Dear Helen, you are an inspiration to me! Responding to the school-yard mud slinging with articulate, rational aplomb. I avoid social media- yes! Call me “coward”- for these reasons. I just can’t see these 280 character bitch-fests as being helpful to my general wellbeing. I wish people would go and do something useful with themselves like weed the garden or learn to make a truly decent pot of tea.
However, staying silent is not helpful either and you give me great courage for entering the fray. 🙏🏽❤️
I largely agree with you, but I feel like your style of argument argument is really conflating views on two different dimensions. It might be more helpful to point them out explicitly:
1) What I believe in a moral sense and what policies the government should have that are based on those moral views.
2) The fundamental rules of the game that help society adjudicate between those competing views. This might be called Liberal Democratic Capitalism.
Any moral view that rejects the latter tends towards authoritarianism or totalitarianism. On the other hand, any person who only believes in the “rules of the game” and nothing else cannot tell us what governments and individuals should do.
So Liberalism is a category of ideals that are constrained by the rules of the game rather than a true moral philosophy. I think that is what people are getting at when they say “squishy liberalism.” They see “squishy liberals” as people who are failing to take a public stand on the first dimension.
All good points. Yes, I am speaking very much to the cultural dimension here and have not gone into systems of governments. When I do, I still tend to argue that in order to make governmental policy more liberal, we need to make culture more liberal because politicians build their platforms on what people are demanding and will vote for. At the moment, the culture wars is making authoritarian leaders seem more attractive to many people and we see this is criticisms of Kemi Badenoch's appointment - that she is too liberal, not radical enough and that only Reform or a Braverman-style conservatism will protect the nation. Also in the radical leftists who have left the Labour Party because they feel Starmer is too centrist and too liberal.
The rules of the game in a liberal capitalist democracy will always be decided by the consumer/voter because their attitudes determine which parties and platforms people can vote for. We currently have five years to see whether Starmer can satisfy enough people that he has control of immigration or a new party - Reform - with a hardline on immigration has a very strong possibility of overturning the two-party Tory/Labour system we've had for so long and sweeping into power because of what enough people believe in a moral sense. I.e., that problems associated mostly with radical Islam are incompatible with British values and presenting a threat to them and the safety of the British people.
I'm afraid you are underestimating a legitimate point of disagreement. Liberals, you say, should support other people freedoms UNLESS doing so restricts some other freedom. How do you decide what constitute a freedom limitation? Limit yourself to only very proximate direct interactions and you end up being an hypocritical authoritarian upholding the status quo and camouflaging as a liberal. But admit that you have to consider indirect effects, and you end up with people claiming both to be coherently liberal and disagreeing with where to draw boundaries and what is impinging on other's freedom and what's not. There is no way around this. And because of this I don't think there is anything wrong with people having other values in addition to liberal ones and choosing a side. I'm left wing and I believe this ultimately reduces to "don't do to others what you wouldn't wish on yourself". I think that asking people to try to be coherent would already go a long way.
Of course, we will always be arguing where the boundaries should be. That's part of the messiness of being human and what the marketplace of ideas and democracy are for. But we start with the assumption that people are allowed to believe, speak and live as they see fit and then require anybody saying they should not be able to to make a case for that. This is usually easy in cases of direct harm but there will always be grey areas. Is abortion a freedom issue or something that causes harm? I'd argue for the former up to a time at which a foetus is viable and can experience its own existence but I have to make a case for that. Where does freedom of belief and speech stop? I'd argue only when we can trace direct harm to it as in the case of Anjem Choudhary radicalising so many young men to commit acts of violence or Helen Akpabio convincing people their children are possessed or witches and doing violence to them.
I also don't think there is a problem with people having other values in addition to liberal ones and choosing a side. That's what the last few paragraphs are about. Liberalism is a secondary value to many people. You can choose to be a leftist in a way that is more authoritarian or more liberal. I choose to be a liberal one and it sounds like you do too because don't treat others in a way you would not wish to be treated is more of a liberal value than a left-wing one. Left-wing values are about wealth distribution, workers rights, nationalised services and social programs. Trade Unions don't go to employers asking them to treat workers as they'd like to be treated. That's a vague philosophical principle. They go in with materialist issues and make clear demands about a living wage, working conditions etc.
What’s been said here about freedom & harm does remind me of arguments my husband and I used to have, about the ethics of harming/killing animals for food (when it’s not a matter of survival, but rather for reasons of habit, convenience, or fleeting gustatory pleasure).
He was angered by, as he complained, “The limit on my freedom!”
From my perspective, he was failing to give adequate moral consideration to the interests of others. (And yes, most of us accept that “others” can include sentient non-humans. He certainly did.)
A happy postscript: Nowadays it doesn’t bother him, leaving animal parts/products off his plate almost all the time, and harmony prevails in our home. :)
Yes, that's a good example of where people will disagree on the harm/freedom principle and have to make arguments for whether the freedom of humans to eat meat justifies the harm done to animals or whether the harm principle should also apply to non-humans. Most people feel it should on some degree, I think. An example is the moral outrage most people feel on learning that dogs are being tortured due to a belief that the hormones produced by their fear and pain make their meat tastier. Then if we agree that animal harm is a serious consideration, we'll argue about whether it is better for an animal not to exist at all because there is no incentive for anyone to breed them if they are not being eaten or to live for a few years before being killed. Or if we were going to release them all into the wild and let them breed themselves and live or die naturally how this could be done in a way that meant they experienced less suffering as a result of this than they would on a farm and so on.
I usually don't disagree with you on major points; here I had the impression that even if you said one can have other values, you somewhat implied that liberal values should be above the others. I don't think so and just wanted to point out that. Probably it's not even possible to have a coherent ordinated scale of values.
As a side note, I think that what you describe as materialistic, redistributive issues that characterize being left wing could indeed be thought of as a consequence of "not doing others what you don't want to be done to you", in particular regarding "do not exploit others": the corollary is "side with the weak part" (and of course this give birth to the problem of identifying which side is the weak one :P).
Never EVER be self effacing or (God forbid) critical about you unique, magical ability to piss off scores of people at a time. It's what makes you so very special, Ms. Pluckrose. The Michael Jordan of pissing off both the anime-avatared IRL noodle necks and the Greek sculpture profile pic & famous philosopher pseudonym (with username brigade. Sic Semper Wankers.
Addendum: don't try to make a comment immediately after a nap. This didn't make much sense (unless you read it as one would best admire an expressionist painting - drunk...)
Those are all over the place. SD is a Euro label, whereas "socialist" is used as shorthand for "anything I don't like" for American conservatives. To discuss anything intelligibly we need to at least coordinate on word meanings, especially sincere-meaning vs scare-word usage.
It is a testament to your effectiveness and honesty....which flawed people lack. So take it in that spirit. The more stupid enemies y ou have the better; it's a testament to your achievements. Scare the merde out of them....and treasure the insults as proof of your success.
I feel like I am only now, at 36, distilling the values by which I live. Having them so clearly articulated here really provides me some clarity about why I frequently find myself arguing with people on both sides of the political spectrum, but not always sure why. I get called a “fence sitter” or “centrist” which implies some kind of muddy-water value set. When in reality I am a strong adherent to liberalism, rationality, and compassion, and believe these values should guide everything.
Thank you for this post. I’ll be saving it and referencing it for years to come.
Most people are unprincipled hypocrites that are driven by emotion, they are not deep thinkers. They will advocate for freedoms for themselves & fully support the opposite for others. You can make principled arguments until you’re blue in the face, and most people won’t care and will instead just roll their eyes. Nobody cares about principles
This is pretty cynical. If anyone has made it to the end of this article, they likely care about principles to some degree! And there are principled public voices, they just aren’t always the loudest.
If you are seeking examples - I have engaged in robust critique of HP although never beyond the boundaries of rudeness... The issue was the correct degree of accommodation within the gender-critical position. The others and I were critical of HP's advocacy for wiggle room to grant some space to self-id'd trans people as opposed to the "hard no" position, I see the term "Ultra" now occasionally used for the latter.
There is a challenge however - we need words to discuss this... What would you call the "illiberal right-wing anti-woke" vs the "liberal/left anti-woke"? There is clearly a spectrum of positions some well meaning to turn back from extreme-prog all the way to bad-faith complete rollback of egalitarianism. Just like we need to agree on terminology such as CSJ vs Cultural Marxism (using that label brings out a bit of heat!).
Well, as long as its not women's space, I don't care much.
I'll give examples of ideas I'm objecting to under 'illiberal right-wing anti-woke' rather than try to find a name for all of them. They come from various positions. I'm just identifying that it is various of those who are illiberal, on the right and critics of wokeness I am speaking of right then rather than liberal right-wing anti-woke, illiberal left-wing anti-woke etc.
I'm keen to hear your thoughts on a phenomenon that has become noticeable - the egress of prior-progressives into the ranks of the alt right (actual alt-right or merely alleged). I'm talking about people like Meghan Murphy or Laci Green.
Dear Helen, you are an inspiration to me! Responding to the school-yard mud slinging with articulate, rational aplomb. I avoid social media- yes! Call me “coward”- for these reasons. I just can’t see these 280 character bitch-fests as being helpful to my general wellbeing. I wish people would go and do something useful with themselves like weed the garden or learn to make a truly decent pot of tea.
However, staying silent is not helpful either and you give me great courage for entering the fray. 🙏🏽❤️
I largely agree with you, but I feel like your style of argument argument is really conflating views on two different dimensions. It might be more helpful to point them out explicitly:
1) What I believe in a moral sense and what policies the government should have that are based on those moral views.
2) The fundamental rules of the game that help society adjudicate between those competing views. This might be called Liberal Democratic Capitalism.
Any moral view that rejects the latter tends towards authoritarianism or totalitarianism. On the other hand, any person who only believes in the “rules of the game” and nothing else cannot tell us what governments and individuals should do.
So Liberalism is a category of ideals that are constrained by the rules of the game rather than a true moral philosophy. I think that is what people are getting at when they say “squishy liberalism.” They see “squishy liberals” as people who are failing to take a public stand on the first dimension.
All good points. Yes, I am speaking very much to the cultural dimension here and have not gone into systems of governments. When I do, I still tend to argue that in order to make governmental policy more liberal, we need to make culture more liberal because politicians build their platforms on what people are demanding and will vote for. At the moment, the culture wars is making authoritarian leaders seem more attractive to many people and we see this is criticisms of Kemi Badenoch's appointment - that she is too liberal, not radical enough and that only Reform or a Braverman-style conservatism will protect the nation. Also in the radical leftists who have left the Labour Party because they feel Starmer is too centrist and too liberal.
The rules of the game in a liberal capitalist democracy will always be decided by the consumer/voter because their attitudes determine which parties and platforms people can vote for. We currently have five years to see whether Starmer can satisfy enough people that he has control of immigration or a new party - Reform - with a hardline on immigration has a very strong possibility of overturning the two-party Tory/Labour system we've had for so long and sweeping into power because of what enough people believe in a moral sense. I.e., that problems associated mostly with radical Islam are incompatible with British values and presenting a threat to them and the safety of the British people.
I'm afraid you are underestimating a legitimate point of disagreement. Liberals, you say, should support other people freedoms UNLESS doing so restricts some other freedom. How do you decide what constitute a freedom limitation? Limit yourself to only very proximate direct interactions and you end up being an hypocritical authoritarian upholding the status quo and camouflaging as a liberal. But admit that you have to consider indirect effects, and you end up with people claiming both to be coherently liberal and disagreeing with where to draw boundaries and what is impinging on other's freedom and what's not. There is no way around this. And because of this I don't think there is anything wrong with people having other values in addition to liberal ones and choosing a side. I'm left wing and I believe this ultimately reduces to "don't do to others what you wouldn't wish on yourself". I think that asking people to try to be coherent would already go a long way.
I'm not quite sure what you are disagreeing with.
Of course, we will always be arguing where the boundaries should be. That's part of the messiness of being human and what the marketplace of ideas and democracy are for. But we start with the assumption that people are allowed to believe, speak and live as they see fit and then require anybody saying they should not be able to to make a case for that. This is usually easy in cases of direct harm but there will always be grey areas. Is abortion a freedom issue or something that causes harm? I'd argue for the former up to a time at which a foetus is viable and can experience its own existence but I have to make a case for that. Where does freedom of belief and speech stop? I'd argue only when we can trace direct harm to it as in the case of Anjem Choudhary radicalising so many young men to commit acts of violence or Helen Akpabio convincing people their children are possessed or witches and doing violence to them.
I also don't think there is a problem with people having other values in addition to liberal ones and choosing a side. That's what the last few paragraphs are about. Liberalism is a secondary value to many people. You can choose to be a leftist in a way that is more authoritarian or more liberal. I choose to be a liberal one and it sounds like you do too because don't treat others in a way you would not wish to be treated is more of a liberal value than a left-wing one. Left-wing values are about wealth distribution, workers rights, nationalised services and social programs. Trade Unions don't go to employers asking them to treat workers as they'd like to be treated. That's a vague philosophical principle. They go in with materialist issues and make clear demands about a living wage, working conditions etc.
I appreciate this exchange.
What’s been said here about freedom & harm does remind me of arguments my husband and I used to have, about the ethics of harming/killing animals for food (when it’s not a matter of survival, but rather for reasons of habit, convenience, or fleeting gustatory pleasure).
He was angered by, as he complained, “The limit on my freedom!”
From my perspective, he was failing to give adequate moral consideration to the interests of others. (And yes, most of us accept that “others” can include sentient non-humans. He certainly did.)
A happy postscript: Nowadays it doesn’t bother him, leaving animal parts/products off his plate almost all the time, and harmony prevails in our home. :)
Yes, that's a good example of where people will disagree on the harm/freedom principle and have to make arguments for whether the freedom of humans to eat meat justifies the harm done to animals or whether the harm principle should also apply to non-humans. Most people feel it should on some degree, I think. An example is the moral outrage most people feel on learning that dogs are being tortured due to a belief that the hormones produced by their fear and pain make their meat tastier. Then if we agree that animal harm is a serious consideration, we'll argue about whether it is better for an animal not to exist at all because there is no incentive for anyone to breed them if they are not being eaten or to live for a few years before being killed. Or if we were going to release them all into the wild and let them breed themselves and live or die naturally how this could be done in a way that meant they experienced less suffering as a result of this than they would on a farm and so on.
Questions are rarely simple.
Thank you for this exchange.
I usually don't disagree with you on major points; here I had the impression that even if you said one can have other values, you somewhat implied that liberal values should be above the others. I don't think so and just wanted to point out that. Probably it's not even possible to have a coherent ordinated scale of values.
As a side note, I think that what you describe as materialistic, redistributive issues that characterize being left wing could indeed be thought of as a consequence of "not doing others what you don't want to be done to you", in particular regarding "do not exploit others": the corollary is "side with the weak part" (and of course this give birth to the problem of identifying which side is the weak one :P).
Never EVER be self effacing or (God forbid) critical about you unique, magical ability to piss off scores of people at a time. It's what makes you so very special, Ms. Pluckrose. The Michael Jordan of pissing off both the anime-avatared IRL noodle necks and the Greek sculpture profile pic & famous philosopher pseudonym (with username brigade. Sic Semper Wankers.
Addendum: don't try to make a comment immediately after a nap. This didn't make much sense (unless you read it as one would best admire an expressionist painting - drunk...)
For liberal read socialist. Or better still, social democrat.
Those are all over the place. SD is a Euro label, whereas "socialist" is used as shorthand for "anything I don't like" for American conservatives. To discuss anything intelligibly we need to at least coordinate on word meanings, especially sincere-meaning vs scare-word usage.
Helen uses the word liberal in a solely US fashion, I see that escapes your sarcasm.
Yes, social democrat is mainly European, it means someone who wants socialism (a good thing, for many Europeans) by democratic means.
We have got intelligent discussion, our little sidebar here contributes to it.
It is a testament to your effectiveness and honesty....which flawed people lack. So take it in that spirit. The more stupid enemies y ou have the better; it's a testament to your achievements. Scare the merde out of them....and treasure the insults as proof of your success.
It's a skill we can all work on. People try harder to be abusive if they think you are listening, it's so much more rewarding.
I suspect it's the Wokemon franchise that does it.
This is the way.
I feel like I am only now, at 36, distilling the values by which I live. Having them so clearly articulated here really provides me some clarity about why I frequently find myself arguing with people on both sides of the political spectrum, but not always sure why. I get called a “fence sitter” or “centrist” which implies some kind of muddy-water value set. When in reality I am a strong adherent to liberalism, rationality, and compassion, and believe these values should guide everything.
Thank you for this post. I’ll be saving it and referencing it for years to come.
Most people are unprincipled hypocrites that are driven by emotion, they are not deep thinkers. They will advocate for freedoms for themselves & fully support the opposite for others. You can make principled arguments until you’re blue in the face, and most people won’t care and will instead just roll their eyes. Nobody cares about principles
This is pretty cynical. If anyone has made it to the end of this article, they likely care about principles to some degree! And there are principled public voices, they just aren’t always the loudest.
I am pretty cynical. I have seen even anti-woke type activists who masquerade as principled thinkers make woke type arguments when it suits them.
Don’t worry about “Groypers.” They’re awful: racist, misogynistic and antisemitic.
If you are seeking examples - I have engaged in robust critique of HP although never beyond the boundaries of rudeness... The issue was the correct degree of accommodation within the gender-critical position. The others and I were critical of HP's advocacy for wiggle room to grant some space to self-id'd trans people as opposed to the "hard no" position, I see the term "Ultra" now occasionally used for the latter.
There is a challenge however - we need words to discuss this... What would you call the "illiberal right-wing anti-woke" vs the "liberal/left anti-woke"? There is clearly a spectrum of positions some well meaning to turn back from extreme-prog all the way to bad-faith complete rollback of egalitarianism. Just like we need to agree on terminology such as CSJ vs Cultural Marxism (using that label brings out a bit of heat!).
Well, as long as its not women's space, I don't care much.
I'll give examples of ideas I'm objecting to under 'illiberal right-wing anti-woke' rather than try to find a name for all of them. They come from various positions. I'm just identifying that it is various of those who are illiberal, on the right and critics of wokeness I am speaking of right then rather than liberal right-wing anti-woke, illiberal left-wing anti-woke etc.
I'm keen to hear your thoughts on a phenomenon that has become noticeable - the egress of prior-progressives into the ranks of the alt right (actual alt-right or merely alleged). I'm talking about people like Meghan Murphy or Laci Green.
This.