My conversation with the Washington journalist and author of The Constitution of Knowledge
I’m really nort sure what could be more false than insisting that a male can become female if he so wishes. That sort of silly comes from the left.
I can’t tell you how irritated I get to read, at the very beginning of the article, that the right’s attack on “the constitution of knowledge” is a firehouse of falsehoods. Nothing could be further from reality. Perhaps as a society we are unable to use this constitution of knowledge to get to the truth because 50% of the population denies that such a thing (truth) even exists.
Generally good thoughts and points, except this
"On Trump and the “firehose of falsehoods”
I have always challenged the people that claimed this - because I think was always a fabrication of negative branding from the dishonest and lying Democrat media - to provide me a list.
They never do. It seem to prove that political bias wins.
On safetyism and cancel culture: Rauch is right that both collapse any sensible pursuit of common truths. In Canadian universities, whole new structures have been built up over the last five years or so whereby students can translate personal grievances (e.g. over marks) into accusations of political sin against their teachers. And university officials go along with these accusations most of the time, unless the evidence is overwhelming on the "not guilty" side.
I've read similar stories about young "activists" in government bureaucracies, newsrooms, and tech corporations who would rather gut a business or office than admit there are two sides to every story (read Eric Hoffer's classic THE TRUE BELIEVER - it's uncannily prescient about modern politics, about how true believers are motivated by "frustration" and a desire to erase unhappy and failed selves by plunging themselves into a movement). The result is that most "knowledge workers" (i.e. people who work with ideas, not things) play it safe, self-censoring, avoiding controversy, certainly if it has to do with identity politics.
The result is an epistemological and moral gutting of knowledge-creating and propagating institutions. As others have said, it's now an reasonable question for parents to ask, "should I send my son or daughter to university at all? Will they learn anything, including how to think for themselves, or even learn to take care of themselves when faced with minor adversities?" One could argue that the safetyism that is rife in modern schools at all levels makes students LESS able to cope with the slings and arrows of life's failures.
"" firehose of falseoods "" really ? Bi-det is what then ? has he spoken a true word in the past 4 years ? AND WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK THAT YOU ARE HOMO SEXUAL ? What has that got to do with anything ? I worked the door at a gay club in the 70's I saw the odd asshole that had problems with gays 95% of people did not give a fuck where you stick your dick is your problem most people don't care , get over yourself , your not special . really starting to think I wasted money paying for this substandard stack . NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE QUALITY OF THE GUESTS , Would rather pay for some of the comments
Thank you for doing this, I do listen to podcasts but I love the option of simply reading!
"The same general group of people who invented modern liberal capitalism and modern liberal democracy invented the constitution of knowledge. And said, “There’s got to be a better way to do this.”"
Oh man, where do you even begin to deconstruct this nonsense? I can do it, but what's the point? Anyone else here up to it? Easy target. There are holes in this guy's argument big enough to drive a T-72 tank through. Yeah, that's a Russian tank. He dragged Russia into it with his "firehose of falsehood" nonsense , so I get to use the image.
Firehose of falsehood? Seriously? My Irony Meter is pegged at 11!
TH, it would have been good to ask for an example of a topic that spews (or spewed) from the firehouse of falsehoods. That kind of unspecified accusation can be spread in perpetuity, to nobody's benefit.
Seems like these days the right is more right than the left. I see a lot of honest good professional people trying to get out the truth and them being slandered as spewing misinformation. Classic.
His friends at Brookings. Best to better investigate your guests.
Anyone else here see the irony of a liberal writer attracting a mainly conservative audience?
What's up with that, I wonder?
Obama must hate this guy.
"I have agency in how I can interpret statements that I disagree with."
"it is always incorrect to equate ideas with violence (or even "hate"). It’s really just a way of trying to control the public discourse."
Obama must hate this guy. All the Hate Speech Here / Hate Speech There people must hate this guy.
Tara must love this guy. Like her, he'll spend an hour pointing out how the people he supports are doing terrible or at least highly questionable things, and then go right on supporting them.
On the "firehood of falsehoods": three remarks. First, it doesn't look like Russian propaganda had much effect on US elections. This reeks of the McCarthyism of the 1950s. There is no secret cabal of Red or Putinesque spies in the higher ranks of government. Rauch should stop watching CNN
Second, a thought experiment. Let's say Donald Trump never entered the political arena. Would that firehose of falsehoods from the right disappear immediately? Or is it endemic to the right, but somehow absent from the left?
Third, a simple fact - CNN, MSNBC, all three legacy broadcast TV networks, PBS, the NYT, the Washington Post, all of Silicon Valley, most local newspapers, etc. not only have a leftist bias, but often openly defend "progressive" activism (remember CNN's "fiery but mostly peaceful" stories from 2020 - the Bablyon Bee couldn't beat that!), even though, accoring to the Hidden Tribes report, they represent only 8% of the US population. The sober liberalism of a Walter Conkrite or Dan Rather is long gone, replaced by media institutions peopled by activists who probably think that John Stuart Mill was a crypto-fascist transphobe, if they bothered to read him.
Jonathan is unpersuasive.