Cancel This!

How people cheat in the war of ideas.

By
7

Jonah’s finally back from Europe after plotting world domination there for the last few months, and he’s ready to get the Remnant party started. Today’s episode features the overdue return of Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He’s written a new book, The Canceling of the American Mind, which digs into the rise of cancel culture in American life and what we can do to reverse it. But how should cancel culture be defined in the first place? Why does Greg see it as a crisis of historic proportions? How can colleges be fixed? And is Jonah the ultimate grifter?

Show Notes:

– Greg’s webpage

– Greg’s new book, The Canceling of the American Mind

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By
Comments (7)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Jimtung

    It is "Red Storm Rising", not "The Hunt for Red October" where Gen. Alekseyev decides to execute 4 colonels for faking readiness reports.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Michael Garrett

    Is it just a coincidence that this episode dropped on the day that early action applications were due at those elite colleges?

    Collapse
  3. Christopher Lake

    Some people, apparently, just don't want to believe that this issue (of increasing, damaging, cancel culture on *both* the right and the left) is a very real, and only too serious, problem. I believe that it's a real and serious problem, based on data, some of which is mentioned in in this interview. (Thanks, Jonah and Greg!) Maybe, such skeptics never will believe it, *unless or until* it directly affects them, and their own lives are seriously damaged by it in some way.

    In that vein, I was in a discussion (well, an attempted discussion) recently in the "Dispatch" comments, with a subscriber who kept repeating, over and over, that the "cancel culture narrative" is phony, not real, overblown (Well, which is it? Phony, or overblown, or something else?), etc. His tactics ranged from outright denial, to moving of goalposts in the discussion, to changing the subject-- he used all of them. I was very happy to say to him that I oppose a cancel culture mentality and atmosphere on *both the right and the left*-- and the truth is, too many people on both sides *do* engage in the furthering of that kind of thinking, and in repressive, "cancel culture-friendly" actions.

    In response to his challenges, I tried to point my discussion partner to sources for actual data on cancel culture, such as an almost hour-long interview on Youtube between Greg L. and Andrew Yang, where they find a lot of common ground on concerns, rooted in data, over cancel culture. No dice for my interlocutor. He didn't seem to really want to take the time to watch the interview, and yet, he accused me of being blindly committed to my narrative on cancel culture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6pR6qdMTgY

    I sent him a link to this Harper's Magazine open letter from 2020 on increasing problems with cancel culture on the left, a letter signed mostly by liberals and leftists (!) of various professions: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ Again, no dice. He read the letter, came back, and said that their concerns were overblown, and that it's not a real and serious problem, other than, in his view, with people on the right, who hypocritically invoke the cancel culture narrative when they are attacked, and then, *use* cancel culture against people whom they oppose.

    At the end of our (attempted) discussion, he said that I appeared to be "married to my narrative," and that, again, it's not a real and serious problem, except with hypocrites on the right. It was as if he had no self-awareness at all, when it came to his dogged commitment to denial and obfuscation on this issue. It was actually impressive, albeit in a dubious, and completely unintentional, way!

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    Good chat. I hope the book is a success.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    James Joyce

    surprised to hear Jonah admit to only now coming to a full understanding of how pernicious, in the Orwellian sense, the leftist project is - always seemed clear to me that every 'idea' the left pushes is just some version of Winston Smith being forced to believe that 2+2=5, it's all about controlling people's perceptions of reality so that the state becomes the sole arbiter of truth - a deeply flawed revolutionary credo absolutely requires such blinded 'faith' in order to succeed - also why Orwell said the revolution can never end for the ignorance the authoritarian state runs on must forever be in the process of 'renewal'

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Christopher Jenkins

      Are you not familiar with Jonah's writing over the last 20+ years? The perniciousness of the leftist project is a recurring theme, to say the least.

      Also, what exactly did he say in the podcast that led you to believe he's just now realizing this?

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      The Bell Tower

      Thought the same but I always feel like Jonah gives more than reasonable rope to counter arguments and that is to his great credit.

      A lot of this Orwellian stuff is intentional not in a conspiracy sense but rather in a fellow traveler type sense. I think a lot of these “revolutionaries” understand their role and intentionally infiltrate places like editorial rooms, HR departments, faculties, etc. to push their agenda.

      In organizational theory, a good vision statement arms the team with clarity on how to act when the boss isn’t there to be consulted. For example, Gates’ “A computer on every desk.” Walt Disney’s vision of all employees being in a show while they’re working is another very clear example that lives on in the parks long after his death.

      Too many of these college kids have picked up the idea that ruthlessly pushing and enforcing these authoritarian rules around opinions is how they spread the revolution. And it isn’t without precedent if you study the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, etc.

      I always think of Representatives on Mission in France. They were radicalized in the cities and exported to various remote districts and specifically the military and they were empowered to enforce revolutionary dogma even over generals and high ranking officials.

      This is exactly how the “elite” universities are operating in America albeit without the open intentions. The end result is the same: a bunch of zealots pushed into high places understanding that their primary job is to push an agenda before anything else they might do.

      Collapse