Another great interview, thank you. I mean not just the subject matter, but the flow, the economical and effective use of the listener's time, the feeling of conversation. With regards to the subject matter today, the point about knowing our society as it truly is has been the pragmatic argument I've been making for free speech. We can't solve collective problems if we don't see the half of what they are, or if we don't know how our neighbours are thinking and how they'll potentially respond. So many examples of this right now in Canada, but one that comes to mind is our federal government's approach to climate policies. Things that *may* work in the Laurentian corridor fail spectacularly in the Maritimes or on the Prairies. . .and we would have told them, if they'd wanted to hear. Instead, Facebook slaps a big ol' warning on it and downgrades it in the algorithm. Or now, doesn't let us share at all because of C-18.
I donate a modest amount of money to FIRE. I found this interview very disappointing on two levels.
One, for him to say the way to fight this totalitarian authoritarian takeover is with arguments is naive in the extreme. We've tried this for decades. They don't care. They are just going to keep the steamroller going.
Second, his "both sides are guilty" gambit. Awful. Maybe if you define trying to rid the schools of teachers/institutions that are successfully radicalizing a significant percentage of our kids, then yes. But, that is not remotely the same as what the totalitarians have been/are doing for decades. Yes, I don't like the idea of ridding the schools of this indoctrination because, yes, it smacks of denial of free speech, but if my first point is correct---and it is---then I haven't seen a better plan.
Deeply disappointed. Glad I'm only a small contributor.
Not to sound sexist but I’ve witnessed some vile unforgiving toxicity from women against other women in the name of ‘social Justice’ ending in a nasty cancellation. So appalling even the men in the room took a step back. Very sad to see.
I don't understand something here. Tara quotes the book under view here by saying 40% of the calls for cancelling comes from those who are Right-leaning. (26:05- 26:17). I have not darkened the door of a university for man-years but I have been informed through various sources that the professors are overwhelmingly Leftists. Is that not so? Or are the Right-leaning professors punching above their weight?
Cancel culture is not a thing on the right. This tendency to want to blame both sides is one of the primary reasons why the left continues to be so successful in eroding free speech.
The actions of the right are against power compelling or demanding tyrannically language rules. The actions of the left are the power compelling or demanding tyrannically language rules. Branding these two as both the same is exactly what the left wants to help protect their true tyranny.
I kinda feel the spectrum of left/right misses too much here. I agree that it is doctrinaire among much of the intellectual left, especially the Neo Marxists of the 60s/70s, but I think it primarily manifests itself as a psychological phenomena for those in power-- ie shutdown any dissent before it threatens the status quo*. My intuition tells me if you took 100 screaming yelling cancelers and asked what they thought about Marcuse or the Frankfurt School, you would get blank stairs from 99%. It really feels more a function of "my team good. your team bad" tweaked by the on stage virtue signaling some personality types do in front of the 7x24 digital panopticon we live in called social media. I am a child of the 70s/80s and I remember when I was at a catholic highschool in Toronto, there were always a few kids who "REALLY loved Jesus" and gladly took part in the protest to shutdown the screening of "Life of Brian". That "I pray harder than everyone else, look at me" personality I think would be translated into freakouts over the Italians making tacos now.
* Will Storr Kinda makes this point in "The Status Game" but takes the framework a bit too far and a bit too singular IMHO
Naw. I am on one of those teams and free speech is absolute. Including the rejection of any power to compel speech. I think hate speech crimes are unconstitutional and should be outlawed at the federal level. Now the left will claim that doing that is erosion so 1A rights as the people in the states should have the right to set those laws. With respect to the fake canard of Republican book banning, it is just the people pushing back from a tyrannical minority in positions of power to push certain book content that supports their ideological goals. Similar if a situation where Islamists gained that power and pushed books promoting Sharia law.
My position is absolute free speech, including any tyrannical control of speech.
Great interview. Depressing as hell but, that's the awfulness of the subject. Look forward to reading the book.
Another great interview, thank you. I mean not just the subject matter, but the flow, the economical and effective use of the listener's time, the feeling of conversation. With regards to the subject matter today, the point about knowing our society as it truly is has been the pragmatic argument I've been making for free speech. We can't solve collective problems if we don't see the half of what they are, or if we don't know how our neighbours are thinking and how they'll potentially respond. So many examples of this right now in Canada, but one that comes to mind is our federal government's approach to climate policies. Things that *may* work in the Laurentian corridor fail spectacularly in the Maritimes or on the Prairies. . .and we would have told them, if they'd wanted to hear. Instead, Facebook slaps a big ol' warning on it and downgrades it in the algorithm. Or now, doesn't let us share at all because of C-18.
Solid interview. This is the sort of material and intellectual curiosity that should be at the heart of the CBC.
I donate a modest amount of money to FIRE. I found this interview very disappointing on two levels.
One, for him to say the way to fight this totalitarian authoritarian takeover is with arguments is naive in the extreme. We've tried this for decades. They don't care. They are just going to keep the steamroller going.
Second, his "both sides are guilty" gambit. Awful. Maybe if you define trying to rid the schools of teachers/institutions that are successfully radicalizing a significant percentage of our kids, then yes. But, that is not remotely the same as what the totalitarians have been/are doing for decades. Yes, I don't like the idea of ridding the schools of this indoctrination because, yes, it smacks of denial of free speech, but if my first point is correct---and it is---then I haven't seen a better plan.
Deeply disappointed. Glad I'm only a small contributor.
Not to sound sexist but I’ve witnessed some vile unforgiving toxicity from women against other women in the name of ‘social Justice’ ending in a nasty cancellation. So appalling even the men in the room took a step back. Very sad to see.
I don't understand something here. Tara quotes the book under view here by saying 40% of the calls for cancelling comes from those who are Right-leaning. (26:05- 26:17). I have not darkened the door of a university for man-years but I have been informed through various sources that the professors are overwhelmingly Leftists. Is that not so? Or are the Right-leaning professors punching above their weight?
Cancel culture is not a thing on the right. This tendency to want to blame both sides is one of the primary reasons why the left continues to be so successful in eroding free speech.
The actions of the right are against power compelling or demanding tyrannically language rules. The actions of the left are the power compelling or demanding tyrannically language rules. Branding these two as both the same is exactly what the left wants to help protect their true tyranny.
I kinda feel the spectrum of left/right misses too much here. I agree that it is doctrinaire among much of the intellectual left, especially the Neo Marxists of the 60s/70s, but I think it primarily manifests itself as a psychological phenomena for those in power-- ie shutdown any dissent before it threatens the status quo*. My intuition tells me if you took 100 screaming yelling cancelers and asked what they thought about Marcuse or the Frankfurt School, you would get blank stairs from 99%. It really feels more a function of "my team good. your team bad" tweaked by the on stage virtue signaling some personality types do in front of the 7x24 digital panopticon we live in called social media. I am a child of the 70s/80s and I remember when I was at a catholic highschool in Toronto, there were always a few kids who "REALLY loved Jesus" and gladly took part in the protest to shutdown the screening of "Life of Brian". That "I pray harder than everyone else, look at me" personality I think would be translated into freakouts over the Italians making tacos now.
* Will Storr Kinda makes this point in "The Status Game" but takes the framework a bit too far and a bit too singular IMHO
Naw. I am on one of those teams and free speech is absolute. Including the rejection of any power to compel speech. I think hate speech crimes are unconstitutional and should be outlawed at the federal level. Now the left will claim that doing that is erosion so 1A rights as the people in the states should have the right to set those laws. With respect to the fake canard of Republican book banning, it is just the people pushing back from a tyrannical minority in positions of power to push certain book content that supports their ideological goals. Similar if a situation where Islamists gained that power and pushed books promoting Sharia law.
My position is absolute free speech, including any tyrannical control of speech.