@@nickvliet4614 The rule is if you bring up a contested topic it will probably be discussed, especially it's opposing views, no matter what it is. If you don't wanna know, don't bring it up, that goes double for public and mixed company. When you bring up Bepis and someone else says Coca-acoC is better, getting mad or snarky makes YOU look like the a-hole.
for tyrants to take over, they first must silence all dissenting opinions, freedom of speech isn't just not a threat to individual freedoms, its the only true bulwark against tyranny.
Haunted Holiday en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Ascension_and_consolidation Let me remind you they killed/imprisoned *after* they were elected. If the people are scared, confused and angry they usually won't listen to rational ideas.
the elected ones were killed, the others were imprisoned, and its true that people become irrational when they're heavily stressed, but silencing dissent at best turns your opponent into a martyr, no matter how wicked that dissent was; at worst it turns you into the very thing you tried to stop.
I agree with you that silencing dissent is bad but keep in mind that speech can be used to silence other speech. This isn't really a problem most of the time since that is how dialogue works. The problem arises when it silences not through quality but through *quantity*. What i mean by that is speech that is founded on lies, propaganda, logical fallacies, ignorance, and ubiquity can prevent others from speaking. You can't disprove something that doesn't use reason to begin with. That's why colleges don't give time to flat-earthers or astrologists. When you reach a certain level of discourse, denial of basic facts becomes an unnecessary burden which proves nothing at worst and at best stifles real discussion. Everyone should have the freedom of speech. You should be able to talk about everything you wish to talk about but people should face any consequences for it and should not be granted a megaphone without reason.
My roommate and I are seen as polar opposites. Back in our Freshman year, we both were at the extremes of our respective parties. As the years went on, we both essentially found ourselves in the moderate middle. We saw the pros and cons of both party and could talk out our positions on each.
I told someone I know recently that, no matter how despicable she thought someone might be, if they really are despicable, the best thing she can do is to let them speak. Let them reveal to the world the depth and quality of their thoughts or lack thereof.
I Didn't know that these colleges even existed, and I already hate them. They sounds like something from the middle ages. "He's opening our mind to new ideas! HE'S A WITCH!!!"
The things they've done at Berkley are absolutely despicible. Some group of students at school formed a barrier blocking white students from entering just because of the color of their skin. They were told to go in another way or some shit. These groups are the ones that are aligned with organizations like antifa but ironically they are extremely facist in their principles.
this is the same thing that me and a guy I met at school did when we were waiting for our next classes. He would defend his position and I would defend mine, we would gone for over and hour on different political discussions and we would learn from one another. If we ever spoke about a topic that we felt uncomfortable about and getting to a point were anger was possibly an outcome, we would change the subject to one we both like like videos games or Movies. that way we ended the discussion on a high note and we both left in a good mood.
You are ignoring case 4: "Wao, I already knew that. I know that B is better. I am still stikking with A becouse I have stake on the table and I wanna get in a better position to gain power or money or whatever."
And case 5: "A is better and if you disagree then you are an infidel/nazi/racist and you are evil." Sadly, this seems to be the most common way to finish arguments these days. Thank you main stream media (on both sides of the fence).
Robi Dani Or 9: Call the Dean's Diversity Hotline and complain that there's a radical dissenter on campus, declare a media-free safe zone, put on diapers and color in books until the icky feelings pass. (Could take a while.)
Evergreen State college or any liberal arts colleges could learn something from this video. Or maybe they'll just yell at it and call it bigoted, who knows. Anyways, great video!
Well.... Yhea espeshily when 13 years is when you make your own decisions I went from far left to far right to only slight left wail still being a Republican. All in the span to 13 to 16 witch is crazy
@@JesusChrist-sm4bm yeah same. I went from full blown SJW BLM ACAB LGBTQIAP++ socialist Marxist leftist to a traditionalist Pro-life back the blue free-market capitalist Conservative trump supporter inside a year. I've now moved a bit more to the middle agree with dems on some things - same sex marriage, healthcare etc:
I do think that people should freely express their opinions; I’ve listened to my friends’ opinions of life, and we still are friends despite our disagreements. I think you guys should hear my opinion as well!! I like the letter 12.
Even if there's some quantifiable "unsafe feeling" contrary views are creating, you DO NOT have a right to "feel safe". You have a right to BE safe, but your feelings about it are not anyone else's responsibility. Imagine if racists were treated as having the right to "feel safe"; you'd have to re-introduce segregation!
WOW! What a great channel!. I was looking for a Mises app in play store, and found yours. I read a couple articles, and then watched some videos. This should be required in schools. If the keynesian way of thinking is allowed to be taught, so should the Austrian. Discrimination starts at a young age, but it doesn't have too. Thank you for your channel!
4th outcome: I've heard that before, It's an argument I think is wrong or flawed that you bring up all the time, and I still support A. unfortunately, many of these encounters are not so much discussions as both sides having set beliefs and throwing the same arguments both sides have heard at each other as more a form of wearing down the opposition, closer to a verbal slapfight than anything new. when an idea and it's supporters only use this type of argument, and are a minority, I find it reasonable to at the very least to tell them to shut up till they have something new.
There is some good evidence that students who lean right are in the situation you describe. They have heard leftist points throughout their education and are well acquainted with leftist points of view; for these students political debates are just verbal slapfights. On the other hand, left leaning students often never hear a right leaning person's point of view in their educational experience. For these students, hearing a debate on a topic is a new and novel experience, and may actually change a point of view.
Yet Another avenue to consider: level up your exposure to arguments even MORE. Instead of popular media/news tv/social media, hit academic podcasts and blogs from people who specialize in particular areas of contention, eventually leading to books with yet more detail. The Ultimate Goal, IMHO: is two things: 1. Know the strongest arguments against your position so well that, during weak moments, even you have moments of doubt. 2. Pass the Ideological Turing Test: become able to repeat and even argue the positions of your opponents so well that, in real life, someone on the other side believes you are one of "them". Take care!
I am currently growing up in a very conservative family but I’ve always had the mind set to keep an open mind to new ideas but to hold on to my own thoughts and beliefs but try to understand that not everyone that I meet is going to have the same ideas as I do So far from what I can tell as far as this part in your political POV is the right one
The problem is that " the opinion that we should be able to say our opinion " is also triggering people and therefor wont be allowed to be expressed. (according to feminists)
Clbden775 i didnt propose a law. I just pointed out the irony that Sayying people should be able to say thwir opinion Could trigger people. Which is ironic
This is so true. Thats why I keep watching this channel, I DONT agree with it, but it brings up points that differ to what I know. And I can judge it based on my own knowledge and agree or disagree, I come out having gained something. The only counter to this is echo chambers. Free and open dialog must be JUST THAT, free and open. Echo chambers give breeding grounds for the opposite
Your partly right because unfortunately their are people who refuse to see reason or have practically lost the ability to. These people only respect either force or will almost never change. The longer that aren’t challenged in a proper dialogue that doesn’t involve hurling insults or beating the tar out of someone the more difficult it will be to break them out of vile views.
Really curious Seamus about what you disagreed with your parents about. I'm also a conservative catholic and I've been watching your videos a lot, but I'm curious as to what you disagree about since I seem to agree with all your videos.
+Dylan Houlihan I wouldn't assume he is pro-choice because not all libertarians are (I'm a pro life Anarcho-Capitalist) but yeah he's most likely pro gay marriage and drug legalization.
@The Anarchist Crusader --- As you're an Anarchist, what do you mean when you say you're pro-life? That you refrain from force, stopping at the attempt to convince people not to get abortions?
It's usually not the college staff that thinks some speech should be limited, from what I've seen. I've seen students literally screeching at college staff that they should quit their job for even thinking about not kicking the other people with the differing ideas off campus. The students themselves are pushing for limits on ideas they see as 'toxic', and they themselves push faculty staff to making them safe spaces and preventing other students from expressing some ideas and even wanting to restrict what they're allowed to wear. While freedom of speech is important, it should also have limits. One freedom should not limit another freedom, for instance the freedom to speak should not result in limits on another person's personal freedoms. Also, while one has the freedom to speak his or her mind, they should also realize that not all freely spoken ideas are without consequence, and that the results of that freedom are their own responsibility. In other words, while you're free to speak your mind it's wise to think about whether you should speak your mind. It won't do anyone any good if someone who has the opinion that all pro wrestling fans are manchildren with the mental capabilities of a cumquat voices that opinion loudly and proudly as he interrupts the finals of the wrestling pro championship in the middle of the ring. It's okay to have an opinon, but not always wise to voice it. Actions have consequences, and words to as well. That's something I don't see people realize very often....
Darkfoxx Bunyip but in that situation your saying an opinion to antagonize a group which is there. This isnt like when people say "i like trunp" and then get beaten the shit out of. No one gets beaten up when they say "i like hillary" showing the exact situation of "i like a" and "i like b" from the video
Darkfoxx Bunyip I'd say it's pretty pointless to mention social consequences when talking about civic freedoms. One could just as easily say that you have a right to property, but at the same time you're not entitled to any kind of restitution in the event of theft or vandalism. Our rights do not come from the government, but (at least in the U.S) the government claims to uphold them. If it doesn't, or only upholds them selectively our rights have essentially been violated. On principle, I'm not against things like doxxing, but it comes off as hypocritical when people who have a conniption over a No gays allowed sign think they have the right hire and fire as they please, and institutions that are in any way federally funded should have no right to discriminate against the same people that vicariously fund them.
My favorite of your videos; I dont wholly agree with u but this is the only thing I feel like we have to agree on to have a conversation about anything else and learn
I’m 15, iv been into politics, philosophy and other things of that nature for several years now, if a 15 year old can handle a civil discussion and understanding of current affairs/politics why can a 21 year old college student not handle it? Lord I’m tired of snowflake culture. GROW A PAIR ALREADY.
Well, those opinions should be able to be shared, if only so that we can share our counter opinion that the opinion in question is shit for reasons which should be fully explained. You're not going to change people's opinions by silencing their ability to make their opinions known, you are only going to be able to change people's opinions by sharing a different opinion and bringing forth well thought out arguments to support it. Don't silence opinions, change them.
It's more complex than that. There are two ways of being right or correct: factually correct and ethically correct. Mixing these two together makes for difficult discussions.
This is what a Safe Space should be. A Place where everyone's ideas can be heard without interruption. A classroom or auditorium maybe. In this room, a person can speak their mind and give supporting reason and examples. Then they can leave the Safe Space and discuss these issues outside in the real world which would be the rest of the school. However, since they now hear the different examples and reasons, they can possibly come to debate that doesn't involve the bullshit in current Safe Spaces.
I’ve been unfriended in Facebook for trying to politely say maybe it’s in your best interest to talk to people who don’t agree with you some of the time. I was told to back down, and that just saying that hurt some ones loved ones... sigh...
I feel like the new Generation, Zoomers, will have a different outview as many are used to being around others with different ideals - not to mention we have debate classes and even debate in English in HS.
I'm not sure where some of these people are coming from. I was born at the tail end of the millennial generation in 97', and we debated in classes, and now in college, I haven't seen a time where there was true animosity coming out of an argument. Maybe it has to do with I'm at a Utah University, and much of the universities that have issues are bigger ones.
It Will depend probably, some kids that grew up their views in echo chambers are definetly going to be insufferable at the very least, crazy intolerant at most, the pandemic hasnt helped, tho i think that if they get an interest for debates, UN models etc etc. We might have a good generation of critical thinkers, thats of course, if we go past the echo chambers phase first
And next you're going to say "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Yeah, right. Like I haven't heard that line before!
Freedom of speech is important. However I never heard a debate or been in an argument where the persons debating does not have the exact same position they had before the debate.
Freedom of speech is not the cornerstone, property rights are. You have the right to freedom of speech becasue your words are your property. You also have freedom of association becasue your social interactions are your property as well. Therefore you can dissociate from anyone who says something you dislike.
The right to own property is only one part of it, the whole cornerstone of American life is "Life, Liberty, and Property", not just property. "Life" refers to you having the freedom to live the way YOU want to live your life, not how someone else wants you too. "Liberty" refers to feeling safe and secure, along with knowing what is provided from, "Life", is given. "Property" doesn't really refer to you owning your speech, it refers to you owning physical property, and that the government can't take it from you without you giving it to them rightfully. For example, if Trump came to your door and said "I want your house, it uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge", you can say "NO", unless they have a warrant. Freedom of speech adheres more towards "Life", since it refers to you living your life the way YOU want to
I think you have life and liberty mixed up, additionally you are not owed some feeling of safety and security. it is up to you to establish that for yourself, though it is certainly wrong for others to prevent you. but anyway, you would agree that a slave doesn't have life because he is not free to live the way he wants, correct? and he is not free to live the way that he wants because he is considered the property of someone else and not his own. so in a sense, what you call Life boils down to the right of self ownership, in other words a property right over ones own body.
" you are not owed some feeling of safety and security." Missing the whole point of government, police force and the military. " it is up to you to establish that for yourself, though it is certainly wrong for others to prevent you." that plus above caused the problem with the second amendement in the first place. Thank god my countries' founders were smarter and we don't have the same problems XD
I once said that the travel ban was not implemented because trump hates Muslims but because those countries had been responsible for more terrorism than other countries and therefore the executive branch decided that temporary ban on travel was necessary. I was then confronted by the vice principal and Head of religion (Catholic school) who tried to force me to apologise and when I refused to change my stance, they referred me to an anti-radicalism organisation we have here in the UK called 'prevent' because they believed I was some sort of radical extremist who needed to be re-educated
Unfortunately, some people have a predisposition to belligerence in situations like confronting differing viewpoints. The hard part to swallow is the fact that while behavioral differences are affected by environment, genetics must be the primary foundation. "Freedom of expression" is a distinctly European concept, and it only works in populations that have behavior patterns similar to the people that created it.
You hit the nail on the head with this video. The entire purpose of an argument is to discern the validity of an argument and to find out if the arguments presented are correct or incorrect so that they may be accepted, or otherwise improved or discarded. By refusing to do this for the sake of conformity this renders the whole exercise worthless, and there is no point in maintaining a discussion, as it ceases to be an argument and only creates an echo chamber, a highly inefficient method of figuring out what is right or wrong, if not outright counterproductive. By supressing ideas one can only damage society, hence why the free expression of ideas is essential for a society to work and people need the courage to defend their ideas until they are proven wrong, and a more reasonable idea comes along to fill the void.
I've decided to go through the common sense soapbox playlist and have ChatGPT evaluate each transcript for the lols. "The video argues that college students should be exposed to diverse ideas and not be protected from them. The host points out that children are exposed to adversarial ideas and are able to handle them, so why should college students be treated differently? The video then shows a humorous skit in which a student is accused of making others feel unsafe because of his ideas. The video argues that this type of thinking can put people holding certain views in danger. The video also presents the idea that when people are exposed to diverse ideas, there are three potential outcomes: they may change their position, modify it, or maintain their original view. All of these outcomes increase understanding of different perspectives and help to avoid violence. The video concludes that freedom of expression is the most important ideal for the functioning of society, and that it is the cornerstone of our search for truth. Removing it can have detrimental effects on the society. Overall, the video presents a libertarian perspective on freedom of speech and expression. It argues that individuals should have the freedom to express their ideas without fear of retribution or censorship, and that the best way to arrive at the truth is through open and respectful dialogue."
As a libertarian, I go to a pretty left leaning college and the main thing that bothers me is the utter bias some professors use in their teachings and then they demonize those who dare question it.
Actually, there are other options... "I've ALREADY considered that and... 1.) do not find that argument compelling. 2.) do not believe those values are as important as these. 3.) I recognized the following flaws in that thinking. etc...
@@somedudeontheinterwebs45 my options don't mean I always disagree... I can agree with what they think but still say that the results of what they think is not meaningful or as meaningful compared to other choices, and here is why...
Well after the horror of the holocaust, many of us are persuaded that certain ideas should simply not be allowed, just to be safe. The problem is that that suppression of ideas is much of what makes regimes like that of Hitler oppressive. Hitler and his party were voted into power. This shows the importance of following through an ideology to its logical conclusion, so you know whether to vote for someone or something.
"Search for truth" is not a very popular thing. Either concious or not people are more eager in retreating to their world view "cacoon" where they feel confortable and safe from the harsh realities of life. They rather impose their world view upon others without considering if their wrong.
You’re going to the wrong college if ideas can’t be freely discussed. I get that some professors are set in their ways and won’t tolerate a viewpoint that undermines their position of power (I don’t personally respect these people but it IS their class so you can’t do much about it). Most universities actually encourage discourse though and you have to look at it from the other side as well. For example, it’s very difficult to have a liberal viewpoint in the military because most people are conservative and some even throw rank around when you are debating politics. My point is that if a college is liberal and you’re a vocal conservative then maybe you shouldn’t go there, that’s basically the same as an atheist going to a church to complain how their ideas about atheism aren’t respected there.
Brett Biederman this attitude hurts both the conservative and the liberal students alike, though. College should not be a place where people go to reinforce their preexisting ideas. It should be a place for people to go challenge themselves. A lot of commentators about the "conservative" students who get shut down by protests and angry mobs as victims... But the liberal students lose out as well by not getting to hear or debate ideas that they're not already comfortable with hearing. The result is that we get a lot of people who aren't prepared to tolerate or understand different viewpoints. Making more explicitly ideologically separated schools doesn't solve that problem.
I always thought those three outcomes would be:
1) I agree
2) I disagree
3) I don't care
If he didn't care he wouldn't have asked
@@ghosty918 did he ask though?
@@nickvliet4614 The rule is if you bring up a contested topic it will probably be discussed, especially it's opposing views, no matter what it is. If you don't wanna know, don't bring it up, that goes double for public and mixed company.
When you bring up Bepis and someone else says Coca-acoC is better, getting mad or snarky makes YOU look like the a-hole.
4) I beat you up
@@KiraSlith but what if someone brings it up to you out of nowhere?
When I learned more and more about Communism the less I saw it as evil and the more I saw it as idiotic.
ShamanMcLamie some might argue that it's both.
Yeah it is stupid.
@@FEEonline preach brother
Not gonna lie they had is in the first half
Idiotic ideas are, by their nature, dangerous. Although not all dangerous ideas are idiotic.
for tyrants to take over, they first must silence all dissenting opinions, freedom of speech isn't just not a threat to individual freedoms, its the only true bulwark against tyranny.
Say that to the democratically elected nazi germany.
"democratically" doesn't work if you kill/imprison everyone who disagrees with you.
Haunted Holiday en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Ascension_and_consolidation
Let me remind you they killed/imprisoned *after* they were elected. If the people are scared, confused and angry they usually won't listen to rational ideas.
the elected ones were killed, the others were imprisoned, and its true that people become irrational when they're heavily stressed, but silencing dissent at best turns your opponent into a martyr, no matter how wicked that dissent was; at worst it turns you into the very thing you tried to stop.
I agree with you that silencing dissent is bad but keep in mind that speech can be used to silence other speech. This isn't really a problem most of the time since that is how dialogue works. The problem arises when it silences not through quality but through *quantity*. What i mean by that is speech that is founded on lies, propaganda, logical fallacies, ignorance, and ubiquity can prevent others from speaking. You can't disprove something that doesn't use reason to begin with.
That's why colleges don't give time to flat-earthers or astrologists. When you reach a certain level of discourse, denial of basic facts becomes an unnecessary burden which proves nothing at worst and at best stifles real discussion.
Everyone should have the freedom of speech. You should be able to talk about everything you wish to talk about but people should face any consequences for it and should not be granted a megaphone without reason.
My roommate and I are seen as polar opposites. Back in our Freshman year, we both were at the extremes of our respective parties. As the years went on, we both essentially found ourselves in the moderate middle. We saw the pros and cons of both party and could talk out our positions on each.
I'd watch that sitcom
Nice!
I told someone I know recently that, no matter how despicable she thought someone might be, if they really are despicable, the best thing she can do is to let them speak. Let them reveal to the world the depth and quality of their thoughts or lack thereof.
This is an incredibly underrated comment
I Didn't know that these colleges even existed, and I already hate them.
They sounds like something from the middle ages.
"He's opening our mind to new ideas!
HE'S A WITCH!!!"
I think UC-Berkely might be an example of one of those? At the very least some students were when Milo tried to pay a visit...
Person: *makes sense*
WITCHCRAFT!!!!
The things they've done at Berkley are absolutely despicible. Some group of students at school formed a barrier blocking white students from entering just because of the color of their skin. They were told to go in another way or some shit. These groups are the ones that are aligned with organizations like antifa but ironically they are extremely facist in their principles.
A lot of them also were just racists who saw their chance to be racist while being praised for it.
Unknown content you'd be surprised the weird stuff you'd find after Google searching for half an hour or less.
this is the same thing that me and a guy I met at school did when we were waiting for our next classes. He would defend his position and I would defend mine, we would gone for over and hour on different political discussions and we would learn from one another. If we ever spoke about a topic that we felt uncomfortable about and getting to a point were anger was possibly an outcome, we would change the subject to one we both like like videos games or Movies. that way we ended the discussion on a high note and we both left in a good mood.
And how long age was that? Decades maybe?
✊✊✊
@@tenhirankei 2 years ago actually
You are ignoring case 4: "Wao, I already knew that. I know that B is better. I am still stikking with A becouse I have stake on the table and I wanna get in a better position to gain power or money or whatever."
Robi Dani TBH
And case 5: "A is better and if you disagree then you are an infidel/nazi/racist and you are evil."
Sadly, this seems to be the most common way to finish arguments these days. Thank you main stream media (on both sides of the fence).
Or 6: "Wow, I never realized how much of an idiot you were. Thanks for enlightening me".
Or 8: “just don’t respond at all and walk away.”
Robi Dani Or 9: Call the Dean's Diversity Hotline and complain that there's a radical dissenter on campus, declare a media-free safe zone, put on diapers and color in books until the icky feelings pass. (Could take a while.)
When toddlers are more grown up than college snowflakes
That's not the case you're just being fed propaganda right now
@@sam7559 no u. There's a difference between an argument and flat out propaganda.
@@pg3384 yes, a fundamental difference.
Evergreen State college or any liberal arts colleges could learn something from this video. Or maybe they'll just yell at it and call it bigoted, who knows.
Anyways, great video!
Its not like its only a problem with universities though. It tends to happen everywhere.
Yes, I agree. I just wanted to highlight this event for other universities as a "don't let this happen to you" awareness check. You know?
If students at evergreen saw this video they would probably be in coma from the triggering.
@Tones: They'd probably just claim this video is hurtful and ask TH-cam to make a safe space for them.
How does one slow-clap with jazzhands?
That's why they won't allow anyone to listen to it. ;)
That moment when 13 years old kids are better at handling different opinion than college students
It’s called learned helplessness
Well.... Yhea espeshily when 13 years is when you make your own decisions I went from far left to far right to only slight left wail still being a Republican. All in the span to 13 to 16 witch is crazy
Sometimes it’s true. The first years are still edgy.
@@JesusChrist-sm4bm yeah same. I went from full blown SJW BLM ACAB LGBTQIAP++ socialist Marxist leftist to a traditionalist Pro-life back the blue free-market capitalist Conservative trump supporter inside a year.
I've now moved a bit more to the middle agree with dems on some things - same sex marriage, healthcare etc:
Kids have softer brain.
Doubting ones own ideas is a marker of wisdom.
I love how you say "thank you so much" at the end of your videos. Better than any other channels'.
I do think that people should freely express their opinions; I’ve listened to my friends’ opinions of life, and we still are friends despite our disagreements. I think you guys should hear my opinion as well!!
I like the letter 12.
You know what? I'm a big fan of the numbers 4, 7, and 11.
My favorite color is 7.
XD
My favorite color is Graphics Processing Unit.
JoelCrafter43 One of my favorite animasl is the all mighty Mohawk Unicorn, the Funyarinpa.
Even if there's some quantifiable "unsafe feeling" contrary views are creating, you DO NOT have a right to "feel safe". You have a right to BE safe, but your feelings about it are not anyone else's responsibility. Imagine if racists were treated as having the right to "feel safe"; you'd have to re-introduce segregation!
Technically that's what colleges are starting to do with "safe spaces"
WOW! What a great channel!. I was looking for a Mises app in play store, and found yours. I read a couple articles, and then watched some videos. This should be required in schools. If the keynesian way of thinking is allowed to be taught, so should the Austrian. Discrimination starts at a young age, but it doesn't have too. Thank you for your channel!
4th outcome: I've heard that before, It's an argument I think is wrong or flawed that you bring up all the time, and I still support A.
unfortunately, many of these encounters are not so much discussions as both sides having set beliefs and throwing the same arguments both sides have heard at each other as more a form of wearing down the opposition, closer to a verbal slapfight than anything new. when an idea and it's supporters only use this type of argument, and are a minority, I find it reasonable to at the very least to tell them to shut up till they have something new.
There is some good evidence that students who lean right are in the situation you describe. They have heard leftist points throughout their education and are well acquainted with leftist points of view; for these students political debates are just verbal slapfights.
On the other hand, left leaning students often never hear a right leaning person's point of view in their educational experience. For these students, hearing a debate on a topic is a new and novel experience, and may actually change a point of view.
Yet Another avenue to consider: level up your exposure to arguments even MORE. Instead of popular media/news tv/social media, hit academic podcasts and blogs from people who specialize in particular areas of contention, eventually leading to books with yet more detail.
The Ultimate Goal, IMHO: is two things: 1. Know the strongest arguments against your position so well that, during weak moments, even you have moments of doubt. 2. Pass the Ideological Turing Test: become able to repeat and even argue the positions of your opponents so well that, in real life, someone on the other side believes you are one of "them".
Take care!
The 35 dislikes are the college professors
This aged well......
This is 4 years old but it is more up to date now then 4 years ago
I am currently growing up in a very conservative family but I’ve always had the mind set to keep an open mind to new ideas but to hold on to my own thoughts and beliefs but try to understand that not everyone that I meet is going to have the same ideas as I do
So far from what I can tell as far as this part in your political POV is the right one
Seamus admits he is completely full of it!
...MMfA headline.
It is the cornerstone for the foundation of our society and our search for truth...which is exactly why the perpetually offended want it outlawed.
The problem is that " the opinion that we should be able to say our opinion " is also triggering people and therefor wont be allowed to be expressed. (according to feminists)
Clbden775 i didnt propose a law.
I just pointed out the irony that
Sayying people should be able to say thwir opinion
Could trigger people.
Which is ironic
The_Gaming_Syndrom I thought you meant because people get triggered we shouldn't be able to express our opinion. My mistake.
Clbden775 nah
it is a necessary risk to offend someone when arriving at the truth.
"The Further a society drifts away from the truth, the harsher those are treated who speak it out"
Wow, I hadn’t considered that
3:05 that reminds me of an Episode of the show wayside where a literally piece of paper was holding up the entire school
One of the few videos I actually agree in your channel yes we should talk about things and be open so that we can improve ourselves.
This is so true. Thats why I keep watching this channel, I DONT agree with it, but it brings up points that differ to what I know. And I can judge it based on my own knowledge and agree or disagree, I come out having gained something. The only counter to this is echo chambers. Free and open dialog must be JUST THAT, free and open. Echo chambers give breeding grounds for the opposite
0:36-This explains A LOT!
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say them", if only we could all live by that creed.
Diversity of thought, opinion and position. We need this at uoft
Your partly right because unfortunately their are people who refuse to see reason or have practically lost the ability to. These people only respect either force or will almost never change. The longer that aren’t challenged in a proper dialogue that doesn’t involve hurling insults or beating the tar out of someone the more difficult it will be to break them out of vile views.
Concerning that you have to make a 3 minute video explaining why Freedom of speech is Necessary in a functioning society.
Wow this is a really good video. I think you may be one of my favorite channels now.
Really curious Seamus about what you disagreed with your parents about.
I'm also a conservative catholic and I've been watching your videos a lot, but I'm curious as to what you disagree about since I seem to agree with all your videos.
Darin Lunde I'm also a conservative Catholic and interested in what he disagrees with them about. I honestly can't think of what it would be.
He's a libertarian so my guess he is pro-choice (even if not pro-abortion) along with tolerating gay marriage and drug use.
+Dylan Houlihan
I wouldn't assume he is pro-choice because not all libertarians are (I'm a pro life Anarcho-Capitalist) but yeah he's most likely pro gay marriage and drug legalization.
@The Anarchist Crusader --- As you're an Anarchist, what do you mean when you say you're pro-life? That you refrain from force, stopping at the attempt to convince people not to get abortions?
+Truthseeker1995
I believe that abortion violates the NAP because I think it's murder.
I'm usually right about everything. If I don't know the answer I usually remain silent.
That is a good policy. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt".
Yes! This is why I listen to people I disagree with, and engage them when I can, and I always invite others to do the same.
It's usually not the college staff that thinks some speech should be limited, from what I've seen. I've seen students literally screeching at college staff that they should quit their job for even thinking about not kicking the other people with the differing ideas off campus. The students themselves are pushing for limits on ideas they see as 'toxic', and they themselves push faculty staff to making them safe spaces and preventing other students from expressing some ideas and even wanting to restrict what they're allowed to wear.
While freedom of speech is important, it should also have limits. One freedom should not limit another freedom, for instance the freedom to speak should not result in limits on another person's personal freedoms. Also, while one has the freedom to speak his or her mind, they should also realize that not all freely spoken ideas are without consequence, and that the results of that freedom are their own responsibility. In other words, while you're free to speak your mind it's wise to think about whether you should speak your mind.
It won't do anyone any good if someone who has the opinion that all pro wrestling fans are manchildren with the mental capabilities of a cumquat voices that opinion loudly and proudly as he interrupts the finals of the wrestling pro championship in the middle of the ring. It's okay to have an opinon, but not always wise to voice it. Actions have consequences, and words to as well. That's something I don't see people realize very often....
Darkfoxx Bunyip but in that situation your saying an opinion to antagonize a group which is there. This isnt like when people say "i like trunp" and then get beaten the shit out of. No one gets beaten up when they say "i like hillary" showing the exact situation of "i like a" and "i like b" from the video
Darkfoxx Bunyip I'd say it's pretty pointless to mention social consequences when talking about civic freedoms. One could just as easily say that you have a right to property, but at the same time you're not entitled to any kind of restitution in the event of theft or vandalism. Our rights do not come from the government, but (at least in the U.S) the government claims to uphold them. If it doesn't, or only upholds them selectively our rights have essentially been violated.
On principle, I'm not against things like doxxing, but it comes off as hypocritical when people who have a conniption over a No gays allowed sign think they have the right hire and fire as they please, and institutions that are in any way federally funded should have no right to discriminate against the same people that vicariously fund them.
I agree. People should have the freedom to speak of there ideas without getting beat up.
This is the most sense ive heard on the internet. Ever.
Why was that cornerstone so darn adorable?
My favorite of your videos; I dont wholly agree with u but this is the only thing I feel like we have to agree on to have a conversation about anything else and learn
I’m 15, iv been into politics, philosophy and other things of that nature for several years now, if a 15 year old can handle a civil discussion and understanding of current affairs/politics why can a 21 year old college student not handle it? Lord I’m tired of snowflake culture. GROW A PAIR ALREADY.
Wisdom of the crowd.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it’s just that some opinions are wrong and need to be purged by any means necessary.
Sarcasm.... right?
Guys, I don't think he fully MEANT that some opinions should outright be metaphorically burnt to a crisp. I think it was exaggeration.
And he does still have a point, there are many harmful and outright ignorant opinions that we'd be better off without.
Well, those opinions should be able to be shared, if only so that we can share our counter opinion that the opinion in question is shit for reasons which should be fully explained. You're not going to change people's opinions by silencing their ability to make their opinions known, you are only going to be able to change people's opinions by sharing a different opinion and bringing forth well thought out arguments to support it. Don't silence opinions, change them.
Some ideas are incorrect. That’s why we need to be able to discuss them in order to find the correct ideas.
Enlightening.
It's more complex than that. There are two ways of being right or correct: factually correct and ethically correct. Mixing these two together makes for difficult discussions.
First amendment audits are not typically tolerated on college campuses. IF you dont know what a first amendment audit is look it up here on youtube.
Love these.
Why is the bar on the bottom yellow? Does it mean demonetized for the crime of logic?
For me, maybe can handle diversity, but all people depends.
Subtle Don Hertzfeldt thowback. Nice touch.
This is what a Safe Space should be. A Place where everyone's ideas can be heard without interruption. A classroom or auditorium maybe. In this room, a person can speak their mind and give supporting reason and examples. Then they can leave the Safe Space and discuss these issues outside in the real world which would be the rest of the school. However, since they now hear the different examples and reasons, they can possibly come to debate that doesn't involve the bullshit in current Safe Spaces.
Love the cartoons man, glad you changed the mouths tho.
This video is more important than ever in this current political climate
Those thoughts bubbles excluding sports (because I don't watch sports) makes a lot of sense
I’d rather have diversity in ideas rather than diversity in culture.
christopher snedeker I’m mostly just referring to Hollywood but that makes sense.
I heard my phone alarm in this vid. My heart dropped
The freedom to disagree is one of the most important
perfect, just perfect
I’ve been unfriended in Facebook for trying to politely say maybe it’s in your best interest to talk to people who don’t agree with you some of the time. I was told to back down, and that just saying that hurt some ones loved ones... sigh...
"The constitutional ammendment the builders rejected has become the cornerstone"
This made me subscribe
I feel like the new Generation, Zoomers, will have a different outview as many are used to being around others with different ideals - not to mention we have debate classes and even debate in English in HS.
I'm not sure where some of these people are coming from. I was born at the tail end of the millennial generation in 97', and we debated in classes, and now in college, I haven't seen a time where there was true animosity coming out of an argument.
Maybe it has to do with I'm at a Utah University, and much of the universities that have issues are bigger ones.
It Will depend probably, some kids that grew up their views in echo chambers are definetly going to be insufferable at the very least, crazy intolerant at most, the pandemic hasnt helped, tho i think that if they get an interest for debates, UN models etc etc. We might have a good generation of critical thinkers, thats of course, if we go past the echo chambers phase first
it's too late, we've already lost it.
And next you're going to say "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Yeah, right. Like I haven't heard that line before!
Oh my god this is a video that everyone should see
There is still one more outcome in a conversation, "I don't care about other views."
why the heck didn't i see this one and a half year ago?
I'm an Irish Catholic Male in a public school.
Freedom of speech is important. However I never heard a debate or been in an argument where the persons debating does not have the exact same position they had before the debate.
Not all debates are for the benefit of the people talking. Sometimes it's for the people listening.
Freedom of speech is not the cornerstone, property rights are. You have the right to freedom of speech becasue your words are your property. You also have freedom of association becasue your social interactions are your property as well. Therefore you can dissociate from anyone who says something you dislike.
The right to own property is only one part of it, the whole cornerstone of American life is "Life, Liberty, and Property", not just property. "Life" refers to you having the freedom to live the way YOU want to live your life, not how someone else wants you too. "Liberty" refers to feeling safe and secure, along with knowing what is provided from, "Life", is given. "Property" doesn't really refer to you owning your speech, it refers to you owning physical property, and that the government can't take it from you without you giving it to them rightfully. For example, if Trump came to your door and said "I want your house, it uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge", you can say "NO", unless they have a warrant. Freedom of speech adheres more towards "Life", since it refers to you living your life the way YOU want to
I think you have life and liberty mixed up, additionally you are not owed some feeling of safety and security. it is up to you to establish that for yourself, though it is certainly wrong for others to prevent you.
but anyway, you would agree that a slave doesn't have life because he is not free to live the way he wants, correct? and he is not free to live the way that he wants because he is considered the property of someone else and not his own. so in a sense, what you call Life boils down to the right of self ownership, in other words a property right over ones own body.
" you are not owed some feeling of safety and security." Missing the whole point of government, police force and the military.
" it is up to you to establish that for yourself, though it is certainly wrong for others to prevent you." that plus above caused the problem with the second amendement in the first place.
Thank god my countries' founders were smarter and we don't have the same problems XD
interesting take. and if property is 9/10ths of the law. maybe it would be better defended if we did this.
0:50 Stones > Beatles, and I will die on this hill.
Yes having one opinion be the only option turns people into zealots. Which then breads more zealots.
not gonna lie we need this in a classroom in kingergarden
I only have one rule. Are you discriminating against or wishing harm upon innocent people? As long as the answer is no, I'll respect you.
@@28add11 Okay, I have two rules.
I once said that the travel ban was not implemented because trump hates Muslims but because those countries had been responsible for more terrorism than other countries and therefore the executive branch decided that temporary ban on travel was necessary.
I was then confronted by the vice principal and Head of religion (Catholic school) who tried to force me to apologise and when I refused to change my stance, they referred me to an anti-radicalism organisation we have here in the UK called 'prevent' because they believed I was some sort of radical extremist who needed to be re-educated
Unfortunately, some people have a predisposition to belligerence in situations like confronting differing viewpoints.
The hard part to swallow is the fact that while behavioral differences are affected by environment, genetics must be the primary foundation. "Freedom of expression" is a distinctly European concept, and it only works in populations that have behavior patterns similar to the people that created it.
We actually once got told that we shouldn't always use facts because facts might be offensive to some people.
Why would a college student prefer a B over an A?
Would you or would you not rush B given the chance?
🤣
You hit the nail on the head with this video. The entire purpose of an argument is to discern the validity of an argument and to find out if the arguments presented are correct or incorrect so that they may be accepted, or otherwise improved or discarded. By refusing to do this for the sake of conformity this renders the whole exercise worthless, and there is no point in maintaining a discussion, as it ceases to be an argument and only creates an echo chamber, a highly inefficient method of figuring out what is right or wrong, if not outright counterproductive.
By supressing ideas one can only damage society, hence why the free expression of ideas is essential for a society to work and people need the courage to defend their ideas until they are proven wrong, and a more reasonable idea comes along to fill the void.
It figures this shows up in my feed just when I read that Scott Cawthon got massive threats of violence for his beliefs.
Unfortunately the corner stone is geting pulled out faster and faster every day
Really, an itish catholic names seamus? Who knew! Also i agree on your stance on talking about politics.
I've decided to go through the common sense soapbox playlist and have ChatGPT evaluate each transcript for the lols.
"The video argues that college students should be exposed to diverse ideas and not be protected from them. The host points out that children are exposed to adversarial ideas and are able to handle them, so why should college students be treated differently? The video then shows a humorous skit in which a student is accused of making others feel unsafe because of his ideas. The video argues that this type of thinking can put people holding certain views in danger.
The video also presents the idea that when people are exposed to diverse ideas, there are three potential outcomes: they may change their position, modify it, or maintain their original view. All of these outcomes increase understanding of different perspectives and help to avoid violence.
The video concludes that freedom of expression is the most important ideal for the functioning of society, and that it is the cornerstone of our search for truth. Removing it can have detrimental effects on the society.
Overall, the video presents a libertarian perspective on freedom of speech and expression. It argues that individuals should have the freedom to express their ideas without fear of retribution or censorship, and that the best way to arrive at the truth is through open and respectful dialogue."
So... for now there are 42 people that cannot handle diversity of ideas!
As a libertarian, I go to a pretty left leaning college and the main thing that bothers me is the utter bias some professors use in their teachings and then they demonize those who dare question it.
Actually, there are other options... "I've ALREADY considered that and... 1.) do not find that argument compelling. 2.) do not believe those values are as important as these. 3.) I recognized the following flaws in that thinking. etc...
All of those options fit into option C: "I completely disagree and here's why".
@@somedudeontheinterwebs45 my options don't mean I always disagree... I can agree with what they think but still say that the results of what they think is not meaningful or as meaningful compared to other choices, and here is why...
The challenge is how to tolerate intolerant people, how to tolerate ideas that call for greater intolerance.
Well after the horror of the holocaust, many of us are persuaded that certain ideas should simply not be allowed, just to be safe. The problem is that that suppression of ideas is much of what makes regimes like that of Hitler oppressive. Hitler and his party were voted into power. This shows the importance of following through an ideology to its logical conclusion, so you know whether to vote for someone or something.
Oh if only this were true on social media
WELL I LIKE THE LETTER C!!!!
YOU RACIST! K LIVES MATTER!
This is a nice fun video on why collage sucks
That "unsafe" notion is what I experienced
1:45 sounds like Jerma
3:07 I see what you did there, it was too hard to animate a collapse so you just made the thing fall like a block.
I like the letter C
"Search for truth" is not a very popular thing. Either concious or not people are more eager in retreating to their world view "cacoon" where they feel confortable and safe from the harsh realities of life. They rather impose their world view upon others without considering if their wrong.
"You can't handle the truth." 💀
Cubs>Sox
You’re going to the wrong college if ideas can’t be freely discussed. I get that some professors are set in their ways and won’t tolerate a viewpoint that undermines their position of power (I don’t personally respect these people but it IS their class so you can’t do much about it).
Most universities actually encourage discourse though and you have to look at it from the other side as well. For example, it’s very difficult to have a liberal viewpoint in the military because most people are conservative and some even throw rank around when you are debating politics.
My point is that if a college is liberal and you’re a vocal conservative then maybe you shouldn’t go there, that’s basically the same as an atheist going to a church to complain how their ideas about atheism aren’t respected there.
Brett Biederman this attitude hurts both the conservative and the liberal students alike, though. College should not be a place where people go to reinforce their preexisting ideas. It should be a place for people to go challenge themselves. A lot of commentators about the "conservative" students who get shut down by protests and angry mobs as victims... But the liberal students lose out as well by not getting to hear or debate ideas that they're not already comfortable with hearing.
The result is that we get a lot of people who aren't prepared to tolerate or understand different viewpoints.
Making more explicitly ideologically separated schools doesn't solve that problem.