I'll never forget having to justify the topic of my semester long report in my Human Rights in International Politics course. I decided on an environmental justice topic, one that had direct ties to Human Rights abuses that lead up to the Gulf War in the early 90s. I decided on reporting on the draining of the Mesopotamian marshes in Iraq. It was a difficult, if creative, topic for me to choose. I had to go back and forth with my professor who for some reason could not see this as a clear human rights issue he wanted one of his students to report on. The problem I faced, and the issue I think plagues our society is the inability to see 2nd or 3rd order derivatives. We become so focused on a narrow topic, we put blinders on to simplify an increasingly complex and difficult to deal with world.
Right...if you've been on a campus recently like you and I, there's an excellent chance you've had an experience like this. In my 20s, I saw my professors' insistence that I choose particular topics over others was because they were the experts. Now? I see their behavior as almost completely self-serving (and ideologically-driven). Thomas Sowell has a great quote: "They (the anointed) always talk about how complex the world is. But it never seems complex enough, that they concede someone could look at the same evidence they have, and come up with a different conclusion."
Only made it 3/4 of the way through the fourth turning is here but I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. My theory is that howe is too much of an academic himself to see the way in which academic institutions have warped social discourse and critical thinking among the "elite". My bigger question as a crusty Gen xer who always vilified authority, is why there isn't a grassroots natural rejection of identity politics by the younger generations at this point. Political correctness has to be the most boring water for a college student to be swimming in. The authoritarianism being imposed on campuses seems rife for disruption, yet somehow it persists.🤦
That "grassroots rejection" by the younger generation is here, and has been for a while. You don't see it because it is intensely censored and repressed, but it has continued spreading in secret online nevertheless. The thing is, it doesn't oppose identity politics, so much as it does the regime and liberalism in general. It used to be mislabeled as the "alt-right," but it's far more than that. As a 23 year old man, the vast majority of my (male) friends, whether from high school, college, and online, are deeply illiberal and reactionary, supporting militarism, social conservatism, traditionalism, authoritarianism, and oftentimes even explicit white identity politics (even, I may note, my Hispanic friends!). We all despise liberalism, to the point of rejecting the liberalism of the (Xer) 90s or (Boomer) 60s as Trojan horse predecessors of what we have today. In a Fourth Turning, atomized individualism becomes a deeply unappealing "Weak Horse," and the youth turn instead to separate authoritarian "Strong Horse" factions. Think fascism vs. communism in 1930s Europe. So to answer your question in short: 1. There is a grassroots youth objection of the Regime and its narratives. 2. You aren't aware of it because the Regime and its appendages have spent the last six years ruthlessly suppressing it. 3. It is not a rejection of identity politics and authoritarianism, but rather promotes an alternative form of identity politics (European nationalism) and authoritarianism (right-wing populism) in opposition to that of the regime. Think less Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, or Greg Gutfeld, more Nick Fuentes, Keith Woods, and Bronze Age Pervert. It's not pretty, but no Crisis-era mass ideology is.
I'm a Gen Z college student. My guess is that it has become very fixed into the academic culture that it has become difficult to remove. Changes in academic, cultural, and societal understanding of a topic usually come after a big crisis that shows the flaws of the previous system or world view. The last major one was with the boomer generation after world war 2. It might also be because it is difficult to talk against it without coming off as cruel or some other term. People who critique it have to be very careful with their wording or phrasing or it can very easily bite them in the ass later. I don't know where things are going, but if the crisis we are experiencing continues into the future and grows. Then by the time Gen Alpha truly comes on to the scene. They will likely be ready for the next great societal change. Although that is just my theory.
@@generationreport I don't think I have read that book. Thanks for the recommendations. Also thank you for doing this channel. I always try to find UA-camrs capable of bringing these social influences to bear. But it is very hard to find any who go into more deaper detail. It's channels like yours that make me realize that I'm not alone in my anxieties or realizations and gives me hope for the future. Thank you.
Count me skeptical when it comes to Gad Saad on identity politics. After hearing him on the current Gaza conflict, it has become readily apparent to me that he falls into the old Ben Shapiro category of "Identity politics are bad, unless it's my identity." Identity politics for me, but not for thee, in other words.
very well said, I think the hypocrisy of Ben Shapiro became apparent in one of his recent videos where he shows approval for "job quotas for J-ws" for railing against affirmative action.
You don't really provide concrete examples to make your point. You just spewed bunch of word salad. I mostly studied STEM at University but I did study little bit about ME and Palestine issue. I had a pretty neutral perspective before the studies but what I studied changed my mind. The reason seems to be more "pro-palestine" is because the arguments like "arabs have 23 states" or many other arguments are not rigourous and don't fly in academia. You are allowed to disagree but you need to show proof for it. There are plenty of papers arguing that IS@r-l is a settler colonial state and generally that is considered bad. The papers which argue against it don't make a strong enough argument ( I have read them) BS arguments like "We were here 4000 years ago" don't fly in academia. I think you are perfect embodiment of Dunning-Kruger effect.
@@generationreport The way you present you ideas without substantiating them it seems you are the "know-it-all" also you made a snarky remark instead of trying to address the substance of what I said which is pretty typical symptom of Dunning-Kruger effect. Also calling it "work" 🤣😂 dude you just rambled into a mic instead of presenting a coherent argument, it's not "work".
@@d.b.cooper2063 I've got over 1,800 people who would testify that I've produced something of value, because they subscribed to this channel voluntarily. That didn't come about by accident, and it certainly didn't come about because I "ramble into a mic". And 15 people have given this episode a thumbs up, so far. You don't like what I say? All the power to ya. But I can spot from a mile away, the people who only tear others and their opinions down because they have no courage to say anything that might be risky. And I've also lived long enough to know that there's no cure for being an ignoramus. Congrats, you're two for two.
@@generationreport all I said was to substantiate your argument. What do you disagree with specifically. I would say that I am an academic and in academia you are allowed to disagree and criticize given that you provide specific arguments and appropriate sources for your claims. You have not done so in this video. For example you briefly talked about Palestine conflict and said there is an absence of "Isr@eli viewpoints" so which viewpoints are absent and how are they kept away? Do the qualify as legitimate points (i.e. not based on anecdotes or false premise) . There are many things to this conflict and a long history of it, which parts you disagree with and why? In academia if you don't show all your sources your work doesn't get accepted. It takes AT LEAST 6 months to get your paper published and that is maths and computer science where it is relatively easy to check the work, in social sciences it takes much longer. As far as subscribers are concerned, think about all the ideas you vehemently disagree with, there are plenty of youtubers you strongly believe in those ideas and yet they have thousand of subscribers. There are both left and right people on this site and both have tons of subscribers. The point is, it's not that hard to get subscribers, you can always find the people who agree with you. There are lot of flat earthers in this world, doesn't mean they are right.
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
I'll never forget having to justify the topic of my semester long report in my Human Rights in International Politics course. I decided on an environmental justice topic, one that had direct ties to Human Rights abuses that lead up to the Gulf War in the early 90s. I decided on reporting on the draining of the Mesopotamian marshes in Iraq. It was a difficult, if creative, topic for me to choose. I had to go back and forth with my professor who for some reason could not see this as a clear human rights issue he wanted one of his students to report on. The problem I faced, and the issue I think plagues our society is the inability to see 2nd or 3rd order derivatives. We become so focused on a narrow topic, we put blinders on to simplify an increasingly complex and difficult to deal with world.
Right...if you've been on a campus recently like you and I, there's an excellent chance you've had an experience like this. In my 20s, I saw my professors' insistence that I choose particular topics over others was because they were the experts. Now? I see their behavior as almost completely self-serving (and ideologically-driven).
Thomas Sowell has a great quote: "They (the anointed) always talk about how complex the world is. But it never seems complex enough, that they concede someone could look at the same evidence they have, and come up with a different conclusion."
Only made it 3/4 of the way through the fourth turning is here but I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. My theory is that howe is too much of an academic himself to see the way in which academic institutions have warped social discourse and critical thinking among the "elite".
My bigger question as a crusty Gen xer who always vilified authority, is why there isn't a grassroots natural rejection of identity politics by the younger generations at this point. Political correctness has to be the most boring water for a college student to be swimming in. The authoritarianism being imposed on campuses seems rife for disruption, yet somehow it persists.🤦
That "grassroots rejection" by the younger generation is here, and has been for a while. You don't see it because it is intensely censored and repressed, but it has continued spreading in secret online nevertheless. The thing is, it doesn't oppose identity politics, so much as it does the regime and liberalism in general. It used to be mislabeled as the "alt-right," but it's far more than that. As a 23 year old man, the vast majority of my (male) friends, whether from high school, college, and online, are deeply illiberal and reactionary, supporting militarism, social conservatism, traditionalism, authoritarianism, and oftentimes even explicit white identity politics (even, I may note, my Hispanic friends!). We all despise liberalism, to the point of rejecting the liberalism of the (Xer) 90s or (Boomer) 60s as Trojan horse predecessors of what we have today. In a Fourth Turning, atomized individualism becomes a deeply unappealing "Weak Horse," and the youth turn instead to separate authoritarian "Strong Horse" factions. Think fascism vs. communism in 1930s Europe.
So to answer your question in short:
1. There is a grassroots youth objection of the Regime and its narratives.
2. You aren't aware of it because the Regime and its appendages have spent the last six years ruthlessly suppressing it.
3. It is not a rejection of identity politics and authoritarianism, but rather promotes an alternative form of identity politics (European nationalism) and authoritarianism (right-wing populism) in opposition to that of the regime. Think less Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, or Greg Gutfeld, more Nick Fuentes, Keith Woods, and Bronze Age Pervert. It's not pretty, but no Crisis-era mass ideology is.
I'm a Gen Z college student. My guess is that it has become very fixed into the academic culture that it has become difficult to remove. Changes in academic, cultural, and societal understanding of a topic usually come after a big crisis that shows the flaws of the previous system or world view. The last major one was with the boomer generation after world war 2. It might also be because it is difficult to talk against it without coming off as cruel or some other term. People who critique it have to be very careful with their wording or phrasing or it can very easily bite them in the ass later. I don't know where things are going, but if the crisis we are experiencing continues into the future and grows. Then by the time Gen Alpha truly comes on to the scene. They will likely be ready for the next great societal change. Although that is just my theory.
Have you read James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose's Cynical Theories? Great book.
@@generationreport I don't think I have read that book. Thanks for the recommendations. Also thank you for doing this channel. I always try to find UA-camrs capable of bringing these social influences to bear. But it is very hard to find any who go into more deaper detail. It's channels like yours that make me realize that I'm not alone in my anxieties or realizations and gives me hope for the future. Thank you.
Well, I sure appreciate that. Thank you, very much.
Count me skeptical when it comes to Gad Saad on identity politics. After hearing him on the current Gaza conflict, it has become readily apparent to me that he falls into the old Ben Shapiro category of "Identity politics are bad, unless it's my identity." Identity politics for me, but not for thee, in other words.
very well said, I think the hypocrisy of Ben Shapiro became apparent in one of his recent videos where he shows approval for "job quotas for J-ws" for railing against affirmative action.
You don't really provide concrete examples to make your point. You just spewed bunch of word salad. I mostly studied STEM at University but I did study little bit about ME and Palestine issue. I had a pretty neutral perspective before the studies but what I studied changed my mind. The reason seems to be more "pro-palestine" is because the arguments like "arabs have 23 states" or many other arguments are not rigourous and don't fly in academia. You are allowed to disagree but you need to show proof for it.
There are plenty of papers arguing that IS@r-l is a settler colonial state and generally that is considered bad. The papers which argue against it don't make a strong enough argument ( I have read them) BS arguments like "We were here 4000 years ago" don't fly in academia.
I think you are perfect embodiment of Dunning-Kruger effect.
I've always wondered what it would be like when the know-it-all's discovered my work.
@@generationreport The way you present you ideas without substantiating them it seems you are the "know-it-all" also you made a snarky remark instead of trying to address the substance of what I said which is pretty typical symptom of Dunning-Kruger effect. Also calling it "work" 🤣😂 dude you just rambled into a mic instead of presenting a coherent argument, it's not "work".
@@d.b.cooper2063 I've got over 1,800 people who would testify that I've produced something of value, because they subscribed to this channel voluntarily. That didn't come about by accident, and it certainly didn't come about because I "ramble into a mic". And 15 people have given this episode a thumbs up, so far.
You don't like what I say? All the power to ya. But I can spot from a mile away, the people who only tear others and their opinions down because they have no courage to say anything that might be risky. And I've also lived long enough to know that there's no cure for being an ignoramus. Congrats, you're two for two.
@@generationreport all I said was to substantiate your argument. What do you disagree with specifically. I would say that I am an academic and in academia you are allowed to disagree and criticize given that you provide specific arguments and appropriate sources for your claims. You have not done so in this video. For example you briefly talked about Palestine conflict and said there is an absence of "Isr@eli viewpoints" so which viewpoints are absent and how are they kept away? Do the qualify as legitimate points (i.e. not based on anecdotes or false premise) . There are many things to this conflict and a long history of it, which parts you disagree with and why? In academia if you don't show all your sources your work doesn't get accepted. It takes AT LEAST 6 months to get your paper published and that is maths and computer science where it is relatively easy to check the work, in social sciences it takes much longer.
As far as subscribers are concerned, think about all the ideas you vehemently disagree with, there are plenty of youtubers you strongly believe in those ideas and yet they have thousand of subscribers. There are both left and right people on this site and both have tons of subscribers. The point is, it's not that hard to get subscribers, you can always find the people who agree with you. There are lot of flat earthers in this world, doesn't mean they are right.
What a shame...I had "Dunning-Kruger" on my bingo card for your response.
"...about the need for an international climate policy." That is, a circus of virtue signaling. Not a need, not a problem, no one's monkey.