Jordan Peterson SCHOOLS Oxford Student on Hate Speech and Leaves Room SPEECHLESS (Epic Debate)

Summary

In this thought-provoking discussion, the role of free speech in society is explored, emphasizing its instrumental purpose in seeking truth and logos. The conversation delves into the challenges of hate speech, the potential for dominant voices to silence dissent, and the delicate balance between individual freedom and communal harmony. It highlights the risks of government regulation in defining hate speech and advocates for a marketplace of ideas, trusting the public's ability to discern and reject harmful ideologies through open dialogue and critical thinking.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ The instrumental purpose of free speech is to aid in the pursuit of truth and to distinguish between rational arguments and those that could lead to violence or death.
• 🚫 The speaker is not in favor of hate speech laws but acknowledges the existence of hate speech and its potential negative impact on society.
• 🔊 There are structural impediments to free speech, often related to power dynamics, which can silence certain voices and hinder the discovery of truth.
• 🤔 The speaker suggests that the best approach to dealing with hate speech is to allow it to be spoken and heard, trusting that the public will reject hateful ideas.
• 💡 The importance of individual sovereignty is emphasized, with the belief that every person's unique insights should be given the opportunity to contribute to societal understanding.
• 🔄 The speaker argues against the regulation of hate speech due to the difficulty in defining what constitutes 'hate' and the risk of empowering those who might misuse such regulations.
• 🏛️ The balance between individual freedom and communal harmony is a delicate one, and the speaker suggests that society should aim to maximize both simultaneously.
• 🌐 The digital age has amplified the challenges of free speech, with social media platforms potentially leading to increased polarization and societal fragmentation.
• 🤝 The speaker advocates for a marketplace of ideas where open dialogue and critical thinking can help society develop resilience against harmful ideologies.
• 📚 Philosophers like John Stuart Mill have warned against the suppression of minority opinions, even if they are offensive, as they are crucial for a free and vibrant society.
• 📉 The modern context shows increasing division among Americans on what constitutes hate speech, often falling along ideological lines, complicating objective regulation.

Q & A

What is the instrumental purpose of freedom of speech according to the speaker?

The instrumental purpose of freedom of speech is to help us find truth and to identify the correctness or 'logos' against the possible consequences of violence and bloodshed.

How does the speaker view the impact of hate speech and its laws?

The speaker is not an admirer of hate speech laws but acknowledges that hate speech exists and can be reprehensible. He believes that some forms of speech are already punished by law and that society should be cautious about regulating hate speech due to its subjectivity.

What does the speaker suggest about the relationship between power and free speech?

The speaker suggests that power can be one of the means by which people climb hierarchies, and that those who can climb hierarchies through power often indicate a corrupt hierarchy. He also notes that structural impediments to free speech exist and that they are not in everyone's best interest.

How does the speaker define the balance between individual freedom and communal harmony in the context of free speech?

The speaker believes that the balance involves maximizing individual development while simultaneously bringing the greatest amount of harmony possible to the familial and broader social units. It's not purely individualistic but rather a balance between personal growth and communal well-being.

What is the speaker's stance on regulating hate speech?

The speaker is against regulating hate speech because he believes it would lead to arbitrary regulation and potentially worse consequences than the problem it aims to solve. He argues for allowing free speech and letting the public discern and reject hateful ideas.

What is the 'marketplace of ideas' as referred to by the speaker?

The 'marketplace of ideas' is a concept where diverse opinions can coexist and be judged by the collective on an ongoing basis, fostering open dialogue and critical thinking to deal with hate speech and other challenging ideas.

How does the speaker address the issue of defining hate speech?

The speaker points out that defining hate speech is a difficult and subjective task, which is why he is against regulating it. He believes that what one person considers hateful, another might see as a critical opinion, making regulation problematic.

What role does the speaker believe the public has in dealing with hate speech?

The speaker believes that the public has the ability to discern and reject hateful ideas if they are exposed to them. He trusts in the public's wisdom to make the right judgments in the 'marketplace of ideas'.

How does the speaker view the impact of social media on the spread of extreme views?

The speaker acknowledges that social media can amplify extreme opinions, potentially leading to increased polarization and societal fragmentation. This adds a new layer of complexity to the free speech debate.

What is the speaker's opinion on the potential risks of regulating free speech?

The speaker believes that regulating free speech could lead to the suppression of legitimate discourse and the magnification of different kinds of risks, such as the tyranny of the majority or the stifling of minority opinions.

What philosophical work is mentioned in the script that discusses the importance of free speech?

The script mentions John Stewart Mill's 'On Liberty,' which argues that protecting minority opinions, even if offensive to the majority, is crucial for a free and vibrant society.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ Freedom of Speech and Its Impact on Societal Inclusion

The speaker begins by addressing the instrumental role of free speech in the pursuit of truth and its potential to be overshadowed by more dominant voices. They express concern over the exclusion of valuable perspectives due to ridicule or discomfort caused by hate speech, which can lead to a lack of diversity in discourse. The speaker acknowledges the existence of hate speech and its negative consequences, yet they also recognize the challenges in regulating it without infringing on individual rights. They advocate for a careful balance between the freedom to express oneself and the need to maintain societal harmony.

05:02

🤔 Navigating the Complexities of Hate Speech Regulation

In this paragraph, the speaker delves into the complexities of regulating hate speech, emphasizing the difficulty in defining what constitutes hate and the potential for arbitrary regulation to exacerbate existing societal issues. They argue against the use of hate speech laws, suggesting that allowing all forms of speech, even those deemed hateful, can lead to a better understanding and rejection of such speech by the public. The speaker believes in the wisdom of the people to discern right from wrong and highlights the importance of evidence-based discourse in shaping public opinion.

10:03

🌐 The Digital Age and the Marketplace of Ideas

The final paragraph discusses the impact of the digital age on the discourse of ideas, particularly the challenges posed by the amplification of extreme views on social media platforms. The speaker references the work of philosophers and legal scholars who advocate for more speech as a counter to hate speech, trusting in the public's ability to discern and reject harmful ideologies. They also acknowledge the potential negative effects of constant exposure to extreme views and the need for a nuanced approach to free speech that respects individual autonomy while considering its societal impact.

Keywords

💡Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech refers to the right to express one's opinions without censorship or restraint. In the context of the video, it is presented as an instrumental purpose to help society find truth and logos. The script discusses the challenges of maintaining this freedom while also fostering an inclusive environment where diverse voices can be heard without fear of ridicule or marginalization.

💡Logos

Logos, in the video, symbolizes the pursuit of truth and rational discourse. It is the Greek term for 'word,' 'speech,' or 'reason,' and is used to emphasize the importance of logical argumentation and evidence-based discussion. The script highlights the need for an environment where the logos of each individual can be expressed and contribute to the collective understanding.

💡Hate Speech

Hate speech is a type of communication that carries prejudice against a particular group or individual based on attributes such as race, religion, or sexual orientation. The video script addresses the contentious issue of hate speech laws, suggesting that while they may be intended to protect individuals, they can also be misused to suppress legitimate discourse and stifle free speech.

💡Dissent

Dissent denotes the expression of disagreement or opposition to a prevailing idea or authority. The script mentions how dissenting voices can be drowned out by more dominant or aggressive speech, particularly in environments like campuses, which can hinder the pursuit of truth and the expression of diverse perspectives.

💡Individual Autonomy

Individual autonomy is the capacity of an individual to make their own decisions and choices without external coercion. The video emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy in discussions and debates, suggesting that each person's unique insights should be valued and included for a comprehensive understanding of truth.

💡Communal Harmony

Communal harmony refers to the state of balance and peace within a community or society. The script suggests that while individual freedom is important, it must be balanced with the need for communal harmony, indicating that the goal is to create an environment where both individual expression and societal cohesion can coexist.

💡Tyranny

Tyranny is the oppressive use of power or authority, often associated with hierarchical structures that favor certain groups over others. In the context of the video, tyranny is discussed in relation to how power can be used to silence or marginalize certain voices, thereby disrupting the free exchange of ideas and hindering the pursuit of truth.

💡Polarization

Polarization refers to the division of a society or group into opposing factions with little common ground. The script touches on the increasing polarization in society, particularly in the context of what constitutes hate speech, which can lead to the suppression of certain viewpoints and further exacerbate divisions.

💡Marketplace of Ideas

The marketplace of ideas is a concept that suggests that the best way to determine the validity of ideas is through open discussion and debate. The video script advocates for this concept, arguing that allowing all ideas to be expressed and judged by the public is a better approach than government regulation of speech.

💡Resilience

Resilience in the context of the video refers to society's ability to withstand and recover from harmful ideologies or extreme views. It is suggested that by engaging in open dialogue and critical thinking, society can develop the resilience needed to reject harmful ideas and maintain a healthy discourse.

💡Regulation

Regulation in this context refers to the control or management of certain behaviors or activities by a governing body. The script expresses caution about the regulation of hate speech, arguing that it can lead to arbitrary and potentially harmful restrictions on free speech, and that it is difficult to define and enforce without negative consequences.

Highlights

The instrumental purpose of freedom of speech is to help find truth and logos against the potential consequences of violence.

Discourse affecting individuals without physical violence can still stifle valuable insights due to ridicule or discomfort.

Campus cases show the use of violent and loud language to drown out dissent, affecting the pursuit of truth.

The argument that freedom of speech isn't absolute and can be curtailed for better appreciation of logos and inclusion.

Hate speech laws are not admired, but the existence of hate speech is acknowledged.

Restrictions on discourse already exist, such as laws against inciting violence.

Structural impediments to free exchange of discourse exist due to power dynamics.

The importance of allowing everyone's logos to contribute to society's understanding.

Agreement with the diagnosis that hierarchies can tilt towards tyranny and prejudice exists.

The difficulty of maintaining free speech and the risk of societies losing it.

The belief that less hateful speech would be better, but the challenge lies in defining and regulating it.

The argument against regulating hate speech due to the risk of arbitrary suppression of legitimate discourse.

The subjectivity of defining hate speech and the risk of letting those in power define it.

The marketplace of ideas as a mechanism for dealing with hate speech through open dialogue and critical thinking.

The importance of allowing offensive speech for the sake of journalistic integrity and the pursuit of truth.

The dilemma of defining hate speech and the potential for it to stifle important discussions.

The challenge of finding a balance between promoting individual freedom and maintaining communal harmony.

The caution against utopian thinking in the regulation of hate speech and the importance of considering the consequences.

The digital age's impact on the amplification of extreme views and the potential for societal fragmentation.

The resilience against harmful ideologies can be fostered through the marketplace of ideas and public discourse.

Transcripts

I just want to pick your thoughts on

what you say about freedom of speech and

discussions in general right because you

basically flag that I think in your

anwers just in that freedom of speech

has an instrumental purpose it's there

to help us find truth correct me wrong

to to identify the correctness or the

logos against the possible consequence

of blood and death so here's the

question right if I as an individual I'm

affected by discourse in a way that

doesn't cause physical violence so you

that's not bind by hate speech laws and

whatnot but makes me feel so deeply

uncomfortable that I don't belong to

society or this community or when I say

something when whenever I try to say

something I'm ridiculed because of my

race the way I talk or my agenda or way

I behave then surely that means that my

valuable insight to contribute towards

logos towards the pursuit of Truth is

Shut Out by other people's more vifer

speech and more dominant speech and this

is what we see in cases of campuses

whether it be from the right or the left

of people using very violent and Loud

language to drown out dissent to drown

out those who oppose them on campuses in

society and whatnot from Donald Trump to

people in swore we've seen this happen

so wouldn't you say that the attempt to

claw back or or the right of freedom of

speech isn't so far absolute as

instrumental and based on that therefore

there are some cases where freedom of

speech of some individuals can be

curtailed if we want to get a better

appreciation of the logos and a better

inclusion of more voices that are

currently being shut out as a result of

the extremity and radicalism of those

select few wouldn't you say that's the

case thank you

well

well there's a very simple answer to

that which is yes but I'll elaborate I

mean the first thing is like I'm not an

admirer of hate speech

laws but that doesn't mean that I'm

naive enough to think that there's no

such thing as hate speech so obviously

if you've ever been involved in an

extremely serious argument you know

perfectly well that there's such a thing

as hate speech because you've probably

uttered some so you know so and and and

there's there's also no doubt that there

are forms of speech that are utterly

reprehensible and some of those are

actually already punished by law you

can't incite to violence you can't Lial

someone right so so we have some

restrictions already on what's

acceptable

discourse um whether it's the case

typically speaking that some people have

more privileged access to free speech

than others well that's obviously the

case I mean that's part of that's part

of power and Power is one of the means

by which people climb hierarchies

although the more you can climb a

hierarchy by exercising power the more

that's an indication of the fact that

that hierarchy has become corrupt so

there's no doubt that these structural

impediments to the free exchange of

discourse exist there's also no doubt as

you already laid out that that's not in

everyone's best interest because what

you want if you have any sense in your

society and this is also why I think

that we've put proper emphasis on the

sovereignty of the individual is that

you want everyone's logos to have the

opportunity to clarify the unknown and

reconstitute the world and if you shut

that down then you risk getting access

to the unique insights that that

individual might bring okay so I agree

with your diagnosis completely and and I

and I think that you know even in the

west to ignore the fact that many of our

hierarchies tilt towards tyranny and

that prejudice still exists in multiple

forms is a mistake although it's only

one factor among many and shouldn't be

identified as the as the primary causal

determinant of each individual's life I

think that's that's a dreadful error the

question is what do you do about it and

the devil's in the details and as I said

already I'm not an admirer for example

of hate speech laws even though there's

plenty of hateful speech because I think

the best thing to do is to leave Free

Speech alone as much as you possibly can

not because that will result in the

perfect conditions for Free Speech but

because anything else that you're likely

to do is going to make it worse rather

than better and so that's how it looks

to me can I just follow very quickly so

uh just want to pick your brains on hate

speech laws because it seems that you

agree that a pursuit of logos and logic

and some sort of achievement of

individualization individual autonomy

that is is the end goal of discussion

here right so let's assume like correct

me if I wrong again that's the end

objective here's the thing it seems no I

wouldn't say that exactly I wouldn't I

wouldn't say that exactly I think that's

I think that's too

individualistic I would say that what

you want is two things happening

simultaneously is that you want to

maximize individual development but you

want to do that in a way that brings the

the greatest amount of Harmony

simultaneously possible to the familial

unit and also to the broader social unit

so those things those interests have to

be stacked it's like what's best for you

but that's also in a manner that's best

for your family and for your community

so it's it's not purely individual so so

on that basis of achieving communal

Harmony and individual Freedom at the

same time wouldn't you say that there's

certain forms of free spe or hate speech

they're so vehement and so delignifying

that it disrupts both local Harmony

within communities but also makes

individuals feel as if they can't really

engage in retaliatory you know

clarificatory discourse against them

because they fear the potential

repercussions even if it doesn't lead to

violence they just fear it so much that

it might irrationally or rationally even

drive Happ happens all the time it it in

fact it's the standard it's the standard

situation you know if you look across

the world most societies don't do a good

job of either promoting or allowing Free

Speech it's a I don't know how we ever

managed it it's so unlikely because it's

so it's so hard on people and and hard

on those who occupy positions of power

in tyrannical hierarchies that I can't I

can't believe that any society's ever

managed to figure it out at all so those

dangers are always there and and and I

also think the the highest likelihood

often is that societies that do put high

value on Free Speech will lose that

because it's so difficult to maintain so

but with regards to hate speech for

example let's say

that things would be much better if

there was less hateful speech it's

like seems highly probable to me

especially if you look at the more

egregious forms of hateful speech

how best to regulate it well my sense is

is you let those who wish to utter

hateful things do so and let everyone

hear them because that's the best way to

ensure that what they're saying will be

understood and rejected now in order to

posit that you have to assume

that the population composed of

sovereign individuals is wiser than it

is

foolish and you know that's that's

that's a type that that's a hope you

might think about it as an axiom of

Faith but I do believe it to be the case

I think that if you if you put the

evidence in front of people by and large

they will do the right thing I think

that if you if you the problem with

regulating hate speech it's very

simple who defines hate and the answer

to that is over any reasonable period of

time exactly the people you would least

want to have Define hate and so the

consequences of the regulation

become in in incalculably worse as a

problem than the problem that they were

designed to deal with to think otherwise

is to think in a sort of utopian manner

it's like well we have a problem hate

speech well we can come up with a

solution and there will be no problems

with that solution it's like no no no no

that isn't how the world works you know

when I'm negotiating with my clinical

clients one of the things I always tell

them is often because they're in

difficult circumstances and often not

for psychological reasons it's like no

you don't understand you're screwed both

ways you don't you don't have an option

here where you're not going to suffer

that's that that's what it means to be

in a bad situation you're going to pay a

price both ways you can pick your price

okay so we're going to have hate speech

or we're going to have the consequences

of the arbitrary regulation of hate

speech well I know what the consequences

are of the arbitrary regulation of hate

speech is that things get a lot worse

because Hate's very difficult to Define

and that's actually a real problem when

you're trying to regulate it because you

have to be able to Define it and we're

already at a point where well you made

someone uncomfortable why isn't that

hate speech I mean I was basically asked

that by one of your by one of your most

outstanding J journalists or your most

popular journalist well why should you

have the right to say something that's

offensive it's

like we can we can think that through

let's think that through for a minute so

I mean my repost to her essentially

although this wasn't directly it was

that's not a very smart question for a

journalist to be asking right because of

all people who should never ask that

question would be standup Comics right

and journalists because that's all they

ever do that's what it means to be a

journalist is to ask a question that's

going to be offensive to someone who the

hell wants to hear about what you've

discovered unless it's about something

contentious and important so it was it

was a jaw-dropping question as far as I

was concerned and the fact that it was a

jaw-dropping question was part of the

reason why that video went viral okay so

now let's think about offensiveness as

part of hate okay so the first thing we

might say is

that you really need to think when you

have a difficult problem and a difficult

problem is one where there's something

at stake it might be your life it might

be your well-being but it's it's it's

and then we might say well there's going

to be a diversity of opinions about that

particular conundrum if it actually

happens to be difficult and so even to

discuss it because if you discuss it

you're going to discuss option A it's

going to annoy all the people who want

option b or you're going to discuss

option B and that's going to annoy all

the people that want option A and maybe

there's 10 options so if you're going to

discuss anything of any real

significance what soever you're going to

make people hot under the collar and

you're going to risk offending them okay

so what you just stop talking about

difficult things the answer to that is

yes and that's what's happening but then

there's another problem which

is there isn't anything I could

conceivably say about anything that

isn't going to offend someone if the

crowd is lar large enough so you might

say well if you're talking to two people

you can't offend one of them so you

don't get to offend 50% of the

population it's like okay let's say I'm

talking to a thousand people and one

person finds what I'm saying offensive

say well that's hateful it's like well

that's one in a thousand so should I

stop what if it's one in 10,000 or one

in a million like where's the cut off

and you might think well we'll work that

out it's like no no no no you don't get

it the devil's in the details you work

it out now when you formulate your

restrictions on Free Speech you don't

shunt that off into the future so that

it's a problem that will be solved who

defines

hate insoluable problem don't regulate

it because you can't Define it that's

how it looks to me so you have the the

free Marketplace of ideas so to speak

where the collective can render a

judgment on the acceptability of an idea

on an ongoing basis and that isn't a

great solution because we don't have

great Solutions we we have partial

fragmentary solutions that make us

somewhat less abjectly miserable than we

might be that's what we have and if we

try to if we try to eradicate that kind

of risk completely all we do is magnify

a different kind of

risk thank you Peterson's argument

hinges on the instrumental role of free

speech in society Peterson touches on a

delicate balance promoting individual

Freedom while maintaining communal

Harmony this is a tight RPP walk in

today's world where speech can both

Empower and defend the challenge lies in

nurturing a society where diverse

opinions can coexist without infringing

on communal peace this calls for a

nuanced approach to free speech one that

respects individual autonomy while being

mindful of its impact on the societal

fabric Peterson cautions against the

pitfalls of allowing the government to

Define and regulate hate speech fearing

it could lead to the suppression of

legitimate discourse the challenge in

defining hate speech lies in its

subjectivity what one person considers

is hateful another might see as a

critical opinion this dilemma is not new

philosophers like John Stewart Mill have

long warned against the tyranny of the

majority in matters of free speech as

highlighted in his seminal work on

Liberties Mill argues that protecting

minority opinions even if deemed

offensive by the majority is crucial for

a free and vibrant Society in the modern

context this debate has

intensified a study by the KO Institute

reveals that Americans are increasingly

divided on what constitutes hate speech

with these divisions often falling along

ideological lines this polarization

makes objective regulation challenging

as it risks silencing one group to

appease another legal Scholars like

naden stren argue that the best way to

counter hate speech is not through

regulation but through more speech this

approach trust the Public's ability to

discern and reject hateful ideas a

concept Central to democratic

societies however this method is not

without its challenges

psychologist Jonathan Hyde has raised

concerns about the impact of constant

exposure to extreme views especially in

the digital age in his book The coddling

of the American mind hide discusses how

social media amplifies extreme opinions

potentially leading to increased

polarization and societal fragmentation

this digital era adds a new layer of

complexity to the marketplace of ideas

where extreme views can gain traction

without the traditional filters of

editorial oversight despite these

challenges the marketplace of ideas

remains a vital mechanism for dealing

with hate speech by encouraging open

dialogue and critical thinking Society

can develop resilience against harmful

ideologies this approach Fosters a

culture where ideas are judged on their

merits allowing harmful Notions to be

discredited through public discourse

rather than governmental Fiat