The Alt-Right Playbook: Always a Bigger Fish 

Its funny how you people brsistle at being called communists, but have no problems calling your opponents "fascists".

@@ryandronetekpoliticsstoots1273 Because those calling folks Communists have no idea what Communism is.

I remember that quote too. I think it was first said by a South American priest. =O

@@ryandronetekpoliticsstoots1273 If take away bodily autonomy from half the population, you deserve to be called a fascist

Yup, Brazilian bishop dom Hélder Camara.

Well of course, capitalism observes the greed and desire of those who are up on the hierarchy, and tries to figure out the best way possible to use that greed and benefit everyone else in the process. As it turns out, we’ve created a system where the best way to earn money and make a fortune, involves creating jobs and financing those below on the pyramid. It also involves creating new products that benefit the quality of life of everyone below.

yeah, even minimum wage workers think they've got it bad (which they do), but they're also higher up than the people who are unemployed

@@parabellum2674 Imagine believing in trickle down economics in 2022. No, the richest don't create jobs for everyone, they exploit everything and everyone, hoarding their grotesque wealth until they die, at which point they just pass it on to their spoilt children. If trickle down works, how come the divide between different economic classes have only increased while billionaires increase both in numbers and in wealth? No, billionaires are a leech on society, sucking both their workers and the state dry while being richer than some small countries. They underpay and exploit their workers, employ slaves in the form of sweatshops in asia, they recieve disgusting amounts in subsidies from the state and pay, on average, less than a percent in taxes. Exactly how does it benefit any of us if Elon Musk gets paid tens of billions by the state to do exactly what NASA does but worse? In what way does it improve your life when Jeff Bezos evades taxes by running Amazon into debt, taking a 0% interest loan against his assets, recieves state subsidies to pay for Amazons debt and then uses the billions of dollars he loaned to buy stocks?

As someone living right outside of Washington DC, I felt that

Impostor Syndrome exists

Which is, again a contradictory mindset because if the hierarchy really only puts people in the places “they belong” why wouldn’t Star Wars survive on its own profit off sales?

And considering how bad Disney's been handling Star Wars.....no, I don't want another one

If people in entertainment only worked on things that were profitable, the entire video game modding community would never exist. It ranges from devs using Halo Online to port Halo 3 multiplayer to PC for free before MCC was released on Steam to recreating the entire Fallout New Vegas single player in Fallout 4. This doesn't happen with most triple A games since it's more profitable to just sell additional content through microtransactions instead of allowing people to make their own.

@@mattwong5403 absolutely. there's genuinely no group more committed than unpaid creators in fandoms and subcultures. whether it's mods, fan artists and fan fiction writers, they all prove that it isn't profit that creates art, it's passion.

Did you become a journalist later in life? I honestly would not have known what to say at a younger age myself. And... I have unfortunately discovered that no, I do not want another Star Wars. My appreciation of the original remains untarnished, but I have been disappointed by current iterations. Although I do think Bobo Fett series was pretty good! And Mando, but the movies...

Maybe the government getting into student loans is why there is such a problem

That fact doesn't seem fun :(

not one bit :(@@TheMellowFilmmaker

When I went to the State University several decades ago, tuition for a semester was $375, now that same university is $8,000 a semester (not including a dorm room, a meal card, or books/e-books).

​@@stevechance150 was college more subsidized back then? Or is running a college just more expensive these days. I'm not tryna make a point I'm just curious lol

He's right. Know your place. Don't expect to be a billionaire anytime soon working a min wage job all your life.

Jeremy Santos Yeah I have a feeling your buddy wasn’t talking about ECONOMIC class.

It's a very weird socio-economic belief wherein members of a middle/lower Class resent those that seek to raise themselves. "Putting on airs." They see an attempt at improvement/advancement as some form of pretentiousness. Or worse, agitation.

@@dphalanx7465 Exactly

That may mean 'stay in your lane.' As in don't try to tell management how to do their job. Unless (s)he was actually comparing rich and poor.

i agree, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try :)

THIS, especially because larger brands with dodgy production methods and low pay and may donate to discriminatory organisations are always the most affordable option

I mean, then again, we don't really think people without money should actually vote

@@adamdawson6700 Well neither hirarchy or egalitarianism are "true". Capitalism serves the state by keeping competition going. As soon as a monopoly exists it's egalitarianism for everyone but one. Then the state has to step in to keep the fight going.

@@adamdawson6700 So, like Apple and Nike using Chinese labor to maximize profits?

Not to mention people who "work" but don't have a "job," like stay-at-home parents, for instance.

Survival, since the beginning of man, has been work. We've merely traded hunting and foraging for jobs and professions to pay us money to purchase the things we need, rather than have to create them for ourselves. It's always been and always will be work to survive.

You cannot survive on feelings when the work you do contributes nothing. A million artists of all kinds put together with nothing but their talents on an island with no external help or resources; will starve or be forced to give up what they love doing in order to survive. You NEED to work. The reason why food is a near universal currency when metaphysical methods die out - is because it is always needed. People NEED to grow food. People NEED to purify drinking water. People NEED housing to be protected from the environment. People NEED resources to turn into fuel to power everything around you. Work is absolutely Necessary. You Need lumber for the homes - or stone masons - architects - etc. Luxury jobs are almost worthless because they can only exist when things are good. So yes, it is sad. But that is life and survival: you NEED to work. The painter who never lifts a finger to help the farmer grow food doesn't deserve the right to take what everyone else worked for. We are however, a sympathetic society. We are still a social and empathetical species. Those who CAN'T work for one reason or another do get some empathy and extra lee-way into surviving because of group mentality when there are plenty of resources. But should resources become scarce, the super old - the unhealthy - and the incapable are the first ones that will be dropped off to save the overall heard. If you are a strain on resources when they are scarce, you are going to be removed. That is a sad reality. We don't live in an age of infinite resources to just hand out. We never HAVE been in that age. Ever. And until the day of Fabricators or molecule reconstruction machines exist along with infinite sustaining energy to power those machines; we arguably never will get to an age of Post-Scarcity.

Technology has improved. Not as much human labor is required anymore. Besides, even in the past people had more free time than capitalism gives them. Many can't work this much, and no-one should. Would you need to work if food was free? Why would those who provide necessities need to charge you, if their needs were covered?

You're not entirely right, people's value is ofc determined by how much they can work but it is also determined by the "prestige" the job they're doing has; cleaners get paid scraps and are generally regarded as "low value, low skill workers" while working 100x harder that people who get paid 1000x more. Workers are replacable tools without any personal value, no matter how hard you work or how much value you produce your boss can still choose to lay you off without consequences, your life could be ruined overnight just for the sake of profits no matter how good of a job you do or how long you work. It's not fair.

It is. It's just the conservatives pretend to not interfere with it, when they make sure the white males always come out on top.

@@sprockkets The hierarchical power structure is a human invention. It is not always been there. And we have destroyed it before.

It's not that it is necessary - it is inevitable. There are always going to be those who climb the ladder and claim dominance as the hierarchy - you can't abolish EVERYONE that climbs up the ranks. Because that inevitably leads to the bar of "What is too high" to be lowered until it is so low that no one is gaining any ground anywhere. Because everyone is greedy. Everyone is looking out for themselves - because we are not a hive mind or a collective serving entity. We never evolved that way. What is often best for society does tend to be that a specific few rise above everyone else for one reason or another: either you are innately and truly better at doing something than everyone else around you - or you were born into a state of wealth and continue to grow that wealth with the ease of opportunity it initially granted you. Everyone CANNOT be at the same level. There is literally no system conceived for that because everyone has drastically different wants and needs from each other. No matter how hard you try - it is inevitable. We can do our best to trim it - we can do our best to even out the field; but there always will be that one sly snake that convinces or will convince the majority around you that THEY are better. Or that THEY deserve more. It's just going to happen. The only way it CAN'T happen - is if Everyone is constantly being pushed to being 100% equally as intelligent. But that also requires everyone to WANT to be intelligent and strive to be intelligent. And far too often - even with College students, College graduates, and the Common Folk; we see that they will choose to elect their intelligence into being TOLD what is right or wrong - what is smart or dumb - rather than strive for true intelligence and independent research. These are the people who will always without fail; fall victim to the snake-oil salesman tactics of the liars and deceivers. No political party - ethnicity - or tribal mentality is safe from it. It WILL always happen. Edit: Found a couple of typos

⁠@@Nai-qk4vpwhen we destroy it we tend to recreate it as there is a demand for leadership. French Revolution is the worst case scenario but it’s clear people don’t wish for a higher power but unfortunately easily fall for one.

o7 good job

Under lassez-faire capitalism (or what passes for it) having/earning more money means, in practical terms, having more rights/freedoms than those with less. Equality under the law (on paper) doesn't mean a great deal by comparison.

He didn't directly call this out, but in voting money plays a huge deal: hiring staff, marketing agencies + running ads, travel, etc. The entire field of lobbying is capitalism messing with democracy.

@@AviMarcus Kind of, lobbying also fulfills a deficiency. The reason politicians ask for advice, explanations, and drafting of legislation from private individuals is because they generally aren’t experts in the fields of any individual law, and because they don’t hire enough advisors to realistically have expert advice without private industry. Because having a large, expert Congressional Staff is unpopular and expensive.

It fills the information gap between voters/politicians and actual policy experts edit: But lobbying isn’t the best way to fill this gap. Public education should be better, news should be better, expert advisors should be more widespread.

@@AviMarcus There's a story that during Detente when a Soviet representative learned how lobbying works in the States, he turned to his host and said 'In my country we would call this corruption.'

It was more articulate than most idiots i see online, but as an actual conservative, it still felt like a strawman. He gets the general picture though, we do care a lot about capitalism and laissez faire economics, and we only support reformation when we agree with liberals that its absolutely necessary (otherwise, its just a matter of us being out-voted). Another thing he sort of misses is that independents may become conservative over time when liberal politicians begin to fail them or their communities with their policies. After all, politics can be very personal in some cases. "Law and Order" is a phrase constantly tossed around. Though thats circumstancial since conservative politicians are just as likely to fail their voters or communities as well. Its why the antithesis of Law and Order, "ACAB", even exists to begin with.

@@four-en-tee If anything it was a steel man. He gave the conservative much more awareness of where they were coming from than most conservatives have. Most conservatives are reactionary who put little thought into why they feel a certain way. There are also conservatives who are intellectually curious and can find a breadth of philosophies and (mythologized) histories that back their preconceived notions. "Facts and logic" are on their side, and Innuendo put their conservatives more on the latter end in terms of articulating their own beliefs, but still repeating bad faith talking points about liberals they would have heard on TV. There are also leftists/liberals (combining them for the sake of simplicity) who operate like the former conservatives. They're bothered by war, poverty, racism, homo/trans phobia, environmental destruction, etc. and just think a lawful good government needs to come in and make the bad people stop being bad. I'd say they're more liberal than leftist because they think there's nothing wrong with power as long as the people who have it are "good." Most people on either side operate out of somewhere between gut feeling and intellectual rigor.

@@patstevenswhohatesbuttermi5861 I used to be moderate leaning right and slowly leaned left throughout the course of Trump's presidency. It became very clear that so much of the rights politics are based off religion, misinterpretation of the constitution, and extreme nationalism all while serving only the intrest of big corporations and not the actual nation. In left politics I found more freedom to my beliefs that I would be destroyed for even considering in right political circles. I can be pro-second amendment while still supporting regulation, I can be anti-abortion while still supporting the right to choose, I can be pro border security while not being anti-immigration, I can support tax cuts for lower classes but not for billionaires, I can support the Rittenhouse verdict while not praising the dumb fucker. The US right has become way to radical and has gone from free market proponents to religious nationalist as evident in its biggest platform the Grand Old Party. Of course this is generalizing from my experience and not every righty is the same way but alot of the moderates I know feel the same way and so do millions of right leaning Americans who sadly had to vote against their beliefs this past election because they didn't want this platform to represent their ideology.

@@four-en-tee Just chiming in to say that I appreciate this comment! You've clearly written it to clarify your position and help others understand you, without attacking/belittling those who disagree or assuming bad faith on the part of Innuendo for mischaracterizing your stance. I wish more political discourse could be like this.

For real I've never heard a republican be so eloquent.

Im sorry to hear the as a black straight man i dont really have many placements to move up or down on that scale.unless i go into entertainment of course

You heard it here first ladies, gentlemen and variations there-upon! Leo da Vinci officially came out as a trans person! Left: "Yes! Another of the greatest minds confirmed to be politically aligned with us!" Right: *inhale* .... "fUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU(etc.)

As an aryan brother i am at the top

Another W for me

@@youraveragehistorian578 lame

Even if they won't admit it to themselves? Perhaps because you are wrong. I believe only a minority of conservatives do not believe in welfare at all. Most people do not fall at the very extreme end of unregulated capitalism.

I'm a conservative. I believe in welfare for people who need it. As far as I am aware, all my conservative friends all believe the same. I have talked about welfare with a few of them, and they all seem to believe it should be available to people who need it.

Where people differ is who needs it. But most people, and all of my friends, I have discussed it with agrees that people who physically cannot work should receive welfare.

@@peterwallis4288 Yeah, politics are complicated, not everyone under one label wants the same things. This series is called "the alt-right playbook", not "the conservative playbook", after all. It's sort of relieving to hear, actually

@@peterwallis4288 Ah, yeah, that's where it gets hard. I'm not physically disabled (past physical weakness from chronic malnourishment which leaves me with a very sedentary life). My main disability is complex PTSD, combined with autism (plus social anxiety, depression, and ARFID - an eating disorder). And the autism wasn't medically recognized until very recently. So it's much easier for people to overlook me and say I'm "not trying hard enough", because my struggles aren't something they can physically see or easily understand. I really hope these misunderstandings can be solved with education, I think a lot of people just don't know how much a mental disability can really mess a person up. I do the best with what I have, and I hope to recover enough to work someday, but for now it's just not possible. But I'm glad they can at least agree that people should receive wellfare Oh, I should also clarify, when I reference being dead it's because if my mom wasn't caring for me by bringing me food, I wouldn't eat (and it's basically charity that she still takes care of me at age 19... I mean, she owes me for having a part in my trauma and causing a lot of what makes me disabled, but still). Even if I had the money to buy food, I wouldn't be able to consistently go out to buy it. Because of my food apathy, I wouldn't even order doordash. And people may think "if you were starving, you would", but I've starved before, and I didn't. I completely lost my appetite, and I never gained the weight I lost back. So uh, I wasn't just trying to be dramatic, sorry if it sounded that way. I mean that if I was left on my own I would die if I didn't have intervention, and there's nothing protecting me from that except individuals choosing to help me (the rest of this is personal stuff about my life, you don't have to read it if you don't wanna, I just felt like sharing for whatever reason) I've been told many times that I just need to push myself. And I've tried many times, it's left me more disabled. It's like the mental equivalent of breaking a bone? Or pulling a muscle while exercising. I have a bunch of mental injuries from trying too hard and hurting myself. So before I can lead a productive life, I have to do the work to fix all of these old injuries that never got the care they needed. Which will probably take years, to get me to a place close to a typical person's functionality. If that makes sense? And I do small things when I can, that's like uh... you know when someone gets injured, they need physical therapy, they very carefully work with the part of their body to move it, without overdoing it. That's what I'm doing with my productivity and my mental state. My friend recently has started reminding me take care of my teeth morning and night, I can finally do brushing, flossing, and mouthwash... not entirely consistently, but twice a day most days. It's been something I failed at for a long time, I couldn't be more thankful to them for helping me. And last night, I cleaned up my room on my own. Without going into one of those awful manic states (not a healthy place to be in even if it makes me productive, it gives me one of those mental injuries I talked about earlier, when I come down). So I am slowly getting better I think someday, if I get a job, I'll try to look for one that has to do with data entry or organization. Because I love doing stuff like that. If I have something I'm passionate about, I love collecting images related to it, and I'll put tags and credits in the metadata, it's all complicated and methodical but I can fixate on it for hours, or even days. So once I've recovered enough to do something like that consistently, not just in my own time, hopefully it'll work well, for me. I also know some html/css coding, enough to make a simple website, if I hone that skill I could maybe do that, too. It'll just take a while before I can do these things consistently enough I think, when I try to explain to people what I can't do (which is a lot), they think I'm not trying, or I've shut myself down to progress. But really, I just have realistic expectations for myself, and I'm trying not to allow others to pressure me into doing something I know will revert the progress I've made

We've streamlined the process. Teens or bust.

Virtual Martini this is so condescending I almost vomited

@@virtualmartini People don't grow up more conservatist, society simply starts realizing that their worldview is bullshit making them look more conservative because their viewpoint isn't accepted without question anymore. Have you seen kids? Most kids are definitely not born lover of equality, peace and solidarity. Granted they aren't born a nazi either, but to think growing up means automatically getting more conservative is just wrong as far as I'm aware. You just grow more conservative relative to the shifting society. (And that doesn't mean society automatically shifts on the left, just that things are always going to change and individual viewpoints tend to evolve slower than society).

Every year that passes and that I get older, pigs looks tastier and tastier if you get what I mean.

@@Argacyan I don't have a single clue what you mean honestly, but it sounds bad.

Same here

That’s sad 😔

@@oyo4629 not at all, better alone than with a bunch of assholes

@@oyo4629 I love to be alone

He said for the sake of argument

Sounds about right... what I've gathered is that their entire philosophy is based in extreme arrogance and selfishness. Insane thoughts like "I can't possibly be wrong and nothing you can say will convince me" and "as long as my family and I have got ours, screw everyone else, if they didn't also get theirs then they're just lazy"

In general, that is to say, the majority of the time, Conservativism is genuinely plagued by the Just World fallacy. They believe the system, that the world is inherently good and will reward optimal choices while punishing bad ones.

Mf probably says this after loosing chess. Also that’s an insane generalization.

@@loganwittman803 did I OFFEND you!?!? Sorry, I had to, lmao. The conservative party is based in the principal of generalizing everything and everyone as much as possible. This is an anecdote, I said it was an anecdote, and it's clearly meant to be a reflection of me. I'm not under your (or any) obligation to ensure that my anecdotes are research quality Edit: btw, it's losing, not loosing

@@loganwittman803 How do you "loosen" chess? Do you like, loosen the threads off of a foldable board?

The unfortunate thing though is that they still silently feel as if that is "fair game". Rather than searching deep in their soul and finding that darkness, they deny it even exists. As Malcolm X said, they'll deny that the knife is ever there. A not so insignificant chunk of the conservative population look back at that dark time with FONDNESS, as the time they were "winning". While I still believe that there can be converts from the right( me being one of them) I recognize that I am the exception that proves the rule that they simply cannot be reasoned out of their beliefs, considering they were never reasoned into them in the first place. You cannot play fair with someone who believes the way to play the game is to cheat. We simply must stop playing their game, and start playing ours. That means really free markets, that means antifascist action, that means abolishing not only capitalism, but the state as well.

Huh…. It makes so much sense why trump is their guy. He sees everything as a zero sum game.

Actually what they fail to see is that that logic makes absolutely no sense. Someone else having rights doesn't take away mine. In fact, everyone else having rights is the only way to ensure I will always have rights. Because so long as there is any situation where someone is deemed undeserving of rights, I will have to argue that I deserve my rights (against people who believe that I don't deserve them for idiotic reasons). Even though in fact, no one can *deserve* rights but it isn't about what anyone deserves. Like it says, they are "endowed by our Creator" and "inalienable". The whole point is that we get them whether we deserve them or not. But conservatives are only capable of agreeing with that line of thinking when it is applied to a foetus.

@@sophiejones3554 you clearly know nothing about the Conservatives if you think the only rights they care about are fetuses.

In the truest or most technical sense, your coworker is correct. Everything, and I mean, EVERYTHING, is subject to the laws of thermodynamics. And everything suffers a loss of available, usable energy. It's expressed in many different ways, but one such way is inflation due to a loss of resources, energy in various forms, etc. What it comes down to, is that conservatives just make sure the losers are POC, the poor, LGBTQ, women, etc, and the winners are white males. Aka, the hierarchy, falsely claiming they let the "invisible hand the market" determine "winners and losers". As the video states, Conservatives assume the "smart liberals" know the hierarchy exists. But Ian also notes they don't live up to their ideals, because they need money from the rich elites to fund their campaigns, so the working class still suffers. You cannot break the laws of thermodynamics, and as such, cannot solve really the fundamental problems that cause humans' problems. Of course, you could live within the world's means, but since when have humans been content with that?

@Brandon Tran watch him come at you for quoting wiki even though they cite their evidence now so people can fact check. This guy real life said neoliberals liked regulations LMBOOOO💀

Elon Musk would completely disagree with you.

If your hose operators need a college degree with a mandatory minor in poetry because the faculty leadership's wife just so happens to teach it, maybe the solution isn't to hide the cost of the bloated system by socializing it. Perhaps the fetid tree needs to be cut down altogether and replaced with a new sapling that isn't built on the elitism of yesteryear's nobility. Oh, you don't know what I'm talking about? That's because you haven't really thought about any of it. Maybe you should.

@@Lucy-cl2qk he also invested a lot of money to automate things instead of paying people and the ones he does employ treats them like they are disposable. I'm struggling to understand why that asshole was given as an example in this context.

@@shinysphinx8849 Wikipedia's always cited their evidence, that's the funny part lmao

That shits hilarious too, cause alphas dont even exist. People think that an alpha, say, chimpanzee. Is like the chad of the group. But no. The alpha is more comperable to the leader of the group. Anybody can be an alpha Chad, but anybody could also be the leader of the pack.

@@a.bagasm.7253 Uhhhhhh Yeah.

@@a.bagasm.7253 I actually cant see your comment. But i hope you realize that, uhh, i was literally saying that an 'Alpha' person doesnt exist. And the fact that anyone can be an 'alpha chad' means that literally anyone, even the opposite of what you would think is an 'Alpha chad' could be this hypothetical non existent 'alpha' creature.

@@eila2635so the word"alpha"loses all of its meaning

@@a.bagasm.7253 Yes. It is a nothing word that has no bearing on anyone. A leader can exist yes, but a leader does not have to be an 'alpha'

You're projecting. All Democrats and their media have said for the last 2 years (while democrats control everything), is that unless they win, "democracy is over". For one, we've never been a democracy, nor were we meant to be. Second, You're just denying election results as Democrats always do when they lose.

Something similar happened on Brasil, the conservatives were unhappy with the results, most of them defend a military dictatorship

Not just Jan 6th... there were Brazilian troops randomly pulling over vehicles to prevent voters from going to the polls during the election that Lula won

>Conservatives stan for democracy Monarchists amd Tradcunts: Ooga booga!

@@SkoomaGodDovahkiin666 DEUS, PATRIA, REI!

Stan, not stand, which honestly still works since that song is all about a perverse idea of being a supporter of something

Well, as it points out, not when it conflicts with hierarchy. When Republicans have something to lose by it, it's easier to put aside the one for the other.

Which is funny as they barely they don't stan it at all, heck, they barely Stand it seeing as conservatives have been taking Ls in the ballots during the majority of history.

How exactly

@@riptidegaming2823*cough*Jan, 6*cough*

That tends to be because Socialists romanticise their ideology and are incapable of viewing it from a "Warts And All" perspective. Just because you wouldn't call it Socialism doesn't mean that it isn't. But the 23 times that Socialism/Communism has been implemented before weren't real Socialism right? But you'll still try and claim that conservatives and moderates, are in some way delusional.

Not delusional. Dishonest.

@@th3b1rdbra1n3 - Well that's rich.

@@goawayleavemealone2880 Nobody is really arguing for pure Socialism; most people realize that the free market is great for consumer goods and most of our day to day spending. But some things, like public health, are demonstrably better provided by socialism than capitalism. Compare US per capita health care spending with UK, and then see who lives longer - NHS is cheaper and provides better outcomes than our free market health care. The problem is that special interest groups like the insurance companies and drug manufacturers have enough influence to persuade you that any socialism is bad, and that nationalized health care would turn us into Venezuela somehow. And you trust them.

@@johnschwartz1641 - I live in the UK and you think you can present the NHS as a shining beacon of a successful nationalised service. The NHS is underfunded to a point that's frankly absurd, the wait times are staggeringly bad and the treatment received often barely adequate. Medical advancements are never born in the NHS, they seem to be born in privatised health care. I wouldn't even want a competent government to nationalise any sort of service, let alone a Corbyn lead government. When Rail Services were nationalised in the 70s, it catastrophic omnishambles and there are people advocating for pure Socialism.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe your friend is just an asshole? And that maybe that has nothing to do with his political standing?

That's not a friend.

That doesnt sound like a friend, it sounds like an insecure bully who needs to feel superior to someone

@@madmanmapper One is an accident, two is a coincidence, three is a pattern.

@@MsOdale7 There is a pattern here. Many libs are assholes, many conservatives are too. I don't see what political views has to do with it.

You should check back in again!

@@PoisonFlower765 yeah I watched the new ones already

good old peter jordanson. i’ve been trying to replicate his accent, i still have no idea how olly thorn does it.

@@Hazel-xl8in Just try doing Kermit. It'll be close enough.

@@patrickmattin9609 haha Jordan Peterson go 🎶de luvers,🎵de dreemers,🎶and miiiiiiiiiii🎵

Well, yeah. But I always thought Jordan was just being theoretical, not directly saying that "reject society, become lobster".

I've literally heard "Don't you WANT amazon?" before. A couple times actually. And, uh, NO. I DON'T want amazon! I don't want "easy shopping that has cheap shipping!" I don't want workplace abuse! I want communism! I want to each according to his needs, and from each according to his ability! Fuck amazon, I DON'T WANT amazon lmao

So true Lyla

I've been convinced this strategy is crazy enough to work for years lol

That's called the "Door in the Face" technique -- intentionally highballing the other party in a transaction to get them to offer something that "feels lower" to them but is more than they would otherwise have accepted

@@thegreatusername2355 I think that technique works better against democrats since they're oh so willing to bend over for the right wing while the right wing doesn't even want to budge a little bit even if it's about human rights

"We can't do 80, that's awful! How about 39..? ... Wait a minute..."

What got me was "This hierarchy is not democratic, it's Birth by sleep a fragmentary passage"

Capitalism: feudalism with extra steps

This is actually factually incorrect and I'm not sure why people keep parroting it. It's easily disproven by looking up data on upward mobility in the United States. Generational wealth is one of the biggest myths that needs to die. If you're born in the bottom percentile of income, then the probability of you out-earning your parents is about 79%. If you're on the higher percentile of income, then the probability of you earning less than your parents is about 92%. In fact, about 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation and 90% lose their wealth by the third. The reality is, wealth is constantly changing hands. People move from the middle class to the upper class and then back down again. While it is true that upward mobility in the United States is "stagnant" (in the sense that in the 1940's your probability of out earning your parents was 98%), that's not the same thing as saying "the rich keep getting richer".

@@xero964 Wow, it's almost like those who end up being able to maintain their generational wealth due to reason often beyond them end up doing better than those who end up losing it... And calling generation wealth a myth is just plain conservative retardation.

@@Speedojesus Wow, it seems like those who end up losing their wealth appear to regain their generational wealth all again due to reasons that might possibly be outside of their control. The same argument could literally be made the other way around.

@@xero964 That's a lot of words without any relevance whatsoever. Also, sources?

itssgalactix “the more stuff it does, the socialistier it is” -carl marks, probably

"and when it does a lot of stuf, is called communism"

@@jaumeblanco5632 *Insert Daft punk music!!!

-Carlos Markers, "the commie book lol"

@@stuckonaslide Mark Karlton: Crapitalism

Those people should accept charity and be grateful people are so generous.

@@benjaminr8961you’re 1 accident from disability. All it takes is a single event to make you worthless to the hierarchy you support, consider that when you say shit like this

And the kids who want free school get worthless degrees that no employer wants.

@@natebreivik6607 what?

Thanks Reagan!

better than an art major with 200k debt and a useless degree. Someone lacking ambition does not mean they lack understanding. Some people are perfectly happy with the bare essentials.

​@@benjaminr8961why is it always the "art degree" with yall? As the video would suggest, for your argument to work the unjustice of that situation has to be entirely of their undoing right? And that if a person were in that same situation but with a degree essential to making the country a better place, well now that's a problem that even you acknowledge should be solved. So you don't acknowledge it. But let's, they do exist. Let's talk about the actual problem here

That's a pretty cool liberal take. I would say that custodian need not be a career, maybe just a specialty. If everyone had input in their place of work, and were trained to be a functioning and flexible part of that specific place of work, then there wouldn't need to be high and low paying jobs necessarily, as each person in the functioning body would have a well-enough understanding of their own and other's contributions to distribute their total earnings accordingly. But I certainly agree about the education. Knowledge isn't something that really needs to be restricted, it's not like there's limited access to it or that a history or math major could be given to someone unjustly.

@@smallman9787 your first paragraph is incoherent nonsense. "i dont think essential jobs will be careers so they wont be"

@@tofupowda it is worded confusingly, but I think they’re talking about balanced job complexes (where the people in a democratic workplace share both empowering and wrote work). On another note, it’s so weird how education is supposed to be a job factory. Academia is a wonderful place all on it’s own, and education for education’s sake is good for people and society

The more educated people are, the less likely they are to be religious. As their religious beliefs diminish they become less conservative and more democratic in their thinking.

@@NoodleBerry Agreed. Education is a goal in itself! For me, Life is about finding happiness, and money is just a means to happiness, and jobs are just means to money, and education is just a means to jobs. But if you have the tuition and can get happiness from education itself, well you're cutting a lot of middlemen to your happiness.

@Donald Hysa You understood nothing.

@@SilenceOase this clown you keep bumping onto honestly

well that's because they don't see the world. They don't see anything. Because they're literally blinded by how fucking stupid they are.

@@SnoFitzroy this is why it is important to know what they believe. If you just write it off as bullshit but don't actually dig, you're in a different type of denial, I would say. I know plenty of conservative people who I respect. I don't have to agree with every one of their beliefs. The problem, really, is that people have their reasons for believing what they do, and to them, their reasons feel just as (if not more) valid than your reasons for feeling how you do.

But, how? Every point this video makes is false to make you buy into a certain narrative. 1. Sharks don't produce anything of value for the minnows. CEOs (via their companies) organise the production of stuff and their existence at the top depends on them producing stuff of value. Nobody thinks there is a rigidly defined pyramid like in the animal kingdom, thinking so is silly. 2. Countries would be lost without their rich. Look at countries such as Venezuela that decided to get rid of their rich: they ARE lost without them. Venezuela doesn't even have a stable electricity supply anymore, even with perfect weather. Because nobody goes the extra mile to make it happen, because electricity production is all run by government employees who are being rewarded a prescribed amount of money regardless. There is no Edison or Westinghouse there, incentivized to produce as much electricity as possible (because the more electricity they sell the more money they'll make). Not to mention the production of cars and computers. 3. Liberals DO try to use diversity and inclusion as a tool to sneak people into good-paying jobs, based not on relative merit but by how much those people supposedly "need" that position. You don't see any liberals complaining that white men are overrepresented in the sewage works or garbage disposal sector. Not as much as they do about Silicon Valley jobs anyway. It's all about "redistributing" the good-paying jobs regardless of merit (productivity).

The GOP then mentally rewrites the Bible again to say that all angels are secretly in covenant with Satan. Anyone remember ‘love thy neighbor’?

@@goroakechi6126 everyone knows modern Christians are an extremist version of actual Christians. It’s a small part of why I am no longer Catholic. I’m not an atheist though, more agnostic. The world’s an interesting place

@@apollo1573 _"everyone knows modern Christians are an extremist version of actual Christians."_ That really depends on the angle you look from. Early christians would stone each other's spouses for cheating and let the men go, just like the bible tells them to. And the ingrained us and thm mentality is actually more diluted now and people don't at all remember that "neighbour" is Palestinian Jews and now one else. Come to think of it, I actually don't know what behaviour or beliefs are actually more extremist. I was inclined to agree, but can you first tell me what you're talking about? _" I’m not an atheist though, more agnostic. The world’s an interesting place"_ It sure is. Just the other day I was talking with a friend about why she celebrated christmas and she intuitively said it's because it breaks up the dark months of hard work and she wants to spend time with the people she loves, and sending a card to a friend she can't see during that time shows that she does think about them, and giving gifts to her parents, paid for with her own self earned money and having elaborated dinner just feels like a natural thing she really wants to do to show how happy she is, how well she's doing and how grateful she is for everything she has and does, with, for a large part to, and for her proud and loving parents. The church will find this a show of arrogance and decadence. The pagans, whose celebrations were shoved out and assimilated by the church celebrated the winter solstice as a turning point in the dark months, and celebrated it's mid point, the darkest day, after which optimism is justified and days will get more sunlight (in the northern hemisphere, but history is nothing if not Eurocentric), and sang and danced and ate exorbitant amounts of (stored) foods with loved ones to break up the cold dark months of hard work, to motivate and remember why we even care that we are alive and work so hard: to love and enjoy. I find this human nature so interesting and beautiful, and I am an enormous misanthrope when I'm out getting my groceries. I fucking hate it that people are in my way, especially if it's windy and cold. But I remember growing up outside a tiny village too, where it's even colder. There was no internet or warm water unless you chopped wood. There was no central heating and we had 3 channels on the tv and with good weather some German channels that showed some movies as well. I remember people saying the world was getting over crowded and people starving because of it and not seeing a soul on my 15km way to school and back. I remember a teacher explaining that the amount of people on the planet sky rocketed when we started cross breeding and genetically modifying crops. Population grew because people weren't starving anymore. The "god given" plants allowed for a lot of death and starvation. People changed that. Medicine improved. Not because a god stopped giving children cancer and gave us solid advice. No. God still wanted us to not wash our hands but watch our language instead. People changed that. My life, and yours and everyone else's, is (on average) pretty fucking comfortable compared to what sick and starving people go through. Those people that I hate seeing when I am getting my groceries are the reason why my life is so good. If I'm feeling under the weather, the world will go on just fine and the baker will bake bread, and the farmer will grow crops and if they can't we have wheat storages, the truckers will supply the stores, my neighbour will buy me a bread and I can just take my time to get my shit together again. How awesome is that? And because I helped him pour out a pan of oil once he said: "You helped me out and I can finally help you out, keep your money, enjoy the bread and get well soon." If there was a god worth worshiping or even thinking about, do you think it would stay invisible, let millions die while we struggle to find cures, improve food production, and still want us to spend time on that god instead of the awesome fucking reality around us? A god worth worshiping would have no room or need for growth or learning, so there's no purpose to letting people suffer for a feeling of accomplishment and it would definitely have found a way to still teach us such valuable lessons without the amount of suffering we see now and make our brains a lot bigger and less prone to fallacious thinking, so we would've ended slavery millennia earlier and cure all cancers and aids centuries ago. Wouldn't a god that was worth your time just reward you for concluding that you have a lot to be grateful for and all of it is because of people and of how the universe functions? Without ever considering a role for a god that is just not evident in anything at all? All human behaviour can be explained by the fact that we're social animals. The good and the bad and everything in between and that overlaps. My friend loves her family and wants to show it, and churches will have her believe that it's arrogant of her and decadent and that we are sinful and that we should remember the birth of a boy who bled to death because that's somehow a loving thing to let someone do on your behalf. It's beyond perverted and I can see why the church finds nothing about christmas celebrations to be in line with it's intended meaning. I'm poor as shit and I know that the gifts they give to each other are practically unnecessary, but they are specifically thought out to make their leisure time more enjoyable and getting those things as a gift will remind them every time of their love. The food is extra fancy and expensive, and they feel that everyone around them is more than worth it and they save up for it, just for that reason. It's decadent for sure, and for good reason and I support it fully and I designed a christmas card especially for her because of it. I told her that she should never feel guilty for spending so much money on things they don't actually need when she knows I'm poor. I live in the same society. Because she and other people with more to spend do spend it, it made my internet more affordable and it made it more affordable to order things online so I don't have to travel the whole country in search for an affordable rare thing that would help me a lot. But more than that, I want her to remember what the solstice celebrations are for. She never told her parents about this, but her parents, like millions of other people, intuitively celebrate christmas for those exact reasons and not because of some religious tradition. They are not arrogant in their intentions and the decadence is deliberate and proportionate. Don't feel guilty because of what the churches tell you. Remember that you know better, that you love and show your love and that millions of other people do that as well. You don't have to convince anyone that this is true, but please, for yourself and as a christmas gift to me, think about it and enjoy your christmas/solstice like people did before christainity came along and perverted it to take away earned pride and the gratitude for what people mean to you and focus it onto the god and church. You already do what's in your heart and so do your parents. All I ask you is to see that you do. If statistics shows our intuition to be wrong, we're probably wrong. If the church says our intuitions to be wrong, they're probably lying to get you to give your attention and gratitude to the invisible narcissist instead of to the people who earn it, who do the science, who improve the medical care, who fight for equal rights, who learned to become a teacher, or a baker. So I want to ask this of you: will you please think about what kind of a god would be worth considering and might it be one that doesn't want and consideration for itself unless it showed itself and showed a pattern of helpful actions that we don't see from a god but that we do see from people? And I know, catholic doctrine specifically warned you against valuing human behaviour over god's. I know that what I ask of you may hurt you deeply and make you aware of the abusive doctrine that you can't just shake off but have to slowly outbalance with new learned behaviour and thinking patterns. I know and it's okay. We'll still be here and the world will spin on as it always has. I just hope that you will see us slightly differently than you do today, slightly more beautiful than you ever thought we were. And I hope it will hit you like a truck filled with flowers that you are the same as me, beautiful and amazing. Everything that is good in this world is because people are just like you, loving and looking for something fun to do.

@@stylis666 I’m sorry but I’m not reading all of that. Also I said actual Christians not past Christians. Because they’re even worse

@@stylis666 k

lol

being a cog in a machine that destroys human life is nothing to be proud of.

Harold Sparrow- but pretzels are nice

Evil machine that produces pretzels. Sign me up.

@@devs9979 I mean if the pretzels are good I'm up for almost anything. How evil is this machine again?

i'm not sure whats happening in the USA, but in Australia, where I live, the conservative government just lost an election and they didn't say it was rigged or anything. It's only some conservatives in the USA which is not a REAL democracy soooooo

Yeah doing a public protest at government land is such an anti-democracy act. Wish it was as leftists describe it as seeing that I'm anti democracy and more importantly anti federal government

@@shoelessbandit1581 a public protest dosent have 4 people and the breaking and entering in a federal goverment building

@@justinliverpool3658 weird how that sort of thing happens all the time with no repercussions. Hell democrats did it like a week later no problem yet it's the peaceful protestors who were let in that are being demonized. Good example as to why our system doesn't work

@@justinliverpool3658 No, but it involves Dozens vandalizing and Destroying Private Property. Property that cannot affect Systemic Discrimination, yet, Leftist Protestors destroy it anyways.

How do you define equality?

@@dfmrcv862 A system is equal if all acting participants operate under the same set of parameters. That is to say, it is a system without any form of arbitrary bias. It does not mean that everyone gets the same outcome, only that work is compensated at the same rate. Imagine an office: when we say pay is equal we don't mean that everyone gets an identical cheque regardless of work, we mean that they get paid in direct accordance with how many hours they worked. You can't get more money for being white, or male, or whatever. The only way to get more money is to do more work. Consequently society must be constructed in a way that allows everyone to do the same amount of work: the only different is how people choose to spend their time.

Are we talking Equality or Equity? Equality is everyone getting the same regardless of other factors, equity is summed up best by "to each according to their needs." It's that picture of the kids and fence at a baseball game. Everyone getting 1 box is equal, and still screws over the little guy. Equity is the tall person getting no box, the medium person a single box, and the short child two boxes. Now they can all see and therefore participate the same. I mean right-wingers get pissed over equality, and if my experience has taught me anything is that they literally shit their pants in anger over the idea of equity.

@BP Those rights are not treated equally, nor viewed equally, especially by the system. A white person's right to bear arms or right to petition their government for redress of grievances are treated completely differently than a black person's or a hispanic person's 'same' rights.

SleeplessRonin that’s not true I’m Hispanic and I have the same opportunities as a white man. Stop kneeling for people just cus of skin color it’s anti progressive

Indeed, as well as the understanding that Libertarian ideology is stupidly dangerous and dangerously stupid.

Bioshock's dissection of Objectivism was less about any problems with Capitalism, than about the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand, that greed and placing value only on the self are to be celebrated. Bioshock does not condemn capitalism as a whole.

Memicus Icecreamicus Up to a point, but Rand’s philosophy included the tenet that capitalism was the only moral political system, you can’t really critique the one without at least touching on the other. :-)

It starts for this line of monopoly back in the day and how people want to kill this type of thing that was back in the day and go back to the 1800's unfettered capitalism.

And they say video games (/media in general) have no effect on your beliefs.

The Trump presidency really changed things. Good on you for discovering yourself, I bet it feels liberating.

Ever noticed that transgenderism only exists in a morally corrupt society that loves to prostitute children? Last time there was transvestites are was roughly 1930s Germany. I wonder what you think about that?

@@shoelessbandit1581 my thought about that is that you know nothing about history, and transgender individuals have been around in societies for millenia. Read a book.

@@bragunetzki oh? I've read a book or two and learned some things. The world operates on patterns and we're no exception

@@shoelessbandit1581 Nice, you've figured out a kindergarten idea. I'm sure your mother is proud. Now, let's get back to the actual argument. It's a historical fact that transgender individuals have been around for millenia, and your initial point is thus wrong. You do know that facts don't care about your feelings, don't you?

Isn’t that all the conservatives do? Cancel everything? Bud Lite, Disney, Target etc.

To be fair, Innuendo here is a liberal and not a socialist... Good quote though, from a great writer. Edit: Innuendo clarified below that he's not a liberal and to be honest I'm a little embarrassed at being this reductive, just want to comment that the he's a liberal thing was a bit of a large assumption on my part.

Kade Daivis Then what do you value? How does that inform your politics? How are you different?

@Kade Daivis "If I believe in democracy it means I believe you can say and do whatever the hell you want" That is literally not at all what democracy means.

Kade Daivis - I suggest watching Peter Coffin’s video on Meritocracy or some of Thought Slime’s videos. The thing is that Capitalism and Meritocracy are fundamentally hierarchic systems. They are not systems of equality. They reshuffle class structure, but they ultimately are a reworking of the divine right of kings. Just now our societal kings are people like Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. Capitalism is another system for creating social hierarchies, and as such is ultimately at odds with the fullness of democracy. To be a true believer in Capitalism is to be at odds with the idea that people are equal.

Kade Daivis - Analysis of the implications of Meritocracy as a basis for Capitalism requires more than dictionary definitions. What or who defines “merit” in a society? How does the concept of merit function in terms of justifying any given instance of extreme wealth or lack thereof? Sorry dude, posting a quote from Miriam-Webster isn’t an argument. It doesn’t say anything about how the concept of meritocracy functions in our society. But glad you can make yourself feel better with a vapid IQ comment. Again, I suggest watching Peter Coffin’s video analyzing Meritocracy and get back to me about the points there if you actually want to talk about this in an intelligent manner.

Everyone is responsible for their own life. Nobody should have what’s theirs be taken from them, nobody should have what isn’t theirs be handed to them. Is it really that hard to grasp?

@@KovaXCX I agree, but when the millionaires start changing laws against the little guy (us) how are we supposed to ever get "in the right place"

@@KovaXCX unless, somehow, other people gained control of your life, then you're not exactly in control like you said.

@@KovaXCX - This assumes the we are all 100% in control of our lives. Bit funny, that notion. What policies the government lays out directly affects my life, even if I make the best possible decisions at the time. And, aside from voting (which has been proven to have relatively small impact compared to say, having enough money to donate and get your desires through Congress), I have little control over what policies government implements. Take bankruptcy as an example. Let's say that I, through no fault of my own, have a horrific accident or develop a life-threatening medical condition. Perhaps I caught COVID-19 when I went to work and was one of the 20% of people who had a severe version of it. I end up spending weeks in the ICU. I survive. I had good insurance through my job, but even one day in ICU is incredibly expensive. I am now hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and will not be able to pay this back for decades, if at all. So, my best option is to declare bankruptcy. Well, turns out, bankruptcy laws were changed in 2005. It's now much harder and much more expensive to declare bankruptcy. I am still recovering from COVID-19. I have no money and I'm not yet fit enough to work. By the time I'm back at work, I have fallen behind on rent/mortgage and necessary bills. I'm having to pay back the deductibles I missed while away (at least my job let me do this rather than cutting my insurance immediately). I won't have the several thousand dollars necessary to declare bankruptcy anytime soon. I'll be lucky if I keep a roof over my head. Maybe, if the economy recovers, I will reach a point where I can declare bankruptcy. Maybe not. Of course, depending on the actions of government when the pandemic began, maybe I wouldn't have caught COVID-19 at all. After all, several countries managed to keep their cases much, much lower than the US did, even without a total shutdown. Or maybe I'm a Texan who was on the ERCOT power grid this past February. My power stayed on for most of that severe storm, but my electric company was one of those that charged me the current market rate. My next electric bill is over $100k. Had Texas changed certain regulatory rules to prevent this, or had they simply forced companies to properly weatherize after the 2011 storm that caused Texas to institute rolling blackouts (though was not severe enough to freeze natural gas wells), my bill would not have been $100k. My elderly cousin in another part of the state wouldn't have frozen to death. The family in my town who used their car to try to keep warm during a power loss wouldn't have died of CO2 poisoning. Or perhaps it's not my personal bill that's the problem. Maybe I'm in charge of a power company. My customers paid an average rate, rather than the current rate (quite common in Texas power companies). But the producers of power at the time charged _me_ the current rate. My company, which serves several million Texans, is boned. It's millions in debt. And if it goes under, that's millions of Texans without power. These are just a couple of examples. There are hundreds I could point out, just off the top of my head. From economic policy, tax policy, trade policy, patent laws, medical regulations, etc. All of it has an impact on people and, depending on the circumstances, can send your life from 'this is fine' into 'I'm screwed' territory. Government, and the decisions it implements (or in Texas's case, fails to implement), has a massive impact on our lives. It is a complete fantasy that we are 100% in control. It may make you feel better to think that way, but it is in no way accurate.

@@Overquoted I think I’m a communist now

Yeah, it really is some morally repugnant shit. Most of them assume that everyone is an irredeemable piece of shit just because they are.

It sheds a lot of light on the “white replacement” conspiracy. The amount of sheer terror at the thought of whites becoming a minority reveals how they regard minorities and their place in society.

Andrew Pillion That’s what we’re seeing right now in Trump. He’s always assuming that everyone else must be running frauds and scams and screwing him over because it’s the only set of values he has himself.

It’s also a perfect example of how your beliefs shape your world. I don’t know if this is just generational but my parents and everyone else’s around me are seemingly OBSESSED with collecting physical things and securing them physically (alarms, guns, shutting down the fucking wifi when it’s not being used because wtf, etc.) while my generation perhaps has realized that physical things often provide very little actual value and in the long term ONLY sentimentally.

@@chrisbardolph264 White replacement theory is strongest among Democrats.

They will. And then we’ll kill them.

Let’s find out!

ask twitter's Jack Dorsey or RU-vid's Susan Wojakcziec

And that’s the start of the debate of Corporate Libertarianism.

justin nutter let's find out together, comrade.

Might makes right is a disgusting principle.

Yep. The concept of individual responsability is in direct contradiction to the concept of inheritance.

Yep! The entire "meritocracy" system is destroyed after one generation.

Hi! I grew up in poverty, got great grades, joined the military, joined Mensa. I'm still in poverty. Meanwhile a lot of rich kids with half a brain are running multi-million dollar companies.

@@TheHighSpaceWizard This might depress you. Judging by your photo, the difference between you and me is about 30 years. I think it was far easier in the 80's than it is now. The other thing is that fewer people went to college and even fewer got advanced degrees. It was easier to get scholarships and once you got out of college, there was less competition.

That’s why billionaires pretend it doesn’t exist. Donald Trump’s “Small loan of a million dollars” comment sounds dumb, like a million dollars isn’t a “small loan”, and he got much more than his father in actuality. But by spewing crap, it makes it harder to find the truth.

I would assume they're mostly talking about apartment buildings. Still not entirely true since a developer could choose to sell apartments rather than rent them, but the point is that no single person in that building would have the capital to build that building, thus no housing.

Because building homes in and of itself is a major industry now. We arent all out there building our homes by hand, they're far too complicated nowadays for most people to do so. You would need to have expertise in at least electricity, plumbing and architecture in order to build a serviceable home thats up to stuff with the needs of today's society. If you want to go live in a log cabin in the woods and live off the land, then thats your deal, but most of us arent up for that. You probably arent either if you've still got good enough internet to watch RU-vid videos.

@@four-en-tee I agree landlord's are essentially necessary in today's society but his logic makes more sense when the parameter landlord is equal to a single large owner of land. When a hand full of single entities own the majority of private land it leads to price gouging, scarcity and hoarding of land. If these factors didn't make land so expensive and scarce it's logical to assume that more people are more likely to buy their own land and build their own houses. I like capitalism but land owning is where it starts to show some of it's problems. The fact that "go out and try to build your own house" sound rediculous enough to be used as a valid argument in favor of landlords is just sad honestly.

​@@ihswap Ever read little house on the prairie? Part of a western pioneer family, Laura extols her father's ability to build cabins and wagons from scratch. They planted farms, made tools, even mined. She praised their INDEPENDENT living. Nowadays DIY is frowned upon and we're all CULTURALLY told to be dependent on landlords, manufacturers. I decided a while ago I'm gonna build my own fuckin house. Don't need landlords and real estate agents if I have engineering experience and a brain.

And the Engels family had to leave the prairie, because it wasn't viable in the long-term. Those first sod busters were not going to make anything like a reasonable living.

Ah but you see conservatives DO believe in democracy as long as it involves colonizing others and bombing them all for the sake of democratizing them lol

Liberals constantly ignore whatever law they want and its conservatives who don't believe in democracy.

Mind if I ask what faith you’re referring to?

@@user-qv2qf1jk5o mormon

Isn't it SO strange, you never see any claiming to go the other way... almost as if the alt-right is an inherently unwelcoming place... Except those two faced politicians, which I dont count. Everyone knows politicians arent real people. They can be bought.

I immediately groped desperately for my trashcan haha

I know it's a Jordan Peterson reference, but I refuse to learn what exactly it means.

Donal Murphy well, what does it mean exactly?

@@donalny Too late. Lesson time! Basically what happened was that Jordan Peterson was asked about the value of the artificial social groups, classes, and hierarchies that make up human society, and responded with how we see hierarchies in nature all the time, citing the lobster as a specific example (He didn't outright say that by extension that humanity's arbitrary boxing system was therefore good, but he gave the implication of it.) I think as a meme specifically, the lobster came from Contrapoints calling him out on using the lobster analogy, and how ridiculous comparing humans to lobsters was.

@@donalny well its kind of a double reference. Jordan Peterson uses Lobsters as a really stupid and innacurate example of how human dominance hierarchies should be, but the phrase "consider the lobster" comes from a David Foster Wallace essay written for a food magazine where he argues that boiling lobsters alive isn't ethical.

@Epic Gamer See, that's the thing, in an egalitarian system there _is_ no top or bottom. It passes on the idea that 'there always have to be winners and losers'. Which is why I assume it doesn't mesh well with fascists. Because it's contrary to their worldview.

@Epic Gamer Think of it like this: humans can be encouraged to act in certain ways depending on the society they are living in. You know just like how Germans who participated in the Naz regime weren't evil to their core when they were born. A system like capitalism _encourages_ strife. Because it is a competition and if you have more power or manage to bend the rules or whatnot you can get a leg up and outcompete your rivals. This is not to say that competition can''t technically be beneficial in some cases but the systemic motivation is not about improvement, it is about amassing power. This is why unregulated Capitalism tends to lead to a few having the lion's share of the power (through the natural formation of monopolies). This also means that Capitalism is terrible for ensuring rights or standards and the like if they are not enforced because they cost money/effort which the capitalist in question otherwise woukdn't have had to expend. But there are other human tendencies, other characteristics you can teach, promote, encourage. This can radically alter the way a society functions.

And he is right. As long as there is more than one person in any system there will be a hirerachy

Okay it’s not wild that he doesn’t understand it.. ..

''If everyone is a leader there is no one to be lead'' There is always some hierarchy, the difference is how the leaders are chosen (either by voting or by money).

by that logic rich black people have more privilege than poor whites

@@FulgurInteritum In some cases, yeah, money trumps race in our society. In the other hand, what are the odds on a rich black guy getting pulled over by the cops for driving an expensive car over me, a white person, in the same situation? I'm guessing I'd be more privileged in that case.

@@vfaulkon well if he wasnt speeding, incredibly rare., probably higher or lower depending on the city. I bet if you lived in a place with a lot of black nba/nfl players a white person would be more likely to be pulled over.

_The Phantom Fucking Menace_ is life. _The Phantom Fucking Meance_ is love. 😍

@@FulgurInteritum And in some ways they do. Riches impart economic privilege, but no amount of wealth stops a black man from being pulled over in his car more than some white dude in a racist town. Privilege is a spectrum.

+

To simplify and weaponize it against them, I have found it best to paraphrase that one quote, "the law, in it's infinite wisdom, has prevented both poor and rich alike from sleeping under bridges." But then again, no discussion can truly be weaponized against conservatives, because their values aren't based on logic, observation or any sense of universality. Their based on violence, hierarchy and impulse.

regulation leads to corruption not the lack of it. Without politicians having the ability to contort the market people have no need to pay them off.

economics is a soft science. It is entirely theory and you can never account for all the variables and thus never prove what caused any given affect.

I think it's so funny that we have to figure out what they believe for them, because they have no idea

@@jnl3564 This drove me insane when I first tried to understand right wingers. They never say what they really mean. The stupid ones don't have the self awareness to know what they believe and the smart ones know that their beliefs are abhorrent so they lie.

@@jnl3564 you need a (poorly made) video to explain it to you. Conservatives understand people on the left just fine. When there are two groups and one understands the other while one does not understand the other which would you say is the more intelligent of the two?

@@benjaminr8961 "Conservatives understand people on the left just fine" Yeah, nah. A few months ago I watched a Prager U video on whether the right or the left is more extreme, and they unironically claimed that the left is proposing that all people should have an income tax of 70%... the 70% figure he claimed came from someone proposing a new tax bracket for specifically incomes of over 10 million. Conservatism relies on doing its best to make sure nobody on the right even understands their own arguments, let alone the opposition's. If you can claim that vandalizing public Satanist displays is your own religious freedom and should be legal, then clearly you don't understand what religion freedom means.

@@benjaminr8961alright then, describe various positions on the left for me. If there’s too many, then maybe pick Democratic Socialism, C0mmunism {censored because YT would delete this}, and various forms of Marxism. If that would be too much of your time, then pick One.

everyone should hate labor unions. they are objectively terrible.

Leaning far left is as bad as leaning far right. Two sides of the same coin

@@davidchaladze1082 I definitely wouldn't consider myself _far_ left, just squarely left.

@@DarthFennec That’s ok, because radicalism on both sides of spectrum hurts healthy political discussion. Even this series falls into that problem by generalizing conservatives, and taking some things out of context

@@davidchaladze1082 you're a fool, but thats no issue to us

@@swallowtail3860 You don’t have to insult me, even if you disagree with my opinion, man

And even then, gotta go over base assumptions over what "people" includes...

Also, there's a question that popped in my head and trouble me since then for a while now. What do you want to protect? Life, or the living?

@@youtubeuniversity3638 Ah yes, the abortion discussion. My favorite, lol

guys, i know a way to solve all these political issues in one go glass the planet

@@politecat9183 your statement and username combo is killing me

In the last few years I've seen people link to the "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people" article a lot whenever Republicans went on another rampage. I'm starting to think that "conservatism" is just another euphemism, namely for "sociopathy".

@@cearnicus 1. I wouldn't use "sociopath" as an accusation/insult. I understand what you mean, but Antisocial Personality Disorder (the medically accurate term) is not a fall from grace, or a failure of morality. 2. Conservatism, at its core, is about nostalgia. What conservatism longs for depends on the cultural context. Whether or not conservative values are harmful depend on the country in question, and in the context of American culture, they are undoubtedly quite problematic.

Admitting that there is a virus ravaging everything and that it could infect anyone messes with the social hierarchy. They don't want to admit it's real because it is affecting everyone equally.

@@bananonymoussupreme3345 They'll only admit that it's real if it means that it only affects "lesser people" like the elderly and obese. After all, _they're_ not obese or old, they can't be! Obese people choose to be overweight, and since they didn't choose to be overweight they aren't obese, thus they're not at risk. Maybe those fat people shouldn't have eaten so many burgers! And besides, grandma is getting pretty old, it was only a matter of time anyway. No amount of "healthy people" getting extremely sick and/or having chronic symptoms long after exposure will change their minds. At the heart of it their belief tends to circle back to "I'm a good person, so I'll be fine. If something bad happens to you, it's because you were a bad person and deserved it." It's sickening to see such blatant disregard for the well-being of other people be this prevalent in our society.

@@gamehero6816 I would like to posit that "sociopath" wasn't meant to be an insult, but more of an explanation. Consider Machiavellian personality. Maybe take it as, "the only reason I can think someone would refuse to think of others is that they actually do have a personality flaw, such as antisocial personality disorder, or sociopathy." Machiavellianism might explain why a person cannot understand that another person doesn't want to improve their own position in the hierarchy; doing something to improve everyone's position is genuinely not a behavior that is relatable for the person with the more selfish personality flaw.

Income share agreements say hello. Capitalists will indeed pay for your education, with terms that are based on how productive they think you'll be.

Nanofuture87 True. This arguemtns works for the “hard sciences”, but likely wouldn’t work with them on philosophy or any of the arts or social sciences.

@@longliverocknroll5, which is because a capitalist doesn't care about what makes us human, only what makes us productive.

Rules for rulers, by CGPGrey, brings this point up, that in democracies, their value is mostly vested in their population. In states in which the vast majority of the value lies in products or even a single product (such as oil), you have greater opportunities for fewer civil rights (especially education), since having happy, educated subjects doesn’t necessarily raise the value that flows into the nation’s coffers.

@Carnivorus I’m pretty sure the video title made use of the alliteration: Rules for Rulers. CGPGrey likes his pithy titles.

I also thought as such, but that doesn't appear to be the case. As the trump phenomenon demonstrated, conservatives generally don't seem to care about the economy.

@@regisglass5464 $2 gallon gas was MUCH better for the economy than $6 gallon gas.

@@leafyisnthere9396 what if you have $6 gas because more migrants are being removed?

@@leafyisnthere9396 it is sad that gas companies can use that as a political leverage

@@regisglass5464 it may sound a little hysterical, but I wouldn’t describe the MAGA movement as conservative, in the traiditional sense. I’d call that more fascist than anything else.

I don’t think that’s the end result. The idea is new young people take those jobs as their entry level starting point..

I like to think that the "minimum" in minimum wage should represent a certain minimum amount someone can realistically live off of. Like, bare minimum, all jobs worked full-time should result in a firmly liveable wage (though even then I think there should be protections in place for those who are disabled and otherwise unable to work full-time, e.g. students, in order to ensure their survival and well-being)

democracy, not oligarchy calling itself democracy

@Pecu Alex but the democratic ideal is one people=one vote and everyone get a vote. It is an egalitarian idea. I agree democratic places often don't commit to this ideal tough.

@@llamzrt well that's what the constitution is for. And it is still better than the 1% voting to restrict the rights of the 99% or no vote at all. Beyond that...Well nothing is perfect, but democracy is still better than the other systems

@@smile-tl9in well, if a Constitution or law restricts some person's freedoms, then that's not really pro-freedom, am I right? And even a Constitution isn't immune to democracy. A constituion is a set of law agreed by the people. The people can change said laws or annul said laws. The Amendments are an example of it. The US Constitution, for example, used to count black people as 3/5 of a person. Nowadays, blacks are counted as a person because most people think that's a dumb idea, along with slavery. The same goes with the right for women to vote in elections, which used to be illegal in the United States. That was from an Amendment that the people, whether individually or through their representatives agreed upon. And there's also this concept of "the people is always right". What if the people is never always right? Can the Constitution even protect bad decisions made by the people? For example, what if the people want to put slavery back onto American life. Sure, you might say, there's the 13th Amendment to prevent that. But, if the people can change the laws through democratic means, what's stopping them from creating an amendment to repeal the 13th Amendment? Or even the 14th Amendment, which set in stone citizenship by birth on US soil, which of course many claimed were being abused by illegals today? So far, the only thing preventing that is the divisive nature of US politics and the two-party domination that's in place. It's a two-edged sword, where it helped preserve the status quo, but by preserving the status quo, it also encourages stagnation in political and social reforms.

@@alexanderchristopher6237 well i'd say the constitution actually protects freedom if your consider that your freedom stops where the freedom of other begins. For the rest...Fair enough. Democracy is not a perfect system, such a thing doesn't exist, but it is the best we have. Note that there are ways to change the U.S democratic system to be better. I suggest you look CGP grey's videos on alternative vote, MMP, etc...

it's wild how he's taken people mocking one of his dumber arguments and made it into part of his personal brand.

What's sad is I never questioned the fact that Jordan Peterson would take a picture with his pockets full of lobsters. It just seems natural.

@I Control My Fate Ditto

Knowing Better hey! Do you think you can debunk some Anti-SJW RU-vidrs? (I hate SJW’s and anti-SJW’s by this point)

Knowing Better oh shit, i thought that was just a really good photoshop job

stan, not stand. different word with a _very_ different meaning

liberals literally created a new law so Trump could be sued. You bastardize the legal system at every opportunity because you think you know better than anyone else and laws are just in your way.

if this video's caricature of conservatism is what you believed when you were a conservative, then that doesn't prove that conservatism is bad/wrong, it just proves that you were a really stupid conservative.

@@gearygears4996 I have not seen a better argument for American conservatism philosophy, only worse.

That kind of thinking frustrates me to no end. Thanks for sharing this. As someone who does have empathy for people on a large scale, the idea to allow things to run in an ineffectual manner for so many people seems untenable to me.

@Õ_Õ Shy Guy do i have an argument against "i was a racist 'conservative,' ergo conservatism is racist?" i don't know, i don't think i actually need a better "counter argument" then just pointing and laughing, lmao

@@cautemoc4624 then you haven't spoken to many conservatives lol

What's funny is that this is how their system works though is someone put their hand on the scale instead of worked towards it. They're just projecting with this one but it's completely accurate though. We just need our heirarchical corporations out of our democratic government though in my opinion

@Eye Patch Guy That crowd's name? Albert Einstein.

For anyone who does not understand: not everyone is born with a wealthy family who can afford your studies or neither you can scale up the profits because of your social position and standard education. By you logic every school should be private, poors should die because they need to sit where belong to, right? is this your position ?

@BP if you want to know the history, especially the black adult aspect, the first time white americans who weren't the upper class elite went to college was post ww2 on the government's dime through the GI Bill, not hard work in the market, and this was only given to white americans, whilst black veterans were denied these benefits.

@BP I hope it is as doable as you said

@BP Community college will NEVER give you an advantage over someone who could simply pay more

no, it got expensive when we really subsidized it. like now.

@@ericfernandez9 regardless it’s ridiculously cripplingly expensive and if it is not fixed our society will begin to lose knowledge it’s a problem that needs to be addressed.

@Proxima Centauri Its why you see a bunch of people hard right in several southern states going into specific colleges or not going at all because college (especially cheaper ones!) tends to be a melting pot of backgrounds, ideologies, and cultures, which is something that can open up different world views.

The question is not about what to do with those in college dept its about why college so expensive that it causes them to go into such large dept (and why is that college tuition keeps getting more expensive every year even though goverment spends a nice chunk of taxpayer dollars to colleges that are supposed to make those tuitons cheaper)

@@ericfernandez9 You are factually wrong. Tuition rates for students started increasing across the board when state governments started cutting public funding to higher education in response to economic recession -- especially with regard to the 2008 financial crisis.

That sounds amazing! What country is it?

@@evanbarth7173 It's Argentina! Granted that every source of economic information in english will tell you we're doing like crap because we're not politically aligned with the US and associates with... You know, having a goverment that quite literally gives us free stuff consistently and still manages to keep a healthy market dynamic. I'm guessing it would be very embarrasing if a country like mine was doing okay, so that explains the US powered dictatorship we had last century. ... I'm not even kidding. Search Operation Condor and you'll find a wikipedia article that summarizes pretty well the events. But obviously imperialism is a lie, no? :)

@@moron0000 Isn't Argentina a Cesspit of Racism?

@@spaghettiisyummy.3623 Not really. That's just Buenos Aires, which is the capital; it has a high concentration of white inmigrants for historic reasons, and as the capital it's also the main point of contact for many visitors, so they get the impression that we're all ignorant racist morons when in fact the entirety of the rest of the country also hates the capital for said reasons. Not that it would make healthcare any less free or university education any more paid than it's already not.

@@moron0000 Ah, Ok. Thanks! That explains a lot!

DRR DRR DRR

Oh god oh no

More or less. We are all poor bastards with a specific hole preemptively dug for them. It's just that some notice the conveniently placed shovel nearby

@@2dollarchickenwings689 Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a reference to a Junji Ito comic. Its, uh, a rather disturbing piece of body horror.

I yeet my kids from what I know it’s a fairly wholesome comic with mild existential dread and horror

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

@BIGINNARDS okay it differences because a billionaire is a billionare because he became a billionare because the consumers wanted it that way so he influencing other is still a form of democracy.

@BIGINNARDS "eliminated competition" Because they did BETTER. "Tell me an alternative to Amazon" There isn't one, why should it be? Amazon is the best and this is why it has no competition. Of course capitalism isn't moral, why would it be? People shouldn't be living their lives with the left's opinion on what is right and wrong.

@BIGINNARDS it is 100% democratic. The only not democratic system is violent socialism. Socialism only works with state violence while capitalism works through voluntary exchange. I suggest you read the book "The road to serfdom".

For everyone else. Literally voting with dollars mean rich children vote for themselves and you literally end up back in the middle ages with inbred kings. That need to be mass guillotined all over again but that won't be that easy this time because now you don't need to rely on your soldiers anymore, you can have automatic weapons shooting and aiming automatically

As a BLANKITY BLANK

@Libertus Primus I reeeeeally hope that was a joke

Do you mean a sadist in bed or in public? What I mean is, do you want to crack the whip or make people’s lives difficult?

Bushwhacker 1278 don‘t worry, he‘s probably just a serial killer...

As a sadomasochist I'm half offended

@Kazuhira Miller As is any investment that betters society. My children don't exist today and aren't doing anything to earn a better society, why should i improve anything for their sake?

@Kazuhira Miller you seem to be pretty nihilistic about the government.

@Kazuhira Miller That's not a very good understanding of how the debt works imo - we don't "owe" the government anything.

To provide necessary funds to carry out their explicitly enumerated constitutional powers.

@Kazuhira Miller Ask for government-funded schooling -> Pay higher taxes to government -> Government pays for free schooling -> You get degree without crippling student loan debt -> You get good job to pay taxes as usual -> You raise family without debt because student loans are objectively worse than a higher tax rate that you DO have representation in changing -> The debt does not accumulate as you assumed it would. I don't know any one of my Californian friends (who have a higher tax rate than in my state) that are in debt to the government. -> You're not enslaved by a tyrannical government. -> Your kids get to go to school too, and your family, instead of having the burden of thousands of dollars in tuition per year, and has to pay perhaps 10 or 100 times less (because of taxes). -> Even though the cost can't and never will be completely eliminated, by distributing equally among the population, you've resolved the pressures on each individual family. It's kinda like simple engineering. If your machine has too much pressure in one area, you find a way to distribute the stress forces over more area or over more time. In our world, individual families paying for college is the pressure arising in specific parts of the machine. Those individual parts aren't able to take the pressure and might break (go into lifelong debt). However, if you distribute the pressure (government funding and taxation), each individual part suffers less, each family is able to deal with the costs, and the system remains stable.

I’d be curious to understand this too, from an Irishman this point of view seems literally insane to me...

Can you elaborate on what the video didn't get right? I'm curious.

im here for the same question.

Very far off

@@brickvideos4851 I second this. Curious to know what he left out, as Alex implies that it wasn't incorrect.

“Communist propaganda of the shoddiest kind. What’s gone wrong with the world? I can’t even take a bath without 6 or 7 communists jumping in with me. They’re in my shirt cupboard and Brezhnev and Kosygin are in the kitchen now eating my wife’s jam. Oh, they are cutting off my legs! I can see them peeping out of my wife’s blouse! Why doesn’t Mr. Maudling do something about it before it is too late? Ohhhh…God…” -Michel Palin

same thing happened to me a couple months ago and now I'm really into politics

@Carnivorus how many do you think capitalism has killed?

@Carnivorus the statistic for how many died under communism is mainly comprised of deaths from starvation. However, The deaths per capita from starvation in communist nations in the last century is lower than that in capitalist nations. From this we can make a one of two conclusions, either a) communism is the superior humanitarian system or b) it’s a bullshit statistic people need to stop using and actually read some political theory instead of basing their views on anecdotal evidence.

@Carnivorus everyone with a curable but life threatening illness who can't afford healthcare...... 🙄🙄

Because it means breaking the system. Slipping down lower in the tier list while your opponent is going higher. Not realizing that you will both meet in the middle anyway.

Even then, Marx and Engels never wanted to do 'Harrison Bergeron' to people. In fact, they thought "...living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated." Two workers who are physically able to work different hours peing paid equally for these hours benefits one and not the other, the same for their hours being equalized. Instead, they thought each should work for what they can, and receive what they need. Surplus past this axiom is used to facilitate the abilities and needs of others or those who would further such things like arts or science.

@@triadia7059 Which vastly benefits them both.

Because they're reactionaries lol.

I've got a friend who is veeeery conservative and she really thinks we are having a 'nature vs nurture' discussion when talking about politics. I've tried a billion times to explain to her that *NO! We are talking about humankind as a whole,* not individual humans being born or made into the person you grow up to be (like it isn't obvious that always is a combination of both). Conservatives don't really understand that *YES some people are born more intelligent than others,* but one cannot expand this framework to nations/scincolours/etc. This Girl really thinks it's a nature-vs-nurture-statement to say "black people earn less money, but that is ok, because they aren't good at high payed jobs." WTH?!

Except for everyone working in tech (I don't want a tech job), and everyone living in NY or CA (*I* want to live in NY or CA but I'm fine with there being other states to live in). But, other than that I was like "Yes! Yes! That's exactly what I want!" lol

You can get it easily if you acquire an in-demand skillset.

@@selfishcapitalist3523 and when everyone becomes a doctor, the doctor's pay will be shit, because of suppy and demand. unless they unionize. oh and also they will all drown in waste because no unskilled people taking out the trash. your ideology is self contradictory *and* fails in practice.

@@selfishcapitalist3523 _Reads bio_ Hey, at least you're honest.

Yes please i want it now if you dont give it to me my friends and I will take it ourselves

That is a straw man. Please think harder.