Regardless of what you think about Dave Rubin, I doubt that you think he should have been treated this way at the University of New Hampshire. There Rubin was scheduled to talk on a panel (with two other people) on “cultural appropriation, social justice, and free speech.” The two other participants canceled their appearance, and Leftist protestors almost forced Rubin to cancel his solo talk by blockading his venue. His talk was then moved to the hockey rink.
Rubin begins by talking about his views on identity politics (not favorable), but is soon interrupted by students chanting “Black Lives Matter” and refusing to shut up. Soon thereafter, student rattle money in glass jars to interrupt him. Rubin importunes them to talk to him, but they just shake their jars.
According to the organizer’s Facebook page, the venue wasn’t very crowded:
“they [JAC: the administration?] have capped our seating at 160 people and are not letting in the 200 people waiting outside to be let it. UNH Police are currently not letting anymore students or community members inside of the arena that has a capacity of 7000 people”.
The chanting and disruption continues, but the students don’t want to engage, question, or converse with Rubin; they simply want to disrupt him. A career in interviewing and stand-up comedy enables him to keep his cool, but he was clearly frustrated.
Yes, Rubin makes money off his show, as detractors of Bari Weiss’s “Intellectual Dark Web” article pointed out, but if there was a point to her article, it wasn’t that Rubin has “free speech” because his speech is “monetized”, but rather that people like Rubin get attention from the non-famous folk who are frustrated because they are afraid to speak out, or have spoken out and been demonized. Weiss’s lesson to me is that we should listen more, argue civilly, but don’t write off completely those who disagree with you. It’s simply the lesson John Stuart Mill imparts in his On Liberty.
It’s not that we have “free speech” because the First Amendment allows it; it’s that many who question Authoritarian Leftism don’t feel free to speak because open discussion has given way to the kind of nonproductive name-calling and disruption that ensues in this kind of political discourse.
At 30 minutes in he gets some hostile questions from an angry students but keeps his cool and tries to answer and engage a woman who won’t talk about her own oppression unless she’s given money. Then he’s interrupted again.
The woman who asks “do you believe that hate speech leads to violence?” doesn’t get a great answer from Rubin, though. I would have first asked “What do you mean by ‘hate speech’? About the possibility of violence, I’d say, “It’s not impossible, but experience suggests it’s unlikely. At any rate, allowing bigoted speech and then counter speech is what make this country free and great. Banning ‘hate speech’ doesn’t end hate; it just drives it underground where it festers.” But the woman who was angry clearly came to the event thinking that Rubin was a horrible person, and that too impeded their exchange.
I couldn’t listen past 52 minutes, as the disruption got too annoying. A civil Q&A session would have been great, and instructive, but the students simply wouldn’t let that happen.
If you can’t spare the time or the emotional labor for the full video, here are some bite-sized clips for you to digest.
We had no intention of releasing the video from my U. of New Hampshire event because it was such a circus and I’m not interested in fanning flames. However since usual suspects are making up lies, we will release the unedited, entire thing. Couple promos coming… pic.twitter.com/hcGGhEsdaJ
— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) May 9, 2018
Talking to a trans woman who started yelling at me. (1/2) pic.twitter.com/gUtOwYDeL9
— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) May 9, 2018
(2/2) pic.twitter.com/eDC3KMIPQq
— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) May 9, 2018
Trying one more for now. Ended with some real hate speech… pic.twitter.com/5Otf2MvfgW
— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) May 9, 2018
In other news, Michael Moore still not invited to speak at any conservative campus ever.
Are you making a point? If so, could you be explicit. Rubin was invited, I believe, by the conservatives at UNH. If liberals at a conservative campus won’t invite Michael Moore to speak, then why? But of course most campuses are NOT conservative, and the religiously conservative candidates probably don’t have any liberal students.
My point is that groups on conservative campuses impose a pre-censorship by rarely (never?) inviting truly controversial liberal speakers to demonstrate their love and support of free speech.
Never inviting is actually worse than inviting and then having problems. It makes it look like liberals are the only ones with a free speech problem, which just isn’t true.
How do you know that groups on conservative campuses impose a pre-censorship? And even if it were true, would it justify in any way the buffoons that instead of staying home or organizing counter events have to go there shaking coins in a glass, looking too dumb to articulate a thought?
Do you have data on this, or is this just your impression?
At any rate, that hardly matters, does it, when at liberal campuses the right doesn’t try to disrupt liberal speakers, while liberals try to disrupt conservative speakers. Look at the FIRE deplatforming database to see some real data on who gets deplatformed, and unless you think liberal speakers never get invited to mainstream campuses (liberal ones), you’ll see that in the last few years the huge majority of deplatformings at all colleges (mostly liberal ones like Middlebury, etc.) are by the Right.
Do you mean “of the Right”?
Am I reading the database backwards (or perhaps your statement)? For the past couple of years disinvitations “from left of speaker” outnumbered “from right of speaker” by a large number. It becomes more even back around 2007-2008. Seems like the left is getting much more censorius as of late.
I see your point but it is only a kind of whataboutery. It doesn’t really say anything about the heckler’s veto of Rubin’s speech, though.
When someone is invited to speak, and they or a third party arranges travel/accomodations, and prospective audience members travel to the venue and often pay for admission, and then the event is disrupted, that’s a far bigger inconvenience to all parties involved than simply not having the event in the first place. Nevermind the potential for protest to turn violent.
So, it’s the responsibility of people who disagree with a speaker to invite them now?
You might want to read the article about when Bernie Sanders spoke (uninhibited and uninterrupted) at Liberty University. Jerry Falwell actually required his students to attend the presentation. Many of the students, who for the most part are staunch conservatives, thanks Sanders for his views, although many continued to disagree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/07/why-liberty-university-is-requiring-its-students-to-attend-a-bernie-sanders-speech/?utm_term=.068f22565e93
He’s not even the exception that proves the rule. Bernie is not in the same universe of possible speakers as profit-driven outrageous bomb-throwers like Milo or Ann Coulter. He was a candidate for President with a realistic shot.
I picked Michael Moore for a reason, although even he is much milder than the worst of the right-wing. It’s hard to imagine a left-wing equivalent for many of them.
It’s not a campus that invites speakers, it’s students and faculty. Now ask yourself how many liberal student groups have invited Ann Coulter to speak?
As to your other comment, since liberal students don’t invite conservative speakers where to they fall on your scale?
Let’s assume you are right about Michael Moore and conservative campus invitations.
So what? How would that in any way excuse this happening on at UNH?
+1. “What about” is never a good argument. It makes no point, and makes even the best, most intelligent, debaters sound whiny and pathetic.
In general I agree when “what about” is claimed to be a rebuttal, but what’s the utility of criticizing only one side for a practice both sides actually do engage in?
My comment was not a rebuttal, it was a widening of context.
Yes, but so what? In my opinion, Conservatives are wrong about a lot of things but that doesn’t give us liberals an excuse to be also wrong.
“Michael Moore still not invited to speak…”
I assume you will be estatic if he is invited and receives the same respect as “conservative” speakers on liberal colleges.
(which includes sane democrats such as christina hoff sommers)
Oh, hell, I wonder whether, even on these supposedly “liberal” campuses, there’s much ideological diversity in the soi-disant leftists being invited on campus to speak — whether, for example, they’re inviting people from the labor movement, or old-line (as opposed to neo-)Marxists (if any there still be 🙂 ), or Socialists (or even Social Democrats), or, what the heck, Anarcho-Syndicalists. I suspect, instead, that it’s mainly a narrow, congested, PC brand of group think. Whole thing could use the fresh breeze of radical diversity, left and right, you ask me.
Anarcho-Syndicalists: Chomsky (who is sort of one) still gets around.
Of course, he’s probably “not suitable” for some of these folks. (And he does get attempts at shout down sometimes: I’ve seen a few where the Spartacists try to derail him.)
Based on what he said on Bill Maher’s show, both Michael Moore and Maher refuse to do appearances on college campuses because of the disruptive students.
I think It’d have helped if some faculty had been there
It depends on the faculty. After all these pathetic drones are created by he indoctrination of well known courses in well known programs that have metastasized the humanities.
Young adults are more likely to react impulsively to perceived disagreements. I think Dave Rubin handled himself well. I hope his presentation gave students a good learning experience.
These young adults likely have been well taught how to react.
I’m reminded of a 2nd or 3rd grade boy who was “high maintenance” (interrupting, being disruptive, not paying attention, bothering another student, etc.). I asked him why he was doing these things. From my experience most students give an “I dunno” shrug. He responded, “I’m a child.” I thought that quite remarkable. How convenient, eh? How many children that age come with that excuse by themselves? Can’t help but think he heard some adult somewhere utter it.
IIRC, the latest human cognitive development research indicates (alleges?) that at least not a few, if not many, human primates do not achieve full cognitive development until approximately age twenty-five. How convenient an excuse for self-absorbed college campus interrupters.
Yes, I get tired of people saying “Your brain doesn’t stop developing until age 25” to excuse any idiocy committed by teens or young adults. I want to ask “Shouldn’t it have STARTED developing by now?” You can’t expect a teen to have the maturity of a 30-year-old, but that doesn’t mean you can’t expect them to know ANYthing. People talk as if your brain is a ball of mush for 25 years, and then instantly shapes itself into a functioning adult brain on your 25th birthday.
I just thought of a way to maybe illustrate the profound nonsense:
Imagine a concert is given. The attendees really object to how the music is composed. So when the orchestra starts, the attendees blow those obnoxious blow horns from football games.
Sounds like the audience reaction when Stravinsky debuted the “The Rite of Spring” in Paris. 🙂
There you go
The uproar at the Rite of Spring debut in Paris was as much about the risque choreography of Nijinsky as about Stravinsky’s music, though it is now impossible to know how much was due to the music and how much to the choreography. It is also impossible to know what proportion of the audience was “old school” French classicism and romanticism unused to dissonance. Other music of that time included music of Mahler, Schoenberg, Ravel, Debussy, all of whom had broken with traditional romanticism and form in radical ways. This factionalism extended to music critics of course, preceded by the tiff between lovers of Wagner (who finished off romanticism) and those of Brahms, who Wagner dismissed as old fashioned (Brahms never picked up on Wagner’s attacks on him). In France itself there were adherents of Wagner and there were violent
opponents as well. Despite the daring radicalism of Debussy, French music never went further into the depths of atonality until the 1950s and the appearance of music by Pierre Boulez and his acolytes. As a result much of French music remained tunefully classic, easily accessible and undisturbing, while Europe and the U.S. took the lead in contemporary music….which would not have been possible without Debussy of course.
Thanks. It was in the late 1950s that atonality took off in jazz, too, especially with the release of Ornette Coleman’s The Shape of Jazz to Come.
The answer is to hire security that actually enforces civil behavior. Based on what I’ve seen on Rubin Report, he’d welcome even the most critical questions and engage in the discussion thoughtfully. Anyone attempting to employ the Heckler’s Veto, though, should be thrown out.
“The answer is to hire security that actually enforces civil behavior.”
Perhaps the answer is for the sane left to condemn this behavior in the strongest terms and to distance themselves from the authoritarian radicals.
Unfortunately I do not see media coverage of this in the New York Times, CNN, the Guardian etc.
Only Jerry Coyne on the left seems to care.
Not just Jerry thank goodness. There are a few others.
The trouble is, as soon as a liberal stands up to the Authoritarian Left, they are accused of drifting to the right. Look at what Sam Harris has been putting up with for years. Bill Maher is another. Speaking out puts a target on your back, and I say “back” deliberately, because they rarely engage you to your face and are frequently incapable of arguing their case anyway.
Imo, the Authoritarian Left, with the way they want to control behaviour, are far more like Ultra-Conservatives than they are like liberals. There has been a natural association between liberal and left for a long time, especially in the US. That needs to be broken. The more liberal you are, the less authoritarian you are. (Just don’t start confusing liberal with Libertarian instead!)
“Not just Jerry thank goodness. There are a few others.”
Besides Mahler, anyone that is not on the dark web list?
Bruckner.
Nice in theory, but in practice it does not work very well. Things can get out of hand pretty quickly.
Professional security, including but not limited to off-duty police officers, are able to maintain order in bars and concerts. Telling a few authoritarian leftists that they are trespassing and have the option of leaving immediately or being removed is well within their capabilities.
Failing to support the rights of the speakers to speak and the audience to hear just gets more of this nonsense. If the disruptors know there is a good chance they’ll be spending the night in jail and paying a substantial fine, we’ll see fewer of them.
Patrick, you are absolutely right about removal and security. I would only add that there must also be disciplinary punishment, punishment with bite to it.
Well, it was really a poor choice of venue. They shouldn’t have gone to a university, but to someplace where people would be interested in learning.
If that’s a backhanded slight on hockey-rink habitués, our Canadian colleagues will doubtless take exception. 🙂
I think he was being ironic about the fact it was a university. (They only went to the school’s hockey rink because of protests at the original location on campus.)
After watching much of the video, I thought the disruptions were much less than I anticipated. The problem was that Rubin and most of the questioners spoke past each other. They gave their little speeches and didn’t have much concern what the other said. I found it interesting that Rubin used this venue as an opportunity to espouse his libertarian philosophy. He reminded me why I find most of that philosophy abhorrent. In line with his philosophy, Rubin stated that more power should be given to the states and less to the federal government. He thinks this would promote freedom. He believes that if someone doesn’t like a law in one state, the person could move to another state. Of course, for many people this is not feasible. Also, one could ask Rubin why more power should go to the states. Maybe, most of the power should go to local municipalities. I would like to know how he would respond to this.
A person in the audience yelled something to the effect that if states had more power then we would still have slavery. I don’t think he directly answered this question. Still, the essence of the question has merit. Clearly, if were not for the Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments as well as the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, legalized segregation, if not slavery, might very still exist in several states. In other words, it took the federal government to take actions that deprived the states of a lot of power for the purpose of guaranteeing basic rights for all citizens. I do not know if Rubin approves of such actions. I hope he does. He did state that he approves of marriage equality, which took a federal Supreme Court decision to effectuate this result. In turn, it deprived the states of the ability to define what a marriage is. Unlike Rubin, I do not subscribe to the unsubstantiated contention that freedom is maximized when power is concentrated at the local level. Rather, it takes often the action of the federal government to take power away from the states to advance freedom, particularly in matters of equal rights. Libertarians have a theory that seems impervious to contradiction by evidence. In this respect, it’s a lot like religion.
“He reminded me why I find most of that philosophy abhorrent”
The question is not whether YOU like libertarian ideas or not, the point is to allow civil discourse in a democratic society where students can listen to different points of view and make up their own minds.
You seem completely indifferent to the students “abhorrent” behaviour and to the identity politics that is balkanizing american society.
Have you listened to Bret Weinstein’s analysis on the evergreen saga?
You have no idea what I think of the students’ behavior or identity politics. I chose to comment on part of Rubin’s presentation. I believe I was exercising freedom of speech, which does not require me to address your concerns. But, I’ll make one point. Criticism of identity politics is commonplace. What is lacking are reasonable proposals to address the problem, which must go well beyond having more security guards at speeches or simply saying civil discourse is a real nice thing.
“I believe I was exercising freedom of speech”
I wanted clarification if you support his freedom of speech, especially since you described his ideas as abhorrent.
B.t.w. I think libertarians are very naive about human nature but the same can be said about many leftist ideas.
Whaa? Historian actually watched the video and chose to comment on its content. Why are you on him/her about the students’ behavior??
Because Historian gave the impression that he sympathizes with the students behaviour because of the “abhorent” philosphy that Rubin espouses.
He didn’t give me that impression.
Think you’re reading more into it than what’s there, Eric. Historian’s comment may have been a tad off topic (or, it might be better to say, topic-adjacent 🙂 ), but I don’t read it as supporting the student interrupters in any way.
And as far as it goes, I agree with him.
Good points. I tend to agree re Libertarians on the whole, though the particular reason seems to depend on the Libertarian I’m talking to (or reading about). Your comment on evidence rings true for a lot of cases. I’d phrase it as, they seem to have a tendency to state a “law” (example being Rubin’s claim about local = better), then treating it dogmatically.
If you devolved too much power to municipalities we might have stronger gun control legislation in some places. Wasn’t 2nd amendment incorporated?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
Need feds to impose top down freedom to bear arms on municipalities. Florida has a top down law imposition on localities as the good Lord intended. Because Jesus loved him some firearms and was a violent vindictive chap not about to turn the other cheek and find peaceful means of conflict resolution:
http://www.bradenton.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article208761054.html
“Challenges to the 2011 “preemption” law, which bans local governments from imposing gun restrictions tougher than those in state laws, are just one of the ways local officials are fighting for stricter regulations in the wake of the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.
And Second Amendment proponents are firing back.”
So devolving power to states and localities is the libertarian ideal except when it isn’t.
What Historian says here makes it sound like he/she thinks Rubin’s ideas are so deplorable that it is understandable if the students protested to the point of not letting him speak. In other words, the opposite of the free speech argument. If so, I repeat the question. Why does Rubin’s ideas deserve a greater response than reasoned disagreement? Why must his ideas be prevented from even being heard?
“What Historian says here makes it sound like he/she thinks Rubin’s ideas are so deplorable that it is understandable if the students protested to the point of not letting him speak.”
You make an inference without evidence. As much as I deplore what he said, I did not imply he had no right to speak. If you had watched the video you would have seen that he actually spoke a lot.
We have only what you say to tell us what you think.
“As much as I deplore what he said, I did not imply he had no right to speak.”
Ok. But this leaves open whether you believe he has a right to speak. Do you? If not, then why not?
“If you had watched the video you would have seen that he actually spoke a lot.”
As he explains in the tweet, the noise produced by the protesters was louder than it appears on the video. I guess we have to take his word for that but a microphone near his mouth will obviously pick up his voice better than audience members’ ears. For the sake of this discussion, we should assume that the protestors’ noise-making was effective.
To satisfy several people who seem very concerned as to whether or not I think Rubin had a right to speak, I will ease their anxiety. Yes, Rubin had a right to speak and should have not been interrupted. I say this without qualification despite my deploring his libertarian philosophy. When people speak listeners should not be hesitant to be critical of the words actually uttered. This criticism does not entail preventing the speaker the opportunity to talk without interruption.
I was sympathetic to Rubin until he started talking about federal vs. local control. His views are almost naive.
As you pointed out, there is plenty of evidence that federal intervention is necessary to prevent discrimination.
On the other hand, progressive states must be free to take action on climate change on their own, if the feds are not willing to do so.
It’s much more nuanced than he suggests. My personal opinion is that the feds have a more holistic worldview, and hence can act more rationally, but that can be debated.
Its crazy to suggest that if you don’t like something, just move to a different state. What if all states criminalize gay marriage?
I don’t know when this started but some of these students have no discipline or respect. This is the first time I’ve heard of Dave Rubin. I like him. He answered their questions well and handled himself well. The only one he didn’t answer was toward the beginning and it would have been better if he answered. He can spot sheep. I like that.
Pressuring the authorities to NOT invite particular speakers, or disinviting them,
is authoritarian, but it is at least more or less adult behavior. What strikes me about the heckling, chanting, noise-making act is how infantile it is, the behavior one could expect of badly behaved four-year-olds. I wonder whether behaviors like this don’t have explanations in child psychiatry.
For example, Jon Haidt and others have speculated that contemporary undergrad culture is related to the “helicopter parenting” pattern today’s undergrads grew up with. I suspect something deeper is needed to explain not merely whiny fragility among the trigger-warning generation, but the infantile Leftism of the noise-makers. Something seems to have given rise to 20-year-olds who missed something in character formation and deportment that formerly developed long before college age.
I’ve been trying to figure it out for a while because I noticed a stark difference in the way children were behaved from my generation and whoever came after. I don’t have any data for this but this is what I observed. My little sister is 10 years younger and most of her friends have parents who are younger than my parents. I noticed it in my sister in saying things to my mom that we would never even think of saying. The kids I would babysit for were terribly behaved as I got older. It’s almost like they weren’t afraid of being disciplined because they never were. I think that it’s possible that the people born to parents in the generation before the baby boomers were not disciplined as much for some reason and then when they had kids, they don’t even discipline them at all. I’m not sure if that was worded in the best way, but that’s what I observed. Those would be those kids now at UNH. That girl with the microphone saying, “Why is *he* holding the microphone?” There was a short time around late 2004 when I was babysitting and that girl is a good representation of this undisciplined population. Early generation x parents who didn’t discipline their children. I saw it again in 2011 and as I mentioned before with my sister’s age group which would have been around the top of it.
The free speech chorus could get a bit repetitive by now, though I’ll sing it quickly to get over with it: Dave Rubin’s talk should not have been interrupted, because people have a right to listen to his ideas. When he is legitimately invited, he should be able to appear unharmed and do his thing.
Now something perhaps more interesting on that matter. Suppose he has an influential talk show streamed online, viewed by millions. It’s never interrupted, and he is featured in the New York Times. He can set an agenda by inviting certain guests that will contribute to an “interesting” mosaic made up from such topic as the Imminent Doom of the West, Muslims At the Gates, Cultural
BolshevismMarxism, The Lügenpresse, Brown People Are Retarded, The Future of the White Children, The AntiFa Menace and so on – typical Rubin Report. It’s an eclectic mix of topics ranging from politics, social science and nationalism. Something for everyone, and always a friendly chat.Dave Rubin has been accused of nodding along to dubious views or giving softball interviews. But that’s not even my criticism. He does more than that: he agrees and also helps people like Stefan Molyneux to an appearance of scientific accuracy. And of course, he decides on the flavour and agenda of the programme by inviting guests to talk about certain topics.
Maybe his “diverse” topics seem innocuous to some; I think it’s highly tendentious. He has a revolving door for the Trump, Breitbart, InfoWars, truther and conspiracy corner. If there was one week a Tankie, and another week some other lunatic, then I could believe his claims that he just wants to talk. But he runs a kind of alternative media “meta-talk show”. Like an empty talk show slot where other pundits can air a promotional guest-episode.
He effectively is a Far Right community builder, who invites “alternative media” pundits with no discernible qualification to give their opinion on race and immigration and such matters. He wants their audience, and they want his, and the topics are obviously “of interest” to this new, shared audience. He then presents this eclectic mix as “center” or “classic liberal”, which few people can read without rolling their eyes or breaking out in laughter.
Whether you agree with my characterisation or not, here comes the rub. Without any form of disruption, Dave Rubin would be a slick car-salesman dripping from oil. His machine would run smoothly, from show to “intellectual dark web”, a well-oiled media machine, a Far Right superbug.
The Woke People have discredited themselves with their constant crying wolf and calling everyone a Nazi not on board with their woke ideology. Most people who watch Rubin Report also shrug off yet another wave of Twitter outrage. Would protestors just stand outside, politely make some noise before and after the programme – would anyone even care?
Disturbing his appearance is a way to show that something is deeply wrong, despite his nice guy son-in-law persona, and that in a way that gets picked up by other media. He’s also not some guy who is truly silenced. In all likelihood, the disruption and media reports bring more viewers to his stream. In the end, I see this as an attempt by critics to burst a filter bubble and trying to disrupt an emerging echo chamber, before it gets too air-tight.
I think this new IDW corner must confront their Right Wing. This corner used to be liberal and left. It was obviously flooded by the Far Right, which saw an amazing opportunity to use the Woke Wars to their advantage, to hide underneath the edgelord trolling and crying wolf. People like Rubin have platformed and mainstreamed Far Right individuals and made them seem respectable. It’s no longer possible to simply shrug this off.
If the preponderance of the Far Right was due to scheduling, building it all up and so forth, he should make corrections. If he is honest about a discussion, he actually needs to facilitate that, and could discuss and listen to his critics. He’s the one with the huge platform, and he could have invited the protestors over for a chat.
That came out longer than I expected, mea culpa. Also a link went missing: here is the segment with Molyneux and giving him credibility: Stefan Molyneux on Race and IQ (Pt. 2) [11m 46s]
Rubin is terrible. The best part of that Bari Weiss article was when Sam Harris (obviously referring to Rubin) says, (paraphrasing) Some people in this group never have a negative thing to say about Donald Trump, which is very odd if you actually care about truth.
I just wish Sam would be more explicit in his criticism of Rubin. At this point, Rubin’s show and (especially) Twitter feed have basically turned into Fox News spin-offs.
Yes, could you please avoid these long mini-essays in the future?
From your perspective what is the difference between Right and Far Right?
I have always been under the impression the term far right describes people who identify with a “white” identiy and who wish to dominate or suppress other groups.
Who would be on your list of contemporary “far right” intellectuals?
I suppose Charles Murray would be on your list? What about Douglas Murray, Sam Harris etc?
Right Wing, and Far Right Wing depends a lot on which country you are from, what kind of parties you know, and how things are sorted.
Generally, there is a Centre Right Party that typically is quite broad, and which has its own internal Right Wing that theoretically should seal the outer wall of democracy. Parties that position themselves rightwards of that party are the Far Right.
They typically have (barely) one leg in the democratic spectrum, and that wing can team up with the big Right Wing sister, but the other leg is typically standing already outside of the democratic spectrum. These are monarchist, fundamentalist, reactionary, fascist, radicals etc.
I consider parties that are entirely outside the democratic spectrum as Extreme Right, or by whatever they are up to, e.g. Neo-Fascist.
The US Republicans are rightwards of typical western Right Wing parties (such as Tories or Christian Democrats). Dominionist and the likes and (at least parts) of Tea Party can be seen as Far Right. The US also has a paleolibertarian, Ayn Rand Loons, New Right, Dark Enlightenment etc cluster that runs parallel to the Republicans that goes quite deep in Very Far Right territory.
In Europe, the Identitarian Movement, which is newer fringe movement with talking points similar to Rubin Report (imminent doom of the west, muslims, pc culture, ethno-nationalism, race realism etc) balances on the New Right — Extreme Right edge. It’s a weird mix of partially progressive elements, even with gay or lesbian leadership, but with a wing that shades into Neo Nazism. It’s their whole schtick to smuggle the brown sauce over the democratic border, and sell it with a new label.
The issue I have is that some people exaggerates issues that you list like islam in the west, immigration, pc culture etc while others completely dismisses these concerns.
I do not think it is self evident to what extend europe for example is in trouble.
There are large Muslim populations in many european countries (many above 5%) and it is very difficult to predict how successful these populations could be integrated in the long term.
Just from a social scientist point of view I think immigration to Europe has been too rapid and a matter of fact discussion is impossible because decent people are too afraid to raise the issue.
In Germany it might just be possible to integrate the 800,000 or so recent Muslim immigrants. However, I am afraid that in the long term there might be a permanent underclass of disaffected muslim youth with poor education and limited economic opportunities.
It would be very sad and ironic if these well meaning policies of Merkel would force Jews to leave Germany. I believe many Jews already feel insecure in France.
Anyway, I do not understand why liberals on the left do not share these concerns.
“He could have invited the protestors over for a chat.” LOL, wut? Why should they enact the mental labour when it’s up to him to EDUCATE himself. The beauty of that is that however he educates himself they never have to commit themselves and can therefore always find fault.
Aneris, your whole argument hinges on the notion that Rubin’s audience are all idiots who are going to suddenly agree with anything unsavoury that his guests might say because Rubin nodded along. The reason a lot of his guests are on the right is because they are the people being targeted by academic protestors and sidelined or lied about by the press. The fear that true Far Right figures are using the freeze peach wars as cover is silly. I doubt many people will become bigoted overnight and not reject them the moment they say something nasty. Besides, anyone aware of Youtube figures knows enough to do some background checking and not take people at face value.
To those who say that people on the right are not actually being silenced, people are actually being arrested in some parts of the West, or at least being brought in for questioning, for “hate speech” which amounts to nothing more than being critical of the wrong people.
I think a better response to the question of “does hate speech lead to violence” is (besides your suggestion of first asking the student to define hate speech) asking whether any speech that leads to violence counts as “hate speech” and, if not, why is non-hate speech that leads to violence OK? We have clearly seen in the last few years that those who rail against “hate speech” regularly use speech to organize events that turn violent against peaceful speakers (think Charles Murray at Middlebury). Is it acceptable for speech to lead to violence so long as it’s not considered “hate speech” by those who claim that certain non-regressive left speech is “violence”?
Of course, all of this is moot to someone like me who believes that all speech covered by the First Amendment should be allowed, but I think those questions would be part of a good response to that student.
“Banning ‘hate speech’ doesn’t end hate; it just drives it underground where it festers.”
Is there data on this? A recent study here in Sweden showed that 1/3 of the populist party – hate speech supporters (hate speech as defined in law) – vote changes can be explained by layoffs. And Sweden has a social safety net… That does not explain the students though, except if they are already heading outside of the job market.
There is evidence of course. Banning the nazis is one case. And not just hate speech either, bans don’t change minds; most forms of Christianity were banned at one time or another.
But I think the usual standards of evidence require those making the stronger claim produce the evidence. I think it an incredible claim that telling someone you will punish him for his opinion changes his opinion. But that is exactly the claim at issue.
I by far prefer Vera Rubin to Dave Rubin but this is re-f@cking-diculous!
I have nothing else to offer to the discussion. I’m too old to understand this idiocy (thankfully, my son, though being of this generation, does not ascribe to such nonsense). I sure would hate to think that these poor impressionable youths could have their whole worldview upended if they even by chance heard a word uttered by an unapproved person! I mean, imagine, being one of so weak and watery mind, lacking in any willpower or ability to fend off unpleasant ideologies due to your being raised in a protective helicopter parent bubble…! Poor, pathetic little bastards.
They are taught to behave this way by their professors in many instances. The entitlement is right out of the Critical Theory/PoMo/Cultural Marxist playbook.
A good explanation of how it all works by Weinstein:
Shoot, I only intended that to be a plain text URL. Apologies if roolz have been transgressed.
The exchange between the student and Rubin at around 30:00 highlights what I don’t like about the current free speech debate in general.
The student has basically set up a straw man, and wouldn’t seem willing to acknowledge the nuances of the First Amendment. *Not all* hate speech is actually protected, and it’s not as if Rubin is supporting hate speech in general.
But for a standup comedian and a political commentator, Rubin doesn’t do much of a job of explaining the logic underlying hate speech rulings.
I took issue with Rubin’s claim that leftism has killed the creativity in Silicon Valley.
Peter Thiel might be the only one leaving.