Mmm, the best part! Watching cherub-faced liberal dupes then vomit out defenses of free-speech in response (oh so enlightened, oh so sophisticated), while playing right into the hands of those happy to watch them safeguard their dirty work. And you don't even have to pay them. They'll do it out of the sanctity their own rightous good-guy soooo-not-mainstream convictions. An unpaid force of mercenary enablers. It's a maddeningly effective cycle. — StreetlightX

Absolutely! As demonstrated by David Frum and Hilary Clinton. If we liberals don't do the fascism then the fascists will do the fascism!

Thankfully we Americans can read article after article on how influential political commentators are getting heat for saying dumb things about rape, or transpeople, or "invading muslims" in serialized form on a national publication. This is way more vital than stories about Americans struggling to pay for healthcare, or 40+ year depressed wages, economic inequality or stories about high school students who survived a shooting (we have a fresh batch of survivors from just yesterday!), climate change, how reproductive rights are being scaled back and how that has been effecting women. No. Please give us more articles on Camille Paglia.

Roger Scruton is not a racist, this is a return of the negative left as described in Terry Eagleton about the topic he really got the sack for.... the C word.... Culture in doing so he destroys the pet project of nobody academics to try and make 2019 like something nostalgic from the 60's only it won't be the Californian Summer of 1969 but the revolutionary France in May 1968.

Roger Scruton was a reasonable proponent of a traditional conservatism that is the very antithesis of this project and one that is appealing to many in a project of humanism, aesthetics, uplifting history a Transcendence in principle. I am not a Roger Scruton fan, per say but I do admit his ideas have some kind of appeal. How would the self described wokeful, but truly woeful for their entire game is to see whom can cry more over human suffering to derive a sense of authenticity. How could they the woeful allow Roger Scruton to lecture proverbially or literally right next door.

It is more surprising that this kind of shit is still a surprise as Roger Scruton is just another great man taken for a ride by Orwellian Speech Codes and Academic Tribunal... Roger Scruton is the 2019 winner of the Tim Hunt award.

If you took five seconds to Google it, you would see that articles about the Yale Halloween costume controversy were published in The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The New York Review of Books, Time Magazine, Slate, etc.. — Maw

???And the Washington Post, NPR, CBS... what on Earth is your point?

That a minor concern affecting no more than 6,000 students was discussed numerous times in a variety of well-respected publications demonstrates how absurdly perverted The Discourse is. — Maw

Well, absurd events simply do make it to the papers. Just as the Evergreen nonsense did. People do think that universities are important. Hence something happening at like Ivy League Yale does break the news barrier unlike some Mid-Western community college might not. And these kind of incidents people do find absurd. It's not the most important issue of course, but we're at page 14 in a thread about Sir Roger getting sacked from some committee.

And any sane person would understand that the issue doesn't affect the 6,000 of who the vast majority don't care much about these kinds of nonsensical issues, but focus on their studies that will be a big help in their promising future careers. The issue would effect more the professors involved.

you demonstrably have severe reading difficulties and prefer to resort to crass 'both siderism' in lieu of anything beyond a nine-year-old level of intelligence. Thanks to this enlightened centrism ideology your brain keeps churning out, like a rusting meat grinder, you seem to be utterly unable to comprehend that there is a big distinction between — Maw

seem to be utterly unable to comprehend that there is a big distinction between ...billionaires that give money to libertarian and conservative political causes and the ones that give their money to liberal and leftist political causes.

Yes, how dare I even mention in my naivety this kind of 'both siderism'.

I think Shapiro was the youngest ever syndicated columnist, and he's been a political pundit for over a decade (he's written 10 books since age 17). Strictly speaking, publishers will only publish if they think they stand to make money, and Brietbart hired him because of his notoriety (where political alignment is a pre-requisite) — VagabondSpectre

Yes. So none of this relates to his "hard work" at all. It's an aside, but it riles me this reference to "hard work" to imply some virtue to the top of any heirachy. I don't doubt for a minute that Shapiro works hard. It's a prerequisite for what he does. Putting your running shoes on is a prerequisite for running the hundred metres, that doesn't mean that the winner won because they put their running shoes on, they all did that. Loads of wannabe pundits work hard. The question is why, out of the pool of pundits all working hard, did Shapiro rise to fame. The answer to that, I'm claiming, is that his ideas were controversial enough to commodities, and supportive enough of industry to attract funding. Not because lots of people were persuaded by he logic of his arguments.

I just find it strange that you view Shapiro as a hero of corporate interest when most of what he says has very little to do with policies affecting corporate profits (he deals in petty moralizing mostly). I'm much more worried about the Zuckerbergs, the Musks, the Besos, the Dorseys, the Cooks, and the rest, who have the gall to pretend that we can trust them or that they're looking out for our interests; that if given the choice between profits and the right thing, they'll do the right thing. — VagabondSpectre

Yes OK, it's not obvious and would take a significant amount of explaining, some of which fdrake has already done. I'll give you the very potted version. Corporations rely for their profits on selling us 'stuff'; but we don't need any more 'stuff', no one in their right mind actually wants a plastic watering can that plays God Save the Queen every time your plants need watering (or whatever other throw-away crap they're selling). So what's to be done? You have to turn the consumer base into exactly the kind of un-thinking moron who would. Shapiro, Facebook, the 'green movement'...are all just part of that scheme.

Its not tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theory though. I don't think anyone is pulling the strings, it's just the natural consequence of everyone doing their jobs.

somehow we've got to confront the persuasive elements of his rhetoric directly. Force and censorship simply won't work against him (it energizes his existing base), so really the only option is to beat him at his own game. — VagabondSpectre

I actually think this is where we differ (as I agree Shapiro's influence is minor). I don't think there are any persuasive element to his rhetoric. His "game" is to act as a rallying post for the sorts of vaguely right-wing positions he espouses and he does this exactly by lending them faux-intellectual rigour. It's this method that I feel so strongly about preventing. Neither you nor I will ever be invited to speak at Berkeley, yet I've no doubt either of us would be able to dismantle Shapiro's reasoning relatively easily.

It's this tendency for fame to justify a platform to speak that I'm opposed to, and debating with him doesn't solve that problem because the moment you debate, you've accepted his right to a place at the table. A right denied to you and I. The implication then, is that he has something more worthy of listening to than you or I do. Now, no matter what happens at the debate, the damage has been done. His ideas have been lent at least the legitimacy to be allowed a place at the table.

If we really did have an open platform where everyone had an equal opportunity to be heard, then I would not be in favour of denying access to that platform in any way, but we don't. We have platforms like universities and newspapers where barriers are purportedly in place to prevent certain people from speaking (namely those without any reason to think their contribution might be useful, usually academic qualification). So allowing someone in to these places already says something about their ideas, before the debate is even had.

the other issue with the force approach (I'm starting to sound like a broken record) is that it will just engender the use of force by the other side. In other words, it escalates our conflict — VagabondSpectre

I think I understand what you're saying here up to the point of escalation. If the "other side" really are just waiting for "our side" to set the rules of the game (still not sure why they would be, but going with it for now), then surely barricading a lecture theatre would only lead to barricading lecture theatres. Escalation requires that the "other side" respond, not in kind, but over and above, which implies they're not really watching us to establish the "rules of the game" at all.

You're still drawing an arbitrary line at physical force that I don't see your reasoning for. Let's say all responses can be given a number from one to ten representing the 'intensity' and the aim is not to get to 10. Say, for the sake of argument, physically blocking a lecture theatre is a 6. Staging a sit-in, or being verbally disruptive a 4, and just disputing his arguments rationally a 2. I can only see two possible scenarios...

1. The other side only ever responds exactly in kind - in this case, as long as your physical response stays below 10, so will theirs.

2. The other side have a tendency to respond higher than your last action - in this case they're going to move to a 6 (first physical response) in response to your 5. So 5's must be avoided. And we end up with a hangman's paradox.

I think this holds true for hardened figures within the alt right who care more about growing their following than they do about being right (Richard Spencer is a primary example of this; I don't think he believes a word of what he says, it's just his meal/fame ticket), but the people that they recruit are persuaded by the specific rhetoric. If we can't sway alt-right leaders, at least we can sway their followers (and we really ought to try). — VagabondSpectre

I definitely agree with this. If someone actually demonstrates good faith, they deserve responses in good faith. This is a benefit of a long form discussion forum like this one, we can weed out crap and get better at slinging crap laced with pearls.

I view the alt-right-at-large as less of a marketing mastermind, and more as a lucky opportunist. Elements within the broad Left do have some significant ideological issues, and they make for more fodder and fuel than Shapiro and his ilk could ever exhaust. — VagabondSpectre

Absolutely, inconsistencies and holes in the left are there. Whining hypocrites and wounded masculinity make a nice little niche for public figures to exploit. Specifically talking about the radical left (conscript reporting), an absence of a popular emancipatory left project in politics; buttressed by our narrow minded focus on systemic critique; is definitely fuel for this, even after all the stupid simplifications and reactionary noise have been filtered out. We generally focus on broad things without the rhetorical flourish to make sweeping statements catch on - though there are some ok examples here. The Jacobin magazine definitely tries for style points, even though it's addressed to 'the crowd' which find the Communist Manifesto an inspiring document already... Chapo Trap House and Left youtube (Contrapoints, PhilosophyTube, Hbomberguy, Shaun and InnuendoStudios to name the major figures) are addressing this hole and, by the looks of it, actually having a positive effect through their excellent mockery and long form, funny, video essays respectively.

Figures in the left are generally too vulnerable to controversy, so when it comes to the alt-right in particular there's almost never any direct exchange. People like Shapiro who are considered alt-right-adjacent are indeed getting exorbitant exposure, but I don't think they could sustain it unless they were somehow appealing to a large number of people (especially the digitized youth). Given the current strength of appealing to identity (and given the current demographics of America), it's not at all surprising to me that the left is losing its broad appeal compared to Shapiro the rebel.

Identity's a hot topic, really the beating heart of our political discourse, and how we think of ideological allegiance along identity lines has to change when we're talking about contemporary discourse. From the algorithms and faultlines of power, we end up in a position where correlated clusters of ideas matter more than robust inferential systems of coherent beliefs. These correlated clusters do not necessarily reflect real world political projects that would be beneficial to the identity groups and help them stymie the unjust power differentials they inhabit. Consider, a rapper like Lowkey or Immortal Technique is more likely to inspire political conscience in someone than the plans of a seasoned economic tactician like Varifoukas.

But that systems of ideas become correlative rather than inferential is actually a response to the globalisation of political discourse, and its centralising focus on American and European power. Our local politics come to have the same limitations every other local suffers from, and the ambiguity inherent in whether isolated responses can address any large scale political problem renders the specifics uncertain, but the broad themes and broad issues are readily apparent. In this condition, organising in terms of form rather than content is required; political schemas for global issues are approximately independent of any local action but are completely determined by the joint aggregate. So we're in a position that requires the analysis of global issues with global responses; climate change, the decline of the sovereign power of the nation state in response to the growth of influence of international industry and finance. Talk, here, aggregates and stereotypes, it reduces discussion of the specifics to the discussion of the specifics of dominant powers (a point that @ssu's expressed frustration with several times). We need to accept this as the political reality of discourse insofar as it is global, but nevertheless try to organise locally in ways that contribute to addressing the global problems we all face.

For me, the important question is not really how to rehabilitate discourse, but how to use its shifted form to correlate action internationally so we can address the global problems we face. This requires broad correspondence between communities irrespective of national lines; the brutality the global south faces when it tries to organise should be resisted in the home of the companies that brutality benefits as well as at the scene of our daily humanitarian disasters. Social media could let us do that.

We might look to thinkers like Garvey or Bordiga for inspiration.

Big mistake to assume that Richard Spencer doesn't believe in what he says. What is that even based on?

I don't deny that he believes in what he says. What I'm trying to say is that how his message propagates isn't really to do with its truth, it's to do with aesthetic appeal and a comforting narrative. If someone's going to deny the Holocaust, for example, you can't do much to shift their denial through reasoned argument most of the time; and how people come to believe it is not through reasoned argument using reliable sources.

Chapo Trap House and Left youtube (Contrapoints, PhilosophyTube, Hbomberguy, Shaun and InnuendoStudios to name the major figures) are addressing this hole and, by the looks of it, actually having a positive effect through their excellent mockery and long form, funny, video essays respectively. — fdrake

You-tube seems like the perfect microcosm of the broader political scene. Those obscure Youtube pundits actually seem to get more play than almost anything else, and a lot of times they do a very good job of it. Youtube is home to pundits of all persuasions, and following clashes and interactions between them can actually be quite revealing about the broader real-time political spectrum. Given that Youtube is 99% grass-roots, issues tend to appear there before they get picked up or mowed down by the mainstream. In that sense, social media like Youtube does seem to have some merit, but at the same time unless you know how to cross the boundaries of Youtube's sub-networks it can be just as much of an echo chamber as anywhere else.

For me, the important question is not really how to rehabilitate discourse, but how to use its shifted form to correlate action internationally so we can address the global problems we face. This requires broad correspondence between communities irrespective of national lines; the brutality the global south faces when it tries to organise should be resisted in the home of the companies that brutality benefits as well as at the scene of our daily humanitarian disasters. Social media could let us do that. — fdrake

I think I get what you mean. You would have us use the cognitive exploits that social media makes available to overcome our creeping existential threats. But how can we wield the dark magic of social media without being influenced and manipulated by corporate psychopathy?

This is, I think, a necessary part of a winning strategy, but it's missing something. The left and the right are already in maximum pander mode, and there's not much more either side could do to improve their optics (except maybe learning how to persuade the other side instead of offending them). At this point, the more we pander to one side, the more we offend the other. I would say the solution is to pander to both sides, but that inherently doesn't work (hence, sides). The only things that can really bridge this kind of divide are facts and reason which can't be easily ignored or misunderstood. I realize how naive that sounds, as if "facts" have hold any sway these days, but if you present the right facts in the right way they are still effective tools. As idiotic as we tend to behave in groups, individuals are almost always smarter than we give them credit for, which is where cold hard facts and well supported arguments are absolutely vital.

Being able to successfully organize and take action against our globalized disasters is made more and more difficult by petty polarization that distracts and entrenches us, so we should be putting some limits in how much we're willing to favor form over content if too much direct emphasis on form leads to greater polarization. The alt-right is primarily a symptom of our susceptibility to form over rational function, so in the sense that such aesthetic appeals have become normalized as rational merit, I do think our discourse needs rehabilitation.

If someone's going to deny the Holocaust, for example, you can't do much to shift their denial through reasoned argument most of the time; and how people come to believe it is not through reasoned argument using reliable sources. — fdrake

You're absolutely right, but they do come to believe it through a series of cognitive steps which if, are well understood, can be effectively challenged and undermined. It's true that to actually dissuade a holocaust denier, a "white ethno-nationalist", or someone who propagates a conspiracy theory alleging global "Jewish control of all media, militaries, and finances", that we're going to have to pull the right emotional strings (where solid evidence alone won't do much), but form and emotion alone almost never get the job done (and can be reversed with a change of mood). Actually dissuading these types in practice is nearly impossible without a thorough grasp of their platform, its supporting beliefs, and their underlying emotions (along with a wide range of material that is included among their many and often fallacious appeals). It simply can't be done without meeting them on a level they can actually understand and relate to, and it often can only happen between individuals (there are very few open debates about such topics because they are so uncouth, but they do happen). It's a very messy affair, and other than maybe wising up as they age, it's the only way to actually dispossess them of their delusions. Shapiro's ideas, which are less dangerous, better formed, but just as polarizing and irritating, require the same robust and personal redress if we're to pull his followers closer to the middle.

The three specific delusional positions I mentioned share many common roots, the deepest of which are fear and paranoia. The alt-right-at-large is a mostly flat, unsophisticated, and horizontal political structure comprised of a mix of specific and often unrelated ideas and beliefs, but all of them incite fear. If our focus on form is constantly spun as anti-white rhetoric which feeds their fear and paranoia then we should adapt our approach accordingly. If we refuse to address their positions and pursue censorship, they see it as yet more validation for their delusions. We can't sweep them under the rug, because that's where they matured in the first place, so the only solution that I see is pulling them out into the open and dealing with them directly. Their views are alien to our own, and utterly reprehensible, but they're also a part of us (many of them yet children), so we really ought to try. Even if having such debates publicly would offend the majority of us, it's the only way to truly sanitize the problematic political minority.

P.S, sorry if my response misses the mark slightly. Our discussion is so broad and similar to my parallel discussion with @Isaac that I'm starting to misplace some details with reference to previously made points.

Big mistake to assume that Richard Spencer doesn't believe in what he says. What is that even based on? — Maw

I've listened to everything Spencer has to say, and it turned out that he just reads crowds (live-stream chat-rooms mostly) in order to maximize his number of cheers and subsequent donations. I've heard him say, and then have to recant, the most absolutely ridiculous shit because he was just reflecting the mass lunacy of the live-chat attached to the event. He may hold run-of-the-mill conservative views or typical far-right views, but his current career and business model is entirely based around maximizing the donations he gets through inlets like Youtube "super-chats" (a built in donation function), PayPal, cryptocurrency, Patreon, Hate-reon (now defunct), StreamLabs, merchandise sales, sales for his white-nationalist publishing house, and any other source of monetization that he still has access to. In short, he is a human crowdfunding algorithm catering to a niche and gullible market segment for the sake of maximizing his personal wealth.

Demonstrating his own intellectual dishonesty is actually a great way to undermine the influence he has over his followers, and even if he doesn't believe many of the things he says, the things he says still need to be debunked and rebuked (because his followers DO believe it). What makes it a mistake?

Yes. So none of this relates to his "hard work" at all. It's an aside, but it riles me this reference to "hard work" to imply some virtue to the top of any heirachy. — Isaac

I italicized "hard work" in to imply ambiguity. I'm not trying to rally behind him, I'm just describing the fact that he is skilled (and dedicated) at what he does, which is why I think he rose through the ranks compared to others (and of course, there are niche institutions that have supported him along the way, but they don't endow him with his persuasive power).

The question is why, out of the pool of pundits all working hard, did Shapiro rise to fame. The answer to that, I'm claiming, is that his ideas were controversial enough to commodities, and supportive enough of industry to attract funding. Not because lots of people were persuaded by he logic of his arguments. — Isaac

Look at the Youtube videos featuring his "take-downs" of "the libtards". Look at the view numbers, the ratings, and the comments. It's not just his corporate-given ubiquity that makes him successful...

Corporations rely for their profits on selling us 'stuff'; but we don't need any more 'stuff', no one in their right mind actually wants a plastic watering can that plays God Save the Queen every time your plants need watering (or whatever other throw-away crap they're selling). So what's to be done? You have to turn the consumer base into exactly the kind of un-thinking moron who would. Shapiro, Facebook, the 'green movement'...are all just part of that scheme.

Its not tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theory though. I don't think anyone is pulling the strings, it's just the natural consequence of everyone doing their jobs. — Isaac

I believe that Shapiro and "god-save-the-Queen" paraphernalia are symptoms of a broader trend, not the disease itself. They may do something to reinforce the trend, but ultimately us plebeians are still to blame. Our nature makes us vulnerable to fear-based group think (and gives us an emotional need for a protector), and our technological dice-rolling has given us more powerful group-think-tools than we've ever had to contend with in the history of our species. We knew there would be unknown risks, and our apparent inability to use social media responsibly and rationally is evidently one of them. Corporations are trying to adapt to change and scale just like the rest of us, we just need to make sure they don't take the whole store in the contemporary shake-up (because given their inexorable motives, we should trust them less than anyone).

But I still-hold out a lot of hope that grass-roots initiatives still mean something (even if that is very little compared to corporate will), and I think the interests of the people can still recapture influence. Present times might be a bit of a hiccup, but the grass is also more fertile than ever as a result.

I actually think this is where we differ (as I agree Shapiro's influence is minor). I don't think there are any persuasive element to his rhetoric. His "game" is to act as a rallying post for the sorts of vaguely right-wing positions he espouses and he does this exactly by lending them faux-intellectual rigour. It's this method that I feel so strongly about preventing. Neither you nor I will ever be invited to speak at Berkeley, yet I've no doubt either of us would be able to dismantle Shapiro's reasoning relatively easily — Isaac

Generally we hope that what's persuasive to us is also truthful, and much of what Shapiro says is a good example of how things can be persuasive but ultimately untruthful or inaccurate. It begs direct redress.

s this tendency for fame to justify a platform to speak that I'm opposed to, and debating with him doesn't solve that problem because the moment you debate, you've accepted his right to a place at the table. A right denied to you and I. — Isaac

Specifically (if memory serves), and I think this might be a very important point, Shapiro was invited by a conservative student union, not the University itself. He wasn't arbitrarily given platform by a respected institution, paying members of that institution rented a physical platform within it and offered it to him. If Berkeley was playing political favorites, they might simply be boycotted as a thoroughly partisan University (and students who are politically opposed to it would know not to apply and pay to attend).

1. The other side only ever responds exactly in kind - in this case, as long as your physical response stays below 10, so will theirs.

2. The other side have a tendency to respond higher than your last action - in this case they're going to move to a 6 (first physical response) in response to your 5. So 5's must be avoided. And we end up with a hangman's paradox. — Isaac

The way we respond isn't exactly linear in this respect. Certain kinds of perceived threats can invoke different flight or fight responses in different situations, but when flight is not an apparent option, the greater the perceived threat, the more likely people are to escalate a conflict to a higher level. There's seemingly no escape from the woes of modern political controversy in the contemporary world, and dissatisfaction with political outcomes on both sides are driving everyone to extremes. We can try to game-theory out the appropriate amount of force to use, but ultimately, since the less force, the more room there is for reason and reasonable persuasion, I think the ideal approach is to ourselves minimize our use of force, and to minimize the ways in which the other side can declare us a threat to themselves, which is (same as us) what drives their own use of force.

I don't deny that he believes in what he says. What I'm trying to say is that how his message propagates isn't really to do with its truth, it's to do with aesthetic appeal and a comforting narrative. If someone's going to deny the Holocaust, for example, you can't do much to shift their denial through reasoned argument most of the time; and how people come to believe it is not through reasoned argument using reliable sources. — fdrake

But the seductiveness of white supremacy is precisely through its "aesthetic appeal" or a "comforting narrative", i.e., there is a racial hierarchy and whites are at the top, and if a (typically young) white person is struggling economically (which of course many are), it is arguably more comforting to blame that downward social mobility towards Blacks, or Jews, or Immigrants, etc. than on yourself, or on this abstract notion of Capitalism that many people are frankly unfamiliar with, so it's unsurprising that that's the lens through which Spencer articulates the veracity of white supremacy while at the clear expense of actual reliable science or reasoned arguments, or what have you.

I've listened to everything Spencer has to say, and it turned out that he just reads crowds (live-stream chat-rooms mostly) in order to maximize his number of cheers and subsequent donations. I've heard him say, and then have to recant, the most absolutely ridiculous shit because he was just reflecting the mass lunacy of the live-chat attached to the event. He may hold run-of-the-mill conservative views or typical far-right views, but his current career and business model is entirely based around maximizing the donations he gets through inlets like Youtube "super-chats" (a built in donation function), PayPal, cryptocurrency, Patreon, Hate-reon (now defunct), StreamLabs, merchandise sales, sales for his white-nationalist publishing house, and any other source of monetization that he still has access to. In short, he is a human crowdfunding algorithm catering to a niche and gullible market segment for the sake of maximizing his personal wealth.

Demonstrating his own intellectual dishonesty is actually a great way to undermine the influence he has over his followers, and even if he doesn't believe many of the things he says, the things he says still need to be debunked and rebuked (because his followers DO believe it). What makes it a mistake? — VagabondSpectre

But this is no different than saying that demonstrating over and over how Trump is a liar, a shit business man, or a hypocrite etc. is a great way to undermine the influence he has over his followers. It's demonstrably untrue. I also don't see why being a white supremacist means you can't simultaneous grift. I mean people like Richard Spencer still want to make a living and if you can squeeze money out of people who would gladly give it to you, you probably would. And it goes without saying that Hitler was masterful at reading and then manipulating crowds while also believing in what he was saying.

But this is no different than saying that demonstrating over and over how Trump is a liar, a shit business man, or a hypocrite etc. is a great way to undermine the influence he has over his followers. It's demonstrably untrue — Maw

Trump is a bit of a unique case because he is impossibly low brow, and outright name-calling is the game he excels at. And to be sure, Spencer does have racist and supremacist beliefs, but he is willing to say anything that will help him get attention.

Look at the Youtube videos featuring his "take-downs" of "the libtards". Look at the view numbers, the ratings, and the comments. It's not just his corporate-given ubiquity that makes him successful... — VagabondSpectre

All of which suggests a direct correlation to the sort of politics involved. What's inviting is a take down of these (supposedly) wrong and inaccurate ideas of the left/liberals. This would not seem to be merely "aesthetic" bringing in viewers, but be drawing on a present desire amongst viewers to see the left/liberal understanding of society and its problems taken down.-- i.e. it's part of the white supremacist positions or sympathies already present in our culture.

I actually think this is where we differ (as I agree Shapiro's influence is minor). I don't think there are any persuasive element to his rhetoric. His "game" is to act as a rallying post for the sorts of vaguely right-wing positions he espouses and he does this exactly by lending them faux-intellectual rigour. It's this method that I feel so strongly about preventing. Neither you nor I will ever be invited to speak at Berkeley, yet I've no doubt either of us would be able to dismantle Shapiro's reasoning relatively easily. — Isaac

This is where marketing comes in, have a look at Ben Shapiro's Channel... "Ben Shapiro Destroy" these kinds of "ask him a question..." so that he can take it down BS are the videos that get millions of views, he is more famous for telling Pierce Morgan that he stood on the graves of the children of Sandyhook than he is affirming anything specific and concrete.

As sad as it is you would probably get more inroads into writing a little peanut gallery "top ten reasons why ben Shapiro is wrong" about everything or going along to one of his live events and accusing him of being the Right's pet Jew...

Then take him to task about Israel and Palestine, get him to define how voting for Trump is voting for a free-market with tariffs, increased subsidies, etc

It isn't about being right or having a substantive point it is a marketing ploy and a niche. I do think some of his arguments though are more polished than given credit for, his movement particularly in abortion politics where he literally gave a live podcast on typical arguments and refutation... He is, in essence, sharpening the claws of his side of the debates reasoning.

In particular, his framing of the biological aspect of it outside of religious premises has been something alot of people have found compelling.

But the seductiveness of white supremacy is precisely through its "aesthetic appeal" or a "comforting narrative", i.e., there is a racial hierarchy and whites are at the top, and if a (typically young) white person is struggling economically (which of course many are), it is arguably more comforting to blame that downward social mobility towards Blacks, or Jews, or Immigrants, etc. than on yourself, or on this abstract notion of Capitalism that many people are frankly unfamiliar with, so it's unsurprising that that's the lens through which Spencer articulates the veracity of white supremacy while at the clear expense of actual reliable science or reasoned arguments, or what have you. — Maw

It's definitely a feature of his worldview, not a bug. If the reasons for people turning right were evidence based we'd be in a lot more trouble. You are right that responding to the extreme right is a lot more about minimising their message through actions other than argument; at least in public spaces where argument does not transmit well.

I'm just describing the fact that he is skilled (and dedicated) at what he does, which is why I think he rose through the ranks compared to others — VagabondSpectre

What's missing from your argument here is the mechanism by which this happens. Are you suggesting that there's some system in place which ensures everyone skilled at what they do rises through the ranks? If so, I'd be interested in what this is, if not, then we can agree that some people skilled at what they do rise through the ranks, whilst others equally skilled do not. If this is the case, then the reason Shapiro rose (as opposed to others skilled at what they do) needs to be something else.

Look at the view numbers, the ratings, and the comments. It's not just his corporate-given ubiquity that makes him successful... — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, I'm not necessarily talking about corporate-given fame. I'm talking about the very general notion of taking the arguments of pundits seriously (debating them, allowing them platforms in academic institutions), purely because they are famous. Whether that fame is corporate sponsored, or by plebiscite, is irrelevant. The point is we do not simply debate ideas on merit. If you were to counter Shapiro's arguments right now, no matter how good your argument is, it will only ever be heard by the four people who might read it here. If one of those people (by some bizzare means) happened to be Shapiro, his counter would be heard by millions. And none of this disparity is because he is more knowledgable, well-educated, better informed than you. It's because his ideas are more popular than yours.

So, it goes back to my "seat at the table" metaphor. Not everyone is going to get one. It would be a good thing for society if seats at the table were distributed on merit, but one cannot 'argue' that merit with them, it's not amenable to debate, so groups have to be able to say "no" to potential participants on the basis of the person, not the ideas.

Specifically (if memory serves), and I think this might be a very important point, Shapiro was invited by a conservative student union, not the University itself. He wasn't arbitrarily given platform by a respected institution, paying members of that institution rented a physical platform within it and offered it to him. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, that's my memory too, but it doesn't change the public image, and it's the public image that matters in legitimising his ideas. It's still written up as Shapiro's "talk at Berkeley" and not Shapiro's "talk at a conservatives union (which happened to be in Berkeley)". But really, that's not the only issue. The issue is also one of who 'owns' the table. Remember, if the liberal students had just turned up to the event and rebuffed his ideas, they've already lost the battle they really wanted to fight. The battle they're fighting is "you are not one of the people who deserve a place at the table". To win their battle over who gets a place, they need to prevent him from speaking, just like you and I are already prevented from speaking.

Of course, you can argue over whose 'table' it really was, and so who had a right to be part of that battle, but that's a different argument to the one supporting someone's right to try and prevent someone from speaking on a platform they feel some ownership of.

I think the ideal approach is to ourselves minimize our use of force, and to minimize the ways in which the other side can declare us a threat to themselves, which is (same as us) what drives their own use of force. — VagabondSpectre

This, I would agree with to a point. I just think things like barricading lecture theatres is sometimes the minimum amount of force required to prevent someone from abusing a platform you feel some ownership of or connection to.

If the reasons for people turning right were evidence based we'd be in a lot more trouble. — fdrake

I think that political ideologies aren't based in the end on evidence. They surely want portray themselves as evidence based, that is for sure.

All successful political movements rely on a "comforting narrative". I'd say the movements are especially successful when they twist something that was considered a sin by the Christian Church into a rightful virtue, something good. Hence with capitalism greed comes to a good thing as you aren't greedy but simply hard working, which then produces the income for the work been done. In a similar way, in socialism envy isn't bad as the whole issue isn't envy, you are just wanting equality and fairness.

What better way for an ideology to get support than turn sin into a virtue.

I think that political ideologies aren't based in the end on evidence. They surely want portray themselves as evidence based, that is for sure. — ssu

Evidence for that?

Look at any political campaign and the rhetoric used. Sure, the politician states facts, usually try to portray the positive events and trends that have happened as having been the outcome of their policies (if they have been in power). The politicians do in general give a historical viewpoint on just why they and their party should be voted in the next elections. Hence the use of facts, data and historical evidence.

But that's not all. There is also the part of simply making people feel that this is the correct party to support, that the ordinary reasonable people should vote for this party. And this is part of what Maw referred to a "comforting narrative" (if I understood Maw's point correctly that is). And naturally the other parties are vilified for being against the ordinary people and only working for special interest groups that are far from the 'ordinary people'.

But the seductiveness of white supremacy is precisely through its "aesthetic appeal" or a "comforting narrative", i.e., there is a racial hierarchy and whites are at the top, and if a (typically young) white person is struggling economically (which of course many are), it is arguably more comforting to blame that downward social mobility towards Blacks, or Jews, or Immigrants, etc. than on yourself, or on this abstract notion of Capitalism that many people are frankly unfamiliar with, so it's unsurprising that that's the lens through which Spencer articulates the veracity of white supremacy while at the clear expense of actual reliable science or reasoned arguments, or what have you. — Maw

That's exactly what I meant.

But that's not all. There is also the part of simply making people feel that this is the correct party to support, that the ordinary reasonable people should vote for this party. And this is part of what Maw referred to a "comforting narrative" (if I understood Maw's point correctly that is). And naturally the other parties are vilified for being against the ordinary people and only working for special interest groups that are far from the 'ordinary people'. — ssu

I think you're missing lots of nuance here, actually. There can be really big differences in severity and relevance of the narrative, especially the scapegoating parts, even if the structural logic is the same. Jeremy Corybn in the UK demonises Trump for being a racist corporate shill, Richard Spencer literally wants all the Jews and degenerates (including progressives and liberals) to die. If Corbyn got his way, Trump would have less power. If Spencer got his way, the biggest genocide in human history would start.

You can do the same thing for reactionary moralism; apply the same 'all wishes come true' to the worst excesses of 'Me too!', say; the world would hardly change other than people getting more awkward around consent (which might actually have its positives). If the Koch brothers' political machine gets its way, there will be no action towards climate change, reduced power for unions, more inequality, 'incidentally' racist policies that lead to lots of non-white kids in cages...

Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit about the Koch brothers, but they really do invest a lot of money to get their dirty propaganda laundered through sponsored academic precision.

I think you're missing lots of nuance here, actually. — fdrake

Yet Richard Spencer isn't mainstream and he does not portray the conservatives in the US. It's as stupid as saying that the marxist economist Richard Wolff portrays every left leaning liberal in the US. A Jeremy Corbyn (or Bernie Sanders) aren't the extreme of the left wing. Just listen to them what they actually say. Sure, you can find something if go through all of their quotes that can be portrayed as them to be extreme, but in reality either Corbyn or Sanders aren't at all extremists. (Just as one Roger Scruton isn't a dedicated Islamophobist Anti-Semite)

Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit about the Koch brothers — fdrake

Perhaps. I will repeat that they (the Koch Brothers) are exactly a similar trope for the left as Soros is for the right. Everybody hates billionaires that give money to political movements (that the people themselves oppose). It's simply a fact.

But try to understand just why the whole discourse has become in the US so vitriolic. The first reason is the political duopoly of a centrist and a right-wing party that totally dominate the whole political spectrum. It is essential for these two parties in order to dominate the whole spectrum of politics in the US to portray themselves in a bitter crucial struggle between each other. This creates a fundamentally different political environment than anywhere else.

This also makes very unique political strategies to be prevalent. One typical right wing strategy, most well seen in the strategy of the NRA, is simply to fight every inch of the way without any effort to seek a compromise. Yet this is logical in the current American political environment. It starts from the thought that there will be no compromise in the gun issue: the opposing side, the left, will not in under any circumstances be happy with any kind of consensus. Hence there will be no middle ground to be achieved in the gun control issue to be reached. The anti-gun lobby will not be pleased at some point and let it be. It is a total ban on privately owned firearms and nothing else. Hence the only logical strategy for the pro-gun lobby is fight all the way at anything all the time. So the thinking goes.

And in the end you end up with the vitriolic political environment you have today.

Yet Richard Spencer isn't mainstream and he does not portray the conservatives in the US. It's as stupid as saying that the marxist economist Richard Wolff portrays every left leaning liberal in the US. — ssu

Dude. I know that the popular right in the US aren't Nazis. What did I say that gave you the impression that I thought they were?

Dude. I know that the popular right in the US aren't Nazis. What did I say that gave you the impression that I thought they were? — fdrake

Like um.... this is a thread about Roger Scruton? Why then bring up Richard Spencer?

Oh I know the answer, it's a topic you discussed with someone else that I didn't read more carefully. My bad. :yikes:

Like um.... this is a thread about Roger Scruton? Why then bring up Richard Spencer? — ssu

This is precisely why political discourse is so impossible nowadays, all these bloody centrists exaggerating and underplaying the potential of every side! :P

I guess that was a compliment of some kind, fdrake.

Eh, sort of. I enjoy playing the ironic distancing game about political discourse too. Though I do it while pretending to be a leftist. Sometimes I hope if I say enough left things I'll actually have a political identity.

Though I do it while pretending to be a leftist. — fdrake

Hannover will be disappointed. At least Maw and Bitter Crank among others are genuine leftists...hopefully!

I mean Jesus, what will be a Philosophy Forum without genuine differences in the political ideology of the active members?

Hell with those algorithm driven echo-chambers we have now!

@ssu consider actually reading the book on the Koch Brothers that I recommended instead of just blithely waving aside accusations on how they propagate their political and economic ideology. I will note that the author of the book Jane Mayer, wrote about how George Soros spent millions on the 2004 election. But I'm fairly tired of how you consider your clear ignorance on the subject matter as equivocal to my engagement with it.

What's missing from your argument here is the mechanism by which this happens. Are you suggesting that there's some system in place which ensures everyone skilled at what they do rises through the ranks? If so, I'd be interested in what this is, if not, then we can agree that some people skilled at what they do rise through the ranks, whilst others equally skilled do not. If this is the case, then the reason Shapiro rose (as opposed to others skilled at what they do) needs to be something else. — Isaac

Can't our society be even a teensy bit merit based? What if there is more than one reason for the rise of Shapiro, and among are his quick thinking and rhetorical skills?

This is an aside that doesn't count for a whole lot in our discussion, but it's not a black and white situation; it's complicated.

I'm talking about the very general notion of taking the arguments of pundits seriously (debating them, allowing them platforms in academic institutions), purely because they are famous. — Isaac

But which came first, the famous chicken or the famous egg?

The point is we do not simply debate ideas on merit. If you were to counter Shapiro's arguments right now, no matter how good your argument is, it will only ever be heard by the four people who might read it here. If one of those people (by some bizzare means) happened to be Shapiro, his counter would be heard by millions. And none of this disparity is because he is more knowledgable, well-educated, better informed than you. It's because his ideas are more popular than yours. — Isaac

If I attended a Shapiro event and get in line to ask him a question, my question would be heard by his millions of followers, as would his response. If my question challenges the merit of his political views, then he's going to have to debate their merit.

Even though I'm not entitled to Shapiro's followers, I'm still able to support pundits of my own, including a few that are willing to debate him (such as Sam Harris).

Yes, democracy is mostly a popularity contest, but should we lose, we ought not up-end the entire system; we should try to be more popular.

So, it goes back to my "seat at the table" metaphor. Not everyone is going to get one. It would be a good thing for society if seats at the table were distributed on merit, but one cannot 'argue' that merit with them, it's not amenable to debate, so groups have to be able to say "no" to potential participants on the basis of the person, not the ideas. — Isaac

You're not entitled to any seats at any tables, neither am I, and neither is Shapiro. We're all entitled to scream loudly in the wilderness, passionately on a soap box, financially through political donation, and discretely through our votes. Shapiro happens to have many seats at many tables, and we can ask ourselves why we don't have those same seats, or we could choose our own informal representative, and through mutual support, put them in a seat at one of those tables (that's what Shapiro's followers did).

Yes, that's my memory too, but it doesn't change the public image, and it's the public image that matters in legitimising his ideas. — Isaac

How can we justify the ethical right to decide for other citizens which political ideas are O.K or not O.K to legitimize?

Democracy is supposed to be about everyone being entitled to their opinions and their input (through the aforementioned rights, not privileges such as an invitation to speak on a campus), so aren't you kind of throwing democracy out the window by assuming that your own ideas and beliefs are the final and correct politics (or that Shapiro's conservatism should be verboten)?

It's still written up as Shapiro's "talk at Berkeley" and not Shapiro's "talk at a conservatives union (which happened to be in Berkeley)". But really, that's not the only issue. The issue is also one of who 'owns' the table. Remember, if the liberal students had just turned up to the event and rebuffed his ideas, they've already lost the battle they really wanted to fight. The battle they're fighting is "you are not one of the people who deserve a place at the table". To win their battle over who gets a place, they need to prevent him from speaking, just like you and I are already prevented from speaking. — Isaac

So the issue isn't just that we need to seize the property of our political enemies (because they use it to spread propaganda), it's also that we need to have them banished from the political arena and revoke their right to a political opinion?

This is how they would respond, and allowing that rebuke to go unaddressed helps to validate their caricatures of the left. If the liberal students turned up to rebuff his ideas (rather than disrupt, shut-down, silence, intimidate, and ignore) then they would not have given him the attention that has propelled him to his current level of fame, and they might have even dissuaded a few of his followers....

And of course, entering into a debate with him also means hearing his ideas, which apparently are too harmful to be heard (we run the risk of being persuaded by him!). But if his ideas aren't actually good ideas, or if our ideas are better, what the heck are we afraid of?

someone's right to try and prevent someone from speaking on a platform — Isaac

"The right to try and prevent someone from speaking". I missed that one in civics class...

someone's right to try and prevent someone from speaking on a platform they feel some ownership of. — Isaac

There's really no feelings involved in property ownership, except maybe in some edge dispute cases (like squatters rights and such). Berkeley owned the venue (IIRC) and they legally rented it to the conservative student union. Trespassing without permission with the intention of disrupting a private event may result in both criminal and civil suits (criminal for the crimes, civil to sue for damages resulting from torts).

Do the students own Berkeley?

This, I would agree with to a point. I just think things like barricading lecture theatres is sometimes the minimum amount of force required to prevent someone from abusing a platform you feel some ownership of or connection to. — Isaac

I can't express just how complacent I find this position to be. From feelings to force is the story of all mankind; it encapsulates all human behavior. But in the modern world, we've created relatively sophisticated systems (moral, ethical, political, legal, rational, scientific, empirical, metaphysical, theological, secular, etc, etc, etc...) that help us navigate safely and consistently from feelings to force. We have laws protecting individual rights (such as property rights) because if we allow ourselves to act fast and loosely according to our felt connections, we're not guaranteed to behave any better than an angry mob, and we just wind up creating more problems for ourselves and everyone else. If student groups really did start to claim ownership of their universities, then many of them would promptly go out of business and liquidate their assets, because if they aren't allowed to control their own property, then they have no way of controlling their own financial and physical security.

For some reason many people here seem to think that a bit of force against right wing pundits is a callback to the American civil-rights movements of the 60's (it's not; the 60's civil rights movements were marked by dignity, not rebellious violence). In my view, it's a callback to Russia, circa 1905. Dissatisfaction with the capital-having bourgeois elites was Lenin et al.'s call to arms, and as much as I want to see economic reform and wealth redistribution, Shapiro and Berkeley have little and nothing to do with it.

As I said before, I urge you to seek reform before revolution, if only because we might not survive the latter.