Don't miss the 2023 Holberg Debate on December 2. Anil Seth, Tanya Luhrmann and Rupert Sheldrake will debate the question: "Does Consciousness Extend Beyod Brains?" th-cam.com/video/ofSUaZOW9h8/w-d-xo.html Feel free to follow the event page on Facebook: facebook.com/events/315569814476878 More information on the Holberg Prize webpage: holbergprize.org/en/2023-holberg-debate-does-consciousness-extend-beyond-brains
I dont even have to watch the rest of this to already know Glen is gonna tear yall a new ass hole at the end. Anti-white has been integrated into our culture and has been for decades now. This woman is living in the 1960s still and its PISSING ME OFF.
These are the people who got rich off of selling fear based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. The spooky part is... look how many people in this comment section who fell for it. They have no discernment as to the propaganda being thrown at them..
Ha, that's pretty good. To pointlessly expand on this while watching this if anyone gives a shit lol (idk whatever I'm bored or something), the whole "woke" thing obviously isn't "bad" or really even disagreeable to most I would think in its core basic message removed from its dishonest framing, _but_ it is precisely because of how over time its message has deteriorated into a visceral inauthenticity having been contained in such consistent dishonesty and betrayal, ie it's transparent self-serving performance has exposed itself, and essentially hollowed out that core basic message for individual profit as merely a fake performance of individual piety and a projected implicit _superiority_ or moral character over the "unwashed masses" intrinsically lacking such "virtue" or whatever, that people find it so repellant. Like the optimates of the late Roman empire, crushing the populares movement by the Gracchi bros and later Caesar by famously of course straight up murdering them in the senate, even after Caesar fucking owned Pompey in the language of violence these absolute demons _actually_ practice behind their facades of manners/niceties, but then post-hoc justifying such an obvious vulgar display of power through rhetorical notions of "goodness" and "virtue", as Cicero would claim, Caesar and the populares posed an "authoritarian" threat (against their oligarchical domination is of course the unsaid part). Obviously there's like...too many parallels to our contemporary historical moment with that, but I think that's why it's revealing, especially as the -counterrevolutionaries- "founders" of the US admired such a dominion explicitly, hell the senate is based precisely on that senate (in the constitution, entirely democratically unaccountable and nominated purely by state legislatures). The constitution itself merely a brokerage between Hamiltonian eastern banker finance capital federalists and Jeffersonian land-owning slave-holding yeoman farmer antifederalists with an explicit intent to stave off what both bourgeoise "factions" agreed was an _actual_ threat: democracy (see Federalist Papers, Federalist 10 by Madison gets at this pretty explicitly). I mean my god these people wrote this stuff so far up their own asses they knew at some level that these 'factions' would be a problem (like, no shit right? lol...) but assumed their personal "virtue", self-evident by their property ownership and dominion over black, poor, and indigenous people, would transcend it. Turns out that isn't a thing. Oops. This load-bearing two-party bourgeois dictatorship is, shocker, precisely a result from that lack of implementing a structural proportional/parliamentary system into the constitution..."oops"...or more cynically, likely giving two big thumbs up in hell, which at this point is probably hard to distinguish from the world they helped create for us... Considering my own "ressentiment" fueled last statement there reminds me of Nietzsche of course, who I think describes this extremely well from an interesting dimension with his conception of "slave morality" and its connection to shaping our ontological perception and "habitus" through a linguistic distortion over time (originating from a context that is no longer applicable but nonetheless still insisted on to form a simulacra of its more communal/spiritual meaning; in the Genealogy of Morals if my paraphrasing is bad here), especially in relation to the ensorcelling technology that maintains this through a spectacle of permanent reaction from within the digital panopticon that is the internet, might be a relevant way of thinking about our paralysis of action as well, especially noting the neoliberal paradigm's de facto emphasis on normative individualizing to abstract away from any analysis of systemically generated causes and how, as mentioned by everyone in this video, we get this sort of consumer ontology where we can choose our truth based on subjective preference (if that made any sense lol), most importantly for Nietzsche is that this "ressentiment" though creative is fundamentally _dishonest_ and thus we get the charade of bullshit we perpetually live within, that everyone _knows_ is fake but yet we can't escape/transcend as its scale and tidal social inertia subsumes individual dissent/transgression, or something: _"The slave revolt in morality begins when 'ressentiment' itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge."_ As discussed, our passive spectator technologically mediated 'bread and circus' perception of "politics" seems in form entirely poisoned by that "ressentiment" emergent from entirely individual/self-absorbed media filters cemented in our culture coupled with an accurate intuition of the zero-sum competition driven structure that further cultivate this habitus of risk-averse narcissism so that "politics" becomes perceived more of an aesthetic consumer brand choice between two competing bourgeois tribes (no surprise I guess, basically describing the essential tenants of neoliberalism). Tribes that seem to essentially have their defining roots in emerging from that federalist/antifederalist split mentioned earlier; in marxist terms you can note this cultural distinction aesthetically arising from their distance to capitalism and exploitation, ie a base (antifederalists, contemporary Republicans)/superstructure (federalists, contemporary Democrats) distinction maybe put more simply (or maybe internationalist/nationalist; transnational finance/corporate capital v. national extractive/land capital; trying to describe the same basic bourgeois factional split with all of these, hopefully makes sense, eh no one's going to read this long ass bs anyway lol...). In a more general notion toward that inauthenticity (in like the marxist notion of a "character mask", especially as it pertains to this bread and circus cultural medium with all its implicit material filters and performative nonsense), I'll cut my screed off here by noting the lyrics from the song Tonguesplitter by one of my fav bands Protest the Hero, which is essentially a different way to phrase the West quote in a way (aw shit, full circle, eternal return baby) in how it transforms ourselves into an inauthentic shell that's not really living but rather killing time. _It's the mask that quite often starts to eat into your face._ _So wear it lightly like a cap, that can quickly be replaced._ aaaaaaaaand video done, huzzah. Good stuff, good quote, and GOOD DAY! sorry for wall of text, socialism or [continued] barbarism.
@@Bisquick I didn’t get through all of that, but I want to let you know that the message you were sending was received by me, at least in part. When wisdom spreads too fast, it’s meaning gets lost in the crowd through simple and natural misunderstandings. Few may get the message at first, but eventually it dies and new wisdom must be born.
@@lancegrandis6230 none of us have a monopoly on truth, there’s disagreement and agreement to be found with everyone, just more or less for each individual you encounter. :D
After Butler says a black woman should be in the debate (later clarified that she was talking about a black academic woman*), Greenwald says they should have a working-class person as well. You can hear the other debaters groan, because either they see themselves as working class, or as people who understand what it is like to be working class. Greenwald then goes on to call them out, and himself, as people who moved away from working class lives, and are now working in elite environments. Debaters change the subject... ...and this moment perfectly characterizes the entire debate. *who she agrees with
Yeah this is basically it - and Dr. West scoffing at the idea of the ‘conservative’ women of color (even though tulsi gabbard is a dem) shows that Glennwald is right in his assessment of using racial identity in a superficial way. He showed that they actually do care more about the ideas first and race/gender second. I guess it’s hard to admit it because it is now considered a “right-wing” talking point.
@@joanofarc33 bingo! I've been saying this for years. I always go back to Malcolm X's interviews about the "white liberal". So relevant these days. They govern and apostolatize people like pets. It's actually so condescending.
The other perspective that is always excluded is the Native when the "native" is white, as in France. Judith was really down on the idea that French Natives have the right to question when their elites have a highly pro-immigration policy. Does she perhaps think that "French Natives" don't exist? Or does she imagine that everyone to whom the phrase occurs is a National Socialist?
Butler donated to Kamala Harris in 2020 the maximum amount of money one is allowed to donate. Terry Castle donated thousands to Hillary Clinton in 2020. Angela Davis endorsed Biden. Shocking and disappointing.
Wow. What a condemnation of her politics!! She should be challenged on that. Shows the contrast between bullshit you talk and what you actually do. ‘Embodied sociality’ = support for the corrupt neo-liberal Harris who prosecuted a criminal justice system that incarcerated so many of the black poor. Just wow
And Cornell West, rather than giving money to a neoliberal candidate, actually participated in Sanders' campaign at a high level. Their actions say more than their words.
all i heard was 2 and half hours of word salad, there is no coherence at all, how the left thinks they'll win the cultural war when they can't agree on anything is beyond me
@@ks-lf6of agreed. She spends a long time going on about the fact that there isn't a black woman in this 4 person discussion. You can say that, and say that perspective is missing but it's kind of a perfect example of the navel gazing nature of most of academia these days. She was upset that the others used tribalism and then went on to act like it was a slur. Dumb.
@@ks-lf6of looking into her work, she's directly responsible for a lot of the bad ideas that the woke love. Makes sense, just remember that and you'll get more from her 'input'
Butler is part of the problem. She's playing out the debate as if it's a virtual game, a high-minded dinner table discourse that's comfortably removed from the real lived experience of billions of humans trapped between the Neoliberal Scylla and Identarian Charybdis. Inclusion is very easy to call for when it's an abstraction that doesn't include anything substantial and there's no personal consequences for failure.
Butler may be more deep and West more poetic, but Greenwald is a lot more politically concrete. Butler is always looking outside of universals and always confirms the postmodern Left politics of groups' resistance instead of a radical revolution. The right identity politics is the one made by the ones suffering multiple oppression. The identity politics made by other people IN THE NAME of those groups is the problem. Greenwald is absolutely right in saying that sometimes what appears to be race is really class. The neoliberals say support to Trump is about white racism and never speak about working class support. If Sanders would have been the Democrat candidate, Trump would never have been president. Wallstreet Democrats love political correctness because it denies and distracts from class warfare.
Agreed. When I wrote my first book: Towards a Critical Multicultural literacy, 1995 or so, multiculturalism was the fascists favorite target. The fascists are now opposing Critical Race theory. This is keeping with their attacks on bilingual education and true multiculturalism. When will people learn?
@@dannyweilthereisnorussiaga6594 Liberals oppose critical therapy because it is a simplistic Neo-Marxist pile of hot 💩 that intends to subvert, undermine and provoke bloody revolution.
@@SaintKimbo Ok so like, read the original comment, then read the reply you made there. I point this out only to highlight the original comment's point, as it demonstrates a pretty perfect example of precisely the ideological confusion and reflexive reactionary consciousness cultivated by corporate media outlets and exactly why neoliberalism (complete global freedom for capital, boundaries and restrictions for labor) was rallied around by capital in the 70s (particularly revealing, see: Powell memo by supreme court justice Lewis Powell, reaction to the 60s counter-culture/civil rights movement, cementing tons of long-term investments into cultural institutions and "think-tanks" that prop up specifically - and you can read this in it, extremely densely laid out - a trust/acceptance of corporate power and the opposite towards the state, despite the fact that the state works at the behest of exactly that corporate power - "cui bono?" being the only question of politics, Reagan/Thatcher being neoliberalism's apotheosis). In other words, the capitalist class and its vectors of material (and consequently ideological) influence corporate media focuses on anything and everything _but_ class, and if such media is consumed consistently enough and its spread of information ubiquitous enough, over time it shapes how people perceive the world aka their "ontology". As some guy put it, _“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”_ _"The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family relationship its sentimental veil and has reduced it to a mere money relationship."_ - Engels, grounding the grain of truth conservatives intuit - and more cynical operators appropriate for their own personal gain - but seem to merely react to, and why I'm mentioning this at all, to a material cause generated by the sort of "business ontology" cultivated from the way we organize _material_ reality ie the mode of production of capitalism. If that makes sense. _"The ultimate hidden truth of the world is that it is something we make and could just as easily make differently."_ - the late great David Graeber
Bro, if Bernie would have been the candidate , Trump would have won in Ana even bigger landslide. The party knew that, that is one of the reasons they undermined his campaign . Bernie was fine enough with it then, and evidently appears still fine enough with it now
It seems that Cornel, Judith and Glenn all agree to varying degrees that these bigger philosophical questions such as justice and equality are universal and not particular. The big problem with identity politics, is that politicians and political systems hijack and weaponize meaningful struggles, and co--opt them cynically. Glenn is a journalist and he points out how these tactics are used to atomize solidarity by breaking up people into identity and interest groups making it harder for solidarity. He also is repeating much of what we hear in the "alternative" media discourse, where he is one of the most relevant voices. Cornell and Judith are philosophers who are asking the broader and deeper questions of what it means to have justice in a society, which is uphill from the base and ugly political systems Glenn is rightfully challenging. There isn't anything Glenn is saying that I don't think Cornell is and has been aware of for ages. Judith's mutliculturalism has a good moral framework but as she points out we are living in an anti-intellectual age, so when her ideas get filtered down to the political realm, they get condensed to political buzzwords and slogans which are used to emotionally manipulate people into voting in a direction or even supporting participating corporations. I think that the political issues we are facing are more immediate and Glenn does great work on this front, Cornell plays an important role in politics as well. I think that Judith is right that we need to broaden what justice and equality mean in our society and that we need to challenge the hierarchical nature, but as Cornell always points out, identity politics (as deployed by the Democratic Party for instance)doesn't seek to structurally change and dismantle the current neoliberal order, but makes room to absorb chosen people from given identity groups to signify "hey we're cool , we get the struggle, we're with you, now shut up and get back to work."
I totally agree. I think Butler is arguing against some white cis-het male Marxist-Leninist Left that is not even relevant anymore. She doesn't realize how her defense of identity group resistance is hijacked by the neoliberal elites from above and mediocre middle class liberals from below. Greenwald is a lot more politically concrete and I think that saved this conversation. Even if West is deeper than Greenwald, I think his personal vibe of being kind to everybody took him (as many times before) to under-challenge Butler's views. Sometimes you can't reconcile oil and water. One you must let go. I think Butler's views have to go, no matter their well-intended origins. Her kind of deconstruction work had to be done in the past when we still had to dismantle the Old Left myths and upgrade feminism, but now that the elites have hijacked identity politics, that kind of discourse is only good for fueling tribalism. Oh and her politically correct objection of the word "tribalism" was disgusting.
Butler and West are major intellectuals and scholars , Greenwald isn't. Butler and West are both authentically broadly Left, humanist and radical democratic with true commitments to overcoming oppression and domination. Greenwald is NOW on the Right. He is a frequent guest on Fox News and has defended Tucker Carlson whom he called a " socialist", white replacement and recently Rittenhouse. He has launched furious attacks on AOC and the Democratic Party. Greenwald is not Left Libertarian or Libertarian Socialist but a right wing defender of civil liberties . Unlike West and Butler he has no real interest in the triumph of the minority groups who make up the subjects of identity politics indeed these days he is most comfortably in the company of the radical right .
You say we live in an anti-intellectual age when if we look closely at facts, intellectuals are never really popular outside of intellectual circles. A lot of what they're saying feel good and true, but imo there's always a good amount of echo chambers in those discussions. What educated and well read intellectuals think and talk between themselves is often disconnected from the actual reality at hand of the average person. You say "we need to broaden what justice and equality mean in our society and that we need to challenge the hierarchical nature" In what way do we do this realistically? Because it's not happening we see the opposite happening, more authoritarianism from both sides, more division on bullshit that doesn't really matter and not a lot of cooperation in subject that do matter. It feel to me that people like this panel and yourself think we can live outside of a hierarchy, when everything point toward to opposite. Electric cars were overdue and it took someone like Elon Musk to really make it happen fast pace and if he wasn't born, this company wouldn't have emerged out of a community of people, like almost everything in life. To this i can only repeat my argument, people like you and this panel project their own intellectualism on the average person thinking everyone as the ability to think on these levels but i'm afraid to say it's not true. Give 15 years to social media, platform that basically give public and widespread voice to anyone. You see the resurgence of disease because of anti-vaxxer hotspots, flat-earthers, crazy and obviously untrue conspiracy, social division on race and culture worst then when there were way more reason to be angry at racism then today. People who spread fake news and misinformation are banned from these platform angering people saying it's free speech and yeah we are losing right and freedom, because the average person is not that smart and willing to control their ego and impulses. You might try to refute this saying "oh but that's only because of powerful entity seeding distrust and division to make a profit and stay in power" true.. but it's also true that it would have no power if it didn't sell and people were not falling for it, it's still a question of hierarchy, people in power need to play fair and be honest because they'll find someone to sell their manipulative bullshit anyway. We need hierarchy, it's the only game in town, we just need the right one
I think one of the reasons Butler comes across as somewhat out of touch in this discussion, is that she's used to speaking w/ people who largely agree w/ her--i.e., people in gender studies classes in particular, and the humanities more generally (I know, because I've spent a lot of time in this world--it's where I first read Butler and West). Butler's ideas are generally affirmed in these circles, but aren't as persuasive, intuitive, or well-received outside of the fairly cloistered world of the humanities, where Butler is something of an academic celebrity. I love the humanities, and have found real meaning studying the humanities, but admittedly its insularity can be a real problem; and despite the emphasis on "diversity," there is too often a lack of diversity of ideas, and a noticeable dearth of original thought. Edit: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that there is great value in studying the humanities, esp. the opportunity to immerse oneself in a topic--be it the French Revolution or Song Dynasty painting, etc.--as opposed to the generally more cursory knowledge one typically acquires via digital/online learning. I think it's important to point this out given the pervasiveness of anti-academic sentiments, which I wasn't intending to add to by pointing out some of the shortcomings of academia or the humanities in the 21st century.
@Historylover Yes, I agree. Butler was writing her most influential books--"Gender Trouble" and "Bodies That Matter," at a time when there was a great deal of emphasis on language and the linguistic/social construction of reality, at least in philosophy and the humanities. This emphasis was taken to an extreme, such that the material world became something of an afterthought. I think gender studies would do well to look more at science, and in particular biology/genetics, but it seems that hasn't happened because there's very little interaction between the humanities and the sciences, regrettably. Hard to see how one can write about gender/sex authoritatively w/out some reference to science/biology.
As someone in a social science major, this is true. She is hevealy influence in the thmes of gender and sexuality, to the point that even if someone disagrees with the theory or view it differently, it can look bad. I read gender troubles and bodies that matter, and its so clear that she comes from a philosophical backgrounds, her things is "the world of ideias" "what should be" and "what can be" and rarely "what it is", the social reality is very lacking I would say. That why for me her theory does not come easy, its really hard talking about sexuality and gender without a material reality analysis, in my opinion.
Butler holds the position that gender is performative, that is, it is not what you supposedly are as a set of chromosomes or a particular observable genital, but what you do, what actions you take, particularly with regard to speech. This is an important view to understand in order to avoid discriminating against others on the basis of their inscribed identity in contrast to their agency.
@Historylover Yes, I agree that gender is to a large extent socially constructed, but to what extent is open to debate--is it %100 socially constructed or is biology also determinative to a degree, and if so, to what degree? I'm not sure, myself. Where I have more of a disagreement w/ Butler, is over her contention that not merely gender, but also sex is socially constructed, a view she elaborates in "Bodies That Matter." Admittedly, it's been a while since I've read this book, and Butler's prose isn't known for its clarity, but that seemed to be one of the key arguments she was making.
Cornell is so lovely and inspirational. He and Glenn make a perfect duo. Glenn gives a concise, literal narrative which is rational and organized, slamming each point down with precision. Then Cornell takes it over and interprets it for us in artistic form. What a special treat!
@@angelg8445 were you able to watch a decent portion of this conversation? Cuz that's what it's all about, especially if you disagree with one or more of the participants. seeing them interface in a way that's more than cordial, but caring- that's the goal. (And still honest & forceful when needed.)
@@angelg8445 oh please stop that divisive sectarian shit! Glenn is a decent man on the libertarian left with a lot of integrity and courage. He has done more to challenge fascism and the power elites than you ever will and you know it. Judith Butler and Cornel West obviously doesn't regard him as a fascist apologist, because they have brains.
Was going to write the same comment. Cornel is inspirational and doesn't just sit in the ivory tower but is a real activist, so love him, but trust Glenn to bring the cold hard facts and good arguments.
Not sure that's true. Judith Butler alluded to an oft overlooked truism. European Americans are exclusively responsible for the existence of identity politics in America. A current, but well worn, tactic is to engage in a vulnerability fantasy in which EuroAmericans, who constitute 70% of the U.S. population, are in danger...and need to be protected. Which is, in fact, identity politics.
Since everybody seems to want to redefine all our terms, I propose redefining "anti-intellectual" - i.e. As distinct from "anti-intellect". Because, IMO, it's not intellect that most people have a problem with but rather intellectuals who, it seems, believe they can not only tell others how they should live their lives and what they should think but indeed tell them what they do in fact think. Evidently, the concept of "projection" somehow became integrated into popular consciousness while flying right over the heads of society's ostensibly most intelligent people. Maybe if they occasionally looked up from their navels they'd notice that their absurd pontifications seldomly reflect the reality of the average person's _lived experience._
Examples always help any argument; it occurred to me that it was the anti-intellectuals who tend to tell people what to think. At least you can argue with intellectuals and discuss evidence-based claims. The problem with any individual is whether they are basing their beliefs and assertions on their convictions or on evidence.
@@publicserviceco The key distinction is between conviction or judgment and evidence-based decisions. The persons who make decisions based on evidence, that is, statistics, are distinct from those who hold convictions. Of course, at issue is the validity of the evidence, which includes the statistical analysis.
She doubles down and insists that only voices who have published or have thought about it are needed, but truth does not require credentials, only to be true. Discrediting opposition as clinging to power ignores the argument for the sake of the vessel.
Judith Butler: "I worry sometimes when I hear criticism of 'Identity Politics' because it's not always clear what is meant by 'Identity Politics.'" Also Judith Butler: fails to be clear on what "racial justice," "white supremacy," "whiteness," "neofascist," and "racist" mean in her opening remarks.
also Judith, "labeling something identity politics is a way to gove something a label and not listen to anything after." then also Judith, " White Supremacy is identity politics "
Yes totally agree. She’s living life with the splinter in her eye as a magnifying glass as West put it. She is a a total fraud and a pseudo-intellectual grifter.
I say this as someone who has always viewed Judith Butler’s work on language as profound and seminal in terms of how it is used and how it can be interpreted - listening to her during this whole thing was downright painful. She is so stuck in her ideology and her arrogant insistence that her worldview is the right one and that anyone who doesn’t agree is evil that she is incapable of perceiving how she herself is an agent of the very evil that she claims to be against. Then she also all but admits that “diversity” is only important if the “diverse” people parrot exactly what she believes. Cornel West and Glen Greenwald were way more intellectually honest.
Agree totally, except that Cornell did not make a single point worth remembering. He is literally insane, as lost in his circus car of conflicting ideas as Joe Biden himself. I have no idea what cornel means,ever, no matter how many times I rewind. He is always one sentence fragment and misplaced quote away from unwinding whatever semi thought he just blurted out.
She’s a riddler. She spins you around until you don’t know which way is up. Her writing is very difficult to comprehend, & that’s intentional. I don’t want to entirely put her down… I expect people are able to make their own novel, perhaps fruitful, connections reading her, & I expect that’s rewarding for young, intelligent people. But don’t be fooled - there’s nothing there.
@@malortfink Tbf she dismantles everything to the extent that it can be profound for the individual, on a personal level - the connections you decide to see. I dislike her, personally.
When she says that when we call something ‘identity politics’ its a label to dismiss so we don’t have to talk about it anymore. Well that is exactly how she uses ‘whiteness’, ‘white supremacy’ and ‘racist.’ Its a term to dismiss and malign without the slightest discussion of what we are talking about.
Bingo! I cannot stomach the amount of narcissism that is entrenched amongst some of these public figures. They preach against the very behaviors they practice and it’s mind blowing how it goes over people’s heads?!
I don't recall her using the word racist and I think she was very clear about her definition of white supremacy, giving examples like the French politician. She also seemed to agree with Glenn's point about the neoliberal policies that give rise to such demagogues and allow the masses to be fooled by thinking if you get hijabi ladies or black men off the streets of Paris then all the economic strife will dissapate. Surely I hope we're all in agreement that demagogues should be dismissed as unserious ppl.
I want healthcare and Butler wants to argue how virtuous she is. She’s absorbed with claiming superiority over those she has convinced herself are the only opposition to her beliefs. When confronted with simple facts and concerns she reverts to reinforcing her virtue while attacking her imagined oppressors. Someone struggling for healthcare right now thinks she is absolutely detached from reality.
Thank God Glenn was there. I love Cornell West despite anything I might disagree with him on, if for no other reason than his involvement in the Matrix. His high praise of Judith Butler, having never heard of her myself, is enough for me to respect her and give her more of a chance than I would otherwise. But still, I can't help but feel Glenn is the only one in the room that can actually extract himself from the identitarian worldview and really stand outside it. The other two seem to have their own identities bound up in discussing identitarianism. Also they're obviously professional, ivory-tower chin waggers, lol. Glenn is an in-the-trenches journalistic powerhouse. It's just inevitable he'd have a better grasp on what's really going on.
I'm sorry but what in the actual substance of what West or Butler actually discussed was from "the identitarian worldview"? I mean, West literally said he wants everyone included in the conversation about humanity that can add quality to that conversation, and explicitly said that you can speak to the problems humanity faces regardless of your race, class, or gender. So he was quite explicitly NOT coming from an "identitarian worldview". And, really, neither was Butler. Also, in terms of being " ivory-tower chin waggers" - Cornell West has consistently been at odds with the University administration in favor of his activism (see what recently happened to him at Harvard that prompted him to leave). He is a man of the people in the true sense of the term - has been arrested with them in protest for human rights. And, I'm sorry, but Butler is in the 1% of philosophers alive today. Her place in the university is solidified by her philosophical output. Greenwald is not in their league. That facts to not bear out that this is about elitism.
Judith Butler is most famous for mainstreaming the notion that gender is a "social construct" and therefore socially pliable... essentially she is the architect of the contemporary gender ideology.
@@Ron-rt6df Butler did nothing of value which was not already put forward by Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex; her only unique contribution to philosophy has been to redefine existing ideas under newly invented and utterly convoluted jargon language... hang on, not even that is original, the Greek sophists were partial to her kind of intellectual banditry.
@@lancewalker2595 Do you have anything beyond your opinion to demonstrate this? Because otherwise, the value of your response is lacking in substance. Simone de Beauvoir, for example, did not inquire into the philosophy of embodiment in any way nearing the rigor of Bulter. And as far as redefining "existing ideas under newly invented and utterly convoluted jargon language" - the phenomenological and dialectical philosophy she had engaged in, especially in her earlier writing on "performative acts", for example, is quite clear. She is opening of the space to think of gender as a social phenomenon based on the repetition of acts. If there is any value to the critique you pose, it's not that she is working over "the Greek sophists", but rather some of the writings from sociology (like that of Erving Goffman") and anthropology (like that of Esther Newton), but she's updated their work to included both the historical currents within feminist politics, as well as putting them in dialog with Freud, Lacan, and psychoanalysis. And as far as her inventing new language, you should re-read your Aristotle - especially "the poetics" - as that is how thinking works in the first place.
@@lancewalker2595 Except her notion of gender performativity is far more nuance than social constructionism (e.g. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann), since she engages directly with the phenomenology of embodiment (e.g. Maurice Merleau-Ponty). You seem caught in a logical contradiction by claiming that, on the one had, she is too invested in unintelligible specialized jargon, and on the other, that she is too mainstream. You'd do better to forego the straw-man characterizations of her and instead critique her actual arguments.
The irony that when I saw an announcement for this debate posted on FB, the majority of the comments were asking, "Why is Greenwald being included?" Greenwald's comments were consistently the most relevant and lucid. I have respect for West and Butler, but they're very much saying the same things they were saying 30 years ago, w/ very little to say about our present moment (w/ very few exceptions). One of the pitfalls some academics fall into, is finding their "lane" and never really venturing beyond it--I will give West credit for also being an activist, and so at least putting his ideas/politics into practice.
@@milhouse9003 Yes, I think those were her most compelling comments. I wish she had gone a bit further and pointed to the fact that ID politics often undermines solidarity/interconnectivity when there is an excessive emphasis on individual identities.
Greenwald is a journalist which demands a different timeline doesn't it? I similarly have respect for Butler and Cornell, but the latter's platitudes wash out into basic humanism (which is delivered eloquently, peppered with bons mots, but doesn't seem up to the demands of the current moment) and Butler is basically delivering on her research profile, which was hugely influential, but is also part of the machinery of (cynical) cover that Greenwald is exposing. If you listen to most liberals today (and I consider myself one, though I hardly recognize it anymore) they think Greenwald is a fascist, which is hilarious, but also shows a huge disconnect even between, lets say, the 'fans' of Butler and Cornell, and the actual objects of their fandom. Butler and Cornell seem totally happy to break bread with Greenwald, not because they're holding their noses I suspect, but because they recognize him as sharing basic foundational views with them.
As a white man living in SE Asia, I would like to suggest to Judith Butler and all her ilk that ignoring the realities- political, economic and social- of the 75% of humanity that lives outside what she and all 'identity politics' vendors consider the world is a pretty potent expression of white supremacy in itself. Almost 6 billion living, breathing humans are neither white nor live in nations dominated by white cultures. To practitioners of the parochial identity politics that Butler makes a living promoting, those 6 billion people simply don't exist until they show up as migrants or refugees in her white world, where Butler and her ilk magically turn these representatives of the majority of humanity into "racialized minorities" that they can point to when they apply for grants and publish their books and articles calling for 'justice'.
No mate. Her reference to Gilroy and Hall is precisely about how capitalism is not only a relation between those who own the means of production and those who don't but between groups of people. In this relation, one of hierarchy, the global south that you are defending here is stratified at the bottom. That is the 'identity politics' she has often talked about, against white supremacy. White supremacy is not merely a local issue but a global one.
The jejune notion that capitalism is just an aspect-emanation-expression of "white supremacy" would be hilarious if it weren't such a damagingly obtuse bit of racist, dare I say "white supremacist", nonsense. The global south has its middle classes and, shockingly to so many white people of David's apparent persuasion, its capitalists too. Yes, capitalism first emerged in the lands of the white folk, and yes it spread its tentacles across the globe when it reached what Lenin mistakenly assumed was its "highest stage". But origin stories are not analyses, and anyone who still tries to hold "whiteness" responsible for the depredations of capitalism needs to wake up as opposed to get woke.
In this debate, Butler embodies "Educated But Ignorant", ignorant of the real world whilst lost in her own cleverness. Cornell is Cornell: wonderful. Greenwald is "Educated But Aware". So many of our "intellectuals" are EBI rather than EBA. The usual "white supremacy" bugbear from Butler, rather than a nuanced intersectional understanding that properly integrates the importance of political economy - i.e. class, wealth and power.
glen g can do whatever he wants...he says the injustice of that !! well WE DONT CHANGE LAWS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMMORALITY !! GOD SAYS HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION.... STOP CHANGING OUR LAWS TO FILL THE WHIMS OF SINNERS...NO WONDER OUR COUNTRY IS FUKED
This is how it’s done ! As a viewer the goal is not to agree with any or all of their ideas but to expose yourself to others’ ideas with the goal of broadening understanding, empathy and love for each other. Without this much needed discourse we are doomed as a civilization. Truly grateful to all participants
Both of your commenters here completely missed the point of Butler's position...that everyone should have "agency in society" and that no person is exempt from the influence of their own identity in shaping their politics.
Feminists like Judith Butler have performative empathy, not real empathy. It's not possible since her ideology is based on speaking for the opposite sex and asserting they have everything better while claiming to be benevolent.
Butler flatly refuses to acknowledge the conflict between the sex based rights of women and gender identity ideology. You can't have sex based rights if anyone can idenitfy as any sex (I see that here they invariably use the word gender when they mean sex). Butler, seeing herself as an "exceptional" woman, need not concern herself with the fears of poor women, such as those held in prison with men who are violent sex offenders. I guess that's where the class thing comes in, she is unlikely to ever find herself in prison. I love listening to middle class women contemplating the lives of poor women, it is a great chance to take a little holiday from reality.
Especially since, in practice, everything about gender identity and queer theory that she wrote is exactly about that. Its like her theory is having the opposite reaction that she writes about LOL
@@g7042 I'm new to Butler so may be off the mark but in my brief take there does seem a weird internal conflict of Butler essentialising identity in the way she talks about it here at the same time as breaking fundamental categories wide open in her work, such as in her view of the body and biological sex as socially constructed. So perhaps this is resolved in the personal, but then with the intersection of multiple categories we all occupy, where is the perspectival privilege in say, being LGBTQ I+ or black, that allows for collective correction of the institution. What does solidarity across a pluralistic, intersectional world look like and how would you prevent the reification of new and potentially arbitrary power structures?
Surprised to hear someone say this. I only know Butler by name, but I've never encountered a gender activist who expressed anything but open disdain for individual liberty.
Agree!Cornel is brilliant as allways, but can't stand Judith Butler.There should've been woman of color,instead of her.Boring af,always has a need for deconstruction😴
Who? The guy that think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? That guy? Cant stand Butler. Cornel is great. But Glenn, Tulsi, Jimmy are going towards the right. As I said Glenn Called Tucker a socialist. Jimmy doesn't even create videos taking on republicans. Tulsi is talking Mitch McConnell points on Sean Hannity. This are not on the left anymore
@@adrijan6510 It was f##in joke!I agree that Dore is cilckbaiting to much,to the right wing,but his critique of dnc,is clearly left one.Don't wanna comment on Tulsi Bush,but I'm gonna defend Glen.He did too much of good & assholes trash him left & right,so you need to do better than one(suspicious)quote!
Disappointing but not surprising to see a debate by philosophers about identity that doesn't interrogate the notion of identity itself. The most ancient philosophies of Greece and India held identity to be an illusion, with the task before the aspirant to truth being to overcome the primary illusions of self and world. Modern philosophy is haunted by the fact that it can't ultimately establish anything, so it gives up being deep in exchange for being the cleverest fool in the room. Ancient systems of enquiry took this non-establishment as their basis, it was a strength rather than a weakness, and from them we get the rich spiritual traditions of India and China and the mystery schools of the near East which, during their decline, produced the great monotheistic religions in which the primordial non-established base was deified. The problems under discussion in this debate can't be resolved without a deeply personal and thoroughgoing enquiry into the attachments which consitute the bundle of identities which we insist define us - and that enquiry ultimately leads to the dissolution of all notions of identity except the primordial identity of all apparent phenomena with each other.
" Ancient systems of enquiry took this non-establishment as their basis, it was a strength rather than a weakness, and from them we get the rich spiritual traditions of India and China and the mystery schools of the near East which, during their decline, produced the great monotheistic religions in which the primordial non-established base was deified". That's the catch right, the greatest catch of all, catch 22. Both are self evident in the societies in which they arose as to the failure in any meaningful way to addressee the "Moral imperative" of each and in fact have been used to crush said imperative. West comes closest as does Hedges in there messaging of getting closer to the truth in today's world of a path forward. Grennwald is one of the best at explaining that world. I'm not familiar enough at all to speak to Butler but she certainly brought something to the table, I'm just not sure if it was palatable.
Gotta agree with @knsummers here. West seems like a nice guy (at least as long as you agree with him) and is definitely well-read (at least in far left critical activist-researcher works). However, everything he says are aurally pleasing strings of positively-connoted words delivered with a cadence and tone that imply profundity so that a listener ends up feeling like one just heard something brilliant and deeply insightful when, at the bottom of it all, the actual raw value of everything said is meaningless feel-good platitudes. To be charitable, I think the stuff he says does actually have value at an individual level. All the "love thy neighbor" memes are actually good individual social prescriptions. The problem is this was a "politics" debate (literally in the name), so the actual question has to do with behaviors at the polity level. Memes are not useful here; we need the hard truths and realistic trade-offs discussion, not utopian bloviation. He has a few moments, like when he's taking about education, when he really breaks out into some meaningful good points, but a whole lot of what he says didn't seem to really as much actual meaningful content.
@@chogokin666 also knsummers and Seth Parker...It may serve each of you to read some of the comments below of the many who were so deeply impressed, and moved by Dr. West's brilliant contribution to the discourse, and then, to ask yourself what they all could possibly have gleaned from Dr. West, as well as from Glenn Greenwald, such that they wrote such glowing "reviews" of their spoken words. That you could not understand Dr West's contribution should not be alarming, given the depth of his education, and the consequent depth of his understanding of our historical, and societal degenerate state. I believe it might serve you well to listen again, and see what understanding you might derive from his critique, especially if you go to a library and read some of the classic works to which he made repeated reference. His brilliance can not be grasped from the "heights" of a very limited literary, and philosophical background.
Yet, to me, while he is knowledgeable and has a great vocabulary, he always seems so dramatically self-absorbed. Am I simply envious of his verbal gifts, or is his motive for communicating that he wants others to see him as a smart person?
I really tried to give Judith Butler a fair shot, but it seems like over and over it takes her 10 minutes and 10,000 words to say, "We should talk more about stuff that we're not usually talking about." and she never really actually talks about anything.
I learned something from every one of the speakers and also disagreed on something from each. A good, stimulating conversation among four very smart people. Glad I could watch it.
Notice how Butler and West never really get to specifics. They never name specific policies or programs they would like to see created in their ideal world. Gee I wonder why.
I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing that. West seems to reference the past a lot more than he references the present, and when he does talk about the present he almost never says anything specific. We apparently operate under white supremacy and patriarchy despite the fact that male suicides and drug abuse are significantly more common and not at all dealt with, females have overtaken men in higher education by a considerable margin, feminist thought is largely the status quo, we have affirmative action programs out the ass, almost every corporation is instituting diversity boards, so on and so forth. He seems strangely disconnected from the real world for someone who appears so worldly.
@@GamingBlake2002 The days of Hitchens are long over, he would probably be center these days. Modern Leftists fail to fulfill the onus of proving their theories about what's best for progress are going to work, it's based in sophistry and other fallacious thought, This is why you see so many getting slaughtered in debates more than ever. They are trying to argue for the ideal, utopian, unproven. And of course demonizing the past, which can't defend itself rather than point out tangible dysfunctions in the present, that are consistently and empirically true.
Meh young people don't vote so their concerns can be dismissed. And this is typical of all generations actually, before I start my zoomers and millenials bashing 😂
Judith listing political ideology based on the axis of identity and then asking if it's identity politics should be a ringtone. It's this lack of self awareness that alienates the academic elite
Being in that setting myself you can’t underestimate the career climbing herd mentality that happens. I really think the internet and social media naturally promoting the most controversial and salacious is the crux of what moved people like her so high up.
@@janosmarothy5409 look at your reflex with how you respond. Immediate dishonest strawmanning. That doesn’t tell you enough about how you we’re educated?
@@FinneySP ironically, it says more about your own reactive approach, along with a lack of basic reading/listening comprehension as I was literally repeating a remark she made in the video
Disappointed. Butler, of course, and to a lesser extent, West, running away from Glenn's arguments. At this point, deflecting concerns about what id. politics is and has become, IN PRACTICE, by making appeals to what they are, or could be, in theory is just lazy, intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.
I think you miss the point here. Every social and political theorist talks about an idealized or normative theory (in contrast to a descriptive). That's entirely fine because when they do so, they also specify the conditions under which the theory would translates into practice. Every theorist does that and it's unavoidable. Socialist theorists argue that "socialism works, but the Soviet Union wasn't socialist because of XYZ." Anarcho-capitalist and libertarians argue that "free markets work, but what we have now is not free markets because of XYZ." It's a purely intellectual exercise and it should be treated as such. It doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. These theorists make sure that a theoretical framework is internally coherent in purely conceptual and analytical terms. After this, empirically-oriented scholars apply these theories in practice. And sometimes or often the reality clashes with the theories. In response to that the theories get revised. So ideally, there is an ongoing conversation between theory and practice. This conversation doesn't happen overnight and sometimes in might take a bunch of decades for a theory to catch up with the reality. But that's how science works in a nearly every field. From math to physics and to social science.
@@TheQuixoticRambler where do you see a straw-man, my lad? You are lamenting about Butler making appeals to what identity politics are in theory. I responded by pointing out that this falls perfectly well within the purview of a social theorist: to talk about an idealised version of X (identity, justice, freedom, markets, socialism or whatnot).
They don't actually hate him for going on tucker Carlson. They hate him for speaking truth. They just use tucker Carlson as an excuse because they can't face reality, and want to keep their illusions.
@@andjanice71 Agreed, I think a lot of people turned on Greenwald when he began debunking the Trump-Russia conspiracy--they wanted to cling to this narrative, so they went after Greenwald when he pointed out, repeatedly, that this narrative was unsupported by evidence. So yes, it's not about going on Tucker Carlson.
y'all sound like cultists. Glenn has become a grifting reactionary, feeding off the income and attention he receives from the very impressionable proto-facist contingency in the West. Prove me wrong
@@TheSupahJaws The whole gender debate is a good example. The specific target of Orwell's quote was the nationalist totalitarian state, widely defended by intellectuals in England, and all around the world.
Its sad and hilarious that so many reactionary ppl say they hate the "woke" or "identity politics" when 99% of the time it just means they hate trans people. Usually because they have a completely misinformed idea of what trans people are like in real life and let their "independent critical thinking skills" get mislead by the ongoing narrative that all trans ppl are elite academic pro cancel culture "evil" twitter people.
Judith says we have to question what industries we want to choose to be a part of, especially as working class, racial/gender categories. Yet fails to see how her involvement in many academic spaces has reinforced division amongst men, women, black and white for decades. She couches her language to seem palatable and empathetic, but if you truly listen to what she's saying, she's basically telling people to stay in their place for fear of disrupting the status quo. She compares the libreral system of America, that is extremely malleable in terms of social change, to Fascism and other negative stereotypes. This is to persuade minorities to stay outside of the system and kept at a lower place in society. She is truly an intelligent anti-intellectual if I ever saw one
West and Butler seem incapable of directly responding to Greenwald’s points. I like West though. He makes good points. Butler is simply the queen of obfuscation
Who? The guy that think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? That guy? Cant stand Butler. Cornel is great. But Glenn, Tulsi, Jimmy are going towards the right. As I said Glenn Called Tucker a socialist. Jimmy doesn't even create videos taking on republicans. Tulsi is talking Mitch McConnell points on Sean Hannity. This are not on the left anymore
@@adrijan6510 Glenn just addressed those very criticisms, in a video on his own platform. Feel free to disbelieve him, of course. Your mistrust may be well founded. But you don't get to claim that he didn't. Use slogans at your own peril: no one is required to give credence to you, either.
I consider mr Greenwald one the most courageous and truthful journalist in the world he has more balls than all thelegacy media combined I hope to meet you sometime. You are one of my heroes you have taught me so much Thank for believing in individual rights.May God bless and keep in the palms of hands.
Glenn’s response at 2:18:00 to vaccine mandates was brilliant and visionary - how building trust in our healthcare and a positive vision to fix things will reduce divisiveness etc. Brazil having a high vaccination rate and why was great example.
She doesn't seem to be questioning identity politics as much as she is defending it or justifying it by trying to make a strawman argument and misrepresenting the argument of opponents of it.
Butler is *framing* the debate and the issue as a philosopher would. Defining it in larger terms of society as a whole. This framing must necessary come *before* questioning anything so that it is clear what everyone is debating about. The man who did the intro instead filled the air with long jokes.
She seems to be of weak intellect. Example: Greenwald called her out - very tactfully and with surgical prowess - on her pointing out the lack of a black woman in the panel. She seemed desperate to prove to everyone know how inclusive she is .. this she is a quintessential example of ‘white liberal fragility.’ So her response was basically to double down, and to list how many black women she knows (of) who are not Candace Owens…. Glad she was on the panel to represent that point of view, and to thus have Greenwald and West to put things on track.
Nonsense...Butler's opening remarks were exactly on point...a much needed rational framing of this grossly overly-politicized and ill-defined term. The term "identity politics" has clearly been weaponized by defenders of the status quo to dismiss anyone trying to advocate for social reforms. Everyone, without exception, has a basic element of "identity politics" that comes from their personal situations etc. To deny this obvious truth, while decrying others as biased and self-serving because they happen to differ from certain assumed norms, is the blatant hypocrisy that the denier has no implicit biases...this is ridiculous. The hypocritical "opponents of it" are the "strawman argument" creators who are "misrepresenting the argument" because they dishonestly claim to be without innate bias when no one can honestly make that dubious claim. Can you honestly claim to be without any biases?
Starts at 2:59. Can be highbrow and ivory tower at certain points as professors Will fetishize about academia and it's ingredients, they can't help it, yet it was worth watching! I was encouraged to develop perspectives more thoroughly while watching and listening to this debate. It was also very civil. For my viewpoint, I have come out with same view I went in which is as follows: In the context of political power; Identity Politics is a sum negative as we have Politicians of Color carrying out the SAME monstrous policies of capitalism and white supremacy🤢🤮🤬
@@pseudonayme7717 Indeed, but one might pose that as a chicken/egg question of causality which is where I think a lot of confusion comes in. But if we just think about this for a second, as you're getting at I think, first from a purely abstract consideration here, if we accept that existence _precedes_ essence, ie material conditions necessarily come before and thus necessarily shape the boundaries of ideas/thought in the first place just necessarily, as some guy put it, _“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”_ And now we have a notion of material necessity that we can then use to ground our interpretation and understanding of the past, and thus analyze history through a lens of "historical materialism" to cut through any historiography or mythology that presents itself as true but unconsciously or not is not tethered to such material actuality, as some guy (same guy lol...) put _this_ _"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."_ - some guy (I'm sure you specifically are quite aware of all of this, just trying to elaborate for anyone circumstantially unfamiliar, prob shoulda mentioned that at the beginning lol...anyway....) So if anyone's still with me here, if we think about reality itself in terms of feedback loop _process_ ("process metaphysics", basically a break from a more Kantian conception of "things in themselves" ie insulated and isolated individual interacting "things" more or less randomly smashing into each other independently through some sort of homogenous medium; emerging from Hegel and his concept of the dialectic), you got your base _material_ organization of property relations at the foundation of our existence, and then emergent from that basic setup we get all the consequential superstructure of social relations, language, culture, law, all the shit that forms our social (and like consciously lived ontological reality) on top, guided by and limited to the bounds of that base. For more/alternative non-shit explanation, see: dialectical materialism, what I'm badly trying to describe lol... To make it less abstract, as Boss Tweed in his hubris noted quite explicitly, _"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I can do the nominating."_ Or hey, how about William Casey (CIA director under Reagan ie absolute demon) in _his_ hubris explicitly stating the goal/efficacy of Operation Mockingbird: _"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."_ _"We 'feel free' because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom"_ - *_*sniff_** Zizek tldr; the unseen relation of social power, particularly power in regards to material/"economic" influence, shapes how everyone that is subject or subordinate to this order perceives that material reality, necessarily, as existence _precedes_ essence (borrowing phrase from Sartre who Glenn actually brought up momentarily as I typed this funnily enough, used toward a different purpose but I think it's a succinct description). Pretty much explains how we historically get trapped in such situations of civilizational social bondage we then need external material ruptures, like the black plague breaking feudal social relations, to even be able to _potentially_ escape. If that makes sense/anyone gives a shit or isn't already familiar lol...
In the one breath Judith speaks about how indigenous people have had their lands taken, then the next berates native French Europeans, an ancient people of Francs and Gauls native to the area for being concerned for their own culture and lands. You can’t have it both ways love
Where does she even mention French Europeans? That this is where your mind goes to is bizarre enough -- well, it's not bizarre, you bristle at any critique of inhumane immigration police, or the genocidal character of the US' territorial expansion, and whatever your intent, you immediately leap to white nationalist inanity. True to form, there's an extreme historical ignorance at play here if you seriously believe the situation indigenous people of the Americas is at all analogous to that of France... itself a humiliated former colonial power.
An exclusive privileged group of people talking about inclusivity. A "person of working classedness" might have added a perspective about Identity Politics: how in the hands of capitalists it becomes a tool of disciplining the workforce. Learn how to use a complex language code that is constantly being updated - or you're out! Identity politics thus becomes a tool of oppression and is experienced as such. That's why you see the working class turning against the political left.
made the previous comment just having read the starting of your comment. Still mantain what I said, but obviously agree that privileged people imposing his view in unpriviliged ones is something despicable.
Your view of the working class is flawed, which in turn makes your argument flawed. The working class includes people who support or are the reasons for “complex language code that is constantly being updated.” Plenty of the working class engage in identity and, in turn, identity politics. To say identity politics as a blanket statement IS a tool of capitalist oppression as opposed to identity politics as a blanket statement CAN become a tool of capitalist oppression is dishonest. Anything and everything can be used as a tool of capitalist oppression. That itself does not mean anything and everything inherently IS a tool. Also, plenty of people in the working class are turning TOWARDS the political left.
Butler talks and talks, but says nothing. Glenn is the only one who speaks English, who is concise, and delivers clear-cutting points. The most exclusionary thing you can ever do is to make language complex for people that are out of academia. Intellectuals should learn to communicate simply and precisely as possible.
I'm 50/50 on Butler. She makes good points (eg. tribal vs zivilized), but also has a tendency to avoid arguments (vs Greenwald on Covid or on diversity) and makes herself comfortable in abstractions.
She sounds so incredibly out of touch. The best thing about her is she seemed willing to honestly listen. It just makes me wonder what she has been doing for information lately, she sounds like someone listening intently to Cuomo, oblivious to everything going on around her. If she’d listened to even one interview of the fda advisory board members, or really any other scientific bureaucrat actually voting to approve aspects of these policies she would know that none of them approve of masks and are deeply concerned with how policies in general are being rolled out. She seems very secure in that neoliberal protective bubble.
Good point. Butler's abstract collectivist/anti-individualist frame crumbled in this exchange when it ran up against Greenwald's concrete, real-world, grounded frame. There's a meta-drama that played out in this conversation that Greenwald pointed out within the discussion: the disjuncture between those in academia and those in the real world which manifests most grotesquely when those in academia remain untouched while those in the working class have to suffer the economic consequences of implementing their ideas. In short, Butler is so divorced from reality that I don't think she has ever been held accountable to prove that her theoretical framework (much less her policy prescription) works. Being an engineer, myself, my theories about how to proceed with solving a problem are constantly running up against this little thing called reality. If my theory is true, it's born out in the fact that my solution works as intended. If my theory is false, then whatever I'm designing will fail, sometimes catastrophically. No matter how artfully articulate you are, you can't word salad your way through a failed design like so many academics can with a failed theory. If my designs fail often enough, then I'm out of a job, so I'm forced to have my ideas conform to reality. With there being an abstract notion and a concrete notion of integrity, my work has to have integrity and soundness in both senses of the word. Academics never have to contend with reality in that way.
Glen hit it. This conversation is happening in the Ivory Tower. If this was among the grassroots, the conversation would be very different. A police officer, a factory worker, a farmer, a restaurant/cafe worker, and a nurse. What does this conversation mean to them?
You haven't listened well enough. The point they make is that inclusion itself isn't holy nor the most functional goal because of the amount of diverse perspectives that exist but that you need to think critically, listen carefully and morally reflect about the voices you include and justify.
Who? The guy that think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? That guy? Cant stand Butler. Cornel is great. But Glenn, Tulsi, Jimmy are going towards the right. As I said Glenn Called Tucker a socialist. Jimmy doesn't even create videos taking on republicans. Tulsi is talking Mitch McConnell points on Sean Hannity. This are not on the left anymore
I can’t believe people have been fooled by butlers theoretical sophistry. It’s all meandering social theoretical. The irony of her saying “we need to move from the abstract”
She is someone who has learned that sounding like you know what you're talking about is just as beneficial as actually knowing what you're talking about.
Intellectual snobbery on display from the 2 philosophers. Dismissal on who speaks for what group of people without even the tiniest of acknowledgement they, themselves represent a fringe position. Glenn the only one dealing with the reality of the moment we're all living through.
Judith Butler's every utterance is a clueless, self-satisfied expression of the adequacy of archaic bourgeois institutions and defense of the current caprices of bourgeois ideology (formulated in no small part out of consultation with herself and her acolytes) . Her performance here is particularly grotesque coming so soon after her defense of the trans sex offender stalking women and children in the California locker room in the OP Ed that the Guardian tried and failed to retcon for her. Hearing her speak vaguely about indigenous and tribal politics here , her purely mercenary, opportunistic, even neo-colonial interest is particularly glaring.
@@bigdap100 - He does not actually stand for transgender people, and neither do any of you brainwashed "adults". But, some (if not most) are still quick to go to *sex sites* to watch transgender people. trans people (of color) have existed before pale-skinned Europeans invaded *Africa* and other *indigenous lands/people of color* around the world. Cornel West never mentioned/mentions that fact, regardless of where he speaks. He still "thinks" trans women are not women who can't be straight/heterosexual. Get the heck out of here.
@@bigdap100 - Hey, NUMBSKULL. *Africa* is the *motherland* and *African* (trans) people have *ALREADY EXISTED CENTURIES AGO,* and were *HIGHLY REGARDED* as *THEIR TRUE GENDER* in *SOME AFRICAN TRIBES.* What the heck do you not comprehend?!!!!
Where? I keep seeing comments like these and it's just bizarre to me. Yes, she can sometimes use abstruse, technical language. Not here though, she was speaking pretty plainly about concrete issues. You just hear what you want to hear.
@@ambientjohnny No one on the panel presented any because that wasn't really the point of the discussion. And solutions to what exactly? Such a weird question
As a woman, I find Judith being on this panel embarrassing. She sounds unintelligent, and narcissistic. Listening to her is like listening to someone naval gazing on Tumblr. The commenter below that said it sounds like she's from the KGB has it on point. Women we can do WAY BETTSR than this!
Listening to Judith talk is like hearing the best example you could ever give about the uselessness of academia. A finer example of someone more out of touch with the common working class human, I could never find if I tried. I seriously hope that an end to all this BS is coming soon so that we can get down to the real problems
@@l.w.paradis2108 could be,although I've never read her.I know about her,cause,Zizek often quotes her,in his book.As brother Cornel would've said;I'm wrestling with my male dominance😂
@@l.w.paradis2108 I might be ready to be surprised too!I'll never like her rhetoric qualities,but you right,written word has more into it.As a old school leftie,I'm not into gender theories,my position is libertarian here,but I could give a shot to peace & justice.Peace!
None, they have been given at this point more rights than women by allowing men to compete in women’s sports, they have been allowed to influence children with gender theory and drag queen story hour, they have managed to exclude feminine language like mother to “birthing people” in government, they have been allowed to take the space in women’s prisons and bathrooms, wether we like it or not. I would say trans “rights” supersedes my rights as a woman.
3/4 through, and my impression is that West and Greenwald are taking into account the needs of given identity groups in their critique of the current mode du jour of using identity as the driving descriptor of such needs, whereas Butler is entrenched in those definitions without addressing their cores (she seems to never address any common humanity in her obsession with the labels applied to members of it).
Wow, how relieving it is to listen to this conversation. Rare enough these days to find people listening to each other while also sharing ideas about sensitive topics. Bliss!
Butler's basic thing is. My friends, this little group or slice of the whole, must have special protections and be a protected class. Then she suppresses this, forgetting she speaks of a small minority, and attacks larger proportions of the country as racist. Sheer self-deceptive hypocrisy (driven by fellow-feeling with her friends and people she identifies with).
Is it just me or does JB say nothing of substance? I don't want to dislike her but it seems she doesn't contend with any of Glenn or Wests points. Am I stupid? Or is she really just kinda full of it
Glenn nails it with the black woman being aboard. Butler is an myopic elitist. Her black women would be Angela Davis not a black female police officer.
I live in Brazil too and as an American I can say that Glenn is right about how people feel here about public health as opposed to the healthcare system in the US, you don’t see this terrible divisiveness with vaccines in Brazil despite having an idiotic President. Also, the healthcare system here is very good and there are public hospitals and clinics and Brazilians are very health conscious too, you don’t see a mistrust in the healthcare system here like you do in the US and if you have a good private insurance here the coverage is much better than in the US, even dental insurance too, no co-pays or deductibles and everything is covered at 100%.
@@luna6093-d6c it’s not easy to get into the public universities here though, you have to take an entrance exam and most kids start preparing for that exame in their junior and senior year in high school. Also, the public schools are very poor here and most kids in the middle to upper middle class Ho to private schools which is supposed to increase your chances to getting into a public university, I’m not convinced of this though, there is supposed to be an allotment of students the public universities have to accept from poor communities and public schools, though that has diminished over there years. My kids go to private school here, we’ve lived here since 2012 due to my wife’s job, she is a journalist and Brazilian and she works for an American publication, they wanted her down here to cover things, since she has many connections here. Also, the cost of living is better here if you don’t have to rely on the local economy, I do remote editing work and the majority of my work comes from the US and the dollar is very strong against the Brazilian Real, it is also common here to have housekeepers and domestic works like Nannies, it’s very cultural and the laws for these workers are very strict, they have many rights. The problem here is the salaries are very low for the average Brazilian and if you don’t study in university there isn’t a whole lot of opportunity, work in the trades here doesn’t pay well like in the US either. All in all if you have a good income in Brazil life is good, but if not, it’s hard and harder than in developed countries, however, Brazil invests a lot into public health and it’s public health system including public hospitals and clinics as well as public universities. It has some aspects of European countries like Portugal without the robust social safety net that Portugal has and educated people here carry the manners of Europeans, since Brazil has a lot of poverty, the socioeconomic challenges are big. Also, Greenwald and his husband are well off now, his husband is a politician and any type of government job here pays the highest salaries, so people tend to gravitate towards public sector jobs for security. Greenwald’s husband grew up poor in a favela, it’s rare here to rise to a higher class from a situation such as his, but it does happen.
Considering the third leading cause of death in America, after heart disease and cancer, is in fact medical error, it is definitely rational to lack trust in the American healthcare system. Based on this fact alone, inferences that may be made as to how the pandemic has been handled in America are chilling.
Greenwald, I think, points to some of the blind spots that West and Butler do not adequately account for - his point about the panel not having a working-class voice, specifically, laid bare the rather impoverished view that West and Butler have. (You can hear that it touched a nerve).
@@rafal5863Thank Christ I went to university before all this intellectual garbage took over, I couldn't tolerate it now. And it's so authoritarian! You have to think like them or you get excommunicated
yes, they start to think in theory space of grandiose measure.. personal idealism. They forget that their assumptions and presumptions do not matters but instead accept their own opinions as reality and fact. Ego, and arrogance.
This debate has been disappointing. Glenn Greenwald has put some of the best provocations onto the floor, but overall it felt as if they avoided addressing some of the key critiques of contemporary identity politics. The event would have been more interesting if someone like Adolph Reed, Vivek Chibber, Kenan Malik, or Raju Das, were also invited.
Yes. Glenn's clear and precise points about what happens in practice were met with many retreats in to theory; to obfuscate, deflect and always shifting the conversation away from his legitimate concerns.
@@joanofarc33 Isnt it the case that those in ivory towers entertain all these high minded ideals but expect those at the bottom of the ladder to bear the costs both socially and financially
I know right. It is amazing to me there are still some that dislike Brother West. That seems impossible to me. The man is such a beautiful human being. How anyone can dislike him is beyond me.
@@Milanvaneijk .. Just like West....muh honesty, muh integrity, muh babbling on and on and never contributing anything new of value. You can pay enough $ to get a PhD in any topic....that's how it works ....but all these folks are low level midwits with nothing to do but fill time.
As smart as an academic juggernaut may be, if they are not up to date with social media political and anthropological discourse, then they will be pretty lost when discussing current terms and how it correlates to related. Identity politics has meant different things but currently on both the right and the left the it means the same thing in the political junky world.... It means what Glenn describes, which is using identity to mask class continuity
@@guwopman3503 Sorry, but that is categorically untrue, by definition. It's also a childish and naive perception of reality, one that's going to keep you shaking your fist and whining your life away vs. living it.
@@alextinsley9117 ramps in public spaces are useless if we choose to allow everyone to have equal access to stairs, right? Someone with a minor headache should take precedence in the ER over someone with a gunshot wound because they arrived after the headache patient, right? You are projecting so much. You’re assuming I’m “shaking my fist” as opposed to living my life because I believe equity is necessary to achieve equality, really? You have to imagine that I am not living my life happily so you can feel assured that the person with differing views from yours is in a worse position than you based on their differing views. That’s what I would call “childish.” Take my first example of universal access to stairs. For people who cannot use stairs does that equal access mean anything at all when it is actively hindering them from entering or maneuvering the same spaces as people who can use stairs? Someone who can’t use stairs would need a different solution that allows them to enjoy the same maneuverability as any other person who does not have their specific limitations. That’s called equity and it allows equal access to (in this example) maneuverability. Who would have thought?
Don't miss the 2023 Holberg Debate on December 2. Anil Seth, Tanya Luhrmann and Rupert Sheldrake will debate the question: "Does Consciousness Extend Beyod Brains?" th-cam.com/video/ofSUaZOW9h8/w-d-xo.html
Feel free to follow the event page on Facebook: facebook.com/events/315569814476878
More information on the Holberg Prize webpage: holbergprize.org/en/2023-holberg-debate-does-consciousness-extend-beyond-brains
I dont even have to watch the rest of this to already know Glen is gonna tear yall a new ass hole at the end. Anti-white has been integrated into our culture and has been for decades now. This woman is living in the 1960s still and its PISSING ME OFF.
Hi Holberg, please sort this out, it’s unbearable + unwatchable - SIMON. STOP STOP THAT “UM HM” “UM HM”, it’s absolutely rude + irritating!!!
lol @ this leftist propaganda. Take your "white supremacy" garbage somewhere else. We see your lies.
These are the people who got rich off of selling fear based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. The spooky part is... look how many people in this comment section who fell for it. They have no discernment as to the propaganda being thrown at them..
😊p😊vvp😊copp
Cornell West: "if you stay woke for too long you're going to develop insomnia"
Ha, that's pretty good.
To pointlessly expand on this while watching this if anyone gives a shit lol (idk whatever I'm bored or something), the whole "woke" thing obviously isn't "bad" or really even disagreeable to most I would think in its core basic message removed from its dishonest framing, _but_ it is precisely because of how over time its message has deteriorated into a visceral inauthenticity having been contained in such consistent dishonesty and betrayal, ie it's transparent self-serving performance has exposed itself, and essentially hollowed out that core basic message for individual profit as merely a fake performance of individual piety and a projected implicit _superiority_ or moral character over the "unwashed masses" intrinsically lacking such "virtue" or whatever, that people find it so repellant.
Like the optimates of the late Roman empire, crushing the populares movement by the Gracchi bros and later Caesar by famously of course straight up murdering them in the senate, even after Caesar fucking owned Pompey in the language of violence these absolute demons _actually_ practice behind their facades of manners/niceties, but then post-hoc justifying such an obvious vulgar display of power through rhetorical notions of "goodness" and "virtue", as Cicero would claim, Caesar and the populares posed an "authoritarian" threat (against their oligarchical domination is of course the unsaid part). Obviously there's like...too many parallels to our contemporary historical moment with that, but I think that's why it's revealing, especially as the -counterrevolutionaries- "founders" of the US admired such a dominion explicitly, hell the senate is based precisely on that senate (in the constitution, entirely democratically unaccountable and nominated purely by state legislatures). The constitution itself merely a brokerage between Hamiltonian eastern banker finance capital federalists and Jeffersonian land-owning slave-holding yeoman farmer antifederalists with an explicit intent to stave off what both bourgeoise "factions" agreed was an _actual_ threat: democracy (see Federalist Papers, Federalist 10 by Madison gets at this pretty explicitly). I mean my god these people wrote this stuff so far up their own asses they knew at some level that these 'factions' would be a problem (like, no shit right? lol...) but assumed their personal "virtue", self-evident by their property ownership and dominion over black, poor, and indigenous people, would transcend it. Turns out that isn't a thing. Oops.
This load-bearing two-party bourgeois dictatorship is, shocker, precisely a result from that lack of implementing a structural proportional/parliamentary system into the constitution..."oops"...or more cynically, likely giving two big thumbs up in hell, which at this point is probably hard to distinguish from the world they helped create for us...
Considering my own "ressentiment" fueled last statement there reminds me of Nietzsche of course, who I think describes this extremely well from an interesting dimension with his conception of "slave morality" and its connection to shaping our ontological perception and "habitus" through a linguistic distortion over time (originating from a context that is no longer applicable but nonetheless still insisted on to form a simulacra of its more communal/spiritual meaning; in the Genealogy of Morals if my paraphrasing is bad here), especially in relation to the ensorcelling technology that maintains this through a spectacle of permanent reaction from within the digital panopticon that is the internet, might be a relevant way of thinking about our paralysis of action as well, especially noting the neoliberal paradigm's de facto emphasis on normative individualizing to abstract away from any analysis of systemically generated causes and how, as mentioned by everyone in this video, we get this sort of consumer ontology where we can choose our truth based on subjective preference (if that made any sense lol), most importantly for Nietzsche is that this "ressentiment" though creative is fundamentally _dishonest_ and thus we get the charade of bullshit we perpetually live within, that everyone _knows_ is fake but yet we can't escape/transcend as its scale and tidal social inertia subsumes individual dissent/transgression, or something:
_"The slave revolt in morality begins when 'ressentiment' itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge."_
As discussed, our passive spectator technologically mediated 'bread and circus' perception of "politics" seems in form entirely poisoned by that "ressentiment" emergent from entirely individual/self-absorbed media filters cemented in our culture coupled with an accurate intuition of the zero-sum competition driven structure that further cultivate this habitus of risk-averse narcissism so that "politics" becomes perceived more of an aesthetic consumer brand choice between two competing bourgeois tribes (no surprise I guess, basically describing the essential tenants of neoliberalism). Tribes that seem to essentially have their defining roots in emerging from that federalist/antifederalist split mentioned earlier; in marxist terms you can note this cultural distinction aesthetically arising from their distance to capitalism and exploitation, ie a base (antifederalists, contemporary Republicans)/superstructure (federalists, contemporary Democrats) distinction maybe put more simply (or maybe internationalist/nationalist; transnational finance/corporate capital v. national extractive/land capital; trying to describe the same basic bourgeois factional split with all of these, hopefully makes sense, eh no one's going to read this long ass bs anyway lol...).
In a more general notion toward that inauthenticity (in like the marxist notion of a "character mask", especially as it pertains to this bread and circus cultural medium with all its implicit material filters and performative nonsense), I'll cut my screed off here by noting the lyrics from the song Tonguesplitter by one of my fav bands Protest the Hero, which is essentially a different way to phrase the West quote in a way (aw shit, full circle, eternal return baby) in how it transforms ourselves into an inauthentic shell that's not really living but rather killing time.
_It's the mask that quite often starts to eat into your face._
_So wear it lightly like a cap, that can quickly be replaced._
aaaaaaaaand video done, huzzah. Good stuff, good quote, and GOOD DAY! sorry for wall of text, socialism or [continued] barbarism.
It was refreshing to agree with Dr. West for once.
@@Bisquick I didn’t get through all of that, but I want to let you know that the message you were sending was received by me, at least in part. When wisdom spreads too fast, it’s meaning gets lost in the crowd through simple and natural misunderstandings. Few may get the message at first, but eventually it dies and new wisdom must be born.
@@lancegrandis6230 none of us have a monopoly on truth, there’s disagreement and agreement to be found with everyone, just more or less for each individual you encounter. :D
@@ridicule1313 felt the same way. It was a lot to take in, and given it came from TH-cam comment I wasn’t prepared to engage with the depth, haha.
After Butler says a black woman should be in the debate (later clarified that she was talking about a black academic woman*), Greenwald says they should have a working-class person as well. You can hear the other debaters groan, because either they see themselves as working class, or as people who understand what it is like to be working class. Greenwald then goes on to call them out, and himself, as people who moved away from working class lives, and are now working in elite environments. Debaters change the subject...
...and this moment perfectly characterizes the entire debate.
*who she agrees with
Someone should clip this. I agree, telling moment.
Very very telling moment indeed
Yes. I saw that. Well called out.
Yeah this is basically it - and Dr. West scoffing at the idea of the ‘conservative’ women of color (even though tulsi gabbard is a dem) shows that Glennwald is right in his assessment of using racial identity in a superficial way. He showed that they actually do care more about the ideas first and race/gender second. I guess it’s hard to admit it because it is now considered a “right-wing” talking point.
Butler and West are divorced from American reality and married to Academic reality
The Identity/Perspective that is ALWAYS excluded from these types of discussions is that of the “Non College Educated” Working Class person!
💯
Because the Left looks on certain demographics like pets they have to care for and govern. And yes I actually do believe that.
@@joanofarc33 bingo! I've been saying this for years. I always go back to Malcolm X's interviews about the "white liberal". So relevant these days. They govern and apostolatize people like pets. It's actually so condescending.
The other perspective that is always excluded is the Native when the "native" is white, as in France. Judith was really down on the idea that French Natives have the right to question when their elites have a highly pro-immigration policy. Does she perhaps think that "French Natives" don't exist? Or does she imagine that everyone to whom the phrase occurs is a National Socialist?
@@ChollieD its the latter
butler is really good at saying a bunch of buzzwords without actually saying anything of substance
Money.
Money flows to you when you get good at it.
She's built her entire career on that.
Which just means you don't understand them.
Butler donated to Kamala Harris in 2020 the maximum amount of money one is allowed to donate. Terry Castle donated thousands to Hillary Clinton in 2020. Angela Davis endorsed Biden. Shocking and disappointing.
Ugh. You told me all I need to know.
Wow. What a condemnation of her politics!! She should be challenged on that. Shows the contrast between bullshit you talk and what you actually do. ‘Embodied sociality’ = support for the corrupt neo-liberal Harris who prosecuted a criminal justice system that incarcerated so many of the black poor. Just wow
Shocking?
And Cornell West, rather than giving money to a neoliberal candidate, actually participated in Sanders' campaign at a high level. Their actions say more than their words.
@@emileconstance5851 Pity about his sycophantic adulation of Butler at the outset of the show
I still feel like they tip-toed around Greenwald’s critiques and attempts to dive deeper into the complexities and contradictions.
Chris, how so?
They are multi millionaires circling the drain
@@dannyweilthereisnorussiaga6594 Amen
all i heard was 2 and half hours of word salad, there is no coherence at all, how the left thinks they'll win the cultural war when they can't agree on anything is beyond me
I'm trying to figure out why Greenwald, who's just some dude on the internet, was on a panel with 3 philosophers.
1:10:50 "if you stay woke forever you´re going to suffer from insomnia". C. West
I'll just say one thing about this ... I'm glad Glenn was there.
Agreed when he talks it's like being able to breathe again
@@Natallou55 haha! So true 👍🏻
Agreed. Judith was obnoxiously smitten with Cornell.. “Mmmm” after every other word, geez
Haha...true but the others had their momments even if fleeting
@@nightoftheworld it sounded very unnatural. Best way to describe it from my perspective is that it was painfully dorky.
I have a v hard time summarizing Butler’s meandering and quibbling statements
I shd say it is difficult to parse any meaning from them - she seems so in love w words as to dilute their meaning
@@ks-lf6of agreed. She spends a long time going on about the fact that there isn't a black woman in this 4 person discussion. You can say that, and say that perspective is missing but it's kind of a perfect example of the navel gazing nature of most of academia these days. She was upset that the others used tribalism and then went on to act like it was a slur. Dumb.
@@ks-lf6of looking into her work, she's directly responsible for a lot of the bad ideas that the woke love. Makes sense, just remember that and you'll get more from her 'input'
Because it’s Jungian bullshit like JPeterson. Intentionally verbose and convoluted so as to obscure its lack of substance.
Butler is part of the problem. She's playing out the debate as if it's a virtual game, a high-minded dinner table discourse that's comfortably removed from the real lived experience of billions of humans trapped between the Neoliberal Scylla and Identarian Charybdis.
Inclusion is very easy to call for when it's an abstraction that doesn't include anything substantial and there's no personal consequences for failure.
Butler may be more deep and West more poetic, but Greenwald is a lot more politically concrete.
Butler is always looking outside of universals and always confirms the postmodern Left politics of groups' resistance instead of a radical revolution.
The right identity politics is the one made by the ones suffering multiple oppression. The identity politics made by other people IN THE NAME of those groups is the problem.
Greenwald is absolutely right in saying that sometimes what appears to be race is really class. The neoliberals say support to Trump is about white racism and never speak about working class support. If Sanders would have been the Democrat candidate, Trump would never have been president. Wallstreet Democrats love political correctness because it denies and distracts from class warfare.
Agreed. When I wrote my first book: Towards a Critical Multicultural literacy, 1995 or so, multiculturalism was the fascists favorite target.
The fascists are now opposing Critical Race theory.
This is keeping with their attacks on bilingual education and true multiculturalism.
When will people learn?
@@dannyweilthereisnorussiaga6594
People HAVE learned.
They have learned that the real 'Fascists' are people like YOU.
@@dannyweilthereisnorussiaga6594 Liberals oppose critical therapy because it is a simplistic Neo-Marxist pile of hot 💩 that intends to subvert, undermine and provoke bloody revolution.
@@SaintKimbo Ok so like, read the original comment, then read the reply you made there.
I point this out only to highlight the original comment's point, as it demonstrates a pretty perfect example of precisely the ideological confusion and reflexive reactionary consciousness cultivated by corporate media outlets and exactly why neoliberalism (complete global freedom for capital, boundaries and restrictions for labor) was rallied around by capital in the 70s (particularly revealing, see: Powell memo by supreme court justice Lewis Powell, reaction to the 60s counter-culture/civil rights movement, cementing tons of long-term investments into cultural institutions and "think-tanks" that prop up specifically - and you can read this in it, extremely densely laid out - a trust/acceptance of corporate power and the opposite towards the state, despite the fact that the state works at the behest of exactly that corporate power - "cui bono?" being the only question of politics, Reagan/Thatcher being neoliberalism's apotheosis).
In other words, the capitalist class and its vectors of material (and consequently ideological) influence corporate media focuses on anything and everything _but_ class, and if such media is consumed consistently enough and its spread of information ubiquitous enough, over time it shapes how people perceive the world aka their "ontology". As some guy put it,
_“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”_
_"The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family relationship its sentimental veil and has reduced it to a mere money relationship."_ - Engels, grounding the grain of truth conservatives intuit - and more cynical operators appropriate for their own personal gain - but seem to merely react to, and why I'm mentioning this at all, to a material cause generated by the sort of "business ontology" cultivated from the way we organize _material_ reality ie the mode of production of capitalism. If that makes sense.
_"The ultimate hidden truth of the world is that it is something we make and could just as easily make differently."_ - the late great David Graeber
Bro, if Bernie would have been the candidate , Trump would have won in Ana even bigger landslide.
The party knew that, that is one of the reasons they undermined his campaign . Bernie was fine enough with it then, and evidently appears still fine enough with it now
It seems that Cornel, Judith and Glenn all agree to varying degrees that these bigger philosophical questions such as justice and equality are universal and not particular. The big problem with identity politics, is that politicians and political systems hijack and weaponize meaningful struggles, and co--opt them cynically. Glenn is a journalist and he points out how these tactics are used to atomize solidarity by breaking up people into identity and interest groups making it harder for solidarity. He also is repeating much of what we hear in the "alternative" media discourse, where he is one of the most relevant voices. Cornell and Judith are philosophers who are asking the broader and deeper questions of what it means to have justice in a society, which is uphill from the base and ugly political systems Glenn is rightfully challenging. There isn't anything Glenn is saying that I don't think Cornell is and has been aware of for ages. Judith's mutliculturalism has a good moral framework but as she points out we are living in an anti-intellectual age, so when her ideas get filtered down to the political realm, they get condensed to political buzzwords and slogans which are used to emotionally manipulate people into voting in a direction or even supporting participating corporations. I think that the political issues we are facing are more immediate and Glenn does great work on this front, Cornell plays an important role in politics as well. I think that Judith is right that we need to broaden what justice and equality mean in our society and that we need to challenge the hierarchical nature, but as Cornell always points out, identity politics (as deployed by the Democratic Party for instance)doesn't seek to structurally change and dismantle the current neoliberal order, but makes room to absorb chosen people from given identity groups to signify "hey we're cool , we get the struggle, we're with you, now shut up and get back to work."
I totally agree. I think Butler is arguing against some white cis-het male Marxist-Leninist Left that is not even relevant anymore. She doesn't realize how her defense of identity group resistance is hijacked by the neoliberal elites from above and mediocre middle class liberals from below.
Greenwald is a lot more politically concrete and I think that saved this conversation.
Even if West is deeper than Greenwald, I think his personal vibe of being kind to everybody took him (as many times before) to under-challenge Butler's views. Sometimes you can't reconcile oil and water. One you must let go.
I think Butler's views have to go, no matter their well-intended origins. Her kind of deconstruction work had to be done in the past when we still had to dismantle the Old Left myths and upgrade feminism, but now that the elites have hijacked identity politics, that kind of discourse is only good for fueling tribalism. Oh and her politically correct objection of the word "tribalism" was disgusting.
I’m gay.
Watch this again and see how Mr. West displaces blame.
Butler and West are major intellectuals and scholars , Greenwald isn't. Butler and West are both authentically broadly Left, humanist and radical democratic with true commitments to overcoming oppression and domination. Greenwald is NOW on the Right. He is a frequent guest on Fox News and has defended Tucker Carlson whom he called a " socialist", white replacement and recently Rittenhouse. He has launched furious attacks on AOC and the Democratic Party. Greenwald is not Left Libertarian or Libertarian Socialist but a right wing defender of civil liberties . Unlike West and Butler he has no real interest in the triumph of the minority groups who make up the subjects of identity politics indeed these days he is most comfortably in the company of the radical right .
@@kevinjohnson9533 He's the "wrong sort" of gay person.
You say we live in an anti-intellectual age when if we look closely at facts, intellectuals are never really popular outside of intellectual circles. A lot of what they're saying feel good and true, but imo there's always a good amount of echo chambers in those discussions. What educated and well read intellectuals think and talk between themselves is often disconnected from the actual reality at hand of the average person. You say "we need to broaden what justice and equality mean in our society and that we need to challenge the hierarchical nature" In what way do we do this realistically? Because it's not happening we see the opposite happening, more authoritarianism from both sides, more division on bullshit that doesn't really matter and not a lot of cooperation in subject that do matter. It feel to me that people like this panel and yourself think we can live outside of a hierarchy, when everything point toward to opposite. Electric cars were overdue and it took someone like Elon Musk to really make it happen fast pace and if he wasn't born, this company wouldn't have emerged out of a community of people, like almost everything in life. To this i can only repeat my argument, people like you and this panel project their own intellectualism on the average person thinking everyone as the ability to think on these levels but i'm afraid to say it's not true. Give 15 years to social media, platform that basically give public and widespread voice to anyone. You see the resurgence of disease because of anti-vaxxer hotspots, flat-earthers, crazy and obviously untrue conspiracy, social division on race and culture worst then when there were way more reason to be angry at racism then today. People who spread fake news and misinformation are banned from these platform angering people saying it's free speech and yeah we are losing right and freedom, because the average person is not that smart and willing to control their ego and impulses. You might try to refute this saying "oh but that's only because of powerful entity seeding distrust and division to make a profit and stay in power" true.. but it's also true that it would have no power if it didn't sell and people were not falling for it, it's still a question of hierarchy, people in power need to play fair and be honest because they'll find someone to sell their manipulative bullshit anyway.
We need hierarchy, it's the only game in town, we just need the right one
I love Dr. West and Glenn Greenwald for their courage to call out neoliberal identity politics. Judith adds nothing.
I think one of the reasons Butler comes across as somewhat out of touch in this discussion, is that she's used to speaking w/ people who largely agree w/ her--i.e., people in gender studies classes in particular, and the humanities more generally (I know, because I've spent a lot of time in this world--it's where I first read Butler and West). Butler's ideas are generally affirmed in these circles, but aren't as persuasive, intuitive, or well-received outside of the fairly cloistered world of the humanities, where Butler is something of an academic celebrity. I love the humanities, and have found real meaning studying the humanities, but admittedly its insularity can be a real problem; and despite the emphasis on "diversity," there is too often a lack of diversity of ideas, and a noticeable dearth of original thought.
Edit: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that there is great value in studying the humanities, esp. the opportunity to immerse oneself in a topic--be it the French Revolution or Song Dynasty painting, etc.--as opposed to the generally more cursory knowledge one typically acquires via digital/online learning. I think it's important to point this out given the pervasiveness of anti-academic sentiments, which I wasn't intending to add to by pointing out some of the shortcomings of academia or the humanities in the 21st century.
I concur.
@Historylover Yes, I agree. Butler was writing her most influential books--"Gender Trouble" and "Bodies That Matter," at a time when there was a great deal of emphasis on language and the linguistic/social construction of reality, at least in philosophy and the humanities. This emphasis was taken to an extreme, such that the material world became something of an afterthought. I think gender studies would do well to look more at science, and in particular biology/genetics, but it seems that hasn't happened because there's very little interaction between the humanities and the sciences, regrettably. Hard to see how one can write about gender/sex authoritatively w/out some reference to science/biology.
As someone in a social science major, this is true. She is hevealy influence in the thmes of gender and sexuality, to the point that even if someone disagrees with the theory or view it differently, it can look bad. I read gender troubles and bodies that matter, and its so clear that she comes from a philosophical backgrounds, her things is "the world of ideias" "what should be" and "what can be" and rarely "what it is", the social reality is very lacking I would say. That why for me her theory does not come easy, its really hard talking about sexuality and gender without a material reality analysis, in my opinion.
Butler holds the position that gender is performative, that is, it is not what you supposedly are as a set of chromosomes or a particular observable genital, but what you do, what actions you take, particularly with regard to speech. This is an important view to understand in order to avoid discriminating against others on the basis of their inscribed identity in contrast to their agency.
@Historylover Yes, I agree that gender is to a large extent socially constructed, but to what extent is open to debate--is it %100 socially constructed or is biology also determinative to a degree, and if so, to what degree? I'm not sure, myself. Where I have more of a disagreement w/ Butler, is over her contention that not merely gender, but also sex is socially constructed, a view she elaborates in "Bodies That Matter." Admittedly, it's been a while since I've read this book, and Butler's prose isn't known for its clarity, but that seemed to be one of the key arguments she was making.
Cornell is so lovely and inspirational. He and Glenn make a perfect duo. Glenn gives a concise, literal narrative which is rational and organized, slamming each point down with precision. Then Cornell takes it over and interprets it for us in artistic form. What a special treat!
These two are not the same. Cornel isn’t a fascist apologist for one.
@@angelg8445 he’s less honest is all.
Agreed, the dynamic between those two was great. I think they agreed on most points, yet have such different ways of expressing themselves.
@@angelg8445 were you able to watch a decent portion of this conversation? Cuz that's what it's all about, especially if you disagree with one or more of the participants. seeing them interface in a way that's more than cordial, but caring- that's the goal. (And still honest & forceful when needed.)
@@angelg8445 oh please stop that divisive sectarian shit! Glenn is a decent man on the libertarian left with a lot of integrity and courage. He has done more to challenge fascism and the power elites than you ever will and you know it. Judith Butler and Cornel West obviously doesn't regard him as a fascist apologist, because they have brains.
Judith’s thoughts on mandates are atrocious
I like Cornel, he's a truly nice guy. But its Greenwald bringing the interesting points here.
He's making the other two address reality.
Was going to write the same comment. Cornel is inspirational and doesn't just sit in the ivory tower but is a real activist, so love him, but trust Glenn to bring the cold hard facts and good arguments.
Cornel held back,thanks to host & Judith,who I find boring,uninspiring,allways needs to deconstruct things😴
And she stole "death drive" term from Zizek via Lacan via Freud☝
Not sure that's true. Judith Butler alluded to an oft overlooked truism. European Americans are exclusively responsible for the existence of identity politics in America. A current, but well worn, tactic is to engage in a vulnerability fantasy in which EuroAmericans, who constitute 70% of the U.S. population, are in danger...and need to be protected. Which is, in fact, identity politics.
Since everybody seems to want to redefine all our terms, I propose redefining "anti-intellectual" - i.e. As distinct from "anti-intellect". Because, IMO, it's not intellect that most people have a problem with but rather intellectuals who, it seems, believe they can not only tell others how they should live their lives and what they should think but indeed tell them what they do in fact think. Evidently, the concept of "projection" somehow became integrated into popular consciousness while flying right over the heads of society's ostensibly most intelligent people. Maybe if they occasionally looked up from their navels they'd notice that their absurd pontifications seldomly reflect the reality of the average person's _lived experience._
Examples always help any argument; it occurred to me that it was the anti-intellectuals who tend to tell people what to think. At least you can argue with intellectuals and discuss evidence-based claims. The problem with any individual is whether they are basing their beliefs and assertions on their convictions or on evidence.
@@fredwelf8650 if evidence has convinced you, are your pursuant convictions then different from the evidence?
@@publicserviceco The key distinction is between conviction or judgment and evidence-based decisions. The persons who make decisions based on evidence, that is, statistics, are distinct from those who hold convictions. Of course, at issue is the validity of the evidence, which includes the statistical analysis.
Well said, Judith Butler are you listening?
Very glad you stated the last about "validity of the evidence", @@fredwelf8650
Butler thinks "women of color" are a concept, not individuals. Glenn pointed this out very well, he wasn't confrontational but he was quite clear.
Yes his push back on that was brilliant! And to Judith Butler no less.
She doubles down and insists that only voices who have published or have thought about it are needed, but truth does not require credentials, only to be true. Discrediting opposition as clinging to power ignores the argument for the sake of the vessel.
Judith Butler: "I worry sometimes when I hear criticism of 'Identity Politics' because it's not always clear what is meant by 'Identity Politics.'"
Also Judith Butler: fails to be clear on what "racial justice," "white supremacy," "whiteness," "neofascist," and "racist" mean in her opening remarks.
also Judith, "labeling something identity politics is a way to gove something a label and not listen to anything after."
then also Judith, " White Supremacy is identity politics "
Your comprehension is zero
Yes totally agree. She’s living life with the splinter in her eye as a magnifying glass as West put it. She is a a total fraud and a pseudo-intellectual grifter.
@@stephenleyden9559 your comprehension is -1
I say this as someone who has always viewed Judith Butler’s work on language as profound and seminal in terms of how it is used and how it can be interpreted - listening to her during this whole thing was downright painful. She is so stuck in her ideology and her arrogant insistence that her worldview is the right one and that anyone who doesn’t agree is evil that she is incapable of perceiving how she herself is an agent of the very evil that she claims to be against. Then she also all but admits that “diversity” is only important if the “diverse” people parrot exactly what she believes. Cornel West and Glen Greenwald were way more intellectually honest.
Agree totally, except that Cornell did not make a single point worth remembering. He is literally insane, as lost in his circus car of conflicting ideas as Joe Biden himself. I have no idea what cornel means,ever, no matter how many times I rewind. He is always one sentence fragment and misplaced quote away from unwinding whatever semi thought he just blurted out.
She’s a riddler. She spins you around until you don’t know which way is up. Her writing is very difficult to comprehend, & that’s intentional. I don’t want to entirely put her down… I expect people are able to make their own novel, perhaps fruitful, connections reading her, & I expect that’s rewarding for young, intelligent people. But don’t be fooled - there’s nothing there.
@@malortfink Tbf she dismantles everything to the extent that it can be profound for the individual, on a personal level - the connections you decide to see. I dislike her, personally.
I agree. I've really tried to understand Butler's thinking and I appreciate her a lot, but this was at times almost painful to watch.
When she says that when we call something ‘identity politics’ its a label to dismiss so we don’t have to talk about it anymore. Well that is exactly how she uses ‘whiteness’, ‘white supremacy’ and ‘racist.’ Its a term to dismiss and malign without the slightest discussion of what we are talking about.
Bingo! I cannot stomach the amount of narcissism that is entrenched amongst some of these public figures. They preach against the very behaviors they practice and it’s mind blowing how it goes over people’s heads?!
I don't recall her using the word racist and I think she was very clear about her definition of white supremacy, giving examples like the French politician.
She also seemed to agree with Glenn's point about the neoliberal policies that give rise to such demagogues and allow the masses to be fooled by thinking if you get hijabi ladies or black men off the streets of Paris then all the economic strife will dissapate.
Surely I hope we're all in agreement that demagogues should be dismissed as unserious ppl.
At the 1:25:20 mark, Greenwald says it all. The media defines diversity and you do not fit in that definition, then too bad for you.
I want healthcare and Butler wants to argue how virtuous she is. She’s absorbed with claiming superiority over those she has convinced herself are the only opposition to her beliefs. When confronted with simple facts and concerns she reverts to reinforcing her virtue while attacking her imagined oppressors.
Someone struggling for healthcare right now thinks she is absolutely detached from reality.
Yes. Very far removed from reality was exactly the impression I got from her.
Post-modernists don't believe in 'reality', which may have something to do with it
Thank God Glenn was there. I love Cornell West despite anything I might disagree with him on, if for no other reason than his involvement in the Matrix. His high praise of Judith Butler, having never heard of her myself, is enough for me to respect her and give her more of a chance than I would otherwise. But still, I can't help but feel Glenn is the only one in the room that can actually extract himself from the identitarian worldview and really stand outside it. The other two seem to have their own identities bound up in discussing identitarianism. Also they're obviously professional, ivory-tower chin waggers, lol. Glenn is an in-the-trenches journalistic powerhouse. It's just inevitable he'd have a better grasp on what's really going on.
I'm sorry but what in the actual substance of what West or Butler actually discussed was from "the identitarian worldview"? I mean, West literally said he wants everyone included in the conversation about humanity that can add quality to that conversation, and explicitly said that you can speak to the problems humanity faces regardless of your race, class, or gender. So he was quite explicitly NOT coming from an "identitarian worldview". And, really, neither was Butler. Also, in terms of being " ivory-tower chin waggers" - Cornell West has consistently been at odds with the University administration in favor of his activism (see what recently happened to him at Harvard that prompted him to leave). He is a man of the people in the true sense of the term - has been arrested with them in protest for human rights. And, I'm sorry, but Butler is in the 1% of philosophers alive today. Her place in the university is solidified by her philosophical output. Greenwald is not in their league. That facts to not bear out that this is about elitism.
Judith Butler is most famous for mainstreaming the notion that gender is a "social construct" and therefore socially pliable... essentially she is the architect of the contemporary gender ideology.
@@Ron-rt6df Butler did nothing of value which was not already put forward by Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex; her only unique contribution to philosophy has been to redefine existing ideas under newly invented and utterly convoluted jargon language... hang on, not even that is original, the Greek sophists were partial to her kind of intellectual banditry.
@@lancewalker2595 Do you have anything beyond your opinion to demonstrate this? Because otherwise, the value of your response is lacking in substance. Simone de Beauvoir, for example, did not inquire into the philosophy of embodiment in any way nearing the rigor of Bulter. And as far as redefining "existing ideas under newly invented and utterly convoluted jargon language" - the phenomenological and dialectical philosophy she had engaged in, especially in her earlier writing on "performative acts", for example, is quite clear. She is opening of the space to think of gender as a social phenomenon based on the repetition of acts. If there is any value to the critique you pose, it's not that she is working over "the Greek sophists", but rather some of the writings from sociology (like that of Erving Goffman") and anthropology (like that of Esther Newton), but she's updated their work to included both the historical currents within feminist politics, as well as putting them in dialog with Freud, Lacan, and psychoanalysis. And as far as her inventing new language, you should re-read your Aristotle - especially "the poetics" - as that is how thinking works in the first place.
@@lancewalker2595 Except her notion of gender performativity is far more nuance than social constructionism (e.g. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann), since she engages directly with the phenomenology of embodiment (e.g. Maurice Merleau-Ponty). You seem caught in a logical contradiction by claiming that, on the one had, she is too invested in unintelligible specialized jargon, and on the other, that she is too mainstream. You'd do better to forego the straw-man characterizations of her and instead critique her actual arguments.
Glenn Greenwald is the best on the panel because he says the most with the least words.
He is not an academic.
The irony that when I saw an announcement for this debate posted on FB, the majority of the comments were asking, "Why is Greenwald being included?" Greenwald's comments were consistently the most relevant and lucid. I have respect for West and Butler, but they're very much saying the same things they were saying 30 years ago, w/ very little to say about our present moment (w/ very few exceptions). One of the pitfalls some academics fall into, is finding their "lane" and never really venturing beyond it--I will give West credit for also being an activist, and so at least putting his ideas/politics into practice.
I also like what Butler was saying about the social interconnectivity between people & going beyond self-centered individualism.
@@milhouse9003 Yes, I think those were her most compelling comments. I wish she had gone a bit further and pointed to the fact that ID politics often undermines solidarity/interconnectivity when there is an excessive emphasis on individual identities.
Greenwald is a journalist which demands a different timeline doesn't it? I similarly have respect for Butler and Cornell, but the latter's platitudes wash out into basic humanism (which is delivered eloquently, peppered with bons mots, but doesn't seem up to the demands of the current moment) and Butler is basically delivering on her research profile, which was hugely influential, but is also part of the machinery of (cynical) cover that Greenwald is exposing. If you listen to most liberals today (and I consider myself one, though I hardly recognize it anymore) they think Greenwald is a fascist, which is hilarious, but also shows a huge disconnect even between, lets say, the 'fans' of Butler and Cornell, and the actual objects of their fandom. Butler and Cornell seem totally happy to break bread with Greenwald, not because they're holding their noses I suspect, but because they recognize him as sharing basic foundational views with them.
I thought Greenwald was terrific. I learnt a lot from what he said. And he called out Obama as a fake and failure too.
As a white man living in SE Asia, I would like to suggest to Judith Butler and all her ilk that ignoring the realities- political, economic and social- of the 75% of humanity that lives outside what she and all 'identity politics' vendors consider the world is a pretty potent expression of white supremacy in itself. Almost 6 billion living, breathing humans are neither white nor live in nations dominated by white cultures. To practitioners of the parochial identity politics that Butler makes a living promoting, those 6 billion people simply don't exist until they show up as migrants or refugees in her white world, where Butler and her ilk magically turn these representatives of the majority of humanity into "racialized minorities" that they can point to when they apply for grants and publish their books and articles calling for 'justice'.
Amen.
@@jkscout Forgive her, she's arrogant, imitative, and overrated.
No mate. Her reference to Gilroy and Hall is precisely about how capitalism is not only a relation between those who own the means of production and those who don't but between groups of people. In this relation, one of hierarchy, the global south that you are defending here is stratified at the bottom. That is the 'identity politics' she has often talked about, against white supremacy. White supremacy is not merely a local issue but a global one.
@@davuaable you're out of date with your 'white supremacy' world.
The jejune notion that capitalism is just an aspect-emanation-expression of "white supremacy" would be hilarious if it weren't such a damagingly obtuse bit of racist, dare I say "white supremacist", nonsense. The global south has its middle classes and, shockingly to so many white people of David's apparent persuasion, its capitalists too. Yes, capitalism first emerged in the lands of the white folk, and yes it spread its tentacles across the globe when it reached what Lenin mistakenly assumed was its "highest stage". But origin stories are not analyses, and anyone who still tries to hold "whiteness" responsible for the depredations of capitalism needs to wake up as opposed to get woke.
In this debate, Butler embodies "Educated But Ignorant", ignorant of the real world whilst lost in her own cleverness. Cornell is Cornell: wonderful. Greenwald is "Educated But Aware". So many of our "intellectuals" are EBI rather than EBA. The usual "white supremacy" bugbear from Butler, rather than a nuanced intersectional understanding that properly integrates the importance of political economy - i.e. class, wealth and power.
It's "their" cleverness 🙂😊.
Glenn Greenwald won that debate hands down, Butler was surprisingly bad, West is always a joy regardless.
No need for competition. Glenn brought great insights, agreed. But I do appreciate them all. Much needed discussion!
@@barbarajohnson1442 agreed I didn’t see it as a “Debate” I think they all had there contributions to make
West Always magnificent. He won the discussion.
Greenwald is brilliantly on point, as usual. In contrast, J. Butler appears to have made a career out of stringing buzzwords together.
glen g can do whatever he wants...he says the injustice of that !! well WE DONT CHANGE LAWS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMMORALITY !! GOD SAYS HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION.... STOP CHANGING OUR LAWS TO FILL THE WHIMS OF SINNERS...NO WONDER OUR COUNTRY IS FUKED
Greenwald is so out of his league.
@@LizaFan smells like empty bot chatter around here.
@@kakistocracyusa Do you always accuse random people of being bots?
@@LizaFan So you are asking me if I am a raving lunatic?
This is how it’s done ! As a viewer the goal is not to agree with any or all of their ideas but to expose yourself to others’ ideas with the goal of broadening understanding, empathy and love for each other. Without this much needed discourse we are doomed as a civilization. Truly grateful to all participants
That's just a really tall order for Judith Butler lol
@fenry hord You've got it totally ass-backwards...how apt your username is.
Both of your commenters here completely missed the point of Butler's position...that everyone should have "agency in society" and that no person is exempt from the influence of their own identity in shaping their politics.
Feminists like Judith Butler have performative empathy, not real empathy. It's not possible since her ideology is based on speaking for the opposite sex and asserting they have everything better while claiming to be benevolent.
@fenry hord it is not agency but dominance that Butler is looking to removing. Merit is an excuse to ignor out of balance power structures.
Butler flatly refuses to acknowledge the conflict between the sex based rights of women and gender identity ideology. You can't have sex based rights if anyone can idenitfy as any sex (I see that here they invariably use the word gender when they mean sex). Butler, seeing herself as an "exceptional" woman, need not concern herself with the fears of poor women, such as those held in prison with men who are violent sex offenders. I guess that's where the class thing comes in, she is unlikely to ever find herself in prison. I love listening to middle class women contemplating the lives of poor women, it is a great chance to take a little holiday from reality.
Butlers rejection of personal liberty is stunning considering her life's long work for personal sexual/gender liberty.
That is indeed a populist trope.
That’s exactly what I thought too with her extreme views gender identity.
Especially since, in practice, everything about gender identity and queer theory that she wrote is exactly about that. Its like her theory is having the opposite reaction that she writes about LOL
@@g7042 I'm new to Butler so may be off the mark but in my brief take there does seem a weird internal conflict of Butler essentialising identity in the way she talks about it here at the same time as breaking fundamental categories wide open in her work, such as in her view of the body and biological sex as socially constructed.
So perhaps this is resolved in the personal, but then with the intersection of multiple categories we all occupy, where is the perspectival privilege in say, being LGBTQ I+ or black, that allows for collective correction of the institution. What does solidarity across a pluralistic, intersectional world look like and how would you prevent the reification of new and potentially arbitrary power structures?
Surprised to hear someone say this. I only know Butler by name, but I've never encountered a gender activist who expressed anything but open disdain for individual liberty.
@~2:10:00
Yes, exactly!! Thank you Glenn.
Would have loved to see Adolph Reed on this panel.
Or Toure Reed.
Or that other Adolph...
Kick the fascist sympathizer Greenwald off and bring on Reed!
Adolph Reed the class reductionist who doesn’t acknowledge a racist foundation to our systems. I don’t miss him one bit.
Agreed, Reed kills it. I'll just throw Noam Chomsky in there too because why not.
Glenn G nailing it w his intro
Agree!Cornel is brilliant as allways, but can't stand Judith Butler.There should've been woman of color,instead of her.Boring af,always has a need for deconstruction😴
@@josiplilic3384 what’s wrong with deconstruction?
@@taf4939 nothing,but I prefer dialectics & much deconstruction bores me to death🤕
Who? The guy that think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? That guy? Cant stand Butler. Cornel is great. But Glenn, Tulsi, Jimmy are going towards the right.
As I said Glenn Called Tucker a socialist.
Jimmy doesn't even create videos taking on republicans.
Tulsi is talking Mitch McConnell points on Sean Hannity.
This are not on the left anymore
@@adrijan6510 It was f##in joke!I agree that Dore is cilckbaiting to much,to the right wing,but his critique of dnc,is clearly left one.Don't wanna comment on Tulsi Bush,but I'm gonna defend Glen.He did too much of good & assholes trash him left & right,so you need to do better than one(suspicious)quote!
Disappointing but not surprising to see a debate by philosophers about identity that doesn't interrogate the notion of identity itself. The most ancient philosophies of Greece and India held identity to be an illusion, with the task before the aspirant to truth being to overcome the primary illusions of self and world. Modern philosophy is haunted by the fact that it can't ultimately establish anything, so it gives up being deep in exchange for being the cleverest fool in the room. Ancient systems of enquiry took this non-establishment as their basis, it was a strength rather than a weakness, and from them we get the rich spiritual traditions of India and China and the mystery schools of the near East which, during their decline, produced the great monotheistic religions in which the primordial non-established base was deified. The problems under discussion in this debate can't be resolved without a deeply personal and thoroughgoing enquiry into the attachments which consitute the bundle of identities which we insist define us - and that enquiry ultimately leads to the dissolution of all notions of identity except the primordial identity of all apparent phenomena with each other.
" Ancient systems of enquiry took this non-establishment as their basis, it was a strength rather than a weakness, and from them we get the rich spiritual traditions of India and China and the mystery schools of the near East which, during their decline, produced the great monotheistic religions in which the primordial non-established base was deified". That's the catch right, the greatest catch of all, catch 22. Both are self evident in the societies in which they arose as to the failure in any meaningful way to addressee the "Moral imperative" of each and in fact have been used to crush said imperative. West comes closest as does Hedges in there messaging of getting closer to the truth in today's world of a path forward. Grennwald is one of the best at explaining that world. I'm not familiar enough at all to speak to Butler but she certainly brought something to the table, I'm just not sure if it was palatable.
I'm not read enough to follow everything that Professor West is talking about but I could listen to him all night.
He's not really saying anything. He's just mesmerizing you with language.
@@knsummers it's a shame you see it that way.
Gotta agree with @knsummers here. West seems like a nice guy (at least as long as you agree with him) and is definitely well-read (at least in far left critical activist-researcher works). However, everything he says are aurally pleasing strings of positively-connoted words delivered with a cadence and tone that imply profundity so that a listener ends up feeling like one just heard something brilliant and deeply insightful when, at the bottom of it all, the actual raw value of everything said is meaningless feel-good platitudes.
To be charitable, I think the stuff he says does actually have value at an individual level. All the "love thy neighbor" memes are actually good individual social prescriptions. The problem is this was a "politics" debate (literally in the name), so the actual question has to do with behaviors at the polity level. Memes are not useful here; we need the hard truths and realistic trade-offs discussion, not utopian bloviation. He has a few moments, like when he's taking about education, when he really breaks out into some meaningful good points, but a whole lot of what he says didn't seem to really as much actual meaningful content.
@@populisttrope9385 it's a shame you're so credulous.
@@chogokin666 also knsummers and Seth Parker...It may serve each of you to read some of the comments below of the many who were so deeply impressed, and moved by Dr. West's brilliant contribution to the discourse, and then, to ask yourself what they all could possibly have gleaned from Dr. West, as well as from Glenn Greenwald, such that they wrote such glowing "reviews" of their spoken words. That you could not understand Dr West's contribution should not be alarming, given the depth of his education, and the consequent depth of his understanding of our historical, and societal degenerate state. I believe it might serve you well to listen again, and see what understanding you might derive from his critique, especially if you go to a library and read some of the classic works to which he made repeated reference. His brilliance can not be grasped from the "heights" of a very limited literary, and philosophical background.
The breadth of Dr. West's literary historical memory is phenomenal !
Agreed. Toward the beginning however he declared Adorno's splinter reference to be a reparaphrasing of Matthew 10. It's Matthew 7:3, if memory serves.
Yeah his recollection is beyond 10 minutes which is much more than the average American...
Yet, to me, while he is knowledgeable and has a great vocabulary, he always seems so dramatically self-absorbed. Am I simply envious of his verbal gifts, or is his motive for communicating that he wants others to see him as a smart person?
I really tried to give Judith Butler a fair shot, but it seems like over and over it takes her 10 minutes and 10,000 words to say, "We should talk more about stuff that we're not usually talking about." and she never really actually talks about anything.
This is VP Harris' s mentor
I learned something from every one of the speakers and also disagreed on something from each. A good, stimulating conversation among four very smart people. Glad I could watch it.
Well said. West is such a wonderful speaker and spirit but I sometimes don’t agree with his take. But this was such a solid interchange
ME TOO!!
Notice how Butler and West never really get to specifics. They never name specific policies or programs they would like to see created in their ideal world. Gee I wonder why.
Also neither (with the exception of the KKK) talk about which groups cause marginalization. They just lazily dismiss everything as white supremacy.
@@Halman2112 Exactly. They know what they're doing. It's sophistry and manipulation by using emotional language like that.
I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing that. West seems to reference the past a lot more than he references the present, and when he does talk about the present he almost never says anything specific. We apparently operate under white supremacy and patriarchy despite the fact that male suicides and drug abuse are significantly more common and not at all dealt with, females have overtaken men in higher education by a considerable margin, feminist thought is largely the status quo, we have affirmative action programs out the ass, almost every corporation is instituting diversity boards, so on and so forth. He seems strangely disconnected from the real world for someone who appears so worldly.
@@GamingBlake2002 Couldn't agree more.
@@GamingBlake2002 The days of Hitchens are long over, he would probably be center these days. Modern Leftists fail to fulfill the onus of proving their theories about what's best for progress are going to work, it's based in sophistry and other fallacious thought, This is why you see so many getting slaughtered in debates more than ever. They are trying to argue for the ideal, utopian, unproven. And of course demonizing the past, which can't defend itself rather than point out tangible dysfunctions in the present, that are consistently and empirically true.
surprised one major division in society they didn't touch on was the age/ generation disparities within the political landscape.
Meh young people don't vote so their concerns can be dismissed.
And this is typical of all generations actually, before I start my zoomers and millenials bashing 😂
The "Octogenocracy" is SACRED.
Fakk Boomerz everywhere.
Judith listing political ideology based on the axis of identity and then asking if it's identity politics should be a ringtone. It's this lack of self awareness that alienates the academic elite
Did you actually listen though? Are wheelchair ramps identity politics, yes or no?
Being in that setting myself you can’t underestimate the career climbing herd mentality that happens. I really think the internet and social media naturally promoting the most controversial and salacious is the crux of what moved people like her so high up.
@@janosmarothy5409 look at your reflex with how you respond. Immediate dishonest strawmanning. That doesn’t tell you enough about how you we’re educated?
@@FinneySP ironically, it says more about your own reactive approach, along with a lack of basic reading/listening comprehension as I was literally repeating a remark she made in the video
@@janosmarothy5409 it’s insane how unaware you are. You went disrespectful immediately and can’t even see it. Again that doesn’t give you a hint?
Disappointed. Butler, of course, and to a lesser extent, West, running away from Glenn's arguments. At this point, deflecting concerns about what id. politics is and has become, IN PRACTICE, by making appeals to what they are, or could be, in theory is just lazy, intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.
Couldn't agree more.
I think you miss the point here. Every social and political theorist talks about an idealized or normative theory (in contrast to a descriptive). That's entirely fine because when they do so, they also specify the conditions under which the theory would translates into practice. Every theorist does that and it's unavoidable. Socialist theorists argue that "socialism works, but the Soviet Union wasn't socialist because of XYZ." Anarcho-capitalist and libertarians argue that "free markets work, but what we have now is not free markets because of XYZ." It's a purely intellectual exercise and it should be treated as such. It doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. These theorists make sure that a theoretical framework is internally coherent in purely conceptual and analytical terms. After this, empirically-oriented scholars apply these theories in practice. And sometimes or often the reality clashes with the theories. In response to that the theories get revised. So ideally, there is an ongoing conversation between theory and practice. This conversation doesn't happen overnight and sometimes in might take a bunch of decades for a theory to catch up with the reality. But that's how science works in a nearly every field. From math to physics and to social science.
@@MinimaAmoralia Tell me do you and your Straw-man go to the same gymnastic classes?
@@TheQuixoticRambler where do you see a straw-man, my lad? You are lamenting about Butler making appeals to what identity politics are in theory. I responded by pointing out that this falls perfectly well within the purview of a social theorist: to talk about an idealised version of X (identity, justice, freedom, markets, socialism or whatnot).
They have no defense for forty years or more they have made their monies from privatized unversities
Glenn is such an important voice… the fact that some people hate him for occasionally appearing on tucker Carlson is just insane to me.
They don't actually hate him for going on tucker Carlson. They hate him for speaking truth. They just use tucker Carlson as an excuse because they can't face reality, and want to keep their illusions.
I like him better on jimmy dore
@@andjanice71 Agreed, I think a lot of people turned on Greenwald when he began debunking the Trump-Russia conspiracy--they wanted to cling to this narrative, so they went after Greenwald when he pointed out, repeatedly, that this narrative was unsupported by evidence. So yes, it's not about going on Tucker Carlson.
y'all sound like cultists. Glenn has become a grifting reactionary, feeding off the income and attention he receives from the very impressionable proto-facist contingency in the West. Prove me wrong
@@cmo5150 maybe prove yourself right first? 🤷♂️
Been waiting twelve years for someone to call butler out on her bs
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
-George Orwell
Its so intellectual that its destructive to society.
In your opinion, what are some of these ideas?
Ty
@@TheSupahJaws The whole gender debate is a good example. The specific target of Orwell's quote was the nationalist totalitarian state, widely defended by intellectuals in England, and all around the world.
Its sad and hilarious that so many reactionary ppl say they hate the "woke" or "identity politics" when 99% of the time it just means they hate trans people. Usually because they have a completely misinformed idea of what trans people are like in real life and let their "independent critical thinking skills" get mislead by the ongoing narrative that all trans ppl are elite academic pro cancel culture "evil" twitter people.
Judith says we have to question what industries we want to choose to be a part of, especially as working class, racial/gender categories. Yet fails to see how her involvement in many academic spaces has reinforced division amongst men, women, black and white for decades.
She couches her language to seem palatable and empathetic, but if you truly listen to what she's saying, she's basically telling people to stay in their place for fear of disrupting the status quo. She compares the libreral system of America, that is extremely malleable in terms of social change, to Fascism and other negative stereotypes. This is to persuade minorities to stay outside of the system and kept at a lower place in society. She is truly an intelligent anti-intellectual if I ever saw one
Could you elaborate on “yet fails to see how....” ?
West and Butler seem incapable of directly responding to Greenwald’s points. I like West though. He makes good points. Butler is simply the queen of obfuscation
You're gendering the icon of gender deconstruction - *that* is as humorous and as revelatory as it is supposed to be 😂.
Glenn Greenwald keeps it clear and real...
Sounds like Judith can't grasp why countries have borders 🙄
Glenn always on point
Someone needs to timestamp all of GG, JB is a lot to Wade through
@@davidsaintjohn4248 She talks a lot but doesn't say very much.
@@davidsaintjohn4248
36:25
1:03:37
1:22:33
1:33:50
1:55:03
2:17:58
2:23:38
Who? The guy that think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? That guy? Cant stand Butler. Cornel is great. But Glenn, Tulsi, Jimmy are going towards the right.
As I said Glenn Called Tucker a socialist.
Jimmy doesn't even create videos taking on republicans.
Tulsi is talking Mitch McConnell points on Sean Hannity.
This are not on the left anymore
@@adrijan6510 Glenn just addressed those very criticisms, in a video on his own platform. Feel free to disbelieve him, of course. Your mistrust may be well founded. But you don't get to claim that he didn't. Use slogans at your own peril: no one is required to give credence to you, either.
I consider mr Greenwald one the most courageous and truthful journalist in the world he has more balls than all thelegacy media combined I hope to meet you sometime. You are one of my heroes you have taught me so much Thank for believing in individual rights.May God bless and keep in the palms of hands.
the most couragous so nice yet no one fools, Cornel must be the most pleasant academic since Fredrick Douglas
Glenn’s response at 2:18:00 to vaccine mandates was brilliant and visionary - how building trust in our healthcare and a positive vision to fix things will reduce divisiveness etc. Brazil having a high vaccination rate and why was great example.
Glenn Greenwald's closing is priceless. He is challenging and hopeful at the same time!👍🖖🤟💯🌈
What do you have to say now in 21 century: it’s theater as an art of the show or performance possible? 😕
She doesn't seem to be questioning identity politics as much as she is defending it or justifying it by trying to make a strawman argument and misrepresenting the argument of opponents of it.
Butler is *framing* the debate and the issue as a philosopher would. Defining it in larger terms of society as a whole. This framing must necessary come *before* questioning anything so that it is clear what everyone is debating about. The man who did the intro instead filled the air with long jokes.
She seems to be of weak intellect. Example: Greenwald called her out - very tactfully and with surgical prowess - on her pointing out the lack of a black woman in the panel. She seemed desperate to prove to everyone know how inclusive she is .. this she is a quintessential example of ‘white liberal fragility.’ So her response was basically to double down, and to list how many black women she knows (of) who are not Candace Owens…. Glad she was on the panel to represent that point of view, and to thus have Greenwald and West to put things on track.
@@jackdolphy8965 She won first prize in an academic Bad Writing contest once.
There's a great essay by Martha Nussbaum about Butler, entitled Professor of Parody.
Nonsense...Butler's opening remarks were exactly on point...a much needed rational framing of this grossly overly-politicized and ill-defined term.
The term "identity politics" has clearly been weaponized by defenders of the status quo to dismiss anyone trying to advocate for social reforms.
Everyone, without exception, has a basic element of "identity politics" that comes from their personal situations etc. To deny this obvious truth, while decrying others as biased and self-serving because they happen to differ from certain assumed norms, is the blatant hypocrisy that the denier has no implicit biases...this is ridiculous.
The hypocritical "opponents of it" are the "strawman argument" creators who are "misrepresenting the argument" because they dishonestly claim to be without innate bias when no one can honestly make that dubious claim.
Can you honestly claim to be without any biases?
Am I too stupid to understand what Judith is saying or is she basically saying nothing?
The former
The latter
It’s hard to know with all the stuttering and stammering punctuated with ums and uhs. She is not an articulate speaker., so it’s too hard to listen.
@@twatts1523 Her writing has no ums or uhs, but is equally chore-ful to take in.
Often it seems that if you feel stupid listening to someone then it ain´t your fault. A smart person knows how to make her/himself understood.
Starts at 2:59. Can be highbrow and ivory tower at certain points as professors Will fetishize about academia and it's ingredients, they can't help it, yet it was worth watching! I was encouraged to develop perspectives more thoroughly while watching and listening to this debate. It was also very civil. For my viewpoint, I have come out with same view I went in which is as follows:
In the context of political power; Identity Politics is a sum negative as we have Politicians of Color carrying out the SAME monstrous policies of capitalism and white supremacy🤢🤮🤬
Those are problems caused not by identity politics, but by neo-liberal economics/politics.
@@pseudonayme7717 Indeed, but one might pose that as a chicken/egg question of causality which is where I think a lot of confusion comes in.
But if we just think about this for a second, as you're getting at I think, first from a purely abstract consideration here, if we accept that existence _precedes_ essence, ie material conditions necessarily come before and thus necessarily shape the boundaries of ideas/thought in the first place just necessarily, as some guy put it,
_“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”_
And now we have a notion of material necessity that we can then use to ground our interpretation and understanding of the past, and thus analyze history through a lens of "historical materialism" to cut through any historiography or mythology that presents itself as true but unconsciously or not is not tethered to such material actuality, as some guy (same guy lol...) put _this_
_"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."_ - some guy
(I'm sure you specifically are quite aware of all of this, just trying to elaborate for anyone circumstantially unfamiliar, prob shoulda mentioned that at the beginning lol...anyway....)
So if anyone's still with me here, if we think about reality itself in terms of feedback loop _process_ ("process metaphysics", basically a break from a more Kantian conception of "things in themselves" ie insulated and isolated individual interacting "things" more or less randomly smashing into each other independently through some sort of homogenous medium; emerging from Hegel and his concept of the dialectic), you got your base _material_ organization of property relations at the foundation of our existence, and then emergent from that basic setup we get all the consequential superstructure of social relations, language, culture, law, all the shit that forms our social (and like consciously lived ontological reality) on top, guided by and limited to the bounds of that base. For more/alternative non-shit explanation, see: dialectical materialism, what I'm badly trying to describe lol...
To make it less abstract, as Boss Tweed in his hubris noted quite explicitly, _"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I can do the nominating."_
Or hey, how about William Casey (CIA director under Reagan ie absolute demon) in _his_ hubris explicitly stating the goal/efficacy of Operation Mockingbird: _"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."_
_"We 'feel free' because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom"_ - *_*sniff_** Zizek
tldr; the unseen relation of social power, particularly power in regards to material/"economic" influence, shapes how everyone that is subject or subordinate to this order perceives that material reality, necessarily, as existence _precedes_ essence (borrowing phrase from Sartre who Glenn actually brought up momentarily as I typed this funnily enough, used toward a different purpose but I think it's a succinct description). Pretty much explains how we historically get trapped in such situations of civilizational social bondage we then need external material ruptures, like the black plague breaking feudal social relations, to even be able to _potentially_ escape. If that makes sense/anyone gives a shit or isn't already familiar lol...
@@BisquickMarx is (fucking) sacred. As Fred Moten has said, though without the 'fucking,' that time.
In the one breath Judith speaks about how indigenous people have had their lands taken, then the next berates native French Europeans, an ancient people of Francs and Gauls native to the area for being concerned for their own culture and lands. You can’t have it both ways love
Where does she even mention French Europeans? That this is where your mind goes to is bizarre enough -- well, it's not bizarre, you bristle at any critique of inhumane immigration police, or the genocidal character of the US' territorial expansion, and whatever your intent, you immediately leap to white nationalist inanity. True to form, there's an extreme historical ignorance at play here if you seriously believe the situation indigenous people of the Americas is at all analogous to that of France... itself a humiliated former colonial power.
An exclusive privileged group of people talking about inclusivity. A "person of working classedness" might have added a perspective about Identity Politics: how in the hands of capitalists it becomes a tool of disciplining the workforce. Learn how to use a complex language code that is constantly being updated - or you're out!
Identity politics thus becomes a tool of oppression and is experienced as such. That's why you see the working class turning against the political left.
@James Williams hate people looking at all through the privilege lens. Underminds what the problem of privilege is all about.
made the previous comment just having read the starting of your comment. Still mantain what I said, but obviously agree that privileged people imposing his view in unpriviliged ones is something despicable.
Your view of the working class is flawed, which in turn makes your argument flawed. The working class includes people who support or are the reasons for “complex language code that is constantly being updated.” Plenty of the working class engage in identity and, in turn, identity politics. To say identity politics as a blanket statement IS a tool of capitalist oppression as opposed to identity politics as a blanket statement CAN become a tool of capitalist oppression is dishonest. Anything and everything can be used as a tool of capitalist oppression. That itself does not mean anything and everything inherently IS a tool.
Also, plenty of people in the working class are turning TOWARDS the political left.
Butler talks and talks, but says nothing. Glenn is the only one who speaks English, who is concise, and delivers clear-cutting points. The most exclusionary thing you can ever do is to make language complex for people that are out of academia. Intellectuals should learn to communicate simply and precisely as possible.
Don’t let the people who created the problem be in charge of the solution.
I'm 50/50 on Butler. She makes good points (eg. tribal vs zivilized), but also has a tendency to avoid arguments (vs Greenwald on Covid or on diversity) and makes herself comfortable in abstractions.
She sounds so incredibly out of touch. The best thing about her is she seemed willing to honestly listen. It just makes me wonder what she has been doing for information lately, she sounds like someone listening intently to Cuomo, oblivious to everything going on around her. If she’d listened to even one interview of the fda advisory board members, or really any other scientific bureaucrat actually voting to approve aspects of these policies she would know that none of them approve of masks and are deeply concerned with how policies in general are being rolled out. She seems very secure in that neoliberal protective bubble.
Good point. Butler's abstract collectivist/anti-individualist frame crumbled in this exchange when it ran up against Greenwald's concrete, real-world, grounded frame. There's a meta-drama that played out in this conversation that Greenwald pointed out within the discussion: the disjuncture between those in academia and those in the real world which manifests most grotesquely when those in academia remain untouched while those in the working class have to suffer the economic consequences of implementing their ideas. In short, Butler is so divorced from reality that I don't think she has ever been held accountable to prove that her theoretical framework (much less her policy prescription) works.
Being an engineer, myself, my theories about how to proceed with solving a problem are constantly running up against this little thing called reality. If my theory is true, it's born out in the fact that my solution works as intended. If my theory is false, then whatever I'm designing will fail, sometimes catastrophically. No matter how artfully articulate you are, you can't word salad your way through a failed design like so many academics can with a failed theory. If my designs fail often enough, then I'm out of a job, so I'm forced to have my ideas conform to reality. With there being an abstract notion and a concrete notion of integrity, my work has to have integrity and soundness in both senses of the word. Academics never have to contend with reality in that way.
Sounds like a philosopher.
She needs longer trousers, though.
@Andreth Who and why are they trying to cancel Butler? :(
Glen hit it. This conversation is happening in the Ivory Tower. If this was among the grassroots, the conversation would be very different. A police officer, a factory worker, a farmer, a restaurant/cafe worker, and a nurse. What does this conversation mean to them?
Good point!
The meaning for them depends whether they get their news from CNN/MSNBC or not…
Lol. Glenn's job is to discourage leftists from voting for Democrats in order to help the GOP, obviously.
You haven't listened well enough. The point they make is that inclusion itself isn't holy nor the most functional goal because of the amount of diverse perspectives that exist but that you need to think critically, listen carefully and morally reflect about the voices you include and justify.
@@stnbch3025 Yes but what are all the diverse voices saying? That should be a bit relevant as to who we listen to, should it not?
Glenn keeps it current and real. Straight forward common sense.
Who? The guy that think Tucker Carlson is a socialist? That guy? Cant stand Butler. Cornel is great. But Glenn, Tulsi, Jimmy are going towards the right.
As I said Glenn Called Tucker a socialist.
Jimmy doesn't even create videos taking on republicans.
Tulsi is talking Mitch McConnell points on Sean Hannity.
This are not on the left anymore
I can’t believe people have been fooled by butlers theoretical sophistry. It’s all meandering social theoretical. The irony of her saying “we need to move from the abstract”
She is someone who has learned that sounding like you know what you're talking about is just as beneficial as actually knowing what you're talking about.
Intellectual snobbery on display from the 2 philosophers. Dismissal on who speaks for what group of people without even the tiniest of acknowledgement they, themselves represent a fringe position. Glenn the only one dealing with the reality of the moment we're all living through.
Judith Butler's every utterance is a clueless, self-satisfied expression of the adequacy of archaic bourgeois institutions and defense of the current caprices of bourgeois ideology (formulated in no small part out of consultation with herself and her acolytes) . Her performance here is particularly grotesque coming so soon after her defense of the trans sex offender stalking women and children in the California locker room in the OP Ed that the Guardian tried and failed to retcon for her. Hearing her speak vaguely about indigenous and tribal politics here , her purely mercenary, opportunistic, even neo-colonial interest is particularly glaring.
We are truly blessed to live in the same timeline as Prof. West. Truly a lovley person with so much energy and love.
Freedom and fascism west stands for a wide range of principles
he stands for trans also, that may very well kill his legacy.
@@bigdap100 - He does not actually stand for transgender people, and neither do any of you brainwashed "adults". But, some (if not most) are still quick to go to *sex sites* to watch transgender people. trans people (of color) have existed before pale-skinned Europeans invaded *Africa* and other *indigenous lands/people of color* around the world. Cornel West never mentioned/mentions that fact, regardless of where he speaks. He still "thinks" trans women are not women who can't be straight/heterosexual. Get the heck out of here.
@@SaneCaribbeanAtheist1978 that lifestyle is being taught to children, that’s wrong.
@@bigdap100 - Hey, NUMBSKULL. *Africa* is the *motherland* and *African* (trans) people have *ALREADY EXISTED CENTURIES AGO,* and were *HIGHLY REGARDED* as *THEIR TRUE GENDER* in *SOME AFRICAN TRIBES.* What the heck do you not comprehend?!!!!
Butler is against personal liberty and wants us to come together as one without dissent. This is not the Left. This is profoundly reactionary.
Butler, as usual, trying to steer away from substance into semantics.
Where? I keep seeing comments like these and it's just bizarre to me. Yes, she can sometimes use abstruse, technical language. Not here though, she was speaking pretty plainly about concrete issues. You just hear what you want to hear.
@@janosmarothy5409 What practical concrete solutions did she present?
@@ambientjohnny No one on the panel presented any because that wasn't really the point of the discussion. And solutions to what exactly? Such a weird question
@@janosmarothy5409 Yeah, the comment section here has been very weird about Butler and it's been interesting to see.
As a woman, I find Judith being on this panel embarrassing. She sounds unintelligent, and narcissistic. Listening to her is like listening to someone naval gazing on Tumblr. The commenter below that said it sounds like she's from the KGB has it on point. Women we can do WAY BETTSR than this!
Agreed. There are a number of sharper female philosophers and political thinkers out there.
Listening to Judith talk is like hearing the best example you could ever give about the uselessness of academia. A finer example of someone more out of touch with the common working class human, I could never find if I tried. I seriously hope that an end to all this BS is coming soon so that we can get down to the real problems
God bless Glenn
Glen & brother West!
I've never liked Judith,the nerd,who always has a need for deconstruction,uninspiring & boring AF!
@@josiplilic3384 A few of her books are inspired. I admit I was surprised. (The ones about peace and justice, not gender.)
@@l.w.paradis2108 could be,although I've never read her.I know about her,cause,Zizek often quotes her,in his book.As brother Cornel would've said;I'm wrestling with my male dominance😂
@@josiplilic3384 I was surprised, I admit it.
@@l.w.paradis2108 I might be ready to be surprised too!I'll never like her rhetoric qualities,but you right,written word has more into it.As a old school leftie,I'm not into gender theories,my position is libertarian here,but I could give a shot to peace & justice.Peace!
Critchley: We need to go back to longer forms of discussion. Take your time to think and discuss.
Me: *reads the comment section* yup.
Which rights are trans identified people living without?
None, they have been given at this point more rights than women by allowing men to compete in women’s sports, they have been allowed to influence children with gender theory and drag queen story hour, they have managed to exclude feminine language like mother to “birthing people” in government, they have been allowed to take the space in women’s prisons and bathrooms, wether we like it or not. I would say trans “rights” supersedes my rights as a woman.
3/4 through, and my impression is that West and Greenwald are taking into account the needs of given identity groups in their critique of the current mode du jour of using identity as the driving descriptor of such needs, whereas Butler is entrenched in those definitions without addressing their cores (she seems to never address any common humanity in her obsession with the labels applied to members of it).
th-cam.com/video/Mh9I56J3f4Q/w-d-xo.html Howdy?
still pleasant to a fault, but more willing to call out the shills
Cornel throws up alot of spaghetti, not much in essence
It’s interesting watching Cornel West and Judith Butler go back and forth.
Like watching paint dry, or ping pong
Most of this debate is two people on the same side talking to each other and agreeing with each other lol.
Lol, I was thinking the same thing. Far from profound.
I love Cornell. He calls everyone "brother" and "sister" and just by doing so, I feel he's my brother.
Wow, how relieving it is to listen to this conversation. Rare enough these days to find people listening to each other while also sharing ideas about sensitive topics. Bliss!
These people are race grifters. They make money selling fear off skin color and sexuality to low iq individuals and you fall for it every time.
MMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
YES!
Identity politics is just a group-based version of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
I laughed. Sounds like a strong contender for the worst possible ideology in the world.
Ooooh.
Butler's basic thing is. My friends, this little group or slice of the whole, must have special protections and be a protected class. Then she suppresses this, forgetting she speaks of a small minority, and attacks larger proportions of the country as racist. Sheer self-deceptive hypocrisy (driven by fellow-feeling with her friends and people she identifies with).
Is it just me or does JB say nothing of substance? I don't want to dislike her but it seems she doesn't contend with any of Glenn or Wests points. Am I stupid? Or is she really just kinda full of it
its you
Glenn nails it with the black woman being aboard. Butler is an myopic elitist. Her black women would be Angela Davis not a black female police officer.
I live in Brazil too and as an American I can say that Glenn is right about how people feel here about public health as opposed to the healthcare system in the US, you don’t see this terrible divisiveness with vaccines in Brazil despite having an idiotic President. Also, the healthcare system here is very good and there are public hospitals and clinics and Brazilians are very health conscious too, you don’t see a mistrust in the healthcare system here like you do in the US and if you have a good private insurance here the coverage is much better than in the US, even dental insurance too, no co-pays or deductibles and everything is covered at 100%.
@@luna6093-d6c it’s not easy to get into the public universities here though, you have to take an entrance exam and most kids start preparing for that exame in their junior and senior year in high school. Also, the public schools are very poor here and most kids in the middle to upper middle class Ho to private schools which is supposed to increase your chances to getting into a public university, I’m not convinced of this though, there is supposed to be an allotment of students the public universities have to accept from poor communities and public schools, though that has diminished over there years. My kids go to private school here, we’ve lived here since 2012 due to my wife’s job, she is a journalist and Brazilian and she works for an American publication, they wanted her down here to cover things, since she has many connections here. Also, the cost of living is better here if you don’t have to rely on the local economy, I do remote editing work and the majority of my work comes from the US and the dollar is very strong against the Brazilian Real, it is also common here to have housekeepers and domestic works like Nannies, it’s very cultural and the laws for these workers are very strict, they have many rights. The problem here is the salaries are very low for the average Brazilian and if you don’t study in university there isn’t a whole lot of opportunity, work in the trades here doesn’t pay well like in the US either. All in all if you have a good income in Brazil life is good, but if not, it’s hard and harder than in developed countries, however, Brazil invests a lot into public health and it’s public health system including public hospitals and clinics as well as public universities. It has some aspects of European countries like Portugal without the robust social safety net that Portugal has and educated people here carry the manners of Europeans, since Brazil has a lot of poverty, the socioeconomic challenges are big. Also, Greenwald and his husband are well off now, his husband is a politician and any type of government job here pays the highest salaries, so people tend to gravitate towards public sector jobs for security. Greenwald’s husband grew up poor in a favela, it’s rare here to rise to a higher class from a situation such as his, but it does happen.
@@luna6093-d6c Hundreds of thousands for college? you exaggerate!
Considering the third leading cause of death in America, after heart disease and cancer, is in fact medical error, it is definitely rational to lack trust in the American healthcare system. Based on this fact alone, inferences that may be made as to how the pandemic has been handled in America are chilling.
@@nothxgg8324 the death rates from those diseases isn’t the fault of the healthcare system in the US, it’s more to do with lifestyle.
@@nothxgg8324 Agree with this too.
Thanks, Glenn. Nicely done, man. Nicely done.😉
The damage Butler and other zealots have done to society with their toxic ideologies is unforgivable.
Agreed, she's way out of her depth here with her myopic elitist perspective.
Greenwald, I think, points to some of the blind spots that West and Butler do not adequately account for - his point about the panel not having a working-class voice, specifically, laid bare the rather impoverished view that West and Butler have. (You can hear that it touched a nerve).
Glenn is clearly the most coherent. This discussion is a profound proof that the PhD degree does something very harmful to people’s brains.
Humanities are all post modern theorist now. That stuff rots your brain.
LMAO.
@@rafal5863Thank Christ I went to university before all this intellectual garbage took over, I couldn't tolerate it now. And it's so authoritarian! You have to think like them or you get excommunicated
yes, they start to think in theory space of grandiose measure.. personal idealism. They forget that their assumptions and presumptions do not matters but instead accept their own opinions as reality and fact. Ego, and arrogance.
This debate has been disappointing. Glenn Greenwald has put some of the best provocations onto the floor, but overall it felt as if they avoided addressing some of the key critiques of contemporary identity politics. The event would have been more interesting if someone like Adolph Reed, Vivek Chibber, Kenan Malik, or Raju Das, were also invited.
Yes. Glenn's clear and precise points about what happens in practice were met with many retreats in to theory; to obfuscate, deflect and always shifting the conversation away from his legitimate concerns.
That is what the Left does these days, avoid anything real people care about. They are lost in a cloud of abstractions in their very tall ivory tower.
@@joanofarc33 that's an overgeneralization
@@joanofarc33 Isnt it the case that those in ivory towers entertain all these high minded ideals but expect those at the bottom of the ladder to bear the costs both socially and financially
All those references are about race. For some reason no one questions the feminist narrative of inherent male privilege.
This was so wonderful! There were so many open questions. Cornell West forever has my heart.
I know right. It is amazing to me there are still some that dislike Brother West. That seems impossible to me. The man is such a beautiful human being. How anyone can dislike him is beyond me.
@Mia Cerro do tell? :)
@@Milanvaneijk he is proffering failed ideas...shame could be so much more.
@@AndrewHorezga that is way too vague
@@Milanvaneijk ..
Just like West....muh honesty, muh integrity, muh babbling on and on and never contributing anything new of value. You can pay enough $ to get a PhD in any topic....that's how it works ....but all these folks are low level midwits with nothing to do but fill time.
I hope that Judith Butler learned something from her former student. Glenn brought it.
Glenn Greenwald. The voice of reason. Thank you.
As smart as an academic juggernaut may be, if they are not up to date with social media political and anthropological discourse, then they will be pretty lost when discussing current terms and how it correlates to related. Identity politics has meant different things but currently on both the right and the left the it means the same thing in the political junky world.... It means what Glenn describes, which is using identity to mask class continuity
Judith Butler has contributed to a big mess
Starts at 7:07
Justice means equality, not equity.
Equity is a necessary step to achieve equality. So, if justice means equality, justice depends on equity on the pathway to itself.
@@guwopman3503 Sorry, but that is categorically untrue, by definition. It's also a childish and naive perception of reality, one that's going to keep you shaking your fist and whining your life away vs. living it.
@@alextinsley9117 ramps in public spaces are useless if we choose to allow everyone to have equal access to stairs, right? Someone with a minor headache should take precedence in the ER over someone with a gunshot wound because they arrived after the headache patient, right? You are projecting so much. You’re assuming I’m “shaking my fist” as opposed to living my life because I believe equity is necessary to achieve equality, really? You have to imagine that I am not living my life happily so you can feel assured that the person with differing views from yours is in a worse position than you based on their differing views. That’s what I would call “childish.”
Take my first example of universal access to stairs. For people who cannot use stairs does that equal access mean anything at all when it is actively hindering them from entering or maneuvering the same spaces as people who can use stairs? Someone who can’t use stairs would need a different solution that allows them to enjoy the same maneuverability as any other person who does not have their specific limitations. That’s called equity and it allows equal access to (in this example) maneuverability. Who would have thought?