Uploads every week (hopefully). Content will range from philosophy to politics to DIY stuff, so just expect problem solving to be the only consistent theme for the channel. I'm also unapologetically center-right. If that bothers you, welcome to how the rest of us feel, constantly having politics shoved down our throats.
You're actually not right wing at all, you're a moderate liberal or conservative who doesn't see race. You only like the idea of being right wing because the alternative reveals that there isn't a spectrum of debate, it's just libtards telling you what to think and bullying you with stories.
You are missing the point. The left recognizes that hierarchies are inevitable and tries to makes sure that the hierarchies that do exist are (1) essential (there is no other practical way to achieve a desired goal) and (2) when they are created, it recognizes that this creates a dangerous imbalance and sets up checks and balances. For example, in anarcho-capitalism game theory shows us the monopolies and thus an oligarchy are inevitable. This is why the left wing thing was to not allow people to buy police and decided laws using money. These were the checks and balances. By putting the collective power over the individual you, according to set theory, don't have a hierarchy any more because the individual is part of the collective. As you state, you do have a hierarchy between ideas (individualism vs egalitarianism), not people. This is still a hierarchy and a true leftist would recognize this and try to (1) make sure it is essential (2) create the checks and balances to counteract it. For example we know that anti-monopoly laws are essential as game theory proves it is inevitable in a market system. The checks and balances is the entire due process for the FTC. It is impossible for someone to own air so pollution has to be collectively managed. So it is essential to create some authority to police air pollution, this authority must be limited so the only way it can force you to do anything is because you cause air pollution. The way to prove it is due process. Contrary to what you are saying, the left doesn't assume that all people are equally capable. For example, you need to have a license to practice medicine. You can't just buy a medicine degree you must get educated in a qualified institution. The left does think that not being able to pay for medical school is not an essential property of a medical physician and thus can't be used to stop an individual from studying medicine. The right doesn't care about non-essential hierarchies and doesn't care if not being able to afford medical school prevents and individual who is otherwise capable from becoming a doctor. You keep going down this rabbit hole and you slowly realize that opposition to things like environmental agencies (well regulated and counter balanced authority) for ability to pollute (having unlimited power over people's air) is why the right is *for* hierarchies since they don't find having them a problem and the left is against them since they do and this is why the never create all powerful unchecked authorities. At least in theory. edit: typos, phrasing, grammar
Abstract Left vs. Right is wrong in my opinion. Proletariat vs. Capitalists is more accurate; ideologies reflect real material conditions. The Left represents the impoverished workers, and the Right represents the capitalists; the middle classes vacillate between the Left and the Right. The extreme Left is communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Further to the right, you have Social Democracy, which is capitalism with strong welfare policies. Next are the Liberals, who are socially progressive. Then you have the Conservatives, who are against immigration, women's rights (such as abortion), and welfare. Finally, at the extreme Right, there is Fascism, an open dictatorship of the capitalists. In times of capitalist stability, the Proletariat vs. Capitalists/Left vs Right dichotomy becomes blurry, Marxism or Class Struggle is declared dead, Liberal Democracy the end of history; voting for Social Democrats, Liberals, and Conservatives are seem as the only viable political choices. However, in times of capitalist crisis, the illusion is shattered. The impoverished workers seek revolutionary aims to overthrow capitalism, leading to the growth of communist/socialist parties. In reaction to this, Fascism also begins to rise, aiming to preserve capitalism. We are in the early stage of this process.
1:52 Ok, and what makes Libertarians Right Wing? Because I can perfectly fine make a version of the Right which does not include Libertarians. Or even Capitalism for that matter. 6:56 Individualism didn't exist until about the 17th Century. 13:49 See what I mean? According to yourself, everyone today is a Leftist, the Right has faded and what we think of as "the Right" is the Left which is less extreme. 12:52 And so here, especially on screen. 19:52 I'm reminded of "the ultimate form of Intersectionality is Individualism". 23:38 Well, that "truth" is not true, nor is it like the document you support "self-evident". P.S. Sorry for the re-publish, I just didn't expect to have something else worth commenting on in the literal last 15 seconds of the video.
If no one can ever know the rules*, all claims about the rules are equally bad**. Atheists and theists are all guessing and believing in things that can never be confirmed so any argument that isn't "both sides are most likely wrong" is you failing to bite the bullet of your premise. *this itself is a claim about the rules, which makes for a fun paradox because if true, it makes itself false **where mutually exclusive claims are made (ie. impossible for all to be true), it is most likely the case that half or more are wrong - eg. 1+1=x, has more wrong responses for x than correct ones if everyone picks an answer at random (this is also further complicated if your first claim is true that the value of x can not ever be known)
The greatest trick the devil the ever played was convincing us he was Jesus. Every Christian I've met (save one or two) worships the devil and pretends to follow Jesus, they think Jesus power was power over others, and they CRAVE power, they hunger for it and fear it, the fools!
I want to thank you for voicing your opinion; i think it’s great. I often feel like the internet isolates me in a bubble of my own politics so seeing this video has allowed me to peer into the corner of the internet I wouldn’t usually find myself. With that being said I fundamentally disagree and believe that you’re coming at this with a pretty biased lens. Leftists simply grapple with the reality of social norms. I think your “far-left contradictions” slide exemplify this best, the reason why it’s important to recognize the reality of race as a social construct is because it has effects; since it affects society we as people should be cognizant of it, and really that’s all leftist argue. They don’t ask you to “believe” in race, instead they ask you to recognize race exists and that it has an effect on society. I watched one of your other videos on Islam so I’ll use religion as an example (not specifically Islam). One really can’t begin to understand the world without understanding the emergence of religion. It’s been the cause of numerous, disputes, developments, and ideologies; therefore it’s highly relevant to the discussion of history and politics because it has had EFFECTS on society. Yet when we do that, we don’t ask you to believe in religion. The same thing can be said for race gender and class. Scholars and leftists aren’t saying to believe in those things, instead they’re telling people to grapple with those things and recognize their effects.
While I do agree that right wing ideology is more centered on individualism than say left wing ideology, I disagree with the characterization that left wing ideology can be summarized under the belief that people are born good. I think it’s common knowledge to say that the environment one grows up in changes or in some way influences their personality, desires, drives, and other personality traits. Left wing ideology doesn’t necessarily assume all people are good, instead it grapples with the reality that people are affected by their social realities. It is no coincidence that racist attitudes dwindled (while not completely disappearing) in the U.S. after the abolition of segregation and Jim Crow. It is no coincidence that women became more liberated and free to engage in politics and the economic sphere once they got the right to vote. The reason these things happen is because of social realities; when social realities change so do people. Right wing ideology relies on people’s complacency with the current social order, it also relies on people’s fear of change (which is understandable at times) to keep the social realities the same as before.
Leftists never convinced the average person that the Left is about equality or "sunshine and rainbows." Most people aren't even leftists. I would have spent less effort defending the right as not being hierarchical, and more effort showing that leftism can still produce the same hierarchies if-not worse ones. Ask the average person on the street to define what a "liberal" is, and you'll never get the correct answer. You will inevitably get "leftists" or "socialists" and "communists" as your answer despite liberalism being conducive to capitalist hierarchy. This is where you're at. Your non-hierarchical beliefs do not stop you from being hierarchical. Saying that you are not hierarchical because you do not believe in rigid hierarchy is operating at the known-knowns. Ideology lives in the unknown-knowns.
0. Thank you for engaging in these topics from an explicative and intellectual angle! Genuinely, I have nothing but good will towards this video, what I know of you, and your project of discourse, no matter the fact that I have several disagreements with you. I wish very much for more right-wingers (and left-wingers, for that matter) interested in this kind of conversation rooted in attempting discourse rather than contempt. 1. Not everything is a social construct, but words and everything made with them are, so a lot of things are. This is a basic reality. If we can't agree about what most words mean, we simply fail to have a meaningful interchange of thoughts, game over. If I say "banana" and you think what I would call "raven" we have different constructs of those letters and syllables, thus "social construct". Our agreement about what "banana" means allows us to benefit from our shared social construct of what "banana" means. 2. Some social constructs are obviously largely helpful (language), some are currently controversial (money, gender essentialism), and some are generally agreed by reasonable people to be harmful (racial essentialism). We "act as if" on the ones that are helpful with other people who are also acting as if, in order to gain their benefits; but for the harmful ones, as long as they are either still popular or if aftereffects from their widespread belief among people in power for a long time are still felt, it's still worth understanding its construct through history and the lens of what it impacts. Ask any leftist if they think something like affirmative action is because black people are better than white people or something and they will laugh you out of the room, yes, really, and we're tired of the right wing claiming this about us, we just disagree on the methods of achieving equality, not on the merits of racial essentialism as a social construct. If it matters to hear, of course white people are not essentially worse in any way, I agree that all people should be seen as being born equal--let meritocracy sort people, not pseudoscience and accidents of birth, though the discussion of how to implement and protect meritocracy is a complicated one. 3. The dynamic of oppressed and oppressors is ALSO a social construct, which means it can be opted into if it's a good system that leads to results we like, or opted out of if we dislike it. I don't think there's any serious disagreement about whether there are oppressive policies upheld by people somewhere in the world. The only difference is in how we define oppression vs as you said "just normalcy". But I'll argue any day of the week that the right's general insistence that "this system" (whatever the day and place's current system is) is basically as good as it's gonna get is ahistorical. Despite the memes about (and sometimes from) the left, I absolutely do not believe that all men are oppressors or all white people are oppressors or even that all people moderately well-off are oppressors (though I will cop to believing that an individual knowingly holding onto assets upwards of, say, a billion dollars is inherently oppressive); I just think that histories of legal sexism, racism, hereditary aristocracy, etc. being removed from law means that the aftereffects (some people inheriting billions while some inherit debt, some people being able to walk at night safely and some people not just based on their sex or color of their skin, etc) are still worth understanding as oppressive, even absent any individual oppressor. If ten generations of blue people are taught to tribalistically only help blue people and a purple person desperately needs help and dies because nobody will give them a drink of water, oppression has still happened even if all ten blue people are individually unaware of what happened and just trying to take care of themselves and theirs and aren't really individually culpable of any crime. 4. You've got a lot of trust in free-market exchanges between individuals, and mistrust democratically-elected governments despite voting nominally making government answerable to people. I too don't trust governments, despite voting nominally making government answerable to people. But I ALSO don't trust free-market exchanges between individuals because it doesn't take a genius to see that in modern America, the pendulum has swung far into the point where some individuals succeeded in forming non-governmental collectives that have far more power than individuals and thus are able to swing all exchanges into their favor even if each individual transaction is consensual (but there are a lot of things, particularly food, housing, and medical care, whose need, beyond a certain point, are irreducible, making consensual interaction between a have and a have-not pretty hard except for the have voluntarily helping the have-not with no expect of a return, or the have letting the have-not die or suffer). Have your free market for non-necessary goods all you want, but capitalism has done a great job of creating enough resources for everyone to have a baseline and not allow individuals to suffer and die; but capitalism has not distributed those resources. Either you bite the bullet and say "even if we have the resources to prevent unlucky or incapable people from dying, we should not do so", or you think we should increase social safety nets with societally-available resources. I'd be happy with capitalism alone if those powerful private collectives were willing to distribute sufficient goods to the poor to keep children of poor people from lacking similar opportunities to children of the wealthy, but that clearly has not happened, so either we go to government, where we actually have a say, or we are doing the social equivalent of holding a full water bottle when we're not thirsty and letting someone die of thirst in front of us who could have been a productive member of society if we'd just given them the damn water. 5. I believe society can and should continue to evolve, that this is not the best possible societal end state or even particularly close to it, just as I assume you would believe monarchy was not and needed to continue to evolve. But I have a question: do you see someone born with mansions-and-yachts money and another person born into debt as a hierarchy? Because that's the main hierarchy I am interested in redressing that I perceive the right (though many moderate modern liberals as well) to be shy about talking about, from which most social ills in the modern era I think stem. 6. I think man is born with scarcity (at least of knowledge and wisdom, though of other things as well depending on your family) and that scarcity is the root of most things you might call evil, so you could say I think we are born evil, and then as we come to be able to care for ourselves, then others, that is the process of learning goodness--the more people whose lives we improve (including ourselves) the more we are good, the more people whose lives we make worse through taking or keeping things that would meaningfully improve their lives, the more we are evil. I think everyone has the capacities for good and evil in these ways because we all have the capacity to be scared of losing what we have. So how do you calm the evil within us? Seek to create a system with as much abundance as possible. Capitalism is good at creating a lot of abundance but not very good at distributing it, socialism has never proven to be better at creating abundance but measured doses of it into a capitalistic system have demonstrated being able to distribute it successfully.
As a leftist, I tend to give people who claim hierarchy-equality as a criterion for left and right the following example: both far right and far left want to distribute guns to the people, making them equal, as opposed to only arm the police and army. If hierarchy-equality was the criterion, right would not be pro gun. This is best seen in US politics, less so in European, but we have this, too. The one who is against this are the centrists, so this spectrum ceases to be the spectrum. Hence it is a division which does not make sense, as with many others. Especially if you take two or more of those and put it on a two axis compass and get even more nonsense.
Americans talking about the "left" is hilarious 😂 Dear American "anti woke" people, please keep feeding the rich like you've done for decades now. Please keep falling for everything the billionaires tell you (trump, alex jones and whatnot). Please keep believing on the billion dollar companies. Please keep believing that Matt Walsh is anything else than a populist that would say whatever is popular right now. And most important - keep believing in conspiracies, preferably from short clips on RU-vid and don't learn anything about media theory. Because it's hilarious to watch you guys from the outside. To watch you give more money to loans and interests than we pay in tax and still vote for the one presidential candidate that is benefitting the most from your healthcare not being free. To watch you being tricked into believing that free healthcare is communism even though you, like I say, already pay more to the state/elites than the wellfare states around the world. To watch you decade after decade just feeding the rich and get tricked by them when they cosplay as "one of you" with saying cool stuff that they know the working class likes to hear. It's so insane to watch and I really don't want it to be his way. But seeing how hateful so many of you are, even the ones who call themselves christian, makes it hard to not wish the worst for you. Though I don't. I hope you wake up soon and realize that the ones who warns about the "elite" are themselves twice as rich and twice as powerful than the ones they call the elite. And that they are rich only because you believe what they say year after year.
"Conservatism consists of precisely one principle, to wit, There must be ingroups the law protects but does not bind, alongside outgroups the law binds but does not protect." -Francis M Wilhoit. Creating a distinction between ingroup and outgroup is inherently hierarchical, doesn't matter if you do it with money, faith, loyalty, or bloodline. Just because you refuse to acknowledge that you are pushing a hierarchy, doesn't change the fact of the matter. You're the untrustworthy tribalist here, trying to normalize your worldview with an elaborate narrative divorced from reality. Fucking Libertarian housecat bullshit again.
Great video dude. Ngl one of strongest and sharpest argument against determinism on youtube. I am curious though, what do you think of the sort of schopenhauerian view that I've seen Alex o'Conner use that "you can want what you will but can't will what you will". Thanks.
You're a "classical liberal" the same way Jordan Peterson is, but at least he's honest enough to vocally endorse and defend "dominance hierarchies". You know what's traditional? Women and minorities having basically no rights. Lynch mobs and xenophobia. Empire building and colonization. Rewind the clock 200 years and where are we? The right obviously mostly doesn't think it believes in hierarchies. They just think the world is harsh and people are inherently flawed, capitalism is a meritocracy that naturally sorts people by how smart and hardworking they are, and so people generally get what they deserve (except for the machinations of a shadowy cabal of leftist elites who want to destroy the West.) Maybe you think "all men are created equal" and yet that some men are simply more gifted or hardworking, or law abiding, than others and so deserve to have a nice life while those less so deserve poverty or imprisonment. Women make less than men because men simply work harder, duh. The system MUST be fair because by it, people get what they deserve, because it's fair, you see. The cognitive dissonance of trying to rationally justify upholding unfairness because it's "traditional". In other words, apologists for an indefensible status quo, whose main argument is "change is scary".
Well, Muhammad actually means one who is worthy of praise or worship while Ahmad is worshipper. Muhammad made a lot of mistakes because he relied on a Gnostic version of Christianity that had survived in Arabia after being persecuted in Egypt and because of names in Aramaic like Maryam being both Jesus' mom and Moses sister, aka why the Qur'an says that Imran (Amram) is Jesus grandfather rather than Joachim, when he is Moses' dad. Jews will unanimously look at Christianity in the same light as a bastardization of their own religion that reshaped it to rationalize Jesus being valid as a messiah, something they completely deny and laugh at. The Messiah is the new annoited king who will liberate the Holy Lands and put them in Jewish rule like Nehemiah did with the Jewish liberation from the Babylonians by the Persians.
The USSR tried to ban religion and had to deal with endless instability from everyone of previous faiths until it collapsed Of course terrorists can’t be allowed but banning faith(s) won’t happen for destabilizing reasons. The state just won’t do it. Anyway get reported lol
Muslim apologetics when Islamic populations are low in concentration for a general populace will say things like “the Bible and even Jesus is included in the Quran” and that’s offensive to both religions
My interpretation is that when you start insulting someone mid argument, which i'll admit, i'm guilty of, is due to being so angered that the argument isnt going to your plans so you just attack The person
A good argument, is stating your viewpoint, then agreeing to disagree. If only more learned this and moved on after that especially on social media rather than believe an insult, is "winning" some kind of "argument", then I'd pay attention to half the insults that have been thrown my way!! It doesn't take any special kind of intelligence to insult anybody that's just a fact!
