The Roots of Identity Politics: A Conversation with Yascha Mounk (Episode

[@countdebleauchamp]

One of the best of the recent making sense podcasts. The clarity with which the issues are discussed is exceptional.

[@radscorpion8]

After maybe a decade of this, listening to Yascha's very clear and sensible description of why separating kids based on race seems like an obviously bad idea at ~14:00 (and other similarly horrific ideas borne out of identity politics) is such a relief to hear. I don't understand how academics could have gone so wrong, how they could end up supporting racism directly without seeing any problem or contradiction with the foundational moral principles that we were all taught and grew up believing in throughout childhood. But there needs to be a serious revision of why academics are taken seriously to begin with. And I really hope this is the start of the end of that movement. Maybe in physics or chemistry, its okay - their science is constantly being checked by tests and comparisons with reality. But the social sciences seem completely unhinged. They don't believe things because they are true, they believe things because they are popular or because its somehow psychologically pleasing to take on positions that exonerate them from their guilt, which ends up doing incalculable levels of harm when adopted in politics, schools, businesses, and the media. Trump probably would never have been elected if not for wokeness You don't need to be a right-wing conservative or ally yourself with covid-deniers to understand these things are serious problems. Even action on climate change has been stymied because so many on the right feel the climate change movement is basically just an extension of the woke movement. It is not an overstatement to say that it literally endangers our planet

[@howard5992]

I am lost as to what you are trying to say about " academics separating kids based on race "

[@We-Wuz-Great-201]

There wuz this one time we wuz in the Levant and we wuz all Middle-Eastern n stuff, and then we all moved around places and got ginger hair and blues n dat and went back because datz identity innit?

[@We-Wuz-Great-201]

Dönmeh say wot?

[@PlayNiceFolks]

It's essentially a massive Slippery Slope fallacy. To give ANYTHING up, to compromise in the slightest, is to give way to an ultimate evil down the line.

[@PlayNiceFolks]

(in regards to your last paragraph)

[@geneharrogate6911]

Thomas Sowell is 93 and healthy. Need to get him on before it's to late.

[@brianmeen2158]

That would be amazing

[@robbielex]

I love that at 1.5x speed Yascha sounds like a cartoon character and Sam sounds like a normal guy talking ❤

[@We-Wuz-Great-201]

You have no free will. You have no thoughts but what I dictate to you.... What's up with all the rainbows?

[@We-Wuz-Great-201]

Noahide laws, you are all goooooooy......

[@joelogjam9163]

1.25x is a good balance.😁

[@ManicMindTrick]

At the slowest speed they sound so f ing wasted

[@deanjdk]

Rightwingism and leftwingism are both memetically driven. The war between tribes acts to strengthen the tribalism of both tribes. There should be no single scale for what is, many multiple topics that comprise an understanding of how the world works.

[@barefootarts737]

I've been waiting for this examination of essentialisms utility for a couple of years. Well done guys.

[@dieselphiend]

'the best way to make people forget it's a class war, is to make them think it's an identity war.'

[@importantjohn]

Class is an identity. Identity politics is marxist politics.

[@dieselphiend]

Someone responded to this comment, and the comment is being hidden.

[@annabee75]

​@@dieselphiendsurprised ?

[@dieselphiend]

@@annabee75 That YT hides comments?

[@Faus4us_Official]

That still creates an "us and them" dichotomy. We will never be united so long as we hold such beliefs. For as long as an "us and them" dichotomy exists between us (Mankind), we will suffer of our own ignorance. Accept that all the evil and good Humanity has ever and will ever produce is within you as well. Humanity are our brothers and sisters. We do not exclude monsters or saints from Humanity solely based on their behavior. We say, "These humans have distinguished themselves in some way". If you wish to be isolated in a community that will inevitably become inbred, go-ahead sibling. You have my love and respect as a human being and a child of the universe. However, I will not support such folly by involving myself beyond respect and consideration for you and yours. Where are you? What are you? What is keeping you from entertaining such ideas? 99/100 times it is the individual themselves. You always have a choice. Yes, even with a weapon pointed at you. You can still say "I will not submit" without ever opening your mouth or raising a finger. Most of us are willfully ignorant, stubborn, greedy and often fanatic individuals. Especially when SHTF I assure you. All it takes is a choice here and now. Then we can work from there. We have to come together first AND "us and them" prevents that. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Humanity can extend its sphere of awareness beyond the individual, family, country, planet, solar system and even the observable universe. This is not a new idea. It is so old it appears new to us. It will be what it will be. I know that for certain.

[@akintundesulaimon7875]

Still making sense in this senseless world ❤

[@PetraKann]

The man who got the entire Pandemic response WRONG and demonised those advocating and defending their basic human rights is now pretending to be an identity politics expert. The gall of this man has no bounds it seems

[@lw1zfog]

hardly

[@We-Wuz-Great-201]

Gematria has got you in a web of deceit and lies...

[@robby3467]

This discussion was absolutely brilliant. Pity the second half is hidden behind a paywall. I used to be a paid up subscriber but most of the episodes are now of little interest to me, but this one was excellent.

[@markrimkus200]

Fantastic guest and discourse. I was on the fence regarding a yearly subscription but this one pushed me firmly to the 'yes' side.

[@pshehan1]

Like Sam I had my first rude awakening to identity politics in an academic setting in 2007. But it was here in Australia. I had first enrolled at university in the mid 1970s for s BSc but took some humanities subjects. In the early 1990s I enrolled in a Graduate Diploma in Humanities studying part time while working as a research scientist. In those courses there was freewheeling robust discussion and no one took any offense. In 2007 I enrolled in a graduate diploma for a secondary school teaching qualification. In one tutorial the subject was literacy. A young lady to my immediate left was on a riff about how literate colonial societies had exploited and oppressed native peoples. So in the manner which drew praise from my school teachers and which I had continued i my earlier university courses, I made a comment aimed at getting people to think. 'On the other hand, life expectancy in modern literate societies is twice that in hunter gatherer societies.' This drew vigorous condemnation of me as a racist from the social justice warrior on my left. My explaining that I was in fact partially descended from aboriginal ancestors and understood how racism had affected my family only increased the tirade to near hysterical levels. I attempted to counter the attack but was interrupted by another social justice warrior immediately to my right who said that I should no longer be allowed to defend myself because I had "offended" the first SJW. This will be the death of enquiry in universities.

[@whatsthatnoise5955]

Hey that sounds horrible. Don't let it get to you though. The worst thing that could happen would be if you let an experience like that fester to the point where it effected the way you thought about politics and caused you up object to the rights of people you say you understand, until you are so bothered by the whole thing that you are still talking about it 15 years later, making posts on social media to complete strangers about this completely uneventful thing that happened more than a decade ago... that would be really sad

[@We-Wuz-Great-201]

Your 'intellectual saviour' here, this one man who guides your thinking, is your true enemy. Or maybe It's better to say it this way, that fact that you need other men to do your thinking for you, maybe you are your worst enemy.

[@pshehan1]

@@whatsthatnoise5955 It is not being called racist by idiots that concerns me. It is an indication of how far the free exchange of ideas in universities has become restricted. That concerns me.

[@pshehan1]

@@We-Wuz-Great-201 I don't understand the point you are trying to make. What 'intellectual saviour'? Who is it I allegedly require to do my thinking for me?

[@We-Wuz-Great-201]

@@pshehan1 Let me give you an example of the modern 'clever' man. If you question medical malpractice on a grand scale, people call you crazy. If ask them about Aliens? - "Oh yeah, they're all in on it, makes perfect sense!"

[@AcerbusCastus]

This is a great conversation! I would like to hear your perspective on what a healthy version of identity celebration or identity awareness would look like. I am thinking things like Jews gathering to celebrate the Sabbath or a certain racial group holding an afternoon club organised by them and for them exploring or practicing themes of their Identity and cultural heritage...

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Obsessing about "identity" is fundamentally harmful.

[@Brandon-os3qr]

There are many videos where Sam makes the argument for "(1) there are very real and very significant disadvantages and disparities which for minorities because of historical racism, but (2) all the current strategies are in many ways doing more harm than good," and every time I was waiting for "(3) here's what we should or even could do instead" and it would never come. So I saw this episode and thought "awesome, maybe this way there will be enough time to actually get into it enough to answer that question"... But lo que behold, they really just stick to that same #1 and 2... And then more and more 2, without even really making extra points. Sam is such a great thinker and communicator. I hope he starts to use those tools to think of and advocate for improvements upon imperfections rather than just being someone who's really good at pointing imperfections out

[@treborkroy5280]

The root? It gives you power, recognition and influence without any genuine personal accomplishments. It's a meritless system of who deserves what. It's simple.

[@Malt454]

Sure, everyone becomes a big deal in the eyes of someone, even if it's just their political tribe, but the increase in political tribalism is also now just a symptom of the tribalism in social media. There are people putting up videos now as if how they play video games is some kind of achievement... and there are others buying into it.

[@treborkroy5280]

@@Malt454 People talk about their "identity" like THAT is an achievement. That's the problem. Playing videogames is an entirely unrelated subject.

[@Malt454]

@@treborkroy5280- Everyone's a victim just like everyone's a hero, but I don't see much difference in the "achievement" of being a videogamer and that of simply drawing breath as a member of some other group. Playing videogames is unrelated unless one tries to present it as an achievement.

[@treborkroy5280]

@@Malt454 you dont see any value in playing videogames, okay but we're not structuring society and how we navigate society based on what video gamers are saying and doing, but we ARE with woke ide tity politics so I have no idea why you're even discussing videogames.

[@Malt454]

@@treborkroy5280 - There might well be some personal "use" in playing video games; I'm just pointing out that it's no more an achievement than being "woke", "antiwoke" or belonging to some other social media clique. You think that identity politics is the problem while I think that the problem is more fundamental than that: social media has enabled people to simply believe that whatever they think is true because, through social media, they can now far more readily find others willing to agree with them - it's a switchboard to connect mutually supporting fantasies including those who believe in "wokeness", benign fascism, a flat earth and thinking that playing video games is an achievement. I'm not saying that all of these things are of equal concern to society, only that they largely enabled through the same media.

[@randygault4564]

It's also strange for Sam not to mention elevatorgate, which took down organized atheism about a decade ago, in one of the first notable public manifestations of woke cancellation.

[@BassGoThump]

Women’s lingerie

[@DefinedEdits]

He’s talked about this a lot before, my guess is he tries to switch up his examples every now and then so he doesn’t bore his listeners

[@dangood8839]

This has been a very interesting conversation. I'm just going into a module on critical social psychology as part of my degree in clinical and counselling psychology, and it is the first time since studying that I've experienced a real disconnect from certain models or theories. My concerns are mainly on perceived victimhood and how the left also dole out implicit threats through their own brand of normative influence. It's fascinating that not many people have challenged the idea of a left authoritarionism, and I don't think it's as simple as saying "well, academia is predominantly leftist currently", Where's their ability for bias checking gone?

[@PlayNiceFolks]

It becomes a bias "against evil", in their minds. How could a bias against "evil" be wrong? You wouldn't see as much of that kind of mentality in other academic fields, like the hard sciences. Social stuff is way closer to the chest, so it's way harder to really give any other vastly divergent ideas the light of day.

[@dangood8839]

​@@PlayNiceFolks I'm beginning to feel this phenomena in real-time. Thanks for the comment, have a lovely day.

[@pocket83squared]

​@@PlayNiceFolks Geez, I'm pretty sure that some of that has now slid off of the soft sciences and started to grow onto the hard ones. It's sorta like an osmosis, probably because there aren't _really_ definitive lines between the disciplines. For example, a biology major still might attend an anthropology course, and the 'competencies' (like a literature course) will usually include a healthy dose of relativistic hogwash. There's plenty of room for ideological cross-contamination (although it only seems to go one-way). As a science major myself, I first noticed the slow slide away from empirical rigor taking place in a chem lab, over a decade ago: there was a pervasive 'close enough' mentality in the room that shocked me, even then. There was a total lack of precision. Many of those classmates now hold PhDs, and perhaps worse, now instruct, and thus define, what 'hard' science is to become. Let's not trust science to defend itself on its own. It's not really as hard as we think.

[@pocket83]

@@PlayNiceFolks I'm pretty sure that some of that has now slid off of the soft sciences and started to grow onto the hard ones. It's sorta like an osmosis, probably because there aren't _really_ definitive lines between the disciplines. For example, a biology major still might attend an anthropology course, and the 'competencies' (like a literature course) will usually include a healthy dose of relativistic hogwash. There's plenty of room for ideological cross-contamination (although it only seems to go one-way). As a science major myself, I first noticed the slow slide away from empirical rigor taking place in a chem lab, over a decade ago: there was a pervasive 'close enough' mentality in the room that shocked me, even then. There was a total lack of precision. Many of those classmates now hold PhDs, and perhaps worse, now instruct, and thus define, what 'hard' science is to become. Let's not trust science to defend itself on its own. It's not really as hard as we think.

[@pocket83squared]

@@PlayNiceFolks Am I blocked from commenting on this channel?

[@uncleskipsprairiejustice9367]

Mounk's discussion of intersectionality is superb. It's always been murky to me. This was most helpful. As usual, the original academic insight gets blown into something more reductionist and contradictory after it's spent time in the mouths and brains of activists.

[@Abdulja]

I really find him unsuccessful and/or superficial in his discussion. I wish Sam talked to someone else.

[@uncleskipsprairiejustice9367]

@@Abdulja Harris undoubtedly will talk to others about this. Where do you think Mounk failed?

[@Abdulja]

@@uncleskipsprairiejustice9367 on more than one occasion, the one that’s in my mind now is when Sam asks him about the difference between equity and equality. You hear him “talking” about it but not really giving a clear answer! Sam ends up answering that anyway and the moment Sam does that Mounk says something like oh yea right right. Anyway I don’t have anything against the guy but really wished Sam would have talked with someone else.

[@mikeshree3848]

Sam It would be great to have your video podcast as well during the conversation. Sometimes, expression is very helpful to connect.

[@1984isnotamanual]

The main reason i dont watch this show regularly as much i as dig it is because of that

[@kristinadutton3259]

I’m a little confused by some of what is being said. Perhaps this is simplistic, but I agree that things are getting a bit cuckoo on the left when one suddenly hears that classical music is inherently racist, and that white people only created one type of music, while black and brown are responsible for creating all other genres. I have heard this said many times in the last few years, and it is a very strange statement/argument! But, another cuckoo reality that exists at the same time, and points to how slippery our views can be- women are not considered equal in our constitution. The argument on the right being that women would suffer because of lack of alimony payment and being eligible for draft - as though those issues couldn’t be taken into consideration, and what is highlighted by that argument is odd in and of itself. My point is, there are blatantly cuckoo arguments on both sides around this and I think there is always a stronger reaction by either “opposing side”when statements become more severe, but that seems like a natural process in rebalancing. Individually, when we move toward change, there is often a snapping back. The mind pulls us back and resists the change, so often plunging oneself into something head first can be helpful, and other times incremental steps can be helpful. It seems we are doing both of these things collectively. Push and pull, forward then back, evolving then questioning, etc.

[@brianmeen2158]

Women are coddled in America

[@dmitryspivak4586]

I'm just glad that I did physics both in undergrad and grad where these ideas even now are seeping in slowly.

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

Absolutely superb discussion and elegant understanding of these problems!

[@tablab165]

I think the problem with boiling everything down to power is that, at rest, human beings don’t relate to the world based on power. I’m mostly just passively breathing, balancing, processing what I’m looking at and listening to, etc. I don’t put on or trumpet Greek Americanness every second. Identity rarely comes into the equation, and usually only when someone is going out of his or her way to exert power over me. Nit picking micro aggressions, honest cultural differences, or power that person appears to have earned through good works does little good, and likely makes life worse for both sides - but especially for the reactionary.

[@CyanCooper]

How is it that Sam-a man who prides himself on making logical arguments-will go so hard on this topic armed only with anecdotes?

[@Edo9River]

This is so true, politics is the distortion which needs to be established outside of politics

[@randygault4564]

It seems odd not to mention James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose who initially described woke and traced its origins.

[@andywilliams8540]

i think Lindsay would argue that cultural Marxism is still an apt description. Yascha didn't mention the history of critical theory or the Frankfurt school who were all confused Marxists and who described the west as pathological. he'd also argue that CRT is explicitly designed to raise racial consciousness to expedite the social revolution the same way Marx wanted to raise class consciousness for similar ends.

[@explrr22]

Don't remember to be details, but Lindsay and Pluckrose have had somewhat of a falling out since early work... I believe somewhat over Lindsay's more extended assertive claims, sympathies and accusations. I personally find some of Lindsay's stuff a reach... But I also have found some of the critiques of woke/identitarianism from the left noticeably biased. I think leaving out mention of Frankfurt School concepts and thinkers, and particularly original Critical Theory peculiar, and potentially strategic. Foucault's postmodernism does have connection but it's also a much easier target. And I thought Susan Neiman's including Carl Schmidt as an origin, more tangential than significant. Her inclusion of social biology/evolutionary psychology as an origin seemed even weaker. In the soup of intellectual ideas and proposed strategies put forward, some are going to be more convenient to adopt in part than others, depending on the whatever new project or concepts being pursued. That doesn't make the newer project part of the original or the original responsible for newer... What these assorted narrative tellers are asserting and the genealogy they include is being influenced by their sympathies and antipathies and those of their target audience.

[@jodgee2374]

​@@andywilliams8540Wokeness is the direct result of Supreme Court decisions that shaped civil rights law. Read Hanania's book.

[@joeberg3317]

I think Lindsay went a bit off the deep end on various other issues, and they have meaningful disagreements, but honestly yeah it does feel like a lot of overlap in the intellectual origins discussion. I suppose that's not too surprising, but "Cynical Theories" was released at a time when this more of a niche (as opposed to a wide conservative market opening up in the Biden era in particular, which I think Lindsay leaned into).

[@joeberg3317]

@@explrr22 Good comment. Yeah, I think a lot of the more mainstream-respectable (I don't say that disdainfully, to be clear) type of anti-woke journalists always had a hesitancy about identifying the intellectual origins, thinking it was something Chris Rufo dreamed up. But the substance is there.

[@VTLille]

I disagree somewhat with pinpointing Foucault as the central point of genesis when it comes to identity politics. His “archeological” approach to theory and meta narratives is another incarnation of Critical Theory picking apart Traditional Theory. The basis was already there in Adorno and Horkheimer’s “Dialektik der Aufklärung.” And Marcuse had a huge influence on the rise of the New Left in the US. If you read the Cambahee River Collective Statement, for example, the neo Marxist roots are clear, as well as the roots of identity politics. Strategic essentialism. Also, Marcuse clearly saw what are now referred to as “minoritized” and “racialized” communities as a new revolutionary class. To play down the influence of the Frankfurt School theorists on today’s Left is a mistake in my opinion.

[@dickmcwienersonIII]

You read way more than i i'll have to take your word on that

[@jaakkopitkanen7734]

Foucault quite famouslt didn't take influence from german critical theory and was quite unaware of it. What kind of elements of critical race theory do you find in Adornos and Horkheimers Dialectics of the Enlightment? I think the point is, that despite similar ideas and name, "critical race theory" was more akin to the postmodernist tradition, then to the original critical theory of the Frankfurt School.

[@VTLille]

@@jaakkopitkanen7734 hi, Derrick Bell’s cynical rejection of Enlightenment liberalism and universalism together with his view of the Civil Rights movement as a mere example of “interest convergence” is the backbone of critical race theory. And this skepticism of Enlightenment ideals was the theme of Dialektik der Aufklarung. Adorno and Horkheimer argue that the barbarism of the 20th century and the new, more absolute forms of domination that appear in post industrial capitalism are the result of Enlightenment rationality and its subsumption of the particular under the universal. The liberal value of universalism is seen as domination in the conceptual realm via instrumental reason. Thus, the crt concept of “strategic essentialism” must be used to fight against the subsumption of the identities of minoritized groups. I’m sorry if I didn’t express that too well, just have a couple of minutes to spare.

[@felipesua93]

I would love to hear a conversation with Sam and Camille Paglia ❤!

[@brianmeen2158]

Paglia is amazing

[@countdebleauchamp]

Her vocal cadence and tone I find nails-on-a-chalkboard unbearable, but her ideas are certainly worth considering.

[@felipesua93]

Well Sam's pace is not particularly inspiring. I do resonate with her electric incisive utterance.

[@officialcalvinwayman]

Does anyone click on a Sam podcast to listen to the intro music? It’s so good!

[@twntwrs]

Yes, It's the best sound in Sam's echo chamber.

[@jaykay6387]

It's kind of hysterically "doomy", LOL! Could be used for the intro to "Creature Features"!

[@twokidsmovies]

Love the podcasts!

[@bthomson]

Wow! That subject list! Just hearing THAT made me need a nap! ( But also felt like a whole college education!! 👩‍🎓)

[@leighalaughlin4056]

Sam I used to hate you for what you were saying. Now I realize you were right all along. Thank you for your courage

[@lanamarkina6520]

And thank you for courage admitting you were wrong! I wish more people from right and left realize the real danger of this ideology.

[@alexflo761]

I think we all agree that there's a problem with what you term as "woke", mob culture, silencing practices, etc. However, Sam, part of the problem might also be that you hold very strong opinions with limited knowledge of these philosophical perspectives. You often reference them based solely on their most crass examples. It's reminiscent of how some intellectuals dismiss concepts from Buddhism without truly understanding them. You frequently use anecdotal evidence to support your claims, which isn't befitting your caliber. Taking inspiration from your own lessons, I'd suggest adopting a more open-minded approach. Engage with experts on these philosophical topics, not just activists who confirm your opinions or critics who echo your sentiments. I recommend having a conversation with Thomas Lemke. I believe you have a genuine desire to be better informed. Give it a chance.

[@LeAnwar1]

Yascha Mounk has written at length on his experience as growing up a stranger in his own country. His "cultural identity" as a jew in 1990's Germany left a mark on him. As does growing up Black in America (or any other marginalized group). I simply wonder how his own lived experience would be analyzed under the rubric of his latest writings. (Edited for spelling)

[@PlayNiceFolks]

Edited for spelling? Whew! I thought you edited it to employ some kind of nefarious purposes...

[@PlayNiceFolks]

So, you see a contradiction? I've never interacted with any of his work.

[@LeAnwar1]

@@PlayNiceFolks I am torn because I agree that there are instances where "the left" has gone too far but I take issue with how he and Sam both discount the intense reality of growing up a minority in the US. The feeling of being made to feel an outsider or unwelcome is something with which Mounk has specific experience.

[@apres-lachute8718]

@@LeAnwar1 It is obviously contradictory. Many Jewish people grow up with a strong in-group identiy and see themselves as separate from white gentiles and would be incensed if classified as one. Such individuals invariably ply the identity politics trade (look at the Israeli lobby among many other things) yet criticise other forms of identity politics. It is odd to say the least, if not hypocritical, a kind of identity politics for me but not for thee. I say we scrap ALL forms of identity politics.

[@DB-sd3cw]

Pretentious drivel

[@jmcsquared18]

I suspect a passerby would see the title, or even move a few minutes in, and write off Sam and his guest and rightwing nutters. This isn't culture war insanity from DeSantis. This is a sober discussion from people on the left about issues that are on the left.

[@Sanosukeafo]

It's not a very good conversation imho. A lot of vapid concepts being said with no push back and a lot of logical fallacies. At one point it seems both Sam and this nutter seem to poke fun at the idea that race is a social concept and mention that their ideological dissenters on the left will also say that race is important topic. Seemingly not understanding that this isn't even a coherent thought. It's completely a nonsequitor. One can understand that Race is largely a social construct while understanding that race and race based issues are still an important topic that plays a large role in our society, how people are treated, associated socioeconomic realities, etc. Just because something is, or could largely be, a social construct, doesn't negate it's importance as a topic or area of study.

[@pocket83]

​@@Sanosukeafo Even something that's half "social construct" will still have its other half rooted in good old-fashioned empirical reality. Visible variation, that is, phenotype, _does_ have some basis in genotype, you know. Sure, a given characteristic that seems to have a 1:1 correlation with a particular group _might_ just be cultural, but it could also be natural.

[@Sanosukeafo]

@pocket83 Yes but the issue being that race as it is used by people in society isn't based on genetics. It's based on shallow preconceived notions and broad assumptions that have no scientific basis and are often wrong. Hence why race as it's used commonly is squarely in the realm of social construct.

[@pocket83squared]

​@@Sanosukeafo That argument has a few holes. I'm white. Not only because I identify with that category culturally, but also because my line's skin has lost its color. As far as "as it's used" goes, other people determine my race with a very straight-forward test: they _look,_ and thus they see, that I am in fact white. The social construct, 'whiteness,' which is built around those notions & assumptions you mention, is incidental, and even irrelevant, to the fact. Of course, I'll let you keep on believing your point if you'll admit to thinking that vision-based race assumptions are likely to be incorrect; tell me honestly, do you think you can usually tell which race a person belongs to by looking? A dare you to say no. The social construct aspect of race is an overlay. It's a secondary, superficial characteristic. Emphasizing its significance in conversation misleads the extent of its actual empirical affect/contribution. If you give me the time, I'll further argue that the entire concept is both dangerous and unethical.

[@Sanosukeafo]

@pocket8312 It's weird how obviously wrong you are. "White" tells you basically nothing about the genetics, ancestors, etc. Are you Polish? Irish? German? Russian? Half Chinese and half a mix. Hell, even what has been considered "white" has changed countless times throughout history and times when "race" wasn't even a concept. There are countless ethnicities and generic ideas of race are often more often than not wildly wrong. Hell scientifically even at a genetic level it's not even very well defined and that already causes a lot of issues. But just "looking at a person"? That's wild assumptions and social constructs. Like I said. Sorry you're wrong on this. And why it was absurd in the podcast.

[@joeberg3317]

I absolutely will maintain my broad social liberalism and disdain for identity nonsense without going full Bret Weinstein. Yascha is the right track

[@pistolen87]

Identity politics is anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-meritocratic. The opposite of my fundamental beliefs, hence my disdain for it.

[@samdg1234]

And yet this guest actually said, "I founded a magazine in a community called Persuasion which really is trying to stand up for philosophically Liberal ideals like free speech against the threats from the right" In what universe is free speech facing a greater challenge from the right than from the left? Why did Sam not challenge him on this? The following is from Harris a few years back, "The moment you're using violence to prevent someone from speaking you are on the wrong side of the argument, by definition. How is that not obvious on the left at this moment? You're going to what, burn down your own university to prevent someone from expressing views that you could otherwise just criticize. All of these protests were seen in response to right-wing or quasi right-wing speakers being invited to college campuses by, I'm sure, the campus Republicans. These are so uncivil and unproductive. Again, this is almost entirely a phenomenon of the left. If you heard generically, that some college campus had erupted in violence because a student mob had prevented a lecture from taking place and the people who wanted to hear that lecture were spat upon as they tried to enter the hall and finally attacked, you could bet with, what, 99% confidence that this was coming from the left."

[@JRSS06]

Basically the guy James Lindsey thinks he is. Good to see someone who actually gets things right.

[@jw-ob1wv]

Haha well put. I wonder why all those intellectual dark web types became such cranks?

[@Edo9River]

Injustice is real but the conclusion that we need existing political structures is a mistake

[@Jules-Is-a-Guy]

It makes so much sense that Sam was a student of Rorty, and maybe kept some useful parts, but mostly course-corrected.

[@nineteenninetyfive]

Its the first time in quite a while i have listened to this podcast and it is good to hear we have returned to thoughtful conversation instead of political ranting.

[@SebyVarghese-v1y]

There can be a way to break bias in social media and reduce the power of people with large followers to influence opinion on social media platforms. Similar to comments section, we can add a views (viewpoints or connections or context) section - Where anyone can add any view related to the post and people can like and react to the view just like the post. Context 1/ #keyword combo : specific context to the post in limited words like in twitter Context 2 : Most important part of the context section could be checking the balance b/w different context as a percentage or in a pie chart. This distribution could tell if the discussion is biased or balanced, majorititarian view or nuanced. Multiple inferences could be drawn from the distribution of context, views, sides or connections.

[@seylomayivi]

Wow, incredibly good talk :-).

[@polinaperlman9829]

Such an interesting, and important conversation. Unfortunate the second part is behind a paywall.

[@silverskid]

Excellent conversation, and an important new book by Mounk. Thanks.

[@leobradley6222]

This is a great episode

[@chazlewis8114]

Great conversation.

[@toddharvey7089]

It seems pretty obvious to me that the more you lecture people about their "privilege" or "guilt", the less likely relations are going to improve.

[@Ton369]

This guy did a great job as the voice actor for the doctor on Team Fortress 2

[@europa_bambaataa]

These conversations get tiresome. it seems that in service of some "better holistic society goal", they're sort of forgetting that many many ethnic and cultural distinctions really exist. The fact that many many cultural and ethnic distinctions is even more obvious outside the US. But people in conversations like this one which Mounk & Sam are having.... they've hypnotized themselves away from this reality

[@Taurex]

holy crap that was quite the list of topics 😄

[@superdonyoungy7743]

I'm so sick of hearing about white privilege

[@jodgee2374]

Sam Harris needs to read The Origins of Woke by Richard Hanania to actually understand how we got here.

[@brianmeen2158]

He needs to get Hanania on his show

[@jmc5335]

Certainly not when discussing crime. His solutions are rather worrying also, but Harris isn't known for his love of human rights so I'm sure they'd have a rare old time

[@jodgee2374]

@@jmc5335 His solution is just to overturn Griggs and repeal the 1992 CRA.

[@jmc5335]

@@jodgee2374 Why?

[@jodgee2374]

@@jmc5335 It teaches how to solve the problem.

[@metalhead375]

Sam, I love you man. I listen to all your talks. I wish the world wasn’t so fucking wack right now. I’d love to hear your thoughts on things such as quantum computer worm holes or this new law regarding quantum complexity that Lenny Susskind is unveiling.

[@copperbeckville1853]

The world is so whack? Name the exact year and location when it wasn't. World has never been better at large.

[@SnowBalling]

​@@copperbeckville1853Obviously this will depend on how you want to measure it, but alot of the insane culture problems were having now started around 2014.

[@Sanosukeafo]

​@SnowBalling Meh, I think it's clear that a lot of the idiotic cultural nonsense that has rotted the modern era started with the Reagan / Ayn Rand worship / Milton Friedman / Jerry Falwell era of the late 60s early 70s and maybe compounded a bit on 9/11/01. 2014 is insignificant in comparison.

[@Sanosukeafo]

Uh, there's a lot of nonsequitors being pushed here and Sam is just sitting back not saying anything or nodding along. Race/concepts of race can absolutely be a social construct and at the same time it could be important to understand how comprehending Racial issues is important for navigating our society. This interview seems lazy. Like words are being said that "sound smart" but a just hollow rambling with zero push back lol. It's almost as if Sam is just inviting people on to just say things he wants to hear. Lazy.

[@Gary_oldmans_left_nut]

Have u ever bothered to listen to sans critics?

[@luismaldonado5836]

Very interesting. I don’t agree with everything but I appreciate an informed, scholarly, and eloquent discussion about this topic.

[@mmjcmusic]

What you don't agree? None of them stated personal opinions lol. It was basically a literature review on the main theories being taught and what's factually happening in the west.

[@LS-xs7sg]

Racial “identity politics” could surely be explained by people’s natural evolutionary inclination to show loyalty to people who share more of their genes. Couples with increased diversity, liberal universal moral assumptions and social media echo chambers you were bound to get a more tribalistic society.

[@Muonium1]

I've noticed the comment sections of this podcast, on whatever site they appear, have over the past year become very increasingly hagiographic and absurdly genuflecting, to the point that most of them are literally indistinguishable from bots. I can hardly be the first person to notice this.

[@Abdulja]

Bruh, calm down.

[@Muonium1]

@@Abdulja who isn't calm here? Stop being hyperbolic.

[@countdebleauchamp]

And the ones that criticize Sam are equally reactionary and predictable.

[@newearthlivingithaca]

2 year mandatory civil or military service would go a long ways towards eliminating racial barriers and discrimination. Achieving what he calls Inter group contact

[@Edo9River]

No no one has to speak for anyone. You just need to make communities that assure the safety and respect for a multiple of identity and to share these as temporary or materialistic constructs that don’t hold up with the Founders of the world religions

[@tellmelullabies5552]

A lot of extreme cases that the guest talks about but it doesn’t give any details for the rest to check. For example, the progressive school that segregate students by race, in what school was that. Does anybody knows? I’m sure that there are extreme cases but if you throw a couple of examples you better be more specific otherwise it sounds like the cat litter box at a school all over again.

[@whatsthatnoise5955]

Over and over in this episode. What was Sam's problem with Derida? Guess we'll never know. What arguments did that woman give to suggest that science is sexist? Probably doesn't matter. Nothing is substantiated, nothing supported with examples let alone evidence. But yeah, Sam's out here making sense in a senseless world I guess.

[@beemo9]

He said it was in Oakland, so google "racially segregated playdate in Oakland" and you'll find it. Oakland also gives cash payments to poor blacks but not poor whites (Oakland Resilient Families Guaranteed Income program)

[@elmoblatch9787]

Sam Harris relentlessly makes sense. He is the indispensable intellectual of our time. I hope he exercises and eats his vegetables (not just the mushrooms which I suppose are quasi vegetables).

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Not everyone agrees with you, sorry.

[@vvvvxxxx9999]

We will see how you are capable of maintaining your composure.

[@Crugroth]

This is the earliest I’ve ever caught your cast. I think I’m 5

[@maxprize829]

Welcome back Sam!

[@whatsthatnoise5955]

36:30 "Race is nothing but a social construct and yet we still have this assertion of essentialism with respect to identity around race." I can help with this one. That's not a contradiction because while it's true that race is not a biological reality it is a social and most importantly a legal reality which has impacted people in very real ways for millenia. That's why it is possible to deny the existence of race whilst at the same time claiming it as a defining part of one's identity.

[@howard5992]

@@futuredeadguy3485 Gingers are a race ?

[@whatsthatnoise5955]

​@@futuredeadguy3485that's not how biology works but thanks for playing!

[@vvvvxxxx9999]

You can have this place. I give it to you. You deserve it.

[@psychologyprofessor]

Please Sam I am desperate. Please talk to Eric Weinstein and post it unedited. I am starving for the truth and I think this would satiate me. Please sir. 😢

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Just stick with Eric Weinstein, and you will get the truth.

[@steven2183]

The litany of topics read like a list of symptoms for modern depression...

[@satan6548]

Who is here while the Republicans are debating?

[@cgroom23]

Who is here just to see comments about how Sam is a fraud? He used to be Indy/punk+truth, but now he's a political propagandist for the left.

[@Edo9River]

Identity isn’t necessarily corrupting , it ISS in. Opposition of a straw man called “ universalism “.

[@atwarwithdust]

12:02 "Teachers at many of the most elite private schools throughout the country, coming to classrooms in the first or second grade, and separating children out by their racial identities." Can someone link to some evidence for this claim, please?... Was only able to find a NY Post article about 7th and 8th graders at the Lower Manhattan Community School - which isn't 1st and 2nd graders and is just one school, not "many of the most elite private schools throughout the country." Contrast this with actual legislation passed in Southern states to forbid the teaching of the 1619 Project, for example, or banning Critical Race Theory, even at the collegiate level. Why do I have to wade through right-wing clickbait to find the examples Yascha Mounk cites, while the opposite concern - that the teaching about slavery and segregation is getting censored - is a matter of public policy?

[@robby3467]

I don't see why he should have to name-drop schools. He mentioned it for sake of discussion. And what "right-wing clickbait" are you referring to? I didn't notice any.

[@atwarwithdust]

@@robby3467 Wasn't asking for name-dropping specific schools, was just asking for evidence for Mounk's claim that separation by race is a common classroom exercise in elite private schools, because all I could find was a single example, mostly reported on by explicitly right-wing media, and it dealt with middle-schoolers, not 1st and 2nd graders. Fine to mention hypotheticals for the sake of discussion; Mounk made a claim relating to objective conditions in the external world. Where's the evidence?

[@arklowrockz]

I would have thought Marcuse, Horkheimer and Adorno would have warranted some sort of mention here?

[@lawrencefrost9063]

Could you tell me the episode Sam talks with Holy Monk for the first time?

[@jlllx]

put out the full episodes

[@emerraldx]

you can get a free subscription or ask a friend with one to share an episode of interest with you

[@dandybufo9664]

you can get a free subscription for financial hardship

[@Edo9River]

What is the difference between justifying separate classes for males and females, as compared to segregation ?

[@BassGoThump]

Like at all boys/all girls schools?

[@Edo9River]

I am distressed at the avoidance of the world religions' Divine texts. The identity of gender, as a social marker of some kind is the problem.@@BassGoThump

[@vtecsti]

Boys and girls are different in many ways. They learn different. They are built different. Race is just pigment. Segregation by race benefits no one.

[@everythingsawesome]

Sam's great. Case closed.

[@sunkillsmoon]

Bret Weinstein is at least 3x more intelligent , interesting and cool in every way

[@gammagongetya8967]

​@@sunkillsmoonfacts

[@PetraKann]

The man who got the entire Pandemic response WRONG and demonised those advocating and defending their basic human rights is now pretending to be an identity politics expert. The gall of this man has no bounds it seems

[@diewahrheituberfakten4800]

Gotta love when Mounck talks about this theory on how to diminish prejudice and the best example he comes up with is a diverse sports team, with a common goal as the glue that holds different people together. Life is no game, politics is no game! The ever more diverse interests of a ever more (racially) diverse society fuel conflict and result in the opposite of what he is describing. I mean the USa is the best example, you have a large population of blacks that mostly live their 'black culture', only a small portion of them manages to live assimilated by white culture (guess which ones are the more successful bunch). Most of them don't want to live like whites (most probably wouldn't manage to anyway), same as most whites don't want to live like blacks. Its bizarre that people make up whole theories how it is just about the skin-colour and racism, to elude themselves from the much more fundamental differences between the races.

[@spankduncan1114]

It's been my observation that the vast majority of people want the same thing. Food, shelter and security being the top three. Cooperative relationships aids each of us in gaining those three essentials. You mention white and black culture and leave out all the others. Cultural traits are superficial compared to human traits. Identity politics divides and ignores our human commonality. You sound like a white guy who thinks you and your group is better because you're white. That's just silly.

[@diewahrheituberfakten4800]

​@@spankduncan1114 but you would probably agree that staying alive is the goal of every animal (every organism) on earth. It is therefore too common to be considered special. How one lives is much more important and I already mentioned how the races differ greatly in that regard. I was only giving an example, like an extreme case of difference. And you say culture is superficial. No, of course it is not. Apparently you don't appreciate culture or in this case European culture. And culture is nothing that can be easily adopted by foreigners (assimilation is a long process whose success depends on many factors, including not to have too many foreigners of the same origin in a country) only small percentages of foreigners will adopt a foreign culture eventually (most likely only really after a few generations). Maybe you disagree? As I said, merely wanting to have enough food isn't a trait that I would associate with great civilisations or great finesse, it is more of the opposite. Greatness isn't comfort, isn't the warm home, greatness is fighting for much higher goals than to be fed like an animal on a farm. There simply are no other great civilisations other than those of whites - it is a historical fact. One could argue the Asians had/have great civilisations, but to be honest they have a slavish mentality when it comes to living life (it might not be a bad thing for them, but for Europeans it is not a good trait). Just look at culture, science, medicine, music, militaristic prowess, just to name some aspects. There is no doubt about this, apart from some white people wanting to feel bad about themselves and their ancestors.

[@spankduncan1114]

@diewahrheituberfakten4800 The cultural and scientific advances made by white people have nothing to do with being melanin deprived. Except for the fact that migrating north from Africa 40,000 years ago caused their skin over the eons to become lighter. That's just a coincidence. Geography, resources, changes of habitat, and moving on from superstitious beliefs have had a greater effect on cultural progress than melanin ever could. Yes, the "enlightenment" started in Europe amongst light skinned people. Do you really think the lack of melanin made them superior, or was it their circumstances that caused them to find new ways of thinking? Cultural progress is a slow process. Bigotry from any quarter makes it slower still. If you consider any civilisation "great", white or otherwise, I'd say your bar needs to be raised. To date, I'd give every population, as a group, no more than a participation trophy.

[@diewahrheituberfakten4800]

@@spankduncan1114 I think you don't understand. Race isn't just skincolour, but much more. Melanin or the lack of it isn't responsible for the major differences. You would be a fool to believe that! If white people were just the same as blacks and would only differ in skincolour, we would be living in mud huts just like they did, before any white or arabic people came their way. And I have to agree, I think people in my country probably had a higher level of civilisation 100 years ago. Just because time moves on, doesn't mean there is endless progress to be seen. Just like ancient Rome had a higher degree of civilisation than many places on earth have today.

[@juanReflex37]

Excelente Sam Harris, máster 🙏

[@seanfaherty]

You want to get rid of identity politics try a ranked ballot. It encourages centrist parties, rather than Proportional Representation which encourages extremists pushing policy in a coalition as in Israel or Italy. We can see the the beginnings of it already in the European Parliament. The First past the post system encourages Bipartisanship .

[@chrissermoon4156]

Very good conversation. I do have one objection though to what was noted in the beginning. As far as I understand it, critical race theory is build on the framework of original critical theory. And original critical theory is explicitly marxist, and puts far more emphasis on culture than on how materialist production works. Now I agree that people like Foucault and Derrida and the whole post-structuralist tradition probably has more influence on the movement, but to completely reject that some neo-marxist theory - in the form of critical theory fx. - has quite a bit of influence, is simply wrong. To that point the term cultural hegemony, which is one of the favorite terms of woke academia, originates with the Italian neo-marxist Antonio Gramsci, who - to once again draw a line to the idea of "cultual marxism" - saw culture as the first main battleground, that marxists had to win.

[@sorsocksfake]

While a great explanation, I do think he may be a bit too focused on the approximate cause, rather than the underlying ones. Ideas aren't merely invented, they evolve in an environment. Here I do think the term 'Marxism' or 'socialism' does add a bit, specifically in explaining why these things are viewed as an identitarian struggle (women v men, black v white, etc). The oppressor-oppressed dynamic is classical, including how it's used to justify the most abhorrent actions the "oppressed" can imagine doing. And these movements are highly collectivist. It's not about a crime being done to one black man, it's a crime against all black people. By the same token, any amount of crimes against black people can be safely ignored, as long as they're not deemed crimes against black people. I think postmodernism, thereby, is used (and I'm pretty sure that too is classical) by these identitarian-socialists, not as genuine thought. They drop it the moment it's not convenient. Proper postmodernism is a great intellectual exercise to poke holes in anything (thereby also yourself). Thinkers can use it to teach themselves to doubt and know their ignorance. UN-thinkers instead use it as a way to dismiss opposing views, and then utterly switch it off regarding their own views. Which, arguably, is the very reverse of the exercise. Anyone can think critically of someone else's views... not so much of your own. So come the pieces together. Forming an identity-based collective (Marxism failed because 'worker' is not an identity people carry). Having some outside group to hate, and to blame for everything that goes wrong. Thereby also an excuse to unleash our desires for hate and violence. Once people give in to that, they're also much less likely to leave the group (having to admit they ruined lives wrongly). Having a readymade excuse to dismiss any criticism. All of this still failed dismally in the post-war west, since the formula only works when you get a majority. The race version (basically nazism of another coat) works in most of the world, but white people really don't wanna go there. The sexual one never works because no intelligent man or women wants a war of the sexes. We're kinda dependent. Gays (in the regular sense) just wanted to be left alone to their thing, not be forced to parade in public, which is the opposite of equality or liberty. And so forth. So while half the world can just do the racial version, in the West it can only work by tying all those groups together, and then hoping you can brainwash enough numbers. Transgenderism however may be a brilliant play. By allowing people to swap categories, and in the very process claim to be in the oppressed group, now the majority has a way to join up. All it takes is breaking their brains into being willing to sign.

[@maxheadrom3088]

Identity Politics is political advertisement. Do you know who was the first to apply modern advertisement techniques to politics? One clue: he was German.

[@tomnanD3]

Mark Marin is not wrong.

[@brianmeen2158]

Maron was completely off about the Trayvon Martin case and the Ferguson case though

[@np7416]

@samharris Is there a link between Mounks Identity Synthesis and The Identity Politics described in the Witch Trials of JK Rowling episode 3, Tumblr?

[@fotoviano]

it's not that complicated guys I can believe all day long that race is a social construct and that racial identity shouldn't exit or at least we shouldn't obssess over it or define themselves that way but if Fred, as a Black persoh, is less likely to get a job than an equality qualified White person, then that identity exists for all (practical) intents and purposes Fred may not want to be separated because of race (in a separate part of a classroom or separate neighborhood) I or Fred or Sam Harris or Yascha Mounk may not want to consider him separately/differently, but what f'ing difference does that make? The relevant parts (hiring managers, loan officers, police) regard him as different (consciously or not) and, more importantly, treat him accordingly So if we or Fred ignore the identity politics, we ignore the reality in which he lives. Simple as. And that seems to me to be what Gayatri Spivak was referring to. If Fred is going to be enslaved (or be more likely to be incarcerated) because of his race (albeit that it is race as perceived by other members of society), he has to function accordingly, so he has to be highly conscious and aware of his race as a more extreme but not exaggerated case, he has to give his sons "the talk" (about how to behave when pulled over by police) should he ignore his awareness of their race? that would make them more likely to end up dead or seriously injured. I suppose there would be some darwinian benefit So is that "essential" enough for you?

[@toby9999]

I think what you're referring to will most likely always exist. The issue in my opinion is around solutions and whether or not there is a solution. The first thing to realise is that there will always be inequality. That's just how nature works. No way around it. That's the reality we're born into. We're not clones. Humans are hugely diverse. And right there is one of the issues that the woke movement stumbles on. The idea that everything is a social construct overlayed onto a blank canvas. Wrong. Completely wrong. Start talking about IQ and notice the backlash. What are we to do about differences? That's where the woke movement goes completely off the rails. Make everything about power is another one. There's a lot I could say, but this a KZbin and much is already covered in the discussion. But bottom line: the woke solutions are divisive toxic and irrational.

[@jmc5335]

​@@toby9999Imagine calling Nassim Taleb woke 😂

[@laralebeu36]

The identity synthesis is a manifestation of Spiral Dynamics Stage Green values.

[@PlayNiceFolks]

Gaaaaaayyyyyy

[@Longestspring]

Just watched the pod with Russell Brand. Could you elaborate on you point where you say “jihadi bombing are evil, whiles our bombing are righteous”

[@NewQuinnProductions]

For those who have read both books, is Mounk's just a rehash of Cynical Theories by Lindsay and Pluckrose? Based on this podcast it sounds like a lot of the same ground would be covered.

[@monkerud2108]

oh the difference.. there is politics all the way down, vs, it is politics all the way down.

[@moreausylvain]

hate these Ai thumbnails everywhere now..

[@hvalenti]

Making Sense (according to your worldview) podcast: you know that thing you're really tired of? -- let's dig deeper.

[@kingspud1983]

Wow, this was a great conversation

[@jaredcrandall9145]

I mean this with all sincerity to understand: aren't the Jewish people commiting identity politics for thousands of years? How is what they do different?

[@ricodelavega4511]

unless you can prove that not a single indigenous person is still alive, no colonial-settler country should ever be called a "Western country" (New Zealand, USA, Canada, Australia)

[@toby9999]

That's just stupid. No one in New Zealand is indigenous - the Māori were boat people who likely only arrived a few centuries before the Europeans. New Zealand was until recently times mostly inhabited by birds. And the number of indigenous Australians is a tiny proportion, something like 3%. But more broadly, it's just semantics. They're labels. Referring to said countries as Western, better describes them in ways that matter geopolitically in our time. For instance, the majority of Australians have European ancestry (i.e. Western) and the majority of New Zealanders have European ancestry (i.e. Western).

[@scottbandeen7670]

Whenever I'm told I won't be hearing the whole episode I exit the podcast.

[@stevenlee1448]

you can listen to them all for free on his website

[@emerraldx]

your loss 🤷‍♀️

[@Jules-Is-a-Guy]

It's specifically Postmodern Marxism, too bad Sam and James Lindsay probably don't get along well enough to be on the same podcast, and dig deep into this thang.

[@darkarchonisme]

Postmodern Marxism is not a real thing. It's a label applied that doesn't make any sense.

[@justin_5631]

Already that issue with hiring the black women when black men and women were already hired separately. To make a special category for the black women specifically is too far. You're starting to grind the categories too fine and there's no clear place to ever end it. You'll never get everything perfectly fair for everyone.

[@zachmorgan6982]

Strategic essentialism is a scary orwellian concept. A blatant contradiction yet synthesised in a devius way that is, at the end of the day, being wielded for mostly rhetorical and power purposes

[@damonwolf120]

A philosopher's response to this discussion: "If I were to sum this conversation up in one word, it would be 'oversimplified'. Harris and Mounk grossly oversimplify the thinkers that they criticize, to the point of intellectual vandalism. It's especially ironic that Harris in particular savagely criticizes thinkers for doing bad philosophy, when he clearly hasn't read those thinkers. I can't really comment on things like Critical Race Theory, Crenshaw, Spivak or Said, since I haven't studied them closely enough, but Harris certainly feels qualified to attack them even though he clearly knows less about them than me. As for the thinkers that I have studied closely that they mention, Foucault and to a lesser extent Derrida, it's immediately clear that Harris has no interests in giving them a fair reading - I already knew what he view would be the moment he uttered 'postmodernism', which is the quintessential straw man. For this reason I think it's fair to describe Harris as a charlatan. I give Mounk more credit, as he's spent more time engaging with his targets, but he is clearly the kind of academic who likes to reduce a thinker down to a simple bite-size caricature. It's also quite transparent that his method is a kind of retrospective anachronism: he wants to explain a certain phenomenon in the present, which he already has a strong moral opinion about, so he goes searching for its origins, which means that his views of past thinkers are unsurprisingly myopic, interpreting them through the lens of where he seeks to end up. It's also quite obvious that he's not a philosopher - if he was to try and defend those interpretations in front of a room of philosophers who specialize in the thinkers he's attacking, they would laugh at his interpretation - and bear in mind these experts by no means agree on things between themselves, but there is a difference between serious experts disagreeing over legitimate interpretations and charlatans who cherry-pick and misquote because it's quicker and easier, and makes for a better story. It's a shame the Deleuze reference was so fleeting - I'd bet my house that neither of them know anything about Deleuze, which again says a lot given that his work is hugely important for understanding the phenomenon of identity politics!"

[@cmecre8629]

brainpower may be the culprit of most social problems & there isn't a viable solution not enough money/will/interest in educating all nor will most agree on curriculum. there's no solution.

[@Edo9River]

What is the difference between Bell and Malcolm X?