Who Are “The New Puritans”? | Andrew Doyle

[@CosmicSkeptic]

Get Atlas VPN for just $1.83/month + 3 months extra on a three-year plan: get.atlasvpn.com/Alex

[@ACepheidVariable]

VPN's are a scam!

[@thomaspayne7617]

Loved this talk. If I were to ask someone what type of outcome we would see if systemic racism was true, I would ask Glenn Loury, Wilfred Reilly, Coleman Hughes, or Thomas Sowell. However, I would expect to see all black people fail in society. Instead, we see Asians, Nigerians, and many dark-skinned groups succeeding and flourishing. See the top income demographics in America.

[@ACepheidVariable]

@@thomaspayne7617 you would ask all the people that agree with your opinion?

[@thomaspayne7617]

@@ACepheidVariable no. These people study and talk about these subjects. I also gave my hypothesis on what to expect if systemic racism was real.

[@ACepheidVariable]

@thomaspayne7617 yes but they all have the same opinion that you seem to agree with.

[@alexnorth3393]

I cannot take this man seriously. He ignores the MASSIVE conservative censorship campaigns.

[@garethevans3600]

I enjoyed that conversation. Alex always raises good questions and makes sure anything vague is clarified.

[@agroquin]

Christopher Hitchens once said that the ones he feared the most were the authoritarians and the totalitarians. I find this very useful and seems to be in tune to what you discuss at the end of this very good conversation.

[@sarahmurphy-nf4yl]

Agree with Christopher Hitchens.

[@emmadasilva1794]

When he was saying unconscious racism could be the cause of hiring discrimination, but it's also plausible that it's simply that people tend to favor those similar to themselves, I realized there is a way to demonstrate that it's the former and not the latter. The way to prove it is to find that regardless of the race of the hiring manager, the discrimination occurs. You see this in the research that shows black people with the same financial background as white people are more often denied loans by banks, and are actually more often denied by black-owned banks. I'm pretty sure that discrimination about having a foreign-sounding name occurs whether the person hiring is white or not. I'd have to look into it more, though.

[@sebastiansirvas1530]

But you are not proving that. There could be other confounding variables, such as one group defaulting more than the other, even when socioeconomic status and race of the lender are accounted for.

[@emmadasilva1794]

@@sebastiansirvas1530 The studies were done on people with the same financial situations. What do you mean by "when race was accounted for" when everything between candidates is the same on paper except for their race?

[@sebastiansirvas1530]

@@emmadasilva1794 You are right. I should have said only that socioeconomic factors are accounted for, not race, since we are evaluating its effect here (or its effect on the assessment of the lender). My point is that, even if everything is the same on paper when it comes to their financial situations, that does not mean that any resulting disparity after that is necessarily due to a racist bias, since it could perfectly be the case that, once you have a track record/database of the pertinent demographics, one group of people tends to default more often than the other due to variables outside the scope of the study.

[@emmadasilva1794]

@@sebastiansirvas1530 And by "group of people" you're saying race? You think it's perfectly reasonable to lump in a person with a great financial record into a group of people that default more often on racial grounds? Technically, that's irrational, since race has nothing to do with how well someone handles money. It's far more rational to take their previous financial record solely into account, not a mystical idea that their skin color could somehow make them default anyways. If there is a racial trend, it would correlate with a certain financial footprint, because race doesn't make you good or bad with money, but your financial footprint would. Does that make sense? Even a racial trend actually would have a real underlying variable that was not race, because race doesn't magically do anything. So if someone of that race had a great financial footprint, there would be no rational reason to believe they would default. This is different than, say, how car insurance companies charge young men more money, because being a young man actually does cause someone to be more likely to be a reckless driver. Higher testosterone levels, not quite a fully developed brain, lower inhibitions. Race, on the other hand, is a social construct that doesn't genetically or biologically exist like being a "young man" biologically exists. Skin color doesn't have any effect on a person's abilities or personality whatsoever.

[@sebastiansirvas1530]

@@emmadasilva1794 > And by "group of people" you're saying race? < No, I mean group of people. In this case, it might overlap with what is commonly understood as race to an extent, but not be defined by it (just like how zip code, something that could be used in their model, would also correlate with different demographics, for example). > You think it's perfectly reasonable to lump in a person with a great financial record into a group of people that default more often on racial grounds? < No and nobody said this and this question completely ignores the comparative excercise initially undertaken. > Technically, that's irrational, since race has nothing to do with how well someone handles money. < This line of reasoning can be applied to the argument you later try to pass as valid. It will be addressed when we get there. > It's far more rational to take their previous financial record solely into account, not a mystical idea that their skin color could somehow make them default anyways. < Nobody said anything about a mystical idea except you. And no, the rational approach is using ALL data avaialable and evaluate the predictive power given a model or set of models, particularly when you are trying to optimize economic benefit from the lender's perspective. > If there is a racial trend, it would correlate with a certain financial footprint, because race doesn't make you good or bad with money, but your financial footprint would. < Your financial footprint does not make you good or bad with money either, but it is at least a partial reflection of how good or bad you were with money. > Does that make sense? Even a racial trend actually would have a real underlying variable that was not race, because race doesn't magically do anything. < Who claimed race did anything magical? > So if someone of that race had a great financial footprint, there would be no rational reason to believe they would default. < But here you are picking a specific case when discussing about trends and patterns that can be extracted from the available data, including self-identified race. Your example is not a comparison holding everything else being equal nor is a comparison at all, which was the original point of the discussion. > This is different than, say, how car insurance companies charge young men more money, because being a young man actually does cause someone to be more likely to be a reckless driver. Higher testosterone levels, not quite a fully developed brain, lower inhibitions. < This is what I mean before with "this line of reasoning can be applied to the argument you later try to pass as valid." I could just as easily say, as you did regarding race, that there "actually are underlying variables which are not age/sex, because age/sex does not magically do anything". I could say that the ACTUAL factors are things like the white matter to gray matter ratio in the prefrontal cortex (regardless of age), testosterone levels (regardless of sex) and whatnot and how it is so irrational to "lump a young male with a great financial record into a group of people that default more often on sexist/ageist grounds". Obviously, wehn we analyze those factors by themselves and then see the patterns that emerge, we could somewhat predict which cases were young and male when it comes to the analysis the insurance company might be interested in making. > Race, on the other hand, is a social construct that doesn't genetically or biologically exist like being a "young man" biologically exists. < Do you think ancestry is impossible to determine genetically? Are you familiar with Edwards work titled "The Lewontin Fallacy"? What surveys are you using to measure consensus (even though consensus itself is not a rational argument) on the existence of race? What definition of race are you using? To what extent do you think self-reported race correlates with the clusters emergent from gene cluster analysis? How are you measuring heterozigosity? Do you think that because something is a continuum or a spectrum, it does not exist? Would you say color does not exist? I think the discussion is not about ancient classifications of race. In fact I do not care about the word race being used at all, but rather about recognizing this clustered spectrum of human biodiversity, even if it goes against sacred cows in our current social context (just see at what they did to Watson due to his comments regarding race...that was not based on scientific integrity at all). > Skin color doesn't have any effect on a person's abilities or personality whatsoever. < Ok, but human biodiversity is not limited to skin color and , given the existence of behavioral genetics (for which facotrs such as the prevalence rate of the short alelle of the MAOB gene in different demographics might be somewhat pertinent for this discussion), one should not expect a completely homogeneous distribution of all the pertinent factors. Back to my original point, even if everything is the same on paper when it comes to their financial situations, that does not mean that any resulting disparity after that is necessarily due to a racist bias, since it could perfectly be the case that, once you have a track record/database of the pertinent demographics and analyze it, one group of people tends to default more often than the other (ceteris paribus) due to variables outside the scope of the study (and these don't even have to be genetic in nature). All this being said, I think we should judge people individually in our day to day dealings, when we have plenty of time and information of those we deal with. When we have not enough time, resources and information to do so, particularly when running a business, it makes sense to use statistical analysis to optimize economic benefits, particularly because, in this case, the lender can ultimately decide what to do with their own wealth (assuming it is their own wealth ofc, and not merely manage, which in that case it should follow the will of the owners of that wealth) and he is interested in maximizing his profit/economic benefit.

[@benmeltzer]

"The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law."-Christopher Hitchens

[@houndofzoltan]

Great discussion. I've watched Andrew Doyle lots of times (I'm a fan), but it's great to hear some push back and a real discussion rather than just cheerleading.

[@JoshWiniberg]

Excellent discussion - thoughtful, comprehensive, and with a decent amount of respectful pushback.

[@Theactivepsychos]

Why are *edit* most of those *edit* those that attack “wokism” as being a religion also those who hold religion to a high regard in many many instances. Is this cognitive dissonance?

[@calebr7199]

I've noticed quite a lot of very religious people tend to call things they don't like a religion, always using the word religion with a negative connotation. So odd

[@xXPoopWorldXx]

It's an attempt to create a false equivalency between two positions. Conservatives only make arguments to further their personal goals, often making arguments they don't really believe in order to extend their power. They can't imagine not doing this, so they believe that everyone does this, which is why they will accuse people of hypocritically and blindly following whatever narrative they have been sold, and tendency they deride as "religious." This is why rational argument in good faith can fall on deaf ears. Why should they take you seriously when they don't even take their own arguments seriously?

[@hotdiggityd]

Do you have any evidence for this, other than your lived experience?

[@barbarmongrelli]

@@calebr7199Staring into the abyss and all that, perhaps? Either that, or they believe their religion to be the truth, while other religions are unfounded faiths in their eyes.

[@davethebrahman9870]

That is an assumption on your part. Many atheists despise ‘wokism’ precisly because it functions as a religion.

[@taylankammer]

This was superb. I normally *never* watch 1-hour videos on YT, but this was gripping! You've both let Doyle fully make his points, and also asked some difficult questions that make one think more deeply regardless of whether one agrees with him or not. Nuance and balance are so important, and yet totally lost on most people nowadays (or maybe it was always so).

[@TheseUseless]

He wasn't being nuanced, he was just letting Doyle get away with insane claims

[@mugikuyu9403]

@@TheseUselessWhat insane claims have been made?

[@TheseUseless]

@@mugikuyu9403 well, it’s been a couple days but a particularly egregious example was the claim that liberals are necessarily anti liberal and inherently contradictory oh no 1984 with neo-liberals.

[@mugikuyu9403]

@@TheseUseless Do you understand that he’s a liberal himself? And that he views the Critical theorists as being anti-liberal? A position I myself also hold as a liberal and I hold it because I am a liberal.

[@Philiqification]

@@mugikuyu9403 Do you nderstand that I am a good guy, and that I therefore view bad guys as anti-good, and that I hold that position because I am indeed a good guy.

[@terribletimmy2]

Kind of mind blowing hearing this discussion. This is something I've been talking about for years at this point when it's brought up in my own social circles, that social justice has become the new Puritanism. Always interesting hearing thoughts reflected back by someone WAYYY more eloquent than I am

[@ManicMindTrick]

There is a lot of gas lighting going on all over on this topic so be aware and look out for that. Have you lost any friends yet because of this?

[@rockthecroc]

Me too. I recognised the fervour, displaced from Christianity to secular humanism.

[@MsNikeNike]

I'm not in favor of cancel culture, you shouldn't send people death threats, but I'm so fucking tired of people claiming that the only thing Rowling did was acknowledge men and women aren't the same as if anyone would disagree with that.

[@anka9405]

Doyle totally straw-mans a bunch of points that 'woke' people speak up about. If he wants to argue for free speech - a movement I am 100% in favour of, don't get me wrong - he needs to make sure he accurately represents the people he is speaking against. It was exhausting and disappointing to not just hear him say misrepresented nonsense, but also watch Alex offer no pushback (Alex usually pushes his guests further...I wonder why he was so quiet this time). Also funny how Doyle talks endlessly about numerous people being fired for 'transphobia' but doesn't acknowledge the rising levels of discrimination towards trans individuals as of late.

[@konyvnyelv.]

​@@anka9405 rising levels of discrimination? Isn't discrimination going down?

[@konyvnyelv.]

What did Rowling say?

[@mokeboi3328]

Cosmic skeptics podcasts just get better and better....this was just superb. I will watch a few more times

[@bigol7169]

Keep it up Alex! You’re doing great!! I look forward to every episode in anticipation.. Within Reason will be a world leading educational podcast!!

[@senefelder]

“There is no evidence of that” “What would you consider evidence for that proposition?” …Awkward silence…

[@terry73732]

Yeah, not the brightest guest

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

I think Alex was trying to set Doyle up to make the unfalsifiability point himself, but Doyle didn't seem bright enough to catch on. After a painful few minutes Alex makes the point himself.

[@BDKoala]

Got the timestamp perchance?

[@johnricercato740]

I have just finished the video and there is no such passage. A complete misrepresentation. Well done!

[@johnricercato740]

@@authenticallysuperficial9874It is so instructive to have two random YT commenters - you and Terry - tell us that a successful author with two well-received and well-argued books on important topics to his credit - and an Oxford PhD - is ‘not very bright’! Have you any other aperçus you could share with us……?

[@jeremywvarietyofviewpoints3104]

Has anyone had an experience that wasn't lived?

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

There are dreams. But then again these are part of life, so...

[@chrislittle191]

A doctor might have considerable experience in, say, kidney disease but might not have lived experience of having it. Kind of like how some people on the right want to give more of a voice to regular people over experts, except it’s regular people that might actually know what they’re talking about.

[@LagMasterSam]

No. Calling it "lived" experience is just a way to make it sound more important.

[@beverlywatson6472]

No. A lived experience is just that. One you have lived through or living through.

[@seanrush3723]

John Carpenter's classic "They Live" with pro wrestler Rowdy Roddy Piper. One of the best fight scenes in film

[@josef6057]

I enjoyed the discussion, but the most disappointing part by far is when he starts talking about social justice literature at 1:05:40. As someone who has not read much actual literature on it, hearing Andrew immediately start out by saying things like "his book on how to be anti-racist is a readable book" but he does not give any examples of anything that he found genuinely compelling was frustrating. While I do not expect him to have a list on stand-by of things that he finds compelling about the other side, I find that when one can genuinely credit the strong ideas of others they are generally much more intellectually honest and I feel as if what they say has much more weight. I feel that the ability to steelman is something I (and I imagine many others) value greatly, and it's just frustrating when it seems that someone is almost refusing to GENUINELY suggest that other people have good reasons to believe what they consider to be flawed ideas. I am not suggesting that Doyle is not being honest, as it is completely possible that he does not find anything compelling enough to be worth sharing and or to just forget at the moment. But for someone who claims that he reads a lot more of what he is opposed to versus what he supports, you would think that he would be able to manage to bring up AT LEAST A SINGLE STRONG POINT. Talking about White Fragility and saying that there were things that he found so compelling he was taken aback, only to be followed by him shitting on the entire work as a whole was disappointing, to say the least.

[@kirielizabeth9098]

Biggest social issue of our time. You nailed it.

[@grantparker6092]

You do not have free speech if you don’t have hate speech. It’s literally as simple as that. You just have decide which one you find a more important issue. I personally believe the freedom to speak your mind is of paramount importance no matter how hateful they may be. There is no reason to restrict the speaking of ideas rather than debating them openly.

[@grantparker6092]

@seanolaocha940 It absolutely is that simple. Just because some people aren’t interested in debating ideas doesn’t mean we should restrict people from speaking those ideas. Restricting people from speaking about things will absolutely ensure that no one can debate those ideas because the person can’t even have a podium to speak them. So yes it is that simple and I would rather have a chance to debate ideas than no chance.

[@Andre_Louis_Moreau]

There is no such thing as hate speech. There is only censorship, and criminalizing speech.

[@mugikuyu9403]

@seanolaocha940I’d argue that even if specific people aren’t interested in debating ideas that they hold the fact that others will be willing to debate them means that there’s always a chance that those who refuse will be exposed to the counter arguments anyway. Freedom of speech guarantees that those debates are being had somewhere.

[@TheWorldofMomus]

There very few people like Andrew Doyle in this world, who can present and explain their ideas so effectively and coherently. Love listening to him.

[@PeruvianTreeProductions]

In ref to your concluding argument it’s all about liberty vs anti-liberty, rather than left v right. Even this is a muddy contradiction. Politicians who are authoritarian constantly use the word “liberty” and “freedom” to sell their ideologies. There are also positive and negative freedoms. I.e. being a Brit, the liberty to have universal healthcare FREES me from medical bankruptcy. For a right wing American, universal healthcare is seen as a tyranny. I find myself somewhat a liberal/libertarian on social issues, but economically left wing on issues such as taxing the wealthy, and providing a social safety net. I always balk when politicians fetishise the word “freedom”. It’s become a slogan that doesn’t rally mean anything.

[@Andre_Louis_Moreau]

You sound like you've never heard of old school John Locke, and JS Mill, basic human rights? Basic human rights, based on property rights, and ourselves being our own property. The fruits of our labor is our property. Health care doesn't qualify as a basic human right, neither does abortion. In the US, our governments only job is supposed to be to protect our rights, not us. The two main places we muddy it, is taxation, and borders. For Libertarians, they're clear that taxation is theft, and divided on open borders. You are describing what you think is liberty to me, as authoritarianism. All brainwashing does is rewire a persons moral framework away from their traditional culture. Our traditional culture is extremely, and very specifically, anti authoritarian. An example, the 1st amendment to the US bill of rights includes freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Contrast that with Robert Lifton's list of 8 authoritarian tactics, #1 is "information milleu", which includes censorship and control of association. This is the easy test to tell what's authoritarian. Assume it's opposite as liberty. Notice how Doyle talked a lot about the redefining of language... That's authoritarian, and #6 on Lifton's list. www.cultrecover.com/lifton8?fbclid=IwAR3Pwh134i2sqbPiYWbbAMu9gyeceRcqMrrzFz8QC0HrSbgTpittFt_prRQ

[@stephenwood2172]

Socialism has always been about freedom from capitalist exploitation. Leftists (not liberals) don't believe any meaningful kind of liberty is possible under capitalism. Yet many rightists would tell you authoritarianism is leftist...

[@stephenwood2172]

​@@Andre_Louis_Moreauspeaking of redefining language, libertarianism used to be synonymous with socialism, before it was co-opted by the ruling class to use in their own interests - twisting the idea in such a way as you've set out!

[@Andre_Louis_Moreau]

@@stephenwood2172 Meh, you are arguing to my point. The root of the word 'libertarian' is liberty. The US was founded over a half century before Karl wrote anything. At the time I mentioned Liberty meant freedom, the opposite of authoritarian, same as it's colloquially use today... in most circles. I'm aware of marxist organizations using the word. The Sibianese liberation Army kidnapped Patty Hearst... While that probably sounds like a liberty loving crowd to you, kidnapping someone, seems it's antithesis to me. It's as I said, the proof is in the use of authoritarian thought reform tactics outlined in Robert Lifton's 8. Marxists after Karl and Engels, such as Horkheimer, Fromm, Adorno, set out to perfect undue influence. Decades before the term brainwashing was coined. Decades before Lifton wrote the 1st book on thought reform. Seems those marxist did precisely what Lifton later noticed, and redefined "liberty", and it's derivatives. There's lots of marxist "liberation" movements. "Women's liberation" goes heavy on the tactics Lifton outlined. Guess what does not go heavy on those authoritarian thought reform tactics? The US bill of rights. The works of John Locke and JS Mill, outlining the ideals of basic human rights. Their works are antithetical to authoritarian tactics. www.cultrecover.com/lifton8?fbclid=IwAR3Pwh134i2sqbPiYWbbAMu9gyeceRcqMrrzFz8QC0HrSbgTpittFt_prRQ

[@Bronco541]

Alex is excellent at making intelligent logical points and rebuttals on arguments.

[@jonathanmitchell8698]

I wish we could get a few of these kinds of "free speech activists" on the left who make these points without making stupid comments on topics like trans issues. I agree with a lot of his argument about the harms of disproportionate social condemnation, but many of us on the left don't defend "woke-scold" behavior. Unfair outrage and social condemnation occurs everywhere, regardless of political leanings. The right does it quite a lot, but the things they get outraged about have been engrained in our culture as deserving of outrage.

[@ShukakuTheCrazy1]

So more in the line of Kyle kulinski?

[@nuanceblacksywin4868]

Destiny is pretty balanced on this.

[@YLLPal]

To be honest, I think it is largely the actual position of people on the left, but it just isn't expressed as reactionary outrage against those being too aggressive with "cancel culture". Instead, it's more like "here's what was wrong with what they said. No, don't go attacking them, just attack the ideas."

[@GeetardHD]

There is, you can't have looked very far. Destiny is one, Brianna Wu is another. There are a ton.

[@cfowler9789]

@@YLLPal A lot of people who are labelled right-wingers are liberals and leftist who found that attempting to make good-faith counterarguments leads to condemnation and exile because the left has been largely captured by vicious ideologues who are not interested in good-faith debate but instead demand complete submission to dogma.

[@Hiroprotagonist253]

Is it just me or was this guys entire argument based on assertions? And he describes the “new puritans” as absolutist but then makes absolutist declarations about which types of arguments are permissible or provable as the basis of law. He categorically writes off the possibility that the people he is talking about can have any reasonable basis for their worldview.

[@groupconviction]

Absolutist declarations doesn’t impose moral values and ideologies on others...

[@Atamastra]

The moment you have hatespeech laws on the books, especially if they have nice big gray areas in them and use personal-offendedness as the litmus test for a breach (as almost every hatespeech law I have seen has), you now have a ironclad judicial shield for the government to tighten the bolts on everything and anything they deem unacceptable or antithetical to their control while simultaneously disintegrating fellowship among the populace who now refuse to voice opinions or even casually talk to each other for fear of being found arrested/fined/jailed/ruined simply for offending someone's sensibilities. And now, even in the UK, there are non-crime hate incidents which DO go on one's history that can be reviewed just like a criminal record under very damning classifications, all of which can be completely unknown to the offender. And just recently these incidents have gotten so all encompassing that even whistling a benign tune to a kids show or just refusing a carrier bag with a pride flag can land you with a stain on your invisible non-crime record. These legislations, which yes do tend to favor the causes and sensibilities of Leftist ideals, are among the most disturbing and destructive tools in the totalitarian playbook, and I am sick to the back teeth of people carrying water for it and diving in front of the criticisms to save what they cant see is the boot already standing on their neck.

[@Markielee72]

Two of my favourite people to listen to. Great interview.

[@wandajean5186]

Andrew is an arsehole.

[@ceticosp]

"They were decent, *god-fearing* people" 😒😊

[@lil_truth]

They were

[@martynspooner5822]

To say cancel culture doesn't exist is disengenuous. Sometime iin the future we will look back on these times and be amazed we could have been so stupid. Who decides who should be held accountable and for what?

[@bengreen171]

actually the disingenuous part is when people try to claim cancel culture is a left wing thing. The truth is that the Right are far more into cancelling than anyone else.

[@dr.tonielffaucet5988]

Obedience is crucial I am Only here to Help .

[@SarastistheSerpent]

Well, I do think it exists, but it’s not at all what some (especially but not solely conservatives) claim it to be. Most people who have been “cancelled” have committed crimes of some kind, while people who post bigoted content aren’t “cancelled” in the vast majority of cases. If anything, their voices and opinions are promoted, since bigotry sells well.

[@bobbabai]

(Psssst: white Americans canceled Black people for 400 years. That was the original American cancel culture. I'm fine with canceling it wherever it squeezes through the cracks.)

[@bobbabai]

Cancel culture has always existed when people with any ideology don't want to think too hard. The best solution to it is canceling with good reason. People do need to be canceled on frequent occasion.

[@alantelemishev9335]

Alex, I've watched a lot of your content regarding skepticism regarding theism and religion, so I don't say this as a newcomer; This video, 20 min in, seems devoid of the pushback against loaded terms, analogies, and the guest's analysis in general that I would expect from you.

[@fiafied]

same

[@nathanmitchell4875]

^^^

[@gordoncameron161]

I agree. Andrews’s argument is full of shifting goal posts and fighting strawmen, disappointing to see Alex nodding along.

[@bluewolfey]

Amazing episode!

[@Der.Zuschauer]

Hate-just like envy or arrogance or selfishness-should not be a crime.

[@Nick-Nasti]

Advocating violence or stripping of rights should be a crime.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

​@@Nick-NastiI'm advocating violence against the Russian army. Should I be regarded criminal?

[@Der.Zuschauer]

​@@Nick-Nasti Perhaps. And such things can be motivated by hate. But hatred itself, which the dictionary defines as "feeling intense or passionate dislike for (someone)," should not be illegal.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Jesus says coveting is a crime !

[@unduloid]

@@fukpoeslaw3613 Why? And why should anybody care what Jesus had to say anyway?

[@joannware6228]

"While the world changes, the cross stands firm." -St. Bruno

[@LeftofWhat]

I think Doyle gave a very good account of himself and his position, and I found myself agreeing with much of it, until the conversation on implicit biases, when (to me) he began avoiding the points Alex was making in a way he did not do prior. The example of hiring biases evidenced by anonymised CVs is but one example in a trove of contemporary examples (across healthcare, housing and education) of which someone like Doyle should be more aware. In fact I suspect he has come across this evidence but is susceptible to confirmation bias like we all are.

[@Markielee72]

I get what you are saying, but I don't think Andrew was obfuscating. He was just highlighting that the illusion of racism is just that. Racist intent needs to be established, not just asserted.

[@LeftofWhat]

Yes and no - if the outcomes across sectors are skewed against the same racial groups across the board, whether or not it's intentional doesn't change the fact that it's racist (or at least, racial). If I may cite one example to back up that point - in the NHS, white nurses are nearly twice as likely to receive promotions than black/ethnic nurses. (Royal College of Nursing study - 10,000 sample size). Either you believe this is because b/e people are lazy and don't work as hard, or you accept there is a racial/racist disparity here - intentional or not. I also think a quantity/totality of data points points towards this conclusion. Indeed, on its own, the hiring biases cited by Alex are not *necessarily* racism, and neither is this NHS figure. But put together, in addition to the many other data points that show similar results, the picture becomes clearer (in my opinion). Doyle's refusal to engage with the question "what kind of evidence would you like to see", which Alex posed to him on multiple occasions, did feel to me like obfuscation. @@Markielee72

[@Markielee72]

@LeftofWhat with regards to the RCN study. Do you know how they reached the conclusion that white nurses were twice as likely to attain promotion over their ethnic minority counterparts? Are you aware of the Uber taxi study on driver pay that concluded that men were paid more than women for doing the same job. A clear example of gender pay inequality right? That is until you analyse the study a little more closely. The three main reasons for this disparity were as follows: 1) Men tended to work the unsociable hours (late night/early morning) whilst women preferred not to due to justifiable safety concerns. Taxi fares were higher during these periods. 2) Men typically stayed in the job longer, acquiring more experience and naturally benefiting financially from this. 3) (you'll love this one) Men drive faster! Complete the job in good time and are efficient/expeditious between jobs, then you'll earn more money. The point, as you can see, is that something can, on the surface, appear an injustice. But under closer examination have a perfectly reasonable and innocent explanation.

[@LeftofWhat]

Another fair point with which I do not disagree, (and has been made to me, and which I have made to others, in the past) The RCN study was based on reporting from nurses themselves. Obviously this type of study can be (very) fallible in some contexts, but the question "have you ever been promoted, yes or no" is rather hard to misinterpret. I'm really not the type to shout "racism" at everything, I'd like to make that clear. I'm much more class-focused in my societal critiques. However there is a trove of evidence pointing towards the existence of racial biases across sectors that cannot all be accounted for like in the Uber study. I think if one looks at the totality of said evidence, they will find it hard to refute. I also agree with Doyle that the UK is probably (one of) the least racist place(s) in the world. Having lived in the UK and 2 other countries, and travelled to countless more, I can attest to that. This does not mean the problem is solved.

[@neologian1783]

If you cannot define a thing OBJECTIVELY in legal language....it has no business being in law. "Murder" has a rather crisp and objective definition. The pre-meditated unlawful killing of another. Now, yes, judges and juries must determine whether any given instance of killing meets that objective standard.....but that's a far cry from a vague, nebulous, and subjective term like "hate" being written into law. Now juries are not deliberating as whether a thing rises to an objective standard....but instead are merely determining whether enough of them on the jury share the same subjective standard for what constitutes hate. Big difference.

[@ChrisChoi123]

If you were to get met with a definition of hate or hate speech that everyone would think is as reasonable as the murder definition, would you support it into law?

[@neologian1783]

@@ChrisChoi123 that's a good question. Probably not. Mainly because I think getting everyone to agree on what "hateful" means is so implausible. But even if I were to accept your hypothetical, I'd probably still oppose it on the grounds that it's probably a bad idea to criminalize thoughts and opinions....even hateful ones.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Copyright laws are an enormous red herring. They grant property rights to certain forms of expression, and are focused on a particular mischief: economic benefit without compensation. ‘Hate speech’, by contrast, is entirely subjective and merely functions as a means of criminalising unpopular opinions. The danger of state intervention in opinion has been a fundamental assumption of Western societies since the 17th century. Rather than trying to restrict what others say, those taking offense should accept that momentary emotional disturbance is the price we pay for freedom, in particular freedom of ideas. I find much of what is said in the modern media enormously offensive, but this is not at all a proper ground of censorship.

[@joannware6228]

St. Luke Saint of the Day St. Luke the Evangelist (1st c.) was a well-educated Greek physician and a native of Antioch in Syria. He was a follower of St. Paul the Apostle and spent most of his life evangelizing with him in Asia Minor up until the time of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome. Luke wrote a canonical account of his apostolic journeys with Paul (the Book of Acts) as well as a biography on the life of Christ (the Gospel of Luke). The two books of Luke’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were originally a single work. The intimate accounts contained in Luke’s gospel of the early years of Christ’s life (the Visitation, the Nativity, the Presentation, etc.) lead many scholars to believe that one of the eyewitnesses he interviewed was the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. According to tradition he was also a skilled artist and painted the first icons of Our Lady with the Child Jesus. Several of these icons are still venerated today, the most famous of which hangs in the Church of St. Mary Major in Rome. St. Luke is the patron saint of many trades including artists, painters, doctors, surgeons, and bachelors. His feast day is October 18th.

[@y5anger]

Resenting the lack of pushback in this one. It seems disingenuous to speak of new puritanism while old puritanism is still running rampant. Cancel culture on the right has a long and storied tradition and persists to this day, it doesn't make sense to present this as a new left/woke ideology. The British perspective may be different than the north american one though.

[@davethebrahman9870]

What are you talking about? The Right haven’t tried to censor anyone for fifty years at least!

[@fruitylerlups530]

British people are ret4rded its as simple as that

[@sonoftheway3528]

Right wing cancel culture has lost it's power. Kids aren't being sent home from school for speaking heresy against Christianity. They are, however, being sent home for speaking heresy against the gender religion.

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

Puritanism sucks regardless of its color

[@_Azagoth_]

no its not? we can tackle multiple different issues and sides of the same coin you know. discussing new puritanism in detail isnt to neglect or talk down the issue of old puritanism. these things are all tied up together anyway. discussing mens issues isnt to negate womens issues, in fact addressing one helps address the other. its the same case here.

[@fiesbert5677]

@0:39 OUCH! That skip sound is very loud

[@senefelder]

In my county, a functional democracy Western Europe, it is still punishable by the law to offend the sensibilities of religious groups. So is the public derision of the disbelievers. Offending the monarchy as an institution and the official symbols of the country are as well punishable. Yet the self-identified free speech activists seem to ignore all that and hyper focus in more abstract claims that come from only one side of the political spectrum

[@christiandauz3742]

Bullshit John Oliver insulted Queen Elizabeth plenty of times yet no harm was done Wearing a Nazi or Confederate symbol should be a crime

[@grantparker6092]

Ok, then what about people who think any infringement on free speech from either side is wrong? I’m against blasphemy laws, laws against insulting the monarchy, hate speech laws, etc.

[@yipeekiyaay]

I think the focus is based more on where we're heading, not where we've been, and not because of any particular political bias. There are people on all sides who are worried about cancel culture, and i don't think most are feeling religious groups or monarchies are the greatest threat to their free speech at the moment.

[@senefelder]

@@grantparker6092 in that case you would be voting for the far left parties in my country. They are the only ones that want to remove that from the law. If you criticize the blasphemy laws, you would be called woke

[@hibernopithecus7500]

By that description of free speech advocates, you’re actually just talking about Piers Morgan. Which discounts your argument immediately.

[@keithyork8226]

There was definitely a lot to unpack there.

[@tommysmith5479]

I really admire Andrew Doyle - he's fast becoming, along with Konstantin Kisin, one of my favourite thinkers: moderate and sensible. (I know moderate and sensible doesn't sound sexy but who cares - moderate and sensible is all we need to achieve a great world to live in). BTW Alex, nice front-room!

[@Anon25216]

Oh boy

[@tommysmith5479]

@@Anon25216 Care to elaborate?

[@kr-666]

Based on my beliefs I think someone could justifiably call me woke, but I agree with Andrew on a lot of things, I mostly disagreed on how he was defining things. To me "woke" just means progressive, and the people that Andrew is talking about I would call SJWs. If you say that trans people are delusional pedophiles on twitter and someone calls you a cunt for it I think that's fine, but sending people death threats or ruining their reputations is wrong. I think valuing free speech shouldn't be seen as a partisan issue, and I value it, and so I don't really know what to do about the destructive power of extremists' speech. I'm also curious as to how common Doyle thinks that this is, I know that SJWs will attack anyone on the left for disagreeing with them, so I don't see this as a left vs right, or progressive vs conservative thing. I think it's reasonable to assume that most moderate people on the left are progressive or woke depending on how you want to define it, but also support free speech. It's hard for me to tell, but the New Puritans seem like a minority to me.

[@bathwaterSommelier]

I agree with your sentiment. I found it incredibly grating that Doyle describes the abundance of death threats and violence as if that were exclusively a leftist thing. The vast majority of people on the entire political spectrum would agree that death threats are a bad thing, but Doyle seems to suggest that it occurs exclusively on one side. I don't want to play what-about-ism, but it's incredibly disingenuous to talk about death threats as a nebulous thing without mentioning that conservatives probably dispense a disproportionate amount of threats. And they ESPECIALLY comprise a disproportionate amount of convictions for making death threats.

[@ErisApplebottom]

Yes yes death threats are bad. As far as ruining Rowlings reputation tho? She did that herself. When a lot of your fans are lgbtq+ and you start spouting a bunch of propaganda against trans people. And then accusing women of being men for not being "feminine" enough and trying to affect our rights, yeah, people are gonna be upset with you. I get threats too. A lot of us trans people do. Ive had people describe horrible things they want to do to me, usually involving my butt or asphyxiating me somehow. Just today, someone recommended that i should end my existence. Im nobody. Im literally just a trans girl trying to live my life and i still have to deal with that garbage. So yeah i have no sympathy for rowlings.

[@Xaeravoq]

i fucking thoroughly hate the "coming up" part at the beginning

[@yerocb]

He's conflating people who believe trans people should have the same rights as everyone else with people who send rape and death threats to JKR as though they are one and the same. I have never said anyone who has her anti-trans views should die or be raped, but with his logic, I am the same as them. I absolutely condemn the people who do that, but I also recognize that when someone says you should not have the right to exist, that they should be denied medical care, that all trans people are "groomers" bent on harming children and that state power should be brought against trans people for simply being, that they would be very angry when someone with as much power and influence as JKR says the things she does and associates with people trying to implement anti-trans policies. The most openly racist and misogynistic people I've ever met were white, cis gay men. I don't know what it is about this group that was so abused until recently and is now generally accepted in society feels the need to pull the ladder up after, or even recognize something like systemic racism exists. (Someone in her said he was gay, and im assuming they're not lying.) The vast majority of people being "cancelled" that I've seen are based on people being openly homophobic/racist/misogynistic then losing their jobs because a company doesn't want them in their company anymore. The company doesn't want to have people who will bigotedly discriminate against their customers. That's an understandable position for a company to have. It's never just one, innocent tweet agreeing with someone. There's always more, but people like him pretend it was one misstatement.

[@robertmarshall2502]

Aren't you conflating ppl who think trans ppl should have the same rights as everyone else with anti-trans? Rowling doesn't have an opinion that is anti-trans unless you think believing sex is more important than gender is somehow fundamentally anti-trans or that disagreeing with the flawed affirmative care model is anti trans. She thinks they should have the same rights. She is also talking about kids with gender dysphoria which is also often conflated with trans. She's critical of free speech infringement regardless of side such a burning or banning books. There's also this consistent idea of her being wrong by association, guilty by adjacency which seems incredibly unfair and bad faith. That argument can be used to much more devastating effect to paint all trans ppl as offenders when her position is that self-id laws allow for exploitation for example. In the UK we had to fight to have the "belief" that sex exists protected in order to stop the possibility of ppl firing you for holding that "belief". If that hadn't happened then the scope for firing ppl for having opinions or beliefs would be very open to abuse regardless what those views were.

[@yerocb]

@@RaveyDavey Michael Knowles, CPAC 2023: “For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely - the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.” He tried to backtrack, but it's impossible to do this without either putting every trans person in the closet, locking them in their homes or killing them. US states have passed laws supposedly to protect children that are now being used to deny adults medicine.

[@yerocb]

@robertmarshall2502 JKR chooses her words carefully, (i.e. the "wear what you want" post), but has absolutely made directly anti-trans statements and supported people with explicitly anti-trans views. Just because she's good at dog whistles doesn't mean she's not saying it. Her pseudonym is literally the name of a conversion therapy doctor. The idea that she came up with a pseudonym and didn't Google it? If so, a terrible researcher. The laws about free speech are different in the US and UK, but she has still said whatever she wants. Her objections are carefully worded versions of "trans people don't really know themselves," "biological sex is ALL that matters" and "even though every major medical/psychological/pediatric medical board agrees about affirmative treatment, I am right about trans kids." Even if she doesn't say that explicitly, the people and organizations she supports do. It's not just guilt by association, she actively supports them.

[@robertmarshall2502]

@@yerocb Ok so if she made direct anti-trans statements then name them. She has a different explanation of the name. I agree that I don't buy it but for different reasons. What is essentially called "conversion therapy" by trans activists is exploratory therapy and is the most effective without a doubt for kids with gender dysphoria. What is called affirmative care can very well be seen as conversion therapy of gay ppl into trans ppl. I think it's a nod to that. You've also made some oft-repeated but false claims. Her saying sex matters is not saying gender doesn't. I think she somehow knew that given the fact she hid being a woman from that start. The claim about affirmative care is frankly bollocks. Every single country that has done a systematic review has rolled it back. The only place in the US that I think has is Florida. The American peadetrics thing refuses to. The context is that the UK had the world's largest gender clinic which failed to reproduce the results of the Dutch protocol and was an absolute disaster. The reason is because the methodology of the Dutch protocol and results are also an absolute disaster. Number of ppl who tell me what you've said and have read the Dutch protocol studies is precisely zero. Go read it for yourself. The red flags should scream at you. You are also misusing the term "trans kids" to refer to gender dysphoric kids. Most of whom grow up non-trans and gay. The "anti-trans" charities are ones she's paid money to years. R crisis centres and the like. This is again a claim which goes unfounded. I mean look at what you wrote mate. The only detail is the name she chose. The rest has nothing to base it on. And I've heard ppl say what you just said almost word for word regurgitating it without looking deeper. That's a very bad sign. You also dealt with precisely none of my points from before. Another bad sign.

[@RedheadDevito]

I think a lot of the comments here were made before finishing the video. Just a guess.

[@Theactivepsychos]

I comment everytime I feel the urge. I don’t comment on the video but on points made. But yeah, I’m reading some comments having finished it that seem to have taken the beginning, or indeed previous videos, and applied to the whole.

[@jpa_fasty3997]

I think most of them are based on the title and the guest.

[@daniel-panek]

​@@Theactivepsychosi also comment as I watch

[@daniel-panek]

​@@jpa_fasty3997nah, this guess is garbage. I have literally never heard of him before. I had no preconceived notions of this video (yeah, i read the title, no idea what it meant) other than assuming it would be a quality interview. It was not. Just some idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, generally-speaking. He makes a couple good points, but they are things that "woke" people also agree with, that he insists they don't... Which means he has no real insight. He doesn't know what he's talking about, as if he's never talked to any of the people he's criticizing. He's clearly worked his way backwards from his ideology to construct an inane theory/explanation. No, I didn't bother watching the end of the video. It was 50+ minutes of waste of time before I gave up. Maybe there was something useful at the end but I'll never know because this guy couldn't be bothered to try coming up with anything stimulating in the first hour.

[@jpa_fasty3997]

​@@daniel-panek At least you watched it (or so you claim). All you've done is call him an idiot, inane, lazy, doesn't know what he's talking about. No real substance to your criticism. So I'm guessing you're a reddit/twitter lefty and don't like the fact he is mildly politically misaligned with you.

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

As a wise person once told me: “Simply being offended does not make you right.”

[@5driedgrams]

Offending people doesn't make you right either.

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

@@5driedgrams I don’t recall anybody saying it does.

[@bluetoad2668]

​@@5driedgramsI think they think that the right to give offence is more important than what the offending argument actually is. When you try to engage with their argument they then accuse you of infringing their free speech and win by calling you 'woke'. The self righteous right mustn't be cancelled, rather their arguments must be pulled apart in front of everyone without all the slogans and labels , very difficult to do in today's world of tweets and 30 second clips - you need to be educated and have a long attention span...err....I lost you didn't I?

[@Shitgotmegeekin]

That might be valid, but people are rarely offended without reason.

[@5driedgrams]

@@baizhanghuaihai2298 and I don't recall anyone saying that being offended make someone right.

[@JustMushroomThings]

I think the warnings from Andrew seem to be a bit too "slippery slope" for me. We're clearly in a period of correction and his take could easily be considered a correction in the other direction. And a great deal of this certainly appears to be a bit of old man upset at the world changing around them. Death threats and terrible voicemails are quite common regardless from every side of politics and everyone thinks they are doing "god's work" and that they are "good people". Just the other day here in America a woman was shot dead for flying a pride flag. The real world consequences of hate are written in the blood of innocent people. If a few reputations are trampled on the way to rectifying this immeasurable injustice, so be it.

[@SwipeWright]

I'd love to speak with you when I happen to visit the UK!

[@lennartmathiassen]

or you could just grow up and try to get a real job?

[@retcon1991]

Some brilliant pushbacks from Alex. I'm no watcher of GBNews, but Andrew Doyle is clearly a very intelligent man, too.

[@daniel-panek]

I think the thinks he's more clever than he is. He had a belief and he's working backwards.

[@daniel-panek]

@@RaveyDavey i try harder than this guy. Of course everyone makes mistakes. I have an actual desire to understand what is the truth. If you can't determine it, then i say "I don't know". A lot of people don't do this. What a stupid counter. I don't claim to be perfect...

[@retcon1991]

@@daniel-panek Yeah, I don't disagree with that, but I think he has more about him than many in his circle.

[@daniel-panek]

@@retcon1991 this is the first I've heard of this guy. I think he didn't say much in the first hour. Some people said it got better towards the end but I didn't stick around. I already spent an hour and I didn't hear anything noteworthy.

[@connorwilliams3542]

The large middle section of the conversation "Are we all implicit racists?" was interesting to listen to. You almost repeated the same lines of dialogue, but it slowly spiraled to Andrew at 1:05:00 where he succinctly wraps up his argument in a way that most people would agree with

[@cadenweihe5147]

I always find it very funny how offended people like this guy get when other people call him out for being an ass

[@carolineleneghan119]

because they are perpetual victims and thrive on it

[@cadenweihe5147]

@carolineleneghan119 I agree, he is a perpetual victim that thrives on the attention he gets when 3 people on Twitter call him names

[@GoldenMechaTiger]

@@carolineleneghan119 That also very much applies to his counterparts on the other side

[@matt69nice]

@@GoldenMechaTiger 'I know you are but what am I' - do you or do you not accept the premise of the comment you're replying to and will you call out people on the right for their victim complex when you see it? The answer is no, so please stop engaging in bad faith, cheers.

[@GoldenMechaTiger]

@@matt69nice I'll happily call it out from both sides. But the woke side is certainly where this is most common.

[@joannware6228]

"There is no peace except in perfect forgetfulness of self. We must make up our mind to forget even our spiritual interests and think only of God’s glory." -St. Claude de la Colombière from the book The Spiritual Direction of St. Claude de la Colombière "A word or a smile is often enough to put fresh life in a despondent soul." -St. Therese of Lisieux

[@andrewshaw1571]

I think the issue with jumping from implicit bias to implicit racism is that it makes the jump from individual interaction to tribal reaction too quickly. Tribal prejudice, not based on any information on views but merely outgroup ingroup come about through extrapolation of the ingroup outgroup bias from individual to kin vs less obviously kin. From preferring kin you develop the family, from family you get to tribe, from tribe you have multiple ways to expand, from religion to nation or race. So therefore, racism is likely an extrapolation of kin preference, which would be where liking someone like you comes from, selfish genes blah blah blah. The problem with making that jump is that when your hypothesis targets the race difference as if it isnt built from kin preference is that you end up with multiple extrapolations of kin preference coming to bare and which one is more prescient is hard to judge such that i think picking race as the main thing underlying interaction is not justifiable without evidence. Otherwise would one claim that a parent disfavours their own child on the basis of it being mixed race? I'd argue that parents of mixed race children generally still favour said children over other children of their own race.

[@grisflyt]

The Marxist position is much easier. Racism is just classism. It's been said that the United States is a class-less society. That's, of course, wrong. The African Americans were/are the permanent underclass. "Freedom is not possible without slavery," was a typical endorsement of the slave South. Without slavery, white nonslaveholders would be no better than black men. My main issue with your argument is that it assumes race has always existed and wasn't invented. Americans are obsessed with race. As one British person put it: Americans are as acutely aware of race as the British are of class. Mix-race marriage isn't a thing in Europe. At least not outside of hyper racist nations like Ukraine and Poland. People would look at you strange if you would use that expression. I'm in Sweden. I don't think I have heard the word "race" uttered here outside the likes of fringe online forums. The rise in anti-immigrants here since 2015 isn't about some stupid "race," but culture. The issue is integration, not "race" or skin color or whatever superficial nonsense. Finally. Race isn't even a thing. If one accepts races, one must also accept multiple genders. Not that I expect rationality from racists.

[@VestinVestin]

​@@grisflyt > _"At least not outside of hyper racist nations like Ukraine and Poland."_ I think the guy you're responding to is significantly closer to truth with the ingroup-outgroup bias being fundamentally natural xenophobia as heritage of literal tribalism, because... Being Polish myself, I have a choice few words about where you can shove your thoughts about my country.

[@grisflyt]

@@VestinVestin "The Acali Raft Experiment Might Restore Your Faith in Humanity" kzbin.info/www/bejne/lX6bant5bsqlbZY Afghanistan is a tribal society. Also very hospitable. You need warmongers like Hitler and Bush to stir up xenophobia. Goebbels knew this: "Naturally the common people don't want war . . . but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or parliament or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." And you know where you can shove your abnormal xenophobia. Lets be serious here for a moment. I'm in Europe. We have lots of people from Iraq, Syria, etc. You know who they are. Refugees from countries we destroyed. Do I want refugees? That, of course, is a stupid question that only the stupidest idiot would ask. I'm against creating refugees. And I'm against the idiot warmongers who supported the Iraq War. Those idiots should be sent to Iraq. If they weren't such cowards, they would go there on own accord and fight and rebuild Iraq. I want to get rid of those idiots because they are stupid, non-contributing members of society. They drag down the rest of us. But mostly, I want to get rid of them because they are horrible people. You see? I judge people by their actions. Not by some superficial nonsense. Like a normal person.

[@mkano7434]

I was hoping it was an interview with a religious sect representative. But this is fine too :)

[@coreyander286]

Doyle talks as if the anti-Rowling people are routinely justifying or dismissing rape threats against her. I think that might not be the most good-faith description of Rowling's critics. It's pretty annoying how much the antiwoke use the sorts of methods they complain about the woke using.

[@Ewiril]

Ive met several who were willing to defend those... Then again, I cant prove that they werent the sort that were sending the threads in the first place.

[@robertmarshall2502]

I've spoken to a bunch of anti-Rowling ppl and they routinely defend the various threats and rarely if ever seem to have a good faith argument for why they hate her. And it does come across to me as hate. If I'm being really generous the arguments against her are that she's guilty by adjacency, it's not what she says she secretly thinks things that directly contradict what she does say, some vague claim her opinions, never specified, will lead to death of trans ppl, she doesn't want them to exist. Actually even then all of these are terrible arguments. I can't remember one which I can actually square with her essay for example. Can you give a good faith description of her critics for me pls?

[@robertmarshall2502]

@@RaveyDavey I think this idea of "turncoat hate" seems quite viable to me. It does seem to play into this idea of a betrayal which is an accusation I've seen against black ppl who don't have the "correct" views and are seen as "betraying" their race. I also very much get the impression that most anti-J K ppl really cherished the books or films as part of their childhood so there seems to be an emotional response which might explain why Andrew Doyle or Douglas Murray don't get anywhere near the same hate. The person I have most difficulty squaring the hate against is Kathleen Stock. Like Rowling it seems to rely on ignorance of her actual views.

[@mugikuyu9403]

@@robertmarshall2502you mention black people here but have you ever heard of ‘the day of the rope’?

[@robertmarshall2502]

@@mugikuyu9403 I can't say I've heard of that particular phrase. Is it a reference to lynching?

[@pixie3458]

In hiring, looks, class and accents are hugely important

[@j8000]

At fifteen minutes in, he says abuse is deserved if you say something horrible online, but not an innocuous comment. The problem is that what's heinous isn't objective, so the speech he's critical of (cancel culture) can't be criticized unless you somehow manage to go into the minds of the haters and learn that they don't think what they're attacking was heinous in their own assessment.

[@WhiteBuffaloWakanGli]

Free yourself from social media, and so many perceived problems will disappear. You’ll be a much happier person without all the unnecessary noise.

[@outsideworlds]

@CosmicSkeptic I enjoyed this conversation, but I really wish you'd taken him to task for speaking about "The New Puritans" as though it was a single group. You can't just generalize everyone who disagreed with your viewpoint and pretend they're one homogenious movement. He's talking about very different groups of people with highly heterogeneous beliefs, agendas and ways of expressing themselves, who just happen to overlap of many issues. I noticed this especially whenever he tried to point out a contradiction.

[@zarbins]

I'd say the same thing about 2SLGBTQIAA+ who is often spoken of as a monolithic movement but have highly diverse beliefs as well. Many of these terms have gotten too broad, like woke, fascist, gender, etc. As you've likely seen in social media it's difficult to talk about divisive topics in a nuanced way. I don't think Doyle is using the term 'New Puritans' for those who solely disagree with him but more specifically those that pose a new system of morality and anyone not adhering to it are ostracized or excommunicated from good faith discourse. You'll see this termed cancel culture, suppression of thought (no diversity of thinking), and even refusal of free speech used as points of reference. Classical Liberals like Doyle are used to religious extremists making these claims to proper cultural discourse but now we're seeing it from a new strain of authoritarian leftism. I refuse to call it liberal.

[@Bastelkorb3]

​@@zarbinsI think the biggest problem is the phrasing and ideologies behind every concept. Cancel culture for example is often times a mediator to socially punish extreme opinions. This can be seen as good or bad. But I wouldn't agree on the authoritarian part tbh. Commonly free democracies have turn into facist dictatorships due to lack of recognition of hate speech against some groups. This group then becomes the scapegoat. In case of Germany for example, the Weimarer Republik had free speech and it was used from the NSDAP (and other political movements) to outgroup Jews. This is one of the main reasons we have hate speech laws in Germany nowadays. Often times people think, there are no Nazis nowadays, but they only think about Nazis as those who gassed millions of people. But the movement behind this atrocity is much older and was in the beginning not in a position of power. And exactly in this kind of state should we compare them to movements today. As they are in no position of power but maybe share some common ground with a movement from which we know had done in the past. Learning from history is the idea.

[@crzyprplmnky]

"I'm always open to evidence." "Okay what would be an example of evidence?" "I don't think there could ever be evidence." Hmmmmmmm Andrew kinda sus

[@oldmanlearningguitar446]

“…show seven times more white pupils than black pupils failed to reach the expected standard in national reading tests last year. Eleven times more white pupils than black fell short for writing.” These numbers are only meaningful if you tell us how many white students there are at this school compared to black students overall. The Times article is behind a paywall but I found what seems to be a reprint of it and this information is not given. Now this information may prove the point Alex was attempting to make but he can’t actually know that unless he has the ratio which doesn’t seem to have been provided. If whites are 12 times more numerous at the school that only 11 times have reading problems compared to black students that means they are having fewer problems than white students. This would make his premise for criticizing the program invalid. I however would say that all students having reading or writing problems should be offered extra help but he doesn’t say this and it disappoints me that he is using incomplete statistics to draw a conclusion that can’t be draw given the lack of information available.

[@mugikuyu9403]

That’s literally the conclusion of that segment of the discussion, that all students who need help should get help. And that restricting it to black students only on the basis that the extra help also comes with additional lessons about ‘black’ history shouldn’t be restricted to black students only because white students can equally benefit from those extra lessons. Where the hell are some of you people coming from? Because it’s clear you didn’t watch the video.

[@paddydiddles4415]

There’s a distinction between ‘evidence for’ vs ‘consistent with’. Something that is merely consistent is no better than merely hypothetical. Also, what evidence would you need to disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns?

[@gking407]

Either your interlocutor is honest and open or there is no real chance for good discussion. Especially not about complex topics like ‘religion’ and ‘morality’.

[@domenicodiniro413]

How did I miss this. Love them both

[@leerass]

I think it is a bad thing that people might say the ‘right’ thing but still possibly harbor racist tendencies. This is my biggest gripe with anti-hate-speech laws. I want that people actually say what they mean and think and don’t polish their speech and dog whistle out of fear of getting canceled. You can not combat ideas when people hide their thoughts out of fear.

[@Bronco541]

Well said. There is a lot of hidden biggotry behind this wokeness. Not to mention it muddies the waters when dealing with actual outrightand hardcore racists.

[@johnnywatkins]

Reminds me of that case where the judge said I can’t define what porn is but I know it when I see it

[@DrWhosmate]

This was a really good conversation, thoroughly enjoyed it. I hope we do not ever get to a place where this sort of exploration of ideas is outlawed, although with 'hate' being defined as bad and something we need to legislate against, I feel we are already past the tipping point. All I hope is that someone can make a case that "hate" is actually the biggest driver of progress the world has ever seen and today, will get your case attended to over someone who merely says they are inconvenienced. Every technology and law and betterment of society has it's roots in hate that drove the need for change, this is why I 100% agree that 'hate' as a term is _SO_ nebulous as to be without meaning when you try to apply a moral framework to it. Anyway....fantastic episode!

[@brianmeen2158]

Exactly, insecurity and anger are extremely strong components of motivation . Without these two feelings our world would look much different

[@thomascromwell6840]

I have always believed it was just oneupmanship, not hate.

[@nitehawk86]

WAT

[@DrWhosmate]

@@nitehawk86 Wireless Authoring Tool? West African time? Website Administration Tool? Windows Activation Technologies? WAT?

[@Bastelkorb3]

I'm living in Germany and we have legislation against hate speech since the end of WW2 and with exactly that as the reason. As history has told us, openly hate speech against, for example a certain group, can turn into hate crimes, dehumanization and worse.

[@cassif19]

I think that it is totally reasonable for people to stop financially supporting those who advocate for things that they disagree with. Something like: "I'm not going to contribute to the fame and money that allow you to spread ideas I find harmful". This is what cancel culture consists of the most. Yes, there are people who send death threats and rape threats, but that's not what is at the heart of cancel culture and you can also find this kind of people in any disagreement online on any political side. I'd say that such speech (death and rape threats) should be banned and punished, but I guess this guy would not agree with me

[@bluetoad2668]

Best way to cancel someone is to straw man their arguments by giving a label such as 'woke' or 'social justice' , you then don't need to engage with their points and it has the added advantage of fitting neatly into a tweet (or twex, or whatever)

[@taylankammer]

If it was just about personally taking your business elsewhere, sure. Or if an employee did something truly egregious, the company was boycotted as a result, and decided to fire that employee as part of the resolution, that would also be understandable. But there have been far too many incidents in which employers are directly pressured into firing someone (and end up doing so) for politely stating political opinions that some section of the public doesn't agree with, and I think that's going way too far. Or similarly, when it comes to people working independently rather than being employed: having their name tarred to such a degree that their business suffers greatly. Or they're pressured into quitting their job... This kind of stuff happens routinely to women, sometimes life-long feminists and/or lesbian/gay rights activists, for stating a position that's critical of one or another aspect of the transgender movement. It's no different from what anti-abortion activists do to feminists, except this time done by supposedly liberal people.

[@bobbun9630]

My quick take was that Mr. Doyle jumped into straw man tactics pretty quickly. For example, in his comparison with the Salem Witch Trials, he doesn't really consider that the court of public opinion is fundamentally different than a court of law. There is no due process in the court of public opinion, nor should there be any expectation of such. That is not to say that the court of public opinion is all horror show. It plays an important role in restraining conduct without having to resort to the heavy hand of government intervention. People are supposed to be taking the possibility of reputational damage into account before they engage in irresponsible or reprehensible acts or speech, even when those acts and that speech are not in any way illegal. On his comment about "evidence" at around seven minutes in, I would point out that homophobic speech, racial slurs, and misogynistic comments are, in fact, evidence of homophobia, racism, and misogyny respectively. Pretending they are not in the name of "liberty" is delusion. Normal social discourse can only really happen in the context of consequences for bad behavior, and if we sincerely wish to minimize government regulation of conduct then the responsibility for regulating such conduct must fall to the general public through the lawful exercise of their own rights. The reputational damage Mr. Doyle objects to is, in many of these cases, simply the appropriate social consequences that follow boorish conduct.

[@cfowler9789]

@@bobbun9630 Empower the mob and minimise due process. Got ya. If you want an example of an early and extreme manifestation of what you're promoting, search for "Bret Weinstein evergreen confrontation".

[@thomascromwell6840]

​@@taylankammerThis is nothing in comparison to the supreme court giving businesses the license to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexuality and gender expression. I don't understand why people talk so much about a couple of social media nobodies when people are being systematically stripped of their rights.

[@skepticalbutopen4620]

I really enjoyed this guest and their message.

[@oscarclark4702]

Glad to see some street epistemology in action here alex, “what would it take you to change your position” etc lol

[@ChrisChoi123]

And it worked like a charm. The perceptive audience got to see that this man was completely unwilling to accept any kind of proof against his beliefs. Didn't even give them an inch

[@flain283]

Careful on those VPN ads Alex, they don't protect you from being tracked. Tracking is happening at the browser level, not the network layer where the VPN operates.

[@shirinatron]

I'm fairly certain these VPNs are software level, not network level VPNs. Also changing your IP literally does protect you against tracking. Can you explain what you mean?

[@flain283]

@@shirinatron What i mean is 99% of the tracking out there is embedded links in pages and or cookies in the browser. Tracking IPs, while they get logged isn't really anything valuable for the tracking companies. It's everything else that they are after (ie which other sites you visited, browsing behaviour, advertisements shown/clicked etc). So while your home IP is hidden behind a VPN, that wasn't really anything useful for tracking anyway.

[@davidarmor1554]

​@@shirinatronhe's just making the point that we're tracked at multiple levels and on multiple fronts. If you're browsing using a VPN but using Chrome with your Google account logged in, your web traffic is still being recorded, even if your geographic location is not.

[@ACepheidVariable]

@shirinatron3585 VPN's don't stop cookies or fingerprinting. So if you sign into any of your accounts while using a VPN, then you are sharing info. VPN's are useful for large companies and strict governments but useless for individuals.

[@shirinatron]

@@ACepheidVariable well sure. That would be kinda goofy to sign into an acc after deploying a vpn using your full name LOL

[@vulkanofnocturne]

24:00 Death metal band Ten Masked Men did nothing but cover pop songs. As far as I know no one took legal action against them. I suppose Death Metal is transformative enough even though the lyrics were identical and the instrumentation was the same but all appropriately tuned to the grave.

[@Yamaazaka]

What an amazing man. One of your best guests. Absolutely on point. Cheers to him.

[@wattsrm1]

25:19 He is wrong-copyright infringement does not require that you pass a work off as your own.

[@overthemoo]

The reason that differences exist when it comes to the definition of “hate” is due to cultural and historical matters. As aggravating as it can be, the language of legislation is often vague, intentionally so. That said, there are other documents that accompany the legislation, showing not only specific qualifiers but also intent and context. This is what guides legislators in making changes. Social norms determine the majority of our behavior, right? But can one society prove why their set of norms should be applied universally? They could try but they’d undoubtedly get a reasonable amount of pushback from some societies/communities with different values. People with disabilities were deprived of care just 100-200 years ago, and the majority of society felt this response was appropriate. Hatred for these individuals undoubtedly existed but it was not necessarily present in everyone. People today, however, would see the aforementioned view and behavior as detestable -possibly even evil- and therefore think you’d have to have some kind of aversion and/or dislike to treat someone that way. There may be some societies today that do this. This is why definitions can be inconsistent.

[@jameshicks1114]

Can we get a video of the definition of the political spectrum. Objectively what does left and right mean not just these things are generally right and these things are generally left.

[@bellezavudd]

It depends on what country you live in, as each is slightly different. Some are vastly different. It also depends in what decade a person became politically minded. As the lines have shifted.

[@jagolago-bob]

Doyle avoided Alex's question about what would contstitute evidence of racism for him, several times. Either he has never thought about it, or he was hiding something. He avoided a lot of questions. Quite annoying.

[@Woryen]

I disagree that he avoided it. One point of the discussion (a few minutes before your point of observation), pretty much drives this point home for me. The fact the mentioned saturday school practice session explicitly segregates one skin color is a pretty awesome evidence for racism. Andrew mentioned this in the first place, I believe, I take this is one of his definiton.

[@Woryen]

Rewatched that part, i beleive 57:33 was the point that you were looking for. Again, i dont beleive Andrew avoided it, but yes, maybe he could have better responded to Alex's repeated question. i'd rather say that he might have found the question simply boring.

[@crzyprplmnky]

Yo shout-out to Steven "Destiny" Kenneth Bonelli the 2nd! Would love to see her talk to Andrew

[@fran13r]

Honestly what a nebulous conversation. This "cancel culture" talk felt as if I had tuned into a "racism" talk and only heard "bro racism is bad" which is ironic because that's what he complains about at some point. Yeah, thought crimes are a bad idea, I get it guy, but you gave me nothing novel to think about, I already knew this. It's also puzzling how he scoffs at the idea "no one has been cancelled, cancel culture doesn't exist" and in the same breath he goes "nobody is saying JK Rowling has been cancelled", really? Nobody has said it? Idk man I remember a shit ton of people saying that, hell Dave Chapelle even explicitly says it in a special lmao. Absolutely the people who complain the most about "being cancelled" or "cancel culture" are the ones who only benefit from it in the form of 1) new easy material to rant about and 2) easy exposure via outrage culture. The people who have been cancelled do not cry about it because they can't, they don't have audience to cry into, they don't have the reach celebrities do, and the celebrities who cry about cancel culture like I said are only benefiting from it and not helping the actual victims of cancel culture.

[@spridle]

Hey Alex, do you ever see yourself writing a book? I'd love to read it. What would you write about given the opportunity?

[@bruhdabones]

This guest used like 4 circular definitions in the first 10 minutes. I’m questioning Alex’s biases since he let all of that fly…

[@bruhdabones]

“Libel and blackmail are illegal which is why we shouldn’t protect them” (paraphrase)

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

Yeah he got off the hook on that libel and blackmail point

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

It's not because of alex's biases though

[@henryherbert]

Well if you listen to what he said, he said that in these cases the libel and blackmail are damaging acts (recognised legally as crimes) which use speech as the mechanism. Libel is about tarnishing reputation and blackmail is about threatening someone. In other words, tarnishing reputation and threatening people is bad, therefore it is a crime to do so. Speech is the mechanism by which those crimes can be committed, therefore we should limit speech in those cases. I don't think it's as circular as you make out, although I would say that libel one is more debatable than the blackmail.@@bruhdabones

[@bruhdabones]

@@authenticallysuperficial9874 isn’t it? He seems very open to what this guy says, much more than usual. I watched a bit more and he finally started to push but it’s still very friendly. He killed Destiny on this podcast not long ago so I know he has it in him

[@LukeMcGuireoides]

I don't understand if he's unwilling or _unable_ to steelman his opponents. Alex tried but it all seemed to fall apart. He just described _some_ of the harebrained positions of fringe wokeys

[@LukeMcGuireoides]

Oh, he's completely and totally a bad faith actor. He isn't willing at all. He's a hate monger who's main goal is to convince people he isn't, and to spread hate. The portion where Alex tries to get him to steelman "the wokeys" gave him away like nobody's business. He's see through.

[@cfowler9789]

Man, I love reading in various comment sections, the passive-aggressive proclamations of those who have become so accustomed to considering themselves the representatives of all that is pure of heart and saintly in politics, struggling with the dawning realisation that the tide is turning against them. Will they ever come to the realisation that they in fact represent exactly the kind of unshakable hubris, bigotry and projection that characterises all oppressive movements? No, their narcissism and their unwavering inability to self-reflect won't allow it, but it will be fun to see them squirm and shift the blame.

[@QuiveringEye]

The irony is that every position will feel this way, which is why this statement is perfect political theater.

[@cfowler9789]

@@QuiveringEye I'm sure you know exactly what I'm referring to though. This kind of relativism is not particularly useful or enlightening and only makes important distinctions less clear.

[@georgebarnard7831]

​@@cfowler9789 it's really funny that I read this and thought "ah yes, conservatives" but pretty sure that's not what you're going for, which is why he's right and this is a very empty comment.

[@cfowler9789]

@@georgebarnard7831 No these two comments merely support my claim that people who see themselves as against conservative boogeymen entirely lack the ability to empathise with those who might see the world slightly diffently than themselves and therefore are unable and unwilling to question their own assumptions in any meaningful way.

[@QuiveringEye]

@@cfowler9789 There is no important distinction here. You're just masturbating over the downfall of some sanctimonious, nebulous group. It's a poor substitute for a coherent argument.

[@joannware6228]

Quote of the Day "Faith and love are like the blind man’s guides. They will lead you along a path unknown to you, to the place where God is hidden." -St. John of the Cross

[@thomabow8949]

Hello Alex, I have a video idea perhaps if you are interested and have not touched on it in the past! It regards the literalistic vs. literal interpretations of biblical texts, hermeneutic frameworks being applied to things such as religious texts, and if it offers strengths or weaknesses to the religion in question

[@humanbeing9024]

Great suggestion

[@l.3458]

nice

[@paulmonahawk4921]

The interviewer does a really good job here.

[@carlcgarrett3]

I believe that a strait line runs from the attitudes of the "Modern Puritans" and old / new New England Puritans.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Yes. Both are energised by totalitarian religious beliefs.

[@Existence_Predicate]

44:49 why do people say you can't prove a negative? There's a whole field in logic showing you can prove a negative. Also that statement in of itself is a negative

[@brianmeen2158]

Can you Prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist? Can you prove God doesn’t exist?

[@davegold]

In logic you can prove a negative by exhausting all possible alternatives. In reality that can be near impossible to do, perhaps because you don't know what the alternatives are or it just takes too long to do.

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

I'd say there isn't, but you'd ask me for proof 🙄

[@Ewiril]

@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet Love this comment xD

[@daniel-panek]

People say "you can't prove a negative" because they're dumber than they realize they are. There are many negatives that you can prove. "There isn't an airplane under this cup". This is one of those phrases that tips me off that the person is an idiot.

[@stevenlancestoll629]

On Facebook you have the ability to block those who are unreasonable.

[@ZER0--]

If anyone says to you that they "take" offence, then tell them to put it back, it's not theirs to take.

[@lennartmathiassen]

oh my god that would be so epic 😂😂😂

[@ChrisChoi123]

Why not? Isnt that extremely invalidating? You're extremely edgy if you think that's a genuinely good take

[@ZER0--]

@@ChrisChoi123 It's just a joke dude, a play on words. I like words and fun.

[@GQ2593]

Doyle is a great defender of liberal freedoms. Brave guy all around.

[@dr.tonielffaucet5988]

Noice Woyk for sure

[@macdougdoug]

Left vs right is dead - now its about authority vs freedom - hopefully some responsibility and compassion next?

[@DasMan-ym7wk]

Today most authoritarians are on the left. The right mostly just want to be left alone.

[@joannware6228]

May the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ enlighten the eyes of our hearts, so that we may know what is the hope that belongs to our call. Cf. Eph 1:17-18

[@bobbabai]

Since I'm likely not going to watch this, does Alex give any explanation or justification for giving this rube use of his platform?

[@johnmunro4952]

Echo chamber much?

[@bobbabai]

@@johnmunro4952 echo chamber much?

[@JackieVargo]

I'm an hour in and it's not looking good. Alex handled him with kid gloves.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@JackieVargoPerhaps because he is interested in reality, not in making people who aren’t very smart feel better about believing whatever they are told.

[@daniel-panek]

​@@JackieVargoi stopped after an hour. I actually didn't know who this person or topic was.

[@joannware6228]

"Only in Christ can men and women find answers to the ultimate questions that trouble them. Only in Christ can they fully understand their dignity as persons created and loved by God." -Pope St. John Paul II "We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit." -1 John 4:6

[@TreuloseTomate]

Why is it that the guests on these types of podcast always happen to have recently written a book they are trying to sell, and will reference said book several times during the podcast?

[@yoganandavalle]

because they were invited because of the new book, that's something very common in podcasts, is that weird? or I frankly don't understand the question

[@bobbabai]

For the same reason that celebrities used to appear on late night talk shows in the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, '00s, '10s, and '20s to promote their new movies and TV shows.

[@AurorXZ]

I know, right? Why on earth would authors want to come and discuss something new they've released and are excited to talk about? Why on earth would interviewers want to invite them on to talk about something new that many people want to hear about? It baffles the mind. I'm flummoxed.

[@carolineleneghan119]

grifting gonna grift

[@bobbabai]

@@carolineleneghan119 how is promoting your work on talk shows grift?

[@43nostromo]

So, logically--- If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood. And therefore... a Witch!

[@Jawn..]

Nobody ever talks about wokeness these days. So refreshing….

[@davidevans3223]

Culture war like all war's only it's not reached violence yet

[@IsaRican810]

@@davidevans3223The families and victims of mass shooters who cited right-wing pundits and talked about “the great replacement” in their manifestos would beg to differ.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

The families of mass shooters were citing and talking about what?!!

[@IsaRican810]

@@fukpoeslaw3613I think you might have misunderstood me or perhaps I phrased it poorly. The person I responded to said the culture war had yet to become violent. I pushed back on this because mass shooters have cited culture war topics as their reasons for committing murder. As in, those who have be victimized by politically motivated shooters would likely disagree that things have not yet gotten violent.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

@@IsaRican810 your comment was completely on top and so I mistakenly assumed you were responding to the OP. @davidevans3223 his comment is nowhere to be found; must've been cancelled somehow.

[@felixmidas2020]

1:18:01 He mispronounces "Manichean". It's pronounced: "Manuhkeeuhn".

[@felixmidas2020]

You're welcome.@@cecila2450boz

[@njvan1]

Now bring on someone with the actual evidence he was asking for. Downplaying anti trans bigotry as just "stating biological facts" is missing the plot.

[@brianmeen2158]

But you have to realize that many trans activists will call someone a “trans phobe” for simply citing biological facts …? I’ve seen it happen too many times and it’s this type of hysteria that really hurts discussion. I try to stress this to everyone in the political game - you can’t just call someone a racist or trans phobe anytime you disagree with someone .. doing that means you lessen the power of these two words.

[@poke256]

@@brianmeen2158 It's not usually for citing facts. Normally it's for other transphobic stuff they said, but when they get called out on try to walk it back to something that sounds reasonable at face value.

[@justinhart2831]

Can we not have this whole argument ne a trashfire?

[@Riskofdisconnect]

​@@poke256 the classic motte and bailey. Person 1: I think trans women are biologically and chromosomally of the male sex, and also they shouldn't be allowed in women's bathrooms because they're only going in there to molest kids. Person 2: hey that's pretty untrue and transphobic. Person 1: it's transphobic to say trans women were born men? What has this world come to!

[@APaleDot]

@@brianmeen2158 Facts can't be transphobic, but you can use facts to tell a transphobic story, just like you can use facts to tell a lie.