We need more wonderful Liberal thinkers and explainers, like Helen Pluckrose in this world.
We can agree, in principle, on the problems (ie, be concerned with the needs of others) and engage in conversation, disagreement, and persuasion to get to potential solutions (trade-offs). We can also all look to real data on the successes and failures of policy actions and make reasonable changes. How do we know??? That's how we already got the Liberal things that work (and don't).
Helen Pluckrose has an ability to explain these contradictions and fairly complicated postmodern theories in an understandable and reasonable way. Her discussion partner is not quite as astute but she asks the right questions that allow Helen beautifully lay out what it means to be a liberal and clarify some of confused ideas that swirl around on social media.
Your point about nobody having been alive for hundreds of years is excellent in general, but it's particularly salient if we're talking about things like gender and sexual orientation which does NOT "run in the family" so to speak. Let me explain.
If you're a black person in America, then you were not alive a century or two ago, so the discrimination that happened back then didn't directly impact you. But it did impact your ancestors, and very very likely that'll mean you yourself started out in life less privileged than you'd otherwise be. You yourself *are* hurt (indirectly) by the opportunities your grandparents never got.
If you're a woman in America on the other hand, You were still not alive a century or two ago, so the discrimination that happened back then didn't diretly impact you. But that's where the parallell ends, because while discrimination of women in the past DID impact your female ancestors, that'd be equally true if you were a man.
That is, black people have more black ancestors than white people do.
But women do not have more female ancestors than men do.
Thus the after-effects of past racism will linger a lot longer in society than the after-effects of past sexism will.
This was a brilliant conversation - I love the clarity of your thinking, Helen. I was also struck by the articulation of how we can hold different ideas without imposing them on others. I wrote an article about how we could apply liberal ideas to social work (using Rawls) - especially when social workers and students have their own moral frameworks/ideological positions. It resonates with your explanation. It's here if interested (though I understand you probably get tons of stuff to read!): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02615479.2025.2531865
We need more wonderful Liberal thinkers and explainers, like Helen Pluckrose in this world.
We can agree, in principle, on the problems (ie, be concerned with the needs of others) and engage in conversation, disagreement, and persuasion to get to potential solutions (trade-offs). We can also all look to real data on the successes and failures of policy actions and make reasonable changes. How do we know??? That's how we already got the Liberal things that work (and don't).
Thank you for this conversation!!! 🙏🤙
Helen Pluckrose has an ability to explain these contradictions and fairly complicated postmodern theories in an understandable and reasonable way. Her discussion partner is not quite as astute but she asks the right questions that allow Helen beautifully lay out what it means to be a liberal and clarify some of confused ideas that swirl around on social media.
Nice talk, by the way. Listening to you always helps clarifying thoughts. You sure are a voice of conciseness and clear thinking. Thanks!
Very good discussion - thanks for sharing!
Your point about nobody having been alive for hundreds of years is excellent in general, but it's particularly salient if we're talking about things like gender and sexual orientation which does NOT "run in the family" so to speak. Let me explain.
If you're a black person in America, then you were not alive a century or two ago, so the discrimination that happened back then didn't directly impact you. But it did impact your ancestors, and very very likely that'll mean you yourself started out in life less privileged than you'd otherwise be. You yourself *are* hurt (indirectly) by the opportunities your grandparents never got.
If you're a woman in America on the other hand, You were still not alive a century or two ago, so the discrimination that happened back then didn't diretly impact you. But that's where the parallell ends, because while discrimination of women in the past DID impact your female ancestors, that'd be equally true if you were a man.
That is, black people have more black ancestors than white people do.
But women do not have more female ancestors than men do.
Thus the after-effects of past racism will linger a lot longer in society than the after-effects of past sexism will.
This was a brilliant conversation - I love the clarity of your thinking, Helen. I was also struck by the articulation of how we can hold different ideas without imposing them on others. I wrote an article about how we could apply liberal ideas to social work (using Rawls) - especially when social workers and students have their own moral frameworks/ideological positions. It resonates with your explanation. It's here if interested (though I understand you probably get tons of stuff to read!): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02615479.2025.2531865