가입하기 로그인
번역의 전당
최신 번역 영상
번역해 주세요
번역자 포럼
하이라이트
갤러리
최근 본 동영상
지금 로그인하여 원하는
갤러리에 가입해 보세요!

로그인 가입하기
누날 문의
@2019Noonal
patent pending technology

약관보기
개인정보 처리방침

Hate Speech Doesn't Exist
조회수 294회 · 1년 전
번역자 : 클로이
저장
하이라이트 제작
해외 보수 유튜버 영상
갤러리 참여



표현의자유>>>>>>나만 불편해??

다음 동영상
자동 재생
Hate Speech Doesn't Exist
해외 보수 유튜버 영상
조회수 294회 · 1년 전
You Can't Fix Other People, But You Can Fix Yourself
Want a better life? Want to make the world a better place? You can, when you take responsibility and start bettering yourself. Best-selling author and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson explains how incremental daily changes can lead to a better life and ultimately a more harmonious world. This video was made possible thanks to the generous support of Dr. Bob.
Will Witt Asks if We Should Ban "Hate Speech"
Will Witt visits Playa Vista, home of YouTube Space, to find out what "hate speech" means, and whether it should be censored. Check it out!
The 3 Rules of Hate Speech: Free Speech Rules (Episode 2)
Here are three rules you should know about "Hate Speech" and the First Amendment: 1. The First Amendment protects all ideas, loving, hateful, or in between. In the United States, “hate speech” is just a political label, like “un-American speech” or “rude speech.” Some people use the phrase broadly, some more narrowly - but there’s no legal definition, because there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment.. As the Supreme Court held in 1974, “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas." Or, in 2017: “...the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'" That’s from Matal v. Tam, in which the government denied a trademark to an Asian-American band, because the band’s name was seen by some as a racial slur. The government wasn’t even trying to ban the name; it was just denying trademark registration to people who used the name. But even that, the Court concluded, was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and violated the First Amendment. 2. Some speech is not protected by the First Amendment, regardless of whether it’s bigoted or hateful Threats of violence are constitutionally unprotected. That includes all threats--racist threats, threats to police officers, business owners, the President, anyone. Likewise, intentionally inciting immediate violence is sometimes punishable. Classic example: Giving a speech to a mob outside a building, urging them to burn it down. Personal insults said to someone’s face might also be punishable, as so-called “fighting words.” That’s true regardless of whether the insults stem from personal hostility or group hatred related to race, religion, and the like. Indeed, in 1992, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that specially targeted bigoted fighting words. 3. Hate crime laws are constitutional, so long as when they punish violence or vandalism, not speech The classic example is Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the 1993 case in which the Supreme Court unanimously upheld hate crimes laws. Todd Mitchell, a young black man, urged some friends to beat up a white boy because the boy was white. Wisconsin law made the beating into a more serious crime because the boy was targeted based on his race. The Court said this is fine, because “a physical assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.” And while the law increased the punishment because of the defendant’s intent, the law often punishes people more because of why they did what they did. Killing someone for money will get you a harsher punishment than killing them out of momentary anger. Likewise, firing an employee because of his race will get you a civil lawsuit; firing an employee for most other reasons won’t. None of this covers the mere expression of hateful ideas, or the use of words that some see as hateful. Those are generally protected by the First Amendment. But why? The Justices generally agree that racist ideas, for instances, are wrong and dangerous. Why would the Justices say hate speech is constitutionally protected? Because they don’t trust government officials to decide which ideas are wrong and dangerous. They worry that if government officials had the power to ban evil ideas, that power would quickly stretch to punishing a wide range of debate and dissent. And they see the First Amendment as requiring that distrust. In the words of Justice Black, echoed by the Supreme Court in 1972, “The freedoms ...guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.” Written by Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment law professor at UCLA. Produced and edited by Austin Bragg, who is not. This is the second episode of Free Speech Rules, a video series on free speech and the law. Volokh is the co-founder of the Volokh Conspiracy, which is hosted at Reason.com. This is not legal advice. If this were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill. Please use responsibly. Music: "Lobby Time" by Kevin MacLeod, Incompetech.com Music: "You Make Me Alive" by The Slants Wookie Icon by Jory Raphael, symbolicons.com For full text visit https://reason.com/reasontv/2019/02/19/the-3-rules-of-hate-speech
Freedom of speech 'no longer exists' in Australia and the UK: Katie Hopkins
Stringent government control and oppressive social media platforms are forcing Australians to self-censor themselves, according to controversial media personality Katie Hopkins. Ms Hopkins, who is known for her strident support of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, says social media giants like Twitter and Facebook often punish those whose views fall out of the mainstream. She told Sky News freedom of speech, which was once the bedrock of democracy, "no longer exists" in many western nations. "Frankly, no one would defend freedom of speech to their death because we (Australia and the UK) don't have it anymore," she said. "Good Australians that I know and I love, they self-censor everywhere they go because they can no longer speak about how they think or how they feel. "It's the mechanism of control." Image: Getty
Free speech under attack
Is free speech under fire on Canadian university campuses? Some say it's being stifled in the name of political correctness. »»» Subscribe to The National to watch more videos here: https://www.youtube.com/user/CBCTheNational?sub_confirmation=1 Voice Your Opinion & Connect With Us Online: The National Updates on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thenational The National Updates on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CBCTheNational The National Updates on Google+: https://plus.google.com/+CBCTheNational »»» »»» »»» »»» »»» The National is CBC Television's flagship news program. Airing seven days a week, the show delivers news, feature documentaries and analysis from some of Canada's leading journalists.
Racism Is Not in America's DNA
Americans want to be united. The left wants us divided. Larry Elder rebuts the claim that America is inherently racist.
What Is Hate Speech? We Asked College Students
How should "hate speech" be defined, and should it be regulated? We went to the campus of USC to ask college students, who are on the front lines of America's free speech battles. Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/ Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: https://goo.gl/az3a7a Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ----------------
Who Are the Most Powerful People in America?
The genius of America is that it was set up as a representative government, but increasingly, Americans are ruled over by leaders who are unelected, and very powerful. Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger unmasks the people who are really ruling our lives. Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips. iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! SHOP! Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/ JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9 Script: Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips. iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9 Script: If someone suggested to you that Americans should reject representative government and return to the rule of kings, you would laugh. “This is America,” you would say. “In our revolution, we got rid of monarchy.” And, of course, you’d be right – but only to a point. Monarchy is making a comeback – though not in the way you think. Let me explain. A king is one person. Get rid of him and you might get your freedom back. But what do you do when the nation has come to be controlled by thousands of little king – almost supreme in their specialized fiefdoms – who have vast power over your life, much as a king might? Good question, because that’s what we’re up against. This regime is called the “administrative state.” Its little kings are unelected “bureaucrats,” officially known as “administrators,” “secretaries,” or even “czars.” And, make no mistake, they are very powerful. Their decisions affect us every day. The FDA, the FCC, the SEC, and so on and so on. Put together almost any three or four random letters and chances are you’ve stumbled on a government agency. These agencies and the people in them shape our lives – often for the worse. Many farmers in California lost their livelihoods because the Fish and Wildlife Service decided that the delta smelt (a tiny fish) was more important than the farmers’ water supply. That decision may have been right, or it may have been wrong. My point is simply that the decision should have been made by our lawmakers—who are accountable to us at the next election. Those farmers are among the millions of hard-working people directly hurt by the administrative state. And many more millions have been indirectly hurt – such as all those discouraged from even starting a business by miles of bureaucratic red tape. This is not an argument against government regulation per se, but against regulation imposed by bureaucrats rather than by our elected lawmakers whom we can hold accountable at the next election. Here’s the larger danger: As bureaucracy grows, individual freedom diminishes. How did we get into this mess? And, more importantly, how do we get out of it? For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/who-are-most-powerful-people-america
Why Trump Won
Were you shocked at the results of the 2016 American presidential election? Most people were, but Stephen Harper was not one of them. Here, the former Prime Minister of Canada explains the trends that foreshadowed Trump’s victory and left many political elites looking wildly out of touch. Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips. iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! SHOP! Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/ JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9 Script: I was elected to the Parliament of Canada seven times—three times as Prime Minister. I did not expect Donald Trump to be elected President of the United States. But unlike most observers, I did think it was at least possible. Why? Because I sensed, as Mr. Trump surely did, that the political landscape had shifted. The underlying issue is this: Over the last few decades, thanks to globalization, a billion people—mostly in the emerging markets of Asia—have lifted themselves out of poverty. This, of course, is a good thing. Yet, in many Western countries, the incomes of working people have stagnated or even declined over the same period. In short, many Americans voted for Donald Trump because the global economy has not been working for them. We can pretend that this is a false perception. We can keep trying to convince people that they misunderstand their own lives. Or we can try to understand what they are saying and offer some solutions. I prefer the latter approach. Let me begin with this: In our contemporary world, there are, as British journalist David Goodhart describes it, those who can live “Anywhere,” and those who live “Somewhere.” Imagine you work for an international bank, computer company, or consulting firm. You can wake up in New York, London, or Singapore and feel at home. Your work is not threatened by import competition or technological dislocation. You vocally support all international trade agreements and high levels of immigration. You are one of those who can live Anywhere. There are a lot of those people. But there are a lot more completely unlike them. Let’s say you’re a factory worker, a small-businessperson, or in retail sales. Your work has been disrupted by outsourcing, cheap imports and technological change. Your children attend the local schools and your aging parents live nearby. Your social life is connected to a local church, sports team, or community group. If things go badly at your company, or if policy choices by politicians turn out to be wrong, you can’t just shift your life to somewhere else. Like it or not, you depend on the economic policies of your national or state government. When it doesn’t come through for you, you’re not happy. And when it ignores you entirely, you get angry. It’s easy for Anywheres to dismiss these concerns. But the Anywheres’ faith in global solutions and multi-national political bodies is founded more on fantasy than fact. The fact is, the critical functions of laws and regulations and monetary and fiscal stability, among other things, are provided by nations, not global institutions. The nation, with all its flaws, is a concrete reality. The “global community” is little more than a concept. Yet it is the Anywheres, with their faith in globalization—not the Somewheres—who have dominated the politics of almost every advanced country. That is, until now. This sea-change is not limited to the United States. The same dynamics—“Anywhere” elites versus “Somewhere” populists—is playing out all across the Western world. These populists, as I’ve tried to show, are not the ignorant and misguided “deplorables” depicted in mainstream media. They are our family, friends, and neighbors. The populists represent, by definition, the interests of ordinary people. And, in a democratic system, the people are supposed to be our customers. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/why-trump-won
Does the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech?
America's Town Hall: Join the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society for a debate hosted by the National Constitution Center on whether the First Amendment protects hate speech. Speakers include David French of the National Review, and Shannon Gilreath of Wake Forest University School of Law. This event was moderated by Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO, National Constitution Center. Note: The following video contains profane language in the context of the discussion between event panelists.
Does Free Speech Offend You?
Should offensive speech be banned? Where should we, as a society, draw the line where permitted speech is on one side, and forbidden speech is on the other? Should we even have that line? And should free speech be limited by things like trigger warnings and punishments for microaggressions? Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, answers these questions and more. Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. http://prageru.com/signup Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips. iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff Script: Freedom of speech. The ability to express yourself. It's a cherished idea -- as well it should be. Most of us who live in liberal Western democracies think of it as a basic human right. People have fought and died for it. But now we may be in danger of losing it. The threat is not coming from without -- from external enemies -- but from within. A generation is being raised not to believe in freedom OF speech, but rather that they should have freedom FROM speech -- from speech they dislike. This is a threat to both pluralism and democracy itself. We see this in Europe where "sensitivity-based" censorship attempts to ban anything deemed hateful or even just hurtful, and to ban criticism of religion, especially Islam. But the United States, despite its strong Constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights is far from immune from the rising trend of suppression of speech, or what is sometimes called political correctness. This is especially true at America's colleges and universities, the place where our future leaders are educated and where you'd expect speech to be the most free. Highly restrictive speech codes are now the norm on campuses, not the exception. According to a study by my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -- FIRE -- 54% of public universities and 59% of private universities impose politically correct speech codes on their students. And thanks to recent Department of Education guidelines 100% of colleges may adopt speech codes in the coming years. How bad is it? At a public campus in California on Constitution Day in 2013, a student who also happens to be a decorated military veteran was told he could not hand out copies of the Constitution to his fellow students. The objection from the university was not ideological; it was out of control bureaucracy imposing limits on speech. That same day another college student in that same state was told he could not protest NSA surveillance outside of a tiny "free speech zone," an area that comprised only 1.37% of the campus. Months later, college students in Hawaii were told both they could not hand out the constitution to their fellow students and that they could not protest NSA policies outside the school's free speech zone! FIRE took these colleges to court, but the that fact we had to shows you how bad it has become. Recently, students and sympathetic faculty have joined forces to exclude campus speakers whose opinions they dislike. At FIRE we call this "disinvitation season" although the season lasts all year round. Since 2009 there has been a major uptick in the push by students and faculty to get speakers they dislike disinvited. These speakers have included former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; the Somali-born feminist and critic of Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali; and the director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde. And that's only the obvious part of the disinvitation problem. Few conservative speakers are invited to speak at colleges lest they have to be "disinivited" later. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/does-free-speech-offend-you
Jordan Peterson: Free Speech & the Right to Offend
Canadian psychologist Professor Jordan B Peterson is interviewed by ABC's Leigh Sales for 7.30, 12/3/2018. ... FOR LICENSING ENQUIRIES VISIT http://www.abccommercial.com/buy-content Subscribe to ABC Library Sales: https://www.youtube.com/user/ABCLibrarySales
Who Does the Media Most Want to Silence?
In the mainstream media, women on the left are almost always portrayed as paragons of compassion and virtue. But when it comes to conservative women, it’s a different story. Why is this? Heather Higgins, chairman of Independent Women's Forum and CEO of Independent Women's Voice, explains the reasons behind the double standard.  For more information on Independent Women's Forum visit IWF.org Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h To view the script, sources, quiz, and study guides, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/who-does-the-media-most-want-to-silence VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! SHOP! Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/ JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9 Script: Who's the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court? My guess is that most Americans would answer: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She’s so famous now that she is often referred to just by her initials—RBG. Elevated to the high court by President Bill Clinton in 1993, the left-leaning Justice Ginsburg was the subject of not one, but two movies in 2018 alone. But she isn’t the first female Supreme Court justice. She’s the second. The first doesn’t have a movie named after her. That’s because Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed by a Republican president, Ronald Reagan. We hear a lot about “the year of the woman,” “the women’s march,” and “the war against women.” But if the major media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, CBS and others—were more interested in accuracy than advocacy, it would be that they are promoting “the year of leftist woman” or “the leftist women’s march.” The major media like to pretend that all women think alike and that conservative women are just the exception that proves the rule. But according to a 2018 Pew Research study, about a third of women are Democrats; a little less than a third are Republican; and a little more than a third are independents. So if there are all these conservative women around, how does the media make it seem like they barely exist? They use three strategies. The first is Omission: If you don’t see something, you don’t have to deal with it. Open up a glossy magazine. Every liberal woman is glamorized. Stylishly dressed, beautifully photographed, their personal stories are almost always an inspirational version of Joan of Arc: they have overcome overwhelming obstacles to make the world a more compassionate and tolerant place. Glamour magazine recognized eleven Democrat women among their 2018 Women of the Year. No Republican made the cut. First Lady Michelle Obama was on the cover of Vogue three times. First Lady and former fashion model Melania Trump? So far, not once. Every now and again, the major media will do a story about a female conservative to “balance things out.” But, let’s be honest, it’s not balance—it’s tokenism. The second strategy the media uses to diminish conservative women is Mocking: Making fun of a woman’s appearance discounts what she says. You would think the major media would resist this kind of objectification. But they don’t. Not if the target is a conservative woman. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, and Kellyanne Conway, the first woman to run a winning presidential campaign, are routinely belittled for their hair, their eye makeup, or their weight. Their significant accomplishments, in contrast, are rarely acknowledged. Why? Because the media doesn’t like their boss. And it treats women who work for him as traitors to their sex. The third strategy the media uses to demean conservative women is Labeling: Using stereotypes precludes there being a valid reason for conservative women to hold the positions they do. The major media simply can’t accept that conservatives have serious and important reasons for their beliefs. So they have to come up with answers to explain this seeming anomaly to themselves: these women must be racist or self-hating or just weak-minded. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/who-does-the-media-most-want-to-silence
Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids
Dangerous people are filling the heads of young people with dangerous nonsense. Who are these people? They are what Jordan Peterson calls “the post-modernists:” neo-Marxist professors who dominate our colleges and universities. And here’s the worst part: we are financing these nihilists with tax dollars, alumni gifts and tuition payments. Time to wise up. After watching this video, please take our quick survey: https://l.prageru.com/2M7DstJ Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips. iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9 Script: You may not realize it, but you are currently funding some dangerous people. They are indoctrinating young minds throughout the West with their resentment-ridden ideology. They have made it their life's mission to undermine Western civilization itself, which they regard as corrupt, oppressive and “patriarchal.” If you're a taxpayer—or paying for your kid's liberal arts degree—you're underwriting this gang of nihilists. You're supporting ideologues who claim that all truth is subjective; that all sex differences are socially constructed; and that Western imperialism is the sole source of all Third World problems. They are the post-modernists, pushing “progressive” activism at a college near you. They produce the mobs that violently shut down campus speakers; the language police who enshrine into law use of fabricated gender pronouns; and the deans whose livelihoods depend on madly rooting out discrimination where little or none exists. Their thinking took hold in Western universities in the ‘60s and ‘70s, when the true believers of the radical left became the professors of today. And now we rack up education-related debt—not so that our children learn to think critically, write clearly, or speak properly, but so they can model their mentors' destructive agenda. It's now possible to complete an English degree and never encounter Shakespeare—one of those dead white males whose works underlie our “society of oppression.” To understand and oppose the post-modernists, the ideas by which they orient themselves must be clearly identified. First is their new unholy trinity of diversity, equity and inclusion. Diversity is defined not by opinion, but by race, ethnicity or sexual identity; equity is no longer the laudable goal of equality of opportunity, but the insistence on equality of outcome; and inclusion is the use of identity-based quotas to attain this misconceived state of equity. All the classic rights of the West are to be considered secondary to these new values. Take, for example, freedom of speech—the very pillar of democracy. The post-modernists refuse to believe that people of good will can exchange ideas and reach consensus. Their world is instead a Hobbesian nightmare of identity groups warring for power. They don't see ideas that run contrary to their ideology as simply incorrect. They see them as integral to the oppressive system they wish to supplant, and consider it a moral obligation to stifle and constrain their expression. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities...but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change. Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. http://prageru.com/signup Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips. iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff Script: I’m an atmospheric physicist. I’ve published more than 200 scientific papers. For 30 years I taught at MIT, during which time the climate has changed remarkably little. But the cry of “global warming” has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming or, as it is now called—“climate change.” There are basically three groups of people dealing with this issue. Groups one and two are scientists. Group three consists mostly, at its core, of politicians, environmentalists and the media. Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1). These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels—oil, coal and natural gas. This releases C02, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe, this might eventually dangerously heat the planet. Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. This is the group I belong to. We’re usually referred to as skeptics. We note that there are many reasons why the climate changes—the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of other inputs. None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor. But actually there is much agreement between both groups of scientists. The following are such points of agreement: 1) The climate is always changing. 2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming. 3) Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century. 4) Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role. 5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say