Society’s Issues & How To Fix Them w/Attorney Matt Bilinsky
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 чер 2024
- Matt Bilinsky and Peter Boghossian cover various topical stories such as plagiarism and academic corruption, the downfall of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion, self-defense, and more.
Matt Bilinsky is a Los Angeles-based media and technology attorney, as well as the host of The Prevailing Narrative podcast where he discusses the political, cultural, and social issues of the day. Matt is a frequent contributor to Fox News, Talk TV UK, and Axios.
More from Matt: linktr.ee/ThePrevailingNarrative
Chapters
0:00 Intro
1:15 Discomfort to defend your values
10:35 Academic corruption
15:20 Underpinnings of Critical Social Justice
21:55 Preferred pronouns
30:30 Dismantling DEI at universities
41:30 Self-Defense
51:50 Legal systems
⸺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
__________
#DEI #politics #currentaffairs #peterboghossian
Matt is good, clear, and correct.
Certainly is
Does anyone else play the Peter saying jujitsu drinking games? 😂
No unfortunately I don't drink, but I could see how it would lead to taking too many shots.
No. I do not do that.
I tried it once before and ended up in the ER.
Can your liver handle it?😂😂😂
Jiujitsu is addictive. When u get the bug it’s half what u talk about.
It’s the new CrossFit
Dang! That's some hardcore drinking game!! lol
Good shit. Keep it up. Invite Matt again, please.
Great conversation. Thank you!
Awesome guest!
51:00 - Yeah, Matt is so right. There is a much deeper problem to address. It’s not simply whether or not there are mechanisms of accountability and redress in place. You need the PUBLIC WILL to take issue with the problems and do the work to address them. Without that sense of obligation, it doesn’t matter at all what mechanisms are in place - nobody is going to do the work to see that the job gets done. It really comes down to THAT. The WILL to take action.
Your comment is way to intelligent and well said for most except for most of those watching
Thank you guys for the truth telling.
Great conversation
59:30 - It’s funny, I can totally relate with Peter and am totally aligned with the same principles. 100%.
#1 - honesty, truth, self-examination.
#2 - brutal frankness and ruthless interrogation of truth.
#3 - a need to refine my speech with precision to convey exactly what I mean with accuracy and to be sensitive to the perceptions of others so they will be inclined to receive truth.
It’s really amazing and incredible how much we align on these. 🙏
Ppq❤@@
Give me truth on social issues.
I'll wait.
@@justanothernick3984 Your question is general, and so my answer will be likewise.
They are tools to distract and manipulate the public.
Just love your conversations
Makes me a better listener
And really makes me think !
Are we awake now🕊
Just gonna leave this here for the algorithm gods…
just reacting to you for the gods
Great podcast First time
Welcome aboard!
24:51 - I 100% agree with Peter. Wow.
Pete values consistency and avoids hypocrisy if possible, very refreshing!!
I think industries are going along with pronouns because it's not just a grass Roots movement, it's also coming from the top down via a couple trans billionaires and multi-billion dollar ESG hedge funds.
You're right, and I'll swear a vow of poverty before I move into an alternate universe, I'll have no parts of it whatsoever
Rules for THEM and other rules for us.
Have you ever considered creating a long format podcast? I feel like your conversations have the potential to go further. Great video though.
Working on it!
That Economics has a replication crisis is astonishing? That made me laugh out loud. I'm surprised it is as *low* as 50% not replicating. It's amazing how differently the 2008 GFC has been treated in podcast world, compared to Covid.
53:50 - Hate Speech
I have ALWAYS vehemently HATED “hate speech” laws, because NOBODY should be telling ANYBODY what they must or must not hate. That’s none of anyone’s business, and it’s straight up tyranny.
On a more subtle level, motivation defines mens reas (the criminal or guilty mind), and intent is certainly relevant to adjudicating criminality, but this is a far cry from mandating thoughts and thinking. When people fail to carefully make that distinction, is when we fall into tyranny.
What Canada’s hate speech law, Bill C-63, will effectively do, is threaten any Canadian at any time with prosecution and imprisonment, for any published material that the government does not approve of, if that person does not remove that speech if they have the ability to.
So, the government can knock on your door, say, “We don’t like what you said. Remove this published content from here. You have 48 hours to do so. If you don’t, we will be back to arrest, charge, and prosecute you.” In fact, the language doesn’t even require them to give you a grace period window to remove it. They could simply arrest you immediately, and then your only legitimate defence according to the bill is to claim that you lacked the capability and opportunity to remove it.
This is absolutely dictatorial in the worst possible ways. The only thing they’re not doing is shooting you dead on the spot, but I’m sure they would be more than happy to offer you preferential treatment in the MAiD program.
J.K. Rowling is going viral for testing Scotland’s new hate speech law by “calling a man a man.” 10 of them, in fact.
So, JK Rowling, is fighting Scotland’s inanity. How do I go about doing this in Canada? I’m not famous. Could I become famous by calling Trudeau a squirrel? 🐿️ Surely some police officer 👮♂️ would arrest me for insulting squirrels.
I blocked someone on Instaspam for complaining about a horror movie that contains religious elements (like The Exorcist or The Omen).
I couldn’t stand the smell of the hypocrisy. I feel like I’m tainted by it. Let me be clear. It wasn’t like she was saying, “I don’t like this because…..”. It was more like she was saying, “You should censor this because you need to respect my religion.” Yeah, in 30 seconds, she justified all of the Woke crap about religion being about promoting hate speech.
Yeah, Americans only support 1st Amendment rights FOR THEIR OWN SIDE. Isn’t that the reality? Imagine the nerve, telling me I need to fear depictions of demons as if they are real! Sorry, I already went through the witch hunt of the Satanic Panic in the 1980s (Dungeons & Dragons), and I’m not about to go through it again!
America’s 1st Amendment rights are about protecting the speech that you DON’T want to hear. It may, can, should, or will offend you. That’s the point. Then you can have a discussion and negotiate. It’s better than tyrants dictating dogma.
Peter, in order to really understand the "bending the knee" phenomenon in academics, you MUST look at the increasing percentage of unprotected adjuncts in the teaching faculty. In some departments (like English), the percentage of adjuncts can be as high as 50 - 70%. At some community colleges, you can have 80% or higher. If your rent is dependent upon keeping your (insecure) job, you are not going to fight the prevailing orthodoxy, no matter how much it goes against every principle you have. One student complaint or one word to a colleague can result in your "not being asked back".
In all conversations, questionnaires, and interviews we should replace all references to sex, gender, male/female, man/woman with this basic, objective question/fact:
Sex chromosomes: XX or XY?
This bypasses all issues such as "identify as", "assigned at birth", gender fluidity, hormones being taken, surgeries, and "what is a woman?" with a simple, easy to determine, unambiguous fact about every cell in a person's body from the moment of conception until death. This allows for things such as XX sports, XY prisons, and XX shelters with complete clarity and objectivity.
54:00 - Steelman: We need laws that take into account the intent of people when committing a crime because people with ill intent are more likely to commit crimes again in the future and need more rehabilitation.
His "smart person argument" is nothing like mine.
26:00 - Yeah, I’ll agree with that caveat, because we both know the reality (“she’s” a man), but I’m not going to publicly out him. There’s at least one person I’ll do that for, but as a general rule, I’m calling a spade ♠️ a spade ♠️. I don’t feel in any way obligated to bend the knee to pronoun madness.
Really, the slippery slope is this:
Am I going along with it because I voluntarily choose to go along with it, or am I going along with it because someone is coercing me to go along with it?
Voluntarily. Who cares?
Coerced. No bloody way!
Yep they started caving a longtime ago.
A lawyer should understand.... deviance from a principle creates a precedent! And renders the principle meaningless.
27:30 - The exception proves the rule? Ummm, look up the definition of a rule. If there are exceptions, it's not a rule... it's a guideline.
Come on Peter, why add clutter to the he said she said squabble. Matt is right. Disregarding the common usage of the 3rd person singular pronoun He signifying a human male , not a female , leads ultimately to a fallacy so extreme that the first step of addressing someone as a she when "she's" a he should never be taken.
50:12 - He should go look at Cornell in 1972. Here are things that happened:
1) Students took over buildings.
2) Students held a mass protest.
3) Students blocked roads.
4) Students started a peoples university.
Does he even know the history of his university?
In 1972, they were protesting AGAINST war...in 2024 they are protesting FOR war...that's appears to be the problematic moral difference.
My pronouns are "me ", "myself" and "I". Now please tell me what you think of me using ONLY my preferred pronouns. Thank you!
If you posted something on X, you eXpressed yourself
Can we just stop using the word "prestigious" when talking about universities please? They're just schools, nothing more. There's nothing prestigious about doing more school after you've left school.
Your conflating the fire with burning up of 15 police cars with the Portland State library. They stole precious books and did a lot of damage 750,000 worth, however, there was no fire. Considering you used to live in Portland, perhaps make a little more effort to be accurate with your reporting. Otherwise good podcast.
Stop making yourselves look stupid by taling about isreal vs gaza, and woke.