Skip to main content

tv   Worlds Apart  RT  August 14, 2021 10:30pm-11:00pm EDT

10:30 pm
about free speech. well, i think the reason they should give a damn it is that every great movement for social justice, every great campaign to fight oppression in history, the 9 states was powered upon and depended upon free speech. that's really why we wrote the book to remind people about the radical uses and the radical potential of free speech. unfortunately, in my view, free speech and course the united states has now been coded as a conservative value. and i find this ridiculous and a historic and the reason we wrote the book and the reason that you should get down if you want to make anything better in america, you need free speech. and every campaign to do that has relied on, i think, not only in this part of the world, but also many americans. i see free speech as something that is in line with abuse of the powers that be everything else is categorized as
10:31 pm
either propaganda or let's say, hey speech, how would you personally go about separating all those things? it's important to make some distinctions just because i believe in the right to free speech. doesn't mean that i agree with all speech and doesn't mean i endorse it. i endorse the really just people to say what they think. that doesn't mean i agree with what they think and often they don't. i'm sorry, often i don't. so you medicine have speech. he speaks is protected in the united states were protected. mean says that the court said that the constitutional wow speak the say he thinks i agree with that. but i also believe in raising one's voice against hateful speech. so i both believe that it will be, should be allowed and the people of good will should release their voices against
10:32 pm
it, which is itself a form of free speech. so the question is whether the state should be in the business of regulating and i don't believe it should be. so in this context what that 3 is referred to free. why, though free to do what free to be. 3 feet regulation and control why regulation and control? because you know that many of the public flora in the united states privately owned, why do you make ration? well, because i mean, the constitution says congress shall make no law that a bridge is freedom speak right. the constitution, the bill of rights is directed at the government. that is, the 1st amendment is phrased in negative terms. it doesn't say you can say anything you want to any talk. what it says, if we can't pass laws, it prevent you from speak while, but you know, you know, definitely that life is,
10:33 pm
you know, brighter and more inventive than the lot. i mean, it's definitely broader than the law counselor need to be curtailed with laws being fully applied. right. and look, i think it's important to make a distinction between what the constitution says and let's just say our public spirit around free speech. so i'm not concerned right now in the united states about i, you know, i shoot for on the part of the government to censor people. that does happen sometimes, but the biggest worry for me is that we're censoring ourselves. we find a way we're allowed to do. i just think it's wrong headed. so you mentioned college campuses earlier. there was a lot of censorship going on college campuses, but it's not a matter of like bad guys with baseball bats and sunglasses more around. and you
10:34 pm
know, inhibiting people want to speak. one of us is that i believe we blow off the culture of free speech, which is a different question. that is, we've made environment, they're not friendly to people speaking their minds. well, i actually agree with you 100 percent, because when i was studying in the states back in early 2, thousands, many of my media law professors would side these will tearing the principal. i disagree with with what you say, but i will defend your right to said to my very death. and nowadays my own university has a pretty long records of canceling speakers. why not even controversial? i mean they, they're just not subscribing fully to the new ethics that they can over the american campuses. correct. i know that this is a very complex phenomenon, but, but why do you think it is so contagious? why do you think so prevalent across the entire academia which is supposed to be
10:35 pm
based on critical thinking as the very premise of its operation? well, i think that a couple of things to remember. first of all, cancel culture as you mentioned, is real. but i want to emphasize your listeners, it's bipartisan, that's what makes it so strong. so if you turn on fox news, if you turn on right wing radio in this country, while you hear about or cases where less meeting people shout down conservative speakers. and that does happen, fox is right, and that's deplorable on fox won't tell you, is that republican lead state legislatures right now are trying to pass laws to prevent people competing about critical lead here. i think the american culture, i don't know what it's powerful is it's bipartisan. well, it's bi partisan when it comes to the media, but i ask you about the academia. academia, like, let's not put them into the that's good because i agree. the journalists are also
10:36 pm
supposed to be at balance. i mean, this is the very premise of our profession, but when it comes to me, i think the standard is standard is much higher. i mean, isn't that supposed to be different in that very? i agree with you and this is a problem and it is true that on our campuses, the campuses are run by professors administrators mostly come from the last, although not entirely. so it didn't surprise us in a sad way than on campuses. when you see campus leaders will campus students sentence lang people, it often comes from the left, but we live in a culture of it's bigger than our universities. and one of the really sad things that the united states right now is the same. people complain about cancer, cultural care. and that's really the story purposes. zimmerman. in the previous interviews, he talked about the psychologist of politics,
10:37 pm
the framing of political claims in terms of psychological harm, which happened over the last 20 years or so. now i'm not sure. the american politics was amber. 3 psychology, i think. but this slide towards the aggressor or, and the me narrative. what do you think? prompted it because if we go back 20 years to the late 9090 doors were some of the most prosperous and triumphant years in the united states. well, i think there are a couple of things that happen, but i think one of them is that we develop much more awareness about mental health in our society and our culture. which by the way, i think is morally salutary that i think it's fantastic that there's been more openness, more a we're about mental health and in some places, also more funds devoting to devoted to treating it. although again,
10:38 pm
not by did in our political realm and unfortunate an unforeseen negative consequence, which is i think, is part of the mental health revolution. we increasingly freeze political claims inside the law. firms at the language mental health became more common. so if you disagree with something i said on this program, you know, just say i disagree with you. i think you're wrong because of the following problems in your evidence or logic. you say your micro grass mate, you say you triggered me. you said your heart be again and some psychological way because those are psychological terms. and i guess an enormous problems or politics because it's almost impossible to have a discourse on that terrain. if you were to say that i, mike regressed, you all, i can we say in responses. i'm sorry. i couldn't deny that because i can't look
10:39 pm
into your soul. so it's a cul de sac. that is, it's a way to cut off discussion at a time when we actually need more of that. he talks about psychology of politics, but i wonder if the opposite is also true because that is the politicizing of psychology because any psychologist would tell you that there is no clear separation to been a victim. and then abuser and abuser is almost always a form, a victim, you know, those things are all in generation. so in a way do you think it's perhaps the mix of both them the manipulation of both psychology and politics? absolutely. i think that's a really fair point, and i think, honest, i will tell you that a lot of claims about micro aggressions and trigger warnings don't really have a lot of psychological basis. they're not grounded in research, even the idea that we should try to use away from something that may be harmful. i
10:40 pm
think that will go from live because you cannot leave your lives and you've got to be informed of the adult indigenous. and i don't be that even on you don't rain of psychology, there's a lot of evidence suggesting that's not very good for you. that actually the best thing for you is to expose yourself to these things that are afraid up. that will ultimately be better for your mental health when i get my point is this because of politics? it doesn't even work on psychological grounds. that is the psychology of it. as best we understand the science is highly flaw. then i think it's fair to say if you do politicize. okay, well, professor zimmerman, we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. stay tuned for me or i,
10:41 pm
i use the problem on the desk failing is that it forces them to admit what that number is like 3 or 2, which are the money supply numbers. once the numbers got so scary, they stop reporting them. similarly with the debt ceiling kabuki theater, that happens every couple of years. they're just going to get rid of it won't even announce that number. it'll be impossible to find what the data for the american is . i'll just say a number sign for infinity. the
10:42 pm
me ah, welcome back to all the parts but jonathan zimmerman, professor of keep your imagination at the university of pennsylvania and also all free speech. why you should give a damn, professor zimmerman. before the break, we were talking about the psychology of politics and politicizing of psychology, but they, they could be at some other reasons that which i want to explore. maybe you or your colleagues, jonathan hyde, and the regular piano from there. and now famous book, the cuddling of the american mind also addressed if the nominate that we are talking about now. and they suggested that it may be partially due to the collapse of the soviet union. and the americans, losing that sort of archetype will figure over of anatomy in the soviet union union,
10:43 pm
which kept them together, which kept political tribalism, as they perhaps even provided some sort of a social glue. i wonder if this is something that's tried or whether you will look . i mean obviously i know john and greg and i respect their book. i think the jury is still out on that. you know that his degree to which the cold war are factored into that, but they're obviously right, that the countries become radically polarized. and whether that, because you lack, you know, a common or soviet enemy i think is an open question. but the polarization is beyond question. and i think that's the other incredibly important context here. i think the other reason that we speak is on the ropes in many places united states is because we've imagined our political opponents as moral enemies. and that's never friendly to free speech. because if you're opening premise is the person who disagree with disagrees with you. if somehow a monster. well,
10:44 pm
what's the talk about? why should you talk with a monster will of course not, you should defeat a monster. well, i think this is actually where your book provides a very interesting intersection of the domestic and the international discourse. because you make a very interesting point there that historically political or rather geopolitical speech has always been limited in the united states under the pretext of not aiding the enemy. and it was only around before. and you have now when open criticism all b u. s. military action was becoming publicly acceptable. i wonder though if council culture and all these other forms of gag accident actually it sort of exist on the same premise that and me or, or opponent the bad guys don't have the same right to the wars as we be the good guys. i think that's a really important point,
10:45 pm
and i would agree with that just with the, with the one important caveat, it's true that up until the war americans often weren't allowed to criticize their country during war time. but to go back to the question, the constitution, they weren't allowed by the state. that is the state in the form of the, you know, the military and the police actually jailed people for criticizing the country. that's not happening now. it said we're doing it yourself. right, that is, you know, there are or state agents. nobody's come in the night for me because they don't like what i've said i get no e mails from people out in the world, but nobody from the state. and you know, i think that's why i'd say 2 things. i think 1st of all, we need to remind ourselves in america how recent that it's how recent that is that somebody like me, a newspaper columnist hasn't had to worry about criticizing the government. because
10:46 pm
for most of our history, the kinds of things i write could have got me in deep trouble because i criticized the state. now the danger doesn't call the state it comes from our culture. it comes from ourselves. zimmerman know that i want to pick up the battle with you, but i find the distinction between private and say funded artificial. i have many experiences in my own line of work when i would be reporting from somewhere in libya and extremely dangerous terrain. and my report would be due to my or view the something that is not worthy of attention compared to let's say, my american colleagues core sitting in the studio somewhere in washington in new york and pontificating about the valley is not even a stepping good on the grounds, so don't you think that, you know, driving this distinction could be extremely manipulative and ultimately it does
10:47 pm
hurt free speech regardless of whether those, you know, those limitations are applied to state or private surprise, but here's why i think the distinction is important and the example you just gave look. i guess i wasn't in libya, i don't know any of the circumstances, but i'm certainly willing to imagine that there were plenty of americans who had of their ignorance, right? dismissed, what you were say. and, and, you know, somebody else is free to say, oh no, she was actually right. and here's why. and then a 3rd person, you say, no, actually it was something in between, right? that's not central chip. that's dialogue. nobody's preventing that from the steep right. we are all narrow, we are all prejudice. we are all biased human beings. ok, that's the premise of all of that. okay. and that's why we need to keep talking and we need to keep talking. all right, me that. somebody from the state saying, oh no,
10:48 pm
you can't say that. but professor, with all due respect in this state, is far less influential than many of the current communication or social media platform. if you decide that our conversation needs to be suppressed, simply because i get my salary from, from the rational state, it's still in my ability and your ability to, to reach the audience not only in the united states, but everywhere around the world. and again, that is a very real issue, i mean, that's a separate issue. and that issue has to do with, you know, the power of these private companies, right? that are not state agencies, right? so facebook and twitter, or non government agencies. okay. be subjective to the same kind of criteria and requirements and limitations and scrutiny as the statements that you should given the enormous influence and power that they hold. i understand how much power they
10:49 pm
have, right? the when my students say ok, i want the state to be regulating facebook and say ok if donald trump's the president, you just told me you have trump, you want him regulating it. really do it. trust the state much. i don't, i don't. so it seems to me, you know, the answer to bad speech is always more speak. and if you don't like what facebook is doing, you should say, so this humanity, trump, and i know that you're, you're describe yourself at beam and trump, but he is somebody who is supported by a substantial portion of your population of your fellow in and of itself. not enough to allow him any sort of platform. oh, i might be clear, i do not support twitter and facebook. cutting off donald trump. i happen
10:50 pm
to lose trump. but i don't, i believe that was wise on their part. they had the right to do it. because their private company, it's the, please understand, i'm not defending their decision to do it. i thought that they had a much better plan in place for that which was whenever trump posted alive, which he did almost every day for them to exercise their speak and say, oh by the way, this is a lie. and by the way, that's what they were doing. and i think that's a much better response than just to cut them off. and let me just add that when they were doing it. they also produced perhaps an advertisement many lives. and the only thing you need to look at is the change your rhetoric and narrative on the origins of call that 19 pandemic. because something that he was arguing at a year ago is now a mainstream version of events,
10:51 pm
the bite and ministration itself is investigating their origin but labeled as a lie. right. look, there were many missteps on that subject without a doubt. and there were also probably people on the left like me who dismissed this hon theory because it was coming from trump. and because trump had told so many lies like an a crying wolf kind of way, we just assumed this must be allies well and i think that was mistaken. but this is my point. you said now by missing, let's have an investigation or they have an investigation in china. you think? you think they're really investigating and china honestly and openly. i would say they're not. and the reason is because there's not a democracy. and because china doesn't have a constitution that guarantees the right of free, so preferences zimmerman, i'm sorry to break it to you, but that particular laboratory time had any contracts with the american center for
10:52 pm
disease control. and i think it's called national how institute and i haven't seen many invest investigation into that contract on the american side. i was talking about it now and we're talking about it because we have the receipt. right? that's why we're talking about it and, and nobody is going to nobody from the state is going to hurt me or interfere with me in any way because i'm discussing it. and because of the statements that i just set. and if i lived in china, that would be different. well, that's a speculation on your part, but speculation will be think, how do you read about subbing in hong kong? i read that happening again young. i not only read but i've been there. so i think that the way the american media, western media reporting on many things historically void of any cultural understanding. and you are somebody who spend 2 years as
10:53 pm
a peace corps volunteer in you should know about better than anyone. because many countries approaching those issues from a different cultural perspective, which is actually another question of mine, because in the united states you have these 2 called one is called the fuse and other one is called of activism. so, a young person speaking up to authority is always lionized, but in many other cultures, that's not the case. in the, in the east, you know, be the respect of authority to respect of the elders is purposefully cultivated. don't you think that you are perhaps under a cultural bias of ages and historical ages, not referring you know, wondering generation to everybody else is what i would say. the problem with the term culture as you're using it is it tends to it tends
10:54 pm
to draw attention to differences across societies and blind or attention to differences within the okay, that's the problem with the term culture. so the statements you made the generalizations about, say, a place like china or even russia and afford it. i might agree with them at some level. but you know, what dissidence in those countries are right. and the people that have been ga, olga, and most old by those regimes, they are kind of rush and also they're part of that culture. there are no less chinese or no less russian for criticizing the storage. so that's the problem with the term here, right? what you end up deciding is that a chinese person, this is what a real nice person is, and therefore, you know, i way or some other just don't really acting like it. fine. you know, we're like, prop again does by the west really try. nice thing is so you people
10:55 pm
disagree with each other well and they, they can express their opinion in many different forms. i mean, especially in the crime havior communication. you can do that very easily and let me tell you, i know the historically that when you, whenever a free speech is suppressed, it actually produces a huge, underground explosion of all sorts of these. because, i mean, the more constrained is the higher incentive to do that. so it doesn't work and you know, in the soviet union, obviously there was this huge time, you know, a culture that was produced precisely by that. yeah. right. i mean, there was this incredibly rich culture that was underground that actually flourished in some ways because the state was trying to suppress it. let me squeeze in one final question because in the beginning of our conversation, you said something very interesting. that free speech itself is getting encoded as
10:56 pm
the conservative thing. and i don't understand why something like this wouldn't be, is problematic, because i started our conversation deciding the bible and conservatively, you know, historically people have always appreciated the, the power of the world and the, you know, ability of their will to change things. i look it it's, i mean i, it, it's, i hear what you're saying and i deeply object to the coding of free speech is conservative . i don't think we'd be too conservative. i don't think free speech is liberal. i think free speech is at the horn to of the american id on the american dream, which is for us to govern ourselves. and we can't do that without free speech. we can't do it well. we can't learn from each other. we can't communicate with each other. we can't criticize the government. the government is aired. it's been coded
10:57 pm
as conservative on college campuses because college campuses are liberal. and so people that are objecting to the consensus or dismissed as conservative, if i'm for name calling, right. of course it is right and, and it's, it's a fast way of adding to our kind of polarization, a neutral incrimination. but it's, we'll, i'm, you know, i'm a liberal democrat but i think there are plenty of people that don't know. maybe it's think i'm a conservative because i care that for you, steve. and again, i think that's a hugely distorted and most of all in historical view. i mean, i'm a historian and i can tell you that great radicals and past all were free speech develops. they had to be, we have to leave it there. thank you very much for being with us. thank you. it was fun. thank you for watching. i hope to hear again next week was apart from
10:58 pm
me in the me. ah, i and i need to talk to someone that can be done, but even when i'm in a position where you may need to check on it for me,
10:59 pm
which mobile phone you want to just about what it was, what day to me i was i got to get, how do you think you put in the office and going to be as long as it doesn't work for you, is that quote that we should so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have is crazy. plantation. let it be an arms race is often very dramatic. developments only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical of time. time to sit down and talk to me. the news.
11:00 pm
the breaking news from 11 on at least 20 people have died in the gas tank or explosion in the countries north prompting the former prime minister to urge the government and the president to resign. also ahead the discussing images from haiti as more than 300 people are dead after a 7.2 magnitude earthquake shocks a nation leaving another 2000 injured after shock struck throughout the country. president joe biden is to increase the total number of us troops and cobbled to $5000.00 and has warned that any action against us personnel will receive a military response. this comes as the illness milton group closes in on the capital.

4 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on