Peter, In what way are "New Atheists", responsible for those who have drifted away from religion out of convenience, having given it little in the way of reasoned consideration? These are the people that you are perhaps truly worried about. Please elucidate on how Dillahunty's desire to "...believe as many true things & as few false things as possible.", could lead people to believe entirely untrue & irrational woke ideology? Can you show any study showing that those persuaded through reasoned argument to leave their religion are particularly vulnerable to irrational & false Woke ideology? Given Atheists are the only group underrepresented in Prisons, why do you desire others (not you & yours) to believe ridiculous things? How do you get to decide to what degree they believe those books & that they not take them as an instruction manual? Your attack on "New Atheists" seems entirely without merit. Your desire that others be lost in believing irrational, demonstrably false religions because it may (or may not) provide resistance to wokeness seems to suggest truly astonishing condescension on your part.
We just got self-id laws here in Finland, and a growing number of people are pushing back, now that it's too late. I'd say we've entered a full blown culture war. All his insanity is almost like a carbon copy of the original one in the US, and it sits very poorly into our culture. Thank you, gentlemen, for a great coversation! ❤
It's being done to shift people's minds in the direction of questioning the very meaning of being human, because those that rule this world want to push transhumanism on us. Marxism and leftism is just a means to an end.
What is wrong with men sharing women's spaces? Surely it is just gender equality? Why should male prisoners face the risk of rape in prison but female prisoners be protected? Is that fair? Why should women be allowed to exclude men but men not be allowed to exclude women from their spaces? Is that fair Or equal?
Because this is coordinated effort to destroy all values of liberty and the very best foundations of the west via neo marxist vehicles for communism. They hate the west and they hate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are top down attacks via academia and global elites.
This talk goes to the very heart of the problem in our education system today. When I went to high school in Germany, philosophy was mandatory. Here it's the exact opposite, we don't want critical thinkers we want sheeple.
Civics was a requirement in junior or high schools but it doesn’t exist anymore. No knowing how our government works make sheeple too. The grow up not knowing what government can and can’t do so they just accept whatever the government says.
I agree with you! It is the same logic for artificial intelligence which they need to replace the natural HUMAN intelligence, by this we will be zombies who just need us to deal with sexualities(diversity of sexuality), eat, advertise and that's it!
Great talk. I love that Winston, being a Christian, will have on people of different faiths and of no faith. While he is a good interviewer, good listener and gracious host I never get the feeling he does so by compromising his own beliefs. That's not an easy thing, but he does it well.
@@ohwellwhateverr I thought the intention of what I meant was clear enough. (sorry about that) i.e Faith in a religious or spiritual context. I also enjoy politics, art etc, but personally don't put my faith in them as others might.
This interviewer is doing a great job. Well done sir. Thanks to Peter and such philosophers and all their supporters who are taking up the intellectual sword against these evil doctrines.
I retire as a full tenured professor this month, after 35 years teaching at four major universities. I have observed first-hand the rapid spread of the very ideology that Prof. Boghossian describes. I fret for the future of our university system. The problem that Peter describes regarding free speech is especially intractable: the Woke Left demands from the rest of us, in the name of our principles, rights and privileges that they would deny to us in the name of their principles...
He's absolutely right about Australia. We're about a year behind here. But it's kind of inexcusable, because all the terrible facts and figures are available online - it's not like we have to wait for the information to come to us by ship.
All the terrible facts about the covidiocy, the lock downs, the masks, the shut downs, the essential businesses etc...were all on-line even before the vaccine drink the kool-aid were distributed. It did no good. Even though those who refused the vaccines and lost their jobs were the smart ones, in the end they lost everything except their health.
Its crazy here in New Zealand, and there's no push back. Media, politicians, schools, health care providers...everything. Full woke, no handbrake and dissenters are bullied into silence. Hopefully the Posie Parker fiasco has woken (haha) a few people up, although Im desperately sorry she had to go through that in order to do it.
@chrishellize Canada is similar. It's taken over all the institutions and corporations top to bottom. Especially anything kid related. The schools are toxic woke hell holes.
38:01 - For Wokeness to work it needs one thing: It needs a _double meaning of a word_ ! 1. The meaning in common parlance ( _Motte_ ) 2. The Woke meaning ( _Bailey_ )
It was good to see Winston pushing Peter on what religion or belief would replace woke ideology and that street epistemology probably won’t be enough. Whatever it is, it’ll have to tap into primal drives. What will comfort someone, give them hope, or confer status or wealth or the security of conformity? I recall seeing a coworker years ago berate someone for sayings “third world” instead of “developing nation.” The coworker wrapped herself in social justice as a way to disguise her primal, competitive drives.
I’m not religious but I’ve finally realized I think it was a mistake to do away with religion. We really don’t have anything to replace it with . I think many atheists are starting to realize this as well.
@@brianmeen2158 I was an atheist for many years but I made that realisation too and have since returned to Christianity. There’s a reason why every totalitarian regime does away with faith.
Peter Boghossian, a voice of sanity and reason and common sense in the tsunami of irrationality, cultist ideology, sectarian intolerance called woke madness.
Thanks to Winston for asking such great questions. (I would recommend looking at the Bud Light backlash involving Mulvaney). "You couldn't even present the other side of an issue" reminds me of a quote. "An environment that is not safe to disagree in is not an environment focused on growth - it’s an environment focused on control. - Wendi Jade
Thank you so much, Winston 🎉 for posting your conversation with Peter. Your discussion is very illuminating and illustrates so many interesting facets of understanding the importance of beliefs and values 😊 Peter is very thoughtful and extremely knowledgeable about how we construct our guiding principles and practices. I really appreciate Winston's humble inquiries as his modest approach to building bridges to each other keeps us connected to the beautiful ground.❤
As an atheist since my early 20s, who used to take pride in eviscerating my religious opponents in debate, it's amazing how much I've softened over time. Not because I'll ever be faithful, but because I've come to understand how fundemental belief of an afterlife is to our species. Not only do I no longer feel the need to disabuse ppl of such notions, I understand faith has uncalculable value for many people who think differently than me. After all, the predilection towards religion is ironically a direct result of evolution.
You can take the religion away from humans, but you can't take the need for it. Our ancestors for thousands of generations have had shared cultural beliefs, to say that we have no need for such a thing now is ignorant of the truth of the matter, that what we call religion will manifest itself, whether it requires a belief in a theistic deity or not.
I remember watching the Atheist channels on YT, years ago, out of curiosity (I'm Christian) . . . and it was the most jarringly bizarre experience to see -- in real time -- as "Atheism Plus" sprouted up from WITHIN that collection of channels and devoured many of them like a Strangler Fig. I could recognize what was then called "Social Justice" -- not only as a religion, but as a religion that masqueraded as something NOT religious. It was so surreal and even creepy.
@Gapho True, and even some non-human animals do. I rescue and rehab orphaned and/or injured animals, and some have a more "religious" personality than others. In non-human animals, like for instance marmosets or dogs, I suppose it could more accurately be called "superstition", and it varies even between members of the same species, even between some littermates. So for instance, a "religious" marmoset will prefer to do certain behaviors in a set way (usually the way he or she has learned from their parents or human caretakers) while a more "atheist" marmoset will prefer to try numerous different ways to achieve the same result, before settling on his or her favorite way. Dogs who are "religious" can become absolutely BRILLIANT Certified Service Dogs; whereas "atheist" dogs can become absolutely BRILLIANT search and rescue dogs. Neither trait is "better", it's just better for specific animals. . . or, I think, people.
The comment about entering foreign non-English countries via an anglicism is indeed the case. Here in Japan, the woke-hopeful use the work ジェンダー (jendaa) ie gender because if they used the Japanese word 性別 (seibetsu) they would be laughed off the stage. I noticed that the English language is more tolerant of euphmeism and Orwellian expression. Canada gives a good example of this. A French speaking politician uses "affirmative action" in English but turns around and says "discrimination positive" in French. You could say in French "action affirmative" but it is a totally meaningless string of words. By that I mean that you could not take a 1950 dictionary in either French or English and guess the present meaning of "affirmative action". But on the other hand, you might guess "discrimination positive", ie, a discriminatory policy done for the sake of a good result. Affirmative action is insidious because it hides completely the bad effects. Indeed the Nazi talked about Aktion T4 (Action zoological garden 4) which was the extermination of the handicapped children.... a term with zero clear meaning. Using foreign words also hides the truth.
Mainly it seems that we developed a high tolerance for politicians, academics and technocrats spewing bullsh!t.... The legacy of "progressiveism" AKA socialism. Orwell himself cautioned against allowing bullsh!t to take over, and pointed out some of the forms it takes, in Politics and the English Language.
@@africkinamerican Language plays a role. Listen to George Carlin hilarious monologue on soft language. Despite living in Japan, I am nearly perfectly bilingual in French and English. I noticed that I am more tolerant of BS in English. I think that the flexibility of the language and of the culture, which is a plus in normal circumstances, makes the Anglosphere fall victim to Orwellian expression more easily. Indeed, Orwell wrote a nice paper in 1946 on the corruption of language. (Before he wrote 1984) But you are correct about the tolerance of BS.... the social sciences are beyond redemption it seems and now they are attacking the hard sciences.... You cannot build a bridge using postmodernist physics. So this better stop soon. It cannot be tolerated.
@ian x Yes I am hopeful too. I am a university professor (physicist) in Japan and I recently gave my retirement speech on the danger of wokeness. But for that I had to explain to them the working of the Western mind, ie, philosophy. Although they were scientists, they still have trouble wrapping their heads around Western concepts. I am presently in China and I find Chinese scientists more in tune with the Western minds. Katakana is a carrier of fashion.... indeed. But it allows dangerous concept to sneak in ...
@@jceepf Thank you for the very interesting tiny peek into Japanese linguistics. Also very encouraging to hear that large swathes of the human family aren’t infected by wokism. Hopefully it’ll stay that way and the West will come to it senses.
I've been following Pete here and James Lindsay for about 5 years now. I have listened to everything they both have said in videos and podcasts and have read everything they have written. I have even deleted into the books whence all this came. It's taken a while to get to the crux of all of this but these two men have done a great service in demystifying this nonsense. Right insanity from top to bottom. The purest form and cynical mental masturbation if ever there was such a thing.
True, but even though this woke thing is a relatively new ideology, this ideological takeover of society is pretty common throughout history. Communism took over in Russia, Fascism took over in Italy and the Nazis took over every aspect of German society including the universities (racialized pseudo sciences) and even the religions (catholocism was aligned in large parts, they even helped evacuate the war criminals to Argentina after the war). Same in the middle ages where fundamentalist Christianity dominated absolutely every aspect of everyone's lives. Fundamentalist Islam also gained a lot of ground in the past three decades which lead to ISIS etc.. McCarthyism in the US was also very severe and sought to cleanse society of the evil communists at any cost (violating civil rights and abandoning honesty in general). Understanding where exactly the current authoritarians are coming from is not even strictly necessary to defeat them even though it helps - you actually have to have a non-authoritarian alternative that can withstand future attacks by authoritarians. Very difficult.
@@thulyblu5486 McCarthy did nothing wrong. He was 100% correct about communist infiltration. We should have dispatched with all those people when we had the chance, but instead they just boo-hooed about not getting to make a couple of movies for a few years.
First one has to value the value by learning it and reinforcing it over years and live your live accordingly. Many in western society never learned the values and reinforced it. I keep the values I learned as a Christian although I no longer believe the historical accounts in the Bible. However, the Bible taught me a lot about human behaviour and what is a good way to think. The ideology today is piggybacking on the success of forcing the theory of evolution down our throat for 150 years. That ideology came primarily through academia.
@@dawnemile7499 So your solution is to suppress the truth of biological evolution? How does that help against woke ideology that is incompatible with evolution? (Everything being a social construct is not compatible with evolution for example. Or that all sex and race differences are due to culture - also not compatible. Or that gender is a spectrum - incompatible with sexual reproduction which is a prerequisite to biological evolution)
His comment at 59:58 really hits home for me: "There is something I find disturbing about believing things that are false so society will function more smoothly." This is the absolute essence of what disturbs me with Woke/social justice theory. Truth isn't what's true, truth is whatever serves the greater good. It's the exact same premise that Marxist regimes run on too. If a lie helps the party narrative that they think will have positive effects, it must be true; if you speak a truth that could threaten it, you're evil and speaking lies. I think they genuinely don't know the difference between "the greater good" and truth, and trying to build a society on beneficial lies is a house of cards ready to fall down and crush us.
But many in the woke movement are intelligent so how can they not understand that their system is quite flawed and just won’t work long term in our society?
Right! I agree that we should not believe something that is false--even if it makes society function more smoothly. That's why we need to get rid of Christianity. It is obviously false. Its end goal is the destruction of all human civilization, with paradise for a very few and eternal torture for everyone not in the chosen in-group.
In Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four", O'Brien (the Party inquisitor) articulates this philosophy (a kind of postmodern pragmatism that did not actually exist in Western universities when Orwell wrote the book) with chilling clarity: ‘We are the priests of power,’ he said. ‘God is power. But at present power is only a word so far as you are concerned. It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan: ‘Freedom is Slavery”. Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone - free - the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he IS the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body - but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter - external reality, as you would call it - is not important. Already our control over matter is absolute.’ For a moment Winston ignored the dial. He made a violent effort to raise himself into a sitting position, and merely succeeded in wrenching his body painfully. ‘But how can you control matter?’ he [Winston Smith] burst out. ‘You don’t even control the climate or the law of gravity. And there are disease, pain, death ’ O’Brien silenced him by a movement of his hand. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation - anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature.’ ‘But you do not! You are not even masters of this planet. What about Eurasia and Eastasia? You have not conquered them yet.’ ‘Unimportant. We shall conquer them when it suits us. And if we did not, what difference would it make? We can shut them out of existence. Oceania is the world.’ But the world itself is only a speck of dust. And man is tiny - helpless! How long has he been in existence? For millions of years the earth was uninhabited.’ ‘Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness.’ ‘But the rocks are full of the bones of extinct animals - mammoths and mastodons and enormous reptiles which lived here long before man was ever heard of.’ ‘Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing. ‘But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach for ever.’ ‘What are the stars?’ said O’Brien indifferently. ‘They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.’ Winston made another convulsive movement. This time he did not say anything. O’Brien continued as though answering a spoken objection: ‘For certain purposes, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we of- ten find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometres away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?' Lest it be objected that Orwell is not describing *Identity* Politics here, since O'Brien speaks of the complete absorption of the individual into the machinery of the state, it is worth considering that the true goal of ID Politics is overwhelmingly one motivated by the desire for power.
The greater or common good is a dangerous river to cross. . As we all should have learned by now " The road to hell is paved with good intentions." and the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray, etc.. Remember Stalin, Hitler and Mao had good intentions they did not set out to kill 100 million people
7:00 I discovered this myself at the end of my undergrad in the field of psychology and eventually lead to me walking away from multiple Master degree opportunities. I no longer consider colleges as serious academic institutes, they are more concerned with money and quotas while standing the academic giants that came before them
What a fantastic conversation. I find it amusing that I am with Peter for Prog Metal, Winston for God belief and both for needing to find a way forward through this madness. Huge respect to Peter for recognising the clearing effect of the New Atheists' belief that the death of God would lead to a rational utopia. There is deep rationality in the Judaeo Christian tradition. The attempt to sweep it away, even in the name of well intentioned disagreement, has deep consequences for the foundations of the West and the great institutions that have fostered, questioned and in our day sought to undermine it.
But how do we know that West is worth preserving? Or any other civilisation? What is worth if atheism is true? Why bother? In 60 years we are all dry bones. We keep talking about some value system, giving Christianity some credits, but why? If you're believer then you have that value system, the worth....but without it, it's useless what you think, or how you'll respond to this question....it' is just as "good" or "bad" as any other opinion.
Why do you "just have to believe in something"? And when did the New Atheists suggest that the 'death of God' would lead to some kind of rational utopia?
Winston, how have I not encountered you before? That was an excellent discussion with Dr Boghossian, he's a great guest, but you really directed and crafted a brilliant interview. I hope to see more of your work soon.
I am a fan of most of the individuals involved in the New Atheist but the "movement" as a whole did immense damage to the moorings of the academy and the culture. New Atheism undermined our traditional moral system and replaced it with nothing, creating a void that people filled by adopting ideas far worse than Christianity, none of which have any unifying quality. We have replaced our one big unifying idea (God) with dozens of aggressive, unsophisticated and opposing ideas. It has become clear that God had real power in binding us to one another. In His absence we revert to identity-based competition.
The real problem is those that rule this world are using leftism as a Trojan horse to fill the void with a totalitarian transhumanist ideology that will culminate in a sort of neo-feudalism. They speak like socialists and liberals on many issues to woo them, but it's a facade. The final victory of globalists will make the exploits of Hitler, Mao and Stalin look like spilled milk.
Atheism has little to do with this, as it only says that there is no god(s). The issue you are describing here is not the lack of belief in God but other ideas causing issues.
@@theculturedjinni It is effectively the same thing. By saying there is no God, atheism removes the reason for individuals to behave as if there is a God and undermines Christian morality. Our societies were based on the Christian idea of right and the Christian idea of wrong. Our relationships and families were Christian families. We organised ourselves in this way because we believed in God, because we believed it was the right thing to do, because there is a God that guides us. But if you say there is no God, you also say there is no longer any reason to believe in the traditional right or wrong, and eventually people abandon the social structure we had in place and replace it with other systems that suit them, and we end up in a position where there is no majority position anymore, and no one can agree how we organise ourselves. It is the same thing.
@@zeno2501 What says that you must underpin morality by use of the christian God? Many societies and civilizations have not had Christianity yet they have managed to maintain themselves, also the various cultures and civilizations of Europe believed in various forms of paganism before Christianity and they managed to live & organize.
On the issue of how these things perpetuated in academia, I had a computer science professor... very cynical, old guy, been teaching 40 years and he wasn't happy at the state of the particular university I went to at all. The course I was taking with him happened to include the history of computer science. Before the 60's or so there was no such thing as a computer science degree, so everyone who contributed to the base concept of what computer science is actually came from another discipline(mostly math). I mean, these are like bedrock, genius-level figures. Time and time again, my professor would point out: "if this person tried to get a job teaching computer science here now, they couldn't. No computer science degree." I think that relatively recent, sort of self-perpetuating nature of academia is part of the problem. It doesn't really invite outside DNA and you end up with this in-bred rot. On the issue of not being able to question things... it goes beyond that. There are things that are iffy to even touch from the wrong angle. Example: I was taking an art class and as part of an assignment another student titled a piece such that it included the word "queer". In our class discussion about it I asked the author what they meant by "queer". This was met with a big "wooooah" by the two professors dual-teaching the course. And I actually had to spend 5-10 minutes convincing everyone I wasn't setting up some sort of attack and that it was a genuinely relevant question.
😂 I probably would have asked, "How do YOU define "queer," because I learned that queer means "odd, unusual, out of normal, crazy, disturbed, funny in the head..." please pull out the old Roget's Thesaurus and clarify what your use of the word "queer" actually means to you so I'LL understand."
Could that be because computer science has progressed beyond what it was since then? Like hundreds of years ago anyone could be a "doctor" and just do some cocaine about it, but now you actually need to study? Like how language progressed as we discovered new things and had to add or change words to express those.
@@MagesseT1 My general thinking was that the reappropriation of the word is recent and ill-defined, so I wanted to know what it meant to them personally. It's also worth noting that this same person advocated violence in another art piece and this was not questioned at all.
@@APandBS The underpinnings of computer science as a discipline are math and logic, and that doesn't change just because the highest abstraction layers are shifting.
@@LucidStew Thanks for the reply! That makes sense, but in that case the highest abstraction layers are the cutting edge things that reach beyond maths and logic? While the maths and logic is (relatively?) stable, the application of that in software and now AI might be beyond those academics. Not to diminish them at all, but isn't CompSci now beyond only maths and logic? Self-perpetuation has been a longstanding symptom of academia especially so with the tenured and more insular areas. It happens frequently in other disciplines, lots of excellent research has been dismissed simply because it was not written in English for example. I am not sure it is new at all and this video seems to focus on changes in thinking which may or may not pan out but it's shaking the tree at least. I absolutely agree with being able to question things. I am of the mind that, if broached in good faith, there is very little that cannot be, even should not be questioned. Otherwise you fall into the stagnation of those academics you mentioned cutting off supply of new DNA and existing in an echo chamber. Having read your other reply it sounds like another "artist" who was edgy for sake of it. But considering the frequent intent behind such questions, the reactions of the professors is to be expected. As evidenced, intended or not, by the other replier talking about defining queer, while using a thesaurus (which doesn't define but give synonyms) as an example for rebuttal. Did you get an answer from your classmate in the end?
I am an atheist, and came to that conclusion from an argument by Douglas Adams. Nevertheless, I always think about another essay Adams wrote about feng shui and how the purpose of that was to imagine a Chinese-style dragon flowing through a room as a way to visualize the best placement for furniture, etc. The human mind clearly has a stronger grasp on stories and metaphor than facts and figures, so placing beneficial life tips within the framework of a fictionalized narrative might actually be the best path forward. Obviously that comes with its own problems, but it's an idea with some merit.
That was the best conversation I’ve listened to in a long time. I can only hope that peak woke has been reached. For me it’s plain to see the horrible consequences and I can’t believe everyone can’t, yet the woke continue to be so loud while saying nothing.
New Atheism was anti-theism with the caveat that it was pro-liberal and anti-Christian. In other words, it was a replacement religion for traditional ones, but it did not have any theologically sustainable arguments whatsoever. Even the name is deceptive. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in deities or more broadly absence of belief in the supernatural. But atheism is not a movement, it does not inform one of what one believes in but what one does not believe in. The so-called new atheists may have been godless but they were far from irreligious. They were liberal. And liberalism is anti-human, utopian ideology, or what we might think a modern religion. Liberalism is what made socialism possible. New atheists were nothing new, they were promoting essentially logical positivism under another name, and eventually it would leave, inevitably to scientism. Social Justice didn't ruin new atheist movement, social justice was the logical outcome of movement such as new atheism. It has nowhere else to go. And to prove that you can look at Sam Harris for example. The poster child of the new atheist movement. Have you seen his various rambling and TDS so sever its not even funny. Have you seen his not infamous interview with Triggernometry? Like I said. Godless maybe, but far from irreligious. Like all liberalism it will always end with socialism. “There is nothing that has done more havoc to the rain of revival than the illusion of "modernism and theological liberalism" Liberalism sets itself as another gospel but not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” ― Oluseyi Akinbami The liberal ideology is a contemporary religion. I disagree with the viewpoint of the progressive modern liberals that pursuing religious freedom is a worthwhile objective, because it is a false premise. Liberals impose their own religion upon other religions because they believe it to be the only true faith and the most moral of them all. So much so, they believe that simply self-identifying as a liberal is enough to be morally superior. They outsource the responsibility of personal morality by unloading it onto the liberal ideology itself. This is expanded by the Liberal dogma of the “doctrine of universal human rights.” Those who disagree with it are rarely tolerated; hence, those that are more dogmatic among the liberals, consider even challenging the human rights doctrine to be blasphemous. “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ― William F. Buckley “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.” ― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks The Theism of Sam Harris-or, When Rationalists Are Irrational ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w8EFYpu96og.html “I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square. And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the narrowest and most intolerant moralism.” *Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher. Haven't we seen that with so called social justice, wokness? Only liberalism allows room for that. By its very nature, liberalism is self-destructive. It is very cynical about old systems on the right and very naive about new systems on the left. “In the end, the actions of such liberals have the effect---again unwittingly---of continuing to cover for the goals of the extreme Left. Yet again, the soft Left is helping to conceal the hard Left whether it realizes it or not.” ― Paul Kengor, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century “Liberalism has failed, not because it fell short, but because it was true to itself. It has failed because it has succeeded. As liberalism has become more fully itself, as its inner logic has become more evident and its self contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims, yet realizations of liberal ideology. A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and of course expand liberty in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.” ― Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (2018) Reminds me of what someone said. Liberalism delivered what it promised, but it was the opposite of what most expected. Liberalism vs. Reality - Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 319-40; 345-9. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O-Qnk_Fv9vQ.html Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 319-40; 345-9. The Guilt of the Liberal - Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 221-8. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LMCEfB8xoUU.html
@@KrunoslavStifter Yes. What Western anti-theist movements fail to understand is that if you oppose (and wish to denegrate and purge) the fundamental beliefs of hitherto Christian peoples then you simply create a huge void that will be filled in by something else. It astounds me that the same voices who were pro-Dawkins, pro-Dennet, pro-Hitchens and pro-Smith et al, are now up in arms about wokeness and cultural Marxism/post-modernism being the establishment narrative. A case study in intelligence over wisdom.
@@brianmeen2158 Thank you. Where do we go from here? Well, I'll try to give me take on it in two parts. First, I want to say that there is not much any one individual in particular can do about it. The system is so enormous and so powerful, that I don't see what any one individual, whether he or she is the president of the United States or just a guy on the internet, can do about it. But at the same time, the very same reason it’s so powerful is also the reason why the system is structurally weak and ready to fall apart under its own weight. Let me explain what I mean. There is a great quote to illustrate this: "Howard Hughes was able to afford the luxury of madness, like a man who not only thinks he is Napoleon but hires an army to prove it." -Ted Morgan Howard Hughes was an American business magnate, investor, aviator, and filmmaker who was known for his eccentric behavior and reclusive lifestyle. He was born in 1905 in Texas and inherited a fortune from his father's tool company. Hughes became a successful film producer and aviation pioneer, but his mental health began to deteriorate in the 1940s. Hughes became increasingly paranoid and obsessive, developing a fear of germs and becoming a recluse. He would spend months at a time in hotel rooms, wearing tissue boxes on his feet to avoid contact with the floor. He also became addicted to painkillers and other drugs, which further exacerbated his mental health issues. In the 1950s and 60s, Hughes became involved in a series of legal battles and scandals, including a dispute over the ownership of his company and allegations of bribery and corruption. He also became known for his bizarre behavior, such as buying up entire floors of hotels and screening movies repeatedly. Hughes died in 1976 at the age of 70, and his cause of death was attributed to kidney failure. His life and legacy have been the subject of numerous books, films, and documentaries, with many focusing on his mental health struggles and eccentric behavior. Well, that is kind of how the American Empire is. He inherited a fortune that new generations are using to hire the army and maintain the fiction that they are the proverbial Howard, thinking they are Napoleon. In other words, because the US dollar was and still is, at least officially, the world reserve currency, And if the FED can create it out of thin air in any amount, the ability for the regime to support their madness of transformers and corruption could be supported. I mean, if you could create trillions of dollars out of thin air, by the press of a mouse and splurge it on anything you want. Rigging elections, buying out media companies, and setting up a "climate change" narrative that allows you to socially engineer any change you want under the guise of climate change. Subsidizing in the trillions for any project you want domestically or abroad Buying the largest army in the world and invading any country that does not approve of your monopoly, etc. You, too, would be like Howard Huges. Most people would. My point is that the current system has become way too dependent on the easy "money" they can just "print" out of thin air to fund any insane idea they want and bribe, extort, deceive, buy out, or attack with a large army anyone that stands in their way. But because they are so dependent on it, they stopped asking for permission from voters, citizens, or even cooperation. They just throw "money" at any problem, and the bigger it gets, the more "money" they throw at it. Eventually, when the proverbial print machine runs out of proverbial ink. It’s game over. They have nothing else so powerful to replace it, and as a consequence of that, they will be replaced. De-dollarization has started, and it's moving faster than the regime is ready to react to it. The so-called BRICKS+ countries. The BRICs is considered the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7 bloc of leading advanced economies, announcing competing initiatives such as the New Development Bank, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, the BRICS payment system, the BRICS Joint Statistical Publication and the BRICs basket reserve currency. Since 2022, the group has sought to expand membership, with several developing countries expressing interest in joining. BRICS is an acronym for five leading economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The first four were initially grouped as "BRIC" (or "the BRICs") in 2001 by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O'Neill, who coined the term to describe fast-growing economies that would collectively dominate the global economy by 2050; South Africa was added in 2010. Other countries are doing it, hence the BRICKS + acronym. The US has sanctioned so many countries and weaponized the dollar so much, everyone is fleeing it because it cannot be trusted. In the past, countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. were bombed or their regimes changed by the US. Like a champ in his prime who can knockout any challenger with one punch. Today, the US is an old, senile man who talks to trees, and challengers are getting bolder. The US can't knock out countries with a single punch anymore, and no one trusts its posturing anymore. Hence, the petrodollar is already pretty much dead, since OPEC nations decided to sell oil and accept not just dollars but other currencies. Next up will be the US dollar as world reserve currency, and then dollars domestically. Russia and now other countries of the BRIC's the iceberg to the US Titanic. It has hit the ice berg and while the ship is sinking, the US officials are rearranging chairs on the deck. Much like the belateand, reaction of the captain of the Titanic, the thinking is, US empire is too big to fail. And that is how, by the time the belated reaction happens, the Titanic is almost under the waves. Obsession with the Ukraine proxy war that the US is losing means the rest of the world is using the opportunity to de-dollarize and in the process undermine the US hegemony. Once that is gone internationally, it won't be long before domestically we see support for wokness drop as well. Because there will not be enough luxury money to support it. And the current system cannot cooperate with the normal people, so it will have to try to centralize power even more and become even more totalitarian, but I fear that by then it will be too late to exert total control both internationally and domestically. And that is when the system fails under its own weight. The collapse of the financial system will be the equivalent of WWI, which, after many centuries of control, finally allowed new people to come to power. I hope we won't get the same kind of people in power as Europe and Asia got after WWI, but one thing is certain: once the dollar collapses, expect true change. No sooner. Until then, stay out of the crossfire of he regime as much as you can, don't support the madness, and wait for the dollar to collapse. That’s the key. That is the linchpin of the whole system. Once you can't mouse-click trillions out of thin air to support your luxury of madness, it’s game over. It's time for something new. Something that is more aligned with reality and forced to cooperate with real people. Also, unlike the Bolsheviks, the Deep State today is more reliant on soft power and deception and control of information than brute force. And for former they need dollars in infinite amount. In the last few years with COVID scamdamic we have seen people being exposed to the lies and deception and are waking up in ever-increasing numbers to realize they are living in an Empire of Lies. As the trust goes down and as more people get censored and banned from society, much like externally, if you sanction enough countries, eventually they join and isolate you because they are larger in number. Look at the latest cable news development with Tucker being fired. The biggest start and one with the best ratting. For the sake of ideological protection they fired him, well they also fired and censored all out of people. When it was only Alex Jones or Assange, it could have been done. But now the number of people they try to de-Pearson is so large, it is becoming an opposing force they cannot stop anymore. Rumble, Twitter, Telegram and many smaller platforms are growing stronger while capable news and legacy media in general as well as Big Tech are growing weaker. No matter how many laws they pass or censorship. It’s not going to stop the trend any more than international de-dollarization. In the end they will be left with angry spoiled entitled demanding trans lunatics and ever weaker dollar to support themselves and their spoiled brats. How long can that last? For that I'll post my second reply. Read that one as well. Cheers!
"There is something I find disturbing about believing things that are almost definitely false so that society will function more smoothly." (59:58). And here is a problem I have with Jordan Peterson. He once stated that truth was the highest value, yet he was always cagey about his own religious beliefs. Lately he has become more and more explicit that religious belief is good for the individual and society and so should be promulgated. Well maybe it is, but that has nothing to do with the truth of religion or the nature of the universe.
Perhaps Peterson doesn’t yet precisely know his specific beliefs, and if he did, he might acquire new knowledge tomorrow and change them. So glad you know your rock solid truth that will never evolve.
@@hp-cs7mx Missing the point. You cannot on the one hand say that Truth is the most important principle and on the other that what is beneficial is. That is utilitarianism, not truth. You are also buying into the postmodernist idea which Peterson rejects that there is no such thing as the Truth. Just your truth and my truth.
This was a very interesting conversation. It was interesting to think that people believe that Christianity is a "pseudo religion." Just know that at the end of the day, Jesus will accept you. If you would like or need prayer please feel free to contact me. God bless us all ❤
Enjoying this discussion very much! I developed a workshop to engage participants in introspection. One of the 'tools' that participants walk away with, is a clearer sense of Self-awareness. I cannot change my beliefs and behaviors without first becoming aware of them. A delicate process indeed. One that most people resist. It is a moment in time, of self-reflection and self-connection. The intellectual discussions are fascinating but we also need to connect on a deeper level, in a safe and compassionate space. Small groups and lots of listening. I I call it R.I.P.P.L.E. Reflection:) Thank you both for the work that you do.🧡
I’m from Australia and he’s probably right that we’re behind the curve by a year when it comes to a backlash. Fortunately we do have what we call a good “bullshit meter”.
I’m an atheist and from my perspective, I see that public figures such as Dawkins have been elevated to the level of celebrity. Sadly, this seems to have led to many followers who may have jumped on a popular bandwagon and view these figures as “idols” that are beyond reproach. They are human and have human flaws. Their opinions should be viewed critically, not swallowed wholesale. I like Dawkins but it doesn’t mean I agree with 100% of everyone he says on every topic. I think the irony of the new atheist movement is that we criticise religious folks for a lack of critical thinking, then are often guilty of doing the same ourselves.
I'm a little surprised that Winston hadn't heard of Fat studies. I'm trying to figure out how he missed this fact, or whether I'm just obsessed with this stupid wokery and maybe the problem is mine.
This was a very good conversation. I do have to side with Winston. A lot of Christians were persecuted for believing in those things that founded those values, so these things meant a lot to them enough to die for. This is not just something to come to with rationality or just discover as a human being. The miracles provide a sense of validity to loving thy neighbor and praying for your enemies, because these are not instinctual and in many cases not rational. When you replace the God of the miracles with other ideologies, you start to try and create your own miracles, or a mythos of them - men can be women for example. They are trying to provide these 'miracles' through the tools they have to try and provide value to their position, to literally try and play God. If miracles didn't matter, they wouldn't be trying to reproduce them or defy them or explain them, and so on. But they do matter.
Great conversation, I almost agree 💯 but not quite, maybe 90/10. The remedy isn't to replace the woke religion with whatever it was he said, it's going back to God. Peace and love
No man it’s just a coincidence that when we threw out Christianity and the Wisdom of the Ages everything went woke. James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian totally are way smarter than everyone else in history lol
it is so fascinating to me to find out this thing has a name, woke ideology, i have been wracking my brains trying to work out what on earth this wierd jargon is.
Peter, the issue that you are neglecting was summed up succinctly in the first part of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil: "The will to truth which will still tempt us to many a venture, that famous truthfulness of which all philosophers so far have spoken with respect-what questions has this will to truth not laid before us! What strange, wicked, questionable questions! That is a long story even now-and yet it seems as if it had scarcely begun. Is it any wonder that we should finally become suspicious, lose patience, and turn away impatiently? that we should finally learn from this Sphinx to ask questions, too? Who is it really that puts questions to us here? What in us really wants “truth”? Indeed we came to a long halt at the question about the cause of this will-until we finally came to a complete stop before a still more basic question. We asked about the value of this will. Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth came before us-or was it we who came before the problem? Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks. And though it scarcely seems credible, it finally almost seems to us as if the problem had never even been put so far-as if we were the first to see it, fix it with our eyes, and risk it. For it does involve a risk, and perhaps there is none that is greater." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem is not HOW to derive truth, the problem is WHY "truth" is valuable to begin with; if I ask you to answer for Hamlet's question "To Be? Or Not to Be?" can you rationally prove to me that it is better to be? can you prove to me that choosing rather not to be would be a mistake? can you demonstrate empirically that to exist and suffer the obligation of answering this question is preferable to a state of non-existence in which no such need for justification exists at all? is it rationally true that living and dying are better than the absence of life itself?
Poetry is mental masturbation. Shakesphere in particular is garbage that should be forgotten. "The problem is not HOW to derive truth, the problem is WHY "truth" is valuable to begin with" - Nothing has any value at all in a metaphysical sense. The simple fact of the matter is, there are things that people want, and paying attention to truth is the best way to achieve these wants. Only an idiot would try to argue otherwise. Humans are obviously better at achieving their wants than baboons and the rest of the animals.
I was quite involved in the new atheist movement 15 years ago. It was amazing watching what was quite a big tent movement get taken over by progressive view points, to the point of kicking everybody else out, including Dawkins lol. It started with elevatorgate and atheism+ sub-movement with the atheism community that made no secret of its progressive leanings. All Of a sudden conferences were navel gazing about how sexist and racist we all were, which was a joke as you could find a more diverse group of people. It became an absolute circus, and stopped being fun, it stopped being a community of like minded people. But rather a community of bullies looking to lynch somebody. Now that type of progressivism has taken over everything. It was the cannery in the coal mine. A few years later the progressive mind virus did the exact same thing to gaming.
It is puzzling to me as well. I just don’t understand why or how do many people fall to this ideology? It’s like a mind virus of sorts and only a few of us have natural immunity.
That's why I hang out on 4chan, theyre the most diverse group of racists around. They don't even care what your skin color or race is, as long as you're racist.
As someone who double majored in Sociology and Gender Studies, I can tell you I learned a LOT from the latter course - but not what they WANTED me to learn! I learned that the discipline, while full of many well meaning people, is a load of unscientific nonsense. I learned that wanting to do research projects on such matters as violence against women and children, was not allowed, since such subjects are too cis-het-white-capitalist-carceral! 🙄🙄 I chose gender studies because the department had previously been women’s studies, and I thought it would give me an education on men’s violence against women. I thought I’d be allowed to explore issues like prostitution, pornography, child sexual abuse, domestic violence, lesbian rights, etc - but no! None of these were allowed to be explored unless you had the “correct” opinions, and as a lesbian I was never more discriminated against than by my gender studies cohort and teachers!!
This shows the difference between a person who has had this discussion before, and someone who has not. For the person who has not, it's great to benefit from the experience of the one who has, but from the point of view of the progression of the conversation, it tends to be an impediment, I felt.
38:00 I've felt this way about the words woman, man, and gender. He hit the nail on the head. It's really just a disagreement on the definition of words.
It's that and much more. Because the communists have always understood the power of words standing in for larger concepts. If you can use familiar words and morph them into their opposites, so that nothing makes any sense, you have scored a major victory over those who simply use words to communicate. Up is down, black is white, men are women and freedom is oppression. It is "thought-stopping" speech, the suppression of argument. 1984 wasn't simply about totalitarianism, it was specifically about communism, it's objectives and methods of control.
As philosophers Ed Feser and Peter Kreeft would happily show, the case for theism is almost unavoidable. If REASON is not behind the existence of our cosmos and human evolution and free will, then one has no reason to trust our sense of reason. GK Chesterton made this point brilliantly. Monotheism is the only radically coherent worldview. Atheism, mindless matter in meaningless motion, is incoherent and pretty much defines the word "stupid".
The saddest thing of all is that we are entering a period where being sociopathic is an advantage. Think the system under the Soviet Union. In East Germany 1/3 of the population was reporting to the Stasi. With technology today, 100% of communication is being surveilled.
I get that you want to be fair to all people, but it looks like if we leave it an open discussion about biology and fairness, that power vacuum will always be fill with the leftist ideology, because they don’t care about being functional, they only care about emotion and what they can frame as compassion. If there isn’t direction and leadership you will always lean toward ideas that are incorrect, but feel good, and allow those who want to take power to use them as a manipulation. Objective reality that we share must be paramount, science has to return to original principles and the left will have to be fine with that. Data never is on their side.
If someone could clarify this for me... Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay contributed towards the New Atheism movement. New Atheism has contributed towards the Woke movement. Now, Peter and James are working against the Woke movement. Is that a fair summary?
Alvin Gouldner's idea of "turning our intellectual guns towards ourselves" reflects his call for self-reflection and critical examination within intellectual endeavors. This concept has had an impact on modern intellectual pursuits in several ways. Here's a step-by-step guide to illustrate the influence of his understanding: 1. Self-Reflection and Intellectual Honesty: Gouldner emphasized the importance of intellectual honesty and self-reflection among scholars and intellectuals. He encouraged individuals to critically examine their own biases, assumptions, and positions, and to be open to questioning their own intellectual frameworks. Example: In academic disciplines, scholars have increasingly embraced reflexivity, acknowledging the potential influence of their own perspectives and positions on their research. This self-awareness fosters a more critical and nuanced understanding of complex social, cultural, and political phenomena. 2. Critique of Intellectual Authority: Gouldner's ideas challenged traditional notions of intellectual authority and expertise. He questioned the tendency to accept established theories and paradigms without critical scrutiny and called for a more self-critical and self-aware approach to intellectual inquiry. Example: Gouldner's critique of intellectual authority has contributed to the rise of alternative voices and perspectives within academia. It has encouraged scholars to question prevailing theories, challenge dominant paradigms, and engage in interdisciplinary dialogue to broaden intellectual horizons. 3. Interdisciplinary and Cross-Disciplinary Engagement: Gouldner's call for self-reflection has fostered a greater emphasis on interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary engagement. Scholars recognize the value of diverse perspectives and insights from different disciplines in expanding knowledge and addressing complex societal issues. Example: Collaborative research projects that bring together scholars from different academic fields have become more common. This interdisciplinary approach allows for a broader range of perspectives, methodologies, and insights, resulting in more comprehensive and nuanced understandings of complex problems. 4. Critical Theory and Social Critique: Gouldner's ideas align with the broader tradition of critical theory, which emphasizes questioning power structures, social inequalities, and dominant ideologies. Intellectuals influenced by Gouldner have adopted critical perspectives to analyze and critique social and political phenomena. Example: Critical theorists draw upon Gouldner's call for self-reflection and intellectual honesty to engage in social critique. They examine power dynamics, social injustices, and ideological biases in various domains such as politics, economics, gender, and race, aiming to bring about social change and transformation. 5. Ethical Considerations in Intellectual Pursuits: Gouldner's focus on intellectual honesty and self-reflection has prompted scholars to consider ethical dimensions within their intellectual pursuits. This includes questions of representation, accountability, and the potential impact of research on marginalized or vulnerable populations. Example: In fields such as anthropology and cultural studies, researchers increasingly emphasize ethical practices, such as informed consent, cultural sensitivity, and collaboration with communities, ensuring that intellectual endeavors are conducted responsibly and with consideration for ethical implications. Overall, Gouldner's call for self-reflection and intellectual honesty has influenced modern intellectual endeavors by promoting critical engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration, social critique, and ethical considerations. Scholars increasingly recognize the importance of questioning their own assumptions and positions, fostering a more self-aware and responsible approach to intellectual pursuits. Peter's assumptions are biased towards the Promethean spirit of Greek rationality. The orientation a person takes to the world determines their behaviour, determines their activities and determines the level of human existence they may get up to, Peter's Promethean spirit of Greek rationality presupposes the very thing he is trying to prove, because his orientation is built into his justification and legitimation of that choice. Peter should follow Alvin Gouldner's idea of "turning our intellectual guns towards ourselves" which reflects his call for self-reflection and critical examination within intellectual endeavors.
It's just amazing. The simple question "If woke came in by replacing religion then what will replace woke?" Peter just seemed incapable of comprehending. He was asked the question I think 3 times and each time his answer was completely irrelevant to the question. Talking about institutions and street epistemology and values and all this unrelated stuff.
Wokeism is an ideology, just like every religion.... Rationality and critical thinking is what should replace religion, nothing more! No more maindless ideologies!
At 37:33 he expresses disapproval of Macron's pro china stance, saying France had a "venerable" relationship with the US . This venerable friend , the US, executed an act of not just terrorism, but of war against its EU allies by blowing up the Nordstream pipeline and got its vassals to accept in place more expensive US lmg. Part of the reason for dedollarization is that countries are appalled at what's coming out of the US culturally. It is defiling , debasing, and demoralizing humanity , and the latest degradation -- the barbaric state sponsored surgical alteration of confused children --- has touched a nerve.
"At one time, educators boasted that their role was not to teach students what to think but how to think. Today, their role is far too often to teach students what to think on everything from immigration to global warming to the new sacred trinity of 'race, class and gender.'" - Thomas Sowell
About the woke dictionary in other languages, in Spanish for example there are many of words that do translate very similarly and include the second woke meaning when used in that context. For example inclusion=inclusión, diversity=diversidad, practically same meaning and also same potential woke charge. I live in Mexico and is sad and frustrating to see the same bad ideas being (poorly) translated, propagated by the media and implemented into legislation and universities.
"I don't see ideas changing, people just double-down" - Winston My ideas are radically different today than they were, even a decade ago. About the only thing constant is my atheism. But I only really became an atheist at the age of about 27! Prior to age 27 I was a mystic agnostic. I was once very far left. Today leftism disgusts me.
I am in much the same position as you, only I was a catholic and apostasized at twenty. I voted for democratic politicians for a few years, and the party started going further left than I was willing to go. These days both parties in the united states annoy me and infuriate me in an equal level. Both sides are hypocrites. Henson said I'm not in the halls of power. I do not know for a fact what is happening and have to rely on what are essentially second hand reports by severely biased individuals with gross institutional agendas. It's very difficult to find a community when I am so politically orphaned and isolated. Now I know how the LGBT community felt for so long.
I know he is probably trying to be charitable by referring to religion as "almost certainly false" since I suspect he has no doubt in his mind. But if he is referring to Christianity though, he'd want to be sure that it is utterly false. If its claims are remotely true, he has a lot to lose.
Good for Winston to push back on Peter’s solution of “values”. I think Peter knows, but he’s unwilling to make a nod towards Christianity, the theory, the institutions, and the people. Peter has a very immature view of Christianity. Unfortunate.
I don't... everyone has an ideology, it is impossible to avoid. But some are more conducive toward liberty and intellectual discourse than others. But Boghossian is the first academic I have heard so far that is willing to admit that perhaps some ideologies are not proper for education. It was sad watching him dance around the direct, repeated question "what do we replace it with" though. And hint: Game of Thrones is not that great, but is some kind of modernist shibboleth
Peter seem to struggle to answer the question of what you would replace the pseudo ideologies with. I think he’s trying to avoid saying a specific faith belief (like Christianity) would be to replace the woke ideology because then he would be saying only one belief would save us from all this. Although it maybe true… he does not want to shut out so many other people…. Of other belief systems. This way … anyone against the woke ideologies can change their course. He’s not trying to convert people to a new ideology… more to help them fight the woke ideology… or avoid it all together.
‘Woke’ is not necessarily a pejorative. One could think of it as a useful term to encompass cancel culture, anti-racism, DIE, CRT and all the other critical theories that follow from the Frankfurt school and similar ideologies.
Being a bit pessimistic, I question that 'peak woke' will coincide with 'peak trans'. I know several people who strongly back DEI and 'decolonisation' and so forth but hold gender critical views and i fear that 'wider woke' might cut itself loose from the sinking trans ship (I'm thinking of the UK in particular). Agreed that all the woke ideologies have base assumptions in common ('lived experience', lack of debate, primacy of 'identity') but I think it is possible for a person to selectively hold woke ideas, for example many wokists haven't heard of fat acceptance, and pretty much all of them have come out against trans-racialism.
Trans-racialism might not seem like it's a thing, but it's already happening. I suggest you look up the case of Andrea Smith, professor of Native American studies, and her claims of native ancestry.
While I agree there are (and will be more) 'woke' individuals who disagree with some of the wackier parts of the movement, the issue is they have built their power structure on a "unity against the evil oppressors (i.e., western civilization, white, male, Christian)". If the vast majority of the 'woke' community would stand up and cast out the worst current and coming (e.g., pe do acceptance) fringe, they might be able to hold onto power for a bit longer. But they simply won't do that because the vast majority of the 'woke' are cult-believers. They aren't rational, they simply believe and parrot what the cult commands. Their problem is there is no central command for the cult, it is a nightmarish frankenstein's monster of a virus that has been released on the public and continually mutates at the whims of anyone who can make a public proclamation (e.g., fat acceptance) that sounds in line with 'woke' logic.
Boghossian is inept at presenting a seamless narrative. He references things without explaining them, he offers unnecessary explanations for obvious concepts, and he jumps to new topics without properly finishing prior topics. I’m completely against woke insanity, but the anti-woke need better representatives.
@@bobsmith5185I hear you and agree. I like Peter and commend him for doing what he is doing but it does seem like his mind is a bit scattered during interviews. He does jump around quite a bit as well and it frustrates me. We could use much smoother representatives . One guy I always thought was very sharp and a good speaker was Milo. I’m not sure what he is doing now but he’s be good in this role. He’s charismatic too so that’s a plus
