Thank you! I'm not nearly as direct about blacks as she is, and I am less forgiving of what I consider to be a series of bad British ideas, as I point out in this exchange, but apart from that I admire her willingness and courage to go against the grain.
@@eismscience Britain has a lot of bad ideas. I'm not sure they're the cause of new ones any longer, but OOF that Industrial Revolution, Morrissey said it best "Manchester, so much to answer for" lol
@@hecomin152 When I say that Britain has bad ideas, it makes me sound crazy. I need to explain, but it's always a challenge. I will get around to it eventually, I hope. Thanks for bearing with me.
@@MrDanielfff777 Hi Frank, when I point to deficiencies in Anglo thought, I am referring to a series of bad ideas about equality that go back to the Magna Carta and carry through the Enlightenment and the ideas of John Locke and Adam Smith, to name two. In the case of Locke, it's the idea that humans are born as infinitely malleable "blank slates" that can be molded according to will, which is one of the central tenets of Leftist utopian thinking. And in the case of Adam Smith, it's his mistake about objective value, versus subjective value, which Karl Marx later used as a foundation for Marxist philosophy. There's a lot more to say about this and why these ideas are so bad, but that is a very quick description of what I'm referring to. I don't mean this as a personal assault on any Brit, of course.
Thanks for your interest and comment. I have no opinion or expertise at all about the supreme court, but it's great to hear that not everybody considers Prof. Wax a villain. I hope to have be back soon.
I live in the Philadelphia area. The biggest problem with this state is failed progressive policies and the lack of accountability for our elected officials.
Great discussion. I came across this and your institute (EISM) today and was happy to do so. Hard conversations about important topics are both difficult but necessary. When treated with care and the purpose of 'pursuit of truth', it can be a prosperous and liberating experience. Through discourse you can understand differences and similarities and the rationale behind it. Important things if you want to have shared endeavors and pursuits. Thanks for this. In terms of whether the foundations of the founding fathers was faulty, we don't have the counterfactual. We don't have the advantage of simulations to see where results might differ given an initial set of conditions that are the same, but seeing where model forces consistently lead us. Even so, some thoughtful insights by both of you.
Thanks for your nice comment and thanks for subscribing. Regarding not having counterfactuals, I would argue that the logic in itself is compelling. If the logic is not enough, though, so far, I've based my position on fundamental physics and on a rigorous branch of economics known as social choice theory. In an upcoming video, I plan to explain how a machine-learning model brings us to the same conclusions. In any case, for now, I just want to thank you for the comment and the visit. I look forward to more exchanges.
Prof. Wax makes an excellent point. I fully support laws and policies that combat racism as long as there is “evidence” to support the allegations. It seems like a lot of our political leaders simply take the activists word for it. I rarely, if ever, see any compelling evidence to support their allegations. Simply saying something or someone is racist does not mean it is so.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I disagree with the idea that there is no evidence for systemic racism. There is actually overwhelming evidence that people with lower IQs are at a disadvantage in almost every way that matters to humans, and there is equally compelling evidence to demonstrate that groups differ in average intelligence. Our current social and political systems are most certainly "rigged" against the less intelligent, and this is getting worse with the advance of technology and science. The problem is that the left is loathe to admit that groups are different, and the right is equally loathe to admit that they are playing with a stacked deck of cards.
@@eismscience- Life is rigged against people with lesser intelligence. There’s not a political system in the world that favors the less intelligent. Sorry, that’s a fact of life we cannot escape.
@@SJM6791 Instead of saying "it's a fact of life we can't escape", I think it would be more correct to say that it's a fact of life we haven't been able to escape. Just because we've never been able to escape it, that doesn't mean we will never be able to escape it.
@@SJM6791 Thanks for being reasonable. You'd be surprised how many otherwise very intelligent people have a problem recognizing, first, that there most certainly is compelling evidence for systemic racism, if we look at group differences in IQ, and second, that just because we have never found a way to reconcile the various tensions between, for example, collectivism and capitalism, or between self-interest and self-sacrifice, we will never ever ever be able to. I really appreciate your input. Thanks again.
An intellectual that knows what is wrong but offers no solution on how to fix what is wrong...and this is what passes off as smart nowadays?...we are so EFFFED!!! :D
She may want to sound "color blind" but she seems oblivious to the concept of being economically entitled that happened to be skewed to favor the whites as an advantage given the underlying mechanism of racial inequality as the historical jump off point of this nation (and she really don't know why we can't compete on some equal footing?). This is a polite repartee on what victimization sounds from the ramparts of the rich as opposed to the common version of it from the poor and marginalized. The rich and influential forget conveniently how they got there on the backs of others. - But she does make a good point on the "woken-ness" as not the same as being rational and open-minded to be inclusive towards a good for all problem solving paradigm. A professor that can tell you what's wrong but can't say what is or should be an ideal to strive for is a lost and wandering mind that will take you nowhere. They thrive on the spin of chaos and should make us question what usefulness is their legacy towards the march of humankind to enlightenment.
@Antonio I think you might be misreading Amy Wax. I don't think she would deny the reality of history. Also, you write, "A professor that can tell you what's wrong but can't say what is or should be an ideal to strive for is a lost and wandering mind that will take you nowhere." Can you give me an example of a professor who is not lost according to these standards?
@@eismscience those who are worshipped as G/gods, deities and even flawed heroes would fit the bill...their thoughts are backed by their choice and actions basically...actionable at the least...not just asking and questioning.
Ben Shapiro is an American conservative thought influencer who has a large following of White conservatives. In 2017 Ben Tweeted, "I don't give a damn about the Browning of America." Amy Wax would beg to differ with Ben about that. People who consider themselves conservative in the United States are really liberals which have no relationship to the original founding population of the United States with regard to race. White conservatives today have been twisted into an unrecognizable quasi and pretentious patriotic political movement. Amy Wax is correct in her understanding that replacing the heritage White population of Anglo Saxon Americans with people of any other non-western country will fundamentally transform America into something less desirable.
The irony is that what's happening to Anglo Saxons, especially to those of you who feel victimized, is the inevitable result of Anglo Saxon confidence in your own ideas. In other words, you brought this onto yourselves. It's unfortunate.
@@eismscience John Mearsheimer makes a case that the founding ideals of individualism and democracy and God given rights cannot be confined to one's own nation but ultimately must be expanded two include the entire world. Individual rights implies universal rights and so the seeds of the destruction of the United States was planted from the beginning. This is also why the United States now engages in spreading democracy by means of economic and military power because all governments that do not adhere to these universal principles are by definition illegitimate. The founding fathers of the United States were caught between the tension of these universal principles and also the desire to confine their identity strictly to " ourselves and our posterity." This is the root of America's empire and the cause of the Russian and Ukraine conflict due to the expansion of NATO. This is also why the Republicans and Democrats have no political will to stop mass immigration. That said, there has been plenty of documented evidence that Jewish influence in the 20th century has accelerated the destruction of traditional American values and identity.
@@virtualpilgrim8645 Mearsheimer's argument is quite compelling, it seems to me, although I'd have to hear more from his detractors. Regarding the influence of the Jews, given their well-documented intellectual superiority as a group, it stands to reason that they would have an outsized influence on less talented groups. That's why they are so often hated, it seems.
@@eismscience liberal democracy may be a mediocre idea when any craven imbecile can vote who just arrived into the country yesterday which is why mass immigration and liberal democracy do not go together.
Prof. Wax in the first segment of lecture lays out the legal argument against applying the principles of diversity articulated in Bakke to hiring practices in the workplace. In fact, for an employer, diversity makes no sense. Competence and merit affect the performance of employees and therefore the profitability of the employer. Diversity in hiring displaces competence and merit as selection criteria and makes no contribution to profitability. Large employers can afford this "virtue signaling" because most are members of an oligopoly which cannot be easily challenged by innovative, small companies. But for small companies, competence and profitability matter more than "virtue signaling," and diversity in hiring is for them harmful and inconsistent with their survival. As Prof. Wax correctly notes, the only ethnic group which is unable to compete on equal terms in education and the workplace are black applicants, not because there is a bias against them, but because black culture does not value education and intellectual attainment and the sacrifices required to achieve excellence. If diversity selection was ever justified as a "remedial measure," that time has now long passed. It's time to scrap affirmative action and the concept of diversity, which is merely a euphemism for reverse racial discrimination -- i.e., a thumb on the scale of justice.
The problem with a pure meritocracy in which you allow the most talented people to reach their full capacity is that it inevitably gives rise to polarization, resentment, and eventually, communist backlash and self-destruction, as the most talented and ambitious people move further and further away from the mediocre. As the U.S. is starting to experience, this is a big problem and it puts the entire American experiment into jeopardy. There is something fundamentally unintelligent about this.
the last part where she talks about immigration was very revealing.This is exactly what white supremacists like Jared Taylor say as well. Is it no wonder people think she is .....
Thanks for your input. If we start from the fundamental principle that every person has an inherent dignity, which seems non-negotiable to me, then we have to allow people to express their preferences. There is nothing wrong with this, and everything right about, as long as everybody's dignity is respected. That is a challenge, for sure, but forcing people to feel like we want them to feel seems like the wrong way to go.
Thank you for responding. If I could push a little bit. Imagine someone were to argue that we should limit the number of Christian immigrants because as a secular country we are afraid that they would not respect our secular norms.. would you still be charitable towards this ? I get the point that we cannot force people but I think we should not pretend that this line of reasoning is not DEEPLY immoral( at least to me anyways...). I do wish Amy Wax was interviewed more often so that this view(which sadly is held by many) would be vigorously challenged. Also this cultural distance argument was used in some shape or form in the past against Catholics, Italians, Jews...why does Amy still think it is valid today ?
@@pierrelaplace2283 Why dont you just say it that you want racial and other quotas, instead of beating around the bush? No more freedom of association, right?
@@pierrelaplace2283 Thanks again for your comment. My apologies for not seeing your response sooner. I will come back to this as soon as I can. Thanks again.
I watched her last time, great guest very bold, you two have great chemistry 😁
Thank you! I'm not nearly as direct about blacks as she is, and I am less forgiving of what I consider to be a series of bad British ideas, as I point out in this exchange, but apart from that I admire her willingness and courage to go against the grain.
@@eismscience Britain has a lot of bad ideas. I'm not sure they're the cause of new ones any longer, but OOF that Industrial Revolution, Morrissey said it best "Manchester, so much to answer for" lol
@@hecomin152 When I say that Britain has bad ideas, it makes me sound crazy. I need to explain, but it's always a challenge. I will get around to it eventually, I hope. Thanks for bearing with me.
@@eismscience As a British man, what do you mean by that….
@@MrDanielfff777 Hi Frank, when I point to deficiencies in Anglo thought, I am referring to a series of bad ideas about equality that go back to the Magna Carta and carry through the Enlightenment and the ideas of John Locke and Adam Smith, to name two. In the case of Locke, it's the idea that humans are born as infinitely malleable "blank slates" that can be molded according to will, which is one of the central tenets of Leftist utopian thinking. And in the case of Adam Smith, it's his mistake about objective value, versus subjective value, which Karl Marx later used as a foundation for Marxist philosophy. There's a lot more to say about this and why these ideas are so bad, but that is a very quick description of what I'm referring to. I don't mean this as a personal assault on any Brit, of course.
She needs to be on the supreme court
Thanks for your interest and comment. I have no opinion or expertise at all about the supreme court, but it's great to hear that not everybody considers Prof. Wax a villain. I hope to have be back soon.
Good to see you still speaking truth. With what happened to Dr. Norman Wang makes me wonder, " Whst is so wrong in Pennsylvania?"
I live in the Philadelphia area. The biggest problem with this state is failed progressive policies and the lack of accountability for our elected officials.
Great discussion. I came across this and your institute (EISM) today and was happy to do so. Hard conversations about important topics are both difficult but necessary. When treated with care and the purpose of 'pursuit of truth', it can be a prosperous and liberating experience. Through discourse you can understand differences and similarities and the rationale behind it. Important things if you want to have shared endeavors and pursuits. Thanks for this. In terms of whether the foundations of the founding fathers was faulty, we don't have the counterfactual. We don't have the advantage of simulations to see where results might differ given an initial set of conditions that are the same, but seeing where model forces consistently lead us. Even so, some thoughtful insights by both of you.
Thanks for your nice comment and thanks for subscribing. Regarding not having counterfactuals, I would argue that the logic in itself is compelling. If the logic is not enough, though, so far, I've based my position on fundamental physics and on a rigorous branch of economics known as social choice theory. In an upcoming video, I plan to explain how a machine-learning model brings us to the same conclusions.
In any case, for now, I just want to thank you for the comment and the visit. I look forward to more exchanges.
AW is spot on
What is best eMail to reach you personnally ?
@@eismscience OK Message received. Check your eMail.
She needs to come to the UK 🇬🇧
Listening to white folk talk about race is like listening to a 10 year old
@@tonycaribbian this is a poor rebuttal
@@MrDanielfff777 it may be rich or poor but it is true , they have no understanding at all thus laughable comments
Amy wax should talk about the Coleman report
Prof. Wax makes an excellent point. I fully support laws and policies that combat racism as long as there is “evidence” to support the allegations. It seems like a lot of our political leaders simply take the activists word for it. I rarely, if ever, see any compelling evidence to support their allegations. Simply saying something or someone is racist does not mean it is so.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I disagree with the idea that there is no evidence for systemic racism. There is actually overwhelming evidence that people with lower IQs are at a disadvantage in almost every way that matters to humans, and there is equally compelling evidence to demonstrate that groups differ in average intelligence. Our current social and political systems are most certainly "rigged" against the less intelligent, and this is getting worse with the advance of technology and science. The problem is that the left is loathe to admit that groups are different, and the right is equally loathe to admit that they are playing with a stacked deck of cards.
@@eismscience- Life is rigged against people with lesser intelligence. There’s not a political system in the world that favors the less intelligent. Sorry, that’s a fact of life we cannot escape.
@@SJM6791 Instead of saying "it's a fact of life we can't escape", I think it would be more correct to say that it's a fact of life we haven't been able to escape. Just because we've never been able to escape it, that doesn't mean we will never be able to escape it.
@@eismscience- That’s a fair point.
@@SJM6791 Thanks for being reasonable. You'd be surprised how many otherwise very intelligent people have a problem recognizing, first, that there most certainly is compelling evidence for systemic racism, if we look at group differences in IQ, and second, that just because we have never found a way to reconcile the various tensions between, for example, collectivism and capitalism, or between self-interest and self-sacrifice, we will never ever ever be able to.
I really appreciate your input. Thanks again.
An intellectual that knows what is wrong but offers no solution on how to fix what is wrong...and this is what passes off as smart nowadays?...we are so EFFFED!!! :D
Can she PLEASE run for public office?
Well, considering the things she has broadcasted, lately -- she may just have the time to do that....
She may want to sound "color blind" but she seems oblivious to the concept of being economically entitled that happened to be skewed to favor the whites as an advantage given the underlying mechanism of racial inequality as the historical jump off point of this nation (and she really don't know why we can't compete on some equal footing?). This is a polite repartee on what victimization sounds from the ramparts of the rich as opposed to the common version of it from the poor and marginalized. The rich and influential forget conveniently how they got there on the backs of others. - But she does make a good point on the "woken-ness" as not the same as being rational and open-minded to be inclusive towards a good for all problem solving paradigm. A professor that can tell you what's wrong but can't say what is or should be an ideal to strive for is a lost and wandering mind that will take you nowhere. They thrive on the spin of chaos and should make us question what usefulness is their legacy towards the march of humankind to enlightenment.
@Antonio I think you might be misreading Amy Wax. I don't think she would deny the reality of history. Also, you write, "A professor that can tell you what's wrong but can't say what is or should be an ideal to strive for is a lost and wandering mind that will take you nowhere." Can you give me an example of a professor who is not lost according to these standards?
@@eismscience those who are worshipped as G/gods, deities and even flawed heroes would fit the bill...their thoughts are backed by their choice and actions basically...actionable at the least...not just asking and questioning.
Ben Shapiro is an American conservative thought influencer who has a large following of White conservatives. In 2017 Ben Tweeted, "I don't give a damn about the Browning of America." Amy Wax would beg to differ with Ben about that. People who consider themselves conservative in the United States are really liberals which have no relationship to the original founding population of the United States with regard to race. White conservatives today have been twisted into an unrecognizable quasi and pretentious patriotic political movement. Amy Wax is correct in her understanding that replacing the heritage White population of Anglo Saxon Americans with people of any other non-western country will fundamentally transform America into something less desirable.
The irony is that what's happening to Anglo Saxons, especially to those of you who feel victimized, is the inevitable result of Anglo Saxon confidence in your own ideas. In other words, you brought this onto yourselves. It's unfortunate.
@@eismscience John Mearsheimer makes a case that the founding ideals of individualism and democracy and God given rights cannot be confined to one's own nation but ultimately must be expanded two include the entire world. Individual rights implies universal rights and so the seeds of the destruction of the United States was planted from the beginning. This is also why the United States now engages in spreading democracy by means of economic and military power because all governments that do not adhere to these universal principles are by definition illegitimate. The founding fathers of the United States were caught between the tension of these universal principles and also the desire to confine their identity strictly to " ourselves and our posterity." This is the root of America's empire and the cause of the Russian and Ukraine conflict due to the expansion of NATO. This is also why the Republicans and Democrats have no political will to stop mass immigration. That said, there has been plenty of documented evidence that Jewish influence in the 20th century has accelerated the destruction of traditional American values and identity.
@@virtualpilgrim8645 Mearsheimer's argument is quite compelling, it seems to me, although I'd have to hear more from his detractors. Regarding the influence of the Jews, given their well-documented intellectual superiority as a group, it stands to reason that they would have an outsized influence on less talented groups. That's why they are so often hated, it seems.
@@eismscience liberal democracy may be a mediocre idea when any craven imbecile can vote who just arrived into the country yesterday which is why mass immigration and liberal democracy do not go together.
Prof. Wax in the first segment of lecture lays out the legal argument against applying the principles of diversity articulated in Bakke to hiring practices in the workplace. In fact, for an employer, diversity makes no sense. Competence and merit affect the performance of employees and therefore the profitability of the employer. Diversity in hiring displaces competence and merit as selection criteria and makes no contribution to profitability. Large employers can afford this "virtue signaling" because most are members of an oligopoly which cannot be easily challenged by innovative, small companies. But for small companies, competence and profitability matter more than "virtue signaling," and diversity in hiring is for them harmful and inconsistent with their survival. As Prof. Wax correctly notes, the only ethnic group which is unable to compete on equal terms in education and the workplace are black applicants, not because there is a bias against them, but because black culture does not value education and intellectual attainment and the sacrifices required to achieve excellence. If diversity selection was ever justified as a "remedial measure," that time has now long passed. It's time to scrap affirmative action and the concept of diversity, which is merely a euphemism for reverse racial discrimination -- i.e., a thumb on the scale of justice.
The problem with a pure meritocracy in which you allow the most talented people to reach their full capacity is that it inevitably gives rise to polarization, resentment, and eventually, communist backlash and self-destruction, as the most talented and ambitious people move further and further away from the mediocre. As the U.S. is starting to experience, this is a big problem and it puts the entire American experiment into jeopardy. There is something fundamentally unintelligent about this.
I'm shocked at the interpretation s of the founding docs. Astounding in its acid.
Thanks for your comment but I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
the last part where she talks about immigration was very revealing.This is exactly what white supremacists like Jared Taylor say as well. Is it no wonder people think she is .....
Thanks for your input. If we start from the fundamental principle that every person has an inherent dignity, which seems non-negotiable to me, then we have to allow people to express their preferences. There is nothing wrong with this, and everything right about, as long as everybody's dignity is respected. That is a challenge, for sure, but forcing people to feel like we want them to feel seems like the wrong way to go.
Thank you for responding. If I could push a little bit. Imagine someone were to argue that we should limit the number of Christian immigrants because as a secular country we are afraid that they would not respect our secular norms.. would you still be charitable towards this ? I get the point that we cannot force people but I think we should not pretend that this line of reasoning is not DEEPLY immoral( at least to me anyways...). I do wish Amy Wax was interviewed more often so that this view(which sadly is held by many) would be vigorously challenged. Also this cultural distance argument was used in some shape or form in the past against Catholics, Italians, Jews...why does Amy still think it is valid today ?
@@pierrelaplace2283 Why dont you just say it that you want racial and other quotas, instead of beating around the bush? No more freedom of association, right?
@@kevin.afton_ 😂😂😂 good one.
@@pierrelaplace2283 Thanks again for your comment. My apologies for not seeing your response sooner. I will come back to this as soon as I can. Thanks again.
She's persecuted for her ideas while others are not for their overly bigoted, racist hate filled remarks.