1- 2:25 - People are always only self interested 2- 6:40 - Intentions = results 3- 11:02 - We have any idea on the big questions 4- 13:32 - The underdog is naturally good 5- 15:14 - Religion and science are at odds 6- 18:49 - We listen to what people say not what they do 7- 20:30 - The subjective doesn't exist and judging is always bad 8- 24:30 - Information can be harmful 9- 26:49 - The world is naturally fair or balanced 10- 29:05 - There's always someone to blame 11- 30:33 - Purposely misunderstanding people is ok 12- 32:23 - People are all genetically the same
Putting 100 charts with small texts is just a joke put on people without photographic memory,- because they'll end up forgetting to listen and thus miss out on the story and why the graph was relevant.
Ah, but of course they're not hiding information. They're just drawing a hard line against false information. People's subjective opinions matter after all, and we cannot afford to suspend judgment about other people's choices in misinformation.
I can publish why a medicine should be prescribed and how to do it, but unless a person can objectively apply the principles in correcting underlying pathophysiology, chaos will result. Take for example the opioid overdose epidemic today. Opioid prescriptions went through the roof when regulations for prescribing authority were thinned. Massive pharmaceutical opioid dependency followed. Predictably, cheap fentanyl filled the void when the Rxes stopped. Hello overdoses and death.
As my professor once said: "The real Art - the works that truly come from deep within a human's soul - aren't seen in galeries nowadays. Art has been pushed back to making murals in caves, now digital or made of concrete, but maybe thats a necessary reset, and retreat from a world that sees no value beyond the price tag."
Good and evil is clearly in the mind of the beholder. But I agree all people are selfish and that comes from the curse of having minds constrained to our sole perspective.
@@arcanum3882 By whose standards? The desire to stay alive, and not die, is a fundamentally "self-centered" worldview, that not only every human, but every single wild animal nature ever created, feels. So by those standards, life itself is evil. But try to tell anybody that a cute bunny rabbit is evil, because it selfishly refuses to die, and you will mostly get laughed at. You see how your overly simplistic, backhanded labelling of "good" and "evil" breaks down against hard reality?
"Decline in religion has made people treat politics as a substitute for religion". I've had this exact realization years ago, word by word. The myth of "The underdog is always good" too. Definitely one of your best videos.
When I asked my friends whether word definitions are driven by public use or by dictionaries, I found that the overwhelming majority of them and our acquaintances think dictionaries are the sole authority. And those “official” authorities (which shift definitions depending on the subject) are their God. So institutional authority is wider America’s God now. Goes a long way toward explaining the new conformists.
@@WisdomThumbs Well, I am a little guilty of that but I'll tell you why. Of course language changes and that is natural, but it's extremely useful especially for nuanced discussions and topics to have a universal language to exchange meaning. When everyone runs around with "their own definitions" meaning is lost or hard to translate, and it not only slows down but entirely muddles and confuses discourse.
Watching your videos is a ride that consists of agreeing with something you say, then disagreeing with something you say immediately afterward. I love it, it makes me grow as a person.
Dude, your "why is the world crazy" is by far the video that I appreciated the most. No joke, for like 2 years before that video dropped I had been frequently wondering "is it me, or is the world getting fucking crazy." Your explanation on how global competition and immigration had depressed wages for almost EVERY country in the world and how demographic pressure on certain countries are causing them to act more unpredictably and aggressively really made me see the world in a way I had never even considered
For me that is basic stuff, spoken frequently in economics at least. However the general public is largely too stupid and ignorant to understand the real issue. These things are not covered in mass media which focuses on current events, not long time scale phenomena, as they are too difficult to analyse. The issue gets politicised heavily, with the left-wing socialists and globalists being in favor of immigration per se regardless of consequences and the extreme right being racist and xenophobe against immigrants, regardless of consequences. You could have the most enlightened discussion on the matter with social scientists but the moment party ideologically motivated start to discuss the matter it just gets to vicious bickering.
@@tj-co9go lmao both sidesing lmao. What consequences? Who do you think causes the consequences and the immigration to begin with? stop making this seem like some sort of bipolar issue both of which are on the same level morally.
"global competition and immigration had depressed wages" And this is both a blessing, as everything becomes cheaper, and a curse, because you earn less. I don't think the human of the future is going to be a salary-man worker, its impossible there will ever be enough jobs, unless we accelerate the rate of creating bullshit jobs (the problem is that people are already too much unhappy). The trend will only continue with even more automation. The end game of industrialization is taking the human out of the loop.
@@ambatuBUHSURK "What consequences?" cheap labor makes things cheap, is there another ? like cheaper immigrants taking jobs you don't want either way... (or are too stupid to get even from your compatriots, then you blame on immigrants, because of your they are "stealing your job", you are clearly not dumb enough to not find an excuse, but dumb enough to not get the job and blame on them )
@@thomascatty379 It's most likely a reference to the Unabomber's famous quote on the Industrial Revolution (it became a meme now). Although, that in itself sounds like a reference to Flaubert's quote.
@Gus Fring Porter at first, that’s what I was thinking. Those sequels were not correct. Add the trauma from the Transformers and any meaning this existence achieved has been called into question.
1. 2:25 - People Are Always Only Self Interested 2. 6:42 - Intentions = Results 3. 11:03 - We Have Any Idea on Big Questions 4. 13:34 - The Underdog is Always Good 5. 15:16 - Religion and Science are at Odds 6. 18:49 - We Listen to What People Say NOT What they do 7. 22:32 - The Subjective Doesn't Exist and Judging is Always Bad 8. 24:30 - Information Can Be Harmful 9. 26:50 - The World is Fair or Balanced 10. 29:05 - There's Always Someone to Blame 11. 30:35 - Purposely Misunderstanding People Is Ok 12. 32:23 - People Are ALL Genetically The Same
@@norsie45 he's arguing with a strawman on that point. Notice how he didn't mention anyone or any group when he's making he's case against it. Punching at the air is what I'd call it
yeah i always like how much i can learn from the comments section as well, its nice to have ppl watching that know about the topics covered more in depth than whatifalthist
There is few micro stuff wrong here. 200 yrs ago the world population where not 90% or anything like that poor. In Mughal Empire Sultanate a big majority group of the population for each individual has their own weight in gold. Also there was a welfare system too. China and Gunpowder Empires where crazy rich. West Africa was rich too. Native American Empires where rich too. That is where majority of the world population lived. Up to 1750s Ottoman Empire Sultanate was on top in everything and China had largest and most powerful navy mankind had ever seen (in terms of size it is the largest overall in all of history). The thing that changed things is the steam engine idea. The population of Africa outside the north, west and north east is very tiny unlike today. UK got veeeery extremely lucky with India colonization. If it wasn't for collapse of Mughal Empire Sultanate (it was there for 800ish yrs , it just reached it is end of life span and had 50% of their leaders bad) it would impossible even with WW1 technology for UK alone and very difficult and not worth it even if all of Europe planed together due to the population size + army and police size, land size, many different geographies , strong centralization, money and welth and resources they had. Mughal Empire lecturely had a bigger army with advance technology and equipment plus other stuff bigger than the entire population of the UK islands few times over. They could also if necessary make it even bigger. The military technology of the equipment wasn't that much behind on average the UK. The thing uk had was silty better gunpowder and muskets. The Indian and Ottoman canons and other siege equipment where much better than even Germany at the same time. They had tone of elephants which is a game changer in the way they used them for logistics, carring, as tanks and builders. The one that give the final hit on Ottoman Empire in Mediterranean is Napoleon Bonaparte destroying Ottoman navy and mainland Egypt due to him being Napoleon. In Ottoman Empire even before WW1 and especially befor 1908 people where living better lives than majority average population did in London. Muslims and Women in general where nontaxable - untaxable. Monopolies and interest/usury where prohibited + bank power very limited + you get Zakat money when necessary. Very little poor people and they get hlep. You had there too free healthcare for anyone on Ottoman soul. Ottoman Empire just got too tired from being fighting everyone around it: Russia, Europe and Iran for 400+ yrs around the clock. 3 fronts + competing with Spain and Portugal in Indian Ocean too. UK and Ottoman empire where very frindly up until around Napoleon Bonaparte times. Other thing Ottoman Empire trusted it is so called Ailes too much. If it wasn't for 1908 and joing ww1 Ottoman Empire would have been as powerful if not more powerful than Japan + haveing non of Japan weaknesses/disadvantages in a very geopolitical strategic location + haveing most of the world oile and gas + having influence over Muslim world. Even with 1908 mistake and joing the losing side of WW1 if it wasn't for stupid and naive Arab revolut in 1916 Ottoman would have continued - it is impossible to invade with WW1 technology without internal support ie arab revolut. Although joing ww1, Aramain genocide and Arab + Turk nationalism would be impossible if it wasn't for 1908. Ottoman Empire was only 50 yrs late to industrial thing due it takes time to implement. Mughal Empire is so big and powerful that it was more productive than industrial Europe, without being industrial. India what made UK. Capitalism is not the blame to so called 3 world poverty and problems but colonialism and neo-colonialism of NATO and CIA. Also because of over dose of capitalist extremism and extreme exploitation and craziness what caused those things. Basically mis use of capitalism ,racism + stupid supremacy and greed what caused things. Neo-colonialism is real thing. France for example 85% of it is economy depends on exploitation of western Africa. It is all about CIA , cold war and colonialism. Do u know that Ottoman Empire Sultanate could have would taking Spain and Portugal in just 10 yrs or so campaign in 16th or even 17th (especially during Solomon the magnificent period) century, but they didn't due 2 reasons: too expensive and money wise not going to make money + Morocco would have alot of Muslims die. Ottoman Empire could have took Venice intead of Vienna. Also they would took Vienna and half of Germany if it wasn't for Persia. Also all of that they didn't use their armies in Anatolia and Egypt which would have added at lest 400k soldiers to their 200k ish main professional army in Balkans. Mamluks had a very skilled professional force of 220k in Egypt of their own you may add (Which Napoleon Bonaparte destroyed).
some of the information about even people a few years his juniors is a little off, however the points made still stand. I love his stuff too, and this was no different
Your Gen Z video, 12 Lies series, and "Why are people so unhappy" are really great videos. All of your videos are great, but your philosophy videos are in the top tier. Despite how depressing a lot of them can be, I always walk away with a new perspective and strange sense of optimism. Can't wait to watch this one.
I generally agree. But out of his previous videos, I didn’t really like the Gen Z video. He had a lot of really great highs in it, but also some really low lows. I just want him to stay out of partisan politics. I hate it. It’s one of the most evil environments you can enter. I don’t want him to enter that evil rabbit hole. Besides for that, it was a decent video.
@@DarthHoosier3038 I'm glad someone agrees, although my main reason for being against it is because there are hundreds of other channels that partake in it. I want another civilization video.
@@billbadson7598 Nice false comparisons. We can accurately measure the average height of an ethnicity or the darkness of their skin and do so empirically because we have the ability to measure these traits. We can't empirically measure Genetic I.Q. differences between groups because scientists haven't found the gene(s) associated with said I.Q. We can only make speculative guesses about it being 50-80% genetic through studies. And there are a lot of studies out there for both sides of this debate. Just like you have your speculative evidence via studies, the other side has theirs. For example, All major ethnic groups have a ton of low and high performers in them which has been well documented, even in the studies that you'd likely reference. Also, Nigerian immigrants outperform White Americans and White brits in educational attainment, which again, is also heavily documented in studies. As whatifalthist said, Black and white Americans raised on military bases outside the U.S. score the same which I'm not even going to bother fact checking because it is probably true, given that the U.S. military issues their version of the I.Q. test, and if you score the equivalent of 82 or below, you are flat out rejected. Quite frankly, Cherry picking the differences in physically exterior traits that we can accurately measure and trying to compare them to genetically innate ones that we can not is a particularly dim-wit argument, especially considering all humans are 99.99% genetically alike meaning we have more similar genes than not so you can't even try to apply that line of thinking to your stance. Regardless of whether you like it or not, It stands to reason that all groups possess these Gene(s) since all groups have a mixture of high and low end performers in I.Q, but due to cultural or environmental differences, only certain groups have been able to utilize said gene(s) on a larger scale. It is kind of sad though, that Out of all the thought provoking things whatifalthist said in this video, this is what you chose to focus on. Yeah as the op commenter said, it was a politically sound stance to take, but the politically sound move is probably right here, and you will never be able to prove it wrong until scientists finally identify the gene(s) responsible for I.Q. and test their prevalence among different ethnic groups. Until then, it is all speculation and a plethora of speculative evidence exists for both sides. Just judging off your dim-wit false equivalency comparisons, you probably shouldn't even be trying to argue on behalf of the side that you support, because it is pretty clear to anyone with a brain that you fall on the lower end of the spectrum and would likely lack the gene(s) that the scientists will eventually identify lmao.
@@billbadson7598 it's funny because all you've got to respond to a full-fleged commentary disproving your bs is "NiNeTy-FiVe iQ pOsT". Thus proving that you are both an idiot and don't care about the truth.
@@billbadson7598 Nice ad hominem to go with your false equivalency fallacy. We can measure height, We can apply skin color to ethnicities, but we literally can't test for differences in how much I.Q. is hereditary between ethnicities without identifying the Gene(s) you idiot. Sad thing is, I bet your I.Q. is even lower than that lmao
I’m a professional artist with an MFA from a top NYC school. The entire high end art market is basically money laundering/tax evasion scheme. The doc “Mona Lisa’s Smile” is a good primer.
I am also an art graduate and I absolutely hate the current artificial state of the art trade. Afaik, the art trade was more focused around furniture and decorative arts that people sold in times of need or inherited, like jewelry, and about 150 years ago painting was more of a minor art that didn't have the importance and glamour it has today.
I'm a blue collar worker from rural Minnesota and that's the same conclusion I've come to from my research on the subject. The thing is it's super easy to hyperinflation the value of a 1 of a kind piece and muesums love donations of expensive of a kind pieces. The art industry was practically begging to be used for money laundering and tax evasion. My only real complaint is that for some reason this also means that modern art sucks.
"People have cried looking at his art." Realizing that the used toilet paper on the wall is worth more than a thousand doctors education and salaries for the next ten years. I'd cry too.
Unfortunately the art that is bought for the most money is often not relevant to the skill or ability of the artist to capture something true about the human condition, but reflect the whims and taste of the ultra rich and wealthy, however good or bad that may be.
I don’t know if I’m alone on this but I’d love a consolidated reading list of books you’d recommend for anyone trying to expand their knowledge on topics you talk about and reference in your videos. Thank you for the fun, educational, and interesting content!
Terrific video, thanks! Re Stalin: He had an illness when he was about 10 months old that destroyed part of his prefrontal cortex. Lobaczewski mentions this in Political Ponerology, and there's a medical report about it available online.
I've read Stalin's smoking also gave him coronary thrombosis, which may have also damaged his brain and drove him to paranoia. Does Lobaczewski talk about that as well?
Stalin also had something wrong with one of his arms. I've read speculation that it was from childhood polio, or possibly being beaten by his father. This gave him a distinctive walk, one arm stiff at his side and the other swinging freely. Putin also walks this way.
@@Mattavilasa Putin walking that way is installed. I can't remember the full details. But it's basically a walk that is done so his right arm will always be close to his sidearm.
14:00 Ironically, Star Wars itself was highly inspired by the Vietnam War, where the ‘rebels’ weren’t really better than the ‘empire’. I don’t think George Lucas was intending for Star Wars to create a view of underdog=good. The Prequels actually tried to address this problem, with the Jedi Order itself being corrupt to an extent and flawed in a way that led to its downfall, and the outnumbered underdog Sith using its flaws against it. The Clone Wars were horrifically brutal, extended, and accomplished very little other than to expand Palpatine’s power despite being based on genuine political grievances. Unfortunately, the Prequels have their own problems that prevented them from becoming as influential as the Original Trilogy, and the Sequel Trilogy just copied off the Original Trilogy.
+Fredinno What you said was addressed in my playlist "Complexities and nuance in Star Wars ] Morality in Star Wars", for anyone who isn't a big Star Wars fan.
Yeah I remember having a debate with another Star Wars fan about underdogs and how the good guys didn't always need to be the underdog and in real life and Star Wars the underdog isn't always good. Just because someone is weaker does not mean they aren't evil, or dangerous. If you really want to break romanticization of the underdog just remind everyone that Nazi Germany was the underdog in World War II fighting multiple Super Powers stronger than itself along with most of Europe.
One thing I have liked about recent star wars fiction, for all it's faults, is that in stories like the High Republic the villains are the underdogs. The Nihil and their leader are much weaker then the Republic and the Jedi they fight against, they are also undeniably the bad guys. It's a refreshing take.
@@ShamanMcLamie communism is a better example since nazi Germany not only had a reason to be so aggressive but they weren’t really the underdog since they were the ones attacking a lot of countries
The Crisis of the 21st century video and the original 12 lies about reality are my favorites on the channel. Keep up the great work, I really enjoy your philosophy videos while still keeping good geopolitical topics covered.
There is few micro stuff wrong here. 200 yrs ago the world population where not 90% or anything like that poor. In Mughal Empire Sultanate a big majority group of the population for each individual has their own weight in gold. Also there was a welfare system too. China and Gunpowder Empires where crazy rich. West Africa was rich too. Native American Empires where rich too. That is where majority of the world population lived. Up to 1750s Ottoman Empire Sultanate was on top in everything and China had largest and most powerful navy mankind had ever seen (in terms of size it is the largest overall in all of history). The thing that changed things is the steam engine idea. The population of Africa outside the north, west and north east is very tiny unlike today. UK got veeeery extremely lucky with India colonization. If it wasn't for collapse of Mughal Empire Sultanate (it was there for 800ish yrs , it just reached it is end of life span and had 50% of their leaders bad) it would impossible even with WW1 technology for UK alone and very difficult and not worth it even if all of Europe planed together due to the population size + army and police size, land size, many different geographies , strong centralization, money and welth and resources they had. Mughal Empire lecturely had a bigger army with advance technology and equipment plus other stuff bigger than the entire population of the UK islands few times over. They could also if necessary make it even bigger. The military technology of the equipment wasn't that much behind on average the UK. The thing uk had was silty better gunpowder and muskets. The Indian and Ottoman canons and other siege equipment where much better than even Germany at the same time. They had tone of elephants which is a game changer in the way they used them for logistics, carring, as tanks and builders. The one that give the final hit on Ottoman Empire in Mediterranean is Napoleon Bonaparte destroying Ottoman navy and mainland Egypt due to him being Napoleon. In Ottoman Empire even before WW1 and especially befor 1908 people where living better lives than majority average population did in London. Muslims and Women in general where nontaxable - untaxable. Monopolies and interest/usury where prohibited + bank power very limited + you get Zakat money when necessary. Very little poor people and they get hlep. You had there too free healthcare for anyone on Ottoman soul. Ottoman Empire just got too tired from being fighting everyone around it: Russia, Europe and Iran for 400+ yrs around the clock. 3 fronts + competing with Spain and Portugal in Indian Ocean too. UK and Ottoman empire where very frindly up until around Napoleon Bonaparte times. Other thing Ottoman Empire trusted it is so called Ailes too much. If it wasn't for 1908 and joing ww1 Ottoman Empire would have been as powerful if not more powerful than Japan + haveing non of Japan weaknesses/disadvantages in a very geopolitical strategic location + haveing most of the world oile and gas + having influence over Muslim world. Even with 1908 mistake and joing the losing side of WW1 if it wasn't for stupid and naive Arab revolut in 1916 Ottoman would have continued - it is impossible to invade with WW1 technology without internal support ie arab revolut. Although joing ww1, Aramain genocide and Arab + Turk nationalism would be impossible if it wasn't for 1908. Ottoman Empire was only 50 yrs late to industrial thing due it takes time to implement. Mughal Empire is so big and powerful that it was more productive than industrial Europe, without being industrial. India what made UK. Capitalism is not the blame to so called 3 world poverty and problems but colonialism and neo-colonialism of NATO and CIA. Also because of over dose of capitalist extremism and extreme exploitation and craziness what caused those things. Basically mis use of capitalism ,racism + stupid supremacy and greed what caused things. Neo-colonialism is real thing. France for example 85% of it is economy depends on exploitation of western Africa. It is all about CIA , cold war and colonialism. Do u know that Ottoman Empire Sultanate could have would taking Spain and Portugal in just 10 yrs or so campaign in 16th or even 17th (especially during Solomon the magnificent period) century, but they didn't due 2 reasons: too expensive and money wise not going to make money + Morocco would have alot of Muslims die. Ottoman Empire could have took Venice intead of Vienna. Also they would took Vienna and half of Germany if it wasn't for Persia. Also all of that they didn't use their armies in Anatolia and Egypt which would have added at lest 400k soldiers to their 200k ish main professional army in Balkans. Mamluks had a very skilled professional force of 220k in Egypt of their own you may add (Which Napoleon Bonaparte destroyed).
One thing that really stuck with me from this vid: the act of ignoring someone's main point in a debate and just nitpicking, or being hypercritical of a student's spelling and ignoring the ideas they are putting forth. To make such behavior especially egregious, perform the nitpicking with either dismissiveness, as though the nitpicks somehow preempt any need to consider the main point, or with false concern, as though one is being fair... or both at the same time! These are both passive varieties of dishonesty. A more active variety would be to gauge what kind of person would value the main point being made, and then rather than address that main point, attack the person as being the opposite of that kind of person. The varieties of dishonesty are truly a morbidly fascinating characteristic of humanity.
It saddens me how many people my age seem to find sincerity something to be avoided; they find it impossible to do anything unironically. I won't pretend that I don't also act like this sometimes, but I hope that I can be genuine and serious when the time calls for it. A perfect example is the other day when I was going to a party for my friend's birthday and met up with some others beforehand, one of whom I hadn't met before. The invite had jokingly asked everyone to "dress nicely" or something like that and so this guy was wearing a suit. When I complimented him on it he just said he was wearing it "ironically." I tried to ask him what was wrong with wearing a suit unironically but I never got an answer. I found it funny how he changed into a Rick and Morty jumper once we got to the party lol
I'm of the opinion that young people act that way, because of the fear of being seen as "weird". Showing true emotion is leaving yourself out there to be judged. A lot of people are ashamed of their interests, choosing to conceal them in irony, not realising that people appreciate it. I think it's connected to the fact that because of social media, teens are scared of failing and not being always perfect, so they feel like seriously trying something is meaningless and an easy way to be made fun of. Atleast that's my experience.
I do think it's because of the extreme competitiveness of our times, showing one's attitude also shows ones weaknesses, so the kids now create layers of lies about them to not have their real weaknesses exploited
For a man so young, you are so very wise , introspective and able to "connect all the dots". I commend you and your parents for having such a fine mind.
Lie number 13: Just because you are older, you are always wiser. Wrong. This UA-camr is less than half my age, and yet I am taking advice from him! But, then again, maybe that is part of my wisdom: recognizing my own limitations and not being too proud to seek advice from anyone who shows good judgment and intellectual ability.
For number 4, star wars was a symptom rather than a cause. I think you forget that American fu damental foundational myth is that of a fledgling republic beating the "tyrannical empire" of king George. Stars wars existing or not, Americans would always dislike the idea of empire and prefer freedom fighters as long as they didn't directly attack us. While the southern culture was perfectly fine with opression and empire building, the northern culture which won the war of Southern Agression, hated empire and opression.
The thing I found as I have gotten older is how lonely it becomes once you learn all the tricks that everyone lives their lives willfully believing. You end up realizing how absolutely mad the majority of people are. Most people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about because they haven't even thought about the subject long enough to formulate a proper opinion. I actually fun with this sort of thing at my last job on my last couple weeks. All the customers that would spout meaningless political bs for no reason, I would humor them. I would go "oh who is that, what did they did that's so bad?". And in 9/10 cases the person would pretty quickly realize they had no idea what or who it was they were mad and talking about. That is the sad sad state of the majority of your average people that are just going through life. They aren't thinking about anything. They aren't thinking about the reason they are doing the job they are doing, they aren't thinking about the stupid bs that drops out of their mouths, and they most definitely aren't thinking about wider repercussions to their actions. It's literally as if a muscle/part of the brain which these people have lost. They are as if functioning npcs, the perfect burnt out husk of a human to do a day job until their body fails.
Most people are just busy with other stuff. They only reason I'm as "wise" as I am now is cause I barely ever left my house and only had one friend as a kid. I don't think the cost of wisdom (lots of time to contemplate thoughts/opinions) is one that many people want to pay. I wish I was more social as a kid. It's all about finding a balance that works for you, I guess. I'm still finding mine.
I’ve reached a very similar conclusion myself but it’s such a destructive way of processing life. It looks to me that many people are simply functioning npcs but it seems that sometimes they often willfuly block their inherent ability of reasoning and processing things in order to align more with their surroundings. However some people are a lost cause honestly. I find it fascinating that many of my peers at university fall in the second category. Although as @Average Prawn Hater has said it is very costly to venture into the world of knowledge and the unknown and even then many people are raised in an enviroment in which they where highly regulated and discouraged to question things and adopted that as a bad habit or became submissive to the reality of life. Anyways it is unfortunate that many of us have to suffer as lonely outliers in society just because we choose to be doubtful, rebellious, heretics who over-analyze and scrutinize most aspects of live even the mundane ones and generally commit to a pessimistic view of life and adopt anti-social behaviour which is honestly nothing but trouble.
You're absolutely right, but we ought to remember that most of us here tend to express value in some really quite abstract concerns: the cultivation and discovery of knowledge, wisdom, truth, etc. Whereas most people have a far more concrete set of self-related matters which take up most of their focus, fully investing their time and energy on finding truth in the mundane, the immediate, the here-and-now. We are like monks complaining about the lack of spiritual purity among the rabble outside our abbey. True, they care little for God out there in the village. But we monks too often are as apt to neglect the simple joys of spending time with friends and family and good food and ridiculous diversions. Think of it like this: A wise man can find wisdom in just about any mode of being he chooses to live by, as in four basic ways of choosing to concern yourself with eternity and truth. 1. Why are we running after these miserable earthly pleasures? The only satisfaction is eternity. 2. Why run after the specter of eternity? Carpe diem! Grasp what you have here. 3. Why be caught in the contrast between eternity and temporary existence? The true wisdom is to seek eternity in fleeting temporary pleasures. 4. We are forever condemned between the two. A wise man accepts this. Whatever position you take, you can sell it as wisdom.
@@Supreme_Goldfish you can’t truly be wise without living with other people the main problem that overly social people fall into is not taking the time to analyse anything and just run with most convenient story
24:00 With regard to the current generation lacking judgement, and lacking the will to make judgements: this is a result of lacking a strong sense of identity. The whole act of identity comes from realizing what you are and what you are not. You have to choose certain attributes to pursue and certain attributes to suppress. That, in itself, is an act of judgement. A lot of modern people have anxiety over those decisions because they do not have a clear sense of a value hierarchy, so they are unsure of what to pursue and what to suppress. It's a terrible loop that leads to further inaction, further anxiety, further eroding of identity, and further lack of meaning and lack of judgement in their lives. And in their despair, they claim a moral victory for not being judgmental, trying to make sense of their suffering, because they have a wrong-headed definition of judgement.
6:33 I think that a large reason for this myth is that, as you said in your Gen Z video, childhood and the family just aren't that stable anymore. Children are designed to idealize their parents, and when they too early see parents quarreling and leaving each other (usually leaving the kid, too), they develop this kind of might-makes right worldview.
That is such a Conservative viewpoint that it is almost hard to comprehend. The good old "stable" families in the past very not so stable or happy, but as a child you had a lot more ignorance than today .
@@therealextractedjuice A happy family is better than a stable unhappy family. For primarily religious reasons USA is very far behind in that understanding compared to most of the West
In theory, I support paying high taxes since I’d rather have less money and better surroundings than the opposite. However, in practice, that doesn’t seem to be the case when I look at affluent but mismanaged cities on the West Coast for example.
Bureaucratic capture is real. After the West Coast Mandarins get done with adding 7 layers of non-functional regulatory agencies, there is very little left for actual physical improvements.
This is the crisis of the rational left at the moment... For example I support mass transit and wish the US had a functional passenger rail network, but I also know that can never happen because every public transit agency in the country is perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy due to being treated as a hiring hall for patronage jobs and prioritizing unprofitable routes to benefit particular constituencies.
I absolutely hate the saying "if they're not hurting someone it's ok" because 90% of the time they're hurting themselves whether it's by making it so that they have no social or family life or just your average health problems
@@t6amygdala just because someone allows bad things to happen to them doesn't stop it from being a bad thing I agree that depending on the severity you morally dont have to do anything but it definitely is morally wrong to tell them it's ok to do it
@@t6amygdala because people who hurt themselves invariably end up hurting everyone and everything around them. imagine one guy decides he should inject himself with powerful drugs. this makes him ill and poorly suited for accomplishing much of anything. the tax revenue he should have produced is instead a series of medical bills the nation takes on. the businesses he should have helped by working or by spending instead are criminal enterprises, meaning even more people make his mistake as the criminal underworld grows. his children and the other people's children grow up without their father's or mother's guidance. society collapses in on itself and millions starve or are lost in horrible power struggles as the state was unable to provide for its citizens. the citizens were all too busy suffering from overdoses and other health problems or consuming or producing the drug to continue as a society. this is obviously an extreme example one can only see in a few countries at certain points in time, but at the city level this has happened many times. degeneracy does not create long lasting happy peoples, it creates only more degeneracy until it becomes unsustainable. in short, people should not be encouraged to hurt themselves because they deserve better and so does everyone else. We deserve to have some output (economic, cultural) for our input (same).
@@boldCactuslad i stopped reading as soon as you mentioned stealing money from a drug addict. youre a horrible person if you support taxation in the first place, let alone from people who’re at rock bottom.
I agree with what you wrote 10:00 very strongly. We’ve linked cultural or ideological values with pragmatic political policies that have nothing to do with such. For example, if you’re pro LGBT you ALSO have to pro environment or if you’re for lax gun rights you and outdoor living you have to also be pro military spending. It’s dangerous and nonsensical to align cultural values with political decisions.
Yeah, and if you fall outside of those boxes you get hate from all sides. Though there's some degree of amusement to be had in that, it's also often lonely.
@@someonesomeone25 I know, right? Why can’t I both believe climate change is real and a HUGE detriment to human life AND hate communism and think Stalin was a bad dude? Can’t dude that I guess.
IMO it's because the "why" of those policies comes from a common myth. That of the magical native american in tune with nature and uncorrupted by European social conventions. Environmentalism can be right wing in Europe (though even there it is associated with fringe factions like English traditional Catholics), but in North America it's too bound up in this mythology to be anything else.
About the "if the universe is so big, why haven't we found any aliens yet?" We haven't found anything concrete because the universe is grotesquely huge, people don't really understand the distance between Earth and the moon, let alone the sheer scale of orion's arm alone. There is also a theory that the reason we haven't found any intergalactic empire or something reassembling that, is because we as a species popped out pretty early in the universe's life cycle.
Perhaps the aliens have contacted few people, or the truth is been withhold from us. Who knows what happens n secret facilities or the connection of deep spiritual masters.
I think it's cause of the great filter and people don't really understand the limits of how far a civilization can grow when we add space in the mix the biggest it can grow is solar or multi solar there's no way a civilization could ever be galactal people often say but we were able to do this when people in the past said we couldn't well that's because they didn't have much knowledge as now and didn't have the technology for that
The aliens know we are here. They just are wise enough not to re-enact European settlers displacing Native Americans. Earthlings are the Native Americans in this analogy.
This is a haphazard unorganized mess of a comment. I doubt anyone will read all the the way through it. TL;DR: Habitable planets are probably very rare. Habitable planets which remain habitable long enough for complex life to evolve are probably exceedingly rare. Life itself is probably exceedingly common, but complex life is probably exceedingly rare, and intelligent life which is capable of developing civilization and higher technology is probably even more rare. I.e. the solution to the Fermi Paradox is that there just aren’t any spacefaring civilizations anywhere near us. I think that the rare Earth hypothesis is the answer. I think that planets with complex biospheres are exceedingly rare in the universe. This is partially because you need specific galactic conditions for life to be possible; there are probably entire galaxies in which life couldn’t arise just because of high radiation or star distribution being too dense for stable planetary systems to form. And even within our own galaxy we’re probably in the galactic “sweet spot” for Earthlike planets. We can only detect exoplanets at a distance of a couple thousand light years MAX, and the data says that roughly Earth-sized planets (including super Earths) in roughly the habitable zone are pretty common. Most of these are around red dwarfs, however, which are probably usually highly hostile towards life, especially complex life, which knocks out 90% of these prospects. But let’s look at the Solar System for example. Venus, Earth, and Mars are all in the habitable zone. We’d identify all three as candidates for habitability if they orbited another star. We know that all three had oceans in the past and I’d wager that all three had life. Mars’ oceans evaporated 3+ billion years ago, leaving a nearly cold atmosphere-less wasteland, and Venus’ evaporated less than a billion years ago but went in the opposite direction, to an incredibly dense and hot atmosphere. I think that Earth’s “success” in remaining habitable is the exception, not the rule. I say that they probably had life before their respective cataclysms because as far as we can tell, life arose on Earth practically as soon as the oceans formed 4 billion years ago. Life itself is probably very common in the universe, but complex biosphere probably aren’t. It took 3+ billion years for complex life to evolve on Earth. And I think that, even in the rare case of a planet remaining habitable long enough for complex life to evolve, intelligent, civilization-forming, complex technology-wielding life (henceforth just “intelligent life”; it’s an important distinction which I’ll explain shortly) is even more rare. We look at Earth and assume that it’s common but we’re working with a sample size of one and selection bias. I distinguish intelligent, civilization-forming, complex technology-wielding life from simply intelligent life because there are many, _many_ species of intelligent life on this planet. Great apes, dolphins, corvids, octopuses, elephants, etc are intelligent, albeit not so much as humans, but it seems apparent that human-level intelligence is specialized and only selected for by evolution because of other traits. And even if an animal evolved which had intelligence comparable to that of a human, what are the chances that it can accomplish what we have? Humans are very lucky. For example, imagine a velociraptor-relative evolved human-level intelligence. We have much more capable hands with which to manipulate things than they would; they’d rely on their mouths and much less capable hands and maybe their feet, and wouldn’t be able to accomplish what we can with our dextrous little (non-clawed) fingers. Even apes don’t have hands as capable as ours (chimps can’t touch their pinky finger with their thumb, for example). Velociraptors also couldn’t reach most of their body with their hands. Velociraptors stood parallel to the ground with long tails. Imagine a velociraptor trying to work in a narrow space, or to work on a workbench. Humans stand straight up. And so on. Octopuses and dolphins live in the water, discounting fire and thus most complex technology, and dolphins don’t have hands. Octopuses also have very short lifespans and are highly antisocial. Elephants are huge and much more cumbersome than us. So on and on. At the end of the day, humans, despite our flaws, are a perfect storm for developing civilization and higher technology, which I think would be very rare even in the case of complex ecosystems. And it also took us 400 million years to evolve after the first tetrapods came onto land. 400 million years in which a cataclysm could have rendered the planet uninhabitable. 400 million years which other planets might not have before their sun dies. Sure, intelligent life could hypothetically evolve in 100 or 50 million years, but it could just as easily take a billion years to evolve, time which probably doesn’t exist for most planets.
Now call me ignorant, but i think it's a valid question. Has anyone considered that we might we be the apex of technological advancement in the universe?
I like your channel because it goes against my inherent biases and makes me think introspectively and reconsider my positions on many things. You do great work, keep it up :)
I like like his channel because he just speaks his mind without a filter and I respect it. He'll say what's moral, say it to your face, and doesn't care how you feel, in hopes you become a better person. I absolutely respect that about his channel.
On self interest, I'd argue that we all act in our own self-interest, but that doesn't mean good people don't exist. Good people are just people who have some kind of self interest from being good, whether it's as simple as it makes them feel good or it fits the character they want to build for themselves. That doesn't take away from the fact that they're good people, because it takes a good person to consistently find value in the well being of others.
This is like me asking for the time and you saying; "you don't want to know the time you just want the pleasant feeling in your brain form learning the time."
“I always thought that public policy was done a massive disservice by Star Wars being so popular.” Same here. If you’re going to learn about war through fiction, watch Gundam.
Also, there is much more to Star Wars than the underdog vs evil empire Story. Just look at the prequels and the politics of a corrupt Republic and the failiure of religion (the jedi order) to preserve peace in the galaxy aka the world.
@@kaidubstep2404 I agree that underdog stories have always been popular and that Star Wars is a series with depth, I just believe Gundam is a far more realistic depiction of war.
You've mentioned the ancient Greek atomists several times in your videos, and I have to ask, have you actually read any of their work? Democritus was the most prolific of them, and while we've used his terminology, his actual text bears little resemblance to the reality as we currently understand it. Atoms were indivisible particles that made everything up, but they were simultaneously perfect immortal beings. Atoms were literally what he called the gods. Unless I've drastically misunderstood what I've read.
And it took us how many years to even think of breaking an atom? Much less doing it? Dude lived in a world where a ten story tall building was considered the height of human technological possibility.
@@RandMantearTheDragon I'm not knocking Rudyard, I'm not knocking Democritus, you're absolutely right that the full scope of what we know now was outside of his reach to prove (though there was little stopping him from theorizing, the Jains in India have refused to eat certain fermented foods like yoghurt for centuries under the belief that they contained tiny living things that couldn't be seen which would be killed by eating them). I was just bringing it up because a lot of people take one look at the terminology we borrowed from him, and try to attribute the whole or majority of modern atomic theory to him, which is easily disproven. I highly doubt that's what Rudyard was intending to do himself, but I've heard enough people interpret the drive by overview of Democritus' ideas that way that I feel it's one of those things that deserves an asterisk to clarify the details. I'm not qualified to do that, I just vaguely remember this from a philosophy lecture I attended a few years back, but at the very least, I felt I could bring some attention to it. Though looking back at my original comment, I think I might have been rather more confrontational than the intended casual attention raising.
@@c.nova8818 It hurts this channel if people are discouraged from pointing out errors. Everybody makes mistakes, and when you read as broadly as this guy does, you're going to make a lot of them by not doing enough deep dives.
Isn’t occam’s razor about “limiting the multiplication of entities beyond necessity” (or something like that), not that “the simplest explanation is the best”. I think Einstein put it well when he said “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler”. The Ethical Skeptic also puts it nicely; “Accurate is simple, but that does not serve to make simple, therefore accurate”.
I believe occam's razor is about minimizing the amount of assumptions you need to make, since each assumption is basically a chance to be wrong. Like in physics, say you observe 2 different groups of particles to act in very similar ways, it makes sense to say they are the same type of particle behaving in slightly different environments, rather than 2 distinct classes of particle, as the former only has to assume one particle exists instead of two. Then if more evidence shows distinctions that cannot easily be explained by varied environments, you would have to make assumptions about how that one particle behaves differently sometimes, meaning that the explanation by 2 different particles, despite being in a way a little more complicated, might actually make fewer assumptions and therefore by occam's razor would be considered more likely.
my understanding of occam's razor is that the simplest rational explanation is usually correct, but its not 100 %. It's just a model in which people use to filter whatinformation they should retain
8:12 "Rather than actual moral action" kind of struck with me. Despite how cringe this connection is, I'd been reading some manga recently and the protagonist has a pretty bad personality on the surface as he openly mocks people, insults them to their face, questions authority, and even tried to seduce his kingdom's queen (all of this is mostly Because he doesn't care and actively WANTS the consequences of those actions). This is contrasted with (at this point) the antagonist who's on the surface very good and has gained the affection of other people seen to be good people. However, the person in question is actively trying to steal the place of someone else genuinely good because she doesn't think anyone can be that good and the people who's affection she gained shirked their duty to both the kingdom and their previous engagements and even break promises they'd made. This is compared to the protagonist actively tries to help people while they're down, attempts to comfort others, cover for misdeeds, and help even people he really kind of hates for the sake of people not dying. The comparison here is apt of people who have the right attitudes and present themselves as moral even though they'll lack it in action vs the person who's actually moral in action even if he doesn't present himself as such in manner. TL;DR this truth is basically the idea behind "kind but not nice" and "nice but not kind"
No they were not. As mentioned in the video, they were peoplewith good intentions (trying to save their planets from an uncaring corrupt democracy that only caused them harm) and then thinking everyone who was against them must be evil (even though the republic brought prosperity to many planets) and wiht that logic they justified their many warcrimes and occasional ethnic cleansing
Despite it's flaws, the prequels did try to be more nuanced in the matter of war. There were no good guys and Palpatine fooled everyone to fight a meaningless war
"Once you take out a couple of coastal cities [...] the vast majority of Americans are very kind and generous people" -- I concur with that assessment. I'm not an American -- a European -- and I have never been States side, but I've met, interacted and even in a couple of occasions formed a very close bond with a number of Americans, 99% of them White. One of them spent an entire day mentoring me how to optimise a business venture I was struggling with, he basically shared a life time of priceless insight and experience with me and never asked for anything in return. Of course, I owe him hugely and whenever he might have a need for me I'll be more than happy to start repaying that debt.
11:05 - I’m really torn about this one. The history of physics is that reality always has a new mindfuck in store for us, especially if it seems like we’ve nearly got it figured out. But on the other hand, it seems like maybe we’ve nearly got it figured out (but for real this time). Physics isn’t under any obligation to be a bottomless pit of cool surprises, and I think it’s entirely possible that we’ve learned more about the universe in the last 300 years than we will in the next 300k
Oh boy you don’t know how wrong you are there’s so much we haven’t figured it out like where did all the matter of the universe came from gravity the Fermi paradox etc we have a good understanding of how the universe works in the details but the big picture why is far beyond our comprehension and probably will remain so until a massive paradigm shift occurs again
@@luisandrade2254 I think after the 20th century had two back-to-back paradigm shifts in physics (quantum mechanics and relativity) it’s so tempting to expect that they’ll keep coming at a similar rate, and I agree that it’s possible they will, but I think it’s important to realize that we might have hit bedrock, at least in certain domains. Like we may never find a better way to transmit data than electromagnetic waves. Physics revolutionized communications tech in the 19th and 20th centuries, but it may never make another practically useful contribution to that field again. I’m kind of playing devils advocate here though. I think you’re right that our list of weird stuff that we don’t understand is still long enough that we’ve probably got at least a couple more paradigm shifts left in the tank.
Im mean there is SO much we dont know lol, but in regurds to what the host says, im inclided to agree with you. We know SO much more know, and there are sone aspects of the physical world we understand tp an amazing degree, on the macro scale that is. Like I think its very likley if we found a ufo we would easly find out what it is made of, and understand it better retivlely to a person from babalon observbing a car. Pehaps not perfectly engerering wise but theoreticaly much more so.
I would contend we have exhausted all the low hanging fruit of physics. The next 2 genuine game changers will be reliable use of fusion power and wormhole travel. If, and big if,we get these breakthroughs then the universe is the limit.
@@luisandrade2254 The funny thing is that physicists basically have answers, or more broadly a _range_ of possible answers, to all that you brought up. There are several promising theories for the origin of and propagation of gravitation, for the ultimate origin of the Universe, for the Fermi Paradox, and so on. At this point, they just have to figure out which make the most sense. Physicists have a very deep understanding of the universe; the problem is that, at this point, theoretical physics is leagues beyond what the general public can understand, because it’s such a specialized field, so the general public doesn’t know that. Most people think that these are still total mysteries, when in reality most remaining problems have been narrowed down significantly.
Also good to know that our definitions of good, evil and other values are supported mostly by emotions which can change very fast and that's why we make "bad" things considering them as good.
As to the point about the cult of authenticity, which I wholeheartedly agree with you on, I think the explanation for how it came about and where it's headed is a tale in itself. Historically, people were sincere or insincere. You were more or less born into a role, and how society judged you reflected a concern for how well you fit those mostly preassigned and prefabricated roles: How good of a mother are you? A man? A king? A saint? A peasant? A baker? A wife? A son? A warrior? A Christian? Or even a villain? A heathen? We still partially relate to one another via these displays of sincerity, as when we consent to consigning part of our identity to a traditional role like husband or wife through marriage. But we have put increasing cultural emphasis the past two centuries on being yourself, being authentic, as the traditional structures reinforcing sincerity-based identity structures began to either crumble or so radically transform as to become unrecognizble to themselves. This shift created an odd paradox since society's encouragement to not bend to society's will is self-contradictory. You no longer were asked to fit in but to stand out, to be who you truly are, and eventually the Gen X ethos would most fully embrace this distaste for ideology in place of a desire to be a fully authentic individual. But just as sincerity became gradually replaced with authenticity as the primary mode of identification and truthfulness, branding or "profilicity" (the construction and curation of a public profile) is today starting to eclipse the authentic. Think of it as the difference between an intimate photograph meant to capture a fleeting moment that deeply means something to perhaps only yourself versus a group of friends taking a staged photograph with them all jumping in unison with big grins on their faces. The former is authentic, the latter is profilic. To people raised to identify with authenticity, the profilic photograph looks phony, what with its carefully curated staging and artifice. But to younger generations, the profilic display demonstrates a form of honesty by virtue of how invested in a particular image or display one is, by the cultivation of a profile and the labor invested in maintaining that socially accepted image. I don't think the internet demands authenticity. Instead, it demands this mode of profilicity, where the injunction is not to fully integrate one's actions into a cohesive narrative about one's identity but instead to successfully promulgate a personal profile as it relates to second-order observations in a self-referential social system. So, when we are observing and engaging with an identity formation, it is as a means of communication, external, first and foremost and not as an expression of an internal consistency. Gen Z is close to fully embracing this new paradigm, it appears.
@@SamSepiolTheHeretic Yep, Hans-Georg Moeller. Been reading his work for some time and highly recommend his UA-cam channel for a good introduction to the concepts. Paul J. D’Ambrosio is another great resource covering the same topics. And Roberto Simanowski for some of the background work which informs their own.
Damn, so I'm not hip anymore for enjoying candid photos? I have a strong distaste for the factory production of curated templates. That a really interesting demographic divide I would have never considered.
Quick FYI: Occam's Razor does not mean the simplest explanation. It means the explanation made with the fewest assumptions regarding the relationship between elements of the problem is the most plausible solution. In layman: A solution's completeness is a function of its scope and complexity directly relative to the known scope and complexity of the problem, as well as its scope and complexity indirectly relative to the unknown scope and complexity of the problem. Complex problems require complex solution sets. You can't solve a famine by growing more food -- you solve it by solving for the specific issues that most directly increased the likelihood of a famine. So, poor irrigation, pest control, etc.
As for your famine example, I'd say it's even more complex than that. While _local shortfalls of food production_ are generally caused by mismanagement or natural disasters or whatever, a _famine,_ where people can't get their hands on enough food, is normally a failure of logistics. For a long time now we've produced enough food globally every year to feed everybody, it just isn't being distributed equitably because there's no money in feeding destitute people. It's basically impossible to make every region of the world reliably food self-sufficient -- sometimes you just get a series of bad droughts or a long war or some other disaster and can't produce enough locally. So to solve famine you would have to overhaul how we distribute resources globally.
I've recently read Rene Girard's "I see Satan falling like lightning" (mentioned in the 4th myth, I could have seen it in your previous video, idk) and it was one of the greatest theological/philosophical/anthropological book (for me in general). It opened my eyes on the biblical images, how important, even vital they were and how profound. I didn't become more religious, but I definitely got more out of it on moral, human nature, in particular perception, conflicts, needs and ways to convey highly valuable to society information. Glad to see you mentioning this great book (again?). PS. The video, as always, great and interesting! Thank you! Keep up
Youve GOTTA read rules for radicals. It covers all this stuff extremely well, I felt like it read my mind. Been studying these things for around a decade now but never have anyone who's able to discuss it
There is few micro stuff wrong here. 200 yrs ago the world population where not 90% or anything like that poor. In Mughal Empire Sultanate a big majority group of the population for each individual has their own weight in gold. Also there was a welfare system too. China and Gunpowder Empires where crazy rich. West Africa was rich too. Native American Empires where rich too. That is where majority of the world population lived. Up to 1750s Ottoman Empire Sultanate was on top in everything and China had largest and most powerful navy mankind had ever seen (in terms of size it is the largest overall in all of history). The thing that changed things is the steam engine idea. The population of Africa outside the north, west and north east is very tiny unlike today. UK got veeeery extremely lucky with India colonization. If it wasn't for collapse of Mughal Empire Sultanate (it was there for 800ish yrs , it just reached it is end of life span and had 50% of their leaders bad) it would impossible even with WW1 technology for UK alone and very difficult and not worth it even if all of Europe planed together due to the population size + army and police size, land size, many different geographies , strong centralization, money and welth and resources they had. Mughal Empire lecturely had a bigger army with advance technology and equipment plus other stuff bigger than the entire population of the UK islands few times over. They could also if necessary make it even bigger. The military technology of the equipment wasn't that much behind on average the UK. The thing uk had was silty better gunpowder and muskets. The Indian and Ottoman canons and other siege equipment where much better than even Germany at the same time. They had tone of elephants which is a game changer in the way they used them for logistics, carring, as tanks and builders. The one that give the final hit on Ottoman Empire in Mediterranean is Napoleon Bonaparte destroying Ottoman navy and mainland Egypt due to him being Napoleon. In Ottoman Empire even before WW1 and especially befor 1908 people where living better lives than majority average population did in London. Muslims and Women in general where nontaxable - untaxable. Monopolies and interest/usury where prohibited + bank power very limited + you get Zakat money when necessary. Very little poor people and they get hlep. You had there too free healthcare for anyone on Ottoman soul. Ottoman Empire just got too tired from being fighting everyone around it: Russia, Europe and Iran for 400+ yrs around the clock. 3 fronts + competing with Spain and Portugal in Indian Ocean too. UK and Ottoman empire where very frindly up until around Napoleon Bonaparte times. Other thing Ottoman Empire trusted it is so called Ailes too much. If it wasn't for 1908 and joing ww1 Ottoman Empire would have been as powerful if not more powerful than Japan + haveing non of Japan weaknesses/disadvantages in a very geopolitical strategic location + haveing most of the world oile and gas + having influence over Muslim world. Even with 1908 mistake and joing the losing side of WW1 if it wasn't for stupid and naive Arab revolut in 1916 Ottoman would have continued - it is impossible to invade with WW1 technology without internal support ie arab revolut. Although joing ww1, Aramain genocide and Arab + Turk nationalism would be impossible if it wasn't for 1908. Ottoman Empire was only 50 yrs late to industrial thing due it takes time to implement. Mughal Empire is so big and powerful that it was more productive than industrial Europe, without being industrial. India what made UK. Capitalism is not the blame to so called 3 world poverty and problems but colonialism and neo-colonialism of NATO and CIA. Also because of over dose of capitalist extremism and extreme exploitation and craziness what caused those things. Basically mis use of capitalism ,racism + stupid supremacy and greed what caused things. Neo-colonialism is real thing. France for example 85% of it is economy depends on exploitation of western Africa. It is all about CIA , cold war and colonialism. Do u know that Ottoman Empire Sultanate could have would taking Spain and Portugal in just 10 yrs or so campaign in 16th or even 17th (especially during Solomon the magnificent period) century, but they didn't due 2 reasons: too expensive and money wise not going to make money + Morocco would have alot of Muslims die. Ottoman Empire could have took Venice intead of Vienna. Also they would took Vienna and half of Germany if it wasn't for Persia. Also all of that they didn't use their armies in Anatolia and Egypt which would have added at lest 400k soldiers to their 200k ish main professional army in Balkans. Mamluks had a very skilled professional force of 220k in Egypt of their own you may add (Which Napoleon Bonaparte destroyed).
@@ailediablo79 oh yeah there definitely was a good amount of stuff that I disagreed with or flat out think is wrong, like I think he hates on leftist things too much or ignores causes for things like international poverty or chaos in some areas. What I do like is that he isn’t unhinged in his deliver and admits at the start that his thoughts have faults and are subject to his personal biases.
A particularly destructive consequence of the underdog obsession is the idea that, in a conflict, the party with superior firepower is inherently in control of the situation. In actuality, the one in control is the current aggressor, which can be either party. You see this mentality in self defense scenarios like the Rittenhouse case, where people sympathize with the assailant(s) for being weaker, despite their violent intent, and where they effectively blame the fleeing defender for not allowing themselves to be assaulted or killed.
I think the general problem that most people have (I am talking about the ones that don't see Rittenhouse acting in self defense) is the fact he pre-meditated putting himself in harm's way through a great deal of effort (crossing state lines, carrying a firearm not legally allowed to own etc...)
@@jnb756 But I was told there are no borders, that there should be no laws anyone against him in that case is just a total retard that thinks chasing, threatening and attempting to murder someone means they shouldn't defend themselves
This falls apart the instant you understand "acting in my self interest is a virtue. It is The Good." Everyone should act in their self interest; to the extent they instead damage or sacrifice themselves, the equivalent value has to be supplied to them by others. Why would such self-abnegation be considered "good?" That is literally insane.
@@jasonmacfarlund2703 Not if it is a Platonic/Comte based ethics class, which preaches self-immolation, with the added twist: "if you won't sacrifice yourself, we'll get the government to force you to do it." True human ethics values self-sufficiency, productivity, long-range thinking, and independence. It does not focus on victimhood.
A general criticism: the video lacks structure. It's just a long rant. It's not special to this video. But on other topics, like countries , I find it easier to keep track of the points being made. Perhaps, sometimes, instead of showing random mildly related pictures, you can show a bullet point recap. Do this at every 5 minute interval or something. Make some of your points obvious by showing a "IF A THEN B" text. Like, "IF someone hides information THEN they are wrong" "IF a group is sacred THEN evil people try to become part of that group" Show small bits of text like that as you explain to help people keep track of the arguments being made.
Good video. Minor disagreements of course. But I really think the "The underdog is always good" and "There is always someone to blame" sections are the most important here. "The underdog is always good" section is important because this is a axiom that has taken over our society. Not only did it originate in the Christian ethos, but it was popularized through dystopian movies. I like to use Nietzschean terms, this is a slave morality in the most extreme sense. We often here the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" saying. While I think this is true in some cases, I think the opposite is true in other cases. Absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely. Nietzsche said this as well. I'm forgetting the quote word for word, but he essentially said that if you spend too much time fighting monsters, you will likely become one yourself. And to remember that when you gaze into the darkness, the darkness gazes back into you. "There is always someone to blame" is good too. I think there is definitely more than human will at play in history. And this is why I really don't like to take a moralizing view of things. For example, I'm someone who is really opposed to globalism, I see it as a negative force in the world, and it will lead to consequences that might as well be considered crimes against humanity. But I hesitate to call globalists or elites who perpetuate this agenda evil. People don't do evil things just for the sake of it. More often then not, they really do think that what they are doing is good. Evil for evil's sake is exceedingly rare. And this helps you avoid conspiratorial thinking or the marvel movie syndrome.
Not sure what you mean by marvel movie syndrome but the weird thing about globalist elites is that they have good intentions but absolutely horrible thinking processes so they are evil because they are extremely good in a sense
Agreed. People do things they think are right. I hate how currently, people are first to call others evil. There are definitely evil people who only care about themselves, their wealth, and growing their power. But, they're often a small small minority. The average person isn't. To put it in modern context, I don't think Biden is evil; foolish on certain ideas but he is human. I didn't think Trump was evil, foolish but he was human. I don't think either are fit for public office. But, if we start calling people evil and devils because we disagree with them; there will be no progress and a better world. Extremists are the danger to the world, they warp the world artiificially around them and get others to join in.
You my friend are a level of balanced that went the way of the buffalo. I can’t stress enough that people like yourself who can consume, compartmentalize and relay it all back with no personal angle is a rare thing. You would be one hell of journalist. Great topic and video
I dont always agree with all your points, but theyre mostly very interesting and leave me with something to think about. You have a unique perspective and youre not afraid to speak your mind, which I respect
The problem with trying to guilt me by bringing my society and ancestors into it, is they were not thinking about me at really and aren’t at this moment. We’ve been shown that working in our own self interest and for pleasure it better. Social media exacerbates it terribly, now ever crazy in their home town can be on full display and get a bunch of attention and spiral. A majority of us are normal people who don’t wanna worry too much and live a regular life because we see the world burning all around us, because of the pessimistic world views and general actual problems. I myself skipped college to get right into IT and my 30k a year at 20 work only 2 days a week. I party and chill, with my other days but I’m able to pay all my bills no problem and am looking for more work and streams of income. My friends circle and even just people I know from highschool are a majority like me or in college. Not a tiktok star, serial killer rapper, scoop shooter, tidepod eating degenerate. Btw like 10 people ate tidepods, most of them actual children, but people started calling use the tidepods generation as a joke
12:29 "Just a century ago, we believed, that races were discrete biological groups, that were wildly different, (...), that humans were blank slates with no inherent characteristics, (...)" Yes, but what you are missing is, that these were never believed by the same people and at the same time. They are inherently contradictory, and blank slate theory is a consequence to the (arguably) overemphasis on inherent traits during and before WW2. Both of these positions are inherently ideological, and as it is with all science, with touches politically relevent questions, the truth is polluted by power. Famously, Soviet maths still worked, whereas biology (Lysenkoism) and Psychology did not. Because they were politically and ideologically relevant, and powerful ideas outcompeted true ideas in the "marketplace". On race differences for example, this is something that can not easily be studied, and where there are incentives to ignore certain results or be more critical of them, since colorblindness (and for the left even outgroup preference) is one of the most fundamental morals in our post war society. So I don't think we are as much wiser on these questions as you think.
"Blank slate theory" today is basically a strawman. Nobody actually believes it, but it's easier to argue against than the claims people actually make. Those being, broadly speaking, that 1) systematic differences in behaviour between people from different societies are due to nurture, not nature and 2) human behaviour is quite flexible because our brain is designed to be strongly moulded during our upbringing, so "human nature" as an obstacle to societal change is generally overstated by people who would prefer things didn't change. Jumping from "in-group preference is a typical human trait" to "my society's perception of who belongs in what group is natural and universal", for example.
29:06 I once heard an interpretation, that the scapegoat represented the people whose sins were forgiven, on the theory that the goat, once released into the wilderness, would wander around a while and then find its way back to its herd.
I did the same that you did. I studied more once I retired and really found out that I had believed many social myths most of my life. It can cause despair if thought about too much.
And here I was thinking Number 1 would be how the global art trade is a giant tax evasion and money laundering scam, and the traded artworks actually having no true value.
My position is that if the only two options are someone doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, or someone else doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, I'll chose the latter. I can forgive the former, but the choice is really simple.
34:00 this is fascinating in contrast to the way a society like Japan developed where honorable suicide and risk taking warriors became the norm for the better part of 600 years
23:00-23:44 you just slapped me harder than Will Smith with that. I now see why I've been so unhappy with my life, I let myself stagnant as a sort of pseudo revenge against my parents but all it did was slowly whittle me down. I'm changing that now, I'm 32 years old but now i endeavor to create and foster a family of my own and continue the legacy of my parentage. Whatifalthist you're like my Elrond when he told Aragon, "Put aside the ranger, become who you were born to be."
Go Woke…. Go Broke. Mr. WhatIfAltHist, you are not a hater and you speak the truth and you need not apologize. Keep up the good work sir and God bless you and God bless America.❤✝️😇🙏🗽🇺🇸
> Postures against wokecel groupthink and champions individual liberty > Goes on a "git off my lawn" diatribe about how mumble rap is destroying western civilization > I should be an individual critical thinker, questioning everything, but if I don't come to the same conclusions as you do "there's something very wrong" with me Wym you don't know your biases. You're a paleocon with extra steps. Neopaleocon lol Honestly a lot of your thinking is p insightful and I like the channel but I just dont get how you warn about moral and ideological traps only to fall into them headfirst and screaming 5 seconds later
That would be interesting indeed, the outcomes are exact opposites while the ideology behind it isn't. There might be something to learn here, perhaps a lesson on extremism.
I think the mine problem whit today left and right its they take idolgly and reviewing them on text only and ignoring the reality.. that's every plan in Human history crushed right into a wall whan exposed to reality.
@@michabodnar7739 I’m aware of that and watched the video. But specifically I’d want him to show why the Norwegian model is so good in comparison to other attempts at socialism. It would debunk right-wingers bellyaching that “socialism never works” and tankies wanting to point to the Norwegian model as an excuse to go back to Stalinist Russia.
Even though art is just laundering money, modern art is so beautiful in what everyone sees in it and shouldn’t be put down and compared to old paintings, even though they seem simple, some take dumb amounts of effort to make and even more to replicate.
"as women gain more influence in society, feminine values like not exerting discipline gain more traction" We are living in a gynocentric society -- the bible pretty much warned us in the first few chapters lol.
Men have made the world as it is today. Men have maintained the world to this day. Women have simply reaped the rewards of an already existing system and snugly placed themselves in it. Women could not run the world even if they were given all the reins of power. It would be a emotional and disorganized mess. Research indicates that in all "democratic" nations, as time goes by, females vote for more and more laws that allow for more government intervention in all areas of life. They also vote for laws that give "free money" to the "deserving" and other such groups. And who pays for all this? Men through their work and taxes. It is truly the decline of the west.
You know you are living in a gynocentric society when the main idea is that you can solve social problems by giving social groups nicer words to name them by.
There are two aspects to men, the constructive impulse and the destructive impulse. Likewise, there are two aspects to women, the maternal impulse and the bitchy impulse. The problem we have as a society is we don't balance things towards the healthy aspect of our selves. If you want to know what's wrong with our society, just look at the modern left. They're obsessed with the marxist goal of "destroying the old order" while simultaneously taking on the worst feminine impulse of being extremely bitchy and narcissistic. It's impossible to create something good when you're obsessed with violent destruction and bitchy self-importance. So no, the world isn't too "feminine", our society is just plain toxic.
@@joshuarichardson6529 Even as they have destroyed through the centuries, men have created far more than they have demolished. Deep down in human evolution, the violent importace given by the human male to the human female was and is for one singular purpose: The female had the ability to nurture life within her. One male and a hundred females provide enough genetic variation for the tribe to continue. Not so the other way around. The male possessivesness of his female(s) is the manifestation of that ancient embedded genetic urge. It may superficially show itself as other emotions, but deep down that is what it is. He who controlled access to the female controlled the passing of his genes and continuation of his tribe. The terrible "honor killings" in the Islamic world is one extreme example. The vast majority of females serve no other purpose that having and rearing children. And it is no small purpose. Men do everything else...as they always have.
I hate how people that are left leaning act like you're some kind of alt-right spokesman. I'm LGBTQ and your videos are some of the greatest sources of positivity in my life. I live in LA and I am surrounded by people trying to blackpill me into hating myself and the world around me, but I refuse to. Thanks for always putting out thought provoking and genuinely inspiring rants. I leave your videos feeling inspired meanwhile I leave my own communities' "online safe spaces" feeling uncomfortable and stressed out. Thank you for contribution to culture and society Rudyard!
Well that's an interesting thing I see mentioned a lot. I feel like if you surveyed people that identified as left and right on their favorite topics to research for fun, and didn't make it be a multiple choice thing, you'd find that history would be more of a thing conservatives would list as an interest at higher rates than liberals. So maybe it's just a trend in the feedback loop between personal interests/experiences affecting worldviews?
Just found your channel, I like the way you choose to interact with information, lots of interesting thoughts here and thanks for taking the time to put these together.
"There's no such thing as bad information, there is only the truth." This was my exact thought the other day when cleaning out my bookcase. You're my number one UA-cam channel for philosophy and geopolitics any day of the week!
the book "the selfish gene" is precisely abouot how entirely "selfish" genetic machinery can produce creatures that are not. possibly one of dawkins greatest works
I'm very disappointed in Richard Dawkins as a person but his books in biology and the Selfish Gene in particular are brilliant and everyone should read it.
Hey Ruyard! It looks like you’re currently active in the comments and I just wanted to thank you for the practically humanitarian work you’re doing with this channel. I’ve grown up in an area which would hold most of what you describe in your videos as propaganda or baseless fiction. Your capacity to efficiently articulate a topic as nuanced as history has been massively reassuring to me personally. You understand history as not just a dialectic, but human nature in relation to time. Thank you for that. I really do love what you’re doing man and I just wanted to implore you to help grow an accessible community through some platform beyond patreon or pearl. I’m not saying make a discord server but, something akin to it not stuck in beta like pearl seems to be would be fantastic. It seems by your own words you know that many of your ideas contrast the popular conscious, and as a fan it would mean the world to be able to interact with people who see the same value in the conclusions you’ve come to. Thank you again man, and I hope you appreciate how you’re helping people like me on a personal level. God bless.
"I’ve grown up in an area which would hold most of what you describe in your videos as propaganda or baseless fiction." Are you willing to say which area?
@@SayNoToDemocide1 I won’t dox myself. That said, a prominent college town with a strong artist culture, in one of the larger North American metropolitan areas which itself has a history of greater political activity.
I live in Pennsylvania. It's mostly rural towns and it's so peaceful. it helps you forget the world around you, and you feel connected to nature. I didn't know you were from PA! that's so fun to know.
I love the way you told a lie about reality when you announced "#7" as"#6". See 18:48 . I don't know if this is intentional or not, but if it is, this video is even more brilliant than is self evident.
I'm not from PA, but I was always told it's the Keystone State because it was the foundation of the Republic of the United States, and where the American Revolution originated.
The second one is a lesson i've learned well this last year and even wanted to write a story on where good intentions often result in horrific failures or are simply ineffective or exploited by others with ill intentions for their own ends
@@thenew4559 Oh of course i've seen it all the time for villains but rarely have I seen a plot that explores the theme of doing things that feel "bad" but produce good results. Usually when a hero does it the plot ends with them wallowing in it and lamenting their fall
@@AmariFukui Affirmative action is a good real world example. In order to correct past wrongs many universities lowered the standards of acceptance for minorities with the intention of providing more opportunity to disadvantaged groups. This often results in a student poorly matched for their specific ability, which increases the likelihood of failure and drop-out. Had the student been accepted into a less prestigious university they would have had a greater likelihood of succeeding and graduating. Instead they are left with a Harvard acceptance letter, student debt and no degree. When institutions fail to calculate the outcome of their policies, they are performing PR to make themselves look good. Unfortunately this is how most institutions act, whether corporate, academic or political.
The comments about how people aren’t living up to what their parents invested into them was correct, at the same time parents haven’t been investing in the next generations for a while, on a large scale at least. With everything happening today I feel like I haven’t done enough for my children, when at the same time I know people my age that still live at home (I am 40 and don’t see this as part of your statement, or a good thing). I understand that not everyone will see things in the same positive/negative light that I do, but I feel like people have gotten away from what we fundamentally know as right or wrong mainly because of poor parenting… the laws and the government welfare programs didn’t help the dynamic family.
My father did a lot to keep the family well off. My mother was a penniless whore who tore it down bottle in hand. It makes me conflicted about the "happy young days" before 9 years old. I was too naive to understand how fucked it was.
Parents invest in their children in a way that made sense when they self grew up. Take for example the great increase of university students in many Western countries. They have grown much faster than the available jobs. Which means that many students will never work with the things they studied. They would have earned more if they had become plumbers. But few young become plumbers since it was a low status job when their parents were young.
A friend once said to me 'Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see' which I found agreement with, but in retrospect I would add 'the opposite of what you read'
Ironically, the current art trade where painters such as Rothko are valued at millions is artificial and based on ideological propaganda. 150-200 years ago the art trade consisted of mostly furniture or decorative arts which people inherited or sold as they did with jewelry, and painting did not have the gravitas and glamour it had today. The currents of the 20th century hailed conceptual art which was often done with cheap materials (in contrast to the exotic woods furniture or coral and silver cutlery of the centuries past) and that is how it became so valued today. It is one part of these ideas of perpetual social Revolution, as these 20th century painters and sculptors were valued not for the quality of their work, but solely for revolutionizing the medium
Rather than propaganda, it's tax evasion: the sales tax does not cover art pieces, so millionaires buy pseudo-art and the artists keep the money for the millionaire, maybe getting a little chunk for it, but still making it worth it for the rich person.
Criticism for the following: 23:00 "I often hear the argument that being a loser is your choice and you should be respected for it--which is not true. Your parents raised you and you are letting down all the investment they put into you. Your ancestors struggled and died to produce you and you have an innate loyalty to your society which provides for you" -Being a loser is absolutely anyone's choice -Nobody ought to respect anything. The same way one can choose to be a loser, one can choose to look down on another because of it. Argument: People did sacrifices for you Counter point: So what? Imagine something you don't like. Maybe it's eating eggplants, watching golf or whatever. Now imagine someone gifts you an expensive meal/ticket/whatever about that thing you didn't like. They used their resources on you instead of themselves. Instead of purchasing that expensive meal/ticket/whatever for you, they could have bought something for themselves. Does that bind you to enjoy and appreciate what the person gifted you? No. As you said, we all make choices and they are subjective. No one is bound by anything but by the laws of physics. That being said, no one is born wanting to be a loser (or at least, very few people). If someone just wants to be a loser, that probably indicates that something else is wrong. Perhaps they are lonely. Perhaps they feel unaccomplished. Perhaps they lack a sense of direction. Whatever it is, the solution certainly ISN'T giving them a guilt trip about how the world died for them.
There's this cool paradox that the more individual responsibility for how your life turns out is relevant, the higher the suicide rates. Greek tragedies were all about common people being struck by disgraceful events, it made the population comfortable with their struggle, but here we are in our enlightened postmodern world, telling people they're losers and they're completely responsible for every misfortune that made them end up this way.
1- 2:25 - People are always only self interested
2- 6:40 - Intentions = results
3- 11:02 - We have any idea on the big questions
4- 13:32 - The underdog is naturally good
5- 15:14 - Religion and science are at odds
6- 18:49 - We listen to what people say not what they do
7- 20:30 - The subjective doesn't exist and judging is always bad
8- 24:30 - Information can be harmful
9- 26:49 - The world is naturally fair or balanced
10- 29:05 - There's always someone to blame
11- 30:33 - Purposely misunderstanding people is ok
12- 32:23 - People are all genetically the same
Thank you
This should be the top comment, or he should pin it.
@@thenew4559 Definitely
thank you
Number 4 is kind of funny when you remember the CSA, WW2 Germany and the Soviet Union are all weaker than their enemies and are all underdogs.
The biggest misconception is that it's possible to watch Whatifalthist's videos without pausing to read the text in it😂
Putting 100 charts with small texts is just a joke put on people without photographic memory,- because they'll end up forgetting to listen and thus miss out on the story and why the graph was relevant.
Facts 😹🔥😹
That' really annoying
Truth!
Facts
"When somebody tries to hide information, it means that they know they're on the losing side of the argument but want to keep power"
YES !
Hey, i figured out how to build an atomic bomb with houshold suplies... Let's get this on the daily newspaper
@@dirtyduck6987 Might as well. Any clever person can find out how. It's not a big secret. David Hahn made a reactor in his backyard.
@@dirtyduck6987 If you consider Plutonium to be a "household supply" then you're doing something wrong.
Ah, but of course they're not hiding information. They're just drawing a hard line against false information. People's subjective opinions matter after all, and we cannot afford to suspend judgment about other people's choices in misinformation.
I can publish why a medicine should be prescribed and how to do it, but unless a person can objectively apply the principles in correcting underlying pathophysiology, chaos will result. Take for example the opioid overdose epidemic today. Opioid prescriptions went through the roof when regulations for prescribing authority were thinned. Massive pharmaceutical opioid dependency followed. Predictably, cheap fentanyl filled the void when the Rxes stopped. Hello overdoses and death.
"The modern art movement"
Yes, I am also familiar with the money laundering art movement
As my professor once said: "The real Art - the works that truly come from deep within a human's soul - aren't seen in galeries nowadays. Art has been pushed back to making murals in caves, now digital or made of concrete, but maybe thats a necessary reset, and retreat from a world that sees no value beyond the price tag."
You just don't get it man. I cry every time I see solid blocks of color on a large canvas or random splatters on even larger canvasses.
Modern art disregards aesthetics; the biological reaction to visual information.
@@mst5g826 I cried after your comment won the interwebZ
@@davidcollins2648 like drawing sacred geometry?
The biggest lie is that Whatifalthist is a real person
I'm really three kids in a trenchcoat
@@WhatifAltHistNext video what if whatifalthist was a real person instead of three kids in a trechcoat
Should’ve been the April fools video
@@WhatifAltHist Not unlike the very adult Vincent Adultman!
@@bean181 its not a joke he is an NPC lol
22:59 “You can say I’m out of touch and uncool, but can you say I’m wrong?” This line right here is amazing
he's right tho that people will try to undercut you like that when they just think the truth is uncomfortable
"The reason why some people like to think that everyone is self-interested, is so that they can't be expected to be good people".
That is so true.
Asmongold in a nutshell.
There are no good people, and everyone is self interested.
My favorite truism about people, "People aren't basically good or evil. They're generally ok, pretty dumb, and self centered"
In other words, evil
@@arcanum3882
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons
Good and evil is clearly in the mind of the beholder. But I agree all people are selfish and that comes from the curse of having minds constrained to our sole perspective.
@@arcanum3882 By whose standards? The desire to stay alive, and not die, is a fundamentally "self-centered" worldview, that not only every human, but every single wild animal nature ever created, feels. So by those standards, life itself is evil. But try to tell anybody that a cute bunny rabbit is evil, because it selfishly refuses to die, and you will mostly get laughed at.
You see how your overly simplistic, backhanded labelling of "good" and "evil" breaks down against hard reality?
I usually use what I call "Sturgeon's 2nd order Corollary":
"90% of people are decent 90% of the time"
you can replace decent with almost anything.
"Decline in religion has made people treat politics as a substitute for religion". I've had this exact realization years ago, word by word.
The myth of "The underdog is always good" too. Definitely one of your best videos.
In America people do that. Not here in Europe despite us being less religious
When I asked my friends whether word definitions are driven by public use or by dictionaries, I found that the overwhelming majority of them and our acquaintances think dictionaries are the sole authority. And those “official” authorities (which shift definitions depending on the subject) are their God. So institutional authority is wider America’s God now.
Goes a long way toward explaining the new conformists.
@@WisdomThumbs Well, I am a little guilty of that but I'll tell you why. Of course language changes and that is natural, but it's extremely useful especially for nuanced discussions and topics to have a universal language to exchange meaning. When everyone runs around with "their own definitions" meaning is lost or hard to translate, and it not only slows down but entirely muddles and confuses discourse.
@@TheBarser that really isn’t true. There are plenty of fanatics in Europe who have the same mindset.
@@fourthwall2533 not many, but yeah the Poles reminds me a bit of conservative Americans.
Watching your videos is a ride that consists of agreeing with something you say, then disagreeing with something you say immediately afterward.
I love it, it makes me grow as a person.
Beautiful mindset to be had. ✨😌
Dude, your "why is the world crazy" is by far the video that I appreciated the most. No joke, for like 2 years before that video dropped I had been frequently wondering "is it me, or is the world getting fucking crazy." Your explanation on how global competition and immigration had depressed wages for almost EVERY country in the world and how demographic pressure on certain countries are causing them to act more unpredictably and aggressively really made me see the world in a way I had never even considered
For me that is basic stuff, spoken frequently in economics at least. However the general public is largely too stupid and ignorant to understand the real issue. These things are not covered in mass media which focuses on current events, not long time scale phenomena, as they are too difficult to analyse. The issue gets politicised heavily, with the left-wing socialists and globalists being in favor of immigration per se regardless of consequences and the extreme right being racist and xenophobe against immigrants, regardless of consequences. You could have the most enlightened discussion on the matter with social scientists but the moment party ideologically motivated start to discuss the matter it just gets to vicious bickering.
@@tj-co9go lmao both sidesing lmao. What consequences? Who do you think causes the consequences and the immigration to begin with? stop making this seem like some sort of bipolar issue both of which are on the same level morally.
"global competition and immigration had depressed wages" And this is both a blessing, as everything becomes cheaper, and a curse, because you earn less. I don't think the human of the future is going to be a salary-man worker, its impossible there will ever be enough jobs, unless we accelerate the rate of creating bullshit jobs (the problem is that people are already too much unhappy). The trend will only continue with even more automation. The end game of industrialization is taking the human out of the loop.
@@ambatuBUHSURK "What consequences?" cheap labor makes things cheap, is there another ? like cheaper immigrants taking jobs you don't want either way... (or are too stupid to get even from your compatriots, then you blame on immigrants, because of your they are "stealing your job", you are clearly not dumb enough to not find an excuse, but dumb enough to not get the job and blame on them )
@@ambatuBUHSURK those migrants don't come out of nowhere y'know.
"Star Wars and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." -Rudyard, probably
Isn’t your phrase a reference to Gustave Flaubert quote « Socrates death and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race » ?
@@thomascatty379 It's most likely a reference to the Unabomber's famous quote on the Industrial Revolution (it became a meme now). Although, that in itself sounds like a reference to Flaubert's quote.
@Gus Fring Porter at first, that’s what I was thinking. Those sequels were not correct. Add the trauma from the Transformers and any meaning this existence achieved has been called into question.
It ain’ wrong
1. 2:25 - People Are Always Only Self Interested
2. 6:42 - Intentions = Results
3. 11:03 - We Have Any Idea on Big Questions
4. 13:34 - The Underdog is Always Good
5. 15:16 - Religion and Science are at Odds
6. 18:49 - We Listen to What People Say NOT What they do
7. 22:32 - The Subjective Doesn't Exist and Judging is Always Bad
8. 24:30 - Information Can Be Harmful
9. 26:50 - The World is Fair or Balanced
10. 29:05 - There's Always Someone to Blame
11. 30:35 - Purposely Misunderstanding People Is Ok
12. 32:23 - People Are ALL Genetically The Same
this is an example for a person which is not always self interested. thank you.
@@norsie45 he's arguing with a strawman on that point. Notice how he didn't mention anyone or any group when he's making he's case against it.
Punching at the air is what I'd call it
So these are all the truth or lies
You’re the real mvp.
@@AllYourMemeAreBelongToUs ikr these people are saviour
I don't agree with a some of what this guy says, but he truly revolutionised the way I look at the world
Based
yeah i always like how much i can learn from the comments section as well, its nice to have ppl watching that know about the topics covered more in depth than whatifalthist
There is few micro stuff wrong here.
200 yrs ago the world population where not 90% or anything like that poor. In Mughal Empire Sultanate a big majority group of the population for each individual has their own weight in gold. Also there was a welfare system too. China and Gunpowder Empires where crazy rich. West Africa was rich too. Native American Empires where rich too. That is where majority of the world population lived. Up to 1750s Ottoman Empire Sultanate was on top in everything and China had largest and most powerful navy mankind had ever seen (in terms of size it is the largest overall in all of history). The thing that changed things is the steam engine idea. The population of Africa outside the north, west and north east is very tiny unlike today.
UK got veeeery extremely lucky with India colonization. If it wasn't for collapse of Mughal Empire Sultanate (it was there for 800ish yrs , it just reached it is end of life span and had 50% of their leaders bad) it would impossible even with WW1 technology for UK alone and very difficult and not worth it even if all of Europe planed together due to the population size + army and police size, land size, many different geographies , strong centralization, money and welth and resources they had. Mughal Empire lecturely had a bigger army with advance technology and equipment plus other stuff bigger than the entire population of the UK islands few times over. They could also if necessary make it even bigger. The military technology of the equipment wasn't that much behind on average the UK. The thing uk had was silty better gunpowder and muskets. The Indian and Ottoman canons and other siege equipment where much better than even Germany at the same time. They had tone of elephants which is a game changer in the way they used them for logistics, carring, as tanks and builders.
The one that give the final hit on Ottoman Empire in Mediterranean is Napoleon Bonaparte destroying Ottoman navy and mainland Egypt due to him being Napoleon.
In Ottoman Empire even before WW1 and especially befor 1908 people where living better lives than majority average population did in London.
Muslims and Women in general where nontaxable - untaxable. Monopolies and interest/usury where prohibited + bank power very limited + you get Zakat money when necessary. Very little poor people and they get hlep. You had there too free healthcare for anyone on Ottoman soul.
Ottoman Empire just got too tired from being fighting everyone around it: Russia, Europe and Iran for 400+ yrs around the clock. 3 fronts + competing with Spain and Portugal in Indian Ocean too. UK and Ottoman empire where very frindly up until around Napoleon Bonaparte times. Other thing Ottoman Empire trusted it is so called Ailes too much.
If it wasn't for 1908 and joing ww1 Ottoman Empire would have been as powerful if not more powerful than Japan + haveing non of Japan weaknesses/disadvantages in a very geopolitical strategic location + haveing most of the world oile and gas + having influence over Muslim world. Even with 1908 mistake and joing the losing side of WW1 if it wasn't for stupid and naive Arab revolut in 1916 Ottoman would have continued - it is impossible to invade with WW1 technology without internal support ie arab revolut. Although joing ww1, Aramain genocide and Arab + Turk nationalism would be impossible if it wasn't for 1908. Ottoman Empire was only 50 yrs late to industrial thing due it takes time to implement.
Mughal Empire is so big and powerful that it was more productive than industrial Europe, without being industrial. India what made UK.
Capitalism is not the blame to so called 3 world poverty and problems but colonialism and neo-colonialism of NATO and CIA. Also because of over dose of capitalist extremism and extreme exploitation and craziness what caused those things. Basically mis use of capitalism ,racism + stupid supremacy and greed what caused things. Neo-colonialism is real thing. France for example 85% of it is economy depends on exploitation of western Africa. It is all about CIA , cold war and colonialism.
Do u know that Ottoman Empire Sultanate could have would taking Spain and Portugal in just 10 yrs or so campaign in 16th or even 17th (especially during Solomon the magnificent period) century, but they didn't due 2 reasons: too expensive and money wise not going to make money + Morocco would have alot of Muslims die. Ottoman Empire could have took Venice intead of Vienna. Also they would took Vienna and half of Germany if it wasn't for Persia. Also all of that they didn't use their armies in Anatolia and Egypt which would have added at lest 400k soldiers to their 200k ish main professional army in Balkans. Mamluks had a very skilled professional force of 220k in Egypt of their own you may add (Which Napoleon Bonaparte destroyed).
some of the information about even people a few years his juniors is a little off, however the points made still stand. I love his stuff too, and this was no different
It's nice to watch someone who's actually optimistic about the long term future for once,
Standing in front of a Mark Rothco work and crying: exactly my reaction when I’m told this piece of flimflam is worth $85 million.
The art game is a money laundering vehicle.
Trash 🗑
Your Gen Z video, 12 Lies series, and "Why are people so unhappy" are really great videos. All of your videos are great, but your philosophy videos are in the top tier. Despite how depressing a lot of them can be, I always walk away with a new perspective and strange sense of optimism. Can't wait to watch this one.
I generally agree. But out of his previous videos, I didn’t really like the Gen Z video. He had a lot of really great highs in it, but also some really low lows. I just want him to stay out of partisan politics. I hate it. It’s one of the most evil environments you can enter. I don’t want him to enter that evil rabbit hole. Besides for that, it was a decent video.
@@DarthHoosier3038 I'm glad someone agrees, although my main reason for being against it is because there are hundreds of other channels that partake in it. I want another civilization video.
Do you like biden?
@@Pedrohnm No
@@Pedrohnm Do you poo on your feet?
The sequel no one expected but everyone needed
You’re the man, man
Real talk
"The evidence I've seen shows no evidence of IQ differences based on ethnic group"
That was a politically sound move, Mr Whatifalthist.
Same with average height and skin color. Completely unrelated to ethnicity, per my uncited sources.
@@billbadson7598 Nice false comparisons. We can accurately measure the average height of an ethnicity or the darkness of their skin and do so empirically because we have the ability to measure these traits. We can't empirically measure Genetic I.Q. differences between groups because scientists haven't found the gene(s) associated with said I.Q. We can only make speculative guesses about it being 50-80% genetic through studies. And there are a lot of studies out there for both sides of this debate. Just like you have your speculative evidence via studies, the other side has theirs. For example, All major ethnic groups have a ton of low and high performers in them which has been well documented, even in the studies that you'd likely reference. Also, Nigerian immigrants outperform White Americans and White brits in educational attainment, which again, is also heavily documented in studies. As whatifalthist said, Black and white Americans raised on military bases outside the U.S. score the same which I'm not even going to bother fact checking because it is probably true, given that the U.S. military issues their version of the I.Q. test, and if you score the equivalent of 82 or below, you are flat out rejected. Quite frankly, Cherry picking the differences in physically exterior traits that we can accurately measure and trying to compare them to genetically innate ones that we can not is a particularly dim-wit argument, especially considering all humans are 99.99% genetically alike meaning we have more similar genes than not so you can't even try to apply that line of thinking to your stance.
Regardless of whether you like it or not, It stands to reason that all groups possess these Gene(s) since all groups have a mixture of high and low end performers in I.Q, but due to cultural or environmental differences, only certain groups have been able to utilize said gene(s) on a larger scale. It is kind of sad though, that Out of all the thought provoking things whatifalthist said in this video, this is what you chose to focus on. Yeah as the op commenter said, it was a politically sound stance to take, but the politically sound move is probably right here, and you will never be able to prove it wrong until scientists finally identify the gene(s) responsible for I.Q. and test their prevalence among different ethnic groups. Until then, it is all speculation and a plethora of speculative evidence exists for both sides. Just judging off your dim-wit false equivalency comparisons, you probably shouldn't even be trying to argue on behalf of the side that you support, because it is pretty clear to anyone with a brain that you fall on the lower end of the spectrum and would likely lack the gene(s) that the scientists will eventually identify lmao.
@@user-to2jw7nb8v 95IQ post
@@billbadson7598 it's funny because all you've got to respond to a full-fleged commentary disproving your bs is "NiNeTy-FiVe iQ pOsT".
Thus proving that you are both an idiot and don't care about the truth.
@@billbadson7598 Nice ad hominem to go with your false equivalency fallacy. We can measure height, We can apply skin color to ethnicities, but we literally can't test for differences in how much I.Q. is hereditary between ethnicities without identifying the Gene(s) you idiot. Sad thing is, I bet your I.Q. is even lower than that lmao
I’m a professional artist with an MFA from a top NYC school. The entire high end art market is basically money laundering/tax evasion scheme. The doc “Mona Lisa’s Smile” is a good primer.
I am also an art graduate and I absolutely hate the current artificial state of the art trade. Afaik, the art trade was more focused around furniture and decorative arts that people sold in times of need or inherited, like jewelry, and about 150 years ago painting was more of a minor art that didn't have the importance and glamour it has today.
Been that way since abstract
I'm a blue collar worker from rural Minnesota and that's the same conclusion I've come to from my research on the subject. The thing is it's super easy to hyperinflation the value of a 1 of a kind piece and muesums love donations of expensive of a kind pieces. The art industry was practically begging to be used for money laundering and tax evasion. My only real complaint is that for some reason this also means that modern art sucks.
If you want to dive deeper, look up the CIA support of art in the 60’s and Jeffery Epstein’s connection to NYAA. It’s all real.
Which I found ironic considering he peddled a lie on a video about lies within our reality.
"People have cried looking at his art." Realizing that the used toilet paper on the wall is worth more than a thousand doctors education and salaries for the next ten years. I'd cry too.
I really dont want to hear your opinions on Pink Floyd
LOL
Life.. what a mysterious thing.
Unfortunately the art that is bought for the most money is often not relevant to the skill or ability of the artist to capture something true about the human condition, but reflect the whims and taste of the ultra rich and wealthy, however good or bad that may be.
@@nashton9964 Tastes in art are opinions, how are there good or bad opinions?
I don’t know if I’m alone on this but I’d love a consolidated reading list of books you’d recommend for anyone trying to expand their knowledge on topics you talk about and reference in your videos. Thank you for the fun, educational, and interesting content!
Check the Community section. He listed about a 100 some time last year.
Bowling Alone seems to be a book he keeps bringing up.
No, you are not alone, I would love to have a book list too! 🥰
I’m glad there is someone who can explain their views well, and who also has reasonable views. I hope to make videos like this someday.
Thanks so much!
Terrific video, thanks! Re Stalin: He had an illness when he was about 10 months old that destroyed part of his prefrontal cortex. Lobaczewski mentions this in Political Ponerology, and there's a medical report about it available online.
I've read Stalin's smoking also gave him coronary thrombosis, which may have also damaged his brain and drove him to paranoia. Does Lobaczewski talk about that as well?
@@nathanseper8738 Stalin was rightfully “paranoid” in my opinion.
@@inaijik But did his paranoia come from the above trauma?
Stalin also had something wrong with one of his arms. I've read speculation that it was from childhood polio, or possibly being beaten by his father. This gave him a distinctive walk, one arm stiff at his side and the other swinging freely. Putin also walks this way.
@@Mattavilasa Putin walking that way is installed. I can't remember the full details. But it's basically a walk that is done so his right arm will always be close to his sidearm.
14:00 Ironically, Star Wars itself was highly inspired by the Vietnam War, where the ‘rebels’ weren’t really better than the ‘empire’.
I don’t think George Lucas was intending for Star Wars to create a view of underdog=good.
The Prequels actually tried to address this problem, with the Jedi Order itself being corrupt to an extent and flawed in a way that led to its downfall, and the outnumbered underdog Sith using its flaws against it.
The Clone Wars were horrifically brutal, extended, and accomplished very little other than to expand Palpatine’s power despite being based on genuine political grievances.
Unfortunately, the Prequels have their own problems that prevented them from becoming as influential as the Original Trilogy, and the Sequel Trilogy just copied off the Original Trilogy.
The prequel trilogy is understood to tell a story analogous to the rise of Nazi Germany.
+Fredinno What you said was addressed in my playlist "Complexities and nuance in Star Wars ] Morality in Star Wars", for anyone who isn't a big Star Wars fan.
Yeah I remember having a debate with another Star Wars fan about underdogs and how the good guys didn't always need to be the underdog and in real life and Star Wars the underdog isn't always good. Just because someone is weaker does not mean they aren't evil, or dangerous. If you really want to break romanticization of the underdog just remind everyone that Nazi Germany was the underdog in World War II fighting multiple Super Powers stronger than itself along with most of Europe.
One thing I have liked about recent star wars fiction, for all it's faults, is that in stories like the High Republic the villains are the underdogs. The Nihil and their leader are much weaker then the Republic and the Jedi they fight against, they are also undeniably the bad guys. It's a refreshing take.
@@ShamanMcLamie communism is a better example since nazi Germany not only had a reason to be so aggressive but they weren’t really the underdog since they were the ones attacking a lot of countries
The Crisis of the 21st century video and the original 12 lies about reality are my favorites on the channel. Keep up the great work, I really enjoy your philosophy videos while still keeping good geopolitical topics covered.
Do you think COVID vaccine is killing?
@@Pedrohnm how dumb are you dawg?
@@Pedrohnm yes
There is few micro stuff wrong here.
200 yrs ago the world population where not 90% or anything like that poor. In Mughal Empire Sultanate a big majority group of the population for each individual has their own weight in gold. Also there was a welfare system too. China and Gunpowder Empires where crazy rich. West Africa was rich too. Native American Empires where rich too. That is where majority of the world population lived. Up to 1750s Ottoman Empire Sultanate was on top in everything and China had largest and most powerful navy mankind had ever seen (in terms of size it is the largest overall in all of history). The thing that changed things is the steam engine idea. The population of Africa outside the north, west and north east is very tiny unlike today.
UK got veeeery extremely lucky with India colonization. If it wasn't for collapse of Mughal Empire Sultanate (it was there for 800ish yrs , it just reached it is end of life span and had 50% of their leaders bad) it would impossible even with WW1 technology for UK alone and very difficult and not worth it even if all of Europe planed together due to the population size + army and police size, land size, many different geographies , strong centralization, money and welth and resources they had. Mughal Empire lecturely had a bigger army with advance technology and equipment plus other stuff bigger than the entire population of the UK islands few times over. They could also if necessary make it even bigger. The military technology of the equipment wasn't that much behind on average the UK. The thing uk had was silty better gunpowder and muskets. The Indian and Ottoman canons and other siege equipment where much better than even Germany at the same time. They had tone of elephants which is a game changer in the way they used them for logistics, carring, as tanks and builders.
The one that give the final hit on Ottoman Empire in Mediterranean is Napoleon Bonaparte destroying Ottoman navy and mainland Egypt due to him being Napoleon.
In Ottoman Empire even before WW1 and especially befor 1908 people where living better lives than majority average population did in London.
Muslims and Women in general where nontaxable - untaxable. Monopolies and interest/usury where prohibited + bank power very limited + you get Zakat money when necessary. Very little poor people and they get hlep. You had there too free healthcare for anyone on Ottoman soul.
Ottoman Empire just got too tired from being fighting everyone around it: Russia, Europe and Iran for 400+ yrs around the clock. 3 fronts + competing with Spain and Portugal in Indian Ocean too. UK and Ottoman empire where very frindly up until around Napoleon Bonaparte times. Other thing Ottoman Empire trusted it is so called Ailes too much.
If it wasn't for 1908 and joing ww1 Ottoman Empire would have been as powerful if not more powerful than Japan + haveing non of Japan weaknesses/disadvantages in a very geopolitical strategic location + haveing most of the world oile and gas + having influence over Muslim world. Even with 1908 mistake and joing the losing side of WW1 if it wasn't for stupid and naive Arab revolut in 1916 Ottoman would have continued - it is impossible to invade with WW1 technology without internal support ie arab revolut. Although joing ww1, Aramain genocide and Arab + Turk nationalism would be impossible if it wasn't for 1908. Ottoman Empire was only 50 yrs late to industrial thing due it takes time to implement.
Mughal Empire is so big and powerful that it was more productive than industrial Europe, without being industrial. India what made UK.
Capitalism is not the blame to so called 3 world poverty and problems but colonialism and neo-colonialism of NATO and CIA. Also because of over dose of capitalist extremism and extreme exploitation and craziness what caused those things. Basically mis use of capitalism ,racism + stupid supremacy and greed what caused things. Neo-colonialism is real thing. France for example 85% of it is economy depends on exploitation of western Africa. It is all about CIA , cold war and colonialism.
Do u know that Ottoman Empire Sultanate could have would taking Spain and Portugal in just 10 yrs or so campaign in 16th or even 17th (especially during Solomon the magnificent period) century, but they didn't due 2 reasons: too expensive and money wise not going to make money + Morocco would have alot of Muslims die. Ottoman Empire could have took Venice intead of Vienna. Also they would took Vienna and half of Germany if it wasn't for Persia. Also all of that they didn't use their armies in Anatolia and Egypt which would have added at lest 400k soldiers to their 200k ish main professional army in Balkans. Mamluks had a very skilled professional force of 220k in Egypt of their own you may add (Which Napoleon Bonaparte destroyed).
@@thebender7458 i think i should stop commenting bye
One thing that really stuck with me from this vid: the act of ignoring someone's main point in a debate and just nitpicking, or being hypercritical of a student's spelling and ignoring the ideas they are putting forth. To make such behavior especially egregious, perform the nitpicking with either dismissiveness, as though the nitpicks somehow preempt any need to consider the main point, or with false concern, as though one is being fair... or both at the same time! These are both passive varieties of dishonesty. A more active variety would be to gauge what kind of person would value the main point being made, and then rather than address that main point, attack the person as being the opposite of that kind of person. The varieties of dishonesty are truly a morbidly fascinating characteristic of humanity.
It saddens me how many people my age seem to find sincerity something to be avoided; they find it impossible to do anything unironically. I won't pretend that I don't also act like this sometimes, but I hope that I can be genuine and serious when the time calls for it.
A perfect example is the other day when I was going to a party for my friend's birthday and met up with some others beforehand, one of whom I hadn't met before. The invite had jokingly asked everyone to "dress nicely" or something like that and so this guy was wearing a suit. When I complimented him on it he just said he was wearing it "ironically." I tried to ask him what was wrong with wearing a suit unironically but I never got an answer. I found it funny how he changed into a Rick and Morty jumper once we got to the party lol
I'm of the opinion that young people act that way, because of the fear of being seen as "weird". Showing true emotion is leaving yourself out there to be judged. A lot of people are ashamed of their interests, choosing to conceal them in irony, not realising that people appreciate it. I think it's connected to the fact that because of social media, teens are scared of failing and not being always perfect, so they feel like seriously trying something is meaningless and an easy way to be made fun of. Atleast that's my experience.
I do think it's because of the extreme competitiveness of our times, showing one's attitude also shows ones weaknesses, so the kids now create layers of lies about them to not have their real weaknesses exploited
"You can say I'm out of touch and uncool, but can you say I'm wrong?"
Quote of the year.
Why are you booing me?? I'm right!
@@thebrownchef
For a man so young, you are so very wise , introspective and able to "connect all the dots". I commend you and your parents for having such a fine mind.
Ditto !
How old is he?
@@NoRockinMansLand I think he's only in his 20's
Lie number 13: Just because you are older, you are always wiser. Wrong. This UA-camr is less than half my age, and yet I am taking advice from him! But, then again, maybe that is part of my wisdom: recognizing my own limitations and not being too proud to seek advice from anyone who shows good judgment and intellectual ability.
@@hroman5 he is 20
For number 4, star wars was a symptom rather than a cause. I think you forget that American fu damental foundational myth is that of a fledgling republic beating the "tyrannical empire" of king George. Stars wars existing or not, Americans would always dislike the idea of empire and prefer freedom fighters as long as they didn't directly attack us. While the southern culture was perfectly fine with opression and empire building, the northern culture which won the war of Southern Agression, hated empire and opression.
The southern culture was the one who opposed the American empire and it was the war of northern aggression you seem to have your history lopsided
@@luisandrade2254 sure thing buddy, the CSA literally wanted a "Golden Circle" of Slavery in the Caribbean.look it up
War of Southern aggression XD I see what you did there and I approve
@@luisandrade2254 Exactly
@@luisandrade2254 I found a Lost Causer!
The thing I found as I have gotten older is how lonely it becomes once you learn all the tricks that everyone lives their lives willfully believing.
You end up realizing how absolutely mad the majority of people are. Most people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about because they haven't even thought about the subject long enough to formulate a proper opinion.
I actually fun with this sort of thing at my last job on my last couple weeks. All the customers that would spout meaningless political bs for no reason, I would humor them. I would go "oh who is that, what did they did that's so bad?". And in 9/10 cases the person would pretty quickly realize they had no idea what or who it was they were mad and talking about. That is the sad sad state of the majority of your average people that are just going through life. They aren't thinking about anything. They aren't thinking about the reason they are doing the job they are doing, they aren't thinking about the stupid bs that drops out of their mouths, and they most definitely aren't thinking about wider repercussions to their actions. It's literally as if a muscle/part of the brain which these people have lost. They are as if functioning npcs, the perfect burnt out husk of a human to do a day job until their body fails.
comforting notion
Most people are just busy with other stuff. They only reason I'm as "wise" as I am now is cause I barely ever left my house and only had one friend as a kid. I don't think the cost of wisdom (lots of time to contemplate thoughts/opinions) is one that many people want to pay.
I wish I was more social as a kid. It's all about finding a balance that works for you, I guess. I'm still finding mine.
I’ve reached a very similar conclusion myself but it’s such a destructive way of processing life. It looks to me that many people are simply functioning npcs but it seems that sometimes they often willfuly block their inherent ability of reasoning and processing things in order to align more with their surroundings. However some people are a lost cause honestly. I find it fascinating that many of my peers at university fall in the second category. Although as @Average Prawn Hater has said it is very costly to venture into the world of knowledge and the unknown and even then many people are raised in an enviroment in which they where highly regulated and discouraged to question things and adopted that as a bad habit or became submissive to the reality of life. Anyways it is unfortunate that many of us have to suffer as lonely outliers in society just because we choose to be doubtful, rebellious, heretics who over-analyze and scrutinize most aspects of live even the mundane ones and generally commit to a pessimistic view of life and adopt anti-social behaviour which is honestly nothing but trouble.
You're absolutely right, but we ought to remember that most of us here tend to express value in some really quite abstract concerns: the cultivation and discovery of knowledge, wisdom, truth, etc. Whereas most people have a far more concrete set of self-related matters which take up most of their focus, fully investing their time and energy on finding truth in the mundane, the immediate, the here-and-now. We are like monks complaining about the lack of spiritual purity among the rabble outside our abbey. True, they care little for God out there in the village. But we monks too often are as apt to neglect the simple joys of spending time with friends and family and good food and ridiculous diversions.
Think of it like this: A wise man can find wisdom in just about any mode of being he chooses to live by, as in four basic ways of choosing to concern yourself with eternity and truth.
1. Why are we running after these miserable earthly pleasures? The only satisfaction is eternity.
2. Why run after the specter of eternity? Carpe diem! Grasp what you have here.
3. Why be caught in the contrast between eternity and temporary existence? The true wisdom is to seek eternity in fleeting temporary pleasures.
4. We are forever condemned between the two. A wise man accepts this.
Whatever position you take, you can sell it as wisdom.
@@Supreme_Goldfish you can’t truly
be wise without living with other people the main problem that overly social people fall into is not taking the time to analyse anything and just run with most convenient story
Tbh I thought the first lie about reality was gonna be modern art but then I realized it was the ad.
I kinda respect how he will just accept the money.
24:00 With regard to the current generation lacking judgement, and lacking the will to make judgements: this is a result of lacking a strong sense of identity. The whole act of identity comes from realizing what you are and what you are not. You have to choose certain attributes to pursue and certain attributes to suppress. That, in itself, is an act of judgement. A lot of modern people have anxiety over those decisions because they do not have a clear sense of a value hierarchy, so they are unsure of what to pursue and what to suppress. It's a terrible loop that leads to further inaction, further anxiety, further eroding of identity, and further lack of meaning and lack of judgement in their lives. And in their despair, they claim a moral victory for not being judgmental, trying to make sense of their suffering, because they have a wrong-headed definition of judgement.
6:33 I think that a large reason for this myth is that, as you said in your Gen Z video, childhood and the family just aren't that stable anymore. Children are designed to idealize their parents, and when they too early see parents quarreling and leaving each other (usually leaving the kid, too), they develop this kind of might-makes right worldview.
That is such a Conservative viewpoint that it is almost hard to comprehend.
The good old "stable" families in the past very not so stable or happy, but as a child you had a lot more ignorance than today .
@@TrashskillsRS the ignorance is the whole point!
@@TrashskillsRS A stable family, that is happy, is the best target to aim for.
@@therealextractedjuice A happy family is better than a stable unhappy family. For primarily religious reasons USA is very far behind in that understanding compared to most of the West
@@TrashskillsRS I said a stable happy family
In theory, I support paying high taxes since I’d rather have less money and better surroundings than the opposite. However, in practice, that doesn’t seem to be the case when I look at affluent but mismanaged cities on the West Coast for example.
I don't trust my taxes will be well implemented either
Bureaucratic capture is real. After the West Coast Mandarins get done with adding 7 layers of non-functional regulatory agencies, there is very little left for actual physical improvements.
This is the crisis of the rational left at the moment... For example I support mass transit and wish the US had a functional passenger rail network, but I also know that can never happen because every public transit agency in the country is perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy due to being treated as a hiring hall for patronage jobs and prioritizing unprofitable routes to benefit particular constituencies.
That’s why we should fight for transparency and repercussions.
it's happening everywhere now tho
I absolutely hate the saying "if they're not hurting someone it's ok" because 90% of the time they're hurting themselves whether it's by making it so that they have no social or family life or just your average health problems
All power to 'em lol
why cant people choose to hurt themselves? youre not their dad. i dont see how consenting pain can be morally wrong to the average person
@@t6amygdala just because someone allows bad things to happen to them doesn't stop it from being a bad thing I agree that depending on the severity you morally dont have to do anything but it definitely is morally wrong to tell them it's ok to do it
@@t6amygdala because people who hurt themselves invariably end up hurting everyone and everything around them. imagine one guy decides he should inject himself with powerful drugs. this makes him ill and poorly suited for accomplishing much of anything. the tax revenue he should have produced is instead a series of medical bills the nation takes on. the businesses he should have helped by working or by spending instead are criminal enterprises, meaning even more people make his mistake as the criminal underworld grows. his children and the other people's children grow up without their father's or mother's guidance. society collapses in on itself and millions starve or are lost in horrible power struggles as the state was unable to provide for its citizens. the citizens were all too busy suffering from overdoses and other health problems or consuming or producing the drug to continue as a society.
this is obviously an extreme example one can only see in a few countries at certain points in time, but at the city level this has happened many times. degeneracy does not create long lasting happy peoples, it creates only more degeneracy until it becomes unsustainable.
in short, people should not be encouraged to hurt themselves because they deserve better and so does everyone else. We deserve to have some output (economic, cultural) for our input (same).
@@boldCactuslad i stopped reading as soon as you mentioned stealing money from a drug addict. youre a horrible person if you support taxation in the first place, let alone from people who’re at rock bottom.
"There are people in society who are literally evil."
*BASED AF*
I agree with what you wrote 10:00 very strongly. We’ve linked cultural or ideological values with pragmatic political policies that have nothing to do with such. For example, if you’re pro LGBT you ALSO have to pro environment or if you’re for lax gun rights you and outdoor living you have to also be pro military spending. It’s dangerous and nonsensical to align cultural values with political decisions.
Yeah, and if you fall outside of those boxes you get hate from all sides. Though there's some degree of amusement to be had in that, it's also often lonely.
@@someonesomeone25 I know, right? Why can’t I both believe climate change is real and a HUGE detriment to human life AND hate communism and think Stalin was a bad dude? Can’t dude that I guess.
IMO it's because the "why" of those policies comes from a common myth. That of the magical native american in tune with nature and uncorrupted by European social conventions. Environmentalism can be right wing in Europe (though even there it is associated with fringe factions like English traditional Catholics), but in North America it's too bound up in this mythology to be anything else.
@@ingold1470 Environmentalism is right-wing in Europe? And how is it associated with traditional Catholics?
My guy, you can have those beliefs, talk to anybody in real life and nobody is gonna hate you for that
About the "if the universe is so big, why haven't we found any aliens yet?"
We haven't found anything concrete because the universe is grotesquely huge, people don't really understand the distance between Earth and the moon, let alone the sheer scale of orion's arm alone.
There is also a theory that the reason we haven't found any intergalactic empire or something reassembling that, is because we as a species popped out pretty early in the universe's life cycle.
Perhaps the aliens have contacted few people, or the truth is been withhold from us. Who knows what happens n secret facilities or the connection of deep spiritual masters.
I think it's cause of the great filter and people don't really understand the limits of how far a civilization can grow when we add space in the mix the biggest it can grow is solar or multi solar there's no way a civilization could ever be galactal people often say but we were able to do this when people in the past said we couldn't well that's because they didn't have much knowledge as now and didn't have the technology for that
The aliens know we are here. They just are wise enough not to re-enact European settlers displacing Native Americans. Earthlings are the Native Americans in this analogy.
This is a haphazard unorganized mess of a comment. I doubt anyone will read all the the way through it.
TL;DR: Habitable planets are probably very rare. Habitable planets which remain habitable long enough for complex life to evolve are probably exceedingly rare. Life itself is probably exceedingly common, but complex life is probably exceedingly rare, and intelligent life which is capable of developing civilization and higher technology is probably even more rare. I.e. the solution to the Fermi Paradox is that there just aren’t any spacefaring civilizations anywhere near us.
I think that the rare Earth hypothesis is the answer. I think that planets with complex biospheres are exceedingly rare in the universe. This is partially because you need specific galactic conditions for life to be possible; there are probably entire galaxies in which life couldn’t arise just because of high radiation or star distribution being too dense for stable planetary systems to form. And even within our own galaxy we’re probably in the galactic “sweet spot” for Earthlike planets. We can only detect exoplanets at a distance of a couple thousand light years MAX, and the data says that roughly Earth-sized planets (including super Earths) in roughly the habitable zone are pretty common. Most of these are around red dwarfs, however, which are probably usually highly hostile towards life, especially complex life, which knocks out 90% of these prospects. But let’s look at the Solar System for example. Venus, Earth, and Mars are all in the habitable zone. We’d identify all three as candidates for habitability if they orbited another star. We know that all three had oceans in the past and I’d wager that all three had life. Mars’ oceans evaporated 3+ billion years ago, leaving a nearly cold atmosphere-less wasteland, and Venus’ evaporated less than a billion years ago but went in the opposite direction, to an incredibly dense and hot atmosphere. I think that Earth’s “success” in remaining habitable is the exception, not the rule. I say that they probably had life before their respective cataclysms because as far as we can tell, life arose on Earth practically as soon as the oceans formed 4 billion years ago. Life itself is probably very common in the universe, but complex biosphere probably aren’t. It took 3+ billion years for complex life to evolve on Earth. And I think that, even in the rare case of a planet remaining habitable long enough for complex life to evolve, intelligent, civilization-forming, complex technology-wielding life (henceforth just “intelligent life”; it’s an important distinction which I’ll explain shortly) is even more rare. We look at Earth and assume that it’s common but we’re working with a sample size of one and selection bias. I distinguish intelligent, civilization-forming, complex technology-wielding life from simply intelligent life because there are many, _many_ species of intelligent life on this planet. Great apes, dolphins, corvids, octopuses, elephants, etc are intelligent, albeit not so much as humans, but it seems apparent that human-level intelligence is specialized and only selected for by evolution because of other traits. And even if an animal evolved which had intelligence comparable to that of a human, what are the chances that it can accomplish what we have? Humans are very lucky. For example, imagine a velociraptor-relative evolved human-level intelligence. We have much more capable hands with which to manipulate things than they would; they’d rely on their mouths and much less capable hands and maybe their feet, and wouldn’t be able to accomplish what we can with our dextrous little (non-clawed) fingers. Even apes don’t have hands as capable as ours (chimps can’t touch their pinky finger with their thumb, for example). Velociraptors also couldn’t reach most of their body with their hands. Velociraptors stood parallel to the ground with long tails. Imagine a velociraptor trying to work in a narrow space, or to work on a workbench. Humans stand straight up. And so on. Octopuses and dolphins live in the water, discounting fire and thus most complex technology, and dolphins don’t have hands. Octopuses also have very short lifespans and are highly antisocial. Elephants are huge and much more cumbersome than us. So on and on. At the end of the day, humans, despite our flaws, are a perfect storm for developing civilization and higher technology, which I think would be very rare even in the case of complex ecosystems. And it also took us 400 million years to evolve after the first tetrapods came onto land. 400 million years in which a cataclysm could have rendered the planet uninhabitable. 400 million years which other planets might not have before their sun dies. Sure, intelligent life could hypothetically evolve in 100 or 50 million years, but it could just as easily take a billion years to evolve, time which probably doesn’t exist for most planets.
Now call me ignorant, but i think it's a valid question. Has anyone considered that we might we be the apex of technological advancement in the universe?
You made a great point on how social media is basically used simply to degrade others and not point out the validity or truth of a person's position
I like your channel because it goes against my inherent biases and makes me think introspectively and reconsider my positions on many things. You do great work, keep it up :)
I like like his channel because he just speaks his mind without a filter and I respect it. He'll say what's moral, say it to your face, and doesn't care how you feel, in hopes you become a better person.
I absolutely respect that about his channel.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 "moral"
On self interest, I'd argue that we all act in our own self-interest, but that doesn't mean good people don't exist. Good people are just people who have some kind of self interest from being good, whether it's as simple as it makes them feel good or it fits the character they want to build for themselves. That doesn't take away from the fact that they're good people, because it takes a good person to consistently find value in the well being of others.
In the end, actions are more important than the motivations behind them.
This is like me asking for the time and you saying; "you don't want to know the time you just want the pleasant feeling in your brain form learning the time."
@@myself2noone You do want to know the time, but only because it satisfies you.
Don't stop. You are very deep thinker. You are an honest person. Being wrong is part of the process. You are my inspiration.
“I always thought that public policy was done a massive disservice by Star Wars being so popular.”
Same here. If you’re going to learn about war through fiction, watch Gundam.
No one watches Star Wars to learn about War. Also, support for the underdog was popular long before Star Wars. David vs Goliath is a classic example.
Also, there is much more to Star Wars than the underdog vs evil empire Story. Just look at the prequels and the politics of a corrupt Republic and the failiure of religion (the jedi order) to preserve peace in the galaxy aka the world.
@@kaidubstep2404 Yes!
@@kaidubstep2404 have you heard the saying "tongue in cheek"?
@@kaidubstep2404 I agree that underdog stories have always been popular and that Star Wars is a series with depth, I just believe Gundam is a far more realistic depiction of war.
You've mentioned the ancient Greek atomists several times in your videos, and I have to ask, have you actually read any of their work? Democritus was the most prolific of them, and while we've used his terminology, his actual text bears little resemblance to the reality as we currently understand it. Atoms were indivisible particles that made everything up, but they were simultaneously perfect immortal beings. Atoms were literally what he called the gods. Unless I've drastically misunderstood what I've read.
Easy bro Make a video contesting what he stated in his video. A video essay answer.
And it took us how many years to even think of breaking an atom? Much less doing it? Dude lived in a world where a ten story tall building was considered the height of human technological possibility.
@@RandMantearTheDragon I'm not knocking Rudyard, I'm not knocking Democritus, you're absolutely right that the full scope of what we know now was outside of his reach to prove (though there was little stopping him from theorizing, the Jains in India have refused to eat certain fermented foods like yoghurt for centuries under the belief that they contained tiny living things that couldn't be seen which would be killed by eating them). I was just bringing it up because a lot of people take one look at the terminology we borrowed from him, and try to attribute the whole or majority of modern atomic theory to him, which is easily disproven. I highly doubt that's what Rudyard was intending to do himself, but I've heard enough people interpret the drive by overview of Democritus' ideas that way that I feel it's one of those things that deserves an asterisk to clarify the details. I'm not qualified to do that, I just vaguely remember this from a philosophy lecture I attended a few years back, but at the very least, I felt I could bring some attention to it. Though looking back at my original comment, I think I might have been rather more confrontational than the intended casual attention raising.
Yeah he really oversimplifies the ancient “science” to push his narrative of religion and pre Socratic philosophy being good
@@c.nova8818 It hurts this channel if people are discouraged from pointing out errors. Everybody makes mistakes, and when you read as broadly as this guy does, you're going to make a lot of them by not doing enough deep dives.
Isn’t occam’s razor about “limiting the multiplication of entities beyond necessity” (or something like that), not that “the simplest explanation is the best”. I think Einstein put it well when he said “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler”. The Ethical Skeptic also puts it nicely; “Accurate is simple, but that does not serve to make simple, therefore accurate”.
I believe occam's razor is about minimizing the amount of assumptions you need to make, since each assumption is basically a chance to be wrong. Like in physics, say you observe 2 different groups of particles to act in very similar ways, it makes sense to say they are the same type of particle behaving in slightly different environments, rather than 2 distinct classes of particle, as the former only has to assume one particle exists instead of two. Then if more evidence shows distinctions that cannot easily be explained by varied environments, you would have to make assumptions about how that one particle behaves differently sometimes, meaning that the explanation by 2 different particles, despite being in a way a little more complicated, might actually make fewer assumptions and therefore by occam's razor would be considered more likely.
my understanding of occam's razor is that the simplest rational explanation is usually correct, but its not 100 %. It's just a model in which people use to filter whatinformation they should retain
8:12 "Rather than actual moral action" kind of struck with me. Despite how cringe this connection is, I'd been reading some manga recently and the protagonist has a pretty bad personality on the surface as he openly mocks people, insults them to their face, questions authority, and even tried to seduce his kingdom's queen (all of this is mostly Because he doesn't care and actively WANTS the consequences of those actions). This is contrasted with (at this point) the antagonist who's on the surface very good and has gained the affection of other people seen to be good people. However, the person in question is actively trying to steal the place of someone else genuinely good because she doesn't think anyone can be that good and the people who's affection she gained shirked their duty to both the kingdom and their previous engagements and even break promises they'd made. This is compared to the protagonist actively tries to help people while they're down, attempts to comfort others, cover for misdeeds, and help even people he really kind of hates for the sake of people not dying. The comparison here is apt of people who have the right attitudes and present themselves as moral even though they'll lack it in action vs the person who's actually moral in action even if he doesn't present himself as such in manner.
TL;DR this truth is basically the idea behind "kind but not nice" and "nice but not kind"
What manga is this? It kind of sounds like trapped in otome game
I wouldn't say using manga to connect an idea is cringy
@@vidstuffcool If is the manga I think it is, then he literally is trapped inside of an otome game
To be fair, throughout the entire prequel trilogy the separatists, who were the bad guys, were also the rebels.
Ahh but were they really..."bad guys"?!?!
The separatists were the the good guys.
No they were not. As mentioned in the video, they were peoplewith good intentions (trying to save their planets from an uncaring corrupt democracy that only caused them harm) and then thinking everyone who was against them must be evil (even though the republic brought prosperity to many planets) and wiht that logic they justified their many warcrimes and occasional ethnic cleansing
Count dooku was a pimp
Despite it's flaws, the prequels did try to be more nuanced in the matter of war. There were no good guys and Palpatine fooled everyone to fight a meaningless war
"Once you take out a couple of coastal cities [...] the vast majority of Americans are very kind and generous people" -- I concur with that assessment. I'm not an American -- a European -- and I have never been States side, but I've met, interacted and even in a couple of occasions formed a very close bond with a number of Americans, 99% of them White. One of them spent an entire day mentoring me how to optimise a business venture I was struggling with, he basically shared a life time of priceless insight and experience with me and never asked for anything in return. Of course, I owe him hugely and whenever he might have a need for me I'll be more than happy to start repaying that debt.
11:05 - I’m really torn about this one. The history of physics is that reality always has a new mindfuck in store for us, especially if it seems like we’ve nearly got it figured out.
But on the other hand, it seems like maybe we’ve nearly got it figured out (but for real this time). Physics isn’t under any obligation to be a bottomless pit of cool surprises, and I think it’s entirely possible that we’ve learned more about the universe in the last 300 years than we will in the next 300k
Oh boy you don’t know how wrong you are there’s so much we haven’t figured it out like where did all the matter of the universe came from gravity the Fermi paradox etc we have a good understanding of how the universe works in the details but the big picture why is far beyond our comprehension and probably will remain so until a massive paradigm shift occurs again
@@luisandrade2254 I think after the 20th century had two back-to-back paradigm shifts in physics (quantum mechanics and relativity) it’s so tempting to expect that they’ll keep coming at a similar rate, and I agree that it’s possible they will, but I think it’s important to realize that we might have hit bedrock, at least in certain domains.
Like we may never find a better way to transmit data than electromagnetic waves. Physics revolutionized communications tech in the 19th and 20th centuries, but it may never make another practically useful contribution to that field again.
I’m kind of playing devils advocate here though. I think you’re right that our list of weird stuff that we don’t understand is still long enough that we’ve probably got at least a couple more paradigm shifts left in the tank.
Im mean there is SO much we dont know lol, but in regurds to what the host says, im inclided to agree with you. We know SO much more know, and there are sone aspects of the physical world we understand tp an amazing degree, on the macro scale that is. Like I think its very likley if we found a ufo we would easly find out what it is made of, and understand it better retivlely to a person from babalon observbing a car. Pehaps not perfectly engerering wise but theoreticaly much more so.
I would contend we have exhausted all the low hanging fruit of physics. The next 2 genuine game changers will be reliable use of fusion power and wormhole travel. If, and big if,we get these breakthroughs then the universe is the limit.
@@luisandrade2254
The funny thing is that physicists basically have answers, or more broadly a _range_ of possible answers, to all that you brought up. There are several promising theories for the origin of and propagation of gravitation, for the ultimate origin of the Universe, for the Fermi Paradox, and so on. At this point, they just have to figure out which make the most sense. Physicists have a very deep understanding of the universe; the problem is that, at this point, theoretical physics is leagues beyond what the general public can understand, because it’s such a specialized field, so the general public doesn’t know that. Most people think that these are still total mysteries, when in reality most remaining problems have been narrowed down significantly.
awesome content always entertaining and interesting to listen to some whatifalthist
What is this, a crossover episode?
no way, really love both of you guys!
Also good to know that our definitions of good, evil and other values are supported mostly by emotions which can change very fast and that's why we make "bad" things considering them as good.
Seriously this must be one of the best channels on UA-cam. I'm so pleased I found this.
The same ones who will shout " Question authority!" will not allowed to be questioned once they assume authority.
As to the point about the cult of authenticity, which I wholeheartedly agree with you on, I think the explanation for how it came about and where it's headed is a tale in itself.
Historically, people were sincere or insincere. You were more or less born into a role, and how society judged you reflected a concern for how well you fit those mostly preassigned and prefabricated roles: How good of a mother are you? A man? A king? A saint? A peasant? A baker? A wife? A son? A warrior? A Christian? Or even a villain? A heathen?
We still partially relate to one another via these displays of sincerity, as when we consent to consigning part of our identity to a traditional role like husband or wife through marriage. But we have put increasing cultural emphasis the past two centuries on being yourself, being authentic, as the traditional structures reinforcing sincerity-based identity structures began to either crumble or so radically transform as to become unrecognizble to themselves. This shift created an odd paradox since society's encouragement to not bend to society's will is self-contradictory.
You no longer were asked to fit in but to stand out, to be who you truly are, and eventually the Gen X ethos would most fully embrace this distaste for ideology in place of a desire to be a fully authentic individual.
But just as sincerity became gradually replaced with authenticity as the primary mode of identification and truthfulness, branding or "profilicity" (the construction and curation of a public profile) is today starting to eclipse the authentic. Think of it as the difference between an intimate photograph meant to capture a fleeting moment that deeply means something to perhaps only yourself versus a group of friends taking a staged photograph with them all jumping in unison with big grins on their faces. The former is authentic, the latter is profilic. To people raised to identify with authenticity, the profilic photograph looks phony, what with its carefully curated staging and artifice. But to younger generations, the profilic display demonstrates a form of honesty by virtue of how invested in a particular image or display one is, by the cultivation of a profile and the labor invested in maintaining that socially accepted image.
I don't think the internet demands authenticity. Instead, it demands this mode of profilicity, where the injunction is not to fully integrate one's actions into a cohesive narrative about one's identity but instead to successfully promulgate a personal profile as it relates to second-order observations in a self-referential social system. So, when we are observing and engaging with an identity formation, it is as a means of communication, external, first and foremost and not as an expression of an internal consistency.
Gen Z is close to fully embracing this new paradigm, it appears.
One has to wonder. Which came first. The chicken or the egg. In this case, sincerity or insincere.
You watch carefree wandering huh?
@@SamSepiolTheHeretic Yep, Hans-Georg Moeller. Been reading his work for some time and highly recommend his UA-cam channel for a good introduction to the concepts. Paul J. D’Ambrosio is another great resource covering the same topics. And Roberto Simanowski for some of the background work which informs their own.
Damn, so I'm not hip anymore for enjoying candid photos? I have a strong distaste for the factory production of curated templates. That a really interesting demographic divide I would have never considered.
Really interesting comment (and great name), thank you!
Quick FYI: Occam's Razor does not mean the simplest explanation. It means the explanation made with the fewest assumptions regarding the relationship between elements of the problem is the most plausible solution. In layman: A solution's completeness is a function of its scope and complexity directly relative to the known scope and complexity of the problem, as well as its scope and complexity indirectly relative to the unknown scope and complexity of the problem. Complex problems require complex solution sets. You can't solve a famine by growing more food -- you solve it by solving for the specific issues that most directly increased the likelihood of a famine. So, poor irrigation, pest control, etc.
Neeerrrrddddd
"layman" :D yeah totally layman's terms there
You were clearer in your first explanation and infinitely more convoluted in your "layman's terms" explanation lol
@@alexsm3882 Gotta consider the SCOPE AND COMPLEXITY
As for your famine example, I'd say it's even more complex than that. While _local shortfalls of food production_ are generally caused by mismanagement or natural disasters or whatever, a _famine,_ where people can't get their hands on enough food, is normally a failure of logistics.
For a long time now we've produced enough food globally every year to feed everybody, it just isn't being distributed equitably because there's no money in feeding destitute people. It's basically impossible to make every region of the world reliably food self-sufficient -- sometimes you just get a series of bad droughts or a long war or some other disaster and can't produce enough locally. So to solve famine you would have to overhaul how we distribute resources globally.
I've recently read Rene Girard's "I see Satan falling like lightning" (mentioned in the 4th myth, I could have seen it in your previous video, idk) and it was one of the greatest theological/philosophical/anthropological book (for me in general). It opened my eyes on the biblical images, how important, even vital they were and how profound. I didn't become more religious, but I definitely got more out of it on moral, human nature, in particular perception, conflicts, needs and ways to convey highly valuable to society information. Glad to see you mentioning this great book (again?).
PS. The video, as always, great and interesting! Thank you! Keep up
Satan is.... usain bolt?
it's not a true whatifalthist video without several glaring typos 👍
Yeah.
Hence him saying that teachers shouldn't hold students back when they make lots of spelling mistakes.
I don't blame him, the amount of work out in this video would be enormous. We're all human and mistakes are to be expected.
and also involving sources that agree with his narratives and snarky bs about the left
@@ambatuBUHSURK snarky bs about the left? What he says is pretty reasonable about the left.
Youve GOTTA read rules for radicals. It covers all this stuff extremely well, I felt like it read my mind. Been studying these things for around a decade now but never have anyone who's able to discuss it
community organizing is not a fascinating subject past understanding the basic premise. The book is a waste.
Was looking forward to another one of these videos, Its nice to hear some takes that I haven't heard elsewhere, but aren't unhinged
There is few micro stuff wrong here.
200 yrs ago the world population where not 90% or anything like that poor. In Mughal Empire Sultanate a big majority group of the population for each individual has their own weight in gold. Also there was a welfare system too. China and Gunpowder Empires where crazy rich. West Africa was rich too. Native American Empires where rich too. That is where majority of the world population lived. Up to 1750s Ottoman Empire Sultanate was on top in everything and China had largest and most powerful navy mankind had ever seen (in terms of size it is the largest overall in all of history). The thing that changed things is the steam engine idea. The population of Africa outside the north, west and north east is very tiny unlike today.
UK got veeeery extremely lucky with India colonization. If it wasn't for collapse of Mughal Empire Sultanate (it was there for 800ish yrs , it just reached it is end of life span and had 50% of their leaders bad) it would impossible even with WW1 technology for UK alone and very difficult and not worth it even if all of Europe planed together due to the population size + army and police size, land size, many different geographies , strong centralization, money and welth and resources they had. Mughal Empire lecturely had a bigger army with advance technology and equipment plus other stuff bigger than the entire population of the UK islands few times over. They could also if necessary make it even bigger. The military technology of the equipment wasn't that much behind on average the UK. The thing uk had was silty better gunpowder and muskets. The Indian and Ottoman canons and other siege equipment where much better than even Germany at the same time. They had tone of elephants which is a game changer in the way they used them for logistics, carring, as tanks and builders.
The one that give the final hit on Ottoman Empire in Mediterranean is Napoleon Bonaparte destroying Ottoman navy and mainland Egypt due to him being Napoleon.
In Ottoman Empire even before WW1 and especially befor 1908 people where living better lives than majority average population did in London.
Muslims and Women in general where nontaxable - untaxable. Monopolies and interest/usury where prohibited + bank power very limited + you get Zakat money when necessary. Very little poor people and they get hlep. You had there too free healthcare for anyone on Ottoman soul.
Ottoman Empire just got too tired from being fighting everyone around it: Russia, Europe and Iran for 400+ yrs around the clock. 3 fronts + competing with Spain and Portugal in Indian Ocean too. UK and Ottoman empire where very frindly up until around Napoleon Bonaparte times. Other thing Ottoman Empire trusted it is so called Ailes too much.
If it wasn't for 1908 and joing ww1 Ottoman Empire would have been as powerful if not more powerful than Japan + haveing non of Japan weaknesses/disadvantages in a very geopolitical strategic location + haveing most of the world oile and gas + having influence over Muslim world. Even with 1908 mistake and joing the losing side of WW1 if it wasn't for stupid and naive Arab revolut in 1916 Ottoman would have continued - it is impossible to invade with WW1 technology without internal support ie arab revolut. Although joing ww1, Aramain genocide and Arab + Turk nationalism would be impossible if it wasn't for 1908. Ottoman Empire was only 50 yrs late to industrial thing due it takes time to implement.
Mughal Empire is so big and powerful that it was more productive than industrial Europe, without being industrial. India what made UK.
Capitalism is not the blame to so called 3 world poverty and problems but colonialism and neo-colonialism of NATO and CIA. Also because of over dose of capitalist extremism and extreme exploitation and craziness what caused those things. Basically mis use of capitalism ,racism + stupid supremacy and greed what caused things. Neo-colonialism is real thing. France for example 85% of it is economy depends on exploitation of western Africa. It is all about CIA , cold war and colonialism.
Do u know that Ottoman Empire Sultanate could have would taking Spain and Portugal in just 10 yrs or so campaign in 16th or even 17th (especially during Solomon the magnificent period) century, but they didn't due 2 reasons: too expensive and money wise not going to make money + Morocco would have alot of Muslims die. Ottoman Empire could have took Venice intead of Vienna. Also they would took Vienna and half of Germany if it wasn't for Persia. Also all of that they didn't use their armies in Anatolia and Egypt which would have added at lest 400k soldiers to their 200k ish main professional army in Balkans. Mamluks had a very skilled professional force of 220k in Egypt of their own you may add (Which Napoleon Bonaparte destroyed).
@@ailediablo79 oh yeah there definitely was a good amount of stuff that I disagreed with or flat out think is wrong, like I think he hates on leftist things too much or ignores causes for things like international poverty or chaos in some areas. What I do like is that he isn’t unhinged in his deliver and admits at the start that his thoughts have faults and are subject to his personal biases.
@@user-hdhdhhdhdhsnjdjdjdioowj ya true but i just point out some micro mistakes he had.
A particularly destructive consequence of the underdog obsession is the idea that, in a conflict, the party with superior firepower is inherently in control of the situation. In actuality, the one in control is the current aggressor, which can be either party. You see this mentality in self defense scenarios like the Rittenhouse case, where people sympathize with the assailant(s) for being weaker, despite their violent intent, and where they effectively blame the fleeing defender for not allowing themselves to be assaulted or killed.
I think the general problem that most people have (I am talking about the ones that don't see Rittenhouse acting in self defense) is the fact he pre-meditated putting himself in harm's way through a great deal of effort (crossing state lines, carrying a firearm not legally allowed to own etc...)
@@jnb756
But I was told there are no borders, that there should be no laws
anyone against him in that case is just a total retard that thinks chasing, threatening and attempting to murder someone means they shouldn't defend themselves
@@jnb756 Both of those points were proven false during the trial.
It is kind of funny that the underdog story is so popular in America of all places which is the most dominant global force in the world
@@ponternal how ironic
This falls apart the instant you understand "acting in my self interest is a virtue. It is The Good." Everyone should act in their self interest; to the extent they instead damage or sacrifice themselves, the equivalent value has to be supplied to them by others. Why would such self-abnegation be considered "good?" That is literally insane.
Take an intro to ethics class
@@jasonmacfarlund2703 Not if it is a Platonic/Comte based ethics class, which preaches self-immolation, with the added twist: "if you won't sacrifice yourself, we'll get the government to force you to do it." True human ethics values self-sufficiency, productivity, long-range thinking, and independence. It does not focus on victimhood.
A general criticism: the video lacks structure. It's just a long rant.
It's not special to this video. But on other topics, like countries , I find it easier to keep track of the points being made.
Perhaps, sometimes, instead of showing random mildly related pictures, you can show a bullet point recap. Do this at every 5 minute interval or something.
Make some of your points obvious by showing a "IF A THEN B" text. Like, "IF someone hides information THEN they are wrong" "IF a group is sacred THEN evil people try to become part of that group"
Show small bits of text like that as you explain to help people keep track of the arguments being made.
It’s literally cut into 12 sections. That’s the structure.
@@knutschack8625 And I think using the screen to reiterate the points made would improve retention.
@@knutschack8625 perhaps he could at least insert timestamps
Good video. Minor disagreements of course. But I really think the "The underdog is always good" and "There is always someone to blame" sections are the most important here.
"The underdog is always good" section is important because this is a axiom that has taken over our society. Not only did it originate in the Christian ethos, but it was popularized through dystopian movies. I like to use Nietzschean terms, this is a slave morality in the most extreme sense. We often here the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" saying. While I think this is true in some cases, I think the opposite is true in other cases. Absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely. Nietzsche said this as well. I'm forgetting the quote word for word, but he essentially said that if you spend too much time fighting monsters, you will likely become one yourself. And to remember that when you gaze into the darkness, the darkness gazes back into you.
"There is always someone to blame" is good too. I think there is definitely more than human will at play in history. And this is why I really don't like to take a moralizing view of things. For example, I'm someone who is really opposed to globalism, I see it as a negative force in the world, and it will lead to consequences that might as well be considered crimes against humanity. But I hesitate to call globalists or elites who perpetuate this agenda evil. People don't do evil things just for the sake of it. More often then not, they really do think that what they are doing is good. Evil for evil's sake is exceedingly rare. And this helps you avoid conspiratorial thinking or the marvel movie syndrome.
@Carlos Adrián Aguirre "We both stared into the abyss. But when it looked back, you blinked." - Batman to Owlman
Not sure what you mean by marvel movie syndrome but the weird thing about globalist elites is that they have good intentions but absolutely horrible thinking processes so they are evil because they are extremely good in a sense
@@gavinsmith9871 whan you started in to abyess you my think" wow thats a really cool abyss whats upp whit that" some wallfe on UA-cam
Agreed. People do things they think are right. I hate how currently, people are first to call others evil. There are definitely evil people who only care about themselves, their wealth, and growing their power. But, they're often a small small minority. The average person isn't. To put it in modern context, I don't think Biden is evil; foolish on certain ideas but he is human. I didn't think Trump was evil, foolish but he was human. I don't think either are fit for public office. But, if we start calling people evil and devils because we disagree with them; there will be no progress and a better world. Extremists are the danger to the world, they warp the world artiificially around them and get others to join in.
You my friend are a level of balanced that went the way of the buffalo. I can’t stress enough that people like yourself who can consume, compartmentalize and relay it all back with no personal angle is a rare thing. You would be one hell of journalist. Great topic and video
Having read all genres of science fiction for 40 years, The Dark Forest trilogy still blew me away.
The one that started with the three body problem? Also what does it have to do with the video?
@@Tarik360 yes that one. He recommends it to read a couple of times in the video.
@@JonMcMenamin777 aw heck. Can't believe I missed it. Maybe it was because he said "dark forest" and I took it too literally.
I dont always agree with all your points, but theyre mostly very interesting and leave me with something to think about. You have a unique perspective and youre not afraid to speak your mind, which I respect
The problem with trying to guilt me by bringing my society and ancestors into it, is they were not thinking about me at really and aren’t at this moment. We’ve been shown that working in our own self interest and for pleasure it better. Social media exacerbates it terribly, now ever crazy in their home town can be on full display and get a bunch of attention and spiral. A majority of us are normal people who don’t wanna worry too much and live a regular life because we see the world burning all around us, because of the pessimistic world views and general actual problems. I myself skipped college to get right into IT and my 30k a year at 20 work only 2 days a week. I party and chill, with my other days but I’m able to pay all my bills no problem and am looking for more work and streams of income. My friends circle and even just people I know from highschool are a majority like me or in college. Not a tiktok star, serial killer rapper, scoop shooter, tidepod eating degenerate. Btw like 10 people ate tidepods, most of them actual children, but people started calling use the tidepods generation as a joke
12:29 "Just a century ago, we believed, that races were discrete biological groups, that were wildly different, (...), that humans were blank slates with no inherent characteristics, (...)"
Yes, but what you are missing is, that these were never believed by the same people and at the same time. They are inherently contradictory, and blank slate theory is a consequence to the (arguably) overemphasis on inherent traits during and before WW2.
Both of these positions are inherently ideological, and as it is with all science, with touches politically relevent questions, the truth is polluted by power.
Famously, Soviet maths still worked, whereas biology (Lysenkoism) and Psychology did not. Because they were politically and ideologically relevant, and powerful ideas outcompeted true ideas in the "marketplace".
On race differences for example, this is something that can not easily be studied, and where there are incentives to ignore certain results or be more critical of them, since colorblindness (and for the left even outgroup preference) is one of the most fundamental morals in our post war society.
So I don't think we are as much wiser on these questions as you think.
Lysenkoism wasn't the only type of biology in soviet society, dumbass.
"Blank slate theory" today is basically a strawman. Nobody actually believes it, but it's easier to argue against than the claims people actually make.
Those being, broadly speaking, that 1) systematic differences in behaviour between people from different societies are due to nurture, not nature and 2) human behaviour is quite flexible because our brain is designed to be strongly moulded during our upbringing, so "human nature" as an obstacle to societal change is generally overstated by people who would prefer things didn't change. Jumping from "in-group preference is a typical human trait" to "my society's perception of who belongs in what group is natural and universal", for example.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs why are you saying this in a comment section full of centrists & nazis
The sponsor: "Modern art is a ponzi scheme. Here'a how you can be a part of it!"
Finding this guy’s page has changed the course of my life completely. Thank you
29:06 I once heard an interpretation, that the scapegoat represented the people whose sins were forgiven, on the theory that the goat, once released into the wilderness, would wander around a while and then find its way back to its herd.
Hearing WhatIfAltHist say 'homies' might be one of the most jarring things I've ever heard.
There are vampires that are darker skinned than this kid
@@assortedlunatics4381 brutal
I did the same that you did. I studied more once I retired and really found out that I had believed many social myths most of my life. It can cause despair if thought about too much.
And here I was thinking Number 1 would be how the global art trade is a giant tax evasion and money laundering scam, and the traded artworks actually having no true value.
My position is that if the only two options are someone doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, or someone else doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, I'll chose the latter. I can forgive the former, but the choice is really simple.
34:00 this is fascinating in contrast to the way a society like Japan developed where honorable suicide and risk taking warriors became the norm for the better part of 600 years
Number 13: whatifalthist knows about history
23:00-23:44 you just slapped me harder than Will Smith with that. I now see why I've been so unhappy with my life, I let myself stagnant as a sort of pseudo revenge against my parents but all it did was slowly whittle me down.
I'm changing that now, I'm 32 years old but now i endeavor to create and foster a family of my own and continue the legacy of my parentage.
Whatifalthist you're like my
Elrond when he told Aragon, "Put aside the ranger, become who you were born to be."
A video on the incoming demographic crisis
Go Woke…. Go Broke. Mr. WhatIfAltHist, you are not a hater and you speak the truth and you need not apologize. Keep up the good work sir and God bless you and God bless America.❤✝️😇🙏🗽🇺🇸
> Postures against wokecel groupthink and champions individual liberty
> Goes on a "git off my lawn" diatribe about how mumble rap is destroying western civilization
> I should be an individual critical thinker, questioning everything, but if I don't come to the same conclusions as you do "there's something very wrong" with me
Wym you don't know your biases. You're a paleocon with extra steps. Neopaleocon lol
Honestly a lot of your thinking is p insightful and I like the channel but I just dont get how you warn about moral and ideological traps only to fall into them headfirst and screaming 5 seconds later
I wish Whatifalthist would create more videos on the difference between Norwegian socialism and Russian communism
Norway isn’t socialist it’s just oil rich
That would be interesting indeed, the outcomes are exact opposites while the ideology behind it isn't. There might be something to learn here, perhaps a lesson on extremism.
I think the mine problem whit today left and right its they take idolgly and reviewing them on text only and ignoring the reality.. that's every plan in Human history crushed right into a wall whan exposed to reality.
Kraut has made a really good video on the origins of the nordic socialdemocracy
@@michabodnar7739 I’m aware of that and watched the video. But specifically I’d want him to show why the Norwegian model is so good in comparison to other attempts at socialism. It would debunk right-wingers bellyaching that “socialism never works” and tankies wanting to point to the Norwegian model as an excuse to go back to Stalinist Russia.
Even though art is just laundering money, modern art is so beautiful in what everyone sees in it and shouldn’t be put down and compared to old paintings, even though they seem simple, some take dumb amounts of effort to make and even more to replicate.
"as women gain more influence in society, feminine values like not exerting discipline gain more traction"
We are living in a gynocentric society -- the bible pretty much warned us in the first few chapters lol.
Men have made the world as it is today. Men have maintained the world to this day. Women have simply reaped the rewards of an already existing system and snugly placed themselves in it. Women could not run the world even if they were given all the reins of power. It would be a emotional and disorganized mess. Research indicates that in all "democratic" nations, as time goes by, females vote for more and more laws that allow for more government intervention in all areas of life. They also vote for laws that give "free money" to the "deserving" and other such groups. And who pays for all this? Men through their work and taxes. It is truly the decline of the west.
You know you are living in a gynocentric society when the main idea is that you can solve social problems by giving social groups nicer words to name them by.
There are two aspects to men, the constructive impulse and the destructive impulse. Likewise, there are two aspects to women, the maternal impulse and the bitchy impulse. The problem we have as a society is we don't balance things towards the healthy aspect of our selves.
If you want to know what's wrong with our society, just look at the modern left. They're obsessed with the marxist goal of "destroying the old order" while simultaneously taking on the worst feminine impulse of being extremely bitchy and narcissistic.
It's impossible to create something good when you're obsessed with violent destruction and bitchy self-importance. So no, the world isn't too "feminine", our society is just plain toxic.
@@joshuarichardson6529 Even as they have destroyed through the centuries, men have created far more than they have demolished. Deep down in human evolution, the violent importace given by the human male to the human female was and is for one singular purpose: The female had the ability to nurture life within her. One male and a hundred females provide enough genetic variation for the tribe to continue. Not so the other way around. The male possessivesness of his female(s) is the manifestation of that ancient embedded genetic urge. It may superficially show itself as other emotions, but deep down that is what it is. He who controlled access to the female controlled the passing of his genes and continuation of his tribe. The terrible "honor killings" in the Islamic world is one extreme example. The vast majority of females serve no other purpose that having and rearing children. And it is no small purpose. Men do everything else...as they always have.
......... beacuse was written by man...
I hate how people that are left leaning act like you're some kind of alt-right spokesman. I'm LGBTQ and your videos are some of the greatest sources of positivity in my life. I live in LA and I am surrounded by people trying to blackpill me into hating myself and the world around me, but I refuse to. Thanks for always putting out thought provoking and genuinely inspiring rants. I leave your videos feeling inspired meanwhile I leave my own communities' "online safe spaces" feeling uncomfortable and stressed out. Thank you for contribution to culture and society Rudyard!
❤️
most alt historian youtubers do pander to such an audience
Well that's an interesting thing I see mentioned a lot. I feel like if you surveyed people that identified as left and right on their favorite topics to research for fun, and didn't make it be a multiple choice thing, you'd find that history would be more of a thing conservatives would list as an interest at higher rates than liberals. So maybe it's just a trend in the feedback loop between personal interests/experiences affecting worldviews?
Just found your channel, I like the way you choose to interact with information, lots of interesting thoughts here and thanks for taking the time to put these together.
"There's no such thing as bad information, there is only the truth." This was my exact thought the other day when cleaning out my bookcase. You're my number one UA-cam channel for philosophy and geopolitics any day of the week!
There is no fake info there’s only truth but propaganda and just lies and nazism there all lies and stuff
Yikes
I think we all need a podcast from you! With some of the friends you talk about that’s an hour long
the book "the selfish gene" is precisely abouot how entirely "selfish" genetic machinery can produce creatures that are not. possibly one of dawkins greatest works
96 Meadow Brook Road
Norwell, MA 02061
;P
I'm very disappointed in Richard Dawkins as a person but his books in biology and the Selfish Gene in particular are brilliant and everyone should read it.
Lie Number 13: There were 12 lies in this video
Rip him apart if you think he's wrong. What's he got wrong? If you don't your answer won't be legitimized
@@domenstrmsek5625 "There were 12 lies in this video" was a lie dunbass
@@domenstrmsek5625 The joke wen over ur head
@@ckhpersonal670 why
@@domenstrmsek5625 no one's got time for dismantling some soyboys video crying about made up narratives
Hey Ruyard! It looks like you’re currently active in the comments and I just wanted to thank you for the practically humanitarian work you’re doing with this channel.
I’ve grown up in an area which would hold most of what you describe in your videos as propaganda or baseless fiction. Your capacity to efficiently articulate a topic as nuanced as history has been massively reassuring to me personally. You understand history as not just a dialectic, but human nature in relation to time. Thank you for that.
I really do love what you’re doing man and I just wanted to implore you to help grow an accessible community through some platform beyond patreon or pearl. I’m not saying make a discord server but, something akin to it not stuck in beta like pearl seems to be would be fantastic. It seems by your own words you know that many of your ideas contrast the popular conscious, and as a fan it would mean the world to be able to interact with people who see the same value in the conclusions you’ve come to.
Thank you again man, and I hope you appreciate how you’re helping people like me on a personal level.
God bless.
"I’ve grown up in an area which would hold most of what you describe in your videos as propaganda or baseless fiction."
Are you willing to say which area?
@@SayNoToDemocide1 I won’t dox myself. That said, a prominent college town with a strong artist culture, in one of the larger North American metropolitan areas which itself has a history of greater political activity.
Hey mom! I want Alternate History Hub.
Mom: we got alternate history hub at home.
Meanwhile, at home : whatifalthist
I live in Pennsylvania. It's mostly rural towns and it's so peaceful. it helps you forget the world around you, and you feel connected to nature. I didn't know you were from PA! that's so fun to know.
I love the way you told a lie about reality when you announced "#7" as"#6". See 18:48 . I don't know if this is intentional or not, but if it is, this video is even more brilliant than is self evident.
I'm not from PA, but I was always told it's the Keystone State because it was the foundation of the Republic of the United States, and where the American Revolution originated.
The second one is a lesson i've learned well this last year and even wanted to write a story on where good intentions often result in horrific failures or are simply ineffective or exploited by others with ill intentions for their own ends
It's a pretty common theme among villain characters.
@@thenew4559 Oh of course i've seen it all the time for villains but rarely have I seen a plot that explores the theme of doing things that feel "bad" but produce good results. Usually when a hero does it the plot ends with them wallowing in it and lamenting their fall
can you explain more pls ? what actually happened there ?
@@AmariFukui Affirmative action is a good real world example. In order to correct past wrongs many universities lowered the standards of acceptance for minorities with the intention of providing more opportunity to disadvantaged groups. This often results in a student poorly matched for their specific ability, which increases the likelihood of failure and drop-out. Had the student been accepted into a less prestigious university they would have had a greater likelihood of succeeding and graduating. Instead they are left with a Harvard acceptance letter, student debt and no degree. When institutions fail to calculate the outcome of their policies, they are performing PR to make themselves look good. Unfortunately this is how most institutions act, whether corporate, academic or political.
The comments about how people aren’t living up to what their parents invested into them was correct, at the same time parents haven’t been investing in the next generations for a while, on a large scale at least. With everything happening today I feel like I haven’t done enough for my children, when at the same time I know people my age that still live at home (I am 40 and don’t see this as part of your statement, or a good thing). I understand that not everyone will see things in the same positive/negative light that I do, but I feel like people have gotten away from what we fundamentally know as right or wrong mainly because of poor parenting… the laws and the government welfare programs didn’t help the dynamic family.
My father did a lot to keep the family well off. My mother was a penniless whore who tore it down bottle in hand. It makes me conflicted about the "happy young days" before 9 years old. I was too naive to understand how fucked it was.
Parents invest in their children in a way that made sense when they self grew up. Take for example the great increase of university students in many Western countries. They have grown much faster than the available jobs. Which means that many students will never work with the things they studied. They would have earned more if they had become plumbers. But few young become plumbers since it was a low status job when their parents were young.
A friend once said to me 'Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see' which I found agreement with, but in retrospect I would add 'the opposite of what you read'
Ironically, the current art trade where painters such as Rothko are valued at millions is artificial and based on ideological propaganda. 150-200 years ago the art trade consisted of mostly furniture or decorative arts which people inherited or sold as they did with jewelry, and painting did not have the gravitas and glamour it had today. The currents of the 20th century hailed conceptual art which was often done with cheap materials (in contrast to the exotic woods furniture or coral and silver cutlery of the centuries past) and that is how it became so valued today. It is one part of these ideas of perpetual social Revolution, as these 20th century painters and sculptors were valued not for the quality of their work, but solely for revolutionizing the medium
Rather than propaganda, it's tax evasion: the sales tax does not cover art pieces, so millionaires buy pseudo-art and the artists keep the money for the millionaire, maybe getting a little chunk for it, but still making it worth it for the rich person.
Modern artists will duck tape a dead chicken to a chair, call it art and people will still buying it for millions of dollars.
@@Ucedo95 tax evasion and money laundering
Criticism for the following:
23:00 "I often hear the argument that being a loser is your choice and you should be respected for it--which is not true. Your parents raised you and you are letting down all the investment they put into you. Your ancestors struggled and died to produce you and you have an innate loyalty to your society which provides for you"
-Being a loser is absolutely anyone's choice
-Nobody ought to respect anything. The same way one can choose to be a loser, one can choose to look down on another because of it.
Argument: People did sacrifices for you
Counter point: So what?
Imagine something you don't like. Maybe it's eating eggplants, watching golf or whatever. Now imagine someone gifts you an expensive meal/ticket/whatever about that thing you didn't like. They used their resources on you instead of themselves. Instead of purchasing that expensive meal/ticket/whatever for you, they could have bought something for themselves.
Does that bind you to enjoy and appreciate what the person gifted you? No.
As you said, we all make choices and they are subjective. No one is bound by anything but by the laws of physics.
That being said, no one is born wanting to be a loser (or at least, very few people). If someone just wants to be a loser, that probably indicates that something else is wrong. Perhaps they are lonely. Perhaps they feel unaccomplished. Perhaps they lack a sense of direction. Whatever it is, the solution certainly ISN'T giving them a guilt trip about how the world died for them.
There's this cool paradox that the more individual responsibility for how your life turns out is relevant, the higher the suicide rates. Greek tragedies were all about common people being struck by disgraceful events, it made the population comfortable with their struggle, but here we are in our enlightened postmodern world, telling people they're losers and they're completely responsible for every misfortune that made them end up this way.