“Conservatism is the new Punk Rock”. Discuss. – A Guest Post by Philip Moriarty

It’s been a while since I had a guest post on this blog so it’s a pleasure to present this, by Philip Moriarty, to add to your reading for the Bank Holiday Weekend. Phil and I have had a number of exchanges over the years about the possibility of him writing a post for In The Dark and I’m very happy that it’s finally happened!

Take it away, Philip Moriarty…

–o–

If the conversations and feedback I’ve had at recent “social media in academia” meetings are anything to go by, I suspect that the majority of my academic friends and colleagues will be unaware of the source of the quote above. Although ignorance is certainly the more blissful option here, those of us with any semblance of interest in diversity, equality, gender balance, and widening participation issues in higher education need to start paying attention to just why memes like the title of this post are gaining such wide traction online. That way we can learn a great deal about the origins of the hostility that academics, on either side of the political divide, are increasingly facing, both inside and outside (see also this) the lecture theatre. Forewarned is forearmed [1].

The  “Conservatism is the New Punk Rock” tagline was popularised earlier this year by a certain Paul Joseph Watson, of Infowars infamy.  Watson is a conspiracy theorist-cum-YouTube pundit-cum-Alt-Right talking ranting head who, when not being given a thorough dressing-down on Twitter for his amusingly uninformed bleating about ethnicity in Roman Britain [2], spends his time as editor-at-large of the aforementioned Infowars. He’s essentially a bargain basement Milo Yiannopoulos [3]; a self-styled “New Right” provocateur who believes that it’s the height of cultural cool to channel the casual seventies racism and bigotry of an Alf Garnett or a Bernard Manning.

And the problem is that Watson is dead right about this new breed of conservatism.

Generation Z. Plus ça change…

Oatmeal_Cartoon

It’s now achingly edgy in some teenage (and permateen) circles to espouse bigotry, to rail against “PC culture”, and — as the YouTuber ContraPoints pointed out in a recent online discussion — to echo the views of a stereotypically racist grandmother. Even the more moderate in those particular cliques appear to have adopted the mindset of an uber-reactionary lifelong Tory backbencher. Bizarrely, this is what passes for teenage rebellion these days.

To illustrate what I mean, I’m afraid that I’m going to have to ask you to forgo the conventional advice on reading comments sections online. (My apologies for this — we all know that online forums are where the touchingly naive “marketplace of ideas” concept goes to die.) I suggest that you take a look at the comments under the “Conservatism is the new Counter-Culture” video Watson uploaded back in February. Here are just three comments that I happened upon in a cursory ten second trawl through the thread:

PJW_1

PJW_2

PJW_3

All anonymous, of course, so we have no way of telling whether or not each claim to be a Millenial/member of Generation Z — which are both rather ill-defined in terms of the date-of-birth range that they span in any case — holds up to scrutiny. But there’s very good reason to believe that Watson and his ilk indeed appeal to large sections of those particular demographics. Putting the demographic diversity (or lack thereof) of his audience to one side, however, Watson and others like him have subscriber bases numbering in the hundreds of thousands to over one million. Watson himself recently passed 1M subscribers on YouTube. On Twitter, Watson has got some way to go before he reaches the lofty heights of, for example, a Deepak Chopra (3.18M and rising steadily; another one in the eye for the marketplace of ideas). But, nonetheless, he, and other “New Right” pundits like him, clearly appeal to a sizable audience.

A defining feature of Generation Z is that they are, if you’ll excuse the jargon, digital natives. I’m a couple of chapters into Angela Nagle’s brilliant Kill All Normies at the moment. If you’d like to get an insight into just how internet subcultures and communities have influenced the rise of the New Right (and the alt-right, and neo-Nazism, and anti-social-justice cliques etc…) I enthusiastically recommend both Nagle’s book and Whitney Phillips’ This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things [4]. (Be warned, however, Nagle’s book, while being critical of the new right/alt-right, doesn’t exactly go easy on those on the left of the political spectrum. It’s equal opportunities critique.)

Nagle and Phillips each highlight the importance of the meme culture of the internet, of the pervasive influence of message boards like 4chan, and of anonymity’s central contribution to online interactions.  But they also both focus on the key role of transgression: of pushing the boundaries, of ‘edginess’ in youth sub-cultures. It was ever thus, of course — each and every generation kicks against the pricks. And transgression of this type is key to understanding the rise of the “new right” among certain Generation Z sub-cultures.

With parents who will be counted among the “normies” of the title of Nagle’s book — conventional, staid, boring, “virtue signalling” and, most of all, politically correct — what better way for the more aggrieved and brooding members of Generation Z to rebel than to reject PC culture? “Fuck your feelings” and all that. (Of course, the Right (New or otherwise) is just as sensitive and prone to signalling as the “PC” Left on very many issues. More on this soon but let’s not have ugly facts get in the way of a good narrative just yet.)

Like many who regularly read the In The Dark blog [5], I’m an academic — a physicist at the University of Nottingham.  (I used to blog quite regularly. Less so now). In common with practically all other UK universities, the majority of our undergraduate students are members of Generation Z. (This was made abundantly clear to me while I spent days answering the phone during the clearing period after A-level results were released last week. I entered a lot of date-of-birth details for applicants into online forms. My, but did I feel old.)  If, as Watson suggests, the New Right indeed has quite some cachet among Generation Z — and we certainly don’t need to rely on Watson’s YouTube content for evidence of this; hyperbolic paranoia about ‘leftist’ professors brainwashing their classes is rife out there [6] — we academics need to be rather less complacent and naive about the extent to which our continued focus on diversity and inclusion will be met with unalloyed enthusiasm by some undergraduate students. We should perhaps expect some resistance.

And that brings me to…

Inclusion Matters

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), which funds the bulk of physics research in the UK, has very recently announced an innovative and welcome new funding scheme focused on furthering equality, diversity and inclusion in engineering and physical sciences research. Here’s how the EPSRC describes the call:

Funding of up to £5 million is available to support around ten inspiring applications with duration of up to 24 months to promote a more diverse, fair and inclusive engineering and physical sciences community. There is no limit on how large or small requests for funding can be.

(…listen carefully now and you too will hear the frantic rattling of keyboards late into the night as a certain hypersensitive online faction catches wind of this funding scheme. Of late, the Ghostbusters remake, superheroes on tins of pasta, and the announcement of a female Doctor have each been enough to drive the righteous anger of that faction to new heights as they bemoan the injustice of it all. The levels of distress caused by EPSRC’s allocation of £5M to diversity and inclusion in STEM could well be off the scale. Perhaps some type of helpline might be in order?)

All joking aside, while EPSRC is to be loudly applauded for establishing this funding initiative, the potential for a significant backlash is very high indeed. Too often, as academics we assume that all it takes to fix a problem is education, education, education. This is unfortunately exceptionally naive in political/ideological contexts, particularly, and especially, when it comes to the types of gender balance and diversity issues that EPSRC hopes to address. The James Damore/Google manifesto furore that broke out at the end of last month highlighted just how much sensitivity underpins the themes of the Inclusion Matters call.

I’m not going to go into a blow-by-blow dissection of Damore’s claims here. For one, it’s already been done by so many others much better than I ever could (here, here, and here. And definitely here. Oh, and here.) For another, a couple of weeks ago I spent a little over two hours chatting with my friend the “Ranting Feminist” (RF is, in fact, among the least ranty people I know) about Damore’s claim that the science backs up his position on the aptitudes and preferences of women in STEM fields. The science of course does no such thing — it’s equivocal at best and there’s a complete lack of consensus in many areas, as RF and I discuss in the video below. Moreover, Damore’s claim of “universal” traits, independent of culture and environment, is a remarkably uninformed, unscientific, and unconvincing position that can be readily rebutted when it comes to, for example, aptitude in maths.

(The slides I use in the video are here).

I refer to Angela Saini‘s Inferior a number of times during the discussion with RF. Beg, borrow, steal, or, better, shell out some of your hard-earned cash for Saini’s book. You will not regret it. It’s an exceptionally good piece of writing which provides a well-balanced analysis of the science (and the pseudoscience) underpinning gender differences. (I thought I was a major fan of Saini’s work until I met Jess Wade at the recent SciFoo conference at the Googleplex. Jess had bought up a supply of Saini’s book to hand out during the session she organised!) While I’m at it, I’ll also strongly recommend BBC2’s “No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?“, presented by Javid Abelmoneim. I watched Part 1 with my kids over the weekend and they were so engrossed they had to tell me to shut up because I was talking over the TV at one point. (Those who may be upset by the title of the BBC programme alone should perhaps pay attention to the trigger warning at the start of the discussion with RF above).

What would Sagan say? The Cult of Peterson.

At about the 1:41:00 mark in the video above, we turn to a consideration of Prof. Jordan Peterson, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, who currently makes of order $50K per month via Patreon  for his YouTube videos. I’m not going to rehash my arguments about Peterson beyond those in the video largely because Eiynah has comprehensively analysed and dissected the Cult of Peterson in an important post. (Note the Reddit thread to which Eiynah refers where Peterson is described as a prophet.).

The sociology of Peterson’s YT/Patreon/Twitter following is truly fascinating and is part-and-parcel of the “edginess” and cachet of the New Right. Peterson — who, let’s be clear, is an intelligent, charismatic, and eloquent man [7] – largely gained his Patreon and YouTube following via his criticism of hate speech legislation in Canada and his associated often overwrought — or, at worst, histrionic — musings on the descent of modern academia into a Cultural Marxist Lowest Circle of Hell. But what’s remarkable is that Peterson is a Christian conservative who, while railing against the evils of postmodernism (and I’m certainly not a fan of a great deal of postmodern writing), has some very postmodern things indeed to say about the value of scientific truth vs religious/moral truth (or as he puts it, Darwinian truth).

It’s worth taking two hours of your time to listen to the podcast that Sam Harris did with Peterson earlier this year, where they focus on the meaning of truth. Harris repeatedly cuts Peterson’s exceptionally flawed and woolly thinking down to size.  Just like Chopra, and indeed in line with many of the postmodernists Peterson criticises at length, Peterson’s arguments about truth and the nature of reality are dressed up in obscure and impenetrable language — a triumph of style over substance. And yet Peterson attracts a large, and growing, audience of those who would class themselves as rational, skeptical, logical, and atheist in their thinking. Strip away the florid language, however, as Harris does, and the emperor clearly has no clothes.

Listening to Peterson flail around during his podcast with Harris, I couldn’t help but be reminded of Carl Sagan‘s words:

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.

When so-called “rational skeptics” (including many STEM students) enthusiastically embrace the deep postmodernist thoughts of Peterson, it’s clear that the edgy transgressiveness of the New Right has trumped reasoned, logical argument. What does it matter if Peterson argues that the morality and ethics of a scientist studying smallpox defines the truth of the underlying biochemistry? (As he does. No, really — he does.). Let his post-modern views on science slide. What matters is that he’s edgily refused to use the preferred pronouns of transgender students. [8] So where do I sign away my Patreon bucks?

This cult of personality represents something of a challenge for universities, whose core “mission” should be to develop the critical thinking skills of the students we teach. Anyone who comes away from the Harris-Peterson exchange feeling that Peterson successfully argued his position in the face of Harris’ systematic skeptical scrutiny — and, remarkably, many do (just take a look at the comments thread under the YouTube upload of the podcast [9]) — is clearly putting their ideological biases and allegiances before reason, logic, and objectivity. (Ummm, now where have I heard that complaint before?)

“Nazi Punks F**k Off” 

Let’s bring this overlong post to a close by reconnecting with the spirit of punk. The parallels of the 70s punk movement with the rise of the New Right are striking — Paul Joseph Watson is closer to the truth than I suspect he realises.

The photo of the poster below has been circulating widely on Twitter over the last week.  (Kristi Winters, the author of the tweet in question, certainly gave that particular poster a massively large “signal boost” on Twitter — it’s accrued quite a number of retweets in just a few days). It’s a telling example of online culture bleeding into the offline “real” world (and vice versa). The clever visual simplicity of the poster accounts for its popularity and is yet another example of the increasing importance of visual content, rather than traditional text, online. Memes abound. (This is especially troublesome when it comes to how universities instill deep learning, analytic skills, and critical thinking in (some of) Generation Z, but that’s a whole other story.)

The frog at the bottom of the poster, for those of you again blissfully unaware of the relevance, is Pepe, whose tarnished history — in particular, its appropriation by white supremacists  — is described here. What’s more important in the context of Paul J Watson’s “new punk” aphorism, however, is that there are also those who use the Pepe symbol/meme online (alongside other in-group signalling such as the Kekistani flag and the appropriation of Nazi symbols and gestures) who are adamant that they are not neo-Nazi or alt-right sympathisers. Here’s a good example:

DHV6wUeW0AEJolm

The appropriation of Nazi symbolism and gestures, and the use of all those Pepe/ Kekistan memes clichés, is apparently edgy and transgressive, it’s pushing the envelope, it’s all about freedom of speech. And that type of posturing and signalling has, of course, definitely not got anything to do with the “identity politics” so despised by some on the Right. Nothing at all. Zilch. Nada. Definitely not. Because that’s how the “Regressive Left” behaves. The Pepe meme and the Kekistan flag “ironically” critique in-group dynamics and identity politics…by fostering and strengthening in-group dynamics, group-think, and identity politics. Right?

Yawn.

For something meant to be so “edgy”, this is all so tediously deja vu. The older punk generation did it all before back in the seventies. They could certainly teach the new breed a thing or two about the appropriation of Nazi symbols…

itemsfs_10344

That’s Siouxsie Sioux, of Siouxsie and the Banshees fame, at the front of the queue for the 100 Club in London for the first punk rock festival in 1976. You might notice that she’s proudly sporting her swastika arm-band. This is state-of-the-art edginess, seventies-style.

Siouxsie’s appropriation of Nazi icongraphy, and the use of an anti-Semitic lyric here or there, could never backfire, could it? It’s all just a bit of fun. You’d have to be a “normie” to take it seriously.

Well, let’s hear what Siouxsie herself has to say. The following excerpts from an interview back in 2005 are telling. Siouxsie at first sounds just like a member of today’s Pepe/Kekistan/”ironic Nazi” club:

For much of 1976, Siouxsie wore swastika armbands in an attempt to enrage the Establishment’s ‘we fought a war for the likes of you’ mindset. She succeeded, though today her naivety- what NME’s Julie Burchill decried as “making a fashion accessory out of the death of millions of people”-seems unforgivable. Siouxsie is surprisingly frank, if unrepentant.

“The culture around then,” she explains, “it was Monty Python, Basil Fawlty, Freddie Starr, The Producers- ‘Springtime For Hitler’.” She kicks out her leg in a mock goosestep. “It was very much Salon Kitty. It was used as a glamour thing. And you know what?” she sighs.” I have to be honest but I do like the Nazi uniform. I shouldn’t say it but I think it’s a very good-looking uniform.”

You shouldn’t say it for fear of upsetting the PC mob?

“Yeah. It’s almost like you feel like saying,’Aw, come on. Nazis – they’re brilliant.’ Political correctness becomes imprisoning. It’s very – what’s the word? It’s being very Nazi! It’s ironic but this PC-ness is so fucking fascist. In America they’re especially touchy about Nazis and it’s so Nazi! You go to LA and it’s so segregated. It’s very Nazi and the irony is they don’t get it. They don’t realise how Nazi they are about taking offence to mentioning the word Nazi.”

Let’s leave aside the issue of the comparable PC hypersensitivity of the right, and scroll down that interview a little to see just what effect Siouxsie’s penchant for Nazi memorabilia and “ironic” anti-Semitism had on the Banshees’ audience (and, subsequently, Siouxsie herself).

What about the accusation of anti-Semitism? Come on, there was that original lyric in “Love In A Void”: “Too many Jews for my liking”…

“That was a Severin lyric.”

You sang it.

“Yeah, I sang it, but I took it as it was meant, as ‘skinflints’. Obviously a lot of people didn’t get it that way, so it was changed.”

Sadly, not in time to prevent the Far Right from claiming Siouxsie as one of their own. Dismayed by the NF‘s attendance at gigs, she resorted to wearing a Star of David T-shirt as a middle finger to the BNP.

We reap what we sow.


 

[1] A major irritation in online communication is the exceptional and tiresome literal-mindedness that is often encountered. Subtlety and nuance are in very short supply. I’ve been “burnt” by this previously (on many occasions) so let me state here, for the record, that this is not a literal call to arms. [Add smiley emoticon to taste].

[2] There’s a rich seam of irony to be explored here in relation to Watson’s call for historical accuracy. This is someone who helped propagate the absurdly inaccurate nonsense of PizzaGate, which even Alex Jones, Watson’s boss at InfoWars, subsequently disavowed. Watson also regularly pitches in to disseminate some classic beyond-bonkers conspiracy theories.  He’s a rank amateur in the conspiracy theorist stakes, however, compared to Mr. Jones, whose hateful dismissal of the Sandy Hook tragedy, and the consequent pain caused to the parents of the murdered children, is truly despicable.

[3] Prior to the precipitous drop in his public speaking engagements prompted by his comments on paedophilia, Yiannopoulos was also very fond of trotting out the “conservatism is the new punk rock” mantra.

[4] Hat-tip and thanks to Karen Lumsden and Mark Carrigan for the recommended reads.

[5] Thanks, Peter, for this opportunity to write a guest post for In The Dark. Embarrassingly, particularly as I’m a big fan of your blog, it’s only taken me about three years to get round to it…

[6] I only wish I could routinely brainwash undergraduate students. There’d be a heck of a lot more Rush fans emerging from my lectures…

[7] One important criticism that can be levelled at both the left and the right of the online political spectrum is that there’s a strong tendency to demonise and indulge personal attacks. (And I’ve regrettably not been blameless here). For example, and despite my criticisms of Peterson’s arguments, I’m not at all comfortable with this. Peterson has spoken very movingly about his mental health issues in the past. I think we do our critiques of Peterson a disservice if we exploit those mental health issues to ridicule him.

[8] It’s similarly worrying when an academic feels that it’s fine to use a slur popularised by 4chan/8chan (which has subsequently diffused “overground” via the worst corners of social media). Steve Fuller has caught a lot of flak at this point for his lack of judgement in posting this a couple of days ago: “Academic Autism: Its Institutional presence and Treatment”. The use of “autistic” as a perjorative is exceptionally common among those edgy meme-driven teenage and permateen sub-cultures online. It’s immensely dispiriting that the slur has now been normalised to the extent that an academic feels free to similarly adopt the pejorative. Nonetheless, Steve has apologised more than once and I don’t think it’s at all helpful at this stage to castigate him any further. We all make mistakes and I, for one, can certainly not get on my high-horse when it comes to inappropriate language online.

[9] What the heck am I saying? Definitely don’t do this.

Advertisements

21 Responses to ““Conservatism is the new Punk Rock”. Discuss. – A Guest Post by Philip Moriarty”

  1. Fascinating post, Philip! (Many years ago, you taught me undergraduate thermodynamics at Nottingham.)

    I hadn’t drawn the punk connection myself, but it makes a lot of sense.

    • Philip Moriarty Says:

      Hi, Brendan.

      Delighted you enjoyed the post.

      The parallels between the “none more edgy” Keke/Pep fraternity and the punk movement in the seventies (including the Siouxsie Sioux example) are brought out extremely well in Nagle’s “Kill All Normies” book. It’s an illuminating read.

      Philip

      P.S. My deep and sincere apologies for the trauma of having to endure my thermodynamics lectures. We re-vamped our undergrad courses a while ago so that there’s now no thermodynamics (or indeed kinetic theory) in Year 1 — the first time our current undergrads see a Carnot cycle is as part of the Thermal and Stat Mech module in Year 2.

  2. Phillip Helbig Says:

    “Be warned, however, Nagle’s book, while being critical of the new right/alt-right, doesn’t exactly go easy on those on the left of the
    political spectrum. It’s equal opportunities critique.”

    And well it should be. Actually, I see the “new left” as more dangerous. Why? Every thinking person knows that right-wing politics is just wrong. So, stupid rants from that side is nothing new. Sadly, some people on the left, or at least they self-identify as being on the left, are becoming more and more irrational.

    In my balanced opinion, I recommend Jerry Coyne’s blog if you want to stay abreast of this stuff, even though he banned me from posting in a “the irony, it burns” fashion which he doesn’t even seem to understand.

    • Interesting comment Phillip. I used to read Jerry’s blog regularly, and I too was banned from commenting — I posted some useful links and advice on how to communicate science to a lay audience after he posted something about the reaction he received in one of his public lectures (to be honest, I thought the response to his lecture was quite valid, but his reaction to that response was not a good one). I find he doesn’t take well meaning, constructive criticism very well and I would actually lump him in as part of the problem — as in “arrogant elitist telling us ordinary people what to think”. I don’t think he has the ability to put himself in someone else shoes and see the argument from the opposite position. I loved his science writing, but his political and social comment was too authoritarian for me.

      • Phillip Helbig Says:

        My thoughts exactly.

        I suspect that he allows two type of comments: those which agree with him, painting him in a good light, and those which don’t but which are obviously loony, achieving the same end.

        I realize that it is his blog and not a public forum per se, but there is some irony in that he is a rather strict chamption of free speech yet cannot tolerate even polite constructive criticism in the comments section.

        I had made the same comment on many other blogs and it didn’t even provoke much discussion.

        On almost all issues, especially his deconstruction of the “regressive left”, I tend to agree with him.

        By the way, during a break from cosmology I worked in oceanographic modelling for a while in Bremen (in a group which also included many former astronomers); one of my more highly cited papers is from that work.

      • “By the way, during a break from cosmology I worked in oceanographic modelling for a while in Bremen (in a group which also included many former astronomers); one of my more highly cited papers is from that work.”

        Hah! Mine is the other way round. A paper I wrote with my PhD supervisor on cosmic inflation with exponential potential is my most cited paper, though there are a couple of oceanography ones that are catching up. The paper Peter and I wrote has yet to be discovered, but when it is, I’m sure it will take the field by storm!

  3. Phillip Helbig Says:

    I remember an interview with Siouxsie (what a stupid name!) in Mojo a few years back, spouting similar bullshit.

    I never got punk, neither musically nor politically. It’s not like they perhaps overshot the mark—there was no mark.

    In the words of Steve Hackett: “When punk swept in, it was prejudice incarnate, ignorance hailed as virtue.”

    • Philip Moriarty Says:

      Hi, Phillip.

      Really good to be exchanging comments with you again — it’s been a while! I’ve always enjoyed our discussions.

      Can’t agree with you re. punk, however. Yes, Hackett is righ about some elements of punk but just as you point out in your first comment re. equal opportunities, let’s not paint everyone with the same brush.

      Dead Kennedys are hardly the pinnacle of ignorance — Jello Biafra et al. wrote some inspired (and inspiring) social commentary in the form of punk music. We can add to that list Bad Brains, Black Flag, Operation Ivy, NoMeansNo (punk or post-punk?!), NOFX, Bad Religion — particularly Bad Religion, and, of course, The Clash.

      And that’s just for starters…

      Philip

      • Philip Moriarty Says:

        And, of course, those particular bands go on to inspire others in genres rather different from punk. The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy’s take on the Kennedys’ “California Uber Alles” is a particular case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBAkOifDeSw

      • Phillip Helbig Says:

        “Really good to be exchanging comments with you again — it’s been a while! I’ve always enjoyed our discussions.”

        Likewise. Your blog has become rather inactive. While I understand the frustration which led to your retreat, you seem to have perhaps thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

        Hackett was referring to the musical aspect. I have to agree with him there. Also the sense that progressive rock was some sort of serious enemy. (The Boring Old Farts in Genesis were 27 at the time.) And much of it was phony, the whole image thing designed by Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood. A few years ago, I saw McLaren in a chat show praising the genius of the Bee Gees’ Saturday Night Fever (neither progressive nor punk). I don’t know if he had changed his mind, was a hypoctire, or was never really behind punk in the first place.

        Yes, there were some bands like the Dead Kennedys and so on who were a cut above the rabble, but I am still oblivious to the music itself and what it inspired. I don’t think any music I listen to was inspired by punk, neither positively nor negatively.

  4. Philip Moriarty Says:

    @Phillip “I don’t think any music I listen to was inspired by punk, neither positively nor negatively.”

    Oh, I beg to differ, Phillip! Despite Harris’ loud protestations to the contrary, the first Iron Maiden album clearly borrowed quite some inspiration from punk. Di’anno was hardly the most accomplished of singers, but he could do that punky snarl very well, and the guitars are more “buzzsaw” in places than the Pistols could ever manage!

    NWOBHM was a blend of punk and old school metal, and Motorhead of course always appealed to both the punk and metal contingents.

    As regards my blog, I can see your point. When, however, I was having to field libelous abuse and threats there or at my — also now defunct – YouTube channel, I think you’ll agree that there are rather better things I can be doing with my life.

    I’ve certainly substantially revised my opinion about the value of unfettered online ‘debate’ in the light of all that: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/05/02/rules-of-engagement-seven-lessons-from-communicating-above-and-below-the-line/

    • Philip Moriarty Says:

      Sorry, Phillip, forgot this:

      A few years ago, I saw McLaren in a chat show praising the genius of the Bee Gees’ Saturday Night Fever (neither progressive nor punk)

      But Saturday Night Fever is genius! When even a member of the Zappa lineage covers it (with no less a luminary than Donny Osmond), the brothers Gibb have clearly earned their place in the pantheon of classic music…

      • Phillip Helbig Says:

        “But Saturday Night Fever is genius! When even a member of the Zappa lineage covers it (with no less a luminary than Donny Osmond), the brothers Gibb have clearly earned their place in the pantheon of classic music…-“

        I agree. Even if one doesn’t like them, one has to respect them. Which is precisely my point. Disco was one of the main enemies of punk, so it was rather strange to hear McLaren praising SNF!

        We rarely converse, but I say “Good morning, John” if I see him. He’s a very nice fellow, his wife is very nice. I don’t even think he knows I play guitar or anything. I try to keep it down.

        —Joe Bonamassa [who just happens to live next-door to Johnny Rotten]

      • Phillip Helbig Says:

        I”nput file has No video stream” is all I see.

    • Phillip Helbig Says:

      “Despite Harris’ loud protestations to the contrary, the first Iron Maiden album clearly borrowed quite some inspiration from punk. Di’anno was hardly the most accomplished of singers, but he could do that punky snarl very well, and the guitars are more “buzzsaw” in places than the Pistols could ever manage!

      NWOBHM was a blend of punk and old school metal, and Motorhead of course always appealed to both the punk and metal contingents.”

      I’ve never been a fan of Motörhead. As for Maiden, yes, there might be a bit of punk influence in the early days, but that is one aspect which I tend to avoid. “Empire of the Clouds” owes nothing to punk, I claim. (Is there a term for fans of Iron Maiden? With a huge collection of English folk music, “maidenhead” has other connotations.)

      • Philip Moriarty Says:

        @Phillip I”nput file has No video stream” is all I see.

        Click on the “play” button. It’s just an audio track.

  5. “What does it matter if Peterson argues that the morality and ethics of a scientist studying smallpox defines the truth of the underlying biochemistry? (As he does. No, really — he does.)”

    I’m not sure that Peterson really does claim that empirical facts about the underlying biochemistry of smallpox varies according to the morality and ethics of those involved in studying it.

    To my mind Peterson isn’t engaging in some kind of postmodern relativism in which scientific experiments yield different results according to which gender or culture is possessed by the person doing the experimenting, or by the amount of moral fibre they possess. (Actually I’ve never seen anyone seriously make those kind of claims although the fields of feminist science [1] and continental philosophy [2] often attract criticisms that they are making such claims by people who have no idea what these terms mean).

    The discussion around this point is horribly tangled, and to my mind neither Peterson or Harris is doing much to find common ground, but I think Peterson is aiming to make a different kind of claim.

    Elsewhere in the conversation he tries to outline problems in the larger metaphysics of truth but in this section the disagreement seems much simpler. Harris wants to be able to use the word ‘truth’ to apply to all claims, great or small, which comport with facts established by empirical means. Peterson, on the other hand, wants to reserve the word ‘truth’ for overarching principles which guide and shape right action. In this conception the good and the true can’t be separated out the way that Harris wants to.

    In other parts of the conversation Peterson tries to clarify the distinction he is making by referring to empirical facts as ‘trivially true’ (suggesting there is a ‘greater’ version of truth that is non-trivial) or by alluding to ‘higher truths’, which are the ones he wants to champion. Obviously this kind of language smacks of God talk and Harris is unsurprisingly resistant to accepting that distinction but many schools of philosophy would accept that difference. For Peterson, I suspect, facts about the underlying biochemistry of smallpox don’t vary according to the moral climate of the lab in which it is grown but these facts are true only in a trivial sense of the word

    Some folk in the comment section are referring to this distinction as a semantic quibble, which is partly the case, but it does ultimately rest on some pretty fundamental questions about how truth claims come to be validated.

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tva6ZsQv7_M

    2. https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/334656775196393473?lang=en

    • Philip Moriarty Says:

      Hi, Fred.

      Sorry for taking so very long to reply. Your analysis here is, as ever, thoughtful and thought-provoking but I’m afraid that I can’t agree with the opening premise:

      I’m not sure that Peterson really does claim that empirical facts about the underlying biochemistry of smallpox varies according to the morality and ethics of those involved in studying it.

      The problem with Peterson is that, just like the worst of the postmodernist school of thought he criticises, his arguments, such as they are, tend to be couched in impenetrable and willfully obscure language. His fans (of which there are many) will claim that this is because Peterson operates on a much higher intellectual plane than the rest of us mere mortals. But scratch the surface — and this is what Harris does in the podcast to which I refer — and it’s clear that an awful lot of Peterson’s shtick is a massive case of style-over-substance. Ironically, precisely this criticism can be leveled at many in the postmodernist camp and it’s a key aspect that Sokal lampooned so well back in the 90s.

      I realise that Sam Harris is not, errm, universally appreciated by some (many?) who share my left-of-centre political/ideological bent. I would ask them to put that to one side and listen to the podcast with Peterson as objectively as they can. If they do, they’ll hear Harris systematically take Peterson to task and refuse to let him obfuscate his way out of answering a question.

      Here’s one example of where Peterson does indeed claim that empirical facts can potentially vary according to the morality and ethics of those involved in studying an aspect of science…

      —–

      At ~ 1:28:40 in the “Waking Up with Sam Harris #62” podcast with Peterson (YouTube version) we have:
       
      Harris: “The rightness or wrongness of the claim is not going to be adjudicated by whether we survive as a species…[snip]
       
      Yes, this whole effort can be wisely guided or not but whether it’s widely guided or not does not change the factual legitimacy of any of those claims.”
       
      Peterson: “Yes, it might…”

      —–

      Note that Peterson doesn’t respond with a “No, of course not. That would be a ludicrous claim” or “No, that’s not what I’m saying”. He states bluntly “Yes, it might” (and then goes on to explain, in his usual obscurantist and rambling style, why he thinks this).

      This is the height of cultural relativism. It’s exactly the type of postmodern position that Sokal was attacking when he said the following: “Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. I live on the twenty-first floor.”

    • Phillip Helbig Says:

      “Actually I’ve never seen anyone seriously make those kind of claimsalthough the fields of feminist science”

      There is some ludicrous stuff out there. It should be easy to find the claim that the Principia is a rape manual (considering all the macho scientists to go after, Newton, who never married and might have been gay, seems a strange target—but of course those making such claims know little of Newton or the Principia) and that physics investigated rigid bodies (nudge, nudge; wink, wink) a long time ago while there are still unsolved problems in fluid dynamics (which, cue menstruation, is more feminine). No, I am not making these up.
      .
      .

      • Hi Phillip. Sorry for the delay in replying. Should I be getting notification? I dunno.

        Anyway, I totally agree that this is a fair amount of hyperbole on many sides, on many sides, when it comes to this stuff but the key point for me is that even the most ardent critic of gendered language doesn’t usually dispute the empirical facts, including the author of the piece on Newton you mention (or indeed Luce Irigaray who described e=mc2 as a ‘sexed equation’). These critiques target the culture of science, which might include the way that language is used to frame empirical facts, but not the facts themselves.

        Thanks for replying, and apologies again for taking so long to see your comment.

        Fred

    • Phillip Helbig Says:

      > 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tva6ZsQv7_M

      Couldn’t have said it better myself.

      > 2. https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/334656775196393473?lang=en

      A classic example of someone who is probably OK in his own area of expertise, but a) not outside it (no problem with that) but b) pontificates on topics about which he knows far too little, making him look like a jerk. Here is another amusing example of a similar sort of mistake, with a nice ironic punch line (read the whole thing, though): https://thegeekygaeilgeoir.wordpress.com/2017/09/06/even-racists-got-the-blues/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: