Is cancel culture real? | Steven Pinker | Big Questions
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- Steven Pinker joins us at Penguin to answer some big questions on cancel culture, free will and God. His new book, Rationality, is out now: amzn.to/3DWE3sG
In Rationality, Pinker rejects the cynical cliché that humans are simply an irrational species - cavemen out of time fatally cursed with biases, fallacies and illusions. After all, we discovered the laws of nature, lengthened and enriched our lives and set the benchmarks for rationality itself. Instead, he explains, we think in ways that suit the low-tech contexts in which we spend most of our lives, but fail to take advantage of the powerful tools of reasoning we have built up over millennia: logic, critical thinking, probability, causal inference, and decision-making under uncertainty. These tools are not a standard part of our educational curricula and have never been presented clearly and entertainingly in a single book - until now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to the Penguin channel:
po.st/SubscribePenguinTH-cam
Follow us here:
Twitter | / penguinukbooks
Website | www.penguin.co.uk
Instagram | / penguinukbooks
Facebook | / penguinbooks - บันเทิง
![ใจเสาะบนเกาะนาคี - อ๊ะอาย สกุณาพร เสียงวิหค [Official MV] | ค่ายเพลงเป็นหนึ่ง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jbcmGQkfyOg/mqdefault.jpg)
I have read Prof Pinker's book "The Language Instinct" over and over again.
Me too! He writes so well
If everyone is thinking alike, no one is thinking
Great minds think alike. Fools rarely differ
Wow! Wonderful. Thanks.
Thanks for having him on! He's an honest intellectual whom I might not completely agree with, but is an open-minded and good-faith thinker.
If you were canceled it was because you couldn't adapt. He's moralizing the situation. That's not true science.
@@dansaber8435 I see what you're saying, but in the same way that if you're incarcerated you're not always 100% guilty and it's not necessarily because you didn't adapt (especially if there are issues with the system), if you're canceled, it's guaranteed to b just only if you're assuming that the platform which helped get you cancelled (the internet) is flawless and accurately reflects what people think/feel. We know this is far from the truth because the algorithms aren't designed to optimize clarity/transparency. They're designed to drive foot traffic and profit (which is why the most hyperbolic content oftentimes gets promoted more than the most rational/boring content).
Just to clarify, I'm not saying cancellation is bad. I'm saying there are some people who were wrongfully canceled and that this prevents well-intentioned people from speaking up sometimes. It should be in everyone's best interest to refine this cancellation machine so it doesn't cause collateral damage. There should also be a path to redemption so there's a corrective mechanism that betters people instead of one that just pushes people away.
@@therealnafis3637 so you think you're protecting from Extinction those who are not supposed to die out?
@The Real Nafis interesting survival tactic to get others to help you survive possibly at the helpers expense
@@dansaber8435 I think a Darwinian model of survival and evolution works when you're looking at a purely mechanical model of the world. With the advent of the internet and a digital space, this changes things drastically. The arc of technology's evolution doesn't care about our survival (and this is further aided by the technological arms race between nations and the growing asymmetry between the effort required to create a mess vs clean it up). Biological/behavioral evolution is trying to hit a moving target set by the internet.
What was the word he said around 10:07 - life, blech (climen) (calmen) (sp?), knowledge, reason, compassion. He speaks so clearly the entire video except that one point I'm wondering if it was I a sole blech vs a word I don't know
L'chaim. It's hebrew.
It's a Hebrew word, so it's in another language that perhaps you've never heard. L'chaim translates to "To Life", as in a toast of champagne in a festive atmosphere.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell, 1984
Imagine a hundred years when we're long gone..
Ok boomer
@@nicolasgoulet4091 OK, "Baby" without any life-experience?
@@didifischervideo bruh what are you even saying send me a tiktok of it i cant understand it
@@nicolasgoulet4091 If "boomer" is OK for insulting - why not "baby"? : )
Thank you for having this man on 👌🏻
There are a lot of new ideas but, as usual, many of them are bad (just the law of averages), complicated by the recent phenomenon that all opinions are now somehow considered equally valid and everyone is entitled to their own facts.
Some popular singer said that in old Hollywood it was obvious that if some singer would sing even better than Sinatra, the management would come to him, as soon as possible make a contract, and pay big money, before someone else would make a contract with him to make him famous.
and tell to him to never perform so people will never hear the guy because the king can be only one.
Or if there were 50 singers who are like Elvis and one of them was better than Elvis singing better dancing better.
The management would buy him, so he will never be heard by any audience because it's a shallow way to convince the public that King is only one, and its an interesting tricky
way of business itself to gain millions. Because they invest so much money in Elvis that they can not afford to have some other singer, who is better.
He is probably right. It's like Nike is just the best merchandise. Nobody is better than them except Adidas.
But nobody else is supposed to be as corporate as them. I was always wondering why we never hear the singers of the American Idol. Why they didn't become famous if they are so good, or just few of them were a little bit famous and made a CD recording.
So maybe the public is tired of manipulation so they made a cancel culture because they changed their opinion about famous people.
People started to realize that television is as fake as it gets, just to buy their products, without conscious thinking.
They convince you that its not on you to choose what product you want but they choose it for you. Then they blame people if they stop caring about culture.
But people should have their own values.
It's weird when such otherwise rather obvious truths become controversial. Pinker speaks Truth to Power in ways that are persuasive and illuminating. The work he has done is amazing, entertaining, and inspiring. Ever since "The Mind is what the Brain Does", he has had "Rock Star" status in my esteem.
Yeah, context does not play any role in understanding utterances!
Totally. "'If a lion could speak, we could not understand him'' Ludwig Wittgenstein. Context is everything in language
Which are these organisations that keep blacklists of cancelled reporters and academics?
What are the organizations that track cancel culture that he mentioned?
I would like that info also. It is case by case. I am sure some have earned it while others haven't.
Even when I disagree with this guy, I like what he says. He always illuminates, clarifies and informs.
Never heard of him, but he looks interesting.
He's a slavery his thought.
@@hansolowe19 He was only truly relevant back when the blank slate spelled out the obvious conclusions of evolutionary biology as applied to humans, when the conclusions became distasteful he became the false opposition.
@@corbard8766 Clean up your syntax, and we'll better understand you. Did you mean "He's a slave to his thoughts?"
@@churblesfurbles I disagree. The Better Angels of our Nature and The Stuff of Thought will always be clear windows to see back to the times they represent. That makes them part of the bigger picture. Same for Rationality.
Reddit is leading the front rank of the vanguard of cancel culture , cancel culture was devised and perfected on that site before being exported to the world at large. They were the first to do blanket bans with zero hope of appeal for a whole raft of once popular subreddits for even visiting controversial communities to disagree with them , they were the first to have a shared name and shame mass tagger browser add-on that affixes a mark of shame to people who post in controversial subreddits that invites abuse and incivility towards the marked. Reddit is a horrible site for horrible people. And cancel culture is one of their CORE VALUES.
he is such a brilliant man
You can listen to him on Joe rogan he speaks sense 👍
@@natureisallpowerful Too bad Joe doesn't
If you mean clever then sure
Steven Pinker is excellent, his books are fantastic reading.
It's like Paul Reiser playing Doc Brown...
Steven pinker is great man
1:25 what sort of unpopular opinion? Because that matters.
Any opinion that is not feminist/leftist pc/woke.
Yes
Can "rationality" just be community lying, such as the press prior to the fact checking of social media?
No, a better way to think of "rationality" is the consideration of the facts, recognizing assumptions, biases and human fallibility, and to bring as many of these considerations into play as possible, and to raise important questions and identify possible outcomes, etc. etc. It's arguing from the facts. It's the opposite of lying.
So there is no free will but the meaning of life is to "take advantage of" the sources of pleasure and satisfaction and to "ensure" others can too?
I like how the Chirons subversively force you to look at the program instead of just following the audio.
Sometimes I am stunend by some Western intellectuals that gather a huge fanbase.
Especially when I compare them to someone like Steven Pinker.
Music is too loud. Voice needs a highpass filter.
Thanks you! Brilliant man, excellent ommunicator! He and others like him will be our saviours from the insane thought processes that have taken precedence in our loudest communication vendors. Listen to him, people! Let's connect and discuss, not claw our way into extinction!
If you follow him you'll go extinct. People are canceled because they couldn't adapt. Things are changing. If you want to survive adapt.
Some popular singer said that in old Hollywood it was obvious that if some singer would sing even better than Sinatra, the management would come to him, as soon as possible make a contract, and pay big money, before someone else would make a contract with him to make him famous.
and tell to him to never perform so people will never hear the guy because the king can be only one.
Or if there were 50 singers who are like Elvis and one of them was better than Elvis singing better dancing better.
The management would buy him, so he will never be heard by any audience because it's a shallow way to convince the public that King is only one, and its an interesting tricky
way of business itself to gain millions. Because they invest so much money in Elvis that they can not afford to have some other singer, who is better.
He is probably right. It's like Nike is just the best merchandise. Nobody is better than them except Adidas.
But nobody else is supposed to be as corporate as them. I was always wondering why we never hear the singers of the American Idol. Why they didn't become famous if they are so good, or just few of them were a little bit famous and made a CD recording.
So maybe the public is tired of manipulation so they made a cancel culture because they changed their opinion about famous people.
People started to realize that television is as fake as it gets, just to buy their products, without conscious thinking.
They convince you that its not on you to choose what product you want but they choose it for you. Then they blame people if they stop caring about culture.
But people should have their own values.
What is it with the annoying trend to not have the interviewee looking at the camera? If you are doing a presentation to me, look at me, not somewhere else. It was apparently fine to look at the camera for the book plugging at the end.
The only thing worse than cancel culture is '“cancel culture.”'
What do you mean, the way Fox News portrays it, or something?
@@billscannell93 "political correctness is social fascism." George Carlin. He called it before he died. The left is fasciust now. The right is the anti war party. Weird haow things flipped. The left used to call themselves the free speech party that believed in bodily autonomy. Now they think it's all the government and the corporations' right... not the individual's choice. The left are against choice now. Why do you want to give bodily autonomy away, give control of info to tech corporati0ons? THat's really bad! You don't give all the control to the corporations just because you find out you have the same philosophy! Instead you analyze the weaknesses in sth philosophy you follow and ask why you are on sth side of the corporations taking the wealth from the people? Why are you repeating messages the corporations are repeating and telling you to repeat? Have you taken into too much anger bait media? Are you aware of how many of the stories are outright manipulation? Use your free will and reject the corporate philosophy. Every big corporation has their employees take woke sessions every two weeks. Why are you believing the same thing they force upon their paid employees?
Why are Rage against the Machine now raging for the machine and asking people to comply and obey?
Do you feel ripped off? A little bit?
CNN is totally fake garbage. Look at it. It's obvious to people now. YOu've been fooled to take and eat the corporation's messaging. You just never noticed you're on the corporation's side?Just a coincidence? YOu're on the pro-war side now! T he pro-censorship side! The pro-giving bodily autonomy rights to the government side! That's your side. You haven't noticed your policies are all fascist. The media has fooled you to rejecting Mussolini's definition of fascist. You don't know what fascism means. do you? Look up Mussolini's definition of fascism. We're well past that point.
And guess who does the canceling? The powerful. Its corperate culture! Spread out the power, you spread out. And i have no smpathy for people who make public comments who are ill prepaired for the consecquences for public statements.
In response to what you are saying.
From my understanding the Bible is to be seen through poetic ideas.
And from why God does not if he exists condemn the iniquities(sin).
Is that through redemption one restores on self
to live in harmony.
From my understanding we are all responsible to keep the soil healthy.
Life is in everything
It is here to enjoy.
You ask is their judgement?
You say how could there be a God,and say since we can’t prove it that God therefore is not.
As long as we agree that being a support for others that is good enough.
Faith,love,and gratitude brings meaning.
I enjoy your talks.
Thank you for your insights.
Bye
The proof of God is in prayer's effect upon the heart.
Well ..one used to go to jail if they steal.
I think he could handle some tougher questions than these
I hate how America and others let the Genocide and mass rapes go on in Bosnia,the Arms Embargo on Bosnia (to not let Bosnian Muslims(Bosniaks) fight back....... Our women and young girls were raped in the most brutal ways and the genocide in Bosnia,Srebrenica(Injustice).................We need our revenge. TRUST ME THERE ARE MANY ANGRY BOSNIAKS out there who did not forget!!!!! So many Serbs still brag about Srebrenica and other crimes. No peace. F peace..........We will see who will have the last laugh.Also ,Kosovo is NOT Serbia.I will continue my fight against evil and injustice no matter what. I can not stand when a person who can not fight back,gets killed,or bullied,or a girl raped,i just can not stand that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am always against the evil satanists,serbs,injustice,gangs,bullies,and corrupt governments. It is very obvious to me,they hate to see Muslims rise,they want us divided,but we will rise again. So much injustice has been done to Muslims and also me as a Muslim,it is disgusting...........
@@haristhebosniaklion8584 I dated a girl from Kosovo. She was gorgeous. She was Muslim, her family was from Albania. Her brother was named Jizzem. But he spelled it differently.
I gotta admit, I only got a few minutes into this video before I thought it was to asinine to keep watching if I wanted to retain my sanity. Did he get asked a question about Bosnia, or are you just one of those people that spam a cause so much that people get tired of it and become indifferent?
Steven by expressing it's opposition to cancel culture, has attracted the attention of a demographic to whom some of his previous opinions were not as appealing. This group is relatively more conservative overall. At te same time, this same position probably has deterred some of his old more left leaning followers. All in all, I hope his work can reach specially people on both extremes and allow them to appreciate Steven's arguments without the veil of tribalism blurring their view.
No, they are well past him, Pinker stopped producing novel thoughts while being a voice for truth after the blank slate brought in conclusions he couldn't deal with. Now he runs cover for a false centrism to cover for the fact his path led to a new religion, complete with a new creationism.
@@keithboynton I thought that too. Word salad..
@@churblesfurbles Can you explain all that? It's very poetic and rhetorical. So your words may appeal to some people precisely because of the rhetoric ... I'm just wondering what it all means.
It's hilarious when conservatives and capitalists cry foul over the very foundational principle of both ideological positions. Conservatism seeks to exclude (or cancel) new ideas and progress for the sake of maintaining a status quo that (shocker) keeps those who are in power, in power. Capitalism is a position that proclaims perfection through the use of the consumer theoretically using it's power to cull the marketplace of inferior products in favor of better ones. "Cancel Culture" is just a name used as fear porn by conservatives and capitalists in defiance of the marketplace weeding them out. Can't fix stupid.
@@williamhutton2126 "It's hilarious when conservatives and capitalists cry foul over the very foundational principle of both ideological positions."
Your words are so rhetorical and full of gross generalisations that it's hard to know where to begin. Are you a "radical" teenager? Firstly, many "conservatives" *do* recognise the foundational principles of conservativism and often mention them. But, sure, abstract theory isn't as important to them as it is to, say, Marxists. Also, are you classing Steven Pinker as a "conservative" and "capitalist"? Is this teenspeak or something? What does "capitalist" mean in this context? Don't you mean "supporter of capitalism"? Still, I wouldn't want to get in the way of your teen rhetoric.
"Conservatism seeks to exclude (or cancel) new ideas and progress for the sake of maintaining a status quo that (shocker) keeps those who are in power, in power."
That's a caricature of most conservatives. After all, many on the Left classed Thatcher, Reagan, etc. as "revolutionaries" - capitalist revolutionaries. That is, they upturned so many things that it would be hard to class them as fans on the status quo.
"Capitalism is a position that proclaims perfection through the use of the consumer theoretically using it's power to cull the marketplace of inferior products in favor of better ones."
Most conservatives have stressed the flawed nature of the marketplace. Some don't. But they still prefer it to top-down state-controlled measures to rectify those flaws. Sorry for being boring with subtleties - so keep up the rhetoric.
"'Cancel Culture' is just a name used as fear porn by conservatives and capitalists in defiance of the marketplace weeding them out. Can't fix stupid."
Love the poeticisms! You boil all the debates about "cancel culture" to the "marketplace"? Many on the Left are also increasingly noting the problem with cancel culture.
You express yourself like a teenager with a black-and-white mind which is full of cliches. Cut down on the poetic rhetoric and try to offer some arguments and some data - or is that too much for a lazy teen? By the way, I don't know if you're a teen. You may be slightly older. My point is that you express yourself like a shouty teenager with very little education but lots of testosterone-induced emotion. Yes, I'm indulging in rhetoric too, sure - but someone who expresses themselves the way you do can't expect anything else in return. You clearly aren't a fan of debate or discussion. Rhetoric is your game.
No, it's just people rebelling against accountability.
Cancel culture is real and the only solution to it is knowledge on how to adapt to it.
Free will does exist too. However we are limited by a lot of things, such as past experiences and societal norms to certain degrees. Into the wild is a story that supports my hypothesis.
Do unto to others as you would have done to yourself.
Determinism is the opposite of randomness. He can be too scientific about rationality sometimes.
He s a great scientist and thinker if our times
@ThePixel1983 No one has claimed that cancelling is entirely new in *every* respect. But it is new in *some* respects - hence the new name. Dictatorships are given different names. Types of racism are given different names. The term "far right" was hardly used until recently and yet it often simply refers to what people take to be Nazis or fascists. So what's so different here?.... The power of social-media activists is certainly new. Etc. Also, it's not just "conservatives" who call out cancel culture. (The term "conservatives" keeps on being used in this thread like a tribal thought-stopper.) Steven Pinker is not a conservative. And neither is Chomsky or Zizek. All these people have a problem with cancel culture... Unless you use the word "conservative" to apply to everyone who has a different view to your own... And your use of the words "saying despicable things" raises a mountain of questions.
What if there is God but it is us? Or maybe we just have a false interpretation of what people originally meant with it. After all, it's just a word. Just like the word gay nowadays is being used for a male homosexual person but originally simply meant a happy, jolly person. So maybe people simply meant all the energies that exist and interact with each other. Of course "God" then would be almighty and allknowing because it literally would be everything. I am not religious btw.
Yes, many words have lost there meaning and correct usage over time. Regarding the great abstract concepts, we have become vague and fuzzy thinkers.
4:10 to 4:16 - I'd _LOVE_ to have a conversation with him about this. I'm really curious how he'd react to what I think is strong evidence for theism.
I know! His proofs are weak and his suggestions are tired! I mean, it was a christian minister/scientist who first suggested the Big Bang, so I'm not sure what he's talking about lol
Evidence. Go.
@@joshuataylor3550
_Evidence. Go._
First I'll give a brief summary of one piece of evidence before going more in depth.
By my lights, one significant piece of evidence is the existence of moral knowledge; e.g., we know it's morally wrong to torture infants just for fun. When you think about it, it's really remarkable that we're aware of that at all. Barring the supernatural, moral wrongness is invisible, nonphysical, and empirically undetectable. So how do we know moral properties like moral wrongness exists? If atheism is true, it doesn't seem that we'd have moral knowledge. And yet we do have moral knowledge. So we can construct this argument:
(1) If atheism is true, then moral knowledge does not exist.
(2) Moral knowledge does exist.
(3) Therefore, atheism is false.
That's the reasoning in a nutshell. Here's the argument more in depth:
To roughly define what I mean by “morality” I’ll explain the sort of “ought” used in moral obligations. Some oughts are purely descriptive, e.g. when “If you want to do well in school, you ought to study” just means something like “As a matter of practical necessity, you need to study to do well in school.” Some oughts prescribe in a way that is not purely descriptive; e.g. someone saying “You shouldn’t torture infants” might be using this sort of ought, and this is the type of “ought” I’m using in my definition of morality. An important implication of this is that moral oughts are non-natural (since natural facts of physics, chemistry, etc. are entirely descriptive whereas moral oughts prescribe in a way that is not purely descriptive). Thus barring the supernatural, moral ought properties like moral wrongness are causally inert.
The theist could believe that God, who knows all moral truths, designed (via superintended evolution) our cognitive faculties in such a way that when functioning properly we intuit at least some moral truths. Given atheism however, even if atheistic evolution resulted in us having true moral beliefs we wouldn’t know those beliefs to be true. To help illustrate this I’ll use a couple scenarios.
Say that x is _causally disconnected_ from the physical universe just in case x does not, never has, and never will directly or indirectly have any causal influence over the physical universe. With that in mind, the two scenarios are these:
(S1) Suppose there was a non-natural metaphysically necessary Supervening Deity (SD) that is casually disconnected from the physical world but approves and disapproves of certain actions in the universe; its attitudes of whether it approves of S doing action A in circumstances C strongly supervene on A and C (C includes but is not limited to the mindset and motives of S). Suppose our hypothetical universe has evolved race of intelligent creatures (that I will call “Believers”) similar to us and by chance they evolved the intuition that SD exists and that it approves/disapproves of certain behaviors, and these beliefs line up with what SD does in fact approve/disapprove. It seems to me that even though these evolved theistic beliefs would be correct, they would not have warrant (that ingredient separating knowledge from mere true belief).
(S2) Non-natural moral properties strongly supervene on the actions and circumstances of creatures like us, but these properties are causally disconnected from the universe (the non-natural moral properties are causally inert). Via atheistic evolution our universe has developed a race of creatures that have evolved intuitions of morality regarding the rightness and wrongness of actions such that their moral beliefs line up with the way these invisible non-natural moral properties really are. However, even if these beliefs turned out to be correct, it seems to me they would not be knowledge (no doubt there are atheist moral realists who would disagree).
What relevant difference is there between (S1) and (S2) such that knowledge of the respective non-natural items does not exist in (S1) but does exist in (S2)? By my lights, there does not appear to be any relevant difference, and if that is so, we have good grounds to believe that moral knowledge does not exist if God does not exist.
@@MaverickChristian But morals are social constructs that depend on the society that creates them. If there was a god that gave us our moral code, how come there is such a difference in morals between lets say the people living in a small British town compared to an isolated cannibal tribe. Wouldn't god distribute our ideas of morality equally across all civilisations?
@@bigboi2724
_But morals are social constructs that depend on the society that creates them._
I think you might be conflating morality with social behavioral codes. Remember, this is my definition of morality: some oughts are purely descriptive, e.g. when “If you want to do well in school, you ought to study” just means something like “As a matter of practical necessity, you need to study to do well in school.” Some oughts prescribe in a way that is not purely descriptive; e.g. someone saying “You shouldn’t torture infants” might be using this sort of ought, and this is the type of “ought” I’m using in my definition of morality. An important implication of this is that moral oughts are non-natural (since natural facts of physics, chemistry, etc. are entirely descriptive whereas moral oughts prescribe in a way that is not purely descriptive). Thus barring the supernatural, moral ought properties like moral wrongness are causally inert.
So even if society somehow _does_ create these invisible, non-natural, empirically undetectable moral properties, how on earth would we be aware that this is happening? Barring the supernatural, there's still no way for us to know that these invisible and causally inert moral properties exist.
_Wouldn't god distribute our ideas of morality equally across all civilisations?_
That'll depend on whether he'd have morally sufficient reasons not to do that, but notice that this question does nothing to address the evidence. The reasoning is this:
(1) If God does not exist, then moral knowledge does not exist.
(2) Moral knowledge does exist (e.g., we know it's morally wrong to torture infants just for fun).
(3) Therefore, God exists.
None of what you said addresses either premise. Given God's nonexistence, it is highly probable that we don't have moral knowledge, so premise (1) is probably true. The atheist could reject (2), but is it plausible that we don't know that it's wrong to torture infants just for fun? By my lights it is not; premise (2) does not seem plausibly false. The fact that moral knowledge exists does seem to constitute at least some evidence for theism.
I'm presently reading Rationality.
Oh look, the biggest defender of the status quo has an opinion.
Oh look, a critic with no specifics. What a surprise.
@@Vlasko60 Oh we're being specific? You mean like how the World Bank moved the goal post for poverty to $1.90 a day in order to artificially inflate the number of people lifted from poverty? Specific enough for you?
@@samjonesi2658 Specific but stupid and extraneous...
@@williamhutton2126 Not to mention that any gains made by neoliberalism will easily be wiped out by climate change.
His description of Cancel culture is just Macarthyism, Communist repression , commsumarist blacklisting , only the powerful or authoirty have the ability to both keep lists and enforce them ? It's also dependent on the country its enforced (US does not adhere to the Human rights act for instance) . Aside from that Prof Pinker is always a treat and a pleasure to listen to (great books !) .
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” George Orwell, 1984 #CancelCulture #ThoughtPolice
This man is really using the work of a socialist against Cancel Culture. I'm very impressed.
@@aristocratic Cancel culture is not a thing. It's hilarious when conservatives and capitalists cry foul over the very foundational principle of both ideological positions. Conservatism seeks to exclude (or cancel) new ideas and progress for the sake of maintaining a status quo that (shocker) keeps those who are in power, in power. Capitalism is a position that proclaims perfection through the use of the consumer theoretically using it's power to cull the marketplace of inferior products in favor of better ones. "Cancel Culture" is just a name used as fear porn by conservatives and capitalists in defiance of the marketplace weeding them out. Can't fix stupid.
If someone is a bully or racist and people don’t want to be around them, that’s not canceling it’s what happens to jerks. Its what happens with a failure to show a little humility and ask if they don’t understand. If cancel culture is just a failure to feel belonging, well then get on board the social justice train. It left 10 years ago, but everyone is invited.
we need to draw a distinction between hate speech and offence. We have a right to iffend each other. I'll take a pass on the SJW train and focus on compassion withiut the virtue signalling.
@@advocate1563 The distinction has been made. It is enshrined in law and has been adjudicated by the supreme court. All I meant is that you can offend whomever you want, but then they’re not going to like you very much. And social justice is basically compassion for the differences of others. And as for what an individual signals, is really a personal choice isn’t it? You neither have to pay attention or do so yourself. I fail to see what the problem is…
@@Rnankn Jo Phoenix is a criminology professor at the Open University. She was due to give a lecture at Essex University about the potential harms of putting trans women in women’s prisons. Staff and students attacked her as a transphobe and the talk was cancelled. Phoenix had given the same talk a month earlier in Canada without incident. Essex University cited security reasons for cancelling the talk. In other words, it caved to the demands of the mob. Perfect example of cancel culture. When someone wants to prevent discourse because its offends them and infringes on their political idelogy.
@@bigboi2724 OK but that’s an institutional level decision, and they presumably have broad discretion guests at their school. In wider society, freedom of speech is free as ever. But each business and organization presumably have values they prioritize, and not being transphobic is a reasonable concern. They don’t want members of their community to feel dehumanized. And the presented could easily have discussed the challenges of gender in prisons and the challenge of respecting human rights.
I always find it amusing when atheists use Freudian slips such as "Godsent (send)...Thank God" etc.....
So Stevo... what are you doing about cancel culture? After all, Harvard has had a speech suppression policy, in writing, for about a decade now. Or are you just enjoying things as they are? (Of course the question answers itself. Isn't the money fun? Enjoy.)
It's hilarious when conservatives and capitalists cry foul over the very foundational principle of both ideological positions. Conservatism seeks to exclude (or cancel) new ideas and progress for the sake of maintaining a status quo that (shocker) keeps those who are in power, in power. Capitalism is a position that proclaims perfection through the use of the consumer theoretically using it's power to cull the marketplace of inferior products in favor of better ones. "Cancel Culture" is just a name used as fear porn by conservatives and capitalists in defiance of the marketplace weeding them out. Can't fix stupid.
"God does not exist". Literally next question refers to social media as a 'godsend'.
It could go away tomorrow if people stopped playing the game
God, I keep saying this every day. Nice to see someone else saying it.
@@andybaldman What 'game" then is it that we are supposed to stop playing that will result in a diminishment of so called 'canceling'?
@@williamhutton2126 Social media. It's designed to pit people against each other, and bring out the worst in people. Just stop using it. Twitter and FB especially, as they are the worst offenders. Cancel culture is largely generated on Twitter.
@@andybaldman _"Social media. "_ - So, we are supposed to stop using social media? Like TH-cam? Is that what you keep saying everyday on some form of social media and reading the replies of others on social media that you are so thankful for having run across someone on social media that agrees with you about social media? Imbecile.
_" It's designed to pit people against each other, and bring out the worst in people. "_ - No. People just suck. It shows the true nature of people when there is no accountability.
_"Cancel culture is largely generated on Twitter."_ - Cancel culture is not a thing. getting rid of things that people don't like has always been a part of humanity. It is no worse now than it has ever been. It's just that stupid, uneducated people aren't smart or educated enough to realize it. The term is merely fear porn to protect offenders from the accountability of their actions. And you fell for it.
@@williamhutton2126 Yes, stop using social media. Is that so hard? And no, youtube is not social media the way Twitter and FB are. They're different animals. Yes, people suck. However the different platforms have learned to amplify it in different ways, and to different degrees. TH-cam is not one of them, because it doesn't have mechanisms like forwards and retweets, etc, which are the things that make things go viral. I don't use either of them, and my life is better for it. You should do the same. You'll thank yourself in a few months.
A Godsend huh? I think answering a question about whether God exists is meaningless if you don't specify what you mean by God.
Exactly. Socrates taught us to always define our terms. And yet, so few do.
When people argue against God without defining what they are arguing against, then they just argue against a word and a feeling that they dislike. When we do not define what we mean by God, or what we mean by any abstract or intangible term, then we are speaking vaguely. Clear and precise definitions are the building blocks of clear and precise thought, and thus of clear and precise communication.
Edit: Personally, I define God as the sum-total of all things, with purpose. And that purpose, crudely put, is the benefit to all things of their living. And the proof of God is in prayer's effect upon the heart. And the proof of the truth of the New Testament is in its teaching of that effect. Conscience is our highest sense within our self of what is good and right to do. And freewill is the ability to think, speak and act contrary to our conscience.
Is gas lighting real?
I hate how America and others let the Genocide and mass rapes go on in Bosnia,the Arms Embargo on Bosnia (to not let Bosnian Muslims(Bosniaks) fight back....... Our women and young girls were raped in the most brutal ways and the genocide in Bosnia,Srebrenica(Injustice).................We need our revenge. TRUST ME THERE ARE MANY ANGRY BOSNIAKS out there who did not forget!!!!! So many Serbs still brag about Srebrenica and other crimes. No peace. F peace..........We will see who will have the last laugh.Also ,Kosovo is NOT Serbia.I will continue my fight against evil and injustice no matter what. I can not stand when a person who can not fight back,gets killed,or bullied,or a girl raped,i just can not stand that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am always against the evil satanists,serbs,injustice,gangs,bullies,and corrupt governments. It is very obvious to me,they hate to see Muslims rise,they want us divided,but we will rise again. So much injustice has been done to Muslims and also me as a Muslim,it is disgusting...........
This guy has good arguments against the existence of God but I don’t understand how whether God exists has to do with cancel culture.
6:10 It's this thinking that has people misplacing their admiration for "news folk" and "science folk". It's as if we should just accept the fact they are incorruptible and trust their warm knowledge.
Anyone else pick up on the irony when Pinker refers to social media during the pandemic as a “Godsend” right after refuting the notion of a God?
Not really ironic - it's a poetic everyday word in the English language. Just as using the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" doesn't mean that anyone who uses that phrase actually believes that it's literally raining cats and dogs.
There was a time when people understood that the things you say in the comfort of your own home are not the same as the things you say in public. People who did not grow up with the internet have forgotten all their admonishments to their children about “not airing dirty laundry” and have let themselves “go public” with their private thoughts. Experiencing consequences for “letting it all hang out” is not cancel culture. “People have lost their jobs” yes, people have experienced consequences for their public actions. Pick your dingleberries at home, don’t record yourself picking dingleberries in public. I will concede that because of the strange “present permanence” of the internet (every minute someone is reading, for the first time, an article published years ago) that “moving on” is a perpetual slog for the ones who have faced their consequences and so they have to constantly re-ask for forgiveness. That is the nature of (past) information on the internet being consumed in the present moment instead of chronologically.
That’s a long winded way of saying “I think it’s fine for people to lose their jobs if I don’t like what they say”.
I could make the argument that there was a time when people just accepted they’d be upset and offended by things, and didn’t expect anything to be done about it.
Learning to deal with being insulted, offended and hurt is a positive thing. It helps people grow and become stronger. More of it, I say.
@@Uppernorwood976 Accepting offense has NEVER been common in history. It may be something to aspire to, for better or worse, in liberal societies, but is not default human behavior. If you offend anyone anywhere in the world you damn sure better be ready to deal with the consequences.
@@citronm1405 and if I decide your comment offends me, are you ready to deal with the consequences? You better hope I’m not bigger stronger and more powerful than you…
@@Uppernorwood976 Your argument was "there was a time when people just accepted they’d be upset and offended by things, and didn’t expect anything to be done about it.".
I'm telling you that your statement is false.
People are much more sensitive to what they say to other people in real life.
@@Uppernorwood976 There was never a time when people accepted an offense. There was a time when power imbalances silenced the offended. For example, Jim Crow America or South African Apartheid , calling a grown Black man “boy” was offensive but a power imbalance existed where the recipients had to “accept” it. From Vikings to Samurai and every successful society in between, offending someone on equal level had consequences. The difference today is scale. If you offended someone in your village, city-state or even country the scale of your consequences are pretty small compared to the stage of global internet.
Bro is literally on the flight logs lol
God exists because the laws of nature are understandable to humans: that is what the bible mean't when god made man in his own image: man is like God because he/she has a mind capable of replicating the universe.
There have been many gods before the one of the bible. There will be many more after that. Even Christianity has tens of thousands of denominations. But you think you know what god is, what it wants, and what the meaning of existence is?
That is what you've been indoctrinated with since infancy. Enjoy!
If God is like man, then God ought to off himself. He is a massive screw-up. But in reality, he's merely a magical character conjured up by some primitive men who borrowed stories from traditions that preceded them.
Come back when you have evidence more than your feelings.
Losing your job because you said or did some hateful thing is not cancel culture, it's accountability.
Not even accountability, its just obvious no one wants to have jerks around. They could just try being nice.
I work in government funded social sciences and social welfare services, where being seen and heard to be a feminist/leftist is a survival requirement, and where Christian white male conservatives are considered the enemies of society and are certainly not welcome in the social sciences and social welfare fields which are considered the rightful domain of feminist-leftists. If a white male working in these fields expresses one non-feminist, non-leftist opinion, says one wrong word, even fails to show enthusiastic support for any of the feminist/leftist social change initiatives, then his colleagues will deem him one of the enemy and at best say he does not fit the workplace culture, or at worst make false accusations. There will start gossip, undermining him, setups for failure, not cooperating with him, keep him out of communication loops, false insinuations and accusations,... until he simply cannot do his work and he leaves the field. This method of keeping men out of these fields goes on in social science education, social work, psychology and counselling, elementary/primary education, youth work, mainstream media,... Many good men are gotten rid of from these fields by these methods.
@@Rnankn But that's according to "your truth" isn't it?
Every bit as real as systemic racism. And as equally denied and consequential.
THe entire thing is supposition.
You don't seem to know how philosophy works. Perhaps find videos with coloring books and pretty pictures. Those seem more inline with your wheelhouse.
He makes a load of assertions. I don't hear much evidence. I like the guy but this is not a good recitation of his point. Cancel culture has ALWAYS existed. Ideas come into, and go out of, favor. Religion is ascendant and then goes into decline. Some times it's a result of actions of the powerful, some times it's the mob which decides which ideas can't be discussed.
Real but not new, not exclusive (or even more common) to the left and absolutely normal in human history.
Ever notice how most people who truly argue with Pinker do it when he's not present?
....from Ben Shapiro to Chris Hedges...
Eh… are you implying that he won’t engage in debate?
No.
@@JeansiByxan not at all. He loves debate.
right... he would be slaughtered in a debate with shapiro! Pinker is just starting to wake up but he's in a bubble so he can only wake up a bit. I believe he lives in Montreal where all of his friends suffer cognitive dissonance. They can't get used to the fact that they are bnopw the people that want us to surrender our bodily rights and control of speech to corporations and government. Montreal is super out of touch with reality because Canada has been paying 20% of Quebec's annual budgets since the 1970s. Their thinking is distanced from reality. they have sloppy and old fashioned arguments and very rarely subject themselves to arguments outside of the bubble. Tim Pool is centre left and he has a hard time booking leftist guests. They are afraid to talk outside of the bubble. They consider Joe Rogan, a guy that was a Bernie supporter, to be far right. The left are notorious for not entering debates. Vaush is the only guy bu this arguments always end up sounding really bad. Destiny went on Tim Pool's podcast. People on the left are mostly afraid to debate even though a lot of the right wingers would be okay... the people on the centre right or centre left. they don't try to destroy them the leftist usually just runs off yelling. Vaush and Destiny were good though. I'm referring to that R.A. the Rugged man.
the left has almost gone full nazi. I'm not right or left. I just go to the side that's not building camps or putting people into them. Quebec is going to tax the unvaxxed after firing them, for fighting for bodily autonomy. What a fascistic battle you are on the side of.
Interesting that he calls social media a godsend, when a few seconds before he says there is no god. :-)
It's called a "figure of speech". Not every word we speak is literal.
A metaphor. I still say geez, good lord, please god altho I am atheist. It s a part of the culture I live in .
Pinker seems like somebody that it would be impossible to have an actual conversation with because he would just categories everything that you say.
The analytical mind is dead because it can't live in the moment
Some people perhaps should be quieted there is no such thing as a ”right”.
God,is very real.
Le pseudo intellectual
This is a great comedy premise, like "Do Marxists Exist"? Or "Is ANTIFA really a thing?" Or "Were there riots in 2020?"
Marxists don’t exist. It is only an intellectual undercurrent, which means we are all Marxists now. Antifa isn’t a thing usually, because they are literally anti fascist, and only exist if fascism does. There were no riots in 2020. There were protests, and some justified expression of anger at deep injustice. I guess it is a comedy premise, just not for the reasons you think.
@@Rnankn Preach! Hear, hear!
@@Rnankn By early June 2020, violence in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area had resulted in at least 2 deaths, 604 arrests, and upwards of $500 million in damage to approximately 1,500 properties, the second-most destructive period of local unrest in United States history, after the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
A riot is defined as a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people.
Yes, by the right wing.
Yes it is, the erosion of freedom in the last 20 years is quite startling.
I love how he says there is no free will and in the same sentence he says if people knew they will go to prison if they rob a liquer store they will hopefully CHOOSE not to 😄
There's a bit more to the idea we have no free will
@@jacobjorgenson9285 it’s a yes or no question that can never be proved either way.
How you know it cant be proved?...thats a confirmation bias right there.
@@MrMattias87 It can't . show me anyone who says they can, and the proof they have!
Free will and choice are two different things. You can’t control your next thought or desire, i.e., your will.
what worries me is the amount of worship this well articulated truth is accumulating. Common sense, If you're that about it, get a personality and worldview mate.
It is like socialism in 50. 😆 But socialism had been fine, and better and beter since since 60. Todays' regime is worse and worse.
Ugh!! The old Richard Dawkins nonsense.Life has evolved exactly as you would expect.Famous last words of academic dilettantes.It’s a shame they haven’t taken a few decades to educate themselves on the outrageous complexity of life .A rudimentary understanding of Organic Chemistry,maybe throw in a little physiology,possibly neurology and any other areas of scientific study they’ll realize how infinitely complex life really is.To attribute this all to “it’s the way you’d expect “ is so fatuously superficial you must laugh.The more we learn about life the more impossible accidental “chromosomal “ alterations explain the ORIGIN of species.Darwin’s observations likely describe very limited phenotypic changes,not the “origin” of species.It’s understandable Darwin would jump to his conclusions in view of his extremely limited understanding of these disciplines but Pinker and Dawson should have learned something before they hypothesize.
What's it like to be utterly vacuous? Asking for a friend.
@@williamhutton2126 That question needs to be addressed to elitist.Usually academics with credentials in such fabricated specialties as “linguistics “,”psychology “,or really any man made area of inquiry with the suffix studies.It’s easy to hypothesize regarding areas of complex scientific interest where concrete analysis and research is purely artificial and conclusions are drawn from subjective observation..To draw the conclusion that these myriad complexities are”as you would expect “ shows a total lack of serious objective analysis..The assumption that life’s infinite complexity requires nothing more than chance and time shows a level of naïveté only an “academic “ could justify.
@@letavoss5938 So, it's not as blissful as they say then?
@@williamhutton2126 Oh I’m only pointing to the flaws in their logic..Encapsulating all the infinite data pointing to the endless complexity of life into a simplistic statement shows a willful ignorance of the facts.Modern atheists have a point when attacking religious orthodoxy but not at all when attempting to explain the nuance of life.As for bliss ,there are of course many gradations and blissful ignorance is just as blissful as any.
@@letavoss5938 _"Oh I’m only pointing to the flaws in their logic"_ - You don't seem to comprehend the slightest bit about logic except the fatuous and oblivious use of it's fallacies.
_"As for bliss ,there are of course many gradations and blissful ignorance is just as blissful as any."_ - It seems you accidentally gleaned what I was getting at. If only it was directed at the right person. So close
God does exist...and you will see justice on judgement day
No
@@williamhutton2126 Nothing is real except God
@@topologyrob Including your brain?
@@williamhutton2126 Of course - and yours. Nothing to get hung about.
@@topologyrob No, my brain is still here. But at least you admit yours isn't. a step in the right direction for feckless fairytale fanatics.
Many, if not all of the opinions that have seen people cancelled, are far from unpopular. In many cases they are the consensus, despite the picture the media attempts to convey through publicising only those willing to partake in the echo chamber. A prime example of this, is Brexit, of which a majority of people voted in favour and yet not one comedian, TV presenter or actor who openly agrees with that majority, will be seen on the BBC.
Geoff Norcott
@@nabooshaman6107 He, along with Simon Evans, are token additions and hardly regulars. Most of the comedians featured on television now are part of a middle class clique who go round to each other's houses etc. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but it obviously means that those comedians who are not part of that clique, will find it more difficult.
I was just countering your "not one comedian will be seen on the BBC". So with Simon Evans, that makes two, that are likely to be seen at some point.... So actually you are right not one will be seen, but two.
@@nabooshaman6107 An accurate counter, but not one that negates the original point. Both Norcott and Evans are fairly safe choices and a rather feeble attempt to prevent accusations of bias.
This man has dangerous ideas and mustn’t be allowed to infect the impressionable!
I hate how America and others let the Genocide and mass rapes go on in Bosnia,the Arms Embargo on Bosnia (to not let Bosnian Muslims(Bosniaks) fight back....... Our women and young girls were raped in the most brutal ways and the genocide in Bosnia,Srebrenica(Injustice).................We need our revenge. TRUST ME THERE ARE MANY ANGRY BOSNIAKS out there who did not forget!!!!! So many Serbs still brag about Srebrenica and other crimes. No peace. F peace..........We will see who will have the last laugh.Also ,Kosovo is NOT Serbia.I will continue my fight against evil and injustice no matter what. I can not stand when a person who can not fight back,gets killed,or bullied,or a girl raped,i just can not stand that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am always against the evil satanists,serbs,injustice,gangs,bullies,and corrupt governments. It is very obvious to me,they hate to see Muslims rise,they want us divided,but we will rise again. So much injustice has been done to Muslims and also me as a Muslim,it is disgusting...........
What I find pathetic is that people deny this exists it is real very real and its actually concerning
It’s not a new thing and it’s massively overblown.
Lays out an empirical explanation for god not existing, yet uses the word "godsend". It's probably not the best way to address that topic.
Dear Penguin UK: please stop promoting grifters and buying into US culture war bullshit
Given your handle, it’s hilarious that you can say that cancel culture is promoted by grifters and isn’t true.
You should have asked him about his relationship with Epstein.
From Steven Pinker. "I’m happy to share my encounters with Epstein.
The annoying irony is that I could never stand the guy, never took research funding from him, and always tried to keep my distance. Friends and colleagues described him to me as a quantitative genius and a scientific sophisticate, and they invited me to salons and coffee klatches at which he held court. But I found him to be a kibitzer and a dilettante - he would abruptly change the subject ADD style, dismiss an observation with an adolescent wisecrack, and privilege his own intuitions over systematic data. I think the dislike was mutual-according to a friend, he “voted me off the island,” presumably because he was sick of me trying to keep the conversation on track and correcting him when he shot off his mouth on topics he knew nothing about. But Epstein had insinuated himself with so many people I intersected with (Alan Dershowitz, Martin Nowak, John Brockman, Steve Kosslyn, Lawrence Krauss) and so many institutions he helped fund (Harvard’s Program in Evolutionary Dynamics, ASU’s Origins Project, even Harvard Hillel) that I often ended up at the same place with him. (Most of these gatherings were prior to the revelation of his sex crimes, such as the 2002 plane trip to TED with Dawkins, Dennett, the Brockmans, and others, but Krauss’s Origins Project Meeting came after he served his sentence.) Since I was often the most recognizable person in the room, someone would snap a picture; some of them resurfaced this past week, circulated by people who disagree with me on various topics and apparently believe that the photos are effective arguments.
In the interests of full disclosure, there was another connection. Alan Dershowitz and I are friends and colleagues, and we taught a course together at Harvard. He often asks me questions about syntax and semantics of laws, most recently the impeachment statute. While he was representing Epstein, he asked me about the natural interpretation of one of the relevant laws, and I offered my opinion; this was cited in a court document. I did it as a favor to a friend and colleague, not as a paid expert witness, but I now regret that I did so. And needless to say I find Epstein’s behavior reprehensible.
Since some of the social-media snark insinuates that I downplay sexual exploitation, it may be worth adding that I have a paper trail of abhorrence of violence against women, have celebrated efforts to stamp it out, and have tried to make my own small contribution to this effort.
My review of the history of rape and battering in The Better Angels of Our Nature begins:
“Rape is one of the prime atrocities in the human repertoire. It combines pain, degradation, terror, trauma, the seizure of a woman’s means of perpetuating life, and an intrusion into the makeup of her progeny. It is also one of the commonest of atrocities.”
The lengthy section lauds feminist writers like Susan Brownmiller who first documented the prevalence of rape and the historic indifference to it, and who called for concerted measures to eliminate it. I then refute the cynical assumption that those measures are idealistic or utopian, that nothing can be done to combat violence against women until some distant day in the future in which the patriarchy is finally dismantled or human nature changes. On the contrary, I show that this campaign has achieved considerable success: rates of sexual assault and domestic violence against women have dropped dramatically since data were first kept by Bureau of Justice Statistics, and societal tolerance has plummeted as well. (I updated the data In Enlightenment Now.) As far as I know I’m the only writer who has documented and celebrated actual progress in reducing violence against women, and argued that this progress shows that the effort is not futile and should embolden us to press for greater reductions still.
Given my longstanding distaste for everything Epstein, it’s galling to be publicly associated with him based on some photos and mutual associates, but I suppose this is one of the dubious perquisites of fame (by academic standards). And it’s a particular hazard in the era of social media - last year I was featured in a New York Times op-ed by Jesse Singal called “Social Media Is Making Us Dumber. Here’s Exhibit A”; this year I appear to be Exhibit B."
Wow. Nailed it.
well he cancels anyone who asks him about Jeffrey Epstein so...
I never heard of this guy, I googled and he was part of Jeffrey Epsteins defence or something?
@@broefkip Pinker's colleague at Harvard asked him for a favor but didn't tell him what that favor was for. That colleague turned out to be Epstein's lawyer and Pinker didn't know that he was contributing to his defense.
@@twohorsesinamancostume7606 Oh, that doesn't seem so bad.
@@broefkip depends on what the favor was
Cancellation is not one's own refusal to engage with someone. It's bullying others into not engaging with them.
How's Jeffrey Epstein island. I mean this guy knows, he was there.
I should know; I was there too! Great host.
Evidence?
How do you know?
As the saying goes, innocent until proven guilty. There's no evidence he was ever there.
From Steven Pinker: "I’m happy to share my encounters with Epstein.
The annoying irony is that I could never stand the guy, never took research funding from him, and always tried to keep my distance. Friends and colleagues described him to me as a quantitative genius and a scientific sophisticate, and they invited me to salons and coffee klatches at which he held court. But I found him to be a kibitzer and a dilettante - he would abruptly change the subject ADD style, dismiss an observation with an adolescent wisecrack, and privilege his own intuitions over systematic data. I think the dislike was mutual-according to a friend, he “voted me off the island,” presumably because he was sick of me trying to keep the conversation on track and correcting him when he shot off his mouth on topics he knew nothing about. But Epstein had insinuated himself with so many people I intersected with (Alan Dershowitz, Martin Nowak, John Brockman, Steve Kosslyn, Lawrence Krauss) and so many institutions he helped fund (Harvard’s Program in Evolutionary Dynamics, ASU’s Origins Project, even Harvard Hillel) that I often ended up at the same place with him. (Most of these gatherings were prior to the revelation of his sex crimes, such as the 2002 plane trip to TED with Dawkins, Dennett, the Brockmans, and others, but Krauss’s Origins Project Meeting came after he served his sentence.) Since I was often the most recognizable person in the room, someone would snap a picture; some of them resurfaced this past week, circulated by people who disagree with me on various topics and apparently believe that the photos are effective arguments.
In the interests of full disclosure, there was another connection. Alan Dershowitz and I are friends and colleagues, and we taught a course together at Harvard. He often asks me questions about syntax and semantics of laws, most recently the impeachment statute. While he was representing Epstein, he asked me about the natural interpretation of one of the relevant laws, and I offered my opinion; this was cited in a court document. I did it as a favor to a friend and colleague, not as a paid expert witness, but I now regret that I did so. And needless to say I find Epstein’s behavior reprehensible.
Since some of the social-media snark insinuates that I downplay sexual exploitation, it may be worth adding that I have a paper trail of abhorrence of violence against women, have celebrated efforts to stamp it out, and have tried to make my own small contribution to this effort.
My review of the history of rape and battering in The Better Angels of Our Nature begins:
“Rape is one of the prime atrocities in the human repertoire. It combines pain, degradation, terror, trauma, the seizure of a woman’s means of perpetuating life, and an intrusion into the makeup of her progeny. It is also one of the commonest of atrocities.”
The lengthy section lauds feminist writers like Susan Brownmiller who first documented the prevalence of rape and the historic indifference to it, and who called for concerted measures to eliminate it. I then refute the cynical assumption that those measures are idealistic or utopian, that nothing can be done to combat violence against women until some distant day in the future in which the patriarchy is finally dismantled or human nature changes. On the contrary, I show that this campaign has achieved considerable success: rates of sexual assault and domestic violence against women have dropped dramatically since data were first kept by Bureau of Justice Statistics, and societal tolerance has plummeted as well. (I updated the data In Enlightenment Now.) As far as I know I’m the only writer who has documented and celebrated actual progress in reducing violence against women, and argued that this progress shows that the effort is not futile and should embolden us to press for greater reductions still.
Given my longstanding distaste for everything Epstein, it’s galling to be publicly associated with him based on some photos and mutual associates, but I suppose this is one of the dubious perquisites of fame (by academic standards). And it’s a particular hazard in the era of social media - last year I was featured in a New York Times op-ed by Jesse Singal called “Social Media Is Making Us Dumber. Here’s Exhibit A”; this year I appear to be Exhibit B."