What Was Liberalism? #5 Your Comments
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Here I go through the feedback from the 'What Was Liberalism?' series; talk about what was missing, what was good. Thanks for all your feedback!
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr9...
Patreon: / philosophytube
Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6...
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8b...
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgj...
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Patrons!
Audrin & Nate Thorn (No Relation)
Robert Wang
Romi Collia
Zoe Black
Valmiki Rao
Hedon d”Ennui
Peter Wells
Leovigildo Neto
Felipe Visson
Michael A. Hill
David Alder
Philip Wielgus
Alex Goldhill
Jody, the rural juror, Dawkins
Christopher Meyer
Kakirtog
Abdullah Altuwaijri
Géza Csige
Jason Morrow
Rob Macklin
Ben Sima
Nigel Parkinson
Antoine Grondin
Michael Zafiropoulos
Eriol
Scot
Jeffrey Peckham
Sophia Sun
2X4OE02kJscIcN6GP1MLL&Izka*kt7dT
Tink
Kit Fagg
Caleb Wiese
Jacob Shapiro
Brian Daly
Benedict Marko
Nick Travaglini
Devon Sowden
Luke Fox
Nicole Thompson
Strange Harbour
Bryan Gillis
Panot
Tom Saleeba
Ian George Walker
Joe Benavides
Kevin Thomsen
James Rands
Alton Burkholder
Patrick A Smith
Abiasaf
Peter Lyko
Istvan Hegyes
Wlliam Blake
Okwill4195
Edward Wijaya
Keith Chang
Eugene G Ayton
Mathias Hamza Mirza
Kirill Klimuk
Jonah Dunch
Ben hengst
Chris Kershaw
Joshua Gwiazdowski
K2U2
Jesly Varghese
Richard Chancellor
Jae Salmon
Thomas McIsaac
Jacob Tsypkin
Gamer_152
Mikael Hall
Chickpea43
Bear McBearington
Taran Plamondon
Ethan R. Jones
Joshua DeGagne
Ronald Smallwood
Jennifer Ward
Niels Abildgaard
Joe Benavides
Alistair Butcher
Cover Solutions
John Ross
Calvin Tyler
Wendy McLay
Ines Alvarez Rodrigo
Anastasiya Rybalkina
Petter Bladlund
brainflower
Andrewlion19
Christopher Cameron
Mr. Strongshell
Sarah Hong
Mike Yocom
Maxime Ryser
Aidan Salander
Irving Gonzalez
Gustav Jakobsen
Oscar Smit
Krister Svanlund
Peter Cake
Adeeb Shalabi
Raman Sharma
Sam Caesar
Kurt C Yost
Grant Tabler
Bejamin Curtis Chambers
Plainscrafter
Tristan Patrick
Kali Flowers
Tin Can Audio
Collin Horn
Jason Howell
Alex Booer
Joe Martin
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.
![[กูเพิ่งซื้อมึงปิดหนี] 20 นาที ผมรีวิวเกมที่แย่ที่สุดในโลก CONCORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XhC-3q3Ii7I/mqdefault.jpg)
All those angry neoliberal asking you to be less ideological about it kind of prove you right about them marketing themselves as non-ideological but being totally ideological.
Not really, he even said in part 3 that he wasn't going to succeed at being unbias. This is a non sequitur in any case.
@@Theo_Caro
Right it proves they were not paying attention
Indeed. This isn’t something I’d realized. I felt this to be a very eye opening series.
Can we all just agree it's impossible to be apolitical when talking about something important, thanks
it dat u rhods_
hi deadviny
Rhods I agree, that would be argument to moderation and neutral fallacy. I remember during the heat of election season in the US that I found anyone leaning too much towards a candidate and smearing another to be unjustified, whether be they Trump, Hillary or Sanders supporter. I dislike Trump as much as anyone but many progressive channels like Secular Talk spends time smearing him which I thought to be unfair for journalism. But then I realised, why do I want "fairness and equality" on reporting about candidates when objectively someone does something? I willy nilly criticise Hitler but not Trump? There are indeed many instances where choosing a side is a matter of existential importance that would have significant repercussions.
Rhods_ I can agree, but I can't disagree either. I'm just not sure.
I think you can be apolitical by general standards if you just state relevant facts, not opinions.
But to some people, certain facts are political.
All it takes to be apolitical is to couch all contentious claims as the claims of whoever claims them. Don't say "X but Y", say "some people say X but others say Y". There you go. You've presented the range of opinions on the topic for others to judge, without telling them how to judge. If one of them is obviously wrong... well then you don't have to say it's wrong do you? It will be obvious.
When it comes to politics, terms like "unbias," "neutral," and "objective" just mean Liberal-minded.
Imagine people taking a Quantum Physicist and telling them they are too biased against Newton lmao
Sadly this literally happened in a certain sense. Until quantum field theory gave substantial and irrefutable evidence, quantum physics itself was pretty shunned and dismissed in the physics world.
Forget this faux-neutral tone that liberals confuse for rationality, you discuss political ideologies, you cannot be apolitical. Even if you tried to, you would a priori be making a political statement. Often, "you used to be unbiased" claims online are a way to try and stifle discussion. We get enough of this "both sides" narrative from mainstream liberal media coverage, thanks. Keep doing you!
I can never articulate this when I try to explain the bias in centrism/rationalism
Liberalism or free speech actually in this case gives you power to be biased like he is right now ;) the only difference is that you like this type of bias. If it was some right wing bias on the same topic than you would tell the exact same story "arghhh keep it neutral and unbiased, why are you spreading propaganda" like some pro-liberals are yelling in the comments. He can do, talk, critique whatever he wants and that is a beauty.
If you think mainstream media like MSNBC or CNN are "liberal", then I think you've been tricked by what is more like left-feigning corporatists. None of them are interested in fighting for the nurturing roles that progressives are in favor of the government having. Such as putting patients before profits. But sure, those channels do appeal to a sense of neutrality, which misses the point of objectivity. "Fair and balanced" Fox News also tries that. Lazy ways of avoiding the work of actually establishing accuracy, by appealing to a cognitive bias towards equalization.
You're point about the media is actually very interesting I find - a lot of news organisations often give coverage to two sides of an argument when in reality that might be doing the public an awful disservice by suggesting that there is more consensus than there really is about certain ideas - you can often even see these debates even featuring folks who have a vested interest in the topic being discussed which often seems to be an inappropriate person to have debating such points.
@@wmint2115 The MSM are Liberal as in Liberalism with a big L, as was explained in the video series. They are not Left-wing. Their ideology which they deem to be neutral and objective is in fact Liberalism, an ideology which is no more objective than Fascism or Socialism. Liberalism is the kind of ideology that asks Bernie Sanders "How are you going to pay for it?" whenever he talks about increasing the social safety net, but who never ask the same of politicians who want to increase the military budget. That's Liberalism where social welfare is bad, but the corporations who make a profit by increasing the numbers of wars are good.
So critiquing something is bias now? Cool. Fun. I like it. Let's all never question anything and continue to live in this shit-hell society. Thanks.
Liberalism: "We're not an ideology, we swear!"
It seems that there was an ambiguity regarding the purpose of that series: whether it was for criticism or for education. Many times these two purposes mix. Nobody screams "bias" when mixing education and critique talking about universally disdained ideologies, but it seems to me that when ideologies are explained and critiqued where and when there are many proponents of them, the discussion becomes automatically heated.
i think that's because there is an impulse to feel somewhat like you are being personally attacked when someone critiques your ideology, so you try to defend it or disavow the critique as a way of protecting yourself.
Hmm. The title of the video is 'what was liberalism?' which would imply a more detached viewpoint. Also, the self expressed point of the channel is in 'distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it' which implies the same thing.
plus, what even is neutrality? most things are not one dimensional and have no easy "middle", you're normally closer to one thing or another no matter what.
im new to your channel, im not the sharpest tool in the shed, as a song would say hehe, but yet you explain things in a very clear way. I see and appreciate your efforts to make of the internet a better place, a personal thanks to you sir.
Silmar Forbes you just voiced what I was thinking. I know my limitations etc but the more I watch Olly, Harry, Natalie & Shaun the more I realise how much I don’t know.
@@lisahayes3648 Natalie and Olly I know- but do direct me to Shaun and Harry pls!
@@lisahayes3648 I must recommend Three Arrows as well ↙️↙️↙️
@@udbhavseth799 It's been a couple of months since your comment but nevertheless: Shaun and Three Arrows are easily found by searching for those names, Harry is (so I assume) referring to Hbomberguy.
@@LyricalDJ cheers!
I've gotta say, I agree with the people who want you to keep the critical tone. You also called attention to your own bias at one point in that series, and warned everyone to take your videos with a grain of salt, so I think you did your due diligence.
I don't always agree with your conclusions, but your critical engagement with the ideologies you cover challenges me and gives me something to think about, and as a result I end up with a much better understanding of the topic than if you had presented it "neutrally" (as if that exists). If that's not educational, then I really don't know what is. I guess some people think viewers are incapable of applying their own critical reasoning skills and disagreeing when the presenter has such fantastic facial hair?
this series was linked on r/anarchism which is where i came across it. your critiques of liberalism are pretty on point from a lot of socialists points of view. No need to be apologetic when the whole purpose of the series was to critique it. if someone feels the need to defend the ideology that's fine, but they can't just reject it as if it's beyond criticism.
But liberalism and socialism aren't distinct ideologies. They intersect.
@@samuelforesta they intersect in many ways, but in a lot of ways they are also very different. Mainly the private property part. In practice, liberalism is pro-capitalist, while socialism is anti-capitalist aka pro-worker owned and managed production.
Shout out to Ace Trainer Liam!
Ada Price the number of likes shows how many people had to scroll down and see if they were the first to notice
Please don't feel that you have to come from a more neutral stance or be more uncritical of the ideologies you are presenting. There's plenty of centrist, apolitcal (as if such a viewpoint could actually exist) presentation out there already, and the thing that I like about your videos in particular is that you have a viewpoint and you are willing to be critical when looking at the status quo. In my opinion, a lot of the problems we're facing today in the west come from this desire to remain centrist in our media. I understand that as a person making media, there's pressure to conform to this feature of the status quo, but I would encourage you not to give in to this pressure and continue to present things in an thoughtful way.
I loved the liberalism series by the way! It's a timely and much-needed examination of a reality that most people are eager to just accept and ignore.
I don't think it is media being centrist apolitical I think it is more of form of denialism including historical denialism where American don't want to know America bloody dark past as saying goes happy is country with no past.
Ya I would much rather he be accurate then be neutral neutrality just inhibits the search for truth
I love how humble and grounded you are reacting to your audience's criticism.
I really enjoyed this series in combination with Contras content.
Sydney Elle yes
Especially her new video about what's wrong with capitalism
Hey Ollie, I just wanted to say thanks for the content and also thanks for helping me figure out what i want to do in life. starting next year ill be in college working toward a degree in philosopy. thanks again ollie.
sincerely
a loyal philosophan
Amazing! Good luck, have fun!
Go STEM and do something useful with your life, you can still minor in philosophy while learning a profession.
way ahead of you. i was planning on focusing in psychology.
As a means-of-production socialist, yes, you need to consider liberal criticism into how you go on with your scripts, but that doesn't mean removing the critique on liberalism. I personally think you could have done a better job by elaborating more on liberalism in comparison to feudalism and by trying to present Liberal ideas the way their proponents want them to be represented, but at some point, you'll have to have a cut and state the obvious: That neoliberalism is a garbage idea for garbage humans and that it's abhorrent by almost every theoratical and moral standpoint.
This would also benefit your critique in so far as it'll establish better context. When you first present Liberalism as this better world order in comparison to feudalism, you can then smack down on that by explaining how that too is a constructed narrative.
Libertarian socialism is also a liberal ideology. Not sure why Ollie portrayed liberalism as right wing and capitalist. The problem is the Ollie has his causation backwards. Its capitalists that prefers and incorporates liberalism.
liberalism was invented in the era of mercantilism. it predates capitalism.
If you are talking to me, i never said anything about mercantilism
Artur Yeon what do you mean by means-of-production socialist?
You cant compare liberallism to feudalism. That would be a category error.
olly, please take the comments that everything should be neutral with a grain of salt, remembering this is youtube and commenters may and indeed WILL think that you need to make sure to paint hitler with a positive spin as well
Oh fucking god. "While the hilter did kill 6 million people, it shouldn't be ignored the positives to his actions. By eliminating those people, resources were more abundant for the rest of the population."
I bet you some neoliberals will actually agree with this.
Liberals aren't Hitler.
In my experience, even an introduction to philosophy can help one better critique ideas and better ask questions. I feel like having taken an intro to philosophy course in college/university has benefited me as an engineer. It's helped me to form questions as to the goals of designs and what outcomes are truly useful or just distractions. Then, in everyday life, it's useful in politics and ethics.
Neoliberalism has been very damaging to Latinamerica and the Latino/a/x identity in general. It's difficult to gage this from a US/European POV when most writing by those affected is in Spanish (exclude Spain and Portugal) but just having a look at those who come to US through government channels and are escaping persecution you can see the impact it has had on their experience of US policies.
economic liberalism / neo liberalism has been extremely beneficial to Indians. poverty has and is declining at a rapid rate .
Debjit konar Do you mean Indians as in the country in Asia?
yes . easy to confuse indians and american indians. yeah indians
Debjit konar I'm just used to many people calling Native American/First Nation people Indian or "Indios". I will definitely research neoliberalism in India.
Sydney Elle well, if ur interested , search 1991 economic liberalisation in India. It has been a boon to our country and one of the major reasons I'm holding a smartphone connected with a super-fast internet is because of that reform. The thing is no ideology has fixed outcomes in every damn environment, I think it isn't a inherent property of every ideology to be good or bad for the people and it depends on how one implements and in which situation one uses it n a host of other factors affect it.
On the person asking the practical benefits of philosophy: I know this probably isn't the answer your looking for but, at least for me, there's value in the intellectual pursuit of it in itself. I just like the learning for learning's sake. Yeah, sure, they are definitely practical benefits to learning philosophy, but even beyond that, I guess there's something satisfying about learning philosophy, or anything that piques my interest, that's inherent to the act of learning.
One of the major issues of liberalism is in the liberal conception of objective media. A lot of liberals think that everyone would hold the same view points as they do if everyone stopped listening to bias conservative or leftist media, and started listening to the objective and balanced media of CNN, BBC, the Guardian, the Indy etc. Unfortunately no such objective or balanced media exists.
To insist that only journalists and the above media companies are capable of providing 'objective' criticism, at best means to dismiss the inherently capitalist and political context in which these organisations and individuals exist, and at worst, means to reject all criticism of these media as ideological or radical, only serving to further these companies' and professional journalists' monopoly on truth, 'objectivity', thought and critique - ultimately inducing political and intellectual impotence of the individual in the name of the objective good for 'society' (AKA the media companies themselves, their owners and readership).
All media is to some degree bias, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the readers recognise those biases and the context in which they exist.
For a short series, it was very well done. Ofcourse there were parts glossed over, and not enough on the neo-liberal, given how relevant it is currently.
You bringing up criticisms of liberalism doesn't make you a bad educator nor degrade your videos. It's necessary to make you human, you have views, and thus its necessary for any educator. How does one remain apolitical on a political subject, its an impossible task, thus you did the best job, perhaps a slight change in linguistic choice, but still you did quite good. Keep it up.
Your 4 part series was great. People have issues with approaching their personal ideology from any point of view that doesn’t shine a positive light. There is no ideology that is perfect, otherwise we’d ALL follow that. We make up rules and laws to linearly follow our moral beliefs. The problem everyone as a whole can’t agree. Overall, I enjoyed this because of the UNBIASED information you put forth. The people that are “defending” their ideology in these videos seem to form an example of the information you shared.
When it comes to discussing political ideology, it is literally impossible to be apolitical in the presentation of it. The critical look you gave was spot on in showing the problems and inconsistencies in liberalism. Those who say they are neutral are really making some sort of gain on things.
I just happened across this channel. I thought this series was pretty good. I’d never really thought about the “exceptions” that Liberalism makes. Thanks for making these.
This series is some of the top shelf philosophy tube.
Trudeau is even more vicious than that : On one hand, he says he wants to ban the Indian Act and help indigenous people in Canada... but has no problem supporting a pipeline project without consulting indigenous communities which will be affected by that project.
(Also, Shout out to ace trainer Liam)
WOW was i surprised to hear my name while listening to this vid thanks olly im glad you liked it
I think the important thing for being unbiased when educating isn't NOT criticism, it's QUALIFYING any criticism or support as such, and then presenting what the opposite side would say in response to that. So there's nothing at all wrong with saying "these are criticisms of X that have been raised", alongside "these are arguments for X", and neither "this is what is right with X" or "this is what is wrong with X" in your own voice.
Not in an educational context at least; there is a place for presenting your own argument for or against something, but doing so in the context of educating people about an idea and its history and who supports or opposes it and why undermines that educational purpose.
It's like the difference between descriptive and metaethical moral relativism. A descriptive relativism is necessary to describe a topic neutrally: you say who thinks what and why, without saying anything about who is right. That doesn't mean that you personally believe that neither is right, but prescribing a position is a different kind of activity from describing, and if you're ostensibly just describing something, telling people what actually is the case (on the matter of who thinks what and why), then adding your own prescriptive judgements is off-topic.
Shout Out to Ace Trainer Liam
I love this video. Not for anything in particular that you say in it, but just because you made it at all. What a wonderful way to engage with feedback.
I liked it all, thought it was quick and straight to the point, no filler.
Also, what do you think of "Post-Left/Egoism/Individualism"? I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
I read PPE at Oxford in the late 90s, and we never seriously covered liberalism's critics the whole time. This series was excellent. Please consider doing a video jointly with Thoughtslime. Also, you are dead right about neoliberalism and liberalism.
Emma Goldman wrote about the rugged individual which sounds a lot like neo liberals when she wrote of society vs the individual in one of her essays. She was showing that both the individual and society can coexist but nothing can coexist with the rugged individual. Thanks for the informative series!
Find me an objective and apolitical education system, I dare you
I am loving this review of the older Philosophy Tube content!
Shout Out to Ace Trainer Liam!
“Neutrality” is a will-o'-the-wisp, so stop whining when you don’t get it.
Ok.. After ingesting probably 10 hours of your content I think I'm finally ready to make a critique. First of all, yes I believe that the individual is the atomic unit of civilization. I also take the Kantian point that the edge of of a individuals freedoms is the limit of anothers. I'm free to act and do as I please so long as in doing so I don't limit your ability to do the same, and vice versa. You honed in really hard to the point of making Liberalism seem like little more than a stool pigeon for the rich, but its much more, at least to me. Its the free association of people within a society. It is that taking responsibility for your actions, necessitates the freedom to make that decision in the first place. It is not the lazez faire of the economy but the lazez faire of the mind that is most primal to me. You can have any economic system you like, but that freedom of the mind is the heart of Liberalism to me, expanded and granted to all people everywhere.
To your point on rational self-interest. Freely acknowledging that is somewhat an contradiction of terms (we are after all semi-logical mammals) , the notion should be held up as a Nietzschian image, we should strive to be better.. to want to act as rational self interested people participating with society in good faith.
Yes Locke and Voltaire had their issues, and their prejudices (as did Kant), but they were human beings writing and products of their own time. You can have transcendental ideas without the entire corpus of your work living up to that same standard. MLK was a serial womanizer. Should we disregard the corpus of his thoughts because a feminist today would say he was helping enforce the patriarchy by living out the double standard of male/female sexuality?
Finally, and this is the point that where my understanding of your theory and my own are mutually exclusive. The primacy of the mind, the ability to think deeply, and express our thoughts freely is the most fundamental of human rights. All other rights spring from or rely upon this. To say there are things I'm not allowed to say, not allowed to think, not allowed to share is asinine. To say that others should be allowed to dictate to me what opinions I am and am not allowed to hear is little more than Orwellian thought-police dressed up in a faux moral high ground. I don't want to give Nazi's, racists, and homophobes a safe space, and I definitely don't want to shun them away in a corner where they can fester and breed. I want to drag them into intellectual deep waters and drown them, then bake them under the glaring sun of blistering ridicule. Your not stopping the spread of hate by trying to deny them a platform, or punching them. All that is doing is giving a dog whistle, giving them an excuse to hide off in the corner, poisoning the minds the the disaffected in secret, until it really is out of control.
So different from his modern stuff. I feel like I'm looking at someone's childhood or something
I know right!? He was so bashful back then, So innocent...
I miss your Sean Connery from Socrates Jones
As an undergraduate Social Psychologist, critiquing is great, you should always view everything with a critical perspective, this is the basis for Critical Psychology. In life critcal thinking is key, if you don't want to get hoodwinked by propaganda!
Thank you, Mr. Tube! This was your BEST series I've seen so far. I love your newer content, don't get me wrong. But your old explainer videos are pure enlightenment. It's the kind of stuff that heals my soul of the wounds caused by neoliberalism and fascism.
Shout out to Ace Trainer Liam
I really like the series and the way it was presented, keep up the good work Olly !
Like... who says that you should be neutral at the time you are performing some analysis? Like you should be really ignorant to sya that only non-biased content is useful for educational processes. If you are doing an analysis, you require arguments and they are only produced if you look into the problematic with some perspective. And tell me, are you allowed to completely purify your perspective from your ideology and beliefs? of course not! If people would stop thinking that the "correctness" relies on been neutral and leaving apart any type of reasoning and performance that requires any thinking processes, our society could have any stop been so ignorant and started to understand the problematics we nowadays experience.
Olly, you did GREAT! I should praise you. These videos were probably one of the best things I have seen from you!
I enjoyed the lecture and found its overview of large concepts effective in providing a framework to investigate the topics further. Noam Chomsky's summary of Neoliberalism is sobering and thought provoking. Mr. Thorn's question regarding the ideology for tomorrow is the critical question.
Shout out to ace trainer Liam. But really, current cost of living issues and increasing criticisms of neoliberalism brought me back here over 5 years since this series was published. Thanks, Abigail, for the retrospective future lesson.
Either way Olly it's great to have you here on TH-cam!
I think you bring up a very good point when you mention, in respect to liberalism, that you can't be apolitical. If you attempt to be apolitical or present "both sides", many of your biases are guaranteed to still be present (for example, you may include or not include certain information that can sway people's opinions). That's a pretty important detail that most people miss out on.
I think apolitical/ impartial teaching is only really necessary when you're attempting to get others to understand what exactly you're talking about. Once it is understood, I think it's fair game to start criticizing.
"What was Liberalism?" walked a fine line and often didn't know whether it was trying to be, teaching or criticism. I think the teaching aspect could have benefited from offering more criticism near the end of the series, while giving a more in-depth view of liberalism (not to say that it didn't do this, just more would have been appreciated.
For the record, I enjoyed "What was Liberalism?", but more as a compilation of criticism towards liberalism. Liberalism is taken for granted, and people seem to really overlook a lot of the flaws in it (as you pointed out with folks like Jefferson owning slaves).
I look forward to whatever series you make next.
Hello! I'm just a blue collar bozo who likes to punch above his weight class intellectually. I like your videos. I'm particularly interested in how neoliberalism and capitalism run our lives so I was happy to see your videos. The thing is, I'm on shaky grounds with these concepts. I see that you have further reading in your descriptions but I really have absolutely no idea where to start as a baseline. It feels like I'm learning concepts that are too complicated and I don't have a strong base to build off of. Where should someone with no prior background start?
I'm a year late, but browsing reddit for various subreddit's reading catalogue, or finding online forums / discord groups where you can talk to people will help! just remember not to get too biased (people make concepts accessible, but that much more harder to step back and absorb objectively).
Loved the series Olly, and thanks for answering my question(s) Cant wait for your new series. Please, Please don't drop the critical tone if anything ramp it up!!
Very hard not to have a bias. After all, bringing up a topic at all shows a bias, no matter how slight it might be. Personally, I try to keep bias out, except for where I'm biased. I must admit, there are a lot of times I may not even be aware I have any particular bias. Possibly even through ignorance. I know I'll never know everything, but I'm still working on it.
But I love your work, and try to get a variety of views. But if someone presents something that puts you to sleep, it's kinda hard to keep on it.
Note: you don't put me to sleep. Thanks for that.
Max Weber's notions of modernity are pertinent to what you were saying about burueacratic enforcement of abstract, rationalised rules regardless of specific socio-economic theory.
I agree that those videos had a bit of a different tone to them. They were why I had to make sure to tell you that my inability to contribute further financially at the moment was why I stopped doing so because you'd pretty much just released them on patreon. But in this case I don't think that taking that tone was a mistake in your presentation. Stating your bias at the top may have made it seem to some like the entire video was just an ideological rant, but the actual content of the videos were still all logical arguments and reasoning. The answer to every comment that says "why aren't you looking at these aspects in regards to socialism?" is "because you weren't critiquing socialism, you were critiquing liberalism, and even if they do share some of these issues to one extent or another, the fact that one system is flawed does not mean that the flaws in another system should be ignored." After viewing the full videos the only thing your bias should have told anyone is _why_ you're critiquing liberalism instead of socialism. People who are biased against socialism for rational reasons should be presenting the opposite side.
So I guess what these videos really made me want to see was not less bias in the way that you presented your bias, but maybe a couple of collab videos if you can find a classical liberal who actually understands socialism itself as opposed to specific "socialist" parties with one being her defending liberalism against your concerns and the other vice versa with socialism. Though such a person who does videos in similar vein to yours might be difficult to find. I guess what I'm saying is I'd really like to see you debate Penn Jillette :p
Just started to watch him, and I love this responsibility of responding to criticism. He is actually accepting criticism and trying to be better.
I loved the series Olly ! I also enjoyed the critical angle you took, gave a different perspective to Liberalism than you normally hear
Great video series, and I'm glad for you shining a light about how destructive neo-liberalism is...TY!
am rewatching this series in the year of our pagan gods 2k22, and i'm very happy to report that in the period between the series being uploaded and present time, there has been *many* takedowns (or at least, critical readings) of "liberal apolitical centrism both-sides big-brainsim". many have identified faults in this way of thinking, which to me is a huge step towards progress.
being "apolitical centrists" isn't considered "neutral" anymore, and for that i am glad.
Fine summary of liberalism and neoliberalism. It would be impossible to hit all its nuances and victims in a 4-part series. To lay such a political-economic-legalistic system at Europe's feet is a just move of course.
Terry Eagleton wrote a book on Ideology that provides a genealogy of that concept and in doing so raises the bar when using the concept in critical discourse. From what I recall, the thesis is this: To call a set of ideas, values, and beliefs ideological is to presume one stands outside that ideology in the clear light of day when in fact one is just subsumed in a different, unacknowledged ideology. Perhaps acknowledging one's own ideological stance, as best as possible, would help mitigate claims of bias. If you're drawing from David Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity and/or Fredric Jameson's Postmodernism, Or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, to name a couple with economic concerns, it would be hard not to reproduce their critiques and their tones, not to mention presenting their arguments in an unbiased manner. Heck, even Derrida said deconstruction must be deconstructed.
Perhaps the comments were disturbing because they called into question the idea of Purpose: educational with mass appeal, or educational with a critical edge or the ruthless critique of everything existing? Most people most of the time do what they do because they think it is right. ~The Stoics.
Have you thought about looking at Luciano Floridi's thoughts on Information or what he calls the Fourth Revolution?
I liked the critical yet calm tone. And that it was a good entertaining lecture.
I did like how these videos were short and to the point, although they left things out, it is obvious that any discussion of anything has to limit its scope somewhere.
Fascinating facts. Morty: "Oh, everything’s crooked! Reality is poison! I want to go back! I hate this! Everything is a lie."
Regarding the comment on religion, I would also refer them to the essay by Hannah Arendt titled: “What is Authority? “ A decent philosophical argument on the concept of authority and how it essentially came to vanish in the West.
I want to thank you because I have a college degree, I’m physics no less, but in the US don’t explain Liberalism at all and it’s framed as open to change. So when people would tell me that they were Left and not Liberal I would be left very confused and often I would be attacked by those on the Left for not understanding. This leads to a problem I’ve seen in society in general I call the problem of Perfect Knowledge where too often we assume perfect knowledge on the part of others regarding what we already know. Anyway, thank you for the clarification
omg you giggling at the fan art was so adorable!
Liberalism is a very broad topic, you did a good job. In the future I'd like to see you expand on liberalism, the parts you couldn't condense.
Not really commented before but have watched for a loooong time. I really liked the difference in tone, and I am a bit unsure as to why people think that anyone can present this things in an unbiased way.
I would be interested in seeing a video discussing our ideas of bias and what we're talking about when we ask people to give us an 'unbiased' view because this isn't really possible.
Keep up the great work on the channel!! :)
It worries me that once you decide and declare that you seek to be unbiased you can no longer criticise anything related to politics, as if there aren't any immoral, illogical, or impractical political views out there, and as if to point these flaws out exposes nothing about the topic and exposes only your own bias. It should be unsurprising that I am arguing against a political belief that I personally don't support, after all, my ability to reason about the morality, logic, and practicality of that political belief has led me to its criticism. Obviously we take this with a grain of salt (or even a pinch, as Olly suggests) because you should do that with any claim that rests on someone else's ability to reason. That's the point of learning philosophy.
Shout out to Ace Trainer Liam.
I would love a video that discusses this social issue of participating in political (and sometimes theological) discourse.
Cause it's like, I think I'm right, I can tell you why I think I'm right, but I know how often people think they are right when they are wrong. So in that case, do I neglect to share my political views for fear of being wrong, and risk letting other people's unchecked political views slip through without criticism?
All of your videos are absolutely amazing. Please do a series on Libertarianism! I think that might be the next big ideology, but as we all know, there are inherent problems with it. Would love to learn more.
If there is one thing no one can argue - you take criticism very well!
Shout out to ace trainer Liam!
Late comment, I know. Somehow just found this channel.
For the people complaining that Abby did not present liberalism, especially neoliberalism, in a neutral light, remember that neutrality is not necessarily truth. If the right drifts farther right and the left remains mostly static, should we expect so-called "neutral" reporting to drift right to split the difference, or should we expect it to remain an objective point of reference.
"But liberals aren't the right..."
We talk about this a little differently this side of the Atlantic. In Ireland, "Neoliberal" is a common word used by the left when criticising the two big right-leaning parties. When we're feeling mean we also use it to describe the relatively centrist left-leaning parties that enable them. Liberal simply doesn't mean left here, except in so far as right-wingers complain about liberals because we've imported culture war bullshit from America.
The right don't want to be called neoliberal, any more than Trump wants to be called a fascist. It's a politically toxic term. The idea that people are trying to defend something we've agreed is bad over here is really jarring.
By the way it's not even like we're a lefty European utopia, we've never had a government that wasn't led by one of the two right-leaning parties.
I think the guy who flagged up the religion thing had a great point and my heart actually sank a little when I realised you'd missed it because there's so many ways that christian theology may influence the way we all think today -especially with regards to liberalism - (I'm speaking as an atheist) it's really a goldmine for anyone interested in ideas.
Like for example the idea the man was made in God's image actually means there's something divine about each individual and that led to our current conception of human rights, and why we feel uneasy about the death penalty.
I actually think that christianity is more of a mirror of values, ideas and sacred cows we hold rather than the other way round though.
Shout out to Ace Trainer Liam! If, one day, I'm able do contribute to the show, I'd like to be Neuropsychopharmacology Tube, please.
Not to seem weird ( i probably already do) but you have such nice hair
Thanks! I was thinking about getting it cut, so this comment came at just the right time!
Long hair, please! Very Uhtred of Bebbanburg. Yum.
I liked the series, but really wanted some ideas about what we do next.
Hey, thanks for the series and for this reflection on it. Being a Russian living in Hong Kong for many years I really curious about figuring out a better framework for balanced long-term prosperity.
I think what she meant in 'productive' or 'counterproductive' philosophy is in how people decide what philosophy and ideology will be more productive for them and their country?
Loved the series. Keep up the good work.
Keep posting videos! You’re amazing !
Shout-out to Ace Trainer Liam!
+
I really loved the series! Granted, it's a huge topic so yeah I'm sure there are other areas where you could have expanded (like the point about neo-liberalism and Latin america) but overall, I thought it was great!
I wouldn't say you need to be less critical in your videos. Just make sure that in your rush to show your argument against something, you accurately represent all of it. Don't just explain why it's wrong without acknowledging the possible arguments the other side could give, and don't ignore an argument just because you don't have a strong counterargument in the given case.
To my opinion, the exceptions you speak about are all about discrimination. Discrimination is the killing monster of all ideologies, because each ideology is based on discrimination, as we in this ideology are more important than the others. Almost all ideologies are discriminating to some kind, whether it is class based discrimination, Race based, Religious-based, National-based, etc. Neoliberalism is to my opinion a free market, but regulated such that the poor and suppressed individual becomes very dependent of the small elite system and as side note is asked to fight for their own independency, while it is taken away by regulation... You find out yourself how to eat, while all means to eat are stolen by legislation. To there is only one way to freedom.... Accept and join the fight against poverty and suppression by greed and be against any form of discrimination... ANY FORM..... And consider human beings as equal... Note, there can be differences between rich and poor, but certain borders should never be crossed, such that people become in danger of their basic primary needs of living! It is that we need to value human life itself or even better life itself. If not 'Vis pacem, para bellum' will be the only answer!
'Shout out to Ace Trainer Liam!'👌
A belated shout out to ace trainer Liam!
Shoutout to ace trainer Liam!
So, out of curiosity, how would you react...
1.) If you seen someone taking pictures and videos of buildings, people and scenery in public spaces?
2.) What would be your reaction if you seen a woman/man carrying a holstered pistol in a grocery store with their children?
3.) How would you react if someone decided not to have a conversation with you if you have an inquiry?
4.) How would you react if you, as a police officer, are attempting to have a consensual conversation with someone who chooses not to answer your questions?
I don't think that someone is necessarily a bad person for being a land lord or "capitalist" or whatever. For that reason I don't feel comfortable with Communism. Communists may say that someone can just stop being a capitalist or land-lord but in practice once someone has been defined as the other by an ideologically driven group it tends not to be so easy. That's part of the problem with what happened in the USSR and China. Part of the reason that those repressive societies were (or are) so repressive is that they defined a whole lot of people as the enemy (capitalists, store owners, intellectuals, "the bourgeoisie", peasants that were too successful or Ukrainian etc) and then it was ok to persecute them. Liberalism's goal of including everyone and not categorically declaring any group to be the enemy is a good one even though it's sometimes necessary to make exceptions in practice (such as not allowing Nazis free speech). The problem of course is when those exceptions are made for bad reasons but that's going to be a problem no matter who (or what ideology) is in charge.
My one piece of advice is that that you shouldn't let a mixed response prevent you from delivering your own thesis. Whether I agree with you or not I, for one, have always found your videos thought provoking, and I worry that toning things down to remove bias could counteract that. I would take the mixed criticism you've received as an invitation to broaden your analysis, rather than eliminate it. Adjust your tone as you think is appropriate, but be aware that I for one (and I'm sure many others) value what you've always done in discussing more than the facts. I don't much like diet philosophy, and your channel doesn't disappoint.
You don't need to be apolitical! Or not advocate what you believe in, all you need to do is be "Fair" if that makes sense.
This video series is really old and I'd be what you call a Liberal, but I just wanted to say that you did a good job overall! It wasn't perfect but I just found you and enjoyed it.
What I would have liked to see mentioned was the "new" liberalism movement of the late 19th century (that really began with JS Mill), or as it became known after WW2: social liberalism. Many folks don't even know about the roots of the movement, and/or the early philosophers and key figures. I would guess that most of my fellow Americans, would find the many of the principles of the movement to be socialist, but, really, that movement was presented as an alternative to socialism. I guess it might not have "fit in" with a lot of the rhetoric of the series, but imo it's an important part of the history of liberalism. To jump from classic liberalism to neoliberalism, especially when a piece is meant to be educational, is to miss a little over a century of important history, and it's just a disservice to those who are ignorant, and expecting to get the gist from your videos (imo one can typically get "the gist" of a topic from your vids).
I agree with one of the comments, despite my massive man crush on ya, I wasn't insane about the series. I think if you'd have titled it differently, perhaps as a series specifically targeting the faults with liberalism, or something along those lines, many people would have reacted more positively. It just wasn't the more. objective Oliver we know and love, in that series.
I think I would have been much more open to your series if you had said at the start that your /intention/ was to tilt Liberalism. I did think that you presented an interesting perspective I hadn't considered before. My frustration was that you appeared be creating an "introduction to liberalism" which might be watched by people who hadn't intellectually considered liberalism before. I didn't think it was fair for someone's first analysis of liberalism to be from such a critical perspective.
Rather than scaling back on the criticism, I would prefer it for you to make it clear within the episode when you are presenting an idea as the people who hold that idea see it (eg. a liberal's view of liberalism) and when you are criticising the idea from a different perspective (eg. a socialist's view of liberalism). I think the criticism is valuable and I want to hear it from you. I just think it should be presented clearly as "this is a criticism from this angle".
oh, and shout out to ace trainer Liam. for being ace at training, I guess.
"Olly, I have a massive man crush on you". Never felt more identified :')
Good job guys. Now his script is less critical. Criticism, agreeing, disagreeing, and arguing is what makes it interesting.
4:25 but rules in Liberalism much more clear and concrete, in USSR were official rules for common people and unofficial rules for bureaucracy.
The funny thing is that the people who got upset about your tone want you to regulate yourself around liberal notions of proper behaviour and proper knowledge production that obscure the ways that neoliberalism is itself an ideology... something that you literally talked about in the first video haha
Crying out for objectivity and neutrality is most Liberal thing I can think of.
I do hope that a lot of people you had criticism came back and stay here
I buy my work friends food if they're in a more stressful time. I don't think others should suffer when I can safely provide for others. Maybe I'm wrong because giving away resources isn't a "fit" trait to keep.