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.

what if parenting were turned into a profession?

Gronky I have to admit I instinctively recoil from this idea. My first thought is, okay, well then what happens when Stonewall captures Parenting? In essence, would we not be handing our children over to the state? Do we trust the state that much, that we would be willing to do that in return for a salary? How would it work out? Would you have any authority over your own family life or would it be a uniform system imposed by the state? Would parents become interchangeable units? Would children? What happened when there was a change in government? Would it be like education, where each successive government felt they had to fuck up everything the previous government had done?

I'd wonder about any system that took us even further away from what I'd consider to be a more fundamental connection with each other - if our most intimate, private relationships are mediated through a centralised state authority, what might the possible consequences of that be? I'd also worry about bringing financial reward into the mix. We don't raise children because they bring us a profit - and I'd argue we shouldn't. (What would happen if you followed all the parenting guidelines but your child didn't meet the targets? You lose money? You lose your right to raise the child?)

Many SF writers of last century tackled the 'problem' of motherhood by imagining a centralised Parent that would remove the need for a depended-upon mother. I don't think any of the schemes were viable or really desirable. My idea would be to think back to a more communal way of raising children, to start thinking more in terms of community. I realise this is very vague, compared to your plan! I would also pay wages for housework, which might have some of the effects you're after by allowing mothers to be at home with young children and raising the status of SAHM.

I feel like there are too many possibilities for your scheme to go horribly wrong. You would have to work hard to convince mothers of this one, I think!

@queenofknives

That would require critical thinking

I teach critical thinking skills and it's always struck me that most people are naturally very good at it once given some direction (and permission to actually explore ideas). But the angriest social justice people just cannot get it. You explain a trap, they immediately fall into it. You describe a logical fallacy, they immediately commit it. It's clear that social justice indoctrination degrades people's critical faculties to the point where they can only emote and sloganeer. It's depressing. Especially because they are invariably the loudest people in the room.

Off topic I guess, but maybe not - this is an interest of mine as well as I work in education, and "critical thinking" is a major buzzword.

But when they say critical thinking, they don't mean things like logical fallacies or poor argumentation. What they mean is that they teach the students to understand everything they learn through a critical theory lens. It's explicit in our provincial social studies programs for example, though I expect most of the teachers are unaware - before they teach narrative history, they teach it thematically, and the themes are things like "culture", or "empowerment".

queenofknives, it's not a concept that I outright propose either but more an answer to the question of how a high level of socioeconomic involvement in the costs of parenting might work out if that system were to 'place worth' in child rearing. If it were to be mandatory, it would be positively dystopian and I'd begin packing immediately (though I imagine that, under the wider system that would implement this, I might find a large wall with an unfriendly guard waiting at the border). I agree that it could and likely would face serious issues. Just as a point of note: I wasn't proposing any specific targets for children (e.g. academic scores) but rather evidence that plenty of opportunities for development were afforded to every child supported by this system.

My personal view on the costs associated with being a parent is that, as long as the causes of reproduction and birth control (including abortion) are available, it's a choice. I don't believe society should leave a parent completely to fend for themselves (e.g. denying free at the point of provision education or additional supplements in welfare payments) but the day-to-day raising of a child is both the right and the responsibility of parents for as long as they wish to continue raising that child. I don't believe wages for housework are a good idea because every household has to maintain their home. Why shouldn't I, for example, receive compensation when compared to a childless couple since I have to do 100% of my housework? I realise this view may be rather controversial on Mumsnet.

Note: by 'costs', I mean everything from financial outlay to personal time.

as long as the causes of reproduction

Sorry, I should have said: as long as the causes of reproduction are widely known (i.e. unprotected sex can result in a child).

Where centralised parenting schemes have been tried, they aren't all that effective, and people generally don't like them. I tend to take a very communitarian political and social view, but fundamentally I see that rooted in family life. The biological family is the model of all parenting, but it's not some kind of abstraction, it's entirely concrete and instantiated. There are no societies that don't use it in one way or another - there is variation but you don't see truly alien variations often and where you do they are often seriously dysfunctional.

Oh, I meant to say - the question of efficiency and energy use in child rearing across societies is a really interesting one. I tend to think that if you were to try and do something like that scientifically (which probably isn't possible) what you'd get, to the consternation of many westerners, is something a lot like the traditional family forms you see around the world. There is a reason social forms develop and are stable and it's usually because they work pretty well and are achievable in terms of the energy the society has to spend.

TheRealMcKenna Glenn Loury! !! He's just awesome, I love listening to him working out his thinking.

What they mean is that they teach the students to understand everything they learn through a critical theory lens.

Yes. It's why so many absolute idiots think they are great at critical thinking. It's also why they keep telling people they should learn to be better critical thinkers and let it be put on the syllabus of all kinds of courses... which of course just plays right into my hands!

This thread is a bit like the Joe Rogan podcast... conversation veering from topic to topic around some broad themes. I've really enjoyed it!

I really like Glenn Loury too vaginafetishist He's another really clear thinker. His podcast with John McWhorter is great. They disagree fairly often and it's great to see how they work together to figure out where the truth is between them.

The Black Guys from Blogging heads! John is great too but I love Glenn's passion and how he can talk at such length without hesitating. They both consider each other's position and are so polite. I've stopped listening to Radio 4 (lifelong habit), there's so much online.
Good to see other Glenn fans! Did you see his wife chat to Coleman Hughes on one of the blogs? Adorable.

Yes, I saw that! That was lovely. I really do appreciate that kind of gentleness and politeness combined with laser-sharp thinking. I'm with you, too, on never listening to R4 anymore. I don't really watch TV either. During lockdown I started listening to podcasts and audiobooks and it was a total game-changer. I like that I can potter about, do the housework and whatever mindless things while listening to great thinkers and learning about history and philosophy.

@queenofknives

What they mean is that they teach the students to understand everything they learn through a critical theory lens.

Yes. It's why so many absolute idiots think they are great at critical thinking. It's also why they keep telling people they should learn to be better critical thinkers and let it be put on the syllabus of all kinds of courses... which of course just plays right into my hands!

Bwa ha ha!!!!

The Dark Horse podcast is definitely one of my favourites at the moment. I also enjoy listening to Quillette and the new Culture Wars one with Andrew Doyle.

Yes, I saw that! That was lovely. I really do appreciate that kind of gentleness and politeness combined with laser-sharp thinking.

I always really appreciate how McWhorter tries to make the argument for the other side, in the most convincing and logical way possible, and I always feel in good faith and in a very kind way. I was taught that it's a fundamental part of learning and considering a problem but I don't see it done much anymore. Even debating teams these days often seem to avoid issues that might really challenge the participants.

Some fascinating replies to the post. I learn so much here.

First of all apologies to Abigail Shrier for the misspelling of her surname. Cringe. Secondly I made a mistake in the title - it was ‘battering’ ram. Douglas Murray suggested that politicians are cynically using the argument around transrights as a battering ram for something else. He has written elsewhere that this something else can be seen as last great bastion of patriarchy to be toppled and this obsession with identity politics signifies the end of empire/civilisation as we know it. Because if the very definition of biological sex is broken down what is left to reject. Personally I also see this something else as a means which some politicians/special advisors will use to bring on an all out culture war at the most politically convenient time.

He wrote an article for the Main on Sunday that the transgender debate - here is the link. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7464157/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-reveals-transgender-rights-one-toxic-issues-age.html

I have watched a few Joe Rogan podcasts. I appreciate how he gives a platform to women such as Abigail Shrier and Debra Soh who thereby reach a much larger audience than they may not otherwise have had, and an audience who like me until recently had no idea of the threat posed to women’s rights and to our very identity. How many other men with such a large following have been done the same? It is also clear that Rogan takes on these arguments – during his discussion with Douglas Murray on gender identity Rogan references Shrier and her investigation into how the transgender craze has captured teenage girls, and it is clear that her findings clearly troubles him. And we know where he stands on transwomen in women’s sports.

And these platforms that he provides do not sit comfortably with everyone it seems.

www.digitalmusicnews.com/2020/09/22/joe-rogan-spotify-strike/

I read yesterday (see link above) that there is a contingent of Spotify staff who are threatening to walk out unless they are given editorial oversight into Rogan’s work. They are threatening protests etc. outside Spotify HQ unless management comply with their demands. It is Hachette publishers and JK Rowling all over again. Rogan has a huge and wide base all over the US and I can only imagine how this will play out in America right now.

I have read Murray’s book and enjoyed it. One problem I do have with many of these thinkers is that they become quite repetitive. Murray is really just rehashing his latest book in that podcast.

I don’t think that it is his fault. Because there is so little discussion now, people don’t really have the opportunity to debate and generate new ideas and analyses all the time. Imagine if people were openly discussing things all the time how much more developed ideas would become.

I read yesterday (see link above) that there is a contingent of Spotify staff who are threatening to walk out unless they are given editorial oversight into Rogan’s work.

I hadn't heard about that. Wow, the entitlement. 'Theres the door' is what Spotify should tell them. Why are they so scared of people simply discussing certain things?

@Stripesgalore

I have read Murray’s book and enjoyed it. One problem I do have with many of these thinkers is that they become quite repetitive. Murray is really just rehashing his latest book in that podcast.

I don’t think that it is his fault. Because there is so little discussion now, people don’t really have the opportunity to debate and generate new ideas and analyses all the time. Imagine if people were openly discussing things all the time how much more developed ideas would become.

I wonder though if we expect too much new idea generation really? If I think about academic lecture tours, although they don't go on television and such, they are generally giving their latest ideas in a recent book or article. Often they read the same paper at every university they visit.

We have so much access to people that things get stale quickly but generally over the course of a few years, someone like DM isn't going to radically revise his ideas about a given topic.

Why are they so scared of people simply discussing certain things?

And it is most specifically about Abigail Shrier. That's the thing that has particularly triggered them! It's bizarre.

I have to assume that almost none of them have actually watched the episode, and they're just blindly going along with people's assertion that talking anyone talking about the trans trend's impact on vulnerable girls must be a transphobic bigot.

Thanks for starting the thread randomgel! I hadn't heard that about spotify either. I think they'd have to be mad to cancel him given his massive audience but I suppose they might feel able to try and control him... I get the impression Rogan is a straightforward kind of bloke with some integrity and would be surprised if he'd let that happen... I suppose we shall see! YouTube hasn't managed to stop him yet.

Anyway, it's too late. Millions of people have seen his show with Shrier, which was completely brilliant. Rogan is always careful to use the 'right' pronouns and be respectful but he is very clear what the issues are. I wish he would get JK on! That would be EPIC.

As for DM peddling the same ideas, well I mean he is very much trying to get those ideas to a mainstream audience... and it's working! He does hundreds of interviews and yes, it's essentially the same points that he's making but the more he does, the more people get to hear these ideas and maybe start to open their minds.

There are loads of great podcasts from original thinkers but if you are mainly interested in social justice/critical theory then I guess these same people are going to keep cropping up. James Lindsay is everywhere too. Must admit I like him a bit more than I like Murray, just on a personal level. I really like Andrew Doyle too, though i suspect he is a secret Marxist.

James Lindsay is everywhere too. Must admit I like him a bit more than I like Murray, just on a personal level.

Same here. He comes across as a lot less ‘angry’ than Murray. The podcast he did with Posie Parker was excellent.

I’m just listening to the audiobook of The Coddling of the American Mind and it’s really fascinating. Politically, it seems a bit more ‘balanced’ than Murray’s books. Whilst Murray dismisses the rise of the far right as a bit overblown, this book doesn’t do that. It does, however, cover similar ground in terms of the coverage of events on campus including Yale and Evergreen. The big difference is that it goes into much greater detail about how and why this shift in attitudes and behaviours has come about.

I've read/seen almost nothing from Jonathan Haidt, but I know he's highly regarded by lots of the other names I do follow.

The one thing I have seen is his lecture about the fundamental incompatibility of Truth and Social Justice as value systems for academic institutions. That was very good.

Maybe I'll get into him more later...

Took me a long time to get into to James Lindsay and appreciate what he was doing, beyond just knowing about the Lindsay/Pluckrose/Boghossian Grievance Studies hit. He's a tad abrasive and a bit offputting at first, but by god he's putting the work in.

He's got the typical mathematician's low tolerance for bullshit, logical fallacies and missing definitions. It's notable that many of the key GC names in this fight are either mathematicians or physicists. I can immediately think of Helen Joyce, Magdalen Berns and Debbie Hayton, but I know there are more I've forgotten.

(I'm a mathematician myself, so I always keep an eye out for others, and enjoy recognising the almost physical revulsion to postmodernism we have. Mathematicians construct entire universes and other realities in their heads all the time, in a very concrete fashion. Postmodernism turns our entire multiverse into mush.)

To echo what many posters have said, this thread has been really interesting and produced many great recommendations for podcasts. There is another one I would recommend which is a detailed interview with Brett Weinstein which begins with his account of events at Evergreen and proceeds to an analysis of the 'woke' ideology's core beliefs and its assault on science and reason. It is hosted by The Sun believe it or not, but it is a great overview of all the key issues delivered in an eloquent, erudite manner.

I love Bret (and Heather!). Seen that Sun interview suggested for me on YouTube, but not got around to it yet. Was going a bit "meh, the Sun", but that's dumb because I know they had a good hour with Andrew Doyle at the start of the year.

Even if you do like Bret like me, to some extent there's a lot of retreading the same ground in most of his videos, so maybe I was also thinking there wouldn't be anything new in that Sun one - bet it's a good intro though. I'll try it now.

If you want something different - check out Bret being interviewed by his brother Eric about certain events in his academic career. An utterly fascinating piece of "TV", for (a) the story itself, which is epic, (b) what it tells you about Bret beyond what you think you already know, and (c) just getting to watch the amazing family dynamics going on between them. 2 hours very well-spent, I promise you.

500,000 viewers agree.

The Brett Weinstein videos are excellent, because you get to see how the mob behaviour develops, how they threaten and harass university canteen and low level admin staff. It’s really shocking and disturbing to watch.