The nonpartisan Dartmouth Political Union hosted our Reverse Q&A visit to Dartmouth College in May. In this highlight video, we hear interviews with students before and after the event and excerpts from spectrum conversations. Claims explored include: The consideration of race should be removed from the college admission process; Speech is violence; and, ‘My body, my choice’ should be consistent for vaccines and abortions. Attendees offered a variety of claims to consider, and we see Peter Boghossian use a variation of the Delphi technique with the audience to achieve consensus regarding which to discuss.
The last girl who thinks you ( PB ) are a “conservative” is guilty of oversimplification. I’ve watched dozens of your videos and I have no clue as to what your economic views; I think “conservative” with out explanation and qualification is almost meaningless. So many Americans seem to be unable to separate Social Conservatism from economic conservatism and Social Liberalism from Leftwing economic views. Unless more context is used these words have basically become meaningless.
e.g. Southern Black Americans tend towards to be social conservatism but economic leftism. Neither word alone is a useful descriptor in this case.
PG doesn’t strike me as “conservative” at all, more like an enlightenment Liberal. But that’s just my assumption from the videos and articles I’ve been exposed to. 40 years ago he would have been called a liberal. I think people can’t separate Democrat vs Republican from conservative vs liberal. No shades of gray.
The participation of the young college students in this "Highlights" Video is very encouraging to see and hear!
Given that these young people were willing, when given the opportunity to consider and share their opinions concerning some of the major issues facing our society, gives me great appreciation for what you are accomplishing through these campus visits, Peter. Large or small, the participation will send ripples throughout the community.
Without the willingness to question themselves and be open to learning other perspectives, there would be reason to be less hopeful. But hearing these future leaders speak to how they viewed this experience, given the "freedom" to express their feelings, thoughts and concerns is reason for great hope.
Thank you for the work that you and your crew are accomplishing!
I liked so much about this video. I liked the girl at the end who said she appreciated the courage of those who were willing to be filmed. With the way video is easily cut, allowing one short thing you say to be taken out of context and potentially spread virally, she herself did not have the courage to be filmed. I now understand cancel culture more deeply. Still, she said she would want the nonpartisan political group she is in to discuss political claims in the same way in the future. Just not on camera. So that's something. In fact, it's big, as speaking aloud helps people to hone their beliefs.
Also, I wanted to thank you Peter, for the confidence I have had this past week to speak up a disagreement with two good friends on the subject of the Martha's Vineyard flight. Normally, I am in political agreement with both of these people. Neither were expecting my disagreement, and it was interesting to see the reactions. These were two separate discussions, each discussion one on one.
One person fell back on sarcasm and then labelling me. The other went into a rant to further state her opinion. I let it be in both cases, because I wasn't going to be changing their viewpoint by arguing. Their opinions at the time were too intense, and they obviously felt threatened. But my opinion is out there, and this won't be the last on this subject, I am reasonably sure.
Peter, can you help me address an idea I've had around 'Equal Opportunity' and the common presentation of 'Equal Opportunity vs Equal Outcome' as a useful and coherent point of debate. I've been pointing it out to various people like yourself for years, with no response.
My argument is this:
1) Equality of outcome ventures quickly and necessarily tend towards increasing levels of totalitarianism, Cutting Down The Tall Poppies, Harrison Bergenon-ing, etc.
"Utopia can only approached across a sea of blood, and you never arrive."
2) Equal opportunity ventures *are themselves a type* of equal outcome ventures.
The type of desired equal outcome being that of 'opportunity'.
3) Therefore, Equality of opportunity ventures do also necessarily tend towards increasingly levels of totalitarianism, Cutting Down The Tall Poppies, Harrison Bergenon-ing, etc.
4) Therefore, equality of opportunity ventures as as foolish and destructive a venture as any other equality of outcome venture, and should not be pursued.
Those offering Equality of Opportunity as a suitable substitute, alternative for the modern ubiquitous Equality of Outcome doctrine are offering the same gruel in a different bowl.
The last girl who thinks you ( PB ) are a “conservative” is guilty of oversimplification. I’ve watched dozens of your videos and I have no clue as to what your economic views; I think “conservative” with out explanation and qualification is almost meaningless. So many Americans seem to be unable to separate Social Conservatism from economic conservatism and Social Liberalism from Leftwing economic views. Unless more context is used these words have basically become meaningless.
e.g. Southern Black Americans tend towards to be social conservatism but economic leftism. Neither word alone is a useful descriptor in this case.
PG doesn’t strike me as “conservative” at all, more like an enlightenment Liberal. But that’s just my assumption from the videos and articles I’ve been exposed to. 40 years ago he would have been called a liberal. I think people can’t separate Democrat vs Republican from conservative vs liberal. No shades of gray.
The participation of the young college students in this "Highlights" Video is very encouraging to see and hear!
Given that these young people were willing, when given the opportunity to consider and share their opinions concerning some of the major issues facing our society, gives me great appreciation for what you are accomplishing through these campus visits, Peter. Large or small, the participation will send ripples throughout the community.
Without the willingness to question themselves and be open to learning other perspectives, there would be reason to be less hopeful. But hearing these future leaders speak to how they viewed this experience, given the "freedom" to express their feelings, thoughts and concerns is reason for great hope.
Thank you for the work that you and your crew are accomplishing!
I liked so much about this video. I liked the girl at the end who said she appreciated the courage of those who were willing to be filmed. With the way video is easily cut, allowing one short thing you say to be taken out of context and potentially spread virally, she herself did not have the courage to be filmed. I now understand cancel culture more deeply. Still, she said she would want the nonpartisan political group she is in to discuss political claims in the same way in the future. Just not on camera. So that's something. In fact, it's big, as speaking aloud helps people to hone their beliefs.
Also, I wanted to thank you Peter, for the confidence I have had this past week to speak up a disagreement with two good friends on the subject of the Martha's Vineyard flight. Normally, I am in political agreement with both of these people. Neither were expecting my disagreement, and it was interesting to see the reactions. These were two separate discussions, each discussion one on one.
One person fell back on sarcasm and then labelling me. The other went into a rant to further state her opinion. I let it be in both cases, because I wasn't going to be changing their viewpoint by arguing. Their opinions at the time were too intense, and they obviously felt threatened. But my opinion is out there, and this won't be the last on this subject, I am reasonably sure.
Peter, can you help me address an idea I've had around 'Equal Opportunity' and the common presentation of 'Equal Opportunity vs Equal Outcome' as a useful and coherent point of debate. I've been pointing it out to various people like yourself for years, with no response.
My argument is this:
1) Equality of outcome ventures quickly and necessarily tend towards increasing levels of totalitarianism, Cutting Down The Tall Poppies, Harrison Bergenon-ing, etc.
"Utopia can only approached across a sea of blood, and you never arrive."
2) Equal opportunity ventures *are themselves a type* of equal outcome ventures.
The type of desired equal outcome being that of 'opportunity'.
3) Therefore, Equality of opportunity ventures do also necessarily tend towards increasingly levels of totalitarianism, Cutting Down The Tall Poppies, Harrison Bergenon-ing, etc.
4) Therefore, equality of opportunity ventures as as foolish and destructive a venture as any other equality of outcome venture, and should not be pursued.
Those offering Equality of Opportunity as a suitable substitute, alternative for the modern ubiquitous Equality of Outcome doctrine are offering the same gruel in a different bowl.
Thank you.