In this video, we discussed the parallels between Soviet totalitarianism and what's happening in the US. Watch this video next on China's threat to Taiwan: th-cam.com/video/nTRpMELgGgw/w-d-xo.html
authoritarian: essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way. HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place. It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace. authority: the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology. The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires. Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth - he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place. Unfortunately, *authority* is often conflated with the notion of *power* , by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma). P.S. Read Chapters 21 and 22 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", in order to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.
Very well spoken and great answers, very few of us think about things in this scope and that's why we have the issues we have today, people only think in the moment.
Since they were teenagers they were being told that men are women and being white means you're racist. You either agree and become a zombie or suppress it and go crazy or fight it and become an outcast with a huge wealth of experience of arguing with people. A society of lies seems to be a good proving ground for tough-minded young people who want to tell the truth and don't want to be pushed around by tribalistic sociopaths.
Peter continues to refine his professional presentations and interviews. This interview with Audrey is an excellent example of his development. Thank you Peter, as Audrey is clearly a keen thinker in the domain of objective social/psychological study and political research as well as the offering of fair critique of human social systems.
She is so smart and I applaud her for her deep understanding of this issue, people like her are needed to keep the awareness of this issue relevant. A lot of people like me care deeply about these issues and are knowledgeable but don't want to have to be the ones speaking publicly about this, so her ability to speak on these issues is so appreciated and I'm thankful for people like her and Peter that have these valuable conversations.
Absolutely brilliant young lady. Her input on cancel culture and the truth reminded me of this quote, "Truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
What an interesting woman, So candid and straightforward. I completely agree on her analysis of totalitarianism, I would have wanted to hear more from her on that. I don't wholly agree with her ideas of solutions for the future, but she seems someone ready to discuss this. Thank you Peter
Audrey Unverferth should be TEACHING at the University of Chicago, rather than being shunned. Imagine a supposed institution of higher learning that censors the subject of Soviet totalitarianism. They are not legitimate.
This makes so much sense. It goes along with that idea of the "expert class" having been corrupted, and academia's accreditation system has become a faux safeguard.
Great guest. Education should be about the creation of a thirst for truth in society at all levels. This is why freedom is so important and our primary value. Without freedom truth cannot be sought Equality is the next most important value, because one person's freedom doesn't begin where another person's freedom ends. Our freedoms begin and end at the same places, and are constrained by the third value we prize, the rule of just law.
@@JC3335 Truth is what you define it as. For some its madness, others its science, and every flavor in between. We are born ignorant, and we spend our entire lives guided by an ever changing truth that we construct from our individual experience, knowledge and situation. The freedom to discover truth is what has driven man to his present state, and we still have far to go. Equality is an ideal yet unachievable state of men in society, in which each individual in principal has the same opportunity to live their lives as they see fit
I agree, it will come down to a strong family unit. I believe differences can coexist, little fiefdoms, as he calls it. It naturally all works out in the end if we have strong, intact families.
The assertion of god as a truth undermines the ingegrity possible for all the arguments because it is an assertion that sets up conflict with others who dont accept that.
Completely agree. I find it hard to give credibility to someone who outright values truth and evidence yet holds a core, influential belief in something supernatural. It makes me question their fundamental definition of truth, the basis of all their arguments.
Fantastic discussion Peter and Audrey. I'd argue the "atheism" of the Soviet Union was very much a bait and switch of the communists for the Russian Orthodox church, which had a large population of serfs already believing the old Czars were slightly more than human, if not truly divine.
The commentary at 19:00 is so important, and the part that the Woke elements in our politics today so often want to ignore; even if they are correct about their grievances, we are still so far away from the actual costs incurred under the Nazi and Soviet systems that any direct comparison fails on its face. While there are forces driving toward both Communist and Fascist America, we are not beyond saving and can still opt for a third and possibly even fourth and fifth path back to the greater freedom that America and its founding stand for.
During the German Nazi occupation of Poland (1939-1945) the high and university education was banned altogether. The Poles were allowed only primary classes. Most of the university lecturers were exterminated at the beginning.
Eventho there is a lot i agree with and a lot i don't. Can we just take a moment to congratulate this young bright woman on this great conversation way beyond her years.
IIRC the following quote or one similar, has been associated to Plato: "The Penalty good men pay for indifference to Public Affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
@JC3335 Some things they are as wrong as wrong can be, on somethings they are dead on, and on most things I don't know. What they aren't doing, however, is challenging their own positions. As an example, I read peer reviewed articles all the time, and you never see "gender bios" in them. I found his channel with street epistemology, I love him for that, but in the few interviews I've seen him do, I haven't seen him challenge his beliefs.
Very well spoken young lady (so rare) and great answers, very few of us think about things in this scope and thats why we have the issues we have today, people only think in the moment.
Hi Peter! Great guest and great discussion. Reflecting on your comment about answering a question with a question. It is just that answering a question with a question has been used a lot as a dishonest debating technique. . I guess if you are talking to someone who you know is sincere...
Yes, it's a debating technique that can be used to obfuscate. It is appropriate when a question includes an assumption needing clarification or includes an assumption or statement that you don't agree with.
A very interesting discussion, thank you. Is it about becoming God or having the power (and control) we attribute to God? Not sure if it's me or Audrey but some of her pronounciations seem a bit off to me (e.g. totalitarian, Czechoslovakia, Bukharin etc.).
So someone watching the same podcast on the their phone connected to the internet is telling another person to not do exactly that because if you are doing that it means you don’t know what you’re talking about. Yikes. Maybe my statement actually was WRONG. Thank you so much. I had a feeling i was jumping the gun. Happy New Year yah melonhead
Always protect the American constitution it was written to enable all people to be protected in free society. It will always be under threat from opposing ideological groups.
i get that her focus is on soviets but fascism is ALSO a totalitarian system. the american education system is actually modelled on the prussian system which is all about making us good little cogs for the corporatists. the current preoocupation with 'cultural marxism' is actually obscuring the truth of the fascist totalitarian state we already have. these people are worried about some future totalitarian state as if we don't already live in a corporatist oligarchy.
I keep hearing people saying " Have we reached peak woke" or "we have turned the tide" or those sorts of things. That is demented. Imagine a climber at the foot of the mountain, shouting "Wuhuu! We made it!
Define woke - it seems to be used as an excuse to attack almost everything these days, not just a few extremities that stand on their own for silliness...
@JC3335 I find it close to wilful ignorance, when people pretend to not know what Wokeism is. Wokeism is the political ideology that grew from Critical Theory in the Universities. I will not write much, as TH-cam rarely lets my longer posts through. Wokeism contains many different components. I can mention you one here, though I suspect you to already know. It contains the racist and sexist idea, that a persons level of privilege in society and placement in an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy can be read from that person’s sex, sexuality and ”race”, and it claims to understand how treating people differently, according to those racial generalizations and prejudices, will help real or imagine iniquities. I suggest you seek information on Wokeism on your own. On the Woke side, have read DiAngelo, Coates, Kendi and several other, as well as many papers and studies. On the Anti-Woke side, I can suggest Hitchens, Doyle, Douglas Murray and more. If you really are uninformed on the topic, please do read. It’s a bit of a societal emergency.
I had never heard of underground education where they had their own accreditation system. It seems embellished or a result of a misinterpretation at some point. I hope Audrey continues with this, the world needs warriors for truth who are very articulate and well versed. She's cool.
Well underground education is the vehicle for radicalisation (most religions carry out underground education to subvert public school teaching for example laying the seeds of instability in societies) so I actually think the argument is one-sided and naive. Peter was hinting at this problem in her logic but was kind enough to back away...
Speaking to the question,” why wont the people vote in someone who will make better policies?” I think people are too scared to say, I was wrong. It challenges their belief system, and that’s scary.
If the ruling ideology is true, then it's not an ideology - it's just a set of facts. A defining characteristic of ideology is that it fundamentally relies on claims that are unfalsifiable. True believers accept these claims as fact because of their faith in the ideology, which demands some level of irrationality. This is why ideologues are similar to fundamentalists.
@@JC3335 Well, if you don't believe in logic postulates and in the empirical world, I guess not. But as soon as you start with the postulate that rationality exists (in the strict sense that logic rules exists) and/or that empirical data is not only a figment of your imagination, you can derive truths from any statements or verify the "truthfulness" of any claim, as long as it's written in a falsifiable way.
(just sharing with you) Some ideologies have doctrine which may be revised & replaced (like a constitution that includes provision for amendment). As totalitarian ideologies also have dogma (specify absolutes), I use "ideologue" to describe someone who promotes the absolutes, the "True beliefs." I consider truths to be best approximations, approximations that are worthy of improvement because they can be improved with new data, new methods of analysis, and new ways of interpreting data.
@@alanjones5639 I agree. A system of beliefs, no matter how internally coherent, should leave space for improvement over time and application. As more of a consequentialist that I sometimes want to admit, the impacts of the application of my beliefs are usually what challenges them more than anything else, but when the analysis of the potential consequences (or even the actual consequences) is murky (especially when looking far in the future), I suddenly return more to virtue ethics instincts.
I dont believe Lenin thought he was a god - that's a personal reading based on one's own biases including the belief of god. This is at the heart of the very problem being claimed everywhere else - until this aspect is let go then there can be no truth other than a bias.
4:06 I really don't think discussing Plato was ever a crime in Poland. Also, underground education furing wwII was illegal and people were killed for it. How are popular podcasts similar to that?
She's an American conservative. She's talking about "totalitarian regimes" like an American conservative would, as a fantasy boogeyman, not as actual countries, with real people still alive and with memory.
@@pedrob3953You are mistaking people who are pushing back against a trend towards authoritarianism, regardless of its source, with regimes that were already near total authoritative states. I see this argument frequently. The argument seems to be that until a nation is as bad as 1935 Germany,1948 USSR, or 1972 Cambodia, then anyone who raises concerns is "just a conspiracy theorist ". I note that you mention the conservative concerns of authoritarianism without adressing the equally strong concerns of progressives concerning conservative authoritarianism. Note that I said progressive and not liberal, as I have observed that the left side of political spectrum is no longer "liberal" in the classical sense.
I was born in Communist Hungary. Raised in the Roman Catholic Church. My hobby is reading up on religion so am pretty familiar with Islam. It's all the same garbage. Feel don't think and just shut up and obey. The antidote? Free speech.
But free speech assumes an ability to rbeak free of what was programmed into you during your formative years - this is near impossible for most people no matter how they rationalise. Consequently, changes is only possible through generations by appropriate teaching but ensuring that teaching is appropriate is the challenge and why even the best societies fall over time.
@@theunknownatheist3815 exactly - capitalist authoritarianism, communist authoritariansim or indeed any authoritarianism? Once the human condition is allowed to make decisions self-interest takes over.
Interesting that Peter's objection to radically decentralized education is that some parents might teach things that he considers untrue or wrong, thereby staking out the same "moral" high ground that the authoritarian indoctrinators take. I say let the parents teach, an educated individual is capable of detecting error by engaging in free speech with other individuals.
I can understand Peter’s reluctance about allowing a wide-open decentralized education system that doesn’t provide “some protective mechanisms”. For over 30 years, in British Columbia, Canada, the Independent Schools Act has Inspectors confirm that such programs do not, in theory or practice, promote or foster - racial, religious or ethnic superiority or persecution, social change through violent action, or sedition. I would expect this applies to the home education field as well
53:30 Wasn't that guy found not guilty on all charges a little while ago? (could have misinterpreted since I'm not too familiar with the jury system etc.) edit: nevermind they're talking about voting for trump as well.. so the interview was probably recorded a bit less recently than I'd assumed by seeing the date :P
after the collapse of soviet union i watched an interview with one of the "architects" of their project, he discussed methods used and examples in history and in the light of then new democratic and hopefully world when asked how to teach children be immune to such things he said that it all falls apart if one understands there are no "us" and "them", so since then I am very cautious anyone trying to sell me something like that.
I don't think talking to leftists is helping anyone. They've been taught to always oppose and to always drown others out with useless information. But it may be productive to talk to non-leftist liberals. I believe if you find the right ones, they will be more willing to exchange ideas.
8:00 Freethought and a free press are necessary for liberal democracy. Atheists who are also freethinkers avoid True beliefs and so avoid both religious and political dogma (ideology). To conflate atheism with Marxism-Leninism is a subterfuge. 55:00 Ought the pursuit of truth be led by someone who does not admit to being wrong. Should it be led by someone who would help to turn a democracy into a theocracy?
“Overwhelm them with facts” … I have seen this so much in how history is taught. It is a vast topic encompassing countless stories. It is very easy for a political activist to cherrypick facts to support/ reinforce their desired narrative (that is before all the other forms of bias they employ). Imagine a jar with 100 black and white marbles. 90 white, 10 black. A student only is shown 5 throughout their education… if the students picked at random, they’d get 90% white marbles…but it would be easy for an ideological teacher to convince them that the jar was full of black marbles.
One issue, Peter asked what do you do with small groups of people who want to form scale education groups who believe things like young earth, etc. These groups already exist even with the massive public educational industrial complex. Public education has only a limited role in what people believe. 6 to 8 hours a day. People continue their education far beyond their time in school. The other issue is that as schools lock down around specific views - evolution vs creationism - and only allow one view and do not allow an exploration of an differing view - it pushes people to explore what has been denied. We should not worry abour small out groups. Allow school vouchers and charter schools, etc to let people explore their options. This would force the greatest reform of public education. People would generally send their kids to public schools if they are of good quality. A smaller percentage will send their kids to smaller, specialized schools. And the same issues will allow those students in thier time out of their schools to explore alternative view points.
@drpeterboghossian - I'm searching through all your videos of an interview you did with a woman that talked about the history of WPATH and the members that were involved in a castration/kink forum. It was about a year ago. Someone I know does not believe it.
Yes, that was specifically around the new chapter on the eunuch gender identity that was added in WPATH SOC 8. I'm not sure who he might have interviewed on that, but check out the WPATH Files by Mia Hughes and Michael Schellenberger.
The DW, and EVERYONE who is part of it, IS BS PROPAGANDA. They are garbage . Religious wackos pushing their faith on everybody, with lies and made up garbage .
Throughout history we have only sacrificed our children to Gods. Today we are sacrificing children again to an ideology (and I don’t say that to be over dramatic) In my view the line will always be children and our responsibility to their innocence & security.
Something to note that Russian revolutionaries of the 19th and early 20th centuries had many of the traits typical of the modern American woke left. Most of them came from upper class or upper-middle class of the society and were university students when they became revolutionaries. They were completely ignorant of the wishes and desires of the same Russian poor that they were so eager to liberate. They were also full of self-flagellation and self-hate, and extremely intolerant to other views. Needless to say, they were the first ones to be imprisoned and killed in the first waves of the Soviet terror in 1920es because they were not as hard-core of sadists as the new wave of revolutionaries. In the Russians' defense, unlike the modern American woke, they were willing to take on much more suffering for the cause. Anyone who watched the interview of Joanna King-Slutsky, the leader of the Columbia U mob, can tell that she considers even a missed meal a torture. Would be interesting to see how she would behave upon visiting her Gazan "freedom fighters" that she cares so much about.
They wouldn't exist without Russian czarism. They didn't come out of nowhere. Just as American "woke left" is a reaction to American oligarchic society.
I’ve been trying to tell people for ages, the same thing she said about the “atheism-communism” connection. The communists were NOT “atheists” per se, in the way people like Peter, or Dawkins, or Hitch were atheists. The communists didn’t evaluate the claims of religions and remain unconvinced- THEY WANTED TO BE THE ONLY SOURCE FOR “TRUTH” AND AUTHORITY. So they did away with the competition.
if you say so... communism itself is a system of society in response to integrating ideas of atheism by very well respected Russian and German thinkers - no one ever said it was atheism especially once the human condition starts inserting caveats of self-interest
Great interview, thanks! I agree with almost every point you both make about the importance of freedom of speech (and expression, for that matter), but we will need to eventually have a serious discussion about this "truth will prevail" thing... With how social media and the Internet in general works today, I have to say I am doubtful that most important "truths" will always eventually come out and prevail in due time. "More speech" does not efficiently combat misinformation in a structure where views are self-reinforcing by means of algorithms and bots. "More speech" used to be somewhat of an answer when the village idiot had to contend with the rest of his proximate community, but now, village idiots around the world can entertain the most idiotic beliefs together while being rewarded for engaging only with their already-held views without challenging them, while slowly but surely integrating other people in their circles, first by getting the "gullible", than by influencing people with related views. But I am in no way promoting censorship (other than the clearly reasonable stuff like criminal activity, including death threats, for example) ; we just need to acknowledge that we need to think about how we will make sure that our core values and their applications do not bring us closer to our doom. Some adjustments must be made. What adjustments?, you might ask. Other than some kind of regulation on preference-based algorithms, beats me.
What would be the existential downside to allowing isolated communities to teach their children whatever false knowledge they want? Reality will eventually correct false understanding, if that false understanding is critical. If the issue isn't critical, then why engage in a crusade to repress the issue? Humans are naturally skeptical when faced with incongruity. Who gets to decide which religion is false? Who gets to decide which science is false? Let reality decide.
Called radicalisation - history teaches you wouldnt tell the difference and you'd end up at best more Amish tribes (though they may end up massacring each other through occasional runins and fights over resources)... happens in that Amzaon tribes, indigenous tribes all over the world and so on... basically you lose civilisation
Jordan Peterson drew his line in the sand between prohibiting speech vs. compelling speech. Seems like a similar line for regulations on education could be good. Eg. A regulation saying "You can't teach young earth" is allowed but "you must teach crt" isn't
I’m wondering about this broadcast. Is this a rebroadcast of some old event??? It seems at the beginning it’s very recent. . . but towards the end, it’s obvious that it’s done somewhere in October 2024 or so. Audrey says people should vote for Trump in November. Peter mentions the NYC bus case as if the veteran, Daniel Penny who choked Jordan Neely could go to jail . . . Well, my information is that on Dec 9, Daniel Penny was found not guilty of negligent homicide. So far, I see there are 3,533 views and 100 Comments and that this broadcast happened 7 hours ago. What gives here? I wanted to comment on the contents, but hesitate . . . I appreciate the issues discussed but hesitate because this little issue of contradictions makes me wonder? I just joined because I was so impressed with the broadcast about Academic Fraud, made a comment, and so now I’m really confused.
truth is a fiction - "god exists" because I believe does not make it a truth. This then leads to a personal echo chamber, simulating the very thing the other side is being criticised for.
@@lynnelee4390 Morality has nothing to do with Creationism. That said Creationism and evolution has very little to do with anything in the real world and you can easily argue that evolution has been used to largest mass atrocities in history.
@@lynnelee4390 why? On what basis is your morality? Creationism is fundamentally an extremist view, devoid of any moral principles so the context is unclear, and a form of radicalisation so its quite a silly comment to say its the least of problems if it gets taught within mainstream science for example.
If the indoctrination worked in the soviet Union it would never have fallen apart. It fell apart because enough people stopped believing in it despite the indoctrination. It fell apart and they let it
It fell apart because the terror that kept in place was removed. People didn’t believe in it in the previous decades but they knew the terror was real so kept quiet.
I think it would be good to understand the root of their hatred. Because no one listens to something and subscribes to it unless they relate to it in some way.
Quite shallow on the soviet union. I wonder if I should continue.... As largely anti-soviet Russian (descending from an enemy of the people), I feel that this is kind of primitive propaganda as you would receive in your standard dei class with a different subject at its core.
Most parent aren’t fit to be parent. They perpetuate the mistakes that their own parents did with them. It’s a long chain of mistakes that nobody intent to break.
From having lived in the US until 1975, I do not think free speech is always the answer, because of the active, horrible racism it encouraged. But what I think could help is understanding the importance of our early years, 0-3, and understanding how that shapes how we relate to (and in) the world, and why that is our (perhaps unconscious) choice. Understanding motivation at that level is very well explained by Gabor Mate in 'The Myth of Normal'. Several times during this conversation I wish the speakers had gone deeper than the 'topic' itself, and gone into what motivation (sometimes personal) made it important to them. Ultimately, looking at our motivation for doing what we do is what we need to understand for our own happiness.
Racism as a whole has been long gone in the u.s. The left is trying to bring it back, as a tool to divide. Totalitarianism is more than racism, so u missed the whole point
The question of what is truth, always ends up with another question: who decides? My best answer is that everyone has their own truth, based on their experience and everyone has a different experience. We need new frontiers to accommodate an ever increasing variety of personal experiences. Finding a new planet that is habitable would be a boon for people looking for relief from their perceived oppression.
There are many objective "truths" by definitions of logic postulates, and you also cannot say that something is empirically true if it has not been verified so by empirical means (by definition...). Personal experience cannot negate the fact that If A, then B + If B, then C = If A, then C. Or that the evolution theory has been thoroughly tested and verified. Here, it's not a question of "who decides", but of "who understands". Sure, I could understand the argument that some social sciences could use a bit more of subjectivism to be more "inclusive of personal experience", like modern political science, but then what would be the use if it cannot be (as much as) objectively (possible) applied?
My 3 kids were homeschooled. One engineer, second doing her master's to teach, third with 2 years left for computer science. None of them wasted time wondering what gender/pronoun they are.
Did you only release this interview now because you didn’t approve of her Trump endorsement prior to election? Why take so long to release this interview?
In this video, we discussed the parallels between Soviet totalitarianism and what's happening in the US. Watch this video next on China's threat to Taiwan: th-cam.com/video/nTRpMELgGgw/w-d-xo.html
authoritarian:
essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way.
HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place. It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard.
Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace.
authority:
the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology.
The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires.
Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth - he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place.
Unfortunately, *authority* is often conflated with the notion of *power* , by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma).
P.S. Read Chapters 21 and 22 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", in order to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.
Very well spoken and great answers, very few of us think about things in this scope and that's why we have the issues we have today, people only think in the moment.
It’s absolutely remarkable how young some of these new up-and-coming public intellectuals are. Gives me a lot of hope for the future.
Since they were teenagers they were being told that men are women and being white means you're racist. You either agree and become a zombie or suppress it and go crazy or fight it and become an outcast with a huge wealth of experience of arguing with people. A society of lies seems to be a good proving ground for tough-minded young people who want to tell the truth and don't want to be pushed around by tribalistic sociopaths.
I agree, I just messaged my son (29) with this link and a message in line with your comment.
Fascinating discussion. Another slam dunk. Thank you, Peter.
@@Nunya1986
Agreed.
Great answers to tough questions by Audrey, well spoken and clearly understands her material
Truth is self authenticating. Only liars oppose free speech and questions.
I think evident is a better word. Authentication requires more than a thing itself.
@JaceBrenner-l4k sounds reasonable. I'll have to think on that.
Anyone having any experience with academia or government employment knows how little the Left cares about truth.
An vat iz truth?
@JC3335 the Bible.
Peter continues to refine his professional presentations and interviews. This interview with Audrey is an excellent example of his development. Thank you Peter, as Audrey is clearly a keen thinker in the domain of objective social/psychological study and political research as well as the offering of fair critique of human social systems.
Thank you. I’ve been working on it!
You are welcome sir 👍
Hehe. Slightly, @drpeterboghossian 😅
She is so smart and I applaud her for her deep understanding of this issue, people like her are needed to keep the awareness of this issue relevant. A lot of people like me care deeply about these issues and are knowledgeable but don't want to have to be the ones speaking publicly about this, so her ability to speak on these issues is so appreciated and I'm thankful for people like her and Peter that have these valuable conversations.
Absolutely brilliant young lady. Her input on cancel culture and the truth reminded me of this quote, "Truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
This lady is sharp and has obviously thought a lot about these issues so I really enjoyed this interview. Thanks, Pete.
What an amazing young lady!
What an interesting woman, So candid and straightforward. I completely agree on her analysis of totalitarianism, I would have wanted to hear more from her on that. I don't wholly agree with her ideas of solutions for the future, but she seems someone ready to discuss this. Thank you Peter
She’s terrific! Thank you!
Audrey Unverferth should be TEACHING at the University of Chicago, rather than being shunned. Imagine a supposed institution of higher learning that censors the subject of Soviet totalitarianism. They are not legitimate.
Thank you for this interview. Audrey is an inspiring young lady.
What a smart whip of a gal.
This makes so much sense. It goes along with that idea of the "expert class" having been corrupted, and academia's accreditation system has become a faux safeguard.
It's significantly less expensive to corrupt an expert class than it is to build an army. Probably by more than two orders of magnitude
Great guest. Education should be about the creation of a thirst for truth in society at all levels. This is why freedom is so important and our primary value. Without freedom truth cannot be sought
Equality is the next most important value, because one person's freedom doesn't begin where another person's freedom ends. Our freedoms begin and end at the same places, and are constrained by the third value we prize, the rule of just law.
Define freedom, so-called "truth" or who's truth, and equality which doesn't really exist in practice for most people
@@JC3335 Truth is what you define it as. For some its madness, others its science, and every flavor in between. We are born ignorant, and we spend our entire lives guided by an ever changing truth that we construct from our individual experience, knowledge and situation. The freedom to discover truth is what has driven man to his present state, and we still have far to go.
Equality is an ideal yet unachievable state of men in society, in which each individual in principal has the same opportunity to live their lives as they see fit
@@JC3335
The ability to speak to each other and be heard is the equality.
Using censoring and propaganda to affect equality is the problem.
@@krisnaylor9488 which is why it doesn't exist when you assert something like a god...
How did she become so intelligent and thoughtful? What is her background?
Fantastic Interview!
I agree, it will come down to a strong family unit. I believe differences can coexist, little fiefdoms, as he calls it. It naturally all works out in the end if we have strong, intact families.
Absolutely
thats what extremists in Afghanistan say too
Thanks for this conversation! ❤
She is important to a future we can all enjoy.
What an absolutely badass conversation
I like this young woman.
The assertion of god as a truth undermines the ingegrity possible for all the arguments because it is an assertion that sets up conflict with others who dont accept that.
Completely agree. I find it hard to give credibility to someone who outright values truth and evidence yet holds a core, influential belief in something supernatural.
It makes me question their fundamental definition of truth, the basis of all their arguments.
@@DrGreenGiant Well said!
Fantastic discussion Peter and Audrey. I'd argue the "atheism" of the Soviet Union was very much a bait and switch of the communists for the Russian Orthodox church, which had a large population of serfs already believing the old Czars were slightly more than human, if not truly divine.
Thank you!
The commentary at 19:00 is so important, and the part that the Woke elements in our politics today so often want to ignore; even if they are correct about their grievances, we are still so far away from the actual costs incurred under the Nazi and Soviet systems that any direct comparison fails on its face. While there are forces driving toward both Communist and Fascist America, we are not beyond saving and can still opt for a third and possibly even fourth and fifth path back to the greater freedom that America and its founding stand for.
During the German Nazi occupation of Poland (1939-1945) the high and university education was banned altogether. The Poles were allowed only primary classes. Most of the university lecturers were exterminated at the beginning.
Eventho there is a lot i agree with and a lot i don't.
Can we just take a moment to congratulate this young bright woman on this great conversation way beyond her years.
IIRC the following quote or one similar, has been associated to Plato:
"The Penalty good men pay for indifference to Public Affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
There is nothing like listening to two people who appear to agree with each other talk about what's going on it the country.
But are they right... or wrong.. or both...?
@JC3335 Some things they are as wrong as wrong can be, on somethings they are dead on, and on most things I don't know. What they aren't doing, however, is challenging their own positions. As an example, I read peer reviewed articles all the time, and you never see "gender bios" in them. I found his channel with street epistemology, I love him for that, but in the few interviews I've seen him do, I haven't seen him challenge his beliefs.
Very well spoken young lady (so rare) and great answers, very few of us think about things in this scope and thats why we have the issues we have today, people only think in the moment.
What an impressive young woman, and a great, probing (and challenging) interview
Audrey ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐👍
Eric Hoffer wrote some amazing books on this subject.
Yes
Thanks for the discussion.
Hi Peter! Great guest and great discussion. Reflecting on your comment about answering a question with a question. It is just that answering a question with a question has been used a lot as a dishonest debating technique.
.
I guess if you are talking to someone who you know is sincere...
Yes, it's a debating technique that can be used to obfuscate. It is appropriate when a question includes an assumption needing clarification or includes an assumption or statement that you don't agree with.
Excellent
Excellent talk - would love to hear more from Audrey on the threat of AI-assisted communism, not only in the obvious countries but across the globe.
A very interesting discussion, thank you.
Is it about becoming God or having the power (and control) we attribute to God?
Not sure if it's me or Audrey but some of her pronounciations seem a bit off to me (e.g. totalitarian, Czechoslovakia, Bukharin etc.).
I cant believe this interview was 59 minutes. A ton good analysis
wowzers!! A human under the age of 30 with an actual brain in their head!!! SHOCKER!!!
youll come to find that they are everywhere if you get off the internet and put your phone away
So someone watching the same podcast on the their phone connected to the internet is telling another person to not do exactly that because if you are doing that it means you don’t know what you’re talking about. Yikes. Maybe my statement actually was WRONG. Thank you so much. I had a feeling i was jumping the gun. Happy New Year yah melonhead
@@kahwigulumexactly. DMU386 has GenZ Derangement Syndrome.
and female too
And yet appears to claim that god is a truth undermining any freedom of thought beyond rationalising what is fixed internally... still very young no?
Always protect the American constitution it was written to enable all people to be protected in free society. It will always be under threat from opposing ideological groups.
Stop being worried!
The truth will prevail as long as you keep saying it.
i get that her focus is on soviets but fascism is ALSO a totalitarian system. the american education system is actually modelled on the prussian system which is all about making us good little cogs for the corporatists. the current preoocupation with 'cultural marxism' is actually obscuring the truth of the fascist totalitarian state we already have. these people are worried about some future totalitarian state as if we don't already live in a corporatist oligarchy.
What is wrong with the prussian system and what would you have instead?
Irrelevant. Actually, the new teaching pedagogy is based on Paulo Freire’s work, which is a form of Marxist liberation for students.
@@Ula-Ka Prussian blue is a nice colour
Yes. This video is very subtle propaganda.
I keep hearing people saying " Have we reached peak woke" or "we have turned the tide" or those sorts of things. That is demented. Imagine a climber at the foot of the mountain, shouting "Wuhuu! We made it!
Define woke - it seems to be used as an excuse to attack almost everything these days, not just a few extremities that stand on their own for silliness...
@JC3335 I find it close to wilful ignorance, when people pretend to not know what Wokeism is. Wokeism is the political ideology that grew from Critical Theory in the Universities. I will not write much, as TH-cam rarely lets my longer posts through. Wokeism contains many different components. I can mention you one here, though I suspect you to already know. It contains the racist and sexist idea, that a persons level of privilege in society and placement in an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy can be read from that person’s sex, sexuality and ”race”, and it claims to understand how treating people differently, according to those racial generalizations and prejudices, will help real or imagine iniquities. I suggest you seek information on Wokeism on your own. On the Woke side, have read DiAngelo, Coates, Kendi and several other, as well as many papers and studies. On the Anti-Woke side, I can suggest Hitchens, Doyle, Douglas Murray and more. If you really are uninformed on the topic, please do read. It’s a bit of a societal emergency.
@@Dantegrey1 When it comes to Hitchens, it is not clear how woke/antiwoke he would be if he lived to our days.
@nikokapanen82 I consider it very clear. Hitchens was againt all types of Identity Politics.
@@JC3335you know damn well what it means, comrade. 🙄
we cannot forget - my relative was jailed for 13 years for her father's "crimes" against the people
In Russia??
I had never heard of underground education where they had their own accreditation system. It seems embellished or a result of a misinterpretation at some point.
I hope Audrey continues with this, the world needs warriors for truth who are very articulate and well versed. She's cool.
Should go without saying that the first paragraph is in the same context ie in the Soviet bloc.
Well underground education is the vehicle for radicalisation (most religions carry out underground education to subvert public school teaching for example laying the seeds of instability in societies) so I actually think the argument is one-sided and naive. Peter was hinting at this problem in her logic but was kind enough to back away...
Man I am in love with this women. 😍😍
Speaking to the question,” why wont the people vote in someone who will make better policies?” I think people are too scared to say, I was wrong. It challenges their belief system, and that’s scary.
If the ruling ideology is true, then it's not an ideology - it's just a set of facts. A defining characteristic of ideology is that it fundamentally relies on claims that are unfalsifiable. True believers accept these claims as fact because of their faith in the ideology, which demands some level of irrationality. This is why ideologues are similar to fundamentalists.
So there can be no independent truth...
@@JC3335 Well, if you don't believe in logic postulates and in the empirical world, I guess not. But as soon as you start with the postulate that rationality exists (in the strict sense that logic rules exists) and/or that empirical data is not only a figment of your imagination, you can derive truths from any statements or verify the "truthfulness" of any claim, as long as it's written in a falsifiable way.
(just sharing with you) Some ideologies have doctrine which may be revised & replaced (like a constitution that includes provision for amendment). As totalitarian ideologies also have dogma (specify absolutes), I use "ideologue" to describe someone who promotes the absolutes, the "True beliefs." I consider truths to be best approximations, approximations that are worthy of improvement because they can be improved with new data, new methods of analysis, and new ways of interpreting data.
@@alanjones5639 I agree. A system of beliefs, no matter how internally coherent, should leave space for improvement over time and application. As more of a consequentialist that I sometimes want to admit, the impacts of the application of my beliefs are usually what challenges them more than anything else, but when the analysis of the potential consequences (or even the actual consequences) is murky (especially when looking far in the future), I suddenly return more to virtue ethics instincts.
Ideologies cannot be "true" but can rely on some truths, and wildly extrapolate from them.
I dont believe Lenin thought he was a god - that's a personal reading based on one's own biases including the belief of god. This is at the heart of the very problem being claimed everywhere else - until this aspect is let go then there can be no truth other than a bias.
4:06 I really don't think discussing Plato was ever a crime in Poland. Also, underground education furing wwII was illegal and people were killed for it. How are popular podcasts similar to that?
Underground education involves radicalisation, pornography, and much more - like anything, its neither good nor bad but can be exploited either way
She's an American conservative. She's talking about "totalitarian regimes" like an American conservative would, as a fantasy boogeyman, not as actual countries, with real people still alive and with memory.
@@pedrob3953You are mistaking people who are pushing back against a trend towards authoritarianism, regardless of its source, with regimes that were already near total authoritative states. I see this argument frequently. The argument seems to be that until a nation is as bad as 1935 Germany,1948 USSR, or 1972 Cambodia, then anyone who raises concerns is "just a conspiracy theorist ". I note that you mention the conservative concerns of authoritarianism without adressing the equally strong concerns of progressives concerning conservative authoritarianism. Note that I said progressive and not liberal, as I have observed that the left side of political spectrum is no longer "liberal" in the classical sense.
What bothers me is that I can’t get a true statement from ai.
I was born in Communist Hungary. Raised in the Roman Catholic Church. My hobby is reading up on religion so am pretty familiar with Islam.
It's all the same garbage. Feel don't think and just shut up and obey. The antidote? Free speech.
But free speech assumes an ability to rbeak free of what was programmed into you during your formative years - this is near impossible for most people no matter how they rationalise. Consequently, changes is only possible through generations by appropriate teaching but ensuring that teaching is appropriate is the challenge and why even the best societies fall over time.
@@JC3335and WHO decides what is “appropriate?”
@@theunknownatheist3815 exactly - capitalist authoritarianism, communist authoritariansim or indeed any authoritarianism? Once the human condition is allowed to make decisions self-interest takes over.
Excellent
“We are your one source of truth [everything else is mis/dis/mal information].” Jacinda Ardern.
Interesting that Peter's objection to radically decentralized education is that some parents might teach things that he considers untrue or wrong, thereby staking out the same "moral" high ground that the authoritarian indoctrinators take. I say let the parents teach, an educated individual is capable of detecting error by engaging in free speech with other individuals.
Thats what the extremist religions say as well...
I can understand Peter’s reluctance about allowing a wide-open decentralized education system that doesn’t provide “some protective mechanisms”. For over 30 years, in British Columbia, Canada, the Independent Schools Act has Inspectors confirm that such programs do not, in theory or practice, promote or foster - racial, religious or ethnic superiority or persecution, social change through violent action, or sedition. I would expect this applies to the home education field as well
@@Tunyasez Indeed - the same underground teachings across the middle east eventually seeded much of their problems today
Interesting
53:30 Wasn't that guy found not guilty on all charges a little while ago? (could have misinterpreted since I'm not too familiar with the jury system etc.)
edit: nevermind they're talking about voting for trump as well.. so the interview was probably recorded a bit less recently than I'd assumed by seeing the date :P
I was in the USSR 4 times from 1967 to 1973
Which proponent of AI technology has said they either are God or that they want to be God?
after the collapse of soviet union i watched an interview with one of the "architects" of their project, he discussed methods used and examples in history and in the light of then new democratic and hopefully world when asked how to teach children be immune to such things he said that it all falls apart if one understands there are no "us" and "them", so since then I am very cautious anyone trying to sell me something like that.
We will see this conversation play out again, in 60 years give or take, with the future Peter Boghossian talking about China and the CCP
I don't think talking to leftists is helping anyone. They've been taught to always oppose and to always drown others out with useless information. But it may be productive to talk to non-leftist liberals. I believe if you find the right ones, they will be more willing to exchange ideas.
Great that non-leftists always never oppose and always agree with other peoples ideas....
Defund leftists.
Nice to see a young woman thinking for herself
💯
Czechslov-aykia. Wowzerz, kiddo.
Wowzerz? Is this because I've been saying it wrong and she corrected me?
8:00 Freethought and a free press are necessary for liberal democracy. Atheists who are also freethinkers avoid True beliefs and so avoid both religious and political dogma (ideology). To conflate atheism with Marxism-Leninism is a subterfuge.
55:00 Ought the pursuit of truth be led by someone who does not admit to being wrong. Should it be led by someone who would help to turn a democracy into a theocracy?
“Overwhelm them with facts” … I have seen this so much in how history is taught. It is a vast topic encompassing countless stories. It is very easy for a political activist to cherrypick facts to support/ reinforce their desired narrative (that is before all the other forms of bias they employ).
Imagine a jar with 100 black and white marbles. 90 white, 10 black. A student only is shown 5 throughout their education… if the students picked at random, they’d get 90% white marbles…but it would be easy for an ideological teacher to convince them that the jar was full of black marbles.
One issue, Peter asked what do you do with small groups of people who want to form scale education groups who believe things like young earth, etc. These groups already exist even with the massive public educational industrial complex. Public education has only a limited role in what people believe. 6 to 8 hours a day. People continue their education far beyond their time in school. The other issue is that as schools lock down around specific views - evolution vs creationism - and only allow one view and do not allow an exploration of an differing view - it pushes people to explore what has been denied. We should not worry abour small out groups. Allow school vouchers and charter schools, etc to let people explore their options. This would force the greatest reform of public education. People would generally send their kids to public schools if they are of good quality. A smaller percentage will send their kids to smaller, specialized schools. And the same issues will allow those students in thier time out of their schools to explore alternative view points.
@drpeterboghossian - I'm searching through all your videos of an interview you did with a woman that talked about the history of WPATH and the members that were involved in a castration/kink forum. It was about a year ago. Someone I know does not believe it.
Yes, that was specifically around the new chapter on the eunuch gender identity that was added in WPATH SOC 8. I'm not sure who he might have interviewed on that, but check out the WPATH Files by Mia Hughes and Michael Schellenberger.
Behind the paywall at Daily Wire Bill Whittle "What We Saw Empire Of Terror." I thought I knew about the USSR. I..Was..Wrong.
OR You Tube Search Bill Whittle Empire Of Terror.
The DW, and EVERYONE who is part of it, IS BS PROPAGANDA. They are garbage . Religious wackos pushing their faith on everybody, with lies and made up garbage .
❤
She's pretty
Inappropriate comment dont you think?
@JC3335
No, I don't.
I think she's really pretty.
You can always ignore me, right?
Intelligence is beautiful.
@JC3335
Factual.
Intelligence is beautiful
To balance this comment… Peter is hot too
Throughout history we have only sacrificed our children to Gods. Today we are sacrificing children again to an ideology (and I don’t say that to be over dramatic) In my view the line will always be children and our responsibility to their innocence & security.
Something to note that Russian revolutionaries of the 19th and early 20th centuries had many of the traits typical of the modern American woke left. Most of them came from upper class or upper-middle class of the society and were university students when they became revolutionaries. They were completely ignorant of the wishes and desires of the same Russian poor that they were so eager to liberate. They were also full of self-flagellation and self-hate, and extremely intolerant to other views. Needless to say, they were the first ones to be imprisoned and killed in the first waves of the Soviet terror in 1920es because they were not as hard-core of sadists as the new wave of revolutionaries. In the Russians' defense, unlike the modern American woke, they were willing to take on much more suffering for the cause. Anyone who watched the interview of Joanna King-Slutsky, the leader of the Columbia U mob, can tell that she considers even a missed meal a torture. Would be interesting to see how she would behave upon visiting her Gazan "freedom fighters" that she cares so much about.
They wouldn't exist without Russian czarism. They didn't come out of nowhere. Just as American "woke left" is a reaction to American oligarchic society.
I’ve been trying to tell people for ages, the same thing she said about the “atheism-communism” connection. The communists were NOT “atheists” per se, in the way people like Peter, or Dawkins, or Hitch were atheists. The communists didn’t evaluate the claims of religions and remain unconvinced- THEY WANTED TO BE THE ONLY SOURCE FOR “TRUTH” AND AUTHORITY. So they did away with the competition.
if you say so... communism itself is a system of society in response to integrating ideas of atheism by very well respected Russian and German thinkers - no one ever said it was atheism especially once the human condition starts inserting caveats of self-interest
Great interview, thanks!
I agree with almost every point you both make about the importance of freedom of speech (and expression, for that matter), but we will need to eventually have a serious discussion about this "truth will prevail" thing... With how social media and the Internet in general works today, I have to say I am doubtful that most important "truths" will always eventually come out and prevail in due time. "More speech" does not efficiently combat misinformation in a structure where views are self-reinforcing by means of algorithms and bots. "More speech" used to be somewhat of an answer when the village idiot had to contend with the rest of his proximate community, but now, village idiots around the world can entertain the most idiotic beliefs together while being rewarded for engaging only with their already-held views without challenging them, while slowly but surely integrating other people in their circles, first by getting the "gullible", than by influencing people with related views.
But I am in no way promoting censorship (other than the clearly reasonable stuff like criminal activity, including death threats, for example) ; we just need to acknowledge that we need to think about how we will make sure that our core values and their applications do not bring us closer to our doom. Some adjustments must be made. What adjustments?, you might ask. Other than some kind of regulation on preference-based algorithms, beats me.
What would be the existential downside to allowing isolated communities to teach their children whatever false knowledge they want? Reality will eventually correct false understanding, if that false understanding is critical. If the issue isn't critical, then why engage in a crusade to repress the issue? Humans are naturally skeptical when faced with incongruity.
Who gets to decide which religion is false? Who gets to decide which science is false? Let reality decide.
Called radicalisation - history teaches you wouldnt tell the difference and you'd end up at best more Amish tribes (though they may end up massacring each other through occasional runins and fights over resources)... happens in that Amzaon tribes, indigenous tribes all over the world and so on... basically you lose civilisation
Jordan Peterson drew his line in the sand between prohibiting speech vs. compelling speech. Seems like a similar line for regulations on education could be good. Eg. A regulation saying "You can't teach young earth" is allowed but "you must teach crt" isn't
I’m wondering about this broadcast. Is this a rebroadcast of some old event??? It seems at the beginning it’s very recent. . . but towards the end, it’s obvious that it’s done somewhere in October 2024 or so. Audrey says people should vote for Trump in November. Peter mentions the NYC bus case as if the veteran, Daniel Penny who choked Jordan Neely could go to jail . . . Well, my information is that on Dec 9, Daniel Penny was found not guilty of negligent homicide. So far, I see there are 3,533 views and 100 Comments and that this broadcast happened 7 hours ago. What gives here? I wanted to comment on the contents, but hesitate . . . I appreciate the issues discussed but hesitate because this little issue of contradictions makes me wonder? I just joined because I was so impressed with the broadcast about Academic Fraud, made a comment, and so now I’m really confused.
They probably recorded it months ago, and finally released it. Take it easy on the conspiracy theories 🙄
If it's true then it's reality, not ideology
how do you know?
truth is a fiction - "god exists" because I believe does not make it a truth. This then leads to a personal echo chamber, simulating the very thing the other side is being criticised for.
Teaching Creationism is the least problem we have in education.
You cannot have a free country without morality
@@lynnelee4390 Morality has nothing to do with Creationism. That said Creationism and evolution has very little to do with anything in the real world and you can easily argue that evolution has been used to largest mass atrocities in history.
@@lynnelee4390 why? On what basis is your morality? Creationism is fundamentally an extremist view, devoid of any moral principles so the context is unclear, and a form of radicalisation so its quite a silly comment to say its the least of problems if it gets taught within mainstream science for example.
@@lynnelee4390”creationism” has NOTHING to do with morality.
If the indoctrination worked in the soviet Union it would never have fallen apart. It fell apart because enough people stopped believing in it despite the indoctrination. It fell apart and they let it
It fell apart because the terror that kept in place was removed. People didn’t believe in it in the previous decades but they knew the terror was real so kept quiet.
@VauxhallViva-s8x If your system is held together only by terror, then your system is a house of cards.
This isn't Amber Rose Tamblyn?
Great surname!: Unverferth. German for "undaunted" or "intrepid"!
Less cringy on education. I wonder if you would find interesting talking points with Mikhail Svetov?
Her history is a bit off
Also her Russian is off a bit
What I find astounding, and this is reflected in the discussion, is what is counted as right wing. Really? That used to left wing in the 90's.
I think it would be good to understand the root of their hatred. Because no one listens to something and subscribes to it unless they relate to it in some way.
They so if they are young and malleable, and brainwashed.
Kicked out of social groups is scary to young people
26:17 I’ve repeatedly seen ‘she’ pronoun in tech books for years now.
Quite shallow on the soviet union. I wonder if I should continue....
As largely anti-soviet Russian (descending from an enemy of the people), I feel that this is kind of primitive propaganda as you would receive in your standard dei class with a different subject at its core.
What a lovely lady all around
Most parent aren’t fit to be parent. They perpetuate the mistakes that their own parents did with them. It’s a long chain of mistakes that nobody intent to break.
From having lived in the US until 1975, I do not think free speech is always the answer, because of the active, horrible racism it encouraged. But what I think could help is understanding the importance of our early years, 0-3, and understanding how that shapes how we relate to (and in) the world, and why that is our (perhaps unconscious) choice. Understanding motivation at that level is very well explained by Gabor Mate in 'The Myth of Normal'. Several times during this conversation I wish the speakers had gone deeper than the 'topic' itself, and gone into what motivation (sometimes personal) made it important to them. Ultimately, looking at our motivation for doing what we do is what we need to understand for our own happiness.
Racism as a whole has been long gone in the u.s.
The left is trying to bring it back, as a tool to divide.
Totalitarianism is more than racism, so u missed the whole point
Education shares values not determines
The question of what is truth, always ends up with another question: who decides? My best answer is that everyone has their own truth, based on their experience and everyone has a different experience. We need new frontiers to accommodate an ever increasing variety of personal experiences. Finding a new planet that is habitable would be a boon for people looking for relief from their perceived oppression.
There are many objective "truths" by definitions of logic postulates, and you also cannot say that something is empirically true if it has not been verified so by empirical means (by definition...). Personal experience cannot negate the fact that If A, then B + If B, then C = If A, then C. Or that the evolution theory has been thoroughly tested and verified. Here, it's not a question of "who decides", but of "who understands".
Sure, I could understand the argument that some social sciences could use a bit more of subjectivism to be more "inclusive of personal experience", like modern political science, but then what would be the use if it cannot be (as much as) objectively (possible) applied?
My 3 kids were homeschooled. One engineer, second doing her master's to teach, third with 2 years left for computer science. None of them wasted time wondering what gender/pronoun they are.
Did you only release this interview now because you didn’t approve of her Trump endorsement prior to election?
Why take so long to release this interview?
This was interesting until 36 minutes in when this young woman couldn't answer the questions about education and how or what is called for.