Mediaboss Marketing

Dave Ramsey, a personal finance expert for Christians, came under fire last week. On his radio show The Ramsey Show he spent some time arguing that Christian landlords are not at fault if tenants become unable to afford rent:

Okay, I own rental property, single family homes, among many other properties that we own. And if I raised my rent to be market rate that does not make me a bad Christian. I did not displace the person out of that house if they can no longer afford it.

Many accused Ramsey of engaging in mental gymnastics to avoid his moral responsibility to his tenants:

As a Christian interested in economics, Ramseys comments and the surrounding controversy piqued my interest. Ive never been a Dave Ramsey follower. I wont get into particular disagreements I have, but, put simply, I dont believe his money management philosophy will lead to the best financial results for many. At the same time, I dont deny his program has been helpful to some.

But, disagreements on personal finance aside, is Ramsey right or wrong here? Are critics correct or are they reaching? As with most answers, some nuance is required here.

First, lets begin with what the critics have right. Even though changes in supply and demand lead to changes in market prices, individual business owners are free to charge different prices. An owner need not passively set prices where everyone else does.

Second, the Bible does tell Christians be charitable and help the poor. At this point it needs to be stated that the Bible, and the words of Jesus in particular, is often twisted when it comes to matters of money. But even with this in mind, its unambiguous that the Bible calls giving a righteous act. Consider 1 John 3:17 which says, But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

So are Christian landlords called to be charitable to their tenants? I think the answer is a pretty straightforward yes. In that sense, I believe some criticism of the above statement is warranted.

Its imaginable that a Christian landlord could be generous and keep prices lower than the market price to help the destitute. In fact, in the context of the full video, Ramsey does explain situations where hes made exceptions to help his tenants on a case-by-case basis. And there are likely many cases where this would be the loving thing to do.

At the same time, Ramseys statement about market forces cant be ignored. Consider a market for housing that experiences a sudden increase in demand. When demand increases for housing, people are willing to pay more for it. This drives the price of housing up and makes it more profitable to rent houses. But the story doesnt end here.

Those higher profits draw more suppliers into the housing market. When there are more people providing housing, the cost of providing housing goes up.

To see why, consider the cost of a landlord repairing an HVAC system. When the amount of landlords is relatively small, they dont have much competition hiring HVAC repairmen. In this case, the price is low.

When a larger quantity of rental suppliers (landlords) enter the housing market, however, there is more competition to hire contractors to come fix HVAC systems. With this increased competition, the price of HVAC repair is bid up. In other words, an increase in the demand for housing causes an increase in demand for contractors which increases the cost of being a landlord.

HVAC repair is only one example. All of the factors used in running a housing rental business increase in demand and price as more landlords enter. And so long as landlords can make a profit by entering the rental market, they will enter. This drives up costs until all the profits created by the increase in demand dry up. At the new, higher price, the economic profit tends to zero.

Notice what this means for a landlord who doesnt raise prices. If rental companies charging higher prices are tending toward zero profit, maintaining a lower price means tending toward a loss. The housing is being rented for the same price, but now the cost is higher. This means losses.

If a landlord had lower costs than competitors, the business may still be able to operate profitably. But the higher the market price goes relative to the price the landlord charges, the closer the landlord is to making a loss, everything else held constant.

The result of the logic is clear. If the price of housing goes up and a landlord chooses not to increase the rent, there is some point where they will start making a loss.

At this point critics may say, so what? After all, charity means you lose wealth right? I agree with this too. If we expected people to be materially better off from charity, wed all be giving to get rich quick.

But heres the final problem. Losses arent sustainable forever. If a landlord freezes rent today, and prices and costs continue to increase, at some point the landlord will go out of business.

And a Christian cant be generous with tenants if they dont have a business to produce wealth in the first place.

Heres where critics get into really weird territory. Christians involved in any kind of business can always be charitable to the point of going out of business. Christian grocery store? Give away all your food for free. Christian school? Hire the best teachers and don't charge any tuition. Christian landlord? Buy more houses and let people stay in them for free. If you arent out of money, you can always donate more.

This logical conclusion seems unambiguously bad. If Christian businesses are obligated to give until they go out of business, there wont be Christian businesses. And if there arent Christian businesses, there wont be any more charity from Christian businesses.

My claim isnt that Christian business-people should never be generous. As I already stated, I believe they should. But ignoring market forces entirely only guarantees there wont be Christian businesses.

This logic extends into our personal lives too. Once your LLC is out of business, you still have personal wealth to give away. And here we come to a final conclusion.

Unless your interpretation of the Bible is that you have to maintain zero worldly possessions, you recognize implicitly that some amount of charity in the present is imprudent, if for no other reason than it will prevent future charity or fulfillment of obligations (to family for example).

If your standard is never having earthly possessions, you have a consistent criticism of Ramsey, though Im unsure how youre reading this article without any possessions.

Charging below market price is effectively giving money to charity. You make a loss, and in exchange someone is better off. Christians can choose to do this. In many cases I believe we are called to. But perpetual losses mean you will run out of money. Market changes can be ignored, but their consequences cannot.

So if Christians are called to give, but they arent called to give everything in the immediate present, when are we called to give our wealth away and to whom? Should a landlord forgive the rent of a fourth tenant even if it means going out of business in a year and forsaking the other three getting a break? How much savings should landlords with family have on hand?

There isnt a flowchart to answer all these questions. The details of specific circumstances are where the answers lie. However, I think Christians are given a straightforward rule of thumb. Our security should be found in Christ, not in the things of this world. If the decision to not be charitable at a particular time is based on our desire for things of the world, our heart is in the wrong place.

If charity is forgone because Christians believe their resources can be better stewarded for the love of God and others elsewhere, we have a different story.

Its possible that Ramseys own philosophy is to give to charity mainly outside of his business. Should someone diminish their giving to one cause in order to be able to accept losses in their business? The less income you have, the less you can give, after all. Again, I think the answer here depends on the situation.

Im not sure if Ramsey does this or not. I dont know his finances. But this manner of giving isnt uncommon for capitalists in the US, as it lines up well with the fact that the US has been the most charitable country in the world for a decade now.

My guess is that, on balance, most Christians in and outside of business could be more generous. No one is without sin. But pretending like market forces are irrelevant to our decisions as stewards doesnt help others or our mission any more than ignoring the laws of physics helps our ability to aid someone whos falling out of a building.

Read the original here:
Was Dave Ramsey Right or Wrong about the Responsibilities (or Lack Thereof) of Christian Capitalists? | Peter Jacobsen - Foundation for Economic...

This article is excerpted from LiberatED, a weekly email newsletter where FEE Senior Education Fellow Kerry McDonald brings you news and analysis on current education and parenting topics. Click here to sign up.

The Omicron surge of the coronavirus shows signs of cresting in the US and around the world, but COVID restrictions on many college campuses are tightening as the spring semester begins.

For example, Johns Hopkins University (JHU) in Baltimore just released its Covid-safe spring semester plan for students as they return to campus on January 24th. Here are a few highlights:

Remember, all of the students on this campus are fully vaccinated and boosted, and they still must abide by these additional restrictions.

And they pay over $75,000 in annual tuition, fees, and room and board for this experience.

Colleges and universities across the country are adopting similar practices. Many are requiring COVID-19 boosters for students this semester, while others are adopting stricter masking policies that demand N95 or KN95 masks or double masking on campus.

Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a critic of draconian COVID policies, wrote earlier this month about virus plans on many college campuses. Universities are supposed to be bastions of critical thinking, reason and logic, he said. But the Covid policies they have adoptedpolicies that have derailed two years of students education and threaten to upend the upcoming spring semesterhave exposed them as nonsensical, anti-scientific and often downright cruel.

Some students have simply had enough. They are withdrawing from tightly-controlled campuses and transferring to colleges that reject coercion and prioritize normalcy.

There are early signs of positive change. Thousands of university students at Stanford, Cornell, and George Mason are pushing back against booster mandates, while other colleges indicate that they are moving from containment to management of the virus.

According to The New York Times on Sunday: As the Omicron surge spreads across the country, sending Covid-19 case counts to new heights and disrupting daily life, some universities are preparing for a new phase of the pandemic one that acknowledges that the virus is here to stay and requires a rethinking of how to handle life on campus.

For the sake of the students, and their parents pocketbooks, lets hope this rethinking happens swiftly.

Like this story? Click here to sign up for the LiberatED newsletter and get education news and analysis like this from Senior Education Fellow Kerry McDonald in your inbox every week.

Go here to see the original:
College COVID Policies Are Getting Even More Restrictive | Kerry McDonald - Foundation for Economic Education

Joe Rogan (Photo by: Vivian Zink/Syfy/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images)

If youre reading this piece (and you are reading it, I can tell), you should understand what this piece will not be.

You are not about to read about how Joe Rogan is racist. You arent going to read how Rogan isnt funny or even deserving of being considered the most influential podcaster of all time. However, I cannot, in good conscience, declare that I am unbiased when it comes to Spotifys $100 million white man because of one fact:

I like Joe Rogan.

Perhaps like is too austere a word. Ive paid to see him perform live. I have listened to hundreds of episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience and that number may well reach four digits if you include podcasters in the Rogan comedy universe such as Ari Shaffir, Tom Segura and Joey Diaz. Ive heard Rogan speak about growing up in liberal San Francisco, living in Florida and spending his teenage years near Boston, which seems to have created a diverse set of interests, from mixed martial arts to Egyptology to dick jokes. My unvarnished opinion of Rogan is that he seems to be extremely interested in things and not just on a facile level. To be fair, I havent really listened to his podcast since he became exclusive to Spotify.

Still, there is no question that he created the most powerful platform in podcasting and may very well be the most powerful person in all of media. His estimated audience nearly triples Tucker Carlsons, dwarfs all three networks late-night talk shows combined and, when Rogans YouTube views are included, his audience rivals The Oprah Winfrey Show at the height of its popularity. Plus, Rogan has cultivated a legion of young, mostly white, mostly male fans who have exalted him to a level that ranks somewhere between a guru and a renaissance man.

Rogans status as a counterculture icon of libertarian white boys who wear Ed Hardy shirts to jujitsu practice is why last week a coalition of scientists, medical professionals, professors, and science communicators spanning a wide range of fields such as microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, and neuroscience wrote an open letter to Spotify about Rogans concerning history of broadcasting misinformation, particularly regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter didnt ask Spotify to censor or ban Rogan. Instead, they wanted to express their concern over Spotifys failure to mitigate the damage it is causing.

But even before he became the official COVID consultant to NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers and other prominent celebrities who werent worried about the coronavirus until they tested positive for the coronavirus, Rogan wasnt shy about sharing his belief that young, healthy people like himself didnt have anything to worry about when it came to COVID. Even though most people arent as healthy as Rogan, according to the data, he was statistically correct. More than 80 percent of the people who died from COVID were over 65, and many more had comorbidities. Then again, only 10 to 20 percent of smokers get lung cancer and most people survive gunshot wounds to the chest. But theres a reason Rogan is so fearless about saying what doctors around the world will never tell you:

Joe Rogan is not a doctor.

In fact, Rogan has the same medical expertise as a monkey or a man who makes a living describing face kicks. Because Rogans job is to say things and a doctors primary role is to make sure each one of their patients doesnt die, very few physicians would advise their patients to puff Newports while taking a slug to the torso. Thats why we rarely hear actual doctors say: In my medical opinion, youll prolly be aight.

Then Rogan got the rona.

After he apparently cured himself with ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies and advanced medical care not available to people who dont have the resources to move halfway across the country when they want a little bit more freedom, the comedian and UFC commentator would never be the same. He ranted about how ivermectin was not horse paste, blasted CNN and responded to public criticism by inviting COVID quacks on his show, most notably with Dr. Robert Malone, a scientist who has been banned from Twitter for spreading debunked medical misinformation during a global pandemic. During the Dec. 31 episode of Rogans show, Malone attributed the publics acceptance of the world medical communitys consensus opinion to the debunked theory of mass formation hypnosis. Two weeks later, Rogans audience watched him chuck his usual evidence-based open-mindedness into the wind when his argument that the vaccine was worse than COVID was upended by peer-reviewed research in real time. Even as he read the words written by people who know stuff, Rogan could not accept the objective facts, much to the lament of some of his actual fans who clearly saw the cognitive dissonance.

For almost any other podcaster in America, this pattern of white wackadoodle doo would be laughable, but COVID broke Rogan. Part of his thing was that he was always open-minded, unbiased and would often verify the most innocuous fact. Ive heard him dismantle the argument that the moon landing was fake, that vegans are healthier and that monkeys eating psychedelic mushrooms are what made the human brain evolve (Luckily, another Rogan guest explained that mushrooms clearly came from aliens).

By allowing the propagation of false and societally harmful assertions, Spotify is enabling its hosted media to damage public trust in scientific research and sow doubt in the credibility of data-driven guidance offered by medical professionals, read the letter. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Rogan has repeatedly spread misleading and false claims on his podcast, provoking distrust in science and medicine. He has discouraged vaccination in young people and children, incorrectly claimed that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy, promoted off-label use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 (contrary to FDA warnings), and spread a number of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Mass-misinformation events of this scale have extraordinarily dangerous ramifications, the letter continued. This is not only a scientific or medical concern; it is a sociological issue of devastating proportions and Spotify is responsible for allowing this activity to thrive on its platform.

When the physicians noted how they bear the arduous weight of a pandemic that has stretched our medical systems to their limits, in the letter, I knew exactly how they felt. When the researchers spelled out how they face backlash and resistance, a lot of Black people knew exactly how the experts felt because many of us have pointed out this problem for years.

I do not believe Joe Rogan is a white supremacist.

However, along with an interest in psychedelic drugs, recreational choking and chimpanzees, Rogan has always held a fascination with white supremacists. Long before a makeshift militia was indicted for attempting a coup on the American legislature, Rogan hosted a sit-down with Gavin McInnes, founder of a then-unknown group called the Proud Boys. He has welcomed people who dabble around the periphery of the alt-right, such as Peter Boghossian, who was one of the founders of the grievance studies hoax that evolved into the demonization of critical race theory. Right-wing troll Chuck C. Johnson has made it to the JRE along with Jordan Peterson who The Guardian notes, attracts a heterogeneous audience that includes Christian conservatives, atheist libertarians, centrist pundits and neo-Nazis. Rogan has also entertained the musings of far-right provocateurs like Milo Yiannopoulos and Stefan Molyneux, two of the handful of JRE guests who promote the long-debunked race science belief that people of African descent have lower IQs.

In all fairness, most episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience are not a three-hour discourse on the intellectual and social inferiority of people who dont listen to Joe Rogan. Rogan sometimes openly disagrees with his guests and often pushes back against many of their ideologies. He believes that thoughts shouldnt be censored, which is a valid point. But Rogan isnt having a conversation with these guests in his living room over a joint and a cup of Bulletproof coffee; hes asking them to speak into a microphone and talk, unfiltered, to tens of millions of people, many of whom are probably dumber than Rogan. And, while I dont consider Rogan to be especially intelligent, he is probably more open-minded, more progressive and more informed than many of his listeners. Yet, his congenial, constantly curious personality sometimes makes it seem as if he agrees with what his guests are saying.

Moreover, in many cases, Rogan is just not intellectually equipped to challenge many of his guests ideasespecially ones that have formed debunked ideas based on faulty research, personal prejudice and anecdotal evidence. For instance, before he migrated to Spotify, Rogan was obsessed with the lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American descent. He repeatedly asserted that, by denying students who tested higher on standardized tests, the Ivy League institutions admissions policy was racist, which was a good point

But Rogan never mentioned the fact that research shows wealthy students enjoy significant advantages throughout the college application process, and that income greatly impacts a students performance on standardized tests. Rogan probably didnt know that Asian Americans have the highest income in America. He didnt acknowledge that most Black students attend underfunded, high-poverty schools that dont have the same academic resources and curriculums. He didnt consider the fact that standardized tests dont accurately measure college success. He never spoke about the right of private institutions to curate a diverse academic environment because it more accurately reflects the real world. He never even quantified what he meant by best students. Rogan never even mentioned that the people who overcome disparities might be better students than those who graduate from the best schools, have the best test preparation money can afford and have been guided by people who know how to get into Ivy League schools. More importantly, he never considered that these disparities prove that white supremacy exists. However, there is a good reason for this:

Joe Rogan didnt know what he was talking about.

He was just saying things. Into a microphone. To millions of people. Because he can. Because thats what white boys get to do. As with COVID, Rogan and his minion of bearded free-thinkers who used-to-be-libertarian will never be substantially affected by the deadly virus of white supremacy. It is disingenuous at best and outright stupid at worst for someone as famous as Rogan to pretend that he is allowing his listeners to explore ideas without acknowledging the actions these positions can inspire and the harm these racist concepts cause in real life. Although Rogan may feel like the prototypical everyman, his guests know that millions of people are listening. Even if 1 percent of Rogans listeners are radicalized by a JRE guest, it means hundreds of thousands of people have been converted to a baseless philosophy thanks to Rogans pulpit.

It might be interesting for him to sit down with author Abigail Shrier to discuss The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters because Rogan or his children probably wont be murdered by a transphobic bigot. Its probably interesting to debate if white people are genetically more intelligent than sub-Saharan Africans because he doesnt have to wonder if his kids teacher or his cousins employer saw that Rogan clip and reached a different conclusion. Far too many times, white boys will say something idiotic or harmful and wipe away the prospect of being held accountable by saying: Im just asking questions! Its a neat trick, really. Its as if the entire universe is an Etch A Sketch for white boys to shake and erase the consequences of their actions. What could possibly be wrong with asking questions?

White boys are free to poke, prod and play around with the poisonous snake of white supremacy because they are born with natural immunity to its venom. They can publicly ruminate about how disenfranchised people should combat voter suppression with personal responsibility. They can sit on a Supreme Court and decide what women should do with their vaginas because they will never be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term. They can explain why Black people should just comply with police officers instead of running away because they have never been paralyzed by the fear of living in a country where they are hunted by people armed with guns and the authority of a legal system.

Perhaps the greatest example of this is Rogans fascination with tossing around the n-word as if it were a lit firecracker and not a piece of dynamite. For Rogan, it is not a piece of dynamite. It does not conjure up the memories of his grandparents with nooses around their necks or the wealth stolen from everyone who will ever be in his family or the non-memories of cousins whose existences were snuffed out before they began. Watch him giggle while kicking the history of a peoples pain around as if it is a game of cornhole or a theoretical hackysack.

And no, Joe Rogan is not a white supremacist.

Rogan is just a man who built a soapbox on which he allows white supremacists to stand. Of course, some people will claim that holding Rogan accountable for the stage he built is cancel culture. But do not weep, my child; if theres anyone who cant be canceled, its Joe Rogan and white boys like him. If all else fails, hell be forced to earn millions of dollars performing comedy around the country while hosting his podcast on his own, where his preSpotify audience was even larger. White boys will never lose their freedom to speak, even if they claim they are just asking questions and exposing ideas to the public.

Public opinion is a sort of atmosphere, fresh, keen and full of sunlightand this sunlight kills many of those noxious germs, wrote Supreme Court justice and free speech advocate Louis Brandeis. Selfishness, injustice, cruelty, tricks and jobs of all sorts shun the light; to expose them is to defeat them. Brandeisa militant crusader for social justicewrote volumes of fearless opinions on every social, political and economic issueexcept for one. Whenever a case involved Black people, Brandeis would become curiously silent. In 23 years on the Supreme Court, he did not write a single opinion on the race question.

Louis Brandeis was not a white supremacist.

Just because he repeatedly voted in support of segregation, voted in favor of the Klan and helped elect a white supremacist president doesnt mean Brandeis was wrong. Speech should be free, sunlight is the best disinfectant for toxic ideas and Joe Rogan is a bright and shining star.

But Joe Rogan is not the sun.

Of course, I could be biased.

Remember, I like Joe Rogan.

Michael Harriot is a writer, cultural critic and championship-level Spades player. His book, Black AF History: The Unwhitewashed Story of America, will be released in 2022.

Have you subscribed to theGrio podcastsDear CultureorActing Up?Download our newest episodes now!

TheGrio is now on Apple TV, Amazon Fire and Roku. Download theGrio.com today!

See original here:
The problem with Joe Roganand white boys - TheGrio

I am sitting on the front bench in the Oxford Union chamber. Next to me, laptops are open.

Who do you write for?, asks the boy on my left. This boy is my friend for the next hour. We shake our heads at the same things, he thinks my notes about lobsters are funny (he was looking at my laptop screen. Thank God I never broke character).

Im independent, I say.

Okay.

I certainly am independent independent from the world of amateur journalism entirely. The boy on my right is in on the whole thing he saw me come in late and sneak onto the front bench.

Just open your laptop and do an essay or something, says boy-on-the-right.

I oblige, and title a document: Professor Jordan Peterson Oxford Union 25th November 2021. There is excitement in the room, and I am in the world of journalists now. It feels great.

The front rows of the benches ahead of me are for Petersons guests. This is what friend-on-the left and I infer, anyway, since theyre dressed much better than anyone else. Lots of shirts and brogues. I spy a fur hat. I spy

Jordan Peterson. There he is outside the glass door. We have all stood in the cold, in a line, for some considerable time to see this man. But why? A happy boy outside told me that Peterson had been incredibly helpful for him; in fact, I really had the sense that he might have changed his life. But otherwise, the Oxford position seems to be one of curiosity garnished with scepticism. This is certainly my own. Perhaps being a Jordan Peterson stan an overzealous or obsessive fan lacks the sort of nuance that these scholars might purport to possess.

Peterson limps into the room. From the front, he is handsome and thin. His hair is dark grey at the forehead and fades into silver at the collar. He walks up to the platform and there is a standing ovation. I look around and cant see any of the sceptics I met outside they must have transformed into stans. Boy-on-the right joins them. Friend-on-the-left and I stay seated besides, I committed to journalistic neutrality just five minutes ago. There are some booers but theyre nowhere to be seen amongst the standing-stans. I feel very confused.

From the back, Peterson is an old man. At the pub that night someone will remind me of the First Rule for Life: stand up straight with your shoulders back (see 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, 2018). His body is angled, and the way he hunches pushes his frame through his clothes. Something has changed. But, he moves with grace. Jordan Peterson is well dressed and dignified. There is a special elegance in the way he twists his hands as he speaks.

The title of the talk is Imitation of the Divine Ideal, he says, and he tells us about perception, truth, artificial intelligence, the problem of interpretation, cybernetics and robots. I try, but I really cant follow. This isnt the Jordan Peterson I (sort of) know. Ive read the first few chapters of his book, Ive seen the iek debate and Ive watched him own and be owned. Im sure something is different, and this isnt surprising: the Professor has recently overcome a clonazepam addiction and survived a coma, and he now lives by an all-meat diet. Peterson faces the room like a man talking to himself. His gaze hovers at floor-line; the upper chamber is all but invisible. There is an inwardness about the whole address. Richard Dawkins, who is sitting ahead of me, nods along. Some latecomers enter the hall and the bench opposite squeeze up. A girl with perfect hair sits down with the boys in boat shoes.

Peterson tells a story about a child who is scared when he sees a dog on his way to kindergarten. In the first version, he has a panic attack, spurring a lifetime of panic attacks, enabled by what Peterson calls the Oedipal sacrifice of his mother. In the second, the mother tells him to be brave and he walks past the dog to school, and he is fine. Here is some familiar Peterson-style argument I can follow. He talks about metafictional narratives, and I am reminded, with sadness, that I am not a real journalist after all. I make my pretend journalist notes anyway.

He loses me again. Now Peterson is talking about chimpanzees, rats and dogs (lots of dogs). He hasnt mentioned lobsters yet (friend-on-the-left laughs).

Do your controversies overshadow the subtler parts of your work?, someone asks. Peterson pauses for a long second.

No, he says. People always hate when I tell them that, on average, women are shorter than men. Thats not a social construct, and its not controversial: its just a fact.

Everyone laughs, including me. Boy-on-the-right looks up from his computer screen. He shakes his head in disgust. Hes researching for an assignment, and he hasnt listened to a word of the talk. This is his first sign of engagement since the standing ovation (this, being at odds with the rest of his behaviour, leads me to believe that he is deeply confused).

Are you okay?, he asks me.

Yes!;

he thinks I am crying.

I laugh even harder.

Its not that funny, its just absurd.

I know how this goes: we, as (supposedly) rational thinkers, subscribe to the first step of Petersons argument. But now we are on board the Peterson train, and if we stay aboard, we will soon pass under rough skies.

But dont be scared, boy-on-the-right! You should get on the train with us what no one has told you yet is that you can get off wherever you like! Get on with me, and Ill stay with you so long as the sky is flat.

I am not telepathising hard enough, and boy-on-the-right is still staring at his screen. Think about John Stuart Mill, boy-on-the-right! You just cannot be sure that a silenced opinion doesnt contain some element of the truth

Nope.

Were getting to the end of the talk, and finally! Peterson pushes me too far. I climb off the train with friend-on-the-left. We sigh and feel the sweet validation of arriving where we had expected.

What a total waste of an hour, says a girl at the end of the bench. Its true, Peterson was incoherent; but I know much more than I did before, and I am glad. I have been in the belly of the beast, and I have taken its temperature.

I have learnt more about boy-on-the-right than the Imitation of the Divine Ideal: I have seen the people who truly wont listen. Peterson is right about that. Even face-to-face with the enemy, he wont look up from his screen. Why had he even come? He must have been curious like me; and then he must have been afraid. I imagine dead dogmas whizzing around his brain; theyre pastel pink and green because theyre actually Instagram infographics. I know Im right! They are saying. I just dont know why!

Jordan Peterson is burning in a fire of his own making bowing under the pressure of the twenty-four rules he has stacked upon himself. It feels like his career will not continue as before. I think I understand why he believes in God, because he believes in big ideas, and because it all seems to be too much for this man. I do not hate him.

The talk finishes and there is another standing ovation. A head of bright red hair pops up and I recognise the Jordan-Peterson-changed-my-life boy from outside.

I remember a Tweet by bad-bitch Democrat A.O.C (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) from November 2020

Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings [and] photos

and look again at the ambivalent ones cheering all around me.

The students in this room are probably not Trump supporters, but this rhetoric of surveillance has filtered into their consciousness, nonetheless. If A.O.C doesnt scare people out of the wrong ideas, it seems like she just scares them out of expressing them: and I can see that all we have done is force stans to adopt a faade of scepticism. The truth of their feelings has simply been pushed one layer deeper, and all it takes is a round of applause to lift it right up to the surface; the curtain raises for just a moment.

What happens when people are alone, or online? How does suppressed desire express itself then? And what will happen in the polling booth when no one is watching? Many in this room of young men (they make up ninety percent of us) will believe that they are subject to a culture of conformism and hyper-vigilance, and we should diffuse their fears by acknowledging them, not silencing them lest we risk alienating people further (and even pushing them further to the Right). Listening more attentively, and even gently, could invalidate Petersons and A.O.Cs narratives of hostility, and we may find that this is a conflict that we no longer need, and that there is no Culture War without its student soldiers. In some ways, the Jordan-Peterson-spectacle is funny; and we can laugh. But we cannot dismiss these people. Perhaps instead we might look a hunched Professor in the face and ask ourselves: whats it all about?

What do you think youll submit?, asks friend-on-the-left as we close our laptops.

Probably a poem, I say.

Bibliography

@AOC. 6th Nov 2020. Twitter.

Full tweet: Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future

URL: https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1324807776510595078?lang=en

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0

For Cherwell, maintaining editorial independence is vital. We are run entirely by and for students. To ensure independence, we receive no funding from the University and are reliant on obtaining other income, such as advertisements. Due to the current global situation, such sources are being limited significantly and we anticipate a tough time ahead for us and fellow student journalists across the country.

So, if you can, please consider donating. We really appreciate any support youre able to provide; itll all go towards helping with our running costs. Even if you can't support us monetarily, please consider sharing articles with friends, families, colleagues - it all helps!

Thank you!

Original post:
In the belly of Jordan Peterson: ambivalence in question with the ersatz journalist - Cherwell Online

Jordan Peterson explains here why he is no longer teaching at the University of Toronto.

A slice:

This is one of many issues of appalling ideology currently demolishing the universities and, downstream, the general culture. Not least because there simply is not enough qualified BIPOC people in the pipeline to meet diversity targets quickly enough(BIPOC: black, indigenous and people of colour, for those of you not in the knowing woke). This has been common knowledge among any remotely truthful academic who has served on a hiring committee for the last three decades. This means were out to produce a generation of researchers utterly unqualified for the job. And weve seen what that means already in the horrible grievance studies disciplines. That, combined with the death of objective testing, has compromised the universities so badly that it can hardly be overstated.

Read the whole thing.

Read the rest here:
This Is the Academic Lefts Version of Ethnic Cleansing - National Review