If you like what you see and want to stay up to date with Dad Saves America, please subscribe here on TH-cam or over on Substack, where you can find weekly articles and the audio version of the podcast, with more to come in the near future! www.dadsavesamerica.com
The biggest flaw in this video is that communist countries were actually in some ways socially conservative. In the Soviet Union, a man could marry one woman, even commies couldn't change that.
The odd thing is the word “tolerance” Have you ever been told by a friend that they only “tolerate” you? Not exactly a glowing compliment is it? Yet that’s the word chosen ..by the left ..to talk about how people should view each other..
Gross over simplification of the issues just 10 seconds into the video, I know plenty of communist pacifist, and I know plenty of violent right wingers with guns. The issue is not their political opinion friend, it's the hateful ideologies in their heads, left or right someone could be a "bad" person, why does their political opinion matter in the context of what they do? Preemptively to that you may say something like "well they do it the name of their political opinion" and so same issues still I said a second ago, people kill in the name of god, their religion and political opinions are not really the issues here, in the way you are saying where you generalize every single person who is a communist, how and why should I take that statement seriously and not say back to it, every priest and holy man is a chomo? Your rhetoric is bad and you should feel bad, I will be dismantling and scrutinizing every word you say, I found you from a youtuber advertisement, so this is clearly about money to you, my question are rhetorical, I know you have no real answers.
The frustration for myself and many others is that the left has taken a giant crap on our culture, then set it on fire, and now, we're hearing people discuss common sense like it's a bold new idea. The last 4-5 years have been a total cultural wasteland. Just forgotten years where everything has degraded because morons were told "only white people can be racist" then these same idiots started living their lives according to these retarded principles, ruining so many lives in the process. It's going to be years before I forgive them. They have caused so much goddamn harm against peoples' lives, not to mention dragging our names through the mud for pointing out the obvious--- that, no, America isn't going to be like San Francisco.
"The only thing we won't tolerate is intolerance" is effectively the same as "The only thing we won't tolerate is anybody who disagrees with us". Tolerance becomes the ultimate intolerance.
Crazy how you say no one tolerates your intolerance. We see your intolerance mega-phoned literally everywhere lol MAGA is the loudest group and are constantly allowed to be bigoted in public. Not sure where this persecution complex came from..... oh wait, it the flood of right wing disinformation and fear mongering you people fall for. You people are just the worst 😂
What lefty professors do is to put socialism in the center with communism to the left but still well within the realm of socially acceptable--and even commendable, if a bit utopian--and then put center right as far right. What's funny is their extreme far right would be what any informed person would label as back to socialism again. Note: center right is represented by a void.
i say that all the time anarchism is right extremism should be logical but instead we have to left wing ideologiess on the extreme facism and communism.
@@jacobscholtissek2410wouldn't be because you are engaging in some mental gymnastics to distance yourself from the fact that you hold fascist beliefs lol lying to yourself is delusional. If you support 5he mass deportation and interment of your neighbors, you might be a fascist 😂
I like how Thomas Sowell describes our reality as a series of 'trade-offs.' However, I would add that our species, collectively, will always strive for some version or perversion of utopia. It is in this quest for a better life that freedom of speech becomes essential, for within the complexities of our conversations, we grapple responsibly with reality.
Several things have brought us to the point of current failure; 1) Lack of self control. 2) No personal responsibility. 3) Moral Cowardice. 4) Relativism. 5) Confusing race and culture. 6) Magical Thinking. (Reality conforms to my wishes.) The good news is that it’s only a small number of people causing trouble…the majority don’t ascribe to these ideas. The bad news is that everyone has been affected to some degree or another…which is why pushback is so difficult. The solution? Those less infected need to push back and say “no,” even when it means a social cost.
Right it’s time we bring back common sense. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Men can’t be women. Men can’t get pregnant and no matter how much they try to make me tolerate it never.
You do realize Thomas sowell is a moral relativist right? If your principle belief is one of trade off(that’s Thomas Sowell) then that makes you a relativist.
@@henrytep8884incorrect. What Thomas sowell is saying as that there are no "solutions" to the problems described throughout history on a scale so large, therefore there are only tradeoffs. You make the best most moral decisions you can based off these trade offs. The peoples he is arguing against here, the fringe far left which has fooled everyone into thinking they are the majority, are utopian idealists who resist and refuse reality and therefore foundational all of their ideas are doomed to failure. History recent and old bears this out, which is how he came up with this he didn't just make some shit up like Karl Marx .
Don't forget ease. Oil and the electron have robbed us of our toil. Nowadays, we yearn for problems, rather than trying to survive them. "There was a time before our time, It will not come again, When the best ships still were wooden ships But the men were iron men…" Clipper Ships and Captains
I dissolved my contract with a talent agency that boasts all of 'the' social virtues and sent out a mass email without a signature on it to their talent about how they will boot you from their roster if they find you aligning with anything or anyone that is offensive. A person with a signature replied to my email "it wasn't directed at you specifically; are you sure you want to end it?" I said, "yes, it seems that you are not wanting to include diversity in thought with who you represent and you've made it clear that if someone sways outside of yours, then they are not equal and don't belong." I don't even really get vocal about controversial things online, but that's just a bunch of hypocritical bovine dung.
Good on you. More people should stand up to this nonsense. I wouldn’t work for any organisation with DEI or any woke wank. I cannot condone such things.
@@theredsir869 You should see the mental gymnastics around calls for voice auditions. It's "as long as your voice print aligns with the client's needs" on the back end, which is in direct conflict with the whole "if you identify as then you are" virtue signaling that saturates their outward branding and marketing.
Or maybe they don’t want a PR disaster, that is directly represented by their company and employees? Because it affects their bottom line, and requires more man hours to deal with, especially with a surplus of available talent?
@@LongSeanSilver We aren't employees. Plus, it's subjective and not like they give us a LIST of things that 'offend' them, so we don't do them. If I want to keep my propane stove, is that hate speech? I didn't but what if I voted for Trump? Am I a myso bla bla bla, bla bla bla, bla bla bla? I'm not walking on eggshells. People have taken this way too far, for the sake of virtue signaling, attention, funding, and some attempted twisted form of dominance over an outgroup they're being programmed to hate. Dad nailed it here. You have to be 100% with these types of people or you ARE the enemy.
I experienced shame a couple of months ago after friends came to visit me and my apt wasn’t clean. After feeling the shame I decided I would become a clean person. Shame worked wonders for me. I love transformative-shame and a clean apt 😂
What I got from this is that we need to look at human nature and which system best compliments our human nature. Communism contradicts our need for agency in choice and individualism while anarchism contradicts our need for structure and community.
Tolerance means the capacity to endure exposure to a stressor for a period of time without an adverse reaction. At some point however a limit is reached. Tolerance does not go on forever.
You are right, unfortunately the left does know this, tolerance is used to incrementally normalize the bad stuff because eventually if there isn't backlash, demoralization and normalization sets in. Remember gay marriage 15 or so years ago? I said sure why not what do I care doesn't effect me. I thought the tighty whitey conservatives saying next it will be legalize PDFFILES were being facetious and disingenuous. Well they turned out to be 100% correct they didn't even need to exaggerate it. If you read the leftists dogmas they themselves state these goals 100+ years ago.
Around 700 BC, Hesiod described social collapse being a loss of shame and consequences. If we define mercy as someone not getting what is deserved, the natural consequences of actions, then we run into a problem when we see mercy as a moral good. Rather than mercy being a case-by-case rarity it becomes the moral standard and thus undermines consequence. When people do not suffer the consequences of their behaviours, then there is no impetuous to self-regulate or improve and there is no true justice.
My theory is that social media drove us crazy because there is no signal for “side eye”. It’s either 👍 or rage responses. It’s impossible to read the room on social media.
I said something similar on Facebook at least 10 years ago. Everything is now black/white with no shades of gray. The worst thing FB did, in my opinion, was introduce Trending News. FB went from family and friends interacting to tabloid news outrage. Everyone, at the time, kept raging about the Kardashians which fed the algorithm … that kept the rage going. Great comment.
Interesting perspective! I'm a classic liberal/progressive. I used to be very progressive but the past few years I started to feel that much the newer progressive ideology doesn't make logical sense anymore. I will never like the idea of shaming people for being outside of the 'norm', but I also don't like how modern progressivism celebrates ideologies that are counter-productive (e.g., obesity) or stemming from mental illness (e.g., some of the gender ideology concepts). I REALLY don't like that my government (in Canada) has essentially turned to authoritarianism to force the population to accept modern progressive ideology
Thank you for your practical presentation. Culturally speaking, we're continuously being asked to abandon discernment. If we want to understand the meaning of this push we need to consider the outcome...pure chaos.
You're trying to be clever. The opposite of pride is not shame, it is guilt. Both pride and guilt are internal feelings based upon something you did or did not accomplish. Shame is different, it is imposed on you by other people. Pride is for something that you do, not for something that you are. George Carlin has a famous comedy bit about this. You can be proud about your degree or running a marathon, but you shouldn't be proud for being Mongolian or gay, because you didn't do anything to create this state, it is just some state of reality based on mere existence. This is where so called 'gay pride' went astray from the start. Gay has been hijacked or repurposed and gay pride has been created from whole cloth. Gay pride really means 'I don't feel guilty about something I can't control' Shame means you have been judged by others, while guilt is a feeling of disappointment because you did not behave properly according to your inner code. There is some confusion about these two dichotomies, because the word 'ashamed', is ambiguous or used sloppily. However shame and guilt are words that are not ambiguous at all.
It's owned by JLR, "a subsidiary of Tata Motors since they founded it as a holding company for the acquisition of Jaguar Cars and Land Rover from Ford in 2008." (jaguar land rover)
@@RedFeather36Co-owned by Tata. The money is coming from the CCP. Google it! Please wake up! 🙏. They destroyed my country of Canada. Don't be a victim as well!
If you're owned by a Chinese company though that's not communism. In communism all economics are controlled by the state. There are no private businesses. That's a contradiction there. That's why after being given all our factories etc and robbing all the technologies China has been prosperous. Do you want power above all else. They believe in nothing nothing
From a practical standpoint, I think there is one simple question to ask: who votes? In all cases in which all people vote (including the extremely unintelligent, envious, and impulsive) the eventual outcome is communism. The Greeks learned this 2500 years ago. The founding fathers were well aware of this. The early American republic had property requirements for voters. As long as that limit held, the US was the wealthiest nation in the world. See Venezuela for what happens when many ignorant/envious people vote. What we have rejected, at our great peril, is that there must be some property and/or intelligence standard for voting rights. This is the ultimate hard truth of political science. As long as that obvious fact is ignored (because it is so impolite to the academic class), we are guaranteed to move unavoidably into communism. I mention this knowing that, at least for my lifetime, only a few people will ever have the courage to state what should be an obvious fact: ignorant people vote for tyrants.
Just prevent ppl from voting for their own paychecks. Receiving subsidies, bailouts, welfare, contracts, or full time employment from any tax supported entity should cancel the right to vote in that entity's elections.
This is my proposal: only those who contribute, get the vote. So from the moment you turn 18, you have a tab where every dollar you receive from the state goes against you, and every dollar you contribute in tax goes towards you. If you're in the black, you get to vote. If you start off on government assistance, then you get the vote once you've paid in more than you've taken out in your lifetime. If you paid in a lot but are on social assistance in old age, you still get the vote as long as you've paid in more than you've taken out over your lifetime. If you're a business owner and get a big government contract, the value you get out of the contract is held against you as well. If multiple people are in the room, everyone involved in that decision is held to account proportionally. This is the only fair way to set up a voting system, imo. It directly incentivises people to be contributing members of society, while still allowing the unfortunate to receive help.
@@ThatGastrodontoo complex. The spirit of your argument has merit, but ask yourself: what entity is tracking such a tally and weighing it to hand out ballots every couple years? Create a govt. bureaucracy large enough to do this for 330 million, then how to insulate that from corruption. Also, I don't care for anything tracking my every dollar exchange as closely as that might require. We already have an Internal Revenue Service, and we know how that goes
It's true that ignorant, envious or short-sighted voters will favor policies that will destroy their society in the long run (as you say, Venezuela voted for the leaders that destroyed them). However, the purpose of having a strong Constitution and an independent Supreme Court is specifically to avoid this problem. They're not perfect, but they exist specifically to protect the voters from themselves by making it difficult (but unfortunately not impossible) to pass laws that violate fundamental rights and which will lead to disaster.
I really appreciate your use of drawings to illustrate your points. It helps me stay focused on your words so i can understand what you are saying. Keep doing that :)
The problem is with people who know they should've said something to stop it, but didn't know how to explain "why" they thought that way. Or maybe they knew, but didn't want to say it out loud.
Bell curve idea exactly comports with my concept, based on manufacturing engineering, where an individual product’s acceptance to proceed to the next process is determined by whether it falls within tolerance or not. Effectively we should be applying a ‘six sigma’ approach to social tolerance. If a person/practice falls within +-3 standard deviations of ‘target’ then we tolerate it otherwise it gets quarantined
To me, it's not complicated. People can do, say, and think whatever they want, as long it doesn't interfere with others freedoms. The democrats crossed that thresh hold long ago, and they went on my intolerance sht list when they went after our children. Their done, as far as I'm concerned.
I wish it was that simple. If a man asks you to call him 'she' would you? The 'tolerant' thing to do is comply, but that compliance, 'because it doesn't interfere with others freedoms' is how we have go to the point where policemen pretending to be women are legally allowed to intimately search real women. In other words, they can legally commit assault. And this is way deeper than American politics, this is the World Wide Web, not America. I'm in New Zealand, tolerance here allowed our government to lock up law abiding citizens and inject poison into over half the population.
@ when “ they” cancel the curve they necessarily cancel themselves. The straightest distance between two points may be a straight line but a straight line is not the least time( brachistochrone). Thanks for your time( least at last; the first will be last and the last first / you’re ahead of the curve!).
I think something hypothesis misses, but that you touched on at about the midpoint of the video, is that in your bell curve model, as norms move towards the middle they necessarily displace other norms. This is they we always end up with a curve. You can’t have a pyramid with every block being the capstone. And the reason why the wildly out there violations make people so angry, in so far as this model is concerned, is that bringing those vile acts to the top means we have to displace a lot of norms to even approach making it work. It simply can’t be done and no one wants it to work. But for lesser norms and values, it’s always a trade off. We cannot have every value be a capstone value. It just doesn’t work.
I wasn't expecting to learn much from this video, but it helped create a concise framework for the world we're all trying to better understand. I'd add that the Left has succeeded in moving trans from the outer region of acceptance, far enough to the right, that it is now in the acceptable region (as long as it doesn't involve kids). Almost everyone including top Republicans now say "You can do anything you want in your own bedroom, no one cares, just leave kids out of it." It seems that tolerance has inched us closer to the next step...indoctrinating kids. But how do you grapple with freedom to be trans vs. the danger of it becoming mainstream. I'd love to hear Peter Bogosian's take on your presentation and ideas.
I didn't care about gay rights until they started hitting on my son. Then family values became practical as I'd invested a lot in him with a hope that he not squander his amazing reproductive resource and leave me w/o grandchildren like happened to the rest of my family.
Just when you thought that Anheuser Busch had made the worst business decision in corporate history by hiring Dylan Mulvaney as a spokes(cross-dressing)man ...... Jaguar: ..... “Hold my Bud Light.”
That was probably one of the most frank and sincere and honest and pragmatic and realistic thing I've heard in so long.. thank you so much for going through the time involved to do this! Kind of like a modern day version of a vintage car or vintage house or vintage culture... Good on ya mate!!
In the left side of politics that unlimited tolerance is just a big front or Orwellian newspeak because there are zero tolerance in different views, ideas, opinions, cultural aspects, religions etc. The whole left side and communism both are based on socialism wich is a totalitarian cause by its nature and will allways need an autoritarian regime or it doesnt work. Opposite of liberalism isnt concervatism, its socialism. Thats why theres no freedom anywhere, no freedom of speech, no freedom of choosing your own believes and religions, no freedom of having your own opinion nor freedom to expressed it, no liberal values, no democracy etc. etc. and people are couverted to believe there is lefty liberals out there when there arent 😂😂
Your analysis makes sense to me, but I think you missed an important point... I wouldn't say no as you repeatedly do but inevitable decrease. The key point being in worker production. For me this is ironic and complicated because my family goes back five hundred years trying socialism in Mennonite colonies. They idealized the early church as depicted in the book Acts of the Apostles. My great grandfather - David Klausen ran the largest congregation of colonies in the Ukraine. It was inspected by Stalin and obviously influenced his implementation of Russian Collectivization. In short religious devotion to a strong work ethic proved superior to totalitarian control over workers and peasants. Unfortunately it had plenty of problems of its own.
Altruism ... we are very selfish by nature and we have to learn to want to help each other. We *have* to be rewarded for our labor, so we need to find a way to change our expectation of such a reward.
I enjoyed the video very much and I find it crazy that we even have to talk about these things, wasting time with people that have decided to live a life entirely different of what humanity has ever lived.
Except old guard Communism doesn't concern itself with shame, or indeed, morality, because shame and morality are in the realm of religion, and Communism doesn't align with God - as a all knowing entity at least. Communism holds that once man throws off the shackles of capitalist society and fully embraces socialism, MAN BECOMES GOD, and therefore has no shame, for he will be a perfect being. This is the Utopia. One caveat to all of that is Maoism, which DOES utilize shame in the form of struggle sessions: being forced to admit that you were wrong and have wrong thoughts. Until you realize that and denounce your former self, the beatings and imprisonment will continue.
You're talking about "COMMON Sense", common sense helped us as a species survive and thrive, but now, in an age of comfort, we've lost or given up the common sense, fantastic explanation, thank you
Excellent, thank you. 😊By the way the level of excitement and throwing stuff across the room you have caused is nearly as high as posting you love Jesus and are going to heaven. That drives them nuts too.
The basic premise seems to be on-point. It doesn't seem to address how to deal with the two things that are constantly trying to keep the bell curve either flat or a skyscraper though - money and power. No matter how hard a society tries, there will always be those who will 'sell their soul' for either or both. How does a the ideal society deal with those that seek to undermine it w/o becoming the thing they're trying to prevent? Where is the line separating too much freedom and too much authoritarianism, and who is moving that line? What happens when those who are in power to move it also become corrupt? How does the ideal society handle that w/o devolving into a bloody catastrophe? The tolerance of things is always shifting as people seeking something other than the curve call society variations of -ists, -isms and -phobics. Where does that kind of behavior land on the bell curve of tolerance? I think this is more of a cyclical wave than a static curve as those who feel like they're being shunned won't accept society's rules and will always fight to either the "flatten the curve" (see what I did there 😆) or replace the skyscraper that's harming them with their own version of the skyscraper. So the tolerance of intolerant things ultimately slides up the curve and others that are disaffected see this and cry 'what about me'?? So, they too get moved up too. All of a sudden we're either now at a very flat curve again or the entire system is at risk of being replaced with an entirely new structure (e.g., freedom => communism). At that point, something is going to give as the ideologies are mutually exclusive. This basically just happened w/the election of Trump. Society said that this is getting ridiculous and is bouncing the obvious things back out to the edges again. Which is why seeing that Jaguar ad is so funny now rather than offensive. They've been completely bounced out to the fringe again and don't even realize it. Their timing couldn't be any worse. However, those ideologies will be back and will start the cycle over again. I think this is where education - proper education - plays a crucial role. This seems to have systemic corruption now too though, so that must be fixed and I think the skyscraper model might actually be the appropriate one in order to get those people out of the educational system entirely. It's one thing to objectively educate about the ills of Marxism/communism and a whole other to brainwash kids into thinking that it should replace a free society. If the curve is to be strong and resilient it must have good structures to support it. One of them is education. Another, which you mentioned, is an equal application of the law. I'm sure there are more.
“The Party can never be mistaken,” said Rubashov. “You and I can make a mistake. Not the Party. The Party, comrade, is more than you and I and a thousand others like you and I. The Party is the embodiment of the revolutionary idea in history. History knows no scruples and no hesitation. Inert and unerring, she flows towards her goal. At every bend in her course she leaves the mud which she carries and the corpses of the drowned.” - Darkness at Noon That about sums it up
The first two graphs hurt my head because there were nonlinear in a population of 300 Million people. Of course the cultural bell curve was visually appealing and I can come up with several good reasons why it is likely true. One reason is that people will always compromise on some things because it is advantageous to be in a group to increase the probability of survival such as the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I am an Atheist and a Libertarian that voted for Trump and my wife is Chinese so only the Chinese don't hate me. When I lived in China, I was fascinated by the Chinese culture of shaming when a child was caught stealing. I have no objection to the death penalty so the curve can go to zero as far as I am concerned.
I like it! Two thoughts came to my mind. 1] as Dad alluded to, there could be a line along the Y axis (I believe) for "legislation" or "government". The point where government steps in - which is to say "force" - in addition to shaming. The culture has written down behaviors they believe unacceptable, and government (representing the people) steps in to punish (to various degrees). 2] I once read* that self-organizing organisms need rules, ways to punish rule-breakers, and those willing to break rules regardless. The example of this was a bacteria colony. The rule was to stick together and go where there is food. Rule-breakers would be isolated from the colony. Rule-breakers, however, could find new food and save the colony from stagnating and dying from starvation (and to help the colony to evolve). The author compared this to human societies, if I recall correctly. The interesting thing is that we need rule-breakers so we can grow and adapt (perhaps moving toward a "better" culture), but we also need to punish rule-breakers. I think the bell-curve reflects this -- there are certain behaviors we cannot accept, while other behaviors have various levels of acceptance and various levels of "punishment", some of which are acceptable by rule-breakers. * I am ashamed I can't remember the book title or the author.
May I reply to myself? I may have missed the difference between 'shame', 'shaming', and 'punishment'. Shame, is something one does to themselves having been educated on norms. This could be seen as a punishment from the society, but I believe it may be different than other forms of punishment, right? For example, the housecleaning example provided in comments here...
The rule of law fairly executed by the government helps maintain the boundry between each other's personal freedoms. I am allowed to do what I do as long as I do not infringe on another's rights. Government then steps in to decide between those involved.
Yes. There's a bell curve everywhere because our minds are dualistic. "Human flourishing, health, sexuality, etc" all pertain to us because we have a form that has needs. This imposes a hierarchy naturally. Unnaturally imposing a flat line will infringe on other's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For what its worth after grappling and wrestling with these complicated confusing identity issues, I have come to the conclusion that we need social norms and those social norms need to be majoritarian and convergent. However there will be in any population group a distribution pattern where some people will either naturally or artificially diverge from the majoritarian center of the distribution curves. There can be cases where you have a more complex situation where peoples subjective experience of their identity is to a certain extant in conflict and tension with their biological genotype. While the majoritarian norm which is convergent is that most people will not experience that kind of tension and conflict of their subjective experience of their self image or identity constuct and their biolgical genetic type. So the "normal" people dont understand the people for which that norm doesnt work for them like it works for most people. However we need to understand very clearly that not every kind of divergence or deviance from the majoritarian convergent social norm can be accepted, in a spirit of live and let live tolerance for difference and diversity. In fact both the norms themselves as well as the deviations can often be social or individual pathologies. So we have some confusing complexity in avoiding an overly restrictive and oppressively conformist range of culturally acceptable behaviour patterns and the overly expansive tolerance for the harmful, pathology, destructive behaviour patterns, and for evil and corrupt depraved conduct. Some types of nonconformity and difference is healthy and in their own way normal, but not every kind of difference and diversity can or should be normalized.
18:06 you drew a normal distribution, but on many issues like obesity this is something more like a uniform distribution, or even an exponential distribution, which is why there is so much problem
Jordan Peterson said something similar: that having core norms (like heterosexual marriage) makes room and allowances for exceptions at the edges ( homosexuality and gay marriage). But when a society rejects all norms whatsoever, then this negatively affects the freedoms of both straight and gay people.
I grew up in Ceausescu’s communist Romania, tolerance was not a word in our vocabulary. The only thing tolerated was the communist dogma, anything else was scrutinised, suppressed and punished. In other words, intolerance and censorship ruled.
I don't think it's too late. Without the election to quantify the electorate's acceptance of recent changes to our culture, and an ability to observe outcomes that the Left is driving us toward, this presentation would have been nothing more than an academic exercise.
@independent900 that's precisely why I say it's too late. The pendulum has started it's swing back in the opposite direction and a lot of the people that are too far gone will be left on the "outside". Add in the resentment from a decade of "woke" and people getting pushed off buildings might not just be an academic exercise.
The saying is true: all modern talking points are just footnotes somewhere in a Plato book. In the Republic, he literally addresses this very topic. One of the ultimate criticisms of Democracies: the excess pursuit of liberty. Plato (through Socrates) notes, "...an excessive desire for liberty at the cost of everything else is what undermines democracy and leads to the demand for tyranny.” He goes on, "the people in a democracy will go on to abuse anyone who obey or approves of higher authorities…in private life as well as public life… and because of this… rulers will now behave like subjects and subjects will now behave like rulers. In such a society the principle of liberty is bound to go to extremes, is it not?” Continuing, “A democracy will eventually bring it about that a father should change places with his son…that the father will now stand in worship of his son…and the son will in turn neither respect or fear his parents… in order to assert what he calls his “independence”…and there will be no distinction between citizen and a foreigner.” "…and there are other more trivial things. In a democratic society… eventually teachers will fear and pander to their students, who in turn will actually despise their teachers …and the young… as a whole… will argue with their elders and will begin to go against their elders…while the elders will cowardly try to avoid the reputation of being disagreeable or strict and will try to become “friends” with the youth.” " …and you would never believe - unless you had seen it for yourself - how much more liberty domestic animals have in a democracy. The dog comes to resemble its master…and the same is true of the horses and donkeys [and cats] as well…" "“…but the extreme of popular liberty is reached in this kind of society… when there is the complete equality and liberty in the relations between men and women…” Plato goes on to the culmination of the problem: the desperation to have no law or tradition above the masses. He writes, "…what it all adds up to is finally this…you find that the minds of the citizens have become so sensitive… that the least vestige or trace of self-government is resented as intolerable, until finally, as you know, in their determination to have no master… they disregard all laws, written or unwritten.” "Well, my friend…this is the root from which tyranny springs…a lively and forceful… beginning." (Plato's Republic, On Tyranny). The self-fulfilling prophecy of democracies. No shame. No restrictions.
The thing that woke culture seems to say is "what was once considered normal (i.e. men and women being attracted to one another) should be considered unacceptable and shameful."
I say no because it crosses over into the realm of equality of outcome. Nobody should be tolerant of anyone who feels communism is good and demands they get an equality of outcome when they refuse to work for it.
"Tolerance" to the Woke actually means "acceptance" You can tolerate homosexuals without celebrating them, if tolerance actually meant "putting up with something you're against" like it used to. Modern tolerance = must celebrate, accept and promote anything but Christianity and/or western civilization. The point of "tolerance" today is destruction of Christianity and/or western civilization.
I like your approach - especially that rule of law should skew toward the flat curve even though reality is a bell curve. Perhaps rule of law should legitimately be the "building" where citizens are treated equally, but non-citizens are cast over the edge to the next layer of a stepped pyramid where legal visitors with visas still enjoy most of the protections, and perhaps there is no final drop-off where assault, battery, and murder are acceptable consequences for the cast-aways. For the normal curve of moral behavior within a society, there must be an objective standard from which to quantify shame. Otherwise, one person's subjective utopia will be another's subjective hellscape. What would be your objective standard?
Interesting. I do have some open questions about your practical examples though and would love to share my perspective: 1. Shame seems to be a strong regulator in your examples as - it almost seems as if shame was necessary in order to keep things the way they are. I'm thinking about the linear graph, where many things are accepted. ("When there's no shame and everything is accepted we end up in communism"). I find that interesting and I'm not sure if I agree. It might work in some occasions and others not: Shame works as a regulator to maintain the norm if it's a behavior the person can change (e.g. being rude or coming late to work). But it is completely contraproductive with behaviors the person isn't capable of changing on their own - or doesn't even want/need to! (E.g. homosexuality or obesity). 2. This brings me to another topic. I'm German so for me your video seems very influenced by US American culture. For example I don't agree that in your graph about political systems you placed the US classical liberalism at the top. I understand that you say the linear graph without curve is bad because it's too accepting of behaviors? But from my perspective the US culture is way too accepting! You want to homeschool your kids because you don't believe in evolution? Go ahead, brainwash them! You don't want to pay healthcare? You don't have to, who cares about being insured! You want to own guns? Sure, that's not a danger to others! 3. Communism is presented as hell on earth (even the video color changes to red when you say the word which is very dramatic). I agree, all examples where extreme (!) communists govern countries were and are horrible! But for me, the core idea behind communism/socialism is more. The idea is to live in a society where no one can exploit others in order to accumulate riches. Where no one is super rich and no one is super poor. Capitalism creates gaps, it creates winners and losers. The winners of capitalism will always hate communism. But have you asked the losers? Those who are exploited so that others get super rich, those you have to work in factories or mines day and night? I know that in the American dream everyone can become rich if they only work hard enough. But that happening is one in a million. And for me, holding on to and spreading that dream is only convenient for the US government: If people think they are miserable because they only haven't worked hard enough, the government doesn't have to take actions in order to create equal chances for everyone in the society (e.g. better labor laws or free access to university education). Now what I have wrote might seem extremely communist to you. But believe me, in my country I'm not even considered leftwing! I'm not saying that I want a communist government. I'm just saying it's not a bad thing to hold on to ideas that might be unaccepted but can make our societies more just. As you said, where things are placed on the curve can change over time. But it doesn't change on its own! That's why we NEED liberal thinkers, people who say and do unaccepted things. (Of course unacceptable behavior that directly harms others like rape/murder/pedophiles is NOT meant here!) (And when I say free thinkers I'm NOT talking about people like Elon Musk - who definitely are "out of the box thinkers" but only so to pursue their own interests: power and money).
22:00 -- Indeed there was a time of "anarchy," which is recorded in the Bible in Judges 17:6 " In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
By the very fact that you have to “tolerate” something it means it’s NOT GOOD FOR YOU. To tolerate literally means “to suffer thru”. Tolerance is NOT a Christian virtue or a virtue at all
Very succinct. "They've" moved several unacceptable behaviors closer to (or in) the acceptable range. Trump's election will slow it down, but it will start again and pickup right where it left off.
The media taught us that only sweet, misunderstood nerds get bullied so all bullying is bad. The reality is that most kids get bullied because they are being obnoxious or creepy and most kids ceased the behavior and the bullying stops.
There’s a great quote - “all models are wrong….it’s just that some are quite useful”! I’m afraid your model is just “wrong” not least cos it combines different categories of measurement. The norm btw is just the average - not a system of governance. All graphs measuring behaviours are going to be bell curves whatever the particular ideologies underpinning the behaviours. So all you’re actually saying is “I disagree with poor behaviours as assessed by how far from the average that behaviour lies”. The issue you’ve missed is how the outer edges of behaviours have managed to somehow become normalised. For that you need other models (eg Overton Window etc).
What this basically is talking about is social competition rather than contrived social monopoly. Society is healthier when it competes for what naturally occurs. Society becomes chaotic when unnatural behaviors are forced on it. This is the essence of Natural Law to me. When it is violated we get the Lord of the Flies rather than a Norman Rockwell painting.
I disagree. You can tolerate the intolerant, as long as the intolerant don't attempt to physically coerce the people they judge poorly. If they do, we're doing the same to them, because they chose to live in a world where people get physically coerced. It's still their choice. It's still just. I'm totally a cultural communist by your definition btw. I don't judge anything as bad or abnormal, and I live my own life as a hedonist. Contrary to what you all might believe, I'm quite happy.
You will be HAPPIER,, till your wife throws you out, takes half of everything, and you are still obligated to provide for your former wife and and your children, at the level they are accustomed to. So you've got about a 50 -50 chance of "Happier"
If you like what you see and want to stay up to date with Dad Saves America, please subscribe here on TH-cam or over on Substack, where you can find weekly articles and the audio version of the podcast, with more to come in the near future!
www.dadsavesamerica.com
The biggest flaw in this video is that communist countries were actually in some ways socially conservative. In the Soviet Union, a man could marry one woman, even commies couldn't change that.
The odd thing is the word “tolerance”
Have you ever been told by a friend that they only “tolerate” you?
Not exactly a glowing compliment is it?
Yet that’s the word chosen ..by the left ..to talk about how people should view each other..
Gross over simplification of the issues just 10 seconds into the video, I know plenty of communist pacifist, and I know plenty of violent right wingers with guns. The issue is not their political opinion friend, it's the hateful ideologies in their heads, left or right someone could be a "bad" person, why does their political opinion matter in the context of what they do? Preemptively to that you may say something like "well they do it the name of their political opinion" and so same issues still I said a second ago, people kill in the name of god, their religion and political opinions are not really the issues here, in the way you are saying where you generalize every single person who is a communist, how and why should I take that statement seriously and not say back to it, every priest and holy man is a chomo? Your rhetoric is bad and you should feel bad, I will be dismantling and scrutinizing every word you say, I found you from a youtuber advertisement, so this is clearly about money to you, my question are rhetorical, I know you have no real answers.
@@ispelthisrongit's nearly a half hour long and your judging it within 10 seconds before he can express the full range of ideas? For shame.
- Men and women are different
- The family is a good thing
- The State should not control everything
The frustration for myself and many others is that the left has taken a giant crap on our culture, then set it on fire, and now, we're hearing people discuss common sense like it's a bold new idea.
The last 4-5 years have been a total cultural wasteland. Just forgotten years where everything has degraded because morons were told "only white people can be racist" then these same idiots started living their lives according to these retarded principles, ruining so many lives in the process.
It's going to be years before I forgive them. They have caused so much goddamn harm against peoples' lives, not to mention dragging our names through the mud for pointing out the obvious--- that, no, America isn't going to be like San Francisco.
"The only thing we won't tolerate is intolerance" is effectively the same as "The only thing we won't tolerate is anybody who disagrees with us". Tolerance becomes the ultimate intolerance.
Herbert Marcuse's idea right there.
Crazy how you say no one tolerates your intolerance. We see your intolerance mega-phoned literally everywhere lol MAGA is the loudest group and are constantly allowed to be bigoted in public. Not sure where this persecution complex came from..... oh wait, it the flood of right wing disinformation and fear mongering you people fall for. You people are just the worst 😂
@@SQron188 Yes, "repressive tolerance".
That's not real tolerance then, just virtue-signaling under the guise of tolerance.
I’ve become intolerant of the woke crazies and I will never back down.
They are ruining life.
Im really happy to see you correctly set anarchism at the opposite side from communism, rather than what lefty professors usually put on that side
Absolutely.
Anarchism is socialism, duh!
What lefty professors do is to put socialism in the center with communism to the left but still well within the realm of socially acceptable--and even commendable, if a bit utopian--and then put center right as far right. What's funny is their extreme far right would be what any informed person would label as back to socialism again. Note: center right is represented by a void.
i say that all the time anarchism is right extremism should be logical but instead we have to left wing ideologiess on the extreme facism and communism.
@@jacobscholtissek2410wouldn't be because you are engaging in some mental gymnastics to distance yourself from the fact that you hold fascist beliefs lol lying to yourself is delusional. If you support 5he mass deportation and interment of your neighbors, you might be a fascist 😂
People often forget that tolerance, by definition, must have limits.
Intolerance is how we maintain morality
I like how Thomas Sowell describes our reality as a series of 'trade-offs.' However, I would add that our species, collectively, will always strive for some version or perversion of utopia. It is in this quest for a better life that freedom of speech becomes essential, for within the complexities of our conversations, we grapple responsibly with reality.
"Tolerance is a virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
Correct.
Several things have brought us to the point of current failure;
1) Lack of self control.
2) No personal responsibility.
3) Moral Cowardice.
4) Relativism.
5) Confusing race and culture.
6) Magical Thinking. (Reality conforms to my wishes.)
The good news is that it’s only a small number of people causing trouble…the majority don’t ascribe to these ideas. The bad news is that everyone has been affected to some degree or another…which is why pushback is so difficult.
The solution? Those less infected need to push back and say “no,” even when it means a social cost.
Right it’s time we bring back common sense. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Men can’t be women. Men can’t get pregnant and no matter how much they try to make me tolerate it never.
You do realize Thomas sowell is a moral relativist right? If your principle belief is one of trade off(that’s Thomas Sowell) then that makes you a relativist.
@@henrytep8884incorrect. What Thomas sowell is saying as that there are no "solutions" to the problems described throughout history on a scale so large, therefore there are only tradeoffs. You make the best most moral decisions you can based off these trade offs.
The peoples he is arguing against here, the fringe far left which has fooled everyone into thinking they are the majority, are utopian idealists who resist and refuse reality and therefore foundational all of their ideas are doomed to failure. History recent and old bears this out, which is how he came up with this he didn't just make some shit up like Karl Marx .
Don't forget ease. Oil and the electron have robbed us of our toil. Nowadays, we yearn for problems, rather than trying to survive them.
"There was a time before our time,
It will not come again,
When the best ships still were wooden ships
But the men were iron men…"
Clipper Ships and Captains
I dissolved my contract with a talent agency that boasts all of 'the' social virtues and sent out a mass email without a signature on it to their talent about how they will boot you from their roster if they find you aligning with anything or anyone that is offensive. A person with a signature replied to my email "it wasn't directed at you specifically; are you sure you want to end it?" I said, "yes, it seems that you are not wanting to include diversity in thought with who you represent and you've made it clear that if someone sways outside of yours, then they are not equal and don't belong." I don't even really get vocal about controversial things online, but that's just a bunch of hypocritical bovine dung.
Good on you. More people should stand up to this nonsense. I wouldn’t work for any organisation with DEI or any woke wank. I cannot condone such things.
Good on you. Most would be too afraid to rock the boat.
@@theredsir869 You should see the mental gymnastics around calls for voice auditions. It's "as long as your voice print aligns with the client's needs" on the back end, which is in direct conflict with the whole "if you identify as then you are" virtue signaling that saturates their outward branding and marketing.
Or maybe they don’t want a PR disaster, that is directly represented by their company and employees? Because it affects their bottom line, and requires more man hours to deal with, especially with a surplus of available talent?
@@LongSeanSilver We aren't employees. Plus, it's subjective and not like they give us a LIST of things that 'offend' them, so we don't do them. If I want to keep my propane stove, is that hate speech? I didn't but what if I voted for Trump? Am I a myso bla bla bla, bla bla bla, bla bla bla? I'm not walking on eggshells. People have taken this way too far, for the sake of virtue signaling, attention, funding, and some attempted twisted form of dominance over an outgroup they're being programmed to hate. Dad nailed it here. You have to be 100% with these types of people or you ARE the enemy.
I experienced shame a couple of months ago after friends came to visit me and my apt wasn’t clean. After feeling the shame I decided I would become a clean person. Shame worked wonders for me. I love transformative-shame and a clean apt 😂
Somehow, that didn't work for me.
@@caracoidwren944 Didn't work for me either.
@@andrezdaz5696 Hasn’t worked for me either yet. Still, I get her point. Shame has its place.
That used to be called hazing. At certain times and in certain amounts it works.
@@Featherfinder The issue with shame is that it doesn't stop the one it intended to stop the most in the first place. It's like gun control laws.
What I got from this is that we need to look at human nature and which system best compliments our human nature.
Communism contradicts our need for agency in choice and individualism while anarchism contradicts our need for structure and community.
Answers always somewhere in the middle
Tolerance means the capacity to endure exposure to a stressor for a period of time without an adverse reaction.
At some point however a limit is reached.
Tolerance does not go on forever.
You are right, unfortunately the left does know this, tolerance is used to incrementally normalize the bad stuff because eventually if there isn't backlash, demoralization and normalization sets in.
Remember gay marriage 15 or so years ago? I said sure why not what do I care doesn't effect me. I thought the tighty whitey conservatives saying next it will be legalize PDFFILES were being facetious and disingenuous. Well they turned out to be 100% correct they didn't even need to exaggerate it. If you read the leftists dogmas they themselves state these goals 100+ years ago.
Weaponized Empathy is what all of you need to learn to reject in real time... all while not completely switching off your empathy. This is the trick.
Agreed 👍
People without a real argument so often say things like “you don’t care about starving children” to end a discussion.
“Empathy without boundaries is self destruction.”
@@DAWN001 Or use the word 'genocide' incorrectly.
I only care for solutions. Empathy has its place but can't let it hinder you from solving a problem.
Switching off empathy is called sociopathy; selective empathy is not empathy as it is just mimicking empathy.
Around 700 BC, Hesiod described social collapse being a loss of shame and consequences. If we define mercy as someone not getting what is deserved, the natural consequences of actions, then we run into a problem when we see mercy as a moral good. Rather than mercy being a case-by-case rarity it becomes the moral standard and thus undermines consequence. When people do not suffer the consequences of their behaviours, then there is no impetuous to self-regulate or improve and there is no true justice.
My theory is that social media drove us crazy because there is no signal for “side eye”. It’s either 👍 or rage responses. It’s impossible to read the room on social media.
That is a really good observation! I think you’re on to something.
Oh, I like your observation! Rings true to me.
I said something similar on Facebook at least 10 years ago. Everything is now black/white with no shades of gray. The worst thing FB did, in my opinion, was introduce Trending News. FB went from family and friends interacting to tabloid news outrage. Everyone, at the time, kept raging about the Kardashians which fed the algorithm … that kept the rage going.
Great comment.
Interesting perspective! I'm a classic liberal/progressive. I used to be very progressive but the past few years I started to feel that much the newer progressive ideology doesn't make logical sense anymore. I will never like the idea of shaming people for being outside of the 'norm', but I also don't like how modern progressivism celebrates ideologies that are counter-productive (e.g., obesity) or stemming from mental illness (e.g., some of the gender ideology concepts). I REALLY don't like that my government (in Canada) has essentially turned to authoritarianism to force the population to accept modern progressive ideology
Best of luck on the next election cycle, Pierre seems like a good dude.
Thank you for your practical presentation. Culturally speaking, we're continuously being asked to abandon discernment. If we want to understand the meaning of this push we need to consider the outcome...pure chaos.
It seemed like we were heading in that direction as a nation. The last election was an announcement by the electorate to "put on the brakes".
You can't have pride without shame, as they are the two sides to the same coin. Hence, "gay pride" is an oxymoron.
Does that explain white pride 😂
I think it’s working out to cause “boring normal people” to feel shamed if they don’t do or say something to embrace this pride.
You're trying to be clever. The opposite of pride is not shame, it is guilt. Both pride and guilt are internal feelings based upon something you did or did not accomplish. Shame is different, it is imposed on you by other people.
Pride is for something that you do, not for something that you are. George Carlin has a famous comedy bit about this. You can be proud about your degree or running a marathon, but you shouldn't be proud for being Mongolian or gay, because you didn't do anything to create this state, it is just some state of reality based on mere existence.
This is where so called 'gay pride' went astray from the start. Gay has been hijacked or repurposed and gay pride has been created from whole cloth. Gay pride really means 'I don't feel guilty about something I can't control'
Shame means you have been judged by others, while guilt is a feeling of disappointment because you did not behave properly according to your inner code. There is some confusion about these two dichotomies, because the word 'ashamed', is ambiguous or used sloppily. However shame and guilt are words that are not ambiguous at all.
Jaguar is owned by the Chinese company, Chery. Wake up people!
I think it's owned by an Indian company Tata motors.
It's owned by JLR, "a subsidiary of Tata Motors since they founded it as a holding company for the acquisition of Jaguar Cars and Land Rover from Ford in 2008." (jaguar land rover)
@@RedFeather36 Co-owened. The money comes from the CCP. Look it up. And please, wake up 🙏
@@RedFeather36Co-owned by Tata. The money is coming from the CCP. Google it! Please wake up! 🙏. They destroyed my country of Canada. Don't be a victim as well!
If you're owned by a Chinese company though that's not communism. In communism all economics are controlled by the state. There are no private businesses. That's a contradiction there. That's why after being given all our factories etc and robbing all the technologies China has been prosperous. Do you want power above all else. They believe in nothing nothing
From a practical standpoint, I think there is one simple question to ask: who votes? In all cases in which all people vote (including the extremely unintelligent, envious, and impulsive) the eventual outcome is communism. The Greeks learned this 2500 years ago. The founding fathers were well aware of this. The early American republic had property requirements for voters. As long as that limit held, the US was the wealthiest nation in the world. See Venezuela for what happens when many ignorant/envious people vote. What we have rejected, at our great peril, is that there must be some property and/or intelligence standard for voting rights. This is the ultimate hard truth of political science. As long as that obvious fact is ignored (because it is so impolite to the academic class), we are guaranteed to move unavoidably into communism. I mention this knowing that, at least for my lifetime, only a few people will ever have the courage to state what should be an obvious fact: ignorant people vote for tyrants.
19th
Just prevent ppl from voting for their own paychecks. Receiving subsidies, bailouts, welfare, contracts, or full time employment from any tax supported entity should cancel the right to vote in that entity's elections.
This is my proposal: only those who contribute, get the vote. So from the moment you turn 18, you have a tab where every dollar you receive from the state goes against you, and every dollar you contribute in tax goes towards you. If you're in the black, you get to vote.
If you start off on government assistance, then you get the vote once you've paid in more than you've taken out in your lifetime. If you paid in a lot but are on social assistance in old age, you still get the vote as long as you've paid in more than you've taken out over your lifetime.
If you're a business owner and get a big government contract, the value you get out of the contract is held against you as well. If multiple people are in the room, everyone involved in that decision is held to account proportionally.
This is the only fair way to set up a voting system, imo. It directly incentivises people to be contributing members of society, while still allowing the unfortunate to receive help.
@@ThatGastrodontoo complex. The spirit of your argument has merit, but ask yourself: what entity is tracking such a tally and weighing it to hand out ballots every couple years?
Create a govt. bureaucracy large enough to do this for 330 million, then how to insulate that from corruption. Also, I don't care for anything tracking my every dollar exchange as closely as that might require.
We already have an Internal Revenue Service, and we know how that goes
It's true that ignorant, envious or short-sighted voters will favor policies that will destroy their society in the long run (as you say, Venezuela voted for the leaders that destroyed them).
However, the purpose of having a strong Constitution and an independent Supreme Court is specifically to avoid this problem. They're not perfect, but they exist specifically to protect the voters from themselves by making it difficult (but unfortunately not impossible) to pass laws that violate fundamental rights and which will lead to disaster.
The Poppers Paradox of being intolerant of the intolerant, always leads to a highly intolerant society.
Reality and truth over EVERYTHING.
I really appreciate your use of drawings to illustrate your points. It helps me stay focused on your words so i can understand what you are saying. Keep doing that :)
And I say, no fair with the diagrams. I prefer to scroll thru comments while listening. haha
The problem is with people who know they should've said something to stop it, but didn't know how to explain "why" they thought that way. Or maybe they knew, but didn't want to say it out loud.
The problem is that cancel culture is effective and real.
Interesting and well presented hypothesis.
Glad you think so!
Bell curve idea exactly comports with my concept, based on manufacturing engineering, where an individual product’s acceptance to proceed to the next process is determined by whether it falls within tolerance or not. Effectively we should be applying a ‘six sigma’ approach to social tolerance. If a person/practice falls within +-3 standard deviations of ‘target’ then we tolerate it otherwise it gets quarantined
Don't let the media elite define us.
Ivormetcin515, I am amused by your industrial engineering take on how society behaves. Thanks.
@@SystemsMedicine black belts, unite!
To me, it's not complicated. People can do, say, and think whatever they want, as long it doesn't interfere with others freedoms. The democrats crossed that thresh hold long ago, and they went on my intolerance sht list when they went after our children. Their done, as far as I'm concerned.
I wish it was that simple. If a man asks you to call him 'she' would you? The 'tolerant' thing to do is comply, but that compliance, 'because it doesn't interfere with others freedoms' is how we have go to the point where policemen pretending to be women are legally allowed to intimately search real women. In other words, they can legally commit assault. And this is way deeper than American politics, this is the World Wide Web, not America. I'm in New Zealand, tolerance here allowed our government to lock up law abiding citizens and inject poison into over half the population.
Yup. Do whatever you want, leave the kids alone and don't shove it down our throats.
You’re on a path to cancel culture… the book “ The Bell Curve” was cancelled for precisely what you’re saying.
Bring it on.
@ when “ they” cancel the curve they necessarily cancel themselves. The straightest distance between two points may be a straight line but a straight line is not the least time( brachistochrone).
Thanks for your time( least at last; the first will be last and the last first / you’re ahead of the curve!).
@@DadSavesAmerica that has a Brave New World vibe about it.
Can't and shouldn't are two different things. You shouldn't tell people what to do or how to think, but that didn't stop you from doing it anyways. 😂
Jaguar would like to thank you for the free advertising. I don’t remember any jaguar ads until this. TH-camrs are really gettin Jags brand out there
I think something hypothesis misses, but that you touched on at about the midpoint of the video, is that in your bell curve model, as norms move towards the middle they necessarily displace other norms. This is they we always end up with a curve. You can’t have a pyramid with every block being the capstone. And the reason why the wildly out there violations make people so angry, in so far as this model is concerned, is that bringing those vile acts to the top means we have to displace a lot of norms to even approach making it work. It simply can’t be done and no one wants it to work. But for lesser norms and values, it’s always a trade off. We cannot have every value be a capstone value. It just doesn’t work.
I wasn't expecting to learn much from this video, but it helped create a concise framework for the world we're all trying to better understand. I'd add that the Left has succeeded in moving trans from the outer region of acceptance, far enough to the right, that it is now in the acceptable region (as long as it doesn't involve kids). Almost everyone including top Republicans now say "You can do anything you want in your own bedroom, no one cares, just leave kids out of it." It seems that tolerance has inched us closer to the next step...indoctrinating kids. But how do you grapple with freedom to be trans vs. the danger of it becoming mainstream.
I'd love to hear Peter Bogosian's take on your presentation and ideas.
I didn't care about gay rights until they started hitting on my son. Then family values became practical as I'd invested a lot in him with a hope that he not squander his amazing reproductive resource and leave me w/o grandchildren like happened to the rest of my family.
Just when you thought that Anheuser Busch had made the worst business decision in corporate history by hiring Dylan Mulvaney as a spokes(cross-dressing)man ......
Jaguar: ..... “Hold my Bud Light.”
All by design, create division and plant the seeds for a reason to take total control. W...E...F
That was probably one of the most frank and sincere and honest and pragmatic and realistic thing I've heard in so long.. thank you so much for going through the time involved to do this! Kind of like a modern day version of a vintage car or vintage house or vintage culture... Good on ya mate!!
I appreciate that!
I can't find any holes..... now was I looking ??? Not really. Gosh Iove his understanding and how he presents his ideas.
Wow, that’s really nice to say my friend. Thank you!!
In the left side of politics that unlimited tolerance is just a big front or Orwellian newspeak because there are zero tolerance in different views, ideas, opinions, cultural aspects, religions etc.
The whole left side and communism both are based on socialism wich is a totalitarian cause by its nature and will allways need an autoritarian regime or it doesnt work.
Opposite of liberalism isnt concervatism, its socialism.
Thats why theres no freedom anywhere, no freedom of speech, no freedom of choosing your own believes and religions, no freedom of having your own opinion nor freedom to expressed it, no liberal values, no democracy etc. etc. and people are couverted to believe there is lefty liberals out there when there arent 😂😂
Your analysis makes sense to me, but I think you missed an important point... I wouldn't say no as you repeatedly do but inevitable decrease. The key point being in worker production. For me this is ironic and complicated because my family goes back five hundred years trying socialism in Mennonite colonies. They idealized the early church as depicted in the book Acts of the Apostles. My great grandfather - David Klausen ran the largest congregation of colonies in the Ukraine. It was inspected by Stalin and obviously influenced his implementation of Russian Collectivization. In short religious devotion to a strong work ethic proved superior to totalitarian control over workers and peasants. Unfortunately it had plenty of problems of its own.
Altruism ... we are very selfish by nature and we have to learn to want to help each other. We *have* to be rewarded for our labor, so we need to find a way to change our expectation of such a reward.
Altruism is by definition a bad practice if you want happiness. Sacrificing yourself for everyone else is not a path you should take.
I enjoyed the video very much and I find it crazy that we even have to talk about these things, wasting time with people that have decided to live a life entirely different of what humanity has ever lived.
And expecting the rest of us not just to tolerate but celebrate it.
Except old guard Communism doesn't concern itself with shame, or indeed, morality, because shame and morality are in the realm of religion, and Communism doesn't align with God - as a all knowing entity at least.
Communism holds that once man throws off the shackles of capitalist society and fully embraces socialism, MAN BECOMES GOD, and therefore has no shame, for he will be a perfect being. This is the Utopia.
One caveat to all of that is Maoism, which DOES utilize shame in the form of struggle sessions: being forced to admit that you were wrong and have wrong thoughts. Until you realize that and denounce your former self, the beatings and imprisonment will continue.
Actually, only one man usually becomes "God", e.f. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc etc. Everyone else becomes dirt under His shoe.
The paradox of tolerance , I've only been talking about this for years.
shame really does need to be brought back into society
Throwing rocks at glass houses much?
there is a lot of shameingright now, radical left wing culture just shames the wrong stuff.
@@andrezdaz5696 shame! Those panels were expensive!
We still have shame for some people and ideas. It's just mostly misdirected now.
I truly believe if mushrooms were legal, people would be more likely to be humble and kind. Not all, but exponentially more than now.
They are legal. I bought a box of mushrooms at my grocery store just this week.
@@goatrancher9kinderl guess that idea won't work, 😉
@goatrancher9kinder come on, man
Thank you. That opening explanation is all that was needed.
You're talking about "COMMON Sense", common sense helped us as a species survive and thrive, but now, in an age of comfort, we've lost or given up the common sense, fantastic explanation, thank you
Your videos keep getting better. This is spot on.
Excellent, thank you. 😊By the way the level of excitement and throwing stuff across the room you have caused is nearly as high as posting you love Jesus and are going to heaven. That drives them nuts too.
This is a good video and explains a lot of current world situations. Just subbed and keep up the good videos. Let's bring back sanity!
A lotta people owe Rick Santorum an apology.
Nah, f that guy still 😂
Please tell me more.
The basic premise seems to be on-point.
It doesn't seem to address how to deal with the two things that are constantly trying to keep the bell curve either flat or a skyscraper though - money and power. No matter how hard a society tries, there will always be those who will 'sell their soul' for either or both.
How does a the ideal society deal with those that seek to undermine it w/o becoming the thing they're trying to prevent? Where is the line separating too much freedom and too much authoritarianism, and who is moving that line?
What happens when those who are in power to move it also become corrupt? How does the ideal society handle that w/o devolving into a bloody catastrophe?
The tolerance of things is always shifting as people seeking something other than the curve call society variations of -ists, -isms and -phobics.
Where does that kind of behavior land on the bell curve of tolerance?
I think this is more of a cyclical wave than a static curve as those who feel like they're being shunned won't accept society's rules and will always fight to either the "flatten the curve" (see what I did there 😆) or replace the skyscraper that's harming them with their own version of the skyscraper.
So the tolerance of intolerant things ultimately slides up the curve and others that are disaffected see this and cry 'what about me'?? So, they too get moved up too. All of a sudden we're either now at a very flat curve again or the entire system is at risk of being replaced with an entirely new structure (e.g., freedom => communism).
At that point, something is going to give as the ideologies are mutually exclusive.
This basically just happened w/the election of Trump.
Society said that this is getting ridiculous and is bouncing the obvious things back out to the edges again.
Which is why seeing that Jaguar ad is so funny now rather than offensive.
They've been completely bounced out to the fringe again and don't even realize it. Their timing couldn't be any worse.
However, those ideologies will be back and will start the cycle over again.
I think this is where education - proper education - plays a crucial role. This seems to have systemic corruption now too though, so that must be fixed and I think the skyscraper model might actually be the appropriate one in order to get those people out of the educational system entirely. It's one thing to objectively educate about the ills of Marxism/communism and a whole other to brainwash kids into thinking that it should replace a free society.
If the curve is to be strong and resilient it must have good structures to support it. One of them is education. Another, which you mentioned, is an equal application of the law.
I'm sure there are more.
They leave no room for people who want individual rights and oppose totalitarianism.
We gotta get you on Gutfeld!! Make it happen John! 😃👍🏻
“The Party can never be mistaken,” said Rubashov. “You and I can make a mistake. Not the Party. The Party, comrade, is more than you and I and a thousand others like you and I. The Party is the embodiment of the revolutionary idea in history. History knows no scruples and no hesitation. Inert and unerring, she flows towards her goal. At every bend in her course she leaves the mud which she carries and the corpses of the drowned.”
- Darkness at Noon
That about sums it up
The first two graphs hurt my head because there were nonlinear in a population of 300 Million people. Of course the cultural bell curve was visually appealing and I can come up with several good reasons why it is likely true. One reason is that people will always compromise on some things because it is advantageous to be in a group to increase the probability of survival such as the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I am an Atheist and a Libertarian that voted for Trump and my wife is Chinese so only the Chinese don't hate me. When I lived in China, I was fascinated by the Chinese culture of shaming when a child was caught stealing. I have no objection to the death penalty so the curve can go to zero as far as I am concerned.
It’s not just societal; it’s directly tied into our central nervous systems per JBP.
We have lost the effectiveness of calling people sinvergüenza.
Noah's Ark (anything goes) vs Tower of Babel (total control) biblical narratives
I like it! Two thoughts came to my mind. 1] as Dad alluded to, there could be a line along the Y axis (I believe) for "legislation" or "government". The point where government steps in - which is to say "force" - in addition to shaming. The culture has written down behaviors they believe unacceptable, and government (representing the people) steps in to punish (to various degrees). 2] I once read* that self-organizing organisms need rules, ways to punish rule-breakers, and those willing to break rules regardless. The example of this was a bacteria colony. The rule was to stick together and go where there is food. Rule-breakers would be isolated from the colony. Rule-breakers, however, could find new food and save the colony from stagnating and dying from starvation (and to help the colony to evolve). The author compared this to human societies, if I recall correctly. The interesting thing is that we need rule-breakers so we can grow and adapt (perhaps moving toward a "better" culture), but we also need to punish rule-breakers. I think the bell-curve reflects this -- there are certain behaviors we cannot accept, while other behaviors have various levels of acceptance and various levels of "punishment", some of which are acceptable by rule-breakers.
* I am ashamed I can't remember the book title or the author.
May I reply to myself? I may have missed the difference between 'shame', 'shaming', and 'punishment'. Shame, is something one does to themselves having been educated on norms. This could be seen as a punishment from the society, but I believe it may be different than other forms of punishment, right? For example, the housecleaning example provided in comments here...
Awesome video and something much needed to be said.
I LOVE your shape up.
The rule of law fairly executed by the government helps maintain the boundry between each other's personal freedoms. I am allowed to do what I do as long as I do not infringe on another's rights. Government then steps in to decide between those involved.
The judgemental statement, "we shouldn't be judging anyone" says it all.
It's not all against all.
“I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and all of us against the stranger”
Yes. There's a bell curve everywhere because our minds are dualistic. "Human flourishing, health, sexuality, etc" all pertain to us because we have a form that has needs. This imposes a hierarchy naturally. Unnaturally imposing a flat line will infringe on other's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If you want to judge a person's character just give them power.
“There are two things I hate more than anything …number one, people intolerant of other people’s customs and number two, the Dutch”…
For what its worth after grappling and wrestling with these complicated confusing identity issues, I have come to the conclusion that we need social norms and those social norms need to be majoritarian and convergent. However there will be in any population group a distribution pattern where some people will either naturally or artificially diverge from the majoritarian center of the distribution curves. There can be cases where you have a more complex situation where peoples subjective experience of their identity is to a certain extant in conflict and tension with their biological genotype. While the majoritarian norm which is convergent is that most people will not experience that kind of tension and conflict of their subjective experience of their self image or identity constuct and their biolgical genetic type. So the "normal" people dont understand the people for which that norm doesnt work for them like it works for most people. However we need to understand very clearly that not every kind of divergence or deviance from the majoritarian convergent social norm can be accepted, in a spirit of live and let live tolerance for difference and diversity. In fact both the norms themselves as well as the deviations can often be social or individual pathologies. So we have some confusing complexity in avoiding an overly restrictive and oppressively conformist range of culturally acceptable behaviour patterns and the overly expansive tolerance for the harmful, pathology, destructive behaviour patterns, and for evil and corrupt depraved conduct. Some types of nonconformity and difference is healthy and in their own way normal, but not every kind of difference and diversity can or should be normalized.
Napolean said chaos is the stepping stool to dictators.
No one needed another reason not to buy a modern jaguar, but we got it.
18:06 you drew a normal distribution, but on many issues like obesity this is something more like a uniform distribution, or even an exponential distribution, which is why there is so much problem
Jordan Peterson said something similar: that having core norms (like heterosexual marriage) makes room and allowances for exceptions at the edges ( homosexuality and gay marriage). But when a society rejects all norms whatsoever, then this negatively affects the freedoms of both straight and gay people.
Tolerance is totally overrated … yes it is! Tolerance does not work without respect
Loved it!
I grew up in Ceausescu’s communist Romania, tolerance was not a word in our vocabulary. The only thing tolerated was the communist dogma, anything else was scrutinised, suppressed and punished. In other words, intolerance and censorship ruled.
Great video.
Unfortunately it’s too late now. Some people are definitely getting pushed off the building.
I don't think it's too late. Without the election to quantify the electorate's acceptance of recent changes to our culture, and an ability to observe outcomes that the Left is driving us toward, this presentation would have been nothing more than an academic exercise.
@independent900 that's precisely why I say it's too late. The pendulum has started it's swing back in the opposite direction and a lot of the people that are too far gone will be left on the "outside". Add in the resentment from a decade of "woke" and people getting pushed off buildings might not just be an academic exercise.
Where does being kind and being a good person come into play?
The saying is true: all modern talking points are just footnotes somewhere in a Plato book. In the Republic, he literally addresses this very topic. One of the ultimate criticisms of Democracies: the excess pursuit of liberty. Plato (through Socrates) notes,
"...an excessive desire for liberty at the cost of everything else is what undermines democracy and leads to the demand for tyranny.” He goes on, "the people in a democracy will go on to abuse anyone who obey or approves of higher authorities…in private life as well as public life… and because of this… rulers will now behave like subjects and subjects will now behave like rulers. In such a society the principle of liberty is bound to go to extremes, is it not?” Continuing, “A democracy will eventually bring it about that a father should change places with his son…that the father will now stand in worship of his son…and the son will in turn neither respect or fear his parents… in order to assert what he calls his “independence”…and there will be no distinction between citizen and a foreigner.” "…and there are other more trivial things. In a democratic society… eventually teachers will fear and pander to their students, who in turn will actually despise their teachers …and the young… as a whole… will argue with their elders and will begin to go against their elders…while the elders will cowardly try to avoid the reputation of being disagreeable or strict and will try to become “friends” with the youth.” " …and you would never believe - unless you had seen it for yourself - how much more liberty domestic animals have in a democracy. The dog comes to resemble its master…and the same is true of the horses and donkeys [and cats] as well…" "“…but the extreme of popular liberty is reached in this kind of society… when there is the complete equality and liberty in the relations between men and women…” Plato goes on to the culmination of the problem: the desperation to have no law or tradition above the masses. He writes, "…what it all adds up to is finally this…you find that the minds of the citizens have become so sensitive… that the least vestige or trace of self-government is resented as intolerable, until finally, as you know, in their determination to have no master… they disregard all laws, written or unwritten.” "Well, my friend…this is the root from which tyranny springs…a lively and forceful… beginning." (Plato's Republic, On Tyranny).
The self-fulfilling prophecy of democracies. No shame. No restrictions.
Good video, I have been researching and pondering leftism as a biological phenomena.
The thing that woke culture seems to say is "what was once considered normal (i.e. men and women being attracted to one another) should be considered unacceptable and shameful."
Is it possible to be tolerant of others without supporting the ideas that support communism?
I say no because it crosses over into the realm of equality of outcome. Nobody should be tolerant of anyone who feels communism is good and demands they get an equality of outcome when they refuse to work for it.
Tolerance and Victocracy are two different things.
@@helixxharpellOur sovereignty has already been violated by income tax, hence the redistributionism.
"Tolerance" to the Woke actually means "acceptance"
You can tolerate homosexuals without celebrating them, if tolerance actually meant "putting up with something you're against" like it used to. Modern tolerance = must celebrate, accept and promote anything but Christianity and/or western civilization. The point of "tolerance" today is destruction of Christianity and/or western civilization.
Be intolerant of intolerance, communists are highly intolerant so best to stop it before it ruins you
Great video. Bring back logic!!!
I like your approach - especially that rule of law should skew toward the flat curve even though reality is a bell curve. Perhaps rule of law should legitimately be the "building" where citizens are treated equally, but non-citizens are cast over the edge to the next layer of a stepped pyramid where legal visitors with visas still enjoy most of the protections, and perhaps there is no final drop-off where assault, battery, and murder are acceptable consequences for the cast-aways. For the normal curve of moral behavior within a society, there must be an objective standard from which to quantify shame. Otherwise, one person's subjective utopia will be another's subjective hellscape. What would be your objective standard?
The whole thing is distorted due to the fact that those at the edges have the loudest voices.
We actually have had anarchy - and for longer than any other system - in the time before the existence of civilization.
I would like to move closer towards anarchy.
Interesting. I do have some open questions about your practical examples though and would love to share my perspective:
1. Shame seems to be a strong regulator in your examples as - it almost seems as if shame was necessary in order to keep things the way they are. I'm thinking about the linear graph, where many things are accepted. ("When there's no shame and everything is accepted we end up in communism").
I find that interesting and I'm not sure if I agree.
It might work in some occasions and others not: Shame works as a regulator to maintain the norm if it's a behavior the person can change (e.g. being rude or coming late to work). But it is completely contraproductive with behaviors the person isn't capable of changing on their own - or doesn't even want/need to! (E.g. homosexuality or obesity).
2. This brings me to another topic. I'm German so for me your video seems very influenced by US American culture.
For example I don't agree that in your graph about political systems you placed the US classical liberalism at the top. I understand that you say the linear graph without curve is bad because it's too accepting of behaviors?
But from my perspective the US culture is way too accepting! You want to homeschool your kids because you don't believe in evolution? Go ahead, brainwash them! You don't want to pay healthcare? You don't have to, who cares about being insured! You want to own guns? Sure, that's not a danger to others!
3. Communism is presented as hell on earth (even the video color changes to red when you say the word which is very dramatic).
I agree, all examples where extreme (!) communists govern countries were and are horrible!
But for me, the core idea behind communism/socialism is more. The idea is to live in a society where no one can exploit others in order to accumulate riches. Where no one is super rich and no one is super poor.
Capitalism creates gaps, it creates winners and losers. The winners of capitalism will always hate communism. But have you asked the losers? Those who are exploited so that others get super rich, those you have to work in factories or mines day and night?
I know that in the American dream everyone can become rich if they only work hard enough. But that happening is one in a million. And for me, holding on to and spreading that dream is only convenient for the US government: If people think they are miserable because they only haven't worked hard enough, the government doesn't have to take actions in order to create equal chances for everyone in the society (e.g. better labor laws or free access to university education).
Now what I have wrote might seem extremely communist to you. But believe me, in my country I'm not even considered leftwing!
I'm not saying that I want a communist government. I'm just saying it's not a bad thing to hold on to ideas that might be unaccepted but can make our societies more just.
As you said, where things are placed on the curve can change over time. But it doesn't change on its own!
That's why we NEED liberal thinkers, people who say and do unaccepted things.
(Of course unacceptable behavior that directly harms others like rape/murder/pedophiles is NOT meant here!)
(And when I say free thinkers I'm NOT talking about people like Elon Musk - who definitely are "out of the box thinkers" but only so to pursue their own interests: power and money).
22:00 -- Indeed there was a time of "anarchy," which is recorded in the Bible in Judges 17:6 " In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
By the very fact that you have to “tolerate” something it means it’s NOT GOOD FOR YOU. To tolerate literally means “to suffer thru”. Tolerance is NOT a Christian virtue or a virtue at all
As with all evil, first you tolerate, then you accept, and then you embrace.
Very succinct. "They've" moved several unacceptable behaviors closer to (or in) the acceptable range. Trump's election will slow it down, but it will start again and pickup right where it left off.
Then you force others to embrace it at the point of a gun.
@@goatrancher9kinderthe point of no return, 1984.
This is where the Overton Window comes into play. Right?
100%
The media taught us that only sweet, misunderstood nerds get bullied so all bullying is bad. The reality is that most kids get bullied because they are being obnoxious or creepy and most kids ceased the behavior and the bullying stops.
Woke is nerd bullying
If there is no shame in the game of life what fun is it.
It’s fractal.
The parabola is the real number line.
The image of God is what we are iterating.
God always keeps a remnant.
Nice way putting it 👌 👍
Yep. Nice. Write a paper on it.
He just did.
😂
There’s a great quote - “all models are wrong….it’s just that some are quite useful”! I’m afraid your model is just “wrong” not least cos it combines different categories of measurement. The norm btw is just the average - not a system of governance. All graphs measuring behaviours are going to be bell curves whatever the particular ideologies underpinning the behaviours. So all you’re actually saying is “I disagree with poor behaviours as assessed by how far from the average that behaviour lies”. The issue you’ve missed is how the outer edges of behaviours have managed to somehow become normalised. For that you need other models (eg Overton Window etc).
Ever heard of Georgy Malenkov? This was a Soviet statesman who transitioned from Stalinist government leader to Eastern Orthodox Church reader.
What this basically is talking about is social competition rather than contrived social monopoly. Society is healthier when it competes for what naturally occurs. Society becomes chaotic when unnatural behaviors are forced on it. This is the essence of Natural Law to me. When it is violated we get the Lord of the Flies rather than a Norman Rockwell painting.
I don’t think most people can think abstractly enough to see this, otherwise they wouldn’t be encouraging the societal status quo
I disagree. You can tolerate the intolerant, as long as the intolerant don't attempt to physically coerce the people they judge poorly. If they do, we're doing the same to them, because they chose to live in a world where people get physically coerced. It's still their choice. It's still just.
I'm totally a cultural communist by your definition btw. I don't judge anything as bad or abnormal, and I live my own life as a hedonist. Contrary to what you all might believe, I'm quite happy.
Hey John, is there a Dark Mode for that clipboard? 🤭
You will be HAPPIER,, till your wife throws you out, takes half of everything, and you are still obligated to provide for your
former wife and and your children, at the level they are accustomed to. So you've got about a 50 -50 chance of "Happier"
This conversation is pointless unless everyone is willing to engage in the fact that we all got us to this degenerate society.