A half of a century ago, I had the misfortune of landing in a class that was rumored to contain the hardest" teacher that ever lived. She was a true liberal, a teachers in the true sense of the word. On the first day of class she required a civilly discussed agenda that had two sides; it was her intention to make us think critically an the issues of the day. No matter which side was presented, we were to listen, politely, and give our argument, either pro or con. She never told us what or how to see the argument one way or another, and, she never alluded to her own politics. Rest in peace Miss Gaines, you gave me the courage and fortitude to be my own person.
Why misfortune, though? Every time I heard about a "mean" or "tough" teacher, I always ended up in that class, but those were always my favorite teachers.
Teachers like that are a rare and valuable resource, I wish we had more of them! I never went to school (thank God!) but a friend of mine only ever had one good teacher, from preschool to high school graduation. The rest were awful.
SKH , Your post is labled as 1 minute ago , however somehow it appears down here with postings from one week ago. I think uboob is censoring us posters by pushing post down where people do not see them?
My high school didn't have a philosophy department. (It was a Catholic school, and the local arch diocese argued that if students learned philosophy, it would be a threat to the religion department) When I went to art school (20 years ago now), I kept running into professors who subscribed to this critical theory nonsense. I knew that there was something wrong with that way of thinking, and it vaguely reminded me of some of the errors religion teachers made, but I lacked an understanding of epistemology and didn't know where to start to challenge those ideas. I'd tell others about these problems, but nobody cared because I lacked the vocabulary to properly explain the problem, and "it was just art school, it doesn't affect the real world". It saddens me to learn this absurd ideology has metastasized and spread through the rest of academia. Thank you for bringing light to this soul destroying poison, and providing current students with the tools needed to argue back.
This is how I felt when taking a women studies course in 1993/1994. It was an uncomfortable course where I felt out of place. Now I know it was a feminist course where victimization was a plus and shared in the class. I didn’t do well and when I went to the professors to say I did everything but they gave me a low grade (which is what I told them I was afraid of on the first day of class), they recognized their bias against me as a strong young female adult but didn’t change my grade. Thankfully you listened to your gut as well.
Rhetoric, Semantics, Epistemology, Psychology, Ego destruction, Politics all wrapped up into one is hard to explain to people. Many people don't see it when it's happening and many don't have the attention span or motivation to learn about it. I hate to sound like an alarmist but my experience as a student felt like I had come into contact with an evil pseudo-science cult leader trying to enforce conversion therapy on me. I'm pretty pissed off really.
@@davidanderson9664 You're way off. Did you ever study St. Augustine or Aquinas? They applied Aristotelian logic to Christian. Compassion? You haven't read the beatitudes, obviously, not to mention almost the entire new testament. Also, the scientific method doesn't produce fact, it produces opinion. There's a 9 minute video on youtube, where the famous physicist Richard Feynman discusses this. The left is hostile to knowledge, as they don't want us reading the old books. If you read C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" you'll see how you've been led astray.
It's a genuine cult with emphasis on o-cult. Neo-gnosticism is a Luciferian cult, otherwise known as technocratic totalitarianism. They are literally a Malthusian death cult. There's no telling what lengths they'll go to.
"They don't like to be seen", that tells me that they know that their views and practices are questionable. Dr. Jordan Peterson has thousands of hours of his lectures on the net. He stands by his every word
Didn’t his entire idea of cultural Marxism get publicly destroyed in his debate with Zizek? His owns fans universally admitted he lost the second to talked to anyone even marginally on the actual left.
That was not the best debate, agreed. But looking at the world today the question posed, who are these cultural Marxists has been loudly answered in the USA. One loss as you say, does not show a weak argument.
@@fahim-ev8qq What the fuck? He didn't "lose". They went off topic. He didn't have much time to prepare. I'm pretty sure Zizek himself would be upset at you picking a winner and loser from the discussion.
Thank you for all your hard work. I'm a high school teacher who was given our new ethnic studies courses to teach. And everything you are saying is 100% correct. The class was pushed because we have a high hispanic population (80% at my site). The community bought off on it because there is nothing inherently negative about a course that looks at the histories of different ethnic groups throughout time. That's how the class was sold, they even had senior educators work to set up a cirriculumn that mirrored that. But last minute they completely switched the cirriculumn. Of course it was all based on critical theory. Now they're posting "student voices" where students are writing about how "totally not radical" this class is. They are leading students to these conclusions and evangelizing their version of truth. I've tried to teach the content in an unbiased way but its basicaly made the class a mess. I really hate it.
The best that can be done with materials like that is to introduce questions that challenge their narrative. When they talk about the invasion of the Aztec Empire, you talk about Cortez’s alliance with Totonac and Tlaxcaltec warriors that outnumbered the Spaniards. You talk about how the Mexica (Aztecs) performed thousands of human sacrifices every year and ate their slain captives. In other words, you get them to think about the indoctrination instead of becoming good little soldiers to spread it.
When James says the Critical Theory advocates will combat any pushback by simply saying that "you are not engaging a proper understanding of Critical Theory", it rang a bell for me. My woke sister has tended to do exactly that! She is perhaps one of the most intelligent people I have ever known. She is highly educated and successful in her chosen field. Her ideas on politics changed so much and so quickly that I just knew something odd was happening. I knew I needed to read up on these issues. So I read articles, watched videos and bought a couple of great books (Cynical Theories and How to Have Uncomfortable Conversations, to name a couple). When I felt I was sufficiently informed, I tried to engage in simple discussions with her. Her reactions were very disheartening. One interesting reply she sent me was that I simply do not understand and I do not have an accurate picture of things.... but she could give me no specifics or correct my errors. Instead, she sent me information about the Dunning-Kruger effect, implying I was a victim of it in my discussions on Critical Theory. Her final message on the subject was to tell me she would no longer discuss these issues with me. Why? Because, as she put it, I could not change her mind and it was impossible for her to change mine. I told her, "Speak for yourself. I can change my mind if given sufficient reasons to do so." Silence.
You- 70 percent chance of having your genitals mutilated at birth. Your sister- 0 percent chance of having her genitals mutilated at birth. This world is terrible.
That's how they oepratem they never actually make any syllogistic arguments. Just accuse you of vague high level stuff that they don't establish or explain.
@@gwho Worse still, if I point out a fallacy, I am simply engaging in a cultural label. Recognizing logical fallacies is apparently a decidedly "white" activity designed to "a priori" discredit other "also valid" forms of reasoning.
They remove your free will by reducing you to a collection of biases. You're just a machine that needs the proper programming. They necessarily are a party of control.
This is the first offering I've ingested from James' New Discourses and I am thoroughly impressed with the fair, mature, and intellectually broad approach he takes. Bravo.
This is the main reason, in my opinion, Jordan Peterson has been demonized so much over a message of 'clean your room'. A self-reliant, independent minded, truly critical individual is much more difficult to control via these methods of critical theory.
Exactly. If you are self reliant and take control of your own life, you don’t need capitalism and oppression as a scapegoat. They can’t sell you an excuse if you don’t need it.
This reminds me of cult dynamics. I was in a cult from the ages of 11 until 40 years old. Eventually got booted out once I decided I had no way demonstrating that their ideology could be true and that I might be throwing my life away on someone else's dictates. The public received a very sanitized version of the core beliefs of the organization. This led people to believe that the teachings were essentially harmless and that the primary attitude toward those on the outside was mainly positive. It wasn't. I wish those lecture resources could be made available because people would then be in a position to make up their own minds about their ideology. I understand the issue with quote mining and misrepresentation of resources, but I feel it's harder to argue points with people if you are only getting the believers' filtered interpretations. As soon as I saw the title of your video, my 'cult' alarm bells started ringing, and I don't even mean that in a nasty way, it's just the idea of this feels so close to home.
@@justinmeasday8930 I used to have a channel where I told the story, but once I felt I got things off my chest I shut it down. I used to belong to the group called Jehovah's Witnesses. There are lots of stories of people who left the cult or who got booted out that you can find all over UA-cam. When I left I did a lot of deconstructing, and decided I wanted to make up my own mind about life without the undue pressures from an overbearing organization which allows no room for dissent and tells you how you should view the world because, to them, they have the monopoly on 'truth'. One of the things that this video reminded me of is that they discourage members from debating. They used to engage in public debates in the first half of the last century, but I think they caught on that it was doing their reputation more harm than good, and there was potential for members to start asking questions so they curtailed it. To them, difficult questions from members meant dissent, and represents a lack of faith in the belief system; that could ultimately lead to excommunication ( in other words, cancellation). Members are largely harmless, but it's their doctrine of 'them vs us' with all the associated rules that pushed it over into cult dynamics.
@@barrowmeoct04 So glad to hear you have been set free from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. My mother fell under their spell some 30 years ago. They came knocking at our door and she spent time "studying the Bible" with them. I was in college and no longer at home, but she started saying things she "found out" about the Bible and what it "really teaches". It all sounded kind of odd to me and I knew in my gut something just wasn't right about it. I decided to do a little research myself. I was alarmed by much of what I read and learned. By the time of my discoveries, she was considering joining their numbers and going all in. I found a former member who did work helping people escape from the cults influences. He agreed to meet with my mother. To my mom's credit, once she got more information (and one last meeting at our house in which I was present and had my arguments ready) SHE RENOUNCED ALL OF IT AND BROKE OFF CONTACT WITH THEM.
Keep it up! I just discovered your channel. You should have a million subscribers. You're touching on the core issue in modern society which sadly most people don't know about.
Not really. It makes as little sense as saying "if you get flak, it means you are speaking the truth." Plenty of people are afraid right now to speak their minds due to a fear of getting lynched by a mob. Somebody disagreeing with you neither makes you wrong nor right. But it has to be permissible as part of the process.
@@Voller84 I didn't say you ARE wrong, its the first sign. provably should have stated it "the first sign you could be wrong". though that statement was from a movie (can't remember which) and it was a wife saying that about a horrible secret he kept from her that lead to the premise of the movie. which I can't for the life of me remember. was probably shit or it pissed me off.
@@MrKago1 fair 'nuff. Didn't mean to step on your toes anyways. It's just that I've seen a lot of people (myself included to be honest) on YT doing these kind of one-liners, quotes etc. They sound snappy, are good for scoring points (likes?), and they are tempting to use. Some people genuinely use them to justify their opinions though and that's where it becomes silly IMO. The "flak" one seems to be ever popular and has been grinding my gears lately. The extension of it would be "if I piss someone off, it proves me right." In the end it is just as convenient as the concept of White Fragility.
@@Voller84 right? I've had the white fragility thing thrown at me. Luckily I was with my friend who is A smarter than me abd B black so he didn't get flustered like I did. he just pointed out the absurdity of their argument and then accused her of being a Trump supporter. when she denied it, he called it Trump fragility. he said, "I guess you shouldn't do it to others then." we both backed up because we got crazy eyes from her. I learned from that to not attack or react but reflect. they are looking in others for everything they hate in themselves. they just don't have the self reflection to realize it. I also learned the amount of crazy in a person is directly related to the amount of white you can see in their eyes when they are forced to face their own insanity.
This dogma has been stretched to businesses under the guise of "Diversity and Inclusion". My coworkers throw me strange looks when I refer to them as the "Politburo"!!
James is so much more moderate starting out this one. In his more recent videos he's such a firebrand--I'm glad he got angry and started really putting the passion into his work. However this is still difficult to digest for the average person. I've been plowing through James' New Discourses stuff and when each one is 2-3 hours of talking about Cultural Marxist jargon, only so many will get it. Understand that I mean this work is crucial--its really great, but we need more people working to develop this into some kind of educational product that the average parent could understand without having get an undergraduate degree in Marxist theology to know what they're planning.
What they know and fear is the collapse in enrollment that will result from exposure of their "classes". That was the inevitable consequence of the "activism" at Evergreen, Miss U etc.
There should not be anything taught at a college that can't or is feared to be seen by the public. Right and left views are there for debate and discussion, only one side is controling universities and what can be said there.
Because it's bunk. When you live in a bubble with an endless supply of $$$ and no criticism, it doesn't matter if the sun doesn't really set in the east.
David Horowitz talked about this years ago. His view was that the reason why the leftist intelligentsia tries to stifle debate on university campuses is twofold: 1) They know full well that their ideas are horrifying to most normal people, and 2) They know that their ideas are easy to destroy on a logical level, and they don't want to make that fact public. Here's a book by David Horowitz called 'The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.' Horowitz talked about this for decades, but 'progressives' and neo-libs laughed at him and called him a right-wing crank. Of course, now that there are actual Maoist shock-troops on American streets and avowed communists guiding them, it's a 'problem.' tinyurl.com/y82lnkac Or maybe we can go all the way back to Allan Bloom's 'The Closing of the American Mind.' tinyurl.com/ybv9az2f Have a nice time trying to have polite debates with people who want to kill you and take your stuff. And have an even nicer time trying to remain 'progressives' in the face of that lol!!
This reminds me of certain religious sects who believe that any questioning of doctrine comes from the devil, therefore all questioning MUST be silenced.
FULLY agree with so much of what was said, absolutely outstanding commentary. One remark, the slant against right wing media isn’t necessarily warranted. The political right still largely values logic and reason. and this is a group that has been abused by some of the most hateful, vapid and incendiary accusations for the better part of the past 3.5 years. ANYTIME the right attempts to have rational discourse with the other side - the other side seemingly doubles or triples down on their hateful rhetoric. And because the left hasn’t been open to discussion - you start to see some right wing fringe conspiracies come out of the woodwork trying to RATIONALIZE and explain what could possibly be going on with the lefts widely accepted influence in politics, MSM, academia, the professional workplace, etc.... That being said, the right is searching for logical rationale behind this unruly behavior. Bringing this to light will help us all return to a sense of normalcy.
3.5 years? Try 35. Try 135. The American Right has always valued truth and reason, which is why it's the side that fought to end slavery, then fought for the Reconstruction, then fought against Jim Crow, then fought for Civil Rights, then fought against Affirmative Action.
I've had experience of radical changes in a university department in the UK taking place without proper debate. For example, the agenda for the crucial meeting was emailed 15 minutes (!) before it took place,
What you fear to do in public is what the public fears. What you fear to do in the light, is why others fear the dark. What you fear to tell others, is what you fear is wrong.
If you are teaching valid ideas in an honest way you should not fear exposure. A teacher working in a secretive manner knows he is presenting a dishonest argument. Colleges should ,as a matter of course, record seminars for parents to monitor.
Jared Lind So the terms 'snowflake' 'safe space' and 'deplatforming' don't mean anything to you. Most observers would think they're evidence of widespread immaturity among college 'kids'.
Jared Lind I think we agree there. The system is out of hand. And more and more people are by-passing expensive and often pointless advanced education.
Jason Kelley Or, treat them like kids by asserting proper authority and let them know the grown ups say 'no'. The problem is, there are fewer an fewer grown ups these days.
I don't understand why there isn't a quality review board inside universities to check class content and methods. It is worrisome who will get strategic access to the minds of students. THERE IS A REAL THREAT to students, it's either CONFORM or be graded badly or be labeled a disruptive student. Bleh.
Any person or thing or idea that will NOT subject itself to reason, criticism, examination or distinguishing must be false or a tyranny or both. Everyone has a duty to act in good faith which means (1) that you must seek the truth with all your heart, all your soul, all of your mind and with all of your strength and (2) you must be open to the idea that you just might be wrong. . . in some way. Then you are good soil for the truth, and good outcomes are your portion. Truth is looking for oxygen; falsity seeks coercion. Stand firm in your freedoms, my friends. Defend Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment. God help us !
In theological circles, when someone seeks a Bible passage to justify a specific view, that's called "proof texting" Perhaps that would would apply here as well.
That's actually a bit of an over-read/misread of what canon and the role of Scripture is for most Christians, at least. And objecting to someone's interpretation of a part of Christian doctrine isn't instantly heresy-even by Christian standards, there's room for much disagreement (that's essentially where denominational differences come from.) Christians don't engage in the "smoke & mirrors" kind of manipulation as the SJWs do because we're told not to engage in ends-justifies-the-means kinds of activities by Jesus Himself (and God in the decalogue in fact.). Christianity has engaged (and is still constantly actively and healthily engaging) intellectually with opposing ideological viewpoints for the last two millennia whereas Marxist and Neo-Marxist "theorists" have to go to great lengths to dodge and hide and even ideologically seal themselves off from anything that seems to be otherwise legitimate, rational criticism because they understand just how discredited and indefensible their beliefs actually are. A Sam Harris can have a thoughtful and intellectually honest and fruitful debate with a William Lane Craig because at the end of the day, both sides are more or less willing to agree to the grounds of rationality, rational discourse and intellectual honesty in good faith for their discussion/debate. A Critical Theorist of any stripe or a Neo-Marxist are already going to enter into the "debate" in bad faith because their ideology prevents them from even ceding any ground of good faith to the other side because of their worldview add well as their argumentation methodology (i.e. calling the other person some kind of fragile -ist or -phobe and telling them that they're blind to the struggle of the oppressed because they are the oppressors, yadda yadda yadda...)
@@Boogiewalker I think they were talking about SJW's and Critical Theory professors----I mean cultists. They are referring more to the snake oil salesmen that use people's faith to extract money and good will out of them. you know the type, they pretend to be doing something "in the name of Jesus" and if you don't give them money you are against God blah blah blah. I can't stand those guys. don't see them as much anymore.
In several countries they hid gender self id (which is unpopular) in bills for same sex marriage (which are popular). This is an actual strategy. This is subversion.
The myth of the hero teacher is one that needs to be busted wide open. I had a few good teachers. Most of them were barely adequate and several of them were downright awful.
Isn't that the point of information to be made public so it can be peer reviewed? If your afraid of putting what you think is right for fear of criticism then maybe it's not right.
It's easy, police need bodycams and they deal with criminals. Therefore, teachers who have the ability to shape the minds of our young should be filmed as well.
All the Social Justice courses should be put on-line - and yes - should be subject to criticism. Tough luck if you get blow back from parents - they have their rights as well... and they are paying the bills. Eventually the course materials will receive less and less scrutiny because the issues will have been covered and there are no new "complaints", suggestions and so on to be reasonably made and only the quirky and others (who would crop up anyway) need to be dealt with or ignored. However, the situation is now so serious we NEED to get what is happening out into the open.
I understand the fear of having a sound bite or clip taken by itself and without proper context, which the internet and various media certainly seem willing and able to do. But if you're a professor who is teaching a subject to adults, you MUST be confident in what you're teaching and to defend it in front of skeptics. And if you have a passion for what you teach, don't you WANT the world to know what you know? Isn't that the point? It's not like critical theory faculty were hired to do important research for DARPA, and teaching is just a duty they're forced into.
So, New Discourses teaches me how to decode the language of CST and CRT do from there I can tease out the what and why when I’m sitting in professional development as a teacher. It gives me something I can say I’ll modify or add in my curriculum to help me keep my job and in some cases makes my STEM classes more accessible.
They love evading labels and try to make it so that you can only refer to species, not the family (critical race theory, queer theory, etc) instead of the abstract commonality between all of them, cultural Marxism.
It’s bad enough the secrecy of the indoctrination, your point of the hiding information from those that need to be informed for a vote struck me as how disingenuous these people are. Thanks for explaining their twisted logic how they justify these actions, does not excuse them by any means and ultimately I believe them to be criminal.
@@user-fi4lp7lm8k Right at the start, that right-wing sites create fear in teachers. It sounds like the argument of soft bigotry, e.g. "As blacks are inferior, we should not point it out like the whites do as that would be racist". The right-wing is set up as the whites. the teachers are the blacks and the justifiable fear is the justifiable inferiority, and the call to "we", the students to be "not racist" as the fear/inferiority of the teachers/blacks are exacerbated by the right-wing/whites. Implicit is the nature of fear/racism of whites/right-wings. It is a terrible argument but it works on the foolish and it gets so much use, I have to assume there is a large audience of foolishness for such things.
There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.(A) 3 What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
I can’t believe we have diehard opponents of Critical Theory on UA-cam like James Lindsay and at the same time stern defenders of it like Vaush, but the two camps haven’t met yet. It’s driving me crazy seeing the two camps put forth their arguments so confidently at the same time without ever meeting face to face. James, you have to meet Vaush and resolve this matter ASAP. The good thing is he won’t refuse a debate. This has to happen.
if you listen to the video, you have your explanation. Critical Justice Theory proponents would attempt to hide their ideas, because they are logically hard to defend and that lack must be hidden or limited. So, in a UA-cam framework, they would be unwilling to "give a voice" to those who would refute them, by refusing to engage in debate or thoughtful discourse. *Edit: If this Vaush will not refuse legitimate debate, that would be interesting to see. My guess is that he would have to vastly limit the conversation in order to do that. CJT isn't an easily defended system.
Dale Power Vaush is constantly debating people on the right. I’ve never seen him refuse a debate. Ever. In fact they mostly cancel on him. He’s been trying to make the “based and redpilled” phrase a thing of the left and turn the tables around. He’s pretty smart and energetic and honest most of the time, and that’s why I watch him, even if I’m not on board with him on several things (Marxism for example)
Dale Power By the way, yes I’ve watched the video. I watch most of Bret’s videos, and James Lindsay and Peter Boghosian and Helen Pluckrose. But I want to hear this from the horses mouth and not second hand accounts in an echo chamber, that’s why I want to see a debate and what the other side has to say. I’m also trying to understand Critical Theory myself from the source.
Derpetology 101 I saw that debate, but it wasn’t what I hoped for. It was mostly about Capitalism vs Socialism. There was nothing on Ethics, Epistemology or Metaphysics as it pertains to Critical Theory. Bret denounces the use of this discipline to undermine our axioms. Now Bret in his latest Q&A finally answered my question, he said he didn’t know who Vaush was but that he and his wife had already debated Critical Theory and that the debates are available. I hope I can find them.
Honestly, as a teacher on the right, I found myself not wanting to put my teaching “out there,” because parents want to control the teaching. If they don’t like how you taught Jimmy to multiply fractions, they’ll complain about it. If they don’t like that Frankie isn’t in “the high group” in writing, they’ll complain about it. If their kid is “too challenged”, they’ll complain. If their kid isn’t challenged enough, they’ll complain. By complain, I don’t mean saying, “I’d like to see more (xyz), is this possible?” I mean saying, “You NEED to accommodate my child and teach them what I said, how I said it, because I know my child best. I don’t care about any reasons you may give me why that’s not practicable. Do it.” They expect an educational experience in lock step with every expectation, and most aren’t willing to adjust their expectations. So I worry about putting my teaching online EVEN THOUGH I have very little actual control over what/how I teach.
If you make an unsubstantiated accusation of someone of being a pedophile, their anger over said allegation could be that you've exposed them as a pedophile, or it could be that it's wrong and they're angry over a false allegation. This is why we have the presumption of innocence.
Jordan Peterson has uploaded his classes since 2013. Take the heat for your theories if you really believe they are factual and accurate. Don't use them as an excuse for not engaging in discourse.
Some people don't have cameras. Others are ugly. A few haven't learned how to edit yet. Showing your face might be "more fun" for some, but can be difficult to put forward for some people. If you are overweight or ugly, people will NOT listen to your ideas as well if they can see your face. IN that case, it's best not to do so.
I like fast paced drawings and written words. There’s probably a name for this, but I don’t know it. It’s pretty common, and it helps concepts to stick in your mind.
I’m concerned that people who are already working hard teaching authentic STEM classes will stop. My students thriving on learning something that make sense like the scientific method keep me teaching vs a girl asking me to explain the audacity of teaching POC anything which pivots me to the school board meeting speech for when I quit. What a waste of time.
Means of insulating a belief system against legitimate criticism is a hallmark of cults and sects, and a valuable asset in their proselytizing. Freudianism/psychoanalysis does so by claiming that resistance to its theories stems from the critic's need to defend his flawed psychic apparatus against the threat posed to it by the truths of psychoanalysis. Marxism does so by claiming that failure to embrace the truths it claims to have discovered is explained by class membership (and ultimately by the critic's relation to the means of production), and if the critic happens to be a proletarian, by a "false consciousness" acquired from the capitalist environment. (Parenthetically, that explanation actually violates the tenets of historical materialism, as does the notion that a middle class Marx or Engels could ever articulate the class interests of the proletariat, because their class is the intelligentsia. But I only say these things to defend my class interests, according to them). Anyway, the Marxist mode of deflecting criticism by reference to who you are rather than to what you say is the mold and dress rehearsal for the entire ad hominem mode of agitating on behalf of the various factions of identity politics. The proletariat is the original "suffering group" or victim class in the name of which its intelligentsia exploiters spoke and agitated.
"What can be destroyed by the truth, deserves to be destroyed by the truth."
Harold Slick whoa.. 🤦♂️ agh, i'll have to rewatch
Great !
-Neil Breen
That’s why the right wants to repress any history that fails to glorify White America.
A half of a century ago, I had the misfortune of landing in a class that was rumored to contain the hardest" teacher that ever lived. She was a true liberal, a teachers in the true sense of the word. On the first day of class she required a civilly discussed agenda that had two sides; it was her intention to make us think critically an the issues of the day. No matter which side was presented, we were to listen, politely, and give our argument, either pro or con. She never told us what or how to see the argument one way or another, and, she never alluded to her own politics. Rest in peace Miss Gaines, you gave me the courage and fortitude to be my own person.
Why misfortune, though?
Every time I heard about a "mean" or "tough" teacher, I always ended up in that class, but those were always my favorite teachers.
Teachers like that are a rare and valuable resource, I wish we had more of them!
I never went to school (thank God!) but a friend of mine only ever had one good teacher, from preschool to high school graduation. The rest were awful.
I love liberals like that-true liberals.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. They’re afraid of having their ideas exposed and criticized and refuted by the truth.
SKH , Your post is labled as 1 minute ago , however somehow it appears down here with postings from one week ago. I think uboob is censoring us posters by pushing post down where people do not see them?
@Vladimir Haralampiev Yes - thanks for your censor related comment , I agree.
So they fear being called out for doing what they're doing.
We need more sunlight like this channel to disinfect this virus.
My high school didn't have a philosophy department. (It was a Catholic school, and the local arch diocese argued that if students learned philosophy, it would be a threat to the religion department)
When I went to art school (20 years ago now), I kept running into professors who subscribed to this critical theory nonsense. I knew that there was something wrong with that way of thinking, and it vaguely reminded me of some of the errors religion teachers made, but I lacked an understanding of epistemology and didn't know where to start to challenge those ideas. I'd tell others about these problems, but nobody cared because I lacked the vocabulary to properly explain the problem, and "it was just art school, it doesn't affect the real world".
It saddens me to learn this absurd ideology has metastasized and spread through the rest of academia.
Thank you for bringing light to this soul destroying poison, and providing current students with the tools needed to argue back.
@@bannerlad01 which SWJs won't show the same to their enemies
KNOWLEDGE is a threat to the religion department, as is compassion, logic, equality, science.......
atheistically yours, best regards, D.A., NYC
This is how I felt when taking a women studies course in 1993/1994. It was an uncomfortable course where I felt out of place. Now I know it was a feminist course where victimization was a plus and shared in the class. I didn’t do well and when I went to the professors to say I did everything but they gave me a low grade (which is what I told them I was afraid of on the first day of class), they recognized their bias against me as a strong young female adult but didn’t change my grade. Thankfully you listened to your gut as well.
Rhetoric, Semantics, Epistemology, Psychology, Ego destruction, Politics all wrapped up into one is hard to explain to people. Many people don't see it when it's happening and many don't have the attention span or motivation to learn about it. I hate to sound like an alarmist but my experience as a student felt like I had come into contact with an evil pseudo-science cult leader trying to enforce conversion therapy on me. I'm pretty pissed off really.
@@davidanderson9664 You're way off. Did you ever study St. Augustine or Aquinas? They applied Aristotelian logic to Christian. Compassion? You haven't read the beatitudes, obviously, not to mention almost the entire new testament. Also, the scientific method doesn't produce fact, it produces opinion. There's a 9 minute video on youtube, where the famous physicist Richard Feynman discusses this. The left is hostile to knowledge, as they don't want us reading the old books. If you read C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" you'll see how you've been led astray.
The more I learn about social justice, the more it sounds like a cult.
The concept of social justice only works if you think of humans as collective identities. So without communism it doesn’t make sense.
It's a genuine cult with emphasis on o-cult. Neo-gnosticism is a Luciferian cult, otherwise known as technocratic totalitarianism. They are literally a Malthusian death cult. There's no telling what lengths they'll go to.
"They don't like to be seen", that tells me that they know that their views and practices are questionable. Dr. Jordan Peterson has thousands of hours of his lectures on the net. He stands by his every word
Exactly. Extremist views won’t persist without constant censorship.
They're too indoctrinated to think clearly
Didn’t his entire idea of cultural Marxism get publicly destroyed in his debate with Zizek? His owns fans universally admitted he lost the second to talked to anyone even marginally on the actual left.
That was not the best debate, agreed. But looking at the world today the question posed, who are these cultural Marxists has been loudly answered in the USA. One loss as you say, does not show a weak argument.
@@fahim-ev8qq What the fuck? He didn't "lose". They went off topic. He didn't have much time to prepare. I'm pretty sure Zizek himself would be upset at you picking a winner and loser from the discussion.
Thank you for all your hard work. I'm a high school teacher who was given our new ethnic studies courses to teach. And everything you are saying is 100% correct.
The class was pushed because we have a high hispanic population (80% at my site). The community bought off on it because there is nothing inherently negative about a course that looks at the histories of different ethnic groups throughout time. That's how the class was sold, they even had senior educators work to set up a cirriculumn that mirrored that. But last minute they completely switched the cirriculumn. Of course it was all based on critical theory.
Now they're posting "student voices" where students are writing about how "totally not radical" this class is. They are leading students to these conclusions and evangelizing their version of truth. I've tried to teach the content in an unbiased way but its basicaly made the class a mess. I really hate it.
The best that can be done with materials like that is to introduce questions that challenge their narrative. When they talk about the invasion of the Aztec Empire, you talk about Cortez’s alliance with Totonac and Tlaxcaltec warriors that outnumbered the Spaniards. You talk about how the Mexica (Aztecs) performed thousands of human sacrifices every year and ate their slain captives.
In other words, you get them to think about the indoctrination instead of becoming good little soldiers to spread it.
When James says the Critical Theory advocates will combat any pushback by simply saying that "you are not engaging a proper understanding of Critical Theory", it rang a bell for me. My woke sister has tended to do exactly that! She is perhaps one of the most intelligent people I have ever known. She is highly educated and successful in her chosen field. Her ideas on politics changed so much and so quickly that I just knew something odd was happening. I knew I needed to read up on these issues. So I read articles, watched videos and bought a couple of great books (Cynical Theories and How to Have Uncomfortable Conversations, to name a couple).
When I felt I was sufficiently informed, I tried to engage in simple discussions with her. Her reactions were very disheartening. One interesting reply she sent me was that I simply do not understand and I do not have an accurate picture of things.... but she could give me no specifics or correct my errors. Instead, she sent me information about the Dunning-Kruger effect, implying I was a victim of it in my discussions on Critical Theory. Her final message on the subject was to tell me she would no longer discuss these issues with me. Why? Because, as she put it, I could not change her mind and it was impossible for her to change mine. I told her, "Speak for yourself. I can change my mind if given sufficient reasons to do so."
Silence.
Or "I don't owe you the emotional labor" defense
You- 70 percent chance of having your genitals mutilated at birth.
Your sister- 0 percent chance of having her genitals mutilated at birth.
This world is terrible.
That's how they oepratem they never actually make any syllogistic arguments. Just accuse you of vague high level stuff that they don't establish or explain.
@@JasonAndrew1973 wow. They just love generating fallacies.
@@gwho Worse still, if I point out a fallacy, I am simply engaging in a cultural label. Recognizing logical fallacies is apparently a decidedly "white" activity designed to "a priori" discredit other "also valid" forms of reasoning.
They remove your free will by reducing you to a collection of biases. You're just a machine that needs the proper programming. They necessarily are a party of control.
Yep.
I always feel like I'm "with the adults" when I'm listening to James and this crew.
Me too
You may feel that way. But you need to think about what is being said too.
@@worldpeace8299 found the idiot sjw!
@@zeenuf00 Found the anti social justice idiot. Wtf, man. You actually got anything to say?
@@worldpeace8299 Found the no content fake SJW channel lol!!
Most churches these days actually broadcast their sermons and discussions and try to get as many people to know what they are teaching as possible.
Mosques, on the other hand, don't want the world to know what they are saying to the faithful.
SJW do not
This is the first offering I've ingested from James' New Discourses and I am thoroughly impressed with the fair, mature, and intellectually broad approach he takes. Bravo.
This is the main reason, in my opinion, Jordan Peterson has been demonized so much over a message of 'clean your room'. A self-reliant, independent minded, truly critical individual is much more difficult to control via these methods of critical theory.
Yes, they despise peoplpe who threaten their power & control.
Well, it's also just more vague pseudo-psychological bullshit. In that regard Peterson is as vapid as these social justice people.
@@scorch527 Vapid?
Hardly.
Exactly. If you are self reliant and take control of your own life, you don’t need capitalism and oppression as a scapegoat. They can’t sell you an excuse if you don’t need it.
Lenin attacked/feared three traits: Honesty, Sobriety, and Self-Control.
Extremely charitable way above and beyond what these charlatans deserve.
This reminds me of cult dynamics. I was in a cult from the ages of 11 until 40 years old. Eventually got booted out once I decided I had no way demonstrating that their ideology could be true and that I might be throwing my life away on someone else's dictates. The public received a very sanitized version of the core beliefs of the organization. This led people to believe that the teachings were essentially harmless and that the primary attitude toward those on the outside was mainly positive. It wasn't. I wish those lecture resources could be made available because people would then be in a position to make up their own minds about their ideology. I understand the issue with quote mining and misrepresentation of resources, but I feel it's harder to argue points with people if you are only getting the believers' filtered interpretations. As soon as I saw the title of your video, my 'cult' alarm bells started ringing, and I don't even mean that in a nasty way, it's just the idea of this feels so close to home.
You seem to have a very interesting story to tell.
@@justinmeasday8930 I used to have a channel where I told the story, but once I felt I got things off my chest I shut it down. I used to belong to the group called Jehovah's Witnesses. There are lots of stories of people who left the cult or who got booted out that you can find all over UA-cam. When I left I did a lot of deconstructing, and decided I wanted to make up my own mind about life without the undue pressures from an overbearing organization which allows no room for dissent and tells you how you should view the world because, to them, they have the monopoly on 'truth'. One of the things that this video reminded me of is that they discourage members from debating. They used to engage in public debates in the first half of the last century, but I think they caught on that it was doing their reputation more harm than good, and there was potential for members to start asking questions so they curtailed it. To them, difficult questions from members meant dissent, and represents a lack of faith in the belief system; that could ultimately lead to excommunication ( in other words, cancellation). Members are largely harmless, but it's their doctrine of 'them vs us' with all the associated rules that pushed it over into cult dynamics.
@@barrowmeoct04 So glad to hear you have been set free from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
My mother fell under their spell some 30 years ago. They came knocking at our door and she spent time "studying the Bible" with them. I was in college and no longer at home, but she started saying things she "found out" about the Bible and what it "really teaches". It all sounded kind of odd to me and I knew in my gut something just wasn't right about it. I decided to do a little research myself. I was alarmed by much of what I read and learned.
By the time of my discoveries, she was considering joining their numbers and going all in. I found a former member who did work helping people escape from the cults influences. He agreed to meet with my mother. To my mom's credit, once she got more information (and one last meeting at our house in which I was present and had my arguments ready) SHE RENOUNCED ALL OF IT AND BROKE OFF CONTACT WITH THEM.
@@rougebaba3887 I hope you mom appreciates having such a faithful and strong-minded kid!
@@barrowmeoct04 good that you got out. A family friend is a Jehovah's Witness and it is doing her way more harm than good.
Keep it up! I just discovered your channel. You should have a million subscribers. You're touching on the core issue in modern society which sadly most people don't know about.
the first sign that you're wrong is when you are afraid of people hearing your idea.
Not really. It makes as little sense as saying "if you get flak, it means you are speaking the truth." Plenty of people are afraid right now to speak their minds due to a fear of getting lynched by a mob. Somebody disagreeing with you neither makes you wrong nor right. But it has to be permissible as part of the process.
@@Voller84 I didn't say you ARE wrong, its the first sign. provably should have stated it "the first sign you could be wrong". though that statement was from a movie (can't remember which) and it was a wife saying that about a horrible secret he kept from her that lead to the premise of the movie. which I can't for the life of me remember. was probably shit or it pissed me off.
@@MrKago1 fair 'nuff. Didn't mean to step on your toes anyways. It's just that I've seen a lot of people (myself included to be honest) on YT doing these kind of one-liners, quotes etc. They sound snappy, are good for scoring points (likes?), and they are tempting to use. Some people genuinely use them to justify their opinions though and that's where it becomes silly IMO. The "flak" one seems to be ever popular and has been grinding my gears lately. The extension of it would be "if I piss someone off, it proves me right." In the end it is just as convenient as the concept of White Fragility.
@@Voller84 right? I've had the white fragility thing thrown at me. Luckily I was with my friend who is A smarter than me abd B black so he didn't get flustered like I did. he just pointed out the absurdity of their argument and then accused her of being a Trump supporter. when she denied it, he called it Trump fragility. he said, "I guess you shouldn't do it to others then." we both backed up because we got crazy eyes from her. I learned from that to not attack or react but reflect. they are looking in others for everything they hate in themselves. they just don't have the self reflection to realize it. I also learned the amount of crazy in a person is directly related to the amount of white you can see in their eyes when they are forced to face their own insanity.
@@Voller84 also no worries. I didn't word it clearly. 90% of humanity's problem come from poor or no communication.
Wow good explanation. It's truly the most simultaneously machiavellian, orwellian and kafkaesque scenario I've ever seen.
This dogma has been stretched to businesses under the guise of "Diversity and Inclusion". My coworkers throw me strange looks when I refer to them as the "Politburo"!!
What you do here on this channel is precious. Thank you for keeping a level head and stance.
Filled me with glee that you're compiling an encyclopedia! Thanks for your work.
James is so much more moderate starting out this one. In his more recent videos he's such a firebrand--I'm glad he got angry and started really putting the passion into his work. However this is still difficult to digest for the average person. I've been plowing through James' New Discourses stuff and when each one is 2-3 hours of talking about Cultural Marxist jargon, only so many will get it. Understand that I mean this work is crucial--its really great, but we need more people working to develop this into some kind of educational product that the average parent could understand without having get an undergraduate degree in Marxist theology to know what they're planning.
This explains a great deal. It doesn't take much imagination to see how it inevitably results in cancel culture.
What they know and fear is the collapse in enrollment that will result from exposure of their "classes". That was the inevitable consequence of the "activism" at Evergreen, Miss U etc.
There should not be anything taught at a college that can't or is feared to be seen by the public. Right and left views are there for debate and discussion, only one side is controling universities and what can be said there.
This helped me more than any other explanation of critical race theory
Because it's bunk. When you live in a bubble with an endless supply of $$$ and no criticism, it doesn't matter if the sun doesn't really set in the east.
David Horowitz talked about this years ago. His view was that the reason why the leftist intelligentsia tries to stifle debate on university campuses is twofold: 1) They know full well that their ideas are horrifying to most normal people, and 2) They know that their ideas are easy to destroy on a logical level, and they don't want to make that fact public.
Here's a book by David Horowitz called 'The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.' Horowitz talked about this for decades, but 'progressives' and neo-libs laughed at him and called him a right-wing crank. Of course, now that there are actual Maoist shock-troops on American streets and avowed communists guiding them, it's a 'problem.'
tinyurl.com/y82lnkac
Or maybe we can go all the way back to Allan Bloom's 'The Closing of the American Mind.'
tinyurl.com/ybv9az2f
Have a nice time trying to have polite debates with people who want to kill you and take your stuff. And have an even nicer time trying to remain 'progressives' in the face of that lol!!
Very helpful explanation.
Thanks Mr. Lindsay!
"Maybe it's time we all stop trying to outsmart the truth and let it have its day."
Alfred.
This reminds me of certain religious sects who believe that any questioning of doctrine comes from the devil, therefore all questioning MUST be silenced.
FULLY agree with so much of what was said, absolutely outstanding commentary. One remark, the slant against right wing media isn’t necessarily warranted. The political right still largely values logic and reason. and this is a group that has been abused by some of the most hateful, vapid and incendiary accusations for the better part of the past 3.5 years. ANYTIME the right attempts to have rational discourse with the other side - the other side seemingly doubles or triples down on their hateful rhetoric. And because the left hasn’t been open to discussion - you start to see some right wing fringe conspiracies come out of the woodwork trying to RATIONALIZE and explain what could possibly be going on with the lefts widely accepted influence in politics, MSM, academia, the professional workplace, etc.... That being said, the right is searching for logical rationale behind this unruly behavior. Bringing this to light will help us all return to a sense of normalcy.
3.5 years? Try 35. Try 135. The American Right has always valued truth and reason, which is why it's the side that fought to end slavery, then fought for the Reconstruction, then fought against Jim Crow, then fought for Civil Rights, then fought against Affirmative Action.
Spoken like a classic Fox news viewer!
This is easily one of the sickest, most dysfunctional mindsets imaginable.
I've had experience of radical changes in a university department in the UK taking place without proper debate. For example, the agenda for the crucial meeting was emailed 15 minutes (!) before it took place,
What you fear to do in public is what the public fears.
What you fear to do in the light, is why others fear the dark.
What you fear to tell others, is what you fear is wrong.
If you are teaching valid ideas in an honest way you should not fear exposure. A teacher working in a secretive manner knows he is presenting a dishonest argument. Colleges should ,as a matter of course, record seminars for parents to monitor.
Jared Lind
So the terms 'snowflake' 'safe space' and 'deplatforming' don't mean anything to you. Most observers would think they're evidence of widespread immaturity among college 'kids'.
Jared Lind
I think we agree there. The system is out of hand. And more and more people are by-passing expensive and often pointless advanced education.
Mesolithic Man we need to stop treating them like kids on both sides
Jason Kelley
Or, treat them like kids by asserting proper authority and let them know the grown ups say 'no'. The problem is, there are fewer an fewer grown ups these days.
I don't understand why there isn't a quality review board inside universities to check class content and methods. It is worrisome who will get strategic access to the minds of students. THERE IS A REAL THREAT to students, it's either CONFORM or be graded badly or be labeled a disruptive student. Bleh.
Any person or thing or idea that will NOT subject itself to reason, criticism, examination or distinguishing must be false or a tyranny or both.
Everyone has a duty to act in good faith which means (1) that you must seek the truth with all your heart, all your soul, all of your mind and with all of your strength and (2) you must be open to the idea that you just might be wrong. . . in some way.
Then you are good soil for the truth, and good outcomes are your portion.
Truth is looking for oxygen; falsity seeks coercion.
Stand firm in your freedoms, my friends.
Defend Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment.
God help us !
It's funny...the ones who say "We are on the right side of history!" Are usually on the wrong side.
"For whatsoever things you have spoken in darkness, shall be published in the light:..." - Like 12:3
Great channel that needs to become huge
In theological circles, when someone seeks a Bible passage to justify a specific view, that's called "proof texting"
Perhaps that would would apply here as well.
Very much the same thing. And they have their own canon, which is self-supporting. Opposition is heresy, by definition.
That's actually a bit of an over-read/misread of what canon and the role of Scripture is for most Christians, at least. And objecting to someone's interpretation of a part of Christian doctrine isn't instantly heresy-even by Christian standards, there's room for much disagreement (that's essentially where denominational differences come from.) Christians don't engage in the "smoke & mirrors" kind of manipulation as the SJWs do because we're told not to engage in ends-justifies-the-means kinds of activities by Jesus Himself (and God in the decalogue in fact.). Christianity has engaged (and is still constantly actively and healthily engaging) intellectually with opposing ideological viewpoints for the last two millennia whereas Marxist and Neo-Marxist "theorists" have to go to great lengths to dodge and hide and even ideologically seal themselves off from anything that seems to be otherwise legitimate, rational criticism because they understand just how discredited and indefensible their beliefs actually are. A Sam Harris can have a thoughtful and intellectually honest and fruitful debate with a William Lane Craig because at the end of the day, both sides are more or less willing to agree to the grounds of rationality, rational discourse and intellectual honesty in good faith for their discussion/debate. A Critical Theorist of any stripe or a Neo-Marxist are already going to enter into the "debate" in bad faith because their ideology prevents them from even ceding any ground of good faith to the other side because of their worldview add well as their argumentation methodology (i.e. calling the other person some kind of fragile -ist or -phobe and telling them that they're blind to the struggle of the oppressed because they are the oppressors, yadda yadda yadda...)
@@Boogiewalker I think they were talking about SJW's and Critical Theory professors----I mean cultists. They are referring more to the snake oil salesmen that use people's faith to extract money and good will out of them. you know the type, they pretend to be doing something "in the name of Jesus" and if you don't give them money you are against God blah blah blah. I can't stand those guys. don't see them as much anymore.
The ‘the world is against us’ thought or ‘they won’t understand us’ thought is very cult like.
This practice of slipping CRT in at the last minute in policy seems conspiratorial or semi-conspiratorial at best.
In several countries they hid gender self id (which is unpopular) in bills for same sex marriage (which are popular). This is an actual strategy. This is subversion.
The myth of the hero teacher is one that needs to be busted wide open. I had a few good teachers. Most of them were barely adequate and several of them were downright awful.
Good point. Thanks
Isn't that the point of information to be made public so it can be peer reviewed? If your afraid of putting what you think is right for fear of criticism then maybe it's not right.
They consider peer review to be white supremacy.
Thank you!
So. Much. Real. Here. Thank. You.
The Star chambers, Kafka traps, and circular firing squads on campus were a nice touch.
I was told that in the 1950s students brought tape recorders to class to report their professors as Communists. Have we come full circle?
Honestly some of them probably were. I have begun to suspect that McCarthy has been unfairly maligned….and we need a new one.
It's easy, police need bodycams and they deal with criminals. Therefore, teachers who have the ability to shape the minds of our young should be filmed as well.
@John Steven the recent leaked videos of activist teachers haven’t changed your mind?
Excellent exposure of the ridiculous critical theory. Very well put across.
You deserve more subscribers, many more.
All the Social Justice courses should be put on-line - and yes - should be subject to criticism. Tough luck if you get blow back from parents - they have their rights as well... and they are paying the bills. Eventually the course materials will receive less and less scrutiny because the issues will have been covered and there are no new "complaints", suggestions and so on to be reasonably made and only the quirky and others (who would crop up anyway) need to be dealt with or ignored. However, the situation is now so serious we NEED to get what is happening out into the open.
Parents need to watch these class rooms!!!!
This is the psychology of a cult.
I understand the fear of having a sound bite or clip taken by itself and without proper context, which the internet and various media certainly seem willing and able to do.
But if you're a professor who is teaching a subject to adults, you MUST be confident in what you're teaching and to defend it in front of skeptics.
And if you have a passion for what you teach, don't you WANT the world to know what you know? Isn't that the point? It's not like critical theory faculty were hired to do important research for DARPA, and teaching is just a duty they're forced into.
Scientology too gives it's members tools and arguments to counter critique.
"All arguments are from the devil". It's essentially a form of religious fundamentalism.
Even fundamentalists have apologetics...
Thank you for this.
So, New Discourses teaches me how to decode the language of CST and CRT do from there I can tease out the what and why when I’m sitting in professional development as a teacher. It gives me something I can say I’ll modify or add in my curriculum to help me keep my job and in some cases makes my STEM classes more accessible.
They love evading labels and try to make it so that you can only refer to species, not the family (critical race theory, queer theory, etc) instead of the abstract commonality between all of them, cultural Marxism.
If they are as afraid of the pushback then maybe, just maybe, what they are saying is wrong and really has no place in our society.
This stuff leads to the killing fields of Cambodia...
"It's afraid!"
AHA - So you actually admit that you disagree with me. That was so easy. I win. I win.
It’s bad enough the secrecy of the indoctrination, your point of the hiding information from those that need to be informed for a vote struck me as how disingenuous these people are. Thanks for explaining their twisted logic how they justify these actions, does not excuse them by any means and ultimately I believe them to be criminal.
This is the crux of it. Thank you hermano!!!
I don't believe that ALL these people think they are right. Some of them know they can get rich from it.
When you have to start with a poisoning the well fallacy, you've already lost the argument.
What part of are you talking about?
@@user-fi4lp7lm8k
Right at the start, that right-wing sites create fear in teachers. It sounds like the argument of soft bigotry, e.g. "As blacks are inferior, we should not point it out like the whites do as that would be racist". The right-wing is set up as the whites. the teachers are the blacks and the justifiable fear is the justifiable inferiority, and the call to "we", the students to be "not racist" as the fear/inferiority of the teachers/blacks are exacerbated by the right-wing/whites. Implicit is the nature of fear/racism of whites/right-wings.
It is a terrible argument but it works on the foolish and it gets so much use, I have to assume there is a large audience of foolishness for such things.
I always cringe at the downvotes on these videos like, "Well, I know what *those* people think..."
There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.(A) 3 What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
I can’t believe we have diehard opponents of Critical Theory on UA-cam like James Lindsay and at the same time stern defenders of it like Vaush, but the two camps haven’t met yet. It’s driving me crazy seeing the two camps put forth their arguments so confidently at the same time without ever meeting face to face. James, you have to meet Vaush and resolve this matter ASAP. The good thing is he won’t refuse a debate. This has to happen.
if you listen to the video, you have your explanation. Critical Justice Theory proponents would attempt to hide their ideas, because they are logically hard to defend and that lack must be hidden or limited.
So, in a UA-cam framework, they would be unwilling to "give a voice" to those who would refute them, by refusing to engage in debate or thoughtful discourse.
*Edit: If this Vaush will not refuse legitimate debate, that would be interesting to see. My guess is that he would have to vastly limit the conversation in order to do that. CJT isn't an easily defended system.
Dale Power Vaush is constantly debating people on the right. I’ve never seen him refuse a debate. Ever. In fact they mostly cancel on him. He’s been trying to make the “based and redpilled” phrase a thing of the left and turn the tables around. He’s pretty smart and energetic and honest most of the time, and that’s why I watch him, even if I’m not on board with him on several things (Marxism for example)
Dale Power By the way, yes I’ve watched the video. I watch most of Bret’s videos, and James Lindsay and Peter Boghosian and Helen Pluckrose. But I want to hear this from the horses mouth and not second hand accounts in an echo chamber, that’s why I want to see a debate and what the other side has to say. I’m also trying to understand Critical Theory myself from the source.
gotsda Really, did he? I watch King Crocoduck too. Where can I verify this? I just went to his channel, he hasn’t posted anything in 9 months.
Derpetology 101 I saw that debate, but it wasn’t what I hoped for. It was mostly about Capitalism vs Socialism. There was nothing on Ethics, Epistemology or Metaphysics as it pertains to Critical Theory. Bret denounces the use of this discipline to undermine our axioms. Now Bret in his latest Q&A finally answered my question, he said he didn’t know who Vaush was but that he and his wife had already debated Critical Theory and that the debates are available. I hope I can find them.
Honestly, as a teacher on the right, I found myself not wanting to put my teaching “out there,” because parents want to control the teaching. If they don’t like how you taught Jimmy to multiply fractions, they’ll complain about it. If they don’t like that Frankie isn’t in “the high group” in writing, they’ll complain about it. If their kid is “too challenged”, they’ll complain. If their kid isn’t challenged enough, they’ll complain. By complain, I don’t mean saying, “I’d like to see more (xyz), is this possible?” I mean saying, “You NEED to accommodate my child and teach them what I said, how I said it, because I know my child best. I don’t care about any reasons you may give me why that’s not practicable. Do it.” They expect an educational experience in lock step with every expectation, and most aren’t willing to adjust their expectations. So I worry about putting my teaching online EVEN THOUGH I have very little actual control over what/how I teach.
If you're afraid of the occasional Karen enough to be complicit in the brainwashing of a generation...
That intro track sounds like the fight scene in a cyberpunk samurai movie and I'm here for it
If you make an unsubstantiated accusation of someone of being a pedophile, their anger over said allegation could be that you've exposed them as a pedophile, or it could be that it's wrong and they're angry over a false allegation.
This is why we have the presumption of innocence.
What's your point?
The darkness hates the light. Demons hate being exposed.
These guys are solid politicians and punch above their weight.
In the short term it doesn't matter if the ideas are bad if they win.
Jordan Peterson has uploaded his classes since 2013. Take the heat for your theories if you really believe they are factual and accurate. Don't use them as an excuse for not engaging in discourse.
The idea that people will definitely be against the ideology will create a persecution complex in followers. This is common to dangerous cults.
Racial stamina?!? When I think I heard just about everything in my life...
We tell our children to run and tell if any adult wants to have secrets with them..
for a good reason!
Sunlight is the best disinfectant!
Way to scare and shame your children.
I don't know how you can keep reading their Marxist claptrap, yet stay sane. I would have lost it a long time ago. Well done!
This video made me subscribe.
Great video 👍
Critical social justice retoric can't survive scrutiny.
You should show Your face in the videos James! It makes it much more interactive and fun for many of us.
Some people don't have cameras. Others are ugly. A few haven't learned how to edit yet. Showing your face might be "more fun" for some, but can be difficult to put forward for some people.
If you are overweight or ugly, people will NOT listen to your ideas as well if they can see your face. IN that case, it's best not to do so.
@@dalepower632 James has been on camera before. In any case I'm just giving a piece of advice, it's not that I think he MUST do it.
Allison Bailey is a pro-LGB feminist, but she is fiercely critical of trans rights, I thought that might be worth mentioning.
Well done! The SBC is a disgrace
at the end I thought James was telling the producer to stop fading in background music
Make teachers ( public schools ) accountable, Police wear body cameras why couldn’t / wouldn’t we record or view what our kids are exposed to?
These would be mildly more interesting with some kind of video to go with them, even if it was random images like fractals.
I like fast paced drawings and written words. There’s probably a name for this, but I don’t know it. It’s pretty common, and it helps concepts to stick in your mind.
@@AnaLucia-wy2ii Those were interesting when new, now they have overstayed their welcome, I think. Time for something else, something better.
Since none of it bears scrutiny, expose it where you find it every time, every place.
You are so right and have incredible ideas for society that they cannot be exposed to the public... Progressive logic check out
I wonder if a psychiatrist would diagnose this as a type of paranoia.
Jordan Peterson or jonathon Haidt
Critical theory seems to be just the right answer for "subsidized" college educations for maximum profit.
So what is best way for the average person to engage (resist) some of these "bad ideas" when they appear publicly on social media, say?
Saying “fuck off”
I’m concerned that people who are already working hard teaching authentic STEM classes will stop. My
students thriving on learning something that make sense like the scientific method keep me teaching vs a girl asking me to explain the audacity of teaching POC anything which pivots me to the school board meeting speech for when I quit. What a waste of time.
Because the power they wield locally in the classroom does not project through that wire, which we call the internet.
They just think about power. It is like "Fifty Shades of Grey."
Means of insulating a belief system against legitimate criticism is a hallmark of cults and sects, and a valuable asset in their proselytizing. Freudianism/psychoanalysis does so by claiming that resistance to its theories stems from the critic's need to defend his flawed psychic apparatus against the threat posed to it by the truths of psychoanalysis. Marxism does so by claiming that failure to embrace the truths it claims to have discovered is explained by class membership (and ultimately by the critic's relation to the means of production), and if the critic happens to be a proletarian, by a "false consciousness" acquired from the capitalist environment. (Parenthetically, that explanation actually violates the tenets of historical materialism, as does the notion that a middle class Marx or Engels could ever articulate the class interests of the proletariat, because their class is the intelligentsia. But I only say these things to defend my class interests, according to them). Anyway, the Marxist mode of deflecting criticism by reference to who you are rather than to what you say is the mold and dress rehearsal for the entire ad hominem mode of agitating on behalf of the various factions of identity politics. The proletariat is the original "suffering group" or victim class in the name of which its intelligentsia exploiters spoke and agitated.