by LoveUniHateExams 39 Replies latest social current
Yeah, so The Candace Owens Show is apparently in London and Douglas Murray is the person interviewed.
They cover a range of topics that are current and connected to Murray's new book (The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity).
I've not got his new book but it seems to be good. Owens and Murray both make good points and it's a joy to listen to them together.
Enjoy ...
One particular point was the following from Murray: go to Google Images and type in 'black couples' and note the results.
Now type in 'white couples' and note the search results.
Do the same, replacing the adjective with gay/homosexual ... and finally heterosexual or straight.
Interesting ...
Interesting interview. Thanks for sharing. My observations are that here are two people who have reached the age where they are beginning to grapple with the complexity of interpersonal relationships. Youth is simple, middle age brings new awareness and poignancy. I thought it was hilarious that they both idealized the 90's. Really? The 90's weren't different, they were. They were youth tuned into school, music and sex. Owens even recounted when she was bullied by her former classmates for becoming white when she was advanced in school.
Murry is absolute correct that people seek collective movements to
provide something very personal. A community, a direction, order, a sense of purpose. He then decried the lack of human kindness in this digital age and loss of public forgiveness. Again,as a newly adult human, imagining this is something new and not a description of history. They denounce the PC overreaching (especially on the internet), the rash impugning motives and relentless scrutinizing. This perceived trend was portended to become an unstoppable force, an existential threat to humanity. The word "dangerous" was used how many times?? I especially found it ironic that he condemned free market corporations exploiting this trend for marketing purposes. The talk began getting faster paced and slightly louder as they self identified as the last warriors of "truth". I lost count how many times they suggested "no one else" was talking about this or that topic. The promise of "freedom" and liberation by abandoning "liberalism" and "leftism" said with born-againerlike eyes was a nice cherry on top.
Unfortunately they probably actually believe all that is true. This probably in their minds justifies their impugning ulterior motives and envisioning power grabbing conspiracies by "Marxists". By packaging the world's problems into that one word it gives their world a sense of order and purpose. It also struck me that Owens at the end simply asserted that when trying to improve the "goodness" of the world you have no other path but corruption and dishonesty, "there is no other way" she insisted. That's dogma not "truth". Hopefully in our lives we pursue goodness and kindness everyday. I'm sure in any other context Owens would agree with that. But when denouncing the efforts of political rivals she repeated what she had been told distinguished her side from the corrupt other.
Facts are, if you poll people, most everyone objects to the brutality of being tried in the press and public opinion and PC culture will always be a moving target. What's really new is the challenges of how to integrate machine learning and the instantaneous reactivity and anonymity of social media. These are about the only thing that has actually changed since the 90's.
Owens at the end simply asserted that when trying to improve the "goodness" of the world you have no other path but corruption and dishonesty, "there is no other way" she insisted - I'll have to listen to the conversation again but I thought Owens suggested that when people pursue 'goodness' then they're more likely than those who pursue 'truth' to fall into corruption and dishonesty.
I lost count how many times they suggested "no one else" was talking about this or that topic - they may be wrong in this claim, although very few people are successfully talking about this or that topic without feeling consequences. - see what happened to Heather Heying and her husband, for example.
The promise of "freedom" and liberation by abandoning "liberalism" and "leftism" said with born-againerlike eyes - nothing 'born-again' about that conversation at all. Born-againer-like eyes? I don't think so.
This probably in their minds justifies their impugning ulterior motives and envisioning power grabbing conspiracies by "Marxists" - well, Marxists have multiplied in universities all over the US, Canada and the UK. I can see why some people speak of a 'power grab'.
These are about the only thing that has actually changed since the 90's - quite a bit has changed since the 90s. Life on campus has changed, with deranged outrage over all manner of perceived and real social transgressions, students demanding and getting safe spaces, etc.
The word "dangerous" was used how many times? - maybe because history teaches us what happens when identity politics are embraced and enforced. You end up with piles and piles of dead bodies.
See - the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. etc.
Identity politics never ends well.
Thanks. Two of my favourite minds having a chat. Will have a listen later.
Facts are ... What's really new is the challenges of how to integrate machine learning and the instantaneous reactivity and anonymity of social media. These are about the only thing that has actually changed since the 90's.
Seriously? You think that is all that has really changed significantly since the 90's?!
Half of society has gone absolutely mental. We have men winning at being "women", we have women coerced into sex acts by force of the law. We have gone fucking bananas and it's because of the left. Boys are under attack, over-payed women claim they are the victims of discrimination and politicians want to make money free.
Sure, little has changed ...
We need more people like this, who call things out for what they are - idiotic. We need more conservatism in the world and more Trumps who can overthrow the apple-cart and stand up to the levels of deep-state corruption and PC insanity that have reached frightening levels. We need people standing up for free speech and democracy, both of which are under serious threat right now. Truth exists almost solely on the "right" now, the left has abandoned any last veneer of respecting facts and reason.
But sure "nothing much has changed"
Really excellent conversation between two intelligent and intellectually honest people.
I look forward to reading Douglas Murray's new book The Madness of Crowds.
One of the key points that came out of the the conversation was the critique of the belief in the 'perfectibility' of humans and of society. This is the foundational error that lay behind communism and every other crazy utopian ideology including the Watchtower. It is a main theme of Pinker's The Blank Slate. If you haven't read it yet do yourself a favour.
PP - You are so far off the mark. That was a very disingenuous summary.
Marxists have multiplied in universities all over the US, Canada and the UK. I can see why some people speak of a 'power grab'
Ask people how to define Marxism and you get everything from far left to far right notions. It's a catch all label for ideologies as widely separated as Leninism and Nazism. For many on the right, simply suggesting we form national health insurance programs means you are "Marxist". For some Marxism is opposing racist speech, while for others it is promoting racist speech. Its really just a trigger word without definition at this point.
Born-againer-like eyes? I don't think so.
Ok I was having fun there. Rewatch her outreached hands and heavenward glance as she spoke of her freedom from liberalism and goodness.
...very few people are successfully talking about this or that topic without feeling consequences. - see what happened to Heather Heying and her husband, for example.
It does take courage to speak up when you feel marginalized. As far as Weinstein and his wife. You can get as many opinions about what happened and why as media outlets but I agree that it was a big clusterf...k. The school did not actually do what Weistein claimed but neither did Weinstein do what reactionary students assumed he did. Then the death threats to students began...and a far right terrorist announced he was going to shoot up the school. In the end everyone was accusing everyone else of bigotry and racism and actual racists were feeding off the disorder.
Weisteins own comment about it all:
What I would say is some of the reaction that came to Evergreen was deeply unfortunate. And I absolutely wish it had not happened. Do I feel responsible for it? No. I think the behavior on Evergreen's campus was exactly the kind of bigotry that would lead to that overreaction by the far right. And that is on the people who behaved that way, not on me for exposing it.
Identity politics never ends well.
Wiki presently includes this insightful line:
The term identity politics has been in use in various forms since the 1960s or 1970s, but has been applied with, at times, radically different meanings by different populations.[5][6] It has gained currency with the emergence of social movements such as the feminist movement, the civil rights movement in the U.S., the LGBTQ movement, as well as nationalist and postcolonial movements.[4]
Identity politics on its face simply means people with similar outlooks and shared experiences acting together to promote an agenda. That pretty well describes any political or social, even economic association. IOW It has become just another trigger word. Going back to your last comment, If you mean identity politics can be divisive. I absolutely agree, and I'll add, when those who oppose this or that identity politics themselves use identity politics it becomes even more divisive. And that is where we are.
