Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan: “Politicians are using trans rights as a bartering ram for something else”.

[RandomGel]

More light. In this podcast Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray discuss many issues but there is a great discussion on identity politics.

Quite rightly Douglas Murray describes politicians as using trans rights as a battering ram for something else.

Joe Rogan refers to the TRA mantra “there is no such thing as biological sex” as ridiculous.

It’s heartening to see Abigail Shearer and Debra Soh referenced and praised for taking a stand, living their truth and refusing to go along with the crowd.

It is longer than 2 hours long but it is really is worth a listen. I certainly don’t agree with everything but much sense is spoken particularly around identity politics and the medicalisation of children as being something we will look back on with abject horror. I am so glad that these debates are happening and on such a large platform.

1.7 million views,18,000 comments from a posting of 2 days ago.

[quote queenofknives]**@queenofknives You’ve put everything I’ve been thinking about this so clearly and succinctly. I want a place on your critical thinking course!
Ah, that makes me happy to hear! I am actually seriously considering setting up some kind of free online 'school' to teach critical thinking skills and to read some of the great thinkers of the past and present. I'll let you know if I ever make it![/quote]
Count me in please

As furx says, that is a great idea queen

@queenofknives

This is a failure of the academy to promote debate and freedom of speech and prevent the dominance of an ideology which is an existential threat to both.

Bovary you are right and I think the university as we know it is doomed for this reason. I don't agree that education can't solve some of these problems, but a very new (or old) approach is going to be needed. I am currently re-reading On Liberty by JS Mill, and it is shocking how completely relevant it is to what is happening NOW. I say re-reading it, because I read it first at college maybe 30 years ago. A lot of it went over my head then, but the main ideas stayed with me. I'm now wondering if it would have had a greater impact considering that we have once again found ourselves in a deeply illiberal political landscape. I also wonder how many people who went through school, college and university in the last 30 years have read this book. I think everyone should read it, and discuss Mill's shocking and controversial 'new' ideas.

You know though, I think there is maybe a reason that people are finding the Enlightenment somehow doesn't quite cut it, and Mill is a bit of a window into that. On Liberty is great, but then you look at the moral philosophy he developed - utilitarianism is grim. Logical and rational, but somehow inadequate and when we see it really used in practice in a concerted way it can almost seem evil.

Another example that seems like it comes from a totally different perspective is the Enlightenment view of science as being somehow truly objective and above social and political influences.

My feeling has been that people want more content, more meaning than what the Enlightenment gave - they feel a bit like they are stuck in The Wasteland, but perversely through dissolving meaning somehow. Most people aren't really good at that anyway though, they try and dissolve meaning but then they think that's objective.

Oh - as far as thinking skills courses - there are actually a number of curricula designed for homeschooling parents to use with their kids that are pretty good, and some worthwhile for adults who would want an introduction. Memoria Press has a not-too-bad high school set of courses on logic, thinking skills, etc, and there are others as well.

Much of what Trump says seems to be idiocy (and of course there is his connection to Epstein). He has however kept the US away from further military intervention, which is a huge step forward for America. That is an amazing thing for both working class Americans who have to risk their lives in all these wars, and for the foreign civilians who are killed.

Trump also put a halt to the TTIP, that somewhat sinister trade negotiation which would have allowed the policies of democratically-elected governments to be over-ruled in the name of the protection of foreign investment. Trump may be a petulant, idiot man-child, and borderline mental incompetent, but there are some good reasons why he is popular with a section of the American public.

My feeling has been that people want more content, more meaning

I think that may be true. I really like John McWhorter's analogy of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. He describes his fear that teachers with shining eyes will instruct his daughters to expect racism from all their white classmates. He has spoken about the appalling condescension which is another aspect of it. This ideology has many religious features. But as many have said, the feature which is absent is redemption. John McWhorter describes it thus:

^A kind of performance art that serves more to make people feel secure in themselves within the structure of 'elect' religion than to prevent bad things from happening to people'

He has also spoken about 'charismatic navel gazing' which captures the egocentricity which is at the epicenter of this destructive movement.

there are actually a number of curricula designed for homeschooling parents to use with their kids that are pretty good, and some worthwhile for adults who would want an introduction
This is true. There's one by Future Learn which is free and I thought was pretty comprehensive. I really like teaching though and am looking for a way to try to keep doing that outside of a system which will eventually expel me!

I worry about the mental health of some youngsters who live in a carefully curated reality reinforced by an education system that now rewards performative actions and a increasingly partisan media which presents opinions as facts. No wonder they react in anger/distress whenever they are challenged.

I think that the situation is made worse by the growing disjunction between success in education and success in life. You have individuals who will have gone through school and university, being continually praised because of their ability to perform education. But when they leave university, they enter an employment market where not only is there little value for the skills that they have acquired in education, but where their educational experiences are actually counter productive in trying to lead a successful life. Thus, you have people who have grown up in an environment where they have been continually told that they are intelligent and talented, who then struggle to make a living wage in adult life. No wonder they are so distressed and angry.

If you look at it like this, a large amount of the slightly unhinged online discourse from recent years. You have young people with degrees, who are working in low-paid, unfulfilling jobs, whose turn to online activism, because they have been told for many years that they have great insight and intelligence. But they don’t, and their only response to ideas that they don’t like is to try to “cancel” them, and to tell their opponents that they must educate themselves.

I think there is maybe a reason that people are finding the Enlightenment somehow doesn't quite cut it
I guess I don't think that people really understand or are really schooled in those values, but the self-made, self-educated men of whom we were talking earlier would certainly have held those values dear.

I think Bovary probably has it right when she refers to the religious element - I think we do have a need for some kind of religious feeling and/or community which is absent in modern life. Even the Enlightenment thinkers emphasised 'fraternity' as a core value. (Are you saying it's the doing away with God that doesn't cut it for people - if so, I kind of agree.) I don't think it has to be a religion as such, but some kind of community, some kind of shared moral code. Our society is very atomised. When we talk about 'community' we usually mean 'people who claim the same identity I claim' and they are often online communities who are not accountable to individuals, and indeed have quite a utiliarian approach to things like social justice - sometimes even an opportunistic approach. I don't think the Enlightenment has to be discredited, but clearly there is some kind of human need for, as you say, content and meaning.

science as being somehow truly objective
Science, in terms of its methodology, works precisely to eliminate that which is biased and partial and prejudiced. It's a self-correcting system. It's not perfect, but it's bloody brilliant at getting to the objective truth. No other system can come close to objectivity the way science does. The problem is that now we are devaluing objectivity itself. We want to choose what the truth is based on how it makes us feel. If we don't like what science tells us, we say that science itself is the problem. That's where the whole 'Shut Down STEM' movement is coming from, but that really is the tip of the iceberg with this kind of thinking.

their educational experiences are actually counter productive in trying to lead a successful life.
Yes. I think it's not just education, but in almost every way we are failing to give people experiences that will help them lead a successful life. The idea of personal responsibility is now a 'right wing' idea. The woke ideologies are so attractive in part because they tell people that they are never responsible for their failures. If they fail, it's because they're oppressed or held back by an unfair system. Philosophies (like feminism, anti racism etc) that ostensibly support and defend people are often in fact telling them they are weak and that they are victims and that they are powerless over their own lives.

‘Trump also put a halt to the TTIP, that somewhat sinister trade negotiation which would have allowed the policies of democratically-elected governments to be over-ruled in the name of the protection of foreign investment.’

Yes. This was very important in the Brexit vote. TTIP was constantly being brought up as a huge threat by the unions in the run up to Brexit, but now we have this pretence that people voted leave mostly because of racism.

but now we have this pretence that people voted leave mostly because of racism

I think this is another recurrent theme; false narratives which are endlessly recycled by the media. This is amplified by the fact 'news' reporting has been colonised by opinion and people can no longer differentiate between the two. In fact, the legacy media often censors its reporting of news, if the events are 'problematic.' This leads to increasing cynicism and distrust of the media because it is failing to do its job. The false narratives meanwhile flourish.

Since this is more like a religious movement than a political movement, neither dissent nor debate is permissible. Brett Weinstein describes it as instead of 'God in the gaps' it is 'racism in the gaps.' This contributes to the demonisation of Trump voters and Conservative voters because the 'elect' believe both deserve to be damned and are irredemiably evil. Yet they misrepresent what motivates these voters. Irrespective of one's politics, this is an absurd, irrational, profoundly anti democratic position to hold. It also requires a lot of false narratives, AKA lying, about people's voting motives. Yet here we are.

This is amplified by the fact 'news' reporting has been colonised by opinion and people can no longer differentiate between the two.
Yes, I would absolutely agree. I've noticed that some of what purports to be news presents only one side of the argument for 90% of the piece, with a few lines from a contrary voice somewhere towards the end before closing with another statement of 'the truth'. This is exasperating if you have yourself read a number of relevant scientific papers, or know people employed in a particular profession, or whatever it is. The agenda is driving the news, rather than the news driving the news. This is true across the political spectrum: I've noticed it in The Times as well as the Guardian.

It's the same with science, unfortunately. Many journalists have no science background and read the press release put out by the uni, which makes the findings sound as sexy as possible, and then they amp these up some more. As a result the public perception of what is 'known' about X is not what the paper actually showed, or is what the paper's authors hoped to prove rather than what they actually did. I've come across opinion pieces or discussions referred to as 'studies', and various organisations declaring as fact information that 30 minutes reading of references on the internet would demonstrate is questionable at best. My view is that if these bodies are either slipshod or dishonest, I don't trust them.

Went off on one rather there... But my trust in the quality of the public discourse is at an all-time low. I have reached the point where I don't believe anyone or any organisation until I have checked out their bona fides for myself. It's very tiresome.

I have finally watched the Rogan/Murray interview and the part that particularly resonated with me was when Murray talks about the sheer opportunity cost of all the current bullshit, of all the time and talent people are wasting gazing at their navels and cancelling other people in a fury, and of the waste of the time and talent of those opposing them.

It's the same with science, unfortunately. Many journalists have no science background and read the press release put out by the uni, which makes the findings sound as sexy as possible, and then they amp these up some more.

Climate change is a perfect example of this. There is a ‘virtuous’ position and an ‘evil’ position. Kay Burley went on and on and on about (amongst other things) the fact that Tony Abbott was a ‘climate change denier’ which is considered to be the ultimate evil position to hold. However, there is never any pushback on the opposite position - the climate catastophisers who use climate change as a Trojan horse to push their political agendas. Whilst the tactics of XR protests may be questioned, the underlying basis for their arguments and their ideology never is. The only TV journalist who’s ever really questioned XR as far as I can remember was Andrew Neil.

Climate catastrophe ideology is never scrutinised for fear of the journalists being labelled ‘right wing conspiracy theorists’.

this is another recurrent theme; false narratives which are endlessly recycled by the media

I seriously think we have been lied to over any number of things over the years and like others, this realisation has left me feeling somewhat unmoored. I am a well-educated and averagely intelligent person, but there are many issues which I was completely misled about - a big example for me would be Israel/ Palestine, a situation I had completely the wrong idea about for many years. The left-wing bias in education and the media has been intense for as long as I can remember, but now it is utterly unhinged. As pp are saying, some issues are so polarised now that you cannot even ask questions without incurring accusations of bigotry.

I think a number of ideas or movements have been used as Trojan horses which is why you can end up feeling like the grounds has shifted beneath you. Political parties supporting trans and betraying women. The Labour party no longer representing working class people. The Green Party hardly focusing on green issues anymore. Universities being anything but places of free speech. The label on the bottle is the same but the content has been changed. Some people continue to drink but others see no choice but to put to push the bottle away.

The label on the bottle is the same but the content has been changed. Some people continue to drink but others see no choice but to put to push the bottle away.

It reminds me of that rule in Good Omens where any cassette tape (how old is that) left in a car for too long ends up as the Best of Queen.

It’s the same rule for ‘movements’. Any placards left hanging around for more than six months suddenly acquire a Socialist Worker logo.

This is pretty much what James Lindsay talks about with 2+2=5. It can add up IF you change the meaning of 2 or + or 5... So he says, in the same way, racism now means something different than what we thought, bigotry means something different, etc etc. We've obviously seen it happen with words like 'woman' and 'female'. He says, what happens next is that they come for the US constitution, or they come for your job contract. You've signed up to one thing, and they haven't changed the words, so there's no legal change, and they can say you consented and signed up to it - BUT they've changed the meaning of the words. This is how they're using language to get at power, and it's really frighteningly effective. We can see it now with antifa, Black Lives Matter, transphobia and so on. In a way it's genius. It's a way to completely destroy society while at the same time disabling your ability to protest. Because who would be against racism? Who would want to be transphobic?

@JohnRokesmith

Much of what Trump says seems to be idiocy (and of course there is his connection to Epstein). He has however kept the US away from further military intervention, which is a huge step forward for America. That is an amazing thing for both working class Americans who have to risk their lives in all these wars, and for the foreign civilians who are killed.

Trump also put a halt to the TTIP, that somewhat sinister trade negotiation which would have allowed the policies of democratically-elected governments to be over-ruled in the name of the protection of foreign investment. Trump may be a petulant, idiot man-child, and borderline mental incompetent, but there are some good reasons why he is popular with a section of the American public.

What is very notable, IMO, is that getting rid of these kinds of trade deals, or at least shining some real light on them, used to be, and should be, the goal of leftists. They are really the epitome of a globalist corporate capitalism designed to funnel power away from democratically elected governments, or really any kinds of states, to private corporate entities.

Our Green Party used to talk about it a bit though none of the other left parties did, they now have shut up about it.

Someone has managed to convince progressives across the west that good progressive left people support these kinds of agreements and structures! And people who are suspicious of them are right wing, or fascists.

@BovaryX

My feeling has been that people want more content, more meaning

I think that may be true. I really like John McWhorter's analogy of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. He describes his fear that teachers with shining eyes will instruct his daughters to expect racism from all their white classmates. He has spoken about the appalling condescension which is another aspect of it. This ideology has many religious features. But as many have said, the feature which is absent is redemption. John McWhorter describes it thus:

^A kind of performance art that serves more to make people feel secure in themselves within the structure of 'elect' religion than to prevent bad things from happening to people'

He has also spoken about 'charismatic navel gazing' which captures the egocentricity which is at the epicenter of this destructive movement.

What's interesting to me though is pretty much all the world religions emphasise, in some way or another, reduction of ego, as the means to healthy communities and personal development. Stripping away all the extraneous labels, not being dependent on the things of the world but instead looking with some clarity at ourselves, and others, striped down to our basic humanity.

It's pretty much the opposite of what woke id politics gives people as a tool for actualisation.

@queenofknives

there are actually a number of curricula designed for homeschooling parents to use with their kids that are pretty good, and some worthwhile for adults who would want an introduction This is true. There's one by Future Learn which is free and I thought was pretty comprehensive. I really like teaching though and am looking for a way to try to keep doing that outside of a system which will eventually expel me!

There are increasingly parents looking for online classes for kids they have pulled out of school. Homeschool parents especially are interested in outside the box subjects. It might be an avenue to explore.

Someone has managed to convince progressives across the west that good progressive left people support these kinds of agreements and structures! And people who are suspicious of them are right wing, or fascists.

Reminds me of this clip...

@SapphoJones

Placemarking so I can find all these excellent book and podcast recommendations later.

@queenofknives You’ve put everything I’ve been thinking about this so clearly and succinctly. I want a place on your critical thinking course!

Me too!

Hi Queen .

@queenofknives

I think there is maybe a reason that people are finding the Enlightenment somehow doesn't quite cut it I guess I don't think that people really understand or are really schooled in those values, but the self-made, self-educated men of whom we were talking earlier would certainly have held those values dear.

I think Bovary probably has it right when she refers to the religious element - I think we do have a need for some kind of religious feeling and/or community which is absent in modern life. Even the Enlightenment thinkers emphasised 'fraternity' as a core value. (Are you saying it's the doing away with God that doesn't cut it for people - if so, I kind of agree.) I don't think it has to be a religion as such, but some kind of community, some kind of shared moral code. Our society is very atomised. When we talk about 'community' we usually mean 'people who claim the same identity I claim' and they are often online communities who are not accountable to individuals, and indeed have quite a utiliarian approach to things like social justice - sometimes even an opportunistic approach. I don't think the Enlightenment has to be discredited, but clearly there is some kind of human need for, as you say, content and meaning.

science as being somehow truly objective
Science, in terms of its methodology, works precisely to eliminate that which is biased and partial and prejudiced. It's a self-correcting system. It's not perfect, but it's bloody brilliant at getting to the objective truth. No other system can come close to objectivity the way science does. The problem is that now we are devaluing objectivity itself. We want to choose what the truth is based on how it makes us feel. If we don't like what science tells us, we say that science itself is the problem. That's where the whole 'Shut Down STEM' movement is coming from, but that really is the tip of the iceberg with this kind of thinking.

I disagree somewhat about science - I think there is more to it that "it's not perfect" and the idea that it's self correcting can be dangerous. Philosophy of science is one area that has really got off the ground in the 20th century, as well as the study of science as a process, not just in theory but observationally, from an anthropological perspective - it's become increasingly clear that science, while powerful, is neither as objective as it often believes, nor does it really work practice the way it thinks it does in theory. Even pinning down what counts as science is a lot trickier than many people think.

There was a series on this a number of years that was one of the best things I've ever listened to on the radio - it's one of the things that makes me think it might be worth trying to save the CBC - It's called How to Think About Science - there are I think 24 interviews and they are all very interesting, even the ones that seem likely to be a bit crazy or deadly boring.
www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-to-think-about-science-part-1-24-1.2953274

I'm not necessarily saying that doing away with God doesn't cut it for people. Though maybe that's what it comes to in the end. But looking at utilitarianism, or the kind of moral life implies by positivism - the fact is that most people don't believe that kind of thing and don't like it. They think there is more to life than that. Even most people who say they believe those things don't live as if they do. Most people now grow up in a very secular world, and the ethics they learn are thinly rooted, mainly they consist of doing what seems right or kind. The try and find meaning in their work, their family, but there's always the sense that when they look into the abyss when things are bad or they are facing something terrible, it's not clear that those things have any meaning - they are just a temporary arrangement of atoms. Even art and music and literature are often pretty devoid of significance. There isn't an underlying sense of structure that holds things together for people, because the rejection of metaphysics means we don't talk about that.

It makes people vulnerable, and needy, I think.

‘What is very notable, IMO, is that getting rid of these kinds of trade deals, or at least shining some real light on them, used to be, and should be, the goal of leftists.’

And they have concrete outcomes. If the government signs a trade agreement which means I can be forced to do unsafe work, can’t take a toilet break, have my holidays reduced, am made to work longer hours, can’t take time off for a child’s operation, these will have a big impact on my life.

But many left wing identifying people no longer view things like TTIP as their concern, or have even heard of it. And they hijack left wing organisations for their own largely abstract concerns.

It’s not then surprising when working class people withdraw from the left.