Peter and Warren are such a great partnership - appreciate their focus on making the conceptual counter arguement so much more digestible. Long may it continue!
When the psych & sociology major talked about slavery, I got the impression she was putting the onus on the buyers. Do the sellers get a pass because they are the same color as the slaves they are selling? And, why does slavery focus on the Africans? Others were enslaved. Why are the Africans special?
unfortunately I have no doubt that young lady has been 'educated' that white people stole the black slaves.. not that west African kingdoms primary export was the enslaved people of the conquered surrounding rural areas.
The sociology part already discredits her 'psychology' part. Psychology is mostly real science with evidence-based approaches and data. Sociology is pseudo-scientific nonsense. All theorizing without any evidence to back their theories up. Not to mention the fact that the studies themselves are just awful. All you really learn there is how to be a woke sheep. They call it 'studying society' but they don't actually study society and they come up with the dumbest conclusions.
All good points. Not to mention that the seller had his own slaves. The reason many people don't think like that is probably because they use a western perspective.
I'm not on the Left and this doesn't excuse the bad behavior of modern-day black people. But African slavery was in place for several centuries. Families were split up and sent to different plantations. Look up the scramble for Africa. This type of slavery was different than what existed in ancient times, since it was done on an industrial scale. Look at Jamaica, Haiti, and the other Caribbean nations. So many of them were brought over they changed the demographics of entire countries. Having to pay a jizya tax to the Muslim ruler because you're a different religion doesn't compare. As times goes on, we look at events that happened in the past as "not that serious."
On her 13th amendment point, all rights are subject to due process, which is why it's even possible to consider a death penalty for instance, the cessation of all of a person's rights, by proving they had committed a heinous crime. If the criminal justice system is fairly prosecuting crime, even if some racial groups are overrepresented, the suspension of rights by due process could not be said to be systemically racist. The question then is why members of certain groups are more likely to commit crimes warranting suspension of their rights.
Great point, and the answer to why she thinks black people are more likely to be punished is because they are, because they are more likely to break the law.
@@GollyWillikers - "The law"? How about certain laws. Who knows how many white-collar crimes ( not implying any skin tone in particular ) do not get dealt with.
@@machtnichtsseimann The breakdown by type of crime indeed varies across racial demographics but in terms of total crimes, the trend is unfortunately pretty clear.
@@machtnichtsseimann When you raise kids of certain hues, repeatedly telling them that society hates them, that society is set up to see them fail, then you must expect bad outcomes. The Dems know exactly what they are doing!
With limited prosecutorial resources should white collar crime or violent crime be prosecuted at higher rate? Pretty obvious answer unless ideologically captured or perhaps prone to committing or planning to partake in violent crime.
Ironically, this is speculative on my part, but based on everything she's said, I wonder if the asian chick figured "I'm a goddamn math major. I'm used to presenting rigorous proofs for the most trivial of assertions... and here I am, saying that I think something is real because it FEELS real?" xD.
Are we meant to forget the M on go l Empire - they killed 11% of the Earth's population. Graped tens of millions. Invaded Europe and India. They have conquered, graped, and ensleeved since recorded history! Now it's sad face - I'm a victim.
White people think Asians are "based." They're based when they're in their home country. They'll vote whoever is going to staple more greencards to diplomas so they can dominate STEM. Look at the head of Google, Sundar Pichai. Also they're not Christians.
Cheating=deceiving=lying. So many people are fine with all of it as long as they don't get caught. Ask a criminal and they'll tell you how they're going to get away with it next time.
Depends on what you are cheating on. If it is something you need to learn to perform a job than yes you are not learning to do the task. If it is something you must learn for a degree to get a job but will never use it while working the job it will not matter. In that second case the cheating will never hurt the cheater unless they are caught cheating and if anything it will help them because they got to spend the time they would have spent learning something they didn't need to know to learn something they will use during their real job later in life. As a software engineer I could have cheated all the way through college and it would have not hurt me in any way. The reason being the languages I had to use while in college I have not used in over 10 years. Computer science isn't a normal major compared to most out there because everything is changing so fast the skills you need are more about how to learn a new language than being familiar with the current one. Given I wasn't a normal student and had already coded my first video game at 10 years old so I am not totally sure if my opinion would apply to the average student.
@@Phoenix-Cloud One way that cheating hurts the cheater is that it gradually changes ones mindset to seeing morality/ right vs. wrong as subjective & variable. Like the "your truth/my truth" stuff. Certain words that have objective meaning, have no meaning if one tries to make them subjective. Another example: definition of woman. If it is subjective, it loses it's meaning.
@@Mommybecca9804 So you are saying people who cheat are seeing the truth in life that there is no global right or wrong and it is all based on opinions of people? That doesn't seem bad to me. I won't say it is good for society overall but understanding that is a good thing for an individual. Definition of a woman isn't the same thing because there is no definition for right and wrong but there is a testable definition for if someone is a woman or not. Right: "morally good, justified, or acceptable." Moral: "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character." You see how those definitions have problems because it is a loop that never ends. Woman: "an adult female human being." Female: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes." Can you see the difference here? There is a set standard for woman that doesn't endlessly loop like the definition of right and moral. Right -> Moral -> right -> moral... never ends. Woman -> female -> produces ova gametes.
Another great debate/discussion... Question - do these kids recognise that historically marginalised groups include the poor whatever their colour, ethnicity or religion? The ones conducting slavery were the wealthy including those who sold their own and not just other people who bought and used those people and don't forget the African slavery came on the back of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans and even those in Britain...the Industrial Revolution occurred with the poor being used like coal to fire the engines of Europe whilst the wealthy (and sometimes lucky) go rich...
They literally don’t care, if you’re white then you’re an oppressor. So what if slavery was abolished by Britain and the US first…. When non whites owned slaves it was just payback for the whites who owned slaves…. The fact that blacks sold blacks into slavery is irrelevant and actually is just another example of how extra terrible whites are. Make sense? No? Oh well. I’m an ideologue and facts are only facts if I agree…
Final words before the wrap were great! Everyone learned something by the demonstration's conclusion even though there was noticably little physical movement along the scale for its duration until the end. I was surprised to see how much they enjoyed each other's discussion with how little they moved between spaces and how varied their stances were. I appreciate their maturity and ability to leave the demonstration feeling GOOD that they were challenged to think critically as well. Great facilitating Dr., and good job everyone involved!
A contemplative style can look like something else. I lost some respect for him not taking the other position. The woman who he made move, was decisive in going to her initial position, while Warren meandered over to it, likely still thinking about where, exactly, he felt he should be. Peter should have asked Warren to defend the opposite position, which if he could, would have shown exactly how smart he is.
14:00 she is so confused. Prejudice people building a system don't automatically make the system racist. If a racist builds a chair is the chair racist? NO
Depends. Do we absolutely know that a chair made by a racist works as well for the race the maker didn't like? I bet you a bunch of bananas that there's some quantum sjit going on making those chairs some tiny marginal differences in longevity of the object depending on the maker's view on the users characteris XD
@@Mallard942 Probably depends on how the chair was made. If statistically a certain race is shorter than another race and the maker designed the chair for someone who is shorter than that chair you could say is racist in a certain way because it was designed for a certain body type. That also means if someone from another race that has a body type that matches the race it was designed for it would be comfortable for them. So it isn't really racist and is bodist (not a real word but not sure what the correct one is for this) because any race could enjoy the chair as long as they fit the body type.
If a racist green person built a chair that all green people are allowed to use but only 1% of each other race are allowed to use due to the other races fighting for the right to use the chair, is the builder racist? Yes. Is the chair racist? No. Does the chair significantly benefit one race? Yes. If the builder argues that he now lets 1% of other races use the chair therefore he is not racist, is he right? No. Will the racist builder point at the chair and disingenuously ask where do you see racism? Yes. Covert racism…
True. There is some nuance however, when it comes to rectifying past wrongs that have a trickle down effect in current day society. A lot woudl say in those cases, equity would be a better solution. What's your thoughts about that?
Slightly Disagree. A person can disagree with something but still run a business that does something they don't agree with (within limits I think). I know of cases where a cake maker didn't want to make a gay wedding cake but at the same time they may not like a certain color but if the customer said make it this way but it doesn't break their moral values they would be ok with doing something they don't like because the customer wants it that way. As a type 1 diabetic I could disagree with the fact my insurance company will pay for abortion or sex change operations but that will not stop me from paying for the insurance and supporting the company that supports systems I don't agree with. I think the same could be say with products you buy as well. Do you research everything about every company you buy a product from to make sure they aren't donating money to people you disagree with? And if you do are there times when you say well there is no better product and I need this product to get by so although I don't like supporting them I have no other choice? Life is a system of compromises and it comes down to you deciding are you ok with taking a penalty of using an inferior product or going without something you need when you have no other choice? This also brings to mind my dad and his business he runs. There has been times when while doing his work he could have passed something because legally it was fine but because he knows the system they were putting in is known to fail within a few years he turned it down because he didn't want the customer to have to deal with all the problems in this officially approved system that is known to have issues 75% or more of the time within 5 years. This to him would make him look bad saying it was ok and then the customer having problems 5 years later and he cares more about his reputation than just saying it is approved.
People are racist. People made the systems. The systems are racist. People are angry. People made the systems. The systems are angry. People are happy. People made the systems. The systems are happy. People are tired. People made the systems. The systems are tired.
@@Phoenix-Cloud You can disagree when you find that one exception, but it really doesn't lead to different outcomes. Everything converges on your way of life in the end.
@@Leonhart_93 Not true at all. I know people who can't stand certain races and they still treat them just as well as any other customer. I am pretty sure this one guy is a member of the KKK but I have also seen him give a black person free work because they screwed up something. When you are good at your job and treat everyone the same you can hate the people in your off hours but still be so good that all the people of that race that know you hate them still come to you for work. Sometimes money > beliefs even if they are really strong. Like I said I don't know the guy personally at all but I know the reputation he has around town and everyone says to go to him if you need work done but that he is extremely racist on his non-work hours.
@@Leonhart_93 There are lots of people who have a professional life and a private life and those 2 never cross. I think it probably happens more than you think. Below are 3 common types I have seen. There are people you would think were their twin if you meet them at work and home because their personality is completely different. There are others who are pretty much the same people but certain beliefs they just ignore for work because their overall personality is still the same. Then there are others who are completely the same in both places.
Wendil? (the psychology and sociology major) You could clearly see how she changed moved her opinion to neutral after Peter pushed down on the idea of race and cheating. So the historically marginalized groups should be ENTITLED to reparations, because of DUTY to make things right, but where does it end? African tribes plundered each other well before the white man came and stole their stuff. Same for Native American tries, they've been at each other throats too. Then let's go back to the Ancient times, and how the Persian Empire spread it's power till the Ancient Roman border. And later on there is the Ottoman Empire under which rule my country in the Balkan was, so I should be entitled to reparations too. Then there is also the African people that came to the USA after slavery was abolished or should we take into account how people were still racist, even though by law there wasn't much difference between black, white, Asian etc, should they also get reparations? How about the descendants of black slave owners, should they pay up or get reparations? Warren had a good qualms on how to measure that? How much would that be enough? 30 dollars to every black man and we are done? $750 like the people affected by Hurricane Helene are getting after they are able to get electricity to fill out an online form? Or $3.8M of relief to 1640 households affected by the fires in Hawaii last year (comes out to $2317 per household). It is a never-ending spiral. And people should just move on, as their lives are much better compared to their ancestors.
Actually the opposite. Mature people don’t see the world in black and white. They change positions as they acquire information and take specific circumstances into account when deciding what’s moral or ethical.
I believe the slavery the 13th amendment refers to is the ability of the state or fed to hold someone in jail/prison because they commit a crime; the 13th abolishes buying and selling people, debt slavery, and involuntary slavery without a crime under law. That effectively sounds like we are saying slavery by definition was banned and what is allowed is imprisonment after a crime, I would be all for clearing up this misunderstanding with an amendment so it isn't ambiguous. That being said, the 13th doesn't say this is directed at people of color it just says "you cant enslave" period so again where is the systemic racism.
Non American here, I'm interested in one of the last points about the 13th Amendment. I.e slavery is illegal unless it's a punishment and non white people are more likely to be punished. My question; is she implying that there is a difference in fairness of who gets punished for a particular crime, because of skin colour? Or is it that, the stats show a correlation but there's no unfairness in the system? Or something else?
In my view, cheating requires abandoning a prior promise to abide by a set of rules. It requires dishonesty to hide a failure to keep one's word, which is wrong.
Using that understanding of cheating, does it cease to be cheating if the prior promise was made under duress? I'm thinking of Warren's example from this video of cheating, in his view being a legitimate way to take on the oppressive system built by the Nazis.
People having diversity, is more about way of life, way of thinking, way of doing. People are capable of having different strengths and weakness, and hopefully people find their niche and thrive. But economics and ethics make strange regulatory policy about providing to people, and hopefully it improves.
The objection to the 13th amendment is due to the belief in equal outcomes if you really think about it, just because the outcomes are not the same for different groups doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with that system
This is difficult to begin with because cheating has negative connotation. Cheating, in general, has a lot of baggage as a word that makes it too inaccurate and too easy to understand in different ways. For example, I’d consider cheating distinctly different than a loophole or working within a rule set that is asymmetrical. Cheating, to me, is also much more about personal agency, knowingly and strategically breaking a set rule in order to gain an advantage. I could easily see someone else thinking “cheating” means instituting rules that are asymmetrical or “unfair”. This end up making a conversation pretty difficult to keep consistent, and I only brought up a couple of straight forward examples, this would get far more complicated if feelings were involved. I would say a better way of phrasing this question would be “should systems be designed to benefit one race over another in order to correct historical ‘injustice’”, or even more general “is it even possible to design a fair system [will every system inherently benefit one group of people more]”
I would really like to see you do a video about fame and how it affects freedom of speech. It’s some thing I’ve been talking about with a friend and honestly I don’t know where I stand on it. Because one person can say some thing like “I hate John Cena” and get nothing in return, whereas if a person with fame and notoriety, does it, they get the death threats, and the attempts on their lives. I just want to know what your thoughts are and what the thoughts of people during Street epistemology would be.
some people have advantages over other people. Some people have disadvantages. These are across all different demographics in all different areas. How we decide who is advantaged and how we attempt to solve that problem are the issues.
hypotetical situation; You have to cross a river and there are 2 bridges. Bridge A is entirely made by black engineers and Bridge B by asian engineers. Knowing that the black engineers were allowed to cheat through their bridge building courses, will you select a dridge at random or specifically chose 1 over the other?
Because two wrongs don't make a 'right'. Basic, kindergarten level morality. Some things are painfully simple. "Marginalized groups" do not exist in the US like they have in the past, or currently do in non-western countries.
If German authorities in WWII are seeking out Jews in a neighborhood and come upon a Gentile home whose owners lie about the fact they are hiding Jews, then a second wrong can make it right. Painfully simple. During Covid, some advocated for the wrongful action of snitching on neighbors to the government those who did not get any jabs. If vaxxed neighbors decided to lie about their un-vaxxed neighbors, i.e. that the latter were vaxxed up, then a second wrong would make it right. Painfully simple.
If I'm allowed to cheat, I'll learn less and inaccurate things and teach those to my kids, and on and on and on. My kids and grandchildren will have less and less knowledge and worse and worse outcomes and because they have bad outcomes they must be oppressed, so therefore you must let me and my family cheat more to make up for it.
It's interesting to see the behavior of some liberals when speaking about things that are not topics on trans issues (assuming that some of these people are liberal). They seem more willing to have a normal conversation without shouting and name calling. I don't know if that's because they believe trans people to be above everyone else therefore it's not ok to say anything that can be perceived as negative against them or maybe these specific individuals are just more level headed and if this was a conversation on trans topics they would still behave this way.
Yeah, it's interesting how some topics are more likely to provoke anger rather than thought, rather like they've been programmed for hightened emotion. It's never been suggested that minorities commit suicide at a higher rate because of prejudice, unlike is common in trans activism.
@DaddyBiscuits Using suicide to hide from criticism is morbid. I'm not going to be forced to live in silence because someone with a mental disability somewhere threatens to kill themselves if I speak about any particular topic that they don't want to hear criticisms about. Especially if my criticism is that people like that need to seek therapy before they do something they regret. That's called compassion unlike what others do and encourage the mental disorder regardless of the fact that it leads to suicide.
People who agree with reparations aren't considering the fact that a lot more people than AA's have been harmed by the government. That's a massive can of worms that will never end. I think the answer should be NO.
I find it quite hilarious, when I think about the reparations, of what you would wind up with if you truly did a fair and honest dispensation of reparations. First off you would need to determine what a fair and equitable reparation would have been for those of that time. Now subtract any benefits that they may have gotten from the costs of soldiers fighting and dying to attain their freedom. Perhaps the descendants of the soldiers would be entitled to reparations as well. Once you've established a base level, now divide that amongst the many generations since. Next we take DNA and ancestral evidence and determine what percentage of an individual's bloodline Came From Slavery. So let's say that we establish a $1 million adjusted reparation per slave, and then we divide that by the average of 1500 descendants, leaving an average payout of $666 each. This in turn would be adjusted based on the percentage of the original slaves DNA that each of the recipients now carries. While some make as much as $1,000 payout, others may only get as little as $10. Then of course we would need to look at the other side, and calculate the responsibility of The Descendants of the slave owners, and tax them accordingly. Imagine the hilarity of the black individual finding out that his 50% black Haitian DNA along with his 2% DNA of a southern slave owner, entitles him to be the recipient of a tax bill for $200 to go toward reparations. LMAO! Isn't reality grand?
have to say it really hurts my mind to see people unable to give examples of true systemic racism. Apartheid, National Socialism and Ethno nationalism - Current and historical examples abound. Is the USA, UK, EU etc systemically racist - Id have to say yes.. against white people or native mostly - as some form of over compenstion, but that pales in comparison to the real racial divides in both culture and law that exist in China, Russia, Japan, Korea (north and south), several nations in Africa, Pakistan, India and the various hell holes of the middle east!
In the first guys defense of his position we are treated to… a recitation of his brainwash programming. Sigh. This is what street epistemology is for, though.
Judging by the one girl’s accent her family were not slaves in America. Should Africa pay for the Barbary slave trade? That ain’t gonna happen. Estimated 3x as many white slaves as ever existed in the americas
@@ashlibabbittcroakedit9108 I didn’t say she was from Africa. I compared the Atlantic trade to the African trade. And made an assumption about her family history. I assumed her family weren’t American slaves. You assumed where she was from
@@ashlibabbittcroakedit9108 true. But there was also a pretty well documented Arab slave trade through much more of the continent and the practice still exists today. My point was reparations is a foolish concept.
She said she didn't agree with cheating. Did you watch the entire video? She did agree with getting pay back for past issues which I personally don't fully agree with. Maybe a little is fine but I am part cherokee and have a cherokee friend who gets payments from the government every month which I would never sign up for and think should end. At what point do you stop the payments for past mistakes? It can't go on forever. If a business breaks the law they end up having to pay money back to those affected (and the lawyers get most) but that it isn't like the company made 1 mistake and for the next 1000 years they have to pay money every year. So why do people expect the government to do that?
@@Phoenix-Cloud Do you qualify for these payments? In the UK, there isn't such a thing, but you cannot get job seekers unemployment benefit if you become unemployed after saving too much money from previous jobs. If you're allowed to claim payments, and you're a responsible person, it's likely you'll be able to make better decisions on how to manage those funds than someone who "needs" them. You could even redistribute it as you see fit.
@@DaddyBiscuits Yea, most native americans in the US require at least 25% blood to receive the benefits but cherokee only requires being a descendant I believe and I have a family member on my mother's side that was I think 75% cherokee so I could prove it pretty easy. I have plenty of money and don't need it and I personally just don't agree with it either because it was such a long time ago and if we really want to talk about who used to live where we are all part of a group that stole land from others at some point. The amount of money I would get isn't worth the efforts (as much as I think it would be cool to do a DNA test I don't trust them giving my DNA results and being charged with a crime since DNA isn't a 100% match like many think). I am not married and have no kids and never plan on having kids so I have already looked into setting up a trust fund so when I die my money will be used to buy homes to give to vets, injured firefighters, cops, etc. My plan is to set it up so the homes are never owned by them but they get lifetime rights to the homes and only have to maintain them and pay taxes and the money I have will be setup in funds to buy more homes to help more people etc.
I like Peter. Some of this video is frustrating because he taints it with his own bias(Anti-DEI in this case). See 13:00. - The prompt: Systemic Racism is Real - Peter’s first question to the Strongly Agree girl: Give an example of something in law that is systemically racist. That feels like a gotcha. I first want to hear her explain why she is on Strongly Agree. You can believe Systemic Racism is real and also agree that there are no laws in present day that are racist. I don’t think that question is as pointed as he thinks.
i mean if she is claiming that systemic racism is real you gotta at least be able to back it up with SOMETHING. Asking for evidence of what you claim is not a "gotcha" question, and if it feels like it is, then maybe what you believe is not actually grounded in reality. To say something (systemic racism) "Is real" rather than "was real" suggests it is in our present day and is ongoing. I dont think anyone would argue it was never a real thing at some point, but is it currently practiced today is the question that matters more.
Watch my other SSE conversation with Warren Smith next: th-cam.com/video/eSFQmyT8hLQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=4MvN-nJufudI6iWw
Fix your comment section. It's closed.
Warren is fantastic. He thinks things out and usually has a great take
Easy answer, no. Situational ethics are the road to hell.
Situational ethics 🤔🤔..I like that
Have you considered that minorities have no agency?
If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.
Peter and Warren are such a great partnership - appreciate their focus on making the conceptual counter arguement so much more digestible. Long may it continue!
Equal opportunities! Not equal outcomes. The outcome is determined by your actions after you’ve used your equal opportunity
When the psych & sociology major talked about slavery, I got the impression she was putting the onus on the buyers. Do the sellers get a pass because they are the same color as the slaves they are selling? And, why does slavery focus on the Africans? Others were enslaved. Why are the Africans special?
unfortunately I have no doubt that young lady has been 'educated' that white people stole the black slaves.. not that west African kingdoms primary export was the enslaved people of the conquered surrounding rural areas.
The sociology part already discredits her 'psychology' part. Psychology is mostly real science with evidence-based approaches and data. Sociology is pseudo-scientific nonsense. All theorizing without any evidence to back their theories up. Not to mention the fact that the studies themselves are just awful. All you really learn there is how to be a woke sheep. They call it 'studying society' but they don't actually study society and they come up with the dumbest conclusions.
All good points. Not to mention that the seller had his own slaves.
The reason many people don't think like that is probably because they use a western perspective.
I'm not on the Left and this doesn't excuse the bad behavior of modern-day black people. But African slavery was in place for several centuries. Families were split up and sent to different plantations. Look up the scramble for Africa. This type of slavery was different than what existed in ancient times, since it was done on an industrial scale. Look at Jamaica, Haiti, and the other Caribbean nations. So many of them were brought over they changed the demographics of entire countries. Having to pay a jizya tax to the Muslim ruler because you're a different religion doesn't compare. As times goes on, we look at events that happened in the past as "not that serious."
@@aesop1451 I'm still wondering why is the focus on the buyers. Why are the sellers getting a pass.
On her 13th amendment point, all rights are subject to due process, which is why it's even possible to consider a death penalty for instance, the cessation of all of a person's rights, by proving they had committed a heinous crime. If the criminal justice system is fairly prosecuting crime, even if some racial groups are overrepresented, the suspension of rights by due process could not be said to be systemically racist. The question then is why members of certain groups are more likely to commit crimes warranting suspension of their rights.
Great point, and the answer to why she thinks black people are more likely to be punished is because they are, because they are more likely to break the law.
@@GollyWillikers - "The law"? How about certain laws. Who knows how many white-collar crimes ( not implying any skin tone in particular ) do not get dealt with.
@@machtnichtsseimann The breakdown by type of crime indeed varies across racial demographics but in terms of total crimes, the trend is unfortunately pretty clear.
@@machtnichtsseimann When you raise kids of certain hues, repeatedly telling them that society hates them, that society is set up to see them fail, then you must expect bad outcomes.
The Dems know exactly what they are doing!
With limited prosecutorial resources should white collar crime or violent crime be prosecuted at higher rate?
Pretty obvious answer unless ideologically captured or perhaps prone to committing or planning to partake in violent crime.
Ironically, this is speculative on my part, but based on everything she's said, I wonder if the asian chick figured "I'm a goddamn math major. I'm used to presenting rigorous proofs for the most trivial of assertions... and here I am, saying that I think something is real because it FEELS real?" xD.
Are we meant to forget the M on go l Empire - they killed 11% of the Earth's population. Graped tens of millions. Invaded Europe and India.
They have conquered, graped, and ensleeved since recorded history!
Now it's sad face - I'm a victim.
White people think Asians are "based." They're based when they're in their home country. They'll vote whoever is going to staple more greencards to diplomas so they can dominate STEM. Look at the head of Google, Sundar Pichai. Also they're not Christians.
Cheating=deceiving=lying. So many people are fine with all of it as long as they don't get caught. Ask a criminal and they'll tell you how they're going to get away with it next time.
You mean being a woman?
Cheating hurts the cheater in the long run
Unless it's done in the short-term during oppressive, unjust regimes.
Depends on what you are cheating on. If it is something you need to learn to perform a job than yes you are not learning to do the task. If it is something you must learn for a degree to get a job but will never use it while working the job it will not matter. In that second case the cheating will never hurt the cheater unless they are caught cheating and if anything it will help them because they got to spend the time they would have spent learning something they didn't need to know to learn something they will use during their real job later in life.
As a software engineer I could have cheated all the way through college and it would have not hurt me in any way. The reason being the languages I had to use while in college I have not used in over 10 years. Computer science isn't a normal major compared to most out there because everything is changing so fast the skills you need are more about how to learn a new language than being familiar with the current one. Given I wasn't a normal student and had already coded my first video game at 10 years old so I am not totally sure if my opinion would apply to the average student.
Actually no it doesn't, that's just something fables tell us to discourage it
@@Phoenix-Cloud One way that cheating hurts the cheater is that it gradually changes ones mindset to seeing morality/ right vs. wrong as subjective & variable. Like the "your truth/my truth" stuff. Certain words that have objective meaning, have no meaning if one tries to make them subjective. Another example: definition of woman. If it is subjective, it loses it's meaning.
@@Mommybecca9804 So you are saying people who cheat are seeing the truth in life that there is no global right or wrong and it is all based on opinions of people? That doesn't seem bad to me. I won't say it is good for society overall but understanding that is a good thing for an individual.
Definition of a woman isn't the same thing because there is no definition for right and wrong but there is a testable definition for if someone is a woman or not.
Right: "morally good, justified, or acceptable."
Moral: "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."
You see how those definitions have problems because it is a loop that never ends.
Woman: "an adult female human being."
Female: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes."
Can you see the difference here? There is a set standard for woman that doesn't endlessly loop like the definition of right and moral. Right -> Moral -> right -> moral... never ends. Woman -> female -> produces ova gametes.
Another great debate/discussion...
Question - do these kids recognise that historically marginalised groups include the poor whatever their colour, ethnicity or religion? The ones conducting slavery were the wealthy including those who sold their own and not just other people who bought and used those people and don't forget the African slavery came on the back of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans and even those in Britain...the Industrial Revolution occurred with the poor being used like coal to fire the engines of Europe whilst the wealthy (and sometimes lucky) go rich...
They literally don’t care, if you’re white then you’re an oppressor. So what if slavery was abolished by Britain and the US first…. When non whites owned slaves it was just payback for the whites who owned slaves…. The fact that blacks sold blacks into slavery is irrelevant and actually is just another example of how extra terrible whites are. Make sense? No? Oh well. I’m an ideologue and facts are only facts if I agree…
Final words before the wrap were great! Everyone learned something by the demonstration's conclusion even though there was noticably little physical movement along the scale for its duration until the end. I was surprised to see how much they enjoyed each other's discussion with how little they moved between spaces and how varied their stances were. I appreciate their maturity and ability to leave the demonstration feeling GOOD that they were challenged to think critically as well. Great facilitating Dr., and good job everyone involved!
The tall guy is really smart
A contemplative style can look like something else. I lost some respect for him not taking the other position. The woman who he made move, was decisive in going to her initial position, while Warren meandered over to it, likely still thinking about where, exactly, he felt he should be. Peter should have asked Warren to defend the opposite position, which if he could, would have shown exactly how smart he is.
@@LiveItLiveNow You lost respect for someone who you think took time to think?
Warren Smith is the coolest, would love to see him more in SSE, and it would be great to hear a conversation between Peter and Warren
The final comments from the panellists were encouraging - they can think and adjust their preconceptions!
14:00 she is so confused. Prejudice people building a system don't automatically make the system racist. If a racist builds a chair is the chair racist? NO
Depends. Do we absolutely know that a chair made by a racist works as well for the race the maker didn't like?
I bet you a bunch of bananas that there's some quantum sjit going on making those chairs some tiny marginal differences in longevity of the object depending on the maker's view on the users characteris XD
@@Mallard942 Probably depends on how the chair was made. If statistically a certain race is shorter than another race and the maker designed the chair for someone who is shorter than that chair you could say is racist in a certain way because it was designed for a certain body type. That also means if someone from another race that has a body type that matches the race it was designed for it would be comfortable for them. So it isn't really racist and is bodist (not a real word but not sure what the correct one is for this) because any race could enjoy the chair as long as they fit the body type.
If a racist green person built a chair that all green people are allowed to use but only 1% of each other race are allowed to use due to the other races fighting for the right to use the chair, is the builder racist? Yes. Is the chair racist? No. Does the chair significantly benefit one race? Yes. If the builder argues that he now lets 1% of other races use the chair therefore he is not racist, is he right? No. Will the racist builder point at the chair and disingenuously ask where do you see racism? Yes. Covert racism…
You got me imagining a chair that thinks it's superior to black people 😂 oh geez lol
People are racist. People made the system. The system is racist.
People are happy. People made the system. The system is happy.
Great video as always Peter!
You can't claim to be genuinely seeking a fairer society if you're only willing to help disadvantaged people of particular races or sexualities.
True. There is some nuance however, when it comes to rectifying past wrongs that have a trickle down effect in current day society. A lot woudl say in those cases, equity would be a better solution. What's your thoughts about that?
Claim in response to "people made the systems":
- everything about you is reflected in anything you create
Slightly Disagree.
A person can disagree with something but still run a business that does something they don't agree with (within limits I think). I know of cases where a cake maker didn't want to make a gay wedding cake but at the same time they may not like a certain color but if the customer said make it this way but it doesn't break their moral values they would be ok with doing something they don't like because the customer wants it that way.
As a type 1 diabetic I could disagree with the fact my insurance company will pay for abortion or sex change operations but that will not stop me from paying for the insurance and supporting the company that supports systems I don't agree with. I think the same could be say with products you buy as well. Do you research everything about every company you buy a product from to make sure they aren't donating money to people you disagree with? And if you do are there times when you say well there is no better product and I need this product to get by so although I don't like supporting them I have no other choice?
Life is a system of compromises and it comes down to you deciding are you ok with taking a penalty of using an inferior product or going without something you need when you have no other choice?
This also brings to mind my dad and his business he runs. There has been times when while doing his work he could have passed something because legally it was fine but because he knows the system they were putting in is known to fail within a few years he turned it down because he didn't want the customer to have to deal with all the problems in this officially approved system that is known to have issues 75% or more of the time within 5 years. This to him would make him look bad saying it was ok and then the customer having problems 5 years later and he cares more about his reputation than just saying it is approved.
People are racist. People made the systems. The systems are racist.
People are angry. People made the systems. The systems are angry.
People are happy. People made the systems. The systems are happy.
People are tired. People made the systems. The systems are tired.
@@Phoenix-Cloud You can disagree when you find that one exception, but it really doesn't lead to different outcomes. Everything converges on your way of life in the end.
@@Leonhart_93 Not true at all. I know people who can't stand certain races and they still treat them just as well as any other customer. I am pretty sure this one guy is a member of the KKK but I have also seen him give a black person free work because they screwed up something. When you are good at your job and treat everyone the same you can hate the people in your off hours but still be so good that all the people of that race that know you hate them still come to you for work.
Sometimes money > beliefs even if they are really strong. Like I said I don't know the guy personally at all but I know the reputation he has around town and everyone says to go to him if you need work done but that he is extremely racist on his non-work hours.
@@Leonhart_93 There are lots of people who have a professional life and a private life and those 2 never cross. I think it probably happens more than you think. Below are 3 common types I have seen.
There are people you would think were their twin if you meet them at work and home because their personality is completely different.
There are others who are pretty much the same people but certain beliefs they just ignore for work because their overall personality is still the same.
Then there are others who are completely the same in both places.
Super interesting.
Excellent moderation, Peter is a natural.
This conversation should have been three times as long 😭❤️
No. Could have then 1/2 sec.
I really wish this had gone on longer!
Wendil? (the psychology and sociology major) You could clearly see how she changed moved her opinion to neutral after Peter pushed down on the idea of race and cheating.
So the historically marginalized groups should be ENTITLED to reparations, because of DUTY to make things right, but where does it end? African tribes plundered each other well before the white man came and stole their stuff. Same for Native American tries, they've been at each other throats too. Then let's go back to the Ancient times, and how the Persian Empire spread it's power till the Ancient Roman border. And later on there is the Ottoman Empire under which rule my country in the Balkan was, so I should be entitled to reparations too.
Then there is also the African people that came to the USA after slavery was abolished or should we take into account how people were still racist, even though by law there wasn't much difference between black, white, Asian etc, should they also get reparations? How about the descendants of black slave owners, should they pay up or get reparations?
Warren had a good qualms on how to measure that? How much would that be enough? 30 dollars to every black man and we are done? $750 like the people affected by Hurricane Helene are getting after they are able to get electricity to fill out an online form? Or $3.8M of relief to 1640 households affected by the fires in Hawaii last year (comes out to $2317 per household).
It is a never-ending spiral. And people should just move on, as their lives are much better compared to their ancestors.
A specific wrong was done to black Americans
Moral and ethical fluidity is the sign of an immature mind
You could argue the immature mind can't comprehend fluidity
Actually a demoralized mind.
@@joshuataylor3550how exactly? mr. contrarian for the sake of being contrariann
@@joshuataylor3550 just fluidity? Or specifically moral/ethical fluidity. Because there's a difference.
Actually the opposite. Mature people don’t see the world in black and white. They change positions as they acquire information and take specific circumstances into account when deciding what’s moral or ethical.
I believe the slavery the 13th amendment refers to is the ability of the state or fed to hold someone in jail/prison because they commit a crime; the 13th abolishes buying and selling people, debt slavery, and involuntary slavery without a crime under law. That effectively sounds like we are saying slavery by definition was banned and what is allowed is imprisonment after a crime, I would be all for clearing up this misunderstanding with an amendment so it isn't ambiguous. That being said, the 13th doesn't say this is directed at people of color it just says "you cant enslave" period so again where is the systemic racism.
Having someone argue against their own preferred position is a BRILLIANT idea... more of this
One of the best episode. Great!
Non American here, I'm interested in one of the last points about the 13th Amendment.
I.e slavery is illegal unless it's a punishment and non white people are more likely to be punished.
My question; is she implying that there is a difference in fairness of who gets punished for a particular crime, because of skin colour? Or is it that, the stats show a correlation but there's no unfairness in the system? Or something else?
Cheating is a tacit admission regarding your own self-analysis.
In my view, cheating requires abandoning a prior promise to abide by a set of rules. It requires dishonesty to hide a failure to keep one's word, which is wrong.
Using that understanding of cheating, does it cease to be cheating if the prior promise was made under duress? I'm thinking of Warren's example from this video of cheating, in his view being a legitimate way to take on the oppressive system built by the Nazis.
Make the exercise and fleshing out of the points longer, Peter. Quality over quantity. This one was harshly cut off.
People having diversity, is more about way of life, way of thinking, way of doing. People are capable of having different strengths and weakness, and hopefully people find their niche and thrive. But economics and ethics make strange regulatory policy about providing to people, and hopefully it improves.
Stopped before it had a chance to develop.
The objection to the 13th amendment is due to the belief in equal outcomes if you really think about it, just because the outcomes are not the same for different groups doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with that system
Neither of my parents had any money or parents who had gone beyond high school or for some 7 yrs of school. But, my parents did go to college.
This is difficult to begin with because cheating has negative connotation. Cheating, in general, has a lot of baggage as a word that makes it too inaccurate and too easy to understand in different ways.
For example, I’d consider cheating distinctly different than a loophole or working within a rule set that is asymmetrical. Cheating, to me, is also much more about personal agency, knowingly and strategically breaking a set rule in order to gain an advantage.
I could easily see someone else thinking “cheating” means instituting rules that are asymmetrical or “unfair”. This end up making a conversation pretty difficult to keep consistent, and I only brought up a couple of straight forward examples, this would get far more complicated if feelings were involved.
I would say a better way of phrasing this question would be “should systems be designed to benefit one race over another in order to correct historical ‘injustice’”, or even more general “is it even possible to design a fair system [will every system inherently benefit one group of people more]”
I would really like to see you do a video about fame and how it affects freedom of speech. It’s some thing I’ve been talking about with a friend and honestly I don’t know where I stand on it. Because one person can say some thing like “I hate John Cena” and get nothing in return, whereas if a person with fame and notoriety, does it, they get the death threats, and the attempts on their lives. I just want to know what your thoughts are and what the thoughts of people during Street epistemology would be.
some people have advantages over other people. Some people have disadvantages. These are across all different demographics in all different areas. How we decide who is advantaged and how we attempt to solve that problem are the issues.
hypotetical situation; You have to cross a river and there are 2 bridges. Bridge A is entirely made by black engineers and Bridge B by asian engineers. Knowing that the black engineers were allowed to cheat through their bridge building courses, will you select a dridge at random or specifically chose 1 over the other?
I'm a fan of Warren and Peter.
That's what affirmative action is.
Cheating is a cultural value decision. It depends on culture but is institutionally penalized.
Because two wrongs don't make a 'right'. Basic, kindergarten level morality. Some things are painfully simple.
"Marginalized groups" do not exist in the US like they have in the past, or currently do in non-western countries.
YOU KEEP THINKING THAT.
If German authorities in WWII are seeking out Jews in a neighborhood and come upon a Gentile home whose owners lie about the fact they are hiding Jews, then a second wrong can make it right. Painfully simple. During Covid, some advocated for the wrongful action of snitching on neighbors to the government those who did not get any jabs. If vaxxed neighbors decided to lie about their un-vaxxed neighbors, i.e. that the latter were vaxxed up, then a second wrong would make it right. Painfully simple.
It's difficult to maintain a soceity without punitive consequences to bad behaviour
@@DaddyBiscuits anything beyond the minimum of what is necessary in order to rehabilitate is immoral.
It's like trying to play monopoly with someone that changes the rules on you whenever it works for them you have 2 choices cheat also or not play.
"people of color couldn't possibly afford the tuition here."
How can you possibly agree with this statement?
This video is anecdotal evidence of the positive correlation between height and IQ.
Im 56. Ive had many boyfriends and a 10 year marriage. I've never cheated.
If I'm allowed to cheat, I'll learn less and inaccurate things and teach those to my kids, and on and on and on. My kids and grandchildren will have less and less knowledge and worse and worse outcomes and because they have bad outcomes they must be oppressed, so therefore you must let me and my family cheat more to make up for it.
It's interesting to see the behavior of some liberals when speaking about things that are not topics on trans issues (assuming that some of these people are liberal). They seem more willing to have a normal conversation without shouting and name calling. I don't know if that's because they believe trans people to be above everyone else therefore it's not ok to say anything that can be perceived as negative against them or maybe these specific individuals are just more level headed and if this was a conversation on trans topics they would still behave this way.
Yeah, it's interesting how some topics are more likely to provoke anger rather than thought, rather like they've been programmed for hightened emotion. It's never been suggested that minorities commit suicide at a higher rate because of prejudice, unlike is common in trans activism.
@DaddyBiscuits Using suicide to hide from criticism is morbid. I'm not going to be forced to live in silence because someone with a mental disability somewhere threatens to kill themselves if I speak about any particular topic that they don't want to hear criticisms about. Especially if my criticism is that people like that need to seek therapy before they do something they regret. That's called compassion unlike what others do and encourage the mental disorder regardless of the fact that it leads to suicide.
Only a morally bankrupt person would ask this question.
It needs to be asked because the world is full of morally bankrupt people.
An idea for a future one. Take on the Marxist ideology in societies and if there is any direct correlation to a persons morals and corruption.
Stand tall! It's great being tall!
Not sure if it makes it OK to cheat. Makes it OK to complain and request perpetual assistance, for sure.
4:24 everybody cheats all the time? How? Does he have evidence proving it or giving good evidence of it?
I guess I should ask what he meant. People often use the English language loosely and not always Ina correct manner.
Completly demoralized people
People who agree with reparations aren't considering the fact that a lot more people than AA's have been harmed by the government. That's a massive can of worms that will never end.
I think the answer should be NO.
Was it too much to hope that the girl who would most stereotypically benefit from reparations/gaining advantages to be against them as a concept?
They hate cheating, but are im favor of all the cheating that exists... Please make it make sense...
Certain people DO seem to be getting caught doing a lot of plagiarizing lately
Glad the Asian girl came to that conclusion🎉
The tall guy is the best
15:30 this is what "woke" meant a decade ago. I.e. Eyes opened, seeing reality, red pilled.
My spirit animal is a cheetah.☕😬
Their choices of major are so racially stereotypical.
WWJD,
Not situational ethics
I find it quite hilarious, when I think about the reparations, of what you would wind up with if you truly did a fair and honest dispensation of reparations. First off you would need to determine what a fair and equitable reparation would have been for those of that time. Now subtract any benefits that they may have gotten from the costs of soldiers fighting and dying to attain their freedom. Perhaps the descendants of the soldiers would be entitled to reparations as well. Once you've established a base level, now divide that amongst the many generations since. Next we take DNA and ancestral evidence and determine what percentage of an individual's bloodline Came From Slavery. So let's say that we establish a $1 million adjusted reparation per slave, and then we divide that by the average of 1500 descendants, leaving an average payout of $666 each. This in turn would be adjusted based on the percentage of the original slaves DNA that each of the recipients now carries. While some make as much as $1,000 payout, others may only get as little as $10. Then of course we would need to look at the other side, and calculate the responsibility of The Descendants of the slave owners, and tax them accordingly. Imagine the hilarity of the black individual finding out that his 50% black Haitian DNA along with his 2% DNA of a southern slave owner, entitles him to be the recipient of a tax bill for $200 to go toward reparations. LMAO!
Isn't reality grand?
Do you think this is the best faith interpretation of what people mean?
Nice bunch of young people
I thought the title ment cheating on partners.. Not cheating on tests..😂
12:26 Lol..😂
It only took 12 minutes to mention the 'NAZI's..😂'.
have to say it really hurts my mind to see people unable to give examples of true systemic racism.
Apartheid, National Socialism and Ethno nationalism - Current and historical examples abound.
Is the USA, UK, EU etc systemically racist - Id have to say yes.. against white people or native mostly - as some form of over compenstion, but that pales in comparison to the real racial divides in both culture and law that exist in China, Russia, Japan, Korea (north and south), several nations in Africa, Pakistan, India and the various hell holes of the middle east!
In the first guys defense of his position we are treated to… a recitation of his brainwash programming. Sigh. This is what street epistemology is for, though.
Judging by the one girl’s accent her family were not slaves in America. Should Africa pay for the Barbary slave trade? That ain’t gonna happen. Estimated 3x as many white slaves as ever existed in the americas
What part of Africa is she from. Remember, Africa is a continent, not a country
@@ashlibabbittcroakedit9108 I didn’t say she was from Africa. I compared the Atlantic trade to the African trade. And made an assumption about her family history. I assumed her family weren’t American slaves. You assumed where she was from
@kiefmanning7394 The point I am trying to make is that the barbary slave trade was specific to North Africa and not to the whole of Africa.
@@ashlibabbittcroakedit9108 true. But there was also a pretty well documented Arab slave trade through much more of the continent and the practice still exists today. My point was reparations is a foolish concept.
@@kiefmanning7394 There are deeper reasons why black Americans want reparations, try researching Jim crow
Cheating privilege.
bunch of hypocrites
Of course the black chick stands there, bold as brass, saying the rules built for others don't apply to her...
But she's oppressed.
She said she didn't agree with cheating. Did you watch the entire video?
She did agree with getting pay back for past issues which I personally don't fully agree with. Maybe a little is fine but I am part cherokee and have a cherokee friend who gets payments from the government every month which I would never sign up for and think should end. At what point do you stop the payments for past mistakes? It can't go on forever.
If a business breaks the law they end up having to pay money back to those affected (and the lawyers get most) but that it isn't like the company made 1 mistake and for the next 1000 years they have to pay money every year. So why do people expect the government to do that?
ARE YOU REALLY WATCH THE VIDEO?
Looks like all the students ended up in the disagree side.
@@Phoenix-Cloud Do you qualify for these payments? In the UK, there isn't such a thing, but you cannot get job seekers unemployment benefit if you become unemployed after saving too much money from previous jobs. If you're allowed to claim payments, and you're a responsible person, it's likely you'll be able to make better decisions on how to manage those funds than someone who "needs" them. You could even redistribute it as you see fit.
@@DaddyBiscuits Yea, most native americans in the US require at least 25% blood to receive the benefits but cherokee only requires being a descendant I believe and I have a family member on my mother's side that was I think 75% cherokee so I could prove it pretty easy. I have plenty of money and don't need it and I personally just don't agree with it either because it was such a long time ago and if we really want to talk about who used to live where we are all part of a group that stole land from others at some point.
The amount of money I would get isn't worth the efforts (as much as I think it would be cool to do a DNA test I don't trust them giving my DNA results and being charged with a crime since DNA isn't a 100% match like many think). I am not married and have no kids and never plan on having kids so I have already looked into setting up a trust fund so when I die my money will be used to buy homes to give to vets, injured firefighters, cops, etc. My plan is to set it up so the homes are never owned by them but they get lifetime rights to the homes and only have to maintain them and pay taxes and the money I have will be setup in funds to buy more homes to help more people etc.
Very simple...NO
I like Peter. Some of this video is frustrating because he taints it with his own bias(Anti-DEI in this case). See 13:00.
- The prompt: Systemic Racism is Real
- Peter’s first question to the Strongly Agree girl: Give an example of something in law that is systemically racist.
That feels like a gotcha. I first want to hear her explain why she is on Strongly Agree.
You can believe Systemic Racism is real and also agree that there are no laws in present day that are racist. I don’t think that question is as pointed as he thinks.
How?
i mean if she is claiming that systemic racism is real you gotta at least be able to back it up with SOMETHING. Asking for evidence of what you claim is not a "gotcha" question, and if it feels like it is, then maybe what you believe is not actually grounded in reality.
To say something (systemic racism) "Is real" rather than "was real" suggests it is in our present day and is ongoing.
I dont think anyone would argue it was never a real thing at some point, but is it currently practiced today is the question that matters more.
The Asian girl is cute.
Rich African girl wants gibsmedats lol
Why are you teaching college students like they are in kindergarten ?
Her accent she's barely American. 😂
The more I watch these the less hope have for our future
Women cheat, men do not. Duh.