When Alex starts speaking, you can see all of the people in the call having an existential crisis.

@Zahlenteufel1

2 жыл бұрын

or being aroused by his eloquence...

@mygrandma1368

2 жыл бұрын

@@Zahlenteufel1 ich stimme auch.. Lol 😂

Alex knocked it out the park.

@agatasowinska

3 жыл бұрын

100% agreed! That was 🤯

That Alex guy (cosmic skeptic) should be arrested for MURDER! He just slaughtered his opposition here. That was so badass.

@astroadventures3559

3 жыл бұрын

After I read the word murder in all caps I did a little evil laugh LOL well said bud.

@ONSTAGEMUSICPODCAST

3 жыл бұрын

He’s the most Atheistic, but gentle and humble and love to have him on my podcast. I watched him butt heads with William Lane Craig and he’s very gentle and accepting and always listens to the opposition and came up with these GREAT questions regarding Kalam. He’s AMAZING

@lemat8558

3 жыл бұрын

@@ONSTAGEMUSICPODCAST why "BUT gentle and humble"? I'd rather say "AND gentle and humble" - the Kalam debate was interesting.

@cosmicmusicreynolds3266

2 жыл бұрын

watch him again

*Alex O'Connor, hands down, presented the most convincing position!*

@om-boi

2 жыл бұрын

I second that.

This pro-cancel culture dude says a world without cancel culture is a world without free speech. Doesn't he realize that canceling someone is essentially limiting his freedom of speech and opinion?

@AlexiTheGreat

2 жыл бұрын

cognitive dissonance

For the misinformed here, Alex O Conner is politically on the left, and clearly he is the only person in this panel who actually understands how to argue.

@djiboutidjango3196

3 жыл бұрын

He's more of a Centrist for me.

@archmad

3 жыл бұрын

he doesnt want to be labeled.

@anormalguy511

3 жыл бұрын

He just has a brain And I consider him to be a centrist just like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins , Peter singer etc Because you can't be left leaning now if you don't agree with the left with everything. Specially the far left

@theesotericcunt5029

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think he's read much political literature, to be honest. I'm not saying this to denigrate him.

@duderyandude9515

3 жыл бұрын

Although he doesn’t label himself, and I have noticed that he gives off centrist-leaning-left vibes, in a video from 4 years ago (and I do recognise that views can change drastically over time) he showed his political compass results and that’s exactly what he was: centre-leaning-left. When it comes to fundamental left values like gender, sexual, and racial equality and freedom, he is certainly on board (and more so when it comes to species discrimination), but his rejection of popular opinion as a philosopher and someone who loves “Letters To A Young Contrarian”, will put his political views a bit further right when it comes to dry, standard tests without nuance.

Alex is the G.

@Cecilia-ky3uw

3 жыл бұрын

the woman who wrote dare to speak also did quite decently

I had to hear Alex's part over and over again to absorb what he said. Best 30 minutes of my life.

Cosmic skeptic absolutely nailed it.

I miss C. Hitchens more every day

@duderyandude9515

3 жыл бұрын

I thought the EXACT same thing. But don’t worry, we still have Alex O’Connor.

@vladimir7838

3 жыл бұрын

@@duderyandude9515 Alex is our new Hitchens!!!

@agitatedaligator5340

3 жыл бұрын

Vladimir I think Alex is better than Hitchens… he actually engages in some of the most challenging issues philosophically whereas hitchens often relied on quips and changing the subject to avoid areas he was weaker. Still love both haha

I would much rather live in a world where I know what people really think even if I disagree as opposed to a world where people are too scared to express themselves, how can truth flourish in an environment where fear governs the expression of thoughts?

@irek1394

3 жыл бұрын

they think that by canceling(bullying) people they change their minds... they dont

The last guy honestly didn't rly respond to anything Alex O'Connor said. He was using big words and complicated sentences but didn't rly say anything

@Ash-ty4qp

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah fr. Just using big words to say nothing

I don't understand how people who have access to the history of the world at their fingertips would ever consider advocating in favor of censoring speech they don't like. Censoring speech has never been good for the world. NEVER!

@kushprince8001

3 жыл бұрын

So you think we should be able to have adult content playing during the day tome for children to watch them??

@RealRavi

3 жыл бұрын

They’re mostly young and stupid. Hopefully they’ll “get it” as they get older…

@Uhtredrag1080

3 жыл бұрын

@@kushprince8001 Are you a mo-ron? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.

@kushprince8001

3 жыл бұрын

@@Uhtredrag1080 not a good use of rhetorical question. Just answer the question. If yes then fairs if no you’ve contradicted yourself. Name calling makes this funnier to me so go for it.

@Uhtredrag1080

3 жыл бұрын

@@kushprince8001 Yep, as I already knew. It's mo-ron,.

Cosmic Skeptic FTW

58:10: Alex O'Connor nailed it.

@johnwatts8346

3 жыл бұрын

he did brilliantly right up until he indulged in the vegan bs, to be fair factory farming is rather awful, but he pre supposes animals should enjoy the same rights and protections as humans, which is in fact utter garbage. we didnt get to the top of the food by not eating other animals,

@justroberto5052

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnwatts8346 we don’t need to exploit and harm animals so appealing to nature “food chain” is just an appeal to nature fallacy which has no bearing on the morality of animal exploitation. Animals don’t need to have all the same rights, there’s human rights and then there’s non human rights like the right to be free from undue harm and exploitation. “Vegan bs” is just another way for you saying you’re thick as shit. Alex nailed it all the way through. You on the other hand try to pay lip service while also trying to justify needless abuse and exploitation.

@Cecilia-ky3uw

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnwatts8346 he indulges in personal beliefs and he also believes that even if we think its right to eat meat that climate change is more than suffice to allow for his case I am intellectually convinced of veganism but I am no vegan myself

@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnwatts8346 Stop strawmanning him - animals have the right to be LEFT THE F ALONE. And 99% of the animal flesh you eat come from factory farms, since it's impossible to raise 100billion animals for 7 billion people to stuff their face with, without making the living conditions as HORRIBLE AS POSSIBLE for the animals.

@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cecilia-ky3uw Actually MOST people, unless they are psychopaths, are against animal cruelty, so being against animal cruelty is hardly a "personal belief". The problem is, is that there is a HUGE cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy at work here when it comes to farmed animals because somehow we are all brainwashed into thinking that ABUSING ANIMALS FOR FOOD IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED and are conditioned to think of cows, pigs and chickens as beings NOT DESERVING of ANY mercy as opposed to cats and dogs. You say you are no vegan yourself WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO BE A HYPOCRITE? Please watch DOMINION. It's FAR EASIER to stop eating animals and their secretions than you think. I never thought I would go vegan but my only regret now is that I hadn't gone vegan SOONER. It's the best decision you will ever make and the easiest way to reduce harm in the world that you can possibly do. kzread.info/dash/bejne/foWGo8iDqajZm9I.html

Speaker 3 nailed the tone and tenor of a proper response to the adult babies in favor of cancel culture. Great presentation.

@cunaeus22

3 жыл бұрын

Not only can he walk us though the mechanics of a real cancel, the idea that people who have achieved anything, destroy the efficacy of a man like him who is hands on doing what we used to know as "good".

@bipslone8880

3 жыл бұрын

I've never understood how people have debates without first defining the term(s).

@ImaginaryMdA

3 жыл бұрын

Speaker three was irate and clearly just mad people kept calling him racist on twitter. And then this white man speaking at oxford university says "My privilege was non-existent"... He's clearly uninformed.

@Hisxzeh

2 жыл бұрын

@@ImaginaryMdA I side with you here on some aspects. I really didn't think he was tackling the issue from the right angle. Far too much personal emotional baggage on his side coupled with over-simplifying and hurling senseless insults at the opposition. He completely overlooked the positive aspects of it or the fact that people might genuinely believe they're doing something good. I believe he wasn't looking to persuade but to inflame. With this attitude there'll be no change. I personally liked Alex' approach, because he recognizes the opposition to be sufficiently mature and well-intentioned to see the immense issues with this tool. An the fact that even if it has brought good changes, it can't be controlled or used in a way that's proportionate to the offense. Because i think in this case it's not about the most successful fringe cases in which it has worked, but the most common cases where the person being cancelled doesn't deserve being completely shunned from society.

Free speech is the most important liberty that we have.

@TKUA11

3 жыл бұрын

If only we had it. It’s long gone. Taken away by corporate America

@Uhtredrag1080

3 жыл бұрын

@@TKUA11 It's still free, just nobody will hear you. Corporate America is acting on behalf of the Democrat party. To end censorship we must eliminate the Democrat party.

@jondavey4437

3 жыл бұрын

Freedom is never free , somebody somewhere makes a sacrifice to achieve it .

@wikicrib

3 жыл бұрын

There’s nothing that regulates power like free speech.

@CharlesLumia

3 жыл бұрын

@@wikicrib well said buddy

I've never understood how people have debates without first defining the term(s). How do you debate something that might be defined differently by the people debating it?

@stxnw

3 жыл бұрын

This 100%

@gerrywallington

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, it seemed the Indonesian girl was conflating cancel culture with enforcing laws

@stxnw

3 жыл бұрын

@@gerrywallington I don’t blame her. This is probably how everyone around her defines cancel culture as well. Every debate should begin with defining certain essential terms they are going to use in their argument. The organisers are from Oxford too for god sake...

@MarkVanReeth

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah this was a terrible flaw of the debate.

@laughIToff822

3 жыл бұрын

Yea im watching this bc im writing a paper on cancel culture but I've found theres many definitions and its broad and ambiguous with many factors so its hard to pinpoint one specific definition

Alex made some good points.

"...but cancel culture leaves them in a state of exile forever and in doing so it affirms that our society will accept the exclusion of reformed people despite advocating for change." is beautifully said

For those who advocate for cancel culture should therefore have a PERFECT life, else i suggest we cancel them! What a horrible way of thinking. We should embrace others "cancel-worthy" transgressions and use them as a teachable moment, and not as an opportunity to score social points to signal to our colleagues!

@bobthellama6988

3 жыл бұрын

yeah, feel like cancelling those who are the negatives in this debate. See if they change their minds then

Society is becoming too toxic. Maybe cancelling everybody would be a blessing.

@JamesWilliamsVII

3 жыл бұрын

If all social media went up in flames I think we'd be a lot better off. That's a form of cancel culture I can get behind. Oh, and stay strong fellow struggler.

"lose a job that they would quit anyway" I don't know amigo with me living in the 3rld world unnemployed since 2020 and defaulted on my bank accounts with over 5k$ in debt from paying a nursing home,rent and utility bills sounds like bullshit.

@creator.season3714

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds that way because it is.

@such1997

3 жыл бұрын

Yea.. i mean she shouldn't have said that, the privilege pf social security to fall back on is not universal.. Even if it were the case we need people's help to function in this day and age

I love how the comments are all supporting Alex. He speaks ever so eloquently and his argument is so incredibly coherent. What a legend! 🙌🙌

Thank you Speaker #4 for pointing out that the vehicle for cancel culture is a machine capable of cancelation on a scale never imagined before except in comic books and that by promoting that mechanism as a moral arbitrator is in fact, morally irresponsible.

Wow. That black woman is a heartless person. "Screw you because i don't value the injustice done to you". Truly delusional! She opens by referring those cancelled as being privileged enough to bounce back, then says it is wrong to think of cancel culture in this light (see racism and slavery). Her words are vengeful and not logically valid or sound. To her she wants accountability but then says it doesn't matter if the mob doesn't have all the facts before they cancel someone? But it is ok if you didn't lose their life? By that logic i can slope down to say its ok to own a slave because i didn't kill them!

@geturledout

3 жыл бұрын

She seems to also forget that the cancelling can be done to people who have been victims of injustice, are minorities, or otherwise disadvantaged. I wonder how many of her points she would still believe if she were to be cancelled. Not only that, but the guy who was cancelled in this talk was cancelled by a vanishingly small minority, so it fails to meet her platitudes about being democratic. She is the living embodiment of why the right doesn't take the left seriously, despite people like Cosmic Skeptic also being on the left.

"Now that it's come for us, is it really such a good idea?"

blasphemy and cancel culture same thing. You set up a mob or punish people for hearing what you don't want to hear.

Indonesian lady doesn't know what cancel culture is.

@bobthellama6988

3 жыл бұрын

yeah that was more law enforcement

@ImaginaryMdA

3 жыл бұрын

None of them knew, if they think they can "cancel cancel culture". The prompt was utterly meaningless.

@Cecilia-ky3uw

3 жыл бұрын

I am Indonesian and I beg to differ with her if a secretly atheist president gets out in Indonesia he would be cancelled to death and his long term career anywhere will be ruined

I'm from Indonesia, but damn that Indonesian girl's claim about Indonesia being a secular country is utterly nonsense. Indonesia is never a secular country, and it never will (mainly because of our 'majority'). There are many examples that Indonesia is not a secular country and one of them is that you need to pick one out of six acknowledged religions in order to become a legal civilian, it is incredibly ridicuolus that the girl says that shit with a proud face.

@veganath

3 жыл бұрын

So you cannot be a non-theist? I honestly thought Indonesia was Islamic

@blendyy6191

3 жыл бұрын

@@veganath nope, you cannot be a legal atheist. Also, there are some man in power (like politicians, renown religious leaders and even minister) that suggest atheist needs to be punished.

@veganath

3 жыл бұрын

@@blendyy6191 *_"you cannot be a legal atheist"_* Wow, if I had known that I wouldn't have visited Indonesia *_"some man in power that suggest atheist needs to be punished."_* Buddhist men in power right?

@blendyy6191

3 жыл бұрын

@@veganath oh sorry i meant religious leaders like pastor, ustadz, etc. I googled that and google suggested me 'chaplain' for religious leader

@dialupmodem6583

2 жыл бұрын

Secular, she means Indonesia is not an Islamic state. The government is detached from Islamic law. Although, it is influenced by it one way or another, but it is not implemented fully like in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan. Indo jga btw :)

Free Speech. Period. We must learn together.

@kushprince8001

3 жыл бұрын

Wait so do you think ppl can say whatever they want without consequences?!?! Otherwise you mean free speech within the laws that I’m okay with. Very different things.

@michaelepstein2570

3 жыл бұрын

@@kushprince8001 You can't cry fire in a crowded theater that is not on fire. What else?

@kushprince8001

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelepstein2570 call the police and lie about a robbery. Quite a few things.

I disagree with cancel culture but I also find it very uncomfortable how the comments all have similar views to mine. It’s fuelling my confirmation bias. I hope the opposition comments soon..

@ChristinaChrisR

3 жыл бұрын

Awesome! Me too.

@irek1394

3 жыл бұрын

you want people to support bullying?

@stxnw

3 жыл бұрын

@@irek1394 no

@james-cal

3 жыл бұрын

Feel exactly the same. I've been looking and I have yet to see a single opposition comment.

@stxnw

3 жыл бұрын

@@james-cal Glad to see that not everybody wants to live in an echo chamber!

Came here because of Alex O'Connor

Bully a fat person- That's not nice Bully an ugly person- That's not nice Bully a disabled person- That's not nice Bully someone for what they chose to say- Well that's just immoral.

@ericfeldkamp3788

3 жыл бұрын

At least you recognize it all as bullying.

How could the final speaker quote the great Terry Pratchett and then toss out an argument that there is no justice in the universe? He tosses out the wisdom of Pratchett and than turns his back on it in a moment. ----------- From Hogfather: “All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable." REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE. "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little-" YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES. "So we can believe the big ones?" YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING. "They're not the same at all!" YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET-Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED. "Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point-" MY POINT EXACTLY.”

@johnwatts8346

3 жыл бұрын

the last speaker was / is an utter douche bag.

@tschorsch

3 жыл бұрын

The universe doesn't care about us. It is up to us to care about each other and create justice. Fairy tales aren't required.

@ericfeldkamp3788

3 жыл бұрын

@@tschorschtake that up with Terry.

@itsallminor6133

3 жыл бұрын

@@tschorsch justice doesn't exist in reality. It's imaginary. Where it exists, it exists in ones mind. Therefore its subjective. The idea of it was proven problematic in early greek philosophy as asking various people what justice is would give conflicting results. Even given the same instance of perceived injustice the proper justice would have conflicting results, including rejecting the original perceived Injustice. . In large groups concensus is a impossibility. In smaller groups more likely a consensus may be found. It's the same with equality, subjective, don't exist. Depends on who you ask. Another social phenomenon the society itself can't seem to agree on. We can do individual instances. With a few individuals deciding. More instances, more deciding, the murkier it gets. How courts survive is a mystery. Good thing there is only 9 to judge, good thing there is previous case law to cite. Realistically courts as they try, stumble with proper justice as well. Incorrect sentencing, wrongfully committed, wrongfully aquitted. With a host of plea bargains effectually avoiding the court to have to decide justice and encouraging the individual to partially take part and responsibility in deciding justice on oneself. On top of that overturned rulings, appeals, procedural violations... Thats what happens when you invent something. The term social justice borders on hysterical. If justice isn't bad enough put the word social in front of it. Social (multiple people) subjectively processing what justice is, for multiple people. Like they'd ever all agree. And they don't. Just watch the contradictions that stack with articles, books, blogs, comments. Useless term. If agreeing on justice for one is problematical then what would agreeing on justice for a many be?

I guess I'm vegan now

She says cancel culture unfairly treats women and uses Jeremy Corbyn as an example like he didn't get cancelled over some nonsense anti-semitism claims.

@toreason8146

3 жыл бұрын

My thought too! Not a good example...

I have no problem with them having free speech, I have a problem with these social media oligarchs denying me mine.

@phamnuwen9442

3 жыл бұрын

You do not have free speech on other people's property.

@sssssnake222

3 жыл бұрын

@@phamnuwen9442 so where is the public square nowadays? In the middle of a worldwide pandemic?

@sssssnake222

3 жыл бұрын

@@phamnuwen9442 do you lose all of your constitutional rights while you're sitting in the middle of your house in America when you log on to the internet?

@phamnuwen9442

3 жыл бұрын

@@sssssnake222 Nobody is losing their constitutional rights. Read the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." _Congress shall make no law_ Congress has made no law. Your rights are intact. I don't think the constitution makes provisions for a "public square". I agree that the government (mostly state) _has_ infringed rights in response to the pandemic, but there have never existed a right to speak on the property of other people or on a "public square".

@sssssnake222

3 жыл бұрын

@@phamnuwen9442 so where is your separation between physical, and non-physical? That's the delineation line that needs to be made right away.

50:00 -- "canceling is inherent to the human condition." I don't think that's a point you really want to win on. If that's true, then all of society is a matter of cancel or be cancelled and we ought to just be seeing who can cancel the most. There is no tolerance. No comingling of peoples. Just warring tribes. While that is certainly often true, we've attempted to move beyond that. It would be tragic to turn back. 51:29 -- "it was just like fighting in a war and losing a limb. Poor you. You survived" ... Always believe people when they tell you who they are. What a remarkably malevolent statement. The rest doesn't get better. 57:20 -- "cancel culture is redemptive" -- And there's the religious element. Woke is a cult, not an ideology. Jesus is redemptive. chasing you enemies out of civic life is demonic. 53:59 -- "We should focus on decentering it's impact on individuals and focus on how it impacts groups" -- See it doesn't matter if they harm this person or that or if they deserved it or not. What's important is that they know that the right groups of people are benefitting. And that's as explicit a statement of racism/sexism as you'll hear in modern society.

@magicmagus1459

3 жыл бұрын

All her points were illogical and inconsistent. I wonder even she actually proofread her speech before starting or just had a bunch of 'yes-men' agree with her points because she is a POC.

@ericfeldkamp3788

3 жыл бұрын

@@magicmagus1459 Leftist thought rejects logic and bases approval on whether or not someone proclaims the approved ideas or not. Proof reading is simply a matter of making sure that the leftist is checking the appropriate boxes to signal their belonging to the cult. It is not to ensure intellectual rigor.

@golfbl

3 жыл бұрын

​@@ericfeldkamp3788 This has nothing to to with being left, Alex (second to last speaker) is clearly on the political left but has by far the most logical and thought out response of the evening, so am I on the political left but totally disagree with this lady.

@tomcho8221

3 жыл бұрын

@@magicmagus1459 do we really need to make this a race thing? Not everything is about the color of your skin.

@tomcho8221

3 жыл бұрын

@@golfbl Sadly the American right wing seems to lean very heavily into straw-manning their political opponents, especially these days with the insurrections and what not. Not that the liberal centrists or leftists are that much better. Eric, I encourage you try engaging in good faith with some people you disagree with, you might find out your compatriots are living thinking human beings not mass produced robots.

i've only done high school levels of debate, so what I perceive to be the norm might be a little different, but it seems like each speaker here was trying to address their own points by introducing what cancel culture is (with their own definitions that were sometimes a little different) and then their point, rather than the first speaker outlining the their team's definition, the key arguments of the team and then the others following up on it such that there's a concise and logical argument over 4 speakers.

Wow the house has common sense for once?

James Price - Mr President Ayesha Khan - Speaker #1 (for the motion) Larrisa Sidarto - Speaker #2 (against the motion) Nick Buckley - Speaker #3 (for) JC Hallman - Speaker #4 (against) Suzanne Nossel - Speaker #5 (for) Camonghne Felix - Speaker #6 (against) Alex O'connor - Speaker #7 (for) Matt Kilcoyne - Speaker #8 (against)

Censor those who've been doing the censoring and see how they like it.

@JesusFriedChrist

3 жыл бұрын

If they do like it, then they can censor themselves and permanently stfu. If they don’t like it, then they prove us right and themselves wrong. _That’s what I call a win-win scenario._

@minkleymcmoo5248

3 жыл бұрын

Like the right did in the 70s 80s and 90s?

@kushprince8001

3 жыл бұрын

Are you a child 😂 Do you disagree with censorship then?

@Uhtredrag1080

3 жыл бұрын

@@minkleymcmoo5248 "Like the right did in the 70s 80s and 90s?" - You still sad Moms wanted to protect their children from filth? God forbid CDs have a ratings on them. LOL. Just saw Cardi B stripping at the Oscars. Seems we should have listened to the Right.

@ChristinaChrisR

3 жыл бұрын

@goldennuggets75 it will happen to them too, it’s just a matter of time. Sad that they don’t realize (yet) the absolute stupidity and danger of cancel culture.

Alex's arguments made me shiver by how accurate they were

I thought cancel culture was universally recognized as a bad phenomenon, even by the participants. Today I learned that there are people who explicitly support cancel culture. How can anyone want to be viewed as a proponent of that practice which is gruesome to the individual and hurts open discourse in the society?

@philswaim392

3 жыл бұрын

Social consequences is literally a result of a free and open society discussing and freely associating and speaking. Youre thinking of government censorship. Totally different dynamic method effects and results

@mpldr_

3 жыл бұрын

@@philswaim392 The issue - as already stated - is not in that there are consequences for actions, but rather that these consequences may not be proportionate. The masses power themselves. They increase their momentum until a wind becomes a storm and do not stop when an appropriate amount (however one would decide on how much that should be) has been given out. Even more serious: the given example where he criticized BLM cost him a position in a charity he founded himself. And as he stated: cancel culture does not wish to discuss the truth content. It's not relevant if what is written is uncomfortable but true or if the criticism is valid. If we do not allow criticism of everything, isn't that something bad?

@philswaim392

3 жыл бұрын

@@mpldr_ criticism isnt always from a good place. And a person of privilege attempting to inject themselves ibto a conversation with marginalized people criticizing the way they protest their oppression is in itself a form of oppression. So yeah. He definitely received a consequence coming to him. Hopefully he has learned from that and will do better in the future No ones career was ruined and that persom still has their privilege in tact. They got a slap on the wrist from humanity. People saying cancel culture "ruins careers" really lack perspective. Being a highly visible person who makes a lot of money all of a sudden being limited in how much more they might earn or how much bigger an org they might manage isnt ruining a career. Theyve already had a career others would envy and havent lost the benefit of that career. Theres loads of places that will hire them on. Just maybe not in a highly visible olace of trust like vp or ceo. No real damage was done to that person. Perspective and understanding the proportions here is really lacking on the side kf the negative especially Alex

@mpldr_

3 жыл бұрын

@@philswaim392 If a marginalised group were to do something wrong everybody would be right to call them out on it. Also for sake of consistency: is favourable commentary acceptable? If that was the case, then your reasoning would be inconsistent.

@philswaim392

3 жыл бұрын

@@mpldr_ youre ignoring the dynamics at play. Youre coming at this from a point of privilege and dont understand the harm im describing. Thats on you. Im dont allowing bigots and those who are in favor of upholding bigot status quos. Good day

Love Alex and have been watching him since he was 17, very smart guy. However, Ayesha Khan, wow, for an undergrad what a well thought out and fair argument, strong opening statement and introduction. Big future ahead of her.

54:28 - Yeah screw it, who cares if you wrongly accuse somebody of being dreadful and cause them to lose their job and fall into a pit of debt and isolation, it's totally worth it, they'll be fine eventually right? We should try that more in the legal system, that'd go down a treat!

@SirEdmundBlack

3 жыл бұрын

Couldn't believe the naivity of her argument, there are people who literally commited suicide for being cancelled wrongly... mild she sais. And the whole premisis is that you should have the right to cancel people just because they offended you!!! Can't wait to see cancel culture and "woke" self-entitled rightrous would start eating each other.

OU, in the future, please post the names of the participants in the description.

Anyone found attempting to cancel someone who is innocent should be liable to pay fines and penalties to that individual if it caused them Financial hardships. In the same way it is illegal to file a false police report or make a citizen's arrest against someone who was innocent. If they are guilty they have nothing to worry about. If they are innocent they should be able to go after the accusers including corporations for restitution. If someone wants to pick up the judge jury and executioner role and cancel someone then they should also know any harm they caused to an innocent individual could land them in jail and facing penalties and fines. Anyone can sling an accusation and slander someone. Make people afraid of false accusations.

Losing your job is a often a major life event. Especially if you are not prepared for it. The fact that the opposition would brush it of so easily is incredibly callous, especially as they want to portray it as an minor inconvenience.

@irek1394

3 жыл бұрын

If canceling someone is only mildly inconvenient then why cancel anyone at all? She basically made an argument that cancelling people changes nothing

@irek1394

2 жыл бұрын

@Qyx maybe she is a victim of racism but bullying other people isnt the solution

@irek1394

2 жыл бұрын

@Qyx canceling someone is just bullying with different name and you cant expect people that argue for bullying others to have deep thoughts

@ianiguta8286

2 жыл бұрын

She had the weakest arguments of all of them. Something else that she said was "if you are still living well you should be okay with been cancelled". I couldn't help but wonder what if the loss of your job and ability to make money results in you committing suicide, then what?? Isn't that a high price to pay?? But of course she didn't consider such things

@irek1394

2 жыл бұрын

@@ianiguta8286 They cancelled Bobby Kotick... oh wait...

I feel like Alex did take a lot of his style and choice of words from Christopher Hitchens. There are just so many instances in his speech that it is to be seen. Also I liked the final speaker too!

@Xplorer228

2 жыл бұрын

Nah, Hitchens had bite and zingers but Alex is much kinder and dare I say more rational in many instances. As much as I love Hitchens he often dabbled in rhetoric.

This debate was extremely well done!

That "rhymed Friday with Friday" bar was sick.

Speaker 6 started with some poetic beautiful nonsense of an intro before attacking speaker 3 and assuming so much shit about everyone. She even managed to get a weird look from the final speaker who is on her side. I do not think the opposition understands the proposed motion.

Always amusing to watch a playback of a debate vs seeing it live. The rhythm, the emotions and the volume of speech and silence are awfully loud.

Using US constitution as an argument is so US-centric, acting like its the best law ever made

@existentialistremnant6231

3 жыл бұрын

Its true, America created the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and the UK created tea and Doctor Who. Fairly equal, in my humble opinion.

@oxiosophy

3 жыл бұрын

@@existentialistremnant6231 wasn't tea invented in China?

@archmad

3 жыл бұрын

you cant use global-centric on China or Middle East. Only few countries has the freedom of speech in their constitution

@oxiosophy

3 жыл бұрын

@@archmad why then we don't talk about human right to freedom of speech but American constitution which is very much irrelevant to China or Middle East or in fact, every other nation? Do we really have to act like USA is the best country in the world?

@archmad

3 жыл бұрын

@@oxiosophy "best" needs context. GDP? It's up there. Military? 1st. Healthcare? Down there. Freedom of speech? 1st. Wealth? Above average. Traffic. Poverty. Violence. And so on.

How exactly is this a debate? This is just a serious of disparate arguments without follow-up.

@veganath

3 жыл бұрын

In the interest of not inviting offense & outrage of those opposed to cancelling cancel culture

@andtalath

3 жыл бұрын

​@@veganath The point is that unless you can adress the arguments made, it's not a debate or discussion. This makes empty rhetoric way more effective than actual points, which is horrible.

@veganath

3 жыл бұрын

@@andtalath I agree seems to me that those opposed(snowflakes) may have had some influence here. Certainly I for one would have welcomed discussion/debate.

@MarkVanReeth

3 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same thing. Also, they really should have clearly defined cancel culture beforehand.

@Miloeren12

2 жыл бұрын

This debate is focused on convincing others of their respective sides, it is not to score points

Holy shit.....proportion or opposition, in just the first 30 seconds alex slaughtered them all.....

More power to you, Alex

They’re ALL GREAT! WOW! One of the best EVVA!!

Alex has to bring in factory farming 😁 tangential to the topic of discussion but love the subtle-emphasis!

@JonS

3 жыл бұрын

He was using it as a scenario that illustrates that we will fail future moral purity tests.

@renlamomtsopoe

3 жыл бұрын

@@JonS thanks for adding

Alex O Connor / Cosmic SKeptic Is not right wing. From his content you can see he identify more with the left wing. However it does not mean you have to take on every belief your political side has. And there is no need to identify with a party either, you should always do research before an election to check if the party you last voted for has changed or if there is another party that has changes enough to be more relevant.

Aside from the brilliant speech of Alex O Connor, the woman with the glasses also gave an eloquent talk!

Anyone else enjoyed the 8th speaker's Pratchett references? Terry Pratchett is really timeless in the way he handles complex issues with such suave in his storytelling.

Second speaker, replace cancel culture by the chinese government points system for individuals, all arguments line up..

Speaker 2: "the problematic motion to cancel cancel culture," says the fascist, with a smile. "cancel culture gives voices to the voiceless." -- Free speech does that. Cancel culture just seeks to make a different set of people voiceless. And congratulates itself for doing so. 14:00 gives an example of a standard protest then compares it to cancel culture. But the protest didn't seek to deplatform anyone that supported hijabs, just for accountability for the person that was forcing others to wear them. This was her only point in support of the first of her three points. 16:20 asks if canceling cancel culture is limiting free speech. ... Sure. Any conflict forces you to become a bit like your enemy. The explicit goal of cancel culture is to deny speech to others. No free speech advocate can support that. Eventually the left needs to be made to stop. We're past that point. We see who you are. 17:20 "We're too big to cancel" is a statement of might, not right. 18:10 "The overarching goal of cancel culture is to reduce perceived harm to certain groups." -- Perceived, or claimed? And perceived by who? Only those harms "perceived" by favored groups are considered valid and the remedy is explicitly to harm other groups to to reduce those harms. That's not justice in any real sense. 18:35 "If you remove cancel culture you're removing the mechanism for change" -- Speaker failed to show that there aren't other methods of change so the claim is baseless.

@anthonyreed480

3 жыл бұрын

Game, set, match to you sir.

@ivanhamilton

3 жыл бұрын

She is not a fascist.

@bipslone8880

3 жыл бұрын

@@anthonyreed480 I've never understood how people have debates without first defining the term(s). How do you debate something that might be defined differently by the people debating it?

@ericfeldkamp3788

3 жыл бұрын

@@ivanhamilton If we're splitting hairs? Sure. Yes, the movement has a different name, and a different target enemy (though you'll find an alarming level of anti-semitism if you just scratch the surface). But the current leftist strain of thought is absolutely the modern equivalent. It's not terribly far removed, and rooted in similar 1920s-Germany-derived ideology. That's not a fact in contention, even if you're unaware of it.

@ericfeldkamp3788

3 жыл бұрын

@@ivanhamilton Or you could try arguing any of the several points I made in support of my comment. You didn't.

The contrast to the other speakers in ability, especially to the one directly prior, really makes Alex look even better.

I was cancelled by my own mother at the age of 2, and I survived! This has nothing to do with any of this, or my actual opinion on this matter.

Speaker 5: Black girl in the Prom Dress for the opposition - Her presentation is pretty awesome, clear and very enunciated, emphasis and volumes change at appropriate times, her witty sarcastic voice was much appreciated and entertaining and I totally loved her hands movements, like a mixture of Jordan Peterson and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. As for her three-fold argument, that cancel culture aint that bad, it's a normal part of the human condition and can't be changed anyway and mob justice is all good (not in those words but pretty much), they were drastically less awesome. Using sarcasm to downplay the effects of cancel culture was a smart tactic, but it's not really persuasive on its own. Just because a person is a millionaire or already successful doesn't mean we can treat them like shit and to ignore that their livelihood has just been destroyed. If we listened to that, then we shouldn't have to give two fucks about a rich actresses "choosing of her own free will" to blow a weird Jewish dick for like 30 seconds to get a part in a Hollywood movie that nets her millions of dollars, because the consequences wasn't that bad right, a little mouth wash and she'll be aight, who cares she's a millionaire right... The second argument is technically false, the cancel culture has only been in existence since our technology grew to a point where communication could take place all over the world at incredible speeds. If a 17th century Shakespearean actor got a town pissed off because what he said offended everybody in the town, the manager of the play wouldn't just cancel the actor (who in the hell would replace him?), they would just pack their bags and move to a town that wasn't offended by the guy's actions. And even if it was part of the human condition, who says it can't be changed away or that we should just ignore it. Violence is part of the human condition but we make laws against, even though we know there will always be violence. Third, democratic accountability is just a fancy way of saying mob justice. Are you really, as a young black women, really arguing for mob or crowd justice? You know you're arguing for the side of lynchings and the KKK right? Even if the crowd wasn't allowed to kill the person, that's still completely fucked up. Unless your Batman, extra-judicial justice is always going to be a horrible idea and which is why we discourage vigilantes. Yikes, these are some truly terrible arguments, no wonder she went went all in with the presentation instead of the argument itself. Worst argument today, even worse then the technical argument, because at least he wasn't completely making up shit at the top of his head and he stuck to the rules. Speaker 6: CosmicSkeptic in support - Presentation was flawless, with emphasis and passion in all the right places, with a cadence of an experienced KZread speaker and debater. Even better then the black woman before him who went all in on her presentation because her argument was shitty. As for his arguments, god damn.. Savage as usual, snapping on them like children. He pointed out the red herring of a distraction that people should be held accountable (no shit right) and spoke to the HEART OF THE MATTER, which is how JUST is it to use cancel culture as a form of punishment, justice lying at the heart of ethics is very persuasive to me (Won't lie though, I am a free speech absolutist so I was going to vote against cancel culture anyways, but objective analyzing of various arguments is something I practice to avoid being stuck in any echo chamber for too long, but who knows I might change my mind with the right argument). He SAVAGELY told them to stop playing games and quit acting like Cancel Culture targets only the most egregious behaviors or public personas, that it most often targets a single unknown person with the vitriol of the entire world. He beat them up with their words and I'm impressed with the ethically savage trollness of it. Told them that if cancel culture can't decide on specific punishment levels, them it's completely unjust because of its disproportionate and arbitrary behavior, making them all despots. He completely destroyed the argument that people will be ok after being canceled by pointing out that it only means the cancellation didn't work. Man this dude spits hot fire. "Burning your house is an effective way to get rid of cobwebs in your house"! Damn.. Alright, enough with the fanboy stuff, here's where I criticize him. I admire his character for sneaking in the vegan argument, but he went a little too long focusing on the horrible abuses of vegans, which is kind of distracting. It got me focusing on animal rights arguments instead of freedom of speech arguments, so if he trimmed that down it might go off better (Knowing Alex though, that will never change his passion for speaking out against animal suffering and he'll use every platform he can to "Jesus smuggle" as Sam Harris would put it, Admirable for his character bad for his argument). Speaker 7: Arrogant Kid in the Suit in support - The presentation was of decent quality, had a laid back approach as opposed to passionate advocate, which made me feel less like I'm being preached too and more like I'm participating in a mutual dialogue of exchanging ideas. His use of cuss words was in line with that approach (even though the word Dick isn't inherently a cuss word if it's not used to describe male genitalia). As for his argument I really wasn't clear honestly, he kind of rambled on with nonsensical topics that didn't quite fit with the topic at hand, such as Kantian transcendental philosophy of knowledge production (what the fuck does Immanuel Kant's epistemology or categorical rights have to do with cancel culture?). He did start talking about anger as a proper motivation that needs to be controlled, and using it should be reasonable approach. Then he blamed other people for being too emotional which was was fucking odd because he just endorsed anger as a proper motivation a few seconds, making his argument confusing and semi-hypocritical. Did he even write down any points or notes or just ramble of the top of his head with incorrect shit. Like, how is the monarchy more flexible with the times then the US constitution which gets amended when it's out of date and STILL waiting to hear what the fuck this has to do with freedom of speech or cancel culture. My impression of him, arrogant rich kid that's a little bright but not as smart as he thinks he is and really loves his own voice. His argument, when he actually made one instead of talk on about random things he was learning in class that day, reflected the arrogance and narcissism I would guess were in huge abundance. Shitty rambling argument and probably a shitty person too, but I can't say that with any degree of confidence without more evidence OTHER then his speech. What a person says and what a person does are two completely different things.

@TrideepNagg

2 жыл бұрын

What you thought of ayesha khan the first speaker

@michaeladair6557

2 жыл бұрын

@@TrideepNagg I did analysis of the first four speakers in another comment further below. KZread doesn't have the character restrictions of Twitter, but there still is one. But I'll add it below if you like..

@michaeladair6557

2 жыл бұрын

My analysis of the speakers and their arguments, freedom of speech is a major topic for me and I'm super interested in all of the arguments for and against. I tried to be as fair and objective as possible, please forgive me when I don't. I talk shit a little but it's all in good fun. Speaker 1: Asian student with super choppy webcam for the opposition - Did she just ad hominem all of her opposition before they even spoke? Well isn't that some shady ass shit, trying to prejudice the audience against your foes before they get a chance to make their argument. That actually back-fired and made me dislike her before she even finished her argument. Her presentation could use some work maybe throw in some emotion now and then to emphasize a point, but it may also have been her webcam and lag making it appear "sloppy". As for the argument itself, it was an argument based on Justice, which lies at the heart of ethics so it's definitely persuasive to me. Since I try not to let my distaste for someone interfere with my attempts at an objective analysis of their argument, I will admit she did make a good point that sometimes cancelling was the only way to punish rich and powerful people (Our US laws are rules based and the more lawyers you can afford to hire, to make as many arguments as you can, for the purposes of allowing into or striking down evidence based on those same rules, means the rich typically get away with crimes/behaviors a non-rich person doesn't due to the almost unlimited ways you can approach interpretation of a rule, even if they had airtight evidence that proves their innocence and/or the oppositions guilt, it's useless if you can't get it into evidence for a jury to see.). Speaker 2: Bow-tie guy with thick accent in support - The thick accent and staggered cadences made it hard for me to get into his argument, because I was too busy mentally rewinding what he just said previously, to pay attention to what he was saying currently, with no way to possibly keep up with both, I just eventually glazed over the parts I didn't quite catch, so it resulted in it being a bit boring. He did have some emotion and emphasis on certain parts so I imagine if I had more time time around that accent I would have more to say about it. On paper it's probably a better and more passionate argument. From what I heard and managed to retain though, he was whining about his own cancellation, bragged about his real or imagined accolades and his only real argument against cancel culture was that they will come for you next. Which is a consequentialist argument I don't find persuasive, because if what they did was inherently bad then there would be no reason to worry about them going after you next, because presumably you're not out doing bad things right... And something else about Joan of Arc and a boot on the neck or something... I'm sorry it escapes me. Speaker 3: The American with Glasses for the opposition - His presentation was pretty good, he has experience speaking in front of an audience, so no marks there. Except this weird little white speck of spittle on his bottom lip kept distracting me, petty I know and it won't interfere with my analysis, but I couldn't HELP but stare at it the whole time. As for the quality of his Argument, He went for the typical lawyer "technical argument" of relabeling cancel culture as Acoustic Counter speech which is then protected by the First Amendment in Our Bill of Rights. He doesn't tell us arguments for why cancel culture is either good or bad, only whether the rules allow it or not (Didn't I tell y'all about American lawyers and their super focus on the rules). However, in my experience practicing law Pro Se even an American Judge would prefer an argument that ignored the rules and went straight to the HEART OF THE MATTER (such as an argument based on ethical value), instead of dry technicalities that goes nowhere near anything of note or interest and avoids the morals entirely. He must have also forgot he was debating for a WORLD audience and not just to us Americans who were fortunate enough to have freedom of speech as a foundational rule in our government. Not very persuasive and probably the worst argument in my opinion, due to the pure narcissistic focus on American law, as if our laws are the epitome of right and wrong. My advice to him, for future reference, is that he should take note of this quote from the Hacktivists group Anonymous whenever he speaks to audiences that have never went to an American law school or includes non-Americans, "A slave mind asks, is it legal; a free mind asks, is it right?". Plus Mob rule and cancel culture made America? What the fuck is he smoking and can he pass that shit to the left, it MUST be some flame if it got him repeating that crap. Speaker 4: Curly red-head in Glasses in support - She sounds like a journalist and her argument is something a journalist would use for advocating free speech. That cancel culture prevents journalists from speaking their mind for fear of repercussions, that it breaks apart communication between opposite ideologies and causes civil strife between different social groups with constant revenge cycles like a modern Hatfields and Mccoys feud. She did a pretty good job presenting her argument, she was clear voiced and emphasized the right words and parts, so there was nothing wrong with the presentation itself. I do have to point out though is that she too avoided arguing the inherent right or wrongness of cancel culture and went with the practical utilitarian argument of focusing on the effects and outcome and never going to the inherent ethics of it either (although consequential-ism is a branch with ethical philosophy it's not very convincing to me when dealing with things OTHER people should do, because there is no way for me to take into account all the ways an action can affect their life). This argument is much better then arguing the technicalities I grant you, but she there are some major flaws in the utilitarian argument. The effects can always be argued away with two major approaches, the religious/categorical-right approach that something is inherently right or wrong regardless of the intended or actual effects, since the majority of western speaking countries are religious, avoiding approaching the inherent value is a tactical mistake. Then there is the empiricists approach that cause and effect is a figment of our mind and not something inherent within reality and one can never know the "cause" of a particular event with 100% accuracy (which is why scientists use probabilities instead of cause and effect and as Bertrand Russell pointed out when arguing against the idea of cause and effect, that in the really advanced sciences, such as astronomical gravitation, you never see any mention of the word cause at all). Someone tells you don't do something because this will happen, all you have to do is say, "prove it". Taking all that aside, utilitarianism can be a very powerful tool but only works up and until the point where it's you or your loved one being sacrificed on the alter of the "greater good", then it ceases being of any utility AT ALL and it wouldn't really matter to you what the effects of were because it ain't ever gonna happen while you're alive... Best argument so far though in support, way more persuasive then the other consequentialist argument.

@michaeladair6557

2 жыл бұрын

@@TrideepNagg So in a nutshell. She had the best opposition argument that I can think off, but her presentation was sub-par...

I feel like people for cancel culture are the type of people that lack the intellectual fortitude to overcome their biases. They don't look at the big picture and they often find themselves fighting to justify something that is unjustifiable, just to not be wrong and confirm their beliefs that are carried along with it. I hate this way of thinking where if you don't back "A" then you must not be for "B" or "C". It creates a situation where, just because somebody wants to believe something, it comes with a bunch of baggage of other beliefs .That they now must convince themselves they also believe, to fit in with the crowd of people that believe their first opinion. P.s sorry for the terrible Grammer and punctuation. I really have never been much of a writer. Even with the keyboard helping me I still fail miserably at it lol but I'm working on it every day now.

@jlann8243

3 жыл бұрын

Well yea if a person backs idea "A", and the result of "A" is negative to group "Y". Then regardless of intention the result to group "Y" is still the same. Ideas come with consequences. And Trumps effectivness and approval has gone down since him being cancled on social media proves that cancle culture is effective at combating ideology with negative outcomes. Which combats Alexs claim that its not even effective.

@astroadventures3559

3 жыл бұрын

@@jlann8243 That's the same as saying "well if we lock up everyone we see as bad even though only some are bad we will only lock up some good people, but it's ok because we got some of the bad ones too" Just like the justice system, not even ONE innocent person should suffer punishment for others crimes. And the best way to make sure you will unfairly ruin people's life is putting power into the hands of a bunch of people who have no intention on going through the evidence and finding the truth. But instead jump on a band wagon and act with the reading of just one article. It's not going to be a fair system if a group of people without having a vote or a pole decide they are judge and jury.

@astroadventures3559

2 жыл бұрын

@@jlann8243 it's basically the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

@jlann8243

2 жыл бұрын

@@astroadventures3559 if the person says idea "A" on social media that is able to be proven. Im confused at your consern of innocent people being punished. The idea is posted right out in public if its against guidlines you get the consequenses. This isnt rights beibg taken away. Being platformed isnt a right.

It was not a debate, but people having monologues

Haven't heard anyone say Good morning ladies and gentlemen, conspecifics. Just realised when rewatching

I haven't watched the full debate yet, just Alex's part and a few snippets from the middle. It seems to me that three of the people on the call didn't speak though, unless I'm mistaken. Is there another video?

@vampyricon7026

3 жыл бұрын

I assume they're spectators or adjudicators?

The guy in the grey suit and the crooked smile: I respect his argument against the proposition. Even if I don't agree. That was the most intellectually honest argument against the proposition. That's how we create progress. Not by angrily shouting like that one lady... We get it. You're angry because of the narrative you're fed everyday and you listen to it and believe it. shame. come up with your own arguments and don't just rely on what the news media tells you and blindly believe it...

@Hisxzeh

2 жыл бұрын

Who's shouting? I think she presented a good argument that's rooted in modern problems but ultimately comes to a conclusion I don't agree with. We may not see eye to eye here but I think everyone on the panel presented their side well enough, wether I agreed with them or not.

One issue I'd have with cancel culture is that two groups of people are spared or rewarded. People who naturally fit the criteria from birth, which is nothing to respect, for it eerily starts to head down eugenics, and people who just haven't been caught. I suspect most people aren't in either of these groups, which makes it all the more hilarious. Of course to speak for those who are in favor of cancel culture, I am sure the best of them would seek to cancel those who refuse to admit their wrongs and learn, but even then all these standards are subjective. Definitively shutting someone down and labelling them as wicked offends the room to make mistakes, forgive, and grow as individuals and as a society.

36:33 look at Alex 😂

The Online Bullying generation grew up

Ayesha Khan’s accent sounds like she’s trying to be one of the Royal Family.

@EskiLdn

3 жыл бұрын

Shes high class posh

Wow! Camonghne Felix is fire... She was the most logical, articulate, precise, and focused debater. We expect the class of the voters and expect the results too. We do not stress over the results.

I often wonder that if some people who have read the Fountainhead were inspired by the character of Ellsworth Toohey

@drsalka

3 жыл бұрын

Preach🙌🏼⬆️

Everything the 2nd girl said is wrong. She doesn't even know what is cancel culture. Making your Country enforce its laws is not cancel culture. It's your civic responsibility. Holding Weinstein accountable for his crimes, is not cancel culture. It's the law.

@ericfeldkamp3788

3 жыл бұрын

It's not ignorance. It's a rhetorical strategy known as smuggling. The idea is to hide an objectionable principle inside something tangentially related that no one would reasonably object to.

@Uhtredrag1080

3 жыл бұрын

@@ericfeldkamp3788 I believe you are correct, sir.

Now, I want everyone to keep in mind, he's criticizing cancel culture, unequivocal responses to moral wrong doings, not holding people accountable, and I know that should be a given but it's often that people will use such comments to fuel reactionary arguments, telling neo-nazi's to kill themselves is wrong but so is letting them get away this shit like it's 2014.

I wish they added subtitles. There are parts that are difficult to understand due to bad audio quality. The debate is terrific, though. Everyone shared interesting points worth consdering.

Why aren't the speakers listed in the description? It seems very odd to me that a prestigious university doesn't credit authors/speakers.

@KevinJohnMulligan

3 жыл бұрын

James Price - Mr President Ayesha Khan - Speaker #1 (for the motion) Larrisa Sidarto - Speaker #2 (against the motion) Nick Buckley - Speaker #3 (for) JC Hallman - Speaker #4 (against) Suzanne Nossel - Speaker #5 (for) Camonghne Felix - Speaker #6 (against) Alex O'connor - Speaker #7 (for) Matt Kilcoyne - Speaker #8 (against)

That girl, Camonghne Feliz, has no idea what she is talking about. The punishment is not just losing social media followers or even a job. The people who don`t understand the severity of what is happening, will only understand it when it happens to them or someone they love. There are people even committing suicice because of the ceaseless punishment and persecution they faced over something stupid they did or said.

I actually like what both sides have to say here.

As Penn Jillette said, if I am free to say anything then people are free to be offended. They are free to object; to boycott; to call for my books to be cancelled and for me to be fired. All of this is within the power and the right of any one of us in a free society. But just as it is incumbent upon a speaker to judge whether just because they *can* say a thing doesn't mean they should, so it is on the listener to judge that just because they are offended doesn't mean they *have* to announce they are offended. Just because they *can* cancel someone doesn't mean they must. It's high time we held the cancellers accountable in the same way we do the speakers.

@irek1394

3 жыл бұрын

the first thing we should change is the name to what it used to be its not canceling its bullying

Cosmic Skeptic, I liked what you had to say the best of all !

oh my god, "...whether cancel culture gets it right or wrong is irrelevant...", what kind of abhorrent ethcial framework is the opposition dealing with here? The ends justify the means?

@ericfeldkamp3788

3 жыл бұрын

"what kind of abhorrent ethcial framework is the opposition dealing with " fascism.

@Arphemius

3 жыл бұрын

I agree that it's abhorrent, but one thing: That "the ends justify the means" is bad is a Hollywood meme. Of course the ends justify the means - no one thinks the means justify the ends. No one just does whatever and then lives with the consequences. Every moral code wants to achieve some outcome.

@JOlivier2011

3 жыл бұрын

@@Arphemius I think you misunderstand what that means.

@Arphemius

3 жыл бұрын

@@JOlivier2011 I don't think I do. People have just literally never thought about it because it's been negatively connotated every time it's been repeated in any movie they've ever seen since their childhood. In those (philosophically bankrupt) movies, it usually means "someone pursues an end goal and accepts whatever casualties are required to achieve that goal, but also his goal is not that important and the casualties actually outweigh the good he would do; so it's a moot point anyway". That's not the meaning of the sentence, however. "Ends justifying means" says that the good that results of your actions has to outweigh whatever wrong those actions entailed. It's almost the exact opposite of what people have come to think it means. The means are justified by the ends, meaning the means have to be proportionate to the ends; not that the means don't matter at all as long as the ends are achieved.

@anonymous_4276

3 жыл бұрын

@@Arphemius agreed. The idea of "ends justify the means" is precisely why people oppose the idea. Cuz people think carelessly applying the idea can lead to horrible outcomes. I don't get how anyone would counter the idea of "ends justify the means" without appealing to it.

Speaker 2, how did you make it to Oxford lol?

@icedbannanas

3 жыл бұрын

why do you say that exactly? I thought she presented well and posed a good argument.

@Ragd0ll1337

3 жыл бұрын

I don't necessarily think the views expressed by the student speakers (speakers 1 and 2) are their own. I also think debating ability is a small skill set which does not indicate how proficient you are at other essential skills needed in university.

@nickburrows8977

3 жыл бұрын

Race quota

@nickburrows8977

3 жыл бұрын

@@icedbannanas yes it sounded good. Made a lot of sense too. But it speaks only to the absolute benefits of it and fails to realize that it’s used to destroy someone u don’t agree with. Ya, METOO brought Harvey whiney-boy to justice. Good thing. Just forget about all the men who’ve had their lives destroyed by the BS accusations though.

@icedbannanas

3 жыл бұрын

@@nickburrows8977 race quota? what....? Not sure what you mean or the relevance to the above comments.

The person is the top left corner absolutely crushed it. Saying it straight!!!!

Union speaking sense!!!!

the first girl is very very beautiful

Those clowns had no chance against Alex

Pay attention to the differences between the speakers. They all engage in polemic speech, but they don't all speak carefully from first principles. It is easy to make pronouncements and naked claims with well formed rhetoric, and it is difficult to argue clearly and compellingly from at least SOME first principles. I'll show my preference by saying that I think O'Connor is the biggest stand-out here. Greatly appreciated others as well including the final speaker. I'd be curious to see a more developed version of his response to Alex.

You're unbelievably brilliant

Alex O'Connor is a god

@JonS

3 жыл бұрын

No. There is evidence Alex exists.

@TrideepNagg

2 жыл бұрын

@@JonS 😂🤣😂🤣

if the posh bird`s necklace is real its worth more than my house

It might be my bias but Alex is bat shit crazy. Love with his rationality and skepticism.

It will make some think twice.....it will def. make some go deeper underground!