Marc Lamont Hill Talks to Authors of ‘Responding to Social Justice Rhetoric’ Cheat Sheet
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2021
- Marc Lamont Hill sits down with Dr. James Lindsay, founder of New Discourses and Dr. Peter Boghossian, co-author of “How to Have impossible Conversations;” authors of “Responding to Social Justice Rhetoric,” about a cheat they created to respond to particular social justice issues and statements.
They believe that social justice rhetoric curbs free speech. “The application of that rhetoric is very chilling,” Lindsay says. “It leads people to believe that they’re going to be accused of participating and supporting, or being complicit in racism, sexism, misogyny, etc... for voicing views that differ from the views of [other people].”
All this and more on “Black News Tonight.”
To watch BNC programming, visit bnc.tv/how-to-watch/
Follow BNC on social media:
Facebook: / bncnews
Twitter: / bncnews
Instagram: bncnews?hl=en
#SocialJustice #BlackNewsTonight #BNC
Please DO have an extended version of this conversation for us nerds in the back.
In the back? I'm in the front row with popcorn.
Yes, please!
I won't hold my breath for this convo, Marc isn't interested in being demonstrably wrong. He's being disingenuous. A long format will make this painfully obvious.
I'm not a nerd, but I love intellect!!!
The brain is sexy asfk.
@@jamesdodge7941
You know they won't come back. He wasn't being disingenuous, he was showing he can meet them on an even playing field. 'You understand this' was the statement that paid....
I’d pay to see these three sit down and talk for 3 hours, in depth. Go through it all.
@@MexAm120902 exactly but the simps can’t see that
@@MexAm120902 You'd hear Mr. Hill say this a lot: "I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole." That's all he could come up with when Dr. Lindsay threw him off his game with the Nazi reference😅
I agree 💯% that Hill is trying to completely control this conversation & is constantly seeking a gotcha moment. James Lindsay ensured he didn't get one though!
But unfortunately, that is not the case. After his firing he has been on multiple different platforms on the other side. I don't think he did a lot of them during his CNN time but long story short. I see him on more conservative sites than I typically see conservatives on the other. Maybe someone like Jordan peterson but I don't;'t know if he considers himself as a conservative.
@@MexAm120902 The fact that he had these two on the show is proof enough that he is an honest intellectual. These people actually did empirical research and you can hear in the way they respond to him they respect his viewpoint. He has a PhD from Penn. he is not out of his depth in any way on this which is why they were surprised when he went there. Penn doesn’t hand out PHD’s contrary to what you people want to make people believe.
@@MexAm120902 let’s be clear if you are trying to intimate that Hill’s PHD is somehow less than a PhD from a state school in mathematics you sound like an idiot and a racist. I have a mathematics degree and my minor is in physics focus in geophysics. I can tell you that Ivy League schools do not give phds to anyone for word salad, nor do universities employ professors for word salad. So clearly your attempt to some how discredit his PhD from an Ivy League school is a weak attempt wrapped in clear racism. That being stated both of his guest clearly acknowledged his depth of knowledge on the subject and respected him giving them a true opportunity to speak about it. I can guarantee you have no idea about the depth of knowledge in either dissertation as evidenced by the fact that you believe Lindsay’s is somehow superior 😂.
I would pay $$ to see long format discussions with MLH vs Glenn Loury & John McWhorter.
YES!!
MLH doesn't want any part of those dudes.
@@Bklyn2SoCal Nope. He's a cheap race hustler who pretends to be stupid for a living.
@@Ahabite He had on Loury soooooo....
@@jasonklimes2231 ... he's moderately more honest than all the other cheap race hustlers. Agreed.
" basic tool for manipulating reality is the manipulation of words, if you can control the meaning of words you can control the people who must use the words". Phillip K Dick.
Yes. I've been mulling this over. I think the rebuttal is to value the definition/thought over word.
Yes. I think the meaning of a word is garnered from its usage. Hence context matters. Thus, it is of utmost importance to honestly examine your experience of reality and to carefully listen to what others say about reality and ask questions - meanings of terms etc -so as to understand their claims and judge whether their perception truly coheres with your own.
When debating someone, you first need to have each side give their definitions of certain "words, or terms used" before starting the debate. Everyone should first fully understand what someone means. Too many words are being redefined by some, and you can get two people thinking totally different things, not to mention the audiences perception who are listening in on the conversation. That just leads to confusion overall, and misunderstanding a persons point being made. Unfortunately, that is the environment that we are in today.
If you can control the givens, you can win any argument. Frank Herbert.
@@movierebel6194 are givens the same as premises?
They key point about the "folk" comment is that what seems like an act of good faith can be turned into a power grab in an attempt to curb and control speech that people don't agree with at whim. The cynical (see Cynical Theories) people will use this as a cudgel on their enemies in order to get them fired or punished in some way. It doesn't just stop at one word.
Exactly
@YodaPeople do complain about some pretty innocuous things though.
@Yoda that's not the point at all. You're setting it up so anyone can be upset and offended by anything as the initial commenter already pointed out
@Yoda So many people have been targeted in bad faith that it's evident it's not about the offensiveness of the words...it's about control.
@Yoda its ironic that you commented about a misunderstood and perceived bad faith argument and then reply with your own wildly tribalist angry assumptions of your own.
First you dont understand the point of the perceived "bad faith argument" and then any attempt to have a conversation about it gets met with angry you're a racist assumptions... you are proofing the opposition of CRT correct
Good day
LEGEND HAS IT JAMES WAS MANSPREADING THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW!!
underrated comment
😁😂
" we got way too academic for this audience". I followed along just fine Marc
His condescension is unmatched haha. This is precisely the manner in which this topic should be discussed.
@@willpower3317 you are not lying!! I bet Marc felt so good inside saying that!! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@willpower3317 no its not. the discussion was way over the head of the audience for this show. marc is showing knowledge of his audience...not condescension, you fkin poser.
yeah, sure you did...lol.
@@Dentsun4228 Meh! It wasn't that deep. Sorry.
I’d like this to be a 2 or 3 hour conversation to really dig in to it
You know, unlike Ibram X. Kendi and others, Marc actually engages with and debates those on the other side. That's awesome. Love these conversations that he has. Would love to see John McWhorter or Glenn Loury on as well. Good on ya, Marc.
In the words of Glenn Loury, Ibram Kendi is a lightweight. There’s a great clip of him saying “HES A LIGHTWEIGHT JOHN!!!”
he already had John McWhorter on
@Roland NAAWP Fryer Mate... literally nobody is more well-read on this ideological rubbish than James Lindsay. He managed to get 4 academic journal articles peer-reviewed & published within 9 months, one of which won an award for excellence in scholarship in Feminist Geography. What scholarly publishing accolades has Marc Lamont Hill achieved?
'NAAWP, BS, delusion, ignorance, silly smear, commie, blahblahblah, ignorant, stupid, can't fathom, dimwittedly'....Wow. Thank you for your remarkable insights, but I think I'll just let all that sit on the table for a bit.
Marc has a healthy dose of confidence in himself , which you can sense. Good job.
Guests seem to come on his show with festering bitterness and they want nothing more than to wound him. James didn’t leave happily.
What this network needs is hour-long segments where Hill in particular interacts with Lindsay et al. and prominent conservative thinkers. We need an extended convo with Lindsay, McWhorter, Glenn Loury, and Coleman Hughes in particular. What you'll find is that these guys actually agree with MLH on a lot more than you would initially think, and its the way that a lot of these theories are playing out at the popular level that is causing the division. I think that's a direct consequence of moving too quickly from the academic and theoretical to the activist space, particularly portions of the school system that Marc himself would agree are not anywhere near educated enough to understand the concepts.
Marc is a true believer and a zealot. His conclusions from Israel and Palestine, to Race, to Transgenderism, it is all the flat simplistic unfalsibiable paradigm of fixed hierarchies of oppressed and oppressors and some really wierd stuff about people only having female genetalia that does not mean they are women. This is coo coo, deranged, fantasy, quackery, and cult-commune. The test of what he believes is not how successfully he can argue about the tennets of CRT from a defensive position, but what it leads Him to conlcude about real life, and real problems there. These people in the academic pseudo sciences make up language that no one else used a second ago and then presses people on the made-up definitions as if they were objective fact. Things like "blackness" and "whiteness" or "Latinx" and "structures" that no one else but they use. They are abstract (deliberately so) undefinable, vague, unmeasurable assertions that make appeals to authority without authoritative material substantiation as to root causality. Because they make them up like a child contrives and makes up language and fantacies that require farther inventions to hold them up.
OK. I may disagree with Marc’s politics but dang I love a good, informed, and well-read discussion. Please do get more academic with this!!
I have to admit, I very much dislike marc but I have a new found respect for him after watching this. I still disagree with him and think his ideas are harmful to society but at least he took the time to be incredibly well versed in this subject witch is more than you can say for 99.9% of talking heads.
@@aggressive_goose8679 what's harmful about his ideas?
The fact that it racially divides news networks for one?
@Bryce_T who divides news networks?
I’m guess he has no issue with Asian news or Indian news…
Fan of Lindsay and Boghossian here. Gotta say I'm super impressed with Marc, he was respectful and informed and articulate. When clever people like this can argue openly it always feels productive and meaningful so I hope you can have then on again Marc. You're someone who can move the conversation forward, instead of getting stuck in word games. Bravo
I totally agree.
I'm not exactly a fan of the guy, but inspite being a layman when it comes to social sciences, Lindsay has a downright ok understanding of the subjects discussed
Clever?
@@supereero9 haha. I reckon he's pretty onto it but Twitter destroyed his mind
@@elipearson8194
He is smarter these libtards alright
An hour long discussion is needed, very interesting back and forth
Make that 3 hours.
These shows are specifically designed as propaganda outlets. As you can see, 17 minutes isn't enough time to lend any understanding, only reinforcing opinions.
You should not apologize for using folks because everybody white and black use folks here in America n we are discussingwhat is happening in Ametica.. What it means to a German is a different matter. That's comes in discussions of culture differences. If you go to Germany n use it and they complain, you should apologize. So Dr.Lindsays example does not fit very well to the discussion here.
His demeanor n body language also appear to make believe he is fully aware of what he is writing.
Hill slapped these two grifting idiots across their stupid faces.
This conversation shouldn't have never happened in the first place and this racist black man should go to jail for hate speech
Really have to hand it to Marc for having guests on with all types of perspective!
I agree, but - having watched a number of these interviews on this particular topic - there does seem to be a distracting pattern of not giving enough time to his very interesting guests. They are nearly always interrupted at inopportune moments for Hill to interject, or for a commercial break, or to end the segment. The guests rarely have time to discuss their thoughts, or to fully answer his questions. He is quite clever at manipulating the conversations and the timing, but I'm afraid that this pattern is so transparent it's impossible to ignore. He should devote more time for in-depth interviews or skip them altogether.
@@michelep6300 but you must have loved when the guy (apologies if anyone in offended with the term😜) on the right said "wow u know a lot about this" doh🙄he studied it and actually teachings it.
@@partciaroberts35 lol Howard times did Marc interrupt in this interview? Stop being silly
@@partciaroberts35 ok, Karen😜
@@partciaroberts35 lol @ 7:00 dude interrupted Marc 3 times.
For me, Lindsay's comment 'you know a lot about this actually' was a big tell. So much of what we see on the media is people making statements that seem plausible (especially for those who have not read the source material) and they can get away with it because, too often, nobody is there to push back because they may have read a Wiki entry but haven't the source material. Here Lindsay realizes this is not one of those occasions where he can get away with it. I recognize it because I've been in that position more times that I would care to remember. Hill raises the discussion to a higher level. Love it.
Exposed Lindsay as yet another complete fraud who has been spewing propaganda about something he clearly knows absolutely nothing about. Will it negatively impact him, of course not.
ruclips.net/video/30iEwdl2D60/видео.html #please good or bad comment
I think it was more about saying "wow you know alot this very niche and obscure piece of intellectual literature"
As in very few people know about this to begin with & im pleasantly surprised
@@Snacks256 a complete fraud? He obviously knows what hes talking about, you just dont agree with his conclusions on it
It seemed more like Lindsey was surprised to be getting an informed opinion rather than someone unfamiliar with CRT. I've never seen anyone go that deep into the material with him. It was refreshing and interesting as a viewer and it seemed like Peter and James were also pleasantly surprised.
Joy Reid should see this to understand how conversation is done even if u have divergent views
Joy Reid is just a grifter, corporate shill. She gets paid to be a shill
Joy Reid won’t allow people to bullshit her. I love it! Take those lies somewhere else!
Joy has no tolerance for horse manure
Joy Reid and Marc Lamont Hill are two of the best debaters on the left against the right. Both are extremely adept at difficult conversations!
@@MPR2 no they are not did u see her when she brought Rufo on anytime he would try to say something she would cut him off and say when u have ur own show u get to do that
I disagree with just about everything Marc says, but I love the fact that he brings legitimate opposition to his show. Mad respect to Marc for the conversations he is having. I look forward to learning more from this program.
Learn what? You made up your mind without research or reading. Bye.
He's a great thinker. His discussion with Candace Owens about the protests is excellent. I think he easily got the better of the exchange, and I'm with you on disagreeing with most of his stances.
You disagree with facts and logic. Do you enjoy being ignorant?
@@morgainenyc Not everything your favorite figurehead says is "facts" and "logic", and even when facts and logic are used, there is often room for interpretation. Anyone who has been through academia knows there's disagreement, argument, and disputation over just about everything. There's often disagreement on what exactly the "facts" themselves are.
Bingo that’s the point he doesn’t block ppl who oppose his thoughts and mainstream news rarely Does the same
Thank you for hosting this conversation Marc. It's really great to see this stuff being discussed.
Major respect to everyone involved. Dialogue is the key.
No respect to people who think reverse racism is a thing lol
Dialogue isn’t the key it’s being Informed and not informed like I heard it on FOX CNN MSNBC or NEWSMAX….. like go to the library read books talk to professors. The issue in politics is that the average persons dumb they form opinions with ZERO facts like none whatsoever. THAT right there MURDERS political discourse and overall intellectual healthy exchange of ideas. People have to learn that debate isn’t always about being right it’s about learning and growing intellectually
Wow, what a great exchange! I‘d love to see more! Finally a debate that wasn’t only touching the superficial
This was absolutely fantastic. A news show with an informed host that steel mans arguments instead of straw manning? Quite a rare find these days. Looking forward to watching more!
I wish this manner of discourse over crt would happen at my university. I subscribed to this channel solely to listen to to individuals who have the opposite perspective/opinion than I do. My stance in opposition still remains, but seeing this dialogue happening and Respectfully gives me hope for unity in this nation. I have read both James's and Peter's books and I think that you three would have a fantastic conversation modeling what needs to occur for us as a country to begin walking together towards being United. I'm half black half white, disabled AF veteran, one of the first men "gay married" in the military, triumphed from abusive, violent, and exploitative childhood and recently found out that I am on the spectrum. I have found from engaging in these conversations in the past that my opinion about things are assumed or aspects of my identity (usually incorrectly) assumed to fit a narrative that strikes me as tribal in nature. Nonetheless, this was a pleasant surprise. Back to homework. 🙏🏽
What do you disagree with based on what you think CRT is?
What I THINK CRT is is irrelevant. Scholars such as Derrick Bell, Delgado, Crenshaw, Matsyda, Williams, Freeman, etc. provide a definition that is quite substantive and unambiguous. My point being the framing of your question is rather pejorative; I want to answer your question, but I disagree with your premise that I "think" CRT is something different than you and what you "think" CRT is is the correct standard by which everything else is compared. That may or may not be the truth. I'm not interested in linguistic shenanigans based in bad faith and I'm getting that vibe.
@@fckyafeelingz4064 most of you that oppose the fact that race determines outcomes in this country usually don't know what CRT is.... that's why I framed my question that way
@@deepee4323 CRT is a specific thing, it's not what "you" and "I" think it is, to your earlier comment. People like you and Marc are very dishonest. He too always starts his conversations on CRT as you tried to do. I'm a black African in Africa and can confidently say Black Americans and the agenda Democrat blacks push are nonsensical. You are privileged to be born in the USA and the corrosive ideas you advocate for would get you killed in other parts of the world.
@@regaugetswemoabelo859 what part of the world and what ideas ?
Seventeen minutes and twenty seconds? An absolute crime. I’d watch endless hours of these three discussing these issues. This is the conversation I’ve been wanting for the longest time. These three know their stuff, please have them talk again. This was absolutely fantastic and absolutely criminal that it couldn’t be even longer.
Agreed, this is probably why there's such a divide currently in this issue, it's complex and it deed a proper conversation which would take hours, it just can't be properly discussed in click bait sized video shorts.
These shows are designed specifically to curtail thought and understanding. Read Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. Ironically Hill is guilty of the same crimes of propaganda his philosophical ally (Chomsky is an SJW) has written against since the 70's.
@Roland NAAWP Fryer If you can't make your ideas clear to an average college graduate in a few minutes they are very likely bullshit. That's why most people who start out sympathetic to Marxism when they are young eventually wake up and become anti-Marxist.
@Roland NAAWP Fryer The fact that CRT literature is so inscrutable is by design. There is a reason why post-structuralist Derrida and communist Hegel are so impossible to read. If you can hardly pin down what these proto and neo-marxists are even talking about then how can you properly refute their ideas?
Bottomline is that CRT is a religion without a God and no paths towards salvation. The fact that Marc assumed James was being "facetious" demonstrated how legitimately incredulous even he is about cancel culture and microaggressions. Should he be canceled for using the word "folk?"
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Exactly. Marxism is great when you dont have a job or you have unrequited grievances and think the world owes you something. It doesnt owe you jack. CRT only runs one way and that is against white people. Why would you indoctrinate kids with an ideology that has so many nested levels of complexity that apparently Marc thinks most adults who disagree cant understand it until they've done essentially graduate level research on the subject? The average 100 IQ person will hear CRT's premises and either hate it or hate whiteness and by extension "whites" because of it.
Lamont has integrity. While I dont agree with his politics, he is fairly even handed by having guests from opposing views on his show and challenges them, and allows them, to challenge him. This is freedom and Democracy....
What are his politics?
@@katrina8077 Communism
This encounter needs to happen again in a long form discussion format. This needs about an hour. I'd love it if you could make this happen!
The problem I have with "consequences" for freedom of speech is who gets to decide what is the consequence and what is the standard for "problematic speech.". In the past, society basically agreed what was fireable/problematic
The consumer
I've noticed the only people talking about "consequences" for speech are the people who want to impose the consequences.
@@jeroldmcarthur3926 it seems more and more like it's A consumer or a minute group of consumers get to decide. And often it's not even consumers
@@svenm7264, well said.
Exactly, as if all consequences were legitimate.
Now this is the type of discussion I enjoy and learn so much from watching. Thank you I would be grateful if they were invited back for a longer discussion
Next time your in a conversation and the word “diversity” comes up. Ask the person what they mean by “diversity”.
Having people with different perspectives that have merit.
@@MindForgedManacle that's what it's supposed to mean in the context but most of the time when someone says diversity it just means no white people or less white people
@@Wayne-jh4mi If interpreted in view of US history, it means more than just white men and a token white women in the room - to reflect the American population.
Means non white
@@garrick1117 Are you saying there has to be exact proportional representation of every demigraphic in every sector of society?
you still have free speech-- you'll just be punished for using it 🙄
No, you face consequences - good or bad. You can say what you want, but you can't control how ppl will respond or react. Those two things don't impede your free speech. Your fear of the outcome is what abridges your free speech.
"We have free speech in Soviet Union too, comrade!"
"You do?"
"Yes. Bet after speech, no freedom!"
@@CB-hn6ei getting fired from your job for saying some banal word like "master" as in bedroom is not free speech. listen to what Lindsey says here
@@TJ-kk5zfIf you said the word "master" and no one stopped you from saying it then you had to freedom to say it and you used that freedom to make the utterance. If you lose your job, which I would hope you wouldn't, the loosing of the job would be a consequence not losing a freedom. Losing the freedom would be someone telling you if you cannot say the word "master".
@@CB-hn6ei postmodern semantic horseshit. this is a politically driven effort to chill the speech of dissenting views. it is a coercive clamping down on freedom of speech... and learn to spell
This was actually a real substantive & academic debate , free of talking points and pejoratives
Was it? Seems to me that just before the interview ended, Dr Hill pointed out how right wingers consistently take things out of context to push a certain caricature of leftist positions. He also mentioned this in relation to how CRT is judged on false pretenses when he brought up intersectionality
@@miguellopez6407 Dr. MLH is 100% correct; that's exactly what right wingers has done historically (Dr King, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, the Civil Rights Movement, hollywood, etc, branded as "communists"), as well as currently (CRT, BLM Movement, democrats, etc.; all accused of being "communists").
No it wasn', it's loaded curated partisan content
@@miguellopez6407, it's not perfect, but it's much better than other leftwing talkshows that pretend to discuss this subject.
@@suzygirl1843, who hurt you?
*Rhetorical question*
That was a great appetizer. I hope you can organize a full-blown conversation on this topic.
Not a Marc Lamont-Hill fan but I applaud him for having Dr Lindsay and Boghossian on to hash out the issue. Gave the video a like for that reason.
yeah but your comment gets a big azz dumbs down
We all really needed to know that. Pfffft
@@DJK-cq2uy And yet you took the time to comment?
@DDeCicco yes payaso..all 5 seconds
@DJK-cq2uy Wish you had better things to do with your time my guy 😂
Rephrasing real estate terms is not going to help impoverished youth get jobs in the hood
True. Stopping redlining, gentrification, etc would help though. That "etc" is a long, long, LONG, list of things that would help. Things that have been talked about and requested over and over. The "hoods" haven't received any benefits from the suggestions, but other communities have. But you know. Some receive benefits and get told "you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps". While others won't receive benefits and get told "pick yourself up by your bootstraps."
@@cgreen4395 this is victimhood thinking. Move on. You can be more than the summation of the things that happen to you.
@@jamesdodge7941 Okay. Never talk about the Constitution again. Refuse to celebrate the 4th of July. Don't speak on the Declaration of Independence. Stop talking about the Boston Tea Party in schools. Don't teach about the Sons of Liberty. That's all victim mentality. The "white" history of this country is based on victim mentality. Tell southern confederate heritage people to stop claiming it's their heritage. Sorry, I mean claiming their victims of people trying to remove their heritage. Tell everybody I've mentioned to "move on" You can't because they have whole holidays for it and if you say something against it you're automatically in the wrong. The US is the summation of the things that happened to African Americans. You're entire argument is based off inadequate education. Next time have an actual thought out argument princess.
@@jamesdodge7941 Keep the same energy when speaking with a Jew about the Holocaust...."Stop being a victim"
@@cgreen4395 that's a false analog, jews aren't mired in victimhood. Also there are still living people who experienced the holocaust. "Trauma" from ancestors experience, even from your own experience, is something to overcome and grow through, not become weak and helpless over. The choice is youra
Is there a full version of this please? I'm really curious how this will end.
Thanks for hosting - would love to see a longer format conversation- date I say, some ground was made in this exchange.
Pleeeeze do a longer discussion this was getting really good props to Marc for actually talking with these guys
George Orwell must be just shaking he’s head in amazement
He got nothing right in that infernal book.
@@h.hholmes3118 not even the flat TVs on the walls? Damn! Maybe his next book would rock it out.
@@ffemt66 No, telescreens in the book are a way of big brother watching you, there is no webcams on a TV you buffoon
@@h.hholmes3118 are you ok bud? Or did you bump your head?
@@ffemt66 Nope, I have read that book about 3 times, it's a boring, stupid book and I'm not even a Stalinist!
Also, in the book, you can't turn the telescreens off or remove them from the wall, you can fucking throw your TV out of the window today.
Please do a long-form podcast with them or something! This is fantastic! These nuanced conversations need to be had.
I dont always agree with MLH, but he's an excellent host, and i love that he tries to engage opposing views in good faith.
Props to him for that at least, he's still on the wrong side with Critical Race Theory and a number of other things.
@@michaelmcgee335 jimmy concepts is way out of his depth there though. looked like he was about to cry
@@hawaiianrobot I'll agree he's not as adept a debater as Hill, but he's got CRT's number, and is correct why it is evil.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 nah
@@hawaiianrobot CRT is absolutely evil. It reduces people to their race, denies agency and besides being racist it also is hateful.
I’m 100% on the James Lindsay side in this discussion. But Marc being willing to have the conversation is awesome. Longer format would be better ofc.
Didn't you find it to be a stretch that Lindsay concluded from structural determinism that CRTheorists conclude that all outcomes are racially disparate?
@@tugboat2030 The point was that people don’t have agency, it is irrelevant what the determinant systems are.
@@oaxacachaka Whose point was that people don't have agency?
@@tugboat2030 wasn’t that Lindsays point originally in the quote? I mean, that according to CRT people don’t have agency.
@@oaxacachaka Yes, that's Lindsay's point which is bullshit.
The dialogue around “folk” was a clarifying one. Lindsay used what he thought was goofy example of language policing and Lamont basically agreed and then modeled Lindseys characterization of how progressives read offensive concepts into peoples words that aren’t there. Obviously Lamont didn’t mean to denigrate anybody. That was meaning was read into Lamont’s words by Lindsey (obviously in jest.).
When it is acceptable to read obscure, historical, and even inaccurate meanings of words into the speakers/authors motives- instead of the obviously intended meaning of those words- it hurst dialogue. This is because accepting this practice allows you to easily misrepresent the positions of those that you disagree with and then punish them for your mischaracterization of their words. Lamont thinks that this is an okay part of dialogue- just consequences- and they are saying that it’s wrong and harms dialogue.
To me, the latter is obviously true.
Your description of that part of the conversation is accurate, I think. And I agree with your conclusion there. Those kinds of tactics certainly _do_ more harm to an honest diolog than good. This isn't an oversight on the part of the proponent of critical social justice, however. It's intentional. Tactics like this, as well as many others, are employed to disrupt the manner of discourse had by those benefiting from the "status quo." They want to disrupt, and _dismantle_ not only the systems of power which they believe perpetuate inequity, but the whole of the society in which those systems reside as well.
As an intellectual pursuit, critical social justice is about as intellectually dishonest as it can possibly get imo..
@@SineEyed completely agree. for guys like Marc Lamont it is intentional. He’s smart enough to know what he’s doing. When challenged directly on these things the tactic is normally to back pedal. It is totally intellectually dishonest.
What is saddest is the “layperson” who is indoctrinated into CRT is so addicted to the dopamine rush of ‘shutting others down’ and making them feel badly that they unconsciously employ these same tactics and honestly believe they are doing good.
He only believes it’s an OK part of dialogue because his side of the argument uses it as a club, a club to beat people in the submission to suppress their viewpoints. And it works, and the other side of the aisle does not use this technique. There is no way he didn’t feel ridiculous in his response to James Lindsey, however he had been backed into a corner. It was a perfect example of how ridiculous these people are, but of course MLH could not seed this ground, thus his weird response. But we all saw it.
@@MrJpmoneypants yeah, I really would've loved to see them have the presence of mind to drive that point home. If they both would have continued to arbitrarily pick words the host used to become offended by, (assuming that because they're both academics, they'd be able to lay out some reasonable sounding justification for being offended - like Lindsay did with "folk") then it would have been clear to everyone why that particular tactic is so disingenuous.
There's just no chance for having a fruitful discussion if there's no way to know what words are going to be found offensive by those you're in the discussion with.
Moreover, if we know going into it that a discussion will likely go nowhere, we'll probably be unwilling to enter into it at all. And as I mentioned earlier, that's kinda the point. They're not interested in having conversations. They're really only interested in issuing orders, telling others what to do, and bossing people around.
Sidenote: anyone pointing out the redundancy of that last statement will cause me _great_ offence!.. 😝
@@SineEyed correct, the other part that was kind of funny as well was how Lindsay didn’t let him have his response. Because apologies, I’ll learn from my mistakes, I didn’t mean any offense, whatever you say after one of these people go after you using these linguistic nonsense techniques, is never met with grace. Never, because it’s not about that, it’s about it being a club to beat you with. Quite genius on Lindsey’s part.
The only question I have is do people who use this type of stuff even know that? Like have we brainwashed enough young people to think that this is just how discourse works? You don’t just see this technique in isolation, it is generally combined with a myriad of logical fallacies. Making me think these people don’t even know what they’re doing, they’ve just been conditioned to debate in this manner
Interesting push back by James to Marc’s use of the word “folk.” I think James’ larger point is that CRT directly (“I’m offended by your use of ‘that’ word”) or indirectly (through self-censorship) restricts free speech and leads to all sorts of silly outcomes - like people using their jobs for using a word like “folk” ( or substitute any trigger word in place of “folk”).
They literally advocate for limiting free speech but they don’t call it free speech. The danger is that their antifree speech sentiment is actually under the heading of fighting “hate speech” and using stopping “violence”. Violence as in offense or discriminatory effects on people. That’s not true free speech.
So we might see free speech infringement in law down the line because of this. That’s legitimately scary, especially if the western world becomes more and more unstable and corrupt.
Civility isn't the same as "censorship". It's like saying we should let people say the N word at work, because that's censorship if we don't let them.
Someone got fired for saying "folk"? Citations needed. Though I'm not sure you can extrapolate CRT onto that. Things are motivated by all sorts of things.
You don’t follow James do you? He’s doing exactly what Marc is saying is a good thing to him. Folk is such a harmless term but it’s roots might have some weird history and he’s making him stop using it because it offends him.
No one's getting boycotted or as millennial call it "canceled" for using the word folk. They may get canceled if they say n1gger, f4ggot, tr4nny, bitxhxs, or even thug... but not folk. And if they say the other words, ot indicates a larger problem in how they see the world and they probably deserve being boycotted/ canceled
@@kipwonder2233 Oh I don’t know what what the fuck it promotes. I don’t take all that much time in caring. I was just responding to the OP. I like Marc for his balls to talk to anyone, and I like Peter and James for their work showing how absolutely ridiculous current scholarly work is in regards to CRT.
Love this high-level dialogue! Keep it coming!
Imagine a show called 'White News Tonight'. The streets would be aflame.
Not sure if they would be aflame, but I take your point. Though you know their response,,, "Because Black people have been historically discriminated... Blah blah blah... It's important for black people [this incredibly diverse group, btw] to receive news specifically tailored to the 'one size fits all Black' pov and 'exclusively Black' sensibilities."
Or some sort of racist paternalism like that... Cause black people aren't capable of taking in multiple opinions from the left and right? Give me a break. I change my mind, you're absolutely right, Portland and Seattle, at least, would be aflame alright.
They call it Fox News.
@@fishbaitor touche fishbait
I never comment but I would love to see more academic discussions like this from people who don’t agree. It gets very exhausting to hear the same talking points over and over on both sides. It is amazing to hear them dig deep with actual theorists and discuss the ideas with each other. Please do a long format discussion that is very academic!
the prerequisite that we should know the etymology of every word so as not to offend anyone seems unreasonable.
I agree. We would hardly be able to speak, let alone have the meaningful and difficult conversations that we need to be having with one another.
@@jenvdouglass No one is suggesting you know the etymology of every word. . its in good faith that we hear and understand the offense such words have on others.
@@markdixon1537 nobody is suggesting it intentionally, but it's the logical implication. this isn't trivial because before people "hear and understand" anything, they are being fired and canceled. there is no conversation in many cases. the "offense" that such words (like 'master') have on others only becomes offensive when somebody makes it en vogue to be offended. seems like a better use of the scarcity of time if we just not get offended by words that are clearly anodyne in context and assume "good faith" in what people are trying to say than place the moral burden on others to "hear and understand" whatever offense or grievance that can be produced have by a word.
No thats not it, listen though.
@@bchenley
That is not the logical implication at all. Most of the words people are offended by have wide use in our society or have been explained in multiple public forums.
Willful ignorance is a tactic used to maintain the status qou.
If someone tells you that language is offensive you have a right to how you respond but so does your peer and bussiness.
It strikes me that these issues seem to not be noticed when the offenses (usage of slurs) are happening, it is only when white people feel uncomfortable that we can spark any national conversation.
We don't have to know where every word comes from but when you learn that something is a slur and is demeaning to certain people it should be seen with that context I'm mind it's why outside of east Asian religions you won't find many people use the swastika it has negative connotations outside of the faith practices of Asia and it can signal allegiance to certain ideologies.
Master as a term was already pretty loaded when sears used it, just because they didn't think it through doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.
If we called it a "mistress" bedroom or a "slave" bedroom would it have the same meaning?
I'm sure they were being innocent but that term carries a lot of baggage where other terms are more marketable now that's how language and marketing work.
When Marc apologized for using folk, people in the comments are taking this as a win somehow.
No, this is not a win. What he's promoting here is to allow extremely controlling people the excuse to morally bash you for innocuous speech. And to see him do that was not only weak, but a preposterous standard to be setting for society. He thought he was being cute and getting one over on James but ultimately proved the point completely that this is a terrible precedent
Exactly, but if he just would've said GFY like he should have, the hypocrisy would've been too obvious.
Actually it's quite the opposite. Lindsay is the one who thought he was being cute with his little false offense at the word folks. Hill recognized it as an attempt at trolling and responded accordingly, and then even called it out as such in the next sentence.
Nobody, Lindsay included, is walking around offended by the word folks. And Hill also doesn't actually think it's an offensive term, he was just playing along with Lindsay's game. If Lindsay was attempting to say that "people are too sensitive these days" or whatever, clearly he failed. Maybe he should've tried just saying that instead doing his little trolling thing.
But then again, his attempt was almost bound to fail because 9 times out of 10, even conservatives can recognize that something that (a significant amount of) people claim offends them has at least a tiny bit of merit. Even if they don't want to admit it.
And another thing that Lindsay and people like him conveniently leave out is the fact that plenty of people make claims that they're offended by something, and society largely dismisses them. To use Lindsay's own example, no one in their right mind is going to stop saying folks because he claims to be offended by it (even if he's being sincere). Conservatives want to act like society turns upside down just because a single person said they were offended by something innocuous, when that's never the case. But to admit this would make their already shaky position crumble.
@@therulerthekiller try saying women are women in trans spaces and tell me how it works out for you
@@timagee147 well apparently he doesn't support all parts of SJWism, if that was the case it'd show he's open to seeing how these things can go overboard. But of course MLH wants that power so of course be would give that ground. He likes having the power to tell people what to say and think
@@basedcentrist3056 "Trans spaces" isn't society. In fact, prime example, the idea that women are women isn't seen seen as offensive by like 90% of society.
This was amazing. Thank you. Subscribed.
Watching this show makes me realize how crazy people are.
ruclips.net/video/30iEwdl2D60/видео.html #please good or bad comment
Host let them talk, knew the material, and didn't call them racist once. Excellent interview.
He doesn’t need to.
You don't need to know how to spell toilet to use it.!
That’s your biggest fear to be called racist instead of the acting racist to someone.
They had Marc self censoring himself😂
It's comical...and then he apologises but thinks guest is taking offence "tongue-in-cheek." Apologising completely losses its weight and significance in Marc's world.
Both James and Marc did a recalibration while encountering their opponent.
He is being accountable. That's what honorable men do.
@@antoinnesplash8403 stupid progressive thinking.
@@regaugetswemoabelo859 he said he is going to assume that the example given was in good faith. I think you are hearing what you want to hear because you dont like Marc's politics. Such a shame.
Excellent discussion. We need more of THIS! ✊🏾❤🖤💚
Long Form Discussion please! Lol, "I want to give you a full sentence."
You went hard Dr. Hill! Thank you Your guests were adept and gentlemanly as well. Good show!
He went hard because his guests were in the midst of dismantling something he clearly believes very strongly about. This discussion is not going to end well for proponents of CRT, which is really just a path of self-interest for most who back it.
@@paulpanturescu8154, bine zis.
He didn’t say anything of substance. He lost ground and tried to deflect and straw man.
@@oaxacachaka lol how did he strawman ? do u even know the meaning
@@SunaAoimori I’d have to rewatch but it was. He’s pretty weak.
Imagine all tv anchors and commentators being that smart. Love your work, my brother! Fan from Brazil
I disagree with his conclusions and approach to this issue entirely, but there's no question he has an informed opinion and he wasn't an asshole, so that's basically better than 99% of hosts/journalists in media.
You need to watch andrew neil formally of the bbc 👍
The application is chilling for sure. in Vermont, city employees have fired a child from their summer job for stating that the school's equity program is causing emotional harm in young children. This is happening. One high school boy was fired from his job as a lifeguard for just stating that a five year old came home from school crying because the teacher told him that all white people are responsible for slavery and hurting black people. There is mob justice in the classroom. The poor child was absolutely traumatized he told his parents he didn't want to be white and asked why he was born white and not black. Teachers allow students to attack children in the classroom. There is no civil social justice conversations. I called the Vermont equity office and asked if this was the intended consequence. The employee actually said to me "Don't you think white children should feel the same pain as black children?" This is how vendictive and hateful this ideology is. Please tell me how long these young children are supposed to feel this pain, as children have not contributed to any system of oppression.
Brilliant and insightful conversation. So nice to see people having real dialogue around this difficult topic.
Marc Lamont Hill is a very a r t i c u l a t e sophist
About a decade ago on FOX News, Hill said calling a black person “articulate” is racist.
@@bonanimathambo8721 he didn't say Articulate Sophist was racist though :)
@@diranshouse7061 Doesn't matter. He's still black so it's racist to compliment him about being articulate apparently.
The idea that calling a black person “articulate” (a compliment bestowed upon people of all races) couldn’t simply be because that person is, in fact, articulate is pretty racist.
@@bonanimathambo8721 that’s the joke
The second half of this was actually a really good debate. I hope they'll find time to sit down for a long-form discussion. I think they'd all come out of it with strengthened arguments.
I'm about as anti-woke and anti-crt as you can get, and I have to say Marc is a breath of fresh air since he's actually willing to engage in real debate and discussion. Good job Marc, good job James & Peter.
Lol at Marc apologizing for saying an everyday word. Can you imagine if you had to do that for every random person who was "offended" by your language.
100 years ago, nigger, faggot, kike, chink, jap, wop, etc were every day words. Can you imagine navigating this life (outside of white supremacist rallies) today, without some random person being offended by that language?
Therein lies the problem, challenging words has no boundaries, which it’s impossible to manage oneself in any meaningful way.
Try living in a town run by the regressive left.
They're quoting directly from CRT proponents and Marc says he doesn't agree, thus he loses the argument.
Its the same shit communists do
"Well that wasn't actual communism"
Just don't call it marxism
They are not quoting actual critical race theorists. They read without comprehension. Marc had to school them on the basics. They created straw men on their handout. I was embarrassed for Rufo. Boghossian didn't play the fool like Rufo did.
@@gp20910 The guests were quoting from the CRT progenitors. The problem is that everyone thinks they know what CRT is without reading the original authors on the theory. It takes time and effort, but anyone can study this subject, and if you are intellectually honest, you will see who is reflecting the truth on the matter.
@@ragasthegascap1 I wouldn’t hold your breath mate lol
@@ragasthegascap1 I have read the original authors. CRT is a legal theory. Rufo was not quoting from critical race theorists. It was grating to see such misrepresentations of the legal theory by Rufo. I do not take him seriously at all *because* I have read the writings.
I disagree 100% with Lamont, but he at least lets people talk and doesn’t interrupt. That is actually pretty cool.
James Lindsay got absolutely demolished. Beautiful thing
@@ftwallday3112 ya like uber pownage, bro! I even checked with the 100% reliable and independent fact-checkers on Facebook to verify that, too.
🤣🤣🤣 omg this was great. I love james
That was a fantastic interview
I'm generally more convinced by the New Discourses argument here but tons of respect for Hill for making these conversations happen and disrupting the echo chambers that form pretty easily online these days.
I want them to talk longer. I love Marc for being so open and willing to discuss with people with different points of views,
Must do a longer conversation - this was great Marc!
Yeah, this is actually who I was hoping would have this conversation for quite a while. Really great to see this.
Much better conversation. Please bring them back for a longer more in-depth review. This is important to understand.
“You know a lot about this actually.”.... I just died 💀 kudos to Marc Lamont Hill! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾✨
Felt a bit condescending but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt
@@TheAlbert1A1 I felt that too - also how Lindsay tried undermining Marc with his offence to the word FOLK, how ironic for a "free speech" advocate!? Marc handled that with far more courtesy than Lindsay deserved!
@@robbaker1841 they say sarcasm is the language of the intelligent for a reason.
@@andreyorlov33 Lyndsay is too slow to be sarcastic, I’d say he was just being condescending- Unlike the great Oscar Wilde who was the first to say “ sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence” - Lindsay displayed neither wit or intelligence in this interview.Even his attempt at irony failed when he tried to trip Marc up by getting all offended by the word “ folk” , but Marc took it with the manners Lindsay should adopt . Gentlemanly!
CRT is this seasons buzzword for Conservatives to scare the public with, another Red Peril /McCarthy moment- and as per, they are doing it without question or knowledge of its actual origins or meaning.
@@TheAlbert1A1 that’s the word I was looking for- condescending- Lindsay isn’t quick or funny enough to be truly sarcastic.
I just subscribed and proud of it
Lansing is a Boss! Great discussion. It’s what we’ve been dying for, intelligent debate
Marc is actually arguing against a core premise (structural determinism) of CRT when we says that we have free will and that systems do NOT have deterministic powers. Marc is literally saying (toward the end) that your outcome IS NOT determined by systems. At this point he has sided with the authors in the position. I think most people would agree that (almost) everyone has a series of barriers that their individual situation presents. Some are greater than other and it is these stories that act as inspiration for all of us. It's hard to imagine a world absent this type of inspiration and difficulty. (Wealthy) CRT authors seem to hold a utopian view that such a world can exist, which makes it easier to understand how that free will would NOT exist in this utopia.
That's not a tenant of CRT, as Mark Lamont skillfully explained near the end. James Lindsay is acting in bad faith imo, he straight-up called Marc a communist on Twitter.
@@johndough6225 I stand corrected on the use of the word "tenant". The correct word was "core" premise in regards to the idea of structural determinism. As far as the name calling, not a fan.
@@michaelnance5236 I'll preface this by stating I'm no expert on the matter.
Anyway, from what I read briefly of the work Lindsey cited ("Critical Race Theory" 3rd Edition), it seems "structural determinism" is a common theme rather than a core tenet. The near-universal tenets the book outlined were just two: 1) Racism is very normalized into society and 2) racism serves a purpose for the dominant group.
As for how structural determinism is defined by the book: "These examples point out the concept that lies at the heart of structural determinism, the idea that our system, by reason of its structure and vocabulary, is ill equipped to redress certain types of wrong."
To me, this doesn't read as an assertion that free will doesn't exist or that it doesn't play a role, and it seems to be compatible with (excuse the pun) "compatibilism", also known as soft determinism.
What really confuses me about Lindsay's critique, though, is this: isn't he a structural hard determinist concerning socialism...? He'd probably agree that any socialist movement, including anarchist ones, would inevitably be taken over by authoritarians and lead to millions of deaths, that the good intentions and free will of socialists and their committment to avoiding 20th century socialism's failures wouldn't be able to overcome the structural problems of the ideology. So, why is he so against the more vague notion that certain structures can be ill-equipped to deal with some problems?
He's saying it isn't solely informed by it.
@@johndough6225 Again, I misspoke on calling structural determinism a core tenant. I think it would be more correct to say that it acts as a premise to the tenants.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the books definition when it say "the idea that our system, by reason of its structure and vocabulary, is ill equipped to redress certain types of wrong". When it says that it "is ill equipped to redress certain types of wrong", is it saying that the system is predetermined to produce certain types of wrong? If not, and the system is not structured as to predetermine outcomes, then the concept seems rather pointless. Or is there another option that better describes.
I'm not sure the answer to your final paragraph but, really enjoyed reading it.
Good show
Subscribed
I definitely appreciated the fact that in this conversation the three gentlemen seem to be, actually listening to one another and responding. There seem to be a level of respect that they were all able to maintain throughout the segment and I appreciate it from both sides. The ability to be able to hear, respect, and respond by appreciated.
From a biblical standpoint we need to get closer to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Satan is very real and he is manipulating millions of people all over the world That's why the word of God is so important in our lives 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Good job James and peter
James Lindsay got his rear handed to him. He got outmaneuvered when he realized MLH isn't someone impressed with his aimless rants. Marc knows the literature front and back.
It’s just a dialogue guys, relax.
This needed more time.
Credit to MLH for having the debate. More discussion like this is what is required
Definitely continue this conversation!
"We got our hands on it!" "After it was published......"
When the host asked "is there a way I can engage in a restorative act to make you feel better about it," Lindsay should have replied "I want no restorative act, but imagine if you actually lost your job over that, would that feel like justice?"
Losing your job because you engage in racist or sexist rhetoric is one thing, and losing your job because you use the word "folk" is another. You are conflating two things that have no real correlation. Your point then, is moot.
@@blondeno1girl Declaring new definitions of words like racism and feminism to encompass the agenda of your politics and then using that new definition to shame your political opposition is disingenuous at best.
Marc has actually lost his job at CNN for previous “misunderstandings” of the situation in Israel and how he stated he perceived the subject. So yes, he would in reality apologize, educate himself, and then others about the ignorance presented and how he can move forward being a human being..not an asshole
@@blondeno1girl why do you think it’s different? Do you think you can deny people the real harm they experience by using the word “folk”?
@M H It doesn't surprise me that you think a person can use the N word and have no racist intent.
Thank you for having this conversation :)
The problem lies in the fact that people believe so-called free speech is absolute.
I love how James turned the tables on this guy.
He was just desperate to corner MLH in something mundane.
@@ddrebrne3336 Yeah, JL condescendingly interrupted MLH, saying "you know a lot about this, ACTUALLY", probably to distract from the valid point MLH had just made that JL gave a very bad faith interpretation of MLH use of the word "structure".
lol are we watching the same debate? MLH just wiped the floor with Rufo aka James Lindsay, so much so James realized that his failed attempt at obfuscation and misdirection weren't working. Lindsay peppered his argument with irrelevance, and MLH still managed to learn him on the very subjects on which he attempted to shine. #tableTurned
And what's with the weird facial expression...... WTF!! #noOneIsImpressed
I actually gained tons of respect for Marc for having them on! Even though I don’t agree with Marc, I believe the only way to move forward is dialogue.
CRT = Cooked-up Republican Tricks
How do you move forward when a person wants to stall movement by being bogged down by words.
Marc, you bring on fantastic guests. Keep it up.
Everyone should have the right to ban words that make them uncomfortable.
Idiocy.
I don’t agree with most of Lamont’s beliefs, but I respect him for bringing guests with different points of view and allowing them to talk. Kudos Lamont 👍🏾.
Really looking forward to the extended version of this debate!
MLH’s good faith engagement and tonal diplomacy with opposing voices (with whom I agree totally), at least in this segment, is remarkable and increasingly rare.
Love watching these debates!!
White boy destroyed Marc by bringing up folk. Imagine trying To have a conversation and second guess every word you say 😂 nah liberals need to stop being soft. Words are words. we need to teach people how to understand intention and context again.
Who needs to stop being soft? I thought Dr Lindsay was being soft by being offended by that word.
Destroyed what?
@@kennethsnodgrass2607 “playing underneath power lines” 😂😂 bro
@@kennethsnodgrass2607 What did he prove? Marc said he was willing to refrain from using the term and that was that.
@@Larvemannenz001 what he is trying to say is anyword no matter how harmless it is can be offensive, example "folk" there's nothing wrong with the word and the way the host used the word was harmless but some random person my find it offensive.
So the question is should we all restrict our speech even though it won't be harmless to anybody just so some group of people won't be offended
Changing language to make soft people comfortable, go grow some stones 😂
Great convo
I applaud you for discussing this topic, as it needs clarity, and I would encourage discussions geared towards exactly that.
Why is it always that the under-sensitive must yield to the over-sensitive?
The weak are in charge now.
Candace Owens smoked you.👌🏽
Candice Owens is a growing piece of shit
Great conversation. Wish it could have gone longer. Then again, there is plenty here to review and reflect upon. 👍😊
ruclips.net/video/30iEwdl2D60/видео.html #please good or bad comment
ohhh man. that was satisfying! I LOVE this guy! subbed!
"white news tonight"
is that a good name for a new news program?
When white folk become an underrepresented minority in this country, undergoing 250 years of brutal enslavement that included canabalism and race based chattel subjugation, then 100 years of 2nd class citizenship after that, we can make that comparison.
Otherwise, your point is moot.
@@nh5739 ever read about the Jamestown Massacre of 1622?
@@russellm2555 Does that massacre include any of the things I mentioned above over a period of 250 years?