Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    11 Jan '18 14:551 edit
    Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker explains how political correctness creates its own antagonists as people encounter unsayable truths.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=256&v=kTiRnbNT5uE

    It's just common sense, but he puts it so well.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    12 Jan '18 00:02
    Originally posted by @sleepyguy
    Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker explains how political correctness creates its own antagonists as people encounter unsayable truths.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=256&v=kTiRnbNT5uE

    It's just common sense, but he puts it so well.
    Steven Pinker's views on many subjects have been widely criticized.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining

    "John Gray: Steven Pinker is wrong about violence and war

    A new orthodoxy, led by Pinker, holds that war and violence in the developed world are declining.
    The stats are misleading, argues Gray – and the idea of moral progress is wishful thinking and plain wrong."

    "Discussing the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 in which nuclear war was narrowly averted,
    Pinker dismisses the view that “the de-escalation was purely a stroke of uncanny good luck”.
    Instead, he explains the fact that nuclear war was avoided by reference to the superior
    judgment of Kennedy and Khrushchev, who had “an intuitive grasp of game theory” – an
    example of increasing rationality in history, Pinker believes. But a disastrous escalation
    in the crisis may in fact have been prevented only by a Soviet submariner, Vasili Arkhipov,
    who refused to obey orders from his captain to launch a nuclear torpedo. Had it not been
    for the accidental presence of a single courageous human being, a nuclear conflagration
    could have occurred causing fatalities on a vast scale."
  3. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    12 Jan '18 13:371 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Steven Pinker's views on many subjects have been widely criticized.
    Irrelevant. Do you have anything to criticize within the eight minutes of Pinker's commentary linked to from the OP?

    Let's summarize it. Pinker lays out three examples of non-controversial truths which nevertheless are considered radical by the PC police, who suppress, shout down, and assault people who voice such truths. His three examples are:

    1. Capitalist societies are better than communist ones.
    2. Men and women are not identical in their life priorities, in their sexuality, in their tastes and interests.
    3. Different ethnic groups commit violent crimes at different rates.

    And then he proceeds to explain the obvious common sense reasons why a person can acknowledge these truths while still favoring social safety nets and feminism, and opposing racism, and then goes on to his main point which is this:

    "So, the politically correct Left is doing itself an enormous disservice when it renders certain topics undiscussable, especially when the facts are clearly behind them, because they leave people defenseless the first time they hear them against the most extreme and indefensible conclusions possible. If they were exposed, then the rationale for putting them into proper political and moral context could also be articulated, and I don't think you would have quite the extreme backlash."

    Do you agree with him, or would you prefer to pleasure yourself by calling me a racist rape apologist or something?
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    12 Jan '18 14:172 edits
    Originally posted by @sleepyguy
    Irrelevant. Do you have anything to criticize within the eight minutes of Pinker's commentary linked to from the OP?

    Let's summarize it. Pinker lays out three examples of non-controversial truths which nevertheless are considered radical by the PC police, who suppress, shout down, and assault people who voice such truths. His three examples are:

    1. ...[text shortened]... im, or would you prefer to pleasure yourself by calling me a racist rape apologist or something?
    Silence him!

    Stop him!

    Somebody help!

    Obama!!!!!!!

    Russ, ban him. He is obviously a racist!

    I know, I'll do the thumbs down thingy.

    Mwhahahaha!!!
  5. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26722
    12 Jan '18 14:39
    Originally posted by @sleepyguy
    Irrelevant. Do you have anything to criticize within the eight minutes of Pinker's commentary linked to from the OP?

    Let's summarize it. Pinker lays out three examples of non-controversial truths which nevertheless are considered radical by the PC police, who suppress, shout down, and assault people who voice such truths. His three examples are:

    1. ...[text shortened]... im, or would you prefer to pleasure yourself by calling me a racist rape apologist or something?
    1. That capitalist societies have been better than the communist ones on display thus far, does not mean that capitalism is good, or that alternatives to it are doomed to collapse into Stalinist dictatorships.

    3. It would be more accurate to say that different socio-economic groups commit violent crimes at different rates. This addresses the reason certain ethnic groups commit more violent crime. It's because society has generally relegated them to a lower economic rung, and not because of their ethnicity.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    12 Jan '18 15:06
    Originally posted by @sleepyguy
    Irrelevant. Do you have anything to criticize within the eight minutes of Pinker's commentary linked to from the OP?

    Let's summarize it. Pinker lays out three examples of non-controversial truths which nevertheless are considered radical by the PC police, who suppress, shout down, and assault people who voice such truths. His three examples are:

    1. ...[text shortened]... im, or would you prefer to pleasure yourself by calling me a racist rape apologist or something?
    Such "truths" (some ain't so true as Ringo points out) get discussed all the time; what right wingers don't like is that their views on such issues are often shown to be based on sexist and/or racist beliefs having little bearing on the truth.
  7. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    12 Jan '18 15:25
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Such "truths" (some ain't so true as Ringo points out) get discussed all the time; what right wingers don't like is that their views on such issues are often shown to be based on sexist and/or racist beliefs having little bearing on the truth.
    Pinker's not talking about discussion. I take his comments as encouraging actual discussion as opposed to insults, suppression of speech, violence etc.
  8. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    12 Jan '18 15:321 edit
    Originally posted by @rwingett
    1. That capitalist societies have been better than the communist ones on display thus far, does not mean that capitalism is good, or that alternatives to it are doomed to collapse into Stalinist dictatorships.

    3. It would be more accurate to say that different socio-economic groups commit violent crimes at different rates. This addresses the reason cer ...[text shortened]... ciety has generally relegated them to a lower economic rung, and not because of their ethnicity.
    1. True, but Stalinist dictatorships are kind of a warning sign, no? Maybe all the good things about small groups of humans cooperating don't scale to nation-state size very well.

    3. Agreed! However, you should be able to say a true thing in a less accurate way without being shouted down as racist or punched in the head.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    12 Jan '18 22:16
    Originally posted by @sleepyguy
    Irrelevant. Do you have anything to criticize within the eight minutes of Pinker's commentary linked to from the OP?

    Let's summarize it. Pinker lays out three examples of non-controversial truths which nevertheless are considered radical by the PC police, who suppress, shout down, and assault people who voice such truths. His three examples are:

    1. ...[text shortened]... im, or would you prefer to pleasure yourself by calling me a racist rape apologist or something?
    Sleepyguy began his post with "Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker ..."
    I simply was pointing out that many critics doubt his expertise as a 'know-it-all' writer.

    As I have written before, I don't watch videos linked from RHP.
Back to Top