The Death Of Conversation with Jonathan Haidt
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2024
- My guest today is Jonathan Haidt. I just had Jonathan on the show a few weeks ago with Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott, but I wanted to get him back for a one-on-one. I'm glad I did because this turned out to be a really great conversation. It actually felt more like a private phone call than an interview, which I thought was really cool. I also thought it was very cool that John brought up the first email that I ever sent to him back when I was just a random Columbia undergraduate trying to understand why some of my professors seemed totally insane.
In the episode, we talk about humor and offensive jokes. We discuss reasons why social media sucks so much as a forum for serious conversations. We also talk about the pros and cons of the internet, the progress America has made on issues like racism, and whether protest movements are still a useful practice. We also go to talk about Elon Musk potentially buying Twitter, and much more.
I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did!
#Ad
If you’re hiring, you need Indeed. Because Indeed is the hiring partner where you can Attract, Interview, and Hire all in one place. Indeed partners with you on every step of the hiring process. Find great talent through time-saving tools like Indeed Instant Match, Assessments, and Virtual Interviews. With Virtual Interviews, Indeed saves you time. You can message, schedule, and interview top talent seamlessly, all in one place. Indeed makes it easy to connect with your applicants. No need to install anything extra- Indeed’s Virtual Interviews work from your browser. Interview virtually with no downloads, plugins, or purchases. You can do it all in one place, with Indeed.
Join more than three million worldwide that use INDEED to hire great talent fast. Sign up for Indeed now and get a $75 credit toward your first sponsored job. Plus earn up to $500 extra in sponsored job credits with Indeed’s Virtual Interviews.
Get started right now at www.indeed.com/CONVERSATIONS
Terms and conditions apply.
#Ad
If you want advice that’s based on evidence & careful research, and comes from an impartial perspective, check out 80,000 Hours’. They are a nonprofit that aims to help people have a positive impact with their careers. 80,000 Hours provide free research and support to help you find a career tackling one of the world's most pressing problems. 80,000 Hours also hosts a job board with nearly 1000 currently open high-impact career opportunities. If you’ve got some ideas already, they offer free one-on-one advice to help you switch paths. There’s also the 80,000 Hours podcast, which hosts unusually in-depth conversations with experts about how to best tackle pressing global problems. You can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
To get started planning a career that works on one of the world’s most pressing problems, sign up now at 80000hours.org/coleman
FOLLOW JONATHAN
Website - jonathanhaidt.com
Articles - bit.ly/3QQp0Zi
Books - amzn.to/3HSXVAn
FOLLOW COLEMAN
CZcams - bit.ly/38kzium
Twitter - bit.ly/2rbAJue
Facebook - bit.ly/2LiAXH3
Instagram - bit.ly/2SDGo6o
Podcast -bit.ly/3oQvNUL
Website - colemanhughes.org/
Limited Edition Merch - bit.ly/CWCMerch
#ConversationswithColeman #CWC #ColemanHughes #Podcast #Politics #society #Colemanunfiltered #Unfiltered #Music #Philosophy #BlackCulture #Intellectual #podcasting #podcastersofinstagram #CZcams #podcastlife #music #youtube #radio #comedy #podcastshow #spotifypodcast #newpodcast #interview #motivation #art #covid #history #republicans #blacklivesmatter #follow #libertarian #art #socialism #communism #democracy #americafirst #blm #trending #capitalism #kag #indian #conservatives #media #elections
Glad you caught the show. Let me know what you think in the comments and I’ll reply as soon as I can. If you’re a regular listener and would like to show your support and gain access to exclusive talks with some incredible minds, check out the Coleman Unfiltered membership here: bit.ly/3B1GAlS
we all worked making facebook blow up. If we had stayed nice by our own morals... it would not have gotten so bad.
Haidt is a long time favorite thinker of mine, and I've only recently started following Hughes, so I'm super excited about this talk. I love listening to smart people that don't have to lie to defend their positions.
His book The Righteous Mind was a major inspiration for me to change career and become a psychologist myself.
I adore Haidt. His research, work & the example he sets in having conversations and interpreting people charitably. I am certain that you will enjoy Hughes & the variety of guests he brings on. He's had some wonderful thinkers on his show.
I know Haidt has been around awhile but there's not enough of these one on one talks where he discusses ideas like this.
I enjoyed hearing Hughes's email from 2017 as undergrad. I teach college philosophy and I just really liked that. Of course, I attempt to run my classes like the one Hughes liked, and I hope that reality reflects that.
Awesome keep up the good work. Love to hear that not all collge professors are crazy.
This discussion made me finally realize the obvious: Facebook is not a great medium on which to discuss politics and controversial issues, and I decided that, other than posting informative videos such as this, my days of attempting unsuccessfully to have level-headed discussions on it are over. It also dawned on me that I myself was beginning to respond in ways that, although superficially rational, were almost certain to elicit emotional feedback. Great discussion.
I have had really good conversations on Facebook.
You have to moderate and be consistent in your rules for no ad hominem attacks. I would give people warnings to be respectful and if they insisted on insulting people I would tell them why I was blocking them and follow through.
It cut out the dickhead really quick but it is a lot of work
I got quite emotional watching this. Thanks Jonathan, we need Coleman and people like him to save their generation from themselves. To the extent you encouraged this fine young man, you did the culture a service.
The Righteous Mind is my favorite book. Coleman is my favorite podcaster. Can’t wait to hear this.
Congratulations on 100k subbies! ❤️
38:57 Jonathan is giving fuel to an argument that I’ve been making (sort of as a joke) for ten years now!
The world actually did end in December 2012 just as the Mayan calendars indicated…
we just haven’t noticed yet.
Lol
That's cool, except the Mayans never said the world would end on that date, or any date.
Dec 2012 was simply the end of their calendar projection. It could have just as easily been July 2022 or April 3600. But it had to end at some point merely because it was a human created mapping of time.
Yes your right. The world did die in 2012 but we are only just now starting to notice. I so miss the 1980-2000 era. So miss those kind of days and they will never return.
Jonathan Haidt is one of my favourite thinkers - Bravo to both of U for this highly informative discussion 🙏
A really great conversation - thank you! 🌺 Even that the topic is about a disturbing development, the way you both talk is chilling. Meaning you don't raise panic.
I found the classes I enjoyed the most were the ones where teachers encouraged interactions and challenges from the students. The one that sticks out the most was my Ethics class. The teacher was very open about his background as a Baptist minister, so you could guess where his views were on things. At the same time, his goal was to encourage people to think about why they think they way they do about issues. He would constantly play “devil’s advocate” and steel-man any position, even blatantly wrong ones. It fostered an environment of respect, critical thinking and humor, and is, in my view, the best example of how people should interact with each other.
Totally off topic but man Coleman is a good-looking guy
Ur name is Ronnie…
@@divinegon4671 😂 🏋🏿️
Lol is this is mum?
Both components of your comment are true
Creepy 🤡
I loved this conversation. Jonathan Haidt is one of my intellectual heroes and I’ve been a big fan since 2017. Truly enjoyed his book The Righteous Mind and many of his articles.
Coleman, you do great work too. You’ve had some excellent guests recently and appreciate how you speak with many different types of people. I also admire his maturity and patience when dealing with difficult people and foolish arguments.
Congratulations on 100,000 subscribers! I have enjoyed your channel and wish you all the best. You deserve to have over 1 mil and I anticipate that will happen - hopefully, sooner rather than later, because you have a very important perspective that needs to be heard. Thank you!
Our technology is evolving faster than our sociology
Great talk.. thank you so much
aww that ending where he started talking like an affectionate father XD
Really enjoy Haidt's observations and research findings!
ur so cool omg I have loved all of these- thank you!!
Awesome every time!
Great conversation.
Great conversation. I highly recommend Haidt's new Atlantic article that he talks about.
Fantastic!
From 42:04, the concern Haidt raises is also my biggest concern right now: that enough people might become so alienated that they will vote Republican and we will see decades of positive transformation undone not only in terms of social progress but in environmental protection, wage and benefits, occupational health and safety, disaster response, and more.
My first philosophy unit was Foucault and I recall saving my questions until after class because I felt they would put the lecturer on the spot and embarrass them, and my behaviour was based on what my lecturer's style suggested to me about their openness to discussion.
@Somewhatskeptical i might agree somewhat on nietzsche. I think i agree with heideggers interpretation rather than deleuzes. I took a balance of 'analytical' and 'continental', classic and contemporary phil, and i always felt an adolescent hypocracy on freedom was at the core of post structuralist phil.
You didn’t read all his work, yet you came to a conclusion? Based on what? You didn’t see the relevance and imminence to this very day? What of his predictions on the nature and advent of nihilism? The logical conclusion to alexandrine culture? Man seeking to become a god in the machine? Nietzsche’s understanding and predictions still rule this present schizophrenic and pathological age of broken dialogue and a discourse that has run its course, and found its dead end, at least before the next viable nadir.
@Somewhatskeptical That’s not how any of this works. Just because you completely ignore, dismiss, or remain blind and unseeing to an argument, be it from Plato or Nietzsche, doesn’t mean that life, man and thought are then “the way you assume it to be.” This blindness, this inability to see, this unsorted hemorrhage of assumptions, and the disrespect for superior thinkers is part of the modern dead-end discourse, which hasn’t just broken down, but is largely pathological - especially in its utter lack of sense-making, let alone meritocracy. Furthermore, the death of god happened, as did an inevitable age of nihilism, and this stands whether you understand it or not. That you can’t see or understand this, or say, that you can’t see or understand America’s present and resultant civil war, only further exemplifies and demonstrates the problem, the discrepancies, and the distance between people, ideas, ideals, and the collapse that we find ourselves witnessing in real time.
@@MynaaMiesnowan I think both had valuable and lasting insights yes. I could just never reconcile the seeming inconsistency within their writings on truth and on freedom. And i dont think thats due to the ontological ambiguity in each of those, as something essential and contingent.
@Somewhatskeptical It’ll make more sense as things and people continue to fall apart, but from your statements here, it's clear a lot of Americans will continue on with their delusional, Cinderella existence, even after their carriage turns back into a pumpkin, which is precisely how we've arrived here.
Nothing gives me greater joy than sharing thoughts and ideas with a fertile mind. Society is clearly becoming more combative and more interested in winning a conversation than investigating the essence of the discussion. It is good to hear that others are also suffering from these shortfalls and that I am not suffering from some malady.
The combative mindset suppresses the potential for intellectual advancement. I am passionately interested in learning from others and am content to sit and listen attentively. Lastly, Jonathan Haidt is a wonderful lecturer. His book on the coddling of the American mind is excellent. Thank you for your video.
Two things that would explain this, one is more tribalization due to virtual echo chambers and other is hyperfeminization(always happens in times of safety and plenty), and women on average are more concerned about winning an argument than finding out who's correct. Illustrated quite well by Bill Burr's "how women argue" bit.
Really enjoyed this
Persuasion Vs destroy... Nailed it.
Its a good point that all movements can be won simply through protest (one that comes to mind, that wasn't mentioned here environment/sustainability movement). And also with regards to getting people to accept movements or ideas (wrong or right) through coercion, intimidation and aggressive activism will eventually have unintended side affects, including the pendulum swinging the other way....
Haidt is correct on all the progress made since he was born, with the enormous exception of children, who have been sent emphatically backward since the 1980s. He does elude to this, but it needs to be clearly stated that every adult gained freedom and self-determination in the second half of the 20th century, whereas children have become ever more tightly controlled by adults, and this is disastrous for them. I did appreciate Haidt’s support for more humor and playfulness. Yes! These are great levelers.
@@roughpatches I’m aware. Some viewers may get the wrong idea from the way he phrased that part of this conversation.
Wow! Coleman, what happened to you was the exact problem I experienced as a student. Thank you for letting the Professor to read your old email. Thank you for being open- minded!!! Like you said, the result was such a boring at atmosphere and no room to grow and learn.
I cursively read the title as “Coleman Hughes on the Death of Jonathan Haidt” and almost had a heart attack
Same! 😦
If you read carefully, you'll see that it is the _conversation_ with Jonathan Haidt that died. Sadly, we can no longer converse with him. Troubling times.
Some solid, intriguing ideas and a few key items that did not stick the landing.
I've been mourning the US as a country where discourse could occur but with such a division on core moral/ethical topics being exacerbated by technology that accelerates faster than a single generation does. There is no real hope. A house divided cannot stand and people who don't like us internally and externally will be sure to prey on that. It's just a matter of time. Was Pandora's Box ever shut. However mythical the story the concept of the cat being out of the bag is not something that can be fixed for those who have let it out. Most parents are leaving their kids to these devices. That tide of people will not disengage from that platform as a means of discourse. We are terrifically screwed if we can't reach meaningful conversation. All that will linger in peoples minds is violence.
Think you mean sleeping on the Floor, since you were indoors. GROUND outdoors, FLOOR indoors. Great email for such a young person.
To add to the points at about 29:00, in addition to the tendency for us to fall into echo chambers and the twin benefit of finding our niches, I also think the Internet affords us extreme ease in changing our perspectives and seeing *out* of our echo chambers, though most fail to take advantage of that opportunity.
For example, I recently spent dozens of hours trying to understand how radical progressive trans activists think. I wouldn’t have been able to do that easily 20 years ago. But now there are thousands of videos, articles, lectures, debates, and whatnot that can show me the ins and outs of their worldview, and I’ve come away understanding more or less all of the arguments I hear from them now.
My deep dive didn’t change my mind on much, but in some ways it did shift my thinking, and on top of that, I can now keep up in conversation with them to a sufficient degree that I can contribute, rather than be rebuffed as needing to “educate myself”. I have. Now let’s talk.
But *you* have to have a desire for a different perspective. The algorithms don't really allow for that when machine learning is utilized.
@@JeffCaplan313 the algorithms don’t help. That’s true. But they’re incredibly easy to overcome. All you have to do is actively search for something new. The algorithm will then factor that in. It’s not a common trait, but sloughing off responsibility to the algorithm is intellectually lazy. That’s the kind of person that wouldn’t bother looking up new ideas even if the algorithm was neutral.
Not saying you are this kind of person. I agree that the algorithm makes the human problem worse, but it is fundamentally a human problem with a solution that has almost no resistance whatsoever.
We should fix the algorithm, AND we should be actively teaching people that it’s worth their time to consciously search for new perspectives. That’s what the educated elite have lost - the desire to create a good debate. They’d rather just steamroll and silo themselves because they’re in the majority and want to socially signal rather than discover truth
@@mattbabb. "All you have to do is **actively** search..."
So all that's needed is a personality disposition to being critical and open-minded with enough drive and curiosity to challenge yourself.
Is that all? Piece of cake. 🤭 ✌️
@@JeffCaplan313 “enough drive”. It’s as easy as typing in the topic and clicking enter. The problem is not that we are barred from the information. It’s that we lack the value. We can instill the value in people by demonstrating it, by rewarding it, and by punishing the lack of it. Do you think people can’t learn to question their own biases? Isn’t that what education is for?
Yes, same thing with me! From only watching leftist media my algorithms shifted over during covid. That’s how I found Coleman, james Lindsay and other thinkers and it’s been very interesting
Coleman...congratulations on 100K in subscribers.
Interview Camille paglia please. Haidt, yourself and her are phenomenal thinkers.
Paglia is fantastic I just wish she was a bit younger as her voice is really needed at this time
I wouldn't start suggesting that anyone who has a view against something you hold sacred is a nut if I were you.
Haidt's story of two cultural extremes, the homogenous and the hyper-fractured, relates to a question I have asked myself for years as an economist: Is there an optimal level of diversity? In business, I have seen too much compliance when nobody rocks the boat and progress becomes impossible but even more frequently nowadays, such a level of diversity that no common cause can emerge. What challenges do we face? Why is this hard to answer? Good shelter, healthy food, water, affordable energy, not to mention education or access to healthcare are still beyond the means of very many people particularly outside the US (such as in Canada where I live and my children have scant access to any of it). Of course, proposing to address these it too subversive for me to elaborate here.
Colemans opposing classes encapsulates so much about our current predicament and the weaponization of morality in relation to the historical strengths of western society.
Although our foundations are being tested, I think the pushback to these illogical/destructive ideologies may lead to real progress. Inevitable growing pains of the technological revolution.
I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation with both of these brilliant men. And on another note...Coleman, I have a smart, funny, beautiful daughter...😁
MOTHER!!!
HAHA
here are some more details about some of the topics covered in the video
- Humor and offensive jokes: They discuss how humor is a way of expressing and exploring taboo topics, how different types of humor appeal to different people, how humor can be used to cope with trauma or stress, and how humor can also be used to harm or bully others. They also talk about the role of context, intention, and audience in determining whether a joke is funny or offensive, and how social media and cancel culture can amplify the negative consequences of making a bad joke.
- Social media and its effects on discourse and polarization: They discuss how social media platforms are designed to capture attention and generate engagement, but not to foster meaningful or respectful conversations. They also talk about how social media algorithms create echo chambers and filter bubbles that reinforce existing beliefs and biases, and how social media can amplify outrage, tribalism, and extremism. They also mention some possible solutions or alternatives to improve the quality of online discourse, such as Clubhouse or Substack.
- The internet and its benefits and drawbacks: They discuss how the internet has enabled access to vast amounts of information and knowledge, but also how it has created information overload and misinformation. They also talk about how the internet has enabled connection and collaboration across distances and boundaries, but also how it has disrupted social norms and institutions. They also mention some possible ways to balance the benefits and drawbacks of the internet, such as digital literacy education or digital detoxes.
- The progress and challenges of America on issues like racism and inequality: They discuss how America has made significant progress on reducing racism and discrimination over the past decades, but also how it still faces persistent challenges and problems. They also talk about how different narratives and perspectives on race and inequality can shape public opinion and policy. They also mention some possible ways to address the root causes and consequences of racism and inequality, such as improving education or criminal justice reform.
- The role and effectiveness of protest movements: They discuss how protest movements can be a powerful way of expressing dissent and demanding change, but also how they can be counterproductive or ineffective. They also talk about how protest movements can vary in their goals, strategies, tactics, and outcomes. They also mention some possible ways to improve the impact and legitimacy of protest movements, such as building coalitions or engaging in dialogue.
Great interview. I like it better than the Lex interview. However, as he typically does, Haidt seems to think voting Republican is a problem or a step back. Loses me on that thinking as usual.
Social media's first noticeable effect for me was the slow death of friendly face to face get-togethers followed by people's unwillingness to engage in phone conversations. That was followed by an unspoken taboo on sending emails, then texting. Now, if I want to communicate with someone I've known most my life I have to hit up their FB, IG, or Twitter feeds. I do not subscribe to any of these services. I thought maybe Skype and Zoom would bring back real time conversations but that hasn't been the case for me at least.
Typing and reading is not talking.
THIS, is not socialization.
It's more like I pinned a note under your note, on some bulletin board out in the middle of a dusty mad max deserted wasteland.
I look around at the barren landscape with tumbleweeds rolling by.....
sigh....
welcome to the 21st century.
@@peterbelanger4094 Agreed. I like your characterization of the issue. It is very much like a cork bulletin board in an apartment complex. Random requests, items for sale, and at least one passive-aggressive note war between neighbors sharing a common wall or laundry room
Definitely agree with Haidt’s recommendations. Where there are dissident groups, eg Hong Kong, that need to be protected, they would still have access to non-identified platforms? Is this relevant?
Oh my, where is the link to the Comedy Cellar show that you mentioned around 12;30?
Coleman!!!! 💥💥💥
As a dyslexic environmentalist I am very upset to learn of the beath of conservation.
Great comments about social media. My take is that future anthropologists (assuming humanity is still here in, say 2722) will note that the species changed around 2007-10 when the iPhone changed the relationship with mobile computing. But now, there is no way short of a dictatorship that we are going to turn off the Internet, that any social media platform (which most are making millions and employing 1000s) is going to self-moderate or shut down.
Two good men doing good. Role models.
If this was the death of conversation i can't wait to see heaven
Haidt: Another super smart intellectual that ends up deciding that the best solution is to give the federal government more power to prevent private companies from making choices, which ends up censoring because “Russian malicious actors fault that don’t really exist
Honestly, I am extremely tempted to pick fights with everybody in the comments right now
Jonathan has extraordinary eyebrows.
Eugene Levy-Brows
I'm late to the party (sorry) but I had a thought when listening to Mr. Hughes and Mr. Haidt discuss putlic vs private conversations and how they become "performative" on (public) social media. Everyone knows how poisonous our current politics are these days, but, I read an article many months ago, that interviewed several members of Congress and also members of their various staffs. (Don't remember, and can't find it...if I did, I'd link it.) By far, the preferred committee in which to participate is the Intelligence Committee. Due to it's nature, the reports, testimonies and hearings must be conducted privately...out of the public eye. All members, regardless of party, hold the opinion that this is the committee that actually acomplishes things. All members have their say, stronly held positions are stated and roundly respected, and good faith, honest compromises are negotiated .
Content moderation is about protecting advertising revenue, not protecting people from 'misinformation'. advertisers dont want to be associated with certain content.
Coleman, I must disagree with your comment about “no one really ever made a choice to make FB more vitriolic.” I am referring to Social Media in general in my comment here, but yes these guys that designed those platforms and coded it, they used some of the worst emotions of humans by design and with full intent. I am trying to remember all of the worst ones and I remember two separate guys who admitted they were doing this said it was Envy, Hatred and Pride. Of course the compulsion to keep coming back for more and like instagram for instance, you need to keep posting more and more, or YOU MIGHT MISS OUT OR BE MISSED…..So the addictive and compulsive/obsessive traits were targeted, very Successfully as we clearly see now.
Now I don’t understand the actual tech of how these coders actually encoded those emotions along with the negative human traits into the Platforms software , but the four of five long format video interviews I have seen all made it clear that this was done with very carefully designed intent on the companies part. The coders that had since quit and were having serious depressive guilt and shame over this and these interviews it seemed were much like a cathartic apology/confession of some sorts.
It was really highly disturbing to me after really taking the time to realize and absorb just what these companies had done to the country (and much of the world) and how they wanted this to be very addictive and divisive. Now that wasn’t necessarily the mission on day one, but not too soon after the mighty dollars tractor beam like power became to strong to resist turning to this evil path, they then started competing for eyes intensely and this is the way they went about it. Very sinister. Very sad indeed. Unbelievable really in retrospect just the damage done to society. Well it’s actually a loss, A MASSIVE SOCIETAL LOSS as Johnathan points this out in another interview just a few weeks prior to this one. Summarized, it basically went like this; “America is never going to go back to what it was prior to SM. And we will never share another widespread narrative, belief, story., etc. again as we had prior to this. “ again it’s not a direct quote as I am paraphrasing it but pretty close. That statement was just horribly shocking and had main strains of actual grief in his voice and face it seemed, to me. And I must admit I think he is correct…..
"The comic dominated conversation :)"
That dynamic you describe about the philosophy and feminism class is nothing new. I was a student at Amherst College in 1992 and took a class on race and Foucault or Fanon something very close to that. I was the only one to challenge ideas and the professor (African American) clearly disliked me for it. I dropped the course after the first week.
Anyone who was on the internet ca '93-'95 will remember "flaming" and "flame wars" that went on up until the mid-oughts when things began shifting away from usenet and toward "social media". Haidt is wrong that "Likes" and "threaded comments" are at the root of the vicious vacuity of online "discussion". It just looks that way when everyone and his mother start doing what academics and techies had been doing for a decade.
I think it's much worse. What Jonathan does never voice as strongly (but I think he knows it) is that social media has been optimised for maximum engagement. It does so by profiling all of their users and steering the behaviour of said user. Profiling in order to give you targeted ads but also filter the content you will see. Being the kind of technology which helps ideas spread very quickly, and unfortunately being optimised to make bad/unnuanced/extreme ideas spread the fastest. Inviting you to participate (by posting, liking, commenting and thus joining the discussions-the flame wars you mention stem partly from the distance social media creates. As referred to by Coleman, in real life, people are more nuanced and reasonable than on the internet). Being also the technology which is screwing up a complete generation because it basically hijacks their limbic system in their formative development years.
The argument i'd make is that even though flamewars exist since the 90ies, without social media being optimised for maximum engagement the way it currently is, those flamewars would have remained very localised to highly specific places where most people just would not visit (bullitin boards etc.).
Astute observation re: the cyclical nature of mass discussions via evolving mediums. 👏
What are people trying to achieve by separating us all again?
Humanity's enslavement, the new world order aka The New Normal
Create a public, internationalized public option set of social media platforms, under, say, the UN. I’d pick UNESCO. A new such set of public platforms would be ad free, nonprofit and could allow anyone to migrate their corporate accounts with invitations to consenting people from a given platform.
The issue that the Left has long forgotten is that of those have have been left behind with the de-industrialisation.
Those who Hilary Clinton called the Deplorables.
I think we have focussed on rights of identity groups, in part as a way of avoiding more subtle issues of inequality, of the fabric of our society.
Coleman, you need to start a Twitter group called "Porn and Nazism".
Of course there are countries on par with the US with regards to moral progress.
#FineYoungMan
Never seen a Haidt talk that wasn't worth my time.
True, he always brings things about which I hadn't thought.
Would the argument for appropriation be a form of conservativism in the opposite direction but as towards culture. A preservative pursuit.
It's not really accurate to say that the country was doing a bad job with civil rights after the Civil War because the civil rights battles that were happening in the South in the 50s and early 60s had already happened in Northern states, in some cases 100 years earlier. That's not to say it was perfect or that personal racism wasn't a big problem, just that institutional racism was generally dealt with through the courts in northern states and those courts generally came down on the side of civil rights.
41:10, interesting idea! I am wondering how true it will be. People are pushing for trans rights but it seems to me that doing so would unravel too much and the general/average American is against it because of its implications.
What about Structural Ageism? That underdeveloped (almost unknown) rights movement has missed the boat?
Great episode. Take this conversation and take it into AI.
Futons are SUPPOSED to lie on the ground: if you put it on a mattress frame it's not a futon, it's a (surprise!) mattress.
In theory, the philosophy classroom has always been the freest place for discussion (where else can you ask if it’s wrong to eat babies?). In this woke age, it’s surely the canary in the mine now
@Somewhatskeptical it sounds like it’s any subject toward the subjective side, especially where identity is inherently a factor. In other words, it’s those subjects with the less certain conclusions and more interpretative room for arguing victimhood. The question, ‘what could disconfirm that position’ needs to become a norm to challenge dogmatism
@Somewhatskeptical on the slave shacks point, what was his actual argument? I can see his conclusion but I don’t see what his justification is exactly
Sorry, Mr. Hughes, you are very wrong that "puberty blockers" are not a clear-cut moral issue. The drugs are NOT FDA APPROVED for the use that is being pushed in our culture. This is not what they are designed and approved for -- It's an off-label use. This type of drug is meant to treat an extreme case of early-onset puberty. Drugs can be prescribed for other uses, but a physician is supposed to have an in-depth understanding of the drug and its risks. They can leave a child sterile, and there isn't adequate knowledge of their impact long term on brain development, etc. Minors cannot give ethical consent to drugs -- especially when they are NOT FDA APPROVED. And the fact that there is almost no discussion of risk makes the situation obscene. What we have mirrors the opioid crisis with physicians handing them out like candy. It's a scandal that isn't being talked about, because the trans activists don't want to hear it, and they bully and intimidate anyone that tries to be the voice of reason. Think about this: a school cannot even give a minor an aspirin without parental approval. It's called safeguarding children.
I think verifying people's identities on Twitter would help somewhat, but much of the most ridiculous stuff I see on twitter is by people with blue check marks. Even if everyone is a real person, twitter has the same incentive problem.
Again you're talking about regulating the users, instead of regulating the platforms. WHY would any user from, say France, or Nicaragua, or Nigeria even want to offer their ID data to US based company to decide if they as a user are "real", or acceptable? WHY would any user (US based or otherwise) trust that their verification data would be deleted, when we know that ALL our data, plus ALL metadata are being kept as a permanent record by these big-tech, all-mighty, accountable-to-noone entities? Their mechanisms of operation need to be regulated, and their thirst for profit has to be curbed. By god, they profit from ads twice - from manufacturers for putting their ads on (in insane volume), and then from the viewers who pay to have the ads removed for them...
Not really a problem here in Europe.
You're right, instead you have governments themselves pushing far left policies without thinking of the consequences.
@Somewhatskeptical those two ideas aren't connected. You just wanted to take a jab at the US.
EU politics very much disagrees with your statements save for a few Eastern European countries. That doesn't mean universal left policies, but what Europe deems right and center right almost exclusively fall under the US definition of the left.
The opposition to universal healthcare really isn't because it's seen as radical, it's seen more as not feasible in America; there's a significant difference. We have some 40% of the country that's obese and some 70% that's overweight (including obese). The healthcare costs to take care of people who have never and will never take care of themselves is immense. Doing it on a national scale when that's literally the majority of your population? Well, that's a fast track to bankrupting the US.
I love humor in my classroom :)
Is it just Russian agents Jonathan has a problem with, what about American agents and bots? Fair game?
The Same Sex “Marriage” debate in Australia wasn’t fought on merits it was fought using intimidation, sanctions and threats. I still to this day believe that people don’t get to redefine what our Creator has already defined and ordained as sacred. This was always going to end badly. Weird gender theory was just the natural progression of our society’s grave mistake. Dread to think what’s next?
You’re assuming everyone views themselves as having the same “creator.” That’s where you lose me.
@@bengold7942 Judeo-Christian foundations of the law in western society. Islamic foundations in the country of my birth are reflected in definition of marriage in Indonesian law. Balinese Adat (Hindu influenced) reaches the same conclusion.
For society to function there has to be some agreed universals.
All the best
That’s also assuming that religion genuinely has a place in law, which I frankly don’t think it does apart from basic morality like don’t kill and don’t steal. Plus there is a MASSIVE difference between allowing two people who genuinely care for each other to have hospital visitation rights and such, and essentially redefining what a man or woman is.
New Age Solipsism.... Stemming from... Helicopter parenting all while our money becomes worthless?
Russia Russia Russia! It's clear what this guy really wants to do, and that is to shut out authentic vewes of real people.
I dont see Gay Marriage anywhere near as, 'obviously correct' as these two do. I keep going back to the fact that I'm single. Now, from my perspective, I get why the state would offer recognition to a male/female coupling and not to me. It's because men and women can do one thing that I cant-- make children. So the state does have a vested interest in promoting marriage in that sense-- because children are future citizens (tax payers). A child raised properly (two committed parents) could be a tremendous asset to the state while a child raised poorly (single mother) could be an immense cost. So looking at male/female marriage I dont feel like I'm being discriminated against. But the second you declare that same sex couples can now get married and will be extended all sorts of perks and benefits... I'm like, 'Wait a minute. What can two dudes offer society that I cant on my own? What's so special about this pairing that it deserves special perks and benefits? Why is the state suddenly legislating love, attraction, and affinity? Why am I being left out of all these benefits simply because I'm unlucky in love? I mean, I love my nieces and nephews. I love my parents. I love pizza. Why arent any of these love-based pairings being recognized and rewarded by the state? It makes no sense and ultimately (ironically) marriage, now-- thanks to gay marriage... is a discriminatory institution.
You’re assuming marriage is supposed to only be about pro creation. What about infertile couples? What about couples that don’t want kids (of which there are many?) What about the hundreds of thousands of kids in foster care? Your argument has a lot of holes in it frankly.
@@bengold7942 Well first, the word, "Marriage" itself suggests it's about pro creation. We've got the first half of the word, "Mari" or "Marry,' as in the woman's first name. And then the second half is the suffix, 'age' which refers to 'carrying something of value inside"-- as in, 'luggage' or "carriage." So I ask you.. what famous person in history do you know of named Marry who carried something of extreme importance inside her? Second, pointing to those who dont meet the qualifying standard of marriage and saying, "What about them..." is not about a hole in my argument... it's about your lack of an argument altogether. If you told me blind people should not be allowed to drive... would it make any sense if I fired-back with, "Well what about blind people!?" Yes. If you cant have kids or dont ever want to have kids... then you have no business getting married. It's like shopping in the pet food isle when you dont even have a pet. But instead of making our nation's marriage laws more restrictive (and thus more logical)... you went in the exact opposite direction and widened the scope to include same sex couples. And by doing so... you essentially rendered the entire institution to a trivial, irrational and ultimately, prejudicial shit show. Look-- I'm just assuming our laws exist to serve very exacting purposes. Call me crazy, but I like to see the logic behind the rules I have to follow in life. If marriage is about creating the optimal platform in which to conceive and raise children-- then I get it; it all makes sense. I understand why the government has a stake in that game and why they would offer special perks, benefits and privileges to incentivize men and women engaged in that behavior. But if its about something else-- they'll you'll have to explain that to me-- and why I, as a single guy in his early 30s, am excluded from all these perks, benefits and privileges? I love my 6 year old nephew. I have a best friend. I'm a fantastic next door neighbor. Where's my state recognition for those relationships? Where's my tax breaks?
@@thegreatinterpreter8382
Oh geeze ,
really The Great Victim arent you ?
There are millions of marriagebetween heterosexuals which dont produce children.
And marriage was around long before your little Mary and her messiah story were ever thought up.
Get a handle on yourself before you go full incel.
While "LGBT" marriage rights make sense for many, regardless of their sexual orientation, only time will tell how successful it is on many levels, including, successful toward a meaningful decrease in homosexual and chronophilic violence and abuse among men (against other men and boys).
While Obama the presidents represents the great anti-racial progress in America, Obama the man represents a colossal failure to take advantage of such progress. First, for political expediency (perhaps, as D'Souza's film suggests, to keep some "best" secrets), when, from a bi-racial "mutt," he suddenly. became "Black." Then, when in creative, quintessential racially-agitating language, he spoke about DNA and American Racism.
Dinesh D’Souza? The master propagandist? I’d be extremely wary of taking anything he says seriously.
Why even call a mixed race person a mutt?
A person isn't a dog.
"Bi-racial" is enough information already.
@@bellezavudd Ask Obama. That was his word, not mine. I guess he wanted to be light about it. Unfortunately, he decided later, on "Black." And that, IMO was the tragic beginning of an unfortunate round of racial agitation ...an invitation to Wokesters-BLMniks.
@@bengold7942 You'd probably try to cancel him, too, eh? When you grow up, however, you might want to listen, or. watch. his documentaries ... at least little.
@@wescolumbus621 I never said anything about cancelling him. I have watched a couple of his "documentaries" and have found them to contain little to no compelling evidence. Mostly talking points. But thanks for assuming I need to "grow up" or that I criticize something without investigating it first.
I also don't really understand your point about gay marriage and homosexual violence/abuse. I don't feel like being allowed to get married will make someone inclined to abuse someone else less/more likely.
First
The title of this video is particularly rich. This channel is very carefully made echo chamber where Hughes a right winger pretty much only talks to people on the far right and if he is feeling adventurous he’ll talk to someone on the center right… Even just the way that Coleman talks on topics makes it clear that he hasnt taken and positions on the left seriously. You see that some of that in the comment section.
Lol! They spoke to the “comment thread” issue early in the discussion. Are you stuck there still?
Haidt is liberal....
@@annarocha3254 liberals are right wing…
Same-sex marriage was not widely received. Even in California a referendum defeated the bill to allow it, but politicians managed to get it passed another way. Jonathan Haidt is showing his progressive bias in understanding this issue. Also, he misunderstands the most important point of the tower of Babel: the reason God confused their language. The Bible says that it is because "nothing [even the evil things in their hearts] will be impossible for them." This means that Babel was a curse to prevent evil, and the reversing of Babel happened at Pentecost which is under Christianity. It was under the common Christian values and ideas that America was able to resist and transcend Babel's curse...
Wrong!
Yeah I disagree with all of that.
Also I think Alabama and Mississippi are the only two states where opposition to gay marriage is higher than support. Makes sense that Alabama ranks last in education and Mississippi ranks first in poverty.
There is no such thing as "equality of outcome". It is a pure strawman which literally nobody advocates. Not only would it be undesirable, it is probably impossible. The goal of Marx was not "equality of outcome" but "to liberate the working class from exploitation".
It's a shame that your view of being in church is so negative but it's expected, considering your worldview.
Everyone attacks something that they don't understand and that challenges their morality.
The more precise word might be 'cult' rather than church.
@@barbarapierce5830 That's an asserted opinion. Nothing more.
Some churches I’m sure are lovely. Some churches essentially shun you if you disagree.
Great conversation.