Paul Bloom Interview Audio (Unedited)
Added 2023-03-18 08:09:59 +0000 UTCThe audio version of the video. See the video for description.
Enjoy!
Comments
No, I get it but I think the point of the criticism is important here. The criticism is not that people pall around with those who share their interests and worldview. Go to a Warhammer 4k convention or a Maoist retreat as you see fit, but when you are styling yourself as a political centrist and you find yourself constantly surrounded (and firmly in alignment with) right-wing populists... maybe you are not such a centrist? With Paul and me, we both are interested in CSR, so there is no confusion or denial about what the overlap is.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-04-14 07:50:59 +0000 UTCI mean I see quite a lot of differences between you guys and anyone with lots of positive things to say about farrage, not sure how to order them... However logic sense and reason do little for the monkey in my head who hears potentially hypocritical language and starts shouting at me to point it out.. The same monkey has me leaving most news articles thinking about the typo made by a professional journo rather than the dubious facts they presented... Its probably not healthy or useful.
Paul Sees
2023-04-13 13:24:30 +0000 UTClol, you cannot hide! The complaint is not with people hanging around together it's when they do not acknowledge what this is based on. Konstantin and Goodwin are part of the same right-leaning ecosystem. They are both fans of the right-wing populism espoused by folks like Farage. Paul and me both attended a conference on the Cognitive Science of Religion, something we are both very clear about having an interest in. See the difference?
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-04-13 12:24:57 +0000 UTCI'm able to hide this here where nobody will see it and whoever does is obviously a fan because paying money...but I'm not able to not say it somewhere... This interview starts with a little chat about shared interests and going to the same conferences etc. Just after the whinge of the week about some crypto fascists who obviously all share interests and go to the same conferences...
Paul Sees
2023-04-11 10:42:21 +0000 UTCNo! The left certainly does not have to ignore all bad behaviour. It also does not have to be puritanical and treat all disagreements as utterly disqualifying. If the goal is to win elections and have left-wing political parties in power then some tolerance for differences of opinion will be necessary. The left's tendency towards infighting is well established and effectively skewered back in the Life of Brian with the People's Front of Judea skit. So it is not a new thing but the online environment has exacerbated the issue. Just look at the Hilary and Bernie Primary wars in the US or the Corbyn vs. Blairites in the UK. I'm afraid we do not have a simple solution to political polarisation, left wing infighting and social media outrage addiction but I think we can all reach for more tolerance.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-04-05 05:17:57 +0000 UTCOne more note that I forgot to mention: There's a reason why bad actors on the left are criticized harshly by the left, but accepted warmly by the right. If you assert that the left occasionally goes overboard with this criticism, I'll agree with you. But please identify an actionable alternate solution: should the left remain silent when people self-identifying as leftist endorse horrible views, have credible accusations of sexual assault against them, and/or criticize the left exclusively while perpetuating moral panics promoted by the right? Is the left responsible for those it criticizes choosing to join the right in order to not only escape such criticism, but potentially be embraced by those who deem the behavior in question praiseworthy, or at least innocuous? If your answer is "no" to these questions, let me ask you again sincerely: What would you have the left do instead? If you care enough about it to comment, then recognize that no change can be compared to an empty alternative. The alternative is the status quo. If the status quo sucks, assigning blame for that isn't enough. You must identify a solution.
Gretchen Koch
2023-03-19 19:44:05 +0000 UTCRelevant links: You're Wrong About: Cancel Culture: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1112270/8656464-cancel-culture The APA's commentary on changes to the DSM re: gender dysphoria: https://www.psychiatry.org/file library/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/apa_dsm-5-gender-dysphoria.pdf Scientific American, What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/ Meredith Clark's article DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called ‘cancel culture: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2057047320961562 Ezra Klein's comments on Sam Harris and Charles Murray: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/17210248/sam-harris-ezra-klein-charles-murray-transcript-podcast Claire Lehmann's description of right-wing PC as worse than left-wing: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/08/conversation-claire-lehmann-quillette.html Michael Harriot at The Root: Weaponizing "Woke": A Brief History of White Definitions: https://www.theroot.com/weaponizing-woke-an-brief-history-of-white-definitions-1848031729
Gretchen Koch
2023-03-19 19:12:35 +0000 UTCFirst, let me note that I have tremendous respect for Paul Bloom. I used some of his writings on mind/body dualism in my (cognitive science of religion, specifically focused on belief in souls and the connection to moral psychology) dissertation, and continue to admire his adeptness and candor in exploring new territories within psychology. As you might expect, however, there’s a “but” here: I think this interview demonstrates how right-wing thinking has become mainstreamed even among academics, and I’ll explain why: 1. When a term used as early as 1981 by black Americans is weaponized by white right-wing members of Congress, it becomes necessary to clarify how you’re using that term before discussing its impact. What does it mean, who is doing the canceling, who is being canceled, and why? While exercising cognitive (and, let’s be honest—affective) empathy for those “canceled,” how about some for those allegedly doing the “canceling”? • It’s time to recommend a podcast to the podcasters: Michael Hobbes and Sarah Marshall of You’re Wrong About did an excellent episode on cancel culture. Additionally, or alternately, I’d recommend Meredith Clark’s article “DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called ‘cancel culture.” 2. My dear friend Ed Brayton, who died in 2020, had a longstanding and well-respected blog called Dispatches from the Culture Wars. While I think the term “culture wars” has become problematic for reasons I’ll explain here, Ed had it right in that he was—as the title implies—documenting trends in the law and in pop culture regarding social justice issues, pointing out when they’re wrong and why. Specifically, he pointed out the threats to democracy represented by people like Larry Klayman, Alan Dershowitz, and Dinesh D’Souza. Because law and politics are culture; human rights are culture; religion is culture; and morality is tied up in all of these. 3. That said, what’s wrong with the term “culture wars” used dismissively? a. It’s used an excuse to ignore the concerns I described above. b. It makes it possible to write off “trans issues” while ignoring that the DSM-5 changed “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria,” and research affirms that receiving gender-affirming care is far more beneficial to kids than being denied it, and yet it’s being criminalized across the country and men with guns are marching outside of drag shows. c. It equivocates social justice and anti-social justice forces by suggesting they are merely two armies engaged in a war, as morally significant as two teams playing a sport. This move masquerades as centrism, but is better described as being “neutral in situations of injustice,” aka “choosing the side of the oppressor.” d. It also ignores that the anti-social justice warriors are winning—they’re the ones who got Donald Trump all riled up about “critical race theory,” resulting in a public redefinition of the term across the country to mean “any accounting of history that makes white people look bad” and ban books and courses suspected of committing this heinous crime. There is no leftist version of Chris Rufo or James Lindsay, let alone Marjorie Taylor Greene or Ron DeSantis. e. It makes it possible to praise culture warrior Sam Harris, and laugh about the idea of endorsing race science, while Harris calls “identity politics” a mental illness and gives Charles Murray a softball interview, then later complains that Ezra Klein “slimed [Harris] as a racist” for pointing out that Murray’s racial difference theories don’t consider generations of oppression and are inextricably tied to his social policy ideas. • Podcast recs: o Why Sam Harris is Wrong About Police Killings, Serious Inquiries Only o Yelling at Sam Harris, Serious Inquiries Only o The Coddling of the American Mind, If Books Could Kill o The New York Times’s War on Trans Kids, If Books Could Kill On the topic of political correctness (another accusation against Klein made by Harris), it’s worth noting that Claire Lehmann, founder of Quillette, herself acknowledged that right-wing political correctness is stronger and more destructive in America than the left-wing variety. It’s quite cunning, how the right wing has taken terms from the left that arose in support of freedom of association, awareness of racism, and other bigotry, existing with the same meaning for decades beforehand (I didn’t even touch on “woke” here, which has been around since 1938-ish to reference black vigilance about racism), and turned them into pejoratives with no clear meaning other than “stuff we oppose for reasons we don’t want to articulate, much less debate.” This is fundamentally why I think that right-wing rhetoric and narratives have become mainstream rhetoric and narratives. This is why it distresses and concerns me to see this effect echoed in the views of people I respect as thinkers and proponents of critical thought. This is why I’ve written such a lengthy reply to this episode, which I hope might not be considered TL;DR by Chris, Matt, and Paul—or at least one of them.
Gretchen Koch
2023-03-19 19:02:16 +0000 UTCVery enjoyable. Religion seems quite a painful thing in general. Do you know any that don't have deeply unpleasant endurance tests?
Nina Davies
2023-03-18 15:32:15 +0000 UTC
