Why I Left the Left and the Right #4: How To Move Forward | TaraElla Report Reset

Welcome to a new season of the TaraElla Report, which I will call TaraElla Report Reset. Today, I want to talk about what this season will be focused on, and why I'm calling it a reset. In today's episode, I will be going back through the history of this show, what I actually wanted out of it in the first place, what I learned in my journey so far, and what I want to do going forward.

Let's start by looking back. When I first started this project, this show, several years ago, what I wanted to do was to talk about ideas from different people and different factions of society. I wanted to be part of the ongoing cultural and political conversation in the Western world, which was at one of its most heated points in recent history. I was increasingly frustrated about the state of the conversation, with its polarization, division, but also conformity within echo chambers, acceptance of faulty reasoning on both sides, rise of what I consider extreme ideologies, and so on. I wanted to bring a better approach to the table.

Looking back, I was deeply frustrated with the changing dynamics of what could be broadly described as 'the left side of the spectrum', which I sort of thought I belonged to ever since my college days. Back when I was in first year of college, the Iraq War happened, and I didn't really like the politics of the pro-war neoconservatives, who were dominant in America and several other Western countries. I decided that, by comparison, 'the left', which was more war-skeptical overall, and which was not as opposed to things like gay marriage, was for me. So that remained my political identity for some time. We have to remember that, back then, many people weren't as clear about dividing it into the center-left, far-left, old-left, new-left etc. While there is an argument to be made about avoiding labels, in this case, these divisions are actually real and important, in the context of this story. The other things was, libertarians were also part of the anti-war coalition, and they were gravitating away from the Bush Republican Right because of that. They were also upset at the whole religious right thing, especially with Bush making gay marriage a big issue around 2004. Libertarians were increasingly raising the fact that they would have been on the left in the original French revolution sense. Some of them even voted for Kerry in 2004. So in my mind, libertarians were sort of left too. I know this might not make sense for many people today, but back then, it was how I saw it. So when I say I was 'in the left', what I probably meant was that I was effectively center-left plus libertarian fusion, which was probably quite common for young people back then.

Around 4 or 5 years ago, I became increasingly frustrated at how 'the left' was changing. There was a rapid increase in identity politics and a pro-conflict, us-vs-them orientation, and there was a rapid drop in respect for liberal norms like free speech, freedom of conscience and so on. There was also increasing hostility between those who considered themselves 'left', and those who considered themselves 'libertarian'. These things meant that, overall, the Left now felt like a collectivist, group over individual, zero-sum political faction, that was also driven by theoretical concerns rather than practical needs. You know that famous Dave Rubin video 'Why I Left the Left', it might be cliche and unfair in places, but I was increasingly feeling like the Left was like that, and it definitely wasn't what I signed up for back in college. Knowing a bit of political history, it felt like time had gone into reverse, and we were back in the nightmare of the late 1960s and 70s. I thought society had grown up and moved beyond that unproductive era, but no, we were back there again.

Anyway, some people were also voicing the discomfort I had, with the changes I was seeing. These included both people I consider moderately liberal like Amy Chua and Jonathan Haidt, as well as moderate conservatives like Jordan Peterson and several of the new crop of political YouTubers. I was probably closer to the liberal camp rather than the conservative camp, but what I saw was that, if we could work together, we would be able to effectively push back and restore the sanity. So I decided to see if I could bring the ideas and arguments from the two sides together, to try and find some common ground. This is why, early on, this show was called Daily Centrist. I was trying to act as the 'centrist', to bring the ideas and frustrations of the two sides together, to find common ground on which we could move forward.

By around 2019, however, the political landscape had further fractured, and now I could see that there were at least six or seven big factions along the political spectrum, or rather, the political map, because it clearly had more than one dimension. I stopped calling myself a 'centrist' because that term became less meaningful with this new development. Instead of just looking to find common ground among two factions, I expanded to try and find common ground between multiple factions, which both overlapped and conflicted depending on the issue we were talking about. Old school 'two big coalitions' politics was breaking down almost completely, and as a Moral Libertarian who believes in independent thinking, I loved it. I became particularly interested in the people who tried to bridge the newly formed factions, like I was doing. I was convinced that this was the politics of the future. Decentralized, spontaneous, flexible in its alliances, and so on.

And then, 2020 came. The end of the Democratic primaries meant that American politics settled firmly back into two big camps, and much of the rest of the Western world followed suit. Biden's history of bipartisanship initially gave me hope that he would evolve into one of those people who wanted to bridge the divides, but so far, I've not seen any indication that he wants to move that way. Maybe, with the base he now has, he couldn't do it even if he wanted to. Meanwhile, a new wave of social movements served to further the popularization of things like cancel culture. Even a letter supporting free speech, signed by prominent left-wing intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, got attacked by the new wave of cultural warriors. On the other side, the Trump campaign also happily encouraged polarization over these events, for its own political purposes. Of course, the culture wars also mean that nothing is being done about the important issues, like the dwindling prospects for young people, the rise of automation, the health of families and the social fabric, housing affordability, and so on. Let's face it: 2020 was a big disappointment, a major setback for people with priorities like myself.

So, where do we go next? I have spent much of 2021 so far quite directionless, not knowing what exactly to do, to be honest. The cultural and political landscape looks pretty much like a war torn wasteland these days, to be honest. But what I have learned is that, there is hope in ideas, and there is hope in conversations. This is why, going forward, I will be exploring interesting ideas across the political spectrum once again. Through ideas and conversations, we can once again get inspired, find common ground, and find the will to work together on practical issues again. In particular, through exploring diverse ideas, I hope to help build a new politics that is progressive, in the sense of forward looking, but also not tied to the dogma of the so-called theories coming from the Left or the Right. I will talk about that more next time.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Remember, on this show, the personalities don't matter, it's the ideas that matter. Interest in an individual's ideas does not mean support for all their other ideas. Until next time, remember to resist conformity and stay positive. Our future depends on it.

Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists, Whatever, We Need To Work Together | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about how we can co-operate to achieve good outcomes, by overcoming the divisions caused by labels and echo chambers. Let's start here. I have often said that my work is a classical liberal project. How does this label define me, how does it limit me? Does this mean I should only cooperate with people who identify as classical liberals? Of course not. Back in 2019, for example, I provided a positive overview of some of Bernie's stances, and I said those were good ideas, despite not being a Leftist myself. On the other hand, I have often disagreed with other people who identify as 'classical liberals', on numerous things. As you can see, labels don't mean everything, and we shouldn't be constrained by preconceptions of labels.

One thing to understand is that, labels are only useful as far as they describe a worldview, values or something similarly concrete. Otherwise it becomes just another form of identity politics. For me, classical liberalism is about sticking to the spirit of liberalism, as it was originally conceived. I believe that liberalism is ultimately rooted in two things that came out of the Enlightenment: freedom of religion, and a commitment to objective scientific truth as demonstrated by empirical evidence. For the purpose of the 21st century, a time where many people are not religious, I believe that freedom of religion needs to be expanded into a more general freedom of moral belief and commitment, which I have formulated as the Moral Libertarian principle of Equal Moral Agency for all individuals. On the other hand, the commitment to scientific truth and empirical evidence has served us well for several centuries, and there is no reason to abandon or change it at all. The reason I call my liberalism 'classical liberalism' is because, in contemporary Western politics, 'liberal' often means something else, i.e. the political coalition of the mainstream Left, which unfortunately includes elements of postmodernism and critical theory, worldviews that are fundamentally opposed to the twin values of moral freedom and objective truth. My use of 'classical liberalism' is therefore necessary to denote my commitment to liberalism as it originally meant, and my opposition to postmodernized so-called liberalism.

As you can see, my identity as a 'classical liberal' is clearly tied to two overriding values, and it means something concrete. It is not an identity for identity's sake. Rather, it is a shorthand for something meaningful. Logically, this would mean that I should be able to find common ground with people who are doing things in line with these two ideals, no matter what label they go by. And over the years, I have been able to find common ground with plenty of such people across the political spectrum.

Right now, there are indeed many things that need attention in Western societies, and we can only resolve them if we try to find common ground with other people, to formulate a consensus approach. Economic changes are leaving many people behind, and I fear the erosion of equal opportunity would have adverse effects on moral freedom for individuals. As corporations gain immense power, they become more and more able to restrict the moral freedom of individuals. Meanwhile, automation threatens to eliminate many existing jobs over the coming years, making the problem much worse. I believe the reason why there still aren't good solutions to these problems, is because too many people across the political spectrum are still holding tight to economic and political theories developed in the 19th century. We don't live in an industrial economy anymore, and 19th century dogma isn't going to save the 21st century West. Instead, we need to come together, and come up with something new.

Another big problem is, even as the War in Afghanistan has just ended, the elites are still trying to drag us into cycles of endless wars and international conflict. They can't seem to get rid of the pro-war mentality they got addicted to during the Cold War, which actually ended 30 years ago! Wars always mean massive losses in human lives, and it is a moral imperative for many of us to put an end to the forever wars. When we say we want to see world peace in our lifetime, we mean it, and we will do anything necessary to achieve it. I believe we need to come together, regardless of our otherwise philosophical differences, to stare down the elites who want to create global conflict over and over again. Enough is enough. We can never let the elites get away with forgetting the tragic disasters that were the Vietnam war, the Iraq war and now the Afghanistan war. And the only way we can do that is to find common ground, and stand together against the pro-war elites.

A Social Justice Critique of Postmodernism, from a Psychological Perspective | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about how postmodern critical theory weighs people, especially members of marginalized minorities, down, and makes us less successful in life.

Let's start here. Back in the 1950s, the psychologist Julian B. Rotter developed the idea that people could be placed on a spectrum of having an internal locus of control on one end, vs an external locus of control on the other end. People with an internal locus of control believed that they were in control of, and responsible for, the successes or failures in their lives, and Rotter observed that they had high achievement motivation. This, of course, is an essential ingredient for success in life, as well as a key factor in psychological health. This is why, if we want to be successful, we should aim to orientate ourselves to have an internal locus of control.

However, postmodern critical theories teach women and various minorities, including ethnic minorities and LGBT people alike, that their fate is being determined by an oppressive system that won't let them succeed. Therefore, postmodern criticalism is effectively encouraging them to develop an external locus of control, which is both bad for their mental health and also makes them less likely to be successful in life. I therefore sometimes argue that these theories are actually more effective at oppressing minorities, than anything else out there.

Similarly, another 20th century psychologist Abraham Maslow, most famous for his 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs', observed that self-actualizing individuals, people who were able to reach the highest level on his pyramid model of development, shared several important characteristics. Among them was being grounded in reality and being committed to the truth, things that are actively discouraged by postmodernism. Self-actualizing people were also spontaneous, creative, and not rigidly bound by social conventions, the opposite of what postmodern criticalism would impose on us in the form of making everything problematic, telling us to 'check our privilege' all the time, and forcing a whole new and unnatural way of speaking and relating onto all of us because they believe that language shapes reality. In other words, postmodern criticalism actively prevents us from reaching our full development according to the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which means that it is literally regressive!

Joe Biden and a Lesson on Disappointment in Individuals | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about being disappointed in individuals. Recently, I was very disappointed in President Biden's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, which has objectively led to a lot of unnecessary suffering. The worse part of all was that, he didn't even seem to care that much. I mean, I get that people make mistakes, but it's the not caring enough that really hurt. While Biden wasn't my favorite during 2019-2020, I always thought that he at least had a heart. Maybe I was wrong. What's even worse is that, too many of his supporters in mainstream media keep making excuses for him, probably just because they support him. The fact remains that, Biden had almost a year to get the withdrawal right, and he simply did not. You know, normally I don't even comment on non-Western politics, but the Afghanistan withdrawal is arguably part of Western politics, because the whole intervention was always an American-led thing.

Anyway, I think this is also a timely reminder that individuals often let us down in the end. Ideas are forever, but an individual whom you might agree with today could seriously let you down tomorrow. One must not blindly support an individual, like the people who are making excuses for Biden right now. And it's not just Biden. Several of his other 2019-2020 competitors have also let me down in various ways since they were on that debate stage not so long ago. It's also not just Democrats, or even just politicians. I won't name names here, but over the past 2-3 years, several thinkers and personalities across the political spectrum, whom I used to admire to some degree, have seriously let me down in the end. I guess in intense times like these, it's bound to happen even more often than usual.

Which is why, from now on, I feel like I must stress that this show, and all my other work, is about the ideas, and not the personalities. I have always said that, my support for a certain individual's ideas on something doesn't extend to wholesale support for their other ideas and stances. But right now, I feel as though I need to put even more emphasis on this point. My work is about discussing brilliant and interesting ideas from people across the political spectrum. It is certainly not my intention to encourage cults of personality, which could lead to an inability to criticize certain people. Because that would be truly regressive.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Remember, on this show, the personalities don't matter, it's the ideas that matter. My being interested in an individual's ideas does not necessarily mean wholesale support for all their ideas. Until next time, remember to resist conformity and stay positive. Our future depends on it.

Why Free Speech is So Important for Western Democracies | Moral Libertarian Talk

Today, I want to talk about why free speech is so important for Western Democracies. Let's start with our political system. In our political systems, the voters elect the people who govern them, by approximately one person, one vote. As the saying goes, we get the government we deserve, and it is a very important decision to make. The important thing is, to exercise this important duty, every voter must know exactly what is going on. Otherwise, if there is incomplete information, if there are things that are prevented from being widely known or discussed, it could create a biased view of things for many voters, which will greatly impact the future development of society through biased voting decisions.

Why Positive Thinking Helps Minorities in Western Democracies | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about why positive thinking is especially helpful for minorities, or members of historically disadvantaged demographics, in the context of Western liberal democracy. This statement is based on two factors: firstly, in Western liberal democracies, there is a real attempt at providing equal opportunity for every individual, regardless of their backgrounds or immutable characteristics. Therefore, while there may not be exactly equal opportunity for everyone yet, and this is something we should continue to work on, there should at least be quite a good chance to do well for everyone in this society, unlike, for example, in feudal societies where everyone's place is fixed. Secondly, everything else equal, positive thinking leads to a much better chance of success than negative thinking. Therefore, I think everyone, and especially disadvantaged minorities who want to prove themselves, should take advantage of the opportunities this society offers, however imperfect, and make the best of it using positive thinking.

Equal Moral Agency Does Not Require Equality of Outcome

(NOTE: This article first appeared in Moral Libertarian Horizon #4, and has been slightly edited to better convey what I mean.)

Ever since I published my articles and books about Moral Libertarianism and the principle of Equal Moral Agency for all individuals, I have repeatedly encountered a critique from the far-left: that rich people surely have much more moral agency than regular working individuals, so someone serious about Equal Moral Agency must hence oppose the market economy or something like that. Let me break this down: firstly, I do agree that the way society is set up now sometimes allows rich people to coerce poorer people in some ways, and this should change; but secondly, it doesn't imply that we need to move away from the market economy to adequately solve this problem.

Let me first clarify what I mean by Equal Moral Agency. It's essentially the same as the equal freedom of religion that underpinned classical liberalism in the 18th and 19th century, but expanded to include moral beliefs that are not necessarily religious. Basically, everyone should be free to practice their own moral beliefs, including but not limited to religion, as long as this would not unfairly limit another's rights to do so. Now, this does not imply the right to have an equal impact on the rest of the population. Indeed, there could be no such right, because even in a perfectly free and fair market of ideas, some ideas are going to be much more persuasive than others, and hence adopted by more people. Therefore, the principle of Equal Moral Agency is to be interpreted as a personal right within oneself, the way freedom of religion is interpreted. The fact that a rich businessman has much more tools at his disposal to proselytize his religion has never been interpreted as a lack of freedom of religion. Therefore, I believe Equal Moral Agency doesn't necessarily require equality of resources.

On the other hand, Equal Moral Agency necessarily requires that the rich must not be able to coerce the poor into giving up their moral agency. This 'coercion' would include the carrot as well as the stick, because in either case the ill effects on morality are the same, i.e. letting an imperfect human being have proportionally too much moral agency and inadequate balances and checks on their behaviour. (Also, if you apply the idea of opportunity costs, carrots are just sticks worded in reverse, so carrots and sticks are really not that different anyway.) In our modern world, such coercion could include restricting the acceptable speech of others, compelling others to take certain stances, or making certain beliefs so taboo that one dare not voice it lest they lose their job or worse. These things are of course much easier to do for those with lots of money. Therefore, I believe a case can be made for some sort of regulation, to prevent this coercion from happening.

Moreover, while Equal Moral Agency is a personal right, it does not mean there are no public sphere requirements of equal treatment. To illustrate this, we should again think about how freedom of religion is applied. For example, a public square that allows the preaching of one religion but not another would surely be seen to violate freedom of religion. In our modern world, digital platforms have essentially become our public squares. Consistently, a digital platform that allows the promotion of one religion but not another would rightly face a public outcry. Therefore, censorship of certain points of view on digital platforms could indeed be justifiably seen as an affront to the spirit of Equal Moral Agency. On a related note, a large part of the Moral Libertarian ideal is a free and fair market of ideas, so Moral Libertarians should naturally support less censorship and more free speech under all circumstances.

Furthermore, while Equal Moral Agency does not appear to call for equality on the basis of race, gender, sexuality and so on, in practice, a lack of equal treatment and equal opportunity in these areas could lead to the erosion of Equal Moral Agency. For example, in a society where racial minorities or LGBT individuals have a particularly hard time finding a job, some of them could become more willing to give up their moral agency (in terms of free speech, for example) in exchange for fulfilling basic material needs. This in turn inevitably leads to a downward race where other people become expected to give up their moral agency too (after all, if members of so-and-so minority can do it, and you're not racist or homophobic or whatever, then why can't you do that too?). I believe this gives justification to anti-discrimination laws, like the Civil Rights Act in America.

Of course, one can argue that a cashless society where private property and wage labour is banned would do away with the aforementioned problems entirely. However, every solution has its pros and cons, and the two should be balanced to get us as close to Equal Moral Agency as possible. While a market-less society would solve the problem of discrimination in private employment by eliminating private employment altogether, anti-discrimination regulations could achieve the same in a market economy. However, a completely planned economy places a lot of power in the state or the collective (i.e. whoever gets to plan the economy), which inevitably comes with other losses of freedom, e.g. the freedom to start a small business, to turn your passion into useful products, without the permission of the state or the collective. This, in turn, actually means that a market-less society is likely to be further away from the ideal of Equal Moral Agency than where we are now.

In conclusion, Equal Moral Agency, similar to the idea of freedom of religion which it is based upon, does not mean one has an equal right to impact the rest of society as another. Hence, there is no need for equality of the amount of resources at one's disposal. There could be a need to regulate certain aspects of society so that the rich and powerful cannot coerce other people to agree with their moral stances. However, I believe to suggest that we should move to something like a completely planned economic system as the solution would be entirely missing the point, because a completely planned economic system would almost by definition be further away from having Equal Moral Agency compared to where we are now.

Why Critical Theory & Echo Chambers are a Dangerous Combination | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about why echo chambers, and particularly echo chambers steeped in postmodern critical theory thinking, are dangerous to the health of Western democratic systems. I will be explaining this in terms of what we know from cognitive science, the importance of the free flow of ideas in Western democratic systems, and how these two concepts interact with each other.

Let's start with this: the fundamental characteristic of Western democratic systems is that the voters elect the people who govern them, by approximately one person, one vote. As the saying goes, we get the government we deserve. And if you add up multiple elections, it can also be said that we get the society and the development trajectory we deserve. In other words, the conscience and the decision of the voter shapes literally everything. As you see, a lot rests on the almighty vote of each and every voter. This, as I previously said, is entirely consistent with the fundamentals of the Western moral code, which emphasizes individual moral responsibility. The important thing is, to exercise this important duty, every voter must know exactly what is going on. We must have adequate and unbiased information to understand all aspects of the important problems in front of us. This is why echo chambers are dangerous.

Echo chambers ultimately cause people to have a distorted view on issues, for several reasons. Firstly, there is often selective reporting, meaning that only stories that fit the dominant narrative of the echo chamber are given attention. This leads to what is called 'availability bias', which simply means that something which can be immediately remembered is perceived as important by human brains. Therefore, stories that reinforce the dominant narrative are perceived to be important, while incidents that don't fit the narrative, and are hence less reported, are perceived as less important. This can lead to a cascade, ultimately resulting in rare occurances being treated like national emergencies, but more common problems are ignored. Remember, this can equally happen in any echo chamber, so it is something that both the Left and the Right are equally vulnerable to.

Moreover, echo chambers, through their reinforcement of shared narratives, can also contribute to the development of other cognitive biases, like attentional bias, where someone is preoccupied with an existing train of thought and ignores all other possibilities, confirmation bias, i.e. the tendency to interpret information to reinforce previously developed beliefs, even when this is not objectively reasonable, and the bandwagon effect, where people adopt certain beliefs simply because they see other people doing so. There can even be an 'illusory truth effect' sometimes, where people come to believe in false statements simply because of repeated exposure.

Of particular concern is the recent rise of postmodern critical theories, like critical race theory, critical gender theory and so on, and how these can exacerbate the echo chamber cognitive bias problem exponentially. Postmodern criticalism rejects the requirement of objectivity outright, and encourages the dangerous idea that each person can have 'their own truth'. I'm concerned that people who have this worldview would be even less likely to keep their cognitive biases in check. Furthermore, such theories often come with fundamental assumptions, like how everything is defined by power relations, or how racism or the patriarchy is everywhere. This could lead to what is essentially confirmation bias on steroids. My point is, while cognitive biases are something that everyone naturally suffers from, and is basically inevitable in any type of echo chamber, postmodern criticalism is particularly prone to exacerbating them. This is why I'm so concerned about the effect postmodern criticalism is having on the health of Western democracies.

Revisiting the Anti SJW Movement | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about a rather controversial topic: the so-called anti-SJW movement that existed between approximately 2012 to 2018. The anti-SJW movement has been credited, or blamed, depending on your angle, for some of the important political events during that time, most notably the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump. According to some analyses, it could also have slowed down or confused certain social justice movements. Therefore, it was indeed an important part of recent Western politics. While that movement is certainly over by now, I think it is important to revisit it to learn some lessons, to see how things can be done better in the future.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about that movement, as it had both more reasonable people as well as outrightly reactionary people in it. The first group were mainly liberals or moderates who expressed skepticism about certain things social justice activists were pushing for at the time, and the second group were basically the kind of people who were against any and all change. My focus is on the first group, why they had the reaction they had, and what lessons it can teach us about social change.

Let's face it. The Anti-SJW movement was basically a backlash to the demands and tactics of the social justice activists at that time. Given that the backlash to certain social justice movements is still on the increase, there is real worry that there could be a much bigger backlash wave against all demands for progressive reform, in the not too distant future. Many people, including even moderate conservatives, are now truly worried that the pendulum would swing too hard the other way, leading to a period of severe reactionarism the likes we haven't seen in the West for many decades. To prevent this outcome, I think we must study what has caused the backlash, and what needs to be done in order to calm it down.

I don't deny that some people involved in the Anti-SJW movement, and the broader backlash to social justice recently, are truly racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted. However, many anti-SJWs clearly didn't fit this description. Instead, they appeared to be worried that important parts of the long standing social contract of Western society were being eroded. These included things like free speech, freedom of conscience, and most importantly, individual moral responsibility. The Western moral code is based on an individualistic view of moral responsibility, and any moral collectivism, for example labelling an entire race or gender as oppressors, is inherently incompatible with this. It only makes sense that people would staunchly defend our individualistic morality, because a culture's moral code is a long term development that cannot be easily replaced. Once a civilization's long standing moral code has been compromised, it could lead to a complete collapse in morality itself. Real social justice can only be achieved by respecting the fundamentals of our moral code, and this excludes oppressor vs oppressed theories based on collective responsibility.

Another problem with some recent social justice demands is that they are antagonistic to long-standing social norms, even where they don't need to be. There is sometimes a deliberate attempt to challenge, invalidate, or otherwise subvert many social norms, even where it doesn't clearly lead to more social justice. I think this is due to the heavy influence from radical academic theories like social constructionism, deconstructionism, and postmodernism more generally. I believe this approach is fundamentally misguided. It is based too much on abstract philosophy, and not on real world practicality. In the real world, social norms are an important part of social life. Using a functionalist sociological lens, we can often see that they fulfill important social functions, particularly around integration and pattern maintenance. Without these norms, social cohesion could fall apart. Hence, most people value social norms, and will defend them from unjustified attacks. I'm not saying that social norms don't need to be changed or updated from time to time. What I'm saying is that, this must be a careful and well justified process. The mass deconstruction of social norms leads to potential instability, and would naturally be met with backlash. Instead, I suggest a much less invasive approach: only the social norms that actually adversely affect minorities should be changed, and they should be changed to the least extent needed to resolve the problem.

In conclusion, while the anti-SJW movement did have some bad people in it, there was also a genuine concern from many good people, about the way social justice activists were operating. This was because social justice activism became heavily influenced by academic theories based on abstract philosophy, that disrespects the fundamentals of the Western moral code, as well as the many social norms that keep our society functional. This risks creating massive backlash, and is clearly not the way to pursue social justice. Instead, we should aim to build a broad consensus for any necessary social change, and this consensus can only come about if we respect the foundations of the society we live in.

Is Critical Race Theory Related to 'Postmodern Neo-Marxism'? | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about a question I have seen some people asking: is there a relationship between critical race theory, and the idea of 'postmodern neo-Marxism' that was at the center of a big controversy a few years ago. Basically, the two things are highly related. They are all part of what I think should be classified under 'postmodern neo-criticalism', or just 'criticalism' for short. Let me explain.

First popularized by Jordan Peterson a few years ago, the term 'postmodern neo-Marxism' was used to denote a new ideology arising in the Western political landscape in the early 21st century, that was clearly attempting to challenge and supplant liberalism. When someone says they are concerned about postmodern neo-Marxism, they're usually talking about the kind of divisive, us-vs-them identity politics, that divides people into oppressor vs oppressed groups based on immutable characteristics like race, gender and sexual orientation. There's also the skepticism towards free speech and radical cultural demands that are undertaken in the name of justice for the oppressed group. Now, I think the root of all this can be traced back to Herbert Marcuse, specifically his idea that the excluded groups of society be made the new focus of a possible revolution in the Western world, first articulated in his 1964 book One Dimensional Man. Given the context of 1960s America, many have interpreted this to include the racially oppressed, and the idea was also taken up by some radical feminists later on.

Peterson's use of 'postmodern neo-Marxism' was considered controversial. Nowadays, people are more likely to call it 'critical theory' or 'critical social justice', which has attracted much less controversy, in part because 'critical theory' is indeed the correct academic term to describe the kind of ideas Marcuse and his ideological successors promoted. 'Postmodern critical theory' is the umbrella term for the more recent work that incorporates postmodern ideas from thinkers like Michel Foucault. If you read widely enough, however, you would very likely come across books and other academic sources that call critical theory 'neo-Marxism'. For example, there is a section in the 8th edition of the Giddens and Sutton Sociology textbook about the Frankfurt School, that calls their critical theory work 'neo-Marxism'. Hence, at least in some contexts, neo-Marxism simply means critical theory, and following from that, 'postmodern neo-Marxism' would simply refer to 'postmodern critical theory', which is indeed at the root of a lot of controversial new social movements in the Western world right now. Hence, Peterson's usage is neither a new invention, nor entirely incorrect.

However, just because a term is being used, doesn't mean it's the best or most correct term. I have actually long been frustrated about the term 'postmodern neo-Marxism' being a confusing one, although I did use it on several occasions, because I didn't know of better terms yet. However, it is clear that critical theory driven identity politics isn't actually Marxism, and I think it wouldn't be helpful to anyone to perpetuate this confusion. The confusion arises because of the roots of critical theory. Critical theory was first invented by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School, who believed they were using the 'method of Marx' to examine culture, although this point remains very controversial. However, it was also inspired heavily by the psychoanalysis of Freud, perhaps more so than Marx. Anyway, even though critical theory was inspired partially by Marxism, it's not Marxism. Hence it's a new ideology. Perhaps we should call it criticalism.

The next thing is, contemporary Western identity politics is not rooted in the whole of critical theory either. You can't draw a line leading from Adorno's work to the radical movements on college campuses today, for example. In fact, many of the 68 generation, the direct ideological predecessors of today's identity Left, actually hated Adorno. The 'critical theory' we are concered about today is rooted in Marcuse, rather than Horkheimer and Adorno. Marcuse was part of the Frankfurt School, but he had a unique take on critical theory, and it is his take that is influencing our politics right now, probably because he was in America and also very politically active. It's a point I think that more people should emphasize. Hence, we should technically call it neo-criticalism. The root of all radical identity politics on the Left we see today is, hence, neo-criticalism.

Marcuse's ideas were enthusiastically taken up by the radical young people of the late 1960s and the 1970s, the so-called 68 generation. But Marcuse was only the starting point. The radicals of this generation later also took in other radical ideas that fit in with the oppressor vs oppressed worldview, particularly from French postmodernism. Critical theory that dealt with identity groups also developed into specific branches, like critical race theory, gender critical theory and queer theory, all with their own key thinkers, influences, worldviews, and jargon. Hence, what we have now is not the original Marcusean neo-criticalism either, but rather, postmodernized neo-criticalism. Or 'postmodern neo-criticalism'.

In conclusion, while Jordan Peterson may have not been technically wrong to call radical identity politics 'postmodern neo-Marxism', this still creates the problem of confusing it for a form of Marxism, which it isn't. However, changing just one word, to call it 'postmodern neo-criticalism', would solve the problem, and make it entirely technically correct. On the other hand, given that the phrase is pretty long, I think we can just call it 'criticalism', and there is no risk of confusion because this is essentially the only form of critical theory that has been widely practiced as political activism. The other thing is, practitioners of critical race theory sometimes call themselves 'crits', and it is very logical that the ideology the 'crits' practice is called 'criticalism'.

On 'Liberal' & 'Moral' | Moral Libertarian Talk / TaraElla In-Depth

Today, I want to explore my idea that liberalism is the 'most moral ideology' in the context of Western democracy, the basis upon which I argue strongly for the continued application of liberal values in Western democracies, and the rejection of ideas which are incompatible with such liberal values, like critical theory and postmodernism.

In our moral system, the post-Enlightenment Western moral system, it is generally held that people should be entirely responsible for their own actions. Indeed, I would argue that, if this principle does not hold, our whole moral system would collapse. Hence, to be moral, in the context of our code of morality, is to be fully responsible for our own choices, our own decisions, and our own actions, and to make sure that these don't result in negative outcomes, especially on other people. Our moral system places a particular emphasis on individual accountability and responsibility, and for our moral system to work, our culture and politics must support these notions clearly, and to the fullest extent possible. Furthermore, the individualistic nature of Western morality means that, whenever power is concentrated in a few hands, those few people will exercise their power solely according to their own sense of morality, not because it's their fault, not because it's the system's fault, but because it's what Western morality actually expects people to do. In this situation, there will inevitably be a lack of moral accountability, which means a lack of moral responsibility.

The Moral Libertarian principle of Equal Moral Agency for every individual is a principle derived from the individual accountability requirements of the Western moral system, and seeks to prevent the aforementioned lack of moral accountability. It ensures, as much as possible, that nobody has moral agency over another person's actions, and that every person can act according to their own moral agency. This is where I believe the true heart of liberalism lies, and it is why I say that liberalism is the best expression of morality, as it is commonly agreed upon in our shared moral system. Given our individualistic moral code, I believe this is the only way to ensure morality is upheld. Anything else would violate the basic assumptions of our moral code, which would lead to deep confusion about what constitutes morality, as interwar Europe under fascism had shown, in a very disastrous way.

Some revolutionary minded people may say that the current Western political system, as well as its underlying moral code, is faulty, and must be completely deconstructed and replaced. This is really the core motivation of criticalism, I think. However, this not only won't work, it could lead to dangerously immoral outcomes, as we saw in interwar Europe under fascism. Fascists thought they could turn their countries into collectivist cultures by decree, but their regimes turned really ugly, as we all know. I think the lesson here is that, when you destroy the moral code of a civilization, you can't expect even ordinary morals to continue to be upheld. A culture's moral code takes a long time to develop and evolve, and you can't just replace it with something entirely different and expect it to work. So far, I have described the Western moral code as being based on individual responsibility ever since the Enlightenment. But if you look at it from a broader historical context, the Enlightenment was only a refinement of ideas that came before it. Western moral individualism clearly had earlier roots, as seen in historical events like the Magna Carta. While I won't deny that some cultures may be able to maintain a very moral society with a more collectivist system, I am certain that the West cannot do that. For the West, rejecting moral individualism will inevitably lead to the rejection of morality itself.

Now, when I say that liberalism is the most moral, I always mean it in the aforementioned sense. It doesn't mean that anyone who calls themselves 'liberal' are therefore automatically moral. After all, people who call themselves liberal may not even be deserving of that label. For example, it is certainly not moral to wage wars on other countries in the name of 'spreading freedom', whatever you call it.

The REAL Antidote to Critical Theory: Consensus Theory and Empiricism | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about the conflict problem critical theory is creating, and the natural antidote to that problem. As you would probably have heard of by now, various social justice movements that draw heavily on various critical theories, including most famously critical race theory and gender critical theory, have caused a heightened sense of conflict across Western society in recent years, leading to an increase in zero-sum us vs them thinking. Many of us believe this is a negative development, and are trying to counter it. However, as I have described in the past, many people are essentially taking a 'fight negativity with negativity' approach, criticizing criticalism without offering much of an alternative positive solution, and that doesn't appear to be working.

To see what works, I think we should look at, what could be the opposite of criticalism. The various critical theories are grouped under the umbrella of 'conflict theory' in Western academic sociology. The opposite of 'conflict theory' is called 'consensus theory'. So there you have it: consensus theory is literally the opposite of criticalism. While conflict theory has dominated Western academic sociology in the past few decades, consensus theory was in fact the more dominant force before the 1960s. I think it's time we revived the practice of consensus theory. I don't mean to say that conflict theory has nothing to offer us. But what we have in Western sociology right now is a heavy imbalance, a very heavy tilt towards conflict theory, and this is making society sick. To cure society, we need to restore the balance. Conflict theory criticizes the current state of society, while consensus theory examines why things work when they work well, and what makes them work well. Conflict theory is good at finding fault, while consensus theory is good at appreciation. I certainly think the 21st century West could do well with a bit less finding fault and a bit more appreciation.

There are many forms of consensus theory, but the most famous and influential school of consensus theory has to be Talcott Parsons's functionalism. Indeed, back in the post-war era, sociology and Parsonian functionalism were almost synonymous. Parsonian functionalism examines society using a functional lens. It is based on the idea that society needs to fulfill certain functions, namely adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and pattern maintenance. Parsons showed how institutions like families were important systems that allow society to fulfill these functions. Although Parson's analysis of the family was criticized for being too focused on the typical middle class nuclear family, I think we can apply a similar analysis to the diverse family types we have today, and still come away with a similar conclusion about the importance of the family to society. The thing I like most about functionalism is how it understands that every society needs to fulfill certain functions, how complex systems are required to make it all work, and how important it is to appreciate things when they work well.

So why did functionalism cease to be influential? Part of it was a deliberate attempt by those with certain political agenda to discredit it. Part of it was that Parsons's ideas were perhaps too America-centric, and also too centered on 1950s middle class America. This needs to be addressed, and can certainly be addressed. However, perhaps the most important criticism was that it was not empirical enough. That is, it was not evidence-based enough, it was not rooted enough in the reality of society, and the real lived experiences of people. As someone with a science-related background, I certainly believe that everything has to be evidence-based to be valid. As I've said before, just like how we expect doctors to practice evidence-based medicine, we should demand that those in disciplines that aim to influence our social sphere, disciplines like sociology and philosophy, be as evidence-based as possible. And I believe we can certainly fix functionalism and update it for our current context with a good dose of empiricism.

There has also been a movement called neofunctionalism that aims to revive the framework of functionalism whilst fixing its faults. However, I have mixed feelings about neofunctionalism because it aims too far to incorporate other schools of thought, including conflict theory, which ultimately helps the tilt towards conflict theory. Instead, I believe we should keep functionalism firmly rooted in consensus theory, so that it can provide a contrast to conflict theory. I believe that conflict is certainly not the only way to change our society to be more just and humane. Having a good appreciation of how things work when they work well, also gives an insight as to what is needed to build good families and societies, and we can demand that these ingredients be available to everyone, regardless of their race or socio-economic class.

How to End Racism Without Critical Race Theory | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about how we can effectively deal with racism, how we can effectively end racism, without drawing upon critical race theory. With the recent controversy surrounding critical race theory, those in support of that theory have often painted those of us who don't support it as not being serious about racism. However, as I have said multiple times in the past, CRT, as with critical theory in general, has multiple fundamental assumptions about the world, which may end up being counterproductive. Among these are the tendency to see power and oppression everywhere, a hostility towards traditional things, an emphasis on systemic racism over individual moral responsibility, and skepticism towards free speech. Later in the video I will go over why these are counterproductive tendencies. But let's start with how we can address racism without CRT.

The main problem with CRT, and much of critical theory thinking, is that it is not very evidence-based. Indeed, criticalism and postmodernism, the main influences behind CRT, have an inherent bias against the philosophy of empiricism, which has contributed greatly to the scientific method. Empiricism emphasizes obtaining knowledge about the world through observation, and it is essentially what keeps science evidence-based. Therefore, if we want a sound approach to tackling racism, we need one that is based in empiricism and evidence. I mean, you would expect that your doctor practice evidence-based medicine, right? In a similar way, I believe we should demand that anyone giving supposed solutions to treat societal problems be as evidence-based as possible.

If you study the history of critical theory, you will know that it is heavily influenced by the old-school psychoanalysis of Freud, and perhaps others like Lacan. That's why all forms of critical theory, including critical race theory, put so much emphasis on unconscious thoughts and beliefs. The problem with the Freudian influence is, old-school psychoanalysis was very much not evidence-based. It is therefore considered questionable in modern psychology.

Instead, we may want to draw on a more modern approach to psychology, one that has a much more empirical, evidence-based, and hence scientifically sound, approach. And from modern psychology, particularly from cognitive psychology and cognitive science, we know that our brains are prone to particular cognitive biases. That is, we are all prone to seeing things in biased ways, due to the ways our brains are programmed. This programming is actually often an evolutionarily adaptive mechanism to help us think faster, especially when living in the jungle, but in the context of modern human societies, it can lead to social biases and discrimination. Therefore, we should recognize what these biases are, and hopefully it will lead to everyone treating everyone in a fairer way. Note that there is no division of people into 'the oppressors' and 'the oppressed' here. Every human being suffers from cognitive bias, and it is our individual responsibility to prevent it from affecting our judgement about other people, regardless of race.

The cognitive biases I'm talking about are many, and they can often interact with each other too. I think some of the most important biases relevant to a discussion about racism include priming, substitution bias, the mere-exposure or familiarity effect, in-group favoritism, and the out-group homogeneity effect. These effects cause people to prefer the familiar over the less familiar, prefer people they perceive to be in-group over those out-group, and apply stereotypes to those they are less familiar with.

Indeed, the cognitive biases I'm talking about can be used to show that critical race theory itself is biased. CRT amplifies our inherent cognitive biases because it encourages us to see racism everywhere, and because it reinforces the idea that racism is everywhere. And from what we know about cognitive biases like congruence bias, confirmation bias, the framing effect, and the bizarreness effect, this can certainly lead us to seeing racism where there is none. And this is not helpful for anyone.

In conclusion, a cognitive based view of racism and discrimination in general demands an active approach towards ending racism, that requires equal commitment from everyone of us, regardless of race. It is much better than critical race theory, because it is evidence-based, it can improve things in a practical way without over-philosophizing the problem, and it can be practiced and applied regardless of anyone's race, which makes it much less divisive, and hence more acceptable to many people.

How to REALLY Defeat Cancel Culture and Save Free Speech | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Let's face it. The West has had a crisis on free speech and what has come to be known as 'cancel culture' for the better part of a decade now. There has also been a movement to actively support free speech and oppose cancel culture since at least 2015. So, after six years, where are we now? We've actually gone backwards! The state of free speech is objectively worse than six years ago, and cancel culture is stronger than ever! I think it's time to examine where we're going wrong, and change our strategy accordingly.

So what do you think the free speech movement is doing wrong?

Basically, the free speech movement has been very good at identifying that there is a crisis over free speech, but it has done nothing that effectively addresses the root cause. I think the free speech movement's response to the crisis can be broken down into essentially two camps: the first camp basically complains again and again about the lack of free speech in many areas of life, as if they hope that just by repeating their concerns, things will finally change. Don't get me wrong, this type of response has been very effective in raising awareness, putting free speech concerns into the headlines. But the evidence so far is that it is not effective at creating change.

The second camp's response is a bit more sophisticated. It actually examines the root cause of the rise of cancel culture, and concludes that it is ultimately rooted in the influence of certain academic theories, that fit into the broad umbrella of critical theory, particularly postmodern critical theory. Free speech activists in this camp then aim to raise awareness about these flawed theories, hoping to inspire a pushback against them. Again, don't get me wrong, I think this attempt to raise awareness is very important. But the evidence so far is that it is also not very effective at creating the change we want to see.

So what do you think would be a more effective way to combat cancel culture and restore free speech? And why would you think it would be more effective?

I think we really need to reckon with the root cause of cancel culture. Yes, it is ultimately inspired by those academic theories, but essays themselves don't get people silenced or fired. It is masses of people who cause those outcomes. In other words, the reason why we have cancel culture is because radical criticalism has a sizeable following, that it didn't have just ten years ago. Just complaining about the phenomenon of cancel culture, or even just raising awareness about the harmful effects of criticalism, is not going to change that. To defeat cancel culture and restore free speech, we need to sincerely understand why criticalism, i.e. critical theory based activism, has won over so many people, and seriously think about how we can undo that

Why do you think critical theory based activism has won over so many people? And what would we need to do to undo that?

I mean, if you look at criticalism's more recent followers, they are often young people who are into social justice. LGBT people are very over-represented, and the younger generations of non-white people are also increasingly represented. In general, it's people who are suffering in one way or another, or people who are sympathetic allies to these people. They feel like criticalism is the answer for the social change they want. Now, I believe they made the wrong choice, perhaps because they don't understand criticalism's real motivations and implications, but this is the reality we have to work with, and we have to win these people back to liberalism.

This is where elements of the free speech movement are basically kicking own goals all the time. They think they should ally with everyone who wants free speech for whatever reason, so they can get the biggest movement going. The fact that they aren't selective about which people they consider allies, means that people who are dismissive of racism, or actively homophobic, for example, are welcomed into the tent. This, in turn, means that the free speech movement is discredited in the eyes of those who want social change. I've heard it put this way: they don't entirely understand what critical race theory is, but it must be good, because some of the people opposing it are also actively dismissive of the idea that racism still exists in America and other Western countries. The logic is that critical race theory must be so good at combating racism that people who want to protect racist institutions are fearful of it. Of course this is all backwards and wrong, but it's what many people out there currently believe, and it's what drives support for criticalism, and hence the type of activism that we call cancel culture. To defeat cancel culture, these are the people we need to convince to change their minds. This is the tide we need to turn back.

Just briefly, what do you think it would take to turn back the tide, so to say?

I think we need a new commitment to the spirit, and not just the rules, of classical liberalism. You know, a society where every individual is indeed equal, and has equal opportunity in life. The reason why some people are now so skeptical of the goal of colorblindness, for example, is because certain politicians have used rules and policies that were supposedly colorblind to achieve non-colorblind outcomes in the past, in a bad faith move to pander to racism. The war on drugs, for example. Now, liberals shouldn't lose faith in trying to build a colorblind society. But this time, we need to demonstrate that we mean it for real. And if we mean it for real, we will listen to the lived experiences of people who feel that society isn't really colorblind enough, as it is. We don't dismiss their experiences and concerns with smart counter-arguments. If so many people have the same concerns, then there must be some truth to it, so we listen humbly, and we investigate sincerely. This way, we earn back the trust of people, that the goal of colorblindness is a sincere goal, and not just an excuse to stall reforms.

The other thing is, we need to be positive. Marcuse famously called his way of thinking 'negative thinking'. And that's what criticalism actually is. The only way you can beat negative thinking is with positive thinking.

Drawing The Line On Free Speech? | TaraElla Report S8

Today, I want to respond to a recent article on Arc Digital by Nicholas Grossman, titled 'What Free Speech v. Social Justice Debates Are Really About'. In that article, Grossman argued that the arguments around free speech and cancel culture we are having right now are about where to draw the line for acceptable speech, rather than about whether there should be free speech itself. He also provided several examples in which society has made a decision over whether certain expressions should be legal, based on the competing principles of free speech vs harm prevention.

I agree that there is indeed some kind of line drawing in terms of defining the limits of free speech. This applies even to many people who consider themselves free speech absolutist. For example, I guess few people would support allowing people to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. Going further, many otherwise pro-free speech people would also support banning people from threatening others with violence, or promoting terrorism, for example. So the difference between free speech advocates, and those calling for so-called 'safe speech' and other speech restrictions, is indeed one of line drawing.

The traditional line in liberal societies is defined by physical violence and harm. Where one's speech does not advocate for or clearly lead to physical violence, or otherwise directly lead to significant physical harm, one can say whatever they please. This line has been well accepted almost universally until recently. The reason why it's well accepted is because it is objective, and generally considered fair. It is objective because physical violence and harm is objectively observable, which means that there is a standard that almost everyone can agree to, which in turn means that there doesn't need to be any subjective or arbitrary judgement. It is also considered fair because the ban on physical violence does not inherently privilege or disadvantage some ideas over others. Every idea can be expressed, with the same basic limitations. Reformist progressive ideas and conservative ideas can be argued on the same level playing field. Finally, by only banning speech that directly causes physical violence, the limitation on speech is minimal, and the flow on effects on the discovery of truth is negligible. This means the pursuit of knowledge about the objective truth, and all the good things that flow from that, remains unimpeded.

The trouble is, in recent years, there has been a move by some theorists, particularly those under the broad umbrella of critical theory and postmodernism, to redefine violence. Now, I'm generally not a fan of terms like 'systemic violence', 'psychological violence',  and so on. Redefining fundamental concepts has consequences, and broadening the concept of violence has flow on effects on free speech and free debate. Psychological harm is much more subjective and the standards can be arbitrary. So-called 'systemic' harms are even more arbitrary, because their definition is often rooted in academic theories that remain controversial. The fear is that speech can be arbitrarily limited, to favor some ideas over others, which would impede the discovery of objective truth. Add in the fact that many academic theories supporting the 'new definitions' of violence are rooted in or related to postmodernism, which has almost no respect for the importance of objective truth. There is a very real reason, those of us who are still committed to logical empiricism and the discovery of objective truth, have become very concerned about the imposition of new definitions of violence, harm and acceptable speech, that are rooted in academic theories that can be described as postmodern or postmodern-adjacent.

The other thing is, I think we should see the attempt to stamp out all forms of non-physical harm for what it is: an attempt at utopianism. And we all know that historical attempts at utopianism have always ended badly. Utopianism always ends with conflict, physical violence, breakdown of the social order, chaos, and ultimately major setback in the progress of humanity towards liberty and justice. It should be avoided at all costs. Ultimately, history has shown that democratic reformism is the only effective way to progress humanity.

Now, I'm not saying that psychological harms are not important. But, as a reformist, progress towards the reduction of such harms should be based on good ideas winning out against bad ideas, on the level playing field of the free market of ideas. As a Moral Libertarian, I am firmly committed to every individual having equal and maximum moral agency, and I believe that social change should be by people genuinely and willingly changing their minds. After all, change that is sustainable must come about as a result of truly broadened understanding, genuinely changed minds, and democratically formed consensus. Grossman mentioned the phasing out of the n-word and the f-word as examples of good social change, and I agree. I think we can also add things like marriage equality to this list. These changes were not forced upon people by cancel culture. They were the result of true, underlying change in individuals across society, as a result of good ideas winning the argument. Going forward, I think we should stick to what has worked so far, and continue to use free speech and the free market of ideas to advance social justice. There is no need to re-draw the time honored classical liberal line on free speech. We never needed to do so to achieve the positive changes we have so far, and there is clearly no case to justify doing so going forward.