The people who said they got nothing from it don't even understand what they were being taught. They think they were there to learn about the issues discussed. That was NOT the point of it. Peter was showing them a useful tool...... they thought he was showing them what he built with that tool. Idiots at Dartmouth. Who woulda thunk'd it
If speech is violence simply because it can incite violence, then it's fair to say that speech is also rape, genocide, and murder. Hyperinflation of terms is destroying critical thinking.
I admired the curly masked girl when speaking about the event at the end but she lost me at "Peter is a conservative" while claiming she's seen his position prior. Just because he has a shared position at something with a group we call conservatives, doesn't mean he is one. He also shares position with the democrats so what now? Geez these kids nowadays think politics is always black and white
That's pretty much the average voter. It's always "this opinion means this team and that opinion means that team" without realizing that you can agree with someone on something but it doesn't align you with that person.
It should be black and white but it’s not. If you have a consistent set of values, it only makes sense that there are specific logical sides to take on each issue. Can’t just pick different sides on different issues Willy nilly unless you have no actual reason for doing so other than “because I feel like it.”
I'm radically left, anti-capitalist and Marxist leaning and get called right-wing all the time, too. They seem to not realize a good segment of the left has always critiqued critical theory and post modernism, before these people even knew it existed. They're actually the ones that are out of touch.
I like the idea of these “highlights” videos, but I have to say I think they’ve been over-edited almost to the point of unwatchability. It feels like watching a list of random people taking turns saying what they think and then never diving much deeper. There’s no natural rhythm of conversation, back-and-forth, or following the flow of an idea, which makes it disjointed and jarring to listen to. It’s hard to absorb anything or follow their lines of thinking. I would love to see some “Highlights” videos with less intense editing. Instead of line-by-line highlights, selecting representative chunks of conversations that explored an idea well - trimming out redundant points but otherwise letting it play out more organically / uncut.
Irish lass, your reaction is perfectly understandable if we assume the purpose of these exercises it to produce smooth, coherent youtube videos on particular substantive topics by student experts. But we have an abundance of those by Peter and dozens of other well-read and fair-minded experts (and, also, of course, by poorly read, biased, non-experts as well). Nor is the purpose to reflect what these students KNOW about the topics selected. It is perfectly normal that these students know little of the best literature on the topics and strongly under the influence of what they have learned, since junior high school, from their teachers. Most students recognize this and are too shy to volunteer their participation. But the topics Peter forces them to consider are often existentially important ones or underly such. Peter does not provide any answers and astutely ends these sessions abruptly without any pretense of an objective "summing up." What he does amazingly well at each campus is to find a small number of students who are willing to give their opinions on the selected topics and questions, and even on the wording of the questions, with brief interactions among the students themselves, and occasionally with audience members. The students, being at the same school, often know each other a bit, and the local audience is small, so it is as a comfortable an environment in which to discuss controversial topics openly if briefly -- even though they all know they will soon be stars on "You're on Candid Camera! " (Did I just date myself?). So the value of this exercise must be judged by a few unknowables. For example, 1) to what degree did/will it inspire the participants to think and read more on the issues raised?, 2) toward degree did it do that for the whole Dartmouthcommunity (students, faculty, staff, alumni)? student body?, AND 3) to what degree did it do that for the 110,000 subscribers to Boghassian's channel and for thousands more who are not subscribers? Boghassian is what is known in the trade as an "insidious character," the sort you always want on your side.
@@ChupacabraGrande you make valid points, but I think you failed to address the main point Irish Lass was making, about the "unwatchability" of the last few 'highlight' videos posted. I think it's very crucial to keep the audience in mind, especially considering one of the main goals of this is to spread and encourage rational thinking, productive conversations etc... thus it's important to maximize the view count. Watchability is one of the basic fundamentals to spreading knowledge with video.
I thought the same thing, but he has posted much more complete videos from this event here ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=Peter+Boghossian+dartmouth
Including speech inside the term violence is classic package-dealing. Wrapping together two separate ideas for the deliberate purpose of manipulation and influence on people that don't immediately realize the trick. "“Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value." (from Philosophy: Who Needs It)
Yep...first, they attempt to deconstruct what comprises violence and then they attempt to build back up their own definition. Kind of like what they're doing with sex and gender. It's all highly manipulative semantic games based on creating false equivalencies.
Dude, if you want to watch the full videos then watch the full videos and quit bitching. ua-cam.com/video/emF4fH64zQM/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/a8yIFGNoFIU/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/BoYDrgPc7QI/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/KcCtmMwHssE/v-deo.html
I love it that some participants thought Peter was "biased", "Conservative" or "right leaning". Perhaps the definitions of these terms are morphing as we speak?
yes because they are being forcefully changed to fit something else entirely, so that's why Peter's normal grounded approach comes off as "right-leaning" to some of them.
@@Briaaanz It helped only the most vulnerable people and did nothing to stop the spread. The foundation of their argument. It is in fact no longer allowed on this platform to claim the vax stops the spread.
@@Briaaanz Even if that was true, (it's not), the vax has its own set of risks that is completely unecessary for most people. There are other completely safe and effective preventions and treatments now that don't risk myocarditis.
Will y’all still be releasing longer form videos of the convos from the game? I def am interested in this reverse Q&A format & enjoy it but I find myself wanting to hear more. I know most of these are pulled from videos that have already been released. Love what y’all do thank you so much!!
Is the bearded kid with glasses on the far left of the "Removing race" question traveling with the team? I could swear I've seen him in two or three other videos. Or is there someone exactly like this at every university?
He seems to me to be somewhere on the spectrum. Either that or just poorly socialized. He also seems very rigid in his thought process and receiving anything other than praise seems to trigger him. He’s the type that could easily switch from far left to far right without much effort.
The demeanor of the "equity" kid was not surprising. It's a bit frightening, however, that soon he will be out working in the real world where people's lives will be impacted by his decisions.
"How else do you measure the opportunity being equal [without equal outcomes]?" Uhhh... the suggestion was... EVERYONE gets free high-rate public education. Without qualification. Everyone. That's pretty equal in terms of opportunity. "Everyone" is pretty measurable.
It's unfair that Albert Einstein was a brilliant physicist snd I am not. Since nobody can raise me up to the level of Einstein, he should have been given a lobotomy and then kept on drugs for the rest of his life. Equal outcomes!
I rarely hear anyone question if equality of opportunity is desirable, given the obvious differences between individual people. In a way it is just a more palatable version of equality of outcome. Force is still required to make all opportunities equal. Giving people the right to a "free anything" requires that someone is forced to supply it. The goal in a free society should be maximizing opportunity. Getting the State out of education altogether would be a great first step.
Given that this is one of the premier higher educational instutions in the country and supposedly only has the best and brightest with an acceptance rate of about 10%, the size of the audience was pathetically small. Kudos to those that showed up, but you could have gotten a similar sized crowd at the community college.
My friend had a partner who criticises her a lot and never had a positive word for her, which caused her depression and a low self esteem over the years. Although I am for free speach, speach can be violent, even physically when you consider mental health as part of your body or person.
The fact that anyone could stand on any other line than the one you are standing on should preclude them from standing on the strongly line, someone thinks they know something you don’t and that should convey at least some doubt.
It seems to me that they feel like they didn’t learn anything because he didn’t offer much. The questions were reductive, and when they tried to expand, he would argue from one point.
Yes, and this relates to what Peter and others acknowledge as the "definitional" issue. In law, all terms require at least moderately precise definitions definitions in order to be useful to the law, i.e. to prosecutors, judges and juries. For example, if the law is going to distinguish between physically violent assaults and language that some people might find offensive, rude or in bad taste, or simply inaccurate, the law needs to keep crystal clear the nature of the distinction between physical violence and both the nature and consequences of language. Most people who try to claim mere words or language can be violent seem disingenuous to put it mildly. They would appear to have as their primary objective not clarity of communication but rather the suppression of ideas and opinion by calling for legal, administrative, or mob sanctions against those expressing particular opinions. The main issue is that in general discourse, words like "violent" and "violence" are most often used in a metaphorical sense, and only rarely in reference to physical violence against individuals. We talk about violent hurricanes, violent reactions to medications, violent attacks by animals, violence to the Constitution, violent automobile accidents, etc. It is pointless to propose limitations to all this variety of metaphorical uses. It is always useful to question the ethics of those who use "speech is violence" only as a rhetorical cudgel for beating up on and suppressing those with opposing views....
I really hate this dichotomy of "Equality of Opportunity good! Equality of Outcome bad!". Its a false dichotomy that only serves to offer up equality of opportunity as something that is a legitimate possibility in this world. It is not, equality is a myth, it will never exist, people will never be equal. We need to accept and celebrate the things that make us different instead of holding on to this eutopian notion of equality. For one thing, to have equal opportunity for the sons, it nessessitates an equal outcome of the fathers. I work my ass off so that my children can have the best possible opportunities in life that I can provide. Are you really going to suggest that my son should be forced to have the same opportunities as some child whose parents were neglectful drug addicted losers? If you enforce that my kids have the same opportunities as those unfortunate kids, then you're enforcing that the Outcome of my parenting is equal to the Outcome of the drug addicts. Congrats, you've achieved equality of outcome and just deceptively labeled it as equality of opportunity. And the enforcement is where the real problem lies. Sure you may say you don't want to force people's opportunities to be equal, but it will never ever happen without enforcement. If you allow people to be Free, then some will always strive harder to be better than others, and some will sit at the bottom of society with no ambition and they will stay there untill they die. People should be Free to strive for the top, and you enforcers of equality do nothing but stand in their way, and enslave them to your false ideal. I'm so sick of this talking point giving continued validity to the ideal of Equality. Equality is Evil. It is anti-freedom. I believe Nietzsche said it best, "No one is more inferior than those who demand for equality". You vile tarantulas need to be squashed.
“Even the same man is not equal to himself on the same day.” -Thomas Sowell In my mind fair treatment is as close of an ideal as we could ever reach. Total equality, or total freedom from discrimination will never be a worthwhile endeavor of society.
Speech can be violent if you use your words to attack someone. There is both physical and psychological pain, so we can and should differenciate between the ways in wich we can inflict one or the other. Inflicting physical pain is easy to do since you can just hit someone and it has a direct effect on their body. But speaking can also have a direct effect on your mind. If I start saying hateful/insulting/offensive things, regarding you/your family/your friends/ what you represent/ etc, my words at some point will have an effect on your psychological state, and this doesn't just reflect on your mind by being sad/angry/furious/depressed/etc... Because when you are angry, many things happen to your body: blood pressure changes, you get tunnel vision, you can't think calmly etc, (maybe my example isn't the best). So if words can affect your psychological state, it's not that hard to see them hurting your well being. So I think that speech can definetely hurt someone with the right words
@@nattybumpo4352 Good for you, but you are the exception, not the norm. 99% of people all over the world, would be offendend/hurt/irritated by something that someone else says. Even more so if someone starts calling other people with whatever slur they want. I can go down an endless amount of instances in wich speech could be considered hateful
#2 "My body, my choice" should be consistent with vaccines and abortion. A more clear statement would be: [The argument/slogan] "My body my choice" should be [logically] consistent with vaccine [mandates] and abortion [laws]. The slogan 'my body my choice' is merely that, a slogan. Sure, some passionate/ignorant people use this argument. But, good thing we don't decide on policy based on slogans and the arguments of laypeople. If that was the argument made by lawmakers, it should be consistent, but since it is not, it doesn't have to be consistent. Since I am saying that is not the argument for abortion, here is my personal reason: Abortion should be legal because it will reduce net suffering. We can disagree on the metaphysics/ethics and lead to different conclusions, but anyone presuming to have answers to these questions is wrong; we just don't have a clear enough understanding of consciousness and what it means to be alive to make any claims.
Wow, did he really say there's no equality of opportunity without equality of outcome? Yikes, my man. That would mean you think everybody is exactly the same with exactly the same attitude, gifts and weaknesses. That's the only way equality of opportunity will guarantee equality of outcome.
Here from Destiny’s channel. Great convo the two of you had. He’s doing campus events as well. The two of you should team up sometime, it would be a breath of fresh air from the heavily partisan content we see so often on youtube.
The V one is tricky because with C19 it does not offer immunity. The case for V is that by protecting the herd, your actions save the lives of others and reduce the stress on our health care workers. But if immunity is not conferred, the argument becomes weaker. Wearing masks is the same, it will protect others if you are sick and not so much help you to prevent your own sickness. So my body my choice is a little misleading. My choice our collective body might be better. Abortion, especially when it comes down to the health of the mother, is my body my choice. Wrapping abortion up with the vaccine is a loaded question and has been used to set up a Left is hypocritical argument. We should consider both issues separately.
What's with these videos of all the edit off cuts? This is an extensive medley over all the content that isn't interesting. Maybe I'm missing the actual talks and opinions somewhere behind a paywall?
Statements i would like to see: "controversial books should be banned from public schools" "Burning the national flag is freedom of speech" "Prayer in schools is a free speech issue" "Prostitution is sex trafficking and must be stopped " or "Prostitution should be legal"
To avoid the ambiguity of the term "controversial", a substitution for the first statement could be: "Some books should be banned from public schools." Assuming the great majority of the electoroate would answer "yes," that pushes the discussion to the more interesting questions of "which ones?" and "who decides?"
I'll take you up on one of those....prostitution is sex trafficking (the data shows the expansion effect is what happens in even legal markets, and the demand is much higher than the supply of women willing to do it, therefore trafficking is necessary) , although most people he would ask would have zero clue about that being the truth.
That vaccine/abortion one was interesting. If it were only on abortion, I'd stand on the Agree line (not Strongly Agree since we know there's some looneys who want it to be legal up until birth even when there's no risk to the mother or the fetus/baby and that's just wrong in my personal opinion) while when it comes to these vaccines, I was always a "follow the science" guy but lately... I don't know about this one, it doesn't seem to protect all that much and they're pushing it on kids now. One of the boys was annoying, a bit arrogant and a bit entitled. Other than him, another great video Dr. Boghossian.
Yes, you can still get sick from COVID after being vaccinated. BUT, the odds of serious illness have been greatly reduced. Prior to the vaccines, people were getting it and their bodies had never experienced a virus of that kind before. A lot were getting REALLY sick. The initial vaccines produced long term antibodies where now your body can mount a better defense. Do we need all the boosters? I'm willing to be swayed on that topic; but the initial vaccinations were, literally, life savers.
@@Briaaanz They were, yes, but for old people and people with pre-existing conditions. There's a few coronaviruses which can affect us, one of them is the Covid one. The others help cause the Common Cold, the Flu, MERS and SARS, so we have been exposed to coronaviruses in the past. I agree that never to this extent though. None of the vaccines provided long term antibodies though, you're mistaken here, at least when compared to the Tuberculosis or Polio vaccines for example. There's mixed studies on this since some said 6 monts others 8-10, but never longer than a year. My problem with these vaccines were the mandates, not the vaccines themselves. Of course they save lives, that's not up for debate BUT, the death toll didn't take into consideration health prior to the infection, I mean, it did but people weren't paying attention to that part. I'm a 28 year old male in good health with 4 living grandparents. 2 of them have diabetes and 1 has diabetes and a heart condition so I was really careful not to infect them. They all got it and I was pleasantly surprised to see that they had no complications (none of them are vaccinated btw). 94% of Covid death were attributed to comorbidity, and when 80 year olds with pre-existing conditions go through it like a breeze, it changes your views on it. I get that it's subjective and that's no way to analyze but I'm not saying anything concrete, I'm still studying it, but in my opinion, the vaccines were unnecessary for young people and young adults. I can also go into conspiracies but not yet, I'm still waiting for Fauci to admit this came out of his lab😀 Sorry for the long comment.
It’s interesting how their argumentation switches depending on the topic. If something that could lead to something is that thing when referring to speech being violence, then an embryo IS a person.
"‘My body, my choice’ should be consistent for vaccines and abortions." This is a difficult question to understand and I am surprised that noone was on the 'Disagree' side due to not accepting the premise of the question: that both positions are questions of 'individual choice' and not of 'societal choice.' I think the following questions would clarify what I mean: - "Does society have the right to force you to undergo a medical procedure?" If so, society could force you to abort a baby but also force you to take a vaccine. - "Does society have the right to prevent you from undergoing a medical procedure?" If so, society could prevent you from having an abortion but also prevent you taking a vaccine. The political divide (on average) appears to be: The Left wants forced injections (through laws, societal restrictions or other) and none of the other things. The Right wants restricted abortions (through laws, societal restrictions or other) and none of the other things. So it appears that the societal values in conflict are: - 'The value of a Statistical increase in the threat of illness for people unable to be vaccinated' V.S. 'The value of an embryo' Personally, I would value an embryo more as I would risk my life for an embryo but I'm not sure it can ever be settled.
I am pretty libertarian so I agree with your drugs analogy, bit not so much the first part. - "[society has] no right to do anything that impinges on a human being, when the choice has no significant impact on society." Does forcing someone to have an abortion have a significant impact on society? I would say: 'probably not, but it is a violation of a person' (no mention of the value of a fetus necessary)
Thank you Peter for the positive direction you have always chosen to take your work, BUT ...I Would LOVE to see the entire conversations Peter. (These last few "highlight" videos have been rather hard to watch, because they are honestly poorly edited, and bareley watchable...)
Really should change it to "Speech can be violence." I think it's interesting how it seems to be interpreted that way by everyone even though that's not the statenent.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The people who said they got nothing from it don't even understand what they were being taught. They think they were there to learn about the issues discussed. That was NOT the point of it. Peter was showing them a useful tool...... they thought he was showing them what he built with that tool. Idiots at Dartmouth. Who woulda thunk'd it
that is the average state of the american college system though. students don't learn to view the bigger picture.
If speech is violence simply because it can incite violence, then it's fair to say that speech is also rape, genocide, and murder. Hyperinflation of terms is destroying critical thinking.
Speech has certainly be weaponized into mishmash. Example; Kamala Harris.
"Peter is a conservative" 🤣
Did you think anyone would call you that 17 years ago Peter?
I admired the curly masked girl when speaking about the event at the end but she lost me at "Peter is a conservative" while claiming she's seen his position prior. Just because he has a shared position at something with a group we call conservatives, doesn't mean he is one. He also shares position with the democrats so what now? Geez these kids nowadays think politics is always black and white
Just kids? Have you looked at our society lately? It feels like nearly everyone sees the world that way
It's the ONLY thing they seem to believe exist in a binary form.
That's pretty much the average voter. It's always "this opinion means this team and that opinion means that team" without realizing that you can agree with someone on something but it doesn't align you with that person.
It should be black and white but it’s not. If you have a consistent set of values, it only makes sense that there are specific logical sides to take on each issue. Can’t just pick different sides on different issues Willy nilly unless you have no actual reason for doing so other than “because I feel like it.”
I'm radically left, anti-capitalist and Marxist leaning and get called right-wing all the time, too. They seem to not realize a good segment of the left has always critiqued critical theory and post modernism, before these people even knew it existed. They're actually the ones that are out of touch.
I like the idea of these “highlights” videos, but I have to say I think they’ve been over-edited almost to the point of unwatchability. It feels like watching a list of random people taking turns saying what they think and then never diving much deeper. There’s no natural rhythm of conversation, back-and-forth, or following the flow of an idea, which makes it disjointed and jarring to listen to. It’s hard to absorb anything or follow their lines of thinking.
I would love to see some “Highlights” videos with less intense editing. Instead of line-by-line highlights, selecting representative chunks of conversations that explored an idea well - trimming out redundant points but otherwise letting it play out more organically / uncut.
P.S. just want to say I love this channel and love what you’re doing
Irish lass, your reaction is perfectly understandable if we assume the purpose of these exercises it to produce smooth, coherent youtube videos on particular substantive topics by student experts. But we have an abundance of those by Peter and dozens of other well-read and fair-minded experts (and, also, of course, by poorly read, biased, non-experts as well).
Nor is the purpose to reflect what these students KNOW about the topics selected. It is perfectly normal that these students know little of the best literature on the topics and strongly under the influence of what they have learned, since junior high school, from their teachers. Most students recognize this and are too shy to volunteer their participation. But the topics Peter forces them to consider are often existentially important ones or underly such. Peter does not provide any answers and astutely ends these sessions abruptly without any pretense of an objective "summing up."
What he does amazingly well at each campus is to find a small number of students who are willing to give their opinions on the selected topics and questions, and even on the wording of the questions, with brief interactions among the students themselves, and occasionally with audience members. The students, being at the same school, often know each other a bit, and the local audience is small, so it is as a comfortable an environment in which to discuss controversial topics openly if briefly -- even though they all know they will soon be stars on "You're on Candid Camera! " (Did I just date myself?).
So the value of this exercise must be judged by a few unknowables. For example, 1) to what degree did/will it inspire the participants to think and read more on the issues raised?, 2) toward degree did it do that for the whole Dartmouthcommunity (students, faculty, staff, alumni)? student body?, AND 3) to what degree did it do that for the 110,000 subscribers to Boghassian's channel and for thousands more who are not subscribers?
Boghassian is what is known in the trade as an "insidious character," the sort you always want on your side.
@@ChupacabraGrande you make valid points, but I think you failed to address the main point Irish Lass was making, about the "unwatchability" of the last few 'highlight' videos posted. I think it's very crucial to keep the audience in mind, especially considering one of the main goals of this is to spread and encourage rational thinking, productive conversations etc... thus it's important to maximize the view count. Watchability is one of the basic fundamentals to spreading knowledge with video.
I thought the same thing, but he has posted much more complete videos from this event here ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=Peter+Boghossian+dartmouth
Including speech inside the term violence is classic package-dealing. Wrapping together two separate ideas for the deliberate purpose of manipulation and influence on people that don't immediately realize the trick.
"“Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value." (from Philosophy: Who Needs It)
Yep...first, they attempt to deconstruct what comprises violence and then they attempt to build back up their own definition. Kind of like what they're doing with sex and gender. It's all highly manipulative semantic games based on creating false equivalencies.
Arggg, no more highlights! I want to hear the full interactions. Highlights are unwatchable imho.
Dude, if you want to watch the full videos then watch the full videos and quit bitching.
ua-cam.com/video/emF4fH64zQM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/a8yIFGNoFIU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/BoYDrgPc7QI/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/KcCtmMwHssE/v-deo.html
I love it that some participants thought Peter was "biased", "Conservative" or "right leaning". Perhaps the definitions of these terms are morphing as we speak?
yes because they are being forcefully changed to fit something else entirely, so that's why Peter's normal grounded approach comes off as "right-leaning" to some of them.
Peter is a baby grifter, an earlier stage of what Dave Rubin is today. He is a right wing tool.
Yeah, amazing
I really hope they pro-vax people have reconsidered their positions with current data. I hope they don't make that mistake again.
Sorry, i didn't understand your statement. The vaccines dramatically helped against COVID.
@@Briaaanz It helped only the most vulnerable people and did nothing to stop the spread. The foundation of their argument. It is in fact no longer allowed on this platform to claim the vax stops the spread.
Did they really now? Is that why perfectly healthy adults (including top athletes) keep dying from randomly occurring heart and clotting issues?
@@Briaaanz Even if that was true, (it's not), the vax has its own set of risks that is completely unecessary for most people. There are other completely safe and effective preventions and treatments now that don't risk myocarditis.
@@catalyst3713 the odds of myocarditis are less than one in 2 MILLION.
Any comments on Matt Walsh comment on your hypocrisy. Just to know, I Strongly Agree.
Will y’all still be releasing longer form videos of the convos from the game?
I def am interested in this reverse Q&A format & enjoy it but I find myself wanting to hear more. I know most of these are pulled from videos that have already been released.
Love what y’all do thank you so much!!
Thanks. Yes, some longer videos will be released in the future.
Seems the street interviews bring in more rage from onlookers than organized invite events.
Good, rage= showing its working.
Is the bearded kid with glasses on the far left of the "Removing race" question traveling with the team? I could swear I've seen him in two or three other videos. Or is there someone exactly like this at every university?
No he's at Dartmouth, this is just the third video featuring Peter's visit to Dartmouth.
I asked the same thing.
He seems to me to be somewhere on the spectrum. Either that or just poorly socialized. He also seems very rigid in his thought process and receiving anything other than praise seems to trigger him. He’s the type that could easily switch from far left to far right without much effort.
@@smileytownSF . . . he would never be far right. He's a loser lefty.
Could anything be more predictable than an undergrad stating they ‘didn’t learn anything?’ 😂
Ah, all those ubiquitous mush minds.
19:30. . . OKAY
That part says so much about this kid.
HAHA that guy is on a lot of different videos. He's so biased he's almost a cartoon character.
pretty sure he melted down on a crowder video
The demeanor of the "equity" kid was not surprising. It's a bit frightening, however, that soon he will be out working in the real world where people's lives will be impacted by his decisions.
"How else do you measure the opportunity being equal [without equal outcomes]?"
Uhhh... the suggestion was... EVERYONE gets free high-rate public education. Without qualification. Everyone. That's pretty equal in terms of opportunity. "Everyone" is pretty measurable.
It's unfair that Albert Einstein was a brilliant physicist snd I am not. Since nobody can raise me up to the level of Einstein, he should have been given a lobotomy and then kept on drugs for the rest of his life. Equal outcomes!
I rarely hear anyone question if equality of opportunity is desirable, given the obvious differences between individual people. In a way it is just a more palatable version of equality of outcome. Force is still required to make all opportunities equal. Giving people the right to a "free anything" requires that someone is forced to supply it.
The goal in a free society should be maximizing opportunity. Getting the State out of education altogether would be a great first step.
Given that this is one of the premier higher educational instutions in the country and supposedly only has the best and brightest with an acceptance rate of about 10%, the size of the audience was pathetically small. Kudos to those that showed up, but you could have gotten a similar sized crowd at the community college.
My friend had a partner who criticises her a lot and never had a positive word for her, which caused her depression and a low self esteem over the years. Although I am for free speach, speach can be violent, even physically when you consider mental health as part of your body or person.
How do you get equality of outcome if everyone is different? What outcome are you measuring? There are literally hundreds to choose from
The fact that anyone could stand on any other line than the one you are standing on should preclude them from standing on the strongly line, someone thinks they know something you don’t and that should convey at least some doubt.
Imagine being 21 and coming out of an informative session with a subject matter expert and saying, "no I didn't learn anything."
It seems to me that they feel like they didn’t learn anything because he didn’t offer much. The questions were reductive, and when they tried to expand, he would argue from one point.
i think a lawyer's perspective would be insightful
Yes, and this relates to what Peter and others acknowledge as the "definitional" issue. In law, all terms require at least moderately precise definitions definitions in order to be useful to the law, i.e. to prosecutors, judges and juries. For example, if the law is going to distinguish between physically violent assaults and language that some people might find offensive, rude or in bad taste, or simply inaccurate, the law needs to keep crystal clear the nature of the distinction between physical violence and both the nature and consequences of language.
Most people who try to claim mere words or language can be violent seem disingenuous to put it mildly. They would appear to have as their primary objective not clarity of communication but rather the suppression of ideas and opinion by calling for legal, administrative, or mob sanctions against those expressing particular opinions.
The main issue is that in general discourse, words like "violent" and "violence" are most often used in a metaphorical sense, and only rarely in reference to physical violence against individuals. We talk about violent hurricanes, violent reactions to medications, violent attacks by animals, violence to the Constitution, violent automobile accidents, etc.
It is pointless to propose limitations to all this variety of metaphorical uses. It is always useful to question the ethics of those who use "speech is violence" only as a rhetorical cudgel for beating up on and suppressing those with opposing views....
I really hate this dichotomy of "Equality of Opportunity good! Equality of Outcome bad!".
Its a false dichotomy that only serves to offer up equality of opportunity as something that is a legitimate possibility in this world. It is not, equality is a myth, it will never exist, people will never be equal. We need to accept and celebrate the things that make us different instead of holding on to this eutopian notion of equality.
For one thing, to have equal opportunity for the sons, it nessessitates an equal outcome of the fathers. I work my ass off so that my children can have the best possible opportunities in life that I can provide. Are you really going to suggest that my son should be forced to have the same opportunities as some child whose parents were neglectful drug addicted losers? If you enforce that my kids have the same opportunities as those unfortunate kids, then you're enforcing that the Outcome of my parenting is equal to the Outcome of the drug addicts. Congrats, you've achieved equality of outcome and just deceptively labeled it as equality of opportunity.
And the enforcement is where the real problem lies. Sure you may say you don't want to force people's opportunities to be equal, but it will never ever happen without enforcement. If you allow people to be Free, then some will always strive harder to be better than others, and some will sit at the bottom of society with no ambition and they will stay there untill they die.
People should be Free to strive for the top, and you enforcers of equality do nothing but stand in their way, and enslave them to your false ideal. I'm so sick of this talking point giving continued validity to the ideal of Equality. Equality is Evil. It is anti-freedom.
I believe Nietzsche said it best, "No one is more inferior than those who demand for equality". You vile tarantulas need to be squashed.
“Even the same man is not equal to himself on the same day.” -Thomas Sowell
In my mind fair treatment is as close of an ideal as we could ever reach. Total equality, or total freedom from discrimination will never be a worthwhile endeavor of society.
Love Peter
Where can I watch the full video? Why are you only uploading the highlights?
First day on youtube?
ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=peter+boghossian+dartmouth
Speech can be violent if you use your words to attack someone. There is both physical and psychological pain, so we can and should differenciate between the ways in wich we can inflict one or the other.
Inflicting physical pain is easy to do since you can just hit someone and it has a direct effect on their body.
But speaking can also have a direct effect on your mind. If I start saying hateful/insulting/offensive things, regarding you/your family/your friends/ what you represent/ etc, my words at some point will have an effect on your psychological state, and this doesn't just reflect on your mind by being sad/angry/furious/depressed/etc... Because when you are angry, many things happen to your body: blood pressure changes, you get tunnel vision, you can't think calmly etc, (maybe my example isn't the best).
So if words can affect your psychological state, it's not that hard to see them hurting your well being. So I think that speech can definetely hurt someone with the right words
Only my own words can truly hurt me. As far as this crowd goes, too much self absorption and too little self actualization.
@@nattybumpo4352 Good for you, but you are the exception, not the norm.
99% of people all over the world, would be offendend/hurt/irritated by something that someone else says. Even more so if someone starts calling other people with whatever slur they want. I can go down an endless amount of instances in wich speech could be considered hateful
#2 "My body, my choice" should be consistent with vaccines and abortion.
A more clear statement would be: [The argument/slogan] "My body my choice" should be [logically] consistent with vaccine [mandates] and abortion [laws].
The slogan 'my body my choice' is merely that, a slogan. Sure, some passionate/ignorant people use this argument. But, good thing we don't decide on policy based on slogans and the arguments of laypeople. If that was the argument made by lawmakers, it should be consistent, but since it is not, it doesn't have to be consistent.
Since I am saying that is not the argument for abortion, here is my personal reason: Abortion should be legal because it will reduce net suffering. We can disagree on the metaphysics/ethics and lead to different conclusions, but anyone presuming to have answers to these questions is wrong; we just don't have a clear enough understanding of consciousness and what it means to be alive to make any claims.
Wow, did he really say there's no equality of opportunity without equality of outcome? Yikes, my man.
That would mean you think everybody is exactly the same with exactly the same attitude, gifts and weaknesses. That's the only way equality of opportunity will guarantee equality of outcome.
Just spitballing here but did any of these people beside ‘Red’ and maybe Beehive Hair learn anything. Like how to cogently analyze an argument. Imo.
I’m going step out on a limb and assume those two boomers around the 12 minute mark who refused to move from their position are both professors.
Here from Destiny’s channel. Great convo the two of you had. He’s doing campus events as well. The two of you should team up sometime, it would be a breath of fresh air from the heavily partisan content we see so often on youtube.
Did that glasses wearing kid look fimiliar? I thought I saw him debate destiny at one of his open college talks.
Thanks.
The V one is tricky because with C19 it does not offer immunity. The case for V is that by protecting the herd, your actions save the lives of others and reduce the stress on our health care workers. But if immunity is not conferred, the argument becomes weaker. Wearing masks is the same, it will protect others if you are sick and not so much help you to prevent your own sickness. So my body my choice is a little misleading. My choice our collective body might be better. Abortion, especially when it comes down to the health of the mother, is my body my choice. Wrapping abortion up with the vaccine is a loaded question and has been used to set up a Left is hypocritical argument. We should consider both issues separately.
What's with these videos of all the edit off cuts? This is an extensive medley over all the content that isn't interesting. Maybe I'm missing the actual talks and opinions somewhere behind a paywall?
I don't even know were to begin with the speech is violent crew. yikes....the fragility.
Thinks systematic racism is huge problem but still wants to use racism to discriminate lol
Oops, just found the less edited videos from this event: ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=Peter+Boghossian+dartmouth
Statements i would like to see:
"controversial books should be banned from public schools"
"Burning the national flag is freedom of speech"
"Prayer in schools is a free speech issue"
"Prostitution is sex trafficking and must be stopped " or "Prostitution should be legal"
To avoid the ambiguity of the term "controversial", a substitution for the first statement could be: "Some books should be banned from public schools."
Assuming the great majority of the electoroate would answer "yes," that pushes the discussion to the more interesting questions of "which ones?" and "who decides?"
I'll take you up on one of those....prostitution is sex trafficking (the data shows the expansion effect is what happens in even legal markets, and the demand is much higher than the supply of women willing to do it, therefore trafficking is necessary) , although most people he would ask would have zero clue about that being the truth.
Oh shit its the kid from the James O'Keefe video
ua-cam.com/video/PItGNFMNzW4/v-deo.html
That vaccine/abortion one was interesting. If it were only on abortion, I'd stand on the Agree line (not Strongly Agree since we know there's some looneys who want it to be legal up until birth even when there's no risk to the mother or the fetus/baby and that's just wrong in my personal opinion) while when it comes to these vaccines, I was always a "follow the science" guy but lately... I don't know about this one, it doesn't seem to protect all that much and they're pushing it on kids now. One of the boys was annoying, a bit arrogant and a bit entitled. Other than him, another great video Dr. Boghossian.
Also, the girl with the mask didn't get you at all.
Yes, you can still get sick from COVID after being vaccinated. BUT, the odds of serious illness have been greatly reduced.
Prior to the vaccines, people were getting it and their bodies had never experienced a virus of that kind before. A lot were getting REALLY sick.
The initial vaccines produced long term antibodies where now your body can mount a better defense.
Do we need all the boosters? I'm willing to be swayed on that topic; but the initial vaccinations were, literally, life savers.
@@Briaaanz They were, yes, but for old people and people with pre-existing conditions. There's a few coronaviruses which can affect us, one of them is the Covid one. The others help cause the Common Cold, the Flu, MERS and SARS, so we have been exposed to coronaviruses in the past. I agree that never to this extent though. None of the vaccines provided long term antibodies though, you're mistaken here, at least when compared to the Tuberculosis or Polio vaccines for example. There's mixed studies on this since some said 6 monts others 8-10, but never longer than a year. My problem with these vaccines were the mandates, not the vaccines themselves. Of course they save lives, that's not up for debate BUT, the death toll didn't take into consideration health prior to the infection, I mean, it did but people weren't paying attention to that part. I'm a 28 year old male in good health with 4 living grandparents. 2 of them have diabetes and 1 has diabetes and a heart condition so I was really careful not to infect them. They all got it and I was pleasantly surprised to see that they had no complications (none of them are vaccinated btw). 94% of Covid death were attributed to comorbidity, and when 80 year olds with pre-existing conditions go through it like a breeze, it changes your views on it. I get that it's subjective and that's no way to analyze but I'm not saying anything concrete, I'm still studying it, but in my opinion, the vaccines were unnecessary for young people and young adults.
I can also go into conspiracies but not yet, I'm still waiting for Fauci to admit this came out of his lab😀
Sorry for the long comment.
Fantastic as always! Love this format.
The point of speech is to influence people, how sad, how pathetic.
I think you accidentally included someone's phone number on the board, but it's whatever.
that 1st kid that for race in college application is famous for losing it during a change my mind interview...no?🤔
:50.. . maybe those Asian countries can open up their borders to all people from around the world.
peter is a liberal.
It’s interesting how their argumentation switches depending on the topic. If something that could lead to something is that thing when referring to speech being violence, then an embryo IS a person.
"‘My body, my choice’ should be consistent for vaccines and abortions."
This is a difficult question to understand and I am surprised that noone was on the 'Disagree' side due to not accepting the premise of the question: that both positions are questions of 'individual choice' and not of 'societal choice.'
I think the following questions would clarify what I mean:
- "Does society have the right to force you to undergo a medical procedure?"
If so, society could force you to abort a baby but also force you to take a vaccine.
- "Does society have the right to prevent you from undergoing a medical procedure?"
If so, society could prevent you from having an abortion but also prevent you taking a vaccine.
The political divide (on average) appears to be:
The Left wants forced injections (through laws, societal restrictions or other) and none of the other things.
The Right wants restricted abortions (through laws, societal restrictions or other) and none of the other things.
So it appears that the societal values in conflict are:
- 'The value of a Statistical increase in the threat of illness for people unable to be vaccinated' V.S. 'The value of an embryo'
Personally, I would value an embryo more as I would risk my life for an embryo but I'm not sure it can ever be settled.
I am pretty libertarian so I agree with your drugs analogy, bit not so much the first part.
- "[society has] no right to do anything that impinges on a human being, when the choice has no significant impact on society."
Does forcing someone to have an abortion have a significant impact on society?
I would say: 'probably not, but it is a violation of a person' (no mention of the value of a fetus necessary)
you wouldnt risk your life for an embryo. embryos are killed every time a woman does IVF treatments to get pregnant.
11:28 but they'll never tell you at which point this is the case when they make that argument
Apparently they missed the States create the law
👍
If I swing my fist in an empty room....
😆
Always love watching Peter
Thanks
Thank you Peter for the positive direction you have always chosen to take your work, BUT ...I Would LOVE to see the entire conversations Peter. (These last few "highlight" videos have been rather hard to watch, because they are honestly poorly edited, and bareley watchable...)
Really should change it to "Speech can be violence." I think it's interesting how it seems to be interpreted that way by everyone even though that's not the statenent.
Thanksgiving dinner could insight a nap, that doesn't mean Thanksgiving dinner is nap.