DEI: The Three Blind "Virtues," with Helen Pluckrose
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- Continental Philosopher, Peter Boghossian tries to grapple with the concepts of evidence, reason, and liberalism patiently explained by the great thinker, Helen Pluckrose, from the Home of Enlightenment thought. This initial attempt, though brave, was ultimately futile and she will return to try again with crayons and hand puppets.
Helen explains DEI's underpinnings, specifically Postmodern thought and Critical Theory, and the blind pursuit of "equity" that drives this ideology. The two also address the need for institutions to transparently admit their mistakes and the crisis of legitimacy. Other topics include liberalism, the need for individualism, how people find meaning, and more!
Helen Pluckrose is a British author and cultural writer known for critiques of Critical Social Justice and promotion of liberal ethics, notably in the Grievance Studies Affair (along with Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay).
Helen's Substack: helenpluckrose.substack.com/
Helen on X: / hpluckrose
The Counterweight Handbook: a.co/d/haPZMEB
Chapters
0:00 Intro
3:03 Cynical Theories
4:50 Varying definitions of "liberal"/liberalism
18:07 Equity
27:59 Cultural competence
39:37 Views on meritocracy vary
46:58 Lack of regulation can be a problem
49:42 DEI efforts
01:08:34 Will institutions admit DEI mistakes?
01:21:08 People finding individual meaning
⸺SUPPORT MY WORK⸺
Newsletter | boghossian.substack.com/
Donate | www.nationalprogressalliance....
⸺LINKS⸺
Podcast: "Conversations with Peter Boghossian": pod.link/1650150225
Website | peterboghossian.com/
National Progress Alliance | www.nationalprogressalliance....
Resignation Letter | peterboghossian.com/my-resign...
⸺BOOKS⸺
“How To Have Impossible Conversations” | www.amazon.com/dp/0738285323/...
“A Manual For Creating Atheists” | www.amazon.com/Manual-Creatin...
⸺SOCIAL MEDIA⸺
Twitter | / peterboghossian
Instagram | / peter.boghossian
TikTok | / peterboghossian
All Socials | linktr.ee/peterboghossian
__________
#diversityequityinclusion #criticaltheory #postmodernism #peterboghossian
Helen's new book comes out in June: a.co/d/8oqmFPc
Don’t ever give up. Keep this level of intelligence within you and try to befriend the deeper types
I absolutely love Helen Pluckrose. Her ability to dive into topics and truly assess fairness and what it looks like in a healthy society is unparalleled. Thank you for this Live.
💗
It's so good to see her fully active again. A sane voice in an insane World.
missed her so much! glad she's feeling better
Well said. She's incredibly incisive, consistent and charitable. I'd vote for her!
I agree!! ❤️💜💙💚
This is a level of conversation that I want in my life but is so sorely lacking.
I’m sorry. Turn in for more!
Very pleased to see so many people in the chat recognising and confronting Pete on his tea-heresy. I am proud to stand alongside you in the fight against such degeneracy as ice in tea and tea and tea in microwaves. We shall not be overcome!
When I started working for years I made tea in a 1liter thermos of cold water, as it would have just taken too much time to walk to the kitchen and boil a 3dl cup 3-4 times a workday and make proper tea.
Being the savage tea-barbarian I am, even I shudder at the thought of microwaving tea.
Iced tea has been around for over a century at least. Very popular (along with iced-coffee) in Japan, among other places.
Iced tea is the nectar of the gods.
I'm always impressed by Helen's ability to wade through the morass of post modern and modern leftist academic literature and follow the thread of current state of insanity in the humanities back to it's origins in post modern philosophy.
Helen I listened to your conversation with Benjamin Boyce yesterday. Your words are so reassuring; dissolving the fear of our times. You are a blessing.
Cool 😎 Two of the original team of “Three Renegade Intellectuals” back together again 👏
I can't get rid of the git. Every time I think I have, he turns up on my island upsetting the natives with his atrocious attempts at an English accent, talking to people on the tube and crimes against tea.
I remember seeing Helen laughing hysterically in the grievance studies!!
Agreed. I used to have so much time for James too but unfortunately the way he presented himself on social media was just so trolling that I couldn’t bring myself to keep following him. I might have to reinvestigate to see if he’s grown up a bit.
Love this conversation. I've been following you both (and Jim) since the grievance affairs 'hoax' became public. The insane trajectory of what has happened in those few short years is astonishing to me. Here on my island of Australia, I am flabbergasted to see that we are following the trends that began in the northern hemisphere.
Another Australian here, yes, following these conversations has helped a lot.
I appreciate your interviews so much. I really respect Helen. Very smart. I wish more people were interested in critical thinking and maybe even more importantly exploring real solutions to problems. It's really tiring when people are tribal and narrow minded.
Thank you
I love you guys so much. Sorry, I've had a few glasses of wine; I had tea earlier Pete, no ice, no almond milk. You philistine.
Thank you both for all your work
You tell him, Stephen!
Don't mention the Philistines! The news has been full of pro-Philistine protests for months :)
I too just love to see these two of the three musketeers together, please get hold of your third and be brilliant again, I know you all have deviated somewhat in your thought processes of causation of the issues you discuss and their remedies but to see such a discussion between you three will be totally intellectually orgasmic. X
Love ❤️ you all so much for your bravery in such times. X
Love Helen. ❤🎉 She's real.
Helen is a fantastic role model for anyone committed to ethical and moral authenticity and objectivity.
Unfortunately as our societies don't value that she's criminally underrepresented in public media and consciousness
I see a lot of James and Peter, it's nice to see a bit more of Helen again.
You 3 are basically war heroes in this culture war ("culture war" sounds way less dangerous than it actually is), the grievance studies affair for me is basically the beginning of the counter revolution.
And while so many people become what they claim to fight against, you still stand strong for your principles.
Thank you!
Peter's joyous mocking of our "Island" never gets old.
Well now I feel seen!
Great honest questions Peter about the turning tide of DEI at universities. I called a movement toward DEI out a few years ago to a president and board member of a college and presented my evidence. They turned back and rejected the fraud. Not sure if it was my nudge but they certainly changed their tune and did the right thing. I think it was an admittance of doing wrong. I was pleased.
People changing their minds? Admitting they might have been wrong?! Wonders will never cease.
Yes indeed. The board of trustees realized they hadn’t done their due diligence and once the “DEI audit” came their way they saw the truth of the scam. In all fairness, they didn’t admit going down the wrong path but their right actions spoke volumes and I was pleased my efforts were not in vain.
The equity cartoon, it always cracks me up how unequitable it is that the people aren't allowed to sit in the stands with the rest of the fans.
That’s hilarious - I never thought of that!
Indeed. Even more to the point, why isn't the crowd in the stands paying to watch them play? Or, why don't each of them own their own sports teams?
Or watching it recorded at a time convenient to me in the comfort of my own home and with better camera angles than I could ever view in person.
I want to see them achieving equity by playing with the sport's teams on the oval. At 160 cm in height, I've always wanted to play elite basketball. I'm female.
Love me some Helen!
Helen is the GOAT. Such an honest and careful intellect. Can’t wait for the new book.
As with James Lindsey, thank you Helen for all your hard work. We need the disentanglers like you to clear a way to sanity. Thanks.
Thank you
I love that Peter always gives Helen a hard time about “the island” 😂
Your thumbs down is from me. Do NOT encourage him.😠Tut.
@@Helenpluckrose Thumbs up. No giving the the islanders a hard time, they are great people.
They are a primitive but amiable people.
@@drpeterboghossian we are, however, modernising and enriching our culture by welcoming a whole heap of theocratic fascists
@@HelenpluckroseHi Helen! I greatly admire your clarity and conviction. Would love to hear more of you in conversation with savvy podcasters. Cheers to Peter, as well!
Peter, you were driving me crazy by pressing Helen for an answer that she'd already given you, to the question "why won't people admit they were wrong.". And she gave a great evolutionary biological science answer. And then she gave the answers that people are dishonest.
But I began to appreciate your pressing because what you want is the critical thing and it is what we all want: accountability. Without accountability, it is hard to fix things that are broken -- because no one will admit they broke it. And this is the grisliest part of collectivism: It hides and eviscerates accountability. Whenever we are all responsible for something, then no one is responsible for something.
Responsibility is the flip side of freedom. And collectivism trashes both.
in this case, I think people avoid admitting they are wrong because the see their ideological opponents as evil. I think Haidt said the right thinks the left is wrong, the left thinks the right is evil. It's akin to admitting defeat, and they are on something resembling a crusade...
Helen is a great guest. Her ability to give her perspective in a very straight forward, accesible way and keeping a lot of humor while doing so is a gift that I would love to have more.
❤Helen ❤
I think Peter thinks we in the UK are like Hobbits, small, slightly odd looking but largely inoffensive... 😹.
Pretty much, yes. (He talks to people on the tube)
True. I want to pet people on the island.
I agree. As a Brit, I love this!
@@Helenpluckrose Sounds like he'd be more at home oop norf, lass...
3 P Bog interviews in 3 days? It's an embarrassment of riches!
legends! thanks for the papers hoax thing! shed a lot of light on things back then!
I just love to see you two of the three musketeers together, please get hold of your third and be brilliant again, I know you all have deviated somewhat in your thought processes of causation of the issues you discuss and their remedies but to see such a discussion between you three will be totally intellectually orgasmic. X
Love ❤️ you all so much for your bravery in such times. X
I'm so sad that I missed the live!
A good conversation. The day Helen Pluckrose will admit to being wrong about economics, though, will probably never come.
I don't understand her there at all. I also don't understand why she implies that wanting a small government and free market is "right wing". What is "right wing" about that?!?! It is an anti-authoritarian position.
The trouble with "equity" is that it requires that the inequitable resources be taken, by force (actual or implied) if necessary, from the people who have them. This is done without regard as to whether the people who have these resources have them due to their own talent, dedication and hard work. It is based on the wrong assumption of tabular rasa, that every person is de facto an equivalent interchangeable unit. They are not. Some people are smarter, some people are more conscientious, some people have physical prowess that allows them to excel at some sport. The most productive people in any field are massively more productive than the average, and most people in any field are not really productive at all (it's a Pareto distribution).
Equity is blind to the fact that productivity is a Pareto distribution. You will never get equal outcomes no matter how much you hobble the truly talented, with one exception, that is when everyone is utterly destroyed and destitute. This is the inevitable outcome of all efforts to establish equal outcomes. You cannot lift everyone up to a higher level, you can only ever push productivity down until nothing is produced. This usually results in lots of people starving to death.
So, the "nice feeling" that you might imagine if everyone gets "equity" must be juxtaposed against the brutal reality of what happens whenever you try to implement it. When you punish the most productive, it does not take a large amount of punishment to effectively dissuade ALL of the most productive people in that particular endeavor from trying, they will either stop trying or go and do something else. This leaves whatever field it is significantly damaged, as the productivity of the most productive is vastly greater than the average.
If you want the best for the world, allow people to be judged on the merits in whatever field they choose. That will result in the highest productivity, resulting in excess productivity with which you can take care of the few people who are unable to find a productive niche in society. If you want people who do not excel at their chosen field to be able to have a comfortable life, then you will want a meritocratic society in which there will be sufficient excess productivity that means that food and goods will be as cheap and abundant as possible. We have seen many times in the last century alone, that societies that try to implement equity result in suffering and death.
Correct.
Fk equity. Fk redistribution of wealth.
Well said, but I prefer the Taoist answer because of its simplicity. It's the law of mutual arrisal, or that in order to have any measurements or meaning to life at all that you must accept the inverse. Beauty can't even be a concept without things with which are not beautiful. Praise can't mean anything without blame on the other side of it.
These people have lost the plot because they are essentially trying to arrange everything in a room to be 'up'. Not only is it impossible, but if it were to be tried it would cause insanity.
There's a lot to criticize here, but I'll limit it to this: While the drawing itself is problematic in its simplicity, I believe you're misinterpreting its message which is that help needs to be tailored to the individual. That's all.
@@N7sensei Fuck "fk." Are you afraid mommy's gonna read it? And BTW, wealth *is* being redistributed--*upwards*--so fuck your whole premise.
@@fretbuzz59 help with what? And what are we considering help?
As am example, many people think more money will solve their problems, but this is flawed. The problem that needs solving is almost always not money, but the person themselves.
As far as I can tell, the biggest issue with equity is that it tries to get equality of outcome, and the outcome is based on and drafted around the perception of the person looking at it. This leads to people essentially trying to rescue fish from drowning in exchange for perceived moral virtue. Much like Communism, any close look at equity shows it to be both impractical and detrimental to society.
You're both amazing, and I don't understand how you're not eaten up by rage. Thank you so much 🤗🤗🤗
Thank you!
Autistic traits to the rescue! 😂😂😂
I knew a black guy, Calvin, in florida who I worked with. He asked me, "are you Italian?" I said yes, with a name like mine lol. He say, "They treated you just like us when you came here."
Why don't more people point out that the three people in rhe equity cartoon are all trying to see an event they haven't paid to get into. They all deserve to be excluded from preying on the efforts of others.
Yep. I've always find it a bit of an odd example. And why are these scamming miscreants depicted as Hispanics?
Peter’s off script description of making tea while Helen was off screen. Comedy gold lol
What?! He did what? GIVE ME A TIMESTAMP!
@@Helenpluckrose 55:00 hahaha
I am the victim here.
@@Aesvalr I swear to God...
@@drpeterboghossian You will be.
The Australian population consists of more than 50% of people who belong to the first generation after their parents immigrated. When exposed to a school system that values meritocracy , some people achieve and some stay poor. It depends on the parents ' attitudes and willingness to provide a home environment that encourages literacy and achievement. Achievement depends upon the suburb or city where the migrants settled. In the poorest suburbs some people survive by cheating the system, being hostile to educational achievement, and limiting the job expectations of their children to jobs that involve manual labour, or prolonged periods of unemployment. Women are expected to fail in education and drift from one abusive relationship to another. They survive on social welfare. Children fail when parents provide no books, toys or intellectual discussion in the house, and when all generations are expected to use drugs and engage in early sexual behaviour. Social workers talk about "generational change", meaning that after 200 years some people still behave like their convict ancestors.
As an Aussie, I think I see what you're saying. Your comment touches on a number of points. Recent immigrants (first generation) post WW2, children are in their 70s now (many Greeks and central Europe) some, of course, are under 10 - the Somalis in our area as an example. Convict descendants are a minimum of 3rd (very few and very old, 90s) or 4th generation. As a retired teacher, who taught all those varieties of immigrants , it's poverty, resources, and parent attitude. If the parents value and support their children rising out of poverty through meritocracy and education, the children can do it. But, the parents lose their children as they rise through the class system, gain wealth and move away for work. Most parents don't do that. Mine did, so each of us 3 kids now in our 70s moved away, became well off and visited a few days a year. Family fracture. 3rd generation Irish Famine immigrant.
"The response is the intended action"
24:18 oh thank you Helen. This exactly. 🌻💜🌻
Why conflate truth (or rather, "one's truth") with perception? There is only "thee truth," but each individual has their own perception of the truth. I don't like this new vernacular. It's just like using "I feel" in place of "I think" or "I believe." This use of imprecise language or even misuse of language is what has led to the conflation of sex and gender.
Helen's confidence seems to be greatly improved. She did a great job on Ben boyce's channel too.
Peter's analysis of the type of person who insists on the DEI agenda is spot on.
Am I the only one who looks at that drawing of the difference between equality and equity as a drawing of 3 black people trying to watch a baseball game they didn't buy tickets to? *Disclaimer* although I do see what I put, I leave this comment as a joke, and the fact I feel I need to put this disclaimer is a sign of the problem with society today.
In Australia, in country towns, we often only have one or two grandstands. The rest is grassed fields around the oval. So I didn't see that. I do like your humour, and everyday jokes have disclaimers in everyday social conversations.😢
@@carolynbrightfield8911 Cultural barrier found. I live in America. In my hometown, we have a crappy independent league baseball field with only grandstand seats with some bleachers. The only area you would need a box to see over the fence is the outfield walls which is well outside of the seating area. Glad you found the humor, to bad many would not.
No, you're not the only one who sees that, and myself, I don't remark on it jokingly - it is a true picture of woke ideology - that people in victim groups are *entitled* to the free labor of others.
'Cynical Theories' by Helen Pluckrose is a superb book !
SHARED
Thank you for this. It helps balance my woke workplace frustrations.
Great conversation.
As an island dweller, I laughed my head off at the tea instructions. Every Brit watching will have had their toes curling in their shoes as Peter basically committed a hate crime there!! Absolute travesty!! Love this guy!! 😂
Surprised neither understood "ancap" (anarchocapitalist) or voluntarist. Worth looking up! 😃
I'd love to see them in conversation with Michael Malice about this
"Good Schools" fail without good students who see the value of an education, which includes the basic Classical Western Canon upon which a Liberal Society stands on. Also I think there must be a drastic reduction in "Administrators" both at the local school level and the State.... Let teachers teach! This is not a liberal or conservative issue.
I read a story a long time ago, iirc it was Phase Two by Walt and Leigh Richmond where schools use hypnotic techniques to implant knowledge into students. At the same time they implant hypnotic control into them so that after several years they are highly educated by subject to absolute psychological control via hypnotic induced key phrases. The main character of the story comes from an Asteroid colony and is accepted into a top engineering school and approaches his education differently. He doesn't rely on the hypnotic implantation of knowledge, he also studies it himself independently. That self study allows him to resist and overcome the hypnotic programming he has been given.
I think the reason some people resist the woke programming is because they have actually gained their knowledge of the world on their own independent study and did not rely on the programming of their education. To use Petersons phrasing, resisting the woke programming requires a person to earn their beliefs. They can't gain them by faith or acceptance of what they are told by authority figures. They have to challenge everything they are told until they accept for themselves which facts are true and which are not and that process makes them immune to platitudes like "Diversity is our strength".
This was excellent thank you to you both.
Can we please get a Helen Pluckrose Carl Benjamin discussion on liberalism vs post liberalism from the British perspective. If this already exists please provide a link.
God, I love Helen Pluckrose. Imagine having a brain like hers lecturing in higher education rather than being frozen out?
One way the Truth was explained to me was the same way court proceedings say "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"... ultimately meaning there is a WHOLE truth out there we may not be aware of which is much greater than personal truth, and which is only phenomenological.
The second half of that was cathartic. I feel ya Peter.
It's funny how Peter never fails to point out that Britain is an island.
Love Helen
Helen has such a good sense of humor. Maybe she just sees a little further than I do.
Those 3 people should have just bought tickets to the baseball game to begin with, instead of watching outside the fence, problem solved.
"Reid's life is worth approximately five ant hills and not even two giraffes. It's worth only one giraffe." Okay, Peter.
Helen makes the same mistake in thinking certain groups are disadvantaged when it comes to education, crap schools, thry might not be able to afford laptops to study etc, this is typical middle class thinking, the reality is the vast majority of people in poor communities of all demographics fail at education because they do not value education, that is a middle class trait.
a middle class single parent will dress their child in second hand clothes and use the money to pay for piano lessons for their child meanwhile lower working class single parent will send their child to school in £100 trainers and don't care what they are studying or even if they leave school with any qualifications.
they are just doing what they see, why would you give any thought to education when you have grown up without seeing an adult in your family, or around you get up and go to work,
this can be transferred to so many situations. these people think poor people don't eat healthy vegetables and are obese because they can't afford them. no this is middle class thinking, it is because they do not value their health, that is a middle class persuit. they are obese because they do not cook and use junk food as their entertainment and also live a completely sedentary life on benefits with no purpose encouraged by virtue signalling middle class people who want to feel good about themselves, what is the answer to this? apparently it is free school meals all year round because apparently children concentrate and learn better when they are adequately fed. in fact all it does is remove the parents last job of cooking for their children and makes them lazy and entitled. all these people who come uo with these ideas should be made to live on a council estate for a year, I have neighbours who i have never seen dressed, they live in pyjamas and put a coat on if they need to go anywhere, usually the nearest overpriced convenience store because Lidl with all those cheap vegetables is 200 yards along the road
Yep. My family was on welfare. When mommy got her check she’d go out and get cigarettes and booze first. Long after that was paying bills or getting food or clothes. If she has enough left
💯 I knew so many poor kids who excelled in school where better off kids on the same block turned out to be complete fups. It all came down to the priorities of the family. Not pc to say, but this seemed to mainly go down cultural lines (I grew up in a maximally diverse neighborhood).
I wish Peter had spoken with Helen about her differing view points to Peter's on the transgender issue.
I'm not sure we have any. I go with letting people believe, speak and live as they see fit, provided they do no material harm to anybody else or deny their right to do the same. Therefore, I come down on the side of:
Wear what you like (within legal bounds of decency)
Call yourself what you like
Choose your own language
Respect single-sex spaces
Respect single-sex sports
Don't push "affirmative care" on children
Don't indoctrinate children in any gender ideology
Don't compel anybody else to affirm your beliefs
I've not seen everything Pete has said on the subject, but I'd be very surprised if he differed with me on any of those. We disagree on some things but never on being pro-freedom of speech and anti ideological capture of institutions, anti-queer theory, anti- pushing your ideology on anybody else, anti-denying of biological reality in ways that put women and children at risk..
@@Helenpluckrose Having seen both of you speak on the subject in seperate interviews to me there is a gap that would've been interesting to explore.
@@Helenpluckrose as a "transphobic bigot" as some call me. The side that you come down upon is something I 100% agree with. Sad that such ideas get put into a box of hatred and bigotry.
@@Helenpluckrose I'd be interested to know if you maintain the same position of clothing for those with paraphilias (AGP in particular) and if you hold to Peter's view that once you're 18 anything goes (let me know if you think I've mischaracterised him). I find both "problematic".
Big fan of your objective approach btw. You always come across as heavily committed to fairness and not misrepresenting other viewpoints even if you don't hold them, often adding context to give better insight why ppl might hold those views. It's clear that if you chose to you could have released a bunch of UA-cam videos where you "destroy" other viewpoints with little effort but the nuance is very much appreciated.
There is no justification for policing other people's consenting sex lives or private sexual predilections, fetishes or paraphilias which are not being imposed upon anybody else. Seeing a man who is known to be an autogynephile wearing a dress at a conference does not compel you to engage in autogynephilia anymore than seeing a same sex couple kiss goodbye compels you to engage in homosexuality or seeing a woman reading 50 shades of grey on the train compels you to engage in masochism. You are simply experiencing feelings of disgust which are your own responsibility to manage. We must police harmful behaviours, not beliefs, speech, non-harmful lifestyles or sexual predilections imposed upon nobody else, even if they make us feel upset, disturbed or disgusted.
People will often translate the above as my being a personal fan of various sexual predilections, but no. I can feel disgusted just as easily as anybody else by various non-harmful sexual preferences. As long as they not imposed upon me, I recognise it as my responsibility to manage my own feelings.
I have to thank you for Cynical Theories. Tough going and I hope to understand better the second time through. Massive thnaks
Psst!
We were never asked.
Is it possible to void Boghossians visa to prevent him coming back to the Island
Ice in tea?
Animal.
We did it with rabies this should not be difficult.
I am drafting a petition right now.
@@Helenpluckrose signed, I think that's what everyone says when they haven't.
So pleased to see you about again, I know it's been tough, but we need you.
You have such an important voice, thanks
The problem with the "equity cartoon" are the BOXES...what are they made of? AKA what methods do you use to "even the playfield" and give everyone a fair chance?
Often those boxes are made of "lower the standards" (to achive a certain position or status), or have a "blind eye" for some categories, or blatantly push up someone based on characteristics that have nothing to do, and are completely unrelated, with the outcome or position that they try to achieve...and that is NOT OK AT ALL!
I think you should do the freedom of speech book. It's a really good idea, and I would surely buy and read it.
Dr. Boghossian,
As someone who has admired and respected you and your work for many years, please permit me to assure you that the clear majority of libertarians are not anarchists and do, in fact, believe in having a government. It’s just that libertarians believe in self-government. If you ask reasonable and principled libertarians to delineate how encompassing government should be, they will, most likely, answer, “As small as government can be”.
41:54 this is where James points on lysenkoism are really relevant. The idea of interspecies competition is key to evolution.
How in the world do you know your Chinese doctor is gay? Does he smile when he asks you to cough?
Oh my!
@@1312Johnny a you cough a weal swo now
Diversity is our strength makes sense from a genetic point of view. The bigger the gene pool, the stronger the offspring. But it doesn't seem to be working in reality. Could a geneticist explain this? I'm just an environmental scientist.
Genetically it is only a strength only if it increases fitness and makes something better but we are seeing a destabilizing of society into rival groups, increased crime and distrust. Equating a nuanced biological truth to be applicable to society as a whole is kindergarten tier reasoning. Lysenkoism of our current era.
Disagree. The bigger the gene pool means mutant retarded people everywhere
United we stand, divided we fall. Divided is a strength. Falling is a strength. Standing is weakness. Wet is the new dry
The problem with meritocracy is that it assumed a clear delineation between qualified and unqualified. What happens when you have a pool of qualified candidates but only certain demographics continuously get chosen. The proponents of diversity just lost the plot I think.
56:32 ha!! I knew it! I'm trying to get my new table top role playing tool company formed. Husband and I are creating a super cool tool to replace forge/maptool/role20 etc with something that's usable and functional!
Stop trolling Pete, you know very well that's not how tea is made.
I think the liberalism of woke people is actually not liberalism, but liberationism, since they do not believe in classical liberal principles, but in liberation from some form of oppression.
As far as I understand it, the practical difference is how they relate to individual freedom and individual responsibility.
These concepts are interliked, bacause my freedom is your responsibility and respecting your freedom is my responsibility.
Woke people do not like individual responsibility, so they seek to replace it with collective responsibility. As a result, individual freedom is replaced by collective freedom as well, which is not freedom at all.
One of the reasons of the popularity of woke is their word magic.
People who are close to classical liberal values tend to identify the word liberal with freedom and support progressive activism even if their actions are clearly against freedom.
@ Peter: you know, one of the markers of those on the autistic spectrum is the intense struggle to relate to emotions, especially those of others. 😊
Those with well functioning 'camouflage' can learn to observe others so well that this doesn't become much of an interference in daily life.
Many learn how to emulate what seems to be expected very well.
The 'gooiness' refers to the emotional goo groups of people use to create groups - such as DEI believers - and, like other faithful people, there is a need to NOT feel too stupid, hence a need to make up supporting concept, which can be elevated to god-status.
if 48:31 is correct, then asking 1:04:38 is no longer relevant, because in 48:31 environment dark triad elements of human nature are already in full play.
I want to have recorded conversations with people around my education level (college dropout). Is there anyone interested?
They're not doorman, they're just massive George Washington fans.
Isn't that box cartoon the perfect illustration of Marxism, to each according to his need?
This belief is not limited to Marxism. Various ethical systems believe that people's needs should be met by those who can meet them, whether it is Christ's teaching that the rich should give to the poor or a simple intuition of a man assisting a woman who is having trouble lifting her suitcase into a rack or anybody assisting a blind person to cross the street. What we do with this sense of responsibility to each other varies hugely and can be ethical or unethical.
@Helenpluckrose Christ did not teach that the rich should give to the poor. He taught that to be a "perfect" disciple you had to live an ascetic life. What you did with your material wealth was unimportant, since Jesus taught that the poor would always be with us.
Helen's back! ♥
I do not know where Helen is coming up with her definitions of liberal, classical liberal and progressive. Liberals endorse statism. This political ideology, too often, results in despotism through state sanctioned central planning. It is the classical liberal who endorses individual liberty, the non-aggression axiom and vehemently opposes government authoritarianism. The term, “progressivism” (at least, as it applies to the United States) was initiated to be a euphemism for the more objectionable word, “socialism.” The two, economic and social restructuring schemes, are indistinguishable from one another.
She's using the definitions as used in the UK.
@@PGHEngineer Thanks. That would explain the incongruent terminology.
What do women care about above all else ? Do you think it's safety ?
Themselves. It makes sense, through an evolutionary lense.
@@N7sensei I agree but the problem is that safety is being defined through a subjective or sympathetic lens rather than a logical or factual one. Logic and facts are seen as patriarchal which is seen as antithetical to feminism
It's a weird question; What does ANYONE value above all else? Men, women, white black, whatever- I don't think you can really come up with a (meaningful) single answer.
For BOTH sexes, safety is the MOST important, coz if you're not safe, you die... But then again, health is also the MOST important thing, because without health, you die... But also food is the MOST important thing, because no food, and you die...
..Water, air, shelter, warmth- These things ALL need to be your top priority... IF you don't have them...
But if you DO have them, then who the hell thinks about air, or water, or even shelter, day to day? You're more likely to be concerned with money, or your job, or maybe relationships; The necessities only really matter, when you DON'T have them.
Priorities depend on what you do/don't already have, what you do/don't need, how secure it is, how secure you EXPECT it be, and what you EXPECT to need, in the future,. what you do/don't take for granted. Whether you're talking on a individual level, or family, or nation, long or short term.
Hard enough to narrow it down to a single thing, for an individual person, or family, or group. Let alone for an entire sex.
@@baconsarny-geddon8298 What do you value above all else I guess would be what I was asking . Do you think black women and white women value things differently ?
Yes, I do.
Helen's pained expression at "why don't we hire someone who's mathematically illiterate, and make them chair of the math dept?" Sometimes Peter is exasperatingly obtuse. Time to find another conversation with Helen.
Sorry for being mean but why just not eat less and move more? she is very smart so...
You're asking why I'm fat? I get fat when I have to take centrally-acting medication for nerve damage in my head and am also limited in my mobility because of that nerve damage and lose it again when I am not. 12kg down in the last two months. However, if I were fat because I had made a decision not to prioritise my health, this would also be a morally acceptable choice. You don't have to be stupid to make decisions about what you prioritise and decide against health. My father was absolutely brilliant but he still decided that he preferred a shorter life that had cigars and whisky in it than a longer one that didn't. He made it 74 before the lung cancer got him which was better than he expected.
@@Helenpluckrose Well who am I to talk smoking allmost a pack a day. Sry if i was insulting, I did not mean it, I think you are admirable.
6:12 Pete and Helen briefly discuss "reactive overcompensation" by those on the right who might be authoritarian or racist in response to critical social justice or anti-woke actions. This might be the first time I've heard the dangers of anti-woke efforts being explored. This is a fundamental issue that should have been their first question: How are our anti-woke efforts being managed to prevent them from getting out of hand by bad actors? But Pete has no reaction and redirects to another topic about classical liberalism. No, this needs more exploration. Surely, Helen, you didn't build a car with no brakes with these guys.
I believe Peter and Helen are pretty non-tribal. They set out their own views, and they critique opposing views in all directions of the political compass.
I think, as a result of having been the leading country (and society) for so long, we've grown lazy and often lean towards simplistic answers to very complex issues.
So rather than cast a wide net and seek diverse and inclusive ways to merit-based advance; we simply just flood the system with victims and call it DEI.
In the end its about the left being determined to win political power but running out of sensible ideas to sell to the public by which they can win their votes.
This is most obvious with LGBT since it is quite clear that after gay marriage they had nothing to sell the LGBT voter block - they could just use the "T" as a wedge issue, but it turned out the tip of the wedge was way over in the feminist left, so it backfired on them.
In America, this has been a problem for the left ever since a black man was elected to the highest office in the land and Obama care failed to introduce healthcare free at the point of use.
I don't understand why Helen insists that wanting a small government and a free market is "right wing". What is "right wing" about that?!?! It is an anti-authoritarian position.
Beter Poghossian
In post Apartheid South Africa it suddenly became very hard to find a white person who had supported the Apartheid government which is clearly not so. I think it is a mixture of of not wanting to being proven wrong, an urge to be on the winning side, and fear of the dominant group and possible retribution. We are fallible humans who choose for survival - ancient evolutionary impulse?
The people that thought apartheid was a great idea simply left South Africa and now live in Britain and Australia where they warn about the dangers of mass immigration.
Those that approved of apartheid simply left
Apartheid
South africa
I love Helen, but she really needs to be more retrospective about her disdain for Christianity.
I like some aspects of Christianity a lot. I particularly like the prayer of St Francis of Assisi, and I chose to study Christianity for my masters. I just don't believe it to be true and think that matters when deciding how to run societies. When Christian teaching inspires people to be illiberal, I dislike those aspects of it. When it inspires them to forgive, give to the sick and poor and judge not lest they be judged, I thoroughly approve.
She is wrong about that; she is a classical liberal.
Helen doesn't realise that modern liberalism is Prussian righwing conservattism.
22:10 The image here is misleading. Just imagine that it was instead a car, specifically an expensive Porsche: who gets to drive/enjoy such a car?
Now the taller person might be a symbol of privilege. His parents bought him the Porsche, because they worked hard all their life and are rich.
The middle guy didn't have rich parents, but he worked hard and now has the money to buy the same type of Porsche.
The smaller guy might have had a bad childhood, and later he decided to smoke pot all day, didn't work at all, and he's broke on any given day.
Why should the lazy dude get a Porsche, and what force and coercion would get him one?
Well, he could rob another one of his Porsche. Or he could get the state to do the robbing for him. He sure isn't going to buy one using his own money.
And right there we arrive at the hidden assumptions. In the original image it's assumed that equity simply happens, and the focus is on the RESULT.
However, it's probably better to look at the PROCESS, and whether it's fair or not.
None of the Porsche owners got their car in ill-gotten ways, they just had rich parents and/or worked hard.
No injustice happened, and simply putting a broken, lazy, dope smoking dude next to these people, doesn't mean they got their Porsches by taking them illegitimately from the dope fiend.
However, if the third guy were ever going to drive a Porsche, you can bet that the means of his acquisition were immoral.
1:00:25 hey Pete know how I know your ASD? Provably not poop the car autistic but close. 🌻🌻🌻
Why doesn’t YT pick up tea-making mis/disinformation??? 😂
20:23 this is a Bad example! These three people are watching a baseball game for free. The solution is not to redistribute the boxes (that are probably Also free) but to enable these people to earn some money to Go Buy a Ticket so they can all see the game properly sitting in a seat not standing on janky, stacked up boxes. I intensely dislike this meme so much!! It’s dumb!
1:08:03 Why would administrators not want to admit they’re wrong? Because administrators are not in the business of being wrong, of being open minded, of collaborating or trying new ways. Administration is about The Rules and they exist to enforce The Rules. They are not going to revisit them and see what works and what doesn’t because then their authority is in question.
If greater diversity = greater national strength
Them colonialism = a great good
Prove me wrong
You guys had me before you created your Liberalism definition and twisted it to be anti establishment which from my definition it just isn’t- this is a classic straw man argument. In fact the US is very much founded on liberal values in my opinion: equality, rule of law, democracy, free markets, social justice, civil rights and secularism. These are values found throughout the constitution.
So you’re starting the entire discussion based on a fallacy by insinuating that liberalism at its core is anti establishment.
You do it again with Woke. At its heart woke is about social justice and the recognition that in our society elements of the population are disadvantages just based on the existing institutions and how do fit into those institutions. Those institutions are in many respects self healing and repairing. The challenge of course is a lot of the institutional thinking has reason and makes sense for a society that functions. But there is also a lot (too much) that is there to concentrate power and wealth. So when you go back to US and liberal values you really do need to confront the equality, social justice, civil right areas.
If you want an intelligent discussion you need to peel back this whole area and start discussing the institutions and have a really honest discussion about how they benefit society.
Personally I believe the biggest challenge for the US in this area is the concept of corporate personhood and specifically the ability of corporations to lean on the bill of rights as part of the constitution. It’s quite unique.
Justice doesn’t need a qualifier… justice is for all in our western societies. You’re nit-picking and being obtuse. Relax. Then admit you’re arguing for effect and are quite wrong about this point
@@jonnutter I’m happy to go along for a ride on lots of ideas but when I hear fallacy after fallacy, I admit, all of the rest of the ideas just fall to bits in my head. As a “classic” liberal, when I hear someone describe me as antiestablishment I think wait a sec. I’m as happy to vote left or right depending on the agenda. And you then label all liberals as being woke…. WTF? 1st’ly how do you define woke… if you define woke as an awareness of social injustices and efforts to right them- then yes that’s me. But i think a lot of people conflate woke with enabling poor choices and lack of personal responsibility. They are different and I don’t think many people would support the latter.
When the English say they are sick, they are doing pretty bad. When a scott aays they are sick they are next to death.
Lol.
When either say they are sick, they mean they have been vomiting. We use 'ill' in the way you use 'sick.' So that would be another potential misunderstanding!
When a farmer says they're a bit sick, they should be taken to the emergency room immediately.
My own father, a farmer for 60 years, was "feeling a little crook", turned out he had a Saddle Pulmonary Embolism, ended up spending 3 weeks in hospital (1 in ICU). He had been complaining to the doctor of a sore leg for some months. The doctor (who was a recent immigrant to the country and unfamiliar with the mannerisms of Australian farmers) basically took no notice of this, which turned out to be the blood clot that would later dislodge and almost kill him.
Trueism tho innit?
@@Helenpluckrose I really appreciate the clue in on cultural differences here. Apologies for letting my American show. Lol!
She's brilliant. Then she'll opine about how much better Biden is than Trump.
🇮🇱🏳️🌈🇺🇲🇮🇱🏳️🌈🇺🇲