About this blog




This blog has been born of my interest in libertarian principles, and my drive to reconcile the non-aggression principle in particular, and logic and reason more generally, with my training as a media and cultural studies scholar. 

While some contemporary media studies do engage with the research generated by libertarians and free market economists, their arguments are rarely given due consideration. While media and cultural studies scholars claim the field is fundamentally interdisciplinary, intellectual diversity in the field is significantly constrained by neo-Marxist foundations and objectives.  

Continued scholarly investment in Marxism represents a significant conflict of interest insofar as the integrity of research is considerably compromised by the ideological affiliation of scholars. A core aim of this blog is to engage with contemporary conversations and issues to foreground the negative impact of ideologically grounded scholarship for the society that we, as publically financed scholars, are supposed to serve.

The blog is also an opportunity to climb down from the ivory tower, and really put the assumptions and claims of contemporary scholarship to the test by talking to, and debating with, real people as well as colleagues. Ultimately, the abstract ideas that we work with as scholars is meaningless gibberish unless non-academic people can use these ideas to make sense of the media and how it shapes their world. 

I am deeply troubled by a growing sentiment among my peers that our role as scholars is to mediate knowledge because knowledge is too dangerous in less trained hands. I reject the idea that academics are uniquely positioned to interpret the world "correctly". This is an egotistical, patronising and insidious form of elitism and prevents people from taking control over their own lives.

I reason from the premise that those on the right and the left of politics share a concern for the welfare of all individuals within society, and what separates them politically and philosophically is a fundamental disagreement regarding the most appropriate strategies regarding how to achieve these ends. 

There is a common misunderstanding amongst the political left that their opponents on the right (and also amongst libertarians) act with malevolent intent. The right is almost always addressed as monsters who do not care for the welfare of individuals outside of their special interest groups. This seems to underwrite a refusal amongst many on the left to engage in political debate with the right, and the concomitant reliance on strawman arguments that advocate adversarial and violent tactics; these are counter-productive tactics which are endemic to Marxist philosophy.

With this in mind, this blog is envisioned as a place to develop a productive dialogue between individuals across the political spectrum, and to entertain a wide diversity of ideas. It's a place to explore these ideas critically. This requires an ability to think through arguments which we may regard as abhorrent and offensive, ideas which should be met with better arguments - as opposed to de-platforming for example. Concomitantly, meaningful engagement requires a willingness to change one's position based on the evidence presented. 

As such this is an open and uncensored forum. I welcome your comments, feedback, and critical challenges. Note for the easily offended, dickhead behaviour will be ignored rather than censored or blocked.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Only whites can be racist": debunking a very dangerous lie

The Lack of Ethics in Cultural Policy Studies

Award Ceremonies and Virtue Signalling, or Meryl Streep goes to the Globes