@@TurntBucket not true, i studied politics in two universities. a degree in politics and a masters in European politics. At NO point was any of this bullshit pushed on us, and at no point would that kind of narcissistic behavior be condoned by lecturers, co-students or anybody else present. This is a product of specific studies such as race studies and gender studies
@@gooseboy4025 I did not mean that everyone in humanities will be exposed to this. I was just commenting that other fields', e.g. formal sciences, curriculum are more insulated from these gender politics. Did you guys discuss gender pay gap? that is a big current political battle. If you did, how was that handled? did they debunk the garbage numbers that most ppl that claim the wage gap use? P.S. not really sure what the scope of a degree in politics is. I assume they cover current politics. Stanford's PoliSci (not the same major but I assume there is good overlap) has courses like "Contemporary African Politics" and "The Changing Nature of Racial Identity in American Politics" which would be hard to lecture on without debunking a bunch of the far left nonsense. Not sure if they do or don't
@@TurntBucket gender pay gap was discussed, although this was back in 2010 so the gender pay gap was not as much in the spotlight then as it is today. What has happened has been a gradual shift over the decades from rational politics to emotional politics, especially in the US and Canada, not so much in the UK where i studied (although it certainly is heading that way with Brexit). It was handled respectful, there were people who supported the idea that there was a pay gap, there were some who were skeptical, some rejected the notion, and during the seminar when we discussed this, i never came across the kind of inquisition-style identity politicking from any of the students nor the staff. The reason why there is more of a gender politics in the humanities, is because gender politics is an aspect OF the humanities. It appears in : History, Sociology, Anthropology, Politics, Phycology etc. Humanities are often interlinked, which makes it easier for these ideas to transfer from one another in the way that science doesn't so much. I think this is a biproduct of the kind of populism that has spread in part because of social media, but also because of the ease in which information can be produced on the internet. Just because information can be produced does not mean that all of that information is reliable. We live in an age where one person's evidence is another's propaganda, We live in an age where information is plenty but truth is sadly rare, and you are forced to wave through a lot of junk just to get to the truth.
I dont mean to be so off topic but does someone know of a way to get back into an instagram account..? I was stupid forgot the password. I love any tips you can offer me.
It's interesting how many of the audience turn down the opportunity to speak with the mic, and then interrupt those that are speaking. It's as though they just want to cause a scene and break rules, more than they want to get their argument across.
It reminds me of this video I saw that shows exactly what you are referring to. On either side of the gate are dogs, each one barking aggressively at the other. This gate starts to recede into its housing and the dogs start to move with it. Everyone watching thinks that there is going to be a fight, and rightly so. However, as there is no more gate to separate the two groups, and both sides back down and go their separate ways. Most people who interrupt, try to shut down someone from speaking, or even just protesting in some cases, they don't believe that they will actually go toe to toe with someone. They have something to say for sure, but if there is going to be someone who will respond they back out because they weren't prepared for it, or they know their viewpoint can not stand on its own unless its behind a wall or supported by the same viewpoint shouted from different people.
Perhaps they believe that using the mic to speak is granting legitimacy to the "power structure" of those holding the panel and the order of the event itself. They seem more interested in being seen speaking than heard and understood.
DK Youngson Unsurprising given 1.) The state of academia. 2.) A discussion about identity politics is like a furry convention: the only people who're going to show up are people who're into it and the morbidly curious who'll be forever bitter they can't unsee or unhear the yiffing.
How dare you, Never Simple! I didn't choose to be a trans neko-girl! It is the height of patriarchial oppression every time my cis-white man boss at Wendys tells me that I can't wear my neko-ears and tail at work. I've sued him multiple times to no avail, because this country is institutionally anti-furry! Also, "yiffing" is OUR WORD! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO YIFF, ZHIR!
I don't think so, DK Youngson. Listen to that applause at 38:30. Most of the people get it, they're just quietly listening. You've got a few rowdy youngsters that make the group look bad.
The audience has no idea about logical, civilised rethoric, civilised conversation in general. In my country we shut up the face of people who are so disrespectful. This generation will drive the US and by this the world into a time of decay
Nightmare2018 when they started snapping I almost turned it off but I soldiered on. What do these kids think they are going to do when they get out of school?
The reason racial divides dont heal is because its an utopian vision to think they would in the first place, human beings are driven and controlled by nature and when you introduce scarcity into the mix you will see how quickly men turn into beasts and women into whores.
Mark Lilla is a dangerous and radical ideologue. People like him worry me. I really like what Kmele Foster has to say. Very intelligent, thoughtful and articulate.
For me both of them are needed. Mark Lilla point is : in order to make a change, you need to -seize the power- and for that you need to search for aliancies. Kmele Foster point : to be able to make those aliancies you must look at the bigger picture. With the bigger picture in mind ,you can see the real problems which are important for everyone. To sum up Mark Lilla is the strategist/hand-to-hand fighter and Kmele Foster is the ideologue
Yeah he has the right point about process certainly. But to come and say "I'm not so interested in freedom of speech I'm interested in winning". He could have phrased it in a way that doesn't make it seem like he doesn't care about freedom of speech but rather that he has different priorities but he didn't. I'm worried that his end goal is a really bad place.
@@oligreenfield1537 can't agree with that, Lilla is just dangerous. He's got the same exact goals as the audience, which is securing the desired ends, rather than the desired means. If he succeeds in trampling free speech to get his people in power, then great - he wins for a bit. But now when the other side takes power, we're back where we started AND we no longer have free speech. The process of discerning and legislating truth is what we need to focus on, not just getting what we THINK is truth put into power as quickly as possible.
Hating races because of their perceived racism ...is how racism itself is born There was a lot of angry people in the crowd who were apparently blinded by their racist anger. True logic doesn't produce anger. Cognitive dissonance produces anger. #ForgiveOthers #AngerCausesBlindness #LoveOthers
They were downright immature. I am a black man, and there's no reason why they behaved this way. Do I think they are racist? No. and to label them that way is akin to what they are doing, as most of their contention was directed at the black panelist. It's an emotional immaturity and an inability to find positive outlets for their very real concerns.
While I agree with the panelists on nearly everything, I wouldn't go so far as to be opposed to anger. Isn't it possible to feel angry and express it way more constructively than (the loudest parts of) this audience did?
@@SuperSuperspoof Mark even said that at the end. He told them to take all that energy & use it to win elections & get political POWER. It is SO much easier to protest, to complain, to petition, to hold marches, etc. than to do the HARD, LONG-TERM WORK required to build & maintain political power. That's also exactly the point Kmele was making at the end. These people,- white, black, men, women,- were acting like spoiled brats. They had no interest in learning anything that may help them; they were just having temper tantrums. It was rude to the moderator, to the panelists, & to others who came to hear the speakers! I call other people on the Left, "professional protesters" b/c they seem more interested in "speaking truth to power" than in TAKING OVER THE POWER. They seem to think they can get power by shouting down people. I've never seen such delusional, self-destructive behavior as I've seen from the Left and from Democrats (they are not synonymous) in the last 10 years. The Left is perpetually stuck in the '60s, thinking that protests are going to change things, unable to adapt to new political realities & use new strategies, tactics, & tools. (I'm a progressive & I am appalled by the behavior of this audience. I am starting to understand the backlash to "SJWs". Their behavior is so narcissistic & destructive. Those of us on the Left who haven't gone completely insane are TRYING to stage an intervention but we keep getting shouted down & called names.)
Why is Mark Lilla on the panel? Nothing says "I'm open to discussing these ideas" like railing about a politics/power and stating arrogantly "I want to win"!
Alinsky Rocks! I think he's appealing to pragmatism. In a way, he's trying to separate the activists who actually want reform from those who are playing at it for college.
36:01 Kmele's statement here is so perfect. You can read the fairness and compassion all over his face. Perfect bridge of the emotional and practical. Thank you.
Watched till the end and came away with the feeling that the audience was a bunch of emotionally selfish children. All they wanted was attention. Very sad considering that the panelists (with the exception of Lilla) had multiple good points that could be leveraged into actionable steps to begin solving some of these issues.
You must be a Republican if you didn't like what Mark Lilla was saying b/c he is absolutely right about the Democratic Party. Bill Maher did a good "New Rule" segment on this called, "Power Begets Power." Dems & progressives are destroying themselves w/ identity politics & don't listen when someone like Lilla warns them that while they protest & make scenes, the GOP keeps getting more power by winning elections, which in turn allows them to gerrymander & suppress the vote & appoint right-wing ideologue judges, & pursue policies that get them even MORE power.
"I'm oppressed," screams the university student in a wealthy western nation sitting clothed and well fed in an air conditioned room while people graciously tolerate him being utterly rude and disrupting an entire event.
The problem with identity politics- let's let the audience speak for ten minutes . There you go - that steaming pile of horse shit just vomited out by them in the way of questions is what's wrong.
I watched the Spike video about whether the left is eating their own and this video makes it seem like the answer is yes. Most of the panelist are on the same side as the audience, yet most of the audience seems to think they are the enemy. While Mark Lilla seemed the most radical, I agree with his point that if you want to enact change, you need to gain power. I fear the audience failed to walk away with some sweet gems of knowledge being shared and that's a shame
She makes a really good point. Identity politics can be used for good purposes like in the civil rights movement. The black community was mobilized based upon a trait to demand a universal value of equality. Where identity politics goes wrong is when a trait is supposed to give a person or a group special knowledge or experiences that others cannot relate to. She knows she has had experiences being a brown Muslim girl growing up in Texas that a white guy may not have experienced, but she doesn't think a white guy or anyone else couldn't understand those experiences.
Jim King exactly. I'm a straight cis-gender black mail. But that doesn't mean I can't be sympathetic to gay rights or women right, or the struggle of other minorities.
Have you ever, in a moment of kindness, engaged with a homeless person on the subway, only to regret it moments later upon realizing that the person is pathologicaly angry and completely divorced from reality? Now imagine that instead of a homeless person, you have the same experience with a university student or an instructor. Respect for the panelists and moderator for holding themselves together despite this abuse.
17:55 He's not interested in free speech, wants to win, yet says he's a liberal. That's a self-contradictory statement. He takes issue with how identity is being used in place of principle, yet uses identity (in the case of interference with easy voting) to argue against the Republican Party. If he wanted to argue an issue without bringing identity into it, he'd point out that either side does what it can to keep others from voting the "wrong way", and that the affect on racial groups is just a happenstance in the pursuit of that goal. But as he says, he wants to win, and to win he plays the identity politics angle. This guy either has no self-awareness, or is a liar. Either way, he's an illiberal ideologue who doesn't practice what he preaches, and is part of today's problem.
Oh my god, they are clicking rather than clapping because clapping is a micro-aggression. The fucking cringe. This panel was perfectly reasonable and not at all extreme, they all leaned left of centre and despite that they get grilled by the crowd.
Mark Lilla seems a little too power hungry. The solution is not more power and more force/compulsion... it's more love and tolerance. The rest of the speakers, however, seemed to be well grounded. Kmele Foster's comments were the most reasonable and logical - great job! :-) That being said, Mark was right on the money when he pointed out that being angry at a race for their perceived racism actually sparks more racism, feeding the fire.
Compulsion is the reality of politics and he recognizes this. The only thing keeping the country "together" is force via government. Love and tolerance can only come through voluntary interactions
Mark Lilla is one of the most disappointing voices in these debates. He has written books on the history of philosophy that are supposed to be deep, and if you are writing that kind of books and doing scholarship in that area, you should not be bringing yourself to the feces-flinging level that is contemporary American political/tribal infighting. If your mind is focused on Kant, Hegel, Hobbes, the scholastics, etc., you should be away above that bullshit, and you should be able to look at it dispassionately and analytically, with an objective and open mind. Instead he behaves like a regular partisan hack. And that is both sad and extremely frightening, for it shows how deeply primitive tribalism controls the human mind
I disagree. Lilla is correct. His main point is that the left may show there is inequality, but the left is terrible at building solidarity. Identity politics is not working for the left today. It isn't a movement to try to get people to register to vote and vote people into office that shares their views. It is mostly an expressive movement. You can march in the streets all you want but if you don't get institutional power it doesn't do anything. It is also problematic because if your identity is based upon your group, you want to show your loyalty to your group by going more and more extreme to show how dedicated you are to the cause. And if your identity is based upon your group, it is hard to make any compromise. If you do, you lose part of your identity.
I believe the one prof on the panel was Mark Lilla, he was without question the most lost from moment one. He tried to back his book, after watching this I won't bother.
this is a generation that grew up in a sea of speech, voices, and the chaotic noise of social media on the internet. thus, they don't understand the value of a lone voice having the freedom to say something disagreable.
This illustrates the problems with so many of these movements. They don't want to have discussions, they don't want to listen they just shout. And while they may have valid points, they get lost in all the noise. I think the very last point was a great one; if these movements focused their energies on specific laws or policies, they could actually get things done, rather than protesting about structural racism and inequality, which are much more difficult things to change.
What an absolute circus ... Interesting that many in the audience felt the need to 'click' at disruptive audience members in approval (presumably because they feel that applause is traumatising) while simultaneously shrieking and yelling at the panel in a way that was more threatening and traumatising than any kind of applause could achieve. It seems that trauma is apparently OK if it's done to people you don't agree with ...
One of my pet peeves is when people are forced to put the caveat "As a ____" before any response. What you say can be relevant, valid, or compelling regardless of who you are. The fact that our identities have to be flashed before making a statement is a needless obstacle to discourse. I'll be a hypocrite for a second and say that as a progressive, nothing that any of the panelists said was incorrect or problematic. It might be a problem with the audio recording, but I couldn't hear the audience make any points that could amount to anything tangible. They seemed more interested in shouting down the panelists than actually accomplishing anything. Most galling was the man who disdained the notion that facts matter. If you do not have any respect for the very concept of a fact, why should I engage with you in any capacity? If you cannot be engaged with in a constructive manner, then you will make no change and all of this is for nothing. Almost none of the people in the audience had the intention of learning anything. They came to flash their SJW credentials. Unfortunately, they probably left feeling like they won.
I am watching in June of 2020 and Kamele Foster just made the case that addressing police reform should not be through the prism of race because the statistics don't support it. After two weeks of protests and riots and censorship, I am most grateful to hear these words. I myself have sought that data, and to the same result. I wish we could address issues together. The racial divide is even more present now. I found that Tony Timpa, a white man in Dallas, was killed a year ago by police in exactly the same way as George Floyd, and yet this cannot be part of the conversation, or even admitted.
The moment Camille (sp?) said Dr Martin Luther King Jr was jailed for violating the speech laws of that day, the students reflexively began chanting “Black Lives Matter!” Lol Wonders never cease lol Truth is stranger than fiction lol Oh-my-oh-my!
Damn this makes me mad. They really do not give a damn about getting actual change through. It's almost as if they want the country to get worse, so they can be seen as martyrs, or just have something else to scream about. Like someone leading you to water, and you just run off screaming about how pissed off you are you that you don't have water...It's utter insanity....
This is exactly the problem. Too many black Americans have made the narrative that they are oppressed a core part of their identity. If they solved the problem of oppression, they would be destroying a piece of themselves. It's a form of Stockholm syndrome. They enjoy the power that being a "victim" gives them. So long as they're always "the victim", they have a permanent excuse to never take responsibility for themselves. That's why no matter how equal or free or fair things get, they will strain to invent new philosophical ways to continue being oppressed.
Jack Maxwell, they DO want the country to “get worse.” The aim of the left is to create chaos, instability, & collapse leading to a country ripe for takeover by Socialists/Communists.
The fact that Spiked is doing this tour is a wonderful thing. They are providing a broad audience an opportunity to see and hear an intelligent exchange of ideas. Along with that, we get the opportunity to see and hear what it is like when one is so caught up in their ideology that they cannot tolerate hearing the views of others.
How are people still going off at Kmele with regards to his final point? Absolutely astounding. The reality is is that some people act as their own worst enemy. There are people in Wisconsin who would not take the appropriate action politically, but thanks to Michael Bell, that's one battle they won't be able shirk away from. It's already been won. It's a shame so much political activism is wasted prodding society at large to change when one person can spearhead the change if only they keep at a single fight. Law is only changed one policy at a time.
Anyone else think that the guy on the right of the panel is just a different kind of far left extremist? The guy is clearly veeeery far in left field, which is just a step up from far left identity politics.
He seems highly delusional as well, who in their right mind would think that any party would take away the rights of black people to vote, there'd be public executions of politicians a la French Revolution...It's all part of wanting a cause to fight for to feel important, and this is just the easiest one I suppose.
Hadoken This was my initial reaction as well. He doesn't know what he is talking about, just spouting a bunch of hateful things about Republicans. Take votes away from black people? what? The first Republican President Abraham Lincoln fought a bloody civil war to end slavery. The Civil Rights Act AND the Voting Rights Act were more heavily supported by Republican than Democrats. To think that one party owns the patent on justice and equality is to be narrow minded and foolish. To think that any party that wanted to maintain power and relevance in a democratic system would willingly go away from the will of the people is silly. He also does a fair bit of partisan fear mongering by threatening the possibility of a "Constitutional Convention in a Trump administration" ... as if he thinks that's a real threat. None have yet since 1787 when the current Constitution was made. And for good reason, since that Convention went FAR beyond it's scope and rewrote the whole thing. Some might argue it was for the better, but still, the implications are far too dangerous for any party to really seriously consider pulling that trigger.
During this debate an oft repeated historical "fact" was used that America's wealth is built on slavery. Now while I have no doubt whatsoever that there is some part of American wealth that is attributable, even today, to slavery, I would find it hard to believe that this amounted to more than a few percent of the total. Has anyone ever attempted to attribute what proportion today of the wealth of the US would still exist if slavery had not existed? As for the woman at 30:10, she must assume because I'm white male and middle aged and speak English as my first language, I have no identity. Because she seems to think that as a young black female she has an identity that cannot be turned off. Well nor can I.
CreativeNameToStandOut I think that is a little bit unfair. I think some were better than others. It was hard to conduct a serious debate because I believe the audience would not allow it. Do you think all the panel were poor? And what was it they said that you thought was poor in particular?
46 mins: "You cannot simultaneously tell someone, you MUST understand me--you CANNOT understand me!" 59 minutes: "Even if you released all the Black and Latino prisoners, the US would still be a world leader in incarceration. [You must consider this deeply if you care about the problem you say you care about]."
I'm a nurse. Do you want to hear my political opinions as I'm starting your IV or helping to deliver your baby? No, I don't think you probably do. The people paying to go to a football game don't really want to have the players political opinions forced in their face while watching a game.
Yana Y. Idiotic point nurses dont sing national anthem before work and i do hear nurses talk about politics casually. Its human nature it doesnt bother me stop being such a coward.
This is so depressing. I applaud the panelists and the moderator for maintaining composure and professionalism. I’m sincerely worried for how the situation with the left is going.
This is painful to watch. Your education system must be dire if these kids reach that age without the skills needed for debate and discussion. So many things must have gone wrong to produce such idiocy. Respect to the panel.
DAMN! I only listened to the entire video bc I'm working on a paper. That was tough to get through lol Kmele seemed like the most logical person up there, the prof was on the fringe... had the crazy eye.
The second speaker expressed exactly what I believe and that is that if Hitler were alive today spouting his evil views he would not be listened to and would be ridiculed until he became a joke figure....certainly not someone who would hold any influence and power.
Fortunately, it wasn't the entirety of the audience who was terrible. It was just a few bad actors who are out to damage and destroy things. The majority of the people clapped when Kmele Foster made his points. And as bad as the professor on the right was, it's good to see him engage in debate rather than trying to silence people. I can respect a real Marxist like him, even if I disagree fundamentally with him. Good engagement in the end.
I just looked it up, Michael Bell Senior has done a great job with changing a little law so policie gets investigated after a shooting by someone else then themselves. Great job.
What a dumb question structure. Why wouldn’t you just have a question answered straight away while items fresh and then move onto the next? First time I’ve ever seen this sort of shit
The panel was great. It certainly had people with different political perspectives. The only one that troubled me a bit from what they said was Mark Lilla. He pointed to things like Reps trying to suppress the black vote by gerrymandering or the voter ID laws. First and foremost, both parties have taken part in gerrymandering, which is the redrawing of voting districts. Both have done it to try to prop up their parties. There is no evidence that the Reps are trying to use that to suppress the black vote but instead are looking to try to get elected more. I disagree with doing it but both parties are guilty of using it to attain and hold onto power. Many states with voter ID laws had a higher turnout by as a percentage of the black race in those states compared to white turnout as a percentage of the white race in those same states. So, again the evidence does not bear out the accusation being made. He also spoke of polling times changes. I couldn't not find much on this subject online other than from places like mother jones. I don't know much on this issue as I have never heard this argument ever made before. From what I did read, it does not seem to have really any evidence to back up the claim that it was done to suppress the black vote. I find those arguments troubling because he pronounces himself a liberal but none of those claims seem to be based in any evidence. These are Democrat left talking points only. They are used to stir emotion only and don't seem to be based in any logical argument backed up by data. IT does concern me that he works at Columbia and has influence on others in that respect. I am okay with him having different views from mine and we probably would agree on certain topics as I am basically a center libertarian which is close to classical liberalism. But, it bothers me that he outright made these claims without backing them up at all because I know most people who are closely aligned with him will take him at his word instead of challenging those baseless assertions. Those are the very ideas that help give birth to groups like BLM that do no good in the end but just cause even more separation between groups of people. The corwd on the other hand. It was painful listening to them talk. The pure ethos arguments showed there danger in this video.
I love it. The most condescending, pedantic one on the panel is the old white Democrat who tells the audience to grow up. The "right wingers" are respectful and engaged.
Expressing with emotional outburst, and not with considered thought. But I'm not surprised. The sad thing is that the anger and frustration being expressed is real enough. These people have lots of real good reasons to feel that way. But a concerted effort to understand and come up with a way to actually fix the problems - that's what is missing. And so it goes. I have to wonder, that when intelligent people actually capable of understanding and addressing the issues, are shouted down - well then how much do the yellers really want things fixed?
This comes to show you-- we are going to have to make new universities and let the old ones wither on the vine. This time the new ones should explicitly not teach social justice.
The audience is embarrassing. Such an uninspiring, daft and witless bunch. Gotta laugh I guess. Otherwise, how else to bear their collective fatuousness?
A quote appropriate for our current cultural milieu: “If you center your life in a "noble cause" (global warming, social justice, etc), you will divide the world into "good" and "bad" and demonize your opponents. Without them, you have no purpose.” Timothy Keller, The Reason fro God
the clear and glaring dichotomy in critical thinking,fact based reasoning between the panel and the audience is beyond astonding. however,gladly enough a lot was learnt from the panelists
there is a lot of angry people in college I HOPE THEY NEVER HOLD ANY OFFICE THAN IN MY OPINION WOULDN'T BE SO GOOD FOR OUR COUNTRY! THERE SO CLOSED AND NARROW MINDED , AND ITS FEELINGS OVER FIXING REAL PEOPLES PROBLEMS , AND LASHING OUT AND MAD YOU DONT GET YOUR WAY !
This is a wild video. Some of the most calm, collected, concerned, thoughtful and articulate speakers juxtaposed with some of the most emotional, inconsiderate, disruptive and disrespectful audiences I've ever seen. Does this reflect the opposing sides on a grander scale? I'd say to a certain degree it does.
Good talk and really good points, the only way to make things better is to be open to dialogue, that dialogue will be offensive and provocative but it has to happen for things to get better.
The way the BLM guy speaks to Kmele Foster ( the black speaker on the panel) was very disrespectful and indicative of the points made about identity politics. He continually referenced his racial identity almost more than the ideas he discussed.
I don’t think this audience represents a majority of young progressives but this video would bring a lot of constructive thought into the ethos of people I know who drink too much of the kool-aide without reading the label and checking the nutritional facts on MyFitnessPal...if ya know what I mean.
This started civil, even if I don't necessary agree with the speaker point. Continue with a spectacle of entitled snowflake crying. notably at 35 minute. And the finish at 1:17: is absolutely magnificient '' focus on doing stuff that's actually productive''! and you can hear them protesting in the background, much easier to complain without any particular goal or objective...
The audience is a perfect example of how the universities teach what to think, rather than how.
only in the humanities
@@TurntBucket not true, i studied politics in two universities. a degree in politics and a masters in European politics. At NO point was any of this bullshit pushed on us, and at no point would that kind of narcissistic behavior be condoned by lecturers, co-students or anybody else present. This is a product of specific studies such as race studies and gender studies
@@gooseboy4025 I did not mean that everyone in humanities will be exposed to this. I was just commenting that other fields', e.g. formal sciences, curriculum are more insulated from these gender politics. Did you guys discuss gender pay gap? that is a big current political battle. If you did, how was that handled? did they debunk the garbage numbers that most ppl that claim the wage gap use?
P.S. not really sure what the scope of a degree in politics is. I assume they cover current politics. Stanford's PoliSci (not the same major but I assume there is good overlap) has courses like "Contemporary African Politics" and "The Changing Nature of Racial Identity in American Politics" which would be hard to lecture on without debunking a bunch of the far left nonsense. Not sure if they do or don't
@@TurntBucket gender pay gap was discussed, although this was back in 2010 so the gender pay gap was not as much in the spotlight then as it is today. What has happened has been a gradual shift over the decades from rational politics to emotional politics, especially in the US and Canada, not so much in the UK where i studied (although it certainly is heading that way with Brexit). It was handled respectful, there were people who supported the idea that there was a pay gap, there were some who were skeptical, some rejected the notion, and during the seminar when we discussed this, i never came across the kind of inquisition-style identity politicking from any of the students nor the staff.
The reason why there is more of a gender politics in the humanities, is because gender politics is an aspect OF the humanities. It appears in : History, Sociology, Anthropology, Politics, Phycology etc. Humanities are often interlinked, which makes it easier for these ideas to transfer from one another in the way that science doesn't so much. I think this is a biproduct of the kind of populism that has spread in part because of social media, but also because of the ease in which information can be produced on the internet. Just because information can be produced does not mean that all of that information is reliable. We live in an age where one person's evidence is another's propaganda, We live in an age where information is plenty but truth is sadly rare, and you are forced to wave through a lot of junk just to get to the truth.
I dont mean to be so off topic but does someone know of a way to get back into an instagram account..?
I was stupid forgot the password. I love any tips you can offer me.
It's interesting how many of the audience turn down the opportunity to speak with the mic, and then interrupt those that are speaking. It's as though they just want to cause a scene and break rules, more than they want to get their argument across.
Andy Brice so right
It reminds me of this video I saw that shows exactly what you are referring to. On either side of the gate are dogs, each one barking aggressively at the other. This gate starts to recede into its housing and the dogs start to move with it. Everyone watching thinks that there is going to be a fight, and rightly so. However, as there is no more gate to separate the two groups, and both sides back down and go their separate ways.
Most people who interrupt, try to shut down someone from speaking, or even just protesting in some cases, they don't believe that they will actually go toe to toe with someone. They have something to say for sure, but if there is going to be someone who will respond they back out because they weren't prepared for it, or they know their viewpoint can not stand on its own unless its behind a wall or supported by the same viewpoint shouted from different people.
because they dont believe in free speech
Perhaps they believe that using the mic to speak is granting legitimacy to the "power structure" of those holding the panel and the order of the event itself. They seem more interested in being seen speaking than heard and understood.
That's a well-employed and intentional tactic to cause disruption.
The audience is full of racial ideologues. No arguments. Just rhetoric.
DK Youngson Unsurprising given 1.) The state of academia. 2.) A discussion about identity politics is like a furry convention: the only people who're going to show up are people who're into it and the morbidly curious who'll be forever bitter they can't unsee or unhear the yiffing.
Most of the first round was barely managed to get a clear question out. The last questioner seemed to be literally shaking
Cheers mate.
I always look to the top comment for a summary.
How dare you, Never Simple! I didn't choose to be a trans neko-girl! It is the height of patriarchial oppression every time my cis-white man boss at Wendys tells me that I can't wear my neko-ears and tail at work. I've sued him multiple times to no avail, because this country is institutionally anti-furry! Also, "yiffing" is OUR WORD! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO YIFF, ZHIR!
I don't think so, DK Youngson. Listen to that applause at 38:30. Most of the people get it, they're just quietly listening. You've got a few rowdy youngsters that make the group look bad.
Great panel. Love spiked. Next time leave the audience outside and let the adults talk.
DoctorMandible - well said
I have to commend the patience of the panel.
The audience has no idea about logical, civilised rethoric, civilised conversation in general. In my country we shut up the face of people who are so disrespectful. This generation will drive the US and by this the world into a time of decay
Wow, how many stereotypes were fulfilled by that audience?!
All of them!
Every single one of them
I would LOVE to hear the panelist comments about how they thought this event went (their faces at the close speak volumes)
Its hilarious.
This was overwhelmingly disrespectful from the crowd and just shows are issues and why they aren't healing
Nightmare2018 when they started snapping I almost turned it off but I soldiered on. What do these kids think they are going to do when they get out of school?
The reason racial divides dont heal is because its an utopian vision to think they would in the first place, human beings are driven and controlled by nature and when you introduce scarcity into the mix you will see how quickly men turn into beasts and women into whores.
Mark Lilla is a dangerous and radical ideologue. People like him worry me. I really like what Kmele Foster has to say. Very intelligent, thoughtful and articulate.
Agreed. The anger in his eyes was scary.
For me both of them are needed. Mark Lilla point is : in order to make a change, you need to -seize the power- and for that you need to search for aliancies. Kmele Foster point : to be able to make those aliancies you must look at the bigger picture. With the bigger picture in mind ,you can see the real problems which are important for everyone.
To sum up Mark Lilla is the strategist/hand-to-hand fighter and Kmele Foster is the ideologue
Yeah he has the right point about process certainly. But to come and say "I'm not so interested in freedom of speech I'm interested in winning". He could have phrased it in a way that doesn't make it seem like he doesn't care about freedom of speech but rather that he has different priorities but he didn't. I'm worried that his end goal is a really bad place.
@@oligreenfield1537 can't agree with that, Lilla is just dangerous. He's got the same exact goals as the audience, which is securing the desired ends, rather than the desired means. If he succeeds in trampling free speech to get his people in power, then great - he wins for a bit. But now when the other side takes power, we're back where we started AND we no longer have free speech. The process of discerning and legislating truth is what we need to focus on, not just getting what we THINK is truth put into power as quickly as possible.
Listen to the Fifth Column Podcast, a weekly dose of what's on Kmele's mind... not to mention some epic whiskey-fueled rants by Michael Moynihan.
Kmele Foster and Sarah Haider were worth listening to. The audience was insufferable
Hating races because of their perceived racism ...is how racism itself is born
There was a lot of angry people in the crowd who were apparently blinded by their racist anger.
True logic doesn't produce anger. Cognitive dissonance produces anger.
#ForgiveOthers #AngerCausesBlindness #LoveOthers
Tony Olsen , very well said!
They were downright immature. I am a black man, and there's no reason why they behaved this way. Do I think they are racist? No. and to label them that way is akin to what they are doing, as most of their contention was directed at the black panelist. It's an emotional immaturity and an inability to find positive outlets for their very real concerns.
While I agree with the panelists on nearly everything, I wouldn't go so far as to be opposed to anger. Isn't it possible to feel angry and express it way more constructively than (the loudest parts of) this audience did?
@@SuperSuperspoof Mark even said that at the end. He told them to take all that energy & use it to win elections & get political POWER. It is SO much easier to protest, to complain, to petition, to hold marches, etc. than to do the HARD, LONG-TERM WORK required to build & maintain political power. That's also exactly the point Kmele was making at the end. These people,- white, black, men, women,- were acting like spoiled brats. They had no interest in learning anything that may help them; they were just having temper tantrums. It was rude to the moderator, to the panelists, & to others who came to hear the speakers! I call other people on the Left, "professional protesters" b/c they seem more interested in "speaking truth to power" than in TAKING OVER THE POWER. They seem to think they can get power by shouting down people. I've never seen such delusional, self-destructive behavior as I've seen from the Left and from Democrats (they are not synonymous) in the last 10 years. The Left is perpetually stuck in the '60s, thinking that protests are going to change things, unable to adapt to new political realities & use new strategies, tactics, & tools. (I'm a progressive & I am appalled by the behavior of this audience. I am starting to understand the backlash to "SJWs". Their behavior is so narcissistic & destructive. Those of us on the Left who haven't gone completely insane are TRYING to stage an intervention but we keep getting shouted down & called names.)
Why is Mark Lilla on the panel? Nothing says "I'm open to discussing these ideas" like railing about a politics/power and stating arrogantly "I want to win"!
Alinsky Rocks! I think he's appealing to pragmatism. In a way, he's trying to separate the activists who actually want reform from those who are playing at it for college.
36:01 Kmele's statement here is so perfect. You can read the fairness and compassion all over his face. Perfect bridge of the emotional and practical. Thank you.
Watched till the end and came away with the feeling that the audience was a bunch of emotionally selfish children. All they wanted was attention. Very sad considering that the panelists (with the exception of Lilla) had multiple good points that could be leveraged into actionable steps to begin solving some of these issues.
You must be a Republican if you didn't like what Mark Lilla was saying b/c he is absolutely right about the Democratic Party. Bill Maher did a good "New Rule" segment on this called, "Power Begets Power." Dems & progressives are destroying themselves w/ identity politics & don't listen when someone like Lilla warns them that while they protest & make scenes, the GOP keeps getting more power by winning elections, which in turn allows them to gerrymander & suppress the vote & appoint right-wing ideologue judges, & pursue policies that get them even MORE power.
"I'm oppressed," screams the university student in a wealthy western nation sitting clothed and well fed in an air conditioned room while people graciously tolerate him being utterly rude and disrupting an entire event.
This video will be a field day for Sargon.
Sargon isn't a good source. He misrepresents wildly.
El Matadores you mean Sargon has a point.
Ooooooh, I see now. They don't WANT to change anything.
I can see why the next talk was, “is the left eating itself?”
The problem with identity politics- let's let the audience speak for ten minutes . There you go - that steaming pile of horse shit just vomited out by them in the way of questions is what's wrong.
I watched the Spike video about whether the left is eating their own and this video makes it seem like the answer is yes. Most of the panelist are on the same side as the audience, yet most of the audience seems to think they are the enemy. While Mark Lilla seemed the most radical, I agree with his point that if you want to enact change, you need to gain power. I fear the audience failed to walk away with some sweet gems of knowledge being shared and that's a shame
Delta Whiskey , you said that exactly right! The audience cannot even recognize its own allies.
I could listen to Sarah Haider forever..she's amazing :)
She makes a really good point. Identity politics can be used for good purposes like in the civil rights movement. The black community was mobilized based upon a trait to demand a universal value of equality.
Where identity politics goes wrong is when a trait is supposed to give a person or a group special knowledge or experiences that others cannot relate to.
She knows she has had experiences being a brown Muslim girl growing up in Texas that a white guy may not have experienced, but she doesn't think a white guy or anyone else couldn't understand those experiences.
Jim King exactly. I'm a straight cis-gender black mail. But that doesn't mean I can't be sympathetic to gay rights or women right, or the struggle of other minorities.
vitimmentality, most blacks are,sad, weakminded people, and wantn dady governerment to take care of all grievences,
Have you ever, in a moment of kindness, engaged with a homeless person on the subway, only to regret it moments later upon realizing that the person is pathologicaly angry and completely divorced from reality? Now imagine that instead of a homeless person, you have the same experience with a university student or an instructor.
Respect for the panelists and moderator for holding themselves together despite this abuse.
17:55 He's not interested in free speech, wants to win, yet says he's a liberal. That's a self-contradictory statement.
He takes issue with how identity is being used in place of principle, yet uses identity (in the case of interference with easy voting) to argue against the Republican Party.
If he wanted to argue an issue without bringing identity into it, he'd point out that either side does what it can to keep others from voting the "wrong way", and that the affect on racial groups is just a happenstance in the pursuit of that goal. But as he says, he wants to win, and to win he plays the identity politics angle.
This guy either has no self-awareness, or is a liar. Either way, he's an illiberal ideologue who doesn't practice what he preaches, and is part of today's problem.
Sarah Haider is my ultimate intellectual crush. As good looking as she is well spoken.
i see i'm not the only one
Thomas Emilio whats thicc?
shes hot
This is a tragedy.
Oh my god, they are clicking rather than clapping because clapping is a micro-aggression. The fucking cringe. This panel was perfectly reasonable and not at all extreme, they all leaned left of centre and despite that they get grilled by the crowd.
Mark Lilla seems a little too power hungry. The solution is not more power and more force/compulsion... it's more love and tolerance.
The rest of the speakers, however, seemed to be well grounded. Kmele Foster's comments were the most reasonable and logical - great job! :-)
That being said, Mark was right on the money when he pointed out that being angry at a race for their perceived racism actually sparks more racism, feeding the fire.
Compulsion is the reality of politics and he recognizes this. The only thing keeping the country "together" is force via government. Love and tolerance can only come through voluntary interactions
Mark Lilla is one of the most disappointing voices in these debates. He has written books on the history of philosophy that are supposed to be deep, and if you are writing that kind of books and doing scholarship in that area, you should not be bringing yourself to the feces-flinging level that is contemporary American political/tribal infighting. If your mind is focused on Kant, Hegel, Hobbes, the scholastics, etc., you should be away above that bullshit, and you should be able to look at it dispassionately and analytically, with an objective and open mind. Instead he behaves like a regular partisan hack.
And that is both sad and extremely frightening, for it shows how deeply primitive tribalism controls the human mind
I disagree. Lilla is correct.
His main point is that the left may show there is inequality, but the left is terrible at building solidarity. Identity politics is not working for the left today. It isn't a movement to try to get people to register to vote and vote people into office that shares their views. It is mostly an expressive movement. You can march in the streets all you want but if you don't get institutional power it doesn't do anything.
It is also problematic because if your identity is based upon your group, you want to show your loyalty to your group by going more and more extreme to show how dedicated you are to the cause. And if your identity is based upon your group, it is hard to make any compromise. If you do, you lose part of your identity.
35:26 "The more you shout, the less everyone in this room has the opportunity to make their point".
I believe the one prof on the panel was Mark Lilla, he was without question the most lost from moment one. He tried to back his book, after watching this I won't bother.
Bet he had flashbacks when that crazy old feminist woman started screaming.
RIP the Democratic party in 2017
2016 is when it died. Remember that whole election thing that happened, and the subsequent denial and doubling-down of what they did wrong?
When has screaming in someones face caused them to change their mind?
this is a generation that grew up in a sea of speech, voices, and the chaotic noise of social media on the internet. thus, they don't understand the value of a lone voice having the freedom to say something disagreable.
This illustrates the problems with so many of these movements. They don't want to have discussions, they don't want to listen they just shout. And while they may have valid points, they get lost in all the noise. I think the very last point was a great one; if these movements focused their energies on specific laws or policies, they could actually get things done, rather than protesting about structural racism and inequality, which are much more difficult things to change.
What an absolute circus ... Interesting that many in the audience felt the need to 'click' at disruptive audience members in approval (presumably because they feel that applause is traumatising) while simultaneously shrieking and yelling at the panel in a way that was more threatening and traumatising than any kind of applause could achieve. It seems that trauma is apparently OK if it's done to people you don't agree with ...
This entire panel didn't have a single conservative point of view expressed.
Kmele is a libertarian. Even better than conservative.
unless he's a hard right libertarian, of the Hoppean variety ideally, not really.
One of my pet peeves is when people are forced to put the caveat "As a ____" before any response. What you say can be relevant, valid, or compelling regardless of who you are. The fact that our identities have to be flashed before making a statement is a needless obstacle to discourse.
I'll be a hypocrite for a second and say that as a progressive, nothing that any of the panelists said was incorrect or problematic. It might be a problem with the audio recording, but I couldn't hear the audience make any points that could amount to anything tangible. They seemed more interested in shouting down the panelists than actually accomplishing anything. Most galling was the man who disdained the notion that facts matter. If you do not have any respect for the very concept of a fact, why should I engage with you in any capacity? If you cannot be engaged with in a constructive manner, then you will make no change and all of this is for nothing.
Almost none of the people in the audience had the intention of learning anything. They came to flash their SJW credentials. Unfortunately, they probably left feeling like they won.
I don't care about free speech, I want to win. Buy my book. No really, buy it. Also, Be afraid.
I am watching in June of 2020 and Kamele Foster just made the case that addressing police reform should not be through the prism of race because the statistics don't support it. After two weeks of protests and riots and censorship, I am most grateful to hear these words. I myself have sought that data, and to the same result. I wish we could address issues together. The racial divide is even more present now. I found that Tony Timpa, a white man in Dallas, was killed a year ago by police in exactly the same way as George Floyd, and yet this cannot be part of the conversation, or even admitted.
The moment Camille (sp?) said Dr Martin Luther King Jr was jailed for violating the speech laws of that day, the students reflexively began chanting “Black Lives Matter!”
Lol
Wonders never cease lol
Truth is stranger than fiction lol
Oh-my-oh-my!
Damn this makes me mad. They really do not give a damn about getting actual change through. It's almost as if they want the country to get worse, so they can be seen as martyrs, or just have something else to scream about.
Like someone leading you to water, and you just run off screaming about how pissed off you are you that you don't have water...It's utter insanity....
This is exactly the problem. Too many black Americans have made the narrative that they are oppressed a core part of their identity. If they solved the problem of oppression, they would be destroying a piece of themselves. It's a form of Stockholm syndrome. They enjoy the power that being a "victim" gives them. So long as they're always "the victim", they have a permanent excuse to never take responsibility for themselves. That's why no matter how equal or free or fair things get, they will strain to invent new philosophical ways to continue being oppressed.
Jack Maxwell, they DO want the country to “get worse.” The aim of the left is to create chaos, instability, & collapse leading to a country ripe for takeover by Socialists/Communists.
The fact that Spiked is doing this tour is a wonderful thing. They are providing a broad audience an opportunity to see and hear an intelligent exchange of ideas. Along with that, we get the opportunity to see and hear what it is like when one is so caught up in their ideology that they cannot tolerate hearing the views of others.
This audience epitomises why Trump won and why after voting twice for Obama I'll never vote democrat again
How are people still going off at Kmele with regards to his final point? Absolutely astounding. The reality is is that some people act as their own worst enemy. There are people in Wisconsin who would not take the appropriate action politically, but thanks to Michael Bell, that's one battle they won't be able shirk away from. It's already been won. It's a shame so much political activism is wasted prodding society at large to change when one person can spearhead the change if only they keep at a single fight. Law is only changed one policy at a time.
5 Years later all panelists were right in predictions
What are you talking about specifically? These ppl lost control of the smallest party their message is terrible.
Anyone else think that the guy on the right of the panel is just a different kind of far left extremist? The guy is clearly veeeery far in left field, which is just a step up from far left identity politics.
And yet they still attack him as if he was a nazi.
He seems highly delusional as well, who in their right mind would think that any party would take away the rights of black people to vote, there'd be public executions of politicians a la French Revolution...It's all part of wanting a cause to fight for to feel important, and this is just the easiest one I suppose.
Absolutely when he opens with "I don't care about free speech, I care about winning" he's more dangerous than the idiots in the audience.
He created what he is dealing with.
Hadoken This was my initial reaction as well. He doesn't know what he is talking about, just spouting a bunch of hateful things about Republicans. Take votes away from black people? what? The first Republican President Abraham Lincoln fought a bloody civil war to end slavery. The Civil Rights Act AND the Voting Rights Act were more heavily supported by Republican than Democrats.
To think that one party owns the patent on justice and equality is to be narrow minded and foolish. To think that any party that wanted to maintain power and relevance in a democratic system would willingly go away from the will of the people is silly.
He also does a fair bit of partisan fear mongering by threatening the possibility of a "Constitutional Convention in a Trump administration" ... as if he thinks that's a real threat. None have yet since 1787 when the current Constitution was made. And for good reason, since that Convention went FAR beyond it's scope and rewrote the whole thing. Some might argue it was for the better, but still, the implications are far too dangerous for any party to really seriously consider pulling that trigger.
During this debate an oft repeated historical "fact" was used that America's wealth is built on slavery. Now while I have no doubt whatsoever that there is some part of American wealth that is attributable, even today, to slavery, I would find it hard to believe that this amounted to more than a few percent of the total. Has anyone ever attempted to attribute what proportion today of the wealth of the US would still exist if slavery had not existed? As for the woman at 30:10, she must assume because I'm white male and middle aged and speak English as my first language, I have no identity. Because she seems to think that as a young black female she has an identity that cannot be turned off. Well nor can I.
Poor panelists!
CreativeNameToStandOut I think that is a little bit unfair. I think some were better than others. It was hard to conduct a serious debate because I believe the audience would not allow it. Do you think all the panel were poor? And what was it they said that you thought was poor in particular?
46 mins: "You cannot simultaneously tell someone, you MUST understand me--you CANNOT understand me!"
59 minutes:
"Even if you released all the Black and Latino prisoners, the US would still be a world leader in incarceration. [You must consider this deeply if you care about the problem you say you care about]."
Kmele Foster, great opening.
I'm a nurse. Do you want to hear my political opinions as I'm starting your IV or helping to deliver your baby? No, I don't think you probably do. The people paying to go to a football game don't really want to have the players political opinions forced in their face while watching a game.
Yana Y. Idiotic point nurses dont sing national anthem before work and i do hear nurses talk about politics casually. Its human nature it doesnt bother me stop being such a coward.
There's something to be said for the discipline of right-wing crowds, when it comes to actually discussing ideas...
The amount of affluent anger from the audience is why this generation will fail us as a country, as a culture, and as a species.
Wow....... if the students in the room are the next generation of professionals..... we are fucked. It will simply be civil war.
"We really want to bring it out to you guys", said the moderator. Hahaha, careful what you wish for.
Kmele knows how to keep his cool.
This is so depressing. I applaud the panelists and the moderator for maintaining composure and professionalism. I’m sincerely worried for how the situation with the left is going.
This is painful to watch. Your education system must be dire if these kids reach that age without the skills needed for debate and discussion. So many things must have gone wrong to produce such idiocy. Respect to the panel.
College has really become a shitshow.
DAMN! I only listened to the entire video bc I'm working on a paper. That was tough to get through lol Kmele seemed like the most logical person up there, the prof was on the fringe... had the crazy eye.
On the "debate" someone should teach these hysterical loud-mouthed idiots the meaning of the phrase "counter-productive."
The second speaker expressed exactly what I believe and that is that if Hitler were alive today spouting his evil views he would not be listened to and would be ridiculed until he became a joke figure....certainly not someone who would hold any influence and power.
that crazy loud old grey haired lady in the back...isn't she the crazy cat lady from the simpsons? I'm certain I saw a cat being thrown at the panel.
lol i think she was trying to relive her hay-day from the 60s.
If I had been there I would not have helped screaming at her to SHUT up!!!!!!!!!!
Fortunately, it wasn't the entirety of the audience who was terrible. It was just a few bad actors who are out to damage and destroy things. The majority of the people clapped when Kmele Foster made his points. And as bad as the professor on the right was, it's good to see him engage in debate rather than trying to silence people. I can respect a real Marxist like him, even if I disagree fundamentally with him.
Good engagement in the end.
lol
"And you wonder why these Liberal Echo Chambers pump out crazies"
Kill Shot. You could hear the triggering going off
“Don’t tell me about the facts, I don’t need no facts to tell me that I’m in a state of oppression!”
Wow 😳😳😳
I just looked it up, Michael Bell Senior has done a great job with changing a little law so policie gets investigated after a shooting by someone else then themselves. Great job.
Camille was amazing in ending this. Never heard of him, but I will be looking for more of him.
i never thought the problem in the US universities was this big but jeez!! they are in for some rough years ahead
What a dumb question structure.
Why wouldn’t you just have a question answered straight away while items fresh and then move onto the next? First time I’ve ever seen this sort of shit
The comment from the gentleman at 51:00 gave me hope that there was still a sense of rationalization amongst a seemingly angry mob
The panel was great. It certainly had people with different political perspectives. The only one that troubled me a bit from what they said was Mark Lilla. He pointed to things like Reps trying to suppress the black vote by gerrymandering or the voter ID laws. First and foremost, both parties have taken part in gerrymandering, which is the redrawing of voting districts. Both have done it to try to prop up their parties. There is no evidence that the Reps are trying to use that to suppress the black vote but instead are looking to try to get elected more. I disagree with doing it but both parties are guilty of using it to attain and hold onto power. Many states with voter ID laws had a higher turnout by as a percentage of the black race in those states compared to white turnout as a percentage of the white race in those same states. So, again the evidence does not bear out the accusation being made. He also spoke of polling times changes. I couldn't not find much on this subject online other than from places like mother jones. I don't know much on this issue as I have never heard this argument ever made before. From what I did read, it does not seem to have really any evidence to back up the claim that it was done to suppress the black vote.
I find those arguments troubling because he pronounces himself a liberal but none of those claims seem to be based in any evidence. These are Democrat left talking points only. They are used to stir emotion only and don't seem to be based in any logical argument backed up by data. IT does concern me that he works at Columbia and has influence on others in that respect. I am okay with him having different views from mine and we probably would agree on certain topics as I am basically a center libertarian which is close to classical liberalism. But, it bothers me that he outright made these claims without backing them up at all because I know most people who are closely aligned with him will take him at his word instead of challenging those baseless assertions. Those are the very ideas that help give birth to groups like BLM that do no good in the end but just cause even more separation between groups of people.
The corwd on the other hand. It was painful listening to them talk. The pure ethos arguments showed there danger in this video.
I love it. The most condescending, pedantic one on the panel is the old white Democrat who tells the audience to grow up. The "right wingers" are respectful and engaged.
People who think that shouting the panel down is going to win them fans are the worst
Expressing with emotional outburst, and not with considered thought. But I'm not surprised.
The sad thing is that the anger and frustration being expressed is real enough. These people have lots of real good reasons to feel that way.
But a concerted effort to understand and come up with a way to actually fix the problems - that's what is missing. And so it goes.
I have to wonder, that when intelligent people actually capable of understanding and addressing the issues, are shouted down - well then how much do the yellers really want things fixed?
This comes to show you-- we are going to have to make new universities and let the old ones wither on the vine.
This time the new ones should explicitly not teach social justice.
Thank god for this talk. It’s about time. I applaud everyone on the panel.
The audience is embarrassing. Such an uninspiring, daft and witless bunch. Gotta laugh I guess. Otherwise, how else to bear their collective fatuousness?
If there's anything that will make people vote Republican it's these people in the audience.
Kiss. The students in attendance have absolutely no idea what ears and brains are used for. The shout and scream yet nothing is spoken
Every colour of lives matters.
A quote appropriate for our current cultural milieu: “If you center your life in a "noble cause" (global warming, social justice, etc), you will divide the world into "good" and "bad" and demonize your opponents. Without them, you have no purpose.” Timothy Keller, The Reason fro God
the clear and glaring dichotomy in critical thinking,fact based reasoning between the panel and the audience is beyond astonding.
however,gladly enough a lot was learnt from the panelists
the people in the crowd are talking about concrete matters, and the panel is talking about abstract matters
there is a lot of angry people in college I HOPE THEY NEVER HOLD ANY OFFICE THAN IN MY OPINION WOULDN'T BE SO GOOD FOR OUR COUNTRY! THERE SO CLOSED AND NARROW MINDED , AND ITS FEELINGS OVER FIXING REAL PEOPLES PROBLEMS , AND LASHING OUT AND MAD YOU DONT GET YOUR WAY !
"do facts matter" ooooft.
Where was Ben Shapiro
Man, I wish these people in the audience would just be kicked out.
the people in the crowd are fighting a boogey man
Its amazing to see how far divided the two leftist groups are, all because of identity politics.
Because this is how debates are supposed to work
Man I feel bad for the MC - he still put on a great effort.
This is a wild video. Some of the most calm, collected, concerned, thoughtful and articulate speakers juxtaposed with some of the most emotional, inconsiderate, disruptive and disrespectful audiences I've ever seen. Does this reflect the opposing sides on a grander scale? I'd say to a certain degree it does.
Good talk and really good points, the only way to make things better is to be open to dialogue, that dialogue will be offensive and provocative but it has to happen for things to get better.
The way the BLM guy speaks to Kmele Foster ( the black speaker on the panel) was very disrespectful and indicative of the points made about identity politics. He continually referenced his racial identity almost more than the ideas he discussed.
These discussions are great, glad I found them.
I don’t think this audience represents a majority of young progressives but this video would bring a lot of constructive thought into the ethos of people I know who drink too much of the kool-aide without reading the label and checking the nutritional facts on MyFitnessPal...if ya know what I mean.
Kmele is super smart. Does he have a podcast?
He should.
The Fifth Column podcast as well as some stuff on FreeThink
This started civil, even if I don't necessary agree with the speaker point.
Continue with a spectacle of entitled snowflake crying. notably at 35 minute.
And the finish at 1:17: is absolutely magnificient '' focus on doing stuff that's actually productive''! and you can hear them protesting in the background, much easier to complain without any particular goal or objective...
58:40 I like this guy.
The violent element of the black live matters has destroyed the movement.