VLAD REACTS: Galeotti, Zizek, Liz Truss, Critical Theory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 чер 2024
- Vlad's main channel
/ vladvexler
Support Vlad's work on Patreon!
/ vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladv...
00:00 Mark Galeotti on predicting the war
08:29 Liz Truss (post truth populism)
18:42 Claire Lehmann of Quillette ('Critical Race Theory')
33:01 Slavoj Zizek (Nazi Germany vs Stalin's USSR)
SMALL CORRECTION: min 29 I mean the 'anti-woke brigade' not the 'woke brigade'.
00:00 Mark Galeotti on predicting the war
08:29 Liz Truss (post truth populism)
18:42 Claire Lehmann of Quillette ('Critical Race Theory')
33:01 Slavoj Zizek (Nazi Germany vs Stalin's USSR)
Vlad's main channel
ua-cam.com/users/VladVexlervideos
Support Vlad's work on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
Hey Vlad, I had a question about the bit that there’s a set of assumptions about CRT over it being a full fledged theory. How Guess had made Crit Theory out to be in his book on it was Crit Theory as centred around ideologiekritik against structural and normative herrschaft. This is more so a question of genealogy perhaps, but from what I recall of reading Crenshaw, isn’t CRT an application of vanilla crit theory on the question of race to unravel the racial herrschaft that just seems normal or background to us? It seems less assumptive than a development within the Geuss-Adorno tradition.
I am also curious to know what you generally think of ideologiekritik as an endeavour? Is getting us out of ideology in the pejorative sense a project that still lost in ideology in the descriptive sense?
Praying for your health
Intersectionality creates a value laden hierarchy of fixed identities. It almost invariably comes with standpoint epistemology which results in a truly obnoxious approach to politics, law and society.
I appreciate the small correction. I also appreciate your elaboration on identity politics. It clarified your position greatly.
My glib response when someone says, “I don’t like identity politics” is “Then stop doing them”. And then that person and I can argue about or we can engage in a discussion of how there is a structure that creates identity politics that then suppresses the non-dominant identities. So when someone tells me not to identify as Japanese-American or Jewish-American (I’m mixed race) and “just be american”, it’s offensive. The society that has privileged them is the society that puts people in racial identity boxes, and then expects us to forget that we’ve been put in boxes.
The culture war is never ending. I’ve been hearing less about woke and anti woke, and more about DEI (diversity employment initiatives?) being the bane of existence and the cause the “terrible economy” and other fake maladies.
Around 8-10 years ago, woke was like a cookie that black activists would hand to non-black activists as a prize for “getting it”. It was a merit badge. No one described policies or laws as “woke”.
The section on Truss was a masterclass in saying 'she's as mad as a can of beans' in the most considerate and understanding way possible
I use the phrase mad as a box of frogs or mad as a hat. The hat one came from my hilarious maternal grandma. The box of frogs during a break-up argument decades ago.
@jessicarowley9631 It's difficult breaking up with someone when they say something genuinely hilarious, you both laugh, and you both see the spark that attracted you to each other in the first place
@@jessicarowley9631 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_as_a_hatter
I think he was saying that her brain is a head of cabbage.
What Vlad has done was his extreme projection on a opinion, which happens to bear a fact: World under Trump administration was safer (than under Biden's administration)
It does not matter by whom this was said at all in this particular case.
Zizek makes great points in the worst ways possible, and it seems like he enjoys it!
I would kill for a dialogue between you and Zizek. I feel you both could have a very productive discussion.
Schniff
Vlad Vexler, Slavok Zizek and so on and so on
I love Zizek's talks. But I have the feeling he is very "safe" with his reasoning and dresses it with "unsafe" language so that the reasoning does not sound as "safe" at first sight.
Still, he has interesting perspectives on most topics.
Please do more of these! So so enjoyable
Extremely engaging and thought provoking! Thank you very much Vlad!
Vlad, you outdid yourself! Your choice of of analogies to add clarity was spot on. Thanks for this gem!
Thank you!
Nice to see a video from you Vlad. Be well
Oooh I feel spoiled today! Thank you 🍵
"We do not hold commentators accountable for their past predictions"
There's a MAGA Kremlbot named Douglas Macgregor, who has been saying "Ukrainian army is already destroyed, Russian just needs a week or two to mop up" since the first week of the war, and has been saying this in every interview since. And still people invite him to repeat this prediction.
I will never stand in his way if he ever decided to jump off his flat earth.
Can't have a circus without a clown no?
How is he different from Hodges, even though your statement is true.
Media needs to call out everyone of what was said before
or else it will become like russian television
Looks more like it is the goal
His audience is getting smaller and smaller.
Lovely video as usual. Wish you all the best ❤️
Thanks for keeping epistemology alive in your always thoughtful commentary.
I changed my mind about the possibility of a war only a few days before it started, when I saw a graph of the natural gas storage in Rehden. It was like watching the beach minutes before a tsunami hits.
For me it was diffrent halv a year bevore it started, i said to a college "cold war isnt done, stuff is about to go down in ukraine, it wont take long" a few days bevore it started i said to the same college "i dont think theres gona be war, putin would be stupid iv he started something now, element of surprise is long gone" last thing was only partially wrong as putin is obviously stupid.
Forgive me, where is Rehden, please?
@@f_lawless7689 It appears to be natural gas storage facility in Lower Saxony in Germany. From the New York Times: "Nov 14, 2022. Under Gazprom Germania, the storage facility in Rehden had been nearly drained empty by the start of 2022." . . . which seems to be significant, since the war started near the beginning of 2022.
@@f_lawless7689 It’s the biggest natural gas storage in Western Europe and very important for reliable energy supply in the EU. It had been depleted without a real explanation in the months prior to the war. In April 2022 stored gas was at only 0,5%.
It was controlled by a firm which belonged to Gazprom, but some fishy changes of ownership allowed German minister for economy to put it under state control.
@@janronschke7525 In the months before I even commented that it would be a bit ridiculous to believe Putin would start a full war, against a European country, so necessary for energy transit, at NATO borders. It looked so stupid indeed.
But we should never underestimate human stupidity.
Having graduated some 15yrs ago and my occupations lying outside of academia since, I thoroughly enjoy being both challenged by you and you guiding me through some thought processes, helping me structure my thoughts and my approaches to matters.
I'm enjoying the careful unpacking of these perspectives, Vlad. This is a good series. Thanks.
And you're clearly more animated when you start feeling better. We have noticed.
You have such a talent for bringing up a topic, that I’m used to people and myself getting through haphazardly or maybe it leading to a fight or the end of a friendship, and then literally you guide us through that topic with such grace and simplicity, I feel both understood and taught.
Excellent vid Vlad -got alot out of this one!
Thank you!
Ha!! Love your analogy regarding Mark Galeotti's remarks! The thought of Russians tumbling out of an office block, tripping over themselves in a rush to change from suit into camo jackets and boots! Highly amusing - and absolutely right...
Such an excellent and revealing analysis, Vlad. Thank you for peeling off the onion layers so deftly.
*I HAVE ADHD/AUTISM* late diagnosis at 53 - I dont see it as a "not to be discussed" subject in any way at all with public figures
Thanks as always for these deeply analytical and meticulously articulated thoughts. I can almost feel my brain making new synapses.
That cheered me up 😢
Happy Sunday Vlad😊
Happy Sunday!
Hope all the Orthodox Christians had a nice Easter : )
I've got my chosen sedative, now I can listen to [these clips, some of which have] horrible people lying like it's breathing and survive long enough to watch the excellent analysis from Vlad.
📚Glad4Vlad❤
This is an excellent hashtag! I'm sure we'll end up adopting it at the next committee meeting! Just a small suggestion?
💛Glad4Vlad🌻
It's his favorite color and flower, it's the least we can do for Our Vlad, the Russia Whisperer.
Lots of love from NYC ❤️
@@SlpBeauty333 - I second the motion to bring it to a motion. 💛Glad4Vlad🌻
@@pluribus_unum All in favor?
💛Glad4Vlad🌻. I think that passed by acclamation! No one else makes Russia make sense other than him!
Lots of love from NYC ❤️
Your illumination of this last subject is so pertinent and really helped with my health…
I’m grateful to you.
Great thanks Vlad, Stimulating and illuminating as ever!
Wasn't expecting the juxtaposition of Liz Truss and Zizek in your chat, going to have to sit down and have a cup of tea.......
Thanks
I really like Zizek. Hes one of the few besides Vlad whos analysis and judgment of communism i trust. Hes what i consider the last true public leftwing thinker. (I dont consider Vlad a leftwing but rather a classical thinker)
Vlad is certainly leftwing within the liberal parameters
Hasn’t social media’s algorithm “enragement to increase engagement” significantly reshaped our thinking by polarizing communities in the west and elsewhere?
Maybe a little, but overall, just turn the phone off and go for a walk, people who are chronically online have ur pov
@@sorbethyena3828Yes, but far too many people are online. Maybe terminally. And overrepresented are those who used to be called ‘informed’. It’s not a situation I’m prepared to be sanguine about and I worked in marketing for the 20 years data took over creativity as the main driver of comms and campaigns. It started to worry me about 2014-2015, and my concerns have only become worse.
Comically half baked! Love it.
Vlad you are my zen. Best of health amigo.
Hey Vlad, I'm curious as to what period of time it was when you ultimately decided that Trump was what you call a post-truth politician out to break the system, rather than say a person who was simply willing to say or do whatever it takes to become President for the sake of being able to say that they were President and that the people loved them.
Personally I think the idea that the dominant culture in any society uses its power to overwhelmingly benefit itself, regardless of the ideals it claims to aspire to, is as obvious as gravity.
@VladVexlerChat. Re Critical Theory, I HIGHLY recommend Ryan Chapman's deep unbiased (IMO) analysis of CT. You do not always have to bring "culture war" into it. CRT itself can be criticized as was done in your clip for validity independent of "the culture war" even though CRT has it's role in fueling it. As correctly noted by your clip, it's the prescriptions of the types of actions provided by the CT literature that are a serious problem worthy of objective criticism.
💯
I wish we could take more seriously Vlad's three buckets, which are well-informed historically. I was learning about Critical Theory (Frankfurt School, various French movements including Foucault/Deleuze/Lyotard etc, British Cultural Theory, Frederick Jameson and a handful of other US theorists) back in the 1980s when "Critical Race Theory" hadn't even been articulated as a term within US legal scholarship. And since all of the classic 20th-century Critical Theory streams had some important relation to Marxism, they weren't terribly interested in identity politics as such beyond class identities; in fact in the 80s and early 90s that was a huge debate in academia between Critical theory on one hand and feminism and racially-oriented social critiques on the other (though we do shortly thereafter get various models of intersectionality that attempt to synthesize these different positions).
We most definitely need to stop using "Critical Theory" as short-hand for "Critical Race Theory". There's at best a Venn-diagram relationship between them. But that's on the Left. On the Right, "Critical Race Theory" has become (bizarrely to me) a catch-all phrase for....any discussion of racism? Or just any acknowledgement of racial difference as a dynamic in society? Profoundly stupid, bad-faith and IMO not really worth engaging with.
This doesn't mean I totally agree with Vlad. I probably think there's less silliness than he does in "hyper-identity politics", and I'd also love to hear him articulate what he might consider a legitimate, NON-"hyper" identity politics. But that's a subject for another day.
20:12 We have to get beyond thinking about what divides us in terms of us vs them, and thinking about the fact that what divides us is actually a product of pools and forces that are acting in common upon all of us to which we are reacting differently.
Thank you, I've never looked at it this way.
A holding to account for things said and done. Promises made and promises kept.
this format is really great. Is there maybe a discord or inbox to submit suggestions which might be interesting to hear your comment on?
I found this summary of CRT very helpful: Ryan Chapman's UA-cam video, A Guide to Critical Race Theory. He uses the writings of theorists to summarize their ideology.
May the 4th be with you too, Vlad
On CRT:
Any true "critical race theory" should be critical theory applied to race and racial dynamics from a distanced and nuanced academic perspective. Alot of what people complain about when the talk about "Critical Race Theory" isnt critical race theory but a cultural-mutation of it based on non-academic persons reading it with a biased lense; or political entrepreneurialism by certain sales-persons which warped the original intent of critically investigation the racial inequalities and inherent bias in civic and economic institutions and reduced it to a set of ideological protocols (both benign and dogmatic) for public consumption by elite institutions and individuals to assuage consumer/corporate/civic guilt, and foster a marketable image of racial progress.
It has caused so much damage to the civic realm and social cohesion of western multi-ethnic states.
Through bad actors you mention have built a whole industry on the perverse incentives created by CRT. They'd be out of a job if they actually solved the issues they claim to want to solve. They are empowered by victimhood and won't give it up willingly.
The most telling thing about the US discourse on the inherent racism of classical music is that they completely ignore how *admired* Jazz is in Europe also by essentially the same ilk of people that still go to classical concerts (as well as metalheads, the other category of classical concert goers): That is, this black/white music dichotomy only really exists in the US and instead of listening to Jazz (appropriation!) melanin-deficient academics there see the need to diss classical composers, instead.
I just LOVE the balanced and multifaceted analysis of the forms of "critical theory" nowadays.
Separating the valid points from the nonsense is so much needed nowadays!
👏 👏
My view of Liz Truss, looking at how she's evolved as a politician over her career, is that she's an ideologue by inclination, but lacks any fundamental connection to any particular ideology. I think she sees herself as a visionary, and her political beliefs are determined more by how well they facilitate that self-image than any particular logic or conviction.
Her stupidity is dangerous. She would have cost lives. She already cost many house holders and businesses dearly with mortgage interest rate rises.
A floater in every sense of the word.
@RoofLight00 I'm guessing she voted for welfare cuts at every opportunity so she's already helped kill countless ppl.
khhhhiii and happy voskreseniya to you, too!
The while Truss statement is such a disingenuous distortion of correlation vs. causation 😡
In John De Bello's seminal 1978 work "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!" he tried to warn us but he got the produce wrong. It's lettuce we needed to be afraid of, not tomatoes
As I see it, a little removed from academia for the last five years; intersectionality is not primarily, much less socially, causally or indicative of negative social influences or forces that organize personhood or personal possibilities. Rather, social influences and forces are dynamically positive, negative, neutral at the intersection at a moment in time. These influences are organized by persons with personality structures, there seems to be a center that may not be so determined, but I suppose that is an other subject.
The whole thing is akin to looking at the world in 8-bit
As I read over this, I regret using kind of abstract language. Makes it hard to get the point across. I am saying that intersectionality is a good thing. Recognizes all the things that make up a person, positive, negative, and neutral, and how they relate. Which may change tomorrow, and usually does.
I thought this was brilliant Vlad. Very clear, and I felt as though I left the room with a set of useful tools in my bag.
Brilliant comment on neurodiversity. Yes Elon is, yes Trump is. Thanks for bringing this forward. More people need to hear this
If someones behavior is only affecting himself,
Then its depending on his intend to maybe inform him.
However, when someones behavior starts affecting others.
Discussions and or actions are needed.
I came to my own conclusion about critical theory several years ago. My response is to say that I don't know what it is. Critical theory suggests to me that it is a model describing something about the world. If the person is not constructing a picture of this model in front of me; then they are using it to trigger a response from me.
And I can deny them a response.
I didnt understand everything but the examples helped
Thank you for this video. I have learned a great deal from you over the years (at least I tell myself I have 😂), but this video made a specific impact on me. In particular your analysis of Liz Truss I think gave me a better understanding of the things you have been saying. I wish you well and again thank you for your analysis.
Could Liz Truss's descent into destructiveness be an expression of her uncontrollable rage over the rejection by her party, or is what we are seeing now a true expression of feelings she has always harboured? Either way she should never have been anywhere near an office of state.
Excellent comments on CRT.
33:03 your pronunciation of his name is perfect 👍
If Alice ever grows out of her flat-earth belief, at least chances are high that she’s going to have a more conscious approach to what she and others believe for the rest of her life.
Vlad, this was a fascinating piece. In short order it covered a lot of ground.
You clarified a couple of my problems with critical race theory, which was very useful. Thanks again.
The thing I would like to see covered are the "isms". Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Stalinism, Leninism, etc. I feel that for a lot of commentators (bravo Slavó) they end up lumped together as a seething mass of similarity. As you pointed out, there are quite radical differences in thought and effect in action.
I do enjoy these "UA-cam roulette" chats. Look after yourself and lots of love.
I will talk about be isms both on the philosophy channel and on a main channel video about the ideology of Putinisim - I will discuss both fascism and ideology in general. How we might think about it.
Reminds me to keep my fingers crossed for a Mark Galeotti / Vlad Vexler crossover :)
True, Gabor Maté is a legend in his own lunchbox. 🏆
Interesting considerations. They make me think about respect and in what way we show it to others or what we expect others to show us (and the effects if interpreted wrongly). Would we automaticly show Alice less respect knowing that her views are a product than we would not knowing it (or vice versa)?
Why survived?
I think in two years there was maybe one video I barely survived, and I fell asleep and had a very good sleep, all three times I tried to watch it. 😅
No, it was pleasant and interesting as always.
🌻
Thank you for setting me straight on Critical Theory. My experience reading the absurd DiAngelo and Kendi had left me vulnerable to the right’s ideological capture on the subject.
Always glad to gear from Vlad. What do you make of Yanis Varouflakis and his notions on the end of capitalism?
Liz trust the political example of how if post truth politics is analogous to painting narratives in a modern art type way, a person doing doodles and nobody is in awe of the genius so much as clapping on the stupidity because that too has value more than silence anyhow.
Zizek's a strange one: he's a self-proclaimed Marxist, who says that sex should be reserved for committed relationships, that teenagers should read Ayn Rand ... and that the Free Market is generally the best basis for an economic system.
Kinda like a Hardcore-Tankie-Moderate-Conservative...
..and I love him for it !!
@Vlad what do you think about Galeotti in general? I'm an avid listener of his podcast, and would love to hear your opinion on his view of Russia
The question of whether Stalin or Hitler was worse as being separable from the question of whether Nazism or Communism was worse is a great point to end on, regardless of the answers to both questions. Kudos and keep on brother 👏
Lost credit card, he’ll. HOUSE KEYS GO FLYING!
Love this analysis! Like the drunken man on the run from consequences of what they have done.
Liz Truss is just a genuine delight. Many people, with her record in government, wouldn't bring up their record in government. But she just goes brings it on! So charming...
May the force be with us 😂
Hi Vlad, I'd be interested in hearing what you think of the three series of videos "Traitors" by the Navalny team. They seem to have initiated a lot of debate amongst politically minded Russians.
I'll be looking forward to your breakdown of genocide. In the video, I prefer you clarify your statements from 37:05 to 37:48, since I've briefly forgotten that you were speaking in respect to the systematic/structural difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. I would appreciate that very much!
👍👍👍
fnord
Vlad, having mentioned Gabor Mate, I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts on him?
I don't have any comprehensive thoughts -my remark was specifically about ADHD. I felt he didn't know the subject when talking about it.
@@VladVexlerChat Fair enough! A lot of people have certainly found his work on trauma, and particularly his book When The Body Says No very helpful, but I've found it a bit frustrating at times seeing him portrayed as some kind of guru of all things mental health. I haven't seen this particular video on ADHD but I could certainly believe that his audience would treat him as an expert on the subject even if he doesn't really know his stuff.
@@horrisnorris6478 agreed, and having listened to his book, i was curious on a technical level why he has no idea what he is talking about
It has everything a complete and working republic needs, plus the extra elements from also being a monarchy as an addition.
Hell…
I’ll be interested to watch your session on genocide. I read Samantha Power’s book “A Problem from Hell” (genocide) and was impressed with her analysis, and writing style. She won the Pulitzer Prize for the book. Her follow-up book “The Education of an Idealist” was written following her stint in the Obama years as the US Ambassador to the UN is also of note.
Vlad Vexler, Stephen Kotkin, Mark Galleoti, Anders Puck Nielson and Dominick Presl of Decoding Geopolotics are the best Russian analysts on youtube
Thanks Vlad. Not sure I agree completely with the distinction between Nism and Stalinism. Bolshevism (especially Stalinism) deployed dehumanising language against particular social groups in the USSR, and individuals or groups could be condemned to servitude or death by mere administrative act, not even a charade of a trial. It was enough to be on a list initialled by an official of the necessary rank. However, I agree that over time everybody in the USSR was at some risk from the dictatorship, although the extent of risk would differ between groups, so in that sense it recognised a kind of equality.
Liz Lettuce admiration of Trump's foreign policy explains her tenure at 10 Downing.
I agree with your critique, or identifying a hidden assumption, of critical theory proper. The idea of knowledge production being an embedded process i.e. socially produced is useful to a degree. It can help us see the inextricable connection between matter and meaning. However, I've found that it tends to invite the consequential argument that a 'good' idea or theory cannot come from a particular person or position due to xyz about said person or position. This is the fallacy of origin and I see it being made quite regularly in the social sciences. Specifically, a given theory or idea is given preference a priori due to the gender of the proponent. The biggest issue is that the position or person it stems from can be in vogue or become pariah-like as public sentiment shifts and what does this mean for their ideas or theories? I agree that some ideas lose traction as values change, but their value should be determined on their own merits. So while I think critical theory proper, and theories which share a lineage, have value, the consequential thinking can vear waaay off track.
I don't think Truss is capable of a political comeback. She is the dreadful combination of a populist with no charisma. Until she either abandons trying to style herself as the new Boris Johnson or grows a personality she'll keep shouting into the void with no response.
Truss Tried to increase government spending and decrease taxes, and almost broke the UK state pension in the process. An absolute disaster was only stopped by a ton of people getting rid of her to save the UK from disaster. Now she is just looking for big fees from talking tours of the conservative USA.
I'm wondering, since you've touched on the subject briefly and made it clear you think there is an answer, who you think of as morally worse or "more evil", whether Hitler or Stalin.
Yup, I was certain. They put over 100,000 troops on tbe border. Yet my knowledge of Russia is more its literature and the communist takeover with Lenin and the gang. I still argue the importance of the amateurs. It was a housewife who discovered Richard Thirds grave.
A constructive comment Regarding Elon and Neuro-Diversity… Sure it is plain to see for anyone with some basic understanding of psychology and autism that Elon is on the spectrum but I’m not sure that is a constructive way to frame a discussion about the problems his monopolistic position on the online public discussion space with his ownership of Twitter/X.
His eccentricity is a part of what has fuelled his fame but it is his narcissistic Jesus complex and his uncheckered excessive wealth that is the actual problem. And I think it is much more important to stress that than his neurodiversity because it is a problem that applies to more people than Elon who’s problematic influence may not be as obvious because they blend in ❤
As far as CRT goes, I’d start with three terms-Eminent Domain, Redlining, and Restrictive Covenants. Alone, these are pretty benign terms, but if you explore their impact you can see how they have a lot to do with the current demographics of the United States. Pretending this is a current cultural clash or some more amorphous political disagreement is in effect just a form of denial of history.
If somebody like shoigu decided they no longer wanted to engage in Russia's politics, or leave their position, can they do that? Can shoigu tell Putin here's my replacement, or you should replace me because I want to retire on a beach somewhere? would that mean certain death or imprisonment, are they locked in? I can't see keeping power until death so can he get off the train?
Galeotti rubs me the wrong way. His attitude toward Finland, Poland, and the Baltics is dismissive and arrogant. He'll often claim that nobody knew or nobody said or did this or that, and it'll be something that we've been talking about for years. So you get the sense that we're nobody.
I occasionally listen to his analysis on Ukraine because it's usually good, but again, I don't find his line "Putin is Ukraine's greatest asset" funny.
Maybe it's his sense of humor I don't appreciate:
"Living next to Russia sucks. What are you going to do about it?" is his message to Estonians.
🇬🇧❤🇺🇦
The truss/trump tory/repub issue is better understood as their ability to have pootin cause all sorts of problems when their power is on the line.
Alas I missed your Sunday roast (for me your discussions are always a hearty meal) on Sunday, so I had it today (Monday) but I am thinking Truss would have made a better pudding than Zizek. Having said that, I am replete and as ever, much to digest.
The thesis of equal moral worth is interesting, for at least two reasons. It should be beyond question that the thesis cannot be discarded outright, but there seem to be at least two issues with any available formulation of it.
First, "worth" is a financial metaphor, and people aren't commodities. Even if we focus on how we're _equal_ units of a metaphorical commodity, and even if the thesis we're trying to express about equality is entirely correct, a framing that makes us into metaphorical commodity is still unsatisfactory. It's better than the framing that was in _On Compromise and Rotten Compromises,_ which posits that being human is the sole basis of morality, and thereby puts all other animals unconditionally outside the scope of moral concern. I don't have a fully satisfactory framing, of course.
Second, it's not clear to me that it's strictly tenable. Certainly a human cell or a human corpse is not morally equal to an actual human being. In particular, it's not clear how the thesis bears on end-of-life questions. There seems to be a continuum of possible states I may be in as I'm dying, with no absolutely sharp boundary between still being me and no longer existing as a human being. If the thesis as we can formulate it really depends on demanding an absolutely bright line where in fact there's a continuum, then there's a problem. For many purposes, it's not a problem that matters at all. Even when it does, in practical terms nothing much is lost if we arbitrarily draw a bright line that extends our concern for the living to a few of the recently dead, extending it just enough to adequately cover the gray area. But in principle, if the thesis is to represent a correct analysis, it shouldn't have had that problem in the first place.
I think I see Braverman as an authoritarian who wants to break democratic institutions, Truss just seems to have grown into the most hollow politician both morally and intellectually.
Hi Vlad,
could you please add a separate chapter for the tangent starting around 15:00?
Unless you were hinting specifically at Liz Truss (I doubt that was your intention), it's rather unfitting as part of a Liz Truss (post truth populism) chapter, and rather a general statement.
Generally:
For both neurodiversity and for acquired psychiatric conditions, I consider it better to talk about actual traits for which there is evidence than to speculate about a diagnosis when such is not publicly known. The label which comes with a diagnosis is more catchy, but in public it comes anyway at the price of lumping in all traits which get commonly associated with it, even "folklore" traits which can't be part of a professional diagnosis.
E.g. one could make a case for Donald Trump showing impaired attention, inexpedient impulsivity and emotional dysregulation, and give plenty of examples for illustration. Even if such examples might check many boxes of an AD(H)D diagnosis, it would still be inapt to call it AD(H)D. Not only isn't it a diagnosis, it would be lacking significant parts of it (e.g. a differential diagnosis - similarity in presentation can be superficial). Especially in a political context, it's beneficial to stick to attributions which can be justified by evidence, instead of guessing any diagnosis.
Public discussions can't elaborate on a highly detailed level, but it would still be catchy enough to say someone behaves highly impulsive, or to make a case that emotional dysregulation would appear to be so pronounced in a person such that it casts doubts on their fitness for an office. There's hardly any need to employ any broader labels like AD(H)D or Autism.
I would also encourage people to carefully distinguish neurodiversity and acquired psychiatric disorders.
Both come often along with each other, but it's a qualitative difference between e.g. a predisposed emotional dysregulation and acquired (co-)morbid traits such as specific narcissistic traits. Nobody can be expected to shed predisposed characteristics, but learning healthier ways to deal with a challenging predisposition is very much within a person's principal limits (when given adequate support, time, and a will to improve).
It's also more revealing to make such a distinction when it comes to apparent qualities of a person, as apparently underlying neurodiverse traits may very well simultaneously manifest in advantageous ways. E.g. in a politician who despite all shortcomings is able to capture an audience and pick up popular and/or polarizing topics.
Thank you for your work!
On the last point, I would argue that there is little difference between Nazism and Stalinism (Or Marxism) on this front. It is not true that of these two only Nazism rejects the idea of equal human moral worth, Stalinism does as well. Stalinism however does so on a class basis rather than a race basis which is an important distinction because class is more malleable than race, yet in practise this makes little difference. People still get blamed and killed over membership of a group that they may have had no control over in both systems. Both denigrate the idea of the worth of the individual, indeed they conceptually argue that there is no moral relevance to the individual and the fundamental rejection of morality comes from their stance on the individual. Your moral worth is only the worth of the group you are attached to in both systems.
What is it about the English that allows/compels them to take so long to get the the point, as it were, old boy, so to speak, isn't it, wot wot? In America we would say, "Spit it out. While we're young. Think of what you want to say beforehand and say it, irrespective of your class status. Even your lessors value our time."
"all human beings are of equal moral worth" - while this indeed may be the most basic thing in articulated (western) ethics, I fear it is much less baked into everyone's mindset. And Nazi ideology was not that exceptional in this regard and tapped into well established patterns: Racism rejects this notion, sexism rejects it, as do many other -isms. Also confusing someones wealth, power or status with their moral worth is quite common - European societies accepting few of theirs as "highborn" is only two or three generations away (if at all).
Then - hardly anyone can overcome valuing their loved ones higher than distant strangers. And should we? Probably this principle is aimed at objective application only not subjective perspective …