- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 28,152
- Reaction score
- 3
This debate at Mythcon I think is a good example of the difference in liberalism today. You have 'liberals' who actually base their ideals on the idea of liberty and freedom, and then you have 'liberals' who have adopted the Marxist aka Progressive ideals of 'Equality' and collectivism.
This will not be the full transcript of the debate, links to the full transcript is below and the full video you can watch on your own.
Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) vs Thomas Smith (Channel Atheism)
This first excerpt, I think, does a great job setting the tone for the rest of the debate.
Thomas: “You’re not a liberal. The liberal stance is that systemic discrimination is a problem. That’s one big part of it.”
Carl: “That’s not the liberal stance, that’s the Marxist stance.”
Thomas: “Unbelievable…”
Right off the bat, it’s clear that Thomas and Carl have incredibly different views on what “liberal” means, and for now, I’m absolutely open to Thomas’ viewpoint, even though I am a fan of Carl’s and agree with his.
Thomas: “Intersectionality is literally the thing that makes [feminism] more individualistic.”
Carl: “That is absolutely absurd, and I can’t believe you just said that.”
Thomas: “Do you want to let me tell you why that argument is true? Intersectionality makes us more individual. Instead of being ‘men vs. women’, instead of being ‘black vs. white’, intersectionality allows us to say ‘men have different experiences than women. Black people have different experiences than white people. Black women have different experiences than white women. Poor white women have different experiences than black women. That’s intersectionality. Intersectionality let’s you break down identities in more dynamic ways.”
Carl: “Are you even listening to yourself? You are collectivizing all of these people, and you’re saying that’s individualism? It’s not. It’s the antithesis of individualism.”
Thomas: “It’s literally the opposite of what you just said. It’s allowing people’s identity to be multifaceted. It’s allowing socioeconomic status to be part of it, it’s allowing race to be a part of it, it’s allowing gender to be part of it.”
Carl: “Again, you’re categorizing them into classes, Thomas.”
Thomas: “Yea.”
Carl: “That’s collectivism. That’s not individualism.”
Thomas: “What I’m saying is that intersectionality is what gets us that more intricate level of identity.”
Carl: “Of control, yes! But individualism is that people should be free. Do you not get how all of this is completely antithetical to the concept of liberty? Let’s get down to the principle, you are not for freedom. You are for equality of outcome rather than liberty. That is the fundamental issue of our time, and you should probably know that.”
Thomas seems to think that because he groups people into an infinite number of categories, that he is granting them individuality, not realizing that it is the act of categorizing people into the permutation of group that he sees as meaningful that is stripping them of their individuality.
Thomas: “If we’re going to talk about how to make society better, we — “
Carl: “We’re not. We’re going to talk about how to make society free!”
Carl: “Racial discrimination is bad no matter who it is happening to. It’s not a defensible position.”
Thomas: “The status quo discriminates. I’m in favor of making things more equal.”
Carl: “Ok, I’m not. I’m in favor of making things more free.”
Thomas: “Freedom entails discrimination. Freedom allows White Men to control everything.”
Carl: “Oh my god. ”
It seems that Thomas disapproves of freedom because “it allows White Men to control everything.”