After a two-week hiatus, Inez and I are back to discuss recent events. My critique of my old views and internet persona have led some to ask about my old research on why public figures shouldn’t apologize. Of course, my view is that if you did something wrong, you should admit it. Even if it was the case that it would have been better for me to reply with defiance, and it most certainly wasn’t, I don’t think I could’ve done so and remained honest with my audience.
While it's possible you're right about cancel culture, I think this reasoning is a bit like thinking 'it's been a warm winter this year, I guess global warming is bullshit.' People are decompressing a bit finally just three years out from George Floyd. I wouldn't assume this suggests long run victory. Surveys still consistently show the youngest generation being the least tolerant of non-left views. There'll be more George Floyds and MeToos to come.
Yep. Things aren’t getting long-run better until we produce a generation that’s more sane than the one that preceded it. As a Millennial, I can see that we ain’t it and the Zoomers are significantly worse.
I have to say I’m a bit tired of being labeled liberal, woke or leftist. I read your newsletter regularly and enjoy hearing, although don’t always agree with, your views. But how about dropping the convenient and (frankly) lazy labels and just engage on substantive matters. The line about privileged liberals is just unnecessary. Privilege doesn’t make you wrong or right, and so the implied judgement is unnecessary. Underprivileged people can be wrong too, you know.
I didn’t say being privileged made them wrong. I’m trying to figure out why they’re so intolerant of crimethink and willing to cancel individuals instead of attack ideas. Conservatives don’t attack me for talking to leftists, while Yglesias followers are obsessed with attacking him for talking to me. Why? That’s what we’re trying to figure out.
Yes. But my objection is to terms such as ‘they’ as if the people you are referring to constitute some homogenous block. I don’t agree with cancelling individuals. I am happy to debate substantive matters. Maybe you are being attacked by individuals, not by ‘leftists’, and should focus on what they are saying and not who they are. By applying the labels you have in this instance, you are at risk of doing the Bert thing you are objecting to (either tacitly or intentionally). Putting all that aside, I still enjoy reading your thoughts. You have many good and thought provoking things to say.
Leftists are now more or less true believers and disciples of the Church of Social Justice, so it makes sense for 1) you to be considered a heathen outside the moral pale who deserves nothing less than full anathematization and certainly not any form of "debate", as no fundamentalist debates their religious beliefs with outsiders; and 2) that Yglesias will be attacked more ferociously, as heretics and apostates always smell like foul traitors to their tribe and need to be attacked to teach them (and others) a lesson.
Leftists no longer debate Rightists because they consider you the moral and social equivalent of Nazis or Jim Crows and believe that you and your ilk don't deserve to be treated like fellow citizens, but like evil entities that should only be denounced and destroyed.
When you know deep in your bones and soul that you are the pristine incarnation of Good, while your opponents are the literal manifestation of Evil, the time for talking is over and the only choice for anyone on Team Good is to fight to the death.
Leftists really imagine themselves as the moral and political reincarnation of the French Resistance, while also thinking of every political battle as a recapitulation of the March on Selma (where they're the Good guys fighting the evil bigots), so what's left to debate?
The guy at the Huffpo who doxxed you has zero interest in debating you, he wants to banish you from society by any means necessary.
Maybe they're intolerant of you for the same reason you once said you'd ban all feminists from Twitter -- because they strongly oppose your ideas and think they add little to the conversation. I don't know how you be so intolerant towards the "woke" (pick a post, any post, and you'll see ad hominem epithets and calls to denounce and destroy) while at the same time lambasting others for doing the same to you. Surely even you can see the hypocrisy in this. Perhaps you should consider the idea that people are criticizing your ideas not because they're "crimethink" or edgy or heterodox or make people a smidge uncomfortable -- because they are genuinely wrong in both a moral and factual sense.
Sometimes I wonder if it's just intellectual laziness or lack of sharpness...people just not adept or interested enough to articulate and then defend a proposition.
Does that include Richard Hanania himself, who once called for banning feminists from Twitter?
Why is it okay when Hanania pushes cancellations? Hanania is not any more tolerant of ideas he doesn't like than those he criticizes. He's just a hypocritical bigot.
I've never understood why people are so afraid of "labels". It's just a convenient way to talk about a group of people. It doesn't necessarily mean that every member of the group is identical in every way, just that they share enough in common to consider that they form a group. No one has the time to look at the particular case of each individual, especially when we're talking about politics, which is a collective matter.
All generations under age 30 lean liberal and look at life through rose colored glasses. The right is on the rise, as it can't be suppressed because people get it.
Interesting, Inez states that tribalism has led to horrible things in the past which is why we want to avoid tribalism, ergo nationalism that may favor a race or ethnic group. This is an alarming statement to people of good conscious. I disagree that tribalism is how to characterize people that choose to live and associate with people similar to them ethnically, culturally and racially. Rather it is a natural phenomenon, not a tribalism , groups out to harm others if when gravitate toward people of the same color. The evidence disproves this. It comes down to character, as many people cannot even stand being around people of the same color, after some point. Its all about character.
I think you slightly misunderstood me. I think tribalism is the natural human condition and deep connections to identity, but its excesses are dangerous.
The reason you don't see debate from leftists on these issues is because they're trying to control, through social shame, the purchase of these ideas in the populace. You are only a figurehead in this economy (you're also trying to kill civil rights law, which makes gunning for you politically convenient). The feeling, however, is sincere, because they know that the public isn't logical and that looking to a smart guy for apologetics is the extent of their political capability, and because for that reason they fear the impulse of particularism turning to animus turning to atrocity. Your personal level of prejudice is not important if you can affect the latter element. You can argue, and be right, that this dogmatism doesn't work, has to become more narrow and extreme, and makes more enemies than friends. But this is to the dogmatic mind the equivalent of informing someone being charged by a bear that their gun is jammed and won't fire.
On a personal note, I've been increasingly disappointed in the right because I had hoped, faced with what is essentially a powerful inquisition, they would see how silly and cruel a tool it is for ideological conformity and start thinking categorically about cultural plurality, but more often than not I still see proffered the lame-brain solution to cultural ills of "let's just force pre-60s moral culture." So still I wait.
While it's possible you're right about cancel culture, I think this reasoning is a bit like thinking 'it's been a warm winter this year, I guess global warming is bullshit.' People are decompressing a bit finally just three years out from George Floyd. I wouldn't assume this suggests long run victory. Surveys still consistently show the youngest generation being the least tolerant of non-left views. There'll be more George Floyds and MeToos to come.
Yep. Things aren’t getting long-run better until we produce a generation that’s more sane than the one that preceded it. As a Millennial, I can see that we ain’t it and the Zoomers are significantly worse.
I have to say I’m a bit tired of being labeled liberal, woke or leftist. I read your newsletter regularly and enjoy hearing, although don’t always agree with, your views. But how about dropping the convenient and (frankly) lazy labels and just engage on substantive matters. The line about privileged liberals is just unnecessary. Privilege doesn’t make you wrong or right, and so the implied judgement is unnecessary. Underprivileged people can be wrong too, you know.
I didn’t say being privileged made them wrong. I’m trying to figure out why they’re so intolerant of crimethink and willing to cancel individuals instead of attack ideas. Conservatives don’t attack me for talking to leftists, while Yglesias followers are obsessed with attacking him for talking to me. Why? That’s what we’re trying to figure out.
Yes. But my objection is to terms such as ‘they’ as if the people you are referring to constitute some homogenous block. I don’t agree with cancelling individuals. I am happy to debate substantive matters. Maybe you are being attacked by individuals, not by ‘leftists’, and should focus on what they are saying and not who they are. By applying the labels you have in this instance, you are at risk of doing the Bert thing you are objecting to (either tacitly or intentionally). Putting all that aside, I still enjoy reading your thoughts. You have many good and thought provoking things to say.
*very...not Bert 😂
I was wondering who Bert was.
Leftists are now more or less true believers and disciples of the Church of Social Justice, so it makes sense for 1) you to be considered a heathen outside the moral pale who deserves nothing less than full anathematization and certainly not any form of "debate", as no fundamentalist debates their religious beliefs with outsiders; and 2) that Yglesias will be attacked more ferociously, as heretics and apostates always smell like foul traitors to their tribe and need to be attacked to teach them (and others) a lesson.
Leftists no longer debate Rightists because they consider you the moral and social equivalent of Nazis or Jim Crows and believe that you and your ilk don't deserve to be treated like fellow citizens, but like evil entities that should only be denounced and destroyed.
When you know deep in your bones and soul that you are the pristine incarnation of Good, while your opponents are the literal manifestation of Evil, the time for talking is over and the only choice for anyone on Team Good is to fight to the death.
Leftists really imagine themselves as the moral and political reincarnation of the French Resistance, while also thinking of every political battle as a recapitulation of the March on Selma (where they're the Good guys fighting the evil bigots), so what's left to debate?
The guy at the Huffpo who doxxed you has zero interest in debating you, he wants to banish you from society by any means necessary.
Maybe they're intolerant of you for the same reason you once said you'd ban all feminists from Twitter -- because they strongly oppose your ideas and think they add little to the conversation. I don't know how you be so intolerant towards the "woke" (pick a post, any post, and you'll see ad hominem epithets and calls to denounce and destroy) while at the same time lambasting others for doing the same to you. Surely even you can see the hypocrisy in this. Perhaps you should consider the idea that people are criticizing your ideas not because they're "crimethink" or edgy or heterodox or make people a smidge uncomfortable -- because they are genuinely wrong in both a moral and factual sense.
Sometimes I wonder if it's just intellectual laziness or lack of sharpness...people just not adept or interested enough to articulate and then defend a proposition.
Does that include Richard Hanania himself, who once called for banning feminists from Twitter?
Why is it okay when Hanania pushes cancellations? Hanania is not any more tolerant of ideas he doesn't like than those he criticizes. He's just a hypocritical bigot.
I've never understood why people are so afraid of "labels". It's just a convenient way to talk about a group of people. It doesn't necessarily mean that every member of the group is identical in every way, just that they share enough in common to consider that they form a group. No one has the time to look at the particular case of each individual, especially when we're talking about politics, which is a collective matter.
Matt's readers are right. No one should interact with anyone on ex-Twitter. :)
All generations under age 30 lean liberal and look at life through rose colored glasses. The right is on the rise, as it can't be suppressed because people get it.
But you both raise some interesting points.
Interesting, Inez states that tribalism has led to horrible things in the past which is why we want to avoid tribalism, ergo nationalism that may favor a race or ethnic group. This is an alarming statement to people of good conscious. I disagree that tribalism is how to characterize people that choose to live and associate with people similar to them ethnically, culturally and racially. Rather it is a natural phenomenon, not a tribalism , groups out to harm others if when gravitate toward people of the same color. The evidence disproves this. It comes down to character, as many people cannot even stand being around people of the same color, after some point. Its all about character.
I think you slightly misunderstood me. I think tribalism is the natural human condition and deep connections to identity, but its excesses are dangerous.
Agree!
The reason you don't see debate from leftists on these issues is because they're trying to control, through social shame, the purchase of these ideas in the populace. You are only a figurehead in this economy (you're also trying to kill civil rights law, which makes gunning for you politically convenient). The feeling, however, is sincere, because they know that the public isn't logical and that looking to a smart guy for apologetics is the extent of their political capability, and because for that reason they fear the impulse of particularism turning to animus turning to atrocity. Your personal level of prejudice is not important if you can affect the latter element. You can argue, and be right, that this dogmatism doesn't work, has to become more narrow and extreme, and makes more enemies than friends. But this is to the dogmatic mind the equivalent of informing someone being charged by a bear that their gun is jammed and won't fire.
On a personal note, I've been increasingly disappointed in the right because I had hoped, faced with what is essentially a powerful inquisition, they would see how silly and cruel a tool it is for ideological conformity and start thinking categorically about cultural plurality, but more often than not I still see proffered the lame-brain solution to cultural ills of "let's just force pre-60s moral culture." So still I wait.