as some might have expected. This just shows how the 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' lens is of limited utility in defending free speech, and well past its expiry date, in a time when cancel culture can almost equally come from all sides.

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

Why Cancel Culture Isn't About Accountability | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

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

The Key to Liberalism is Diversity of Thought | Rebuilding Liberalism

The marketplace of ideas is the key to a successful reformist politics

Welcome to Rebuilding Liberalism, a series where we look at how to rebuild the classical liberal consensus, and build a rational and successful reformist politics on top of this consensus.

Recently, in an article about the 2022 US midterm election results, I've analyzed how 'woke' activists are creating a dilemma for the Democrats (as well as their counterparts in other countries). The 'woke' agenda, consisting mostly of postmodern critical theory inspired activism, is broadly unpopular, and the Republicans have successfully painted the Democrats as supportive of it. Even if they stay silent on cultural issues, they can't seem to shake off the 'woke' vibe. This is because, unlike back in the 1990s, party establishments don't control the conversation in the media anymore, and hence can't control how they are perceived. The solution I suggested was to develop an alternative platform that addresses the social justice demands out there, but rooted in the long-standing classical liberal consensus instead of postmodern critical theory, including upholding values like free speech and freedom of conscience.

However, one might still ask, how would the (classical) liberal alternative be heard over the postmodern critical theory agenda? The answer actually lies in one of liberalism's most cherished values: diversity of thought. Of all the ideologies that have existed in the history of the West, liberalism is uniquely committed to diversity of thought, as reflected in its values like free speech, freedom of conscience, encouragement of rational debate, and so on. Until recently, liberal media was well known for giving all sorts of unusual views airtime, in contrast to conservative media's habit of running the same message over and over again. This kind of coverage was well suited to liberal audiences, because of their open-minded nature. However, in recent years, this liberal diversity has greatly diminished. I believe it has a lot to do with the rise of cancel culture. Journalists and media outlets, who used to take interest in diverse viewpoints across the spectrum, have been increasingly leaning towards the argument that 'harmful' ideas shouldn't be platformed. As to what is harmful, it could range from actual racism (which I agree shouldn't be entertained), all the way down to proposals for compromise solutions on issues related to racial justice and LGBT issues (which are probably essential to building consensus for reform). Activists have also attacked liberal media outlets that feature 'harmful' voices, leading to the calculation that, for reputation's sake, it might be better not to invite certain people on. All this has meant that progressive-side media has increasingly toed the activist line. I even suspect that this is actually one of the biggest reasons for the current polarization.

Restoring the diversity of thought in liberal media would stop the conservative attempt to paint everyone to their left as 'woke' on everything. The 'everything is woke' narrative would naturally be discredited in a world where diversity of thought and sincere debates are clearly the norm among those who want to reform society. Yes, 'woke' voices would still be there, they will still be part of the conversation, but it would be clear that they are not the only perspective on offer on the progressive side. Free debate would also lead to the exchange of ideas, the refinement of proposals, and yes, the formation of compromises most people can get behind, which is what needs to happen for any progressive reform to occur, or indeed, to stop reactionary policies from winning. For example, parents are rightly concerned that sex education in schools need to be age appropriate, and they need to have a say in it. Polls have repeatedly showed that a majority of Americans agree with this position, for example. However, activists on the left have made the issue taboo to discuss in liberal media. This has created an opening for people like Ron DeSantis to come up with 'Don't Say Gay' bills. A similar dynamic also exists in relation to discussions on history and race, again allowing reactionary politicians to run a culture war in that area. Restoring liberal diversity would short circuit these dynamics, and likely stop the rising tide of reactionary culture war politics.

The other important thing is that, those in favor of social reforms should welcome a re-diversified landscape, and adapt to it accordingly. This way, they can potentially greatly expand the coalitions supporting their policy goals. To do this, they need to learn to build coalitions in favor of reforms, which can include a diverse range of views about the underlying reasons for embracing particular policies. For example, I have long argued that the pro-environment coalition needs to include people who are still skeptical of climate change, but would support climate action as an 'insurance policy'. Similarly, the pro-choice coalition needs to include people who are personally against abortion, but believe the government shouldn't be involved, or otherwise believe that banning abortions isn't the answer. The LGBT rights coalition should welcome people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman in the religious sense, or who don't believe that 'trans women are women', but are still compassionate enough to support civil rights to make life easier for LGBT people, for example. The attitude they should take is, 'you shouldn't have to agree with us on philosophy to agree with us on policy'. This is the only way to build broad coalitions to achieve needed reforms.

Finally, it is only to be expected that critical theory-aligned activists will not be kind towards any attempt to develop and articulate an alternative progressive agenda that doesn't entertain their ideological point of view. Those advancing a truly liberal agenda must be prepared for smears of not being committed to social justice, or even throwing minorities under the bus. The best way to argue against these smears would be to show a genuine commitment to equal opportunity for everyone in society, regardless of race, gender, or other immutable characteristics. It is the only way to win the argument against postmodern critical theory.

Why Liberalism is Anti Chaos | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article by TaraElla.

In the most basic terms, liberalism is a belief that society should be built on a social contract that ensures an ordered liberty, where all can equally enjoy this liberty. Different factions within liberalism differ on what the social contract should include, or what liberties should be upheld, but one common element present in all versions of liberalism is the belief that liberty's existence is dependent on the existence of order. Thomas Hobbes, who argued that an absolute sovereign was necessary to avoid the brute natural state of "the war of all against all", is often considered an important thinker in the liberal cannon. While modern liberals are certainly more democratic than Hobbes, we still agree fundamentally with his belief that an order needs to be imposed, in order to ensure a sustainable liberty.

In this way, liberalism stands in stark contrast to anarchism, the other major ideology that has some notion of freedom at its center. Unlike liberalism, anarchism does not believe in an ordered liberty. Indeed, it does not accept the need for any enforced order at all, because its ultimate goal is to remove all 'coercive' and hierarchical relationships between humans. Given that any imposition of order must inevitably be 'coercive' and hierarchical to some extent, anarchists reject the liberal goal of an ordered liberty as oppressive in their worldview. As to how to avoid the natural state of "the war of all against all", anarchists have never provided a convincing answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Western Politics has Gotten So Abnormal | TaraElla Clips

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

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

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

The credibility of free speech liberalism depends on it

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

We Need to Understand the Postmodern Left | TaraElla Clips

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

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

Dismantling Liberal Norms Endangers the LGBT Community | Post Woke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

A Conservative Liberal Approach to Social Progress? | TaraElla Clips

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

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

What Free Speech and Classical Liberalism is About | TaraElla Clips

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

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

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.