Alex Jackson: Woke Culture HAS NOT Gone Too Far - 2/8 | Oxford Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-unio...
Initially used as a term to empower awareness of systemic inequalities in society, wokeism is now a deeply divisive term. The media's perpetuation of woke culture has made this term a buzzword. For some, being woke is part of the antidote of acknowledging the instruments of oppression. For others, it is a dangerously absolutist ideology, a sort of reverse McCarthyism, corroding liberal society and encouraging self-imposed victimhood. Is the 'war on woke' a legitimate phenomenon, or a reactionary distraction from the real problems being 'woke' addresses?
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
He's using the dictionary definition first, to defend a culture that wants to tear all definitions and standards down.
You forgot to add: ...In a dark time during which dictionary definitions are changed in order to support the pharmaceutical industry.
Because the opposition believe in definitions
Funny how that works right.
I agree with your point, but to be perfectly fair, it's an expectation in British parliamentary debate that the first speaker for each side provides definitions of key terms, and also clearly defines the overall direction of argument that their side will represent. It's a common structural feature of these formal debates, more than anything.
oxford hasnt been admitting the best for some decades now. the uni is dead. as people come to realise it, the oxford stamp of approval on the degrees will be worthless. cant come quick enough. the foundations the university is built on does not match the admissions
"Without double standards, the "woke" would have no standards at all." - Anonymous
dialectic mental gymnastics. its sort of an adaptation of herbert marcuse. explains their behaviour really well. an essay on liberation, repressive tolerance, one dimentional man.
I love how he ignored the fact that woke culture has embraced echo chambers, refusing to engage with people of differing opinions unless it’s shutting out their voices, insulting those of a differing opinion and become about looking good in an era of virtue signalling
yep
you act like traditionalists are any better?
Motte and bailey strategy.
When criticized, say "oh, it's just this nice decent thing"
When the pressure is let off, go ham trying to ram down the extremist second meaning down everyone's sthroat because down with the cultural bourgeois! Siezethe means of cultural production!
I'm sorry but this argument is so low resolution I struggle to articulate where to start
Easy, he starts with "but the dictionary".
"If the majority agree " not sure he understands the meaning of the word majority. Woke is pandering to a minority.
The low resolution factor is a feature, not a bug. If he went into any depth, e.g. with more nuanced examples of people being cancelled, fired, ostracised or blacklisted for expressing controversial views, he’d quickly disprove his own argument.
Low resolution indeed!
just close the browser after the first three minutes. no need to thank me
Trying to rationalize WOKE by spewing the worst examples of how toxic it is? PRICELESS! 😆😅🤣😂🙃
*lists the most mild and least radical things associated with being woke. Not just that but these things he does list he distorts such as covering the whole of gender ideology by claiming it’s just about compassion and people being who they want to be. This guy needs to read a bit more about what’s actually going on
@@steve_perks7 trust me, he knows precisely what's going on.
sorry you want to keep statues of slavetraders up
@@megax5000 why not keep them up so that younger generations will have a reasonable understanding of the mistakes of the past rather than wiping it away? Why stop with statues? Erase the history books of such people. Rather than offer an enlightened position just cancel your opponent or detractors. Why are you stop there? De-bank them and make it illegal for them to own property. Would that be enough? Why stop there? Perhaps such people that do not want to pull down those statues should simply be relegated to some particular space in society. How about a camp for them to re-educate them? And of course those recalcitrant enough to resist even that? What would you do then? You see James Lindsey is correct: the woke cannot go far enough.
@@vaughncassidy5242 LMAO
you: "oh OF COURSE this soy boy picks the most uncontroversial positions that no one with two functioning brain cells would try to oppose!"
me: oh so you DON'T have any problem with something like taking down monuments for slaveowners?
you: WHOA HOLD ON THERE COWBOY
Freedom of speech actually does mean the ability to voice your views and opinions without consequence.
The threat of social consequence is the looming shadow of tyranny.
To not see that is to be smugly assured that your own views are in line with those that hold the social power.
@Anfield Road The problem is that the woke universe refers to "consequence" as censorship or systematic punishment, not as the natural reaction of a part of society that makes use of precisely that same freedom, to decide not to adhere to the sentence to which they disagree.
@Anfield Road. You're entire comment is one big gaslighting lie. Ths Twitter files alone prove this
@@kirabatehat sounds like you don’t mind consequences so long as they are inconsequential. Having people you don’t respect losing respect for you sounds like threatening you with a reward.
And that’s the core of the debate: should a person be held accountable for their expressed views? Your argument seems to be that only unfettered speech is free speech.
Tolerance of your objectionable expressions are no more guaranteed than tolerance of bad hygiene. Is it your right to not bathe? Absolutely. Is it illegal to not wipe your ass? Of course not. Should you be assaulted in the street for walking around with trousers full of week-old shit? No moral person would say so. That said, should you have the freedom to travel through social settings and have no one express their distaste? Would it be a violation of your freedoms to be asked to leave someone’s home or business setting? If people began discussing with one another how grotesque your presence is, would that be oppressive social control or brainwashing?
However, if you find a community of people who huddle around and celebrate the atavistic musk of the human body; Godspeed to you.
As it has been said so many times as to be a cliche; freedom is speech is not freedom from consequences. And a corollary of that; with greater freedoms come even greater responsibility. The responsibility to reduce harm to others is not optional as part of the social contract. “Facts don’t care about your feelings” implies that you’re dealing solely in facts. And options expressed smugly do not facts make.
They also fail to define "freedom" and "consequences" , it would be interesting to have a debate on that matter , it's an interesting and complex topic. I think there is no freedom if there is no effort to protect freedom. The employer should'nt be "free" to fire people for partaking in public debate or voting the way they want because the power of an employer is equal in an individua'ls life to the power of the state and previously the church. On the other end this lack of freedom for the employer , actualy frees them of the burden of policing their employee's speech : the political leaning of your employees have nothing to do with your organization and everybody knows this, therefor they don't come at you demanding you fire someone who, appart from that was doing a great job and you had no intention of firing. I'm sure they are numerous cases in the last years where employers felt compelled and pressured to fire people on the basis of their opinion.
@@backintimealwyn5736I’ve also heard “free speech advocates” say, “fuck trying to get you fired; if you insult me, I’ll punch you in the mouth.” Without a hint of irony or self-awareness.
This is hilarious! The VERY first thing he does is get a definition of a word from the Oxford dictionary. This coming from someone who represents a side that has abominated any and every English word to fit their own needs as they see fit. Talk about losing all credibility in record time.
That's because the side he's speaking to believe in dictionary definitions as unchangeable.b
I agree with your point, but to be perfectly fair, it's an expectation in British parliamentary debate that the first speaker for each side provides definitions of key terms, and also clearly defines the overall direction of argument that their side will represent. It's a common structural feature of these formal debates, more than anything.
The left & their on going struggle with the English language:
- (Assault) weapon
- Zir - ze - hir - xe
- (Defund) the Police
- (Mostly peaceful) protesters
- Microaggressions, (Hate) speech
- Pregnant woman, Birthing person
- Colored people, People of Color
- It depends upon what the meaning of the word (is), is
- Illegal alien, Illegal immigrant, Undocumented workers
@@celerywarrior6493 And yet they can not and WILL not define a "woman" LMFAO
the issue with the oxford dictionary, is it changes constantly to fit political agendas. its not accurate or reliable. its just relying on the provenance oxford university once had
A boy without achievement or experience in life is rich only in the currency of narcissism. I bet he walks around the halls of the colleges weighed down with his badges of self-aggrandisement.
And the other people at Oxford who are 'anti-woke' don't?
Sounds like you're woke to the unjust opportunities that private schools provide to children with rich parents.
@@joshuataylor3550 I think you need an education in life Joseph.
When you point a finger, be aware that three point right back atcha'.
@@catherinehoy5548 and when you make that kind of statement it's pointless
He’s trolling. Can’t you tell?
His first 'argument' was a self-flattering dictionary definition, his second was a series of personal attacks on the other participants. Glass houses, people...
Don’t forget smelling his own farts… I mean … laughing at his own joke.
what about freedom of speech?
Woke: Redefining dictionary definitions for words as they see fit, presuming that their view of the world represents an established consensus.
Also Woke: Being woke isn't bad. It says so in the dictionary!
Good to know that I am not the only one paying attention to the changes made in dictionary definitions.
Anti-woke: signaling virtue by redefining the word woke to suit one's purposes, while yelling about woke folk redefining words to suit their purposes.
Both tribes should stop redefining words to suit their purposes, or recognise they have that tribalist behaviour in common.
@@user-gf6gf2iy2k Language always evolves, but when changes to definitions are imposed. That's the very essence of authoritarianism. That's the big difference here.
@@user-gf6gf2iy2k You missed the point here. The comment references having the power to change dictionary definitions. I welcome you to compare the Webster 2016 definition of racism against the 2020 definitions of racism. Major changes were made to the word racism to support the Social Justice woke ideology and narrative. For example in my 2016 dictionary racism was defined by individual's acting and believing they were superior to ther races. The definition also referenced segregation. Skip forward to the 2020 revisions and racism is completely refined as systems of oppression. The word segregation was removed and the word individual was removed. This was a strategic move by to support the Equity and Socisl-Emoconal Learning curriculum, as the school system in 2021 started segregating children into affinity spaces based on the color of their skin. White children are segregated to one space and told that they are oppressors responsible for all the harms caused to black people. The BIPOC people are then segregated into their affinity space and told they are oppressed. I actually researched who and why the definition of racism changed. You can look it up. A young black recent college graduate wrote the dictionary and stated that they were letting white people off the hook for slavery.
I in 2016 version of the Webster dictionary there was only one definition for woke, which was the point of WAKE.
I don't agree with the guy, but you're strawmanning his argument. He was arguing that the way "woke" functions culturally in the world adheres to the "good" dictionary definition he cited. Whether or not that's true is the real crux of the debate.
I'd wager that Alex would have a different opinion on the "good system" he describes if it turned against him. I imagine he'd find it unfair if an employer looked up his Twitter history and decided not to hire him based on his views.
Correction: WHEN it turns against him. It always turns on everyone. That’s it’s nature. It’s only a matter of time.
Why shouldn't his employer be allowed to hire whom they will?
@@Dave-bq6gy Too damned bad.
Why is that a problem?
He spent almost half of his time attacking the people from the other side, not the resolution. @OxfordUnion, can you please choose people who understand what a debate is?
Whilst he did have a terrible argument, the portion "attacking" the other side, is standard procedure for an Oxford Union debate.
The opening speaker from both sides will introduce the speakers from the opposing side & usually make little digs/jokes.
Again, he wasn't a good speaker by any stretch of the imagination, but wasn't necessarily attacking the other side.
All in good faith, did he hurt your feelings snowflake?
I think rhetorically speaking, it's a legitimate debate strategy that can be used but is usually only used as a last resort if the constructive arguments of one's own side are too weak to support the notion. It's odd that that's the first speaker for the against notion.
@@c.chinaski3156 This. I've literally just watched the first 2 videos with no context and this seems obvious from the structure. I mostly just skipped the 'introductions'.
That is the leftist playbook. It is all they have.
"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence." Woke translation: "Of course you can say what ever you like, but we will be the judges and if we don't like it or agree, it is our right to destroy your reputation, career and livelihood. Do our best to make sure you don't have a voice and make you pay for your sinful speech for ever and ever, which will likely cause you to be afraid and think twice before using your right to speak FREELY about things we will definitely hate."
What is the problem? This is no different than how many civilizations functioned in the past. The custom of free speech can be abolished because it is just that, a custom, or tradition handed down by those before. It is not all-pervasive, and therefore not binding.
You couldn't say it better. Thank you for being so candid about abolishing free speech as some kind of 'outdated ' custom or habit, and replacing it with tyranny.
The soy is strong in this one.
What an intellect you possess.
@@joshuataylor3550 you’re castigating him for being insulting by… insulting him? Brilliant move.
@@joshuataylor3550 Humour does require a certain level of intelligence…
That soys like you lack.
@@joshuataylor3550 Whilst your response, utterly lacking any semblance of wit as it does, clearly demonstrates the vastness of your own.
Lol poor little Joshua has gone quiet. Maybe he overdosed on Soy.
His argument about the freedom of speech and the consequences reminded me of a quote from one the most fascist Mollas in Iran's government who said people are free to say anything they want and we are free to send them to jail because of what they say
It's very fascist
Freedom of speech means people can say anything they want without any consequences whatsoever.
People should be prosecuted just for their actions not for their speeches
I understand that people with more influence on others can say something that can cause harm, but still, we should not stop people from expressing their thoughts publicly because that causes much bigger harm
It hides the dangerous thoughts and lets them grow under the surface of society and breaks out when it's too late and out of control.
He stands so woke that he looks like he's had an accident in his trousers; every point he made was laced with proven absurdity
I hope this guy is nowhere near teaching my grand daughter. Its about racial instead of character. Ow he mentions re set. He needs to grow the hell up.
Thank you for your intellectual contribution to the debate. We are much enlightened by your bigotry. If it is so proven then give us at least one example of "proof" instead of a some sleezy ad hominem attack and over-extreme generalizations. Also, do your country a favor and don't vote.
@Dean Phillips Would you be happy if you stood in a junkyard full of babbling bums? That's this comment section.
@@philosonic you began with insults, then hypocritically accused the OP of ad hominem? **slow clap**
Maybe you should provide evidence?
I love how all the ones who debate that is hasnt gone to far, have only a few likes and the others have thousands.
My favorite thing about this is that he says that you get to say what you want but there are consequences for that. But not for me. I set the goal posts and get to determine what you get punished for. If I get punished for my view points it's racist and all the woke other terms. The entire point of the conversation is there is a double standard. You literally proved it and had no idea that you did.
That's not what he says, it's what you've decided he says and it's how you've interpreted what he says. Listen again, with an OPEN mind.
@@francinelast thanks for your comment. Here is my thoughts after listening again. I agree with his point that words have consequences. I would say that listening to the reactions to congresswoman ohmar being removed from her committee I believe there are 2 standards set. 1 is that if I speak out on woke issues I am open to sensorship only if they align with woke ideals. Point above the congresswoman said horrific things and should have to pay the price of being removed from 1 committee. I also agree that people from far right positions should have to be held in account like Kanye west. There is no reasonable person who would say that there is equality in the "punishments" for expressing these views on either side. My point is that there is no consistency on either side. I would argue there is a massive imbalance towards retribution on the woke side. That is my point. I want equality in the discussion which there is not. Also you have to be factually accurate which the speaker was not if you listen to the rebuttal on following videos. He misquoted and got another panelists word complete incorrect. Which is another response all together.
@@hotmessdad7632I would argue that congresswoman Ohmar was not removed solely via her speech, but in retaliation for her voting to remove another congresswoman representative Marjorie Taylor Green, for Mrs. Green's speech the previous year. This was an attempt to punish Democrats who decided to remove multiple members from committee hearings during their majority control of the house post 2020..From my understanding after the removal of Rep Omar, leadership from both sides including House majority leader Keven McCarthy as well as house minority leader Rep. Jefferies both agreed to no longer remove committee members based on political speech moving forward. One could argue that Omar shouldn't have been removed, and had it been solely on her speech alone I would concede to your argument. Yet, one could hardly blame the decision based upon the previous votes to remove opposition from committee positions that Rep Omar agreed with when her party was in control.. Retaliation was not just justified but necessary to restore balance.
@@hotmessdad7632 I will say that your argument in regards to the young man's point of view in the video regarding free speech, was most excellently stated..
I agree the lack of all-pervasive ethics is the main problem of wokeness
It's really sad. The only way you can tell if what he says is a joke is if he chuckles after finishing his sentence.
The left cant do comedy as comedy is mostly pointing out the differences in people.
Like smelling his own farts.
Cancel Alex! It's our right, right?
Sure, you can try.
If we take this recently politically altered doublespeak as literal... downhill from there
Well done, you read a book. Grow up.
@@joshuataylor3550 left wing. insult, no logic.
Its not the desired "ends" that are problematic with the goals woke culture, its the "means" by which they attempt to attain them. The tactics they use, e.g. Bullying, harassment, cancel culture, censorship, compelled speech, double standards with regard to offensive speech, as well as other totalitarian methods to destroy what you believe, and force you to abandon it all, against your will, to live by THEIR standards and beliefs, that are the REAL problem with woke culture. Not to mention their willful ignorance, and blatant hypocrisy as well.
I refuse to extend tolerance or compassion to anyone who refuses to reciprocate the same level of tolerance or compassion to me.
EXACTLY. It started with the best of intentions but became an unfightable monster.
Should the Oxford Union allow non Oxford students to engage in these gatherings? Currently if you are not an Oxford student you are not allowed to take part or even spectate.
This guy is our future? I do hope he is managing the donut stand in tesco so he doesn't cause to much grief to the rest of us.
Tesco doesn't have a doughnut stand
@@joshuataylor3550 yes it does. It's normally near the sweets and newspaper area.
I hope he's not managing the donut stand in tesco. This guy needs his own cubicle.
don't worry, this one will not have children
"Most evil people in the history" Really? I must be reading different history books from him.
He is going to have a hard time coming to grips with his profound ignorance. Good luck young man
Frightening. Wonder if he will swap places with a homeless person. Given that he speaks of equality and seems covered in the moral alter of the woke church.
Will he hell as swap places. Because he is from another world. Of plenty and much naval gazing which is a rich mans pastime.
Look at yourself first.
Freedom of speech does not imply the right of freedom from consequence?
Ask Salman Rushdie young sir about his thoughts on your disgrace of a statement.
That was obviously wrong, but technically they have the right to do it. Just as the police have the right to arrest them and the judge has the right to sentence his attackers.
@@joshuataylor3550 Right and power are different things. Assailants of Rushdie had the power to do what they did but not the rights to attack him. The church had the power to hang Galileo and they did but they did not have the right to hang him. If power would be the sole determinant of rights then all actions of the mightier could be justified.
@@joshuataylor3550 you technically have the right to commit crimes? well yeah, i guess technically anyone can do anything. i technically have the right to drive your over with a volkswagen bus.
If speech has consequences then what is the consequence of calling him racist for being born white as per the anti-racist literature
You can find out
I was going to waste my time writing a rebuttal to everything he's said, but then i realized every rebuttal to this crap has already been said before, and that's the point -- it takes far longer to refute these fallacies than it takes to spew them
That's called Brandolini's Law (aka The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle). The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Fake information can be very powerful.
He is trolling!!!
Frankly amazed by how rude people are choosing to be in the comments.
This kid's arguments are largely absurd. Not merely wrong or uninformed...but absurd. "If we accept this dictionary definition..." < he begins his speech with perhaps the weakest possible statement he could have possibly made. We do NOT accept this definition, and in fact, the redefinition of words is at the very heart of the issue.
Skimming thru the comment section, I'm shocked at how engaged and nuanced the comments have been so far.
I think what you're calling "rude" is that people here are, very correctly, responding to an absolutely absurd speech. As the kid says, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence (which was, again, a weak statement because literally no one suggests speech doesn't have consquences). Well, his speech...absurd, low-resolution, and ill-informed...has the consequence of being the subject of public ridicule.
Quite rightly.
@@chrisbutlerartgood summary of the points this man made. Oxford is prestigious, especially among Chinese people like myself, I'd by lying if I said I didn't expect more from him.
Alex forgets the core principle of “freedom of speech”…the only speech which truly needs to be protected, is the speech and views which are unpopular/controversial.
Ironic that he displays the issue with woke culture perfectly. He attacks the character of the opposition rather than their arguments. Cancel culture over debate.
That's what you do as the first speaker
@@thelovatshow No, it’s not. It doesn’t matter what order you go in. You prepare an opening argument and ideally you debate the point, you don’t attack the opposition. That’s not very civil.
@@MRAROCKERDUDE Look at the other first speaker in this debate
White fragility all up and down this comment section. Like, no one's coming to cancel you Cletus. Being woke is just about trying to uplift traditionally oppressed social groups.
Boobipoopi is a new term that is defined as informed and perpetually right. How can something defined as right be ever wrong?
Wow, his introduction of one of the speakers on the other side with "he was debanked for a tweet, hope he learned his lesson" sent Orwellian chills down my spine. The speaker is a vile human being.
He was trolling.
In what way is pointing out someone spreading misinformation consistent with them being a vile human?
You realise the first speaker (on the anti woke side) made literally the same intro for another speaker, right?
Also he said the other guy spread public misinformation about COVID and that he hoped he'd learnt in lesson REGARDING using reliable sources. Nice cherry picking and editing!
@@Amelia-zm9yq this is why people think it goes to far, the belief that some erroneous views completely invalidate all other points.
Edit: it's the same problem with the conservative playbook. But the woke rejection of progressive methodology for dubious equity, is no different the the conservative tendency to reject facts that don't align with their narrative.
"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of that speech," is a veiled threat, as proven time and time again by every cancellation. Mr. Jackson is cherry picking to extremes here; this is an extremely dishonest, manipulative speech.
He’s confused by the definition of “woke” in the dictionary. Well seen as the definition of “woman” now includes anyone who identifies as such, I would say definitions are there to be scrutinised, harshly.
"How dare you change the meaning of words"
"What is a woman?"
"The meaning of words change all the time"
@@alistairmonro That is true, although the meaning of words should never change as it can create legal consequences, where there were none when it was written. Just because people are misusing a word does not mean the word means something different, it just means people are misusing the word.
@@carl3941
Not sure but I think they were using sarcasm. Getting more difficult to tell.
@@carl3941 The nature of language is that it changes. This is why you are not writing in Old English or even Early Modern English. The confusion is between signifier and signified. The concept that the word represents does not change. This is also why we can learn other human languages. We might not have all the words for every single concept, but once we undertand what the signifier is signifying, we have comprehension and can then borrow the term, such as schadenfreude. Post-Modernists and CT disagrees with this; however, this is why most of us recognize these are incoherent systems. What woke does is also make the mistake that since language changes, alterations from the topdown alters concepts. The related stance is that the structure of language determines perception and categorizations of experience. This is known as the Sapir-Worf hypothesis (not a leftist proposition) which has been basically disproven. To paraphrase Shakespeare, a woman by any other name is still a woman (all things considered, an adult human organism that has specific biological traits such as XX chromosomes, produce gametes in the form of eggs, etc.), all the necessary and sufficient conditions which define any adult mammal.
@The Rabbit Hole hahaha yeah, it changes by creating new words the English is an adaptation from Latin, but the Latin words still mean what they meant.
is this young man an example of today's best intellectual achievement? La creme de la creme? Is that the best Oxford has to offer?? My God, I fear for our future...
Any half-intelligent human being could see the sheer hypocracy, and irony of trying to ridicule and belittle other people for their opinions, whilst thinking yours are superior. What stupidity and sheer arrogance in arguing that everyone else's right to 'freedom of speech' must have consequences', whilst justifying and promoting their own right to 'free speech' which harasses and nullifies people who dare to hold a different opinion; publically vilifies them; and causes them to be removed or so traumatised that they no longer feel safe in their workplace, but for which they themselves accept no responsibility whatsoever! I this is the calibre of 'our brightest and best' heaven help this country! I have heard 13 year olds present a better and more coherent argument! When compared to the real academics on the opposing side, he sounds like a junior school student having a tantrum! There we have a clear illustration of the real 'brightest and best' of the past, and the brain dead, arrogant, indoctrinated woke!
What did you graduate in?
@@googleuser2609 Language and linguistics. I was educated in two educational systems (France and GB). I have a degree, master's, postgrad and specific professional qualifications in my own field of expertise (Education). I have also trained and taught several Oxbridge graduates. But how's that of any relevance? If you think education stops at a degree, then you have understood absolutely nothing about education and perhaps you ought to look up the Socratic definition. There are some polymaths who possess no academic diploma but who have read and learnt more than many PHD's I know. The young man representing Oxford in this debate is a) not particularly eloquent and b) very poorly informed on the matter.
As an Oxonian and an academic I can assure you there are still very worthy young people and I meet them on a regular basis. None of them, however, are promoted by the commissars of wokeness.
How is it that I’m not allowed to say that a 12 year old girl shouldn’t be pressured into life changing surgery and drug therapies that are not fully reversible when she doesn’t “feel” like other girls but the other side can openly say that pedophiles should be called “minor attracted people”?
I love how so far while watching this series. The pro “woke” culture side has notes and easily gets lost. The fed up side… no notes clear thought and passionate arguments! This is enlightening and very entertaining. Thank you
This lad didn't even have notes, he had a script. Almost as though someone else wrote it for him... probably one of his lecturers because although it is eloquently spoken, it is incoherrently written (using a dictionary definition is all well and good but then he goes on to talk about societal change and how definitions change as a part of that... all while failing to realise that the definition of woke has changed and did so quite a while ago), almost as if there is a disconnect between the person that wrote it and the person speaking it. It's possible that he wrote it himself and that he isn't accustomed to public speaking but it 'feels' very inauthentic and it comes across as though he doesn't truly believe in the script he is reading.
@@madMARTYNmarsh1981
Very good observation. I didn’t think of that.
"Hi, my name is Tyler and I'm really excited about my new bowl cut!"
if nothing else, he did a good job by triggering all the right-wing know-nothings in the comments section
I don’t think it is a matter of woke culture “ going to far. It’s the political support for it.
That may be what the dictionary says, but that’s not how woke people act.
So Alex, what if the Oxford Union had faced consequences from its speaking out against the religion of the university? What if they had been allowed to speak, form the union etc and then were totally shut down and never to be heard of again? That's a "consequence" isn't it? Would you have supported that outcome? It's what you are condoning here after all... Sorry for my appalling grammar.
Well, he's lived in a bubble so far.
Like everyone else in that room.
I have no quarrel with social consequences for abhorrent speech. I fear more harm than good from legal repercussions
What about the legal implications of not taking part in someone else's self fluid perception. Since when does someone's feelings dictate objective reality?
'It's a good system, and one that I would argue is responsible for much of the progression of social attitudes....' (5:20). The poor fool confuses 'progression' with 'progress'. And to say a system is 'responsible' for something is bad English.
'Freedom of SPEECH does not imply freedom from consequence... The issue I'm sure the opposition will have tonight, however, is with the part of this process that involves rejecting THOUGHTS [5:42].' In his discussion of speech, the fool discusses thought: unable to discriminate between the two.
“Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.”
This continues, I think, to be the sticking point of the discussion. Obviously, freedom from consequences is undesirable to us as a society, as it would permit the most horrific things to be done without recourse. At what point, however, do those consequences cease to be justified by speech? If a person says that they believe that wind turbines suck, and someone reacts by burning down the person’s house, one might say that the person’s speech simply had consequences, but others might say that such a response was just a *little* bit of an overreaction and was unjustified.
Perhaps the example was hyperbolic, but I use it to highlight my point: I don’t think anyone genuinely believes that all speech ought to be completely free from any consequences, but I do think that there is disagreement on what consequences are truly justified by what speech. Feel free to discuss.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". No dude. Freedom of speech literally prohibits the government from taking part in any kind of negative consequence against someone for protected speech.
So freedom of speech protects you from a lot of consequences.
Try some nuance.
The only consequence to freedom of speech is as to how it pertains to truth, and nothing to hypersensitivity to emotional and social fetishes
The issue with the idea that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, is that if people share a doubt about an established idea, and then pay hell for it, we effectively enforce a dogma through peer pressure. Sure, maybe there should be a standard of how challenges to established ideas are presented, on how to properly defend or oppose an idea, or on how seriously an established idea or its alternative should be taken, but the fact that we currently fail to do that does not justify firing, blacklisting, harassing or even prosecuting people who challenge the status quo through words, even in the crass and uninformed way we sometimes observe.
This is the future of Britain. Christopher Hitchens would be incredibly disappointed.
Problem with his argument is that it's not reasonable people attacking extremist views on social media. It's extremist woke activists targeting those with reasonable views. Hence reasonable people now fear speaking their mind.
“Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences”. YES IT DOES! That’s the entire point! You get to say your opinion and not be pilloried for it.
That’s absolutely unreasonable. If I call you an idiot, and you react negatively, you are not infringing on my rights. Your reaction is a consequence, isn’t it? If I threaten to hurt you and you take steps to protect yourself by notifying law enforcement or buying a gun, I am facing consequences. If I talk shit about everyone in my circle of friends and they cut me off…you get the point.
So either define what you mean by ‘consequences’ or I’m left to assume you are being unrealistic in your expectations about personal responsibility.
@@BionicLatino You are conflating legal responsibility with personal. If you don't like what someone has to say, then you get to disagree with them. You have Freedom of Association, so you can choose whether to spend time around that person or not. If your circle of "friends" decides that they don't like you and don't want to be with you, that's their prerogative, whether it's a result of your actions or not. They don't get to go any further than that.
You do NOT have the right to bully, harass, intimidate or try to get someone fired because of their opinion. Despite what the left would have you believe, words are NOT violence.
@@DanielEbeck so you’re not saying “freedom of speech means freedom from consequences”. You’re saying that freedom of speech is freedom from governmental consequences for lawful speech. Which goes without saying. No one is suggesting that you get black bagged and thrown into jail for expressing an opinion.
So you need to define your specific parameters of consequences or restate your original statement.
@@BionicLatino "No one is suggesting that you get black bagged and thrown into jail for expressing an opinion." Tell that to the thousands of people prosecuted under Section 127.
What a waste of education!
Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want without a consequence. Or else it wasn't free was it?
A rabbitt's trail from Konstantin Kisin's speech led me here.
What a contrast.
The woke culture does believe in free speech - as long as it agrees with their beliefs.
These debates have become so poorly presented. The students used to be able to speak clearly without giggling, shaking, slouching and losing their place. Standards have fallen globally so even the most elite schools are like common state schools now. Boring.
You can tell a lot about your intellectual opponents when one side can speak their arguments verbatim - and the other totally relies on their notes...
This constant dishonesty that we are either woke or right wing is deliberate. I would guess most are neither. But the conversation assumes it, even in the most reputable “news” sources.
If this untried modernist uses his dictionary's outdated definition of woke, then I'll go back to the outdated definition of gay, 'happy, carefree, bright, showy'...
Employer has no any rights or business to judge your personal, political and religious stands and posts on social media or elsewhere (unless they are illegal). And definitely not discriminate against you on these grounds.
Having been in Wokeism for like 20 years and leaving, I'm having difficulty seeing his point of view when "rational" is thrown out. My experience in it was anything but rational, feelings overrided everything. Tell Atlanta that BLM wasn't "extreme." It wasn't that crazy everywhere, but Wokeism has a habit of justifying destruction when it does happen. LGBT acceptance is moral, but indoctrination and medical malpractice is not. Taking down statues is kinda of whatever, like we didn't need to be that dramatic about it but some of those needed to go.
The problem is call-out culture, rather than cancel culture.
So you should stay silent after witnessing injustice?
@@joshuataylor3550 if what one witnessed was actually an injustice, no... but if what one witnessed wasn't an injustice, or they have to omit parts of what they witnessed to make it seem like an injustice, or provide false equalities and exaggeration to make it seem like an injustice, yeah.. stfu.
Both call-out culture and cancel culture are ultimate goods.
whispy moustache. bad gen z little boy haircut. elementary school book report style speaking. oh wow.
"Don't be so eager to be offended. The narcissism of small differences leads to the most boring conformity"
"The architect of your soul seems to be social media."
["Tar" 2023].
Peace is just a period between two wars
Next time start with the Oxford dictionary definition of Hypocrisy.
opening speech looses me right away. No one is saying the idea is gone too far but the behavior and methods to reach said idea has gone too far.
“Views are not extreme, nor dangerous.” Hmm… I wonder what would happen if “woke” people defined like in America, came to Poland and destroyed historical monuments. If they would destroy concentration camps, the horrible history would be forgotten in few generations after. Whereas destroying monuments of dictators or slave owners by which nowadays the same monuments show the horror they have done rather than celebrating them, seems like the opposite of preserving history. Wokism should be about remembering and preserving all history, and not destroying history and cherry picking it. Imagine if Colosseum was destroyed just because slaves were fighting in the pit.
Not to mention that if they really are all about reparations for slavery and destroying historical monuments within slavery spectrum, then plenty of buildings should be destroyed, including the White House as they were built by slaves. So yes, wokism is an extreme view.
Oh how the house has fallen. There all on about left and right just like everyone else. They both point fingers at each other, ignoring the bits of each argument that has merit and the bits of each argument that don't.
The majority of people do understand the issue is there's a difference between no freedom of consequence, and fair consequence.
Obviously freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence, but that consequence must be fair and even for all, but it isn't. He's totally missed to whole argument and fell back on an old argument that dosnt hold up.
Stimm002 " ...but that consequence must be fair..." the fundamental question arises, WHO !? will sit on the committee of "experts", emphasizing the term ... "fair". Isn't free speech a guarantee of protection of opinion !???
that statement is totally contradictory "free speech is not free from consequence" is exactly why the concept in its reality has never ever existed. Being able to speak freely without damaging consequences is exactly what free speech should be, the only consequence you would be referring to is the consequence of having to listen to someone else's free speech
Regarding the problems with employment. There is one HUGE issue with this when it comes to the university environment.
The context: The majority of permanent stuff in public universities work for public money. However, to get a job there nowadays you are de facto obliged to engage in all this woke bs, at least in my discipline. For lecturer/professor positions is it now mandatory across UK, USA and some other countries to write a woke statement of contribution to equity and diversity, a trend that is rapidly expanding to lower-rank jobs. In other words, you must actively engage in certain political agenda and express certain political views to be employed (which I personally don't and hence became unemployed).
The problem: The unelected university staff decide how to spend public money through hiring new colleagues. They are extremely politically biased in that and actively discriminate not only based on gender and skin colour (i.e. against while males), but also based on political views (I personally skipped quite a few job alerts that demanded those woke statements). However, who are they to decide whether or not taxpayers' money should be payed to people with 'wrong' political views? Does the wider public agree with such a way of things? I would put my bet on 'no' for England and red US states, for example...
Without "woke" we are nothing?
If it really meants equality, freedom and acceptance, I guess I need to be anti-woke. Equality depends very much on what you mean by it. Do you actually mean equity? Because that's a very different thing.
Freedom again needs stipulations. I'm not too eager to burn everything down for the sake of an anarcho-capitalist 'utopia', just to give one example of how freedom can go wrong.
But 'acceptance' is where I absolutely draw the line. What, exactly, are we meant to 'accept' into our lives? I'm reminded of an old South Park episode about tolerance. The point is made very clear that TOLERANCE doesn't mean APPROVAL. Changing the old slogan from tolerance into 'acceptance' seems like another step towards forced approval, doesn't it?
The whole point of the proposition is the challenge to those questions, and many more.
The people who blindly continue to advocate for these things are either naive, ignorant simpletons who haven't spent much time considering the consequences of what they ask for, or actively malicious actors who are 100% down for ripping all current systems to shreds.
The majority of society does not accept a trans women is a women, but a trans women (hence the prefix) which is not the same as a women. But woke culture does not operate on consensus as implied, but on a minority view that has become a bit of a dogma.
Daddy and Mummy raised a pearler here..............
Though this "movement" could hardly be defined as logical or consistent, does it not follow the movement should not use the English language at all, given it embodies and communicates everything they oppose?
Freedom of speech must be allowed, but we must expect some silly things to be said as a consequence. I for one often like to keep silly people talking so that their silliness is easily identifiable.
Should we remove statues of reformed terrorists?
So this is the second person who has tried to be funny with his load of "put downs" as the first. Can't these students at least try to debate?
5:30 he's right, its a good system. that's why its wrong for tweets to be removed and people banned.
Consequence of free speech: take your property, livelihood if the mob deems it appropriate. The mob/majority can determine policy, not rights.
He doesn't need to be cured of Wokeness. That can come later. What he needs now - urgently, is a haircut.
Send that boy to Carnival.
Where are the videos/arguments for woke culture?
Though I'm not one to point out an individuals external flaws. I will point out he's an Edgar, and who takes them seriously?
You need to smell the coffee or migrate to Thailand.
You can say what you like, but you must accept the consequences. Especially if your views oppose my own, in which case those consequences should be severe.
"Won't SOMEBODY please think of the CHILDREN!" Every generation has a coronary about people who appear to be shattering their little world of Old Normal. Live a little longer, and you will see it. We had the anti slavery crowd whom everyone labelled as insane, then we had the suffragettes, then the swingers, then the ducktails, the hippies.....We just give the same thing new names. And always people talk of the horrors of change and "those weird people destroying our traditions and beliefs." Young pups. You all make me laugh heartily.
Free speech is the foundation of Western civilisations which our fathers and grandfathers fought and died for, not some tradition trend! To put the 2 in the same sentence betrays their sacrifice and shows how ignorant this generation is! Why do you think you are free to make choices to do as you choose in the West, compared to many other countries?
@@audreyblack8629 Every generation says that about someone who challenges them Please don't presume to tell me what I fought for... until you do some fighting yourself. And speaking as a person who spent many, many years in India and Japan... limiting your worldview to this vague "west" is very odd. We fought for those democracies too. Thanks.
Wonder how woke he may be in the future, should a potential employer excersise their right to reflect on these proseedings and act accordingly.
He could always contact the Free Speech Union.
The main problem in debate about freedom of speech lies in primitive dualism: absolute freedom of speech - no freedom of speech. You know, it's cool to debate on philosophical level, but when it comes to the real world, you need to create such environment where you have the best possible outcomes. So you want to study such phenomena from sociological and psychological perspective as well. That's why we have laws restricting freedom of speech. The historical experience and scientific research has proven that boundaries are better for society than absolute FoS. Of course, debate about where to set these boundaries is absolutely needed.
Imagine thinking getting people fired from their jobs for otherwise legal speech means they still have freedom of speech.
He should have known that if you want to argue about freedom , you first need to define it. It's one of the most complicated philosophical concept. I'm disapointed , I would have liked feeling challenged by the woke side. But no, I was'nt challenged at all. They make it way to easy at the moment they stop trying to get you fired and unplatformed. Why did these people gain so much power over society? They're dumb.
Imagine thinking that you’re owed employment in a capitalistic economy regardless of whether or not your opinions would interfere with your boss’ ability to earn money.
When mentioning the statues he refers to the people as evil but how were they evil? In their era slavery was as normal as going to the shops or having your morning tea, infact through all history until the 1800 slavery was normal and included all people reguardless of colour. To label men who did nothing wrong in their time in this way is truly short sighted and ignores the great things they did for this country or for the areas they lived. I think these people are just wilfully ignorant and unable to see the world in anything other then black and white in an attempt to purify history and remove anything that upsets their modern feelings based ideology.
Hopefully he will be seen as evil by others in a few years' time when things revert to commonsense and reality!
Whenever I hear the phrase 'people (or you) fail to understand the SIMPLE FACT that ... ' then I switch off. In my experience a phrase only used by condescending self righteous types with Narcissistic tendencies. Let me just just belittle you before I tell you what you should really think.
Don't give kids like these power. I don't care if they went to Oxford, or not.
Revolutionary behaviours and views are “not dangerous” according to this man.
According to him, people with opposing ideas should be dealt with in the same way bouncers deal with abusive customers. That is a brilliant Stalinist view.
I sometimes wonder if these people debating for either side of an argument at Oxford Union always believe what they say, or if it is more an exercise in argumentation. Either way, the latter could actually be rather useful, not only for people striving to become lawyers. When learning to argument for a differing view, you learn that few things in the world are black and white, and we get better at understanding differing views. Even more important, we understand that our own views and standpoints might be wrong, at least partially.
I believe there are honest and good intentions behind the phenomenon woke. I also believe there is true racism, sexism etc in the world that should be combated. However, you very easily become what you hate unless you're careful, and that is why I consider woke the most racist, sexist and evil ideology since WWII times. An authoritarian ideology using dehumanizing words for their opponents, with whom they even refuse to discuss, and contains multiple double standards including mutually exclusive standpoints, should have no place among anyone calling themself "awake". The whole word "woke" is a fraud, to me its the complete opposite. To be enlightened should mean you have a deep understanding of philosophy, human psychology and wisdom. You simply cannot reach such a state of enlightenment without ever truly taking your opponents' arguments seriously and discuss them honestly and respectfully, i.e. if you believe your own moral standpoints are far superior and the opponents views are to be condemned. Most likely they are not. But if they truly are, the only way to make a change is regardless respectful conversation rather than exclusion/cancellation, boycotts et cetera.
James Lindsey is arguing on the woke side because the organizers accidentally booked too many people for the anti woke side.
James asked to argue against his personal opinion since he has spent many years studying how we got here.
@@echo795 I know that, but generally speaking, most speakers in these debates are unfamiliar to me and look like students.