Speaking Out in an Age of Outrage | Katherine Brodsky
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 май 2024
- Subscribe for exclusive content at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/
Learn more and support the foundation at originsproject.org/
A note from Lawrence:
I first stumbled upon the journalist Katherine Brodsky, who has been a commentator and writer for various media outlets, when I heard about her new book, No Apologies: How to Find and Free Your Voice in the Age of Outrage. The title intrigued me but I admit I was a bit skeptical. Having written and spoken about co-called cancel culture in the academic world, I expected I might find nothing new in her book, but I was wrong.
Katherine was motivated to write her book after her own experience of being mobbed online after having defended a colleague in an online media group she helped moderate, for the crime of having posted a job opportunity at Fox News. While she had become aware of the growing social intolerance she was witnessing around her, it was her own experience that caused to make a crucial decision. These kind of experiences can be debilitating, as she had discovered, and she decided to explore the experiences of others, to see how they had recovered their voices, fought back against the mob, or otherwise moved on.
The stories in No Apologies are poignant, and fascinating. Katherine is a clear and compelling writer, and an eloquent expositor, as I discovered during our discussion. We explored her own experience, her interests in journalism, and her own takeaways from the stories she explored as a journalist, which form the basis of the book. It was a fascinating and provocative discussion, and in many ways uplifting rather than depressing. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did, and that it helps others to deal with the a society that seems to be becoming increasing intolerant to free and open discussion about important issues.
Full Episodes Playlist:
• Ricky Gervais - The Or... 
Наука
It's good to hear this rational conversation. I can feel the internal symmetries of Bayes' Rule balancing my mind as you speak.
1:56:00 - I do think vaccine mandate was based on science. Scientifically less people would have died if more people were vaccinated as quickly as possible. Politically it's a different question.
Theis was excellent, thank you both.
She is awesome.
finally have a moment to listen to this i am looking forward to it thanks Dr
First of all: Thank you Katherine and Lawrence for speaking truth on this topic. What a delightful, insightful chat.
Second: Please know, what you say and think is perfectly reasonable, normal, empathetic and also free of delusion.
Third: That many people seem to be in need of a north star like this podcast is baffling at best.
Censorship vs the right to misinform. What a dilemma we face today.
There is no dilemma. Right to misinform is free speech
@@MrSammer1972 What if a dictator misinforms his way into power?
@@jps101574Then the ignorant get what they deserve … and probably would want anyway. An independent is what is needed today. It is quite strange to me that a politician, synonymous with “known liar”, might be considered “honest” by intelligent people. There is nothing odd about a large percentage of free people that don’t want to choose “a lesser of two evils” and stay home on Election Day. When the sheep finally realize they can join the other side and promote an independent (break the paradigm), the misinformation thing will be a non-issue in the face of free speech. Till then, business as usual.
Thank You ❤ very good discussion ❤ keep up the great content ❤
Outrageous 😂 loved it, thank you ❤
We've got the world and his wife 'speaking out', but the trouble is that most of them - of all persuasions - are completely clueless. What we need is more people to stop and _think_ , and for people to stop believing they know everything when in fact they know nothing.
For some people - being cancelled might actually improve their lives. Life before the proliferastion of social media ... was actually, believe it or not, fine!
Transparency and integrity are very important in a free civilized society. Can integrity be taught? If so, why is it not more prevalent? People aren’t the problem, the system is. If capitalism survives, humanity won’t.
Nice one Lorro. Important topic. I’ve missed you since I left Twitter.
First time i've seen Katheine. She's very likable and extremely smart
They are running out of fakers.
Only Fakers and Criminals are afraid of Free Speech since they are to be exposed.
🤣
❤
Daryl Davis for president!
🌹🌹🌹🌹
📍1:36:43
2📍1:18:51
3📍1:39:59
I agree with Lawrence’s general conclusion. This Is an insightful discussion. I the end critical evidence based thinking, the scientific method for understanding reality is the best tool in humanity’s arsenal.
This Is an insightful discussion. I the end critical evidence based thinking, the scientific method for understanding reality is the best tool in humanity’s arsenal.
Who got catfished with the thumbnail? ha...
same lol
2:00:56 Alex Jones
If you guys are afraid of your audience, imagine what will happen when the truth comes out, you have all your life recorded and available to does who was harmed by your making a good living.
"People who put their pronouns in their profile are not NECESSARILY bad people"
These two people nodding furiously at each other over this wisdom.
The speech does not trigger you. Neither speech or words themselves have any power over you.
Only your thoughts about the speech can disturb you, and that's your problem.
slander can damage reputation which in turn affect career.
words from authority has power.
which is a contradiction to your claim. hence it is not true in the broadest sense.
I agree. Only Fakers and Criminals are afraid of Free Speech since they are to be exposed.
@@goodlearnerbadstudent756 In your haste to contradict me, you completely missed my point. But that's OK. Most people are incapable of looking for, much less seeing, anything beyond appearances.
What a narc if not psychotic thing to say
@@alextinsley9117 "your point" is no excuse for your poor phrasing.
Lawrence Krauss is a physicist. And physics strives to be rigourous. The wordings of theorems and law(while might not be "rigourous" in hindsight) strives to be rigourous as far as possible.
You could have said for example: speech or words from persons can only affect the subject if and only if it translates to any physical, legal action etc
(could probably make it tighter, maybe)
> Most people are incapable of looking for, much less seeing, anything beyond appearances. But that's OK.
Just because you perceive yourself in the majority doesn't mean you are right.
Majority opinion isn't necessarily fact
I tried. Her voice is the equivalent to galvanized nails dragging slowly down a chalkboard.
also that catfish of a thumbnail