I (finally) got my masters in 1981. There were just as many bizarre leftist ideas and leftists on campus as there are now. The difference is most people in charge understood that the ideas were crazy, and the students and professors pushing the idea were nuts. They tolerated the protests and demonstration but never really thought of implementing these ideas. Sometime about 1995, students I went to school with started to become professors and administrators. They now had a chance to start instituting their ideas with no real checks on their actions. Their goal was no longer to change colleges - they had already done that. Their goal was to change society using the schools as their base of power. It's getting to the point we can eliminate the really radical professors and administrators but it won't stop the rot in the rest of society.
Dang, bogus, two whole videos in the last 10 years, and both of them are pretty creepy. I can't figure out if you're just a troll or if your mom dropped you on your head a lot as an infant so you've become fixated on "the jew".
it is true, there is a 1992 american comedy TV skit (with most of the comedians being female, oh the irony) where they pretend to be the type of nanny state students who we now identify as SJW's. it is weird, when you try and search for the show on youtube they remove anything with SJW in the tittle and then if you refresh the page youtube removes SJW from your search.
They have written a complete manifesto on this subject if you are up for a long read, i wouldnt mention it but what you are talking about is large portion of it, they call it "gender mainstreaming" its a deep rabbit hole if you look into it. the pdf to look for (the initial master) is called "Mainstreaming Politics: Gendering Practices and feminist theory"
Sar Jim, I started as a student in the mid 70's and there was craziness all over the place, from radfems with pink hair and tie dyed overalls, through the anti-capitalists, social justice warriors et al. My sister started at Macquarie Uni 4 yrs earlier (it had just opened) and that place was from the start staffed by leftist idealogues. I also taught at Universities for over two decades, and I agree with your timing. I noticed that it was around 2000 that the Unis started ramping up their diversity offices, had the leftist nutcases in positions of authority, and often had totally biased policies in recruitment and promotion of staff. I could give a litany of true life examples. Unfortunately, the leftist idiots have gone from a position of informal power and influence, to formal power, and they are NOT going to surrender that power without a revolution. If it means that some Unis disappear, or that faculties such as liberal arts, humanities or whatever disappear, then so be it. Change will not happen nicely. I would also argue (probably for the tenth time) that the unification of the left - feminism, cultural Marxism, social justice, diversity, whatever - came about thru Critical Theory (CRT), as the power based concepts of oppression, entitlement, privilege etc are all based on that theory. CRT unifies them in that it outlines structural oppression and power in society, and that has become the over-arching ideology of the left. Yet the Frankfurt school of CRT would be horrified how it is being applied now. The point is that the people who are whining about oppression, victimisation, privilege et al are the PRIVILEGED groups, not the other way. The left are in complete control of the campus agenda. By 2010, the diversity offices started running universities. There is no structural way to challenge them. As Haidt is saying, opponents of the left will be shouted down, or removed. I also saw the feminisation of curricula and assessment processes.
This quote actually is circulated among many neo-nazi online circles insinuating that because anti-semitism is a crime it therefore means the world is ruled by jews. I have to say that to much attention is given to the left in the area people like Haidt and Peterson talk about, I am noticing as well that the right have become just as radicalised, prejudice and uninformed. It is quite worrying to be honest, I do not support either side, but it seems the far-right are quickly transforming into extreme counter-attack against the left. It's communism VS fascism and we need to stop directing all our attention attacking the left or else they will develop into something just as bad in their critic free online bubble.
For someone who is interested in preserving free-speech and is critical of leftist political views you sure are very reactive over very little comments which I don't even think were meant to be demeaning. I think Haidt in this video made a pretty good argument that this is not so much a political problem as it is a generational problem. Where you born before the the 90s Jonny RheQue?
I mistakenly attributed this quote to Voltaire. I think the Idea stands on its on despite originating from someone who seems to be a genetic Determinist and possibly antisemitic.
They are bums. I became a journeyman electrician after high school, made good money, and ten years later decided to go to college to study engineering aka a real pathway to a real job.
I wish someone (public high school systems I’m looking at you) would’ve explained to me the difference between the agendas of public universities, community colleges, trade/technical schools. It would have saved me tons of time, money and stress.
This whole situation seems reminiscent of the Stanford Prison Experiment, separating people into groups of "oppressor" and "oppressed" and studying the psychology of power dynamics, but instead of running the experiment on a small group that was easily shut down when it inevitably got out of hand, it's being run on an entire generation of Western civilization, and there's no simple way to shut it down. This is getting legitimately scary.
The rot has spread to Australia. I was a student at university in the 1970s and 80s,(La Trobe, Melbourne, Bachelor's degree and then PhD) followed by post doc position at Syracuse USA when robust, no holds barred discussion inside the classroom and outside at student meetings was the norm. I returned as a student at my old university a few years ago, and during a tutorial on literacy, a young lady was on a PC riff about how literate western societies oppressed colonial peoples. So being something of a devil's advocate, I offered the information that on the other hand the life expectancy in modern literate societies was twice that in hunter gatherer societies. I was immediately subjected to near hysterical accusations of racism. Informing my attacker that I was actually of partial aboriginal descent only increased the anger directed at me by the young lady. While defending myself, another young lady told me that I should be silent as I had already "offended" the student who attacked me. Unfortunately this was the kind of attitude that the University of Sydney when I blew the whistle on a department there. The guilty parties happened to be women, and the women at the university's staff and legal office decided that the women i complained about, and had responded with the usual women as victim false accusations about me, were not to subjected to the unpleasantness of a formal disciplinary hearing against me that I had demanded, rather than take a bribe and a good reference that I was offered to go quietly, so they arranged my effective dismissal on bogus grounds. I was denied the formal opportunity to defend myself. (When the department collapsed like a house of cards some years later, I sent the Vice Chancellor an email "You see Gavin? You see what i was trying to tell you?). In the tutorial years later on being yet again denied the opportunity to defend myself the flashback to that earlier event (I had been diagnosed with PTSD from that 3 year legal battle) provoked a robust response from me. Along the lines of Oh, fuck off. This saw saw more shock and outrage from the students gathered, who had sat mute when I was attacked as being a racist for offering a verifiable opinion on life expectancies. Some stormed out. This truly is generation snowflake.
I think Haidt was the first person I saw who echoed my own view: that this is a religion. It has all the characteristics of a, literal, witch-hunt. The irrationality, the hysteria, the application of totally different rules depending on whether you're in the in-group or the out-group, the dismissal of vital principles like freedom of speech as inconvenient, and of course the equation of accusation = guilt and damn the facts. Oh, and the Dunning-Kruger effect in full measure. By the way, maybe it's the sideburns and the leather jacket, but Nick looks to me like someone who should be called Vinnie. You know, the guy who comes around to explain that this time he has to break your legs, nothing personal.
I have made the same determination about much of the "scientific" community.. especially the left leaning and atheistic members. Science itself has almost become religion... complete with High Priesthood of guys like Hawkings and Darwin, cries of heresy, and pogroms against anyone who posits views which are not in lockstep with the orthodoxy. The behavior of the militant atheistic types are what I have noticed most. One common thing we hear is "Religions have caused more death and suffering than anything else".. as justification for the hatred and vile treatment they heap upon any who do not share their own religious views. Religion itself is not the cause of the strife and suffering over the ages.. it is religious intolerance which does. (though admittedly one particular religion DOES command such behavior and is extremely imperialistic in it's very religious teachings, but it is PEOPLE who commit good and evil acts.. "things" cannot) And religious intolerance is the same thing, be it from "believers" who are intolerant of different views on religion.. or from "non-believers" who are intolerant of different views on religion. These people hence become the very thing they condemn. I am not a very religious person at all.. but find the way the types I mentioned behave towards people who are to be stupid and disgusting. I also find it strange how they have elevated science (where it might be claimed to validate some view of theirs.. they simply ignore it otherwise) to a religion itself.
Forget politics. Without traditional, functioning families, a functioning civilization has never happened. One thing, I think our great grandparents knew that none of us did, is that anything that threatens the integrity of families threatens the kids, the grand kids... everything... every chance of peace and prosperity... would be gone. Notice; By the 1990's, most kids grew up in broken homes; Dysfunctional homes which produce dysfunctional kids / adults. The impact of divorce / remarriage on kids is obvious, profound and very bad. I've been in classrooms for the past 38 yrs., so I've seen it enough to know. Spanking a child was condemned but abandoning them was fine. Tolerance?!? Most parents can't even tolerate each other.
When it comes to the University, I don't want to see Liberal ideas being pushed. I also do not want to see Conservative ideas being pushed. I also don't want to see any religious beliefs being pushed. I don't want Liberal, Conservative, or Christian graduates. I want to see graduates who have been taught about their chosen field who have the ability to apply critical thought. Too many people are talking about how being Liberal is great, or how being Conservative is great, or how you have to be a Christian. Those things are all personal choices. Critical thought is a skill that provides actual value to society. One only need to gaze upon our political and religious landscape to understand why critical thought is not a top priority in our Universities and other institutions of education. Education on the topic of study. That's it. And get rid of things like Gender Studies, Asian Studies, and similar wastes of time. Anything less is a case of the Universities ripping off the students, who are taking on some major debt that will probably have a negative impact on their lives.
1980 is not the cutoff. I was born in 1981 and barely had internet at home one year before I went to college. Many in my class never had internet before.
Some of this is easy. For a start: 1. Withold federal funds from schools that do not offer constitutional protection to students and faculty. 1st Ammendment, etc. 2. Withold federal support for schools that have a high ratio of administrators over teaching faculty. 3. Withdraw Title 9. 4. Forbid schools that do not permit due process from supporting a "police department".
It's true when I studied English lit in the humanities, in both UK and USA - it was more about the politicizing, like we had to analyze everything through a feminist and marxist viewpoint. Anything outside this was frowned upon. I was so confused and frustrated by it.
gotta recognise Haidt's bubble too... "we all thought Hillary would win" No we didn't. .. and from 3500 counties... ~2500-Trump to ~700 for Hillary... it was a Stonking! Haidt still lives in Academia... he has his blindspots.
He has his biases, but he's fair in most of his assessments and I enjoy listening to him (even when I disagree with some of the points he makes) because it offers a more in-depth, rational view of the left than the usual twaddle we see in social medias.
BULLSHIT! Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing! The vast majority of media, internet, social media etc etc etc ALL had Clinton winning easily! NO ONE really thought Trump had a chance...until it was all over!! Even Trump's supporters didn't REALLY think he had a chance.
To be fair, I'm a student in NYU and during that time, no one within New York City ever seriously considered Trump actually winning. The assumption when Trump began leading in the pools was that bigger liberal states such as New York and California would make it very unlikely that he would win, but he surprisingly won. I didn't vote for either of the candidates and it was still surreal that he managed to beat Hillary. The collective mourning the days after the election was really funny to watch in hindsight, and it ironically led to this social experiment that allowed them to really see why Trump appealed to people. www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
He's absolutely in that bubble but at least he's able to see through the ideological haze in some important ways. One thing I don't understand is how he thinks Trump is making divisiveness worse. Maybe Dr Haidt is shocked that "we the proletariat" finally have our point of view represented in Trump, on a big stage that cannot be ignored anymore. Before that, it was like we didn't exist - or if we did our views were somehow invalid or irrelevant.
Goodwill Floating Haidt IS awash in his own elite mini tsunami. But the nation simply goes on ignoring the economic top 99.999997% of all children who have ever lived on planet Earth with their suffering and oppression. Witness the two recent hurricanes. I find encouragement in the fact its limited to such a microscopic sample. And it won't last long among them either. They are so obviously clueless and self embarrassing! I simply googled 'screeching girl' and there was the entire Yale farce in living color.
The other day I was out on a walk after reading an article on multi-culturalism. I started thinking about the American mainstream culture. I have said for many years that multi-culturalism will work only if everyone is on board with the idea that we all have to follow the same laws, and multi-culturalism will make for different levels of economic success at the cultural level. A minute or two later a woman passed me on the sidewalk. She was pushing a stroller. I noticed the baby in the stroller was wearing a bicycle helmet. I guess I looked a few seconds too long at the helmeted baby because the young mother smiled and calmly said, "You can't be too careful with children." This video strongly suggests that those thoughts I had on multi-culturalism, and the idea that a baby in a stroller needs helmet, are two concepts that have a connection.
No.. bullying is not a masculine trait. I've seen women out bully anyone.
7 лет назад+2
Those kids have been brainwashed, by monsters, who long for authoritarianism. It is fascism dressed up as good behavior. This devolved academia, has turned criticism, free thought and free speech into potential crimes, if you dare disagree or criticize with these blue haired SJW´s.
There ought to be a special "Namby Pamby" University that students can be transferred to when they start complaining about microaggressions and trigger-warnings and safe-spaces. Every Monday the Namby Pamby University gets a new chancellor, whom the students can protest against, and on Friday he/she resigns and is replaced with a new one the following Monday.
I watched this on Reason awhile back and still have issues with parts of it. They are leaving out everything that has been happening since 2001. It's good they acknowledged how crazy it got in the late 80s - early 90s, but also bring up that it was on a smaller scale and they were still able to clam students down and bring them around easily. BUT The fact remains that students were being charged with racial harassment for minding their own business while reading historical library books that had "triggering" pictures on the cover in 2008. This has been happening to students, and some professors, for 17 years straight. Students were being disciplined for having posters in their dorm of fire fighters or something with the American flag on it in 2001, right after 9/11, because it could be triggering to others (and I'm sure it had nothing to do with those who lost loved ones). 15 years later some professors were ripping 9/11 memorial posters off the walls. It's no surprise that it reached this level. It's been heading in this direction the whole time. You can track the insane, progressively reactionary, progression to specific issues year after year. You can watch the problematic professors lose it at the first sign of pushback. I had the same issue with the recent article about words being violence. They seemed to saying this was only an issue with Gen Z, which is not remotely correct. You can't blame 2 decades worth of problems on the ones who are just coming onto campuses. I think we're seeing the climate on campus become more violent/manic because more students have been pushing back against the ideology that's been in place for decades, and many know what's been going on. It's also not hard to find several articles over the last few years where Millennials discuss the Gen Z problem and how to stop them/censor them, when they go against the narrative. www.google.com/amp/www.theblaze.com/news/2016/09/09/college-history-department-chair-tears-down-911-never-forget-posters-and-then-shares-her-reason/amp/ ^^ Insane, purple haired radical lesbian chair of the history department who sent out an email to faculty 2 days after 9/11 affirming American Imperialism was the cause.
dear god, i was excluded most of my life, took me to be in my early 20s and in a uni cohort i liked to find people who would accept me for me and actually want to include me. yes it hurt but far out i learned to be resilient, i grew one hell of a thick skin. kids in future are screwed when they go into the workforce
I am a Chinese majored in Computer Science. I think the gender study major in the west should never exist as an academic department, and it is toxic to the entire intellectual atmosphere in the University. Note that I strongly support women rights movement in the past centuries. In the Universities in mainland China, we have a department called "School of Marxism studies." They apply modern social science theory to research on "Marxism with Chinese characteristics". Their publication is also nice looking, in a serious tone, with all the modern social science theories, but their entire goal is to prove: "1. Marxism is right." "2. Marxism with Chinese characteristics is still Marxism." "3. China is still a socialist county on the road to communism." There is tons of Ph.D. and professors in the "School of Marxism studies," however, I think they are so ashamed of their pseudo-science research that few of them dare to speak to STEM student to say: "Look, I am a scientist as well." Awarding that subject with the Ph.D. title is a shame to the entire academia. Why, because if they want to do real research in Marxism, they should do it in a proper philosophy, politics or economics department, so that their research can be challenged, disputed, proved or disproved by peers of a different view. In "School of Marxism studies," your conclusion is already there, what you need is to prove it with an eloquent essay. As a rule of thumb, an academic subject should not be established as such that its research (or pseudo-research) is revolving around an orthodoxical ideology. Whether such political ideology is just or unjust is another matter, science and research are entirely about Truth, not ideology. In scientific research, we need to report our funders so that other scientists can know that if there exists a channel of interest to cause potential bias. Confirmation bias and vested interest are fairly common issues in STEM researchers. However, in each STEM field, different sides can argue and dispute over the publications so that any hypothesis is attacked, examined, and finally prove or disproved over time. To summarize: every researcher has his own belief and his own bias; To arrive at truth, in STEM we ask the opposition forces to attack each other vigorously so, in the end, we found the truth that withstands the challenge. In physics, you can prove Newton Classic physics is wrong (or flawed). You will have a huge outcry in the circles, you will have both allies and enemy, but your career and physics research goes on. The simple matter is: the entire field of physics (or any STEM subject) do not depend on the orthodoxy of one particular set of theory or ideal. The subject that is founded on one particular set theory or ideal is religion. In women study (or any other other identity politic pseudo-research), the entire founding structure is wrong in the first place. I am not arguing about whether today's women study is good or bad, rational or irrational. I think any Ph.D. in STEM major will realize the fact that the system design of current women studies as an academic research system will cause a massive confirmation bias and a whole industry of vested interest in the field itself. Do you believe some Ph.D. in women study can publish a research hypothesis that white males are the disadvantaged social groups? Do you believe some Ph.D. in women study can publish a research hypothesis that male are inherently more intelligent (by whatever particular measure) than the female, so that men are better at some jobs? The above hypothesis is false IMO, but it is an important thinking game. It proves that there is a "right answer" and "wrong answer" of morality in the research, so some hypothesis will never be raised, and some conclusion will never be drawn. Moreover, graduates from women study virtually cannot find any job except being a teacher of women study or an activist. So if their researchers find that women are under institutional discrimination, the entire field benefit from it by collecting more funds and secure more teaching positions or jobs like "chief diversity officers in google"(As a CS student I burst into tears when I first heard of such title :P ). I am not arguing whether "women are under institutional discrimination" is true or false (I believe the claim is justified in someplace in China), I merely point out that there exist a chain of vested interest here. Most importantly, if someday, someone proves "women are under institutional discrimination" is untrue, if would dis-establish the entire field. Can you imagine the severity of it? The entire field of study will be demolished, that will be equivalent to proving Allah does not exist to Muslim. That is to say, hypotheses or research to disproving an certain argument in “women's study” will be an existential threat to all the Ph.D. in the subject and getting everyone so mad at you because their entire life, entire research, and future career will be fertile.With such a closed loop of positive feedback without negative review, it is therefore never a wonder for me that women study become an echo chamber and radicalized. Looking back in history, we would know that such moral ideal is a bad idea in reach science theory. Darwin theory which portrays a cold-hearted evolution by natural selection is not a welcoming thought in many religious people and defy the sanctity of the men. Many radical political thoughts (which cause mass murders) in modern time are inspired by Darwin theory. However, academia is not church; we should seek truth (however uncomfortable). Darwin can be good Christian when he is a man in daily life, but when he begins to work as a scientist, he must distance himself from what he believes or what he would like the world to be. In research, the scientist ceases to be a man; he becomes the embodiment reason itself. After the research, he recovers his morality and ideal. A scientist may then decide to hide the uncomfortable discover, or burn it because it will bring injustice when misused. I think many people outside of STEM emphasis on too much on humanity, too little on the reason. They do not realize the importance of this duality of personality when discovering the truth require our cold-hearted rationalism, and hiding the harmful truth from public require our warm-hearted humanity. I think every true scholar who is interested in women study, with the dream of obtaining truth, should leave that particular echo chamber. Real researchers on women’s issue should go back to common political science or sociology department where there is not a particular agenda or central ideology. Their theory may be completely right, but it needs to put outside of the echo chamber and face strict scrutiny to as befitting the academic standard. Having a feminist reviewing the paper of another feminist will not produce any real science.
The only problem I have with Haidt's argument/statement is where he claims the problem started in 2014/2015 as if it came out of nowhere, as if what transpired prior wasn't also just as bad. Ideas/movements take time to grow, a lock step generational movement takes at least 20 years of a unified message pushing such behavior, it's not something that can be instilled onto an entire generation with a year or two of college. What I would say Haidt's date indicates that it was only problematic when the Intersectional Left started targeting other Leftists. This started with Gamergate, which also transpired in 2014, then Leftist ideology became a 'problem'. I can tell you from personal experience and observation that the entirety of the 00's wasn't any better if you were on the Right. The difference was prior to 2014, it was Evil Right Wing Males, and Bigoted Conservative Whites that were the boggy man. Post 2010, they dropped the Right Wing and Conservative labels, feeling that they have been beaten down sufficiently to purely focus on the labels 'white' and or 'male' which better fits the ideology of intersectionality, an ideology that is 50+ years old (25+ year life span as a matured ideology). This left a lot of White and or Male Left wingers shocked as they thought they were part of the good guys, hence the problem 'only started in 2014'.
Smart Ass Not really. The Atlantic article he and Greg recently wrote. arguing against the idiocy of teaching students that words are violence, put across this same point but expanded on his notion that this is an issue among hyper coddled Gen Z students. This has been going on since 2001, progressively getting worse with each year. It has reached manic/violent levels as a new generation is starting college. Yes, he states that this has been going on for some time but he is also incorrect in saying students that graduated in 2013 would not have seen this. Students had been the ones primarily being attacked for 14-15 years. It's been working up to this the whole time. Yes, he acknowledges there are multiple factors but I think we are seeing more violence and mania because Gen Z students are pushing back on problems we've been seeing for decades. You can find articles from Millennial SJW's discussing the Gen Z problem, the way they use media, how they have to be censored and that other measures have to be taken to combat them. The so called SoJus are now demanding more rules officially be put in place to stop it (triggers, safe spaces and micro aggression have been used to punish students for years as it is) and started to lash out at all professors who dare question their narratives or fail to comply. You have to keep in mind that students have been reading and watching videos about these issues for years as well. He does point this out with peer groups and SM but seems to ignore the growing opposition aspect In the late 80s, early 90s, I was glued to every conversation or article about the growing insanity in colleges... 4-5 years before I reached college age.
Smart Ass I think the 57 year old student employee charged with racial harassment for reading a historical library book, during his work breaks, in 2008 would say... the fuck you talkin' about? One of his co workers was triggered by the cover, which had a picture of the KKK on it, and accused him of being racist. The student diversity office told him reading a scholarly work that sat on the university library shelves, during his work breaks, was the equivalent of bringing pornography to work. Apparently none even bothered checking into the fact that it was a true story about college students fighting the KKK in 1924. Nope! Reading a non fictional library book with a pic of the KKK on the cover, in college, is automatic racism. Again, there are 2 decades worth of stories like this and many students were punished. There has been years of civil debates, civil liberties groups stepping in and people/parents trying to handle cases where their children's rights were violated before they were expelled, through all the appropriate channels. When it just continues to get worse what do you think will happen? It will reach a head, and it won't be pretty.
Great talk. He left out a variable, government giving out student loans similar to how they forced banks to give out mortgages, is a major factor in the devaluation of higher education.
Very good excerpts. Haidt really is one of the canaries in the coalmine. We are indeed facing an existential threat in the West. Regressive leftism allied with Islam and nihilism will spell an end to us if we don't start fighting back now.
I think the issue is that the current generation is pretty heavily immersed in a culture of instant gratification, where if you want something you can just *have it* (Internet, increasing globalization and availability of products, etc). The one area where this absolutely isn't the case is social change. Smooth transitions in cultural norms are always natural, never enforced, but kids today don't care. They see cops shooting black guys, and they don't stop and go "Ok, what's the root of the problem here?", in which case they might go "Oh... poverty is prompting greater crime, creating a negative stereotype of blacks as criminals, which puts cops on edge and more likely to shoot a black guy out of fear they fit the stereotype of a gangbanger and their life is in immediate danger. Let's get rid of poverty!" which might take 30 years but would almost certainly work. They just go "Oh. Obviously, all cops are just racist". They're treating the symptoms but not the illness.
Then you also have an equally closed minded opposition in the same generation in which there is no dialouge between the two only calling each other wrong and picking the opposite sides of each almost for the sake of it. It's quite sad really, look at all these people who have just decided to become full blown-white supremacists sympathetic to fascism and the nazis during world war 2. Even just in this comments section alone we can see so much reactionary and emotionally driven who want violence against the left, this to me is just as worrying as the radical left and yet channels such as independent man are everywhere which never target the other side and are biased. I like the channel, I'd just like to see 2 sides of an argument being presented instead of sort of just kinda telling people what they want to hear who have already made their mind up on just about everything.
Grey Line I agree but as soon as these channels target radical right wing voices, they get called cucks or fence sitters. I mean these assholes have an issue with you trying to be objective and non partisan, that's part of the problem. the politics has made people far too polarized, there is almost no middle ground anymore and if you are you get insulted by both sides
Right, either side has become just as radicalised and unstable, but catering to purely one side, especially when you have a wider audience who are not al like that, only makes the problem worse. It's biased and caters to a demographic of people who in many ways want to demonise the left, incite violence, find anything to justify their pre-established worldview and white supremacy. People are making the problem even worse than it need be by constant exposure to ideological extremism, and, even channels such as independent man which are pretty tame in comparison to others, people still use it as a springboard to push their branch of extremism through the lense of millenial pathology.
Why are you posting that in reply nobody said anything related to that? Also there is an abundance of evidence to suggest that crime is more increased in areas of poverty, many European countries have over 90% white population and have very high crime rates. Scotland for instance is 97% white and street gangs, rape, stabbings are not uncommon in Glasgow, to be honest I don't see why you couldn't of just said that bit at the end instead of intentionally making this about whites and blacks, fatherlessness, government dependency and lack of expectations of success is not limited to blacks in fact its prevalent across all working class people in the west.
I don't equate "lack" with "diversity". If business can be SO solidly Conservative, why can't educational institutions lean/BE Liberal? Clearly, there is plenty of room for both to exist.
Corporations are also digging their own graves by downsizing for the mere "virtue" of avoiding responsibility. The #1 priority on a manager's PDR is to find ways to reduce staff (destroy the moral of employees), prolong payment to suppliers (remove small business participation), and/or deliver less value (rip off customers). It should be no wonder that universities care less about preparing students for jobs and care more about turning them into career malcontents.
I used to work with elementary grade students and I've never really consciously thought about this. Watching this video, everything is coming back to me. All those moments and incidents that were motivated by political correctness and perceived wrongs. You think it's just elite colleges, but I've seen first-hand the ludicrous levels of PC lawyering by some 5th grade students to compel me to act against students they're having some playground argument with.
I agree with him that over parenting has created weak minded children. I saw it over and over again while raising my kids. These older parents protecting their kids from all difficulties, fighting their battles so their little snowflakes could plow through life.
Hey, Independent Man: I think you should be concerned about staying within the bound of fair use in copyright law. Replaying a largely unedited, uncommentted video created by somebody else leaves you vulnerable to a copyright strike. Hate to see your channel shutdown. Best regards, Rich Dobbs
Fascinating appraisal of the state of the US higher educational system. Has anyone done any studies of what happens to the ideological indoctrinated when they leave their bubble world?
"I pledge allegiance to the Corporations of the United States of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Nation under the Dollar, indivisible, with tyranny and injustice for all." - Our new Pledge Of Allegiance people, learn it.
This is why we should start teaching people reason and Stoicism again. Stoicism is actually the origin of the idea that you should not allow words to affect you. It used to have a heavy influence on Western thought, but was put away in the 19th century in favour of Socialism, Christianity and emotion-based ethics. Now that several sources actually confirm it to be true, among them virtue ethicists, it's time to pull Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Musonius Rufus out of the bookshelf again and start reading. Or one could start with one of the modern books that are starting to crop up.
they could make way more $$ being online..soo much less overhead and no protest security and protest after clean up alone..the teachers could wrk from home..easyier for everyone study from home..costs go way down
Excerpts: A key concept is that of ‘moral dependency,’ which relates to victimhood culture. Many cultures used to be honour cultures, in which a small insult must be attended to by you, and you can’t get someone to fight your battles for you because you have your honour to defend. Then we had a dignity culture, in which ‘sticks and stones will break your bones and names will never harm you,’ where you’re not going to make a big deal out of a little thing and instead will just ignore it. This is a great way to have diversity. If you want a diverse community you definitely want a dignity culture because people will tend to overlook little misunderstandings. This is contrasted to the last few years in which the most left-leaning institutions have sought to co-opt any authority power to punish those perceived to be transgressing anyone who claims victimhood. This appears related to the change in parenting styles through the 90s that saw an authority figure, the parent, always being present to solve problems, and consequently much fewer demands on children to figure things out and solve problems themselves. Children no longer had the chance to learn to deal with insults, to deal with being excluded. These children have been raised in a world with different moral pillars, in which the values of diversity and inclusion are placed above freedom and liberty. - Jonathan Haidt
The reason why people are unsympathetic to protesting students is two fold: 1) jealousy- let's keep it 100. Many people wish they had the chance to go to college, but couldn't due to life circumstance or poor academics 2) detachment- who's going to listen to a bunch of spoiled coddled millenials with too much free time on their hands? What life experiences do they have? Do they even know why they hate Donald trump? Why they support BLM? And let's face it, many of these protestors are just there to get laid. That's the way I see it.
I think Haidt has made very accurate descriptions of the new SJW and Victim Culture. Haidt and Peterson stand out as two very important intellectuals in this debate. The characterization of SJWs as zombies I think is a good one because they seem devoid of coherent arguments to support their views and often resort to shouting and bullying to confront opposing viewpoints.
dude I love your lazy Sunday uploads. I've given up on Sargon's this week in stupid. It's something about learning something useful, rather than just being weighed down with cynicism...
It worries me that Australia will follow the American route. All this PC stuff, this 'victim-hood' mentality' is stifling and will undermine what is so special about Australia.
My son is scared to go to college he's a white male was Zero privilege but he doesn't want to feel but he has to explain to self to all these s*** disturbers
Everyone needs to go to college for small business, learn about the internet, and market your own ideas. Or skip the first part and save up money to make a smart business that can sustain itself. University is a JOKE now.
I am retired now. I did go to school briefly without finishing starting in 1975. Dr. Haidt identified a convergence of trends in psychology marrying up to poli-sci and sociology and having a certain kind of "upbringing" appear at the university by way of students. Horseshit, Jonathan, that crap was in colleges in the 70's. It was not so finely articulated as today or 2014 but it was there. I remember seeing it when I went. What I am saying is that Dr. Haidt's story of the genesis and epiphany of the SJW had visible roots before he was even in school. The reason he sees a later appearance is because he is part of that system, educated to it and steeped in its rhythms and worldview. He is at least 30 years late in his diagnosis. In those thirty years the rest of the scholars in the humanities saw the same thing and called it good, picked up their checks and probably thought, "Well it's not my problem." Generation snowflake will enter a workforce already a full generation deep in the hypersensitivity, fear of being caught out and active discrimination against anyone not in compliance with today's orthodoxy.
7 лет назад
These are all students brought up in the Obama years, under common core curriculum. This is why the left hates DuVoss and Trump, because they will undo all this subversive, pro-state, pro-socialist, indoctrination/education.
I don't understand the merits of making people terrified of saying something "wrong". I'd say it would be much healthier to encourage people to speak their minds, and discuss their ideas. Instead we see a trend of ostracizing people who hold different ideas. In my opinion this only encourages an us/them mentality which, as we all know, does wonders for social cohesion. We need to understand each-other instead of shaming everyone into silence.
How good an idea to put everyone in university, nothing meritbased at all, of course that means lowering expectations and outcomes, a society of only "leaders" has not been experimented yet, but foreseably that won't work ! The bubble of 'educated' (combined with the bubble of debt-growth), strangely you don't hear any professors on this problem that is pushing too many to take the risk of a 'college-education'. And an uneducated guess; from fear (of failing uni?) comes a desire to put up many defenses and boundaries.
So realistically let's discuss what's the great loss to society with a loss of many universities? Seriously is there going to be a world void of all tradesmen? How many post graduates do we really need? Especially since the college campuses are so unhealthy and ideologically crazy?
Words are very powerful. One's mind and thinking can be controlled with one mere word, for example, "violated," as mentioned here. Shrewd mind control takes advantage of this as do those interested in behavior modification and control. Even down to the everyday salesperson. Look at the con-man. People attempting to stop words from being said mark themselves as potential victims subject to manipulation. We are not evolving.Many aren't anyway. I suggest to think this through.
I like Haidt but he seems misguided about Trump (and ''Trumpism''). Yes, societal tensions created the opportunity for someone like Trump to be elected (as is often the case in politics) but it's misguided to say ''he is making things worse'' while supplying no evidence for such a claim. Haidt said it is more difficult for him to talk about PC culture and patriotism because Trump has talked about them. How so, Jonathan? More difficult because leftist idiots close their minds to anything Trump says and therefore you face more opposition from the left? Is that Trump's fault or the fault of the leftists who refuse to entertain other thoughts? Also, why will we ''still be in big trouble once Trump leaves''? Because Trump will cause problems or because the problems are so great that it will take decades to undo the damage done by the left? The way this was said, it's as if Trump is the problem even though Haidt and Trump share similar views on these issues. Odd.
I don't even think Jonathan Haidt is against Social justice principles, he always insert in his talks how all the things our fellows social justice are doing is good, they just have taken things too far. I don't want to say he is fence-sitting, but I never saw him speaking about his principles.
Sadly, it seems this is no longer an issue concerning only 'left-leaning' campuses. I consider myself moderate and willing to listen to everyone's side of the argument. However, attending half a semester at a California State University in 2015-2016 fresh out of high school, it became apparent that hearing out people of differing opinions and debating in a civilized way is no longer the way we're taught to behave in school. The 'college experience' I was exposed to is comparable to a preschool daycare with alcohol widely available to make the problem even worse. Sure, seems real fun to drink 3 times a week- until you realize you're underdeveloped and going in a backwards direction, both morally, and responsibility-wise. If you the baby exactly what it wants every time it wants, do you think your baby will ever grow up? By the way- I became depressed and dropped out about 12 weeks into the semester. I'm now a self employed web developer at 20. Playing the victim gets you nowhere.
I (finally) got my masters in 1981. There were just as many bizarre leftist ideas and leftists on campus as there are now. The difference is most people in charge understood that the ideas were crazy, and the students and professors pushing the idea were nuts. They tolerated the protests and demonstration but never really thought of implementing these ideas. Sometime about 1995, students I went to school with started to become professors and administrators. They now had a chance to start instituting their ideas with no real checks on their actions. Their goal was no longer to change colleges - they had already done that. Their goal was to change society using the schools as their base of power. It's getting to the point we can eliminate the really radical professors and administrators but it won't stop the rot in the rest of society.
Sar Jim if you dont expel the jew it will NEVER stop.
Dang, bogus, two whole videos in the last 10 years, and both of them are pretty creepy. I can't figure out if you're just a troll or if your mom dropped you on your head a lot as an infant so you've become fixated on "the jew".
it is true, there is a 1992 american comedy TV skit (with most of the comedians being female, oh the irony) where they pretend to be the type of nanny state students who we now identify as SJW's.
it is weird, when you try and search for the show on youtube they remove anything with SJW in the tittle and then if you refresh the page youtube removes SJW from your search.
They have written a complete manifesto on this subject if you are up for a long read, i wouldnt mention it but what you are talking about is large portion of it, they call it "gender mainstreaming" its a deep rabbit hole if you look into it. the pdf to look for (the initial master) is called "Mainstreaming Politics: Gendering Practices and feminist theory"
Sar Jim, I started as a student in the mid 70's and there was craziness all over the place, from radfems with pink hair and tie dyed overalls, through the anti-capitalists, social justice warriors et al. My sister started at Macquarie Uni 4 yrs earlier (it had just opened) and that place was from the start staffed by leftist idealogues.
I also taught at Universities for over two decades, and I agree with your timing. I noticed that it was around 2000 that the Unis started ramping up their diversity offices, had the leftist nutcases in positions of authority, and often had totally biased policies in recruitment and promotion of staff. I could give a litany of true life examples.
Unfortunately, the leftist idiots have gone from a position of informal power and influence, to formal power, and they are NOT going to surrender that power without a revolution. If it means that some Unis disappear, or that faculties such as liberal arts, humanities or whatever disappear, then so be it. Change will not happen nicely.
I would also argue (probably for the tenth time) that the unification of the left - feminism, cultural Marxism, social justice, diversity, whatever - came about thru Critical Theory (CRT), as the power based concepts of oppression, entitlement, privilege etc are all based on that theory. CRT unifies them in that it outlines structural oppression and power in society, and that has become the over-arching ideology of the left.
Yet the Frankfurt school of CRT would be horrified how it is being applied now. The point is that the people who are whining about oppression, victimisation, privilege et al are the PRIVILEGED groups, not the other way. The left are in complete control of the campus agenda.
By 2010, the diversity offices started running universities. There is no structural way to challenge them. As Haidt is saying, opponents of the left will be shouted down, or removed. I also saw the feminisation of curricula and assessment processes.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"
Be careful who I quote? Go fuck yourself, douchbag.
This quote actually is circulated among many neo-nazi online circles insinuating that because anti-semitism is a crime it therefore means the world is ruled by jews. I have to say that to much attention is given to the left in the area people like Haidt and Peterson talk about, I am noticing as well that the right have become just as radicalised, prejudice and uninformed. It is quite worrying to be honest, I do not support either side, but it seems the far-right are quickly transforming into extreme counter-attack against the left. It's communism VS fascism and we need to stop directing all our attention attacking the left or else they will develop into something just as bad in their critic free online bubble.
It wasn't so much the correction, it was the bit at the end.
For someone who is interested in preserving free-speech and is critical of leftist political views you sure are very reactive over very little comments which I don't even think were meant to be demeaning. I think Haidt in this video made a pretty good argument that this is not so much a political problem as it is a generational problem. Where you born before the the 90s Jonny RheQue?
I mistakenly attributed this quote to Voltaire. I think the Idea stands on its on despite originating from someone who seems to be a genetic Determinist and possibly antisemitic.
Hey, these kids need something to talk about while standing in the boring unemployment lines.
They are bums. I became a journeyman electrician after high school, made good money, and ten years later decided to go to college to study engineering aka a real pathway to a real job.
It's no longer the 1940s.
Really? What do they use in place of electricity nowadays?
And your job can not be outsourced overseas.
The problem being that some of those solutions involve electricity. So you'd better have a few.
Unless you absolutely have to get a bachelors, don't. Do your selves a favor, save a lot of money and time and go to a technical/trade school.
I wish someone (public high school systems I’m looking at you) would’ve explained to me the difference between the agendas of public universities, community colleges, trade/technical schools. It would have saved me tons of time, money and stress.
This whole situation seems reminiscent of the Stanford Prison Experiment, separating people into groups of "oppressor" and "oppressed" and studying the psychology of power dynamics, but instead of running the experiment on a small group that was easily shut down when it inevitably got out of hand, it's being run on an entire generation of Western civilization, and there's no simple way to shut it down. This is getting legitimately scary.
There's more to diversity than just people of different colors. There is diversity of thought.
I graduated way back in the 80s and have never been more thankful than after seeing this
can't get enough of this guy
The rot has spread to Australia. I was a student at university in the 1970s and 80s,(La Trobe, Melbourne, Bachelor's degree and then PhD) followed by post doc position at Syracuse USA when robust, no holds barred discussion inside the classroom and outside at student meetings was the norm.
I returned as a student at my old university a few years ago, and during a tutorial on literacy, a young lady was on a PC riff about how literate western societies oppressed colonial peoples. So being something of a devil's advocate, I offered the information that on the other hand the life expectancy in modern literate societies was twice that in hunter gatherer societies.
I was immediately subjected to near hysterical accusations of racism. Informing my attacker that I was actually of partial aboriginal descent only increased the anger directed at me by the young lady. While defending myself, another young lady told me that I should be silent as I had already "offended" the student who attacked me.
Unfortunately this was the kind of attitude that the University of Sydney when I blew the whistle on a department there. The guilty parties happened to be women, and the women at the university's staff and legal office decided that the women i complained about, and had responded with the usual women as victim false accusations about me, were not to subjected to the unpleasantness of a formal disciplinary hearing against me that I had demanded, rather than take a bribe and a good reference that I was offered to go quietly, so they arranged my effective dismissal on bogus grounds. I was denied the formal opportunity to defend myself. (When the department collapsed like a house of cards some years later, I sent the Vice Chancellor an email "You see Gavin? You see what i was trying to tell you?).
In the tutorial years later on being yet again denied the opportunity to defend myself the flashback to that earlier event (I had been diagnosed with PTSD from that 3 year legal battle) provoked a robust response from me. Along the lines of Oh, fuck off. This saw saw more shock and outrage from the students gathered, who had sat mute when I was attacked as being a racist for offering a verifiable opinion on life expectancies. Some stormed out.
This truly is generation snowflake.
I think Haidt was the first person I saw who echoed my own view: that this is a religion. It has all the characteristics of a, literal, witch-hunt. The irrationality, the hysteria, the application of totally different rules depending on whether you're in the in-group or the out-group, the dismissal of vital principles like freedom of speech as inconvenient, and of course the equation of accusation = guilt and damn the facts. Oh, and the Dunning-Kruger effect in full measure.
By the way, maybe it's the sideburns and the leather jacket, but Nick looks to me like someone who should be called Vinnie. You know, the guy who comes around to explain that this time he has to break your legs, nothing personal.
Many have pointed out that Leftism is a religion, complete with dogma and blasphemy laws
I have made the same determination about much of the "scientific" community.. especially the left leaning and atheistic members. Science itself has almost become religion... complete with High Priesthood of guys like Hawkings and Darwin, cries of heresy, and pogroms against anyone who posits views which are not in lockstep with the orthodoxy. The behavior of the militant atheistic types are what I have noticed most. One common thing we hear is "Religions have caused more death and suffering than anything else".. as justification for the hatred and vile treatment they heap upon any who do not share their own religious views. Religion itself is not the cause of the strife and suffering over the ages.. it is religious intolerance which does. (though admittedly one particular religion DOES command such behavior and is extremely imperialistic in it's very religious teachings, but it is PEOPLE who commit good and evil acts.. "things" cannot) And religious intolerance is the same thing, be it from "believers" who are intolerant of different views on religion.. or from "non-believers" who are intolerant of different views on religion. These people hence become the very thing they condemn. I am not a very religious person at all.. but find the way the types I mentioned behave towards people who are to be stupid and disgusting. I also find it strange how they have elevated science (where it might be claimed to validate some view of theirs.. they simply ignore it otherwise) to a religion itself.
Forget politics. Without traditional, functioning families, a functioning civilization has never happened.
One thing, I think our great grandparents knew that none of us did, is that anything that threatens the integrity of families threatens the kids, the grand kids... everything... every chance of peace and prosperity... would be gone.
Notice; By the 1990's, most kids grew up in broken homes; Dysfunctional homes which produce dysfunctional kids / adults.
The impact of divorce / remarriage on kids is obvious, profound and very bad. I've been in classrooms for the past 38 yrs., so I've seen it enough to know.
Spanking a child was condemned but abandoning them was fine.
Tolerance?!? Most parents can't even tolerate each other.
He put so many of my thoughts into words, in a way that I never could. That was great.
When it comes to the University, I don't want to see Liberal ideas being pushed. I also do not want to see Conservative ideas being pushed. I also don't want to see any religious beliefs being pushed.
I don't want Liberal, Conservative, or Christian graduates. I want to see graduates who have been taught about their chosen field who have the ability to apply critical thought. Too many people are talking about how being Liberal is great, or how being Conservative is great, or how you have to be a Christian. Those things are all personal choices.
Critical thought is a skill that provides actual value to society. One only need to gaze upon our political and religious landscape to understand why critical thought is not a top priority in our Universities and other institutions of education.
Education on the topic of study. That's it. And get rid of things like Gender Studies, Asian Studies, and similar wastes of time.
Anything less is a case of the Universities ripping off the students, who are taking on some major debt that will probably have a negative impact on their lives.
I am not horrified, I am angry
1980 is not the cutoff. I was born in 1981 and barely had internet at home one year before I went to college. Many in my class never had internet before.
Some of this is easy. For a start: 1. Withold federal funds from schools that do not offer constitutional protection to students and faculty. 1st Ammendment, etc. 2. Withold federal support for schools that have a high ratio of administrators over teaching faculty. 3. Withdraw Title 9. 4. Forbid schools that do not permit due process from supporting a "police department".
I hope that conference goes well for you.
The freedom to "offend" is of utmost importance. Dealing with bullies, yourself, might just be an important life skill.
It's true when I studied English lit in the humanities, in both UK and USA - it was more about the politicizing, like we had to analyze everything through a feminist and marxist viewpoint. Anything outside this was frowned upon. I was so confused and frustrated by it.
gotta recognise Haidt's bubble too... "we all thought Hillary would win"
No we didn't. .. and from 3500 counties... ~2500-Trump to ~700 for Hillary... it was a Stonking!
Haidt still lives in Academia... he has his blindspots.
He has his biases, but he's fair in most of his assessments and I enjoy listening to him (even when I disagree with some of the points he makes) because it offers a more in-depth, rational view of the left than the usual twaddle we see in social medias.
BULLSHIT! Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing! The vast majority of media, internet, social media etc etc etc ALL had Clinton winning easily! NO ONE really thought Trump had a chance...until it was all over!! Even Trump's supporters didn't REALLY think he had a chance.
To be fair, I'm a student in NYU and during that time, no one within New York City ever seriously considered Trump actually winning. The assumption when Trump began leading in the pools was that bigger liberal states such as New York and California would make it very unlikely that he would win, but he surprisingly won. I didn't vote for either of the candidates and it was still surreal that he managed to beat Hillary.
The collective mourning the days after the election was really funny to watch in hindsight, and it ironically led to this social experiment that allowed them to really see why Trump appealed to people.
www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
He's absolutely in that bubble but at least he's able to see through the ideological haze in some important ways. One thing I don't understand is how he thinks Trump is making divisiveness worse. Maybe Dr Haidt is shocked that "we the proletariat" finally have our point of view represented in Trump, on a big stage that cannot be ignored anymore. Before that, it was like we didn't exist - or if we did our views were somehow invalid or irrelevant.
Goodwill Floating
Haidt IS awash in his own elite mini tsunami. But the nation simply goes on ignoring the economic top 99.999997% of all children who have ever lived on planet Earth with their suffering and oppression. Witness the two recent hurricanes.
I find encouragement in the fact its limited to such a microscopic sample. And it won't last long among them either. They are so obviously clueless and self embarrassing! I simply googled 'screeching girl' and there was the entire Yale farce in living color.
Trump did say he likes Mexicans and legal immigration. You've just been too busy watching CNN and Buzzfeed.
it I absolutely not just at elite schools it's down to junior college level
The truth will set you free
Yeah but work can also set you free...
Keep fighting the good fight
unless you say it out loud.
It can't happen soon enough, only themselves and generation X to blame for this mess!
This is a fascinating interview. Thanks for sharing
The other day I was out on a walk after reading an article on multi-culturalism. I started thinking about the American mainstream culture. I have said for many years that multi-culturalism will work only if everyone is on board with the idea that we all have to follow the same laws, and multi-culturalism will make for different levels of economic success at the cultural level. A minute or two later a woman passed me on the sidewalk. She was pushing a stroller. I noticed the baby in the stroller was wearing a bicycle helmet. I guess I looked a few seconds too long at the helmeted baby because the young mother smiled and calmly said, "You can't be too careful with children." This video strongly suggests that those thoughts I had on multi-culturalism, and the idea that a baby in a stroller needs helmet, are two concepts that have a connection.
you never know what you had until you lost it... I miss the old liberals
the only problem I have with this guy is he isn't able to call total bullshit it's to even handed and fair.
No.. bullying is not a masculine trait. I've seen women out bully anyone.
Those kids have been brainwashed, by monsters, who long for authoritarianism. It is fascism dressed up as good behavior. This devolved academia, has turned criticism, free thought and free speech into potential crimes, if you dare disagree or criticize with these blue haired SJW´s.
There ought to be a special "Namby Pamby" University that students can be transferred to when they start complaining about microaggressions and trigger-warnings and safe-spaces. Every Monday the Namby Pamby University gets a new chancellor, whom the students can protest against, and on Friday he/she resigns and is replaced with a new one the following Monday.
Multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracy was never our problem until the social engineers got hold of America 50 yrs. ago!
The Universities will always be useful and be around.... like the quill you dip in the ink before you write your letters on the sheepskin.
I watched this on Reason awhile back and still have issues with parts of it. They are leaving out everything that has been happening since 2001. It's good they acknowledged how crazy it got in the late 80s - early 90s, but also bring up that it was on a smaller scale and they were still able to clam students down and bring them around easily.
BUT
The fact remains that students were being charged with racial harassment for minding their own business while reading historical library books that had "triggering" pictures on the cover in 2008. This has been happening to students, and some professors, for 17 years straight. Students were being disciplined for having posters in their dorm of fire fighters or something with the American flag on it in 2001, right after 9/11, because it could be triggering to others (and I'm sure it had nothing to do with those who lost loved ones). 15 years later some professors were ripping 9/11 memorial posters off the walls. It's no surprise that it reached this level. It's been heading in this direction the whole time. You can track the insane, progressively reactionary, progression to specific issues year after year. You can watch the problematic professors lose it at the first sign of pushback.
I had the same issue with the recent article about words being violence. They seemed to saying this was only an issue with Gen Z, which is not remotely correct. You can't blame 2 decades worth of problems on the ones who are just coming onto campuses. I think we're seeing the climate on campus become more violent/manic because more students have been pushing back against the ideology that's been in place for decades, and many know what's been going on.
It's also not hard to find several articles over the last few years where Millennials discuss the Gen Z problem and how to stop them/censor them, when they go against the narrative.
www.google.com/amp/www.theblaze.com/news/2016/09/09/college-history-department-chair-tears-down-911-never-forget-posters-and-then-shares-her-reason/amp/
^^ Insane, purple haired radical lesbian chair of the history department who sent out an email to faculty 2 days after 9/11 affirming American Imperialism was the cause.
Excellent presentation of facts!
I Stand With Haidt Speech!
dear god, i was excluded most of my life, took me to be in my early 20s and in a uni cohort i liked to find people who would accept me for me and actually want to include me. yes it hurt but far out i learned to be resilient, i grew one hell of a thick skin. kids in future are screwed when they go into the workforce
Great talk, sounds like an awesome balanced mind
I am a Chinese majored in Computer Science. I think the gender study major in the west should never exist as an academic department, and it is toxic to the entire intellectual atmosphere in the University. Note that I strongly support women rights movement in the past centuries.
In the Universities in mainland China, we have a department called "School of Marxism studies." They apply modern social science theory to research on "Marxism with Chinese characteristics". Their publication is also nice looking, in a serious tone, with all the modern social science theories, but their entire goal is to prove:
"1. Marxism is right."
"2. Marxism with Chinese characteristics is still Marxism."
"3. China is still a socialist county on the road to communism."
There is tons of Ph.D. and professors in the "School of Marxism studies," however, I think they are so ashamed of their pseudo-science research that few of them dare to speak to STEM student to say: "Look, I am a scientist as well." Awarding that subject with the Ph.D. title is a shame to the entire academia. Why, because if they want to do real research in Marxism, they should do it in a proper philosophy, politics or economics department, so that their research can be challenged, disputed, proved or disproved by peers of a different view. In "School of Marxism studies," your conclusion is already there, what you need is to prove it with an eloquent essay.
As a rule of thumb, an academic subject should not be established as such that its research (or pseudo-research) is revolving around an orthodoxical ideology. Whether such political ideology is just or unjust is another matter, science and research are entirely about Truth, not ideology.
In scientific research, we need to report our funders so that other scientists can know that if there exists a channel of interest to cause potential bias. Confirmation bias and vested interest are fairly common issues in STEM researchers. However, in each STEM field, different sides can argue and dispute over the publications so that any hypothesis is attacked, examined, and finally prove or disproved over time. To summarize: every researcher has his own belief and his own bias; To arrive at truth, in STEM we ask the opposition forces to attack each other vigorously so, in the end, we found the truth that withstands the challenge.
In physics, you can prove Newton Classic physics is wrong (or flawed). You will have a huge outcry in the circles, you will have both allies and enemy, but your career and physics research goes on. The simple matter is: the entire field of physics (or any STEM subject) do not depend on the orthodoxy of one particular set of theory or ideal. The subject that is founded on one particular set theory or ideal is religion.
In women study (or any other other identity politic pseudo-research), the entire founding structure is wrong in the first place. I am not arguing about whether today's women study is good or bad, rational or irrational. I think any Ph.D. in STEM major will realize the fact that the system design of current women studies as an academic research system will cause a massive confirmation bias and a whole industry of vested interest in the field itself.
Do you believe some Ph.D. in women study can publish a research hypothesis that white males are the disadvantaged social groups?
Do you believe some Ph.D. in women study can publish a research hypothesis that male are inherently more intelligent (by whatever particular measure) than the female, so that men are better at some jobs?
The above hypothesis is false IMO, but it is an important thinking game. It proves that there is a "right answer" and "wrong answer" of morality in the research, so some hypothesis will never be raised, and some conclusion will never be drawn. Moreover, graduates from women study virtually cannot find any job except being a teacher of women study or an activist. So if their researchers find that women are under institutional discrimination, the entire field benefit from it by collecting more funds and secure more teaching positions or jobs like "chief diversity officers in google"(As a CS student I burst into tears when I first heard of such title :P ).
I am not arguing whether "women are under institutional discrimination" is true or false (I believe the claim is justified in someplace in China), I merely point out that there exist a chain of vested interest here. Most importantly, if someday, someone proves "women are under institutional discrimination" is untrue, if would dis-establish the entire field. Can you imagine the severity of it? The entire field of study will be demolished, that will be equivalent to proving Allah does not exist to Muslim. That is to say, hypotheses or research to disproving an certain argument in “women's study” will be an existential threat to all the Ph.D. in the subject and getting everyone so mad at you because their entire life, entire research, and future career will be fertile.With such a closed loop of positive feedback without negative review, it is therefore never a wonder for me that women study become an echo chamber and radicalized.
Looking back in history, we would know that such moral ideal is a bad idea in reach science theory. Darwin theory which portrays a cold-hearted evolution by natural selection is not a welcoming thought in many religious people and defy the sanctity of the men. Many radical political thoughts (which cause mass murders) in modern time are inspired by Darwin theory. However, academia is not church; we should seek truth (however uncomfortable).
Darwin can be good Christian when he is a man in daily life, but when he begins to work as a scientist, he must distance himself from what he believes or what he would like the world to be. In research, the scientist ceases to be a man; he becomes the embodiment reason itself. After the research, he recovers his morality and ideal. A scientist may then decide to hide the uncomfortable discover, or burn it because it will bring injustice when misused. I think many people outside of STEM emphasis on too much on humanity, too little on the reason. They do not realize the importance of this duality of personality when discovering the truth require our cold-hearted rationalism, and hiding the harmful truth from public require our warm-hearted humanity.
I think every true scholar who is interested in women study, with the dream of obtaining truth, should leave that particular echo chamber. Real researchers on women’s issue should go back to common political science or sociology department where there is not a particular agenda or central ideology. Their theory may be completely right, but it needs to put outside of the echo chamber and face strict scrutiny to as befitting the academic standard. Having a feminist reviewing the paper of another feminist will not produce any real science.
This is why when I got in fights with my older or younger brother, they would sometimes encourage us to get the aggression out in a brief fight.
Agree 100% with this, we need to get busy and change it fast. We're turning out spoiled brats that have no clue how the real world works.
The only problem I have with Haidt's argument/statement is where he claims the problem started in 2014/2015 as if it came out of nowhere, as if what transpired prior wasn't also just as bad. Ideas/movements take time to grow, a lock step generational movement takes at least 20 years of a unified message pushing such behavior, it's not something that can be instilled onto an entire generation with a year or two of college.
What I would say Haidt's date indicates that it was only problematic when the Intersectional Left started targeting other Leftists. This started with Gamergate, which also transpired in 2014, then Leftist ideology became a 'problem'.
I can tell you from personal experience and observation that the entirety of the 00's wasn't any better if you were on the Right. The difference was prior to 2014, it was Evil Right Wing Males, and Bigoted Conservative Whites that were the boggy man. Post 2010, they dropped the Right Wing and Conservative labels, feeling that they have been beaten down sufficiently to purely focus on the labels 'white' and or 'male' which better fits the ideology of intersectionality, an ideology that is 50+ years old (25+ year life span as a matured ideology). This left a lot of White and or Male Left wingers shocked as they thought they were part of the good guys, hence the problem 'only started in 2014'.
i think you need to rewatch the video your entire text is a waste of time,
Smart Ass Not really. The Atlantic article he and Greg recently wrote. arguing against the idiocy of teaching students that words are violence, put across this same point but expanded on his notion that this is an issue among hyper coddled Gen Z students.
This has been going on since 2001, progressively getting worse with each year. It has reached manic/violent levels as a new generation is starting college. Yes, he states that this has been going on for some time but he is also incorrect in saying students that graduated in 2013 would not have seen this. Students had been the ones primarily being attacked for 14-15 years. It's been working up to this the whole time.
Yes, he acknowledges there are multiple factors but I think we are seeing more violence and mania because Gen Z students are pushing back on problems we've been seeing for decades. You can find articles from Millennial SJW's discussing the Gen Z problem, the way they use media, how they have to be censored and that other measures have to be taken to combat them. The so called SoJus are now demanding more rules officially be put in place to stop it (triggers, safe spaces and micro aggression have been used to punish students for years as it is) and started to lash out at all professors who dare question their narratives or fail to comply.
You have to keep in mind that students have been reading and watching videos about these issues for years as well. He does point this out with peer groups and SM but seems to ignore the growing opposition aspect
In the late 80s, early 90s, I was glued to every conversation or article about the growing insanity in colleges... 4-5 years before I reached college age.
Smart Ass I think the 57 year old student employee charged with racial harassment for reading a historical library book, during his work breaks, in 2008 would say... the fuck you talkin' about?
One of his co workers was triggered by the cover, which had a picture of the KKK on it, and accused him of being racist. The student diversity office told him reading a scholarly work that sat on the university library shelves, during his work breaks, was the equivalent of bringing pornography to work.
Apparently none even bothered checking into the fact that it was a true story about college students fighting the KKK in 1924.
Nope! Reading a non fictional library book with a pic of the KKK on the cover, in college, is automatic racism.
Again, there are 2 decades worth of stories like this and many students were punished.
There has been years of civil debates, civil liberties groups stepping in and people/parents trying to handle cases where their children's rights were violated before they were expelled, through all the appropriate channels. When it just continues to get worse what do you think will happen? It will reach a head, and it won't be pretty.
"Back when all of us thought Hillary was going to win."
Proving once again that the really smart people just ain't all that smart.
Brilliant!!! To me it is common sense, but many people are completely blind to what is happening.
love. brilliant insights.
Thank you great video
Great talk. He left out a variable, government giving out student loans similar to how they forced banks to give out mortgages, is a major factor in the devaluation of higher education.
Very good excerpts. Haidt really is one of the canaries in the coalmine. We are indeed facing an existential threat in the West. Regressive leftism allied with Islam and nihilism will spell an end to us if we don't start fighting back now.
It looks more like they already are finished with digging part and now take care of the flowers and make sure the grave stone looks good.
I think the issue is that the current generation is pretty heavily immersed in a culture of instant gratification, where if you want something you can just *have it* (Internet, increasing globalization and availability of products, etc). The one area where this absolutely isn't the case is social change. Smooth transitions in cultural norms are always natural, never enforced, but kids today don't care.
They see cops shooting black guys, and they don't stop and go "Ok, what's the root of the problem here?", in which case they might go "Oh... poverty is prompting greater crime, creating a negative stereotype of blacks as criminals, which puts cops on edge and more likely to shoot a black guy out of fear they fit the stereotype of a gangbanger and their life is in immediate danger. Let's get rid of poverty!" which might take 30 years but would almost certainly work. They just go "Oh. Obviously, all cops are just racist". They're treating the symptoms but not the illness.
Then you also have an equally closed minded opposition in the same generation in which there is no dialouge between the two only calling each other wrong and picking the opposite sides of each almost for the sake of it. It's quite sad really, look at all these people who have just decided to become full blown-white supremacists sympathetic to fascism and the nazis during world war 2. Even just in this comments section alone we can see so much reactionary and emotionally driven who want violence against the left, this to me is just as worrying as the radical left and yet channels such as independent man are everywhere which never target the other side and are biased. I like the channel, I'd just like to see 2 sides of an argument being presented instead of sort of just kinda telling people what they want to hear who have already made their mind up on just about everything.
Grey Line I agree but as soon as these channels target radical right wing voices, they get called cucks or fence sitters. I mean these assholes have an issue with you trying to be objective and non partisan, that's part of the problem. the politics has made people far too polarized, there is almost no middle ground anymore and if you are you get insulted by both sides
Right, either side has become just as radicalised and unstable, but catering to purely one side, especially when you have a wider audience who are not al like that, only makes the problem worse. It's biased and caters to a demographic of people who in many ways want to demonise the left, incite violence, find anything to justify their pre-established worldview and white supremacy. People are making the problem even worse than it need be by constant exposure to ideological extremism, and, even channels such as independent man which are pretty tame in comparison to others, people still use it as a springboard to push their branch of extremism through the lense of millenial pathology.
Why are you posting that in reply nobody said anything related to that? Also there is an abundance of evidence to suggest that crime is more increased in areas of poverty, many European countries have over 90% white population and have very high crime rates. Scotland for instance is 97% white and street gangs, rape, stabbings are not uncommon in Glasgow, to be honest I don't see why you couldn't of just said that bit at the end instead of intentionally making this about whites and blacks, fatherlessness, government dependency and lack of expectations of success is not limited to blacks in fact its prevalent across all working class people in the west.
spot on mate
Want to go to a real college in the US? There is only one- Hillsdale. :)
I almost turned your channel off and so glad I didn't , you did stimulated my thinking. Thanks
I don't equate "lack" with "diversity". If business can be SO solidly Conservative, why can't educational institutions lean/BE Liberal? Clearly, there is plenty of room for both to exist.
It's the current year & any university student Not enrolled in a STEM degree will never see a ROI on that student debt.
Just to let people know, the Fearless Speech Index has since been renamed to the Campus Expression Survey.
The more diverse our society becomes the more divided it becomes.
As they are currently constructed they can't dig the hole deep enough nor fast enough some group of people with money should start a new system
Corporations are also digging their own graves by downsizing for the mere "virtue" of avoiding responsibility. The #1 priority on a manager's PDR is to find ways to reduce staff (destroy the moral of employees), prolong payment to suppliers (remove small business participation), and/or deliver less value (rip off customers). It should be no wonder that universities care less about preparing students for jobs and care more about turning them into career malcontents.
I used to work with elementary grade students and I've never really consciously thought about this. Watching this video, everything is coming back to me. All those moments and incidents that were motivated by political correctness and perceived wrongs. You think it's just elite colleges, but I've seen first-hand the ludicrous levels of PC lawyering by some 5th grade students to compel me to act against students they're having some playground argument with.
Imagine that knowledge and critical thinking as vehicles for social change, conservatives must be losing their minds.
In the end, the market will deal with this madness.
I agree with him that over parenting has created weak minded children. I saw it over and over again while raising my kids. These older parents protecting their kids from all difficulties, fighting their battles so their little snowflakes could plow through life.
Richard Rorty? Was he not influenced by Foucault? Who actually stands at the basis of some of this problem...albeit Postmodernism?
I went to the hetorodoxy academy website and couldn't find the survey. Is it up yet?
Hey, Independent Man:
I think you should be concerned about staying within the bound of fair use in copyright law. Replaying a largely unedited, uncommentted video created by somebody else leaves you vulnerable to a copyright strike. Hate to see your channel shutdown.
Best regards,
Rich Dobbs
Trump is our only hope
Great.
if only george carlin was still around today, hed have a field day with all this shit thats happened in the last 10 years
Moral rent seeking. Secondly, females don't bully? Let's get serious, it is vicious and more likely to continue long term.
Guy gets fired. His parents call the employer, threatening to sue.
Fascinating appraisal of the state of the US higher educational system. Has anyone done any studies of what happens to the ideological indoctrinated when they leave their bubble world?
"I pledge allegiance to the Corporations of the United States of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Nation under the Dollar, indivisible, with tyranny and injustice for all." - Our new Pledge Of Allegiance people, learn it.
This is why we should start teaching people reason and Stoicism again. Stoicism is actually the origin of the idea that you should not allow words to affect you. It used to have a heavy influence on Western thought, but was put away in the 19th century in favour of Socialism, Christianity and emotion-based ethics. Now that several sources actually confirm it to be true, among them virtue ethicists, it's time to pull Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Musonius Rufus out of the bookshelf again and start reading. Or one could start with one of the modern books that are starting to crop up.
What if bullying and name-calling are forms of bonding?
victims of bullies don't feel a sense of bonding to the perpetrator from what I've witnessed & heard them say.
How ironic that the 'culture of diversity' seeks to eliminate the value of forgiveness. By definition a dead end.
I would not send my child to an American University period. New Zealand maybe.
they could make way more $$ being online..soo much less overhead and no protest security and protest after clean up alone..the teachers could wrk from home..easyier for everyone study from home..costs go way down
amazing
Excerpts:
A key concept is that of ‘moral dependency,’ which relates to victimhood culture. Many cultures used to be honour cultures, in which a small insult must be attended to by you, and you can’t get someone to fight your battles for you because you have your honour to defend. Then we had a dignity culture, in which ‘sticks and stones will break your bones and names will never harm you,’ where you’re not going to make a big deal out of a little thing and instead will just ignore it. This is a great way to have diversity. If you want a diverse community you definitely want a dignity culture because people will tend to overlook little misunderstandings.
This is contrasted to the last few years in which the most left-leaning institutions have sought to co-opt any authority power to punish those perceived to be transgressing anyone who claims victimhood. This appears related to the change in parenting styles through the 90s that saw an authority figure, the parent, always being present to solve problems, and consequently much fewer demands on children to figure things out and solve problems themselves. Children no longer had the chance to learn to deal with insults, to deal with being excluded. These children have been raised in a world with different moral pillars, in which the values of diversity and inclusion are placed above freedom and liberty. - Jonathan Haidt
- my cat say's, "spoiled rotten" are trigger words.
The reason why people are unsympathetic to protesting students is two fold:
1) jealousy- let's keep it 100. Many people wish they had the chance to go to college, but couldn't due to life circumstance or poor academics
2) detachment- who's going to listen to a bunch of spoiled coddled millenials with too much free time on their hands? What life experiences do they have? Do they even know why they hate Donald trump? Why they support BLM? And let's face it, many of these protestors are just there to get laid.
That's the way I see it.
2:07 no, hes being too kind. There is no logic for ignorance even if it shields you from pain.
I think Haidt has made very accurate descriptions of the new SJW and Victim Culture. Haidt and Peterson stand out as two very important intellectuals in this debate. The characterization of SJWs as zombies I think is a good one because they seem devoid of coherent arguments to support their views and often resort to shouting and bullying to confront opposing viewpoints.
dude I love your lazy Sunday uploads. I've given up on Sargon's this week in stupid. It's something about learning something useful, rather than just being weighed down with cynicism...
It worries me that Australia will follow the American route. All this PC stuff, this 'victim-hood' mentality' is stifling and will undermine what is so special about Australia.
My son is scared to go to college he's a white male was Zero privilege but he doesn't want to feel but he has to explain to self to all these s*** disturbers
Everyone needs to go to college for small business, learn about the internet, and market your own ideas. Or skip the first part and save up money to make a smart business that can sustain itself. University is a JOKE now.
I am retired now. I did go to school briefly without finishing starting in 1975. Dr. Haidt identified a convergence of trends in psychology marrying up to poli-sci and sociology and having a certain kind of "upbringing" appear at the university by way of students. Horseshit, Jonathan, that crap was in colleges in the 70's. It was not so finely articulated as today or 2014 but it was there. I remember seeing it when I went. What I am saying is that Dr. Haidt's story of the genesis and epiphany of the SJW had visible roots before he was even in school. The reason he sees a later appearance is because he is part of that system, educated to it and steeped in its rhythms and worldview. He is at least 30 years late in his diagnosis. In those thirty years the rest of the scholars in the humanities saw the same thing and called it good, picked up their checks and probably thought, "Well it's not my problem." Generation snowflake will enter a workforce already a full generation deep in the hypersensitivity, fear of being caught out and active discrimination against anyone not in compliance with today's orthodoxy.
These are all students brought up in the Obama years, under common core curriculum. This is why the left hates DuVoss and Trump, because they will undo all this subversive, pro-state, pro-socialist, indoctrination/education.
Trump is the one who stands up against identify politics.
I don't understand the merits of making people terrified of saying something "wrong". I'd say it would be much healthier to encourage people to speak their minds, and discuss their ideas. Instead we see a trend of ostracizing people who hold different ideas. In my opinion this only encourages an us/them mentality which, as we all know, does wonders for social cohesion.
We need to understand each-other instead of shaming everyone into silence.
Those jokes sound like thinly veiled hostility. HSP are very aware and unappreciative of hostility in all it's passive/aggressive forms.
How good an idea to put everyone in university, nothing meritbased at all, of course that means lowering expectations and outcomes, a society of only "leaders" has not been experimented yet, but foreseably that won't work !
The bubble of 'educated' (combined with the bubble of debt-growth), strangely you don't hear any professors on this problem that is pushing too many to take the risk of a 'college-education'.
And an uneducated guess; from fear (of failing uni?) comes a desire to put up many defenses and boundaries.
OH, Jeesus - COME ON , MAN! They died in the 60 & 70's - you're noticing this NOW?? :D
So realistically let's discuss what's the great loss to society with a loss of many universities? Seriously is there going to be a world void of all tradesmen? How many post graduates do we really need? Especially since the college campuses are so unhealthy and ideologically crazy?
Words are very powerful. One's mind and thinking can be controlled with one mere word, for example, "violated," as mentioned here. Shrewd mind control takes advantage of this as do those interested in behavior modification and control. Even down to the everyday salesperson. Look at the con-man. People attempting to stop words from being said mark themselves as potential victims subject to manipulation. We are not evolving.Many aren't anyway. I suggest to think this through.
I like Haidt but he seems misguided about Trump (and ''Trumpism''). Yes, societal tensions created the opportunity for someone like Trump to be elected (as is often the case in politics) but it's misguided to say ''he is making things worse'' while supplying no evidence for such a claim. Haidt said it is more difficult for him to talk about PC culture and patriotism because Trump has talked about them. How so, Jonathan? More difficult because leftist idiots close their minds to anything Trump says and therefore you face more opposition from the left? Is that Trump's fault or the fault of the leftists who refuse to entertain other thoughts?
Also, why will we ''still be in big trouble once Trump leaves''? Because Trump will cause problems or because the problems are so great that it will take decades to undo the damage done by the left? The way this was said, it's as if Trump is the problem even though Haidt and Trump share similar views on these issues. Odd.
I don't even think Jonathan Haidt is against Social justice principles, he always insert in his talks how all the things our fellows social justice are doing is good, they just have taken things too far.
I don't want to say he is fence-sitting, but I never saw him speaking about his principles.
he's not fence-sitting, it's called being objective.
Aaeru Vonikur
Well I mean you could read his work he's fairly clear about where he's coming from.
These students will do anything in their power to avoid growing thicker skin.
Sadly, it seems this is no longer an issue concerning only 'left-leaning' campuses. I consider myself moderate and willing to listen to everyone's side of the argument. However, attending half a semester at a California State University in 2015-2016 fresh out of high school, it became apparent that hearing out people of differing opinions and debating in a civilized way is no longer the way we're taught to behave in school. The 'college experience' I was exposed to is comparable to a preschool daycare with alcohol widely available to make the problem even worse. Sure, seems real fun to drink 3 times a week- until you realize you're underdeveloped and going in a backwards direction, both morally, and responsibility-wise.
If you the baby exactly what it wants every time it wants, do you think your baby will ever grow up?
By the way- I became depressed and dropped out about 12 weeks into the semester. I'm now a self employed web developer at 20. Playing the victim gets you nowhere.