Please, please, please, STOP! This notion of "woke" was created as a false narrative by the far-right. Then that type of right-leaning proceeds to demonize the mythical problem they created. Simultaneously, there does exist a cadre of folks who like to perceive themselves as some sort of social justice warrior and subsequently, they reinforce the notion that was originally purported by the far-right and consequently perpetuate it. Not every "liberal" lays claim to being a social justice warrior. Some of us simply care that others are afforded more opportunity and support if they're a member of a disenfranchised segment of American capitalist society.
Neuroscience chick - "This is definitely worthwhile" *flashes back* Seahawks Jersey chick - "I mean, what is the point of this? Who're you to ask this question? What gives you the right? What's your goal?" *proceeds to snap fingers*
@@brianmeen2158 I think it’s just the last video about this discrimination “claim”. Which tbh, I was getting sick of. I’m not sure why we need 6 or however many videos on this topic as opposed to other topics that get a single video/group discussion. On to greener pastures and other topics please!!! Yay!!!
@@spartanboosts I was wondering if he meant the whole series or just this topic. Because yeah, I agree, this has been done so many times and nobody offers any new insights after the first video.
The ideology has an expiration date. We just don't know when. And, wait for it... epic gaslighting will follow. "I never believed that." "I had nothing to do with it!"
@@jaysaini955 To Say "I'm black and was harmed by whites, so whites should be harmed by blacks so we can get even" can be interpreted, easily, as racist. Especially by people who believe that any race can be racist, especially when they are being self-serving.
I'm pleased to see that most students don't agree with Kendi's assertion. I hope to see more Kendipaloozas, seems like this question is an important one.
@@relaxingsounds1386 lololololol...strongly disagree...you don't even have to think about it to come to that conclusion...the question is soooo complex and none of it is defined...this is light work
I worked for a couple of Armenian guys for a long time. I loved working there. It was odd because they were very active with the local church and were very openly proud of being Armenian but they grew up in Turkey and primarily spoke Turkish to each other. That said, when things became heated they'd switch to Armenian or if things were *really* heated, they'd bust out the English swearwords.
@@drpeterboghossian That's too funny. Did you also pick up a little bit of Turkish over the years? Over in Europe, after English, there aren't many other second languages that are more useful than Turkish. Cheers Mr. Boghossian and thank you for taking a stand and lending your voice to matters such as they are.
@@drpeterboghossian lol my grandparents did the same, when it went from armenian and then they broke out into turkish, me and my brother knew it's "adult stuff" that they didn't want us to know. Also, I have a very similar story to yours about a turkish family saving my great grandfather and his brother, and I think you can find many many stories like this.
I’ve seen a few of these videos and I’m glad I finally saw a person mention that you shouldn’t discriminate on people today based on what others did decades ago. Shocker.
Why is the word "ONLY" not addressed in the discussion? Because the question is saying there are not other possibilities other than discrimination to solve this problem, all people should strongly disagree because it is very rare that there is only one solution to anything.
Agree. The question would get more diverse answers if it said "a good way to remedy past..." or "the best way to...". Just got reminded it's a statement... not a question.
It's also to do with... that exact wording is precisely how Kendi words his claim. It's Kendi who says there aren't other possibilities, so the question has to be taken as it's worded... in order to honestly interact with it.
This isn't a question. It's a statement. Important difference. Additionally, this is the statement of a prominent member of the "woke" movement, Ibram X Kendi.
Definitely, and I dont understand how anyone could stand on any other line. Even those who support present discrimination to cure past dissemination should agree that it's not the only remedy. I think the question is flawed.
I love this video because is pulls back the curtain and shows how Mr. Boghossian structures his questions and his methodologies. It’s also amazing how short these can be but the level of introspection into the question/statement and be fairly deep.
Watched the entire series so far. Funny how no one agrees with present discrimination as a remedy to past discrimination... yet we continue to implement and support discriminatory practices. There's still a disconnect here.
Any chance you would take on Israel vs Palestine next? You'll get a LOT of black and white, purely emotional thinking on that. A great topic to explore critical thinking.
I believe it's quite similar to this one actually, Israelis are discriminating against Palestinians on the basis of past discrimination by many other peoples that lived on that land 3000 years ago. At this point, the word "past" in terms of discrimination is very loose, because how far in the past are we going?
@@Honey-lv7pb Like my question insinuated, I think that response shows the lack of nuance I was pointing to. And actually, Armenians often times relate to Jews. These two groups have a lot in common and similar positioning within the woke Olympic hierarchy and history. Armenians and Jews strongly support each other based on their commonalities.
I find it interesting how these Students welcomed the Debate, yet made the comment about how MOST students at Berkley have the 'Hive Mind' think and are lambasted for having a different opinion than the 'Hive Mind' inside of the Classrooms. This tells me that those Prof's aren't there to have the Students think for themselves, but to push their own Political Ideology/Biases on everyone in their Classrooms.
Interesting how, as far as I can remember, just about everyone participating in the events for this specific claim end up in some area of "disagree"...yet if they're asked about CRT in general I'm guessing they're onboard with it
Change the word discrimination to equity and the results will be different, even though the idea is effectively the same. People are heavily influenced by language and I think Kendi made a tactical error by failing to manipulate language that clearly has negative connotations.
It’s similar to Black Lives Matter, when Black Lives Matter Too was right there for the taking. It’s all very silly. As if people can’t tell the difference between forcing someone to sit at the back of bus versus giving someone a scholarship to make up for damage that was done.
This is like saying to accept your apology for punching me in the nose you must allow me to punch you in the nose and those who claim to fight monsters should be very careful not to become monsters in the process
No. It’s like someone punched you in the nose and then there was a “discriminatory” policy allowing free medical care to people who were victims of being punched in the face.
A refreshing pushback against what people think about Berkeley. Happy to report that I didn't know I grew up in a multi-cultural area until I met someone who wasn't from one. I didn't know racism existed as a child until age 12 or so. And I was the only one of my kind.
My grandparents were discriminated against for being Irish Catholic in England & in Ireland at the turn of the last century. What happened, happened. We moved on but not forgetting what can happen when people like x kendi start influencing people with power over people.
My great great grandparents came to England from Ireland. They lived in the same streets and poverty as their English neighbours, their kids grew up, married locals, because for as much as some discriminated, the majority did not, which is why so many of us have Irish and English heritage through the generations.
Requiring discrimination to clear the past discrimination is saying that the Discrimination of the past was required and therefore no one can be mad about it
I've knowingly seen more Armenians/Americans of Armenian descent in the last few videos than in the rest of my life combined. Not sure what that means, but it's interesting.
I feel like the only time discrimination should be considered, is whether or not a person is qualified for x thing, remove race, age and sex from the equation. If said person does not meet the standard for doing something they should be discriminated against and told to come back once they are qualified. and what I mean by qualified, is that they have the mental/learning capacity for whatever it entails and or the physical strength to do the job or thing provided, if they can, then race age and sex shouldn't be a problem.
I'm just curious to know how many of these students believe affirmative action policies along those lines. I think the issue is most don't see or believe discrimination against the majority IS discrimination.
Thanks for this series - just epic.. sad its the last but nice closer. Please keep it up, these conversations need to happen and I think you have found the right venue.
The original statement is that the ONLY remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. Therefore, the statement is false if any other remedy exists. Other remedies do exist (legislation, increased freedom, &c), therefore the statement is false. I would have to stand on "strongly disagree" because there is no possible information that could exist which would make the statement true.
Good point. Id argue that it isnt "generally true", or "true in spirit" eitjer, adding further reason to stand on "strongly disagree" as well. Meaning, it wouldnt be true even if the word only was taken out,
You're getting more popular on campus Peter👍 Much better reactions/intent from students than your first few huh? I think your Armenian rep is now preceding you, favourably 👍🇺🇸🇬🇧 Love your stuff. Glad it's going well and your results are improving imo too. Truly thanks Peter. P s. You won't read this (foreshadowing? Double bluffing sods law? Hehe) but if you do I would LOVE to talk with you in depth about all your topic titles, your experiment in general and the larger field being as widespread as it is. Cheers fella. 👍
@@drpeterboghossian p s. Addiction is a choice not a disease. That would be a great topic for your experiment. In my humble opinion. 👍🇬🇧🇺🇸 Edit: haha I'm the master of sods law. It fell for my self deprecation doubt bluff and you saw my post. *Smugly wiggles in seat* I'm British, so sarcasm is bedrock. 🤣 Thanks for all you do mate! Truly 👍
@@Truth_is_all_that_exists Addiction is not a choice, nor is it a disease. It's hard wiring in your brain you can't fight. It's a syndrome. Ridiculous to call it a choice when you know those choices aren't good. But your brain is telling you to get the dopamine and you cave. TRUST me.
The most effective remedy is to stop all discrimination that results in harming anyone now. That solution is the only remedy that recognizes that discrimination is unacceptable. Any remedy that uses any sort of discrimination to fix something is saying that discrimination is a useful tool. Maybe the discussion should revolve around asking...is discrimination a good thing to practice under any circumstance and if so, why and when. Personally, I do not care if I am discriminated against. If I do not get into a school because I am Asian, so what? I simply will go to another school.
Its funny, if the question was worded differently(ie affirmative action), I think most current uni students would be in the strongly agree/agree category.
Anyone that disagrees with this, clearly doesn't understand that while 2 wrongs don't make a right, an infinite number of wrongs in sequence do make a right. One just has to be patient, the people that exist an infinite number of generations from now will live in paradise.
Discrimination can mean forcing Black people to sit on the back of the bus, drink out of different water fountains, eat in the back of restaurants, enter movie theaters through the back door, or prevent them from buying property. Discrimination can also mean providing Black people scholarships or business loans to help them get ahead after so much negative interference in their progress.
My first, of many, issues with Kendi's statement is that it is absolutist; "ONLY Solution". It's certainly "A" solution, but the "only" solution? I strongly disagree just on the semantics of the statement and the absolutist underpinning. Subjective absolutism is antithetical to the scientific method and what it was developed to expose. Even if it said "Best" solution it would at least be acknowledging that other solutions even exist. But "ONLY" solution, nah, it may as well say "Final Solution"
It's not that they have to be educated. They have to be educated correctly in a non biased way with truthful facts. Of course, personal philosophy, and family beliefs and values will play a role but with good emotional regulation in the mix, and the biases in check, more people will agree on the ethics of a particular thing. BTW, I am glad I typed this before you came to the point of educated and indoctrinated.
I liked it better when you played the students off each other and asked, for example, "did he say anything that would cause you to move a line toward him?"
Just because someone has an "Argument", doesn't mean their argument is VALID. Just because someone is a good speaker/orator, doesn't mean what they're saying is actually TRUE. If we can ALL agree that Discrimination is BAD....then it's BAD. It's not Bad in degrees....it's NOT a Grey/Gray area.....it's BAD. It's NOT about "Education" (in what I believe to be the participants' belief in "Higher Education"), it's about Life Experience. If you've been discriminated against, you "learn" very quickly that it sucks. It's NOT rocket science. You do NOT need to delve deeply into History or psychology or sociology or "fill in the blank". I would argue that while LOTS of Union Soldiers were "Uneducated" (by today's standards), that inherently KNEW that Slavery was BAD and worth fighting for. By say the 5th or 6th grade, you learn very quickly that on AVERAGE, boys are faster than girls...on AVERAGE, stronger than girls...but girls are more flexible than boys (on AVERAGE). It doesn't take a degree in sports or physiology or biology to understand this, it just takes some experience and paying attention to the world around you. Modern American (and I would say other countries) Higher Education has been Corrupted, almost beyond redemption. Universities and College campuses have become indoctrination centers, not centers of LEARNING. We have been tricked/fooled/cajoled into believing that Higher Education is THE ultimate "End Goal". Even in the Army, for enlisted personal, to achieve E8 or E9 (MSG/1SG or SGM/CSM), you more than likely need at least a Bachelor's degree if not a Master's degree. Screw your 20+ years of EXPERIENCE, you HAVE to punch the ticket of getting that sheepskin.
Did anyone actually think the Armenian genocide would be the topic of discrimination when you read the title? Everyone has a story that motivates them. Discrimination in response to discrimination I think is emotional and then people try to wrap a logic around it.
"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination" Say you have twin boys, Jared and Sam. You have 3 cookies. You give 2 to Jared, 1 to Sam. Just because you favored Jared that day, because you just like the name Jared better. Is that discrimination? Yes. Is that unfair? Yes. Next day, same situation, but this time you give Sam 2 cookies, and Jared gets 1. You do this to make up for the day before. Is that discrimination? Yes. Is that unfair? No. The question is equivocating, interchangeably using distinct definitions of discrimination to suggest fault in the remedy after the fact, relying on the negative connotation of discrimination, which does not apply to all definitions of the word. Discrimination = "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." And Discrimination ="recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."
4:26 Peter, a better question might be "Help my understand why disagree feels 'right' for you? Based on your reasons, why not slightly/strongly disagree?" Because saying "I don't understand why you're not over there" is messaging towards your IL that you think they are standing on the wrong line and puts them into a 'defensive' reasoning stance instead of a reflexive one. 6:53 When you say "Wouldn't it be... (x)" you're asking a leading question which the IL can only give a binary response to 7:21 Just an observation Peter but you seem very set on trying to get (borderline push) people to move to possibly meet your own biased criteria? Perhaps better "What do you think someone on the slightly disagree or neutral line would say? What could they say to convince us to move further towards that end of the spectrum?" 7:33 Great question by that lady. Looks like we have a future SE practitioner in our midst! 10:17 Again that's a leading question, I doubt she would say "No this has been a waste of my time you're wrong" ? Better Q maybe: "How helpful is it to be having these types of conversations and should we even be having them?"
Is the debate about whether it’s the only way to combat discrimination, or whether it’s right or wrong. I feel like no one is even really addressing the question, and only speaking to how they feel things should be. What’s the alternative?
To play devil's advocate a bit, discrimination against the actual discriminators would be just, however discrimination against someone else who has the same race as the discriminators is abhorrent. Likewise beneficial discrimination for those who had the same race as those who were discriminated against is also wrong. If it were possible to only go after the actual perpetrators and not just some people who were not involved that were the same race as the perpetrators then you could get me to move from strongly disagree to agree.
@@Briaaanz I just laid them out in plain english. What part don't you understand? I'm giving a hypothetical response in which discrimination against the discriminators would be possible, since it's not, I'm against discriminating against people that were not involved but share the same skin color as the discriminators.
I feel like you are describing retribution or punishment rather than discrimination. And I agree it might be just. But for me given the question as stated I couldn't move based on your response because by definition "past discrimination" was, especially in Kendi's view, was generally perpetrated by people long since deceased.
@@bsack58 Right but retribution and punishment is a form of discrimination, additionally past can be 3 days ago it can be 3 years ago. If it were done to only those who discriminated I would move.
@@theycallmenick the part i didn't understand is where you said you were playing devil's advocate, but then switched to your personal beliefs without much of a transition. Thank you for elaborating in your reply
Discrimination is discrimination period If we label it as bad behavior then there’s no justification to it especially if we claim to be tolerant open minded and educated. And to that woman there’s no data or information needed to tell us if discrimination is something bad and we should strongly disagree without a hesitation.
I think just having 3 lines would yield a better conversation. Agree - Partly Agree/Disagree - Disagree. I dont think its as important to quantify how assured they are as much as qualify what aspect specifically they agree or disagree with.
The issue that presents (3, instead of 7) is that some people are more entrenched in their thought processes. Trying to get them to open their minds becomes more of a challenge, because the difference between a shades of agree, and an agree to neutral shift is a much larger jump for those with entrenched opinions. It would effectively put them on the defence from the get, making it harder for them to try to perceive an opinion that runs counter to theirs.
i still want to hear this done with at least one person defending a dissonant position. what is discrimination? to move away from incrimination. so one arguement in favor of the proposition is based on theft. i have an apple. someone steals my apple. now i am appleless. i am justified in doing the behavior normalized by it being done to me. this continually shifts responcibility until the loss of an apple is not compelling enough as an excuse to steal that someone accepts the loss. the social contract is the same. when someone doesnt go to jail due to clerical error, the result of that person having been put in jail is stolen from the community and with it the belief in the rule of law. so vigilantes who imprison unlawfully to restore faith of society members in the legitimacy of community as a social construct repair the wrong, by shifting blame back where it belongs, the origin of the conflict. it is the same premise as law itself. you dont sentence executioners for murder, or police for abduction. so you cant sue prison-guards for detention. the precedent of lawlessness by court, justifies the establishment of courtlessness in justice/vengeance. discrimination is a violation of rule of law and institutional legitimacy, and if duty is failed or faltered it deserves to be replaced. the only remedy of past mistakes is to change what went wrong, that is what path correction and doing better require. new regimes will always violate teh decorum and rules of old regimes, or they wouldnt have purpose. so the only way to fix a problem is to stop doing it, and the only way to replace one set of norms with another is to ignore with impunity any implication of violation and hand wave them away as outdated, then the only remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination.
I’d love to see protestors at Kendi events chanting “Anti-racism is racism! Anti-racism is racism!” Sound familiar? Except this one is actually true. 😉
Peter I find it so interesting that in other videos people call you a Privileged White Male when you’re a direct descendant of survivors of a massive genocide in the Middle East. I’ve seen the same thing happen with Jewish friends from North Africa. It’s striking to me how arbitrary their racial lines and privilege lines are, particularly when applied to light-skinned members of some of the most oppressed and threatened people in modern history.
Based on the responses of nearly everyone in this series, Kendi's reputation and wallet are thankful that nobody actually reads his books. He can simply market this stuff as "anti-racist" with backing from the media, and the public will treat it like a software license: just scroll to the bottom and click "agree."
The statement is "the *ONLY* Remedy to *PAST* discrimination is present discrimination". Those two qualifiers would seem to eliminate any excuses being brought up to agree with the statement. If discrimination was wrong then, how can it be right now?
For one thing it seems very narrow-minded to state “The Only Remedy” for anything is any single remedy. It seems it’s complex and we would need to understand why any individual thinks this kind of discrimination is ok.
I’m on the strongly disagree on this topic solely on that fact that the way thus question is stated its a agree or disagree question. That’s because they use “only” which implies you either do it 100% or not at all. Not sometimes. What the people not on strongly disagree are saying is that sometimes it might be good, but that’s not what the question asks or states. Now If instead of using only, the question used sometimes then that would fit what the people not on strongly disagree are saying. That is that it could possibly be helpful to allow present discrimination to fix past discrimination.
I wish you would have given the examples of everyday discrimination of inanimate objects, or even “discriminating” in who is a friend and who isn’t, or discrimination in dating.
This particular topic has become less interesting as iterated. 1, because people are too reasonable, but also just go along with Peter's suggestions, and 2, because the groups are not generally disagreeing, either at all, or substantially.
I was surprised that nobody brought up Affirmative Action, gender discrimination in sport and female safe spaces (you could say the 'stronger' question was aiming at it) and that discrimination can be a good thing such as for employment purposes that discriminate based on meritocracy.
I think it is funny how the dude who is literally the size of both girls combined is trying to mention there might be some women stronger than some men. The image is hilarious
'Past' and 'present' qualifiers do not change the meaning of the word, 'discrimination'. One either believes discrimination is a beneficial tool capable of changing society for the better, or they do not. I do not.
I slightly disagree with the statement...That being said, watching this "series", not one person has ever stood on any of the agree lines. There's alot of clear reasons why that's the case, but it kind of defeats the purpose of even doing these kind of thought experiments. I propose you take the Matt Walsh approach, and get ahold of Kendi to give him an oppurtunity to display his perspective on the statement HE made. My guess is anything along these lines, would have a situation end up like your gender related videos. Get peoples emotions involved though, because you get to see what people REALLY believe. I see why this'll never happen though, because of how emotionally irresponsible we are as a collective species.
kendi would never accept such an invitation. he appears incapable of defending his ideas against valid, good faith questions or criticisms. coleman hughes invited him to debate and kendi declined. there are many such examples.
@@deenzmartin6695 I'm new to this part of TH-cam so I'll have to look up who Coleman Hughes is. I will say though (the result that these experiments should be after), these shouldn't be debate topics where one has to defend. They should be just discussions where each side is learning.
Only Remedy to Past Discrimination is Present Discrimination Example: Fiction A company constantly emphasizes that it does everything exemplary in teh eye of the public and is the peoples choice. However, peopel find out that company confiscated the water supply of a nation and charged it back to them. People that were affected by it discrimianted against the companies acts with open hostilities in the present from its past wrongs. Other nations also that sold those goods responded by boycotting and liquidating that company and owners assets that made those lawless choices. Thus discriminating against vial acts is terrible. It seems that the dogma of "discrimination" is programmed in error to the neutrality of the word as choice and operation in what people do on a daily basis. IE x part of town has crime so Y people don't go there. Logically, if you don't want to die or be robbed you don't go to those locations, because it would be considered lawless... People X don't give or send money to peopel Y, because they don't want to share their works with outside people or resources because they haven't particapted, but are willing onyl to share the knowledge to attain those works. THus its dsicrimination on a basis of identity or nation. Its weird though that the emotions nad lies of a system distort and ocnfuse peoples relation to words.... Since we are not really talking about any situation.... The only remedy to past discrimination is presetn discrimination, which would be like boycotting a lawless entity. So this is a clever, or false wisdom, technicalyl as one student poitned out its an un fair question, or others I discussed it with that have mind... {"the question is to vague to have any intelligent validity or conclusion to a sufficient answer as it poses nothing of relation or context,..." }(unamed), and "attempts to gather intel in the mind of students to see what current dogma of a ":mediated system" has put into their mind. Its a data collection question and has zero resolution and demonstrates a massive gap in intelligence to dsicern what is actually going on, thus wasteful thinking in terms of time and energy expenditure. Often a CULT type tool also at probing division belief systems amongst various humans." (me)
These are interesting and all, but may be worth getting a more diverse group.. Like these were all Armenians with similar opinions, wasn't much to consider. What we like about this type of content is seeing how vastly different the opinions are of people that are all walking along the same street.
![Warhammer 40k: Space Marine 2 | เพื่อจักรพรรดิ ! [ตอนเดียวจบ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4M0ckYMA4-U/mqdefault.jpg)
These discussions are really helping me shed the woke ideology I once adhered to. Thank you.
You're welcome!
Please, please, please, STOP! This notion of "woke" was created as a false narrative by the far-right. Then that type of right-leaning proceeds to demonize the mythical problem they created. Simultaneously, there does exist a cadre of folks who like to perceive themselves as some sort of social justice warrior and subsequently, they reinforce the notion that was originally purported by the far-right and consequently perpetuate it. Not every "liberal" lays claim to being a social justice warrior. Some of us simply care that others are afforded more opportunity and support if they're a member of a disenfranchised segment of American capitalist society.
Another soul saved!
Neuroscience chick - "This is definitely worthwhile"
*flashes back*
Seahawks Jersey chick - "I mean, what is the point of this? Who're you to ask this question? What gives you the right? What's your goal?" *proceeds to snap fingers*
Ugh, that Seahawks girl infuriated me...
@@davidtsang4949 she was cringe
Just another sacrificial jezebel
@@davidtsang4949 prime example of what's wrong with our colleges at the moment. She wouldn't hear him out, let alone listen to what he was saying.
Nice connection between the videos!
It's a real pity this is the last video in the series -- they've been great! Keep up the good work, Peter!
The last video? That is tragic as this series was great.
@@brianmeen2158 I think it’s just the last video about this discrimination “claim”. Which tbh, I was getting sick of. I’m not sure why we need 6 or however many videos on this topic as opposed to other topics that get a single video/group discussion. On to greener pastures and other topics please!!! Yay!!!
These are boring. He needs to rock up on a campus in Portland and scream, WHAT IS A WOMAN YO???
@@spartanboosts I was wondering if he meant the whole series or just this topic. Because yeah, I agree, this has been done so many times and nobody offers any new insights after the first video.
Thank you. More to come! We're about to embark on a new filming adventure!
These “Kendi Series” have given me hope we still may not go down as a country on the sinking ship of Post Modernism (Fingers crossed 🤞🏽)
The ideology has an expiration date. We just don't know when. And, wait for it... epic gaslighting will follow. "I never believed that." "I had nothing to do with it!"
@@drpeterboghossian lack of accountability is standard issue for the modern left. It's what they stand for.
@@drpeterboghossian yes I heard you say that on the dark horse podcast
It's great to see so many reject Kendi's racist message.
It really is as I previously thought many on college campuses would support him
Wha?
How was that message racist? I don't find it racist at all, I find it actually interesting as a POC. Meaning, Its good to know so we don't do.
@@jaysaini955 To Say "I'm black and was harmed by whites, so whites should be harmed by blacks so we can get even" can be interpreted, easily, as racist. Especially by people who believe that any race can be racist, especially when they are being self-serving.
@@caseyjudson1062 Oh I know and completely agree, but still this is important. To see who's dumb and who's dumber if that makes sense ;)
I'm pleased to see that most students don't agree with Kendi's assertion. I hope to see more Kendipaloozas, seems like this question is an important one.
not one student has given the actual legal definition of discrimination in this entire series.
@@jfloyo11 - . . . . And? I guess I'm curious as to your point with this comment . . .
@@jfloyo11 what's your view? stop bullshitting and tell us what you think.
@@faustyred there is no point. it's just douchebaggery.
@@relaxingsounds1386 lololololol...strongly disagree...you don't even have to think about it to come to that conclusion...the question is soooo complex and none of it is defined...this is light work
I worked for a couple of Armenian guys for a long time. I loved working there. It was odd because they were very active with the local church and were very openly proud of being Armenian but they grew up in Turkey and primarily spoke Turkish to each other. That said, when things became heated they'd switch to Armenian or if things were *really* heated, they'd bust out the English swearwords.
My grandparents spoke Turkish when they didn't want my dad to understand what they were saying. It backfired, however, as my dad learned Turkish!
@@drpeterboghossian That's too funny. Did you also pick up a little bit of Turkish over the years? Over in Europe, after English, there aren't many other second languages that are more useful than Turkish. Cheers Mr. Boghossian and thank you for taking a stand and lending your voice to matters such as they are.
@@drpeterboghossian lol my grandparents did the same, when it went from armenian and then they broke out into turkish, me and my brother knew it's "adult stuff" that they didn't want us to know. Also, I have a very similar story to yours about a turkish family saving my great grandfather and his brother, and I think you can find many many stories like this.
Loved this series. Some of these kids do give me hope.
Thank you. We'll be doing an entirely new set of claims soon!
These videos are really helping with restoring my faith in humanity. We need to converse and try to get along despite our differences.
Thank you.
I’ve seen a few of these videos and I’m glad I finally saw a person mention that you shouldn’t discriminate on people today based on what others did decades ago. Shocker.
Why is the word "ONLY" not addressed in the discussion? Because the question is saying there are not other possibilities other than discrimination to solve this problem, all people should strongly disagree because it is very rare that there is only one solution to anything.
What is the solution?
Agree. The question would get more diverse answers if it said "a good way to remedy past..." or "the best way to...". Just got reminded it's a statement... not a question.
It's also to do with... that exact wording is precisely how Kendi words his claim. It's Kendi who says there aren't other possibilities, so the question has to be taken as it's worded... in order to honestly interact with it.
This isn't a question. It's a statement. Important difference.
Additionally, this is the statement of a prominent member of the "woke" movement, Ibram X Kendi.
It’s based on a quote from a specific “anti-racist” Ibram X. Kendi
"well he holds a endowed chair at BU"
Her reaction is amazing!!
Likes she is Soo profoundly amazed and not amazed at same time.
Brilliant.
The use of the word "only" is why I would stand on the Strongly Disagree line.
Definitely, and I dont understand how anyone could stand on any other line. Even those who support present discrimination to cure past dissemination should agree that it's not the only remedy. I think the question is flawed.
@@palma1245 is a remedy for past discrimination needed?
I love this video because is pulls back the curtain and shows how Mr. Boghossian structures his questions and his methodologies.
It’s also amazing how short these can be but the level of introspection into the question/statement and be fairly deep.
Thank you. I'm delighted you're taking something meaningful from these.
Watched the entire series so far. Funny how no one agrees with present discrimination as a remedy to past discrimination... yet we continue to implement and support discriminatory practices. There's still a disconnect here.
Any chance you would take on Israel vs Palestine next? You'll get a LOT of black and white, purely emotional thinking on that. A great topic to explore critical thinking.
And at colleges, heck yeah!
I believe it's quite similar to this one actually, Israelis are discriminating against Palestinians on the basis of past discrimination by many other peoples that lived on that land 3000 years ago. At this point, the word "past" in terms of discrimination is very loose, because how far in the past are we going?
@@Honey-lv7pb Like my question insinuated, I think that response shows the lack of nuance I was pointing to.
And actually, Armenians often times relate to Jews. These two groups have a lot in common and similar positioning within the woke Olympic hierarchy and history. Armenians and Jews strongly support each other based on their commonalities.
Healthy pre-indoctrination minds
I find it interesting how these Students welcomed the Debate, yet made the comment about how MOST students at Berkley have the 'Hive Mind' think and are lambasted for having a different opinion than the 'Hive Mind' inside of the Classrooms. This tells me that those Prof's aren't there to have the Students think for themselves, but to push their own Political Ideology/Biases on everyone in their Classrooms.
You telling your story touched my heart. ❤️ 🥺
I'm happy with this group of students. they know how to think.
Interesting how, as far as I can remember, just about everyone participating in the events for this specific claim end up in some area of "disagree"...yet if they're asked about CRT in general I'm guessing they're onboard with it
Change the word discrimination to equity and the results will be different, even though the idea is effectively the same. People are heavily influenced by language and I think Kendi made a tactical error by failing to manipulate language that clearly has negative connotations.
It’s similar to Black Lives Matter, when Black Lives Matter Too was right there for the taking.
It’s all very silly. As if people can’t tell the difference between forcing someone to sit at the back of bus versus giving someone a scholarship to make up for damage that was done.
@@Nabbers 👌🏼people are stupid
@@Nabbers "The only way to remedy past inequity is to force present equity". That would sum up his point of view accurately.
This is like saying to accept your apology for punching me in the nose you must allow me to punch you in the nose and those who claim to fight monsters should be very careful not to become monsters in the process
No. It’s like someone punched you in the nose and then there was a “discriminatory” policy allowing free medical care to people who were victims of being punched in the face.
A refreshing pushback against what people think about Berkeley. Happy to report that I didn't know I grew up in a multi-cultural area until I met someone who wasn't from one. I didn't know racism existed as a child until age 12 or so. And I was the only one of my kind.
Really impressed with this group. Good stuff! 👍🏻
My grandparents were discriminated against for being Irish Catholic in England & in Ireland at the turn of the last century.
What happened, happened. We moved on but not forgetting what can happen when people like x kendi start influencing people with power over people.
who is X kendi, I looked him up and he seems famous.
@@jaysaini955 🤷♀️
@@dcas1 hehehe, yeah I know that was a shit question. Did some research and found out that he's another one of those woke activities.
My great great grandparents came to England from Ireland. They lived in the same streets and poverty as their English neighbours, their kids grew up, married locals, because for as much as some discriminated, the majority did not, which is why so many of us have Irish and English heritage through the generations.
It's refreshing to see these kids rejecting racism for a change.
This was an amazing conversation. My favorite and in my opinion one of the most productive I’ve seen you conduct Peter. Awesome job.
Thank you
@@drpeterboghossian you got it. Keep up the good work. I appreciate what you do. It’s important.
Requiring discrimination to clear the past discrimination is saying that the Discrimination of the past was required and therefore no one can be mad about it
This is the best one yet. Gives me hope how many people in all of these videos landed on disagree or strongly disagree.
I've knowingly seen more Armenians/Americans of Armenian descent in the last few videos than in the rest of my life combined. Not sure what that means, but it's interesting.
The Kardashians and that band called System of a Down are all Armenian afaik
Great conversation that renews my faith in college students.
Such an interesting dynamic i never thought of. Thank you for this conversation.
Glad you enjoyed it!
O. M. G. This is the first I saw and I am totally delighted, thrilled, amazed at your idea here Dr Boghossian. Thank you for this
Thank you! There are plenty more videos to watch!
it just dawned on me...after watching the entire series...none of the students know the actual legal definition of discrimination and who is covered.
Professor Boghossian is the modern-day Socrates!
I feel like the only time discrimination should be considered, is whether or not a person is qualified for x thing, remove race, age and sex from the equation. If said person does not meet the standard for doing something they should be discriminated against and told to come back once they are qualified.
and what I mean by qualified, is that they have the mental/learning capacity for whatever it entails and or the physical strength to do the job or thing provided, if they can, then race age and sex shouldn't be a problem.
Colleges discrininate every selection & enrollment season.
@@nixonagnewreviews7206 trade schools are the best option nowadays, no discrimination there.
Very worthwhile.
I'm just curious to know how many of these students believe affirmative action policies along those lines. I think the issue is most don't see or believe discrimination against the majority IS discrimination.
👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼they’ll learn
Never heard of Peter, but his videos and temperment are really good and helpful
Thanks for this series - just epic.. sad its the last but nice closer. Please keep it up, these conversations need to happen and I think you have found the right venue.
The original statement is that the ONLY remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. Therefore, the statement is false if any other remedy exists. Other remedies do exist (legislation, increased freedom, &c), therefore the statement is false. I would have to stand on "strongly disagree" because there is no possible information that could exist which would make the statement true.
Good point. Id argue that it isnt "generally true", or "true in spirit" eitjer, adding further reason to stand on "strongly disagree" as well. Meaning, it wouldnt be true even if the word only was taken out,
Best participants so far.
You're getting more popular on campus Peter👍
Much better reactions/intent from students than your first few huh?
I think your Armenian rep is now preceding you, favourably 👍🇺🇸🇬🇧
Love your stuff. Glad it's going well and your results are improving imo too. Truly thanks Peter.
P s. You won't read this (foreshadowing? Double bluffing sods law? Hehe) but if you do I would LOVE to talk with you in depth about all your topic titles, your experiment in general and the larger field being as widespread as it is.
Cheers fella. 👍
thank you so much
@@drpeterboghossian p s.
Addiction is a choice not a disease.
That would be a great topic for your experiment.
In my humble opinion. 👍🇬🇧🇺🇸
Edit: haha I'm the master of sods law.
It fell for my self deprecation doubt bluff and you saw my post.
*Smugly wiggles in seat*
I'm British, so sarcasm is bedrock. 🤣
Thanks for all you do mate! Truly 👍
@@Truth_is_all_that_exists Addiction is not a choice, nor is it a disease. It's hard wiring in your brain you can't fight. It's a syndrome. Ridiculous to call it a choice when you know those choices aren't good. But your brain is telling you to get the dopamine and you cave. TRUST me.
The most effective remedy is to stop all discrimination that results in harming anyone now. That solution is the only remedy that recognizes that discrimination is unacceptable. Any remedy that uses any sort of discrimination to fix something is saying that discrimination is a useful tool. Maybe the discussion should revolve around asking...is discrimination a good thing to practice under any circumstance and if so, why and when. Personally, I do not care if I am discriminated against. If I do not get into a school because I am Asian, so what? I simply will go to another school.
It would seem that the answer is obvious. Two negatives do not make a positive.
Its funny, if the question was worded differently(ie affirmative action), I think most current uni students would be in the strongly agree/agree category.
Anyone that disagrees with this, clearly doesn't understand that while 2 wrongs don't make a right, an infinite number of wrongs in sequence do make a right. One just has to be patient, the people that exist an infinite number of generations from now will live in paradise.
PLEASE do more on "trans" stuff... I love when it gets heated..
Discrimination can mean forcing Black people to sit on the back of the bus, drink out of different water fountains, eat in the back of restaurants, enter movie theaters through the back door, or prevent them from buying property. Discrimination can also mean providing Black people scholarships or business loans to help them get ahead after so much negative interference in their progress.
Another great video. Keep up the good work. We need more people like you. Thanks
My first, of many, issues with Kendi's statement is that it is absolutist; "ONLY Solution". It's certainly "A" solution, but the "only" solution? I strongly disagree just on the semantics of the statement and the absolutist underpinning. Subjective absolutism is antithetical to the scientific method and what it was developed to expose. Even if it said "Best" solution it would at least be acknowledging that other solutions even exist. But "ONLY" solution, nah, it may as well say "Final Solution"
It's not that they have to be educated. They have to be educated correctly in a non biased way with truthful facts. Of course, personal philosophy, and family beliefs and values will play a role but with good emotional regulation in the mix, and the biases in check, more people will agree on the ethics of a particular thing. BTW, I am glad I typed this before you came to the point of educated and indoctrinated.
Discrimination is Discrimination, either past or present it is wrong. Pretty simple answer to be on the strongly disagree line.
Damn. The first person there, the Armenian woman, nails it for EVERYONE, I think. Why aren't more people as clearly articulate on this issue as she?
I liked it better when you played the students off each other and asked, for example, "did he say anything that would cause you to move a line toward him?"
Saying, "why aren't you on that line?" feels a bit confrontational and causes them to double down, rather than consider moving.
It's way more fun when they actually move 🙂
Needless to say, keep up the good work!!
I would be interested in knowing if these young adults are achieving their higher education in The Sciences or the Humanities.
Great to hear these students are thinking for themselves. I would love a bit less interrogative upturn as they end sentences.
Just because someone has an "Argument", doesn't mean their argument is VALID. Just because someone is a good speaker/orator, doesn't mean what they're saying is actually TRUE. If we can ALL agree that Discrimination is BAD....then it's BAD. It's not Bad in degrees....it's NOT a Grey/Gray area.....it's BAD.
It's NOT about "Education" (in what I believe to be the participants' belief in "Higher Education"), it's about Life Experience. If you've been discriminated against, you "learn" very quickly that it sucks. It's NOT rocket science. You do NOT need to delve deeply into History or psychology or sociology or "fill in the blank". I would argue that while LOTS of Union Soldiers were "Uneducated" (by today's standards), that inherently KNEW that Slavery was BAD and worth fighting for.
By say the 5th or 6th grade, you learn very quickly that on AVERAGE, boys are faster than girls...on AVERAGE, stronger than girls...but girls are more flexible than boys (on AVERAGE). It doesn't take a degree in sports or physiology or biology to understand this, it just takes some experience and paying attention to the world around you.
Modern American (and I would say other countries) Higher Education has been Corrupted, almost beyond redemption. Universities and College campuses have become indoctrination centers, not centers of LEARNING. We have been tricked/fooled/cajoled into believing that Higher Education is THE ultimate "End Goal". Even in the Army, for enlisted personal, to achieve E8 or E9 (MSG/1SG or SGM/CSM), you more than likely need at least a Bachelor's degree if not a Master's degree. Screw your 20+ years of EXPERIENCE, you HAVE to punch the ticket of getting that sheepskin.
Did anyone actually think the Armenian genocide would be the topic of discrimination when you read the title? Everyone has a story that motivates them. Discrimination in response to discrimination I think is emotional and then people try to wrap a logic around it.
"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination"
Say you have twin boys, Jared and Sam. You have 3 cookies. You give 2 to Jared, 1 to Sam. Just because you favored Jared that day, because you just like the name Jared better.
Is that discrimination? Yes. Is that unfair? Yes.
Next day, same situation, but this time you give Sam 2 cookies, and Jared gets 1. You do this to make up for the day before.
Is that discrimination? Yes. Is that unfair? No.
The question is equivocating, interchangeably using distinct definitions of discrimination to suggest fault in the remedy after the fact, relying on the negative connotation of discrimination, which does not apply to all definitions of the word.
Discrimination = "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."
And
Discrimination ="recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."
4:26 Peter, a better question might be "Help my understand why disagree feels 'right' for you? Based on your reasons, why not slightly/strongly disagree?" Because saying "I don't understand why you're not over there" is messaging towards your IL that you think they are standing on the wrong line and puts them into a 'defensive' reasoning stance instead of a reflexive one.
6:53 When you say "Wouldn't it be... (x)" you're asking a leading question which the IL can only give a binary response to
7:21 Just an observation Peter but you seem very set on trying to get (borderline push) people to move to possibly meet your own biased criteria? Perhaps better "What do you think someone on the slightly disagree or neutral line would say? What could they say to convince us to move further towards that end of the spectrum?"
7:33 Great question by that lady. Looks like we have a future SE practitioner in our midst!
10:17 Again that's a leading question, I doubt she would say "No this has been a waste of my time you're wrong" ? Better Q maybe: "How helpful is it to be having these types of conversations and should we even be having them?"
I've moved away from these "softer" (that's not a criticism) SE phrasings. I may release a video later explaining exactly why.
Isn't it sad how she doesn't feel that she can speak freely in Berkeley.
The university that stood for Free Speech isn't that anymore.
Is the debate about whether it’s the only way to combat discrimination, or whether it’s right or wrong. I feel like no one is even really addressing the question, and only speaking to how they feel things should be. What’s the alternative?
To play devil's advocate a bit, discrimination against the actual discriminators would be just, however discrimination against someone else who has the same race as the discriminators is abhorrent. Likewise beneficial discrimination for those who had the same race as those who were discriminated against is also wrong. If it were possible to only go after the actual perpetrators and not just some people who were not involved that were the same race as the perpetrators then you could get me to move from strongly disagree to agree.
So you say your playing devil's advocate, but then later say what it would take to alter your position. I'm curious what your actual views are
@@Briaaanz I just laid them out in plain english. What part don't you understand? I'm giving a hypothetical response in which discrimination against the discriminators would be possible, since it's not, I'm against discriminating against people that were not involved but share the same skin color as the discriminators.
I feel like you are describing retribution or punishment rather than discrimination. And I agree it might be just. But for me given the question as stated I couldn't move based on your response because by definition "past discrimination" was, especially in Kendi's view, was generally perpetrated by people long since deceased.
@@bsack58 Right but retribution and punishment is a form of discrimination, additionally past can be 3 days ago it can be 3 years ago. If it were done to only those who discriminated I would move.
@@theycallmenick the part i didn't understand is where you said you were playing devil's advocate, but then switched to your personal beliefs without much of a transition. Thank you for elaborating in your reply
Peter, what outcome would you consider to be a "remedy"?
Discrimination is discrimination period
If we label it as bad behavior then there’s no justification to it especially if we claim to be tolerant open minded and educated.
And to that woman there’s no data or information needed to tell us if discrimination is something bad and we should strongly disagree without a hesitation.
I think just having 3 lines would yield a better conversation. Agree - Partly Agree/Disagree - Disagree. I dont think its as important to quantify how assured they are as much as qualify what aspect specifically they agree or disagree with.
The issue that presents (3, instead of 7) is that some people are more entrenched in their thought processes. Trying to get them to open their minds becomes more of a challenge, because the difference between a shades of agree, and an agree to neutral shift is a much larger jump for those with entrenched opinions. It would effectively put them on the defence from the get, making it harder for them to try to perceive an opinion that runs counter to theirs.
i still want to hear this done with at least one person defending a dissonant position.
what is discrimination?
to move away from incrimination.
so one arguement in favor of the proposition is based on theft.
i have an apple. someone steals my apple. now i am appleless. i am justified in doing the behavior normalized by it being done to me. this continually shifts responcibility until the loss of an apple is not compelling enough as an excuse to steal that someone accepts the loss.
the social contract is the same. when someone doesnt go to jail due to clerical error, the result of that person having been put in jail is stolen from the community and with it the belief in the rule of law. so vigilantes who imprison unlawfully to restore faith of society members in the legitimacy of community as a social construct repair the wrong, by shifting blame back where it belongs, the origin of the conflict.
it is the same premise as law itself. you dont sentence executioners for murder, or police for abduction. so you cant sue prison-guards for detention.
the precedent of lawlessness by court, justifies the establishment of courtlessness in justice/vengeance.
discrimination is a violation of rule of law and institutional legitimacy, and if duty is failed or faltered it deserves to be replaced. the only remedy of past mistakes is to change what went wrong, that is what path correction and doing better require. new regimes will always violate teh decorum and rules of old regimes, or they wouldnt have purpose. so the only way to fix a problem is to stop doing it, and the only way to replace one set of norms with another is to ignore with impunity any implication of violation and hand wave them away as outdated, then the only remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination.
I’d love to see protestors at Kendi events chanting “Anti-racism is racism! Anti-racism is racism!” Sound familiar? Except this one is actually true. 😉
This IS a good next step in this. I agree with you. Woke ideas could easily taken authentic offense to.
Past discriminization is not an illness. It does not need a "remedy". Present discrimination is a sickness in need of remedies.
So happy this topic is over. Seeing the same topic in my feed over and over had my interest at zero.
Peter I find it so interesting that in other videos people call you a Privileged White Male when you’re a direct descendant of survivors of a massive genocide in the Middle East. I’ve seen the same thing happen with Jewish friends from North Africa. It’s striking to me how arbitrary their racial lines and privilege lines are, particularly when applied to light-skinned members of some of the most oppressed and threatened people in modern history.
Participant literally says she “hates Turks:” Peter submits without evidence a claim that Turks tend to mistreat him because of his last name.
?
You can’t tell anyone about their life experience
Are you denying Peter's lived experience? 😱😱
@@Wildpeonies23 Nice name
Based on the responses of nearly everyone in this series, Kendi's reputation and wallet are thankful that nobody actually reads his books. He can simply market this stuff as "anti-racist" with backing from the media, and the public will treat it like a software license: just scroll to the bottom and click "agree."
It seems that engaging in discrimination as retribution for past discrimination would only serve to justify the past discrimination.
It's an odd thing to pursue
The statement is "the *ONLY* Remedy to *PAST* discrimination is present discrimination". Those two qualifiers would seem to eliminate any excuses being brought up to agree with the statement. If discrimination was wrong then, how can it be right now?
For one thing it seems very narrow-minded to state “The Only Remedy” for anything is any single remedy. It seems it’s complex and we would need to understand why any individual thinks this kind of discrimination is ok.
I’m on the strongly disagree on this topic solely on that fact that the way thus question is stated its a agree or disagree question. That’s because they use “only” which implies you either do it 100% or not at all. Not sometimes.
What the people not on strongly disagree are saying is that sometimes it might be good, but that’s not what the question asks or states.
Now If instead of using only, the question used sometimes then that would fit what the people not on strongly disagree are saying. That is that it could possibly be helpful to allow present discrimination to fix past discrimination.
I wish you would have given the examples of everyday discrimination of inanimate objects, or even “discriminating” in who is a friend and who isn’t, or discrimination in dating.
I think Hoola-Hoop man watched this video fourteen times.
An interesting question to the one guy is why do you feel it necessary to state the “not all men or not all women “line?
This shows the problem. People don't think that affirmative action as discrimination even though it is.
When does being mistreated give you the right to mistreat?
Doesn't the Bible teach, "An Eye for an Eye"?
@@Briaaanz That’s the code of Hammurabi.
@@spiritmatter1553 Exodus 21:24
is there a reason you can't come up with the definition of remedy? or at least what outcome you would consider to be a remedy.
It will be interesting to see how the vote turns out today.
This particular topic has become less interesting as iterated. 1, because people are too reasonable, but also just go along with Peter's suggestions, and 2, because the groups are not generally disagreeing, either at all, or substantially.
As an aside, I really wish people could articulate their point without unnecessary excessive use of the word "like".
I was surprised that nobody brought up Affirmative Action, gender discrimination in sport and female safe spaces (you could say the 'stronger' question was aiming at it) and that discrimination can be a good thing such as for employment purposes that discriminate based on meritocracy.
I think it is funny how the dude who is literally the size of both girls combined is trying to mention there might be some women stronger than some men. The image is hilarious
The first question I have is this.
Did YOU discriminate in the past?
'Past' and 'present' qualifiers do not change the meaning of the word, 'discrimination'.
One either believes discrimination is a beneficial tool capable of changing society for the better, or they do not.
I do not.
I slightly disagree with the statement...That being said, watching this "series", not one person has ever stood on any of the agree lines. There's alot of clear reasons why that's the case, but it kind of defeats the purpose of even doing these kind of thought experiments. I propose you take the Matt Walsh approach, and get ahold of Kendi to give him an oppurtunity to display his perspective on the statement HE made. My guess is anything along these lines, would have a situation end up like your gender related videos. Get peoples emotions involved though, because you get to see what people REALLY believe. I see why this'll never happen though, because of how emotionally irresponsible we are as a collective species.
kendi would never accept such an invitation. he appears incapable of defending his ideas against valid, good faith questions or criticisms. coleman hughes invited him to debate and kendi declined. there are many such examples.
@@deenzmartin6695 I'm new to this part of TH-cam so I'll have to look up who Coleman Hughes is. I will say though (the result that these experiments should be after), these shouldn't be debate topics where one has to defend. They should be just discussions where each side is learning.
@@deenzmartin6695 He's THE definition of a grifter. He makes 40-70k for a 20 min speech or something crazy.
Why is nobody talking about Hula Jesus in the background?
Smart kids, great conversation. Also, what's up with hoola-hoop guy?
Only Remedy to Past Discrimination is Present Discrimination
Example: Fiction
A company constantly emphasizes that it does everything exemplary in teh eye of the public and is the peoples choice. However, peopel find out that company confiscated the water supply of a nation and charged it back to them. People that were affected by it discrimianted against the companies acts with open hostilities in the present from its past wrongs. Other nations also that sold those goods responded by boycotting and liquidating that company and owners assets that made those lawless choices. Thus discriminating against vial acts is terrible. It seems that the dogma of "discrimination" is programmed in error to the neutrality of the word as choice and operation in what people do on a daily basis. IE x part of town has crime so Y people don't go there. Logically, if you don't want to die or be robbed you don't go to those locations, because it would be considered lawless... People X don't give or send money to peopel Y, because they don't want to share their works with outside people or resources because they haven't particapted, but are willing onyl to share the knowledge to attain those works. THus its dsicrimination on a basis of identity or nation. Its weird though that the emotions nad lies of a system distort and ocnfuse peoples relation to words.... Since we are not really talking about any situation.... The only remedy to past discrimination is presetn discrimination, which would be like boycotting a lawless entity. So this is a clever, or false wisdom, technicalyl as one student poitned out its an un fair question, or others I discussed it with that have mind...
{"the question is to vague to have any intelligent validity or conclusion to a sufficient answer as it poses nothing of relation or context,..." }(unamed), and "attempts to gather intel in the mind of students to see what current dogma of a ":mediated system" has put into their mind. Its a data collection question and has zero resolution and demonstrates a massive gap in intelligence to dsicern what is actually going on, thus wasteful thinking in terms of time and energy expenditure. Often a CULT type tool also at probing division belief systems amongst various humans." (me)
Again!
End of the Question:
Present Discrimination = No discrimination LUL :P
Trying to remedy past discrimination with present discrimination solves nothing & violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
These are interesting and all, but may be worth getting a more diverse group.. Like these were all Armenians with similar opinions, wasn't much to consider. What we like about this type of content is seeing how vastly different the opinions
are of people that are all walking along the same street.
I think it is an open forum and anyone can participate...watch the rest of the series and there are some additional perspectives and people :)
I bet if discrimination against men in corporate hiring quotas came up, you'd see some of those girls move lines.
Stalin had a hand in defining what genocide is after WW2