Political Correctness is Redpilling America
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 січ 2018
- Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker argues that political correctness actually breeds the very same extremist views it hopes to quash.
Excerpted from Spiked Magazine’s 'Unsafe Space Tour' panel discussion at Harvard University.
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/2dUx6wg
LEARN MORE:
Steven Pinker on Taboos, Political Correctness, and Dissent (video): FIRE President Greg Lukianoff interviews Harvard psychology professor and bestselling author Steven Pinker about his books, the crucial role dissent plays in keeping society sane, the special importance of free speech on campus, and the origins of political correctness.
• Steven Pinker on Taboo...
Are Campuses Really More PC Today? (Unsafe Space Tour, Harvard University) (video): Steven Pinker, Robby Soave, Wendy Kaminer, and Brendan O’Neill discuss the past and present of campus speech codes.
• Are Campuses Really Mo...
Spiked Magazine Panel - "Is Political Correctness Why Trump Won?” (video): Watch the ‘Unsafe Space Tour’ panel discussion at Harvard University, featuring Steven Pinker, Wendy Kaminer, Robby Soave and Brendan O'Neill.
• Is Political Correctne...
TRANSCRIPT:
For a full transcript, please visit: www.learnliberty.org/videos/st...
LEARN LIBERTY:
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at www.learnliberty.org/.
My first red pill was finding out that women are not paid less for doing the same work. That rabbit hole was a crazy one.
gantmj read the Rational Male series by Rollo Tomassi. That is the original red pill, thank me later.
My first red pill was watching white “feminists” in Michigan marching while wearing hijabs, proclaiming them “symbols of female empowerment.” I knew in my guts i couldn’t get behind that. I knew I was looking at empty shells of human beings.
I hope women in the Middle East can forgive us for that shit.
That was a redpill for you man? You're not ready for the real world.
As a woman I knew right away that’s not true and when they say the famous argument that: “women are paid less” they leave out the fact that those women are less educated and/or have less experience!
@@arandomperson420 It's not even that. The biggest difference is that they're comparing men and women at all jobs they Do. Just average pay for all full time male work and all full time female work. The "for the same job!" part they tack on at the end is an absolute lie.
In order to defend your view, you must understand your opponents argument as well as they do, and preferably better.
Pinker fails to demonstrate that here
it's not about being racist, its about understanding racial differences as an explanation for outcome inequality and rejecting affermative action and and racial and gnender quotas
logical fruit Pinker is actually one of the more down to earth people in academia. He makes a good point here, but it's too late to reverse the trends that dominate the universities. It's been 80 since Gramsci, almost 50 years since Marcuse. Culminating in the most unhinged SJW's we see today, Cultural Marxism ended up being too successful for it's own good and will indeed lead to red-pilling of many across the political spectrum.
@You Can't Debate Me Dumbass
> That certainly doesn't sound like Swedish people are going extinct
Pew recently published some population projections for Europe. They talk about religion (Islam) rather than races, but it's practically the same thing as their own article shows that Islam grows due to birth rates and migration. Almost none of Islam's growth is due to conversion.
They put Sweden up as 8.1% Muslim, which is already a lot higher than most European countries (UK: 6.3, Germany: 6.1, France: 8.8). The US has less than 1% Muslims.
Their projections are for 2050 and consider three different scenarios: Zero additional migration, a "medium" amount of migration and a "high" amount of migration. The projected Muslim population in Sweden is then: 11.1% with zero migration, 20.5% with medium migration, and 30.6% with high migration.
High birth rates and net migration will eventually lead to ethnic Swedes becoming a minority in their own country, although it will take a few generations.
> People in the alt-right seem to be manipulated easily and fail to to see past their own biases.
You can say that about pretty much every group (and individual) out there, even and maybe especially academics.
"If the Muslim population is 30.6% and the rest of the other minorities stay at 12%, then this leaves the majority at 57.4%. That would be slightly under what the white population in the US is (~60%). They would still be a majority, the native Swedes."
Do you even read what you write? If Sweden is 30.6% Muslim in 2050, that means the percentage is over six and a half times as much as it was in 2010, just 40 years before. Why would you tell yourself it would stop increasing then? Do you expect anyone else to believe that?
At that average rate Sweden would be a Muslim majority country by 2080, going from 4.6% to more than 50% in one lifetime. That's ignoring that it would more likely be an exponential increase than linear.
Doesn't Harvard discriminate against Asian American applicants?
If Asians were not discriminated against they would dominate the universities. Just look at universities in Australia.
So what? The same argument could be made for Blacks against Whites. DO you think Asians should pay less tax too? I mean, given their kids have LESS access to public resources due to racist discrimination by their so-called publically funded servants. If Asians dominate Universities, then get rid of the regulatory-capture that make Universities into rent-seekers. Eliminate State enforced licensing (which will indeed favor Asians) and return to a free-market.
oh yeah, what white mothership said
By "Asian" you mean not black
@@jamesline5103 My family is from a very poor part of singapore, we were very very poor until my father (who is white) got a job working as a mechanic for an airline and left the family to work, I was on my own from 15 years old and had no financial help other than rent living in the UK, so when universities descriminate against asians, they push people like myself away based on nothing other than race, it should be done on an individual basis, not a group one, otherwise its just racism under a different name.
The problem he doesn't address: WHY are such facts controversial in universities and the mainstream?
Benj Houston it’s an 8 minute video, relax
Search yuri bezmenov . You will get the answer
@@gorecassady1632 Yeah, right? He mentions that all the time in other lectures.
@@shshashiekhar useful idiots
Benj Houston Read the book The Coddling of the American Mind to get some insight.
Political correctness first made me read Sam Harris' work in Islam. I had read his work on the "mind" and consciousness and knew that he wasn't bigotted so I knew the leftist narrative that he hates Muslims was wrong. And when I read his book, sure enough, he doesn't hate Muslims, he is just concerned that Islam has some backward ideas that some Muslims WILL follow; and that most Muslims deny that because THEY dont follow the backward part of Islam.
Then it was Peterson; they said he was a nazi who hated gays and trans; did some research, that was complete nonsense, he is just against ideological politics being force into everyones lives via law.
Then it was Shapiro, he is the nazi alt righter who thinks trans people dont have the right to exist. And again, nonsense, he says you can be trans if you want, just dont force him to call you by a specific gender by law.
Everytime the left tries to unfairly malign someone, it strengthens right wing thinking.
Next, go listen to race realists like JF Gariepy or Black Pigeon Speaks and realize how horribly you've been kept in the dark and lied to regarding race. After that, check out actual alt-right speakers like Richard Spencer especially regarding things like alt-right rallies, antifa, Charlottesville and whether or not you agree with their message (personally, I don't) you'll understand the level to which our media will stoop in order to paint a narrative and enforce physical violence on views they don't like.
"strengthens right wing thinking." If only the last word was true.
Political correctness is a fantasy. It doesn't exist apart from in the minds of people who maintain ideas that have been rendered unpopular by open debate focusing on the facts.
It's literally right wing butthurt having lost the culture war that they started. Pathetic, really.
toggle foot Richard Spencer is literally a fascist. The only platform he deserves is the gallows.
Courtshannon listen to Jared taylor
Love this consideration of both sides of the argument. This is on what civil discourse should be modelled.
Your stuff on Islam not having religious wars is brutally wrong. But otherwise a good video.
What he said was that there was no equivalent to the European wars of religion, which is accurate. The ottoman empire allowed its shia population to live without forcibly converting them. The austrian empire waged the 30 years war to convert germany to Catholicism.
@Crosshair
The reformation was an exceptionally bloody war for its time and it changed the way religion worked in the state and the role it had in peoples' lives forever. Islam has never gone through an equivalent event, the closest thing to it was probably the Sunni/Shia split and that was more of an inheritance war than a religious war.
1. More people converted to islam through trade than through conquest. this is how the religion spread to Indonesia and west Africa.
2. Muslims didn't manage and control the slave trade to the new world, the dutch and British did. Thats just basic historical fact.
3. Slavery existed in the European colonial possessions well into the 1920's.
4. the ottomans did oppress Christians when the empire was in a state of collapse, but during the height of the empire they were vastly more tolerant than there European counter parts. When Spain expelled the jews, the turks took them in.
I guess you guys mix up things documented by western historians in Europe and less documented and less well-known history elsewhere. Just because we do not teach about ethnic cleansings in wars outside of Europe, it does not mean that that did not happen. History has unbelievably brutal things that can be discovered. And you ignore the political implications of the reformation. It is not purely religious.
A great innovation of Islam is that it is more efficient to spread your dominance by not hunting after all others which takes a lot of effort and time, but rather let strict laws and practices against minority beliefs do their job over time. Very brilliant, but not a humanist motivation.
@volingrad: you obviously did not study the Islamic slave trade in Africa and Islamic slavers hunting ships in the meditereanian sea for centuries if not 1000 years.
To enlighten you about reformation history. It happened in the holy roman empire of German nations which was lead by an emperor who was crowned by the pope. So, reformation threatening the foundations and practises of the boss of the emperor (probably Austrian) is not a purely religious thing, but heavy politics.
The most striking part of this talk is he had to spend 5 minutes protecting himself before talking about the politically correct left.
The James Damore debacle at Google is when I stopped listening to the social justice group. That was such a clear example of a witch hunt, and the Covington Kids debacle only reinforced my decision.
This dude deserves a badge of honor for bravery.
doubt he could say these things nowadays without getting blacklisted by Harvard and other institutions. Sad state of affairs when rationality is no longer acceptable.
It's like I'm scrolling down an IQ ladder. Listening to an intelligent view on political correctness, and as I scroll down to the comments section intelligence drops exponentially.
The transcript of what he just said in a five minute video is 43 pages long you dumb dick. A two line comment may actually contain a brilliant argument if you know what the person is trying to say but doesn’t have the patience to type into what would become a wall of text no one would read.
Also you read comments in bad faith so what’s otherwise taken for granted becomes an opening for your counter argument.
Aren't Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates kind of like the crusades, just hundreds of times bigger?
'There was no equivalent of the war of religion in islam' - Not True.
You dropped out the word *Inquisition.*
There. Fixed.
I love Steven Pinker! He usually has some very rational, well balanced arguments.
Yet he makes crazy hasty generalizations and mis-characterizations of other moral frameworks than his own statetheist ones, which are inherently based in violence and perpetual extortion of everyone. He is bright, but lacks some fundamental understanding of economics and distributed systems, and from his biases and lacking logic rigor he therefore ends up advocating for violent and enslaving solutions for solving complex social issues, and belittle those who do not accept theft and violence as the basis for how we deal with problems in society.
How are sexism, racism, ect related, in any way, to Ararcho-Libertarianism?
It confused me as well, but I think it works this way: He presents sexism and racism as the alt-right response to the stats about men and women, and correspondingly, AnCap and AnLib are presented as alt-right response to capitalist societies generally being better than communist ones
Lolberts should be destroyed.
You are an exceedingly un-smart person.
@@balvsmalvs5425 lol couldn't think of a better word than "un-smart?". Also wtf man, it's just a simple question. It sounded like he was saying anarcho libertarianism is inherently racist/sexist. But in reality he was talking about how accepting a set a of facts doesn't have to make us a sexist, racist, OR anarcho libertarian. Which I'm guessing he associates with the right wing libertarian movement in America. So he really wasn't suggesting a connection between the concepts. So actually I'm not "unsmart" you're just being a snarky arrogant jerk for literally no reason.
@@Paradox-dy3ve If I said I used that word on purpose, would your worldview get blown to bits?
"Which I'm guessing he associates with the right wing libertarian movement in America."
You are truly one of the un-smartest folks I've read in a long, looong time. Truly.
I hope that word hasn't triggered you into other un-smartness.
And so goes the saying, "I didn't leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left me." Which is absolutely true in my case.
Every time I start a Stephen Pinker video ready to get offended, I'm nodding my head like a minute into it
Islam never had religious wars? Um, which Islam is it you are discussing there Steve? How much of Europe was conquered by Islam? Do you not know who Charles Martel was?
Yeah he was WAY off on that one. The war between Islam and Hindu India made the Crusades look like a circus sideshow...and don't even get started on the Mongol-Muslim conflicts
Islam was a war against itself
"...people whose affiliation might be up for grabs..." Poetry.
How did anarcho-capitalism get lumped in with the Alt Right? Or anything else he mentioned as a negative position?
WalkerKlondike
>Harvard professor
The man is trying to see his life long ideological enemy in a new light, trying to overcome cognitive dissonance. Because the level of cognitive dissonance on campuses(and leftist circles) is so great it can no longer be ignored.
What he is doing is very hard to do, its mostly wrong, but it is taking steps in the right direction.
He mentioned it at the beginning. To boil it down: Political Correctness is causing facts not to be addressed on college campuses. The alt-right is a place where these facts are addressed, but not good manner by drawing conclusions that don't necessarily follow.
Maybe Pinker stumbled upon some misguided Hans-Herman Hoppe fanboys and their snek memes.
Jaigarful how do the conclusions of anarcho-capitalism not follow facts? And, the Alt-Right is largely Socialist, anti-free market. The two, Anarcho-Capitalism and the Alt-Right, have nothing to do with each other and are in fact independently logically consistent positions. (Someone may correct me on the Logical consistency of the Alt-Right) That Pinker characterizes the two as related or somehow internally inconsistent, suggests that he doesn't actually understand them in the first place.
rwatertree those are pretty funny, tho.
I dont know any Anarcho-Capitalists that are opposed to safety nets and regulated markets. Sounds like the same problem of coming to extreme and hasty conclusions when hearing a new truth his entire argument was predicated on.
You absolutely can have those things through voluntary and peaceful means.
the fact that capitalist countries tend to have a social saftey net doesn't mean that that social saftey net has to be coercively provided by a centralized government. It could instead be voluntarily provided by private charities, which are generally more efficient with their funding becasue they know they can't just get more if they say they need it.
private charities are for-profit, centralized government depending on how it's regulated, is not for profit.
Private chairites are not necessarily for profit. There are plenty non-profit private chairities, like churches. And it's up to the donor to determine which ones he want's to give to. You don't get that choice with the government. they take your money and you don't get to decide what they do with it. Even in a democracy it's just you electing one person who ends up deciding for you.
Only 30% of the money the government spends on poverty ends up going to the people who need it.
ua-cam.com/video/YsRH3xHJi1M/v-deo.html
It's just a natural side affect of being successful the more you have to spare the more you will want to help others. That's why the upper middle class is so into "democratic socialism" which is really just successful capitalism.
Acendiat Media
Gee, and here I was thinking that they do it for the tax deduction and the political and institutional power, prestige and influence that comes from being a major donor...
Thanks for opening my eyes!
1. It is hard to tell exactly what would happen without those policies. Or even with only some of them. I would be awefully surprised if the world complied politely with a libertarian narrative.
2. You take for GRANTED that the private initiative would be more efficient. Did you know we actually have statistical tools to measure technical efficiency? Here is a shocking fact: state funded hospitals in Quebec are about 27% more efficient than private hospitals in California.
The main reason is that the private hospitals seem to compete over availability, hence they always have a lot of empty rooms -- and that is wasteful in the economic sense.
3. Nothing is preventing you or anyone from trying to build private organizations to make your case through examples. However, as an economist, I feel compelled to warn you that markets do not always work correctly, just as governments.
4. And it is true that the comparison he makes doesn't exclude the possibility of prefering fewer government programs. He merely pointed out that the observed difference was a bad proxy for the libertarian heaven advocated on the far right.
Pinker and his brain, brain, brain, brain
Hahaha!
Lmao. Thanks!
Too bad he is so monumentally uninformed about who is committing the terrorist acts.
He's a coward; he won't speak the truth about race and IQ.
Lol, he's got a whole talk just about that: ua-cam.com/video/K2sUW8q7uWI/v-deo.html
Excellent and thoughtful points. A must listen for any teacher, at any level.
Some of his facts are historically inaccurate. I still agree with the conclusion for the most part.
Which ones?
Thanks for that, I too was fairly taken back when he made the claims that he did about Islam vs. Christendom
he claims there were no great religious wars in Islam compared to Christianity. That's pretty dishonest to say
haha I have that book sitting on my desk waiting to be read
mastercilander that is not what records of the time, from both christians and muslims, show.
You have to belive Inquisitors were forging their own texts with confessions under torture or letters that praise the massacre of heretics - protestants.
And vice versa.
The Inquisition was created to protect Roman Catholicism from all its foals, including other Christians.
Pinker is correct that many of the facts such as the differences between men and women do not advocate discrimination or any other extreme action. However, they do bring one to realise that the policies, laws and institutions built up around the denial of these controversial facts must be abolished. That itself is a radical position that is verboten in public discourse.
Also, leave Ancaps alone. They are the least dangerous extremists in America and not part of the Alt-Right ffs.
+rwatertree: he picked the safe target (women) and made it stand in for the hard one (race). Though, he did touch racial crime, didn't he. What did he say about it? "It might not always be so?" Yeah that's not much comfort. It might, also, in fact always be so, like it is in other black areas of the world.
The alt right is concerning in many ways, least of all their desire to make to Western societies into ethnostates or segregated ones. Many alt righters with whom I've spoken are third positionists (i.e. various types of fascists or national socialists) which at least speaks to economic and political illiteracy.
Alt Right is too vague a term to take seriously. Everyone who isn't a SJW type is now considered Alt Right to many.
Alt-Right as used by the broader media is a miasmic term, alt-right in the Richard Spencer sense has more NatSoc tendencies.
rwatertree
I find your use of the term "ethno state" charming. All states and societies are already based on ethnicity unofficially. The Alt Right simply rejects Multiculturalism, which is a new and untested political theory. Ancaps are ridiculous in that they don't understand that capitalism , which we never had, simply buys out any government and has it serve the wealthy. But that's neither here nor there as we have a half state, half corporate system. Which isn't capitalism.
Brilliantly-eloquent and as polite as anyone I’ve ever heard speak a word. Well said.
Imagine that, a world we people dont live in fear a facts, but face them courageously and honestly.
We had that, it was called the age of enlightenment or age of reason.
Animal farm is unfortunately being introduced literally all around us, and it will lead to a combination of 1984 and a brave new world.
Not sure about many of his statistics, but most of his conclusions are good. I will say, that the notion of doing away with government safety nets isn't an extreme notion. Depending on who's statistics you use, >50% of the nation is on some sort of government handout (including corporations.) Very few people actually need some form of assistance, the rest just have excuses. Voluntary giving to charities can easily support those who absolutely need the help. Forcing the population into mandatory altruism is just theft. Especially when you realize that the majority of the allocated tax money doesn't even go to those who need the help. Worse is the simple fact that government safety nets only promote adding more people into their programs. People need incentives to get out of social programs, not stay in them.
sorry but there is absolutely no proof that voluntary charity would solve these problems. You need to finely tune wellfare systems so that its not just free money. The money they get from wellfare isnt good enough to justify not working in most cases
So, we should remove all state-run social-safety-nets and allow charities to take their place? Charities are notoriously bad at using their money for their indented purpose. Allowing unregulated capitalist charities to fill the "gap in the market" would result in charities that exclusively take advantage of people who donate to them.
Charities also know that some people mostly need a kick in the butt. However, if a government program was to take away someone's entitlements and kick them in the butt, there would be hell to pay.
tnanks! where can we watch the full video please??
The main problem with American politics is many people cannot distinguish political correctness and political awareness
To be aware is the real point people need to achieve .
I’m really annoyed with the idea that a person can’t hear these things of which her speaks WITHOUT becoming an “alt-right extremist. All we’d like is for these facts to be a part of the discussion on fixing these issues, as they obviously have to be and are not currently. The solutions will never be correct until that happens
Five years later, just expressing these facts of life will get you branded an alt-right extremist.
I want to be as free as possable, and the only way I can see to do that is to not deny any one the freedom that I want. That is why I am an Individualist. Aslong as you harm no one you are free.
Do you live on an island?
No. I try to live my values as best I can, but neather I or life is perfect.
Most indiviulists favor abortion bans, banning transgenderism, gay marriage, etc.
That was fantastic. I only wish the conclusion was longer and went into more detail about how the left and right just argue and how to find those points of agreement via the historical/statistical/etc facts.
It was cool how it pretty much was saying left and right are both right but they're using the wrong replies to the wrong accusations.
Finally i found a balanced channel! Subscribed!
I could nitpick but he seemed pretty chill. Agreed with much of viewpoint about freedom of speech.
The critique of anarcho-capitalism as the desire to remove regulations and social safety nets is unwarranted. Regulations and social support systems are unanimously seen as beneficial to libertarian thinkers from Molinari to Spooner to Rothbard to Molyneux to Woods, the only thing wrong with the current system is the widespread use of violence perceived as legitimate under the territorial monopoly of a non-voluntary government body. This is not an extreme position objectively, merely having the appearance of extremity due to the cultural context where it is common for people to be put into cages where there is a chance they will be uncared for if they are raped daily for the rest of their life for trading pieces of paper for pieces of plants to consenting adults. Nonaggression is not extreme morally, it is the Golden Rule of civilization.
Tommy Boyle and the Party of One
...And in ENGLISH your comment means???
Tommy Boyle and the Party of One long winded way of saying you don’t think governments should be allowed to tax people and have a police force. Just like how communism can never be properly implemented because the ideal communistic society can only be achieved in a perfect world where human ambition and lust for power doesn’t exist, anarcho-capitalism can never be achieved people will always find ways to take advantage of each other. It might work in theory, but its implementation in the real world would likely be just as disastrous as the failure of communism in China and the Soviet Union.
Aliensinnoh Some take that view and most ancaps are of a skeptical bent anyways so nobody is advocating for anarchy or nothing in the next two years. The proper approach towards and anarcho-capitalist society is by sensibly reducing the size of government till the point where any evil might actually be necessary if such a point exists. Saying that anarcho-capitalism will never exist is a question that only exists ideally currently is fair since a complete elimination of government tomorrow might make things terrible and so from a consequentialist worldview that warrants some suspicion of principle so the proper course is balancing the strict deontology of having principles with the consequentialism of pragmatism, but to say it is an irrational goal is different.
Marlon Moncrieffe "Don't hurt people, don't take their stuff" and "Keep your stuff and keep your word" are not extremist positions.
What in god's name is a "non-voluntary government body"?
Which facts counter Anarchocapitalism? I'm open to hear them, but i'm searching for them since years.
That was a pretty thought provoking video.
3:55 - 4:02 No one suggests they do. It's never a conflict involving an argument that we should. It is a conflict involving the accusation that discrimination is responsible for the differences. The idea that there are not naturally any differences arises logically when reasoning from the accepted fact that the accusation is true.
7:05 - 7:19 Again, the facts don't lead anyone to those conclusions! The problem is the facts can not be discussed without emotional accusations of racism etc being levied in lieu of thoughtful consideration and discussion.
That is why Trump won. We got sick of not being able to have a discussion for all the virtue signaling based on forgone conclusions.
I'm shocked that this needs to be explained. I always thought it was clear to everyone with a high school diploma, let alone to students on prestigious American universities
Correct.
hey can you send me a link for the full show please?
This Writer, Enthusiast, Professor is Brilliant. Thank you for all your knowledge, almost (: everthing you say is well thought and equally positivey provoking. I enjoyed your lecture and book on The Blank Slate. D Patnod former social worker for equality and justice.
It's fascinating to watch Pinker try and denounce PC from within the confines of PC. It's all very toothless, and he still seems nervous, like a flash mob might at any moment decide to tear him limb from limb. And this is what counts as brave truth-telling in academia -- sad!
As a conservative, you should empathize with his necessity to move slowly but surely, rather than in one large swoop.
I personally think that a conservative's primary thoughts would be closer to "eliminate the threat as soon as possible" and maybe even "you're either with us or against us".
That sounds like the far left in a nutshell. Most conservatives trust that their mindset will allow them to thrive without depending on others, so they don't tend to consider the left a huge threat except for when they try to take everyone's money.
I think you could actually make that claim about both. I was actually speaking from personal experience (being extremely Conservative myself) when I view the far left as a threat. I think this is at least part of the reason that right wingers seem to be embracing and even allying with moderate left wingers at the moment. The moderate ones, even in power, aren't a threat like the radicals.
It really is sad that Anarcho-Capitalism is talked about as and considered to be extreme. How is it that "Don't steal from, forcibly coerce, or assault others" became the extreme position? Sad.
Anarcho capitalism is retarded, you cant defend proporty rights without the govorment
That's not an argument, and even if it were, it would be a fallacious appeal to consequence, and a bad one at that.
First off, no government can exist without violating property rights in the first place, so you can't defend property rights WITH a government. If a government claims, whether in portion or entirety, the product of my labor, it is asserting that it has more right to my property than I myself do. If you REALLY believe that a government protects property rights, you are deluding yourself; a government only protects the ability of its serfs to continue paying their taxes.
Second, Anarcho-Capitalism is not an ideology based around the best pragmatic outcome for myself, or for anybody else, it has to do with what is moral and what is tyrannical. Forcibly stealing another person's property is immoral, and therefor no government can be an ethical institution; hence why anarchy is the only ethical arrangement.
How do you stop people from stealing your stuff without the govorment?
you'd have to defend it your self
Not to mention that a community will not tolerate a thief; if someone starts getting aggressive in a community that doesn't have a government, people are going to come together to police themselves. Anarchy doesn't mean a complete chaotic free for all, it means no rulers, but that in no way precludes there being punishment for breaching others' property rights.
Only in government propoganda can you have the idea that "people are evil and will steal your stuff, so lets give all the power to a group of people we call "government" to control who is allowed to steal and murder."
that sucks, when I share there is no preview and you can't view the video
This seems to me like a very common problem of humans in general, when any problem arise that's too difficult to solve quickly and painlessly, especially the type that have something to do with fear shame guilt or unfairness, we tend to want to look away from it, and often in doing so we make it even worse and even harder to handle afterwards.
Examples of this are books like I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings that generate a lot of controversy and get banned. People reject truths about society that are too uncomfortable, instead of acknowledging those issues and bringing them to the surface to be dealt with, we seem to prefer to bury them and let them fester and carry on in the silent shadows of society.
I'd say we as civilization have gotten better with dealing with this over all, in the past we dealt with things like these with extreme prejudice, we didn't just bury the uncomfortable topics, we buried the *people* associated with the uncomfortable topics, literally. But now at least we mostly just fight angrily about them on social media and ban the discussion in certain places, plus the occasional book bans. Eh, baby steps, we'll get there in time hopefully.
Islam also had loads of inter-religious conflict, for example the Qarmatian fanatics waged a religious war across Arabia for decades and even managed to sack the holy city of Mecca itself, slaughtering all the pilgrims there and desecrating the holy sites, including stealing the sacred Stone. That is not even touching the Banu Hilal invasion of Northern Africa or the Shia Sunni wars of the Fatimids etc.
A lot of nowadays people reject reality if it does not comply to their wishes and thoughts... Several centuries ago the reality would literally kill such people, due to civilisation and evolution the reality reaction is slower now, much slower, anyway it works as always
I would say that this points to total failure of our education system to promote critical thinking in our students and the failure of our media outlets to broadcast honest and open debate.
Where is the link to the original video?
I liked this video but Pinker was wrong about social safety nets and ignores the fact that Islam was rapidly spread by the sword
he falsely characterizes Islam as better and more enlightened because it had no inquisition, but the inquisition was a single short event, islam has had non stop genocide since the day it was founded and non stop intolerance of blasphemy since day one. the Islamic version of the inquisition is just every day in islam
John Locke are you not aware of the Islamic Golden Age??? Do you not know why most of our algebraic terms are in Arabic? Or why most of the stars in the sky have Arabic names??? There's so many references to the Arabic language because they were once a great prosperous and diverse group of intellectuals. When Islam was ruled by various caliphates, where science and economic development and cultural works flourished!!! Educate yourself people! You are showing your ignorance bruuhhhh
because the arabs stole that knoledge to the indians?
fabian padilla
This 'period of enlightenment' came after they were fat with the riches from conquering and butchering the nations around them by the sword. Islam is anti-science - it states that the words of Mohammed are the end of knowledge.
Vocaloides no.......dude that bad shit came AFTER the enlightenment.......look I agree with you that Islam is fucked up....but Google this shit man!! Every time you reply I have to correct some shit you said lol and I agree with you about Islam.....
Islam not waging religious wars in the past history? Really Pinker? You might want read a history book some time....
Or maybe you have, and you are just being deliberately dishonest?
I wouldn't say that "taking the red pill" is the same as "joining the Alt Right," but other than that, all very solid points.
Debates hurt people's feelings, and in today's world any attack on someone's feelings is equivalent to an act of terror.
They didn't seem to mention the constant Anti-White bigotry and Anti-White Racism Whites are increasingly being subjected to. They may have helped LOL.
You can’t be racist towards whites, my friend. Reverse racism isn’t a thing.
I usually like Pinker. But everything he said in this talk was sooo caricatural. It is like the only alternatives are: either you are a leftist or you are a bigot -- even if you are a bigot who happens to know his facts. He makes it looks like the mission of any sensible person would be to prevent good, but naive, people to be corrupted by right-wing influence.
Come on! As the a french president once answered to a leftist adversary in the 60s : "you don't have the monopoly of good intentions." If anything else, in these last decades, the Left seems to have degenerated into a cult blindly followed by people with no qualms about doing actual evil in exchange for the promisse of a future, vague and questionable good. Actually, I feel it is my moral duty to denounce the violence in the modern progressives methods; to denounce the totalitarian tendencies of leftist political goals; to have the courage to hold a stand against diffamation and docxing campaigns in order to denounce racism, sexism and bigotry when it comes disguised as social justice.
I understand he is probably talking at an University. Therefore he must adjust his speech to the public. However, it seems to me that he felt himself victim to the political correction he was criticising...
Jesus, go read a book. Congratulations on blatantly misunderstanding everything Pinker said and putting your own cockamamie motivations on him.
Pollen, this guy does understand what Pinker said. Pinker straw manned all the way through the speech because he wanted to take the PC stance that everything the right does is bigoted. Just one example: he said that there is a higher rate of criminality among blacks and the alt-right does something "racist" with this information. What they actually do is not assume every traffic stop of a black man must be motivated by racism, or that the number of black prisoners is somehow indicative of a systematically racist justice system. It is the left who takes the racist view, blaming whites' "systemic racism" for all problems faced by blacks because they ignore the facts Pinker spoke of, but he can't say that to a bunch of Harvard Liberals, can he?
POLLEN, thanks for the word "Cockamamie". I didn't know it. Thanks to you I leaned something today. By the way, what book would you suggest? (Not a big one, please: I'm still learning English).
On a different note, you are right: I shouldn't have talked about the left. It was partisan of me. I should have limited my scope to political correctness. I am sorry if I offended.
EMMA, thanks for the solidarity.
And I think you're right: he seems hesitant throughout the talk. It looks like he is taking extra care about his choice of words.
However, I am still bothered by the content: all the contextualising effort he talks about seems to be aimed only in avoiding any interpretation that would not be politically correct. Maybe it is just me, but I believe facts just don't care about political correctness. Or am I too naive to believe that not being (primerily) concerned with political correctness does not automatically entails one is a bigot?
In his defense, in the beginning, he mentioned something that might have happened in the campus that seems to be an example of a toxic consequences of PC. (The guy by his side seems a little upset about it: he anxiously starts to scribe on his notes). This is Pinker putting things in context to show that PC can also have bad consequences.
His overall point is also very valid: people are prisoners of the echo chambers of their own criation. Thus, they are not equipped to process neither facts nor divergent interpretations. And this is causing a great deal of pointless conflict.
(Universities seem to behave like big institutional echo chambers though. Which justify his care about his choice of words - I know I wouldn't want to be at odds with dozens of enraged Havard students: they are too competent to not believe they are always brilliantly right about everything...).
WELL put.
I have a very weird feeling that most of the people commenting on this video are not the kinds of people that Steven Pinker wants to associate with, and yet this video is titled exactly to appeal to those people instead of necessarily representing Pinker's view.
some times it is just easier to believe what you want to hear.
If you haven’t studied Mises and Rothbard you don’t understand capitalism. That includes you, Dr. Pinker (who I like very much - a kind eloquent genius)!
I guess that's why he made the naive statement "that's why they don't license anarcho-capitalism"...he really doesn't get it.
Miserably marketing, quite stupid to even try to implement.
The Bandog some economists definitely have. One thing they makes me think many economists haven’t read them is that they say they haven’t. :) Scott Sumner hasn’t even read Hayek. Russ Roberts has read Hayek but not Rothbard or Mises. Paul Krugman hasn’t read relevant material either. And so on, and so on. Some definitely have. But if you haven’t read and comprehended Rothbard et al and can at least argue against it, you don’t understand really capitalism in my opinion. Cheers!
He should read some Michael Huemer or David Friedman before commenting on anarcho-capitalism.
shadyparadox yup
shadyparadox he compares it to racism and sexism, so he clearly has no idea what it is.
Or Rothbard or Mises or Hoppe etc. etc.
In pinkers defense when he says "regulation" he might not distinguish between regulation by force and voluntary regulation. So he has a reasonable way forward by accepting voluntary governance/regulation as permissible and rejecting state governance/regulation.
Hi There I like those guys too, I just find Huemer and Friedman to be the most rigorous in their logic.
>falling for the anarcho-capitalism meme
Well said
Pinker is eminently thoughtful and rational, and chooses his words very well. Navigating controversy the way he does, and bringing this kind of reason to very emotionally incendiary subjects, is not trivially easy. It's a skill which all academics should seek to master.
I disagree with his assessment of pure vs. mixed capitalism, but I have to commend him anyway just for speaking so well, which is incredibly valuable even if it only means that other people I disagree with have an example of what virtue in debate looks like.
He is so wrong about Islam being more enlightened than Christianity. He said there was no equivalent to the Inquisition. The entire history of the spread of Islam was advanced through violence. The Shiites, and Sunni's have had many violent clashes, not to mention the persecution of minority Islamic sects, such as the Baha'i.
Pinker is very much worth listening to, and probably one of the clearest and most rational voices on the internet.
Wow he put that so well.
5:06 the tenasity of the Irish Americans is now channeled through joining the military and police :)
I liken the progressive left to a street gang, at least in hierarchy. For those unfamiliar, street gangs deal drugs by having a low level gang member stand on a street corner. This is obviously a task with a high likelihood of being caught by police, so the gang puts layers of intermediaries between the street member and the boss, so when the street member is invariably caught, there is nothing to give the police. As gang members rise within the gang hierarchy, they not only become privy to the gang’s inner workings, but also gain more protection. Naturally, we might wonder what it is that draws a low level gang member to risk so much to enrich the gang boss while they shoulder little of the burden.
The ‘street members’ of the left are those you meet in protests, antifa, and so on. They don’t really understand their gang’s inner workings, its goals, or its methods. In this sense, I can’t really hate these leftists. They are being used for the high-level leftists’ goals.
I appreciate the intent here but there is so much misinformation that it falls apart factually (at least I hope it's misinformation and not disinformation...).
He doesn't have an answer.
@ Evan Pellegrini - Watching it again, I may have misspoke when I said "so much," however, I believe some of what he said about sexism, Islam and the claim that most domestic terrorism is committed by right wing extremist groups are at the very least misleading if not just plain wrong.
@ Captain Stack - Sorry I wasn't able to respond fast enough for you.
this is exactly how I feel! It's great to hear someone share my exact views :)
With statistical information context is very important. For example with regard to domestic terrorism he was talking in terms of total number of attacks. If we look post 9/11, from 9/12/01 to 12/31/16 there were 62 from right wing extremists and 23 from Islamic extremists. However the right wing extremists killed less people with 106 people compared to the 119 from Islamist attacks. But these numbers also shift over time. Not to mention there are over a hundred million conservatives in the country compared to only about three million Muslims. So you are probably not in much danger from a guy wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat. Based on a 8/19/17 article by Miriam Valverde in Politifact.
Who is Pinker talking about at 2:26?
I'd appreciate Mr Pinker addressing homicide rates of certain races within their homeland nations. I suspect they are quite similar to that found in the states.
Good persuasive argument. I feel like the context thing was kind of off.
To assume that everyone in the "group" is just unable to properly decide context is a scary way to think. I agree it is probably caused because of media and this new wave of overly political correctness.
I believe that right most groups are overly logical, and left most groups are overly emotional and are unable to compromise with each other because their brains work in different ways.
We _SHOULD_ become capitalists and do away with govt-provided safety nets. That's not an extremist perspective--it's a practical one.
Keep the safety net--just make sure it is provided (in order) by self, family, fraternity, then community.
Who is this "person at this campus" that he is referring to?
Gotta love Dr. Pinker, and thank you to whoever isolated this clip because I really dislike the other guys on this panel.
OMG an actual truth seeker!!! It won’t be long before someone destroys him I’m sure
The most successful economy in the history of the world was early 1800s America, when regulations were at their lowest. It's become WORSE as more regulation has been added, and significantly more so once central banking was introduced.
And it bred political extremism. The conditions for ordinary workers during the industrial revolution were truly horrific. This is why people started becoming Communists and Anarchists, why they started assassinating political leaders and businessmen. 19th Century capitalism is not a viable model for a stable society.
That's an untrue characterization of industrialization that is perpetuated by government schools that have a vested interest in making you believe that without government, you would be abused by employers. That's simply impossible when workers have the freedom to choose which jobs to work without government regulation forcing good employers out of the market.
Not to mention that the public school system was specifically designed to pump out factory workers, not free thinkers.
V.Lute you describe a period where the country was transitioning from poor to rich. During that time the conditions were better than when it was poor and worse than when it was rich. This is a viable model for a society, but it was a period of change so by definition it wasn't stable.
skylarscaling
Except that's just not true. Working conditions in the USA are already bad compared to more regulated countries. Some countries have 35-36 hours weeks, 6-8 weeks mandatory holidays, minimum wages for everyone and STILL run effectively. In the USA you get fucked by employers in all sorts of ways, unless you want to argue that people can just all abandon their jobs at Wallmart and go find something else, because it's pretty clear they would if they could.
And yeah, public education doesn't want free thinkers if you consider that it's just people who'll believe anything as long as it's posted on a random crackpot website and isn't the official version.
Yeah, the poor working conditions here are why people are falling over each other to come here, and the "better conditions" are working really well for Europe, with its cascade of failing and bankrupt countries. America has more entrepreneurship than any other country that I'm aware of, and millions of people don't work a 40 hour job and still make a nice living. And most of the rest of the people feeling stuck in jobs are in that position because they have obligations to pay off the debt they've accrued living a life of $600 phones, big screen TVs, Netflix, and a million other luxuries that other countries would kill to have access to.
America is still the greatest country in the world, but with the out of control government spending and debt, it's still going to suffer. Regulation and big government is the CAUSE of that, NOT the solution.
5:33 - citation please..
Who was he talking about at the start who got fired?
The president of Harvard. He expressed the very true statement that women aren't as good at math as men and wondered if that was biological and could not be remedied by any social engineering. The female faculty threw a fit and forced him to resign for stating a biological fact of life.
Pinker shows his limited understanding of economics when he criticizes anarcho-capitalistism. Lumping an-caps with racists, sexists, and other extremists. What is extreme about respecting property rights and condemning theft and violence?
Yep it seems lately even Common Law is a tool of oppressors. "What do ya mean, 'do no harm'??"
babby's first red pills
"red pill" = "I think I'm smart because Jordan Peterson looked at me through my monitor"
I remember reading an article on the gaurdian telling you what comments they censor. They gave a few examples. One example was something similar to (I don't remember completely) "there is a lot of crime in the black community because of their culture"
The gaurdian says something like "saying there is something wrong with black people's culture has been used by racists"
Who Steven Pinker is referring to in 2:26?
Maybe this guy? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes
0:25 I'm shocked to hear him admit that the alt-right is highly intelligent.
send him to the quillotine
Pinker forgets to mention race and IQ. I wonder why?
Like how people of Asian descent have higher IQ on average than people of European descent?
@Slaws Mcslaws
Yes, for example.
ChrissyG Talking about controversial facts doesn't mean he has to mention all of them
Race and IQ...?
Not necessarily true. The Asian community places a different value on those subjects that are tested to prove a higher IQ. Meaning the Asian communities ideologies and practices (PRACTICES meaning, they do it more than other people and grow in their aptitude of that skill), are what the European community as come up with to test to "prove" people have a higher IQ. If the IQ test included rhythm perhaps people of African descent would score higher? My point is smart is relative to what you value as smart, what one is well versed in re: practiced a lot, and ultimately what you test for.
who is he talking about at the 2:20 mark?
That's just as accurate and to the point as anything can possibly be.
+Théophile Gaudin: Really? solve black crime and economic underperformace with 'context' and 'maybe's?
imgur.com/a/9UmEq
imgur.com/a/5eXfL
He wasn't specific enough to give any hope imo.
lol "the majority of domestic terrorism in this country is committed by right wing extremist groups not by Islamic groups"
what a pathetic failure of reasoning. Per capita, Muslims in the United States are incredibly over-represented among terrorist attacks even though there's just a tiny tiny minority. You're better than this Steve.
Xander Patten I noticed that too. I was thinking really is this bullshit argument by a supposedly brilliant professor all he has? Any freshman high schooler could easily destroy that pathetic argument.
Xander Patten so it must be that the liberal Elite, fully knowing their facts lead to undeniable and indisputable truths, have no choice but to cover up those facts rather than let them be talked about. Because letting them be understood will lead any reasonably intelligent person to an uncomfortable truth. (Eg Islam sucks. Race realism, etc)
It's not as if you care about the right wing terrorism in proportion to the per capita rate, it doesn't fit your narrative. Terrorism itself is extremely low on the list of problems if you care about per capita statistics, outside of the scare and frenzy it's an irrelevant number of lives compared to other sources of death, but most people don't view the world in statistics, they see the symbolic invader coming to rape and pillage and that's the perfect narrative, which is why so many of you are obsessed.
There's no reasoning going on, he just stated a fact.
Ticallion, he stated that fact as if it's relevant to and somehow in conflict with the idea Muslims do more domestic terrorism per capita; and that's both invalid and factually incorrect.
He discusses domestic "right wing terrorism" as being the most prevalent form of terrorism here but the most egregious cases (Las Vegas, Orlando, etc.) were committed by progressives. But otherwise great presentation.
The Orlando shooter was a Muslim fundamentalist and hated gay people. The Las Vegas shooter's politics were unknown so I don't how you know he was a progressive if his own brother didn't know. I don't know which political wing contributes the most to violence, but the examples you are using aren't true.
the disappointed koala furthermore the Vegas shooter profile for terrorism is so far from and not even know to be even declared such.
+Todd Brown
More and more people are accepting Muslims jihad is to help for a theocracy. The Islam religion is political in nature, so it sounds left to me.
That is indeed how people like the Southern Poverty Law Center classify it.
+DarthRaider520 Yeah, forgot all about Antifa...but Pulse shooter was definitely a Dem (dailycaller.com/2016/06/14/omar-mateen-was-a-registered-democrat-but/), plus Pulse shooter's father was a Dem btw (www.wptv.com/news/state/orlando-shooters-father-attends-hillary-clinton-rally-in-kissimmee). And [correction] ultimately I agree with much of what +pinochet pilot #666 concludes, so the political beliefs of Paddock are likely irrelevant. But there are other lists of lefties besides Antifa that are rabidly antisocial, including Nidal Hasan - Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim; Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter - black liberal/Obama voter; Seung-Hui Cho - Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat. James Holmes - the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy, progressive liberal, hated Christians; James Hodgkinson - Shot and hit multiple Republicans, including Steve Scalise: Registered Democrat and worked on Bernie Sanders campaign....etc. It just would have been nice for the good speaker in the video today to have listed what kind of far right terrorism he is referring to here in the US that amounts to more than the list provided in this comment reply.
Who is the famous person he is talking about at 2:30 who talked about gender?
Maybe this guy? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes
Wait... did he say at 5:40 that there is no history of wars of religion within the classical history of Islam? Which part is the classical part?
To sum up his argument, you know the facts but you’re not thinking how we want you too.
If men and women are on average different, pinker is right that it doesn't mean you should discriminate, however it does mean that you shouldn't be prevented from discriminating if you see fit.
"you shouldn't be prevented from discriminating if you see fit." you should because " men and women are on average different" on average but not all.
Except we can only make rules for the average case, not the exceptional. So if you're not allowed to discriminate for the exceptional, you won't be allowed to discriminate for the average.
for example hooters only hires female waitresses, an italian restaurant might prefer to only hire italian staff. Both types of discrimination don't imply sexism or racism. Another example is that Disney will discriminate against men and against non-asians for the job of playing Mulan at their parks.
exactly. But I'm saying they should be allowed to do it even if it is racist and sexist. we should not be trying to legislate morality. If nobody is being directly harmed, it shouldn't be illegal. If you don't like it, you can boycott businesses that do it and even encourage others to do so but you don't just get to shut them down.
I agree and I think most people agree with a lot of reasons for discrimination, like the Mulan example, heck people would get offended and talk about whitewashing if Disney hired a white girl and gave her chinese looking makeup hahaha!
The problem is that people only think of segregation when they hear about allowing discrimination.
Walter Williams gave a funny example in an interview. He talked about how much we discriminate when we look for a spouse. Most people have a really narrow list of criteria, and discriminate against a gender and several ethnicities.
Awesome segment. Pinker is great. 😎
thank you
Not the most honest piece I've seen. He uses PC Jargon, "African American" and "European American". He ignores the fact that the statistical differences in interest and ability drive the differences in careers and not discrimination. That's why the progressives deny them.
Considering most American blacks have never been to Africa yet alone claim citizenship there, makes that term intrinsically dishonest. Are there some African Americans, sure, not all of them are black though.
I think the point is that there is significant overlap in the statistics that you can't come to conclusions about the individual.
"Americans of African descent" and "Americans of European descent" are too much of a mouthful.
+nustada: > using African American: well nothing else is allowed, all other words have become tainted. 'Negro' sounds dated and too much like that other word.
You complain about his wording even though it's standard - in society, not just science - and you perfectly understand what he means? That's the method of social justice warriors.
What was he supposed to say? Blacks and Whites? What benefit would that bring to you?
We should all be anarchocapitalists. :D
But we should live in a minarchist society.
No government->People give their money to local warlord for protection from other warlords->One warlord and underlings emerge victorious->Underlings put restraints on warlord->Peace allows people to demand a say in how society is run->We now have government again.
Why?
Seems like the problem is, everyone likes to feel smart. Problem is, being correct is an ongoing process; you can't just stop and say you're done. You always have to be an open skeptic. You always have to watch out for slippery slopes and jumping to conclusions. You always have to face ugly facts in order to change them. And you ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have to keep in mind that you are still wrong or ignorant about plenty of things.
Couldn't agree more
Who is he referring to at 2:25?
Maybe this guy? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes