morg3380

[morg3380]

Campus Free Speech and Regulation, OR The Last True Populist.

More often than not, when the concept of 'free speech' is invoked, it is rarely in reference to the proper legal definition and is probably a populist dog whistle (if not an outright populist statement). Simply look to reporting about this years TPL protest surrounding Meghan Murphy, where cries of 'free speech' were issued from people on Murphy's side, despite the fact that a) the only communication from the government was an unofficial condemnation of her speech from the Toronto Mayor and b) the event was allowed to happen. So, the body of this posts article took me somewhat by surprise. In essence, the article is arguing that while free speech on university campuses is important, it is worthless if the government forces it. Needless to say, this is far from the standard opinion. The article is so undeniably populist that it's almost refreshing. From the premise of Government/Elites forcing something on Universities/People being an inherently bad thing, to the article closing with the statement "Indeed, proper universities might tell that government to get stuffed. But Canada’s[sic] know who pays the piper.", the populist language in this article is overflowing. What is so fascinating to me about this article is how truly populist it is, yet how divorced from the standard populist narrative it is. The author seems to truly care about the same kind of free speech that others who talk about 'free speech on campuses' do, the kind that assumes that all ideas stand on equal ground and deserve to be debated, but unlike other articles I've seen surrounding the issue, this one disparages any government control over free speech. He sees it as politicizing "what ought to be a bedrock concept of Western democracy", and while democracy may seem like a pre-politicized concept we must think of it through a populist lens. Democracy, in this case, solely represents the will of the People, and the idea of 'politicization' is the involvement of the Governmental Elites who represent everything that is against the people. In some senses, this article is the only true populist one out of everything features on my blog. The author refuses to accept any concession from the Elites, even when it is to his benefit. He, after all, knows that the People represent the bedrock of morality, and can sort this out for themselves.

Article Referenced: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-its-not-free-speech-when-the-government-compels-it

[morg3380]

Unions, Teachers, People, Elites, OR How the Script Gets Flipped When Profit Is On The Line

Populists can have a tendency to group the People and the Elites based on who they see themselves as, and who they see as benefiting or not benefiting them. This is not necessarily a flaw in the system, but it can allow for certain societal sentiments to interfere in how people define these two groups. Take the article, 'If the goal is to have teachers paid fairly, the last thing we want is powerful unions', published in the Financial Post (A subsidiary of the National Post). The core argument of the article is an inherently populist one, claiming that teachers unions can't truly represent what the people want out of their education. The problem with this (aside from the idea that non-teachers know what's best for education), is that throughout the article, unions and the government are constantly equated. In the authors eyes, they are one and the same.  While I will fully admit to being biased as far as the topic of unions is concerned, it's hard to argue that unions and the government act in tandem. Unions were formed as a response not only to the refusal of companies to provide good working conditions, but also to governments who refused to do anything about it. In the case of a public-sector union, like a teachers union, the employer and the government become one and the same. Unions are, if you think about it, a group of People standing up to an uncaring and elite Employer. And yet here, they are cast as the very same Elites that they stand against. There is a massive amount of anti-union sentiment in the business world, and I can only imagine that this also bleeds over into the financial sector. After all, unions stand in the way of companies making all the money that they possibly can, forcing them to spend on things like a living wage, or worker safety. So, unions become cast as the Elite not because of who they are, but because they oppose a group who can only see themselves as the People.

Article Referenced: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/matthew-lau-if-the-goal-is-to-have-teachers-paid-fairly-the-last-thing-we-want-is-powerful-unions

[morg3380]

The People and/or Elites vs The People vs The Elites, OR Almost A Moment of Self Realization

The categories of 'People' and 'Elites' aren't always as clear cut as they seem. Sure, they're broad and ambiguous, but think of something like the alt-right tendency to insist that immigrants (a group that you would think belong to the People) are undermining white peoples right to have a job (an action that you would think is taken by the Elites). In this scenario, the usual explanation is that the 'Liberal Elites' are assisting the immigrants, but it still shows how there can be situations where the categories get a bit more blurred, most often involving groups that would typically be 'The People' becoming evil and associated with the Elites. In the case of this article, an opinion piece on the USA's potential culpability in the current economic state of Venezuela, it seems to be the other way around. Who belongs to the People and the Elites is made very clear in the article, at least as far as Venezuela is concerned. The government is "a kleptocracy ruled incompetently by thugs who are turning a prosperous oil-exporting nation into a failed state sliding toward starvation." and the citizens are quite literally the "Venezuelan people". The role of the USA is a bit more confused. The moral categories are clearly laid out, but the author seems unwilling to put the US in one or the other. He clearly doesn't want to paint the USA as evil, he makes sure to emphasize that the sanctions that have been put in place are 'well meaning', but it's hardly in the power of the people to impose sanctions or, as the author suggests should be done, impose oil-to-food programs. However, he poses the question of whether the sanctions are worth it to "Americans" a group he seems to include himself in, referring to them as "our sanctions". He is approaching the issue from the position of an Elite, proposing  'solutions' that only an Elite could enact, but he refuses to see the USA as an Elite, insisting that none of their acts have been evil ones. In this case, a group that would typically be 'The Elite' is becoming good and being associated with the People

Article Referenced: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/opinion/sunday/venezuela-us-sanctions.html

[morg3380]

Assignment #2

QAnon is a broad-spanning conspiracy theory that mainly alleges that Donald Trump got into office in order to take down a ring of global, deep state, satanist elites, including people like Hillary Clinton, the Rothschilds, and organizations such as the CIA. This, however, is far from the only allegation, as followers of this theory also believe that the Mueller investigation was a cover for Mueller investigation the aforementioned deep state, that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the JFK assassination in order to restore US ties to the Vatican, that the Rothschild family used the battle of Waterloo to establish financial power, and that weather warfare has been a topic of research since the 1960s, and culminated in a ‘geostorm’, causing hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. If you’re having a hard time following along, that’s understandable, its a complicated conspiracy theory. All you really need to know about it is that Trump and a select few are working to take down a shadowy ring of elites that have perpetuated all echelons of society, however if you want to learn more, please take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the following guide:

Now that you know everything there is to know about the QAnon conspiracy theory, let’s lay out how it  fits that description. The core of the QAnon conspiracy offers an explanation for a good amount of events that go counter to the official record. Chief among these are the idea that Trump was hired by military intelligence (he was put into office by the electoral college), that he is fighting against the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service (all departments that fall under his purview), and that the Mueller investigation was a cover to investigate the deep state. (It was an investigation of Trumps connections to Russia)

The QAnon connection to populism is, in essence, a simple one. The basic conspiracy creates an Elite class of shadowy individuals, and although it doesn’t explicitly name a People, it doesn’t really need to.  The existence of an Elite necessitates the existence of a People, and QAnon’s lack of specifics is, in the end, a boon. While the theory does name a few individuals and families that belong to the Elite, it is greatly non-specific about who the actual members are, and what they actually do. If you think that the Clinton’s have been killing off their political rivals, there’s a place in the conspiracy for that. If you believe that Elon Musk is helping with North Korean rocket technology. If you believe that your boss is hiring people of colour because he wants to replace white people in America, there’s a place in the conspiracy for you. The QAnon conspiracy is the quintessential populist theory: it crafts large, nebulous categories and assigns them moral categories. It doesn’t matter what the deep state does, they are all Evil, and you are Good for fighting against them, and you can insert anything you want into those.

[morg3380]

انتشار الخطابة الشعوبية, OR Fremmedhad er ikke betyder

In Denmark, anti-Muslim sentiments have been a growing problem over the past few years, although they haven't been directly referenced as such. In 2018, the Danish Government introduced a series of measures that defined certain areas in the country as 'ghettos', doubled punishment for crimes in the area, and forces immigrants to put their children into daycare for 25 hours a week so they can be taught 'Danish Values', among other things. The ghetto areas designated are all areas of social housing that host a large population of ethnic minorities The same year, a law was introduced that banned the wearing of burqas and niqabs In 2016, the government introduced a law that allowed immigrants to be stripped of their valuables when they arrives to the country. The through lines between these laws (aside from islamophobia, blatant or otherwise), is that they were all voted for by the centre-left Social Democratic Party. While this is expected behaviour from a right wing populist party, such as the Denmark Peoples Party, the fact that all of these laws were voted for by a left leaning, non-populist party is somewhat shocking. It is not so surprising, however, that these moves are gaining them votes from the traditional DPP voters. While this hardline stance on immigration can be chocked up to simple racism on the part of the SDP, I think it is something a tad more sinister than that. While anti-immigration sentiments are not an inherently populist idea, they often originate in them, especially when they start to invoke ideas of 'values' belonging to a certain country. The idea behind educating children in 'Danish values' and increasing the punishment in areas largely inhabited by ethnic minorities (non-Danes, from a certain viewpoint), and legally stealing the valuables (which could very easily include any religious paraphernalia), all comes from a certain fear of the attempted erasure of one culture by another, in this case the erasure of 'Danish culture' by 'Muslim culture'. This erasure is never an accident or coincidence either, it is an attack by the erasing culture, and this is what creates the xenophobe-populist view of it. The culture being erased, under attack, is The People. The culture doing the erasure,  the attackers, are The Elite. The fact that this has next to no basis in reality has very little to do with things clearly. This kind of populism preys off of a very prominent human emotion. Fear. It reaches out to even the moderate, the center-left, the average Dane. You need not consider yourself a populist to buy into this populism, you simply must be to scared to see an alternative, and this is exactly where the Socialist Democrats find themselves. And in the end, as long as non 'Danish culture' is stomped out the xenophobe-populists win. I doubt they're picky about how.

(Articles references: https://time.com/5504331/denmark-migrants-lindholm-island/, https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2019/06/how-anti-immigrant-sentiment-infected-denmark-s-politics, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/10/denmark-ghetto-laws-niqab-circumcision-islamophobic)

[morg3380]

How To Make a Populist, OR What To Do When Globalization and Neoliberalism Collide

A few classes ago, we were watching scenes from a movie by Robert Reich, and one scene really struck me. A group of workers in the southern US were discussing the then upcoming 2016 election, and their opinions on who they would vote for. The conversation mostly centered around Trump, but one of the people mentioned that he was still undecided on whether he would vote for Trump or Bernie (Presumably, this was shot before the Democrat Primaries). In many ways, this may seem to be a shock. Bernie and Trump are located on opposed sides of the political spectrum. Trump is a billionaire, Bernie thinks there should be no billionaires. Trump is a xenophobic nationalist, Bernie has spoken out against nationalism as a threat to democracy. Their differences are almost too great to count, so why would someone be stuck between voting for them? The answer is surprisingly simple: Both Bernie and Trump offer a solution, or at the very least an answer. The answer to what, however is a bit more complicated. To put it simply, the answer they offer is to the problem of the intersection of globalization and neoliberalism.   This intersection starts with how neoliberalism reframes how one lives their life. As discussed in class, neoliberalism positions the individual as an entrepreneur, making all decisions about their life based on a cost/benefit analysis. In addition to justifying many of the economic decisions made under neoliberalism, it shifts all blame for failure onto the individual and erases any factors the wider system has. In other words, when something goes wrong with your life, it's your own fault. This is where globalization comes in. While there are some benefits to a globally interconnected world, I would argue that the movement of labour to countries with more lax labour laws (and thus more easily exploitable workers) is not one of them, and yet it is what's occurring, which results in a lot of labour jobs leaving the US. So to recap, jobs are disappearing, and there's no one to blame but yourself. This can be an unpleasant thought to many, no one really wants to admit that something this bad can be their fault, but the only other option is to blame the system, and to say the system doesn't work means there's no chance that you'll ever achieve true economic success, so people who have lost their jobs look elsewhere. And finally, this is where both Trump and Bernie come in. Despite all there differences, they are indisputably populists. Both offer the 'elsewhere' that people are looking for. According to Trump, the problem lies in immigrants and foreign nations, and according to Bernie, the problem lies in the wealth hording of billionaires. What would have been the deciding factor between these two radically different forms of populism will forever remain a mystery, however, as the Democrat's choice to elect a non-disruptive status-quo politician as their leader pushed all those looking for an answer over to Trump. Even if it is for the worse, only one of the 2016 candidates offered a visible change to the voters looking for it.

[morg3380]

The National Post and Meghan Murphy, OR A Shocking Balanced Post from a Not So Balanced Publication

It is hard to report on the massive protests that happen outside of the Toronto Public Library, a response to them letting notable transphobe Meghan Murphy give a talk at their Palmerston branch, without tipping your hand and showing your bias (If you look closely, you can see where I did it just now), so when reading about it in the National Post, I was expecting the coverage to be fairly biased towards Meghan Murphy. It is no secret that the NP is a right leaning news source, and while I wasn't expecting Post Millennial levels of talk about 'free speech', I wasn't expecting what I got. The article actually introduces Murphy's talk, and the issues that surround it, through the petition to the TPL created by authors Alicia Elliott, Catherine Hernandez and Carrianne Leung, unlike many others who simply mentioned the talk. I especially wasn't expecting the NP to begin its coverage with the issues taken with Murphy. The article goes on in a way that I more or less expected, talking about Murphy's ideas in a way that presents them as reasonable concerns, although I was pleasantly surprised at this section: "She has also said trans women should not be allowed in women’s washrooms". Note the use of 'trans women' as opposed to something like 'trans-identified women', or other language that implies a falsehood to trans peoples gender. This was the only part of their coverage of Murphy that really surprised me though, the rest was her talking about free speech and the library talking about 'civil discourse'. What shocked me the most about the NP coverage was how it went on to present arguments from Alicia Elliot in the same reasonable light as Murphy. Ultimately, the article does close by mentioning that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association opposed the idea of not letting Murphy speak at the library, reminding the reader where the NP truly stands, but the willingness to present opposing arguments in equal states of validity without dropping in any particularly populist language did shock me.

(Article Referenced:https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-public-library-under-fire-over-event-by-controversial-speaker)

[morg3380]

Activision-Blizzard, China, and Hong Kong, OR How The Global Corporate Elite Lick the Boots of Tyranny

For gamers, Blizzard is a very familiar name. They were responsible for creating two of the most popular real-time strategy games, and even made a popular MMO based off of one of them. Even if you haven't heard of Blizzard, you've probably heard of World of Warcraft, in some form or another. The games that they produce are not the focus of this though, only to establish that Blizzard (or Activision-Blizzard, as they are currently known after a merger in 2008) is both very successful and very popular. On October 6th of this year during an official tournament livestream of Hearthstone one of Blizzards games, Ng Wai Chung (better known as Blitzchung) donned a gas mask and ski mask and said "Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our Age.", referring of course to the pro-democracy protests happening in Hong Kong right now. Because of this, Blizzard issued a ruling that Blitzchung would not receive his prize money for the tournament and he would no longer be eligible to compete (although this decision was changed after backlash, and Blitzchung is currently facing a suspension). The rationalization on Blizzards end for this decision was that Blitzchung broke a tournament rule stating that players will refrain from “Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image…”. You may be thinking to yourself at this point, 'how does Blitzchung showing support for pro-democracy protests bring him into public disrepute, offend a portion of the public, or damage Blizzards image?' To answer that, one simply needs to consider how much control China has over the global entertainment market. Due to the increasing spread of entertainment media through globalisation, companies no longer need to bet on their products succeeding in a single country. China, for example, has a large and influential market base. So much so that success there has started to become top priority. This is not to say that entertainment should only be made for one market, as on its own the spread of entertainment should be inherently a good thing. However, that's not what's happening. The only thing that's changed is where the money is found, and it's found in a totalitarian state. As the money for entertainment spreads out, and companies become more and more obsessed with chasing more and more money, is it really a surprise that they will side with a state accused of numerous human rights abuses? Blizzards punishment of Blitzchung does not stand alone. They have been taking action against any player who espouses pro Hong Kong messages during any official Blizzard streams. Blizzard is also not the only company to punish its players for showing solidarity with the protesters. The NBA forced Huston Rockets player Daryl Morey to take down a tweet showing support for the Hong Kong protesters. The elite will always fight to stay the elite, even if it means throwing democracy under the bus.

[morg3380]

A Populist Perspective on the Climate Rally, OR Why 'I'm With Her' Won't Cut It

A month ago, I attended the Toronto climate strike. In many ways, it was heartening. It was good to see such a massive turnout, even if it was a big disorganised (Me and my friends completely missed the march), and it was good to see how many people really understood the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue being, of course, capitalism. A lot of the sentiment that I've seen surrounding climate change has surrounded stuff like reducing personal climate footprints, or companies using paper straws. Both of these can be important (although not without their problems, paper straws are actually a big issue for some disabled people), but in the end, they're a drop in an ocean. Climate change is not a personal problem, it is a systemic one. In 2017, the Carbon Disclosure Project published a report stating that there are 100 companies who are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1998. In a system that prioritises profit over all things this is an inevitability, but a lot of the push around climate change that I've seen in the past seems to focus on making personal choices and ignoring the need for systemic change, so it was refreshing to see so many people at the climate strike really understand where the blame for climate change lies. That being said, there were a few people at the rally who didn't seem to understand. There were a few signs at the rally that proudly declared that "I'm with her", a slogan of the 2016 Clinton campaign. While she stood for good things, Clinton is in many ways an archetypal liberal. Above all things, liberals represents the status quo. They represents making passing reforms without actually touching the systems that keep them in power. In many ways, the liberal ideology prioritises comfort over change. So with that in mind, it can be easy to see why I think that people like Clinton (or Trudeau, for the record) simply aren't enough when it comes to fixing our climate. They belong to the elite, whether they want to or not. I'm sure that they would do something, put forward some regulations that are carefully balanced as to make sure that they don't alienate the corporations but still appease the voter who never really has to think about what's happening in Flint, Michigan. Or maybe they'll just say to hell with it and buy a pipeline.

[morg3380]

On Sargon's Petition, OR Right Wing Populism and the Monolithic Left

If you haven't heard of him, Carl Benjamin (better known by his online alias Sargon of Akkad) is primarily a right-wing YouTube personality known for his 'criticism' of many left-wing ideas (see: racism, sexism, ect.). He first emerged into the public eye during the Gamergate controversy, in which women in both the games industry and games journalism were harassed by people claiming to be acting in the interest of ethics in games journalism, when he peddled the idea that the games industry was being invaded by feminists forcing their ideology. Since then he has remained mostly the same, spouting conspiracy theories, hosting bad-faith debates, or 'debates' with fellow right-wingers, and general bigotry. At one point, he even made an attempt at a political career, joining the far-right UK Independence Party, although that particular venture was a spectacular failure. Now that you know who Carl is (for which I apologize), we can discuss his petition. On April 20th, 2016, Carl started a petition on change.org, entitled "Suspend Social Justice Courses". If you think that title is particularly undescriptive, then you would be right. The body of the petition is not much better, saying  that "Social justice has become scientifically illiterate, logically unsound, deeply bigoted and openly supremacist. Social justice professors are indoctrinating young people into a pseudoscientific cult behind closed doors that is doing damage to their health, education and future." and "To clarify, we are calling for the teaching of social justice courses in universities to be temporarily suspended.  What follows is up for debate, but as it stands now, social justice is causing far more harm than good and it must be halted and reassessed.". It is remarkably unclear what Carl actually want's out of this petition, as he doesn't even cite what classes he want's 'universities' (to whom the petition is addressed) to stop teaching. This lack of proper information, the language used in the body of the petition, and the wonderfully telling recipient of this petition reveals a common theme among right wing populists (and among the right in general, but to the populist types it is especially relevant) of how they see 'the left'. To right wing populists, the left is a single entity. A massive, monolithic force. An elite group of schemers who have the government and businesses in their pockets. Regardless of the fact that many of those who claim to have their 'free speech taken away' by the left are still talking out of their asses (you don't have to look much farther than any Netflix comedy special that talks about how comedy is censored or even home in Toronto, where the TPL just doubled down on the decision to let notable transphobe Megan Murphy host a talk), right wing populists will claim that the left, or SJWs, or any other who criticize their works are working against them. Rather than make any actual ideological arguments against their perceived enemy, right wing populists will simply construct strawmen out of this idea they have of the monolithic left and refuse to think any harder about it. One could argue that this is essential to any populist viewpoint, but I would disagree on this matter. While it is not something that I would regularly describe myself as, I am a left wing populist. I could say that I approach populism through a Marxist perspective, seeing the elites as those who moneyed few who own the means of production, or I could say that my populism is a feminist one, with the elites being those who perpetuate hegemonic masculinity, or I could even say that my populism has a racial bend, or one of mental or physical illness. In truth, it is all of these and more. This, however, does not mean that I believe that there is some elite order that seeks to position only the white, straight, cisgender, abled, and rich at the top of society (although there certainly are those types of people). Instead, I recognise that society, and the forces that control it, are made up of an incredibly diverse set of interlocking ideologies. There is no one single elite that I am rebelling against. I do not see myself in opposition to a single, monolithic force of oppression, but instead a group of many linked oppressions. The right, however, rarely display anything other than an opposition to a monolithic left. Perhaps if they sat down and actually looked at what they so vehemently rally against, they would realise that they're wrong about a few more things than the unity of their enemy.

(”petition” referenced:https://www.change.org/p/universities-suspend-social-justice-in-universities)

[morg3380]

Jordan Peterson and his movie (Assignment #1)

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian psychology professor at UofT who has garnered a great deal of attention in recent years for his so-called ‘fight against political correctness’, which mainly involves refusing to use transgender peoples pronouns and protesting bills that would add gender identity or expression as a prohibited ground of discrimination. As one may expect of a semi-notorious public figure, a movie was created based off of his life, but before it could be shown at the Carlton Cinema in Toronto, the theatre shut it down. The Post Millennial, an internet based news site, had a rather extreme reaction to this. It claims that the movie was “The Latest Victim in this sad saga of censorship”, which has very specific connotations, and although the Post Millennial clarifies that the film wasn’t show because of complaints from the staff, they introduced the issue as a matter of ‘censorship’. The article goes on to propose that “After a relatively quiet few months, you would think that the world had tired of bashing the 57-year-old Canadian grandfather.” Note the disarming language, attempting to cast him as a ‘grandfather’ and not as a widely listened to figure who’s views are perfect for leading misinformed people into  alt-right radicalization. The final section of the article bemoans the fact that “in a free society like Canada encounter censorship of their film about a thoughtful, well-spoken psychology professor, whose own views on free speech are a thousand times more liberal than those “progressive” activists that protest him.” The article finally does admit that the ‘censorship’ that it claims is happening comes from individuals, not the state, clarifying that it belongs to the particular flavour of right-wing populist that believes in a massive, homogeneous entity called ‘the left’  that is painted as “authoritarian and regressive”, and cannot deal with any of its ideas being challenged. All of this is, of course, contrasted with Peterson’s calm, fearless demeanour, as an intellectual who simply wants to help people expand their worldviews.

This article paints an interesting contrast to the National Post’s article on the same subject, which uses much less sensationalist language throughout claiming that the employees were “uncomfortable” instead of offended, and not touching on any ideas of censorship. However, the article still employs the technique of using disarming language to discuss the film itself. The article discusses how the film simply depicted Peterson going about his business, both at home and on campus, and briefly mentions a protest against him, where students shout “shame” at him. The National Post article also includes a quote from a Peterson critic, although it is about how the film should be shown. All in all, the National Post does a much better job of pushing the idea that the film is being unfairly cancelled than the Post Millennial by using many of the same techniques as them without the same inflammatory language and including perspectives from the other side while keeping them in line with the ideas of the article.