There’s a story from last year about Israel and Palestine, sort of, that you probably haven’t heard of. And that’s strange; it’s exactly the kind of culture war red meat that people loved to click on. The problem is that the people who would do the culture warring, the “heterodox,” the “dissidents,” the “Intellectual Dark Web,” they sat this one out. Because the one orthodoxy they’ll never break is the one that says you don’t side with the enemy. Which is, of course, the only orthodoxy that’s really worth breaking.
"“A plate made me feel vulnerable, harassed and victimized” is everything these people say they’re against. For the smarter and more principled ones, this is exactly the culture of performative vulnerability you’re always complaining about, a result of the death of resilience as a communal value that (I agree) has hurt a lot of young people. "
TL:DR 2024 Western culture prizes victim status and valorizes victim status, and as such, various groups demand victim status on any pretext and even compete for big prizes to be The Biggest Victim Of Them All.
And of course, being able to demand something so petty as the removal of crockery that offends and to have that demand met is an expression of power.
"You may think that there doesn’t appear to be anything remotely confrontational about those places, but you can’t tell why they’re so wicked by looking at them; they become offensive only when you know that they were painted by Palestinian children, children from Gaza."
I thought it was pretty funny when Jonathan Chait argued that Bari Weiss is recreating neoconservatism.
The biggest issue for Republicans right now in my small city is that the school board voted to have Columbus Day and Veteran's Day as school days. State law dictates that their must be programming to acknowledge these holidays in-school in this case. Scores of old Republican men are speaking out about how "offended" they are and how this decision was "divisive" and not "inclusive". I don't know if they think this is a clever way to turn progressive language around on their political enemies, or if they actually are offended and hurt by kids being in school on Columbus Day.
I’ve often been guided by the idea that you can tell a society’s fault lines by the subjects that are impossible to rationally examine or discuss. For the US, for example, it’s always been gun control. For Canada, it’s Indigenous rights. For the western world, apparently it’s Palestine.
"One plate showed the Dome of the Rock, a site in Jerusalem of religious significance to Muslims and Jews, with a Palestinian flag. Another, featuring the Palestinian fishing industry, was accompanied by a text referring to the shoreline of Palestine running from Gaza’s border with Egypt to Israel’s border with Lebanon. Since 1948, most of the shoreline has been in the state of Israel."
"Even if every last Palestinian was actively homophobic, it would not in any sense suggest that gay people cannot or should not support the Palestinian liberation effort, as one thing has nothing to do with the other. "
Unless they actually have to live there after the liberation is complete.
In terms of the chess issue the theory that I've heard bandied about is that aggression is essential for playing chess at the higher levels. It's why younger men are ranked higher than older masters and why the best women players aren't ranked anywhere near the best men.
Blairism was the greatest victory of Thatcherism, in that Thatcher's embrace of the market was so total her opposition party assumed it. If the new GOP that emerges post-Trump supports gay marriage, legal weed, and abortion that would mark a victory for the cultural left (if it does in fact happen this way. Abortion is popular but still illegal in many states and the current GOP still has much leadership pushing a national ban).
However, for many on the right the victory of free markets proved hollow, as it came with a decline in the religion, family, patriotism that they valued. Similarly, many of the left may see a victory of individual liberties as hollow, and realize these individual liberties are good, but don't mean as much without economic security.
Best piece you've written in a while. This is where Marxist scholars and thinkers have become important for me, on racism, the Reeds, the Field sisters, Cedric Johnson etc, on Israel/Palestine folks like Daniel Randall, Ben Burgis and Ralph Leonard-they are able to criticize the excesses of liberalism, academia, and social justice culture while maintaining and developing democratic, universalist progressive Left positions to struggle for.
Freddie, I think you should just be you. Your long paragraph citing your lefty bonafides means jack shit to me. It isn't like you have a strong desire to belong to some sort of in-group, is it? Trying to fit in with another group is just not your thing. I think it is lonely being as smart as you are sometimes.
We agree on only a few things, but I found you to be someone who can express lefty ideas intelligently, so I keep my subscription going so I can better understand our national dialogue.
Our recent public discourse is founded upon dismissing an argument if it isn't made by the Right Kind of Person. This goes both ways.
Thanks, Freddie. You've given me a lot to think about. I've consumed less and less anti-woke content over the past two years because, well, it's gotten kinda boring. I haven't read Quillette or listened to Joe Rogan in several years. The vibe has shifted.
As cringe as I still find elite liberal culture, and as unpleasant as woke mobbing and shaming is, I'm probably even more disturbed by how people have reacted to it by falling down the Dave Rubin/Tim Pool rabbit hole.
Social Justice culture does bear some of the blame for alienating so many people, but at the same time, people are responsible for the decisions they make.
I hadn't heard of the "Gaza plates" controversy until now. But when I clicked onto the Guardian article, I saw that you weren't representing the objection fairly. The objection definitely was not the mere fact that the plates were made by children from Gaza, as you misleadingly imply. According to the Guardian, the objection was that some of the plates, and the accompanying commentary (which was presumably not by the children themselves) apparently made contentious political statements. I quote:
"One plate showed the Dome of the Rock, a site in Jerusalem of religious significance to Muslims and Jews, with a Palestinian flag. Another, featuring the Palestinian fishing industry, was accompanied by a text referring to the shoreline of Palestine running from Gaza’s border with Egypt to Israel’s border with Lebanon. Since 1948, most of the shoreline has been in the state of Israel."
And the pro-Zionist organization which campaigned for its removal said explicitly (according to the Guardian): "We asked for the artwork to be removed because of the propaganda, not because it was by children from Gaza".
You can still say - and I would agree with you! - that even so the exhibition should not have been taken down; you can also say - and I would agree with you here too - that some (not all) of the "anti-woke" are very unpleasantly selective in their anti-wokeness, and if they were consistent they would have mocked the taking down of this exhibition in the way that they mock conceding to sensitivities in other directions. Even if some of the exhibition was one-sidedly political, people really should be able to cope with seeing political art which they don't happen to agree with, and in other contexts the "anti-woke" would see that clearly.
But telling the real story makes it clearer that the hypocrisy goes in both directions: because it is fairly clear (I think) that if (to use your analogy) a Black student group objected to a set of plates made by white children, NOT because the makers were white, but because some of the plates and the accompanying commentary included (e.g.) support for a contentious political program like Blue Lives Matter, then most "social justice" liberals would support the Black objectors, and be very happy to see the exhibition removed. The problem is that "social justice" liberals typically do not see Jews as a minority whose sensitivities deserve to same consideration as is given to Blacks or Hispanics or Asians. If they did, then probably the "Gaza plates" exhibition would not have taken the form it did in the first place, just like we can't realistically imagine a hospital putting up a set of plates with commentary supporting Blue Lives Matter.
The only consistent people are those (like you, I think!!) who would argue that the exhibition should be maintained in both cases. Sadly, they are rarer than they should be.
"“A plate made me feel vulnerable, harassed and victimized” is everything these people say they’re against. For the smarter and more principled ones, this is exactly the culture of performative vulnerability you’re always complaining about, a result of the death of resilience as a communal value that (I agree) has hurt a lot of young people. "
TL:DR 2024 Western culture prizes victim status and valorizes victim status, and as such, various groups demand victim status on any pretext and even compete for big prizes to be The Biggest Victim Of Them All.
And of course, being able to demand something so petty as the removal of crockery that offends and to have that demand met is an expression of power.
Quick typo note:
"You may think that there doesn’t appear to be anything remotely confrontational about those places, but you can’t tell why they’re so wicked by looking at them; they become offensive only when you know that they were painted by Palestinian children, children from Gaza."
I presume you meant plates, not places.
I thought it was pretty funny when Jonathan Chait argued that Bari Weiss is recreating neoconservatism.
The biggest issue for Republicans right now in my small city is that the school board voted to have Columbus Day and Veteran's Day as school days. State law dictates that their must be programming to acknowledge these holidays in-school in this case. Scores of old Republican men are speaking out about how "offended" they are and how this decision was "divisive" and not "inclusive". I don't know if they think this is a clever way to turn progressive language around on their political enemies, or if they actually are offended and hurt by kids being in school on Columbus Day.
I’ve often been guided by the idea that you can tell a society’s fault lines by the subjects that are impossible to rationally examine or discuss. For the US, for example, it’s always been gun control. For Canada, it’s Indigenous rights. For the western world, apparently it’s Palestine.
"One plate showed the Dome of the Rock, a site in Jerusalem of religious significance to Muslims and Jews, with a Palestinian flag. Another, featuring the Palestinian fishing industry, was accompanied by a text referring to the shoreline of Palestine running from Gaza’s border with Egypt to Israel’s border with Lebanon. Since 1948, most of the shoreline has been in the state of Israel."
"Even if every last Palestinian was actively homophobic, it would not in any sense suggest that gay people cannot or should not support the Palestinian liberation effort, as one thing has nothing to do with the other. "
Unless they actually have to live there after the liberation is complete.
In terms of the chess issue the theory that I've heard bandied about is that aggression is essential for playing chess at the higher levels. It's why younger men are ranked higher than older masters and why the best women players aren't ranked anywhere near the best men.
In other words, testosterone.
Curious — who do you think the honest brokers are out there?
Off Topic: Freddie you may find this of interest if you haven't seen it yet.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/when-everything-is-eugenics-nothing
Blairism was the greatest victory of Thatcherism, in that Thatcher's embrace of the market was so total her opposition party assumed it. If the new GOP that emerges post-Trump supports gay marriage, legal weed, and abortion that would mark a victory for the cultural left (if it does in fact happen this way. Abortion is popular but still illegal in many states and the current GOP still has much leadership pushing a national ban).
However, for many on the right the victory of free markets proved hollow, as it came with a decline in the religion, family, patriotism that they valued. Similarly, many of the left may see a victory of individual liberties as hollow, and realize these individual liberties are good, but don't mean as much without economic security.
Best piece you've written in a while. This is where Marxist scholars and thinkers have become important for me, on racism, the Reeds, the Field sisters, Cedric Johnson etc, on Israel/Palestine folks like Daniel Randall, Ben Burgis and Ralph Leonard-they are able to criticize the excesses of liberalism, academia, and social justice culture while maintaining and developing democratic, universalist progressive Left positions to struggle for.
Freddie, I think you should just be you. Your long paragraph citing your lefty bonafides means jack shit to me. It isn't like you have a strong desire to belong to some sort of in-group, is it? Trying to fit in with another group is just not your thing. I think it is lonely being as smart as you are sometimes.
We agree on only a few things, but I found you to be someone who can express lefty ideas intelligently, so I keep my subscription going so I can better understand our national dialogue.
Our recent public discourse is founded upon dismissing an argument if it isn't made by the Right Kind of Person. This goes both ways.
Thanks, Freddie. You've given me a lot to think about. I've consumed less and less anti-woke content over the past two years because, well, it's gotten kinda boring. I haven't read Quillette or listened to Joe Rogan in several years. The vibe has shifted.
As cringe as I still find elite liberal culture, and as unpleasant as woke mobbing and shaming is, I'm probably even more disturbed by how people have reacted to it by falling down the Dave Rubin/Tim Pool rabbit hole.
Social Justice culture does bear some of the blame for alienating so many people, but at the same time, people are responsible for the decisions they make.
I hadn't heard of the "Gaza plates" controversy until now. But when I clicked onto the Guardian article, I saw that you weren't representing the objection fairly. The objection definitely was not the mere fact that the plates were made by children from Gaza, as you misleadingly imply. According to the Guardian, the objection was that some of the plates, and the accompanying commentary (which was presumably not by the children themselves) apparently made contentious political statements. I quote:
"One plate showed the Dome of the Rock, a site in Jerusalem of religious significance to Muslims and Jews, with a Palestinian flag. Another, featuring the Palestinian fishing industry, was accompanied by a text referring to the shoreline of Palestine running from Gaza’s border with Egypt to Israel’s border with Lebanon. Since 1948, most of the shoreline has been in the state of Israel."
And the pro-Zionist organization which campaigned for its removal said explicitly (according to the Guardian): "We asked for the artwork to be removed because of the propaganda, not because it was by children from Gaza".
You can still say - and I would agree with you! - that even so the exhibition should not have been taken down; you can also say - and I would agree with you here too - that some (not all) of the "anti-woke" are very unpleasantly selective in their anti-wokeness, and if they were consistent they would have mocked the taking down of this exhibition in the way that they mock conceding to sensitivities in other directions. Even if some of the exhibition was one-sidedly political, people really should be able to cope with seeing political art which they don't happen to agree with, and in other contexts the "anti-woke" would see that clearly.
But telling the real story makes it clearer that the hypocrisy goes in both directions: because it is fairly clear (I think) that if (to use your analogy) a Black student group objected to a set of plates made by white children, NOT because the makers were white, but because some of the plates and the accompanying commentary included (e.g.) support for a contentious political program like Blue Lives Matter, then most "social justice" liberals would support the Black objectors, and be very happy to see the exhibition removed. The problem is that "social justice" liberals typically do not see Jews as a minority whose sensitivities deserve to same consideration as is given to Blacks or Hispanics or Asians. If they did, then probably the "Gaza plates" exhibition would not have taken the form it did in the first place, just like we can't realistically imagine a hospital putting up a set of plates with commentary supporting Blue Lives Matter.
The only consistent people are those (like you, I think!!) who would argue that the exhibition should be maintained in both cases. Sadly, they are rarer than they should be.