Thank goodness you are carrying that sword of yours into battle! Today’s forces on the right have been using their pen as a sword to market their ideas in intellectual terms that most people can’t begin to recognize as gobeldegook much less take apart and lay bare. The Rs slap labels on everything and proceed to create their own reality in such dense terms that I don’t think most people would ever be able to cut thru. Keep yourself safe. We need you. Thanks ❤️🔥
I'm going to bypass a lot of the philosophical jargon. My focus is towards status, that which is; also known as reality. I would say without any hesitation that to equate the right with morality is laughable. It is so flagrantly absurd that I couldn't take anyone seriously that posed such an argument. Christianity in this country, the way it is practiced, is for the most part hypocrisy. If you equate the far right with Christianity, with the church going and prayer to Jesus, then I would tell you that this is an example of people lying to themselves, committing one anti-humanistic act after another, and then going to church and asking for forgiveness via confessions. This is nonsensical. Take for example the issues of gun control and pro-life, both attributed to the far right. These are the people that say they love their children but have no hesitation in affirming a clearly outdated Second Amendment to our Constitution, allowing people to purchase and abuse military assault weapons and mow down grade school children. These are the same people that can see the Department of Homeland Security violate due process, habeas corpus, freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, and take children and put them in detention centers. This is the administration that can just write off collateral damage to 150 girls in a school in Iran and just say it's part and parcel of war. These are the people that are pro-Israel and yet have no problem with seeing Netanyahu utterly destroy Gaza and murder 40,000 civilians.
If I were to follow any philosopher, it would be that of the philosophy of Lincoln, or what I call Lincolnism. When asked what his religion was, Abe answered, "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion." The most precious thing that we humans have is life in every form, human, animal, planetary or otherwise. When we desecrate life, when we take lives prematurely, we are acting diametrically opposite to the teachings of Jesus. These are all no-brainers. What is appalling to me is that America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, based on a constitution guaranteeing us various rights, has become a land of hypocrisy. One in which the buck is the alpha and the omega, not the goodness, not the caring, not the affection for people, animals, and the public. This is what is fucking wrong with this country. We have lost sight of what virtue is. We have lost our moral fiber and sold our souls to the company store. When are we going to start talking plain talk and say things that come from the heart?
One good start would be having the American public devote more time to understanding who is running the store, who is steering the ship, and what are their qualifications are before you put them into a position of power. Who we elect in the time that we put into determining their qualifications are those who will make decisions about our lives and our children's lives and the planet's life. I don't need any discussion about Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, Marx, or other philosophers. What I want to see is a society that is a true society, a really civilized civilization, and people at a global level who realize what a privilege it is to be alive on a planet as magnificent as Earth, and how wonderful human relationships can be if we all were motivated by a sense of affection, not of consumption and acquirement. The upcoming midterm elections are not simply about what we can buy in the store or the price of gasoline. That's ridiculous. It's about how we live our lives.
And do we do it with a sense of commitment to the quality of life that affects us, our families, friends, community, the entire globe, and this pale blue dot we live on?
"What I want to see is a society that is a true society, a really civilized civilization, and people at a global level who realize what a privilege it is to be alive on a planet as magnificent as Earth, and how wonderful human relationships can be if we all were motivated by a sense of affection, not of consumption and acquirement." I agree with the sentiment but the fact taht we have not been able to agree on "how we live our lives" does raise some deep questions. I do think that we must revisit those thinkers who have struggled with these questions before us.
A movement to change the suicidal course that "humanity" has taken will not come about through the revisiting of the great thinkers of all time unless the majority of people learn to love the written word. I doubt if most Americans read one non-fiction work a year. What is operative per my views being an intense observer over my 83+ years on Earth is that human "talent" or expertise follows a modification of the bell-shaped curve. The caveat is that the bell or midsection has grown wider and shifted to the left. I provide you with a Dropbox link to my version of the bell-shaped curve:
The "artist" or the true "pro" is an endangered species. I am an artist in my profession of medicine: from research, to translating that info to the human situation and doing so with compassion and diligence. I thought this would be routine for all physicians, but I was told differently and have confirmed that with thousands of hands-on experiences. This holds true for every profession down to manual labor. In my down-to-earth work, as a landscaper, a house painter, a lab employee running various tests, a janitor, etc., the artistry has dwindled to the point it now is a glaring exception.
We have seen how the electorate, in its ignorance, and also apathy (peas of the same pod) voted a low-life con artist to run the Ship of State. We see how those voted into the Republican party in Congress have crapped all over ethics and violated their oath of office.
I did not have a highly interactive father, but the few times he gave me advice about life turned out to be spot on. That quote pertains to pride in one's work—no matter what it is. "Son, if you do something, do it right or don't do it at all." -Bernard Strum. This is now uncommon human behavior.
I like reading philosophical works. My recent favorite is The Phenomenon of Man by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Or the opening chapter by Kathleen Raine titled "What is man?" in her book "The Inner Journey of the Poet." I have tried, with little success, to share provocative works like these with others. I will send out Amazon books to others, I will tear up books I have and scan to PDF and send to others—yet few read what is gifted to them. And these are not unschooled people but university graduates.
I appreciate your comment even though it does not deal with reality. Try discussing Spinoza or Schopenhauer with someone. The typical comment is "Are you always this serious?"
The premise that the Left is the side of anti-realism and post-modern relativism while the Right is the side of objective reality and morality is questionable in many ways but it is actually a fairly standard argument. The problem with Wilson's particular use of it in this day and age is that the liberal spectrum is now defending objective principles of morality and law (however consequentialist the reasoning) and his side is defending a Leader that throws away all morality and intellectual argument for the sake of power and control.
No great reason for women to vote because they are the property of their husband. Fine, then there is no great reason to allow men to vote rather than women or men to be the head of the household (that they do nothing to manage and maintain) rather than women. So, let’s allow only women to vote, only women to head households, and men are the property of women. No great reason not to.
Yes, terrific idea... and the icing on the cake is that it would end the problem of men voting on the issue of abortion when they are never at risk of getting pregnant.
Not only that, we might create a world of leaders that are more interested in finding peaceful and cooperative solutions to the world's problems rather than past tendencies toward violence.
Oh, and hey, we won't have to worry our pretty little heads about all that testosterone-driven energy not having a proper outlet because we have an entire fucking planet to clean up!
My constant fear has been our continued coexistence with Republicans. I have repeatedly said that we do not need Republicans; we would be a truly democratic country without them, with a national health plan for all, gun control, a wage scale for all, and a respectful retirement package for everyone. I have advocated for a soft secession and, eventually, a full secession, with two countries existing side by side as Republican and Democratic states.
The November election will be a landslide for the Democrats. However, the Republicans, especially in the South, will still be alive and waiting to undo all the progressive ideas enacted by the Democrats. The reality is that our country has long been a battle between the North and the South, between the Republicans and the Democrats. We have swung back and forth between the two parties.
The Republican opponent now is the MAGA movement, the radical believers in Trump who think he can do no wrong. Our immediate enemy is MAGA, the diehard followers of Trump. Nothing Trump could do would change their undying commitment to him. That is up to now. Their belief in Trump resembles the mentality of cult members who would follow their leaders over a cliff rather than change their belief in their leaders' superior wisdom. Cultism takes many forms, and once the believers lock into the programmed mentality, they will not change. Religious systems and social societies share characteristics of cultism. Think of the soul-searching and torment that occurs when someone is considering leaving a formal religion, and now compare that to the agreement of all the followers of Jim Jones in Africa, who agreed to a mass suicide of 918 people in Jonestown. Once they have established a belief, it is almost impossible to change that thinking process. We see the same things in neighborhoods, states, and sports teams' obsessions.
So why is Trump a destroyer of MAGA
Trump’s bizarre behavior, irrational decisions, and deteriorating mental condition are causing them concern. Trump's deranged decision-making and his continued demonstration of this mental deterioration are slowly weakening their belief that he is their savior. He is providing them with daily examples of his dysfunctional mentality, and he will continue to deteriorate, presenting more and more examples of this failing personality.
Trump is past the point of retreating to normal behavior; he has drunk the Kool-Aid and is obsessed with POWER. Like all authoritarian leaders, power is the motivating factor behind their delusions. Steven Cohen, in his book Disloyal, tries to capture Trump's “magnetic force because he offered an intoxicating cocktail of power, strength, celebrity, and a complete disregard for the rules and realities that govern our lives. To Trump, life was a game, and all that mattered was winning and his desire for power at all costs.” The lust for power can drive a person insane, consuming them and amplifying their magnetic effect; insatiability grows over time.
He will continue his erratic behavior and will present examples of it daily. In 6 months, he will become unrecognizable, and it will be impossible for MAGA not to see these examples of his deterioration. So, Trump will have done something that no one else could have; he may have destroyed MAGA, something that could have been done only by him.
"The November election will be a landslide for the Democrats". I dont think this will change anything for the better. I can easily imagine the oligarchs deciding to support Newsom and things getting worse for the liberal case. As Brock argued, liberals will need to make the postive case for liberalism. That will be harder with somebody in power who calls himself a liberal but is only a puppet of corporate power.
Maybe, for a very long time, it wasn’t that. It was approaching equitable, sustainable prosperity, until Reagan tore it all down. Now we have a crazed megalomaniac trampling the very fabric of our nation.
“He justifies the question by saying women “vote to send men to war without draft risk.” This ignores the existence of women in the military, the fact that women have been civilian casualties in every war of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the historical record of women’s suffrage movements”
Thanks for addressing that. I hear this argument in various forms all the time. “Feminists want to take mens’ jobs but they never want the worst jobs like garbage man or sewer cleaner.”. I always thought that was a false argument. No one wants those jobs, neither women OR men. And it’s changing. Women will do almost anything to feed their families, including sadly, sex work. I get really irked when I still hear men like Jordan Peterson say that.
it would be interesting to see a similar analysis of Ross Douthat's podcast series 'Interesting Times.' I find myself saying many of these same things while listening to episodes. Ross will usually find 1 or 2 places to push back against the person he is talking with, but otherwise lets many problematic ideas go unchallenged. I also get the impression that at least some of the episodes are crafted with a pre-arranged agreement between Ross and his interview that establishes red lines that Ross will not cross.
You'll probably be surprised to hear me say this: but even though Douthat is not a liberal, I mostly see him as an epistemically responsible actor. He does steelman the liberal case when he engages, and he does show a high degree of intellectual honesty when he engages with people across the ideological spectrum, so I respect him greatly as an intellectual even though he's not tracking the same vision of the good life that I am. I'd rather Douthat be part of the conversation than not.
I agree. I have enjoyed listening to his interviews, and I do think he tries to defend 'L'iberal values honestly. I just also see a little bit of civility washing as well and wonder what the balance is. Thanks for your analysis as well.
I haven't seen the interview, and I appreciate your article, but a couple of sections made me think twice.
You say "Wilson advocates a cultural nationalism that he says is not racial. He then specifies: end mass migration immediately. No importing Muslims. Diversity is not a strength. The content of his position is racial."
A couple of comments: Opposing Muslim immigration on the grounds of religio-cultural incompatibility separable from race; it targets a belief system, not a genetic or ethnic group. On cultural nationalism, I would note that societies can have a legitimate interest in cultural continuity and cohesion, entirely independent of racial composition. On opposition to high migration (let's avoid the word "mass", and consider high, average, and low rates of immigration) has non-racial rationales - pace of social change, economic impacts, etc. Regarding diversity, you are no doubt familiar with the Putnam / Dinesen research suggesting that high diversity can, under certain conditions, reduce social trust and civic cohesion. Putnam also calls out advantages to diversity, eg social learning. So, for me the jury is out there, but what has it to do with race?
In light of this, I am interested as to why you conclude his position is racial? Again, I haven't listened to interview, and so may be missing some context here.
Lastly, "Here is a program advocating the dismantling of the liberal framework". Are the producers of Triggernometry really advocating for everything Wilson says? I guess I'll have to listen to the interview.
You covered the stakes nicely. One of my problems with liberal and centrists is they rarely articulate a clear vision for the future. They don't communicate faith in their own moral instincts instead they seem to have an attraction to hearing and understanding reactionary ones.
They also platform people like this guy. They are trying to have it both ways abs think that pretending to not have a position absolves them from making a choice.
If we really don't have an opinion or any interest they wouldn't have taken the time to do the show they could have done something else like a show about earthquakes.
So many times they get academic and technocratic instead of making a moral choice.
There's leftists who have a clear vision for the future just like right wingers do. The reactionary centrists really don't have much to offer.
Thank goodness you are carrying that sword of yours into battle! Today’s forces on the right have been using their pen as a sword to market their ideas in intellectual terms that most people can’t begin to recognize as gobeldegook much less take apart and lay bare. The Rs slap labels on everything and proceed to create their own reality in such dense terms that I don’t think most people would ever be able to cut thru. Keep yourself safe. We need you. Thanks ❤️🔥
Once again Mike you have found clarity in the dense fog besetting our country.
Thank you for sharing what should be obvious to any patriot of American liberal democracy
I'm going to bypass a lot of the philosophical jargon. My focus is towards status, that which is; also known as reality. I would say without any hesitation that to equate the right with morality is laughable. It is so flagrantly absurd that I couldn't take anyone seriously that posed such an argument. Christianity in this country, the way it is practiced, is for the most part hypocrisy. If you equate the far right with Christianity, with the church going and prayer to Jesus, then I would tell you that this is an example of people lying to themselves, committing one anti-humanistic act after another, and then going to church and asking for forgiveness via confessions. This is nonsensical. Take for example the issues of gun control and pro-life, both attributed to the far right. These are the people that say they love their children but have no hesitation in affirming a clearly outdated Second Amendment to our Constitution, allowing people to purchase and abuse military assault weapons and mow down grade school children. These are the same people that can see the Department of Homeland Security violate due process, habeas corpus, freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, and take children and put them in detention centers. This is the administration that can just write off collateral damage to 150 girls in a school in Iran and just say it's part and parcel of war. These are the people that are pro-Israel and yet have no problem with seeing Netanyahu utterly destroy Gaza and murder 40,000 civilians.
If I were to follow any philosopher, it would be that of the philosophy of Lincoln, or what I call Lincolnism. When asked what his religion was, Abe answered, "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion." The most precious thing that we humans have is life in every form, human, animal, planetary or otherwise. When we desecrate life, when we take lives prematurely, we are acting diametrically opposite to the teachings of Jesus. These are all no-brainers. What is appalling to me is that America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, based on a constitution guaranteeing us various rights, has become a land of hypocrisy. One in which the buck is the alpha and the omega, not the goodness, not the caring, not the affection for people, animals, and the public. This is what is fucking wrong with this country. We have lost sight of what virtue is. We have lost our moral fiber and sold our souls to the company store. When are we going to start talking plain talk and say things that come from the heart?
One good start would be having the American public devote more time to understanding who is running the store, who is steering the ship, and what are their qualifications are before you put them into a position of power. Who we elect in the time that we put into determining their qualifications are those who will make decisions about our lives and our children's lives and the planet's life. I don't need any discussion about Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, Marx, or other philosophers. What I want to see is a society that is a true society, a really civilized civilization, and people at a global level who realize what a privilege it is to be alive on a planet as magnificent as Earth, and how wonderful human relationships can be if we all were motivated by a sense of affection, not of consumption and acquirement. The upcoming midterm elections are not simply about what we can buy in the store or the price of gasoline. That's ridiculous. It's about how we live our lives.
And do we do it with a sense of commitment to the quality of life that affects us, our families, friends, community, the entire globe, and this pale blue dot we live on?
"What I want to see is a society that is a true society, a really civilized civilization, and people at a global level who realize what a privilege it is to be alive on a planet as magnificent as Earth, and how wonderful human relationships can be if we all were motivated by a sense of affection, not of consumption and acquirement." I agree with the sentiment but the fact taht we have not been able to agree on "how we live our lives" does raise some deep questions. I do think that we must revisit those thinkers who have struggled with these questions before us.
A movement to change the suicidal course that "humanity" has taken will not come about through the revisiting of the great thinkers of all time unless the majority of people learn to love the written word. I doubt if most Americans read one non-fiction work a year. What is operative per my views being an intense observer over my 83+ years on Earth is that human "talent" or expertise follows a modification of the bell-shaped curve. The caveat is that the bell or midsection has grown wider and shifted to the left. I provide you with a Dropbox link to my version of the bell-shaped curve:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zasj52ecsrw3ze4u7ndl9/Bell-shaped-Curve-Strum-2017-copy.pdf?rlkey=lx03d4s3u7v8hgkkvrnphb261&dl=0
The "artist" or the true "pro" is an endangered species. I am an artist in my profession of medicine: from research, to translating that info to the human situation and doing so with compassion and diligence. I thought this would be routine for all physicians, but I was told differently and have confirmed that with thousands of hands-on experiences. This holds true for every profession down to manual labor. In my down-to-earth work, as a landscaper, a house painter, a lab employee running various tests, a janitor, etc., the artistry has dwindled to the point it now is a glaring exception.
We have seen how the electorate, in its ignorance, and also apathy (peas of the same pod) voted a low-life con artist to run the Ship of State. We see how those voted into the Republican party in Congress have crapped all over ethics and violated their oath of office.
I did not have a highly interactive father, but the few times he gave me advice about life turned out to be spot on. That quote pertains to pride in one's work—no matter what it is. "Son, if you do something, do it right or don't do it at all." -Bernard Strum. This is now uncommon human behavior.
I like reading philosophical works. My recent favorite is The Phenomenon of Man by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Or the opening chapter by Kathleen Raine titled "What is man?" in her book "The Inner Journey of the Poet." I have tried, with little success, to share provocative works like these with others. I will send out Amazon books to others, I will tear up books I have and scan to PDF and send to others—yet few read what is gifted to them. And these are not unschooled people but university graduates.
I appreciate your comment even though it does not deal with reality. Try discussing Spinoza or Schopenhauer with someone. The typical comment is "Are you always this serious?"
The premise that the Left is the side of anti-realism and post-modern relativism while the Right is the side of objective reality and morality is questionable in many ways but it is actually a fairly standard argument. The problem with Wilson's particular use of it in this day and age is that the liberal spectrum is now defending objective principles of morality and law (however consequentialist the reasoning) and his side is defending a Leader that throws away all morality and intellectual argument for the sake of power and control.
"the evil of using reason’s own tools to corrupt the epistemic ground on which reason operates ... the civility laundering machine"
No great reason for women to vote because they are the property of their husband. Fine, then there is no great reason to allow men to vote rather than women or men to be the head of the household (that they do nothing to manage and maintain) rather than women. So, let’s allow only women to vote, only women to head households, and men are the property of women. No great reason not to.
Yes, terrific idea... and the icing on the cake is that it would end the problem of men voting on the issue of abortion when they are never at risk of getting pregnant.
Not only that, we might create a world of leaders that are more interested in finding peaceful and cooperative solutions to the world's problems rather than past tendencies toward violence.
Oh, and hey, we won't have to worry our pretty little heads about all that testosterone-driven energy not having a proper outlet because we have an entire fucking planet to clean up!
💯
Keep writing — as the first person here says stay safe, I will add well, dedicated and brilliant.
A related take on Karp, another "thinker" who likes to style himself as a philosopher ... https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/grievance-poisoning-in-the-first
TRUMP, A DESTROYER OF MAGA
My constant fear has been our continued coexistence with Republicans. I have repeatedly said that we do not need Republicans; we would be a truly democratic country without them, with a national health plan for all, gun control, a wage scale for all, and a respectful retirement package for everyone. I have advocated for a soft secession and, eventually, a full secession, with two countries existing side by side as Republican and Democratic states.
The November election will be a landslide for the Democrats. However, the Republicans, especially in the South, will still be alive and waiting to undo all the progressive ideas enacted by the Democrats. The reality is that our country has long been a battle between the North and the South, between the Republicans and the Democrats. We have swung back and forth between the two parties.
The Republican opponent now is the MAGA movement, the radical believers in Trump who think he can do no wrong. Our immediate enemy is MAGA, the diehard followers of Trump. Nothing Trump could do would change their undying commitment to him. That is up to now. Their belief in Trump resembles the mentality of cult members who would follow their leaders over a cliff rather than change their belief in their leaders' superior wisdom. Cultism takes many forms, and once the believers lock into the programmed mentality, they will not change. Religious systems and social societies share characteristics of cultism. Think of the soul-searching and torment that occurs when someone is considering leaving a formal religion, and now compare that to the agreement of all the followers of Jim Jones in Africa, who agreed to a mass suicide of 918 people in Jonestown. Once they have established a belief, it is almost impossible to change that thinking process. We see the same things in neighborhoods, states, and sports teams' obsessions.
So why is Trump a destroyer of MAGA
Trump’s bizarre behavior, irrational decisions, and deteriorating mental condition are causing them concern. Trump's deranged decision-making and his continued demonstration of this mental deterioration are slowly weakening their belief that he is their savior. He is providing them with daily examples of his dysfunctional mentality, and he will continue to deteriorate, presenting more and more examples of this failing personality.
Trump is past the point of retreating to normal behavior; he has drunk the Kool-Aid and is obsessed with POWER. Like all authoritarian leaders, power is the motivating factor behind their delusions. Steven Cohen, in his book Disloyal, tries to capture Trump's “magnetic force because he offered an intoxicating cocktail of power, strength, celebrity, and a complete disregard for the rules and realities that govern our lives. To Trump, life was a game, and all that mattered was winning and his desire for power at all costs.” The lust for power can drive a person insane, consuming them and amplifying their magnetic effect; insatiability grows over time.
He will continue his erratic behavior and will present examples of it daily. In 6 months, he will become unrecognizable, and it will be impossible for MAGA not to see these examples of his deterioration. So, Trump will have done something that no one else could have; he may have destroyed MAGA, something that could have been done only by him.
"The November election will be a landslide for the Democrats". I dont think this will change anything for the better. I can easily imagine the oligarchs deciding to support Newsom and things getting worse for the liberal case. As Brock argued, liberals will need to make the postive case for liberalism. That will be harder with somebody in power who calls himself a liberal but is only a puppet of corporate power.
Maybe, for a very long time, it wasn’t that. It was approaching equitable, sustainable prosperity, until Reagan tore it all down. Now we have a crazed megalomaniac trampling the very fabric of our nation.
“He justifies the question by saying women “vote to send men to war without draft risk.” This ignores the existence of women in the military, the fact that women have been civilian casualties in every war of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the historical record of women’s suffrage movements”
Thanks for addressing that. I hear this argument in various forms all the time. “Feminists want to take mens’ jobs but they never want the worst jobs like garbage man or sewer cleaner.”. I always thought that was a false argument. No one wants those jobs, neither women OR men. And it’s changing. Women will do almost anything to feed their families, including sadly, sex work. I get really irked when I still hear men like Jordan Peterson say that.
it would be interesting to see a similar analysis of Ross Douthat's podcast series 'Interesting Times.' I find myself saying many of these same things while listening to episodes. Ross will usually find 1 or 2 places to push back against the person he is talking with, but otherwise lets many problematic ideas go unchallenged. I also get the impression that at least some of the episodes are crafted with a pre-arranged agreement between Ross and his interview that establishes red lines that Ross will not cross.
You'll probably be surprised to hear me say this: but even though Douthat is not a liberal, I mostly see him as an epistemically responsible actor. He does steelman the liberal case when he engages, and he does show a high degree of intellectual honesty when he engages with people across the ideological spectrum, so I respect him greatly as an intellectual even though he's not tracking the same vision of the good life that I am. I'd rather Douthat be part of the conversation than not.
I agree. I have enjoyed listening to his interviews, and I do think he tries to defend 'L'iberal values honestly. I just also see a little bit of civility washing as well and wonder what the balance is. Thanks for your analysis as well.
I haven't seen the interview, and I appreciate your article, but a couple of sections made me think twice.
You say "Wilson advocates a cultural nationalism that he says is not racial. He then specifies: end mass migration immediately. No importing Muslims. Diversity is not a strength. The content of his position is racial."
A couple of comments: Opposing Muslim immigration on the grounds of religio-cultural incompatibility separable from race; it targets a belief system, not a genetic or ethnic group. On cultural nationalism, I would note that societies can have a legitimate interest in cultural continuity and cohesion, entirely independent of racial composition. On opposition to high migration (let's avoid the word "mass", and consider high, average, and low rates of immigration) has non-racial rationales - pace of social change, economic impacts, etc. Regarding diversity, you are no doubt familiar with the Putnam / Dinesen research suggesting that high diversity can, under certain conditions, reduce social trust and civic cohesion. Putnam also calls out advantages to diversity, eg social learning. So, for me the jury is out there, but what has it to do with race?
In light of this, I am interested as to why you conclude his position is racial? Again, I haven't listened to interview, and so may be missing some context here.
Lastly, "Here is a program advocating the dismantling of the liberal framework". Are the producers of Triggernometry really advocating for everything Wilson says? I guess I'll have to listen to the interview.
I don’t know Wilson at all, but Kisin is a prat.
You covered the stakes nicely. One of my problems with liberal and centrists is they rarely articulate a clear vision for the future. They don't communicate faith in their own moral instincts instead they seem to have an attraction to hearing and understanding reactionary ones.
They also platform people like this guy. They are trying to have it both ways abs think that pretending to not have a position absolves them from making a choice.
If we really don't have an opinion or any interest they wouldn't have taken the time to do the show they could have done something else like a show about earthquakes.
So many times they get academic and technocratic instead of making a moral choice.
There's leftists who have a clear vision for the future just like right wingers do. The reactionary centrists really don't have much to offer.
https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-positive-case-for-liberalsm
Thx Mike, food for my soul.
So, Wilson wants to claim human rights are not real, but his imaginary sky daddy is. 🤦♀️