The death of democracy? Why unintelligent protest may wreck society | Heather Heying | Big Think
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 เม.ย. 2018
- The death of democracy? Why unintelligent protest may wreck society
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionary biologist Heather Heying rose to prominence as a member of the Intellectual Dark Web after she and her husband, Professor Bret Weinstein, spoke out against a planned "Day of Absence" at Evergreen State College, where white students, staff and teachers would vacate campus and only minority students would remain. Their opposition to the event led to accusations of racism and a string of protests, threats, and violence, leading The Seattle Times to call the college a "national caricature of intolerant campus liberalism."
Democracy depends on protest, Heying asserts above, but a new strain of unintelligent protest on the Left may damage the very values liberals are trying to protect. "Increasingly we have groups who are claiming to be emerging from this age-old culture of protest who are actually tamping out dissent, who are saying there are things that cannot be said, there are things that cannot be thought, there are research programs that cannot be done," she says. "... But they don’t tend to be armed in the way the extreme Right is, and so it’s easy for people to imagine that they’re not as dangerous-but shutting down dissent, shutting down the ability to discuss ideas, is actually the beginning of the death of democracy."
In this video, Heying looks at tribalism and dissent from an evolutionary perspective, and highlights how technology has hijacked our ancient brain to create a more polarized society than ever before. Follow Heather on twitter: @HeatherEHeying and on Medium and through her website,
heatherheying.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER HEYING:
Heather Heying is an evolutionary biologist and former Professor at Evergreen State College. She applies the tool kit of evolutionary theory to problems large and small, some seemingly intractable, some possibly trivial-what to eat, how to teach and parent and be an upstanding citizen, what to avoid, and what to seek.
Heather came to prominence after she and her husband, Bret Weinstein, stood up to supporters of an enforced “Day of Absence” for white staff and teachers at Evergreen State College.
Follow Heather on twitter: @HeatherEHeying and on Medium and through her website, heatherheying.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Heather Heying: Society-wide, people are becoming ever more tribal. And tribalism is as old as social groups, which is older than humans. So it’s no surprise that people are looking to find those who sound the most like them, and who they imagine will be the most likely to keep them in their heads when things go wrong. But the way that it’s manifesting is a particularly modern instantiation that I don’t think we’ve seen before.
So protest is old and is honorable and is important; we must be allowed, in any system that calls itself democratic, to dissent. Increasingly, we have groups who are claiming to be emerging from this age-old culture of protest who are actually tamping out dissent, who are saying there are things that cannot be said, there are things that cannot be thought, there are research programs that cannot be done, and that’s dangerous, and it comes from a place of fear, and fear is very powerful evolutionarily. It rises to the top of the emotions when it shows up, and it’s hard to get through the fear with an argument that is rational. Emotion and rationality don’t tend to interface with one another very well, and some of the language that we’re hearing from the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum-I’m not sure that calling it a spectrum is really apt, but everyone is familiar with it.
So the extremes on the right and on the left are both using fear to further polarize people, and the people on the right, the people on the far right, the extremists on the right are both, I think, a smaller group and better armed and thus in some ways more terrifying, but there are so many fewer of them that they don’t seem to have as much voice in society as the growing numbers of extremists on the left who are using words and increasingly, in the case of some of the groups, violent tactics.
But they don’t tend to be armed in the way the extreme right is, and so it’s easy for people to imagine that they’re not as dangerous, but shutting down dissent, shutting down the ability to discuss ideas, is actually the beginning of the death of democracy.
So why does it work? It works because since people have been social, which is to say since be...
For the full transcript, check out bigthink.com/videos/heather-h...
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
I can’t believe how many people find such a basic message still controversial. I thought this was very well said and balanced yet the comments section prove me wrong. I have no idea how you’re supposed to reach people to just be reasonable.
I feel like a large part of the problem is equating groups like the Proud Boys and the people marching in Charlottesville, with Antifa and SJWs is a false equivalency. Groups like the Proud Boys are way farther right than the "Radical Left" is left. For the most part, the Radical Left wants what's already working in Europe. Universal healthcare, paid leave, free or inexpensive quality secondary education, better climate change policy, etc. They want things that literally every other first world country has. The Extreme Right, they're literally waving Nazi flags. It's frankly absurd to compare the two. If the Radical Left was as far left as the Extreme Right is right, they'd be talking about things like the abolishment of private property. That really isn't the case. You can't say that people who tacitly accept white supremacy are on the same playing field with people who want functional equality.
I feel like the bottom line is, practically every other first world country has embraced ideas that are considered too socialist here. The Extreme Right has literally no answers for how to work within a more global, more automated, more technology driven economy, and that's what we will have whether they like it or not. That's to say absolutely nothing of climate change. It honestly makes my blood boil that politicians even mention things like fossil fuel jobs, or low skill manufacturing. Those industries have been dying for a long time. We need to stop propping them up. It's just backward idiocy at this point. Every other developed country understands that that's the case if people want to maintain a middle class standard of living into the future.
Begin with defining 'Resonable'.
becuase his shows ignorance of political ideas, she deos not even realize, but she is fearmongering herself and afraid herself and she mixes apples and and oranges in a single basket. She also reproduces the predominant ideology, of those in power, which is right wing, having perceptions of the left that are full of fear and very disconnected from reality, such as actually seeing predominance of left wing ideology and she clearly confuses political correctness with the excesses of people defending it while forgetting that we actually already have a number of limitations on our ability to protest, dissent and speak in the current system be it by means of law or by how things are actually done outside the fromal versions in papers. The North American government is a violent, genocidal and authoritarian government in many ways and so is capitalism, people are killed by the system and they are blamed by it, It is a far better tactic for public opinion than concentration camps. What about snowden, assange? There are indeed scary excesses on the left, as there have always been by the way with groups and ideas, but not in this vague and generalistic way that is being presented that ignores so much of reality and political science, there is a lo of false equivalence also
@@Bunny-ch2ul unsustainable argument
@@whitefang238 the one fearmongering is you
This is brilliant. Chants are no substitute for reasoned conversation and debate. That she is from Evergreen State makes this all the more important.
Clarence Spangle You sound scared and outnumbered.
Clarence Spangle
You obviously didn't watch the video before commenting. One of the points she was making was the dangers of fighting among our selves. To the rest of the world you are in the same group as the "libertardians" as you call them because we are all Americans. We need to stop insulting each other find some common ground and make some compromises on both sides because that's how democracy works.
You just generalized everyone into labels. You have no idea what people believe. I know plenty of people with mixed views from all political labels. People are forced to be a label if they want to vote. The problem is the outdated members of the house and senate scamming the reds and blues into buying their bullshit, and the sheep just fill up bowl after bowl. Real Americans are not afraid of immigrants or believe in mythical deities that control their lives. This government is a joke and will be for years because of scared voters in their little asinine bubble.
Titus Neeley
Yeah, the sad thing is If the government is a joke then we are all a joke because at various levels we are the government. The good news is we have the power to change it but we need to stop fighting each other first. We can hate each other forever as long as we exercise tolerance and restraint for a mutual advantage.
Exactly. We Americans have some big problems to deal with. An aging population and Social Security and Retirement payments into the trillions.
Then there is a growing number of people in the US who are not US citizens.Take a tour to Thailand and see what happens to you if you overstay your Visa 30+ days>It is jail time...probably unless you are a good talker.
What exactly is she referring to? As an European, I feel like the US have a very strange radical left, could someone give me more details?
Highly entitled, spoiled, don’t want to work, obsessed with gender and sexual confusion
The US doesn't have a "left", certainly not by any standards that would be recognised as "left" in the rest of the world. Even their "left" party unquestioningly follow the neo-liberal agenda and would classified as (economically anyway) the far-right in most of the world.
What we are seeing in politics right now is a perfect demonstration of the pendulum effect. As one side pushes the other, the polarisation becomes further and further one way or the other and a middle ground becomes more of a minority. What we are doing right now is fighting for that middle ground and that sensibility that America seems to be losing at the moment.
Nonsense....read a bit more.
Learn what made the American middle class. Start with the rise if unionism in the 1930s. Particularly
FDR and Congress passing a law protecting workers during union formation 1937.
Bull. When Hitler invaded Norway, it was the Norways fault, not Hitlers. And when the Republicans attempted their coup d'etat it was the Dems fault. And when black people were being murdered in the streets, it was the black people's fault. You wouldn't recognize evil if it spat in your face.
Bro when it comes to caging Mexican kids and tearing them away from their mothers at the teet. WTF is the middle ground there? There is no middle ground with far right fascist violent political ideologies
I guess you would have tried to find middle ground with the nazis huh? In the name of civility
It's funny that so many people in the comments deny the existence of the radical left and its intolerance to hear the opposite views, but simultaneously say that they unsubscribed from this channel after watching this video and criticize Big Think for giving a platform to people like Heying and Peterson.
P.S. Shout out to Big Think for not being biased and for letting people with opposite ideas, have their videos here.
No one is taking free speech? Why don't you go tell that to Canada, or the UK, or Germany? How about go ask the students at Berkeley how they feel about taking away free speech?
Immigration is fine. We just need to consider our own needs when making the decision of who to let in, rather than the needs of those trying to immigrate. We should also take past history into account. Groups that do a decent job of assimilating, and who tend to succeed, should be given preference for future admission. The United States is not the world's breadline or welfare agency, and we should stop acting like it.
Why not put your efforts in a bowl and work on solutions with your political opponents and legal representatives? The youth is looking towards older generations for support and advice on just about anything, and they are learning from your generation and this is what little they picked up, you get what you give. If America want to talk real politics, create a real political environment for the youth and teach them to unfold and speak their opinion with respect for the rules. Anything but this current low-level-rhetoric with people acting like a mentally challenged choire of cheerleaders will do!
Hooman Politics can't stand Peterson but I thought it was cool that Bigthink covered him. It makes me trust them.
Radical left and liberals should not be in the same sentence.
Hear hear, the regressives are deeply illiberal.
SierraSierraFoxtrot
Not what I meant. Fuck liberalism. I would prefer anarchy and most of the actual radical left would as well.
David Snow I could not care less about what is civilized or not since over the course of history that has been used as an excuse to wipe out whole people's such as the Native Americans.
RageAgnstThClampdown
Anarchy would probably as close to hell a society can get.
Love is Dope
I doubt it is much worse than Trump having access to nukes. Willing to risk that 100 times out of 100.
Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We did not allow our enemies to have guns why would we allow them to have ideas? - Joseph Stalin
Too late, the people know who the enemy is, it's time to rip it all down
Lol, she touched on it with social media. But the enemy isn’t left or right but the media that uses isolated events to pretend its more widespread than it actually is. And then, find who controls the media and go after them bub
How accurate she was is amazing. This video was from 2018, and things have just got worse day by day.
Im in the middle but seat more left and yes I agree these idiots thinking they should shut down freedoms of speech because they don't like what other say are a danger to society as a whole.
Onur K either you are joking or you are a perfect example of the extreme left. But yes they are free to say what they want, but they take action and I support the worts punishment befitting to the crime. You don't stop someone by silencing them, you just hide the problem so you can pretend everything is ok. I rather know who I'm talking to than they be in fear to express themselves and I go on thinking they are a decent person.
Upsetting you is a horrible atrocity? Giving you that dopamine hit you're longing for when you whinge in a comment like this is a horrible atrocity? -(The latter I'm more inclined to agree on)-
She completely described the behaviour you're exhibiting in this video and you still lack any self-awareness.
Onur K I used to leave comments like that about 8 years ago when I was a hormonal teen. Unwarranted self-importance, anger, saying somebody hasn't developed past X years when X is about two years younger than yourself, assuming you're above people and insulting their intelligence with no indicators that doing so is valid, lacking any amount of self-awareness but being certain that you have everything figured out - those are all things I used to do as a stupid kid.
Hopefully they're things you will also realise are nothing but embarrassing when you're less hormonal. My guess is you're about 13-16, go do something constructive instead of getting angry online, you'll feel better and have a brighter future.
Onur K You don't get it do you? The idea that someone controls what can and can't be said. "Someone" being the key world there. Not you not me just someone or to be more exact some politician...look at the politicians throughout history and of today do you really want what can and can't be said put in their hands? Do you really want laws that give them the right to dictate what is the right thing to say and what isn't? It might work out the first politician you vote in, if they get voted in. But what happens when other politicians get to move into that power and decide what's the right and wrong thing to say?
Are you that naive that you think all the things you think are wrong to say will be the only things silenced? Or that it will be a set of things you can't say and that's it, because the truth is if a law like that is in place it will be designed to evolve as time evolve us. Leaving it opento manipulation and corruption, which is and always has been the bigger picture.
Your are the one with the childish mind set, who can't fathom the bigger picture only what his emotions tell them what is right at the time not how it effects the future. Your a fool!
Onur K Ya didn't deny it, so I'm now certain I'm right. I don't know why you're continuing to be so angry with me, clearly I understand how you think to some extent and I'm encouraging you to make the most of your life.
Don't waste your time writing such hateful comments, you could be doing something for yourself that would make you happier in either the short or long term. Christ, even playing a game or watching a movie would arguably be more productive. Pointlessly argumentative comments like these just leave you feeling hollow, like you've wasted your time and would rather have done *anything* else, and don't contribute anything to yourself or others. Go do something for yourself man - be it entertainment or self-improvement.
She thinks the Far Right is smaller and weaker because she travels in academic circles where the Far Left is more prevalent.
''Horseshoe theory intensifies''
Or maybe the nazis were left wing?
@@HazyFelix No. No, they weren't.
@@shawarmageddonit Why the worker support programs then?
Forget it, Internet arguments are useless anyway
@@HazyFelix You're absolutely right, and I applaud you for stating it upfront. While I'm hoping to avoid an argument myself, I just wanna say that the crucial difference lies in the extreme emphasis on nationality. As you might know, 'nazi' is a shortened derivative of 'Nationalsozialist'. They happened to share the worker's affiliation with the communists, but apart from that, they were very much on the opposite wing.
Best,
This is a masterpiece in false equivalency.
You may say whatever you like, to whomever you like, doesn't always mean you should.
Just because you should not say something does not mean you should go to jail or get fired because of saying it.
yawn
Nice use of whomever!
Treeforged Insofar as being incarcerated for speech, I'm on the fence.
I'd argue that being fired for free speech usually entails an employer wanting to protect their brand image in a free market.
How about the people researching where someone works and pressuring their employer to fire that person for their beliefs? Do you think that’s fair game?
Great analysis, very specific. This clip makes me feel smart. I learned that there are extremes on both sides and that’s bad. The solution? We should get along and resolve our differences. This is the first time I’ve ever heard this analysis before. But it is a good idea. Think about it: what if a planned parenthood could also be inside a church. Both sides could put aside their differences about a women’s autonomy and whether abortion is a form of murder, and say why can’t it be both. That’s called being a moderate. That’s how we will solve the Syrian civil war, civil dialogue. If only the US could sit down the Taliban and rationally discuss our problems we would have world peace. Very insightful. Thank you again for all the specific examples. This video was not a waste a time.
Smile. You've been had, big time.
Well put--it needed to be said in a blunt manner like this.
The only people I consider "radical" are those who villainize people or say they're "cancelled" on twitter because they think differently. Otherwise, simply having values that aren't a mix of left and right, and not being willing to compromise on some things is NOT a bad thing in and of itself. We have our own ways of looking at things, that's all.
Things that unite us are far greater than the things that divide us
Smidlee please don't try to search for answers objectively.
We are tribal by nature. But, if we've made it so far technologically or culturally, it's because we worked together. I mean things could have been far worse.
Free Trade Agreements, scientific collaborations, cultural exchange, universal education, compassion and empathy. These things unite us.
Heather!
Elizabeth H.
She sounds like she's tired of/bored with her own topic!! 😆
Have you got an URL for another piece of hers that you like?
(preferably one where she's a bit less Jeb Bush energy level haha)
But she's a fantastic professor! You can watch Joe Rogan's interview with her and her husband, Bret Weinstein here on YT
I second Heather and Bret on Rogan, I also suggest Damore At PSU which features Heather.
Sorry since when did the left love democracy?!
It has always been the right who stands for democracy.
And don't worry the left won't destroy democracy, the left will destroy them self.
@Yzark Semit Thank you, for speaking up. As you can see by the comments, your country needs you.
Isn't she basically saying we all must be tolerant of intolerance? That is failure of both morality and logic. The growth of an intolerant movement self-evidently will silence all others eventually. It is completely justified to denounce and silence an intolerant group.
Two points. One, it is going to be extremely difficult - it may well prove impossible - to bring about universal agreement on which stances are debatable and which stances are stances that one cannot reasonably disagree with. All people have things that they very strongly consider wrong. They would be unwilling to genuinely consider the points of people who disagree. Unfortunately, there are lots of less introspective people who don’t admit that that is also true of themselves. They’d just insist that whatever they consider obviously wrong genuinely is horrific, and ignorantly blast “woke culture” when more likely they lack the experience with those other things to see that those other things are perhaps horrific as well. Second point - we have to be able to take issues on an individual by individual basis, and see that what is not quite horrific for one person may well be horrific for another person.
You are correct about shutting down debate. One leftist in Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) recently pulled a fire alarm in order to prevent a rightist from speaking. The leftist probably thought he/she won but this only drives the other side into private (usually more underground) meetings. Next thing you know, a bunch of those people are marching in the streets and everyone wonders "how did this happen?". By not ostracizing the other side, we all stick together which is the normal social order. If you like what is being said then "applaud". If you don't like what is being said "your silence will speak volumes".
Calling faith goldy a rightist is disingenuous. Faith Goldie is a white nationalist who has affiliated with the neo nazi website the daily stormer
Democracy can't work without collective rationalism
As an elderly woman in a rural area I've only once been attacked online or off by anyone from the left. Instead I get attacked frequently by those on the far right who lay in wait for anyone left wing to make a comment however innocuous or well thought out. There is the SJW crowd, usually students, who simply annoy everyone. I've had the good fortune of not running into them. Apparently they don't lay in wait online. In my personal life are friends and family from both sides of the political divide. When they can be pulled away from bashing one or another politician it makes for an interesting discussion of ideas, ideology and policy positions.
Excellent! Speaking after much deep thought is so much more cogent.
I'm not sure the title represents the video content
Yes but what should she call her grift? This is race hatred pure and simple. Can you spot the hate? It's very well hidden. Who finances this channel?
That which unites us is greater, but that space is shrinking and harder to find.
I'm old enough to have seen when we didn't do our socialization over the internet, and I noticed one big change was that people on the internet will commonly say things to other people that they would never say face-to-face. This strongly pushes us to the conflict way of resolving differences and away from the cooperation way. One of the things you mention that needs to be addressed, climate change, is considered radical liberalism by a lot of people, including high-ranking politicians and, in the current environment, any meaningful proposals for solution will be systematically rejected by those people. It's too bad, because scientists have shown that this will be our undoing in the not-too-distant future.
She never defined “radical left”
MrBlaq
who needs to do that anyway? people in the comment section will be mad nonetheless.
AAAAHHHHH i hate the ***RADICAL LEFT***
it's a nice strawman after all isn't it?
I dont think there is enough time in a 7 minute video to define it. haha
But in all seriousness. I am guessing she means like Antifa (though they use violence too) and other left leaning groups willing to silence other ideas.
it's the new boogeyman!
Dynalody she’s an academic and there are Big Think videos longer than 7 minutes. She could have taken time to properly define “radical left”.
Well "radical" means pushing for a swift overthrow of the current system. For western nations, that means overthrowing liberal democracy. The qualifier "radical" also connotes an opposition to democratic change and a preference for revolution instead. So radical left isn't interchangeable with far left. Someone like Noam Chomsky is far left but he believes in gradually achieving societal consensus for his left anarchist ideas before they would be implemented by the democratic will of the polity. So he's not "radical".
"extremists on the right are both, I think, a smaller group and better armed and thus in some ways more terrifying, but there are so many fewer of them that *they don’t seem to have as much voice in society* as the growing numbers of extremists on the left"
Really? Don't the Republicans control the majority of state legislatures, governers, and hold majorities Senate/House/Pesidency/Supreme Court packed with right wing extremists? The above statement is highly erroneous and reeks of an agenda. The protests that this "intellectual" is referring to are purely reactionary to the current political climate that ignores the will of the people and sides with corporate donors.
Clinton had more corporate donors then Trump did yet she did not win. If you think the right wing in political office are right wing extremist then you do not understand how wide the political spectrum is. The reason why the right wing is in power is because there are no more rational left wing politicians and the left wing has been bought off by corporate interests more so then the right wing. If those protest are a reaction to the current political climate then the climate is not going to change anytime soon because they are giving credibility to the right wing and making the left wing look like ignorant immature children.
Clinton had her finger on the scale at the DnC to defeat Bernie Sanders, but that is beside the point that the Republicans made large gains at all levels of government in 2016 outside of the presidential elections. I find your point that "protests are giving credibility to the right wing" to be an odd one, considering protests draw attention to existing problems quite effectively and generally don't occur if there aren't any (said people having better things to do then mob up in a street yelling slogans).
Brett Thompson
Agreed. Trump got elected because the bought off DNC rigged it for Hillary and robbed the people of the democratic choice they actually wanted which was Bernie. When Wikileaks exposed the rigging it disgusted the voters and exposed Hillary for what she was. That is why Trump won. The democrat party is no longer the party of FDR.
"The reason why the right wing is in power is because there are no more rational left wing politicians and the left wing has been bought off by corporate interests more so then the right wing."
The Democrats are right-wingers. Neoliberalism is a right-wing ideology and the Neoliberal wing has had almost total control of the Democratic Party since the victory of Bill Clinton.
The far right is not growing because of the actions or failures of the left, the far right is growing because of the failures of moderate right-wingers, and the reason they are failing is because of their right-wing politics.
The biggest problem I see in the media and politicians is complete lack of respect for the opposing view. This has infiltrated our culture in the worst way, (and on youtube). How can we have a dialogue, when our "leaders" and pundits are calling politicians they oppose idiots, crooked, etc. The rest of us have to rise above it and open our ears and hearts to people we disagree with if we are to get anywhere. Most of us have more in common than we realize.
Repeatedly discussing implementation of bad ideas gets you bad results, always. Eventually, nobody will cooperate if there is only one winner.
Tribalism sucks!
This is a good step in defining the problem so we can overcome it together.
Was this script written by a Markov Chain or was it edited to be nonsensical?
I think that why they have so much influence is because they have taken control of all of the pillars of society and culture: media, Hollywood/entertainment, education, and in some places, governance (such as the coasts). When you control those pillars, you control the narratives and the discourse. But I think social media is actually the best glimmer of hope. They don't quite control that and I don't think they will be able to control that to the degree they control all other outlets and venues. It is actually in this space where much of the "heretics" are able to get out the contrarian ideas. Yes, it's a struggle and a battle to fight against their attempts to silence opposing viewpoints, but it doesn't take much to get out, to get people thinking, and seeing, and aware so that they start to realize, "yeah, that _is_ pretty messed up dogma."
I think that social media will be the rope that hands the left. All it does for them is to expose just how messed up their dogma is. They put on display their batcrap crazy nonsense for all to see - to see for themselves just how crazy and nonsensical they actually are.
I suggest everyone on the left and right join the majority in the middle. Centrists Unite!
lol she's literally just talking about tumblr kids 😂
IT IS NOT helpful to prohibit what you don't like but to openly accept and discuss and share the differences and exchange of ideas. Reverting to violence when there is a differing of opinion is dangerous, unproductive and useless........Cooperation is THE ONLY key to human survival
Major points for putting your own face and voice to so important a message. It's worthy and brave and I appreciate it. Having said that, at what point is it morally excusable to wash your hands of making peace? The Germans of 1920 had just formed a simple political party. They'd later be called Nazis. At what point, as a civilized German, is it okay to permanently distance yourself from that party and its membership? Do we have to wait for killing? Political power grabs? Isn't that too late?
Or do we recognize their openly declared morality (or lack of it) and pull away sooner?
I want peace; badly. I feel the lack of it every moment. But I'll have no peace while political parties or any tribe behaves as the far-Right have in the last five years. My President and his minions have left a stain on democracy that will outlive us all.
Anyone that is Far Right or supports them accepts those moralities actively or passively.
I cannot imagine peace, or the want of it, with anyone who supports that stance.
Most people don't have an issue with dissent; so long as it isn't really just a cover for hate.
This sums up the PC-culture problem
Lol nice trolling Komrad. How's things in Mokow?
i like PC gaming, what is wrong with some Shadow of the Colossus.
i think that is culture. and not problematic
PC culture is the product corporate PR ( product of capitalism) dominating public discourse. Real left has nothing to do with that
Mat who's gonna build ma Mainboard if not corporations?
Apelyn's Entertainment. who will change your diaper if not corporations?
Finally a decent big think video
You mean a Big Think video you agree with I assume? :D
Dylan Graham you just hate anything that criticizes Trump and his dipshit base.
Summarize to me in bulletpoints what the academic brought forth in this video. I want to under see if you truly understood what she was talking about. More likely, however, is that the words "radical left" triggered your lizard brain and in turn your tribalistic thinking.
The False Critic are you talking to me?
No, to "Dylan Graham". I concur with your comment. His definition of a "good video" is most likely a video that furthers his political narrative.
Independent voters far outnumber either party and even outnumber both parties together because of the tribalism combined with the fact that neither party represents us.
A minority of one party does care. It's all you have. Sorry.
“Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
A group of people is still people.
Which is why she was talking about tribalism, which is an idea not a group of people, instead of talking about a group of people. She even specified that this applies to all sides of what she reluctantly refereed to as the political spectrum.
Can't believe Big Think did this video.
no, i hate globalism, we need to return to the old ways, glad im stuck in the past.
Agree. Very wise words. I hope we can get it together before its too late. That said.. reading through the comments, I was pleasantly surprised to read such thoughtful and considered words. Instead of the usual.. fire and fury. Good going guys.
The above on the Extreme Right appears to have been disproved by events here in the UK as of today 24th March 2001 as elsewhere around the globe.
Why is the Left getting the speech when the Right is governing? Love the way she minimized the Far Right.
TheYafnit the fact is they ARE a smaller group of people. Just bc the left calls all conservatives and moderates “alt-right” does not mean it’s true.
Breezy Deez There's a reason why they're comfortable occupying and supporting the same candidates/spaces as Richard Spencer&David Duke.
Breezy Deez
just because you call all demonstrators "far left" doesn't make it right either
or calling the entirety of BLM violent.
you know, that bullshit was a thing.
GPzSilentwalker
lol, what even
TheYafnit She actually said very little about either side. I think it's a fair guess that she's liberal and assumed that the problems with the right were obvious so she was pointing out that extremes on her side could be detrimental as well. The speach was actually about tribalism so it makes sense for her not to act tribal and admit that her side has issues as well.
Ironic that you don't see this kind of behavior in the east . Do this in Russia, japan or China. You'd be dealt with.
Sponge Bob places with no democracy.
Sponge Bob yeah nice idea, let's take a look at autocratic pseudo democracies, that'll do it
Because they don’t have Marxist Jews that control their governments. Read the culture of critique.
Apelyn's Entertainment. I can name many more. Countries like Germany ,US , Canada , UK are in the state that they are because of harboring and nurturing such extremists.
Sponge Bob
hello, i am a german? in what state are we? don't get it. things are pretty dope over here. e.g. we have a government that actually does stuff....
thats nice
My problem with her argument is that she is confusing a very small but visible minority on the left with actual American-liberal beliefs and what she is saying absolutely applies to that extreme-left but she is implying that it is a much larger population than it actually is.
The solution is water down their ideas in conversation , until their ineffective . The political centre has had 50yrs to get on top of humanities most pressing problem . Young smart people , have a right to be angry with what's going on , and they will kill the appearance of democracy . That might lead to real democracy , and a sustainable future or at least a chance .
is there a person criticizing the left that doesn't retweet ben "muh feminists" shapiro and doesn't appear on the joe roegan experience?
i don't know, I'd like to see a reputable critic for once
Apelyn's Entertainment. Roger Scruton has never been on Joe Rogan.
Living Beings
looks interesting, thank you
Uh... Her? She's literally the person you're asking for.
Christina Hoff Sommers?
Satsaru
lol no, for real.
Living Beings already helped me, thanks
I love how 'the left' have been the Great Bugbear for so long, but the actual threat is clearly from the right (Trumpism). This Heather person is just another brainwashed lemming pointing at a non-existent threat. 'The Great Leftist Threat' never happened. Obama was not a communist or Kenyan or Muslim (hence no Shariah/communism etc) - because there was no 'leftist' conspiracy anywhere in western civilisation. At best, your 'liberal communists' were just a bunch of dumb kids who hardly vote that no one on the intellectual-left ever gave credence to (or even noticed). The reality is that the 'grown-up' right-wing was where the very real threat lived all along - as is now globally and universally apparent (as it also was pre-WWII). Even the mildest intellects - ones that are not brainwashed enough to trust selfish criminal capitalists over socially-concerned academics - can now see this truth. Fuck all your selfish dumb arses. My kids deserve better than this false-equivalence tripe.
Edit: Anyhow, what is this blatant hypocrisy? Do you really want to know how to make someone become more tribal? Launch false narratives at them. Try to force them to swallow blatantly false equivalencies. Beware you do not actually CREATE the 'Left' uprising your previously irrationally feared; we have a terrible habit of making our worst fears come true. We don't exist. But if you let/watch Trump separate parents and children, give taxes to the rich, destroy healthcare, lie, cheat and steal - then you will get exactly what you deserve. I am an erudite, educated, highly intelligent person. I am not some screaming hick going on about a fake birth-certificate out of poorly-hidden racism. I am not a semi-retarded Alex Jones/Fox conspiracy theorist. I am not some goofy 9/11 Truther. People like us make for serious enemies. We topple entire states, remake monarchies, instantiate a renaissance. But your continued alliance with known criminals against the welfare of the people puts you on very, very thin ice. If you are going to follow Trump til the end, I suggest you rub the backs of your necks first - and think very hard about it. That noose is tight. That guillotine is sharp. The bullets are fast. The drone strikes are quiet. Do not dance with corruption.
Shutting down dissent is bad yes but holy crap this is NOT actually an issue.
There is a danger in being unwilling to hear a radical idea, like the world is round or women should have the vote, or we should ban slavery. This analysis applies equally to the supposed centre ground of politics too.
The next Big think needs to be about what's wrong with the radical right or I might start thinking the Big Think is biased.
You've done two about liberals and "radical" left. Now come with the talk about the alt-right and the science ignorant conservatives.
I'd posit that because right wing extremists are so obviously wrong and are quickly disavowed by traditional conservatives, that it's not really a matter of contention for the mainstream. However, when liberals attempt to criticize or disavow left wing extremists, we're branded racists, homophobes, etc in order to silence us and lump us together as alt-right sympathizers, thus attempting to silence us altogether, which is why this has become an issue of free speech that so many on the left (and right) are appalled by.
Agreed. Most reasonable people already know the rather simple problems associated with the far-right. The pitfalls of the radical left are less obvious, and they can often sound deeply compassionate and reasonable at first glance.
As someone who is naturally left wing, I can tell you it takes a real effort of critical thinking to question whether certain social welfare programs will actually help people, or why communism is a bad idea.
I admit I did fall for the identitarian left's rhetoric for about two months, but exposing myself to criticism and questioning everything soon cured me of that. The key fact that turned me off was that observation of group differences leads to negative stereotyping, which led me to believe that the radical left constantly drawing attention to group differences (LGBT stuff, BLM etc.) would actually harm minorities more than it would help them. Another one is Jordan Peterson's point that the individual should ultimately be respected over the group, his rationale for this seems true on both a rational and emotional level to me, and I think the far left lose sight of this all the time (I'm thinking of the idea of white privilege here, or toxic masculinity).
EXACTLY! I'm unsubscribing, this channel is bullshit.
Hungry Eyez oh come off it! Big think is hardly being biased by doing a couple of videos suggesting opinions that might question your clearly vulnerable views.. this speaker is obviously pretty left wing herself!
lol...if anything Big Think is very left leaning. You have nothing to worry about, my pinko friend.
Nice strawman you've got there.
You clearly don't know what a strawman is I see. Unless your referring to some of the comments that you are not referencing at all.
I'd hazard to point out that he has some validity here. While it's a fairly popular view what exactly constitutes the "radical left" she mentions, she doesn't exactly get into the specific semantics of what she means... Leaving the term vague might be a pleasantry of allowing the audience to obfuscate themselves free of this "lefty radical demon" to listen more thoroughly, but if you've paid much attention to the comments INSTEAD of just spamming them with witty crapula, you can see that there's also a fairly flexible "popular opinion" about what this tribe of lunatics is supposedly composed of... so strawman... an effigy of vague detail that can be publicly abused and sacrificed to vulgarity or detriment to evoke an emotional instead of rational response.
I don't think (in the critical sense) that's entirely her intent here. She seems more genuinely concerned with the violently protesting types who are burning down whole neighborhoods, sacking stores, smashing everything in sight and chanting stuff like "burn the city to the ground" or "kill the cops" to supposedly "protest dissent" with whatever issue... Rather than just those who join a chanting group or hold candle-light vigils, and sing or chant whatever without a single object thrown or more than a few cursory incidents with law enforcement...
Unfortunately, since everyone likes painting a rationally speaking presenter in the WORST possible light, rather than even suggesting a modicum of thoughtful skepticism... We get yet another cancer section dumpster fire. ;o)
Congressmen have difficulty keeping up with a rise in emails from constituents, considering low response rates. Old systems of democracy struggle to keep up with the speed of tech and controversy. With dissent getting lost among a large population, no wonder money became a feature of the political system. Public discourse gives a heart to democracy. Democracy needs courage if it wants to keep its heart. Hopefully true courage doesn't require abrasiveness nor shortsightedness.
TOLERANCE OF INTOLERANCE KILLS TOLERANCE.
Well spoken.
This was just babbling to me. Somewhat incoherent and ultimately containing no meaning. Find a way to not be tricked. Ok thanks for the advice.
Have you ever thought that maybe you are hearing babbling because your listening comprehension skills are incredibly lacking?
Possibly, I admit it is a strong statement to make but I wasn't really linking up all these things in a meaningful way and felt lost a bit and as it went on that continued. Just saying. No offense. I made a decision to comment on everything to try to get subscribers for my channel. Been at it a long time and only get a few views on my videos.
Spot on
Gameplay Twist
Thanks, thought it was just me.
Sometimes, it's just you.
Yeah this is the video that makes me unsubscribe
Victor Quinones Can't handle listening to an opposing viewpoint?
He clearly can't. And that's not surprising. Imagine if you would've been indoctrinated into cultural marxism. It's actually sad, that people don't seem to learn and always fall for totalitarianist ideologies. Especially the so called "educated".
bye snowflake
Victor Quinones unsubscribe then... bye!
James Patrick He is exactly the type of person that she is talking about.
Proletariat revolt has always been necessary catalyst for change throughout history.. French revolution, Boston tea party, civil rights etc..
Maybe don’t put the French Revolution as necessary, also was the February revolution necessary? The Maoist? Revolt/Revolution based on reason and thought are necessary, and even then trend carefully unless the goal is death of millions and destruction of this strange game humans are currently playing.
Not recognizing the corporate monopolized media's role is very short sighted and should make anyone watching dubious about her analysis of tribalism. She has no solution, trick ourselves to not falling for the algorithms. There has got to be a better solution than that!!!!
People complaining about this video didn't listen to the final minute: You are judging your "foes" through a screen and some circuits when you'd get along like normal people if you met in real life -- as least we can hope that still lasts.
Exactly what we need right now
Fear and Anger are wire into our stone age brains. This is the dilemma of the present. It almost destroyed the U.S. in the 20th century however now it could actually accomplish this faster with social media. We do not act or think with the same societal norms on line as in person. We lose our sense of perspective . Any issue has the same weight as any other regardless of how trivial.
The irony is, every free society will eventually vote for tyranny and every tyranny will eventually have a revolt for freedom.
What's new, is that the oscillation, the pendulum, is accelerating.
Thanks internet!
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Karl Popper, 1945
ie. fascist propaganda has no place in our society, even if this seems paradoxical
While I agree with her on the harmful influence of tribal PC culture, shutting down dissent, and effectively censoring what is allowed to be said, I would hardly call it "the beginning of the death of democracy." It's a problem for sure, but it seems to me that democracy is already one foot in the grave. There's always been a left and right, and they've never seen eye to eye. But on the rare occasions that they do work together... it's for corporate gain. Both sides have united to started burying democracy in favor of oligarchy. There's your "death of democracy."
How can you end something that doesn’t exist ?
Good observation and I like the advocation of direct communication. What I do not understand: how is social media more dangerous than media? In the near past, TV and newspapers were the big influencers. That must have been a shock for the tribal human that suddenly receives information from way behind his horizon. Media constructed giant tribes, we know that. Should't the fact that social media is not one-way communication and makes participation much easier actually facilitate discourse and convergence?
It appear neither the extreme elements of the Right or Left like democracy and freedom of speech. Looks like it's up to the majority of reasonable people (most of us) to fight to protect it from extremism.
I agree that making some ideas undiscussable is a problem, but I also think computer algorithms aren't a problem. In fact, I'm not totally sure the speaker knows what an algorithm is.
As a lefty, I'm all for engaging with people on the center or right. My high is finding systems that maximize prosperity and minimize suffering to the most people. I feel that the left has some good ideas on how to do that. If you're willing to discuss with me in good faith, I'm all for talking. My tribe is humanity.
Though I accept Prof. Heying's basic theme and historical context, her focus on "leftist radicalism shutting down free speech" as a greater threat to democracy then alt-right, white-supreme-ist right, radical-right, religious-right, corporatist-right or neo-con right, seems alarmist, biased, myopic...I could go on and on.
What exactly was her problem with the "Day of Absence" event, admittedly a "publicity stunt", but an object lesson non-the-less, the presumed point being to show the lack of minority staff and students at ESU? What are her problems with objections to corporate-funded propagandists like Ben Shapiro or Ann Coulter, constantly on tour at college campuses? What is the reason for, or the defense of, "research" like the supposed racial differences in IQ scores?
What is her justification for the State and corporate brutality inflicted upon peaceful protestors at events like anti-war, anti-nuke, occupy, anti-pipeline, BlackLivesMatter etc?
And finally, look at the comments here, look at the views of reactionary Trumpist "bandwagon jumpers" supporting her commentary. Who is trying to "mobilize a group and enrage a group, to inflame a group"?
Leftists say the comments are full of trump supporters, trump supporters say the comments are full of leftists. I see an equal mix of both, and I'm just amazed at how everyone sees what they want to, hears what they want to, and doesn't listen.
At no point in the video did she say that the extreme left was worse than the alt-right, or any of the movements you're quoting. In fact she even clarified that the extreme right can be regarded as more dangerous since they are armed and violent, although less in numbers. It's not a dichotomy.
I don't know if you're aware, but it's possible to criticise both extremes. I don't like Trump, and I'm 100% with the protestors. That doesn't mean I can't criticize the punks breaking and stealing in shops. And doing that doesn't mean in any way that I consider them "worse than the racists" or anything.
The rest of your comment is simply unrelated to what she said.
@@Ricocossa1 I made my comments a YEAR ago, there weren't as many critical posts at THAT time, so please spare me the patronizing...(I'm a more reasonable person than you)...subtext.
Your reference to the word "worse" is YOUR term... not mine nor hers (listen again), she said "more dangerous" because they allegedly out-number the armed extremist "Alt-right", as if they were the only other opposition to "Leftists". That's why I gave a list of right-wing groups that she deliberately omitted to justify the whole point of her video.
As for "The rest of your comment is simply unrelated to what she said" you are completely wrong.
Again...she left out all of the dangerous and undemocratic actions of right-wing propagandists and state-controlled armed enforcers that constantly attempt to discredit and brutalize left-wing protesters...to further her false narrative.
Finally, your criticism seems rather tone-deaf in light of current events.
The police should be dealing with the criminal acts...which they ignore (because police provocateurs are usually involved), so they can blame the protesters and discredit their legitimate protests.
Police should be doing their job to protect vulnerable properties...instead they use authoritarian-style military tactics to brutalize protesters and create chaotic opportunities for crimes to occur...to be gleefully shown by a gloating corporate media...and unquestionably conflated as something the protesters are responsible for stopping. You're buying this narrative...really?
Sorry if I pierced your armor plating here...but it was already too full of holes.
@@ivandafoe5451 Sorry for being so stupid as to not look at the date of your comment, that was really a mistake on my part. TH-cam recommended this to me recently and I somehow just assumed it was a recent video. As for the patronising subtext, it wasn't my intention.
I don't "buy" the narrative that protestors are responsible for the bad actions committed by some protestors. In fact I agree with you that it's the police's job to stop it. Did I say otherwise? It just seems to me that you're putting words into people's mouths, and that was my main criticism of your comment actually.
I simply stated that I'm not gonna side with these acts of violence, and that doesn't mean I support acts of violence committed on the other side.
@@Ricocossa1 Apology accepted.
We are all subjected to and vulnerable to the insidious affects of propaganda, we can internalize it, unconsciously accept it without our critical facilities examining its validity and pass it on as factual.
What this speaker was very skillfully doing and what Trump and the media are doing presently is propaganda. In this case...conflating protesting together with violence, looting and arson, as if protesters are taking to the streets only to commit these crimes...it's all being done by a mob that must be stopped with state forces who are justified to use any means they deem necessary to stop them.
It's an old but very effective method to sway public sympathies away from the valid concerns of those protesting, but lately more people are catching on to this dirty trickery.
So it is important when discussing these matters, to avoid perpetuating this conflation that everyone there, by proximity and association, is equally guilty of criminal activity and should be violently punished without trial.
Even though you state that you don't believe this false narrative, by failing to acknowledge and reject it, you gave the impression that you (and so many other video commenters on this issue) conceded it as an unfortunate fact.
You even did it again here by stating "committed by some protesters"... with no evidence whether they were actual protesters, planted provocateurs or opportunistic criminals. See how easily it happens?
You may not have been aware of what you were doing when you omitted an important element of your stance on this, but it's most likely that this speaker knew exactly what she was doing when she failed to mention the relevant omissions I pointed out.
Often...what we don't say speaks louder than what we do say. Being aware of it is called "reading between the lines" and is a vital element of critically assessing matters of opinion being portrayed as presenting facts.
This was MY criticism, because her lecture would have been significantly different and far more honest.
As for "putting words in people's mouths"...meaning to misrepresent what was stated (which you did to me, remember?)...I was pointing out what she DID NOT say that was relevant to what was being presented to create (and sell) her false narrative.
Anyway, I hope I have covered your concerns and made some helpful points to consider. Regards.
So tribalism is bad, but grouping an entire spectrum of people as a single tribe is good? Logic I guess
People are different to other people! It has always been like that, and it will always be like that! We are all the "other people", and that's okay! Accept it, and embrace it.. Look around people. We do good, but we can do better.. Governments keep us divided, but they are NOTHING against millions of freedom fighters!
*saw the Anarchism symbol in thumbnail* which anarchists? There are many left anarchist movements, but there are also central and right anarchist movements, such as anarcho-mutualism (centre), anarcho-individualism (right) and, if you count it as anarchist (I dont), anarcho-capitalism (far-right)
2:49, It's the death of progress. Where are the new innovations for societal advancement going to come from if people are scared to engage in dialectic conversations for fear of social rejection? My tribe is my community, my country, my planet and my universe. All the beings of light trying to improve the plight of the world. Where is my tribe?
I'd like to see how any biologist or scientist would propose that we can ever evolve past our innate need for tribalism. Perhaps if aliens invaded our planet we could all group together to fight off the threat but as it stands we are tribal by default and arguably this instinct was absolutely necessary in our evolutionary timeline.
Incredibly relevant right now
Love this vid. One of the best big thinks. I shared this at least 5x already :)
I think this shift is the shift from socio-economic policy to ideological social issues. I'm a liberal and find the extremes ignore economics, governance, and democracy while concentrating on identity, morals, and a very unique ability to ignore policy outright based on the perceived ideology of the other side. Two great examples follows.
immigration. The Left refuse to even consider the very idea of immigration control based on the perceived notion that anyone even discussing the issue is a racists. Therefore immigration is racists so any policy therefore will be racists.
Socialism. The right hates all things socialism based on the notion that all things socialism will become communist Russia. While there are a small extreme Left that would want communism for the most part the left just would like have a few social economic policies in a robust capitalistic economic structure.
This will not work and the extremes need to stop biting the hand that feeds it. Otherwise we all loose.
Sure it's a genuine problem, but it has nothing to do with the "radical left" and can in no way be compared to the extreme right. She's addressing young liberals and PC-culture... Her misconceptions of what defines "radical leftism" demonstrates how the leftism in the US is regarded centrism or conservatism in the rest of the world. As a Scandinavian, her description of a "radical leftist" fits my description of a centrist...
This is excatly what i have been worrying about for quite a while.
Is people like her
This is why TED is better. They pick ONLY the qualified person in their field to present the issues.
Title is clickbait but I totally agree with the ideas expressed in the content. It’s not about the radical left...
Calling the Left radical is a just a diss and fighting right wing fascism is hardly radical either. But her points about subcultures has obvious credibility
The left is losing because we have many idiosyncrasies and diverse groups, while the right have but a few: Religion, nationalism, and tradition. The right is more united than the left, but I think their numbers are in decline.
Preface: I'm a radical Leftist. Still working out my actually identity but I'm some sort of democratic socialist with egoist features (capitalism and the state are spooks) with something like anarcho-communism being the goal.
I think she's criticizing the contemporary radical Left, not making any claim that Leftism MUST be this way, must be predicated on fear, etc. Frankly I agree with her on basically everything she's said and I take it as something to reflect on and to improve myself. To me Leftism is about build a society based on cooperation and mutual understanding. Though I rather loathe to admit it, that means cooperating with the right wing and the center in the here and now, which means listening to their criticisms and taking them in stride.
But I'm googling her name and I can't find ANYTHING that suggests she's anything but center-left. Her husband Bret, whose last name she did not take (I add because it's a rather progressive thing to do and untraditional) "has described himself as deeply progressive and a Bernie Sanders supporter".
So that's my 2 labor vouchers. Communism will win but not with this fucking Left.
Tribalism is a normal part of human existence. People will always gravitate towards those that think like them.
The real problem in modern society is the lack of culture.
In the 70s and 80s tribalism existed predominantly around music styles. If you liked rock or metal you typically hated country and vise versa and almost everyone that had a genuine passion for music hated pop.
The different genres developed an identity and culture around them and nightclubs and full blown music scenes.
This gave people a positive way to interact with their peers and also gave them something more to life than just work and family.
In the 90s political correctness sprang up and you were ostracized for being passionate or tribal about the music you liked or culture. Whenever someone says to me I like all kinds of music that says to me that they have no identity. Millennials are the first generation to realize that they don’t have an identity and I think it’s interesting how they’ve become obsessed with 80s culture.
Do you think it’s possible that they recognize what’s been lost in this generation?
Let’s face it. After all the material success you have then what’s left? There’s got to be something more to life than getting rich and having a family or life feels pretty depressing.
As we watch our culture being stripped from us it leaves us with politics and sports.
Most people in the music industry used to never care about either and now that’s all we’re left with.
It’s really a sad commentary
Interesting but I am still scratching my head wondering what the evolutionary angle/discussion really adds to the conversation and points being made - we should listen to others, maybe even "do onto others..." and not be tribal as tribalism will hurt us. Are these points at all buttressed by evolutionary observations or even more importantly, if anyone does not care for these points are evolutionary considerations going to do anything to persuade them? Especially given the fact that such people can always declare that we are now in one of our "conflict stages" of development thereby justifying their behavior.
Try to share this on Facebook, your video will not post
50seks and i am.here
I take no side with any political spectrum, I speak my mind.
'Fewer on the right'? Who are you thinking about?
Actually considerable research shows that conservatives tend to be more groupies. Even the conservative researcher Jonathon Haidt's research shows that. I would like to think that she does some more reading. Some of her points, I agree with there about dialogue. However, history shows that the extreme right are not into talk. That is what conservative means.
Neat