Brendan O'Neill | Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend | Proposition

[@magottyk]

Why do we keep having to have this conversation every other generation. Ideas aren't meant to be protected, they are meant to be challenged, only good ideas survive without protection, if you have to protect your idea from challenge, it's probably not a good idea to begin with.

[@TheAfmart]

+magottyk more like if you cant defend your idea in/given a challenge cheers

[@magottyk]

Andre Martins The inability to defend an idea is a subjective quality. If the idea is not allowed to be challenged, i.e. protected, then the quality of the debater becomes irrelevant. If there is no logical defence, then even the most gifted orator will have trouble defending the idea. These are the ideas that need protecting, but do not deserve that protection.

[@Yurilica]

+magottyk Because, frankly, we get entitled 20 year olds who think they've got the world by the balls and are finally "grown up"... when they actually know as much about the world and people in general as they were 14. You don't learn much about people, human interactions and behavior until you actually set out on your own, outside of an institution that hammers some form of knowledge or practical skills into you. When you do step out on your own, there is very little guidance. You make your own choices, make your own mistakes and learn in your own way. Some remain in that younger mindset, thinking in authoritarian terms, thinking they know what is right, what is acceptable and what is offending for everyone. They end up speaking for others. This is why this whole modern concept of social justice is so twisted. You have quite a lot of college students with that mindset, with some left-behind former students from the 90's that still hold on to that mindset - but these left-behinds are now working somewhere. In the media. In various PR firms. And so they do their worst("best" in their minds) to force their mindset upon others. For them, there are no shades of grey. Their opinions, their moral stances are the ones that represent "the greater good". It's a generational mix. Leftovers from a past generation mixed with a naive young generation. This is why the cycle repeats itself.

[@joshduriden519]

+magottyk Not only that, trying to suppress these ideas only makes it worse, because then people don't learn or understand why they are bad ideas. We can see it with the rising tensions across Europe, and the strong resurgence of right-wing extremism. We're creating divides between men and women, religions, and people of different races as we all try to huddle in our safe spaces and partition each other off.

[@oxboxtox]

+magottyk Why have this convo every other generation? More like every generation. But the every other distinction is relevant. Human memory only stretches 1-2 generation at max and then on, forgets it. Why do we have this convo every time? Because people in power holds the the ideal which it carried up, the people at the bottom will disagree sooner or later and then start to push away those ideals. When we see this "convo", it means a new generation is coming to replace the old generation. This will repeat until the aging/birth cycle of humanity changes drastically. Also robots. LONG LIVE AI.

[@samdoo1433]

"Question?" "No"✋🏼 ... *Stands up "No"✋🏼

[@heeman1203]

+Sam Doo now that's what I call the right way too deal with sjw interrupters.

[@BlackAndWhiteForums]

+Sam Doo +heem an now that's what i call hipocrisy...

[@affablevagrant]

+Sam Doo "How progressive is it to say that black students need these wise, white student leaders to protect them from harmful ideas?" (Gestures towards girl who stood up) FLAWLESS VICTORY.

[@RequisiteZero]

+Affable Vagrant REKT STATUS: [X] REKT [ ] NOT REKT

[@ZomgPL]

+XRevolutionOfGameX its not, he tried to interupt him, as simple as that, you whould never do that, just wait untill he or she is finished talking and then pose your counterargument, its called civil discussion

[@btssilence]

The girl trying to derail his speech is a perfect example of the kind of person he is talking about. She is so outraged at the idea that he is allowed to openly disagree with her that she feels the need to disrupt and derail him in any way possible, and when he will not allow it she begins to pout and heckle him. What an absolutely pathetic person, and good on this gentleman for having none of it.

[@BrionyMae]

+btssilence She is actually an advocate for free speech, but she decided to debate on the other side to test her debating skills and see if she would be able to argue the other side. Also, if you go and watch any other Oxford Union debate you'll realise that that it almost like a tradition. In every debate the person on the other side tries to stand up to make a point of order and they usually get told No, like what Brendan did.

[@krendynkenvirr9932]

+Mae thank you. I didn't know about her position or the tradition. Glad she was adult enough to try and look at the other side of an argument

[@fenrirswolh3]

"Can I ask a question?" "No." Just about died. Lol

[@johnsinclair6170]

Oh, but she feels her “free speech” can and should silence his. In fact, anyone who impedes another’s free speech should be jailed.

[@mrsmith9031]

SHE HAS A RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH WHATEVER YOU SAY, DONT BE A SNOWFLAJE

[@oathkeeper27]

"To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?" - Kevin Alfred Strom Silencing speech is not about protecting anyone. It is about power and control.

[@kasperm.r.guldberg7354]

A very similar quote is attributed to Voltaire, I believe. Or was out Montaigne? I think it was Voltaire.

[@Slarti]

@@kasperm.r.guldberg7354 according the Wiki on Strom it is missattributed to Voltaire. I am a French speaker and looked for the quote in French and was unable to find it or anything similar for that matter.

[@KC-jw5yz]

If freedom of speech has the right to offend, then be ready for its consequences. Nothing in this world is free, we are bound by our body and death. It is pure human ignorance to assume and truly believe that there are no consequences.

[@cobalius]

they say i shall not critize modern theistic belief systems. But they need critic.

[@juliechurley2716]

@@KC-jw5yzOffence does you no harm- it’s a part of life.

[@Ark4nin3]

This is literally the most beautiful thing ever.

[@xavierjose1490]

*cough* Encyclopedia Dramatica *cough*

[@zuninah7545]

The blue or the white girl

[@martin.pokorny]

It isn't. But It's a very good speech.

[@StonefieldJim4]

The speech is a masterpiece.

[@y.t.a180]

We watching same ? Well versed, but a step too far with unnecessary Adhock adjectives, not shocking, just unnecessary. Case in point vid on the way.... BEAUTIFUL...I missed.... somehow, but if it is a thing of beauty in your eyes, far be it...etc :-)

[@AnnabelleJARankin]

That someone is ignorant enough to think freedom of speech is the right to interrupt..... in an Oxford debate as well.

[@aahyes9068]

Indeed. And if this speech were attempted at University of Toronto I would expect such interruptions to include mindless chants, howls, pulled fire-alarms, profanity, and a human (if you can call it that) blockade.

[@mrsmith9031]

SHE HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK,

[@pennagainagain7491]

@@mrsmith9031 not to interrupt (and it doesn't help to SHOUT, sir.

[@philwill0123]

@@pennagainagain7491 surely her interrupting is rude and offensive, so she therefore has the right to offend.

[@AnnabelleJARankin]

@Username 123 Yes. And if we all used good manners we would not need the distortions of 'political correctness' or 'hate speech'.

[@KingA_30]

Freedom of speech gives you the right to offend others, freedom of thought gives you the right to choose whether you are offended or not.

[@goblinzits]

Amazing video. This should be shown as a deprogramming mechanism for all university students. It's pure Social Justice Kryptonite.

[@clintonoshea]

+blood on the moon "Social Justice Kryptonite" - BRILLIANT. I'm going to make a mental note of that and use it as often as possible. Thank you.

[@mattwo7]

+blood on the moon No it isn't! They aren't social justice warriors, they're sensationalist journal writers! They aren't going to give a damn what people like him have to say, especially not if he is cisgender, and even if he isn't they're just going to try to shut him down and claim that he is or call him a MRA.

[@mattwo7]

And blocked for completely irrelevant and disruptive hate.

[@goblinzits]

+vibz123rulez You getting triggered there Trashman?

[@vibz123rulez]

haha! you gotta garbage to eat?

[@Bat0541]

This was absolutely fucking beautiful, when that stupid woman sat up to try and derail him and he just brushes her off is *beautiful*. Bravo Brendan O' Neil.

[@josephk7946]

+Erwin Schrodinger I could see in her eyes, she wanted to cook him breakfast

[@hynjus001]

+Erwin Schrodinger Did you hear her ironically shout 'what about my free speech?'. When she needs to drown out someone who challenges the political correctness status quo she's suddenly Voltaire

[@GeoffV-k1h]

Many free speech advocates have become determined today in 2024 to try to stop views they disagree with - especially on Gaza and Israel's war crimes.

[@EdyMar77]

I cant clap more harder.

[@derphen9759]

+Edgar Marenales You can only try god dam it!

[@ajnode]

+Edgar Marenales Harder implies more. You need only say, "I can't clap harder."

[@ajnode]

TheCausation Killed grammatical errors? Good.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

*morer hard

[@elingles2854]

Tried that too,my hands are swollen.

[@johnslade9751]

you know things are messed up when people are debating free speech. thankfully this guy winning

[@mrsmith9031]

HE HAS LOST, AS MOST ON THIS SITE OPPOSE THE LADY WHO SPEAKS BACK, BEING ALLOWED TO SPEAK BACK,

[@neo_tsz]

Mr Smith She was allowed to ask a question. He was allowed to decline that question because it was his turn in the debate. Not that hard to understand.

[@janscott602]

What a great speech! I love this guy.

[@wulfgarpl]

I miss Christopher Hitchens. He would Hitchslap this wave of Authoritarian Left so hard it would go back on Right.

[@philipgodsworth4764]

We got his weird Wario-style brother though.

[@tomhg38]

+Philip Godsworth Its not even close to the same thing. Watch the debate they had (atheism / catholocism or church of england, cant remember). They are both formidable in their own way, but Christopher was an intellectual titan.

[@jsegnde4302]

+Illya Van Hoof that's inaccurate. You should read a book

[@josephk7946]

+Wulfgar Brendan did absolutely brilliantly. Hitch would destroyed them with sardonic wit

[@TheTW13]

+Nihilist Joseph Stalin was an authoritarian leftist.

[@globalman]

What a brilliant and an heroic speech. Brendan O'Neill if we ever get through this terrible time you'll be counted as one of the great voices for freedom of speech truth and honesty. You give me hope where there is almost no hope to find

[@EmilyRose1]

holy fuck I seriously cannot believe there are people who actually believe we should not have freedom of speech. What a disgrace

[@ohmyflippiningod]

They only care about speech that agrees with their opinions. If someone says something that doesn't match the narrative then it's shouted down as hate speech

[@nobody48803]

In the UK this includes your government officials apparently as they have instructed the police to arrest people for speech. Australia is going in this direction too I think.

[@goawayleavemealone2880]

"Question?" "No!" I laughed so hard...

[@notreallydavid]

Magnificent. Inspiring. "All great truths begin as blasphemies." - George Bernard Shaw

[@notreallydavid]

@@whiskycortomaltes Glad you liked it, w. I'll tell GBS.

[@Garymeister76]

Every SJWs must watch this.

[@Jackmono1]

+TheQuackSavior Would it really make a difference? Radicals aren't persuaded by reason.

[@Heimdal001]

+Jackmono1 I'm no SJW, but... saying "shut up" is a use of free speech too. Being told to shut up also offends people. Suddenly his entire argument has no legs. And it doesn't survive being applied to itself. Please don't confuse it for 'reason'.

[@Jackmono1]

Heimdal001 What are even even gabbing about? Did you hear his argument? "Shut up" is an expression of free speech and its perfectly legitimate by his argument. Offending people is not a legitimate reason to be silenced. There is no contradiction.

[@Garymeister76]

Jackmono1 Ah, thanks for the feedback.

[@Heimdal001]

He wasn't talking about "being silenced" with undue force, he was talking about how offended people should stop talking for other people. That was his ultimate argument. If he was being forced to be silent, he would have brought that up, and then (and only then) would his argument not have contradicted itself.

[@gsimon123]

Want to offend me? I defend your right to try :)

[@Rellikan]

you're mum gay

[@ירוןקרסלבסקי]

You don't have the right to give me the right to try.

[@Belgrythaz]

Luminous is a shit film. The story is poor, the actors terrible and the video quality subpar. I will not give any details other than my subjective view and will block any communication you might attempt. I hope you found my attempt admirable, now go fuck yourself ☯️

[@briellehunter7233]

@@Belgrythaz 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😅 right back at you.

[@deathmoverz]

Chris stuckman is so forgiving about his movie reviews. He is afriad to lose some subscribers. Anyone who subscribes to him might aswell agree to evrrything he says and probably a fraud too

[@Raminagrobisfr]

Some of my ancestors fought WWI. Some worked 14 hours a day in coal mines. Some were interrogated by the spanish inquisition. Some died of the black plague. So I guess I can get over an offensive tweet.

[@sbyamibakura]

BRILLIANT. This is the biggest middle finger to every idiotic SJW and I freaking LOVE it. This man deserves ALL of the respect.

[@markdacey2333]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/epC1npWjmJZ1fpo She isn't an sjw

[@simonmorgan6647]

Our universities need a dose of Brendan O'Neill badly. What a breath of fresh air!

[@mikehawk9045]

"Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences." Correct. You do not have to listen to those that offend you, nor are you forced to view them favorably. However, it is not within your rights to use violence and intimidation to unconsentually silence those that you disagree with. Criticism is the justified consequence of offensive speech, not violence. Never violence.

[@iriswoodhead6132]

Brendan I have just heard you discussion GBN may I say, you are a wonderful man, as many of us have been saying for a long time now, something smells quite badly with the stupid party gate, let Boris get on with his work, and you’re so right the journalists have been keeping this going along with such as Jeremy vine who make it so obvious that the wanted us under the EU umbrella, I just want to say thank you, you gave me my faith back in common sense again xx

[@clintonoshea]

BRILLIANT.

[@RifatErdemSahin]

Without the right to offend the freedom of thoughts does not exist.

[@MackeyDeez]

We must always allow people to feel free to express their prejudices. That way we will know where we stand with them.

[@paperkay]

Magnificent. I play it to everyone and quote it all the time. thank you, sir.

[@woooweee]

"Offense is taken, not given"

[@Sierra026]

6:33, "Freespeech,freespeech" Wait your damn turn, lady.

[@lisanpdx]

I appreciated the introduction; it was very thought provoking, and intriguing.

[@derrickknight1374]

I'm not a big fan of Brendan O'Neill but when he talks about free speech and censorship, he's on point

[@mrsmith9031]

NO

[@buggs9950]

YES

[@pablo1985]

Awesome speech, I wish more people heard this.

[@markm7929]

Great speech. What is with that seating arrangement in the middle? Is that Royalty or some such?

[@jamesbong5135]

+Mark M It's the great feminist leader, the head minister of misandry and the director of taking offense..

[@markm7929]

Nonsense. She's way too pretty for that title.

[@AnAspiringHack]

+Mark M The serious answer is that the President sits in the middle, with the Librarian (Vice-President) to her right (he is the current President), and the Treasurer to her left. The Secretary sits at the table.

[@markm7929]

AnAspiringHack Ah thank you. I overshot a little bit with my guess lol.

[@atulgupta1319]

+James Bong (highpocrisy) : Haha...Another nail in their coffin...Nice

[@nbj74]

I agree wholeheartedly with the importance of protecting free speech, but iconoclasm or offense is not an end in and of itself. Most of the heroes of free speech that Brendan O'Neill cites were advocating truths and freedoms important to them, and offense was an unavoidable corollary. Offense was not the point, and shouldn't be. It is not the heart and soul and lungs of free speech. The unfettered pursuit of truth and goodness and beauty is what undergirds the need for free speech.

[@lollerskatez1]

But who decides what is beautiful and good? Anyone taking the morale high ground and imposing censorship on others claim to know better. You cannot dismiss the point by attributing the aforementioned people a desire to do good or create a beautiful world. I don't necessarily disagree with you in the sense that I find some people excersing their freedom og speech to be better people than others but this does not give me the right to decide what is right or wrong.

[@dakowill8349]

Like Thomas Paine once said: "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." Suppressing the right to speak honestly even if it causes offense prevents genuine honest debate all for an imaginary peace. This is just one reason why I feel Trump has touched a nerve among the PC weary folk in the US.

[@mysteryguy793]

Like Thomas Paine once said: "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." True but how honest can you be in a world that ostricizes anyone that dares to question their societal norms? Would you be honest at literally the expense of your life? I wouldn't. Diplomacy has its place too for our survival.

[@justforviewing2]

@TheDissidentBrit Brilliant quote!! I have to use that from now on :)

[@redsaberdude]

this was 5 years ago? seems more and more relevant every day

[@johnnonamegibbon3580]

There's a difference between being offensive for the sake of it, which should be legal but is in no way helpful, and being offensive because people don't want to hear the truth. Remember that young 'uns.

[@vagabondwastrel2361]

The problem with this is that it doesn't matter if it is helpful or not. The people entrusted to be the arbiters will always be the people you least want to be. Freedom for everything with negative rights on top is the best way to go.

[@rajashashankgutta4334]

Perhaps that person's opinions and ideas are hateful to some communities. That's why they always make offensive speech. But i still believe that their free speech right should be protected because free speech was meant for unpopular,offensive and hateful opinions.

[@Paul-A01]

I was just hoping he would throw in a swear at the end, and he didn't disappoint.

[@javiersds8081]

TGGeko It was the cherry on top of the cake, wasn't it? :)

[@LibraOnAmission7]

Absolutely spot on well said!

[@arsesmith346]

brilliant as fuck my good man.

[@TheAfmart]

presenting facts to make a proposition, i wonder how offended are progressivists about this

[@Heimdal001]

+Andre Martins His facts didn't address progressivist agenda at all. He merely pointed out that free speech is beneficial. I agree. ...And then he added some pointless anti-progressivist stuff that completely forgot how someone saying "Shut up!" also falls under free speech. He essentially said that people saying "shut up" should "shut up" themselves... and so, when you consider the logic of it, his argument cannot survive being applied to itself. He had a good start, and I don't entirely disagree with him. But he botched his whole point so hard.

[@tomasbanzas2431]

+Heimdal001 It's not anti-progrssivist. The people saying shut up are not progressives. People offended at breasts and trying to shame into self-censorship authors aren't progressives. The message was lost on you anyway. They're entitled and have a right to try to make authors shut up. It's our duty to make them shut up by exposing them as the ridiculous bullies they're. We're entitled and have a right to make them feel stupid for spouting their shit just as much.

[@Meitti]

+Andre Martins Probably triggered beyond belief and they all developed a PTSD from this.

[@Puffalupagus360]

Not one bit myself.

[@Puffalupagus360]

Tomás Banzas it's no one's job to make ANYONE shut up, for any ideal.

[@paulcoffield2102]

"Question!!" "Not yet ... " "The right to offend ..." Perfect timing.

[@adamtinkam4506]

Beautifully put.

[@Inkkink]

I gave this a standing ovation whilst listening in a coffee shop. A duty to offend. I couldn't agree more.

[@XIIISabers]

We need more people like this man. He's on point, he doesn't lose his confidence when she tries to derail him, he doesn't give these disgusting people an inch and he doesn't lose his stride as he shoves them back. No wonder they have to try and keep the opposition quiet in debates and the like.

[@DieterHambloch]

Great speech Brendan! Stands the test of time and is even more profoundly important and urgent to argue for today!! The right to offend

[@chrisr3120]

The smart question to ask in response to the question of whether or not the freedom of speech must include the right to offend would be to simply ask who it is you aren't allowed to offend. There are 7 billion people on this planet. Statistically speaking there is nothing you could say that won't offend someone.

[@nicholastheofrastou9692]

Unbelievably articulate; a well-spoken individual. Wow, just wow.

[@primus7776]

Fantastic speech. 100% accurate.

[@dingfeldersmurfalot4560]

Best I've seen him do, and I've seen him do very well. Really good this time.

[@paulrussell]

love that moment "Question." "No!"

[@warrickdawes7900]

First three minutes! Standing ovation required. Thank you, thank you sir.

[@LucienCallidus]

That was a beautiful speech.

[@liambaxter4290]

Well spoken.

[@toothless420]

It is not only the right of the speaker that is in danger, but everyone right to listen to them.

[@Hoganply]

Exactly! Hear any comedian worth their salt and their view on heckling is that it impinges on exactly the rights you describe. That's how we know heckling is narcissistic.

[@pardismack]

This guy is my spirit animal

[@VermilionMage]

Brendan O'Neil for Prime Minister!

[@petercdowney]

Oh, please, no! He'd launch a series of Rick Yancey-style attacks on Portugal, and maybe even Brazil too if Bolsonaro is gone by then.

[@walterkennedy9474]

I would take him as president over the Orange narcissist we’ve got rn.

[@petercdowney]

@@walterkennedy9474 Oh no, you mustn't let him have access to nuclear weapons...

[@Rachelebanham]

wow this is brilliant.

[@GuacamoleKun]

6:43 That applause gives me hope. Not that I know what the thrones mean, but I noticed the throned girl in blue clapped too.

[@bijoubijoux5185]

Incredible. Applauding behind my computer.

[@Walm89]

"You have freedom of speech" "Just don't offend anyone" Irony and Hypocrisy at it's finest. Just imagining the lack of freedom in schools, for example, gives me the idea that it's prison.

[@randomasmr5238]

I think it’s the right to offend if it will bring change not just solely to piss people off.

[@pevangelista2779]

I'm a little late to the party, Rationality Rules brought me here. I love this man, thank you for this, it should be broadcasted at every University everyday.

[@Holammer]

I'm a bit hard of hearing, so what is the person interrupting around 6:31 saying? It better not be "freeze peach".

[@boatknight2246]

+Holammer if i had to guess i think shes trying to keep him on topic or something, but hes clearly still on topic, i think he just offended her with the word tits, she must be really fragile.

[@rustyshackleford3431]

+Holammer yes that is what she was saying

[@gittonsxv126]

+Holammer she is saying "free speech" like that somehow validates her bull shit.

[@gittonsxv126]

FreezyNinja so many of these SJWs and the type who are offended by everything are often loud and rude, prone to interrupting and refusing to let the others speak...most likely because they know that the others are right.

[@shotgunwound]

I love this debate from Brendan, one of my faves

[@NZAnimeManga]

Well said sir. Well fucking said.

[@ZombieCorp999]

This speech made my day, just brilliant.

[@KahavaveCAPIPI]

Can I send this guy a pizza?

[@ddjay1363]

Good stuff. I do respect the Oxford Union for hosting many different speakers with many different views.

[@TwistedBananaProductions]

The answer "No" to "Can I ask a question?" is profound. The fact that we don't listen and are quick to insert our own junk, is one of the reasons we are in this mess.

[@Henry-kz4gn]

Freedom of speech is the right to offend. You dont need to be protected by anything to say things that everyone agrees with and likes hearing.

[@dgkway]

Absolutely stunning. This speech gives us all a beautiful insight of the evolution of thought, and the journey of mankind. how we got from the dark of caves, to the day we all stand to face our fates. He shows what many have become, treating any human whos not a white male with special "privileges" because they are so "weak" and "helpless". Belittleing, insulting, and wasteful. While i stand by the right to acknowedge difference, we are one in the same. The "Progressives" who stand before us this day are not heros. They are the poison of freedom, and the death that sits at the pit of its chalice. Amazing, how they dont see the hypocrisy of it all. How they want those who work hard and earn power to stay at the bottem, and those who are lazy and selfish to rise above us. But those who realize and point out this crucial flaw are branded as racist, sexist, clash, and offensive. Never have i seen a speech so eloquent and short, capable of summarizing such a horrible situation. People are not pretty little trinkets of porclain. And its a damn shame thats what our generation is trying to make them into.

[@jukesr]

Well said,mr.O'Neil... I hope some of these fresh minds take note.

[@FrancisRoyCA]

"The fact is that today's student leaders aren't protecting student, they are protecting an idea; and it is the most mainstream status quo idea of the twenty-first century: the idea of human vulnerability, the poisonous notion that humans are fragile and therefor our speech and our relations must be monitored and policed. It is this misanthropic, orthodox that they promote and which they protect from criticism as surely as priests once ring-fenced their beliefs from ridicule." Nailed it.

[@awnnerd]

Outstanding. Now if this were shown in every Uni and College, we would have a fighting chance.

[@hououinkyouma616]

This isn’t even political at all. This is factual. Speaking against the status quo is the _only_ way to create change.

[@ladyellensings3666]

Wonderful man, wonderful speech!

[@BobExcalibur]

Beautiful.

[@googletaqiyya184]

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO OFFEND ! I AM OFFENDED BY THOSE THAT SAY I DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. AGREE OR DISAGREE. EITHER WAY SHOWS I'M RIGHT !

[@MNeilGri]

Brilliant speech. unsurprisingly, the woman in the middle behind him did not look at all impressed, and failed to clap when he called the modern orthodoxies view of women paternalistic.

[@uphilliceskater]

+MNeilGri The Asian girl looked like she was getting turned on.

[@anthonyreed480]

Brendan absolutely smashed it here.

[@LeidenPierce]

Free speech goes both ways, it turns out. And if you say something "offensive", other people are allowed to tell you that it's offensive.

[@veryfitting]

Which proves they have no point other than hurt feelings

[@KopperNeoman]

And you are allowed to tell them to shut the fuck up and that their hurty feelings are not an argument. The Woke want the right to respond to THAT with gunfire.

[@fabiesque]

unbelievable mesmering historical excursus of offense. This man is GENIUS

[@Tom-cc6qo]

freedom of speech is like evolution. every idea is up for criticism, and only the best ideas pull through in the long run.

[@jemimahbanda2982]

Wow...this is really good!!

[@Littleandr0idman]

brilliant speech

[@henrikpettersson2886]

-Question! -No! Loved that exchange.

[@Zerkbern]

Next time you do a series...maybe indicate their order in the titles?

[@99IronDuke]

True free speech is vital to a democracy.

[@MaverickhunterXZero]

I wonder if he was kicked out because Someone got triggered at the offensive language.

[@kinggg376]

+MaverickhunterXZero kicked out?

[@MaverickhunterXZero]

Zatroskany Banned then.

[@Carrion2k]

I clicked the thumbs up as hard as I could. Excellent speech.

[@SupLuiKir]

6:30 [TRIGGERING INTENSIFIES]

[@josephj714]

Critique leads to advancement and development. This guy ought to be PM

[@Saint_nobody]

bearing brought me here.

[@robertlandry5974]

+Jonathan Jensen The bear also dragged me here.

[@krendynkenvirr9932]

I followed the Bear as well

[@RedShift-vw9hd]

Great speech! Cheers to you Brendan.

[@mmkmkdhdbrb]

the hitch would be proud of you

[@tomservo75]

Intolerance will not be tolerated.

[@GroudFrank]

"Humans have long had the urge to offend against the natural order, the religious order, moral order. In the process they have pushed humanity forward." *Forward where?* As C.S. Lewis said *progress* isn't simply about moving forward because you could be going forward in the wrong direction. *Progress is about getting to where you need to be*. Sometimes turning back means progressing and there are a lot of moral, religious and laws that we have abandoned to our detriment. Simply discarding orthodoxy isn't going to make humanity progress. We see this today with the rise of SJW-ism. It is a direct result of indiscriminately discarding "old" rules and ideas. The same ideology that underpin trying to push religion out of schools and public places and moral relativism is the same ideology that underpin ideas about safe spaces at universities.

[@gonzaloayalaibarre]

Lol, it's still the best way forward, I agree that not all progress is in the right direction, but we just don't have the option to declare where we need to be and stick to a plan, do we?

[@GroudFrank]

Gonzalo Ayala Ibarre "I agree that not all progress is in the right direction" If it's not in the right direction it is not progress. In fact it can be the opposite which is regression and we have regressed a whole lot. We do have that option. One of the reasons we are where we are is because we've been winging it for far too long. We have convinced ourselves that there is no real right or wrong. Truth is an individual matter and that there are no consequences for moral slackness. Simply bringing up morality these days triggers people because we've bought the lie that it's okay to do what ever you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone else.

[@gonzaloayalaibarre]

Groud Frank I meant another thing by "progress", the progress of time, the evolution of our situation, it was ambiguous, my bad. But what does it mean to determine what is objectively right or wrong then? I don't know anything about philosophy, I'm a random uneducated pleb from the internet, but I really don't see a way of choosing the absolute "rights and wrongs", I agree that we can narrow the possible "rights and wrongs" quite a lot, but I wouldn't like to see them narrowed down too much.

[@GroudFrank]

Gonzalo Ayala Ibarre If there is no absolute truth then how can we narrow the possible rights and wrong? What exactly are you narrowing it against and if there is a fundamental truth(the gold standard) then shouldn't we absolutely narrow our ideas down so that it is as close as possible to the gold standard?

[@gonzaloayalaibarre]

Groud Frank Because we don't know what that standard is, as a whole, we just have a somewhat vague idea.

[@coopersuper2386]

Every violation is wrong, except freedom of speech! Imma be sadistic about violating freedom of speech!

[@sargonlovkis6074]

Go Brendan! What a champ!