I will never forget, a high school friend of mine (1979) who told his father he was gay, only to be disowned. He killed himself. Since then, I have lived my life being an advocate for anyone who feels marginalized. We are ALL human beings! I love your channel and I appreciate what you are doing for humankind ❤
This is the problem with extremism, they always think that the entire other side is a single entity without seeing the problem for what it is and looking for solutions not from the side they are on rather than the innocent.
It tends to be a very binary worldview, doesn't it? There are no greys for them, and anything that doesn't fit in a nice bucket is an exception that often leads to hypocrisy. "My welfare is earned, but they're just 'takers'." "I need my pain killers, but that guy at work is an addict." "My abortion is different and 'doesn't count.'"
I have to assume you mean the right here should have the problem addressed and that the left here is being extreme. If not then idk what this comment means, but essentially what is the problem with trans people? They are not doing anything wrong, there is no problem, only the right wanting to persecute them for their existence
@@Valiguss The problem is that the extremist right thinks that transgender children do not exist and the extremist left thinks that all children know about such complex issues. Children (0-12 years old) don't know anything, they are just starting to learn and have no idea how to do things. teenagers (12-17 years old) know what they want but not how to get it and this is what needs to be addressed because the problems that we are seeing appear where parents cause problems for trans children or teachers who, behind the parents' backs, decide to put them in transition programs that are a decision that changes the person's entire life without even knowing if the child is trans.
I once saw a comment elsewhere about similar issues that said, "You should be able to defend your opinions, you should never have to defend your humanity." I would add that defending one's opinions still should have some basis in verifiable, objective fact.
I agree to a point. I used to debate competitively in college, so I really hate seeing “debate” in much of the world at large. Like two of the central premises of healthy debate is that 1: every idea deserve to be, and must be, challenged and 2: not all arguments are created equal. And this is where I fully agree with your position: much of our country (the US) doesn’t understand this. As a culture we have, for whatever ridiculous reason, accepted the contrary proposition: that one persons ignorance and belief is just as good as well reasoned positions based in expertise and evidence.
"The freedom of the individual ends where the freedom of others begins," the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) once said. The poet Matthias Claudius (1740-1815) put it this way: "Freedom consists in being able to do anything that does not harm another.
Never negotiate with people who would perpetrate genocide, and this extends to any attempts to strip people of their rights or dignity, as that is often just the first step. There is no compromise with such a position that isn't to that position's benefit... if you let them wipe out HALF of whatever minority is in question, that's still an atrocity, and it's not gonna stop them from coming right back and asking for the same "compromise" over and over again until they've basically accomplished their original goal.
Value the child's safety before the parent's opinion. I agree. The problem is that many places have a majority of the voters who think otherwise. How do we sway others to not vote for those draconian laws that put children at risk? They don't listen to the same discussions.
Thank you Steve 🏳️🌈🫂 does this mean that I can for the first time ever on RUclips safely comment that I'm gay and I love my boyfriend? That there won't be any vile responses? What a freeing and liberating sensation. 😮 is this what its like 😅
Dude, I don’t hug.* But goddamn if I don’t want to give you a rib-bruising hug for this (with your full consent, of course!). And yeah, I watched the last third of this banger through tear-blurred vision. Also, the trans student piece was *outstanding.* * exceptions for my kids & grandkids 🤗
There are those who are able to persuade people with extreme views by engaging with them, but I do NOT have that skill. So I do what you do Steve, block and move on!
“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” ― James Baldwin
True but the far right will argue thatbinless thsy are allowed to speak freely, your opposition is a denial of their humanity and right to exist. How do you match this sentiment with fascisy ideology?
One of the big problems with modern debates is there is no moderator and no fact-checking. It's just getting a bigger platform to espouse your rhetoric
And even at its best it's blatant infotainment. Morons talking over each other, ignoring points and logic. Just the human version of literally throwing shit.
I have a friend who is really supportive of debate bros like Vaush, and his argument is that not everyone has the attention span to watch a long-form video essay and debates are more easily digestible and get leftist ideas into the mainstream. And I'm always just like "But... do they, though?"
Thank Ross Perot. Back in the 90's Ross ran as a third party.. got a decent percentage of the vote. at that time the League of Women Voters handled the big presidential debates where it actually was a debate and not political grandstanding that devolved into today's social media whoring. Perhaps the Dems and Reps agreed to boycott the LWV because that was the last presidential election that they held the debates for
I'd like to offer a few coins worth of thought on this. If we think of bigots as being idiots, or stupid, then that's already making an excuse for them. While not being properly informed does and will create ignorance, which in turn can lead to hateful views, it might be better off to not give that excuse card willingly to someone who demonstrates hateful behavior. Better, I think, to just call it as it is: choosing to be horrible to other people. It's a choice made to be like that, after all. And at any second they could just choose to not do that anymore, and learn. For those who refuse constantly. It isn't stupidity...it's malice. And hate. And just them choosing to be cruel, vile, and oppressive. So rather than saying they are idiots, or stupid, perhaps it's time to just take the gloves off and start saying they are just willingly being foul, horrible people despite having every opportunity to just choose to not be?
Very well stated. There’s no Both Sides when it comes to treating other humans with dignity and respect, whether children or adults. Keep up the good work.
Thank you!!! I am a care giver to a disabled vet who is trans. I thought it was tough growing up gay in the 80's but this is a whole new level of hate that is happening.
Well please don't forget how normal homophobia was in the 80's, it was literally the standard. As a kid we called each other "fag" and made fun of gay people all the time. We were, of course, ignorant children. Growing up into a functional adult involves evolving an emotional maturity and compassionate perspective along with humility and a genuine desire to understand outside perspectives. Some people in society simply never manage to achieve this, out of either low mental capacity or genuinely bad evil antisocial personalities. Those people need to be ostracized and excluded from polite society. If they become violent they need to be removed from society. Intolerance cannot be tolerated, ever, period. We've seen where that road leads and all GOOD people have made the solemn pledge of "NEVER AGAIN!”. Nothing could be as morally uncomplicated as this. Hate will NEVER be tolerated by the righteous.
"Christians " got in bed with republiCONS & birthed a hate filled monster....yeah. This from a 57 year old straight, (tho now celibate & done with men) gay ally. Ha.
I saw a quote long ago on a social media site (which has recently gone anti-social). It still resonates with me. "When someone disagrees with you online & demands you prove your point to their satisfaction by writing a logically sound defense, u can save a lot of time by not doing that. Dude, I've known u for ten seconds & enjoyed none of them, I'm not taking homework assignments from you." On the whole, they're usually not arguing in good faith, and their rebuttals to cogent discussion and facts usually devolve to name-calling. Why waste the time? If they're putting zero units of energy into debating what you've given ten, better to save the ten.
The right did a real good job of "Oh here come the 'tolerant left' to tell me I'm a Not-see (i dont know if RUclips scrubs for the real word, so im gonna not risk it) for loving my kids enough to discipline them by locking them in their rooms for a week."
It's that you forget that just because you have standards doesn't mean everyone else does. We forget that even those close to us don't share our exact same standards hopefully they're just close enough to tolerate.
Karl Popper's "The Paradox of Tolerance." If a society is tolerant without limits, it will eventually be destroyed by the intolerant. Thus a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance.
and this is why so many extremists speak in dogwhistles. because when you treat them appropriately like this? that's all they think they can get away with. make extremists afraid again. thanks Steve.
“Never believe that [fascists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The [fascists] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Jean-Paul Sartre. I have replaced "Anti-Semites" with "fascists". The point stands.
@@ShinGallon It's the bully mentality. They walk right on the edge of what's allowed, even push it a little, so that any pushback looks like an overreaction.
More people need to say this. I'm so tired of hearing "all opinions are valid". We're so trained to allow conservatives to express such horrible points of view and anyone not allowing them to express their crappy beliefs were the bad guys.
@@williammeek4078For example, the Christian persecution complex is not true because nearly every president in the US were Christians, there is no more documented evidence of less rights for Christians than there is for any other religion, and Churches are still tax exempt.
Compared to the “JQ” these are actually sensible discussions to be had. The answers are yes and yes obviously. People can eat what they want and call it what they want
Paraphrasing from Innuendo Studios here: most leftists and a lot of liberals debate things to try to find an acceptable common ground, or determine which idea is the most resilient or the best for a specific situation. Conservatives debate to perform strength and conviction of their ideas. The conservative idea of debate is to actively resist changing your opinion on anything. It's a tool of authoritarianism to them, in that that kind of thoughtless performative willing ignorance makes them look like an authority, like a strongman figure. They challenge people to debates specifically to look tough, and the liberals and leftists fall for it because... I don't know, we're stupid, I guess. We keep stepping onto those rakes.
I just tell them they’re wrong. I explain why they’re wrong, but I don’t ever give them any benefit of thinking they have any points to concede to. They don’t.
Good people keep looking for the good in shitty people; shitty people know they are so good and therefore anyone who disagrees is shitty. Its essentially optimism overriding common sense and/or what you're seeing.
I am in agreement with you, Steve. If you had made this video a decade ago, I, in my naive college freshman idealism, would have responded by saying something along the lines of 'by letting the asinine opinions of bigoted assholes be heard, people will know to avoid them', but over the years I have come to a different conclusion. As someone who is asexual and neurodivergent with many close friends who are also LGBTQIA+ and neurodivergent, I have come to know all too well what happens when bigoted assholes and fascists are given a mouthpiece. The kind of hurtful, dehumanizing rhetoric bigots spout spreads like a plague, and like the plagues that tore through Asia and Europe in the 14th Century, bigoted rhetoric sends innocent people to the grave long before their time...
Teachers play a bigger role than just multiplication tables - can be the ones who pick up on abuse and neglect, the safe person to come out to, so much. You are absolutely right - not everything should be debated. Thanks again for some excellent content ❤❤
That right there is a huge part of this - these people don't want to have their abuse exposed. So they get laws passed to prevent schools/teachers from talking about it.
Agreed, I'm so sick of this idea that "free speech" means all opinions, no matter how bigoted or uneducated, DESERVE our respect and deference. Some opinions absolutely do not deserve to be taken seriously, nor do those who espouse them, deserve a platform to do so.
Right on, I'm so tired of everybody thinking that these vile people somehow need to be represented anywhere. They can have all the free speech they want... In their own houses or just on the street corners, ranting and raving at the world. Nobody should be broadcasting their poison anywhere and "debating" them is just a big trap where they assault you with word salad until you can't remember what you were even talking about. If they can't be respectful, nobody else has to be.
"I remember when these kinds of beliefs and the people who held these kinds of beliefs were kept at the fringes of society." I don't at all. I spent most of my life arguing that I should have the right not to have my head bashed in. That my existence was not a crime. 40 years of those beliefs imposed on me.
Yeah. Love Steve but this idea that bigots were ever not allowed at the table in previous eras is just wrong. Gay rights, disability rights, Civil rights, women's rights, the end of slavery.... Every few decades a human rights issue blows up. And every time there is a large minority of people desperate to stand in the way and many willing to resort to violence - rhetorically, politically, and physically. And there are always centrist (Neo-Libs these days) who are just as desperate to find some sort of compromise and middle ground who allow those bigots at the table in a useless attempt to change minds and hearts. This is not new. Just the scale of the platforms.
@@CorwinFound Yes, I was thinking about this too because you bring up good points. I think what he's trying to say is less about the specific positions so much as what you do with a person once you realize they're a bigot - that the general concept of "You're a bigot and that's not good but it's your right to be one in your own space" is a really bad take.
@@CorwinFoundI feel like these days, activists for marginalized communities are criticized about their approach to bigotry. Saying "sit and shut up" is attacked for not being polite enough when said to people who don't want people like me and OP to exist. Maybe it's rose-colored lenses, but I'd love to go back to the day when people like Anita Bryant were pied rather than having centrists say that everyone deserves to have their love heard.
@@Newton-Reutherbeing an activist myself and seeing many others, perhaps it's just the circles I walk through but "sit down and shut up" are the least we're going to say.
Earlier today, I saw this article about John Cleese accepting to do a program for GBNews, which would involve debating people on, and I am quoting the article here, 'woke issues'. He was complaining that nobody wanted to take him up on it, and accused them of basically wanting to force everyone to have the same opinion as them without being challenged. Mister Cleese, I know you will never read this, but there's a very good set of reasons nobody did that. Here are two reasons, but I'm sure with time I could think of several others. 1: If someone offered me to come on a GB News show, I would turn them down because they would selectively edit what I say to make me look bad. 2: If someone offered to debate me on 'woke issues', then I already know they are not going to debate me in good faith, because nobody that uses that phrase who would want to debate me *ever* debates in good faith. Or if they do, they do it by accident.
Hmm that's strange.. because I have actually met John Clease in Milwaukee Wisconsin during a Q&A after a showing of Monty Python.. he is Very VERY liberal and open minded. I'm sure what he was expressing interest in some of the absurdities of a subset of woke individuals, but the idea of treating everyone with dignity and respect is held in high regard from him. He even knocked on christians and Trump during the show. It was a great time
There is no paradox. Tolerance is a contract, essentially to treat other people with respect. Being intolerant is breaking the contract, and therefore there is no paradox.
@@firefly4f4 I disagree with that statement. You can be intolerant towards something and still be fully respectful. For example, you can be intolerant against crime and still treat the criminal with respect and dignity.
As members of the LGBT community that grew up in the 80s and 90s, being told that i was a dnager to children, that my "lifestyle" was not normal and not something society should except, being told that my love was not real and I was not allowed to get married, being called slurs on the street and at school. I don't remember this time you speak of when bigots were just told to sit down and shut up and them listening and leaving people like me alone. So you will have to forgive me for not want to go back to the way things use to be.
I was about to make basically the same comment. It wasn't that long ago that no "serious" person with a seat at the table would suggest that gender dysmorphia is anything other than a mental disorder to be cured by changing the mind to fit the body. The only reason it is legal (for now) for me to even lie with someone I'm attracted to is because we refused to sit down and shut up when the serious people told us to.
There has certainly been a regression to the acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community when it comes to public educational spaces. That’s what he’s speaking of. For example, Anti vaxxers have always been around, but they were never taken seriously enough to be elected to the United States House of Representatives. Political figures back in the day would say they don’t accept gay people’s right to marry because it was wrong or the Bible or because of the “sacred institution of marriage”. Now they say I don’t agree they should exist because not only are they trying to eat ur kids alive but they are also demons & a large portion of the country doesn’t even bat an eye. The difference is that lunatics now a days are taken seriously because “we should respect everyone’s opinion”. In the 80s there was no place for a pride flag in school. That changed slowly to where it was more accepted. That has since began to change back under the guise of sexuality has no place among children or they’re demons who want to indoctrinate ur kids. Bathroom bills weren’t a thing until the 2010s. Again because of the acceptance of people with disgusting opinions & views being accepted & not told to stfu & sit down. I’m sure people said don’t take polio shot when it came out because they’re using it for mind control or population control. But those people had no platforms & were taken seriously. Look at the covid shot. A complete 180 on that reality. People were shooting horse medicine instead of listening to science simply because those lunatics had platforms & acceptance to spew garbage to the masses.
Yeah! I'm 20 yrs old. School was terrible for me, as an atheist in Brazil. Once you come out there is no going back. Being beaten, insulted, excluded from groups (by colleagues) and still having to listen to teachers complain about "how political correctness oppresses the majority".
"We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats... Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" welcome to the international, Steve. You've solved the paradox of tolerance
I think there's a difference between debate and arguing. At least for me, debate is based in facts and either side is open to changing their mind based upon the arguments presented. Debate is healthy. You may not change your mind, but you should at least understand why you believe what you do, whatever it is. But when people just want to argue, with no good faith effort to listen and consider the points raised by the other side, isn't a debate. I'm finding that concept (arguing) to be far too accepted now by one side. The fringe becoming far too normalized is a massive problem. We are reaching a breaking point, and I don't like what I think is going to be required to fix it. And I think we have waited too long to handle it without terrible cost.
When I did debate, positions were assigned. It wasn't an exercise in reinforcing my own biases, but was an evaluation of the strongest possible arguments and counter-arguments for and against a contention. This meant that often I would have to argue for a position I didn't necessarily agree with, which in turn gave me a better understanding of how people who disagreed with me might understand the same facts but come to a different conclusion
YES, you nailed it. Now if you could, please explain that facts are facts and opinions are not facts, but your opinion on the facts is warranted if formed by facts. Ya I think I just confused myself with that one, but I'm hoping you get it.
The key is, most culture war issues are just facades of much older more basic bigotry. It's why we've all heard them before in many forms. It's always been a shifting goalpost to debate the specific current issues. Instead focus on the underlying reasons for them holding their position, and suddenly they get all squirmy, because they know that if they follow their own train of logic you just get bigotry.
Thank you for saying what needs to be said. I am so disgusted with intolerant people being elected to local offices. I live in South Carolina so it’s becoming more common.
Lower Decks is a top tier Star Trek show. Debate me. You won’t! Bet you’ll just delete this comment just like the rest of mine yellin’ about Lower Decks. Ya scared Steve? Scared to face me? Love ya you goof.
I think a lot of us in the era that bridged from the beginning of Clinton's term in office to the last two years of the Obama administration had begun to feel like, with a few hiccups aside, there was generally a framework in political discussion that rewarded civility, valued recognizing each other as people, and generally favored at least a liberal perspective as the one toward which The Arc of History was bending. Boy these last seven years have been chastening. Any assumptions along those lines, including the idea that people would no longer be boxed in legally on the basis of race or gender or sexual orientation, have been rendered quaint because we always have to explain to the new kids why we think the way we think, and they don't always agree.
@@rainkidwell2467 Yes. And even many of us who grew up as passionate right wing evangelicals and a part of communities who would later become "christian" nationalists have rejected conservatism altogether. This is a point of despair within far-right circles - they know their days as a community are numbered because they have no one to pass the torch to.
The only thing i think we should go back to is a modernized FDR style Keynesian new deal economy with a 74% profit tax on corporations and millionaires and billionaires! I think we need to progress socially and accept people for who they are and respect their rights.
I'm right now at 5:10, and I think I hear you conflating two different concepts. You say it is a mistake to sit down with people and "try to reach some understanding here". Well, yes, that *is* often a mistake, and you're right to be unhappy that this happens . . . and happens quite often. But Steve, that is not what it means to "debate". That is describing "compromise" or worse, capitulation. You see, I don't think (though I understand that many do) that sitting down at a debate means you are agreeing that there are two sides that have equally valid arguments. Because that is almost *never* true. No, sitting down at a debate means bringing facts to bear down on the other side, and *crushing* them. Of course, I know that this brings up another problem, and that is that the other side will often bring up non sequiturs and even lies. In a formal debate situation, such things have to be documented, and I think we could benefit from having debates moderated by actual professional debate coaches, who could keep track of the unsupported statements made by, say, Vivek Ramaswamy, and the unrefuted arguments made by, say, Steve Shives. And at the end you wouldn't necessarily have to declare a winner, but just point out who scored highest on the b*ll$#it meter. We can all agree with your example of human rights, that human rights ought not be up for debate. But not everyone agrees on what rights are "human rights". You certainly would assert that the right to abortion is a human right, and you would likely mock another person's assertion that the fetus' right to life is a human right, so if you are in power today you can silence the anti-choice forces. But then in four years, when they are in power, what stops them from silence your side? There are many issues like this. One problem with silencing these people with asinine viewpoints is that it gives them strength, not only amongst their own crowd, but even among even-tempered centrists. Another problem is that, if you're going to not listen to one point of view, who makes that decision? A human being who is not likely to be infallible. I just think it's better to debate and crush. If someone today wanted to debate whether slavery is immoral, I'd say, "You effing idiot, I'd be happy to debate you, and I'll give you 25 minutes to talk and I'll only use 5 minutes to rebut", and I would destroy him that quickly. Is the pro-slavery position "valid" or worth my time? No, but I'll take the W. I'm rambling. I do appreciate your perspective, as I know it is based in a sincere frustration with insincere people. But I'm sticking with John Stuart Mill on this one.
I am trans, ty. I really really needed to hear someone thoughtfully say transphobes views are invalid. I’ve had to dance around transphobes sensibilities every day at my work. And I’ve constantly been told not to defend myself, bc I had to be “sensitive” to the views of people still refusing to call me by my legal gender or name. It’s been 8 months. Fuck them, fuck anything they have to say. I’ve given them more than enough time to get over themselves, and they spent that time not trying to grow but just being content being shitty to me. I’m nervous about leaving this comment bc last time I left a comment about being trans that got any traction, I got death threats and trolls misgendering me attempting to upset me. I just want to be treated like a human being, and instead I’m told that’s unreasonable bc transphobes can’t get over it.
Look at it this way: if someone feels threatened by your choice of personal pronouns and your name, just remember: They are the typical insignificant, insecure high school bully type that has no place in telling others who they should be. And dogs that bark don't bite.
I wish moderators in debates would just have an airhorn and every time someone tries to say something that's just a flat out lie they'd hit it and go "No! Try again, we're only debating with real facts here" and just keep doing it until people stop trying to spout nonsense as though it's true and stop quoting made up statistics or categorically disproven fraudulent studies. Like, allowing people to make stuff up does not help anyone, it just confuses people.
Part of the issue is that everyone seems to WANT to debate things, but VERY few people can do so without resorting to emotional arguments, attempts to claim the moral high ground (valid or otherwise), ad-hominem attacks and logical fallacies. And some people are just so damn cynical, they can dismiss anything, ANYTHING, even a proven fact, with a sneer and a hand-wave. And probably a personal insult for good measure. And that's BEFORE we even get into the quality (if any) of any given opinion or thought, as Steve was saying in the video. Or account for those who aren't looking to debate in good faith in the first place, which really is a larger portion of either the Right OR the Left than anyone's willing to address or even admit. Shit, you have a hard time even talking about things like Star Wars or Star Trek on the internet without being drowned in salt, never mind things that actually matter in the Real World. At least we have Steve to remind us we aren't all completely nuts for thinking "Y'know, it really ort not be this way?". This AIN'T IT, folks. We can do SO much better, have we really learned NOTHING as a society over the last century?! edit: F*ck it, I'm drunk. Steve Shives and Jesse Gender for Prez and VP. And Beau of the 5th *GODDAMN* Column for sec. of Education, while we're at it. We've tried The Right, we've tried Centrism. Let's elect some Left-Wing sci-fi/politix nerds. It can't be any worse than what we've had in the past. At least THESE folks have a f*cking functional sense of humor.
@@kazeboiii Oh, she's one of the best out there for sure. She's so very astute. Tuned in for the Trek deep-dives, stayed for the politics. F*cking legend. She does sometimes over-politicize things, but shit, that's better than missing the point, right?
This was the exact issue that made me unsub from the Young Turks. They wanted to sacrifice trans folk’s ability to play sports for political benefit, and screw that. Any kid or adult on puberty blockers or transition medicine is working twice as hard as anyone thinks they are. Those drugs play havoc on muscle recovery. Lots of ‘leftests’ pretends that we should debate this instead of just listening to the doctors and therapists treating them. The right’s only go to example is to pretend every male is going to pretend to be a girl to win. It’s not serious, just like their bathroom fears aren’t serious. Thank you for blocking and banning fascists, racists, and other varieties of people with nothing to add.
What's particularly disturbing about the modern-day Republican Party is the anti-science stance, not just on transgender, but vaccines and climate change.
Steve you rock! Bodily autonomy is a human right. Period. A human right for everyone. And totally agree we should never have let these people to the adults table.
I don't think I can adequately express myself in this comment. Actually, I'm a little worried you might ban me anyway. Like dude I enjoy so much of your work, and I agree with you on so much, but this hurt. I wish you could have heard yourself the way you sounded in my ears. I don't think we'll meet up on this one, at least in a public forum. I doubt I'll ever get a quiet one on one chat, so the only thing for me to do here take a deep breath, and let it go.
I’ve paraphrased your “on the right side of history” argument many times. These vids don’t get viewed enough. Thanks for keeping your political channel pure by talking about Star Trek.
Thanks Steve, that's awesome :) I really appreciate you handling the comments the way you do and I especially appreciate not just the support, but the fervent support :) Five or six years ago, the fringe was on the fringe. Letting them into the conversation of society writ large has turned the conversation into a circus. I'd much rather things go back to reasonable discourse. Anyway, thanks again for the ardent support :)
I've talked to my teenage daughter about the the trans issue and the struggle that this country has with it and my conclusion is that it is something I don't fully understand, I don't know what it is like for a person experiencing the need to transition, but we have medical professionals who do understand and work with those people to help them make the right decision and it is something that as long as they aren't hurting anyone else then why should we give them a hard time? People need to keep their noses out of other people's medical affairs. It is nonsense that doctors can't work with their patients to make the correct decisions for them because politicians and backwood bigots have stuck their noses in their business and turned a private medical matter into a circus up for public debate.
As a listener who loves your channel, who also happens to me transgender, I cannot thank you enough for your defense of trans youth and trans people in general! ❤
Excellent! I often hated running into right-wingers on left-leaning forums who deliberately would *derail* any discussions that veered toward taking action for civil and human rights. It's maddening because they would often do it by concern trolling or even offering non-viable paths that others in the forum follow to a black hole of non-progress. Thank you for calling it out!😃
Thank you for talking about this. It's really very unsettling the number of people that are like "why can't we just go back to bigotry?" I work at a gas station so I have seen much and heard many things said. Again, thank you.
My nephew came out a year or so ago and is now my very beautiful niece. Back when she was a he, he barely ever smiled. Now she smiles all the time. She has a fantastic boyfriend and a very fulfilled life. Back when she was a he, he was stiff and awkward; now she hugs everyone and glows in social situations. One of my other nieces lives somewhere in-between the worlds of male and female and she is the happiest, silliest person we know & love. My eldest son is high-functioning autistic and asexual. This to say, I'm not a stranger to the gender issues. BUT from a parent's view, watching our children grow up, making numerous bad decisions based on their not-yet-mature brains and knowing (from observation) that their feelings & emotions changed drastically over time, we are glad they waited until a certain level of maturity was attained before making life-changing (and body-changing) decisions. I am all for young people being allowed to define who they are and getting the respect they deserve as human beings; but as a parent I can empathize with those who live in fear of their young children making life-altering decisions based on thoughts and emotions which are subject to the whims of circumstance and hormonal activity, and then having to suffer the consequences of a decision made before the mind & body were fully mature. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tell when someone has finally achieved that level of maturity required for those kinds of decisions (and every person matures at a different rate), especially when it is clouded by the 'advice' or 'counsel' of those who are more interested in their own political agenda (either way) than in the welfare of this young human being. SO -- when does parental concern for their child's future happiness become bigoted anti-LGBQT rhetoric? How do we determine the motivations of those who seek to argue the point, to discern that which stems from love of child versus that which stems from fear/hatred of the non-compliant ? Do we have to decide each case on an individual basis dependent on the apparent maturity level of the 'child' (based on some unknown metric) as defined by an independent, non-biased psychologist (if one actually exists)? I don't know the answer, just asking for my future grandchildren. --- Thanks for the video. You have an awesome channel!
I’m starting to dislike the whole “I’m entitled to opinion.” Well not all opinions are based on facts and sometimes what you believe or your belief system can be wrong. It can happen…………..
You have just earned yourself a subscriber. I told friends i felt more like a girl at the age of 8 back in 1995. I became depressed and interested in ending my life when puberty started and people started tearing me differently from my twin sister because of it. I knew who i was, but no one could see it and no one would believe me. Even the mirror was just a stranger pretending to be me. I figured no one would truly believe me unless i did something horrible to myself as a symbolic thing. I tried so many times...I started transitioning in 2009 after the nth unalive attempt was almost successful. I laid on the floor for hours unable to do anything but think. Realized on my obituary it'd STILL say "he" and I'd just be seen as sick in the head. So...i did a lot of research to see if anyone else ever felt this way. I never want anyone, especially a child, to go through what i have just to get to a point of comfort with themselves and to feel respected as a human being. Anyone who does want that or thinks that experience isnt real needs to sit down. A doctor has more credibility on this than a random person or politician.
I've spent my life since then guiding others who went through similar experiences to the right resources and medical professionals for support. I ran a highly successful support group of several thousand members before resigning after ha young child i was helping was given an ultimatum by their parents. "Leave this family or conform". The kid unalived themselves rather than choose. They left me a long thank you message beforehand for being the only support they had.
Fox News in the '90s was going to host a debate about Climate change. One side was a climate scientist and university prof, the other side was an anthropologist. The climate scientist, when they realized who they were going to debate pulled out. The other guy didn't even have the knowledge necessary to take one of the classes the prof taught, and had publicly made some really basic errors on how climate works. The actual scientist didn't want to give air-time to the guy.
I think people should be allowed a certain amount of trying to sell their point, but if their intentions are malicious or based on amoral assumptions, then they should be removed.
The big problem with agreeing to only let 'serious' arguments at the table is that if the wrong group ends up in charge, no good argument will get heard. Who decides what is serious? Who decides who decides who is serious? How do we protect the rights of people with this sort of system in play? I am with you, but I cannot get behind any system that stands to other people. I am totally down with shutting down abusive jerks that want to fight for their rights OVER their child's rights.
Journalists, grass roots and people demanding the "important" issues to be heard. That's why an objective, independent (not neutral) fourth estate is so important. And sadly, the US and UK has severely shit the bed on that one...
It's decided the same way any social norm is decided -- a constant societal balancing and bargaining process! There don't have to be official Deciders who get to make the final decision, certain things are just deemed unacceptable to say/do in polite society. So the point isn't that there should be a Federal Office of Good Opinions, it's that we as a culture ought to let go of the notion that it's virtuous to admit every opinion to the debate. (And it's not like the authoritarians will extend you the courtesy of freedom of expression when they're in power just because you agreed to debate them.)
And that's what debate is supposed to be able to do, is to have someone make the case and be scrutinized by the opposing side to test how serious the idea is. Imo, the problem right now is most of the "debates" coming out of the debate culture aren't actual debates. They don't have timed rounds, opening statements, cross examination, no interrupting, etc. Most of what's coming out now are free-for-all charisma fights with a useless moderator.
Argument aren’t serious when they violate the human rights of people Lowering taxes as a economic stimulus- serious proposal Sending people to death camps- not serious
I feel like the pandemic turbo charged the trend toward society just accepting Karenism. Everyone just let things slide, and now it's to the point where it's often not even safe to tell someone to STFU and sit down. I don't know if it comes from the "ignore trolls and they'll get bored" or if we just collectively got tired of expending the energy to tell them to leave or what, but I don't know how we're supposed to shift the needle back toward politeness for society's sake (and avoiding politeness to enforce classism)
I think that those who argue most obstructively, like they insist that their assumptions are the truth, are only speaking up to impress others who think the same, I think. A lot of folks don't seem to care about the truth, but rather prefer to uphold this delusion of convenient righteousness through popularity. It's evident when they're confronted with a contradiction. Like when a dude has a problem with gay people, I think most often they're afraid of what others will think of them if they don't mind gay people. It's really kinda pitiful.
Somewhat off-topic, but I'm really not a fan of the perfectly reasonable name 'Karen' becoming such a nasty insult. Every Karen (as in their actual name) I've known has been a decent person, and it sucks that they now have to drag around this stigma.
Karen is just another accepted way to call a woman a bitch. She doesn't have to be doing anything that was originally attributed to a "Karen" anymore to be called a Karen. You could be a reasonable woman and still called a Karen.
Beautifully put. To quote Jean-Luc Picard, "The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" Because we have to decide at some point what kind of society we want to live in and pass down to the next generation. And one with respect for autonomy is just... right. As a trans woman I really appreciate your firm stance. Thank you.
Fuckin fantastic video, wish I could like/subscribe 3 times over. This is something I've been saying for years ever since the Australian referendum over gay marriage. Human rights should not be up for "debate". The paradox of tolerance describes this perfectly.
Amazing quote! You’ve added some light to my day! Not heard that one before. I looked it up and the full quote is so good! I assumed it was about the pigeon’s intellect, but no…
I agree. My best friend is a devout Republican. I'm a big L liberal. He's a super nice guy and for years we have debated. For the longest time , I have listened patiently as he spouted the latest far right talking points, no matter how outrageous or erroneous his point was. I would listen try to get him to see the validity of the other side to convince him that the facts matter. Now, I just come out and say "That's false." or "That's a lie" or "That's wrong" and when he says "Well I just read/heard it somewhere". I always respond with" Just because you read it, it doesn't make it true" As a result, I feel a lot less frustrated after our conversations. Truth and reality matter in a world comprised mainly of opinion and spin. To this day no one can make me laugh harder than he can and I do the same for him. Fifty years ago PM Pierre Trudeau tried to lead Canadians to a "Just society" by saying "Reason over passion". It promptly got him a minority government. Not much has changed in fifty years. PS Love the Keaton photo. If you haven't seen it already, check out one of his last films that he made with the National Film Board of Canada.
My dad and several other family members have told me they don't like debating with me because I know a bunch of facts about what we're talking about and they can't "win." Like it's some kind of sport instead of a search for truth and knowledge. Me bringing facts to the debate is "cheating" in their mind. As you say, they want their opinions to be unquestioned. I've taken to starting any discussion with the question, "Is this a topic where there is something I can say to change your mind? If the answer is no, I'm not interested in continuing."
There is a difference between debate between two people (whose positions are never explicitly and totally stated) and debate between two positions (which _are_ stated and are have known rhetorical goals). And the emphasis in the modern day is towards hiding positions behind people. Ironically harming people by hiding that harm behind people hiding positions.
I used to think it was good to let people make jackasses of themselves publicly, but then after the past... maybe 7 or so years I realised that, no, we shouldn't. It just emboldens other jackasses.
I will never forget, a high school friend of mine (1979) who told his father he was gay, only to be disowned. He killed himself.
Since then, I have lived my life being an advocate for anyone who feels marginalized. We are ALL human beings! I love your channel and I appreciate what you are doing for humankind ❤
This is the problem with extremism, they always think that the entire other side is a single entity without seeing the problem for what it is and looking for solutions not from the side they are on rather than the innocent.
It tends to be a very binary worldview, doesn't it? There are no greys for them, and anything that doesn't fit in a nice bucket is an exception that often leads to hypocrisy. "My welfare is earned, but they're just 'takers'." "I need my pain killers, but that guy at work is an addict." "My abortion is different and 'doesn't count.'"
I have to assume you mean the right here should have the problem addressed and that the left here is being extreme.
If not then idk what this comment means, but essentially what is the problem with trans people? They are not doing anything wrong, there is no problem, only the right wanting to persecute them for their existence
@@Valiguss The problem is that the extremist right thinks that transgender children do not exist and the extremist left thinks that all children know about such complex issues.
Children (0-12 years old) don't know anything, they are just starting to learn and have no idea how to do things. teenagers (12-17 years old) know what they want but not how to get it and this is what needs to be addressed because the problems that we are seeing appear where parents cause problems for trans children or teachers who, behind the parents' backs, decide to put them in transition programs that are a decision that changes the person's entire life without even knowing if the child is trans.
Lots of people still think of their children as property rather than people until at least 18.
I once saw a comment elsewhere about similar issues that said, "You should be able to defend your opinions, you should never have to defend your humanity." I would add that defending one's opinions still should have some basis in verifiable, objective fact.
Well said, sir!
I remember being on the debate club back in the 70s, haven't seen any political exchange that I would call a debate in over 30 years
Thank you ❤ somebody had to say it! Very well said.
I agree to a point. I used to debate competitively in college, so I really hate seeing “debate” in much of the world at large. Like two of the central premises of healthy debate is that 1: every idea deserve to be, and must be, challenged and 2: not all arguments are created equal. And this is where I fully agree with your position: much of our country (the US) doesn’t understand this. As a culture we have, for whatever ridiculous reason, accepted the contrary proposition: that one persons ignorance and belief is just as good as well reasoned positions based in expertise and evidence.
We don't have "debates". We have sides presented as equal and whoever makes the most noise "wins."
First rule of parenting is that your rights are secondary to those of your children
Show a right-winger you mean business in a non-friendly manner and they back down without a gun in their hands.
"The freedom of the individual ends where the freedom of others begins," the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) once said. The poet Matthias Claudius (1740-1815) put it this way: "Freedom consists in being able to do anything that does not harm another.
Never negotiate with people who would perpetrate genocide, and this extends to any attempts to strip people of their rights or dignity, as that is often just the first step. There is no compromise with such a position that isn't to that position's benefit... if you let them wipe out HALF of whatever minority is in question, that's still an atrocity, and it's not gonna stop them from coming right back and asking for the same "compromise" over and over again until they've basically accomplished their original goal.
Value the child's safety before the parent's opinion. I agree.
The problem is that many places have a majority of the voters who think otherwise. How do we sway others to not vote for those draconian laws that put children at risk?
They don't listen to the same discussions.
The paradox of tolerance states we should be absolutely intollerant to intolerance else the intollerant will destroy all tolent people
Thank you Steve 🏳️🌈🫂 does this mean that I can for the first time ever on RUclips safely comment that I'm gay and I love my boyfriend? That there won't be any vile responses? What a freeing and liberating sensation. 😮 is this what its like 😅
Dude, I don’t hug.* But goddamn if I don’t want to give you a rib-bruising hug for this (with your full consent, of course!). And yeah, I watched the last third of this banger through tear-blurred vision. Also, the trans student piece was *outstanding.*
* exceptions for my kids & grandkids 🤗
This video has immaculate mr Roger's neighborhood vibes with that intro
There are those who are able to persuade people with extreme views by engaging with them, but I do NOT have that skill. So I do what you do Steve, block and move on!
Preach it brother
“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
― James Baldwin
That is beautiful.....
True but the far right will argue thatbinless thsy are allowed to speak freely, your opposition is a denial of their humanity and right to exist.
How do you match this sentiment with fascisy ideology?
One of the big problems with modern debates is there is no moderator and no fact-checking.
It's just getting a bigger platform to espouse your rhetoric
And even at its best it's blatant infotainment. Morons talking over each other, ignoring points and logic. Just the human version of literally throwing shit.
Especially in right-wing circles where right-wingers don't care about facts
I have a friend who is really supportive of debate bros like Vaush, and his argument is that not everyone has the attention span to watch a long-form video essay and debates are more easily digestible and get leftist ideas into the mainstream.
And I'm always just like "But... do they, though?"
Thank Ross Perot. Back in the 90's Ross ran as a third party.. got a decent percentage of the vote. at that time the League of Women Voters handled the big presidential debates where it actually was a debate and not political grandstanding that devolved into today's social media whoring. Perhaps the Dems and Reps agreed to boycott the LWV because that was the last presidential election that they held the debates for
I think it's really telling how many right-wing nutters I see on Facebook specifically complaining about fact checkers.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." - Mark Twain
Unfortunately, many times you only discover they're an idiot once you start arguing with them.
You cannot run naked down the street to chase a crazy man who stole your clothes. No one will know which of you is crazy.
I'd like to offer a few coins worth of thought on this. If we think of bigots as being idiots, or stupid, then that's already making an excuse for them. While not being properly informed does and will create ignorance, which in turn can lead to hateful views, it might be better off to not give that excuse card willingly to someone who demonstrates hateful behavior. Better, I think, to just call it as it is: choosing to be horrible to other people. It's a choice made to be like that, after all. And at any second they could just choose to not do that anymore, and learn. For those who refuse constantly. It isn't stupidity...it's malice. And hate. And just them choosing to be cruel, vile, and oppressive. So rather than saying they are idiots, or stupid, perhaps it's time to just take the gloves off and start saying they are just willingly being foul, horrible people despite having every opportunity to just choose to not be?
@@videocrowsnest5251🎯
@@grillmadeofrecycledgrenade3197 I like this one. Somehow I've never heard it.
Very well stated. There’s no Both Sides when it comes to treating other humans with dignity and respect, whether children or adults. Keep up the good work.
Also treating peoples vaccine conspiracy theories as valid is also ridiculous
@@MatthewGreer-h3kDon't even get me started on Climate Change deniers.
Thank you!!! I am a care giver to a disabled vet who is trans. I thought it was tough growing up gay in the 80's but this is a whole new level of hate that is happening.
Thank you for being caring!
Thank you for your service to that vet.
Well please don't forget how normal homophobia was in the 80's, it was literally the standard. As a kid we called each other "fag" and made fun of gay people all the time. We were, of course, ignorant children. Growing up into a functional adult involves evolving an emotional maturity and compassionate perspective along with humility and a genuine desire to understand outside perspectives. Some people in society simply never manage to achieve this, out of either low mental capacity or genuinely bad evil antisocial personalities. Those people need to be ostracized and excluded from polite society. If they become violent they need to be removed from society. Intolerance cannot be tolerated, ever, period. We've seen where that road leads and all GOOD people have made the solemn pledge of "NEVER AGAIN!”.
Nothing could be as morally uncomplicated as this. Hate will NEVER be tolerated by the righteous.
"Christians " got in bed with republiCONS & birthed a hate filled monster....yeah.
This from a 57 year old straight, (tho now celibate & done with men) gay ally. Ha.
"Debate me bro."
"... no."
In some cases, a very rational choice.
If they call you a coward don't take the bait. Keep calm and ignore them.
I saw a quote long ago on a social media site (which has recently gone anti-social). It still resonates with me.
"When someone disagrees with you online & demands you prove your point to their satisfaction by writing a logically sound defense, u can save a lot of time by not doing that.
Dude, I've known u for ten seconds & enjoyed none of them, I'm not taking homework assignments from you."
On the whole, they're usually not arguing in good faith, and their rebuttals to cogent discussion and facts usually devolve to name-calling. Why waste the time? If they're putting zero units of energy into debating what you've given ten, better to save the ten.
I think in most cases. Especially when someone says that or "prove me wrong, bro." Yeah, not worth the time or energy.
Remember when Steve didn’t even respond to Sargons invitations? It broke Sargon and accelerated his mental decline. He just couldn’t handle refusal
@@ahouyearno I never knew about that but it's entirely in character for that twit.
Gotta love that, "Maybe not everything should be tolerated," is somehow productive for human adults to hear.
The right did a real good job of "Oh here come the 'tolerant left' to tell me I'm a Not-see (i dont know if RUclips scrubs for the real word, so im gonna not risk it) for loving my kids enough to discipline them by locking them in their rooms for a week."
It's that you forget that just because you have standards doesn't mean everyone else does. We forget that even those close to us don't share our exact same standards hopefully they're just close enough to tolerate.
Tollerance is great... but never tolerate intolerance.
Nazis shouldn’t be tolerated.
Karl Popper's "The Paradox of Tolerance." If a society is tolerant without limits, it will eventually be destroyed by the intolerant. Thus a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance.
and this is why so many extremists speak in dogwhistles. because when you treat them appropriately like this? that's all they think they can get away with. make extremists afraid again. thanks Steve.
They also love maintaining plausible deniability. I think that's the main purpose of the dogwhistles.
@@ShinGallon- which is weird, really
It's ALMOST as if they know their rhetoric is deeply immoral...
“Never believe that [fascists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The [fascists] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
-Jean-Paul Sartre. I have replaced "Anti-Semites" with "fascists". The point stands.
@@ShinGallon It's the bully mentality. They walk right on the edge of what's allowed, even push it a little, so that any pushback looks like an overreaction.
@nicholassmith7984 "I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU! I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!"
More people need to say this. I'm so tired of hearing "all opinions are valid". We're so trained to allow conservatives to express such horrible points of view and anyone not allowing them to express their crappy beliefs were the bad guys.
Yea! Everyone can HAVE their opinion but that doesn’t mean we should tolerate their opinion
All opinions are valid. It is facts that are either true or not. If someone acts on their opinion, that makes it a fact that can be acted against.
@@williammeek4078For example, the Christian persecution complex is not true because nearly every president in the US were Christians, there is no more documented evidence of less rights for Christians than there is for any other religion, and Churches are still tax exempt.
I think we should stick to important debates like "Should pineapple be on pizza?" and "Is a hot dog a sandwich?"
Compared to the “JQ” these are actually sensible discussions to be had. The answers are yes and yes obviously. People can eat what they want and call it what they want
These are not debates. The answer to both is no. 😁
Depends and depends. (Depends is also the answer to the debate whether Joe Biden wears Boxers or Briefs.)
The answers are no, and no
A hot dog is a taco.
Paraphrasing from Innuendo Studios here: most leftists and a lot of liberals debate things to try to find an acceptable common ground, or determine which idea is the most resilient or the best for a specific situation. Conservatives debate to perform strength and conviction of their ideas. The conservative idea of debate is to actively resist changing your opinion on anything. It's a tool of authoritarianism to them, in that that kind of thoughtless performative willing ignorance makes them look like an authority, like a strongman figure. They challenge people to debates specifically to look tough, and the liberals and leftists fall for it because...
I don't know, we're stupid, I guess. We keep stepping onto those rakes.
I just tell them they’re wrong. I explain why they’re wrong, but I don’t ever give them any benefit of thinking they have any points to concede to. They don’t.
Exactly. Don't debate them.
Good people keep looking for the good in shitty people; shitty people know they are so good and therefore anyone who disagrees is shitty.
Its essentially optimism overriding common sense and/or what you're seeing.
We do it because we keep assuming they use debate the same way we do. And they don't. And that is so unthinkable to most of us
I am in agreement with you, Steve. If you had made this video a decade ago, I, in my naive college freshman idealism, would have responded by saying something along the lines of 'by letting the asinine opinions of bigoted assholes be heard, people will know to avoid them', but over the years I have come to a different conclusion. As someone who is asexual and neurodivergent with many close friends who are also LGBTQIA+ and neurodivergent, I have come to know all too well what happens when bigoted assholes and fascists are given a mouthpiece. The kind of hurtful, dehumanizing rhetoric bigots spout spreads like a plague, and like the plagues that tore through Asia and Europe in the 14th Century, bigoted rhetoric sends innocent people to the grave long before their time...
Teachers play a bigger role than just multiplication tables - can be the ones who pick up on abuse and neglect, the safe person to come out to, so much.
You are absolutely right - not everything should be debated.
Thanks again for some excellent content ❤❤
That right there is a huge part of this - these people don't want to have their abuse exposed. So they get laws passed to prevent schools/teachers from talking about it.
@@mvam75Absolutely, the whole groomer narrative was designed to quell support to kids in religiously abusive households.
Agreed, I'm so sick of this idea that "free speech" means all opinions, no matter how bigoted or uneducated, DESERVE our respect and deference.
Some opinions absolutely do not deserve to be taken seriously, nor do those who espouse them, deserve a platform to do so.
Even as an atheist, the best reply I can think of is "Amen to that!"
Right on, I'm so tired of everybody thinking that these vile people somehow need to be represented anywhere. They can have all the free speech they want... In their own houses or just on the street corners, ranting and raving at the world. Nobody should be broadcasting their poison anywhere and "debating" them is just a big trap where they assault you with word salad until you can't remember what you were even talking about. If they can't be respectful, nobody else has to be.
"I remember when these kinds of beliefs and the people who held these kinds of beliefs were kept at the fringes of society." I don't at all. I spent most of my life arguing that I should have the right not to have my head bashed in. That my existence was not a crime. 40 years of those beliefs imposed on me.
Yeah. Love Steve but this idea that bigots were ever not allowed at the table in previous eras is just wrong. Gay rights, disability rights, Civil rights, women's rights, the end of slavery.... Every few decades a human rights issue blows up. And every time there is a large minority of people desperate to stand in the way and many willing to resort to violence - rhetorically, politically, and physically. And there are always centrist (Neo-Libs these days) who are just as desperate to find some sort of compromise and middle ground who allow those bigots at the table in a useless attempt to change minds and hearts. This is not new. Just the scale of the platforms.
@@CorwinFound Yes, I was thinking about this too because you bring up good points.
I think what he's trying to say is less about the specific positions so much as what you do with a person once you realize they're a bigot - that the general concept of "You're a bigot and that's not good but it's your right to be one in your own space" is a really bad take.
I don't remember this time, either. I spent my whole childhood with people trying to kill me because of bigoted beliefs.
@@CorwinFoundI feel like these days, activists for marginalized communities are criticized about their approach to bigotry. Saying "sit and shut up" is attacked for not being polite enough when said to people who don't want people like me and OP to exist. Maybe it's rose-colored lenses, but I'd love to go back to the day when people like Anita Bryant were pied rather than having centrists say that everyone deserves to have their love heard.
@@Newton-Reutherbeing an activist myself and seeing many others, perhaps it's just the circles I walk through but "sit down and shut up" are the least we're going to say.
Steve coming in spitting facts, there are a lot of people out there who just need to be told sit down and shut the up.
Earlier today, I saw this article about John Cleese accepting to do a program for GBNews, which would involve debating people on, and I am quoting the article here, 'woke issues'. He was complaining that nobody wanted to take him up on it, and accused them of basically wanting to force everyone to have the same opinion as them without being challenged.
Mister Cleese, I know you will never read this, but there's a very good set of reasons nobody did that. Here are two reasons, but I'm sure with time I could think of several others.
1: If someone offered me to come on a GB News show, I would turn them down because they would selectively edit what I say to make me look bad.
2: If someone offered to debate me on 'woke issues', then I already know they are not going to debate me in good faith, because nobody that uses that phrase who would want to debate me *ever* debates in good faith. Or if they do, they do it by accident.
We should offer to debate on “asleep issues” in return. 😁
I love his performances and what he's done for comedy, but Fuck John Cleese™ in the current year.
John Cleese is being invited onto GBNews because he will fit right in there. Sadly he's not accepting at all.
Hmm that's strange.. because I have actually met John Clease in Milwaukee Wisconsin during a Q&A after a showing of Monty Python.. he is Very VERY liberal and open minded. I'm sure what he was expressing interest in some of the absurdities of a subset of woke individuals, but the idea of treating everyone with dignity and respect is held in high regard from him. He even knocked on christians and Trump during the show. It was a great time
It's the paradox of tolerance, Steve. To be perfectly tolerant you must be intolerant of the intolerant.
this!
Well said Roy.
There is no paradox.
Tolerance is a contract, essentially to treat other people with respect.
Being intolerant is breaking the contract, and therefore there is no paradox.
@@firefly4f4 I disagree with that statement. You can be intolerant towards something and still be fully respectful. For example, you can be intolerant against crime and still treat the criminal with respect and dignity.
The tolerance paradox is a right wing concept. It's not a real paradox, like firefly said.
@@m.h.6470
I'd say that's an equivocation fallacy; as in, you're using tolerance in a different context. Related, but not the same.
The world needs more people like you.
Whenever I hear the terms "rights" and "freedom" I have to ask "to what?".
Im a fan of the phraze "freedom: a meaningless emotional word used to justify anything and everything"
As members of the LGBT community that grew up in the 80s and 90s, being told that i was a dnager to children, that my "lifestyle" was not normal and not something society should except, being told that my love was not real and I was not allowed to get married, being called slurs on the street and at school. I don't remember this time you speak of when bigots were just told to sit down and shut up and them listening and leaving people like me alone. So you will have to forgive me for not want to go back to the way things use to be.
I was about to make basically the same comment. It wasn't that long ago that no "serious" person with a seat at the table would suggest that gender dysmorphia is anything other than a mental disorder to be cured by changing the mind to fit the body. The only reason it is legal (for now) for me to even lie with someone I'm attracted to is because we refused to sit down and shut up when the serious people told us to.
There has certainly been a regression to the acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community when it comes to public educational spaces. That’s what he’s speaking of. For example, Anti vaxxers have always been around, but they were never taken seriously enough to be elected to the United States House of Representatives. Political figures back in the day would say they don’t accept gay people’s right to marry because it was wrong or the Bible or because of the “sacred institution of marriage”. Now they say I don’t agree they should exist because not only are they trying to eat ur kids alive but they are also demons & a large portion of the country doesn’t even bat an eye. The difference is that lunatics now a days are taken seriously because “we should respect everyone’s opinion”. In the 80s there was no place for a pride flag in school. That changed slowly to where it was more accepted. That has since began to change back under the guise of sexuality has no place among children or they’re demons who want to indoctrinate ur kids. Bathroom bills weren’t a thing until the 2010s. Again because of the acceptance of people with disgusting opinions & views being accepted & not told to stfu & sit down. I’m sure people said don’t take polio shot when it came out because they’re using it for mind control or population control. But those people had no platforms & were taken seriously. Look at the covid shot. A complete 180 on that reality. People were shooting horse medicine instead of listening to science simply because those lunatics had platforms & acceptance to spew garbage to the masses.
Valid
Completely understandable
Yeah! I'm 20 yrs old. School was terrible for me, as an atheist in Brazil. Once you come out there is no going back. Being beaten, insulted, excluded from groups (by colleagues) and still having to listen to teachers complain about "how political correctness oppresses the majority".
"We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats... Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"
welcome to the international, Steve. You've solved the paradox of tolerance
It is hypocritical of the intolerant to demand tolerance!
It is right to be intolerant of the intolerant!
Hear! Hear! Well said! 🥰Thank you, Steve, for being a voice for those who may not be able to speak. 💯💋
Our comment sections are like our living rooms. I wouldn't let someone sit in my living room and act like a bigot... ✌🏻😎
I initially read an extra 'h' in 'sit.'
It still made perfect sense.
I think there's a difference between debate and arguing. At least for me, debate is based in facts and either side is open to changing their mind based upon the arguments presented. Debate is healthy. You may not change your mind, but you should at least understand why you believe what you do, whatever it is. But when people just want to argue, with no good faith effort to listen and consider the points raised by the other side, isn't a debate. I'm finding that concept (arguing) to be far too accepted now by one side.
The fringe becoming far too normalized is a massive problem. We are reaching a breaking point, and I don't like what I think is going to be required to fix it. And I think we have waited too long to handle it without terrible cost.
When I did debate, positions were assigned. It wasn't an exercise in reinforcing my own biases, but was an evaluation of the strongest possible arguments and counter-arguments for and against a contention. This meant that often I would have to argue for a position I didn't necessarily agree with, which in turn gave me a better understanding of how people who disagreed with me might understand the same facts but come to a different conclusion
Yes! All of this!
YES, you nailed it. Now if you could, please explain that facts are facts and opinions are not facts, but your opinion on the facts is warranted if formed by facts. Ya I think I just confused myself with that one, but I'm hoping you get it.
The key is, most culture war issues are just facades of much older more basic bigotry. It's why we've all heard them before in many forms. It's always been a shifting goalpost to debate the specific current issues. Instead focus on the underlying reasons for them holding their position, and suddenly they get all squirmy, because they know that if they follow their own train of logic you just get bigotry.
Thank you for saying what needs to be said. I am so disgusted with intolerant people being elected to local offices. I live in South Carolina so it’s becoming more common.
I'm in Florida mate so I feel your pain.
As the Overton window keeps drifting rightward in America, we lose the ability to even imagine a world that any of us would survive.
Yeah, today's Dems are pretty much 1990's republicans.
Very well said. I normally watch you for your Star Trek content, but this might be the best thing I've seen of yours.
Lower Decks is a top tier Star Trek show. Debate me. You won’t! Bet you’ll just delete this comment just like the rest of mine yellin’ about Lower Decks. Ya scared Steve? Scared to face me?
Love ya you goof.
I think a lot of us in the era that bridged from the beginning of Clinton's term in office to the last two years of the Obama administration had begun to feel like, with a few hiccups aside, there was generally a framework in political discussion that rewarded civility, valued recognizing each other as people, and generally favored at least a liberal perspective as the one toward which The Arc of History was bending. Boy these last seven years have been chastening. Any assumptions along those lines, including the idea that people would no longer be boxed in legally on the basis of race or gender or sexual orientation, have been rendered quaint because we always have to explain to the new kids why we think the way we think, and they don't always agree.
I think Republicans abandoned civility from the moment Obama was elected in 2008.
It is EXCEPTIONALLY rare that the KIDS disagree - the ones who do were usually raised specifically to disagree
@@rainkidwell2467 Yes. And even many of us who grew up as passionate right wing evangelicals and a part of communities who would later become "christian" nationalists have rejected conservatism altogether. This is a point of despair within far-right circles - they know their days as a community are numbered because they have no one to pass the torch to.
Blocking comments from bigots is mental health.
The only thing i think we should go back to is a modernized FDR style Keynesian new deal economy with a 74% profit tax on corporations and millionaires and billionaires! I think we need to progress socially and accept people for who they are and respect their rights.
I'm right now at 5:10, and I think I hear you conflating two different concepts. You say it is a mistake to sit down with people and "try to reach some understanding here". Well, yes, that *is* often a mistake, and you're right to be unhappy that this happens . . . and happens quite often. But Steve, that is not what it means to "debate". That is describing "compromise" or worse, capitulation. You see, I don't think (though I understand that many do) that sitting down at a debate means you are agreeing that there are two sides that have equally valid arguments. Because that is almost *never* true. No, sitting down at a debate means bringing facts to bear down on the other side, and *crushing* them.
Of course, I know that this brings up another problem, and that is that the other side will often bring up non sequiturs and even lies. In a formal debate situation, such things have to be documented, and I think we could benefit from having debates moderated by actual professional debate coaches, who could keep track of the unsupported statements made by, say, Vivek Ramaswamy, and the unrefuted arguments made by, say, Steve Shives. And at the end you wouldn't necessarily have to declare a winner, but just point out who scored highest on the b*ll$#it meter.
We can all agree with your example of human rights, that human rights ought not be up for debate. But not everyone agrees on what rights are "human rights". You certainly would assert that the right to abortion is a human right, and you would likely mock another person's assertion that the fetus' right to life is a human right, so if you are in power today you can silence the anti-choice forces. But then in four years, when they are in power, what stops them from silence your side? There are many issues like this.
One problem with silencing these people with asinine viewpoints is that it gives them strength, not only amongst their own crowd, but even among even-tempered centrists. Another problem is that, if you're going to not listen to one point of view, who makes that decision? A human being who is not likely to be infallible. I just think it's better to debate and crush. If someone today wanted to debate whether slavery is immoral, I'd say, "You effing idiot, I'd be happy to debate you, and I'll give you 25 minutes to talk and I'll only use 5 minutes to rebut", and I would destroy him that quickly. Is the pro-slavery position "valid" or worth my time? No, but I'll take the W.
I'm rambling. I do appreciate your perspective, as I know it is based in a sincere frustration with insincere people. But I'm sticking with John Stuart Mill on this one.
9:00 Steve must have a full-time job just cleaning up the comments. Thanks, Steve! I've wondered why his comment areas always seemed so sane.
I am trans, ty. I really really needed to hear someone thoughtfully say transphobes views are invalid.
I’ve had to dance around transphobes sensibilities every day at my work. And I’ve constantly been told not to defend myself, bc I had to be “sensitive” to the views of people still refusing to call me by my legal gender or name. It’s been 8 months.
Fuck them, fuck anything they have to say. I’ve given them more than enough time to get over themselves, and they spent that time not trying to grow but just being content being shitty to me.
I’m nervous about leaving this comment bc last time I left a comment about being trans that got any traction, I got death threats and trolls misgendering me attempting to upset me.
I just want to be treated like a human being, and instead I’m told that’s unreasonable bc transphobes can’t get over it.
Look at it this way: if someone feels threatened by your choice of personal pronouns and your name, just remember: They are the typical insignificant, insecure high school bully type that has no place in telling others who they should be. And dogs that bark don't bite.
I like this one even better than your "Nazi shit" video.
"My right to exist is not something that is up for debate."
I wish moderators in debates would just have an airhorn and every time someone tries to say something that's just a flat out lie they'd hit it and go "No! Try again, we're only debating with real facts here" and just keep doing it until people stop trying to spout nonsense as though it's true and stop quoting made up statistics or categorically disproven fraudulent studies. Like, allowing people to make stuff up does not help anyone, it just confuses people.
Part of the issue is that everyone seems to WANT to debate things, but VERY few people can do so without resorting to emotional arguments, attempts to claim the moral high ground (valid or otherwise), ad-hominem attacks and logical fallacies. And some people are just so damn cynical, they can dismiss anything, ANYTHING, even a proven fact, with a sneer and a hand-wave. And probably a personal insult for good measure.
And that's BEFORE we even get into the quality (if any) of any given opinion or thought, as Steve was saying in the video. Or account for those who aren't looking to debate in good faith in the first place, which really is a larger portion of either the Right OR the Left than anyone's willing to address or even admit.
Shit, you have a hard time even talking about things like Star Wars or Star Trek on the internet without being drowned in salt, never mind things that actually matter in the Real World. At least we have Steve to remind us we aren't all completely nuts for thinking "Y'know, it really ort not be this way?". This AIN'T IT, folks. We can do SO much better, have we really learned NOTHING as a society over the last century?!
edit: F*ck it, I'm drunk. Steve Shives and Jesse Gender for Prez and VP. And Beau of the 5th *GODDAMN* Column for sec. of Education, while we're at it. We've tried The Right, we've tried Centrism. Let's elect some Left-Wing sci-fi/politix nerds. It can't be any worse than what we've had in the past. At least THESE folks have a f*cking functional sense of humor.
Great comments.
@@BS-vx8dg Thanks mate. This stuff drives me up the goddamn wall, sometimes.
Jessie Gender has my vote 1000 times lol Her content is the best
@@kazeboiii Oh, she's one of the best out there for sure. She's so very astute. Tuned in for the Trek deep-dives, stayed for the politics. F*cking legend. She does sometimes over-politicize things, but shit, that's better than missing the point, right?
This was the exact issue that made me unsub from the Young Turks. They wanted to sacrifice trans folk’s ability to play sports for political benefit, and screw that. Any kid or adult on puberty blockers or transition medicine is working twice as hard as anyone thinks they are. Those drugs play havoc on muscle recovery.
Lots of ‘leftests’ pretends that we should debate this instead of just listening to the doctors and therapists treating them. The right’s only go to example is to pretend every male is going to pretend to be a girl to win. It’s not serious, just like their bathroom fears aren’t serious.
Thank you for blocking and banning fascists, racists, and other varieties of people with nothing to add.
I'd missed that bit about YT...
That's not cool.
What's particularly disturbing about the modern-day Republican Party is the anti-science stance, not just on transgender, but vaccines and climate change.
Steve you rock! Bodily autonomy is a human right. Period. A human right for everyone.
And totally agree we should never have let these people to the adults table.
I don't think I can adequately express myself in this comment. Actually, I'm a little worried you might ban me anyway. Like dude I enjoy so much of your work, and I agree with you on so much, but this hurt. I wish you could have heard yourself the way you sounded in my ears. I don't think we'll meet up on this one, at least in a public forum. I doubt I'll ever get a quiet one on one chat, so the only thing for me to do here take a deep breath, and let it go.
I’ve paraphrased your “on the right side of history” argument many times. These vids don’t get viewed enough. Thanks for keeping your political channel pure by talking about Star Trek.
Geez I hope I’m not blocked…
I’m probably blocked. Yeah. I don’t know why.
Thanks Steve, that's awesome :) I really appreciate you handling the comments the way you do and I especially appreciate not just the support, but the fervent support :) Five or six years ago, the fringe was on the fringe. Letting them into the conversation of society writ large has turned the conversation into a circus. I'd much rather things go back to reasonable discourse. Anyway, thanks again for the ardent support :)
As the late, great Isaac Asimov once said, there's a cult of ignorance in our nation that says "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge". It's not.
I've talked to my teenage daughter about the the trans issue and the struggle that this country has with it and my conclusion is that it is something I don't fully understand, I don't know what it is like for a person experiencing the need to transition, but we have medical professionals who do understand and work with those people to help them make the right decision and it is something that as long as they aren't hurting anyone else then why should we give them a hard time? People need to keep their noses out of other people's medical affairs. It is nonsense that doctors can't work with their patients to make the correct decisions for them because politicians and backwood bigots have stuck their noses in their business and turned a private medical matter into a circus up for public debate.
As a listener who loves your channel, who also happens to me transgender, I cannot thank you enough for your defense of trans youth and trans people in general! ❤
Excellent! I often hated running into right-wingers on left-leaning forums who deliberately would *derail* any discussions that veered toward taking action for civil and human rights. It's maddening because they would often do it by concern trolling or even offering non-viable paths that others in the forum follow to a black hole of non-progress.
Thank you for calling it out!😃
YESSSS I hate watching for those friggin' bear traps...
What is "concern trolling"?
Thank you for talking about this. It's really very unsettling the number of people that are like "why can't we just go back to bigotry?" I work at a gas station so I have seen much and heard many things said. Again, thank you.
My nephew came out a year or so ago and is now my very beautiful niece. Back when she was a he, he barely ever smiled. Now she smiles all the time. She has a fantastic boyfriend and a very fulfilled life. Back when she was a he, he was stiff and awkward; now she hugs everyone and glows in social situations. One of my other nieces lives somewhere in-between the worlds of male and female and she is the happiest, silliest person we know & love. My eldest son is high-functioning autistic and asexual. This to say, I'm not a stranger to the gender issues. BUT from a parent's view, watching our children grow up, making numerous bad decisions based on their not-yet-mature brains and knowing (from observation) that their feelings & emotions changed drastically over time, we are glad they waited until a certain level of maturity was attained before making life-changing (and body-changing) decisions. I am all for young people being allowed to define who they are and getting the respect they deserve as human beings; but as a parent I can empathize with those who live in fear of their young children making life-altering decisions based on thoughts and emotions which are subject to the whims of circumstance and hormonal activity, and then having to suffer the consequences of a decision made before the mind & body were fully mature. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tell when someone has finally achieved that level of maturity required for those kinds of decisions (and every person matures at a different rate), especially when it is clouded by the 'advice' or 'counsel' of those who are more interested in their own political agenda (either way) than in the welfare of this young human being. SO -- when does parental concern for their child's future happiness become bigoted anti-LGBQT rhetoric? How do we determine the motivations of those who seek to argue the point, to discern that which stems from love of child versus that which stems from fear/hatred of the non-compliant ? Do we have to decide each case on an individual basis dependent on the apparent maturity level of the 'child' (based on some unknown metric) as defined by an independent, non-biased psychologist (if one actually exists)? I don't know the answer, just asking for my future grandchildren. --- Thanks for the video. You have an awesome channel!
I’m starting to dislike the whole “I’m entitled to opinion.”
Well not all opinions are based on facts and sometimes what you believe or your belief system can be wrong. It can happen…………..
You have just earned yourself a subscriber.
I told friends i felt more like a girl at the age of 8 back in 1995. I became depressed and interested in ending my life when puberty started and people started tearing me differently from my twin sister because of it. I knew who i was, but no one could see it and no one would believe me. Even the mirror was just a stranger pretending to be me. I figured no one would truly believe me unless i did something horrible to myself as a symbolic thing. I tried so many times...I started transitioning in 2009 after the nth unalive attempt was almost successful. I laid on the floor for hours unable to do anything but think. Realized on my obituary it'd STILL say "he" and I'd just be seen as sick in the head. So...i did a lot of research to see if anyone else ever felt this way.
I never want anyone, especially a child, to go through what i have just to get to a point of comfort with themselves and to feel respected as a human being. Anyone who does want that or thinks that experience isnt real needs to sit down. A doctor has more credibility on this than a random person or politician.
I've spent my life since then guiding others who went through similar experiences to the right resources and medical professionals for support. I ran a highly successful support group of several thousand members before resigning after ha young child i was helping was given an ultimatum by their parents. "Leave this family or conform". The kid unalived themselves rather than choose. They left me a long thank you message beforehand for being the only support they had.
Fox News in the '90s was going to host a debate about Climate change. One side was a climate scientist and university prof, the other side was an anthropologist. The climate scientist, when they realized who they were going to debate pulled out. The other guy didn't even have the knowledge necessary to take one of the classes the prof taught, and had publicly made some really basic errors on how climate works. The actual scientist didn't want to give air-time to the guy.
I had no idea, but thank you for dirtying your hands and taking out the trash! If only the rest of society handled these buffoons the same way.
He was doing laundry, not a trash run😜
I think people should be allowed a certain amount of trying to sell their point, but if their intentions are malicious or based on amoral assumptions, then they should be removed.
It's like being told to "engage" with flat earthers. It's pointless and simply validates their views.
I'm 100% intolerant of intolerance. I won't debate or compromise on human rights and the equal treatment of my fellow human beings.
I agree. Many debates expose fringe crap and promote 'both siderism'.
The big problem with agreeing to only let 'serious' arguments at the table is that if the wrong group ends up in charge, no good argument will get heard. Who decides what is serious? Who decides who decides who is serious? How do we protect the rights of people with this sort of system in play? I am with you, but I cannot get behind any system that stands to other people. I am totally down with shutting down abusive jerks that want to fight for their rights OVER their child's rights.
It's okay to other Nazis. If we never allow them a seat at the table, how will they wind up sitting at the head of that table?
Journalists, grass roots and people demanding the "important" issues to be heard.
That's why an objective, independent (not neutral) fourth estate is so important. And sadly, the US and UK has severely shit the bed on that one...
It's decided the same way any social norm is decided -- a constant societal balancing and bargaining process! There don't have to be official Deciders who get to make the final decision, certain things are just deemed unacceptable to say/do in polite society. So the point isn't that there should be a Federal Office of Good Opinions, it's that we as a culture ought to let go of the notion that it's virtuous to admit every opinion to the debate. (And it's not like the authoritarians will extend you the courtesy of freedom of expression when they're in power just because you agreed to debate them.)
And that's what debate is supposed to be able to do, is to have someone make the case and be scrutinized by the opposing side to test how serious the idea is. Imo, the problem right now is most of the "debates" coming out of the debate culture aren't actual debates. They don't have timed rounds, opening statements, cross examination, no interrupting, etc. Most of what's coming out now are free-for-all charisma fights with a useless moderator.
Argument aren’t serious when they violate the human rights of people
Lowering taxes as a economic stimulus- serious proposal
Sending people to death camps- not serious
And I have always appreciated you for this, Steve
Thanks 4 keeping ur political channel pure by talking about Star Trek
I agree like the fact that not abusing your children is something that is a “debate “ is horrifying to me
I love this, because the people who are undoubtedly commenting “fReE sPeAcH” won’t be heard, and they’ve been TOLD they won’t be heard
I feel like the pandemic turbo charged the trend toward society just accepting Karenism. Everyone just let things slide, and now it's to the point where it's often not even safe to tell someone to STFU and sit down. I don't know if it comes from the "ignore trolls and they'll get bored" or if we just collectively got tired of expending the energy to tell them to leave or what, but I don't know how we're supposed to shift the needle back toward politeness for society's sake (and avoiding politeness to enforce classism)
I think that those who argue most obstructively, like they insist that their assumptions are the truth, are only speaking up to impress others who think the same, I think.
A lot of folks don't seem to care about the truth, but rather prefer to uphold this delusion of convenient righteousness through popularity. It's evident when they're confronted with a contradiction. Like when a dude has a problem with gay people, I think most often they're afraid of what others will think of them if they don't mind gay people. It's really kinda pitiful.
Somewhat off-topic, but I'm really not a fan of the perfectly reasonable name 'Karen' becoming such a nasty insult. Every Karen (as in their actual name) I've known has been a decent person, and it sucks that they now have to drag around this stigma.
Politeness is a two way street. If they don't want to be polite, why should we? These people have shown they don't respond to reason.
@@nicholassmith7984I agree. It’s always been at least half a misogynistic dogwhistle since it moved into the popular vernacular.
Karen is just another accepted way to call a woman a bitch. She doesn't have to be doing anything that was originally attributed to a "Karen" anymore to be called a Karen. You could be a reasonable woman and still called a Karen.
Beautifully put. To quote Jean-Luc Picard, "The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" Because we have to decide at some point what kind of society we want to live in and pass down to the next generation. And one with respect for autonomy is just... right. As a trans woman I really appreciate your firm stance. Thank you.
I'm a trans pro athlete (so. . . holy crap) and that is *precisely* how I run my comments section as well.
Fuckin fantastic video, wish I could like/subscribe 3 times over.
This is something I've been saying for years ever since the Australian referendum over gay marriage. Human rights should not be up for "debate".
The paradox of tolerance describes this perfectly.
This is a long explanation of the old quote about not playing chess with a pigeon.
Amazing quote! You’ve added some light to my day! Not heard that one before. I looked it up and the full quote is so good! I assumed it was about the pigeon’s intellect, but no…
I just discovered your channel tonight, and while I am not a big Star Trek fan, you sir, have earned a new subscriber.
Keep it up!
I agree. My best friend is a devout Republican. I'm a big L liberal. He's a super nice guy and for years we have debated. For the longest time , I have listened patiently as he spouted the latest far right talking points, no matter how outrageous or erroneous his point was. I would listen try to get him to see the validity of the other side to convince him that the facts matter. Now, I just come out and say "That's false." or "That's a lie" or "That's wrong" and when he says "Well I just read/heard it somewhere". I always respond with" Just because you read it, it doesn't make it true" As a result, I feel a lot less frustrated after our conversations. Truth and reality matter in a world comprised mainly of opinion and spin. To this day no one can make me laugh harder than he can and I do the same for him. Fifty years ago PM Pierre Trudeau tried to lead Canadians to a "Just society" by saying "Reason over passion". It promptly got him a minority government. Not much has changed in fifty years. PS Love the Keaton photo. If you haven't seen it already, check out one of his last films that he made with the National Film Board of Canada.
The Railrodder is a fun film!
My dad and several other family members have told me they don't like debating with me because I know a bunch of facts about what we're talking about and they can't "win." Like it's some kind of sport instead of a search for truth and knowledge. Me bringing facts to the debate is "cheating" in their mind. As you say, they want their opinions to be unquestioned. I've taken to starting any discussion with the question, "Is this a topic where there is something I can say to change your mind? If the answer is no, I'm not interested in continuing."
There is a difference between debate between two people (whose positions are never explicitly and totally stated) and debate between two positions (which _are_ stated and are have known rhetorical goals).
And the emphasis in the modern day is towards hiding positions behind people. Ironically harming people by hiding that harm behind people hiding positions.
What an incredibly insightful comment. I wish I could upvote it ten times.
I used to think it was good to let people make jackasses of themselves publicly, but then after the past... maybe 7 or so years I realised that, no, we shouldn't. It just emboldens other jackasses.
Keep’em coming Steve . Loved the Trans Vid