the value of offence | qualiasoup & theramintrees [cc]

the value of offence | qualiasoup & theramintrees [cc]

Show Video

The. Meaning of the word offends, as discussed. In this video has, been defined in various ways something. That provokes a sense of outrage any. Violation. Of a social code the. Act of causing anger, resentment, or displeasure, annoyance. Or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard, for oneself, to. Offend that is to hurt or wound the feelings, of to. Transgress to. Be displeasing, these. Definitions may clear at the outset the, subjective, nature of offense we. Can feel offended and experience, negative emotions for, all kinds of reasons but, it doesn't follow that the source of our resentment, is worthy of blame criticism. Or attack, nor. Does it follow that the reaction, of taking, offence is reasonable. Or justified. Dictators. Might feel outraged, by, the exposure, of their hypocrisy, young. Children might feel displeased, about the boundaries set for them by adults. Narcissists. Might resent sharing the spotlight with others in. Each case negative. Emotions are felled but, there's no obligation to accommodate these wishes or demands merely. Feeling offended, by another's, words or actions isn't. In itself evidence. Of suffering, unreasonable. Harm we. Know from the fact that people experience phobias, that emotional, reactions, are sometimes irrational, and extremely. Disproportionate. Sometimes. People, report being offended, simply, because their views have been challenged, even if those views are used to obstruct, education. Or justify. The mistreatment, of others certainly. If we want to punish or restrict, behavior, we find objectionable we, need to be able to point to something more than our own hurt feelings, to make a valid case there. Are good reasons to limit certain kinds of abuse of speech in action and each. Limit, or prohibition. Requires, its own carefully, reasoned justification. But. Sometimes, complaints, about free speech infringement. Result, from confusion. About entitlements. If Abe. Writes a letter to a commercial magazine, and the magazine doesn't publish it this is not an attack on his free speech the. Magazine is not silencing. Him by not printing his letter and has, no obligation to, grant him a platform, on his publication. We. Might despise, the bias shown, by some media companies, but unless, they present themselves as a free speech forum, they have no duty, to facilitate. A speech, Abe, would have a cause for grievance, if he was prevented from self-publishing. The. Poet John Milton experienced. This infringement, when he attempted, to publish a collection of pamphlets arguing. For reform, of the divorce laws, the. Licensing, order of 1643. Meant that all printed, material, had to be approved by the government, failing. To get permission, for his pamphlet, Milton. Was inspired to write his famous defense, of free speech Arielle Pickett agur arguing. For reform of the print licensing, laws. In. 1914. Nurse, margaret, sanger was indicted for violating, obscenity, laws her, crime she. Posted pamphlets, containing, educational information.

On Contraception. Violating. Social codes can leave people feeling offended, but. When social, codes are discovered, to be regressive. Violating. Them can serve to highlight this and bring, about positive change, when. We avoid challenging. Social codes or customs, because we fear causing, offence we, can needlessly, sacrifice, a lot of time energy and, emotion, to. Parents. Raise five children strictly. To follow a particular religion, as the. Children grow up they, all privately, stop believing in that religion but. Even after their parents are dead they, continue, with acts of religious worship so, as not to offend their siblings, their collective. Silence, about their real views keeps them in what's been called pluralistic. Ignorance. Steven. Pinker describes, how more extreme, cases of pluralistic, ignorance can, take hold how. A collective, delusion can, overtake an entire society when, unpopular, views are censored, or punished, if. Dissenters, are punished and can, anticipate their going to be punished then you might have a situation where, no one actually believes, something but. Everyone, believes that everyone, else believes it therefore. No, one is willing to be the little boy that says the Emperor is naked writing. In the mid 1800s John. Stuart Mill in his book on Liberty listed. Some contemporary, cases of individuals, being abused by the courts, for declaring, no theological, belief for. This apparent offense they, were variously, rejected, as jury members, grossly, insulted, by a judge and denied. Justice, against a thief Mill. Noted, that the legal doctrine of disallowing, evidence from atheists meant. Not only that they could be robbed or insulted, with impunity but. That their testimony couldn't, help theists. Who were robbed or assaulted. Furthermore. Mill noted that the rule cut away its own foundation. By. Assuming a theist to be liars it allowed the testimony, of any atheist willing, to lie and rejected. The testimony, of those who braved public, contempt, by truthfully, affirming, their atheism. Concept of offense has, been exploited, to perpetuate, other social, inequalities, for, instance the translation, of religious, Scripture has been deemed offensive both, historically, and in the present day resulting. In scriptural, knowledge being withheld from the masses in. The 1500s. William, Tyndale translated. The Bible into English believing. People should be able to read scripture, in their mother tongue for, this, achievement, he, was burned at the stake. Whether. They spring from religious, bodies governments. Or socio-political, groups there's, no shortage, of self-appointed, authorities. Ready, to control our freedoms, as they see fit, but. What qualifies, them to do this, who. Would you allow to decide, what you see or hear what, ideas. You can access what. Books you can read which. Films you can watch whose. Opinions, you can hear. Who. Would you nominate to, dictate, your opportunities. For experience. One. Aspect of the culture at our secondary school was that students, were expected to respond, aggressively to, insults, specifically. Insults, to their families, especially their mothers the. Insults didn't need to be that imaginative, often. Just the phrase your, mum was, enough in. Response, students. Were expected, to get angry, and physically defend their mothers honor if, they didn't they were seen as weak and cowardly, this. Ritualized, behavior, continued, for a couple of years, then. There, was an interesting shift. Aggressive. Reactions, to insults, stopped, being admired. Students. Who were easily provoked came to be seen as weak and fragile and, were, scorned, for being hysterical. Shrugging. Off insults. Became the cool thing to do the. Frequency, of insults, didn't go down but the frequency, of aggressive, responses, plummeted. In groups. Where dramatic, expressions, of offense are encouraged, and rewarded we. Can make two predictions, first. We can expect to see more expressions. Of offense. Second. We can expect to see them in response to increasingly, smaller, provocation. As individuals. Hunt for things to act offended, about but. When, overblown, reactions, of events receive scorn, instead, of sympathy, the, emotional, displays can fizzle out fast, exposing. The fact that they're unnecessary, and, well, within personal, control if, teenagers. Can learn to control their responses, like this shouldn't. We expect even more emotional maturity from, adults. Reportedly. Inspired by Viktor Ivanov Lenin, lived Lenin, is alive Lenin, will live poster, a painting.

Called The spear by artist, Brett Mori was put on exhibition at, Johannesburg's. Goodman gallery in May 2012. Portraying. South African, President, Jacob Zuma in. A state of indiscretion. A spokesperson. For, Zoomers party, the ANC said. They were of the view that this distasteful, depiction. Of the president, has violated, his individual, right to dignity as contained. In the Constitution, of our country, on this, basis, the ANC, initiated. Legal proceedings, to Saints of the painting including coercive. Attempts to stop the press circulating. The image but. Should the right to dignity be automatic. Here dignity. Is defined, as the state or quality of being worthy, of honor or respect. But. Political, commentator, just as Malala noted, there is nothing in our Constitution. That enjoins us to respect the head of state or to genuflect before, him this, is a constitutional. Democracy not, a monarchy, respect. Is earned and very. Few would say that the president has earned our respect given. His lifestyle, the. Case against, Murray failed, but. Satirist, in China haven't, been so fortunate, shanghai-based, artist, Dai Jiang Yan was, faced with a five-year, prison sentence, after distributing. A picture of China's President, Xi Jinping. With, an unfortunate, facial expression, and a photoshopped, moustache, one. Student in Tianjin, was reportedly, detained for ten days merely, for downloading an unauthorized, image of Shi if. We. Expect emotional, stability and, resilience from adults in power and all-powerful. All-knowing, being, like a God should embody, the highest, expression, of these qualities, but. Many of those who proposed the existence of such beings characterized, them and they're supposedly. Representatives. The prophets as, the most fragile, insecure. Creatures, who, need protection from. Words, and pictures. Dutch, film director, Theo van Gogh was murdered, by Muslim extremists, after producing the short film submission. Which criticized, the treatment of women in Islam in. 2005. Danish, newspaper jyllands-posten. Published. Several cartoons, depicting Muhammad. In. Response, violent. Muslim protests, around the world resulted, in dozens of murders as well, as attacks against, those associated, with the newspapers, that published, the cartoons. In. 2015. In response, to the publication of cartoons of Muhammad, by French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, Muslim. Gunmen, stormed, the newspapers, Paris offices, and killed. 12, people, in. Each of these cases on one, side we find indisputable. Acts of harm namely. The violent attacks and murders committed. By offended. People on the, other we, find acts the harmful nature of which is fiercely, disputed, namely. The creation, of texts and images that, challenge or ridicule, ideas.

And Yet. In all cases many, voices were focused only on condemning, the texts and images, for. Example when Theo van Gogh was murdered, we then Dutch Minister, for justice proposed, the enforcement, of blasphemy, legislation. These. Commentators, had so abdicated. Their sense of proportion, rationality. And moral, accountability, that. For, them the texts, and images were, the weightier, issue a. 2006. Intelligence, squared debate asked. Whether freedom, of expression, should include the license to offend, after. Condemning, the Danish cartoons and what, she regarded, as offensive, criticism, of religion Muslim. Campaigner, desi Khan said, the following in her closing statement, only. When you make the effort to understand, the perspective, of the other person, can you begin to understand, the rationale, behind their actions and thoughts and only. Then can you even begin to be critical, if. Khan practiced, what she preached she. Would make the effort to understand, the perspective of critics, of religion, like, the Danish cartoonists to. Try and understand, the rationale, behind their actions and thoughts, by. Her own logic only, then would she be in the position to be critical. Khan. Asks, the criticism, be made in ways that don't offend the religious, failing. To acknowledge that for many millions of people any criticism. Of their religion whatsoever is, deemed offensive. Sometimes. Even. The failure to take offence is deemed offensive. Liberal. Democrat, and secular, Muslim, Maajid, Nawaz has, attempted to promote the fact that not all Muslims, take offensive, cartoons of Muhammad in, 2014. He tweeted a cartoon from a British webcomic, called Jesus, and Mo depicting. Jesus saying hey and mo saying, how he doing and stated. That he didn't find the cartoon offensive, in, response, he, was condemned, and threatened, for his lack of offence fellow. Lib Dem Muslim Mohammed Shafiq called. Nawaz a Defamer. Of the Prophet, a charge, known to carry a death penalty in the Islamic, world and, vowed. To notify, national, and the international Islamic. Organisations. Responses. From others included, the threat of a surprise, when, Nawaz next, visited, Pakistan, Shafiq. Further organized, a petition pressing. For nawaz's deselection, from the Lib Dems claiming. Had caused an extreme, amount, of insult, hurt and anguish, this. Tactic, is called second order punishment, here. The individual, isn't punished, for causing offence but, refusing, to condemn others for causing offence or simply. For not expressing offense themselves. This. Tactic, is used in dictatorships, and hi control, groups another. Example of it is seen with Scientologists. And Jehovah's, Witnesses, when ex members, are shunned by, the entire, group those. Who've refused, to shun an ex-member, have found themselves in the firing line in. An ABC 20/20. Report, called Scientology. A war without guns dan, Harris, asked, Scientology. Representative. Monique Yingling. If shunning, was voluntary, she, said it was always voluntary, but, when pressed she, admitted that those who don't shun may not be able to participate in specific, services, so. There are negative. Consequences for. Refusing, to shun ex-members. Modern. Examples, of social isolation tactics. Include. The intimidation, of critics of various, religious, or political ideologies. By targeting, their place of employment, in. Mills. On Liberty, he promotes three forms of basic Liberty one. The, Liberty to unite for any purpose, not involving, harm to others, here. Mill, emphasizes. The need for free, informed. Age-appropriate, consent. To. Liberty. Of tastes, and pursuits, which, Mills suggests we should enjoy without, impediment from our fellow creatures, so, long as what we do does not harm them even, though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong, three. Liberty. Of thought and feeling. Absolute. Freedom of opinion and, sentiment, on all subjects, practical. Or speculative. Scientific. Moral, or theological. For. Mill practically. Inseparable from, this was the liberty of expressing, and publishing, opinions, but, he made an exception, in the case of what we might call incitement.

Mill. Writes an opinion that corn dealers are starving, of the poor or the private property is robbery ought to be unmolested, when, simply circulated, through the press but, may justly incur, punishment, when delivered orally to, an excited, mob assembled. Before the house of a corn dealer for. Some inciting. A mob to riot is an unambiguous. Act of harm but. For Thomas Scanlon, things aren't so clear-cut, he. Points out that when an individual, hears the insight his opinion, it becomes subject to that individual's, own judgment, the, individual, isn't merely a mindless, machine, set, in motion by the insider. Individuals. Have personal, responsibility. For their own actions. Scanlan. Contrasts. The inciters act of merely expressing, an opinion with. The acts of a criminal accomplice an agent. Who provides others with tools to facilitate a crime like the key to a bank. Or technical, information, like the combinations, who are safe, he, also distinguishes, incite, us from those who threaten, and intimidate people, into, performing. Harmful acts of course. Some inciters, do more than merely express, an opinion, some. Actively. Groomed their audience, cultivating. Compliance, to the group by rewarding, agreement, punishing. Dissent and maintaining. Ignorance, by. Bringing in the element of undue influence and, thereby. Exerting, greater power they, take on greater responsibility. For any resulting, harm. When. Proposing, limits on free speech we need to exercise caution, there. Are good reasons for protecting, controversial, viewpoints. Hearing. Opposing, views gives us the opportunity to examine why we disagree, with them to, reflect from, first principles, the reasons for our views if. We can't express the reasons for our objections, then the act of objecting, is mainly expressing, mindless, reflex, disapproval. Regurgitating. A PAP of predigested. Opinion, formulated. By others who are possibly misguided. When. We object to another person's views purely instinctively. We, might be correct but. It's when we can articulate, the reasons behind the, instinct, that we can better assess, its rightness, or wrongness. It's. Not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard explains. Christopher, Hitchens, summarizing. Sentiments, expressed by John Milton Thomas, Paine and John Stuart Mill it. Is the right of everyone, in the audience to listen and to hear and everytime, you silence, someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because, you deny yourself, the right to hear something in. Other words your, own right to, hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view if all. In society, were agreed on the truth and beauty and value, of one proposition, all except, one person it. Would be most important, in fact it would become even more important.

But. That one heretic, be heard because, we would still benefit, from his perhaps, outrageous. Or appalling. View, Hitchens. Warns. Don't, take refuge in the full security of consensus, and feeling. That whatever you think you're bound to be okay because you're in the safely, moral majority. No. One has the right not to be offended such. A riot would be impossible, to exercise, and result in social gridlock. Some. Regard the mere existence of, other kinds of people as offensive. How, could we satisfy, them short, of eliminating, those other people, learning. To deal with the discomfort of encountering, people you disagree with is part of the process of growing up. Some. Feel offended, by facts that don't fit their ideology, in these, cases their argument, isn't with other people, but. With reality. When. We try to silence expressions. We deem offensive we. Often, give them more power when. Books films, or pieces of music have been banned it's, often because certain ideologies, have found them dangerous, in. Many cases the dangerous idea has, been to allow people to think, banning. Also fuels curiosity. When. Scholars are prevented, from speaking at universities. Because, people dislike what they say this usually results in far more publicity, for the scholar whose visit might otherwise pass without much attention, when. We allow controversial. Books, films. Music, and speakers, we can openly, examine. And discuss them possibly. Exposing. Their flaws but, retaining, the opportunity. To think and increase. Our understanding. Those. Who don't want to hear a message they personally find offensive, can, choose not to listen but, what they have no right to do is impose, their choices upon, others, by preventing them from listening. Sometimes. Dialoguing. With parties we've judged as offensive. Can lead to surprising, results. Talking. With extreme, candor, about her experiences, interviewing, leaders and followers of the men's rights movement formerly. Self-defined, feminist, filmmaker, cassie, jay has, described, how her pre-existing, views of the movement prevented, her from listening, to what her interviewees, were saying. Jay. Reflected. Those moments sitting. Across from my enemy, I wasn't, listening I was, waiting to hear a sentence, or even just a couple of words in succession that, proved why I wanted, to believe I would. Often hear an innocent, and valid point that a men's rights activist would make but. In my head I would add on to their statement, a sexist, or anti woman spin assuming. That's what they wanted, to say but didn't, J.

Cited, An instance where a men's rights activist asked where, is justice, for the man who was falsely accused of raping a woman and is branded, with the inescapable. Title, of rapist, J. Said, she heard a woman, being raped isn't, a big deal over. Time, she, realized many, offensive, attitudes, she previously attributed to, her enemy, group were, false. Listening. To parties we've judged as offensive. Can, give us a valuable opportunity, to find out we're the misinformed, party, that needs to rethink some, opinions, we've misguidedly. Accepted. John. Stuart Mill wrote that the peculiar, evil, of silencing, the expression, of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race posterity. As well as the existing, generation, those, who dissent, from the opinion, still more than those who hold it if the. Opinion is right they are deprived, of the opportunity of exchanging. Error for truth if. Wrong they. Lose what is almost as greater benefit, the, clearer perception and livelier. Impression, of truth produced. By its collision, with error. Offense. Can have positive, or negative, value depending, on circumstances. On, the positive side it can be a tool for resisting, tyranny, and a, lubricant, for social progress it. Can expose difficult, truths and prompt, us to usefully, examine, and possibly reassess, our values on the. Negative side the, concept of offense can be exploited, to shut down discourse. And thought to. Stigmatize, and, denounce critics, to. Generate, and justify. Violent. Revenge to. Protect, bogus, and harmful ideologies. To, strip us of our fundamental, freedoms. Offense, does not legitimize, violence, herb. Feelings, by themselves, are no reason, to limit free expression. We. Stand to gain much from learning to cope with offense rather, than attempting, to banish it we. Stand to gain much from learning, to appreciate, the value.

2018-03-06 03:32

Show Video


The value of offence gives license to violence for things like 'waycism'!

the biggest cause of death is ... abortion. - when it comes to critic of JW at least you could notice this people are/were sent to prisons for theirs anti-war ethics, think about this more than twice.

My religious beliefs dictate that you are wrong to be anything except supportive and accepting of my religious beliefs. Therefore you attack my religion every time you don't cheerlead hard enough for my religion, and because attacking someone's religion is a hate crime, you deserve to go to jail.

one day we should kick out all those inmigrants bastards that are degenerating western civilization, the barbaric should not live among the civilized, that´s the goldern rule

this video was demonetized for harassment

Great video, as always. Can't wait for more.

"Your mum." Aye fuk off m8, yer ma's yer da, yeeeeeoooooooooo.

The Margaret Sanger example, labeling social codes in that instance as regressive? Nope, there's a reason contraceptives, and it's consequences, were considered bad. It leads to terrible social consequences, i.e. increase in single mothers (due to contraceptive failure). Single parent children are a host of social maladies, they knew about such things back then but now it's "regressive" to know about how humans are and act accordingly.

"That's...exactly what it is to be disingenuous. That's what you did." How? It seems like you just don't like my conclusions. "As for the data, there's no source" If you look there's a link for the pdf version where they give sources. Look up the source they provide and you get the CDC. Didn't try very hard did you? Just jumping at the gun to be able to dismiss what I've provided. "and it's a religious organisation" And? What's your point? "Sure, a source is named, but there's no way to verify it for us." How about stop being lazy and do a google search for what the source is named. So at first there's no source and now there is one but you don't wanna try and look it up. Seems mighty suspicious that you aren't being honest in this discussion. "And when the group in question states that one of their main goals is to make their religion larger by spreading it to children, yes that's relevant." If their statistics are true then it's more likely that they're vindicated rather than the opposite as what you're trying to argue. "It's no coincidence that religious groups are the most vocal opponents of contraception." How is it no coincidence? Most religious groups think that the fetus is alive and human. Thus they see abortive methods as murder. "Because control of your reproduction threatens their control over you." Does the church have control over the individuals within? Can they legally force its members to do a thing? For the most part no, so your rhetoric here is just hyperbole. But as I argued at the beginning, which you have conveniently forgotten, single mothers lead to many social ills. Religious organization recognize that intact families contribute to the well-being of society. They are trying, in their own way, to make the best of the bad situation. "You can't give any group like this the benefit of the doubt" You are already decided, prejudiced. I'm guessing you wish to destroy such institutions. And in doing so fail to recognize the good it does for people. I don't care about religion, I don't need it for spiritual or social reasons. But other people do and getting rid of religious institutions will only collapses the functions the church serves since it isn't being replaced. Government cannot, and should not, serve in this regard. "They even SAY they are agenda-driven" So that's grounds to automatically dismiss them? No, it's being HONEST. You now know to keep in mind where their arguments are coming from and where their biases are. This is helpful, the exact opposite of the way you are viewing this. "yet you pretend not to know this as you hide behind their graphs. What I am pretending? You a mind reader now? I never said they weren't biased, I never said anything about the group presenting this supposed data, you are. I don't care about the group, I care about the data, IS IT ACCURATE? Now, will you stop being disingenuous and try to address the argument rather than fallaciously point at who is arguing it. If you care so much about who is presenting the data here is some graphs from the CDC showing THE EXACT SAME THING. Now, try to argue out of your paper bag.

That's...exactly what it is to be disingenuous. That's what you did. As for the data, there's no source, and it's a religious organisation. How are you still defending this? Sure, a source is named, but there's no way to verify it for us. And when the group in question states that one of their main goals is to make their religion larger by spreading it to children, yes that's relevant. It's no coincidence that religious groups are the most vocal opponents of contraception. Because control of your reproduction threatens their control over you. You can't give any group like this the benefit of the doubt, they are agenda-driven. They even SAY they are agenda-driven, yet you pretend not to know this as you hide behind their graphs.

"Moving the goalposts and pretending you're talking about something else" How I am moving the goalposts? You can't just spit out some fallacy and expect to be taken at face value, you must explain your reasoning. If you mean my narrowing down to a specific contraceptive, well I realized was I being ambiguous. Yes, I specified what I was talking about in order to better convey understanding, hardly disingenuous nor fallacious. "coupled with using a religious group as a crutch to support your argument..." Now this here is definitely fallacious, is the data wrong? It matter not what group gathered that data if it is accurate. Now, it seems to me that you couldn't even address the topic of what I brought up. First, you attempt to declare by fiat that I couldn't argue some point. Arguments via authority have no power here. I could have simply conceded? You never even argued against my position, you flailed around like an ideologue calling out fallacies that don't apply and running off while declaring victory. It's rather clear you have no idea what I'm talking about and are wholly ignorant on the issue but you were upset at what I said.

Moving the goalposts and pretending you're talking about something else, coupled with using a religious group as a crutch to support your argument... Yeah, you could have simply conceded dude, because that's exactly how I'm interpreting this. Cheers.

Not really, you only put out your opinion that it does indeed reduce the number of single mothers. So how do we resolve this? With statistics. I am talking about the pill by the way, not condoms. Here are some of the contraceptives failure rate. Here is a graph of single mothers over the past few decades. Birth control pill was approved for consumption in 1960. Latex condoms were created around 1930. There was no large increase after condoms but after the pill it starts to rise and rise. I believe we have a correlation.

Yeah and I corrected you

I already said why more single mothers occur, contraceptive failure.

Contraception leads to less single mothers, not more. You don't get to dispute this.

You sob I missed you

I'm disappointed in you, you seemed to eat up right-wing propaganda when you included "red pill" right-wing activist Jaye in this video. Please, David Rubin's stance on Islam does not make his views on women correct

I'm not talking about a centre ground in terms of compromise or false mid-points, as in the argument to moderation. As I indicated in my first comment, I’m talking about a space that is willing to dispassionately examine all ideas. I’ve previously talked about independence being a centre ground between conformity and anti-conformity. Clearly independence isn’t a ‘compromise’ or between those two positions — but a different approach to both. I’ve also talked about assertiveness being a centre ground between passivity and aggression. Plainly, the argument to moderation is fallacious. An obvious example is seen with theism and atheism. But that’s not the kind of centre ground I’m talking about. For me, it’s about sifting ideas, not conceding bogus compromises or bowing to aggressive propaganda — from anyone. If party A has 2 good ideas and 8 disastrous ones and party B has 2 disastrous ideas and 8 good ones, we don’t try to take 5 from each, or make concessions to one side because it’s more aggressive or ‘passionate’ — or give any other bogus allowance. We take the good ideas.

There is no such thing as "centre ground", and there never has been. This is similar to the 'middle ground' fallacy, where people who claim to be objective sit inbetween two opposing claims and say "Well, the truth has got to be roughly where I am sitting!" And the response is that no, the truth doesn't act like a fulcrum, balancing out both sides. Criticise both sides, please, by all means. But you have to get it out of your head that you can occupy some kind of neutral ground, because in fact all you're doing is helping one side without realising it. Put it this way: Right now one side is standing up and saying "We believe in deregulation, and we're willing to deny the tens of millions of casualties this necessarily creates", and another side says "How about we maybe don't allow this to happen?" And the centrist liberals say "Woah guys, surely we can work something out and compromise" You see where that leads us? If one side marches off into the exteme end, playing at neutrality just makes you a tool for that side.


TheraminTrees, ... The knifes edge will always be sharp as long as tens of millions of dollars are used to keep it that way. Too bad, and sad, that we just can’t ignore. Thank you for your videos, your insight and discernment. Your well measured thoughts on these subjects are greatly appreciated. *tips hat

What I find disappointing is that the centre ground — where liberal people like myself don't actually 'eat up propaganda' from either side of the political spectrum — is knife-edge thin these days. Because without a bigger centre space — that's willing to dispassionately examine and be critical of BOTH sides — we're lost. But so long as elements on both sides insist on dismissing that important centre ground, and lumping it all together with 'the enemy' on the other side, that centre ground will remain knife-edge thin.

Sending greetings from South Africa. I remember the whole Spear saga, but additionally, I think the ANC's (and sometimes even the public's) offense taken with some works by cartoonist Zapiro could also be worth looking into in relation to being offended. Particularly, the 'rape of Lady Justice' cartoons got people so offended by the depiction of rape that they disregarded the entire point the cartoonist wanted to get across about the dire state of the justice system at the time, particularly in relation to Zuma having just come out of a rape trial. Speaking of Zuma, at one point he got so offended that he actually sued Zapiro for defamation, yet dropping the charges just before the case was set to go to court. I just bring all this up because I think it could make for an interesting study in relation to what you talk about in the video. Sometimes the reactions people down here display when 'offended' could offer a whole goldmine of case studies imho.

And greetings to you. Zapiro's satirical 'Rape of Lady Justice' cartoon was among the material we amassed for this video. In the end, purely on the grounds of time, we focussed exclusively on Murray's 'The Spear', which as I'm sure you know was censored by vandalism. But, yes, we noted Zuma's attempt to intimidate Zapiro with legal action — then dropping the case as you say. There was a feeling, coming through in the research, that previous reforms to South Africa's constitution had strongly supported/protected freedom of expression — particularly artistic — and that these attempted attacks by Zuma and the ANC represented extremely important legal 'tests' of the robustness of that artistic protection.

Defending MRAs now? Jesus fucking Christ, do some research.

Are the mra completely indefensible in your eyes?

Captain Andy, ... Your post would have been funny if it weren’t so sad. Are you going to finish that sandwich?

Hey, Qualia's back! That guy played a big role in helping me lose religion! Great to see you guys collaborating, and thanks for the great video :)

Do you have any reason why the max quality of your videos is 720p? The animation quality is top notch, but I feel like the resolution is always lacking behind.

Here’s the problem with the “men’s rights advocate” example: most of the time in situations where a man is going to call himself a men’s rights advocate, it’s directly a response to a woman expressing the trials she faces. Those specific type of people are rarely on an everyday basis, without female provocation, fighting to men’s rights. Them claiming “but men too” is a way to silence the women who are expressing very real and very dangerous truths about the inequality and the lack of safety that women face every day. The women hears “I don’t think women being raped is a big deal” because the man is expressing that opinion right after a woman has said something like “1 out of 4 women will be sexually assaulted in their life.” I see this happen all of the time. And that very same man would turn around and make a rape joke...sometimes even one about a man! As long as it has to do with the man being in prison it seems to be okay with the men’s rights advocates. I’m not saying that all men who speak up about the very real problems that they face are trying to gaslight women. I’m saying that the reason women have those assumptions when they hear certain phrases is because far too often the phrases come as more of an attack on women rather than out of pure want of fixing the separate problem of men’s issues.

Ha, brilliant. "Anyone who doesn't display immediate allegiance and presents an air of confidence must be lying. Don't force me to experience cognitive dissonance." DeoMachina, you're proving to be emotionally immature at best, and confirming more and more symptoms of cluster B behavior. I do pity you, and wonder if you've ever taken the lovely video series Theramintrees has made about Transactional Analysis to heart at all. It doesn't show at least and would highly recommend it. I'm not going to get reeled into a game here though, and don't feel obligated to be your therapist. I do recommend you see one at some point. Cheerio darling, it's been lovely. May you find your way to adulthood sometime this decade.

DeoMachina I am quite tired so I will leave you with some of the contence of a google search I did on the topic despite google saying there were no results found for "men's group shutdown". Here is an article from the telegraph Here is an article from the National Post Oh and it extends to parliament too, check out some of the truly lovely jess philips and her take on a debate about some of the men's issues on international men's day. My personal favourite part of the last one is at the 1:25 point where she is laughing at the concept.

+TormentedDreamer Isn't lying a logical fallacy too? I actually don't know, but I'm dismissing you anyway.

+DrunkenAussie I mean I'm just speculating, how could I possibly back up the claims when people here refuse to specify which colleges and which feminist groups they're talking about? Interesting how I'm the one being held to a higher standard here.

"The only reason complaining men would gather together is to seek power in numbers to take revenge on women and selfjustify their anger". Now genderswap that statement. There's your women's centers, it's called projecting. And to handhold you a bit more as things seem to fly over your head: it's attributing to your enemies what you are thinking about yourself, because assuming everyone thinks in the same way you do is what narcissists do. Did that hurt your feelings? Do you feel outraged? Good. You're probably already fuming and aching to go ad hominem. Won't work, logic fallacies get dismissed. Watch the video again to figure out why.

DeoMachina "such centres were being proposed by MRA trash who had no desire to help men, only whine about women" I don't suppose you can back up those claims?

+Mark P Because such centres were being proposed by MRA trash who had no desire to help men, only whine about women? Seems like a valid reason to me.

+DeoMachina Explain to me the feminist groups that actively opposed the creation of "Men's centers" on collage campuses that already had Women's centers.

+Redcomix MRA are trash dude, wanna know why? They don't make any attempt to fix the things they pretend to care about. But they will attempt to shoot down anybody they percieve as their rivals. For example: Do MRA's push for better domestic abuse legistlation? Nope. Will they oppose better domestic abuse legistlation if a woman presented it? Yes. Laziness I can forgive, I'm not politically active myself after all. But laziness means staying at home and not interfering. MRA's have the drive and the energy, but they refuse to spend it on their own 'goals'. They solely focus on sabotaging feminism and women. They don't care about men, they don't care about you.

Feminist: Domestic violence is a big problem that affects women everywhere! MRA: Men report as having been abused at about the same rate as women, yet we get no funding or support. Feminist: Stop making this all about men! Feminist: Women are too scared to walk on the street at night! MRA: Men are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime. This is rarely ever talked about. Feminist: Stop making this all about men! See the problem? I'd feel sorry for women getting brushed off by men who don't care about their problems, but this is the daily for men as individuals and in groups. No domestic abuse shelters, no right to genital integrity, and a prison system notorious for state facilitated gang rape. Also, what do you think the response often is to bringing these up? You don't think MRAs often get brushed off and dismissed? Feminists don't want to fund a domestic abuse shelter for men? Hey, no big deal, not their job. But, it's not my fucking job to care about your or anyone else's pet issue. Especially when I don't demand people give a shit about mine.

For many years now I have watched the content you and your brother have created with a sense of (to be frank), awe. The instruction manual for life is still my favourite piece of material on the whole of YouTube in my opinion. While there are many players in this social commentary we are all taking part in, you two have consistently maintain an originality of thought that is very rarely seen. Add to this your truly impressive way of communicating your ideas. Thank you both.

On behalf of us both, thank you very much for your kind message Gerard. It's very affirming to us to hear that our work is communicating itself in the way you describe.

Does Qualia show any sign of coming back to his old channel? I love the collaborations, but I really miss his original content too.

Put into perspective holy crap people can be scary.

17:25 Hmm sounds a lot like a few small YouTube "communities" who might be grooming and intern being groomed by the bigger Groomer which is YT itself... Always look down but, don't forget to look up... I hope that your content stays safe for future generations. I need to copy it for my kids. Just in case. Stay Strong, friend.

Great work as always.

“Negative emotions are felt. But there’s no obligation to accommodate these wishes or demands. Merely feeling offended by anthers words or actions isn't in itself of suffering unreasonable harm.” Clicks like. So glad to see another video from you guys again after such a long time.

adding value to the world, thanks

Intro music ?

I find it ridiculous when people are against the men's rights movement (MRM) because they read some article saying that all MRAs are rapists and neo nazis. Perhaps they read some comment on the Internet criticizing women, so they assumed that the commenter is a woman-hater and therefore must an MRA who of course (because they received two 'likes' and have five followers) is the spokesperson for the whole movement. I wish people would just stop being cowards and state their beliefs plainly. For example they could say, "I'm against the MRM because I think male circumcision is fine. I love the practice and don't think it is mutilation when it is a penis and not a clitoris". Why don't they say, "I think under all circumstances, fathers should not be given custody of children unless it is approved by the mother.. Mothers know best". They could say, "I don't think domestic violence against men is a problem. I don't have a problem if a woman physically attacks a man in a domestic situation. Men don't really suffer or they actually deserve it and therefore no action is needed." How about "I think women should have reduced jail sentences for the same crime. This is my stance. I will not deny or apologize for it."? At least they would be being honest and stating their beliefs plainly instead making out that the MRM is about allowing men to rape, creating a white ethno-state, starting a neo nazi program in schools, and other such ridiculous nonsense.

That would be honest and would require introspection.

The whole time I'm thinking "He's talking about feminists!"

Thanks. Theramin and Qualia now the biz.

Thank you! :D

Best video ever made!!

I'd love it if Philosophytube responded to this.

Hey, Theramintrees! Your Mum.

You won't get any argument there ;8)

Look, I know that the popular refrain when people get their videos removed or get banned from twitter is "free speech", but you are smart enough to know that no one sensible is saying that they are infringing on our rights. We are saying that they are less valuable because of this censorious attitude. We are saying that they are exacerbating the increasingly unstable, partisan tendencies of people all over the world. We're saying that an attitude of upholding the free expression of ideas is a worthy principle that will benefit society in the long run. Even pretending that the issue at hand is merely the legal right to unabridged expression—worse, as your first point—comes across as a mollifying distraction for the highly authoritarian cowards in our society (you know, those 4 groups you caricature in the intro?). You frequently and openly name the authoritarian religious, but you don't seem willing to openly name the authoritarians preaching more demography-obsessed bigotry. Why is that? I'm not presuming to know, but I was surprised to hear you bring up Cassie Jaye. It may have been worth bringing up all of the defamation that has been and continues to be thrown her way.

"I was only responding to the second half of your comment" I know. "which was directed specifically at this video" That's what I am trying to tell you. It wasn't. Now I see the confusion. When I say "You frequently and openly name the authoritarian religious, but you don't seem willing to openly name the authoritarians preaching more demography-obsessed bigotry." I am not talking about just this video, I am talking about a pattern I have noticed throughout his channel's existence. Because of that, I found your disagreement deliberately obtuse, but I can now see how that part could have been interpreted differently. " this is not always the case, which is why we need to always give people the benefit of the doubt until they give us direct evidence of their other positions." I think this very exchange is evidence of that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Boy, that story about the FFRF rings some bells. I remember saying "hey, maybe calling Trump voters "Nazis" is just going to entrench them further and exacerbate the problem, and as such we should tone down this rhetoric", I'm sure you can guess what I was called: a Trump-supporting Nazi. "However, TT never used this statement to support bad censorship policies. So I think we can lower the red flags for him, especially since he brought up Cassie Jaye." I maintain that my criticism in the first part of the comment is valid. The argument really isn't, at its core, about what private corporations can or cannot do or guaranteed rights under the law, and there was no good reason to bring that up, it's just a massive distraction. " instead clear up any confusion that could possibly be had." That's the thing, though, it just exacerbates the confusion. It puts the idea in people's minds, right from the outset, that this has anything to do with legislation. "it helps to acknowledge certain points so that people become more willing to listen to your position." It can help, but doesn't necessarily help. I think that, if he agrees with me that this is not merely about legislation, then he did a poor job making that distinction. "it is true that I interpreted your comment as a criticism" It was. :T " I still disagree with your statement that TT seemed unwilling to address demography-obsessed bigotry." Change that to "has been seemingly unwilling from the start of his channel to the present" and you have a better idea of what I meant. " we're actually on the same side" Yeah, I saw your comment in that other thread. Why we bash our heads against these brick walls masquerading as thinking agents I do not know. Probably something to do with not countenancing liars.

*You are responding under the assumption that I was speaking only of this video.* I was only responding to the second half of your comment, which was directed specifically at this video, because that's the part of your comment I felt I strongly disagreed with. I wasn't trying to dismiss the first half of your comment because I mostly agree with it. But, since we're talking about it, allow me to address it. When people complain about censorious behaviors from private organizations, it's common for others to respond with, "They have a right not to give people a platform" or "it's a private organization, they can censor whatever they want". It's frustrating when they say, "Censorship laws only refer to the government, not private enterprises". It's not that these statements are wrong, it's that these statements tend to be a misrepresentation of people's criticisms against these organizations. So, for the most part, we're in total agreement. I *completely* understand what you mean by "I can recognize patterns", because usually when people talk about organizations having the right to censor content, it's to defend bad censorious practices. And, let's be honest, you can typically tell what a person's overall position will likely be on an issue from a single, technically unrelated, statement they make. However, this is not always the case, which is why we need to always give people the benefit of the doubt until they give us direct evidence of their other positions. This is why I've been accused of being both a feminazi and a misogynist. For example, I do not think abortion laws exist as a means of keeping women subservient to men. I genuinely think pro-lifers have good intentions, trying to protect what they perceive to be a viable human being. Whenever I expressed this view in response to someone on the Freedom From Religion Foundation page, I was slandered. I was called a misogynist and a pro-lifer. They misrepresented everything I said and even got one of the admins to ban me from the FB page, all because I disagreed with them on one insignificant little detail. They're used to pro-lifers telling them abortion laws aren't a tool to oppress women, so they lumped me in with pro-lifers when I made the same argument, despite me making it abundantly clear that I'm pro-choice. With *all of that being said* (thanks for bearing with me), I completely understand why you viewed TT's statement as a red flag when he talked about businesses having the right not to publish other people's works. It is a talking point that, although not incorrect, is often parroted by those who support censorious practices. However, TT never used this statement to support bad censorship policies. So I think we can lower the red flags for him, especially since he brought up Cassie Jaye. So why did TT bring up private organization's rights to not feature certain content? Well, for starters, it is worth reminding some people. Unlike the dishonest people I mentioned before, TT isn't using this argument to misrepresent an entire group's position, but to instead clear up any confusion that could possibly be had. Not only that, but TT is demonstrating that he understands that nobody is obligated to publish content they disagree with, so now there's no excuse for anyone to accuse him of ignoring that detail. Lastly, it helps to acknowledge certain points so that people become more willing to listen to your position. People who believe there should be limits on speech will here this and say, "Hmmm, I'm glad he acknowledged that", and that will make them less defensive about the rest of the video. Anyway, back to what I was talking about before. When you said "It may have been worth bringing up all of the defamation...", I merely explained why it was unnecessary. I was not trying to paint you as a reactionary. With all of that being said, it is true that I interpreted your comment as a criticism. If you say it wasn't, then there's no reason for me to doubt you. However, I still disagree with your statement that TT *seemed unwilling* to address demography-obsessed bigotry. I don't think there's enough evidence to even suggest he *might* be unwilling to discuss demography-obsessed bigotry. Instead, it seems he merely avoided the topic because it wasn't necessary to demonstrate his point. Anyway, I hope that clears up some of the confusion. I do believe you were a bit too quick to raise suspicion against TT and although I understand why you believe I'm trying to find a way to dismiss your point in an off-handed way, trust me when I say we're actually on the same side and I don't have the ill intentions you think.

You are responding under the assumption that I was speaking only of this video. It's a pattern, NoNameC68. I can recognize patterns. Furthermore, all I said was *"It may have been* worth bringing up all of the defamation that has been and continues to be thrown her way." (emphasis added). Finally, I'm not criticizing him, I'm asking him a question. Remember that "I'm not presuming to know" bit? Maybe he has a good reason for avoiding other salient topics. I can see what you're doing. You are trying to dismiss everything I wrote by painting me as a reactionary. It's dishonest and obnoxious.

There are numerous examples of censorship TT could have used, and anyone who has a vested interest in a particular case/form of censorship not mentioned in the video will no doubt wish to have seen their own ideas represented. But don't confuse the lack of attention to these cases to be an unwillingness to discuss them. Suppose I criticized your response to TT, "You brought up demography-obsessed bigotry, but it's curious that you're unwilling to address the intolerance of certain economical views. Why is that?" Sure, TT could have delved into the unjustified criticisms made against Cassie Jaye. However, the details he did provide about her were more than sufficient for substantiating his claim. There really was no need for TT to labor the point. After all, TT could have chosen to go into more detail about any of the examples he provided. In the end, you wish TT would have put more attention on a specific issue that is important to you. But to criticize him for not doing so is a bit silly.

Love your visuals

Lastly, want to add the skeptic community seems to have a problem with this fetishization of free speech. While I do believe free speech is quite important, the world is not made a better place by the continued defense of the freedom of speech of Nazis for example. And you can argue if you don't defend those groups that are hated by society than it allows the erosion of everyone's speech but their is a vast and meaningful difference between speaking about the need to kill or enslave a group of people, even in nonspecific 'this is our goal someday' terms, and any other kind of speech. One does not have to fall into the slippery slope of banning all free speech to believe hate groups have no place in our society.

To your first part: 'we should kill all the jews' is hate speech and incitement, and most people are already okay with it being banned for violating rules against incitement. You are arguing the expansion of laws against things that are 'just hate speech' and are using as your example something that is both 'hate speech and incitement.' I was pointing out that I can still agree that your example statement could be kept illegal, without supporting anything else in your argument. To the second: Then let's muddy it up a bit. "On average Nigerians are taller than people of Jewish descent. This means that in the realm of certain athletic competitions Jews tend to perform worse than Nigerians." The idea expressed here is still technically "Jews are the inferior race." So here's my question: Do you want to close the doors to any discussion about differences in intelligence, physical ability, or medical necessities between subsections of people? Because all of these have actual grounding in science. We have specific heart medication for black people who are more susceptible to certain diseases showing that pointing out what might be labeled a "defect in a specific race" can help save lives. If you think this stuff is okay to talk about then I have a follow up question: Do you trust any government to limit the reach of these laws to the types of Hate speech you don't like? I don't.

Well again just because something is illegal doesn't mean it has to be or people feel it should be like blasphemy laws are on the books may place, so I don't feel I can take for granted that incitement is something people would want to stay illegal. As fair as X group is inferior that becomes slightly more difficult because its harder to draw the line between that and either sort of racist ideas or things like Israel sucks because of what they are doing to Palestine. My gut reaction is yes because I don't think there is a place in modern society for that kind of speech, and I think its possible to ban it without banning other speech.

There's the theoretical possibility that the worst ideas of the Nazi's are right, you know? Perhaps allowing the lesser races, especially jews, and their ideas to run rampant is destroying civilization across the world, and the lesser evil, if you care about the future of humanity, is to wipe them out. Maybe you don't want to hear things like this, preferring to stick your head in the sand, but you should only be able to make that decision for yourself, not for everyone else. I certainly don't trust you to decide for me.

You're statement was incitement, which is already covered by law. We are talking about hate speech not covered by laws against incitement. How do you feel about "Jews are inferior as a race." Is this hatespeach you would ban?

" The moment we censor Nazis, we end up censoring people wrongfully accused of being Nazis." No ... Just no ... like you don't censor someone because they are called a Nazi you base it on what they are saying. If someone that doesn't claim to be a Nazi says 'we should kill all the jews' then society is under no obligation to protect that speech even though they aren't calling themselves a Nazi. I understand that calls to violence are illegal but the point is (as was even mentioned in the video) they are still technically a type of speech, freedom of speech can and should not be complete we understand there are dangerous extremes that need to be prevented. I'm not saying I have the answer to what this is always but I think it's important to recognize and except.

We have to defend the speech of Nazis because people keep accusing non-Nazis of being Nazis! The moment we censor Nazis, we end up censoring people wrongfully accused of being Nazis. For example, many people believe we shouldn't put up with hate speech against women, that misogynists too shouldn't be allowed to speak since they're trying to oppress women. Unfortunately, people like Christina Hoff Sommers have been accused of hate speech themselves. We must defend the speech of Nazis because we can not trust the government to differentiate between Nazis and conservatives, anti-war protests and treason, criticisms against Christianity and violent incitement against Christianity. Now, a lot of what Nazis say is a call to violence, which is illegal. But we have to be very specific on what constitutes violent speech and merely hateful speech.

Please send this video to all post modernists.

Why, do they (whoever "post modernists" are) offend you?

I think there is also a couple important points that are at the best being underplayed and the worst being actively ignored. First I think while there is definitely a value to offensiveness when attacking powerful and/or corrupt individual (which is what almost all your examples are of, government leaders, often of autocratic states, and religious extremists) I think there is, however, a difference between that and say, your religious neighbor. But more importantly for me, the second point is things are rarely offensive with no context, like yes the context may not justify being offended or the responses people take but it rarely simply "words hurt" like you do even acknowledge that workplace bullying is a concern and a big part of that is this offensive language.

A very well made and thought provoking video as always, good job. Will we hear any of Qualia's voice in the upcoming videos? I miss it :(


I think a clear distinguishing between offensive and insulting is needed. If an offensive person turns their banter towards you directly that is a justifiable insult and worthy of offense. Other than that I agree, this was a great video

@4:51 "Steven Pinker describes..." Saw that coming. I read _Enlightenment Now_ and thought the very concept behind this video was very familiar.

Oh. Just a coincidence then. I obviously think you'd enjoy it, all the same.

I've not read 'Enlightenment Now'. But a couple of short clips of Pinker resonated with the thrust of what we were writing.

if anyone is offended by anyone or anything at all, they should kill themselves. they are nothing more than a waste of space

Amazing quality and content. As always. These videos should have millions of views.

A particular judo move that people like to use is to see a reasonable description of actual harm done to a person or group and turn it around pretend the description is merely of offense and not of actual harm. Another is to treat a person's negative reaction to a proposed plan of action that will harm them as being merely offense. Using offense to dismiss an argument is fallacious.

Great observation.

A new video,I know what I'm doing for the next 24 minutes.Thank you TheraminTrees and Qualia Soup for making me think.

I would argue that it is not enough to simply say 'oh well you can self-publish' because this will always be both a barrier that cannot be overcome/cause extreme trouble to overcome and reach a far smaller audience then using traditional publishing, that's why we have things like common carriers allowing (theoretically) everyone to compete openly.

I absolutely love your videos. Qualia's channel as well (I wish he made the 4th part of the morality series he mentioned at the end of part 3). Over the years I would occasionally rewatch many of them. However, recently I've come to watch/listen to them on loop many times per week. This started about 2 or 3 weeks ago. I am unsure whether this is a sign that I'm trying to further process the ideas in your videos or whether I'm doing myself harm in some way. Regardless, I just wanted to say thank you for your work over the years. Your videos are the best. I just noticed you had a patreon so I'll be showing my support there as well.

Cheers Eric — and thank you very much for your patreon support.

This upload made my day

I'm offended by this video! Get it *giggles over stupid joke*

The quality is the best so far

I admire Hitches, but, for all his lofty ideals about hearing out the heretics, he had his own limit: 9/11 conspiracy theorists. During one of audience questions from audience sessions he made a point of disregarding a question on the subject. He also shown he was unwilling to even entertain the idea, he had however entertained far more improbable and ludicrous propositions in the past. It was a sad display. His own offence made him censor himself, denying everyone the opportunity to hear what he has to say on the matter.

Not all ideas are equal, and it's not all opinions that deserves a major platform to be spread from! When freedom of expression turns into hate speech, we need to constantly evaluate what the level of tolerance towards intolerance should be! The balance will always be in how we define hate-speech, where some will try to label critisism of ideas as hateful, and others, will define it as attacks on population groups or individuals, (as in smear and libel) Various countries has come up with certain restrictions on display of intolerance or hate, a great example is Germany that has some restrictions in regards to public display of nazi symbols and will punish public holocaust deniers - now can we really blame them for feeling the need for these restrictions?

AtheistAlias No, there's absolutely no chance that holocaust deniers are right! It's like flat-earther and creationists - and you can't make public holocaust denier comments without basically making yourself guilty of defamation! This is what the laws cover in Germany! So you wanna blame a country that has suffered so much under the banner of Nazism, for making it illegal to publicly display Nazi symbols! For displaying support of the most hateful and tyrannical government in modern west European history! Now I'm not living in Germany, but I can understand why they don't want people to make public displays of Nazi symbols as it's a vile ideology! Personally I prefer that Nazis are out in the open, so we can see who those losers are, but I understand why the Germans consider it an act of incitement in it self to display Nazi symbols! To them, the symbol in itself IS an incitement to violence!

"can we really blame them for feeling the need for these restrictions?" Yes. Public display of Nazi symbols is not incitement to violence. We also need to constantly evaluate what's true and what isn't. There's a chance that holocaust deniers are right as far as we can know, so they shouldn't be punished either.

The classroom example is a bit flawed, because it "ignored" the option of social control in the form of name calling not being social acceptable - and only pointed towards an angry reaction to name calling not being acceptable! This is where the the real "golden rule" or only kind of commandment needed; the "don't be a prick" commandment comes into play! While it isn't acceptable to react with violence, we still have to regulate in regards to the kinds of attacks we accept under the umbrella of freedom of expression! Again, that's where the difference between ideas and people come in!

RSA has the best constitution in the world.

I didn't really get this video. Why make it about offense? Blasphemy, shunning, rational ignorance, and restricted speech can be or are all shitty but they aren't the same thing as offense. Blasphemy is just a zealous form of trademark/copyright abuse, the IP holders aren't offended when they sue they're just protecting their claims. Shunning is a libertarian friendly punishment system, I don't get the connection to offence anymore than any other punishment system. Rational ignorance isn't about offence, that's why it's rational. And restricted speech is just about PR, the authority cares about what makes them look bad to others not what make them feel bad themselves.

In my experience, words - in the long run - can be dehumanizing and distort other people's view. I'm autistic, and while I was diagnosed very late in my teenage years (I was technically an adult by then), I showed a lot of signs, often ones that ended up with severe bullying. If I ignored their name callings, things became physical. Mainly because they no longer saw me as a human being, I was a different class to them. By that time, there were conspiracy theories around me, that my mother pays the teachers to give me relatively good grades, so she doesn't have to tell me that I (supposedly) had a serious intellectual disability (all the evidence they had is that I spoke a dialect, was horrible at sports, didn't smoke which was according to one kid "good behavior" is common among r*****s, etc). Maybe if I stood up for myself much earlier, things wouldn't have gone too far. I was glad once my teachers begged my parents to change classes since most of the more brutal stuff turned into after school stuff, where the teachers didn't have any power. The only thing I learned during that wasn't to "man up", instead I experienced systematic oppression in first hand alongside with a good amount of victim blaming (some even suggested me to pick up smoking then put it down once I finish secondary school, or why I couldn't beat up half of the class which included at least one amateur body-builder). My main problem with a lot of MRA, that they pretty much want to fix the harm on men caused by patriarchy with even more of that. My problem of not living up to masculine ideals wasn't caused by my single mother, I was a weak and fragile boy even before my parents divorced. While early on I wanted to play sports, I got disencouraged by the much higher standards of others (sometimes I saw kids crying in rage even when they won, but with not enough extra points onto their opponents), so I didn't really bother, and I tend to avoid sports since I get much less harassment if I don't do anything than when I do it. When I first became atheist, I thought gender equality was an extremely important thing (especially since the effects of Christian misogyny still affects our mostly secular western worldview), I wanted to first become an MRA, but was quickly disencouraged by the toxic cesspool and rampant victim blaming. After reading more about feminism and that it has multiple wings, I went instead with the label feminist instead. I think there's some legitimate criticism of feminism (especially on certain feminists), but I rarely see nowadays talking points I haven't heard yet. While false allegations do exist, they mainly harm men of color (especially since the far-right started a crusade against Muslim rapists), but hurt actual victims more often than the falsely alleged, so rare that I haven't yet heard about one happening in my circles (while unwanted sexual advances are common), not to mention that many men use it to get away from their responsibilities.

"My main problem with a lot of MRA, that they pretty much want to fix the harm on men caused by patriarchy with even more of that." What are some of the talking points MRAs mention that they want to fix? "especially since the effects of Christian misogyny still affects our mostly secular western worldview" What part is misogynistic and how? "I wanted to first become an MRA, but was quickly disencouraged by the toxic cesspool and rampant victim blaming." Amazingly ironic. How'd you come to this conclusion. "but hurt actual victims more often than the falsely alleged" The falsely accused are the victims. "not to mention that many men use it to get away from their responsibilities" Name one?

Best collab.

Roses are red, It's nice to see this collaboration, For some this vid might Be a surprising revelation.

So epic, intense beyond the normal acceptances of social normalcy which have cause so much pain throughout ones life.... My my its quiet odd to find kindred minds putting my thoughts and feelings, and exposing personal flaws in such coherent and practical a fashion. You certainly deserve a place among the great thinkers of our age and specie's. Although one is seldom recognized in one's own environment....

What the heck is "SNEW?"

South–North–East–West. That figure represents a map maker.

Fantastically made video. i agree that we should listen to our detractors and assess their words without jumping to offense simply because they are contrary views to our own. However, I feel that the "Freeze peach" argument is being used too often in online discourse to justify bigotry against minority groups. The term "SJW" is often used to degrade and mock those who take reasonable offence to the intentional misgendering and bigotry towards people of diverse sexualities and genders. For example; Scenario 1: Person A is invited to hold a lecture at a university. Person A uses this platform to out, mock and degrade a transgender student. Person B says that we should not offer a platform to bigots. Person A claims their free speech is being threatened by person B's "feelings". Universities are a place of education, and all schools should have a moral obligation towards the safety of their students. If we create a toxic environment for certain minorities, then isn't this infringing on the speech of the minority? Scenario B: Person A states that we are all probably racist because of subconscious cultural biases. Person B makes a video where they throw gendered slurs at person A, and their fans send death threats to the comments on that person's video. Person A closes comments and disables ratings due to the harassment. Person B claims person A just doesn't want to hear opposing views. Scenario C: Person A makes a statement about supporting rape survivors. Person B sends a tweet at them stating "I wouldn't even rape you". Person C says that person B is repulsive for mocking rape victims. Person B claims it's "just a joke" and that we "shouldn't be offended". Person C explains that "Jokes" that degrade or mock rape victims are only adding to the suffering of rape victims. Person B proclaims it's "free speech" and that person C is "too easily offended" or "wants to censor him". These are all scenarios based on real life incidents where "free speech"--and the idea that making someone offended is a good thing--are used to reinstate existing bigotry against minority groups. I reccomend these two videos to further illustrate my point; Contra Points: "Does the Left Hate Free Speech"? Shaun and Jen: "So about that Amazing Atheist Video..." I hope you take the time to read this mini essay of mine, Theramin. I don't disagree with you in principle, but in practice I think we need to approach the concept with nuance to avoid being exploited by bigots.

Do you think people in those scenarios were sufficiently harmed enough to curtail freedom of speech? To me, the answer is "no", and it's not even close. As discussed in the video, the only exception worth making are direct, immediate calls to violence, and even that was in dispute due to the factor of personal responsibility. So I find your objection very unpersuasive and your obvious ideological entrenchment suspect.

Thank you :).

I took the time to read your mini essay. It was time well spent.

Teenagers tend to ignore these things because their parents grew up in a generation that was taught "sticks and stones" but they forget this when they go to University/College because of left wing identity politics pushing ideologue teachers.

Yeah, those left wing identity politics are really offensive.

Looks like 20 people think they have a right to not be offended.

I was going to leave a smart-alec comment about how you are remaining completely silent on the 21st century religion of our times, but then you mentioned Cassie Jaye's experiences. So I think I am going to just shut up now and eagerly await your next videos. Excellent work. Thank you.

Great video as always

I like this video a lot, and it pleases me that I am not afraid to listen to and actually take at face value the points of groups I disagree with on general premises. The general premise of the men's Rights movement (men are an oppressed group within society, women exercise control) I disagree with, and do not find evident. That doesn't mean I also must dispute every claim made - I fully grant that certain left leaning organizations or groups unfairly attack men, I fully agree that men are accused falsely of rape and other crimes. Where I disagree is whether the severity and frequency of these incidents merits a true need for "special action" or whether the personal perspective of the activists simply means they are paying more attention and seeking out these areas where they can feel offended and attacked. In order for (for instance) false rape accusations leading to real punishment to actually outweigh real instances of rape, I'd have to grant an incredible amount of deficiency in nearly every countrys justice system with respect to innocence until proof of guilt. And only for that particular crime. So thanks Theramin. Excellently made video as usual. It's very nice to see someone approaching subjects from a non-emotionally charged standpoint.

Cheers for your thoughts John.

Really excellent!

According to Christianity, I am a sinful, evil being not worthy of forgiveness and who would rightfully be tortured forever if nobody saved me, because I deserve it. Is that not offensive? Should I go around trying to censor all christian preachers and ban the bible from being read or printed? because of how offensive it is to me, and anyone who doesn't share said religion? Of course not. But under the view of these people, that would be reasonable.

Qualia! Yay! We missed you.

Also the Mens Right Movement sucks. Most of their better talking points are part of feminist theories which recognise the role misogyny has played in hurting men, but the movement fails to recognise this and so fails to bring any workable solutions to the table. Some members’ solutions are to make women suffer in the way that men do. And the worst part of it all, having myself almost been deceived by anti feminist propoganda, is that the movement is a gateway to white supremacy and neo nazism. If that doesnt say something about the movement, Idk what does

Your claim that Mens Rights Activism leads to white supremacy and neo nazism is wildly inaccurate. Although there is some overlap, most MRAs are not white supremacists or nazis. That's just a fact. Alright, let's evaluate the links you provided. *First up, The 'Gateway Drug':* The author states that before Cantwell became a white supremacist, he was an MRA. Therefore, Men's Rights Activism leads to Neo-Nazism. That's completely absurd! He was also an atheist. Does that mean atheism leads to white supremacy too? Everyone else mentioned in the article are merely accused of being alt-right Trump supporters. Alt-Right is NOT Nazism! Although I believe MRAs do tend to lean right, some being Trump supporters, there are plenty of MRAs who are not even conservative. *Skipping the Salon article since you stated it goes over the same points as the Gateway Drug article* *Second, Southern Poverty Law Center* I won't deny the existence of misogynist groups in America. However, there is no evidence what-so-ever that most MRAs, or even a significant portion of them, are white supremacists. Furthermore, the Southern Poverty Law Center is not a reputable source regarding hate groups. They referred to Christina Hoff Sommers as a promoter of male supremacy, which couldn't be further from the truth. They also deny the existence of anti-male hate groups, which is incredibly suspect. The Southern Poverty Law Center also treats basic conservatism as a hate group under the guise of "alt-right". *Final thoughts* I skimmed the rest of your articles and I'm going to just summarize the rest of my points. These articles deny the existence of moderate MRAs as well as the existence of radical feminists. They automatically dismiss all claims made by anti-feminists, assuming they're wrong, when many anti-feminist claims have a lot of merit. Both MRA and Feminist groups host a wide range of cultures ranging from extremists to moderates. They both bring up valid points as well as a bunch of bigoted hogwash. This is why we need to be careful judging people who consider themselves MRA or feminist. I'd consider myself an anti-feminist since I rarely dabble with radical MRAs (though I do acknowledge their existence and call out their claims as I come across them.) When someone claims to be a feminist, I have learned that I can not assume they're radical. Granted, most of them do happen to be radical or hold incredibly bigoted views, but I've also learned that many of them don't. When someone criticizes MRAs, I need to determine whether or not they're only referring to radical MRAs or if they believe all MRAs are flawed. The same goes for anti-feminists who often fail to acknowledge legitimate feminist claims. You said that the best points MRAs bring up are things feminism addresses already. That's blatantly false. Feminism does not address men's issues. Feminism does not address the fact that men are less likely to go to college, that men are more prone to suicide, that men are more likely to be homeless, or the fact that there is a lack of support for male sexual abuse victims. Sure, there might be *some* feminists who are concerned about these things, but the movement as a whole ignores all of these issues.

You are completely ignorant and misinformed. The idea that the MRM is responsible for white supremacy and neo nazism is just ridiculous, defamatory, baseless propaganda from their biggest detractors. You didn't observe anything, you just drank in the propaganda from people who hate MRA's. Your links prove that. You seem to believe that none of your sources take things out of context, amplify the unreasonable voices and ignore the salient points, or even straight up lie. I'm disappointed to see so many followers of this great channel are thoughtless ideologues.

+Dorian sapiens Thank you for this great academic research. Please sent me the link when you have published the results. The MRM is not a club or personal self-help group. The MRM is not about personal choices, lifestyle or opinions. Its goals center on legislation, legal procedures, legal policy, state funding and social programs to address the issues raised by the MRM. You can agree or disagree with the goals of the MRM, but they are what they are, regardless of anyone's opinion or views. For example, do you think male and female criminals should be given equal sentences for the same crime? Do you think child genital--mutilation (circumcision) should be outlawed in all countries with severe prison sentences applied? Do you think government funding should be given to create support for male victims of domestic violence in addition to female victims? What on earth does any of this have to do with creating a white ethno-state or trying to replace democracy with a authoritarian regime? The MRM has nothing to do with racist ideologies! This is ridiculous. Do you know what the goals of the MRM are? Have you spent any time listening to MRAs discuss the issues that men and boys face in society such as the high suicide rate, father's lack of rights in family courts or other laws that discriminate against men? If you want to disagree with the MRM, fine - go for it - please argue as to why you don't think the issues that I have raised need solving. But instead of addressing MRM talking points, perhaps you would rather throw out ridiculous stories about how MRAs are all nazis. And in the meantime, little baby boys are still having parts of their penises chopped off in the 21st Century.

There is certainly overlap, in that some people are followers/adherents/aficionados of both MRM and far right wing political ideologies. You'll ask for a source, and in place of a link I will describe a research method, because I am citing original research. You may replicate my method and report on whether or not you also replicate my result. Method: 1. Go to twitter. (Other social media may work just as well, but I'm personally less familiar with other platforms.) 2. Find an MRA. 3. Inspect his timeline. 4. Note presence or absence of far right wing political ideologies. 5. Repeat a lot of times. * Control: As above, but for (2) pick a random person.

Lol, Futrelle, Salon and SPLC? Those aren't credible sources by a huge margin. Futrelle is an incompetent con artist, Salon is so deeply steeped in feminism that it might as well rebrand to FemiGossip and the SPLC went off the deep end well before they labeled Ayan Hirsi Ali an islamophobe and the founder of the first women's shelter (a woman) a men's supremacist. If you're buying all of this crap, you're in an echochamber to an extreme.

So can you name just one MRA please? And can you please provide a source from the MRA rather than someone's opinion on them?

We’ll be here a while if I list all of them. Seeing as you are interested in the topic, I will provide you with some links that are relevant. They are articles explaining the movement, if you want to see this stuff first hand you can always google for MRA websites and forums. The ‘Gateway Drug’: Same points as above but on Salon: Southern Poverty Law Center: Alliance with white supremacists: Vox dot com Broadly (Vice): One person’s experience of the group: The overlap: The radicalisation of young white men: A lovely group of people indeed

Which MRAs talk about or promote neo-nazism or white supremacy?

From observing the movement, where else?

Where are you getting all this information about the MRM? This sounds like social-justice -warrior propaganda.

Steven Pinker looks cool

The amount of people I’ve heard complain that their free speech is being denied because no one wants to listen to their bigotry. Offence can be a reasonable in many situations, but obviously not always. In religious contexts, the main source of offence is taken when a religious person is told their religion sucks or something. They’re raised to see it as a core part of their identity, something they cannot exist without. So when someone is ‘mean’ to their god or whatever, they think it’s on par with someone receiving racist or homophobic abuse. It doesn’t occur to them that criticism of religion is more on par with criticism of the flat earth or round earth theories because they’ve been conditioned to take offence since god must not be questioned.

Fucking awesome video! I love it! I did get distracted by my thoughts a lot so I will watch it again and again to see what I missed and to let it sink in more and to trigger thoughts about it more. One thought was that I'm glad I'm free to read, see and listen to everything banned. Since a couple of months that even includes Mein Kampf. I'm not in a hurry to read it, but I do feel free to say and think whatever I like and I am free to be challenged, corrected, etc. In short. I feel free to grow. The laws of my country guarantees that, even though even that is often challenged by people trying to fight things like fake news and 'offensive speech'. Another thought was, WOOHOO! That was when you showed the change in reward in many cultures to the response of the 'offensive' phrase _your mum._ I'm one of those dicks who has jumped on the band wagon to try and provoke a reaction just to show their weakness. I still say _your mum_ a lot and I love it so much more than ever before because it gets no reaction. My conclusion: the general population grew up. I am very proud of us and I hope we keep growing. Lastly, I think the advantages and disadvantages shown at the end of the video is comparing apples to oranges, or more like Newtonian laws to a newspaper. I think it was a fitting comparisson in light of the video and I don't know how it could have been done better, but it still feels wrong. I'll explain. The advantages of offence are timeless; they work in all times and all cultures for everyone. The disadvantages however, should be challenged and they can and hopefully will change and maybe even disappear with time and the growing popularity of intellectual honesty, just as being offended by a phrase like _your mum_ stopped being seen as a strength. So basically, the flaw in offence isn't actually a flaw in offence. It's another advantage that exposes intellectual dishonesty and when we're shown to be dishonest by ourselves or others we can improve that. The only flaw in taking the offence as a justification for stupid shit is our dishonesty to ourselves. Not admitting that but doubling down instead and allowing ourselves to take actions based on our dishonesty and the consequences that has is the disadvantage. But that wouldn't have fit in the box, so whatever :p So I think that the option to abuse offence to manipulate people isn't a drawback of offence, but merely a childish, lazy and selfish way to take advantage of the fact that we don't all think about everything all the freaking time and are therefore easily manipulated in one way or another, or a chance to learn not to be so dishonest to ourselves and stunting our own progress in the process, but to be open and honest, learn from mistakes and the feeling of the burden of perpetual lies (to ourselves) falling off of our shoulders.

7:37 - I have often thought that most *public* offence is per formative. I think the most relevant part of JS Mill's 'Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion' is: _With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely, invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides;_ [snip] _Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenseless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions._ Remember, all speakers and positions start with the baggage of previous discussions. Perhaps the laurels of past victories, or a tailwind of conformity. After all: I can come to the table with open hands; not empty ones.

That excerpt of Mills you quote: he's talking about punching down vs. punching up, right? Or am I misunderstanding it?

Everyone has the right to not be offended. It's a right you have to choose to exercise, like your right to remain silent. Nobody forces you to have an irrational reaction. You choose to waive that right and get offended when you care more about your feelings than about the truth, because it's lazier, and hence intellectually easier, than actually engaging and evaluating your position. After all, if you listened and engaged, you might _be exposed_ as wrong. That wouldn't make you _feel_ good.

I am offended by the downvotes of this video. We are going to need a law passed to make it illegal

_No one has the right not to be offended._ -- Anon. _No one can make you feel inferior without your consent._ -- Eleanor Roosevelt Long story short, it's the "sticks and stones" routine, where people have tried to turn it on its head and claim serious injury from mere words. I would remind them that those words only hurt *WITH THEIR PERMISSION* ... so why are they GIVING that permission? P.S.: REALLY good stuff, Theramin and Qualia! _Molte grazie_ to you both!!!

a QS & TT joint venture. What a great way to start my day.

Being offended is a bad thing you do to other people to avoid engaging with their arguments when you have a strong emotional attachment to a belief you know isn't true. If you thought your belief was true, you would try to defend it instead of being offended. If you didn't have a strong emotional attachment, you would hear their argument instead of being offended. It's taking offense that is the sin, not being offensive. Taking offense makes you a worse person. As SJWs clearly show.

It's spelled "offense". Disliked and unsubbed for this kind of barbarism. That's a joke, people.

I wanted to hear someone talk about this subject for a long time. Good to see that it’s you.

The part about Cassie Jaye reminded me of the recent Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson interview, where she heard what she wanted to hear. -So you're saying... No. I'm not. -So you're saying... No. I'm not. -So you're saying... No. I'm not. -Your facts are anti-feminist and you're a Nazi. That's all the time we have!

FYI that interview was a setup to sell Peterson as a brand. It's on purpose that she did so poorly. Which I suppose means she did well?

The lobster part was the best for me!

Ah censorship and extreme behavior with it. Got ya.

Sorry, this video is 5 years to late. It’s the law now in many western Countries that offense , compeled speech, are illegal acts.

Great video theramin! why has this video not also been put up on qualia's channel?

Yeah! A collab with Qualia again! Awesome!!! :D

It's great that you're finally attacking non-religious dogmas, many of them are a lot more harmful.

Religion have four side effects 1 confusion 2 limits your thinking 3 animation of the story takes over 4 fear

I got extremely excited when I saw the notification for this. Glad to see you back again.

I want to see more of the floating baby! I think he could become really big. I'm picturing a Floating Baby TV series, Floating Baby breakfast cereal, and Floating Baby: The Movie.

22:11 Everyone involved in any kind of accusation and investigation of any crime should remain publicly anonymous. This should be the case for alleged perpetrators as well as witnesses and victims. Unless there are clear reasons why a person’s name be revealed to the public, such as to call for more information or to warn the public of imminent danger, everyone should retain anonymity throughout the justice system unless they choose to reveal their name. I would extend this to retain anonymity even after conviction because even a guilty verdict does not mean someone is actually guilty. This anonymity would not make any difference to due process. Most false accusations of rape are dropped prior to development into a case being taken to the CPS and the courts. So, public anonymity in the early stages of an investigation right up to a court hearing is essential. I’d extend the anonymity throughout the entire process.

Richard Gates People are not always sentenced to prison, of course. And I would always advocate community service, reparations, training and rehabilitation in preference to incarceration, except where a person is found to be dangerous and a care and rehab institution might be the best place.

+JE Hoyes "Once a person has finished their sentence, the person convicted of a crime should have the same freedom of movement as people who have not been convicted of a crime." Why? Does our justice system actually cure anyone of anything? Sentences are handed down by judges making a guess at how much time is needed to "cure" the offender. Judges are not psychologists, or they wouldn't be judges. If the justice system worked then we wouldn't need prisons. What this means is that it's not that the accused are made public - it's that the accused are treated as sinners deserving of Hell, and that using tax payer money to confine criminals into a society of criminals makes them better people.

yes all your points are valid. and my point is not to forbid to speak about accusations but that the state treats accisations as confidential as long no participation from the public is needed. The press often relies on official documents to create cheap stories. If the state stops to actively spread those information the cheap stories go away. The Florida Man meme just exists because florida is the most open state when it comes to publicising police reports. The protection of anonymity would only be granted by the state, this does not affect how private persons would pursue their intrest to let the world know what they think you have done. Right now in the US there is a culture to present the arrested person to the public, this does not run well with the assumption of innocence. Also there is a differce whether a document is accessible to the public (for example through a freedom of information request) or if a document gets publicised.

Indeed, I agree that a person who has not yet been convicted should remain anonymous, but even that could be impossible. All police reports and court documents should be public as to have transparency. To make records private could cause issues of corruption, or make issues of corruption easier to get away with, and harder to prove. This does make anonymity impossible, of course. However, in cases of false rape accusations, the accusers usually spread around the false rape claims to friends and family of both the accuser and the accused. This really makes it impossible, though the accused could sue the accuser for defamation. There's also the whole freedom of the press.

I think filings of policereports (accusations) should generally be not public, because no part of due process has happened yet. When it comes to cases that are currently at court, there are certainly cases where the public has a legitimate interest to be informed, but also the defendant is even in seemingly clear cut cases still to be considered innocent until verdict. I think it would be best if the publics and the defendants interest would be weight against each other. When the guilty verdict is reached the defendant is not to be considered innocent, at that point the publics interest to know the truth in my opinion generally trumps the defendants interest in privacy. This is of course assuming we have an adult defendant. Juveniles should get extra protection, and already do.

HiltownJoe Just so I know how far we agree or disagree. Do you think that anonymity should be in place for all involved up until conviction and then only the convicted should be named? Or would you want all names out in the open throughout the process?

I heard your points, I still disagree. Being convicted of a crime is not a private matter, and should not handled as such.

HiltownJoe Once a person has finished their sentence, the person convicted of a crime should have the same freedom of movement as people who have not been convicted of a crime. So anonymity would ensure that freedom of movement. Naming and shaming limits their freedom of movement beyond their sentence and, in effect, extends their sentence even after they have served it and paid the legal price. The person who has been locked away out of circulation to their immediate family, friends and community will still feel the social stigma but, anyone outside that community does not need to know. I don’t see the point. If the person is still a danger, they should be monitored by professional law enforcement not vigilantes. Often, notorious criminals have to be given new identities if they are ever released, and that kind of effort is probably more costly than just giving blanket anonymity throughout the process. I think incarceration should be the last resort for any crime. Community service, reparations, restrictions to movement and access, and rehabilitation should be the usual method of dealing with convicted criminals - except in the case of violence and danger to the public where prison or secure institution would be more appropriate.

That argument amounts to, "If you can't know everything, why would you want to know anything at all?" How deal you with the fact that rapists got away with it? Certainly not with not sending those into jail who got convicted. So why would you grant a convicted person the same anonymity as a person who got away with it if you don't grant them the same freedom of movement?

HiltownJoe You don’t know if someone in your circle raped someone but wasn’t convicted. If you are that concerned about dealing with miscreants, how do you cope with the large segment of your acquaintance who simply “got away with it”?

Because it it the truth, and it has implications for me whether i deal with a convicted felon or not. I am for ex cons getting new opportunities, but I am against pretending they never did anything wrong in the first place.

HiltownJoe I can’t see any important or useful reason why people beyond those immediately affected by an incident or crime should be informed. Not unless there is a clear public safety issue. Why do people outside those directly affected need to know the names of those involved? It would be different if those involved were in positions of power, such as MPs. But for just some nobody, why offer them the notoriety or demonise them?

But my point is, why would you dare to send someone to jail but not to tell everyone? If you are convicted you are found guilty and are to be punished and have not anymore the privilege to be seen as innocent. The standard it beyond any reasonable doubt. Once that standard is reached it is not reasonable anymore to grant protection of anonymity. And for the rehabilitation part. If you can not stand by what you did, you do not earn my trust.

HiltownJoe No, because there are too many miscarriages of justice to accept that justice is infallible. Hence the appeals system and pardoning. Also, we have to work towards rehabilitation for people convicted or they will be forever caught in a cycle of mistrust. It would be a simple matter to anonymise court records to allow for facts but redact names and other revealing details. In rare cases of public safety, then a convict’s name could be revealed but, in all other cases I can’t see a need.

I would disagree with keeping the anonymity after a guilty verdict. If we do not trust the justice system that far, we should convict no one at all. If we consider the evidence enough to punish someone that should be enough evidence to tell others about it.

This. I have been saying this for years at least for cases of rape where merely accusing someone of rape can cause their life to be destroyed even though they ight be innocent.

In the US at least doing so after a guilty verdict is impossible, as court records are made available to the public.

This video is beyond excellent.

Nice job man, keep it up

I may have to up my Patreon sub just for the awesome Pinker coiffure at 5:00.

Hey Correctrix. All credit to Qualia for that inspired mop ;8)


I get the impression that alt-right outrage warriors will see this video and all the points will go right over their head and they'll be like "hell yeah, this video rocks!". Well, this video rocks. Although I would have liked the whole bit about defining offense to be a bit more thorough. I mean, answer this question: am I showing that I'm offended when I call out Bright's coded racist language? I believe I'm not showing that I'm offended, no more than I am when I call religion for promoting obscurantism. On the contrary, if I just say "oh, Bright sucks, done by racists...", then I am showing offense. However, that offense can be shared in intimacy, with an implied understanding of the reasons for it, so it doesn't necessarily mean that it is unwarranted or misplaced.

You were right. :\

Thank you. I have so many emotions and not enough words with which to express them. You have spoken for so me, and for so many others and we love you for that.

And what about "hate speech" and "incitement to violence"? Quite a few people are being accused of "hate speech" by bringing up inconvenient facts (like crime statistics) and thus also being guilty of "incitement to violence" because some people might get angry and do something about it.

And some people think they're being cute with their german screennames and subscriptions to far-right lunatics, pretending they're utterly blameless. Yeah that's right, you realise your subs are public yeah? Fuck off out of here you fascist cunt.

There is something to be said for quality over quantity. Your content is always top shelf. I was blissfully unaware of the brutal murder of Theo Van Gogh until I read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. That was an eye opener.

With regards to that men’s rights activist’s line about “Where is justice for men who are falsely accused of rape?”, whilst it’s true that it doesn’t imply that rape isn’t a big deal, it does seem to imply that false accusations of rape are a common occurrence (common enough to warrant activism in protest of them), and by extension that women are somehow more prone to falsely accusing men of rape than anyone else is of falsely accusing someone of any other crime. Of course we don’t want men to be falsely accused; that’s why they should be considered innocent until proven guilty just like with any other crime. But that doesn’t mean we should take a woman’s accusation of rape any less seriously than we would accusations of any other crime - I can’t think of many reasons why a woman would want to falsely accuse a man of rape, but I can think of plenty of reasons (well, one big reason) why a man would want to discredit a woman’s accusation of rape. Where is justice for the women whose accusations of rape aren’t taken seriously in case a man ends up being falsely accused? Also, I find it strange how you describe to woman in question as a “formally self-defined feminist”. You’re implying that this conversation led her to reject feminism? She noticed some biases in her views of the men’s rights movement, and that led her to reject the entire notion of women’s equality? How does that work?

+ThePharphis "Just because men tend to hold the highest political and economic positions in the world doesn't mean they somehow privilege men in their decision making. Quite the opposite, I would suspect," And you'd be right. Men have an out-group bias in favor of women and women have an in-group bias.

+Gregor Sylvester "Feminism is simply the belief or position at women should be treated equally to men" That is common rhetoric of what feminism is, but it's useless as a description. What are prominent ideas of feminists? Foundational beliefs? How do they implement such things? What is the structure of most feminist-minded institutions? Are their ideas congruent with reality? But all we get is a word-bite as if it's an well-constructed argument.

"it does seem to imply that false accusations of rape are a common occurrence (common enough to warrant activism in protest of them)" It is common but that's beside the point. It is the severity of such accusations and the fact that they are rarely punished when they occur that so many protest against such things. "Of course we don’t want men to be falsely accused; that’s why they should be considered innocent until proven guilty just like with any other crime." Then why as a society are we tolerating such abuses? In fact, facilitating it (Dear Colleague Letter). Feminism isn't women's equality nor the striving for it.

Gregor, thank you for being a bastion of reason. I don't think Theramin intended this this but a bunch of 'persecuted' white boys think that their bizarre views are being validated with this video right now...

Sorry about these long replies. What I'm trying to get across is that very, very few of these issues are simple or can easily be explained by sexism (or biological differences for that matter). The world's resolution is one ℓP (planck). Allows for an incredible amount of nuances.

Assuming you're replying to me, Gregor. "You’re stereotyping." I'm generalizing. Not because I think that gives an accurate description of (individual) men and women, but because the context was "women being held to the same standards as men". Not just a few women (that already handle that quite well, and are CEOs or whatever they want to be), but all women. That's one of the rare occasions that actually call for looking at all women vs all men. " the assumption that the gender imbalance is somehow “natural”" But it is, in quite a few cases. And it's not an assumption; this is proven beyond any doubt - men and women are biologically different, and those biological differences do make a difference in many aspects of our lives. Obviously not in all cases, and certainly not for all levels of imbalance, which is why it's important to see why the outcome is the way it is, and not just blindly look at statistics on gender representation. Men and women usually don't compete against each others in sports for this very reason - it's not even close to being an even match. Thinking that this has no bearing at all on job performance or even personal priorities/wishes is simply naive. And trying to "fix it" can only lead to sexism. "neuroscience has shown time and again that there’s no such thing as a “male brain” or a “female brain”" Please provide evidence for that claim. "when it comes to leadership/managerial roles in business, politics, STEM etc (i.e the areas where women are the most underrepresented) there’s no evidence to suggest that men are intrinsically better suited" Yes there is. The mere existence of those men (and women) in those positions are evidence of them being better suited than those who didn't become CEOs - it's about as meritocratic as it gets (unless it's in government owned companies with gender quotas). It's a mix of several factors, but (calculated) risk-taking is an important part of it, as well as single-mindedness, stamina/endurance to put in a shit-ton of overtime etc. There are obviously women capable of this, but there are fewer of them in the pool of candidates. Changing society won't change that. "the same traits that are perceived as “strong” or “powerful” in men are considered “bossy” or “dominating” in women" I've seen that claim before, but I've never seen any evidence backing it up. First off, most "strong" or "powerful" male leaders are routinely called assholes and bastards by their subordinates (usually not so they can hear them, but sometimes that too) - unless they're just called dicks (e.g. mildly annoying, but nothing to get worked up about). Some effective leaders are actually good leaders as well, of course, able to get others to do as told without raising their hackles, but those don't stand a chance against the sharks gunning for the top CEO positions. When women are called "bossy" or "dominating"(?) I bet their subordinates also call them bitches and cunts. Not to their faces obviously - that would likely get them fired on the spot. Have you ever met a male leader complaining about his subordinates calling him bossy or a fucking bastard? Me neither. Do you think it's because it never/rarely happens? Of course not. The ask yourself, how many female leaders have you met that complain about the same? Probably not many, and if any it's likely some low level leader, not CEOs or anyone high up. People (read: feminists) talking about the lack of female CEOs keep talking about it, though, even though most of them would never qualify as a leader, far less a CEO - nor would they actually want to do the job of a CEO. Part of being a leader is to be an asshole when necessary, and not be put down by being called one, justified or not. If you allow such things to dictate your behavior, you shouldn't be in a leader position in the first place. "men are automatically judged as more competent and authoritative" Makes some sense as men more often than women are competent and authoritative, even though it's a logical fallacy. I don't think it's that simple, though, as one important factor is left out: Proving oneself. It's second nature to most men to keep track of other people proving themselves (although maybe men keep track to a lesser degree when it comes to women? I don't know, but it'd make sense). That's usually the source of - at least men's - basis for seeing someone as competent and to some degree authoritative. It may carry over to men they meet for the first time, but then they'll continually evaluate him (relative to that standard), and if he falls short, he'll fall even further because of it. So, yes, some gender differences are definitely at play here. It's just not as simplistic as your statement. "male employees are more likely to be promoted than females" It's not as simple as that. Male managers are significantly more likely to get promoted than female managers, according to statistics and studies. An interesting read is where some of the complexity of the advancement process is explained in, well, a gendered context. It's interesting to note the differences in male/female ratio in internal vs external "head hunting"; networking and knowledge of a person seems to be more beneficial for a man than a woman when it comes to promotions. That is, gender differences do play a significant part, not just (potentially) sexism. I'd also like to point out this study, or rather the results: To sum it up: Fewer women than men graduated (84.5% vs 15.5%), about a third of the graduates entered academia (79.2% vs 20.8%). Of these, fewer women were promoted from assistant professor (30.6% vs 60.6%), fewer women achieved associate professor (27.8% vs 48.9%), or professors rank (2.8% vs 11.7%). Sounds like there's an awful lot of sexism going on, right? (And worse than I thought it'd be, actually.) Well, then there's this finding: "In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, after controlling for the number of total publications and number of years since graduation, gender was not predictive of achieving promotion, OR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.31-2.13), p = 0.673." 2.8% vs 11.7% - a factor of four - yet gender isn't predictive. "Publish or perish"; it's to a large degree a meritocracy, and women tend to do significantly worse than men in meritocracies - for whatever reason. Conclusion: Don't just look at the raw numbers. " what’s more likely, that men are “just better at it” than women or that there’s low level prejudice going on (quite possibly on a subconscious level) that’s skewing things in the men’s favour?" I think it's both. Men in general are indeed stronger, faster, have more stamina etc than women in general, and that will account for some of the differences. Also, men (in general) are more likely to be represented at the extremes, partly due to having a XY chromosome pair rather than just an XX pair (where one of the X's is made inactive when the embryo is about 100 cells "large") and the much higher evolutionary pressure on Y-chromosomes/men. The overall difference is too big for people to miss, and thus they may subconsciously think it goes for "all" men, giving men chances to prove themselves while denying women to do the same - in most cases it's about picking an individual, not a group that can be made up of both genders, thus even a slight bias in men's favor could have a huge impact; 50.1 is only slightly larger than 49.9, but if you compare the two a hundred times over, 50.1 will be picked 100 times, not 50-51 times. Then again, knowing this, and knowing that it's not 100% men being hired etc, any sexism isn't necessarily that widespread - it'd only take a few to skew the results. Who would you hire as a babysitter - a male or a female teenager? What would most likely make you react and interfere - a child being dragged away by a man or by a woman? We're judging people all the time, but we also tend to judge them in the specific context. You may hire the female babysitter to watch your children, and hire the male babysitter to cut down and remove that tree in your backyard. Or the other way around if they've proven themselves sufficiently (I knew a girl when I was younger who was the regional champion in timbersports and axe throwing). so, yes, prejudice exists, but it's not unfounded, nor does it necessarily make much of a difference beyond first impressions (which, admittedly, may be quite important in some cases - it tends to lead to more lenient sentences if the judge finds you sympathetic).

I never suggested men are better suited for those roles. What I would suggest is that men are more interested in them. We know men and women have different interests, even if variation between men and women is less than the difference between two average human. There are still differences!!! Women are hypergamous: this is universal, which leads to men being more status-seekers. Women are more risk-averse, which means they are less interested in high-risk jobs. I won't dismiss discrimination as something that doesn't happen. I do think that it is overplayed as the "cause" of why men will make up huge proportions of specific jobs and roles (and women, in others).

You’re stereotyping. See, this is why I think feminism is important - the assumption that the gender imbalance is somehow “natural” and that women tend not to hold positions of power because they simply don’t want to. Like I said, there’s far greater variation within the sexes than between them - neuroscience has shown time and again that there’s no such thing as a “male brain” or a “female brain”; it makes no more sense to say “this is true of most/all women” than to say “this is true of all red-haired people” or “this is true of all people called Dave”. Of course men are generally more physically capable, but when it comes to leadership/managerial roles in business, politics, STEM etc (i.e the areas where women are the most underrepresented) there’s no evidence to suggest that men are intrinsically better suited - yet the same traits that are perceived as “strong” or “powerful” in men are considered “bossy” or “dominating” in women, men are automatically judged as more competent and authoritative etc, male employees are more likely to be promoted than females - what’s more likely, that men are “just better at it” than women or that there’s low level prejudice going on (quite possibly on a subconscious level) that’s skewing things in the men’s favour?

Here's my definition of feminism: "The belief that (only) women are people" Only half-sarcastic. Women have the vote and they spend most of the money: They therefore have at least as much power as men. Just because men tend to hold the highest political and economic positions in the world doesn't mean they somehow privilege men in their decision making. Quite the opposite, I would suspect, given that most governments have their "women's" groups (health, political, social, legal, etc.) and are routinely lobbied by feminists. It would appear that the men (and women) at the top don't care at all about the average man. Certainly not any more than they care about the average woman (and very likely less)

"False accusation is more of a problem than I thought it was; I’ll concede that point." While I wish it was you who were right and I wrong, you earned some respect right there. " is it wrong for women to want equal representation in positions of power?" In my opinion, yes. As wrong as for men to want equal representation in positions of power. All positions of power are held by individuals not groups, and depending on the position, who they represent is not their gender but a different group of people. If it's a CEO, they're representing the company, if it's a political position they're representing their political party and/or the country's citizens etc. How would a woman (or a man) even be able to represent people of their gender? At the most they'd be representing people like themselves, be they men or women. How can that be said to be a good thing? Are there inherently good qualities that are only found in women or only in men? I don't think so. Some qualities are more often found amongst women compared to men, and vice versa, but neither gender has a monopoly on anything. Qualifications ought to be quantifiable, not vague and subjective as in whatever gender one is. Thus equality in representation, based on gender, makes no sense to me - on the contrary, it's likely to lower the overall quality. CEOs aren't CEOs because they're good people, but because they're good at doing what CEOs do. Politicians are even less qualified, both as "good people" and as competent as leaders - they're selected based on their popularity and promises. When people's gender becomes a deciding factor, sexism is unavoidable. I want less, not more, sexism. "The fact that the vast majority of high-ranking politicians, CEOs, scientists etc. are men means that men are the ones making the decisions and only the male perspective is represented." What is the male perspective? We're both men, yet you're a feminist and I'm an anti-feminist. Which one of us is representing the male perspective? If I am then you're not - yet you could be one of those men in power some day. So how do you know what perspective is influencing decisions? One implication of your statement is that the female perspective is completely lacking (regardless of how present the male perspective may or may not be). Then the question is: What is the female perspective? To use the same them - there are feminist women and anti-feminist women - who's got the "real" feminine perspective? Also, what about transpeople? You're basing your argumentation on men and women being too different to be able to adequately represent people regardless of gender - does that mean you're also able to tell who's just a transtrender and who's a genuine transperson? (That's one hornets nest you might want to avoid...) "I don’t think it’s hypocritical for women to want to have an input on decisions that effect them." They already have - just like we do. In fact, there are more female than male voters (and they're better at actually bothering to vote) so their combined input is greater than men's. "And I didn’t say that men should change, but that society’s expectations of men should change, so that men aren’t discouraged from showing emotion if they need to." True. What you said was "similarly men are more prone to depression and suicide because they’re discouraged from talking about their feelings". However, I argued that this isn't as much societal pressure on men as how most men function psychologically. Thus, it would necessitate men changing what works for them. If you ask women, most of them will tell you that men usually discourage them from talking about their feelings. It doesn't stop most women, but they do tend to complain about it. Do you think this is because society is telling men that women shouldn't talk about their feelings? Or is it, as I argue, that talking about feelings is something men do in a very different way than women, and in different settings? "Your point about “a crying woman isn’t avoided the way a crying man is” just drives that home." Does it? Some may avoid the man because they think he isn't "manly enough" crying publicly and all, I guess, which would be the result of societal pressure on men to not cry. Most simply don't care enough to interfere, which is something else. And quite a few would fear for their safety because it's a man not in control of his emotions. Is that because of gender roles? Sort of. Men not in control of themselves are feared, in particular by women - and that's not acceptable in society. Do you really think society will, or even should, change to make this commonplace? "plenty [men] who wish they could be more open but society’s expectations prevents them from doing so." I honestly don't see the problem. Back when I was a teenager, playing D&D was sort of a social suicide, but that didn't stop me and many others from doing it. Sure, it had consequences, but that's life - don't expect to get anything for free and you won't be disappointed. Same with crying - I cry whenever and wherever I please - if anyone has a problem with that, that's, well, their problem. The unavoidable reality is that there will always be people who disagree with everything you do. And the only way forward is to deal with it and move on. That's part of being an adult - take responsibility for the consequences of your choices, don't expect others to reduce/remove said consequences just for your benefit. "You claim that women aren’t psychologically equipped to be held to the same standards as man - what exactly do you mean by this?" Short version is that women are in general less capable at enduring hardships that men can endure better. Physical labor is the obvious one - even the toughest female special branch soldiers can't keep up with the special branch male soldiers, and they can only do what they do for a few years before their bodies get too damaged (infertility and skeletal damage is a major risk after only a few years), while the men can keep doing it for a decade or two. Then there's high stress environments where women break down much faster than men, generally speaking. This is likely in part caused by the differences in upbringing of boys vs girls - boys are usually "primed" for enduring shit and soldier through, rather than being shown compassion and being excused from things they don't like. In places where these differences in upbringing are smaller (like prolonged conflicts/wars) the difference is also much smaller, but still there. Factors are men being less emotional than women overall, but also physically stronger - when you have absolutely no strength left, most break down regardless of gender. Being away from your family takes its toll on both mothers and fathers, but men seem better at dealing with it (perhaps because being out there making money to pay for the roof over their heads and food on the table makes men feel more useful to their family than it does for women). Many jobs, in particular high status ones, requires you to spend a lot of time away from your family. Not in order to keep you away from them, obviously, but because there's a lot that needs to be done. Being able to concentrate on the work in front of you - another thing men are better at - means that you get home sooner, meaning that women (who don't have similar brains and/or don't find family life that important) will be having an even harder time. I'm sure you get the point - by now you either disagree or you agree. If you're thinking that there are women that can do these things just as well as men, then you're right. Those are the female CEOs etc. They're just not as common at that level as men are - which is why there's no 50/50 male/female CEO "population". It's not just at the top (in terms of power, money etc) but all the way down through the socioeconomic layers. Women in general don't perform as well as men do in these aspects of society. That's not to say that women are inferior to men. We're talking groups here, thus no such conclusion can be made. These differences at the group level explains why the male/female representation differs from one area to another - as long as equality of outcome isn't enforced. Doing that would, is my argument, put a significantly larger burden on women than men - if they're held to the same standards. If they're held to different standards, men and women would presumably have to endure similar levels of hardship, but the results would be worse than what he have today (and it'd breed resentment against the women "getting off easier"). What I haven't touched on is the areas where men would have a harder time being held to the same standards as women (as it was just the other way). If both sets of standards should apply equally to both genders, it'd obviously be worse for everyone - it's not like women have just a subset of the standards men are held to. Rather, a lot of it is shared and then there are the gender specific standards - some of them bordering on mutually exclusive (like not being afraid to get thoroughly dirty and have a clean appearance). Men's standards seem to be based more on necessities than women's standards. There's a lot of dirty work (and wet work) required to keep society running and safe, and men are expected to do the heavy lifting. Which makes sense. We're not equal, biologically speaking, thus for some tasks you'll find mostly competent male candidates and others mostly competent female candidates. Trying to fill someone else's shoes is harder than filling your own shoes.

Gregor, "is it wrong for women to want equal representation in positions of power?" No. Is it wrong to force it? If the gender balance of men and women who wanted to go into politics was 50/50 this wouldn't be an issue. But that's not the case. If more men choose to go into politics than women why should the end result be 50/50? Equality of outcome like this in an unbalanced system means there are those who have an easier time getting to positions of power. For men it's harder because a majority are men, but for women it makes it much easier as the competition they are up against are a minority. The outcome should represent the input. If 70% of those who want to go into politics are women and the outcome is that 70% of politicians are men then something is wrong. So why should 70% of those wanting to go into politics being men lead to a 50% outcome for them? Can a man never represent women? Is it impossible? Do we actually need equal representation to represent everyone? You choose who represents you, we all vote for these people, why do women vote for men if they cannot represent them? This is where I think the arguement should be fought. Do those who fight for equal representation believe that men, women, white, black, hispanic, asian, etc. cannot represent anyone other thier born into traits? Can I as a poor white man not represent poor black men because I am white? Or poor white women because I am male? Should I give up any cause that only helps groups other than myself because I am not one of them? If equal representation comes naturally then so be it, but to force it? To say that your opinion does not matter because you are a different gender or race? What kind of world is that to live in? And this is only for politicians, for CEOs I don't believe anything can be done unless women want to put in that effort to push to the top. Any drive to push people to the highest ranks of private companies should be equal and fair to any who want to strive for those positions. If it turns out that's mostly men then mostly male CEOs we shall have.

Ok, I think it’s time to admit I’m losing this argument, at least regarding my original point about false accusations. You certainly seem to be more knowledgeable than me on the subject in any e Pint I was trying to make is that far more men get away with rape than are falsely accused of it, but I’ll concede your point that false accusation isn’t quite the non-issue I thought it was. But as for your perspective on feminism itself, is it wrong for women to want equal representation in positions of power? The fact that the vast majority of high-ranking politicians, CEOs, scientists etc. are men means that men are the ones making the decisions and only the male perspective is represented. I don’t think it’s hypocritical for women to want to have an input on decisions that effect them. And I didn’t say that men should change, but that society’s expectations of men should change, so that men aren’t discouraged from showing emotion if they need to. Your point about “a crying woman isn’t avoided the way a crying man is” just drives that home. The differences within the sexes are far greater than between them; there are some men who genuinely prefer to keep their emotions hidden, but plenty who wish they could be more open but society’s expectations prevents them from doing so. You claim that women aren’t psychologically equipped to be held to the same standards as man - what exactly do you mean by this?

"However that still means 95% of rape accusations are true" No, it does not. Those 5% are only those shown to be false - the majority of rape cases are not proven to be true, thus the actual number is unknown (that is, somewhere between the number of proven false and proven true). "since those false accusations are known to be false then the “justice” that this men’s rights activist care so much about has clearly been carried out." In those cases, yes, as far as the legal system goes. However, some convicted rapists have been cleared later on, either because the real rapist has been found or the accuser admitted it was a false accusation. Sometimes after the accused man has killed himself. Miscarriage of justice happens with other crimes as well, of course, including people that has been executed for their alleged crimes before being cleared. The biggest problem, though, is the public manhunt instigated by a mere accusation of having raped someone. And all those who refuse to believe that someone's innocent if not found guilty. Given the consequences the names of alleged rapists shouldn't be made public, at least not until they've been found guilty. The "justice" society metes out to rapists is much harsher than a few years in prison. (Which I wouldn't have such a problem with, if people only did it to actual rapists. But they don't.) That's just my take on it, though - the MRA in question may have a different take on it (this varies from country to country as the court systems differ). " I’d be interested to hear how you would define feminism, if you think my definition is incorrect." I've already done that: "Feminism is equality purely from women's perspective, and what they want to be equal to is the Patriarchy they've defined. [Which, if it can even be said to exist, consists of a very small group of mainly men but also several women, right at the top of the food chain. Not all men, or even most men.]" Is my definition more accurately describing feminism than yours? I would say so. Feminists have sought to put an end to female circumcision but not male circumcision. Feminists want equal representation in positions of power, but not when it comes to equal representation in dangerous and uncomfortable positions, like mining, offshore, garbage collection etc. Feminists want society to change to better accommodate women, yet tell men they have to change to have their problems solved. You said it yourself: Men should change and talk more about their feelings [like women], so as not to become as depressed and prone to committing suicide. Can you think of a single thing feminists urge women to change about themselves? I can't. All I see is demands that society stop "shaming"/criticizing women for not wanting to change to fit someone else's idea of what the right way to be or do something is. Possibly with the exception of being a housewife of your own free will - that's not particularly popular, maybe because it's seen as the woman wanting to please her husband (and thus changing I guess). Does this look like equality to you? Men and women being treated equally? It doesn't to me, nor do I think feminism will lead to more equality. So much of what feminists are doing only leads to segregation and women not having to take responsibility for themselves or their actions. That latter part is particularly harmful to women - they'll never be men's equals if they're not held to the same standards when it comes to accountability. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure if society's even capable of holding men and women to the same standards (that is standards sufficiently high so as not to destroy society). I'm not sure I want such a society either - it'll be quite hard on the women, and they're generally not as well equipped psychologically to handle this as men are. Most will be able to get through it, I guess, but it'll take a larger toll on them. But, of course, they won't have to. A crying woman isn't avoided the way a crying man is. Partly because both men and women favor women over men, but also because a man that's crying is seen as unpredictable and thus potentially dangerous. Usually with good reason, as it usually takes a lot for a man to allow himself to cry in public (it's a matter of time and place - most men cry in private when they feel the need).

Ok, I’ll admit I skipped to the conclusions there and missed the part you just mentioned, thanks for pointing it out. I’ve never been much good at understanding scholarly sources, unfortunately. However that still means 95% of rape accusations are true, and since those false accusations are known to be false then the “justice” that this men’s rights activist care so much about has clearly been carried out. I’d be interested to hear how you would define feminism, if you think my definition is incorrect.

"I’d also like to mention that the paper you linked me to concludes that 1% of crimes are false accusations. 1%. And that’s of crimes in general, not just rape." Why don't you keep reading? "The post hoc test revealed significant differences with the group average of 1.16% for false and baseless allegations of murder X2 (1, N=1000)=39.94, p

“If it’s only in your head and not in what I wrote, leave it out”. So you’re saying I can’t extrapolate from what’s been said? You said “men aren’t what feminists claim they are”, what possible interpretation can be taken from that other than that feminists think men are inherently bad? If I’m getting that wrong, what do you believe feminists (bear in mind I am a man and consider myself a feminist) claim men are? I’d also like to mention that the paper you linked me to concludes that 1% of crimes are false accusations. 1%. And that’s of crimes in general, not just rape. That’s a minuscule percentage, and furthermore the key problem is still sexual assault itself. If we can create a world where sexual assault isn’t so commonplace then false accusations will be less easily believable. You say we should be focusing on gender equality, not women’s equality, but in our society those things are one and the same. Most of the problems men face are directly related to the ones women face - male rape victims are discouraged from reporting it because men are supposed to be the stronger and more self-reliant of the sexes; similarly men are more prone to depression and suicide because they’re discouraged from talking about their feelings, again because they’re expected to be “stronger than that”. If you believe that people should be treated equally regardless of gender then congratulations, you’re a feminist. Let’s not be afraid of the label.

Gregor, you're doing it again; making a lot of assumptions based on what you think people's motivation and or intentions are. "the very fact that he feels the subject is worth bringing up" Men being falsely accused of rape and thus having their lives destroyed isn't worth bringing up unless it's commonplace?! Wtf is wrong with you - are those men just "acceptable collateral damage"? Need I remind you that a man falsely accused of rape *didn't rape the accuser*? Would you be fine with it happening to you (assuming you, like the vast majority of people, haven't raped anyone)? If not, why criticizing people for trying to do something about it? Being killed isn't commonplace either - is people being killed also not worth bringing up? "there are plenty of cases where a woman who has been assaulted has been afraid to report it for fear of not being believed" So what? How is that any fault of the individuals being falsely accused? Why should they get severely punished for something they didn't do? Would you, if falsely accused of rape, just admit to it regardless so that some women perhaps would be slightly more inclined to report a rape? "these supposed false accusations" We're not talking about supposedly false accusations, but actual false accusations. The prevalence is hard to measure as many rape cases are never solved, one way or the other, but some data exists: Anecdotal evidence is simple enough to find - just google it, and you'll find several high-profile cases where the accuser admits it to be false, usually after police investigation shows it to be either impossible or extremely unlikely. A few times the accuser is even fined for making a false accusation, but that's the exception rather than the rule (unlike with other kinds of criminal offenses). "As for feminism being “equality from a purely women’s perspective”, that’s patently untrue." Well.. "It’s just that the problems women face are on a whole different level, so that’s where we’ve put our attention." and "You wouldn’t criticise a heart surgeon for focusing all their attention on the heart and not working to fix problems with other body parts" I don't think "patently untrue" means what you think it means. Or are you trying to say that a heart surgeon is all that's needed to make a body healthy? Didn't think so. Do you think it'd be such a stretch to say that a heart surgeon looks at the body from the perspective of its physical heart, rather than all of it? No? The problems woman face are not on a whole different level. Initially, most studies only studied women, or excluded the results for men if they didn't suit the narrative. Thus we ended up with for instance IPV and violence in general being something that women suffered; the Duluth model, EndViolenceAgainstWomen etc etc. More recent research, done by less biased and less politically motivated researchers tell a different story, however. There's no real gender difference when it comes to IPV (although women tend to be the instigator), and violence is something that affects men to a much larger degree (on the scale of twice as many men as women), in particular serious forms of violence. In a recent internal audit the BBC had to conclude that women were paid more for the same work than men, despite women earning less than men overall, forcing them to lower the women's pay (or raise the men's, more likely). Studies on sexual assault and harassment also show that there's no huge gender difference. Etc etc. That's the problem with focusing on women's equality, rather than gender equality - only with latter are you incentivized to study both genders and find out what's really going on, rather than relying on Patriarchy theory where men are privileged and women suffer. " implying that feminists think men are inherently evil or otherwise the cause of the problems they’re trying to solve" Why are you doing this? That's just utter bullshit. This is what I wrote, and you presumably read: "Feminism is equality purely from women's perspective, and what they want to be equal to is the Patriarchy they've defined. Which, if it can even be said to exist, consists of a very small group of mainly men but also several women, right at the top of the food chain. Not all men, or even most men." How the fuck do you go from there to what you wrote above? If it's only in your head and not in what I wrote, leave it out. I'd like to remind you that you're having this particular exchange with me, not some imaginary person constructed in your mind - stick to what I write rather than what you think "people like me" think/believe/are motivated by, and it'll be a lot easier for both of us.

Since when were accusers automatically believed if they’re women? What on earth gave you that idea? A lot of the time it’s the other way around, with women’s testimonies being taken far less seriously than men’s - that’s why so many sexual assault victims are so hesitant to report it. And would you really want to play a game entitled “The Rapist”? Are you seriously complaining about the lack of rape in games and movies? I personally think the entertainment industry is certainly too casual about violence and I’ve never understood many gamers’ desire to “play the bad guy”, whether that’s an assassin or a gangster or what have you, but at least we can say that there are some rare cases where violence or theft are justified, especially in a storytelling context (e.g. for self-defence or to protect the innocent, or stealing from the wealthy to help the downtrodden), whereas rape is never, ever justified and if you think otherwise then I suggest you take a good, long look at your moral standards.

"you wouldn’t hear people campaigning for justice for people falsely accused of theft or murder unless it’s for a specific individual case of false accusation" umm... duuuh! because when someone is accused of theft, or murder, the accuser isn't automatically believed if she is a woman, but it is actually investigated. and the media will not push massive propaganda about how it's victim blaming if the police ensure that someone was actually murdered or not. those are low profile cases and the media doesn't give a shit about them. this is why it's more relevant to talk about the rape thing. and when someone is accused of theft, they don'a automatically lose their job, and their names will not get publicized and publicly shunned even before the sentence. our society cares more about sex related things than anything else. video games and movies can show brutal murder, theft, but god forbid of a nipple being shown, not even mentioning rape. i see games named THIEF, or ASSASSINS CREED, but i don't see games with names like THE RAPIST. why is it ok to show killing people in games and movies, but not rape? it is because of the reactions: murder... meh. theft... meh. rape... OMGWTFBURNTHEHERETIC. i hope you understand why they included this, then.

The implication comes from the very fact that he feels the subject is worth bringing up - you wouldn’t hear people campaigning for justice for people falsely accused of theft or murder unless it’s for a specific individual case of false accusation. He’s not referring to a specific case here, just “men falsely accused” as if such a thing is commonplace - and if it’s commonplace for men to be falsely accused by women, that means it’s common for women to want to falsely accuse them. And as we’ve seen in the news recently with the influx of sexual assault accusations from women in numerous places, there are plenty of cases where a woman who has been assaulted has been afraid to report it for fear of not being believed (unless you’re going to try and claim that all of those women were lying). That’s a far bigger problem than these supposed false accusations (I’ve never heard of such a thing; maybe you can give examples). As for feminism being “equality from a purely women’s perspective”, that’s patently untrue. Feminism is simply the belief or position at women should be treated equally to men - and as a reasonable human being I find it difficult to argue with that. You claim that men “aren’t what feminists think they are”, implying that feminists think men are inherently evil or otherwise the cause of the problems they’re trying to solve - which again is completely untrue. Most feminists (myself included) recognise that the problems women face are the result of ingrained social attitudes that most are oblivious to, rather than simply blaming men. Nor do we deny that men face problems in society - indeed, many of the problems women face have negative effects for men as well. It’s just that the problems women face are on a whole different level, so that’s where we’ve put our attention. You wouldn’t criticise a heart surgeon for focusing all their attention on the heart and not working to fix problems with other body parts, so why should feminists be criticised for choosing women’s rights as the focus of their attention?

"it does seem to imply [..]" How? You seem to be doing the exact same thing Cassie did (and so many others do), piling on additional statements that don't follow from the original statement. "I can’t think of many reasons why a woman would want to falsely accuse a man of rape" Multiple reasons have been documented, ranging from not wanting to pay the cab fare to cover up them cheating on their boyfriends/spouses. In most cases there are no negative (legal) consequences for women falsely accusing someone of rape, and some places they're automatically awarded a lump sum for being a (alleged) victim of rape. That's not the issue here, though, nor the frequency this may happen, but the problem with "innocent until proven guilty" isn't always upheld in rape cases. That's exactly what the original statement addresses, not reasons for falsely accusing someone, not the frequency at which it happens, not if women are more probe to falsely accuse others compared to men or anything else you're trying to attach to it. Those statements come from you, not the MRA. "She noticed some biases in her views of the men’s rights movement, and that led her to reject the entire notion of women’s equality?" Feminism isn't the same as "the entire notion of women’s equality", far from it. Feminism is equality purely from women's perspective, and what they want to be equal to is the Patriarchy they've defined. Which, if it can even be said to exist, consists of a very small group of mainly men but also several women, right at the top of the food chain. Not all men, or even most men. What I assume Cassie finally saw was that most men are not what feminists claim they are, but regular people having real problems - and not getting help in some cases simply because of their gender, partly thanks to feminists (and partly thanks to traditionalism/gynocentrism). What made her a feminist in the first place made her leave it behind - not because she's rejecting gender equality, but because she's embracing it in a wider context than just women.

Smashing to see ya both back. As per usual, simply fabulous. Bravo chaps.

You two are criminally under-subscribed and underappreciated.

Can you make a video about veganism? I have yet to found a valid argument against veganism. I know its a controversial topic for some, because people get very easily defensive. Most of us consider ourself a animal lover, or atleast acknowledge cruelty to animals when we see it. Yet almost all of us contribute to their deaths, everyday and turn away when seeing animal slaughter footage. Hope you look into it, and do a video about it later. Veganism: A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose

Chill dude

Make the video yourself! Best advice you can get: Be the change you want to see in the world.

Qualiasoup!? It's good to hear from your brother again!

This is the more intelligent side of YouTube.

"The value of offense" ...So household yet so radical. The lines of "offense" have certainly grown, recently. Racism could be an example of a "simple offense", enveloped in free speech. I'm not condoning it though. +1 TheraminTrees & QualiaSoup

I would love to see you talk/debate Jordan B. Peterson

Captain Andy I am after any argument at all to back up your position. You seem to believe that there is something obviously wrong with what I see as a relatively reasonable movement so I thought that you could articulate some of the problems as you see them so that I can ensure that I am not wrong about the men's rights movement being reasonable.

Positively itching for a pedantic argument today aren't we? I'll be making a response video to this one in which I give an overview. You're welcome to watch.

Captain Andy What are the reasons you have for finding them completely indefensible?

I have engaged with, listened to and read the writings of MRAs. I know of where I speak.

Captain Andy Looks like someone missed the point of the video then.


Yeeeeeeey Qualia

Very fabulous and needed.

GorillaGuerilla Nigga just let people say what they want lol

Really great video overall! In regard to the last example, I think that while it suffices for the point you were trying to make (sometimes someone whose words or opinions are "offensive" on first glance may have valid points to make), a few things about how it was presented seem like they were done poorly. For one, I get that the purpose of that example was to illustrate self-awareness at overcoming the bias to believe that everything your opponents say is malicious slander, but I think that by trying to sidestep the issues at hand and focus on that particular quality (which, in itself, is commendable) it leaves some very... alarming threads hanging. For one, while it's valid to acknowledge legitimate points made by these people once you notice them, the argument can easily be interpreted from what you cited that because you notice these you must immediately renounce your prior position. By referring to Jaye as a "former" feminist and not acknowledging that yes, a lot of vocal MRAs do say legitimately sexist things (and that goes even without requiring a full examination of their overall arguments, or how a lot of MRAs will gleefully do the exact same thing to feminists that Jaye did to them), it paints an image that she completely changed her mind on feminism (she may have, I don't know of her specifically), and that she should be _praised_ for doing so. But the one point you mentioned that she overlooked that was valid (men shouldn't be falsely accused of rape) isn't something most feminists would deny, and by her acknowledgment of it you imply she didn't deny it ever either, just ignored it while fishing for less valid points to highlight. A dishonest practice to be sure, but not indicative of anything inherently wrong with feminism or her actual beliefs before or after. A feminist becoming an MRA just because someone says that false rape accusations are bad would be as logical as me converting to Christianity because my Christian friend tells me that they see Biblical views of sexuality as outdated and unjust. It's nothing I shouldn't already have agreed with, and it doesn't affect the legitimacy of either of our overall arguments that we agree on that one point. (For the record, men's and women's rights are by no means mutually exclusive, and while there are both feminists and MRAs who would both agree and disagree with that statement, I tend to see more feminists who agree and more MRAs who disagree.) Having a valid point doesn't make you right overall, nor does ignoring other people's valid points destroy any validity in points you may have. We have a duty to listen to people and to accept valid arguments they make, however uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean that their overall arguments are valid just because a small portion of them may be. And as a final addendum, being offended may not mean you are right, but neither does being the one doing the offending. If subjective discomfort on both sides can be set aside, and rational arguments made, one side will still generally be more supported than the other. And in that sense, I despise the whole "thick skin" culture we create, not because it is a bad thing to be thick-skinned about potential offense, but because in extreme forms it leads to arguments being dismissed purely because of someone showing offense. We must be willing to call out overreactions even from those on our "side", but with that we must also redouble our efforts to have clear, rational debates, rather than letting offense itself be seen as indicative of right or of wrong. Just as you said in the conclusion, you can't stop anybody from being offended ever; it happens to _all_ of us. But what you can do is to see where the offender has valid points and where they do not, and thus both learn new things about them and about ourselves, and reinforce our conviction in what we have already well reasoned to be true. Being challenged doesn't mean being outdone; sometimes an uncomfortable argument can be refuted better by addressing it head on and figuring out where it is faulty than by just rejecting it outright. (That said, sometimes it really does feel like there should be no reason to debate certain things people suggest these days... It can be hard to be rational in days where Neo-Nazis are taken seriously.)

(((they))) have no right to silence us.

Love the video and you made a lot of great points. The one thing I am not sure you addressed is how this process would work where there is no way to debate the issue at hand. For example, with people protesting controversial speakers at colleges I believe their intention is to shut them out of the dialogue because there is no way to otherwise engage with them. Their ideas are so toxic that they are immune to debate and engagement and only gain further legitimacy when people do so. How do you counter the idea that a certain group of people are worthy of death besides repeating "No, they aren't" over and over again? What do you do when that doesn't work and they continue to gain supporters and popularity? You fight back in the only way left...

1:45 "Young children might feel displeased about the boundaries set for them by adults." I'd like to point out that sometimes adults act like dictators towards children, and set "boundaries" that are cruel, neglectful or wrong. I believe that this is much more common than most people realize. In this trio of examples, the Dictator is obviously in the wrong (morally) and so is the Narcissist. But children are different. Of course children can make unreasonable demands (just like everyone else), but they can also be entirely justified in their complaints. Yet you respond to this scenario with a blanket statement: "There is no obligation to accommodate these wishes or demands". No obligation? Never? Not for any child who has ever complained about any rule or boundary set by an adult? I strongly encourage you to avoid such broad language in the future. Dictators and Narcissists tend heavily toward destructive acts, but children are merely defined by their age range, and should not be spoken of so broadly. Not to be too blunt, but suppose someone talked about how women sometimes feel upset about the way that men treat them, then compared women (as a group) to both Dictators and Narcissists, and went on to say that there is no obligation for men to fulfill the wishes or demands of women. Wouldn't that be overly broad, to say the least? Wouldn't such a statement imply that women never have legitimate complaints, and that even their justified anger should be ignored, despite its justification? Such a statement would work against the cause of women's rights, regardless of what the author had intended. Likewise with the effort to protect the rights of children.

It's "in" to be offended. In fact it's become a moral virtue to be offended. In these postmodernist times people will actually use this as an argument. By virtue of you being offended your opponent is rendered wrong.

I'm not saying any of it was what you said, it's all about the possible interpretations that could be gleaned from it. I'm simply pointing out the room for misunderstanding, especially because I see a lot of people in these comments who would take that. I'm not accusing you of saying anything you didn't. Just wanting to clear the air on matters. If you aren't saying anything of what I suggested, that's fine. I'm just more saying that, intentionally or not, this is a rather touchy subject that, for your credit, you didn't get into in detail. But that lack of detail leaves room for people to assume things. You are right that it's easy to infer material that doesn't exist. But I'm more just pointing out that the legitimate points you were making left room for those inferences to take root, and I wanted to be sure that I properly understood what meaning you were intending to get across (analyze what is actually being said, no matter how uncomfortable it may be, rather than what you expect to be said) and what meanings about the specific example you used were unintended. Perhaps it makes that example even more relevant, in that it doesn't necessarily ascribe right or wrong to her actual views (or perhaps especially to those who would generally agree with a feminist perspective), and more so to the metaphorical blinders she put on. I want to repeat that I was not accusing you of anything, more so wanting to discuss the points that were made and understand them for how you intended. Perhaps because of the charged nature of that particular debate it can be easy to see any discussion of matters as taking a side. My goal was more to understand the intent, and to clear the air on the possible assumptions that could be taken from it by less charitable viewers. And regardless of any disagreements with my (perhaps poorly phrased) initial comment (my only excuse is that it was relatively late when I made it so my brain was already tired), I did attempt to handle it rationally overall, and to your credit you don't seem to be disagreeing with what I feel were the more general points I made toward the end. And once again, I never questioned that it was a good example for what was intended and for what the video was meant to address, I only made the comment to ascertain that any harmful assumptions that could be made were, quite simply, just assumptions.

‘A feminist becoming an MRA just because someone says that false rape accusations are bad would be as logical as …’ —But this isn’t at all what was said is it? Firstly, nowhere was it either said or implied that Jaye became an MRA. Secondly, her shift in position wasn’t based on one comment but on a whole range of interactions. So a scenario in which a feminist becomes an MRA in response to one comment bears no relation to the Cassie Jaye story. ‘(men shouldn't be falsely accused of rape) isn't something most feminists would deny … not indicative of anything inherently wrong with feminism …’ —Again, we made no statements about ‘most feminists’ or indeed feminism, did we? We spoke — with great specificity — about a single individual who realised she was constantly adding negative spin of her own to other people’s statements. ‘By referring to Jaye as a "former" feminist …’ —Jaye referred to herself explicitly as a former feminist film maker in the TED talk from which her quotes were taken. Rather than impose a description on her, we used her self-description. ‘… and not acknowledging that yes, a lot of vocal MRAs do say legitimately sexist things’ —Irrelevant. Think of the following parallel: an atheist notices she’s been mischaracterising innocent theists as obnoxious anti-atheist arseholes. In recounting her story, should I verbally acknowledge that plenty of theists are obnoxious anti-atheist arseholes? It seems to me that by doing so I would be implying that this atheist’s abuse of innocent theists was somehow ‘understandable’. In my view, it’s not ‘understandable’ — or acceptable. Distortions made against any innocent individuals are not justified or mitigated by the abusive actions of others from their group. Each person should be heard on their own terms — that principle should be especially obvious in the context of one-to-one interviews, as conducted by Jaye. And I’ve argued vehemently with some atheists who’ve treated innocent theists in a degrading way because of their experiences with some other, abusive, theists. Stories I could tell. I understand that for many people, the terms ‘feminist/feminism’ and ‘MRA’ can evoke strong images and sentiments. But that makes it all the more important to be sure of what’s actually being said, when these terms are mentioned. As the very example of Cassie Jaye shows, it’s all too easy to infer material that in fact does not exist.

If your ideas end up helping one side then that is because you agree with it. Being in the centre ground simply means that you do no automatically accept or dismiss all argument based on partisan lines. whats worse agreeing with something you believe to be true, or lying to yourself and other people in order to protect your side? I think its the latter. you've characterised what it means to be a centrist. its not all about compromising the truth to appeal to all sides. its about being better able to critique both sides because you do not have any attachments to one group or the other. it is a perfectly valid position to take, possibly the most honest position too.

DeoMachina the media is concerned with projecting a narrative. The argument isn’t that Kathy Newman and channel 4 didn’t want to create controversy. But the things she was saying were nothing new. It’s not like lots of other interviewers aren’t doing the same thing. But to say that they are only doing it for the hate viewers is stretching it. The have an audience that wants to hear that, and would have agreed wholeheartedly if she hadn’t done such a poor job of it.

There are plenty of business models that involve making yourself look stupid, because your primary source of income becomes people who strongly disagree with you. Consider the rise of clickbait headlines designed to get people angry about things. The media literally do not care if you're critical of them, they're only concerned with money.

DeoMachina I hear you, and I respect you’re opinion. But I don’t share it. I think Kathy Newman had a bad day at the office and didn’t do her homework on Peterson properly. He was just more prepared than she was on the day. You may see him as an unworthy idol, that’s also your prerogative. But it doesn’t mean that channel 4 collectively didn’t get it wrong or that they somehow wanted the outcome the interview received. You still haven’t made any good case why it would be in their interest to throw themselves on their own sword for him, when he clearly operates outside of the media narrative and is generally very critical of it.

Okay, so you're with me up until the part where you think that the interview was not set up specifically to allow this outcome. Tell me, would it look good on Peterson if somebody had completely outclassed him? No. Would he want to be interviewed again by them? Probably not. Does it contribute to his image and therefore his profitability? No, the opposite. Does the network broadcasting stand to gain from taking him down? Not that I can see. So it's starting to look like nobody involved wants him to look bad, which strongly suggests they would put effort into making him look good. Still with me? Now how does he look good? His fans laud him for his intellect, so making his opponent look dumb generates praise for him and his views. It's worth repeating, Peterson is clearly past his best, and also spends his days talking about things completely out of his area of expertise. He is not a difficult person to beat, intellectually. Any network which wanted to, could do it. They don't want to.

DeoMachina I really don’t follow you. Yes mainstream media tend to project a political bias. That’s what Kathy Newman was doing, I agree. Famous people with a product to sell advertise it on tv to reach as many people as possible. Yes. Jordan Peterson has a book out and is doing the media rounds, which given his large public reach and the political nature of the topics he discusses included the mainstream media portals. They had the interview, Newman attempted to give Peterson’s words the least charitable interpretation she could. Jordan Peterson countered the tactic effectively, to such a degree that it went viral. What, in your opinion, am I failing to understand?

Who said it was fake? I believe there really was an interview. But like all interviews, its subject to the bias of the interviewing party. One channel might go very easy on a politician for example, and another might ask some really tough questions. You accept this yeah? necessarily accept that commercial interests can factor in just as political ones can? Oh right, you think this one was the exception. Gotcha. You never considered why famous actors get spots on chat shows just as they happen to be releasing a new movie? Why is this different?

WTF. The fact that television and advertising have links does not mean that Channel 4 attempted to do a fake interview to setup Peterson as a brand. He already is a well known 'brand' which is why they brought him on.

+Gerard Talbot Uh dude, if you seriously don't believe that television ='re more of a conspiracy theorist than I am. Don't you think it's weird that ONLY people with books to sell are invited onto these shows? Given that Peterson is trivally easy to refute, don't you think literally any broadcaster could have found somebody his equal or better? The fact that they didn't means they CHOSE not to. It's like when Fox news gets their token liberal on air. They pick some moron who they can make fun of later, to bolster their own side.

Jesus Christ! that's got to be to most stupid conspiracy theory that I have ever heard of.

Ooh, new TheraminTrees. Need to watch this later.

I agree with you on the importance of free expression, but I think it's important to note that not all viewpoints should be given equal weight. For example, anti-vaccine campaigners promote views that are detrimental to public health and safety. They shouldn't be silenced, but but individuals and social media sites ought to work to promote evidence-based medicine practices over misinformation. Or for another example, suppose there's a private forum which people use to discuss a hobby or shared interest. Mods ought to and do have the right to censor someone who is harrassing members. The harrasser should have the right to say what they want about the group somewhere else, but not in that group if they fail to follow its rules.

Yo momma

It's annoying to me that most people don't have the intellectual capability of understanding this video even if they had access to it. Nonetheless please keep making these videos.

I do not think that false rape allegations are a serious thing in our culture. It is more likely that people will discourage women from making allegations especially if the accused has a lot of influence.

Just watched a great video response by Captain Andy: watch?v=IJ8CBMoDDfQ

Your point about the right to hear is impinged by denying a person's right to speak... in that case, I think of when Ann Coulter visit to U.C. was canceled, and wonder if in that case it was a protest to her unwillingness or inability to listen. Is that a criteria that should be considered before allowing one their right to speak, their willingness to listen?

I’ve loved these vids for years. Standing up for MRAs is just too much for me though.

The Key and the Gate that's because I've never been insulted by anyone using the words "by proxy". If I said, "Joe Smith was a liar and people who follow him are mindless zombies," in front of my mother I think she would feel rightly insulted, don't you? (She's lds)

DivineDefecation If I say "I think your religious beliefs are stupid, and by proxy, I believe YOU are stupid." that's offensive? Because I find that idea entirely ridiculous.

GorillaGuerilla "No, there's absolutely no chance that holocaust deniers are right!" That doesn't matter. They still have their rights to protest and speak as they see fit, regardless of what is true or not. I can say "Look! The sun is purple!" obviously, I'm incorrect. But would you say that, if I started a cult that believed there was a government conspiracy to hide the true color of the sun, no matter the evidence to the contrary, that I should not have the platform to speak about my ideas? The example is likely in the same vein as holocaust denial in your mind, probably even more exaggerated. However, because there's an emotional, human aspect to holocaust denialism, we disallow them from speaking publicly. Why? Because we're afraid of hurt feelings? That goes against every principle of free speech.

Happy Enjoyment I disagree with your assertions. Words cannot and do not harm people generally. Unless there is sustained, concentrated verbal attacks on an individual, very very *very* few cases of "bigotry" in verbal communication have resulted in any form of mental or emotional harm. I'll give you an example. I'm bisexual. I've been told by family (brothers in particular) that my sexuality isn't real. Does this qualify as bigotry? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the definition we're going by. Regardless of that though, it is not abuse and any sort of claim that it is, is using an AWFULLY loose definition of "abuse". And this is an assertion on my part, but the vast majority of people I see online attack ideas posed by racial and gender activists, rather than their identities. Many have no problem with black people, gay people, women, or other minority groups. It's primarily activists and ideologues you see having their ideas challenged, not regular people on the street.

What fantastic stuff you guys do. I just love that quip: "Nobody has the right to NOT be offended" Keep up the superb work.

I enjoy your work, thanks for sharing it. I look forward to more to come.

I really love the intro. Awesome music.

Captain Andy refuted most of your key points here:

Dr shaym sent me here

zero bullshit alarm going off in my head... how is this possible on youtube? subscribed

This video offends me

Impressive graphics.

Excellent video. Very well argumented. I also especially like your calm way of talking.

TheLithp The men's rights movement isn't a narrative. It is a set of issues faced by men and boys pertaining to laws, due process and legal policies. For most of these issues, the men's rights movement has clear proposals to change the laws and policies and thus resolve the issue. If you have any objections to the men's rights movement, you are welcome to state which men's issue you object to and why you think it doesn't need to be addressed or resolved. For example, "I think male circumcision should be legal. I object to those trying to criminalize this practice. Every parent has the right to cut off parts of their male children's genitals whether for religious reasons or otherwise".

"If your stated beliefs don't align with my extreme, unflattering version of what I say you believe, you're being dishonest!" Well, 2 can play at that game: Just come out & say that you refuse to accept any evidence contradicting the self-proclaimed men's movement narrative.

In the above post: actually defending David Futrelle's integrity, something no honest person could do.

ITT: Labeling all sources contradicting MRA narratives false, insisting all sources come directly from MRA websites, & unironically accusing others of being in an echo chamber.

While the production quality is high, some of the sources, such as Christopher Hitchens, Cassie Jay and Theo Van Gogh are not the best example to cite, as using someone who plays devil's advocate, and believes in what they say is not a way to go. Especially insofar as it invites monsters in. Not to mention that it is a very rationalist approach to cite such persons, especially Hitchens, who fetishized rationality and took things too seriously without empathy for other peoples' reactions. Rather, it would have been better to go with Paul Feyerabend's take on Mill as a means of taking baby steps. Moreover, when Feyerabend would play devil's advocate, i.e. he would defend astrology and creationism even though he did not believe in it, wasn't insofar as to create controversy for its own sake, but to teach a lesson in the problem in assuming that rationality and objectivity, in the academic sense of being unbiased, is folly unto itself. Therefore, Feyerabend took a more nuance approach to utilizing his criticism when it came to offending opponents, but without directing it against in a manner of a rationalist plank. Case in point, I think this is quite a hyper-rationalist video.

fucking love these videos it was my first real introduction to practical critical thought

So what you're saying is... Sorry I couldn't resist.

The Mormon cult have many more members than JWs or Scientology. Swearing allegiance, shun "enemies including those who leave, and even being forbidden to criticize any leader are Mormon norms. All of your points here are 100% valid here and apply to the current USA government and oppressive religions/cults. Another great video. Thanks.

Thank you good sir!

Firstly, thanks for your videos. Great work, both of you for all of your videos. They have been of great assistence to me. One question though: Do you think that there are any cases in which offence can provide a legitimate case for censorship?

I've yet to hear a case where the presence of offence by itself warrants censorship — but always open to hearing cases. What tends to happen is that the nature of the abuse is not in the bald 'offence' but some other aspect, like intimidation, harassment or libel, etc.

What about something like Holocuast Denials... Or a group trying to set up a statue of General Lee... Do Jews and African Americans have a right to be offended here? Or is there something else going on?

If someone was never offended, that is, never had a negative reaction, to anything, they would have no morals, and would approve of murder rape and theft under all circumstances. They might seek to prevent those things for entirely selfish reasons, but they wouldn't have any problem with those things if they occurred in the context that they had no reason to worry would happen to them. Offense is the correct response to something that is morally objectionable. It is the correct response to an assertion that a certain group of people should be systematically oppressed. It is the correct response to attacks, including purely verbal attacks that are covered by free speech, against vulnerable people. If we refuse to Foster Public disapproval of bigots, bigots will respond by fostering public disapproval of the people they hate. Would you rather homophobes or gay people be considered objectionable and rejected by the public? Refusing to decry another person's ideas as immoral in the name of free speech is ludicrous. If a homophobe decides that they're not okay with being regarded as immoral for publicly stating homophobic views, and therefore chooses not to speak, so the better for gay people who would otherwise have refused to publicly be themselves and speak their minds for fear of a similar negative reaction.

I agree that I misinterpreted you. I think it was for reasons similar to the ones you mention near the end of the video. I see someone I knew was an atheist talking about free speech and speaking of offense in negative terms, and I'm reminded of people I've seen espouse more or less the position I've mentioned. This is totally my fault. Thank you for responding to me personally. One never expects that from a large channel and it's cool when it happens.

It would certainly be ludicrous to 'refuse to decry' immoral values in the name of free speech. In fact it would be pretty idiotic — and self-contradictory. Refusing to speak out against immoral values would be a rejection of free speech in itself. But seeing as we're not arguing such a idiotic position, it's got nothing to do with this video does it? Likewise, nowhere do we promote the idiotic idea of 'refusing to foster public disapproval of bigots'. So again, nothing to do with this video. Have a look at some of my other videos sometime — you'll find they express clear disapproval about all kinds of prejudicial and abusive behaviours. We're all for loudly decrying these behaviours — for arguing against them, for presenting persuasive cases against them, and for exposing their ignorance. What this video is arguing against is the censorship of bad ideas — and we give a range of reasons for that. If we're 'protected' from hearing and dealing with bad ideas, we don't learn the thinking tools to pinpoint bad ideas when we hear them. I was brought up in a deeply homophobic environment. For many years, no reasons were given for this prejudice — and so I had nothing to argue against. It was only when people started vocalising their reasons that I was able to start challenging their bullshit — and those people were able to start reviewing their ideas. Without conversation, the poison stays trapped — they would've stuck with their prejudices and begrudged being told what to think. With conversation, the poison was released and change came about. If we're interested in change, we need to get the poisons out — not drive them under.

I'm offended by this video

Cool music


Other news