Harry Potter, JK Rowling & the Social Justice Generation | Skeptic TaraElla 2020

Welcome back to Skeptic TaraElla. Today's episode is basically a follow-up on my comments about the outrage over JK Rowling's alleged transphobia, which as I explained last time, isn't even true from what I see. But regardless of the validity of those claims, I want to talk about somthing else today: why there has been particular upset at Rowling's comments. After all, whether we like it or not, it's not like her opinions on this topic are not common out there in the general population.

It appears to me that Rowling is actually being held to a higher standard than most other people. I think it has to do with her being the writer of the Harry Potter series. I remember about two years ago, I read an article about Gen-Z or Zoomers being the 'social justice generation', and how Harry Potter's message about good vs evil was a core inspiration for this generation. Besides Gen-Z, I guess it also applies to younger Millennials, because from what I see, they have also been massive Potter fans since they were kids. Now, I am a bit too old to have read Harry Potter during my childhood, and I don't exactly know that experience. I guess reading Harry Potter for the first time when I was a teenager would be a different experience. So forgive me if I say something that you don't like. I don't mean to spoil anyone's childhood memories.

The Harry Potter universe is a typical fantasy universe in one major way: it has a clear demarcation between good and evil. You know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, perhaps with the rare exception of a few characters like Snape. The other thing about the Harry Potter universe is that it is, from what I see, quite political, which is unusual for a fantasy book series, especially one for kids. There are clear analogies to racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry. People have also talked about whether the four houses are sort of analogous to political parties in the real world with their distinct ideologies, something which I can certainly see myself. It is therefore likely that, at least for some people, the Harry Potter universe represents an idealized version of our own reality, where the good guys and bad guys are always easily identifiable, and the good guys always win. Rowling, being the author of all this, has to be one of the good guys, and because the good guys always agree in the Potterverse, this sort of creates a psychological expectation that Rowling has to agree with you the reader, in your view of social justice issues. Therefore, when Rowling turns out to not entirely agree with you, there is some cognitive dissonance.

The fact is, we don't live in the Potterverse, nor can such a world even exist. In the real world, there isn't a clear demarcation between the good guys and the bad guys, because things are so complex that even people with good intentions often disagree. In the real world, it is rare that a social conflict comes down to the good guys vs the bad guys. Much more often, it's actually people with good intentions disagreeing with how to approach a problem, because they have different prior knowledge and life experiences, and perhaps a different prioritization of various values. Furthermore, there are rarely only two sides or two standpoints to a real world conflict. Which is why the Harry Potter model simply can't be applied to real world social justice problems.

I guess this latest Rowling drama is a good reminder that the real world is nothing like the Potterverse. Still, some people who vehemently disagree with Rowling have called on people to drop Harry Potter and read another book. The trouble is, that is not a solution at all. From what I see, that is just escapism, the refusal to deal with the imperfections of the real world, and the desire to escape into another fantasy of clear-cut good vs evil, now that Harry Potter has been ruined for some of you. The problem with this attitude is, if we really want to help improve the world, we should leave all those good vs evil fantasies behind, because they not only fail to help us understand the real world, they can even hinder effective conversation, by encouraging us to imagine people who disagree with us as the bad guys. I mean, it's good to read a fantasy book about some good vs evil battle once in a while, but as mature adults dealing with real world problems, it's important to remind ourselves that reality simply isn't like that at all. So, my advice is, read Harry Potter, read some other books you like, but don't expect the real world to be anything like those books at all.

ENOUGH! JK ROWLING ISN'T TRANSPHOBIC (I'm Trans) | TaraElla Report S6 E11

Welcome back to Trad Trans Rants by TaraElla. Right now, I'm very frustrated. You see, the whole 'JK Rowling is transphobic' thing has heated up all over again. It all started when Rowling tweeted her disagreement with the language used in an article titled 'Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate'. Obviously, Rowling disagrees with the usage of 'people who menstruate' and would prefer the use of just 'women' instead. That opinion, as you may expect, attracted severe backlash in the echo chamber that is Twitter. Rowling then went on to post a few more tweets like these ones:

"If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth."

AND

"I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so."

Doesn't really sound transphobic at all to me. In fact, as a trans person, all I have ever asked for is to be able to live in a way that feels comfortable for me, and not face discrimination or hate as a result. If Rowling supports my right to do all this, then I feel she really has my back. As for whether Rowling thinks of me as a man, I don't think that matters. People have their right to their own opinions, and I can respect different views. I can surely get along with people who don't agree with me.

Of course, all this wouldn't really have been an issue at all, say, ten years ago. Not many trans people from ten years ago would have taken offense at Rowling's words. I think the issue is that, there has been a new gender-related movement that probably sprang up from places like Tumblr, which gradually got mainstream in the last 5-10 years. Rather than focusing on the ability to live free from discrimination like we always did, this new gender movement is all about changing language. For the record, I have no problems personally with phrases like 'people who menstruate'. As a free speech activist, I think everyone is entitled to use whatever language they want. The problem is, this whole episode started when Rowling expressed her disagreement with the phrase 'people who menstruate'. While you certainly can come up with unconventional phrases to express your viewpoints, others have an equal right to voice their disagreements. I think Rowling is fed up with the idea that to simply dissent to the new language is equivalent to transphobia, and on this point, I am fully with her.

I think it's time the trans rights movement stopped caring about language, and started caring about more bread and butter issues, like employment, housing and health care. After all, only the privileged can afford to care about language, for the rest of us, it's always the bread and butter issues that must take priority. The truth is, I can't afford to care about what language people use because I actually have a life to live and work to do, and I suspect the silent majority of trans people are with me on this.

As for people like Rowling, they are actually trying to participate in the trans rights conversation, and I think it's a mistake for the radical activists to push them away. Surely, she is bringing her concerns to the table, but she is also bringing her commitment to allyship, and the latter is much more important. As for Rowling's concerns, which she does appear to share with many people out there, it is up to those of us who care about trans rights to deal with them. I think we should let everyone voice their concerns about any trans rights proposal, as long as they are doing so in good faith, so that we can work through them, and come up with solutions that address the concerns of everyone. As with all social change, there are a diverse number of stakeholders we need to communicate with, and compromise with, in order to make it work. If anything, I think we should be happy that people like Rowling are willing to openly share their concerns, while still committing to being allies.

Cringe vs Cope? On ContraPoints vs Rose of Dawn | Trad Trans Rants

Welcome back to Trad Trans Rants by TaraElla. Today, we have some interesting trans personality drama. As I understand it, it all began when Natalie of ContraPoints talked about the work of Rose Of Dawn, characterising it as posting cringe about trans people, and questioning her motives in posting a whole series of videos on a particularly obnoxious Canadian. Rose then replied, essentially saying that it is an unfair mischaracterization, that she was talking about important issues that need to be discussed, and that Natalie was avoiding that conversation, if I understood the point correctly.

As somebody who is subscribed to both of them, I think the problem is that they are essentially talking past each other. This problem is unfortunately common in our current landscape of cultural and political polarization. I actually think both Natalie and Rose have a point. I think Natalie is right to question the purpose of focusing on the most obnoxious and weird characters of the trans community, and I think Rose is right to question the set of beliefs about gender that Natalie appears to have. Don't get me wrong, as a trans person I of course support trans rights, and I very much appreciate Natalie's commitment to improving trans acceptance. However, where I disagree with her is that I really don't think the unscientific idea that gender is a social construct is good for trans acceptance or social justice at all.

I think the problem is that, both sides currently have an attitude that prevents constructive dialogue. Rose and others on her side often see themselves as defenders of every day common sense. They use particularly obnoxious and weird characters, the trans 'cringe' that Natalie was talking about, as examples of people who are outside the common sense, and use them to show how rejecting the common sense leads to social harms. While I'm sure that Rose and others mean well, and they do have a point as I will discuss later, I think this attitude can come off as both simplistic and judgemental to those on the opposite side. This is because, Natalie and others on her side, who come from a more philosophical tradition, tend to see the questioning of common sense as inherently enlightened and liberating. This can largely be traced to the tradition of critical theory, which holds that common sense is often a device to hold structures of oppression in place, and that the 'ruthless criticism of everything' is always justified. I, of course, have my own problems with the whole critical theory tradition and its impact on LGBT discourse, having written a short book on the subject recently. But let's leave that wider discussion to another video, and focus on the gender-related aspect here.

In her video, Rose called Natalie a 'gender radical'. Rose provided a definition for her use of the term, which, if I understand correctly, mostly fits with Natalie's beliefs. However, because that term is both vague and derogatory, I would instead refer to it as 'social constructionist' from here onwards. Rose essentially accused Natalie of refusing to deal with criticism of her social constructionist views on gender and the real world consequences of those beliefs, which are seen in people like that particular Canadian. However, given that these obnoxious characters aren't obviously motivated by social constructionism, I honestly don't think arguing this way is convincing for many people. After all, it's a bit of a leap to use the obnoxious behavior of one particular person to generalize that social constructionism is bad for society.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean social constructionism is OK either. My problem with social constructionism is that it is not grounded in commitment to objective reality, and often provides an illusion of escape from reality itself. Social constructionist theories, particularly when combined with postmodernism, often give the illusion of unlimited possibilities of social arrangements, which sounds fine as long as you don't have to face objective reality. It's like you can say the sky is green, as long as you stay indoors all the time. This is what I think of when some people say there could be a whole universe of genders. While I agree that there may not just be two genders, because there is some preliminary biological evidence for that, there certainly cannot be a whole universe of genders, because that wouldn't be compatible with the objective reality of evolutionary biology.

The fact is, conventional common sense may have its flaws, but it is at least tried and tested by centuries of living reality. Therefore, the wholesale rejection of common sense as 'social constructs' amounts to a wholesale denial of reality, and its real world consequence tends to be social chaos. Furthermore, society only works when everyone is committed to the same objective reality; if everyone lived only by their own subjective reality, the social contract would break down, and there would be chaos. Therefore, any modification to the shared common sense needs to be both rooted in objective reality and hence also acceptable to the general population. Within this framework, there can great potential for constructive social change. A good example would be how the finding that gay people are 'born this way' led to the widespread support for gay marriage. This is why any case for trans rights must be rooted in scientific reality. It must be based on objective reality rather than subjective feelings, and it must also adequately satisfy the competing needs of different parties. If we base the case for trans acceptance on subjectivity, it would never work, because nobody else is morally obliged to accept subjective or self-constructed identities. If we force trans acceptance while basing it on subjectivity, people could rightly classify that as tyranny, because it would be using the threat of social punishment to enforce something that most people wouldn't otherwise accept.

To build a workable consensus for trans acceptance going forward, a commitment to science above all else is needed. An openness to considering perspectives from all sides, and a constructive dialogue between different stakeholders is also needed. All this is, unfortunately, sorely lacking from both sides of the ideological divide right now. To get out of this pointless bickering, we need to stop shouting past each other, and start talking to each other effectively. This is the process I'm trying to facilitate here. I hope that more people can become just as committed to this ideal as myself.

The TRUTH About Intra Trans Cringe | Re ContraPoints | Trad Trans Rants

Welcome back to Trad Trans Rants by TaraElla. Today, I'm going to present the first installment of my response to the new ContraPoints video titled 'Cringe'. As usual, my response will be delivered in three parts, with this installment focusing on the trans aspect, and the next two focusing on the adverse effects of cringe culture on our political landscape, and how to counter its effects.

A major part of the Cringe video was focused on the intra-group cringe culture that has become a large part of the internet trans culture in recent years. The video used examples from three very popular trans personalities, who are known for producing trans cringe content. To be honest, I actually don't fully understand the appeal of that kind of content myself, that's why I'm setting out to explore it here. However, I also think that Natalie's take on this phenomenon may perhaps be missing something important.

I think one important double-edge sword strength as well as weakness of Natalie's analyses is that she often resorts to explaining things using theories that were previously established by other people, often academics. I guess it's a mindset that many people who have trained to be academics have. But as I sometimes like to say, adherence to theory is akin to thought slavery, because theory is dead and the world is alive. It's probably not a good idea to force fit academic theories into complex and organic developments, because doing so would be awkward, and so very cringe indeed.

So why do many trans people like to watch trans cringe content? As I said, I don't have all the answers. But I am subscribed to two out of the three personalities Natalie showcased, and I know that some of my own subscribers also like to watch those two people. Furthermore, Vanessa, as Natalie calls her, is the most popular political YouTuber right now, and the vast majority of her fans seem to be LGBT people too. It really isn't an exaggeration to call Vanessa a trans community icon, I mean, almost every trans person knows who she is, right? But why do trans people watch Vanessa and people like her? Let's start with why I watch them, because that's really the only perspective I fully understand. I guess, for me, the appeal of watching people like Vanessa is that it provides an alternative perspective on trans issues.

To be honest, I really miss the days when nobody paid attention to trans issues. In those days, if you came out as trans, people don't have a pre-conceived idea of who you are. For this reason, I'm glad that I came out back in the days when many people didn't even know trans people existed. At least I was always given a fair chance to explain my own trans perspective, without popular cultural references and media tropes getting in the way. Ever since the trans tipping point in 2015 or so, however, I've found it awkward to discuss trans issues in everyday life, so much so that I generally avoid talking about the topic altogether, because people often already come with preconceived notions of what trans people are like. For example, I've come across plenty of people who think that all trans people believe that gender is a social construct, an idea which I actually strongly disagree with, as I explained in my other videos. The problem is, when such expectation are so dominant, it's almost like you have to come out again and again to everyone you meet, just to be honest with yourself and with others. It's really frustrating. For me, the cringe isn't about embarrassment; it's about the misrepresentation and the resulting wrong expectations that many of us find really frustrating. Like how I'm supposed to be super sensitive about people misgendering me, when I don't actually care that much, to be honest.

Which is why I'm sometimes glad that people like Vanessa not only exist, but are outspoken about themselves being almost the opposite of the public stereotype of a trans person. The fact is, and I have said this in numerous other videos before but it bears repeating, Vanessa isn't even special in any way. Regular trans people are the silent majority, and we are nothing like the stereotype. But because the media likes sensational stuff, they tend to give a disproportionate platform to the noisy minority of trans people who have extreme lifestyles or extreme political views. Just think back to last year, when many relatievly mainstream media outlets carried the story of a particularly obnoxious Canadian who identified as trans, who I shall not name again here. That particular Canadian was newsworthy precisely because of the obnoxious behavior. Ever since the trans tipping point five years ago, the media has kept on carrying sensational examples of trans people, distorting our public image, and creating a stereotype that many of us feel extremely uncomfortable with. I guess for some of us, channels like Vanessa's are valuable in that they provide a strong rebuttal to the stereotype. My channel here is something similar, although I have a different style and focus. Again, it's not something you could explain using any existing academic theory, it's just how real life is playing out. When I was younger, I thought that trans people could never go mainstream because we are less than 1% of the population; I just never imagined that we would instead go mainstream in a bad way like this. Real life is unpredictable and often rougher than you can imagine.

I want to come back to the way Vanessa and others kept making videos of that particular Canadian, even after the Canadian ceased to be newsworthy. As I've said in previous videos, I think the approach of Vanessa is often ultimately self-defeating. Sometimes, it appears to me that she is so keen to prove that she is normal, that she keeps platforming the small minority of extremely cringe-worthy trans characters, and in doing so ultimately reinforce the media stereotype of trans people. While to be fair she has recently taken care to showcase more regular trans people, and stated the fact that the silent majority of trans people aren't like the cringe ones, her disproportionate focus on the cringe characters still contributes to the problem of disproportionate platforming of cringe trans people that we are supposed to be combatting. This is why I'm taking a very different approach here on this channel. I'm not going to focus on the cringe-worthy minority at all, except for one or two videos when I believe that it is morally necessary for every trans person with a platform to provide a rebuttal, like with the Canadian last year. Instead, I'm just going to present my own thoughts on news, current affairs, and a variety of topics, which will hopefully be more than enough to show you that I'm nothing like the stereotype. It's a good approach because we're adding more regular voices rather than platforming cringe people looking for attention.

Finally, let's go back to the big question: why are people like Vanessa so popular within the trans community? I guess one reason why Vanessa is popular is because she bucks the stereotype, and does so in a very spectacular way. In fact, not only does she keep going against the media stereotype of trans people, she also has a politics that is very opposite of what most people expect of trans people, like how she is anti-feminist, anti-SJW and supports President Trump. Now, I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea to take up those positions just to stick it to the stereotype, and I'm not suggesting that Vanessa is doing that at all, but I guess it could be part of her appeal to trans people who are sick of other people having the wrong expectation of who they are. I mean, actually supporting Trump is probably not on the agenda of most trans people, but using the current US Presidential election cycle as an example, I know that there are trans people who avoided supporting candidates that fit the stereotype of someone trans people would support, like Elizabeth Warren, and instead go for candidates like Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, precisely because they don't talk about LGBT issues anywhere as much. As far as I'm aware, no Democrat in this cycle completely avoided LGBT issues, but if there was one, I suspect many trans people would actually flock to them. The fact is, with the media stereotype bearing down on us all, many trans people are almost desperate to escape that expectation, and some are even perhaps going to the extent of bending their politics to prove a point.

Let's DESTROY All the Anger and Negativity! | TE Report Trans S3 E16

Hi everyone, welcome again to the special LGBT season of the TaraElla Report. This is where we talk about the diversity of views around the issues, and hope to come together to resolve our differences. Subscribe if you are interested. This show is brought to you by my new book, Postmodernism, Skeptics & Transmedicalists, which is partially about how trans people got entangled in the latest culture wars and got misunderstood by the world. Link is in the description.

In fact, I think I have been talking about the issues, and possible solutions to accomodate the concerns of all sides, for nearly two years now. We've talked about everything ranging from the clinical science of gender dysphoria, to the ways the needs of trans people can be accomodated while considering the concerns of other parties, to the way a rational discussion can be had on these issues. Yet I think most people out there aren't truly listening. Of all the trans related videos I've made, the ones that got the most views so far are one about a particularly hated ContraPoints character, and one about a particularly controversial Canadian personality who I shall not name here. People are more interested in conflict than rational discussion, it seems. This is reflected in the state of online trans-related discussion, where one side simply screams empty slogans like 'trans rights' or 'trans women are women', and the other side simply screams some stuff about biology deniers, SJW snowflakes, and probably some Ben Shapiro quotes in return. Meanwhile, no intellectual dialogue is ever made, and people retreat to their respective echo chambers after the screaming. It seems that people just want to be angry for the sake of being angry all the time. Honestly, I've had enough!

The cultural and political environment we're operating in right now is really difficult. Really, really frustrating. And I blame it on all the anger and negativity, coming from both sides of politics. A subset of the left is ideologically wedded to anger, because it is driven by conflict theory. A subset of the right practically thrives on getting outraged, because they don't have a more meaningful politics. It's the old SJW vs anti-SJW thing, but now dumbed down to an even more ridiculous level. Normally, I would just say that these people deserve each other, and they should leave the rest of us alone. However, for some reason, both sides seem to have a massive obsession about trans people, while not even trying to understand the issues at all. I personally think any political movement that keeps talking about trans people has essentially lost the plot, since we make up only 0.2% of the population, but leaving this aside, the quality of the discussion is also very bad. At this point, it's just 'politics as identity', the even more problematic cousin of OG identity politics.

I guess the only way out of this is to destroy the anger and negativity, by making it look bad, and by making the opposite look good. Looking back, it seems that people were trying to do this, but they picked the wrong targets. Firstly, it was the SJWs who were angry and negative, so they went anti-SJW. Then, the anti-SJWs became even more angry and negative, so they went anti-anti-SJW. But that's really missing the point. The problem isn't even in what people believe, it's that they are angry and negative. Anger and negativity is the real enemy. It's what I will be focusing on going forward.

Libertarian DEBUNKS Steven Crowder Psuedo-Science Transphobia | Skeptic TaraElla 2020.8

Welcome again to Skeptic TaraElla, where we take a stand against biased beliefs that not only defy facts and logic, but also make effective political consensus and action difficult. Subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I am going to respond to a recent Steven Crowder video, where he showcased a few examples of trans people behaving violently, and sought to make a general point about trans people and hormone therapy.

Let's start with this. The fact is, while Crowder could find a few examples of trans people behaving badly, and I'm sure you can find even more examples out there, they clearly don't represent the vast majority of trans people. As even Crowder knows, there are at least more than 1 million trans people in America alone, so even if you can find a few dozen cases of trans people behaving badly, that's like less than 0.01% of all trans people. As for his claim that trans people are more likely to behave badly than others, he pulls a few statistics to justify his claim, but those weren't presented objectively. For example, the higher incarceration rate of trans people includes those who have been forced by economic circumstances into sex work to pay for their treatments, which is illegal in most places. Comparing these people to violent criminals is clearly unfair.

The other thing is, what Crowder was essentially doing was taking a few bad apples of the trans community, and using them to paint all trans people with a broad brush. He even made a highly unscientific hypothesis, that trans hormone therapy is responsible for making those people act violently. At this point, I should say that this claim is simply based on speculation justified by pseudo-science, coming from somebody who has no medical training and doesn't fully understand how HRT works. Needless to say, it is also not backed up by any clinical studies, which means it's essentially no better than that anti-vax stuff. Shameful indeed.

But let's get back to the point. Crowder's approach of trying to generalize the bad behavior of a few individuals to trans people as a whole is not only statistically and scientifically invalid, it is also against the fundamental values of classical liberalism. As classical liberals and libertarians, we are individualists. We believe in individual responsibility, and we believe each individual should be judged on their own character alone. That's why, for example, when some radical feminists say that men as a group are responsible for toxic masculinity, we rightly say something like 'not all men' in return. There's no reason why your average decent family man should be responsible for Harvey Weinstein's crimes, for example. Similarly, there's no reason why your average decent trans person should be responsible in any way for the bad eggs of the trans population, or be judged because of their behavior. That would simply not be in line with the personal responsibility we all champion. It would indeed be much closer to judging people as a class, just like those radicals who blame 'straight white men' for everything. As libertarians, we should condemn this kind of behavior every single time.

Real Libertarian Talks Sense To Kaitlin Bennett & Liberty Hangout | Skeptic TaraElla 2020.7

Welcome again to Skeptic TaraElla, where we take a stand against biased beliefs that not only defy facts and logic, but also make effective political consensus and action difficult. Subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I will be talking about Kaitlin Bennett again. Last time, I spoke of how I sort of admired her at first for having the guts to stand up to political correctness, but on further thought I didn't admire her anymore because I believe she was only going to make things worse in the end. The thing I now worry most about is that, part of Kaitlin's brand is standing up for liberty, and she even uses the yellow and black colors, which means she could be seen as representing libertarianism. This, I fear, could reflect badly on libertarianism broadly and liberty activists more generally.

Which is why I think it's time to rescue the libertarian brand from Kaitlin Bennett's so-called activism. I guess the ideal thing to do would be to get Kaitlin herself to have a rational conversation, to point out why we real libertarians disagree with her quite a lot, and why her project could only backfire on liberty. But since I think she wouldn't agree to such a request anyway, we'll have to settle for the next best thing: responding to comments she's already made elsewhere.

"This is me. I'm Kaitlin Bennett, I'm the most hated person on the internet."

The problem is, you seem to enjoy the attention that comes with the hate. And that gives you a conflict of interest in our goal of restoring free speech on college campuses. Because, if you think about it, if campuses became bastions of free speech overnight, your voice would be reduced to just one more opinion in the peaceful free market of ideas. No students would try to stop you from saying anything, which means you won't get to be a political celebrity anymore. This conflict of interest means that I just can't trust you to really work hard for free speech.

"What do you think about starting an intitiative here on campus to be more inclusive to trans women, and put urinals in the women's restroom for them?"

You know that's a troll question, and a silly one because trans women don't use urinals. By the way, real libertarians have consistently supported LGBT rights as long as they don't infringe on other freedoms. For example, the Libertarian Party supported gay marriage long before the Democrats! You will also find many pro-LGBT articles on respected libertarian sites like Reason and Cato. Anyone who has a basic libertarian understanding would know that, from the libertarian perspective, the bathroom issue should be treated as a private property issue, which means that it is not even a political issue at all! The fact is, real libertarians don't have a problem with LGBT rights as long as they don't infringe on free speech or religious liberty. Conservatives who keep using LGBT issues as political wedges aren't real libertarians. They are just the mirror image of the authoritarian SJWs you despise so much. And at least back when I was in college, we real libertarians despised them, and their dear leader President Bush, just as much.

"You guys want to pick fights about my content, you don't know a damn thing about my content."

But the problem is, a lot of your content is about confronting college liberals. You don't talk enough about liberty, what is liberty, how do we restore or ensure it, you don't have enough intellectual talk on these matters. And you don't even explore the origins of the free speech problem on campus. You know, there was once a radical thinker called Herbert Marcuse, who in 1965 published an essay titled 'Repressive Tolerance', in which he called for the suppression of conservative ideas. Marcuse became very influential among the student activists of the late 1960s, who went on to have a huge impact on intellectual culture throughout the West. The fact is, college SJWs only act the way they act because they have been unknowingly encouraged by radical baby boomers. But that's probably too much history and too much intellectualism for your style. So you just blame immature college students for a conflict that is way beyond their ability to create, and ignore the real roots of the problem.

"What's it like being conservative on campus?"

You and I both know it's difficult. I'm not a political conservative, but I am a philosophical conservative, in that I admire great thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and the like, and I strongly reject thinkers like Nietzsche, Sartre, Marcuse and Foucault, who were all what I would call atheist fundamentalists looking for chaos. The campus conversation around the humanities is now so imbalanced that it simply rejects people who think along the more conservative or classical liberal cannon, with all the associated political implications. But I think people like you are only making the problem worse, because your confrontational attitude makes conversation impossible, and conversation is needed to fix this bias.

"You got to speak out. Come on, look, you get a lot of fans if you speak out."

Yeah, but I'm not after political celebrity like you. I actually want to have the necessary conversations to fix things, and as things stand, I'm not able to have that conversation started. Even if I speak out, and be completely honest about my thoughts, I feel like I'm just going to be misinterpreted, and used to further the polarization. I guess what we need to do is to have the necessary conversations, do the necessary work to restore free speech and respect for diversity of thought on college campuses and elsewhere, so that when people do speak up, they are properly understood, and we can have constructive debates in the free market of ideas. But then, in that case, you wouldn't be a political celebrity anymore, so you personally might not want that to happen.

The bottom line is, we desperately need a new intellectual culture that is wrapped around the basic ideals and intellectual canon of classical liberalism. The rise of such a culture is the only hope of restoring balance to the intellectual discussions on college campuses. However, your crude activism is part of the problem preventing that from happening.