[Zodd]

There are many intelligent people who speak out AGAINST the extreme left, or the "regressive left" as they call it. Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Maajid Nawaz, etc. And then you also have great youtube channels like Voltaire's Ghost and Thunderfoot who also argue against the extreme versions of feminism, black lives matter, Islamization, immigration, LGBTQ.

I really like thinking about feminism, racism, immigration, sexuality and religion but only those on the 'anti-regressive left' seem to bring forth reasonable points. I know there are smart people who are on the "regressive left" but they are not outspoken or are just not interested in talking about it. It is really hard not to fall into an echo chamber. In real life it seems the same. I think there are plenty of counter arguments to be made against the anti-regressive left. But it seems the extreme left is too emotional to bring forth these arguments or they just resort to calling their opponents racist, islamophobic, misogynystic homophobes to silence them.

So which people or youtube channels have good arguments against against Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz etc? How do you keep yourself from just creating an echo chamber around you? And why do you think so few in the "regressive left" are able to bring forth good arguments?

[The Immortal Goon]

Most people I know on the extreme left tend to read the classics and a lot of different information that they put together.

But if you're looking for an icon, you're going to first find Slavoj Žižek. He is often criticized be the same "extreme left," for having something of a celebrity following and for doing what most of us do—grab as many sources as possible and model the present world upon the logical application of these sources. In his case, Lacan, Marx, Freud, and Hegel.

The difference here is probably how you're defining the "extreme left." There is the left in the liberal tradition, that is to say French republicanism, English radicalism and Jeffersonian republicanism (especially via the institution of the Ward Republic and the social revolution). There is also the left in the Marxist tradition, which is fundamentally different though both are commonly put under the same umbrellas.

Hitchens and Harris are under the former and deny the latter.

You can see this, to some extent, in the debate between Harris and Chomsky. While Chomsky is certainly not a Marxist, he is a bit further to the left of Harris and immediately pins Harris to the wall. Harris is forced to argue for abstract morals, while Chomsky dismissively points out that between two cultures arguing for the supremacy of the moral without understanding where the morality comes from is completely pointless.

Though Chomsky is an unlikely person to carry this torch, this does demonstrate the difference in these two tendencies of the, "extreme left." Though there are going to be, what the right successfully coined as SJWs from the radical and republican traditions that ground their thinking into abstract morals like Harris—there will also be, what Harris and Hitchens group into this group, the Marxists and other revolutionary figures that don't object on moral grounds but upon grounds based upon the material formation of society itself. The irony here, of course, is this is Hitchens and Harris pointing into a mirror and demanding they stop being their own tradition. This is, however, not unusual. To see an ugly aspect of yourself, as they do when looking at what they call the "regressive left," is to cause a great deal of revulsion and the need to distance yourself.

[Albert]

I think Zizek is genuinely crazy. How can people take him seriously I don't understand?

He looks like his on coke or something. And have not slept for couple of days.

[mikema63]

What are extreme versions of LGBTQ?

Who you consider intelligent is going to be up to your taste. For instance I think Sam Harris is a buffoonish idiot. Hitchens is okay though I don't agree with everything he said.

Thunderfoot I consider worse than an idiot.

Theres also a difference between being right and being an idiot. Someone saying things you or I agree with doesn't make them smart.

Zizek is interesting to listen too, though he isn't from the "extreme left" in the same sense as your talking about.

You'd be a little handicapped looking for "SJW" intellectuals because SJW is a slur against people you don't like and not really a label most people apply to themselves.

TL;DR it's a matter of perspective. Most people just dismiss people they don't agree with as not actually intelligent, and assume people they agree with are.

[Political Interest]

There are no more real leftists anymore...

[mikema63]

@Political Interest That's not really the question at hand.

[Rich]

If ye want to whine about leftists, there are plenty of places to do it. Stay on topic.

-TIG Edit

[Tewodros III]

...we need militants not philosophers.

[Bosnjak]

[Paradigm]

A big part of intelligence is imagination: the ability to imagine how things might be different than they currently are. Intelligence is also associated with curiosity, which leads people to seek out new ideas. Then, there is reason: the ability to match means to ends and understand what different propositions entail. All of these are conducive to radical thought, which has a rich history of questioning the existing social order of the day and proposing alternatives that address the problems they find. Of course, this does not inevitably lead one to radicalism. Entrenched prejudices, lack of empathy, self-aggrandizement: these factors may make far-left politics unacceptable even for a highly intelligent people, and can instead lead them toward far-right politics. There are also people who have certain components of intelligence, such as reason, but lack other aspects, such as curiosity or imagination, and therefore can be highly skilled at navigating the existing system without exploring what other possibilities might exist.