It's interesting because the name of this video is "the danger of stifling debate" and Pinker states that there were few people challenging the alt-right in their own domain. But when alt-right argumentation reached the MSM many of their assertions were absurd so they were rejected outright, which is why Milo was an up-and-comer in the MSM on the right and now is a joke on InfoWars.
Very interesting chat between him and Joe.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
I think the problem is these domains you mention. The MSM should not be some narrow ideological domain that runs 80% left and censors information because THEY (and that's the ironic part) think the information hurts their cause even though it's true. The hateful, scared and opportunistic get hold of the information and because no debate takes place they go unchallenged and manage to draw extreme conclusions from both the information and the fact that it was deliberately suppressed by people who knew better. I have gone on some of these YouTube channels (the Faith Goldy types) and debated them - they are just as pathetic as the far left and just as ensconsed in identity politics, and they are racist. Like genuinely racist.
But this constant call to ban and threaten whoever Antifa and partisan hacks call "right wing speakers" is the cheddar that sustains the alt-right, Infowars and every other "gotcha-oriented" far right site and channel that are stronger than they should be because their reasoning hasn't been adequately stomped in the public square by people who have the confidence and intelligence to show why their extreme conclusions are irrational or just plain stupid. Instead, we have a significant portion of the left that wants to ban the discussion that would allow us all to move forward. Guys like Spencer fall apart even when faced by something as weak as a couple of self-styled goofball philosopher YouTubers - why can't the MSM do this, instead of censoring the discussion altogether so much of their leftwing audience can't distinguish between a Richard Spencer and a Jordan Peterson, a Steven Pinker and a David Irving? I think one of the reasons is because they have a natural instinct to perpetuate conflict. It sells.
There's this fear on the left that allowing the right to speak will create more right wing people when Pinker makes a pretty strong argument here that it's actually the complete opposite. Censoring speech short-circuits society's ability to move forward and provides a space for badly-thought-out ideas to get traction, whether you are an Antifa nutcase or a Faith Goldy racist.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
Infowars doesn't need anything to sustain itself. The guy literally invents enemies for his hate politics.
Comments
(Old Spike)
(Long Spike)
It's interesting because the name of this video is "the danger of stifling debate" and Pinker states that there were few people challenging the alt-right in their own domain. But when alt-right argumentation reached the MSM many of their assertions were absurd so they were rejected outright, which is why Milo was an up-and-comer in the MSM on the right and now is a joke on InfoWars.
Very interesting chat between him and Joe.
(Old Spike)
I think the problem is these domains you mention. The MSM should not be some narrow ideological domain that runs 80% left and censors information because THEY (and that's the ironic part) think the information hurts their cause even though it's true. The hateful, scared and opportunistic get hold of the information and because no debate takes place they go unchallenged and manage to draw extreme conclusions from both the information and the fact that it was deliberately suppressed by people who knew better. I have gone on some of these YouTube channels (the Faith Goldy types) and debated them - they are just as pathetic as the far left and just as ensconsed in identity politics, and they are racist. Like genuinely racist.
But this constant call to ban and threaten whoever Antifa and partisan hacks call "right wing speakers" is the cheddar that sustains the alt-right, Infowars and every other "gotcha-oriented" far right site and channel that are stronger than they should be because their reasoning hasn't been adequately stomped in the public square by people who have the confidence and intelligence to show why their extreme conclusions are irrational or just plain stupid. Instead, we have a significant portion of the left that wants to ban the discussion that would allow us all to move forward. Guys like Spencer fall apart even when faced by something as weak as a couple of self-styled goofball philosopher YouTubers - why can't the MSM do this, instead of censoring the discussion altogether so much of their leftwing audience can't distinguish between a Richard Spencer and a Jordan Peterson, a Steven Pinker and a David Irving? I think one of the reasons is because they have a natural instinct to perpetuate conflict. It sells.
There's this fear on the left that allowing the right to speak will create more right wing people when Pinker makes a pretty strong argument here that it's actually the complete opposite. Censoring speech short-circuits society's ability to move forward and provides a space for badly-thought-out ideas to get traction, whether you are an Antifa nutcase or a Faith Goldy racist.
(Old Spike)
Infowars doesn't need anything to sustain itself. The guy literally invents enemies for his hate politics.