@@courtssense Imo it strikes at something universal, the whole idea of empathy, visceral understanding and so on applies just as well to any politically minded person i can think of. Your other videos are great too, but in the world of politics i feel like we are lacking unifying statements like this one. This part will be a little biased on my end, but i think that even when you say that political ideals are irreconcilable, you say it in such an aparently well meaning way (someone like WhatIfAltHist cool as he is, would say something like ''the lefts desire for death and destruction is irreconcilable with the rights desire or purity and order'' while you might give something like equality as the lefts highest value, you might self admitedly not understand everyone visceraly, but it really shows that youre trying. And your atempt is inspiring, even if you say beliefs are irreconcilable, it feels like you wish that to not be the case, and thats honestly what we need rn imo.
I think you hit the jackpot saying that people scream at each other in political debate because they hold absolute moral beliefs, which in turn are inflexible, may I add that the inflexibility becomes from the well, disgusting wrongness of everything that's evil. I've really been pondering this for a long. I myself am a liberal Finnish young male. The thing I most value is well-being, so I want the people in total to have an enjoyable life, also I would like the humanity to last long as a derivative value of that producing more well-being. In simple terms, you could say I'm a utilitarian at the core. This might be mixed with equality, but the most obvious difference is that communism makes everyone equal (save for the party elite) in that everyone has it equally bad but that certainly doesn't promote utility. Of course, equality lingers in the fact that I value each individual person's utility the same, but on the other hand I accept income and wealth differences to some extent because I believe that in practice, that leads to better total wellbeing in total, albeit less evenly distributed. For this reason, I don't support socialism. On the other hand, one could take the morality discussion one step further. See, ethics is absolute in the sense that it compels us to do right and forbids us from doing wrong. But if right and wrong can't be determined by rational means, and neither by emotional means since no one can present an ultimate masterful objectively true core of what's right and what's wrong, does it mean that to find truth, the idea of right and wrong, good and evil should be rejected alltogether?
I assume, that for most people, the highest value is the life and safety of their family. I would die myself for my nation, I would die myself for my freedom, but I would not want my brothers or future sons to die. But the really big problem is that most values simply are not universal. I can be free without you being free. Actually, I am more free, if you are not free, because I can do more things to you without fear of repercussions. The glory of my nation is not the same as the glory of your nation. I want your nation to fail in their wars, so that I may conquer it. And so on... There is not always these abstract principles, freedom, security, glory, but you also have to ask for whom. And that is often mutually exclusive
“Quantity vs Quality of votes”. Are you advocating that some peoples votes are not “quality” and therefore should not be counted? Who gets to determine how voter “quality” is defined?
Seems like many of these issues could be solved if society moved away from the concept of political parties entirely to something like a non partisan democracy.
One could argue that politics doesn’t have to be civil all the time. There are certain political power and goals that can not be achieved through civility. Especially if their is a barrier oppose that group. The idea that all politics have to be civil is naive.
Sure the group may try to moderate their view for it to be more palatable. However, their true intentions whether revolutionary or reactionary will stay.
Well the the only alternative is violence, but most of the people championing violence are weak people that have no understanding of the reality of violence.
@@dracotitanfall This isn't a moral position. Politics in general is violent. When looking at politic liberal capitalism for example -people often think that it is a system of civility and peace since that's what it promotes itself to be. However its origin is violent and how it's maintained is through violence.
The very fundamental question at the root of political debate is a moral one, and, at least for me, it is beyond "logic" (precedes it), and ultimately comes down to subjective "aesthetic appreciation". This used to not be a big problem before the breakdown of a "homogeneous and cohesive" society, where everyone's values were derived from this monolithic "institution", but, with the "deconstruction" brought by recent modernity, this all changed, and every individual is now "free" (baseless, given only to his own "manias") in his choice of values, leading to total fragmentation and chaos.
Wow, man. How many layers of flowery words and air quotes do you need to throw on top of what you really mean to convince yourself that what you just said doesn't actually boil down to "hurr durr all the darkies should just stay away so all of us clean whites can live in paradise" lmao. Because if you plan on trying to convince anyone other than your fellow racist bigots then you are gonna need a LOT more bs layers and air quotes
You have a flawed understanding of human civilisation and history, and this is why you falsely believe that past societies had no diversity or moral heterogeneity. The so-called institution you speak of had to work day and night murdering, kidnapping, and torturing dissidents and worked extremely hard to crush opposing thoughts. This is the reason why it seems like society used to have mutual values and homogeneity; in reality, what has happened is that institutions have lost power and individuals have gained power via the Enlightenment and liberalism. Concepts like human rights and freedom of speech are the reason why the true heterogeneity of society, that had been suppressed by violence until now, have started to surface for all to see. The communication revolution has only helped to further make visible this previously invisible heterogeneity. Tldr people back then had many disagreements and conflicts of values too but the only difference is that back then the ruling institution killed anyone who thought differently lmao. Be glad that you live in the present where free thinking is largely not prohibited.
Lack of communication. The settlers thought they should be able to steal indeginious people's land, and their other stuff as well, while the indeginious people thought they should not surrender indeginious lands, nor their other stuff, to undeserving settlers. How do you resolve that "miscommunicating" is beyond me. Oh, I know. Settlers stop settling. Settlers, give the stuff back. Settlers, go home. So you see? Most of disagreements have nothing to do with communication. Each side knows exactly what the other side want: you want my stuff, while, I want to keep my stuff. That aint hard to understand. Each side perfectly well understand the other side.
Not exactly. No person would deliberately plunder and steal from other people unless he considers them as inferior and himself superior. So the area of discussion in this case for example, should be about this very assumption, meaning are the settlers really superior to the indigenous people or not?
This issue is addressed in the section "The 3 requirements for honest political conversation". There isn't always going to be good conditions for intellectual engagement, obviously. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the underpinnings of settler colonialism after the fact.
@@Mr00000111 I see your point, but people will steal from other people out of desperation, even if they have no inferiority targeting of that person...ie I'm just very hungry.. or I put my family above your interests..
@@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220 you are right. But that was not the issue addressed by the video. What was discussed is rather the crimes committed out of political ideology.
6:35 The virgin "Pro Choice vs Pro Life"
vs the Chad "Pro Death vs Anti Choice".
How do you not have more subscribers?!
All in due time my friend
This is the most valuable video on TH-cam according to my highest value of Empathy :)
This is your most objective and best made video. Very hard to disagree.
Thank you.
In your opinion, what differentiates it from the other ones?
@@courtssense Because its way more unbiased than the others. A left wing person could say more or less the same and I wouldnt bet an eye.
@@courtssense Imo it strikes at something universal, the whole idea of empathy, visceral understanding and so on applies just as well to any politically minded person i can think of.
Your other videos are great too, but in the world of politics i feel like we are lacking unifying statements like this one.
This part will be a little biased on my end, but i think that even when you say that political ideals are irreconcilable, you say it in such an aparently well meaning way (someone like WhatIfAltHist cool as he is, would say something like ''the lefts desire for death and destruction is irreconcilable with the rights desire or purity and order'' while you might give something like equality as the lefts highest value, you might self admitedly not understand everyone visceraly, but it really shows that youre trying. And your atempt is inspiring, even if you say beliefs are irreconcilable, it feels like you wish that to not be the case, and thats honestly what we need rn imo.
Love the conclussion. Couldn’t agree more
Wow! You're incredibly well spoken and do a great job of getting your points across.
Thank you!
Thanks for such a good explanation.
Excellent video.
Glad you liked it.
I think you hit the jackpot saying that people
scream at each other in political debate because
they hold absolute moral beliefs, which in turn
are inflexible, may I add that the inflexibility
becomes from the well, disgusting wrongness of
everything that's evil. I've really been pondering
this for a long.
I myself am a liberal Finnish young male. The thing
I most value is well-being, so I want the people in total
to have an enjoyable life, also I would like the humanity
to last long as a derivative value of that producing more
well-being. In simple terms, you could say I'm a
utilitarian at the core. This might be mixed with
equality, but the most obvious difference is that communism
makes everyone equal (save for the party elite) in that
everyone has it equally bad but that certainly doesn't
promote utility. Of course, equality lingers in the fact
that I value each individual person's utility the same,
but on the other hand I accept income and wealth differences
to some extent because I believe that in practice, that leads
to better total wellbeing in total, albeit less evenly
distributed. For this reason, I don't support socialism.
On the other hand, one could take the morality discussion
one step further. See, ethics is absolute in the sense that
it compels us to do right and forbids us from doing wrong.
But if right and wrong can't be determined by rational means,
and neither by emotional means since no one can present an
ultimate masterful objectively true core of what's right and
what's wrong, does it mean that to find truth, the idea of
right and wrong, good and evil should be rejected alltogether?
I assume, that for most people, the highest value is the life and safety of their family.
I would die myself for my nation, I would die myself for my freedom, but I would not want my brothers or future sons to die.
But the really big problem is that most values simply are not universal. I can be free without you being free.
Actually, I am more free, if you are not free, because I can do more things to you without fear of repercussions.
The glory of my nation is not the same as the glory of your nation. I want your nation to fail in their wars, so that I may conquer it.
And so on...
There is not always these abstract principles, freedom, security, glory, but you also have to ask for whom. And that is often mutually exclusive
“Quantity vs Quality of votes”. Are you advocating that some peoples votes are not “quality” and therefore should not be counted? Who gets to determine how voter “quality” is defined?
Well that is a topic for another essay, but my point here is that quantity (propaganda) will always beat quality (conversation).
By the amount of knowledge and understanding one has.
Seems like many of these issues could be solved if society moved away from the concept of political parties entirely to something like a non partisan democracy.
One could argue that politics doesn’t have to be civil all the time. There are certain political power and goals that can not be achieved through civility. Especially if their is a barrier oppose that group. The idea that all politics have to be civil is naive.
Sure the group may try to moderate their view for it to be more palatable. However, their true intentions whether revolutionary or reactionary will stay.
Well the the only alternative is violence, but most of the people championing violence are weak people that have no understanding of the reality of violence.
Milton Friedman, some things are not ballot-box issues.
Are you willing to hold true to this stance If you're the one who's going to be a victim of this incivility?
@@dracotitanfall This isn't a moral position. Politics in general is violent. When looking at politic liberal capitalism for example -people often think that it is a system of civility and peace since that's what it promotes itself to be. However its origin is violent and how it's maintained is through violence.
The very fundamental question at the root of political debate is a moral one, and, at least for me, it is beyond "logic" (precedes it), and ultimately comes down to subjective "aesthetic appreciation". This used to not be a big problem before the breakdown of a "homogeneous and cohesive" society, where everyone's values were derived from this monolithic "institution", but, with the "deconstruction" brought by recent modernity, this all changed, and every individual is now "free" (baseless, given only to his own "manias") in his choice of values, leading to total fragmentation and chaos.
“After Virtue”
Wow, man. How many layers of flowery words and air quotes do you need to throw on top of what you really mean to convince yourself that what you just said doesn't actually boil down to "hurr durr all the darkies should just stay away so all of us clean whites can live in paradise" lmao. Because if you plan on trying to convince anyone other than your fellow racist bigots then you are gonna need a LOT more bs layers and air quotes
You have a flawed understanding of human civilisation and history, and this is why you falsely believe that past societies had no diversity or moral heterogeneity. The so-called institution you speak of had to work day and night murdering, kidnapping, and torturing dissidents and worked extremely hard to crush opposing thoughts. This is the reason why it seems like society used to have mutual values and homogeneity; in reality, what has happened is that institutions have lost power and individuals have gained power via the Enlightenment and liberalism. Concepts like human rights and freedom of speech are the reason why the true heterogeneity of society, that had been suppressed by violence until now, have started to surface for all to see. The communication revolution has only helped to further make visible this previously invisible heterogeneity.
Tldr people back then had many disagreements and conflicts of values too but the only difference is that back then the ruling institution killed anyone who thought differently lmao. Be glad that you live in the present where free thinking is largely not prohibited.
Lack of communication. The settlers thought they should be able to steal indeginious people's land, and their other stuff as well, while the indeginious people thought they should not surrender indeginious lands, nor their other stuff, to undeserving settlers.
How do you resolve that "miscommunicating" is beyond me. Oh, I know. Settlers stop settling. Settlers, give the stuff back. Settlers, go home.
So you see? Most of disagreements have nothing to do with communication. Each side knows exactly what the other side want: you want my stuff, while, I want to keep my stuff. That aint hard to understand. Each side perfectly well understand the other side.
Not exactly. No person would deliberately plunder and steal from other people unless he considers them as inferior and himself superior. So the area of discussion in this case for example, should be about this very assumption, meaning are the settlers really superior to the indigenous people or not?
This issue is addressed in the section "The 3 requirements for honest political conversation". There isn't always going to be good conditions for intellectual engagement, obviously. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the underpinnings of settler colonialism after the fact.
@@Mr00000111 I see your point, but people will steal from other people out of desperation, even if they have no inferiority targeting of that person...ie I'm just very hungry.. or I put my family above your interests..
@@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220 you are right. But that was not the issue addressed by the video. What was discussed is rather the crimes committed out of political ideology.
@@Mr00000111 yes, you are right about that.