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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

@@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.

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.

​@@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.

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

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

What like when he cucked for makalia Peterson lol

That’s British journalism for you

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!

Alex is indeed the Devil's advocate.

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

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.

​@@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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Wait until you discover books!

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

I agree too!

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.

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.

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.

@@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

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

otherwise prevalent on the ontegnet

His tact is absolutely astonishing.

Very refreshing tbh

@@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?

@@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.

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

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.

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."

​@@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.

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

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.

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.

Sensor Ship? How sensitive are you now, sailor?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

hes not vegan anymore so its devolving

@@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

@@Jimmy-jx1pf You're funny🤣🤣🤣

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

@@Jimmy-jx1pf moron

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

Woke culture is nonsense but eh

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

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

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.

What? When? TIMESTAMP. Stop spreading lies.

triggered much?

100%

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

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

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.

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.

Same here

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

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

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. 🙂

Don't forget supremely pretentious.

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.

​@@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.

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

@@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.

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.

​@@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.

​@@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.

​@@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.

@@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.

Or illegal.

it won't be though

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

​@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

​@@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.

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

dear kevincoatsworth50, you're a gentleman. cheers.

Just remember Alex plays Devil's advocate a lot

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

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 ?

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​@@flik221 how dare you

@@flik221 of course it’s not 🇺🇦❤️

🖐😂

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

Do you have better algorithm for broadcasting conservative voices? Everyone uses the best tools available.

@@fuiscklam4087 it's all they do, they don't have a coherent position on anything Convervatives are literally like cancer

Konstsntin isn't a conservative by most accounts. He voted against Brexit, he is pretty Liberal in his opinions and he isnt a die hard Tory. He is against the hard left and the intersectional woke brigade who are determined to force a critical theory lens on all aspects of society and call anything that doesn't agree with them a bigot, nazi, fascist etc. He isn't an ultra nationalist but he does believe in nation states having borders. He mirrors what most liberals would have stood for up until 6 or 7 years ago when liberalism was hijacked and kicked everyone who didnt agree with them off the bus and branded them conservative bigots. Conservatism to a hard lefty is everyone to the right of the hare left...and Konstantin is centre lefty, thus to the hard left is a conservative.

@@kevintyrrell9559 so... he is against people who do not really exist and at most are an extremely small minority? That's essentially strawmanning because he definitely is against progressive leftists in general, not just the "absurdly radical" ones. Also, please do tell us who or what liberalism was hijacked by. Just because progressivism has gone beyond your comfort zone does not mean that it was "hijacked". Also no, he is not center-left. He is on the right. Denying this is denying clear facts and shows your motivations here. Also, you seem to conflate liberalism and leftism. Which is it? Which is the one you think is so horrible? Liberalism is right wing. Social liberals may be considered center-left, quite close to social democrats, but most liberals are not social liberals.

All I heard was "I hate conservatives". Have you even listened to most of his takes?

In a "I'm smarter than you are" way....

Bingo.

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

Stop talking sense

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

@@ClezVideos Yes!

Great ment, Velvet!

I agree with this.

@@Sammy_82 I think if Alex is going to have people like Konstantin Kisin on, who is a defacto right-wing pundit, he NEEDS to have some engagement from the far left to balance it out.

@@Sammy_82 Plus it would help root out the transphobes in the audience.

@@mrpickles1 Agreed, especially because a couple of years ago he had Douglas Murray on his podcast.

This. Holy shit shit.

Do you have all the transgender BS pushed in your schools

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!