Fighting Postmodernism from the Left, Helen Pluckrose & Peter Boghossian 

Helen is a treasure, I wish she was on more of these long-form shows.

Helen you are my hero. Please continue all your good work.

Comparing Nietzsche's "philosophying with a hammer" with some sjw writing mean comments on twitter, by which you feel constantly hammered, is an unfortunate equivocation.

So postmodernists don’t believe in truth except for their truth. That makes sense in an insane way. Who are these Jokers? Why are they so religiously motivated?

where can one read these texts\ programs \ positions of the SJ Postmodern ideologues ? : I assume that apart from the labelling and academic squabbling there is some foundation to their beliefs that one can dig into... and what is grievance studies ...? also, whats the relation to " critical theory" ?

And what´s the point, a return to positivist self-sufficiency? Do you disagree with the point that knowledge is always situated?

She sums up the American political awareness pretty poorly.

Helen Pluckrose is a beautiful human being. She is a very clear communicator and I have learned much from her presentations.

"An ideology mill of self-replicating dogma...the system is crippled by third-rate idealogues" - Peter Boghossian hits it out of the ball park!

Pretty telling that the gender studies "professors" refused to meet on each and every occasion they were offered. Really says all you need to know about the rigor of their intellectual arguments

Helen has interesting insights from all sides it interesting to listen to what she says

Wow, Helen gave one of the clearest descriptions of postmodernism I've ever heard in about 30 secs!

It's rather disappointing to see how the term "intersectionality" has evolved. I discovered it in a rhet/comp grad program during the mid 90's via people like Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray and Mikhail Bakhtin. At the time it appeared similar to the concept of "discourse communities", which basically held that different groups talked to each other in particular ways and that our perspectives are always shaped by how these "texts" overlap and intersect. I thought it was about finding common ground. But then, I also thought deconstruction was about transcending text in order to include more perspectives, not laying to waste one's academic rivals or dominating thought. Until we can begin to see all theory as informative, yet always incomplete and limiting, it will continue to be just another tool for winning some abstract debate. Those of us who exist outside of all this "winning" are stuck waiting for everyone else to catch up. Bonne chance mes amis.

I am a family practice physician, and I translate what I learned from Rebel Wisdom to my practice. I constantly ask myself how I know what I know when giving advice to patients. As soon as I learned that I have been giving some advice that is without foundation I let my patients know. I try to find the historical roots of lifestyle advice that physicians give. Often with further investigation I find that the advice doctors give is unfounded. By explaining to my patients what I have learned and confessing errors I become forgivable.

Great to hear from Ms. Pluckrose. There have been a number of interviews of Peter & James, but many lacked Helen. It is obvious that she was a major contributor to the work, so nice to hear her perspective on all this.... thank you!

A lot of media sounds like junior high school to me with the amount of name calling without reason to back up the name calling.

Love the content. However, as someone who cut their intellectual teeth on critical theory, I have yet to see a convincing or deeply informed steelmanning of postmodernism. As someone who has read Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard, and especially Deleuze and Guattarri, I've never made the connection, especially from the work of Deleuze, to anything that's now considered second and third wave postmodernism. I'd like to see someone give a full throated defence of critical theory debate with Helen et all.

I am a conservative Christian; and what I'm learning from your channel is so valuable to who I want to be. Thank you for helping me to move towards my goal of being present in all sides of a conversation. So much Wisdom shared in this video-thanks to all who participated.

We really need to get Helen on bigger shows.

Kudos to Helen Pluckrose. Brilliant analysis.

A flawed presupposition that the “ reasonable left” will solve this. Here’s the problem , balance is required and to analogise , the more weight placed on one side of the scale the greater counterbalance required to achieve equilibrium. The reasonable left do not “weigh enough” to counterbalance this situation out, we have had our time to act and failed to do so in significant enough numbers, as a centrist myself I seem to be on the far right of far too many people, I haven’t changed my views, the left has moved so my views no longer fit. so my conclusion is it’s going to be the societal groups disenfranchised by intersectional identity politics like MGTOW, Incel’s, ethnonationalists and populists who will be likely to play a large part in moving first the Overton window and then changing the whole narrative. Sadly this means it will inevitably go too far right, this is because our political, media class and society as a whole have not been proactive enough in seeing that the above mentioned are symptoms of an imbalance and not the reason for it. So because of basic cowardice they have chosen to first ignore, ridicule and then imprison or silence these factions and individuals, they and we have had a choice for a long time.... clothe the emperor or silence those calling out the lack of clothes...I’ve been calling it for years and it’s a lonely place at times, back up is finally arriving but it’s way late and I’m tired. We have been on the whole cowards and chosen what’s expedient rather than what’s right, despite all the signs and the required suspension of basic humanity to continue on this path of ignorance. We will now reap the whirlwind.

Helen, I was raised liberal. The second I "push back" against these radical ideologues, I get labeled as "far right wing". These folks' worlds will get smaller and smaller until they have to give up their ideology. People are catching on and I think people are going to stop being interested in what they have to say.

When I find myself in times of trouble Peter, James, and Helen come to me...🎵

illuminating these concepts couldn't be more important...rational, intelligent pushback is necessary.

University donors need to remove their support until these Universities and schools stop pushing this poor scholarship.

"I went back to university quite late" - HP. It's funny that postmodernism doesn't have the same traction amongst mature scholars as it does amongst kids that don't know their arse from their elbow. Funny that. "Give me the child for the first 5 years of his life and he will be mine forever..." - Lenin.

In this video, it was refreshing to get away from Peterson's beliefs and to see clear distinctions between postmodernism and Marxism, and to see the devolving process of recent versions of postmodernism. I would have liked to see Helen and Peter asked about the benefits of postmodernism. The big benefit of it, or potential benefit of it, is that it can snap people out of their beliefs. When it is pointed out that you are reproducing capitalist discourse, for example, it can trigger surprising objectivity regarding your normal way of thinking. It's like exiting a stream of habitual thinking that you thought was reality. It's like a Zen Satori. In relation to Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory, this better version of postmodernism is actually a step forward from Orange to Green, and we need to go through it to reach Yellow, which is objectivity about all systems of knowledge.

Love Helen. A Goddess!

As Jordan Peterson says: "Postmodernism says there are no grand narratives except the grand narrative that there are no grand narratives". An ideology that is founded on glaring contradictions and flaunts them proudly.

“The political left has never understood that, if you give the government enough power to create “social justice,” you have given it enough power to create despotism. Millions of people around the world have paid with their lives for overlooking that simple fact.” - Thomas Sowell

One has to see the rise of the identitarian Left against the backdrop of the last 3 decades or so of neoliberal globalization. Why? Because the absolute need for all governments to keep their national economies competitive and attractive to inward investors and corporations in today's globalized market has comprehensively rendered traditional left-wing policies unworkable. So in finding its traditional mode of politics rendered impractical, the Left resorted to other ways - i.e. identity politics - to try to exercise at least some power. It won't work, of course. Because it doesn't go to the source of the problem.

Has Helen published that book she mentioned or is it still being written? Helen makes alot of sense, I really hope she gets significant traction, she explains post-modernism so well. Particularly enjoyed the discussion about the 3 waves of postmodernism and how it is has "morphed" over the years. I am sensing some sort of social-evolutionary lens would be beneficial to help unpack how postmodernism has developed, from the original thinkers who mostly wanted to deconstruct power relationships but maintained a sense of uncertainty in doing so, to what appears to be a re-construction with an "absolute" certainty!

Please start by going to just before the 9 minute mark and watch Helen nail the difference

Evergreen Alum here. Thank you for this video. I will share it widely within my sphere of influence.

I could listen to Helen Pluckrose talk all day long on these issues

Thank you Helen and Peter. You are doing good work. I have been trying to find someone on RU-vid that would make the case for identity politics, but have had little luck. I am not satisfied when I only hear cases against a school of thought, but perhaps identitarians (?) really don't want to have a discussion. I heard some sweet young adults on a Facebook video speak of intersectionality, etc, wrt concerns about a just world peace. It would not be easy for many to follow, unless familiar with the terms and ideas. It was poignant for me to see such fine people with what is apparently a one-dimensional theory. I will keep trying to learn about this.

What a breath of fresh air in this crazy world

Post Modernism: nothing is certain everything is relative, truth does not exist. Also Post Modernism: everything is language and language is used to wield power. Which is it Post Modernism: nothing can be stated as fact or you want to start stating facts yourself? Post Modernism is playing the game without adhering to the rules.

Only in the arts can you get away (at least superficially) with postmodernism.. You cannot ever run into an honest scientist, engineer, doctor, pilot, etc who operates on the postmodern philosophies..

I think miss Pluckrose worries to much . Trump was elected nothing happens against lgbt

Very smart woman. We need more people like her who believe in rational thought and truth.

I'd like to see both of these interviewees on more shows. They both have a good handle on things which they explain well, and in intelligible language. Helen's unpacking of the post-modern/marxist differences was particularly good, I thought, and could be important in knowing how to engage with these world-views when they inevitably show up. If we can pick them apart, to some degree, then we have a better chance of holding up against the non-sense.

We love you Helen. You’re so calming and enjoyable to listen to. My husband and I and four kids all listen to your talks and enjoy them immensely. The three of you guys are a force to be reckoned with! And as a mother of four who has three kids about to enter the University, we support you and praise your efforts at cleaning up this mess that has been created in the academic arena!

She doesn't seem to understand that the people who she thinks are confused are driven by hate.

it's not Post-Modernism, it's Narcissism

Brilliant discussion with Helen. The more I hear Helen, James, & Peter & yourself expand epistemic awareness the more comfortable I am rolling these concepts around in my head. Therefore, perhaps giving me a little more confidence when this discourse is opened, day to day. Thank you all.

The unwillingness to have a convo should be a red flag to anyone trying to evaluate a position.

Once the ad hominem kicks off, you know you've won the argument.

Literally nothing questionable about how she’s defined post-modernism in the first couple minutes. What’s wrong with this manner of investigating and analysing things? It’s actually a good method of analysis. Then she makes this ridiculous claim that post-modernists day that black people have automatic authority and MUST be believed? That’s absurd. First, it’s true that a black person probably has a better understanding of their experience in the world than a non-black person, but no one is saying that you should automatically believe them and not question them. That’s just ridiculous and a dishonest misrepresentation. No one is saying that individuals don’t exist either, it’s just that the method of analysis approaches things from a structural angle, so an individual is a product of the society, culture and material conditions in which they exist. That isn’t erasing the individual, it’s contextualising them. And a postmodern analysis doesn’t mean you can’t approach an idea from another form of analysis, it’s not like post-modern philosophers ONLY analyse thru that framework, or that they demand everyone else do and has to.

Great, Helen. So clear, so true.

Helen makes claims about Post modernism which are not well-supported by the established works / thinkers of the Post modernist canon. She's less than honest about her own agenda, IMO.

In sum, postmodernism is cynical criticism of a juvenile, wrapped in false authority of mutual back-patters.

Would you like to discount jbp? No, thank you. Am here to talk about my work. Ok, but don't you want to explain why jbp is wrong? I am very interested talking about postmodernism. As am I. And I have heard you disagree with jbp about postmodernism. Couldn't you just use your position as an expert to tear him down some? It would really help me. No. Please?

Nobody published in those areas are willing to have that conversation, because they don't want to admit their epistemology is a zombie.

If we are stuck in a postmodern dystopia with social progress based on identity, as a white, Christian, populist male the identarian narratives of other collectives mean nothing to me. If acquisition of power is all there is, so be it.

Helen Pluckrose is a rockstar

"Anti-intellectual right" Me not agreeing with you does not make me a dunce.

i didnt even know Social Justice was an ideology

Such an important conversation to raise against the ideologues and pseudoscience

This is a real gem. I’ve despaired that the only conversation from now on about the extreme left/SJW types would be complaining about them instead of steps towards further understanding the problem and suggesting solutions. You’ve done both here. Thank you.

This woman is a gem.

Helen and Peter are my heroes and role models

I think the only reason that people who woukdve voted Left 10 years ago will never vote left again. The reason being, first off the British conservative party is barely centrist let alone right wing. Continuation of strict gun control, soft policing , Large government spending, pro Gay marriage, pro National healthcare (Labour are the only party to have sold off parts of the NHS) pro civil rights. It's sad in a way because theres nothing wrong with right wing parties. Labour, SNP, Lib Dems all tried to pervert the course of democracy.bTheir messages are just endlessly anti British, MasSively anti white, anti Male, anti history. The 65% of the nation who are proud of Brirain and do recognise how lucky we are to live in such a nice country just dont trust the leftist SJW parties anymore. I dont think 'the populist right' will begin to regress in areas of race, gender etc. I do worry that the insane far left including the media CONSTANTLY attacking Brits and whites could push a few people onto the defensive and they begin expressing things that come across that way but I think that's more out of anger and frustration than actual feelings but, like Thomas Sowell said, the actual racists are the far left with their Sift Bigktry of Low expectations.

Postmodernism is supposed to dispute grand narratives and especially social ones. To the extent that the left perspective is based on a grand narrative about victimhood and imposing solutions for the way their frame this "problem", the left should reject postmodernism as being antithetical to their entire purpose. That so many of them have turned to a perceptive that undermines their own approach I see as an indication that they have run out of good arguments to support their authoritarian goals in an intellectually honest manner.

you know what's the problem is.....the world been ruled by money

The way you guys talk to each other, is how I talk inside my mind!

Science , reason and historical and contemporary evidence support Critical Race Theory’s truths .

Most Black people agree on racism . And Black people as a group understand racism better than white people , of course.

Former American liberal. Had to write to former party, sadly, and let them know they have utterly failed to denounce the CRT/Victim/Postmodern culture. Men have lost jobs for stating facts. Watch Evergreen, the whole story.

Pluckrose and Boghossian do this to keep our culture sane. In 1996 I was impressed by the Sokal affair that prevented me from taking French philosophers seriously. If you allow parody to enter your system, you're out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's Racism Without Racists makes a good point of using old data and new data to correlate her assertion about asking two different black people about racism, and they do say different things. They say different things for different reasons but she doesn't point that out at all. For instance, a black person growing up in a black neighborhood versus a black person growing up in a mostly white neighborhood will answer differently, but in the study both confirm they have experienced racism, and that is key to the argument against her false narrative, SHE DOESN'T BELIEVE THEM or she doesn't feel it is important to discuss or ask about. There's more to it than what I mentioned but it won't matter to her fans like it doesn't matter to her because what people experience is what... the false narrative?? unconfirmed data? If they don't believe racism still exists and don't think affirmative action is necessary, why would these two different black people say they have experienced racism? Maybe it's because it's what is being taught in schools and in society. Not everyone needs to be an activist because the sad reality is that's not how change works. Change works when few people able to see the bigger picture and do all the work to bring people together to fight injustice like BLM or the effort to stop AAPI hate. Just because you aren't racist, doesn' mean racists don't exist. Just because you know a black person, doesn't mean you know the black experience.

Lol.. Putting out bogus “scholarly” papers to peer reviewed journals.. That is so bada$$!!! 😂

I'm willing to have a conversation!!! I've reached out to Peter Boghossian several times with no reply. I come from the fields he disputes. I think he's more interested in making propaganda against our fields than actually having conversations

Wonderful, illuminating conversation. Listening now two years after the time of filming, I found much that seems relevant to my many thwarted attempts to engage people in dialogue about the pandemic narrative. Logic and reason have gone out the window, along with the sacred right of free speech, and I have been demonized by friends and family for even questioning the official party line. Perhaps the problem goes beyond particular ideologies to a way of thinking, or rather not thinking...to something deeper and more fear-driven, related to the total splintering of public discourse and the dehumanization of society in the age of digital communications and technocratic control. God help us!

I will say this, It’s important to do some research on postmodernism from the perspective of the original authors. I know for instance, the concepts they have about power are actually truly spot on. I’m not saying postmodernism is everything, but the rights basic response to them is to make it seem ridiculous, insist that people fall inline in the social order, Make you feel guilty for buying into it because your “making others come over to the right” (I would argue those people are already over that, I haven’t seen the right left divide in elections really ever move by that many points) We are Def in a more meta modern era now. Just know If you have seen more conservatives talking of its evils, then the odds are you haven’t actually heard from what it’s directly about or even saying. Postmodernism is Def a thing, and you can’t really “stamp it out”. It kinda just is.

It has to be added that the idea of language being the basis for human social bonds was founded upon structuralist linguistics (Saussure) and psychoanalysis (Lacan). In that incarnation the structuralist theory asserted that the incompleteness of language requires that signification be acquired through human social bonds and around the notion of discourse. The post structuralists took a radical departure sustaining that language can be developed to its completion so there'd be no need for 'discourse' or the classic social bonds.

We already have racial equality in America under the law, everything else is cultural which is a slow change so please stop saying we don’t yet have racial equality because we do under the law .

Peter's commitment to intellectual honestly is impressive. I may disagree with him at times, but I have no doubt that he is absolutely committed to the truth.

having honest conversations with disingeuous people is a nigh impossible proposition. Getting them to the table is also difficult because they are easily torn apart and they fearbthat eposure. Its easier to use simpler language of calling opposing views as fascist or yahzees than have ridiculous positions exposed as rubbish.

So Boghossian was able to keep his job at PSU?

Marxism and Post Modernism point in the same direction so ignore it our peril. The aims are far to similar for a society of reason to ignore. There is still a clouded view of this IMO. Helen is mostly on point but I feel she is givingbshort shrift to the commanlities these two shoddy disciplines share.

Avoid these people who refuse to debate but happily toss out nonsensical racist and sexist insults.

A movement designed to reject dialogue? Sounds like a perfect cocept for failing as mother nature requires continuous adaptation.

Hellen, you are a saint!

Imagine living in the world where you wish as an atheist that there were more William Lane Craigs.

Pluckrose is a Nazi? wtf. shes the nicest person in england! ha

Question: what does a pushback from the left look like? Answer: word salad

Prof Stephen Hicks explained in his 2018 lecture how postmodernism evolved from marxist intellectuals who became disillusioned with marxism..

This is how language ought to be used = to describe reality, NOT to attempt to create counterfactual "realities" and to unhealthily amplify grievances.

Online conflict w/boghosian &pluckrosr. This is not a talk that boghosian would do . He is a teacher and would no start out with speaking of a failed eppistimology movement without a real critical anaysis and full historic background.. and then play minority victem card this is bull.

I have a few issues with identity politics - as do many on the left, in fact. But things are not quite as simple as is suggested here. For example, if you look at the left wing parties that are losing ground, well alot of them are centre left, really, not extreme left. The French centre left, English (under Brown, then Milliband), Hilary Clinton in the states, The Greek centre left party - across the world it is the 'centre left' who are losing ground. And actually the definition of centre has shifted further and further to the right of where people are. For example, in the UK lots of people who vote Conservative think it is a good idea to nationalise the railways. Across the country, the majority view is that this is a great idea. But any politician suggesting this is described by the media as 'far left'. Go figure. What we need is a left wing politics that is inclusive. It does exist if you look for it. I believe Sanders would have beat Trump in 2016, and whether I am right or wrong about that, I don't think his policies are, for example, anti-enlightenment in the way that is described in this video. But Medicare for all is wildly.popular - I saw an audience cheering Sanders on this on Fox news, with the anchor looking scared and bewildered!

Honoured to be first!

People are made of individuals. Individuals are not equal. The best a society can do is offer everyone an equal opportunity at life and let them go on to the best life they can live. Failing is also part of life. This is what makes life worth living (fail/learn/try again until you succeed).

I'm suprised Peter Boghossian name was quoted in a religious broadcast as an intolerant atheist but listening to him he's not that at all. Unless I've got him wrong he arguing against any idea set or as he says social construct that becomes a platform for totalitarian intolerance. He even talks almost ruefully that he'd rather deal with a person trained in religious theory and quoted 1 Peter 3:15 as presumably they are more civilised in their arguments than the canting totalitarian social theorists that now permeate educational establishments.

Ms. Pluckrose, if there-admirably, firmly defends the left--; although only after including so-called "Marxism" in a list of philosophies and ideologies she has categorized as "threateningly powerful" or ostensibly dogmatic, or identity-authoritarian--; including mainstream Abrahamic religions--. How is this not already a contradiction--? Popular stigmatization of the term Marxism away from its previous or original meaning, has already pre-straw-manned this concept for this speaker, and I'm sad to see that she thoughtlessly picked this effigy up to start stomping or torching it, or whatever we do with straw figures we don't like. I will grant, that perhaps-enough members of leftist communities will muzzle people from their own communities who simply want to state a fact even though it contradicts an unexamined truism, or spoils a rhetorical moment--. But, Ms. Pluckrose, please, don't throw the whole canon of Marx's deeply-inspired theory out with that bathwater by jumping on the knee-jerk, "let's just sweep Marxism under the rug" bandwagon--. Sorry. Thank You--.

Around 23' Peter says something so deeply true and that I empathize so much when trying to debate my hate followers from no fap movement.

...just subscribed. Thought i had already done, but just rectified my miss. Gteat job on this interview. i first encountered RW with 'A Glitch in the Matrix' ... an amazing event - thst interview, and an excellent film from RW. i tend to get involved with your films comment-wise, so the content is clearly inspiring to me. Was shocked to see i had not subscribed -- as said above, rectified. Keep on with the good work. One constructive criticism: It would be wise to have a small graphic identifying the incoming shift in speaker. You are framed as the questioner - yes, the background is different -- but it is a bit of a shock when Helen becomes Peter and vice versa. The ideas demand a certain concentration that may not allow the viewer to anticipate that the speaker has changed. Just a little, "Back to Helen in England", or some such thing, as you are stating your question would add greater smoothness to an already very smooth production code. Either way, your work is excellent. Thank you.

Just wonder how much time would have been saved if all the involved parties read 'The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology' of 1969.

Root driver is prejudice. A list in no particular order: 1) National identity 2) Race 3) Religion 4) Gender 5) Nutritrion as in vegan, keto etc 6) Sports team supported 7) Regional Accent 8) Local customs plus many more.

Both Helen P and Peter B are enjoyable to listen to in this video. I think they are well suited to sort of mediate conversations between very polarized view points. I am not fond of what she would call people identifying with their condition. This is a thing that detracts me from identity politics. From a high value of equality I tend side with people who are involved in idpol kind of stuff because two things. 1. The perspectives they communicate through there strong identity can be both informative and interesting. Since the thought is put forth from such strong attachment to condition or their clinging to a specific, limiting identity, it needs to be deconstructed to get at what is just nonsense and the bits that may shed light on some actual issues and inappropriate dynamics in society that need not be issues and can be addressed. 2. Awww. I forget but there was a second reason. I am sure of it. Helen sounds to have a good understanding and that's relatable. We don't get to see a good, non "demonizing" of the identity politics of the left on social media here. If it helps, I'll stop referring to what I like to employ in my thinking as post-modernist. I don't want don't even know where I'd stand on the spectrum. All we can do without a strong attachment to our identity as if it were not a dynamically changing thing is instantaneously get placed. I am right smack where Noam Chomsky is. lol He just needs to realize we don't think in language, and we are all good. I think that targeting the mistaken sense identity itself is good to combat polarized identitarians if you will (I know a left idpol activists would point out that is a right wing Nazi type thing but how are we to refer to the phenomenon and the collective group?) Then I'd probably get objection from anyone with a irrational fear of turning everyone into nihilists. Lions and Tigers and Bears Oh My! Unfortunately the center neo-liberals to push up against institutionalized extreme leftism you will need to make it profitable. Hmmm sounds like a lot like something I have been hearing about. What was that again?