the value of offence | qualiasoup & theramintrees [cc]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лют 2018
- A reflection on the usefulness and the exploitation of offence.
You can support the channel at: / theramintrees
--
subtitles
Bulgarian: Djeitko
--
references
Margaret Sanger indictment:
www.archivesfoundation.org/am...
--
pluralistic ignorance:
• Video
--
ANC sues Brett Murray:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-afric...
--
ANC statement regarding Zuma’s right to dignity:
www.anc.org.za/docs/anctoday/2...
--
Justice Malala commentary:
www.theguardian.com/commentis...
--
Dai JianYong story:
www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-1...
www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...
--
Piet Hein Donner proposes enforcement of blasphemy legislation: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...
--
Daisy Khan quote:
• Video
--
Maajid Nawaz story:
www.theguardian.com/commentis...
• Do British Muslims hav... [time index 11:20]
Mohammed Shafiq tweet:
/ 424575029599543296
--
Mill, J.S. (1859) On Liberty.
--
Scanlon, T.M. (1972) A Theory of Freedom of Expression. Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 2. (Winter, 1972), pp.212.
--
Christopher Hitchens talk on free speech:
• Video
--
Cassie Jaye ‘Meeting the Enemy’ video:
• MEETING THE ENEMY A fe...
Cassie Jaye denies false accusations regarding the making of her film project 'The Red Pill':
• Cassie Jaye addressing...
--
Haldane, J.B.S. (1923) Daedalus; or Science and the Future. Lecture to the Heretics Society, Cambridge.
--
‘Scientology - a war without guns’. ABC 20/20 report. Dan Harris interviews lawyer Monique Yingling and ex-Scientologist Mike Rinder:
• Video
Pertinent portion of interview:
Yingling: When someone in the church decides they no longer want to communicate with someone who’s left the church, it only happens when that person starts to attack the church and attack their beliefs.
Harris: Is that voluntary though?
Yingling: Of course. It’s always voluntary.
[Rinder comments in separate interview: It’s patently absurd. It’s just ridiculous. You have the choice of whether you want to disconnect or not. The rest of that sentence is: ‘.... and if you don’t disconnect then we will then deem you what is called a suppressive person and everybody that you know that is a scientologist will disconnect from you.’]
Harris: If you don’t disconnect from a suppressive person, will you be kicked out of the church?
Yingling: No you won’t be kicked out of the church. There may be .... uh .... specific services that you will not be able to participate in, so long as you’re connected to a suppressive person.
Harris: Right. So it’s voluntary but there are consequences if you don’t disconnect.
Yingling: .... Well, there are consequences in every choice we make in, in, in life.
--
Miscellaneous:
‘Libel tourism’
www.theguardian.com/commentis...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...
--
music © TheraminTrees
Full original music tracks used in videos are available to patreon supporters who pledge at the $1 per video level.
![false equivalents | qualiasoup & theramintrees [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e-2WZsP6LA0/mqdefault.jpg)
![false equivalents | qualiasoup & theramintrees [cc]](/img/tr.png)
![tribalism [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cx4GvzjRMx8/mqdefault.jpg)
![punishing doubt | religious condemnation of thought [cc]](/img/n.gif)
It’s not wrong to be offended, it’s wrong to use your offence as an excuse to harm others.
What i find particularly wrong, would be the matter of taking out violence upon those who do not deserve it for being too heavy handed with them. That let alone with doing violence to those who did nothing to you whatsoever.
All because of some creep earnestly bullied you endlessly, while that no one else gave a fuck about your suffering and ignored you as a ghost.
Exactly, you can't control whether or not you get offended. I will say however that some views make you much more likely to take offence, but it's still an emotional reaction.
If you are in the spirit you won’t be offended in the first place. Forgiving them for their ignorance of there ways.
@HomoTriSapien no I never heard of a arrab Jesus? Must be a different Jesus!
The Jesus I know is the son of God!
Many religious believer (of *any* religion), don't even need criticism, to be offended.
The mere fact that you don't believe in their faith, can cause grave offence.
(in other words: Your very existence, is an offence)
We should probably all kill ourselves before we get the death penalty
Matthias Zachariah hang in there buddy.
@@jacksmetana7932 no it'd be a fuck you to them since most religions disavow suicide, as "you're tarnishing the one chance god gave you"
@@TimelineTheSchizoid @Jack Smetana you're also wasting the one chance you get before you stay in the ground forever until you're eventually forgotten
@@ayri3879 The memes lad...
"For this achievement; he was burned at the stake."
Sounds about right
That really caught me off guard
"Burned at the stake" sounds like an Xbox achievement ngl
This is the first of three collaborations with Qualia. Been fantastic working with him again.
Miss your stuff. Used to watch it all the time back in late 2000s....(both you and Qualiasoup)
Awesome video. And timely with a few things going on personally.
Amazing video. I'm going to be sharing this with friends and starting discussions. I'm glad you're back with QualiaSoup.
Even if I don't watch much anymore, it's so great to see that you two are still active and fighting the good fight!
Interestingly, my Evolutionary Psychology teacher shared Qualia's Evolution video for an assignment just last week. I got a kick out of that :8)
So what was Qualiasoup's hand in this? I didn't hear his voice, so did he share in the scripting, storyboarding or animations?
"If someone tells me I've hurt their feelings I say I'm still waiting to hear what your point is." ~Christopher Hitchens
Also, Christopher Hitchens: “I claim the right to be offended.”
Everyone has the right to be offended. However, an individual being offended is not some problem that their society must solve, and no one has the right to not be offended.
Larowyn Do you think that someone, or a group or community can take action to offset, oppose or mitigate the offence? Or do you advocate a put up and shut up approach?
JE Hoyes. Here's a little more context for that quotemine you've got there.
"The first amendment doesn't just provide me with a living; the first amendment is my life! When it's infringed, I am offended. I claim the right to be offended. I do not claim the right to go and burn down someone else's place of worship, to threaten them with violent reprisal, to picket their home, to publish their name in threatening terms on the internet. I won't do any of that. It doesn't mean I can't be offended, but it does mean that I am even more offended by those who claim the right not just to be offended, but to seek violent reprisal..."
Christopher Hitchens -- IQ2 debate -- Oct 18th 2006
The first question is: should the offending material be illegal? It is actually proven to be harmful to the public in some way, or do people just find it distasteful? If the former, the public can petition their lawmakers just like with any other social issue. If the latter, then the offence is a matter of preference, and is not an indicator as to whether something is actually detrimental to society. No one thing is objectively "offensive", and when someone says "that's offensive", what they're really meaning is "that's offensive *to me*", and are simply trying to reframe their personal opinion as an objective fact.
Thank you both for the video. I'm pulling out of a toxic internet culture right now, and even without specific examples from it, the applications of this concept are clear... your videos have been a great help and support in coming to terms with the ideology I slipped into. You were adamant that people who are ensnared by cults are not stupid, and are deserving of respect, and the sense of respect I took away from it allowed me to realize that I might well be one of those people myself. The mechanisms for online cultural pressure are eerily similar to what you described.
I slip back into my old ways of thinking more often than I'd like to admit. I truly care about what drew me to that group, but I don't like being the person it has made me. Realizing that I can be a good person in another way was "against the rules", and I truly appreciate the foundation you gave me for being allowed to break them -- though I've yet to do so much outside of my head, because hoo boy am I scared of the consequences.
If you ever make a video about online or politically based cult-like mindsets, I promise I'll watch it through to the end. Even though I definitely expect some deeply unpleasant feelings in the process.
I wish you well in your reflections - I know it can be tough disentangling ourselves from ideologies we've become invested in. But it sounds like you're investing in yourself now. All the best.
I feel the same way about my political party… Lately I’ve been trying to watch myself but I consistently slip simply by being around my friends who are also in that party. by any chance have you felt improvement in yourself over these years?
Remember that people who escape a cult are extremely vulnerable to falling into another. I'd recommend you try to distance yourself from the need to "do the right thing" and dtyle yourself more like an observer than as a hero. Worked for me i guess, hope you'll get something of value out of my comment.
The content was spot on... but can we turn the music down in the transitions? The VO is at one volume and then all of a sudden when you transition, you jump up by like 234230984 decibels, and my eardrums die.
It was jarring, I agree.
👍
gaeaeazhza *tears earphones out, heavy panting*
You two are criminally under-subscribed and underappreciated.
They are the same one person.
I concur
@@TheRojo387 nuh uh
@@t7H2si0vß2 The same voice on two channels?
Rohan Zener they are brothers 😂
I wonder how the current political landscape could benefit from the lesson of this video.
Being offended seems to be emotional currency that is superior over truthful critiques.
This can be seen on both sides of the political spectrum and erodes the quest for open discussion and finding our own reasoned way.
Bloody love this channel! Don’t think there is a better thinking content creator on UA-cam.
The ideological battlefields have become so toxic and tribalistic that no one entrenched on either side is willing to admit any validity in the points of the other, lest it be viewed as weakness. Its winner take all rather than any quest for the truth. Unfortunately when that happens, everyone loses.
When free thought itself becomes offensive then humankind has needlessly stalled it's own evolution. We are thinking, social creatures, so the prohibition of ideas and discussion renders us incapable of improving the empathy which drives our social progress.
Not much tbh. Dont get me wrong, the content itself puts its finger right into the open wound, but dont you think that the opening sequence is a bit too in-your-face off the bat? A lot of people would already be put off by that and people would point it out as "clearly propagandistic"
I'm a lib soc for a reason
@@fukkendermohammed No it is a tactic to open your eyes
“Negative emotions are felt. But there’s no obligation to accommodate these wishes or demands.
Merely feeling offended by anthers words or actions isn't in itself of suffering unreasonable harm.”
Clicks like.
So glad to see another video from you guys again after such a long time.
A particular judo move that people like to use is to see a reasonable description of actual harm done to a person or group and turn it around pretend the description is merely of offense and not of actual harm.
Another is to treat a person's negative reaction to a proposed plan of action that will harm them as being merely offense.
Using offense to dismiss an argument is fallacious.
Great observation.
I don’t think he touches on this enough. It probably should be a given but not all offence is good offence, which this video doesn’t point much at. And that’s why I worry this will create more athiest cringe edgelords who come from a place of great privilege and rarely actually have reason for offence, who then use this video to justify their own offence at other people’s offence who may have real reasons for their offence.
@@stoopidapples1596 Maybe, they don't low expectations of their fanbase as you do.... I guess?
@@nnnnmhughuuhhjiijj9457 I don't think any fanbase is flawless. There is going to be people who see "offence is important" and take it as "all offense is important" from this video.
@@stoopidapples1596 Well, those people will exist, regardless of the warning but I guess you're right, a warning would be appreciated.
We love you, thanks for all you do, it means alot!
A situation where everyone believes something that nobody believes sounds like an exaggerated hypothetical, but they are all over women's beauty standards. I can't count how many times I've heard "oh, phew! I thought everyone thought that trait was ugly, but I am glad to hear it's normal." I don't know if anyone actually buys into the rules, but everyone thinks that everyone buys into them.
Quality video yet again. I always get excited seeing a new one pop up. Thank you for making these. I wish more people would listen to it. Ironically, people like my father (JW), would agree with you all the way up to when you started talking about Jehovah's Witnesses (hed be fine with the parts about Islam though) and would likely take offence and turn the video off.
Regardless, thank you again for making these.
HomoTriSapien my dad isn't a bad person per se. He's just made a lot of mistakes. Leaving the cult was very difficult and we still don't talk despite my previous efforts to maintain a relationship with him.
Well obviously your father would be offended by questioning Jehovah's Witnesses. It's only the beliefs of _other_ religions that are fundamentally irrational.
Apparently the video offended 46 (probably more by now), for which I can find no reason. I thought - as you did Sknabc - this was a well thought out Quality talk on offence. I remember a caller to a radio talk-back station, commending the fact we have freedom of speech, but couldn't understand why they, (the radio host), didn't use it to stop the other caller from expressing such offensive views: (previous caller said he was an atheist).
Clearly, freedom of speech is only to be used by those with the right opinion...a concept I keep running into.
reminds me of Chef from Southpark
@@EvolBob1 You dare express a different opinion because of your freedom of speech? How dare you, I should have the right to take away your freedom since your logical, thought out and proven argument is wrong! - An antivaxxer/cultist/idiot, probably.
This was also a joke.
We should make a rule, that anyone offended must express it as: "owee wowee"
- Suddenly, everything would make a lot more sense.
@@GEMOTO May more people be like you. ^^ The world would be a much nicer place...
owee wowee
Unfortunately that would be curtailing free expression
@@tedonica ok XD, how about: starting by "owee wowee" and then follow it with what they would want to say normally?
@@FireyDeath4 first: yes. second: ... that's not being offended, is it :D
//first: if it is _REAL_ then yes, it needs to be resolved and fixed. - if it is "art" I might hate it, and be offended, and maybe there should be warning so I don't click on it, but I should not have a right to destroy it, or the person who made it...
This title alone made me want to cry tears of joy.
Hey Nemo - from us both ;8)
M Alex Mull on Facebook if either of you ever want to add me.
Hey Nemo. Neither of us are on Facebook unfortunately. Did go on for a while a few years ago, but felt overstretched keeping up with that on top of other stuff. If either of us do become Facebookers, your name will certainly be clicked ;8)
What font do you use? I love it.
Yeah, that's not his usual (home-made) font. Perhaps it's his brother's.
Correct, Correctrix - Qualia made this one for our collaborations.
Comic sans
@@brisingrdragon7573 i feel offended by this. 👀🤭🤭
@@TheraminTrees Your videos are a true source of inspiration and hope. Thank you. I wish someone would translate them to all languages, your work can help save millions. 💖
Throughout history, insults to ones "honour", had to be answered with violence or some other harsh means, or you were weak, deserving of the insult. (in some cases, you'd even be outlawed) The more mature attitude, that attacking someone for mere insults, shows weakness, poor self-esteem and having it condemned and criminalized, is quite modern.
Islamic countries:- "Not to me, HAH".
@@nnnnmhughuuhhjiijj9457 They are quit firmly, still honour cultures …BUT that doesn't mean that Western cultures have completely gotten out of being honour cultures. You see a lot of honour attitude, in the West, as well. not as firm/strong as in the past, but…
@@ZarlanTheGreen Yeah, I know. I was just using most extreme example that I know.
@@ZarlanTheGreen having a sense of honor is important though, everyone should have a personal code, for example; why would you be intolerant of certain displays of behavior when a friend does something, but completely ignore it when you meet a potential partner; you often see people bend their own code for different types of personal gain or desires.
I just don't think honor should translate into harm unless physical harm makes it's way to you.
@@GeometricPidgeon Having a personal code, is the very opposite of honour.
For many years now I have watched the content you and your brother have created with a sense of (to be frank), awe. The instruction manual for life is still my favourite piece of material on the whole of UA-cam in my opinion.
While there are many players in this social commentary we are all taking part in, you two have consistently maintain an originality of thought that is very rarely seen. Add to this your truly impressive way of communicating your ideas.
Thank you both.
On behalf of us both, thank you very much for your kind message Gerard. It's very affirming to us to hear that our work is communicating itself in the way you describe.
I used to be a MRA, but I left after finding out they didn't really do anything to help men. In fact, some things they did were harmful. They had the idea that men should be tough, so they didn't accept the right for men to be vulnerable. A lot were anti feminists rather than people who wanted to end Injustice towards men. I think no one should be judged on things they can't control: age, gender, race, nationality, ability or lack thereof, etc.
Assuming these people you are referencing are at least doing some sort of activism why do you see them as not helping their nominal cause? Unless you are just saying they werent activists to begin with in which case i have to agree that calling themselves such would be unjustified
There are in many M.(H.)R.A. Organisations which do in fact try to lobby or bring awareness of the many issues men face, but the lack of a united leadership structure has Handicapped the movement, the same applies to why Occupy Wallstreet failed and why the Hong Kong protestors will fail, without a clear structure and clear demands no group can succeed. Of course there are many sub-groups that do have these structures, but the largest ones are run by U.S. American Libertarians who hate authority and don't want new laws because they hate the government, essentially neutering their own activism. Also a lot of other M.(H.)R.A.'s have a Defeatist attitude. I do find more anti-traditionalism than anti-Feminism though, but as both groups display misandry both are fair game.
Don't forget that when people like Dr. Warren Farrell actually tries to speak at universities that he is name-called, anyone who even defends his ability to speak are intimidated and people dismiss things like people advocating against draconian divorce laws, a lack of visitation rights, and male genital mutilation on babies as "Whataboutism".
Do you advocate for men's rights? Like genital integrity, fair divorce laws, government-funded male domestic abuse shelters, legal financial abortions, etc? If not, then you are either a misandrist or a misanthropist but definitely not an egalitarian humanist. if you do...what would that make you? Some kind of Men's. Rights. Advocate. or something? That's quite the moth full, you mind if we shorten that?
Also, could you give me names? Saying that "somethings they did were harmful", and "they didn't do anything to help men" sound very vague, and sounds suspiciously like what most people that want to smear the MRM say. That is not an accusation by the way. I'm just skeptical.
Any examples if you may? Are you sure you are not mixing the other groups of the "manosphere" up?
Once again another video into a very powerful experience. The visual composition was so good! The very font used for the word 'offence' makes it look pointy, like spikes, ready to pierce someone... And the video felt so full of content for 25 minutes!
I'm so glad that you're working with your brother again! Thank you so much for giving us these invaluable insights!
The amount of people I’ve heard complain that their free speech is being denied because no one wants to listen to their bigotry.
Offence can be a reasonable in many situations, but obviously not always.
In religious contexts, the main source of offence is taken when a religious person is told their religion sucks or something. They’re raised to see it as a core part of their identity, something they cannot exist without. So when someone is ‘mean’ to their god or whatever, they think it’s on par with someone receiving racist or homophobic abuse. It doesn’t occur to them that criticism of religion is more on par with criticism of the flat earth or round earth theories because they’ve been conditioned to take offence since god must not be questioned.
Happy Enjoyment
I disagree with your assertions.
Words cannot and do not harm people generally. Unless there is sustained, concentrated verbal attacks on an individual, very very *very* few cases of "bigotry" in verbal communication have resulted in any form of mental or emotional harm.
I'll give you an example. I'm bisexual. I've been told by family (brothers in particular) that my sexuality isn't real.
Does this qualify as bigotry? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the definition we're going by. Regardless of that though, it is not abuse and any sort of claim that it is, is using an AWFULLY loose definition of "abuse".
And this is an assertion on my part, but the vast majority of people I see online attack ideas posed by racial and gender activists, rather than their identities. Many have no problem with black people, gay people, women, or other minority groups. It's primarily activists and ideologues you see having their ideas challenged, not regular people on the street.
@@thekeyandthegate4093 well said, totally agree. Also dangerous leftist doctrine has gone too far and it's pushing for justice a lot harder than many of us are ready for.
@@thekeyandthegate4093 perhaps your brothers’ particular statements are not necessarily harming /you/, but when it is sometimes instead “I think (insert group) deserve to be lined up and shot” words absolutely can be harmful. Especially to people who already live with malignant shame. For example, the individual who told me I should drink bleach to sanitise the world of my presence just for being trans, yeah that did in fact cause me harm. The old adage “sticks and stones” is a steaming pile of bullshit used to justify abuse and hate. Hate is harmful. Even if it is ‘just’ words.
Bollocks. The woke mob uses your argument to censor and cancel anyone who doesn't submit to the hive mind. It's the religious argument, turned on its head and used by those formerly censored themselves. People are entitled to their opinions even if you, in your unimportant opinion, consider them "bigoted".
from your long time Nigerian fan in Abuja...thank you for your work & don't ever relent. Your videos are very important.
Greetings to you in Nigeria - and thank you.
Ayyyyy Another Nigerian ♥️
hi, I only just recently found your channel and DAMN your videos are SO AWESOME!!! I have no words. So spot-on and so many inspiring thoughts... not only do your arguments help me deal with toxic people, they also help me see my own shortcomings and deal with them better.
I just want to take a moment and thank you for these videos. They have been a vital part in my coming out of a dogmatic worldview and my life is starting to blossom.
This is the more intelligent side of UA-cam.
*-the- a
Really enjoyed this video. I am grateful for the work done by the people behind this channel. I do often enjoy the direct and respectful exposure of a variety of viewpoints and the necessity to adjust my own state of beliefs as a result of having the freedom to hear what I choose to allow in my personal sphere. Of, course, this is an activity that I am able to enjoy because of my chosen value set in the first place so there is some merit in acknowledging the responsibility of each adult to create in themselves a willingness to change as new information becomes available to them.
Thank you all for helping me to become the best version of myself and for facilitating the expression of our highest potential, whether as an individual or collectively.
Respectfully, a comrade in Canada✌😎💕
Timely and awesome. Well researched. If I was going to write a personal response to the visceral memories that surfaced while watching this video it would run into ten pages. I will be watching this again. I have been recommending your channel :)
Thanks you two. Glad to see something from you both again.
I've been waiting so long for you. Thank you!
I am so happy you are working together again!! Thank you for another great video!
I love this. Though at times its very difficult to listen to someone who’s telling you something and you listen then speak yourself and all you get back is ‘I’m not listening to this.’ I have to say I love all of these videos.
The idea that we should legislate against things based on whether or not they offend the religious is absolutely ridiculous. What happens when my mere existence offends the religious? This is the reality where I live, the idea that it's somehow "more accepting" or "more tolerant" to allow that to have a direct influence on laws throws people like me under the bus.
Always good to see your work, Mr. Trees. QualiaSoup, I've been looking forward to your input into these collaborations ever since TT announced them. You two make a great team. I really appreciated this one.
Peace.
Mr Trees? lmao
Wow. What a video. I never know what to say after a video like this, from him, especially. Straight up informative, decent, logical, collecting from just centuries of wisdom. It's crazy how complete and well-thought-out his videos. Blows my mind sometimes.
Simply brilliant.
This material should be a compulsory listen for anyone seeking employment in social media, politics, education and teaching, and mainstream media.
I want to see more of the floating baby! I think he could become really big. I'm picturing a Floating Baby TV series, Floating Baby breakfast cereal, and Floating Baby: The Movie.
another amazing video...visually stunning and intellectually stimulating....as a past student of philosophy really appreciated the brush up on Mill's On Liberty...so long ago, so much forgotten...thank you
D Mac 😺 My sentiments exactly! We have marginalised philosophy in education to the detriment of our students. Here in 🇬🇧 there is a scheme named ‘Sapere’ that provides support to schools that wish to include developing critical thinking with their staff and students. Another scheme is ‘Philosophy 4 Children’ or P4C which has had a marked positive reaction from those who have adopted it with children as young as five. Until education is rid of political interference such initiatives will remain very much on the margins of the curriculum.
Here in the U.S. we don't even mention critical thinking in public schools (K-12.) I don't think the negative effects of this can be overstated.
My 15 year old told me that his 'Freshman Academics' teacher showed the class a YT video recently titled '10 Things Rich People Do that Poor People Don't," and his teacher regularly pushes this narrative of stereotyping/generalizing large groups of people apparently.
As an aside, my own 'Critical Thinking and Evaluation' teacher in my first year of college seemed to have an unshakable religious bias that I challenged (as politely as I thought possible.) I even cited the course textbook which accurately described her bias, but she still completely denied it. But then she did give me an almost perfect score on my final (in which I described her own bias,) so maybe she realized it all along?
That "pluralistic ignorance" (or whatever that phrase was) could have been my family!!! Of seven kids, 6 of us have now left our mormon faith, but we never would have been aware of our mutual lack of belief if my older brother or youngest sister hadn't started the conversation :) I'm always stoked when I run into your videos, by the way
best video on this channel so far
I love the breakdown of logic and the different examples used to support them
it really helps shine a light to 2020's current events and gives me a sense that I generally understand the offended better
Hey, Theramintrees! Your Mum.
You won't get any argument there ;8)
Oooh.. ban him, Theramin! Ban him!
@@TheraminTrees I'm offended that you weren't offended by it
22:11 Everyone involved in any kind of accusation and investigation of any crime should remain publicly anonymous. This should be the case for alleged perpetrators as well as witnesses and victims. Unless there are clear reasons why a person’s name be revealed to the public, such as to call for more information or to warn the public of imminent danger, everyone should retain anonymity throughout the justice system unless they choose to reveal their name. I would extend this to retain anonymity even after conviction because even a guilty verdict does not mean someone is actually guilty. This anonymity would not make any difference to due process.
Most false accusations of rape are dropped prior to development into a case being taken to the CPS and the courts. So, public anonymity in the early stages of an investigation right up to a court hearing is essential. I’d extend the anonymity throughout the entire process.
In the US at least doing so after a guilty verdict is impossible, as court records are made available to the public.
This. I have been saying this for years at least for cases of rape where merely accusing someone of rape can cause their life to be destroyed even though they ight be innocent.
I would disagree with keeping the anonymity after a guilty verdict. If we do not trust the justice system that far, we should convict no one at all. If we consider the evidence enough to punish someone that should be enough evidence to tell others about it.
HiltownJoe No, because there are too many miscarriages of justice to accept that justice is infallible. Hence the appeals system and pardoning. Also, we have to work towards rehabilitation for people convicted or they will be forever caught in a cycle of mistrust. It would be a simple matter to anonymise court records to allow for facts but redact names and other revealing details.
In rare cases of public safety, then a convict’s name could be revealed but, in all other cases I can’t see a need.
But my point is, why would you dare to send someone to jail but not to tell everyone? If you are convicted you are found guilty and are to be punished and have not anymore the privilege to be seen as innocent. The standard it beyond any reasonable doubt. Once that standard is reached it is not reasonable anymore to grant protection of anonymity.
And for the rehabilitation part. If you can not stand by what you did, you do not earn my trust.
Thank you. I have so many emotions and not enough words with which to express them. You have spoken for so me, and for so many others and we love you for that.
So epic, intense beyond the normal acceptances of social normalcy which have cause so much pain throughout ones life.... My my its quiet odd to find kindred minds putting my thoughts and feelings, and exposing personal flaws in such coherent and practical a fashion. You certainly deserve a place among the great thinkers of our age and specie's. Although one is seldom recognized in one's own environment....
I think there is also a couple important points that are at the best being underplayed and the worst being actively ignored. First I think while there is definitely a value to offensiveness when attacking powerful and/or corrupt individual (which is what almost all your examples are of, government leaders, often of autocratic states, and religious extremists) I think there is, however, a difference between that and say, your religious neighbor. But more importantly for me, the second point is things are rarely offensive with no context, like yes the context may not justify being offended or the responses people take but it rarely simply "words hurt" like you do even acknowledge that workplace bullying is a concern and a big part of that is this offensive language.
Yes, the video's goal is simply to point out that offense doesn't necessitate wrongdoing, it isn't to undermine when people are offended by legitimate reasons. It is attacking the common conception, as it is impossible to address every conception and idea people have about getting offended.
It's similar to why legal systems are based on "innocent until proven guilty", just because I claim someone stole from me, doesn't mean they did. No matter how strongly I believe so, or how outspoken I am it doesn't make it a fact. In the same vein, no matter how offended I am by something someone has done or said, it doesn't mean that I'm in any way justified to be offended, but it is assumed way too often that people aren't offended without reason.
What does “it’s assumed people aren’t offended without reason” mean? Please help
@@heiiohowareyoutoday5162 As far as I see, they are saying when we see someone is offended, we default to thinking it's because they have a good reason to be, rather than considering if the offence is justified.
Work-place bullying isn't based on offensive language. It's based on abusive language. Those are two very different things.
There is yet another factor to consider: the Pygmalion effect a.k.a self-fulfilling prophecy. When many people believe in an offense that they live in "a tottering country in an outskirt of the economy with a totally corrupt government full of bandits, where more drugs is sold than food and the future is absolutely grim", they rip off everyone and everything they can and then escape, therefore contributing in that prophecy.
Qualiasoup was one of my favorites in the past. Hope he starts making more content.
Hey, thanks a lot for putting this into words. For me this is applicable to real-life scenarios, not as much to censorship.
Someone had recently told me that offending someone you like is always bad, even when being offended is not justified, since you're just hurting someone you want the best for.
Thanks to your words, I am now sure that this is not always the case, and sometimes it is not worth apologizing.
Of course this doesn't mean that you ought to just speak your mind about everything, but you have to stand your ground sometimes.
I see myself as a person who is hard to offend and I wish more people were like this.
I'm offended that only 7000 people have found this excellent video worthy of a like!
Nice to see you around again Theremin!
WizardJim! Great to see your name pop up! Hope you're doing great ;8)
Hey, Qualia's back! That guy played a big role in helping me lose religion!
Great to see you guys collaborating, and thanks for the great video :)
I absolutely love your videos. Qualia's channel as well (I wish he made the 4th part of the morality series he mentioned at the end of part 3). Over the years I would occasionally rewatch many of them. However, recently I've come to watch/listen to them on loop many times per week. This started about 2 or 3 weeks ago. I am unsure whether this is a sign that I'm trying to further process the ideas in your videos or whether I'm doing myself harm in some way.
Regardless, I just wanted to say thank you for your work over the years. Your videos are the best.
I just noticed you had a patreon so I'll be showing my support there as well.
Cheers Eric - and thank you very much for your patreon support.
Every single video of yours I have seen so far is brilliant!
Thank you
I agree with much of what you are saying, but what about when someone is using a platform to explicitly attack a marginalised group of people, which will inevitably lead to people being seriously harmed? Is that a consequence worth accepting just for the chance of what for many in the audience may be nothing more than a thought experiment rather than something that directly and harmfully affects their lives (as it would be for another)?
7:15 I love how he dissected, in the most eloquent language, the 'your mum' joke.
Keep up the good work. A deep discussion presented in an accessible format is what the world needs today.
Smashing to see ya both back.
As per usual, simply fabulous.
Bravo chaps.
This is one of my favorite videos by you so far. I *loved* the opening and ending segments. It's very powerful and the animation is fluid! Don't *ever* stop making them. Keep our freedom of speech alive!
Really great video overall! In regard to the last example, I think that while it suffices for the point you were trying to make (sometimes someone whose words or opinions are "offensive" on first glance may have valid points to make), a few things about how it was presented seem like they were done poorly. For one, I get that the purpose of that example was to illustrate self-awareness at overcoming the bias to believe that everything your opponents say is malicious slander, but I think that by trying to sidestep the issues at hand and focus on that particular quality (which, in itself, is commendable) it leaves some very... alarming threads hanging. For one, while it's valid to acknowledge legitimate points made by these people once you notice them, the argument can easily be interpreted from what you cited that because you notice these you must immediately renounce your prior position. By referring to Jaye as a "former" feminist and not acknowledging that yes, a lot of vocal MRAs do say legitimately sexist things (and that goes even without requiring a full examination of their overall arguments, or how a lot of MRAs will gleefully do the exact same thing to feminists that Jaye did to them), it paints an image that she completely changed her mind on feminism (she may have, I don't know of her specifically), and that she should be _praised_ for doing so. But the one point you mentioned that she overlooked that was valid (men shouldn't be falsely accused of rape) isn't something most feminists would deny, and by her acknowledgment of it you imply she didn't deny it ever either, just ignored it while fishing for less valid points to highlight. A dishonest practice to be sure, but not indicative of anything inherently wrong with feminism or her actual beliefs before or after. A feminist becoming an MRA just because someone says that false rape accusations are bad would be as logical as me converting to Christianity because my Christian friend tells me that they see Biblical views of sexuality as outdated and unjust. It's nothing I shouldn't already have agreed with, and it doesn't affect the legitimacy of either of our overall arguments that we agree on that one point. (For the record, men's and women's rights are by no means mutually exclusive, and while there are both feminists and MRAs who would both agree and disagree with that statement, I tend to see more feminists who agree and more MRAs who disagree.)
Having a valid point doesn't make you right overall, nor does ignoring other people's valid points destroy any validity in points you may have. We have a duty to listen to people and to accept valid arguments they make, however uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean that their overall arguments are valid just because a small portion of them may be. And as a final addendum, being offended may not mean you are right, but neither does being the one doing the offending. If subjective discomfort on both sides can be set aside, and rational arguments made, one side will still generally be more supported than the other. And in that sense, I despise the whole "thick skin" culture we create, not because it is a bad thing to be thick-skinned about potential offense, but because in extreme forms it leads to arguments being dismissed purely because of someone showing offense. We must be willing to call out overreactions even from those on our "side", but with that we must also redouble our efforts to have clear, rational debates, rather than letting offense itself be seen as indicative of right or of wrong. Just as you said in the conclusion, you can't stop anybody from being offended ever; it happens to _all_ of us. But what you can do is to see where the offender has valid points and where they do not, and thus both learn new things about them and about ourselves, and reinforce our conviction in what we have already well reasoned to be true. Being challenged doesn't mean being outdone; sometimes an uncomfortable argument can be refuted better by addressing it head on and figuring out where it is faulty than by just rejecting it outright. (That said, sometimes it really does feel like there should be no reason to debate certain things people suggest these days... It can be hard to be rational in days where Neo-Nazis are taken seriously.)
‘A feminist becoming an MRA just because someone says that false rape accusations are bad would be as logical as …’
-But this isn’t at all what was said is it? Firstly, nowhere was it either said or implied that Jaye became an MRA. Secondly, her shift in position wasn’t based on one comment but on a whole range of interactions. So a scenario in which a feminist becomes an MRA in response to one comment bears no relation to the Cassie Jaye story.
‘(men shouldn't be falsely accused of rape) isn't something most feminists would deny … not indicative of anything inherently wrong with feminism …’
-Again, we made no statements about ‘most feminists’ or indeed feminism, did we? We spoke - with great specificity - about a single individual who realised she was constantly adding negative spin of her own to other people’s statements.
‘By referring to Jaye as a "former" feminist …’
-Jaye referred to herself explicitly as a former feminist film maker in the TED talk from which her quotes were taken. Rather than impose a description on her, we used her self-description.
‘… and not acknowledging that yes, a lot of vocal MRAs do say legitimately sexist things’
-Irrelevant. Think of the following parallel: an atheist notices she’s been mischaracterising innocent theists as obnoxious anti-atheist arseholes. In recounting her story, should I verbally acknowledge that plenty of theists are obnoxious anti-atheist arseholes? It seems to me that by doing so I would be implying that this atheist’s abuse of innocent theists was somehow ‘understandable’. In my view, it’s not ‘understandable’ - or acceptable. Distortions made against any innocent individuals are not justified or mitigated by the abusive actions of others from their group. Each person should be heard on their own terms - that principle should be especially obvious in the context of one-to-one interviews, as conducted by Jaye. And I’ve argued vehemently with some atheists who’ve treated innocent theists in a degrading way because of their experiences with some other, abusive, theists. Stories I could tell.
I understand that for many people, the terms ‘feminist/feminism’ and ‘MRA’ can evoke strong images and sentiments. But that makes it all the more important to be sure of what’s actually being said, when these terms are mentioned. As the very example of Cassie Jaye shows, it’s all too easy to infer material that in fact does not exist.
I'm not saying any of it was what you said, it's all about the possible interpretations that could be gleaned from it. I'm simply pointing out the room for misunderstanding, especially because I see a lot of people in these comments who would take that. I'm not accusing you of saying anything you didn't. Just wanting to clear the air on matters. If you aren't saying anything of what I suggested, that's fine. I'm just more saying that, intentionally or not, this is a rather touchy subject that, for your credit, you didn't get into in detail. But that lack of detail leaves room for people to assume things.
You are right that it's easy to infer material that doesn't exist. But I'm more just pointing out that the legitimate points you were making left room for those inferences to take root, and I wanted to be sure that I properly understood what meaning you were intending to get across (analyze what is actually being said, no matter how uncomfortable it may be, rather than what you expect to be said) and what meanings about the specific example you used were unintended. Perhaps it makes that example even more relevant, in that it doesn't necessarily ascribe right or wrong to her actual views (or perhaps especially to those who would generally agree with a feminist perspective), and more so to the metaphorical blinders she put on.
I want to repeat that I was not accusing you of anything, more so wanting to discuss the points that were made and understand them for how you intended. Perhaps because of the charged nature of that particular debate it can be easy to see any discussion of matters as taking a side. My goal was more to understand the intent, and to clear the air on the possible assumptions that could be taken from it by less charitable viewers. And regardless of any disagreements with my (perhaps poorly phrased) initial comment (my only excuse is that it was relatively late when I made it so my brain was already tired), I did attempt to handle it rationally overall, and to your credit you don't seem to be disagreeing with what I feel were the more general points I made toward the end. And once again, I never questioned that it was a good example for what was intended and for what the video was meant to address, I only made the comment to ascertain that any harmful assumptions that could be made were, quite simply, just assumptions.
@Nana Honestly, this response is a big part of why I stopped watching his channel even when he does occasionally post again. That, and some of his content on Islam gave me the same "I don't disagree with your explicit point, but the sources you cite and the tone you take makes me uncomfortable with what your true angle might be" vibes. Also, I was relatively diplomatic about Jaye and her "documentary" out of a lack of full knowledge of the contents thereof, but in the years since I can comfortably say that it's... a pretty transparent and bad argument, and one easily dissected and dismissed. The fact that the video so blatantly sidesteps all the issues in favor of a valid point it makes that nobody else argues against... I have trouble believing it wasn't a disingenuous way to bring MRA talking points up uncritically while not going down the road of outright misogyny that other UA-cam atheists had gone down before and managed to drive away large portions of their audiences and give atheism in general a bad name. Also, it's funny how the ones who call their opponents snowflakes always melt down the fastest... The years since this video was made have only made that clearer.
Theramin Trees, have you watched Robert Sapolsky's lecture on YT on the "psychological underpinnings of religion?" He's a counter part of Steven Pinker, intellectually. Your eloquence in explaining all the subject matter in this area is incredible. Thinkers of our time are well represented in your content. I'm happy to support this channel!
Its always a treat to see you two working together
Choose what offends you and prepare for a challenge! This is so enlightening. Thanks brothers!
I think this video is a very important and circumspect look at the fundamentals of the problem, but it feels lacking when it comes to the potential harms of unregulated speech. My thinking on the subject is just starting to develop, but I can take a couple stabs at it that I hope are representative.
For example, the point about speech that incites people to cause harm is interesting, but a lot of the people who are attempting to motivate violence against minorities or to make them feel unsafe by evoking the threat of violence under which those people live are all too aware of the lines they can and can’t cross in a strategical way. Many of them have very advanced and developed thinking on the subject, and a keen understanding of the weaknesses of a free marketplace of ideas. One might, for example, avoid calling directly for violence against a group of people, but instead depict a vision of society where those people present a terrible threat to everyone else and are responsible for holding back progress, and emphasize the value in seizing one’s own fate, and then leave those people to draw their own conclusions about what is to be done-to, in effect, launder the violence of their speech through the audience.
There’s also, in my view, a difference between being made uncomfortable by a challenge to one’s beliefs, and by continued, insistent argument in favor of measures that materially threaten one’s safety and the safety of their community even when the premises of those arguments have been disproven such that anyone truly interested in an exchange of ideas would set them down and move on. At what point do we decide that a collection of unsubstantiated claims and misrepresented statistics arranged intentionally as a recruitment tactic is not really an argument, but rather a more advanced and insidious way of saying, “I want to hurt you,” which has been arranged to look like an argument in order to gain access to spaces that a less sophisticated declaration of intent would be barred entry?
I am always interested in discussing the world with people who’s perspective is different than my own. But the complex feelings I get in that situation are categorically distinct than when I’m talking to someone who clearly thinks I belong in a camp.
Steven Pinker's hair is just the best.
it's offensive
Steven Pinker's hair was possibly the most challenging element of the video - I love Qualia's elegant solution to the Pinker problem.
Anyone who knew of Pinker beforehand would recognized his avatar immediately. No label needed for us.
Yes indeed. Nawaz was equally easily identified.
But yes, the little Pinker made me smile somewhat.
This is so finely distilled, any preference stripped. It assumes no prior knowledge of an 'other' which we can dislike together. It speaks in ways that can be applied in many directions.
Listening to such clear thinking as this cleanses the mind. It’s refreshing as well as fortifying. Also, the Hitchens references were very much appreciated (still mourning his death).
Great work as always! Just one thing:
22:31 "Listening to parties we've judged as offensive can give us a valuable opportunity to find out we're the mis-informed party"
Correction: *sometimes* listening to the offensive party can be valuable. Not always. Sometimes the other party is every bit as offensive as they seem. Example: young-earth creationists. I've heard enough their willful ignorance and stupidity to confidently say they are not worth my or any other thinking person's time. See also neo-nazis, the kkk, and islamic militants who believe a work of fiction warrants death. I wouldn't advocate stripping them of their rights, but let's not pretend there's some hidden kernel of misunderstood truth to those people, because there isn't.
"Sometimes the other party is every bit as offensive as they seem."
The whole point of the video is that being offensive is not a bad thing. If they are as offensive as they seem, that's all the more reason to listen to them.
"Let's not pretend there's some hidden kernel of misunderstood truth to those people, because there isn't."
Truth isn't the only thing that makes a person worth listening to. Recall the quote from Mill in the video: _if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error._ By listening to ideas that are wrong we gain a better understanding of the ideas that are correct through the contrast.
For example, by exploring the ideas of young-earth creationists, we better understand the evidence for the age of the earth. Consider the Tony Reed youtube channel and the long-running series How Creationism Taught Me Real Science. It's a series entirely devoted to how young-earth creationism is a valuable tool for finding and exploring the tricky and interesting bits of nature. It's not because young-earth creationism is true; it's because young-earth creationism offers an unconventional perspective and prompts us to ask questions we might otherwise have never considered.
"I've heard enough their willful ignorance and stupidity to confidently say they are not worth my or any other thinking person's time."
So you've heard these ideas and thought about them and determined that they are stupid. You've learned and grown from the experience. Don't deny other thinking people that same benefit. We can learn from other people's mistakes to save us from making the same mistakes ourselves.
"See also neo-nazis, the kkk, and islamic militants who believe a work of fiction warrants death."
If it weren't for them, who would ask a question like: why _shouldn't_ we kill people for a work of fiction? If no one ever thinks about these things, how will we protect ourselves from charismatic leaders who try to convince us that people should be killed for a work of fiction? It's only by hearing these ideas that we can broaden our horizons and prepare ourselves for the real world. A sheltered life of carefully curated ideas is not ready for the wide world of crazy in which we really live.
Ansatz66 "Don't deny other thinking people that same benefit."
You raise good points, but this is where you drop the ball. I'm not denying anyone anything. As I said I'm not in favour of stripping the offensive parties I mentioned, of their rights. They are free to bay at the moon all they want. Other people can wade through their shit if they like, but I've heard it all already. Though I would go one step further, regarding someone who kills over a cartoon. Beyond a clinical study of criminal behaviour, there is nothing such a person would have to say that I would have the slightest interest in hearing. Their actions have said it all.
"As I said I'm not in favour of stripping the offensive parties I mentioned of their rights."
If we tell people that the offensive parties aren't worth listening to and people believe us, then it accomplishes the same thing as stripping the offensive parties of their rights. Either way it leaves people without the benefit of hearing fresh points of view. Once we've heard these ideas there's not much use in retreading the same ground, but let's not do anything that might stop people from exploring these ideas for the first time.
"There is nothing such a person would have to say that I would have the slightest interest in hearing. Their actions have said it all."
Clearly such people are monstrous, but they are still people, and that means there is something going on inside their heads that we might come to understand. They're not mindless murder machines. If we hear them out and have a dialogue, perhaps we might even discover a way to convince them to stop killing, or at least find ways to help potential victims. Understanding these people is a matter of life and death, so we ought to at least be mildly interested in what they have to say.
Ansatz66 "If we tell people that the offensive parties aren't worth listening to and people believe us, then it accomplishes the same thing as stripping the offensive parties of their rights."
No, this is oversimplification.
If asked about creationists, I would give my honest opinion. If they're really interested, I'd invite them to view the Nova documentary on the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, or Aronra's excellent Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series. I'd be giving them a warning of exactly what sort of tiresome recycled dishonesty they could expect if they choose to engage creationists. I don't see how any reasonable person could argue that I've stripped anyone of anything.
@@Ansatz66
"If we tell people that the offensive parties aren't worth listening to and people believe us, then it accomplishes the same thing as stripping the offensive parties of their rights."
We have just as much right to say these people are not worth listening to as they have to say that Jews, blacks and cartoonists are not worth listening to (especially considering they're going so far as to say these people should sooner be killed than listened to). Freedom of expression isn't a one-way street.
Expressing a strongly dissenting opinion is not censorship, and choosing not to listen to someone I don't want to listen to isn't either. They're still free to talk or publish their own ideas.
I do think that Twitter stans need to watch this.
but they would get offended
@@crissis3263
Exactly.
Excellent video. Very well argumented. I also especially like your calm way of talking.
Thank you for the great material. So many ideas about basic human interaction were already formed and expressed a long time ago
I think it's important to remember that 'Im offended' is just as much a kind of expression as the material being deemed offensive. Just like you should be free to say whatever you want, other people need to be free to say whatever they want in response. Freedom of expression goes both ways.
I don't feel like I should have to say this, but I know someone is gonna try to spin it this way. I am NOT saying that you shouldn't say offensive things on the internet. I am saying that when you do, you don't get to complain about it when people get offended. You brought it upon yourself.
yep, freedom of speech, freedom of consequences
Welcome back, qualiasoup
You might be surprised how much things have purely to do with feelings. Think about it, how often do we feel but not express it? It accumulates. I have noticed a change of viewpoint after feeling, even realizing my own soul which lead to relief. By that I mean seeing the light from a heavy feel, understanding why it was reasonable to feel intensely, or it was the relief simply. The other way around you could say, that we hold views so that we are able to feel. Or maybe it doesn't serve any intention but there is definitely something about this. We are after all beings which means when we don't express how we feel, things add up like a layer to our connection to life. Sometimes it is just about things you literally get off your chest where it is merely about to feel and why not. (edit: or wait, it is not about to get things off your chest. It is about to feel, which gets things off your chest. There is no theory about it anyway) Because maybe the topic was low and below you but nontheless the feelings were there and from a reality pov that's all there is. You feel, as a being and that is real. And I shouldn't even say that because one shouldn't know anything else. But it doesn't even matter because you can only do one thing, feel or think. You could even have such theory initially but once you feel, it's whatever, 2%. And feelings are generally ...I mean there are no bad feelings. (Even guilt and shame are good unless falsely attributed but I don't mean these) We have a lot of fear about unpure feelings. But as always in life things need space. A feeling might not be pure initially but nontheless it starts with a feel. The problem is when unpure feelings get stuck within a relationship. It's not that both people wouldn't want to resolve it. It can also be rather light right away. Especially anger is very strong and pure the more you already feel as you should, not below something right? because anger is what keeps things at distance so to speak. There is many things not working out if you just look at singing. Who can really effortlessly express their feelings with music which is though the natural way to do it. You see people pushing and trying which is okay too to get in touch but who can really feel? There is not a lot of emotional depth in singing, people get carried away to sound beautiful which feelings always do. And you can see this tendency everywhere that one wants to feel. There is so many "genres" of music that ultimately are about the life stream wanting out. Literally everything is life stream, there is only one channel. Have you ever noticed that you can say the same thing you would say angrily also lightly? continued: But often they get stuck because it doesn't stay with anger, which it isn't often even. There is relief and yes there is love then. I mean just look at the weather, how could we miss such a simple thing? rain, lighting, thunder...Relief-rain (different from the beginning rain which resembles sadness)....sun. How could we miss it?
A new video,I know what I'm doing for the next 24 minutes.Thank you TheraminTrees and Qualia Soup for making me think.
I agree with you on the importance of free expression, but I think it's important to note that not all viewpoints should be given equal weight.
For example, anti-vaccine campaigners promote views that are detrimental to public health and safety. They shouldn't be silenced, but but individuals and social media sites ought to work to promote evidence-based medicine practices over misinformation.
Or for another example, suppose there's a private forum which people use to discuss a hobby or shared interest. Mods ought to and do have the right to censor someone who is harrassing members. The harrasser should have the right to say what they want about the group somewhere else, but not in that group if they fail to follow its rules.
"suppose there's a private forum which people use to discuss a hobby or
shared interest. Mods ought to and do have the right to censor someone
who is harrassing members."
For a private forum it's up for the moderators and owners to decide what ideas or work they want to present.
I think that large general-purpose platforms have more of an obligation to freedom of expression, but specialist platforms can choose to orient themselves towards a specific audience by implementing rules and restrictions around what can be posted.
But did she explain to the MRA that less than 1% of rapists are charged and statistically false rape claims are extremely unusual
Just found your channel a few days ago and I'm in love. In order to not offend you I am compelled to comment otherwise I would recieve the death penalty haha. I can finally connect the dots in a logic manner when in discussions. Thank you!
I am so happy!! Thank you and keep up your amazing work!
The beginning is so powerful
Excellent video as always.
i really enjoy how you present your arguments totally subbing . Keep up the great work. Much love from Bolivia.
Cheers Marco
Brilliant! Looking forward to the next collaborative piece.
Offense has become a profession for those protecting untenable ideologies.
This is the core of it, and I wish this was more central in the conversations about religion, SJWs, and other such cults.
That is true, and worthy of scrutiny. But we also have to acknowledge that this, or the pretense that this is a universal state of affairs when it comes to offense, has mutated into a license, in some cases even a social obligation, to be an absolute cock to people who are weak, or deemed weak, personally or socially speaking.
There's an entire subculture of people now, who thrive on being as offensive as they can. Offense has become a goal in itself to these people. It's akin to mass murderers who've taken Darwinism as a moral imperative, and goes out "culling the weak", seeing their actions as inherently good because it removes weakness from society.
This is the sort of behavior the sensible side of the argument for not causing offense is working to put a stop to. Not free speech, but unbridled harassment, malignancy, ostracism. And it would bear mentioning, while we're on the subject of free speech. Free speech with responsibilities is superior to vocal anarchy and amoral nihilism.
xxhellspawnedxx,
Thank for spelling out the syllabus for the newest round of regressive college course, offense studies. This is the same attitude that has brought us micro-aggressions, protests over Halloween costumes and violence toward a white guy with dreadlocks, just to name a few.
"Not free speech, but unbridled harassment, malignancy, ostracism." This is a description of bullying which is an entirely different subject though it could easily be used to describe the tactics of Social Justice Warriors and Feminists in their role as thought police.
They are as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not speaking for either side in particular, I'm talking about a social tendency, of stretching free speech to encompass downright psychotic tendencies, and usually aimed at those in a weaker social position, i.e. easier targets. Empowering those shitheads by talking about free speech as an absolute good, without saying much about the ethics required to guide the debate into something constructive, is part of the problem. "Don't be a dick" should be frequently sprinkled throughout these types of videos, if the goal is indeed to make way for a better, more humane world.
If someone want to be part of the problem with reckless abandon, that is their prerogative. One can't, legally or morally, force them to do anything. But I feel like there's an overarching tendency of willful ignorance about that fact, about the wrong 'un's feeling emboldened by sloppy handling of such an important issue, among far too many self-acclaimed champions of free speech.
They see themselves as the saviors of liberty, completely ignoring the repercussions of giving a very simplified and cozy'd up version of it, a basic "Do whatever you want, no tomorrow!" notion, to large audiences. It bears mentioning how this is contrary to societal development.
If you want to call it bullying, fine, you do that. Whether you call it that or mumbloglurigizm is irrelevant, the point stands: Free speech, just like any freedom, without ethics, emboldens predatory behavior among those of an ethically weak nature. And said behavior can never lead to a better tomorrow.
xxhellspawnxx,
You claim to not speak for either side then spew the absolute party line of the social justice crowd. Hopefully you are more honest with yourself than you are trying to be with the rest of us.
im supposed to be up early tomorrow, but oof theramintrees takes precedence
Excellent, as always. Thank you very much.
I enjoy your work, thanks for sharing it. I look forward to more to come.
The song at the start is so damn good I can’t believe you made that... jacc of all trades
And master of all too
Lastly, want to add the skeptic community seems to have a problem with this fetishization of free speech. While I do believe free speech is quite important, the world is not made a better place by the continued defense of the freedom of speech of Nazis for example. And you can argue if you don't defend those groups that are hated by society than it allows the erosion of everyone's speech but their is a vast and meaningful difference between speaking about the need to kill or enslave a group of people, even in nonspecific 'this is our goal someday' terms, and any other kind of speech. One does not have to fall into the slippery slope of banning all free speech to believe hate groups have no place in our society.
We have to defend the speech of Nazis because people keep accusing non-Nazis of being Nazis! The moment we censor Nazis, we end up censoring people wrongfully accused of being Nazis.
For example, many people believe we shouldn't put up with hate speech against women, that misogynists too shouldn't be allowed to speak since they're trying to oppress women. Unfortunately, people like Christina Hoff Sommers have been accused of hate speech themselves.
We must defend the speech of Nazis because we can not trust the government to differentiate between Nazis and conservatives, anti-war protests and treason, criticisms against Christianity and violent incitement against Christianity. Now, a lot of what Nazis say is a call to violence, which is illegal. But we have to be very specific on what constitutes violent speech and merely hateful speech.
" The moment we censor Nazis, we end up censoring people wrongfully accused of being Nazis." No ... Just no ... like you don't censor someone because they are called a Nazi you base it on what they are saying. If someone that doesn't claim to be a Nazi says 'we should kill all the jews' then society is under no obligation to protect that speech even though they aren't calling themselves a Nazi.
I understand that calls to violence are illegal but the point is (as was even mentioned in the video) they are still technically a type of speech, freedom of speech can and should not be complete we understand there are dangerous extremes that need to be prevented. I'm not saying I have the answer to what this is always but I think it's important to recognize and except.
Well again just because something is illegal doesn't mean it has to be or people feel it should be like blasphemy laws are on the books may place, so I don't feel I can take for granted that incitement is something people would want to stay illegal.
As fair as X group is inferior that becomes slightly more difficult because its harder to draw the line between that and either sort of racist ideas or things like Israel sucks because of what they are doing to Palestine. My gut reaction is yes because I don't think there is a place in modern society for that kind of speech, and I think its possible to ban it without banning other speech.
Great video as always. I'll be sharing it around. Thanks!
This video proved to me, that people are not responsible for other's feelings by showing subjectivity of offence. Thank :3
By people, I mean me
I'm glad you had a bit to talk about Cassie Jaye. I've had similar experiences from what she described. Often times I've found it very risky if not impossible to bring up the topic of men's rights, specifically because so many people have a preconceived notion that "supporting the right of men and boys" = "hatred of women". Yet, I still try and bring said issues up. I wouldn't be an egalitarian if I only talked about problems faced by half the population.
One would think in such overwhelmingly feminist societies like America and almost all of Europe, and feminists, when pressed on it agreeing that they also advocate for the rights of men, that men's rights would be addressed and fixed in no time.
Yet the mere concept of men's rights seems to cause offense in feminists. I wonder why.
If you want to stand up for men’s rights, it’s probably best not to heed to the Men’s Rights movement.
@@theoneonyoutube4925 In general I've found it more constructive to support specific rights issues than overall movements. Larger movements are prone to get caught up in politics, which from what I've seen have a tendency to just slow down any actual, productive work.
@@miep3934 Men’s rights only causes offense from misandrists, not feminists in general. Just as women’s rights only cause offense to misogynists, not men’s rights activists in general. Making negative generalizations to make feminism look bad doesn’t help anybody, not men or women.
@@jordandwiggins1026
Can you name one prominent Feminist who is inclusively in favor of men's rights? Also, handily dodged my point. My point is that of feminism was neutral or aid to men's rights, men's rights would not be an issue in our society. Instead men's rights tends to be maligned. Can you explain it without having to come to the conclusion that feminism is if not outright, passively standing in the way of men's rights?
1:45 "Young children might feel displeased about the boundaries set for them by adults." I'd like to point out that sometimes adults act like dictators towards children, and set "boundaries" that are cruel, neglectful or wrong. I believe that this is much more common than most people realize.
In this trio of examples, the Dictator is obviously in the wrong (morally) and so is the Narcissist. But children are different. Of course children can make unreasonable demands (just like everyone else), but they can also be entirely justified in their complaints. Yet you respond to this scenario with a blanket statement: "There is no obligation to accommodate these wishes or demands". No obligation? Never? Not for any child who has ever complained about any rule or boundary set by an adult? I strongly encourage you to avoid such broad language in the future. Dictators and Narcissists tend heavily toward destructive acts, but children are merely defined by their age range, and should not be spoken of so broadly.
Not to be too blunt, but suppose someone talked about how women sometimes feel upset about the way that men treat them, then compared women (as a group) to both Dictators and Narcissists, and went on to say that there is no obligation for men to fulfill the wishes or demands of women. Wouldn't that be overly broad, to say the least? Wouldn't such a statement imply that women never have legitimate complaints, and that even their justified anger should be ignored, despite its justification? Such a statement would work against the cause of women's rights, regardless of what the author had intended. Likewise with the effort to protect the rights of children.
Saying that some parents can be abusive and set unfair boundaries for their children is not an argument against feeling justified in setting fair boundaries. You can "believe" anything you want about the frequency of parental abuse, but without evidence it's an irrational argument by definition. Your second example is just a straw man.
I'm not sure why you're treating these as logical assertions, they're simply examples of when one might not be responsible for someone else taking offense.
Thanks for saying it for me!
I love your vids man, true inspiration. endless thanks
keep this up
This video reminds me of perhaps the most bizarre and mind bending thing I've ever seen - a man at a protest holding a sign saying "freedom of expression go to hell"... in my mind, a perfect illustration of "be careful what you wish for"
I like this video, and I agree with the ideas that we should try to be open to alternative views, to try to get past simply feeling "offended" when presented with unpleasant ideas, and we should recognize the right of people to make offensive speech.
At the same time, I think that it bears mentioning that, while offense should be allowed, and while it may be worth offending someone in order to bring about positive change, the offense itself, per se, the hurt, outrage, anger, and resentment, itself, is not good, nor is it neutral. It is bad. People's feelings do matter.
Again, sometimes it is worth causing the offense, a relatively small price to pay for someone to be able to live an honest and free life. I am not saying that we should never cause offense, nor do I want any governing body deciding for everyone when offense is justified and therefore permitted.
My point is that we ought to care about people's feelings and about the consequences of our speech. If a particular speech we can reasonably anticipate will have no effect but to cause offense, that this speech will help no one except to amuse ourselves by belittling or degrading others, then we ought to reconsider and try doing something helpful instead of malevolent.
We do need the freedom to decide for ourselves when that offense is justified, and with that freedom comes the responsibility to choose reasonably, wisely, and compassionately.
If a person cannot handle being offended, then THEY are the problem - they need to remove themselves from society and/or toughen up. Unless you are making a call to action/violence, then nothing you say can or should be met with violence. We should be raising our children to foster a strength of character such that they can divorce words, (even hurtful ones), from action - it is never appropriate to meet words with violence, (excluding the very specific cases I mentioned).
This. A lot of people have learned by heart the reasons that it's okay for them to offend people in the pursuit of some greater good, but then seem far more interested in just offending people than in pursuing any of those reasons. And then they say everyone else needs to "toughen up," etc. Like it's our problem that they're a cheap bully.
agiar2000 -- I agree that it can sometimes be worthwhile offending someone in order to bring about positive change. But I've come to recognize a lot of people, particularly online, who seem to believe offending others is somehow worthwhile for its own sake-as if they've made it their mission to force others to "toughen up".
+agiar2000 Do you believe it is ever ok to meet words with violence, (aside from calls to action/for violence)? If so, then YOU are the problem. I don't care how offensive the speech is, that is never appropriate in a civilized society.
I agree, and I wish this video had touched a bit on that topic. While I would not endorse censorship of differing ideas, I think there are times when offence is justified and should rightfully be shunned by society, at least socially. (I'm not saying these things should be regulated by law.)
Take the example of racial slurs. They are typically perceived as offensive, because the idea they represent is "you are inferior/less valid because of your race, and you should be treated worse accordingly." It's not a direct call for violence, but harm to others does arise from such attitudes. Society collectively saying "we find such attitudes distasteful" (to put it mildly) and reacting with offence to such slurs is a way of policing society into minimizing the harm unjustly done to others. To tell the offended on this case that they "need to toughen up" or "need thicker skin" misses the point. The offense doesn't arise from the word directly; most people *can* take an insult. The problem is that it isn't an individual simply expressing a belief the recipient finds unpleasant; an individual is expressing a belief that, when widespread (as it often is), does real harm to the person in question. The word is a symbol of hate meant to oppress, not simply to express an idea.
Conflating this kind of offence with the anger some feel at having their views challenged is a recipe for disaster. Sadly, it happens quite a lot. People hate "political correctness" but fail to realize that in most cases, it's about not marginalizing and harming certain members of society by the ways in which we choose to talk about them.
This video conflicted with my world view a few times. I'm offended.
Nah, just kidding. It did conflict with what I already think, and I'm going to be analyzing why that is in detail. Particularly the idea that certain ideas should be allowed a stage, but that also that we shouldn't rob them of that stage once they've had it and it has been proven to be harmful. It's a confusing idea.
Nathan Blue
I am very happy to see someone recognizing their conflict dispassionately and responding with analysis! It sounds like you need a few minutes to put your thoughts in order, so take your time. I will be happy to discuss with you once you are ready to articulate your thoughts!
"We shouldn't rob them of that stage once they've had it and it has been proven to be harmful."
What does it mean for an idea to be harmful? Actions cause harm. Ideas are purely conceptual, and so it seems that being aware of even the worst ideas can do nothing but broaden our horizons. An idea alone can do no harm to anyone.
Sometimes an idea can inspire people to cause harm, but that doesn't justify blaming the idea for the harm. On the contrary, that same idea can serve to protect against the same harm. When we know about a bad idea, we can prepare arguments against it. We can conduct educational campaigns to show people why they shouldn't be inspired by the idea. In contrast, if we seal the idea away so no one knows about it, then we're ensuring people will be ignorant of the idea and unprepared.
For example, suppose a violent religion were spreading through a society. One might say that the dogma of that religion is a harmful idea when viewing all the pain and destruction caused by the religion, but it's not really the idea that causes the violence. In fact, being aware of the details of that dogma would be hugely important in defending ourselves against the violence. The real cause of the violence is not a mere idea, but rather it is the act of indoctrinating people into the religion by applying social pressure and punishing dissent so that people are unable to consider alternative ideas. Without pressure to believe, the ideas of a religion are harmless.
"When you refuse to give someone a stage, however, you are deciding for yourself."
You're also deciding for anyone who might have heard that person on that stage. It may be your stage to give, but you're not the only person involved, unless you are the entire audience.
"They can find their stage elsewhere; it is simply not your responsibility."
We're all responsible for doing what we can to make the world a better place. If an idea is being silenced and we have a stage to give, then it's our responsibility to help. It's like giving up a seat on a bus to someone who needs it.
Ansatz66
I think that we all have every right to decide what ideas are worthy of the stages we expend our resources to present. I may want a Nazi to have the right to make their case, but I feel no responsibility to provide them a stage whether or not everyone else is denying them. I think that we ought to logically consider the consequences of giving stages to certain ideas and take responsibility for making wise choices.
If I think that allowing someone to come to my home or to my UA-cam channel to preach their particular message is going to result in more harm than good, then I probably ought not to invite them to my domain to preach.
"I may want a Nazi to have the right to make their case, but I feel no responsibility to provide them a stage whether or not everyone else is denying them."
_The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error._
If we silence Nazi ideas then eventually people will forget what the Nazis used to think, and then they will forget why Nazi ideas were bad, and then we'll be ready to repeat the mistakes of the past.
"I think that we ought to logically consider the consequences of giving stages to certain ideas and take responsibility for making wise choices."
The point is that silencing ideas is always unwise, even when those ideas are foolish and wrong. When we collectively silence an idea, we deny ourselves the opportunity to learn from it, and even the most foolish ideas have something to teach us. Each and every person who denies a stage to those silenced ideas is partially responsible.
That opening is one of my favorite sequences online. The ending reveal was great too.
Damn, your content is just golden. Thank you.
A thing about Cassie Jaye:
During the movie she shows a stunning lack of knowledge about feminism. Things that MRAs point out and seem surprising to her are frequently discussed and deeply explored in feminist circles.
MRAs have a tendency to identify real problems men have and then doing one of two ridiculous things:
1. Blaming it on women. If you pay attention (which Cassie didn't do, probably because this took a long time), you'll note they do this over and over in the movie.
2. Perpetuating the problem when feminists have been working for decades to lessen it. For instance the problem of men dying in the military and dangerous jobs - do they call for women to enter the military? No, they don't. Do they call for sexism to be lessened in who gets what jobs? Nah, that's evil feminism invading into men's domain.
If you want a group actually dealing with men's issues in a constructive manner, I recommend this: www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/
MRAs almost precisely fit the description of a reactionary movement
Even in the trailer for the red pill documentary she's asked by an older woman if she thinks that the issues men are bringing up to her can be explained by what's discussed in feminist discourse. She says no. I don't understand how you can claim to be investigating something that you clearly haven't fully explored.
I came down here to say this, I'm glad someone else did. Citing her in his video was seriously not a good look...
Hilarious. Feminism doesn't explore the issues in question from any sort of male perspective. Feminism as an ideology is about women and women's perspectives; it's literally in the name and it's visibly in the actions of self-proclaimed feminists. Your MRA statements are disingenuous; you are discarding all contexts that don't fit your pro-feminism narrative. You have conclusions and are seeking evidence while MRAs generally come to conclusions based on available evidence. One way is logically sound and one is not. Of course, since we're speaking in generalities about broad categories of people, I'm sure you'll jump to an uncommon exception to attempt to disprove the broad generality. It won't work.
@@JodyBruchon Feminism is for everyone dude we just want everyone to get on the ship and blame those in power instead of each other
Please for the love of______ upload more often!
Great video, as always. Can't wait for more.
Eyyy
I am glad to see Qualia doing stuff again!
Keep up the great work fellas!