Conspiracy thinking, wokeness, and the future of free thought | Michael Shermer

[@CMXIIX]

Modern wokism, while rooted in the pursuit of social justice, has largely shifted from its original principles of empathy and systemic awareness into a divisive framework characterized by performative activism, ideological rigidity, and identity reductionism. This shift often alienates rather than unites, as its current expressions prioritize moral superiority and public shaming over genuine dialogue and systemic solutions, ultimately hindering the very progress it originally sought to achieve.

[@DirkusTurkess]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions while the road to heaven is paved with good actions.

[@bjkarana]

Comment of the week right here. Well done!

[@MarkMackenzievortism]

It was never well intentioned.

[@hoychoy8228]

Yo, CMXIIX - haha, It's laughable --- you come off as fairly intelligent, possibly educated and well-spoken (lol. or, well-typed...), you make some good points ... BUT, you started off with the term Wokism. That isn't even a word (assimilation is not attractive) You totally shot your credibility in the foot there ... Duh.😯 Quote of the day: "Most of life is random" think about THAT!

[@annemouse6788]

The problem is there is no such thing as social justice. There is only justice when there is one law that applies equally to all people. That is the ideal we must pursue if we wish to have justice at all.

[@garysavage8110]

LOL The CIA did kill his uncle.

[@wettoasterman]

I'm willing to say that may have accidentally made sure he was not going to live from Oswalds shot.

[@kovy689]

And the military industrial complex. Don’t forget them.

[@WS1898]

It's unhelpful for truth seeking to lump all conspiracy theorization together.

[@annemouse6788]

I'll lump most conspiracy theories into the category of spoiler alerts!

[@Andre_Louis_Moreau]

As if "conspiracy theory" wasn't a thought terminating cliche invented by the CIA to discredit those questioning the Warren commission. Shermer is not a critical thinker, he's a dupe.

[@paints_his_shirt_red]

A point Shermer clearly articulates around 34:20.

[@plaiche]

​@@paints_his_shirt_redonly to literally lump a bunch together to try and sum up his disjointed and thin JFK assassination arguments ~45m. He's an idiot.

[@benthomas4544]

@@paints_his_shirt_red except that he weakly strawmans Kennedy's arguments. That's an ironic disservice to Shermer's own point. It's easy to disregard Shermer's criticism of Kennedy, whereas if he didn't lazily lump the more fringe of Kennedy's arguments together and wave them all away, he could actually have a convincing rebuttal. What Kennedy offers in this debate is falsifiable statements, whereas Shermer resorts to generalized and sweeping statements. You can't argue for the critical thinking or scientific process high ground unless you're using the principles that make those forms of argument relevant and effective. This is all to say that I tend to think Shermer's conclusions might be more correct than Kennedy's, but Kennedy's arguments are far more rigorous. And Kennedy is pretty careful not to lean into the conclusions, but more the argument itself. It's so rare for someone to meet him on those terms. I would love to see some genuine debate.

[@marlow769]

I think Shermer is putting on a master class in “willful denial” regarding the Kennedy assassination.

[@filmjazz]

And 9/11 - he clearly hasn't ever done a serious deep dive into that topic either.

[@larymcfart4034]

His problem is he believes in what is ordained by authority. He doesn't put the two together and say actually the authority and their jargans are bunk.

[@filmjazz]

@@larymcfart4034 he would be the first to pull out the "appeal to authority" fallacy when critiquing anything else. his job is to write, sell books, and be popular on social media, so that's going to sway him more than the evidence when it comes to the most politically sensitive topics.

[@bjkarana]

@ Do you have strong opinions on Building 7, by chance?

[@filmjazz]

​@@bjkarana yes, of course. I'm not here to discuss or debate the issue, but a couple of points: no steel-framed buildings in history had ever totally collapsed from fire, and yet somehow a BBC news correspondent reported on live TV that WTC 7 had collapsed while the building was still standing in clear view behind him. this is only possible if someone had foreknowledge of the collapse, which no one at the time could reasonably have been expected to have since the whole idea was unthinkable. the engineering school at the university of alaska conducted a 5 year study of the WTC 7 collapse and concluded that it could not have come down due to fire, and that the observed collapse could only have been caused by near simultaneous failure of every single column. you can easily find the full report online.

[@maddydrea]

This was a great interview. i think steven pinker's belief that he can reform harvard from within is naive. people like claudine gay -- who despite her poor performance in congressional testimony, her numerous acts of plagiarism and her disgusting efforts to get roland fryer fired because he dared challenge the dominant ideology that racism in america is widespread snd systematic TODAY but was allowed to keep her $1M a year salary--will fight to the end to retain their positions.

[@Andre_Louis_Moreau]

Shermer seems like a nice guy, just not a smart guy.

[@themeatt625]

Shermer is a very nice collection of incomplete arguments.

[@plaiche]

🎯

[@tomhalla426]

Scientific American is neither.

[@AlohaBlockchain]

Thank you Trump for fighting wokeness.

[@user-qe2ps9vm9o]

RFK files coming soon let's see how this ages.

[@paints_his_shirt_red]

RFK?

[@plaiche]

Lizard aliens? Shermer is bizarre. He so strongly needs to believe the big picture is somehow rational while taking meaningless bricks out of the foundation for years, but like a Jenga player taking enormous care to leave every other brick in place and treat them all as structurally irrelevant in route to an inevitable collapse. Appeasing statements conceding basic tenets, then ridicule (RFK Jr comments, conspiracies broadly etc). He's been doing the same shtick for ages. Oswald?? To be honest, i've always just thought this was his comfortable niche and he had cognitive ruts he's stuck in. The lone shooter nonsense is literally absurd and indefensible and has been for over half a century. Coupled with his other ridiculous takes, i have to finally conclude he's not his own man. Soo lame.

[@SaveTheBiosphere]

Excellent excellent episode I have shared it multiple places already. I've watched a lot of what RFK says and I haven't seen anything about lizard people or much crazy (shooting aside). I know the media likes to misportray him so please look to his actual recordings not what other people say.

[@christianmccauley7340]

Damn my instincts are sharp bro. Saw a short with no inherently disagreeable content, but could literally _smell_ that dark money.

[@kazriko]

On the Shuffle thing, I actually did discover that Spotify's shuffle algo had some issues. In particular, when you told it to shuffle, it would create a huge playlist of random songs, but when you transfer that playlist to another device, it would only copy 50 of the songs from the playlist to the other device. Once it finished that 50 song playlist, it didn't realize that it was in shuffle mode and instead just went back to the start of that 50 song playlist, so you would get the same sequence of songs in a row. I don't know if this is still the case because I dropped my subscription to spotify years ago, but it was still a problem when I dropped it. This probably wasn't the case on Apple though, but Spotify just had a particular blindspot in how two of their features interacted.

[@PerryWidhalm]

As the scientific method has demonstrated countless times, life begins at conception. Period.

[@marlow769]

Does Shermer think there was a pay stub generated from the C.I.A. to the Mob or whatever other trigger-pullers on that job? 🙄

[@brentweir4651]

Wow. I was on board until you started slandering RFK Jr., then in turn, anyone who may have questions with THINGS THAT HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN HIDDEN FROM THEM!!! Boy, you really have to be careful with the people you get your information from. Guys, we just want transparency, and that is the only thing RFK is fighting for, and it's honestly that easy. Do the studies fairly, and show EVERYONE what you come up with. STOP GATEKEEPING!!!!

[@louislemar796]

Rights don't conflict. Rights-Claims may conflict but that's not the same as saying that actual rights conflict. A right is a moral principle which defines and sanctions a persons freedom of action in a social context, as such rights are the principles we used to help us resolve conflict. We use these principles to determine who has a rights claim and who doesn't so that justice can be give to the person with the legitimate claim. In the example given by Nick he cites a case of a woman competing with a transperson in a sporting competition and says that in this scenario we have "competing rights" at stake. That is not the case at all. It appears that way because the rights holder is obscured from the discussion. The rights owners is the owner of the sporting event. The owner of the competition sets the rules which govern who is allowed to compete and on what terms. If they want women to compete with biological men it's their right to set those rule, it's the right of the competitors to agree to the competition or not, and its the right of the audience to tune in or not.

[@yoshikoga8155]

What's your opinion about abortion?

[@annemouse6788]

@@yoshikoga8155 Does anyone have the right to contract murder?

[@yoshikoga8155]

@@annemouse6788 as explained in the video, the line that separates what is a human being and what is a potential human being is totally arbitrary, so it's not that simple. Someone could claim that we should have a law that would consider a man masturbating a muderder of millions of potential human beings. So women menstruate and man masturbate and that's OK, but in the moment of conception we have to accept that magically everything changes, but why? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that in my opinion people try to oversimplify the whole discussion.

[@yoshikoga8155]

@@annemouse6788 as cited in the video, the line that separates what is a human being and what is a potential human being is totally arbitrary. Someone could claim that a man mastrbtng should be considered a murderer of millions. So women menstruate and men mastrbt and that's OK, but at the time of conception we have to accept that magically everything changes, why? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that people try to oversimplify the whole discussion.

[@Samuel-o3o5x]

I think this is right. Nevertheless, it is very natural to think of rights conflicting when so-called 'deontological paradoxes' arise. It is always possible to construct some extreme hypothetical where the consequences of upholding some moral side-constraint are so severe that any moral theory which does not permit it to be violated is unreasonable. In such cases it seems a natural locution to say, for example, that the right to life of one innocent person is in conflict with the right to life of all of humanity. It seems there are a number of ways of dealing with this: i) threshold deontology - rights must not be violated, unless the cost of not violating the right exceeds some high threshold; ii) minimisation of rights-violations - it is accepted that rights may conflict, and in cases of conflict the number of rights violations is to be minimised; iii) qualified rights - rights never conflict, and apparent cases of conflict arise from excessively general and unqualified formulations of the rights involved; there is no unqualified right-to-life, per se, but a right-to-life under such and such circumstances, subject to such and such conditions. Which approach is best will depend on your view of what grounds talk of rights in the first place. The fashionable approach in contemporary moral philosophy is to evaluate moral theories by their fit with prior moral "intuitions", which inevitably results in "intuition trench warfare" where moral intuitions clash, or where people resolve inconsistencies in arbitrarily different ways. Derek Parfit has argued that this sort of process of 'reflective equilibrium' has resulted in a convergence amongst moral philosophers to a sort of compromise position between consequentialism and deontology. For example, 'rule consequentialism' (we ought to act in accordance with a system of rules the adoption of which would result in optimal consequences), suitably formulated, seems to me one of the better moral theories from the standpoint of its agreement with decent moral intuitions; its position on the above trilemma would be either (i) or (ii), depending on your semantic preferences. I am not, however, enamoured with the Rawlsian reflective equilibrium approach, for reasons I have alluded to. I am impressed by Gauthier's book 'Morals by Agreement', which is in the contractarian tradition. On this view, morality is what a broad notion of 'rationality' requires of agents in prisoner-dilemma type scenarios; it is those set of rules governing mutually advantageous co-operation to which no rational agent would reject, because they make nobody worse off than in the absence of those rules, and which every agent therefore has a reason to accept. This gives rise to a schedule of rights which, as you suggest, cannot strictly come into conflict - its answer to the trilemma must therefore be (iii). There is still room for moral discourse about precisely what such a moral system requires, but such discourse is not to be settled by appeal to subjective intuitions, but to what it is rational for a constrained maximising agent to accept in decision-theoretic terms. Note also that this implies less onerous burdens on the individual than, and fewer grounds for coercion than, say, rule consequentialism, which may *require* much altruistic self-sacrifice of the individual which cannot be 'rationally' justified in contractarian terms, however virtuous and praiseworthy supererogatory altruism certainly is. These issues are important. Everyone has an implicit moral philisophy, usually one passively and unreflectively adopted from their social milieu. The meme of "rights" has replicated everywhere; a few heretics denounce rights as "nonsense on stilts", but it is one of the last remaining hallowed and sacred ideas still devoutly revered by almost all, immune in practice from pervasive postmodern irony. For this reason, rights-claims are a powerful political weapon, profligately wielded. A right entails an obligation - it represents a 'claim on society', a duty of others to do or not do something. For this reason, parasites and free-riders seeking special privileges will always invoke their "rights". And so it is that the almost senseless idea that rights can conflict has become commonplace, since every special interest group claims its "rights", and every good thing is quickly branded a "right". Without a clear theory allowing us to derive a comprehensive schedule of rights, and to explain why individual rights matter at all, we are stuck in this clamorous bargaining for competing rights-claims to be recognised. This is why I think Gauthier's contractarianism is attractive, and why I have bothered setting these somewhat tangential thoughts down. I find in libertarian circles it is common to find a rather dogmatic appeal to 'natural rights'. I am sympathetic to this tradition, but if left to stand as an ungrounded assertion of rights, it is vulnerable to similar assertions of more expansive schedules of rights. I think contractarianism can undergird much of the libertarian natural law tradition (Hoppe has also tried to do this in a quasi-Kantian, pragmatic way, but I also find his approach unconvincingly didactic). Perhaps someone who finds any of this interesting might see this 😂

[@EllaGreenn]

What's his beef with Rogan exactly? I don't get it.

[@PeteMD]

Rogan is open and honest and willing to question mainstream dogma. Shermer is not, and it really upsets Shermer that Rogan is. Neither are particularly smart but Rogan is much more appealing and popular due to this openness and honesty

[@dalebaker3799]

"WOKENESS"🤔 refers to a contemporary ideology rooted in Critical Theory, race, and identity politics, often infused with elements of Marxism, which emphasizes a hierarchical view of victim-hood and collective identity. This ideology tends to prioritize group identities over individual agency, leading to an overemphasis on identity categories such as race, gender, and sexual orientation. Critics argue that "wokeness" fosters a culture of victim-hood, promotes intolerance towards differing viewpoints (commonly known as "cancel culture"), and undermines the principles of individualism and meritocracy. Furthermore, it is often associated with policies and practices that prioritize diversity over qualifications, potentially leading to reverse discrimination and the devaluation of excellence and achievement.

[@TellicoJim]

I mostly disagree with Michael Shermer because I’m an evangelical Christian, however this is one video that I agree with his position.

[@DrumHaX74]

I’m guessing they’ve never heard of “Spaceballs”

[@hughcipher66]

I've seen Michael Schermer be too dogmatically skeptical. He's on point on a lot of the stuff he saying here but for him & the interviewer to still infer RFKjr is nuts & "believes in every conspiracy theories" is more arrogant stuck in their belief systems than the woke people he writing about. Rfkjr never said anything about lizards aliens & the idea anyone still believe Oswald was a lone shooter is absurd.

[@fuzzywzhe]

Nobody is right about everything, the body of knowledge is just too large. It helps a lot to know other people who are expert in a different area than you are, and you can collaborate.

[@christianb.6184]

So wonderful to hear a disinterested arbiter carefully weigh these issues using intelligence and reason. PS. Kennedy assassination weirdos, go troll somewhere else.

[@NickGillespie]

I can see some folks have already taken issue with Shermer's take on the JFK assassination, which I find fully persuasive, especially in the chapter on it in Conspiracy, fwiw. What do you think about his methods for figuring out whether a conspiracy theory is true or not? Do you find his general guidelines helpful, regardless of his specific take on issues such as JFK, 9/11, and the moon landing?

[@hughcipher66]

Schermers JFK book is lacking in research. Even if he doesn't believe the evidence that points to a rouge cia conspiracy, he doesn't address several highly detailed evidence based theories. On a human psychology note. Its willful ignorance & denial To think conspiracies aren't the norm in a civilization filled with powerful intelligence agencies multi billionaires & global organizations like the WEF & Bilderberger. It would be instinctual human nature for people in power to use that power & when unchecked abuse it. Michael often ignores his own technique. I watched him tell Bret Weinstien he couldn't understand his explanation of how the covid virus was created via gain of function research because he wasn't s biologist but later in the conversation pointed to engineering evidence attempting to explain building 7's failure with out being hit by a plane as legitimate. I thought Schermer is no more an engineer than he is a biologist but he accepts one explanation over the other. Today most of us know about covids artificial creation via Faucci greenlighting gain of function.

[@PeteMD]

Shermer is just not very bright and appeals to authority because of it. He offloads his thinking and decision/conclusion making to others to manipulate. It’s okay, he seems like a nice guy, just dim

[@fuzzywzhe]

JFK was obviously murdered by the US government, because that's the only possible reason they would with-hold files for 75 years. They aren't protecting people involved, they are protecting institutions.

[@CoolChannelName]

My theory is that everything is as it was reported! Wow what an idiot.

[@SkinnyDevilMusicLab]

Outstanding!

[@stantheoneandonly]

Lou Gehrig played baseball.

[@robinalexander5558]

I think you have to go back to women over 70 or 75 to find those counseled to be nurses over doctors. I’m 68 and was very much a part of the feminist movement in the 70s. Although, I was raised in NY- probably different in the fly over region.

[@jalendorsey7668]

What do you mean by fly over region?

[@robinalexander5558]

@ it’s an old phrase : the country between NY and CA.

[@DirkusTurkess]

@@jalendorsey7668 The majority of America who they despise.

[@sanniepstein4835]

In my family, the women born from 1900 onward went to college, and if they chose paid work, they would be doctors or professors. Becoming a housewife was already rebellious in the 1950s.

[@PeteMD]

My grandmothers born in the 1910s were a nurse and a school administrator. My mother born in 1950 was a business analyst/consultant. For whatever that’s worth.

[@nigelwoodley3656]

WHAT TIME IS IT ON MARS .??? THINK ABOUT IT…. HAVE A NICE DAY….

[@PeteMD]

Shermer just doesn’t seem very intelligent

[@glennanderson8981]

Why did Jack Ruby kill Oswald?

[@JonathanRossRogers]

Obviously, the Kennedy Family put him up to it.

[@JustinTarrant]

This is cringey bs.

[@JesusCaminoGarcia]

Nice video;)

[@BuffaloSoldier1965.]

....still seeing signs offering jobs at jiffy lube, yet to see a female worker. Could it be that women generally dont like this kind of work but WOULD like to be Mercedes-driving CEOs with big salaries rather than equality????

[@9ja9ite]

Love me some Michael Shermer 🫶😆🤙