The "we don't have the data" doesn't necessarily mean that one course of action is just as much of a risk for bad outcomes as simply NOT doing that fashionably cutting-edge new thing.
I'll pull from folk wisdom as a short-cut to convey this: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I think much of the source of dissatisfaction among the young over their bodies and their identities is the privilege of their TOTAL ignorance about how LUCKY they are to have full bellies, working limbs, and no experience suffering from the diseases that STILL maim, weaken, and kill off a large percentage of their young peers who currently exist completely out of view on the other side of the globe. (A recent example demonstrates how ours is a society in which even the well-educated with lots of leisure time to pay attention: Until this morning I was oblivious to the horrendous violence happening in Nigeria committed by Islamic extremists, featuring acts of brutality that are on level with the behavior we all learned about via social media on that horrible Oct. 7th less than 2 years ago. This unworldliness of mine is because I exist in a culture that feeds and houses too many unserious people and makes possible the ability of ridiculous groups like "Queers for Palestine" to bully and impede passers-by in the streets.)
The world is REAL, and cultures that forget how to instill that in their children die out . . . often very gradually, complete with a set of disruptive and obscene contortions that go along with a particularly extended and painful death, all of which makes for "interesting" times. Evolution enforces a relentless logic onto mere mortals at all levels of analysis.
"If you’ve been prosperous and well-fed and affluent for too long, you also tend to become forgetful of your own privilege."
On the matter of belief: I recently read "(Un)Kind: How 'Be Kind' Entrenches Sexism," by Victoria Smith, and am now reading, "Conflict is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair," by Sarah Schulman, and it's got me thinking about how "be kind" in practical terms often means, "be unquestioningly obedient," and how, somewhat analogously to the distinction Schulman makes between conflict and abuse, disbelief (or really... disagreement) is not bigotry.
And then I got to wondering when exactly the left-leaning side of things got so oddly faith-based, in such a plausibly deniable way, ex. "believe women," "believe the science." Shortcuts to epistemic authority. "Believe the science" is a particular pet peeve of mine (it's such an unscientific way of thinking about science!), but even back during the Me Too era, I remember thinking, "I don't know any of these people, and really, I have no interest in adjudicating these matters for complete strangers... ?"
In similar vein “listen to marginalized people”, probably my fav. Yeah I’m listening to you, we’re talking right now, I’m engaging with your views and I’m explains why I disagree even after getting informed by your lived experience. What the hell do you want!
I have no idea if Schulman discusses this but your description of her book made me think of something I’ve been talking about with my young adult daughter lately: the rise in young adults estranging themselves from their families. My sense is that many of these kids are misinterpreting any family conflict, even “normal” levels, as abuse.
Yes, would highly recommend. Very insightful enough into the psychology that’s often behind the way these dynamics play out. There’s plenty in it I disagree with, but that gives it a particular voice. There are books that feel like they were written by a marketing committee, to please some imagined generic audience, and this is not one of those.
Non-gender thing of the week: purslane! My new favorite edible weed; delicious & nutritious. I weeded at the garden Wednesday and ate a bunch of what I pulled out. Rabbit mind. 🐰 Great in salad too.
Also, raspberry season has started, and there should be tomatoes soon.
On the question of "peaking" (a term I learned only last week) and gender vs Covid - for me, it was definitely Covid that alienated me from the Democratic Party. The authoritarianism, the anti-science approach to everything from lockdowns to masks, the overreach on vaccination policies... It thoroughly destroyed my previously strong view of the Democrats as the party of science.
Being very preoccupied with the disastrous Covid response and its long-term effects, I had somehow managed to mostly ignore the issue of gender. I had been under the impression that this was indeed some sort of extension of the gay rights movement, of which I had always been very supportive, and while I was skeptical towards the medical interventions for kids, I didn't think any of the other aspects were that big of a deal, even if I thought that it was kind of crazy to let people like Lia Thomas swim against women. I was, at an intuitive level, very much opposed to what I now know is called gender ideology, but it wasn't until I read Helen Joyce's book last summer that I started to realize the magnitude of the issue and pay attention to what is happening. And I agree with Lisa that the Left's approach to it is very much similar to its approach to Covid, which is why a lot of the same people have been vocal on both.
I also think Ben made a really good point when he said that the Democrats' insistence that men can be women and girls can be boys has a huge impact on trust. Just like their insistence that 2-year-olds should be masked and that 6-month-olds needed to be vaccinated against Covid destroyed people's faith in the Democrats' commitment to science, so does denying the fundamental reality of sex. That is what I think most people who, even if they agree with some of our positions, don't understand when they wonder why we think it is so important and insist on talking about it so much, and blame Trump's win partially on the Dems' devotion to this ideology: the reality of sex is such a fundamental thing in human life, and if Democrats deny the reality of it, what other realities are they willing to deny? It's even more fundamentally trust-breaking than what they did with Covid.
“Ideologically lumpy” might be a good way to describe America. I live in the midwest but a progressive area thereof; someone on my street recently swapped out the trans flag they’d been flying in their yard for a demisexual pride one.
I have one child who just graduated from high school and another who will be graduating from college next year. We live in a pretty liberal area. This is what they're telling me about how their peers see the gender issue. There are certain aspects of gender ideology that are not taken seriously by them: neopronouns, the really fringe gender identities and sexual orientations, furries, and having your entire identity revolve around 10 different orientations and genders and mental health diagnoses. But they still take traditional trans identities seriously. They take nonbinary seriously. They definitely see that it's a fad or being socially influenced in some of their peers but also believe strongly in true trans and believe that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a doctor makes you one of the "really trans" people. They don't like it when their peers make everything about their gender identity or are hostile with it, but if you are "chill" about it, they will gladly go along with it. Dissenting opinions about self-ID in sports and transitioning children are usually tolerated and won't cause you too much trouble if you're careful about how you word them. That's just our little blue corner of the world
Re: open door to conservatives and open door to Zohran Mamdani
As opening statement I’d like to acknowledge that both sides have some really ugly characters and uncivil ideas. Until very recently (~2 weeks) I’ve always thought that conservatives have terrible political views, but nevertheless I recognised they were nicer in interpersonal interactions than leftists or even liberals, because this was my very consistent experience of last ~15 years. I live in Poland and Poland was ruled by far right in 2015-2023, our liberals are mostly centre right. Maybe it’s religion, idk? Sociologists studying polarisation in Poland have discovered (~2019?) that liberals have significantly more hostile attitudes toward conservatives and right wing voters than the other way around.
Anti-Zionism of Mamdani is big red flag, because this marks more radical strain of Islam than liberal/secural/whatever we think of “nice” Islam. And dude is campaning for city mayor, his foreign policy is irrelevant for that job, like, he has no power to bomb Israel, safe Gaza through diplomacy or whatever is the goal. But what he can do as NY mayor is to empower local NY jihadists.
It’s unfortunate, although completely understandable, that you don’t have a non-affirming parent voice in the mix, but it means a lot of conjecture about the on-the-ground reality of these kids. First, the idea that this didn’t hit the “flyover states” is simply not true. The beauty of a social contagion spread online is that it’s an equal opportunity destroyer. Parent support groups saw this happening all over the place. The extended lockdowns in blue states didn’t help those areas but this parasite had already nested in communities where kids were online, which is to say everywhere. Second, it was never the popular kids who were drawn into this. It was and is the awkward misfits. The kids who asked the internet why they couldn’t make friends. Why they felt so uncomfortable. Why they felt so othered. The homely girls who were never going to “perform” femininity right. The gentle boys who didn’t want any part of the rough and tough world of adolescent males. Not all proto LGB. There were edgy precocious kids, sure, but those kids weren’t dragged below the surface like the socially awkward kids.
Thanks for another interesting conversation. I am also previously left, who has woken up with Covid, gender and a whole host of other issues. Not digging the “right” either and tbh my perspective is going back to the traditional perspective of the 1% and the rest of us. We need to move past the two sides and find out commonality and most
Of all fight the elites! Of course harder to do than say - everyday I face left people who continue to be propagandized. But I have hope and ultimately have to have faith that our common humanity will prevail. 🙏
I don’t understand why Maud Maron would label Zohran Mamdani, who has repeatedly said he abhors anti-semitism, a “Jew-hater.” I think it’s wise to be careful about accusations of bigotry. I wish Maud felt the same.
(I also don’t think he’s a lunatic. Ad hominem is a poor way to express disagreement with someone’s policy proposals, in my opinion.)
But I did like Maud’s “we don’t ask students if they’re saved or not saved” argument. The analogy to religion is not new to me, but that particular illustration is, and I appreciate it!
I have controversial opinion: bullying has its uses, because teaches unlikeable kids that they must make themselves likeable to be liked. I was bullied at school in proper meaning of that term and looking back, while it was bad school experience, it forced my socialization/resocialization. Now my relatives have a w f u l unlikeable kids who until school faced no pushback to their back behaviour (strong anti-bullying policies in kindergarden, gentle parenting), their mother is bend on influencing teachers and school specialists and literally the only negative feedback in their lives are classmates, because OF COURSE these kids are bullied.
Holy shnikes Batman, what has happened to Gotham? NYC diddling with both gender and Mamdani, ick.
Loved hearing from Maud--so practical and bottom-line. A woman lawyer RBG would recognize. And four children--wonderful!
I think we've got to get over the idea that with our two main political parties, if one does something evil, that makes the other one the good guys. Not how it goes, children. You work against evils wherever they lie. You talk wherever you get a listen, and if everybody refuses you, you create a new venue. So grateful to Maud for understanding this.
We need to detach from our own romanticized conceptions of how we thought "our" groups and parties and organizations worked and deal with what's happening on the ground now. *This* afternoon, in Gotham and elsewhere. And I've also got to say, without a monumental decrease in the quality of "education" to begin with, I doubt "gender" could've gotten any purchase at all in NYC. As it is, I think grounded natives, immigrants and the working class will clap back in a major way against this sickening wave of trustafarian nonsense; I just hope it's sooner rather than later.
Meanwhile I’m on ballet “Prometheus”, new choreography from this year. It’s absolutely beautiful, but I wonder if I really see what I see or I have anti-woke brain worms. Zeus and brothers Prometheus and Epimetheus - before creating humans and stealing fire - dance together long choreography full of figures more typical for hetero pairings. Like it’s not overly gay-gay, but it’s not the usual way male dancers dance and it is gay. Is this made with purpose to show that heteronormativity and family (incest tabu?) are social constructs???
Lisa, please don't diagnose yourself with TDS. TDS is when the AAP reverses their position on school opening in response to a Trump tweet. It is NOT recognizing Trump's cruelty, corruption, and narcissistic sociopathy. While I agree with his gender EOs, I am under no illusion that he actually cares about women or children. For him (not for all Republicans), this is just a way of sticking it to the libs.
And here is another parallel to Covid, which one of you mentioned on this podcast: I do think that to a large extent, Republicans were right on Covid not because they are more committed to science, but because a) they don't like the government to dictate how they live their lives, and b) because Covid restrictions very quickly became associated with the opposing tribe. I applaud Maud's optimism about the Republican Party becoming a new "big tent", but I am skeptical. The way that party has been purged of anyone critical of Trump and Trumpism since he came onto the scene doesn't give me much hope. Maud's experiences at the level of personal interaction notwithstanding, this current administration is making just as much of a mockery of free speech and thought as the Democrats. Until there are Republicans openly distancing themselves from Trump's cruelty and vindictive lawlessness and corruption, and are able to survive speaking up about that, I don't think the Republican Party will be a home for many disaffected liberals like myself.
On the issue of authoritarianism on both sides, I have been thinking that the difference may be that the Republicans' suppression of free speech and thought is directed at elites and institutions (law firms, universities, etc.), while the Democrats' authoritarianism is happening at the population-level (social media censorship, censorship in the workplace, cancellation at the personal level). Both are bad, but Republicans manage to convince the general population that they are pro-free speech because few people care about law firms or universities or even individual politicians, or even cheer on seeing the universities, where a lot of the suppression of discourse has been happening, punished. Yet both forms of authoritarianism are dangerous for our democracy, and currently I don't have a lot of hope either party is going to get us to a better place.
The "we don't have the data" doesn't necessarily mean that one course of action is just as much of a risk for bad outcomes as simply NOT doing that fashionably cutting-edge new thing.
I'll pull from folk wisdom as a short-cut to convey this: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I think much of the source of dissatisfaction among the young over their bodies and their identities is the privilege of their TOTAL ignorance about how LUCKY they are to have full bellies, working limbs, and no experience suffering from the diseases that STILL maim, weaken, and kill off a large percentage of their young peers who currently exist completely out of view on the other side of the globe. (A recent example demonstrates how ours is a society in which even the well-educated with lots of leisure time to pay attention: Until this morning I was oblivious to the horrendous violence happening in Nigeria committed by Islamic extremists, featuring acts of brutality that are on level with the behavior we all learned about via social media on that horrible Oct. 7th less than 2 years ago. This unworldliness of mine is because I exist in a culture that feeds and houses too many unserious people and makes possible the ability of ridiculous groups like "Queers for Palestine" to bully and impede passers-by in the streets.)
The world is REAL, and cultures that forget how to instill that in their children die out . . . often very gradually, complete with a set of disruptive and obscene contortions that go along with a particularly extended and painful death, all of which makes for "interesting" times. Evolution enforces a relentless logic onto mere mortals at all levels of analysis.
"If you’ve been prosperous and well-fed and affluent for too long, you also tend to become forgetful of your own privilege."
– Maarten Boudry
https://www.facebook.com/reel/745929021190600
What’s going on in Nigeria? I have no idea
Islamists massacred hundreds of Christians.
Hi Maud!
On the matter of belief: I recently read "(Un)Kind: How 'Be Kind' Entrenches Sexism," by Victoria Smith, and am now reading, "Conflict is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair," by Sarah Schulman, and it's got me thinking about how "be kind" in practical terms often means, "be unquestioningly obedient," and how, somewhat analogously to the distinction Schulman makes between conflict and abuse, disbelief (or really... disagreement) is not bigotry.
And then I got to wondering when exactly the left-leaning side of things got so oddly faith-based, in such a plausibly deniable way, ex. "believe women," "believe the science." Shortcuts to epistemic authority. "Believe the science" is a particular pet peeve of mine (it's such an unscientific way of thinking about science!), but even back during the Me Too era, I remember thinking, "I don't know any of these people, and really, I have no interest in adjudicating these matters for complete strangers... ?"
In similar vein “listen to marginalized people”, probably my fav. Yeah I’m listening to you, we’re talking right now, I’m engaging with your views and I’m explains why I disagree even after getting informed by your lived experience. What the hell do you want!
I have no idea if Schulman discusses this but your description of her book made me think of something I’ve been talking about with my young adult daughter lately: the rise in young adults estranging themselves from their families. My sense is that many of these kids are misinterpreting any family conflict, even “normal” levels, as abuse.
It’s not only that. These people are deeply immersed in therapy culture and ideas like burden of emotional work. They think that:
- only the most serious problems or problems suffered by the marginalized are worth attention and empathy
- it’s rude to demand emotional labour, especially when you’re privileged
- all problems should be solved in therapy sessions, not by friends group; be your best self for human interactions
- right to not be offended or upset is their human right
So many people don’t see other coping strategies other than blocking, going no contact
Agreed, therapy culture for sure.
Do you like the book “Conflict is not abuse”? It’s one of very few approved readings of that kind in far left circles
Yes, would highly recommend. Very insightful enough into the psychology that’s often behind the way these dynamics play out. There’s plenty in it I disagree with, but that gives it a particular voice. There are books that feel like they were written by a marketing committee, to please some imagined generic audience, and this is not one of those.
Just came across this review in case you’re interested: https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/revisiting-conflict-is-not-abuse/
Non-gender thing of the week: purslane! My new favorite edible weed; delicious & nutritious. I weeded at the garden Wednesday and ate a bunch of what I pulled out. Rabbit mind. 🐰 Great in salad too.
Also, raspberry season has started, and there should be tomatoes soon.
Thanks for another great discussion!
On the question of "peaking" (a term I learned only last week) and gender vs Covid - for me, it was definitely Covid that alienated me from the Democratic Party. The authoritarianism, the anti-science approach to everything from lockdowns to masks, the overreach on vaccination policies... It thoroughly destroyed my previously strong view of the Democrats as the party of science.
Being very preoccupied with the disastrous Covid response and its long-term effects, I had somehow managed to mostly ignore the issue of gender. I had been under the impression that this was indeed some sort of extension of the gay rights movement, of which I had always been very supportive, and while I was skeptical towards the medical interventions for kids, I didn't think any of the other aspects were that big of a deal, even if I thought that it was kind of crazy to let people like Lia Thomas swim against women. I was, at an intuitive level, very much opposed to what I now know is called gender ideology, but it wasn't until I read Helen Joyce's book last summer that I started to realize the magnitude of the issue and pay attention to what is happening. And I agree with Lisa that the Left's approach to it is very much similar to its approach to Covid, which is why a lot of the same people have been vocal on both.
I also think Ben made a really good point when he said that the Democrats' insistence that men can be women and girls can be boys has a huge impact on trust. Just like their insistence that 2-year-olds should be masked and that 6-month-olds needed to be vaccinated against Covid destroyed people's faith in the Democrats' commitment to science, so does denying the fundamental reality of sex. That is what I think most people who, even if they agree with some of our positions, don't understand when they wonder why we think it is so important and insist on talking about it so much, and blame Trump's win partially on the Dems' devotion to this ideology: the reality of sex is such a fundamental thing in human life, and if Democrats deny the reality of it, what other realities are they willing to deny? It's even more fundamentally trust-breaking than what they did with Covid.
“Ideologically lumpy” might be a good way to describe America. I live in the midwest but a progressive area thereof; someone on my street recently swapped out the trans flag they’d been flying in their yard for a demisexual pride one.
I have one child who just graduated from high school and another who will be graduating from college next year. We live in a pretty liberal area. This is what they're telling me about how their peers see the gender issue. There are certain aspects of gender ideology that are not taken seriously by them: neopronouns, the really fringe gender identities and sexual orientations, furries, and having your entire identity revolve around 10 different orientations and genders and mental health diagnoses. But they still take traditional trans identities seriously. They take nonbinary seriously. They definitely see that it's a fad or being socially influenced in some of their peers but also believe strongly in true trans and believe that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a doctor makes you one of the "really trans" people. They don't like it when their peers make everything about their gender identity or are hostile with it, but if you are "chill" about it, they will gladly go along with it. Dissenting opinions about self-ID in sports and transitioning children are usually tolerated and won't cause you too much trouble if you're careful about how you word them. That's just our little blue corner of the world
Re: open door to conservatives and open door to Zohran Mamdani
As opening statement I’d like to acknowledge that both sides have some really ugly characters and uncivil ideas. Until very recently (~2 weeks) I’ve always thought that conservatives have terrible political views, but nevertheless I recognised they were nicer in interpersonal interactions than leftists or even liberals, because this was my very consistent experience of last ~15 years. I live in Poland and Poland was ruled by far right in 2015-2023, our liberals are mostly centre right. Maybe it’s religion, idk? Sociologists studying polarisation in Poland have discovered (~2019?) that liberals have significantly more hostile attitudes toward conservatives and right wing voters than the other way around.
Anti-Zionism of Mamdani is big red flag, because this marks more radical strain of Islam than liberal/secural/whatever we think of “nice” Islam. And dude is campaning for city mayor, his foreign policy is irrelevant for that job, like, he has no power to bomb Israel, safe Gaza through diplomacy or whatever is the goal. But what he can do as NY mayor is to empower local NY jihadists.
Anti-Zionism is becoming the norm in Progressive circles though. If a nice Liberal can be an Anti-Zionist then so can a nice Muslim.
And this is how we get nice liberals aligned with radical Muslims and cheering on murders of Jews.
It’s unfortunate, although completely understandable, that you don’t have a non-affirming parent voice in the mix, but it means a lot of conjecture about the on-the-ground reality of these kids. First, the idea that this didn’t hit the “flyover states” is simply not true. The beauty of a social contagion spread online is that it’s an equal opportunity destroyer. Parent support groups saw this happening all over the place. The extended lockdowns in blue states didn’t help those areas but this parasite had already nested in communities where kids were online, which is to say everywhere. Second, it was never the popular kids who were drawn into this. It was and is the awkward misfits. The kids who asked the internet why they couldn’t make friends. Why they felt so uncomfortable. Why they felt so othered. The homely girls who were never going to “perform” femininity right. The gentle boys who didn’t want any part of the rough and tough world of adolescent males. Not all proto LGB. There were edgy precocious kids, sure, but those kids weren’t dragged below the surface like the socially awkward kids.
Thanks for another interesting conversation. I am also previously left, who has woken up with Covid, gender and a whole host of other issues. Not digging the “right” either and tbh my perspective is going back to the traditional perspective of the 1% and the rest of us. We need to move past the two sides and find out commonality and most
Of all fight the elites! Of course harder to do than say - everyday I face left people who continue to be propagandized. But I have hope and ultimately have to have faith that our common humanity will prevail. 🙏
I don’t understand why Maud Maron would label Zohran Mamdani, who has repeatedly said he abhors anti-semitism, a “Jew-hater.” I think it’s wise to be careful about accusations of bigotry. I wish Maud felt the same.
(I also don’t think he’s a lunatic. Ad hominem is a poor way to express disagreement with someone’s policy proposals, in my opinion.)
But I did like Maud’s “we don’t ask students if they’re saved or not saved” argument. The analogy to religion is not new to me, but that particular illustration is, and I appreciate it!
I have controversial opinion: bullying has its uses, because teaches unlikeable kids that they must make themselves likeable to be liked. I was bullied at school in proper meaning of that term and looking back, while it was bad school experience, it forced my socialization/resocialization. Now my relatives have a w f u l unlikeable kids who until school faced no pushback to their back behaviour (strong anti-bullying policies in kindergarden, gentle parenting), their mother is bend on influencing teachers and school specialists and literally the only negative feedback in their lives are classmates, because OF COURSE these kids are bullied.
Holy shnikes Batman, what has happened to Gotham? NYC diddling with both gender and Mamdani, ick.
Loved hearing from Maud--so practical and bottom-line. A woman lawyer RBG would recognize. And four children--wonderful!
I think we've got to get over the idea that with our two main political parties, if one does something evil, that makes the other one the good guys. Not how it goes, children. You work against evils wherever they lie. You talk wherever you get a listen, and if everybody refuses you, you create a new venue. So grateful to Maud for understanding this.
We need to detach from our own romanticized conceptions of how we thought "our" groups and parties and organizations worked and deal with what's happening on the ground now. *This* afternoon, in Gotham and elsewhere. And I've also got to say, without a monumental decrease in the quality of "education" to begin with, I doubt "gender" could've gotten any purchase at all in NYC. As it is, I think grounded natives, immigrants and the working class will clap back in a major way against this sickening wave of trustafarian nonsense; I just hope it's sooner rather than later.
Maud, what are your ideas for increasing literacy? And what about students teaching with AI?
Meanwhile I’m on ballet “Prometheus”, new choreography from this year. It’s absolutely beautiful, but I wonder if I really see what I see or I have anti-woke brain worms. Zeus and brothers Prometheus and Epimetheus - before creating humans and stealing fire - dance together long choreography full of figures more typical for hetero pairings. Like it’s not overly gay-gay, but it’s not the usual way male dancers dance and it is gay. Is this made with purpose to show that heteronormativity and family (incest tabu?) are social constructs???
Alas, no synopsis in the program
Lisa, please don't diagnose yourself with TDS. TDS is when the AAP reverses their position on school opening in response to a Trump tweet. It is NOT recognizing Trump's cruelty, corruption, and narcissistic sociopathy. While I agree with his gender EOs, I am under no illusion that he actually cares about women or children. For him (not for all Republicans), this is just a way of sticking it to the libs.
And here is another parallel to Covid, which one of you mentioned on this podcast: I do think that to a large extent, Republicans were right on Covid not because they are more committed to science, but because a) they don't like the government to dictate how they live their lives, and b) because Covid restrictions very quickly became associated with the opposing tribe. I applaud Maud's optimism about the Republican Party becoming a new "big tent", but I am skeptical. The way that party has been purged of anyone critical of Trump and Trumpism since he came onto the scene doesn't give me much hope. Maud's experiences at the level of personal interaction notwithstanding, this current administration is making just as much of a mockery of free speech and thought as the Democrats. Until there are Republicans openly distancing themselves from Trump's cruelty and vindictive lawlessness and corruption, and are able to survive speaking up about that, I don't think the Republican Party will be a home for many disaffected liberals like myself.
On the issue of authoritarianism on both sides, I have been thinking that the difference may be that the Republicans' suppression of free speech and thought is directed at elites and institutions (law firms, universities, etc.), while the Democrats' authoritarianism is happening at the population-level (social media censorship, censorship in the workplace, cancellation at the personal level). Both are bad, but Republicans manage to convince the general population that they are pro-free speech because few people care about law firms or universities or even individual politicians, or even cheer on seeing the universities, where a lot of the suppression of discourse has been happening, punished. Yet both forms of authoritarianism are dangerous for our democracy, and currently I don't have a lot of hope either party is going to get us to a better place.