You mean that you agree with this bit? "When you differ with the left on any subject—and I mean any—the people who claim to be tolerant don’t attack your position; they attack you." It's the core of what he is saying. He acknowledges later on that not all ideas are equally good, that it's rather about respect for people. So what he's really saying in the video (and I don't see him nuance that at all), is that all the left attacks people on their personality rather than on their opinion whenever someone disagrees with a leftist stance. Do you agree with that opinion? (There is a transcript of his talk here.)
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It's quite funny. So far all I've seen is people actually demonstrating what the guy in the video was explaining
Ok, let's deconstruct the dumpsterfire of a video then.
1. Strawman arguments
This is a common theme in practically every PragerU video I've seen. They make a strawman of the left by carefully selecting views that the left most definitely aren't in agreement on or by over-simplifying the issue. In this case they went with the first one. A lot of people on the left agree that it's not right that transgender athletes can compete against the opposite of their biological gender. And J.K. Rowling also has her fair share of left-wing defenders. The guy in the video could hardly have picked two worse examples.
2. His argument makes no sense
Where do you draw the line between "disagreement" and "intolerance"? He doesn't explain it at all. And based on his arguments it doesn't seem like he understands it himself. For instance, the right-wing in the US often want Christian values to play a big part in education and politics and are often in favor of discriminating against immigrants who don't share those exact values. That is a textbook definition of intolerance that is way better than the examples he used. And not only that, but they are views that are much more representative of the right than his examples are of the left.
what the feck did I just watch?
A steaming load of bollocks.
Not why I called.
We see it demonstrated all the time. I don't think it is limited to the liberal left, and even I fall prey to it at times, but it was funny to see people attack the video without even watching it because they looked at the source.
I actually watched it(and judging by the comments, so did some other posters).
Still: when a channel is infamous for creating absolute garbage and pure propaganda and it's been proven time and time again, you can forgive them for not wanting to waste their time. I certainly regret giving the video a chance
None of this really matters if the logic in the video is flawed. If it is okay to disregard a person for saying something that could be deemed as incorrect, controversial, flawed, offensive, outright wrong, dangerous insulting etc, the video becomes completely meaningless. So and so said X, so he's a fecking cnut and a waste of space. I mean, we don't see things like that in this forum, do we?
What is your point, specifically? I'm confused.
I tried to focus on the content of the video and ignore the PragerU label. My conclusion is that his argument makes no sense and the examples he used of the left are laughably poor. Is deconstructing arguments using FACTS and LOGIC also intolerant now?
What if it is right to immediately attack what is deemed to be a suspect source? In this regard, the video is a load of bollocks, and people who attacked it without even watching it can feel justified.
If we forget the whole leftist perspective for a second, the logic would have to apply universally in order to be taken seriously.
If the guy does have a point about being tolerant of people, but not their certain views, we ought to ask ourselves why this is.
Simple point really, but it's always a pleasure to see how people respond here
First tolerance isn't absolute, some things are intolerable and untolerated, it's not a new concept and it's not a left or right concept either. Secondly the imbecile in the video is seemingly not aware of the American Civil War or he is trying to bamboozle people into thinking that the issue of slavery was settled in a debate.
Last edited:
It's quite funny. So far all I've seen is people actually demonstrating what the guy in the video was explaining
Everyone: “racism is bad”
Vidic blood & sand: “but you’re supposed to be the tolerant ones! Tolerate every view! Ha! I’m so smart!”
Vidic blood & sand: “but you’re supposed to be the tolerant ones! Tolerate every view! Ha! I’m so smart!”
According to the guy's logic, it's the view that you can be intolerant of.
See this:
Someone posted a Tweet from a different PragerU presentation about that, actually. They labelled the people who fought in the war against the Confederates as radicals whilst not attempting to do the same with the Confederates themselves. Everything from them is one-sided and aiming to allow bigots to not only remain bigots but justify why people who are not like them can be harmed.
EDIT: I forgot to add in my last part:
So yeah, he is doing exactly that. One effect of PragerU is to push this viewpoint that the fighting was bad and that slavery would have been abolished had they all sat down together to talk about it (which they did, funnily enough).
You guys can pretty much dismiss the video outright by simply saying that it is fine to not tolerate people you don't agree with 
I actually read that tweet before watching the video. But I still didn't expect anyone to be stupid enough to use the end of slavery in the US as an example of absolute tolerance, there is a limit to idiocy, at least I thought so.
Not sure what you are saying here.
That being intolerant of racism, homophobia, etc is a bad thing?
Why did you praise the video?
I saw that!!
That's right, but we've seen those limits be surpassed time and time again, sadly.
Who the feck calls themselves Prager U? sounds like Facebook talk: one chav asking another chav whether they're pregnant.
First time I've heard of it too. Thank goodness it's not an actual university like those nutty religious ones.
I actually don't mind at all being labelled as "intolerant" by bigots. Being intolerant of injustice, discrimination and bigotry is part of the fight. The right wants us to be harmless, well-meaning cowards incapable of standing up to them, but nope, they're not getting any of that, from me at least.
Intolerance of any view is fine if we can still respect the person with the view.
For example, religious views about homosexuality will differ from western mainstream views.
Does this mean that people of faith have to be despised by the liberal left, or is it enough to simply disagree?
Some views aren't respectable and the people espousing them aren't respectable either. And respect isn't absolute, you need to be respectable in order to be respected.
Adolf Hitler had fecking awful views, but of course we still have to respect him as he's a person after all.
Where do you draw the line, though? If I created my own religion and made one of the commandments "Thou shall kill as many puppies as possible" you'd be right to despise me. That would not really be intolerance.
Religion is a tricky one(not really, but we have to pretend that it is), because it's literally the only "valid" excuse for having shitty opinions and getting away with it.
No that would be intolerance but intolerance isn't a bad thing nor is tolerance a good thing. Both are qualified by the subject they are attached to.
The thing is, the vast majority of those on the right, are not intolerant racist bigots. It's all nonsense.
Again, this kind of talk is actually giving the video I posted some credibility.
Who said that? Certainly not most leftists.
How intolerant of you to assume that!
Do you respect Hitler? Bin Laden? Stalin?
Tucker Carlson called, he wants his headline back.
I'm gonna have to disagree with this.
It's putting a big onus on them to take everything into account 24/7. Even in situations where they just wanna have fun themselves.
If someone's got an issue with certain behavior, they can ask the person what their intent was or to quit doing it. But to expect the other party to always think of the optics is unfair.
That person can put the same onus on you to stop thinking there's malicious intent where there is none.
Again, I couldn't care less.
Rhetorical manipulators, dis-informants and propagandists who are attempting to mainstream and legitimize their platform by consciously and strategically handpicking trustworthy-sounding and sanitized names. Prager University, Newsmax, The Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, FreedomWorks, et cetera — birds of a feather that primarily cater to demaslaves via feedback loops (but also worryingly succeed in incrementally indoctrinating oblivious passersby that think of them as unimpeachable sources of knowledge).
That's literally impossible, and I'm not trying to be funny or hyperbolic.
I get that you're doing a bit where you think you're exposing "the left's" hypocrisy, but you're just making yourself look as vapid and idiotic as that video.
I think there should be universal common ground regarding those, don't you?
I think there is always a difference between tolerating people's right to have a view and to express it in speech than respecting it. It doesn't mean either than anyone automatically has a right to a public platform to express their views. I think every generation goes through the discussion as to where we draw the line. I think the interesting question is always if we want to impose censorship, to whom to we award the power to censor what we can hear, see and read?
Personally I enjoyed this video of Hitchens on the subject on free speech, and I would just like to add, that it isn't because he ends up on the topic of militant Islam but because of how he covers the subject of free speech in general.
Personally I enjoyed this video of Hitchens on the subject on free speech, and I would just like to add, that it isn't because he ends up on the topic of militant Islam but because of how he covers the subject of free speech in general.
Last edited:
But why? Where do you draw the arbitrary line between "respect the person" and "these people should be universally hated"?