Jordan Peterson SCHOOLS Oxford Student on Hate Speech and Leaves Room SPEECHLESS (Epic Debate)
Summary
TLDRIn 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
🗣️ 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.
🤔 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.
🌐 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Freedom of Speech
💡Logos
💡Hate Speech
💡Dissent
💡Individual Autonomy
💡Communal Harmony
💡Tyranny
💡Polarization
💡Marketplace of Ideas
💡Resilience
💡Regulation
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
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
What Happened To The Education System? - Dr. Phil
Media and Information Literate Citizens: Think Critically, Click Wisely!
Yuval Noah Harari on AI, Future Tech, Society & Global Finance
Campus Free Speech Realities And Myths | Lee Rowland | TEDxUniversityofNevada
In full: Rowan Atkinson on free speech
Will They Arrest Me For Saying This?
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)