Social Justice Warriors and the Dark Horse Podcast

This month, The Cameron Journal is proud to be sponsored by The Blinkist. We all need time to read but finding that time is hard. Blinkist makes it far easier by summarizing popular books and thought leaders into small chunks that you can listen to into the gym or in the car. Sign up with the Blinkist to start the learning today.

N.B. I listened to several videos from their podcast and took copious notes but wasn’t necessarily able to stitch it all together into the usual narrative that I produce. This is a little all over the place and for that I apologize.

Bret Weinstein rocketed to international fame when he protested against the Evergreen College Day of Absence, where white students were advised to stay off-campus so that students of color could have the whole place to themselves. Traditionally, the event had been in reverse. Students of color would not attend a school that day to show their contributions, but in 2017, the college reversed the policy. He wrote a faculty letter against the idea and caused terrible rancor, and was subsequently let go. Out of that moment, he and his brother Eric became the vanguards of what would be called the Intellectual Dark Web. 

The IDW is a group of center-left academics and others who push back against society’s social changes and particularly against Social Justice Warriors. The IDW is not new, and I’ve written about them before. Most of them aren’t necessarily Trump supporters but weren’t as virulently opposed to him as those farther to the Left. They challenge the dominant Leftist narratives, and while I find some of their premises odd or even dishonest, I do like many other parts of what they propose.  Bret is back with his new Darkhorse podcast with Heather Heying, and they are talking about a variety of topics ranging from Covid to climate change and, of course, social justice warriors. One of the hot topics covered by the IDW (and even Sam Harris, who recently declared his independence from this unofficial group) is reason and rationality. The claim is simple; the Left has lost all rationality and logic. There is lots of talk about logic and rationality but whose? 

I have curated some videos of the podcast and I’ve selected some topics that I want to talk about in relation to some of their videos and some of the things that they have said. I want to analyze their unique philosophy that is very old-school conservative democrat and understand more about their perspective.

Post social justice warriors

The social justice warrior has gone from a noble figure to something of a Facebook comment section joke. The idea of people taking on social justice and being a warrior for it was at one time trendy and cool. Now SJWs are shorthand not only for the phrase but also for the new crop of crazy leftists. SJWs have pioneered changes at all levels of society, like the kind that got Bret Weinstein fired from Evergreen College. Seeking to erase the inequalities of the past, social justice warriors have protested, started a variety of online campaigns, and in the last decade, they have changed American culture. SJWs have been at the forefront of the Transgender bathroom laws of years past. In the many manifestations of BLM protest, SJWs have been there again. However, much of the discussion on the internet and within society has changed as well. As many companies sought to please customers, major brands began to run advertising and make tangible changes to increase inequality. This led to some backlash from people and began the common phrase, “Get woke go broke.” The idea is that companies who responded to the “crazy ideas” of SJWs would lose too much business from those who think major brands shouldn’t be running ads supporting social change. Obviously, the classic case was the Gillette ad supporting the #metoo movement and encouraging its male customers to improve their predatory behavior. SJWs are often at the forefront of posting progress and provocative ideas around gender, sexuality, race reparations, and other social topics that can create plenty of online controversies. It is this sort of progress, with real public policy effects, that the IDW stands against. 

The IDW and particularly Bret Weinstein advocates for a sort of post-social justice world. So much of modern political discourse has been mired in identity politics. Voters are often organized in these broad categories around race and sexuality. The SJWs’ desire to right the past’s wrongs by taking things from the established order of privilege is a prime target for the IDW. Bret and Heather don’t support these views. They aren’t for inequality, and they believe society can and should be equal, and no one should be discriminated against, but the rub comes when SJWs want to manifest that in real life. The strategy is the same, but the tactics couldn’t be more different. Much of their discourse revolves around two questions: Has wokeness ruined our culture? Has it divided us too much? The political consequences of our new social divides have been evident in every election since 2016. Then, with the idea that wokeness has ruined culture and divided us too much, they take it one step further. Bret and Heather seem to posit that could we ever return to a world where our racial, sexual, or other identities are not our most defining thing? This is a good goal, but there’s one problem: what is American society going to do to actually make society fairer regardless of the identities that Bret and Heather want us to leave out of political discourse? 

BLM and the summer protests

Bret and Heather (who lives in Portland) are not pleased with the summer Black Lives Matter riots that occurred all over the nation but specifically in how Portland and the state of Oregon didn’t do more to safeguard citizens and businesses. Here in Seattle, the CHOP district was a protest that tried to become the Paris Commune but had no organization to make that happen. As far as Bret and Heather are concerned, Leftism has run amok with violence and riots. They don’t see violence as a pathway to political gain. Still, I couldn’t help but notice in their recent videos that their criticism of the events of January 6 has not been as sharp as the BLM protests that swept the country over the summer. They obviously disagree with the slogan, “Defund the Police,” and look at it in the same lens they view most of the Left these days: as another crazy slogan and policy out of touch with the reality of the real world. 

“Dealing with reality” the culture of offense

The idea of someone being offended is not new, but modernity has given it a new meaning. “Offensive” behavior has been radically extended to include any exclusionary language, behavior, or policy. The mere pretense of offense has become a problem at all levels of society. Institutions, companies, and public people have raced to not cause offense by cleansing themselves of language and policies deemed “problematic” or “offensive” to any specific group. While it might seem like all this a great deal of trouble, it has helped people from various marginalized groups feel more included in society. This is where the IDW really takes issue with the modern Left. Both Heather and Bret take issue with the idea that merely being offended is a reason for anyone to change how they do anything. It certainly should not restrict speech, and yet it is in the sphere of free speech that we see the culture of the offense most often. 

The culture of offense is on full display when college students protest a speaker at their school. Jordan Peterson and even Bill Maher have been boycotted and protested against for appearing on college campuses. Stand-up comedians who play on college campuses have had to clean up their material to avoid language deemed offensive and problematic. The IDW would take the side of the speaker. They would claim that students don’t have to agree with what is being said but that no one, especially on a university campus, should be restricted from speaking their minds. When campuses offered safe spaces for students to destress during an event deemed problematic, the term “safe space” became shorthand for coddled young people who could not handle disagreeing views.

I deeply understand where the IDW stands on this sort of thing. I am a radical free speech person. I want the freedom to write whatever I want, which means I have to ensure everyone’s rights to say what they want. There are limits. Knowing using free speech to cause harm or unnecessary emergency resulting in the damage is wrong. Speech that denies the existence of people or cultures cannot be considered not to cause damage. History has plenty of examples of this. When it comes to policy and politics, the public forum needs to be open. That being said, discussions can and should be had respectfully. 

The culture of offense has revealed much about society. It has shown inherent sexism, racism, and other discriminatory behavior. The IDW offers no meaningful pathway to fix these problems in our language. People who follow this thought do not want to confront the cultural biases we didn’t know. People have relied on the ability to look at how someone presents and presume their gender, background, and other things about the person they interact with. Thanks to new cultural changes, pronouns are in bios on social media for those who are in touch. The acceptance of LGBTQIA+ people in public spaces has been a radical transformation in our society. For centuries, anyone who did not fit the cisgendered heterosexual narrative had little place in our community. I’ve seen everyone in the LGBT world go from quiet corners and dark bars and burst out into the light in just my lifetime. Pete Buttigieg was only confirmed as the first openly gay cabinet secretary.  Much has changed in a concise period of time. Not everyone is happy about these changes, and while Bret and Heather don’t seem to have any problem with this progress on its face, their arguments have much more to do with the tactics the movement uses to move these changes forward. I think they would like the Left to be less radical and more polite. 

American meritocracy 

I want to riff on meritocracy for a moment. The IDW is not in favor of much of the social changes that have happened. The desire to return to society’s common-sense view is compelling for those that don’t need radical changes. The reality is that people for whom the system has benefitted don’t always see how the system is specifically disadvantaging other people.

We are in a time of innovation where the world is rapidly changing. The economy is rapidly changing too. The IDW doesn’t delve into economics too often,n but when they do, it usually has to do with higher education’s perceived failures. However, their perspective doesn’t always address how our society fails people at every turn. Weinstein seems to advocate for a return to this classically liberal idea that is progressive but grounded in conservative principles of capitalism. Bret summarized his position as simple: “Make yourself capable, and we’ll make the system fair.” Does meritocracy really work? Is that the only solution, or do we need to do more to get the opportunity to those who have never had it? Again, this is an area where Bret and the IDW don’t recognize the racial and social barriers that many people face and lackluster K-12 education.

Millennials have been agitating for social and economic changes because American meritocracy has basically failed them. It is also failing Generation Z. Simply becoming qualified is no longer a requirement. To stand out in a crowded field of candidates, college, graduate school, unpaid internships, and connections are also required. That isn’t exactly meritocratic.

Millennial economics and too easy lives 

Economically, younger workers are not putting up with the same things their parents did. They expect “too much” from their employers and endless accommodation from their places of work for things like anxiety. These precocious kids aren’t afraid to say no, I won’t do that. It is worthy of note that democracy ends at the door of almost every workplace in this country. Employment is a dictatorship, and the move away from worker protections will make this worse. 

The younger generation isn’t afraid to push back and be honest. Where people my age and older sucked it up and risked life and limb, Gen Z is saying, “why should I risk myself for $7.25?” There’s an online idea that people aren’t paid enough to work sick or risk themselves for a job. Capitalism does not care about its workers, and for young folks, the jig is up. They’ve watched parents get laid off, siblings move home, and friends struggle. They put themselves first rather than their work. 
Talk about growing up, facing challenges, and kids needing to overcome adversity to grow. Have we coddled a generation of American kids who don’t know how just to suck it up and deal? I’m not convinced on this point. Some parents may have done too much and removed too many obstacles from their children’s path, and there’s some consensus on that, but the lives of young people are hardly free of adversity. 

Do we need to rebel against our parents? Do we need to face huge challenges, adversity and pain in order to thrive? At what point does that become traumatizing?
It seems to me that people want to live in a society where their needs are being met at every level. People no longer want to suffer emotional abuse at the hands of a boss at their job. They want society to reflect their values of inclusivity and the changing nature of personality and identity. They don’t want to be stuck conformed to past molds and ideas. They want to wear tattoos and piercings and dyed hair and still earn a living. There is a drive for a more equitable future where companies actively work to include people who might not ordinarily be included.

My thoughts on the Dark Horse Podcast and the IDW

Bret and Heather mean well. I often find myself nodding along with much of what they say; however, when it comes to their quiet crusade against “woke” culture and social justice warriors, I find myself returning to the same question I had before. How does one solve the inequality problem in the US? Wherever we look within society, this country’s benefits have been consistently tilted to one group of people. The only help the rest of community has gotten is more encouragement to work harder, stay in school, and stay out of jail.  This advice doesn’t begin to cover the generational wealth gap that many Americans face. Bret and Heather don’t seem to care about that. They also don’t seem to see the structures of privilege and racism that unfortunately exist in American society. They attack the people fighting against these things but ultimately spend more time criticizing them than offering better solutions or guidance on making real change. Some part of me thinks that they would offer the same old advice offered to marginalized groups before: work harder and stay out of prison. However, that would not solve the problems that our society faces. In the name of freedom, we have let people fall through the cracks and suffer necessarily without the resources needed to survive, much less thrive in our country. It doesn’t appear that Bret and Heather want to do anything tangible about those problems.