Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. — Carl Jung Do not search for truth; only cease to cherish opinions. — Zen saying The two recent ROMAs (episodes 574 and 575) have sparked some interesting conversation. If you haven’t listened to the episodes, I talked about how I’d recently watched world-famous misogynist shithead, Andrew Tate being
I think introspection is indeed required on the matter of free speech. For instance, we may ask ourselves do we tend to defend the person making the initial speech or those who claim that the initial speech is in someway harmful? Can speech be harmful? Why may some claim that speech is indeed harmful? Are we in a position that may shield us from the effects of certain speech that others are not? How do we react when others express being hurt by speech? Why do we react that way?
This is great food for thought. Late to the party here, but here’s a thought I had reflecting on these romas. On the Jona Hill topic, I see your point that it’s two consenting adults. At what point does it become harmful manipulation? You could say the same thing about the nxivm cult leader Keith rainere that they were all consenting adults, but if you watch the vow, they do make a pretty clear case unpeeling the onion that he was a master manipulator manipulating women to feed his own sexual power. Where is the line between two consenting adults and manipulative abuse? It’s a fuzzy line and it’s obvious when one clearly jumps over it, but in the jona hill case I can see arguments on both sides.
I do not disagree with much of what you say here and in Roma 67. The press/media has always been a rather stupid arbiter of truth as has the Overton window. I tend to think particularly of news broadcasters as being like a group of sharks that become mindless herd attackers when a drop of blood or manufacturable controversy hits the water. This analogy is obviously and wildly unfair to sharks. I know your heart is in the right place with respecting people's sexuality, but I do think there are some similar hurts on the part of transgender spectrum folk and ongoing violence that are getting riled up by hurt fools like Tate, Carlson, DeSantis etc. I find so much hyperventilation about cancel culture from the left overblown when I see so bloody much toxic violent foolishness and waving of the bloody shirt on the right that are shouting out about their cancellation (to millions). I don't expect anyone to agree with everything I think, but I don't so much mind seeing karma hit violence inciting fools.
I have so say, I am astonished that even people listening to your podcast aren't understanding the points you are making here. In my mind, your show has attracted me precisely because you see the larger patterns and have so much life experience. Here you are trying to protect people from being caught up in the zeitgeist or failing to dissect the ideas for the idea's sake, and many are missing the point and deciding to stop listening to you over it.... which is essentially doing exactly what you're trying to protect against... the wholesale discarding of a person and ANYTHING they might say over them having said some things you disagree with. It is dumbfounding. By the way I am in the same camp as you.. believing that Tate is despicable and lost in many regards, yet that we should dissect his ideas just as we should anyone else's in order to find what makes sense, what doesn't and why these ideas are gaining certain steam in American life.
Your response to much of the criticism is very well thought out too in my opinion. The violence in movies, easy access to porn, etc. are running rampant. Do we take control of all media and speech, etc. or do we work to educate our populace in the ways of knowledge, love, and compassion? I always tend toward the education approach. It's like with drugs... do you prohibit these substances or do you teach people to love themselves and about the risk factors, so they're less likely to use at all or harm themselves doing so? We saw what happened with prohibition regarding alcohol. In my view it's a similar mechanism when it comes to speech. I believe our duty is to give one another the love and education to properly parse out the bullshit because bullshit there will be. A properly cared for youth won't give Tate the time of day. What we should be asking ourselves is WHY that kind of speech is attractive and dig deeper into the problem. Simply silencing people is a ignorant approach to any lasting positive change, and quite frankly rather authoritarian at that. It's a lazy and juvenile way to solve such a complex problem. Long live free discourse. Peace to you all.
After 66 I asked what specifically Chris agreed with from AT. I'm pretty much OK with his response. Basically, I think he's saying he agrees with AT that white men are like everyone else and are sometimes stereotyped/discriminated against too. He also disagrees with tons of other shit that guy says.
I'm a white man and I would never talk publicly about a slight I felt because of my race or gender, even though of course I have felt them. Also, like Andreas, I would be hesitant to recommend ROMAs 66 and 67 to friends. Sad! But illustrative of the problem. For many people, a typical response to experiencing a situation of unfairness is that it actually builds empathy for others who endure discrimination and racism every day of their lives. Talking openly about our experiences would seem to actually build that empathy, while not being allowed to talk about it figures to create taboo and lead to marginalization and radicalization. In fact, during many of the anti-racism trainings I've participated in, the facilitator (usually a person of color) asks everyone, white people especially, to remember a time when they were treated unfairly to open the door for them to consider the reality others deal with.
Thanks for explaining Chris. The willingness to consider new ideas and not judge other for doing the same is what draws us to TS. It's nice at least that we can talk about it here and it is safe.
The other thing about Tate, that is suggested in the Jung quote, is that he probably stirs some subconscious resonance even in his haters (I count myself among them).
1. We are all complicit in an unsustainable way of living, relying too much on "petroleum bitches/slaves" for physical labor, and other ostentatious, comfort and convenience producing devices which are not just bad for the environment, but for our souls.
2. Many (most?) women do like occasional male aggression (in the realm of consensual sex) and male protection, as well as male status symbols, though it's politically incorrect to admit it. There is published data about this, though I haven't examined it.
I appreciate you tackling a subject that most people now will avoid due to all of the newly created labels. It is perfectly fine to agree with an opinion with someone that is unpopular due to their views and doing so should not be conflated. Most people that follow your podcast don't even need this point to be expressly explained, it is common sense, but unfortunately common sense is becoming uncommon.
I think fundamentally you're right: there's a lot of reasons AT is popular and unless we listen to what he's saying and the context he is saying them in, we won't be able to offer effective cultural alternatives. Like everyone's bitching and moaning about him but is anyone stepping up and displacing him? Addressing the loneliness, the isolation, the lack of understanding that a lot of young men and boys have about themselves and others? They respond to a certain form of masculinity and when there's nobody else in that space, they get sucked into the grift because there's nobody else who speaks to them.
What, so your boys are listening to AT and his misogyny resonates with them? That means that feminism hasn't been as effective as you'd like to think, that the world your boys lives in fucking sucks enough that they can only cling on to dumb ideas and not nuance, that there are serious efforts by people in power to promulgate those hateful ideas and you've dropped the fucking ball by letting them persist.
The left is weak and it is costing us everything. Hate AT? Take his place. Displace him. Counter his sociopathy with social inclusion. Fight back. Appear strong. Appeal to the need for strength and simplicity.
Dr Lieberman’s “career, reputation, and income” were not erased by his poorly worded comment about “freak of nature” black women. He is doing quite well in his chosen field. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Lieberman
It was one woman, not "black women." From the article you linked to:
"The New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) asked for his resignation as Director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, and as of February 22, 2022, Lieberman was no longer affiliated with OMH or the State of New York. Lieberman was suspended as Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University and removed from his position as Psychiatrist-in-Chief at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center (NYP/CUIMC) on February 23, 2022."
“Lieberman is the Lawrence E. Kolb Professor of Psychiatry at the Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, where he directs the Lieber Center for Schizophrenia Research in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia.”
He was not erased, his reputation seems mostly ok, I’m assuming that he has income from this position.
It’s a small, dumb point to be hung up on.
I’m not sure it’s really worth either of our time to be doing this.
These two ROMAs aren't a reason for me to quit listening to TS, but they are the reason why for usually I don't recommend it to my friends. I like a lot of what Chris is saying and oftentimes it is nuanced and thought through well. But at times he can be incredibly sloppy in his argumentation. . He's been like that since the beginning of this podcast and he's been in the last two ROMAs.
Want an example? He literally said:
"With the intention of making the world better, we're told to deny obvious reality.
So for example, race doesn't exist.
…
So these are all things to me, and I think to most people, that require a denial of obvious reality in order to participate in this well intention drive for a better world.
Race doesn't exist.
Well, look, race either exists or it doesn't exist.
If race doesn't exist, how can racism exist?
But the same people who are insisting that race doesn't exist are arguing that we need
to make major changes, pay reparations for historical wrongs that were based upon race."
Seriously? That is supposed to be an argument?
The plain "Race doesn't exist" quote is the weakest wording of a position which states that race does not exist as a biological essence but as a social construct. The latter is *not* saying "race does not exist".
I ask you to consider the following for moment: To everybody (except true believers) Hindu castes clearly are a social construct. Now imagine if someone would say: "Castes do not exist" and would mean by that that there's no true essence to castes beyond them being a social construct. Would you then conclude: "You said there's no caste and therefore any attempt to demand amends from the Indian society to pariahs is based on nothing"?
Even if something is unquestionable a social construct (for most people at least) you can ask for legal or financial compensations for the consequences of the construct.
And for all who are suspecting now, that I am defending people who are yelling "racism" if another person claims that people from Africa might likely be faster runners on average: I am not. If someone draws a wrong conclusion (there are no genetic differences in people) from a theorem (race is a construct) does not mean that other conclusions based the same conviction are "vacuous". That Chris mixed these two up, again is an example of where he's been sloppy in his reasoning.
Mostly these slips, if and when they occur, are no big deal. But let me break it to you, Chris: sentences like "Race doesn't exist. Well, look, race either exists or it doesn't exist. [This is] intellectually vacuous." and a lot more from your recent rants exactly are themes used by right wing propaganda in order to do exactly what you were saying: preying on the insecure, disempowered and desperate; speaking to the "common sense" of the so-called "little man".
Do I think that a simple homonymous wording makes you one of those guys? No. But no wonder why people put you amongst this group particularly after you showed zero awareness about these right wing propaganda tools. Yes, yes, I know that this is what you are arguing against, this hastily putting someone among a group. And, yes, you are not responsible for how people react, particularly not for their shittier moves. All I am saying: don't be surprised to wind up being put amongst those right wingers if you show so much understanding and nuance for them, but close to nothing for the other side (except maybe, that they once had good intentions).
And please, don't brush it off if someone writes "He talks about how biology is complicated, but ends up with a similar position as right-wingers" because you are ending up with a similar position, no matter how much you are shouting "tribalism". For some of us this is as clear to see, as it's clear for you that race exists. Just that you are not aware of it or denying it does not make it less of a fact. I don't know as what else I can call it if you're saying about your cycle that "we're sort of in an age that may even be defined by this cycle."
Calling the abhorrent practices of the dogmatic and authoritarian pseudo-left faction and their consequences as defining for our time, even age? Give me a break! That's what I call having lost perspective. In your case. But that line of arguments, declaring the left as defining for the toubles of our times, also has been the tactical proceeding of reactionary groups since the NSDAP and still is. And not reflecting on the latter in a rant like yours is outlandish (for the lack of a better word, which eludes my English. "Disconcerting" perhaps?).
If now you are reading, that I fell for tribalism, too: go ahead. I can't stop you from misconstruing me anymore than others here could. Put me in the tribalizing tribe. Be free to think, that saying, with a lot of your statements you ended up in a similar position as right-wingers, is the same thing as claiming, you've joined the right wing mob.
Having called out on where in my opinion you are full of shit (you asked for it) I'd like to end on a more conciliatory tone. I think get it, your concern about this BS from the pseudo-left and it is important to point out, that we shouldn't be too quick to discard what people are saying just because they are the others. And it's a shame that the attempts to control language and building speech taboos is giving the Tates, Berlusconis and Trumps one more and easy opportunity to prey on the dispossessed. One could despair over people who supposed to be our allies (Attention: tribal thinking) come up with things like a man accused of sexual abuse is never to believed not recognizing that this is the thinking that leads to dictatorship.
Thus, as I wrote in the beginning, I won't quit TS just because some of the things you say or believe sometimes are making me angry and wanting to knock over your head.
Thanks for your comment, Andreas. I wonder how many times I'd find your argumentation to be "incredibly sloppy" if you recorded a thousand or so hours of yourself talking about contentious issues? Probably a few times.
I won't respond to your specifics here, because we'd just go on forever, and we've both had our say. Thanks for listening.
>>I wonder how many times I'd find your argumentation to be "incredibly sloppy" if you recorded a thousand or so hours of yourself talking about contentious issues? Probably a few times.
Probably even a few times more. Which is why I'd like someone to kick my ass.
>> I won't respond to your specifics here, because we'd just go on forever, and we've both had our say.
I appreciated listening to your last two ROMAs, Chris. It's my impression that you seek to understand Tate, both why he is the way he is, and why he has a prominent position in our culture. It's also my impression some of your listeners conflate "understand" with "support", despite your careful language and numerous qualifying statements to provide context. While you sought to understand Tate, I never heard you support him. You support free speech, which involves support of Tate, but only as far as you support free speech, which is support for anyone who wishes to speak freely, not just Tate.
Ultimately I think understanding (not supporting) the Tates of the world is necessary to disarm them. I agree Tate is a tail-end symptom along a lengthy causal chain of cultural issues. Understanding Tate helps one follow the chain back to the core causal issues, which may or may not be solvable. Tate is the skin lesion of our culture's HIV.
As someone who is just watching the show, in the George Carlin sense, (the show of life rather than this particular episode) I have some probably unpopular thoughts.
1. There's nothing wrong with voting with your feet. The life history of our species was predominantly as hunter gatherers and voting with your feet was one of the most powerful actions an individual could take.
2. The 1st amendment relates to speech from the state and government. It has nothing to do with how citizens decide to react each other's words. Cancel culture is being utilized by multiple parties. Although, and ironically, one side is using state governments to clamp down on speech.
3. Humans are a social species. Group consensus has trumped the individual since before humans were around. It just happens that currently there are oppositional groups of near equal size. This process is natural and probably became common with the advent of agriculture and civilization. Unions, canceling someone, protests, boycotts, union busters etc. etc. are all part of this. In this context, I find the desire to have a social legal system in place to protect the individual in the cultural and societal domain interesting but somewhat against the grain of the ultimate social species. To me its a product of individualistic societies.
4. Linguists, such as John McWhorter might view language as separate from culture and sociology but Linguistic anthropologists don't. Don Kulick, for example, says who gives a fuck if a language is dying? What about the people, the unique way of life, and the experiences (which language codifies) that are fading before our eyes? Daniel Everette talks about culture as a dynamic entity that is constantly being fed by feedback loops that either amplify or attenuate the 'dark matter of the mind' which he defines as any knowledge that is unspoken in normal circumstances, usually unarticulated even to ourselves. This is why language matters. A comedian telling jokes at the expense of a group of people is not JUST 'telling jokes' or 'asking questions.' The comedian is either amplifying or attenuating what the culture already believes about the subject (every water cooler conversation we have is similar in nature). This is why George Carlin says that traditionally comedians always punched up rather than punched down at the vulnerable (It's also what made court jesters so valuable to society. They were usually the only person that had the authority to denigrate a king, queen, or authoritarian. They represented the people). Of course Ricky Gervais' reply to that is "who defines what direction I'm punching?" I'm not saying jokes shouldn't be made. I'm saying that language isn't neutral it amplifies or attenuates the dark matter of the mind which results in real world consequences. Someone like Trump knows this. Which is why he incessantly repeats lies knowing they create real world repercussions, such as Jan 6.
5. But mostly I think this dialogue has caused such an uproar because a presumption is made that most people don't have the capacity, will, or time to disentangle an individual's complexities and baggage. They fear that by amplifying one aspect of the individual the whole package will be inadvertently justified and propagated. I happen to think this is true. Depending how one feels about the person dictates which binarial (is that a word or a disease?) response you will get. I think Kate's fear is justified. An individual on social media, even if it's a one way relationship, is much more intimate than something someone sees or hears in a song, movie, video game, or dirty video. Although the psychological research about rapes in VR environments is sobering.
I think introspection is indeed required on the matter of free speech. For instance, we may ask ourselves do we tend to defend the person making the initial speech or those who claim that the initial speech is in someway harmful? Can speech be harmful? Why may some claim that speech is indeed harmful? Are we in a position that may shield us from the effects of certain speech that others are not? How do we react when others express being hurt by speech? Why do we react that way?
This is great food for thought. Late to the party here, but here’s a thought I had reflecting on these romas. On the Jona Hill topic, I see your point that it’s two consenting adults. At what point does it become harmful manipulation? You could say the same thing about the nxivm cult leader Keith rainere that they were all consenting adults, but if you watch the vow, they do make a pretty clear case unpeeling the onion that he was a master manipulator manipulating women to feed his own sexual power. Where is the line between two consenting adults and manipulative abuse? It’s a fuzzy line and it’s obvious when one clearly jumps over it, but in the jona hill case I can see arguments on both sides.
I do not disagree with much of what you say here and in Roma 67. The press/media has always been a rather stupid arbiter of truth as has the Overton window. I tend to think particularly of news broadcasters as being like a group of sharks that become mindless herd attackers when a drop of blood or manufacturable controversy hits the water. This analogy is obviously and wildly unfair to sharks. I know your heart is in the right place with respecting people's sexuality, but I do think there are some similar hurts on the part of transgender spectrum folk and ongoing violence that are getting riled up by hurt fools like Tate, Carlson, DeSantis etc. I find so much hyperventilation about cancel culture from the left overblown when I see so bloody much toxic violent foolishness and waving of the bloody shirt on the right that are shouting out about their cancellation (to millions). I don't expect anyone to agree with everything I think, but I don't so much mind seeing karma hit violence inciting fools.
Interesting back story on Tate. He’s from the States for starters.
https://unherd.com/?p=480926
I have so say, I am astonished that even people listening to your podcast aren't understanding the points you are making here. In my mind, your show has attracted me precisely because you see the larger patterns and have so much life experience. Here you are trying to protect people from being caught up in the zeitgeist or failing to dissect the ideas for the idea's sake, and many are missing the point and deciding to stop listening to you over it.... which is essentially doing exactly what you're trying to protect against... the wholesale discarding of a person and ANYTHING they might say over them having said some things you disagree with. It is dumbfounding. By the way I am in the same camp as you.. believing that Tate is despicable and lost in many regards, yet that we should dissect his ideas just as we should anyone else's in order to find what makes sense, what doesn't and why these ideas are gaining certain steam in American life.
Your response to much of the criticism is very well thought out too in my opinion. The violence in movies, easy access to porn, etc. are running rampant. Do we take control of all media and speech, etc. or do we work to educate our populace in the ways of knowledge, love, and compassion? I always tend toward the education approach. It's like with drugs... do you prohibit these substances or do you teach people to love themselves and about the risk factors, so they're less likely to use at all or harm themselves doing so? We saw what happened with prohibition regarding alcohol. In my view it's a similar mechanism when it comes to speech. I believe our duty is to give one another the love and education to properly parse out the bullshit because bullshit there will be. A properly cared for youth won't give Tate the time of day. What we should be asking ourselves is WHY that kind of speech is attractive and dig deeper into the problem. Simply silencing people is a ignorant approach to any lasting positive change, and quite frankly rather authoritarian at that. It's a lazy and juvenile way to solve such a complex problem. Long live free discourse. Peace to you all.
The first amendment is a hell of a drug. Thanks for the thorough think-through, Chris.
After 66 I asked what specifically Chris agreed with from AT. I'm pretty much OK with his response. Basically, I think he's saying he agrees with AT that white men are like everyone else and are sometimes stereotyped/discriminated against too. He also disagrees with tons of other shit that guy says.
I'm a white man and I would never talk publicly about a slight I felt because of my race or gender, even though of course I have felt them. Also, like Andreas, I would be hesitant to recommend ROMAs 66 and 67 to friends. Sad! But illustrative of the problem. For many people, a typical response to experiencing a situation of unfairness is that it actually builds empathy for others who endure discrimination and racism every day of their lives. Talking openly about our experiences would seem to actually build that empathy, while not being allowed to talk about it figures to create taboo and lead to marginalization and radicalization. In fact, during many of the anti-racism trainings I've participated in, the facilitator (usually a person of color) asks everyone, white people especially, to remember a time when they were treated unfairly to open the door for them to consider the reality others deal with.
Thanks for explaining Chris. The willingness to consider new ideas and not judge other for doing the same is what draws us to TS. It's nice at least that we can talk about it here and it is safe.
Perhaps the seeds are being planted for Doctopher’s next book?
Hell yeah! Chris is very passionate about this and it is such an important topic to breach. I could see it. :)
The other thing about Tate, that is suggested in the Jung quote, is that he probably stirs some subconscious resonance even in his haters (I count myself among them).
1. We are all complicit in an unsustainable way of living, relying too much on "petroleum bitches/slaves" for physical labor, and other ostentatious, comfort and convenience producing devices which are not just bad for the environment, but for our souls.
2. Many (most?) women do like occasional male aggression (in the realm of consensual sex) and male protection, as well as male status symbols, though it's politically incorrect to admit it. There is published data about this, though I haven't examined it.
Hey Chris,
I appreciate you tackling a subject that most people now will avoid due to all of the newly created labels. It is perfectly fine to agree with an opinion with someone that is unpopular due to their views and doing so should not be conflated. Most people that follow your podcast don't even need this point to be expressly explained, it is common sense, but unfortunately common sense is becoming uncommon.
I think fundamentally you're right: there's a lot of reasons AT is popular and unless we listen to what he's saying and the context he is saying them in, we won't be able to offer effective cultural alternatives. Like everyone's bitching and moaning about him but is anyone stepping up and displacing him? Addressing the loneliness, the isolation, the lack of understanding that a lot of young men and boys have about themselves and others? They respond to a certain form of masculinity and when there's nobody else in that space, they get sucked into the grift because there's nobody else who speaks to them.
What, so your boys are listening to AT and his misogyny resonates with them? That means that feminism hasn't been as effective as you'd like to think, that the world your boys lives in fucking sucks enough that they can only cling on to dumb ideas and not nuance, that there are serious efforts by people in power to promulgate those hateful ideas and you've dropped the fucking ball by letting them persist.
The left is weak and it is costing us everything. Hate AT? Take his place. Displace him. Counter his sociopathy with social inclusion. Fight back. Appear strong. Appeal to the need for strength and simplicity.
Dr Lieberman’s “career, reputation, and income” were not erased by his poorly worded comment about “freak of nature” black women. He is doing quite well in his chosen field. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Lieberman
It was one woman, not "black women." From the article you linked to:
"The New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) asked for his resignation as Director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, and as of February 22, 2022, Lieberman was no longer affiliated with OMH or the State of New York. Lieberman was suspended as Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University and removed from his position as Psychiatrist-in-Chief at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center (NYP/CUIMC) on February 23, 2022."
Not enough for you?
“Lieberman is the Lawrence E. Kolb Professor of Psychiatry at the Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, where he directs the Lieber Center for Schizophrenia Research in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia.”
He was not erased, his reputation seems mostly ok, I’m assuming that he has income from this position.
It’s a small, dumb point to be hung up on.
I’m not sure it’s really worth either of our time to be doing this.
Have a great day.
These two ROMAs aren't a reason for me to quit listening to TS, but they are the reason why for usually I don't recommend it to my friends. I like a lot of what Chris is saying and oftentimes it is nuanced and thought through well. But at times he can be incredibly sloppy in his argumentation. . He's been like that since the beginning of this podcast and he's been in the last two ROMAs.
Want an example? He literally said:
"With the intention of making the world better, we're told to deny obvious reality.
So for example, race doesn't exist.
…
So these are all things to me, and I think to most people, that require a denial of obvious reality in order to participate in this well intention drive for a better world.
Race doesn't exist.
Well, look, race either exists or it doesn't exist.
If race doesn't exist, how can racism exist?
But the same people who are insisting that race doesn't exist are arguing that we need
to make major changes, pay reparations for historical wrongs that were based upon race."
Seriously? That is supposed to be an argument?
The plain "Race doesn't exist" quote is the weakest wording of a position which states that race does not exist as a biological essence but as a social construct. The latter is *not* saying "race does not exist".
I ask you to consider the following for moment: To everybody (except true believers) Hindu castes clearly are a social construct. Now imagine if someone would say: "Castes do not exist" and would mean by that that there's no true essence to castes beyond them being a social construct. Would you then conclude: "You said there's no caste and therefore any attempt to demand amends from the Indian society to pariahs is based on nothing"?
Even if something is unquestionable a social construct (for most people at least) you can ask for legal or financial compensations for the consequences of the construct.
And for all who are suspecting now, that I am defending people who are yelling "racism" if another person claims that people from Africa might likely be faster runners on average: I am not. If someone draws a wrong conclusion (there are no genetic differences in people) from a theorem (race is a construct) does not mean that other conclusions based the same conviction are "vacuous". That Chris mixed these two up, again is an example of where he's been sloppy in his reasoning.
Mostly these slips, if and when they occur, are no big deal. But let me break it to you, Chris: sentences like "Race doesn't exist. Well, look, race either exists or it doesn't exist. [This is] intellectually vacuous." and a lot more from your recent rants exactly are themes used by right wing propaganda in order to do exactly what you were saying: preying on the insecure, disempowered and desperate; speaking to the "common sense" of the so-called "little man".
Do I think that a simple homonymous wording makes you one of those guys? No. But no wonder why people put you amongst this group particularly after you showed zero awareness about these right wing propaganda tools. Yes, yes, I know that this is what you are arguing against, this hastily putting someone among a group. And, yes, you are not responsible for how people react, particularly not for their shittier moves. All I am saying: don't be surprised to wind up being put amongst those right wingers if you show so much understanding and nuance for them, but close to nothing for the other side (except maybe, that they once had good intentions).
And please, don't brush it off if someone writes "He talks about how biology is complicated, but ends up with a similar position as right-wingers" because you are ending up with a similar position, no matter how much you are shouting "tribalism". For some of us this is as clear to see, as it's clear for you that race exists. Just that you are not aware of it or denying it does not make it less of a fact. I don't know as what else I can call it if you're saying about your cycle that "we're sort of in an age that may even be defined by this cycle."
Calling the abhorrent practices of the dogmatic and authoritarian pseudo-left faction and their consequences as defining for our time, even age? Give me a break! That's what I call having lost perspective. In your case. But that line of arguments, declaring the left as defining for the toubles of our times, also has been the tactical proceeding of reactionary groups since the NSDAP and still is. And not reflecting on the latter in a rant like yours is outlandish (for the lack of a better word, which eludes my English. "Disconcerting" perhaps?).
If now you are reading, that I fell for tribalism, too: go ahead. I can't stop you from misconstruing me anymore than others here could. Put me in the tribalizing tribe. Be free to think, that saying, with a lot of your statements you ended up in a similar position as right-wingers, is the same thing as claiming, you've joined the right wing mob.
Having called out on where in my opinion you are full of shit (you asked for it) I'd like to end on a more conciliatory tone. I think get it, your concern about this BS from the pseudo-left and it is important to point out, that we shouldn't be too quick to discard what people are saying just because they are the others. And it's a shame that the attempts to control language and building speech taboos is giving the Tates, Berlusconis and Trumps one more and easy opportunity to prey on the dispossessed. One could despair over people who supposed to be our allies (Attention: tribal thinking) come up with things like a man accused of sexual abuse is never to believed not recognizing that this is the thinking that leads to dictatorship.
Thus, as I wrote in the beginning, I won't quit TS just because some of the things you say or believe sometimes are making me angry and wanting to knock over your head.
Best
Andreas
(Edited a silly typo)
Thanks for your comment, Andreas. I wonder how many times I'd find your argumentation to be "incredibly sloppy" if you recorded a thousand or so hours of yourself talking about contentious issues? Probably a few times.
I won't respond to your specifics here, because we'd just go on forever, and we've both had our say. Thanks for listening.
>>I wonder how many times I'd find your argumentation to be "incredibly sloppy" if you recorded a thousand or so hours of yourself talking about contentious issues? Probably a few times.
Probably even a few times more. Which is why I'd like someone to kick my ass.
>> I won't respond to your specifics here, because we'd just go on forever, and we've both had our say.
Exactly what I am thinking.
Thanks for broadcasting.
I appreciated listening to your last two ROMAs, Chris. It's my impression that you seek to understand Tate, both why he is the way he is, and why he has a prominent position in our culture. It's also my impression some of your listeners conflate "understand" with "support", despite your careful language and numerous qualifying statements to provide context. While you sought to understand Tate, I never heard you support him. You support free speech, which involves support of Tate, but only as far as you support free speech, which is support for anyone who wishes to speak freely, not just Tate.
Ultimately I think understanding (not supporting) the Tates of the world is necessary to disarm them. I agree Tate is a tail-end symptom along a lengthy causal chain of cultural issues. Understanding Tate helps one follow the chain back to the core causal issues, which may or may not be solvable. Tate is the skin lesion of our culture's HIV.
Here is Noam Chomsky, a Jew, vehemently supporting the free speech of a holocaust denier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE
I'm also reminded of Ram Dass, who had an image of Trump on his puja table. Compassion also does not necessarily equate to agree/support.
As someone who is just watching the show, in the George Carlin sense, (the show of life rather than this particular episode) I have some probably unpopular thoughts.
1. There's nothing wrong with voting with your feet. The life history of our species was predominantly as hunter gatherers and voting with your feet was one of the most powerful actions an individual could take.
2. The 1st amendment relates to speech from the state and government. It has nothing to do with how citizens decide to react each other's words. Cancel culture is being utilized by multiple parties. Although, and ironically, one side is using state governments to clamp down on speech.
3. Humans are a social species. Group consensus has trumped the individual since before humans were around. It just happens that currently there are oppositional groups of near equal size. This process is natural and probably became common with the advent of agriculture and civilization. Unions, canceling someone, protests, boycotts, union busters etc. etc. are all part of this. In this context, I find the desire to have a social legal system in place to protect the individual in the cultural and societal domain interesting but somewhat against the grain of the ultimate social species. To me its a product of individualistic societies.
4. Linguists, such as John McWhorter might view language as separate from culture and sociology but Linguistic anthropologists don't. Don Kulick, for example, says who gives a fuck if a language is dying? What about the people, the unique way of life, and the experiences (which language codifies) that are fading before our eyes? Daniel Everette talks about culture as a dynamic entity that is constantly being fed by feedback loops that either amplify or attenuate the 'dark matter of the mind' which he defines as any knowledge that is unspoken in normal circumstances, usually unarticulated even to ourselves. This is why language matters. A comedian telling jokes at the expense of a group of people is not JUST 'telling jokes' or 'asking questions.' The comedian is either amplifying or attenuating what the culture already believes about the subject (every water cooler conversation we have is similar in nature). This is why George Carlin says that traditionally comedians always punched up rather than punched down at the vulnerable (It's also what made court jesters so valuable to society. They were usually the only person that had the authority to denigrate a king, queen, or authoritarian. They represented the people). Of course Ricky Gervais' reply to that is "who defines what direction I'm punching?" I'm not saying jokes shouldn't be made. I'm saying that language isn't neutral it amplifies or attenuates the dark matter of the mind which results in real world consequences. Someone like Trump knows this. Which is why he incessantly repeats lies knowing they create real world repercussions, such as Jan 6.
5. But mostly I think this dialogue has caused such an uproar because a presumption is made that most people don't have the capacity, will, or time to disentangle an individual's complexities and baggage. They fear that by amplifying one aspect of the individual the whole package will be inadvertently justified and propagated. I happen to think this is true. Depending how one feels about the person dictates which binarial (is that a word or a disease?) response you will get. I think Kate's fear is justified. An individual on social media, even if it's a one way relationship, is much more intimate than something someone sees or hears in a song, movie, video game, or dirty video. Although the psychological research about rapes in VR environments is sobering.