The 2021 Holberg Debate on Identity Politics: J. Butler, C. West, G.Greenwald and S. Critchley. 

I dont even have to watch the rest of this to already know Glen is gonna tear yall a new ass hole at the end. Anti-white has been integrated into our culture and has been for decades now. This woman is living in the 1960s still and its PISSING ME OFF.

Hi Holberg, please sort this out, it’s unbearable + unwatchable - SIMON. STOP STOP THAT “UM HM” “UM HM”, it’s absolutely rude + irritating!!!

lol @ this leftist propaganda. Take your "white supremacy" garbage somewhere else. We see your lies.

These are the people who got rich off of selling fear based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. The spooky part is... look how many people in this comment section who fell for it. They have no discernment as to the propaganda being thrown at them..

😊p😊vvp😊copp

Ha, that's pretty good. To pointlessly expand on this while watching this if anyone gives a shit lol (idk whatever I'm bored or something), the whole "woke" thing obviously isn't "bad" or really even disagreeable to most I would think in its core basic message removed from its dishonest framing, _but_ it is precisely because of how over time its message has deteriorated into a visceral inauthenticity having been contained in such consistent dishonesty and betrayal, ie it's transparent self-serving performance has exposed itself, and essentially hollowed out that core basic message for individual profit as merely a fake performance of individual piety and a projected implicit _superiority_ or moral character over the "unwashed masses" intrinsically lacking such "virtue" or whatever, that people find it so repellant. Like the optimates of the late Roman empire, crushing the populares movement by the Gracchi bros and later Caesar by famously of course straight up murdering them in the senate, even after Caesar fucking owned Pompey in the language of violence these absolute demons _actually_ practice behind their facades of manners/niceties, but then post-hoc justifying such an obvious vulgar display of power through rhetorical notions of "goodness" and "virtue", as Cicero would claim, Caesar and the populares posed an "authoritarian" threat (against their oligarchical domination is of course the unsaid part). Obviously there's like...too many parallels to our contemporary historical moment with that, but I think that's why it's revealing, especially as the -counterrevolutionaries- "founders" of the US admired such a dominion explicitly, hell the senate is based precisely on that senate (in the constitution, entirely democratically unaccountable and nominated purely by state legislatures). The constitution itself merely a brokerage between Hamiltonian eastern banker finance capital federalists and Jeffersonian land-owning slave-holding yeoman farmer antifederalists with an explicit intent to stave off what both bourgeoise "factions" agreed was an _actual_ threat: democracy (see Federalist Papers, Federalist 10 by Madison gets at this pretty explicitly). I mean my god these people wrote this stuff so far up their own asses they knew at some level that these 'factions' would be a problem (like, no shit right? lol...) but assumed their personal "virtue", self-evident by their property ownership and dominion over black, poor, and indigenous people, would transcend it. Turns out that isn't a thing. Oops. This load-bearing two-party bourgeois dictatorship is, shocker, precisely a result from that lack of implementing a structural proportional/parliamentary system into the constitution..."oops"...or more cynically, likely giving two big thumbs up in hell, which at this point is probably hard to distinguish from the world they helped create for us... Considering my own "ressentiment" fueled last statement there reminds me of Nietzsche of course, who I think describes this extremely well from an interesting dimension with his conception of "slave morality" and its connection to shaping our ontological perception and "habitus" through a linguistic distortion over time (originating from a context that is no longer applicable but nonetheless still insisted on to form a simulacra of its more communal/spiritual meaning; in the Genealogy of Morals if my paraphrasing is bad here), especially in relation to the ensorcelling technology that maintains this through a spectacle of permanent reaction from within the digital panopticon that is the internet, might be a relevant way of thinking about our paralysis of action as well, especially noting the neoliberal paradigm's de facto emphasis on normative individualizing to abstract away from any analysis of systemically generated causes and how, as mentioned by everyone in this video, we get this sort of consumer ontology where we can choose our truth based on subjective preference (if that made any sense lol), most importantly for Nietzsche is that this "ressentiment" though creative is fundamentally _dishonest_ and thus we get the charade of bullshit we perpetually live within, that everyone _knows_ is fake but yet we can't escape/transcend as its scale and tidal social inertia subsumes individual dissent/transgression, or something: _"The slave revolt in morality begins when 'ressentiment' itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge."_ As discussed, our passive spectator technologically mediated 'bread and circus' perception of "politics" seems in form entirely poisoned by that "ressentiment" emergent from entirely individual/self-absorbed media filters cemented in our culture coupled with an accurate intuition of the zero-sum competition driven structure that further cultivate this habitus of risk-averse narcissism so that "politics" becomes perceived more of an aesthetic consumer brand choice between two competing bourgeois tribes (no surprise I guess, basically describing the essential tenants of neoliberalism). Tribes that seem to essentially have their defining roots in emerging from that federalist/antifederalist split mentioned earlier; in marxist terms you can note this cultural distinction aesthetically arising from their distance to capitalism and exploitation, ie a base (antifederalists, contemporary Republicans)/superstructure (federalists, contemporary Democrats) distinction maybe put more simply (or maybe internationalist/nationalist; transnational finance/corporate capital v. national extractive/land capital; trying to describe the same basic bourgeois factional split with all of these, hopefully makes sense, eh no one's going to read this long ass bs anyway lol...). In a more general notion toward that inauthenticity (in like the marxist notion of a "character mask", especially as it pertains to this bread and circus cultural medium with all its implicit material filters and performative nonsense), I'll cut my screed off here by noting the lyrics from the song Tonguesplitter by one of my fav bands Protest the Hero, which is essentially a different way to phrase the West quote in a way (aw shit, full circle, eternal return baby) in how it transforms ourselves into an inauthentic shell that's not really living but rather killing time. _It's the mask that quite often starts to eat into your face._ _So wear it lightly like a cap, that can quickly be replaced._ aaaaaaaaand video done, huzzah. Good stuff, good quote, and GOOD DAY! sorry for wall of text, socialism or [continued] barbarism.

It was refreshing to agree with Dr. West for once.

@@Bisquick I didn’t get through all of that, but I want to let you know that the message you were sending was received by me, at least in part. When wisdom spreads too fast, it’s meaning gets lost in the crowd through simple and natural misunderstandings. Few may get the message at first, but eventually it dies and new wisdom must be born.

@@lancegrandis6230 none of us have a monopoly on truth, there’s disagreement and agreement to be found with everyone, just more or less for each individual you encounter. :D

@@ridicule1313 felt the same way. It was a lot to take in, and given it came from RU-vid comment I wasn’t prepared to engage with the depth, haha.

Someone should clip this. I agree, telling moment.

Very very telling moment indeed

Yes. I saw that. Well called out.

Yeah this is basically it - and Dr. West scoffing at the idea of the ‘conservative’ women of color (even though tulsi gabbard is a dem) shows that Glennwald is right in his assessment of using racial identity in a superficial way. He showed that they actually do care more about the ideas first and race/gender second. I guess it’s hard to admit it because it is now considered a “right-wing” talking point.

Butler and West are divorced from American reality and married to Academic reality

This is VP Harris' s mentor

7⑦⑦

it took about 15 minutes before you got the talk underway. speed it up for crying out loud. wouldn't you rather have had 15 minutes more of discussion?

Doesn't a debate normally require equal amounts of individuals with opposing viewpoints...😐😏

I cannot but notice how selfcentered these people are, how deeply unintelectual their attitude is, the whole world is suffering, incredibly, and all these people come up with is "the importance of the marginal" ... all these people do its deepen the divisions, and make the matter even worse, on all accounts. These people are the true apologets of the current craz capitalism.

West and Blumenthal should not have patronised Butler.

Did Butler patronise West's belief in fairy sky creatures? West and Blumenthal should not patronise Butler for whatever academic strengths she may have once had. Clearly empiricism, realism, vulgar subjects are just too complex for the intellectual of today. Or she has dementia.

Gen-Z the Avatar generation. J. Butler made it academic without the real world experience.

the most polite polititian award to Cornel (just so pleasant) and glen gets the most important reporter of the last 20 years, he had to last the Risen fiasco which tested his euphamistic tenor, it was a bizzare event Glenn refraned from being dumbfounded. Jeremy lost his prize for Dirty Wars maybe he was being kind. Risen was suffering stock holm syndrome perhaps, holder and obama tortured him to the point of becoming his hero's. Glenn was on point a-z

what do we do with Amy?

Chris, how so?

They are multi millionaires circling the drain

@@dannyweilthereisnorussiaga6594 Amen

Money. Money flows to you when you get good at it.

She's built her entire career on that.

Agreed when he talks it's like being able to breathe again

@@Natallou55 haha! So true 👍🏻

Agreed. Judith was obnoxiously smitten with Cornell.. “Mmmm” after every other word, geez

Haha...true but the others had their momments even if fleeting

@@nightoftheworld it sounded very unnatural. Best way to describe it from my perspective is that it was painfully dorky.

He's making the other two address reality.

Was going to write the same comment. Cornel is inspirational and doesn't just sit in the ivory tower but is a real activist, so love him, but trust Glenn to bring the cold hard facts and good arguments.

Cornel held back,thanks to host & Judith,who I find boring,uninspiring,allways needs to deconstruct things😴

And she stole "death drive" term from Zizek via Lacan via Freud☝

Not sure that's true. Judith Butler alluded to an oft overlooked truism. European Americans are exclusively responsible for the existence of identity politics in America. A current, but well worn, tactic is to engage in a vulnerability fantasy in which EuroAmericans, who constitute 70% of the U.S. population, are in danger...and need to be protected. Which is, in fact, identity politics.

Yes his push back on that was brilliant! And to Judith Butler no less.

She doubles down and insists that only voices who have published or have thought about it are needed, but truth does not require credentials, only to be true. Discrediting opposition as clinging to power ignores the argument for the sake of the vessel.

These two are not the same. Cornel isn’t a fascist apologist for one.

@@angelg8445 he’s less honest is all.

Agreed, the dynamic between those two was great. I think they agreed on most points, yet have such different ways of expressing themselves.

@@angelg8445 were you able to watch a decent portion of this conversation? Cuz that's what it's all about, especially if you disagree with one or more of the participants. seeing them interface in a way that's more than cordial, but caring- that's the goal. (And still honest & forceful when needed.)

@@angelg8445 oh please stop that divisive sectarian shit! Glenn is a decent man on the libertarian left with a lot of integrity and courage. He has done more to challenge fascism and the power elites than you ever will and you know it. Judith Butler and Cornel West obviously doesn't regard him as a fascist apologist, because they have brains.

I shd say it is difficult to parse any meaning from them - she seems so in love w words as to dilute their meaning

@@ks-lf6of agreed. She spends a long time going on about the fact that there isn't a black woman in this 4 person discussion. You can say that, and say that perspective is missing but it's kind of a perfect example of the navel gazing nature of most of academia these days. She was upset that the others used tribalism and then went on to act like it was a slur. Dumb.

@@ks-lf6of looking into her work, she's directly responsible for a lot of the bad ideas that the woke love. Makes sense, just remember that and you'll get more from her 'input'

Because it’s Jungian bullshit like JPeterson. Intentionally verbose and convoluted so as to obscure its lack of substance.

Butler is part of the problem. She's playing out the debate as if it's a virtual game, a high-minded dinner table discourse that's comfortably removed from the real lived experience of billions of humans trapped between the Neoliberal Scylla and Identarian Charybdis. Inclusion is very easy to call for when it's an abstraction that doesn't include anything substantial and there's no personal consequences for failure.

Agreed. There are a number of sharper female philosophers and political thinkers out there.

Listening to Judith talk is like hearing the best example you could ever give about the uselessness of academia. A finer example of someone more out of touch with the common working class human, I could never find if I tried. I seriously hope that an end to all this BS is coming soon so that we can get down to the real problems

Agree!Cornel is brilliant as allways, but can't stand Judith Butler.There should've been woman of color,instead of her.Boring af,always has a need for deconstruction😴

@@josiplilic3384 what’s wrong with deconstruction?

@@taf4939 nothing,but I prefer dialectics & much deconstruction bores me to death🤕

Who? The guy that think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? That guy? Cant stand Butler. Cornel is great. But Glenn, Tulsi, Jimmy are going towards the right. As I said Glenn Called Tucker a socialist. Jimmy doesn't even create videos taking on republicans. Tulsi is talking Mitch McConnell points on Sean Hannity. This are not on the left anymore

@@adrijan6510 It was f##in joke!I agree that Dore is cilckbaiting to much,to the right wing,but his critique of dnc,is clearly left one.Don't wanna comment on Tulsi Bush,but I'm gonna defend Glen.He did too much of good & assholes trash him left & right,so you need to do better than one(suspicious)quote!

I also like what Butler was saying about the social interconnectivity between people & going beyond self-centered individualism.

@@milhouse9003 Yes, I think those were her most compelling comments. I wish she had gone a bit further and pointed to the fact that ID politics often undermines solidarity/interconnectivity when there is an excessive emphasis on individual identities.

Greenwald is a journalist which demands a different timeline doesn't it? I similarly have respect for Butler and Cornell, but the latter's platitudes wash out into basic humanism (which is delivered eloquently, peppered with bons mots, but doesn't seem up to the demands of the current moment) and Butler is basically delivering on her research profile, which was hugely influential, but is also part of the machinery of (cynical) cover that Greenwald is exposing. If you listen to most liberals today (and I consider myself one, though I hardly recognize it anymore) they think Greenwald is a fascist, which is hilarious, but also shows a huge disconnect even between, lets say, the 'fans' of Butler and Cornell, and the actual objects of their fandom. Butler and Cornell seem totally happy to break bread with Greenwald, not because they're holding their noses I suspect, but because they recognize him as sharing basic foundational views with them.

I thought Greenwald was terrific. I learnt a lot from what he said. And he called out Obama as a fake and failure too.

💯

Because the Left looks on certain demographics like pets they have to care for and govern. And yes I actually do believe that.

@@joanofarc33 bingo! I've been saying this for years. I always go back to Malcolm X's interviews about the "white liberal". So relevant these days. They govern and apostolatize people like pets. It's actually so condescending.

The other perspective that is always excluded is the Native when the "native" is white, as in France. Judith was really down on the idea that French Natives have the right to question when their elites have a highly pro-immigration policy. Does she perhaps think that "French Natives" don't exist? Or does she imagine that everyone to whom the phrase occurs is a National Socialist?

@@ChollieD its the latter

I totally agree. I think Butler is arguing against some white cis-het male Marxist-Leninist Left that is not even relevant anymore. She doesn't realize how her defense of identity group resistance is hijacked by the neoliberal elites from above and mediocre middle class liberals from below. Greenwald is a lot more politically concrete and I think that saved this conversation. Even if West is deeper than Greenwald, I think his personal vibe of being kind to everybody took him (as many times before) to under-challenge Butler's views. Sometimes you can't reconcile oil and water. One you must let go. I think Butler's views have to go, no matter their well-intended origins. Her kind of deconstruction work had to be done in the past when we still had to dismantle the Old Left myths and upgrade feminism, but now that the elites have hijacked identity politics, that kind of discourse is only good for fueling tribalism. Oh and her politically correct objection of the word "tribalism" was disgusting.

I’m gay. Watch this again and see how Mr. West displaces blame.

Butler and West are major intellectuals and scholars , Greenwald isn't. Butler and West are both authentically broadly Left, humanist and radical democratic with true commitments to overcoming oppression and domination. Greenwald is NOW on the Right. He is a frequent guest on Fox News and has defended Tucker Carlson whom he called a " socialist", white replacement and recently Rittenhouse. He has launched furious attacks on AOC and the Democratic Party. Greenwald is not Left Libertarian or Libertarian Socialist but a right wing defender of civil liberties . Unlike West and Butler he has no real interest in the triumph of the minority groups who make up the subjects of identity politics indeed these days he is most comfortably in the company of the radical right .

@@kevinjohnson9533 He's the "wrong sort" of gay person.

You say we live in an anti-intellectual age when if we look closely at facts, intellectuals are never really popular outside of intellectual circles. A lot of what they're saying feel good and true, but imo there's always a good amount of echo chambers in those discussions. What educated and well read intellectuals think and talk between themselves is often disconnected from the actual reality at hand of the average person. You say "we need to broaden what justice and equality mean in our society and that we need to challenge the hierarchical nature" In what way do we do this realistically? Because it's not happening we see the opposite happening, more authoritarianism from both sides, more division on bullshit that doesn't really matter and not a lot of cooperation in subject that do matter. It feel to me that people like this panel and yourself think we can live outside of a hierarchy, when everything point toward to opposite. Electric cars were overdue and it took someone like Elon Musk to really make it happen fast pace and if he wasn't born, this company wouldn't have emerged out of a community of people, like almost everything in life. To this i can only repeat my argument, people like you and this panel project their own intellectualism on the average person thinking everyone as the ability to think on these levels but i'm afraid to say it's not true. Give 15 years to social media, platform that basically give public and widespread voice to anyone. You see the resurgence of disease because of anti-vaxxer hotspots, flat-earthers, crazy and obviously untrue conspiracy, social division on race and culture worst then when there were way more reason to be angry at racism then today. People who spread fake news and misinformation are banned from these platform angering people saying it's free speech and yeah we are losing right and freedom, because the average person is not that smart and willing to control their ego and impulses. You might try to refute this saying "oh but that's only because of powerful entity seeding distrust and division to make a profit and stay in power" true.. but it's also true that it would have no power if it didn't sell and people were not falling for it, it's still a question of hierarchy, people in power need to play fair and be honest because they'll find someone to sell their manipulative bullshit anyway. We need hierarchy, it's the only game in town, we just need the right one

That's just a really tall order for Judith Butler lol

@fenry hord You've got it totally ass-backwards...how apt your username is.

Both of your commenters here completely missed the point of Butler's position...that everyone should have "agency in society" and that no person is exempt from the influence of their own identity in shaping their politics.

Feminists like Judith Butler have performative empathy, not real empathy. It's not possible since her ideology is based on speaking for the opposite sex and asserting they have everything better while claiming to be benevolent.

@fenry hord it is not agency but dominance that Butler is looking to removing. Merit is an excuse to ignor out of balance power structures.

They don't actually hate him for going on tucker Carlson. They hate him for speaking truth. They just use tucker Carlson as an excuse because they can't face reality, and want to keep their illusions.

I like him better on jimmy dore

@@andjanice71 Agreed, I think a lot of people turned on Greenwald when he began debunking the Trump-Russia conspiracy--they wanted to cling to this narrative, so they went after Greenwald when he pointed out, repeatedly, that this narrative was unsupported by evidence. So yes, it's not about going on Tucker Carlson.

y'all sound like cultists. Glenn has become a grifting reactionary, feeding off the income and attention he receives from the very impressionable proto-facist contingency in the West. Prove me wrong

@@cmo5150 maybe prove yourself right first? 🤷‍♂️

like amy from democracy now - "I can't read that, trump can screw he he wants if he pays" we are not a morality panel. He shamed Milana but he sure played them, Cohen was the star wiitness and fogot Trump used his own funds (and never signed anything) what did Cohen get for that criminal fact? Trump knew the score before the DOJ whom cut cohen a deal. I dont believe stormy death threat story. She got her pay day why come back to be used as fodder, sex aint an impeachablee crime. It was just dumb and he wwas busted to his family but he paid out of his own funds and new all along. Great DOJ - Mr avenatti was a nice fellow - ripping off a parapalygic/stormy/nike......and he claims he was set up by Trump. Good set up!

Did you actually listen though? Are wheelchair ramps identity politics, yes or no?

Being in that setting myself you can’t underestimate the career climbing herd mentality that happens. I really think the internet and social media naturally promoting the most controversial and salacious is the crux of what moved people like her so high up.

@@janosmarothy5409 look at your reflex with how you respond. Immediate dishonest strawmanning. That doesn’t tell you enough about how you we’re educated?

@@FinneySP ironically, it says more about your own reactive approach, along with a lack of basic reading/listening comprehension as I was literally repeating a remark she made in the video

@@janosmarothy5409 it’s insane how unaware you are. You went disrespectful immediately and can’t even see it. Again that doesn’t give you a hint?

Ugh. You told me all I need to know.

Wow. What a condemnation of her politics!! She should be challenged on that. Shows the contrast between bullshit you talk and what you actually do. ‘Embodied sociality’ = support for the corrupt neo-liberal Harris who prosecuted a criminal justice system that incarcerated so many of the black poor. Just wow

Shocking?

And Cornell West, rather than giving money to a neoliberal candidate, actually participated in Sanders' campaign at a high level. Their actions say more than their words.

@@emileconstance5851 Pity about his sycophantic adulation of Butler at the outset of the show

Or Toure Reed.

Or that other Adolph...

Kick the fascist sympathizer Greenwald off and bring on Reed!

Adolph Reed the class reductionist who doesn’t acknowledge a racist foundation to our systems. I don’t miss him one bit.

Agreed, Reed kills it. I'll just throw Noam Chomsky in there too because why not.

Someone needs to timestamp all of GG, JB is a lot to Wade through

@@davidsaintjohn4248 She talks a lot but doesn't say very much.

@@davidsaintjohn4248 36:25 1:03:37 1:22:33 1:33:50 1:55:03 2:17:58 2:23:38

Who? The guy that think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? That guy? Cant stand Butler. Cornel is great. But Glenn, Tulsi, Jimmy are going towards the right. As I said Glenn Called Tucker a socialist. Jimmy doesn't even create videos taking on republicans. Tulsi is talking Mitch McConnell points on Sean Hannity. This are not on the left anymore

@@adrijan6510 Glenn just addressed those very criticisms, in a video on his own platform. Feel free to disbelieve him, of course. Your mistrust may be well founded. But you don't get to claim that he didn't. Use slogans at your own peril: no one is required to give credence to you, either.

He is not an academic.

Examples always help any argument; it occurred to me that it was the anti-intellectuals who tend to tell people what to think. At least you can argue with intellectuals and discuss evidence-based claims. The problem with any individual is whether they are basing their beliefs and assertions on their convictions or on evidence.

@@fredwelf8650 if evidence has convinced you, are your pursuant convictions then different from the evidence?

@@publicserviceco The key distinction is between conviction or judgment and evidence-based decisions. The persons who make decisions based on evidence, that is, statistics, are distinct from those who hold convictions. Of course, at issue is the validity of the evidence, which includes the statistical analysis.

Well said, Judith Butler are you listening?

Very glad you stated the last about "validity of the evidence", @@fredwelf8650

Who? The guy that think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? That guy? Cant stand Butler. Cornel is great. But Glenn, Tulsi, Jimmy are going towards the right. As I said Glenn Called Tucker a socialist. Jimmy doesn't even create videos taking on republicans. Tulsi is talking Mitch McConnell points on Sean Hannity. This are not on the left anymore

Agreed. Toward the beginning however he declared Adorno's splinter reference to be a reparaphrasing of Matthew 10. It's Matthew 7:3, if memory serves.

Yeah his recollection is beyond 10 minutes which is much more than the average American...

Yet, to me, while he is knowledgeable and has a great vocabulary, he always seems so dramatically self-absorbed. Am I simply envious of his verbal gifts, or is his motive for communicating that he wants others to see him as a smart person?

glen g can do whatever he wants...he says the injustice of that !! well WE DONT CHANGE LAWS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMMORALITY !! GOD SAYS HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION.... STOP CHANGING OUR LAWS TO FILL THE WHIMS OF SINNERS...NO WONDER OUR COUNTRY IS FUKED

Greenwald is so out of his league.

@@LizaFan smells like empty bot chatter around here.

@@kakistocracyusa Do you always accuse random people of being bots?

@@LizaFan So you are asking me if I am a raving lunatic?

He's not really saying anything. He's just mesmerizing you with language.

@@knsummers it's a shame you see it that way.

Gotta agree with @knsummers here. West seems like a nice guy (at least as long as you agree with him) and is definitely well-read (at least in far left critical activist-researcher works). However, everything he says are aurally pleasing strings of positively-connoted words delivered with a cadence and tone that imply profundity so that a listener ends up feeling like one just heard something brilliant and deeply insightful when, at the bottom of it all, the actual raw value of everything said is meaningless feel-good platitudes. To be charitable, I think the stuff he says does actually have value at an individual level. All the "love thy neighbor" memes are actually good individual social prescriptions. The problem is this was a "politics" debate (literally in the name), so the actual question has to do with behaviors at the polity level. Memes are not useful here; we need the hard truths and realistic trade-offs discussion, not utopian bloviation. He has a few moments, like when he's taking about education, when he really breaks out into some meaningful good points, but a whole lot of what he says didn't seem to really as much actual meaningful content.

@@populisttrope9385 it's a shame you're so credulous.

@@chogokin666 also knsummers and Seth Parker...It may serve each of you to read some of the comments below of the many who were so deeply impressed, and moved by Dr. West's brilliant contribution to the discourse, and then, to ask yourself what they all could possibly have gleaned from Dr. West, as well as from Glenn Greenwald, such that they wrote such glowing "reviews" of their spoken words. That you could not understand Dr West's contribution should not be alarming, given the depth of his education, and the consequent depth of his understanding of our historical, and societal degenerate state. I believe it might serve you well to listen again, and see what understanding you might derive from his critique, especially if you go to a library and read some of the classic works to which he made repeated reference. His brilliance can not be grasped from the "heights" of a very limited literary, and philosophical background.

The former

The latter

It’s hard to know with all the stuttering and stammering punctuated with ums and uhs. She is not an articulate speaker., so it’s too hard to listen.

@@twatts1523 Her writing has no ums or uhs, but is equally chore-ful to take in.

Often it seems that if you feel stupid listening to someone then it ain´t your fault. A smart person knows how to make her/himself understood.

Agreed. When I wrote my first book: Towards a Critical Multicultural literacy, 1995 or so, multiculturalism was the fascists favorite target. The fascists are now opposing Critical Race theory. This is keeping with their attacks on bilingual education and true multiculturalism. When will people learn?

@@dannyweilthereisnorussiaga6594 People HAVE learned. They have learned that the real 'Fascists' are people like YOU.

@@dannyweilthereisnorussiaga6594 Liberals oppose critical therapy because it is a simplistic Neo-Marxist pile of hot 💩 that intends to subvert, undermine and provoke bloody revolution.

@@SaintKimbo Ok so like, read the original comment, then read the reply you made there. I point this out only to highlight the original comment's point, as it demonstrates a pretty perfect example of precisely the ideological confusion and reflexive reactionary consciousness cultivated by corporate media outlets and exactly why neoliberalism (complete global freedom for capital, boundaries and restrictions for labor) was rallied around by capital in the 70s (particularly revealing, see: Powell memo by supreme court justice Lewis Powell, reaction to the 60s counter-culture/civil rights movement, cementing tons of long-term investments into cultural institutions and "think-tanks" that prop up specifically - and you can read this in it, extremely densely laid out - a trust/acceptance of corporate power and the opposite towards the state, despite the fact that the state works at the behest of exactly that corporate power - "cui bono?" being the only question of politics, Reagan/Thatcher being neoliberalism's apotheosis). In other words, the capitalist class and its vectors of material (and consequently ideological) influence corporate media focuses on anything and everything _but_ class, and if such media is consumed consistently enough and its spread of information ubiquitous enough, over time it shapes how people perceive the world aka their "ontology". As some guy put it, _“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”_ _"The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family relationship its sentimental veil and has reduced it to a mere money relationship."_ - Engels, grounding the grain of truth conservatives intuit - and more cynical operators appropriate for their own personal gain - but seem to merely react to, and why I'm mentioning this at all, to a material cause generated by the sort of "business ontology" cultivated from the way we organize _material_ reality ie the mode of production of capitalism. If that makes sense. _"The ultimate hidden truth of the world is that it is something we make and could just as easily make differently."_ - the late great David Graeber

Bro, if Bernie would have been the candidate , Trump would have won in Ana even bigger landslide. The party knew that, that is one of the reasons they undermined his campaign . Bernie was fine enough with it then, and evidently appears still fine enough with it now

Bingo! I cannot stomach the amount of narcissism that is entrenched amongst some of these public figures. They preach against the very behaviors they practice and it’s mind blowing how it goes over people’s heads?!

I don't recall her using the word racist and I think she was very clear about her definition of white supremacy, giving examples like the French politician. She also seemed to agree with Glenn's point about the neoliberal policies that give rise to such demagogues and allow the masses to be fooled by thinking if you get hijabi ladies or black men off the streets of Paris then all the economic strife will dissapate. Surely I hope we're all in agreement that demagogues should be dismissed as unserious ppl.

Well said. West is such a wonderful speaker and spirit but I sometimes don’t agree with his take. But this was such a solid interchange

ME TOO!!

I'm sorry but what in the actual substance of what West or Butler actually discussed was from "the identitarian worldview"? I mean, West literally said he wants everyone included in the conversation about humanity that can add quality to that conversation, and explicitly said that you can speak to the problems humanity faces regardless of your race, class, or gender. So he was quite explicitly NOT coming from an "identitarian worldview". And, really, neither was Butler. Also, in terms of being " ivory-tower chin waggers" - Cornell West has consistently been at odds with the University administration in favor of his activism (see what recently happened to him at Harvard that prompted him to leave). He is a man of the people in the true sense of the term - has been arrested with them in protest for human rights. And, I'm sorry, but Butler is in the 1% of philosophers alive today. Her place in the university is solidified by her philosophical output. Greenwald is not in their league. That facts to not bear out that this is about elitism.

Judith Butler is most famous for mainstreaming the notion that gender is a "social construct" and therefore socially pliable... essentially she is the architect of the contemporary gender ideology.

@@Tom-rt6df Butler did nothing of value which was not already put forward by Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex; her only unique contribution to philosophy has been to redefine existing ideas under newly invented and utterly convoluted jargon language... hang on, not even that is original, the Greek sophists were partial to her kind of intellectual banditry.

@@lancewalker2595 Do you have anything beyond your opinion to demonstrate this? Because otherwise, the value of your response is lacking in substance. Simone de Beauvoir, for example, did not inquire into the philosophy of embodiment in any way nearing the rigor of Bulter. And as far as redefining "existing ideas under newly invented and utterly convoluted jargon language" - the phenomenological and dialectical philosophy she had engaged in, especially in her earlier writing on "performative acts", for example, is quite clear. She is opening of the space to think of gender as a social phenomenon based on the repetition of acts. If there is any value to the critique you pose, it's not that she is working over "the Greek sophists", but rather some of the writings from sociology (like that of Erving Goffman") and anthropology (like that of Esther Newton), but she's updated their work to included both the historical currents within feminist politics, as well as putting them in dialog with Freud, Lacan, and psychoanalysis. And as far as her inventing new language, you should re-read your Aristotle - especially "the poetics" - as that is how thinking works in the first place.

​@@lancewalker2595 Except her notion of gender performativity is far more nuance than social constructionism (e.g. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann), since she engages directly with the phenomenology of embodiment (e.g. Maurice Merleau-Ponty). You seem caught in a logical contradiction by claiming that, on the one had, she is too invested in unintelligible specialized jargon, and on the other, that she is too mainstream. You'd do better to forego the straw-man characterizations of her and instead critique her actual arguments.

Agree totally, except that Cornell did not make a single point worth remembering. He is literally insane, as lost in his circus car of conflicting ideas as Joe Biden himself. I have no idea what cornel means,ever, no matter how many times I rewind. He is always one sentence fragment and misplaced quote away from unwinding whatever semi thought he just blurted out.

She’s a riddler. She spins you around until you don’t know which way is up. Her writing is very difficult to comprehend, & that’s intentional. I don’t want to entirely put her down… I expect people are able to make their own novel, perhaps fruitful, connections reading her, & I expect that’s rewarding for young, intelligent people. But don’t be fooled - there’s nothing there.

@@malortfink Tbf she dismantles everything to the extent that it can be profound for the individual, on a personal level - the connections you decide to see. I dislike her, personally.

I agree. I've really tried to understand Butler's thinking and I appreciate her a lot, but this was at times almost painful to watch.

I concur.

@Historylover Yes, I agree. Butler was writing her most influential books--"Gender Trouble" and "Bodies That Matter," at a time when there was a great deal of emphasis on language and the linguistic/social construction of reality, at least in philosophy and the humanities. This emphasis was taken to an extreme, such that the material world became something of an afterthought. I think gender studies would do well to look more at science, and in particular biology/genetics, but it seems that hasn't happened because there's very little interaction between the humanities and the sciences, regrettably. Hard to see how one can write about gender/sex authoritatively w/out some reference to science/biology.

As someone in a social science major, this is true. She is hevealy influence in the thmes of gender and sexuality, to the point that even if someone disagrees with the theory or view it differently, it can look bad. I read gender troubles and bodies that matter, and its so clear that she comes from a philosophical backgrounds, her things is "the world of ideias" "what should be" and "what can be" and rarely "what it is", the social reality is very lacking I would say. That why for me her theory does not come easy, its really hard talking about sexuality and gender without a material reality analysis, in my opinion.

Butler holds the position that gender is performative, that is, it is not what you supposedly are as a set of chromosomes or a particular observable genital, but what you do, what actions you take, particularly with regard to speech. This is an important view to understand in order to avoid discriminating against others on the basis of their inscribed identity in contrast to their agency.

@Historylover Yes, I agree that gender is to a large extent socially constructed, but to what extent is open to debate--is it %100 socially constructed or is biology also determinative to a degree, and if so, to what degree? I'm not sure, myself. Where I have more of a disagreement w/ Butler, is over her contention that not merely gender, but also sex is socially constructed, a view she elaborates in "Bodies That Matter." Admittedly, it's been a while since I've read this book, and Butler's prose isn't known for its clarity, but that seemed to be one of the key arguments she was making.

None, they have been given at this point more rights than women by allowing men to compete in women’s sports, they have been allowed to influence children with gender theory and drag queen story hour, they have managed to exclude feminine language like mother to “birthing people” in government, they have been allowed to take the space in women’s prisons and bathrooms, wether we like it or not. I would say trans “rights” supersedes my rights as a woman.

Yes. Very far removed from reality was exactly the impression I got from her.

Post-modernists don't believe in 'reality', which may have something to do with it

" Ancient systems of enquiry took this non-establishment as their basis, it was a strength rather than a weakness, and from them we get the rich spiritual traditions of India and China and the mystery schools of the near East which, during their decline, produced the great monotheistic religions in which the primordial non-established base was deified". That's the catch right, the greatest catch of all, catch 22. Both are self evident in the societies in which they arose as to the failure in any meaningful way to addressee the "Moral imperative" of each and in fact have been used to crush said imperative. West comes closest as does Hedges in there messaging of getting closer to the truth in today's world of a path forward. Grennwald is one of the best at explaining that world. I'm not familiar enough at all to speak to Butler but she certainly brought something to the table, I'm just not sure if it was palatable.

Butler is *framing* the debate and the issue as a philosopher would. Defining it in larger terms of society as a whole. This framing must necessary come *before* questioning anything so that it is clear what everyone is debating about. The man who did the intro instead filled the air with long jokes.

She seems to be of weak intellect. Example: Greenwald called her out - very tactfully and with surgical prowess - on her pointing out the lack of a black woman in the panel. She seemed desperate to prove to everyone know how inclusive she is .. this she is a quintessential example of ‘white liberal fragility.’ So her response was basically to double down, and to list how many black women she knows (of) who are not Candace Owens…. Glad she was on the panel to represent that point of view, and to thus have Greenwald and West to put things on track.

@@jackdolphy8965 She won first prize in an academic Bad Writing contest once.

There's a great essay by Martha Nussbaum about Butler, entitled Professor of Parody.

Nonsense...Butler's opening remarks were exactly on point...a much needed rational framing of this grossly overly-politicized and ill-defined term. The term "identity politics" has clearly been weaponized by defenders of the status quo to dismiss anyone trying to advocate for social reforms. Everyone, without exception, has a basic element of "identity politics" that comes from their personal situations etc. To deny this obvious truth, while decrying others as biased and self-serving because they happen to differ from certain assumed norms, is the blatant hypocrisy that the denier has no implicit biases...this is ridiculous. The hypocritical "opponents of it" are the "strawman argument" creators who are "misrepresenting the argument" because they dishonestly claim to be without innate bias when no one can honestly make that dubious claim. Can you honestly claim to be without any biases?

That is indeed a populist trope.

That’s exactly what I thought too with her extreme views gender identity.

Especially since, in practice, everything about gender identity and queer theory that she wrote is exactly about that. Its like her theory is having the opposite reaction that she writes about LOL

@@g7042 I'm new to Butler so may be off the mark but in my brief take there does seem a weird internal conflict of Butler essentialising identity in the way she talks about it here at the same time as breaking fundamental categories wide open in her work, such as in her view of the body and biological sex as socially constructed. So perhaps this is resolved in the personal, but then with the intersection of multiple categories we all occupy, where is the perspectival privilege in say, being LGBTQ I+ or black, that allows for collective correction of the institution. What does solidarity across a pluralistic, intersectional world look like and how would you prevent the reification of new and potentially arbitrary power structures?

Surprised to hear someone say this. I only know Butler by name, but I've never encountered a gender activist who expressed anything but open disdain for individual liberty.

Freedom and fascism west stands for a wide range of principles

he stands for trans also, that may very well kill his legacy.

@@bigdap100 - He does not actually stand for transgender people, and neither do any of you brainwashed "adults". But, some (if not most) are still quick to go to *sex sites* to watch transgender people. trans people (of color) have existed before pale-skinned Europeans invaded *Africa* and other *indigenous lands/people of color* around the world. Cornel West never mentioned/mentions that fact, regardless of where he speaks. He still "thinks" trans women are not women who can't be straight/heterosexual. Get the heck out of here.

@@tanyalake9152 that lifestyle is being taught to children, that’s wrong.

@@bigdap100 - Hey, NUMBSKULL. *Africa* is the *motherland* and *African* (trans) people have *ALREADY EXISTED CENTURIES AGO,* and were *HIGHLY REGARDED* as *THEIR TRUE GENDER* in *SOME AFRICAN TRIBES.* What the heck do you not comprehend?!!!!

also Judith, "labeling something identity politics is a way to gove something a label and not listen to anything after." then also Judith, " White Supremacy is identity politics "

Your comprehension is zero

Yes totally agree. She’s living life with the splinter in her eye as a magnifying glass as West put it. She is a a total fraud and a pseudo-intellectual grifter.

@@stephenleyden9559 your comprehension is -1

Also neither (with the exception of the KKK) talk about which groups cause marginalization. They just lazily dismiss everything as white supremacy.

@@Halman2112 Exactly. They know what they're doing. It's sophistry and manipulation by using emotional language like that.

I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing that. West seems to reference the past a lot more than he references the present, and when he does talk about the present he almost never says anything specific. We apparently operate under white supremacy and patriarchy despite the fact that male suicides and drug abuse are significantly more common and not at all dealt with, females have overtaken men in higher education by a considerable margin, feminist thought is largely the status quo, we have affirmative action programs out the ass, almost every corporation is instituting diversity boards, so on and so forth. He seems strangely disconnected from the real world for someone who appears so worldly.

@@GamingBlake2002 Couldn't agree more.

@@GamingBlake2002 The days of Hitchens are long over, he would probably be center these days. Modern Leftists fail to fulfill the onus of proving their theories about what's best for progress are going to work, it's based in sophistry and other fallacious thought, This is why you see so many getting slaughtered in debates more than ever. They are trying to argue for the ideal, utopian, unproven. And of course demonizing the past, which can't defend itself rather than point out tangible dysfunctions in the present, that are consistently and empirically true.

Its so intellectual that its destructive to society.

In your opinion, what are some of these ideas?

Ty

@@TheSupahJaws The whole gender debate is a good example. The specific target of Orwell's quote was the nationalist totalitarian state, widely defended by intellectuals in England, and all around the world.

Its sad and hilarious that so many reactionary ppl say they hate the "woke" or "identity politics" when 99% of the time it just means they hate trans people. Usually because they have a completely misinformed idea of what trans people are like in real life and let their "independent critical thinking skills" get mislead by the ongoing narrative that all trans ppl are elite academic pro cancel culture "evil" twitter people.

Like watching paint dry, or ping pong

Good point!

The meaning for them depends whether they get their news from CNN/MSNBC or not…

Lol. Glenn's job is to discourage leftists from voting for Democrats in order to help the GOP, obviously.

You haven't listened well enough. The point they make is that inclusion itself isn't holy nor the most functional goal because of the amount of diverse perspectives that exist but that you need to think critically, listen carefully and morally reflect about the voices you include and justify.

@@stnbch3025 Yes but what are all the diverse voices saying? That should be a bit relevant as to who we listen to, should it not?

What do you have to say now in 21 century: it’s theater as an art of the show or performance possible? 😕

its you

Meh young people don't vote so their concerns can be dismissed. And this is typical of all generations actually, before I start my zoomers and millenials bashing 😂

The "Octogenocracy" is SACRED. Fakk Boomerz everywhere.

Could you elaborate on “yet fails to see how....” ?

Glen & brother West! I've never liked Judith,the nerd,who always has a need for deconstruction,uninspiring & boring AF!

@@josiplilic3384 A few of her books are inspired. I admit I was surprised. (The ones about peace and justice, not gender.)

@@l.w.paradis2108 could be,although I've never read her.I know about her,cause,Zizek often quotes her,in his book.As brother Cornel would've said;I'm wrestling with my male dominance😂

@@josiplilic3384 I was surprised, I admit it.

@@l.w.paradis2108 I might be ready to be surprised too!I'll never like her rhetoric qualities,but you right,written word has more into it.As a old school leftie,I'm not into gender theories,my position is libertarian here,but I could give a shot to peace & justice.Peace!

Agreed, she's way out of her depth here with her myopic elitist perspective.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Mh9I56J3f4Q.html Howdy?

still pleasant to a fault, but more willing to call out the shills

She sounds so incredibly out of touch. The best thing about her is she seemed willing to honestly listen. It just makes me wonder what she has been doing for information lately, she sounds like someone listening intently to Cuomo, oblivious to everything going on around her. If she’d listened to even one interview of the fda advisory board members, or really any other scientific bureaucrat actually voting to approve aspects of these policies she would know that none of them approve of masks and are deeply concerned with how policies in general are being rolled out. She seems very secure in that neoliberal protective bubble.

Good point. Butler's abstract collectivist/anti-individualist frame crumbled in this exchange when it ran up against Greenwald's concrete, real-world, grounded frame. There's a meta-drama that played out in this conversation that Greenwald pointed out within the discussion: the disjuncture between those in academia and those in the real world which manifests most grotesquely when those in academia remain untouched while those in the working class have to suffer the economic consequences of implementing their ideas. In short, Butler is so divorced from reality that I don't think she has ever been held accountable to prove that her theoretical framework (much less her policy prescription) works. Being an engineer, myself, my theories about how to proceed with solving a problem are constantly running up against this little thing called reality. If my theory is true, it's born out in the fact that my solution works as intended. If my theory is false, then whatever I'm designing will fail, sometimes catastrophically. No matter how artfully articulate you are, you can't word salad your way through a failed design like so many academics can with a failed theory. If my designs fail often enough, then I'm out of a job, so I'm forced to have my ideas conform to reality. With there being an abstract notion and a concrete notion of integrity, my work has to have integrity and soundness in both senses of the word. Academics never have to contend with reality in that way.

Sounds like a philosopher.

She needs longer trousers, though.

@Andreth Who and why are they trying to cancel Butler? :(

These people are race grifters. They make money selling fear off skin color and sexuality to low iq individuals and you fall for it every time.

MMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! YES!

@James Williams hate people looking at all through the privilege lens. Underminds what the problem of privilege is all about.

made the previous comment just having read the starting of your comment. Still mantain what I said, but obviously agree that privileged people imposing his view in unpriviliged ones is something despicable.

Your view of the working class is flawed, which in turn makes your argument flawed. The working class includes people who support or are the reasons for “complex language code that is constantly being updated.” Plenty of the working class engage in identity and, in turn, identity politics. To say identity politics as a blanket statement IS a tool of capitalist oppression as opposed to identity politics as a blanket statement CAN become a tool of capitalist oppression is dishonest. Anything and everything can be used as a tool of capitalist oppression. That itself does not mean anything and everything inherently IS a tool. Also, plenty of people in the working class are turning TOWARDS the political left.

West is always just vibin’

Couldn't agree more.

I think you miss the point here. Every social and political theorist talks about an idealized or normative theory (in contrast to a descriptive). That's entirely fine because when they do so, they also specify the conditions under which the theory would translates into practice. Every theorist does that and it's unavoidable. Socialist theorists argue that "socialism works, but the Soviet Union wasn't socialist because of XYZ." Anarcho-capitalist and libertarians argue that "free markets work, but what we have now is not free markets because of XYZ." It's a purely intellectual exercise and it should be treated as such. It doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. These theorists make sure that a theoretical framework is internally coherent in purely conceptual and analytical terms. After this, empirically-oriented scholars apply these theories in practice. And sometimes or often the reality clashes with the theories. In response to that the theories get revised. So ideally, there is an ongoing conversation between theory and practice. This conversation doesn't happen overnight and sometimes in might take a bunch of decades for a theory to catch up with the reality. But that's how science works in a nearly every field. From math to physics and to social science.

​@@MinimaAmoralia Tell me do you and your Straw-man go to the same gymnastic classes?

@@TheQuixoticRambler where do you see a straw-man, my lad? You are lamenting about Butler making appeals to what identity politics are in theory. I responded by pointing out that this falls perfectly well within the purview of a social theorist: to talk about an idealised version of X (identity, justice, freedom, markets, socialism or whatnot).

They have no defense for forty years or more they have made their monies from privatized unversities

the most couragous so nice yet no one fools, Cornel must be the most pleasant academic since Fredrick Douglas

Agreed.

Amazin! Triggered by pleasantries and courtesy... What an infantile snowflakery.

No need for competition. Glenn brought great insights, agreed. But I do appreciate them all. Much needed discussion!

@@barbarajohnson1442 agreed I didn’t see it as a “Debate” I think they all had there contributions to make

West Always magnificent. He won the discussion.

Amen.

@@jkscout Forgive her, she's arrogant, imitative, and overrated.

No mate. Her reference to Gilroy and Hall is precisely about how capitalism is not only a relation between those who own the means of production and those who don't but between groups of people. In this relation, one of hierarchy, the global south that you are defending here is stratified at the bottom. That is the 'identity politics' she has often talked about, against white supremacy. White supremacy is not merely a local issue but a global one.

@@davuaable you're out of date with your 'white supremacy' world.

The jejune notion that capitalism is just an aspect-emanation-expression of "white supremacy" would be hilarious if it weren't such a damagingly obtuse bit of racist, dare I say "white supremacist", nonsense. The global south has its middle classes and, shockingly to so many white people of David's apparent persuasion, its capitalists too. Yes, capitalism first emerged in the lands of the white folk, and yes it spread its tentacles across the globe when it reached what Lenin mistakenly assumed was its "highest stage". But origin stories are not analyses, and anyone who still tries to hold "whiteness" responsible for the depredations of capitalism needs to wake up as opposed to get woke.

I laughed. Sounds like a strong contender for the worst possible ideology in the world.

Ooooh.

Lol, I was thinking the same thing. Far from profound.

Equity is a necessary step to achieve equality. So, if justice means equality, justice depends on equity on the pathway to itself.

@@guwopman3503 Sorry, but that is categorically untrue, by definition. It's also a childish and naive perception of reality, one that's going to keep you shaking your fist and whining your life away vs. living it.

@@alextinsley9117 ramps in public spaces are useless if we choose to allow everyone to have equal access to stairs, right? Someone with a minor headache should take precedence in the ER over someone with a gunshot wound because they arrived after the headache patient, right? You are projecting so much. You’re assuming I’m “shaking my fist” as opposed to living my life because I believe equity is necessary to achieve equality, really? You have to imagine that I am not living my life happily so you can feel assured that the person with differing views from yours is in a worse position than you based on their differing views. That’s what I would call “childish.” Take my first example of universal access to stairs. For people who cannot use stairs does that equal access mean anything at all when it is actively hindering them from entering or maneuvering the same spaces as people who can use stairs? Someone who can’t use stairs would need a different solution that allows them to enjoy the same maneuverability as any other person who does not have their specific limitations. That’s called equity and it allows equal access to (in this example) maneuverability. Who would have thought?

She is someone who has learned that sounding like you know what you're talking about is just as beneficial as actually knowing what you're talking about.

I agree! I thought Glen and Cornell were just going to let her run up the score just out of politeness. Cornell phoned it in for an hour before he finally woke up. Judith literally promotes intersectionality and radical ideological change as immanent without batting an eye. Maybe Cornell and Glen were just biding their time before they started squeezing - but it was making me crazy!

But her stance that we should rethink personal freedom in the face of the totalitarianism pointed out by Glenn. Is that radical or establishment?

Yes. Glenn's clear and precise points about what happens in practice were met with many retreats in to theory; to obfuscate, deflect and always shifting the conversation away from his legitimate concerns.

That is what the Left does these days, avoid anything real people care about. They are lost in a cloud of abstractions in their very tall ivory tower.

@@joanofarc33 that's an overgeneralization

@@joanofarc33 Isnt it the case that those in ivory towers entertain all these high minded ideals but expect those at the bottom of the ladder to bear the costs both socially and financially

All those references are about race. For some reason no one questions the feminist narrative of inherent male privilege.