Actually, no. I just fact-checked this. In the often-misquoted speech he actually laments that school shootings are a fact of life. I encourage you to research this.
@@LisaBeergutHolst Sure. That's what social scientists (and natural scientists) do. They name and describe phenomena. Marx was surely not the first person to observe alienation, but he gave one of the first and best descriptions of it. That's valuable.
@@LisaBeergutHolst That's basically how all of science works. Do you think gravity cares whether we call it gravity or not? Or who we attribute to describing it? It matters to _us_ though; and naming things is how we honour those who added to our shared lexicon of knowledge. That is our superpower as a species. Least we can do is honour those who wrote their addendum to it.
@@pawmo3162 Wrong, but a very obvious sentiment use by black people who did get the brunt of the deal, proportinally. It was a plan to turn the poor parts of society or those that do not take part in it, into free labour by criminalizing all drug use and possesion. I love how it always goes like it was cuz they are black, no, free labour is more important to them than your skin color.
The rhetoric that goes: "why have a public healthcare system, you can't defeat death" moves on the same basis as the quote: "why have code of laws outlawing homicide, people are going to kill people either way".
Oh yes, I very much know. I pointed out that that line of thinking is literally arguing against the existence of laws in general MANY a times. I told this to a gun nut and he called me an idiot. I think the worst part was him actually believing in calling me that. 🙃🙃🙃
@@AzafTazarden "Why follow religion? People are going to Hell either way" You didn't get it. YOU can follow religion, and YOU can save yourself from hell. But if people go to hell anyways then it's not your problem and you are not expected to save everyone from it.
To me, this is the problem I always associate with School bullying. Me: "I keep getting bullied, and I want it to stop." Them: "Bullying is a fact of life. I got bullied, and it sucked. Now you're getting bullied. Quit whining." Me: "But wouldn't it be better if nobody got bullied?" Them: "Yes, but everybody does, so get over it." I *hate* this mindset, and it's especially galling to see it come from parents, teachers, and even fellow victims of bullying. There is nothing inevitable about a kid collaring you in the school locker room, shoving you into a closet, punching you until you think you've been stabbed, turning the light out and locking the door behind him. I know it's fashionable, on the internet, to pretend like you're not emotional, you're a creature of pure, cold logic. The worst thing you can do on the internet is write a rant, because that means you're upset - and if you're upset, you must therefore be wrong. But bullying did real damage to me as a child, and I never want anybody to experience what I went through. There was nothing useful learned by being threatened with a knife, or having a door closed on my hands, or having friends ushered away from me like I was a leper. It didn't make me a better person, and it didn't improve my education in any way. Damn right I'm upset. People, you are not powerless to address your problems - and I'll be *damned* if you tell me it's not worth my effort to try and fix them, just because you're too much of a coward. Screw that. And I will always remember the teachers who failed to help me when I needed them most. I will remember you: Unfavourably. And to my fellow "troublemakers" - more power to you, comrades. I'll see you in detention.
Agreed that mindset is a self fulfilling prophesy. Cynicism and being judgemental is lazily pretending to be "realistic" while actually being defeatist. The people who advanced science, culture and business had a growth mindset, determined to change the as-is.
This is also the same logic they use when the left proposes canceling debts. Everyone has debts it's not fair on the people who have already got out of debt if we cancel it for those who have it now. It's "I suffered, and so you should suffer too."
Huh, I was starting to define the region I live in as "christian atheist" in the sense that everyone here is claiming to be an atheist but its still very much just christianity but without going to church more then twice a year and no praying
I used to be Christian, but it confused and disturbed me that so many people who claimed to share my faith, turned out not to be serious about it. They weren't turning up to regular church services - they didn't remember to thank God, or say their prayers - and they didn't seem to ever let Jesus' words guide their behaviour. They were unkind, dishonest and cruel, just like anybody else. Eventually, I walked away from the church. When my own faith began to wane, I didn't feel like going through the sham any more. Better to be sincerely doubtful, than pretend you believe.
I've heard this mindset referred to as "cultural Christian" too. I've never quite understood the attraction. If you've come to the conclusion that the bible is not factual, then why on earth continue to staunchly defend biblical morality? It seems completly illogical, a purely emotional attachment. Yet it is often deffended by those same people who are quick to point out the immorality of accepting cruel and unethical traditions when they come from any other "cultural" background but a Christian one. It's a bizarre mix!
Every time I'm having a discussion and I come up against someone's belief that "It's just the way the world is," I feel such a wave of anger and despair that I tend to quit the conversation, or just assert furiously that "NO IT ISN'T," which isn't very persuasive. Thanks for this video! With your help, I might get a little better at talking with people.
"Oh god, the house is on fire!" "Not all fires are harmful." "Yeah, but this particular fire is. We need to put it out!" "Why should I? I'm not responsible for starting the fire, why should I be the one who puts it out?" "Because right now, the fire is affecting both of us! You don't have to be responsible for a mess to clean it up." "Well, maybe I just care about personal responsibility! You shouldn't be reliant on others to solve all your problems!" "We both live in this house! Right now, my problem is also your problem!" "If you don't like this house, why don't you just leave?" "Because right now, putting out the fire is easier than finding a new house!" "Even if you put out the fire, there's just gonna be another one. You can't regulate fires." "We can regulate _this_ fire, BY EXTINGUISHING IT!" "Well, who's gonna pay for it? You aren't entitled to my labor!" "Who gives a fuck about monetary incentive? THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE!" "But not all fires are harmful!" EDIT: Guys, I _do not care_ if you own a gun or not. Go ahead, arm yourself. Just be prepared to protect the people actually being harmed by mass shootings. You know, the people who are statistically likely to be minorities. Also this bit wasn't even about gun control. It was about white supremacy. You know who's statistically more likely to commit mass shootings? White supremacists. The fact that so many people thought I was saying "Guns are bad, nobody should have guns, we need to confiscate all guns," shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to say anything on the internet without at least ONE person misinterpreting it, no matter how clear and concise you were.
This is an excellent summary of what it's like to try to talk to a Conservative, and also why it's pointless to try to talk to a Conservative. The above talking points aren't actually points. They aren't intended to convince you that the Conservative's opinion is correct. They're excuses for the Conservative to rationalize why it''s okay for him/her to believe or support something they know to be wrong. The Conservative WANTS the house to be on fire. They WANT it to burn down. They lit the fire themselves, and fanned it and blew on it and cherished it like an unborn fetus. The argument is just the smoke. It's what they do to keep people from looking too hard at what they're doing, or to deny and delay attempts to fix the damage they cause. But they WANT the damage done. Conservatives want Women to be treated unfairly in the workplace and in relationships. They want Gays to be denied rights and Trans people to be beaten and murdered. They WANT Black people to be shot by the police. And deep down, in the pit of their little malformed hearts, they KNOW these things are wrong. So they have to construct excuses for why it should be allowed. And that's all the argument is. The argument is just a smokescreen. A blind. As long as they can keep us arguing, as long as they can trick us into thinking they can be convinced to change their ways, they win.
This mindset also tragically prevents people from trying to push for shorter work weeks and jobs that aren't soul-crushing, which would solve the problem of Mondays
Exactly. The current system did not form "naturally", and a functional economy couldn't work without it. It was imposed on us by industrialists who wanted to wring as much value from the labor of the working class, at the lowest cost to them. Monday to Friday, 9 to 5 is the standard because it's convenient for the owner class.
Co-worker 1: I hate Mondays. Co-worker 2: Me too, lets stop the miserable work week by ending capitalism! Co-worker 1:TO HELL WITH YOU, YOU PINKO COMMIE MARXIST BLAH BLAH BLAH!! Co-worker 3: It's clearly the Jews, Blacks, Women, Mexicans, Chinese, blah blah etc fault we work on Mondays. Co-worker: 1: OMG YOU'RE SO RIGHT! DAMN THEM! WE SHOULD STOP THEM! I have never understood why the former of identifying our current system as a problem doesn't work yet identifying a biological group one usually isn't apart of often does with Conservatives until now. We hate the same thing but not for the same reasons so we reach or are open to very different solutions.
@@Bluecho4 actually the 40 hour work week was a compromise with the unions of yesteryear. Those industrialists would rather you work 24/7 at your job, live by your job site, and even die on the job than give you any time off, sick leave, or safety standards. Also those same industrialists are okay with kids old enough to walk working in that environment because they are great at fixing hard to reach places. Capitalists are monsters.
@@Bushflare Well, I see no assumption "that man can change _every_ aspect of himself" here, or the need for that. A change of one's natural dis/abilities is not needed, if one can create or find an environment or lifestyle that is suited to one's needs and abilities, and brings out the best in that person. Even people scoring high on the dark triad can find a good way of life not detrimental or even beneficial to others, if they find a niche where they can apply their abilities towards neutral or beneficial causes.
@@Bushflare Do you need to physically transform into a car to drive 100 kilometres or do you enter a car that you then drive there? Think about that one cause it's one of the dumbest things out there to claim you cannot do anything at all without yourself having to change before doing the action. It's physically impossible.
To put this Monday issue into a medical context: Doctor: ok you got a problem, it's serious but it's treatable. But you need to follow a stepped medical procedure. It's not going to be easy and I cannot guarantee success but statistically it's the best shot we have Patient: nah, too difficult. I am dying anyway. The quack: I got a solution, this all cure tonic will solve your problems and grant you immortality, no fuzz no muzz. How does it work ? Oh nevermind that, just pay me. Patient: holy smokes, I am sold. Doctor:, are you fcking kidding me.
This gave me a sudden understanding of my father. Ever since he and my brother started turning really radical-reactionary (2016-ish? Mostly the Trump boom spilling over into Canada, I think.) he's been obsessed with constantly subjecting himself to material riling him up into irrationality over things he finds 'evil', but seemingly incapable of any real desire to change things for the better or avert or mitigate evil, only punish it. In fact, it's seemed that "change" is on his list of things he finds 'evil', with how he spits the word 'activist' in the same way he does 'communist' or 'liberal', as interchangeable signifiers of evil otherness.
Your dad just sounds old. Obviously communists are evil because they wish to take our individual liberties, but most conservatives in the US believe everyone has a right to free speech. It's our own little Achilles heel. We believe in small government so we don't silence ideas going against it. Then the big government idiots get in power, screw the country over until something akin to the 1970s Church committee reveals the screw up and conservatives get back in power but don't want to use the big government power so they just... Well... Conserve.
Well the issue with activism may either be an association with rioters or people in their life who just can’t stop talking about problems around them, which is easy to get sick of when you’re just a guy, not one of the people in power who made things the way they are
@@1495978707 so the issue with activism is that its doing its job? that you're hearing about it and its getting attention? bringing change? thats what activism is. who cares if you dont want to hear it. its essential. suck it up.
Somewhat reminds me of the folks that love to say "Life isn't fair" when you try to bring up any kind of criticism for how a system works. On the whole, WE make life unfair for each other by sheer stupidity, selfishness or pride generally. Life can ALWAYS be more fair, just takes more work from all of us to do it.
True but then one must ask what the necessary trade offs are going to be when any given action is taken to try and make life more fair. Something those on the left have a tendency to ignore. Fairness and equality are far from the only virtues in need of consideration if you ask me.
@@dbojangles1597 Of course. The necessary trade offs must always be weighed. Just our of curiosity, what virtues are you worried about in addition to fairness and equality?
@@tomtimelord7876 Well if i'm just spit balling here overall societal advancement/functionality and individual liberties come to mind. I would say the former is my primary concern. I don't think a sense of fairness should come before the well being of society as a whole. Obviously you don't want people to be more equal if that just means everyone is equally worse off.
@@dbojangles1597 Nope, don't want everyone to be worse off. I would say though that I believe there are many instances where the common good does and should take priority over individual liberties. For instance, I think heroin should be illegal. But marijuana legal. I think there should be some basic gun control laws, but the legal purchase of firearms shouldn't be banned entirely.
You surgically articulated in 15 minutes an internal journey that took me 30 years to work through and that i'm only now on the other side of. Nice work
I'm so glad I had the internet in my hands growing up. I feel like my political journey went hyperspeed from ages 12 to 20 and I've just been solidifying my understanding of theory ever since
Hey man, at least you made it and glad to have you. Just keep remaining determined; apathy is killer. Keep educating yourself and keep fighting for human rights.
One thing about punishment: we fetishize revenge. I can't count how many times I've heard someone say they want criminals to be tortured in prison, which doesn't make the commenter look any better than the actual criminal.
This is a bit everywhere, thematically, and kinda long, but I figure it's worth it to transcribe it here. Take what you will from this if you see it. Have a nice day, folx. A man sits in a prison cell. "This is not justice," he says. His cellmate laughs, "Well, they keep saying it is." "Well it isn't." "Then what is it?" His cellmate asks, intrigued. The man pauses. Then, "Vengeance," he states simply. "Exactly," came the immediate reply. "That is what it always was. This society never cared about rehabilitating people, or better yet, making it so they don't even need to be rehabilitated in the first place. No. They crave the catharsis of vengeance. Feels good, but it doesn't actually solve anything." "A-are you saying punishment doesn't work?" the man asks, incredulous. "No, it doesn't. It gives the illusion that it works, for a while, because it elicits a temporary compliance through fear, but not genuine desire to be better. Punishment, you see, is predicated on fear, but loyalty born of fear will stab you in the back the moment someone can offer more fear. "You see, fear is fickle. Love is true loyalty. People will both kill and die for love, but not for fear. For fear, they will only kill. They will never sacrifice themselves for it, because fear is self preservation." "Oh, yeah? Watch your family get murdered, and then tell me you don't believe in punishment." "Well, of course, I'd probably be so struck with grief and rage that I'd want to dish out the punishment myself. Maybe I'd torture them for as long as possible before brutally killing them, but what does it say about your argument when I have to be severely emotionally compromised to agree with it? "In the present, you see, while all my mental faculties are lucid, I'm telling you that punishment is vengeance, and vengeance does not solve problems. It perpetuates them." "I-if this kind of punishment doesn't work, then why do they do it?" "You know, this is the third time I've been back in prison. Each offense was more serious than the previous. The first time I got out, I could not make any money. Had that stigma of being an ex-con. I made a lot of connections in here, so I had options, but they were all illegal. "You think they don't know what they're doing? If they were trying to end crime, sending people off to the goddamn criminal college and then preventing them from finding honest work is just about the worst way to do it. But you know what? I bet it feels real good to throw someone in here. A culture of vengeance." "You think they don't solve the problem, on purpose?" His cellmate laughs again. "They know how to stop it: education, opportunity, prosperity. There's clear cut examples that show how to actually eliminate crime. So, what's the logical reason they don't take those clear cut uncontroversial steps? "Poverty is not a bug, it's a feature. Without us serfs, their system is unsustainable. They prop up the exceptions to the rule, so that they can blame us for our failure to succeed in a system that works against us. Every. Step. Of the way. They need it to be this way, so that they can hoard success. "They rig the game and call it a fair competition, a meritocracy. When, in actuality, a meritocracy is the last thing they want. The losers don't even get what they need to survive, while the winners take *everything*. "Is that justice? Meritocracy," he laughs. - Darkmatter2525 "Vengeance" (this part begins at about 5:43) Link: m.th-cam.com/video/LX2VeWumRQ8/w-d-xo.html
Yeah. I’m a fan of rehabilitation and happy story endings. I want someone who did a bad crime to redeem themselves. I hear rehabilitation is quite successful.
@@user-sf9gs2pg1b It can be, when it's done right. It makes sense to deter crime with consequences, but it is rarely that simple. Because people get loaded with the stigma of having been to prison, even if they're completely reformed and their "debt to society" has been paid, too often they can't find legal work that sufficiently supports themselves and the life they want, so they will, inevitably, turn back to crime.
I'm a "Christian atheist" brought up with Christian values, so naturally I'm a radical socialist because that seems like the most effective way to love my neighbour
Curious how most Right-Wing Bible-thumpers conveniently fail to notice that should someone like Jesus showed up *right now* they would call him a hippie.
When they ask what would Jesus do?. Remind them than kicking the merchants out of the temple and chastising the priests for their greed is a possibility
@@CteCrassus To the Christian Right, Jesus wasn't sent here to succor the poor and the suffering. He was sent here to be a substitutionary human sacrifice to placate God for that whole Garden of Eden thing. If you appreciate and accept Jesus's suffering, death, and (ahem) "resurrection," you will get you into heaven despite your inherently sinful and evil nature. Jesus is the carrot to Yahweh's stick, the Good Cop to Jehovah's Bad. Sure. you should try to be kindly and giving to the poor, but to them, that's only putting a band aid on the REAL problem: Not being saved. (Depending on the denomination, Right-wing Christians see poverty is a sign of not being in their god's grace.) That's why many Evangelical charity efforts often come with a sermon or some other religious strings attached.
Christians of this variety often follow the "salvation by faith alone" school of thought. Doing good in this life is meaningless because this world is fallen, corrupt, and doomed to their god's final wrath to try to save and the effort distracts from the worship of that jealous, wrathful god. (e.g. Recently the leader of the White House Bible Study group blamed the Corona Pandemic, in part, on environmentalism because protecting the ecology places attention on the "creature instead of the Creator.") Regardless of what you've down in this life, believing in Jesus, God, the Bible (oh, and the right way, depending on sect) is the only way to avoid Hell.
The most unrealistic part of that opening anecdote was that people got QUIET *MULTIPLE TIMES* during a political discussion. I'm all too used to the guy from payroll yelling over me and using ad-hominem and "stop projecting your insecurities onto X"
Most conservative arguments are literally just saying "No" despite how many valid points you give or concrete evidence you give until they eventually bring up one valid point or concrete evidence (usually taken out of context) to make you look like a hypocritical idiot. Or the easier way which is to have enough people on their side tell you to "Stop making things political, we're just here to have fun, come on" or use ad hominem on you so that YOU look like the asshole for simply addressing an issue which can so simply be fixed or improved on if they looked past their Bible.
@@sandrapark8705 *says sincerely-held belief in jovial tone* *points out how reality doesn't align* *repeats belief in more serious tone* *gently disagrees* "...I'm just joking, you know? can't you let me joke?"
“nothing short of turning the world inside out is worth pursuing” is a really great example of nirvana fallacy. It’s basically comparing some realistic solution to the idealistic, perfect solution, and then saying “it’s not perfect, therefore it’s nothing at all”.
God. I'll never understand how people can go their whole lives treating the world like it's a waiting room for their specific appointment. No wonder the world gets so fucked.
It's no wonder why alot of people feel trapped as if they're being constantly judged by some supernatural, otherworldly creature even though they themselves no longer believe in such.
It is also why I think many of them don't give two shits about environmental damages and destructive, man made climate changes. Because why care about this crappy temporary world when (supposedly) eternal paradise awaits us?
It's supply and demand. The more of something there is, the less it's actually valued. 'No one's ever really gone.' 'I can abuse my kids for their whole lives, but can exit this world feeling whole because I apologized in my last five minutes.' Yeah, been there done that. Sorry bud. This is all you get
Interesting, I thought the whole point with Jesus Christ the character/person was that he said if you see a person who is suffering you should help now even if it break the Sabbath. Rather than following the rules, but letting him die.
@@michaelmills8205 Also, Jesus' most prominent enemies in His story are the Jewish religious leaders (Pharisees, etc.). I see not much has changed over the millennia.
There were other jewish teachers arguing a similar thing. Moreover, that characterization may be an unkind one perpetuated by the Gospels. The different Gospels have different takes on who Jesus was. We know he died by crucifixion which is only done to people who Rome believes was an actual threat to their power structure.
@@reeddressler9042 The Gospels where written by different people attempt to force the life of (a potentially) real person to fit the structure of existing Jewish prophecies about the Messiah. It's not surprising that the different writers had different views over what the Messiah should believe as well. Add in the the Bible is one of the most heavily revised and edited books in history (both by religious and secular people), and you arrive at the contradictory mess that it is. It's also important to note the the Jews were actually a major political problem for the Roman. They generally refused to adapt into the heavily Greek influenced Roman society and there was an actual Jew rebellion in the region during the period in which Jesus would have lived. If we accept the fact that the gospels are at best only semi-historical, the fact that the rebellion against Rome was lead by a Judas, and the teachings within the gospels are much more hostile to the Jewish authorities than the Romans become very interesting.
This is a very important essay. One issue I see among liberals, many progressives, and even some leftists, is that they don't recognize the tendency of conservatives to think of societal problems at an individual level and not at system or institutional level. It is very hard to engage with them in a meaningful way without understanding this.
@@Scullex reactionary means reacting to progress , it's a synonim of conservative , leftist are between reformist and revolutionary : since some want to impose the nordic model trough reforms to the capitalist sistem , or overthrow the sistem trough a revolution ...
My dad said something similar during the year of covid, his exact words were "The bleeding heart liberals want everyone to live!". I believe he was talking about giving immigrants medical care and vaccines. I just couldn't believe that he would say something so cruel and heartless, but then again, its easier to not see people as equals when you demonize them.
I can’t believe people genuinely think this way. How so many surrender to accepting the problems with the society *we constructed* as engrained in our nature is beyond me.
@egg_l0rd13 I'd argue that most people don't think about society as a construct. Most probably, don't even think about it at all and accept that their circumstances are a fact of life rather than a manufactured state of existence. As if this was always going to be the outcome.
I just had an argument with my dad about rent. I've had this argument many times and it was something keeping me from really believing in rent abolition in capitalism. So I decided to try again because even the creator of capitalism believed landlords were leeches and argued with my dad. We talked for a while and talked about rent and how it's free money and I told him I don't think he's bad for wanting to rent out the land (I mean he's a guy who stresses about money so what else would your goal be?). Him- "They allow poorer people to afford houses because they don't have to pay the full price" Me- "Rent means there's fewer houses to buy and more demand which means higher housing prices" Him- "landlords provide the service of maintenance" Me- "No they don't, other people do" And then he said something that had blocked me many times before "people will still be homeless". This sentiment had stopped me many times before 'that's true, it's basically the same outcome' And then I caught myself, there would be less. More people would be a to afford houses, people would still have income, it's not the same outcome.
A more reasonable capitalist argument is that private housing creates an incentive for quality, and regulation can control how long the quality can get, if you allow people to sell housing but stop people from selling really bad housing you get the situation we're in right now, where people can only really safely sell to people who they know aren't poor, and rent control often causes the quality of service to drop lower as those managing housing have less incoming capital to fix problems and maintain it with. Government regulation produces higher quality housing often, but in direct consequence stops low quality housing from existing outside whatever public housing it can produce. No free market housing system would not sell to a huge fraction of its potential market, the issue is that currently that's not cost effective due to regulation. In terms of governments abolishing the entire rent system, it's easy to see how developments in effective management of those apartments run with rent money would stagnate when a government covers the bill, there's no real way for those buying housing and those running it to interact in any meaningful way, especially if the State imposes restrictions on the quality. People don't tend to want to pay for things collectively voluntarily, so either rent pays for keeping housing in shape or the government hands out a check that inevitably can't account for all the specialized payments needed in a marketplace, with public funding into the market theres always loose ends bureaucrats can't control for.
My dude you've got it all wrong. There's homeless shelters to house the homeless, and if it wasn't for rent I would be there. The simple fact is I can't afford a house. Especially since I don't plan on living in a shitty college town for the rest of my life.
My argument is housing is a commodity like any other. Just like a nice restaurant, high quality ingredients, or having cooked meals delivered. A nice large house in a quiet community is something people want. Nevertheless, that even in public housing your master is the state or the entity that built the house. I highly doubt your system would allow me and 1500 sqft house on the coast of a major metro city if all I wanted to do was lounge around and use good produced from The People, heck it probably won't even allow me to do that with a public housing unit. I have to contribute in some form, the only difference is who I am contributing to.
Let me correct your dad's most coherent argument: [Some] landlords [pay for] the service of maintenance. (Citation: The house my parents couldn't sell when they moved, and frequently complained about maintenance costs for.) Some landlords provide useful services that make things better for their tenants, just like some managers do. That doesn't mean that the system is perfect, any more than managers are, but they both provide a service which can be worth the cost. (Or they can just be a drain on people who can't afford to opt out, but it's not inevitable...just profitable.)
I also see a dystopian future where big companies own all the habitable buildings and people just pay rent to them. If you don't agree with their policy or just lose your job, they also put you out of your apartment. In Belgium there used to be a barrier to discourage companies from buying up housing for rent-profit. You would get a tax-cut for paying the mortgage on your own house. They took this tax-cut away recently. We have a rather rightish government for the moment. The argument they give is that this tax-cut just raises the prices because people can afford a higher mortgage. That's true, but the advantage is that it puts a roadblock up for the companies that want to own for profit. I think 'the right to own your own plot of land' would be a very good addition to the constitution. Funny how extreme communism and extreme capitalism turn out to have the same endgame.
I thought this was going to be about how the right hides behind a thin veil of "comedy" to try and convert others, reusing the same jokes over and over again that aren't even really funny but spreads their bullshit.
theres a dutch punkband called “hang youth” and they made a song called “je haat geen maandag je haat kapitalisme” (which translates to “you dont hate mondays you hate capitalism”) and its a banger
"Talking about school leads to talking about-" Ah, the educational system? "-safety drills, and talking about safety drills leads to talking about gun control". Oh, I forgot. This is about the US.
Yeah, it's kind of funny. They've had gun culture for literally 300 years, it has gotten so ingrained in their culture that doing something about it is very complicated.
@@melon10177 Well it is kinda terrible that children in the US have to train for the possibility that someone will come to their school armed and try to kill them, don't you think? I live in a pretty shit country too, but at least I've never had to worry about that.
@@elliel.5915 kids in the 50s needed to train for atomic shelter in place drills. The existence of a drill does not indicate its prevalence in an extreme way.
Watching this, I understand for the first time why so many conservatives talk about the public health measures recommended to fight COVID as if they're punishments.
@@killertigergaming6762 No instead it is the US where most who run their mouth about the constitution never actually read the damn thing. If you did, you'd know that mask laws are as a matter of fact... not unconstitutional, at least they are not during a pandemic!
In an article about a nurse who was suspended for asking for donations and buying protective supplies when the hospital failed to provide sufficient gear: > In its statement the hospital blamed the problem on the way supplies are distributed. “No one person, institution, or hospital can independently correct this global supply shortage,” it said. Which sounds exactly like the excuse from Mr Payroll. Because the situation cannot be 100% resolved by one person, one must therefore punish anyone who tries to do _anything_ about the situation. The situation is punishment that must be endured, rather than worked on.
there’s a great video that came out recently by the channel Zoe Bee called “Politics is a Language War” in which she talks about the metaphors we use to frame different concepts and specifically the metaphor of politics as war and how those metaphors can affect what we think about with respect to different things and what aspects of things we ignore. I highly recommend it, i think it’s a very good analysis. She uses an example in the video of giving 3 different people different maps of the same area (in this case, New York) a topographical map, a map of the subway system and a walking tour map and talks about how each of them would describe and even think about the best way to get to a certain place in different ways
@@notmynamedammit That's not true. Laws are useless if they don't reduce the frequency of a perceived ill from happening. Punishment has been used as a deterrent but it is not the only deterrent, and not all punishments work very well as deterrents. That's the point the video made. If something is *easier* to do, more people will do it. If something hurts more when you get caught but is still easy to do and get away with it, then... More people will still do it.
You know what's funny. For people who legitimately believe abortion is murder this is their argument yet pro-choice people always slide around that and say things like "If you really wanted to reduce abortions you'd want comprehensive sex ed the abortions would happen anyway even if they were illegal". It sounds exactly like "If you really wanted to reduce murder you wouldn't make it illegal you'd put more education in school about compassion and the value of human life". both are equal if you think abortion is murder. Abortion is not a slightly bad thing for pro-life people, it's murder. They are arguing what they believe is murder should be illegal and the reply they get is "Welll, even if it were that wouldn't reduce the numbers of murders.". Just argue on the point not around it, it's dishonest
@@vladys5238 That would be correct but fetus does not have the ability to feel pain or think. The false equivalence is equating fetus to humans. By that logic masturbation is mass murder, vegetarians have blood on their hands. The "anti-abortion" people are also often ignorant of science. Thats their major shortcoming.
I've spent a lot of time in internet atheist circles, and my biggest takeaway from that has bern that a person's stated ideological framework has very little bearing on what they actually do and believe. A religious racist will tell you they're a bigot because of the Bible, and an atheistic racist will tell you they're a bigot because of science, but neither actually derived that belief from first principles. If they've done any work at all, it's only to find a way to square their existing bigotry with what they consider the "correct" ideological label
I really need the religion's guide to keep me relax mentally, socially, wisely, and strategically. I left Christianity because the other religions have their own gods, which one of them are right or wrong or bigger: who is Real, they are just some bullcrap fantasies.
What?!?! No...racism is never squared with anything...it's just an illogical reaction or learned behavior. An atheist will NEVER say, 'I am racist because of science'....that is the dumbest statement I've ever heard. If someone does say that, they're not being scientific! Since all humans evolved from Africa and people are all equally genetically the same. (diverse, yes, but equally diverse regardless of race) Race is a social construct and you can ONLY get to that conclusion through science. And Atheism is just, well, being a smart person. Smart people follow evidence, they don't bend reality to their worldview...you are just describing idiots.
@@patrickkilduff4355 have you really never heard of race science? Never seen someone cite studies about IQ and crime rates to justify their bigotry? No, it's not actually scientific, but that's exactly my point: those people aren't really racist because of science, but they think of themselves as rational empiricists, so they find ways to convince themselves that their beliefs are scientific.
As a former edgelord atheist I can confirm. The biggest epiphany I’ve ever had was realizing “rationalism” is 100% guided by emotions. Everyone assumes their beliefs are based on logic but like you said it’s actually the other way around. Also logic is completely useless for figuring out the truth because literally anything can seem logical. I’d even go so far as to say logic is what created religion. Even if a belief has no evidence, as long as there’s a tiny piece of logic in there people will cling to that so they can call themselves rational. Whatever that means...
"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. *So did the divine right of kings.* Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." - Ursula Le Guin
Yea maybe but the old Marxist model clearly doesn't seem to work. I don't think our best bet is to build a system where the sharpest and most driven among us can still reap significant rewards while still maintaining a system where people can more or less work together for the common good.
@@dbojangles1597 Define sharpest and most driven. How do we distinguish between them and psychopaths? Why is being slow and careful and peaceful seen as something we don't want, or to put it another way, why should we want people who are driven and sharp to be rewarded above and beyond not being sharp and driven?
We don't distinguish psychopaths from effective people because we don't elect our rulers. We elect our representatives who, representing us, eat the boots of our rulers whole.
@@Gibbons3457 Simply because humans are most often motivated by pretty base animalistic desires and it is in the interest of societal advancement that we incentivize people to do things that facilitate said advancement. Now naturally I wouldn't suggest putting material incentives above all else. That would be what we would call free market capitalism and I think we both see the problems that have resulted there. I just don't think we can build a functional society out of the opposite extreme either. We can't just expect everyone to sacrifice everything for the good of the collective.
4:50 Interestingly I've noticed a lot of people these days have increasingly used the phrase "Locks only keep honest people out" in the same context, usually with the follow up "So keep yourself safe with a gun instead." Since you can't keep out all bad people with locks, then locks must be useless and only the finality of a gun can truly keep you safe. A very, very bizzare leap of logic
"The easier it is to do a thing, the more it happens" See also, the voter suppression laws. They're not "suppressing" in the classical sense, where someone is actively keeping people from voting, but they're "soft suppressing" it by making it as difficult and inconvenient as possible to reduce the number of people (in certain areas) voting. Republicans do understand that principle, they just compartmentalize it away when talking about guns.
@@anon9469 i have. What exactly is difficult about procuring a birth certificate and registering? Banning overnight early voting? What's wrong with requiring an ID yo vote, exactly?
@@dfmrcv862 People not having a birth certificate or an easily accessible birth certificate; and people not having the specific kinds of ID required to vote. Note that the kinds of people who are a. legitimately entitled to vote as citizens but b. do not have the ID needed and would have trouble getting it are usually poor people - i.e. marginalized people, i.e. the people who most need their voices heard. One particularly notable example was the Texas county that only allowed driver's licenses or firearms licenses, both of which were issued by the local police, meaning that the police could simply bar people from voting if they wanted.
@@anon9469 for starters, getting these documents is free and easy in all these states last I checked. And secondly, you're going to have to prove the police or anyone would be barring people from getting these licenses despite them having everything in order, not present hypotheticals about abuse of power. If anything, arguing "this maybe could happen" just shows it hasn't happened and likely won't. Not without heavy scrutiny at least.
"The way nature deals with a pandemic..." I think you wrote this line under the assumption that this would be a compelling argument against the "what's natural is right mindset" God, how bad it's gotten
Agreed, I honestly didn't expect conservatives to take that position literally. And yet, here we are in the middle of the pandemic and they are doing exactly that.
@@regisglass5464 Conservative dude: Fuck your sick, dying grandmother NO BODY OWES YOU ANYTHING! Now...don't forget to vote for our conservative politicians because they value COMMUNITY over the 'selfish' leftist who say they want to provide universal healthcare that might've saved your grandmother but honestly...she was already close to death's doorstep being old and decrepit so it would've been a waste anyway. **with a smug, self congratulating grin**
@@regisglass5464 As horrifying as it is to admit, this video may have given them too much credit. Because in hindsight, that's precisely the plan they want to follow.
Another fun fact (Ok, maybe not so funny of a fact but still) is that this is literally the exact same stance Hitler took about the "weak" in society. In Mein Kampf he says that the "weak" who are dying from hunger, illness or any other "natural" cause should not be offered any help and left to die because only the "strong" deserve to live and spread their superior genes. And yet most of the population still hesitate to call out conservatives out on their Nazi aligning beliefs. Let's just call them what they are God damn it. NAZIS.
When they try to make that nonsensical argument, just point out the simple facts that: 1) Homosexuality occurs naturally within numerous varied species. 2) By and large, technically speaking, Murder (or more accurately: Killing) is the very crux of Nature itself, to the extent that even the Non-Sentient Plants do it to other plants (i.e. strangling overgrowth, competitive use of nutrients from the soil, blocking of sunlight [even as far as to kill many of their own offspring]). So, they're technically arguing that Murder is the 'right'/correct choice; and that's quite immoral and/or psychotic of them. 3) Yersinnia Pestis (the Plague, tho idk if I spelled that correctly), Tape Worms, Bot Flies, Organ Eye or Brain-Infesting Parasites, and Parasites in general (among near-countless other things) are All 'Natural'. Yet we don't see them going out of their way to deliberately infect themselves with all those things. 4) Cyanide, Arsenic, as well as Snake, Spider, Snail, and Jellyfish Venoms (and Other toxins like Frog poisons) are All 'Natural', and yet we don't see them going out of their way to get those particular chemicals into their system in any real amount. 5) Death itself is 'Natural', and yet they're still alive and breathing.
@@1MarkKeller Corporatism is the natural end game of capitalism. Well, technically, a single monopoly is the end game of capitalism, but corporatism has the exact same results.
Can we please for the love of god point out that the people saying that “criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns so gun laws don’t work” are essentially arguing laws in general don’t work? Like seriously, you can apply this logic to any law. Punishing child predators: “criminals will always find ways to assault children so what’s the point?” Speeding: “People will always find ways to speed so what’s the point?” Murder: “Murders will always find some way to kill their victim so what’s the point of making murder illegal?”
Very stupid take, because unlike those things gun ownership isn't actually inherently bad, so when you ban good people from owning guns, and bad people have guns, all you did was make it so people with guns can now know when they use those guns to commit crimes no one else will have a gun unless they rob bad people, combine that with many places having 45 minute responce time from police, and yea, there's no argument that the policy did anything but hurt those people, doubly so when you understand how easy guns and ammo are to make,
Well, arguably a lot of walls don't actually work very well. And punishing people who do bad things doesn't prevent a bad thing, but it might deter it. Prevention measures are valuable but hard to do effectively if people want to circumvent them. Unless you want authoritarianism. (I don't think you do though) I think it does apply to speeding, as an Urbanist. People speed even though it is used as an extra tax. But, we can make major effects on the speed of cars without enforcing speeding limits. Simply by changing the designs of our streets. Something similar is happening with schools to reduce the damage of school shootings. In some places schools are being designed specifically to reduce the damage that a school shooting might cause. I.E. Mitigation. When it comes to roads, engineers have designed mechanisms to stop cars and make people die from that less. That is also mitigation. I seriously believe that we shouldn't be giving speeding tickets most of the time. And that making speeding illegal is a poor way of actually preventing speeding. Or to use stronger words: "Why shouldn't we abolish speeding tickets or speeding laws?" However, that same reasons sometimes accepted as a reason behind road design. Typically road speeds are set based on an average of peoples speeds discarding a certain percentage literally beause there are some people "who will always speed" And this is used as an excuse to only engage in mitigation efforts like giving gradual deceleration zones and wider lanes. Now, if you could actually stop criminals from getting their hands on guns obviously it would counter that argument. Even if you reduced the amount of criminals with guns by enough it could potentially be worth it. That is a complicated issue though. When it comes to child predators, politicians love using "catching child predators" as an excuse to increase government surveillance. But effectively to stop that you either need to get better at catching people who do it. Or prevent it from happening somehow. The only reasonable prevention strategy is stuff like background checks and restrictions on the types of people who can be around kids. Or maybe limited surveillance if you did it in a reasonable and transparent way. Murders are already pretty rare, that generalization kind of works there. Although, that is still punishment for an action. Owning a gun isn't inherently immoral. Although, it is a tool designed to kill. Whether it be killing animals, or killing people. I am against banning guns completely. But I do think treating abusing guns like we would reducing the risk of child predation. Ensuring minorities can obtain arms is important so that they have the ability to protect themselves from violence. Privileged people are unlikely to ever have to protect themselves from violence they can feasibly stop. Historically disarming minorities has been an important strategy used to keep them oppressed. I don't support the use of violence. However, for some people and communities, using violence is the only effective option they have to protect themselves from hatred. However, if people aren't going to use something to do outright evil, they should have the freedom to do something as well. Ban having guns by non-police officer types around schools and kids. Even having cops around kids could have a lot of negative effects. Create systems to mitigate the negative uses of guns that are happening. Ban people who fit the profile of mass shooter or people under a certain age from buying guns. Make it a crime for those people to have them. It isn't an issue I particularly care about because of self interest. But, I think gun control fits just as well into a leftist as a right position. School shooters aren't normal criminals.They emotionally distressed domestic terrorists in many cases. If the argument you mention is being used in good faith, then it is essential arguing that we are better of mitigating a problem if we can't fix it. Rather than try to prevent it but with negative side effects. To an extent, our society assumes that laws and punishments are an effective way to stop a lot of our problems. And this cultural assumption has had many negative effects on both normal people and minorities and has been exploited by racists to persuade well-meaning moderates to implement harmful or even evil policies. The War on Drugs has failed to fix American drug problems. However, it has imprisoned a lot if minorities. Allowing republicans to strip away their rights to vote and participate in society. Some people even claim that the drug problems were intentionally created by racist elites as a way to punish and impoverish minority communities further. Terrorist attacks have been used to justify government surveillance and a restriction of our freedom. As well as making hatred of Muslims acceptable. Even much smaller things like zoning laws have been used to do intentional harm due to racist practices like red lining. And in other cases, attempts to use it to fix legitimate problems has created new ones that are arguably worse. I don't believe like some libertarians and anarchists that laws are a necessary or unnecessary evil by nature. However, I do think that in practice, assuming laws actually work to do what we is a misleading perspective. Although, you could try to argue that against any law. It would only be valid if the law doesn't actually help with the problem it is supposed to address.
Counterpoint to this ridiculous concept: people saying "gun control doesn't work because criminals acquire guns illegally" is not comparable to your hypothetical hyperbole of "speeding laws are useless because people will still find ways to speed"....because in the first case you are not criminalizing an ACT but the OWNERSHIP OF A TOOL that could POTENTIALLY be used in an act Basically, if I were to use your same reasoning, I would then be justified in saying "Oh speeding is dangerous and illegal so let's highly restrict or outright ban ownership of cars"....because, just like with gun control you evidently support, I am not criminalizing the act per se (speeding in this case) but the ownership of an object that could be used to potentially commit the act (the car in this case) And no, gun control laws do not work...I am Italian, gun ownership is all but easy here, and yet violent crimes still happen frequently, mob and gang shootings happen basically every other week, the only difference is that if I want to own a gun for home defence I need to jump through fifteen burning loops and might still be persecuted if I use it to defend myself against home invaders or assailants (it has happened time and time again in recent years), whereas a criminal can resort to any different measures ranging from theft to smuggling one from the Balkans or North Africa to even making their own...and when they don't have a gun? kitchen knives or other blades, large screwdrivers or picks, heavy pipes or bats....after all if I'm legally unarmed or can't use a gun to legally defend myself they don't need an arsenal to hurt me
"The conservative thinks about people dying of illnesses, school shootings, and backalley abortions the way you think about Mondays." As someone who lives with diehard conservatives, this is so true.
So, they are heartless monsters with no humanity? They aren't as down to earth good folk as they think they are. I choose humanity any day. They can drown in the blood from my "bleeding heart".
I click on a thumbnail that says "I Hate Mondays" and immediately there is a content warning about "school shootings, abortion, homophobia, racism, religious fundamentalism, fascism and nazi imagery" awesome
This gets to the heart of the abortion debate for conservatives: it's not about reducing abortions but rather wanting to punish people for not being encumbered by religious abstinence and having the freedom to have sex before marriage if they so choose to.
....And controlling women. If we are once again slaves to pregnancy and domesticity, we by necessity, have to give up all power in greater society. Which means an eventual overhaul of domestic laws, which means stronger and more effective oppression of women. Worked for thousands of years. Damned birth control and safe embryonic abortion ripped power out of the hands of males. Made society see women as actual whole, realized, intelligent, capable human beings. And all the dumbass Christians said "Noooooo!!! Not God's plan!! He wanted that whore, Eve, punished for eternity by being a faceless incubator NOT a world leader!!" Stupid fucking archaic, barbaric cult.
So if I don't do a crime, I'm straight? But, if I follow that logic, doesn't everyone do even the most minor misdemeanor, which is a crime, therefore we're all gay. I hate circular logic.
It's worth noting that Mondays are also a socially constructed problem, not a naturally occurring one. There is no reason whatsoever for people to still be working five days a week eight hours a day to have a comfortable existence. If the amount of labor we did actually corresponded to the amount that needs to be done, work wouldn't be the all-encompassing aspect of our lives it is today, and people wouldn't hate Mondays so much.
Which is why no conservative I know says poverty is something that should not be “worked to be defeated”. They point out how under free market capitalism the global poverty level has decreased across the planet, they point out how a safety net can help people in trouble, and they caution handouts because they know there are people who take advantage of them and make the country worse.
@@dfmrcv862 free market capitalism also lead to the enslavement of africans who were then shipped to america, where years later they were released without social systems meant to integrate them into society. I don't think its capitalism's 'fault' but it seems naive to say well it will just fix itself cuz capitalism is good or moral
@@nathanbruce1992 Well, start with that : capitalism is NOT a political system, it's an economical system. China is capitalist, it's not a democracy (yet they have better healthcare & education). The 3rd Reich was capitalist*, it wasn't a republic. You can have a any political system with any economic system.The XXth showed us that capitalism might be better to create wealth, whatever the political system is. But we also know the long term consequences of capitalism (climate change, mass pollution, genocide of species, Oil wars...) ______________ * capitalism during a war is special, but still capitalism
@@nathanbruce1992 You're kidding, right? African tribes were enslaving and selling said slaves among themselves for generations before the white man showed up. So were the Native Americans. So were the Muslims. Hell, the Ottoman Empire was doing it on a far larger scale than the Atlantic Slave trade! It was the capitalist west that bled and engineered methods that not only made slavery obsolete, but they fought tooth and nail to end it. If capitalism started slavery, it sure as hell ended it.
This series has helped me to realise how fundamentally different conservatives are to myself. I had always implicitly treated things as though conservatives were indeed simply "failed liberals", as you put it in another video. All I had to do was find the right set of words to explain why they're wrong. We all agree that problems exist and need to be fixed, and that giving people more opportunities to succeed is good, it's just we differ on how we go about it, right? Seeing that conservatives don't like fixing problems, they like punishment, and seeing that they value the "natural order" of their perceived "correct" hierarchy (that is often informed by race and other bigotry), will definitely change how I approach arguments. Knowing the opposition like this has also made me less frustrated, I've struggled for a long time trying to understand them, but this framework appears to be accurate when I think back to all the things I've heard when having arguments.
@@SauceApple51 You went from being able to respect the other side as equal humans of differing opinion to watching someone make sock puppets out of them and allowing yourself the ease of mind that is dehumanizing them. Conservatives are not "failed liberals" any more than they are brain dead bigots. No one side has all the answers hell I'd argue neither side has a singularly good answer to any scenario given how much each has jerked their knees away from the other but that is why proper communication is needed. Writing anyone off as evil simply for having differing views on political matters is itself mindless and evil.
@@korickarmstrong3468 Yeah I shouldn't have said "conservatives", I more meant far-right individuals. I was being lenient because it appears to me that even normal conservatives do have this hierarchical framework. It may not be malicious or race-based, but they have a deference to some notion of it. But I really don't think I "dehumanised" them, sure my characterisation wasn't flattering but what do you expect? I disagree with their worldview; I generally think it is a suboptimal way for society to be. I also didn't "write them off for simply having differing opinions" - rather, I outlined the overarching worldview and how I disagreed with it. I write that shit off. Doesn't mean I now reject all conservatives as being evil, it doesn't even mean I reject all conservative opinions, I just reject the hierarchy-based philosophy. A free-market right-winger isn't evil, they just believe that there is some inherent "correctness" about a free market based on individualism and that intervention ruins this "correctness" - and I think that belief is wrong. The far-right individuals who have racial notions of what the hierarchy should look like, they're the fascists and they're the evil ones. You're right though I should have drawn a distinction between these groups.
Fun fact: not even Monday is a fact of life. You can break your week into two smaller parts, with a one day long weekend inbetween, and many find this weekly routine less exhausting. You can defeat Monday! As long as you belive it's possible, and try it.
Literally, the whole reason we hate Mondays is because they are the start of the week. We hate Mondays because it's the day where we have to stop relaxing and get back to work. The concept of the day where we get back to work will always exist. There is no defeating this Monday concept, you just have to stop whining and get over it.
@@sabersin5368-c2c CGP Grey made a video about it called "Weekend Wednesday". It's under 3 minutes long. the thesis is basically that 5 days in a row work week makes you to exhausted and makes the weeked "wasted" while a more common time off (even if shorter) would allow you to better relax. 2 days work, 1 day rest, 3 days rest, 1 day rest
@@joz534 ok sure but you cant travel or visit people further away if you only have one day off at a time. 2 work - 1 off - 2 work - 2 off is a much better system
the mentality amongst conservatives that social issues are constants and that we can do nothing against them kinda explains why there is so much victim blaming when it comes to survivors of violent men (be it sexual assault, familial abuse, etc). to a conservative violent men are not something that can be changed, when an assault happens it isn't something done *by* a man, it is something that happens *to* someone so they overlook the perpetrator and instead focus on the victim, blaming them for not being able to recognize or properly prevent the harm done to them. to the conservative, if the man in this one instance hadn't done it, another inevitably would so it's pointless to try and fix men. side note, I'm sure this is also true for other issues beyond violent men but that's just the main example I can think of.
I get your point but there is also a constant, darker side to some of the violence, as someone that knows 2 bipolar woman in extended family, violence is something that is always either about to happen or it happens if they don't break up. They are attracted to ''strong man'' as they even said, alot of guys also don't know how to recognize personality disorders and think that ''they are just woman''. Bipolar and narcissist dating is also something that happens often and leads to violence.
@@1GTX1 I'm sorry, what? are you trying to say that violence happens because some women are bipolar? this comment was never about the actual violence, this is about the reaction to the violence
I heard the phrase "culturally cristian" to describe how even atheists only understand religion through the lenses of cristianity and are uncapable of position themselves outside of that perspective.
I've mostly heard that phrase just used for atheists raised as Christian, not necessarily that they have Christian beliefs like hating gays, etc. Mostly it just applies to holidays. A culturally Christian person has no issue celebrating Christmas or Easter, and probably even love to do so, whereas an atheist who is culturally muslim generally _does_ have a problem with celebrating Christmas and Easter.
I don't even attempt to understand religion. It's more, I don't really care what people believe metaphysically, it's more about their moral code and what they do with it. However you arrive at the answer, if it's a good answer, I'm okay with the method you used! Atheist/Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/whatever!
@@EvilParagon4 I don't nessicarily celebrate Easter but I do celebrate Christmas, mostly because its not the Christian's holiday they stole it, and from where I'm sitting I'd like to steal it back. the name and some of the wallpaper is Christian but the tree is a pagen fertility symbol, gift giving is a co-opted from Roman Saturnalia, Santa's name might be christian but the figure is an amalgam of dozens of figures from dozens of cultures most of them pagan. the church litterally moved the birth of their god so their festival could devour and co-opt all the pagan festivals that were vastly more popular than it. the same thing happened to Halloween, the church moved all Saints day to overtake pagan harvest festival and ancestor worship ceremonies but it backfired and Halloween was dechristianized to the point where some fundamentalists think its devilry.
Yeah but everyone knows that and no one cares. Most people don't even know what Paganism is and they think it's just one belief system. Christmas in its current form, is a Christian holiday, that many Atheists have no issue in celebrating as well, they just might put a star on the tree instead of an angel. There's even a (in my opinion, cringey) co-opt of Christmas for Atheists using Seinfeld's holiday of Festmas or something like that for the direct purpose of distancing from Christian Christmas, that is weirdly popular.
This video being four years old as the Vice Presidential candidate for the USA literally and actually called school shootings a “fact of life” is wild.
As someone who used to be conservative and is constantly around conservatives, I don't think all of them want something to be illegal so people will be punished, per se. Some are definitely like that. Rather, for a lot of them, the idea of something like abortion being legal means that they are somehow responsible for it as well. If they let abortion be legalized, then they are, as citizens living in a democratic country, somehow partaking in the act of abortion by "letting it happen." So when it's ruled as illegal, even though abortion still happens, they can wash their hands and tell themselves that they have no responsibility to play. Conservatives cannot stand cognitive dissonance.
It isnt even that. From what I have seen, most conservatives just despise how far the pro-abortion movement has gone. Used to be “safe, legal, and rare” but now its “God bless abortions! Human right! Yay!”. Most of the ones I see believe it should be legal for emergencies, but thats it.
@@dfmrcv862 No liberal is saying "Hooray abortions!!". Abortions fucking suck. As a dude, I can't even imagine having a potential life inside me and having to make the choice between aborting it to not ruin my life or not. That's not the point. The point is we want to give women agency over their own body (therefore pro-choice, no one is pro-abortion), because we believe that abortion is preferable to the mother and child suffering because they live in poverty and etc. This is why most people that are pro-choice also support comprehensive sexual education and contraseptives, which in practice us proven to actually reduce abortions.
@@omnical6135 Yes, it was deemed bullying when I called out this person’s actions but when I reported their harassment multiple times I get ignored because I’m making a big deal about nothing
I'm impressed how you were able to pinpoint the fundamental ideological divergence between conservatives and progressives. Sometimes in the online discourse I feel like they're the same with just different dogmas--a narrative that admittedly some are pushing deliberately. But you were able to say not just what is different, but why it's different.
As a Brit, no, the NHS is not perfect, but for the love of God at least we can go to the doctor without going into debt. And as a person who's had an abortion, they'll always happen, they need to be safe
Madeleine Swann And what is not discussed is that you can buy supplemental insurance to get front of the line elective services at a cost STILL CHEAPER then in the US.
Bushflare i don’t know man, that’s a lot of nice talking points for what could be easily surmised as “money not spent properly by fucks in charge who want to end NHS and have publicly said so.” Look I’m not British, I lived in England for a minute with my best friend who was only alive because of the NHS. His illness would of killed him in America’s system, so much so he couldn’t even visit here for fear of not having his meds and blood counts. I’ve talked to a lot of people, in your country, about how they view NHS. A lot of the hate isn’t informed, whatsoever. Sincerely, an outside perspective.
Everything in this comports with my own observations of and conversations with conservatives, but the part about "politicizing tragedies" was a big "Aha!" moment. The accusation of "politicizing tragedies" always seemed hypocritical to me. But it makes sense in this frame, because the conservative response to a tragedy, when it exists at all, is typically to single out some segment of the population for punishment or, more often, to make the rich even richer. Neither of these is about guiding society toward a nicer state. The very last bit, about people rejecting incrementalism and being more susceptible to more dramatic change, also seems very insightful; and the drawing of the skull wearing a beret is glorious!
Edited: "the conservative response to a tragedy, when it exists at all, is typically to single out some segment of the population for punishment ": Tulsa, Oklahoma. "A black man allegedly raped a white woman, so let's make a lynch mob at the courthouse. A shooting ensues, 10 whites die, 2 blacks. Let's all rise up and kill every black man, woman, and child we can get our hands on, complete with airplane bombing". Liam Nesson: "A black man did something criminal to someone I care about, so I'll go roaming into the street hoping for *a* black man to start a fight with me" Edit2: note that these outbreaks don't happen in a vacuum. The people involved are not evil. They have been under a long, persistent climate of defamatory propaganda meant to incite paranoia, frustration, outrage... The "something is very wrong and bad people are insolently getting away with evil, why isn't anyone doing anything about this" kind of atmosphere, where random individual actions are fit into a narrative, hence the seemingly disproportionate responses.
@Mauris ...are you doing apologetics for an American pogrom? Even if more whites were killed at the courthouse the actions of the black community of Tulsa were 100% justified. Taking up weapons against a lynch mob hellbent on killing a man without a trial is good. If those whites didn't want to die they should've minded their own buisness that day.
@Mauris note that these outbreaks don't happen in a vacuum. The people involved are not... 'evil'. They have been under a long, persistent climate of defamatory propaganda meant to incite paranoia, frustration, outrage... The "something is very wrong and bad people are insolently getting away with evil, why isn't anyone doing anything about this" kind of atmosphere, where random individual actions are fit into a narrative, hence the seemingly disproportionate responses. It's the kind of mindset that makes it possible to pose proudly for an outdoirs family picture with a lynched corpse swaying in the background. Thanks for providing nuance. The problem is systemic, not individual.
8:40 - Pretty much describing Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
One thought kept coming back: "He is describing the world Batman lives in, and, to a lesser extent, all Superheroes and all cop shows." Evil is not a problem to be solved, it's bad people that need punishing. Heroes don't do evil, such as killing villains, even when it solves problems, because it would ruin their integrity and make them evil. And besides, taking down a villain simply leaves space for a newer, nastier villain to take its place. Even the Wire, for all its examination of systemic issues, falls into this pattern, and treats said systems as unsolvable, with all efforts to reform them being palliative and/or temporary at best, and, at worst, making the problem worse, and ruining your life and your integrity along the way.
This! The superhero genre expresses the unspoken conservative assumption that evil is individual "bad guys" who can be bombed or locked up, or individual "good guys" who can be left to address all their individual problems individually via consumer choices in The Free Market (profits be upon its Invisible Hand). If there's a problem (such as climate change/ecological destruction, a pandemic, or systemic injustice) that can't be solved by bombing someone, shooting someone, or going shopping, that problem had just better not exist. Or, just shrug and accept it as an unstoppable Force of Nature. Notice how Iron Man has a perfect, magical clean energy source that could solve climate change, desertification, etc. and give humanity the Solar System, but he keeps it to himself so he can beat up bad guys, while everyone else is still chugging around in gas-powered cars and heating their homes with coal-fueled electricity?
@@kevincrady2831 Depends on the continuity. The Iron Man anime makes Tony giving the world free clean enercgy a core plot point. And I've seen Wayne Corp propose similarly awesome solutions every now and then. They're just not allowed to impact the setting long term, because superhero settings need to keep resembling our world, and are not allowed to end. Hence why Reed Richards Is Useless.
Kevin Crady You have good points, but I don’t think it’d make sense or be entertaining to make a comic book around Iron Man going around and cleaning up the world. It’s simply unreal comic book writing, and it has nothing to do with left or right views. However, to bounce off this point, the actor who played Iron Man IS doing something about climate change with AI, we don’t need comic books to teach us how to change the world, but we do need them to show us how to stand for something and make change in a system (traits over specific real world actions).
I think perhaps in general superhero stories suffer these problems but while some of the Batman things present the idea that Gotham will always have evil, I notice in the 90's cartoon Batman also frequently gave villains chances to turn their life around, offering them jobs in Wayne Enterprises so they wouldn't have to turn to crime to make ends meet. He donated a lot of money to charity and helped criminals change their lives. Unfortunately most episodes covering a villain's attempts to come clean would be completely unfruitful the next time you see them, but I think that had more to do with the episodic nature of TV at the time. The show tried to explore the idea of changing the system, not just punishing its victims.
"We don't need to be as gods to turn the world inside out." I'm not sure how immediately and uncritically radical I am, but I do want a yearbook I can quote that in.
i had "friends" in high school that held it against me for being an out of the closet gay. but conversely, that they didnt understand why people who were in the closet stayed there. "if i was gay i'd just be out" they would often say. they claimed they respected people more if they came out, while always treating me differently. Around that time the bad idea of 'if you care if someone is gay, that means you're gay" idea hit the market, so there was this mixture of fake acceptance and limited empathy which made their contradictions more confusing. Little did any of them know that i was having a sexual relationship with someone in our friend group, who also said the same things, for a decade. i never said anything to anyone about it to keep the situation going. one day one of the friends from this group i associated with the most found out through my facebook messenger about the relationship. First thing he did after i explained that this was happening the entire time, was say that i was making it up, then that it was my fault or i did something to make this happen while also maintaining it didnt happen lol. then he told me a story of how something happened between them that made him believe it could be true, but it still felt like he needed to blame me. By the end of it, due to his weird apathy of how the past treatment made me feel, the contradictions, and other things, i left that toxic situation. seemed no one had an issue with the guy in question because he stayed in the closet. He didn't act like it was ok. i never understood this until now. thanks for this.
You reminded me of my wife's father. He's one of those that says "I'm OK with people choosing to be gay but..." You know where that phrase is going. But, here's the thing, he was OK when his brother in law (who was gay) invited him to parties and expensive restaurants, he said he was OK because said in-law "keep things private", i.e. He didn't "act gay in public". It's the same hypocritical mindset.
14:15 Finally, someone else says it. This is how I’ve tried to live my life for a while now, with the belief that “If all evil is a result of humans, then humans have the power to fix all evil. We made it, we can unmake it.”
Actually, the argument is "If masked worked, then the W-H-O and Doctor Faucy were lying to us and caused many deaths for saying the opposite less than a month ago and should not be trusted." They have a point as the excuse given was "we were running low on supplies and did not want people hoarding them" which does imply that they let people die if masks are so valuable. Honestly, Democrats politicizing the pandemic was the worst thing that could have happened to the scientific credibility on the situation.
@@lunarlegion5518 The ones they very clearly said "did not work or help stop the virus"? Like I get the importance of being safe, but what the hell do you expect people to think when you do a complete 180 on a very important subject and your only "backing" is: if we told people this stuff worked, they would have sold out before we could replace them. Can't fault the people criticizing them. They have a point.
@@dfmrcv862 Politicians on both parties lied and politicized the pandemic. The difference is, the people you're criticizing misguided the public with the intention of keeping supplies for health workers, whose health is arguably more important during a pandemic to keep others healthy as well. While the people you identify politically with misguided the public with the intention of selling their stocks before an expected market crash.
Union organiser here-- "I Hate Mondays" is also a thought terminating statement like "what can you do" or "that's how stuff is i suppose." A thing people say because it stops them having to think about uncomfortable things any more. A big part of the work in organising a workplace is acting "what CAN you do?" or "Why do you hate mondays?" It's similar here-- the process of deradicalising a conservative often involves asking why we have these problems and trying to get them to talk about what can be done to solve them.
"It spreads because those in power spread it" and they spread it in order to stay in power. It's a vicious circle that has been ongoing for long enough.
Those in power spread all matter of vicious ideals. Many of which you no doubt subscribe to. You have got the right attitude I suspect but you need to question more deeply.
@@dbojangles1597 It strikes me as strange that a lot of discussions about politics inevitably devolve into some form of 'I'm smarter than you are so I must be more correct about what I believe than you are'. Are you prepared to accept the idea that some people have thought quite deeply about their political ideals and still disagree with you?
I tried it with my consevative teacher, and I was silenced because of "offensive views", because of being mildly liberal. That just radicalized me, and now I'm a libertarian Marxist. Thanks teacher.
@Dead Ninja Storage I don't think so: he also has been accusing the mainstream media of misreporting the middlle east conflicts for literally decades, from Palestine to Iran
@@haideri0313 I figured it was a joke. I've seen a considerable amount of people claiming to have gone from leftists or liberals to conservatives because another leftist or liberal was mean to them. Changing your political opinions based on that is really dumb, of course, but I don't think "reactionary" is a good description, because then OP wouldn't be holding conservative views.
It's weird how conservatives do only seem to process things as a binary, rather than a gradient. I definitely noticed this when arguing with conservatives over vaccines. They don't seem to process it any more than "it works 100 percent, or it doesn't work."
@@jettrobbins4238 they overwhelming do, though. There's no contradiction there, like you're pretending. *Rightoid furiously gestures at imagined hypocrisy.*
"Christian atheist" that is quite interesting to me. I'm an atheist raised Muslim. And I find it interesting even though I generally sway more liberal or at least center. I still am not comfortable with things like eating pork. Or drinking alchohol. I've been able to change my opinions about quite a lot of things in the years since I quit faith. However certain small things like that still seem to stick. I think that certain things might just stick with you as morally improper even if you stop believing in the fundamental rules that made you think they are morally wrong in the first place. You've been marinated long enough in those ideas that it might be hard to get rid of them as they are a comfort zone.
Exsctly. Which is why i think it is really important from time to time to really THINK about our values, or the things we think are "wrong" and what the "logic" behind it is. Sometimes it confirms the value, but often enough it puts them in question. Schiller (i think) once says "a human who is able to think, can change his opinion"
Yeah. I'm a "christian" atheist, I guess. Even if you try to leave the beliefs, you still carry the baggage of an entire mythic structure to "how the world works" that's much more difficult to let go of.
@@theengine I wish more people would be aware of this. Christianity in the west has deep roots in the entire culture, even if people do not explicitly avow its beliefs. Religious literacy therefore is very important and helps us navigate culture, whether or not we consider a religious orientation towards life personally valid.
I think this is exactly why there is such an enormous disconnect for those who were raised in an atheist, or "basically atheist" family setting. Someone says, "But you used to believe "X"! You're just angry!" and the never-been-religious person is baffled, because they were never raised to believe in "X," or even something similar to "X," at all. There's a weird space in communication when two persons have such an enormous gap in their upbringing. There's a lot of arguments, that I have encountered, which seem to stem from "But I was raised this way," which seems to mostly mean, "My care-givers (or pastors, or Idol) told me this was true," and it leads to a frustrating exchange, when I have an actual reason instead of just, "someone told me to think it."
This is exactly why the Right (and Christianity in general) mostly opposes legalizing drug use, legalizing prostitution. Not being able to punish the people who traditionally were shunned because they were evil is the same as saying they're not evil, they're good. As good as any other God-fearing person. Acknowledging a problem can't be punished away, since people keep doing it anyway, and finding other ways to tackle the problem is the same as saying drug use and prostitution is something perfectly fine, no problem with it whatsoever. They already decided those are evil things, so they dig in.
No it’s because they can’t regulate and tax those things nationwide. And obviously if something is bad, you wouldn’t want it in your place of residence.
@@MsScarletwings yeah and that makes shit stupid expensive. Ask any pot head where they get their shit from. Unless it’s medical or they’re rich asf it’ll be from a plug not a dispensary.
@@riptaiyo It's much harder to regulate drugs when they're illegal. Take for example when alcohol was banned in the US. As selling and buying liquors was made illegal it also meant there is no taxes, no concentration limit, no mandated closing hours, more petty crimes and, let's not forget, lots of mafias. Common goods requires legalization to have an effective regulation
In other words, they will look for any excuse to try and not solve society's problems. If someone fights you every step of the way when you advocate for a solution, you're not talking to a compatriot. You're talking to the problem.
Their morals are passive, not active, one should behold a belief of what is evil, and don't act against because it's essential to human nature, there's no meaning to mitigate problems, because, sooner or later it will get back on the same spot, or even harsher, the social hierarchy will fix itself. In other words, They "just" don't think it is a problem, they don't even think there's things to be solved to begin with.
@@OneEyeShadow I've seen conservatives pivot hard when their kid comes out. But to your point, there are some who would drown their own child for being gay and publicly admit that intention.
The alt-right in the USA is so amazing to me as a Canadian. I used to be a conservative in Canada, which would be somewhere about center to center-left in America-funny enough. Now, even my dad, somebody who is very much a hard-line conservative in Canada, looks at American conservatism in pure shock. Most of my friends who are still conservatives say the same. That's not to say we don't have our crazies here, because we definitively do, it's just amazing to me that I live 45 minutes away from another country, and our idea of the political spectrum is profoundly different. I don't even have to go very far into New York state to see a stark difference.
I mean, we Canucks do have some right-wing types who are similar to the American type that often comes to mind. They just aren't as much of a presence here, and almost entirely play to an American audience anyway. Think Steven Crowder, or Jordan Peterson, or most of today's writers from The Fraser Institute. Same with many UK populist right-wing types like Paul Joseph Watson or Carl Benjamin. They're British, but mostly play to an American audience. Our Conservative Party is really only more in line with the GOP in terms of being far friendlier to our oil businesses, and their austerity measures on many social provisions. They certainly don't advertise themselves much as the pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-Christian fundamentalism party. At least, they come across as far more moderately so, comparitively, and seem to be neutral on the gun issue.
@@moviemaestro800 it's quite weird that many alt-right figures are Canadian - as well as Peterson and Crowder you have Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, Black Pigeon Speaks, Rebel Media. Stephen Harper has done videos for Prager U so there's at least some overlap with canada's conservative politics. Canadian politics really looks a lot like a delayed American politics. Harper=Bush, Trudeau=Obama. Don't think you won't have your Trump moment.
Most countries will find their political spectrum is far out of line with the spectrum in America. This is mostly due to 2 factors. Over the last 80 years both parties have engaged in an ongoing practice called Gerrymandering, where they redraw the borders of different voting districts to give themselves more favorable odds by selecting which citizens will see their party's stronger names on the ballot. The other factor happened in the 1980's when then president Ronald Reagan enacted a series of regressive social policies, obscene tax incentives for the wealthy and elite that bordered on tax exempt status, and backed these changes up with religious pandering and ethnic scapegoating propaganda. The end result of all this is that today the political spectrum in America is skewed so far to the extreme right end of the spectrum that America's left wing looks like the right leaning center parties in most other developed nations and America's right wing is literally indistinguishable from the Nazi party in the days leading up to WWII.
@@CitanulsPumpkin I said it when Obama was elected as was laughed at by some centrists: Obama had as much in common with Stephen Harper as he does with Justin Trudeau in terms of politics. And that's saying a lot given how much of a centrist, milk-toast Trudeau is politically.
It's weird how unchristian conservatives are while claiming they are. Helping others and not being rich are two enormous parts right there in the Bible.
But also damning people to eternal torture apone death, even after a lifetime of suffering because...they didn't believe in said God so they deserved it...somehow this is *""love""* as conceptualized by christianity. It is all about punishment, and sanctifying ONE path, punishing deviation cruelly and without mercy...because God will's it. It is no surprise that conservatives are mostly religious and or have deeply religious roots, because they have what they believe is an *"eternal truth"* (despite centuries of revisionism..) that must be spread and must not be questioned because...who are we to question God and his (self) appointed mouthpieces right?
Except that encouraging success is the Christian way of making the world a better place. Charity is charitable because it's voluntary. Making a policy to force everyone to be extra charitable would no longer be charity. Soviets tried it and it didn't work. And where does the Bible say being rich is a bad thing? It mentions that rich people may have a hard time getting into heaven because of their earthly attachments, not that being rich is itself a bad thing.
When you said Christian atheist it really sounds like the Irish way of asking one is they're Catholic or Protestants. One is expected to say a religion even if they're atheist. Often people will say "I'm an an atheist and a catholic" . Just thought that was an interesting parallel
In I way I feel it's like Jews who identify with the culture, follow some of the rituals but are utterly divorced from the religion or spirituality. Religions ingrain themselves so deeply in the cultures they parasitize that they will deeply shape it for generations after the religion itself has been done away with. Do note that such a thing needen't be a bad thing. Sometimes religions come up with good ideas (or steal them from the secular), so as long as society keeps the good but ejects the bad like so much refuse, the final effect *can* be a positive one.
I thought that too! In my (predominantly Protestant but technically secular) school, I'd be asked if I was Catholic due to where I was from. Not knowing any better, I'd say that personally, I was atheist, but my family was Catholic. They would of course insist that I was a Catholic. Very confusing at the time, but now I just roll my eyes lol. I don't wanna start an argument 😳
the bookworm hotel in Ireland you could say Catholicism and Protestantism have been racelised because of the centuries of oppression catholic’s have faced
"not because they don't work but because they *shouldn't* work" applies to so many other things - student loan debt forgiveness, UBI, unemployment insurance, guaranteed housing security, to name a few
Ahh yes, the evils of tying my donkey to the local light pole. With the repeal of said law I am finally able to be as evil as I wish. Muahahahahahahahahahaha.
@@Silverwind87 Do laws not result in punishment and consequence? By the way, I never said that a law does not guide people's behavior; it absolutely does.
I'm still reeling from this conservative mindset that was given to me by my friends. It's such a strange mindset. The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus has already taken care of things on a scale of all eternity, and now we are invited to change the world, to lay the foundations, to bring an end to evil. In Christianity, evil has already lost; the remains of its domain are falling apart and moreso with every good action -- and we are empowered to bring about change. Everyone is. But for years, I thought Christianity was in some last-stand battle where it could disappear at any second. *It was as though Jesus wasn't enough.* As if loving your neighbor didn't work. It was as though the survival of the church was more important than being a force for change. Please remember: these people are terrified of problems, too. The problem is that they've heard the line "only Jesus can save" and now have it confused with "only Jesus can change."
"The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus has already taken care of things on a scale of all eternity, and now we are invited to change the world, to lay the foundations, to bring an end to evil." That is the Lightbringer, not Jesus Christ. Combining the greatest of all possible goods, with an impossibly of checking progress in order to justify accumulating as much power as possible is a commonality of all full bloom demonic belief systems. Example- the Cathars- we need to exterminate humanity in order to free everyone from the prison that is the world. Christianity does not offer to bring an end to evil except after the end of the world (which is a fancy way of saying 'not going to happen'). "But for years, I thought Christianity was in some last-stand battle where it could disappear at any second." That has happened multiple times in Christianity. We have Diocletian, Japan in the 16th century, the territories captured by Muslims during the 8th century and some areas of the socialist bloc (Albania straight up banned all religion). Christianity is not historically inevitable- its strength comes from its believers and its doctrine. It either one is weak, it falls apart. "It was as though the survival of the church was more important than being a force for change." The Christians triumphed over the pagans because they had children and the pagans did not. Does being a force for change allow Christians to have children, to obey the Lord's order to be fruitful and multiply? No, it does not, it is merely what is currently fashionable. The way of the world is transitory, but the city of God is eternal.
@@toomanycharacter same with everything else in the world. I think his point is more so that he woke up to the way mainstream Christianity is lived out in the US, specifically in WASP politics (but also including more conservative/fundamentalist communities) vs the way it is actually taught within those same communities. There is such a heavy emphasis on love, on going and loving people genuinely because that’s what the world is missing but, when it is time for that social action to interact with political action, they adopt an almost “spiritual nihilism”. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter “who” doesn’t “agree” on “Christian lore”, the point is that the mainstream evangelicals who are being criticized *do* agree on certain spiritual beliefs that run directly opposed to the way they act politically. For example: it is incredibly easy to pick on how practically every single republican candidate is the son of a pastor, father of a pastor, associate of a pastor, supporter of a pastor, asisten too the regional pastor, etc. They brand themselves as the “christian right”. But, Hillary Clinton, the opposition they treated almost like the embodiment of the anti christ, lead weekly bible studies the entire time her husband was in office. Jimmy Carter is criticized as a failure by the right, but he *still* attends the church he grew up in, and news articles are still regularly published talking about how he was seen helping to build a house for somebody that needed it, or how he is working at X social program, etc. Biden is, if I recall correctly, catholic. While Christianity IN SOCIETY may be practiced in a variety of different ways, MAINSTREAM Christianity (as it is practiced politically) follows a very specific subset of core beliefs that, when people who grow up in religion (like myself) disagree with while retaining their faith (also like myself), feel almost isolating until you manage to leave your bubble and connect with others who have quietly thought the same things.
@@ATTACKofthe6STRINGS They follow the tradition established by 'On the city of God against the pagans' in 410 AD. The political purpose of Christianity is to serve as a state religion, not a theocracy. The reason people converted to Christianity is because Christians had children and pagan Romans did not and Christianity has kept that as its primary purpose ever since, with the job of providing a framework for society when Constantine installed it as the state religion. There are plenty of Christians who believed Christianity was about explaining why they deserved more power because of how Christian they were. We are commanded to judge by its fruits and in every case the results were bad. If 'being more Christian' justifies getting more power, people will keep redefining Christian until it means status maximizing sociopath. Then they will dump the label and declare they are even more moral then Christians. You are here.
This was very eye opening. Especially as a Latino who's family tends to lean toward fascism. We have the same problems in Colombia, it's nice to have it explained!
@@unaizuriarrain1071 ¡Gracias por el amor y el apoyo! ¡Pero mi español en España es terrible! jaja Si prefieres hablar en español, ¡házmelo sabo! But our rise in fascism, at least from what I have seen is actually very reminiscent of Brazil's rise fascism but with a European style mix. As you can probably tell, I am lucky enough to come from a rather well off family to be trained to fluency in english. My mother is a rather dark skinned "native" and my father is a lighter skinned colonial. By that I mean his ancestors are white Europeans colonizers and due to extreme racism of the past there is still a class of wealthy white colonials. However, Colombia is now more than ever an ever growing post racial society, but it still has a problem with the old white colonial families who want to maintain power. And many of them have turned to fascism. Also our country has a dark history of Nazis living in our country but that's unrelated. When I say they're a mixture of Brazilian fascism and European fascism is because many use the chest beating of the macho, masculine kind of behavior of Brazil. While also holding onto a fatalistic and suicide cult view of conquest that European fascism is identifiable with. Luckily they aren't a real problem at the moment. But with the rise of fascism globally they have been making moves lately. But I'm also interested in Spain as well! ¿Cómo está su país?
@@castillogrande8926 If you want, I can answer in English, I think I'm pretty good with this language. I am currently not in Spain, but I keep my attention on what is going on there. There has been a recent surge of the "Vox" party there. It is a nationalist, conservative, neoliberal party. One of the things that scare me the most about them is that they want to ban regional separatist parties. Imagine if Native American interest groups were banned in the USA, it's kinda like this. Some of the far-right in Spain openly claims their heritage from our fascist dictator (Francisco Framco) of the past, wich makes me a bit scared because I am Basque (mira a mí nombre) and my family were with Republican Spain at the time. I hope that my English is good enough. Have Nazis hidden in Columbia like in Brazil or Argentina ? That's scary. Gracias por el testimonio y buena suerte en la vida !
@@unaizuriarrain1071 Actually your english is very good jaja But yes, we have had a Nazi problem. Including a Nazi newspaper in the 1940s. I'm also not currently in Colombia. I'm studying abroad at the University of Pennsylvania. And I'm stuck here until the lockdown is over. But nonetheless, it is frightening to see the state of the world the way it is. It was actually in the United States that I first really face to face experienced open racism. Besides my father's parents refusing to acknowledge me as their grandchild because I'm mixed race. But I never met then, so those fascists could catch COVID for all I care. Anyway, I chose the spanish option at a Giant grocery store self checkout and someone told me to speak American. When I said I am fluent but prefer Spanish, this woman said she would call ICE. I'm far more worried about being in America than Colombian fascists.
@@castillogrande8926 Your paternal grandparents disowned you because of your mother's origin ? That's really heartless. I have seen that even in Peru there were Nazi groups, it's really absurd and shocking. I wonder if the anti-Hispanic discrimination in the USA is a leftover from rivalry between Spain and Britain then the US and Mexico. It is sad when compared to the "A toda mí raza, mí casa es si casa" attitude. The Latinos I know are really kind (and beautiful) people. The situation is really worrying when you see what people are ready to believe. Don't you feel trapped between these two countries ?
One of the arguments that I found most compelling when I, as a liberal, first started reading Marx was his point about capitalism being a product of history rather than a law of nature.
It really is. It's the modern replacement for Pharaoh worship, Royalty, and Feudalism. It is just a new way for a few people to lord over the rest of us because of useful idiots buttressing them. You will notice many parallels -- implying that those who rule over us (capitalist billionaires in this case) are better than us and deserve their lot in life, justifying it with non-falsifiable pseudo religion (the result of the free market is Just because it's what the Invisible Hand wants, and the Invisible Hand is by definition never wrong!), etc.
It's such a profound realisation because our education systems do such a good job of making capitalism appear to be the "natural order" it's always framed as if any deviation is doomed to fail because it not how "the world works". They always leave out how imperialism and meddling in world affairs helps these alternative systems to "fail".
@halupadude Yet nothing ever changes. Did the October Revolution change anything? No, it did not. The Czar was replaced by the General Secretary. The Russian Empire was replaced by the Soviet Empire. Humanity is bound by certain mindsets. Tribalism and hierarchies.
@@dasbubba841 do you think it's possible for people to improve those mindsets? Can people become less tribalistic and less devoted to unjust hierarchy?
"They don't want fewer people to get abortions, they want people who get abortions to get punished" is my favourite explanation ever for the conservative mindset.
@Jesus Christ Then I suppose you support comprehensive sex education, free and easy access to contraceptives, and all the things we could do to lower the rates of unwanted pregnancy?
@Jesus Christ the problem is that this doesn't work. There is no evidence of it working anywhere. Governments must rely on methods that produce results. Expecting that adults will simply abstain from sex is just wishful thinking. So is expecting people to want children in this economy
@Jesus Christ you misinterpreted me. Abstaining from sex only works for individuals, not populations. If you want something to change, you need to implement policies. Not even religious schools, where morals are taught and enforced, are able to prevent teen pregnancy. So saying that the government should step back isn't gonna solve the problem. It's like preventing crime by hoping that people will not commit it. If you don't support any policy to solve the problem, and you only want the government to punish people, how is the sentence that started this thread a lie?
A stray thought that entered my head while you were talking about the Conservative mindset's resistance to talking about systemic change, because it requires thinking about incremental effects on populations (around the 4 minute mark). While I do definitely hear many political conservatives argue in this fashion, some of them at least are very cognizant about how systemic tweaks can cause incremental change in the aggregate, because they use that logic effectively when they deploy voter suppression. Decreasing the number of polling places in poor and minority neighborhoods would not, in principle, prevent a committed voter from voting.... but its worth doing because they know it will have an effect in the aggregate, and they know that this will be useful to their political project. This is one of the things that makes me want to dismiss Payroll-guy's arguments as not just a different mind set, but a purposefully deployed mindset, used to construct a tactically useful bad faith argument against systemic change which they oppose, for other, unstated reasons. I'm not sure to what extent they believe it themselves, but it smells of doublethink.
I think there's an important distinction between conservative citizen and conservative politician. Republican senators don't believe a word they're saying. It's a total flimflam.
@@LimeyLassen It's just that I think most Republican voters know and tacitly approve of the strategy. They know it serves their political aspirations, so they don't oppose it, even though it flies in the face of Democratic Ideals. So, they understand and approve the logic when it serves their aims, they just fail to understand the same logic under other, 'special' circumstances.
@@Natabus You make a good point. I also think it's very easy for Republican voters to apply the exact logic as mentioned in the video though with voter suppression stuff. If you're an upstanding citizen then you'll navigate the red tape to vote, right? If you don't then that's a personal failing. It's totally consistent with their approach to all the various societal ills -- "Some people stray from the path. That's their fault if they do. Punish them lest their soul be damned." Also they view it as preventing voter fraud, not pushing voter suppression. I think your average Republican voter isn't thinking about incrementalism or systemic voter patterns -- they just want to make sure "people can't commit voter fraud". Same as making it harder to get an abortion. As the video said, it's ultimately about determining which behaviors deem someone worthy of retribution. As another commenter said though, I think it's entirely different when talking about actual politicians. They have power to wield.
This was painful to watch because it's so accurate. I've spent years discussing politics with people who seem soooo passionate about the things they speak of yet all they ever seem to do is judge. They don't care about facts, they don't care about solutions, they ONLY care about being RIGHT
Pffft, no, it isnt. This video cuts off the arguments conservatives give riiiight when they talk about solutions so that the narrator can gloat about how “conservatives cannot offer solutions” and “all they want is to punish, not fix”, which is complete and utter nonsense if you actully talk to and listen to American conservatives. Solutions proposed by conservatvies to help mitigate school shootings: Do what hospitals do when they have an active shooter: smart locks on the halls to keep the shooter from going anywhere, and keep armed guards near the school. That way you protect the kids and dont trample on the Constitution. Solutions for abortion: Keep it legal in cases where it is necessary, support proper sex ed, and promote families educate their kids on the subject. Solutions for healthcare: Keep a safety net (which we already have), give doctors more freedom to innovate and make treatments cheaper. We may not be perfect, but we are not what the video suggests.
Daniel fmatosrivera except we’ll never hear that abortion solution come out of a republican politician’s mouth without being immediately tarred as a cuckservative by Fox News and the rest of the trump cult.
@@dfmrcv862 This video isn't about conservative policy, but the conservative mindset. If you think someone other than a pregnant woman should decide when an abortion is necessary, you're trying to impose your idea of correct morality on someone else's actions and that's exactly the conservative mindset this video covers.
As a Progressive Christian, who grew up among conservatives and evangelicals, can I just say that I really appreciate the way you deconstruct their world views in this series? Like, as I got interested in politics I began to realize how incompatible my religion theoretically should be with their political views and you really help me understand where their reasoning come from. I really do appreciate it.
Check out the youtube channel Damon Garcia. He's an ex-evangelical who talks about the intersection of Christianity and leftist politics. You might really like it.
It's what happens when Christians see themselves as separate from the world. When you lean too hard into the "God's chosen people" identity. We are not called to insulate ourselves from the world, but to change it for Him. Otherwise, it just becomes a tool of ingroup/outgroup ego stroking.
Agreed with everything you said. As a believer in Christ myself, I am also watching these videos and it helps me realise how, in fact, Christianity contradicts many conservative views rather than supporting them. This is something I wish more Christians in the US would wake up and realise. God willing.
It reminds recently on my dad( who religious but left wing) saying that most evangelical Christians and traditional Catholics(and to extend religious fundamentalism) aren’t in for the teachings and spirituality of religion, but rather the punishment and order it gives aka the cult like atmosphere. Basically the punishment of hell rather then the forgiveness of sin
If the only framework we have is one where the options are "terrible" and "Even More terrible," then however much harm reduction we do, the framework needs to change.
@@youtubeuniversity3638 vote for third party candidates in the house senate and presidency who are running on a platform of changing the framework for the better.
The situation in Israel brought this video to mind. Quite a few people consider the only valid reaction to the attack by Hamas to be "Palestinians are simply evil and must be punished for their evil." Anything else they call "supporting terrorism" No interest in understanding what motivated the attack, no interest in what keeps Hamas armed and active, no real interest in trying to prevent similar events from repeating in the future. Just a Monday.
well, to be fair, i've also seen lots of people argue that israel is attacking gaza like it is because "they want to genocide the palestinians because they're evil"
True i was like that aswell. Well i still am and i wont lose any sleep over palestine getting bombed for doing a dumb move I do understand why they did. Because before that israel was skeeming and kept on pissing off the palestinians until they lash out and play the victim card. However i just cant accept the level of barbarism commited by hamas and how palestinians spitted on a mutilated female corpse that hamas paraded through the streets I went from "screw gaza" to "i just dont give a shit who wins just dont cause problems at my home"
I don’t care what motivated the attack. Hamas was not forced to do it. And because I’m a country which lists them as a terrorist organisation I have no choice but to side against them. This isn’t about Palestine, it’s about Hamas specifically.
@@paulsmart4672 I am not saying that Palestinians are evil. I'm just saying I don't want to side with terrorists meaning I have to side with Israel by default. The reasons for the attack whatever they are may explain things, but they don't excuse them. I simply don't care about the reasons. I'm just not interested in anything else besides the fact that Hamas is listed as terrorists in my country and that they're the ones that started this conflict. [any previous conflicts are technically separate wars, so i'm not counting them for the sake of argument] this war is about Israel defending itself and having a chance to get rid of a controversial political party in Gaza as a result.
As an Australian who was there for the gun buyback and knows exactly why we needed it, and who heard every argument from every angle at the time (some of it very angry from some corners as I live in a semi rural area and there is a legit need for some guns), and who has since witnessed what the real changes were (every farmer has their necessary guns, every sporting shooter still gets to shoot at their club, guns stored in family homes are now stored safely, in locked cabinets with ammo locked elsewhere on the premises, and most wonderfully our deaths-by-guns stats dropped right back and we feel comparatively safe and happy), when telling any US rightwingers about the fact that we had ZERO mass gun murders since 1996 (up until I think one in the last year or so when we had one), they immediately pivot to several points. 1) oh but the stats lie you must have just redefined "mass gun killing" 2) oh but there are still gun killings as every criminal kept their guns 3) oh but now all the guns are illegal guns you dont know about 4) oh but I bet its just as bad as now they use knives and freaking sticks or something 5) oh but the US is amazingly unique and different to Australia because we care about Capital-EFF-Freedom unlike you Aussies (wtf REALLY! do you even THINK about who you are talking to?) My father stopped wrapping his shotgun in a blanket and storing it under the bed (where I realised it had always been when we were kids and I am so glad we never pulled it out by accident), and he began locking it in a proper metal cabinet. That's a win--it was about education and realistic minimisation as much as "stripping people of gun rights". My nana stopped handing us kids I grew up as a teenager going shooting on farms, as there were rabbits, foxes, goats and roos to be culled. It was very strictly controlled. No alcohol, no disrespect or unnecessary cruelty to animals, holding every gun correctly pointing to the ground, everyone has their position in the back of the ute and nobody ever shoots across the company. No semi-autos or autos needed, as why would they even be necessary? And no ridiculous family portraits ever needed to be taken with everyone (including toddlers) posing with a high powered automatic rifle (mum with a pink one ffs) because when guns are actually needed as tools, no stupid political posturing is required to attempt to justify them. The point to that god-awful run-on screed above (my apologies) is that they don't want to hear, no matter how sensible and what the stats and anecdotal experience is and I've only mentioned one issue as an example. Despite being able to provide stats, and pretty wide anecdotal evidence as someone who lives in a blended rural-urban area, there is no debate to be had if one side feels no need to be involved. The biggest resistance is the "Oh but we are Exceptional Unicorns with a 2nd amendment and we can't have our government take us over so we may need to revolt at any time". Perhaps then I should counter with something like "oh ok...great country you got there then...huh?"
Couple things , I dont think you comprehend the differences that caused by a change in scale and history , Something at one scale will not apply to another scale Australia has around 25 million people , America has 328 million people with the single state california being nearly 2x as big. With the massive scale difference many of the policys that work in Australia wouldnt work. Another thing is history with america we had the american revolution and are fiercely independent because of it and something of a ban has been tried in our history prohibition and it fail badly so it show something like it unlikely to work. Compared to Australian history were it was penal colony that already had hard laws set already and currently you are still under a constitutional monachy with the queen being the queen of Australia as well with that Australia hasnt really shown the same furious independence as the U.S. one last thing I am not sure if you understand U.S gun law but automatic weapons have been banned 40 years at this point(any automatic gun seen now were grandfathered in.) and nearly every legal weapon in america is semi automatic with most pistols being semi automatic and most citizen dont want to be fighting intruder with inferior firepower.
@@Saxton_Hoovy Thanks for your response, Luis. I do have an understanding about these differences, as have many US friends and we debate passionately and often. It certainly can be interesting to look into the reasons why those in the US say it can't work. I do know that you as a country value your sense of freedom. Many people around the world do. It is a basic and universal human desire. I get that. One thing that perhaps you need to understand is that only some parts of Australia were once settled as penal colonies. Not all. A "prisoner mentality" has never been a part of the vast majority of Australians' culture, and it's a stereotype that needs to die in a fire. (I blame the film industry.)Most of us have no links whatsoever to those first shipments of English prisoners, as we have come from everywhere. Some of us were here earlier, some families were free English settlers, some came from all over the world after waves of war and need for a free life brought them. They came because they too value this freedom that you love. This is off topic, but since you brought it up, I personally, and most Australians I speak with would love to see the end of our constitutional links with England and the monarchy. Can't deny that, and its certainly past time. I guess we just don't see the need for an actual war over it, so it's not made it to the top of the list for a while ;) All the best to you :)
@@TiffyVella1 At this point I feel that most americans against it like me cant put a real finger on why it would go wrong just that we know it will. While the want of freedom is a human necessity how much is express in different countries vary with america being so freedom loving it will do things to it detriment just because it had the freedom to do so but not all countries are like this a country like germany may have a complete different view on how much freedom it values.It kinda was stupid of me to think Australia hasnt changed at all since it was a penal colony and wouldnt have the same ideas.regarding the monarchy I wonder if it because most people forget that she is queen of Australia in the first place so it not even on their radar. I wish the same for you:)
@@Saxton_Hoovy Down here we are having a discussion on what Freedom means, because we may all say we want it, but it means different things to different groups. We all agree that we value it highly, but we aren't really agreeing on the same thing at all. It seems that some want the "freedom to"-- freedom to do what they as individuals want. Some want a "freedom from"- freedom from being forced to live with the consequences of what the first group do with their freedom. Freedom of the individual vs responsibility to society, and where and how to draw the line and who gets to decide where its drawn. This messy dilemma came up with the gun restriction debate, and its coming up now with the Covid lockdown debate. I do not have a perfect answer, and know that left-wing and right-wing ideology is pretty much split right down the line. I know the US is also facing these questions. Hope we get it sorted!
Yes, its absolutelly great to write a paragraph about gun control, and completely disregard what others think about it. " No semi-autos or autos needed, as why would they even be necessary? " Well, let's imagine, hypothetically, your government says that taxes are not 30% or waddever% but are instead 95%. Also decides to go 1 party system, also you can't criticize the party and the gov decides that all citizens of the nations are now gov's property, what do you do? Also there are no fully automatic weapons available for purchase in the US, its all semi auto. God damn it you don't even know the basics yet talk how great your country when most of killings are suicides and gang violence. If gun crime was as bad as you make it to be BLM would have been hell.
@MexicanTacos 07 Hasn't he established that the way people think about mondays is somewhat "universal"? How saying "you" makes this a communist echochamber? "The way you think about mondays" still holds true (in the generalized sense) even if you're conservative. Also, alt-right playbook illustrates common behaviors by creating characters that embody them, which, by nature, is a generalization, we know that, it's for didactic purposes. Ian certainly seems to not be interested in being careful by adding perfect nuance to convey each point without offending conservatives, I also think he was already too careful in many point throughout the series. Also, I'm not really talking to you, I'm 90% sure you're not here to have a serious discussion. I'm just making a counter-argument public.
@MexicanTacos 07 Oh sure: why bother addressing and unpacking a talking point in good faith when you can just red bait and call any contrary or dissenting opinion and calling anyone you don't like "Communists" wither or not someone or the subject is actually communist. And Conservative's say left wingers are the "Feelz over reals" crowd who hates facts and logic?
whoa whoa whoa, which consequentialists say you're equally responsible for inactions as actions? Seems like you skipped some ground there cause that doesn't necessarily follow from consequentialism, and consequentialism isn't the only game in town anyway, and even within consequentialism, the real devil is in how you define "most ethical outcome." You present deontology here as being about feelings or being quasi-religious but it needn't be. I feel like you give it pretty short shrift here, to be honest - you say as well that deontology is much more common and intense on the right but like, how do you know that?
Without wanting to sound as negative as I inevitably will, I think the Alt-Right Playbook has become intellectually lazier over the years - this video is more "I'm going to strawman conservatism and treat it as though it is a result of obvious intellectual deficiency" than analysis of the social structures and mindframes that created the rise of the alt-right. In a weird way, I think this channel is becoming more and more of the type of echo chamber that it used to be so critical of (though obviously substantively different).
I thought the thing with being more common and intense on the right, instead of just "deontology" he was also including the other stuff he was describing about morality being about punishing evildoers so that essentially good people are kept safe from essentially bad people or whatever. Seems like it jumped around different ideas a bit, I can't really tell.
Does it not stand to reason that, if consequentialism bases the value of a choice on its outcome, and you not acting has a direct, tangible consequence, that you are responsible for the outcome of your inaction? Being inactive is after all still a choice, and not a neutral one. The most ethical outcome would be strictly personal, I assume. What is the most ethical outcome for you may not be for me, so yes, maybe he was short about it, but I'm not sure there's a whole lot more to say on it in this context.
I know I'm on a thin rope here, beïng a non-formal-philosophizer non-leftist, but I'm a big fan of both of y'all's content; please hear me out. The point of this video (and of this video series, near as I can tell) is to provide analysis of common bad-faith tactics of right-wing people and give possible explanations on why they would feel compelled to use such tactics. Many vids in this series seem to tackle a completely unhelpful approach that some kind of right-winger (be he a 4channer, IRL Alt-Right, moderate, etc) takes, and to try to explain not only that approach, but why it is unhelpful/counterproductive. This is a post-hoc explanation, where I.S. is trying to give voice to his own thoughts on the matter. I read your comment as saying "Mercury doesn't change its orbit! Kepler already proved orbits don't change!", while someone is trying to explain why Mercury's orbit changes over time. Einstein solved that problem later, but surely there were other people using existing theories to try to explain it. When I watch this video, and all of his ARP videos, I see an American left-winger trying to explain the pure alienness of the conservative mind, a mind wholly detatched from any concept he has of morality. He cannot exactly explain it, much as any sciëntific researcher, but he tries anyway.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." We've gone so far by making incremental improvements, that we call progress. When you stop improving, and accept everything as fact of life, you are actually starting to go backwards.
@@Veolynn13 2 right wing parties. None that are even politically adjasent to me and shit is falling appart, but sure, _I'm_ the problem. Totally logical conclusion there /s
Although in my experience, arguments like "It's still not good enough" are only a smokescreen for the real motivation that draws people to the right wing: a fixation on everybody getting exactly what they "deserve"... never mind how sloppy their accounting of "deserving-ness" can be. So you could propose the most positively pragmatic solution to society's ills that does the most good for the most people possible, and these people ignore all that because what they're really hung up on is, "But somebody might get something they didn't 'earn'!" or, "But somebody who did something bad might not get punished enough!" Which, to be as charitable as possible, is vastly overrating the power of incentives, but I suspect it's really just a worship of "perfect judgment" as an end in itself as you said. And yet it's still weird to me that this intersects with evangelical Christianity so much, because what, do they not trust God to execute judgment Himself? Actually another thing this video reminds me of is how Jesus saying "The poor you will always have with you" was supposed to be an indictment of humanity for never doing enough to eliminate poverty, but too often the takeaway is, "You'll never completely eliminate poverty, so you're a fool to even try." Is the perfect really the enemy of the good, or is that just a convenient excuse for doing nothing to help anyone for real?
@@BagOfMagicFood There's some Calvinism here, I think: The idea popped up that material success in life is a sign of divine favour, that you're saved (since each of us is predetermined for salvation or damnation), and thus the people with little is determined to have little, they have what God thinks they deserve, and they're already damned. Though, logically, I guess that if policies can give people more than God thinks they deserve, that means we can sort of overrule God? I dunno
@@oskarhenriksen Hmm, besides the monetary worth = moral worth thing, Calvinism might explain why the right wing gets so desperate to claim they've never done anything wrong ever... But then when their chosen party has done something indefensible in recent memory, suddenly the "Both sides!"ers show up in full force to try to muddy the waters enough to discourage you from joining the opposition. Just seems to be something disingenuous going on there...
It's like when antivaxxers say "vaccinations have side-effects, so I won't vaccine until they're 100% safe". It's a black-and-white world to them. Nirvana or bust.
In germany "this would send the wrong signal" is a popular "argument" among conservatives, for example when it comes to legalizing weed. It's not about the consequences of something, it's about the implications. If you speak german check out unruly julys video about it, she makes a very similar point to the one that is made in this video.
"Nothing short of literally defeating death would be enough" ---- ooh no no no, they would definitely not be ok with that. it would be playing god, or death is what makes us human, or some other crap. so literally, nothing would be enough.
This video is prophetic.
JD Vance has literally described school shootings as a fact of life.
'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Not prophetic, just describing how conservatives have always and will always think
Maybe they would stop if we stopped giving black people guns.
Actually, no. I just fact-checked this. In the often-misquoted speech he actually laments that school shootings are a fact of life. I encourage you to research this.
@@ThirdStrongestMasteryeah, that’s what the OP literally said? That JD Vance said “shootings are simply a part of life”.
I find it truly terrifying how the best way to bond with people you see 8 hours a day is casually state how we all don't want to be here.
Perfect example of Marx's alienation of the worker from other workers. 😔
@@Dorian_sapiens Marx just gave it a name.
@@LisaBeergutHolst Sure. That's what social scientists (and natural scientists) do. They name and describe phenomena. Marx was surely not the first person to observe alienation, but he gave one of the first and best descriptions of it. That's valuable.
@@LisaBeergutHolst That's basically how all of science works. Do you think gravity cares whether we call it gravity or not? Or who we attribute to describing it? It matters to _us_ though; and naming things is how we honour those who added to our shared lexicon of knowledge. That is our superpower as a species. Least we can do is honour those who wrote their addendum to it.
Then you try to hand out cool-aid, and suddenly you're the crazy one.
The entire war on drugs was about punishing the wicked rather than reducing drug use.
It wasn't about punishing the wicked, it was about punishing blacks for being black
@@pawmo3162 Let's also add creating a fake boogie man, when the real issue is capitalism, who loves schadenfreude.
It was a *big* stupid misunderstanding by uninterested politicians imo
@@pawmo3162 (That was the implication - also, they were targeting youth counter-culture movements and the underclasses, not just brothers).
@@pawmo3162 Wrong, but a very obvious sentiment use by black people who did get the brunt of the deal, proportinally.
It was a plan to turn the poor parts of society or those that do not take part in it, into free labour by criminalizing all drug use and possesion.
I love how it always goes like it was cuz they are black, no, free labour is more important to them than your skin color.
The rhetoric that goes:
"why have a public healthcare system, you can't defeat death" moves on the same basis as the quote: "why have code of laws outlawing homicide, people are going to kill people either way".
Oh yes, I very much know. I pointed out that that line of thinking is literally arguing against the existence of laws in general MANY a times. I told this to a gun nut and he called me an idiot. I think the worst part was him actually believing in calling me that. 🙃🙃🙃
Unrelated but I really like your sun design on your profile. Makes me super nostalgic. Remember seeing that everywhere in the 80's.
Why follow religion? People are going to Hell either way
@@AzafTazarden "Why follow religion? People are going to Hell either way"
You didn't get it. YOU can follow religion, and YOU can save yourself from hell. But if people go to hell anyways then it's not your problem and you are not expected to save everyone from it.
Ok but how does this apply for abortions
To me, this is the problem I always associate with School bullying.
Me: "I keep getting bullied, and I want it to stop."
Them: "Bullying is a fact of life. I got bullied, and it sucked. Now you're getting bullied. Quit whining."
Me: "But wouldn't it be better if nobody got bullied?"
Them: "Yes, but everybody does, so get over it."
I *hate* this mindset, and it's especially galling to see it come from parents, teachers, and even fellow victims of bullying. There is nothing inevitable about a kid collaring you in the school locker room, shoving you into a closet, punching you until you think you've been stabbed, turning the light out and locking the door behind him.
I know it's fashionable, on the internet, to pretend like you're not emotional, you're a creature of pure, cold logic. The worst thing you can do on the internet is write a rant, because that means you're upset - and if you're upset, you must therefore be wrong. But bullying did real damage to me as a child, and I never want anybody to experience what I went through. There was nothing useful learned by being threatened with a knife, or having a door closed on my hands, or having friends ushered away from me like I was a leper. It didn't make me a better person, and it didn't improve my education in any way. Damn right I'm upset. People, you are not powerless to address your problems - and I'll be *damned* if you tell me it's not worth my effort to try and fix them, just because you're too much of a coward. Screw that. And I will always remember the teachers who failed to help me when I needed them most. I will remember you: Unfavourably.
And to my fellow "troublemakers" - more power to you, comrades. I'll see you in detention.
Agree wholeheartedly
Cinderball, you deserve many internet claps, my friend.
Agreed that mindset is a self fulfilling prophesy. Cynicism and being judgemental is lazily pretending to be "realistic" while actually being defeatist. The people who advanced science, culture and business had a growth mindset, determined to change the as-is.
This is also the same logic they use when the left proposes canceling debts. Everyone has debts it's not fair on the people who have already got out of debt if we cancel it for those who have it now.
It's "I suffered, and so you should suffer too."
@@Gibbons3457 yeah and so continues the ritual of hazing regardless of how views have changed
Huh, I was starting to define the region I live in as "christian atheist" in the sense that everyone here is claiming to be an atheist but its still very much just christianity but without going to church more then twice a year and no praying
The word you're looking for is "secular".
I used to be Christian, but it confused and disturbed me that so many people who claimed to share my faith, turned out not to be serious about it. They weren't turning up to regular church services - they didn't remember to thank God, or say their prayers - and they didn't seem to ever let Jesus' words guide their behaviour. They were unkind, dishonest and cruel, just like anybody else. Eventually, I walked away from the church. When my own faith began to wane, I didn't feel like going through the sham any more. Better to be sincerely doubtful, than pretend you believe.
Most folk use the phrase "oh my god" ironically
I've heard this mindset referred to as "cultural Christian" too. I've never quite understood the attraction. If you've come to the conclusion that the bible is not factual, then why on earth continue to staunchly defend biblical morality? It seems completly illogical, a purely emotional attachment. Yet it is often deffended by those same people who are quick to point out the immorality of accepting cruel and unethical traditions when they come from any other "cultural" background but a Christian one. It's a bizarre mix!
cloud atlas because leaving behind a book is a hell of a lot easier than leaving behind the moral beliefs you’ve been raised with your entire life
Every time I'm having a discussion and I come up against someone's belief that "It's just the way the world is," I feel such a wave of anger and despair that I tend to quit the conversation, or just assert furiously that "NO IT ISN'T," which isn't very persuasive. Thanks for this video! With your help, I might get a little better at talking with people.
Try with "Wait, is it?" and keep going from that ;)
I go with something more like "Only because people like you choose for it to be."
Ultimately its heuristics.
We get the world we make.
Even if this is how the world is, that's no reason to believe it's *how it should be*, which is what they are actually saying.
"Oh god, the house is on fire!"
"Not all fires are harmful."
"Yeah, but this particular fire is. We need to put it out!"
"Why should I? I'm not responsible for starting the fire, why should I be the one who puts it out?"
"Because right now, the fire is affecting both of us! You don't have to be responsible for a mess to clean it up."
"Well, maybe I just care about personal responsibility! You shouldn't be reliant on others to solve all your problems!"
"We both live in this house! Right now, my problem is also your problem!"
"If you don't like this house, why don't you just leave?"
"Because right now, putting out the fire is easier than finding a new house!"
"Even if you put out the fire, there's just gonna be another one. You can't regulate fires."
"We can regulate _this_ fire, BY EXTINGUISHING IT!"
"Well, who's gonna pay for it? You aren't entitled to my labor!"
"Who gives a fuck about monetary incentive? THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE!"
"But not all fires are harmful!"
EDIT: Guys, I _do not care_ if you own a gun or not. Go ahead, arm yourself. Just be prepared to protect the people actually being harmed by mass shootings. You know, the people who are statistically likely to be minorities. Also this bit wasn't even about gun control. It was about white supremacy. You know who's statistically more likely to commit mass shootings? White supremacists. The fact that so many people thought I was saying "Guns are bad, nobody should have guns, we need to confiscate all guns," shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to say anything on the internet without at least ONE person misinterpreting it, no matter how clear and concise you were.
This is an excellent summary of what it's like to try to talk to a Conservative, and also why it's pointless to try to talk to a Conservative.
The above talking points aren't actually points. They aren't intended to convince you that the Conservative's opinion is correct. They're excuses for the Conservative to rationalize why it''s okay for him/her to believe or support something they know to be wrong.
The Conservative WANTS the house to be on fire. They WANT it to burn down. They lit the fire themselves, and fanned it and blew on it and cherished it like an unborn fetus. The argument is just the smoke. It's what they do to keep people from looking too hard at what they're doing, or to deny and delay attempts to fix the damage they cause. But they WANT the damage done.
Conservatives want Women to be treated unfairly in the workplace and in relationships. They want Gays to be denied rights and Trans people to be beaten and murdered. They WANT Black people to be shot by the police. And deep down, in the pit of their little malformed hearts, they KNOW these things are wrong. So they have to construct excuses for why it should be allowed. And that's all the argument is.
The argument is just a smokescreen. A blind. As long as they can keep us arguing, as long as they can trick us into thinking they can be convinced to change their ways, they win.
I'm not trying to sound like I'm being rude but this wording makes it really hard for me to tell who's right here.
@@cherrycolareal the person that wants to put out the fire is correct
@@cherrycolareal… the one that wants to live? And put out the fire…
@@nirvanaheights You don't need to make me sound stupid
Warning: This video is not about Garfield
A real shame, we should talk about President Garfield more!
ight imma head out
The little cartoon man even looks like John Arbuckle
Indeed he does.
damn it. I wish this had been on the beginning of the video so I didn't have to spend 15 minutes garfieldless
This mindset also tragically prevents people from trying to push for shorter work weeks and jobs that aren't soul-crushing, which would solve the problem of Mondays
Exactly. The current system did not form "naturally", and a functional economy couldn't work without it. It was imposed on us by industrialists who wanted to wring as much value from the labor of the working class, at the lowest cost to them. Monday to Friday, 9 to 5 is the standard because it's convenient for the owner class.
Co-worker 1: I hate Mondays.
Co-worker 2: Me too, lets stop the miserable work week by ending capitalism!
Co-worker 1:TO HELL WITH YOU, YOU PINKO COMMIE MARXIST BLAH BLAH BLAH!!
Co-worker 3: It's clearly the Jews, Blacks, Women, Mexicans, Chinese, blah blah etc fault we work on Mondays.
Co-worker: 1: OMG YOU'RE SO RIGHT! DAMN THEM! WE SHOULD STOP THEM!
I have never understood why the former of identifying our current system as a problem doesn't work yet identifying a biological group one usually isn't apart of often does with Conservatives until now. We hate the same thing but not for the same reasons so we reach or are open to very different solutions.
@@Bluecho4 actually the 40 hour work week was a compromise with the unions of yesteryear. Those industrialists would rather you work 24/7 at your job, live by your job site, and even die on the job than give you any time off, sick leave, or safety standards. Also those same industrialists are okay with kids old enough to walk working in that environment because they are great at fixing hard to reach places. Capitalists are monsters.
@@Bluecho4 we need more immigrants to lower the labor market value and make the poor people even poorer it will increase gdp and my stocks
@@Fafnd Yeah that's the power of workers uniting as a class, it's our responsibility to always push further.
“Society is the creation of Man, if something is wrong we can change it” Olof Palme
Well, we all know how that turned out.
Erik Solfors Lundberg RIP Olof. Like Hans Rosling, those two great men led the world in change for the better.
Olaf Padme
@@Bushflare Well, I see no assumption "that man can change _every_ aspect of himself" here, or the need for that. A change of one's natural dis/abilities is not needed, if one can create or find an environment or lifestyle that is suited to one's needs and abilities, and brings out the best in that person. Even people scoring high on the dark triad can find a good way of life not detrimental or even beneficial to others, if they find a niche where they can apply their abilities towards neutral or beneficial causes.
@@Bushflare Do you need to physically transform into a car to drive 100 kilometres or do you enter a car that you then drive there? Think about that one cause it's one of the dumbest things out there to claim you cannot do anything at all without yourself having to change before doing the action. It's physically impossible.
To put this Monday issue into a medical context:
Doctor: ok you got a problem, it's serious but it's treatable. But you need to follow a stepped medical procedure. It's not going to be easy and I cannot guarantee success but statistically it's the best shot we have
Patient: nah, too difficult. I am dying anyway.
The quack: I got a solution, this all cure tonic will solve your problems and grant you immortality, no fuzz no muzz. How does it work ? Oh nevermind that, just pay me.
Patient: holy smokes, I am sold.
Doctor:, are you fcking kidding me.
Exactly what being a health care worker is like
Why are people so... Stupid?😭 It's getting frustrating
@@moshroomm thinkign,... to hard[d..
Did the quack told the patient to drink bleach to make Covid go away?
then blame the healthcare when the tonic does fa
This gave me a sudden understanding of my father. Ever since he and my brother started turning really radical-reactionary (2016-ish? Mostly the Trump boom spilling over into Canada, I think.) he's been obsessed with constantly subjecting himself to material riling him up into irrationality over things he finds 'evil', but seemingly incapable of any real desire to change things for the better or avert or mitigate evil, only punish it. In fact, it's seemed that "change" is on his list of things he finds 'evil', with how he spits the word 'activist' in the same way he does 'communist' or 'liberal', as interchangeable signifiers of evil otherness.
Your dad just sounds old.
Obviously communists are evil because they wish to take our individual liberties, but most conservatives in the US believe everyone has a right to free speech.
It's our own little Achilles heel. We believe in small government so we don't silence ideas going against it.
Then the big government idiots get in power, screw the country over until something akin to the 1970s Church committee reveals the screw up and conservatives get back in power but don't want to use the big government power so they just... Well... Conserve.
Well the issue with activism may either be an association with rioters or people in their life who just can’t stop talking about problems around them, which is easy to get sick of when you’re just a guy, not one of the people in power who made things the way they are
Ask the cubans how great communism is.
@@whtwolf100 Ask them if they hate Mondays.
@@1495978707 so the issue with activism is that its doing its job? that you're hearing about it and its getting attention? bringing change? thats what activism is. who cares if you dont want to hear it. its essential. suck it up.
Somewhat reminds me of the folks that love to say "Life isn't fair" when you try to bring up any kind of criticism for how a system works. On the whole, WE make life unfair for each other by sheer stupidity, selfishness or pride generally. Life can ALWAYS be more fair, just takes more work from all of us to do it.
I always respond. "Actually LIFE is neutral. People are either fair or unfair. Which are you?"
True but then one must ask what the necessary trade offs are going to be when any given action is taken to try and make life more fair. Something those on the left have a tendency to ignore. Fairness and equality are far from the only virtues in need of consideration if you ask me.
@@dbojangles1597 Of course. The necessary trade offs must always be weighed. Just our of curiosity, what virtues are you worried about in addition to fairness and equality?
@@tomtimelord7876 Well if i'm just spit balling here overall societal advancement/functionality and individual liberties come to mind. I would say the former is my primary concern. I don't think a sense of fairness should come before the well being of society as a whole. Obviously you don't want people to be more equal if that just means everyone is equally worse off.
@@dbojangles1597 Nope, don't want everyone to be worse off. I would say though that I believe there are many instances where the common good does and should take priority over individual liberties. For instance, I think heroin should be illegal. But marijuana legal. I think there should be some basic gun control laws, but the legal purchase of firearms shouldn't be banned entirely.
You surgically articulated in 15 minutes an internal journey that took me 30 years to work through and that i'm only now on the other side of. Nice work
I'm so glad I had the internet in my hands growing up. I feel like my political journey went hyperspeed from ages 12 to 20 and I've just been solidifying my understanding of theory ever since
channel break lmfao good one
Hey man, at least you made it and glad to have you. Just keep remaining determined; apathy is killer. Keep educating yourself and keep fighting for human rights.
@channel break *you're
@channel break I gotta agree with @Horny Fruit Flies on this one. Using the correct your/you're is more important than using complete sentences.
Coming back to watch this four years later after J.D. Vance claimed that shootings are just "a fact of life" is insane
A fact of life that DOESN'T SEEM TO HAPPEN ANYWHERE ELSE with this degree of regularity.
One thing about punishment: we fetishize revenge. I can't count how many times I've heard someone say they want criminals to be tortured in prison, which doesn't make the commenter look any better than the actual criminal.
More irony, literally the bible has at least two stories I clearly remember the point was that revenge is not worth pursuing.
Agree
This is a bit everywhere, thematically, and kinda long, but I figure it's worth it to transcribe it here. Take what you will from this if you see it. Have a nice day, folx.
A man sits in a prison cell. "This is not justice," he says.
His cellmate laughs, "Well, they keep saying it is."
"Well it isn't."
"Then what is it?" His cellmate asks, intrigued.
The man pauses. Then, "Vengeance," he states simply.
"Exactly," came the immediate reply. "That is what it always was. This society never cared about rehabilitating people, or better yet, making it so they don't even need to be rehabilitated in the first place. No. They crave the catharsis of vengeance. Feels good, but it doesn't actually solve anything."
"A-are you saying punishment doesn't work?" the man asks, incredulous.
"No, it doesn't. It gives the illusion that it works, for a while, because it elicits a temporary compliance through fear, but not genuine desire to be better. Punishment, you see, is predicated on fear, but loyalty born of fear will stab you in the back the moment someone can offer more fear.
"You see, fear is fickle. Love is true loyalty. People will both kill and die for love, but not for fear. For fear, they will only kill. They will never sacrifice themselves for it, because fear is self preservation."
"Oh, yeah? Watch your family get murdered, and then tell me you don't believe in punishment."
"Well, of course, I'd probably be so struck with grief and rage that I'd want to dish out the punishment myself. Maybe I'd torture them for as long as possible before brutally killing them, but what does it say about your argument when I have to be severely emotionally compromised to agree with it?
"In the present, you see, while all my mental faculties are lucid, I'm telling you that punishment is vengeance, and vengeance does not solve problems. It perpetuates them."
"I-if this kind of punishment doesn't work, then why do they do it?"
"You know, this is the third time I've been back in prison. Each offense was more serious than the previous. The first time I got out, I could not make any money. Had that stigma of being an ex-con. I made a lot of connections in here, so I had options, but they were all illegal.
"You think they don't know what they're doing? If they were trying to end crime, sending people off to the goddamn criminal college and then preventing them from finding honest work is just about the worst way to do it. But you know what? I bet it feels real good to throw someone in here. A culture of vengeance."
"You think they don't solve the problem, on purpose?"
His cellmate laughs again. "They know how to stop it: education, opportunity, prosperity. There's clear cut examples that show how to actually eliminate crime. So, what's the logical reason they don't take those clear cut uncontroversial steps?
"Poverty is not a bug, it's a feature. Without us serfs, their system is unsustainable. They prop up the exceptions to the rule, so that they can blame us for our failure to succeed in a system that works against us. Every. Step. Of the way. They need it to be this way, so that they can hoard success.
"They rig the game and call it a fair competition, a meritocracy. When, in actuality, a meritocracy is the last thing they want. The losers don't even get what they need to survive, while the winners take *everything*.
"Is that justice? Meritocracy," he laughs.
- Darkmatter2525 "Vengeance" (this part begins at about 5:43)
Link: m.th-cam.com/video/LX2VeWumRQ8/w-d-xo.html
Yeah. I’m a fan of rehabilitation and happy story endings. I want someone who did a bad crime to redeem themselves. I hear rehabilitation is quite successful.
@@user-sf9gs2pg1b It can be, when it's done right. It makes sense to deter crime with consequences, but it is rarely that simple.
Because people get loaded with the stigma of having been to prison, even if they're completely reformed and their "debt to society" has been paid, too often they can't find legal work that sufficiently supports themselves and the life they want, so they will, inevitably, turn back to crime.
I'm a "Christian atheist" brought up with Christian values, so naturally I'm a radical socialist because that seems like the most effective way to love my neighbour
Curious how most Right-Wing Bible-thumpers conveniently fail to notice that should someone like Jesus showed up *right now* they would call him a hippie.
Bravo, my friend, bravo
When they ask what would Jesus do?. Remind them than kicking the merchants out of the temple and chastising the priests for their greed is a possibility
@@CteCrassus To the Christian Right, Jesus wasn't sent here to succor the poor and the suffering. He was sent here to be a substitutionary human sacrifice to placate God for that whole Garden of Eden thing. If you appreciate and accept Jesus's suffering, death, and (ahem) "resurrection," you will get you into heaven despite your inherently sinful and evil nature. Jesus is the carrot to Yahweh's stick, the Good Cop to Jehovah's Bad. Sure. you should try to be kindly and giving to the poor, but to them, that's only putting a band aid on the REAL problem: Not being saved. (Depending on the denomination, Right-wing Christians see poverty is a sign of not being in their god's grace.) That's why many Evangelical charity efforts often come with a sermon or some other religious strings attached.
Christians of this variety often follow the "salvation by faith alone" school of thought. Doing good in this life is meaningless because this world is fallen, corrupt, and doomed to their god's final wrath to try to save and the effort distracts from the worship of that jealous, wrathful god. (e.g. Recently the leader of the White House Bible Study group blamed the Corona Pandemic, in part, on environmentalism because protecting the ecology places attention on the "creature instead of the Creator.") Regardless of what you've down in this life, believing in Jesus, God, the Bible (oh, and the right way, depending on sect) is the only way to avoid Hell.
The most unrealistic part of that opening anecdote was that people got QUIET *MULTIPLE TIMES* during a political discussion. I'm all too used to the guy from payroll yelling over me and using ad-hominem and "stop projecting your insecurities onto X"
Most conservative arguments are literally just saying "No" despite how many valid points you give or concrete evidence you give until they eventually bring up one valid point or concrete evidence (usually taken out of context) to make you look like a hypocritical idiot. Or the easier way which is to have enough people on their side tell you to "Stop making things political, we're just here to have fun, come on" or use ad hominem on you so that YOU look like the asshole for simply addressing an issue which can so simply be fixed or improved on if they looked past their Bible.
@@sandrapark8705 *says sincerely-held belief in jovial tone*
*points out how reality doesn't align*
*repeats belief in more serious tone*
*gently disagrees*
"...I'm just joking, you know? can't you let me joke?"
As it should be
@@sandrapark8705 Had a coworker say the Earth was 4000 years old. After I countered each of his "points," he went, "Well, it's just my belief."
Ugh.
I think you missed the point. The people in the room not actively involved got quiet multiple times. (Some of them probably got popcorn too.)
“nothing short of turning the world inside out is worth pursuing” is a really great example of nirvana fallacy. It’s basically comparing some realistic solution to the idealistic, perfect solution, and then saying “it’s not perfect, therefore it’s nothing at all”.
God. I'll never understand how people can go their whole lives treating the world like it's a waiting room for their specific appointment. No wonder the world gets so fucked.
It's no wonder why alot of people feel trapped as if they're being constantly judged by some supernatural, otherworldly creature even though they themselves no longer believe in such.
It is also why I think many of them don't give two shits about environmental damages and destructive, man made climate changes. Because why care about this crappy temporary world when (supposedly) eternal paradise awaits us?
@@navilluscire2567 straight up! That's a point to chew on!
It's supply and demand. The more of something there is, the less it's actually valued.
'No one's ever really gone.'
'I can abuse my kids for their whole lives, but can exit this world feeling whole because I apologized in my last five minutes.'
Yeah, been there done that. Sorry bud. This is all you get
Because the ego defines oneself as an entity separate from the rest of nature, and one's perception of the world is intrinsically tied to that entity.
Interesting, I thought the whole point with Jesus Christ the character/person was that he said if you see a person who is suffering you should help now even if it break the Sabbath. Rather than following the rules, but letting him die.
It's important to recognize how little the practices and rituals of Christianity have to do with the actual moral teachings of Christ.
+
@@michaelmills8205
Also, Jesus' most prominent enemies in His story are the Jewish religious leaders (Pharisees, etc.).
I see not much has changed over the millennia.
There were other jewish teachers arguing a similar thing. Moreover, that characterization may be an unkind one perpetuated by the Gospels. The different Gospels have different takes on who Jesus was. We know he died by crucifixion which is only done to people who Rome believes was an actual threat to their power structure.
@@reeddressler9042 The Gospels where written by different people attempt to force the life of (a potentially) real person to fit the structure of existing Jewish prophecies about the Messiah. It's not surprising that the different writers had different views over what the Messiah should believe as well. Add in the the Bible is one of the most heavily revised and edited books in history (both by religious and secular people), and you arrive at the contradictory mess that it is.
It's also important to note the the Jews were actually a major political problem for the Roman. They generally refused to adapt into the heavily Greek influenced Roman society and there was an actual Jew rebellion in the region during the period in which Jesus would have lived. If we accept the fact that the gospels are at best only semi-historical, the fact that the rebellion against Rome was lead by a Judas, and the teachings within the gospels are much more hostile to the Jewish authorities than the Romans become very interesting.
This is a very important essay. One issue I see among liberals, many progressives, and even some leftists, is that they don't recognize the tendency of conservatives to think of societal problems at an individual level and not at system or institutional level. It is very hard to engage with them in a meaningful way without understanding this.
The individual is the smallest minority.
Leftists are reactionary, rightists are conservative
@@Scullex reactionary means reacting to progress , it's a synonim of conservative , leftist are between reformist and revolutionary : since some want to impose the nordic model trough reforms to the capitalist sistem , or overthrow the sistem trough a revolution ...
@@davidegaruti2582 revolutionary and reactionary spell the same, sorry
Let me ask you something. What if conservatives decided to act on a systematic and institutional level?
My dad said something similar during the year of covid, his exact words were "The bleeding heart liberals want everyone to live!". I believe he was talking about giving immigrants medical care and vaccines. I just couldn't believe that he would say something so cruel and heartless, but then again, its easier to not see people as equals when you demonize them.
Gentlest of reminders that we are going on our fifth year of covid
I can’t believe people genuinely think this way. How so many surrender to accepting the problems with the society *we constructed* as engrained in our nature is beyond me.
@egg_l0rd13 I'd argue that most people don't think about society as a construct. Most probably, don't even think about it at all and accept that their circumstances are a fact of life rather than a manufactured state of existence. As if this was always going to be the outcome.
"You just want everyone to have a less shitty life than they have now!"
...yeah?
The same way the left demonized children in the womb... this goes both ways. All sides do the same things and it needs to stop.
I just had an argument with my dad about rent. I've had this argument many times and it was something keeping me from really believing in rent abolition in capitalism. So I decided to try again because even the creator of capitalism believed landlords were leeches and argued with my dad. We talked for a while and talked about rent and how it's free money and I told him I don't think he's bad for wanting to rent out the land (I mean he's a guy who stresses about money so what else would your goal be?).
Him- "They allow poorer people to afford houses because they don't have to pay the full price"
Me- "Rent means there's fewer houses to buy and more demand which means higher housing prices"
Him- "landlords provide the service of maintenance"
Me- "No they don't, other people do"
And then he said something that had blocked me many times before "people will still be homeless".
This sentiment had stopped me many times before 'that's true, it's basically the same outcome'
And then I caught myself, there would be less. More people would be a to afford houses, people would still have income, it's not the same outcome.
A more reasonable capitalist argument is that private housing creates an incentive for quality, and regulation can control how long the quality can get, if you allow people to sell housing but stop people from selling really bad housing you get the situation we're in right now, where people can only really safely sell to people who they know aren't poor, and rent control often causes the quality of service to drop lower as those managing housing have less incoming capital to fix problems and maintain it with. Government regulation produces higher quality housing often, but in direct consequence stops low quality housing from existing outside whatever public housing it can produce. No free market housing system would not sell to a huge fraction of its potential market, the issue is that currently that's not cost effective due to regulation. In terms of governments abolishing the entire rent system, it's easy to see how developments in effective management of those apartments run with rent money would stagnate when a government covers the bill, there's no real way for those buying housing and those running it to interact in any meaningful way, especially if the State imposes restrictions on the quality. People don't tend to want to pay for things collectively voluntarily, so either rent pays for keeping housing in shape or the government hands out a check that inevitably can't account for all the specialized payments needed in a marketplace, with public funding into the market theres always loose ends bureaucrats can't control for.
My dude you've got it all wrong. There's homeless shelters to house the homeless, and if it wasn't for rent I would be there. The simple fact is I can't afford a house. Especially since I don't plan on living in a shitty college town for the rest of my life.
My argument is housing is a commodity like any other. Just like a nice restaurant, high quality ingredients, or having cooked meals delivered. A nice large house in a quiet community is something people want. Nevertheless, that even in public housing your master is the state or the entity that built the house.
I highly doubt your system would allow me and 1500 sqft house on the coast of a major metro city if all I wanted to do was lounge around and use good produced from The People, heck it probably won't even allow me to do that with a public housing unit. I have to contribute in some form, the only difference is who I am contributing to.
Let me correct your dad's most coherent argument: [Some] landlords [pay for] the service of maintenance. (Citation: The house my parents couldn't sell when they moved, and frequently complained about maintenance costs for.)
Some landlords provide useful services that make things better for their tenants, just like some managers do. That doesn't mean that the system is perfect, any more than managers are, but they both provide a service which can be worth the cost. (Or they can just be a drain on people who can't afford to opt out, but it's not inevitable...just profitable.)
I also see a dystopian future where big companies own all the habitable buildings and people just pay rent to them. If you don't agree with their policy or just lose your job, they also put you out of your apartment. In Belgium there used to be a barrier to discourage companies from buying up housing for rent-profit. You would get a tax-cut for paying the mortgage on your own house. They took this tax-cut away recently. We have a rather rightish government for the moment.
The argument they give is that this tax-cut just raises the prices because people can afford a higher mortgage. That's true, but the advantage is that it puts a roadblock up for the companies that want to own for profit. I think 'the right to own your own plot of land' would be a very good addition to the constitution. Funny how extreme communism and extreme capitalism turn out to have the same endgame.
I won't lie, thought this was going to be about Garfield
It ended up being about revolution :o
Yeah, I thought he was going to be tackling Stonetoss types
@@Tudmoke Check Thought Slimes video about him.
Mmmm lasagna.
I thought this was going to be about how the right hides behind a thin veil of "comedy" to try and convert others, reusing the same jokes over and over again that aren't even really funny but spreads their bullshit.
This Monday is already better than the last one
Lol, u here?
holy shit what are YOU doing here haha. Let me guess, 6 hour, 12 part series on Socialist Revolutions around the world next? Please?
Wow, is it really you? Channels i respect mingling gives be tingling
I love your videos!!!!! Your one about roman egypt left me thinking for days. So wonderful !!!!
Et tu?
Well.. it seems Breadtube is larger than it seems.
I believe it's time we raise a collective banner to show our true numbers.
theres a dutch punkband called “hang youth” and they made a song called “je haat geen maandag je haat kapitalisme” (which translates to “you dont hate mondays you hate capitalism”) and its a banger
"Talking about school leads to talking about-"
Ah, the educational system?
"-safety drills, and talking about safety drills leads to talking about gun control".
Oh, I forgot. This is about the US.
Yeah, it's kind of funny. They've had gun culture for literally 300 years, it has gotten so ingrained in their culture that doing something about it is very complicated.
@@melon10177 Well it is kinda terrible that children in the US have to train for the possibility that someone will come to their school armed and try to kill them, don't you think? I live in a pretty shit country too, but at least I've never had to worry about that.
Yep. Just buy the schools bullet proof desks, no need to take the guns.
It's real fun over here.
Gun control is A very complex isssue and the numbers of mass shootings are a lot lower then maney people beleave
@@elliel.5915 kids in the 50s needed to train for atomic shelter in place drills. The existence of a drill does not indicate its prevalence in an extreme way.
Watching this, I understand for the first time why so many conservatives talk about the public health measures recommended to fight COVID as if they're punishments.
Hey that's a good point
You don’t get a choice to wear a mask do you?
@@crashrescuing4737 You get the choice to kill people instead... because FREEEEEEDOM.
@@jorenvanderark3567 well yes I have the choice to stab someone will I no this isn't the uk
@@killertigergaming6762
No instead it is the US where most who run their mouth about the constitution never actually read the damn thing. If you did, you'd know that mask laws are as a matter of fact... not unconstitutional, at least they are not during a pandemic!
In an article about a nurse who was suspended for asking for donations and buying protective supplies when the hospital failed to provide sufficient gear:
> In its statement the hospital blamed the problem on the way supplies are distributed. “No one person, institution, or hospital can independently correct this global supply shortage,” it said.
Which sounds exactly like the excuse from Mr Payroll. Because the situation cannot be 100% resolved by one person, one must therefore punish anyone who tries to do _anything_ about the situation. The situation is punishment that must be endured, rather than worked on.
"No good deed goes unpunished."
Well that's done.
@Ajax Aidy lol you have to be joking
there’s a great video that came out recently by the channel Zoe Bee called “Politics is a Language War” in which she talks about the metaphors we use to frame different concepts and specifically the metaphor of politics as war and how those metaphors can affect what we think about with respect to different things and what aspects of things we ignore. I highly recommend it, i think it’s a very good analysis. She uses an example in the video of giving 3 different people different maps of the same area (in this case, New York) a topographical map, a map of the subway system and a walking tour map and talks about how each of them would describe and even think about the best way to get to a certain place in different ways
"Laws against murder do not stop murder, therefore the laws are useless."
But that is the whole logic, laws are not useless if people get punished. If somebody murders and gets punished that is success.
@@notmynamedammit That's not true. Laws are useless if they don't reduce the frequency of a perceived ill from happening. Punishment has been used as a deterrent but it is not the only deterrent, and not all punishments work very well as deterrents.
That's the point the video made. If something is *easier* to do, more people will do it. If something hurts more when you get caught but is still easy to do and get away with it, then... More people will still do it.
You know what's funny. For people who legitimately believe abortion is murder this is their argument yet pro-choice people always slide around that and say things like "If you really wanted to reduce abortions you'd want comprehensive sex ed the abortions would happen anyway even if they were illegal". It sounds exactly like "If you really wanted to reduce murder you wouldn't make it illegal you'd put more education in school about compassion and the value of human life". both are equal if you think abortion is murder. Abortion is not a slightly bad thing for pro-life people, it's murder. They are arguing what they believe is murder should be illegal and the reply they get is "Welll, even if it were that wouldn't reduce the numbers of murders.". Just argue on the point not around it, it's dishonest
I think you missed the part in the video where he reminds us that the right likes to punish people.
@@vladys5238 That would be correct but fetus does not have the ability to feel pain or think. The false equivalence is equating fetus to humans. By that logic masturbation is mass murder, vegetarians have blood on their hands. The "anti-abortion" people are also often ignorant of science. Thats their major shortcoming.
I've spent a lot of time in internet atheist circles, and my biggest takeaway from that has bern that a person's stated ideological framework has very little bearing on what they actually do and believe. A religious racist will tell you they're a bigot because of the Bible, and an atheistic racist will tell you they're a bigot because of science, but neither actually derived that belief from first principles. If they've done any work at all, it's only to find a way to square their existing bigotry with what they consider the "correct" ideological label
I really need the religion's guide to keep me relax mentally, socially, wisely, and strategically. I left Christianity because the other religions have their own gods, which one of them are right or wrong or bigger: who is Real, they are just some bullcrap fantasies.
What?!?! No...racism is never squared with anything...it's just an illogical reaction or learned behavior. An atheist will NEVER say, 'I am racist because of science'....that is the dumbest statement I've ever heard. If someone does say that, they're not being scientific! Since all humans evolved from Africa and people are all equally genetically the same. (diverse, yes, but equally diverse regardless of race) Race is a social construct and you can ONLY get to that conclusion through science. And Atheism is just, well, being a smart person. Smart people follow evidence, they don't bend reality to their worldview...you are just describing idiots.
@@patrickkilduff4355 have you really never heard of race science? Never seen someone cite studies about IQ and crime rates to justify their bigotry? No, it's not actually scientific, but that's exactly my point: those people aren't really racist because of science, but they think of themselves as rational empiricists, so they find ways to convince themselves that their beliefs are scientific.
@@patrickkilduff4355 eugenics much?
As a former edgelord atheist I can confirm. The biggest epiphany I’ve ever had was realizing “rationalism” is 100% guided by emotions. Everyone assumes their beliefs are based on logic but like you said it’s actually the other way around. Also logic is completely useless for figuring out the truth because literally anything can seem logical. I’d even go so far as to say logic is what created religion. Even if a belief has no evidence, as long as there’s a tiny piece of logic in there people will cling to that so they can call themselves rational. Whatever that means...
"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. *So did the divine right of kings.* Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." - Ursula Le Guin
Yea maybe but the old Marxist model clearly doesn't seem to work. I don't think our best bet is to build a system where the sharpest and most driven among us can still reap significant rewards while still maintaining a system where people can more or less work together for the common good.
@@dbojangles1597 Define sharpest and most driven. How do we distinguish between them and psychopaths? Why is being slow and careful and peaceful seen as something we don't want, or to put it another way, why should we want people who are driven and sharp to be rewarded above and beyond not being sharp and driven?
We don't distinguish psychopaths from effective people because we don't elect our rulers. We elect our representatives who, representing us, eat the boots of our rulers whole.
@@Gibbons3457 Simply because humans are most often motivated by pretty base animalistic desires and it is in the interest of societal advancement that we incentivize people to do things that facilitate said advancement. Now naturally I wouldn't suggest putting material incentives above all else. That would be what we would call free market capitalism and I think we both see the problems that have resulted there. I just don't think we can build a functional society out of the opposite extreme either. We can't just expect everyone to sacrifice everything for the good of the collective.
The divine right of business doesnt feel all that different to that of kings
4:50 Interestingly I've noticed a lot of people these days have increasingly used the phrase "Locks only keep honest people out" in the same context, usually with the follow up "So keep yourself safe with a gun instead." Since you can't keep out all bad people with locks, then locks must be useless and only the finality of a gun can truly keep you safe. A very, very bizzare leap of logic
"The easier it is to do a thing, the more it happens"
See also, the voter suppression laws. They're not "suppressing" in the classical sense, where someone is actively keeping people from voting, but they're "soft suppressing" it by making it as difficult and inconvenient as possible to reduce the number of people (in certain areas) voting. Republicans do understand that principle, they just compartmentalize it away when talking about guns.
Oh cool.
How?
What about these "voter restrictions" is difficult exactly?
@@dfmrcv862 You haven't actually looked at any of them, have you?
@@anon9469 i have.
What exactly is difficult about procuring a birth certificate and registering? Banning overnight early voting?
What's wrong with requiring an ID yo vote, exactly?
@@dfmrcv862 People not having a birth certificate or an easily accessible birth certificate; and people not having the specific kinds of ID required to vote.
Note that the kinds of people who are a. legitimately entitled to vote as citizens but b. do not have the ID needed and would have trouble getting it are usually poor people - i.e. marginalized people, i.e. the people who most need their voices heard.
One particularly notable example was the Texas county that only allowed driver's licenses or firearms licenses, both of which were issued by the local police, meaning that the police could simply bar people from voting if they wanted.
@@anon9469 for starters, getting these documents is free and easy in all these states last I checked. And secondly, you're going to have to prove the police or anyone would be barring people from getting these licenses despite them having everything in order, not present hypotheticals about abuse of power.
If anything, arguing "this maybe could happen" just shows it hasn't happened and likely won't.
Not without heavy scrutiny at least.
"The way nature deals with a pandemic..." I think you wrote this line under the assumption that this would be a compelling argument against the "what's natural is right mindset"
God, how bad it's gotten
Agreed, I honestly didn't expect conservatives to take that position literally. And yet, here we are in the middle of the pandemic and they are doing exactly that.
@@regisglass5464
Conservative dude: Fuck your sick, dying grandmother NO BODY OWES YOU ANYTHING! Now...don't forget to vote for our conservative politicians because they value COMMUNITY over the 'selfish' leftist who say they want to provide universal healthcare that might've saved your grandmother but honestly...she was already close to death's doorstep being old and decrepit so it would've been a waste anyway. **with a smug, self congratulating grin**
@@regisglass5464 As horrifying as it is to admit, this video may have given them too much credit. Because in hindsight, that's precisely the plan they want to follow.
Another fun fact (Ok, maybe not so funny of a fact but still) is that this is literally the exact same stance Hitler took about the "weak" in society. In Mein Kampf he says that the "weak" who are dying from hunger, illness or any other "natural" cause should not be offered any help and left to die because only the "strong" deserve to live and spread their superior genes. And yet most of the population still hesitate to call out conservatives out on their Nazi aligning beliefs. Let's just call them what they are God damn it. NAZIS.
When they try to make that nonsensical argument, just point out the simple facts that:
1) Homosexuality occurs naturally within numerous varied species.
2) By and large, technically speaking, Murder (or more accurately: Killing) is the very crux of Nature itself, to the extent that even the Non-Sentient Plants do it to other plants (i.e. strangling overgrowth, competitive use of nutrients from the soil, blocking of sunlight [even as far as to kill many of their own offspring]). So, they're technically arguing that Murder is the 'right'/correct choice; and that's quite immoral and/or psychotic of them.
3) Yersinnia Pestis (the Plague, tho idk if I spelled that correctly), Tape Worms, Bot Flies, Organ Eye or Brain-Infesting Parasites, and Parasites in general (among near-countless other things) are All 'Natural'. Yet we don't see them going out of their way to deliberately infect themselves with all those things.
4) Cyanide, Arsenic, as well as Snake, Spider, Snail, and Jellyfish Venoms (and Other toxins like Frog poisons) are All 'Natural', and yet we don't see them going out of their way to get those particular chemicals into their system in any real amount.
5) Death itself is 'Natural', and yet they're still alive and breathing.
"You don't hate Mondays; you hate capitalism."
Is capitalism the same as corporatism ... if not, I think corporatism has stolen it's identity.
@@1MarkKeller
Corporatism is the natural end game of capitalism. Well, technically, a single monopoly is the end game of capitalism, but corporatism has the exact same results.
i mean you're not wrong
I don't think you can blame the inertia of having to start work entirely on capitalism. I groan when starting up personal projects to.
Jelle Wijckmans your dealing with the left jelle these people are capable of blaming literally everything on “capitalism”.
Can we please for the love of god point out that the people saying that “criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns so gun laws don’t work” are essentially arguing laws in general don’t work? Like seriously, you can apply this logic to any law.
Punishing child predators: “criminals will always find ways to assault children so what’s the point?”
Speeding:
“People will always find ways to speed so what’s the point?”
Murder:
“Murders will always find some way to kill their victim so what’s the point of making murder illegal?”
The dumbest comment ever 🤡
Yeah, it's ridiculous and the only reason they say that is to just shut the conversation down.
Very stupid take, because unlike those things gun ownership isn't actually inherently bad, so when you ban good people from owning guns, and bad people have guns, all you did was make it so people with guns can now know when they use those guns to commit crimes no one else will have a gun unless they rob bad people, combine that with many places having 45 minute responce time from police, and yea, there's no argument that the policy did anything but hurt those people, doubly so when you understand how easy guns and ammo are to make,
Well, arguably a lot of walls don't actually work very well. And punishing people who do bad things doesn't prevent a bad thing, but it might deter it.
Prevention measures are valuable but hard to do effectively if people want to circumvent them. Unless you want authoritarianism. (I don't think you do though)
I think it does apply to speeding, as an Urbanist. People speed even though it is used as an extra tax. But, we can make major effects on the speed of cars without enforcing speeding limits. Simply by changing the designs of our streets. Something similar is happening with schools to reduce the damage of school shootings.
In some places schools are being designed specifically to reduce the damage that a school shooting might cause.
I.E. Mitigation.
When it comes to roads, engineers have designed mechanisms to stop cars and make people die from that less. That is also mitigation.
I seriously believe that we shouldn't be giving speeding tickets most of the time. And that making speeding illegal is a poor way of actually preventing speeding.
Or to use stronger words: "Why shouldn't we abolish speeding tickets or speeding laws?"
However, that same reasons sometimes accepted as a reason behind road design. Typically road speeds are set based on an average of peoples speeds discarding a certain percentage literally beause there are some people "who will always speed" And this is used as an excuse to only engage in mitigation efforts like giving gradual deceleration zones and wider lanes.
Now, if you could actually stop criminals from getting their hands on guns obviously it would counter that argument. Even if you reduced the amount of criminals with guns by enough it could potentially be worth it. That is a complicated issue though.
When it comes to child predators, politicians love using "catching child predators" as an excuse to increase government surveillance.
But effectively to stop that you either need to get better at catching people who do it. Or prevent it from happening somehow.
The only reasonable prevention strategy is stuff like background checks and restrictions on the types of people who can be around kids.
Or maybe limited surveillance if you did it in a reasonable and transparent way.
Murders are already pretty rare, that generalization kind of works there. Although, that is still punishment for an action.
Owning a gun isn't inherently immoral. Although, it is a tool designed to kill. Whether it be killing animals, or killing people.
I am against banning guns completely. But I do think treating abusing guns like we would reducing the risk of child predation.
Ensuring minorities can obtain arms is important so that they have the ability to protect themselves from violence. Privileged people are unlikely to ever have to protect themselves from violence they can feasibly stop. Historically disarming minorities has been an important strategy used to keep them oppressed. I don't support the use of violence. However, for some people and communities, using violence is the only effective option they have to protect themselves from hatred.
However, if people aren't going to use something to do outright evil, they should have the freedom to do something as well.
Ban having guns by non-police officer types around schools and kids. Even having cops around kids could have a lot of negative effects. Create systems to mitigate the negative uses of guns that are happening. Ban people who fit the profile of mass shooter or people under a certain age from buying guns. Make it a crime for those people to have them.
It isn't an issue I particularly care about because of self interest. But, I think gun control fits just as well into a leftist as a right position.
School shooters aren't normal criminals.They emotionally distressed domestic terrorists in many cases.
If the argument you mention is being used in good faith, then it is essential arguing that we are better of mitigating a problem if we can't fix it. Rather than try to prevent it but with negative side effects.
To an extent, our society assumes that laws and punishments are an effective way to stop a lot of our problems. And this cultural assumption has had many negative effects on both normal people and minorities and has been exploited by racists to persuade well-meaning moderates to implement harmful or even evil policies.
The War on Drugs has failed to fix American drug problems. However, it has imprisoned a lot if minorities. Allowing republicans to strip away their rights to vote and participate in society. Some people even claim that the drug problems were intentionally created by racist elites as a way to punish and impoverish minority communities further.
Terrorist attacks have been used to justify government surveillance and a restriction of our freedom. As well as making hatred of Muslims acceptable.
Even much smaller things like zoning laws have been used to do intentional harm due to racist practices like red lining.
And in other cases, attempts to use it to fix legitimate problems has created new ones that are arguably worse.
I don't believe like some libertarians and anarchists that laws are a necessary or unnecessary evil by nature. However, I do think that in practice, assuming laws actually work to do what we is a misleading perspective. Although, you could try to argue that against any law. It would only be valid if the law doesn't actually help with the problem it is supposed to address.
Counterpoint to this ridiculous concept:
people saying "gun control doesn't work because criminals acquire guns illegally" is not comparable to your hypothetical hyperbole of "speeding laws are useless because people will still find ways to speed"....because in the first case you are not criminalizing an ACT but the OWNERSHIP OF A TOOL that could POTENTIALLY be used in an act
Basically, if I were to use your same reasoning, I would then be justified in saying "Oh speeding is dangerous and illegal so let's highly restrict or outright ban ownership of cars"....because, just like with gun control you evidently support, I am not criminalizing the act per se (speeding in this case) but the ownership of an object that could be used to potentially commit the act (the car in this case)
And no, gun control laws do not work...I am Italian, gun ownership is all but easy here, and yet violent crimes still happen frequently, mob and gang shootings happen basically every other week, the only difference is that if I want to own a gun for home defence I need to jump through fifteen burning loops and might still be persecuted if I use it to defend myself against home invaders or assailants (it has happened time and time again in recent years), whereas a criminal can resort to any different measures ranging from theft to smuggling one from the Balkans or North Africa to even making their own...and when they don't have a gun? kitchen knives or other blades, large screwdrivers or picks, heavy pipes or bats....after all if I'm legally unarmed or can't use a gun to legally defend myself they don't need an arsenal to hurt me
Why are that many people congregating in one office? Have your political arguments over Zoom!
I know! This is so irresponsible with the plague upon us. I blame corporate
@@nystria_ I imagine this was started well before the distancing hit; it takes a lot of drawings to make.
Haha, but maybe not exactly Zoom because it's a security nightmare.
Could be old security tapes, from before the megaissue.
@@youtubeuniversity3638 YU makes a good point; not like ANY of these arguments are new/recent only.
"The conservative thinks about people dying of illnesses, school shootings, and backalley abortions the way you think about Mondays."
As someone who lives with diehard conservatives, this is so true.
So, they are heartless monsters with no humanity? They aren't as down to earth good folk as they think they are. I choose humanity any day. They can drown in the blood from my "bleeding heart".
@Uncle Thomas Yeah there's been some help amongst countries in the EU. Itally specifically had some patients fly over to Germany.
@@MLBlue30 I wouldn't say monsters exactly. I'd say they're more ignorant towards their own thinking process, and brainwashed than anything.
The only thing I semi agree with conservatives on is guns. Everything else can go to Hell
@@rpsyco Are they mutually exclusive?
I click on a thumbnail that says "I Hate Mondays" and immediately there is a content warning about "school shootings, abortion, homophobia, racism, religious fundamentalism, fascism and nazi imagery"
awesome
“boy that escalated quickly”
Yeah it was a really shitty monday
Mondays, am I right?
Brenda spencer.
Garfield really went off the deep end
This gets to the heart of the abortion debate for conservatives: it's not about reducing abortions but rather wanting to punish people for not being encumbered by religious abstinence and having the freedom to have sex before marriage if they so choose to.
Conservatives don’t want babies to be killed before they are born? They must be EVIL!
....And controlling women. If we are once again slaves to pregnancy and domesticity, we by necessity, have to give up all power in greater society. Which means an eventual overhaul of domestic laws, which means stronger and more effective oppression of women. Worked for thousands of years. Damned birth control and safe embryonic abortion ripped power out of the hands of males. Made society see women as actual whole, realized, intelligent, capable human beings. And all the dumbass Christians said "Noooooo!!! Not God's plan!! He wanted that whore, Eve, punished for eternity by being a faceless incubator NOT a world leader!!"
Stupid fucking archaic, barbaric cult.
That’s basically 90% of conservative policy, make me richer make people i don’t like suffer
@@theveganduolingobird7349 sounds like a completely baseless and inaccurate generalization
@@therealdeal3837 fuck you gonna do cry about it?
"BE GAY DO CRIME!"
Well, if you insist.
Sounds like the motto for Gay Firefly. ;)
@@tinydave17 fastest spook in the west
So if I don't do a crime, I'm straight? But, if I follow that logic, doesn't everyone do even the most minor misdemeanor, which is a crime, therefore we're all gay. I hate circular logic.
Don't forget the drugs and abortions
That should be a t shirt.
It's worth noting that Mondays are also a socially constructed problem, not a naturally occurring one. There is no reason whatsoever for people to still be working five days a week eight hours a day to have a comfortable existence. If the amount of labor we did actually corresponded to the amount that needs to be done, work wouldn't be the all-encompassing aspect of our lives it is today, and people wouldn't hate Mondays so much.
Explaining away something like poverty or racism as "a fact of life" only serves to uphold the institutions that keep it that way.
Which is why no conservative I know says poverty is something that should not be “worked to be defeated”. They point out how under free market capitalism the global poverty level has decreased across the planet, they point out how a safety net can help people in trouble, and they caution handouts because they know there are people who take advantage of them and make the country worse.
@@dfmrcv862 no true scotsman
@@dfmrcv862 free market capitalism also lead to the enslavement of africans who were then shipped to america, where years later they were released without social systems meant to integrate them into society.
I don't think its capitalism's 'fault' but it seems naive to say well it will just fix itself cuz capitalism is good or moral
@@nathanbruce1992 Well, start with that : capitalism is NOT a political system, it's an economical system. China is capitalist, it's not a democracy (yet they have better healthcare & education). The 3rd Reich was capitalist*, it wasn't a republic.
You can have a any political system with any economic system.The XXth showed us that capitalism might be better to create wealth, whatever the political system is. But we also know the long term consequences of capitalism (climate change, mass pollution, genocide of species, Oil wars...)
______________
* capitalism during a war is special, but still capitalism
@@nathanbruce1992 You're kidding, right? African tribes were enslaving and selling said slaves among themselves for generations before the white man showed up.
So were the Native Americans.
So were the Muslims.
Hell, the Ottoman Empire was doing it on a far larger scale than the Atlantic Slave trade!
It was the capitalist west that bled and engineered methods that not only made slavery obsolete, but they fought tooth and nail to end it.
If capitalism started slavery, it sure as hell ended it.
This series has helped me to realise how fundamentally different conservatives are to myself. I had always implicitly treated things as though conservatives were indeed simply "failed liberals", as you put it in another video. All I had to do was find the right set of words to explain why they're wrong. We all agree that problems exist and need to be fixed, and that giving people more opportunities to succeed is good, it's just we differ on how we go about it, right? Seeing that conservatives don't like fixing problems, they like punishment, and seeing that they value the "natural order" of their perceived "correct" hierarchy (that is often informed by race and other bigotry), will definitely change how I approach arguments. Knowing the opposition like this has also made me less frustrated, I've struggled for a long time trying to understand them, but this framework appears to be accurate when I think back to all the things I've heard when having arguments.
Holy shit, you went from a normal and reasonable person to an insane man. This is magical.
@@korickarmstrong3468 what i do wrong
@@SauceApple51 You went from being able to respect the other side as equal humans of differing opinion to watching someone make sock puppets out of them and allowing yourself the ease of mind that is dehumanizing them. Conservatives are not "failed liberals" any more than they are brain dead bigots. No one side has all the answers hell I'd argue neither side has a singularly good answer to any scenario given how much each has jerked their knees away from the other but that is why proper communication is needed. Writing anyone off as evil simply for having differing views on political matters is itself mindless and evil.
@@korickarmstrong3468 Yeah I shouldn't have said "conservatives", I more meant far-right individuals. I was being lenient because it appears to me that even normal conservatives do have this hierarchical framework. It may not be malicious or race-based, but they have a deference to some notion of it.
But I really don't think I "dehumanised" them, sure my characterisation wasn't flattering but what do you expect? I disagree with their worldview; I generally think it is a suboptimal way for society to be. I also didn't "write them off for simply having differing opinions" - rather, I outlined the overarching worldview and how I disagreed with it. I write that shit off. Doesn't mean I now reject all conservatives as being evil, it doesn't even mean I reject all conservative opinions, I just reject the hierarchy-based philosophy. A free-market right-winger isn't evil, they just believe that there is some inherent "correctness" about a free market based on individualism and that intervention ruins this "correctness" - and I think that belief is wrong. The far-right individuals who have racial notions of what the hierarchy should look like, they're the fascists and they're the evil ones. You're right though I should have drawn a distinction between these groups.
Just tell the far right
The Devil’s greatest trick was convincing man that he was God!
Then if they pray to “God”
Fun fact: not even Monday is a fact of life. You can break your week into two smaller parts, with a one day long weekend inbetween, and many find this weekly routine less exhausting. You can defeat Monday! As long as you belive it's possible, and try it.
Congrats, you just gave yourself more Mondays per week.
Literally, the whole reason we hate Mondays is because they are the start of the week. We hate Mondays because it's the day where we have to stop relaxing and get back to work. The concept of the day where we get back to work will always exist. There is no defeating this Monday concept, you just have to stop whining and get over it.
@@sabersin5368-c2c their comment was about improving monday, not about making the start of a workweek disappear.
@@sabersin5368-c2c CGP Grey made a video about it called "Weekend Wednesday". It's under 3 minutes long.
the thesis is basically that 5 days in a row work week makes you to exhausted and makes the weeked "wasted" while a more common time off (even if shorter) would allow you to better relax.
2 days work, 1 day rest, 3 days rest, 1 day rest
@@joz534 ok sure but you cant travel or visit people further away if you only have one day off at a time. 2 work - 1 off - 2 work - 2 off is a much better system
the mentality amongst conservatives that social issues are constants and that we can do nothing against them kinda explains why there is so much victim blaming when it comes to survivors of violent men (be it sexual assault, familial abuse, etc). to a conservative violent men are not something that can be changed, when an assault happens it isn't something done *by* a man, it is something that happens *to* someone so they overlook the perpetrator and instead focus on the victim, blaming them for not being able to recognize or properly prevent the harm done to them. to the conservative, if the man in this one instance hadn't done it, another inevitably would so it's pointless to try and fix men.
side note, I'm sure this is also true for other issues beyond violent men but that's just the main example I can think of.
I get your point but there is also a constant, darker side to some of the violence, as someone that knows 2 bipolar woman in extended family, violence is something that is always either about to happen or it happens if they don't break up. They are attracted to ''strong man'' as they even said, alot of guys also don't know how to recognize personality disorders and think that ''they are just woman''. Bipolar and narcissist dating is also something that happens often and leads to violence.
@@1GTX1 I'm sorry, what? are you trying to say that violence happens because some women are bipolar? this comment was never about the actual violence, this is about the reaction to the violence
they say the same thing about the indians like "well if we didnt come genocide all of them then china or whoever would have and thats worse"
And to them the answer is always: more strength, more discipline, more submission.
“Why didn’t you fight back?”
@@tonywords6713 wow i haven't heard that excuse before but i can absolutely see it being used. these people are ridiculous
I heard the phrase "culturally cristian" to describe how even atheists only understand religion through the lenses of cristianity and are uncapable of position themselves outside of that perspective.
I've mostly heard that phrase just used for atheists raised as Christian, not necessarily that they have Christian beliefs like hating gays, etc.
Mostly it just applies to holidays. A culturally Christian person has no issue celebrating Christmas or Easter, and probably even love to do so, whereas an atheist who is culturally muslim generally _does_ have a problem with celebrating Christmas and Easter.
I don't even attempt to understand religion. It's more, I don't really care what people believe metaphysically, it's more about their moral code and what they do with it. However you arrive at the answer, if it's a good answer, I'm okay with the method you used! Atheist/Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/whatever!
@@EvilParagon4 I don't nessicarily celebrate Easter but I do celebrate Christmas, mostly because its not the Christian's holiday they stole it, and from where I'm sitting I'd like to steal it back. the name and some of the wallpaper is Christian but the tree is a pagen fertility symbol, gift giving is a co-opted from Roman Saturnalia, Santa's name might be christian but the figure is an amalgam of dozens of figures from dozens of cultures most of them pagan. the church litterally moved the birth of their god so their festival could devour and co-opt all the pagan festivals that were vastly more popular than it.
the same thing happened to Halloween, the church moved all Saints day to overtake pagan harvest festival and ancestor worship ceremonies but it backfired and Halloween was dechristianized to the point where some fundamentalists think its devilry.
Yeah but everyone knows that and no one cares. Most people don't even know what Paganism is and they think it's just one belief system.
Christmas in its current form, is a Christian holiday, that many Atheists have no issue in celebrating as well, they just might put a star on the tree instead of an angel.
There's even a (in my opinion, cringey) co-opt of Christmas for Atheists using Seinfeld's holiday of Festmas or something like that for the direct purpose of distancing from Christian Christmas, that is weirdly popular.
@@EvilParagon4 Festivus for the rest of us! :)
This video being four years old as the Vice Presidential candidate for the USA literally and actually called school shootings a “fact of life” is wild.
As someone who used to be conservative and is constantly around conservatives, I don't think all of them want something to be illegal so people will be punished, per se. Some are definitely like that. Rather, for a lot of them, the idea of something like abortion being legal means that they are somehow responsible for it as well. If they let abortion be legalized, then they are, as citizens living in a democratic country, somehow partaking in the act of abortion by "letting it happen." So when it's ruled as illegal, even though abortion still happens, they can wash their hands and tell themselves that they have no responsibility to play. Conservatives cannot stand cognitive dissonance.
It isnt even that. From what I have seen, most conservatives just despise how far the pro-abortion movement has gone. Used to be “safe, legal, and rare” but now its “God bless abortions! Human right! Yay!”. Most of the ones I see believe it should be legal for emergencies, but thats it.
@@dfmrcv862 No liberal is saying "Hooray abortions!!". Abortions fucking suck. As a dude, I can't even imagine having a potential life inside me and having to make the choice between aborting it to not ruin my life or not. That's not the point. The point is we want to give women agency over their own body (therefore pro-choice, no one is pro-abortion), because we believe that abortion is preferable to the mother and child suffering because they live in poverty and etc. This is why most people that are pro-choice also support comprehensive sexual education and contraseptives, which in practice us proven to actually reduce abortions.
People who want abortion to be illegal know that killing unborn children is very evil, and so they want that evil to be illegal, as it should be.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 Define "unborn child".
@@LisaBeergutHolst A person inside a womb.
When I was told "life isn't fair" as a kid, my answer was always "why not?" It's up to us to change things and MAKE it fair.
The real answer is always "because I'm in charge now".
The status quo is so entrenched that people can't imagine anything being more fair.
Life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean that we have to be unfair.
I mean, if you think about it, civilization itself only exists because we as humans wanted to try and mitigate life's unfairness.
@@ometta7 Life is neutral. People are fair or unfair; which are you?
Ah lovely... Reminds me of a time when I got in trouble for calling the person who bullied me for years homophobic.
do you mind giving more context?
@@omnical6135 The person who harassed me for years, for being gay, got me in trouble because I called their actions homophobic.
@@ratbastard9442 and you actually got punished??
@@omnical6135 Yes, it was deemed bullying when I called out this person’s actions but when I reported their harassment multiple times I get ignored because I’m making a big deal about nothing
@@ratbastard9442 yikesarooni
I'm impressed how you were able to pinpoint the fundamental ideological divergence between conservatives and progressives. Sometimes in the online discourse I feel like they're the same with just different dogmas--a narrative that admittedly some are pushing deliberately. But you were able to say not just what is different, but why it's different.
2019: "I hate Mondays"
2020: "What day even is it anymore?"
I don't know what day it is, but I hate it
2020 is Monday. Just, all of it. It's one giant ÜberMonday.
2019: "I hate myself"
2020: "Lmao what self"
@@DonKynos
I hate my
2020 is literally the day between Sunday & Monday.
As a Brit, no, the NHS is not perfect, but for the love of God at least we can go to the doctor without going into debt. And as a person who's had an abortion, they'll always happen, they need to be safe
Dead Ninja Storage you are a fake human being lmao
@Dead Ninja Storage you seem lovely
Dead Ninja Storage you are so edgy, we all admire you here.
... that’s what you wanted from your moms, right?
Madeleine Swann And what is not discussed is that you can buy supplemental insurance to get front of the line elective services at a cost STILL CHEAPER then in the US.
Bushflare i don’t know man, that’s a lot of nice talking points for what could be easily surmised as “money not spent properly by fucks in charge who want to end NHS and have publicly said so.”
Look I’m not British, I lived in England for a minute with my best friend who was only alive because of the NHS.
His illness would of killed him in America’s system, so much so he couldn’t even visit here for fear of not having his meds and blood counts.
I’ve talked to a lot of people, in your country, about how they view NHS.
A lot of the hate isn’t informed, whatsoever.
Sincerely, an outside perspective.
Everything in this comports with my own observations of and conversations with conservatives, but the part about "politicizing tragedies" was a big "Aha!" moment. The accusation of "politicizing tragedies" always seemed hypocritical to me. But it makes sense in this frame, because the conservative response to a tragedy, when it exists at all, is typically to single out some segment of the population for punishment or, more often, to make the rich even richer. Neither of these is about guiding society toward a nicer state.
The very last bit, about people rejecting incrementalism and being more susceptible to more dramatic change, also seems very insightful; and the drawing of the skull wearing a beret is glorious!
Edited: "the conservative response to a tragedy, when it exists at all, is typically to single out some segment of the population for punishment ":
Tulsa, Oklahoma. "A black man allegedly raped a white woman, so let's make a lynch mob at the courthouse. A shooting ensues, 10 whites die, 2 blacks. Let's all rise up and kill every black man, woman, and child we can get our hands on, complete with airplane bombing".
Liam Nesson: "A black man did something criminal to someone I care about, so I'll go roaming into the street hoping for *a* black man to start a fight with me"
Edit2: note that these outbreaks don't happen in a vacuum. The people involved are not evil. They have been under a long, persistent climate of defamatory propaganda meant to incite paranoia, frustration, outrage... The "something is very wrong and bad people are insolently getting away with evil, why isn't anyone doing anything about this" kind of atmosphere, where random individual actions are fit into a narrative, hence the seemingly disproportionate responses.
@Mauris ...are you doing apologetics for an American pogrom? Even if more whites were killed at the courthouse the actions of the black community of Tulsa were 100% justified. Taking up weapons against a lynch mob hellbent on killing a man without a trial is good. If those whites didn't want to die they should've minded their own buisness that day.
the beret skull is a reference to the game grim fandango!!! :D
@@elijahthorne303 Ah, nice! I knew the art style looked familiar but couldn't place it.
@Mauris note that these outbreaks don't happen in a vacuum. The people involved are not... 'evil'. They have been under a long, persistent climate of defamatory propaganda meant to incite paranoia, frustration, outrage... The "something is very wrong and bad people are insolently getting away with evil, why isn't anyone doing anything about this" kind of atmosphere, where random individual actions are fit into a narrative, hence the seemingly disproportionate responses. It's the kind of mindset that makes it possible to pose proudly for an outdoirs family picture with a lynched corpse swaying in the background.
Thanks for providing nuance. The problem is systemic, not individual.
8:40 - Pretty much describing Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
One thought kept coming back: "He is describing the world Batman lives in, and, to a lesser extent, all Superheroes and all cop shows." Evil is not a problem to be solved, it's bad people that need punishing. Heroes don't do evil, such as killing villains, even when it solves problems, because it would ruin their integrity and make them evil. And besides, taking down a villain simply leaves space for a newer, nastier villain to take its place.
Even the Wire, for all its examination of systemic issues, falls into this pattern, and treats said systems as unsolvable, with all efforts to reform them being palliative and/or temporary at best, and, at worst, making the problem worse, and ruining your life and your integrity along the way.
This! The superhero genre expresses the unspoken conservative assumption that evil is individual "bad guys" who can be bombed or locked up, or individual "good guys" who can be left to address all their individual problems individually via consumer choices in The Free Market (profits be upon its Invisible Hand). If there's a problem (such as climate change/ecological destruction, a pandemic, or systemic injustice) that can't be solved by bombing someone, shooting someone, or going shopping, that problem had just better not exist. Or, just shrug and accept it as an unstoppable Force of Nature.
Notice how Iron Man has a perfect, magical clean energy source that could solve climate change, desertification, etc. and give humanity the Solar System, but he keeps it to himself so he can beat up bad guys, while everyone else is still chugging around in gas-powered cars and heating their homes with coal-fueled electricity?
I want a superhero who works through systemic issues now. Thanks.
@@kevincrady2831 Depends on the continuity. The Iron Man anime makes Tony giving the world free clean enercgy a core plot point. And I've seen Wayne Corp propose similarly awesome solutions every now and then. They're just not allowed to impact the setting long term, because superhero settings need to keep resembling our world, and are not allowed to end. Hence why Reed Richards Is Useless.
Kevin Crady You have good points, but I don’t think it’d make sense or be entertaining to make a comic book around Iron Man going around and cleaning up the world. It’s simply unreal comic book writing, and it has nothing to do with left or right views. However, to bounce off this point, the actor who played Iron Man IS doing something about climate change with AI, we don’t need comic books to teach us how to change the world, but we do need them to show us how to stand for something and make change in a system (traits over specific real world actions).
I think perhaps in general superhero stories suffer these problems but while some of the Batman things present the idea that Gotham will always have evil, I notice in the 90's cartoon Batman also frequently gave villains chances to turn their life around, offering them jobs in Wayne Enterprises so they wouldn't have to turn to crime to make ends meet. He donated a lot of money to charity and helped criminals change their lives. Unfortunately most episodes covering a villain's attempts to come clean would be completely unfruitful the next time you see them, but I think that had more to do with the episodic nature of TV at the time. The show tried to explore the idea of changing the system, not just punishing its victims.
"We don't need to be as gods to turn the world inside out."
I'm not sure how immediately and uncritically radical I am, but I do want a yearbook I can quote that in.
Made me think of Gold Roger lmao
Christian atheism is the ex who laughed at me for being afraid of going to Hell in the same conversation he said gays were going to Hell
wtf
They are.
Praise allah
@@collinchristensen7405 they are brother, god bless
@@collinchristensen7405 they are what?
@@gangbangmidnight841 stfu bruh
"they'll just import them!"
"They'll import them from *where*, Jerry, from Canada??"
i had "friends" in high school that held it against me for being an out of the closet gay. but conversely, that they didnt understand why people who were in the closet stayed there. "if i was gay i'd just be out" they would often say. they claimed they respected people more if they came out, while always treating me differently.
Around that time the bad idea of 'if you care if someone is gay, that means you're gay" idea hit the market, so there was this mixture of fake acceptance and limited empathy which made their contradictions more confusing.
Little did any of them know that i was having a sexual relationship with someone in our friend group, who also said the same things, for a decade. i never said anything to anyone about it to keep the situation going. one day one of the friends from this group i associated with the most found out through my facebook messenger about the relationship.
First thing he did after i explained that this was happening the entire time, was say that i was making it up, then that it was my fault or i did something to make this happen while also maintaining it didnt happen lol. then he told me a story of how something happened between them that made him believe it could be true, but it still felt like he needed to blame me.
By the end of it, due to his weird apathy of how the past treatment made me feel, the contradictions, and other things, i left that toxic situation. seemed no one had an issue with the guy in question because he stayed in the closet. He didn't act like it was ok. i never understood this until now. thanks for this.
good job dumping that fake ally pos.
Arbor Smith sucks that you had to deal with that 💓 Proud of you for getting away from those neanderthals
You reminded me of my wife's father. He's one of those that says "I'm OK with people choosing to be gay but..."
You know where that phrase is going. But, here's the thing, he was OK when his brother in law (who was gay) invited him to parties and expensive restaurants, he said he was OK because said in-law "keep things private", i.e. He didn't "act gay in public".
It's the same hypocritical mindset.
@Ajax Aidy The highest horse I've ever seen. Do you see how you come across? You couldn't sound more condescending.
@Ajax Aidy nothing he said suggests that. you chose to extrapolate some bullshit just to respond with that
14:15 Finally, someone else says it. This is how I’ve tried to live my life for a while now, with the belief that “If all evil is a result of humans, then humans have the power to fix all evil. We made it, we can unmake it.”
Well, except for the need to vote for the lesser evil. That one's a cosmological constant of the universe. :)
This week, the guy from payroll is arguing that masks don't work.
Actually, the argument is "If masked worked, then the W-H-O and Doctor Faucy were lying to us and caused many deaths for saying the opposite less than a month ago and should not be trusted." They have a point as the excuse given was "we were running low on supplies and did not want people hoarding them" which does imply that they let people die if masks are so valuable.
Honestly, Democrats politicizing the pandemic was the worst thing that could have happened to the scientific credibility on the situation.
@@dfmrcv862, they were saying to wear cloth masks, not surgical masks or N95s.
@@lunarlegion5518 The ones they very clearly said "did not work or help stop the virus"?
Like I get the importance of being safe, but what the hell do you expect people to think when you do a complete 180 on a very important subject and your only "backing" is: if we told people this stuff worked, they would have sold out before we could replace them.
Can't fault the people criticizing them. They have a point.
@@dfmrcv862, dude I barely paid attention to what they were saying, I looked at the studies directly. The studies say wear a mask. Wear a mask.
@@dfmrcv862 Politicians on both parties lied and politicized the pandemic. The difference is, the people you're criticizing misguided the public with the intention of keeping supplies for health workers, whose health is arguably more important during a pandemic to keep others healthy as well.
While the people you identify politically with misguided the public with the intention of selling their stocks before an expected market crash.
2 years later and the examples couldn't be more topical 💀
These examples have been topical for decades, and-sadly-they probably still will be decades later.
wow i didn’t even realize this was 3 years old at this point 😭 i thought it came out recently
Union organiser here-- "I Hate Mondays" is also a thought terminating statement like "what can you do" or "that's how stuff is i suppose." A thing people say because it stops them having to think about uncomfortable things any more. A big part of the work in organising a workplace is acting "what CAN you do?" or "Why do you hate mondays?"
It's similar here-- the process of deradicalising a conservative often involves asking why we have these problems and trying to get them to talk about what can be done to solve them.
"It spreads because those in power spread it" and they spread it in order to stay in power. It's a vicious circle that has been ongoing for long enough.
Those in power spread all matter of vicious ideals. Many of which you no doubt subscribe to. You have got the right attitude I suspect but you need to question more deeply.
@@dbojangles1597 It strikes me as strange that a lot of discussions about politics inevitably devolve into some form of 'I'm smarter than you are so I must be more correct about what I believe than you are'. Are you prepared to accept the idea that some people have thought quite deeply about their political ideals and still disagree with you?
@@stevepittman3770 Of course. I have run into many such people over the years.
I tried it with my consevative teacher, and I was silenced because of "offensive views", because of being mildly liberal.
That just radicalized me, and now I'm a libertarian Marxist.
Thanks teacher.
you're literally a reactionary if the only reason you went from liberal to socialist is because 1 teacher was mean to you 1 time
@@haideri0313 I dont think that is what they meant, more that it was an event that set them on that path
@@winter945 you're right, that also made me more interested in politics and in nonfiction readings: that made me grow up, in a certain sense
@Dead Ninja Storage I don't think so: he also has been accusing the mainstream media of misreporting the middlle east conflicts for literally decades, from Palestine to Iran
@@haideri0313 I figured it was a joke. I've seen a considerable amount of people claiming to have gone from leftists or liberals to conservatives because another leftist or liberal was mean to them. Changing your political opinions based on that is really dumb, of course, but I don't think "reactionary" is a good description, because then OP wouldn't be holding conservative views.
It's weird how conservatives do only seem to process things as a binary, rather than a gradient. I definitely noticed this when arguing with conservatives over vaccines. They don't seem to process it any more than "it works 100 percent, or it doesn't work."
I used the Kevlar argument. Kevlar can’t stop all bullets, but you don’t walk into a war zone without it.
@jennaxoxox4821 That's a wonderful analogy, I'm using that next time it comes up lol!
“Those guys are so binary”
*following statement about how they all think the same way*
@@jettrobbins4238 they overwhelming do, though. There's no contradiction there, like you're pretending.
*Rightoid furiously gestures at imagined hypocrisy.*
@@jennaxoxox4821 They seem to understand firearms better than basic healthcare or infrastructure. In theory, it should work to a considerable degree.
The "Be Gay Do Crime" picture with the skeleton is my new favorite reaction image.
"Christian atheist" that is quite interesting to me. I'm an atheist raised Muslim. And I find it interesting even though I generally sway more liberal or at least center. I still am not comfortable with things like eating pork. Or drinking alchohol. I've been able to change my opinions about quite a lot of things in the years since I quit faith. However certain small things like that still seem to stick.
I think that certain things might just stick with you as morally improper even if you stop believing in the fundamental rules that made you think they are morally wrong in the first place. You've been marinated long enough in those ideas that it might be hard to get rid of them as they are a comfort zone.
Exsctly. Which is why i think it is really important from time to time to really THINK about our values, or the things we think are "wrong" and what the "logic" behind it is. Sometimes it confirms the value, but often enough it puts them in question. Schiller (i think) once says "a human who is able to think, can change his opinion"
Yeah. I'm a "christian" atheist, I guess. Even if you try to leave the beliefs, you still carry the baggage of an entire mythic structure to "how the world works" that's much more difficult to let go of.
@@theengine I wish more people would be aware of this. Christianity in the west has deep roots in the entire culture, even if people do not explicitly avow its beliefs. Religious literacy therefore is very important and helps us navigate culture, whether or not we consider a religious orientation towards life personally valid.
As a former Christian turned agonistic this is really relatable
I think this is exactly why there is such an enormous disconnect for those who were raised in an atheist, or "basically atheist" family setting. Someone says, "But you used to believe "X"! You're just angry!" and the never-been-religious person is baffled, because they were never raised to believe in "X," or even something similar to "X," at all. There's a weird space in communication when two persons have such an enormous gap in their upbringing. There's a lot of arguments, that I have encountered, which seem to stem from "But I was raised this way," which seems to mostly mean, "My care-givers (or pastors, or Idol) told me this was true," and it leads to a frustrating exchange, when I have an actual reason instead of just, "someone told me to think it."
This is exactly why the Right (and Christianity in general) mostly opposes legalizing drug use, legalizing prostitution. Not being able to punish the people who traditionally were shunned because they were evil is the same as saying they're not evil, they're good. As good as any other God-fearing person. Acknowledging a problem can't be punished away, since people keep doing it anyway, and finding other ways to tackle the problem is the same as saying drug use and prostitution is something perfectly fine, no problem with it whatsoever. They already decided those are evil things, so they dig in.
No it’s because they can’t regulate and tax those things nationwide. And obviously if something is bad, you wouldn’t want it in your place of residence.
@@riptaiyo that makes less than zero sense because legalization is the only pathway to regulating and taxing drug use *at all.*
@@MsScarletwings yeah and that makes shit stupid expensive. Ask any pot head where they get their shit from. Unless it’s medical or they’re rich asf it’ll be from a plug not a dispensary.
@@riptaiyo It's much harder to regulate drugs when they're illegal.
Take for example when alcohol was banned in the US. As selling and buying liquors was made illegal it also meant there is no taxes, no concentration limit, no mandated closing hours, more petty crimes and, let's not forget, lots of mafias.
Common goods requires legalization to have an effective regulation
The Devil’s greatest trick was convincing man that he was God!
In other words, they will look for any excuse to try and not solve society's problems.
If someone fights you every step of the way when you advocate for a solution, you're not talking to a compatriot. You're talking to the problem.
Its only a problem when it affects them. But at that point its too late.
@@1Andydude They'd happily dig their own grave if they thought it was for their gay neighbour.
Their morals are passive, not active, one should behold a belief of what is evil, and don't act against because it's essential to human nature, there's no meaning to mitigate problems, because, sooner or later it will get back on the same spot, or even harsher, the social hierarchy will fix itself. In other words, They "just" don't think it is a problem, they don't even think there's things to be solved to begin with.
@@OneEyeShadow I've seen conservatives pivot hard when their kid comes out. But to your point, there are some who would drown their own child for being gay and publicly admit that intention.
The alt-right in the USA is so amazing to me as a Canadian. I used to be a conservative in Canada, which would be somewhere about center to center-left in America-funny enough. Now, even my dad, somebody who is very much a hard-line conservative in Canada, looks at American conservatism in pure shock. Most of my friends who are still conservatives say the same. That's not to say we don't have our crazies here, because we definitively do, it's just amazing to me that I live 45 minutes away from another country, and our idea of the political spectrum is profoundly different. I don't even have to go very far into New York state to see a stark difference.
I mean, we Canucks do have some right-wing types who are similar to the American type that often comes to mind. They just aren't as much of a presence here, and almost entirely play to an American audience anyway. Think Steven Crowder, or Jordan Peterson, or most of today's writers from The Fraser Institute. Same with many UK populist right-wing types like Paul Joseph Watson or Carl Benjamin. They're British, but mostly play to an American audience. Our Conservative Party is really only more in line with the GOP in terms of being far friendlier to our oil businesses, and their austerity measures on many social provisions. They certainly don't advertise themselves much as the pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-Christian fundamentalism party. At least, they come across as far more moderately so, comparitively, and seem to be neutral on the gun issue.
@@moviemaestro800 it's quite weird that many alt-right figures are Canadian - as well as Peterson and Crowder you have Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, Black Pigeon Speaks, Rebel Media.
Stephen Harper has done videos for Prager U so there's at least some overlap with canada's conservative politics.
Canadian politics really looks a lot like a delayed American politics. Harper=Bush, Trudeau=Obama. Don't think you won't have your Trump moment.
Most countries will find their political spectrum is far out of line with the spectrum in America. This is mostly due to 2 factors. Over the last 80 years both parties have engaged in an ongoing practice called Gerrymandering, where they redraw the borders of different voting districts to give themselves more favorable odds by selecting which citizens will see their party's stronger names on the ballot. The other factor happened in the 1980's when then president Ronald Reagan enacted a series of regressive social policies, obscene tax incentives for the wealthy and elite that bordered on tax exempt status, and backed these changes up with religious pandering and ethnic scapegoating propaganda.
The end result of all this is that today the political spectrum in America is skewed so far to the extreme right end of the spectrum that America's left wing looks like the right leaning center parties in most other developed nations and America's right wing is literally indistinguishable from the Nazi party in the days leading up to WWII.
@@CitanulsPumpkin I said it when Obama was elected as was laughed at by some centrists: Obama had as much in common with Stephen Harper as he does with Justin Trudeau in terms of politics. And that's saying a lot given how much of a centrist, milk-toast Trudeau is politically.
@@longliverocknroll5 in America Obama is without a doubt a moderate centrist. In every other country on the planet...
It's weird how unchristian conservatives are while claiming they are. Helping others and not being rich are two enormous parts right there in the Bible.
But also damning people to eternal torture apone death, even after a lifetime of suffering because...they didn't believe in said God so they deserved it...somehow this is *""love""* as conceptualized by christianity. It is all about punishment, and sanctifying ONE path, punishing deviation cruelly and without mercy...because God will's it. It is no surprise that conservatives are mostly religious and or have deeply religious roots, because they have what they believe is an *"eternal truth"* (despite centuries of revisionism..) that must be spread and must not be questioned because...who are we to question God and his (self) appointed mouthpieces right?
Except that encouraging success is the Christian way of making the world a better place.
Charity is charitable because it's voluntary. Making a policy to force everyone to be extra charitable would no longer be charity. Soviets tried it and it didn't work.
And where does the Bible say being rich is a bad thing? It mentions that rich people may have a hard time getting into heaven because of their earthly attachments, not that being rich is itself a bad thing.
@@dfmrcv862
So has charity ended systemic poverty and suffering for millions of people yet?
@@navilluscire2567 there's no systemic poverty in the US so, yes.
@@dfmrcv862
Yes there is, and even if there wasn't your honestly going to give credit to like church bake sales for such?
When you said Christian atheist it really sounds like the Irish way of asking one is they're Catholic or Protestants. One is expected to say a religion even if they're atheist. Often people will say "I'm an an atheist and a catholic" . Just thought that was an interesting parallel
In I way I feel it's like Jews who identify with the culture, follow some of the rituals but are utterly divorced from the religion or spirituality. Religions ingrain themselves so deeply in the cultures they parasitize that they will deeply shape it for generations after the religion itself has been done away with.
Do note that such a thing needen't be a bad thing. Sometimes religions come up with good ideas (or steal them from the secular), so as long as society keeps the good but ejects the bad like so much refuse, the final effect *can* be a positive one.
I thought that too! In my (predominantly Protestant but technically secular) school, I'd be asked if I was Catholic due to where I was from. Not knowing any better, I'd say that personally, I was atheist, but my family was Catholic. They would of course insist that I was a Catholic. Very confusing at the time, but now I just roll my eyes lol. I don't wanna start an argument 😳
I'm an Atheist and an Agnostic
Tbh honest it’s more just another aspect of your heritage than a part of you, a part of your origins that isn’t necessarily a part of you
the bookworm hotel in Ireland you could say Catholicism and Protestantism have been racelised because of the centuries of oppression catholic’s have faced
"not because they don't work but because they *shouldn't* work" applies to so many other things - student loan debt forgiveness, UBI, unemployment insurance, guaranteed housing security, to name a few
"You can't regulate evil''
Isn't that what laws are
Ahh yes, the evils of tying my donkey to the local light pole. With the repeal of said law I am finally able to be as evil as I wish. Muahahahahahahahahahaha.
Laws punish behavior and decisions that are classified as illegal.
@@depthcharge78 You just proved the video's point. You're thinking of the law not as guidance, but as judgment.
@@Silverwind87 Do laws not result in punishment and consequence? By the way, I never said that a law does not guide people's behavior; it absolutely does.
@@depthcharge78 because laws result in punishment and consequence then their purpose is punishment and consequence?
I'm still reeling from this conservative mindset that was given to me by my friends.
It's such a strange mindset. The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus has already taken care of things on a scale of all eternity, and now we are invited to change the world, to lay the foundations, to bring an end to evil. In Christianity, evil has already lost; the remains of its domain are falling apart and moreso with every good action -- and we are empowered to bring about change. Everyone is.
But for years, I thought Christianity was in some last-stand battle where it could disappear at any second. *It was as though Jesus wasn't enough.* As if loving your neighbor didn't work. It was as though the survival of the church was more important than being a force for change.
Please remember: these people are terrified of problems, too. The problem is that they've heard the line "only Jesus can save" and now have it confused with "only Jesus can change."
Damn. That's well said.
"The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus has already taken care of things on a scale of all eternity, and now we are invited to change the world, to lay the foundations, to bring an end to evil."
That is the Lightbringer, not Jesus Christ. Combining the greatest of all possible goods, with an impossibly of checking progress in order to justify accumulating as much power as possible is a commonality of all full bloom demonic belief systems. Example- the Cathars- we need to exterminate humanity in order to free everyone from the prison that is the world.
Christianity does not offer to bring an end to evil except after the end of the world (which is a fancy way of saying 'not going to happen').
"But for years, I thought Christianity was in some last-stand battle where it could disappear at any second."
That has happened multiple times in Christianity. We have Diocletian, Japan in the 16th century, the territories captured by Muslims during the 8th century and some areas of the socialist bloc (Albania straight up banned all religion).
Christianity is not historically inevitable- its strength comes from its believers and its doctrine. It either one is weak, it falls apart.
"It was as though the survival of the church was more important than being a force for change."
The Christians triumphed over the pagans because they had children and the pagans did not. Does being a force for change allow Christians to have children, to obey the Lord's order to be fruitful and multiply? No, it does not, it is merely what is currently fashionable. The way of the world is transitory, but the city of God is eternal.
@@toomanycharacter same with everything else in the world.
I think his point is more so that he woke up to the way mainstream Christianity is lived out in the US, specifically in WASP politics (but also including more conservative/fundamentalist communities) vs the way it is actually taught within those same communities.
There is such a heavy emphasis on love, on going and loving people genuinely because that’s what the world is missing but, when it is time for that social action to interact with political action, they adopt an almost “spiritual nihilism”.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter “who” doesn’t “agree” on “Christian lore”, the point is that the mainstream evangelicals who are being criticized *do* agree on certain spiritual beliefs that run directly opposed to the way they act politically.
For example: it is incredibly easy to pick on how practically every single republican candidate is the son of a pastor, father of a pastor, associate of a pastor, supporter of a pastor, asisten too the regional pastor, etc. They brand themselves as the “christian right”.
But,
Hillary Clinton, the opposition they treated almost like the embodiment of the anti christ, lead weekly bible studies the entire time her husband was in office.
Jimmy Carter is criticized as a failure by the right, but he *still* attends the church he grew up in, and news articles are still regularly published talking about how he was seen helping to build a house for somebody that needed it, or how he is working at X social program, etc.
Biden is, if I recall correctly, catholic.
While Christianity IN SOCIETY may be practiced in a variety of different ways, MAINSTREAM Christianity (as it is practiced politically) follows a very specific subset of core beliefs that, when people who grow up in religion (like myself) disagree with while retaining their faith (also like myself), feel almost isolating until you manage to leave your bubble and connect with others who have quietly thought the same things.
Wow. Thank you for saying this.
@@ATTACKofthe6STRINGS
They follow the tradition established by 'On the city of God against the pagans' in 410 AD. The political purpose of Christianity is to serve as a state religion, not a theocracy.
The reason people converted to Christianity is because Christians had children and pagan Romans did not and Christianity has kept that as its primary purpose ever since, with the job of providing a framework for society when Constantine installed it as the state religion.
There are plenty of Christians who believed Christianity was about explaining why they deserved more power because of how Christian they were. We are commanded to judge by its fruits and in every case the results were bad. If 'being more Christian' justifies getting more power, people will keep redefining Christian until it means status maximizing sociopath. Then they will dump the label and declare they are even more moral then Christians.
You are here.
This was very eye opening. Especially as a Latino who's family tends to lean toward fascism. We have the same problems in Colombia, it's nice to have it explained!
Could you share a testimony on rising fascism in Columbia. (Hola desde España, os queremos).
@@unaizuriarrain1071 ¡Gracias por el amor y el apoyo! ¡Pero mi español en España es terrible! jaja Si prefieres hablar en español, ¡házmelo sabo!
But our rise in fascism, at least from what I have seen is actually very reminiscent of Brazil's rise fascism but with a European style mix. As you can probably tell, I am lucky enough to come from a rather well off family to be trained to fluency in english. My mother is a rather dark skinned "native" and my father is a lighter skinned colonial. By that I mean his ancestors are white Europeans colonizers and due to extreme racism of the past there is still a class of wealthy white colonials. However, Colombia is now more than ever an ever growing post racial society, but it still has a problem with the old white colonial families who want to maintain power. And many of them have turned to fascism. Also our country has a dark history of Nazis living in our country but that's unrelated. When I say they're a mixture of Brazilian fascism and European fascism is because many use the chest beating of the macho, masculine kind of behavior of Brazil. While also holding onto a fatalistic and suicide cult view of conquest that European fascism is identifiable with. Luckily they aren't a real problem at the moment. But with the rise of fascism globally they have been making moves lately. But I'm also interested in Spain as well! ¿Cómo está su país?
@@castillogrande8926 If you want, I can answer in English, I think I'm pretty good with this language. I am currently not in Spain, but I keep my attention on what is going on there. There has been a recent surge of the "Vox" party there. It is a nationalist, conservative, neoliberal party. One of the things that scare me the most about them is that they want to ban regional separatist parties. Imagine if Native American interest groups were banned in the USA, it's kinda like this. Some of the far-right in Spain openly claims their heritage from our fascist dictator (Francisco Framco) of the past, wich makes me a bit scared because I am Basque (mira a mí nombre) and my family were with Republican Spain at the time.
I hope that my English is good enough.
Have Nazis hidden in Columbia like in Brazil or Argentina ? That's scary.
Gracias por el testimonio y buena suerte en la vida !
@@unaizuriarrain1071 Actually your english is very good jaja
But yes, we have had a Nazi problem. Including a Nazi newspaper in the 1940s. I'm also not currently in Colombia. I'm studying abroad at the University of Pennsylvania. And I'm stuck here until the lockdown is over. But nonetheless, it is frightening to see the state of the world the way it is. It was actually in the United States that I first really face to face experienced open racism. Besides my father's parents refusing to acknowledge me as their grandchild because I'm mixed race. But I never met then, so those fascists could catch COVID for all I care. Anyway, I chose the spanish option at a Giant grocery store self checkout and someone told me to speak American. When I said I am fluent but prefer Spanish, this woman said she would call ICE. I'm far more worried about being in America than Colombian fascists.
@@castillogrande8926 Your paternal grandparents disowned you because of your mother's origin ? That's really heartless. I have seen that even in Peru there were Nazi groups, it's really absurd and shocking.
I wonder if the anti-Hispanic discrimination in the USA is a leftover from rivalry between Spain and Britain then the US and Mexico. It is sad when compared to the "A toda mí raza, mí casa es si casa" attitude. The Latinos I know are really kind
(and beautiful) people.
The situation is really worrying when you see what people are ready to believe.
Don't you feel trapped between these two countries ?
I think Sundays are worse because you’re anxious all day and then on Monday you realize it wasn’t that bad
One of the arguments that I found most compelling when I, as a liberal, first started reading Marx was his point about capitalism being a product of history rather than a law of nature.
It really is. It's the modern replacement for Pharaoh worship, Royalty, and Feudalism. It is just a new way for a few people to lord over the rest of us because of useful idiots buttressing them. You will notice many parallels -- implying that those who rule over us (capitalist billionaires in this case) are better than us and deserve their lot in life, justifying it with non-falsifiable pseudo religion (the result of the free market is Just because it's what the Invisible Hand wants, and the Invisible Hand is by definition never wrong!), etc.
It's such a profound realisation because our education systems do such a good job of making capitalism appear to be the "natural order" it's always framed as if any deviation is doomed to fail because it not how "the world works". They always leave out how imperialism and meddling in world affairs helps these alternative systems to "fail".
Are you still a liberal after reading Marx?
@halupadude Yet nothing ever changes. Did the October Revolution change anything? No, it did not. The Czar was replaced by the General Secretary. The Russian Empire was replaced by the Soviet Empire. Humanity is bound by certain mindsets. Tribalism and hierarchies.
@@dasbubba841 do you think it's possible for people to improve those mindsets? Can people become less tribalistic and less devoted to unjust hierarchy?
"They don't want fewer people to get abortions, they want people who get abortions to get punished" is my favourite explanation ever for the conservative mindset.
@Jesus Christ Then I suppose you support comprehensive sex education, free and easy access to contraceptives, and all the things we could do to lower the rates of unwanted pregnancy?
@Jesus Christ the reason why it's free, simple and highly effective: it's completely unrealistic
@Jesus Christ do you want the problem to be solved or you just want immoral people to be punished? If the latter, you're just proving OP right
@Jesus Christ the problem is that this doesn't work. There is no evidence of it working anywhere. Governments must rely on methods that produce results. Expecting that adults will simply abstain from sex is just wishful thinking. So is expecting people to want children in this economy
@Jesus Christ you misinterpreted me. Abstaining from sex only works for individuals, not populations. If you want something to change, you need to implement policies. Not even religious schools, where morals are taught and enforced, are able to prevent teen pregnancy. So saying that the government should step back isn't gonna solve the problem. It's like preventing crime by hoping that people will not commit it.
If you don't support any policy to solve the problem, and you only want the government to punish people, how is the sentence that started this thread a lie?
A stray thought that entered my head while you were talking about the Conservative mindset's resistance to talking about systemic change, because it requires thinking about incremental effects on populations (around the 4 minute mark). While I do definitely hear many political conservatives argue in this fashion, some of them at least are very cognizant about how systemic tweaks can cause incremental change in the aggregate, because they use that logic effectively when they deploy voter suppression. Decreasing the number of polling places in poor and minority neighborhoods would not, in principle, prevent a committed voter from voting.... but its worth doing because they know it will have an effect in the aggregate, and they know that this will be useful to their political project. This is one of the things that makes me want to dismiss Payroll-guy's arguments as not just a different mind set, but a purposefully deployed mindset, used to construct a tactically useful bad faith argument against systemic change which they oppose, for other, unstated reasons. I'm not sure to what extent they believe it themselves, but it smells of doublethink.
this
I think there's an important distinction between conservative citizen and conservative politician. Republican senators don't believe a word they're saying. It's a total flimflam.
@@LimeyLassen It's just that I think most Republican voters know and tacitly approve of the strategy. They know it serves their political aspirations, so they don't oppose it, even though it flies in the face of Democratic Ideals. So, they understand and approve the logic when it serves their aims, they just fail to understand the same logic under other, 'special' circumstances.
Limey Lassen Agreed totally
@@Natabus You make a good point. I also think it's very easy for Republican voters to apply the exact logic as mentioned in the video though with voter suppression stuff. If you're an upstanding citizen then you'll navigate the red tape to vote, right? If you don't then that's a personal failing. It's totally consistent with their approach to all the various societal ills -- "Some people stray from the path. That's their fault if they do. Punish them lest their soul be damned."
Also they view it as preventing voter fraud, not pushing voter suppression.
I think your average Republican voter isn't thinking about incrementalism or systemic voter patterns -- they just want to make sure "people can't commit voter fraud". Same as making it harder to get an abortion. As the video said, it's ultimately about determining which behaviors deem someone worthy of retribution.
As another commenter said though, I think it's entirely different when talking about actual politicians. They have power to wield.
“All abortion bans do is determine weather the abortion happens in a doctors office or a motel room.” Damn even that shut me up.
This was painful to watch because it's so accurate.
I've spent years discussing politics with people who seem soooo passionate about the things they speak of yet all they ever seem to do is judge. They don't care about facts, they don't care about solutions, they ONLY care about being RIGHT
Pffft, no, it isnt. This video cuts off the arguments conservatives give riiiight when they talk about solutions so that the narrator can gloat about how “conservatives cannot offer solutions” and “all they want is to punish, not fix”, which is complete and utter nonsense if you actully talk to and listen to American conservatives.
Solutions proposed by conservatvies to help mitigate school shootings: Do what hospitals do when they have an active shooter: smart locks on the halls to keep the shooter from going anywhere, and keep armed guards near the school. That way you protect the kids and dont trample on the Constitution.
Solutions for abortion: Keep it legal in cases where it is necessary, support proper sex ed, and promote families educate their kids on the subject.
Solutions for healthcare: Keep a safety net (which we already have), give doctors more freedom to innovate and make treatments cheaper.
We may not be perfect, but we are not what the video suggests.
Daniel fmatosrivera except we’ll never hear that abortion solution come out of a republican politician’s mouth without being immediately tarred as a cuckservative by Fox News and the rest of the trump cult.
Imagine suddenly realizing you're the exact person he's talking about
@@dfmrcv862 what cases of abortion arent necessary?
@@dfmrcv862 This video isn't about conservative policy, but the conservative mindset. If you think someone other than a pregnant woman should decide when an abortion is necessary, you're trying to impose your idea of correct morality on someone else's actions and that's exactly the conservative mindset this video covers.
As a Progressive Christian, who grew up among conservatives and evangelicals, can I just say that I really appreciate the way you deconstruct their world views in this series? Like, as I got interested in politics I began to realize how incompatible my religion theoretically should be with their political views and you really help me understand where their reasoning come from. I really do appreciate it.
Check out the youtube channel Damon Garcia. He's an ex-evangelical who talks about the intersection of Christianity and leftist politics. You might really like it.
It's what happens when Christians see themselves as separate from the world. When you lean too hard into the "God's chosen people" identity. We are not called to insulate ourselves from the world, but to change it for Him. Otherwise, it just becomes a tool of ingroup/outgroup ego stroking.
Exactly. It's partially through these videos that I realized that Christianity and Conservatism are incompatible.
Agreed with everything you said. As a believer in Christ myself, I am also watching these videos and it helps me realise how, in fact, Christianity contradicts many conservative views rather than supporting them. This is something I wish more Christians in the US would wake up and realise. God willing.
It reminds recently on my dad( who religious but left wing) saying that most evangelical Christians and traditional Catholics(and to extend religious fundamentalism) aren’t in for the teachings and spirituality of religion, but rather the punishment and order it gives aka the cult like atmosphere. Basically the punishment of hell rather then the forgiveness of sin
If the only framework we have is one where the options are "terrible" and "Even More terrible," then however much harm reduction we do, the framework needs to change.
YES!
Any preference for what means and methods we use to change said framework?
@@youtubeuniversity3638 the scientific method
dog i turned 19 three days ago i don't know how to fucking fix democracy
@@youtubeuniversity3638 vote for third party candidates in the house senate and presidency who are running on a platform of changing the framework for the better.
The situation in Israel brought this video to mind.
Quite a few people consider the only valid reaction to the attack by Hamas to be "Palestinians are simply evil and must be punished for their evil."
Anything else they call "supporting terrorism"
No interest in understanding what motivated the attack, no interest in what keeps Hamas armed and active, no real interest in trying to prevent similar events from repeating in the future.
Just a Monday.
well, to be fair, i've also seen lots of people argue that israel is attacking gaza like it is because "they want to genocide the palestinians because they're evil"
True i was like that aswell. Well i still am and i wont lose any sleep over palestine getting bombed for doing a dumb move
I do understand why they did. Because before that israel was skeeming and kept on pissing off the palestinians until they lash out and play the victim card.
However i just cant accept the level of barbarism commited by hamas and how palestinians spitted on a mutilated female corpse that hamas paraded through the streets
I went from "screw gaza" to "i just dont give a shit who wins just dont cause problems at my home"
I don’t care what motivated the attack. Hamas was not forced to do it. And because I’m a country which lists them as a terrorist organisation I have no choice but to side against them.
This isn’t about Palestine, it’s about Hamas specifically.
@@maxkozak9702 Then the attack is, to you, just a Monday.
@@paulsmart4672 I am not saying that Palestinians are evil. I'm just saying I don't want to side with terrorists meaning I have to side with Israel by default. The reasons for the attack whatever they are may explain things, but they don't excuse them. I simply don't care about the reasons.
I'm just not interested in anything else besides the fact that Hamas is listed as terrorists in my country and that they're the ones that started this conflict. [any previous conflicts are technically separate wars, so i'm not counting them for the sake of argument]
this war is about Israel defending itself and having a chance to get rid of a controversial political party in Gaza as a result.
As an Australian who was there for the gun buyback and knows exactly why we needed it, and who heard every argument from every angle at the time (some of it very angry from some corners as I live in a semi rural area and there is a legit need for some guns), and who has since witnessed what the real changes were (every farmer has their necessary guns, every sporting shooter still gets to shoot at their club, guns stored in family homes are now stored safely, in locked cabinets with ammo locked elsewhere on the premises, and most wonderfully our deaths-by-guns stats dropped right back and we feel comparatively safe and happy), when telling any US rightwingers about the fact that we had ZERO mass gun murders since 1996 (up until I think one in the last year or so when we had one), they immediately pivot to several points. 1) oh but the stats lie you must have just redefined "mass gun killing" 2) oh but there are still gun killings as every criminal kept their guns 3) oh but now all the guns are illegal guns you dont know about 4) oh but I bet its just as bad as now they use knives and freaking sticks or something 5) oh but the US is amazingly unique and different to Australia because we care about Capital-EFF-Freedom unlike you Aussies (wtf REALLY! do you even THINK about who you are talking to?)
My father stopped wrapping his shotgun in a blanket and storing it under the bed (where I realised it had always been when we were kids and I am so glad we never pulled it out by accident), and he began locking it in a proper metal cabinet. That's a win--it was about education and realistic minimisation as much as "stripping people of gun rights". My nana stopped handing us kids
I grew up as a teenager going shooting on farms, as there were rabbits, foxes, goats and roos to be culled. It was very strictly controlled. No alcohol, no disrespect or unnecessary cruelty to animals, holding every gun correctly pointing to the ground, everyone has their position in the back of the ute and nobody ever shoots across the company. No semi-autos or autos needed, as why would they even be necessary? And no ridiculous family portraits ever needed to be taken with everyone (including toddlers) posing with a high powered automatic rifle (mum with a pink one ffs) because when guns are actually needed as tools, no stupid political posturing is required to attempt to justify them.
The point to that god-awful run-on screed above (my apologies) is that they don't want to hear, no matter how sensible and what the stats and anecdotal experience is and I've only mentioned one issue as an example. Despite being able to provide stats, and pretty wide anecdotal evidence as someone who lives in a blended rural-urban area, there is no debate to be had if one side feels no need to be involved. The biggest resistance is the "Oh but we are Exceptional Unicorns with a 2nd amendment and we can't have our government take us over so we may need to revolt at any time".
Perhaps then I should counter with something like "oh ok...great country you got there then...huh?"
Couple things , I dont think you comprehend the differences that caused by a change in scale and history , Something at one scale will not apply to another scale Australia has around 25 million people , America has 328 million people with the single state california being nearly 2x as big. With the massive scale difference many of the policys that work in Australia wouldnt work. Another thing is history with america we had the american revolution and are fiercely independent because of it and something of a ban has been tried in our history prohibition and it fail badly so it show something like it unlikely to work. Compared to Australian history were it was penal colony that already had hard laws set already and currently you are still under a constitutional monachy with the queen being the queen of Australia as well with that Australia hasnt really shown the same furious independence as the U.S. one last thing I am not sure if you understand U.S gun law but automatic weapons have been banned 40 years at this point(any automatic gun seen now were grandfathered in.) and nearly every legal weapon in america is semi automatic with most pistols being semi automatic and most citizen dont want to be fighting intruder with inferior firepower.
@@Saxton_Hoovy Thanks for your response, Luis. I do have an understanding about these differences, as have many US friends and we debate passionately and often. It certainly can be interesting to look into the reasons why those in the US say it can't work. I do know that you as a country value your sense of freedom. Many people around the world do. It is a basic and universal human desire. I get that.
One thing that perhaps you need to understand is that only some parts of Australia were once settled as penal colonies. Not all. A "prisoner mentality" has never been a part of the vast majority of Australians' culture, and it's a stereotype that needs to die in a fire. (I blame the film industry.)Most of us have no links whatsoever to those first shipments of English prisoners, as we have come from everywhere. Some of us were here earlier, some families were free English settlers, some came from all over the world after waves of war and need for a free life brought them. They came because they too value this freedom that you love.
This is off topic, but since you brought it up, I personally, and most Australians I speak with would love to see the end of our constitutional links with England and the monarchy. Can't deny that, and its certainly past time. I guess we just don't see the need for an actual war over it, so it's not made it to the top of the list for a while ;)
All the best to you :)
@@TiffyVella1 At this point I feel that most americans against it like me cant put a real finger on why it would go wrong just that we know it will. While the want of freedom is a human necessity how much is express in different countries vary with america being so freedom loving it will do things to it detriment just because it had the freedom to do so but not all countries are like this a country like germany may have a complete different view on how much freedom it values.It kinda was stupid of me to think Australia hasnt changed at all since it was a penal colony and wouldnt have the same ideas.regarding the monarchy I wonder if it because most people forget that she is queen of Australia in the first place so it not even on their radar. I wish the same for you:)
@@Saxton_Hoovy Down here we are having a discussion on what Freedom means, because we may all say we want it, but it means different things to different groups. We all agree that we value it highly, but we aren't really agreeing on the same thing at all. It seems that some want the "freedom to"-- freedom to do what they as individuals want. Some want a "freedom from"- freedom from being forced to live with the consequences of what the first group do with their freedom. Freedom of the individual vs responsibility to society, and where and how to draw the line and who gets to decide where its drawn. This messy dilemma came up with the gun restriction debate, and its coming up now with the Covid lockdown debate. I do not have a perfect answer, and know that left-wing and right-wing ideology is pretty much split right down the line. I know the US is also facing these questions. Hope we get it sorted!
Yes, its absolutelly great to write a paragraph about gun control, and completely disregard what others think about it.
" No semi-autos or autos needed, as why would they even be necessary? "
Well, let's imagine, hypothetically, your government says that taxes are not 30% or waddever% but are instead 95%. Also decides to go 1 party system, also you can't criticize the party and the gov decides that all citizens of the nations are now gov's property, what do you do?
Also there are no fully automatic weapons available for purchase in the US, its all semi auto. God damn it you don't even know the basics yet talk how great your country when most of killings are suicides and gang violence. If gun crime was as bad as you make it to be BLM would have been hell.
As someone who used to be right wing and still knows many people who are. This more or less sums up the mindset.
@MexicanTacos 07 Could you give me a few examples of the strawmen you saw? I didn't see any.
@MexicanTacos 07 ok boomer
@MexicanTacos 07 Hasn't he established that the way people think about mondays is somewhat "universal"? How saying "you" makes this a communist echochamber? "The way you think about mondays" still holds true (in the generalized sense) even if you're conservative.
Also, alt-right playbook illustrates common behaviors by creating characters that embody them, which, by nature, is a generalization, we know that, it's for didactic purposes. Ian certainly seems to not be interested in being careful by adding perfect nuance to convey each point without offending conservatives, I also think he was already too careful in many point throughout the series.
Also, I'm not really talking to you, I'm 90% sure you're not here to have a serious discussion. I'm just making a counter-argument public.
@MexicanTacos 07 Oh sure: why bother addressing and unpacking a talking point in good faith when you can just red bait and call any contrary or dissenting opinion and calling anyone you don't like "Communists" wither or not someone or the subject is actually communist.
And Conservative's say left wingers are the "Feelz over reals" crowd who hates facts and logic?
@MexicanTacos 07 "Why don't you try talking to a conservative that hasn't be[en] inbred three times over..." Speaking of strawmen...
whoa whoa whoa, which consequentialists say you're equally responsible for inactions as actions? Seems like you skipped some ground there cause that doesn't necessarily follow from consequentialism, and consequentialism isn't the only game in town anyway, and even within consequentialism, the real devil is in how you define "most ethical outcome."
You present deontology here as being about feelings or being quasi-religious but it needn't be. I feel like you give it pretty short shrift here, to be honest - you say as well that deontology is much more common and intense on the right but like, how do you know that?
Without wanting to sound as negative as I inevitably will, I think the Alt-Right Playbook has become intellectually lazier over the years - this video is more "I'm going to strawman conservatism and treat it as though it is a result of obvious intellectual deficiency" than analysis of the social structures and mindframes that created the rise of the alt-right. In a weird way, I think this channel is becoming more and more of the type of echo chamber that it used to be so critical of (though obviously substantively different).
I thought the thing with being more common and intense on the right, instead of just "deontology" he was also including the other stuff he was describing about morality being about punishing evildoers so that essentially good people are kept safe from essentially bad people or whatever. Seems like it jumped around different ideas a bit, I can't really tell.
Does it not stand to reason that, if consequentialism bases the value of a choice on its outcome, and you not acting has a direct, tangible consequence, that you are responsible for the outcome of your inaction? Being inactive is after all still a choice, and not a neutral one.
The most ethical outcome would be strictly personal, I assume. What is the most ethical outcome for you may not be for me, so yes, maybe he was short about it, but I'm not sure there's a whole lot more to say on it in this context.
@@tinydave17 criticism isn't "flaming", come on
I know I'm on a thin rope here, beïng a non-formal-philosophizer non-leftist, but I'm a big fan of both of y'all's content; please hear me out.
The point of this video (and of this video series, near as I can tell) is to provide analysis of common bad-faith tactics of right-wing people and give possible explanations on why they would feel compelled to use such tactics. Many vids in this series seem to tackle a completely unhelpful approach that some kind of right-winger (be he a 4channer, IRL Alt-Right, moderate, etc) takes, and to try to explain not only that approach, but why it is unhelpful/counterproductive. This is a post-hoc explanation, where I.S. is trying to give voice to his own thoughts on the matter. I read your comment as saying "Mercury doesn't change its orbit! Kepler already proved orbits don't change!", while someone is trying to explain why Mercury's orbit changes over time. Einstein solved that problem later, but surely there were other people using existing theories to try to explain it.
When I watch this video, and all of his ARP videos, I see an American left-winger trying to explain the pure alienness of the conservative mind, a mind wholly detatched from any concept he has of morality. He cannot exactly explain it, much as any sciëntific researcher, but he tries anyway.
Watching this in 2022 after a mass shooting and overturning roe v wade back to back and boy is 7:08 accurate
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
We've gone so far by making incremental improvements, that we call progress. When you stop improving, and accept everything as fact of life, you are actually starting to go backwards.
i dont think that really applies anymore..
Um, so what about when you're "left" party keeps getting worse to the point where most of them are to the right of Reagan?
@@dynamicworlds1 have you ever considered that maybe YOU’RE the problem to begin with?
@@Veolynn13 2 right wing parties. None that are even politically adjasent to me and shit is falling appart, but sure, _I'm_ the problem. Totally logical conclusion there /s
"If we can't have perfect, then we can't have good, either"
Although in my experience, arguments like "It's still not good enough" are only a smokescreen for the real motivation that draws people to the right wing: a fixation on everybody getting exactly what they "deserve"... never mind how sloppy their accounting of "deserving-ness" can be. So you could propose the most positively pragmatic solution to society's ills that does the most good for the most people possible, and these people ignore all that because what they're really hung up on is, "But somebody might get something they didn't 'earn'!" or, "But somebody who did something bad might not get punished enough!" Which, to be as charitable as possible, is vastly overrating the power of incentives, but I suspect it's really just a worship of "perfect judgment" as an end in itself as you said.
And yet it's still weird to me that this intersects with evangelical Christianity so much, because what, do they not trust God to execute judgment Himself? Actually another thing this video reminds me of is how Jesus saying "The poor you will always have with you" was supposed to be an indictment of humanity for never doing enough to eliminate poverty, but too often the takeaway is, "You'll never completely eliminate poverty, so you're a fool to even try." Is the perfect really the enemy of the good, or is that just a convenient excuse for doing nothing to help anyone for real?
@@BagOfMagicFood There's some Calvinism here, I think: The idea popped up that material success in life is a sign of divine favour, that you're saved (since each of us is predetermined for salvation or damnation), and thus the people with little is determined to have little, they have what God thinks they deserve, and they're already damned.
Though, logically, I guess that if policies can give people more than God thinks they deserve, that means we can sort of overrule God? I dunno
@@oskarhenriksen Hmm, besides the monetary worth = moral worth thing, Calvinism might explain why the right wing gets so desperate to claim they've never done anything wrong ever... But then when their chosen party has done something indefensible in recent memory, suddenly the "Both sides!"ers show up in full force to try to muddy the waters enough to discourage you from joining the opposition. Just seems to be something disingenuous going on there...
@@BagOfMagicFood How do you link that to Calvinism?
It's like when antivaxxers say "vaccinations have side-effects, so I won't vaccine until they're 100% safe". It's a black-and-white world to them. Nirvana or bust.
In germany "this would send the wrong signal" is a popular "argument" among conservatives, for example when it comes to legalizing weed. It's not about the consequences of something, it's about the implications.
If you speak german check out unruly julys video about it, she makes a very similar point to the one that is made in this video.
Could you pass me a link for that video by july?
@@TheHeavyshadow Here: th-cam.com/video/YApFbiVN_N4/w-d-xo.html
She is difficult to find.
"Nothing short of literally defeating death would be enough" ---- ooh no no no, they would definitely not be ok with that. it would be playing god, or death is what makes us human, or some other crap. so literally, nothing would be enough.