The idea that conservatives care evenly about the various moral tastes while liberals tend to be specifically focused on care and fairness is incredibly intriguing. It explains a lot about why I personally perceive so much more hypocrisy in the left than the right. It's not that they're legitimate hypocrites, it's that their values are highly specialized so the less emphasized values tend to go by the wayside. Very eye opening.
It also explains the phenomenon of why conservatives understand liberals better than the inverse. Spreading even on several categories vs. all chips in on 1-2 slots. And why the political right is more ok with diversity of thought, which shows itself in how regular conservatives, 3rd positionists(YT doesn’t like the f or ns word), monarchists, and libertarians can come together in a way that liberals, socialists, communists, and anarchists usually cannot. Just as in 1930’s Spain and revolutionary France, the left always ends up purity spiraling.
The thing about care and fairness is that they are both extremely subjective values that change with time. Everyone would agree that an innocent man going to prison would be unjust, no one ever agrees on the best way to care for people and they tend to change their opinions over time. Because of this, the leftist position is constantly shifting. They peruse care and fairness but every 10 years or so they change their minds on what care and fairness even are. 15 years agoe no one was talking about pronouns but now if you care about people and you want to make things fair you better care about pronouns.
I think the biggest thing in the right is that often nationality and faith tend to be consistently unifying forces. As a Paleo-Con, even knowing I disagree with Libertarians about as much as leftists, I do know they won't attack the church, and rightist Libertarians will fight more with leftist policy. Also it's a matter of practicality in the spanish civil was the spanish right unified, The Neo Cons mostly are subservient to Trump, the left currently has a cultural advantage and thus the pressure is more on the right to unify. Chicken question: It's disgusting, it harms yourself, you probably aren't a good person, and anyone willing to do that is likely willing to do worse.
Because the current subs that I have are so cool that the algorithm has to compensate by giving me less of them--too much cool in one channel would be disruptive to the UA-cam ecosystem. A world where Logan Paul has less than 3 billion subs is a world I just don't want to live in
i agree with Destiny on the N-word thing. i dont know specifically what context it was in regards to, whether saying racist jokes or whatever... context matters, but i dont think insulting a faceless group is the same as insulting a specific person. if i make a joke about Christians, vegans, whatever... its not as insulting to a friend that is one of those as it is if i specifically call out one actual person... whether calling them tiny dick or not. Also, there is a taboo'ization of the word in current culture that doesnt even care about context. simply stating the word in a neutral manner like if i specifically say "hey we are talking about [nword] and whether its okay to say it" isnt the same as using it as an attack
also, what about Soft R versus Hard R? and not all black people are united in if white people should avoid saying it or not. ive heard some say that if anything only white people should say it and black people shouldnt accept it as their word. there is a diversity of thought on the matter
i'm a PaleoLibertarian so i'm a libertarian with more conservative social values and from my perspective yes it it scummy to betray someone but i wouldn't say we are as you say hardwired for loyalty, it's more like an friendship relationship , the right is very much disunified but right quite often accepts diferences as long as core principles are agreed upon(like capitalism is preferable to socialism, borders exist for a reason , and the law also exists for a reason). keep in mind it's possible to have misplaced loyalty, and there's saying that loyalty is it's own reward, i cna understand it but i don't subscribe to it, i think that if you want my loyalty you must prove to me that if i decide to join you i will not regret it
It all comes down to 1) Class consciousness and 2) Theory of change. There can't ever be any solidarity between leftists and progressives-- and definitely not between leftists and liberals because they simply are not on the same team, and they're not even aiming for the same outcomes. I will explain. Since these words are so convoluted and now everyone is using them interchangeably, we'll start with some definitions: a) LIBERAL: The term "liberal" has been pretty much standardized going all the way back to the European Enlightenment era and its related intellectuals. The short strokes are that the liberal enlightenment was fundamentally elitist, pro-capitalism, pervasive among the petite bourgeoisie, favored bourgeois politics, often favored eugenics, and also adopted somewhat humanitarian values viewed as intellectually progressive without actually challenging class hierarchy. So, as Chris Hedges expounds so brilliantly in his 2009 book, 'Death of the Liberal Class,' it's clear how this remains the liberalism of the Democratic party, its media machine, Hollywood, and liberal academia. "Wokeness" is pervasive among the liberal class, because it is a useful tool for obfuscating and silencing class consciousness and class struggle. Another nefarious trait among liberals is their affection for authoritarianism and censorship. Of course they'll TELL you they think they're for "saving democracy" (LOL as if the U.S. is actually a democracy) and that they believe "hate speech," an entirely subjective term defined according to whatever thing makes a convenient scapegoat at any given time, must be shut down wherever it exists in order to save people from thinking things that liberals personally dislike. b) PROGRESSIVE: These are the insidious figures among much of the former Bernie Sanders contingent along with various lesser progressive politicians such as "the Squad." This is where theory of change becomes important. Progressives proclaim almost all the same values as leftists with exception to their very obvious and disturbing silence on imperialism and colonialism. Their fantasies of European-style social democracy depend on exploitation of the global south and perpetuation of capitalist dystopia, but they do not acknowledge this. Instead, they was poetic about a "nicer capitalism," one that mostly benefits people domestically, and take little interest in the machinations of empire abroad. Progressives adhere staunchly to the mythologies of "harm reduction," "lesser evilism," and reform over revolution. This is why, although they will *say* they are for (almost) all the same things as leftists, they don't hesitate to sell out their values when the election comes down to yet another Democrat versus yet another Republican. The truth, which few progressives admit to, is that for most of them these leftist values such as universal healthcare are not existential for them. They tend to be fairly privileged managerial class liberals that hold farther left ideals than their liberal counterparts but aren't willing to inconvenience themselves or put anything on the line to get them. But instead of admitting openly to that (because it sounds bad when you say it out loud), they'll tell you they are being "strategic," "rational," "adult," etc. and scoff at anyone telling them that the system OBVIOUSLY cannot be reformed. Another point about progressives is that they rarely if ever challenge the censorship industrial complex. c) LEFTIST: Leftism *begins* at anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-militarism, anti-colonialism (permutations of the same things, but just to spell it out unambiguously), and centers class struggle and working class solidarity above all else. This is because a thorough examination of revolutionary movements proves that all sweeping, systemic social and political change relies on these two things. They veer away from cancel culture, culture wars, and pointless virtue-signaling over woke cultural values. Although leftists are for equity for all people, they do not agree that there is a path to those outcomes either through aligning with the bourgeoisie-- as progressives continue to do-- or through fighting downstream battles between smaller and smaller sub-factions of society, each arguing over whose individual interests should come first. Leftists were usually liberals or progressives at some point earlier in their political activity, and became radicalized over time generally with a copious amount of self-education about how power works in capitalist systems. This is why you will not see leftists voting for Democrats, and rarely will you see them making common cause among progressives with exception to the Palestinian liberation struggle. Leftists are justifiably suspicious of progressives for reasons that should be obvious given the above description of them, but most pointedly because they know progressives will nearly always sell themselves out to the liberal machine when the going gets tough, thereby making them unreliable allies. So this should clear up the mystery of why there is "in-fighting" among the so-called "Left," which people often define according to their own whims convoluting the entire subject beyond recognition. You cannot fight a battle with people that are not seeking the same ends. If your aim is to make a nicer capitalism and "reform the Democratic party," the people that see an urgent need to burn the entire system to the ground are not going to join your team. If you're too scared of letting the red team win the inning and telling yourself the blue team will make your life slightly less horrible, again the people that recognize *the entire system is the problem* are not going to have anything to do with you. This makes for irreconcilable differences-- in fact, the only faction among those I just described that are ACTUALLY "The Left" are the leftists themselves. The progressive and the liberals are just Democrats. So it is unconstructive and disingenuous to present this as a bunch of people on the same team arguing over petty grievances that just can[t put their personalities aside. The end. I'll leave two links to other perspectives on this topic for you to ponder. I don't agree with all of what either one of them are saying, but they make interesting arguments nonetheless and some of their points are valid.
1 question: why are leftists generally internationalists? Their opposition to (actual) national socialism seems to me to be based on weird humanism or (correct) paranoia that capitalists abroad will try to destroy the national socialist country to get access to its markets, but support for socialism is mostly rooted in improving one's material conditions. The obssessive focus on internationalism seems detached from this motivation
"Liberals" don't come from classical liberalism. Modern liberals are leftists since they want to enforce an egalitarian society (they might not go so far to fully abolish individual rights (like property) but if you look into it they are the opposite of freedom-loving. Nice try proving his point.
Welp you have to either at least make friends with and work with progressives, social democrats, and such or else the right will eat us all alive. Especially in the US, where the scourge and hardcore-right death machine known as Trumpism is growing at an unstoppable rate and literally anyone to the left of Trumpism must band together to even stand a chance against Trumpism destroying the country. Also, a revolution and overthrowing of the US state ain't gonna happen any time soon. Therefore leftists might as well make the state more favorable towards them or at least more bearable (like make the state more economically egalitarian with more economic mobility, proLGBTQ, proimmigration, etc) in the mean time even if they will destroy the state later, might as well make it more bearable before you can destroy it.
You talked about liberals progressives and leftists all having different end goals and that being why they can’t get along. But you threw a bunch of leftists into the same banner of leftism, as if there aren’t groups with huge differences under that banner Example: communists vs anarchists. While they may both have the same end goal of a stateless classless moneyless society, anarchists are incredibly skeptical of the state and perhaps view government with even more suspicion than they view capitalism. Anarchists will not support a communist dictatorship Then you have democratic socialists who don’t want a stateless classless moneyless society, nor will they accept violent revolution. They want a command economy achieved through democratic means Furthermore, and this is my big question to you: obviously leftists have a lot of differences. But so do evangelical conservatives, NeoCons, Paleocons, Libertarians, classical liberals, anarcho capitalists, civic nationalists, Christian nationalists, etc yet these groups all maintain unity, with perhaps the exception of a few neocons who jumped ship Why can’t the left maintain the unity that all of the groups I listed maintain? Because they all have different goals too
This video is so well phrased, I genuinely had never realized why appeals to care failed so hard in discussion. I'd love to see more of these kinds of breakdowns on news and events!
leftists having different brain chemistry is crazy, I never understood why it was so hard for leftists to understand the right and why they believe the things they do, when its so easy for right libertarians to understand why the left believes the things they do.
*The following is what I would have probably said during the interview with my friends, and is purely for the sake of argument Would you not say, however, that humans are not "supposed" to fornicate with vegetables as well though? Would you say that someone self-pleasuring with a cucumber immoral? Also, what constitutes an ethical appeal referring to what humans are "supposed" to do? What defines "natural" human behaviour, and, in your opinion, do all things that humans do that are unnatural intrinsically constitute as immoral?
Cool cool. So in this video, I cited an experiment where the people therein were asked to justify WHY it's wrong. If it's so clearly obvious to you, would you care to explain your reasoning as to why?
@@themanicpineapple8772 Bet. I believe all life has a dignity owed to it. I'm not a vegan btw. This dignity I believe is divinely appointed but if you're a materialist I'll say that this dignity is just an extension of the Golden Rule. More likely than not you wouldn't want someone to fornicate with your body so do unto others, you know? This whole dignity thing I learned spending summers at my uncles ranch and is how he raises his beef cattle. He loves them and gives them the best lives he can and when it's time for slaughter he makes sure that even in the butchering process they are treated with a level of respect (the butcher isn't sitting their playing with their bones like some sort of deranged child). They are owed respect because they were living at one point and all life is precious. Having sex with a dead animal violates that dignity. That animal can't give consent. And we can't know if that animal wanted to give consent in life either. Just like in humans if we aren't given a clear answer on consent we should assume a "no" for the sake of the possible victim. Either A) God gave us this animal to sustain ourselves on and we should be respectful to a divine gift B) We domesticated this animal and now it's more or less our responsibility to give respect and dignity to something we made or C) which is a combination od A and B where God gave us the animal we domesticated it and now we need to respect it for a couple of reasons. You can say I'm committing the slippery slope fallacy all you want but I also think if we permit something like that to be done it would probably lead to worse things being done next. For that I don't have a well thought out reason why but it's just a feeling I have. Also, you were supposed to read that and go "Haha, those gun toting Americans, so quaint"
Hey man this is such a great video. I really do appreciate that you were unbiased and didn't put any bias for either side. I always brought down this issue to being that leftists have a purity meter that they need to keep up with it and with that purity meter getting bigger and bigger each passing year some of them don't want to keep moving so they end up fighting the other people for not moving for that. It also could be because of the whole thing with leftists having an mindset of including everyone. But the problem with that is not everyone will agree and be united since they all belif different things. You can't have democrats and socialists go together, You can't have Islam and feminism go together. Or LGBT and Islam. You also see TERFs fight with LGBT aswell. This is Because the left is very diverse in there beliefs compared to the right which has fewer subfactions that are in the minority you often see leftists infight because they all have different goals because of the inclusion mindset and therefore they can't agree on alot of things. Anyways great video man!
Like I said, I personally find the act disgusting. Super weird that every commenter with something to say about the chicken dilemma A) fails to provide a counter argument for why it's immoral, and B) somehow seems to think I came up with the dilemma. Again, peer reviewed study--I'm just quoting people smarter than me. If you think it's wrong, then feel free to share your reasoning with the class
@@themanicpineapple8772 a living being, dead or alive, has a right to bodily autonomy. an animal - especially a dead one - can not consent to any such act with a human, nor would it fully understand what doing so means (especially considering most animals have the mindset equivalent to human children). So I believe the morality comes down to bodily autonomy. I don't think it's immoral because the two aren't "meant" to fornicate (there might be weight to that argument, idk tho), but because you are going against the consent - or lack of consent - of another being. It is another form of exploitation, such as how the elite class exploits the working class for their own gain. I also think there is something to be said about the connection between morality and human inclination, but that's a different convo. (I also understand that you are not saying u wanna f a chicken lol, sorry about those other comments)
As a moderat right winger this makes soo much sense to me! I always wondered why you constantly devide sociaty in different sections that have no ability to function on there own. For me, sociaty is a system, an cybernetic organization of essential parts and the only thing policies should do is to enhance its efficiency, it's all about the Funktioning and growth of the ingroup... But you leftist just don't have one!
He has no interest in calling someone the N word. He never had asserted it was okay to call Trihex or anyone else a Ni***(er). That would be Inherently dehumanising and does cause harm potentially at a societal level. Using the word as part of education Jane Elliot style, humour that doesn’t encourage or incite hate or violence Louis CK style or simply definitionally not having to cuck my way around typing it earlier in this passage style. This is what I understand it to be about anyway. Stance on immutable characteristics has been firm for quite a while right?
I think there a a genetic balancer. Half will be left, half will be right. A quarter on each side will be hard core. It is good. Fight for what you believe (within reason).
this is a great video, it helped me with understanding and naming my stance on the in fighting and canceling and stuff. i'm glad it exists, it explains some very important things i wasn't getting before. i will be sharing it with my friends and followers. also i won't be able to look at a chicken for a good while, im just gonna pretend the question was never asked
@@rdococ Man says "I believe in only one axis" I say "you don't" You say "these types of people tend to believe these... two axes" Just making 100% sure: you were trying to prove my point, right?
@@themanicpineapple8772 I don't know what the guy's worldview is, all I did was present the group with the most similar values. You're reading far too much into it.
@@rdococ Apologies for being too hasty. So you weren't trying to disagree with what I was saying? You were just randomly dropping that you think he's a libertarian? In which case I agree with you. What's your take on his belief that he only ascribes to one moral axiom?
Before I watch this I will explain why left has problem with infighting. Its because the "left" is incogerent category right now, manipulated to simply mean "opposition to the current hierarchy" which makes it very broad and politically very confused. There is no ideological connection for anarchists and authoterian tankies to share the same label when their values are diametericly opposite to each other. Sure they both hate capitalism even the state (or so they say) but for widely different reasons that are simple not compatible. This simple comes from the fact that you can be against top down hierarchical system as also top down hierarchical system, you just have to have the hierarchy based in contradictory way for them to fight. And if you happened to be somebody who wants equality you will be against both, but mostly against the one in power. This explains not only the confusion of political terms, the infighting in the left, but also the way the right views the left and attacks it. How often do they attack the idea of equal power and freedom? Barely. They use the authtoerian left as the whole left of course.
A solid video and I do agree with some points, but I do have some rebuttals if I may and I apologize for the long wall of text. I do not agree that leftists only valuing care and fairness and that being the primary motivators of their moral choices. I think what we have here is an issue of how their moral principles translate into the other 4 categories when we're working only from the Right's perception of those values. For the Left, more specifically the hard left it's about loyalty to principles and the importance of quality of life over life itself. The left used to be more united, but betrayal in the distant past and the corruption of their ideals by select authoritarian figures more interested in securing their own power rather than advancing their once mutual goals has created a paranoid skepticism of self-proclaimed allies who are only superficially interested in their movement for clout and financial gain. This skepticism can present itself as zealous purity culture, but it's more about rooting out corruption and opportunists within their own movement so they can be persistent and consistent with their long term goals of removing abusive, unjust hierarchies, the systems that made them and the people who benefit from them at the unwilling expense of others. I also do not agree that harm is the only factor that determines a leftist' moral position on the unlucky chicken because it presumes that leftists are majority consequential and ethical hedonists which I think stems from the Right's belief that what the LGBTQ+ community consists of which are coincidentally majority leftists. It ignores other possible reasons as to why a person would not want to violate a dead chicken or see it as justifiable, such as dignity for oneself which is valued. The chicken itself also deserves some dignity as well, since it died a sudden and tragic death and its body does not deserve to be degraded in such a way. Violating the chicken is also wasteful, as now it is tainted with who-knows what and assuming it was not diseased it would be better used as food which is overall more morally respectable and valued either by feeding family, other animals, or plants which would grow more food or give strength to those fed. Is it wrong to violate a chicken, yes it is even if it does no harm and no one sees it because morals are just as much about respect for an ideal or principles than just what feels good and what doesn't. If you are a vegan, it is more respectful to put it to rest as its body does not deserve further indignities. If you eat meat, its nutritional value can give strength to others so they themselves can do more good. Is it more moral to do nothing than violate the chicken, this is also a yes. Nature is adapted to dealing with the dead and there are a variety of creatures who would play a part in the disposal of the creature and guarantee that it will not be wasted. More likely, a person who takes the chicken home to violate it will either dispose of it after using it where it will rot among garbage wastefully, they may do something as disgusting as consume it themselves after having already violated it, or feed it to others, or in arguably the "best" case scenario give it back to nature. Regardless, once the chicken has been violated the person has lost all sense of respectability and the chicken itself has had its dignity diminished and usefulness for other greater goods stripped from it. The only reason the person is not immediately vilified is because it is a secret. Once found out, you will find most on the left and right will view it as indefensible.
10:05 Hol up, so some on the radical left can come to terms with Chicken Necrophilia but not saying the N word, I'll brb I gotta grab milk/ a pack of cigs
Well, Unless you commited murder to cannibalize a mofo and you generally needed to consume a being of your species to survive then it really shouldn't be an immoral act that merits a "bruh". Humanity would be morr based if they treated moral systems as being mainly contextual in order to mitigate harm and stop acting like they are omniapplicable.
Is there some kind of test I can take. I feel I care a lot about liberty, but very little about loyalty. At least to people, and would like something more empirical.
still incredibly relevant and eye opening for myself. i wonder how the argument holds when looking at politicianns themselves and the sense of moral loyalty they feel towards their voting base. the harm was reduced by getting an authoritarian out of office but feel less of a sense of obligatioon on following through with campaign promises. i will certainly have to read this book now!
As a current leftist (or a "libertarian socialist" some might say), you make kickass content. You got a discord to talk in? Cause I fell in love with your channel.
Aw shucks :) Thanks yo. You're not the first person to ask me about a Discord, so I'm seriously considering opening one. Might happen as early as December ;) I'll keep you posted!
i feel like the fact that he willingly fucked the chicken means that he has some tendency towards beastiality, and unless its only in combination with necrophilia, i cant imagine him not wanting to do so to a living animal. id say that's messed up. but let's say that his only "taboo" attraction is a combination of necrophilia and beastiality. if so, we should ask the question, does this chicken belong to someone? i live in a state with a lot of farms, so that possibility isnt too far-fetched to me. if it does, then id consider that disrespectful. the owner's probably freaking out wondering where their chicken went, and you just fucked their chicken that they spent all that time nurturing. i cant really excuse that, even if the owner doesn't know about what you did. you could've returned the chicken to them so that they at least get some closure. the question doesnt specify what the guy did with the chicken after he banged it, so that stays open-ended. but what if the chicken belonged to nature and was not tamed? well, chickens do contribute quite a bit to nature. soil that's nurtured by chickens helps reduce runoff and supports healthy water systems. that soil helps replace unhealthy pesticides, which then allows for more presence of bees, birds, and bats. so chickens in turn help increase biodiversity. in addition, letting any mammal's corpse decompose into the soil is nourishing to said soil. so the chicken is useful even in death. this man looked at that, said "nah", and fucked that chicken. that just feels uncomfortable to me. now, that brings up the argument that hunting and eating chicken causes the same issue. difference there is that you need food to survive, and chicken meat is one of the healthier meats for humans. that's contributing to the food chain, which is an important part of nature. no matter how much some nations have ignored it in favor of industrialization, we still contribute to the ecological balance, partly by eating other mammals. now, in this situation, i dont recall there ever being a sex chain. fornicating with the chicken doesn't allow for sexual reproduction, so there's no ecological benefit. he did it for the sake of doing it. this guy's series of actions feel so unnecessary, and even when given a huge benefit of the doubt, can still cause harm in the majority of the scenarios. however, i think that this question is a little incomplete. i think Haidt needs to describe what the man does with the chicken after he has sex with it, and then we can get a clearer picture of the morality of the situation. context: i consider myself a very far-left guy, and im not vegan, although maybe that was already established by the remarks about the benefit of chicken meat. sorry if that was really wordy, lmao
also im really not sure cause im bad at perceiving the way my brain works, but i think i do value loyalty to some extent, but that's mainly because i dont like upsetting people who are in my political community cause i hate losing friends, and i very easily label people as friends in my brain. that's a total guess work
In this case Fornication with the dead chicken is inherently immoral because the man has clearly stolen aforementioned deceased poultry. Though the befouled fowl was not slain by his hand the man did not seek the legal owner of the corpse and so the method of acquisition is corrupt. Also unless he is the legal owner of the dead chicken, I believe this falls under the crime of vandalism. What a man does privately in his own home and is own property however is no concern of mine, but a matter between himself and God.
Chicken question: It's not immoral, but it is repulsive and disgusting, and furthermore it wouldn't be immoral to judge the man and give punishment if his actions were taboo in the local community. It's not immoral, but it's also not immoral to treat it as if it was immoral.
i answered the chicken problem by thinking it was immoral not because the chicken dead and had no authority over his body but because i believe zoophilia and necrophilia to be similar to rape, animals cannot consent and there’s a clear power imbalance between you and it. Not to mention ppl who say “it’s not hurting anyone” is just ignoring the clear implications about what that says abt a person lol good video tho u deserve a lot more views for how thorough you were about this topic
About the chicken thing: It's wrong and immoral because the chicken cannot consent for the act, because: 1. It's not a sophont species, meaning it's considered bestiality 2. It's dead, it's necrophilia.
Just so we're clear: 1) chickens can't consent to being killed for food. So the consent argument alone isn't sufficient (unless you're a vegetarian) 2) You're arguing that its wrong to F the dead thing because... it's wrong to F dead things. Not trying to dis you or anything ;) The experiment is supposed to make you scratch your head quite a bit
@@themanicpineapple8772 the fact the experiment supposes the man does it in private is a good argument for why privacy is a liberty and not a right. Almost nobody would ever do necrophilia or bestiality in public lest they fall foul of somebody who thinks it is wrong and immoral to do this.
If my friend asks me not to call them something, I'll respect their wishes. Because if I didn't Id be a bad friend. And I'd feel like the little baby for not being able to do the literal bare minimum as a friend. That's the point I was making.
While I mostly agree with your points about understanding the values of the people you're talking to, and the differences in values between people, I would have liked to see more of the data that supports your claim about lefties functionally only caring about care and fairness. I don't have the data either, and I think it's even arguable which values are behind answers to questions. For example, I wouldn't have assigned the fairness value to the bodily autonomy argument that you presented as coming from vegans. I would say that argument cares more about the sanctity of one's body and the respect that it's owed even after death, rather than fairness about how it's treated. And on that same note, if lefties all _only_ cared about care and fairness, do you consider anarchists a part of the left? I'd say liberty is quite high up there in their values. Finally, I find it quite offputting how you basically essentialized people to their values, and made it sound like it's an unchanging inevitability proven by science, set in stone after some unstated age. You didn't give enough evidence to claim something as concrete as that stance.
@@themanicpineapple8772 no worries 👍 you put a lot of effort into your vids that I have seen so you will get there some day, also glad to support another chaotic fan
11:13 With the Micro PP destiny argument, If a person would be ignorant of your behind-the-back comments you made of them, if they didn't hear you talkin' smack, then were they truly harmed? Unless your comments weren't fully slanderous and the slander didn't have terrible implications with said implications having dire results(I.E X is a thief, X is a molester, X did Y) then shitty jeers and names don't do much. Also, I am a firm believer that the N word should be stripped of negative conotations and should instead be used endearingly. Same with the term Cracker. Who's with me!?
Yea its immortal to f a chicken. Its an animal and its dead. Edit: Watched it all. Pretty good. I pray ya lefty never get a since of loyalty. But thanks for clarifying that we're "more" level headed. We're all igits, swimming through a sea of chaos. God bless mate take care of yourself.
Hmm well I come from a RECENT video 'There So Much Leftist Infighting?' from 'Lavader' ch*annel. I have to say i am pleased to see Left-wingers embrace what they are with some caution notes⚠ With the Right-wing there is a tendency for complacency and lack of social domestic and international systems. We on the Right often rely on Left-wing people like Elon Musk to push a new social system.
@@MiserableMuon You mention my comment: "Left wing people like Elon musk" ⬇Let me clarify⬇ I did not mean the word love. "Like" as it in 'such as' -- 'an example for' I am very very VERY aware (TOO aware in fact), that a lot of leftists HATE Elon Musk (mostly because he is rich). The social philosophies on the left are extremely diverse. The evidence of this is with the amount of political parties "on the left" vs the right. You can also look at the🏳🌈🏳⚧ Compared to the Right-wing, the Leftist has a more collectivist type of tribalism (division but with gatekeeping and lockstep unity in each category). 🤔 The Right-wing seems to be more unified on core principles and less likely to socially gatekeep. Repugnant C0*mmunists by the way are on the Left and so is Elon Musk Anyways what I will conclude with is that: the Left-wing minded🧠 person is essential for a prosperous society - HOWEVER the Right-wing should not be demonized in that everyone the Left hates ends up on "the Right" of their political spectrum😒.
I really liked how you use real life examples to explain and develop ideas shared in the book. The conclusion is great but I think it needs to be brought up that you could also say the same about debating with conservatives. I think a perfect example is the video of Vaush arguing with the "blacks are inferior" kid In my opinion, there are three things that you should be trying to do in a healthy debate 1) to understand 2) to be convinced 3) to convince But when you argue with conservatives in the same way that Vaush argued with the kid (*that is, by barely taking two minutes having actual arguments and spending the rest of the time memeing, disrespecting and questioning the interests of the kid*), you're not doing any of those three: the only thing you're achieving is a strong backfire effect. The leftist audience who will have had a few laughs will stay left and the right wingers who will have felt humiliated will stay right. And that kid? Who probably had no community and no place to call his home until this group of racist conservatives welcomed him with open hands and called him their own. That kid who probably needs serious help. Will that conversation have helped him? Or will it simply have been a shovel that dug his hole even further? That rooted and locked him in his toxic environment even more than he already was? To the kid, that was just pure evidence that no other community will respect and acknowledge him. Food for thought I guess. Anyways, sorry my rant is over. Your video was honestly really enjoyable. And funny too :)
Oh, absolutely--couldn't agree any more. For people who aren't arguing in good faith, or people who just like the sound of their voice, there are different tactics that must be implemented because you have to completely reframe your goal. Glad you liked the video :) Welcome to the Pineapple Gang (tm)
Would like more info but currently yes it’s immoral due to depriving someone else of sustenance, possible harm to self and then others… HEY. What the fuck. Where’s my answer? What my answer just nothing to you huh.
Your use of "possible harm to self ad others" pretty much proves the point Haidt was trying to make, given that the argument is totally moot. The hypothetical is pretty air tight regarding making it impossible for the act to harm anyone else (and the harming one's self argument is silly because we harm ourselves in various ways all the time that we wouldn't consider immoral). Depriving someone of sustenance is a funny one though: that got a good chuckle outta me
@@themanicpineapple8772 I mean if I’m totally honest. If the hypothetical world existed where cross species diseases weren’t w thing and you can’t get sexually transmitted salmonella then I suppose technically you wouldn’t have to deprive any one of sustenance. ***I am about to go down a potentially fun or just dumb but definitely overly wordy and ridiculous road due to being completely in the bin thanks to my old pal 🍁 come with or don’t*** I mean we all indulge and chow down on some 👩 📦 and the idea the 🐔’s 🕳️ has been minced by man sausage more than the girl who heard 20 minutes of tinder game and is now legs akimbo in your room and, not at all suspiciously, prepared enough to pull out a PH testing kit and a printed all clear sti screen taken 6hrs prior to your meeting… All I’m saying is for me personally, I am in the camp of that being a silly thing to think. So. My final answer is no it’s not immoral… and provided you take it home and feed the family afterwards it could still be actively moral. Sure you didn’t have to fuck it but it’s still feeding people and everyone either already has had or will have far more meals where 🍆 and 🏀 sweat was a more prominent feature. As a man it’s makes you more gay to eat a woman’s cavernous ham sandwich than you would be if you fuck chickens. Thankyou for coming on my TED talk.
I say the nword in private, and i think its just a word, i think if people just took out the meaning behind it it would just be sound, if people dont like someone saying it and it triggers them it puts more meaning and harm behind that word, if people just didnt give a shit the word wouldnt be a slur anymore, language changes and we have a efect in it
it is wrong to do the thing to the chicken because the it's abusing the power man has over animals to benfite himself despite the inherant deginty of the chicken that he can break because he is a higer being. when we abuse our power that we have as humans we become hypocrites when we demade fairness and deginty from our equiles and from higer being like god. Also doing the thing to the chicken is not in order with the role set for mankind and those makes us have less deginty and makes the gift from god to us more alien and weird to us and that makes the moral law weaker in peoples heart and that will lead to grave evil
@@themanicpineapple8772 I agree, love how your vid was very unbiased never directly calling conservatives far right or dumb while also being fair to the left as well. Hopefully some good rightist creators will appear to challenge the ideals of breadtubers for a more dynamic and productive politcal community. You sir are very based
Loyalty, authority, sanctity, liberty. I don't understand how the first three could ever be good things. As a leftist, I do however believe in liberty. I believe one should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't cause harm. Being loyal to a party or a person means you continue to support them even if they do something you disagree with, which makes no sense. I support what I agree with. Authority means one person having control over another, which should never be the case. All people should be equal. Sanctity? I don't really understand this one at all. Religion is an outdated set of rules made up by people a long time ago. It shouldn't control politics.
So here's a funny, yet slightly terrifying story. I work at a military college in Canada, so despite being in a relatively socially progressive country, my students are oftentimes quite conservative. As part of a segment on moral philosophy, I ask the students a variety of questions, where they raise their hands if they agree with any given statement. One time, I asked this hypothetical: if the Commandant (that's the top dog in our military) were to give someone a command and they disobeyed it, would that be immoral? I swear, all but one of the students in the class raised their hand. I was so caught off guard that I laughed and said "But I didn't even tell you what he asked you to do! He could have asked you to kill an baby!" The class looked stunned at the fact that I was questioning the morality of disobeying the commandant. Like I said in this video: we lefties are really bad at understanding how right wingers think about morality. To them, obeying the word of the commandant is tantamount to obeying the word of God. I'll say this, in my personal life, I do have certain ethical appeals to loyalty, and even authority, and I'm sure you do too. I'm sure you'd agree that cheating on a significant other would be a immoral (appeal to betray and breach of loyalty) and that evidence provided by authorities in scientific fields is with more than what Prager U has pumped out this month ;) (ethical appeal to authority) Conservatives just tend to value these categories way more than lefties do. Either way, I'm glad this video has made people look at their ethics in a different way, and thank you for taking the time to articulate such a thoughtful response. Cheers.
@@themanicpineapple8772 When you put it that way, I do agree that loyalty is important, of course there are different kinds of loyalty that differ in morality. I find trusting the authority of the scientific community is far better than blindly trusting someone because they were elected into a position. It really is interesting to try to understand how other people think. Thanks for posting such an insightful video and response to my comment!
@@kiiyll Put in a less biased manner, you trust scientific positions over non-scientific positions. But why would you do this when corruption is self-evident in science? Big Sugar, fossil fuels, etc.
You're miscontructing and strawmanning the other point in the moral dilemma, you would be desecrating the body of a being that cannot consent neither dead or alive
I swear, this chicken dilemma has caused so many heads to spin. Can't emphasize this enough: for starters, this isn't my experiment. It's a peer reviewed study conducted by psychologists. This means that the I'm simply stating the most popular retort in the study. That's all I can say on the matter. Have a look at The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt--that's where I got the study from
I get that You Didn't make the dilemma but You're still strawmanning an alternative response to the question with the typical "i'm emotional and i can't make an argument to save My life" strawman type of representation
Love the vid. Never could understand people who had large reactions to moral hypotheticals. This helps. Also, it respect to the two questions: 1) It is not morally wrong to fuck the chicken. For the reasons outlined. 2) Same goes for Jack and Jill. As long as it is consentual, and no unequal power dynamics are involved, i don't see any harm.
You might be waiting quite a long time :p that said, there are plenty of ways to mobilize even on your own. Trying to get into your local politics and see what your local politicians stand for is a great start (I could do much better on that myself...). And then showing up to town hall meetings and voicing concerns that you have. That, at least, doesn't require too much organization with others. Never underestimate your own power brother
@@themanicpineapple8772 yeah I guess. I just feel that everytime someone does try something,another person gets a mob together to go shit on that guy for the smallest things. Still thx for the insight bro.
@@NPC-bs3pmdude I'm not trying to be an ass but you said Elon musk is a leftist in a previous comment I can't take anything you say seriously I will say coming from the Republican family an a community, yes more often than not these guys are bigoted or racist in something. Nearly always Also back to elon because im still blown away You also cited the reason that leftists hate Elon musk is because he's rich????? Dog thats not even slightly close to the reason. Also more importantly what the hell is left wing about him?? Like what in your opinion is the specific thing that he does that makes him a leftist in your eyes
5:20 Huh......I must be an anomaly considering i pretty much fit into all of these😂 Except that I'm a Christian African-immigrant in the west who just completed college a few weeks ago. Maybe that's why I had no issue saying it's morally wrong to boink an unalive chicken🫠🙃
The idea that conservatives care evenly about the various moral tastes while liberals tend to be specifically focused on care and fairness is incredibly intriguing. It explains a lot about why I personally perceive so much more hypocrisy in the left than the right. It's not that they're legitimate hypocrites, it's that their values are highly specialized so the less emphasized values tend to go by the wayside. Very eye opening.
It also explains the phenomenon of why conservatives understand liberals better than the inverse. Spreading even on several categories vs. all chips in on 1-2 slots. And why the political right is more ok with diversity of thought, which shows itself in how regular conservatives, 3rd positionists(YT doesn’t like the f or ns word), monarchists, and libertarians can come together in a way that liberals, socialists, communists, and anarchists usually cannot.
Just as in 1930’s Spain and revolutionary France, the left always ends up purity spiraling.
didnt lefties use to care about... liberty? how ya gonna call yourself a liberal and not care about liberty?
The thing about care and fairness is that they are both extremely subjective values that change with time. Everyone would agree that an innocent man going to prison would be unjust, no one ever agrees on the best way to care for people and they tend to change their opinions over time. Because of this, the leftist position is constantly shifting. They peruse care and fairness but every 10 years or so they change their minds on what care and fairness even are. 15 years agoe no one was talking about pronouns but now if you care about people and you want to make things fair you better care about pronouns.
im right now reading Jonthan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind. its intriguing so far
There's alot of narcissist in the left
I think the biggest thing in the right is that often nationality and faith tend to be consistently unifying forces. As a Paleo-Con, even knowing I disagree with Libertarians about as much as leftists, I do know they won't attack the church, and rightist Libertarians will fight more with leftist policy. Also it's a matter of practicality in the spanish civil was the spanish right unified, The Neo Cons mostly are subservient to Trump, the left currently has a cultural advantage and thus the pressure is more on the right to unify.
Chicken question: It's disgusting, it harms yourself, you probably aren't a good person, and anyone willing to do that is likely willing to do worse.
This, right here, is a good video essay. How again do you not have more subscribers?
Because the current subs that I have are so cool that the algorithm has to compensate by giving me less of them--too much cool in one channel would be disruptive to the UA-cam ecosystem. A world where Logan Paul has less than 3 billion subs is a world I just don't want to live in
You have to be the most level-headed western leftist inhave ever seen online😮 Respect
Glad I was able to present arguments/ information you found interesting
Holy cow, hats off to you! The amount of detail is ridiculous, this is a well-earnt sub!
Stalin you old goat! What are YOU doing here?
COMRADE JOSEPH YOU OLD RASCAL HOW YA BEEN !
Yes chicken "plucking" is bad. Dead stop. Absolute morality for the win.
i agree with Destiny on the N-word thing. i dont know specifically what context it was in regards to, whether saying racist jokes or whatever... context matters, but i dont think insulting a faceless group is the same as insulting a specific person. if i make a joke about Christians, vegans, whatever... its not as insulting to a friend that is one of those as it is if i specifically call out one actual person... whether calling them tiny dick or not.
Also, there is a taboo'ization of the word in current culture that doesnt even care about context. simply stating the word in a neutral manner like if i specifically say "hey we are talking about [nword] and whether its okay to say it" isnt the same as using it as an attack
also, what about Soft R versus Hard R? and not all black people are united in if white people should avoid saying it or not. ive heard some say that if anything only white people should say it and black people shouldnt accept it as their word. there is a diversity of thought on the matter
i'm a PaleoLibertarian so i'm a libertarian with more conservative social values
and from my perspective yes it it scummy to betray someone
but i wouldn't say we are as you say hardwired for loyalty, it's more like an friendship relationship , the right is very much disunified but right quite often accepts diferences as long as core principles are agreed upon(like capitalism is preferable to socialism, borders exist for a reason , and the law also exists for a reason). keep in mind it's possible to have misplaced loyalty, and there's saying that loyalty is it's own reward, i cna understand it but i don't subscribe to it, i think that if you want my loyalty you must prove to me that if i decide to join you i will not regret it
It all comes down to 1) Class consciousness and 2) Theory of change. There can't ever be any solidarity between leftists and progressives-- and definitely not between leftists and liberals because they simply are not on the same team, and they're not even aiming for the same outcomes. I will explain. Since these words are so convoluted and now everyone is using them interchangeably, we'll start with some definitions:
a) LIBERAL: The term "liberal" has been pretty much standardized going all the way back to the European Enlightenment era and its related intellectuals. The short strokes are that the liberal enlightenment was fundamentally elitist, pro-capitalism, pervasive among the petite bourgeoisie, favored bourgeois politics, often favored eugenics, and also adopted somewhat humanitarian values viewed as intellectually progressive without actually challenging class hierarchy. So, as Chris Hedges expounds so brilliantly in his 2009 book, 'Death of the Liberal Class,' it's clear how this remains the liberalism of the Democratic party, its media machine, Hollywood, and liberal academia. "Wokeness" is pervasive among the liberal class, because it is a useful tool for obfuscating and silencing class consciousness and class struggle. Another nefarious trait among liberals is their affection for authoritarianism and censorship. Of course they'll TELL you they think they're for "saving democracy" (LOL as if the U.S. is actually a democracy) and that they believe "hate speech," an entirely subjective term defined according to whatever thing makes a convenient scapegoat at any given time, must be shut down wherever it exists in order to save people from thinking things that liberals personally dislike.
b) PROGRESSIVE: These are the insidious figures among much of the former Bernie Sanders contingent along with various lesser progressive politicians such as "the Squad." This is where theory of change becomes important. Progressives proclaim almost all the same values as leftists with exception to their very obvious and disturbing silence on imperialism and colonialism. Their fantasies of European-style social democracy depend on exploitation of the global south and perpetuation of capitalist dystopia, but they do not acknowledge this. Instead, they was poetic about a "nicer capitalism," one that mostly benefits people domestically, and take little interest in the machinations of empire abroad. Progressives adhere staunchly to the mythologies of "harm reduction," "lesser evilism," and reform over revolution. This is why, although they will *say* they are for (almost) all the same things as leftists, they don't hesitate to sell out their values when the election comes down to yet another Democrat versus yet another Republican. The truth, which few progressives admit to, is that for most of them these leftist values such as universal healthcare are not existential for them. They tend to be fairly privileged managerial class liberals that hold farther left ideals than their liberal counterparts but aren't willing to inconvenience themselves or put anything on the line to get them. But instead of admitting openly to that (because it sounds bad when you say it out loud), they'll tell you they are being "strategic," "rational," "adult," etc. and scoff at anyone telling them that the system OBVIOUSLY cannot be reformed. Another point about progressives is that they rarely if ever challenge the censorship industrial complex.
c) LEFTIST: Leftism *begins* at anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-militarism, anti-colonialism (permutations of the same things, but just to spell it out unambiguously), and centers class struggle and working class solidarity above all else. This is because a thorough examination of revolutionary movements proves that all sweeping, systemic social and political change relies on these two things. They veer away from cancel culture, culture wars, and pointless virtue-signaling over woke cultural values. Although leftists are for equity for all people, they do not agree that there is a path to those outcomes either through aligning with the bourgeoisie-- as progressives continue to do-- or through fighting downstream battles between smaller and smaller sub-factions of society, each arguing over whose individual interests should come first. Leftists were usually liberals or progressives at some point earlier in their political activity, and became radicalized over time generally with a copious amount of self-education about how power works in capitalist systems. This is why you will not see leftists voting for Democrats, and rarely will you see them making common cause among progressives with exception to the Palestinian liberation struggle. Leftists are justifiably suspicious of progressives for reasons that should be obvious given the above description of them, but most pointedly because they know progressives will nearly always sell themselves out to the liberal machine when the going gets tough, thereby making them unreliable allies.
So this should clear up the mystery of why there is "in-fighting" among the so-called "Left," which people often define according to their own whims convoluting the entire subject beyond recognition. You cannot fight a battle with people that are not seeking the same ends. If your aim is to make a nicer capitalism and "reform the Democratic party," the people that see an urgent need to burn the entire system to the ground are not going to join your team. If you're too scared of letting the red team win the inning and telling yourself the blue team will make your life slightly less horrible, again the people that recognize *the entire system is the problem* are not going to have anything to do with you. This makes for irreconcilable differences-- in fact, the only faction among those I just described that are ACTUALLY "The Left" are the leftists themselves. The progressive and the liberals are just Democrats.
So it is unconstructive and disingenuous to present this as a bunch of people on the same team arguing over petty grievances that just can[t put their personalities aside. The end. I'll leave two links to other perspectives on this topic for you to ponder. I don't agree with all of what either one of them are saying, but they make interesting arguments nonetheless and some of their points are valid.
1 question: why are leftists generally internationalists? Their opposition to (actual) national socialism seems to me to be based on weird humanism or (correct) paranoia that capitalists abroad will try to destroy the national socialist country to get access to its markets, but support for socialism is mostly rooted in improving one's material conditions.
The obssessive focus on internationalism seems detached from this motivation
"Liberals" don't come from classical liberalism. Modern liberals are leftists since they want to enforce an egalitarian society (they might not go so far to fully abolish individual rights (like property) but if you look into it they are the opposite of freedom-loving.
Nice try proving his point.
Welp you have to either at least make friends with and work with progressives, social democrats, and such or else the right will eat us all alive. Especially in the US, where the scourge and hardcore-right death machine known as Trumpism is growing at an unstoppable rate and literally anyone to the left of Trumpism must band together to even stand a chance against Trumpism destroying the country. Also, a revolution and overthrowing of the US state ain't gonna happen any time soon. Therefore leftists might as well make the state more favorable towards them or at least more bearable (like make the state more economically egalitarian with more economic mobility, proLGBTQ, proimmigration, etc) in the mean time even if they will destroy the state later, might as well make it more bearable before you can destroy it.
You talked about liberals progressives and leftists all having different end goals and that being why they can’t get along. But you threw a bunch of leftists into the same banner of leftism, as if there aren’t groups with huge differences under that banner
Example: communists vs anarchists. While they may both have the same end goal of a stateless classless moneyless society, anarchists are incredibly skeptical of the state and perhaps view government with even more suspicion than they view capitalism. Anarchists will not support a communist dictatorship
Then you have democratic socialists who don’t want a stateless classless moneyless society, nor will they accept violent revolution. They want a command economy achieved through democratic means
Furthermore, and this is my big question to you: obviously leftists have a lot of differences. But so do evangelical conservatives, NeoCons, Paleocons, Libertarians, classical liberals, anarcho capitalists, civic nationalists, Christian nationalists, etc yet these groups all maintain unity, with perhaps the exception of a few neocons who jumped ship
Why can’t the left maintain the unity that all of the groups I listed maintain? Because they all have different goals too
This video is so well phrased, I genuinely had never realized why appeals to care failed so hard in discussion. I'd love to see more of these kinds of breakdowns on news and events!
leftists having different brain chemistry is crazy, I never understood why it was so hard for leftists to understand the right and why they believe the things they do, when its so easy for right libertarians to understand why the left believes the things they do.
Not enough of the comments are talking about the dude that forked the chicken
I tried to get my mother in-law to read the book in question... she stopped at the chicken part :p
Yes, because while the moral costs might be zero now , that activity might encourage similar activities with moral costs .
it's wrong because it's a chicken, humans and poultry aren't supposed to fornicate
*The following is what I would have probably said during the interview with my friends, and is purely for the sake of argument
Would you not say, however, that humans are not "supposed" to fornicate with vegetables as well though? Would you say that someone self-pleasuring with a cucumber immoral? Also, what constitutes an ethical appeal referring to what humans are "supposed" to do? What defines "natural" human behaviour, and, in your opinion, do all things that humans do that are unnatural intrinsically constitute as immoral?
But nobody is supposed to fornicate with anybody/thing. If they were supposed to do it, it wouldn't be fornication.
@@themanicpineapple8772communists when they discover Aristotle
Oh no, I'm not brave enough for politics
BE BRAVE GOODFELLOW, FOR 2020 IS FULL OF TERRORS
This video is criminally underrated.
Aw :) Wish I could give your comments 2 likes instead of just 1. Many thanks
It is wrong to fornicate with an animal (of any kind), living or dead. We have the second ammendment for anyone that says otherwise.
Cool cool. So in this video, I cited an experiment where the people therein were asked to justify WHY it's wrong. If it's so clearly obvious to you, would you care to explain your reasoning as to why?
@@themanicpineapple8772 Bet. I believe all life has a dignity owed to it. I'm not a vegan btw. This dignity I believe is divinely appointed but if you're a materialist I'll say that this dignity is just an extension of the Golden Rule. More likely than not you wouldn't want someone to fornicate with your body so do unto others, you know? This whole dignity thing I learned spending summers at my uncles ranch and is how he raises his beef cattle. He loves them and gives them the best lives he can and when it's time for slaughter he makes sure that even in the butchering process they are treated with a level of respect (the butcher isn't sitting their playing with their bones like some sort of deranged child). They are owed respect because they were living at one point and all life is precious.
Having sex with a dead animal violates that dignity. That animal can't give consent. And we can't know if that animal wanted to give consent in life either. Just like in humans if we aren't given a clear answer on consent we should assume a "no" for the sake of the possible victim.
Either A) God gave us this animal to sustain ourselves on and we should be respectful to a divine gift B) We domesticated this animal and now it's more or less our responsibility to give respect and dignity to something we made or C) which is a combination od A and B where God gave us the animal we domesticated it and now we need to respect it for a couple of reasons.
You can say I'm committing the slippery slope fallacy all you want but I also think if we permit something like that to be done it would probably lead to worse things being done next. For that I don't have a well thought out reason why but it's just a feeling I have.
Also, you were supposed to read that and go "Haha, those gun toting Americans, so quaint"
Hey man this is such a great video. I really do appreciate that you were unbiased and didn't put any bias for either side.
I always brought down this issue to being that leftists have a purity meter that they need to keep up with it and with that purity meter getting bigger and bigger each passing year some of them don't want to keep moving so they end up fighting the other people for not moving for that.
It also could be because of the whole thing with leftists having an mindset of including everyone. But the problem with that is not everyone will agree and be united since they all belif different things. You can't have democrats and socialists go together, You can't have Islam and feminism go together. Or LGBT and Islam. You also see TERFs fight with LGBT aswell. This is Because the left is very diverse in there beliefs compared to the right which has fewer subfactions that are in the minority you often see leftists infight because they all have different goals because of the inclusion mindset and therefore they can't agree on alot of things.
Anyways great video man!
Youre hurting me by telling me your chicken proclivities
Like I said, I personally find the act disgusting.
Super weird that every commenter with something to say about the chicken dilemma A) fails to provide a counter argument for why it's immoral, and B) somehow seems to think I came up with the dilemma. Again, peer reviewed study--I'm just quoting people smarter than me.
If you think it's wrong, then feel free to share your reasoning with the class
@@themanicpineapple8772 a living being, dead or alive, has a right to bodily autonomy. an animal - especially a dead one - can not consent to any such act with a human, nor would it fully understand what doing so means (especially considering most animals have the mindset equivalent to human children). So I believe the morality comes down to bodily autonomy. I don't think it's immoral because the two aren't "meant" to fornicate (there might be weight to that argument, idk tho), but because you are going against the consent - or lack of consent - of another being. It is another form of exploitation, such as how the elite class exploits the working class for their own gain. I also think there is something to be said about the connection between morality and human inclination, but that's a different convo. (I also understand that you are not saying u wanna f a chicken lol, sorry about those other comments)
As a moderat right winger this makes soo much sense to me! I always wondered why you constantly devide sociaty in different sections that have no ability to function on there own. For me, sociaty is a system, an cybernetic organization of essential parts and the only thing policies should do is to enhance its efficiency, it's all about the Funktioning and growth of the ingroup... But you leftist just don't have one!
He has no interest in calling someone the N word. He never had asserted it was okay to call Trihex or anyone else a Ni***(er). That would be Inherently dehumanising and does cause harm potentially at a societal level.
Using the word as part of education Jane Elliot style, humour that doesn’t encourage or incite hate or violence Louis CK style or simply definitionally not having to cuck my way around typing it earlier in this passage style. This is what I understand it to be about anyway. Stance on immutable characteristics has been firm for quite a while right?
It’s funny how the republicans say exactly the same thing about the left🤣
I think there a a genetic balancer. Half will be left, half will be right. A quarter on each side will be hard core. It is good. Fight for what you believe (within reason).
this is a great video, it helped me with understanding and naming my stance on the in fighting and canceling and stuff. i'm glad it exists, it explains some very important things i wasn't getting before. i will be sharing it with my friends and followers.
also i won't be able to look at a chicken for a good while, im just gonna pretend the question was never asked
Glad you enjoyed the video :) Welcome to the Pineapple Fam Squad
Liberty is the only axis I care about, and I actively resent authority. I'm not a RWer.
Liberty is not your only moral axis. You don't believe this
Libertarians specifically believe in mostly fairness and liberty. It's not too far-fetched.
@@rdococ Man says "I believe in only one axis"
I say "you don't"
You say "these types of people tend to believe these... two axes"
Just making 100% sure: you were trying to prove my point, right?
@@themanicpineapple8772 I don't know what the guy's worldview is, all I did was present the group with the most similar values. You're reading far too much into it.
@@rdococ Apologies for being too hasty. So you weren't trying to disagree with what I was saying? You were just randomly dropping that you think he's a libertarian? In which case I agree with you.
What's your take on his belief that he only ascribes to one moral axiom?
10/10 video, subbed, will cite in any discussion about leftist infighting lol
Proud to be a part of your works cited ;) And welcome to the channel
Homosamen is here???
Before I watch this I will explain why left has problem with infighting. Its because the "left" is incogerent category right now, manipulated to simply mean "opposition to the current hierarchy" which makes it very broad and politically very confused. There is no ideological connection for anarchists and authoterian tankies to share the same label when their values are diametericly opposite to each other. Sure they both hate capitalism even the state (or so they say) but for widely different reasons that are simple not compatible.
This simple comes from the fact that you can be against top down hierarchical system as also top down hierarchical system, you just have to have the hierarchy based in contradictory way for them to fight. And if you happened to be somebody who wants equality you will be against both, but mostly against the one in power.
This explains not only the confusion of political terms, the infighting in the left, but also the way the right views the left and attacks it. How often do they attack the idea of equal power and freedom? Barely. They use the authtoerian left as the whole left of course.
Good video! I am convinced this plays a role as well.
A solid video and I do agree with some points, but I do have some rebuttals if I may and I apologize for the long wall of text. I do not agree that leftists only valuing care and fairness and that being the primary motivators of their moral choices.
I think what we have here is an issue of how their moral principles translate into the other 4 categories when we're working only from the Right's perception of those values. For the Left, more specifically the hard left it's about loyalty to principles and the importance of quality of life over life itself. The left used to be more united, but betrayal in the distant past and the corruption of their ideals by select authoritarian figures more interested in securing their own power rather than advancing their once mutual goals has created a paranoid skepticism of self-proclaimed allies who are only superficially interested in their movement for clout and financial gain. This skepticism can present itself as zealous purity culture, but it's more about rooting out corruption and opportunists within their own movement so they can be persistent and consistent with their long term goals of removing abusive, unjust hierarchies, the systems that made them and the people who benefit from them at the unwilling expense of others.
I also do not agree that harm is the only factor that determines a leftist' moral position on the unlucky chicken because it presumes that leftists are majority consequential and ethical hedonists which I think stems from the Right's belief that what the LGBTQ+ community consists of which are coincidentally majority leftists. It ignores other possible reasons as to why a person would not want to violate a dead chicken or see it as justifiable, such as dignity for oneself which is valued. The chicken itself also deserves some dignity as well, since it died a sudden and tragic death and its body does not deserve to be degraded in such a way. Violating the chicken is also wasteful, as now it is tainted with who-knows what and assuming it was not diseased it would be better used as food which is overall more morally respectable and valued either by feeding family, other animals, or plants which would grow more food or give strength to those fed. Is it wrong to violate a chicken, yes it is even if it does no harm and no one sees it because morals are just as much about respect for an ideal or principles than just what feels good and what doesn't.
If you are a vegan, it is more respectful to put it to rest as its body does not deserve further indignities. If you eat meat, its nutritional value can give strength to others so they themselves can do more good. Is it more moral to do nothing than violate the chicken, this is also a yes. Nature is adapted to dealing with the dead and there are a variety of creatures who would play a part in the disposal of the creature and guarantee that it will not be wasted. More likely, a person who takes the chicken home to violate it will either dispose of it after using it where it will rot among garbage wastefully, they may do something as disgusting as consume it themselves after having already violated it, or feed it to others, or in arguably the "best" case scenario give it back to nature. Regardless, once the chicken has been violated the person has lost all sense of respectability and the chicken itself has had its dignity diminished and usefulness for other greater goods stripped from it. The only reason the person is not immediately vilified is because it is a secret.
Once found out, you will find most on the left and right will view it as indefensible.
5:55 this same logic would apply to canabilism... "they're dead so it's not hurting anyone to them the deceased" while technically true also bruh wtf
10:05 Hol up, so some on the radical left can come to terms with Chicken Necrophilia but not saying the N word, I'll brb I gotta grab milk/ a pack of cigs
Well, Unless you commited murder to cannibalize a mofo and you generally needed to consume a being of your species to survive then it really shouldn't be an immoral act that merits a "bruh". Humanity would be morr based if they treated moral systems as being mainly contextual in order to mitigate harm and stop acting like they are omniapplicable.
Is there some kind of test I can take. I feel I care a lot about liberty, but very little about loyalty. At least to people, and would like something more empirical.
This videp is so great, thank you for the in-depth analysis!
still incredibly relevant and eye opening for myself. i wonder how the argument holds when looking at politicianns themselves and the sense of moral loyalty they feel towards their voting base. the harm was reduced by getting an authoritarian out of office but feel less of a sense of obligatioon on following through with campaign promises. i will certainly have to read this book now!
As a current leftist (or a "libertarian socialist" some might say), you make kickass content. You got a discord to talk in? Cause I fell in love with your channel.
Aw shucks :) Thanks yo. You're not the first person to ask me about a Discord, so I'm seriously considering opening one. Might happen as early as December ;) I'll keep you posted!
i feel like the fact that he willingly fucked the chicken means that he has some tendency towards beastiality, and unless its only in combination with necrophilia, i cant imagine him not wanting to do so to a living animal. id say that's messed up. but let's say that his only "taboo" attraction is a combination of necrophilia and beastiality. if so, we should ask the question, does this chicken belong to someone? i live in a state with a lot of farms, so that possibility isnt too far-fetched to me. if it does, then id consider that disrespectful. the owner's probably freaking out wondering where their chicken went, and you just fucked their chicken that they spent all that time nurturing. i cant really excuse that, even if the owner doesn't know about what you did. you could've returned the chicken to them so that they at least get some closure. the question doesnt specify what the guy did with the chicken after he banged it, so that stays open-ended. but what if the chicken belonged to nature and was not tamed? well, chickens do contribute quite a bit to nature. soil that's nurtured by chickens helps reduce runoff and supports healthy water systems. that soil helps replace unhealthy pesticides, which then allows for more presence of bees, birds, and bats. so chickens in turn help increase biodiversity. in addition, letting any mammal's corpse decompose into the soil is nourishing to said soil. so the chicken is useful even in death. this man looked at that, said "nah", and fucked that chicken. that just feels uncomfortable to me. now, that brings up the argument that hunting and eating chicken causes the same issue. difference there is that you need food to survive, and chicken meat is one of the healthier meats for humans. that's contributing to the food chain, which is an important part of nature. no matter how much some nations have ignored it in favor of industrialization, we still contribute to the ecological balance, partly by eating other mammals. now, in this situation, i dont recall there ever being a sex chain. fornicating with the chicken doesn't allow for sexual reproduction, so there's no ecological benefit. he did it for the sake of doing it. this guy's series of actions feel so unnecessary, and even when given a huge benefit of the doubt, can still cause harm in the majority of the scenarios. however, i think that this question is a little incomplete. i think Haidt needs to describe what the man does with the chicken after he has sex with it, and then we can get a clearer picture of the morality of the situation.
context: i consider myself a very far-left guy, and im not vegan, although maybe that was already established by the remarks about the benefit of chicken meat.
sorry if that was really wordy, lmao
also im really not sure cause im bad at perceiving the way my brain works, but i think i do value loyalty to some extent, but that's mainly because i dont like upsetting people who are in my political community cause i hate losing friends, and i very easily label people as friends in my brain. that's a total guess work
So if he ate the chicken afterwards it would "atone" for his sin against man and the ecosystem?
@@DirtyLifeLove you can eat the chicken without fucking it, Vicente
Great vid! I came across your channel while researching for a similar video I'm going to do soon.. I may or may not borrow a line or two ;)
So long as you include me in your MLA works cited, then I hereby bequeath you my entire script ;)
@@themanicpineapple8772 Bless you 🙏
In this case Fornication with the dead chicken is inherently immoral because the man has clearly stolen aforementioned deceased poultry. Though the befouled fowl was not slain by his hand the man did not seek the legal owner of the corpse and so the method of acquisition is corrupt. Also unless he is the legal owner of the dead chicken, I believe this falls under the crime of vandalism. What a man does privately in his own home and is own property however is no concern of mine, but a matter between himself and God.
Ok, what then in case if chicken was his property, and die by being hit car in accident.
Chicken question: It's not immoral, but it is repulsive and disgusting, and furthermore it wouldn't be immoral to judge the man and give punishment if his actions were taboo in the local community. It's not immoral, but it's also not immoral to treat it as if it was immoral.
i answered the chicken problem by thinking it was immoral not because the chicken dead and had no authority over his body but because i believe zoophilia and necrophilia to be similar to rape, animals cannot consent and there’s a clear power imbalance between you and it. Not to mention ppl who say “it’s not hurting anyone” is just ignoring the clear implications about what that says abt a person lol
good video tho u deserve a lot more views for how thorough you were about this topic
Absolutely based video! This is some high quality stuff right here
Thanks yo :)
About the chicken thing:
It's wrong and immoral because the chicken cannot consent for the act, because:
1. It's not a sophont species, meaning it's considered bestiality
2. It's dead, it's necrophilia.
Just so we're clear:
1) chickens can't consent to being killed for food. So the consent argument alone isn't sufficient (unless you're a vegetarian)
2) You're arguing that its wrong to F the dead thing because... it's wrong to F dead things.
Not trying to dis you or anything ;) The experiment is supposed to make you scratch your head quite a bit
@@themanicpineapple8772 the fact the experiment supposes the man does it in private is a good argument for why privacy is a liberty and not a right. Almost nobody would ever do necrophilia or bestiality in public lest they fall foul of somebody who thinks it is wrong and immoral to do this.
I'm pretty sure Destiny wouldn't care if you called him that because 1. he doesn't know you, and 2. he's not a little baby.
If my friend asks me not to call them something, I'll respect their wishes. Because if I didn't Id be a bad friend. And I'd feel like the little baby for not being able to do the literal bare minimum as a friend.
That's the point I was making.
While I mostly agree with your points about understanding the values of the people you're talking to, and the differences in values between people, I would have liked to see more of the data that supports your claim about lefties functionally only caring about care and fairness. I don't have the data either, and I think it's even arguable which values are behind answers to questions. For example, I wouldn't have assigned the fairness value to the bodily autonomy argument that you presented as coming from vegans. I would say that argument cares more about the sanctity of one's body and the respect that it's owed even after death, rather than fairness about how it's treated.
And on that same note, if lefties all _only_ cared about care and fairness, do you consider anarchists a part of the left? I'd say liberty is quite high up there in their values.
Finally, I find it quite offputting how you basically essentialized people to their values, and made it sound like it's an unchanging inevitability proven by science, set in stone after some unstated age. You didn't give enough evidence to claim something as concrete as that stance.
(laughs in rightist unity)
This should be seen more.
Aw :) I've been happy to watch this channel grow slowly, but organically. I do hope the Vaush man sees it though
@@themanicpineapple8772 no worries 👍 you put a lot of effort into your vids that I have seen so you will get there some day, also glad to support another chaotic fan
11:13
With the Micro PP destiny argument, If a person would be ignorant of your behind-the-back comments you made of them, if they didn't hear you talkin' smack, then were they truly harmed? Unless your comments weren't fully slanderous and the slander didn't have terrible implications with said implications having dire results(I.E X is a thief, X is a molester, X did Y) then shitty jeers and names don't do much. Also, I am a firm believer that the N word should be stripped of negative conotations and should instead be used endearingly. Same with the term Cracker. Who's with me!?
Yea its immortal to f a chicken. Its an animal and its dead. Edit: Watched it all. Pretty good. I pray ya lefty never get a since of loyalty. But thanks for clarifying that we're "more" level headed. We're all igits, swimming through a sea of chaos. God bless mate take care of yourself.
Why r u a leftist ?!?!?
U seem too smart
Hmm well I come from a RECENT video 'There So Much Leftist Infighting?' from 'Lavader' ch*annel.
I have to say i am pleased to see Left-wingers embrace what they are with some caution notes⚠
With the Right-wing there is a tendency for complacency and lack of social domestic and international systems.
We on the Right often rely on Left-wing people like Elon Musk to push a new social system.
@@NPC-bs3pm "Left wing people like elon musk" end my life if all right-wingers think this way.
All intellectuals tend to have some leftist views. Like bertrand Russell, or einstein.
@@MiserableMuon You mention my comment: "Left wing people like Elon musk" ⬇Let me clarify⬇
I did not mean the word love. "Like" as it in 'such as' -- 'an example for'
I am very very VERY aware (TOO aware in fact), that a lot of leftists HATE Elon Musk (mostly because he is rich).
The social philosophies on the left are extremely diverse. The evidence of this is with the amount of political parties "on the left" vs the right. You can also look at the🏳🌈🏳⚧
Compared to the Right-wing, the Leftist has a more collectivist type of tribalism (division but with gatekeeping and lockstep unity in each category).
🤔
The Right-wing seems to be more unified on core principles and less likely to socially gatekeep. Repugnant C0*mmunists by the way are on the Left and so is Elon Musk
Anyways what I will conclude with is that: the Left-wing minded🧠 person is essential for a prosperous society - HOWEVER the Right-wing should not be demonized in that everyone the Left hates ends up on "the Right" of their political spectrum😒.
I really liked how you use real life examples to explain and develop ideas shared in the book.
The conclusion is great but I think it needs to be brought up that you could also say the same about debating with conservatives. I think a perfect example is the video of Vaush arguing with the "blacks are inferior" kid
In my opinion, there are three things that you should be trying to do in a healthy debate
1) to understand
2) to be convinced
3) to convince
But when you argue with conservatives in the same way that Vaush argued with the kid (*that is, by barely taking two minutes having actual arguments and spending the rest of the time memeing, disrespecting and questioning the interests of the kid*), you're not doing any of those three: the only thing you're achieving is a strong backfire effect. The leftist audience who will have had a few laughs will stay left and the right wingers who will have felt humiliated will stay right.
And that kid? Who probably had no community and no place to call his home until this group of racist conservatives welcomed him with open hands and called him their own. That kid who probably needs serious help. Will that conversation have helped him? Or will it simply have been a shovel that dug his hole even further? That rooted and locked him in his toxic environment even more than he already was?
To the kid, that was just pure evidence that no other community will respect and acknowledge him. Food for thought I guess.
Anyways, sorry my rant is over. Your video was honestly really enjoyable. And funny too :)
Oh, absolutely--couldn't agree any more. For people who aren't arguing in good faith, or people who just like the sound of their voice, there are different tactics that must be implemented because you have to completely reframe your goal.
Glad you liked the video :) Welcome to the Pineapple Gang (tm)
It is immoral because it's a chicken and also dead
I hadn't though of that. It's wrong to bonk the dead chicken because its wrong to bonk a dead chicken. Pretty groovy reasoning.
Would like more info but currently yes it’s immoral due to depriving someone else of sustenance, possible harm to self and then others…
HEY. What the fuck. Where’s my answer? What my answer just nothing to you huh.
Your use of "possible harm to self ad others" pretty much proves the point Haidt was trying to make, given that the argument is totally moot. The hypothetical is pretty air tight regarding making it impossible for the act to harm anyone else (and the harming one's self argument is silly because we harm ourselves in various ways all the time that we wouldn't consider immoral).
Depriving someone of sustenance is a funny one though: that got a good chuckle outta me
@@themanicpineapple8772 I mean if I’m totally honest. If the hypothetical world existed where cross species diseases weren’t w thing and you can’t get sexually transmitted salmonella then I suppose technically you wouldn’t have to deprive any one of sustenance.
***I am about to go down a potentially fun or just dumb but definitely overly wordy and ridiculous road due to being completely in the bin thanks to my old pal 🍁 come with or don’t***
I mean we all indulge and chow down on some 👩 📦 and the idea the 🐔’s 🕳️ has been minced by man sausage more than the girl who heard 20 minutes of tinder game and is now legs akimbo in your room and, not at all suspiciously, prepared enough to pull out a PH testing kit and a printed all clear sti screen taken 6hrs prior to your meeting…
All I’m saying is for me personally, I am in the camp of that being a silly thing to think.
So.
My final answer is no it’s not immoral… and provided you take it home and feed the family afterwards it could still be actively moral. Sure you didn’t have to fuck it but it’s still feeding people and everyone either already has had or will have far more meals where 🍆 and 🏀 sweat was a more prominent feature.
As a man it’s makes you more gay to eat a woman’s cavernous ham sandwich than you would be if you fuck chickens.
Thankyou for coming on my TED talk.
I say the nword in private, and i think its just a word, i think if people just took out the meaning behind it it would just be sound, if people dont like someone saying it and it triggers them it puts more meaning and harm behind that word, if people just didnt give a shit the word wouldnt be a slur anymore, language changes and we have a efect in it
yeah the profile checks out
it is wrong to do the thing to the chicken because the it's abusing the power man has over animals to benfite himself despite the inherant deginty of the chicken that he can break because he is a higer being. when we abuse our power that we have as humans we become hypocrites when we demade fairness and deginty from our equiles and from higer being like god. Also doing the thing to the chicken is not in order with the role set for mankind and those makes us have less deginty and makes the gift from god to us more alien and weird to us and that makes the moral law weaker in peoples heart and that will lead to grave evil
Instead of leftist unity why not libertarian unity with ancoms and ancaps working together, now that's based.
I'm of the belief that any political ideology that isn't based on racial and cultural hierarchy deserves a seat at the table
@@themanicpineapple8772 I agree, love how your vid was very unbiased never directly calling conservatives far right or dumb while also being fair to the left as well. Hopefully some good rightist creators will appear to challenge the ideals of breadtubers for a more dynamic and productive politcal community. You sir are very based
@@themanicpineapple8772why are those two not acceptable at that "table"?
@themanicpineapple8772 By keeping anyone away from the table, you create a cultural hierarchy.
Loyalty, authority, sanctity, liberty. I don't understand how the first three could ever be good things. As a leftist, I do however believe in liberty. I believe one should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't cause harm. Being loyal to a party or a person means you continue to support them even if they do something you disagree with, which makes no sense. I support what I agree with. Authority means one person having control over another, which should never be the case. All people should be equal. Sanctity? I don't really understand this one at all. Religion is an outdated set of rules made up by people a long time ago. It shouldn't control politics.
So here's a funny, yet slightly terrifying story.
I work at a military college in Canada, so despite being in a relatively socially progressive country, my students are oftentimes quite conservative. As part of a segment on moral philosophy, I ask the students a variety of questions, where they raise their hands if they agree with any given statement.
One time, I asked this hypothetical: if the Commandant (that's the top dog in our military) were to give someone a command and they disobeyed it, would that be immoral?
I swear, all but one of the students in the class raised their hand.
I was so caught off guard that I laughed and said "But I didn't even tell you what he asked you to do! He could have asked you to kill an baby!" The class looked stunned at the fact that I was questioning the morality of disobeying the commandant. Like I said in this video: we lefties are really bad at understanding how right wingers think about morality. To them, obeying the word of the commandant is tantamount to obeying the word of God.
I'll say this, in my personal life, I do have certain ethical appeals to loyalty, and even authority, and I'm sure you do too. I'm sure you'd agree that cheating on a significant other would be a immoral (appeal to betray and breach of loyalty) and that evidence provided by authorities in scientific fields is with more than what Prager U has pumped out this month ;) (ethical appeal to authority) Conservatives just tend to value these categories way more than lefties do.
Either way, I'm glad this video has made people look at their ethics in a different way, and thank you for taking the time to articulate such a thoughtful response. Cheers.
@@themanicpineapple8772 When you put it that way, I do agree that loyalty is important, of course there are different kinds of loyalty that differ in morality. I find trusting the authority of the scientific community is far better than blindly trusting someone because they were elected into a position. It really is interesting to try to understand how other people think. Thanks for posting such an insightful video and response to my comment!
@@kiiyll Put in a less biased manner, you trust scientific positions over non-scientific positions. But why would you do this when corruption is self-evident in science? Big Sugar, fossil fuels, etc.
jREG!
You're miscontructing and strawmanning the other point in the moral dilemma, you would be desecrating the body of a being that cannot consent neither dead or alive
I swear, this chicken dilemma has caused so many heads to spin.
Can't emphasize this enough: for starters, this isn't my experiment. It's a peer reviewed study conducted by psychologists.
This means that the I'm simply stating the most popular retort in the study. That's all I can say on the matter. Have a look at The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt--that's where I got the study from
I get that You Didn't make the dilemma but You're still strawmanning an alternative response to the question with the typical "i'm emotional and i can't make an argument to save My life" strawman type of representation
The music is so fucking annoying.
you mean western left?
Love the vid. Never could understand people who had large reactions to moral hypotheticals. This helps.
Also, it respect to the two questions:
1) It is not morally wrong to fuck the chicken. For the reasons outlined.
2) Same goes for Jack and Jill.
As long as it is consentual, and no unequal power dynamics are involved, i don't see any harm.
Yow!
I feel sorry for the poor person that's gonna eat that chicken after that person is finished it 🤢🤮🤒
Honestly until we get our shit together,I'm not participating in any sort of leftist activity.
You might be waiting quite a long time :p that said, there are plenty of ways to mobilize even on your own. Trying to get into your local politics and see what your local politicians stand for is a great start (I could do much better on that myself...). And then showing up to town hall meetings and voicing concerns that you have. That, at least, doesn't require too much organization with others. Never underestimate your own power brother
@@themanicpineapple8772 yeah I guess. I just feel that everytime someone does try something,another person gets a mob together to go shit on that guy for the smallest things. Still thx for the insight bro.
TRUMP 2024
conservatives cooperate more because being bigoted is the most important thing to each of them
Hmm... no.
Keep on demonizing a near *half of the country if you want.
@@NPC-bs3pmdude I'm not trying to be an ass but you said Elon musk is a leftist in a previous comment I can't take anything you say seriously
I will say coming from the Republican family an a community, yes more often than not these guys are bigoted or racist in something. Nearly always
Also back to elon because im still blown away
You also cited the reason that leftists hate Elon musk is because he's rich?????
Dog thats not even slightly close to the reason. Also more importantly what the hell is left wing about him??
Like what in your opinion is the specific thing that he does that makes him a leftist in your eyes
5:20 Huh......I must be an anomaly considering i pretty much fit into all of these😂 Except that I'm a Christian African-immigrant in the west who just completed college a few weeks ago. Maybe that's why I had no issue saying it's morally wrong to boink an unalive chicken🫠🙃