Equating liberalism to left and conservatism to right is a myopic view of politics. Outside the United States, the political spectrum is much wider and more diverse. Liberalism is considered rather center to center-right while conservatism is seen as solid right. We should also acknowledge right-libertarianism and socialism (both authoritarian and libertarian forms).
A note on boycotting: what a lot of people don't realize is that, while boycotting CAN lower the profits of a CEO and/or the shareholders, whose views you find disagreeable, that is always the last resort for the company. Before it gets to that point, there are procedures for de-escalation and mitigation of profit losses, which often include 'streamlining the workforce' AKA letting employees go. Just remember that in order for you to hurt the pockets of the people who run a company, your would usually first need to make people lose their jobs.
Joshua, you are correct that it is a massively oversimplified overview. However, because the US system is "first past the post", the election itself forces us to think in terms of one and only one dimension. We are stuck with that situation baring a complete overhaul of the US constitution, which likewise, is *extremely* difficult.
Another reason for public demonstrations is that it clarifies public views on policies. (Voters are rarely given the chance to vote on policies, just candidates.) For one thing, if a candidate runs on a platform of lowering taxes and stopping gay marriage, and he gets elected, until the public make their voices heard, the elected candidate has no way of knowing which aspects of his platform got him elected. (Maybe they don't want a gay marriage ban, but voted for the candidate to avoid a tax increase.) Second, it shows how strongly people feel about the issues. If an opinion poll shows that a majority of the public said yes to a new policy, a demonstration may show that the people who said no feel very strongly, while the people who said yes weren't that interested, and probably wouldn't notice if the policy didn't go into effect. On a side note, how exactly do free market and traditionalism both fall under "conservative," other than the fact that the political party leaders said so? In my experience, most of the free-market people are more libertarian in their thinking, which aligns them less with tradition, and most of the traditionalists (mainly older people) are also more authoritarian.
The right left model isn't very accurate. In America the winner take all model has left us with a two part system, so political ideologies tend to gravitate to the closest party, but a religious right Republican can still be miles away from a libertarian Republican, or a Reaganomics Republican etc. It's a similar situation for the Democrats. So there isn't really one left or one right, but two group of nominally compatible factions.
Strange that in humour punching down is frowned upon but punching up generally isn't, yet violence to bring down hierarchical systems of power is seen as morally wrong. It's almost as if those systems are fighting back.
Another Idiotic capitalism who shalt be consumed by the Smiling God in the endtimes, his bpood draped lie silk upon our dejected flesh, red as the final sunset of the world that stands before us
This is decent educational material, but some of the things you said about the right in the left are very subjective, especially when you defined them.
I think you voiced your concern superbly. I further think that having that sort of critical outlook on the sources of your education is a very valuable thing. I don't think they had bad intent when they showed a little left-bias in this video, but at the same time, it doesn't entirely make up for that unintentional slant.
You know honestly, I only have one real issue with this show. I keep launching myself into minute long deep thoughts about implications & what this could mean & then i start wandering with ever deepening questions about the fabric & reality of our society and AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
Looking at all forms of Government to understand our own sounds simple enough, but the younger generations are flooded with social media propaganda leading to an often biased and stereotypical view on politics today.
Marriage equality really isn’t a very good example of a social issue when you’re trying to define what the majority of each group believes. For example, I’m a conservative but I agree that gays should be able to marry, in fact, I don’t personally know any conservative who disagrees with that, and I know a lot of conservatives.
Pfhorrest Well yeah, of course they were conservatives, I’m just saying that right now in 2017 I’d be willing to bet that the majority are alright with marriage equality. I wasn’t saying no conservatives are against it, just that most aren’t, therefore making the use of marriage equality as an example of a social issue when comparing left and right shady.
Ah, I see, now that I think about it, I do live in Canada, Ontario specifically. Since this is a more liberal country (unfortunately, though in this particular case it's fortunate), conservatives here are more likely to be moderate in some aspects, such as gay marriage. I still think because it's 41%, it's not the best example of a dividing social issue when looking at left and right, perhaps abortion would be a better choice. I am christian, which makes me part of what you called "the religious right", so maybe that just shows that Canadian conservatives are more moderate on gay marriage, since 90% of the conservatives i know personally, are christian and all of them agree with gay marriage.
By the way, thanks for checking those stats from a reliable source, interesting bit of information, and also something which most of the liberals I know wouldn't do. I appreciate that!
when you don’t vote you lose your voice. access is one issue and age is another but if you have easy access to voting like most americans do and you’re are of age and not a felon and you still don’t vote you have lost your political voice
I'm tired of these Left versus l Right the labels! Some liberals would call me conservative, but most conservatives would call me liberal, varying with each opinion. So let's put these divisive labels aside, and look at where agreement is made.
being a liberal doesn't mean you want equality of outcome it means you want equality of oppertunity dont equate liberal and left because they are far from being the same thing
Why do right-wingers keep thinking science, from sociology to climate science, is left-wing? And if you're so severely anti-left-wing that it makes you anti-science, what are you doing here???
sander sepp So... you're saying that it's leftists who use peer-reviewed scientific research in those areas of science? This is supposed to be a bad thing for leftists?
Because they don't... Republicans don't represent all right-wing parties. In my country, right-wing countries were the one who promised to invest in the tertiary education. Some left-wing parties are not so much interested in investing in higher education and science (communist for example (in my country)). But the sociology is as other social sciences taken from the lances of the observer. Some right-winger won't accept sociological theories in the same manner as the left-winger won't accept economic ones.
You use religion as an example a lot, but religion is not crucial to a governing body. Religion is often used as an authority to oppress others, and thus is not a good example of functional governance, in my opinion.
Monarchy is not a type of authoritarianism. What about all the liberal monarchies we have now? This is like saying republics are a type of democracy, and then ignore authoritarian republics like Syria or North Korea.
Also: taking "American Politics" reinforces the one-sided view many viewers of this channel already might have. Would have been more intresting to take a less Western-orientated view as its not really scientifically tenable these days.
You aren't wrong. But, at the same time, that is tricky, and even novel research. CC/Complexly is still a pretty small company and it's hard enough for them to do endeavors across state-lines. Doing collaborative writing sessions with people from a broad sampling of all nations would tremendously add to the cost of producing a video like this. This show isn't particularly trying to say anything revolutionary; it's trying to give people insight into the major topics of introductory sociology as they currently stand, at least in major US college institutions. If they could someday revise this topic to get a more global viewpoint, that'd be wonderful, I'd be super excited to watch it.
FriedEggSandwich I would argue that it is almost impossible to not be moderate. While in the U.S.A there is a fair degree of political polarization, there is not a wide range of political ideologies. Both democrats and republicans have favoured interventionist foreign policy, deregulated of business, and relatively low taxes. There is a real lack of socialist, anarchist, and nationalist movements in the U.S.A.
What Oscar said, but on the other hand, being average within the range of local political opinion isn't the same thing as being moderate. What's considered "left" in America is center-right by broader world standards, so being an average American makes you squarely right (not moderate) by those broader standards; and even that is only on one political axis, and I'd argue that the full breadth of even a two-dimensional is rarely properly represented. I drew a graph: geekofalltrades.org/_misc/political-orientation.png
I tend to think that being moderate is massively underappreciated right now. It's like it is somewhere between a forgotten and an abandoned position. But I think it is a good way to go. I think it is extrememly useful to remember that your oponents are probably not complete idiots, and not out of their minds. It takes some work sometimes, but if you go hunting, you can often find a logical starting point behind both sides' concerns. I'd personally love to see the grown of a 3rd centrist party that devoted its time to actively work at getting both sides to learn how to work together while not coming off as being sympathetic to "the enemy". It's one of the most idealistic ideas in my head, but when I take the time to imagine it, it seems so lovely in my head. I feel like everyone harshly on one side or the other only serves to make progress more difficult. Politics ain't easy. Compromise should be praised loudly, even if it makes for a very boring news story.
Oscar Fellows I would agree; I wasn't suggesting there was no middle ground, just commenting on what I mostly see in the media (social and mainstream). I was basically suggesting that people often forget there is even middle ground while hurling insults at each other for being communist/looney/nazi/facist, whatever. What is it about humanity that loves a good "us and them"? And what is so attractive about extremes?
I see one major flaw in this video. you referred to the left-liberal Economic system as "Equality of Outcome" without contrasting the Right-Conservative economic system as "Equality of Opportunity". Good on you for admitting the left wants equality of outcome, but now you need to discuss the difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity, and the flaws with both, which ultimately leads to the conclusion that Equality of outcome is actually a grave injustice.
Good to see Crash Course has learned from past mistakes of politicizing their videos. I came here thinking I'd get a left leaning, very much biased video, but I was gladly mistaken.
"You're a good citizen, right?" No "You voted in the last election or you're looking forward to voting in the future." No "You pay your taxes..." Hahaha no "Liberal on the left..." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no
You do participate in at least declaring what you are not, which seems to imply you do not give much thought to politics. OK, so now we are better informed
when discussing the different stances of the Liberal and Conservative governance, the host spent nearly 3x longer discussing the former than the latter. there was also no attempt to explain how it falls to the government or citizenry to guarantee equal outcomes. i find this VERY disheartening and a bit disingenuous on the part of Crash Course and the Green Brothers, who’ve vehemently endorsed this channel and its productions. frequently during this “season,” (to call the many episodes merely a “topic” is an drastic understatement) the host has seeming refused to present conservative and liberal talking points on an even plane. be it equal time, or (especially) the change in tone when speaking about the two sides. things with a more “liberal” slant to them are addressed with a more positive tone, but more conservative talking points are addressed flatly or blandly. i hope this is unintentional, but it should have been addressed by the host, director, producer, AND sound sound editor. anyone should have had the professionalism by this episode to have caught it and done a retake/dubbing. i have come expect better from CC and the Green Brothers, and i trusted this avenue of learning to be fair, and free of bias as . i’m starting to feel like that trust was misplaced. not because i AM a right-winger (as i’m certainly NOT), but because i KNOW both side have talking points worthy of calm rational discussion.
Well, I know I'm far from being an expert on sociology, but I know I do know much about the Christian Bible and also the Christian theology.. There are just some of the things I want to correct in this video: -first, Jesus Christ was never a charismatic leader, but instead was probably a traditional or a legal-rational one, due to Him being the Messiah that had been prophesied by the prophets of the Old Testament, including Moses who prophesied that humanity has to listen to this Messiah of the world (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19). -second, Jesus Christ never made any religion; He just told the Church to make all nations His disciples and to teach them everything that He has commanded unto them (Matthew 28:18-20), thus making the believers of Christ to spread the Good News that the Messiah - that had been prophesied by the Old Testament prophets - had come and had done everything that He had to do in order to save humanity from the everlasting punishment that is taking place in Hell and afterwards in the lake of fire (Matthew 5:22, 29-30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; Revelation 20:15)...! Christianity, therefore, was never meant to be a religion but instead was, is, and always be a social movement consisting of His disciples telling the world that the Messiah had come, had died, and had resurrected - all of that for our sins to be forgiven in the name of Jesus Christ so that we can have eternal life with Him afterwards in the new Earth and heaven (John 3:16; Revelation 21:1): Acts 1:8 {NKJV} [But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”] -the Church simply refers to the believers of Jesus Christ.. In its original language, Greek, the 'Church' means 'those who are sent out from the darkness unto light'. Jesus taught His disciples to live to be the light of the world (Matthew 5:14-16).. Christianity basically represents the movement(s) of Jesus's disciples, telling unto the world that there's indeed the only salvation found in Jesus's name (Acts of the Apostles 4:12) 🙏🙏.. Jesus Christ has lived, died, and has resurrected all for saving us from our sins...! He's indeed the Messiah that had been prophesied by the Old Testament prophets for saving us! It's indeed true that whoever believes in His name will inherit salvation from his own sins in the name of Jesus Christ (John 3:16).. Jesus had died on the cross for our sins, and there's no other salvation other than in His name (Acts of the Apostles 4:12)...! 🙏🙏 For those of you who haven't gotten to know Him yet, give yourselves a chance to repent and to receive salvation in His name...! Jesus loves everyone and wants all of us to be saved in His name: 1 Timothy 2:3-6 {NKJV} [For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,] The grace of The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with all of you.. ~~
Rough Butter, maybe things are just a little more complicated than your quick and easy, lazy stereotypes allow you to believe. The tumblr memes you are used to are the product of college freshmen getting their first taste of freedom and independent thought. But they are generally the exception to the rule. You notice them because people that hate them share the worst of what tumblr produces. This channel is produced by nerdfighteria, and more formally, by a company called "Complexly", which is named on the idea that you should consider others complexly, and don't just come up with simple labels that allow you to dismiss and dehumanize people. I mean, it's not a requirement, but I happen to think it's some pretty good advice. That said, if you really must know, her tumblr is tumblr.sweeneysays.com/
verdatum 1.) The reason I said no offense is because she LITERALLY looks like some of the professors who teach sociology at my university which is one of the subjects I study for my major. 2.) I asked for the tumblr because I assumed that she had one just like some of the other members of Crash Course and I wanted to follow her. It wasn’t meant to be an insult against tumblr and it’s community
A bunch of alt-rightists who are pretty close to fascist in reality call themselves classical liberals nowadays, and they use liberal ideology to justify their freedom to oppress minorities. And neoliberalism is the main object of critique among academic leftists. Actual leftist ideologies include socialism and communism, neither of which are liberalism. The term "liberal" is just used interchangeably with "left" among lay people and almost never in academia, which makes it so weird to show up in the context of this video. I thought Crash Course wanted to educate people, not reinforce popular misconceptions.
here you go: ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ooo-mao-mao-ba-ba-oo-ma-mao-mao, ba-ba-ooo-mao-mao-ba-ba-ooo-ma-mao-mao! SURRRRRFING BIRRRRRRRDDDDDDD!!!!
I don't think that in today's world (especially in US) we would need to depend on peasants to carry out the communist revolution (for obvious realities of post-industrial society). So Maoism fails on that regard. Torch of the revolution should be carried by true working class that is by blue, pink and white collar workers under the guidance of intelligentsia.
You're thinking of Mao Zedong Thought. What is commonly refered to as Maoism is something called Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (contrasted to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought) which most certainly does not agree that one should rely on peasants. That was a position unique to China, and as such unique to Mao Zedong Thought.
Daniel Hall it’s crazy to consider but I believe it. Back in college (2011) my sociology lecturer didn’t believe in grades. They were a negative construct she said. Instead we all were given A’s if we submitted a picture of us making the world a better place. No homework, no tests, I submitted a picture of me placing (my own) empty bottle into the recycling container and got an A.
I'm probably not the first. But I strongly think that using Jesus as a statement is very wrong. Its based on nothing more then an idea, not backed by evidence or science. This should not be used in any context of learning. Only if its used as an example about religion (where it is a subject of).
If you investigate, you'll find that most historians have no reason to believe that Jesus did not exist. It just doesn't make sense to found an entire religion on a fictional character. It makes much much more sense to base one on a martyr who may get exagerrated or misreported with time. If a person was being manipulative, they wouldn't create a fictional character who died and rose from the grave; they'd just set themselves up as the savior. Because this did not happen with the early Christian Church, it is reasonable to believe that a person existed; but not that he performed miracles, or was the only son of the God of Abraham or any such thing. And more importantly, in the end, sociology doesn't care if Jesus was a real person in this context. Sociology cares about the effect the concept has had on society, and that effect is that millions of people are absolutely certain that Jesus existed, and they remains true if he existed or if he was a pure fabrication. So the realm of sociology moves on, and leaves the rest to CC Theology.
Political science student here, it's neat to see very familiar concepts framed through a new sociological lens :)
CrashCourse should do a mini-course on different world governments.
Equating liberalism to left and conservatism to right is a myopic view of politics.
Outside the United States, the political spectrum is much wider and more diverse. Liberalism is considered rather center to center-right while conservatism is seen as solid right. We should also acknowledge right-libertarianism and socialism (both authoritarian and libertarian forms).
You are SO watchable! You just draw me in to your subject.
A note on boycotting: what a lot of people don't realize is that, while boycotting CAN lower the profits of a CEO and/or the shareholders, whose views you find disagreeable, that is always the last resort for the company. Before it gets to that point, there are procedures for de-escalation and mitigation of profit losses, which often include 'streamlining the workforce' AKA letting employees go. Just remember that in order for you to hurt the pockets of the people who run a company, your would usually first need to make people lose their jobs.
My mother has a bachelors degree in Sociology! Now I know how she can influence me so easily😂
Not just you, but your entire peer group!
lol
Imagine thinking liberal and conservative were the only two ideologies.
Joshua, you are correct that it is a massively oversimplified overview. However, because the US system is "first past the post", the election itself forces us to think in terms of one and only one dimension. We are stuck with that situation baring a complete overhaul of the US constitution, which likewise, is *extremely* difficult.
They did say they were looking at /opposite sides/ of the spectrum.
Joshua Pazmino Ah yes, the polarised American outlook of polity. Try handle my immortal science of Marxism-Leninism boi
Ligia Daroy Both liberalism and conservatism are centre to centre-rights as they believe in capitalism.
Or the American system - one ideology: corporatism.
Always love these videos when revising, amazing quality and revision material. :)
This is funny... I've just meet a girl I'm trying to know and she's studying sociology. Crash course saved my next date.
> Politics
NO PLEASE DON'T SCROLL DOWN, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW
Sorry, I have to go where even internet angels fear to tread
very informative and comprehensive lectures. thanks a lot
This is better than what I learned in school.
Another reason for public demonstrations is that it clarifies public views on policies. (Voters are rarely given the chance to vote on policies, just candidates.) For one thing, if a candidate runs on a platform of lowering taxes and stopping gay marriage, and he gets elected, until the public make their voices heard, the elected candidate has no way of knowing which aspects of his platform got him elected. (Maybe they don't want a gay marriage ban, but voted for the candidate to avoid a tax increase.) Second, it shows how strongly people feel about the issues. If an opinion poll shows that a majority of the public said yes to a new policy, a demonstration may show that the people who said no feel very strongly, while the people who said yes weren't that interested, and probably wouldn't notice if the policy didn't go into effect.
On a side note, how exactly do free market and traditionalism both fall under "conservative," other than the fact that the political party leaders said so? In my experience, most of the free-market people are more libertarian in their thinking, which aligns them less with tradition, and most of the traditionalists (mainly older people) are also more authoritarian.
The right left model isn't very accurate. In America the winner take all model has left us with a two part system, so political ideologies tend to gravitate to the closest party, but a religious right Republican can still be miles away from a libertarian Republican, or a Reaganomics Republican etc. It's a similar situation for the Democrats. So there isn't really one left or one right, but two group of nominally compatible factions.
This is really hood, thank you very much!
Strange that in humour punching down is frowned upon but punching up generally isn't, yet violence to bring down hierarchical systems of power is seen as morally wrong. It's almost as if those systems are fighting back.
Keep these videos coming! I can't wait to learn more.
*Workers of the world unite!*
Isaac Davis and get in the helicopter
*YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS!*
Procrastinators of the world, unite! ... Tomorrow... Maybe...
Dyslexics of the world, untie!
Another Idiotic capitalism who shalt be consumed by the Smiling God in the endtimes, his bpood draped lie silk upon our dejected flesh, red as the final sunset of the world that stands before us
This is decent educational material, but some of the things you said about the right in the left are very subjective, especially when you defined them.
I think you voiced your concern superbly. I further think that having that sort of critical outlook on the sources of your education is a very valuable thing.
I don't think they had bad intent when they showed a little left-bias in this video, but at the same time, it doesn't entirely make up for that unintentional slant.
This made my left hand cramp.
Right in my left-handed brain
Please do more of the Crash Course Literature...
We're working on it - the next run of literature episodes is starting soon!
thanks for this amazing content
liberalism shouldn't be refer as left leaning, it its a centrist ideology that will always be connected to its relationship with capitalism
Pray for me, I'm cramming for an exam
its gooood to have straight A's.
now i know how does it feel to hold your breath for ten minutes....good video by the way!!! lol
Is it really fair at all to collapse all political viewpoints into the binary left/right dichotomy?
Yes am good citizen!
Thank you ❤️
will there be a pedagogy crash course??
plz do playlist about maths
Could you guys consider doing a Child Development course??
Can you do a crashcourse on the history of Somalia :)
I liked that
You know honestly, I only have one real issue with this show.
I keep launching myself into minute long deep thoughts about implications & what this could mean & then i start wandering with ever deepening questions about the fabric & reality of our society and AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
. Is there any theory that explains, why government neglects some social problems and acts only when the problem becomes very serious????????????
Great Video again!!
Thought bubble?
Amazing
No taxation with out representation.
Great episode, once again.
Is just me or does the pattern on her shirt really not work with whatever video compression is going on here?
Looking at all forms of Government to understand our own sounds simple enough, but the younger generations are flooded with social media propaganda leading to an often biased and stereotypical view on politics today.
Love this unit, but the weird time signature in the theme music drives me nuts.
What do you call a fiscal liberal but a socially conservative party?
I been more education if I did politics and society in school only a new subject this year
First minute questions and my answers where: No, no, no, no, no... no? :D
Educational!
Is Public Choice theory or the Virginia School ever used I Sociology?
I loved deeply this video it has been very very very very useful for my personal project (MYP)
So early, its crazy.
Right. I'm surprised I even saw it.
Does it get more sober later on?
Marriage equality really isn’t a very good example of a social issue when you’re trying to define what the majority of each group believes. For example, I’m a conservative but I agree that gays should be able to marry, in fact, I don’t personally know any conservative who disagrees with that, and I know a lot of conservatives.
Then who were all those people opposing marriage equality, if not conservatives?
Pfhorrest Well yeah, of course they were conservatives, I’m just saying that right now in 2017 I’d be willing to bet that the majority are alright with marriage equality. I wasn’t saying no conservatives are against it, just that most aren’t, therefore making the use of marriage equality as an example of a social issue when comparing left and right shady.
Ah, I see, now that I think about it, I do live in Canada, Ontario specifically. Since this is a more liberal country (unfortunately, though in this particular case it's fortunate), conservatives here are more likely to be moderate in some aspects, such as gay marriage. I still think because it's 41%, it's not the best example of a dividing social issue when looking at left and right, perhaps abortion would be a better choice. I am christian, which makes me part of what you called "the religious right", so maybe that just shows that Canadian conservatives are more moderate on gay marriage, since 90% of the conservatives i know personally, are christian and all of them agree with gay marriage.
By the way, thanks for checking those stats from a reliable source, interesting bit of information, and also something which most of the liberals I know wouldn't do. I appreciate that!
when you don’t vote you lose your voice. access is one issue and age is another but if you have easy access to voting like most americans do and you’re are of age and not a felon and you still don’t vote you have lost your political voice
I'm tired of these Left versus l
Right the labels! Some liberals would call me conservative, but most conservatives would call me liberal, varying with each opinion. So let's put these divisive labels aside, and look at where agreement is made.
Hey guys, listen to what she's saying; don't just talk about her looks.
being a liberal doesn't mean you want equality of outcome it means you want equality of oppertunity dont equate liberal and left because they are far from being the same thing
That answer to all the questions at the start of the video was NO
dimomocrtes vs. ripiplican
Why do right-wingers keep thinking science, from sociology to climate science, is left-wing? And if you're so severely anti-left-wing that it makes you anti-science, what are you doing here???
Go read the Holy Babble instead.
DO YOU QUESTION THE WORD OF THE LORD???
Because it's usually the leftists who babble on about those sciences
sander sepp So... you're saying that it's leftists who use peer-reviewed scientific research in those areas of science? This is supposed to be a bad thing for leftists?
Because they don't... Republicans don't represent all right-wing parties. In my country, right-wing countries were the one who promised to invest in the tertiary education. Some left-wing parties are not so much interested in investing in higher education and science (communist for example (in my country)). But the sociology is as other social sciences taken from the lances of the observer. Some right-winger won't accept sociological theories in the same manner as the left-winger won't accept economic ones.
You use religion as an example a lot, but religion is not crucial to a governing body. Religion is often used as an authority to oppress others, and thus is not a good example of functional governance, in my opinion.
Crash course world governments?
NYC maam
i like lamb.
60% of this is literally the Wikipedia page of Weber on Authority. One could have hoped on a bit more indepth view.
Monarchy is not a type of authoritarianism. What about all the liberal monarchies we have now? This is like saying republics are a type of democracy, and then ignore authoritarian republics like Syria or North Korea.
Good stuff there. Broad's got knowledge. This video was like watching a spelling bee. Now how does this help besides for a game of jeopardy?
I wish watching this video and being tested on it was all college required from me.
Politics is another lonely word because everyone can be so untrue..
Also: taking "American Politics" reinforces the one-sided view many viewers of this channel already might have. Would have been more intresting to take a less Western-orientated view as its not really scientifically tenable these days.
You aren't wrong. But, at the same time, that is tricky, and even novel research. CC/Complexly is still a pretty small company and it's hard enough for them to do endeavors across state-lines. Doing collaborative writing sessions with people from a broad sampling of all nations would tremendously add to the cost of producing a video like this. This show isn't particularly trying to say anything revolutionary; it's trying to give people insight into the major topics of introductory sociology as they currently stand, at least in major US college institutions.
If they could someday revise this topic to get a more global viewpoint, that'd be wonderful, I'd be super excited to watch it.
constitutional monarchy definitely isn't authoritarian.
After watching this video, I don't get why people from United States would support "the right".
CRASH COURSE GEOLOGY
Ideally, by Cody Don Reader of Cody's Lab.
wow assuming so much about me in the first sentence...
How can someone speak so much in like, yk smart stuff.
How long will Americans keep voting for liars? We NEED A New system! "Election by Lottery" with "Legislation by Public Vote"
sorry, in our country, we do not "elect". we throw one onto the throne
Oversized glasses = freak. You heard it here first.
There is so much left vs right all over the world. It's as if it's impossible to be moderate.
FriedEggSandwich I would argue that it is almost impossible to not be moderate. While in the U.S.A there is a fair degree of political polarization, there is not a wide range of political ideologies. Both democrats and republicans have favoured interventionist foreign policy, deregulated of business, and relatively low taxes. There is a real lack of socialist, anarchist, and nationalist movements in the U.S.A.
What Oscar said, but on the other hand, being average within the range of local political opinion isn't the same thing as being moderate. What's considered "left" in America is center-right by broader world standards, so being an average American makes you squarely right (not moderate) by those broader standards; and even that is only on one political axis, and I'd argue that the full breadth of even a two-dimensional is rarely properly represented. I drew a graph: geekofalltrades.org/_misc/political-orientation.png
I tend to think that being moderate is massively underappreciated right now. It's like it is somewhere between a forgotten and an abandoned position. But I think it is a good way to go. I think it is extrememly useful to remember that your oponents are probably not complete idiots, and not out of their minds. It takes some work sometimes, but if you go hunting, you can often find a logical starting point behind both sides' concerns.
I'd personally love to see the grown of a 3rd centrist party that devoted its time to actively work at getting both sides to learn how to work together while not coming off as being sympathetic to "the enemy". It's one of the most idealistic ideas in my head, but when I take the time to imagine it, it seems so lovely in my head. I feel like everyone harshly on one side or the other only serves to make progress more difficult. Politics ain't easy. Compromise should be praised loudly, even if it makes for a very boring news story.
Oscar Fellows I would agree; I wasn't suggesting there was no middle ground, just commenting on what I mostly see in the media (social and mainstream). I was basically suggesting that people often forget there is even middle ground while hurling insults at each other for being communist/looney/nazi/facist, whatever. What is it about humanity that loves a good "us and them"? And what is so attractive about extremes?
Insert joke about the comments being argumentative
No they aren't!
verdatum hey!!!
I see one major flaw in this video. you referred to the left-liberal Economic system as "Equality of Outcome" without contrasting the Right-Conservative economic system as "Equality of Opportunity". Good on you for admitting the left wants equality of outcome, but now you need to discuss the difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity, and the flaws with both, which ultimately leads to the conclusion that Equality of outcome is actually a grave injustice.
agree
I am curious to hear your definition of "Equality of Opportunity" and how "Equality of Outcome" is a grave injustice?
She's pretty
Oh wow she's kinda cute
Good to see Crash Course has learned from past mistakes of politicizing their videos. I came here thinking I'd get a left leaning, very much biased video, but I was gladly mistaken.
The left right spectrum is so void of nuance--a framework suited for simple minds.
She low key cute
Eh nah
Lmao, how low are your standards?
Haha
Mom, I am first !
"You're a good citizen, right?"
No
"You voted in the last election or you're looking forward to voting in the future."
No
"You pay your taxes..."
Hahaha no
"Liberal on the left..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no
You do participate in at least declaring what you are not, which seems to imply you do not give much thought to politics. OK, so now we are better informed
BUT WHAT ABOUT ANARCHISM?!
Knowledgeable Reaction what is there to talk about? There is no government, the end
sander sepp Anarchism means no rulers not no government.
Knowledgeable Reaction therefore no government
when discussing the different stances of the Liberal and Conservative governance, the host spent nearly 3x longer discussing the former than the latter. there was also no attempt to explain how it falls to the government or citizenry to guarantee equal outcomes. i find this VERY disheartening and a bit disingenuous on the part of Crash Course and the Green Brothers, who’ve vehemently endorsed this channel and its productions. frequently during this “season,” (to call the many episodes merely a “topic” is an drastic understatement) the host has seeming refused to present conservative and liberal talking points on an even plane. be it equal time, or (especially) the change in tone when speaking about the two sides. things with a more “liberal” slant to them are addressed with a more positive tone, but more conservative talking points are addressed flatly or blandly. i hope this is unintentional, but it should have been addressed by the host, director, producer, AND sound sound editor. anyone should have had the professionalism by this episode to have caught it and done a retake/dubbing.
i have come expect better from CC and the Green Brothers, and i trusted this avenue of learning to be fair, and free of bias as . i’m starting to feel like that trust was misplaced. not because i AM a right-winger (as i’m certainly NOT), but because i KNOW both side have talking points worthy of calm rational discussion.
J. Renard you wrote all that just go start your own course you seem to know so much
No, no, no, no and no. My answer to the first 5 questions.
why are you so white... your hair is white, your hands are white, your teeth are white, your lips are white...
im 12 i cant vote and im mexican soo
Nice blond hair
Well, I know I'm far from being an expert on sociology, but I know I do know much about the Christian Bible and also the Christian theology.. There are just some of the things I want to correct in this video:
-first, Jesus Christ was never a charismatic leader, but instead was probably a traditional or a legal-rational one, due to Him being the Messiah that had been prophesied by the prophets of the Old Testament, including Moses who prophesied that humanity has to listen to this Messiah of the world (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19).
-second, Jesus Christ never made any religion; He just told the Church to make all nations His disciples and to teach them everything that He has commanded unto them (Matthew 28:18-20), thus making the believers of Christ to spread the Good News that the Messiah - that had been prophesied by the Old Testament prophets - had come and had done everything that He had to do in order to save humanity from the everlasting punishment that is taking place in Hell and afterwards in the lake of fire (Matthew 5:22, 29-30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; Revelation 20:15)...! Christianity, therefore, was never meant to be a religion but instead was, is, and always be a social movement consisting of His disciples telling the world that the Messiah had come, had died, and had resurrected - all of that for our sins to be forgiven in the name of Jesus Christ so that we can have eternal life with Him afterwards in the new Earth and heaven (John 3:16; Revelation 21:1):
Acts 1:8 {NKJV}
[But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”]
-the Church simply refers to the believers of Jesus Christ.. In its original language, Greek, the 'Church' means 'those who are sent out from the darkness unto light'. Jesus taught His disciples to live to be the light of the world (Matthew 5:14-16)..
Christianity basically represents the movement(s) of Jesus's disciples, telling unto the world that there's indeed the only salvation found in Jesus's name (Acts of the Apostles 4:12) 🙏🙏.. Jesus Christ has lived, died, and has resurrected all for saving us from our sins...! He's indeed the Messiah that had been prophesied by the Old Testament prophets for saving us! It's indeed true that whoever believes in His name will inherit salvation from his own sins in the name of Jesus Christ (John 3:16).. Jesus had died on the cross for our sins, and there's no other salvation other than in His name (Acts of the Apostles 4:12)...! 🙏🙏 For those of you who haven't gotten to know Him yet, give yourselves a chance to repent and to receive salvation in His name...! Jesus loves everyone and wants all of us to be saved in His name:
1 Timothy 2:3-6 {NKJV}
[For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,]
The grace of The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with all of you.. ~~
No offense but this girl looks exactly like the type of person who teaches sociology. What’s her tumblr?
something that sounds "otherkin22"
Rough Butter, maybe things are just a little more complicated than your quick and easy, lazy stereotypes allow you to believe. The tumblr memes you are used to are the product of college freshmen getting their first taste of freedom and independent thought. But they are generally the exception to the rule. You notice them because people that hate them share the worst of what tumblr produces.
This channel is produced by nerdfighteria, and more formally, by a company called "Complexly", which is named on the idea that you should consider others complexly, and don't just come up with simple labels that allow you to dismiss and dehumanize people. I mean, it's not a requirement, but I happen to think it's some pretty good advice.
That said, if you really must know, her tumblr is tumblr.sweeneysays.com/
verdatum
1.) The reason I said no offense is because she LITERALLY looks like some of the professors who teach sociology at my university which is one of the subjects I study for my major.
2.) I asked for the tumblr because I assumed that she had one just like some of the other members of Crash Course and I wanted to follow her. It wasn’t meant to be an insult against tumblr and it’s community
Ooh, I didn't know she had one! I searched tho.
It seems a bit biased that you showed the good qualities of the left without showing the conservative ones
Liberal is not left, wtf are you even talking about what century do you think this?
*classical liberalism is not left.
A bunch of leftists are calling themselves liberals now so I guess this follows the logic behind feminism.
A bunch of alt-rightists who are pretty close to fascist in reality call themselves classical liberals nowadays, and they use liberal ideology to justify their freedom to oppress minorities. And neoliberalism is the main object of critique among academic leftists. Actual leftist ideologies include socialism and communism, neither of which are liberalism. The term "liberal" is just used interchangeably with "left" among lay people and almost never in academia, which makes it so weird to show up in the context of this video. I thought Crash Course wanted to educate people, not reinforce popular misconceptions.
disliked. needs more maoism.
Especially combating liberalism
need some cadres and a mass line here
here you go: ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ooo-mao-mao-ba-ba-oo-ma-mao-mao, ba-ba-ooo-mao-mao-ba-ba-ooo-ma-mao-mao! SURRRRRFING BIRRRRRRRDDDDDDD!!!!
I don't think that in today's world (especially in US) we would need to depend on peasants to carry out the communist revolution (for obvious realities of post-industrial society). So Maoism fails on that regard. Torch of the revolution should be carried by true working class that is by blue, pink and white collar workers under the guidance of intelligentsia.
You're thinking of Mao Zedong Thought. What is commonly refered to as Maoism is something called Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (contrasted to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought) which most certainly does not agree that one should rely on peasants. That was a position unique to China, and as such unique to Mao Zedong Thought.
Was she trying to hide bias? She did a poor job.
Compared to typical sociology courses and professors, this episode was far right.
Daniel Hall it’s crazy to consider but I believe it. Back in college (2011) my sociology lecturer didn’t believe in grades. They were a negative construct she said. Instead we all were given A’s if we submitted a picture of us making the world a better place.
No homework, no tests, I submitted a picture of me placing (my own) empty bottle into the recycling container and got an A.
I'm probably not the first. But I strongly think that using Jesus as a statement is very wrong. Its based on nothing more then an idea, not backed by evidence or science. This should not be used in any context of learning. Only if its used as an example about religion (where it is a subject of).
Yoda is also fiction and I bet you quote him all the time...
If you investigate, you'll find that most historians have no reason to believe that Jesus did not exist. It just doesn't make sense to found an entire religion on a fictional character. It makes much much more sense to base one on a martyr who may get exagerrated or misreported with time. If a person was being manipulative, they wouldn't create a fictional character who died and rose from the grave; they'd just set themselves up as the savior. Because this did not happen with the early Christian Church, it is reasonable to believe that a person existed; but not that he performed miracles, or was the only son of the God of Abraham or any such thing.
And more importantly, in the end, sociology doesn't care if Jesus was a real person in this context. Sociology cares about the effect the concept has had on society, and that effect is that millions of people are absolutely certain that Jesus existed, and they remains true if he existed or if he was a pure fabrication. So the realm of sociology moves on, and leaves the rest to CC Theology.