Hi Chris, I found the comparison of Andrew Tate to Nietzsche as grown embodiments of hurt children to be really interesting. I’ve just started reading Schopenhauer, initially Nietzsche’s biggest inspiration, who he radically rejected later in life. Nietzsche seemed to be a fanboy of Schopenhauer, but later saw him as a depressing pessimist, which led to him denouncing the entire western philosophical tradition as “decadent” from Schopenhauer all the way down to Plato.
To me there are a lot of parallels in this critique of decadence coming people like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson and I'd be very interested to hear more about your thoughts on Nietzsche. Since he had so much influence on Milan Kundera's themes in Unbearable Lightness of Being, I'm sure you have some thoughts there
I agree with everything you said in this episode, Chris. People need to stop completely ruling someone out for a select few things they said. Thanks for speaking your mind
This is why I listen. I wish everyone could hear this ROMA. Definitely helps me feel less alone, because it seems this view is in the minority at times. Thank you for talking about these things. Thank you!!.
Thanks. Just saw your comment after responding to someone's email, telling me that after 7 years of listening, she was done with me because of this one. It shouldn't bother me when that happens, but it does. So your comment helps.
When people do that, it seems to me to be the inverse of what your point was. Instead of isolating /admitting to agreeing with a perspective from someone that you otherwise find abhorrent...it’s focusing on a point of disagreement with someone you otherwise admire (and then throwing the baby out with the bath water by wholly rejecting them over said view.) It seems to be a struggle to regard people with nuance and complexity. I often wonder if there’s a lingering tendency from earlier social structures- purging someone from the community based on a perceived deviance/threat.
Chris, even when we disagree I won’t stop listening to you. I’m glad you challenge me, I won’t always agree with you, but I know you’re just trying to make the world a better place 🤪
Wow Chris this is a tricky topic, very relevant. I have a couple points on the topic.
1. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences. If someone is espousing dangerous misogynistic beliefs to an audience of impressionable young men, people can be upset. Platforms can kick them off for violating the terms of service. If someone is “cancelled” because people don’t want to hear what they have to say, that’s the consequence of their speech.
2. There is a difference between social consequences and consequences from the state. I don’t think people should be fined, imprisoned, ect for their speech. But if they get fired from their job for hate speech towards their colleagues? Reasonable.
3. If I gave you a cup of tea that was full of really healthy antioxidants, and a little bit of my shit, would you drink it? It’s just a little bit of shit. There’s a lot of good antioxidants in there. And just a pinch of shit. If you wouldn’t drink the tea for the antioxidants, why would you drink the words of Andrew Tate, who’s full of shit, for the rare bits of good stuff?
4. You can have compassion for a person AND have healthy boundaries with them. I feel compassion for Tate, for all these young man. You don’t violently espouse the oppression of an entire gender because you have self love and confidence within yourself. But I have no interest in ingesting all the shit into my mind because of that compassion. I am open to hear the thoughts and feelings of these young men. I don’t want to hear and normalize the hate filled prescriptions they offer to fix it.
That’s my soapbox. These are hard questions, love the discussion!
What if it’s not shit that got sprinkled in, you just assume it is? What is it that Andrew Tate has put into the tea that you would think is shit? I would argue that he would say it’s not shit but valuable life lessons. It’s all about perspective
Wouldn’t mind a future ROMA about which is a bigger problem: trans and queer people disproportionately experiencing violence or older middle-aged people complaining about new pronouns.
What's "older middle-age" have to do with anything? Your premise is that if only Boomers would say Latinx, the violence against trans people would stop. I think that's a false premise. Forcing people to pretend to agree to something they don't actually agree with doesn't solve the problem, it just increases resentment. The insane attacks on JK Rowling, for example, didn't do anything to help the cause of trans people. They just made the trans community look unhinged, which is unfair to the 99.9% of trans people who just want to live their lives.
I read her premise differently, my interpretation is: is the material harm to queer and trans people a bigger issue than the non-material harm of pronouns.
Sure JK Rowling got attacked on twitter or wherever. But she is a not materially harmed in a significant way.
Many families are drastically affected by legislation against trans care.
I wouldn’t say that’s my premise, Chris, though I did sling a little mud, so I’ll forgive you for not giving any benefit of the doubt. I suppose I am trying to push forth the idea that trans rights are more important than people resisting changes in language and “older middle-aged” folks are where I feel like I hear the most resistance to these things.
Should the USA not have legalized gay marriage or ended the segregation of black people because there was a population that resisted it? Where is the line there for you?
How do you feel about trans and queer people disproportionately experiencing violence? How many people pushing back against trans rights and new pronouns and gender language come across as unhinged to you?
How do you feel about the idea of two-spirit people from various indigenous cultures?
I think you're still missing my point (and/or I'm missing yours). You write, "trans rights are more important than people resisting changes in language...." I agree. But your premise, which you deny is your premise and yet repeat it here, seems to be that enforcing these changes in language would result in greater support for trans rights and less violence against trans people. That's what I'm disagreeing with. The linkage. I don't believe that real structural change comes via Orwellian language control, and in fact, such attempts often backfire.
Your examples (gay marriage and segregation) aren't about language, are they? Segregation didn't end because white people were forced to stop saying "negro" and started saying "African American." Gay marriage wasn't enacted because straight people stopped saying "fag."
We agree that trans people deserve the same basic rights as anyone else, we're disagreeing about the best way to get there, I think. Framing it as trans rights vs free speech misses the point.
Yet, Chris, I swear I’ve heard you argue about the importance of symbolism and language elsewhere. I don’t think it is enough, but it surely has its place. Enforcing its use? Well surely any institution has the right to certain standards. While I know you don’t care, many who have earned their doctorate ask for those two little letters before their name, and when writing about them in these institutions you have to include their title (at least in Australian universities). And surely, these institutions, and others, lead the way with enforcing certain language standards in regards to labels for blacks, American Indians, homosexuals, etc etc and it’s now improper across the board to use the derogatory terms that were well accepted and common place.
Would these changes alone have been effective? Probably not. Have they contributed? Probably. I can’t imagine these groups would spend so much time and resources into campaigning around language use if it is not important to them. And our institutions in liberal-democracies, should be the ones leading it.
As someone stated before, language is used to discriminate and keep people down. In Australia, we had the White Australia Policy that used language to make sure no undesirables came into the nation. Changing the use of language in government institutions changes this and we are now one of the most multicultural nations in the world. Changing language can lead to material changes.
A significant proportion of the population think in words. Changing the way language is used can change the way they think. We no longer call Australian Aboriginals “abos” or “natives.” We refer to them as Indigenous or First Nations. These terms are more respectful and treat people as people and with dignity. This won’t change rusted on racists, but for the rest of us, these labels are a subtle reminder of colonialism and its ongoing problems. Our thoughts are now framed in this change of language. Aboriginals are no longer animals that we need to look after, but a people that were here first and had their land stolen, and the current generation is still dealing with the consequences of that.
It was the institutions of Australia that enforced this language change first. The change in language helped drive the change in attitude. Though, admittedly, there is still a long way to go.
The term "marriage" was not applied to gay couples early on. They were called civil unions. This was an example of using language to prevent gays from getting equal treatment.
The anti-trans right has no problem picking little fights on their quest to end trans poeple.
Last year it was about "protecting womens sports" then it was "kids are being mutialted" now it's "all trans care is mental illness". Being able to see the agenda and make a clear stand against it is important.
Yeah we may well be missing the nuance in one another due to the limitations of this medium. I’m not arguing in favour of “Orwellian language control” so much as asking what the big deal is with addressing someone how they would like to be addressed. What is it costing you? Or society?
A few years ago I remember a guest eloquently (I thought) explaining to you why you shouldn’t use “the N word”. Maybe you could interview some trans rights folks and investigate the discussion on language. I’d tune in.
I'm happy to address anyone how they'd like to be addressed. What I'm not happy to do is refer to people from Latin America as "Latinx" because some graduate student decided that was going to end colonialism, and nobody from Mexico and south gives a damn. See the difference? One is personal, the other is structural and institutional. If you write professionally, you're supposed to capitalize "Black" now. Why? This is going to correct centuries of slavery? Every time you give a talk in Canada and many parts of the US, you're supposed to declare that this sacred ground once belonged to this or that tribe. Empty words. Does the tribe get anything? Is there anything REAL being done to address endemic poverty, or are the linguistic adjustments just symbolic distractions from anything significant? It's like being told that you're getting a raise at work. Now, instead of "Manager," you're going to be "District Manager." Same shitty wages, no benefits, no sick days, but you're supposed to be grateful anyway....
Yeah, agree with all that sentiment, pretty much. I appreciate you engaging with me on here. I’ll leave you with this funny peace offering about land acknowledgements: https://youtu.be/xlG17C19nYo
I hadn’t listened to Chris in a while and was surprised how hostile he is on this subject. Really disappointing. He talks about how biology is complicated, but ends up with a similar position as right-wingers.
You are referring to the biological species concept (versus taxonomic, evolutionary, and other concepts). If they can mate and produce viable offspring they are members of the same species. But, that's not the entirety of it. Say you have five populations. Populations A, B, C, D, and E. All of them can mate with each other and produce viable offspring except for populations A and E who can't reproduce with each other but can produce viable offspring with the other populations. Yet under this concept they are still in the same species since variation from each population can make it's way to the other via the intermediary populations even though A and E can't successfully mate. The implication is that populations A and E have been isolated from each other (sexually and probably geographically) the longest.
But last year a rose-breasted grosbeak/scarlet tanager hybrid was found.
These species shared a last common ancestor about 10 million years ago. That's about the same time our lineage separated with the Gorilla lineage. It really obscures the picture.
Humans and Neanderthals produced viable offspring. But research has also shown that within six generations of mixing most of the Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA was ejected from our ancestor's genome.
So which is the deciding factor? Some viable offspring or the incompatible genomic material that results in immediate genetic purging? The concept of species is messy in the real world; just like the concept of race.
Ah yes race, a popular talking point. I don't find the argument of "if race doesn't exist why are the people arguing it doesn't exist demanding reparations etc. based on these non-existent groups?" very compelling. Take this part of the argument, "If race doesn't exist". In what domain is this claim being argued? Most who make this argument (whether you agree or disagree with it) would say that they are speaking in a biological sense. So why would they then argue that Black Americans should be afforded compensation? Because it doesn't matter if race exists biologically if it is accepted as cultural or societal fact and groups of people are acting on these beliefs to the detriment of another group of people. Italians and Irish groups were once not considered white. This doesn't answer whether biological race exists but people with dark skin (and their lighter skinned offspring) were almost exclusively kidnapped, thrown into 1,000 lb. coffles, and forced to march hundreds of miles west. Biological truth doesn't matter when society and culture produce their own definitions and act on them. And when a defined group is targeted individuals that makeup this perceived (or perhaps legitimate) group have no choice but to coalesce and defend themselves or fight for reparations.
today where historian Edward Baptist was guest and he brought up a good point about "whiteness" that I had never considered. He points out that in the decades after the American colonies are established the terms black, negro, and white aren't written down until the colonies start to work out, in law, how enslaved and indigenous people are going to be policed. And the issue of mixed offspring causes a need to further define "whiteness." In America this resulted in the one drop rule. A single drop of African blood made you black which is why Jefferson sold off his own kids without a thought. South Africa was slightly different as a mixed child was considered colored rather than black/native. Both ways of classifying race are human created categories.
Using the differences between Africans and Irish is one way to explore race. There are genomic differences between the people of Africa and the people of Ireland. Yet, no one ever talks about the genetic differences between the people of Africa. Africa has the largest genetic diversity of any continent which means in many cases their differences are greater between each other than they are with Europeans. In any genetic study you read, if it refers to Africans it is 90% referring to the Yoruba people of West Africa. This is because they have been the most extensively sequenced population of Africa. Now that other African populations are beginning to be analyzed researchers are starting to find genetic differences equal to and often greater than observed between Africans and Europeans. This makes the category of "black" all the more questionable.
Sickle cell anemia (or sickle cell trait) is not present in all Africans. But even if it was, if you look at it from a broader perspective, it's a product of balancing selection in response to the environment. The presence of malaria makes sickle cell trait adaptive. It shouldn't be viewed as a unique genetic component of African DNA. It's found in parts of the Mediterranean, Middle East, and India. It wouldn't matter what population lived in Africa if you traded black Africans for white Irish in time they would evolve sickle shaped blood cells to fight malaria. T
The example of African's being the fastest sprinters is interesting because no one ever mentions that the best endurance athletes also come from the same countries. These two different styles of running require different muscle types (fast twitch versus slow twitch).
The point is that differences exist between populations but emphasizing the differences between one set of populations and ignoring those of others will change the picture. Likewise downplaying or ignoring phenotypic plasticity and the role of environment also changes the picture. The predictive role of genes on phenotype is vastly over estimated in my opinion. Neuroscientist Mark Blumberg's book Basic Instinct: The Genesis of Behavior really drives this point home. It especially questions many examples of innateness.
Questioning the function and effectiveness of a vaccine via political arguments about the makers of the vaccine is a dead argument to me. What is the vaccine doing in the body? Even a bad argument that begins there is more worthwhile in my opinion. Does the vaccine cause myocarditis/pericarditis? It does? How does that rate compare to the rate when infected with Covid-19?
I could go on but the last thing I'll say is about douchebags saying something that makes sense. I don't find it profound or interesting. Most people are mixed bags. This is probably my ignorance talking but I don't get why finding that Trump and me agree on one topic is supposed to change my view of him. The way I see it is if you weigh how much harm or pain an individual is causing the result should guide you on whether they should receive any praise from you for thinking like you on one topic or another. For guys like trump and tate it's a definite no.
As for rich/powerful people speaking up, it reminds me of this George Carlin interview
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. I agree with most of what you've said, and I've pointed out the vast genetic variability in Africa many times. The only thing I'll respond to here is this passage, where you write,
"I don't get why finding that Trump and me agree on one topic is supposed to change my view of him. The way I see it is if you weigh how much harm or pain an individual is causing the result should guide you on whether they should receive any praise from you for thinking like you on one topic or another. For guys like trump and tate it's a definite no."
I wasn't arguing that this should change your view of Trump or Tate, but that it should make you wonder what is it in them that's resonating so strongly in our culture? It's not about the individuals, it's about what they represent to the millions of people who feel inspired/heard by them. They are a window on something important that's happening in our world. We may not like the window. It doesn't matter. It's what can be seen THROUGH the window that matters.
I take your point and agree with it. The response of individuals to someone like Trump, Tate, or RFK Jr. reflects the state of society. But to me it seemed like the focus was just as much on them as it was on their function as a window. You would like to think that in theory people can discern a person's good ideas from their bad ideas. In practice it seems that if you legitimize one aspect of a person all aspects are legitimized or vice versa. It's either the baby and bathwater or no bathwater and no baby. It's just the nature of human rationalization.
In truth these sorts of discussions don't interest me much because culture and society is going to go where it goes despite what I or anyone else thinks. I've kind of adopted George Carlin's philosophy of just sit back and watch the show.
True enough, and I'm pretty much with you on that. But since I talk/write for a living at the moment, I guess I might as well talk/write about what I'm noticing. If you're right that people have lost the ability to distinguish the speaker from what's being said, then yeah, we're screwed.
Yeah, I think Andrew hit the nail on the head. Possibly it's one of the reasons we now fight so much to defend our arguments and quarrel with total strangers: because to criticize our arguments feels like a direct criticism to ourselves. Our ideas have become more our identity than our nationality.
Sometimes I feel like both the Liberals and Conservatives are being disingenuious when it comes to this culture war stuff. It's beginning to feel like a distraction from much more pressing socioeconomic problems that are becoming much more serious all over the world. I starting to completely ignore all the culture war stuff. These debates feel more and more like performance than people genuinely caring about these issues.
Indeed. Sometimes I'll see two headlines next to each other ("Giant Ice Shelf Breaks Off Antarctica" and "Kanye Introduces New Fashion LIne"). I imagine how inane we'll look to future generations.
I have to laugh. Yesterday you retweeted a cartoon posted by Kimberley Johnson (with requisite Ukrainian flag) — two frogs in a pot on the burner, one saying to the other "Relax. Pot temperatures have been going up & down for centuries." I liked the cartoon & opened her post. There I saw a number of replies ridiculing skeptics. So I thought Whoa, this calls for some nuance, & posted this >>> Well they (the temps) Have, actually. And over ~20 thousand years they've been rising (with ups & downs). This is solid scientific fact. Anyway, I'd put it like this: "Relax. If there were anything we could do about it, it's now FAR too late. And we're a species incapable of doing it."
How did Johnson reply? "Wow. BLOCKED." Boy, was I ever “silenced & shamed”. Not that I care, in fact (I'd never even heard of her), but I thought This person doesn't desire discussion — she desires cultish lockstep.
If there ever was a point when the greenhouse effect of human activity was understood yet it was still early enough to turn things around (doubtful this point ever existed), there's no chance in hell it could've been done — people just don't wish to know.
All this to say: When reality becomes inconvenient for the narrative (in which we've invested so much), guess which one we throw out the window. Reality of course.
“If race doesn’t exist, how can racism exist?”
People of varying origins tend to have varying physical appearance, but it’s scientifically impossible to pin down any “race”. Add tribalism to the appearance phenomenon & you have racism. So I guess you could say race doesn’t exist in scientific terms, but it damn well does in sociological terms.
I heard RKFjr the other day freely availing himself of “race” as if it were scientifically definable. He was talking about bioweapons that will infect people of other “races” but not your own. This sounds like a dicey notion. He mentioned China, but I bet the Chinese are genetically jumbled enough to make this a tricky affair.
I have an American friend who’s black as the ace of spades. She has seven siblings, all of the same two parents, & the children are a study in differing shades & physiognomy. (Marjorie knows she had an Irish grandfather; & possibly other European ancestors.)
“force us to use weird (terminology)”
Resist!! is all I can say. Don’t go along with it; remember Orwell; have the autonomy not to be a dupe.
Anyway, language is anarchic; it does what IT wants, not what the ideologues want. And what it wants consists of a sort of general consensus. It’s said that the Nazis (the freaking NAZIS) wished to ‘reGermanicize’ German, that is, to exorcize the many loan words & words with non-Germanic roots that the language is riddled with. An example is das Fenster (window), which is clearly related to the French fenêtre & Italian finestra. The Nazi language police wanted people to use, instead, Windauge, much like "window" in German’s Germanic cousin English. But guess what — people just went on saying das Fenster & all the other things they were supposed not to say. And these were people living under Nazism. If they could ignore this particular tyranny, so can we.
“So who steps up?”
Berlusconi, Trump & Murdoch knew very well there were lots of people who would admire them for stepping up. All three profited from it.
Instead we should think of Daniel Ellsberg (who consciously ran the risk of being imprisoned basically forever), Edward Snowden, Julian Assange & Matt Taibbi, who’s been threatened with prosecution by a member of congress & actively persecuted by the IRS (playing the same role as it did for Nixon). They aren’t standing up to woke nonsense but to something related & more sinister.
But there are some card-carrying liberals courageously standing up to wokism (John McWhorter, Bret Weinstein, etc).
I’d always heard it was Voltaire himself who’d said that. But pinning down the origin of memorable remarks is notoriously difficult. And it’s related to this broader topic. People have an emotional stake in believing that Churchill replied so wittily & devastatingly to Lady Astor, or that Oscar Wilde made this or that hilarious remark. And both guys did indeed come up with many hilarious things. But Churchill probably didn’t say that to Lady Astor & Oscar was known to steal other people’s ideas as his own.
But try pointing this out to the invested & they might get angry.
I'm just going to leave this one here.
‘If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’ - George Orwell
Hi Chris, I found the comparison of Andrew Tate to Nietzsche as grown embodiments of hurt children to be really interesting. I’ve just started reading Schopenhauer, initially Nietzsche’s biggest inspiration, who he radically rejected later in life. Nietzsche seemed to be a fanboy of Schopenhauer, but later saw him as a depressing pessimist, which led to him denouncing the entire western philosophical tradition as “decadent” from Schopenhauer all the way down to Plato.
To me there are a lot of parallels in this critique of decadence coming people like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson and I'd be very interested to hear more about your thoughts on Nietzsche. Since he had so much influence on Milan Kundera's themes in Unbearable Lightness of Being, I'm sure you have some thoughts there
I agree with everything you said in this episode, Chris. People need to stop completely ruling someone out for a select few things they said. Thanks for speaking your mind
https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504
Racism is real, race is not.
I'll stop posting here now.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=04so3RhaVhM&feature=sharec
Love these boy’s take on Tate’s matrix.
This is why I listen. I wish everyone could hear this ROMA. Definitely helps me feel less alone, because it seems this view is in the minority at times. Thank you for talking about these things. Thank you!!.
Thanks. Just saw your comment after responding to someone's email, telling me that after 7 years of listening, she was done with me because of this one. It shouldn't bother me when that happens, but it does. So your comment helps.
Mad people get mad, sad people get sad. We can't get in the way of nature.
When people do that, it seems to me to be the inverse of what your point was. Instead of isolating /admitting to agreeing with a perspective from someone that you otherwise find abhorrent...it’s focusing on a point of disagreement with someone you otherwise admire (and then throwing the baby out with the bath water by wholly rejecting them over said view.) It seems to be a struggle to regard people with nuance and complexity. I often wonder if there’s a lingering tendency from earlier social structures- purging someone from the community based on a perceived deviance/threat.
Chris, even when we disagree I won’t stop listening to you. I’m glad you challenge me, I won’t always agree with you, but I know you’re just trying to make the world a better place 🤪
Wow Chris this is a tricky topic, very relevant. I have a couple points on the topic.
1. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences. If someone is espousing dangerous misogynistic beliefs to an audience of impressionable young men, people can be upset. Platforms can kick them off for violating the terms of service. If someone is “cancelled” because people don’t want to hear what they have to say, that’s the consequence of their speech.
2. There is a difference between social consequences and consequences from the state. I don’t think people should be fined, imprisoned, ect for their speech. But if they get fired from their job for hate speech towards their colleagues? Reasonable.
3. If I gave you a cup of tea that was full of really healthy antioxidants, and a little bit of my shit, would you drink it? It’s just a little bit of shit. There’s a lot of good antioxidants in there. And just a pinch of shit. If you wouldn’t drink the tea for the antioxidants, why would you drink the words of Andrew Tate, who’s full of shit, for the rare bits of good stuff?
4. You can have compassion for a person AND have healthy boundaries with them. I feel compassion for Tate, for all these young man. You don’t violently espouse the oppression of an entire gender because you have self love and confidence within yourself. But I have no interest in ingesting all the shit into my mind because of that compassion. I am open to hear the thoughts and feelings of these young men. I don’t want to hear and normalize the hate filled prescriptions they offer to fix it.
That’s my soapbox. These are hard questions, love the discussion!
What if it’s not shit that got sprinkled in, you just assume it is? What is it that Andrew Tate has put into the tea that you would think is shit? I would argue that he would say it’s not shit but valuable life lessons. It’s all about perspective
Number 3 is a good analogy 👌
Thank you Chris for your truth, it’s such a breath of fresh air.
This seems like a good background song for this topic.
https://open.spotify.com/track/7cpC2EuFMexgy392K13RZb?si=OIFMXYeFSkeYqgorCxJGpA&context=spotify%3Atrack%3A7cpC2EuFMexgy392K13RZb
Fake as Fuck by Red Hot Chili Peppers
Notice how I weave sarcasm into my post: I will never acquiesce-fuck they/them-and way too many new acronyms FFS
Complaining about cancel culture and using billionaire Larry Summers as an example is ridiculous.
I know a fifth grade teacher who has boy students spouting Andrew Tate misogyny at female classmates.
You bring up holocaust and genocide, but neglect the current war against trans people in the country you live in.
Has anyone ever been forced to use “Latinx”?
If some people want to use non-gendered language, why do I care?
“The same people who want reparations, don’t think race exists” -Just lazy generalizations without substance.
This whole rant today sounded like Bill Maher.
War against trans people? Not happening my dude.
https://translegislation.com/
When the government makes laws to erase you is that like getting cancelled?
Wouldn’t mind a future ROMA about which is a bigger problem: trans and queer people disproportionately experiencing violence or older middle-aged people complaining about new pronouns.
What's "older middle-age" have to do with anything? Your premise is that if only Boomers would say Latinx, the violence against trans people would stop. I think that's a false premise. Forcing people to pretend to agree to something they don't actually agree with doesn't solve the problem, it just increases resentment. The insane attacks on JK Rowling, for example, didn't do anything to help the cause of trans people. They just made the trans community look unhinged, which is unfair to the 99.9% of trans people who just want to live their lives.
I read her premise differently, my interpretation is: is the material harm to queer and trans people a bigger issue than the non-material harm of pronouns.
Sure JK Rowling got attacked on twitter or wherever. But she is a not materially harmed in a significant way.
Many families are drastically affected by legislation against trans care.
I wouldn’t say that’s my premise, Chris, though I did sling a little mud, so I’ll forgive you for not giving any benefit of the doubt. I suppose I am trying to push forth the idea that trans rights are more important than people resisting changes in language and “older middle-aged” folks are where I feel like I hear the most resistance to these things.
Should the USA not have legalized gay marriage or ended the segregation of black people because there was a population that resisted it? Where is the line there for you?
How do you feel about trans and queer people disproportionately experiencing violence? How many people pushing back against trans rights and new pronouns and gender language come across as unhinged to you?
How do you feel about the idea of two-spirit people from various indigenous cultures?
I think you're still missing my point (and/or I'm missing yours). You write, "trans rights are more important than people resisting changes in language...." I agree. But your premise, which you deny is your premise and yet repeat it here, seems to be that enforcing these changes in language would result in greater support for trans rights and less violence against trans people. That's what I'm disagreeing with. The linkage. I don't believe that real structural change comes via Orwellian language control, and in fact, such attempts often backfire.
Your examples (gay marriage and segregation) aren't about language, are they? Segregation didn't end because white people were forced to stop saying "negro" and started saying "African American." Gay marriage wasn't enacted because straight people stopped saying "fag."
We agree that trans people deserve the same basic rights as anyone else, we're disagreeing about the best way to get there, I think. Framing it as trans rights vs free speech misses the point.
Yet, Chris, I swear I’ve heard you argue about the importance of symbolism and language elsewhere. I don’t think it is enough, but it surely has its place. Enforcing its use? Well surely any institution has the right to certain standards. While I know you don’t care, many who have earned their doctorate ask for those two little letters before their name, and when writing about them in these institutions you have to include their title (at least in Australian universities). And surely, these institutions, and others, lead the way with enforcing certain language standards in regards to labels for blacks, American Indians, homosexuals, etc etc and it’s now improper across the board to use the derogatory terms that were well accepted and common place.
Would these changes alone have been effective? Probably not. Have they contributed? Probably. I can’t imagine these groups would spend so much time and resources into campaigning around language use if it is not important to them. And our institutions in liberal-democracies, should be the ones leading it.
As someone stated before, language is used to discriminate and keep people down. In Australia, we had the White Australia Policy that used language to make sure no undesirables came into the nation. Changing the use of language in government institutions changes this and we are now one of the most multicultural nations in the world. Changing language can lead to material changes.
A significant proportion of the population think in words. Changing the way language is used can change the way they think. We no longer call Australian Aboriginals “abos” or “natives.” We refer to them as Indigenous or First Nations. These terms are more respectful and treat people as people and with dignity. This won’t change rusted on racists, but for the rest of us, these labels are a subtle reminder of colonialism and its ongoing problems. Our thoughts are now framed in this change of language. Aboriginals are no longer animals that we need to look after, but a people that were here first and had their land stolen, and the current generation is still dealing with the consequences of that.
It was the institutions of Australia that enforced this language change first. The change in language helped drive the change in attitude. Though, admittedly, there is still a long way to go.
The term "marriage" was not applied to gay couples early on. They were called civil unions. This was an example of using language to prevent gays from getting equal treatment.
The anti-trans right has no problem picking little fights on their quest to end trans poeple.
Last year it was about "protecting womens sports" then it was "kids are being mutialted" now it's "all trans care is mental illness". Being able to see the agenda and make a clear stand against it is important.
Yeah we may well be missing the nuance in one another due to the limitations of this medium. I’m not arguing in favour of “Orwellian language control” so much as asking what the big deal is with addressing someone how they would like to be addressed. What is it costing you? Or society?
A few years ago I remember a guest eloquently (I thought) explaining to you why you shouldn’t use “the N word”. Maybe you could interview some trans rights folks and investigate the discussion on language. I’d tune in.
I'm happy to address anyone how they'd like to be addressed. What I'm not happy to do is refer to people from Latin America as "Latinx" because some graduate student decided that was going to end colonialism, and nobody from Mexico and south gives a damn. See the difference? One is personal, the other is structural and institutional. If you write professionally, you're supposed to capitalize "Black" now. Why? This is going to correct centuries of slavery? Every time you give a talk in Canada and many parts of the US, you're supposed to declare that this sacred ground once belonged to this or that tribe. Empty words. Does the tribe get anything? Is there anything REAL being done to address endemic poverty, or are the linguistic adjustments just symbolic distractions from anything significant? It's like being told that you're getting a raise at work. Now, instead of "Manager," you're going to be "District Manager." Same shitty wages, no benefits, no sick days, but you're supposed to be grateful anyway....
Yeah, agree with all that sentiment, pretty much. I appreciate you engaging with me on here. I’ll leave you with this funny peace offering about land acknowledgements: https://youtu.be/xlG17C19nYo
Sorry, writing from Canada and remembering that gay marriage maybe isn’t legal across the USA...
I hadn’t listened to Chris in a while and was surprised how hostile he is on this subject. Really disappointing. He talks about how biology is complicated, but ends up with a similar position as right-wingers.
I'm in the same boat and am equally surprised but don't find anything disappointing. Can you elaborate?
A couple of thoughts as I'm listening to this.
You are referring to the biological species concept (versus taxonomic, evolutionary, and other concepts). If they can mate and produce viable offspring they are members of the same species. But, that's not the entirety of it. Say you have five populations. Populations A, B, C, D, and E. All of them can mate with each other and produce viable offspring except for populations A and E who can't reproduce with each other but can produce viable offspring with the other populations. Yet under this concept they are still in the same species since variation from each population can make it's way to the other via the intermediary populations even though A and E can't successfully mate. The implication is that populations A and E have been isolated from each other (sexually and probably geographically) the longest.
But last year a rose-breasted grosbeak/scarlet tanager hybrid was found.
https://scitechdaily.com/10-million-years-in-the-making-researchers-discover-first-ever-documented-hybrid-of-its-kind/
These species shared a last common ancestor about 10 million years ago. That's about the same time our lineage separated with the Gorilla lineage. It really obscures the picture.
Humans and Neanderthals produced viable offspring. But research has also shown that within six generations of mixing most of the Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA was ejected from our ancestor's genome.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14558
It also shows that male hybrids were probably not viable.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.037
So which is the deciding factor? Some viable offspring or the incompatible genomic material that results in immediate genetic purging? The concept of species is messy in the real world; just like the concept of race.
Ah yes race, a popular talking point. I don't find the argument of "if race doesn't exist why are the people arguing it doesn't exist demanding reparations etc. based on these non-existent groups?" very compelling. Take this part of the argument, "If race doesn't exist". In what domain is this claim being argued? Most who make this argument (whether you agree or disagree with it) would say that they are speaking in a biological sense. So why would they then argue that Black Americans should be afforded compensation? Because it doesn't matter if race exists biologically if it is accepted as cultural or societal fact and groups of people are acting on these beliefs to the detriment of another group of people. Italians and Irish groups were once not considered white. This doesn't answer whether biological race exists but people with dark skin (and their lighter skinned offspring) were almost exclusively kidnapped, thrown into 1,000 lb. coffles, and forced to march hundreds of miles west. Biological truth doesn't matter when society and culture produce their own definitions and act on them. And when a defined group is targeted individuals that makeup this perceived (or perhaps legitimate) group have no choice but to coalesce and defend themselves or fight for reparations.
I was actually listening to a podcast
https://pca.st/episode/2451e4bb-65d8-4828-8281-5d2f26b9e523?t=2080
today where historian Edward Baptist was guest and he brought up a good point about "whiteness" that I had never considered. He points out that in the decades after the American colonies are established the terms black, negro, and white aren't written down until the colonies start to work out, in law, how enslaved and indigenous people are going to be policed. And the issue of mixed offspring causes a need to further define "whiteness." In America this resulted in the one drop rule. A single drop of African blood made you black which is why Jefferson sold off his own kids without a thought. South Africa was slightly different as a mixed child was considered colored rather than black/native. Both ways of classifying race are human created categories.
Comedian Trevor Noah talks about the difference
https://youtu.be/sXje3oJ8T8o
Using the differences between Africans and Irish is one way to explore race. There are genomic differences between the people of Africa and the people of Ireland. Yet, no one ever talks about the genetic differences between the people of Africa. Africa has the largest genetic diversity of any continent which means in many cases their differences are greater between each other than they are with Europeans. In any genetic study you read, if it refers to Africans it is 90% referring to the Yoruba people of West Africa. This is because they have been the most extensively sequenced population of Africa. Now that other African populations are beginning to be analyzed researchers are starting to find genetic differences equal to and often greater than observed between Africans and Europeans. This makes the category of "black" all the more questionable.
Sickle cell anemia (or sickle cell trait) is not present in all Africans. But even if it was, if you look at it from a broader perspective, it's a product of balancing selection in response to the environment. The presence of malaria makes sickle cell trait adaptive. It shouldn't be viewed as a unique genetic component of African DNA. It's found in parts of the Mediterranean, Middle East, and India. It wouldn't matter what population lived in Africa if you traded black Africans for white Irish in time they would evolve sickle shaped blood cells to fight malaria. T
The example of African's being the fastest sprinters is interesting because no one ever mentions that the best endurance athletes also come from the same countries. These two different styles of running require different muscle types (fast twitch versus slow twitch).
The point is that differences exist between populations but emphasizing the differences between one set of populations and ignoring those of others will change the picture. Likewise downplaying or ignoring phenotypic plasticity and the role of environment also changes the picture. The predictive role of genes on phenotype is vastly over estimated in my opinion. Neuroscientist Mark Blumberg's book Basic Instinct: The Genesis of Behavior really drives this point home. It especially questions many examples of innateness.
Questioning the function and effectiveness of a vaccine via political arguments about the makers of the vaccine is a dead argument to me. What is the vaccine doing in the body? Even a bad argument that begins there is more worthwhile in my opinion. Does the vaccine cause myocarditis/pericarditis? It does? How does that rate compare to the rate when infected with Covid-19?
I could go on but the last thing I'll say is about douchebags saying something that makes sense. I don't find it profound or interesting. Most people are mixed bags. This is probably my ignorance talking but I don't get why finding that Trump and me agree on one topic is supposed to change my view of him. The way I see it is if you weigh how much harm or pain an individual is causing the result should guide you on whether they should receive any praise from you for thinking like you on one topic or another. For guys like trump and tate it's a definite no.
As for rich/powerful people speaking up, it reminds me of this George Carlin interview
https://youtu.be/F8yV8xUorQ8
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. I agree with most of what you've said, and I've pointed out the vast genetic variability in Africa many times. The only thing I'll respond to here is this passage, where you write,
"I don't get why finding that Trump and me agree on one topic is supposed to change my view of him. The way I see it is if you weigh how much harm or pain an individual is causing the result should guide you on whether they should receive any praise from you for thinking like you on one topic or another. For guys like trump and tate it's a definite no."
I wasn't arguing that this should change your view of Trump or Tate, but that it should make you wonder what is it in them that's resonating so strongly in our culture? It's not about the individuals, it's about what they represent to the millions of people who feel inspired/heard by them. They are a window on something important that's happening in our world. We may not like the window. It doesn't matter. It's what can be seen THROUGH the window that matters.
I take your point and agree with it. The response of individuals to someone like Trump, Tate, or RFK Jr. reflects the state of society. But to me it seemed like the focus was just as much on them as it was on their function as a window. You would like to think that in theory people can discern a person's good ideas from their bad ideas. In practice it seems that if you legitimize one aspect of a person all aspects are legitimized or vice versa. It's either the baby and bathwater or no bathwater and no baby. It's just the nature of human rationalization.
In truth these sorts of discussions don't interest me much because culture and society is going to go where it goes despite what I or anyone else thinks. I've kind of adopted George Carlin's philosophy of just sit back and watch the show.
True enough, and I'm pretty much with you on that. But since I talk/write for a living at the moment, I guess I might as well talk/write about what I'm noticing. If you're right that people have lost the ability to distinguish the speaker from what's being said, then yeah, we're screwed.
Yeah, I think Andrew hit the nail on the head. Possibly it's one of the reasons we now fight so much to defend our arguments and quarrel with total strangers: because to criticize our arguments feels like a direct criticism to ourselves. Our ideas have become more our identity than our nationality.
Original Sin got a modern reboot
Sometimes I feel like both the Liberals and Conservatives are being disingenuious when it comes to this culture war stuff. It's beginning to feel like a distraction from much more pressing socioeconomic problems that are becoming much more serious all over the world. I starting to completely ignore all the culture war stuff. These debates feel more and more like performance than people genuinely caring about these issues.
Indeed. Sometimes I'll see two headlines next to each other ("Giant Ice Shelf Breaks Off Antarctica" and "Kanye Introduces New Fashion LIne"). I imagine how inane we'll look to future generations.
Bingo. What? The Titanic's starting to sink? Better rearrange the deck chairs.
😅
"it’s not too late to stop climate change"
I have to laugh. Yesterday you retweeted a cartoon posted by Kimberley Johnson (with requisite Ukrainian flag) — two frogs in a pot on the burner, one saying to the other "Relax. Pot temperatures have been going up & down for centuries." I liked the cartoon & opened her post. There I saw a number of replies ridiculing skeptics. So I thought Whoa, this calls for some nuance, & posted this >>> Well they (the temps) Have, actually. And over ~20 thousand years they've been rising (with ups & downs). This is solid scientific fact. Anyway, I'd put it like this: "Relax. If there were anything we could do about it, it's now FAR too late. And we're a species incapable of doing it."
How did Johnson reply? "Wow. BLOCKED." Boy, was I ever “silenced & shamed”. Not that I care, in fact (I'd never even heard of her), but I thought This person doesn't desire discussion — she desires cultish lockstep.
If there ever was a point when the greenhouse effect of human activity was understood yet it was still early enough to turn things around (doubtful this point ever existed), there's no chance in hell it could've been done — people just don't wish to know.
All this to say: When reality becomes inconvenient for the narrative (in which we've invested so much), guess which one we throw out the window. Reality of course.
“If race doesn’t exist, how can racism exist?”
People of varying origins tend to have varying physical appearance, but it’s scientifically impossible to pin down any “race”. Add tribalism to the appearance phenomenon & you have racism. So I guess you could say race doesn’t exist in scientific terms, but it damn well does in sociological terms.
I heard RKFjr the other day freely availing himself of “race” as if it were scientifically definable. He was talking about bioweapons that will infect people of other “races” but not your own. This sounds like a dicey notion. He mentioned China, but I bet the Chinese are genetically jumbled enough to make this a tricky affair.
I have an American friend who’s black as the ace of spades. She has seven siblings, all of the same two parents, & the children are a study in differing shades & physiognomy. (Marjorie knows she had an Irish grandfather; & possibly other European ancestors.)
“force us to use weird (terminology)”
Resist!! is all I can say. Don’t go along with it; remember Orwell; have the autonomy not to be a dupe.
Anyway, language is anarchic; it does what IT wants, not what the ideologues want. And what it wants consists of a sort of general consensus. It’s said that the Nazis (the freaking NAZIS) wished to ‘reGermanicize’ German, that is, to exorcize the many loan words & words with non-Germanic roots that the language is riddled with. An example is das Fenster (window), which is clearly related to the French fenêtre & Italian finestra. The Nazi language police wanted people to use, instead, Windauge, much like "window" in German’s Germanic cousin English. But guess what — people just went on saying das Fenster & all the other things they were supposed not to say. And these were people living under Nazism. If they could ignore this particular tyranny, so can we.
“So who steps up?”
Berlusconi, Trump & Murdoch knew very well there were lots of people who would admire them for stepping up. All three profited from it.
Instead we should think of Daniel Ellsberg (who consciously ran the risk of being imprisoned basically forever), Edward Snowden, Julian Assange & Matt Taibbi, who’s been threatened with prosecution by a member of congress & actively persecuted by the IRS (playing the same role as it did for Nixon). They aren’t standing up to woke nonsense but to something related & more sinister.
But there are some card-carrying liberals courageously standing up to wokism (John McWhorter, Bret Weinstein, etc).
I’d always heard it was Voltaire himself who’d said that. But pinning down the origin of memorable remarks is notoriously difficult. And it’s related to this broader topic. People have an emotional stake in believing that Churchill replied so wittily & devastatingly to Lady Astor, or that Oscar Wilde made this or that hilarious remark. And both guys did indeed come up with many hilarious things. But Churchill probably didn’t say that to Lady Astor & Oscar was known to steal other people’s ideas as his own.
But try pointing this out to the invested & they might get angry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXZJF0-d_M8&ab_channel=CaioBadner