Something I’ve noticed is people seem to struggle with confrontation with different viewpoints. It’s like a kind of fragility (and I think I have it too). I don’t want to cause waves, and it’s because it’s feels like every topic is a landmine field. Recently I have started questioning a lot of the leftist stuff and simply asking questions or being seen listening to folk on the other side has me being called a bigot and right winger from close people in my life. Like I don’t believe trans women are women and I don’t think they should compete in womens sport. I’m also pro-life. But I’m pretty socially liberal. I’m just not willing to pretend that male bodies can be considered female or that abortion isn’t ending a life of a human. It’s as if you have to play the emperor’s new clothes to be acceptable these days… or just don’t talk about any of it at all. Maybe we’re just not taught how to formulate good reasoning for our views. So it just turns emotional. And I’m guilty of getting triggered too.
I felt that. I lean conservative but I have many liberal beliefs. One of my biggest pet peeves is (from my experience) the far left’s refusal to honestly debate hot button issues. They would rather slap unfavorable labels on those with a different opinion and use those labels as a reason to exclude others from meaningful conversations (common labels include: racist, bigot, [insert self-anointed marginalized group here]-o-phobe, fascist, etc.). Jordan Peterson had a beautiful response to a question from Kathy Newman about why should he be allowed to offend a trans person. And he said in order for us to seek the truth (i.e. speak freely), we have to risk being offensive. He gave an example of the way she was treating him during the interview was making him uncomfortable, but that’s the point - she certainly didn’t take his feelings into consideration as she was digging to get to the bottom of things (that was her job). And it’s absolutely true - honest debate requires us risking offending each other. If we’re constantly checking the rule book for what’s allowed to be said and what isn’t, we’ll never solve society’s more important problems.
The problem is that radical leftists are becoming mainstream, and it stems from their manufactured "Moral high ground". It's easy for a non politically active person to look at that and say "Yeah, I want to be morally good! I support that!". Meanwhile, the radical right is a fringe, everybody knows it's a fringe, and everybody avoids it. A large part of that is because the radical left just kept labeling them as white nationalists and Nazis, but not all of that is unwarranted. I should clarify that both "radicals" have very bad actors, but it's not being reflected well onto the mainstream. Radical leftism has become so appealing, the idea of "How can I be wrong? I'm morally correct and everyone else is automatically the devil" has infected a lot of minds. It's also appealing because it's just simple, lazy and easy. And from the carelessness in which the radical left has been dishing out labels, it seems to have become the norm. Enter the era of strawmanning: For example, the abortion "debate": "Conservatives want women to die", or "Democrats want to murder babies". Not a single state doesn't have health exceptions, yet we still see this plastered all over the media(further confirming that it's more socially acceptable to be a radical leftist). A 10 year old unnecessarily hopped states to get an abortion because of this drama, when her pregnancy would have certainly qualified as a health risk in her home state. But still, they kept using her as a political pawn in their game. On the other end, democrats don't want to outright murder babies, they have very real concerns when it comes to rape and incest, and there's no real solution into accurately determining if rape/incest accusations are true, so we maybe shouldn't just leave them unattended. No one is actually interested in having the correct conversations, and it's all just a delay for finding the correct solutions.
@@yayayaya931 I was with you 100% until the abortion example. The most current stats show that >95% of abortions performed were for other than cases of rape/incest or when the mother’s life was at risk. That means it was overwhelmingly used as a means of after-the-fact birth control. The left has not been singing a tune of how the abortion option has been yanked away from vulnerable rape/incest survivors. The party line has been “SCOTUS banned abortions” which is a total lie. Under this lie, the left likes to touts the figure of ~80% of the population is pro-choice. What they don’t tell you is that 2/3 of that group are pro choice only in limited circumstances, such as in cases of rape/incest or when the mother’s life is at risk. Further, 2/3 of the population that’s pro choice believes abortion should only be legal in the first three months of a pregnancy. This number drops to 1/3 for those who believe abortion should be legal only through the second three months. Only 20% think abortion should be legal all the way through the last three months of a pregnancy. For this hyper-sensitive topic, the left has been distorting the facts to make it appear that 1) the majority of the population wants abortion at all times and in all circumstances and 2) SCOTUS made abortions illegal. I’m actually conservative-leaning pro-choice under those rare circumstances listed above and within the first three months of pregnancy. I’d gladly lend my voice, but the pro-choice movement only wants those who support abortion at all times and under all circumstances, as if limits on abortion equals total failure of the movement. I, along with the majority of the country, don’t like the idea of abortion being used as a method of birth control (especially when contraception is so widely available and inexpensive). If you don’t toe the party line properly, you’re labeled anti-choice and against a women’s right to choose. It’s pathetic.
You can't offend someone. You choose to be offended. We are weakening society when we let the rules of engagement be defined by the weakest among us. Rather than take offense, get curious as to why you are feeling offended? Could they have meant something else? Is it possible there is truth in what they said? Is it possible I am wrong? Just a few examples of how to relinquish the need to be offended
People are afraid to admit that even they aren't always honest with themselves, that's why instead of self-analyzing they subconsciously divert their attention outwards blaming other people for their "sin" of offense.
@@DrDeuteron I'm sure people would care, it's just that a specific group of people probably wouldn't care due to hypocrisy. We should also acknowledge that there are people that get offended by people getting offended.
Everyone of us has something to learn here, and that's a special quality that not much content on this platform has these days. Thanks Peter, it's really amazing what you're doing.
I kind of liked how one of the students actually argued against the phrasing and explained the definitional difference. A lot of arguments stem from differences in definition and nailing such down is important to dialogue.
You are so right, sir. I think most political arguments stem from either misinterpretation, or as you said differences in definition. For example the argument about gender and sex. The left is defining gender as completely separate from sex. The right is saying they are the same. I think the left could give up ground by saying they are strongly correlated. Which research proves. And the right could give up ground by saying that they are not exactly the same. Which is also proven by research. People express their sexual biology in different ways. It seems gender would be the expression of your sex, which in general terms, are in alignment with each other. Exceptions to any rule will always exist, but it seems we are trying to base our rules on the exception.
the majority of his phrases are poorly worded. i think he does it on purpose. he's an academic, and he should understand that you need to zoom in on these large questions. What does "a no-offense society" even mean?
@@Kevinschart he has to begin the question from where society is agreeing. His hope is not necessarily to convince anyone in the room, but to reveal holes and contradictions in certain ways of thinking. If he zooms in too much on the question, it will only resonate with people who already dove into it.
I agree, but I think it was important to phrase it the way he did because the phrasing they preferred was too "safe" that no meaningful difference in opinions would arise (cuz everyone will agree) - when the exercise prefers stipulations that yield opposing views (and the attempt for one side to to sway the other) It's like saying "it's bad to kill" - of course everyone will strongly agree - but if if the question was something like "abortion is bad" (with "killing" implied - and I say this as a pro-choice person)... then you'll get yourself a real meaningful debate/dialectic going against pro-lifers and pro-choicers - assuming of course people don't get emotional about it. So going back to the original statement: the reason why a no offense society is a no knowledge society is because in order to think clearly, one must risk offense. I think the key there is not to intentionally offend - but to be cognizant that challenging and asking critical questions especially with regards to emotionally charged topics that offending is pretty much inevitable. For example, I THINK core of trans issues is whether or not people recognize biological sex as mutable (because to trans people their identity is clearly more than gender - but actual sex)... but assuming one disagrees, to sincerely question/challenge or even share opposing views on it may already be triggering and offensive to trans people - but I can't think of any other way for one to "non-offensively" challenge/question their claim. You really have only two options at that point: To either stop (to not offend) but not gain any insight/knowledge/understanding, or to risk offense (which is most likely sure to offend) but also gain some insight/knowledge/understanding should they actually answer your challenge.
This was a good one Peter. Intelligent folks and very insightful points. This one was different from most of your other experiences, I could tell you walked away from it impressed.
Well, they politely pointed out it was a loaded/problematic statement. They reworded it perfectly. Another way to reword it might be that the pursuit of knowledge should never suffer for fear of offending others. But the problem with that is what can hide under the banner of “just seeking knowledge” - i.e., questions raised with a clear goal to mislead or push an agenda (e.g., we just want to make sure 6,000,000 died, as an opening salvo to holocaust denial).
Love watching these PB sesh. Thank you for all that you do! Re: the student arguing semantics You'll offend someone no matter what because of differences in opinions, creed, culture, etc. It's not just about debating; sometimes it's about questioning your own beliefs or doing your own research in the midst of feeling offended
The group didn't think so and found it too vague. They said they thought you learn more from civil discourse than with offending people, and gave compelling reasons why this is the case.
@@soulscanner66 My comment would have been better written as “best discussions about a question.” What stands out to me was the refinement of the question that ultimately lead to 100% consensus!!! I have not seen that much movement in a group, let alone consensus, in any of Peter’s other videos I’ve watched. And much more important to me is the potential discovery of a fundamental belief that could provide a basis for having discussions about difficult subjects.
"I don't need to offend someone to speak my mind" EXCEPT, you can speak your mind in a totally polite and respectful manner, and it's the simple fact that you're expressing an opinion they disagree with that they find offensive. Not how you said it, not because you cursed them out, not because you attacked them. But SIMPLY because they take disagreement AS an offense itself. That's fucking useless, that girl is fucking blind to the reality of how a conversation works. 🤦♀️
It's easy to come to the conclusion that she was referring to intent, the literal definition of offend obviously leads us to believe that anything in existence can potentially be offensive which in that case the answer is that the statement is true to the core and would render questioning any of this useless to some extent.
@@Prolificx That's exactly why free speech and encouraging people to deal with their own issues is MUCH more important. Teaching kids HOW to manage their emotions is more important than teaching them how to attack anyone that offends them. These are 3 things my parents taught me: 1. Life is not fair. 2. You cannot control what other people say or do. And 3. Not everyone is going to like you, and you're not going to like everyone. And that's ok. 👌
The majority of offense is taken not given. Meaning that many people get offended where no offense was intended, they just can't accept other thoughts than their own.
I took the statement as this To have absolutely no offense, to anything, you'll have a no knowledge society Yes, because to engage in anything, physical or mental, you risk offending anyone at anything anytime It's not guaranteed that you'll offend someone BUT there's always a chance. So to remove ALL odds/chances of offending someone No speaking, no thinking, no sharing anything Humanity is basically dead
I agree, that's how I would interpret it myself but at the same time I don't believe that most people that would say yes would say so for the same reasons you stated.
@@winterlantern5695 Yeah I wouldn't want people to become, in a sense, "robots" If we give up our humanity for the sake of not offending anyone Was it really worth it and was it the right thing to do?
MadDoofer: There was a point when I got the idea that most of them were stuck on words than meaning. It seemed to me a way to be disagreeable rather than understanding the gist, the idea of what the statement or question is. It's suspect. I'll have to think about it more
@@LA_HA I'll have to watch it again - but that's a good point People sometimes get stuck or even attack words oppose to understanding the meaning of them or of a statement.
I browse reddit sometimes. The absolute state of understanding both sides is atrocious. I would call it strawmaning but I honestly think that is what they believe the other sides argument is. And then they get constant validation by people agreeing with them.
I love how its not a you vs me when you are having these conversation. people feel safe to open up and talk about controversial topics without making it personal. keep up the awesome videos
Another very interesting topic! These keep getting better. I really liked the focus at the end on the importance of civil discourse and challenging one’s own beliefs. A great point was made about the divisiveness of the political spectrum these days. It’s become such a road block to understanding other opinions and even revising your own. Keep up the great work Peter!
I just want to ad. I don't think getting offended interferes the development of knowledge, but intentionally being offensive does. In the political setting, People use anger as a method of discrediting what would otherwise be a valid and useful insight. This cannot be ignored if and true knowledge is to be gained.
(My own paraphrase: Not offending others means Letting go of Knowledge) 2 girls, 1 guy 0:24 Strongly agree female “A society without hurt is a society that is ignorant” 0:45 Slightly agree male • It matters what subject we are talking about 2:12 Agree woman • Offense is something which happens, Offense is something one can accept and “let roll off their back.” 2:55 If you phrase the statement differently, my position on the line changes “Our current society puts too much on offense.” 4:11 What needs to happen to move up or down in agreement? Slightly agree male - specify a case. 5:06 Rephrase the question 5:45 Communication necessarily gains insight by it happening - what if you debate something idiotic? 6:38 Debate - someone gets something 7:02 7:43 People strongly agree about Civil Discourse more than Offense Why would I move? Rephrase the question *Feeback* 8:50 The group that supports discourse likes having discourse, unsurprising 9:30 1. Shape rhetoric 2. Gain perspective 3. Open a mind to another way of thinking 11:08 Repeats point 1 12:00 Anti-Closed Minded, 13:16 anti-Broad brush mindset 14:08 Are there [usually political-driven] people unwilling to conversation today? 14:52 _Bowling Alone_ Isolation of Human Beings in America 15:47 Being friends softens hatred
t’s amazing to me the people who seem to be left leaning are so closed minded. Peter always asks. “What could move you just one line”. They always say “Nothing can move me” They can’t open their mind and play the game. What In a perfect world could move you one line. It’s not that hard. And the people who are right leaning typically have several ideas of how they could move to another line if things were different. Thanks for the content Peter. Hope to meet you one day.
I would wager that there is an equal proportion of close-mindedness on both the left and right, with perhaps more on the right, when you consider the whole picture, given that the nature of classic conservative / liberal values represents an adhereance to tradition (religion, or sticking to things as they are) versuses progressiveness (change). With that said, I also agree with you and detest the intolerance we've seen from certain participants in these videos, who get offended and hostile with open discussion.
@Briana Harper0 100% People of any side can be completely closed minded and shut of to opposing opinions. However I’m speaking strictly on the videos Peter makes. If we looked at each one I’m certain it would be the left leaning who can not move one line a majority of the time. “I won’t move because I’m not racist” They are so closed minded they forget it is a thinking and learning game. I have watched every video he has put up and typically everyone in the game has a good conversation and even if they don’t agree you can see they are thinking. That’s why it’s great content.
@Briana Harper0 Its something both ends have issues with for sure, and it's not one or the other like you said which is right. Radicals of any kind regardless of what ideas they have are still just that. They are radicals, and some will never accept another view point. On the right you will have radicals actively pushing a god onto others and the life styles that religion accepts as "Good" On the left you have people who are just as sanctimonious and shouting tolerance but that isn't true. They also are trying to force ideologies that they believe is correct and not giving people a choice to rebuke any of these wild ideas But neither of them speak for the whole. As a gay Mexican man who has served in the military with a tour to afghan. I've met all kinds of people, on both political spectrums. Some of my greatest friends for life are conservatives and others democrats. What I noticed is, both have pockets where people force expectations on you. On the left I have the lgbt or whatever they are called today and act as if I'm a traitor for having conservative friends. On the other there are those that make comments like "you're one of the good ones" and I'm the exception to the rule that gay brown people are all bad Both sides have let me know, in this world it doesn't matter what they claim, their actions are what count towards my opinion on them. I'd give my life for some of my homies, conservative or not because were brothers, a connection proven from years of bonding together. But some never allow that connection in the first place to find out....
Another great video. I strongly agree that if we have to “tip-toe” around each other all the time we won’t learn anything valuable from one another. Like when it comes to “using peoples proper pronouns” it is ultimately offensive in most cases to even ask what their said pronouns are.
If I call someone David, and they say call me Dave, I call them Dave. Don't see what's so different about pronouns. It's a social thing. I'm not an asshole. Nothing to do with intellectual idea. I man, you don't have to worry; they'll correct you in good faith if you have no way of knowing.
@@soulscanner66 maybe out of being cordial, people will use someone's preferred pronouns no problem. The issue arises when someone gets offended and becomes aggressive when they get misgendered even unintentionally. And you know pronouns are just the tip of the iceberg here, people from the lgbtqai+ community easily gets offended with a lot of things and they are quick to call people bigot, transphobe, homophobe, etc.
Refreshing to see these young and bright individuals. Kudos to the lad for bringing up the issue of social isolation - a precipitous modern danger that doesn't receive enough attention.
Jordan Peterson said it best. I’m paraphrasing, but it goes something like “in order to think, you must be prepared to be offensive and be offended”. I agree with him
The proposition is that a society without offense is a society without knowledge. The proposition is *not* that offensive speech always generates knowledge.
A no offence society is a nanny state society which does nothing but make the youth upcoming feel untouchable which is never going to end well. Safety walls make you weaker, opening yourself to other opinions whether you agree or disagree makes you stronger in every way possible. Great convo.
One of the best episodes I’ve seen yet & ive watched many. A well thought out, intellectually honest conversation between those students! Glad to see it still exists on college campuses.
You can be disagreeable without being offensive, and learn via non-offensive disagreement. However as people have pointed out, your success in life is determined by how many uncomfortable conversations you have. It is true that, you learn the most when your world view is rocked.
I don't know if they really understand what it means to have a "no-offense society". The only kind of discourse worth having is the kind that risks offending someone, somewhere. If nobody is ever at risk of getting offended, then nothing of consequence is being discussed. The larger the audience, the more true this becomes. If you have a society in which 300 million people *never* say anything that offends any of the other 300 million people, then you cannot say anything. Which means nobody can tell the truth. Which means nobody knows anything.
Forget the truth, any action can be offensive at that point... no need for speech, movement or anything. Unless everyone magically lacked the ability to be offended.
Peter great work. How you not bote for a republican in 2022 astounds me. Hopefully this will be the year the blue no matter who changes. Love the conversation that happens.
Probably because the conservatives/libertarians ones haven't reach out to these people. It's important for that person to atleast understand the other side pov.
It’s unbelievable how many people don’t understand statistics. “The Japanese are on average quite short” “Not true because I know a 6’6 Japanese girl…”
Most people of all ages don't function on statistical evidence and mostly use it only to justify what their anecdotal experiences already make them believe.
Looks like none of them saw Cathy Newman's interview with Jordan Peterson. Statement "No-Offense Society is a No-Knowledge Society" is equivalent with "No-debate is a No-Knowledge Society" - as Peterson nicely enplaned in this interview.
People on the Right are more open to discussions than those on the Left side of the Political Spectrum. It also helps if people use FACTS instead of 'Talking Points' if you want to sway a person. For those on the Left side of the Political Spectrum, LISTEN to what people on the Right side of the Political Spectrum are saying...don't just have what they say go in one ear and out the other all because your Feelings get hurt!
One thought that occurred to me, for why I sometimes don't seek out conversations from the other side, is that I feel I know it already (and know why it's wrong). Like, I enjoy listening to podcasts from people with unique views on things because I learn something, even if I end up thinking their logic is flawed at the end of the conversation. Maybe it's because of how everything has to be processed into Twitter soundbites, or because the balance of power has shifted so that one side is currently in charge and so can broadcast their message more, but the arguments I frequently hear from the other side are all the same to me (whether it's coming from a friend or a podcast/pundit/blah blah). I just get angry going "oh not THIS fallacy again" rather than feel like I'm gaining anything from the conversation.
The prompt in this video made me think of another Peter Boghosian video at Portland State. It was a reverse QA video based on there are two genders. They made a separate segment for this prompt because people on the sixth floor were looking down at the street yelling that he's hurting people by asking that question and later saying we're going to come down and disrupt you. And once they got down there, they try to explain how they are hurting trans people and stopping the prompt. One of the people in that group claimed to be non-binary. Peter used the "wrong" pronouns and the group emotionally reacted to his statement. Peter is asking how a question harms them or drives them to self-harm. The answers I thought were considered non answers, relating to the emotions or feelings of trans people and allies. This is probably the best example I can come up with for agreeing with the current prompt. The people that took offense did not want the topic to be discussed, therefore shutting out any discussion. Of course they could be offended but I do t see how that should get in the way of discourse or searching for objective truth.
i hate it when a participant doesn't engage the claim but tries to argue for a different claim. thats not the game being played. that said, this was a nother delightfull video Peter, keep 'm coming!
I think the term "triggered" and "I'm offended" have become rally cries. Someone yells out on social media and everyone grabs their pitchforks and torches and start marching after the offender. Social media has also created pockets or echo chambers for people, to find other like minded people, for their own self validation. All in the pursuit of heart warming followers, likes, comments and shares. Less and less people think for themselves and look for a place/click of people to fit in, accept and be accepting of them. This, in it's self is to escape offence, from others, ideas etc. and in turn retards their individualist thinking, and acceptance of otherwise, possibly unknown knowledge.
This is such a sign for hope. I don't know if it encouraged and strengthened them, but it should do so to all people of good will, of which surely there are many like these heretofore 'invisible' (ie, 'not on the news') intelligent future leaders. They are here. Let them talk, and let's talk with them.
In 1998, Darryl Davis says: "The lesson learned is: ignorance breeds fear", says Davis. "If you don't keep that fear in check, that fear will breed hatred. If you don't keep hatred in check, it will breed destruction" In 199 Yoda says: “Fear is the path to the dark side … fear leads to anger … anger leads to hate … hate leads to suffering.”
There are some cases where offending others is the only way to instill knowledge and get an individual out of their delusion. An example being obesity, I’ve yet to see a weight loss transformation video where the motivating factor was anything other than constant insults or a near death prognosis. One can take offense to either one of those and that’s my point sometimes it’s for peoples good to get offended, the results could be life changing rather than be lied to because society tells people that telling people the truth is not ok as long as it hurts their feelings. If there are any opposing views to what I just said, I’m open to hearing them.
Her example of "civil discourse" excludes opinions. "I hate NASA" and "I hate brown hair" were the examples she gave of offensive statements. Those are opinions. Should those be excluded from "civil discourse"?
It seems like the participants are misinterpreting trying to change the claim or question in several of these videos lately. I like the original statements or questions, but they don't want to take them at face value.
Wish this video was longer. Need some more opposing views. Wouldn’t one, in order to have a productive and open discussion, have to risk being offensive/offended?
What's your critical thinking (fact checking) method? Here's mine. Its not perfect. I was taught the PROP method in high school. I combine that with the scientific method. method: I’m skeptical. I don't believe anything permanently or completely. stage 1: Decide what facts to check. 1. Learn about the topic from many sources. 2. Hear lies and truth. 3. Hear opposing arguments. 4. Hear from sources I trust and don't trust. 5. Determine what I want to know, and how certain to be. Sometimes I accept a truth (with low confidence its true) because the consequence of being wrong is low. stage 2: Check facts. The quantity and quality of evidence I look for depends on the importance of the truth. I like the PROP method for evaluating a source. I was taught it in high school. Primary: Is it a primary source? Reason: What's the reason to lie? Other: Do other sources support this one? Public: They say a private statement is more reliable. I don't usually use this one. Censoring or tampering stops me from learning about an issue. It makes me distrust the censorers. I then remain undecided. I try to restore the free speech and help those being censored, so I can learn. I also like the scientific method. I consider a science study better if it has more of these features. 1. large sample size 2. Sources of error are low. 3. if clinical: randomized double blind placebo control 4. good statistics
It's interesting, when I see censorship, I actually lean toward believing the thing being censored. I may still be skeptical, but it becomes a 51/49 stance. 😆
Peter your videos are amazing i think your channel will rise if you doing these thoughtful street epistemologies in fact i think its kind of introducing a good approach to these social issues.
To ensure there is no offenses committed in a society you would have to isolate every single possible behavior that even remotely risked conflict with another person… in order to do that you would have to likely eliminate all unmonitored discourse… that would almost certainly result in the halting of public process of enlightenment to new ideas and knowledge
But how do you figure out what might offend anyone if you don't first ask them? Even asking what someone knows or thinks or feels risks offending them.
Interesting that the guy agreed with the description that a no-offence society is a no-knowledge society, but he disagreed with the possible prescription that that means we can offend gratuitously. I wonder how many people claim a public position in this way
@3:34 yes but to paraphrase Jordan Peterson's Cathy Newman interview, "In order to think, you have to risk being offensive." So in a no offense society, it would follow that there is no debate because if you were to debate or think and process out loud you would be risking offending someone which would be illegal or lead to some sort of punishment.
I love these videos just hate when you do vague questions like this . These kids can barely argue their point coherently , then throw in vague questions you got people arguing for different things. I like debates that stay on topic.
I find the statement absolutely true. For the offended may "educate" others of his reasoning but is never willing to let the others speak. Thereby depriving others of proper conversation.
But the you can also spread misinformation through offense as well. That's the primary way of doing it. If the 2+2=3 cult wants to kill and slander people who dont share there ideas then the only way to stop then is to overpower them which may fail. Then truth just becomes a matter of power.
You asked "how do we get people across divides to start talking again?"... I have an idea that i would try to implement if i did what you do. That is to take two people/groups and before any topic or conversation has started, have them discuss things they both have in common , could be anything at all.... We must humanize the person on the other end of the conversation because society has made it too easy to dehumanize people we disagree with... We need to understand that our ideas do not define us and that we have so much other things in common like hiking, fishing sports teams and other hobbies and occupations and most of all, we all want what we think is best for the future of the country/planet we just have different ideas on how to get there... That alone does not make us enemies.
When you can't control your emotions and reactions, all else will become an obstacle. When you can control your emotions and reactions, all else becomes opportunity.
It's amazing how no one takes the statement to represent if individual's in a society are incapable of feeling offended then all interaction would result in dialogue that would be either inconsequential or useful. But the idea of "harmful" ideas would completely lose all meaning. As offensive as people may attempt to be, if people are incapable of being offended then the offensive discourse would prove inconsequential or meaningful discussion would occur. At the end of the day a no offense society is a fully engaged and knowledgeable society.
On the contrary, I believe a no offense society will never be fully engaged and knowledgeable as it will always be afraid to do so. Being offensive will always be part in society's pursuit for knowledge.
@@patrickatilano2014 I am not talking about being offensive.....I am speaking about the capacity to be offended. If no one in society is offended by anything others have to say then there will be way more offensive stuff being said but because people lack the capacity to be offended it will not escalate to be rationalized into censorship.
It’s interesting how inflexible these kids minds are. They have such a hard time intellectually digesting the statement that they require the statement meets their approval for them to do any adjustment. That’s very telling.
I've watched a number of these, and I don't understand the difference between "Agree" & "Strongly Agree" - this seems to represent an emotional dimension, i.e. how strongly you FEEL about something, rather than what you THINK. Prof. Boghossian is about my age, & we were taught not to confuse "feel" with "think" so perhaps this is a tip of the hat to imprecise language.
This scale is common for marketing. The difference is that "strongly agree" means you agree fully. "Agree" means you agree but... have some reservations. What makes the scale useful is that it allows the participants to answer a simple agree/disagree question in an individual way. Basically it encourages discourse.
My only complaint with these videos is the ‘ladder’ scale. These conversations could be had and be even better if they weren’t moving around constantly
Well, it's TH-cam, social media. Influencers seek to push emotional buttons for clicks and upvotes to validate their egos, so you have expect it to be emotive.
People need to grow up and stop offending people just because you want to insult someone you disagree with. But when you're not allowed of offend someone just by virtue of the position you hold, that's tyranny. When SJWs say "you're not allowed to argue that position because you're doing harm", that's no different than the cult of Scientology saying "Anyone who criticizes us is a criminal." I'm still baffled that people can't see how when someone says "Anyone who criticizes us is doing harm" is obviously a liar trying to protect their deception.
I concerns me. The lack of civil discourse. It’s even stigmatized to say how you think about an issue. Why shouldn’t we all be upfront and proud of where we stand in our beliefs?
People can choose whether to take offence or not, but when we need to say something important we can't afford to worry about who we offend, if it's a contentious and important issue you are guaranteed to offend probably the very person you are talking to.
You do gain knowledge by someone being “allowed” to tell you what they Think about you - even if its highly offensive. You gain knowledge about that person - and perhaps about your self.
"Human interaction" at about 13:00 is mentioned and I would add *face-to-face* human interaction is one of the crucial missing elements today which has led to feelings of polarisation, alienation and intransigent beliefs. Social media, "keyboard warrior-think" all play a part and I am the first to admit I have been guilty of writing comments (particularly on Twitter) which I probably would never say to someone's face. It is similar when texting someone, so much nuance is lost if we cannot stand face to face in the moment. I have recent experience of having a profound disagreement with a relative online (he lives abroad so I don't see him) and his vitriol against people who share the same views as me has shocked me. We are diametrically opposed on a particular subject. I wonder how our online comments would differ if we could sit down with coffee and chat together. Sadly, it won't happen so I have taken the decision to say "I love you but respectfully disagree, live your best life" and move on.
It's absurd to me that the acquisition of any knowledge must somehow be offensive to someone. As absurd as assuming that someone wearing a NASA shirt must be offended if someone told them that they hated NASA.
There's no civil discourse without offense. Offense is a GOOD THING. You’re stating your POV or/and explaining why someone is wrong and they have the opportunity to do the same. You do not become strong by picking up feathers, you gain strength and resilience by lifting stones. Avoiding offense or offending only keeps everyone weak and feeble. A VERY SAD SOCIETY.
Not being offended takes strength of character, and that isn’t valued in our society anymore. Strength in general is now seen as a liability. Seems an odd choice for the group that wants to be progressive. Show me one time in human history when we “progressed“ without the benefit of strength.
Deconstructive not endorsed hot take; I love how the brunette goes through all these stages of bargaining... At first she thinks his goal is to move her position, he moves on through the experiment but she isn't done talking so she reasserts herself in position to talk about how social media is a terrible impact on people making sure, that the cameras focus back in on her and she's turning to face her audience. Unreal.
Keep doing what you do, Pete. The world needs this. 🙌
These kids need this.
@@kathleendoodles698 agreed!
@@kathleendoodles698 the world includes kid adults everything that could've went without saying wtf was the point of your comment lmao
Thank you! I appreciate that. My team and I cannot do what we do without your support, so thank you!
Something I’ve noticed is people seem to struggle with confrontation with different viewpoints. It’s like a kind of fragility (and I think I have it too). I don’t want to cause waves, and it’s because it’s feels like every topic is a landmine field. Recently I have started questioning a lot of the leftist stuff and simply asking questions or being seen listening to folk on the other side has me being called a bigot and right winger from close people in my life. Like I don’t believe trans women are women and I don’t think they should compete in womens sport. I’m also pro-life. But I’m pretty socially liberal. I’m just not willing to pretend that male bodies can be considered female or that abortion isn’t ending a life of a human. It’s as if you have to play the emperor’s new clothes to be acceptable these days… or just don’t talk about any of it at all.
Maybe we’re just not taught how to formulate good reasoning for our views. So it just turns emotional. And I’m guilty of getting triggered too.
Your words resonate. It's interesting to listen to people grappling with this question of how we overcome this fear of frank discussions.
I felt that. I lean conservative but I have many liberal beliefs. One of my biggest pet peeves is (from my experience) the far left’s refusal to honestly debate hot button issues. They would rather slap unfavorable labels on those with a different opinion and use those labels as a reason to exclude others from meaningful conversations (common labels include: racist, bigot, [insert self-anointed marginalized group here]-o-phobe, fascist, etc.). Jordan Peterson had a beautiful response to a question from Kathy Newman about why should he be allowed to offend a trans person. And he said in order for us to seek the truth (i.e. speak freely), we have to risk being offensive. He gave an example of the way she was treating him during the interview was making him uncomfortable, but that’s the point - she certainly didn’t take his feelings into consideration as she was digging to get to the bottom of things (that was her job). And it’s absolutely true - honest debate requires us risking offending each other. If we’re constantly checking the rule book for what’s allowed to be said and what isn’t, we’ll never solve society’s more important problems.
The problem is that radical leftists are becoming mainstream, and it stems from their manufactured "Moral high ground". It's easy for a non politically active person to look at that and say "Yeah, I want to be morally good! I support that!". Meanwhile, the radical right is a fringe, everybody knows it's a fringe, and everybody avoids it. A large part of that is because the radical left just kept labeling them as white nationalists and Nazis, but not all of that is unwarranted. I should clarify that both "radicals" have very bad actors, but it's not being reflected well onto the mainstream.
Radical leftism has become so appealing, the idea of "How can I be wrong? I'm morally correct and everyone else is automatically the devil" has infected a lot of minds. It's also appealing because it's just simple, lazy and easy.
And from the carelessness in which the radical left has been dishing out labels, it seems to have become the norm. Enter the era of strawmanning:
For example, the abortion "debate": "Conservatives want women to die", or "Democrats want to murder babies". Not a single state doesn't have health exceptions, yet we still see this plastered all over the media(further confirming that it's more socially acceptable to be a radical leftist). A 10 year old unnecessarily hopped states to get an abortion because of this drama, when her pregnancy would have certainly qualified as a health risk in her home state. But still, they kept using her as a political pawn in their game. On the other end, democrats don't want to outright murder babies, they have very real concerns when it comes to rape and incest, and there's no real solution into accurately determining if rape/incest accusations are true, so we maybe shouldn't just leave them unattended. No one is actually interested in having the correct conversations, and it's all just a delay for finding the correct solutions.
I listen to good ideas no matter if it's on the right or left. And I have noticed that people around me dislike it :)
@@yayayaya931 I was with you 100% until the abortion example. The most current stats show that >95% of abortions performed were for other than cases of rape/incest or when the mother’s life was at risk. That means it was overwhelmingly used as a means of after-the-fact birth control. The left has not been singing a tune of how the abortion option has been yanked away from vulnerable rape/incest survivors. The party line has been “SCOTUS banned abortions” which is a total lie.
Under this lie, the left likes to touts the figure of ~80% of the population is pro-choice. What they don’t tell you is that 2/3 of that group are pro choice only in limited circumstances, such as in cases of rape/incest or when the mother’s life is at risk. Further, 2/3 of the population that’s pro choice believes abortion should only be legal in the first three months of a pregnancy. This number drops to 1/3 for those who believe abortion should be legal only through the second three months. Only 20% think abortion should be legal all the way through the last three months of a pregnancy.
For this hyper-sensitive topic, the left has been distorting the facts to make it appear that 1) the majority of the population wants abortion at all times and in all circumstances and 2) SCOTUS made abortions illegal. I’m actually conservative-leaning pro-choice under those rare circumstances listed above and within the first three months of pregnancy. I’d gladly lend my voice, but the pro-choice movement only wants those who support abortion at all times and under all circumstances, as if limits on abortion equals total failure of the movement. I, along with the majority of the country, don’t like the idea of abortion being used as a method of birth control (especially when contraception is so widely available and inexpensive). If you don’t toe the party line properly, you’re labeled anti-choice and against a women’s right to choose. It’s pathetic.
"In order to be able to think you must risk being offensive" ~ Jordan Peterson
That’s the line that caused Cathy Newman’s brain to explode.
That was peak peterson. Sadly it's been downhill ever since.
@@ryandury in your opinion. 🙄
@@ryandury I'd say he changed a bit after he came back from his like 2 year break
Was it not offended
You can't offend someone.
You choose to be offended.
We are weakening society when we let the rules of engagement be defined by the weakest among us.
Rather than take offense, get curious as to why you are feeling offended?
Could they have meant something else?
Is it possible there is truth in what they said?
Is it possible I am wrong?
Just a few examples of how to relinquish the need to be offended
Well said Jim, I agree with you.
And this is when people give away their emotional responsibility and place it in the hands of others. Leaving them disempowered. Wonderfully said Jim.
People are afraid to admit that even they aren't always honest with themselves, that's why instead of self-analyzing they subconsciously divert their attention outwards blaming other people for their "sin" of offense.
@@DrDeuteron I'm sure people would care, it's just that a specific group of people probably wouldn't care due to hypocrisy. We should also acknowledge that there are people that get offended by people getting offended.
Stoic thinking should be taught in elementary and middle and high school. That would solve all the problems.... Greeks did it right.
Everyone of us has something to learn here, and that's a special quality that not much content on this platform has these days.
Thanks Peter, it's really amazing what you're doing.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
I kind of liked how one of the students actually argued against the phrasing and explained the definitional difference. A lot of arguments stem from differences in definition and nailing such down is important to dialogue.
You are so right, sir. I think most political arguments stem from either misinterpretation, or as you said differences in definition. For example the argument about gender and sex. The left is defining gender as completely separate from sex. The right is saying they are the same. I think the left could give up ground by saying they are strongly correlated. Which research proves. And the right could give up ground by saying that they are not exactly the same. Which is also proven by research. People express their sexual biology in different ways. It seems gender would be the expression of your sex, which in general terms, are in alignment with each other. Exceptions to any rule will always exist, but it seems we are trying to base our rules on the exception.
the majority of his phrases are poorly worded. i think he does it on purpose. he's an academic, and he should understand that you need to zoom in on these large questions. What does "a no-offense society" even mean?
@@Kevinschart he has to begin the question from where society is agreeing. His hope is not necessarily to convince anyone in the room, but to reveal holes and contradictions in certain ways of thinking. If he zooms in too much on the question, it will only resonate with people who already dove into it.
I agree, but I think it was important to phrase it the way he did because the phrasing they preferred was too "safe" that no meaningful difference in opinions would arise (cuz everyone will agree) - when the exercise prefers stipulations that yield opposing views (and the attempt for one side to to sway the other)
It's like saying "it's bad to kill" - of course everyone will strongly agree - but if if the question was something like "abortion is bad" (with "killing" implied - and I say this as a pro-choice person)... then you'll get yourself a real meaningful debate/dialectic going against pro-lifers and pro-choicers - assuming of course people don't get emotional about it.
So going back to the original statement: the reason why a no offense society is a no knowledge society is because in order to think clearly, one must risk offense. I think the key there is not to intentionally offend - but to be cognizant that challenging and asking critical questions especially with regards to emotionally charged topics that offending is pretty much inevitable.
For example, I THINK core of trans issues is whether or not people recognize biological sex as mutable (because to trans people their identity is clearly more than gender - but actual sex)... but assuming one disagrees, to sincerely question/challenge or even share opposing views on it may already be triggering and offensive to trans people - but I can't think of any other way for one to "non-offensively" challenge/question their claim.
You really have only two options at that point: To either stop (to not offend) but not gain any insight/knowledge/understanding, or to risk offense (which is most likely sure to offend) but also gain some insight/knowledge/understanding should they actually answer your challenge.
In case you missed it, that one girl read the book 1984.
Wait, did she? I better check again😂
Great group of young people here. Thanks for not giving in to the ideological poles you guys.
There is a world of difference between students at Colorado and Berkley. These students actually sound intelligent.
@@toobnoobify humans are a product of their environment; in that sense they are both similar
(your turn
..
just kidding
This was a good one Peter. Intelligent folks and very insightful points. This one was different from most of your other experiences, I could tell you walked away from it impressed.
It's because the question wasn't loaded.
Well, they politely pointed out it was a loaded/problematic statement. They reworded it perfectly. Another way to reword it might be that the pursuit of knowledge should never suffer for fear of offending others. But the problem with that is what can hide under the banner of “just seeking knowledge” - i.e., questions raised with a clear goal to mislead or push an agenda (e.g., we just want to make sure 6,000,000 died, as an opening salvo to holocaust denial).
100%
@@soulscanner66 sure it was
& statement* 😉
@@Name-oz4lq ... that wasn't loaded
Love watching these PB sesh. Thank you for all that you do!
Re: the student arguing semantics
You'll offend someone no matter what because of differences in opinions, creed, culture, etc. It's not just about debating; sometimes it's about questioning your own beliefs or doing your own research in the midst of feeling offended
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Hey Peter this is one of your best questions and group discussions!
The group didn't think so and found it too vague. They said they thought you learn more from civil discourse than with offending people, and gave compelling reasons why this is the case.
@@soulscanner66 My comment would have been better written as “best discussions about a question.” What stands out to me was the refinement of the question that ultimately lead to 100% consensus!!! I have not seen that much movement in a group, let alone consensus, in any of Peter’s other videos I’ve watched. And much more important to me is the potential discovery of a fundamental belief that could provide a basis for having discussions about difficult subjects.
“In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.”
Jordan Peterson
That's true for assholes. Not so much for nice people.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
"poo poo pee pee"
-me, just now
The only thing that offend me is when someone I trust scam me financially or emotionally. Other offenses out there has no effect on me.
because you are stoic... most people arn't
"I don't need to offend someone to speak my mind"
EXCEPT, you can speak your mind in a totally polite and respectful manner, and it's the simple fact that you're expressing an opinion they disagree with that they find offensive.
Not how you said it, not because you cursed them out, not because you attacked them. But SIMPLY because they take disagreement AS an offense itself.
That's fucking useless, that girl is fucking blind to the reality of how a conversation works. 🤦♀️
It's easy to come to the conclusion that she was referring to intent, the literal definition of offend obviously leads us to believe that anything in existence can potentially be offensive which in that case the answer is that the statement is true to the core and would render questioning any of this useless to some extent.
@@Prolificx That's exactly why free speech and encouraging people to deal with their own issues is MUCH more important. Teaching kids HOW to manage their emotions is more important than teaching them how to attack anyone that offends them.
These are 3 things my parents taught me:
1. Life is not fair.
2. You cannot control what other people say or do.
And 3. Not everyone is going to like you, and you're not going to like everyone. And that's ok. 👌
The majority of offense is taken not given. Meaning that many people get offended where no offense was intended, they just can't accept other thoughts than their own.
Love this channel and format so much. Glad I found you. The questions you ask to get them thinking are also very insightful.
This group was LOVELY. One of the best I've seen and heard on this channel.
I took the statement as this
To have absolutely no offense, to anything, you'll have a no knowledge society
Yes, because to engage in anything, physical or mental, you risk offending anyone at anything anytime
It's not guaranteed that you'll offend someone BUT there's always a chance.
So to remove ALL odds/chances of offending someone
No speaking, no thinking, no sharing anything
Humanity is basically dead
I agree, that's how I would interpret it myself but at the same time I don't believe that most people that would say yes would say so for the same reasons you stated.
Why do you think leftists want a transhumanist, live-in-pod eat bugs society?
@@winterlantern5695 Yeah I wouldn't want people to become, in a sense, "robots"
If we give up our humanity for the sake of not offending anyone
Was it really worth it and was it the right thing to do?
MadDoofer: There was a point when I got the idea that most of them were stuck on words than meaning. It seemed to me a way to be disagreeable rather than understanding the gist, the idea of what the statement or question is.
It's suspect. I'll have to think about it more
@@LA_HA I'll have to watch it again - but that's a good point
People sometimes get stuck or even attack words oppose to understanding the meaning of them or of a statement.
You should do one with "people should only take a firm side on a divisive issue if they understand both sides"
I browse reddit sometimes. The absolute state of understanding both sides is atrocious. I would call it strawmaning but I honestly think that is what they believe the other sides argument is. And then they get constant validation by people agreeing with them.
I love how its not a you vs me when you are having these conversation. people feel safe to open up and talk about controversial topics without making it personal. keep up the awesome videos
Another very interesting topic! These keep getting better. I really liked the focus at the end on the importance of civil discourse and challenging one’s own beliefs. A great point was made about the divisiveness of the political spectrum these days. It’s become such a road block to understanding other opinions and even revising your own. Keep up the great work Peter!
Absolutely brilliant premise!!! Well done sir!!
I just want to ad. I don't think getting offended interferes the development of knowledge, but intentionally being offensive does. In the political setting, People use anger as a method of discrediting what would otherwise be a valid and useful insight. This cannot be ignored if and true knowledge is to be gained.
(My own paraphrase: Not offending others means Letting go of Knowledge)
2 girls, 1 guy
0:24 Strongly agree female
“A society without hurt is a society that is ignorant”
0:45 Slightly agree male
• It matters what subject we are talking about
2:12 Agree woman
• Offense is something which happens, Offense is something one can accept and “let roll off their back.”
2:55 If you phrase the statement differently, my position on the line changes
“Our current society puts too much on offense.”
4:11 What needs to happen to move up or down in agreement?
Slightly agree male - specify a case.
5:06 Rephrase the question
5:45 Communication necessarily gains insight by it happening
- what if you debate something idiotic?
6:38 Debate - someone gets something
7:02
7:43 People strongly agree about Civil Discourse more than Offense
Why would I move?
Rephrase the question
*Feeback*
8:50 The group that supports discourse likes having discourse, unsurprising
9:30 1. Shape rhetoric 2. Gain perspective 3. Open a mind to another way of thinking
11:08 Repeats point 1
12:00 Anti-Closed Minded,
13:16 anti-Broad brush mindset
14:08 Are there [usually political-driven] people unwilling to conversation today?
14:52 _Bowling Alone_ Isolation of Human Beings in America
15:47 Being friends softens hatred
t’s amazing to me the people who seem to be left leaning are so closed minded. Peter always asks. “What could move you just one line”.
They always say “Nothing can move me”
They can’t open their mind and play the game. What In a perfect world could move you one line. It’s not that hard. And the people who are right leaning typically have several ideas of how they could move to another line if things were different.
Thanks for the content Peter. Hope to meet you one day.
Thanks for watching!
I would wager that there is an equal proportion of close-mindedness on both the left and right, with perhaps more on the right, when you consider the whole picture, given that the nature of classic conservative / liberal values represents an adhereance to tradition (religion, or sticking to things as they are) versuses progressiveness (change). With that said, I also agree with you and detest the intolerance we've seen from certain participants in these videos, who get offended and hostile with open discussion.
@Briana Harper0 100%
People of any side can be completely closed minded and shut of to opposing opinions.
However I’m speaking strictly on the videos Peter makes. If we looked at each one I’m certain it would be the left leaning who can not move one line a majority of the time. “I won’t move because I’m not racist”
They are so closed minded they forget it is a thinking and learning game.
I have watched every video he has put up and typically everyone in the game has a good conversation and even if they don’t agree you can see they are thinking. That’s why it’s great content.
@Briana Harper0 There's too much "tolerance" these days. Don't be tolerant!
@Briana Harper0 Its something both ends have issues with for sure, and it's not one or the other like you said which is right. Radicals of any kind regardless of what ideas they have are still just that. They are radicals, and some will never accept another view point.
On the right you will have radicals actively pushing a god onto others and the life styles that religion accepts as "Good"
On the left you have people who are just as sanctimonious and shouting tolerance but that isn't true. They also are trying to force ideologies that they believe is correct and not giving people a choice to rebuke any of these wild ideas
But neither of them speak for the whole. As a gay Mexican man who has served in the military with a tour to afghan. I've met all kinds of people, on both political spectrums. Some of my greatest friends for life are conservatives and others democrats.
What I noticed is, both have pockets where people force expectations on you. On the left I have the lgbt or whatever they are called today and act as if I'm a traitor for having conservative friends. On the other there are those that make comments like "you're one of the good ones" and I'm the exception to the rule that gay brown people are all bad
Both sides have let me know, in this world it doesn't matter what they claim, their actions are what count towards my opinion on them.
I'd give my life for some of my homies, conservative or not because were brothers, a connection proven from years of bonding together. But some never allow that connection in the first place to find out....
If you never challenge yourself either physically or mentally you will never grow to your Peak
Another great video. I strongly agree that if we have to “tip-toe” around each other all the time we won’t learn anything valuable from one another. Like when it comes to “using peoples proper pronouns” it is ultimately offensive in most cases to even ask what their said pronouns are.
The fact that we are growing even more sensitive around each other is not good - we should be going in the opposite direction
@@brianmeen2158 like “stick and bones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” died a long time ago….
If I call someone David, and they say call me Dave, I call them Dave. Don't see what's so different about pronouns. It's a social thing. I'm not an asshole. Nothing to do with intellectual idea. I man, you don't have to worry; they'll correct you in good faith if you have no way of knowing.
I will never learn anything useful from fetus freaks, homophones, or fascists.
@@soulscanner66 maybe out of being cordial, people will use someone's preferred pronouns no problem. The issue arises when someone gets offended and becomes aggressive when they get misgendered even unintentionally. And you know pronouns are just the tip of the iceberg here, people from the lgbtqai+ community easily gets offended with a lot of things and they are quick to call people bigot, transphobe, homophobe, etc.
Refreshing to see these young and bright individuals. Kudos to the lad for bringing up the issue of social isolation - a precipitous modern danger that doesn't receive enough attention.
Jordan Peterson said it best. I’m paraphrasing, but it goes something like “in order to think, you must be prepared to be offensive and be offended”. I agree with him
What a hoot! JP is a snowflake who has a sad when someone disrespects his huge intellect. Sorry, transphobic POS.
This one had me thinking back to my university days writing logic statements and proofs. Had me thinking for awhile. Good stuff, Peter.
#4 most conservative college in Colorado. Don't even know if they're infected by the "virus" yet.
Not saying much. CO is barely conservative. Look at their policies compared to most southern red states, they’re practically a blue state.
The kudzu envelops all
Bro csu is not in the slightest conservative nowhere in Colorado really is though
@@zaphodbebop105 it is a blue state now! It used to be conservative, but it’s changed which is a shame
@@zaphodbebop105 It's still ranked as the no. 4. Don't worry, it will become a red state soon even though it's a blue state. 😎
“In order to think, you have to risk being offensive.” - Jordan Peterson
You cannot be honest if you fear to offend. If you can't be honest, you can't tell the truth. Without truth everything collapses.
The proposition is that a society without offense is a society without knowledge.
The proposition is *not* that offensive speech always generates knowledge.
A no offence society is a nanny state society which does nothing but make the youth upcoming feel untouchable which is never going to end well. Safety walls make you weaker, opening yourself to other opinions whether you agree or disagree makes you stronger in every way possible. Great convo.
Also, come to University of Nebraska of Omaha. We're there every Tuesday evening hosting a critical thinking/religion discussion group!
One of the best episodes I’ve seen yet & ive watched many. A well thought out, intellectually honest conversation between those students! Glad to see it still exists on college campuses.
You can be disagreeable without being offensive, and learn via non-offensive disagreement. However as people have pointed out, your success in life is determined by how many uncomfortable conversations you have. It is true that, you learn the most when your world view is rocked.
Why does the statement need to be re-phrased? Why dont people just answer the damn question anymore? Everyone is a politician these days 🤦🏻♂️
I don't know if they really understand what it means to have a "no-offense society".
The only kind of discourse worth having is the kind that risks offending someone, somewhere.
If nobody is ever at risk of getting offended, then nothing of consequence is being discussed. The larger the audience, the more true this becomes.
If you have a society in which 300 million people *never* say anything that offends any of the other 300 million people, then you cannot say anything. Which means nobody can tell the truth. Which means nobody knows anything.
Forget the truth, any action can be offensive at that point... no need for speech, movement or anything. Unless everyone magically lacked the ability to be offended.
Another fascinating video Peter! Keep up the great work!
These kids were remarkably civil and polite. No one even came close to making an issue of your age and calling it "Biblical"!
Dr. B is not actually 2000 years old, but some of his wisdom is.
Peter great work. How you not bote for a republican in 2022 astounds me. Hopefully this will be the year the blue no matter who changes. Love the conversation that happens.
Probably because the conservatives/libertarians ones haven't reach out to these people. It's important for that person to atleast understand the other side pov.
Absolutely, keep up the dialogue Peter!!! ❤❤❤❤🔥🔥🔥🔥
The more of these I watch the more I realize most young people are incapable of separating anecdote from statistical evidence.
I guess they forgot to carry around their Statistical Yearbooks with them in their backpacks.
It’s unbelievable how many people don’t understand statistics.
“The Japanese are on average quite short”
“Not true because I know a 6’6 Japanese girl…”
Most people of all ages don't function on statistical evidence and mostly use it only to justify what their anecdotal experiences already make them believe.
Where does the influencer give them statistics to analyze?
@@soulscanner66 I didn't say he did. It's evident in the justification of their positions...
Looks like none of them saw Cathy Newman's interview with Jordan Peterson.
Statement "No-Offense Society is a No-Knowledge Society" is equivalent with "No-debate is a No-Knowledge Society" - as Peterson nicely enplaned in this interview.
People on the Right are more open to discussions than those on the Left side of the Political Spectrum. It also helps if people use FACTS instead of 'Talking Points' if you want to sway a person. For those on the Left side of the Political Spectrum, LISTEN to what people on the Right side of the Political Spectrum are saying...don't just have what they say go in one ear and out the other all because your Feelings get hurt!
these sorts of exercises should become a new trend. it would improve society.
Does he share when and where he will be? I want to meet him at my college (UW Madison)
One thought that occurred to me, for why I sometimes don't seek out conversations from the other side, is that I feel I know it already (and know why it's wrong). Like, I enjoy listening to podcasts from people with unique views on things because I learn something, even if I end up thinking their logic is flawed at the end of the conversation.
Maybe it's because of how everything has to be processed into Twitter soundbites, or because the balance of power has shifted so that one side is currently in charge and so can broadcast their message more, but the arguments I frequently hear from the other side are all the same to me (whether it's coming from a friend or a podcast/pundit/blah blah). I just get angry going "oh not THIS fallacy again" rather than feel like I'm gaining anything from the conversation.
The prompt in this video made me think of another Peter Boghosian video at Portland State. It was a reverse QA video based on there are two genders. They made a separate segment for this prompt because people on the sixth floor were looking down at the street yelling that he's hurting people by asking that question and later saying we're going to come down and disrupt you. And once they got down there, they try to explain how they are hurting trans people and stopping the prompt. One of the people in that group claimed to be non-binary. Peter used the "wrong" pronouns and the group emotionally reacted to his statement. Peter is asking how a question harms them or drives them to self-harm. The answers I thought were considered non answers, relating to the emotions or feelings of trans people and allies. This is probably the best example I can come up with for agreeing with the current prompt. The people that took offense did not want the topic to be discussed, therefore shutting out any discussion. Of course they could be offended but I do t see how that should get in the way of discourse or searching for objective truth.
A major part of the reason that no one will talk to you, is extreme peer-pressure and fear of being "cancelled".
i hate it when a participant doesn't engage the claim but tries to argue for a different claim. thats not the game being played. that said, this was a nother delightfull video Peter, keep 'm coming!
They are conflating disagreement with disrespect. You can respectfully disagree with someone but you cannot disrespect someone respectfully.
I think the term "triggered" and "I'm offended" have become rally cries. Someone yells out on social media and everyone grabs their pitchforks and torches and start marching after the offender. Social media has also created pockets or echo chambers for people, to find other like minded people, for their own self validation. All in the pursuit of heart warming followers, likes, comments and shares. Less and less people think for themselves and look for a place/click of people to fit in, accept and be accepting of them. This, in it's self is to escape offence, from others, ideas etc. and in turn retards their individualist thinking, and acceptance of otherwise, possibly unknown knowledge.
This is such a sign for hope. I don't know if it encouraged and strengthened them, but it should do so to all people of good will, of which surely there are many like these heretofore 'invisible' (ie, 'not on the news') intelligent future leaders. They are here. Let them talk, and let's talk with them.
By far best one yet. Most intelligent and reasonable students by far.
You are doing an amazing job Peter, and I really enjoy the format of the game, I will implement it with my kids.
In 1998, Darryl Davis says: "The lesson learned is: ignorance breeds fear", says Davis. "If you don't keep that fear in check, that fear will breed hatred. If you don't keep hatred in check, it will breed destruction"
In 199 Yoda says: “Fear is the path to the dark side … fear leads to anger … anger leads to hate … hate leads to suffering.”
I think the second person to speak sums up the argument perfectly.
There are some cases where offending others is the only way to instill knowledge and get an individual out of their delusion. An example being obesity, I’ve yet to see a weight loss transformation video where the motivating factor was anything other than constant insults or a near death prognosis. One can take offense to either one of those and that’s my point sometimes it’s for peoples good to get offended, the results could be life changing rather than be lied to because society tells people that telling people the truth is not ok as long as it hurts their feelings. If there are any opposing views to what I just said, I’m open to hearing them.
I would love to see this done with teachers.
Her example of "civil discourse" excludes opinions. "I hate NASA" and "I hate brown hair" were the examples she gave of offensive statements. Those are opinions. Should those be excluded from "civil discourse"?
It seems like the participants are misinterpreting trying to change the claim or question in several of these videos lately.
I like the original statements or questions, but they don't want to take them at face value.
ok wait please do CSU again, but can you wait until we are back on campus in august? I really want to come to one of these
That dude was well read and well spoken. I can only imagine how well his future will be as he was also flexible and willing to listen and learn.
Wish this video was longer. Need some more opposing views. Wouldn’t one, in order to have a productive and open discussion, have to risk being offensive/offended?
What's your critical thinking (fact checking) method? Here's mine. Its not perfect. I was taught the PROP method in high school. I combine that with the scientific method.
method:
I’m skeptical. I don't believe anything permanently or completely.
stage 1: Decide what facts to check.
1. Learn about the topic from many sources.
2. Hear lies and truth.
3. Hear opposing arguments.
4. Hear from sources I trust and don't trust.
5. Determine what I want to know, and how certain to be. Sometimes I accept a truth (with low confidence its true) because the consequence of being wrong is low.
stage 2: Check facts.
The quantity and quality of evidence I look for depends on the importance of the truth.
I like the PROP method for evaluating a source. I was taught it in high school.
Primary: Is it a primary source?
Reason: What's the reason to lie?
Other: Do other sources support this one?
Public: They say a private statement is more reliable. I don't usually use this one.
Censoring or tampering stops me from learning about an issue. It makes me distrust the censorers. I then remain undecided. I try to restore the free speech and help those being censored, so I can learn.
I also like the scientific method.
I consider a science study better if it has more of these features.
1. large sample size
2. Sources of error are low.
3. if clinical: randomized double blind placebo control
4. good statistics
It's interesting, when I see censorship, I actually lean toward believing the thing being censored. I may still be skeptical, but it becomes a 51/49 stance. 😆
Peter your videos are amazing i think your channel will rise if you doing these thoughtful street epistemologies in fact i think its kind of introducing a good approach to these social issues.
To ensure there is no offenses committed in a society you would have to isolate every single possible behavior that even remotely risked conflict with another person… in order to do that you would have to likely eliminate all unmonitored discourse… that would almost certainly result in the halting of public process of enlightenment to new ideas and knowledge
That's what we are trying to do in America. No unauthorized discourse.
But how do you figure out what might offend anyone if you don't first ask them?
Even asking what someone knows or thinks or feels risks offending them.
Interesting that the guy agreed with the description that a no-offence society is a no-knowledge society, but he disagreed with the possible prescription that that means we can offend gratuitously. I wonder how many people claim a public position in this way
Your work gives me hope.
Communication is the key.
How refreshing! These thoughtful young people give me hope.
Kids both missed the point completely and paradoxically proved the point at the same time. Spot on Peter
@3:34 yes but to paraphrase Jordan Peterson's Cathy Newman interview, "In order to think, you have to risk being offensive." So in a no offense society, it would follow that there is no debate because if you were to debate or think and process out loud you would be risking offending someone which would be illegal or lead to some sort of punishment.
I love these videos just hate when you do vague questions like this . These kids can barely argue their point coherently , then throw in vague questions you got people arguing for different things. I like debates that stay on topic.
"The reason I'm standing on the 'Slightly Agree' line is because I'm afraid to offend."
I find the statement absolutely true. For the offended may "educate" others of his reasoning but is never willing to let the others speak. Thereby depriving others of proper conversation.
But the you can also spread misinformation through offense as well. That's the primary way of doing it. If the 2+2=3 cult wants to kill and slander people who dont share there ideas then the only way to stop then is to overpower them which may fail. Then truth just becomes a matter of power.
For a dialogue to be fruitful, productive and forward moving, emotions must be totally removed before engagement.
You asked "how do we get people across divides to start talking again?"...
I have an idea that i would try to implement if i did what you do.
That is to take two people/groups and before any topic or conversation has started, have them discuss things they both have in common , could be anything at all.... We must humanize the person on the other end of the conversation because society has made it too easy to dehumanize people we disagree with... We need to understand that our ideas do not define us and that we have so much other things in common like hiking, fishing sports teams and other hobbies and occupations and most of all, we all want what we think is best for the future of the country/planet we just have different ideas on how to get there... That alone does not make us enemies.
When you can't control your emotions and reactions, all else will become an obstacle. When you can control your emotions and reactions, all else becomes opportunity.
The truth should always be desired despite the objections of those who are offended.
Holding an offended position is actually anti intellectual.
It's amazing how no one takes the statement to represent if individual's in a society are incapable of feeling offended then all interaction would result in dialogue that would be either inconsequential or useful. But the idea of "harmful" ideas would completely lose all meaning. As offensive as people may attempt to be, if people are incapable of being offended then the offensive discourse would prove inconsequential or meaningful discussion would occur.
At the end of the day a no offense society is a fully engaged and knowledgeable society.
On the contrary, I believe a no offense society will never be fully engaged and knowledgeable as it will always be afraid to do so. Being offensive will always be part in society's pursuit for knowledge.
@@patrickatilano2014 I am not talking about being offensive.....I am speaking about the capacity to be offended. If no one in society is offended by anything others have to say then there will be way more offensive stuff being said but because people lack the capacity to be offended it will not escalate to be rationalized into censorship.
It’s interesting how inflexible these kids minds are. They have such a hard time intellectually digesting the statement that they require the statement meets their approval for them to do any adjustment. That’s very telling.
Just to let you know, this video would not play for me, while other video's from the same channel play as normal. Might want to consider a re-upload
I've watched a number of these, and I don't understand the difference between "Agree" & "Strongly Agree" - this seems to represent an emotional dimension, i.e. how strongly you FEEL about something, rather than what you THINK. Prof. Boghossian is about my age, & we were taught not to confuse "feel" with "think" so perhaps this is a tip of the hat to imprecise language.
This scale is common for marketing. The difference is that "strongly agree" means you agree fully. "Agree" means you agree but... have some reservations.
What makes the scale useful is that it allows the participants to answer a simple agree/disagree question in an individual way. Basically it encourages discourse.
My only complaint with these videos is the ‘ladder’ scale. These conversations could be had and be even better if they weren’t moving around constantly
Well, it's TH-cam, social media. Influencers seek to push emotional buttons for clicks and upvotes to validate their egos, so you have expect it to be emotive.
“No offense” is a far better and all encompassing a term than “no civil discourse”.
People need to grow up and stop offending people just because you want to insult someone you disagree with. But when you're not allowed of offend someone just by virtue of the position you hold, that's tyranny. When SJWs say "you're not allowed to argue that position because you're doing harm", that's no different than the cult of Scientology saying "Anyone who criticizes us is a criminal."
I'm still baffled that people can't see how when someone says "Anyone who criticizes us is doing harm" is obviously a liar trying to protect their deception.
I concerns me. The lack of civil discourse. It’s even stigmatized to say how you think about an issue. Why shouldn’t we all be upfront and proud of where we stand in our beliefs?
People can choose whether to take offence or not, but when we need to say something important we can't afford to worry about who we offend, if it's a contentious and important issue you are guaranteed to offend probably the very person you are talking to.
You do gain knowledge by someone being “allowed” to tell you what they Think about you - even if its highly offensive. You gain knowledge about that person - and perhaps about your self.
I really can’t make sense of the first kid’s initial reasoning.
"Human interaction" at about 13:00 is mentioned and I would add *face-to-face* human interaction is one of the crucial missing elements today which has led to feelings of polarisation, alienation and intransigent beliefs. Social media, "keyboard warrior-think" all play a part and I am the first to admit I have been guilty of writing comments (particularly on Twitter) which I probably would never say to someone's face. It is similar when texting someone, so much nuance is lost if we cannot stand face to face in the moment.
I have recent experience of having a profound disagreement with a relative online (he lives abroad so I don't see him) and his vitriol against people who share the same views as me has shocked me. We are diametrically opposed on a particular subject. I wonder how our online comments would differ if we could sit down with coffee and chat together. Sadly, it won't happen so I have taken the decision to say "I love you but respectfully disagree, live your best life" and move on.
Absolutes make the statement impossible to answer. Zero knowledge? Zero offence? You can still have some knowledge without offence.
The last guy really seemed to know what he was talking about and had good points!
It's absurd to me that the acquisition of any knowledge must somehow be offensive to someone. As absurd as assuming that someone wearing a NASA shirt must be offended if someone told them that they hated NASA.
Taking offense is subjective, knowledge exists independent of judgment.
There's no civil discourse without offense. Offense is a GOOD THING. You’re stating your POV or/and explaining why someone is wrong and they have the opportunity to do the same. You do not become strong by picking up feathers, you gain strength and resilience by lifting stones. Avoiding offense or offending only keeps everyone weak and feeble. A VERY SAD SOCIETY.
Not being offended takes strength of character, and that isn’t valued in our society anymore. Strength in general is now seen as a liability. Seems an odd choice for the group that wants to be progressive. Show me one time in human history when we “progressed“ without the benefit of strength.
I beg of you, Mr. Boghossian, please come to UC Santa Cruz and do these experiments. Pretty please with sugar on top!
Deconstructive not endorsed hot take;
I love how the brunette goes through all these stages of bargaining... At first she thinks his goal is to move her position, he moves on through the experiment but she isn't done talking so she reasserts herself in position to talk about how social media is a terrible impact on people making sure, that the cameras focus back in on her and she's turning to face her audience. Unreal.