Read PDF Lexicon: The Rhetoric Liberals and Conservatives Use to Kill Honest Debate

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Lexicon: The Rhetoric Liberals and Conservatives Use to Kill Honest Debate file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Lexicon: The Rhetoric Liberals and Conservatives Use to Kill Honest Debate book. Happy reading Lexicon: The Rhetoric Liberals and Conservatives Use to Kill Honest Debate Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Lexicon: The Rhetoric Liberals and Conservatives Use to Kill Honest Debate at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Lexicon: The Rhetoric Liberals and Conservatives Use to Kill Honest Debate Pocket Guide.

What you see is what you get:. The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. The English revolutions which ended the life of one king and gave birth to the first modern nation ruled without a king are inconsequential. The various charters constraining the power of the king, including the Charter of liberties, did not lead to Magna Carta, and the forty-shilling parliament of de Montfort is an historical fiction. French parliaments regional courts in no way impinged upon the freedom of French kings do exactly as they pleased, as absolute monarchs, and Louis XVI shut them down because he enjoyed such immense power that he no longer required their rubber stamp.

He volunteered to be decapitated, as did his wife, for the frisson. Musing upon freedom and the limits of the state is just wanking. Richard B McGee The enormous amount of time and energy expended on defining terms looking at you, liberalism, neoliberalism, and socialism seems hardly worth the effort, at least in terms of return on political capital.

Better to focus on a concrete set of policy goals and support individual candidates who back them. This has been enormously clarifying for me. Doug Weinfield John Quiggin Well, that sounds pessimistic: I think and hope we can have a different appreciation of the tone of the piece and keep discussing other aspects. For instance, what do you think of its analysis of the link between European social democracy and liberalism I already gave my view?

Love Train

Do you agree? If so, where do you draw the line? Democracy has never existed with such a level of inequality, I see no good theoretical reasons it can, and tons of good theoretical and empirical reasons it cannot starting with who is the leader of the oldest and most emblematic democracy right now. Since I value democracy, I think it is of paramount importance inequalities are diminished.

As I also believe that the root cause of these inequalities is first and foremost educative achievements — a parameter you cannot easily redistribute — I believe strong remedial actions are needed, because I believe ordinary ones will be negated by the persistence of what cannot be redistributed.

I happen to care about the logic of the argument, tough, and if that comment could encourage you to have a look at it, that will make me happy. CP Norris I do not know what that definition is. Is Bernie Sanders the only leftist in the world? Yes, he supports Clinton, but is that a pragmatic political decision rather than an ideological choice? What this thread suggests to me is that a lot of the left apparently resents being told any idea is wrong if they think it was stated by someone who claims to be on the left.

SamChevre What count as rights is heavily contested, but in general universal rights are the liberal focus. Progressives see economic inequality as entangled with social inequality, but see social inequality as the more immediate concern. Progressives tend to focus on the social and institutional factors that maintain social inequalities, and to be very focused on ensuring that all institutions serve the needs of society. Leftists criticize progressives for focusing on the wrong problem; liberals criticize them for re-inventing privilege.

In the US, people who fall into group 3 seem usually to have inhaled a large amount of right-wing and reactionary propaganda, and are at times less than willing to work with the rest of us. Which is not really my problem. The difference is why the New Deal is peacefully dissolving by democratic mandate, but socialism had to be destroyed by purges of labor movements, political intimidation and persecution, industrial PR campaigns and a savage decades long military crusade costing billions and billions and also millions of lives if that matters.

Or being so crass as to hint that politics is not government programs but, who rules? John R Garrett Frank Wilhoit 26 — what he said. Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

From this I get that the Platonic ideal of liberalism is different from liberalism as it exists in real people and real societies and real history. Or he would have a problem as you suggest he does with saying social democracy is a form of socialism. So is Berman wrong? Was Harrington wrong? This has, if anything, become much more common since , not less. Given the pervasive job insecurity in the US, this is a potent threat indeed. JQ: My political opponents are hypocrites, agreed.

Capitalism is a bad idea that works to an extent due to human nature. So, to me the best compromise is a mixed system, a lot more mixed than we know have. I am opposed to charter schools, privatization, etc. I am in favor of confiscatory wealth taxes. I am in favor of real equal opportunity.

Which means whatever it takes to raise all public schools to the same level. Faustusnotes Freiersdorfs article describes a conservative hate mob, not left wing preciousness, and the wired article describes a case where the public shamer did not expect or intend for her targets to be fired and was then herself fired I think. These articles may have things to say about the role of the internet as an amplifier and distorted of discourse but they say nothing about so called progressives use of the internet to deliberately stifle speech.

But I would like to make a point about this statement:. I would say Harrington did not criticize the idea of the welfare state so much as the inadequacy of the welfare state, esp. I think Harrington believed that Scandinavian-style social democracies, though not socialism, were way stations on the road to democratic socialism, the exact depiction of which prob.

To my mind, it would have been more interesting, and more useful, if Wilentz had written about how he arrived at that conclusion, and who are the people he understands to be disagreeing with him about it, and what their reasons for disagreement are, and what their alternative agenda appears to be, and how he knows all this. I wish I could know why he chose not to write that article and to write this one instead. The welfare state was originally a Bismarckian attempt to co-opt the Left i.

But in a sense, the left co-opted it as a goal ways station and a ground for struggle. The New Deal was improvised in a period when it was not at all certain that capitalism or democracy was going to survive and part of its secret intellectual heritage owes to the socialist Anglicanism itself probably irredeemably reformist.

A model which conveniently and brilliantly helped submerged tensions between structural and volunteerist notions of social change and revolution. Though which also had the effect of putting off clearing thinking about what a socialist polity would look like i. What we typically call Marxists are actually the somewhat heretical Marxist-Leninists who eventually became not so much an ideological tendency as apologists for the fact that revolution in a backward country would devolve into dictatorship just as Marx had predicted.

The whole Wilentz-Jacksonian thing I find deeply disturbing. If he had built on that sentence, the one I quoted, we might have found out. I think, as I commented previously, that it would have been more interesting and more worthwhile if he had done so. It is quite apparent that there was a lot of overlap between socialism and New Deal liberalism, as, for instance, the Wallace campaign illustrated. As far as I can see liberalism is not at all incompatible with leftism — in fact, nineteenth-century socialism, including Marx, arose directly out of the liberal tradition.

Obviously, many people who term themselves liberal are more concerned with economic growth than with redistribution. Such people could easily be called soulless and callous maybe wrongly — one would have to get specific to decide. Drone 1warfare? The war on drugs? Homosexual marriage? Some of those things are not really liberalism, some of those things could be liberal if implemented differently, and some are liberal in parts.

It seems to me that this is an astonishingly unhelpful set of arguments. Open trade policies are not social democrat; they are liberal up to a point, but this depends heavily on the country involved and the nature of trade early nineteenth-century liberals insisted otherwise, but that ended in the Irish holocaust.

As currently implemented open trade policies are certainly neoliberal; so are the deliberate restriction of capital gains taxes which have characterised the neoliberal era. But neoliberalism is not liberalism; it is simply a plutocratic ideology which serves the rich and immiserates the poor. Hence it seems to me that Wilentz is not himself actually a liberal, but an agent of plutocratic capitalism. People like Harrington may have seen that as mere rhetoric, not intended to foment revolution, as you say.

If I remember correctly the Democrats opposed the size of the Trump tax cuts. I read the Sean Wilentz article and it seems to be an exercise in virtue signalling by a political centrist and Democratic partisan. Wilentz did not write the straightforward piece J-D wishes for because to do so would reveal too much of the reprehensible nature of the Democratic Party politics he has decided to praise. It is strange that an historian would write a piece whose rhetoric seems premised on such labels having reliable definitions constant thru time when he clearly knows that such labels are repeatedly re-purposed by succeeding generations.

A practical politician overseeing one of the great realignments in American partisan political history, FDR, by virtue of his own family name, could appropriate much of the reputational capital of progressive reform, but he also needed the Republican Progressive faction in his New Deal coalition, as support for agenda items like the Tennessee Valley Authority public ownership of the means of producing electricity! What will we tell the grandkids? But, the New Deal was then, and now is something else.

There are splits in both Parties, though Wilentz is concerned with the split in the Democratic Party, which has people who actually care at odds with those, like Wilentz, who want to be seen to care while maintaining plausible deniability. Whirrlaway As the vampires in Blindsight perhaps do. Would that make for improved politics or explode the very idea? This is an odd piece of explainery.

As was pretty obvious in , liberal was being used in a sense that did not reflect the positions of, say, liberalism in the 19th century. Of course, rightwing economists in particular hated this change in the term liberal. In continental Europe, in fact, liberal retained its old nineteenth century resonances. All of which points to the fact that precision without history is a null set.

Salim Muwakkil

Now, what is interesting is that the American progressive movement was still vital and recognizable in , when FDR was elected. So why did FDR democrats lose that word? Perhaps there was a whiff of Wilson about it? Certainly the last thing the Dems wanted in is to remind people of Wilson. On the other hand, maybe it was because progressive brought to mind the other Roosevelt, and was a Republican Party thing. Wilentz as the semantics umpire, though, does stink. John Quiggin 45—Hmmmmmmm. LGM posts including the one I linked convinced me of this….

In neither of the stories you posted were the people who got people fired campus SJWs. The stories about campus intolerance I carry around in my head about campus intolerance are very different than the ones you carry around in yours. Collin Street Japanese has obligatory evidentiality marking and japanese public discourse is still a horrendous torrent of crap.

Sapir-Whorf is bullshit. Home Comments policy Subscribe. The travesty of liberalism by Henry on March 21, For example: Liberals prefer that social equality and civil rights be fixed in universal principles of justice and human rights, distinct from racial, ethnic, and gender identities. Share this:. Kind regards, Sara Pascoe. I just wanted to pause for a moment to boggle at this from Wilentz. Take that, progressives! I think this argument might make more sense if you got rid of all the words?

Layman, Okay. If you succeed, no. If you cant comment with some basic civility then maybe you should try YouTube comment sections instead of here. The IDW is the response or reaction to wokeness. The IDW is willing to test ideas without resulting to epitaphs.

I might be able to talk to them if they were not self righteous and oh- would listen. And might they consider making reparations to those they have mobbed on social media. Might they explain how using their preferred pronouns actually helps prevent violence, and could they also enlighten the rest of us why we are Isamaphobic because we think it is reprehensible to throw gay people off the top of buildings. While i understand the alleged concern of the author, i find his critique as a very well-written guilt by association piece.

One could say that the social justice warriors are so toxic and illiterate that they found a way to build an alliance between older enemies without even realizing. If we want to have an actual pushback against these idealogues, we have to keep doing exactly that. The whole notion of placing people into particular groups and expecting their views to be identical with the group is what is wrong with identity politics. This gives them the freedom to not be conservative if they so wish — but lets not expect them to have an adequately informed position on areas they have not personally researched, such as the merits of higher taxation of the wealthy.

Yes the conservatives will use them as a tool — just as trans people are trying to piggy back on the acceptances gay people have achieved in recent years or left white women piggy back on racial identity politics to improve their social status. In being accepted by conservative media they will naturally begin to spend more time with conservatives and will begin to adopt some of their views I see this with JBP in relation to global warming — he is struggling to resist that aspect of conservative tribalism.

His views are quite normal for people of his age from rural Alberta. Anyone getting all their political views from one guy like Jordan Peterson is an idiot. Peterson is amazing at empathizing and reaching out to struggling young men who are increasingly falling behind in society. I could care less what his views on climate change are. The man is a psychologist for crying out loud. Why even ask him about clinate change? I agree. It is also worth adding that it is rather more likely that JP could and would change his mind if he were to witness directly enough some of the forms of evidence of global warming eg trips to the poles, spending a year measuring co2 in the air, etc instead of starting a campaign to crucify the people who present that evidence.

A better article would have a least mentioned how when the IDW does engage with the left, they are hit with tons of bad faith, e. The American left has moved from being center-left with liberalism as its ideology to progressivism and socialism. The Donald Trump American Right has stayed closer to the middle, but given up on the OLD culture war issues like gay marriage by instead espousing more social libertarianism. This has created a vacuum in the old center-left position that is now occupied by the IDW. I would say that I fit somewhere in this. I thought I was on the left for years and kind of feel left behind.

Identity politics has just poisoned the well for a lot of us. When I first heard some from the idw talk it was so refreshing to just hear some push back when everyone else was in lock step agreement. I hope members of this group will consider this. Furthermore, I wish they would find more people on the left they can have conversations with. They must exist right? C Heston — you are exactly right, and yet the Left continually says the Right is becoming more extreme. My favorite analogy is the Left is on a boat that is moving further Left with the tide and sees the Right on solid ground getting further away and thinks the shore is moving.

Now Harris proudly proclaims that of course progressives have moved steadily further left, while their retrogage opponents have refused to keep up. The criteria you listed no longer apply. Looks at all the democratic presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders is called right wing among them, and everyone knows that Bernie is a crazy socialist, and he is not crazy enough!

Sean, I agree. I consider myself fiscally maybe slightly left, and socially liberal, but have spent several decades seeing myself as a center-left type overall. These days, the alt-right may have pushed the right extreme a small ways, but the regressive left have taken the left extreme a mile. And my position would probably occupy a moderately-right spot on the new spectrum. Which, as you suggest, leads to the bizarro world where someone accuses Bernie of being a rightie.

Envy is the root moral intuition of the left. Envy is inherently collectivist. Envy demands equal sharing of all desirable things, whether that be money, fame, prestige, attention, praise, prospects, outcomes, etc. The economics of Envy are simple: Wealth is not made but found so all those who have must share with all those who have less until everybody has the same. Jealousy is the root moral intuition of the Right. Jealousy is inherently individualistic. Jealousy demands that everyone mind their own business and keep their muggy paws off my stuff. Measures of value become both necessary and negotiable.

Mathematical calculations soon become both necessary and elaborate. In the s the Clinton Administration signs the Defense of Marriage act, now they want trannies in the ladies room and military, and use the full force of government to sue bakers for not making gay wedding cakes. Up until about the mainstream Democrats including Obama, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton were voting to fund a border wall with Mexico, now they want to abolish ICE and have open borders. Up until recently the Democrats were strong supporters of Israel and respectful of religious freedom in the US, but now support Palestinian terrorists and force Catholic nuns to buy birth control for their employees.

In Clinton ran on keeping abortion legal, safe, and rare, and now Democrats support abortion on the delivery date. The Dark Web is a secret, shadowy place for crooks and spies. But nobody is as open and outspoken as the people on that graph. What you see is what you get. The IDW is not an organization at all, but a loose umbrella term to denote some people who share certain views and styles of writing and speaking. No one involved ever meant it as being serious or official. The term is meant as a joke, just as Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett being the four riders of the apocalypse was also a joke.

I understand the term IDW refers to the fact that they are considered beyond the pale by the leftist media and academia. Can someone explain the importance of having a politically diverse group? Having a diverse set of ideas seems important, as well as having an open forum for discussion for challenging those ideas. Is the thought that a diverse political representation will lead to better discussions?

What if a subset of those political parties uses mob tactics to silence discussion? Worse, the underlying concepts they weakly describe are not even the key issues of our time. All these debates seem like a shell game. Right-left-liberal-conservative are completely orthagonal to what matters. This article completely and utterly misses the point. Even when it tangentially touches on the point, it is only paying lip service.

What you are seeking, and failing to find in mainstream media and the regressive left, are open-minded conversations about those issues that allow you to explore your own ideas. That opportunity does not arise in echo chambers, be they offline or online driven by silo-hunting algorithms. To me, the biggest attraction of the IDW is their collectively open minds, and the willingness to have those conversations. Rubin in particularly often has guests that he disagrees with, and his job is to platform their ideas just so they can be examined in, and by, sunlight.

It is the antithesis of the deplatforming MO of the regressive left. THe reason why he goes on Fox etc is probably because they respect his principles, if not his position on issues. Hearing a guy out is more important than agreeing with everything he says. You can still respecfully disagree. THe regressive left, meanwhile, is both disrespectful and disagreeable. This is buttoned-down SHapiro who treats his guests with the decorum as befits a host.

He is much less rabid there than on Daily Wire. You get to hear the what, and the why. And the bigger surprise was in the comments. And Yang probably spent half his time talking about UBI, which is probably like waving a red flag before a raging bull. It was an adult conversation meant for adults…. So the author has it all wrong, and the IDW have left him behind. In order to lead a discussion, you need people willing to participate in good faith.

The author seems to think only content matters. That bad-boy should be trademarked. We want to hear people who disagree engage with one another. We are not children. Although Glenn Greenwald is not part of the IDW, he goes on Fox because he has been blacklisted from the left leaning stations due to his stance on the Mueller investigation. He was vindicated. Rubin comes across here as a buffoon.

He had obviously never did his homework and looked at the actual data, he just believed the propaganda that activists told him. This is a major problem with much of the population, the belief in a one line summary of an issue. The devil is in the details. The IDW provides those details that the left wants censored. Cheung with a much more perceptive analysis.

I think that Uri was trying to analyse the IDW through the left and right lens which is simply not a useful way to analyse them. The IDW represents not left or right, but rather one end of the spectrum that measures how politically entrenched you are. At the other end of the spectrum are the Ezra Kleins of the world who have picked their team and have now retreated behind the battle lines. It is grassroot tyrannical totalitarianism which represents existential threat to Western democracy. This article helps prove my theory that most adults never mature past middle school.

This article is a train wreck of bad logic. But those tools do not represent all lefties. Not hardly! Some people on the left still have good ideas, and like it or not, history tends to trend leftward in terms of social issues. The long arc of justice and all that. I think this is where I end up aligning with the Weinsteins and Harris and Haidt more than anyone else in that bucket.

They see the big picture. Which ultimately makes them boring and predictable. And Shapiro is just abrasive. No thanks. To further digress, this is our new political reality. Spare me. Quillette does an admirable job of throwing interesting ideas out there. Hey, they frequently disgust me too. But rage is right up there with guilt as a counter-productive emotional state. If you allow yourself to dehumanize others, it dehumanizes you. It invited the kind of targeted broad generalizations and lazy thinking that now permeates online media outlets such as Vox. That was years ago.

I believe it is time to move on. There are many discussions that society needs to have, and members of the IDW have made headway in advancing those discussions. I have been disheartened by the lack of ambition which seems to permeate society at the moment. Instead of wondering what we can do with advances in AI, biotechnology, materials science, etc.

We spend our time arguing about how much of the world we can preserve in its current form. If they are to stay relevant, then we cannot fall into the same political ruts that have been worn into the fabric of society by previous generations. This article misses the target for me. All four have thoughtful discussions together. If [so], it needs to open itself up to new left people and ideas. Since the crisis of , they are challenged from two directions: on the one hand, from the majority of the population who have been left behind; on the other, from within-group competition.

In a lottery economy where wealth is more often won through connections or luck or position in the hierarchy of corporate, NGO or government monopolies than earned through labor, they have little faith in hard work. Like feudal vassals, they believe that wealth is deserved because of who you are, not earned because of what you do. There is little sense of solidarity among them. They will happily denounce one another in their efforts to climb the ladder.

Having been told since birth that they are princes and princesses, they cannot even imagine that they like everyone else are just regular people in a hard and imperfect world, and that while progress is possible, we must also learn to make peace with that. They are, in other words, temperamentally not politically conservative reactionaries seeking to preserve their privileges. If you really want to understand them, take their criticisms of others — some of which do have merit — and apply them to themselves.

A need made even greater by a lack of real skills. Their ideology derives historically from the left, but via an academic institutional structure of privileged and isolated bureaucracy rife along with many of our other institutions with hypocrisy. It is not surprising that they adopt the language and form of social justice, while often pursuing the exact opposite.

They are not politically conservative, for they have little concept of personal responsibility, and would happily overthrow the social structure that made so long as their own privilege was conserved. This article is wrong, but raises an important issue. Racism, sexism and so on are serious problems that deserve serious solutions. But identity politics is a bad-faith argument.

For it, these issues are means, not ends. There can be little political balance with left, right, and the IDW because the movement, at its core, is anti-political and anti-democratic. A title which obviously at first glance has dark connotations — first connotations and impressions are VERY important. Not much more-than-wonderful de-light to be found on the IDW.

None at all in fact. Especially as they at least pretend to bring some LIGHT or even truly en-light-ened perspectives into the never ending and entirely unresolvable culture wars shouting match which is signified by much sound-and-fury that signifies nothing much more than the strutting self importance and ignorance of the various bloviators. But where does the left versus right divide really come from? It has nothing whatsoever to do with what the now artificial divide that occurred in the French National Assembly years ago.

It is really a dramatization of a fundamental essentially psychotic split in the human psyche. The brain and nervous system dominated and patterned by either predominately left brained thinking or by right brained thinking. The presumed split between self and world, the subjective ego and the objective world, inside and outside, even up and down. All of which gets dramatized on to the world stage in conflicts between Heaven and Earth, man vs woman, cult vs cult, State vs State, left versus right etc , and between all beings or conditions that can be separately identified and known and therefore controlled.

All forms of Western knowledge in particular are at their core level about power and control for both the individual, and for collectives which accumulate around various thought memes. Such collective power and control thought memes have immense cultural and political power. As of course is Islam, and China too. And yet, the labels are so useful in a context of shared understanding within an insular community of politically like-minded people , that most continue to use the shorthand even when it leads to fundamental confusion when the discussion inevitably seeps out to other audiences with different internal reference points.

It is the central ideological stance that binds that group together as a coherent entity, and Quillette is squarely within this camp as well. That there can be multiple different rationales for opposing something, or sharing opposition to something does not mean you also share the same end goals, is deliberately ignored. Viewed from the outside, this can appear like the tap dance of people who secretly sympathize with Far Right views but want to maintain plausible deniability. Guilt by association is the leading tactic of political combat mainly because our byzantine set of norms around political correctness makes liars out of so many people.

But our friendships and affiliations, professional and personal, supposedly betray us. This is a clear signal to members of those groups that, however they self-identify politically, the IDW will collaborate with forces that are fundamentally hostile to them. They have proven to be as unreasonable and non-sensible as the far-right the actual far right, the swastika wearing, Hilter fan-boys. The far-right and the far-left constitute only the extremes of the spectrum. What the IDW represents is the middle ground of moderate leftists and moderate conservatives and centerists who are appalled and annoyed equally by the extremes on both sides.

The IDW has gained such a following because, in fact, most people are not extremists and can have conversations with people who hold differing views and can be civil to each other despite philosophical differences. James Lindsay has explained why he focuses on the left as a means of confronting the right:. Because these problems have created one another, not only is this trend self-reinforcing; it necessarily comes at the worst possible time — when the ascendant right had already been completely hijacked by hardliner lunatics.

Although Dave Rubin has become more conservative over the last few years, he definitely began his current project as a disillusioned liberal who was sincerely attempting to create a space for honest conversation. The Rubin Report has regularly brought on guests from across the political spectrum for honest conversation. The Rubin Report has fostered precisely such bridge-building and debate.

It sells by nature of it being such a rare occurrence that resonates deeply with those who have a thirst for it. I do believe that the IDW is legitimately politically diverse and I do not think one needs a nice and tidy graph to grasp this. The coalescing of the IDW into such a formidable force has been the most fascinating and hope-inducing intellectual movements of our time. I have enjoyed many Uri Harris articles in Quillette, however I believe this piece is unfortunately off-base.

To his credit though, I do believe that there is something to be said for maintaining the bridge-building goal as a defining element of the IDW. It is easy to see how this aspect could get lost over time. I think that perhaps more efforts should be made in this direction. Dave Rubin does seem to be moving pretty far away from this.

Quillette, on the other hand, could potentially be instrumental in targeting such liberals on occasion. Oooh how dare the left leaning people of the IDW spend time with Conservatives. How dare Conservative leaning people also have some progressive views? They must all be disingenous right? Everything that Uri criticises Rubin, Peterson and the right fo could be levelled at the left and even at himself.

They should continue doing what they were doing as individuals. This piece was a little silly because it claims that despite all evidence to the contrary, the IDW is dominated by conservatives, just because of their rejection of the identitarian left. It would be more reasonable to argue that they are all libertarians united in their opposition to authoritarianism. There are still real differences between the sane left and right, the common cause loosely reflected by the IDW does not diminish those differences.

The radical left already dominate mainstream media, giving them a place among their only semi-organized opposition is a manipulative way of reinforcing their dominance and lending them cover they do not deserve. That Peterson is passively admired by conservatives is a very weak frame on which to hang an entire article, even granting the previous point about Rubin.

That is clearly in reference to them being associated together by the current climate of social influence via SJWs. Honestly this article is extremely dishonest. Yes, the laundry list of other issues matter when determining where someone sits on the political spectrum. An endless, pointless gushing fount of confusion, apparently.

To proud to live in an echo chamber? And another thing, these relentless zombified kooks would only exploit IDW as useful idiots. Using western freedoms such as tolerance to justify authoritarianism is the the new black, just ask Islamists. What a joke of an article and all of you far-left totalitarians are enemies of civilization itself. There will be no discussion on the merits of liberty. I think what Rubin would say is that free speech outweighs all of the other issues combined, and the republicans are currently better on that issue.

The social justice Left, which is what they all oppose, is not a party. Plenty of democrats are not part of the social justice movement. Joe Rogan also spent a lot of time going into these disagreements in his last talk with Shapiro. He needs to research his purported stances a little more or risk playing flunky. The occasional horrible article is a small price to pay for the generally good content. Maybe even ol Uri hits a clunker from time to time just like when JP did on Kavanaugh.

See a Problem?

Where I disagree with Mr. Harris is that the members of the IDW should open their ranks to the very people they are up against, people who already hold the high ground in the media, academia and most other places. What would be the point of ceding the only bit of ground that our side holds to a more powerful side that already possesses everything else?

Sure, talk with them if you like, just as Sam Harris talked to Ezra Klein a couple of times before. However, they were horrible, pointless exchanges. Also this bad article was a good springboard for discussion in the comment section. Hopefully Uri will take some of it on board, because this article was below the usual level of Quillette. Harris, how about identifying the two people in the photo at that top of the article. Maybe a descriptive caption for photos ought to be a Quillette editorial standard.

The writers mistaken belief that Liberal ideas are incongruent with the IDW or that Liberalism requires its proponents to be politically liberal is because he is himself too mired in political affiliation to realise it is possible to whistle and walk at the same time. I am not a paradox and neither are the IDW — true liberalism is taking a free and expansive, nuanced and individual approach to each issue, analysing and investigating it, being open to having your mind changed or influenced.

It is not a partisan or political position. The discussion is ongoing and has nothing to do with partisanship. The writer made me laugh at the irony of chastising the IDW for alienating some on the left by taking a view on specific issues as if only certain views were acceptable to take or that divergent ones should be suppressed to attract those with a more fashionable one.

He misses the point entirely. Anyone is welcome to engage in the debate; it and they will be richer for it. It just so happens that more politically conservative people found their way to the table first. Rubin believes in full gay rights, but is he a sellout if he gives a respectful interview with Mike Pence who believes marriage is between a man and woman, but is otherwise supportive of the rights of homosexuals? And within each of these issues there are further differences that might shift classifications and lead to greater protests by SJWs.

How about being ok with morning after pills or aborting fetuses with birth defects? How about a massive shift to nuclear power or encouraging natural gas as a replacement for coal to avert climate change? How about using cultural compatibility in immigrant selection? Is it ok for Rubin to interview a Muslim who believes homosexuality should be outlawed?

Relax folks the kids are alright.


  • Livro das Mágoas (Biblioteca Essencial da Literatura Portuguesa 39) (Portuguese Edition).
  • Riders in the Sky (The Millennium Quartet Book 4).
  • Primary School KS1 (Key Stage 1) Maths - Times Table Practice - Ages 5-7 eBook;
  • Media Manipulation, Strategic Amplification, and Responsible Journalism.
  • Is the 'Intellectual Dark Web' Politically Diverse? - Quillette!
  • Flywheel.
  • Toward a More Perfect Originalism: A Reply to Carson Holloway;

The mainstream right are doing something similar, clinging to their neo-Liberal privelage by telling the victims of their economic rent seeking policies, its all about poor migrants coming to steal jobs. Both lots of empty rhetoric are rapidly loosing traction with the reasonable person in the street.

But like the Internet itself things are evolving in unexpected ways. The future as always is rarely possible to predict, but it is hardly as grim as the experts predict. We just have to get on with it. DL- if anyone ran on the kind of philosophical platform you describe I would vote for them in a minute. Until then I am politically homeless. A centrist, reasonable position as a starting principle, then individually applied to multiple different scenarios.

What people long for at least among the cohort that follows the IDW, and comes to sites like Quillette , I think, is a place to consume long-form discussion between reasonable people. Just look at his list…. Maybe Miessler thought it would make the group appear more liberal? Ok… But what about Taxes? Are the rich taxed enough? The continued growth in the size and influence of government?

Belief in the existence of a Liberal Media Bias? Belief that Liberal domination of universities is a threat to free speech? Is radical Islam a bigger threat to our safety than conservative Christians? They sabotage, scream, protest, shame, censor, accost opposition in restaurants, shut down highways, etc. They would march me to the gulag if they could. They remind me of the sin sniffing thought policing Puritans who demanded conformity. What Dave Rubin talks , time and time again is the need for ideas to be presented and discussed.

He lost his job for holding a very liberal position! In that respect they are like the group of atheists not much in common besides not believing in god. We are facing a secular sect of fanatics. Like much of the new left, as soon as they give up their name-calling and dogmatism, they will be forced to enter the realm of objectivity and reason — which risks too much loss for them.

They arrive to different conclusions, in a completely logical fashion. While here one answer is correct, and one form of logic is correct, things get messy outside of such formal systems. How do you have a meaningful discussion between someone who accepts the labour theory of value and someone who thinks value is determined subjectively and independently of the inputs?

How do you discuss rights when one party views them as coming from God while the other says they are entirely human constructs that are derived from government? Must agreement be relegated to peripheral issues that do not touch upon central premises? Or when Eric Weinstein pushes back on the need to dismantle all regulations because he has a more nuanced view of things. Often the IDW can go in circles, especially when they talk to those they are most aligned with in this lose coalition. I suspect that they would speak to others who disagree with them, but the question is whether those who disagree are willing to sit down and speak reasonably with them without throwing out ad hominem attacks like Mr.

Dyson did. Similarly, most of the others would be happy to talk with him and piblish the exchange in its entirety. The IDW is dominated by socialist libertarians who are anti-religious bigots, philosophically speaking. Here is their creed. The savings and loan debacle of the s was not an isolated incident but a paradigmatic example of the delusionary character of American thought near the end of the twentieth century.

This same generous public policy applies to individual behavior. Everyone must be free to make risky choices, and everyone must be protected from unpleasant consequences by social insurance that is ultimately provided by government, which is to say by nobody. Of all these identities sorry , I am concerned that Dave Rubin may be a one trick pony.

Conversations have to be deeper than that. The piece is neither informative nor is it persuasive. Or, they are just politically civil adults who can be friends despite disagreeing on certain issues. The author of this article seems to assume that individuals in differing political camps should not or cannot get along. If two individuals get along while claiming different political views, they must be lying to us for some deeper insidious purpose. In this case, the IDWs war on the new left.

Have you seen the Rubin Report Episode where Rubin and Shapiro discuss under what circumstances he would bake a cake for Rubin? Was Rubin offended? Not at all. Shapiro said if Rubin just had a party for no particular reason just to get together with friends, and Rubin asked him to bake a cake for the party, he would have no problem with it. Stop committing the fallacy of composition. The New Left is a totalitizing ideology. The uniting factor is that they are all against identity politics, as are conservatives.

Progressives currently value identity politics above all else, so they disavow as evil anyone who stands against them on that front, even if that person agrees with them on every other major political issue, like Eric Weinstein for example. Conservatives, on the other hand, are generally happy to talk with IDW members despite disagreeing on most political issues.

So naturally you will see IDW members associating with conservatives at speaking events, social media, etc. Both liberal IDW members and conservatives see the importance of diffusing the identity politics movement that is corrupting western civilization on a fundamental level. Also globalism. Most liberals who believe in civic nationalism i. This article seems like an attempt to impose labels on people who are not sure traditional labels mean anything anymore. Sam Harris seems like a good guy. I like his voice.

I disagree with a lot of what he says, but I can see how he gets there. I admire Joe Rogan for having just about anyone on his show and really talking to them. He seems like a fascinating individual. I mostly agree with what Ben Shapiro says, but his delivery gets tiresome after a while. So, what do you know about me now? Into which categories would the writer want to place me? And how would I be expected to behave once I was sorted?

These people are talking with each other about important things. Sometimes they debate, sometimes they discuss. The common ground they mostly find is freedom of speech, because many wish to silence the things they say. I think the attempt to shoehorn these people into labels that can be admired or condemned without the necessity of listening to them is lazy at best, dishonest at worst.

Now, these terms act more as silos, or straitjackets, such that it forces you to conform without need or want of individual thought or perspective. And any deviation from the gospel truth is punishable by defrocking and expulsion from the clan. THe regressive left is now a cult rather than any sane political point of view. Citing Ezra Klein quoting a discredited Data and Society research to make a point? Pushing the guilt by association narrative?

The Base Rhetoric of Mainstream Taxation Talk – yriruhanuj.tk

In Quillette? I value diverse opinions, not dumb dishonest ideologically myopic ones. Gay rights and abortion are the big issues of the day that divide the right and the left? I would say the fight of the day is between classical liberals and progressives. Classical liberals of all stripes can agree to disagree on plenty of individual issues while still being over-all allies. The progressive left has no home for anything resembling a classical liberal.

There is a subtle point to this article. If the first case were true which could probably then be proven by an algorithm , the article would make a good point. Personally, I find that the majority of IDW output is not about the topic of free speech, it just exercises it. I must agree this is sloppy writing, as the author is using a one dimensional filter. There are collectivists on the right as well. The IDW has lots of liberals, but not many collectivists. As does Quillette. Thus he misses the point.

Sorry, URI. Your problem is that you confuse issues and philosophy. The IDW wants to discuss issues — problems and solutions— while rejecting the ridiculous philosophy of identity politics and structural oppression. This is especially appropriate since this philosophy is generally only used as a hammer to silence, on grounds of purity of thought, any actual, critical discussion of the ridiculous policy propositions that its adherents put forward.

As you are trying to do here. That is way too small to define what the left in general now is. And so it cannot function to define the right by who opuses it either. Not just IDW types and the conventional right but large parts of the groups that vote for democratic candidates are opposed to those views.

It would also be really, really strange to define as right wing people who VOTE left. Which many of the IDW members do. But but but they agree with right-wingers about something! Double-plus ungood badthink! No alignment with badthinkers on anything! This article just exposes the ultimate intolerance of globalists like Lehmann and Harris. They may reject neo-Marxism and Postmodernism, to their credit, but their brand of utopian economic liberalism has a lot of quasi-religious character.

Of course, with social media censorship and in denial of banking services, we are starting to see that totalitarianism arise, and it allows pure-hearted liberals to outsource silencing others. In this context, the Republican Party is becoming a big tent party for everyone from traditional religious types to liberals who still believe in civic nationalism, organized labor, and individualism.

The fact Harris cites Ezra Klein, an utterly venal operator, most infamous for the JournoList scandal, and relentless purveyor of venomous identity politics, speaks volumes. Dave is trying, I believe, to clean his own house. Dave is imploring them to do so. In turn it strikes at the heart of what it means to be a part of the IDW. But is Rubin truly part of the IDW or is he merely its biggest fan and booster? Frontman or superfan? Rubin seems to be the odd man out on several fronts.

Most notably, Harris, Peterson and Weinstein x 2 are all experts. They are all scientists: biologists, psychologists and so on.

Internet sources

Dave is a media personality and former stand up comedian. His area of focus is media and culture but it does not come from a specific lens or viewpoint. But this seems to be where his skill set diverges from what I view as the value of the IDW. Dave is very good at defending the conversations that we want our experts to have. Unbridled discourse free from the limitations imposed by political correctness is what the IDW is about. His focus is slightly off the mark. But given his visibility, his voice steers the discussion to the meta and away from the underlying discussion.

This distracts from the valuable policy debates the IDW should be having. And yet, the 2A is one of the clearest dividing lines in American politics. It is also one screaming for reason, study and nuanced policy. Yet there are terrific philosophical discussions that can be had at the same time. Dave is of the IDW in the same way Rogan is.

Neither are the intellectual experts, but they are driving the conversations that matter. To think measuring the political affiliations of a few high profile Intellectual Dark Webbers tells you much about the historical significance of the IDW is about as relevant as thinking measuring changing shoe sizes of NBA players tells you how the game of basketball has changed. Following Tocqueville, Bloom observed that the ultimate function of the university in a democracy is the one place where all questions remained open.

My only concern, is the quality of debate, the quality of the philosophizing. Socrates has been expelled from Academia. Complex thinkers or really, anyone who can read can disagree with the dogmas on their own side. Critiquing the far left does not make a person right-wing. I will start by saying that there is some merit to this argument. I think you are right to say that identity politics is more of the main battleground now than gay marriage, for example.

However, this point does not get you to where you seem to think it does. Ten, maybe even five years ago, nobody would ever confuse Sam Harris for being conservative. Yes, things change, but that does not mean that you can immediately shift someone off into the conservative bin so lightly. It may be true that gay marriage and abortion are not the main points, but you cannot dismiss being pro choice and gay marriage so easily when they are still mainstream conservative positions. If they are mainstream positions, and you do not favor either of them, that at least puts you into center right territory.

When you add in other positions that many IDW members hold, you simply cannot put them into the right wing. Also, yes positions change with time, but they also reverse. Sometimes leftists go too far, but before we realize that they have, not agreeing with them makes you a reactionary in their eyes. As many people have stated repeatedly, most folk are a mix of views that, in aggregate, place them in the political center. People on the fringes categorize every word, action, observation, etc. Old-school liberals try to assert that the IDW is fundamentally center-left, perhaps to distance themselves from the right and maintain good standing with the far-left?

Whereas the far-left makes the IDW out to be far-right neo-nazis, perhaps to lazily discredit anything they say without having to actually engage with the possibility that well-meaning people can disagree with one another without one of them being evil. We are far more in numbers than they would like to believe. They cannot control us and that freaks them out. And we make up our own minds. The shared value of skepticism toward the new left helps with bridge-building and conversation on other topics. This is a tire fire in every possible way. What in the world was Claire thinking, publishing this poorly investigated, poorly thought out garbage piece?

The IDW is…. I did not agree with the logic of this article. Maybe Uri should go back to bending spoons with his mind. This is surprisingly low quality for Quillette. Left-leaning media seems relatively content with producing hit pieces, while attempts at conversation on college campuses often leads to riots and deplatforming. Solid article. I think when most people ie. In this climate where the loudest voices on the left are unwilling to accept criticism or even enter discussion it makes sense that fans of the IDW and the people they interact with would skew conservative.

And we are all committed to the principles of free speech and the importance of debating ideas that we disagree with. As in have a real discussion, push back on points that lack evidence or you otherwise disagree with. Obviously I understand the practical incentives not to total skewer your interviewees lest they never want to come back on the show, you loose your core audience etc.

And the importance of being a respectful host. Which is fine of course. This is so meta — a discussion of a chart visualizing the political positions of people that other people on this site talk about a lot, and then some more about who they may or may not be aligned with. And some tweets. I just gave a Powerpoint presentation on Monday to a class with girls with pink hair, girls with short hair-cuts, minorities, and whites alike. I covered Harvard keeping Asians out, and real racism. I covered Postmodernism and I broke down Intersectionality. I talked about Brett Weinstein at Evergreen.

I broke down the racism against whites and the actual academic studies coming out of the Humanities. I covered the number of growing Neo-Marxists in the University.

Everyone gave me a huge round of applause at the end and came up to me afterwards and said that what I shared was important. They all thanked me for having the balls to share that. All is not lost, sir. Just proceed carefully and handle this thing the right way. Let people KNOW. Wow this one has generated a lot of comments.

I have been this for many years, have been a political activist around class and race and have been a relatively prominent member of my community for these beliefs. I was very much in the camp that was concerned with issues of identity and structural oppression. The students seemed either incapable or very frightened to really engage with each other and the discussion was terrible. I, and a number of other colleagues in my sector were falsely accused of rape.

This was a bizarre situation in which a small number of people went on a witch hunt to purge our small community of men deemed problematic. Or something like that. I have no idea what the issue really is, but it felt an awful lot like slut shaming for men. This tiny group of people went to great efforts to derail my career — ultimately failing.

I hope. I live in constant fear and have basically removed myself from what used to be my life: out of sight, out of mind. Jordan Peterson. The way so-called progressive people handled their objection to him was so stupid it make him a millionaire. Their violent response to his concerns turned him into a superstar. Within my circles, the identitarian thing has gotten out of control, with everyone policing each other searching for the tiniest infraction, even if those infractions are not real.

Best example: what is happening with the word niggardly. The woke left has wandered well off the path of reason and, like many have observed, are flirting with totalitarian mob-think. I have drifted toward the IDW so that I might better understand all of this and to find others — like Brett W and Heather H — who have had similar beliefs and experiences.

My encounters with the Regressive Left have not been nearly as traumatic as yours, but I completely agree that liberalism needs to be saved from SJWs. This is clearly the motivation of people like Rubin. When Ben Shapiro is the only actual conservative on the list? They comment on subjects like feminism, Islamism and the corruption of the left. We are much more interested in their content than their personalities. Those who do stand out are relentlessly attacked by the MSM and the Left and silenced.

Or you could look at Robert Spencer, a man who has dedicated himself to serious intellectual criticism of Islamism and its adherents. If you want amazing insights on the current state of intersexual relations in our society, try out Rollo Tomasi at The Rational Male.

Jordan Peterson is in a class by himself. But in the end, many of his political ideas align with Progressive, globalist ideas. Be clear. The Left finds it convenient to paint these guys as out of the mainstream because they are useful foils and stay in line and play nice.

Example: Find me the middle ground on opposing the Islamization of Europe. Or feminism: Are you okay with small doses of gynocentric female supremacism? The rule of law, the will of the people and our constitution are just obstacles for them to get around. Those people betray our nation at a fundamental level.

According to the logic of our founders in the U. As are many of us. We are much more dangerous than Dave Rubin or Ben Shapiro. You should know that. We are much closer to armed conflict than most of you know. There are literally millions of American conservative men training and organizing to fight. We are legion. Wake up. Camille Paglia is a good example; she criticizes feminist ideology all the time despite the fact that she calls herself a feminist. Should her attacks against feminists disqualifies her from the belief that women are to have equal rights and can be strong independent agents in the world an arguably leftist position?

Should the government write laws on not offending individuals, or should individuals learn how to defend themselves? Should the government decide how many people can study in a given field, or should individuals be free to decide what they want to study? Should the government tax everyone to provide healthcare for all, or should individuals be not taxed and learn how to save money in case something bad happens?

Should the government compel speech or are individual free to speak? Should the government offset poverty with welfare programs or should they instead provide them with tools to help themselves? Left and right is the wrong terminology. Leftists can be collectivists, others can be individualists, same on the right. The real political spectrum is the balance between collective action and individual liberty, and in that respect, I think most of the IDW are situated in the center of that spectrum. Ridiculous commentary. Both left and right have ideas that incorporate collectivist ideas and individualist ideas.

The difference between classical liberalism and prog-marxism-postmodern-sjw ideas is the classically liberal collectivism is voluntary, not compulsory driven by the state. The best discussion of this ever is in the book, Democracy in America by de Tocqueville mandatory reading for anyone who wants to understand the uniqueness of the U. What he marvels out is the innumerable civic organizations citizens organized for every cause.

In fact, 19th century America was swimming with this form of collectivism.

Of course, the Left sought to destroy those civic organizations and did so one by one, and replaced many of the services they offered to communities with state controlled programs. Socialism is a rejection of the classical liberal order that informed the founding of the U. It predates Marxisms and emanates from French philosophers who believed the socio-political order of classical liberalism was defective. They claimed it atomized us and set us into brutal competition with each other.

Those who believed that went on to destroy France. Our ideas? Gave birth the most free, most dynamic nation in the history of human civilization. The latter approach has proved to be orders of magnitude more effective than compulsory state driven approaches. Listen to the few interviews available with him — he is incredibly good at pulling apart the issues and standing firmly in the healthy aspects of the Left, while pointing out the failings in the currently held dogmas.

Super sharp. Wish we could get more of him. My criticisms of Q has long been that while it has some very fine pro-free speech sentiments, much of its content comes across as a right-of-center echo chamber, and too often a source of strawman arguments against left-wing ideas. For example, would the IDW embrace a died-in-the-wool libertarian socialist who was fully pro-free speech but was also super-critical of capitalism? Dave Rubin has said, rhetorically, that we should be able to discuss anything.

So why not this? I really do not see why not. IDW is, as I see it, a reaction to the shutting down of discussion. Actual stance is secondary to having principles, whatever they may be. Pitch your idea, man. Write it! I would love to read a principled, well-articulated argument against capitalism.