"If someone says it's raining and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the fucking window and find out which is true."
@@MalfosRanger you are wasting your time. These people are only upset because the show doesn't try to convert them to the "correct" opinions. Sometimes it is more valuable to listen to someone give a wrong answer, but people aren't smart enough for that
You mean, your issue is people with different views… discussing their views? Or do you mean that you think people get too аggrеssive and аrgumentative, and that they should discuss them more “civilly”?
@@1NameGoesHere so it’s too much of people just regurgitating their own talking points without actually listening to the other side’s positions? So in that case the issue is not with the goal of the series itself - it’s actually that it fails to achieve its own goal of reaching a “middle ground”?
@@alexbennet4195 I don't believe that finding the middle ground is actually Jubilee's goal. that may be what they tell you, but that's not why the producers put the show together. they knew people like conflict, and that if they put up videos of people arguing, they could sell that premise to advertisers.
As well as their clear preference for platforming and amplifying the voices of corporate astroturfed professional reactionaries usually against significantly smaller normie libs and leftist content creators.
@@MrSomnixwhich video was this? (Genuinely asking. I don’t watch every video from this channel, and I’d like to judge for myself whether or not that’s true.)
@MiraBoo this video around the 10:50 mark. Pete is a shining star amongst the democratic party at the moment and showing conservatives I know his speeches about things like abortion has caused a lot of people to understand left-leaning points, even those engrained in the religious right. Theres plenty to hate the Democrats for, Pete is not one of them and the only reason I could think that a left-leaning commentator would have such vitriol for them would be that he's not commie enough.
@@MrSomnix Oh, that part was so brief that I paid no mind to it. I figured (based on what he said) that his issue had more to do with how Pete got his position. In my anecdotal experience, most people (Dems, Republicans, and others) usually view Pete quite favorably.
I felt so bad for him he looked like he was genuinely advocating and trying to have a tough conversation. It’s such a slap in the face to have to deal with radical centrists and argue with the far right
@@LocoGeorge123 human rights for convicts is such a important topic that nobody wants to talk about, majority of people still think convict does not deserve any right. they give him hope just for him to realize it's all a joke
It has indeed changed but we need to understand and remember we're surrounded by the bad actors, bad faith people this video mentions. Showing them reminds us we need to be prepared to deal with people like them, they're real, some of them are stupid and brutally uneducated, but they exist.
Not all opinions are valid or deserve air time. I hate that people think being "unbiased" is giving all views a voice. The Earth is not flat. No debate needed. Slavery is wrong, no debate needed. Children shouldn't go hungry, no debate needed. Anything opposed to these ideas (and some others) does not need to be heard or given time to spread.
@ it’s violent in that it is the forced killing of another human. An unborn baby dies in an abortion. To give voice to those who promote such terrible acts is simply wrong.
I recognize my comment might seem ambiguous given my username; I am unambiguously on the side of the people who were kidnapped and made to perform forced labor.
the fact that they had the audacity to have a disclaimer in one of their more recent videos about hate comments, "if you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all." Are they insane? Do they not see the content they're pushing out? How could you possibly expect a topic as controversial as Palestine v Israel or literally anything involving Kirk and Shapiro to not stir up the normal general public?
"if you don't like what you see don't bother commenting, just go watch something else. We don't need your criticism here, we are trying to find the middle ground" - a Jubilee producer, probably.
It's worse when you see them platforming know grifters whose entire media training and experience is to say outrages stuff to get clicks and thus ad revenue. Like, what did you expect was going to happen really?
That moment with the former convict leaving the show was honestly heartbreaking. This video did a great job explaining the problem with Jubilee's format but that man understood it instantly better than anyone else.
@@swartley In regards to the guy walking off the set, the question of 'Do certain people deserve legal rights?' supposes that it's something worth debating and the format of Jubilee gives equal weight to both sides. Plus, it's kinda wack having to argue for why you deserve rights with someone who believes that you don't. That's my take on it.
@@michaellundholm5843 the fact that things like prison exists already answers in the affirmative though, the only difference is that the prompt didn't word it in a way that ties a pretty bow on top
I'm so glad you made this video. Why was she such a popular X-Men character? Because she dressed cool? Making fireworks with your hands is like, barely even a superpower
They did Jubilee dirty sometimes. Someone who creates high energy blasts from her hands without the use of metal or electricity? Sounds like the perfect person to fight Magneto. But that's beside the point, which is: a Jubilee was a huge party, hundreds of years ago during fuedal times, where the landlords would forgive everyone's debts. This show is an even bigger disgrace to that idea
Oh jeez I just posted something almost exactly like this because your comment wasn't in my initial cursory scroll. That will teach the algo to underestimate my wanting to talk about X-Men! Also, I think her popularity was largely due to her being the central plot character in the animated series' pilot, Night of the Sentinels (which you probably know. But maybe you didn't know that Pizza Hut gave out a free VHS of that episode with orders for a while as a promo!)
It's gross, they gave life to all the hate in a youtube comment section. They purposely skew the overton window for clicks. They are garbage. Their mission statement is a bold faced lie.
I don't think it's really "skewing" the overton window. The overton window is shifting to the right. The narrative is dominated by right wing rhetoric. Democrats see it, that's why they are adopting right wing policies like securing the border, increasing police budgets, supporting drilling and fracking, removing social safety nets, lowering taxes on the wealthy, etc. Universal healthcare was a major point of debate before 2016 and was haralded by many democrats, now people get laughed out of the room when they bring it up. The liberal progressivism of the obama era is dying, people aren't showing up and voting for it. Our federal government is now dominated by what was seen as the extreme far right before 2016, and they are implementing plans that will have consequences to be felt for generations. In all likelihood even if the democrats take back the white house and congress in 2028, they will look a lot more like the Bushes and Reagan and less like Bernie Sanders or AOC.
@@sildarmillion Just my speculation, but it looks like they weren't given the questions beforehand. Dude's probably known a lot of people who were falsely accused or had some kind of context that the "justice" they were dealt was anything but. For the first question to be "How much do you agree or disagree: those people don't deserve to be treated like people," - regardless of how accurately it might reflect the average American perspective - that's real messed up.
Speaking from 30 years of fat shaming, it's just bullying it doesn't make people lose weight, kicking us in the butt doesn't kickstart our metabolism it's just bullies being mean for the sake of sadism getting off on our pain
So don´t show them your pain. Just say you pity them. Remind them your life is happy and you are loved, and their lives are full of hate and ugliness that dwells inside them. Say the world is beautiful and glorious and it is a shame they will never see it because they only have eyes for ugliness and hate. They wish to use you so they can feel big, shrink them and remind them their true place, in the trash.
@@MJCKCA I think it's not quite as simple, as normalizing some things removes barriers, but doesn't affect anyone's current state anymore. So while a general sense of being obese and likely unhealthy can have a preventative effect because the feeling of shame serves as a signal that you're doing something of social consequence and might want to think on it, simply bullying people into becoming thin just isn't a thing. It's a typical "works for me" argument and if those guys in that crowd were in the same situation, same disposition, they'd at best be skinny fat and busy deluding themselves. Fundamental attribution error at work.
@@Hosenanzugtasche the fundamental problem with the stance of "normalizing removes barriers" is that being fat is not "normalized", it's just not ridiculed as much as it was in the 90's. It's not like people feel their weight is "the norm" when the clothes they like don't fit, or the health consultants won't stop recommending you to "lose weight" to any symptom you have, among multiple other things. Saying it's been normalized just because fit people don't perceive the small things doesn't mean there are no barriers
as soon as they brought on myron and allowed him to basically tell people to their face "you are worthless and should die", i knew that it was never about finding middle ground for jubilee. the contestants that dealt with him are SO patient, and i hope they're okay mentally after dealing with his bigotry.
Jubilee made so much more sense to me when I sorted their videos by oldest first and saw that the channel used to be for evangelizing Christian Youth programs
Jubilee treats it as if both sides has merits. A bigoted/unscientific side shouldn't platformed. There's no middle ground between reason and lack off. A debate is between both sides that not only have merit and study, but also when both sides are interested in edification. Jubilee is only interested in views, their livelihood is based on the algorithm of engagement and not actual validity of ideas. You can see this example most sharply when Ben Shapiro was smiling through out his episode. He knows he doesn't have to be correct, his interest is in getting paid and expanding his reputation. He doesn't lose anything from "losing the debate", he still gets paid.
The hang up I have with that is this. The people on the other side of your beliefs can and would call you just as bigoted/unscientific. So then nothing can be debated. There were times where even opinions that are accepted as true today, were called similar things, that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be platformed. I agree with not platforming people who don't genuinely want to discuss, but even the flat earth episode was interesting in my opinion, even if it wasn't for the purpose of finding truth. The problem with this video as well is the assumption that the only value in listening to the other side is to find the truth, which I disagree with
@@NoName-h5i4q Censorship requires active silencing of knowledge and public opinion by a governing power. A private company deciding not to give an equal platfrom to extreme opinions would not be censorship.
I stopped watching Jubilee a while ago for this exact reason. The only Jubilee video I recently watched was the one with Pete Buttigieg which, admittedly, I did find interesting but that’s more due to how Pete conducts himself as a public servant and leader
This is why it is important to value evidence also. If you have a position that lacks evidence (conversion therapy and flat earth) they are by definition not valid positions therefore you cant say there are two sides to an issue
I agree with you, though there are many out there who believe the facts are just made up to support their oppositions position for any set of beliefs. It's a delusional world view for those that accept the facts and entirely rational for those that reject them.
@@jonmartinson6830 That's not a compelling argument to convince someone to abandon a core feature of their identity. Religion is real, there is evidence of its existence even if there is no evidence for their specific beliefs.
Woman deserve less ? I actually do agree with that book title. Woman do deserve to have less harassment, domestic violence and discrimination in their lives.
I also hate how the format obligates politeness and stoicism. If somebody says something reprehensible and violent while sitting calmly and another person's reaction reflects their words and not their demeanor, the second person gets framed as the problem. One of the most maddening things about being active in BLM was how often we were told by middle-ground folks that we weren't being polite or quiet enough in seeking justice for violent crimes committed with impunity
But to say you have nothing that can be critiqued makes things problematic. I love BLM as a concept, but I can’t say I’m a part of the movement because I can’t fully commit to its leaders or its call to actions. Like the “Just say no to drugs” is a good concept in theory, but incredibly flawed. I think the problem is people treat political ideologies like religious truths, and become the exact person they hate (judgmental biased bigots who are allergic to questioning their own beliefs.) Do you think BLM is perfect and never enticed people to be too violent? Do you think anyone who thinks BLM movements in 2020 did more harm than necessary? Or is saying anything against BLM a sin within itself, and marks you as a heretic- I mean a racist?
But that's the point of the format. Well that's what should be the point of the format. You can tell anywhere you want, but actually hearing opinions in a calm manner that you can understand is way rarer, I don't see why you would wanna treat that as an opportunity to act like you would in a normal rally
@suthern the series is the most acute and evil expression of this I’ve ever seen. “Caring” is good unless you visibly care or are visibly passionate, in which case you lost because you “lost your cool” and are obviously worth writing off as an example of the crazy side.
It's funny, cuz the channel is based on the X-men. As she was an asian-american superhero, and Jubilee was originated by asian americans. Which is pretty cute.
Good. Preferbaly no one should have to watch that garbage, I hadn't heard it till that conservative talkperson was against 25 "woke" students, after watching some of it, it was incredibly disappointing, it wasn't a debate, it was an argument without much ground rules, apart from the ones that only apply to the liberal or leftist folks in there.
I will give one devil’s advocate. I was a young earth creationist until I saw the Ken Ham v Bill Nye debate, so while one could argue it gave Ham a platform it also gave Nye a platform. Again I agree with Burns’ overall argument but there might be a silver lining
I think the important difference between that debate and Jubilee debates is the curation, like Ham and Nye are both pretty well educated in their chosen fields and are equally skilled in communicating to an audience. Plus, I think debates are a tool, so maybe the Ham v Nye debate was just a good use of the tool and Jubilee is going for a world record of ways to use a single tool.
@@Nerdish-o6o Curation seems key in a lot of ways. The right pattern of speech can make someone seem like they won even if they said nothing so properly mediated conversation topics and flow can be key for accurate reactions from people on the topic of debate
@@devinmcmanus Nye had evidence that informed his conclusions. Ham just dismissed evidence by cherry picking and blowing up irrelevant uncertainties in order to say that no one had has an answer therefore default to a young earth. This doesnt prove the proposition as this is not evidence. The earth could still be billions of years even if the current methods dont work. Also his logic of you can decide things are not true simply because you werent there is not logical and falls apart pretty quickly if you just think about it
One thing I've been thinking a lot about recently has been that since the "debate stage" inherently places both sides on the same ground, the conspiracy side has already won. The earth is not flat. This is true. Placing a flat earther on the same stage as an astrophysicist tells the audience that these are both equal sides that deserve to be heard with the same level of consideration. Any scientist that is put up there has already lost.
Wisecrack? More like Wokecrack, with host Wokle Burns. Maybe stop drinking so much Yes please coffee and you wouldn't be so awake. (I actually love the channel if it isn't clear)
I love the first part of this comment and hate that we're in a world right now where the last part needs to be included because weirdos like this actually exist
So happy your this video was made, we need more people roasting jubilee. Enough is enough, eventually they will have a video that says, "Middle Ground: Slavers or Slave advocates vs Human rights."
As someone who used to be a fan of Jubilee, they USED to make wholesome, Asian related skits like WongFu Productions. They weren't as good as WongFu but they had some relatable stuff. Then they got their first viral video and they've just been doing nothing but clickbait outrage videos. I stopped watching their garbage years ago.
Jubilee in my mind is trashy day time TV. The people who make it though seem to think they are making groundbreaking art. And are incapable of taking criticism, so it's kinda a waste of time making constructive criticism to them.
There is no "middle ground" when talking about human rights. You are either for people having rights or against it, and if you are against it you yourself do not deserve any rights. The people against human beings being human beings have never in their life had to fight for rights of their own.
So if you are against any theoretical human right, you don't deserve any rights? That's silly, humans should not have all rights
Місяць тому+12
For a moment, I thought this was about the virtuous practice of Jubilee. Instead, I discovered this was really about the spiritual successor to the Jerry Springer Show.
Many people that influence the public discourse do not operate in good faith to seek the best solution but instead simply want their side to win at all costs, intellectual integrity be damned.
I was in high school when Trump won in 2016 and one of my teachers said something that still rings true, he said that we now live in a post-truth world. Nobody is interested in critically analyzing the facts and evidence. Everyone thinks that any facts or evidence that contradicts any aspect of their belief system must be an attempt to decieve them, and so our society is being modelled after the biases, prejudices and gut feelings of a smaller and smaller minority of people with the most exteme beliefs. Whoever can say the most contentious rhetoric, the stuff that gets the most attention from both supporters and detractors, ends up controlling the narrative and the overton window shifts along with them. This is why the republican party has become the party of what was only a couple years ago considered the "alt right", and liberal progressivism that was considered the dominant position in the Obama era is now being considered extremist and the democrats are moving further and further right.
I can only hope this is just a trend. Trump has created a cult of personality, and the thing about a cult of personality is that once the cult leader is no longer around, the cult dies with it. Republicans have no one who can rile up people as much as Dolan can on a wide scale. They have other figures, but does everybody know who Charlie Kirk is? Or does anyone have a fun impression of Eric Trump? The answers to both is, in order, no i hope not, and no, Eric Trump has the charisma of a wet bean.
The fact you think this is a new phenomenon is insane. The history of the US government is rife with medical, military, and political f- ups. We're just able to see and communicate better with the Internet.
Ironically, the greatest thing that could happen for the majority of the world would be a jubilee, but I mean the original jubilee, the forgiveness of all debts.
This video is ostensibly about Jubilee but speaks to a much broader cultural issue plaguing not just the states, but much of the West. People have always had opinions, but the advent of the Internet, and more recently social media, has given these opinions a platform. The same platform as people with decades of experience and expertise in a field. As you cited, there is no more truth, jsut an increasingly accessible marketplace to flog your ideas, however baselss.
The difficulty in having an honest debate among the parties is that they are not aligned on their basic premises and therefore will argue past each other. It's like having a boxing match where the participants enter separate, but adjacent rings. They can see their opponent and the strikes, but never feel them. Premise alignment needs to happen first, but that's often so basic and technical that it doesn't make good television. For example defining what rights are, what are the criteria for those rights, analyzing a specific group and determining if they meet those criteria, teasing out any exceptions, the philosophy of those exceptions, and if there are contradictions in application. It's long and is boring and won't get clicks.
So, I once signed up to be in a Jubilee video. It was a middle ground about being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints versus ex members. I was so excited when I actually got a response back and was asked to come be a part of it! However, a major family thing happened, and I was no longer able to come. That was all the way back in 2020. They never made the video, and I now when I look , realize it might've actually been a very difficult situation, and I'm grateful now I never went. I was excited because I wanted to share my beliefs in a safe place, but now I realize I might've just been attacked.
I realized this effect just after Roe was overturned. The conservative framing of the spectrum of abortion accessibility as "no abortion" to "choice of abortion until viability and/or medically necessary" makes it so easy to label the already centrist position of "choice" as extremist and thereby demand a "compromise" which can only restrict access. The Platonic ideal of this debate would have the spectrum be "no abortions" to "all abortions" at which point a utopian constituency could have a debate and let the chips fall where they may.
I agree with the premise of Jubilee, we need to talk through conflict - yes even with flat earthers. Shunning and degrading people will never convince them. But Jubilee stopped being a conversation/ debate a long time ago and its just about click bait and sensationalism.
The way I see it, finding the middle ground is not so much about validating a ridiculous or immoral pov, but rather it's about validating whatever life experiences the other person has had that got them to this point, and in so doing then maybe you get them to extend the same courtesy to you and hopefully see you as a human who is just humaning and not trying to get the country to implode on itself. To me it beats the alternative, which is dismissing the other side as dumb or evil, thus alienating them and making sure your "irreconcilable differences" stay actually irreconcilable. To be clear this doesn't mean validating (for example) homophobia, but acknowledging that someone's upbringing may have encouraged that stance... But they are still human and still learning, all of us are. That said, the dude that said that "fat people deserve to be laughed at" has some nerve shaming anyone for their appearance when he himself looks like he escaped a videogame from the late '90s.
Yeah, I'm glad I didn't know about this stuff until I heard about it here. This kind of "make nonsensical beliefs seem equal to reality and force them to 'compromise' in the middle" stuff makes me extremely angry... "If one says it's raining, and another says it's clear, the journalist's duty is NOT to print both, but to find out and print the truth"
I was a kid when society started offering up odious platitudes about how 'all opinions are valid,' and even 'an opinion can't be wrong.' And even as a child, that struck me as patently illogical. Uninformed/misinformed/disinformed opinions are not valid, and should not be treated as such. This desire to break reality up into a miasma of personal opinions is actively destroying the very concept of reality.
I'm confused by the complaint over Pete Buttigiege's rise. Michael seemed to be saying that previous elections should be what leads someone to be viable for future leadership roles and that Pete hadn't achieved this due to his being appointed secretary of transportation, but in making his point, Michael laid out three steps in Pete's rise, only one of which was through appointment, the other two being because "people voted for [him] and liked [him]." Sure his rise was quicker than most, but the only reason he got "anointed" by "the democratic establishment" is because they saw a rising star in the democratic party based on him "somehow having done pretty well" in the 2020 primary. And if he were to become a presidential nominee in the future he'd almost certainly have to primary again, which means he'll need to be liked and voted for. I'm left wondering if Michael thinks politicians, or presidential hopefuls, should never be offered or accept political appointments, and their achievements should be electoral 100% of the time, which if so.... is kind of weird. ngl.
I think the argument being made has to do with qualification and credentials. Being a mayor doesn't guarantee having the skill in either category to oversee the Department of Transportation.
@@Hawkenwhacker I hear you but if that was his point he made it in a pretty convoluted way. It sounded to me like he was more upset about Pete being tee'd up for a future presidential administration than him lacking expertise in transportation. My own guess at what led Michael to disparage Buttigiege's rise is that in 2020, after Joe Biden, Pete Buttigiege was the front-runner in terms of "establishment" Democratic contenders, having won Iowa. Despite this, after the South Carolina primary went to Biden, he was the first of the non-progressive hopefuls to drop out and endorse Biden, with the rest of contenders quickly following suit. This shored up Biden's support, and essentially turned the rest of the campaign into a two man race between him and Bernie Sanders (with the possible exception for Elizabeth Warren who wouldn't drop out till much later and if anything drew away support from Bernie). So I think for many people, Biden's later appointment of Buttigiege had the appearance of a corrupt "quid pro quo" to make Bernie lose and have the race go to Biden. 2 things though; 1. if this was Michael's point he still didn't do a good job of making it. And 2. making deals and bargains is fundamental to politics, so thinking it's corrupt to exchange one political loss for the potential of a future political gain seems, at least to me, misguided at best. Bernie got outplayed, but he also knew the game he was playing. It was on him to win the majority of votes whether he was facing one establishment candidate or a dozen.
Totally agree. If anything, I felt like the Democratic party shut him down in the 2020 primary to make way for their predetermined choice in Biden. I liked Pete and was going to vote for him in my primary, but then he dropped out, which seemed baffling to me at the time Like I agree with Michael's point that Dems have been trying to pick the candidate without listening to their party, but Pete being snubbed proves it, not his success
When you actually watch Jubilee's earlier videos as well as the employees being put on the spotlight they actually seemed very focus on creating middle ground. But in recent time it is very clear they're in it for the outrage clicks. I don't know if it's because they're run under new management now or if they want to play on the UA-cam algorithm or whatever the case maybe but my point that I'm trying to make is that you tell that they initially had good intentions and were making good progress but then something happened which lead them into the current state they're in
Most of the time they present it as left vs right, when in reality it’s just liberal (which is moderately right wing) vs conservatives which is far right. They almost never have any communist or socialist on. They’re trying to find a middle ground that is going right wing.
And the rig,ht wing,ers they bring on have like careers in public speaking and being thoug,ht leade,rs and the "left" wing,ers are like some guy who just graduated highschool and works in a hardware store.
Not a fan of Ben Shapiro, but not sure how he got owned by the person in the white hoodie. If I took the behavior of that person, and put it in the body of a far right person, they would seem extraordinarily unhinged.
25:05 such massive respect for this guy. He's so respectful and calm but hearing that just fills me with so much rage, it has nothing to do with me and I still couldn't be half as articulate as him.
this video came to me at the perfect time. I had a long time acquaintance not too long ago react negatively to a post asking for lgbtq+ friends, families and allies to not out their queer friends/family members to others as it can be dangerous. He went into my dms after he dismissed the topic saying people are overreacting and being called out on it, to hollar about middle grounds and how it is insanity. However, even when given a real life example at how my life as a queer person was put in peril simply for walking down the street with an arm full of art supplies, he doubled down in that we were overreacting. Ignoring the gun pointed at me, ignoring the threats to my life... he was determined that the centrist way was the right one. The centrist belief between queer folks existing and exterminating them. He refused to define what that meant, then went on a gaslit journey about how he is a cis male and boo hoo sorry about that. I was actually stunned to be honest, and he kept bringing up Trump when he was never mentioned by any parties involved, and ignored that my incident happened under the Biden administration. I refuse to read anything else of what he has to say, because it only devolved from there. Thank you for this. It did help me realize that maybe I wasn't insane for being quite put back by his reaction and that his reaction only helps normalize the more violent behaviors.
I lost my job after I came out as trans. I have lost friends after I told them I was trans (I was a trans person once we got to know each other, but I didnt tell them until months later). They will never understand how terrifying it is and they dare being upset at us for trying to live as stealth as possible.
perfect use of that succession clip! how many unserious people are just yapping online and demand attention that def dont need their crazy spread. omg we need like an entrance exam or user permit for the internet, if you pass the permit you get online, if you get 2nd class permit your allowed to post, you break the rules you loose online access.
Aw dang, I have disagreements with Alain Badiou's materialist epistemology, I sure hope Jubilee sets up a video where we can debate while playing musical-chairs or something.
having watched people talk about their participitation in these videos, the common things they say is that Jubilee tend to cut a lot of content from their videos, and even rearrange clips to give a different message than the events really happening.
I liked jubilee when it first started and made actually good debates with genuine conversations but then it just went off the rails and into the toilet
I'm so glad you pointed this out. I've always loved middle ground because I like to hear others opinions but at the same time we need to have a conversation based on facts. They need to reign it in and fact check people in person and if they want to keep going then they need to be removed. They're just monetizing bullying.
The problem that a channel like Jubilee faces is that no matter what it does it will *always* set itself for criticism from at least one prominent and credible group in society. If it opted to broadcast discussions of less controversial topics then it would be accused of being milquetoast and too safety-conscious, but if it opts to have people discuss extreme and difficult claims it will be accused of giving a platform to 'hate speech' and of making such speech, along with the opinions of those who use it, seem legitimate. In order to prove that it's worth watching it has decided to go for the second of these, but while that's beneficial inasmuch as it's a more accurate representation of the opinions and speech people actually have and use, it will inevitably be written off as 'hate-adjacent' or something similar. For my part, I think it's doing something really fantastic. It's realised that a lot of people *have* these opinions, and that in our current society it is far more attractive to stick with those who agree with us rather than to explore alternative viewpoints, especially because such exploration often ends up involving people who themselves have no desire to explore in a similar way, and who simply want to convert others. However we may feel about it, there *are* people who believe that womanhood is something a person 'just knows' and there are *also* people who believe that it's physiological and entirely unalterable (and some of the people in this second group consider those in the first to be dangerous). We currently live in a society where these opinions exist and conflict with each other, but a channel like Jubilee has chosen to at least attempt to get them associating with, and talking to, each other. If Jubilee didn't already exist it would be necessary to invent it.
7:17... please, for the love of all that is sweet and good in this world, please tell me that they did not actually try to categorize men as alphas and betas and hold a debate against them...
14:32 lol yep, that Logan Roy "you are not serious people" quote has definitely been popping in my head lately. I'm all for this video. The election really has me contemplating how helpful a lot of this political content and online discourse actually is
What is your dream Jubilee debate?
Marvel vs DC
10 concentration camp apologists vs 1 Simon Wiesenthal
Marvel Vs Capcom @@sb76117
Bodybuilders vs bolemics
the 'my pillow guy' debates college students and tries to guess which one is an undercover politics twitch streamer
"If someone says it's raining and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the fucking window and find out which is true."
When they're standing a mile or more apart, they might both be speaking the truth. Some places are frustrating with rain showers that way.
@@MalfosRanger you are wasting your time. These people are only upset because the show doesn't try to convert them to the "correct" opinions.
Sometimes it is more valuable to listen to someone give a wrong answer, but people aren't smart enough for that
@@nkosimataka5565yea no
@@sydney6818 Considering that is the basis of therapy I think I am right but enjoy your bubble bro
@@nkosimataka5565 i guess lying to yourself does make you feel better so have fun with that
For me, this problem with Jubilee is that finding the middle ground isn’t the point.
The arguing is.
yes.
You mean, your issue is people with different views… discussing their views? Or do you mean that you think people get too аggrеssive and аrgumentative, and that they should discuss them more “civilly”?
@@alexbennet4195 I think they mean the sport of arguing rather than understanding each other.
@@1NameGoesHere so it’s too much of people just regurgitating their own talking points without actually listening to the other side’s positions? So in that case the issue is not with the goal of the series itself - it’s actually that it fails to achieve its own goal of reaching a “middle ground”?
@@alexbennet4195 I don't believe that finding the middle ground is actually Jubilee's goal. that may be what they tell you, but that's not why the producers put the show together. they knew people like conflict, and that if they put up videos of people arguing, they could sell that premise to advertisers.
Props to Wisecrack for calling out Jubilee for not being about discussion but clickbait outrage.
As well as their clear preference for platforming and amplifying the voices of corporate astroturfed professional reactionaries usually against significantly smaller normie libs and leftist content creators.
So they basically profit off people's misery,don't they?Jubilee really is shameless.
Doesn't everyone say that?
I mean...they're right, but giving them props for this is like giving them props for calling out Tump.
Not exactly a unique viewpoint.
I feel that now they have been Ragebait which made me sad cuz in the beginning, they used to have substance
Jubilee has the aesthetics of an empathetic centrist platform but the praxis of a nihilistic capitalist machine.
well put.
@@WisecrackEDUthis comment applies to your shit too after that tankie ass Pete ramble
@@MrSomnixwhich video was this? (Genuinely asking. I don’t watch every video from this channel, and I’d like to judge for myself whether or not that’s true.)
@MiraBoo this video around the 10:50 mark. Pete is a shining star amongst the democratic party at the moment and showing conservatives I know his speeches about things like abortion has caused a lot of people to understand left-leaning points, even those engrained in the religious right.
Theres plenty to hate the Democrats for, Pete is not one of them and the only reason I could think that a left-leaning commentator would have such vitriol for them would be that he's not commie enough.
@@MrSomnix Oh, that part was so brief that I paid no mind to it. I figured (based on what he said) that his issue had more to do with how Pete got his position. In my anecdotal experience, most people (Dems, Republicans, and others) usually view Pete quite favorably.
1 Philosophy youtuber vs. 25 Jubilee producers when?
ANY PLACE ANY TIME
No way he would do it
@@WisecrackEDUWell, y'all got balls. I love it.
I'd watch this fight on a movie streaming service in 480p
Nah, I want Aba and Preach against the Jubilee producers. I'm sure Jubilee is still butt hurt about that video were A&P called out their antics.
I think the smartest person on Jubilee is that guy that walked off.
indeed.
I felt so bad for him he looked like he was genuinely advocating and trying to have a tough conversation. It’s such a slap in the face to have to deal with radical centrists and argue with the far right
“It just don’t make sense”
Yes sir you are exactly right, it doesn’t.
What episode is that?
@@LocoGeorge123 human rights for convicts is such a important topic that nobody wants to talk about, majority of people still think convict does not deserve any right. they give him hope just for him to realize it's all a joke
HOLY SHIT I'M NOT CRAZY. Jubilee has gotten so WEIRD.
YOU ARE NOT CRAZY.
It has indeed changed but we need to understand and remember we're surrounded by the bad actors, bad faith people this video mentions. Showing them reminds us we need to be prepared to deal with people like them, they're real, some of them are stupid and brutally uneducated, but they exist.
Same. I used to be a fan but now I have a hard time finishing an upload.
Astronaut pointing a gun at another astronaut: always has been
Jubilee has always been this way. They never correct lies or conspiracy theories. I realized this when I started watching them in 2020
Not all opinions are valid or deserve air time. I hate that people think being "unbiased" is giving all views a voice. The Earth is not flat. No debate needed. Slavery is wrong, no debate needed. Children shouldn't go hungry, no debate needed. Anything opposed to these ideas (and some others) does not need to be heard or given time to spread.
Banning abortion causes more death than saves lives.
the asymmetry of bullshit
Completely agree, can you imagine they actually gave pro-abortion advocates airtime, how can such violence and abuse be ok? it’s appalling!
@@redrkstoneexplain how abortion is violent at all. The only violence is you removing women’s autonomy
@ it’s violent in that it is the forced killing of another human. An unborn baby dies in an abortion. To give voice to those who promote such terrible acts is simply wrong.
Middle ground in 1700s :Slavers vs slaves
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!
I recognize my comment might seem ambiguous given my username; I am unambiguously on the side of the people who were kidnapped and made to perform forced labor.
" well I'd argue that they were happy working under constant threat of violence for free"
"the wealth class deserves charitye"
@@prodigal_southerner Brave
the fact that they had the audacity to have a disclaimer in one of their more recent videos about hate comments, "if you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all." Are they insane? Do they not see the content they're pushing out? How could you possibly expect a topic as controversial as Palestine v Israel or literally anything involving Kirk and Shapiro to not stir up the normal general public?
"if you don't like what you see don't bother commenting, just go watch something else. We don't need your criticism here, we are trying to find the middle ground" - a Jubilee producer, probably.
It's worse when you see them platforming know grifters whose entire media training and experience is to say outrages stuff to get clicks and thus ad revenue. Like, what did you expect was going to happen really?
They don't care
They should use that same logic in their videos.
That moment with the former convict leaving the show was honestly heartbreaking. This video did a great job explaining the problem with Jubilee's format but that man understood it instantly better than anyone else.
Can you please explain this to me? I am genuinely not understanding. Thank you.
@@swartley In regards to the guy walking off the set, the question of 'Do certain people deserve legal rights?' supposes that it's something worth debating and the format of Jubilee gives equal weight to both sides. Plus, it's kinda wack having to argue for why you deserve rights with someone who believes that you don't.
That's my take on it.
@@michaellundholm5843 the fact that things like prison exists already answers in the affirmative though, the only difference is that the prompt didn't word it in a way that ties a pretty bow on top
I'm so glad you made this video. Why was she such a popular X-Men character? Because she dressed cool? Making fireworks with your hands is like, barely even a superpower
Lowkey unironically me watching xmen 97
They did Jubilee dirty sometimes. Someone who creates high energy blasts from her hands without the use of metal or electricity? Sounds like the perfect person to fight Magneto. But that's beside the point, which is: a Jubilee was a huge party, hundreds of years ago during fuedal times, where the landlords would forgive everyone's debts. This show is an even bigger disgrace to that idea
Fuck jubilee. All my homes hate jubilee
This is the reason she become a far right grifter and changed her name to Firecracker. No one was taking her seriously
Oh jeez I just posted something almost exactly like this because your comment wasn't in my initial cursory scroll. That will teach the algo to underestimate my wanting to talk about X-Men!
Also, I think her popularity was largely due to her being the central plot character in the animated series' pilot, Night of the Sentinels (which you probably know. But maybe you didn't know that Pizza Hut gave out a free VHS of that episode with orders for a while as a promo!)
It's gross, they gave life to all the hate in a youtube comment section. They purposely skew the overton window for clicks. They are garbage. Their mission statement is a bold faced lie.
Because… they had a couple of people on who were аssholes to fаt people? That’s not actually the “ехtreme rіght”
Preach.
I prefer windows that are under a ton
I don't think it's really "skewing" the overton window. The overton window is shifting to the right. The narrative is dominated by right wing rhetoric. Democrats see it, that's why they are adopting right wing policies like securing the border, increasing police budgets, supporting drilling and fracking, removing social safety nets, lowering taxes on the wealthy, etc. Universal healthcare was a major point of debate before 2016 and was haralded by many democrats, now people get laughed out of the room when they bring it up. The liberal progressivism of the obama era is dying, people aren't showing up and voting for it. Our federal government is now dominated by what was seen as the extreme far right before 2016, and they are implementing plans that will have consequences to be felt for generations. In all likelihood even if the democrats take back the white house and congress in 2028, they will look a lot more like the Bushes and Reagan and less like Bernie Sanders or AOC.
UA-cam hate existed before jubilee
That guy at the end who ripped his mic off is the real king
100% Good for him
What exactly happened there? I'm so curious!
the correct answer is to not play the game
@@sildarmillion Just my speculation, but it looks like they weren't given the questions beforehand.
Dude's probably known a lot of people who were falsely accused or had some kind of context that the "justice" they were dealt was anything but.
For the first question to be "How much do you agree or disagree: those people don't deserve to be treated like people," - regardless of how accurately it might reflect the average American perspective - that's real messed up.
@rosslytle5700 basically he did not like or agree with how the questions were phrased and how they seemed biased
damn, never saw that clip of a guy walking off before, thank you for adding that. THAT DUDE WAS BASED AF
yeah that dude rips.
What episode is that? Thanks
Looks like the cops vs ex convicts @@pattheticc
Why did he walk away for exactly?
@@justnickplease5756he realized he didn’t have a seat at the table but was actually on the menu instead.
Speaking from 30 years of fat shaming, it's just bullying it doesn't make people lose weight, kicking us in the butt doesn't kickstart our metabolism it's just bullies being mean for the sake of sadism getting off on our pain
good thing im a fat masochist
The argument in favor of fat shaming doesn't even make sense. "Oh thanks, I didn't notice I was fat, nobody has ever told me that, thank you".
So don´t show them your pain.
Just say you pity them. Remind them your life is happy and you are loved, and their lives are full of hate and ugliness that dwells inside them. Say the world is beautiful and glorious and it is a shame they will never see it because they only have eyes for ugliness and hate.
They wish to use you so they can feel big, shrink them and remind them their true place, in the trash.
@@MJCKCA I think it's not quite as simple, as normalizing some things removes barriers, but doesn't affect anyone's current state anymore. So while a general sense of being obese and likely unhealthy can have a preventative effect because the feeling of shame serves as a signal that you're doing something of social consequence and might want to think on it, simply bullying people into becoming thin just isn't a thing. It's a typical "works for me" argument and if those guys in that crowd were in the same situation, same disposition, they'd at best be skinny fat and busy deluding themselves. Fundamental attribution error at work.
@@Hosenanzugtasche the fundamental problem with the stance of "normalizing removes barriers" is that being fat is not "normalized", it's just not ridiculed as much as it was in the 90's.
It's not like people feel their weight is "the norm" when the clothes they like don't fit, or the health consultants won't stop recommending you to "lose weight" to any symptom you have, among multiple other things. Saying it's been normalized just because fit people don't perceive the small things doesn't mean there are no barriers
Rap name: Lil' Accountability
Accountahillability
That's the real name
Lil’ Shit
That's a fire name XD 😂
Winner 🥇 right here
as soon as they brought on myron and allowed him to basically tell people to their face "you are worthless and should die", i knew that it was never about finding middle ground for jubilee. the contestants that dealt with him are SO patient, and i hope they're okay mentally after dealing with his bigotry.
jubilee bringing myron is actually unforgivable
yeah - that's the point at which it seemed clear that they truly do not care about anything other than stirring up conflict for clicks.
yeah, the last people who need to be platformed to a wider audience.
@@WisecrackEDU yup
@@deadhead4077 yea pretty much
free speech? i guess?
Jubilee made so much more sense to me when I sorted their videos by oldest first and saw that the channel used to be for evangelizing Christian Youth programs
Wait what 😮
Jubilee treats it as if both sides has merits. A bigoted/unscientific side shouldn't platformed. There's no middle ground between reason and lack off. A debate is between both sides that not only have merit and study, but also when both sides are interested in edification.
Jubilee is only interested in views, their livelihood is based on the algorithm of engagement and not actual validity of ideas. You can see this example most sharply when Ben Shapiro was smiling through out his episode. He knows he doesn't have to be correct, his interest is in getting paid and expanding his reputation. He doesn't lose anything from "losing the debate", he still gets paid.
censorship only grows what you try to silence
The hang up I have with that is this. The people on the other side of your beliefs can and would call you just as bigoted/unscientific. So then nothing can be debated. There were times where even opinions that are accepted as true today, were called similar things, that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be platformed. I agree with not platforming people who don't genuinely want to discuss, but even the flat earth episode was interesting in my opinion, even if it wasn't for the purpose of finding truth.
The problem with this video as well is the assumption that the only value in listening to the other side is to find the truth, which I disagree with
@@NoName-h5i4q Censorship requires active silencing of knowledge and public opinion by a governing power. A private company deciding not to give an equal platfrom to extreme opinions would not be censorship.
I guarantee that dude who wrote “why women deserve less” wrote the entire thing in his notes app on his phone
Someone who read it pointed out all the typos in it
Like it was never proofread 😂
The irony of the Fresh & Fit guy saying we've gotten away from our ability to shame others is the very reason he has a voice and a podcast.
I stopped watching Jubilee a while ago for this exact reason. The only Jubilee video I recently watched was the one with Pete Buttigieg which, admittedly, I did find interesting but that’s more due to how Pete conducts himself as a public servant and leader
It’s probably the only jubilee video where everyone listened to each other and it wasn’t a screaming match lol
This is why it is important to value evidence also. If you have a position that lacks evidence (conversion therapy and flat earth) they are by definition not valid positions therefore you cant say there are two sides to an issue
I agree with you, though there are many out there who believe the facts are just made up to support their oppositions position for any set of beliefs. It's a delusional world view for those that accept the facts and entirely rational for those that reject them.
Some positions are not testable. You're not going to convince people that religion isn't valid just because there's no direct evidence of God.
Hitchens razor: That which is presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
@@jonmartinson6830 That's not a compelling argument to convince someone to abandon a core feature of their identity. Religion is real, there is evidence of its existence even if there is no evidence for their specific beliefs.
That would mean no progress, as a hypothesis can't have evidence without it being tested, but the lack of evidence can have it dismissed.
Woman deserve less ? I actually do agree with that book title.
Woman do deserve to have less harassment, domestic violence and discrimination in their lives.
That was the actual content of the book
I also hate how the format obligates politeness and stoicism. If somebody says something reprehensible and violent while sitting calmly and another person's reaction reflects their words and not their demeanor, the second person gets framed as the problem. One of the most maddening things about being active in BLM was how often we were told by middle-ground folks that we weren't being polite or quiet enough in seeking justice for violent crimes committed with impunity
But to say you have nothing that can be critiqued makes things problematic. I love BLM as a concept, but I can’t say I’m a part of the movement because I can’t fully commit to its leaders or its call to actions.
Like the “Just say no to drugs” is a good concept in theory, but incredibly flawed.
I think the problem is people treat political ideologies like religious truths, and become the exact person they hate (judgmental biased bigots who are allergic to questioning their own beliefs.)
Do you think BLM is perfect and never enticed people to be too violent? Do you think anyone who thinks BLM movements in 2020 did more harm than necessary? Or is saying anything against BLM a sin within itself, and marks you as a heretic- I mean a racist?
But that's the point of the format. Well that's what should be the point of the format. You can tell anywhere you want, but actually hearing opinions in a calm manner that you can understand is way rarer, I don't see why you would wanna treat that as an opportunity to act like you would in a normal rally
@suthern the series is the most acute and evil expression of this I’ve ever seen. “Caring” is good unless you visibly care or are visibly passionate, in which case you lost because you “lost your cool” and are obviously worth writing off as an example of the crazy side.
That's rich for a man to say that women wanting an abortion is just them trying to get out of taking responsibility for their actions.
I don't think he knows where babies come from.
Y
I mean, it objectively is.
It's wierd how X-men's Jubilee creates sparkes of light yet Jubilee on UA-cam creates sparkes of plight.
It's funny, cuz the channel is based on the X-men. As she was an asian-american superhero, and Jubilee was originated by asian americans. Which is pretty cute.
Rap name: Lil Man Complex.
You win. This is now that guy's rap name forever. I don't even remember his government name. He is now only Lil Man Complex.
@ 😂🤣😂 He is!
I was thinking “Lil PP” or “Walking Watchlist” would be more fitting
@MrBwort 😂❤️😂🤣🤣🤣
I've always liked the quote "It's possible to be so open minded your brain falls out"
As someone who’s never heard of Jubilee this was quite a trip
Good. Preferbaly no one should have to watch that garbage, I hadn't heard it till that conservative talkperson was against 25 "woke" students, after watching some of it, it was incredibly disappointing, it wasn't a debate, it was an argument without much ground rules, apart from the ones that only apply to the liberal or leftist folks in there.
Next on my feed will be
The problem with Wisecrack 🗿
made by Wisecrack.
20 Wisecrack haters against Michael Burns
But Michael burns is on the hater side, and Michael Burns is represented by Lux
The Wisecrack Situation is Crazy
@@Andres-3000 but surprise it's Jared and he tells them how weird they all are for still commenting wisecrack used to be better
Rap name: MackelLess
nice
Hehehe.
I will give one devil’s advocate. I was a young earth creationist until I saw the Ken Ham v Bill Nye debate, so while one could argue it gave Ham a platform it also gave Nye a platform. Again I agree with Burns’ overall argument but there might be a silver lining
fair point!
I think the important difference between that debate and Jubilee debates is the curation, like Ham and Nye are both pretty well educated in their chosen fields and are equally skilled in communicating to an audience. Plus, I think debates are a tool, so maybe the Ham v Nye debate was just a good use of the tool and Jubilee is going for a world record of ways to use a single tool.
@@Nerdish-o6o Curation seems key in a lot of ways. The right pattern of speech can make someone seem like they won even if they said nothing so properly mediated conversation topics and flow can be key for accurate reactions from people on the topic of debate
What changed your mind about the age of the earth?
@@devinmcmanus Nye had evidence that informed his conclusions. Ham just dismissed evidence by cherry picking and blowing up irrelevant uncertainties in order to say that no one had has an answer therefore default to a young earth. This doesnt prove the proposition as this is not evidence. The earth could still be billions of years even if the current methods dont work. Also his logic of you can decide things are not true simply because you werent there is not logical and falls apart pretty quickly if you just think about it
One thing I've been thinking a lot about recently has been that since the "debate stage" inherently places both sides on the same ground, the conspiracy side has already won.
The earth is not flat. This is true. Placing a flat earther on the same stage as an astrophysicist tells the audience that these are both equal sides that deserve to be heard with the same level of consideration. Any scientist that is put up there has already lost.
I agree that a debate where the other side has no evidence is pointless, but I don't think that means both sides have the same level of merit
Wisecrack? More like Wokecrack, with host Wokle Burns. Maybe stop drinking so much Yes please coffee and you wouldn't be so awake. (I actually love the channel if it isn't clear)
this comment rules and I want you to know I love and appreciate you.
Yes I woke up and I will be woke.
I love the first part of this comment and hate that we're in a world right now where the last part needs to be included because weirdos like this actually exist
I'm more woke than most. I take lots of naps and I manage to wake up every single time.
We are woke mob against sleep sheep.
So happy your this video was made, we need more people roasting jubilee. Enough is enough, eventually they will have a video that says, "Middle Ground: Slavers or Slave advocates vs Human rights."
Aba and preach have been roasting jubilee for years. Check out the time they watched feminists vs male rights activists.
That title seems a little too tame for their ragebait channel, it'd be something more like "slave advocates vs angry black men"
My offering to the Algod, may this content be elevated.
your sacrifice will not be in vain
Amen. 🙏
As someone who used to be a fan of Jubilee, they USED to make wholesome, Asian related skits like WongFu Productions. They weren't as good as WongFu but they had some relatable stuff. Then they got their first viral video and they've just been doing nothing but clickbait outrage videos. I stopped watching their garbage years ago.
Jubilee in my mind is trashy day time TV. The people who make it though seem to think they are making groundbreaking art. And are incapable of taking criticism, so it's kinda a waste of time making constructive criticism to them.
jubilee seems like the pseudo intellectual equivalent to kids putting a couple of spiders in a cup and shaking it up to get them to fight.
Mike I'm a man and that is false I want to sleep with muitple men.
thank you for clarifying and spreading the truth
I never watched Jubilee since I never knew about it. Thanks, Michael, for showing me another YT channel to avoid that causes brain rot.
There is no "middle ground" when talking about human rights. You are either for people having rights or against it, and if you are against it you yourself do not deserve any rights. The people against human beings being human beings have never in their life had to fight for rights of their own.
So if you are against any theoretical human right, you don't deserve any rights? That's silly, humans should not have all rights
For a moment, I thought this was about the virtuous practice of Jubilee. Instead, I discovered this was really about the spiritual successor to the Jerry Springer Show.
Many people that influence the public discourse do not operate in good faith to seek the best solution but instead simply want their side to win at all costs, intellectual integrity be damned.
9:28 “living in the comments” should be his rap name
“Straight out of the comments”
@ we can’t assume he’s straight lol
@@Neighthanyelling indeed, indeed 😂
His rap name: Mr. Pro Lyfe
I was in high school when Trump won in 2016 and one of my teachers said something that still rings true, he said that we now live in a post-truth world. Nobody is interested in critically analyzing the facts and evidence. Everyone thinks that any facts or evidence that contradicts any aspect of their belief system must be an attempt to decieve them, and so our society is being modelled after the biases, prejudices and gut feelings of a smaller and smaller minority of people with the most exteme beliefs. Whoever can say the most contentious rhetoric, the stuff that gets the most attention from both supporters and detractors, ends up controlling the narrative and the overton window shifts along with them. This is why the republican party has become the party of what was only a couple years ago considered the "alt right", and liberal progressivism that was considered the dominant position in the Obama era is now being considered extremist and the democrats are moving further and further right.
I can only hope this is just a trend. Trump has created a cult of personality, and the thing about a cult of personality is that once the cult leader is no longer around, the cult dies with it. Republicans have no one who can rile up people as much as Dolan can on a wide scale. They have other figures, but does everybody know who Charlie Kirk is? Or does anyone have a fun impression of Eric Trump? The answers to both is, in order, no i hope not, and no, Eric Trump has the charisma of a wet bean.
The fact you think this is a new phenomenon is insane. The history of the US government is rife with medical, military, and political f- ups. We're just able to see and communicate better with the Internet.
Ironically, the greatest thing that could happen for the majority of the world would be a jubilee, but I mean the original jubilee, the forgiveness of all debts.
0:29 I will be seeing this in my nightmares for the foreseeable future
Not having watched one of these, the simple text pop-ups of "I am great at sex" and "I am afraid of death" are hysterical.
Where the hell are people who are great at sex and don’t fear death even supposed to go? And here I though the entire thing was meant to be inclusive
This video is ostensibly about Jubilee but speaks to a much broader cultural issue plaguing not just the states, but much of the West. People have always had opinions, but the advent of the Internet, and more recently social media, has given these opinions a platform. The same platform as people with decades of experience and expertise in a field. As you cited, there is no more truth, jsut an increasingly accessible marketplace to flog your ideas, however baselss.
The difficulty in having an honest debate among the parties is that they are not aligned on their basic premises and therefore will argue past each other.
It's like having a boxing match where the participants enter separate, but adjacent rings. They can see their opponent and the strikes, but never feel them.
Premise alignment needs to happen first, but that's often so basic and technical that it doesn't make good television.
For example defining what rights are, what are the criteria for those rights, analyzing a specific group and determining if they meet those criteria, teasing out any exceptions, the philosophy of those exceptions, and if there are contradictions in application.
It's long and is boring and won't get clicks.
So, I once signed up to be in a Jubilee video. It was a middle ground about being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints versus ex members. I was so excited when I actually got a response back and was asked to come be a part of it! However, a major family thing happened, and I was no longer able to come. That was all the way back in 2020. They never made the video, and I now when I look , realize it might've actually been a very difficult situation, and I'm grateful now I never went.
I was excited because I wanted to share my beliefs in a safe place, but now I realize I might've just been attacked.
I realized this effect just after Roe was overturned. The conservative framing of the spectrum of abortion accessibility as "no abortion" to "choice of abortion until viability and/or medically necessary" makes it so easy to label the already centrist position of "choice" as extremist and thereby demand a "compromise" which can only restrict access. The Platonic ideal of this debate would have the spectrum be "no abortions" to "all abortions" at which point a utopian constituency could have a debate and let the chips fall where they may.
It is extremist
I agree with the premise of Jubilee, we need to talk through conflict - yes even with flat earthers. Shunning and degrading people will never convince them.
But Jubilee stopped being a conversation/ debate a long time ago and its just about click bait and sensationalism.
i'll just keep it simple - if im within arm's reach of shapiro or kirk.... i ain't gonna be debating them lol
The way I see it, finding the middle ground is not so much about validating a ridiculous or immoral pov, but rather it's about validating whatever life experiences the other person has had that got them to this point, and in so doing then maybe you get them to extend the same courtesy to you and hopefully see you as a human who is just humaning and not trying to get the country to implode on itself. To me it beats the alternative, which is dismissing the other side as dumb or evil, thus alienating them and making sure your "irreconcilable differences" stay actually irreconcilable.
To be clear this doesn't mean validating (for example) homophobia, but acknowledging that someone's upbringing may have encouraged that stance... But they are still human and still learning, all of us are.
That said, the dude that said that "fat people deserve to be laughed at" has some nerve shaming anyone for their appearance when he himself looks like he escaped a videogame from the late '90s.
25:00 that's so interesting to see someone quit Jubilee. I'll look more into this episode. Good on him for breaking out of the framework.
When they put Fresh and fit on I unsubscribed... its disgusting I am glad this channel is speaking up against it.
25:29 this is my favorite part🥰🥰🥰
This is me learning what Jubilee is in real time. Thanks Wisecrack!
I'm glad you didn't have to know about it until now!
Ditto. I thought for a second you were railing against the Biblical practice or debt forgiveness, or the X-Man…
Yeah, I'm glad I didn't know about this stuff until I heard about it here. This kind of "make nonsensical beliefs seem equal to reality and force them to 'compromise' in the middle" stuff makes me extremely angry...
"If one says it's raining, and another says it's clear, the journalist's duty is NOT to print both, but to find out and print the truth"
I was a kid when society started offering up odious platitudes about how 'all opinions are valid,' and even 'an opinion can't be wrong.' And even as a child, that struck me as patently illogical. Uninformed/misinformed/disinformed opinions are not valid, and should not be treated as such. This desire to break reality up into a miasma of personal opinions is actively destroying the very concept of reality.
I'm confused by the complaint over Pete Buttigiege's rise. Michael seemed to be saying that previous elections should be what leads someone to be viable for future leadership roles and that Pete hadn't achieved this due to his being appointed secretary of transportation, but in making his point, Michael laid out three steps in Pete's rise, only one of which was through appointment, the other two being because "people voted for [him] and liked [him]." Sure his rise was quicker than most, but the only reason he got "anointed" by "the democratic establishment" is because they saw a rising star in the democratic party based on him "somehow having done pretty well" in the 2020 primary. And if he were to become a presidential nominee in the future he'd almost certainly have to primary again, which means he'll need to be liked and voted for.
I'm left wondering if Michael thinks politicians, or presidential hopefuls, should never be offered or accept political appointments, and their achievements should be electoral 100% of the time, which if so.... is kind of weird. ngl.
I think the argument being made has to do with qualification and credentials. Being a mayor doesn't guarantee having the skill in either category to oversee the Department of Transportation.
@@Hawkenwhacker I hear you but if that was his point he made it in a pretty convoluted way. It sounded to me like he was more upset about Pete being tee'd up for a future presidential administration than him lacking expertise in transportation.
My own guess at what led Michael to disparage Buttigiege's rise is that in 2020, after Joe Biden, Pete Buttigiege was the front-runner in terms of "establishment" Democratic contenders, having won Iowa. Despite this, after the South Carolina primary went to Biden, he was the first of the non-progressive hopefuls to drop out and endorse Biden, with the rest of contenders quickly following suit. This shored up Biden's support, and essentially turned the rest of the campaign into a two man race between him and Bernie Sanders (with the possible exception for Elizabeth Warren who wouldn't drop out till much later and if anything drew away support from Bernie). So I think for many people, Biden's later appointment of Buttigiege had the appearance of a corrupt "quid pro quo" to make Bernie lose and have the race go to Biden.
2 things though; 1. if this was Michael's point he still didn't do a good job of making it. And 2. making deals and bargains is fundamental to politics, so thinking it's corrupt to exchange one political loss for the potential of a future political gain seems, at least to me, misguided at best. Bernie got outplayed, but he also knew the game he was playing. It was on him to win the majority of votes whether he was facing one establishment candidate or a dozen.
Thank you. That part was also weird to me.
@@Hawkenwhacker You know who the last person that attacked Pete over experience was? Tulsi Gabbard.
Totally agree. If anything, I felt like the Democratic party shut him down in the 2020 primary to make way for their predetermined choice in Biden. I liked Pete and was going to vote for him in my primary, but then he dropped out, which seemed baffling to me at the time
Like I agree with Michael's point that Dems have been trying to pick the candidate without listening to their party, but Pete being snubbed proves it, not his success
i’ve been hearing similar sentiment about jubilee for a while now, you put it very eloquently & gave some great examples
I thought that you were going to throw shade on Jubilee from the XMen. *Wrath Spared*
no way that Jubilee rips
The full title should be "Women Deserve Less Myron Gaines".
11:59 "Satanists vs. Major religions" is one of the stupidest things I've read in while.
Thanks for saying it. Every video recently has been unhinged.
When you actually watch Jubilee's earlier videos as well as the employees being put on the spotlight they actually seemed very focus on creating middle ground. But in recent time it is very clear they're in it for the outrage clicks. I don't know if it's because they're run under new management now or if they want to play on the UA-cam algorithm or whatever the case maybe but my point that I'm trying to make is that you tell that they initially had good intentions and were making good progress but then something happened which lead them into the current state they're in
I've always loved the point that there can't be a middle ground between what's real and complete nonsense.
Most of the time they present it as left vs right, when in reality it’s just liberal (which is moderately right wing) vs conservatives which is far right. They almost never have any communist or socialist on. They’re trying to find a middle ground that is going right wing.
And the rig,ht wing,ers they bring on have like careers in public speaking and being thoug,ht leade,rs and the "left" wing,ers are like some guy who just graduated highschool and works in a hardware store.
Lil Recently Divorced Dad
nice.
Guy's rap name should be dipshizzle mcgizzle
Love your videos!
I have been waiting for this video for months. Less than 10 mins in and it already did not disappoint at all.
I am here for radicalized Wisecrack, throwing shade at the lukewarm centrist liberalism.
Thanks!
Not a fan of Ben Shapiro, but not sure how he got owned by the person in the white hoodie. If I took the behavior of that person, and put it in the body of a far right person, they would seem extraordinarily unhinged.
He didn't get owned. This guy just hates Jewish people.
25:05 such massive respect for this guy. He's so respectful and calm but hearing that just fills me with so much rage, it has nothing to do with me and I still couldn't be half as articulate as him.
I genuinely don't know how folks watch jubilee content and don't immediately avoid the content. (It's because rage bait sells big money tbh)
Yeah I don't get it either I avoided like a f*cking plague they make class in fighting and make bullsh*t assumptions with liberal propaganda.
You lost me in the first 45 seconds. Neither of those clips are Ben or Charlie getting “served”
11:20 jumpscare warning
this video came to me at the perfect time. I had a long time acquaintance not too long ago react negatively to a post asking for lgbtq+ friends, families and allies to not out their queer friends/family members to others as it can be dangerous. He went into my dms after he dismissed the topic saying people are overreacting and being called out on it, to hollar about middle grounds and how it is insanity. However, even when given a real life example at how my life as a queer person was put in peril simply for walking down the street with an arm full of art supplies, he doubled down in that we were overreacting. Ignoring the gun pointed at me, ignoring the threats to my life... he was determined that the centrist way was the right one. The centrist belief between queer folks existing and exterminating them. He refused to define what that meant, then went on a gaslit journey about how he is a cis male and boo hoo sorry about that. I was actually stunned to be honest, and he kept bringing up Trump when he was never mentioned by any parties involved, and ignored that my incident happened under the Biden administration. I refuse to read anything else of what he has to say, because it only devolved from there. Thank you for this. It did help me realize that maybe I wasn't insane for being quite put back by his reaction and that his reaction only helps normalize the more violent behaviors.
I lost my job after I came out as trans. I have lost friends after I told them I was trans (I was a trans person once we got to know each other, but I didnt tell them until months later). They will never understand how terrifying it is and they dare being upset at us for trying to live as stealth as possible.
perfect use of that succession clip! how many unserious people are just yapping online and demand attention that def dont need their crazy spread. omg we need like an entrance exam or user permit for the internet, if you pass the permit you get online, if you get 2nd class permit your allowed to post, you break the rules you loose online access.
"Social media: The Talk Show." Can't wait for the home version of the game
Aw dang, I have disagreements with Alain Badiou's materialist epistemology, I sure hope Jubilee sets up a video where we can debate while playing musical-chairs or something.
having watched people talk about their participitation in these videos, the common things they say is that Jubilee tend to cut a lot of content from their videos, and even rearrange clips to give a different message than the events really happening.
I liked jubilee when it first started and made actually good debates with genuine conversations but then it just went off the rails and into the toilet
I'm so glad you pointed this out. I've always loved middle ground because I like to hear others opinions but at the same time we need to have a conversation based on facts. They need to reign it in and fact check people in person and if they want to keep going then they need to be removed. They're just monetizing bullying.
Thank you for expressing my exact thoughts on this!
The problem that a channel like Jubilee faces is that no matter what it does it will *always* set itself for criticism from at least one prominent and credible group in society. If it opted to broadcast discussions of less controversial topics then it would be accused of being milquetoast and too safety-conscious, but if it opts to have people discuss extreme and difficult claims it will be accused of giving a platform to 'hate speech' and of making such speech, along with the opinions of those who use it, seem legitimate. In order to prove that it's worth watching it has decided to go for the second of these, but while that's beneficial inasmuch as it's a more accurate representation of the opinions and speech people actually have and use, it will inevitably be written off as 'hate-adjacent' or something similar.
For my part, I think it's doing something really fantastic. It's realised that a lot of people *have* these opinions, and that in our current society it is far more attractive to stick with those who agree with us rather than to explore alternative viewpoints, especially because such exploration often ends up involving people who themselves have no desire to explore in a similar way, and who simply want to convert others. However we may feel about it, there *are* people who believe that womanhood is something a person 'just knows' and there are *also* people who believe that it's physiological and entirely unalterable (and some of the people in this second group consider those in the first to be dangerous). We currently live in a society where these opinions exist and conflict with each other, but a channel like Jubilee has chosen to at least attempt to get them associating with, and talking to, each other. If Jubilee didn't already exist it would be necessary to invent it.
Solid take
For the algorithm!
For this to get attention, &
For the algorithm!
If they named the show “unhinged pseudo debate” I’d be fine with it. It’d be like reality TV
Great video! Thank imma show some friends on a small 2 hour car ride we have today 😃 thanks for the hard work guys and gals!
have a safe/fun drive!
@@WisecrackEDU will do! Going to play a gig with my pop punk/emo band!
Guy at the end there had too much self respect to be used like that. Good on him.
7:17... please, for the love of all that is sweet and good in this world, please tell me that they did not actually try to categorize men as alphas and betas and hold a debate against them...
14:32
lol yep, that Logan Roy "you are not serious people" quote has definitely been popping in my head lately. I'm all for this video. The election really has me contemplating how helpful a lot of this political content and online discourse actually is