@@woodwyrm just found out Peter is opening a new university. One that will promote free speech. I really hope it works out. People wont be able to snitch and get professors cancelled. I hope new universities start in UK for those cancelled here and just generally for students to actually speak freely and learn openly
Amazing discussion. As of this moment, one person has actually voted this down. There’s your authoritarian right there, Andrew. Get ‘em in for that debate. 👍
You say it's OK to stop blackmail etc because those are deemed to be wrong and illegal. So then it's just a case of what you determine to be wrong and illegal that is OK to be banned. Yet later you suggest that the state should not create laws stopping certain speech. So what you mean is it's OK for speech you deem is OK but not for speech you don't. Who decides?
Peter is so bad at arguing against free speech. He's been consistently at the receiving end of this, it's against his conviction. We could argue that freedom of expression is human nature. Everything else is outside-in-thinking, which only succeeds if it manages to challenge people's perceptions.
He is quite poor at arguing against free speech. Most people are terrible at it. There are some very good arguments against it though. I'd love to see someone make them.
Andrew is clearly better at steel manning the woke “rationale” than Peter. His experience as a stand-up comedian (thespian?) probably stands him in good stead. Peter, the calmly considered philosopher, is not fast enough on his feet to get into the woke mind.
41:52 Rwanda? Singapore? I don't know much about Singapore but Rwanda seems an obvious example and moreso because of the Singapore comparison that is often made. But yes, this is a clear case of Incitement. However, their restrictions on Incitement encroach a long way into Normal speech. Also, the Soviet Union innovated a hell of a lot. The Space Race. They would have landed on the moon first but for a change in policy and no longer caring. The Nazis innovated a hell of a lot too. But the key I believe is that the radicals are anti liberal because they cannot win elections in a liberal system they are therefore anti democratic. Argument is the problem they want to solve. Because Democracy disadvantages extremists and social engineers. As explained by Visual Politic.
You're arguing based on the idea that forbidding hate speach leads to authoritarianism, but you don't provide an argument. Hate speach is forbidden in democracies. But one can argue that's wisdom, on a social and inter-generational level. It is debated. And that's backed by a very strong argument: those laws *can* be taken back the same way they were voted, by democratic law, if and when the society think it's time. That cannot be labeled authoritarian by nature. In the worst case, it can derive from authoritarian ideas, or lead to authoritarian ideas, but that is not sufficiant. You'd have to proove it is systematically authoritarian. Plus, in no way have you provided a strong argument why free speech would be different than any other freedom, in that its excess can threaten other people's freedoms. Proof is currently self-obvious: post-truth, weaponized speech... In no way unrestricted and unregulated free speech can counterbalance those in an effective way. And that's exactly why free speech is weaponized in a social-media world, with a very negative lever effect (Brandolini's law...). Your position is that of restriction of freedom as a measure of authoritarianism. But that's not how lawful and democratic societies work. The pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of art and creativity, all those are built upon compromises.
Scrolled back to the beginning. I got it now. Theyre playing Devil's Advocate.
Basically a how-to debate wokies, and it is awesome.
@@woodwyrm just found out Peter is opening a new university. One that will promote free speech. I really hope it works out. People wont be able to snitch and get professors cancelled. I hope new universities start in UK for those cancelled here and just generally for students to actually speak freely and learn openly
Awesome debate
Great job. Silence here is "deafening"
Great conversation with respect!! 🙏🏼😊✝️🏴🇬🇧🇺🇸🇦🇺⛪️
I only wish we could raise children with the mental fortitude to have these kinds of debates.
An interesting conversation/debate. Thanks.
I got lambasted for saying comedians who can sell out should be allowed to let us go and see them and was told I was a bigot shocker
I've now got this image of Andrew on the street ranting about origami. Wonderful!
Excellent conversation. Andrew and Peter are national treasures (of their respective nations).
Linguistic chess
Andrew is so much brighter, and obliterates his debating opposite.
Amazing discussion. As of this moment, one person has actually voted this down. There’s your authoritarian right there, Andrew. Get ‘em in for that debate. 👍
I sometimes augue agasnt my own beliefs to check for flaws etc
Any populace is a group of individuals that's why an individuals rights are just as important as any collective
I'm just distracted by andrew's enviable pg wodehouse collection
I think I can answer the question if there’s ever been a successful society without free speech. Singapore
Ha ha, Dictarship does not like 2 sides of anything, lol. Our way or the highway.
GBNEWS please upload all your TV shows on UA-cam
Yeah ditto i prefer the long segments. Not the tiny ones.
@@odiedodieuk Yeah same .. They need to change a lot of things actually
When Andrew says “you must believe” he sounds like C3PO
youtube has now many Premieres today
Not watched it yet but last one was excellent
Stop funding basket weaving degrees
A bit of free speech seemed to have been bleeped out after the 59.00 min mark....
Peter was funny and Andrew got in there first last time
Is that guy purposefully pretending not to understand Andrew's point on free speech?
He's playing devil's advocate.
@@blisterfingers8169 yep thanks. I scrolled back and caught the beginning explanation. Ha.
Yes
You say it's OK to stop blackmail etc because those are deemed to be wrong and illegal. So then it's just a case of what you determine to be wrong and illegal that is OK to be banned. Yet later you suggest that the state should not create laws stopping certain speech. So what you mean is it's OK for speech you deem is OK but not for speech you don't. Who decides?
Peter is so bad at arguing against free speech. He's been consistently at the receiving end of this, it's against his conviction. We could argue that freedom of expression is human nature. Everything else is outside-in-thinking, which only succeeds if it manages to challenge people's perceptions.
He is quite poor at arguing against free speech. Most people are terrible at it.
There are some very good arguments against it though. I'd love to see someone make them.
A bit patronising, your Island ….
I prefer Airstrip One myself.
Utter bollards, pet.
Andrew is clearly better at steel manning the woke “rationale” than Peter. His experience as a stand-up comedian (thespian?) probably stands him in good stead. Peter, the calmly considered philosopher, is not fast enough on his feet to get into the woke mind.
41:52
Rwanda?
Singapore?
I don't know much about Singapore but Rwanda seems an obvious example and moreso because of the Singapore comparison that is often made.
But yes, this is a clear case of Incitement.
However, their restrictions on Incitement encroach a long way into Normal speech.
Also, the Soviet Union innovated a hell of a lot.
The Space Race.
They would have landed on the moon first but for a change in policy and no longer caring.
The Nazis innovated a hell of a lot too.
But the key I believe is that the radicals are anti liberal because they cannot win elections in a liberal system they are therefore anti democratic.
Argument is the problem they want to solve. Because Democracy disadvantages extremists and social engineers.
As explained by Visual Politic.
Right wing???
You're arguing based on the idea that forbidding hate speach leads to authoritarianism, but you don't provide an argument. Hate speach is forbidden in democracies. But one can argue that's wisdom, on a social and inter-generational level. It is debated. And that's backed by a very strong argument: those laws *can* be taken back the same way they were voted, by democratic law, if and when the society think it's time. That cannot be labeled authoritarian by nature. In the worst case, it can derive from authoritarian ideas, or lead to authoritarian ideas, but that is not sufficiant. You'd have to proove it is systematically authoritarian.
Plus, in no way have you provided a strong argument why free speech would be different than any other freedom, in that its excess can threaten other people's freedoms. Proof is currently self-obvious: post-truth, weaponized speech... In no way unrestricted and unregulated free speech can counterbalance those in an effective way. And that's exactly why free speech is weaponized in a social-media world, with a very negative lever effect (Brandolini's law...). Your position is that of restriction of freedom as a measure of authoritarianism. But that's not how lawful and democratic societies work. The pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of art and creativity, all those are built upon compromises.
Your example of the teacher is misleading 👎
Try to listen more and talk less 😃