Stephen Fry on Political Correctness and the Left
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 09. 2020
- Stephen opines about the dangers of political correctness, and how he worries about the impact of a fixation on this for achieving the agenda of the left.
Consider supporting the podcast and the Origins Project Foundation at www.originsprojectfoundation.org
Full Episodes Playlist:
• Ricky Gervais - The Or...
To see commercial-free, full HD video episodes, join us at www.patreon.com/originspodcast
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Website: OriginsProjectFoundation.org
Twitter: / theoriginspod
Instagram: / theoriginspod
Facebook: / theoriginspod
The Origins Podcast, a production of The Origins Project Foundation, features in-depth conversations with some of the most interesting people in the world about the issues that impact all of us in the 21st century. Host, theoretical physicist, lecturer, and author, Lawrence M. Krauss, will be joined by guests from a wide range of fields, including science, the arts, and journalism. The topics discussed on The Origins Podcast reflect the full range of the human experience - exploring science and culture in a way that seeks to entertain, educate, and inspire.
Thank you for your support! - Věda a technologie
I'm a lefty and I agree with Fry, we alienate a lot of people who just follow in a reaction to what we've done, leading them down a rabbit hole.
We need more intelligent discussions like this. Sadly, Social Media loves the sensational, the rude, the blunt and the shocking far more.... Two interesting brains here... Enjoyed it, but wish it was longer for us poor plebians who aren't subscribed :thumbsup
Doesn't help that social media is being so heavily relied on at a time like this when physical contact is discouraged, makes it that much easier to think that the world is "going to shit" because so many channels lean on those extremes.
I realize that the demand for the sensational is traceable to decades before the web exploded how it did, but the internet exarcebated it more than the advent of television did for its time, anyone and everyone can have a voice now, and we as a species weren't quite ready for that it looks like.
And if you weren't aware you can listen to the whole podcast here: czcams.com/video/L-AublZlJDA/video.html
More like ANTIsocial media.
A wise person once told me - there’s good and bad everywhere you care to look
Mr Acid.
I would say, not just Social Media. The national media is equally guilty of this. It's more about emotions than giving information, these days.
I'm a conservative, but I would stand with Fry any day of the week.. brothers in arms, brothers in peace.
SUREEEEEEEEEE YOU WOULD FREAK
I'm so glade to see Mr fry say this it needed to be said and should keep being said
Love you guys!!!!!!!
Lawrence, please let Stephen talk uninterrupted, especially when he is asked a question by you.
He's a great guy. He looks so much older suddenly.
Cancer does that
@@habibikebabtheiii2037 Always he lost a ton of weight, hence more wrinkles
Let Stephen talk.
Stephen Fry is the most well spoken intelligent man we have at this time. I compare him only to Christopher Hitchens regarding their abilities to be so sound in their admissions. Fry is truly a great man.
He's not really.
Yes he is
Christopher Hitchens was a well spoken polemicist who admired Trotsky way to much
He’s was far to much like Jacobin for my liking
If only this kind of man was in politics, very intelligent and speaks for many of us.
Don't talk over people, Lawrence. Worst quality for a podcast host to have.
His show, his rules, his fault
Lawrence wants to interview himself, instead listening to the amazing Fry
He does. He’d get more from his respondents if he didn’t.
Respectfully agree - let a brilliant orator speak - his well expressed views do not need your gloss and the rhythm of the conversation was stilted.
James Vath, I understand that your criticism is good, and it can contribute to the "standardized" quality of the interview. But he looks so excited and the discussion wins because it's make conversation so live.
Also, its a podcast. Podcast razer about conversation, then interview. Invterview its different matter.
He’s completely right.
PC by Proxy really has to be the worst kind of hypocrisy!
As a White British man, I have zero idea what it feels like to be Black/Asian/Gay/Disabled/or other, so I can only offer sympathy when those who ARE are discriminated against.
I won't, however, feel 'offended' on their behalf, because that's not my right, it's theirs!
Free speech is a right, to speak up and stand against injustice is an obligation. Woke is an awareness that things are wrong in society and need to be changed for the better. The weaponization of the term woke is horrifying, the constant vilification of people and ideas that espouse the virtues of wokeness is an attack on the rights of freedom of expression, an attack on people who genuinely want to change society for the better. people who want a fairer and just place to exist. It angers me that right-wing politicians and their supporters and the media have been allowed to turn wokeness and political correctness into a negative phrase. I am proud to be woke.
I wish Stephen would elaborate further on what his disagreements with Jordan peterson are.
I was wondering the same. I do not think they're that far off. Linguistically they could not be further apart, but in essence they both seem very humanist to me.
It likely comes down to the fact that a few have labeled him alt-right and that is icky. It's pretty anti-intellectual honestly.
@@DjRenect how exactly are they that far off linguistically?
@@maxriley3888 I think if you've watched Peterson's debate with Sam Harris then you would understand lol
Jordan Peterson made several great points about a lot of things between around 2016-2020, but he seems to have become really weird and aggressive after his detox experience in Russia, and started calling transgender surgeons "criminals" and things like that.
I would guess that he probably got some sort of brain damage when went through all his traumatic experiences in at the hospital in Russia, since he seems much more unstable and impulsive nowadays.
As always, bang on point.
The touching on language is an important aspect, it's our means of transmitting complicated - or specific - ideas, concepts, 'brands' and ideologies about as universally as we can.
Yet the far left / woke-left have done a double whammy to language (and I say this as a dedicated liberal, and sane/regular left, secular humanist - liberal and left aren't synonyms):
1) They've overused and distorted certain words, prefixes and suffixes to become simultaneously more confrontational and increasingly meaningless: 'Privilege', '-phobic', '-ism' etc.
E.g. Imagine talking on a topic of race, and a POC telling a white person about a relevant lived experience. Even just saying 'white perspective' rather than 'white privilege' is going to make the latter much more open to hearing what you have to say, mainly as it's much more accurate (as well as less obnoxious and counter-productive).
You could insert others dependent on the conversation, like 'circumstance', 'experience', and so on. Yet 'privilege' is constantly brought up in relation to race, sex, sexual orientation.. even weight. Despite the first thing people think of with 'privilege', being unearned and unfairly received wealth & resources.
2) Taken various things that WERE synonyms, or allowed for flexible use of language, i.e. not racist / anti-racist, or, institutional racism / systemic racism - and made them detrimentally distinct.
E.g. according to the 'woke lexicon', 'not racist' = racist, and only "anti-racist" is now acceptable. A hard binary (for sub-par minds that tend to have to think in binaries). 'Not racist' & 'anti-racist' are now very different. This is compounded further when you look at what the woke mean by 'anti-racist', and it turns out that it is actually just a parallel and opposing kind of racism (as is much of the creeping bigotry in CRT and other Critical Theories).
So you now have 'racist', 'not racist', and 'anti-racist' as three different things, with different camps claiming different pairings for 2 out of 3 of them.
And this is just a tiny damn slice of what the 'Woke left' (a formerly useful term from black culture circa 2014 - until well intentioned and under-neuroned virtue signallers snatched it) is doing, ironically, in the name of tolerance, decency and progress.
It's not much the woke left, but the woke liberals. Most of the far left is hardly woke, but the libs are on a "wow" level of wokeness. The whole mainstream democratic party tries their best to appeal to those sub par minded morons.
@@stranger16luis71 The key characteristic of the woke is that they are NOT liberal, you dingleberry. They're social Marxists, the most extreme of which always hated liberals.
Do agree with the extend language is used that one feels it's surrounded by a new censorship industrial complex but think "woke lexicon" is not an inclusively 'left" issue. I think it's started by all sort of groups under the illusion of making themselves invulnerable by imposing self censorship forcing the society not to use certain language or avoid even referring to them such as "occupied lands" being considered AS with respect to Palestine because they believe Palestinians never existed there so lands cannot be "occupied" etc, etc. Steven should know this well due to his jewish background. There are also moslems who are fed up with "Islamic terrorists" because a radical group or mercenary under the name of Alkada/IsIs were allegedly trained against Russian in Afghanistan & Syria certainly not representing them. So not a "left woke" necessarily. Furthermore, categorising the world as left and right has beome utterly unacceptable for even the original left and right cannot see themselves represented by them.
Just enough to get you interested in what Stephen has to say, then the clip stops. I could listen to him talk on this subject for a lot longer...
0:10, I really hate the way this guy accuses Stephen fry of ATTACKING HAPPILY the political left. Stephen fry does NOT ATTACK, He educates.
Love the word redaction .
2:22
Thank you Stephen fry for calling out Ben Shapiro for what he is.
yeah, it was quite funny lol
why interviewing people if you do not let them speak! super annoying
podcast its about conversation, not interviewing. am i wrong?
Chomsky, the only man who has never smiled
You should get Slavoj Zizek or Yanis Varoufakis on!
I'm such a fanboy.
Mr. Fry I don't always approve of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
Fry has lost a LOT of weight here (?)
he said my thoughts, creepy
Stop interrupting him
No matter, how smart you are, if you suffer from this level of fraud, corruption and inequality and lose everything, you will quickly devellop anger. Intellectual smugness doesn´t help here. Allow inequality to escalate and you will have fascism sooner or later and nobody cares what smart rich kid who had that wealthy upbringing says. "I try to not depend on the labour of others as much as possible." "The economic anarchy of capitalism is the root of the evil." - Albert Einstein (smart and wise person)
Hello there Chairman Mao. Let's hope no one ever takes you seriously again.
Why is Einstein an authority on capitalism?
Jews do says these things
Fry is spot on, but I'm disappointed with his Shapiro comment, that would be a great debate and one that Fry would win.
Shapiro would undoubtedly win.
Shapiro is a huge hypocrite! Don't judge right leaning yet he literally makes public statements against the left and threatens to boycott or cancel anything left leaning such as gillete and sports illustrated! left and right have something in common and that's they are all for protecting ones right to free speech unless it interferes with their own personal beliefs and political party!
Nobody wins a debate revolving around a polarising topic when you have two intellects going at it
@@villanelleeve2925 You seem to conflate expressing your free speech by not purchasing a product with not having a product available at all. There is no hypocrisy on Shapiro's part.
@@toonlegend4044 Shapiro? The guy who only ever "wins" by taking stuff out of context and "debating" students that he doesn't let to have another word after they made an initial statement? The guy that called a conservative reporter from the UK a leftist for a tad of critical journalism? Of course, that's not a guy on whose side Fry would ever argue in a public debate, because Shapiro would do terribly in an academic debate setting. He's a right-wing populist, far more than Peterson is.
People mean different things by "political correctness". For a person like Shapiro it means that he should be aloud to call Latinos "mentally challenged" but to call Jewish "greedy" is not proper and rude.
You sound like the people that Stephen was talking about. Where did Shapiro say that and in what context? I suspect it isn't what you think it is and only your bias could lead you to believe otherwise.
@Will Savage I honestly feel that if the left didn't make shit up they would have nothing to rail against.
Shame, without guilt and Popper's paradox of tolerance (which is a curiously Counter-Enlightenment-like idea by this fallibilist philosopher of science who was a former socialist turned reactionary), should function for social solidarity, and is something that arises organically due to pervasive magnanimous critical discourse. Shame shouldn't be used with guilt as an aim, and not with the cynical view that certain speech isn't allowed on the basis of merely not tolerating those we perceive are the intolerant. Our perceptions may be incorrect, and we become the intolerant, and then the spiral of cynicism in the immediate social environment and public sphere at large ensues. Those who we should shame are those who are dogmatic of a truly dehumanizing and unlistening kind, no matter what it is. This is why we of the Left should be free speech absolutists, because, as we mind our humanist virtues, through debate and discussion we put in their place those who seek to marginalize. The Left and liberals have abandoned this, and now the Left and liberals are as much like the Right used to be and still are. Marginalizers. It is high time then to be post-political, that can still be populist (non-inflammatory sense of it) without marginalizing identities and viewpoints. Like Dennett suggests, we should not let us be infected by "ideas to die for" or "dangerous memes," lest we decide to exact ourselves to complete ruination.
This is bullshit. Nobody says you can't say anything. Speech is free, but still subject to criticism. That's free speech also.
did you miss the 2020 election? lol
Calling people names is not hate speech, people should be allowed free speech whatever they say. Unless they are inciting violence, all words should be allowed. If a word is deemed hateful by someone, then don't have anything more to do with that person, but they should not be 'cancelled'. 1984 is just around the corner 😧
What a spineless stance to take.
what is?
Says the flabby, limp-cocked whiner.
racist words and speech ARE racist behaviour. People SHOULD be outraged at such speech and behaviour. The people targeted by such speech are tired of hearing it. Such speech does not exist in a vacuum it is part of a culture or a society where racism is alive and well. 'Political Correctness' is the evolution of language to be more inclusive, to do the least harm where it is possible and does not have take away the meaning you are trying to convey. As Stephen said elsewhere in this episode, the rise of populism and the anti-elite, anti-establishment sentiments that are associated with it and the right wing currently are (I believe) partly to do with a section of society being ignored, talked down to or villified. If they see no benefit in certain institutions, they will choose someone who seems to destroy them in order to build something new. It is easy to look down from above, to come from a privileged background and to think that the emotion of those 'at the bottom of the pile' i.e. working class (of all races but especially BAME), marginalised groups etc is out of place. To think that we should be less outraged, less outspoken and less emotional in our condemnation of behaviour that dehumanises us. White people can afford to have a detachment from racist language because they have no personal stake in it, or any experience to draw from. They do, however, have a personal stake in 'Political Correctness', which simply means that there is more condemnation for their racist language. Hence the pushback from some, and the blame on 'PC', which if you connect the dots is actually blaming BAME and marginalised groups who speak out for the rise of populism. Apparently we should be stoic, even if we don't want to. We need to bite the bullet because standing up for ourselves while others attack us is too much to handle. I would offer a different point of blame - the rise of social media and algorithms designed to appeal to our more basic instincts and show us anger, hate and outrage that will keep us on the screen and clicking for longer. The attention economy and how politics is more about small soundbites and catchy slogans rather than real, thought-out policies and measures that take time to talk about and digest the detail of. That's my two cents anyway - peace and love to all!
The architects of PC are the left wing social justice types who are currently promoting racism, sexism and hatred at levels we have never seen in my lifetime. There's a reason they are called regressives.
@@SteveSmith-fh6br Alright, I'll bite. Who are these people you're referring to?
@@TehMillionkill Left wing Marxist university professors namely. I know first hand having been indoctrinated into the cult myself years ago, but it wasn't anything like it is today.
This is what I'm talking about: czcams.com/video/kVk9a5Jcd1k/video.html
When you can't differentiate Mein Kampf from social justice, there just might be a problem brewing.
I enjoy Stephen Fry's intelligent and self-deprecating take on many issues and I like his lack of pomposity and dogmatic assertion. But I do find the inability of hand-wringing liberals like him to actually take their well-meaning, liberal, and tolerant opinions and positions to their logical conclusions to be infuriating and indicative of their inability to reason and apply consistent principles. Mr Fry says he deplores the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians (as he should) but he defends the right of Israel to exist - note that he said 'Israel'... not 'Israelis'. Any intelligent and thinking person with any knowledge of the world must see that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is a direct and inevitable consequence that follows inexorably from the creation of a racially exclusive state based on an ethno-nationalist ideology (Zionism). The Israeli people (and all Jews) have a right to exist, but if you say that Jews have a right to establish an ethnically exclusive state in Palestine then this requires, as a matter of course, the dispossession and expulsion, or permanent subjugation and second class status, of those who do not meet the racial requirements (ie. non-Jews). Mr Fry's position might be likened to that of an ethnic German in the 1930s who decried the Nazi treatment of Jewish people in Germany, but then insisted that of course the Germans had a right to a racially exclusive state that did not include Jews as equal citizens.
Mr Fry, like Boris Johnson, wants to have his cake (his hand-wringing liberal conscience) and also to eat it. Like Johnson, he will find that this is an impossibility.
You do know he is very intellectual and probably knows a lot more on the subject then you. Saying that he isn't one is very ignorant in your part. He may be an actor and a comedian but he is immensely intelligent and all his views are just whether you agree with him or nnot
@@NT-co1qw -
I wasn't criticising Stephen Fry's lack of knowledge, and this is actually irrelevant to the point I was making, which Mr Tang either doesn't understand or chooses not to engage with.