Yeah their community is pretty close minded. But there are a few people who try to understand the other side. I benefited greatly from watching the channel
@@jasmineflower2415 OMG YES, I thought this just illustrated that most of the human population still has transphobic ideas. I hope it's just jubilee's audience
@@jasmineflower2415 Why have faith in the humans to begin with? Most of them are dissapointinly unintelligent and none of them are granted with critical thinking naturally.
This line really hit me(8:39): “if every single young person was taught proper sex ed at school (one that includes the notion of pleasure, desire, consent gender norms, etc.), they wouldn’t see peach as an authority-they would naturally understand that it is fake.” I grew up in Mormon Utah where such education was essentially nonexistent. And I have spent YEARS unlearning the lies I internalized from peach (and I’m not done yet). I wish conservative parents understood this principle better.
People don’t need sex education lol. You can teach sex as part of biology class without shoving retarded leftwing feminist nonsense down people’s throats
@@lolcandyyy Will that include more sexually Explicit materials that borders on Porn to actually porn complete with illustrations of two naked people in doggy style? Should we show that to Minors? Didn't sex education use to be less explicit than this? (below age of consent)
@@silverhawkscape2677 …what 🤦🏻 Images of digital organs and studies for the biology or physiology related to the human mating process. What to expect and what to prevent and what to do. This is all science everyone should know about our own bodies.
Yeah I kind of agree. but you could argue those are different things. To have a just society you must be intolerant of intolerance. But to have a tolerant society you would have to be tolerant of all views regardless on their justness
Thank you. Being tolerant to EVERYTHING is also being tolerant to tyranny. Its like the definition of freedom in the US vs Europe. In the US they think freedom is saying whatever you want, even if that includes slurs or fascist ideals. In Europe, our freedom ends where the rights of others begin.
i think there's a different way to think about which is - how do we define tolerance? yes we are not tolerant to intolerance. but what we should be tolerant to is listening to intolerance so that people feel heard and do not regress further and more aggressively in their views.
@@chamberv5261 and that's why Europe has a history of fascist governments as opposed to US, and it is gradually turning on in a totalitarian society
@Francesco Renna who deleted his comment. It is absolutely true that populism and fascism are rising in Europe. Although the reason is not bc we tolerated everything. Much more has happened, Europe is geographically exposed to a lot more than the US and during quarantine many things started to change (perhaps the amount of chronically online people who entered the alt-right pipeline was more than adequate and happened during those years). It could be true that many centrists deciding to "hear both sides" has enabled and given courage to fascists and neo-nazis all around Europe but this is a global phenomenon.
As a black woman, I could NEVER watch the Jubilee videos where they rate people based on “physical attractiveness”. It’d be bad for my mental health 💀💀💀💀
Yeah those videos are just... everything wrong with modern society in a nutshell lol. We are so tied up in equating our physical attractiveness (or moreover, other people's perceptions of our physical attractiveness based largely upon societal factors) to our overall world / sense of identity. Different context but I say this as a guy who isn't tall. Tallness for men is the unequivocal beauty standard in the modern age, and there's nothing you can do about it. All of these videos reaffirm that my height makes me unattractive. Its a toxic mindset to put oneself in
@@jemima_brown of course she isn't. She's likely referring to the general preferential consensus being very racist, even subconsciously. especially if you're a dark skinned black woman, you're likely to have very negative feedback :(
Jubilee with their format "middle ground" is also guilty of both siding (for the lack of a better term) and normalizing extremist views: When a group advocating for their (human) rights "debates" a group that wants to eradicate the first group out of existence there is no middle ground. Only one group is in the right here. And I feel like videos like this never have this message.
Some people think that taking the center opinion somehow means you are unbiased. That's just not how bias works lol. Centrists are just strongly against anything that is not the "normal opinion" (that is, supports the status quo). Sounds quite biased, ngl.
I believe the way to shut down hateful ideology is to publicly debunk them. Censoring extremist views will not change people's minds, and will force people with those beliefs underground into an echo chamber. That's how people get indoctrinated into extremist groups. They are scared to share their extremist views, so only shares them in dark corners of the internet where no one challenges them, because they know that if they share those views they will be labelled a hateful bigot.
@@BS-bd4xo and since conservativism naturally protects the status quo as well, then centrists are almost never actually in the center. they're wherever the overton window is at the current moment. Currently, they're on the right. this is why centrists infuriate me at times, because they are fighting for the status quo that the right wing wants to use to slingshot their side into victory. The same status quo that propagates their power, the same status quo that allows extreme injustice to occur.
Or maybe the right wingers just know what they’re talking about more than the average wokeoid… but I guess that possibility hasn’t reached the Alice Capelle larp echo chamber 😂
Now THAT'S an eyecatching title! Well done, Alice! 🙂You're having a conversation that Abraham Lincoln himself was involved with. He argued against popular sovereignty (the idea that each state, North and South, should decide for themselves about slavery) because he argued that this argument suggested that one side was pretty much the same as another. He disagreed--saying that we should not try to find the middle ground between right and wrong but side with the right (not the political right, lol). This video is an excellent addition to the centuries long discussion!
@@richmondaddai-duah Good question. For Lincoln it was written in the law of nature. Others will have different reasons. But what he rejected was the notion that there was no right or wrong. That every choice was the moral equivalent of every other choice.
@@pendragon2012 well, there is definetly reasons to object ,for example are morals objective ? or what does natural law really say about morals ? or does natural law even exists ,but thanks for the response. I think a good way to go through this would be a collective moral egoism or moral.inter-subjectivity (egoism not in normal way of thinking about it ,but in talking about subject desires) .
I would add that there are two things that really bother me with jubilee's middle ground videos. First is how they always cast someone that seems "moderate" but actually is against many human rights, and that person is always praised in the comments for how calm and well spoken they were, no matter how unresearched and harmful what they said was. Then I think they should had fact checking in their videos and invite experts like sociologist or historians for example because the conversations tend to be surface level and based on the individuals experiences only (not all the time but often).
Jubilee seems like the type of channel that knows damn well they'd lose a sizable chunk of their audience by broadcasting actually well-researched speech in regards to minorities and human rights.
because maybe despite their stupid views they are actually more calm and better at arguing? if that is the case why are the people with more moral high ground so mad and screaming all the time? Either they are just bad, or they don't actually believe in the morality and logic behind their own point.
@@paulogaspar8295 It is a caricature of the people who defend these ideas to say that they scream and get mad at each debate. It is precisely by having this Manichean vision that we think more sensible the supposedly moderate, conservative people who rely much more on form than substance. Moreover it is necessary not to forget that jubilee chooses participants so they are not representative of how debates take place outside of their channel.
Jubilee just likes to stir up chaos like a reality TV show. They don't even take turns when debating half the time. I agree that peach is absolutely dripping in violence and hatred, and that makes me really upset, but the two sides of the argument are always women are better than those dirty horny men or women are sex objects let me keep it that way. I hate both of those takes honestly. I think it's totally normal and healthy to enjoy being a sexually mature human being, but we gotta get real here and start enforcing some serious regulations on this industry.
????? ive never heard of the argument “women are better than those dirty horny men”!! i don’t believe it is real! considering that the anti-“peach” argument usually goes hand in hand with anti-human trafficking, anti-misogyny, anti-patriarchy, and responsible, class-based analyses don’t blame men for “peach”! men aren’t even responsible for the patriarchy, because it is a social phenomenon that sits out of the reach of our society, yet we are nevertheless tidally locked to patriarchy and recall how corporations always lobby to get rid of regulations!
Literally, I said this in another comment too! Sexuality is biological, and it will exist today, tomorrow, and forever. And I agree the nature of explicit and exploitative content with the way they entice and overload all social platforms (where anyone of any age can access) with phrasing and visuals that are morally and ethically wrong, is something that needs to be reeled back and if I'm being honest with myself... entirely shut down. Besides for regulated and educational purposes, but the recreational aspect has made peach become a monster of its own, that disregards both the actors and audience for the exchange of profit.
@@jemima_brown just because they don't explicitly say it, doesn't mean that's not how the argument is framed. Work on your media literacy. Cool sock account name BTW 🙄
The golden mean fallacy is only present if the middle ground is presented as the best because it's not one of the extremes. I don't watch Jubilee anymore, but I don't think they've ever asserted that. If anything, they're probably more at risk of making the opposite fallacy, the false dichotomy. Work on your informal logical fallacies.
@@Pazuzu4All it doesn't have to be asserted when the whole show is framed that way. They entertain arguments that shouldn't be entertained because they should hear all sides, even if the correct conclusion lies elsewhere. A false dichotomy would limit conclusions, Jubilee gives a platform to spurious claims. Although, depending on the episode they tend to frame arguments as false dichotomies too
Well done! I wish the people who advocate against comprehensive sex-ed would understand that the alternative is driving young adults to learn about sex from porn hub....
@@appa609 teens arent all having sex, specially now i think less people are having sex. And the information they would tell eachother is not going to come from an academic source or a textbook on safe sex, its going to come from superstition or porn.
Would good sex ed really help stop young people viewing that shii. They still gonna end up finding it with how normal it has become and how sexualised everything is
Thank you for this. Jubilee is really infuriating when they have "middle ground" conversations with people that are extremists and hateful and that spread misinformation and essentially give them a platform. It's gross when the comments think speaking calmly is equal to being intelligent. Just because someone is calmly saying women's rights don't matter or invalidates objectively accurate experiences doesn't make them empathetic or respectable. Acting like people should be okay with an extremist's opinion is vile.
The problem isn't giving them a platform, it's at the end of it all going "your takes were equally valid yaas queen slaay" Giving EVERY SIDE a platform is critical in debate. Otherwise you're just promoting an echo chamber. DO let incels express how they hate women and why they do. These hatreds are IRRATIONAL. They can be deconstructed. And how do you do it? With civil debate and discourse, not banishing them as undesirables, because that only solidifies their "them vs us" ideology "They silence ys because we know the truth" is a motif with MUCH MORE POWER than people give it credit. The argument of someone with irrational hatreds crumbles the minute they're forced to actually explain their thought-process. Because said thought-process is bonkers. And that's only revealed when they're forced to actually put their bonkers beliefs to practice.
@@miguelpadeiro762I feel like they maybe do normalize a bit extremist opinions by trying to have their platform seem unbiased, but it is obvious those extremist would never agree to participate in the debates if they knew it was some kind of set-up for them. And like you said the best way to make sure you're not in an eco chamber is listening to everyone's opinions, because afterwards if you're really on the "correct side" you'll be even more sure that what you're saying is what's right. Of course, this becomes more difficult when having very impressionable children watching their videos.
@@miguelpadeiro762it's only an echo chamber if the argument/message is bigoted, spreading a good message without a "necessary" opposition sounds quite ideal tbh. Not everything should be a debate.
This video instantly reminded me of Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance"; if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
YES! This. I had this problem for a long time with Jubilee's debates. They are many times confronting opposing ideas and positions in a way they seem to be equivalent or equally valuable. They once confronted flat-earthers with non flat-earthers. Got me really angry, because that sends the message that those are both valid theories that should look for coexistence or some middle ground. I'm sorry, but no. They are not equivalent. One is a scientifically consolidated theory and the other one is long-ago-refuted bullshit. To confront them like that is even insulting to scientists. Ideas that are harmful, hateful or unscientific should not be put on the same level as the others. It sends a very dangeorus message, it normalizes those ideas.
Yes totally they just come up with a controversial topic that they know will get a ton of clicks but make it look like it’s actually relevant in the sense that its like splitting our society as a whole in half bc it’s always equal amounts of ppl debating on either side when in reality it’s often just that the extremists are especially vocal about their beliefs. So for the 'other' side they can (and do!) just bring in any random person but for the extremist view they kinda have to bring in ppl who have those debates and spew this extremist view as a profession, basically. Which further helps their point since they’re very well versed in presenting and arguing for it.
Allowing for flat earthers to state their case to other people is not in any way equivalating them to the established reality or legitimizing them. It is a way for the curious viewer to learn about what they think in a critical environment where that way of thinking can be refuted, in the same way a reaction video would be. Playing devils advocate with them is frankly a much more positive and interesting way to learn about flat earthers than just watching the content they make themselves.
That sounds like a good thing actually. I in no way believe the world is flat, but I still want to hear why they think that way and whether they'll still think that way after hearing the correct answer.
I’ve never known how to put the discomfort I feel towards “centrist” ideology to words, but this video did a fantastic job of verbalizing my feelings. It places hate on the same level as someone saying “hey I deserve to exist” and acts as though each are equal arguments. For example, there was one video (I’m not sure if it was Jubilee or some copycat) where they had incels debate feminists and it framed incel ideology as if it was as common and valid as feminism rather than a vocal minority. It always rubbed me the wrong way but I wasn’t sure why until now. Love the video as always!!!
to us, they are definitely not equal arguments. but we have to understand not everyone's brains work like ours and that deplatforming people won't work to lessen the hatred because they will only get angrier. i think the best course of action is for jubilee to, indeed, platform these people but counterbalance the outcome of making arguments seem equal by objective rebuttal. jubilee wants to make people feel heard i suppose, and regardless of their moral stance that's important because the more people on regressive sides experience compassion, listening, understanding and then well-spoken, well-researched and non-accusatory rebuttal, the more receptive they will be to changing their mind.
I'd say this is misrepresenting what centrism means Centrism just means your beliefs are more in the middle rather than solidly "left" or "right". What you're refering to is different. It's the weird and hypocritical active participation in ideological discourse all the while mantaining a "we are all the same, our ideologies have equal worth" opinion which is bonkers. Our opinions are all of the same worth. But are the opinions all good? No, they can be good opinions, shit opinions. Harmless opinions, harmful opinions. All this is unrelaled to centrism. We NEED to be open to hear the other side, that's CRITICAL to not only understand the other side but also to drive people away from it if said side happens to be in the wrong. Extremism and "these opinions don't deserve to be heard at all" is how these people solidify their views as "oppressed ideologies", festering more hate, like with the incels
@sewerrat7418 Sure thing, but if you ever want to form constructive criticism in the future of the right, or any other group for thay matter, do take a listen!
blown away by this. it has been a while since a TH-cam video made me think so much. making the connection to p*rn really puts a lot into perspective. and it's impressive how you got such a compelling message across in less than 15 minutes! i know i will be thinking about this for a while. thank you for putting words to this!
Exploiting the controversial buzz from serious issues to pull in viewers is manipulative and should be recognized as such. Promoting tolerance is such a funny position they take, more like polarization and both sides syndrome.
Bruh, I love to watch Juiblee when I'm alone and isolated in my room, I get drunk and binge-watch their videos and argue with the screen, say things out loud like "you're such an idiot, what a dumb opinion, that's totally not correct". That's fun af
Same! I not gonna suddenly think the earth is flat or women are subservient because of one nut job who can't form a cohesive statement. It does get me mad when obviously bigoted people speak
Same! I not gonna suddenly think the earth is flat or women are subservient because of one nut job who can't form a cohesive statement. It does get me mad when obviously bigoted people speak
i hate how jubilee portrays each side of the argument as equal when one side is literally denying certain groups basic rights or is just straight up hate
@rahul-bs3my just because an issue has two sides doesn't mean that both are equal. The opinion that the earth is flat and that it is round aren't both equally valid opinions just because people believe both
this is a really creative video concept, i rly enjoyed it. i think the way jubilee takes on this centrist standpoint in the name of empathy only legitimizes/validates far-right ideologies, which often do not align with human rights. its like the paradox of tolerance, of not 'tolerating the intolerant'. by never drawing the line on free speech, society can become safer for hate speech than it is for minorities.
Another amazing video Alice! I've been struggling to explain why it frustrates me to see media producers platform extreme right-wing speakers without just sounding like a biased lefty but you are so amazing at explaining phenomena such as this!
I love that TH-cam's community guidelines makes it impossible for to have informed discussions on important topics without self-censoring. Wouldn't want kids to hear people speak clearly or seeing Portable Document Formats and Peach farmers being called out now would we?
Lorsque j’étais jeune (vers 12 ans) nous avions eux un cours sur la sexualité, la dame nous demandait nos connaissance sur le sujet et j’ai levé la main pour mentionner que la pornographie n’était pas réellement comparable à la réalité.. La dame m’a dit que j’avais tort et que ça ce passait comme ça tout simplement.. Je suis resté sous le choc de voir une adulte penser ainsi et éduquer les jeunes sur le sujet ..
@@marinaSassygUrl88I am not OP but unfortunately I was exposed to it very very young. Like at 7. So by the time I was 12 or 13 I had years of viewing under my belt (so sad…wonder how that has affected my brain chemistry). By that time I had been exposed to anti-porn articles and started understanding that it was not close to the truth.
@@steff6146 I know this is late, but it's so odd coming across this comment. I was exposed to porn at like 7/8 because of the internet and I've always just kind of forgotten that, it's never occurred to me that someone else had similar experiences. but yeah, we definitely need better sex ed, not just for kids but for adults. The reason I became addicted to porn as a fucking child was because I didn't have an adult I could trust with questions about sex. So I searched online, and found porn.
I agree it's okay to be critical of problematic beliefs. I thought it was a little weird that they hugged or high five in the end. I think it was just a empathy, or pity thing for the person. At the same time I just like being nice to people. Even if they don't deserve the kindness. That might be my Achilles heel. I think if you don't like someone you don't have to be so friendly and hug, high five, or shake hands at the end with them. It's normal to not like someone whatever the reason is. You just don't like them. I never really thought of censorship the way you did since this whole time I don't like censorship. To be honest I do like this more aggressive approach to fighting back against bad rhetoric and beliefs
Subjectively, it seems like the aggressive approach only radicalises and further solidifies extreme views as it reinforces the personal bias of "us vs them". But the lack of aggressive approach also leads to the mass spread of negative rhetoric and embolden them as there is no one to actually go against these rhetoric headstrong. This is true for cases when the rhetoric is left unchecked, allowing it to grow from a very niche minority to a large fungal-like hivemind infection that permiates to the common man and affects their judgement as well. Andrew Tate and Trump are great examples of this phenomenon. Its a very delicate balance especially since the average person, (and even moreso for those involved in right-wing rhetoric) tend to be naturally narrow minded and fail to realise that often they have been led to villainise the wrong people due to opportunistic figures capitalising on the masses' own insecurities and fears.
@@Noor-rk9sf exactly!! i'm so glad that you commented on this because i think largely this comment section is really villainising these people in such a way. and yes, they're dangerous views to have but often these people are just misguided and need compassion and someone to show them the right way. isolating and censoring and suppressing them only makes them angrier and regress further into more and more extreme views and echo chambers, and further less inclined to listen to another side.
I think porn since the 70s on has really messed up a lot of people sexuality and them being able to really find it on their own terms. ESPECIALLY women in hetero relationships. I am not okay with it anymore at all I don't watch, but the society I live in sort of shames people for not being okay with it - I think we're soaked in pornified culture and I'm a feminist - I agree with the anti-porn 70s feminist - I was born in 1981, and porn really messed me and my peers self image up - I can't imagine being a teen finding myself and my own sexuality in todays swamp of a porn culture.
When talking about this I think we should be careful to look at how porn damages people - because not everyone has the same answer. To me the problem with porn is the same problem we see everywhere else: objectification, dehumanization, treating people as a means to an end, affirming & enforcing male domination, etc. Porn is the fulfillment of capitalism in the area of sexuality. To me that means the harm of porn is not in depictions of sex acts or the intent to stimulate - I would even say these are good things. But capitalist patriarchy turns them to its own ends, which are anti-human. I'm saying all this because I think it's a position distinct from both conservative Christian and anti-porn feminist understandings of porn. That will affect how we respond to it.
Beauty standards exist independent of porn, banning porn wouldn't magically depressurise the populace in regards to body dysmorphia. All you need to do is to look at the countries where porn is already banned to notice that it generally just works as a cultural muzzle. Even if you, as a 70s style feminist, were to ban it, it'd ultimately end up as a cultural weapon for the modern right-wing, whereas the populace would turn more towards the softcore variety of sexual content. I'm not pro or anti porn, as it ultimately isn't the magic cure as many seem to think, whether it's the pro argument of encouraging sexuality and the expression of it, or the anti argument of objectification and general mysoginistic implications.
@@colonelweird "enforcing male domination" - so would it all suddenly be a-okay if 99% of corn became female-mistress-dominatrix centered? I don't really get your point there
Hot take - I do agree with a lot of what’s said about how Jubilee is like porn and how extremist views can be interlaced in the things said during discussions. I also agree with how censorship does have its place in “democratic” societies. However, I think the channel’s biggest issue is posing their discussions as debates. Participants seem to discuss issues based off the belief that they can somehow change the other side, convincing them they are right. Most of the time, this erupts in participants bickering at each other, not productive conversation. If discussions took the form of a dialogue, where participants offer their views on issues without trying to convince and they actually listened to each other, I think more of Jubilee’s videos would be worth watching and I know this can be hard a lot of the time because the issues discussed are typically people-centric. I think the point of the channel was originally to get people from different sides of the political spectrum to share their views on issues, but because it was built on an entertainment model (the content doesn’t matter as much as the message which is the same in every video), it becomes as Alice says like porn…
i think this girl forgets the democracy means "for the majority", and ultra-progressivist people are definitely not the majority in any place in the world
this was fantastic and so refreshing. i hope more people will see this. it's scary how often equality is brought up in these "debate" sections. human rights are not up for debate.
THIS IS SUCH A GOOD ANALOGY!! omg thank u for talking abt this. the algorithm must have recognized that I'm on my "I'm tired of society's bullshit" rampage and recommended this video to me lol. to be fair, this morning I went on a rant to my partner abt how I'm tired of standing in a tiny square bc people want me to do that, and I'm tired of arguing with people in my head and having social anxiety just bc I'm paranoid all the time bc people in society today REFUSE to even hear each other. news flash: we are all HUMAN BEINGS, and jubilee is not abt empathy, it's abt clicks and we can do sm better
That's definitely something I've noticed with Jubilee for example male feminists vs female anti feminists the trans participant was disrespected continuously and and to me it felt like they had to "open minded" to this attack on there sense of self.
The problem with the idea of not giving dangerous ideas a platform, although I empathise with it, is that it makes it so that the only platforms where those ideologies can be shared are those where there is little resistance and many people are susceptible to those harmful ideas. Instead of trying to suppress these ideas, which will inevitably but unfortunately fail, we should instead continue providing a platform to them where they encounter resistance while improving our ability to show how wrong these ideas are. That way, those who are susceptible to those ideas also have the opportunity to hear them countered in a free way.
1:28 real! i debated my classmates who i love very much, we were always shooting arguments/questions but remembering not to debate the person, debate the topic! afterwards we all went to the movies and had fun :)
its in such a lib way too which makes it more annoying to me yk? like theyre preaching abt empathy and doing the right thing or whatever but theyre really just trying to profit off of hot topics for views... its like if they were just honest abt being trash tv and just stopped pretending like they were doing a service to the public by letting us debate?? its like the way they are so self righteous abt it makes it worse imo
@@donotinteract7851 It's norm to not even tell names of criminals a lot of the time and hide details of violence they have done, because people tend to copy cat them. Giving a platform to people who want to dehumanise people, pathologize human variations gives a lot of people idea that it's a right thing, especially when many use lies and anecdotal "evidence". We can talk about difficult topics, but we need to explain things and highlight the value of all life, personal liberty. Far right groups don't think that all human life has value and spreading such ideas is known to lead to interpersonal and political violence. It's just about safety of people
I think the reason I wasn’t on the debating team was not only because no one wanted me but also I never participated because I’d take my stand (according to the situation) very seriously and maybe I was and am terrible at it.
It's true I often felt like debate class didn't value the seriousness of the debates but rather treated it more like a sport of rhetoric, and argumentation, rather than taking a real stand on subjects. It was a preview for teens to learn how to become lawyers , not activists. Or at least try to understand how political debates worked, (before they became a massive media spectacle of popularity contest posturing.)
I absolutely agree with everything you've said in this video. I remember in middle school I had a cut/jubilee/buzzfeed phase and I know I felt bad watching some of the videos cuz it was draining but I didn't understand why. I feel like at the end of each one, you get post ragebait clarity when you realize what you just spent the last twenty minutes watching was pointless and shameful, just like with peach. but the reason I didn't know what made me feel like this is because they purposefully try to make you feel like this content is okay at the end of each video, with little bts moments or the high fives with ppl who don't support human rights. I genuinely hate jubilee and how many brains they are frying with their content. im really glad you put this into sensible words, this was a great video
Jubilee the pioneers of the false dichotomy. “Is Hitler bad? Hitler vs Non-Hitler Middle ground” Example above is “non-partisan” according to jubilee. even introducing Hitler in this context pretends the two sides of “hitler bad” and “hitler good” have equal debates. But Jubilee takes this a step further, pitting normal people against Hitler media hosts who would know all the hitler talking points. A solution would be titling their video “A hitler debate” and not having “two sides” to every argument.
I don't think full on censorship is what's needed, but rather, a refraining of giving fringe voices a platform that's disproportional to the amount of people with that opinion. Like, 99.9% of scientists have come to a conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is real, but if you watch any news outlet they will both sides tf out of the subject, which gives viewers the illusion that there's more debate than there really is. Jubilee does this same thing when they make NASA scientists argue against flat earthers. They're just looking for eyeballs due to the profit motive (as you said). I still think flat earthers _should_ get a platform, but it should be 1 person that's a flat earther discussing their beliefs against 10,000 scientists.
I do believe a platform for them is critical. Put two people to debate. That's it. No "everyone's opinion is as valid". Simple debate The scientist will explain climate change scientifically and the climate change denier will give their explaination why they disagree. The denier's argument is inherently pseudoscientific. It will crumble on camera. Same thing if you grab someone who says "women don't deserve vote", "I hate women because they reject me all the time", "x race is inferior", "homosexuals are bad people" DO give them a plaform. These are arguments based on IRRATIONAL hatred. They only make sense when given at surface level. They only need to be at surface level when they aren't given a platform and remain the "alt opinion" But put them on stage! Given them the mic! And what happens? They have to elaborate on an irrational thought process. The argument crumbles. A flat earther can confidently explain their theory to a camera but will sweat nervously if they have an astrophysicist fact-checking every single word that comes from their mouth.
@@miguelpadeiro762 the problem is they aren't doing that. They're putting the flat earther in a room full of normal people and other people who've practice their stupid flat earth arguments.
yeah i agree, more reputable researchers and experts need to be platformed. not people who utilize mis-contextual and unproven studies. More platforms like google, facebook, and instagram should integrate measures that show whose an accredited professional and who is not.
That video has such a strong message! Most people really are unaware how important it is to utilize censorship to protect human rights, i feel like this aspect is often overlooked when debating this topic since everyone uses the “free speech” card whenever they want to normalize extreme ideologies
Yes, people like her advocating for censorship, living in a country where the leftist candidate could not even get to the second round of the Presidential election and make up what? 30% of the Legislative; I wonder where this could go wrong and which side of the political spectrum will end up on the wrong side of censors😂😂
I think the problem is that most of the ideas in Middle Ground are not truly extremist. Extremism implies something is unusual, and for example not supporting trans rights in current Western society is not very unusual at all. What is and isn’t extremism is only based on how people tend to think at a given time and place - if we were all living 2,000 years ago is would probably be considered extremist to not support slavery, and normal to support a complete monarchy, whereas today those would be swapped obviously. Because of the nature of how ideas are not constant, I think it’s important to give a platform to any ideas that are somewhat common. For example, I am very anti-religion, and I think in general religion is a harmful thing, but I think the productive thing to do is to have debates between religious and non-religious people specifically because there are so many religious people. If I just started censoring religious people that would not end well for either side. I wish that these things were extremist, but they’re not, and that’s the important part. We can’t pretend that it’s crazy to be transphobic or ultra-religious or pro-life because there is massive support for these ideas. As a side note, the flat-earther episode does not make any sense to me. There are barely any legitimate flat-earthers and I don’t think it’s worth exposing so many people to these logical fallacies and bad data in order to maybe change a few people’s minds. No clue what that episode was for.
Thank you for what you do. I only have one thing to add, that is not covered in here. That is the effect that porn does on the brain of the user REGARDLESS his/her education. There is some level of inconscious effect. It is the same lack I feel when people try to criticise social media. It is not just about how you use it and what kind of product you are consuming….. thank you again, go on!
I love this discussion, and think there definitely should be more about this topic. That said, how would you feel if we didn’t stop at “peach”, but didn’t allow there to be any more violent movies or video games? Violent music? Ultimately I think they are an easy target, but not the root of what causes human rights violations. I think things like education, poverty, community centers, and access to competent first responders have more of an impact on a community's likelihood of having instances of abuse than how much someone watches Jubilee or “peach”. Also, how do you know that you aren’t more likely to find someone who doesn’t watch Jubilee or “peach” to be someone who doesn’t believe in human rights? There also is the possibility that a lot of people watch this content that fundamentally disagree with it. A lot of it is clickbait, but is it “harmful”?
THAT LAST PART!!! i allways hate when some people assume that if you make dark jokes, youre racist / sexist / whatever, because somehow, if you make a joke, you believe in it? like, no, i like it because its funny, i agree its not ok to say these to people who dont want to hear it but making those jokes doesnt make you a bad person or a person who believes in the jokes, like, they are jokes, not supposed to be thought as serious
@@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 With dark jokes it heavily depends on the joke and the context. If it is a dark joke about a group you are a part of, then it is probably fine (Some people can be bigoted against people in the same group though). But if it is something like a cis person making a trans joke that doesn't portray them in a nice way, it isn't funny, it is just bigotry. Using the trans example more (I am most experienced with it), the only time I have seen a cis person make actually good jokes about trans people was someone who was related to a trans person. So I would add that if you know someone of a group well enough, you might be able to make good jokes about them. But in most cases where people complain about "Not being able to do comedy," they are making jokes about a marginalized group that they clearly are not educated about and it just ends up being hate speech for bigots to laugh at. I recommend watching "The Darkness" by ContraPoints to learn more, it is a great video that can explain this better than I can.
@@Kaito_Falcon i mean, it might be a bad joke but i think in jokes it matters more whos hearing it that who makes it and what that joke is, if someone makes the darkest joke against trans people, but no one trans an no one who could be offended hears it then its fine
@@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 It's fine for someone to be a bigot if no one can hear them? That's like saying it's fine for white people to say the n word when no black people are around, and I hope you don't want to make that argument. Who hears a joke does matter but even if only very few people do, it still says a lot about them.
Honestly I thought you were just hating on them, but after watching some of their videos they are really leaning more right and trying to debate on issues that shouldn't be a debate on, and they also bring people with hateful opinions. Thanks for sharing this video.
12:54 The number of times I’ve heard the word ‘echo chamber’ be abused. There’s a disdain towards ‘woke’ people but conservatives are allowed to flourish. Make it make sense.
I never thought about this things and up until now Jubilee was one of my fav channels (I obviously realized that ranking women based on their appearance wasn't the most healthy thing to do and there were some problems with many other vidoes). Thanks for sharing such great points and quotes!
Men and women share the same 'depth'. What other judgement do you expect from people who do not know each other? In those cases, you can only judge by appearance.
Loved the analysis/description of free society censorship at the end. As a chemistry teacher, I would not make space in my classes for the phlogiston truther perspective. Nicely done. I'm impressed, as always.
I know this wasn’t the video point but really « Liberal democracies are based on human rights » an important change: it’s based on DECLARATIONS of human rights… this was probably said quickly but we can’t seriously say this when for exemple in France we have 1789 declarations of human rights while slavery… same thing with the US. And this is also the reason why « human rights » are debatable today. I think
Good point, I heard Stalin in a speech reflect your point, that "liberal politics has (in USSR) vanished without a trace, humans rights then was all but an illusion, only reserved for capital owners and the rest are viewed as human resources for purpose of wage slavery. It compliments your point on how they're at best declarations and at worst constructed concessions, as the birth of new human rights generally coincide with bourgeoisie crises
Ironically, I had never heard of Jubilee, and now I’m incentivised to watch it. I think that the classic “dirty capitalist” counter-argument would be that the market itself provides a form of censorship-whether it’s salutary is a different question. Mostly, I think that platforms like Jubilee and “peach” make their subject matter performative in a way that is damaging. Our generation grew up on an oversaturation of “peach” and is having less actual s*x than any generation before it. We also grew up on things like Jubilee (as you describe it) and have become very vocal (performative) but, I would argue, profoundly depoliticised.
The whole premise of Jubilee "debate" videos is anti human rights. To put, for example, gay people wanting the right to love their partner without fear, and fascists wanting a world where all queer people are tortured out of expressing their identities on the same level is unacceptable
I used to watch jubilee videos around 2019 and some of them were interesting but they started getting weird and some were just uncomfortable to watch. Sounds like things have only gotten worse
Yeah, I think it's a far stretch to compare Jubilee to porn and the conclusion around censorship is so problematic I don't even know where to start. Firstly let's unpack the porn comparison. 1. Jubille is like porn because they both show something raw and transgressive which intrigues us. With such a defining trait a lot of stuff then is like porn, almost everything entertaining on the internet and irl. 2. Jubilee reinforces beauty ideals like porn but Jubilee does it with more fluff around it. Reinforcing beauty ideals is something everyone can be guilty of, but the fluff in jubilee isn't just "we are all beautiful" condolence talk, participants reflect on why they reinforced them, noting that stereotypes are so ingrained within and that we have to make an analysis of why we deem some more beautiful than others, on top of that it shows disagreement even in the ranking video the men and women didn't completely agree with the compromised ranking, it shows beauty ideals differ with everyone even if there is a trend. Sure the deep stuff is really short because Jubilee cuts it down but that fluff is still a quite defining difference from porn. 3. Porn potentially leads to patriarchal violence like r*pe but is protected by Free speech, Jubille allows even potentially harmful rhetoric due to free speech like a porn platform. Again a lot of content would fall under this description and it's quite subjective what thoughts leads to harm. Every other ideology, thought, thing and identity can be twisted to cause harm, ex. The US bans books featuring queer themes because they think it incites transgenderism and they find them harmful. 4. Porn and Jubilee are both taken seriously because there is no alternative. This one is outright untrue. There are alternatives to both Porn and Jubilee, there are sex education resources online and there are serious hour-long debates exploring all nooks and crannies of an ideology, now they aren't as flashy and more intellectually challenging than porn and jubilee but they are viable alternatives that do exist. And you seem to forget that Jubilee shows not only right-wing zealots but left-wing ideas as well, engaging with each other. The equivalence would be a porn video narrated with sex ed info but porn does not do that. I find a platform that engages with different ideas admirable at a time when we are more likely to find ourselves in an opinion bubble. Now to the most concerning idea, that censorship is necessary to protect democracy. Of course, at face value, it may seem like a good idea, let's make ideas that propagate homophobia, racism, transphobia, etc. illegal to limit the ideas/ideologies spread and impacts, but there are several qualms. Firstly who decides what ideology to be banned from free speech, it could be governments but governments change and can then on the same basis that you propose include "harmful" ideas that aren't actually harmful, to use repression of speech as oppression rather than protection. It could be a mob or public majority opinion but that also changes all the time therefore the safest way to ensure democracy is to allow freedom of all speech even potentially harmful speech. Secondly, if it is the latter, de-platforming and social ostracisation, it isn't very effective, we hear time and time again that such treatment only leads to radicalisation, while deradicalisation isn't the only tool to promote progress it is a quite important one. The example you give with Le Penn and the other French politician points to just how ineffective de-platforming is, I know who Le Penn is, She ran again and nearly won the french election, and the other guy, never heard of him before this video. While no one should be forced to engage in ideas they don't like, it's completely understandable why a transperson doesn't want to debate their right to exist, it is by engaging and debunking those ideas that are the most effective way to convert followers of that idea. It's also the best way for a society to decide which ideology to follow, by showing both of them and giving people a choice to choose, that is the foundation of democracy. Now you also make the equivalence that promoting one idea over the other, or not platforming or engaging with certain speakers as being the same as censorship. I find that definition to be borderline dangerous as it diminishes real government-enacted censorship and it's scary how close that rhetoric sounds to the one used in Russia to ban opposition speakers. Companies/individuals can have authority over their platform but there are companies' platforms promoting opposite values there are alternative sources which is a very important distinction. It's you that betrays the democratic tradition of free speech by downplaying and then promoting censorship, not platforms that show different ideas, especially platforms like Jubilee that promote discussion of several ideas, not a middle-ground compromise even if that in practice is what democracy results to.
I want to add that I'm not Jubilee fan, jubilee can be critiqued for how they frame debates, how they cut out a lot for the drama or to give a narrative, how they treat their guests and much more but I like the core concept and disagree with the critique you give specifically.
I find it genuinely baffling how anyone thinks pure censoring of opinions you disagree with can ever be seen as democratic And this entire comment section is making me realise that apparently, alot of people do because the alternative is to listen to things that they deem bad or hurtful
@@ihateeverythingpete1656 Exactly, I cannot fathom how people don't understand that by allowing censorship you risk creating a totalitarian regime. After seeing Republicans ban queers from being mentioned in schools, after seeing Russia imprison people who condemn war, after seeing hong kong freedom fighters being imprisoned, after seeing Iraks women die for the freedom of speech and expression how can they even get close to such rethoric? Do we not learn from history? This whole attitude reminds me of the poem First They Came.
Ty for this, her video rubbed me the wrong way. As someone living in the United States, people have been advocating for book bans and media censorship in areas where even I live in. All under the name of “protecting children from awful sexual things” and that rhetoric is all being used to oppress lgbtq+ people.
Is "the middle ground" democracy? That's a hell of an assumption. Also the Republicans are attacking civil rights but let's concern troll about potential censorship.
Reading these comments suck ass and remind that a lot of people are trapped in echo chambers and dont realise how normal some of the stuff people say on jubillee is. Getting rid of people is effective for getting rid of people but it doesnt really help with getting rid of ideas however. If you want to advocate for violence dont cower from that and be honest instead of crying about platforming.
Man, most of the "normal" stuff you hear are actually dogwhistles. Meaning, they are suppose to sound normal to people like you when in fact it has a deeper meaning that only their actual target audience understands. Most of anti-feminist rants want to make you think that is only against the "whiny blue haired angry feminist" when in fact it's all about eliminating equality between men and women and treat the latter as property, meaning they won't be able to vote, get an education, choose their own partners or even have their own money.
woah, Alice; i've only watched a couple of Jubilee, but your video materializes the underlying wrongness i was getting from the way they organize their debates!
I’ll never forget when jubilee did a video in which they made a black victim of child m*lestation apologize to their white female editor because he left a valid critique on one of Jubilee’s ”debates”” because it “hurt her feelings”. It was disgusting, and the best example was of performative activism I’ve ever seen. It angered me because he was extra kind to her and victims of child abuse already suffer from self-blame. And SHE had the audacity to cry…Radical centralism apparently means blaming children who have been r*ped for not being “open minded” about the “faults” in the MeToo movement. To clarify: Jubilee is an American media sight and you have to acknowledge race relations and the problem of the “white female victim” and how it’s weaponized by liberals and conservatives, which she did when talking about how “depressed” critical comments on jubilee content made her. She constantly emphasized how much crying she did throughout the video, which was obviously a way to garner empathy in support. The white men she questioned actually left hate comments, but the black man left a well-thought critique. Thankfully l, It had the opposite though; most of the comments on that video critiqued her for being over dramatic and privileged. The intelligent thing to do would be to realize he never “left hate comments” and just remove his portion from the video as it was a legitimate critique. Also, this is the same channel that asked “should we get over slavery?” when slavery is still happening in the world. LINK: th-cam.com/video/Jn29HjAS32E/w-d-xo.html
How does one thing correlate with the other? That's a reach. Are victims not accountable for their actions ever again after going through a trauma or is a black person apologizing to a white person unacceptable now? Like this comment is sus
I disagree. I think it is important to "platform" potentially harmful arguments so that they can actually be argued against in the limelight instead of safely festering in the shadows, only lashing out in violent and destructive ways. In order to know what you shouldn't be racist, I think it is important to know why someone would be racist, and why that standpoint is inferior to the contrary. If debates are not treated "like a game" and participate in attacking "harmful" ideologies, then these reclusive ideologies will never have the opportunity to safely be addressed.
It has been said before but Jubilee would 100% do "Slaves vs Slave masters" and "Jews vs Nazis" middle ground if they could find people willing to do them. Also, you are absolutely right about the school debate teams. Someone wanted to do "Animated child corn should be legal" and like 3 people liked it and expressed excitement about it...and it was an option at the next debate...
I completely agree with all of your sentiments. However, not to defend Jubilee in any way, as I do not agree with how they approached most topics, unfortunately people with extreme viewpoints exist. And to shield ourselves from this sad reality would be counterproductive. Sure, you can stumble upon an alt-right youtuber and be grossed out by their views, but you will most likely click out of that video, in the comments realise they live in an echo-chamber of likeminded people and be satisfied with the thought that they exist there, and spew their hateful rhetoric among their people. But the reality is much crueler, and these people are your teachers, neighbours, mother, father, brother sister. They do exist, and while I do think that, for example, putting a transperson and a transphobe in a debate, is very harmful to the transperson, and that jubilee video was extremely hard to watch, and I'm not sure what the point was in the end. But completely disregarding this reality is frankly what I think led to the rise of these extreme viewpoints. Im not from the US, but in my country, media is moderately left leaning and you dont really see any extreme religious right leaning views expressed, which made me honestly think that the society I live in is changing for the better. But the reality was very much different, and these people are getting angrier and angrier, and fighting harder and harder because they feel that their way of life is begin threatened. And now the right is growing in the US, in my country, all around Europe. So my point in the end is, even though I absolutely do not agree with extreme right sentiments, and wish their voices wouldn't be given a platform because of all the harm they do, we cannot pretend they doesn't exist. And unfortunately, they do have as much right to express those viewpoints, however harmful we might find them, as we do. And I think allowing these (not necessarily the jubilee ones) debates to happen, is sometimes a healthy thing to do. It reinforces the fact that society still has a long way to go, it might possibly open our minds to new ideas (in terms of changing our perspective and hopefully communicating our side more productively) and also in the end hopefully opening their minds a bit. Because if we just silence those voices, they wont go away, they will become more insidious. And they have become more insidious.
That’s what I was going to comment. I do believe that silencing "harmful" ideas is more harmful than the ideas themselves. Silencing the voices we don’t agree with reinforces their sentiment while making them invisible and undetected. It’s creating a false reality of peace and tolerance while allowing their resentment to purge. Jubilee promotes dialogue. Yeah, you’ll hear points of view you don’t agree with and that are harmful to some, but pretending they’re not here, among us and to shun them down is a bad strategy. Dialogue has to be promoted, heavily. I do agree that the casting for these videos is a little tacky though. I hope they’ll do better because they tend to let unqualified people speak for those who side with them and it’s usually a train wreck (yet they all applause at the end of it). Anyway, I’m happy I’ve found your comment and I share your view on this topic. To have a more nuanced and harmonious reality you have to consider all the different shades and colors and acknowledge them. I believe.
@@turoymoi47 Glad to know like minded people exist. I feel scared by how things are developing in our society. And the left is just really failing to fight their side productively, which is reflected in many recent developments like roe v wade, brexit, what is happening in poland and hungary. Of course some form of censorship will always exist, but we cannot censor people just because they disagree with us. And censoring them, as I previously stated, just makes them fight harder. The world will realistically never be a peaceful place, but if we just tolerated each other a bit more, if we were a bit more curious about why the other side feels the way they do, maybe, just maybe, this divide wouldn't be as significant.
@Turo y moi this! This is exactly how I feel about jubilee videos I don't care for. I don't like them but I can't pretend that the bigoted people in them awrtn living in the same world as me.
@Turo y moi this! This is exactly how I feel about jubilee videos I don't care for. I don't like them but I can't pretend that the bigoted people in them awrtn living in the same world as me.
@Turo y moi this! This is exactly how I feel about jubilee videos I don't care for. I don't like them but I can't pretend that the bigoted people in them awrtn living in the same world as me.
I understand your frustration with law officials appearing not to care about the things that actually matter, I used to be the same. However, since studying law and now coming to understand what the judiciary's (courts) role is, I recognise that what may seem unfair is really exercised in a careful and lawful manner. The judiciary's role is to administer law based on facts. So, I'd say if people really want to put a stop to peach (or essentially anything that they're advocating for) they'd have to find independent specialists and researchers who would give info about its effects with science to back it (I don't know if that was the case with the anti-peach protesters though). Since starting my course I've come to realise that activism actually requires a lot of money and PATIENCE, especially where the law is concerned and where the issues raised aren't easily noticeable.
I’ve felt more and more jaded with regard to “debate” content lately. Maybe it’s just me, but I honestly don’t think this type of content really helps anybody. As you bring up, it’s almost like the content exists as nothing more than a self-congratulatory pat on the back. I don’t buy the argument that these debates are truly in the public interest, at least not some of them, where indeed, human rights are at the core of the debate. Sometimes I think the “other side” really doesn’t need to be entertained, and that doing so provides no benefit. I think there is and needs to be a distinction made between freedom of expression and responsible platforming in the public consciousness. There are certainly barriers that exist in government and many institutions, but it’s still a pretty wild place on social media platforms.
I know everyone is talking about the subject of the video but I can't help being blown away by her English speaking skills. She's French and her fluent English speaking is just really impressive 👌🏻💕
I find this comparison very interesting. However, I think there is definitely merit to allowing people to express any sort of moral judgement if it is presented kindly and sensitively. Especially when these beliefs are not uncommon. To do otherwise risks alienating the very people some may wish to convince.
Censorship as a tool to protect human rights as a foundation of democracy is such a fine line to stand on and more often than not people take one of them too far. An amazing perspective💫
The question with debating terrible people is whether it's better to do so or not in every single case. There's not a general answer. If you can deal with your opponent and the situation doesn't disadvantage you then why not? I think we can become quite arrogant if we think that just talking to people legitimizes their point of view in front of an audience. It assumes that people can be persuaded quite easily or that they aren't very informed.
Thank you for this! The question of the role and function of censorship in the society is very interesting to me and the topic doesn't seem to be discussed enough. It sure is hard to talk about, as most people will immediately think of some strict form of state censorship right away. But ignoring the fuzzy edges of the concept (which can come in much "lighter" forms as the ones you mention) bars us from engaging with it constructively.
What does it matter if both ultimately have the same effect? No one is arguing against censorship does so because they'd rather it be done by corporations than the government. People argue against censorship because they don't want there to be censorship.
My biggest thing with the anti hate speech laws is how it can be used to suppress genuine criticism. Like the laws being proposed now in Australia could open the door to declaring criticism of Israel as antisemetic, or wanting the government to do something about climate change as terrorism (WA has literally charged climate protesters with terrorism for throwing paint)
To have honest debate you have to be prepared to hear opinions you do not like, whether they are whatever phobic or not. Otherwise you are simply only listening to what you want to hear and not honestly confronting anything. The world is not fair, no-one is born equal. Accept what you cannot change and improve that which you can.
But as a teacher, it's a helpful alternative to show students how to debate. Well, it's our job to choose which content to present. Anyway, i just discover your channel recently and i really love your POV in so many things. Subscribed right away. Keep the quality!
The thing you said about censorship and choosing what or who to show is absolutely right. It reminds me of my photography lessons no matter what you do its always subjective because of what you choose to frame.
I watch peach sometimes and the thing that annoys me the most is that to watch someone who is black or Asian most of the time you have to search it yourself, cause it doesn’t show up in all the categories that aren’t about race. Sometimes I do that cause I don’t want to watch white people only but it feels weird to have to pick those categories
It’s didn’t really cross my mind untill watching this that people would take jubilee’s videos as games rather than education on the topics but i can see that now even thought that isn’t how i myself initaily interpret them.
I just recently watched jubilees video about trans women vs women out of curiosity, because ive always found it disgusting how jubilee basically promotes the idea that everything is a harmless opinion, unless like you said it’s outright hate speech, and its astounding. Everything you said was on point, and completely expresses the feelings i had but couldn’t quite speak. The comments almost always praise the “well spoken” and “calmer” of the bunch, no matter the meaning behind the words. And it feels almost wrong in a way to see everyone high fiving and laughing it off after someone literally invalidated and denied someones existence, jubilee just perpetuates an idea that doesn’t exist, middle ground. And like you said, it wouldn’t even exist if not for the incentive capitalism provides.
found the commie shizo in ten years if you have the same political opinions then check in to a mental health ward. Good luck on your self discovery journey i was just like you when i was 15.
@@unreale2695 not trying to argue or anything but whats ur opinion then? I honestly found the video kind of confusing, Idk if censorship equals outright refusal to engage in a debate, i ald dont know if its the answer to stop hate speech
This video is so twisted, how can you not see the irony when you put "betrays democratic tradition" and "responsibly use cencorship" in the same sentence? ( 12:34 )
The reason students hug and high five after a round of debate is because they are usually assigned a topic and a side to debate in organized and civil tournaments, and usually, the topics itself are not the most controversial with genuine points for both sides, and most students do not strickly agree or disagree with either sides. But in cases like Jubilee, where people (I assume) are speaking they're true opinions, on sometimes very heavy topics, I feel like having a hug and playing it off like a game at the end might be less appropriate.
Freedom of speech is part of human fundamental rights. People cannot advocate against human rights ( for example such as deciding who they're marrying or which way they will express themselves) while still being for an absolute freedom of speech. Jubilee cannot pick and choose for vain entertainment that creates real life consequences.
I don't understand your argument. People can't be critical of current human rights and be pro free speech at the same time? If that's your argument, I don't see where the contradiction is.
Sometimes I forget just how vile a lot of porn is because I sort of stick to my own corner of favourite performers (I have a particular fav who does all kinds of porn so it's very clear when there is roleplay or kink going on, like it's never just a given that they will be dominant) and genres, so I always talk in favour of it when done ethically, but honestly I can see that having SO MUCH of the most easily accessible, free porn be depicting violence against women is so so wrong. "Porn is the theory, rape is the practise" really sealed it for me. Yes a lot of what's available is perfectly fine to watch,but it needs to be advertised as what it is - dom/sub - rather than what sex is actually like for most people. Choking and slapping is just default, and its not right.
In fact, your whole channel reminds me of the black mirror series "Fifteen Million Merits" episode S01E02, more precisely the ending. Thanks for the content.
What I find funny about Jubilee is that it says it wants to promote empathy but their comment sections are always anything but.
Yeah their community is pretty close minded. But there are a few people who try to understand the other side. I benefited greatly from watching the channel
The Jubilee comments sections make me immediately lose faith in humanity tbh, it's always like 90% hardcore transphobia any time the topic has come up
@@jasmineflower2415 ah yes “transphobia” that imagined problem is the actual problem not the brigading seriously the privileged we afford to trannies
@@jasmineflower2415 OMG YES, I thought this just illustrated that most of the human population still has transphobic ideas. I hope it's just jubilee's audience
@@jasmineflower2415 Why have faith in the humans to begin with? Most of them are dissapointinly unintelligent and none of them are granted with critical thinking naturally.
Jubilee gives 2015 buzzfeed or cosmopolitan vibes
Definitely accurate 😂
W profile pic ftr
Ok
I always thought Jubilee is just Gen Z buzzfeed.
@@dirgmario yes! And cut
This line really hit me(8:39): “if every single young person was taught proper sex ed at school (one that includes the notion of pleasure, desire, consent gender norms, etc.), they wouldn’t see peach as an authority-they would naturally understand that it is fake.” I grew up in Mormon Utah where such education was essentially nonexistent. And I have spent YEARS unlearning the lies I internalized from peach (and I’m not done yet). I wish conservative parents understood this principle better.
People don’t need sex education lol. You can teach sex as part of biology class without shoving retarded leftwing feminist nonsense down people’s throats
We do. That’s why we don’t raise our kids to be weak like you
We need to advocate for more proper sex education 😢
@@lolcandyyy Will that include more sexually Explicit materials that borders on Porn to actually porn complete with illustrations of two naked people in doggy style? Should we show that to Minors? Didn't sex education use to be less explicit than this? (below age of consent)
@@silverhawkscape2677 …what 🤦🏻 Images of digital organs and studies for the biology or physiology related to the human mating process. What to expect and what to prevent and what to do. This is all science everyone should know about our own bodies.
The intolerance paradox: To have a tolerant society we must be intolerant of intolerance.
Yeah I kind of agree. but you could argue those are different things. To have a just society you must be intolerant of intolerance. But to have a tolerant society you would have to be tolerant of all views regardless on their justness
Thank you. Being tolerant to EVERYTHING is also being tolerant to tyranny. Its like the definition of freedom in the US vs Europe. In the US they think freedom is saying whatever you want, even if that includes slurs or fascist ideals. In Europe, our freedom ends where the rights of others begin.
i think there's a different way to think about which is - how do we define tolerance? yes we are not tolerant to intolerance. but what we should be tolerant to is listening to intolerance so that people feel heard and do not regress further and more aggressively in their views.
@@chamberv5261 and that's why Europe has a history of fascist governments as opposed to US, and it is gradually turning on in a totalitarian society
@Francesco Renna who deleted his comment. It is absolutely true that populism and fascism are rising in Europe. Although the reason is not bc we tolerated everything. Much more has happened, Europe is geographically exposed to a lot more than the US and during quarantine many things started to change (perhaps the amount of chronically online people who entered the alt-right pipeline was more than adequate and happened during those years).
It could be true that many centrists deciding to "hear both sides" has enabled and given courage to fascists and neo-nazis all around Europe but this is a global phenomenon.
As a black woman, I could NEVER watch the Jubilee videos where they rate people based on “physical attractiveness”. It’d be bad for my mental health 💀💀💀💀
I feel you. A lot of those videos gave me anxiety.
Believe me, it’s definitely not worth it.
Yeah those videos are just... everything wrong with modern society in a nutshell lol. We are so tied up in equating our physical attractiveness (or moreover, other people's perceptions of our physical attractiveness based largely upon societal factors) to our overall world / sense of identity.
Different context but I say this as a guy who isn't tall. Tallness for men is the unequivocal beauty standard in the modern age, and there's nothing you can do about it. All of these videos reaffirm that my height makes me unattractive. Its a toxic mindset to put oneself in
Same. Those videos are just depressing 🫠
@@jemima_brown of course she isn't. She's likely referring to the general preferential consensus being very racist, even subconsciously. especially if you're a dark skinned black woman, you're likely to have very negative feedback :(
Jubilee with their format "middle ground" is also guilty of both siding (for the lack of a better term) and normalizing extremist views: When a group advocating for their (human) rights "debates" a group that wants to eradicate the first group out of existence there is no middle ground. Only one group is in the right here. And I feel like videos like this never have this message.
THIS
Some people think that taking the center opinion somehow means you are unbiased. That's just not how bias works lol. Centrists are just strongly against anything that is not the "normal opinion" (that is, supports the status quo). Sounds quite biased, ngl.
I believe the way to shut down hateful ideology is to publicly debunk them. Censoring extremist views will not change people's minds, and will force people with those beliefs underground into an echo chamber. That's how people get indoctrinated into extremist groups. They are scared to share their extremist views, so only shares them in dark corners of the internet where no one challenges them, because they know that if they share those views they will be labelled a hateful bigot.
@@BS-bd4xo and since conservativism naturally protects the status quo as well, then centrists are almost never actually in the center. they're wherever the overton window is at the current moment. Currently, they're on the right. this is why centrists infuriate me at times, because they are fighting for the status quo that the right wing wants to use to slingshot their side into victory. The same status quo that propagates their power, the same status quo that allows extreme injustice to occur.
@@albummutation2278 yes, self-described centrists are very infuriating people.
Let's not forget how jubilee always gets right wing commentators equipped with their talking points to debate random people of the street
THIS
Yeah it's sus asf
Or maybe the right wingers just know what they’re talking about more than the average wokeoid… but I guess that possibility hasn’t reached the Alice Capelle larp echo chamber 😂
@@donotinteract7851 i would like to see if you could stand a debate with bad empanada
@Do not interact Is that why professional right wingers can't answer questions asked by random people from the street?
Now THAT'S an eyecatching title! Well done, Alice! 🙂You're having a conversation that Abraham Lincoln himself was involved with. He argued against popular sovereignty (the idea that each state, North and South, should decide for themselves about slavery) because he argued that this argument suggested that one side was pretty much the same as another. He disagreed--saying that we should not try to find the middle ground between right and wrong but side with the right (not the political right, lol). This video is an excellent addition to the centuries long discussion!
Or, as an angry cartoon goose once excellently put it: "states' right to do what? states' right to do what, motherfucker?"
@@thatchapthere I love it!
How do we define the right side?
@@richmondaddai-duah Good question. For Lincoln it was written in the law of nature. Others will have different reasons. But what he rejected was the notion that there was no right or wrong. That every choice was the moral equivalent of every other choice.
@@pendragon2012 well, there is definetly reasons to object ,for example are morals objective ? or what does natural law really say about morals ? or does natural law even exists ,but thanks for the response. I think a good way to go through this would be a collective moral egoism or moral.inter-subjectivity (egoism not in normal way of thinking about it ,but in talking about subject desires) .
I would add that there are two things that really bother me with jubilee's middle ground videos. First is how they always cast someone that seems "moderate" but actually is against many human rights, and that person is always praised in the comments for how calm and well spoken they were, no matter how unresearched and harmful what they said was. Then I think they should had fact checking in their videos and invite experts like sociologist or historians for example because the conversations tend to be surface level and based on the individuals experiences only (not all the time but often).
Jubilee seems like the type of channel that knows damn well they'd lose a sizable chunk of their audience by broadcasting actually well-researched speech in regards to minorities and human rights.
because maybe despite their stupid views they are actually more calm and better at arguing? if that is the case why are the people with more moral high ground so mad and screaming all the time? Either they are just bad, or they don't actually believe in the morality and logic behind their own point.
@@paulogaspar8295 being calm and "civil" does not excuse barbaric ideas
@@paulogaspar8295 It is a caricature of the people who defend these ideas to say that they scream and get mad at each debate. It is precisely by having this Manichean vision that we think more sensible the supposedly moderate, conservative people who rely much more on form than substance. Moreover it is necessary not to forget that jubilee chooses participants so they are not representative of how debates take place outside of their channel.
Maybe they should just have a disclaimer saying basically "These views aren't meant to provide information or education on the topic."
Jubilee just likes to stir up chaos like a reality TV show. They don't even take turns when debating half the time. I agree that peach is absolutely dripping in violence and hatred, and that makes me really upset, but the two sides of the argument are always women are better than those dirty horny men or women are sex objects let me keep it that way. I hate both of those takes honestly. I think it's totally normal and healthy to enjoy being a sexually mature human being, but we gotta get real here and start enforcing some serious regulations on this industry.
is peach supposed a stand in for p0rn?
This comment was so asinine I literally couldn’t get through it please leave the internet
????? ive never heard of the argument “women are better than those dirty horny men”!! i don’t believe it is real! considering that the anti-“peach” argument usually goes hand in hand with anti-human trafficking, anti-misogyny, anti-patriarchy, and responsible, class-based analyses don’t blame men for “peach”!
men aren’t even responsible for the patriarchy, because it is a social phenomenon that sits out of the reach of our society, yet we are nevertheless tidally locked to patriarchy
and recall how corporations always lobby to get rid of regulations!
Literally, I said this in another comment too!
Sexuality is biological, and it will exist today, tomorrow, and forever. And I agree the nature of explicit and exploitative content with the way they entice and overload all social platforms (where anyone of any age can access) with phrasing and visuals that are morally and ethically wrong, is something that needs to be reeled back and if I'm being honest with myself... entirely shut down. Besides for regulated and educational purposes, but the recreational aspect has made peach become a monster of its own, that disregards both the actors and audience for the exchange of profit.
@@str4wbry_e bro they’re just showing you how other people think. If you can’t deal with that that’s your problem
Middle ground is literally a logical fallacy and we should be dismissing it as such. Great video!
Exactly!
@@jemima_brown just because they don't explicitly say it, doesn't mean that's not how the argument is framed. Work on your media literacy. Cool sock account name BTW 🙄
The golden mean fallacy is only present if the middle ground is presented as the best because it's not one of the extremes. I don't watch Jubilee anymore, but I don't think they've ever asserted that. If anything, they're probably more at risk of making the opposite fallacy, the false dichotomy. Work on your informal logical fallacies.
@@Pazuzu4All it doesn't have to be asserted when the whole show is framed that way. They entertain arguments that shouldn't be entertained because they should hear all sides, even if the correct conclusion lies elsewhere. A false dichotomy would limit conclusions, Jubilee gives a platform to spurious claims. Although, depending on the episode they tend to frame arguments as false dichotomies too
@@jemima_brown okay fine your account is real. Your media literacy still needs work
“Human rights: Let’s compromise” sums up Jubilee
Who decides what is a human right? You of course, you hypocrite
That's how debates work. If an opinion exists you have to debate it. It won't disappear just because you don't like it.
@@konyvnyelv.having an opinion that certain humans shouldn’t have rights is nothing short of pure evil.
Well done! I wish the people who advocate against comprehensive sex-ed would understand that the alternative is driving young adults to learn about sex from porn hub....
I'm pretty sure they're learning about sex from each other
@@appa609 teens arent all having sex, specially now i think less people are having sex. And the information they would tell eachother is not going to come from an academic source or a textbook on safe sex, its going to come from superstition or porn.
Most people who advocate against it also want porn banned or heavily regulated.
Would good sex ed really help stop young people viewing that shii. They still gonna end up finding it with how normal it has become and how sexualised everything is
Or older people who actively want to have sex with you
Thank you for this. Jubilee is really infuriating when they have "middle ground" conversations with people that are extremists and hateful and that spread misinformation and essentially give them a platform. It's gross when the comments think speaking calmly is equal to being intelligent. Just because someone is calmly saying women's rights don't matter or invalidates objectively accurate experiences doesn't make them empathetic or respectable. Acting like people should be okay with an extremist's opinion is vile.
What you call misinformation I bet that there facts if you search them
The problem isn't giving them a platform, it's at the end of it all going "your takes were equally valid yaas queen slaay"
Giving EVERY SIDE a platform is critical in debate. Otherwise you're just promoting an echo chamber. DO let incels express how they hate women and why they do. These hatreds are IRRATIONAL. They can be deconstructed. And how do you do it? With civil debate and discourse, not banishing them as undesirables, because that only solidifies their "them vs us" ideology
"They silence ys because we know the truth" is a motif with MUCH MORE POWER than people give it credit.
The argument of someone with irrational hatreds crumbles the minute they're forced to actually explain their thought-process. Because said thought-process is bonkers. And that's only revealed when they're forced to actually put their bonkers beliefs to practice.
@@miguelpadeiro762I feel like they maybe do normalize a bit extremist opinions by trying to have their platform seem unbiased, but it is obvious those extremist would never agree to participate in the debates if they knew it was some kind of set-up for them.
And like you said the best way to make sure you're not in an eco chamber is listening to everyone's opinions, because afterwards if you're really on the "correct side" you'll be even more sure that what you're saying is what's right. Of course, this becomes more difficult when having very impressionable children watching their videos.
exactly !!
@@miguelpadeiro762it's only an echo chamber if the argument/message is bigoted, spreading a good message without a "necessary" opposition sounds quite ideal tbh. Not everything should be a debate.
This video instantly reminded me of Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance"; if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
You never read Popper
YES! This. I had this problem for a long time with Jubilee's debates. They are many times confronting opposing ideas and positions in a way they seem to be equivalent or equally valuable. They once confronted flat-earthers with non flat-earthers. Got me really angry, because that sends the message that those are both valid theories that should look for coexistence or some middle ground. I'm sorry, but no. They are not equivalent. One is a scientifically consolidated theory and the other one is long-ago-refuted bullshit. To confront them like that is even insulting to scientists. Ideas that are harmful, hateful or unscientific should not be put on the same level as the others. It sends a very dangeorus message, it normalizes those ideas.
Yes totally they just come up with a controversial topic that they know will get a ton of clicks but make it look like it’s actually relevant in the sense that its like splitting our society as a whole in half bc it’s always equal amounts of ppl debating on either side when in reality it’s often just that the extremists are especially vocal about their beliefs. So for the 'other' side they can (and do!) just bring in any random person but for the extremist view they kinda have to bring in ppl who have those debates and spew this extremist view as a profession, basically. Which further helps their point since they’re very well versed in presenting and arguing for it.
Allowing for flat earthers to state their case to other people is not in any way equivalating them to the established reality or legitimizing them. It is a way for the curious viewer to learn about what they think in a critical environment where that way of thinking can be refuted, in the same way a reaction video would be. Playing devils advocate with them is frankly a much more positive and interesting way to learn about flat earthers than just watching the content they make themselves.
EXACTLY! I was about to bring up that episode
That sounds like a good thing actually. I in no way believe the world is flat, but I still want to hear why they think that way and whether they'll still think that way after hearing the correct answer.
@Grapse Bad this! Is anyone gonna think the earth is suddenly flat after watching a 20 minute debate?
I’ve never known how to put the discomfort I feel towards “centrist” ideology to words, but this video did a fantastic job of verbalizing my feelings. It places hate on the same level as someone saying “hey I deserve to exist” and acts as though each are equal arguments. For example, there was one video (I’m not sure if it was Jubilee or some copycat) where they had incels debate feminists and it framed incel ideology as if it was as common and valid as feminism rather than a vocal minority. It always rubbed me the wrong way but I wasn’t sure why until now. Love the video as always!!!
to us, they are definitely not equal arguments. but we have to understand not everyone's brains work like ours and that deplatforming people won't work to lessen the hatred because they will only get angrier. i think the best course of action is for jubilee to, indeed, platform these people but counterbalance the outcome of making arguments seem equal by objective rebuttal. jubilee wants to make people feel heard i suppose, and regardless of their moral stance that's important because the more people on regressive sides experience compassion, listening, understanding and then well-spoken, well-researched and non-accusatory rebuttal, the more receptive they will be to changing their mind.
bro thinks a view being in the minority makes it not worth discussing
@@yikes.3239 But no one side is saying anyone can't exist.
I'd say this is misrepresenting what centrism means
Centrism just means your beliefs are more in the middle rather than solidly "left" or "right".
What you're refering to is different. It's the weird and hypocritical active participation in ideological discourse all the while mantaining a "we are all the same, our ideologies have equal worth" opinion which is bonkers.
Our opinions are all of the same worth. But are the opinions all good? No, they can be good opinions, shit opinions. Harmless opinions, harmful opinions.
All this is unrelaled to centrism.
We NEED to be open to hear the other side, that's CRITICAL to not only understand the other side but also to drive people away from it if said side happens to be in the wrong.
Extremism and "these opinions don't deserve to be heard at all" is how these people solidify their views as "oppressed ideologies", festering more hate, like with the incels
@sewerrat7418 Sure thing, but if you ever want to form constructive criticism in the future of the right, or any other group for thay matter, do take a listen!
blown away by this. it has been a while since a TH-cam video made me think so much. making the connection to p*rn really puts a lot into perspective. and it's impressive how you got such a compelling message across in less than 15 minutes! i know i will be thinking about this for a while. thank you for putting words to this!
Exploiting the controversial buzz from serious issues to pull in viewers is manipulative and should be recognized as such. Promoting tolerance is such a funny position they take, more like polarization and both sides syndrome.
Bruh, I love to watch Juiblee when I'm alone and isolated in my room, I get drunk and binge-watch their videos and argue with the screen, say things out loud like "you're such an idiot, what a dumb opinion, that's totally not correct". That's fun af
Lol im the same, thanks I’m not alone 😂
Same! I not gonna suddenly think the earth is flat or women are subservient because of one nut job who can't form a cohesive statement. It does get me mad when obviously bigoted people speak
Same! I not gonna suddenly think the earth is flat or women are subservient because of one nut job who can't form a cohesive statement. It does get me mad when obviously bigoted people speak
I so wanna try that lmao
😂
i hate how jubilee portrays each side of the argument as equal when one side is literally denying certain groups basic rights or is just straight up hate
Yes both are equal
@rahul-bs3my just because an issue has two sides doesn't mean that both are equal. The opinion that the earth is flat and that it is round aren't both equally valid opinions just because people believe both
orphans vs the orphanage burning club - can they find common ground?
@Neuromancer2310 it's really not. It's like victim vs oppressor in many cases
True. Liberals want to kill babies and white people. There is no both sides.
this is a really creative video concept, i rly enjoyed it. i think the way jubilee takes on this centrist standpoint in the name of empathy only legitimizes/validates far-right ideologies, which often do not align with human rights. its like the paradox of tolerance, of not 'tolerating the intolerant'. by never drawing the line on free speech, society can become safer for hate speech than it is for minorities.
Another amazing video Alice! I've been struggling to explain why it frustrates me to see media producers platform extreme right-wing speakers without just sounding like a biased lefty but you are so amazing at explaining phenomena such as this!
They also platform extreme left speakers as well so they are nowhere near a balance and unbiased channel
@@NothingReallyMatters08 I'm a right wing leaning person and I think jubilee is already too muddle grown
what do you mean by extreme right wing?
No. Shes just a biased lefty
i think a big problem is that jubilee takes very real opinions that are harmful and treats them like a game treats them like they weren't real
I love that TH-cam's community guidelines makes it impossible for to have informed discussions on important topics without self-censoring. Wouldn't want kids to hear people speak clearly or seeing Portable Document Formats and Peach farmers being called out now would we?
Lorsque j’étais jeune (vers 12 ans) nous avions eux un cours sur la sexualité, la dame nous demandait nos connaissance sur le sujet et j’ai levé la main pour mentionner que la pornographie n’était pas réellement comparable à la réalité.. La dame m’a dit que j’avais tort et que ça ce passait comme ça tout simplement..
Je suis resté sous le choc de voir une adulte penser ainsi et éduquer les jeunes sur le sujet ..
I’m curious to know, how did you know as a 12 year old how it’s not the same as reality? You sound intelligent but I’m curious lol.
@@marinaSassygUrl88I am not OP but unfortunately I was exposed to it very very young. Like at 7. So by the time I was 12 or 13 I had years of viewing under my belt (so sad…wonder how that has affected my brain chemistry). By that time I had been exposed to anti-porn articles and started understanding that it was not close to the truth.
@@steff6146 I know this is late, but it's so odd coming across this comment. I was exposed to porn at like 7/8 because of the internet and I've always just kind of forgotten that, it's never occurred to me that someone else had similar experiences. but yeah, we definitely need better sex ed, not just for kids but for adults. The reason I became addicted to porn as a fucking child was because I didn't have an adult I could trust with questions about sex. So I searched online, and found porn.
The way i unsubscribed to Jubilee because unbearable their contents are day by day. 💀
Better day when Alice uploads
I agree it's okay to be critical of problematic beliefs. I thought it was a little weird that they hugged or high five in the end. I think it was just a empathy, or pity thing for the person. At the same time I just like being nice to people. Even if they don't deserve the kindness. That might be my Achilles heel. I think if you don't like someone you don't have to be so friendly and hug, high five, or shake hands at the end with them. It's normal to not like someone whatever the reason is. You just don't like them. I never really thought of censorship the way you did since this whole time I don't like censorship. To be honest I do like this more aggressive approach to fighting back against bad rhetoric and beliefs
Subjectively, it seems like the aggressive approach only radicalises and further solidifies extreme views as it reinforces the personal bias of "us vs them".
But the lack of aggressive approach also leads to the mass spread of negative rhetoric and embolden them as there is no one to actually go against these rhetoric headstrong. This is true for cases when the rhetoric is left unchecked, allowing it to grow from a very niche minority to a large fungal-like hivemind infection that permiates to the common man and affects their judgement as well. Andrew Tate and Trump are great examples of this phenomenon.
Its a very delicate balance especially since the average person, (and even moreso for those involved in right-wing rhetoric) tend to be naturally narrow minded and fail to realise that often they have been led to villainise the wrong people due to opportunistic figures capitalising on the masses' own insecurities and fears.
@@Noor-rk9sf exactly!! i'm so glad that you commented on this because i think largely this comment section is really villainising these people in such a way. and yes, they're dangerous views to have but often these people are just misguided and need compassion and someone to show them the right way. isolating and censoring and suppressing them only makes them angrier and regress further into more and more extreme views and echo chambers, and further less inclined to listen to another side.
I think porn since the 70s on has really messed up a lot of people sexuality and them being able to really find it on their own terms. ESPECIALLY women in hetero relationships. I am not okay with it anymore at all I don't watch, but the society I live in sort of shames people for not being okay with it - I think we're soaked in pornified culture and I'm a feminist - I agree with the anti-porn 70s feminist - I was born in 1981, and porn really messed me and my peers self image up - I can't imagine being a teen finding myself and my own sexuality in todays swamp of a porn culture.
I relate to a lot of what you said.
When talking about this I think we should be careful to look at how porn damages people - because not everyone has the same answer.
To me the problem with porn is the same problem we see everywhere else: objectification, dehumanization, treating people as a means to an end, affirming & enforcing male domination, etc. Porn is the fulfillment of capitalism in the area of sexuality. To me that means the harm of porn is not in depictions of sex acts or the intent to stimulate - I would even say these are good things. But capitalist patriarchy turns them to its own ends, which are anti-human.
I'm saying all this because I think it's a position distinct from both conservative Christian and anti-porn feminist understandings of porn. That will affect how we respond to it.
@@colonelweird well put
Beauty standards exist independent of porn, banning porn wouldn't magically depressurise the populace in regards to body dysmorphia. All you need to do is to look at the countries where porn is already banned to notice that it generally just works as a cultural muzzle. Even if you, as a 70s style feminist, were to ban it, it'd ultimately end up as a cultural weapon for the modern right-wing, whereas the populace would turn more towards the softcore variety of sexual content. I'm not pro or anti porn, as it ultimately isn't the magic cure as many seem to think, whether it's the pro argument of encouraging sexuality and the expression of it, or the anti argument of objectification and general mysoginistic implications.
@@colonelweird "enforcing male domination" - so would it all suddenly be a-okay if 99% of corn became female-mistress-dominatrix centered? I don't really get your point there
Hot take - I do agree with a lot of what’s said about how Jubilee is like porn and how extremist views can be interlaced in the things said during discussions. I also agree with how censorship does have its place in “democratic” societies. However, I think the channel’s biggest issue is posing their discussions as debates. Participants seem to discuss issues based off the belief that they can somehow change the other side, convincing them they are right. Most of the time, this erupts in participants bickering at each other, not productive conversation. If discussions took the form of a dialogue, where participants offer their views on issues without trying to convince and they actually listened to each other, I think more of Jubilee’s videos would be worth watching and I know this can be hard a lot of the time because the issues discussed are typically people-centric. I think the point of the channel was originally to get people from different sides of the political spectrum to share their views on issues, but because it was built on an entertainment model (the content doesn’t matter as much as the message which is the same in every video), it becomes as Alice says like porn…
i think this girl forgets the democracy means "for the majority", and ultra-progressivist people are definitely not the majority in any place in the world
Let's be honest, people in general will be better off not consuming garbage content like pr*n and channels like Jubilee.
this was fantastic and so refreshing. i hope more people will see this. it's scary how often equality is brought up in these "debate" sections. human rights are not up for debate.
THIS IS SUCH A GOOD ANALOGY!! omg thank u for talking abt this. the algorithm must have recognized that I'm on my "I'm tired of society's bullshit" rampage and recommended this video to me lol. to be fair, this morning I went on a rant to my partner abt how I'm tired of standing in a tiny square bc people want me to do that, and I'm tired of arguing with people in my head and having social anxiety just bc I'm paranoid all the time bc people in society today REFUSE to even hear each other. news flash: we are all HUMAN BEINGS, and jubilee is not abt empathy, it's abt clicks and we can do sm better
Not debating/snubbing someone with incredibly dumb/bigoted ideas isn’t censoring them. Nobody’s entitled to someone else’s platform
That's definitely something I've noticed with Jubilee for example male feminists vs female anti feminists the trans participant was disrespected continuously and and to me it felt like they had to "open minded" to this attack on there sense of self.
There are so many videos with people expressing severe transphobia and it's still just framed as a totally valid perspective
Disrespected how?
@koolji actually no it isn't, it is not valid to be a prick to trans people just because you can.
@@cyberspace7208 Is a trans man a man?
@@SomeAHole No
The problem with the idea of not giving dangerous ideas a platform, although I empathise with it, is that it makes it so that the only platforms where those ideologies can be shared are those where there is little resistance and many people are susceptible to those harmful ideas.
Instead of trying to suppress these ideas, which will inevitably but unfortunately fail, we should instead continue providing a platform to them where they encounter resistance while improving our ability to show how wrong these ideas are. That way, those who are susceptible to those ideas also have the opportunity to hear them countered in a free way.
We should all collectively just ignore jubilee, I refuse to give them my engagement
Watching this video gave them that
My professor is making us watch Julibee, HELP ME!!!
Good. He's a good professor. I sustain Jubilee economically.
This is what i needed to make my day!
1:28 real! i debated my classmates who i love very much, we were always shooting arguments/questions but remembering not to debate the person, debate the topic! afterwards we all went to the movies and had fun :)
Jubilee normalises and platforms bigotry in a gross way.
its in such a lib way too which makes it more annoying to me yk? like theyre preaching abt empathy and doing the right thing or whatever but theyre really just trying to profit off of hot topics for views... its like if they were just honest abt being trash tv and just stopped pretending like they were doing a service to the public by letting us debate??
its like the way they are so self righteous abt it makes it worse imo
You people are just elitist.
How DARE they platform ideas you disagree with!!
Says the NATO shill lol
@@donotinteract7851 It's norm to not even tell names of criminals a lot of the time and hide details of violence they have done, because people tend to copy cat them. Giving a platform to people who want to dehumanise people, pathologize human variations gives a lot of people idea that it's a right thing, especially when many use lies and anecdotal "evidence". We can talk about difficult topics, but we need to explain things and highlight the value of all life, personal liberty. Far right groups don't think that all human life has value and spreading such ideas is known to lead to interpersonal and political violence. It's just about safety of people
I think the reason I wasn’t on the debating team was not only because no one wanted me but also I never participated because I’d take my stand (according to the situation) very seriously and maybe I was and am terrible at it.
It's true I often felt like debate class didn't value the seriousness of the debates but rather treated it more like a sport of rhetoric, and argumentation, rather than taking a real stand on subjects. It was a preview for teens to learn how to become lawyers , not activists. Or at least try to understand how political debates worked, (before they became a massive media spectacle of popularity contest posturing.)
Wow. The title made my raise my eyebrow but this was a very thoughtful analysis
I absolutely agree with everything you've said in this video. I remember in middle school I had a cut/jubilee/buzzfeed phase and I know I felt bad watching some of the videos cuz it was draining but I didn't understand why. I feel like at the end of each one, you get post ragebait clarity when you realize what you just spent the last twenty minutes watching was pointless and shameful, just like with peach. but the reason I didn't know what made me feel like this is because they purposefully try to make you feel like this content is okay at the end of each video, with little bts moments or the high fives with ppl who don't support human rights. I genuinely hate jubilee and how many brains they are frying with their content. im really glad you put this into sensible words, this was a great video
Jubilee the pioneers of the false dichotomy.
“Is Hitler bad? Hitler vs Non-Hitler Middle ground”
Example above is “non-partisan” according to jubilee. even introducing Hitler in this context pretends the two sides of “hitler bad” and “hitler good” have equal debates. But Jubilee takes this a step further, pitting normal people against Hitler media hosts who would know all the hitler talking points.
A solution would be titling their video “A hitler debate” and not having “two sides” to every argument.
I don't think full on censorship is what's needed, but rather, a refraining of giving fringe voices a platform that's disproportional to the amount of people with that opinion. Like, 99.9% of scientists have come to a conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is real, but if you watch any news outlet they will both sides tf out of the subject, which gives viewers the illusion that there's more debate than there really is.
Jubilee does this same thing when they make NASA scientists argue against flat earthers. They're just looking for eyeballs due to the profit motive (as you said). I still think flat earthers _should_ get a platform, but it should be 1 person that's a flat earther discussing their beliefs against 10,000 scientists.
jubilee should do a hitler vs antihitler debate and give them both equal air time
if jubilee just framed their arguments as “feminist debate” instead of “feminist vs antifeminist” half the problems will be solved
I do believe a platform for them is critical.
Put two people to debate. That's it. No "everyone's opinion is as valid". Simple debate
The scientist will explain climate change scientifically and the climate change denier will give their explaination why they disagree.
The denier's argument is inherently pseudoscientific. It will crumble on camera.
Same thing if you grab someone who says "women don't deserve vote", "I hate women because they reject me all the time", "x race is inferior", "homosexuals are bad people"
DO give them a plaform. These are arguments based on IRRATIONAL hatred. They only make sense when given at surface level.
They only need to be at surface level when they aren't given a platform and remain the "alt opinion"
But put them on stage! Given them the mic! And what happens? They have to elaborate on an irrational thought process. The argument crumbles.
A flat earther can confidently explain their theory to a camera but will sweat nervously if they have an astrophysicist fact-checking every single word that comes from their mouth.
@@miguelpadeiro762 the problem is they aren't doing that. They're putting the flat earther in a room full of normal people and other people who've practice their stupid flat earth arguments.
yeah i agree, more reputable researchers and experts need to be platformed. not people who utilize mis-contextual and unproven studies. More platforms like google, facebook, and instagram should integrate measures that show whose an accredited professional and who is not.
That video has such a strong message! Most people really are unaware how important it is to utilize censorship to protect human rights, i feel like this aspect is often overlooked when debating this topic since everyone uses the “free speech” card whenever they want to normalize extreme ideologies
Yeah look how successful censorship has been in places like North Korea
Yes, people like her advocating for censorship, living in a country where the leftist candidate could not even get to the second round of the Presidential election and make up what? 30% of the Legislative; I wonder where this could go wrong and which side of the political spectrum will end up on the wrong side of censors😂😂
I think the problem is that most of the ideas in Middle Ground are not truly extremist. Extremism implies something is unusual, and for example not supporting trans rights in current Western society is not very unusual at all. What is and isn’t extremism is only based on how people tend to think at a given time and place - if we were all living 2,000 years ago is would probably be considered extremist to not support slavery, and normal to support a complete monarchy, whereas today those would be swapped obviously. Because of the nature of how ideas are not constant, I think it’s important to give a platform to any ideas that are somewhat common. For example, I am very anti-religion, and I think in general religion is a harmful thing, but I think the productive thing to do is to have debates between religious and non-religious people specifically because there are so many religious people. If I just started censoring religious people that would not end well for either side. I wish that these things were extremist, but they’re not, and that’s the important part. We can’t pretend that it’s crazy to be transphobic or ultra-religious or pro-life because there is massive support for these ideas.
As a side note, the flat-earther episode does not make any sense to me. There are barely any legitimate flat-earthers and I don’t think it’s worth exposing so many people to these logical fallacies and bad data in order to maybe change a few people’s minds. No clue what that episode was for.
Thank you for what you do. I only have one thing to add, that is not covered in here. That is the effect that porn does on the brain of the user REGARDLESS his/her education. There is some level of inconscious effect.
It is the same lack I feel when people try to criticise social media. It is not just about how you use it and what kind of product you are consuming….. thank you again, go on!
I love this discussion, and think there definitely should be more about this topic. That said, how would you feel if we didn’t stop at “peach”, but didn’t allow there to be any more violent movies or video games? Violent music?
Ultimately I think they are an easy target, but not the root of what causes human rights violations. I think things like education, poverty, community centers, and access to competent first responders have more of an impact on a community's likelihood of having instances of abuse than how much someone watches Jubilee or “peach”.
Also, how do you know that you aren’t more likely to find someone who doesn’t watch Jubilee or “peach” to be someone who doesn’t believe in human rights? There also is the possibility that a lot of people watch this content that fundamentally disagree with it. A lot of it is clickbait, but is it “harmful”?
such very great points!!
THAT LAST PART!!! i allways hate when some people assume that if you make dark jokes, youre racist / sexist / whatever, because somehow, if you make a joke, you believe in it? like, no, i like it because its funny, i agree its not ok to say these to people who dont want to hear it but making those jokes doesnt make you a bad person or a person who believes in the jokes, like, they are jokes, not supposed to be thought as serious
@@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 With dark jokes it heavily depends on the joke and the context. If it is a dark joke about a group you are a part of, then it is probably fine (Some people can be bigoted against people in the same group though). But if it is something like a cis person making a trans joke that doesn't portray them in a nice way, it isn't funny, it is just bigotry. Using the trans example more (I am most experienced with it), the only time I have seen a cis person make actually good jokes about trans people was someone who was related to a trans person. So I would add that if you know someone of a group well enough, you might be able to make good jokes about them. But in most cases where people complain about "Not being able to do comedy," they are making jokes about a marginalized group that they clearly are not educated about and it just ends up being hate speech for bigots to laugh at. I recommend watching "The Darkness" by ContraPoints to learn more, it is a great video that can explain this better than I can.
@@Kaito_Falcon i mean, it might be a bad joke but i think in jokes it matters more whos hearing it that who makes it and what that joke is, if someone makes the darkest joke against trans people, but no one trans an no one who could be offended hears it then its fine
@@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 It's fine for someone to be a bigot if no one can hear them? That's like saying it's fine for white people to say the n word when no black people are around, and I hope you don't want to make that argument. Who hears a joke does matter but even if only very few people do, it still says a lot about them.
Honestly I thought you were just hating on them, but after watching some of their videos they are really leaning more right and trying to debate on issues that shouldn't be a debate on, and they also bring people with hateful opinions. Thanks for sharing this video.
12:54 The number of times I’ve heard the word ‘echo chamber’ be abused. There’s a disdain towards ‘woke’ people but conservatives are allowed to flourish.
Make it make sense.
I never thought about this things and up until now Jubilee was one of my fav channels (I obviously realized that ranking women based on their appearance wasn't the most healthy thing to do and there were some problems with many other vidoes). Thanks for sharing such great points and quotes!
if my boyfriend voted against me we’d be done. The girl who was the shortest, white, and longest hair won. That’s literally the depth men have.
That was literally the point of the video. Ranking attractiveness
Men and women share the same 'depth'. What other judgement do you expect from people who do not know each other? In those cases, you can only judge by appearance.
This video was so great. Can’t thank you enough for it. I wish I could express myself like this.
On a side note, corn 🌽 would also be a nice word.
I am the leader of the jubilee hate club and i can't wait to watch this video
Loved the analysis/description of free society censorship at the end. As a chemistry teacher, I would not make space in my classes for the phlogiston truther perspective. Nicely done. I'm impressed, as always.
I know this wasn’t the video point but really « Liberal democracies are based on human rights » an important change: it’s based on DECLARATIONS of human rights… this was probably said quickly but we can’t seriously say this when for exemple in France we have 1789 declarations of human rights while slavery… same thing with the US.
And this is also the reason why « human rights » are debatable today. I think
Good point, I heard Stalin in a speech reflect your point, that "liberal politics has (in USSR) vanished without a trace, humans rights then was all but an illusion, only reserved for capital owners and the rest are viewed as human resources for purpose of wage slavery. It compliments your point on how they're at best declarations and at worst constructed concessions, as the birth of new human rights generally coincide with bourgeoisie crises
Ironically, I had never heard of Jubilee, and now I’m incentivised to watch it.
I think that the classic “dirty capitalist” counter-argument would be that the market itself provides a form of censorship-whether it’s salutary is a different question.
Mostly, I think that platforms like Jubilee and “peach” make their subject matter performative in a way that is damaging. Our generation grew up on an oversaturation of “peach” and is having less actual s*x than any generation before it. We also grew up on things like Jubilee (as you describe it) and have become very vocal (performative) but, I would argue, profoundly depoliticised.
The whole premise of Jubilee "debate" videos is anti human rights. To put, for example, gay people wanting the right to love their partner without fear, and fascists wanting a world where all queer people are tortured out of expressing their identities on the same level is unacceptable
There is no such thing as gay "love."
@aquelequeobserva.4999 I think you are the loveless one. I hope you can get your mind in good health eventually
@@ImawatcheronhereMy mind is okay. I do not claim to be of another gender or species
@aquelequeobserva.4999 I feel so bad for you, but mostly for those who have the misfortune of stumbling upon you in their lives
I used to watch jubilee videos around 2019 and some of them were interesting but they started getting weird and some were just uncomfortable to watch. Sounds like things have only gotten worse
Wake up babe Alice just posted a new video
Alice I should be going to bed not watching your videos at 3 o’clock in the morning.
Yeah, I think it's a far stretch to compare Jubilee to porn and the conclusion around censorship is so problematic I don't even know where to start.
Firstly let's unpack the porn comparison.
1. Jubille is like porn because they both show something raw and transgressive which intrigues us. With such a defining trait a lot of stuff then is like porn, almost everything entertaining on the internet and irl.
2. Jubilee reinforces beauty ideals like porn but Jubilee does it with more fluff around it. Reinforcing beauty ideals is something everyone can be guilty of, but the fluff in jubilee isn't just "we are all beautiful" condolence talk, participants reflect on why they reinforced them, noting that stereotypes are so ingrained within and that we have to make an analysis of why we deem some more beautiful than others, on top of that it shows disagreement even in the ranking video the men and women didn't completely agree with the compromised ranking, it shows beauty ideals differ with everyone even if there is a trend. Sure the deep stuff is really short because Jubilee cuts it down but that fluff is still a quite defining difference from porn.
3. Porn potentially leads to patriarchal violence like r*pe but is protected by Free speech, Jubille allows even potentially harmful rhetoric due to free speech like a porn platform. Again a lot of content would fall under this description and it's quite subjective what thoughts leads to harm. Every other ideology, thought, thing and identity can be twisted to cause harm, ex. The US bans books featuring queer themes because they think it incites transgenderism and they find them harmful.
4. Porn and Jubilee are both taken seriously because there is no alternative. This one is outright untrue. There are alternatives to both Porn and Jubilee, there are sex education resources online and there are serious hour-long debates exploring all nooks and crannies of an ideology, now they aren't as flashy and more intellectually challenging than porn and jubilee but they are viable alternatives that do exist. And you seem to forget that Jubilee shows not only right-wing zealots but left-wing ideas as well, engaging with each other. The equivalence would be a porn video narrated with sex ed info but porn does not do that. I find a platform that engages with different ideas admirable at a time when we are more likely to find ourselves in an opinion bubble.
Now to the most concerning idea, that censorship is necessary to protect democracy. Of course, at face value, it may seem like a good idea, let's make ideas that propagate homophobia, racism, transphobia, etc. illegal to limit the ideas/ideologies spread and impacts, but there are several qualms.
Firstly who decides what ideology to be banned from free speech, it could be governments but governments change and can then on the same basis that you propose include "harmful" ideas that aren't actually harmful, to use repression of speech as oppression rather than protection. It could be a mob or public majority opinion but that also changes all the time therefore the safest way to ensure democracy is to allow freedom of all speech even potentially harmful speech. Secondly, if it is the latter, de-platforming and social ostracisation, it isn't very effective, we hear time and time again that such treatment only leads to radicalisation, while deradicalisation isn't the only tool to promote progress it is a quite important one. The example you give with Le Penn and the other French politician points to just how ineffective de-platforming is, I know who Le Penn is, She ran again and nearly won the french election, and the other guy, never heard of him before this video. While no one should be forced to engage in ideas they don't like, it's completely understandable why a transperson doesn't want to debate their right to exist, it is by engaging and debunking those ideas that are the most effective way to convert followers of that idea. It's also the best way for a society to decide which ideology to follow, by showing both of them and giving people a choice to choose, that is the foundation of democracy.
Now you also make the equivalence that promoting one idea over the other, or not platforming or engaging with certain speakers as being the same as censorship. I find that definition to be borderline dangerous as it diminishes real government-enacted censorship and it's scary how close that rhetoric sounds to the one used in Russia to ban opposition speakers. Companies/individuals can have authority over their platform but there are companies' platforms promoting opposite values there are alternative sources which is a very important distinction. It's you that betrays the democratic tradition of free speech by downplaying and then promoting censorship, not platforms that show different ideas, especially platforms like Jubilee that promote discussion of several ideas, not a middle-ground compromise even if that in practice is what democracy results to.
I want to add that I'm not Jubilee fan, jubilee can be critiqued for how they frame debates, how they cut out a lot for the drama or to give a narrative, how they treat their guests and much more but I like the core concept and disagree with the critique you give specifically.
I find it genuinely baffling how anyone thinks pure censoring of opinions you disagree with can ever be seen as democratic
And this entire comment section is making me realise that apparently, alot of people do because the alternative is to listen to things that they deem bad or hurtful
@@ihateeverythingpete1656 Exactly, I cannot fathom how people don't understand that by allowing censorship you risk creating a totalitarian regime. After seeing Republicans ban queers from being mentioned in schools, after seeing Russia imprison people who condemn war, after seeing hong kong freedom fighters being imprisoned, after seeing Iraks women die for the freedom of speech and expression how can they even get close to such rethoric? Do we not learn from history? This whole attitude reminds me of the poem First They Came.
Ty for this, her video rubbed me the wrong way. As someone living in the United States, people have been advocating for book bans and media censorship in areas where even I live in. All under the name of “protecting children from awful sexual things” and that rhetoric is all being used to oppress lgbtq+ people.
Is "the middle ground" democracy? That's a hell of an assumption. Also the Republicans are attacking civil rights but let's concern troll about potential censorship.
Reading these comments suck ass and remind that a lot of people are trapped in echo chambers and dont realise how normal some of the stuff people say on jubillee is. Getting rid of people is effective for getting rid of people but it doesnt really help with getting rid of ideas however. If you want to advocate for violence dont cower from that and be honest instead of crying about platforming.
Man, most of the "normal" stuff you hear are actually dogwhistles. Meaning, they are suppose to sound normal to people like you when in fact it has a deeper meaning that only their actual target audience understands. Most of anti-feminist rants want to make you think that is only against the "whiny blue haired angry feminist" when in fact it's all about eliminating equality between men and women and treat the latter as property, meaning they won't be able to vote, get an education, choose their own partners or even have their own money.
woah, Alice; i've only watched a couple of Jubilee, but your video materializes the underlying wrongness i was getting from the way they organize their debates!
This is the first video I've seen by you. I thoroughly enjoyed the way you conveyed this message and found your voice very soothing. Keep it up:)
3:39 We know what’s the reasoning in many instances. It’s like a horror movie when you connect the dots.
That is a great analogy! When I saw their thumbnails I started to question my own sanity.
I’ll never forget when jubilee did a video in which they made a black victim of child m*lestation apologize to their white female editor because he left a valid critique on one of Jubilee’s ”debates”” because it “hurt her feelings”. It was disgusting, and the best example was of performative activism I’ve ever seen. It angered me because he was extra kind to her and victims of child abuse already suffer from self-blame. And SHE had the audacity to cry…Radical centralism apparently means blaming children who have been r*ped for not being “open minded” about the “faults” in the MeToo movement.
To clarify: Jubilee is an American media sight and you have to acknowledge race relations and the problem of the “white female victim” and how it’s weaponized by liberals and conservatives, which she did when talking about how “depressed” critical comments on jubilee content made her. She constantly emphasized how much crying she did throughout the video, which was obviously a way to garner empathy in support. The white men she questioned actually left hate comments, but the black man left a well-thought critique. Thankfully l, It had the opposite though; most of the comments on that video critiqued her for being over dramatic and privileged. The intelligent thing to do would be to realize he never “left hate comments” and just remove his portion from the video as it was a legitimate critique. Also, this is the same channel that asked “should we get over slavery?” when slavery is still happening in the world.
LINK: th-cam.com/video/Jn29HjAS32E/w-d-xo.html
You wouldn’t happen to have a link would you?
Is the vid still up? Could you please share the link??
How does one thing correlate with the other? That's a reach. Are victims not accountable for their actions ever again after going through a trauma or is a black person apologizing to a white person unacceptable now? Like this comment is sus
What the hell are you taking about????? That never happened
@@GesturePasture nope because that never happened he’s just babbling nonsense here
I disagree. I think it is important to "platform" potentially harmful arguments so that they can actually be argued against in the limelight instead of safely festering in the shadows, only lashing out in violent and destructive ways. In order to know what you shouldn't be racist, I think it is important to know why someone would be racist, and why that standpoint is inferior to the contrary. If debates are not treated "like a game" and participate in attacking "harmful" ideologies, then these reclusive ideologies will never have the opportunity to safely be addressed.
It has been said before but Jubilee would 100% do "Slaves vs Slave masters" and "Jews vs Nazis" middle ground if they could find people willing to do them.
Also, you are absolutely right about the school debate teams. Someone wanted to do "Animated child corn should be legal" and like 3 people liked it and expressed excitement about it...and it was an option at the next debate...
I completely agree with all of your sentiments. However, not to defend Jubilee in any way, as I do not agree with how they approached most topics, unfortunately people with extreme viewpoints exist. And to shield ourselves from this sad reality would be counterproductive. Sure, you can stumble upon an alt-right youtuber and be grossed out by their views, but you will most likely click out of that video, in the comments realise they live in an echo-chamber of likeminded people and be satisfied with the thought that they exist there, and spew their hateful rhetoric among their people. But the reality is much crueler, and these people are your teachers, neighbours, mother, father, brother sister. They do exist, and while I do think that, for example, putting a transperson and a transphobe in a debate, is very harmful to the transperson, and that jubilee video was extremely hard to watch, and I'm not sure what the point was in the end. But completely disregarding this reality is frankly what I think led to the rise of these extreme viewpoints. Im not from the US, but in my country, media is moderately left leaning and you dont really see any extreme religious right leaning views expressed, which made me honestly think that the society I live in is changing for the better. But the reality was very much different, and these people are getting angrier and angrier, and fighting harder and harder because they feel that their way of life is begin threatened. And now the right is growing in the US, in my country, all around Europe. So my point in the end is, even though I absolutely do not agree with extreme right sentiments, and wish their voices wouldn't be given a platform because of all the harm they do, we cannot pretend they doesn't exist. And unfortunately, they do have as much right to express those viewpoints, however harmful we might find them, as we do. And I think allowing these (not necessarily the jubilee ones) debates to happen, is sometimes a healthy thing to do. It reinforces the fact that society still has a long way to go, it might possibly open our minds to new ideas (in terms of changing our perspective and hopefully communicating our side more productively) and also in the end hopefully opening their minds a bit. Because if we just silence those voices, they wont go away, they will become more insidious. And they have become more insidious.
That’s what I was going to comment. I do believe that silencing "harmful" ideas is more harmful than the ideas themselves. Silencing the voices we don’t agree with reinforces their sentiment while making them invisible and undetected. It’s creating a false reality of peace and tolerance while allowing their resentment to purge.
Jubilee promotes dialogue. Yeah, you’ll hear points of view you don’t agree with and that are harmful to some, but pretending they’re not here, among us and to shun them down is a bad strategy. Dialogue has to be promoted, heavily. I do agree that the casting for these videos is a little tacky though. I hope they’ll do better because they tend to let unqualified people speak for those who side with them and it’s usually a train wreck (yet they all applause at the end of it).
Anyway, I’m happy I’ve found your comment and I share your view on this topic. To have a more nuanced and harmonious reality you have to consider all the different shades and colors and acknowledge them. I believe.
@@turoymoi47 Glad to know like minded people exist. I feel scared by how things are developing in our society. And the left is just really failing to fight their side productively, which is reflected in many recent developments like roe v wade, brexit, what is happening in poland and hungary. Of course some form of censorship will always exist, but we cannot censor people just because they disagree with us. And censoring them, as I previously stated, just makes them fight harder. The world will realistically never be a peaceful place, but if we just tolerated each other a bit more, if we were a bit more curious about why the other side feels the way they do, maybe, just maybe, this divide wouldn't be as significant.
@Turo y moi this! This is exactly how I feel about jubilee videos I don't care for. I don't like them but I can't pretend that the bigoted people in them awrtn living in the same world as me.
@Turo y moi this! This is exactly how I feel about jubilee videos I don't care for. I don't like them but I can't pretend that the bigoted people in them awrtn living in the same world as me.
@Turo y moi this! This is exactly how I feel about jubilee videos I don't care for. I don't like them but I can't pretend that the bigoted people in them awrtn living in the same world as me.
I understand your frustration with law officials appearing not to care about the things that actually matter, I used to be the same. However, since studying law and now coming to understand what the judiciary's (courts) role is, I recognise that what may seem unfair is really exercised in a careful and lawful manner. The judiciary's role is to administer law based on facts. So, I'd say if people really want to put a stop to peach (or essentially anything that they're advocating for) they'd have to find independent specialists and researchers who would give info about its effects with science to back it (I don't know if that was the case with the anti-peach protesters though). Since starting my course I've come to realise that activism actually requires a lot of money and PATIENCE, especially where the law is concerned and where the issues raised aren't easily noticeable.
I’ve felt more and more jaded with regard to “debate” content lately. Maybe it’s just me, but I honestly don’t think this type of content really helps anybody.
As you bring up, it’s almost like the content exists as nothing more than a self-congratulatory pat on the back. I don’t buy the argument that these debates are truly in the public interest, at least not some of them, where indeed, human rights are at the core of the debate.
Sometimes I think the “other side” really doesn’t need to be entertained, and that doing so provides no benefit.
I think there is and needs to be a distinction made between freedom of expression and responsible platforming in the public consciousness. There are certainly barriers that exist in government and many institutions, but it’s still a pretty wild place on social media platforms.
I know everyone is talking about the subject of the video but I can't help being blown away by her English speaking skills. She's French and her fluent English speaking is just really impressive 👌🏻💕
I find this comparison very interesting. However, I think there is definitely merit to allowing people to express any sort of moral judgement if it is presented kindly and sensitively. Especially when these beliefs are not uncommon. To do otherwise risks alienating the very people some may wish to convince.
Some moral judgments are better kept to oneself tbh
@@immkk1125no why pretend that something doesnt exist when it does????
😅
Censorship as a tool to protect human rights as a foundation of democracy is such a fine line to stand on and more often than not people take one of them too far. An amazing perspective💫
Democracies are just soft dictatorships.
The question with debating terrible people is whether it's better to do so or not in every single case. There's not a general answer. If you can deal with your opponent and the situation doesn't disadvantage you then why not? I think we can become quite arrogant if we think that just talking to people legitimizes their point of view in front of an audience. It assumes that people can be persuaded quite easily or that they aren't very informed.
You convinced me. I wasn't sure what the argument meant from the title but now I can't unsee it.
Thank you for this! The question of the role and function of censorship in the society is very interesting to me and the topic doesn't seem to be discussed enough. It sure is hard to talk about, as most people will immediately think of some strict form of state censorship right away. But ignoring the fuzzy edges of the concept (which can come in much "lighter" forms as the ones you mention) bars us from engaging with it constructively.
What does it matter if both ultimately have the same effect? No one is arguing against censorship does so because they'd rather it be done by corporations than the government. People argue against censorship because they don't want there to be censorship.
My biggest thing with the anti hate speech laws is how it can be used to suppress genuine criticism. Like the laws being proposed now in Australia could open the door to declaring criticism of Israel as antisemetic, or wanting the government to do something about climate change as terrorism (WA has literally charged climate protesters with terrorism for throwing paint)
Your channel is a gem.
Always fascinating insights.
To have honest debate you have to be prepared to hear opinions you do not like, whether they are whatever phobic or not. Otherwise you are simply only listening to what you want to hear and not honestly confronting anything. The world is not fair, no-one is born equal. Accept what you cannot change and improve that which you can.
But as a teacher, it's a helpful alternative to show students how to debate. Well, it's our job to choose which content to present.
Anyway, i just discover your channel recently and i really love your POV in so many things. Subscribed right away. Keep the quality!
I love this take because yess you not always reach a middle ground when it comes to some topics !!
as with almost everything nowadays, ideology has been reduced to its aesthetic manifestations.
The thing you said about censorship and choosing what or who to show is absolutely right. It reminds me of my photography lessons no matter what you do its always subjective because of what you choose to frame.
I watch peach sometimes and the thing that annoys me the most is that to watch someone who is black or Asian most of the time you have to search it yourself, cause it doesn’t show up in all the categories that aren’t about race. Sometimes I do that cause I don’t want to watch white people only but it feels weird to have to pick those categories
It’s didn’t really cross my mind untill watching this that people would take jubilee’s videos as games rather than education on the topics but i can see that now even thought that isn’t how i myself initaily interpret them.
Can't wait to Hear more HOT TAKES from Alice
Wonderful insights, thank you!
I just recently watched jubilees video about trans women vs women out of curiosity, because ive always found it disgusting how jubilee basically promotes the idea that everything is a harmless opinion, unless like you said it’s outright hate speech, and its astounding. Everything you said was on point, and completely expresses the feelings i had but couldn’t quite speak. The comments almost always praise the “well spoken” and “calmer” of the bunch, no matter the meaning behind the words. And it feels almost wrong in a way to see everyone high fiving and laughing it off after someone literally invalidated and denied someones existence, jubilee just perpetuates an idea that doesn’t exist, middle ground. And like you said, it wouldn’t even exist if not for the incentive capitalism provides.
found the commie shizo in ten years if you have the same political opinions then check in to a mental health ward. Good luck on your self discovery journey i was just like you when i was 15.
@@unreale2695 not trying to argue or anything but whats ur opinion then? I honestly found the video kind of confusing, Idk if censorship equals outright refusal to engage in a debate, i ald dont know if its the answer to stop hate speech
8:10 absolutely hit the nail on the head there man, this is precisely the problem with both entities
This video is so twisted, how can you not see the irony when you put "betrays democratic tradition" and "responsibly use cencorship" in the same sentence? ( 12:34 )
The reason students hug and high five after a round of debate is because they are usually assigned a topic and a side to debate in organized and civil tournaments, and usually, the topics itself are not the most controversial with genuine points for both sides, and most students do not strickly agree or disagree with either sides. But in cases like Jubilee, where people (I assume) are speaking they're true opinions, on sometimes very heavy topics, I feel like having a hug and playing it off like a game at the end might be less appropriate.
Freedom of speech is part of human fundamental rights. People cannot advocate against human rights ( for example such as deciding who they're marrying or which way they will express themselves) while still being for an absolute freedom of speech. Jubilee cannot pick and choose for vain entertainment that creates real life consequences.
I don't understand your argument.
People can't be critical of current human rights and be pro free speech at the same time? If that's your argument, I don't see where the contradiction is.
Is the reasoning behind this that freedom of autonomy and freedom of speech have the same underpinnings?
I’m fascinated that YT recommended this to me before I have even heard of Jubilee. I am happy about this, sounds like it’s not great, to put it mildly
Sometimes I forget just how vile a lot of porn is because I sort of stick to my own corner of favourite performers (I have a particular fav who does all kinds of porn so it's very clear when there is roleplay or kink going on, like it's never just a given that they will be dominant) and genres, so I always talk in favour of it when done ethically, but honestly I can see that having SO MUCH of the most easily accessible, free porn be depicting violence against women is so so wrong. "Porn is the theory, rape is the practise" really sealed it for me. Yes a lot of what's available is perfectly fine to watch,but it needs to be advertised as what it is - dom/sub - rather than what sex is actually like for most people. Choking and slapping is just default, and its not right.
In fact, your whole channel reminds me of the black mirror series "Fifteen Million Merits" episode S01E02, more precisely the ending. Thanks for the content.