Grab Bag
CrowdSource 1.20.2025
Welcome to CrowdSource, your weekly guided tour of the latest intellectual disputes, ideological disagreements, and national debates that piqued our interest (or inflamed our passions). This week: Crowd grab bag.
Join us! CrowdSource features the best comments from The Crowd — our cherished readers and subscribers who, with their comments and emails, help make Wisdom of Crowds what it is.
From the Crowd
Some rich commentary from the Crowd this past week:
Writer
(buy his latest book here) praises ’s essay on “memetic Christianity”:
I appreciate this very much — the effort to make Jesus Trump’s cultural attache have seriously pissed me off. He doesn't work for any political project, and it's not like he didn't have the option. (When Peter cut that centurion's ear off, one part of him *had* to be thinking, "Hey, maybe *now* he'll lead us against the Romans!") I talk about the political implications that I think my faith has, but I try to keep the “Christian” before the “leftist” in “Christian leftist.” The second thing is only a satellite to the first thing.
I think if I were just picking a religion off a menu for utilitarian reasons, I might be tempted to go with the somewhat Americanized progressive Islam that some of my brighter first-year students believe in. Or perhaps one of the friendlier varieties of Wicca. I don't think I’ve ever met a mean witch. But asking other people to believe something that you yourself think is bullshit, just for the sake of social cohesion, is insulting to others. Anyway, I think Jesus is God, so here I stand.
- , on the other hand, has doubts:
This is an insightful take from a Christian perspective, but it puts forward a stark choice for regular folks who aren’t profoundly weird tech oligarchs — either you believe it all or you shouldn’t even try. I think our culture is somewhat biased in seeing religion as largely about beliefs. It makes sense because we live in a time when belief-based religions are the main ones (although Jewish people might argue that their religion is less about beliefs than Christianity). I can see why someone might want to follow certain rituals and practices even if they can’t believe specific historical and/or theological claims. If there is in fact a natural need for religion, it likely has more to do with rituals and community and meaning, and less to do with assenting to a list of creedal statements.
- is ambivalent about ’s “Zuck is the Zeitgeist”:
Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I was a child of 4chan and the Wild West internet. Shitposting was certainly fun and I think some of the more apocalyptic doomsaying around AI just feels silly and overblown.
On the other hand, much of this apparent embrace of Libertarian policies really seems to come with a huge asterisk attached. It feels like an embrace of extremist political statements, with no protection for other forms of expression. You can call for the extermination of Jews all you want on Twitch but you damn well better keep your VTuber avatars hips covered. You can post all the N-bombs you want, but comprehensive sex education materials require ID verification.
I hope I am wrong and Libertarian actually means Libertarian.
- agrees with :
To your point about the recent changes/Rogan quotes simply reflecting an already-happened vibe shift, I was shocked to see so many people responding in 2020-style outrage! The stuff about “feminine energy” was so obviously longhouse coded to me when I heard it but lots of people took it to be incel divorce vibes and against women in the workplace. Much of America/the internet has already arrived at Zuck’s conclusion, yes, but lots (esp among the media class) really haven’t.
Esteemed socialist writer
(buy his latest book here) responds to ’s essay about Twin Peaks and David Lynch:
“That’s how you live? That’s what makes it fine to live — art?” she said in audible disbelief. “But why is there an experience of the sublime at all? Why do you feel a wonder? . . . You experienced transcendence, you've experienced the sublime. Does that not indicate to you that there's something outside of yourself?”
’s first question is perfectly reasonable. Yes, that’s what makes it fine to live: art, science, philosophy, love, solidarity, the National Parks — much more, in fact, than any single human can experience. But the rest of her comment, not so much. Why is there an experience of the sublime? This is a question for psychology or physiology or evolutionary biology, but that’s not what Audrey’s asking. She’s asking ... what? What is the metaphysical ground of the sublime? I’d say there isn't one, and Audrey can’t prove there is simply by pointing to the sublime and saying “the sublime exists, so it must have a metaphysical ground.” That’s a wholly circular proof.Of course there’s something outside oneself, namely, art, science, philosophy, etc. It’s entirely possible to say yes to transcendence and no to metaphysics.
- responds to and in the podcast episode, “The Dawn of a New Era?”:
Thanks for this as always :) I think Trump is most definitely the symptom not the cause of this problem you both discussed in terms of challenges to our current system. He is the voice of dissatisfaction and rage at the seeming collapse of an old order which served a certain group of people well. I think the primary problem with Trump is a little like Damir’s at the end ... there is no feasible alternative constructed within Trumpism. Even within the 2025 document of the Heritage Foundation it’s not really re-working these problems comprehensively or feasibly without serious risk of institutional collapse creating all kinds of new performance problems. The performance doesn't create anything beyond it really.
Although I don’t share Damir’s excitement at this moment, the end of liberal moral stasis does open up new ways to think about the world. It also makes me fearful for what is to come. We are living in a post-literacy era which comes with its own dangers. Jacksonian democracy was the result of an angry backlash and prompted very dark moments in the earlier years of US democracy. With our technological prowess and power of the unitary state today a return to that kind of existence should keep us awake at night for my money.
Finally, I do not believe in peace at all costs. I tend to lean towards the belief that if you seek peace at all costs inevitably you will have war. Like in Ukraine there is no choice but to fight Putin to stop him now and show there is a real detriment to him trying to fight this out. I fear we'll be in a similar place with China and Taiwan before the decade is out.
Neither of you are wrong I think about the Democrats and the use of “liberal fear” in the US case has not been particularly effective. I know Shadi really hates the case for using it but I do wonder if there is something inside of it. Liberals aren't traditionally good at using fear- it goes against their moralistic framework undermining in their heads our modus vivendi. Although, as Shklar argued there is a place for fear when the space to make choices is threatened. The effectiveness however is predicated on the assumption that people want the choice. I do wonder if this is truly the case anymore?
- responds to and in our latest podcast, “The State of the Right (and the Left)”:
Great episode. I especially appreciate your thoughts on the role that shame is playing in the Democrats’ post election behavior. Unlike anger which can be an energizing emotion compelling us to lash out, resist and fight back, shame leaves us exposed and vulnerable with a desire to retreat, hide and lick our wounds. Many of my friends on the left believe the Dems lack of resistance is driven by exhaustion, but I think it’s more than that. Anyway, they should be well rested by now! I think it’s more likely tied to shame and embarrassment as you suggest. The level of complicity in the cover up of Biden’s condition is truly staggering and the damage they inflicted on themselves and their supporters is unforgivable. For shame!
Finally, a profound exchange in the comments to Tara’s essay, which deserves its own space:
See you next week!
Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!