absolutely, this sense of time is the single most important part of this video, no doubt. i walked away in awe. nothing else matters, my friends, nothing. @@andrewgoldheretics
And if you reveal your reveling in revulsion, by his reviewing your reviling the revving, it may result in revolution, leading to a revision of the revulsion to the revving.
I honestly don't see a logical difference between saying trans-women are women and adopted parents are parents. Both have a biological aspect attached but the difference is we socially accept adopted parents as parents even though they're technically not biological parents.
Interesting point. People are more than happy to accept the social/cultural dimensions associated with the words we use up until the moment it suddenly infringes on their political/religious beliefs (and often the unfortunate and messy fusion of both)
The difference would be that the bar to be an adoptive parent is higher. You aren't considered an adoptive parent just because you say you are. I can't just claim to adopt a child. You also accept that you aren't a biological parent. You can't say that biological parents don't exist nor does the whole concept of sex. Saying trans women are women in terms of gender but not sex is possible but then they have to fulfill some kind of requisites about being a woman (let's be honest trans ideology doesn't care about men's roles) in a gendered sense. Which is to many ppl the bullshit stereotype part. It rather inconveniently also rules out the vast majority of trans ppl. And non-trans ppl. The adoptive parent has to fulfill the far more important role. Ppl who say trans women are women regularly try to rewrite the word woman for themselves. Adoptive parents simply try to be the best version of parents they can be for the child. I'm not saying you're wrong. Trans ideology is.
@@robertmarshall2502 you're strawmaning what being trans is. Trans people aren't saying they are biological men or women. They're saying they belong in the same category socially. Yes, in a way you can call it "redefining" but you'd be more accurate saying "updating" instead. We got new data which has updated our understanding of social dynamics. People aren't just their chromosomes. How we interact with each other is important and far more complicated then that. I have a lot more to add but im curious to read your response.
@@robertmarshall2502 oh and I ignored the "bar" point because thats irrelevant to the central point being made. One could consider someone else a parental figure for many different reasons. Imprinting is one possible example.
@@chuletajones6833 I'm not strawmanning what being trans is. You're ignoring what it means for a bunch of trans ppl that don't fit conveniently into your definition. Go tell trans ppl they're strawmanning themselves should you so wish. There are literal trans athletes claiming to be female. There are numerous trans ppl claiming to have female brains. "Born in the wrong body" is effectively a central tenet of the gender cult. There is a pulitzer prize winning trans woman who thinks being a woman is an "open mouth, an expectant arse hole". The famous actress that got Jordan Peterson in trouble believes she is a man because she is attracted to women. What non-binary ppl believe is often a mystery to themselves and agender is effectively 99.9% of ppl. I think you're also forgetting that the absolutely key definition of woman in trans ideology is "someone who identifies as a woman". Please note that those who hold this view will tell you that woman can't mean anything else. It can't be understood in terms of sex. It can't be understood in terms of gender as a social not individual phenomenon. I think you and I could probably agree that, for example, a male who fulfills the gender role of a woman could be considered a woman in terms of gender should that society identify him as such. But trans ideology wouldn't. It rides this odd wave of requiring no outside affirmation and all. There are trans ppl who don't think males should use female spaces or compete in female sport or require cross-sex hormones simply for a social identity but clearly the loudest elements don't hold these views. And none of these arguments make sense if it is purely social. That's before we even get onto the more reasonable but oddly positioned trans ppl who think trans has to include gender dysphoria. BTW I don't think they're redefining gender. They're reverting to stereotypes from before when I was born for me. I also think you've missed the point that the parent idea comes from outside whereas trans is internal as well as that being "a parental figure" and being an adoptive parent are not the same. An adoptive parent would be more like getting a gender recognition certificate. Very few trans ppl try to get them.
You guys give Jordan Peterson a lot of respect. When I hear Dr Peterson talk, I can only just giggle at the fusillade of bullshit that he spews with so much self-importance.
I don't always agree with Jordan (especially on religion) but I have respect for him. I agree he sometimes speaks nonsense (especially some debates I've seen), but on many things he is right. He's been an important figure in the fight against wokeness. And I do think his intentions are good.
@@lencekk I disagree with many of his opinions and rhetoric, but the amount of hate he's recieved from the woke is pretty wild, considering they are the ones who turned him into a celebrity by trying so hard to cancel him
I can’t believe this guy. It already feels like he’s explored so much of the world of politics and philosophy already and he’s only in his mid twenties. A pleasure to listen to. Well done Andrew 👏🏻
@@gifmesome I'll make sure to tell him that he should be commenting on youtube dictating how others should live their lives instead, that's a much better use of his time
"Woke" ideology has never resulted in inquisitions. There are plenty of examples you can use for religion being more dangerous than "wokeness", at least at this point in history.
I appreciated Alex's gentle but firm push back on this host's responses to his positions. Andrew tried to take Alex's response and turn it into support for his own position several times, and Alex's immediate follow up was to bring the discussion back to neutral apolitical ground.
Imagine having a discussion about how people simplify and reduce political conversation to slogans and then presenting Alex's points about rhetoric as "woke culture is replacing religion" or "why woke beliefs are scarier than religion". No self-awareness.
"presenting"? as in summarizing in a youtube title? The whole discussion about it was about how you can have a slogan and it can be useful in some ways, but you need to have nuance and substance and understanding behind it.
@@lakingpaul I think the point is the summery is not mildly accurate to what was said by anyone. they were only talking about how religion used to be a hot topic, now its gender issues. Nothing about if it was better or worse. So yes, it is capitalizing on sensationalism, similar to slogans.
The word woke has lost its meaning entirely, extremely ill defined, while religion is still a very clear defined concept. The title of this video is not making sense.
I'm sure there's a correlation between male UK MP's and the cubic capacity of their motor vehicles. The bigger the engine, the smaller the member...(...of Parliament of course).
this was so fun to watch. Alex has mental clarity and intellectual honesty unlike anything I've ever seen, the interviewer is so good at leading conversation too. V fun, what lovely men
Alex is arguably the best thing on the internet. I’m a theist who is very grateful for internet personalities like WLC, Hugh Ross, etc.. But Alex is just someone who enriches every conversation. I wish I knew which pub he hangs out at after work.
@@brianmeen2158 if you find one, let me know. Even though I disagree with some of his conclusions, you gotta say, he’s done his time! He’s studied for decades! There’s just no short-cut for becoming WLC.
@@brianmeen2158 Do you root for the theists who are waiting for their opportunity to take away same-sex marriage or are you only okay with certain types of theists ?
I’ve been watching Alex since he first began on UA-cam and have eagerly watched his progress. I’m pushing sixty and I’ve found people like Alex to be the rarest sort - brilliance tempered with sincere humility and eagerness to engage openly and honestly places him in the highest echelons of influential thinkers in my opinion. To me he is as great a philosopher as any who have come before him.
I'm pushing 60 too. The funny thing about philosophy is that it's only really open to the privileged who have the luxury of sitting about thinking about life and essentially giving some sort of meaning to themselves. And then there's those who work and don't have the time for such pursuits.
No way that'd happen. The BBC are too entrenched in woke ideology to give a platform to someone who will happily play with ideas, questioning, criticizing and defending them.
The funny part, to me, is that I don’t think he said that to be funny. I think he was genuinely asking, “Is he going anywhere, or is he just revving his engine?” I think he’s genuinely questioning this guy’s motives and it just came across like a joke lol
A big problem is that brilliant people are also sometimes wrong… particularly when speaking about something outside their expertise. For example… Jordan Petersen Has a doctor of psychology… it does not make him an expert on virology or economics
@@Besthinktwice Yes, well, most of what he says would be rejected if he tried to publish it in a scientific journal. He mostly gives opinions, conjecture, and rationalized personal biases
Of course and this is why I laugh when people try to bash academics or intellectuals and try to completely discredit them Because they are wrong on a particular issue . There’s not a single intellectual in history that is right about everything
@@brianmeen2158 Of course the bashing is deserved to a greater or lesser extent based upon the pretension of any given intellectual., i observe that Petersen has an over abundance of pretension on a wide range of subjects in which he has no obvious basis of expertise,
@@docwhammo evil does not come only from humanity, its a human concept/construct, just like good, and so if there exist extraterrestial life, it will probably behave similar to us, even though they may not have created such concepts
Help me out. Can Alex denounce the Holocaust and on what grounds if he is an emotivist and ethics are just subjective emotions that can't be true or false? Because he has that yikes feeling about killing but Nazis didn't have that yikes feeling about murdering people. So it's just a matter of different feelings, right? Maybe I didn't understand him, can someone explain it in simple words, thanks
Asking where the experience of redness is inside the brain is like asking where the software is inside of your computer; it's not sitting in there in a physical location per se, but it is more or less "in there" as the result of an information exchange process that occurs between tangible physical structures.
Mostly agree, just with a little caveat. You would be able to point where the software is physically located. It’s more the actions that the software performs that aren’t anywhere. I think better example would be AI. We know how to build it we know how it works in principle, but we would not be able to point out to specific physical location and say this is the part that generates redness in an image.
Another caveat to this, if we can be certain consciousness is a physical process self contained in the brain then we know that there must be a physical state that redness information is being represented in the form of information. While it seems emergent we know that for it to be experienced the state of redness exists. Being hard to find I would liken it to the exact location of an electron. We just don't have the tech/knowledge to observe this event. @@InShadowsLinger
The level of self-righteousness and smugness in this video repulsed me. Why couldn't they have just each let out a fart in the beginning and then have each other smell it?
This got progressively more interesting the further the discussion went. I don't think had the opportunity to hear Alex talk much about the motivation behind altruism before.
Started following and watching Alex...have real interest in philosophy and find him young and fresh in terms of explanations and questions. Thx Andrew for always being so generous in asking guests where we can visit as well as which heretic they admire-what a great question! Keep up great work, what a lovely chap you are, so natural, open and honest 👌
Ah you guys, your minds are gifts to us. Thank you so much. minds like yours remind me that there is hope for this world. Keep talking, thinking, searching...love you guys - men are so cool!!!!
Alex has probably missed what Peterson has been up to since joining the Daily Wire. He’s mask off on his religious conservatism now. I suspect he was more cautious before in order to keep his audience options open as he was becoming famous. Now he’s established.
I couldn’t bear to listen to him but I would guess that his religiosity is more related to him being on the daily wire than a personal change. He is just incited to grift more because of the audience. It’s like joining the Fox News.
I love seeing you people SO BOTHERED by Jordan Peterson!! You HATE that he absolutely wrecks your woke nonsense and is personally responsible for MILLIONS of people flocking to conservatism and anti-wokeness. He is easily the most brilliant mind of modern times.
So if someone asks him if he believes in God, does he just say yes now? Or is it still a rambling thesis about "well it depends on what you mean by believe..."? And I don't mean that in a snarky way. Does he legit just answer the question now?
@@mike9512 I honestly think it's the toughest issue for Jordan. And because he hasn't fully figured it out for himself, he has a hard time giving a simple answer. He has been very open about the fact that the question of God has kept him up more nights than he would like to admit and that it terrifies the hell out of him. I mean, he breaks down crying about it sometimes when he talks about it. So, I just think he is wrestling with the idea of God and his spirit and until he sorts it out, we will continue to get vague answers.
I think that the idea that gender wars and woke culture are replacing religion is a proposition way too absurd if you know anything about history or human nature. Revolutions, ideologies and movements have always been part of human history and nature. They have always existed alongside religion and without religion it is no different. To say it somehow is happening because people have no religion is simply absurd.
Have ideologies existed that have been this robust? The only comparable example that I can think of is Soviet communism. An ideology that has its own defined heresies and heretics, apostates, messiah-like figures, sacred texts, etc. seems uniquely crafted to fill a void typically filled by religion.
@@Psyshimmer "Have ideologies existed that have been this robust?" What do you mean? they have always existed. There are plenty within religion for example, read everything about early Christianity and all the ideologies. How they fought over theology and called heretics anyone that disagreed. You have ideologies such as the Gnostics for example. But you have plenty of ideologies, that were intertwined with religion, things like Patriotism and Nationalism for example. An ideology so strong you might not even think about it as an ideology, because it is so integral to culture. Ideologies have been an integral part of humanity and they have always existed. You have plenty of ideologies that shaped entire countries and cultures, such as Confucianism. Stoicism is a big one as well, and Ancient Greece was a place that gave birth to many ideologies that affect us even today.
@@farrex0 I agree that ideologies have always existed, and that many of them have far-reaching effects, but my central point, the one that I'd appreciate your thoughts on, is specifically regarding the secularism-as-religion that we see rising today. Unlike Confucianism, stoicism, or Gnosticism, wokism is specifically religious in nature. As I mentioned, it is specifically moralistic in nature, mirrors Christianity's original sin in its ethos, specifically defines its heresies and heretics, and possesses its own sacred texts, leading messiah-like figures, priest class, etc. Nationalism possesses some of these, but lacks the internationalist aspect that makes Wokism especially pernicious. It isn't constrained by geography, like nationalism is, and is to me, more alike a religion than any of the examples you've listed.
@@Psyshimmer "is specifically regarding the secularism-as-religion that we see rising today. " Hmm, let's be clear let's not commit the equivocation fallacy and let's not dilute the definition of religion so much that an ideology becomes a religion. There is NOTHING religious in wokism. I am sure all the things you can point out that makes it religious in your mind are things that are ALSO what defines an ideology. Nationalism for example, is almost religious... you worship your nation and even die for it. But being like religion, doesn't make it religious. Wokism is not religious is nature. I do not subscribe to wokism, but let's be clear and truthful. When you say wokism is religious in nature, please define what do you mean by religious. Because by traditional definition of religion, wokism is not religious. "As I mentioned, it is specifically moralistic in nature" That is not religious exclusive. And all ideologies ever have a position on morality and ethics. So that doesn't make it religious. "mirrors Christianity's original sin in its ethos, specifically defines its heresies and heretics, and possesses its own sacred texts, leading messiah-like figures, priest class, etc." That also happens in Marxism , but that doesn't make it religious. In fact, I would say Marxism is more akin to religion than wokism. Yet Maxism is not religious. I have to wonder what is it you are trying to achieve. If by saying something is religious, you want to demerit the ideology? Want to say it is irrational? or that they simple zealots? Well there are plenty of ideologies that have been like that. Some that has been even more extremists than wokism. You have communism for example, which moved complete countries to violent revolution and autoritarian regimes. You have nazism, whcih caused the world War 2. You have the anti-communist movement in the US, in which everything communist was labeled as satanic. You have anarchism, and the ideologies that inspired the French revolution. In short, ideologies and religion has always existed and while they have similarities, those similarities do not make an ideology religious.
@@farrex0 First, I'll be transparent that my belief is that Wokism is just a rebranded faux-Marxism - the same ethics and processes, yet expanded to include attributes beyond class (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.), so I agree with your argument that Marxism is faux-religious because it strengthens my argument that Wokism is faux-religious (I should have been clearer in stating that I don't view Wokism specifically as a religion, but that it encompasses a sufficient number of religious tendencies that I'm unsatisfied by writing it off as mere ideology.) I'm curious, what separates a religion and an ideology for you? One could use the basic definition of a religion as, "a set of beliefs and tenets that guide faith and worship", but I suspect that is too broad and can, unintentionally mark Wokism as inherently religious. My goals are the following: I'm attempting to honestly evaluate the origin, effects, and ethos of Wokism, which I view as a particularly interesting (though damaging) amalgamation of Christianity and Marxism, yet one that remains essentially secular. I believe that an uncomfortable number of skeptics and secularists have been seduced by Wokism because they believe that it's not "religious," yet it damages social fabric in (my opinion) a way very similar to religion.
Yes, the sloganization of arguments and/or politics! I've been thinking about that for a while now and I've noticed a lot of people will tend to argue against the slogan itself vs any actual arguments and it drives me nuts. I have a family member who thinks he's pretty smart cuz he'll argue against the slogan.
All of the political slogans regarding policy I've seen have done more harm than good. "Defund the police" was a nightmare. It became the argument and policy. A social conversation that should've been about police accountability, law enforcement militarization, police capabilities with mental health, etc. became "this group wants to completely abolish police".
I'm not sure if I agree with the "redness" argument, maybe I just don't understand it correctly. I have a lot of pictures and videos on my HDD, but if you cut it open you won't find any. They can only be processed by a machine, a PC (or whatever other device), just like "redness" in our brain can only be processed by a living organism. The difference is that we know how machines work, we built them after all, but how brain works is still a mystery for the most part.
Alex had the best interview skills, how to handle unstable inteviewees after how he handled Hitchens and his insane outburst and kept it going politely without folding and whilst also letting Hitchens know he was being unfair. Massive respect to this guy
"I like a lot of what Jordon Peterson says", "I like a lot of what Ben Shapiro says". Two people known/shown to be grifters/propagandists in a lot of what they say.
I would love to see you moderate a debate with both sides on this topic, one that doesn’t devolve into a screaming match. I know that’s not necessarily your format, but we desperately need to see people disagree while still trying to understand and respect each other
Thank you, Andrew! This is the second UA-camr you've introduced me to who I know I'm going to love (the first was Coleman Hughes)!! This is my favourite episode of Heretics so far!
To me, "free Palestine " means to transform the current state of Israel with its ethno religious laws that favour one demographic group. Into a one multi ethnic and secular state that treats individuals and groups equally. Religion, race, and ethnicity need not be a deciding factor of individuals' rights in modern states. Much respect 🙏
The section at 6:00 is titled "Why woke beliefs are scarier than religion" but neither of you discuss this in the next couple of minutes. Wondering what compelled you to title it as such. Edit: Never mind. All the sections have clickbaity titles. Seems rather ingenuine.
@@jerrodshack7610 The term is inherently ironic, so using it unironically is just fine, lol. It's a pointedly critical label of a specific set of Left-leaning political sensibilities. Sensibilities such as unsubstantive representation, diversity equity and inclusion ideals which amount to really nothing more than tokenism, holding to the class struggle narrative, etc. It's essentially a synonym of Radical Left. I am aware of the term's original definition, just as I am of the original definition of gay. It doesn't matter what it was meant 40 years ago. Mainstream media, even the legacy Left leaning ones, like CNN, are using the term the way it is used in this video, today. And all media will continue discourse with this new colloquial definition of a specific type of Leftist political beliefs.
Jordan Peterson intentionslly over- complicates things just to make his ideas sound more intellectual than they actuslly are. You can tell he's teeing up some warmed-up meatloaf when he starts with "I've thought about this a lot" - it's clsssic plaid-blazer "trust me" selling. Ive said it on other threads - the man could make toast difficult to grasp as a concept.
@@brianmeen2158 "I've thought a lot about the toast, and how it represents man's Jungian collectively unconscious need to manipulate his surroundings, and then my thoughts shift to the bread itself, and how it was originally wheat, modified and combined with other constituents in order to manifest in a more cohesive relativistic form and that's god." 😆
@@AM_o2000 bravo, lol - truly a psychosocial matryoshka of tangential conundrums, making it clear to any reasonably intelligent inquiry that patriarchal norms bring all these stacking concepts into alignment. And then there's the butter..."
my way of dealing with the thought of death as an atheist who doesn't believe in any form of afterlife is to think that i will no longer have to worry about dying once i am dead
@@kimbirch1202 Eternity promotes time wasting. Its like when you have lets say two weeks to finish something and it takes only about 1 day to do it, most people would have waited the last moment to do it... Same with life. So to me, knowing that life ends and that you never know when it will end is what makes me to actually do things.
@lazar2949 What things do you have to do , and why do you have to do them. You do have all the time in the world, as time is an illusion. It can.never not be the present moment. There is no death ,because you cannot be a body.
@lazar2949 The problem is misidentification with the body. You cannot be a body. You already ARE eternal Mind and Spirit. Folk who believe they are a body think they have to achieve their bucket list, before they die, yet there is no death. If you don't believe this, you may want to watch the numerous near death experiences, here on UA-cam.
He’s an advocate for institutional aristocracy, where the aristocrats are determined by the superficial significance of their credentials. Whether this is a right wing or left wing proposition depends on who has the authority to award the credentials. So in this generation, Sam is a raving Leftist, but in the 40’s and 50’s he would have been right wing.
I thought the same. And while the response above says “American liberals often look like conservatives…” in Alex’s part of the world, Alex didn’t say “conservative.” He specifically said “American conservative” and he does in fact know the difference. This is the first time I’ve ever heard Alex say something that made me double take. He’s usually pretty spot on. But Harris is emphatically not an American conservative. Not by a sight.
Honestly until religious belief is minority, it's bizarre to dismiss the topic. It's very much a gateway-idea to irrationality (to being willing to believe ideas without sufficient evidence).
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 Because if 51% of your population believes in leprechauns, *clearly discussions about leprechauns matter.* That's still true at ~25%, and probably only stops being relevant around 5%. (And generally that's why we currently don't discuss leprechauns most places. Though apparently a survey in Ireland put leprechaun belief at 33%, so clearly they _should_ be discussing the topic!)
@@majmage we still do discuss the topic when it becomes relevant though. Like he said it’s a topic that is relevant in the political sphere. But making it the forefront of every discussion doesn’t seem fruitful. Unless specific religious values or points come up. Then it’s not that important. Even if it was leprechauns or whatever I’m not sure why that would change anything
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 Who's making it the forefront of every discussion? That just seems like a straw man. Irrational beliefs should be abolished, even if they seem harmless, because they aren't harmless: *they're irrationality.* If a person believes it's acceptable to hold one irrational belief, they're more likely to hold others, and we should be pushing back against that as much as possible (because the alternative is more irrationality, which is worse for us all).
@@majmage irrational beliefs can be harmful sure. But I see a flaw in your logic. You are saying beliefs are harmful because they are irrational. Which is a position or a claim And you then further state that if they hold irrational beliefs that can then inform further irrational beliefs. But this is true of us all. We all to some degree come to conclusions that are incorrect that inform further inaccurate positions. This also doesn’t directly imply harmful beliefs. This also doesn’t imply just because these beliefs have the capacity to be harmful that they should be the irrational beliefs we politically talk about. I would also say there is a further problem here about how religious beliefs function when it comes to truth values. And you are looking at truth in a very analytical way. And I’m not making an argument for belief in belief. I’m making an argument for the evolution of ideas. It’s not true or false when a bird does a dance to pro create. Those are just behaviors they adapted that work for them. Just like how the human animal burns smoke to keep the darkness out. (Dark spirits or whatever) Smoke is good for killing mold. They don’t know that. But it’s a good practice that over time they developed to take care of themselves. The complete truth didn’t matter and their explanation works
Equating “trans women are women” to “2+2=5” kinda says the quiet part out loud. A closer comparison, as someone in this very comment section has pointed out, is saying “adopted parents are parents.”
What? No one is going to actually argue that adoptive parents are real biological parents. But trans community will argue that. Infact, if you don't take part in ones own 'self identity' (which is exactly the problem - You can't 'identify' your self as something. An identity is WHO YOU ARE not what YOU THINK you are.) I can be shunned and excluded away... for what reason? Because I said a trans woman is not actually a woman? How can one make a claim and then not have any evidence to back it up? The trans community KNOWS they can't actually give any proof so they make up this bullshit lie thar 'gender is a social construct' and that it something malleable and separate from sex, and yet they treat gender exactly like sex. The moment someone says they feel like a certain gender, no questions asked, they fully accept it and even encourage that delusion. What makes a man and a woman is not a construct. What IS a construct is femininity and masculinity, WHICH STILL is sometimes influenced by biology because women and men often think differently.
.. maybe you need a female perspecive ? - its odd that still its only men talking to men about other men in 2024. And Jordan Peterson is not accurat in what he is saying. To much speculation. Chek up before taking him serious.
PLEASE explain to me "both have a biological aspect attached"? This part of one of your sentences makes no sense to me. Adopted parents have no biological attachment to their adopted children!
About the 'ugh' feeling that is morality around 35:40 : Philosopher Mary Midgley said that the 'yuk' feeling we're supposed to have about murder is actually very essential to morality. When someone doesn't have it, we call them a psychopath or something similar. Because this person may know that murder, rape etc. are wrong (like you can theoretically have a list of right and wrong things and memorize it), but they don't FEEL it. And that's the difference between just knowing something is not preferred in society, and having a moral judgement about something. Just some added info for those who now think moral judgements are not relevant or essential in society because 'they're just feelings' - yes they are, but vital ones.
Terror management theory is such an interesting view to me because while I can see it rearing its head whenever I do some artistic stuff thinking it'll be my legacy, but I also know that I would 100% not bother doing anything important at all if I knew I had a year or so to live. On the contrary, if someone were to tell me I won't die and I have to live here eternally, I'd devote significant portions of my life to bettering my conditions, thinking if I simply cannot not live, I sure as hell will live well.
@@brianmeen2158Rogan openly supports right wing candidates and has right wing pundits on constantly, which he almost never pushes back against even when they are blatantly incorrect about something. He has talked about his disdain for the homeless, complains about socialism, has pushed inaccuracies regarding vaccination, etc etc etc. He is most certainly a conservative. Ultra conservative? Perhaps not, but the bar for being "ultra conservative" is pretty high when American conservatives are already ultra conservative by the standards of the rest of the developed world.
“Nothing corrupts revolutionary movements more - and more radically - than success. For the first generation, the pioneering one, is followed by that of opportunists. The third continues to fight out of habit; the fourth, out of inertia. Eventually the movement turns its battle inward, splitting into factions, groups, sects, one against the other, one against all. Substance gives way to superficiality. Personalities replace ideas; slogans replace ideals. The lofty goals are lost; the message is forgotten. Now the struggle revolves around titles and positions…” -Elie Wiesel, souls on fire 1972
Whenever the world just seems a little too insane, i seek out Andrew's channels to regain a sense of nuance and balance. Fantastic content, and then suddenly - flawless falsetto! Bravo sir, on both the episode and the MJ rendition.
2:10 Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are "American conservatives"? Jordan Peterson isn't even American and Sam Harris sure as hell isn't a conservative.
Doesn't Peterson live in America and is his content not primarily consumed by Americans, and are his culture war positions not entirely based on the American culture war?
I would argue that the "my body my choice" thing actually falls into the bodily autonomy argument, and I'd argue that is the actual reason it has been so oversimplified. The argument is essentially that no other nuance is necessary, it is a total belief in bodily autonomy, where no one has any right to another persons body, regardless if it is necessary to their survival. For instance, most people would not try to argue that we should mandate blood and organ donations, because even though it is necessary for someone else's survival (particularly for people with rare blood types), at the end of the day the person who's body is being utilized has bodily autonomy, and that must be protected before anything else. Many people who are pro-choice actually do not believe in abortion on a personal level, and they themselves would never get an abortion if it (except for maybe severe medical complications), but they do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to carry a pregnancy. And even when making the argument "they made a choice that led to the pregnancy", part of bodily autonomy is that people have the right to change their mind, or maybe they never "chose" to be pregnant, instead it was a mistake, mistakes happen, and they still have a right over their body.
Fascinating discussion. Was interesting when Alex experienced himself how the perception of time compresses as one ages. Being 72 I know it all too well. When asked who would you go for wisdom Alex mentioned Lord Altrincham. Did watch the episode in The Crown and took notice of Lord Altrincham but didn't know much about him. Will certainly check his work and life out. The person I have obtained a fair amount of wisdom is William James. Studied most of his works while pursuing a degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies back in the late 80's and early 90's. Helped in a profound way focus how I think about religion, truth, and knowledge. Well done, Andrew and Alex. You both inspire this old bloke.
If you asked a person chanting "free free palestine" what they mean, most willbe able to tell you exactly what that means. The few in edited youtube interviews who can't are exactly that, a few, deliberately edited to appear like a majority.
There was a recent research paper published that concluded a not insignificant number of people can’t form images in their mind by thinking of them, such as redness, even though they can see them. Likewise, in the same paper, they concluded a not insignificant number of people don’t have an inner voice. Fascinating stuff.
Interesting, although I'm always skeptical about studies like that. I mean how do you test and compare (!) the images that people see in their minds? Is it one of those studies where they just ask the participants questions or is it more sophisticated like an MRI? Because it could also be, that people interpret questions like "What image do you see in your mind when you think of X?" differently, just because they have a slightly different understanding of language and words, and what they see in their minds is actually the same.
I have always been anti-authoritarian but pro institutions where they support liberty. When the right is authoritarian, I am anti-right, when the left is authoritarian, I am anti-left.
Alex, I live in Oklahoma (USA) and the religion debate is more politically relevant than ever. Our governor and state superintendant of education are attempting to enable a publically funded catholic school, put the ten commandments up in every classroom, and allow religious classes in public schools. Yes, they are also attacking trans and gay kids (as well as furries!), social-emotional learning, and "critical race theory," but that relates to their religious background.
I don't know what isolated incident O'Connor relies on to ridicule the response of so many people in various parts of the world to the devastating conflict between the government of Israel and Palestine. My experience is that, when asked, those who say "Free Palestine" do not respond crudely by repeating the slogan, but rather offer historical and political explanations to support their position. Both at rallies, in academia, on social networks, etc. Whether one agrees with such explanations is another matter. But the usual thing is that they offer them. But it is easier to stretch the nose of high intellectual sophistication and simplistically paint thousands of people as robots that respond with empty tautologies. Very nice straw man of such "nuanced" and "professional" philosopher.
Agree. Disappointing, though, he was talking about sloganism. He did later in the piece say they may have a point but sloganism alone is lazy. (Paraphrased)
I was going to comment something similar, but about the trans argument. I don't believe most people just shout "Trans women are women!" and leave it at that with no further thought, and it's weird to me that Alex and Andrew seem to submit that as a major issue. Most of the marches, social media interaction, and youtube videos I've seen have very simple and relatable differentiation between gender and sex, coming from the perspective of psychology. Maybe if you watch The Daily Wire affiliated shows you'll find those kinds of examples as the main message, but they obviously have a incentive to cherry pick and portray social media trans defense as such.
Yeah, this is really dumb. I have never met ANYBODY who just mindlessly shouts slogans like that. You hear slogans because they are short and snappy and work well at a gathering like a protest. But I've never met anybody who is pro-palestine or pro-trans and can't adequately explain their position when challenged.
@@Egos_Altar He is attacking a ghost that he himself has invented (this supposedly broad spread of lazy "sloganism") to discredit positions without needing to sit in the hot seat. That's throwing stones and hiding the hand. Low move.
Nowhere in did Alex say "Woke beliefs are scarier than religion". So why name the 06:06 conversation that? I didn't even think the conversation was about that, since the word "woke" wasn't even mentioned once. I felt like the conversation was more about how some topics, that he regards as less important or that has gone on for too long, can get more attention in media and debates.
Alex brought up an interesting point about love and connection being umtimately self motivated, but I have come to a better way of understanding it from a slightly different perspective. My own personal reflections on love over the past year made me see myself as a part of someone else. My flaws, my weaknesses, etc. were not only mine, but something that we had. Relationships, to me, are defined by seeing yourself and someone else as a unit and whatever/whoever you are is a part of them and vice versa. You might do things for others because they in some way preserve or benefit yourself, but you also might do things for yourself because they preserve or benefit them. For me, the cliche phrase, "I love you," must incluse in its definition, "I see myself as a part of who you are and I love myself." To love someone else, for me, is an acklowledgement that I too am loved, for I love the relationship that I am a part of. People might be understandably confrontatious to the idea that even a good act of love and compassion is self motivated, but there's something deeper. An act of love towards someone else should be beneficial to you as you start to see them as a fundamental part of who you are. To me that is love. A fireman rushing into a building to save a child might say he's doing it because he can't live with himself. I say that he's doing it because a fundemental part of himself, the child, will die if he doesn't. He isn't just saving himself in an emotive sense, he's seeing the child's life as part of who he is as a person. Love should become a selfish act not to feel good or perserve some duty to someone else, but the more you love someone else, the more of them you become. To love them is to love that part of yourself.
That secret room in your own house analogy is spot-on. I often even have dreams about my own house, only in my dream-version of my house there are extra rooms that I never noticed before or simply didn't have time to get to that I've finally found a use for in my dream, and then I wake up a bit disappointed that the extra rooms in my house weren't real (because they're often very cozy rooms too).
I agree about the sloganism point, but as far as I understand about the trans movement (being part of it myself and observing those around me), "trans women are women" is not just a slogan summary of a broader point, but the point itself. And no one arguing _for_ that point has, as far as I'm aware, talked about "woman/women" in terms of biological sex. The language _can_ get confusing when you dive into what words you use to refer to biological sex, since words like "female" are _sometimes_ used to refer to biological sex and _sometimes_ used to refer to socialogical/psychological gender ("male/female" are used in an official capacity in some states of the US to refer to one's gender, not sex, on one's birth certificate and driver's license, further adding to the confusion), but "woman/women" is unanymously used by the trans community to refer to gender, not sex. When we hear people arguing about words, it's often opponents of the trans community who reject any and all terminology intended to refer to gender, or who get terms consistently confused or wrong. Otherwise, any currently debated terminology within the LGBTQ+ community is mostly just people figuring things out, whether that be scientists/doctors/researchers choosing more concise terms to study or treat trans patients, philosophers/psychologists/anthropologists exploring the field from their own lens, or individuals/groups within the community trying to find the right words to explain their experience on a personal or universal level. These things take time to reach concensus and I try to be lenient with anyone who wants to use "the right words", but isn't privy to inclusive language. At one point, even the word "gay" was questionable, though I think just about everyone knows what it specifically refers to today. Unconventional neopronouns like "ze/zer" don't seem to be catching on as much because they don't roll off the tongue as well, so I suspect they will stay niche as more non-binary people utilize the more conventional "they/them". I try not to talk past people, personally. I try to pay attention to what words people use and either reflect that terminology myself when talking with them or I try to make what _I_ mean clear so they can't read as many assumptions into my position when I make it, and communication in general goes much more smoothly, leading to far less animosity, even when I talk with someone outside my circle. I feel like that's the better approach to communication with the wider public. I do prefer to use more inclusive language, though, as it avoids being disrespectful to myself and other trans people reading what I say online. As for my justification for using inclusive language, it's less about the legitimacy of the philosophy and more about the ethical implications. It's hard to explain what it's like being trans (with dysphoria) and not realizing it because more conducive language is not around to help you process your feelingsーusing pronouns or referring to yourself by your biological sex, which causes you what seems like a tiny bit of discomfort in the short term, but which piles up in the long run, turning into disassociation, depression, self-esteem issues, shame, etc. I subconsciously tried being a non-gender-conforming version of my birth sex, but it never solved the problem. It wasn't my interests or behavior that caused the dysphoria, but rather my internal sense of identity. I eventually learned I was intersex (chromosomes) in high school and it shocked me because it felt like it could be a missing piece of the puzzle that explained why I felt the way I did, but it wasn't until I learned about trans people's experiences and did my research to calm my fears and metaphysical concerns over it that I finally realized that was the answer. Ultimately, it was the very act of identifying as, and being identified as, my gender in public that alleviated some of that internal strife. My quality of life has improved a lot since. Likewise, uninclusive language intended to deny me that dignity to live according to my identity causes my dysphoria to flare up, and when people do it deliberately, it just feels mean-spirited, in away that projects disrespect toward someone you hate. It gets worse when people accuse you of being a sexual predator because of incomprehensible stereotypes that feel alien to me and everyone I know within the community. Inclusive language doesn't "deny reality". It's a tool used to communicate betterーlanguage that explains the previously unexplainable, especially for those afflicted by dysphoria. It's something that allows me and others like me to live healthier, more productive lives.
You know, on second thought, I suppose "trans woman are woman" can be sloganized within this context precisely because there are people who don't believe it to be true, even if the contention is just over definitions of words rather than "objective reality". I just spent all this time justifing my use of inclusive language to make sure that people know why I use it, and why I think others ought to do the same (if they agree with my approach as a matter of dignity and respect toward an internal sense of identity that is out of trans peoples' control). Whereas I've seen plenty of people shout "trans women are women" to the sky who would rather fall back on "it's just a fact" to justify their position rather than explain their approach.
@Junosensei there is more to it than just calling someone a woman though, I'm fine with calling someone a transman or transwoman and would refer to them socially as she. However woman have their own needs that they might not want trampled on, say for instance the case in Scotland of a rapist who was born a man getting sent to a prison with woman because they now identify/are a transwoman should they be placed in prison with womrn that they're actually in jail for raping in the first place? If the answer to that is no it's a clear admittance that the person isn't a woman.
@@williamcartedge5583 - 1) Why not treat trans women who assault other women like cis women who assault other women? From my understanding, women who are at high risk of hurting other women are isolated from the group in women's prisons, whenever possible. 2) Trans women are at very high risk of assault in men's prisons, but there are very, very few instances of trans women who assault anyone in a women's prison. If you wish to claim that trans women (or specific trans women in some cases) are a risk to cis women in public spaces, you're going to want to back that up with verifiable numbers. Additionally, any solution you wish to seek should be fair to all, not just one side. I cannot imagine how it would feel being a woman stuck in a men's prison where the vast majority of people who assault women are held.
My god, Andrew is obsessed with all this culture war nonsense, you could tell he was desperate for Alex to show any inclination that he on on "his side" with regards to transgenderism etc. I thought Alex did really well to pick up on this and take a more philosophical approach to the argument, rather than a political one. I also found it quite ironic how they had a whole discussion on how harmful it can be to reduce nuanced issues down to slogans, when the title of the video and the chapter titles added by Andrew do exactly this - condense the topic down to a clickbait-y headline that misrepresents Alex's stance entirely. The hashtags in the description are just the icing on the cake.
So a woman can exist without a body? Just what is 'biologically' supposed to mean? Why consider someone exists as a man or a women even though they don't have a body?
It's odd to me that both of these thoughtful men seem so committed to either/or thinking. Their attitudes seem to be, either I'm doing something wholly for someone else, or I'm doing it wholly to satisfy my own needs. In fact, however, and presumably as they both know, motivation is considerably more complex than that. It's not "either/or;" it's "both/and."
I think they're arguing about what the basis of your action is though. Yes you can be doing something for someone else, but ultimately you do it because you WANT to. For any number of reasons, even reasons that put other people's well-being ahead of your own. You did the thing ultimately because it was something you wanted. On the whole I'm in agreement with that descriptive part of the argument, but not so much with the takeaway. With the fireman example where people say he's a hero and a good person because he couldn't live with himself if he didn't save the child... I think people are totally right to think that. We want more people like that in our society. We want more people who have feelings that push them to do prosocial things. I don't know why we couldn't just define real altruism as having and being influenced by feelings that encourage selfless behavior rather than selfish behavior. It's a way for us to predict what their future behavior will be like, and a normative judgment about it. Easy as.
Alex is confused on the nature of the trans "debate" (we're people; not a debate) as slogans are not the positions. Saying we are a subject of debate at all is the problem, and the slogan is a placeholder rather than saying f-off.
I think that this is your best video yet. Alex has such interesting and thoughtful ideas. I like that he talks about how he thinks social movements and things like morality are shaped by humans rather than focussing on his own stance in these things.
Instead of saying : "trans women are women" when we mean that gender identity is subjective, we should say : "identity is subjective!"? (with the understanding that we should respect a persons subjective experience of reality - no one really having much choice in the matter)
The framing of your topics is a bit strange to me - you call the section at 6:00 "Why woke beliefs are scarier than religion" which isn't what Alex was saying at all. He was merely commenting on how cultural obsessions change over time.
As you age the amount of time represented by a year becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of your life whereas when you're a child it's a much larger fraction of your life so you feel like a year has lasted for ages.
I think the reason the years get faster as we get older is that a year when you're 1 a year is all of your experience. When you're 10 a year is 10% of your experience. When you're 50 it's 2%. When you're 100 it's 1%
By the way…. Dawkins claimed to admire Petersen.. for his stand on gender freedom of speech. Presumably for his courage in being willing to go to prison for violating gender pronoun laws. Out of curiosity…. How many people have gone to prison for violating these laws? I think the correct number is zero. Which raises the question to Dawkins of how much courage is required for Petersen to be willing to go to prison for a “crime” for which no one ever goes to prison?
Can you show me where Dr. Peterson has said that he is "willing to go to prison for violating gender pronoun laws"? As far as I can tell, he has never even said that there are "gender pronoun laws", let alone that he is willing to violate them, let alone that he is willing to go to prison for violating them. I suspect that you are attacking a straw man. What Dr. Peterson is actually doing is opposing compelled speech, and defending academic integrity, in an age in which doing so is deeply unfashionable at best and career-ending at worst.
@@omp199 Regarding compelled speech…. Actually no one is compelled to use pronouns at all. And it is easy enough to avoid using them if that is an issue So then, what is his point? He does not want to acknowledge that some people have genuine gender identity issue, And he wants to free to insult these people in public to make the point that he thinks people who claim gender identity issues are deluded. it turns out that, i think that Christians are deluded cultists…. But i would never try to make this point to a student in a classroom setting. I would simply avoid the issue…. As i would expect of any polite person I think trump supporters are idiots. But i would never say that in a classroom. I do not think this is an issue of freedom of speech
@@MrArdytube It's a bit more complicated than that. You might want to read the CBC article "Canada’s gender identity rights Bill C-16 explained". You can find it by doing a Web search. (CBC is Canada's national public broadcaster.)
@@omp199 By the way…. No one claims that Jordan Petersen should not be allowed to give speeches, lectures, or youtube videos where he freely Addresses his views on this subject. THAT, MY FRIEND IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH
This is podcast gold. The bit about the kids and the turtle necks with tweed jackets at the end resulted in me almost spitting my tea out. I could listen to you both talk for hours.
This is just an amazing comprehensible conversation 100%. Just a breath of fresh air and a clear departure from trying to listen to Jordan Peterson rants of intellectual useless jargon who never answers anything! Thank you Andrew and Alex. Well done!!
He never does! Even guys like Alex O'Connor says that... and the guy is well educated!! Richard Dawkins said it best when he compared Jordan Peterson with Depak Chopra, who always uses fancy language to say absolutely nothing!!!@@thepeadair
He regards himself as broadly on the left of center, but he sometimes he doesn't sound like it. However, those labels seem to be changing over time and geography, so not that helpful I'd say.
I’m a muslim and Alex is my favourite youtuber, if you can even call him that… Because at this point I believe he is becoming one of the most prominent philosophers of our time.
@@Besthinktwice that's a label I think applies a lot better. I would also offer up 'center leftist of the Bill Maher persuasion', who only got labeled as "conservative" in the last five minutes because they finally hit a progressive shibboleth they couldn't justify (whichever one it was).
@@Besthinktwice If you have time, I wonder if you would be able to briefly summarise what you mean by a "liberal imperialist" in a modern context. I have only encountered the term used in the context of the British Empire, a hundred years or so ago.
@@juliuscomnenus4415Bill Maher has been getting progressively more conservative over the past few years. Very classic "young people bad, pull yourself up by your bootstraps" boomer stuff
I'm very confused with how you're titling the sections. It's incredibly misleading, actually. The titles have nothing to do with the actual content in the video.
Alex is one of my favourite speakers, this is mind-blowing. Hit like, notify, and tell me below what you think is more culturally relevant: woke vs religion?
Woke. I once believed in flat earth. I would like to come and chat about how the lies of government has meant the belief in conspiracy is on the rise within the general public.
why are you guys pretending like these are complicated ideas, you understand them you just, would prefer to act like they don't make sense Because you just don't like it. you're acting like other people are trying to control you by not wanting to be discriminated against, it's ridiculous
18:56 I still wonder what people mean when they say trans identifying males are women but only in a 'gendered' sense. I've yet to see anyone define 'gender' in such a way that doesn't rely on stereotyping the sexes. ie: women are the dress wearers, women are the nurturers, women have long hair. There are plenty of women who don't meet this criteria and they're still women because at the end of the day a woman is simply an adult human female. How she dresses or behaves on any given day is irrelevant to being a woman. Why people continue to call males who happen to like wearing dresses, women, is beyond me.
Gender refers to a social phenomena, it encompasses the characteristics we typically associate with a particular sex. In relation to the gender woman we typically assoiated social and physical traits that strongly correlate with female sex, such as breasts, wide hips, higher voice etc and many other social expectations and roles such as long hair, make up, what a society percieves as feminine. As you correctly stated not all females posses these triats and characteristics, and this is the point trans people are making, one shouldn't need all those traits and characteristics to indentity as the gender woman. Also what constitutes woman and feminity varies over time and culture. You're right it is a kinda of stereotype. Hence why men with gynomataia often opt of surgery to remove their breat tissue, as they dont feel their physical appearance aligns with societies stereotypical perception of masculinity and thr gender of man.(breasts don't strongly correlate with being being male but it's common for them naturally occur in males even without hormonal imbalances ). This is an example of cis people having gender alignment surgery. Something very uncontroversial. So under this usuage woman would refer to adult person of that gender. Female refers to chromsones and or gamete type, imo only really relevant when it comes to medicine, potential procreation and maybe sports under its current structuring. The rest should be merit based.
@@Daz19 I appreciate the thoughtful reply but there are no "gendered women". People don't have 'genders' (a collection of social stereotypes), they have sexes (biological systems oriented to produce sperm or eggs) It's true that we live in a world where there are varying cultural and social expectations of men and women and that many feel stifled by this. The entire feminist movement was arguably an exercise in dismantling those expectations and pressures. Woman= adult human female and so a woman who cuts her hair short and never wears a dress is still a woman and man who happens to like nail polish is no less a man. There are only two sexes of humans but we must also respect the diversity within those sexes. Some women are unusually muscular for their sex and some men are unusually short. Some men may act or dress in ways that buck social expectations, such as crying easily or liking dresses. This is all perfectly normal and there's certainly no reason to reclassify this atypical man as a member of the opposite sex or some kind of "gendered woman". To do so is to reify the very stereotypes women have fought decades to overcome. I will not have my sex class redefined by people either unable to accept the reality of their sex or too fearful to push back against the social expectations impressed upon their sex.
@@allie9928You're welcome. Thank you for your responce. Can we agree there exists a range of characteristics and triats that refer to and differentiate between masculinity and femininity? Many of which can change over time and by culture. It's these traits that people of either sex (or intersex) may or may not posses nor identify with. A female my not identify with many triats of femininty, such as long hair, makeup, dresses etc. Importantly they may also not posses various physical traits (wide hips, narow jaw etc etc), or they may wish to hide or downplay those they do possess. So we have these phenomenas, as as with all phenomenas they require categorisation. In an attempt to best describe this reality it seems the conseus in most academic, medical and scientific fields is that these phenomena are best catagoeised and described as gender and gender identity. It seems you wish to not catagoeise these phenomena or at least not in such a way? I think yould agree sex alone can't explain these, sex doesn't change over time or culture nor can many physical triats or feminity or masculinity be reduced nor universally applicable to soley one of sexs'. According to this categorisation, one's gender is the social construct their gender identity most aligns with, if any. This seems a reasonable way to address this phenomena. It has utilty an explanatory powers, especially when it comes to types of dysphoria and how intersex people can feel. Lastly, for clarity In your eyes, without the concept of gender can intersex people especially those that are not xx or xy be referred to as men or woman? He or she?
@@Daz19 To start, there are no 'intersex' people. No one is between sexes. There are simply male people and female people with disorders of sexual development. A male with an abnormality that caused an underdeveloped penis is still a man just as a male soldier who lost his genitals to injury is still very much a man. They both have bodies organized around the production of sperm. This is of course besides the point as the overwhelming majority of trans identified people have perfectly normal physical development. Yes, I don't believe classifying people by "genders" is necessary. Perpetuating social stereotypes in the name of 'gender' is harmful to everyone. A trans identifying male who believes womanhood to be accessible to him via femininity, is ultimately perpetuating a harmful misogynistic view of women. Women are female not 'femininity'. I think this is the main source of the disagreement. You seem to place a high value on concepts like femininity or masculinity, which rest on stereotypes of the sexes, and believe they are somehow intrinsically linked to being a man or woman. However, a man is a man, irrespective of how he behaves. To be a man is to be an adult human of the male sex, no more no less. Anything on top of that is culturally contingent conditioning that's very likely to marginalize men who don't follow the status quo. Look if this were simply about people wanting to give themselves new labels to describe their experiences, I would still disagree but would be far less concerned. But the reality is there has been a successful effort by the trans movement to muddle or replace sex in law and policy with the vague notion of 'gender/gender identity'. They've replaced a timeless, tangible, and measurable category backed by billions of years of evolution with an entirely subjective, culturally contingent, self-perception that can't be verified by anything but the self declaration of the individual. In doing so they have infringed on the rights of women to have spaces of their own for safety, privacy, and dignity. From prisons, DV shelters, sports teams, locker rooms, and sex specific programs, men have shamelessly barged their way into these spaces with no concern for the women and girls they're harming. And they feel entitled and empowered to do so on the premise of 'gender identity'.
@@allie9928 I'll assume you're not aware of the different chromsonal intersex conditions, as opposed to denying they exists. These aren't just about genitals, these different chromsonal combinations don't fit into the very criteria by which sex is determined. 1. Klinefelter Syndrome: Presence of two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome (XXY). 2. Turner Syndrome: Presence of a single X chromosome (XO). 3. Triple X Syndrome: Presence of three X chromosomes (XXX). 4.XYY Syndrome: Presence of an X chromosome and two Y chromosomes (XYY). 5. Mosaic Genetics: Presence of cells with different chromosomal patterns, such as some cells with XX and others with XY. So how wouod you refer to these people without gender, would you avoid terms such as man or woman? Gender as a social construct doesn't necessarily reinforce stereotypes, because what is considered masculine or feminine evolves over time as society changes. As harmful stereotypes are dismantled, the societal understanding of what constitutes masculinity and femininity will also shift, and thus, so will the way people identify their gender. Gender identity can actually be a tool for challenging and changing stereotypes rather than cementing them. By allowing individuals to practice their own gender identity, especially in the case of non-binary people, hence society can move away from rigid and potentially harmful stereotypes towards a more inclusive understanding of gender that embraces a wide spectrum of expressions and identities, not jist the binary. When it comes to risks you'll need to provide eveidnce that woman only spaces are less safe with admittance based on gender as oppsed to sex. As all I've heard from critics is conjecture and poorly baked hypotheticals.
I went to sea with my father who was a marine engineer and we circumnavigated the earth. You dont need to know the technicality to prove the earth is round, all you need to know is what your eyes tell you. When a ship appears on the horizon, it doesnt just materialise or get bigger and bigger, it appears with the very tops of any masts or funnels first, then the bridge then the top deck, eventually the whole thing appears, just like a car or a person coming towards you over a hill. Ok this doesnt itself prove the earth is round, but on water it proves that it isnt flat. You take what you've seen and add it to every other experience of seeing land or ships appearing, top first, and you can deduce that its pretty much the same wherever you are at sea. This tells you that its very probably curved and could be round but it most definitly isnt flat.
"The universe is going to, you know experience a heat death..." "I think I'd be clinging less to life after ten million years, or several million years..." "Are you sure about that, because..." "No." This is such a brilliant exchange.🤣
Alex really has a good sense of time when he said it felt like an hour after one hour and a minute of speaking
It was one hour exactly - remember, we added the intro highlights, which are 1 min long. Spooky.
absolutely, this sense of time is the single most important part of this video, no doubt. i walked away in awe. nothing else matters, my friends, nothing. @@andrewgoldheretics
@@CatrinaDaimonLee lol
That comes from formal debate training I think.
He could get a job at William Palley and Sons precision watchmakers.
10:12 "Sometimes he just revs. To what end?"
Perhaps he's elated by reving. So he may be having a rev-elation.
And if you reveal your reveling in revulsion, by his reviewing your reviling the revving, it may result in revolution, leading to a revision of the revulsion to the revving.
🤭
@@GoogleIsTooInvasive I love the name, and agree. 😉👍
LOL
@@skepticusmaximus184
reveallo ice cream bars
yummm
I honestly don't see a logical difference between saying trans-women are women and adopted parents are parents. Both have a biological aspect attached but the difference is we socially accept adopted parents as parents even though they're technically not biological parents.
Interesting point. People are more than happy to accept the social/cultural dimensions associated with the words we use up until the moment it suddenly infringes on their political/religious beliefs (and often the unfortunate and messy fusion of both)
The difference would be that the bar to be an adoptive parent is higher. You aren't considered an adoptive parent just because you say you are. I can't just claim to adopt a child. You also accept that you aren't a biological parent. You can't say that biological parents don't exist nor does the whole concept of sex.
Saying trans women are women in terms of gender but not sex is possible but then they have to fulfill some kind of requisites about being a woman (let's be honest trans ideology doesn't care about men's roles) in a gendered sense. Which is to many ppl the bullshit stereotype part. It rather inconveniently also rules out the vast majority of trans ppl. And non-trans ppl.
The adoptive parent has to fulfill the far more important role.
Ppl who say trans women are women regularly try to rewrite the word woman for themselves. Adoptive parents simply try to be the best version of parents they can be for the child.
I'm not saying you're wrong. Trans ideology is.
@@robertmarshall2502 you're strawmaning what being trans is. Trans people aren't saying they are biological men or women. They're saying they belong in the same category socially. Yes, in a way you can call it "redefining" but you'd be more accurate saying "updating" instead. We got new data which has updated our understanding of social dynamics. People aren't just their chromosomes. How we interact with each other is important and far more complicated then that. I have a lot more to add but im curious to read your response.
@@robertmarshall2502 oh and I ignored the "bar" point because thats irrelevant to the central point being made. One could consider someone else a parental figure for many different reasons. Imprinting is one possible example.
@@chuletajones6833 I'm not strawmanning what being trans is. You're ignoring what it means for a bunch of trans ppl that don't fit conveniently into your definition. Go tell trans ppl they're strawmanning themselves should you so wish.
There are literal trans athletes claiming to be female. There are numerous trans ppl claiming to have female brains. "Born in the wrong body" is effectively a central tenet of the gender cult.
There is a pulitzer prize winning trans woman who thinks being a woman is an "open mouth, an expectant arse hole". The famous actress that got Jordan Peterson in trouble believes she is a man because she is attracted to women. What non-binary ppl believe is often a mystery to themselves and agender is effectively 99.9% of ppl.
I think you're also forgetting that the absolutely key definition of woman in trans ideology is "someone who identifies as a woman". Please note that those who hold this view will tell you that woman can't mean anything else. It can't be understood in terms of sex. It can't be understood in terms of gender as a social not individual phenomenon.
I think you and I could probably agree that, for example, a male who fulfills the gender role of a woman could be considered a woman in terms of gender should that society identify him as such. But trans ideology wouldn't. It rides this odd wave of requiring no outside affirmation and all.
There are trans ppl who don't think males should use female spaces or compete in female sport or require cross-sex hormones simply for a social identity but clearly the loudest elements don't hold these views. And none of these arguments make sense if it is purely social.
That's before we even get onto the more reasonable but oddly positioned trans ppl who think trans has to include gender dysphoria.
BTW I don't think they're redefining gender. They're reverting to stereotypes from before when I was born for me. I also think you've missed the point that the parent idea comes from outside whereas trans is internal as well as that being "a parental figure" and being an adoptive parent are not the same. An adoptive parent would be more like getting a gender recognition certificate. Very few trans ppl try to get them.
That must have been Peter Hitchens outside revving his car, taking an inordinate amount of time to leave!
lol, he took his sweet fucking time to leave didn't he? What a clown that dude is XD.
😂
Lol. Saw that vid of him storming out
You can't revv up a Tesla. Electric cars are like religious people, delusional
You guys give Jordan Peterson a lot of respect. When I hear Dr Peterson talk, I can only just giggle at the fusillade of bullshit that he spews with so much self-importance.
Good thing we saw through his bullshit, right? I hope more people are as smart as we are.
Absolutely. I can't for the life of me understand why people hold Jordan Peterson and his constant word salads in such high regard.
@@iksaglamsome of his word salads are good, some of them make no sense, and some of them are soups
I don't always agree with Jordan (especially on religion) but I have respect for him. I agree he sometimes speaks nonsense (especially some debates I've seen), but on many things he is right. He's been an important figure in the fight against wokeness. And I do think his intentions are good.
@@lencekk I disagree with many of his opinions and rhetoric, but the amount of hate he's recieved from the woke is pretty wild, considering they are the ones who turned him into a celebrity by trying so hard to cancel him
I can’t believe this guy. It already feels like he’s explored so much of the world of politics and philosophy already and he’s only in his mid twenties. A pleasure to listen to. Well done Andrew 👏🏻
처음에는 얼굴만 보고 아저씨인 줄 알았는데요. 알고보니, 20대 중반이네요😅
@@gifmesomespending time differently than you do doesn't make it "wasted"
is it a waste if thats his hobby? its fun for him lol @@gifmesome
@@gifmesome I'll make sure to tell him that he should be commenting on youtube dictating how others should live their lives instead, that's a much better use of his time
@@gifmesome I'm not the one telling people how to live, you are.
"Why woke beliefs are scarier than religion" is a very misleading title for that section.
The title is right. They are scarier because they are turning atheist into religious-like extreme activists
"woke" is a meaningless term that just equates to "anything American conservatives don't like" at this point
I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy as well. I don't know which one but it's either begging the question or presupposing the conclusion
Thought the exact same thing. Also, the #antiwoke in the description.
"Woke" ideology has never resulted in inquisitions. There are plenty of examples you can use for religion being more dangerous than "wokeness", at least at this point in history.
I've been enjoying Alex's content for a long time but especially lately as he explores areas other than religion.
His work on the Monarchy, Drugs, hell even Ethics on GTA are absolutely brilliant
@Dewstend Pretty sure all Alex talks about is drugs 💁
@@TheChaotiCake Unfortunately, it's true. Never seen one topic from him besides drugs for about a whole year now. He must be obsessed with drugs!
I appreciated Alex's gentle but firm push back on this host's responses to his positions.
Andrew tried to take Alex's response and turn it into support for his own position several times, and Alex's immediate follow up was to bring the discussion back to neutral apolitical ground.
Or perhaps he was using the techniques of an interviewer.
@@dereksmalls7004 Mischaracterizing your interlocutor's response as support for your position is not the technique of a good internviewer.
@@hawkname1234 Perhaps you should not take it so seriously and cut people a little slack as your New Year Resolution?
@@dereksmalls7004?
@@dereksmalls7004 nope. probably shouldn't.
Imagine having a discussion about how people simplify and reduce political conversation to slogans and then presenting Alex's points about rhetoric as "woke culture is replacing religion" or "why woke beliefs are scarier than religion". No self-awareness.
"presenting"? as in summarizing in a youtube title? The whole discussion about it was about how you can have a slogan and it can be useful in some ways, but you need to have nuance and substance and understanding behind it.
@@lakingpaul I think the point is the summery is not mildly accurate to what was said by anyone. they were only talking about how religion used to be a hot topic, now its gender issues. Nothing about if it was better or worse. So yes, it is capitalizing on sensationalism, similar to slogans.
@@BOREtism it says "are replacing religion"... As in replacing them as a hot topic of the moment, which is what they discussed...
based take
The word woke has lost its meaning entirely, extremely ill defined, while religion is still a very clear defined concept. The title of this video is not making sense.
"To what end are you revving, sir?" lol good stuff
Omg, fr lmfao 🤣 😂
I'm sure there's a correlation between male UK MP's and the cubic capacity of their motor vehicles.
The bigger the engine, the smaller the member...(...of Parliament of course).
@@user-ph8zs6xt8y yesss, this 😅😅😅😅🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤭🤭🤭🤭
@@user-ph8zs6xt8yyou don't say, fast bikes, dikes down in the T valley, or riding horseback ?
this was so fun to watch. Alex has mental clarity and intellectual honesty unlike anything I've ever seen, the interviewer is so good at leading conversation too. V fun, what lovely men
Try Matt Dillahunty. You'll be surprised.
Unlike anything you’ve ever seen? Get out more.
How often do you explore these topics there’s not much that was said here that wasn’t already glaringly obvious to me atleast.
@@audioporcupine3725, bro, getting out more would mean knowing close mind people 😭
Alex is arguably the best thing on the internet. I’m a theist who is very grateful for internet personalities like WLC, Hugh Ross, etc.. But Alex is just someone who enriches every conversation. I wish I knew which pub he hangs out at after work.
Is there a younger
Up and coming WLC? I’m not religious but I think Craig is brilliant
@@brianmeen2158 if you find one, let me know. Even though I disagree with some of his conclusions, you gotta say, he’s done his time! He’s studied for decades! There’s just no short-cut for becoming WLC.
@@geomicprioh definitely Craig is great. I hope he’s training the young generation ..It may sound strange but I’m
Rooting for the theists
@@brianmeen2158 Bigot! 😜
@@brianmeen2158
Do you root for the theists who are waiting for their opportunity to take away same-sex marriage or are you only okay with certain types of theists ?
The most mind-boggling think in this whole conversation is the fact that Alex is only 24.
I’ve been watching Alex since he first began on UA-cam and have eagerly watched his progress. I’m pushing sixty and I’ve found people like Alex to be the rarest sort - brilliance tempered with sincere humility and eagerness to engage openly and honestly places him in the highest echelons of influential thinkers in my opinion. To me he is as great a philosopher as any who have come before him.
I'm pushing 60 too. The funny thing about philosophy is that it's only really open to the privileged who have the luxury of sitting about thinking about life and essentially giving some sort of meaning to themselves. And then there's those who work and don't have the time for such pursuits.
To what end!?! It's good to see Alex in a conversion where he can crack a few funnies. I wish the BBC would offer Alex a TV slot.
No way that'd happen. The BBC are too entrenched in woke ideology to give a platform to someone who will happily play with ideas, questioning, criticizing and defending them.
The funny part, to me, is that I don’t think he said that to be funny. I think he was genuinely asking, “Is he going anywhere, or is he just revving his engine?” I think he’s genuinely questioning this guy’s motives and it just came across like a joke lol
@@PtylerBeats True. But I'm pretty sure his crack about the massive penis was humor. 😂
A big problem is that brilliant people are also sometimes wrong… particularly when speaking about something outside their expertise. For example… Jordan Petersen Has a doctor of psychology… it does not make him an expert on virology or economics
@@Besthinktwice
Yes, well, most of what he says would be rejected if he tried to publish it in a scientific journal. He mostly gives opinions, conjecture, and rationalized personal biases
He's also very ignorant of theology and philosophy of religion yet yaps his gob
Of course and this is why I laugh when people try to bash academics or intellectuals and try to completely discredit them
Because they are wrong on a particular issue . There’s not a single intellectual in history that is right about everything
@@brianmeen2158
Of course the bashing is deserved to a greater or lesser extent based upon the pretension of any given intellectual., i observe that Petersen has an over abundance of pretension on a wide range of subjects in which he has no obvious basis of expertise,
@@Besthinktwice Such as?
Can't wait to watch this Andrew. Thanks so much for Heretics. A non-shouty breath of fresh air and sanity!
@@docwhammo What is evil to you dicknose?
@@docwhammois that meant to counter his argument or just point out that evil comes from humanity?
@@docwhammo evil does not come only from humanity, its a human concept/construct, just like good, and so if there exist extraterrestial life, it will probably behave similar to us, even though they may not have created such concepts
Help me out.
Can Alex denounce the Holocaust and on what grounds if he is an emotivist and ethics are just subjective emotions that can't be true or false?
Because he has that yikes feeling about killing but Nazis didn't have that yikes feeling about murdering people. So it's just a matter of different feelings, right?
Maybe I didn't understand him, can someone explain it in simple words, thanks
@@Sebbiryeah is he saying religion is just made up just to get a dig in at humanity?
Asking where the experience of redness is inside the brain is like asking where the software is inside of your computer; it's not sitting in there in a physical location per se, but it is more or less "in there" as the result of an information exchange process that occurs between tangible physical structures.
Mostly agree, just with a little caveat. You would be able to point where the software is physically located. It’s more the actions that the software performs that aren’t anywhere. I think better example would be AI. We know how to build it we know how it works in principle, but we would not be able to point out to specific physical location and say this is the part that generates redness in an image.
Another caveat to this, if we can be certain consciousness is a physical process self contained in the brain then we know that there must be a physical state that redness information is being represented in the form of information. While it seems emergent we know that for it to be experienced the state of redness exists. Being hard to find I would liken it to the exact location of an electron. We just don't have the tech/knowledge to observe this event. @@InShadowsLinger
I agree hopefully one day we will be able to access our mods just like we access a computer 💻
Andrew doing a Michael Jackson impression is such a great Easter egg in this brilliant interview.
It came out better than I expected!
The level of self-righteousness and smugness in this video repulsed me. Why couldn't they have just each let out a fart in the beginning and then have each other smell it?
This got progressively more interesting the further the discussion went. I don't think had the opportunity to hear Alex talk much about the motivation behind altruism before.
Started following and watching Alex...have real interest in philosophy and find him young and fresh in terms of explanations and questions.
Thx Andrew for always being so generous in asking guests where we can visit as well as which heretic they admire-what a great question!
Keep up great work, what a lovely chap you are, so natural, open and honest 👌
Ah you guys, your minds are gifts to us. Thank you so much. minds like yours remind me that there is hope for this world. Keep talking, thinking, searching...love you guys - men are so cool!!!!
Two guys trying to have an intelligent conversation, guy next door: "LOUD CAR GO VROOM VROOM"
I can't believe Alex O'Connor is only 24 year old, looking forward to listen to him more... great discussion as usual!
Philosophy should be taught at school. Training kids how to think. We might see more 24 yr olds like Alex
What's so impressive about him? I don't get it.
Alex has probably missed what Peterson has been up to since joining the Daily Wire. He’s mask off on his religious conservatism now. I suspect he was more cautious before in order to keep his audience options open as he was becoming famous. Now he’s established.
I couldn’t bear to listen to him but I would guess that his religiosity is more related to him being on the daily wire than a personal change. He is just incited to grift more because of the audience. It’s like joining the Fox News.
Masks off or just loving the following and money? Sometimes thosr things change a lit about people
I love seeing you people SO BOTHERED by Jordan Peterson!! You HATE that he absolutely wrecks your woke nonsense and is personally responsible for MILLIONS of people flocking to conservatism and anti-wokeness. He is easily the most brilliant mind of modern times.
So if someone asks him if he believes in God, does he just say yes now? Or is it still a rambling thesis about "well it depends on what you mean by believe..."? And I don't mean that in a snarky way. Does he legit just answer the question now?
@@mike9512 I honestly think it's the toughest issue for Jordan. And because he hasn't fully figured it out for himself, he has a hard time giving a simple answer. He has been very open about the fact that the question of God has kept him up more nights than he would like to admit and that it terrifies the hell out of him. I mean, he breaks down crying about it sometimes when he talks about it. So, I just think he is wrestling with the idea of God and his spirit and until he sorts it out, we will continue to get vague answers.
I think that the idea that gender wars and woke culture are replacing religion is a proposition way too absurd if you know anything about history or human nature.
Revolutions, ideologies and movements have always been part of human history and nature. They have always existed alongside religion and without religion it is no different. To say it somehow is happening because people have no religion is simply absurd.
Have ideologies existed that have been this robust? The only comparable example that I can think of is Soviet communism. An ideology that has its own defined heresies and heretics, apostates, messiah-like figures, sacred texts, etc. seems uniquely crafted to fill a void typically filled by religion.
@@Psyshimmer "Have ideologies existed that have been this robust?"
What do you mean? they have always existed. There are plenty within religion for example, read everything about early Christianity and all the ideologies. How they fought over theology and called heretics anyone that disagreed. You have ideologies such as the Gnostics for example.
But you have plenty of ideologies, that were intertwined with religion, things like Patriotism and Nationalism for example. An ideology so strong you might not even think about it as an ideology, because it is so integral to culture.
Ideologies have been an integral part of humanity and they have always existed.
You have plenty of ideologies that shaped entire countries and cultures, such as Confucianism. Stoicism is a big one as well, and Ancient Greece was a place that gave birth to many ideologies that affect us even today.
@@farrex0 I agree that ideologies have always existed, and that many of them have far-reaching effects, but my central point, the one that I'd appreciate your thoughts on, is specifically regarding the secularism-as-religion that we see rising today. Unlike Confucianism, stoicism, or Gnosticism, wokism is specifically religious in nature. As I mentioned, it is specifically moralistic in nature, mirrors Christianity's original sin in its ethos, specifically defines its heresies and heretics, and possesses its own sacred texts, leading messiah-like figures, priest class, etc. Nationalism possesses some of these, but lacks the internationalist aspect that makes Wokism especially pernicious. It isn't constrained by geography, like nationalism is, and is to me, more alike a religion than any of the examples you've listed.
@@Psyshimmer "is specifically regarding the secularism-as-religion that we see rising today. "
Hmm, let's be clear let's not commit the equivocation fallacy and let's not dilute the definition of religion so much that an ideology becomes a religion. There is NOTHING religious in wokism. I am sure all the things you can point out that makes it religious in your mind are things that are ALSO what defines an ideology. Nationalism for example, is almost religious... you worship your nation and even die for it. But being like religion, doesn't make it religious.
Wokism is not religious is nature. I do not subscribe to wokism, but let's be clear and truthful.
When you say wokism is religious in nature, please define what do you mean by religious. Because by traditional definition of religion, wokism is not religious.
"As I mentioned, it is specifically moralistic in nature"
That is not religious exclusive. And all ideologies ever have a position on morality and ethics. So that doesn't make it religious.
"mirrors Christianity's original sin in its ethos, specifically defines its heresies and heretics, and possesses its own sacred texts, leading messiah-like figures, priest class, etc."
That also happens in Marxism , but that doesn't make it religious. In fact, I would say Marxism is more akin to religion than wokism. Yet Maxism is not religious.
I have to wonder what is it you are trying to achieve. If by saying something is religious, you want to demerit the ideology? Want to say it is irrational? or that they simple zealots? Well there are plenty of ideologies that have been like that. Some that has been even more extremists than wokism. You have communism for example, which moved complete countries to violent revolution and autoritarian regimes. You have nazism, whcih caused the world War 2. You have the anti-communist movement in the US, in which everything communist was labeled as satanic. You have anarchism, and the ideologies that inspired the French revolution.
In short, ideologies and religion has always existed and while they have similarities, those similarities do not make an ideology religious.
@@farrex0 First, I'll be transparent that my belief is that Wokism is just a rebranded faux-Marxism - the same ethics and processes, yet expanded to include attributes beyond class (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.), so I agree with your argument that Marxism is faux-religious because it strengthens my argument that Wokism is faux-religious (I should have been clearer in stating that I don't view Wokism specifically as a religion, but that it encompasses a sufficient number of religious tendencies that I'm unsatisfied by writing it off as mere ideology.)
I'm curious, what separates a religion and an ideology for you? One could use the basic definition of a religion as, "a set of beliefs and tenets that guide faith and worship", but I suspect that is too broad and can, unintentionally mark Wokism as inherently religious.
My goals are the following: I'm attempting to honestly evaluate the origin, effects, and ethos of Wokism, which I view as a particularly interesting (though damaging) amalgamation of Christianity and Marxism, yet one that remains essentially secular. I believe that an uncomfortable number of skeptics and secularists have been seduced by Wokism because they believe that it's not "religious," yet it damages social fabric in (my opinion) a way very similar to religion.
Yes, the sloganization of arguments and/or politics! I've been thinking about that for a while now and I've noticed a lot of people will tend to argue against the slogan itself vs any actual arguments and it drives me nuts. I have a family member who thinks he's pretty smart cuz he'll argue against the slogan.
All of the political slogans regarding policy I've seen have done more harm than good. "Defund the police" was a nightmare. It became the argument and policy. A social conversation that should've been about police accountability, law enforcement militarization, police capabilities with mental health, etc. became "this group wants to completely abolish police".
Then stop using slogans. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
@RaveyDavey I believe slogans have their place (as I believe Alex mentions) but that place is not in arguing or debating the merits of a position.
@@RaveyDavey the irony 😂
I'm not sure if I agree with the "redness" argument, maybe I just don't understand it correctly. I have a lot of pictures and videos on my HDD, but if you cut it open you won't find any. They can only be processed by a machine, a PC (or whatever other device), just like "redness" in our brain can only be processed by a living organism. The difference is that we know how machines work, we built them after all, but how brain works is still a mystery for the most part.
Alex had the best interview skills, how to handle unstable inteviewees after how he handled Hitchens and his insane outburst and kept it going politely without folding and whilst also letting Hitchens know he was being unfair. Massive respect to this guy
Will Hitchens was probably drunk.
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper Nah, he's just an a*sehole.
@@CoffeeisnecessarynowpepperPretty sure Peter Hitchens rarely drinks
@@rorybessell8280 he got cancer from alcohol
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper Wrong Hitchens there
"I like a lot of what Jordon Peterson says", "I like a lot of what Ben Shapiro says". Two people known/shown to be grifters/propagandists in a lot of what they say.
I would love to see you moderate a debate with both sides on this topic, one that doesn’t devolve into a screaming match. I know that’s not necessarily your format, but we desperately need to see people disagree while still trying to understand and respect each other
I really like this. 💯💯💯💯💯💯
But who would you go to to represent the progressive left?
"We're living in handmaids tale"
"Its just like 1984"
The favorite refrains of people who dont actually read speculative fiction
Sad to see Alex engaging in this bullshit
Thank you, Andrew! This is the second UA-camr you've introduced me to who I know I'm going to love (the first was Coleman Hughes)!! This is my favourite episode of Heretics so far!
Ah thanks so much. You’re always very generous and lovely in your feedback!
Thank you, @doyle6000! I hadn’t heard of Coleman Hughes, he seems very switched on🙏
He's a slimy SOB, he's the everyman, catch my drift?
Wow I've followed him for years, you most not be into debate or atheism ....
Great interview. It was really good to hear him interviewed rather than debated too, much more worthwhile and interesting.
23:05 Slogans are supposed to make you think, but the way political slogans are used in this context is to replace thought.
To me, "free Palestine " means to transform the current state of Israel with its ethno religious laws that favour one demographic group. Into a one multi ethnic and secular state that treats individuals and groups equally. Religion, race, and ethnicity need not be a deciding factor of individuals' rights in modern states.
Much respect 🙏
Really? More than an hour riding white horses from the heights of sophistication and making irony about slogans? Puff...
The section at 6:00 is titled "Why woke beliefs are scarier than religion" but neither of you discuss this in the next couple of minutes.
Wondering what compelled you to title it as such.
Edit:
Never mind. All the sections have clickbaity titles. Seems rather ingenuine.
The scariest thing is using the term "woke" unironically 😅
@@jerrodshack7610 The term is inherently ironic, so using it unironically is just fine, lol. It's a pointedly critical label of a specific set of Left-leaning political sensibilities. Sensibilities such as unsubstantive representation, diversity equity and inclusion ideals which amount to really nothing more than tokenism, holding to the class struggle narrative, etc. It's essentially a synonym of Radical Left. I am aware of the term's original definition, just as I am of the original definition of gay. It doesn't matter what it was meant 40 years ago. Mainstream media, even the legacy Left leaning ones, like CNN, are using the term the way it is used in this video, today. And all media will continue discourse with this new colloquial definition of a specific type of Leftist political beliefs.
Jordan Peterson intentionslly over- complicates things just to make his ideas sound more intellectual than they actuslly are. You can tell he's teeing up some warmed-up meatloaf when he starts with "I've thought about this a lot" - it's clsssic plaid-blazer "trust me" selling. Ive said it on other threads - the man could make toast difficult to grasp as a concept.
He's only impressive to those with limited education and limited intellectual acuity.
I like Jordan a lot but he is shockingly long winded
@@brianmeen2158 "I've thought a lot about the toast, and how it represents man's Jungian collectively unconscious need to manipulate his surroundings, and then my thoughts shift to the bread itself, and how it was originally wheat, modified and combined with other constituents in order to manifest in a more cohesive relativistic form and that's god." 😆
@@Philusteen Nested in the metaphorical substrate that is the toast rack.
@@AM_o2000 bravo, lol - truly a psychosocial matryoshka of tangential conundrums, making it clear to any reasonably intelligent inquiry that patriarchal norms bring all these stacking concepts into alignment. And then there's the butter..."
my way of dealing with the thought of death as an atheist who doesn't believe in any form of afterlife is to think that i will no longer have to worry about dying once i am dead
"If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not"
But if you knew you couldn't die, you wouldn't waste your life worrying about death.
@@kimbirch1202 Eternity promotes time wasting. Its like when you have lets say two weeks to finish something and it takes only about 1 day to do it, most people would have waited the last moment to do it... Same with life. So to me, knowing that life ends and that you never know when it will end is what makes me to actually do things.
@lazar2949 What things do you have to do , and why do you have to do them.
You do have all the time in the world, as time is an illusion.
It can.never not be the present moment.
There is no death ,because you cannot be a body.
@lazar2949 The problem is misidentification with the body.
You cannot be a body.
You already ARE eternal Mind and Spirit.
Folk who believe they are a body think they have to achieve their bucket list, before they die, yet there is no death.
If you don't believe this, you may want to watch the numerous near death experiences, here on UA-cam.
Sam Harris would disagree with being characterized as being an "american conservative", he is a liberal, which he has said himself many times over.
He’s an advocate for institutional aristocracy, where the aristocrats are determined by the superficial significance of their credentials.
Whether this is a right wing or left wing proposition depends on who has the authority to award the credentials. So in this generation, Sam is a raving Leftist, but in the 40’s and 50’s he would have been right wing.
American Liberals often look like Conservatives to us in the UK.
I thought the same. And while the response above says “American liberals often look like conservatives…” in Alex’s part of the world, Alex didn’t say “conservative.” He specifically said “American conservative” and he does in fact know the difference. This is the first time I’ve ever heard Alex say something that made me double take. He’s usually pretty spot on. But Harris is emphatically not an American conservative. Not by a sight.
Meh, many American liberals are conservative by European standards
liberals are as crazy as conservatives.
i think alex will go down as one of the great philosophers of our time, so glad i got to see him grow
I wouldn't say philosopher, more like public intellectual.
Honestly until religious belief is minority, it's bizarre to dismiss the topic. It's very much a gateway-idea to irrationality (to being willing to believe ideas without sufficient evidence).
Ok, I don’t think he quite dismissed the topic so much as made it a less priority. But why does it need to be the minority first before he does this?
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 Because if 51% of your population believes in leprechauns, *clearly discussions about leprechauns matter.* That's still true at ~25%, and probably only stops being relevant around 5%. (And generally that's why we currently don't discuss leprechauns most places. Though apparently a survey in Ireland put leprechaun belief at 33%, so clearly they _should_ be discussing the topic!)
@@majmage we still do discuss the topic when it becomes relevant though. Like he said it’s a topic that is relevant in the political sphere. But making it the forefront of every discussion doesn’t seem fruitful. Unless specific religious values or points come up. Then it’s not that important.
Even if it was leprechauns or whatever I’m not sure why that would change anything
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 Who's making it the forefront of every discussion? That just seems like a straw man. Irrational beliefs should be abolished, even if they seem harmless, because they aren't harmless: *they're irrationality.* If a person believes it's acceptable to hold one irrational belief, they're more likely to hold others, and we should be pushing back against that as much as possible (because the alternative is more irrationality, which is worse for us all).
@@majmage irrational beliefs can be harmful sure.
But I see a flaw in your logic. You are saying beliefs are harmful because they are irrational. Which is a position or a claim
And you then further state that if they hold irrational beliefs that can then inform further irrational beliefs.
But this is true of us all. We all to some degree come to conclusions that are incorrect that inform further inaccurate positions.
This also doesn’t directly imply harmful beliefs.
This also doesn’t imply just because these beliefs have the capacity to be harmful that they should be the irrational beliefs we politically talk about.
I would also say there is a further problem here about how religious beliefs function when it comes to truth values. And you are looking at truth in a very analytical way.
And I’m not making an argument for belief in belief. I’m making an argument for the evolution of ideas. It’s not true or false when a bird does a dance to pro create. Those are just behaviors they adapted that work for them.
Just like how the human animal burns smoke to keep the darkness out. (Dark spirits or whatever) Smoke is good for killing mold. They don’t know that. But it’s a good practice that over time they developed to take care of themselves. The complete truth didn’t matter and their explanation works
Well, urination is an act of marking territory in the male mammal. So, of course transwoman need to use the bathroom really bad! Ask your pet dog.
They obviously haven't read the dog park paper.
Equating “trans women are women” to “2+2=5” kinda says the quiet part out loud. A closer comparison, as someone in this very comment section has pointed out, is saying “adopted parents are parents.”
What? No one is going to actually argue that adoptive parents are real biological parents. But trans community will argue that. Infact, if you don't take part in ones own 'self identity' (which is exactly the problem - You can't 'identify' your self as something. An identity is WHO YOU ARE not what YOU THINK you are.) I can be shunned and excluded away... for what reason? Because I said a trans woman is not actually a woman? How can one make a claim and then not have any evidence to back it up? The trans community KNOWS they can't actually give any proof so they make up this bullshit lie thar 'gender is a social construct' and that it something malleable and separate from sex, and yet they treat gender exactly like sex. The moment someone says they feel like a certain gender, no questions asked, they fully accept it and even encourage that delusion. What makes a man and a woman is not a construct. What IS a construct is femininity and masculinity, WHICH STILL is sometimes influenced by biology because women and men often think differently.
@@TheDormantP Gender is separate from sex however gender is how we navigate society in daily lives and equating it with sex makes it simple.
.. maybe you need a female perspecive ? - its odd that still its only men talking to men about other men in 2024.
And Jordan Peterson is not accurat in what he is saying. To much speculation. Chek up before taking him serious.
PLEASE explain to me "both have a biological aspect attached"?
This part of one of your sentences makes no sense to me.
Adopted parents have no biological attachment to their adopted children!
About the 'ugh' feeling that is morality around 35:40 :
Philosopher Mary Midgley said that the 'yuk' feeling we're supposed to have about murder is actually very essential to morality. When someone doesn't have it, we call them a psychopath or something similar. Because this person may know that murder, rape etc. are wrong (like you can theoretically have a list of right and wrong things and memorize it), but they don't FEEL it. And that's the difference between just knowing something is not preferred in society, and having a moral judgement about something.
Just some added info for those who now think moral judgements are not relevant or essential in society because 'they're just feelings' - yes they are, but vital ones.
Terror management theory is such an interesting view to me because while I can see it rearing its head whenever I do some artistic stuff thinking it'll be my legacy, but I also know that I would 100% not bother doing anything important at all if I knew I had a year or so to live. On the contrary, if someone were to tell me I won't die and I have to live here eternally, I'd devote significant portions of my life to bettering my conditions, thinking if I simply cannot not live, I sure as hell will live well.
02:34 Love you, Alex, but calling Sam Harris conservative is not accurate in the slightest.
Sam and Rogan are hardcore “right wingers” now 🤣🤣
@@brianmeen2158Rogan openly supports right wing candidates and has right wing pundits on constantly, which he almost never pushes back against even when they are blatantly incorrect about something. He has talked about his disdain for the homeless, complains about socialism, has pushed inaccuracies regarding vaccination, etc etc etc. He is most certainly a conservative.
Ultra conservative? Perhaps not, but the bar for being "ultra conservative" is pretty high when American conservatives are already ultra conservative by the standards of the rest of the developed world.
“Nothing corrupts revolutionary movements more - and more radically - than success. For the first generation, the pioneering one, is followed by that of opportunists. The third continues to fight out of habit; the fourth, out of inertia. Eventually the movement turns its battle inward, splitting into factions, groups, sects, one against the other, one against all.
Substance gives way to superficiality. Personalities replace ideas; slogans replace ideals. The lofty goals are lost; the message is forgotten. Now the struggle revolves around titles and positions…”
-Elie Wiesel, souls on fire 1972
I absolutely adore Alex and I’m so happy to be able to hear him speak freely as an interviewee this time!
Whenever the world just seems a little too insane, i seek out Andrew's channels to regain a sense of nuance and balance. Fantastic content, and then suddenly - flawless falsetto! Bravo sir, on both the episode and the MJ rendition.
2:10 Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are "American conservatives"? Jordan Peterson isn't even American and Sam Harris sure as hell isn't a conservative.
Yes, I was so surprised they didn't realize Peterson is Canadian. Sandy (from hubby's account)
Doesn't Peterson live in America and is his content not primarily consumed by Americans, and are his culture war positions not entirely based on the American culture war?
@@jerrodshack7610No.
I would argue that the "my body my choice" thing actually falls into the bodily autonomy argument, and I'd argue that is the actual reason it has been so oversimplified. The argument is essentially that no other nuance is necessary, it is a total belief in bodily autonomy, where no one has any right to another persons body, regardless if it is necessary to their survival. For instance, most people would not try to argue that we should mandate blood and organ donations, because even though it is necessary for someone else's survival (particularly for people with rare blood types), at the end of the day the person who's body is being utilized has bodily autonomy, and that must be protected before anything else. Many people who are pro-choice actually do not believe in abortion on a personal level, and they themselves would never get an abortion if it (except for maybe severe medical complications), but they do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to carry a pregnancy. And even when making the argument "they made a choice that led to the pregnancy", part of bodily autonomy is that people have the right to change their mind, or maybe they never "chose" to be pregnant, instead it was a mistake, mistakes happen, and they still have a right over their body.
I am a simple man.
I see Alex O'Connor.
I click like.
Fascinating discussion. Was interesting when Alex experienced himself how the perception of time compresses as one ages. Being 72 I know it all too well. When asked who would you go for wisdom Alex mentioned Lord Altrincham. Did watch the episode in The Crown and took notice of Lord Altrincham but didn't know much about him. Will certainly check his work and life out. The person I have obtained a fair amount of wisdom is William James. Studied most of his works while pursuing a degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies back in the late 80's and early 90's. Helped in a profound way focus how I think about religion, truth, and knowledge. Well done, Andrew and Alex. You both inspire this old bloke.
Outstanding interview Andrew. Alex is well to do in keeping his mind open to the possibility of a Creator
If you asked a person chanting "free free palestine" what they mean, most willbe able to tell you exactly what that means. The few in edited youtube interviews who can't are exactly that, a few, deliberately edited to appear like a majority.
There was a recent research paper published that concluded a not insignificant number of people can’t form images in their mind by thinking of them, such as redness, even though they can see them. Likewise, in the same paper, they concluded a not insignificant number of people don’t have an inner voice. Fascinating stuff.
Interesting, although I'm always skeptical about studies like that. I mean how do you test and compare (!) the images that people see in their minds? Is it one of those studies where they just ask the participants questions or is it more sophisticated like an MRI? Because it could also be, that people interpret questions like "What image do you see in your mind when you think of X?" differently, just because they have a slightly different understanding of language and words, and what they see in their minds is actually the same.
I have always been anti-authoritarian but pro institutions where they support liberty. When the right is authoritarian, I am anti-right, when the left is authoritarian, I am anti-left.
Alex, I live in Oklahoma (USA) and the religion debate is more politically relevant than ever. Our governor and state superintendant of education are attempting to enable a publically funded catholic school, put the ten commandments up in every classroom, and allow religious classes in public schools. Yes, they are also attacking trans and gay kids (as well as furries!), social-emotional learning, and "critical race theory," but that relates to their religious background.
Sounds great. I might come.
@@a.b3203 Clean up afterwards if you do....
@@michaeldean1934 not that kind of come, you sex fiend..
I don't know what isolated incident O'Connor relies on to ridicule the response of so many people in various parts of the world to the devastating conflict between the government of Israel and Palestine. My experience is that, when asked, those who say "Free Palestine" do not respond crudely by repeating the slogan, but rather offer historical and political explanations to support their position. Both at rallies, in academia, on social networks, etc. Whether one agrees with such explanations is another matter. But the usual thing is that they offer them.
But it is easier to stretch the nose of high intellectual sophistication and simplistically paint thousands of people as robots that respond with empty tautologies. Very nice straw man of such "nuanced" and "professional" philosopher.
History is just through the lens you look at. Palestine does not and will not exist. Because it will be a state founded on hate against Jews.
Agree. Disappointing, though, he was talking about sloganism. He did later in the piece say they may have a point but sloganism alone is lazy. (Paraphrased)
I was going to comment something similar, but about the trans argument. I don't believe most people just shout "Trans women are women!" and leave it at that with no further thought, and it's weird to me that Alex and Andrew seem to submit that as a major issue. Most of the marches, social media interaction, and youtube videos I've seen have very simple and relatable differentiation between gender and sex, coming from the perspective of psychology. Maybe if you watch The Daily Wire affiliated shows you'll find those kinds of examples as the main message, but they obviously have a incentive to cherry pick and portray social media trans defense as such.
Yeah, this is really dumb. I have never met ANYBODY who just mindlessly shouts slogans like that. You hear slogans because they are short and snappy and work well at a gathering like a protest. But I've never met anybody who is pro-palestine or pro-trans and can't adequately explain their position when challenged.
@@Egos_Altar He is attacking a ghost that he himself has invented (this supposedly broad spread of lazy "sloganism") to discredit positions without needing to sit in the hot seat. That's throwing stones and hiding the hand. Low move.
Nowhere in did Alex say "Woke beliefs are scarier than religion". So why name the 06:06 conversation that? I didn't even think the conversation was about that, since the word "woke" wasn't even mentioned once. I felt like the conversation was more about how some topics, that he regards as less important or that has gone on for too long, can get more attention in media and debates.
The host is a typical attention grabber. We used to call them con men.
Alex O'Connor, one of the best geust.
Alex brought up an interesting point about love and connection being umtimately self motivated, but I have come to a better way of understanding it from a slightly different perspective.
My own personal reflections on love over the past year made me see myself as a part of someone else. My flaws, my weaknesses, etc. were not only mine, but something that we had. Relationships, to me, are defined by seeing yourself and someone else as a unit and whatever/whoever you are is a part of them and vice versa. You might do things for others because they in some way preserve or benefit yourself, but you also might do things for yourself because they preserve or benefit them. For me, the cliche phrase, "I love you," must incluse in its definition, "I see myself as a part of who you are and I love myself." To love someone else, for me, is an acklowledgement that I too am loved, for I love the relationship that I am a part of.
People might be understandably confrontatious to the idea that even a good act of love and compassion is self motivated, but there's something deeper. An act of love towards someone else should be beneficial to you as you start to see them as a fundamental part of who you are.
To me that is love. A fireman rushing into a building to save a child might say he's doing it because he can't live with himself. I say that he's doing it because a fundemental part of himself, the child, will die if he doesn't. He isn't just saving himself in an emotive sense, he's seeing the child's life as part of who he is as a person. Love should become a selfish act not to feel good or perserve some duty to someone else, but the more you love someone else, the more of them you become. To love them is to love that part of yourself.
That secret room in your own house analogy is spot-on. I often even have dreams about my own house, only in my dream-version of my house there are extra rooms that I never noticed before or simply didn't have time to get to that I've finally found a use for in my dream, and then I wake up a bit disappointed that the extra rooms in my house weren't real (because they're often very cozy rooms too).
I agree about the sloganism point, but as far as I understand about the trans movement (being part of it myself and observing those around me), "trans women are women" is not just a slogan summary of a broader point, but the point itself. And no one arguing _for_ that point has, as far as I'm aware, talked about "woman/women" in terms of biological sex. The language _can_ get confusing when you dive into what words you use to refer to biological sex, since words like "female" are _sometimes_ used to refer to biological sex and _sometimes_ used to refer to socialogical/psychological gender ("male/female" are used in an official capacity in some states of the US to refer to one's gender, not sex, on one's birth certificate and driver's license, further adding to the confusion), but "woman/women" is unanymously used by the trans community to refer to gender, not sex. When we hear people arguing about words, it's often opponents of the trans community who reject any and all terminology intended to refer to gender, or who get terms consistently confused or wrong. Otherwise, any currently debated terminology within the LGBTQ+ community is mostly just people figuring things out, whether that be scientists/doctors/researchers choosing more concise terms to study or treat trans patients, philosophers/psychologists/anthropologists exploring the field from their own lens, or individuals/groups within the community trying to find the right words to explain their experience on a personal or universal level. These things take time to reach concensus and I try to be lenient with anyone who wants to use "the right words", but isn't privy to inclusive language. At one point, even the word "gay" was questionable, though I think just about everyone knows what it specifically refers to today. Unconventional neopronouns like "ze/zer" don't seem to be catching on as much because they don't roll off the tongue as well, so I suspect they will stay niche as more non-binary people utilize the more conventional "they/them".
I try not to talk past people, personally. I try to pay attention to what words people use and either reflect that terminology myself when talking with them or I try to make what _I_ mean clear so they can't read as many assumptions into my position when I make it, and communication in general goes much more smoothly, leading to far less animosity, even when I talk with someone outside my circle. I feel like that's the better approach to communication with the wider public. I do prefer to use more inclusive language, though, as it avoids being disrespectful to myself and other trans people reading what I say online.
As for my justification for using inclusive language, it's less about the legitimacy of the philosophy and more about the ethical implications. It's hard to explain what it's like being trans (with dysphoria) and not realizing it because more conducive language is not around to help you process your feelingsーusing pronouns or referring to yourself by your biological sex, which causes you what seems like a tiny bit of discomfort in the short term, but which piles up in the long run, turning into disassociation, depression, self-esteem issues, shame, etc. I subconsciously tried being a non-gender-conforming version of my birth sex, but it never solved the problem. It wasn't my interests or behavior that caused the dysphoria, but rather my internal sense of identity. I eventually learned I was intersex (chromosomes) in high school and it shocked me because it felt like it could be a missing piece of the puzzle that explained why I felt the way I did, but it wasn't until I learned about trans people's experiences and did my research to calm my fears and metaphysical concerns over it that I finally realized that was the answer. Ultimately, it was the very act of identifying as, and being identified as, my gender in public that alleviated some of that internal strife. My quality of life has improved a lot since. Likewise, uninclusive language intended to deny me that dignity to live according to my identity causes my dysphoria to flare up, and when people do it deliberately, it just feels mean-spirited, in away that projects disrespect toward someone you hate. It gets worse when people accuse you of being a sexual predator because of incomprehensible stereotypes that feel alien to me and everyone I know within the community. Inclusive language doesn't "deny reality". It's a tool used to communicate betterーlanguage that explains the previously unexplainable, especially for those afflicted by dysphoria. It's something that allows me and others like me to live healthier, more productive lives.
You know, on second thought, I suppose "trans woman are woman" can be sloganized within this context precisely because there are people who don't believe it to be true, even if the contention is just over definitions of words rather than "objective reality". I just spent all this time justifing my use of inclusive language to make sure that people know why I use it, and why I think others ought to do the same (if they agree with my approach as a matter of dignity and respect toward an internal sense of identity that is out of trans peoples' control). Whereas I've seen plenty of people shout "trans women are women" to the sky who would rather fall back on "it's just a fact" to justify their position rather than explain their approach.
@Junosensei there is more to it than just calling someone a woman though, I'm fine with calling someone a transman or transwoman and would refer to them socially as she. However woman have their own needs that they might not want trampled on, say for instance the case in Scotland of a rapist who was born a man getting sent to a prison with woman because they now identify/are a transwoman should they be placed in prison with womrn that they're actually in jail for raping in the first place? If the answer to that is no it's a clear admittance that the person isn't a woman.
@@williamcartedge5583 - 1) Why not treat trans women who assault other women like cis women who assault other women? From my understanding, women who are at high risk of hurting other women are isolated from the group in women's prisons, whenever possible.
2) Trans women are at very high risk of assault in men's prisons, but there are very, very few instances of trans women who assault anyone in a women's prison.
If you wish to claim that trans women (or specific trans women in some cases) are a risk to cis women in public spaces, you're going to want to back that up with verifiable numbers. Additionally, any solution you wish to seek should be fair to all, not just one side. I cannot imagine how it would feel being a woman stuck in a men's prison where the vast majority of people who assault women are held.
😂😂 I see Alex is growing a fuller thicker beard, because he realised that he looks too young and ppl might not take him seriously 😂😂
I thought it's Paul Denino
My god, Andrew is obsessed with all this culture war nonsense, you could tell he was desperate for Alex to show any inclination that he on on "his side" with regards to transgenderism etc. I thought Alex did really well to pick up on this and take a more philosophical approach to the argument, rather than a political one. I also found it quite ironic how they had a whole discussion on how harmful it can be to reduce nuanced issues down to slogans, when the title of the video and the chapter titles added by Andrew do exactly this - condense the topic down to a clickbait-y headline that misrepresents Alex's stance entirely. The hashtags in the description are just the icing on the cake.
What is a women socially vs biologically isn't confusing at all.
So a woman can exist without a body?
Just what is 'biologically' supposed to mean? Why consider someone exists as a man or a women even though they don't have a body?
"You can't cut open a brain and find redness." Sounds a bit like"You can't cut open a laptop and find Windows."
It's odd to me that both of these thoughtful men seem so committed to either/or thinking. Their attitudes seem to be, either I'm doing something wholly for someone else, or I'm doing it wholly to satisfy my own needs. In fact, however, and presumably as they both know, motivation is considerably more complex than that. It's not "either/or;" it's "both/and."
I think they're arguing about what the basis of your action is though. Yes you can be doing something for someone else, but ultimately you do it because you WANT to. For any number of reasons, even reasons that put other people's well-being ahead of your own. You did the thing ultimately because it was something you wanted.
On the whole I'm in agreement with that descriptive part of the argument, but not so much with the takeaway. With the fireman example where people say he's a hero and a good person because he couldn't live with himself if he didn't save the child... I think people are totally right to think that. We want more people like that in our society. We want more people who have feelings that push them to do prosocial things. I don't know why we couldn't just define real altruism as having and being influenced by feelings that encourage selfless behavior rather than selfish behavior. It's a way for us to predict what their future behavior will be like, and a normative judgment about it. Easy as.
Alex is confused on the nature of the trans "debate" (we're people; not a debate) as slogans are not the positions. Saying we are a subject of debate at all is the problem, and the slogan is a placeholder rather than saying f-off.
Looking forward to this.
I think that this is your best video yet. Alex has such interesting and thoughtful ideas. I like that he talks about how he thinks social movements and things like morality are shaped by humans rather than focussing on his own stance in these things.
Instead of saying : "trans women are women" when we mean that gender identity is subjective, we should say : "identity is subjective!"? (with the understanding that we should respect a persons subjective experience of reality - no one really having much choice in the matter)
If I had the chance to have dinner with any given person in the history of the world, Alex would be a clear top candidate
The framing of your topics is a bit strange to me - you call the section at 6:00 "Why woke beliefs are scarier than religion" which isn't what Alex was saying at all. He was merely commenting on how cultural obsessions change over time.
As you age the amount of time represented by a year becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of your life whereas when you're a child it's a much larger fraction of your life so you feel like a year has lasted for ages.
I think the reason the years get faster as we get older is that a year when you're 1 a year is all of your experience. When you're 10 a year is 10% of your experience. When you're 50 it's 2%. When you're 100 it's 1%
I really like the revving interruptions :D
By the way…. Dawkins claimed to admire Petersen.. for his stand on gender freedom of speech. Presumably for his courage in being willing to go to prison for violating gender pronoun laws. Out of curiosity…. How many people have gone to prison for violating these laws? I think the correct number is zero. Which raises the question to Dawkins of how much courage is required for Petersen to be willing to go to prison for a “crime” for which no one ever goes to prison?
Can you show me where Dr. Peterson has said that he is "willing to go to prison for violating gender pronoun laws"? As far as I can tell, he has never even said that there are "gender pronoun laws", let alone that he is willing to violate them, let alone that he is willing to go to prison for violating them. I suspect that you are attacking a straw man.
What Dr. Peterson is actually doing is opposing compelled speech, and defending academic integrity, in an age in which doing so is deeply unfashionable at best and career-ending at worst.
@@omp199
Regarding compelled speech…. Actually no one is compelled to use pronouns at all. And it is easy enough to avoid using them if that is an issue
So then, what is his point? He does not want to acknowledge that some people have genuine gender identity issue, And he wants to free to insult these people in public to make the point that he thinks people who claim gender identity issues are deluded.
it turns out that, i think that Christians are deluded cultists…. But i would never try to make this point to a student in a classroom setting. I would simply avoid the issue…. As i would expect of any polite person
I think trump supporters are idiots. But i would never say that in a classroom. I do not think this is an issue of freedom of speech
@@MrArdytube It's a bit more complicated than that. You might want to read the CBC article "Canada’s gender identity rights Bill C-16 explained". You can find it by doing a Web search. (CBC is Canada's national public broadcaster.)
@@omp199
By the way…. No one claims that Jordan Petersen should not be allowed to give speeches, lectures, or youtube videos where he freely Addresses his views on this subject. THAT, MY FRIEND IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH
@@MrArdytube That's not what we're talking about.
This is podcast gold. The bit about the kids and the turtle necks with tweed jackets at the end resulted in me almost spitting my tea out. I could listen to you both talk for hours.
This is just an amazing comprehensible conversation 100%. Just a breath of fresh air and a clear departure from trying to listen to Jordan Peterson rants of intellectual useless jargon who never answers anything! Thank you Andrew and Alex. Well done!!
Just because you don’t understand Peterson doesn’t mean he hasn’t explained clearly.
He never does! Even guys like Alex O'Connor says that... and the guy is well educated!! Richard Dawkins said it best when he compared Jordan Peterson with Depak Chopra, who always uses fancy language to say absolutely nothing!!!@@thepeadair
@@thepeadairWhat will it take for you guys to admit he just spouts nonsense?
>Sam Harris
>American conservative
I will never understand how anyone could "enjoy" listening to Jordan Peterson
When he was a college professor his old lecture are good. Now he's become a bitter old man that spouts garbage.
@4:30 Sam Harris is a conservative??? 😂😂😂
I almost turned off the podcast at that idiotic statement.
Out of respect to Andrew I'll gut it out.
You bet your ass he is
Two things can be right at the same time. It truly is possible, whether you agree or not, that's a different story...js
He regards himself as broadly on the left of center, but he sometimes he doesn't sound like it. However, those labels seem to be changing over time and geography, so not that helpful I'd say.
@@PianoDentist The disintegration of the labels makes labeling Harris a "conservative" even more absurd in that case.
I’m a muslim and Alex is my favourite youtuber, if you can even call him that… Because at this point I believe he is becoming one of the most prominent philosophers of our time.
Along with John Vervaeke
😂
Have you watched Jay Dyer and his reactions to Alex debates?
You realize that lots of things he usually comes up with also debunk Islam, right? These types of comments are so weird.
🤣😂🤣
I sort of broke at the description of JBP and Sam Harris as "American conservatives". Not sure on what spectrum Sam H is conservative :D
@@Besthinktwice that's a label I think applies a lot better. I would also offer up 'center leftist of the Bill Maher persuasion', who only got labeled as "conservative" in the last five minutes because they finally hit a progressive shibboleth they couldn't justify (whichever one it was).
@@Besthinktwice If you have time, I wonder if you would be able to briefly summarise what you mean by a "liberal imperialist" in a modern context. I have only encountered the term used in the context of the British Empire, a hundred years or so ago.
@@juliuscomnenus4415Bill Maher has been getting progressively more conservative over the past few years. Very classic "young people bad, pull yourself up by your bootstraps" boomer stuff
If Absolute Nothingness is not possible, then death is impossible .
Consciousness = Existence, as nothing exist for us without consciousness.
I'm very confused with how you're titling the sections. It's incredibly misleading, actually. The titles have nothing to do with the actual content in the video.
These guys seem pretty clueless about American politics.
Alex is one of my favourite speakers, this is mind-blowing. Hit like, notify, and tell me below what you think is more culturally relevant: woke vs religion?
Woke. I once believed in flat earth. I would like to come and chat about how the lies of government has meant the belief in conspiracy is on the rise within the general public.
Woke IS a religion, especially with how outright dogmatic it is in practice and nature.
The difference is that it's a non-divine one.
Alex is cool
needs a buzzcut tho
why are you guys pretending like these are complicated ideas, you understand them you just, would prefer to act like they don't make sense Because you just don't like it. you're acting like other people are trying to control you by not wanting to be discriminated against, it's ridiculous
18:56 I still wonder what people mean when they say trans identifying males are women but only in a 'gendered' sense.
I've yet to see anyone define 'gender' in such a way that doesn't rely on stereotyping the sexes. ie: women are the dress wearers, women are the nurturers, women have long hair.
There are plenty of women who don't meet this criteria and they're still women because at the end of the day a woman is simply an adult human female. How she dresses or behaves on any given day is irrelevant to being a woman.
Why people continue to call males who happen to like wearing dresses, women, is beyond me.
Gender refers to a social phenomena, it encompasses the characteristics we typically associate with a particular sex.
In relation to the gender woman we typically assoiated social and physical traits that strongly correlate with female sex, such as breasts, wide hips, higher voice etc and many other social expectations and roles such as long hair, make up, what a society percieves as feminine.
As you correctly stated not all females posses these triats and characteristics, and this is the point trans people are making, one shouldn't need all those traits and characteristics to indentity as the gender woman. Also what constitutes woman and feminity varies over time and culture. You're right it is a kinda of stereotype. Hence why men with gynomataia often opt of surgery to remove their breat tissue, as they dont feel their physical appearance aligns with societies stereotypical perception of masculinity and thr gender of man.(breasts don't strongly correlate with being being male but it's common for them naturally occur in males even without hormonal imbalances ). This is an example of cis people having gender alignment surgery. Something very uncontroversial.
So under this usuage woman would refer to adult person of that gender. Female refers to chromsones and or gamete type, imo only really relevant when it comes to medicine, potential procreation and maybe sports under its current structuring. The rest should be merit based.
@@Daz19 I appreciate the thoughtful reply but there are no "gendered women". People don't have 'genders' (a collection of social stereotypes), they have sexes (biological systems oriented to produce sperm or eggs)
It's true that we live in a world where there are varying cultural and social expectations of men and women and that many feel stifled by this. The entire feminist movement was arguably an exercise in dismantling those expectations and pressures. Woman= adult human female and so a woman who cuts her hair short and never wears a dress is still a woman and man who happens to like nail polish is no less a man.
There are only two sexes of humans but we must also respect the diversity within those sexes. Some women are unusually muscular for their sex and some men are unusually short. Some men may act or dress in ways that buck social expectations, such as crying easily or liking dresses. This is all perfectly normal and there's certainly no reason to reclassify this atypical man as a member of the opposite sex or some kind of "gendered woman".
To do so is to reify the very stereotypes women have fought decades to overcome. I will not have my sex class redefined by people either unable to accept the reality of their sex or too fearful to push back against the social expectations impressed upon their sex.
@@allie9928You're welcome. Thank you for your responce.
Can we agree there exists a range of characteristics and triats that refer to and differentiate between masculinity and femininity?
Many of which can change over time and by culture.
It's these traits that people of either sex (or intersex) may or may not posses nor identify with.
A female my not identify with many triats of femininty, such as long hair, makeup, dresses etc. Importantly they may also not posses various physical traits (wide hips, narow jaw etc etc), or they may wish to hide or downplay those they do possess.
So we have these phenomenas, as as with all phenomenas they require categorisation.
In an attempt to best describe this reality it seems the conseus in most academic, medical and scientific fields is that these phenomena are best catagoeised and described as gender and gender identity.
It seems you wish to not catagoeise these phenomena or at least not in such a way?
I think yould agree sex alone can't explain these, sex doesn't change over time or culture nor can many physical triats or feminity or masculinity be reduced nor universally applicable to soley one of sexs'.
According to this categorisation, one's gender is the social construct their gender identity most aligns with, if any. This seems a reasonable way to address this phenomena. It has utilty an explanatory powers, especially when it comes to types of dysphoria and how intersex people can feel.
Lastly, for clarity In your eyes, without the concept of gender can intersex people especially those that are not xx or xy be referred to as men or woman? He or she?
@@Daz19 To start, there are no 'intersex' people. No one is between sexes. There are simply male people and female people with disorders of sexual development. A male with an abnormality that caused an underdeveloped penis is still a man just as a male soldier who lost his genitals to injury is still very much a man. They both have bodies organized around the production of sperm.
This is of course besides the point as the overwhelming majority of trans identified people have perfectly normal physical development.
Yes, I don't believe classifying people by "genders" is necessary. Perpetuating social stereotypes in the name of 'gender' is harmful to everyone. A trans identifying male who believes womanhood to be accessible to him via femininity, is ultimately perpetuating a harmful misogynistic view of women. Women are female not 'femininity'.
I think this is the main source of the disagreement. You seem to place a high value on concepts like femininity or masculinity, which rest on stereotypes of the sexes, and believe they are somehow intrinsically linked to being a man or woman. However, a man is a man, irrespective of how he behaves. To be a man is to be an adult human of the male sex, no more no less. Anything on top of that is culturally contingent conditioning that's very likely to marginalize men who don't follow the status quo.
Look if this were simply about people wanting to give themselves new labels to describe their experiences, I would still disagree but would be far less concerned. But the reality is there has been a successful effort by the trans movement to muddle or replace sex in law and policy with the vague notion of 'gender/gender identity'. They've replaced a timeless, tangible, and measurable category backed by billions of years of evolution with an entirely subjective, culturally contingent, self-perception that can't be verified by anything but the self declaration of the individual.
In doing so they have infringed on the rights of women to have spaces of their own for safety, privacy, and dignity. From prisons, DV shelters, sports teams, locker rooms, and sex specific programs, men have shamelessly barged their way into these spaces with no concern for the women and girls they're harming. And they feel entitled and empowered to do so on the premise of 'gender identity'.
@@allie9928 I'll assume you're not aware of the different chromsonal intersex conditions, as opposed to denying they exists. These aren't just about genitals, these different chromsonal combinations don't fit into the very criteria by which sex is determined.
1. Klinefelter Syndrome: Presence of two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome (XXY).
2. Turner Syndrome: Presence of a single X chromosome (XO).
3. Triple X Syndrome: Presence of three X chromosomes (XXX).
4.XYY Syndrome: Presence of an X chromosome and two Y chromosomes (XYY).
5. Mosaic Genetics: Presence of cells with different chromosomal patterns, such as some cells with XX and others with XY.
So how wouod you refer to these people without gender, would you avoid terms such as man or woman?
Gender as a social construct doesn't necessarily reinforce stereotypes, because what is considered masculine or feminine evolves over time as society changes. As harmful stereotypes are dismantled, the societal understanding of what constitutes masculinity and femininity will also shift, and thus, so will the way people identify their gender.
Gender identity can actually be a tool for challenging and changing stereotypes rather than cementing them. By allowing individuals to practice their own gender identity, especially in the case of non-binary people, hence society can move away from rigid and potentially harmful stereotypes towards a more inclusive understanding of gender that embraces a wide spectrum of expressions and identities, not jist the binary.
When it comes to risks you'll need to provide eveidnce that woman only spaces are less safe with admittance based on gender as oppsed to sex. As all I've heard from critics is conjecture and poorly baked hypotheticals.
I went to sea with my father who was a marine engineer and we circumnavigated the earth. You dont need to know the technicality to prove the earth is round, all you need to know is what your eyes tell you. When a ship appears on the horizon, it doesnt just materialise or get bigger and bigger, it appears with the very tops of any masts or funnels first, then the bridge then the top deck, eventually the whole thing appears, just like a car or a person coming towards you over a hill. Ok this doesnt itself prove the earth is round, but on water it proves that it isnt flat. You take what you've seen and add it to every other experience of seeing land or ships appearing, top first, and you can deduce that its pretty much the same wherever you are at sea. This tells you that its very probably curved and could be round but it most definitly isnt flat.
"The universe is going to, you know experience a heat death..."
"I think I'd be clinging less to life after ten million years, or several million years..."
"Are you sure about that, because..."
"No."
This is such a brilliant exchange.🤣