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

@vertigo2894

Жыл бұрын

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

@vertigo2894

Жыл бұрын

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

@xnoreq

Жыл бұрын

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

@Mrrumblejason

10 ай бұрын

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

@Mrrumblejason

10 ай бұрын

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

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

@RodicaAntoine

Жыл бұрын

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

@lewislee9201

Жыл бұрын

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

@northwestcoast

Жыл бұрын

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

@peterkotara

Жыл бұрын

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

@lewislee9201

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@haydenwalton2766

Жыл бұрын

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

@iconoclastvii

Жыл бұрын

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

@CjqNslXUcM

Жыл бұрын

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

@uselessgarbagehandler

Жыл бұрын

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

@morrobarry

Жыл бұрын

What like when he cucked for makalia Peterson lol

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

@newleft2254

5 ай бұрын

That’s British journalism for you

@Whatever-mq7vy

4 ай бұрын

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

@angrytedtalks

3 ай бұрын

Alex is indeed the Devil's advocate.

@csquared4538

3 ай бұрын

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

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

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

@chrps0at0cops

Жыл бұрын

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

@Madonnalitta1

Жыл бұрын

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

@angelh5762

Жыл бұрын

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

@vatofat

Жыл бұрын

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

@pauloconnor5101

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@dropYourVideo

Жыл бұрын

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

@Inquisitor_Vex

Жыл бұрын

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

@thundercheeks1989

Жыл бұрын

Wait until you discover books!

@excellentcomment

Жыл бұрын

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

@garrymcfadden4105

Жыл бұрын

I agree too!

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

@ihsahnakerfeldt9280

4 ай бұрын

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

@ukgranny9786

3 ай бұрын

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

@Pezzerd

3 ай бұрын

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

@RoyRuman-uv1bx

Ай бұрын

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

Great conversation. Thank you

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

@mikaeus468

Жыл бұрын

His tact is absolutely astonishing.

@joeldarroux7279

Жыл бұрын

Very refreshing tbh

@stylis666

Жыл бұрын

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

@mikaeus468

Жыл бұрын

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

@Inquisitor_Vex

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@SchgurmTewehr

Жыл бұрын

otherwise prevalent on the ontegnet

Love you both. Great episode

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

@sidklem6645

9 ай бұрын

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

@danielc6106

8 ай бұрын

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

@jamesjoseph7508

7 ай бұрын

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

@unbabunga229

3 ай бұрын

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

@jamesjoseph7508

3 ай бұрын

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

Utterly refreshing. Thank you for this conversation.

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

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

Excellent conversation. Great to hear this depth of debate.

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

@Jimmy-jx1pf

Жыл бұрын

hes not vegan anymore so its devolving

@bigol7169

Жыл бұрын

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

@isaac1572

Жыл бұрын

@@Jimmy-jx1pf You're funny🤣🤣🤣

@vhawk1951kl

Жыл бұрын

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

@anthonyweston630

Жыл бұрын

@@Jimmy-jx1pf moron

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

Thanks for the great discussion.

It was a really nice conversation, thanks for sharing

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

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

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

Fantastic Podcast! Thanks for this!

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

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

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

@ihsahnakerfeldt9280

4 ай бұрын

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

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

@viktordoe1636

9 ай бұрын

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

@crockmans1386

8 ай бұрын

Sensor Ship? How sensitive are you now, sailor?

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

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

@WillemDemmers

5 ай бұрын

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

@ihsahnakerfeldt9280

4 ай бұрын

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

@ihsahnakerfeldt9280

4 ай бұрын

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

@zeldagoblin

3 ай бұрын

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

@wikipiiimp9420

18 күн бұрын

something that is not mentioned here is the social harm beside psychological/emotional harm that can be caused by some speech, there is a much greater social harm. in the case of libel/slander : if you slander someone, it will have social effect on them, sure, you claiming that they are "an evil demon that kill babies to drink their blood and is responsible for 9/11" might hurt their feelings, but if your claim is believed by other people, it might have bad consequences on thir life more broadly : they might loose their job, be harassed by a mob, maybe even be killed by a fanatic that believed your false claim. this is why libel/slander is illegal : because of the social harm that can be caused by spreading falsehoods, and the more harmful the falsehood (depending on the gravity of the lie, and on the influence of the liar) the bigger the crime. similar argument could be said for some kind of hateful speech similar to libel/slander, a speech designed to demonize/dehumanize a group of people, could have bad consequnces for the individuals that are part of this group for example, the claim that "said group is inherently evil and is a danger to society and should not exist because [insert some false claim about the group]" might make the life of the members of the group harder, it might reduce their chances to get a job, or might cause some of them to get harassed or even killed. basically, hate speech could motivate hate crime. an exemple could be jewish people for example. terrorists attacks or hate crimes (including murders) aganist jewish people is sadly, still a big thing (they are overrepresned massively as a demographic), and it's obvious that antisemitic hate speech motivate those extremists to act and kill. You could also draw similar conclusion to any groups that face disproportionate amount of violence motivated by hatred. Similar to slander, there is in those cases, tangible effects of hate speech. Not only that, but psychological harm can also be measured, it's not just empathy or trusting the people and hoping their are genuine about their feeling, we have ways to empirically assess the effects of many forms of psychological harm for example we do know the effects of harassement and others forms of psychological abuse, and we have ways to identify symptoms and behavior from perpetrators or victims. This is why in those case the expertise of psychologists is important, as we do have a science that do have empirical knowledge about "mental feelings" just like we have a science that deal with physical injuries (medicine). Saying that we can't know when a speech have caused psychological harm is like saying that we can't know someone is truely depressed, it not true, we absolutely can based on evidence and scientific knowledge.

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

@hmanuel7138

4 ай бұрын

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

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

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

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

This was a good chat. Two really smart people!

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

@margett__

7 ай бұрын

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

@themattylee

7 ай бұрын

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

@margett__

7 ай бұрын

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

@themattylee

7 ай бұрын

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

@wikipiiimp9420

18 күн бұрын

@@themattylee i don't really think it's an issue with philosophy many famous philosophers also worked in another academic field, usually sciences that were related to their research for example a lot of philosophers of consciousness also happen to work on neurosciences and/or psychology a lot of philosophers of science also are scientists, for example mathematicians or physicists also many philosophers do learn about sociology, at least in my country it's a very important part of the curiculum for philosophy students and they are generally quite knowledgeable about sociology and to a lesser extent psychology. it may be an issue with Alex specicially though, i am under the impression that sociology, political science or history aren't topics he is relally into.

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

@hareecionelson5875

Жыл бұрын

triggered much?

Should have started with "Define Woke".

@KarlHavoc56

Жыл бұрын

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

@KillerOfWhales

Жыл бұрын

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

@user-nv9vn8fm1d

Жыл бұрын

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

@emmettdonkeydoodle6230

Жыл бұрын

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

@user-nv9vn8fm1d

Жыл бұрын

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

The question of Words harming like physical was just amazing Alex

You're doing great work my man

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

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

@stylis666

Жыл бұрын

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

@MurasakiMonogatari

Жыл бұрын

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

@stylis666

Жыл бұрын

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

@pause705

Жыл бұрын

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

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

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

@rotorage4374

9 ай бұрын

100%

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

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

@adambamford5894

Жыл бұрын

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

Great cast, Alex!

@mitchellkuner4659

4 ай бұрын

Great ment, Velvet!

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

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

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

@petesake1181

Жыл бұрын

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

@AM2K2

Жыл бұрын

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

@AggravatedAstronomer

Жыл бұрын

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

@Lefaseer

Ай бұрын

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

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

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

@TerryStewart32

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@Heretic-007

Жыл бұрын

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

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

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

Thoroughly enjoyed this.

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

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

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

Absolutely first class.

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

@dodotheripper11

Жыл бұрын

Same here

@TheAngryengineer

Жыл бұрын

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

@Joethesensei

Жыл бұрын

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

@Andrea-zm1nl

8 ай бұрын

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

@user-qn9tm8yp5b

4 ай бұрын

Don't forget supremely pretentious.

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

@sonoftheway3528

10 ай бұрын

Just remember Alex plays Devil's advocate a lot

"your offended? so fucking what" Stephen Fry....

Very good chat

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

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

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

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

Brilliant conversation I wish it was three hours long

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

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

29:00 “I’m gonna Kathy Newman you” lmao spot on and self-aware 😂

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

@flik221

Жыл бұрын

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

@PutSumDirtInYaEye

Жыл бұрын

​@@flik221 how dare you

@summer78946

Жыл бұрын

@@flik221 of course it’s not 🇺🇦❤️

I've seen a few people comment this, but having on Abigail from PhilosophyTube may make for a worthwhile discussion.

@littlecatfeet9064

Жыл бұрын

It would be interesting for him to have to talk about his philosophical views without visuals providing 90% of the argument.

@philosophical.dishwasher

Жыл бұрын

​@@littlecatfeet9064 She provides well-thought out arguments WITH visuals. You can do both :) If you fail to catch the argument, that's unfortunately a you problem.

@littlecatfeet9064

Жыл бұрын

@@philosophical.dishwasher that’s not how debate works. You’re supposed to convince people, not have people tying themselves in knots trying to understand you. Whether I agree or not, I can understand everything Alex and Konstantin said. I doubt Abigail has that ability but I’d watch it for a while.

@philosophical.dishwasher

Жыл бұрын

@@littlecatfeet9064 Well, Alex debates, whereas Abigail is a video essayist. Nevertheless, I do agree she tends to explain herself in a convoluted way sometimes. Most other times I've personally found her to be pretty straightforward. Though, dismissing her based on that seems unfair. I think we ought to give her a chance since both Abigail and Alex discuss philosophy from two different lenses. It could be interesting to see where they agree and where they don't.

Oh man you are so good Alex, so good.

Great discourse

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

You play the Devil's advocate beautifully. I like Konstantin Kisin a lot and I think this is his best interview I've seen so far. I hope this conversational format becomes more popular, it's very refreshing. I want to add something about causing harm through speech which I don't think was mentioned. The restriction of free speech in lible laws, copyright infringements or even hate speech was never about emotional harm, but about harm in more quantifiable forms. Causing "harm" through physical assault is not referring to how it made the victim feel but rather to the empirically measurable damage sustained. Legal convictions should be contingent on demonstrable evidence, not on conjecture regarding what someone else may find offensive.

@skindred1888

Жыл бұрын

Couldn't you measure the harm that's done to a group of people by certain rhetoric based on misinformation that leads to further outcomes ?

@bonkoboy

Жыл бұрын

@@skindred1888 I'm not sure I understand the question. There are plenty of existing laws against misinformation, like lible, slander, false marketing, etc. But if someone is physically harmed, then the person directly committing the violence is considered the culprit. Indirectly, someone may be responsible through negligence or conspiracy, but that requires strong evidence. If there is no physical injury, the term "harm" is harder to demonstrate. I suppose you can sue someone for emotional damage or something.

Two of my favorite people.

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

@Paythepipertoplay

5 ай бұрын

Or illegal.

@JasperWilliams42

5 ай бұрын

it won't be though

Great conversation

This was superb.

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

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

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

Love what you're doing Alex! Great Guest!

"I don't want to Cathy Newman you." 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Love it!

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

Funny how defensive Konstantin gets when he gets even the slightest push back. Same thing happened when he interviewed Destiny. For someone that rages against woke culture he's very fragile.

@snowforest6487

Жыл бұрын

Woke culture is nonsense but eh

@lievenyperman9363

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, the woke triggered a countermovement with very similar behaviors. The war of the Karens.

@seanolaocha940

Жыл бұрын

@@lievenyperman9363 Social Justice Warriors vs Culture Warriors is how I see it.

@josephleishman1982

Жыл бұрын

I didnt see much of that defensiveness - he didnt try to close down conversation, and he was happy to admit where he felt the weaknesses of his arguments were. He got momentarily stumped by the framing of the 'words make chemical responses in the physical world, therefore its physical' argument however responded to that as well as one could given a new and fallable framing.

@lawrencefrost9063

Жыл бұрын

What? When? TIMESTAMP. Stop spreading lies.

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

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

@csaladkovacs3750

3 ай бұрын

🖐😂

Good honest discussion

I love this series, Alex. Keep doing what you're doing, sir. Thank you for sharing!

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

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

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

@Jomchen

8 ай бұрын

dear kevincoatsworth50, you're a gentleman. cheers.

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

@jasonhampson9579

Жыл бұрын

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

@toromisher

Жыл бұрын

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

@toromisher

Жыл бұрын

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

@Noughtgate

Жыл бұрын

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

@Noughtgate

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@EthanolTailor

Жыл бұрын

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

@Liliquan

Жыл бұрын

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

@user-account-not-found

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@ihsahnakerfeldt9280

4 ай бұрын

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