Debating Free Speech and Reparations with Woke Culture's Worst Enemy | Within Reason 23

To support the podcast on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/16wUbvD...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
---------- VIDEO NOTES ----------
Within Reason is a brand new weekly podcast. If you like the series, please find it on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, and consider financially supporting it at support.withinreasonpodcast.com
Konstantin Kisin is a satirist, comedian, journalist, and co-host of the Triggernometry Podcast. He recently went viral for a speech delivered at the Oxford Union arguing that "wokeness has gone too far", which has since been viewed over 100,000,000 times across various social media platforms.
Konstantin talks to host Alex O'Connor about the limits of free speech, whether he considers himself to be a conservative or right-wing, and whether there can be a sensible case made for reparations for historical injustices such as slavery.
---------------- LINKS -----------------
Konstantin's viral speech: • Video
Triggernometry: @triggerpod
Konstantin's book, "An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West": amzn.to/42tsiHK
The arrest of Darren Brady: • BAD LAW: The Rise Of T...
--------- TIMESTAMPS -----------
0:00 coming up
0:59 Introduction
3:03 Should we seek out controversy?
10:14 Can words harm?
25:56 A debate about restricting free speech
41:05 Is Konstantin right wing?
49:48 Is there a case for reparations?
58:05 Who is to blame for the West's decline?
1:04:10 Ending
------SPECIAL THANKS --------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
The audio for this episode was edited, mixed and mastered by Charlie Shan: shanmusic.co.uk/
------------- CONNECT --------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
------------ CONTACT ---------------
Business email: [e-mail]
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------

[@CosmicSkeptic]

Supporters on Patreon get early access to podcast episodes: support.withinreasonpodcast.com Find the podcast on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, and give it a rating if you like it!

[@vertigo2894]

Why would anyone have a problem signing a form not to say racist shi t? This isn't Russia.

[@vertigo2894]

He wouldn't be so anti immigration if he was rejected.

[@xnoreq]

On Big Tech, arguing about censorship is just a distraction from the elephant in the room, the actual issue: the "Big" in Big Tech. There should not be a single private company that runs a communication platform that a big part of society use and rely on in the first place. And it's not like we don't have the technology for federated or decentralized social networks. We've had that for years. The issue is that Big Tech has lots of capital, which in a capitalist world means power, which means they make or at least influence the rules that are supposed to govern and regulate them, prevent them from becoming these monstrous cancers that they have in fact become.

[@Mrrumblejason]

This is why you need someone who can really dig deeper his ancestors were slave owners he looks like he is from Arabian decent AND THE ARAB SLAVE TRADE CAME BEFORE THE EUROPEAN ONE

[@Mrrumblejason]

AND THE JEWS DID GET MONEY AND A COUNTRY WHY YOU DONT BRING UP THOSE POINTS YOU HAVE ALL THOSE BOOKS BEHIND YOU YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT

[@centerfield6339]

It warms my heart that "I don't want to Cathy Newman you" is a thing.

[@RodicaAntoine]

OMG, I simply froze in disbelief when I heard that. I was using the "verb" thinking I was the only one, some sort of a genius. It turns out I am not.

[@lewislee9201]

To be fair to Cathy Newman, whom I have seen in action recently, she does seem to have learnt from her car crash with Jordan Peterson.

[@northwestcoast]

So what you're saying is you think the English language is a joke?😆

[@peterkotara]

@@northwestcoast So what YOU'RE saying is that Center Field is a crack whore.

[@lewislee9201]

@@KipsanBeck Huh??? Didn't you see the interview between Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson during which she kept on trying to put words into his mouth, while he remained calm, until finally she tangled herself up in her own arguments? It did not go well for the lady. But she has improved IMHO.

[@fedfoofy]

I love that you give enough pushback to make it an interesting conversation. Some other channels basically do interviews where the guest just promotes his ideas without criticism.

[@haydenwalton2766]

exactly, the modern media are all about their agendas. alex's agenda is to challenge ideas / views. it's a great format - looking forward to more conversations.

[@iconoclastvii]

​@@haydenwalton2766 So in the case of channels that let guests speak unchallenged like Joe Rogan, Joe's pushing an agenda? I don't think the OP and you are criticizing the same thing.

[@CjqNslXUcM]

I think he's treading a fine line between enabling the guy and aggravating him.

[@uselessgarbagehandler]

I genuinely think Alex gave very little pushback here. A bit disappointing as a lot of his points went unchallenged.

[@morrobarry]

What like when he cucked for makalia Peterson lol

[@zoyboy1914]

Loved your devil‘s advocate approach and loved Konstantin‘s measured responses, outstanding work gentlemen!

[@newleft2254]

That’s British journalism for you

[@Whatever-mq7vy]

Indeed this was conducted extremely well. I am very much impressed. I do not know you, Alex. I do not know your political views in general and in particular. I have watched this video and I still do not know. I just know that you tried to challenge your guest's views through research and tough questions and you succeeded indeed. Thank you and well done!

[@angrytedtalks]

Alex is indeed the Devil's advocate.

[@csquared4538]

@@angrytedtalks I think he's the actual devil. Alex is an actual immortal being at war with God.

[@JFRiley]

Just found your channel, great interview, very well done. Cheers from America!

[@stevenrichardson1843]

Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between physical and verbal violence has never been hit hard enough.

[@chrps0at0cops]

I generally agree if verbal violence is considered just a phrase. That being said, people are driven to kill themselves through psychological manipulation through speech alone. Enough verbal abuse and manipulation over time can do significant damage. Also, I live in America so it's very hard to be punished by law enforcement for speech here. Criminally, it's exceedingly rare. Civilly, it happens with libel and slander.

[@Madonnalitta1]

​@@chrps0at0cops it's rare that someone would be in that situation, most of the time we're talking online 'hate'. You can choose to put your phone down. Where bullying is the kind of problem you suggest is school, the responsibility of that falls to the adults. I was bullied at school, but was smart enough to know it said more about them than me. Basically I had the correct mindset about it which is what we should be promoting instead of trying to stop speech. Domestic violence isn't bullying and if you're being bullied at work then you ought to have the fortitude to deal with it as an adult and get the appropriate people involved I necessary.

[@angelh5762]

Yes we can walk away from words. Unless they're being thrown at you by a mob of emotional hemaphiliacs.

[@vatofat]

Physical violence is held separate because conflict is inevitable. There has to be a way to release pressure. Drawing any other boundary, besides a body, will result in certain tyranny.

[@pauloconnor5101]

100 percent always the same these people that compare have been lucky enough not to get smashed up in their life.

[@numinous2506]

Long form conversational interview style is probably the very best way to deep dive into a specialized topic. I've never seen this channel before but I'm no stranger to this type of content. This was smooth and easy to listen to. Transitions from topic to topic were re-engaging. You weren't talking down to the audience nor speaking in highly coded jargon. Well done.

[@dropYourVideo]

I feel the same and this is also my first time listening to this interviewer. He does a great job.

[@Inquisitor_Vex]

Check out Triggernomatry, they have great, long form conversions with some very interesting people.

[@thundercheeks1989]

Wait until you discover books!

[@excellentcomment]

I think you would enjoy anyting by Stephen Egerton (sp?) Or Stephen Kotkin.

[@garrymcfadden4105]

I agree too!

[@themattylee]

This is the equivalent of me, a 6'1" 240lb guy that boxed between the ages of 16 and 25, saying we don't need laws against simple assault because if people can't take a hit they just need to toughen up. The whole argument rests on two false premises. 1) "I can't not experience pain if you punch me in the face." Of course you can. And I'd be more than willing to demonstrate by allowing Konstantine to take one swing as hard as he can. Guarantee I barely feel it. "Rolling with punches" isn't just a turn of phrase and the mere existence of the sport of boxing demonstrates how silly this claim is. Hell... Mayweather's entire career is based on demonstrating this point false. The question is whether it is a reasonable expectation that everyone in society learn to roll with punches or if it is a reasonable assumption that everyone is equally capable of doing so. 2) "Speech doesn't cause harm beyond individual anxiety." Racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic rhetoric has harmful second order effects the same way, and likely to the same degree, that libel does. Those effects are simply diffuse and less easily connected between causes and effects. If you don't get a job because you personally were called a pedophile or you don't get a job because your entire race or ethnicity is viewed as less trustworthy or more prone to crime the impact is precisely the same.

[@margett__]

I've been thinking about number 2 the entire duration of the interview. I hoped they would touch on this but they didn't. I'm not sure about the impact being precisely the same, nor do I think it's quite possible to mitigate the consequences of harmful rhetoric by punishing individual speakers using said rhetoric. Seems like in this case it's not so much of a legal issue but rather a cultural one, maybe? With real life consequences for people from groups who were othered as a result, unfortunately. So, what you're saying has a lot of potential for an interesting debate. Too bad the point wasn't raised in the interview. Thanks for pointing this out.

[@themattylee]

​@@margett__ I think it's a difference of scale rather than a difference of kind. There seems to be the idea here that indirectly harming one person a lot is wrong but indirectly harming a thousand people a little is okay and I'm not sure that really holds water. It's hard to compare those two different types of harm, but the insistence on pretending there is no harm in the kinds of speech he's advocating for seems more than a little silly and naive. There's also the matter of aggregated harm as racist or sexist rhetoric becomes socially acceptable, leading to greater and greater harms. Honestly, this whole conversation just came off as childish and naive. It was like watching two people with an elementary grasp of philosophy but no understanding of history, sociology, or anthropology. And that tends to be my gripe with philosophy in general. It's an entire field that seems pathologically disinclined to touching grass. It also seems to be wildly disingenuous to label this as a "debate". It was an interview. And it was barely even that. Even a decent interviewer would have pushed back on some of Konstantines more blatantly and obviously incorrect comments.

[@margett__]

​@@themattylee Konstantin claims that his approach is based on nothing but touching grass, though. He himself according to his own words is against philosophizing too much. But as I can see, his self-proclaimed empiricism hasn't entirely convinced you :) To be honest, he hasn't convinced me either. This is why I think philosophical examination is important, and this would be my case for defending philosophy as a field. When someone walks in a room claiming that their goal is to observe reality as it is and their method is common sense, this is when we need philosophy the most. Otherwise too many potentially important things that might lead to discovering potentially dangerous implications get brushed over. Philosophy in and of itself is by no means a reliable tool to search for solutions (at least, not without some meat on the bone hence the importance of other disciplines you listed), but it's terribly important for examining prepositions. Otherwise we end up with things presented as commonsensical solutions, but built entirely on what you called "silly and naive ideas". Re. your first paragraph, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with your take on this. Maybe we ourselves would need more substance and evidence to move this discussion forward. But one thing I know for sure is that the guest could've been pushed a bit more with regards to the issue you pointed out in your original comment.

[@themattylee]

​@@margett__Konstantin's approach is based on personal experience. That's not the same as having meaningful exposure to the world and other people or an understanding of the likely real world effects of the things he proposes. I don't think Konstantin has a good grasp on philosophy, but I also don't think it's even grounded in "common sense". It's just based on personal intuition. And it's all very silly. The frustrating thing about the way Konstantin argues is that he engages in this weird motte and bailey where he says any old stupid nonsense and when he's in any way pressured he runs back to the claim that racist or sexist rhetoric doesn't cause real harm beyond stress and anxiety. But I think that's a rather weak motte that can be disproven by any number of real world historical and sociopolitical examples. My criticism of philosophy is aimed more at Alex because he seemed to want to engage with Konstantin's claims by pulling out some sort of philosophical thread. But I don't think that's the right way to engage with it because there's no thread to pull. Konstantin's position isn't based on philosophy. It's not based anything really, beyond one person's very misguided intuitions.

[@arttusiukonen9790]

Alex is refreshingly articulate, and is excellent at putting very complex and abstract ideas to words. I think Konstantin enjoyed being challenged in such a way and made for a great interview.

[@sidklem6645]

Alex and his thoughts and ideas don't mean a thing. He can't even argue the point of anything because his evolved brain and therefore his thoughts are simply random synapsis of molecules bouncing around the universe. He has zero leg to stand on. From his point of view, which if he stuck by what he espouses he believes, his desire to look into anything doesn't make any sense. Totally idiotic.

[@danielc6106]

I agree. Although it was obvious that konstantin felt threatened a couple of times, and became a bit defensive without giving a great argument. I do agree with him very often, but he's also a bit of an ideologue and is too cocksure to rethink some of his shakier ideas. That might be the reason, or it could be that his viewers (and money) come mainly from those views, so he doesn't want to lose them.

[@jamesjoseph7508]

Articulate is being generous. AO'C style is basically a form of disproving a negative. KK refuses to get drawn into it on several occasions because he knows it is a line of questioning that has no future. It quickly becomes boring. It is the problem with "Theory"...and KK invoking Yogi Berra is almost a "Gotcha" moment. An interesting watch from the perspective of observing KK answering questions. I quickly stopped hearing what AO'C was asking and just went off the replies that KK gave.

[@unbabunga229]

@@jamesjoseph7508yes! That’s it, aoc always tries to get people to disprove a negative and then says if they can’t do it, they can’t be right. Couldn’t put my finger on his odd style of debating

[@jamesjoseph7508]

Its the" Unfalsifiable hypothesis" angle that people of her ilk use all the time. It shows a dearth in conviction of their own argument that they pivot to this style of debating. It should never have gained any traction as a debating tool......and yet so many use it..on all sides. But it gets clicks, so.... It is depressing to be honest.@@unbabunga229

[@geislar7682]

@CosmicSkeptic I will always admire your ability to manage and steer a conversation so that it remains civil and respectful. The world needs more like yourself.

[@mikaeus468]

His tact is absolutely astonishing.

[@joeldarroux7279]

Very refreshing tbh

[@stylis666]

@@mikaeus468 One person's tact is the other person's ignorance. I mean, how many gigs has the comedian had since the incident he keeps bringing up and did interview after interview about? He makes it seem like free speech is such an issue, but he only gives one example over an over as if it's the rule. If it's the rule, how come he's still a comedian and only has one example he has to rehash over and over? For a critical thinker, Alex doesn't seem to think critically a lot. It's not the only example where Alex just ignores the obvious. He does the same when the comedian says physical pain is objective when it isn't and they even show it in their examples. And the comedian explains he isn't hurt by emotional pain because he grew personally, overlooking the countless other harms words can do in different ways, to both people and societies, and overlooking that this isn't always an option for everyone. For example, an ex-catholic might not believe there is a god and have been in therapy for the emotional abuse of the gaslighting and threatening that religion and especially catholicism does and they can still fear hell. Cognitive behavioural therapy might help deal with the fear, but you can't make the fear go away. Emotional harm that influences their life negatively forever with no way of making the fear disappear. A strange thing to leave out of a discussion about free speech. For some reason they make it seem it's more important to worry about the comedian's ability to do his job, that doesn't seem to be impacted by anything the comedian brings up to show how it's impacted, but we don't address "harms that words do". Like I said, Alex doesn't seem to think critically a lot. He seems to only want to steer the conversation into one direction toward one tiny aspect of the actual topic they pretend to talk about. So when you say tact, I see ignorance and neglect. Alex lives in hypotheticals of hypotheticals while the rest of us live in actual reality. Well, some of us anyway. Some are even black people who have been painted as subhuman for the longest time and we learned that calling them the N-word helps perpetuate that. Had we as societies treated them as equals for all that time, then the N-word would probably just be a term of endearment for everyone. You might think that a word has little impact, but I bet you that the comedian will have the hardest time with a show about black people if he refers to them with the N-word and stereotypes them as being lazy and stupid. He is free to do so though, so why doesn't he?

[@mikaeus468]

@@stylis666 I agree that Alex isn't giving a lot of pushback at all, but I did hear him try to stress the similarities of emotional and physical harm. It feels like he just gave up because it wasn't going anywhere. Also, you're argument seems to imply that there are societal consequences for saying the N word, which is what the comedian is kind of arguing against (although it's been a while since I saw the video.). The low practicability of doing something while keeping your career intact is not a sign of how things should be. Clarifying, this interviewee, whatever his name is, is an annoying POS.

[@Inquisitor_Vex]

“Clever people learn from everyone and everything. Average people learn from their experiences. Stupid people already have the answers.” ( ~ Socrates.)

[@Herodotus77]

Brilliant. I always enjoy your solo videos, but your interview skills are outstanding and they just keep getting better!

[@Lost_In_Eternia]

Love you both. Great episode

[@regulatorg573]

Great conversation. Thank you

[@AurorXZ]

Utterly refreshing. Thank you for this conversation.

[@bigol7169]

I love this intro video !!! Great editing, the channel is evolving.

[@Jimmy-jx1pf]

hes not vegan anymore so its devolving

[@bigol7169]

@@Jimmy-jx1pf Alex’s channel was always about Philosophy before Veganism. As unfortunate as the cessation of activism is, more philosophy is great news to me

[@isaac1572]

@@Jimmy-jx1pf You're funny🤣🤣🤣

[@vhawk1951kl]

I take it that you understand that to "evolve" means to unroll: what do you suppose to be unrolling?

[@anthonyweston630]

@@Jimmy-jx1pf moron

[@paulmakin6764]

Really interesting conversation. Taking a deeper look at the principles that underline our culture at the minute

[@hmanuel7138]

That is why he said people should get therapy for their problem rather than fixating on your feelings. Not his problem.

[@BloggerMusicMan]

I'm autistic, much more obviously presenting as such when I was a child, and the impact of verbal bullying can be very intense and long lasting, especially when it happens when you're a child. Another form of bullying, which is the exclusion, can be equally so. I don't quite buy Kissin's absolute distinction between physical violence and language in terms of impact on a person. The verbal bullying and the exclusion can actually be worse. Humans are social creatures, and being rejected and repeatedly told you're no good is a serious hardship that can bring about physical suffering in the long term, including addiction and greater risk of physical health problems earlier in life. That said, I do agree with Kissin on the broader question of free speech, especially on a broad legal and societal level. Aside from the obvious benefits of being authentic and being able to share ideas, there's also a seriously critical question of what to do about harmful speech. Language is infinitely flexible. If you make rules against people saying hurtful things, they'll just find other ways of communicating it. It's an impossible thing to truly police. Those making the rules are also given an impossible task that is often abused. The problem is not in the speech itself; it's in the attitude of the person towards you. You can't legislate or make rules that people ought to like you or accept you. It can actually end up really backfiring onto the person who is supposed to be accepted, because people don't like being made to do things.

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

It's clear from his responses that the lines he draws and distinctions he makes are completely arbitrary and non-categorical.

[@ukgranny9786]

I agree with everything you say here. How to control this must be done by people showing this behaviour to be acceptable or unacceptable.

[@Pezzerd]

Exception not the rule. Having to live in a world where you cannot free express your ideas, so some autistic guy doesn’t get his feelings hurt, is not a world any sane person would want to live in.

[@RoyRuman-uv1bx]

Verbal bullying is indeed as hurtful as physical bully I personally experienced a lot more of it back to the days in primary and high school, Hope you'll be able forgot those nasty events in the past.

[@BassRemedy]

loved it! great discussion and i hope for more like it soon 💖

[@mism847]

It's been a pleasure listening to this podcast, very thought-provoking and entertaining, especially due to the lack of toxicity that is prevalent on the internet.

[@SchgurmTewehr]

otherwise prevalent on the ontegnet

[@nicolepreou6754]

Excellent conversation. Great to hear this depth of debate.

[@deancranley2241]

That was the definition of a good faith conversation. Thoroughly enjoyable, well done to both men.

[@fredkaesmacher131]

Alex you should mention the name of your guest in the title along with everything they do and where they can be found in the notes.

[@philipswain4122]

It’s so refreshing to see a polite, intelligent discussion. Great guest Alex. I’ve followed Mr Kisin for several years.

[@AgnesPerditaX]

I like Konstantin and his views (and Francis as well) more and more. Really interesting. Thank you!

[@JonathanRossRogers]

Thanks for the great discussion.

[@nuesschen4525]

I really love those podcasts, they’re incredibly interesting to listen to and to ‘think along’ and I also think your moderation is really good, always bringing in new ideas and sometimes disagreeing just for the sake of getting to think further

[@duncan8238]

That was a good interview... there was some gentle teasing out of positions there, and it was quite revealing.. fair play!

[@user-ww1qo3dj2p]

Refreshing dialogue. Again we see being manifested: Cognition and reasoning is not about sophisticated circular syllogisms, but about sharp perception, healthy instincts, maturity and the ability to intuitively synthesise information, experience and human encounter into "knowledge".

[@alvaroprietovideos]

It was a really nice conversation, thanks for sharing

[@kansasrockers1157]

Love this. Love watching you Alex and the triggernometry guys. Just to see some who may fundamentally agree but approach it differently is a great thing.

[@williamsanchez414]

This was a really interesting conversation. Thank you both for giving me some things to think about. Looking forward to hearing more great exchanges, Alex.

[@anotherblonde]

The beauty of podcasts is hearing a full banquet of ideas without interruption and sensorship (except for ads that you can click through). Thank you guys

[@viktordoe1636]

You don't have to see those ads eitheir. You can get rid of all ads with adblocker plugins, ot if you are on phone with brave or revanced.

[@crockmans1386]

Sensor Ship? How sensitive are you now, sailor?

[@jolaajtak7861]

I love Alex' approach to challenge the interviewee's opinions to give them a chance to prove they are right. Other potcasts sometimes are just echo chambers without really debating. And I am happy to see a smart next generation.😊

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

This was a very interesting and important topic that Alex should have discussed with a more interesting guest capable of providing more compelling arguments.

[@clariplayer]

Loved this conversation. It’s the type of content that should be compulsory debate among late high schoolers and undergraduates. Having views over the spectrum are very healthy. 🇦🇺

[@simononeill941]

Wow. This was great. "Alex the Auditor" came to mind 😅. Great questions and great answers. Thanks Fellas

[@tombalabomba03]

Fantastic Podcast! Thanks for this!

[@richardpegg9265]

wonderful clear flowing conversation - two people with different views, arguing the toss - ah, just like the good old days

[@arcadiagreen150]

Christopher Hitchens once said. If someone is desperate enough to perch themselves precariously on their toilet, so that they might look out the window in order to offended, you can't help that person. They are too determined to be offended

[@Heretic-007]

​@@jamesginty6684 Marxist Jihadist Mouthpiece is only humiliating itself by being a regressivist rag

[@brunoarruda9916]

Is that clip in the intro with WLC from an upcoming episode? If so, I can’t wait for it. (I’m confident I’ll enjoy this video too, currently watching it. Keep up the good work, Alex!)

[@adambamford5894]

Good catch. It must be an upcoming episode since that clip of WLC hasn't been seen before. WLC said he enjoyed the last conversation on the Kalam so I'm glad he's opted to come back!

[@matijagrguric6490]

What can be discussed is on a case by case basis. What we gain and what we lose by outlawing something. Secondly, the two are also connected but not by similarity but by sequence. Physical harm follows psychological premeditation to harm. So, I'd say the two are subsets of a bigger category of "being judgemental and wanting to punish"

[@jmyable4]

Who else is bing watching this channel lately? Another great conversation!

[@csaladkovacs3750]

🖐😂

[@ModernDayDom]

Truly enjoyed this episode, and would like to point out that the fundamental difference between Copywrite, Libel/Slander, Physical harm, and "emotional harm from words" isn't at all to do with a natural understanding of human injury. It is in fact that the aforementioned instances can be observed by outside parties, assessed by legal systems, and actually proven in factual, objective reality. Emotional impact can only be assessed by a position of empathy and assumed relatable experience, which is why punitive damages are awarded in Civil cases, and not Criminal cases.

[@WillemDemmers]

I think philosophically, it's also because promoting the idea that you should feel genuinely hurt by offensive language would lead to an increase in suffering caused by offensive language. It's counter-productive. Whereas promoting the idea that you are genuinely hurt by e.g. having your arm broken would not lead to an increase of physical injury suffered from physical incidents.

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

Everything you just said can be applied to words too. If you called a black person the N-word, outside parties can also assess the situation and come to the conclusion that a clear intention of causing harm was present here considering the word's origins and the contexts it was used in etc. This all can also be "actually proven in factual, objective reality."

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

​@@WillemDemmers"While promoting the idea that you're genuinely hurt by, e.g. having your arm broken would not lead to an increase of physical injury suffered from physical incidents" It could increase the pain you experience because our ability to feel pain and to what degree is also heavily dependent on our psychological and emotional status and our expectations, see nocebo and placebo effects. Even setting all of that aside, people have always been and are always going to be hurt by certain words. I just find it extremely peculiar that instead of focusing on the person saying the words maybe becoming more conscious of the effect their words can have on others and on combating unambiguously hateful speech, the focus is shifted to the target, even going as far as saying that recognizing the harm is bad because it somehow increases the harm.

[@zeldagoblin]

It's "copyright", as in, the right to copy.

[@talks2squirrels953]

I am really enjoying this conversation. I would never have chosen to listen to this guy. Love it when I am opened up.

[@carldossantos7213]

This was a good chat. Two really smart people!

[@Nikelaos_Khristianos]

In regards to your point about anxiety: Konstantin got close to a solid solution, and quite simply if you're surrounded by bullies, then restricting your contact time with those people is in your best interest to have a happier, less anxious life. Some people get off on being an asshole to you, take them down to size and show them how they really are a small and insignificant paragraph on a page in a chapter of your life. And this book happens to be thousands of pages long. And being an immigrant myself (from SA) I absolutely get what means when he describes how confusing the political spectrum is, and I would say that geographics are one of the biggest factors because of how relative a spectrum is and how massively different two societies on earth can be. And I do also happen to agree with his point regarding reparations, primarily because I know so little about my family beyond my parents and other people don't have the right to tell me what my very distant ancestors did based on the colour of my skin when I don't know at all (and it's unlikely that I ever will know.) Especially coming from SA where I got told that my ancestors were responsible for Apartheid, but my parents were immigrants themselves and came to SA as Apartheid ended. I moved to the UK to be told that my ancestors were responsible for slavery. But for all I know, my ancestors could have experienced some truly horrible things themselves and for all intents and purposes are lying somewhere in unmarked graves and none of their family can pay their respects. And thank you so much for calling out those idiots who "hate imperialism" but refuse to condemn russia for being an imperialist and invading Ukraine. I study so much of history, and more and more these days, the UK is beginning to feel like Weimar Germany in the late 1920s just before Hitler became public.... and that's terrifying.

[@pause705]

Amazing episode, you have done a great Job on pressing him on those complex and difficult topics👍

[@stylis666]

ROFL! Complex and difficult? Are you serious? They avoided every complex issue. What's harm? How can words harm? How does a request to refrain from certain jokes prevent the comedian from getting work? He seems to have benefited a lot from pretending that that one incident is the rule though even though he has had more work and interview after interview since it happened. He is such a victim of free speech. But we'll ignore the people who are traumatized; they just have to work harder on themselves to prevent trauma. We'll also ignore how society sees and treats people from minorities as a result of how words are used to paint them as subhuman or mentally ill. But sure, the hypothetical strawman of how all of society makes comedy impossible, based on one incident that the whole group of conservatives across multiple countries rely on for evidence is a complex and difficult topic. In the meanwhile people from minorities experienced millions of examples of bigotry and legislation to make their lives harder, based on and excused with conservative rhetoric. But that's not the important issue for these gentlemen so we can just ignore it.

[@MurasakiMonogatari]

​@@stylis666 Ah, yes, jokes that hurt your feelings or challenge your belief that it's 1923 and not 2023 should (kindly) be forbidden. Get your safety blanket and your emotional support animal of choice, stay home, and let the rest of us laugh.

[@stylis666]

@@MurasakiMonogatari Can you explain the relevance of anything you have said?

[@pause705]

@@stylis666 I share a lot of your concerns, and agree in general that “I am entitled to absolute free speech just because I am a comedian and hurting no one ” is cowardly hypocritical and problematic. but I think Alex’s style of scepticism can expose their flaws more subtly while keeping the conversation going. The more confrontational debate style will just put people on the defence and change no one’s mind. His style might not be your preference, but I believe it will influence people in more meaningful ways.

[@Parawingdelta2]

Great interview and conversation. I think it's important for people to distinguish between 'power' and 'authority'. The government and police have no power, they have authority. A manager of a company can get employees to do things by the authority delegated to him (or her) but the willingness and enthusiasm often comes with the power that exists within that manager in the form of his interpersonal skills and character. It should be clear to everybody that we have all benefited from the suffering of people at some stage of the game. I'm Welsh and my forefathers slaved away in coal and slate mines passing on their miserable, poverty-stricken existence and illnesses for generations after.

[@NMLP92]

‪I just watched your interview with Lukas ruegger. “Just one flash of light and an ‘I’m here’ is all it would take, and I would become the worlds most prolific Christian apologist”. I’ve been on the same journey as Alex, and it happens to be temporally aligned. You may already be the worlds most Christian apologist. I’m on this journey with you, and of all the people on the internet right now your journey is the only one that. Honestly, I think all it would take for me to finally be able to believe would be to watch you find faith. I lost my faith around the same time as you started posting on KZbin, and I’m coming to realize how much I wish I had faith in god at the same time as you.

[@jedsithor]

A lot of atheists wish they could believe in God but at the end of the day, the evidence doesn't support the premise.

[@thapelomaraisane8705]

​@@jedsithorIndeed. Faith is a salve I miss everyday.

[@PrivatePrivate-so4if]

A truly fascinating discussion that shows how much damage might be done to our culture unless a stand is made against many current trends.

[@thinkbeyond3457]

Should have started with "Define Woke".

[@KarlHavoc56]

Exactly. People who complain about "wokeness" rarely give a clear definition. It benefits them to keep it vague so it can be this amorphous evil that they can scare people with. Ironically, the people who complain most about wokeness taking away free speech often do not care about the suppression of minority voices like what is happening in Florida with DeSantis overseeing book bans, banning college classes, banning taking about your family in school if you're LGBTQ, banning medical care for trans people, forcing kids out of the closet, and taking trans children away from parents despite gender affirming care having overwhelming support in the medical field, banning abortions etc. All wokeness is is just the belief there are systemic injustices in society and the need to address them.

[@KillerOfWhales]

No no we have to make the interviewee look at least mildly okay

[@user-nv9vn8fm1d]

You can just say anything politically left of centre/right-wing politics. Not complicated.

[@emmettdonkeydoodle6230]

@@user-nv9vn8fm1d in the US the left is still center right

[@user-nv9vn8fm1d]

@@emmettdonkeydoodle6230 Yeah. So the centre there (by conservative definition) is woke.

[@thepiggishshow]

One of the more thought-provoking conversations I’ve heard in ages. My thoughts were “why is Alex always over-philosophising these topics” haha but only because I was out of my comfort zone on these subjects! I’m looking forward to becoming a patreon member ❤

[@EthanolTailor]

@@jamesginty6684 who are you and why are you spamming this?

[@Liliquan]

Yeah so thought provoking when all he has to say is that the left hates the west instead actually responding to any actual ideas. A preschooler may find that thought provoking. Daddy, mummy, why does the left hate the west? Well at least that preschooler is following up unlike Alex just letting water roll off a ducks back.

[@user-account-not-found]

@@EthanolTailor That is giggle pig, one of the local chuds

[@EstherYael1984]

Brilliantly illustrates why the philosopher must be moored to reality. Always. So easy to use pure reason to float above the messy contradictions of reality without having to deal with them.

[@micheletotton9342]

To me the difference between hurtful words as opposed to hurtful actions is we expect free speech - with the relevant accountability, whereas we don't expect free action or violence

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

I don't think this is a good argument. You can easily reformulate it as "we expect free action as long as we're not being assaulted" so why not expect free speech as long as it's not hate speech? You do know this distinction only exists in the US right? In societies where speech is more regulated like in European countries, people don't expect to be verbally abused much in the same way they don't expect to be physically assaulted.

[@sledzeppelin]

Anyone who says anything close to "lol triggered much?" should not be treated as an intellectual.

[@hareecionelson5875]

triggered much?

[@_sofie]

Brilliant conversation I wish it was three hours long

[@meganfedds]

That was great. I thoroughly enjoyed that conversation. I like Mr Kisin's perspectives on pretty much everything

[@rotorage4374]

100%

[@nika.5223]

Alex, your interview style resembles William F. Buckley Jr on Firing Line. Thank you for a refreshing approach to conversation

[@TerryStewart32]

It’s likely he was influenced by those men such as William F Buckley and Gore Vidal who influenced Christopher Hitchens who by Alex’s own admission he is hugely influenced by though not blindly. He is also likely to be influenced by Sam Harris and those high profile commentators on culture that came to prominence during his childhood

[@Joethesensei]

I saw this young philosopher a few years back. Don’t always agree with him, but he is very well thought out, observant, and always polite. Lovely to see him flourishing.

[@dodotheripper11]

Same here

[@TheAngryengineer]

I disagree. This is the second of his videos that I've watched and I thought he had more acuity 3 years ago.

[@Joethesensei]

@@TheAngryengineer good to try such a vast sampling. 😏

[@Andrea-zm1nl]

I also enjoy his videos and I also do not agree with everything he says, but that's the beauty of it. I can only know how I really feel about something when my ideas are challenged. 🙂

[@user-qn9tm8yp5b]

Don't forget supremely pretentious.

[@shizhengiso]

Loving this format. This is a free exchange of ideas (even though I strongly disagree with his some of his pov which is so extreme) which shld be the way civil discourse shld be done. Hope to have more of such quality content!

[@jimluebke3869]

"The idea that words are harmful introduces a subjective element" Except in cases of direct inducement to physical violence, or actual damages of slanderous words. Konstantin seems to be on to something here, in terms of a test for whether the law should be involved.

[@KhanivoreQniba]

Please archive this under ‘A decent, genuine, open and progressive conversation’. Pretty soon this will be priceless.

[@Paythepipertoplay]

Or illegal.

[@JasperWilliams42]

it won't be though

[@TheFranchfry]

38:00 is just such a great moment. A great display of how this world can be seen many ways.

[@cassandraelliot7878]

We can not control the emotional reactions of others to something said. That's their responsibility.

[@Madonnalitta1]

Bingo.

[@ClezVideos]

I remember reading “Being offended and demanding people censor themselves for you, means that you can't control your own emotions so you have to control everyone else” and it’s so true.

[@dadsaccount2587]

Stop talking sense

[@cassandraelliot7878]

@@dadsaccount2587 LOL! You have a safe and wonderful day.

[@cassandraelliot7878]

@@ClezVideos Yes!

[@ibrogan100]

Great interview and interesting debate. On the point about restricting hate speech and libel laws - the government doesn't restrict speech in the latter, an individual simply has recourse to the law to seek redress if they feel they've been wronged. Ergo the laws we already have a more than adequate to adjudicate spats of mean words on the internet. We don't need heavy handed government or the police (who should be policing my consent) to wade in and take a side. If someone feels strongly enough about what someone else has said to them, let them take them to court.

[@timothystephendarlow3658]

That was well worth watching lads! I'm a grumpy 67 and it gives me hope and solace to see people of your generation conducting such excellent dialogue. If only all public debate could be of such quality. Keep it up!

[@AM2K2]

'I hate theory' translation = 'I don't have a good argument'

[@petesake1181]

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. -Yogi Berra

[@AM2K2]

@@petesake1181 Yeah...I watched the video too?

[@AggravatedAstronomer]

​@@petesake1181 It was a poor use of that quote. That there is a difference between theory and practice does not diminish the value of informing practice with theory. He seems very good at employing throw-away comments which hold no water. In a word - sophistry.

[@Lefaseer]

​A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.​@@petesake1181

[@minahana1112]

I could have listened for at least another hour! Love3d it! I do wonder why it took you so long to put that on YT.

[@alanpearly]

I like what Konstantin said on libel. Subjective harm cannot be protected against but objective harm, when you can prove (or demonstrate to a "reasonable" person that it would cause harm) or show that words have cause externally observable harm.

[@kevincoatsworth50]

Dear Alex, i enjoy how good you are at your job, and how seriously you take the responsibility of modeling dialectic. Cheers.

[@Jomchen]

dear kevincoatsworth50, you're a gentleman. cheers.

[@lucialindeboom1382]

Nice chat and thank you for Konstantin’s recommendation! Look forward to another episode!

[@b.dangerfield6499]

Great conversation… so good to see such a respectful discussion of two different points of view.

[@sonoftheway3528]

Just remember Alex plays Devil's advocate a lot

[@dixonpinfold2582]

I really liked the highly germane question about why one might be allowed to inflict verbal hurt while inflicting physical hurt is prohibited. Hats off for the handmade-mind aspect of asking it and bringing it into the light so that it can be dealt with. The answer in my view is that is has to do with somehow limiting subjectivity in social relations to a realistically possible degree, deliberately in order to limit possibilities of conflict and strife. The thinking goes that it is unwise to give a leading role in society to people's claims of hurt on account of what someone else said, as it will only encourage people everywhere to start claiming verbal hurt in order to achieve an advantage. And if we know anything about human nature it's that it humans strongly tend to seek their advantage. This contrasts with physical hurt, which lends itself much better to objective verification. In this way verdicts and the verdicts of onlookers stand a strong chance of cohering rather than leading to the eruption of disputes. The idea, then, is that trying not to let things other people say bother you, and also pretending that they don't bother you, are necessary to having any society worth having. Otherwise you hand over control of it to unscrupulous or sub-adult or sociopathic people, or people who are all three. It would be a world with conflict raging or threatening to rage everywhere. It's definitely a major social lever, and a civilization can rise or fall on it. People used to know this, but effective measures to increase security can ironically lead to such stable-seeming security that they're then forgotten. I always appreciate some attention paid to first principles.

[@rikarnobbhattacharyya1747]

There are people with varying degrees of pain tolerance who might not fit the “objective verification “ criteria, no? A 26 yr old would have higher pain tolerance than a 12 yr old, on average, wont they? A bodybuilder, e.g., would have higher pain tolerance than someone who’s not? A marine would have higher pain tolerance than a normie civilian? On a different note, there are instances where words can incite physical violence? What category do you put that in? Is that speech that should be allowed or the perpetrator should be held accountable? Adding on, while it might be a noble pursuit for society to have everyone condition their mind to not be affected by words, it is realistically impossible (for the same reason not everyone can do 50 pushups). Variations in people’s perceptions will always exist. For example - if someone makes fun of domestic abuse victims, 92% of said victims might not care. But if 8% do and they call out the perpetrator, then the perpetrator should probably take accountability and introspect, maybe clarify if needed, instead of crying “im getting canceled”. I do agree free speech should absolutely be protected but free shouldnt mean lack of accountability - a freedom should always come with a duty and I believe we humans are capable enough to do indulge/perform both.

[@d3w3yd3c1m4l]

You're doing great work my man

[@fas1840]

Hi Alex. It would be interesting if you could get Simon Webb from History Debunked next. His channel is a hidden gem.

[@seamus1695]

I do appreciate Cosmic’s deadpan “of course” regarding the book plug. 16:46

[@millertas]

My dad way back in the 1970s would often say "Fertiliser, you mean I've got to call it fertiliser? It took me ten years to call it manure". Would love to have a conversation with Konstantin as he like me has challenged himself as much as others.

[@DedPetren]

Beautiful interview. I really liked how the interviewer constructed parallels in his questions. Also great answers from Kisin, not completely vague, with constructive approach. BUT, and this bothered me the whole interview, nitpick of course, noone made a point that you could stop the punch, and if you are not able to, maybe you should get stronger. This could push that particular discussion point further. But other than that, this is the best interview and discussion dynamic I've seen.

[@kaimamoonfury1335]

In regards to whether physical or emotional pain is worse, I'd point out that at least in my experience, there is a good deal of emotional distress that comes from being attacked in some way. Nevermind connotations regarding who the two people themselves are. Getting into a brawl definitely has long term consequences on most people's psyche, most emotional pain comes by itself, but physical harm often entails emotional harm too.

[@jasonhampson9579]

Also, there is no such thing as a subjective punch in the face.

[@toromisher]

As someone that has been both physically and emotionally abused my entire life, I will say that the physical part is the most fleeting. Like the lingering psychological trauma of physical abuse is the same lingering trauma that comes with verbal emotional abuse. Once the actual physical action is over then all that is left is what's in my mind, which is the same as what happens once the verbal abuse stops. For it to even linger you need both parts to happen. I don't have trauma from random fights where I got beaten the shit out of or even the crash I just had that fucked my face. I do have trauma from the psychological abuse that I received from two caregivers that were so frail I would have been physically capable of hospitalising by the time I was 13. I would much rather be punched in the face once than berated all day. Plus true physical abuse is never just the actual physical violence part, it's the emotional abuse that comes alongside it that really sticks with you. I remember the fear of cowering away, hoping not to be found much clearer with more vivid nightmares than I do the actual beatings that would follow. Plus there is so much more help and support for physical violence than there is from continued psychological abuse. Like being beaten is not fun but the really bad incidents are never traumatic from just the injuries alone.

[@toromisher]

Plus I can hit someone back in self defense but trying to control verbal abuse is only solved by being able to walk away entirely. Which is very muchly not always possible.

[@Noughtgate]

The benefit of offending people is that you can't kill them with words. That's why everyone should have the right to speak their mind. Its the difference between forcing someone to understand your pain, and trusting them to.

[@Noughtgate]

​@@toromisher But you can and should use your words to put them in their place if theyre treating you as less than human, cut them to pieces. If you can't, then you don't know enough about what theyre saying to tell them why theyre wrong

[@summer78946]

April 1st is approaching We are waiting for Cosmic Christian Podcast episode!

[@flik221]

Having a Ukrainian flag in your handle is an April fool's joke?

[@PutSumDirtInYaEye]

​@@flik221 how dare you

[@summer78946]

@@flik221 of course it’s not 🇺🇦❤️

[@williamlennie]

Arguments of degree are always difficult to prosecute. Arguing about how much harm, or the size of the audience naturally leads to questions of where the boundary/boundaries is/are. Which makes these interesting questions. It is particularly exceptional when two people, who possibly don’t disagree, can explore these, and other, ideas. Also, compare this to the Peter Hitchens interview, and ask yourself “what went wrong?”

[@hajamaja8321]

The question of Words harming like physical was just amazing Alex

[@tigerag29607]

I'm so excited for this series... Your channel is gonna blow up man.

[@marilyngibson8277]

A really brilliant interview. I loved it. So interesting and involving and the hour passed so quickly. Both the interviewer and Konstantin were great. More please!

[@VaronPlateando]

13:15 as for the harm inflicted by words (vs such by 'brick') I'd sincerily wish to see that line explored for DV exuding from xx.s against else by permanent open or subliminal 'verbal means'.

[@hankhooper1637]

Great point! How do we know theres a big difference between physical harm and words? Because we arent debating if we shouldnt penalize one and we are the other.

[@Steelmage99]

Konstantin seems to speak with great confidence about other people's thoughts and motivations, while complaining about having people, who don't know him, speak of his thoughts and motivations.

[@isaac1572]

I disagree, I saw him speak about concepts and ideas. I didn't see him shoot too many messengers.

[@Sal3600]

Did you even listen to him?

[@andreisandulescu9042]

True, I would hope he'd be a bit less keen to mindread people, though maybe he could explain in more detail why he thinks they think that

[@johnwatts8346]

bollocks,

[@sohandesai4055]

He seems to be a reactionary. None of his ideas seem to stem from an assessment of a problem, but an oppositional reaction to things that discomfort him. Wish Alex could bring on far more intelligent people who have similar views as the guest.

[@thugson1166]

Alex is going to have one of the greatest podcasts now... I'm glad he's finally got the time. He's perfect for this kind of thing

[@lowang8831]

And him being eating meat will now supercharge his neurons!

[@Mrbobinge]

@@jamesginty6684 "We need to tap into Left destructive emotions" @ kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYOxgp6gpNp8ars

[@teo2975]

He did very poorly with this one. Alex fell back on emotion and foggy ideas.

[@Flaystray]

​@@teo2975 Translation: He said some things I didn't agree with so he's stupid.

[@finaldaylight3804]

@@teo2975 He does that a lot..he has a far way to go before he is good at podcasts

[@jeremysweeney2241]

Two people who respect each other, are able to describe their position clearly, and disagree. This will move us forward. Thank you for this.

[@charliewatts333]

Exactly. But the deepest problem with "woke" is that its most devoted followers are not willing to have dialogue like this. You stop having dialogue and you can't have liberal society. As society embraces the idea that some plurality of ideas are beyond dialogue, they start down the slippery slope of censorship. It can't be allowed.

[@danwatson1974]

Well, that was the collaboration that I didn’t know I needed. Great interview really enjoyed it.

[@life_of_i_]

I deleted my comment to give him benefit of the doubt BUT 😂😂 bro said words don’t hurt but cancel culture is tyranny and wields too much power 😂😂 he sounds confused to me 😭😂

[@Sid00077]

Care to elaborate? Just curious because those two things follow through, atleast in your comment.

[@jimtomo9207]

Political correction came from the soviet union it is tyrannical. If someone says something you don't like, get over yourself

[@zapkvr0101]

​@jimtomo9207 PC is a term invented by the right to disparage the group think of the left. The fact it exposes their own group think is lost on the right

[@inajosmood]

​@@Sid00077 just listen and hear what Kisin says and how Kisin does. When people say the words Kisin don't like these words suddenly hurt and he goes to war against it. Suddenly innocent words, like words about gender, about who we are as people, our sexual expression and all that is a problem. So they hurt. That's hypocrisy . Ofcourse he also knows it's the easy way to grow cloud in these days.

[@mikolmisol6258]

​@jimtomo9207 I hope you would equally get over yourself if everyone you know suddenly started deliberately addressing you with the opposite pronouns and just tell you to stop whining if you objected.

[@csvobodaspear2954]

I always get to these things long after they were originally released, but I’m still going to leave a comment. The liable/copyright discussion was really interesting but I had a few thoughts: Alex cannot duplicate and post someone else’s book or publication because that is theft. If you want to steal ideas go for the unpublished kind, but it seems to have a tenuous, at best, relationship with free speech. Unprotected speech is almost always linked to physical harm such that the speech can be seen as a directly implicated in any physical actual harm. This yelling “fire” in a crowded theater can and has led to stampedes and physical harm, but yell “fire” in an empty theater and no one will care.

[@velvet373]

Great cast, Alex!

[@mitchellkuner4659]

Great ment, Velvet!

[@bilalmohammed1233]

I like how you find a good balance between challenging his ideas while still making the conversation less antagonistic.

[@specialbeamcharlie7250]

This was a VERY good talk! There was so much nuance and civility but contention using reasoning and not an unwarranted amount of emotion.

[@rotorage4374]

That's how it should be feelings shouldn't trump truth!

[@stevetrummfilmproductions9835]

Ahhhh…thinking…debating…considering…FANTASTIC!!!

[@TheBrassGeologist]

Interesting conversation. Thank you for sharing. You touched on it briefly, but do you see there to be a significant distinction between a government exercising control of speech and a private entity being nasty to you because of your speech or (in the case of a company) restricting your use of their property to say what you want to?

[@Memfys]

Looking forward to this. Konstantin has been appearing in my feed (KZbin or Twitter) a lot lately. Can't say I agree with him on most things. Particularly his Oxford speech or his recent video on Peterson come to mind. I find many of his arguments missing the point but the fact he comes across so confident makes some people believe everything he says.

[@bengreen171]

yeah - he's just the latest in a long line of right wingers being paid to scaremonger about Leftism by mentioning Stalin and the Soviet union at every opportunity.

[@tedkoppel13]

His Oxford speech was hilarious. I still can’t figure out what he thinks “woke culture” is if he thinks belief in global warming is part of it. There were a million reasons it didn’t make sense as an argument besides that but I thought he was going to talk about cancel culture or virtue signaling or something. Nope.

[@EchoMirage72]

People who rage against "woke culture" whatever it is, can't even define what that even means. Refer to the lady this week who wrote an entire book around the idea of "woke culture" and when asked to define it, couldn't.

[@Cindy99765]

@@EchoMirage72 Exactly. Woke has become a catch-all term for anything conservatives disagree with.

[@hpesoj00]

@@Cindy99765 The annoying thing is, the term "woke" does mean something very specific to many people (applied critical theory), but people like Konstantin are not helping by conflating progressive/leftist causes with "woke" ones. I left a comment on the Oxford debate video but it was lost in a sea of people completely missing the fact that concern about climate change is in no way "woke" by any reasonable definition of the word.

[@michaelfabish-wood4444]

Great chat. It’s obvious he’s less interested in the nuance(not a criticism). I personally am the same as you during these types of discussions. Trying to nitpick as many different circumstances, not to oppose, but to genuinely bring to light a broader solution, that can avoid marginalisation. As pointed out, practice and theory are very different beasts, but reasonable discussion is always achievable.

[@codycarpenter1672]

Can’t scare future people away

[@ManuelCampagna]

Libertarians are furious when faced with a lack of respect but do not hesitate to lack respect to others.

[@ValDeelist]

There are meaningful differences between emotional and physical harm which get brushed off through a linguistic sidestep of calling both actions “harm” or “harmful”. If we are to try to assign moral value (even from a monist perspective which I believe Alex adopts) we must examine the source, the kind and consequence of har which is produced by either. So on one hand we have subjective and abstract source - words, which besides an organ of final interpretive destination (brain) requires a constructed mechanism of cultural, interpersonal, temporal and other references in order to produce a hatful consequence. Think of being insulted in a foreign language. VS Concrete, objective worsening change of the physical condition (besides the brain chemistry), which does not require any extra preconditions and independent of the cultural, historical, temporal or interpersonal references and context. A punch in the face will hurt regardless of the language spoken by the person who punches. A flick to the head then is categorically different than mother expressing disappointment. What Alex is actually doing is measuring the degree of the impact within two different categories rather than comparing the type of experiences (categories) to each other. In simpler terms he is comparing Apples to Oranges and claiming that a bigger Orange is more of an Orange than a smaller Apple.