I feel that while Peterson makes pretty good points, when he compares the right and the left, he doesn't give conservatives adequate representation. Conservatives are not against immigration. They are against uncontrolled immigration without assimilation. I and every conservative I have spoken to agree that legal immigrants in many cases make the best citizens. So it's less about xenophobia and more about maintaining order in a responsible way. The left in my opinion has become extremely reckless and misguided in a way that is damaging this country.
Conservative Atheist bingo!!! It’s about the law. Laws keep us safe and give order to a culture. Folks who come here illegally not only demonstrate an attitude of entitlement (and we have enough of those already), but show they don’t share the idea that laws are there for a good reason.
I think your point is well reasoned (and I agree there are very real problems with immigration, legal and illegal), but Jonathan's point would be "yes, but that's reason, your emotions come first." Essentially if you are predisposed to in-group loyalty and xenophobia then you are more likely to be against immigration, in practice you might target a specific sector of immigration such as illegal immigration.
@@michaelharrington6698 While that may be a motivation for some, there are alternative emotional motivations. Many are flattered & welcoming of immigrants who come in and assimilate. Illegal immigration has many adverse consequences on minority communities, wages, public safety & healthcare. Each has its own emotional impacts, so it would be a mistake to simply fall back on "xenophobia".
I recognized the hostile climate back in the late 1980s when pursuing my first degrees in sociology/anthropology and being somewhat central/classical liberal. Even at this point the dominant professors in the social sciences were devout leftists and any ideas outside Marxist orthodoxy was rejected and ridiculed.
I'm a Christian fundamentalist, and a professor of medicine and biochemistry. I keep my beliefs quiet from the secular Inquisition that rules the academy. I'm not the caricature most media portray. It's good to see some liberals question the Inquisition they began. Yet these few liberals are very few and under assault.
Jr None there’s no such thing as secular inquisition. Inquisition is a product of authoritarianism, a trait found in near every moral and political ideology in history, but specifically incompatible with secularism. So what you experience is not a secular inquisition, it’s an ideologically far left authoritarian inquisition. To lump secularism (which every man, woman and child living in the western world owes their life and livelihood to) with leftist demagoguery is as regressive as anything I’ve heard. There will always be those who hate western secularism, from within (postmodernists, neomarxists and no disrespect, but undoubtedly fundamentalist christians) and from abroad (islamists, communists etc).
I’m curious: what do you mean when you say you’re a Christian fundamentalist? I’ve never met any and I always assumed they all believe that evolution isn’t real and they’re very anti-science. Considering you’re a scientist, I’d like to know your opinion on that. :)
By definition Secularism should be incompatible with Inquisition. And as we know with definitions, they simply don't match the reality - the definitions of Socialism, Communism and Feminism do not match the reality of what adherents to Socialism, Communism and Feminism have done in the past and are currently doing. Their actions violate the definitions they so hypocritically point out to detractors. Secularism is no different. In reality Secularism is just as susceptible to Inquisition as any other ideology - and Secularism IS an ideology, with its own set of basic principles and need for Authority to enforce it. And so it does succumb to Inquisition on a regular basis - if you want to see a current example, look at Quebec, in Canada, and its current attempts to destroy the Burka/Niqab. It is an attempt to demonize a tiny portion of the population (at most 1000 women, mostly in Montreal, Gatineau and Quebec City) by legally mandating that they do not dress in a certain way. No matter what your feelings on the Burka/Niqab may be (and I personally find them to be an offensive symbol of cowardice, defeat and cynicism - they are a blinding message that Men are Dangerous Animals who Will Not, Can Not, and Will NEVER be able to control themselves around women, so the only way that women can have any measure of safety is to hide. They scream at me that I am a threat to them, and that there is no use in trying to make me better - I cannot improve. Ever. I am a Beast. That is what the Niqab/Burka mean to me.) this proposed law is Secular Authoritarianism bringing its power down on a tiny minority - the only thing that makes it an imperfect Inquisition is that it doesn't explicitly target a single "enemy", but the intent is obvious. This is a modern-day version of an inquisition. A Secular inquisition.
A Dude secularism while an ideology, and obviously not a perfect one in all respects, by definition is non enforceable, and therefore cannot be authoritarian by its very nature. All the other ideologies you listed, while on paper do not outwardly espouse authoritarianism, can be interpreted and enforced that way. Enforcement of ideology, including secular ideology, is not secular.
And Secularism is being enforced in Quebec by the Authorities in Quebec. Sorry dude, but you're just plain wrong about this - Secularism is as susceptible to authoritarianism as any other ideology, regardless of how it's defined, and it can be and IS being enforced by Authority. It is just as easy to interpret and enforce Secularism in an Authoritarian way. All the wishing and pointing at the literal definition doesn't change the fact that Secularism is as easy to enforce as any other Ideology, and that it is being enforced right now.
One small point of disagreement on Jonathan Haidt's terminology that I think is in line with Jordan Peterson's comment on unsophisticated / sophisticated religion: It's not *religious* thinking (how man relates to God/the gods) that's the problem, but *dogmatic* thinking (where individuals blindly side with their group and are unwilling to be reasoned to find the truth of matter) that's the problem. I know many people equate dogmatism & unreasonableness with religion (and I can see why given how some religious people think & act), but they're not necessarily the same thing (nor should they be). "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, *open to reason*, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere." - James 3:17 See Also: "Christian Apologetics" - Reasoned, evidenced, and logical advocacy of the Christian faith"
I sleep fine because I understand the difference between words. Such as .... Accepting something from authority as true simply because of their authority IS tribalistic.
Religion doesn't have to be related to a god at all, religion is just the application of some dogma considered inherently sacred (egalitarianism, for instance). Tribalism (eg: populist dogma) is just as much of a religion as Islam, Christianity, etc, but it just has a different source of the dogma.
I had a similar experience. I also used to think the right was stupid and evil, primarily because I let the left tell me what the right thought, rather than asking those on the right. I realized if they really were stupid and/or evil, it should be no problem for me to listen to what they had to say for themselves, and then judge. Once I decided to challenge my held notions and open my mind to the other side of the argument, it wasn't long before I realized the left was lying to me, and they either didn't understand the other side's argument or they were disingenuously doing so. I started to listen to voices on the right and found they were reasonable for the most part, and actually aligned closer with my inner beliefs, and the left had been taking them out of context and distorting their arguments to make them sound stupid or evil.
With all due respect, you don't sound like someone who has engaged deeply and directly (at least not in a way that attempts actual understanding of the argument), or much of a judge of "intellectualism", if you're still pushing half-truths based on out-of-context statements like "Trump loves the poorly educated" that rely on omitting the rest of the sentence. In fact, that is exactly what I found so distasteful from the left, is the warping of statements and omissions to make the opposition look stupid or evil. You just illustrated everything that is wrong with he left, and really everything that I was pointing out. Thanks.
Yah, see, right there. The core of right-wing ideology is about limiting central government, which is a message with much wider appeal than just to religious people or those who support our natural rights of self-defense, as well as the promotion and preservation of culture that supports and values those ideas. But you tried to reduce it down to an insult about them being stupid and evil, just like I've been saying. You don't actually engage with arguments, you simply sling insults that are based on what seems to be your own ignorance, which is what makes me question that you've ever engaged "deeply and directly" in any meaningful way at all. Most likely your "engagements" have consisted largely of insults targeted at making your opponent look stupid and evil. You're on the left. I disagree with you, but it's based on substantive argument. I don't need to try to portray you as morally or intellecutally deficient because I can argue with you based on substance. You, however, require insult and ad hominem to have a discussion to avoid having to address substance. That's the sign of a weak argument. And once I truly looked at both sides of the argument, it became painfully obvious what the left has become.
Your missing the point I don't want to now or ever support immigrants from third world countries, not now not ever, people of my culture yes but even then only those who really need it because of some unfortunate accident or illness which is no fault of their own. I don't want to change the culture that I love and grew up with. And these immigrants can move back to countries they left from and enjoy their original country anytime they wish, where do I go every country thats even remotely shares my culture is facing the same flooding of immigrants.
And really if we conservatives had our way our country would flourish forever for us and our children, and liberals or marxists lives would not change one bit, but if you guys get your way it will change our way of life forever. So i suggest run one country the exact way you want and wait and see how it turns out before you try to change every bloody country in the world so if it fails there will be no where to go.
the old claim of anti Science is frequently wrong Questioning a specific theory or its organization ect IS Science Claiming something demonstrable true as false and unimportant is anti Science,Also Science is a method not A thing like a teapot
The right does not question Scientific Theories based on evidence though. They deny evolution for religious cultural reasons. They deny global warming for short-term business profit reasons.
"They deny evolution for religious cultural reasons." Not true. Evolution is still only a theory and every day it gets more holes shot in it. Darwin offered his theory long before the discovery of DNA, and he knew nothing of Gregor Mendel's work because it was contemporaneous and subsequent to Origin of Species published in 1859. Infogalactic says this in the article about Gregor Mendel: "Mendel's work was rejected at first in the scientific community, and was not widely accepted until after he died. During his own lifetime, most biologists held the idea that all characteristics were passed to the next generation through blending inheritance, in which the traits from each parent are averaged together. Instances of this phenomenon are now explained by the action of multiple genes with quantitative effects. Charles Darwin tried unsuccessfully to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis. It was not until the early 20th century that the importance of Mendel's ideas was realized." If you're going to push "evolution" you have to explain the Origin of DNA. Evolutionists can't explain the existence of DNA in any way that makes sense now that we have Information Theory to help us understand that order does not spontaneously arise out of chaos. Darwin could get away with suggesting that organisms could arise out of chaos, but that's not a credible assertion any more, except for ideologues who have an axe to grind.
"which validates the original point of religious motivations." An accusation of religious motivation is not a refutation. A real Christian wants to believe what is true, and not just what he wants to believe. The thing that a lot of evolutionists can't seem to handle is that it is mathematically absurd to propose that DNA came about by random chance or even trial and error. DNA is an expression of language, and language is an expression of intelligence. That DNA is organized like a language is not a theory, but an observation of fact. Which is not irrefutable proof that the God of Abraham Isaac & Jacob is God, but it would be consistent with that religious theory.
@@jamesedwards.1069 You confuse what the common person calls a "theory" and a scientific theory. Plate tectonics is a scientific theory, we can observe the continental and oceanic plates moving over time. There's far and away too much evidence proving evolution to remotely rationally consider that it possibly never happened, even before "nail in the coffin" to creationism examples in fossil transitional species discoveries like Tiiktalik and Ambulocetus. Also clear as day in dogs how even one species in a relatively short time can drastically change if it's selected for some advantage. Not a matter of "if" evolution happened, it definitely did and continues to happen, and I can't argue with those who haven't realized it yet (or I can but I'm not going to get muddy subjugating myself to rolling in the filth in the idea evolution might not be a fact, homologous structures are everywhere, genetic similarities just as you'd expect on a phylogenetic tree, "boring billion" in that it took at least a Billion (aka 1000 million) years for any multi-cellular life to evolve from single celled life. The only questions, if even worth asking, is why God if he exists enjoys making species go extinct and new species to evolve constantly (in deep geological time), why he loves having hundreds of thousands of species of beetles but only 4,500 living species of mammals, and why he loves decay & death so much that they are necessary to have ever-changing life and be constantly intertwined with life (orrrr, much more likely imo, he's either not all wise, knowing, and just; Or it's all indeed just random chance and we just can't comprehend/ discover everything because we are just primitive emotional/ instinctual animals with over-sized brains and too much cumulative societal progress for our own good)
I'm politically registered as non-partisan (independent) except for a brief nine month stint as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary during the 2016 election year (yes, I was a Bernie bro). I recently came up with an analogy for my independent political views based on a friend of mine who was so afraid of driving that they got everywhere by only making right hand turns, (had they lived in the UK this would have been replaced with left hand turns no doubt). They were adamant in their adherence to this and I was amazed to find that one actually could get almost anywhere by using this technique. There are exceptions but those are rare in a heavily populated area like Los Angeles but these exceptions, once encountered, are insurmountable and one is forced to make the occasional left hand turn and when in a more rural area with few roads it's an impossibility to get anywhere by not doing so. As I entered my teens I thought I had to make a decision as to what political party I would join but soon saw a problem with considering myself exclusively Democrat or Republican. So, when coming of voting age, and being told by my mother that if I wanted to vote I had the option of being neither, I registered non-partisan (independent) and have proudly remained so except for that brief aforementioned period. Very much like Peterson's analogy of the snake, I consider that to navigate the political road map by only adhering to a 'right hand turn' strategy as being not only impractical but downright ignorant considering. The one negative aspect to this is having to remain silent in certain social situations or risk being shunned by those that require political conformity from those they associate with. However, I have a big mouth and bigger opinions so I've had to suffer the life of a loner for most of my sixty plus years. Que lastima!
You miss the flip side of that argument. He also says that you are wrong about liberals. His whole point is to awaken each side into the value of the "others". Each side is wrong about the other, because they immerse themselves only in comfort news rather than challenge themselves by trying to understand the "others" argument. We should seek out the truths within the arguments of "them" and the problems within the arguments of "we", because we already know too well the truths within the arguments of "we" and all the problems within the arguments of "them".
@Jonathan Gullett If the right understood liberals, why would they say they're all socialist/communists even? Because the bar has been lowered absurdly by propaganda to nonsensical levels. By hand wringing and scapegoating demonization of the left. And it's been done by special interests for an agenda to give the elite everything they want at the loss of everyone else. In short: Conservatism has been hijacked by authoritarians using smoke and mirrors, lies and demagogues. When conservatism degenerates to end justifies the means because of blantent exaggeration resulting in fear and mob violence against their neighbor, that's off the rails. Most conservatives are good people too...until they've been radicalized by propaganda to fear and hate. The current push to nationalism is evidence specifically. But it's also a world wide threat from scapegoating social problems with the degradation of democracy and takeover by fascist "strongmen" that at least pretend in many places. Fascism prays on unrest and scapegoats, using our own freedoms against us.
@@georgeroberts613 once again you're showing your bias. On average, the right understands the left but not the other way around. Haidt did this study as well.
@@vantao9408 The right thinks they do, but have different priorities with total blindness to other things. I'll refer you to Jeffery H's comment. But progressives and conservatives think from a differing primary lobe of the brain, as established by brain scans. In truth, they need each other to cover all the bases and for either to proclaim sole righteousness is both absurd and dangerous. But far more so when radical right ideology trumps human decency. It would seem the right's proximity in the anterior singulate as primary may be too close to the fear center of the brain near by. Just maybe.
Without batting an eye, a man who is considered among our best intellectuals, basically said he had to go to India, deliberately challenge himself to see the world as Indians see it, in order to stop thinking, not believing, but thinking (he said "I always thought") that half of his native country were not evil and/or stupid on account of their politics. Let that sink in.
Let it also sink in that no amount of self justification covers lies and deceit in the pursuit of self-interest by radical right authoritarians pretending to be conservative to hide in plain sight.
@@georgeroberts613 Neither of these is a radical right authoritarian so I assume you are referring to Trump and his supporters, but the real authoritarians of recent years are the radical left, who are now in control of the government. You probably think Fascists and Nazis are right-wing but that is so wrong and the Woke Democrats are very similar in ideology and attitude to the Nazis. See my playlists for the full proof.
@@nightjaronthegate Of course I'm referring to those that are running around saying the sky is falling if progressives try to save both our infrastructure and the middle class. Your evaluation of the left as all commies depends totally on the spin from the radical right with their wrists always firmly planted against their foreheads for anything liberal or progressives try to do. You just don't get that it's the deep pockets making mountains out of mole hills jerking your chain. The GOP starve the beast game is interesting. They spend like a drunken sailor when in power, then scream about spending and the deficeit when not. Chaney told Bob, their chief economic adviser in the white house "...Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the election, this is our due." That after Bob told them another tax cut would be disastrous as they already had a500 billion dollar deficit coming the following year. Chaney, not Bush, fired him two months later for not being with the program. Two dozen top "business people" tried to set in motion a fascist plan to overthrow our government in the mid-thirties because FDR was such a commie. That attitude was the same that formed the John Birch Society near the same time. Few people even know about it as it was swept under the rug after it's discovery as FDR was concerned it might further undermine what little confidence the masses had that "we were all in this together". It wasn't rediscovered until an investigative journalist found the Congressional Record on the incident in the Library of Congress in the late fifties or early sixties. it would be good to remember the shanty towns all over the nation were referred to as "Hoovervilles" because he and the GOP had sat on their hands for years waiting for things to get better, all while sitting down to a good meal every night. Never mind the chief cause of death for the elderly was either freezing or starving to death during those years of the Depression. General Smedley Butler wrote the book "War Is A Rich Man's Game". He knew because he'd spent his career putting down "uprising" in various "bannana" republics, etc., for the benefit of the super rich. But his men loved him because he always looked out for them. The cabal knew this but didn't understand why. They thought they could recruit him and he'd go along with their good ol' boy scheme. They knew he could raise a half million man veteran army over night. They just didn't get he was a man of the people. So when approached to lead their effort as a straw man figure head, he brought along a reporter friend of his to take notes until they took it to congress. The bunch sent a guy to Italy to see how Mussolini was handling things. He wrote back glowing reports of how he'd handled those pesky unions and gotten the economy going again...but at the point of a gun, saying we needed fascism in this country, which was what they'd intended regardless. The idea was for Butler to go to FDR and tell him to sit in the corner with his blanket on his lap and create a new cabinet post for him to 'run things'. One plotter noted they had the newspapers, and the "stupid' American people would fall for what they told them since FDR was ill anyway. The richest of the bunch said he'd spend half his sixty million to save the other half from this lousy FDR commie. They still hate the "New Deal"...and finally got rid of FDR's Glass/Stegal Act in '98, partying like crazy in mansion-land. Three weeks later, they passed the Gram/Leach/Blily Act to make sure credit default swaps and derivatives couldn't be regulated...balls to the wall no regulation capitalism being the holy grail an' all. But guess what screwed the economy in ten years flat with the crash of '08...the giant real estate bubble and liar loans that created it with bankers "ripping their faces off", their own term as the salesmen patted themselves on the back for the hollow bs they were peddling ...and got bonuses even as the walls were falling. The acronym was "IBG,YBG"...I'll be gone, you'll gone...so sit down and shut up and watch the money roll in. Hoover at FDR's inauguration wouldn't look at FDR in the limo going to his inauguration, wouldn't shake his hand and sat sulking out the window enroute. Same radical nonsense thinking anyone that isn't with us is against us. That's radicalism that becomes real fascism. The anti-FDR cabal just didn't get or care what representative democracy is about in the slightest. Their only interest was greed and power...nothing has changed. Money has power whether we do or not. We either keep a strong central government to control them and lead the world rationally, or they control us. For nature abhors a vacuum. It's what our democracy was designed for by our forefathers that won, namely Jefferson and friends. Adams was paranoid and wanted the rich to control things even then. It's why those great friends had a life long falling out...though they wrote each other constantly in their final years. They died within a week of each other still thinking the other was alive. Adams commented on it, though I don't buy that is was his last words:) Our constitution is designed to keep power in the hands of the people, not big money authoritarians pretending to care about anyone but themselves as they pretend to be 'conservative' an bend it to their own desires. They have the money to pay the pipers and they spend it to call the tune. And you mudwhumps suck it up as if it's gospel. You don't get that your entire dictionary has their definitions stamped in it so that everything you think is defined by them. Heaven forbid you stick your heads up and see what the real world says to reality-check those definitions. You knee jerk to their spin with reactions they dictate because you don't know any better. The echo chamber of paid liars keeps you stirred up and freaking out. It's you who are becoming the Nazis with emotions replacing logic due to circular definitions designed for you to run in circles. This crap was really kick started in public by Newt Gaingrinch with his 100 "words and phrases" to counter anything a liberal might say. He copied them off and handed them out...and thus began true take-no-prisoners vitriol in congress. But Reagan started the parade by telling us all that Democratic government is the problem, not the solution, thus setting the stage for even the current crap. Jefferson strongly disagrees. BUT THE BIGGEST THING YOU DON'T GET is that liberals and conservatives need each other to cover all the bases. They're like two halves of the same brain...and should never be out of sight of each other. You think, thanks to the bs, that liberals are commies and out to go socialist. Bull. Capitalism must be regulated or the deep pockets take over...just because they can. This nonsense about "trickle down" is a clown show, and they demonize the left because, like Dave Koch said when caught on a Justice Department wire asked why he "cheated", ..."Because it's mine and I want it all."...on tape. Don't think that's an isolated incident. The rich get real self righteous real fast...or they grow up with it. Just ask Chris Hedges, a poor kid who was brilliant...and got scholarships to the best universities...and 'hung' with the rich kids, saw the nonsense first hand. Feel free to check him out. And it doesn't necessarily matter all that much whether they are liberal or conservative as Joe Manchin is demonstrating when comfort and money are just your due. It's just that authoritarians flock to the right and hide in plain sight, pretending to care because it's easy to whip up emotions on the less informed and less educated right. Then, wallah, you've got a parade to jump in front of. Frump said years ago that if he ran, it would be as a Republican...because "Republicans are the stupidest people around"...not an exact quote but you get the drift. His thoughts, not mine. Don't like it? Look it up if you want it verbatim...that means exactly as he said it. Conservatives are usually good people, aren't usually any more evil than anyone else...unless they are deliberately led in that direction by authoritarians playing games and playing on their personal prejudices, while paying the piper. Most of us want to be good Americans, but waving a flag harder and screaming louder that you're more patriot than the next guy is a clown show with emotionally unstable people often leading the pack. Jan. 6th is a historic case in point, no if's, ands, or buts. And NO, NO ANTIFA "sprinkled through the crowd" to antagonize the poor peaceful but gullible Frumpers whipped into a mob by Frump and half a dozen more just beforehand and told to "take names and kick ass". Wrong order. The idiot couldn't even get that right. And Frump told them "weakness" was not going to cut it to win the day. Nothing serious there eh. And Juliani told them it was time for "trial by combat". No, just peaceful protestors. Though the Proud Bois and Oath Keepers had already started the siege as the Frump crowd was just leaving for the capital. And screaming about killing people is just normal stuff. No reason to take a violent mob seriously. .....What planet do you live on?
@@nightjaronthegate More to your point: The more radical right is often referring to the left as pantywaists of one sort or another. They say liberals think too much, equivocate too much thinking things to death. Sometimes a relevant point. But you can't have it both ways. Are they pantywaists or authoritarians eating children...must be both eh. Scapegoating demonetization is designed to make others out as evil if not demonic, to dehumanize them...so kicking ass and taking names if not killing them, hanging them, beating them to death with baseball bats, or slicing them up with machetes as in Rwanda is just a natural course to save our wives and children and country. There was a book in the thirties, "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. There's a quote attributed to him that isn't actually in the book..."When fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Then there's Vice President Henry Wallace's 1944 NYT op/ed that talks about the threat of fascism here even after The War. You might give that a read. And Jefferson's1816 letter to Samuel Kircheval is marvelous as only Jefferson could do.
The more secular our culture becomes the more orthodox the academics become. There's a religious void that is being filled with a new cathedral or orthodox. And that orthodoxy is now wokeness.
Such a great discussion! I recommend and challenge anyone to make close contact with at least one person they disagree with on a few matters important to them. It is as good for your case in arguments as it is for your soul. I have constantly been surprised by how much I can learn from hearing out opposing points of view and considering them whole-heartedly before formulating my own judgments on them.
I would love to see some kind of organized class that focuses on "How to understand the coded language of the opposing political party". As a left-leaning centrist, I *sometimes* see glimmers of logic on the right, but I would really like to understand how some of the more atrocious (and imo deceitful) claims are supported by the psychology of conservatives. I think I've gotten pretty good at deconstructing progressive absurdities, but I bet plenty of conservatives would benefit from that in the same way.
[Please bear with me as I get around to making my main point] I am a lifelong conservative atheist. I am a fan of The Age of Enlightenment Ideals, and the US Constitution (a clear product of that age). I studied Mathematics. I don't waste time debating Christians anymore because (Cost/Benefit Analysis) they pose very little threat (in my view) compared to other groups with their own set of unsubstantiated dogmatic belief--therefore I have less to gain by fighting the influence of Christians even though I am still an atheist (seeing time as the main cost in my Cost/Benefit analysis). I am a critic of Islam--which I consider more dangerous as well as under-criticized, and therefore a somewhat better use of my time. But, at least in the West, I consider the Left to be that group that has the best chance to upset the Left Right balance; Control others (in the creepy way that cults and despots do); and undermine the Age of Enlightenment Ideals with their campaign of intolerant, holier-than-thou, dogmatic, un-examined, unsubstantiated, prepackaged feelings, biases and assertions. For these reasons I consider the Left to be the biggest danger in Western Society. I have a sort of example to give but consider it necessary to use an analogy for one side--which is something in itself because while I can say "I don't believe in god" and fully expect to proceed with a reasonable conversation...I can not say "I don't believe [insert Leftist dogma here] and expect to have a reasonable conversation after that: On the one hand: In H.S. when I debated Christians, a common first response to: "I don't believe in God," was: "Do you believe in the Devil?" "No, how could I, that'd be ridiculous." But having settled that point the conversation would continue polity. So, there was that hint of...well if you don't believe as I do [which I conflate with goodness], perhaps it is because you are a follower of evil. Never, Ever, EVER was the reaction...well maybe you are a fan of Empiricism, and Reason, with an IQ in the 98th percentile--that reaction I never got! But I see the Left as far far worse. I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny (an analogy hopefully free from knee-jerk emotional responses so that what I say can be viewed by all unemotionally) and the left says: that's because you hate Bunnies!! "But I don't hate bunnies" "Yes you do you Fucking bunny hater, you hate bunnies and hate chocolate because chocolate is brown and you are a racist! And you hate eggs because they are a clear symbol of the feminine and you hate women! Get out of here you FUCKING Racists, Misogynist, Bunny hating Nazi!" "But this is a public place [or a place I was actually invited to speak]" "You Fucking Bunny killing Nazi! Hey everybody, shout him down chase him away!"
Mark Stump I’m not a Christian, but to me, christian values are why we have made it this far as a country. The complete secularization of the US will conclude with a one party system. And it won’t be conservatives.
@@elcidS15 Atheists have the same values as yours except they don't believe in God. So what is the big deal. You think atheists cannot tell right from wrong???? Who do you think you are? I think centre is the way to go. Balance and harmony. Inclusive up to a certain point. The Liberals today are insane and way out of line.
The book The Hydras Tale is a good read. Disgust helps us avoid disease , unclean, dirty . We aren't afraid of the snake. We see it as inherently dangerous and unhealthy. And we want to avoid the infection and the deleterious effects upon others Disgust works like this. Degradation and lowering of Sanctity plays a role
I'm a left of centre liberal (by Canadian standards) who wrongly assumed that science supported liberal ideas. And if you are talking about liberalism in the accurate way you would probably be right. Later I found that many of my peers on the left weren't very liberal. They were pretty quick to reject science for natural remedies and support the ideas of the blank slate. At some point I looked around at these post modernists and wondered what I was doing with them. I'm still a liberal that loves art, music, drama and dance. I don't believe in god or rally around the military and patriotic symbols. However, I don't know what this fringe group of the left is thinking anymore than I understand what the more radical right is thinking.
i never talk positively about middle eastern migration, not because i'm an extremist right winger. i'm actually left of center. it's because there is zero net benefit from middle eastern migration, and it's also dangerous. I think this idea of the virtue of openness only applies to the unknown. if you're faced with an untested thing, the right wing might say lets not do it it could be dangerous, the left will say lets do it it could be beneficial. the problem is, we have proven over and over and over and over that accepting migrants from middle eastern countries is always damaging to your society, and the more you accept the more damaging it is. this is the point where basic common sense should override the left wing openness.
I think it's not just my grandparents generation dying leaving only my parents' generation but also transportation which can reorganize communities to be increasingly homogenous and extreme.
What's wrong with being Anti-immigrant? What's wrong with Tribalism? Maybe Israel should tear down those walls and invite all people from around the world to come to their country.
7 ปีที่แล้ว +71
Instead of the snake image I use the pendulum metaphore, where humanity is always going back and forth, from conservatism to liberalism and back again. At this point, we see that the pendulum is reaching the furthest end to the left; however, people are opening their eyes to the falacies of the left rhetoric of the last forty years. The way back is going to be painfully hard, specially for the western countries of the northen hemisphere. Fortunately, we, at the southern hemisphere, are too backward and too inured on our ways to be too much moved by the feminists, homosexualists (which is not the same as homosexuals), ambientalists and other political fauna that have come to this part of the world to indoctrinate us. We are fighting them with all we have, they have won some battles, but we're still on the winning side. And, believe me, we are prepared to die before backing down; at least, I am because my grandchildren's future is at stake. Best regards from Lima Perú 😄🌹
You're one smart grandma, and the pendulum analogy is likely correct. This was very great to read, thank you and I'm glad an intellectual like you can appropriately educate your grandchildren.
7 ปีที่แล้ว +6
I am doing my best. I too have started my own TH-cam channel in Spanish (in which I boast 472 suscribers 😄) to share what I learn since I'm fluent in English and a little less fluent in French. The news I watch are really scary and I noticed were totally different from what we were getting here in the papers. So, I give my version in my channel and have discussions like this one. That is my war effort. Best regards.
7 ปีที่แล้ว +4
Yes, I agree 100% of what you have mentioned. I love literature (it is my field of expertise) and the titles of books just keep pouring from my head on the "programming education" you denounce: "1984", "Farenheit 451", "A Brave New World", "Animal Farm". The latest title I have read is "The Book Thief", nice but not as powerful as the previously mentioned. Peterson always mentions the "The Gulag Archipielago" and "Crime and Punishment". It is a pity he cannot read in Spanish because there are some very poignant storys like "El Señor Presidente" of Miguel Ángel Asturias (NP 1967), "Macario" of Juan Rulfo and many others that talk about human misery. Thank you for your comment and I invite you to come visit us and see for yourself that South America is also in the southern hemisphere 😉. Best regards,
Yes, as the Cassie Jaye Red Pill saga showed, Australian media and education are as left-leaning as anything going round, and very hostile to any act of ideological dissent. However, in politics there is still a strong conservative influence. It is like the US in this respect. The media and universities have abandoned the working classes, but they bite at the ballot box.
Suppose you fill a hollow pendulum ball with sand and let it fall down trough a hole. Then you put a huge roll of paper underneath the pendulum, and while it moves, you slide that paper as if wanting to map it's motion. The sand will draw a harmonic pattern on the paper, which looks like the path described by a snake. Just tought that was interesting.
*_THANK YOU!!_* I've been saying for a long time that RACE, SOCIAL JUSTICE & MASCULINITY are the New religions. I thought I was going crazy until today.
This video hasn't aged very well has it? Of course conservatives have a different moral sense. Many of us have been horrified by the expression of conservative morality all our lives - not the least has been their over the top racism and homophobia, their loyalty to horrid creatures such as the Trump and all its criminal behavior, and their incessant lies about just about everything. By the way, Jonathan Haidt never been Left leaning, has never been a liberal as he has always been a bit too cringy for that. In other words, he is not being intellectually honest here. Neither is Jordan Peterson who has since made a rather despicable public spectacle of himself.
That was an awesome exchange, however I do disagree with painting the right as "anti-immigrant". That label might apply to movements leaning more towards nationalism, but anything remotely close to Milton Friedman libertarianism is totally for open borders. The key is understanding that these ideologies are models of how the world works. Every single model has bounds and breaks down outside those bounds. For example, while having open borders and free trade is an incredible economic boon, things obviously become much more complicated when you factor in the threat of radical Islam. In that sense, people who are blindly for open borders under any circumstance are just as foolish as those blindly opposed to it.
I would bet that libertarians tend to score high in openness. The way these dudes are talking (conservatives=high conscientiousness, low openness; liberals=low conscientiousness, high openness), it makes more sense to think about libertarians as liberals. Indeed, in the traditional sense of the word, 'liberal' entails support for free markets.
I’ve always liked Jonathan Haidt videos, even though I’ve only seen a few. Personally, I come from being a conservative, but drifting pretty early into libertarianism (which isn’t as right-wing as it’s made out to be). I love his message of understanding the other side’s views. So many people, left wing, right wing, even in my libertarian corner, are so dogmatic and stuck in their ways that they refuse to see any validity in the other Dodd’s point of view. If you can summarize the other sides point of view so we’ll that they might think you agree with them, then you truly understand where they’re coming from.
Humans in their ego hate the idea that they came from the dirt. Evolution is real world evidence of the biblical statement, "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
I like how more and more people are finding this center/libertarian mentality that showcases individual identity instead of the group/mob mentality. The more these thinkers can get their views out there and others can realize they aren't partisan the better off society can be as a whole just by learning how each person can prioritize their individuality instead of following something blindly. It's very unfortunate the far left tries to paint them as some sort of nazi or something, I mean- just hear this dialogue this is just bouncing great metaphors and individuality back and forth. Plus, denouncing of radical partisan groups to some extent brings its own value to the table.
the term "orthodoxy" is forever changed to me now. i always knew the word but it has broader applications. i had to look it up to understand the context it was used in his point. "orthodoxy" from ancient Greek for "right opinion". OPINION.
Anyone who has taken College Statistics knows that 2/3rds of a population exist within one standard deviation (we mostly kinda get along) with eachother. But in politics we only focus on the most extreme Left 1/6th and the Extreme Right 1/6th of the population. In fact, those tend to be the extremist we let represent us (Nancy Pelosi, Ted Cruz). This is why Politics are broken, they do not represent the majority 2/3rds of US. You can lean Left, You can lean Right, but if you have deviated outside the standard of the population, then by the very definition you are an extremist.
Your title is a grabber to be sure but this talk isn’t quite that now is it. It, in fact, points out how both sides are right and wrong in their thinking and why that is so.
Clandestine Reactionary That can said of both side and, indeed, it is so. And while I agree with most of this, especially concerning discourse and free speech, the crux of of problems go deeper than this.
Eliminate the prejudice issue - globally eliminate all immigration. From anywhere, to anywhere. No nation is obligated to accept anyone. And to do so, means either, accepting the poor and unskilled and breaking your own economy, or, accepting only the best of the best, causing brain drain. Both are bad. Just end it.
Great talk. It’s a shame that Jonathan Haidt has not seemingly has not read a book on the development of science before 1650. In the Abbeys,, monasteries and cathedral schools of Christian Europe science was growing steadily for many centuries previous to that time. The main figures of the scientific development of the West have almost without exception been Christian. They studied science because they saw gods design in nature and to “follow God’s thoughts after him” by studying nature.✝️🇺🇸
Very interesting, and quite ironic as science eventually came to reject all notions of god a priori. This was actually one of Nietzsche's points, that the "death of god" came about precisely from the will to truth that Christianity had instilled in humans. "Il ne cherche le vrai que pour faire le bien! -- I bet he finds nothing"
Both Liberals and conservatives have left the bottom 80 or 90 percent, but then again the record shows conservatives were last with them in days of yore, if ever.
The thing which religion and politics/government have in common is taking something simple and pure and making it corrupt and complicated. I'm a Christian and basically Libertarian thus I embrace the two Great Commandments and the ideals of "Don't hurt other people and don't take their stuff." Nowadays I think we've reached a point where, if I can use a cinematic analogy, our political and social discourse boils down to Vulcan Logic versus Jedi Force. Both have noble goals, to serve that which is good and right; but they cannot operate independently and failing to recognize this puts society, its need and causes in jeopardy. Society, needing government of its own imperfections, can't be purely emotional, this will result in chaos; nor can people be constrained by pure logic, this will result in fascism. Emotions tell us we need to act, logic tells how to act. Of course, on board the universal tilt-a-whirl, the fun part is when this dichotomy is reversed; logic tells us we need to act, and emotion tells us how to act. This commonly occurs as the aftermath of natural disasters is seen, which can result in selfless behavior. Under normal circumstances, this reversal would make one wish life was provided with air-sick bags.
Interesting, and I like both Haidt and Peterson. But I find it annoying to hear psychologists talk about these things like they've just discovered them, when philosophers have been discussing this for 2500+ years. The bit about moral systems involving the body and high-low and dirty-clean distinctions was discussed well by Nietzsche, and goes all the way back to Plato at least. You don't need to go back to apes 2 million years ago to understand it.
I am a park rat who knows a lot of middle-class and upper-middle class leftists. They are "pro-trans", "pro LGBTQ", "pro feminism", "pro-non-GMO organic vegan", "pro-Palestine", "pro Immigrant" but their life doesn't reflect it. Most of them are in wealthy neighborhoods. Went to "white schools" with wealthy teachers. Had their parents pay for college. Got their job through family and neighborhood connections. Will exclusively date people of their own class. They mostly even work in industries that are subsidised by the Govt - oil industry, auto-industry, defense, banks you name it. Nothing in common with the working man in the US that does not own a home or could afford college. They (wealthy liberals) don't know what it's like to want to have birth control but not be able to afford it. What it's like to have a healthy lifestyle when you are constantly worried about rent or your car breaking down and not having a place to crash and recoup. America isn't turning left because of morality. They are turning left because they are becoming broke because the people who decided to take their jobs and ship it overseas are only conservative when it comes to their handful of family members. Not the 100s of their countrymen that get laid off. That's who the us vs them should be about.
How someone feels is not a sign of spirit powers. Some people feel Gods presence. Some people feel god speaks to them thru their dog. Feelings are not proof of anything. Not anything at all except that feelings exist.
(continued) They are standing so close to the trees that they can't see the forest. Just like scientists who study the atom, forget to change their perception to see the entire world out there. There is a larger, simpler reality that they are swimming in, but which they are not able to perceive.
Now let's hope he really examined his prejudices about religious people and religion and puts an end to the Ludacris notion that it's stupid brainwashed violent or delusional to believe there's a God, and afterlife, and that it matters. This is probably the worst thing about intellectuals like like him, although he's nowhere near as shallow, disingenuous, or fraudulent, disingenuous, or fraudulent as, say, Steven Pinker.
In case people don't know, the modern economic miracle of Singapore was created in only 30 to 40 years by a very conservative man, Lee Kuan Yew with of course the allegiance and support of a mostly conservative populace. I say mostly conservative as there were commies at the beginning. Gradually, over about 20 years, commies were fully edged out and there is virtually no poverty in Singapore, prosperity being the norm for most. India, initially very hard socialist/commie after Independence in 1948, saw for the most part only increases in poverty during that time, with limited increases in prosperity going to politicians and their cronies exactly as depticted in Orwell's "Animal Farm". In 1991 India began to phase in capitalism and free markets, being nearly bankrupt, and prosperity increase kicked in quickly. India remains a largely conservative culture now enjoying 10 to 13% gdp growth every year. There's still a lot of welfare schemes in India, but the goal is to see them naturally phase out as prosperity increases. China, a complicated story not easy to sum up, has remained largely conservative though being communist, and switched out of hard communism to state capitalism, a switch often attributed to tutoring by Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. But even before that, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" was initiated to rekindle the conservative traditions in China....it was not a evolution to overthrow the past but to overthrow the malaise that Mao himself had caused. Anywhere there is prosperity in Asia you can be sure conservatives are in control.
Hi Adam Jacobs: Virtually all government policies in Singapore are conservative as Lee Kuan Yew had to sign off on all of them. Yew is about as conservative as one can get, Chinese Confucian style of conservative. As for some specifics: As part of poverty alleviation / prosperity creating initiatives, Singapore undertook an innovative program of government built housing. Instead of Soviet style block housing for the poor, seen in USSR and many Western democracies, govt. housing in Singapore was aesthetically superior. Then instead of renting the housing, and giving rent vouchers, the housing was sold to the poor, with the govt carrying the down payment. Monthly payments, with few exceptions, were not subsidized and in fact were not rent but mortgage payments. Only by way of ownership, reasoned Yew, would the occupants care for the property because they had skin in the game. The occupants could sell the home, perhaps because they were moving up. From proceeds of the sale govt is repaid the down payment, plus interest on downpayment, and the remainder goes to the seller. Property appreciated tended to be the norm, so occupant was again motivated to well maintain the property (cuz if not maintained it would not appreciate much if at all). Thus the seemingly socialist govt housing was a net gain for the govt, proceeds from which were plowed back into the program. And thus poverty was not institutionalized, nor could a political party capture the poor by promising them housing benefits paid for by taxing the rich. As part of the housing scheme was a rule that after a flat is loaned to someone of a particular group, say Hindu, the next flat in the building would have to go to a non-Hindu. And so on until all 4 major identity groups were represented, then the 5th flat could go to a Hindu. Such was done to tamp down group identity isolation and politics. Another scheme to tamp down identity grouping centered around restaurant and bakery permits. After say an Islamic restaurant opened in a neighborhood, the next restaurant permit would have to go to a non-muslim eatery/bakery. A third scheme to tamp down identity grouping was the selection of English as the official language. And behind the scenes of tamping down group identity politics was the goal of substituting nationalism as the main rallying point for all the people, thus channeling otherwise unproductive identity issues into an all for one Singaporean identity. Banning of all recreational drugs - Singapore has frittered away virtually nothing in terms of tax dollars on the problems that drugs create. They did this by early on instituting harsh penalities for drug use and even harsher penalties for sale. There are other rather harsh penalities for infractions of the law, for instance, public caning for graffiti. There is virtually no graffiti in Singapore. Graffiti pulls down property values when the goal is appreciation of value. Shaming by caning of law breakers carries with it the conservative idea that social excuses are not acceptable. Then there was the banning of publications by communists/communist political parties, and later, complete ban on commie political parties. Yew has noted, in his writing and speeches and interviews, that commies only wanted to pull down high achievers to a common low level, while he and others wanted to pull people up, which they did, in stellar fashion at a high rate of speed. Universal military conscription for all males for minimum 1 or 2 years...not sure of exact duration. In this way, as teenage boys transistion to adults they gain some military discipline. Yew also advocated for and funded as much military power as could be afforded, choosing to buy weaponry from USA because, in his words, it was highest quality. The excellent education system in Singapore is another gift from the mind of Yew, who reasoned that poverty elimination would require sharp minds, as the dull don't add positively to the mix and instead tend to support commies. Singapore system was very cleverly devised to build upon fundamentals and tend to slow learners without the slow being an undue burden to the education budget. Considering that Singapore has no natural resources and is hot and humid and rainy with monsoons, her accomplishments outweigh that of Finland by about 1000 times. That 1000 fold amplification factor is the gift of conservatism, but of course we must give Yew a good deal of the credit. Consider, btw, that both Singapore and Cuba got started at about the same time. Cuba could have been another Singapore.
Hi Adam Jacobs Conservatism has not nearly destroyed the republic. It is not the conservatives who favor massive increases in national debt, rather, it is the liberal democrats who favor that which is something one could say is akin to destroying the republic. It is not the conservatives bu the liberal democrats that have favored illegal immigration which has cut wages for so many American citizens born in America, perhaps putting them in a position to need a social safety net they otherwise would not have needed. It was liberal democrats that ruined much of the African American people with their war on poverty that increased poverty, a mistake not made by Singapore. Conservatives in USA never approved of recreational drug usage, rather it was democrats, such as the Hollywood and Music Biz crowd that did that. You might want to learn more about how Singapore pulled off the Modern Economic Miracle. It is also worth noting that people of Singapore are very happy in general and so there's not much market for psychotherapists. Conservatism leads to happier people in general. For instance, visitors to India are often quite surprised at how friendly and easy going and fairly happy the people are while there is yet so much poverty. The answer is simple: India has a conservative culture. I did a casual study with TH-cam. Into the search box I entered "high school" and then either "USA (or America)" or Singapore. Lots of in-classroom videos can be found. One can also enter instead of USA the name of a city in USA. What I see in USA is a lot of poorly groomed unhappy faces, but in Singapore the kids all look fantastic - untroubled and beaming. One can do similar search on other conservative cultures, typically that means Asian, and see more or less the same contrast - Asian and S. Asian highschool kids look better than their USA counterparts for the most part. A real shocker from India is Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences. The name is not very telling. 20,000 really poor kids getting a first class education and room and board, K thru 10. KISS is not a government program, it is a private conservtive secular organization, primarily Hindu. Lots of vids about KISS on YT and I must say those kids look great, on par with the Singaporean kids. You might wonder....how does one feed 20000 kids? The KISS kitchen is awesome. And note, while the meals are nutritious no effort is spent catering to the students dietary preferences. There is no menu of choices only the same nutritious meal fed to all, except some newcomers with deficiencies get some special diets until they catch up. Compare KISS meal program with the problem-plagued and costly school lunch programs in USA schools. No comparison. It is conservative to feed one same nutritious meal to all and take no inputs from the children. Considering that Singapore got it right, can you say that Cuba got it wrong?
its because you do actually have to be ignorant of the plight of the disenfranchised in our country to be conservative. Conservative VALUES are totally valid, and in that sense I AM a conservative....BUT because of what it takes to actually be charitable to your fellow man, and because of the real facts on the ground I am a liberal. Most psychologists similarly, because they actually see real people in their practice and get to know them similarly know that society has to step in and substantially help others, not just crabbily yell at people to yank themselves up by their bootstraps. I mean, it needs to do that too, but it also needs to help them.
I don't agree with the premise that tugging from both sides keeps us in the center so we don't go to extremes. There is long and livid history of political systems that demonstrate what works and what doesn't and plenty of data to support certain ideas or shut down others. For instance, the data on the minimum wage and its effects are not good and been tested not only in the United States, but other countries as well with the same results (Thomas Sowell, 1980 Knowledge and Decisions). There are not many things on the left in today's political climate that can pass such a test, so anytime that ideology starts pulling, its pulling into a region that is not good and, in fact, harmful, which is not suppose to be the middle of the road. In sum, no minimum wage (traditionally a republican ideology) is the base line which works and is best, any deviation from that is harmful and going the wrong way, so were is the middle of the road? It would be with some minimum wage however low, but none is best for everyone involved.
This rings true! I am currently in a graduate program and I am entrenched in Liberal propaganda. Even the professors brainwash us that "Trump is the devil himself"... this is so inappropriate! What makes them think they have the right to openly attack conservatives? How is this different than making fun of one's religion? This needs to stop.
That's all you got out of this? Blindness isn't reserved to any particular side. Most see what they want to see. Those that have seen Frump as a hero and savior delude themselves by thinking liberals are far worse. If you drum up enough imaginary demons, even Judice would look good. But ignoring tRump's shortcomings doesn't make them go away, it just means you've been whipped up and handed a pitchfork. Just for fun?...I don't think so. The first BIG LIE was trickle down economics where the libertarian branch of authoritarian oligarchs at the top pretend to be conservative when it suits them to hijack conservatism for fun and profit. Hence, we argue amongst ourselves while they plunder and pretend they 'aren't doin' nothin'...that they are the victims.
I tend to believe our innate personality archetypes largely determine our political perspectives. See tomwoods.com/ep-248-one-year-of-the-tom-woods-show-tom-takes-on-more-myths/#comment-1746327349 for more than I can show here. NT Rationals keirsey.com/temperament/rational-overview/ often tend to be libertarian while only making up some 5-10% of any general population. NF Idealists keirsey.com/temperament/idealist-overview/ tend to be left/progressive/liberal/charismatic with 15-20% of the population. SP Artisans keirsey.com/temperament/artisan-overview/ tend to be pragmatic with 30-35% of the population. SJ Guardians keirsey.com/temperament/guardian-overview/ tend to be conservative with 40-45% of the population. NT Rationals live to understand. NF Idealists live to feel. SP Artisans live to take action. SJ Guardians live to serve. SJ Guardians tend to look to the past in order to guide our actions today. SP Artisans tend to look to the present as it is only in the present that we can take action today. NF Idealists tend to look to the future so as to build the best of all imaginable worlds for tomorrow. NT Rationals tend to understand that the distinction between past/present/future is substantially arbitrary. NT Rationals tend to believe authority is derived from the truth while SJ Guardians especially, along with most everyone else, tend to believe truth is derived from authority. NT Rationals understand the necessity of creating new wealth in order to alleviate poverty while most everyone else thinks only in terms of redistributing or sharing wealth as being the only means to alleviate poverty. See *Socialism and Human Nature* www.cato.org/events/socialism-human-nature for more on this where we learn that hundreds of thousands of years of deep human pre-history has taught humanity the value of sharing wealth while being either indifferent, to being actively hostile, to the creation and conservation of wealth. Most of humanity has no emotional awareness of the necessity of conserving _seed corn_ in order to create new wealth and thereby actually alleviating poverty. *_I believe that an atavistic longing after the life of the noble savage is the main source of the collectivist tradition._* ~ Friedrich von Hayek
Social science is not a science, for starters. All this babble could be summed up in a short paragraph, or two - with emphasis on the fact that many people adamantly oppose the concept of individual responsibility, and also don't know the very elementary basics of scientific method (i.e., they are unable to weight facts objectively, pragmatically and logically). It is just the way it is. It is ordinarily called "easily persuaded", "easily duped", or just plain "brain dead".
Strange. Science began in a Church - Copernicus was a bishop, Medicis were great sponsors of artists and scholars, kings and bishops in Europe were supporting science for hundreds of years (Da Vinci,. Michael Angelo as examples).... Dogmatic thinking is killing science and is never supported by the majority of the followers. And the Church is the body (followers), not the head. Note that dogmatic movements in the Church are eradicated from the main stream and are always a fringe (iconoclasts for example). (At least in a normal society, Americans are always a little loony and more intense, going from 0 to 100 and not being able to find happy medium). Communism is pure dogma, unable to produce and create, created to demolish and subvert. How can any intelligent person be a communist? It's easy - they are being tricked into it. Their conceit (mortal sin) is leading them to it: hey believe in it, because they believe they are better than great unwashed, uneducated, plebs beneath them. Nothing has changed in the mindset of English speaking nations for the last 300 years. UK is a cast society, more than India, and this is their "gift" to their colonies: mindset of the second sons who colonised and despised savages....
That fully negates the value of what he's saying. I get it. I can't listen to a radio broadcast, because I like to watch the face of a speaker. He has a white face. That negates his ideas, right there.
Haidt still doesn't understand the immigration issue. Conservatives do not object to immigration. It's ILLEGAL immigration that is the problem because it has been a corrupting influence on politics, the economy, public policy, the justice system, etc. In fact, Conservatives have great admiration for LEGAL immigrants who have embraced the American dream as well as our traditions and values. The Left is very good at manipulating terms and definitions in order to control the conversation. This conflation of illegal and legal immigration is what keeps us from logically dealing with the issue, which is exactly what the Left intended. And many Republican politicians (McCain, Lindsey Graham, GHW Bush) have been willing accomplices in that regard. This is part of what Trump means when he talks about the Deep State- a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats whose priority, above all, is to protect their castles... and damn the American taxpayer for even thinking they should be accountable.
I'm thinking that he does. He talks about how unfettered immigration can hurt the low income earner and the most vulnerable in society when he mentions how Obama even talked about it. However, the left have made any discussion about immigration taboo. They don't distinguish between the legal and illegal and accuse anyone who would do so a racist and a morally bankrupt person. That has become the big change in how society looks at immigration. There is an academic power house in place that feels that their compassion for illegal immigrants must supersede the rule of law. They will never concede to the idea that compassion can actually do more harm than good if not used in a judicious manner. Unbridled compassion is paramount and if it tears the entire system down, that's a price they're willing to pay. The system is corrupt anyway, in their mind.
Hi Jack, you're right, he understands some of the component arguments, but if you look back @13:16 he says "Immigration has become a sacred topic". In so doing, he's acquiescing to the way the Left has conflated legal and illegal. In fact, I don't think he was even aware he did it (and neither was Peterson). You clearly see the distinction, and it is key to having an honest public policy debate on the issue... but with so many issues, the Left is skilled at twisting language. Other examples of this would be "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life" or climate change "denier" rather than "skeptic". The media runs with the terminology that the Left adopts and this constantly shuts down earnest debate because it puts the Right on a defensive posture. God forbid the Left would have to make a claim and support their position with evidence... no, it's much easier to establish an Orthodoxy.
MervandtheMagicTones That's the truth about the left and evidence. They're not about to let facts get in the way of a good ideology. Actually, I was of the impression that he was being a bit facetious when he made that comment about immigration being a sacred topic. I took it as a shot at the left. I know that if you leave a comment of facebook about vetting immigrants, I get called a racist and bigot within minutes. The left will brook no discussion on immigration unless you want the borders wide open. I thought that this was what he meant when he said it was a sacred topic. Sacred to the left.
Ahhh, ok. I can see reading him that way. By the way, despite my earlier comments, I do give Haidt a lot of credit for sincere and reasonable analysis and for refusing to join in the ideological lockstep. I hope that he can help to influence a change of course in academia. As an aside, you're likely familiar with Victor Davis Hanson... his take on illegal immigration is very incisive.
MervandtheMagicTones I agree with quite a bit of what Hanson says but my take on unfettered immigration has more to do with economic pressures. If you let too many people into any western country and it will start to put a huge drain on the economy and will tend to drag down the standard of living here. That's not good for us but, in the end, it will be even worse for those living in 3rd World countries. For those countries to have any kind of solid economic future, they need a strong economy in the west. A large corporation demonstrates this problem all the time. The CEO of a large corporation knows that a poorly producing segment of the business will drain everything away from the more successful parts and could drain them into bankruptcy. That's the danger over immigration poses, especially the "let them all come" attitude some on the left are advocating. Their compassion could, in the end, do more harm than good.
You are mistaken. What the Greeks had was philosophy - the love of knowledge, and the search for the truth. The Arabs had nothing that their Middle Eastern pre-Islamic forefathers (the Egyptian and Babylonian civilisations and others), as well as the Indians and the Chinese, did _not_ have. The method-less search for knowledge is all well and good, but it goes only so far. It does not employ the scientific method, which was not developed until the 16-17th centuries. The scientific method, particularly the concepts of peer review, multi-factor testing, blind trials, and so on, is the only effective method of eliminating such basic human weaknesses as confirmation bias and satisfaction with having "found" the "truth." Scientists _never_ find the truth, because there is no "truth" to find. Science is the never-ending process of unearthing yet more facts about the universe, and of constantly re-testing the hypotheses that serve as lenses through which we understand the world. This attitude - this mindset - has existed only for a few hundred years. That is why mankind has made more progress in understanding the world and creating technology - look around you! - that changes the world out of all recognition, in the past four hundred years or so, than in all the preceding millennia.
@DieFlabbergast " the scientific method, which was not developed until the 16-17th centuries." The Scientific Method was developed in the 13th century by a Christian, Roger Bacon. "Scientists never find the truth, because there is no "truth" to find." Is that absolutely true?? If so then truth has been found thereby destroying your statement. If not then we can never come to any scientific conclusion ever, making the endeavors pointless. The only thing that the Arabs have given to the world is algebra and a growing distaste of Islam.
If aliens (existed and) wanted to know what humanity is all about i would send Johnathan Haidt to represent us. The amount of respect i have for this man is something I've never experienced before.
These two most prominent allegedly "balanced" observers of the left-right schism in the U.S. really aren't balanced at all. They both couch their rightward bias in reasonable-sounding phrases while ripping the left and flattering the right. Note that they both blame the schism on the left's hostility toward the right while making no mention whatsoever of the shocking change in conservatism and the Republican party over the past half century from rational and highly principled to the near-total abandonment of both in the aggressive pursuit of unchallengeable social and political dominance. I'm not talking about the right kowtowing to the left; I'm talking about the right's abandonment of their own principles and values for the sake of power, bragging rights, and the chance to spite the libs at every turn. Do these two so-called intellectuals really not notice the change? That's simply not possible. Haidt also habitually makes a point of attacking the left's obsession with social justice while whistling past the right's blatant contempt for it. A truly objective observer would be ashamed to display that kind of bias. The schism exists today because the left has finally become as dogmatic and doctrinaire as the right has always been, and now instead of just one side who will never give an inch, we have two. Liberals are taking notice of the internal contradiction in thinking like progressives while behaving like conservatives and speaking up about it, but the right is as self-righteously intransigent and incapable of confronting their own fallibility as ever. As long as that's the case, we'll remain stuck as a nation and unable to move or lead, now and beyond Trump. Already much of the world is realigning to push us aside and move on without us. Both sides have plenty to admit, apologize for and get to work correcting. Assigning blame is getting us nowhere.
Your bias is showing, and you clearly didn't really listen to the talk. Either that or you are selectively "remembering" it as part of the confirmation bias process. These two are as close to being in the damn centre as anyone one could find. It's only because the entire political spectrum has shifted so far toward the left in the past few decades that what is actually a balanced, centrist stance looks to liberals like something to the right of Genghis Khan. These two men are still liberals at their core - liberals as they used to be, before rigidly ideological patterns of thought took over.
I don't know if you were around in the 1960s and 1970s, but it sounds like you were born after Reagan took office in 1981. The national political spectrum hasn't veered this far to the right since the late 19th century Gilded Age of sweatshops, robber barons, and unregulated monopolism. The Republican party is literally doing its damnedest to recreate that era, and with the destruction of organized labor in most sectors of the economy, the Democrats have been forced to feed from the same big money donor trough as the GOP. When people start believing themselves when they call centrist politicians like Obama and Clinton "socialists", and people like Sarah Palin, Roy Moore and Joe Arpaio are treated as legitimate political candidates, and people like Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul are considered serious thinkers, and half the population thinks Fox is a legit news organization, all of that should tell you the whole spectrum's been jerked alarmingly far to the right. Your historical perspective seems typically narrow and short, as very few average Americans know their history or care.
Gartner101 did you not listen to anything that was said in the videos? It was explained that universities have edged out conservative thought, have made conservatives know they are not welcome.. both explicitly and in subtle ways, to the point that in some areas there is one conservative to every 20 liberals. And you blame this on the conservative! Utterly astounding, you are a perfect embodiment of a leftist.
I feel that while Peterson makes pretty good points, when he compares the right and the left, he doesn't give conservatives adequate representation. Conservatives are not against immigration. They are against uncontrolled immigration without assimilation. I and every conservative I have spoken to agree that legal immigrants in many cases make the best citizens. So it's less about xenophobia and more about maintaining order in a responsible way. The left in my opinion has become extremely reckless and misguided in a way that is damaging this country.
Conservative Atheist bingo!!! It’s about the law. Laws keep us safe and give order to a culture. Folks who come here illegally not only demonstrate an attitude of entitlement (and we have enough of those already), but show they don’t share the idea that laws are there for a good reason.
I think your point is well reasoned (and I agree there are very real problems with immigration, legal and illegal), but Jonathan's point would be "yes, but that's reason, your emotions come first." Essentially if you are predisposed to in-group loyalty and xenophobia then you are more likely to be against immigration, in practice you might target a specific sector of immigration such as illegal immigration.
@@michaelharrington6698 While that may be a motivation for some, there are alternative emotional motivations. Many are flattered & welcoming of immigrants who come in and assimilate. Illegal immigration has many adverse consequences on minority communities, wages, public safety & healthcare. Each has its own emotional impacts, so it would be a mistake to simply fall back on "xenophobia".
@@nebulous6660 you are still in a reason first mindset
@@michaelharrington6698 emotions have reasons
But, there are those of us conservatives who are open to new cultures and ideas.... as long as it does not risk destroying what we do have now.
That's why I prefer not to define myself in labels. Labels are useless because they make people assume a lot.
I recognized the hostile climate back in the late 1980s when pursuing my first degrees in sociology/anthropology and being somewhat central/classical liberal. Even at this point the dominant professors in the social sciences were devout leftists and any ideas outside Marxist orthodoxy was rejected and ridiculed.
I'm a Christian fundamentalist, and a professor of medicine and biochemistry. I keep my beliefs quiet from the secular Inquisition that rules the academy. I'm not the caricature most media portray. It's good to see some liberals question the Inquisition they began. Yet these few liberals are very few and under assault.
Jr None there’s no such thing as secular inquisition. Inquisition is a product of authoritarianism, a trait found in near every moral and political ideology in history, but specifically incompatible with secularism. So what you experience is not a secular inquisition, it’s an ideologically far left authoritarian inquisition. To lump secularism (which every man, woman and child living in the western world owes their life and livelihood to) with leftist demagoguery is as regressive as anything I’ve heard. There will always be those who hate western secularism, from within (postmodernists, neomarxists and no disrespect, but undoubtedly fundamentalist christians) and from abroad (islamists, communists etc).
I’m curious: what do you mean when you say you’re a Christian fundamentalist? I’ve never met any and I always assumed they all believe that evolution isn’t real and they’re very anti-science. Considering you’re a scientist, I’d like to know your opinion on that. :)
By definition Secularism should be incompatible with Inquisition. And as we know with definitions, they simply don't match the reality - the definitions of Socialism, Communism and Feminism do not match the reality of what adherents to Socialism, Communism and Feminism have done in the past and are currently doing. Their actions violate the definitions they so hypocritically point out to detractors. Secularism is no different.
In reality Secularism is just as susceptible to Inquisition as any other ideology - and Secularism IS an ideology, with its own set of basic principles and need for Authority to enforce it. And so it does succumb to Inquisition on a regular basis - if you want to see a current example, look at Quebec, in Canada, and its current attempts to destroy the Burka/Niqab. It is an attempt to demonize a tiny portion of the population (at most 1000 women, mostly in Montreal, Gatineau and Quebec City) by legally mandating that they do not dress in a certain way.
No matter what your feelings on the Burka/Niqab may be (and I personally find them to be an offensive symbol of cowardice, defeat and cynicism - they are a blinding message that Men are Dangerous Animals who Will Not, Can Not, and Will NEVER be able to control themselves around women, so the only way that women can have any measure of safety is to hide. They scream at me that I am a threat to them, and that there is no use in trying to make me better - I cannot improve. Ever. I am a Beast. That is what the Niqab/Burka mean to me.) this proposed law is Secular Authoritarianism bringing its power down on a tiny minority - the only thing that makes it an imperfect Inquisition is that it doesn't explicitly target a single "enemy", but the intent is obvious. This is a modern-day version of an inquisition.
A Secular inquisition.
A Dude secularism while an ideology, and obviously not a perfect one in all respects, by definition is non enforceable, and therefore cannot be authoritarian by its very nature. All the other ideologies you listed, while on paper do not outwardly espouse authoritarianism, can be interpreted and enforced that way. Enforcement of ideology, including secular ideology, is not secular.
And Secularism is being enforced in Quebec by the Authorities in Quebec. Sorry dude, but you're just plain wrong about this - Secularism is as susceptible to authoritarianism as any other ideology, regardless of how it's defined, and it can be and IS being enforced by Authority. It is just as easy to interpret and enforce Secularism in an Authoritarian way.
All the wishing and pointing at the literal definition doesn't change the fact that Secularism is as easy to enforce as any other Ideology, and that it is being enforced right now.
One small point of disagreement on Jonathan Haidt's terminology that I think is in line with Jordan Peterson's comment on unsophisticated / sophisticated religion:
It's not *religious* thinking (how man relates to God/the gods) that's the problem,
but *dogmatic* thinking (where individuals blindly side with their group and are unwilling to be reasoned to find the truth of matter) that's the problem.
I know many people equate dogmatism & unreasonableness with religion (and I can see why given how some religious people think & act), but they're not necessarily the same thing (nor should they be).
"But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, *open to reason*, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere." - James 3:17
See Also: "Christian Apologetics" - Reasoned, evidenced, and logical advocacy of the Christian faith"
No
@Bruce Wayne
Religion HAS dogma ..... religion is NOT dogma.
I sleep fine because I understand the difference between words.
Such as .... Accepting something from authority as true simply because of their authority IS tribalistic.
Agree
Religion doesn't have to be related to a god at all, religion is just the application of some dogma considered inherently sacred (egalitarianism, for instance). Tribalism (eg: populist dogma) is just as much of a religion as Islam, Christianity, etc, but it just has a different source of the dogma.
I had a similar experience. I also used to think the right was stupid and evil, primarily because I let the left tell me what the right thought, rather than asking those on the right. I realized if they really were stupid and/or evil, it should be no problem for me to listen to what they had to say for themselves, and then judge. Once I decided to challenge my held notions and open my mind to the other side of the argument, it wasn't long before I realized the left was lying to me, and they either didn't understand the other side's argument or they were disingenuously doing so. I started to listen to voices on the right and found they were reasonable for the most part, and actually aligned closer with my inner beliefs, and the left had been taking them out of context and distorting their arguments to make them sound stupid or evil.
With all due respect, you don't sound like someone who has engaged deeply and directly (at least not in a way that attempts actual understanding of the argument), or much of a judge of "intellectualism", if you're still pushing half-truths based on out-of-context statements like "Trump loves the poorly educated" that rely on omitting the rest of the sentence. In fact, that is exactly what I found so distasteful from the left, is the warping of statements and omissions to make the opposition look stupid or evil. You just illustrated everything that is wrong with he left, and really everything that I was pointing out. Thanks.
Yah, see, right there. The core of right-wing ideology is about limiting central government, which is a message with much wider appeal than just to religious people or those who support our natural rights of self-defense, as well as the promotion and preservation of culture that supports and values those ideas. But you tried to reduce it down to an insult about them being stupid and evil, just like I've been saying. You don't actually engage with arguments, you simply sling insults that are based on what seems to be your own ignorance, which is what makes me question that you've ever engaged "deeply and directly" in any meaningful way at all. Most likely your "engagements" have consisted largely of insults targeted at making your opponent look stupid and evil.
You're on the left. I disagree with you, but it's based on substantive argument. I don't need to try to portray you as morally or intellecutally deficient because I can argue with you based on substance. You, however, require insult and ad hominem to have a discussion to avoid having to address substance. That's the sign of a weak argument. And once I truly looked at both sides of the argument, it became painfully obvious what the left has become.
Why would any right-winger not call for tax cuts? That's a pretty central theme to the right's ideology.
Your missing the point I don't want to now or ever support immigrants from third world countries, not now not ever, people of my culture yes but even then only those who really need it because of some unfortunate accident or illness which is no fault of their own. I don't want to change the culture that I love and grew up with. And these immigrants can move back to countries they left from and enjoy their original country anytime they wish, where do I go every country thats even remotely shares my culture is facing the same flooding of immigrants.
And really if we conservatives had our way our country would flourish forever for us and our children, and liberals or marxists lives would not change one bit, but if you guys get your way it will change our way of life forever. So i suggest run one country the exact way you want and wait and see how it turns out before you try to change every bloody country in the world so if it fails there will be no where to go.
the old claim of anti Science is frequently wrong Questioning a specific theory or its organization ect IS Science
Claiming something demonstrable true as false and unimportant is anti Science,Also Science is a method not A thing like a teapot
I agree!
And for what it is worth I studied physics (my degree is in Mathematics) and worked as a scientist.
The right does not question Scientific Theories based on evidence though. They deny evolution for religious cultural reasons. They deny global warming for short-term business profit reasons.
"They deny evolution for religious cultural reasons."
Not true. Evolution is still only a theory and every day it gets more holes shot in it. Darwin offered his theory long before the discovery of DNA, and he knew nothing of Gregor Mendel's work because it was contemporaneous and subsequent to Origin of Species published in 1859.
Infogalactic says this in the article about Gregor Mendel:
"Mendel's work was rejected at first in the scientific community, and was not widely accepted until after he died. During his own lifetime, most biologists held the idea that all characteristics were passed to the next generation through blending inheritance, in which the traits from each parent are averaged together. Instances of this phenomenon are now explained by the action of multiple genes with quantitative effects. Charles Darwin tried unsuccessfully to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis. It was not until the early 20th century that the importance of Mendel's ideas was realized."
If you're going to push "evolution" you have to explain the Origin of DNA. Evolutionists can't explain the existence of DNA in any way that makes sense now that we have Information Theory to help us understand that order does not spontaneously arise out of chaos. Darwin could get away with suggesting that organisms could arise out of chaos, but that's not a credible assertion any more, except for ideologues who have an axe to grind.
"which validates the original point of religious motivations."
An accusation of religious motivation is not a refutation. A real Christian wants to believe what is true, and not just what he wants to believe.
The thing that a lot of evolutionists can't seem to handle is that it is mathematically absurd to propose that DNA came about by random chance or even trial and error. DNA is an expression of language, and language is an expression of intelligence. That DNA is organized like a language is not a theory, but an observation of fact. Which is not irrefutable proof that the God of Abraham Isaac & Jacob is God, but it would be consistent with that religious theory.
@@jamesedwards.1069 You confuse what the common person calls a "theory" and a scientific theory. Plate tectonics is a scientific theory, we can observe the continental and oceanic plates moving over time. There's far and away too much evidence proving evolution to remotely rationally consider that it possibly never happened, even before "nail in the coffin" to creationism examples in fossil transitional species discoveries like Tiiktalik and Ambulocetus. Also clear as day in dogs how even one species in a relatively short time can drastically change if it's selected for some advantage. Not a matter of "if" evolution happened, it definitely did and continues to happen, and I can't argue with those who haven't realized it yet (or I can but I'm not going to get muddy subjugating myself to rolling in the filth in the idea evolution might not be a fact, homologous structures are everywhere, genetic similarities just as you'd expect on a phylogenetic tree, "boring billion" in that it took at least a Billion (aka 1000 million) years for any multi-cellular life to evolve from single celled life. The only questions, if even worth asking, is why God if he exists enjoys making species go extinct and new species to evolve constantly (in deep geological time), why he loves having hundreds of thousands of species of beetles but only 4,500 living species of mammals, and why he loves decay & death so much that they are necessary to have ever-changing life and be constantly intertwined with life (orrrr, much more likely imo, he's either not all wise, knowing, and just; Or it's all indeed just random chance and we just can't comprehend/ discover everything because we are just primitive emotional/ instinctual animals with over-sized brains and too much cumulative societal progress for our own good)
I'm politically registered as non-partisan (independent) except for a brief nine month stint as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary during the 2016 election year (yes, I was a Bernie bro). I recently came up with an analogy for my independent political views based on a friend of mine who was so afraid of driving that they got everywhere by only making right hand turns, (had they lived in the UK this would have been replaced with left hand turns no doubt). They were adamant in their adherence to this and I was amazed to find that one actually could get almost anywhere by using this technique. There are exceptions but those are rare in a heavily populated area like Los Angeles but these exceptions, once encountered, are insurmountable and one is forced to make the occasional left hand turn and when in a more rural area with few roads it's an impossibility to get anywhere by not doing so. As I entered my teens I thought I had to make a decision as to what political party I would join but soon saw a problem with considering myself exclusively Democrat or Republican. So, when coming of voting age, and being told by my mother that if I wanted to vote I had the option of being neither, I registered non-partisan (independent) and have proudly remained so except for that brief aforementioned period. Very much like Peterson's analogy of the snake, I consider that to navigate the political road map by only adhering to a 'right hand turn' strategy as being not only impractical but downright ignorant considering. The one negative aspect to this is having to remain silent in certain social situations or risk being shunned by those that require political conformity from those they associate with. However, I have a big mouth and bigger opinions so I've had to suffer the life of a loner for most of my sixty plus years. Que lastima!
You miss the flip side of that argument. He also says that you are wrong about liberals. His whole point is to awaken each side into the value of the "others". Each side is wrong about the other, because they immerse themselves only in comfort news rather than challenge themselves by trying to understand the "others" argument. We should seek out the truths within the arguments of "them" and the problems within the arguments of "we", because we already know too well the truths within the arguments of "we" and all the problems within the arguments of "them".
@Jonathan Gullett If the right understood liberals, why would they say they're all socialist/communists even? Because the bar has been lowered absurdly by propaganda to nonsensical levels. By hand wringing and scapegoating demonization of the left. And it's been done by special interests for an agenda to give the elite everything they want at the loss of everyone else. In short: Conservatism has been hijacked by authoritarians using smoke and mirrors, lies and demagogues. When conservatism degenerates to end justifies the means because of blantent exaggeration resulting in fear and mob violence against their neighbor, that's off the rails. Most conservatives are good people too...until they've been radicalized by propaganda to fear and hate. The current push to nationalism is evidence specifically. But it's also a world wide threat from scapegoating social problems with the degradation of democracy and takeover by fascist "strongmen" that at least pretend in many places. Fascism prays on unrest and scapegoats, using our own freedoms against us.
@@georgeroberts613 yep. The right does not understand liberals and why many liberals think they are stupid.
@@georgeroberts613 once again you're showing your bias. On average, the right understands the left but not the other way around.
Haidt did this study as well.
@@vantao9408 The right thinks they do, but have different priorities with total blindness to other things. I'll refer you to Jeffery H's comment. But progressives and conservatives think from a differing primary lobe of the brain, as established by brain scans. In truth, they need each other to cover all the bases and for either to proclaim sole righteousness is both absurd and dangerous. But far more so when radical right ideology trumps human decency. It would seem the right's proximity in the anterior singulate as primary may be too close to the fear center of the brain near by. Just maybe.
@@georgeroberts613 tell me, when left wing ideologues are preaching about CRT, what area of the brain do you think is being stimulated?
Without batting an eye, a man who is considered among our best intellectuals, basically said he had to go to India, deliberately challenge himself to see the world as Indians see it, in order to stop thinking, not believing, but thinking (he said "I always thought") that half of his native country were not evil and/or stupid on account of their politics. Let that sink in.
how have white people treated other groups in the past 500 years?
Let it also sink in that no amount of self justification covers lies and deceit in the pursuit of self-interest by radical right authoritarians pretending to be conservative to hide in plain sight.
@@georgeroberts613 Neither of these is a radical right authoritarian so I assume you are referring to Trump and his supporters, but the real authoritarians of recent years are the radical left, who are now in control of the government. You probably think Fascists and Nazis are right-wing but that is so wrong and the Woke Democrats are very similar in ideology and attitude to the Nazis. See my playlists for the full proof.
@@nightjaronthegate Of course I'm referring to those that are running around saying the sky is falling if progressives try to save both our infrastructure and the middle class. Your evaluation of the left as all commies depends totally on the spin from the radical right with their wrists always firmly planted against their foreheads for anything liberal or progressives try to do. You just don't get that it's the deep pockets making mountains out of mole hills jerking your chain. The GOP starve the beast game is interesting. They spend like a drunken sailor when in power, then scream about spending and the deficeit when not. Chaney told Bob, their chief economic adviser in the white house "...Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the election, this is our due." That after Bob told them another tax cut would be disastrous as they already had a500 billion dollar deficit coming the following year. Chaney, not Bush, fired him two months later for not being with the program.
Two dozen top "business people" tried to set in motion a fascist plan to overthrow our government in the mid-thirties because FDR was such a commie. That attitude was the same that formed the John Birch Society near the same time. Few people even know about it as it was swept under the rug after it's discovery as FDR was concerned it might further undermine what little confidence the masses had that "we were all in this together". It wasn't rediscovered until an investigative journalist found the Congressional Record on the incident in the Library of Congress in the late fifties or early sixties. it would be good to remember the shanty towns all over the nation were referred to as "Hoovervilles" because he and the GOP had sat on their hands for years waiting for things to get better, all while sitting down to a good meal every night. Never mind the chief cause of death for the elderly was either freezing or starving to death during those years of the Depression.
General Smedley Butler wrote the book "War Is A Rich Man's Game". He knew because he'd spent his career putting down "uprising" in various "bannana" republics, etc., for the benefit of the super rich. But his men loved him because he always looked out for them. The cabal knew this but didn't understand why. They thought they could recruit him and he'd go along with their good ol' boy scheme. They knew he could raise a half million man veteran army over night. They just didn't get he was a man of the people. So when approached to lead their effort as a straw man figure head, he brought along a reporter friend of his to take notes until they took it to congress. The bunch sent a guy to Italy to see how Mussolini was handling things. He wrote back glowing reports of how he'd handled those pesky unions and gotten the economy going again...but at the point of a gun, saying we needed fascism in this country, which was what they'd intended regardless. The idea was for Butler to go to FDR and tell him to sit in the corner with his blanket on his lap and create a new cabinet post for him to 'run things'. One plotter noted they had the newspapers, and the "stupid' American people would fall for what they told them since FDR was ill anyway. The richest of the bunch said he'd spend half his sixty million to save the other half from this lousy FDR commie.
They still hate the "New Deal"...and finally got rid of FDR's Glass/Stegal Act in '98, partying like crazy in mansion-land. Three weeks later, they passed the Gram/Leach/Blily Act to make sure credit default swaps and derivatives couldn't be regulated...balls to the wall no regulation capitalism being the holy grail an' all. But guess what screwed the economy in ten years flat with the crash of '08...the giant real estate bubble and liar loans that created it with bankers "ripping their faces off", their own term as the salesmen patted themselves on the back for the hollow bs they were peddling ...and got bonuses even as the walls were falling. The acronym was "IBG,YBG"...I'll be gone, you'll gone...so sit down and shut up and watch the money roll in.
Hoover at FDR's inauguration wouldn't look at FDR in the limo going to his inauguration, wouldn't shake his hand and sat sulking out the window enroute. Same radical nonsense thinking anyone that isn't with us is against us. That's radicalism that becomes real fascism. The anti-FDR cabal just didn't get or care what representative democracy is about in the slightest. Their only interest was greed and power...nothing has changed. Money has power whether we do or not. We either keep a strong central government to control them and lead the world rationally, or they control us. For nature abhors a vacuum. It's what our democracy was designed for by our forefathers that won, namely Jefferson and friends. Adams was paranoid and wanted the rich to control things even then. It's why those great friends had a life long falling out...though they wrote each other constantly in their final years. They died within a week of each other still thinking the other was alive. Adams commented on it, though I don't buy that is was his last words:)
Our constitution is designed to keep power in the hands of the people, not big money authoritarians pretending to care about anyone but themselves as they pretend to be 'conservative' an bend it to their own desires. They have the money to pay the pipers and they spend it to call the tune. And you mudwhumps suck it up as if it's gospel. You don't get that your entire dictionary has their definitions stamped in it so that everything you think is defined by them. Heaven forbid you stick your heads up and see what the real world says to reality-check those definitions. You knee jerk to their spin with reactions they dictate because you don't know any better. The echo chamber of paid liars keeps you stirred up and freaking out. It's you who are becoming the Nazis with emotions replacing logic due to circular definitions designed for you to run in circles. This crap was really kick started in public by Newt Gaingrinch with his 100 "words and phrases" to counter anything a liberal might say. He copied them off and handed them out...and thus began true take-no-prisoners vitriol in congress. But Reagan started the parade by telling us all that Democratic government is the problem, not the solution, thus setting the stage for even the current crap. Jefferson strongly disagrees.
BUT THE BIGGEST THING YOU DON'T GET is that liberals and conservatives need each other to cover all the bases. They're like two halves of the same brain...and should never be out of sight of each other. You think, thanks to the bs, that liberals are commies and out to go socialist. Bull. Capitalism must be regulated or the deep pockets take over...just because they can. This nonsense about "trickle down" is a clown show, and they demonize the left because, like Dave Koch said when caught on a Justice Department wire asked why he "cheated", ..."Because it's mine and I want it all."...on tape. Don't think that's an isolated incident. The rich get real self righteous real fast...or they grow up with it. Just ask Chris Hedges, a poor kid who was brilliant...and got scholarships to the best universities...and 'hung' with the rich kids, saw the nonsense first hand. Feel free to check him out. And it doesn't necessarily matter all that much whether they are liberal or conservative as Joe Manchin is demonstrating when comfort and money are just your due. It's just that authoritarians flock to the right and hide in plain sight, pretending to care because it's easy to whip up emotions on the less informed and less educated right. Then, wallah, you've got a parade to jump in front of. Frump said years ago that if he ran, it would be as a Republican...because "Republicans are the stupidest people around"...not an exact quote but you get the drift. His thoughts, not mine. Don't like it? Look it up if you want it verbatim...that means exactly as he said it.
Conservatives are usually good people, aren't usually any more evil than anyone else...unless they are deliberately led in that direction by authoritarians playing games and playing on their personal prejudices, while paying the piper. Most of us want to be good Americans, but waving a flag harder and screaming louder that you're more patriot than the next guy is a clown show with emotionally unstable people often leading the pack. Jan. 6th is a historic case in point, no if's, ands, or buts. And NO, NO ANTIFA "sprinkled through the crowd" to antagonize the poor peaceful but gullible Frumpers whipped into a mob by Frump and half a dozen more just beforehand and told to "take names and kick ass". Wrong order. The idiot couldn't even get that right. And Frump told them "weakness" was not going to cut it to win the day. Nothing serious there eh. And Juliani told them it was time for "trial by combat". No, just peaceful protestors. Though the Proud Bois and Oath Keepers had already started the siege as the Frump crowd was just leaving for the capital. And screaming about killing people is just normal stuff. No reason to take a violent mob seriously. .....What planet do you live on?
@@nightjaronthegate More to your point: The more radical right is often referring to the left as pantywaists of one sort or another. They say liberals think too much, equivocate too much thinking things to death. Sometimes a relevant point. But you can't have it both ways. Are they pantywaists or authoritarians eating children...must be both eh. Scapegoating demonetization is designed to make others out as evil if not demonic, to dehumanize them...so kicking ass and taking names if not killing them, hanging them, beating them to death with baseball bats, or slicing them up with machetes as in Rwanda is just a natural course to save our wives and children and country. There was a book in the thirties, "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. There's a quote attributed to him that isn't actually in the book..."When fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Then there's Vice President Henry Wallace's 1944 NYT op/ed that talks about the threat of fascism here even after The War. You might give that a read. And Jefferson's1816 letter to Samuel Kircheval is marvelous as only Jefferson could do.
The more secular our culture becomes the more orthodox the academics become. There's a religious void that is being filled with a new cathedral or orthodox. And that orthodoxy is now wokeness.
Such a great discussion! I recommend and challenge anyone to make close contact with at least one person they disagree with on a few matters important to them. It is as good for your case in arguments as it is for your soul. I have constantly been surprised by how much I can learn from hearing out opposing points of view and considering them whole-heartedly before formulating my own judgments on them.
These two men are one of the few reasons I still have faith in humanity.
are you white
@@pazz2023 Why do you ask, are you racist?
I would love to see some kind of organized class that focuses on "How to understand the coded language of the opposing political party". As a left-leaning centrist, I *sometimes* see glimmers of logic on the right, but I would really like to understand how some of the more atrocious (and imo deceitful) claims are supported by the psychology of conservatives. I think I've gotten pretty good at deconstructing progressive absurdities, but I bet plenty of conservatives would benefit from that in the same way.
[Please bear with me as I get around to making my main point]
I am a lifelong conservative atheist.
I am a fan of The Age of Enlightenment Ideals, and the US Constitution (a clear product of that age).
I studied Mathematics.
I don't waste time debating Christians anymore because (Cost/Benefit Analysis) they pose very little threat (in my view) compared to other groups with their own set of unsubstantiated dogmatic belief--therefore I have less to gain by fighting the influence of Christians even though I am still an atheist (seeing time as the main cost in my Cost/Benefit analysis).
I am a critic of Islam--which I consider more dangerous as well as under-criticized, and therefore a somewhat better use of my time.
But, at least in the West, I consider the Left to be that group that has the best chance to upset the Left Right balance; Control others (in the creepy way that cults and despots do); and undermine the Age of Enlightenment Ideals with their campaign of intolerant, holier-than-thou, dogmatic, un-examined, unsubstantiated, prepackaged feelings, biases and assertions. For these reasons I consider the Left to be the biggest danger in Western Society.
I have a sort of example to give but consider it necessary to use an analogy for one side--which is something in itself because while I can say "I don't believe in god" and fully expect to proceed with a reasonable conversation...I can not say "I don't believe [insert Leftist dogma here] and expect to have a reasonable conversation after that:
On the one hand:
In H.S. when I debated Christians, a common first response to: "I don't believe in God," was:
"Do you believe in the Devil?"
"No, how could I, that'd be ridiculous."
But having settled that point the conversation would continue polity.
So, there was that hint of...well if you don't believe as I do [which I conflate with goodness], perhaps it is because you are a follower of evil.
Never, Ever, EVER was the reaction...well maybe you are a fan of Empiricism, and Reason, with an IQ in the 98th percentile--that reaction I never got!
But I see the Left as far far worse. I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny (an analogy hopefully free from knee-jerk emotional responses so that what I say can be viewed by all unemotionally) and the left says: that's because you hate Bunnies!!
"But I don't hate bunnies"
"Yes you do you Fucking bunny hater, you hate bunnies and hate chocolate because chocolate is brown and you are a racist! And you hate eggs because they are a clear symbol of the feminine and you hate women! Get out of here you FUCKING Racists, Misogynist, Bunny hating Nazi!"
"But this is a public place [or a place I was actually invited to speak]"
"You Fucking Bunny killing Nazi! Hey everybody, shout him down chase him away!"
Mark Stump
I’m not a Christian, but to me, christian values are why we have made it this far as a country. The complete secularization of the US will conclude with a one party system. And it won’t be conservatives.
What you mostly are is a tedious bore
@@elcidS15 Atheists have the same values as yours except they don't believe in God. So what is the big deal. You think atheists cannot tell right from wrong???? Who do you think you are? I think centre is the way to go. Balance and harmony. Inclusive up to a certain point. The Liberals today are insane and way out of line.
@@Ryan-gz6ym whoa there big fella!! Hey man, how's the final solution coming along?
Key point right at the end, I think - if you get rid of a sophisticated religious structure an unsophisticated religious structure fills the gap.
Being honest with yourself needs courage.
The book The Hydras Tale is a good read.
Disgust helps us avoid disease , unclean, dirty . We aren't afraid of the snake. We see it as inherently dangerous and unhealthy. And we want to avoid the infection and the deleterious effects upon others
Disgust works like this.
Degradation and lowering of Sanctity plays a role
Yin yang dynamic is needed.
Maybe like the brain hemispheres.
Or like mother and father in the family, man woman
4:40 you probably miss spoke her Dr Peterson, you can not have un mitigated immigration with a welfare state
Two of the brightest and most logical minds in the states. Thank you.
I'm a left of centre liberal (by Canadian standards) who wrongly assumed that science supported liberal ideas. And if you are talking about liberalism in the accurate way you would probably be right. Later I found that many of my peers on the left weren't very liberal. They were pretty quick to reject science for natural remedies and support the ideas of the blank slate. At some point I looked around at these post modernists and wondered what I was doing with them. I'm still a liberal that loves art, music, drama and dance. I don't believe in god or rally around the military and patriotic symbols. However, I don't know what this fringe group of the left is thinking anymore than I understand what the more radical right is thinking.
i never talk positively about middle eastern migration, not because i'm an extremist right winger. i'm actually left of center. it's because there is zero net benefit from middle eastern migration, and it's also dangerous. I think this idea of the virtue of openness only applies to the unknown. if you're faced with an untested thing, the right wing might say lets not do it it could be dangerous, the left will say lets do it it could be beneficial. the problem is, we have proven over and over and over and over that accepting migrants from middle eastern countries is always damaging to your society, and the more you accept the more damaging it is. this is the point where basic common sense should override the left wing openness.
Thanks for sharing, MOAC. Super interesting.
Would've been simpler if he said he was red pilled lol
I love Jonathan. I have a hard time to believe he is not right leaning.
I think it's not just my grandparents generation dying leaving only my parents' generation but also transportation which can reorganize communities to be increasingly homogenous and extreme.
JP is a nice surprise here! It’s like seeing a grandpa at a dinner party
I enjoyed this
What's wrong with being Anti-immigrant? What's wrong with Tribalism?
Maybe Israel should tear down those walls and invite all people from around the world to come to their country.
Instead of the snake image I use the pendulum metaphore, where humanity is always going back and forth, from conservatism to liberalism and back again. At this point, we see that the pendulum is reaching the furthest end to the left; however, people are opening their eyes to the falacies of the left rhetoric of the last forty years. The way back is going to be painfully hard, specially for the western countries of the northen hemisphere. Fortunately, we, at the southern hemisphere, are too backward and too inured on our ways to be too much moved by the feminists, homosexualists (which is not the same as homosexuals), ambientalists and other political fauna that have come to this part of the world to indoctrinate us. We are fighting them with all we have, they have won some battles, but we're still on the winning side. And, believe me, we are prepared to die before backing down; at least, I am because my grandchildren's future is at stake. Best regards from Lima Perú 😄🌹
You're one smart grandma, and the pendulum analogy is likely correct. This was very great to read, thank you and I'm glad an intellectual like you can appropriately educate your grandchildren.
I am doing my best. I too have started my own TH-cam channel in Spanish (in which I boast 472 suscribers 😄) to share what I learn since I'm fluent in English and a little less fluent in French. The news I watch are really scary and I noticed were totally different from what we were getting here in the papers. So, I give my version in my channel and have discussions like this one. That is my war effort. Best regards.
Yes, I agree 100% of what you have mentioned. I love literature (it is my field of expertise) and the titles of books just keep pouring from my head on the "programming education" you denounce: "1984", "Farenheit 451", "A Brave New World", "Animal Farm". The latest title I have read is "The Book Thief", nice but not as powerful as the previously mentioned. Peterson always mentions the "The Gulag Archipielago" and "Crime and Punishment". It is a pity he cannot read in Spanish because there are some very poignant storys like "El Señor Presidente" of Miguel Ángel Asturias (NP 1967), "Macario" of Juan Rulfo and many others that talk about human misery. Thank you for your comment and I invite you to come visit us and see for yourself that South America is also in the southern hemisphere 😉. Best regards,
Yes, as the Cassie Jaye Red Pill saga showed, Australian media and education are as left-leaning as anything going round, and very hostile to any act of ideological dissent. However, in politics there is still a strong conservative influence. It is like the US in this respect. The media and universities have abandoned the working classes, but they bite at the ballot box.
Suppose you fill a hollow pendulum ball with sand and let it fall down trough a hole. Then you put a huge roll of paper underneath the pendulum, and while it moves, you slide that paper as if wanting to map it's motion. The sand will draw a harmonic pattern on the paper, which looks like the path described by a snake.
Just tought that was interesting.
Two of the brightest and most resourceful minds of our times.
*_THANK YOU!!_* I've been saying for a long time that RACE, SOCIAL JUSTICE & MASCULINITY are the New religions. I thought I was going crazy until today.
Isn't it more like anti-masculinity?
This video hasn't aged very well has it? Of course conservatives have a different moral sense. Many of us have been horrified by the expression of conservative morality all our lives - not the least has been their over the top racism and homophobia, their loyalty to horrid creatures such as the Trump and all its criminal behavior, and their incessant lies about just about everything. By the way, Jonathan Haidt never been Left leaning, has never been a liberal as he has always been a bit too cringy for that. In other words, he is not being intellectually honest here. Neither is Jordan Peterson who has since made a rather despicable public spectacle of himself.
I bet you think you’re a great listener. 🤭
#WalkAway, my friend. Step away from the plantation.
The whole conversation is very good, but this bit is indeed excellent.
That was an awesome exchange, however I do disagree with painting the right as "anti-immigrant".
That label might apply to movements leaning more towards nationalism, but anything remotely close to Milton Friedman libertarianism is totally for open borders.
The key is understanding that these ideologies are models of how the world works.
Every single model has bounds and breaks down outside those bounds.
For example, while having open borders and free trade is an incredible economic boon, things obviously become much more complicated when you factor in the threat of radical Islam.
In that sense, people who are blindly for open borders under any circumstance are just as foolish as those blindly opposed to it.
Pascal Andraos
Milton Friedman is a self proclaimed classical liberal.
th-cam.com/video/QmeeMYrnweg/w-d-xo.html
I would bet that libertarians tend to score high in openness. The way these dudes are talking (conservatives=high conscientiousness, low openness; liberals=low conscientiousness, high openness), it makes more sense to think about libertarians as liberals. Indeed, in the traditional sense of the word, 'liberal' entails support for free markets.
I lolled when I heard Peterson’s voice!!
Did it make you think of Kermit the frog?
I’ve always liked Jonathan Haidt videos, even though I’ve only seen a few.
Personally, I come from being a conservative, but drifting pretty early into libertarianism (which isn’t as right-wing as it’s made out to be).
I love his message of understanding the other side’s views. So many people, left wing, right wing, even in my libertarian corner, are so dogmatic and stuck in their ways that they refuse to see any validity in the other Dodd’s point of view.
If you can summarize the other sides point of view so we’ll that they might think you agree with them, then you truly understand where they’re coming from.
Haidt is learning. Perhaps a few more run in with SJW's and he will really see the light.
Humans in their ego hate the idea that they came from the dirt. Evolution is real world evidence of the biblical statement, "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
I need something like this except for me to understand democrats. It’s great seeing these two having a sit down though!!
It's an exponential pattern.
I like when Jordan listens
Its been my experience that "academics" are paradoxically the most ideological, rigid, and narrow-minded people you will ever meet.
The exact reason why I left academia.
I like how more and more people are finding this center/libertarian mentality that showcases individual identity instead of the group/mob mentality. The more these thinkers can get their views out there and others can realize they aren't partisan the better off society can be as a whole just by learning how each person can prioritize their individuality instead of following something blindly. It's very unfortunate the far left tries to paint them as some sort of nazi or something, I mean- just hear this dialogue this is just bouncing great metaphors and individuality back and forth. Plus, denouncing of radical partisan groups to some extent brings its own value to the table.
Sadly these two are older. Younger psychologists are so rigidly leftist and the open classic liberals are dying off
the term "orthodoxy" is forever changed to me now. i always knew the word but it has broader applications. i had to look it up to understand the context it was used in his point. "orthodoxy" from ancient Greek for "right opinion". OPINION.
Anyone who has taken College Statistics knows that 2/3rds of a population exist within one standard deviation (we mostly kinda get along) with eachother. But in politics we only focus on the most extreme Left 1/6th and the Extreme Right 1/6th of the population. In fact, those tend to be the extremist we let represent us (Nancy Pelosi, Ted Cruz). This is why Politics are broken, they do not represent the majority 2/3rds of US. You can lean Left, You can lean Right, but if you have deviated outside the standard of the population, then by the very definition you are an extremist.
I did not understand the last bit of the video that seemed to have nothing to do with the subject. Can some one explain.
Not all conservatives are religious. Then again I honestly can't discern if I am conservative or just despise leftists.
Brilliant!
Dem eyebrows.
Big black eyebrows and gray hair is the way to go.
I thought this was Scott Adam's channel?
Your title is a grabber to be sure but this talk isn’t quite that now is it. It, in fact, points out how both sides are right and wrong in their thinking and why that is so.
It is about that, because liberalism is the orthodoxy, as Haidt states. Liberals fight "the system" without realizing they are the system.
Clandestine Reactionary That can said of both side and, indeed, it is so. And while I agree with most of this, especially concerning discourse and free speech, the crux of of problems go deeper than this.
they're all about warm hugs treating women with respect and helping the poor :P
Hahahaha. Bet that went over many conservatives’ heads. 😂
Eliminate the prejudice issue - globally eliminate all immigration. From anywhere, to anywhere. No nation is obligated to accept anyone. And to do so, means either, accepting the poor and unskilled and breaking your own economy, or, accepting only the best of the best, causing brain drain. Both are bad. Just end it.
What the hell is that anime bit at the end?
Could you add a little more filter on the audio? Geez.
Great talk. It’s a shame that Jonathan Haidt has not seemingly has not read a book on the development of science before 1650. In the Abbeys,, monasteries and cathedral schools of Christian Europe science was growing steadily for many centuries previous to that time. The main figures of the scientific development of the West have almost without exception been Christian. They studied science because they saw gods design in nature and to “follow God’s thoughts after him” by studying nature.✝️🇺🇸
Very interesting, and quite ironic as science eventually came to reject all notions of god a priori. This was actually one of Nietzsche's points, that the "death of god" came about precisely from the will to truth that Christianity had instilled in humans. "Il ne cherche le vrai que pour faire le bien! -- I bet he finds nothing"
Both Liberals and conservatives have left the bottom 80 or 90 percent, but then again the record shows conservatives were last with them in days of yore, if ever.
The thing which religion and politics/government have in common is taking something simple and pure and making it corrupt and complicated. I'm a Christian and basically Libertarian thus I embrace the two Great Commandments and the ideals of "Don't hurt other people and don't take their stuff." Nowadays I think we've reached a point where, if I can use a cinematic analogy, our political and social discourse boils down to Vulcan Logic versus Jedi Force. Both have noble goals, to serve that which is good and right; but they cannot operate independently and failing to recognize this puts society, its need and causes in jeopardy. Society, needing government of its own imperfections, can't be purely emotional, this will result in chaos; nor can people be constrained by pure logic, this will result in fascism. Emotions tell us we need to act, logic tells how to act. Of course, on board the universal tilt-a-whirl, the fun part is when this dichotomy is reversed; logic tells us we need to act, and emotion tells us how to act. This commonly occurs as the aftermath of natural disasters is seen, which can result in selfless behavior. Under normal circumstances, this reversal would make one wish life was provided with air-sick bags.
I dont think there is a form moral compass in the republican party today. 10 years ago I would have agreed. In fact I did agree.
Amazing
Interesting, and I like both Haidt and Peterson. But I find it annoying to hear psychologists talk about these things like they've just discovered them, when philosophers have been discussing this for 2500+ years. The bit about moral systems involving the body and high-low and dirty-clean distinctions was discussed well by Nietzsche, and goes all the way back to Plato at least. You don't need to go back to apes 2 million years ago to understand it.
The only real problem with this is that...The "right" does like immigration. We just want it done correctly...
Yeah, we rightists appreciate good ethnic restaurants as much as anyone else!
If we're fundamentally religious..hmmmm....
I am a park rat who knows a lot of middle-class and upper-middle class leftists. They are "pro-trans", "pro LGBTQ", "pro feminism", "pro-non-GMO organic vegan", "pro-Palestine", "pro Immigrant" but their life doesn't reflect it. Most of them are in wealthy neighborhoods. Went to "white schools" with wealthy teachers. Had their parents pay for college. Got their job through family and neighborhood connections. Will exclusively date people of their own class. They mostly even work in industries that are subsidised by the Govt - oil industry, auto-industry, defense, banks you name it. Nothing in common with the working man in the US that does not own a home or could afford college. They (wealthy liberals) don't know what it's like to want to have birth control but not be able to afford it. What it's like to have a healthy lifestyle when you are constantly worried about rent or your car breaking down and not having a place to crash and recoup. America isn't turning left because of morality. They are turning left because they are becoming broke because the people who decided to take their jobs and ship it overseas are only conservative when it comes to their handful of family members. Not the 100s of their countrymen that get laid off. That's who the us vs them should be about.
How someone feels is not a sign of spirit powers. Some people feel Gods presence. Some people feel god speaks to them thru their dog. Feelings are not proof of anything. Not anything at all except that feelings exist.
Daniel Shade
What if you feel frightened and for good reason. Feelings gave biological uses.
(continued) They are standing so close to the trees that they can't see the forest. Just like scientists who study the atom, forget to change their perception to see the entire world out there. There is a larger, simpler reality that they are swimming in, but which they are not able to perceive.
Now let's hope he really examined his prejudices about religious people and religion and puts an end to the Ludacris notion that it's stupid brainwashed violent or delusional to believe there's a God, and afterlife, and that it matters. This is probably the worst thing about intellectuals like like him, although he's nowhere near as shallow, disingenuous, or fraudulent, disingenuous, or fraudulent as, say, Steven Pinker.
In case people don't know, the modern economic miracle of Singapore was created in only 30 to 40 years by a very conservative man, Lee Kuan Yew with of course the allegiance and support of a mostly conservative populace. I say mostly conservative as there were commies at the beginning. Gradually, over about 20 years, commies were fully edged out and there is virtually no poverty in Singapore, prosperity being the norm for most.
India, initially very hard socialist/commie after Independence in 1948, saw for the most part only increases in poverty during that time, with limited increases in prosperity going to politicians and their cronies exactly as depticted in Orwell's "Animal Farm". In 1991 India began to phase in capitalism and free markets, being nearly bankrupt, and prosperity increase kicked in quickly. India remains a largely conservative culture now enjoying 10 to 13% gdp growth every year. There's still a lot of welfare schemes in India, but the goal is to see them naturally phase out as prosperity increases.
China, a complicated story not easy to sum up, has remained largely conservative though being communist, and switched out of hard communism to state capitalism, a switch often attributed to tutoring by Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. But even before that, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" was initiated to rekindle the conservative traditions in China....it was not a evolution to overthrow the past but to overthrow the malaise that Mao himself had caused.
Anywhere there is prosperity in Asia you can be sure conservatives are in control.
Hi Adam Jacobs: Virtually all government policies in Singapore are conservative as Lee Kuan Yew had to sign off on all of them. Yew is about as conservative as one can get, Chinese Confucian style of conservative.
As for some specifics: As part of poverty alleviation / prosperity creating initiatives, Singapore undertook an innovative program of government built housing. Instead of Soviet style block housing for the poor, seen in USSR and many Western democracies, govt. housing in Singapore was aesthetically superior. Then instead of renting the housing, and giving rent vouchers, the housing was sold to the poor, with the govt carrying the down payment. Monthly payments, with few exceptions, were not subsidized and in fact were not rent but mortgage payments. Only by way of ownership, reasoned Yew, would the occupants care for the property because they had skin in the game. The occupants could sell the home, perhaps because they were moving up. From proceeds of the sale govt is repaid the down payment, plus interest on downpayment, and the remainder goes to the seller. Property appreciated tended to be the norm, so occupant was again motivated to well maintain the property (cuz if not maintained it would not appreciate much if at all). Thus the seemingly socialist govt housing was a net gain for the govt, proceeds from which were plowed back into the program. And thus poverty was not institutionalized, nor could a political party capture the poor by promising them housing benefits paid for by taxing the rich.
As part of the housing scheme was a rule that after a flat is loaned to someone of a particular group, say Hindu, the next flat in the building would have to go to a non-Hindu. And so on until all 4 major identity groups were represented, then the 5th flat could go to a Hindu. Such was done to tamp down group identity isolation and politics.
Another scheme to tamp down identity grouping centered around restaurant and bakery permits. After say an Islamic restaurant opened in a neighborhood, the next restaurant permit would have to go to a non-muslim eatery/bakery.
A third scheme to tamp down identity grouping was the selection of English as the official language.
And behind the scenes of tamping down group identity politics was the goal of substituting nationalism as the main rallying point for all the people, thus channeling otherwise unproductive identity issues into an all for one Singaporean identity.
Banning of all recreational drugs - Singapore has frittered away virtually nothing in terms of tax dollars on the problems that drugs create. They did this by early on instituting harsh penalities for drug use and even harsher penalties for sale.
There are other rather harsh penalities for infractions of the law, for instance, public caning for graffiti. There is virtually no graffiti in Singapore. Graffiti pulls down property values when the goal is appreciation of value.
Shaming by caning of law breakers carries with it the conservative idea that social excuses are not acceptable.
Then there was the banning of publications by communists/communist political parties, and later, complete ban on commie political parties. Yew has noted, in his writing and speeches and interviews, that commies only wanted to pull down high achievers to a common low level, while he and others wanted to pull people up, which they did, in stellar fashion at a high rate of speed.
Universal military conscription for all males for minimum 1 or 2 years...not sure of exact duration. In this way, as teenage boys transistion to adults they gain some military discipline.
Yew also advocated for and funded as much military power as could be afforded, choosing to buy weaponry from USA because, in his words, it was highest quality.
The excellent education system in Singapore is another gift from the mind of Yew, who reasoned that poverty elimination would require sharp minds, as the dull don't add positively to the mix and instead tend to support commies. Singapore system was very cleverly devised to build upon fundamentals and tend to slow learners without the slow being an undue burden to the education budget.
Considering that Singapore has no natural resources and is hot and humid and rainy with monsoons, her accomplishments outweigh that of Finland by about 1000 times. That 1000 fold amplification factor is the gift of conservatism, but of course we must give Yew a good deal of the credit.
Consider, btw, that both Singapore and Cuba got started at about the same time. Cuba could have been another Singapore.
Since when are facts self-serving garbage?
Hi Adam Jacobs Conservatism has not nearly destroyed the republic. It is not the conservatives who favor massive increases in national debt, rather, it is the liberal democrats who favor that which is something one could say is akin to destroying the republic. It is not the conservatives bu the liberal democrats that have favored illegal immigration which has cut wages for so many American citizens born in America, perhaps putting them in a position to need a social safety net they otherwise would not have needed. It was liberal democrats that ruined much of the African American people with their war on poverty that increased poverty, a mistake not made by Singapore. Conservatives in USA never approved of recreational drug usage, rather it was democrats, such as the Hollywood and Music Biz crowd that did that.
You might want to learn more about how Singapore pulled off the Modern Economic Miracle.
It is also worth noting that people of Singapore are very happy in general and so there's not much market for psychotherapists. Conservatism leads to happier people in general. For instance, visitors to India are often quite surprised at how friendly and easy going and fairly happy the people are while there is yet so much poverty. The answer is simple: India has a conservative culture.
I did a casual study with TH-cam. Into the search box I entered "high school" and then either "USA (or America)" or Singapore. Lots of in-classroom videos can be found. One can also enter instead of USA the name of a city in USA. What I see in USA is a lot of poorly groomed unhappy faces, but in Singapore the kids all look fantastic - untroubled and beaming. One can do similar search on other conservative cultures, typically that means Asian, and see more or less the same contrast - Asian and S. Asian highschool kids look better than their USA counterparts for the most part.
A real shocker from India is Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences. The name is not very telling. 20,000 really poor kids getting a first class education and room and board, K thru 10. KISS is not a government program, it is a private conservtive secular organization, primarily Hindu. Lots of vids about KISS on YT and I must say those kids look great, on par with the Singaporean kids. You might wonder....how does one feed 20000 kids? The KISS kitchen is awesome. And note, while the meals are nutritious no effort is spent catering to the students dietary preferences. There is no menu of choices only the same nutritious meal fed to all, except some newcomers with deficiencies get some special diets until they catch up. Compare KISS meal program with the problem-plagued and costly school lunch programs in USA schools. No comparison. It is conservative to feed one same nutritious meal to all and take no inputs from the children.
Considering that Singapore got it right, can you say that Cuba got it wrong?
@ Adam Jacobs Facts have never been self-serving garbage, facts are just facts.
its because you do actually have to be ignorant of the plight of the disenfranchised in our country to be conservative. Conservative VALUES are totally valid, and in that sense I AM a conservative....BUT because of what it takes to actually be charitable to your fellow man, and because of the real facts on the ground I am a liberal. Most psychologists similarly, because they actually see real people in their practice and get to know them similarly know that society has to step in and substantially help others, not just crabbily yell at people to yank themselves up by their bootstraps. I mean, it needs to do that too, but it also needs to help them.
Chrispy Bacon meanwhile it’s a statistical fact that conservatives are far more charitable than liberals.
I don't agree with the premise that tugging from both sides keeps us in the center so we don't go to extremes. There is long and livid history of political systems that demonstrate what works and what doesn't and plenty of data to support certain ideas or shut down others. For instance, the data on the minimum wage and its effects are not good and been tested not only in the United States, but other countries as well with the same results (Thomas Sowell, 1980 Knowledge and Decisions). There are not many things on the left in today's political climate that can pass such a test, so anytime that ideology starts pulling, its pulling into a region that is not good and, in fact, harmful, which is not suppose to be the middle of the road. In sum, no minimum wage (traditionally a republican ideology) is the base line which works and is best, any deviation from that is harmful and going the wrong way, so were is the middle of the road? It would be with some minimum wage however low, but none is best for everyone involved.
This rings true! I am currently in a graduate program and I am entrenched in Liberal propaganda. Even the professors brainwash us that "Trump is the devil himself"... this is so inappropriate! What makes them think they have the right to openly attack conservatives? How is this different than making fun of one's religion? This needs to stop.
That's all you got out of this? Blindness isn't reserved to any particular side. Most see what they want to see. Those that have seen Frump as a hero and savior delude themselves by thinking liberals are far worse. If you drum up enough imaginary demons, even Judice would look good. But ignoring tRump's shortcomings doesn't make them go away, it just means you've been whipped up and handed a pitchfork. Just for fun?...I don't think so. The first BIG LIE was trickle down economics where the libertarian branch of authoritarian oligarchs at the top pretend to be conservative when it suits them to hijack conservatism for fun and profit. Hence, we argue amongst ourselves while they plunder and pretend they 'aren't doin' nothin'...that they are the victims.
I like pizza 🍕 😕
das rasis
I tend to believe our innate personality archetypes largely determine our political perspectives. See tomwoods.com/ep-248-one-year-of-the-tom-woods-show-tom-takes-on-more-myths/#comment-1746327349 for more than I can show here.
NT Rationals keirsey.com/temperament/rational-overview/ often tend to be libertarian while only making up some 5-10% of any general population.
NF Idealists keirsey.com/temperament/idealist-overview/ tend to be left/progressive/liberal/charismatic with 15-20% of the population.
SP Artisans keirsey.com/temperament/artisan-overview/ tend to be pragmatic with 30-35% of the population.
SJ Guardians keirsey.com/temperament/guardian-overview/ tend to be conservative with 40-45% of the population.
NT Rationals live to understand.
NF Idealists live to feel.
SP Artisans live to take action.
SJ Guardians live to serve.
SJ Guardians tend to look to the past in order to guide our actions today.
SP Artisans tend to look to the present as it is only in the present that we can take action today.
NF Idealists tend to look to the future so as to build the best of all imaginable worlds for tomorrow.
NT Rationals tend to understand that the distinction between past/present/future is substantially arbitrary.
NT Rationals tend to believe authority is derived from the truth while
SJ Guardians especially, along with most everyone else, tend to believe truth is derived from authority.
NT Rationals understand the necessity of creating new wealth in order to alleviate poverty while
most everyone else thinks only in terms of redistributing or sharing wealth as being the only means to alleviate poverty.
See *Socialism and Human Nature* www.cato.org/events/socialism-human-nature for more on this where we learn that hundreds of thousands of years of deep human pre-history has taught humanity the value of sharing wealth while being either indifferent, to being actively hostile, to the creation and conservation of wealth. Most of humanity has no emotional awareness of the necessity of conserving _seed corn_ in order to create new wealth and thereby actually alleviating poverty.
*_I believe that an atavistic longing after the life of the noble savage is the main source of the collectivist tradition._*
~ Friedrich von Hayek
This is pseudoscience, sounds like a bunch of garbage.
Social science is not a science, for starters. All this babble could be summed up in a short paragraph, or two - with emphasis on the fact that many people adamantly oppose the concept of individual responsibility, and also don't know the very elementary basics of scientific method (i.e., they are unable to weight facts objectively, pragmatically and logically). It is just the way it is. It is ordinarily called "easily persuaded", "easily duped", or just plain "brain dead".
That guy is a female!!
You weren't wrong.
So a over 50 white guy is telling us conservatives are not bad.....might as well be a teenager telling us Instagram is good.
Strange. Science began in a Church - Copernicus was a bishop, Medicis were great sponsors of artists and scholars, kings and bishops in Europe were supporting science for hundreds of years (Da Vinci,. Michael Angelo as examples).... Dogmatic thinking is killing science and is never supported by the majority of the followers. And the Church is the body (followers), not the head. Note that dogmatic movements in the Church are eradicated from the main stream and are always a fringe (iconoclasts for example). (At least in a normal society, Americans are always a little loony and more intense, going from 0 to 100 and not being able to find happy medium). Communism is pure dogma, unable to produce and create, created to demolish and subvert. How can any intelligent person be a communist? It's easy - they are being tricked into it. Their conceit (mortal sin) is leading them to it: hey believe in it, because they believe they are better than great unwashed, uneducated, plebs beneath them. Nothing has changed in the mindset of English speaking nations for the last 300 years. UK is a cast society, more than India, and this is their "gift" to their colonies: mindset of the second sons who colonised and despised savages....
"the whole can be vastly smarter"
the whole is NEVER smarter, the whole is mediocrity embodied.
Praise Kek
I can't listen to Haidt; he constantly alternates, five, six times per sentence, between speaking loud and speaking in a whisper.
That fully negates the value of what he's saying. I get it. I can't listen to a radio broadcast, because I like to watch the face of a speaker. He has a white face. That negates his ideas, right there.
I feel sleepy 😴
Haidt still doesn't understand the immigration issue. Conservatives do not object to immigration. It's ILLEGAL immigration that is the problem because it has been a corrupting influence on politics, the economy, public policy, the justice system, etc. In fact, Conservatives have great admiration for LEGAL immigrants who have embraced the American dream as well as our traditions and values. The Left is very good at manipulating terms and definitions in order to control the conversation. This conflation of illegal and legal immigration is what keeps us from logically dealing with the issue, which is exactly what the Left intended. And many Republican politicians (McCain, Lindsey Graham, GHW Bush) have been willing accomplices in that regard. This is part of what Trump means when he talks about the Deep State- a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats whose priority, above all, is to protect their castles... and damn the American taxpayer for even thinking they should be accountable.
I'm thinking that he does. He talks about how unfettered immigration can hurt the low income earner and the most vulnerable in society when he mentions how Obama even talked about it. However, the left have made any discussion about immigration taboo. They don't distinguish between the legal and illegal and accuse anyone who would do so a racist and a morally bankrupt person. That has become the big change in how society looks at immigration. There is an academic power house in place that feels that their compassion for illegal immigrants must supersede the rule of law. They will never concede to the idea that compassion can actually do more harm than good if not used in a judicious manner. Unbridled compassion is paramount and if it tears the entire system down, that's a price they're willing to pay. The system is corrupt anyway, in their mind.
Hi Jack, you're right, he understands some of the component arguments, but if you look back @13:16 he says "Immigration has become a sacred topic". In so doing, he's acquiescing to the way the Left has conflated legal and illegal. In fact, I don't think he was even aware he did it (and neither was Peterson). You clearly see the distinction, and it is key to having an honest public policy debate on the issue... but with so many issues, the Left is skilled at twisting language. Other examples of this would be "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life" or climate change "denier" rather than "skeptic". The media runs with the terminology that the Left adopts and this constantly shuts down earnest debate because it puts the Right on a defensive posture. God forbid the Left would have to make a claim and support their position with evidence... no, it's much easier to establish an Orthodoxy.
MervandtheMagicTones
That's the truth about the left and evidence. They're not about to let facts get in the way of a good ideology.
Actually, I was of the impression that he was being a bit facetious when he made that comment about immigration being a sacred topic. I took it as a shot at the left. I know that if you leave a comment of facebook about vetting immigrants, I get called a racist and bigot within minutes. The left will brook no discussion on immigration unless you want the borders wide open. I thought that this was what he meant when he said it was a sacred topic. Sacred to the left.
Ahhh, ok. I can see reading him that way. By the way, despite my earlier comments, I do give Haidt a lot of credit for sincere and reasonable analysis and for refusing to join in the ideological lockstep. I hope that he can help to influence a change of course in academia. As an aside, you're likely familiar with Victor Davis Hanson... his take on illegal immigration is very incisive.
MervandtheMagicTones
I agree with quite a bit of what Hanson says but my take on unfettered immigration has more to do with economic pressures. If you let too many people into any western country and it will start to put a huge drain on the economy and will tend to drag down the standard of living here. That's not good for us but, in the end, it will be even worse for those living in 3rd World countries. For those countries to have any kind of solid economic future, they need a strong economy in the west. A large corporation demonstrates this problem all the time. The CEO of a large corporation knows that a poorly producing segment of the business will drain everything away from the more successful parts and could drain them into bankruptcy. That's the danger over immigration poses, especially the "let them all come" attitude some on the left are advocating. Their compassion could, in the end, do more harm than good.
Science has existed for 1000s of years. The ancient Greeks had it. The ancient Arabs also.
You are mistaken. What the Greeks had was philosophy - the love of knowledge, and the search for the truth. The Arabs had nothing that their Middle Eastern pre-Islamic forefathers (the Egyptian and Babylonian civilisations and others), as well as the Indians and the Chinese, did _not_ have. The method-less search for knowledge is all well and good, but it goes only so far. It does not employ the scientific method, which was not developed until the 16-17th centuries. The scientific method, particularly the concepts of peer review, multi-factor testing, blind trials, and so on, is the only effective method of eliminating such basic human weaknesses as confirmation bias and satisfaction with having "found" the "truth." Scientists _never_ find the truth, because there is no "truth" to find. Science is the never-ending process of unearthing yet more facts about the universe, and of constantly re-testing the hypotheses that serve as lenses through which we understand the world. This attitude - this mindset - has existed only for a few hundred years. That is why mankind has made more progress in understanding the world and creating technology - look around you! - that changes the world out of all recognition, in the past four hundred years or so, than in all the preceding millennia.
@DieFlabbergast
" the scientific method, which was not developed until the 16-17th centuries."
The Scientific Method was developed in the 13th century by a Christian, Roger Bacon.
"Scientists never find the truth, because there is no "truth" to find."
Is that absolutely true?? If so then truth has been found thereby destroying your statement. If not then we can never come to any scientific conclusion ever, making the endeavors pointless.
The only thing that the Arabs have given to the world is algebra and a growing distaste of Islam.
If aliens (existed and) wanted to know what humanity is all about i would send Johnathan Haidt to represent us. The amount of respect i have for this man is something I've never experienced before.
Nope. He was right the first time.
These two most prominent allegedly "balanced" observers of the left-right schism in the U.S. really aren't balanced at all. They both couch their rightward bias in reasonable-sounding phrases while ripping the left and flattering the right. Note that they both blame the schism on the left's hostility toward the right while making no mention whatsoever of the shocking change in conservatism and the Republican party over the past half century from rational and highly principled to the near-total abandonment of both in the aggressive pursuit of unchallengeable social and political dominance. I'm not talking about the right kowtowing to the left; I'm talking about the right's abandonment of their own principles and values for the sake of power, bragging rights, and the chance to spite the libs at every turn. Do these two so-called intellectuals really not notice the change? That's simply not possible. Haidt also habitually makes a point of attacking the left's obsession with social justice while whistling past the right's blatant contempt for it. A truly objective observer would be ashamed to display that kind of bias. The schism exists today because the left has finally become as dogmatic and doctrinaire as the right has always been, and now instead of just one side who will never give an inch, we have two. Liberals are taking notice of the internal contradiction in thinking like progressives while behaving like conservatives and speaking up about it, but the right is as self-righteously intransigent and incapable of confronting their own fallibility as ever. As long as that's the case, we'll remain stuck as a nation and unable to move or lead, now and beyond Trump. Already much of the world is realigning to push us aside and move on without us. Both sides have plenty to admit, apologize for and get to work correcting. Assigning blame is getting us nowhere.
Your bias is showing, and you clearly didn't really listen to the talk. Either that or you are selectively "remembering" it as part of the confirmation bias process. These two are as close to being in the damn centre as anyone one could find. It's only because the entire political spectrum has shifted so far toward the left in the past few decades that what is actually a balanced, centrist stance looks to liberals like something to the right of Genghis Khan. These two men are still liberals at their core - liberals as they used to be, before rigidly ideological patterns of thought took over.
I don't know if you were around in the 1960s and 1970s, but it sounds like you were born after Reagan took office in 1981. The national political spectrum hasn't veered this far to the right since the late 19th century Gilded Age of sweatshops, robber barons, and unregulated monopolism. The Republican party is literally doing its damnedest to recreate that era, and with the destruction of organized labor in most sectors of the economy, the Democrats have been forced to feed from the same big money donor trough as the GOP. When people start believing themselves when they call centrist politicians like Obama and Clinton "socialists", and people like Sarah Palin, Roy Moore and Joe Arpaio are treated as legitimate political candidates, and people like Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul are considered serious thinkers, and half the population thinks Fox is a legit news organization, all of that should tell you the whole spectrum's been jerked alarmingly far to the right. Your historical perspective seems typically narrow and short, as very few average Americans know their history or care.
Gartner101 the lurch to the right since the 80s? You are living on another planet.
Gartner101 did you not listen to anything that was said in the videos? It was explained that universities have edged out conservative thought, have made conservatives know they are not welcome.. both explicitly and in subtle ways, to the point that in some areas there is one conservative to every 20 liberals. And you blame this on the conservative!
Utterly astounding, you are a perfect embodiment of a leftist.
Haidt is weak tea.
You weren't wrong.