Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "PragerU vs. University Education: Safe Space" video.
-
3
-
"Its not a university, it is not a school. It is a freaking Youtube Channel"
In the sense that it doesn't offer courses and degrees, you're correct. But see their video about how they got started. They wanted to offer an alternative to the lunacy of the established universities that are now teaching nonsense, and universities now also teach online, so they decided to reach a much wider audience with an online presence rather than a bricks-and-mortar university.
"There is no decent paying job ANYWHERE that would hire anyone with a non-degree from PragerU. Go find one. Just try."
That is a sound-bite with no substance. A non-degree isn't a thing. I already have a job with a non-degree from PragerU. That is, I got a job without having a degree from PragerU. Really, that's all your comment is claiming.
"Yes this video was made to portray the idea that this Youtube Channel is not only just as good, but better than an accredited university…"
Which it is, in the sense of not agreeing with the idea of safe spaces and not hearing alternative views. I doesn't claim—as you seem to be implying—more than that, such as being better in offering degrees or etc. in other words, it's claim is correct as far as it goes, which is not as all-encompassing as you're pretending.
"…judging by the comments, their idiot followers agree. Those are the dense ones."
Given that you're presenting a straw-man version of the claim, no, others are not the idiots.
"So accredited universities are bad because they teach facts that make you uncomfortable?"
That is a total distortion of what he says, which means that your argument is nonsense.
"The point of college is to prepare you for the work world."
And PragerU helps with that, by being realistic instead of woke.
"Everything I have said has been completely factual."
Incorrect, as I have shown.
"Gender studies requires students to read and analyze challenging texts just as an English class would."
Funny man. Gender studies promotes unscientific ideas. Here's what one gender studies 'researcher' (Christopher Dummitt) said "The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up. … Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mylittledashie7419
"Maybe that I've literally just finished 4 years of university, no one told me I needed a "safe space", ...
Okay, but that only shows that it's not the case in your particular experience. That doesn't mean that it's not true in other places, and I don't believe for one moment that anybody's claiming that it's true in every case.
"...clearly I'm not completely afraid of anyone with differing opinions to my own."
You had already effectively said that, and I'd already agreed that that was a fair point to make.
"If the brainwashing of university students is truly so ubiquitous, how come I literally never once encountered any political beliefs from my professors, or the university as an establishment?"
As I said, I don't think anybody's claiming that it's everywhere. But on the other hand, would you recognise it if you did encounter it? People who only hear one side often don't even realise that there IS another side that they're not hearing. Or, to put it another way, what formed your views such that you so readily dismiss the conservative views found on PragerU? Typically, it's parents, peers, mainstream media, social media, or the education system, and not necessarily in that order in terms of influence.
"...I'm sure PragerU has provided ample, peer-reviewed studies that prove how much it "actually" happens."
Given that they didn't actually make any claims about how much it happens, that's not a fair point to make.
"This would still be their safe space."
Not so, and not so even by your own logic, at least as I understood it. You rightly rejected his claim about you having a safe space by the fact that you came here. A safe space is where you avoid hearing alternative views. You came here, so you're not avoiding it. You don't know that he doesn't go elsewhere, so you don't have grounds to say that this is his safe space, i.e. he stays here to avoid hearing other views. I think the issue here is what is meant by "safe space". It's not where you go after hearing opposing views, but to avoid hearing opposing views.
"PragerU is just a hub of right wing circle-jerking and confirmation bias."
Not in evidence.
"They make you believe stuff just by saying it over and over again,..."
Not so. First, they don't "make" you believe anything. Second, they give evidence and/or reasons and/or logic to help you believe. Unlike the left in many (not all) cases).
"...not by actually making good arguments, and providing valid sources."
Again, untrue. They typically make good arguments, and they typically provide valid sources.
1
-
@mylittledashie7419
"Yes, I'm very confident I would've noticed if all of a sudden my professors had started spouting leftist talking points."
I wouldn't expect them to "suddenly" do it. So that's not convincing.
"Literally the only thing I can vaguely think of as a "left wing" belief that was touted by one of my professors, was... the existence of climate change. "
However, you make a strong point there, in that you show that you recognise that as a left wing talking point.
"I rejected the idea that this is my safe space."
I don't think that's what you did, but as I said, I think the issue is of what a 'safe space' actually refers to.
"What is this very video if not a right-wing circle jerk about how spooky leftists control the universities,..."
Whether or not this video is an example of that depends on whether or not they are correct. You're making a circular argument: PragerU is bad because they are wrong. Here's my evidence that they are bad: they are wrong.
"Which for the record, is a proven phenomenon."
Citing Wikipedia is not likely to convince me, but I'm not questioning that the phenomenon exists. The question is whether that's the case here.
"Yeah, logic based on men made of straw. This is the confirmation bias I was talking about."
Again, not in evidence. Yes, this might be the confirmation bias if you're correct. I don't believe that you are.
"Anyone on the left can see how PragerU will constantly tell you "what leftists are like", and "why they believe what they do" and how wildly inaccurate they are about it."
Except that I can see for myself that they are correct. No, not in every details, but (not in a university) I have encountered leftists just like some of their descriptions, and I'm in a completely different country.
"If you don't already agree with PragerU, it's clear how much the misrepresent, how much relevant information they deliberately leave out, ..."
I agree with them because it fits with other things I have seen. So yes, I "already agree" in a sense, but that agreement is evidence-based.
"...the fact that they never leave links to their sources,..."
Simply false. In the description below many of their videos, they have a link to "FACTS & SOURCES, Transcript, and Quiz", and that page has links to sources.
"Again, I can tell you first hand... they don't."
If I was able to post pictures here, I'd put a screenshot. But they do.
"...only to find they've quoted someone out of context, or cherry picked data,..."
I've heard claims like that (not necessarily about PragerU) many times, only to find that the claim is false. I can't say whether you're wrong or not, because you've provided no examples, but experience tells me to be sceptical of that claim.
"...or completely ignored the conclusions of the people who's information they're pinching."
First, that you refer to them as "pinching" the information shows that you're not being fair. Citing someone is not "pinching" information.
Second, there's nothing wrong with what you accuse them of. That is, there's nothing wrong with citing the facts someone provides while reaching a different conclusion from those facts. I've often seen cases of an expert saying "This is the evidence I've found and this is the conclusion I've reached" where the conclusion doesn't have to follow from those facts, and it's perfectly legitimate to reach a different conclusion.
"Genuine question, how many PragerU videos have you looked at the sources for?"
Not many. On the other hand, I have looked at a handful of anti-PragerU videos and can see that their opposition is ideological and their arguments don't hold water.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The King of Nature
"PragerU failing at life advice we get stuff like Brad Wilcox telling you to marry and have kids extremely early without financial security, because some guy in the military ended up making 6 figures that way."
I take it you're referring to the video titled "Is Marriage Good for Men?"
The first issue I see with your claim is that you reckon he made his claim on the basis of one example. That is patently false.
"This means that all your freedom in career options is just gone,…"
It does? Since when?
"…your boss can exploit you however they want because you need to have a job or your wife and kids (yes this video is aimed at men specifically) will suffer the consequences."
That is an unjustified criticism. There is nothing (in principle, and it's principles that we are talking about here) stopping the person from leaving that job for another.
"The guy in the video also didn't have a useful degree or anything, he was extremely irresponsible and he got lucky."
The example case? That was just an example, as I've pointed out. The argument was NOT based on a single example.
"Telling people to start a family before you have the job security you need, one that you might not be able to afford and one where the wife doesn't work (which is implied) will probably backfire and give you a one way ticket into poverty."
Well, he's done the research. Where's yours to show he's wrong?
"…this kind of thinking will ensure that every problem without a personal solution, that won't solve itself is guaranteed to stay."
"ensure"? How so?
"PragerU supports socio-economically right wing policies…"
And there your bias is displayed. It's not their arguments that you disagree with, but their worldview. If they are "right wing", then they MUST be wrong.
"…as well as "personal responsibility"."
Yep. A characteristic of the Judeo-Christian ethic that underlies Western Civilisation that has made it the freest, most successful, civilisation the world has seen.
"So when something like global warming comes along, where personal solutions are only a small part of fixing the actual problem and the rest of it is about holding coorporations accountable,…"
Why isn't that a case of holding those individual corporations personally accountable?
"…it's not hard to see why PragerU's policies and climate change denial go hand in hand."
Are you saying that PragerU denies that the climate changes?
"They get one expert (Richard Lindzen) in the field of climate physics to agree with them,…"
Did he agree with them, or them with him? After all, if he's the expert, presumably they are his own views. And what's your point anyway? That they picked one when they could have picked many?
"…his sources for why climate change is not a big deal are obviously biased,…"
I completely agree with that. His sources are obviously biased towards the evidence and the truth, unlike the bias of the climate change alarmists who are not actually interested in climate change but in tearing down the basis of Western Civilisation.
"…sometimes literally just his own opinions…"
Okay, the opinions of experts don't count now?
"These are only two examples of PragerU giving advice…"
So I thought you were trying to say that they give bad advice? You haven't shown that. All you've done is present your own competing opinions.
"But that's the thing, I actually pick apart positions from my opponents."
You mean like I'm doing with yours?
"The videos where you can find these are titled "be a man, get married" "fix yourself" and "climate change, what do the scientists say"."
Now you tell me! Hang on while I check those ones out.
Oh, the first one is the one I watched, with a different title. So I've taken care of that one.
On the Peterson one, you have misrepresented him. The video is not about all the problems of the world, but the personal problems individuals have in their relationships. There is nothing in there that talks about how one should or should not tackle larger issues, nor that all issues can be solve by individuals. You're criticising it for what it doesn't say about things that it's not talking about!
On the climate change one, I see that PragerU (assuming that this represents their view) does NOT deny that the climate changes. Rather, the video talks about the non-scientists pushing the alarmism, plus the group of scientists who are part of that climate alarmism.
"That's how you can tell that none of these are strawmen."
You know, the nice thing about critics who get specific, such as mentioning an actual video, is that you can more readily check them out and potentially find out, as in this case, that they ARE actually straw-men.
"While you did the "the left does/says:" trick twice in this very discussion already."
What trick? You have misrepresented the videos, thereby supporting my comment. Which I made only once, by the way.
"For all I know, you're arguing against positions no one actually holds."
It seems that I was arguing against positions that you hold, so I guess you now know.
1
-
@The King of Nature
"…they value job security more from which it logically follows that they value financial freedom less."
It does? How? I'd think that the opposite follows. Financial freedom comes from having money to do what you want, not from being free to quit a job and be without work for a while.
"Because the ability to take financial risks is smaller."
When you don't have financial freedom.
"Starting a family before having the job security you need to sustain it isn't a one way ticket into poverty but it is a horrible and incredibly selfish descision regardless."
In your opinion. I don't believe that it follows.
"If you fail to get a stable high enough income, you didn't just screw over yourself but your spouse and children as well."
Living involves taking risks. I'm not disputing that there is a risk to it, but there's also a risk to not doing it. There being a risk doesn't mean that its "horrible and incredibly selfish".
"…you are talking about principle, I'm talking about moral/logical descision making. He can in principle abandon his family as well,"
My use of "in principle" did not mean "in theory", but more along the lines of a principled decision, i.e. moral. I equated it to "talking about principles ".) So no, your "in principle abandon his family" is not the equivalent of my use of it; you're using the word in a different way.
"…the issue is that he shouldn't, just like he shouldn't quit his job without a new one because that can horribly backfire on himself and other people."
Abandoning his family is morally wrong. Quitting his job without a new one may (or may not) be unwise, but it's not morally wrong. He may not have a definite new one, but likely prospects, or his family might agree that it's worth taking the risk. Or he might have some other fall-back plan.
"Well he says that we shouldn't look to fix the world, and only ourselves. He literally says "a proper way to fix the world isn't to fix the world"."
He does. But again, the focus of the video is on personal problems, so this is a side comment. Secondly, it doesn't follow that "every problem without a personal solution, that won't solve itself is guaranteed to stay". If everyone fixes themselves, then what problems remain?
"So anything that doesn't have a personal solution, we shouldn't attempt to solve, leaving the problem solving itself as our only remaining option."
I'll concede a minor point. But only minor. In other videos, I'm sure he says that you can fix other problem, once you're learned how to fix your own. And this video is not a comprehensive treatment of the topic, but just a quick look focusing on fixing personal problems. P.S. I've since noticed that you later agree that this is not a major point.
"…this single line is just a total blunder."
So it's just a single-sentence blunder, not evidence of PragerU not teaching life skills.
"Ah yes the good old assuming intent."
You're the one that brought up political position.
"It is an obvious fact that PragerU supports socio-economically right wing policies."
I'm sure that they also support eating breakfast and driving on the correct side of the road, and a whole host of things, but you chose to mention that one as though it was relevant. It wasn't just a random fact.
"They're ill-equipped to handle climate change due to their stances on not trying to solve larger problems and them being capitalists..."
What stance on not trying to solve larger problems? You've conceded that Peterson's line was just a blunder, not (apparently) a deliberate or key point. And capitalist societies have the best record on protecting the environment, so supporting capitalism does not mean that you're opposed to "handling" climate change.
"...but the biggest reason is that they're funded by oil billionaires so don't lecture me about bias."
Why not? What's wrong with being funded by oil billionaires? Why even mention that if not for bias against that sort of funding?
"Please cite the many experts who agree with Lindzen.."
No way am I going to try and track down a comprehensive list, but Peter Ridd, the late Bob Carter, and Ian Plimer (although I'm no fan of his), are among them. P.S. I just happened across some more: Lennart O. Bengtsson, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, and Nir J. Shaviv.
"That's the most childlike bastardisation of the climate debate I have ever seen."
Except that it's not.
"Do you have ANYTHING to back up these wild claims about the "alarmists" intentions,..."
Of course. Extinction Rebellion (XR) co-founder, Stuart Basden said:
“And I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life.”
But if you want to dismiss him as a crank or outsider, then this is what German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said:
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
"If the expert in question uses his own opinion as a source for his own opinion than he shouldn't be taken seriously."
What's your evidence that he's doing that rather than expressing an expert view?
"And a paper with "do not cite" written on every page but you're still casually ignoring that."
Your claim was vague. What paper? And what's your evidence as to why it has that?
"Yes this is subjective, "
So the claim is meaningless.
"Lindzens video doesn't imply that climate change isn't real. It implies that the damage won't be so bad..."
Which you misleadingly label as "climate changed denial"
" "sponsored by oil billionaires" ."
So? Is that worse than being sponsored by leftist governments? And some oil companies are on board with the climate alarmism, so simply being oil billionaires proves little. And at least they are spending their own money and not the taxpayers'.
"well to that you would reply "Okay, the opinions of experts don't count now?" "
No, I would point out that views are divided (plus a whole lot other things).
"But seriously are we just going to ignore his sources for saying all of this... again."
We shouldn't. But then we shouldn't ignore the sources of the alarmists either. Nor their biases, nor their funding, nor their failed predictions. Nor the non-empirical aspect of basing so much on computer models.
"…and one by Lawrence Solomon.... the executive director of Energy Probe which is another lobbying organisation."
And being involved with a lobbying organisation means that he can't know what he's talking about. Okay, I see the logic there.
"he rest of this source list is a disaster, see for yourself: "
What's disastrous about it? I see it includes Bjorn Lomborg and the IPCC. I forgot to mention Lomborg earlier.
"They're not the main points of the video's, but they're still claims within them (not strawmen)…"
Given that one was a blunder, and you've not shown I'm wrong on the others, then no, they are still strawmen.
"And any critic who doesn't get specific is no true critic, that's just debunking positions while not being sure if anyone actually holds them, what would be the point of that?"
I'd say "attempting to debunk" rather than "debunking", but otherwise yes, I agree with that.
1
-
1
-
@unvoicedrocktx3739
"What's funny about 616,377 Dead Americans?"
I never said that it was funny. Rather the opposite, actually.
"The republickan party and their "dear leader" killed them with their corrupt and incompetent response to Covid-19."
Nonsense.
"There are currently just under 2000 Covid-19 deaths in South Korea, because South Korea didn't have donald trump leading their response."
Non-sequitur. A isn't the same as B, therefore X is the cause. But you haven't shown that.
"...a republickan party more interested in pleasing their "leader"..."
Given the amount of opposition to Trump from within the party, even that claim is quite disputable.
"South Koreans did the rational and responsible things to mitigate the spread of a pandemic on a personal level whenever they could... "
As did Trump. For one, he stopped flights from China, and was vilified by the left for doing so.
"Hmm... no national lock down,..."
Lock downs have been shown in various studies to have no effect, and Trump didn't have the power to do that anyway. America is a federation of states, and much of the power belongs to the states (which is probably unlike South Korea).
"...no national mask rule,..."
Again, he didn't have the authority. And of course Fauci originally said that they didn't work.
"...no self-quarantining if you're exposed to Covid-19, and you don't want a vaccination?"
If you're exposed to it, getting a vaccination is too late. But again, the authority for that lies with the states. And various Democrat-run states bungled it big-time. But for political/ideological reasons, you're blaming Trump instead. Trump, by the way, sped up the development of a vaccine, despite the left saying that it couldn't be done.
"Must be a selfish, childish republickan that hates America."
Trying to be a comedian again? It's the left that hates America, at least in the sense of what it stands for and what its values are.
1