How Adolph Reed Became An Anti-Essentialist ft. Adolph Reed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- How Adolph Reed Became An Anti-Essentialist
This is free content from the weekly edition of TMBS. To support the Michael Brooks Show on Patreon and receive hours of weekly members-only content, subscribe at / tmbs
Follow The Michael Brooks Show and crew on twitter: @TMBSfm @_michaelbrooks @mattlech @davidslavick @davidgriscom
Back in 5th grade, I actually won an award for my great D.A.R.E. essay and got to read it in front of all the kids and parents during D.A.R.E graduation. Truly a top 5 shameful moment in my life.
I remember back before Adolph was anti-essentialist.
I kept saying to him, "Adolph, stop being such an essentialist."
And look at him now.
I guess he got the essence of what you were saying.
@@1monki the rest is history.
LOL!!!!
What I wouldn't give to see 11 year old Michael in an anti-drug sport shirt
Being on the "Dare" little league team is the most working class Massachusetts childhood experience possible.
This might literally be too much of a high level idea conversation for me. Rubin would be proud.
Essentialism - a belief that things have a set of characteristics which make them what they are, and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression; the doctrine that essence is prior to existence.
- the view that all children should be taught on traditional lines the ideas and methods regarded as essential to the prevalent culture.
- the view that categories of people, such as women and men, or heterosexuals and homosexuals, or members of ethnic groups, have intrinsically different and characteristic natures or dispositions.
In case anyone was like myself and needed to look up the definition #LeftIsBest
Thank you for the public service comrade.✊🏾
I mean clearly all humans adhere to certain essentialist categories.
LoL the DARE team. My band shared a house and we had a DARE sticker on the door. When my Mom came to visit her response "who you trying to fool" and laughed
Anthropology definitely should have been a huge part of the 1619 project
This brings me back to how great those episodes of the Michael Brooks show were. Learned so much from you Michael and still learning : )
Ward Connerly. Now, there's a name that hasn't turned my stomach in over a decade. He's part of the answer to the question posed in '08, 'So, are you voting for Obama just because he's black?' My answer was, 'No, because you couldn't make me vote for Clarence Thomas or Ward Connerly with a gun to my head!'
Smarter now thank you. Good stuff.
For those interested in this topic, I've also been writing about this, in an effort to explain why liberalism is inherently incompatible with egalitarianism; and to show how essentialism and (neo)liberalism are twin developments that are both expressions of bureaucratic reasoning in action; plus other stuff. This because liberalism is just one species of meritocratic reasoning, which is the same logic reactionaries employ, though the latter do so more broadly than the former. Yet both are problematic for the same reason: because they start from the assumption that some are worth more than others, and that the "sorting" may be performed by supposedly-neutral institutions run by other meritocrats.
beyondmeritocracy.info/en/blog/linking-neoliberalism-identity-politics-and-bureaucracy
Um... what? Is this what passes for intellectual thought? Humans can have inherent "value" as a principle, but we are "worth" different "value" practically.
Sorting is a biological imperative. Its why an attractive woman will not get married to, or have sex with, a fat short unhealthy man with severe illnesses...
Are you some kind of communist?
How can you be against meritocracy?
Freedom is incompatible with egalitarianism?
Damn its crazy looking into the minds of the radical left.
@@dickdrapper5491 I actually do answer most of these concerns of yours in the essay listed plus the introduction. :)
That said, while you may have more utility for some individuals than for others, it doesn't follow from this that it's legitimate to deny them access to social goods just because you feel that way about the person. And while sorting surely is "biological", its expression is mediated by culture: which is why, no matter how attractive and no matter how good your relationship with your siblings may be, we tend to forbid sibling marriage, encourage against them having children, and so on. There's nothing biological about that rule.
As to why I'm against meritocracy as an organizing moral principle: the short answer is because those who end up on top will always select for traits that advantageous to them, and to the maintenance of hierarchy in practice, thus creating hierarchies in which most people are effectively forced to work for them or those they like.
More principally, it's because I object to discrimination. I've made a longer-form argument here -> www.beyondmeritocracy.info/homepage/introduction
@@fjdhaan interested in what you have to say but link doesn't work. Also i can't grasp your point about siblings marriage. Isn't that the most biological tabboo of them all?
@@tidakada7357 thanks for the heads-up, site's fixed. :)
As to the taboo: there are fairly strong biological reasons for not wanting siblings to have offspring, though genetic defects usually won't start to occur for a while. Any taboo is cultural, though; and there are species (and human contexts, such as royal families, esp. in ancient egypt) in which close family pairing does happen and isn't 'taboo' as such.
@@fjdhaan Dude... please educate yourself before making shity analogies. You do realize that incest IS biologically selected against, yes? Its hard wired into animals brains, to not find siblings attractive. Its not "cultural", but of course culture followed biology in this case.
I'm not reading your essays.
Discrimination is biological. You are "against" human nature. Have fun with that.
Hierarchies are a biological imperative.
Its crazy watching you say how "against" these things you are, these things that are biologically hardwired, while also presenting no alternative way of organizing a bunch of animals.
The only reason I feel pressured to emphasize BIOLOGY is because of how dumb things like "I don't like hierarchy, I don't like discrimination, I don't like self-sorting" sound when someone is intelligent enough to take human nature into account when trying to "organize society".
Its ironic that these same critiques of communism were made 70 years ago, but must be made again, and again, and again. People must again ask the communists the question "what about human nature", its sad that we even have to ask.
See fragments of an anarchist anthropology. It’s free on Google. Good luck.
What a brilliant guy
I met the governor of NJ at that Bar.
I thought Toure´ was his son. Named after the great Ahmed Sekou Toure´ I'd assume
Btw if your using a smartphone you should be able to put your finger down on the e and and see a menu of different accent marks like ēêëèé ând thé såmë with øthēr vòwēls āñd a çõúplë çòñsôñañtß.
Goddamn I miss Mike.
Thank you both
What’s the opening beat???
Diamond Heist by DCS Lefty
Wut
Labels like "anti-essentialist" are the kind of academic jargon that give the speaker the self-image of being an intellectual elite. There are now even people advocating "anti-anti-essentialism". "Essentialism" is just the logical fallacy of assuming that a category has an essential characteristic that is objective and not merely assumed by the definition. Being "anti-essentialist" is a fancy way of saying that language and categories of language are relative to the observer
No, its a fairly simple and direct iteration of what you describe in more convoluted terms to flatter your own self-image as an activist or pragmatist anti-intellectual.