The Flawed Ideology at the Core of Discrimination
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- It's crazy to think that if you ask anyone, "why is racism wrong?" they might not have an answer. You would think in a culture so concerned with the oppressed & marginalized, that we would know what we're fighting against, but we don't.
We don't dive into why people with bigoted beliefs arrive at their mindset because it is a mindset that our own society still holds onto.
In this video, I go over various misunderstandings people can have about the nature of discrimination, and I explain the ideology that society refuses to acknowledge is at the core of racism, sexism, and all other forms of bigotry.
Tags: #philosophy #debate #education #ethics #freewill
“Discrimination” is not inherently bad. “Discrimination” is how one discerns anything.
“Prejudicial discrimination” is bad, because it presupposes characteristics based on superficial traits.
@@airman122469 Racism does not base anything on superficial traits.
Race isn't superficial retard
Go back to your Echo chamber lil bub.
@@ValenSerethi how?
@@ValenSerethido you not know what superficial means or are you a racist? Lmao
It's simple: watch Europa The Last Battle
based
Leftists' source for all their thoughts: Hollywood 😂
Best fantasy film I've seen in years!
Literally the most boring movie ever. Imagine wasting a whole weekend on lazy propaganda.
@@alephmale3171 it’s not a movie it’s a documentary that exposes the lies of the mainstream media and the crimes being committed against Europeans
Its not a physical battel about
"racism or sexism", its a battle
Between good & evil.
I have gotten into many political debates recent, this is a good video to think of the nature of how to form convincing agreements, hopefully one day ill be able to fix some christian through debates
Not everything unethical needs to be illegal.
One does not "choose" what he believes.
They do effectively choose to settle on their partial opinions rather than intelligently seeking out contrary positions and their foundations.
@@alephmale3171 Wrong. Even when "contrary positions and their foundations" are sought out, there is no guarantee that this will change a person's mind. Even IF their mind is changed, this is not an active "choice", rather something that happens without the person having any control over it.
I'm definitely not right wing but this was an awesome and profound video. I definitely pressed the like button on this one
While individual racism is best avoided, societal racism is necessary to survive long-term. The lack of racism recently is damaging and leading to suboptimal policy, especially in Europe and CANZUK. We need to be more racist to survive. Back to the 1930s? No way. Back 40 years though? Yeah. You can call it "sensible immigration and assimilation policy" if you prefer rather than "racism", but I prefer to just say racism these days to make clear I won't be backing down on anything just because someone wants to cry about everything being racism - cuts out some steps this way - I encourage anyone who cares about anti-globalist policy priorities to think along the same lines. If globalist liberals wanted to keep the label truly deplorable and a sort of special insult to describe actual race haters, they shouldn't have overused it.
I personally wouldn't say I'd want to go back to the 1980s myself. Mind describing your position more? Because to me you don't even sound like you're racist despite claiming it.
I just want to point out that a lot of people keep claiming that liberals want this global economy thing, but it’s literally capitalism that has rewarded all these big businesses to move over sees so they can pay workers less and make more money. That’s really all this is. Also, same with “illegal”immigrants. It would make sense to come here knowing you’ll get hired because capitalism demands cheaper and cheaper labor and Americans want (and should get paid) a livable wage. And before you say, “that is liberalism”, it’s also all these big fat cat republicans and conservatives who keep taking government handouts while shaming the people for doing the same. They both suck, and the poor person who risked their lives to be here are not in charge of this country, they have no power, yet they get punished and hated. It’s weird. It’s like if I had all the food in the world, and only gave it to a few people, and then you beat up the people I gave the crumbs to, instead of me for making things wack in the first place. It’s ridiculous lol
gb2pol
@@theJellyjoker No.
>Back to the 1930's? No way!
Yes way.
Very good points! I too constantly seek better arguments for my convictions. What you call determinism vs. free will I like to describe as essentialism vs. existentialism. Essentialism is basically "Who I am defines what I do", existentialism the reverse. We live in a dark time of essentialism.
HELLO WHERE NEW VID ?
Good video. I like. Only criticism I have is with the presentation. It was hard for me and I imagine others to follow along with your thoughts while simultaneously reading your extra context and examples that you had in the visuals. I think there might be a better way to incorporate those without the viewer feeling like there attention is divided or that they have to pause and rewind segments of the video. As someone who enjoys video essay style content this wasn't enough of an annoyance for me to click off the video, but for the sake of this kind of valuable content reaching wider audiences, I do think it is a barrier. Maybe have some kind of visual or audio indicator that tells the viewer to pause for more context so they can read at their own pace comfortably after you break down a premise. That and I think it would help having all the visuals just pop into frame as opposed to slowly revealed. For me the slow reveal of the text on screen was VERY distracting from the main arguments you were speaking.
True as having English as a second language, its already hard enough for me to follow what he's saying, let alone having to digest in the visual context as well
great content as usual
To hate someone because there are different is wrong 💯
Can't hate the Aztecs, the Chinese who broke little girls feet, or the Africans who think HIV can be cured by graping a little girl.
You are evil.
So you don't hate psychopaths?
@@AlenSchneeweiss No. It is humane to love and respect all people for their personhood which is innate. I have great pity for psychopaths and those that they negatively affect, and if you don’t understand that unconditional love, I pity you.
@@lucasshearson5938 why should I respect someone who can and will harm my family? You sound like a very "nice" guy that I wouldn't want to be friends with.
@@AlenSchneeweiss Psychopaths are not guaranteed to do harm to anybody. They just feel things differently; that doesn't mean they are possessed by demons or something. Some people even suggest that psychopaths have their own ideal places in society because of their qualities.
Very good video! I think it is true that a belief in Determinism is significantly to blame for racist thinking, and that a broad sense of determinism/fatalism may trickle down into Genetic determinisms such as those of race and sex.
However, I think your model is limited only in that it frames this Deterministic disposition as an "ideology" they have. A deterministic ideology has formed around them, but I think that at the core of that is that their own soul and emotions are generally HELPESS and fatalistic. They may even have self-esteem issues linked to an in-born trait of their own, which they attribute to their own missed opportunities or make the fall-guy of their own failures, which seems undeniably genetic or otherwise inherited, and not their fault, which leads them to over-index on the general effect of genetics on all outcomes.
Sometimes, and I say this from my own experience, Determinism is a kind of Moral Nullification blanket, which adds to the "I've been placed in these unfavorable conditions against my will." feeling mentioned above, by saying "I made this unfavorable decision due to prior, unfavorable, conditions beyond my control, and am thus not fully responsible!" Famous Determinist, Sam Harris, was once asked by a mother in the audience of his lecture what she should say to her child about Free Will and Determinism, and he told her to *lie to them,* because he knows that belief in Determinism can lead to irresponsible behavior.
For the racist, especially when they have a powerful racial narrative on their side, they can subjectively reap the deceptive benefits of being less individually morally responsible for their actions, while also reaping the apparent benefits of inheriting participation in the master race, and having a uniquely motivating grand narrative surrounding the defense and advancement of that race, simultaneously expecting an inevitable success, but also inevitably beseiged by beings whose sole purpose, as if evilly programmed robotic demons, is to contradict their success.
Ok I was mostly just kidding about the Islamophobia comment, for reasons you already covered in the video. But on a serious note, have you made any content covering the topic of abortion? It's my most grey area issue, no matter how much women talk about it being about their freedom with their body, I struggle to see it as anything other than infanticide. I try to look into it, but there's just such extreme biases on either side, and there's a lot of issues when it comes to trusting the statistics (especially since rapes aren't always reported, and women may lie about their motive to get an abortion), that it makes it hard to construct a good opinion on it. I'd like to hear from you because even when I disagree with you, I can take things you've said and use them as a starting point to figure out the "how" I can do my research, which is better than having an endless sea of information at my fingertips but knowing where to start because everything is biased to hell
@@FilthyVarmint I’ve covered it some in the past on my tiktok (same username I believe), but I’ve never covered it here.
If you’re already leaning slightly pro-life, then I don’t imagine I’d be able to play Devil’s advocate for you because I would tell you to trust your intuition.
Although, to give you something a little more substantive than that, I’ll give you three arguments for the pro-life position, two that I think are strong and one that I think hurts the pro-life movement.
The one that most pro-lifers base their ideology on is that “life is inherently valuable.” This, unfortunately, is the flawed argument. The problem is that it is just painfully vague. What is meant by value? How do we calculate this value? Is the life of a serial killer valuable? Because one could easily make the argument that if people start out with value, those who deprive the world of life, transitively, are worth less, which sort of defeats the premise. We could also ask what is meant by life. Is it human life? Then that raises the question of what human life is.
To cut a long argument short & just make conjecture: I think this argument comes from somewhere and used to have meaning, but it just got watered down over time. Because of this, the basis for the claim seems to come from nowhere & (in addition to many other things) often leads to pro-life arguments being written off as deeply religious or traditionalist.
If we re-evaluate the argument as being a watered down statement derived from either a deontological framework or a contractionalist framework, we can arrive at a moderate pro life position & a staunch pro life position. In addition, we can explain why the questions we asked earlier now do not undermine our arguments because we are not saying that life is valuable as a means to an end, but as an end in-and-of-itself.
One argument (leaning more towards deontology than social contract theory) goes like this (and I call this the descriptive argument): given that murder is immoral and that we have an obligation to not commit murder, all we have to do is ask if abortion meets the description of murder. Since murder is killing someone without justification, and we know that, generally, the preservation of ones own life is the only justification to end the life of another, then we can say that, if the unborn is a person, medically necessary abortions are allowed, but non-medically necessary ones are not.
So, the question becomes: are the unborn people? This gets into a much larger argument, but, again, just to keep this brief, pro choicers generally take a non-binary & materialist approach to consciousness and, by virtue of that, personhood; but, this is not viable. Basing personhood on sentience is likely viable. The materialist view of consciousness is somewhat viable; however, a non-binary view of it is not. Personhood cannot exist on a spectrum of consciousness because that implies an ableist conclusion that people with less mental capabilities are “less of a person.”
So, personhood (from this standpoint) must be all or nothing and, not just all or nothing, but based on whatever minimum function necessitates a person.
A short but poignant argument for what this standard should be is parallelism: if the end of a person is marked by braindeath, the beginning of a person is marked by “brain life” which is to say the first spark of electrical activity in the brain.
This happens around week 6, I believe. If I remember right, that’s the earliest recorded EEG. So, under this more moderate stance, you might be able to say that plan B is fine, but anything after that is murder.
Obviously, there are a lot of responses to that argument, but, once again, to keep this so I’m not writing you a book here, those responses are going to be one of two things:
One, having inconsistent ethical frameworks (switching back & forth between consequentialism & deontology/right-based ethics whenever it gets the pro-choicer an easy win). The clearest & most common example is, essentially, the core of the bodily autonomy argument. People will say “it’s like not donating an organ.” The issue here is that this tries to take & reject the consequentialist perspective simultaneously.
Action & inaction are not the same in terms of intent or obligation, but they are in terms of consequence. Not donating an organ is inaction. Abortion is action.
The issue, though, is that, under consequentialism, you would be compelled to give an organ.
So, here, we start out in consequentialism to say that, despite being different imperatives, the consequences are the same, so the actions are the same, and, then, when it would prove us wrong in the next step, pro-choicers switch to deontology... but... you know... you can’t base a conclusion on logic that rejects the truth of its premise... so you can’t do that lmao.
The second response is generally about positive rights, specifically substantive rights. Pro-choicers will usually accuse this logic of being cold & say that pro-lifers are forcing women to give birth, so, they claim that abortion is a necessary right in order to affirm the right of bodily autonomy.
The issue with this is that if we should think beyond the moral dilemma before us of “kill the baby or don’t kill the baby” and think about what effects our ethical statement has, then why do they not have the same obligation?
If abortion is a substantive right (as Roe v Wade use to argue) where are depriving a right by fulfilling this imperative, then why is it not the case that abortion violates the right to life?
Eventually, you arrive at the concept that you don’t just get to do what you want. A right cannot infringe on the rights of others (this is the concept of ordered liberties. It was central to the overruling of Roe v Wade).
Also, we arrive the concept that I think is pivotal to deontology but I don’t often see discussed: when making decisions, you can & should just look at an action for the action itself.
In this, it doesn’t matter what context precedes it or follows it. The question is: is it okay to kill this baby. Unless it is in the preservation of your own life, the answer is no.
I’ll try to keep my second argument shorter since that felt like 6 arguments rolled into one, but we can also look at abortion from a more “meta-ethical” view (I’m using that term a bit ad-hoc here). I call this the prescriptive argument.
Rather than trying to meet a description of personhood to decide if its murder, we ask ourselves what personhood should be defined as (typically from a perspective that’s a mix of social contract theory, egoism, and classical liberalism).
Even from the most egoist perspective, we would say that of course we need to protect the in-group for our own survival (in primitive societies, collaboration breeds survival & civilization). But, then we must also secure the out-group for more complex reasons.
You may say, “okay, do unto others as you would have them do unto” (game theory not just the verse from the bible), “so, I ought to be good to people like me so they are good to me, but why must I be good to people not like me?”
The answer is essentially that they can ask themselves the same thing, and, if they do, then you are not afforded protections.
So, now the in-group & out-group all agree that they are people deserving of rights. This is where people think that this does not apply to the unborn by virtue of the fact that they cannot retaliate, but, here’s the final step to all of this.
Just as you could say “unborn are not people,” & the unborn would be defenseless to stop it, everyone else in the world could say, “people with the username “filthyvarmit” are not people, and you, more or less, would be defenseless to stop it.
So, not only does the social contract have to directly & indirectly serve the self (again for the egoist perspective), it has to be non-arbitrary & rigid so it cannot falter & be used against anyone.
For example, you may not be disabled now, the disabled may not be a threat to an egoistically-based society, but if you ever became disabled, then you would want those protections.
Just to cut another long argument short, the way we should treat the unborn is similar to that because we need to air on the side of caution & not write a social contract that can be used against us under any physical conditions we may suffer (like loss of consciousness if sentience is used as a means to discredit the unborn) or any misinterpretation of the rules.
This argument is a little weaker than the one that came prior, but I think it actually becomes pretty important if you ever try to flesh out a grounded ethical framework, and it’s important to see that even a framework perceived as being very selfish & “might-makes-right,” would also come about the conclusion that abortion is wrong.
So, TLDR; killing babies is bad, m’kay
@@nickolasmelonballer You wrote a whole script here.
I would say 9 weeks not 6.
I will also ask, Can we start taking out life insurance policies on all miscarriages and stillborns?
Life, death, sex, and birth are all wild things, but essentially what were asking here is, "If you ordered duck at a restaurant and someone served you balut would they have gotten your order correct?"
Absolutely not.
The process of becoming takes place inside the mother for us primates but that doesn't mean it's over once the sex has taken place.
Take the example of a couple who have a 99% or higher chance of miscarriage, you could easily argue them continuing to try for a child is far more immoral than a teenager having unprotected sex at a party if the teenager has a 98% likelihood of aborting. Both are choosing to "create a death".
Add to this the knowledge that the more abortions take place in a location where they can be documented or studied the greater body of knowledge we have for the field of pregnancy as a whole, (even if it is a dark and morally grey area of the field) the countless teenagers getting their abortions could be supplying the knowledge that in three years changes the other couple's chance from 99% failure to 97% failure.
There are plenty of reasons to abort up to 9 weeks, and there might also be better reasons to abort after 9 weeks, but I put my uniformed foot down here at 9 (untill a better source of knowledge comes to enlighten me).
Also I haven't commented on your videos in a long time, Have you read Progress and Poverty or do you want me to buy you a table saw?
You've already heard a pro-life argument (I plan on responding to it in another comment) but here's my pro-choice argument. To start with, I'll grant the claim (although it is a bold one) that a fetus is as much a person as any other living human, granting them in all reasonable ethical frameworks the right to life. The problem we are presented with (and that I think nick misconstrued in his comment) is that the fetus can only maintain that life via the resources of the mother. There are many things in real life where we would not force a person to go through with this. One such example, if one day, you find that you come home to a homeless man who has broken into your house and will die (due to exposure) if he is kicked out, you are not morally (in most cases) and definitely not legally obligated to let the homeless man stay in your house, be it the one night or the nine months of pregnancy. In fact, even if you let the homeless man stay with you for a week, you'd be well within your rights to kick them out of your house at any time. Even if earlier in that day you had invited the homeless man over, or were overheard by the homeless man talking about how spacious your house was and how many resources you had, you are never legally obligated to let the homeless man live with you. Pregnancy is much more of an invasion than this homeless man, with just as many dangers (health, mental, and financial). Therefore abortions, even if morally wrong (which I disagree with, since I doubt the person hood of the fetus and also the right of the fetus to the mother's womb) abortions should be legally permissible (or there are many more things you should argue against in society before you begin to tackle the abortion question).
@@nickolasmelonballer You've given me a lot to respond to, but here goes:
I'll ignore your first argument because you yourself claim it to be a poor one.
To set my framework, I am interested in the discussion of the legality of abortion. While this definitely involves some ethical arguments, I will sometimes pose legal counterpoints to your arguments for the sake of expediency. To your first argument against abortion, you claim that killing another person is only justified in the preservation of one's own life. First, I will assume what you meant is the more sound statement that it's justified in the preservation of any human life (not just your own), but even then this doesn't come anywhere close to the number and breadth of reasons it may be LEGAL to kill a person. In many states, it's perfectly legal to kill someone simply for trespassing in their own home. I challenge you to come up with an argument that a person's womb is less of their own home than their house. Even if someone let's you into their house beforehand, you are legally obligated to leave if they ask you to, and they can legally kill you if you don't leave. There are many similar legal claims to kill someone that would apply to a fetus (taking someone off of life support, for example), but I think the castle doctrine should do.
As for person hood, you have made the claim that any brain activity defines a person, but I could easily run electrical signals through a corpse to make it dance and I don't think the corpse would be a person (nor, I imagine, would you). I would posit a person is a human who is capable of having experiences, and the earliest signs of that among fetuses comes at around 22 weeks (well after over 90% of abortions take place, the last 10% being medical complications and/or delay of care, one of which you claim to be justifiable and the other being so rare and unfortunate that legislating against it would verge on discriminatory, but if that's where you want to draw your battle lines, see the above paragraph).
As for the ordered rights, you are correct in claiming that (in that ethical framework) one's rights cannot infringe on another. You are not morally obligated to give your paycheck or food to a starving man, and the pregnant person is not morally obligated to give her womb and (at least) 9 months of resources to a fetus. You might claim that a life outweighs said resources, but then you'd be flip flopping between moral frameworks much like the pro-choice proponent you imagine.
For the social contract argument, all we would need to do is add a stipulation that the social contract only applies once someone has been born (a fetus hasn't). Had I been "murdered" under these conditions, I don't think I would have minded much since I simply would not have come into existence (at least from my perspective). The argument for birthing being the line is that it's not exactly clear when babies begin to form memories and a concept of existence, but they definitely do at some point soon after being born (and honestly probably a little before being born), so that seems like a good enough (and definitive enough) place to draw the line (it's not like people are getting abortions a couple weeks before giving birth all willy nilly anyways).
So, TLDR; killing babies is bad, removing fetuses from the womb, not so much.
@@pewpewpandas9203 your argument is ridiculous because of the painfully obvious difference between the homeless man and the baby: the woman knowingly made choices that any reasonable person would know could cause a baby to depend on her resources, through no fault of its own.
Besides, you didn't make any case that women deserve personhood or rights. "Capable of having experiences" - this is just arbitrary and impossible to verify, as you admit. Being born is also arbitrary, especially since babies are viable months before natural birth and increasingly so as technology progresses.
You have clearly derived your philosophical positions from your view of infanticide, instead of the other way around.
I need to watch this again.
Can you really choose what you believe?
A conversation about determinism aside, and where I'll grant that you may choose to obstinately pursue the building blocks of a belief with the intent of convincing yourself of a proposition's truth-value, it is not clear to me that anyone can "choose" to believe something prior to being already and sufficiently convinced of a proposition.
I don't know that I can "choose to believe" the earth is flat or that the moon is made of cheese. These propositions are absurb in light of all the experience and evidence I've been doused in to the opposite, hence I don't believe either-not as a matter of choice, but as an involuntarily response to the cognitive dissonance incurred by the claims due to what I already know and suspect.
You may not be able to choose to believe the Earth is flat, but you can choose to refuse to listen to why other people believe the Earth is flat, or to possibly consider alternative meanings of "the Earth is flat" or alterior motives for one's *claiming* to believe such a thing. Arguably, we also choose not to suspend judgement entirely on questions like that, which, in many cases, is the wise thing to do.
Starting this video mildly Islamophobic, especially after what just happened in Britain. We'll see if I feel differently after I watch the video.
What happened in Britain?
@@ironichoneybadger5066 a stabbing by an immigrant (I believe).
@@nickolasmelonballer love how the start of the video is just defining the circular nature of how people see racism and for whatever reason that’s correlated with Islamophobia instantly
I mean, people are racist towards Muslims, but like…intrinsically I don’t know how it’s immediately related to
I remember when Islam started to show signs of absolute collapse throughout the Middle - East. If that had not happened a few years back there would be even fewer freedoms. there.
@@ironichoneybadger5066 How can one be racist against Islam? It's an ideology after all not a race.
As a Racist, while i disagree with your argument against racism, i still give this a like. The beginning was nonsensically circular, but you broke down some good points in the end. Leftism I could get behind.
Imagine being so far right you think this guy's a leftist.
@@AtaraxianWist imagine being so far left you think he's not.
How can you be something that
doesn't exist LMFAO. 😂
@@ValenSerethi On the contrary, I know he's not a leftist because I am a leftist, and I talk to leftists, and I know a lot of leftists even fwrther left than I am. This guy would be considered moderate right-wing in most European countries, and is only left of center in the US because of how far right the far right is.
He is, however, a centrist who doesn't annoy me too much, which is still impressive.
@@AtaraxianWist what makes him right wing? What makes someone "far right"?
I'd like to share my thoughts, if you would care to hear them.
There is another dimension here that I believe has been neglected about the discrimination discussion, and I didn't hear it mentioned here. Determinism is only a portion of the difficulties of race, and unfortunately for you, it actually seems that determinism may be right, according to evidence. Briefly, the bell-curve discussion was put on screen, which describes the differences in IQ among the different races of man, usually in America. Another fact that should be presented with this to round it out is that IQ is an excellent predictor of criminality, general life success, and time preference, among other things. These differences of IQ disregarding race indicate that people with a low IQ are at risk of being more criminal than people with a high IQ; the wrench in the cogs is that IQ corresponds with race, suggesting that certain races are more criminal and, as well, we have evidence to back this claim up. These are not just willy-nilly beliefs that came out of a non-descript hatred, no, these are based on observations that anybody can go and see for themselves.
However, disregarding criminality and IQ, I would like to bring up cultural differences between races. Since cultures are given the namesake of the groups that they were generated from we can easily say that the race needs to exist for that culture to have also existed. For example, Nigerians created Nigerian culture, Germans created German culture, and so on. This is to say that cultures belong to specific groups and are especially tied to those groups, as a Nigerian could not have generated German culture for he has generated Nigerian culture. This being said, would it then not be prudent for a nation being a conglomerate of a racial, ethnic, cultural, and societal groups of people distinct from others to cherish their culture and keep it their own? Wouldn't this mean that those people have a right to preserve their cultures as they see fit, to include excluding other groups if they seem hostile to themselves? If I were to take 10,000 Indian men and put then into Finland, and allow them to act freely as a Finnish citizen, wouldn't they begin to generate Indian culture within Finland and potentially corrupt the native Finnish culture? Would the Indians be accepting of 10,000 Fins entering India and generating their Finnish culture there?
The point here is that culture and race being tied together inherently gives the right to preserve that culture to that race, and thus gives then grounds to discriminate to defend their uniqueness from external threats or take-over. Would it then be harmful to the native population of Finland to tell them that they can't be racist towards the outside group because it would hurt the Indian men? Would you not wish to expel a poor guest who corrupts your own home with his images and cultural devices? It is your home, after all.
I'd like your thoughts on this. Thank you.
To briefly answer the first point: Yes IQ is linked to criminality and race but a major part of determining IQ is how one is raised. And of course. Cearten groups of people are on average richer than other groups. Allowing them to bestow superior education and upbringing to their kids. Thus creating this trend.
Think of it this way. Does it not make sense that some man raised in the jungles is going to have lower IQ points than a well rounded upper middle class child who's only ever been to pricey private schools?
Also no, I wholeheartedly disagree that cearten races create cearten cultures. Cultures aren't genetic. We've seen this happen live with modern immigration. People adopt the culture they are placed in (A chinese child won't adopt Chinese culture if he was raised in a british culture and vice versa).
Also no cearten ethnicities do not produce cearten cultures. Culture is formed via geography, religion and history. Indian babies won't magically begin wearing turbans if they were raised in a finnish environment where wearing it makes no sense. Religiously or geographically.
And also you make the mistake of thinking it "corrupts' Finnish culture. Really, when two cultures meet. They don't typically "clash" as they do remix. When Chinese immigrants came to America they "mixed" and created "chinese food" as the west knows it. Same with indians. Mexicans and basically every other culture. This culture osmosis works the other way around too. For example one of the most famous hongkong desserts is an asian adaptation of the european egg tart.
(I know alot of my examples are of food but it's just the most obvious way to visualise cultures combining)
First if all, IQ is not that cut and dry. The scientific consensus has kind of moved past it because intelligence is A:subjective and B:there are different types of intelligence and trying to quantify or measure them with a simple test is a bit…. Shallow. One simple example I can think of, there is an optical illusion of a few lines with different facing arrows on each end, I believe there are two or three, one on top of the other. When shown to western audiences they fell for the optical illusion SIGNIFICANTLY more than some folks from a more rural, non western tribe. Does that mean that the westerners are less intelligent? No, they just see things differently and are more susceptible to tricks of the eye, in that particular case. Trying to say, this group of people is worse or better is an ignorant opinion based on an immediate reaction. We all make snap judgments and saying we don’t would be foolish, but we also know enough now about people, to stop ourselves and think more before we stick to a judgment like that. I won’t go so far as to say that IQ doesn’t measure anything, but just that intelligence is more complicated than that. And also, just because a group of people scored lower on it, was it because they’re less intelligent? Or because they weren’t afforded educational opportunities, and were treated as less than humans for a longer time than we would like to admit? When people bring up the crime rates in poor black neighborhoods as “proof” it’s like you looked and saw the conditions without taking into consideration all the laws and things that white people put in place that gave them an unfair disadvantage from the get go. Pulling oneself out of extreme poverty is an exception, not the norm. So if you think that people who live in bad neighborhoods just need to somehow ALL be an exception (which is impossible) or else their just less intelligent or lazy, is a fallacy. Racism is so stupid, it’s such an ignorant kindergarten thought, “they look different so they are worse than me”. I’ve met a lot of people from different backgrounds, and let me tell you something, some people are not as bright as others, and some people are so insightful it’s moving, and it has nothing to do with where they’re from or what they look like. How do you feel when people say “all men are dangerous”? Because most men don’t like that, most men try and be good people, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t a disproportionate amount of violent men. Why are they violent? Because society often celebrates men and boys holding in emotions, competitive aggression, and channeling the wide range of human emotions into just one, anger. Which just brings us back to the fact that men are not inherently like this, as some men are not, but you have powers higher than the individual cultivating theses behaviors and often times punishing those who don’t conform. Which also brings me to different types of intelligence. EQ is also important, someone might lack critical thinking skills to a certain extent, but they may be waaaaay better are understanding both their own emotions, as well as others. And seeing as how everything is derived from emotions, yes, even the sciences, since emotions kind of guide what we learn and focus on as a species, EQ is very important as well. All I can say is, please don’t stop learning. Please keep an open mind and remember that nothing is simple. Making things simple like that, is ignorant and dangerous. I hope no one ever puts you in a category or less than human, or a lesser form of human, because of something you can’t control. Or because they can’t see the potential good you can bring to the table. Or god forbid, if you just want to live your life in a slightly different way than others. And on the topic of culture, just because people around you aren’t part of the same exact culture doesn’t mean you can’t celebrate your own. I was one of the few white kids in my high school, and you know what happened? Nothing lol I’m still white, I still celebrate the same holidays I did, and still exist the way I existed, but I also learned to appreciate other people and their cultures. I’ve never felt more welcomed than when I would go to my best friends house and her whole family was there, treating me like one of their own kids, and I didn’t even speak the same language as them. Don’t get me wrong, there are bad people, people who can’t look past their own self interests, people who will stomp on others to succeed or for no good reason at all, there are people who cannot feel bad for stealing, or murdering, but that has more to do with specific brain chemistry, and how they were raised than skin color or cultural customs. Sure, there are outliers, like most serial killers are white and American, but seeing as how the numbers of active serial killers fluctuates year to year, I imagine it’s got more to do with what they experienced and whether or not they can feel empathy than just being white, right? Most people are just trying their best to live good lives in a way that suits them.
@@dabest217There is a degree of both environment and genetics that leads to differences in IQ and culture. The development of gothic cathedrals, classical music, Shakespeare, etc, while cultural, are not merely caused by environmental factors. They indeed require a population to have a high IQ to develop them and see their value.
I agree in both nature/nurture, but we cannot ignore the role of genetics too.
@@b4u334 No, There is very little genetic differences that causes a difference in culture. Once again if there was indian babies born in sweden would all still be wearing turbans. The gothic cathedrals were built due to religion. Not culture. Shakespeare and classical music also isn't inherently more "classy" or require a higher IQ to develop than the massive mosques and traditional turkish music built by islamic civilisations or the aincent pyramids of egypt or hell even the African cultural artifacts. Almost every civilisation has their own. I highly recommend you try out "things fall apart" as it describes African culture from their own standpoint. Really makes you appreciate their culture tbh (remember. Back when Shakespeare was alive his writing was just regular english)
@@dabest217 and I suggest you read Robert Plomin to understand just how much our genetics causally explain differences in outcomes, including culture.
And I’m sorry but you’re somewhat delusional if you can’t see the unique treasure that is western civilization. I’m also sorry that it was built primarily by whites, but it was and it required some of the highest IQ individuals to have ever lived in order to create (although that doesn’t mean it was built FOR whites). Yes, it is more impressive than every other civilization you mention. If you wish not to recognize philosophy, literature, or art, then perhaps you’ll notice that almost all Nobel prizes in science go to western countries.
You can argue that environment at one point shaped the adaptation of different races for IQ but environment doesn’t sufficiently explain the differences in culture we see today. Intelligence shapes the world around us. The collection of individuals with high IQ and their own set of preferences created the milieu that allowed western civilization to flourish. It’s not merely some mountain, river, or temperature. For example, the environment in which Shakespeare lived was not due to nature, but the product of the decisions and actions of many high IQ individuals. Shakespeare, and western civilization writ large, is unique in its capacity to synthesize the context of its environment into something insightful.
Real
Big Of Tree, the one who hates. The utterance of hate: "Me tribe am White! You tribe am Poo-poo Skins!"
1
Short people coping
It's bad because it will make potential customers ignore you and investment will cease to exist.
@@shaunpatrick8345 Isn't that a good thing?
No more borders, no more territorial tribalism and no more Racism.
No wonder your types have a problem with it.
Stop discriminating
@@joshuastrange6137 bro huh?
Before I continue this vid I just hope this shit is not limiting discrimination to just race alone. Seems kinda racist to obsess over race.
Hey, as someone who also identifies as a center-right wing, I would like to argue some points you made. Though I did enjoy the overall representation.
1) The issue regarding the tolerance for the ignorant is true, however at times that ignorant can be violent and shake the system out of so called ignorance. Look at the amount of people who will look at 9/11 and say "I am just asking questions" and then will do the same thing to 2008, JFK, the moon landing and the curvature of the earth. They aren't "asking questions" cause they dont want answers. This is why the stability of a society should be held before just the vague notion of freedom. And conservatives will do it too, regarding sexuality especiality "sexuality isnt nuanced, cause if there is a drag queen the west is going to fall" the two things can't be argue at the same level. Yes the left can be intentionally ignorant about gender, but cant we say that this entire line of thinking i.e. "I am just asking questions to test the systems", is bad?
2. Regarding the abortion stance, I think you are putting a wrong equivalence here. The thought process of "abortion is bad cause Singer was a eugenist" is far too simple of an explanation and is too just a shallow philosophy regarding a certain stance.
3. chalking systemic racism throughout history as a Marxist hoax is false. You can argue that the modern way of thinking is too radical and false, but evidently stuff like women not being allowed to sign checks or slavery or the chinese exclusion act happened and should be discussed if we as the liberal (liberal as in free thinkers) want to learn from our past, the issue with the left is when they cant seem to see how those bad stuff are in the past and to a large extent rn it is individual actions.
Overall good video. But some different examples could have been used as to not draw a fallacy equivalent.
You are not rightwin9
@goyonman9655 What is right wing. I can be against abortions cause I think it is wrong not because the person who invented one part of its system bad. I can say that if I love America because it is the land of the Free and as such I wouldn't support laws like the Chinese exclusion act or other tyrannical laws
We learn from the past by stop
acting like certain groups
(Women, blk people) are
eternal victims & see the
evils done on both sides
male, female, black & white.