Classical Liberalism Seminar - Nathan Cofnas - September 5, 2024.

A brilliant and original thinker nearly suffocated by ageing self-sufficient professors who get distracted by details and fail to see he's on their side and represents the most coherent approach to win this fight. Thanks for inviting him though.

[jongxina]

Seeing a conference like this from a big university is refreshing...

[gregoryconnor]

Nathan Cofnas presented his theory of Wokeism to the Classical Liberalism Initiative at Stanford University and received a rough ride from the audience, with many hostile questions.
Cofnas’ theory holds that Wokeism follows from Western moral principles (all individuals have an equal right to flourish) plus the “equality thesis” (the scientifically false but near-universally-imposed axiom that there are no genetic differences in ability or preferences across race or gender groups). If we blindly accept the equality thesis plus the moral principle of equal rights, then “wokeism, ” which is a near-hysterical witch-hunt to find the sources of remaining group disparities, makes logical sense. That is the Cofnas theory in a nutshell.
Cofnas could not even convince the Classical Liberals of Stanford, an extremely talented group of hard-headed intellectuals, to accept the falsity of the equality thesis. Their harsh reaction to his talk shows that social scientists still have a difficult and important job to do. Social scientists need to explain to the intellectual elite that the equality thesis is no longer scientifically tenable – it has been empirically rejected beyond a reasonable doubt. Even brilliant Stanford students and faculty who identify as classical liberals still cling to the mistaken belief that groups disparities arise from environmental causes.

[kpc]

Kudos for letting him speak, but really wish the audience let him get substantially through his argument before nitpicking everything.

[politikedi]

I feel like everyone agrees on the main ideas, but disagreement seems to be focused on whether leftists are more intellectual, which isn't a necessary premise for his conclusion. I guess it's just there to support his suggestion for a resolution that the change needs to start with the intelligentsia.

Overall though, I would expect faculty members at a major university to have better etiquette than interjecting so much that the whole line of argument becomes difficult to follow. They even interrupted other audience members' questions. I mean, come on...

[MJD]

If the audience here are reflective of the coalition against wokeism, then I fear an effective counter movement is never going to make it past concept. I enjoyed Nathan’s argument though, it’s refreshing to hear a new viewpoint on all of this

[rossm]

Infuriating that rather than letting him speak, the audience interject meaning the coherence of the argument is lost. So called clever ppl acting really stupid.

[Tartersauce]

North Korea has a freaking Space program...I am disappointed that Nathan let that equivication between them and the Congo slide.

[MAGAeminem]

North Korea doesn't have much, but they did manage to create nuclear weapons
Congo, nor the rest of Africa, have (except apartheid South Africa)

[lordsneed]

Is it normal in seminars for the audience to interrupt the lecturer at will without even raising their hand and waiting to be given permission to speak or saving their questions and objections to the end ? what an environment. to have to try and hold oonto the structure of your presentation while you're being badgered to jump around.

[ChannelMath]

Ignoring laws for a minute, I don't see a problem with exerting public, legal pressure to promote your morality. What is the problem with calling for JK Rowling to be dropped by her publisher? What is the problem with boycotts? What, actually, is the problem with 'canceling'? (If there is a problem, it lies with companies firing people because they care nothing for their employees, and will do any expedient thing for profits, because that's the economy we chose). Our legal system is not unprepared. It has considered the matter for centuries and has clearly decided that publicly shaming others is a right to be protected.
Because social morality has always worked this way (the only difference now it that technology gives people the power to pile on). You think people weren't 'canceled' in the past? There was never a time when people weren't being 'cancelled'. But many older folks are just blind to the way it worked in past decades (when the penalties were actually often much more severe for doing or saying the "wrong things", btw). Basically, if you agree with the morality being enforced, you probably don't see it as social enforcement. You think "of course people are doing that, it's just the right thing to do". Which is how woke people feel too. The struggle in the public square between wokism and reaction is scary, but it's the "healthy" way democracy is designed for (even though basically amounts to a daily torrent of complaining). This is how we determine our social morality.

Oh, and if you're one of those "conservatives" who say they believe society doesn't exist or that we can get rid of social morality altogether and just "be free" (if any of you actually believe that, which I doubt):
I don't know... just put yourself in others' shoes more and feel the power imbalances. Either we act on the basis of trust in some generally-agreed upon social morality, or we act on the basis of pure power, which is always ultimately the threat of violence.

[ChannelMath]

So sad that the two sides don't even go to each others' conferences

[ChannelMath]

Very interesting talk. thank you for posting.
Why does he call Christian morality "WEIRD". (I'm not saying it's not, he just didn't explain.)
He also defines the "race taboo" to be hypersensitivity. I don't see how that leads to any actions. Seems rather more likely to lead to inaction (I understand this is Kaufmann's thesis, but I don't think it was explained well enough)

[Chris-pv]

The biggest question I have for cofnas is even if i take his answer to wokeism, why would it necessarily disempower its oppobents. As you see with some people who take the christian/altruist morality seriously but also empirically believe in hereditarianism(even if not fully applied to race such as Gregory Clark), they are still far from classical liberals and push for more a few socialists).As long as you have the morality based on need instead of merit(which in many cases is argued for by environmental/genetic determinism), the push for wokeism cannot be rejected, it would just be adapted if you succeeded.

[yoananda]

Great talk but what about refuting the north korea argument ?

[InfrequentObserver]

Who were the discussants? Nathan Cofnas make some excellent points. If wokism were primarily about black/white disparities, it would be a simpler issue. Glenn Loury and others have made the obvious point that the situation of slave-descendent black Americans is unique and exceptional. Woke is about a intersecting coalitions of the oppressed, competing victimhoods, etc. My point may be semantic but I don't see the intellectual coherence in woke. I strong recommend the book by the forensic scholar Norm Finkelstein, "I'll Burn that Bridge When I get to It - Reflections on Identity Politics, Cancel Culture and Academic Freedom". (2023)

Finally, I am not sure what Nathan meant about 'examining sociological issues from a scientific perspective'. I can guess. Sociology is pure BS. Even if conservatives take over, there is no need for this discipline. Quantitative and investigative journalists, philosophers, economists, historians, social workers, etc can cover these topics much better.

[f.b.]

I fear that Nathan Cofnas is more right than wrong.