It happens to me, to not be able to change my mind in an argument. I almost always see that I'm being stuborn during the argument when I'm being stuborn, and yet I feel so much frustration from how the other part acts that I'd actually start to cry if I was to reconsider my view point, which makes me say a lot of dumb arguments sometimes. I always try to do my best to listen to logical arguments and to discuss calmly with critical thinking in mind, but it's not always easy! Sometimes it works, sometimes not, and that's how it is.
I'm sometimes afraid I'm changing my mind too fast, because I often end arguments with "good point", then later realise all of the logical fallacies in that argument. Sometimes, being stubborn can help you not walk miles away from the truth.
@@derekakaderek These opinions are often based on facts, and are closer to the truth than we can come with just using pure facts, since with pure facts, you can easily run headlong into a brick wall. Opinions help us not crash into a brick wall everytime we try to find something out which cannot be proven as fact, but is still very reasonable. All I wanted to do was warning you guys for quickly believing things people say, since then you'll actually depart from the truth, instead of your natural motion towards it.
This is the only channel I’ve ever felt that I’m actually being intellectually challenged. I come here to feed my mind’s appetite, to build upon my own beliefs and philosophies, and deepen my understanding of the minds of others especially of those of a theistic background. Please never stop creating content it’d be a disservice to all and the world would be worse without.
"Of course _my_ tribe never does this, we're far too enlightened, unlike those dumb, dirty _outsiders_ ." Slurs and smears seem to be particularly popular lately, since they can pull double-duty as thought terminating cliches _and_ calls to action. The worrying thing is the thought-termination can work on both sides of an argument - if you agree, it promotes uncritical acceptance, if you disagree it promotes uncritical rejection. I'd be lying if I said working on the former wasn't more palatable than working on the latter.
The recognition that members of one's own side are often just as bad as the other is an important step on the way to recognizing that discourse has a dual purpose. Half of it is trying to convince others that you are right. The other half is taking your own ideas and putting them to the test, in an honest attempt to check if you yourself are correct... because after all, you are often just as bad.
I know, just because flat-earthers are wrong 100% of the time doesn't mean that any argument put forth by a round-earther to prove that the Earth is round is valid or logical, for example you cannot actually see the curvature of the earth in an æroplane .
As an American, I've come to find that most Americans use the term "extremist" to define "anyone that I've been trained to fear" and "propaganda" to define "anything I've been trained to disagree with".
@@punic4045 Well, I'm often trying to do exactly that. I carefully debunk the claims of the other on the basis of logic and minimal facts, without giving the impression that I strongly disagree with him. I also often encourage them to better their arguments, and I will acnowledge the things they got right. Sadly, I'm an exception, and the people I'm arguing against are stupid or downright insane, and even the people arguing for my point of view are doing so in a very bad way.
And the first step to counteract your own biases is recognizing them. That's easier to learn in a detached way first, by spotting them in others and using them as a mirror to reflect on your own behavior. It's not as if you'll ever actually get rid of the biases, nor would it be healthy to chase perfectio, but it beats the alternative.
Matt, I mean this in the best possible way. Learn how to read comprehensively. You're very much reading too much into what I actually wrote, and added a bunch of assumption on top of that. Maybe be a bit less emotional about it as well, moderate stoicism has it's uses.
Lol Matt, you say "slave to logic" as if logic is a bad thing. Similar choices of words I've only seen used by those who were arguing from ignorance. And I don't make the accusation of ignorance lightly; I've spent extensive amounts of time with psychology and philosophy for the past 15-16 years, and Theramintrees and Qualliasoup's presentation here is pretty much spot on (mostly generalizations and unnuanced statements, very likely due to time restraint issues). And stoicism is excellent to temper tempers from flaring up before you say daft things like "pseudo intellectual junk food". Given the tone and word choices, you give off the vibe of a above middle-aged Christian who thinks dedicated reason focus leads to holocaust-like immoralities. Plus, the only times I've ever been asked about my age is during dates, or when someone's attempting to pull the "age = more wisdom" card... and I doubt you're about to ask me out. Sorry, been there, done that. And with that I mean both faith (not that I'm a militant atheist along the lines of Sam Harris, I'm more nuanced than that on the topic) as well as condescending elders (don't go calling people "buddy", Durbin. That's reserved for friends only.) who assume they know best. As if brains ripen as well as wine does. When you're done throwing a hissyfit from a Parental mode and ready to converse as Adult, feel free to come back. Go research TA if you haven't the foggiest idea what I mean by that. Tata for now though.
@Cthulhu The WigglyBoi Not religious, but I believe spirituality is important. It lets you converse with yourself, it lets you figure out your problems, all in a calm state of mind. It is important to note that we still don't know everything about our brain, and tackling these kinds of things will help you figure them out. I disagree that spirituality isn't helpful. It was helpful a lot, at least in my case. No hate or anger towards you, of course. This is just my opinion.
Your content is perfect for meditation and makes me feel thoughtful rather than angry, vindictive, and resentful towards the religuous. Nothing better to relax after spending time in the intellectual bloodbath we call the internet.
Erik Neumann I love that comment. (intellectual bloodbath) Sometimes it is more like pre kindergarten street fighting, and I'm suffering from facepalm injury.
Here is an author I really like, he is like TheraminTrees but in text form. Here''s is one of his best articles IMHO: www.lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ He writes on slatestarcodex.com, and here is his best writing all collected together: www.lesswrong.com/posts/vwqLfDfsHmiavFAGP/the-library-of-scott-alexandria
@@whirlwind872 It means that to a person who is perceiving something, the whole world is through their perception only. The worm in this saying is in horseradish and does not see anything else, thus to the worm the whole world must be horseradish.
Actually you can't even conclude Tracy agrees with ANYTHING that group 1 says. (4:57) Negative things said about group 1 do not necessarily have anything to do with actual statements made by group 1.
100% true, but often (far from always), people who defend group 1 are themselves part of group 1, because why would you otherwise defend that group, or even know if these claims are true or false??
@@mozesmarcus6786 i defend things if they make logical sense to me and i scrutinize things if they as of yet do not. it has nothing to do with whether or not im a part of it. "well why else would you defend something?" gee, i dont know, any alternative that you havent thought of yet? well its that. any one of those would be why. whats that, how many of them are there? well i dont know, thats the point isnt it? human knowledge is limited. when you tell yourself you dont need to learn new things, you stop learning.
@@lapotato9140 Thats why I said often in the post, not always. I often see that, in real life, people defend a group because it's their own. I knew that there were many exceptions, and often does NOT mean most of the time, NOR always. TLDR: You're using a strawman, and I wanted to point that out to you.
@Mozes Marcus i wasnt concerned with the often, what im on about is the “why would you otherwise defend it?” Part. That mindset spawns so much horrid shit, especially if it is followed by “i cant think of anything else, so it must be X”, which it as you could say often is. Its not a strawman, i bet ive seen the phrase being abused to push narratives just as much as you’ve seen inverse. You can keep the often, but drop the trash “why else would you do it” shit.
The fun part of all this is the bias blind spot. It doesn't matter how personally aware and knowledgeable we are of cognitive biases--it doesn't make one immune from them. It may even have the effect of making one *more* self-righteous, because authoritatively speaking about rationality and cognitive biases can be conflated with *being* rational. How many self-styled "rationalists" have you seen making dubious and overstated claims, resorting to motivated reasoning, and dogmatic thinking? It seems to me that what is required is a sort of cognitive reprogramming, specific techniques to think better, and to override our cognitive tendencies. And for this you need something like the works of Edward de Bono, or something along those lines.
Hey man, I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your videos. I was raised Jehovah's Witness and your videos have helped me wake up quite a bit. I'd love to hear a podcast from you! Thanks again!
@@mattdurbin4788 you're incorrect, actually. Given the subscriber count on his channel, he's helped a minimum of 141 thousand people. I personally have used information presented in his videos to help a number of people who have been in abusive households.
A term that I recently discovered is called "Steelmanning". It's the opposite of Strawmanning, where you develop the most accurate image of the beliefs and intentions of the person you're engaging with, and have them do the same to you. Makes discourse way less toxic and far more productive. It's a lot easier for me to have a conversation with someone when they don't paint me as a pedophile apologist for believing in LGBTQ+ rights, and a lot easier for them to converse when I don't paint them as a massacre apologist for not believing in LGBTQ+ rights. Acknowledging accurate representations of someone doesn't mean you agree with them or condone their beliefs.
That's actually a great reminder. Now that I have steelmanning _solidified_ in my mind and vocabulary, I now have a word for what many cool and rational debaters do. Thanks.
That's not a good description of steelmanning. If you're steelmanning an argument, you are going beyond an accurate description of the opposing view, and are making it as strong as you're able.
@@settheory2219While that is what Steelmanning is by strict definition, the outcome is accurately representing their beliefs. Usually flimsy or bad arguments are dismissed as "unreasonable" and "eroding" to the steelman, with the criteria of bad being defined around what the argument is trying to do. Arguments that insult or dehumanise are classified as bad arguments as they only serve to hurt or confuse, and so are tossed out to keep the discourse focused. This is debating 101, keeping the debate focused on the arguments at hand. What makes steelmanning special is that this is taken outside of just debate theatre and into everyday conversation. By steelmanning everyone, you can fully empathise and rationally conclude on complex or difficult situations. This in effect, removes both victimisation and dehumanisation. Of course, some people will come across as bad as the steelman reveals them for who they are and what their motives are. The difference is that you will be able to clearly see any wrongs they have inflicted rationally and without bias. Steelmanning is an honest reflection of people, and one that will save you a lot of trouble in complex situations compared to responding emotionally or without care
As someone who was raised in a strict religion and a strict political party (both of which I won't name), this hit hard. When I left the religion, I was labeled as being "confused" and "sick", and when I said one word of criticism against my political party, I was seen as "siding with the enemy". It is crazy though how even though I see dogma in others, I also can see it in myself. Thanks for giving me something that I can work on!
It's actually crazy how every single major idealogical group seems to be so dogmatic. I am not saying me or any groups I identify with are above this but I didn't know what the word dogmatic mean't before this. It's insane how widespread it is, it's actually kind of depressing with this kind of atmosphere in politics it is nearly impossible for there to be any actual productive discussion.
"you can not reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - Some guy who's smarter than I am, and the dissonance between the video and comments in a nutshell. Once you're in it deep enough, whatever it is, like a lot of people here are, you are _virtually incapable_ of being critical of it. That's stripped from your cognitive functions. The dogmatic people who are the subject of this video can and will sit through this video without thinking for a millisecond "how might this apply to what I believe?" and that's a damn shame.
No one in those positions claims immunity, but they are generally better trained and more resistant than the rest particularly in their field of expertise. Unlike on television or most corners of the internet you will see energetic discourse between these professionals as they rigorously test each other's claims. If you, as a layperson, want to question their legitimacy, you either have to become a relevant expert yourself or their error has to lie outside of their field and coincide with common experience.
@@dcbernman True, the unfortunate thing is that whom some may consider experts are really just frauds, charlatans and pseudo-scientists whose main goal is either to spread propaganda which may seem to be non-dogmatic but in reality, by it's own construction (specific ideas) and by it's optics (extreme arrogance and ego) is extremely ignorant, dogmatic and hostile to intellectual discourse and democracy or they seek to profit off gulible masses by repopularizing a 100 year old invention/philosophical idea. And most of these people have a much higher standing in society and culture than actual, real intellectuals.
@luigi mario I beg to differ. Since many degrees require talent and hard work to get, only a few can be as easily obtained as you claim. Those few are well-known to be easy.
@@lassassindu5071 No, the fallacy fallacy names a specific fallacy; what this is, likely, is a fake quote, unless the OP cares to cite the source where we can see AronRa say that himself.
@@zemorph42 This quote, true or not, is an argument from fallacy. It is considering that because a statement is defended with lies, then it is a lie itself.
@@lassassindu5071 No, that's not the argument from fallacy; _that_ is a claim, unsupported, that a specific other claim, is fallacious; that's not synonymous with "not true". This statement is a fallacy, itself, but not that one. It is a non sequitur, mind reading, and a false claim of knowledge, but it is not a fallacy fallacy.
I grew up as a Christian. The beliefs instilled in me through church and family were exceptionally bigoted, prejudiced, and in reflection, vile. As I've grown, through experience and acceptance of knowing that I can be better, that I don't have to think and live dogmatically, I've gained an incredible amount of insight and introspection about a lot of things. This video sums up lot of the logical fallacies I used to stay ignorant. Always be willing to change folks. We're in an age of information, you can learn anything about everything, and can educate yourself.
These videos are so well presented that I feel very immersed. I never feel bored, and don't even realize I've been watching a video for 20 minutes. The flow is amazing. I genuinely think you guys are doing an amazing job. I never comment on youtube, but I just couldn't resist to show my appreciation for your work. Best wishes.
Yes, usually when I see a video with that long of a runtime I am reluctant to give it a go, but these videos are almost meditative. I love the voice, and the calm logical firmness of presentation
The problem with this kind of videos is that everyone watching it will just go on with: "Yeah, thats totally how group X is acting. Glad I am so self-aware.". Even people talking about this topic on a meta level might just suffer from a meta level delusion. And people talking about this topic on a meta meta level... . Help!
Dogma is the inescapable void of discourse. We have all done it and have experienced it in at least once in our lives, whether we'd like to admit it or not.
If idiots could tell the're idiots, they wouldn't be idiots. We can never be truly certain we aren't idiots. All we can do is try to become wiser than we already are.
"We don't contract sin, and acts of birth don't transmit guilt from parents to their offspring" Thank you! A sentence mentioned in 2018, is still more relevant than ever today
This is not the first time I've watched this video, but I came back to it today because I had a powerful experience earlier today. Someone close to me pointed out a pattern in my expressed opinions that suggested dogmatism, and it was kind of jarring. My ego was damaged: how could I, a crticial thinker, fall into dogmatism? There is a part of me that believes I'm too exceptional to fall for any rhetorical tricks. I don't know if I will ever be able to rid myself of this trait - it may very well be a problem we all grapple with as humans. However, I'm grateful that I have the humility to admit that I *am* capable of dogmatism, and it seems that such acceptance may be the only way I can quiet my ego enough to change my mind about things. I think building a resistance to dogmatism is a lifelong pursuit, and I may never develop a perfect resistance to it. In one sense, this disappoints me, but I'm also grateful for the opportunity to grow, to reflect, and to improve my critical thinking skills. Michael Pollan, one of my favorite authors, has a quote which I really like: "you're only as young as the last time you changed your mind."
Well said, yet the critical thinker,, such as us. I find it completely frustrating that the majority of friends and family don't share the same dynamic. On the contrary, their primary communication style is gaslighting, black and white and one minded
Agreed. It's like people forgot the practical skill of how to have an argument, and specifically the art of listening seems lost more often than not. I frequently end up being double frustrated: once by the inability of the other to listen, and once due to understanding they're too handicapped to be helped. Afterall, you need to be able to listen to hear you need to work on your listening skills. -_-
Really don't wanna sound too arseholey or creepy and bumlicky. But you two seriously just get better and better. Exemplary content chaps. Simply capital.
_"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your_ informed _opinion. No-one is entitled to be ignorant."_ - Harlan Ellison With so much discussion of the problems with people under dogmatic influence, and only the problems, it's wonderfully refreshing to see somebody tackle the question of what can be done about them. Keep your eyes and ears open, be conscious of the pitfalls, and recognise the bullcrap for what it is.
Exelent video. I was raised in a cult, and I can fully identify with religious and political culture warping a person’s sense of right and wrong. Your video reminded me that I should view every argument without bias and attempt to avoid adopting dogma.
i was having a conversation about hereditary guilt today. We talked about how in china, families are punished for its members' wrongdoings. I said that it was wrong, but my mom said "that's just how their culture is", talking about how the Chinese culture values people based on their family. She wouldn't listen when I said how it was wrong despite the culture, what do i say if another situation like this comes up?
Blaming someone for something that someone else has done is scapegoating, and scapegoating leads to many horrible atrocities. Would you call the witch hunts "culture"??? Would you call the holocaust "culture"??? Probably not. So why is hereditary guilt culture??? And why should you defend it as such???
Your mother has a point. We should be careful about deciding that other cultures need to change because they are unjust, unenlightened or archaic. Similar reasoning was used by imperial powers to literally destroy the cultures of peoples they colonised. Modern thought on this in the humanities is justifiably careful about external powers telling other people what their culture should and should not be. If you are interested in more detail then postcolonialism has heaps of info everywhere. Obviously, efforts are still made on things like human rights, women’s liberation, caste systems etc. although mostly via education. The less objective these injustices become though, the less likely aid organisations, or anyone else is to address it. I suppose you could compare it to religion. Christian believe in heaven and hell, maybe other people believe in Karma, and for these people there is a type of hereditary guilt. Does one really make more sense than another? The idea that you faults are your own, is a pretty western one. It might seem weird to say you can be punished for the sins of your father, but is that more strange than a heaven and hell? Religious beliefs can be challenged but it is not up to us to tell other people that they are so wrong that they must stop practicing and believing this religion. That would be a violation of their human rights. So too, most modern discourses on culture consider prescribing cultural change in other countries to be overreach. We can help these people through education, infrastructure and better governance. Maybe they will decide that parts of their culture need to change maybe they don’t change what we want. But it isn’t usually our place to change another culture. There are many exceptions, of course. But most often, the emphasis is on trying to see a culture more clearly by examining western biases that we have. A key tenant of postcolonial thought (this is something coloniser did not do).
I do believe the logical fallacy for this specific example is a 'bandwagon' "X must be Y because it's popular or the normal." to use it on your situation, "family punishment is excusable because it is ingrained in the culture."
@@emilchandran546 You're taking about religions. @Mitchell C. Flint was talking about laws. Even though you shouldn't ban archaïc religions, you should also not act upon them, because that will be theocracy, and that's arguably worse than postcolonialism. In my previous comment I've critiqued this kind of scapegoating, and if you want to read that, go ahead. Anyway, your point is very solid. Good job.
Watching this video, I realized that I do these things sometimes while I’m having discussions with people. I get all caught up in thinking that everyone who agrees with this other person thinks X or Y, thinking that if things don’t go the way I think they should that everything will go to shambles. Even if I have an educated, valid argument, it just isn’t the be all, end all. From watching this, I really got to look inside myself and around myself to see these logical fallacies and I learned a lot about the consequences of such thinking. Thank you!
See, he's obviously talking about [OUT_GROUP] in this video, good that i'm from [IN_GROUP], as we are obviously legally, morally and mentally superior to them.
LOL at everyone in the comment section saying nothing but 'yeah that's exactly how [group that I don't like] behaves'. Try being introspective, for once in your life.
It's okay. There are a lot of examples, from a lot of perspectives. They're just doing what comes naturally after someone chooses to side with anyone in, any, argument; giving reasons for their choices.
To be honest, it starts with TheraminTrees. He is not being introspective as well. It are the other people (religious people, feminists, etc) that are dogmatic, not him.
"Naturalistic fallacy." Read the rest. You pick a side, you have to defend that side. You don't pick a side, you don't have to defend it from the other. Once we decide for ourselves, based on the values we pick up from others, which side of an argument we are going to be on, if there are two chiefly opposing sides, then we place ourselves in the position to defend what we've chosen, and if we are so inclined, speak out against the opposition to that perspective. Emphasizing that is a naturalistic fallacy is useless. Far more useless than those who have chosen sides and argue for them, or against others. At least they are contributing to cases. I would not discourage them from doing so. I think a little more introspection is also in order for manchild, and those who liked his comment, when it comes to the perspective of those people, whether I agree with their arguments, or not. They have reasons for feeling their points are strong enough to make; that their sides are better than the ones they point out. Take them for what you will.
"if there are two chiefly opposing sides, then we place ourselves in the position to defend what we've chosen," There shouldn't be "sides" anyway. Just think as an individual.Then people studying the discourse (like sociologists) might group you with other people, but that's their problem.
I discovered this channel by pure luck of the UA-cam algorithm when trying to look up TA analysis, i am really glad that i stuck around and began watching your vids as they have enabled me to grow to a more critical thinking person, the market place of ideas has helped me to dismiss the immunity i once gave to Islam and while i don't claim to be 100 percent atheist because of my experiences with Chakra and energies in this world, it has allowed me to dismiss the false sense of loyalty and the love i have had for a dehumanizing religion. I think i have been somewhat successful in using it along with other valuable lessons to strip my life of dogma to some extent but it is and forever might be a continuous cycle of challenges that arise with time, especially those founded in the realm of internal integrity of our core mentality. I want to thank this channel and everyone who shares this useful experience in the comments again because they have definitely changed my life for the better :)
@@thomasr1051 yes, but I believe the problem Kavukamari is bringing is different. It's not about [put this directly in people's heads and make them believe in it], it's probably about [put this directly in their heads so they can judge it fairly] in opposition to [trying to say it to them with words they can twist and ignore].
@@jonahmordhaim2705 What is common sense to us is just what we have come to unquestioningly accept and believe, such that it appears instantly upon request, at the tops of our minds. The way we think is not rooted in some absolute objectivity but rather is produced by our situations, and must be forced by a tremendous effort to confront and question itself; a man raised from birth in medieval england might well tell you the King being divinely appointed is just common sense. Ask beyond common sense and you will almost always get blank stares.
@@jonahmordhaim2705 I dont think common sense exists. Its just unthoughtful reasoning. Yeah, there are cases where things seem extremely obvious to us, but thats usually just we have already seen the reasoning before so have it memorised. That reasoning may still be faulty! To use physics as an example: Someone uneducated may think that if you get somewhere faster, you spent less time travelling, so spent less fuel. This is common sense, no? Easy reasoning! But someone who knows of the friction and drag and work equations would know exactly the opposite is the case; getting somewhere faster almost always takes more energy. Another example is people who approach complex economic phenomenon with highschool economics levels of theory; its BASIC economics they tell you. Just common sense! Ignoring the entire complex situation.
Don't forget Science. It happens in Science too. We do not call it Dogma when it happens in Science. We call it "Intellectual Phase Locking" to try to obfuscate the problem when it happens. People have been shunned, shamed, fired and ridiculed for going against Dogmatic beliefs in Science. I have plenty of examples.
Science is all about verifying, re-verifying theories, discoveries, experiments, tests and facts. A belief is not what scientists aim. They aim for understanding things while being cautious about not trying to fantasize (Albert Einstein used his imagination to make several of his theories, but kept using his rationality too, he was not foolish). If you want to prevent making unbiased assumptions about Science, admit those mistake left by Science (mistakes happens) are those happened in the past and in some contexts when scentists were used against their will.
Science is meant to avoid dogma, but sadly that doesn't prevent some scientist, many popular ones, to be dogmatic. I guess that's because dogma is attractive. People see their security and firm ideas and think "this guy must know a lot to be so sure of himself!".
This is exactly why beliefs need to be challenged without bias. Once a phenomenon is proven beyond reasonable doubt, it should be accepted regardless of your personal beliefs. This impartial thinking is what enables us to self correct when you're wrong. Understanding all phenomenon is Science's goal. Coming up with excuses harms your ability to question your own beliefs. Everyone is guilty to some extent obviously.
this is something everyone needs to check themsleves for, always, every side has these things, and we should always be asking ourselves these questions
I really like how you portrayed the ideological stances with the characters' color stripes. It's a very abstract and neutral representation that nevertheless demonstrates the perspectives very clearly, with black and white for absolute glorification and demonization respectively, and color for nuanced beliefs. It really does well to demonstrate your point.
I appreciate your effort to boil concepts down as far as you can. It’s very refreshing. Even still I can tell there are biases there, probably ones you are aware of and even working to minimize. We’re all human after all and I respect what you do.
This reminds me a bit of the Hindu concept of Maya (I'm not Hinduist, btw), which roughly means we humans tend to draw invisible divisions and classifications upon things (such as groups of people, ideas, events or anything really) and forget that everything is actually connected. We have this tendency to impose this rules (upon ourselves and upon others) and forget that is all made-up, that no such distinctions are real to begin with, they are just imaginary lines that enclose, not only the subjects we are classifying but also our view of the world. Thus, this kind of thinking drives us away from "truth" (whatever that is) and make us prone to subjugation. I think this concept is very useful in order to think critically and realise when we are being imposed structures upon ourselves that deny us the ability to see things clearly and with perspective, so we can get rid of Manichean ideas
This is a really interesting concept and definitely has some truth to it, but in some cases it can be helpful to use labels to discover who you are as a person. When your actions or beliefs are definable with a certain label, it can feel good to use that label as it creates a sense of identity. I may be biased, though, as I grew up in the LGBT community on tumblr, which was essentially all about labeling people as x y or z.
@@quadeevans6484 well, it should be considered that Hinduism is a "compilation" of believes and philosophies more than a dogmatic, one-dimensional system. Also, I'm not sure the caste system is derived directly from Hindu ideas, I think is more of a social/political thing that was applied, maybe with a religious excuse, but as I said, some Hinduists are adviatic (non-dualists) while others believe in and practice dualism.
@@MrKiru224 in my opinion it seems like some dude wanted an excuse to keep for the preexisting social structures at the time and so he bullshitted that
One of the few channels that I enable instant-notification and make time to watch ASAP. You are incredible :) I hope your work will extend beyond YT. You have a natural gift that can make a difference in the world (beyond what you are already doing). Thanks!
I've never before seen this defined, and explained, so clearly. It seems now, in 2020, nearly any social media conversation rapidly deteriorates in to especially divergent opinions with no common ground and no little in the way of evidence or even consideration that there are multiple possibilities and views. This should be required viewing for anyone before they send their first social media post, and as a barometer for their behaviour in the future.
Leigh Graham I have never agreed more with a comment. I was new to the internet arguing thing and I tried to have a discussion with someone about how public transportation doesn’t work in my home town. I was shocked how quickly it devolved into an insult fest and I just left. I’m going to try not to ever debate here again.
It was funny because I was not saying that public transportation is bad, just that it was impractical for my city because it is one of if not the most spread out city in US. Oklahoma City by the way. To use the new tram system they put in, you had to drive because the stops were so far from residential areas. It was easier just to drive everywhere. Edit: I probably should have just kept that to myself, you don’t care for my past arguments 😂
This is so so damn true. Every single word. Every human being should see this video and take the message to heart. This applies to *all* sides of political, religious, and other dogmatic groups and discourse. Even your own. If you're in such a group, try to take a good hard unbiased look at what people are doing around you and decide if it's worth staying. Peace & love ❤️
Here is a tip to helpanalyze an argument (it's something that I use often and that helps a lot) : When you hear an argument that sounds convincing , try to summarize it as much as possible. As you said in the video, an argument should hold wether it's presented with or without emotion. Summarizing it helps me see exactly what is the important part of the argument. And sometimes, when you do that, you realise that when you remove all the empty words, there isn't anything at all left. (It happens in politics for example) that person have been talking for several minites and almost convinced you that he was on your side, but haven't really promised anything and didn't provide any reasonable reason to believe that he's right.
This video is excellent in many (most) respects but it overlooks one critical concept, namely that of false equivalence between moral/political causes. Imagine we have two groups in opposition: one is anti slavery and the other pro slavery. We could identify all sorts of identical patterns of egregious behaviour in both groups, with both sides using the exact same techniques and bad logic to include or exclude members and control/vilify people. We may even, for the purpose of my example, witness *more* of this bad behaviour in the anti-slavery group. But at the same time we would never conclude that there is moral equivalence between those who support slavery and those who are opposed to it. A lot of political discourse today falls into the false equivalence trap (“both sides are equally morally bad because both engage in (insert reprehensible behaviour)” In short despite all sorts bad behaviour there can still be a wrong side and a right side to a moral debate- with the obvious caveat all of us have a tendency to think we’re on the right side.
Anyone can believe they are correct. Any belief can be justified if reason is ignored. Never forget that your ideas can always be branded as "morally wrong no matter what" because there is no such thing as a ten commandments of morality
Glad someone said this. I love a lot of these vids but it def seemed like he's out of his depth trying to talk about race. It's not about repenting for past slave owners as much as it is acknowledging which systems exist because of slavery and disadvantage people today who would have been enslaved previously, while confereing advantages to those could have owned slaves previously. This hasn't aged well in the age of crusades against critical race theory and teaching "the good and bad" parts of slavery.
Stunning video. For me it was really eye opening to see there's a lot of dogma around me- not just in small areas. I think it sucks that I was so wholly unaware and even fell into those thoughts myself. I feel like now I know a bit better, and I can at least try to be a bit better in the future. Thank you for making this, I very much appreciate these videos.
The thing about dogma is that if we define it as "incontrovertible rightness" to the point it cannot be argued with, we run the risk of including fundamental morality as dogma. That is to say, each of us expects that there are certain things that are obviously morally right or wrong... but because those morals/ethics are foundational to who we are, there's no way to argue for or against them without treating whoever you're talking to like a child. For example, freedom as a human right, as opposed to being beholden to society. There's no way to argue "freedom isn't as important as responsibility" to someone who was literally born and raised on the mythos of freedom above all; such a person will see selfishness as virtue before they can admit charity as moral. Dogma is literally inescapable because it informs each individual's moral priorities, and those morals in turn shape discourse. Shared morality between those engaged in discourse is the guiding force of agreements made; anything else is debate, for the sake of attracting the favor of the audience, who is hopefully still undecided. What *really* matters? Freedom? Responsibility? Tradition? Progress? Justice? Mercy? You cannot argue someone out of believing in these things. To do so would break them.
The way i took it, dogma isnt "incontrovertible rightness" of morals, but rather incontrovertible rightness of the ingroup itself. So while a certain ingroup may choose to define itself by certin moral values (mercy/justice/responsibility etc) and give less priority to other values (freedom- to think, to speak etc), one can still question that groups rightness, by its own moral standards, as less merciful/just as it claims to be.
@4:42-5:34 More accurately, you can't say anything about Tracy's opinion on what Group 1 says, because her statement is not about what they said, but about what other people said.
Jeff C Many of the things said about group A aren't true. There are good people on both sides. What about the group B people, who came charging in, aren't they to blame too? Technically not an endorsement of Group A, but we can quickly build up a picture of what is being said here.
this video was wonderful, thank you. Ive noticed these topics crop up in a lot of conversations, and noticed their patterns before, but now i have words to describe what was being seen by my head. I know its not much but thanks again
My friends and I always love to dog on Republicans. The whole video I kept thinking about how this applies to republicans. 🤦♂️ after reading some comments I feel really stupid. I see how hard it is to reverse my thinking and how easy it is to become more sucked into dogmas that you find slight interest in. It’s comforting to give into black and white ideas that ignore nuance. No one wants to question their morality
Whooof... Dogma sunk it's claws *deep* into me as a teenager and even though I've been deradicalizing from age 17 to now (21) I'm only *JUST* beginning to see the effects this stuff has had on me.
hearing "ancient crucifixion" really brings into perspective how...primitive/barbarous it is that a dominant political/religious faction in most of the world is predicated on the public execution-turned-sacrifice of a dude called Josh.
We don't often think about the villification of "civil discourse" but I see it everywhere. To have a dialogue with someone without blindly shouting them down or "deplatforming" them is seen as the enemy.
As I listen and ponder on the ideas presented, I look more and more within myself and less and less outside thereof and what I find is fascinating, yet scary. Really good stuff here.
I am not sure how to express this without seeming like I’m speaking against the #BLM movement, which I’m intensely in favor of. I guess I’m just afraid to give ammo to people who already hate the movement; which I guess is nonsensical, as they will find ammo anywhere. If I’m being honest , I’m also afraid of being attacked and discredited by the dogmatics in my own camp. But here it goes. While watching this video I couldn’t help but feel like it was directed towards some of the people supporting the BLM movement. I know that isn’t the case, and realized I felt that way because a lot of what was said easily applies to people who I would count among my allies. In fact, until I read Ibram X. Kendi’s book How To Be An Anti-Racist, I was among those who took the, “all white people are racist” ball, and ran with it. I softened that view, and now feel that the less divisive and dogmatic, more beneficial response to systemic racism is to decry racist policies, and racist ideas that white people are socialized with; not white people themselves. Ideas like these are obviously dogmatic, and harm all of us by making us look at an entire racial group as the problem, rather than the people who create racist/sexist/classist policies, then justify them with racist/sexist/classist ideas. I think it’s vitally important that we have been collectively thinking and talking about these things, and it’s not surprising we had such a rocky, clumsy start. However, the more we talk about it, the better we get at it, and the more we can work to weed out dogma. I think the only way to actually end systemic racism is to get as many people as possible on the same page, and I don’t think we can do that by accusing all white people of racism. There’s no nuance in that message; no room for error, or individual feelings/actions. There is a much more nuanced, inclusive, non-demonizing way to get the intended message across. Now that isn’t to say we should coddle people who disagree, or just let racist dogmatism slide when we see it. I think it means we continue calling people and ideas out when they’re being racist, but realizing being racist or anti-racist isn’t a permanent state. People can shift continuously based on every individual action they take, and we should speak with them knowing there’s a chance for them to see our side. Acting nice, and being kind are not the same thing. Also, when speaking online, we should keep in mind we are essentially speaking to anyone who reads our posts. So we can address other people who may simply be lurking, unwilling to engage but open to being persuaded. If we engage in dogmatic rhetoric those sorts of people are less likely to see things from our side. I’ve been guilty of all of the negative things discussed in the video multiple times, across multiple subjects. I would like to stop.
I know you're trying to see BLM as a good movement with with a good message behind it, but the true problem is: That "all white people are racist" thing you're trying to distance _from_ BLM? The group that's very much attached to the movement *and* is where most people supporting the movement want you to donate to, has capital, a flag, merch, so on so forth... that's kind of their whole entire ethos. In fact, the very concept of Racism = Power + Prejudice was made not only to win an ideological argument, but also to push forth this "all white people are racist" in such a way that any objection people might have regarding this could be rewritten as racism. The lack of nuance in that message? That's actually pretty deliberate, designed to put people considered 'black enough' (I don't like saying 'white people' or 'black people', but it seems that's what people think diversity is) on a pedestal, and to shunt all the problems of their community, internal, external, their fault, or not their fault, all onto people considered 'white enough'. There's also the fact that much of the material the group bases their whole plan of attack on outright says that those considered white will *always* be racist, no matter what they do, and that the best they can hope for is to be an anti-racist racist. That's not a good thing to say when you're trying to get people to *not* be racist, not to mention, completely false. People really hate monopolies these days, and with good cause, but the same people always seem very much okay for a few groups to claim an entire monopoly on political issues, and I'm not okay with that in the slightest. Plus, diversity is *_WAY_* more than just 'black' or 'white', to paraphrase from a Tumblr user, it comes from the peaks of the Himalayas, the arid plains of the Sahara Desert, the many native tribes of the forests all across the world, the many countries of Europe, the beachsides of Korea and/or Japan, hell, even a lot of the 50 states of the very US itself has a bit of culture of their own! To judge peoople by the color of their skin, and not by the content of their character, is a very stupid thing to do. I wouldn't accept it from anyone, no matter who they are. I don't expect you to entirely agree with this, not at first at the very least, hell, I might even be mistaken in a few places, but I hope the point I'm trying to make here, well, makes sense. tl;dr: It's entirely okay for you to support diversity and being nice to people without having to support BLM. People who don't want you to think *are never your friend.*
@@kinker31 Very well said. Thank you for taking the time to dig into this stuff, as it appears that you have spent plenty of time thinking about it. I am not sure how much of it I do or do not agree with, but I agree with what I feel like is the spirit behind your words. The ideas of “white people” and “black people” is false, and reductive. Sadly, it appears to be the level of nuance the vast majority of the conversation is being had at. If more of us were able to put as much time and attention into their thoughts as this, I feel like we’d be much more satisfied with the results.
I'd just like to make a quick note on "hereditary guilt", and how I think it's not exactly as simple as you presented it. Advocates of affirmative action in America and other places are often accused of "hating whiteness" or "hating their own culture", but if you're an egalitarian, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to try and empower disadvantaged minorities completely divorced from any perceived "historic guilt". Yet, some guilt also plays a role. I wasn't out there genociding native Americans or enslaving people, but it's undeniable that the wealth and economic prosperity which my grandparents, parents, and now I enjoy were built on the subjugation of other ethnic groups. Today, I theoretically have the power to help these groups by advocating for policies like affirmative action, and choosing to not do so feels like being complicit in an exploitative system. Since wealth and prosperity are inherited, the unethical origins of that prosperity are also inherited (to a certain degree).
Now I have something to say about this post... It doesn't seem to me that guilt is an appropriate response when agknowleging historical injustices towards persecuted groups of people. Guilt by definiton is a response to feeling as though we have inflicted harm upon someone else. Rational compassion is much more suited for the task. Now taking into consideration that you said: _"I wasn't out there genociding native Americans or enslaving people, but it's undeniable that the wealth and economic prosperity which my grandparents, parents, and now I enjoy were built on the subjugation of other ethnic groups."_ 1. It is necessary to make a distinction betweeen perpetrators and beneficiaries. Perpetrators are the root of the injustice. They bear the guilt for their crimes. In they ought to have been punished for their wrongdoings. Now if one is a benefactors of the econimic prosperities founded on socioeconomic subjugation, they may feel guilty as a result of imagining the hardships that minority groups have endured; Yet counterintuitively this "hereditary guilt" works against both parties intrests. 2. At the most basic level, moral culpability is directly correlated to how much control one has over the situation at hand. It is already a forgone conclusion that the past happened. The perpetrator's decendents had no part in these actions. As for the benefactors, it must be pointed out that even if individuals would desire for positive change, people are constrained by time and place (I.E, people have jobs, family, school, and responsibilites; This leaves practically no time at all for _"Saving the world from systemic oppression"_ ). A realistic assesment of just how uninfluential the average person is weakens the _"You're complcit in the [Insert thing here] System"_ argument. 3. Theramintrees's arguement isn't saying _"don't have empathy and compassion for oppressed categories of people."_ That would be a strawman fallacy if you charactarized his arguement in this manner. His arguement is calling out the people who would spout: _"Your ancestors harmed my people. Therefore I have a right to harm you back!"_ (Which is a stupid mindset that has been used as a justification for gen0cide. e.g: Israel-Palestine conflict."_ ). 4. Moreover, there are signifigant problems that can be generated when we indulge in a false sense of guilt. First and foremost, we shift away from effortful rational thinking, and into reflexive emotional thinking. This creates an acute psycological tension that causes them to relieve that guilt through impotent unproductive, and downright asinine activities (i.e: apologizing to minorites for having "Whiteness" [Which, when used outside of it's historical, academic context, is an entirely arbsurd and arbitrary concept that fails on epistemological grounds] , self-flaggelating [metaphorically and literally] for being white, ruminating endlessly about weither you've been "problematic" or not). This also leaves the guilt ridden people wide open to psychological manipulation from race baiting charlatans ( who thrive on exploiting these kinds of psychological insecurites. 5. Rational compassion means taking into consideration the injustice at hand from a detached perspective, and forming the most reasonable solution to remediate the situation. This differs from guilt, because it takes away the focus from our own personal feelings, and moves it towards finding productive courses of actions. If you are concerned for the well being of minorites, guilt won't do you any good. 6. I'd like you to take a moment to examine the emotional blackmail behind the "Complicity arguement". This arguement is the epitome of guilt tripping. It paints an entire category of people as heartless caricatures, denying their individuality. People who bite the hook of this arguement will stumble into the same pitfall that other guilt ridden people arrive at: Attempting to alleviate guilt through unproductive means. Yes, there are serious historical injustices that ought to be adressed. Yes, some people have indeed benefited from systemic opression. However this may be, guilt is not the answer. You can't apologize on behalf of your ancestors. You can't feel guilty for a crime someone else did. The people who want you to falsely feel guilt have a vested intrest in making you feel that guilt. That is, they want you to keep wasting your energy towards fruitless endeavors, to make their adherents feel the illusion of doing something productive. Keep in mind that if systemic opression was ever mitigated to the point of irrelevance, the game would be up for all the faux-academics pushing this pseudointellectual nonsense. So in conclusion, I want to make it clear that if we want to actually solve problems in the real world, it reqires that we use our mind's capacty for rational thought, and that we remain skeptical of anyone who pushes ideas that try to emotionally blackmail their way into the discourse.
@@lxverdant1837 Everything you wrote is spot on. I especially agree that help should come from a place of pragmatism and a desire for equity, not an emotional impulse to self-flagellate. But I'd like to elaborate on one point. The idea of being "complicit" is not entirely meritless, but very problematic. Where you draw the line between following reasonable self-interest and being "complicit" is highly subjective and will be different for every person. Most would agree that if you see someone bleeding out on the street and don't call a potentially life-saving ambulance, you have done something "bad" - if they die, you're partially responsible through neglect, by not putting in the most basic effort to help. On the other hand, if you're a surgeon, would it be reasonable to expect you to live in the hospital and work 14 hours a day? I mean, every moment you spend not ready for surgery could be putting an injured person in mortal danger! Of course, this is absurd, and we can unanimously agree that the surgeon has a right to work "reasonable" hours and enjoy "reasonable amounts" of comfort and free time. But what is "reasonable"? Some would look at a lifestyle of consumerism and say that its "reasonable", that there's nothing wrong with choosing to purchase a great many things, even if they aren't strictly necessary for surviving or accomplishing a goal. But a hardcore anti-capitalist activist might point to the sweatshops, imperialism, child labour and the polluted environment and say "no, that is not reasonable. It is a short-sighted, impulsive pursuit of pleasure that we have a moral obligation to resist". So I think people pointing the finger and saying "you're complicit in a system of exploitation" is not always born out of charlatanism (though I'm certain it can be used that way). I believe some of these people have genuine moral convictions, and are mostly desperate to find allies. They say people are "complicit" to challenge them into examining what role they play in an overarching system - to consider the the world not in terms private, individual problems but systemic problems. Saying someone is "complicit" obviously implies guilt, and is very emotionally charged, so maybe there are better ways of phrasing the above argument. But it's hard to get people to pay attention with yet another dry lecture about "society", so implying guilt is an almost required tool of propaganda in today's ephemeral social media landscape. Either that, or these people are simply angry. Guilt-tripping may be an aggressive retaliation against "individualising" rhetoric which tries to downplay or outright deny historic disadvantages, side-line systemic problems and imply that the current system is working perfectly fine, that it's just lazy and stupid people that are having a hard time (fear mongering about malingerers and welfare queens strongly implies that people with individual, moral failings will selfishly take advantage of welfare programs). Unfortunately, and quite ironically, by claiming people are "complicit" in systemic oppression, this method falls victim to the exact same fallacy - only this time, with the roles reversed. It's a fundamentally flawed approach, but hard to resist when you feel frustratingly powerless and think you have the moral high-ground. EDIT: I'm aware the the what I've written above conflicts with my initial position, in which I claimed that guilt can be beneficial as a motivator for getting people into activism. After reading your comment, I realised that the position I held was advocating for an immoral, manipulative form of activism where people are blamed and then coerced into action by offering repentance for a manufactured sin. Even if it were effective (and given the many defensive responses to it, I doubt it), it would still be wrong to subject people to this kind of psychological abuse. I likely tried to justify guilt as a method of activism to validate my own feelings of guilt, which, to be perfectly honest, are just making me feel depressed and not actually motivating me into doing much of anything.
@@Halucygeno I know this is a late reply, yet I greatly appreciate that you read my quasi-essay. Now that we've arrived at an understanding, I want to elaborate more on certain points that I cut from the oringinal reply for the sake of brevity. 1. The overestimation of personal influence is one of the largest misconceptions prevalent in social justice discourse. It's striking on how prevalent the idea of _"You can make a difference in the world"_ has been peddled to people through the media and commercial propaganda. As I mentioned before, ordinary people's influence are constrained by their practical circumstances. Companies are aware of this predicament, and have found ways of exploiting this by associating their products with your own personal values. This is why you see Nike (an organization that exploits the global south's labor and resources) advertise that they support things like "equity" and "anti-racism"; When you see banking companies like Bank of America (A company that defrauded millions of homeowners during the subprime mortgage crisis) marching in a pride parade, boasting about their LGBTQ+ representation. When you see Ratheon (A defense contractor, need I say more?) proudly proclaim that their fighter drones were designed by a _female_ engineer. All of these superfical pseudo-displays of love and support are designed to make people psychologically associate their brand with positive feelings. It is intended to make oneself feel as though they are effectuating change through their purchasing choices (albeit you'd probabaly never purchase a fighter drone). Yet this is nothing but an illiusion (In psychology, this is known as magical thinking). The point is, buying a product with a positive message associated with only benefits you, and does virtually nothing to actually effectuate positive change. 2. The people who are most oppressed are blatantly overshadowed by the ludicrous theatrics of commercial propaganda, which tries to gloss over underlying societal issues with a vineer of progress and tokenism. For the third world people, they're rendered even more invisible, because calling out _their_ opression would undermine the companies credibility, and they get ignored by thier first world counterparts who falsely believe that the world is naturally progressing in a better direction, and that the current economic system will eventually fix the world's problems (It won't). For the first world opressed people, all it amounts to is "wishing them well", and satiating them with festivities for 1 month a year. It's alalogous to the phrase "Bread and Circuses", where people are given all sorts of pleasures and distractions to occupy themselves with, so they won't question the underlying political and economic system. Notice how you've never seen any of these companies (In the U.S) promoting universal healthcare, so LGBTQ+ people can get access to therapy which would signifigantly improve their psycological health. These things which would actually have a positive impact on people are suspiciously ignored by the companies. In all, the the governemnt & corporate sponsored ideology of rainbow capitalism is designed to cover up the true state of affairs. (I'll continue this later...)
You're videos really are therapy. This means you have to take breaks to think about them deeply and that with each one i can see my sanity and hope returning bit by bit.
The best UA-camr I've seen (shaun_jen) debunks arguments without mischaracterizing them at all. He starts his responses by suggesting the audience views the original video in its entirety, linked in the description. This leaves to room for the person to whom he's responding to accuse him of misrepresenting his arguments and shoehorns them into actually addressing his points or conceding.
@@tibfulv I haven't seen much of what they posted other than "The Fate of the Frog Men" video. I think it does a pretty good job of summarizing what gamergate is and who caused all the conflict. What point(s) do you disagree with from that video?
@@LucreDenouncer I'll have a look at it and see. Wouldn't want to judge the content on a prejudice. You can link videos without having the post hidden if you edit a preexisting post to add the video by the way. Found this out about a year or two back.
Love when the "restoring nuance" section makes the extremely broad claim that "Islam sentences its ex-members to death" That's some real great nuance you've got there
Agreed - that's one really extraordinary lapse in this video. It's an absolute claim that's not true of various streams of thought in Islam. Islam isn't monolithic and Theramin Trees should know that.
@@monsieurbertillon9570 Just because you or other dissident sects of Islam don't follow the Quran's teachings, and still want to call yourselves Muslim, does not mean it is not monolithic.
@@jacoblehrer4198 I'm not Muslim, I just know from reading and speaking to Muslims that just like other religions its texts are full of contradictions and open to different interpretations. Views vary massively within Islam. Wikipedia is actually quite good on this - look up 'Apostasy in Islam' if you're interested.
This video changed my entire viewpoint on politics. I've always been political, have been since I was 15. I considered myself a leftist, and agreed with the majority of the goals and beliefs. After watching this video, I spent some time re-evaluating my beliefs. I did my own research, thought my own thoughts, and decided that yes, I am still a leftist. However, I now recognize the HUGE amount of dogma in the left, especially online. Like holy shit. I used to be blind to that sort of stuff, mostly just vaguely agreeing before moving on with my day, but now I try to challenge it wherever I can. My beliefs are my own, not the group's.
I've been saying for a minute now that the one thing I wish for both left and right is for them to become more self-critical. Which to either side is seen as morally repugnant middle-manning. Not sure why they think that flies with someone who asks people to simply challenge and refine their beliefs, to make them more sound and relevant. But therein lies the problem. It's basically a bunch of people convincing each other they've figured something out... and yet all they can ever do is TALK about it. It's not healthy or beneficial to go that deep into theoretical stuff. The ideals stop lining up with the outcomes in a big way, if there are even any real outcomes to attribute. I always thought you weren't supposed to buy into it all. Isn't diversity of thought a core basis of democracy? That's not a system made for peacefully grazing heard of sheep, but for individuals all with their own ideas on change and progress butting those ideas up against each other to see which better stands. So you need to be critical both ways. You want your own ideas to be as strong as possible, so they can weather weaker ones. And when your idea is the weaker one, you need to admit that in order to come out right and have us all still work together. Apparently not though, for those who confuse politics for people. A lot of that on both sides. So many things that 'exist' in politics only live through the words that people say. Gotta watch out for that stuff! I find when I'm getting entrenched in something political, I'm prone to unknowingly conflate things I don't actually understand with things I do. So somebody says something I have actually weighed carefully and earned the same conclusion for myself... and then slips in something I don't fully get yet, and I take it right up. And then later I'm cleaning house and start understanding those things in my own way and it's like this breakthrough "WAIT. This is STUPID!" and then I have to go back over all of it. And then you kind of have to wonder how many people who still believe it are just as you were. The big thing I notice in politics is that people get so hopped-up on ideas that they lose the forest for the trees. On left, there's this especially strong push to be aware and morally balanced, which I think shoots its strongest supporters in the foot pretty much every time. Because at some point, their very deep, articulate, and astonishingly morally progressive ideas just become so divorced from reality they become impossible to trace back to planet earth. If you swing that way, you may just take it at face value, not realizing how far off it has pushed you from the reality of something else. Beware of the blind spots. I like a lot of left-wing ideas too. But quite often when you poke at things there can be some nasty breakdown points.
michaelrz167 Ultimately I think these false equivalences of “right and left” and an insistence on placing separate binary ideologies onto a sliding scale display have caused our major issues. The online discourse is constantly poisoned by the misconception that there is a unified left. Whereas in reality the only thing that unifies the left, is its opposition to the right (who’s ideologies near exclusively exist to justify whoever is or has been in power, being in power).
@@personeater2664 A lot of truth in that, I think. It is a total false dichotomy. The left indeed has always been divided and prone to infighting. But they all tend to agree that the right must be stopped. I think the right does the same, but they're less open about fighting internally and more bound by loyalty and hegemony, whereas leftist thinking tends to encourage divergence. Outside of that they aren't particularly useful categorizations... IME any time someone tries to argue a point by first establishing some facet of one or the other, that gets lost in the dreaded left/right back/forth. The actual ideas get abstracted out to generalizations about groups and stop fitting with any perceivable reality. It often feels like it's hard to know what is true or who is right. Because the way we approach the conversations is naturally confusing to begin with. We build these elaborate boxes to stuff one another in, thinking somehow that's going to lead to something. But that's really it. If I wanted to be offensively reductionist I could say left=not right and right=not left. They exist more to oppose one another than to house any one set of ideologies. This happens to neatly explain why the common definitions can change over time. It would also suggest that at least some portion of the argumentation from within that binary conception is extraneous. And exists only within the confines of that binary schism. And I do agree, the whole range from far-right to far-left and everything in between is just muddying the waters. It basically just adds more layers of bias and complexity to problems that are already complex. Because now it's not only idea a vs idea b, but associated group a vs associated group b. Now, we've got to argue over who those groups are, what they want, how it compares to what they say/do, what they may be reacting to.... And often that's when you see that the two things have little to nothing to do with each other. Which basically guarantees continued mutual opposition and only trickles of progress. Because it is no longer about what is right, but who is right. The rational answer is that neither are really right, but to get either one to admit that involves throwing out the baby with the ideological bathwater. So it's a stalemate. But sometimes I think this goes even DEEPER than that... it is not just a flaw in our current political system, but an inherent challenge to the marriage of power with ideas. There is first the question of what is the right idea. Then comes the question of who should have the power to bring them life. People talk about identity politics like they're new. I think identity has and probably always will be a core part. There has to be someone to stand for the ideas of what is right, and someone to make them real. The latter part really complicates matters, no matter how you try to balance it out. Sadly, I sometimes think that if it was truly only about ideas, most people would actually agree on most things. It's the need to house them and the ways we've come up with for doing that which comprise the bulk of the onion's layers. It opens us up to deception and manipulation. Very easy to lose sight of 'what is right?' when attempting to answer the question of 'where should power go?' I mean, we could conceivably do away with the partisan system. But then what could replace it that would patch up this weakness? I dunno. There are likely a whole myriad of reasons for why we continually have the wrong conversations. As I get older, I become less a fan of this idea of humans as 'evolving through thought.' I sometimes envision our current political system and the dialog around it as our greatest endeavor in reaching beyond our means. It's like we create unsolvable problems and dump our identities into trying to solve them, simply through our discourse.
@@personeater2664 and similarly, really the only thing thst unifies the right is opposition to the left. A fascist will have different beliefs to a libertarian to a conservative to a monarchist etc. I guess that's how left v right evolved, since both sides can all agree they're not huge fans of the other
Morally Conflicted Tortoise The terms left and right developed from French democracy. The right represented keeping the monarchy in power and serving their wants, the left opposed the monarchy and served the peoples needs. All ideologies nowadays are crammed into these categories and seen through that perspective.
You have wormed my cold dead heart. Thank you. I have had repeated depression triggering obsessions dealing with the futility of rational unity. You have helped me. I appreciate it. Subbed and liked. Take care.
Hi, I recently found this channel and I have to say this: Even though (or rather, exactly because?) I'm a Christian with a special interest in apologetics, I really like your videos. I would have to lie if I said I agree with all of your views, but you present them in such a calm and objective way that I can actually enjoy having food for thought again - it's unlike the (as I perceive it) often arrogant and condescending way some other atheists present their ideas/attacks on Christianity/religion, which really spoiled the whole discourse for me. After all, every Christian should be open to discussion about their religion in order to progress our understanding of it, find better arguments to defend it and to advance in finding the truth, and its is much easier to stay open to new ideas when you're not presented with Dawkins-like strawman-arguments solely aimed at ridiculing you, but actually feel like you're being talked with instead of laughed at.
Yeah I liked is view on the generational sin. I think unfortunately, because the book is spiritual in nature, many of the concepts, on a merely physical level, are pretty horrible, but taken to the spiritual level, are more understandable and rational. I don’t mean to say those who read it “merely physically” are stupid or less then- I’ll be vulnerable here I guess for the sake of my argument: I am becoming more and more convinced that the Christian relationship with God/Jesus found in scripture has been extremely distorted and “neutered” from its original concept of a guilt-free, loving, trusting relationship with God into a “do good,” “behave,” and “glorify God” mentality promoting, sadly, unintentional hypocrisy and fear of criticism within the “pastor and congregation” church structure as we have known it since the Roman Catholic Church implemented Pagan philosophies into a relationship based faith to gain political support and freedom from persecution. Anyway, for example, if a father was abused as a child and never was “healed” over the damage done to him, and simply diverts his covered-up pain through drinking, twisting facts against his children and has outbursts of anger towards his children/wife for undeserving matters, he has “passed on” the “sin” of abuse onto his children; now they have to deal with the burdens of their hurting but abusive father because he, the father, never actually dealt with his “sins.” Of course God is still the punisher in this analogy, but why does God punish? Why would a loving God execute judgement on a person for something their father did? I say, a pure and higher form of love- but, imagine with me, you are in “God’s shoes” and are responsible for, and perhaps, actually, “in love with” and “adore” your “children” on earth. You would see destructive patterns of behavior l, like poison, deep into communities that you desire to flourish and grow in love towards each other, and as each parent ignores their own “sins” they only grow and multiply per as many children the parents up-bring. Now, rather then one man struggling with abuse, there are 10, then 50, then 100, all with remnants of the “sin” of the father. God sees the generational damage this causes, and in His patience and understanding that we as humans are imperfect, limited by our own perspectives, and fragile to anything and everything God puts His stamp of ownership on (I.e.; “thus says the lord”), rather then smiting the abuser for his crimes against his children, he gradually “punishes” out the “sins of the father” over many years of patient and loving correction and rebuke, as any loving father would do to their child hitting and kicking other children on the playground. Of course, there were some matters like rape and incest and witch craft and even worshiping other Gods that earns the death sentence, but again, if you were in “God’s shoes,” and you had a complete and total understanding of how awfully destructive and pain-causing certain “sins” are, and to spare your community of followers the pain of dealing with the added spiritual drama of a witch bringing demonic influence over innocent people and causing so much strife and suffering, you, in the position of God, knowing all, might, in your mercy, spare the group the suffering you know will be brought by the witch and say “put her/him to death.” Now, if my perspective is correct just for arguments sake, it would be most unloving to allow a witch to, in the cover of darkness, to go on performing her/secret arts causing so much discord and division and destruction to your beloved people or “children” that to spare her would be a crime against everyone else in the community. This is just one example of how we in our own limited understanding and human perspectives misalign the loving plan God had because we lack perspective. The bigger problem however, and this is something I have deep in my heart and am hurting over personally, is that Christians seem to lack the love and understanding their Father has and so everything else they do, “righteous” or not, now is in vain, as it says in 1 Corinthians 13. If I am right in my earlier example, then only love will make sense of what seems to be a brutal act of discriminatory genocide against a group of people being free to do what they want to do. I am so sad and disgusted by how far my family in Christ have gone from the main point of our walk with Jesus which should be to love unconditionally and purely from the heart- but our world doesn’t get nearly the love from our group, more so the fear of angering a screaming and vengeful master in the sky who will throw innocent fools into hell for not signing their soul on the dotted line.
@@JCTBomb really interesting ideas. I like the angle you take. It reminds me a bit of Chesterton's characterisation of Christianity as the only religion that can at the same time fervently battle against what it deems sinful while still being faithful to the ideal of loving one's neighbour, as paradoxical as it may seem.
Quick point on the bible verses quoted about the generational sin issue: For anyone reading them as quoted and thinking, "Wow, that does sound like injustice from God.", let me just put in a good word for using older, more reliable texts and translations. Does the Bible really say what was quoted? Not in the KJV and original hebrew texts. It says, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children" not, "punishing the children for the sins of the father"... "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children" is not a statement of punishment, it is a statement of genetic and behavioral training from parent to child. Alcoholics are more likely to produce children who become alcoholics, abusive parents are more likely to produce children who become abusive as well. Sometimes, it's actual physical effects, like drug-addicted pregnant mothers producing drug-addicted babies, and sometimes it's in the core training of a child - dad always beat mom, so I guess it's OK to beat my wife...?. God told us this long before medicine and science figured out genetics - but you need an accurate translation into english, or reliable source text and the language training to get it - otherwise, it's misunderstood, and taken at an misinterpreted face value, when that's not what was said. Just like the section about someone saying someone else said something, then being put into a group because you are forced to defend what someone thinks someone said, be very careful with taking what someone said God said, and then having to defend it, even if that "someone" produced a bible translation that's commonly used. Just something to think about. What did God really say? You know, that's the same question Satan asked Eve, right at the beginning, and she got it wrong... Food for thought.
Here's my quick take: Love. Animosity causes fear and dogmatic opposition. If you show love to people you converse with then you will end the animosity, look past your preconceived notions and appreciate the nuance of the "opposing" side.
blud i really hate most conservatives myself, but just because one side does it doesn't mean the other side isn't doing it either. this video IS NOT supposed to foster feelings of "Ha, my side doesn't do that, we're so smart😎😎", it's supposed to make you look inwards and foster critical thought so that you can hopefully recognize that people in your "tribe" are doing the exact same dishonest and deleterious behavior as the people in the "enemy tribe".
A person who used to be my friend would often distort my words to mean things that they didn't. A simple 'oh, I like this song' would get translated into 'this is my absolute favorite ever!'. "We're still a little on edge about that argument last week" would become "i want you to know that I'm still angry with you, we haven't forgiven you at all". Leaving behind that friendship was a big step in recovering from my depression and anxiety.
I had to pause at 8:30. The disembodied voice just stated that prejudicial use of emotion ruins discourse and then begins a new example with "Sometimes, a physically violent stripping of membership is promoted. In a memorably graphic tweet..." before text is shown, which already begins the discourse with aggressive bias. Then the voice infers something about Sarsour's statement that was never said: "physical mutilation." I'm looking at the words of a tweet that isn't graphic and doesn't suggest harm aside from wish-fulfillment fantasy of possessing god-tier magical vagina removal powers. In a piece about NOT doing exactly this, this phrasing definitely stood out as stumbling block and felt like the authors inserting themselves. And I'm 100% sure there are more examples of this call for violence on Twitter that better illustrate the point.
Fun fact: A wish-fulfillment fantasy of mutilating somebody is still illustrating a violent wish on the part of the speaker, regardless of whether the person has the ability to carry it out. The statement itself is degrading and threatening, and can encourage others to actually resort to violence. If I showed you a tweet where an alt-right guy says that he wants feminists to be raped, what is your objection? He isn't saying he plans on hurting anybody, after all, it's just a wish-fulfillment fantasy.
@@badlydrawnturtle8484 Bad faith argument is bad faith argument. One is a crime and that alt-right person is getting twitter suspended. I find it interesting that you gendered the alt-right dude which I think just slipped out because of bias.
@@TheCrippledWerewolf "Bad faith argument is bad faith argument" Accusing someone of arguing in bad faith is generally the tool of an ideologue who cannot address the actual argument presented, and so must resort to personal attacks. You are literally saying that I'm dishonest, and so you don't have to seriously address what I say. Your evidence that I am dishonest is solely that you don't want to listen. "I find it interesting that you gendered the alt-right dude which I think just slipped out because of bias." I find it interesting that you think me choosing to give a gender to a hypothetical person is interesting. Oh wait, you're not actually interested; you don't even know why you pointed it out. It's just another deflection so you don't have to honestly consider what I've said.
@@badlydrawnturtle8484 Okay, I'll bite. Let's say you are legitimately asking and not "begging the question". My response is this: both yourself and the video creator have added words to infer violence. The quote is "I wish I could take away their vaginas." And your question is "If I showed you a tweet where an alt-right guy says that he wants feminists to be raped, what is your objection?" My objection is that the alt-right person has named the type of physical, sexual violence and designated the target group. Aside from being despicable, this would get them suspended on Twitter. No one says they can't say it, only that they will need to accept the consequences of what is deemed hate speech. To address your comparison, the only way that "take away their vagina" can be considered hate speech or a call for violence is if you infer meaning and add words. The actual process of removing a vagina, if we took the comment seriously, is extremely complex. I would deem it reasonable to be labeled "a violent and graphic call for genital mutilation" if the statement had used any specifics. Instead, it is "take away," an innocuous meme-like delivery. If instead this alt-right individual said "i wish i could take away feminist's vaginas." I'd not want to, but I'd giggle a little and move on. So my challenge is this: figure out a way that the alt-right speaker can state what they did without specifically calling out a violent, sexual act, but with enough implication that I would be offended and I'll back down.
@@TheCrippledWerewolf "My response is this: both yourself and the video creator have added words to infer violence." That you don't see "remove their vaginas" as a violent phrase is the issue, here. It's fantasizing about BODILY MUTILATION. The particular manner in which it is achieved is irrelevant. A mob boss might tell someone to "remove his fingers"; are you going to argue that, because he didn't literally use the word "cut" or "knife", it's not a violent proposition?
I have a small criticism for ThereminTrees on his framing. I would suggest that dogmatism is not inherent to particular ideologies, but rather, a symptom of how any ideology can be handled. A belief can both be true while also defended through dogmatic reasoning as he has described it. I can shame anyone for arguing against my claim that the sky is blue. If I refuse to listen and return their valid point that the sky is mostly black at night, and sometimes yellow or purple at dawn or sunset with an accusation that they are claiming that the sky is never blue, then I have engaged in dogmatism and strawmanning to defend a generally true claim. Therefore, we should all be aware that even if we think we are correct on an issue, our means of arguing our position can still be flat wrong and full of dishonest falsehoods and fallacy.
I'm starting to think the reason this happens is because we as a society have enforced the idea that being wrong is the worst thing on this planet. It's better to act immoral, dishonest, or murder people than it is to admit you're wrong. And that you can only be wrong once in your life. Make more than 1 bad choice and suddenly society turns it's back on your because you're a terrible person. If we were to promote being wrong as okay and acceptable we could remove the power it has over us. All we ever see in media is perfection, happy, effortless skill/technique/performance. We read about success and ignore the thousands who did the same thing but failed. We deliberately ignore the survivorship bias that permeates all of society. When we as a society can tear down these illusions, we will be able to drop dogma.
![bending truth | how adults get indoctrinated [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IaUhR-tRkHY/mqdefault.jpg)
![bending truth | how adults get indoctrinated [cc]](/img/tr.png)
![worshipping narcissists | qualiasoup & theramintrees [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qjZ3f-IXEXU/mqdefault.jpg)
don't be afraid to change your mind
be afraid that you might not be able to someday
It happens to me, to not be able to change my mind in an argument.
I almost always see that I'm being stuborn during the argument when I'm being stuborn, and yet I feel so much frustration from how the other part acts that I'd actually start to cry if I was to reconsider my view point, which makes me say a lot of dumb arguments sometimes.
I always try to do my best to listen to logical arguments and to discuss calmly with critical thinking in mind, but it's not always easy! Sometimes it works, sometimes not, and that's how it is.
@@InitialsStudio I'll try it out. Thanks for the advice
I'm sometimes afraid I'm changing my mind too fast, because I often end arguments with "good point", then later realise all of the logical fallacies in that argument. Sometimes, being stubborn can help you not walk miles away from the truth.
@@derekakaderek I wish I could simply know the truth and not have opinions about anything
@@derekakaderek These opinions are often based on facts, and are closer to the truth than we can come with just using pure facts, since with pure facts, you can easily run headlong into a brick wall. Opinions help us not crash into a brick wall everytime we try to find something out which cannot be proven as fact, but is still very reasonable.
All I wanted to do was warning you guys for quickly believing things people say, since then you'll actually depart from the truth, instead of your natural motion towards it.
This is the only channel I’ve ever felt that I’m actually being intellectually challenged. I come here to feed my mind’s appetite, to build upon my own beliefs and philosophies, and deepen my understanding of the minds of others especially of those of a theistic background. Please never stop creating content it’d be a disservice to all and the world would be worse without.
based
based
@@crunchylettuce5446 on direct observations and experience
based
Don't worry, only the OTHER guys are guilty of this.
"don't worry we will only infect the sinners with G.U.I.L.T"
"Everything honestly does sound cooler when I put quotes around it."
"Woo look I'm doing it too!"
@@awesomemantroll1088 Someone's third eye is wide the fuck open :D
We did it boys, we found out disabled people and cancer patients rule us.
"Of course _my_ tribe never does this, we're far too enlightened, unlike those dumb, dirty _outsiders_ ."
Slurs and smears seem to be particularly popular lately, since they can pull double-duty as thought terminating cliches _and_ calls to action. The worrying thing is the thought-termination can work on both sides of an argument - if you agree, it promotes uncritical acceptance, if you disagree it promotes uncritical rejection.
I'd be lying if I said working on the former wasn't more palatable than working on the latter.
thankfully no slur or smear will ever be able to beat the end-all-be-all "no u"
The recognition that members of one's own side are often just as bad as the other is an important step on the way to recognizing that discourse has a dual purpose. Half of it is trying to convince others that you are right. The other half is taking your own ideas and putting them to the test, in an honest attempt to check if you yourself are correct... because after all, you are often just as bad.
I know, just because flat-earthers are wrong 100% of the time doesn't mean that any argument put forth by a round-earther to prove that the Earth is round is valid or logical, for example you cannot actually see the curvature of the earth in an æroplane .
I do think MRM is smeared too much.
How the hell advocating for male rights become advocating for "enemies" rights is beyond me.
Ad hominem
As an American, I've come to find that most Americans use the term "extremist" to define "anyone that I've been trained to fear" and "propaganda" to define "anything I've been trained to disagree with".
@@punic4045 Well, I'm often trying to do exactly that. I carefully debunk the claims of the other on the basis of logic and minimal facts, without giving the impression that I strongly disagree with him. I also often encourage them to better their arguments, and I will acnowledge the things they got right. Sadly, I'm an exception, and the people I'm arguing against are stupid or downright insane, and even the people arguing for my point of view are doing so in a very bad way.
@@punic4045 Thanks for the advice. I'll still be debating, this time with reasonable people.
PROPOGANDA!!!!
@@mozesmarcus6786 the wacky ones are the most fun to argue with. Its like getting a practical example of this video.
@@jailoutafreecard4414 I agree with you, Jail outa free card
Most of us are guilty of all this crap to some extent, depressing.
All humans believe they are rational; it is the first irrational belief.
And the first step to counteract your own biases is recognizing them. That's easier to learn in a detached way first, by spotting them in others and using them as a mirror to reflect on your own behavior. It's not as if you'll ever actually get rid of the biases, nor would it be healthy to chase perfectio, but it beats the alternative.
Matt, I mean this in the best possible way. Learn how to read comprehensively. You're very much reading too much into what I actually wrote, and added a bunch of assumption on top of that. Maybe be a bit less emotional about it as well, moderate stoicism has it's uses.
Lol Matt, you say "slave to logic" as if logic is a bad thing. Similar choices of words I've only seen used by those who were arguing from ignorance. And I don't make the accusation of ignorance lightly; I've spent extensive amounts of time with psychology and philosophy for the past 15-16 years, and Theramintrees and Qualliasoup's presentation here is pretty much spot on (mostly generalizations and unnuanced statements, very likely due to time restraint issues).
And stoicism is excellent to temper tempers from flaring up before you say daft things like "pseudo intellectual junk food". Given the tone and word choices, you give off the vibe of a above middle-aged Christian who thinks dedicated reason focus leads to holocaust-like immoralities. Plus, the only times I've ever been asked about my age is during dates, or when someone's attempting to pull the "age = more wisdom" card... and I doubt you're about to ask me out.
Sorry, been there, done that. And with that I mean both faith (not that I'm a militant atheist along the lines of Sam Harris, I'm more nuanced than that on the topic) as well as condescending elders (don't go calling people "buddy", Durbin. That's reserved for friends only.) who assume they know best. As if brains ripen as well as wine does.
When you're done throwing a hissyfit from a Parental mode and ready to converse as Adult, feel free to come back. Go research TA if you haven't the foggiest idea what I mean by that. Tata for now though.
@Cthulhu The WigglyBoi Not religious, but I believe spirituality is important. It lets you converse with yourself, it lets you figure out your problems, all in a calm state of mind. It is important to note that we still don't know everything about our brain, and tackling these kinds of things will help you figure them out. I disagree that spirituality isn't helpful. It was helpful a lot, at least in my case. No hate or anger towards you, of course. This is just my opinion.
this aged like fine wine
yep
if it were made from the time humanity was conceived, it would have aged the same
Indeed
Alexander Mcharek well said
It's a 2 years old video lol
It's practically brand new!
Your content is perfect for meditation and makes me feel thoughtful rather than angry, vindictive, and resentful towards the religuous. Nothing better to relax after spending time in the intellectual bloodbath we call the internet.
Erik Neumann | Likewise, I feel more thoughtful and less angry ...
still resentful though.
Erik Neumann
I love that comment. (intellectual bloodbath)
Sometimes it is more like pre kindergarten street fighting, and I'm suffering from facepalm injury.
Here is an author I really like, he is like TheraminTrees but in text form. Here''s is one of his best articles IMHO: www.lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/
He writes on slatestarcodex.com, and here is his best writing all collected together: www.lesswrong.com/posts/vwqLfDfsHmiavFAGP/the-library-of-scott-alexandria
matt durbin been there, read that.
Your comment has me picturing a bathtub filled with blood, surrounded by scented candles.
Totally agree though, this is soothing ✌️
"To a worm in horseradish, the whole world is horseradish." - yiddish saying
what does this mean lol
Frog in the well - chinese saying
1) Yuck! 2) Try "To a fish in the ocean, the whole world is water".
@@major600 that defeats the meaning of the original saying
@@whirlwind872 It means that to a person who is perceiving something, the whole world is through their perception only. The worm in this saying is in horseradish and does not see anything else, thus to the worm the whole world must be horseradish.
Actually you can't even conclude Tracy agrees with ANYTHING that group 1 says. (4:57)
Negative things said about group 1 do not necessarily have anything to do with actual statements made by group 1.
100% true, but often (far from always), people who defend group 1 are themselves part of group 1, because why would you otherwise defend that group, or even know if these claims are true or false??
@@mozesmarcus6786 i defend things if they make logical sense to me and i scrutinize things if they as of yet do not. it has nothing to do with whether or not im a part of it. "well why else would you defend something?" gee, i dont know, any alternative that you havent thought of yet? well its that. any one of those would be why. whats that, how many of them are there? well i dont know, thats the point isnt it?
human knowledge is limited. when you tell yourself you dont need to learn new things, you stop learning.
@@lapotato9140 Thats why I said often in the post, not always. I often see that, in real life, people defend a group because it's their own. I knew that there were many exceptions, and often does NOT mean most of the time, NOR always.
TLDR: You're using a strawman, and I wanted to point that out to you.
@Mozes Marcus i wasnt concerned with the often, what im on about is the “why would you otherwise defend it?” Part. That mindset spawns so much horrid shit, especially if it is followed by “i cant think of anything else, so it must be X”, which it as you could say often is.
Its not a strawman, i bet ive seen the phrase being abused to push narratives just as much as you’ve seen inverse. You can keep the often, but drop the trash “why else would you do it” shit.
@@lapotato9140 K
The fun part of all this is the bias blind spot.
It doesn't matter how personally aware and knowledgeable we are of cognitive biases--it doesn't make one immune from them.
It may even have the effect of making one *more* self-righteous, because authoritatively speaking about rationality and cognitive biases can be conflated with *being* rational.
How many self-styled "rationalists" have you seen making dubious and overstated claims, resorting to motivated reasoning, and dogmatic thinking?
It seems to me that what is required is a sort of cognitive reprogramming, specific techniques to think better, and to override our cognitive tendencies. And for this you need something like the works of Edward de Bono, or something along those lines.
+matt durbin
Put it between two asterisks.
are there any specific works that you recomend?
Agreed, I have been guilty of this myself. I would love to improve upon this aspect of mine.
@@adityapathak5761 yea shit me too
Time to become an inanimate object, like a rock, to forgo all bias. Otherwise, the alternative is _petrifying_ ...
This channel is grossly undersubbed
a similar situation as Captain Disillusion.
Aethgeir agreed.
Yes, although indoctrination is common making his subscribers rarer people.
Agreed
Rationality is not popular. Besides, he doesn't put the camera on himself and then speak and gesticulate with exaggerated excitement.
Hey man, I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your videos. I was raised Jehovah's Witness and your videos have helped me wake up quite a bit. I'd love to hear a podcast from you!
Thanks again!
Glad they've helped!
Matt, have you checked out the Jeff Barcster channel? He's a JW
@@mattdurbin4788 you're incorrect, actually. Given the subscriber count on his channel, he's helped a minimum of 141 thousand people. I personally have used information presented in his videos to help a number of people who have been in abusive households.
@@mattdurbin4788 Why do you think that? Give a clear defense for your opinion, please. I'd love to know why you think this way.
RealCaliforniaCheese why are you here??
A term that I recently discovered is called "Steelmanning". It's the opposite of Strawmanning, where you develop the most accurate image of the beliefs and intentions of the person you're engaging with, and have them do the same to you. Makes discourse way less toxic and far more productive.
It's a lot easier for me to have a conversation with someone when they don't paint me as a pedophile apologist for believing in LGBTQ+ rights, and a lot easier for them to converse when I don't paint them as a massacre apologist for not believing in LGBTQ+ rights.
Acknowledging accurate representations of someone doesn't mean you agree with them or condone their beliefs.
That's actually a great reminder. Now that I have steelmanning _solidified_ in my mind and vocabulary, I now have a word for what many cool and rational debaters do. Thanks.
I have done this all my life and become furious with those who never do the same to me.
That's not a good description of steelmanning. If you're steelmanning an argument, you are going beyond an accurate description of the opposing view, and are making it as strong as you're able.
@@settheory2219While that is what Steelmanning is by strict definition, the outcome is accurately representing their beliefs. Usually flimsy or bad arguments are dismissed as "unreasonable" and "eroding" to the steelman, with the criteria of bad being defined around what the argument is trying to do. Arguments that insult or dehumanise are classified as bad arguments as they only serve to hurt or confuse, and so are tossed out to keep the discourse focused. This is debating 101, keeping the debate focused on the arguments at hand. What makes steelmanning special is that this is taken outside of just debate theatre and into everyday conversation. By steelmanning everyone, you can fully empathise and rationally conclude on complex or difficult situations. This in effect, removes both victimisation and dehumanisation. Of course, some people will come across as bad as the steelman reveals them for who they are and what their motives are. The difference is that you will be able to clearly see any wrongs they have inflicted rationally and without bias. Steelmanning is an honest reflection of people, and one that will save you a lot of trouble in complex situations compared to responding emotionally or without care
On that note, what exactly are LGBT rights, and what does "believing in" them entail, anyway?
As someone who was raised in a strict religion and a strict political party (both of which I won't name), this hit hard. When I left the religion, I was labeled as being "confused" and "sick", and when I said one word of criticism against my political party, I was seen as "siding with the enemy".
It is crazy though how even though I see dogma in others, I also can see it in myself. Thanks for giving me something that I can work on!
Sounds like a JW democrat lol
It's actually crazy how every single major idealogical group seems to be so dogmatic. I am not saying me or any groups I identify with are above this but I didn't know what the word dogmatic mean't before this. It's insane how widespread it is, it's actually kind of depressing with this kind of atmosphere in politics it is nearly impossible for there to be any actual productive discussion.
"Great video, let's look at the comments... oh. Oh, no..."
"you can not reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - Some guy who's smarter than I am, and the dissonance between the video and comments in a nutshell. Once you're in it deep enough, whatever it is, like a lot of people here are, you are _virtually incapable_ of being critical of it. That's stripped from your cognitive functions. The dogmatic people who are the subject of this video can and will sit through this video without thinking for a millisecond "how might this apply to what I believe?" and that's a damn shame.
Oh yes… >:)
Appropriate that this is the top comment.
The chains we argue for the hardest are the ones we have forged for ourselves.
>sorts by controversial
Wait why isn't that an option wtf UA-cam
Being titled "doctor, professor, chemist, physicist etc etc... does not make one immune to dogma.
True, sadly. Especially if your entire field is based on dogma. Or it is otherwise bullshit.
No one in those positions claims immunity, but they are generally better trained and more resistant than the rest particularly in their field of expertise. Unlike on television or most corners of the internet you will see energetic discourse between these professionals as they rigorously test each other's claims. If you, as a layperson, want to question their legitimacy, you either have to become a relevant expert yourself or their error has to lie outside of their field and coincide with common experience.
@@dcbernman True, the unfortunate thing is that whom some may consider experts are really just frauds, charlatans and pseudo-scientists whose main goal is either to spread propaganda which may seem to be non-dogmatic but in reality, by it's own construction (specific ideas) and by it's optics (extreme arrogance and ego) is extremely ignorant, dogmatic and hostile to intellectual discourse and democracy or they seek to profit off gulible masses by repopularizing a 100 year old invention/philosophical idea.
And most of these people have a much higher standing in society and culture than actual, real intellectuals.
See the logical fallacy: “appeal to authority”
E.g. Einstein told me to invest heavily in the photographic film industry.
@luigi mario I beg to differ. Since many degrees require talent and hard work to get, only a few can be as easily obtained as you claim. Those few are well-known to be easy.
"If you have to lie to defend your truth, you already know it's not true." - Aronra
The trouble is, that if a person repeats a lie often enough, they can come to see it as true.
No. That's the fallacy fallacy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
@@lassassindu5071 No, the fallacy fallacy names a specific fallacy; what this is, likely, is a fake quote, unless the OP cares to cite the source where we can see AronRa say that himself.
@@zemorph42 This quote, true or not, is an argument from fallacy. It is considering that because a statement is defended with lies, then it is a lie itself.
@@lassassindu5071 No, that's not the argument from fallacy; _that_ is a claim, unsupported, that a specific other claim, is fallacious; that's not synonymous with "not true".
This statement is a fallacy, itself, but not that one. It is a non sequitur, mind reading, and a false claim of knowledge, but it is not a fallacy fallacy.
I grew up as a Christian. The beliefs instilled in me through church and family were exceptionally bigoted, prejudiced, and in reflection, vile. As I've grown, through experience and acceptance of knowing that I can be better, that I don't have to think and live dogmatically, I've gained an incredible amount of insight and introspection about a lot of things. This video sums up lot of the logical fallacies I used to stay ignorant. Always be willing to change folks. We're in an age of information, you can learn anything about everything, and can educate yourself.
These videos are so well presented that I feel very immersed. I never feel bored, and don't even realize I've been watching a video for 20 minutes. The flow is amazing. I genuinely think you guys are doing an amazing job. I never comment on youtube, but I just couldn't resist to show my appreciation for your work. Best wishes.
Thank you.
Yes, usually when I see a video with that long of a runtime I am reluctant to give it a go, but these videos are almost meditative. I love the voice, and the calm logical firmness of presentation
I tend to be enjoying the video and then it's suddenly wrapping up and I'm going "has it been 22 minutes already?"
Cem Yazici you expressed exactly how i felt about the video.
The problem with this kind of videos is that everyone watching it will just go on with: "Yeah, thats totally how group X is acting. Glad I am so self-aware.". Even people talking about this topic on a meta level might just suffer from a meta level delusion. And people talking about this topic on a meta meta level... . Help!
Dogma is the inescapable void of discourse. We have all done it and have experienced it in at least once in our lives, whether we'd like to admit it or not.
but, like the video said, it's not black and white, not like if you're dogmatic or not, but the degree of dogmatic thinking you have
That's because the problem is moralism itself.
That’s a fourth wall break inside a fourth wall break.... that’s like... 16 walls!
If idiots could tell the're idiots, they wouldn't be idiots. We can never be truly certain we aren't idiots. All we can do is try to become wiser than we already are.
"We don't contract sin, and acts of birth don't transmit guilt from parents to their offspring"
Thank you! A sentence mentioned in 2018, is still more relevant than ever today
My favourite part: “Trying to lure the opponent to defend more extreme positions than that they hold is a popular dishonest tactics in a debate”.
This is not the first time I've watched this video, but I came back to it today because I had a powerful experience earlier today. Someone close to me pointed out a pattern in my expressed opinions that suggested dogmatism, and it was kind of jarring. My ego was damaged: how could I, a crticial thinker, fall into dogmatism? There is a part of me that believes I'm too exceptional to fall for any rhetorical tricks. I don't know if I will ever be able to rid myself of this trait - it may very well be a problem we all grapple with as humans. However, I'm grateful that I have the humility to admit that I *am* capable of dogmatism, and it seems that such acceptance may be the only way I can quiet my ego enough to change my mind about things.
I think building a resistance to dogmatism is a lifelong pursuit, and I may never develop a perfect resistance to it. In one sense, this disappoints me, but I'm also grateful for the opportunity to grow, to reflect, and to improve my critical thinking skills.
Michael Pollan, one of my favorite authors, has a quote which I really like: "you're only as young as the last time you changed your mind."
Well said, yet the critical thinker,, such as us. I find it completely frustrating that the majority of friends and family don't share the same dynamic. On the contrary, their primary communication style is gaslighting, black and white and one minded
Ignoring nuance and strawmanning are really all over the place. It is so frustrating that people simply don't want to discuss the actual topic.
So you're saying we should organize our society along the lines of the lobsters?
Agreed. It's like people forgot the practical skill of how to have an argument, and specifically the art of listening seems lost more often than not. I frequently end up being double frustrated: once by the inability of the other to listen, and once due to understanding they're too handicapped to be helped. Afterall, you need to be able to listen to hear you need to work on your listening skills. -_-
People who don’t want to discuss nuance are afraid of being proved wrong. Ignorance begets ignorance.
@@swat37
He's referring to an infamous BBC interview Jordan Peterson had where the interviewer basically misinterpreted everything he said.
ua-cam.com/video/WJIaNwh7hPE/v-deo.html
Really don't wanna sound too arseholey or creepy and bumlicky. But you two seriously just get better and better. Exemplary content chaps. Simply capital.
rationalmartian “arseholey”, and “bumlicky”; two words I’m going to use more in everyday language. Thanks :)
very British comment
Bumlickey😭🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@breadbutter2476 The word 'lickey' already makes me want to through up ...
bumlicky lmao
One of the few voices of reason out there. Thank you for your edifying work.
_"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your_ informed _opinion. No-one is entitled to be ignorant."_ - Harlan Ellison
With so much discussion of the problems with people under dogmatic influence, and only the problems, it's wonderfully refreshing to see somebody tackle the question of what can be done about them. Keep your eyes and ears open, be conscious of the pitfalls, and recognise the bullcrap for what it is.
Exelent video. I was raised in a cult, and I can fully identify with religious and political culture warping a person’s sense of right and wrong. Your video reminded me that I should view every argument without bias and attempt to avoid adopting dogma.
Sir, you ought to write a book.
Your explanations are so articulate.
I'm sure he already has.
Ekim Yazici where I NEED it
That's because it's not a book.
The images help a lot.
G-man? Is that you? You really rockin that new hairstyle.
@@nnnnmhughuuhhjiijj9457
Lol, If you are asking me then I think you need your eyes checked. My complexion is certainly not as dark as G Man's.
Yay! I’ve been waiting for another video. Thank you!
i was having a conversation about hereditary guilt today. We talked about how in china, families are punished for its members' wrongdoings. I said that it was wrong, but my mom said "that's just how their culture is", talking about how the Chinese culture values people based on their family. She wouldn't listen when I said how it was wrong despite the culture, what do i say if another situation like this comes up?
Blaming someone for something that someone else has done is scapegoating, and scapegoating leads to many horrible atrocities. Would you call the witch hunts "culture"??? Would you call the holocaust "culture"??? Probably not. So why is hereditary guilt culture??? And why should you defend it as such???
'our culture promotes X' those tend to help underscore that just because it's 'expected' doesn't mean its the right thing.
Your mother has a point. We should be careful about deciding that other cultures need to change because they are unjust, unenlightened or archaic. Similar reasoning was used by imperial powers to literally destroy the cultures of peoples they colonised.
Modern thought on this in the humanities is justifiably careful about external powers telling other people what their culture should and should not be. If you are interested in more detail then postcolonialism has heaps of info everywhere.
Obviously, efforts are still made on things like human rights, women’s liberation, caste systems etc. although mostly via education.
The less objective these injustices become though, the less likely aid organisations, or anyone else is to address it.
I suppose you could compare it to religion. Christian believe in heaven and hell, maybe other people believe in Karma, and for these people there is a type of hereditary guilt.
Does one really make more sense than another? The idea that you faults are your own, is a pretty western one. It might seem weird to say you can be punished for the sins of your father, but is that more strange than a heaven and hell?
Religious beliefs can be challenged but it is not up to us to tell other people that they are so wrong that they must stop practicing and believing this religion. That would be a violation of their human rights.
So too, most modern discourses on culture consider prescribing cultural change in other countries to be overreach. We can help these people through education, infrastructure and better governance. Maybe they will decide that parts of their culture need to change maybe they don’t change what we want. But it isn’t usually our place to change another culture.
There are many exceptions, of course. But most often, the emphasis is on trying to see a culture more clearly by examining western biases that we have. A key tenant of postcolonial thought (this is something coloniser did not do).
I do believe the logical fallacy for this specific example is a 'bandwagon' "X must be Y because it's popular or the normal." to use it on your situation, "family punishment is excusable because it is ingrained in the culture."
@@emilchandran546 You're taking about religions. @Mitchell C. Flint was talking about laws.
Even though you shouldn't ban archaïc religions, you should also not act upon them, because that will be theocracy, and that's arguably worse than postcolonialism.
In my previous comment I've critiqued this kind of scapegoating, and if you want to read that, go ahead.
Anyway, your point is very solid. Good job.
Watching this video, I realized that I do these things sometimes while I’m having discussions with people. I get all caught up in thinking that everyone who agrees with this other person thinks X or Y, thinking that if things don’t go the way I think they should that everything will go to shambles. Even if I have an educated, valid argument, it just isn’t the be all, end all. From watching this, I really got to look inside myself and around myself to see these logical fallacies and I learned a lot about the consequences of such thinking. Thank you!
See, he's obviously talking about [OUT_GROUP] in this video, good that i'm from [IN_GROUP], as we are obviously legally, morally and mentally superior to them.
Good thing I'm a stand user like you, we really are the best at discourse
LOL at everyone in the comment section saying nothing but 'yeah that's exactly how [group that I don't like] behaves'. Try being introspective, for once in your life.
It's okay. There are a lot of examples, from a lot of perspectives.
They're just doing what comes naturally after someone chooses to side with anyone in, any, argument; giving reasons for their choices.
To be honest, it starts with TheraminTrees. He is not being introspective as well. It are the other people (religious people, feminists, etc) that are dogmatic, not him.
"They're just doing what comes naturally" -> Naturalistic fallacy.
Of course, they do stuff that comes naturally. We all do, every day.
"Naturalistic fallacy." Read the rest.
You pick a side, you have to defend that side.
You don't pick a side, you don't have to defend it from the other.
Once we decide for ourselves, based on the values we pick up from others, which side of an argument we are going to be on, if there are two chiefly opposing sides, then we place ourselves in the position to defend what we've chosen, and if we are so inclined, speak out against the opposition to that perspective.
Emphasizing that is a naturalistic fallacy is useless. Far more useless than those who have chosen sides and argue for them, or against others. At least they are contributing to cases.
I would not discourage them from doing so.
I think a little more introspection is also in order for manchild, and those who liked his comment, when it comes to the perspective of those people, whether I agree with their arguments, or not. They have reasons for feeling their points are strong enough to make; that their sides are better than the ones they point out.
Take them for what you will.
"if there are two chiefly opposing sides, then we place ourselves in the position to defend what we've chosen,"
There shouldn't be "sides" anyway. Just think as an individual.Then people studying the discourse (like sociologists) might group you with other people, but that's their problem.
I discovered this channel by pure luck of the UA-cam algorithm when trying to look up TA analysis, i am really glad that i stuck around and began watching your vids as they have enabled me to grow to a more critical thinking person, the market place of ideas has helped me to dismiss the immunity i once gave to Islam and while i don't claim to be 100 percent atheist because of my experiences with Chakra and energies in this world, it has allowed me to dismiss the false sense of loyalty and the love i have had for a dehumanizing religion. I think i have been somewhat successful in using it along with other valuable lessons to strip my life of dogma to some extent but it is and forever might be a continuous cycle of challenges that arise with time, especially those founded in the realm of internal integrity of our core mentality. I want to thank this channel and everyone who shares this useful experience in the comments again because they have definitely changed my life for the better :)
i see this literally every day on social media... i wish i could inject this directly into people's brains as pure information
Haha I agree. But we revert to the same issues when we want others to see things our way or make decisions for other people
@@thomasr1051 yes, but I believe the problem Kavukamari is bringing is different. It's not about [put this directly in people's heads and make them believe in it], it's probably about [put this directly in their heads so they can judge it fairly] in opposition to [trying to say it to them with words they can twist and ignore].
@@ynntari2775 right. I made it sound like the two are equivalent and they are not. But to attempt to skip the discourse seems counter productive.
You already are
Holy fuck where has this channel been all my life. This video in particular should be a required viewing for everyone. Thank you for making this
Be skeptical when anyone, ever, mentions "common sense".
why?
@@jonahmordhaim2705 What is common sense to us is just what we have come to unquestioningly accept and believe, such that it appears instantly upon request, at the tops of our minds. The way we think is not rooted in some absolute objectivity but rather is produced by our situations, and must be forced by a tremendous effort to confront and question itself; a man raised from birth in medieval england might well tell you the King being divinely appointed is just common sense. Ask beyond common sense and you will almost always get blank stares.
@@OsirusHandle but there are situations where using common sense works.
@@jonahmordhaim2705 I dont think common sense exists. Its just unthoughtful reasoning.
Yeah, there are cases where things seem extremely obvious to us, but thats usually just we have already seen the reasoning before so have it memorised. That reasoning may still be faulty!
To use physics as an example:
Someone uneducated may think that if you get somewhere faster, you spent less time travelling, so spent less fuel. This is common sense, no? Easy reasoning!
But someone who knows of the friction and drag and work equations would know exactly the opposite is the case; getting somewhere faster almost always takes more energy.
Another example is people who approach complex economic phenomenon with highschool economics levels of theory; its BASIC economics they tell you. Just common sense! Ignoring the entire complex situation.
@@OsirusHandle Ok. Makes sense.
Don't forget Science. It happens in Science too. We do not call it Dogma when it happens in Science. We call it "Intellectual Phase Locking" to try to obfuscate the problem when it happens. People have been shunned, shamed, fired and ridiculed for going against Dogmatic beliefs in Science. I have plenty of examples.
Science is all about verifying, re-verifying theories, discoveries, experiments, tests and facts. A belief is not what scientists aim. They aim for understanding things while being cautious about not trying to fantasize (Albert Einstein used his imagination to make several of his theories, but kept using his rationality too, he was not foolish). If you want to prevent making unbiased assumptions about Science, admit those mistake left by Science (mistakes happens) are those happened in the past and in some contexts when scentists were used against their will.
Hey, can I hear your examples? This sounds sounds interesting.
Science is meant to avoid dogma, but sadly that doesn't prevent some scientist, many popular ones, to be dogmatic. I guess that's because dogma is attractive. People see their security and firm ideas and think "this guy must know a lot to be so sure of himself!".
Immanuel Velikovsky has entered the chat, (I.e.: Venus is very hot due to greenhouse gases, and the universe is not steady-state like a clock. -1950).
This is exactly why beliefs need to be challenged without bias. Once a phenomenon is proven beyond reasonable doubt, it should be accepted regardless of your personal beliefs. This impartial thinking is what enables us to self correct when you're wrong. Understanding all phenomenon is Science's goal. Coming up with excuses harms your ability to question your own beliefs. Everyone is guilty to some extent obviously.
this is something everyone needs to check themsleves for, always, every side has these things, and we should always be asking ourselves these questions
I really like how you portrayed the ideological stances with the characters' color stripes. It's a very abstract and neutral representation that nevertheless demonstrates the perspectives very clearly, with black and white for absolute glorification and demonization respectively, and color for nuanced beliefs. It really does well to demonstrate your point.
I appreciate your effort to boil concepts down as far as you can. It’s very refreshing. Even still I can tell there are biases there, probably ones you are aware of and even working to minimize. We’re all human after all and I respect what you do.
This reminds me a bit of the Hindu concept of Maya (I'm not Hinduist, btw), which roughly means we humans tend to draw invisible divisions and classifications upon things (such as groups of people, ideas, events or anything really) and forget that everything is actually connected. We have this tendency to impose this rules (upon ourselves and upon others) and forget that is all made-up, that no such distinctions are real to begin with, they are just imaginary lines that enclose, not only the subjects we are classifying but also our view of the world. Thus, this kind of thinking drives us away from "truth" (whatever that is) and make us prone to subjugation.
I think this concept is very useful in order to think critically and realise when we are being imposed structures upon ourselves that deny us the ability to see things clearly and with perspective, so we can get rid of Manichean ideas
This is a really interesting concept and definitely has some truth to it, but in some cases it can be helpful to use labels to discover who you are as a person. When your actions or beliefs are definable with a certain label, it can feel good to use that label as it creates a sense of identity. I may be biased, though, as I grew up in the LGBT community on tumblr, which was essentially all about labeling people as x y or z.
Yea but isnt this hypocrisy considering that hindus invented the caste system?
@@quadeevans6484 well, it should be considered that Hinduism is a "compilation" of believes and philosophies more than a dogmatic, one-dimensional system. Also, I'm not sure the caste system is derived directly from Hindu ideas, I think is more of a social/political thing that was applied, maybe with a religious excuse, but as I said, some Hinduists are adviatic (non-dualists) while others believe in and practice dualism.
@@MrKiru224 in my opinion it seems like some dude wanted an excuse to keep for the preexisting social structures at the time and so he bullshitted that
One of the few channels that I enable instant-notification and make time to watch ASAP.
You are incredible :) I hope your work will extend beyond YT. You have a natural gift that can make a difference in the world (beyond what you are already doing).
Thanks!
What other channel would you advise ?
I've never before seen this defined, and explained, so clearly. It seems now, in 2020, nearly any social media conversation rapidly deteriorates in to especially divergent opinions with no common ground and no little in the way of evidence or even consideration that there are multiple possibilities and views. This should be required viewing for anyone before they send their first social media post, and as a barometer for their behaviour in the future.
Leigh Graham I have never agreed more with a comment. I was new to the internet arguing thing and I tried to have a discussion with someone about how public transportation doesn’t work in my home town. I was shocked how quickly it devolved into an insult fest and I just left. I’m going to try not to ever debate here again.
@@jshsnipa … oddly, public transport is one of the main online disputes I've had, too!
It was funny because I was not saying that public transportation is bad, just that it was impractical for my city because it is one of if not the most spread out city in US. Oklahoma City by the way. To use the new tram system they put in, you had to drive because the stops were so far from residential areas. It was easier just to drive everywhere.
Edit: I probably should have just kept that to myself, you don’t care for my past arguments 😂
Tbh, I've seen that happen in real life aswell.
Especially if the debate is about a thing that a Local did, or, if it's about a Social situation.
This is probably more important now than ever.
For sure. I just found this video and I'm going to share the shit out of it. I hope we can all learn from this!
Nah it's always been important, probably would've been more useful during that whole Nazi thing
@@sdprz7893 you know what they meant
I’ve seen this behavior from people of all sides recently and it’s very concerning
Oh god now I can't unsee it
This is so so damn true. Every single word.
Every human being should see this video and take the message to heart.
This applies to *all* sides of political, religious, and other dogmatic groups and discourse. Even your own.
If you're in such a group, try to take a good hard unbiased look at what people are doing around you and decide if it's worth staying.
Peace & love ❤️
Here is a tip to helpanalyze an argument (it's something that I use often and that helps a lot) :
When you hear an argument that sounds convincing , try to summarize it as much as possible.
As you said in the video, an argument should hold wether it's presented with or without emotion.
Summarizing it helps me see exactly what is the important part of the argument.
And sometimes, when you do that, you realise that when you remove all the empty words, there isn't anything at all left. (It happens in politics for example)
that person have been talking for several minites and almost convinced you that he was on your side, but haven't really promised anything and didn't provide any reasonable reason to believe that he's right.
Thank you for the effort you both put into your works. They have helped enrich my life.
This video is excellent in many (most) respects but it overlooks one critical concept, namely that of false equivalence between moral/political causes. Imagine we have two groups in opposition: one is anti slavery and the other pro slavery. We could identify all sorts of identical patterns of egregious behaviour in both groups, with both sides using the exact same techniques and bad logic to include or exclude members and control/vilify people. We may even, for the purpose of my example, witness *more* of this bad behaviour in the anti-slavery group. But at the same time we would never conclude that there is moral equivalence between those who support slavery and those who are opposed to it. A lot of political discourse today falls into the false equivalence trap (“both sides are equally morally bad because both engage in (insert reprehensible behaviour)” In short despite all sorts bad behaviour there can still be a wrong side and a right side to a moral debate- with the obvious caveat all of us have a tendency to think we’re on the right side.
Anyone can believe they are correct. Any belief can be justified if reason is ignored. Never forget that your ideas can always be branded as "morally wrong no matter what" because there is no such thing as a ten commandments of morality
Glad someone said this. I love a lot of these vids but it def seemed like he's out of his depth trying to talk about race. It's not about repenting for past slave owners as much as it is acknowledging which systems exist because of slavery and disadvantage people today who would have been enslaved previously, while confereing advantages to those could have owned slaves previously. This hasn't aged well in the age of crusades against critical race theory and teaching "the good and bad" parts of slavery.
almost as if the morality of an ideology and moral weight of individual actions are independent of each other
Stunning video. For me it was really eye opening to see there's a lot of dogma around me- not just in small areas.
I think it sucks that I was so wholly unaware and even fell into those thoughts myself. I feel like now I know a bit better, and I can at least try to be a bit better in the future.
Thank you for making this, I very much appreciate these videos.
It’s been 2 years. Have you made any progress? Just curious, cheers!
Your videos are somehow thought-enducing and relaxing at the same time, I love it.
The thing about dogma is that if we define it as "incontrovertible rightness" to the point it cannot be argued with, we run the risk of including fundamental morality as dogma.
That is to say, each of us expects that there are certain things that are obviously morally right or wrong... but because those morals/ethics are foundational to who we are, there's no way to argue for or against them without treating whoever you're talking to like a child. For example, freedom as a human right, as opposed to being beholden to society. There's no way to argue "freedom isn't as important as responsibility" to someone who was literally born and raised on the mythos of freedom above all; such a person will see selfishness as virtue before they can admit charity as moral.
Dogma is literally inescapable because it informs each individual's moral priorities, and those morals in turn shape discourse. Shared morality between those engaged in discourse is the guiding force of agreements made; anything else is debate, for the sake of attracting the favor of the audience, who is hopefully still undecided. What *really* matters? Freedom? Responsibility? Tradition? Progress? Justice? Mercy?
You cannot argue someone out of believing in these things. To do so would break them.
The way i took it, dogma isnt "incontrovertible rightness" of morals, but rather incontrovertible rightness of the ingroup itself. So while a certain ingroup may choose to define itself by certin moral values (mercy/justice/responsibility etc) and give less priority to other values (freedom- to think, to speak etc), one can still question that groups rightness, by its own moral standards, as less merciful/just as it claims to be.
So what your saying is... :D
Yay! More lobsters! \o/
Deconverted Man lobster hierarchy rules
When someone fails to speak clearly, mere mortals are left asking "So what you're saying is...?".
Theramin Trees thinks we should all live like lobsters.
*you’re
I came here expecting to find someone against whom I'm supposed to defend my faith. Thank you for defying my expectations.
I do this more than I’d like to admit too. Very interesting to think about.
Your videos have been such an enormous benefit to me and my family. Thank you so much for your hard work.
Video : *Was posted two years ago*
UA-cam algorithm : "f*ck yeah let's recommend this to *EVERYBODY* "
This is exactly the kind of video we need
They got tired of everyones shit and gave us a lesson on how to have a conversation
@@colltonrighem You are so right, my Good Sir - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US need to see this video at least once.
This video will always be about current events
Unfortunately there are only about 200k views at the moment. It should be at least a few million IMO
This video is required viewing for the entire internet.
*world
@@Game_Hero Agreed!
@4:42-5:34 More accurately, you can't say anything about Tracy's opinion on what Group 1 says, because her statement is not about what they said, but about what other people said.
Jeff C Many of the things said about group A aren't true. There are good people on both sides. What about the group B people, who came charging in, aren't they to blame too?
Technically not an endorsement of Group A, but we can quickly build up a picture of what is being said here.
@Oscar Evans - yep, we can all make unfounded assumptions... ;)
@@Saktoth I think you might have completely missed the point of this whole video, if not the very concept of dogmatism
Always a Joy to see a new upload from Theramin Trees!
this video was wonderful, thank you. Ive noticed these topics crop up in a lot of conversations, and noticed their patterns before, but now i have words to describe what was being seen by my head. I know its not much but thanks again
I love this channel so much. Your content reminds me to think critically and recognize the games that people play.
Cheers Alan
Outstanding work, thank you.
Woah hey kc, love your videos man. Helped pull me out of creationism
My friends and I always love to dog on Republicans. The whole video I kept thinking about how this applies to republicans. 🤦♂️ after reading some comments I feel really stupid. I see how hard it is to reverse my thinking and how easy it is to become more sucked into dogmas that you find slight interest in. It’s comforting to give into black and white ideas that ignore nuance. No one wants to question their morality
Whooof... Dogma sunk it's claws *deep* into me as a teenager and even though I've been deradicalizing from age 17 to now (21) I'm only *JUST* beginning to see the effects this stuff has had on me.
hearing "ancient crucifixion" really brings into perspective how...primitive/barbarous it is that a dominant political/religious faction in most of the world is predicated on the public execution-turned-sacrifice of a dude called Josh.
We don't often think about the villification of "civil discourse" but I see it everywhere. To have a dialogue with someone without blindly shouting them down or "deplatforming" them is seen as the enemy.
I hate it when people fall into tribalism. I’d never even think of talking to a tribalist!
ahahaha the tribalism between anti-tribalists and tribalists
Quite possibly some of the best advice I have ever received in my life. (I'm 61 yo.)
Vale Marco jajaja
Quite the high praise then
I love your videos. Understandable to regular audiences and has very useful content
This is one of the main reasons I’ve taken a sabbatical from political discourse.
Probably one of the smartest things one can do right now. And yet here i am
This video was very useful on researching human communication in order to blend in better
As I listen and ponder on the ideas presented, I look more and more within myself and less and less outside thereof and what I find is fascinating, yet scary. Really good stuff here.
I am not sure how to express this without seeming like I’m speaking against the #BLM movement, which I’m intensely in favor of. I guess I’m just afraid to give ammo to people who already hate the movement; which I guess is nonsensical, as they will find ammo anywhere. If I’m being honest , I’m also afraid of being attacked and discredited by the dogmatics in my own camp. But here it goes.
While watching this video I couldn’t help but feel like it was directed towards some of the people supporting the BLM movement. I know that isn’t the case, and realized I felt that way because a lot of what was said easily applies to people who I would count among my allies. In fact, until I read Ibram X. Kendi’s book How To Be An Anti-Racist, I was among those who took the, “all white people are racist” ball, and ran with it. I softened that view, and now feel that the less divisive and dogmatic, more beneficial response to systemic racism is to decry racist policies, and racist ideas that white people are socialized with; not white people themselves. Ideas like these are obviously dogmatic, and harm all of us by making us look at an entire racial group as the problem, rather than the people who create racist/sexist/classist policies, then justify them with racist/sexist/classist ideas. I think it’s vitally important that we have been collectively thinking and talking about these things, and it’s not surprising we had such a rocky, clumsy start. However, the more we talk about it, the better we get at it, and the more we can work to weed out dogma. I think the only way to actually end systemic racism is to get as many people as possible on the same page, and I don’t think we can do that by accusing all white people of racism. There’s no nuance in that message; no room for error, or individual feelings/actions. There is a much more nuanced, inclusive, non-demonizing way to get the intended message across.
Now that isn’t to say we should coddle people who disagree, or just let racist dogmatism slide when we see it. I think it means we continue calling people and ideas out when they’re being racist, but realizing being racist or anti-racist isn’t a permanent state. People can shift continuously based on every individual action they take, and we should speak with them knowing there’s a chance for them to see our side. Acting nice, and being kind are not the same thing. Also, when speaking online, we should keep in mind we are essentially speaking to anyone who reads our posts. So we can address other people who may simply be lurking, unwilling to engage but open to being persuaded. If we engage in dogmatic rhetoric those sorts of people are less likely to see things from our side.
I’ve been guilty of all of the negative things discussed in the video multiple times, across multiple subjects. I would like to stop.
I know you're trying to see BLM as a good movement with with a good message behind it, but the true problem is: That "all white people are racist" thing you're trying to distance _from_ BLM? The group that's very much attached to the movement *and* is where most people supporting the movement want you to donate to, has capital, a flag, merch, so on so forth... that's kind of their whole entire ethos. In fact, the very concept of Racism = Power + Prejudice was made not only to win an ideological argument, but also to push forth this "all white people are racist" in such a way that any objection people might have regarding this could be rewritten as racism. The lack of nuance in that message? That's actually pretty deliberate, designed to put people considered 'black enough' (I don't like saying 'white people' or 'black people', but it seems that's what people think diversity is) on a pedestal, and to shunt all the problems of their community, internal, external, their fault, or not their fault, all onto people considered 'white enough'. There's also the fact that much of the material the group bases their whole plan of attack on outright says that those considered white will *always* be racist, no matter what they do, and that the best they can hope for is to be an anti-racist racist. That's not a good thing to say when you're trying to get people to *not* be racist, not to mention, completely false. People really hate monopolies these days, and with good cause, but the same people always seem very much okay for a few groups to claim an entire monopoly on political issues, and I'm not okay with that in the slightest. Plus, diversity is *_WAY_* more than just 'black' or 'white', to paraphrase from a Tumblr user, it comes from the peaks of the Himalayas, the arid plains of the Sahara Desert, the many native tribes of the forests all across the world, the many countries of Europe, the beachsides of Korea and/or Japan, hell, even a lot of the 50 states of the very US itself has a bit of culture of their own! To judge peoople by the color of their skin, and not by the content of their character, is a very stupid thing to do. I wouldn't accept it from anyone, no matter who they are. I don't expect you to entirely agree with this, not at first at the very least, hell, I might even be mistaken in a few places, but I hope the point I'm trying to make here, well, makes sense.
tl;dr: It's entirely okay for you to support diversity and being nice to people without having to support BLM. People who don't want you to think *are never your friend.*
@@kinker31 Very well said. Thank you for taking the time to dig into this stuff, as it appears that you have spent plenty of time thinking about it. I am not sure how much of it I do or do not agree with, but I agree with what I feel like is the spirit behind your words. The ideas of “white people” and “black people” is false, and reductive. Sadly, it appears to be the level of nuance the vast majority of the conversation is being had at. If more of us were able to put as much time and attention into their thoughts as this, I feel like we’d be much more satisfied with the results.
@@gido9467 Damn. Very interesting read
I'm so happy you're back on UA-cam. Your videos have always been stellar and helped me. Thank you.
I hope the algorithm is sharing this with everyone
This is exactly what we need now.
Nobody is immune to dogmatic ideologies. Hell, even some who believe themselves logical, critical thinkers can be seduced by them, warping logic.
If anything, the belief that one is immune to dogmatic ideologies makes one much more vulnerable to them. Cognitive dissonance and all that.
I'd just like to make a quick note on "hereditary guilt", and how I think it's not exactly as simple as you presented it. Advocates of affirmative action in America and other places are often accused of "hating whiteness" or "hating their own culture", but if you're an egalitarian, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to try and empower disadvantaged minorities completely divorced from any perceived "historic guilt". Yet, some guilt also plays a role. I wasn't out there genociding native Americans or enslaving people, but it's undeniable that the wealth and economic prosperity which my grandparents, parents, and now I enjoy were built on the subjugation of other ethnic groups. Today, I theoretically have the power to help these groups by advocating for policies like affirmative action, and choosing to not do so feels like being complicit in an exploitative system. Since wealth and prosperity are inherited, the unethical origins of that prosperity are also inherited (to a certain degree).
Now I have something to say about this post...
It doesn't seem to me that guilt is an appropriate response when agknowleging historical injustices towards persecuted groups of people. Guilt by definiton is a response to feeling as though we have inflicted harm upon someone else. Rational compassion is much more suited for the task.
Now taking into consideration that you said:
_"I wasn't out there genociding native Americans or enslaving people, but it's undeniable that the wealth and economic prosperity which my grandparents, parents, and now I enjoy were built on the subjugation of other ethnic groups."_
1. It is necessary to make a distinction betweeen perpetrators and beneficiaries. Perpetrators are the root of the injustice. They bear the guilt for their crimes. In they ought to have been punished for their wrongdoings.
Now if one is a benefactors of the econimic prosperities founded on socioeconomic subjugation, they may feel guilty as a result of imagining the hardships that minority groups have endured; Yet counterintuitively this "hereditary guilt" works against both parties intrests.
2. At the most basic level, moral culpability is directly correlated to how much control one has over the situation at hand. It is already a forgone conclusion that the past happened. The perpetrator's decendents had no part in these actions. As for the benefactors, it must be pointed out that even if individuals would desire for positive change, people are constrained by time and place (I.E, people have jobs, family, school, and responsibilites; This leaves practically no time at all for _"Saving the world from systemic oppression"_ ).
A realistic assesment of just how uninfluential the average person is weakens the _"You're complcit in the [Insert thing here] System"_ argument.
3. Theramintrees's arguement isn't saying _"don't have empathy and compassion for oppressed categories of people."_ That would be a strawman fallacy if you charactarized his arguement in this manner. His arguement is calling out the people who would spout: _"Your ancestors harmed my people. Therefore I have a right to harm you back!"_ (Which is a stupid mindset that has been used as a justification for gen0cide. e.g: Israel-Palestine conflict."_ ).
4. Moreover, there are signifigant problems that can be generated when we indulge in a false sense of guilt. First and foremost, we shift away from effortful rational thinking, and into reflexive emotional thinking.
This creates an acute psycological tension that causes them to relieve that guilt through impotent unproductive, and downright asinine activities
(i.e: apologizing to minorites for having "Whiteness" [Which, when used outside of it's historical, academic context, is an entirely arbsurd and arbitrary concept that fails on epistemological grounds] , self-flaggelating [metaphorically and literally] for being white, ruminating endlessly about weither you've been "problematic" or not). This also leaves the guilt ridden people wide open to psychological manipulation from race baiting charlatans ( who thrive on exploiting these kinds of psychological insecurites.
5. Rational compassion means taking into consideration the injustice at hand from a detached perspective, and forming the most reasonable solution to remediate the situation. This differs from guilt, because it takes away the focus from our own personal feelings, and moves it towards finding productive courses of actions. If you are concerned for the well being of minorites, guilt won't do you any good.
6. I'd like you to take a moment to examine the emotional blackmail behind the "Complicity arguement". This arguement is the epitome of guilt tripping. It paints an entire category of people as heartless caricatures, denying their individuality. People who bite the hook of this arguement will stumble into the same pitfall that other guilt ridden people arrive at: Attempting to alleviate guilt through unproductive means. Yes, there are serious historical injustices that ought to be adressed. Yes, some people have indeed benefited from systemic opression.
However this may be, guilt is not the answer. You can't apologize on behalf of your ancestors. You can't feel guilty for a crime someone else did. The people who want you to falsely feel guilt have a vested intrest in making you feel that guilt. That is, they want you to keep wasting your energy towards fruitless endeavors, to make their adherents feel the illusion of doing something productive. Keep in mind that if systemic opression was ever mitigated to the point of irrelevance, the game would be up for all the faux-academics pushing this pseudointellectual nonsense.
So in conclusion, I want to make it clear that if we want to actually solve problems in the real world, it reqires that we use our mind's capacty for rational thought, and that we remain skeptical of anyone who pushes ideas that try to emotionally blackmail their way into the discourse.
@@lxverdant1837 Everything you wrote is spot on. I especially agree that help should come from a place of pragmatism and a desire for equity, not an emotional impulse to self-flagellate. But I'd like to elaborate on one point.
The idea of being "complicit" is not entirely meritless, but very problematic. Where you draw the line between following reasonable self-interest and being "complicit" is highly subjective and will be different for every person.
Most would agree that if you see someone bleeding out on the street and don't call a potentially life-saving ambulance, you have done something "bad" - if they die, you're partially responsible through neglect, by not putting in the most basic effort to help.
On the other hand, if you're a surgeon, would it be reasonable to expect you to live in the hospital and work 14 hours a day? I mean, every moment you spend not ready for surgery could be putting an injured person in mortal danger! Of course, this is absurd, and we can unanimously agree that the surgeon has a right to work "reasonable" hours and enjoy "reasonable amounts" of comfort and free time.
But what is "reasonable"? Some would look at a lifestyle of consumerism and say that its "reasonable", that there's nothing wrong with choosing to purchase a great many things, even if they aren't strictly necessary for surviving or accomplishing a goal. But a hardcore anti-capitalist activist might point to the sweatshops, imperialism, child labour and the polluted environment and say "no, that is not reasonable. It is a short-sighted, impulsive pursuit of pleasure that we have a moral obligation to resist".
So I think people pointing the finger and saying "you're complicit in a system of exploitation" is not always born out of charlatanism (though I'm certain it can be used that way). I believe some of these people have genuine moral convictions, and are mostly desperate to find allies. They say people are "complicit" to challenge them into examining what role they play in an overarching system - to consider the the world not in terms private, individual problems but systemic problems.
Saying someone is "complicit" obviously implies guilt, and is very emotionally charged, so maybe there are better ways of phrasing the above argument. But it's hard to get people to pay attention with yet another dry lecture about "society", so implying guilt is an almost required tool of propaganda in today's ephemeral social media landscape.
Either that, or these people are simply angry. Guilt-tripping may be an aggressive retaliation against "individualising" rhetoric which tries to downplay or outright deny historic disadvantages, side-line systemic problems and imply that the current system is working perfectly fine, that it's just lazy and stupid people that are having a hard time (fear mongering about malingerers and welfare queens strongly implies that people with individual, moral failings will selfishly take advantage of welfare programs).
Unfortunately, and quite ironically, by claiming people are "complicit" in systemic oppression, this method falls victim to the exact same fallacy - only this time, with the roles reversed. It's a fundamentally flawed approach, but hard to resist when you feel frustratingly powerless and think you have the moral high-ground.
EDIT: I'm aware the the what I've written above conflicts with my initial position, in which I claimed that guilt can be beneficial as a motivator for getting people into activism. After reading your comment, I realised that the position I held was advocating for an immoral, manipulative form of activism where people are blamed and then coerced into action by offering repentance for a manufactured sin. Even if it were effective (and given the many defensive responses to it, I doubt it), it would still be wrong to subject people to this kind of psychological abuse. I likely tried to justify guilt as a method of activism to validate my own feelings of guilt, which, to be perfectly honest, are just making me feel depressed and not actually motivating me into doing much of anything.
@@Halucygeno I know this is a late reply, yet I greatly appreciate that you read my quasi-essay. Now that we've arrived at an understanding, I want to elaborate more on certain points that I cut from the oringinal reply for the sake of brevity.
1. The overestimation of personal influence is one of the largest misconceptions prevalent in social justice discourse. It's striking on how prevalent the idea of _"You can make a difference in the world"_ has been peddled to people through the media and commercial propaganda. As I mentioned before, ordinary people's influence are constrained by their practical circumstances. Companies are aware of this predicament, and have found ways of exploiting this by associating their products with your own personal values.
This is why you see Nike (an organization that exploits the global south's labor and resources) advertise that they support things like "equity" and "anti-racism"; When you see banking companies like Bank of America (A company that defrauded millions of homeowners during the subprime mortgage crisis) marching in a pride parade, boasting about their LGBTQ+ representation. When you see Ratheon (A defense contractor, need I say more?) proudly proclaim that their fighter drones were designed by a _female_ engineer.
All of these superfical pseudo-displays of love and support are designed to make people psychologically associate their brand with positive feelings. It is intended to make oneself feel as though they are effectuating change through their purchasing choices (albeit you'd probabaly never purchase a fighter drone). Yet this is nothing but an illiusion (In psychology, this is known as magical thinking). The point is, buying a product with a positive message associated with only benefits you, and does virtually nothing to actually effectuate positive change.
2. The people who are most oppressed are blatantly overshadowed by the ludicrous theatrics of commercial propaganda, which tries to gloss over underlying societal issues with a vineer of progress and tokenism.
For the third world people, they're rendered even more invisible, because calling out _their_ opression would undermine the companies credibility, and they get ignored by thier first world counterparts who falsely believe that the world is naturally progressing in a better direction, and that the current economic system will eventually fix the world's problems (It won't).
For the first world opressed people, all it amounts to is "wishing them well", and satiating them with festivities for 1 month a year. It's alalogous to the phrase "Bread and Circuses", where people are given all sorts of pleasures and distractions to occupy themselves with, so they won't question the underlying political and economic system. Notice how you've never seen any of these companies (In the U.S) promoting universal healthcare, so LGBTQ+ people can get access to therapy which would signifigantly improve their psycological health. These things which would actually have a positive impact on people are suspiciously ignored by the companies.
In all, the the governemnt & corporate sponsored ideology of rainbow capitalism is designed to cover up the true state of affairs.
(I'll continue this later...)
ua-cam.com/video/LeD8chFOS3Y/v-deo.html
This video seems so philosophically sublime, I feel as though I've been duped into believing something that's too good to be true.
You're videos really are therapy. This means you have to take breaks to think about them deeply and that with each one i can see my sanity and hope returning bit by bit.
Kind of unrelated, but your voice is really relaxing. It makes watching and understanding this video a lot easier.
The best UA-camr I've seen (shaun_jen) debunks arguments without mischaracterizing them at all. He starts his responses by suggesting the audience views the original video in its entirety, linked in the description. This leaves to room for the person to whom he's responding to accuse him of misrepresenting his arguments and shoehorns them into actually addressing his points or conceding.
Interesting. That's a complete reversal from how they acted during Gamergate, basically throwing accusations left and right.
@@tibfulv lemme guess, you're some kind of proponent of gamergate, right?
@@LucreDenouncer
I was indeed in favour of it. Seeing the abuse games journalists had put their readers through, I could do no other.
@@tibfulv I haven't seen much of what they posted other than "The Fate of the Frog Men" video. I think it does a pretty good job of summarizing what gamergate is and who caused all the conflict. What point(s) do you disagree with from that video?
@@LucreDenouncer
I'll have a look at it and see. Wouldn't want to judge the content on a prejudice. You can link videos without having the post hidden if you edit a preexisting post to add the video by the way. Found this out about a year or two back.
Love when the "restoring nuance" section makes the extremely broad claim that "Islam sentences its ex-members to death"
That's some real great nuance you've got there
Agreed - that's one really extraordinary lapse in this video. It's an absolute claim that's not true of various streams of thought in Islam. Islam isn't monolithic and Theramin Trees should know that.
Yeah, I'd really like to share this video around but I can't, because it has that one statement in it
But, isn't that part of their doctrine?
@@monsieurbertillon9570 Just because you or other dissident sects of Islam don't follow the Quran's teachings, and still want to call yourselves Muslim, does not mean it is not monolithic.
@@jacoblehrer4198 I'm not Muslim, I just know from reading and speaking to Muslims that just like other religions its texts are full of contradictions and open to different interpretations. Views vary massively within Islam. Wikipedia is actually quite good on this - look up 'Apostasy in Islam' if you're interested.
This video changed my entire viewpoint on politics. I've always been political, have been since I was 15. I considered myself a leftist, and agreed with the majority of the goals and beliefs. After watching this video, I spent some time re-evaluating my beliefs. I did my own research, thought my own thoughts, and decided that yes, I am still a leftist. However, I now recognize the HUGE amount of dogma in the left, especially online. Like holy shit. I used to be blind to that sort of stuff, mostly just vaguely agreeing before moving on with my day, but now I try to challenge it wherever I can.
My beliefs are my own, not the group's.
I've been saying for a minute now that the one thing I wish for both left and right is for them to become more self-critical. Which to either side is seen as morally repugnant middle-manning. Not sure why they think that flies with someone who asks people to simply challenge and refine their beliefs, to make them more sound and relevant. But therein lies the problem. It's basically a bunch of people convincing each other they've figured something out... and yet all they can ever do is TALK about it. It's not healthy or beneficial to go that deep into theoretical stuff. The ideals stop lining up with the outcomes in a big way, if there are even any real outcomes to attribute.
I always thought you weren't supposed to buy into it all. Isn't diversity of thought a core basis of democracy? That's not a system made for peacefully grazing heard of sheep, but for individuals all with their own ideas on change and progress butting those ideas up against each other to see which better stands. So you need to be critical both ways. You want your own ideas to be as strong as possible, so they can weather weaker ones. And when your idea is the weaker one, you need to admit that in order to come out right and have us all still work together.
Apparently not though, for those who confuse politics for people. A lot of that on both sides. So many things that 'exist' in politics only live through the words that people say.
Gotta watch out for that stuff! I find when I'm getting entrenched in something political, I'm prone to unknowingly conflate things I don't actually understand with things I do. So somebody says something I have actually weighed carefully and earned the same conclusion for myself... and then slips in something I don't fully get yet, and I take it right up. And then later I'm cleaning house and start understanding those things in my own way and it's like this breakthrough "WAIT. This is STUPID!" and then I have to go back over all of it. And then you kind of have to wonder how many people who still believe it are just as you were.
The big thing I notice in politics is that people get so hopped-up on ideas that they lose the forest for the trees. On left, there's this especially strong push to be aware and morally balanced, which I think shoots its strongest supporters in the foot pretty much every time. Because at some point, their very deep, articulate, and astonishingly morally progressive ideas just become so divorced from reality they become impossible to trace back to planet earth. If you swing that way, you may just take it at face value, not realizing how far off it has pushed you from the reality of something else.
Beware of the blind spots. I like a lot of left-wing ideas too. But quite often when you poke at things there can be some nasty breakdown points.
michaelrz167 Ultimately I think these false equivalences of “right and left” and an insistence on placing separate binary ideologies onto a sliding scale display have caused our major issues. The online discourse is constantly poisoned by the misconception that there is a unified left. Whereas in reality the only thing that unifies the left, is its opposition to the right (who’s ideologies near exclusively exist to justify whoever is or has been in power, being in power).
@@personeater2664 A lot of truth in that, I think. It is a total false dichotomy. The left indeed has always been divided and prone to infighting. But they all tend to agree that the right must be stopped. I think the right does the same, but they're less open about fighting internally and more bound by loyalty and hegemony, whereas leftist thinking tends to encourage divergence. Outside of that they aren't particularly useful categorizations... IME any time someone tries to argue a point by first establishing some facet of one or the other, that gets lost in the dreaded left/right back/forth. The actual ideas get abstracted out to generalizations about groups and stop fitting with any perceivable reality. It often feels like it's hard to know what is true or who is right. Because the way we approach the conversations is naturally confusing to begin with. We build these elaborate boxes to stuff one another in, thinking somehow that's going to lead to something.
But that's really it. If I wanted to be offensively reductionist I could say left=not right and right=not left. They exist more to oppose one another than to house any one set of ideologies. This happens to neatly explain why the common definitions can change over time. It would also suggest that at least some portion of the argumentation from within that binary conception is extraneous. And exists only within the confines of that binary schism.
And I do agree, the whole range from far-right to far-left and everything in between is just muddying the waters. It basically just adds more layers of bias and complexity to problems that are already complex. Because now it's not only idea a vs idea b, but associated group a vs associated group b. Now, we've got to argue over who those groups are, what they want, how it compares to what they say/do, what they may be reacting to....
And often that's when you see that the two things have little to nothing to do with each other. Which basically guarantees continued mutual opposition and only trickles of progress. Because it is no longer about what is right, but who is right. The rational answer is that neither are really right, but to get either one to admit that involves throwing out the baby with the ideological bathwater. So it's a stalemate.
But sometimes I think this goes even DEEPER than that... it is not just a flaw in our current political system, but an inherent challenge to the marriage of power with ideas. There is first the question of what is the right idea. Then comes the question of who should have the power to bring them life. People talk about identity politics like they're new. I think identity has and probably always will be a core part. There has to be someone to stand for the ideas of what is right, and someone to make them real.
The latter part really complicates matters, no matter how you try to balance it out. Sadly, I sometimes think that if it was truly only about ideas, most people would actually agree on most things. It's the need to house them and the ways we've come up with for doing that which comprise the bulk of the onion's layers. It opens us up to deception and manipulation. Very easy to lose sight of 'what is right?' when attempting to answer the question of 'where should power go?'
I mean, we could conceivably do away with the partisan system. But then what could replace it that would patch up this weakness?
I dunno. There are likely a whole myriad of reasons for why we continually have the wrong conversations. As I get older, I become less a fan of this idea of humans as 'evolving through thought.' I sometimes envision our current political system and the dialog around it as our greatest endeavor in reaching beyond our means. It's like we create unsolvable problems and dump our identities into trying to solve them, simply through our discourse.
@@personeater2664 and similarly, really the only thing thst unifies the right is opposition to the left. A fascist will have different beliefs to a libertarian to a conservative to a monarchist etc.
I guess that's how left v right evolved, since both sides can all agree they're not huge fans of the other
Morally Conflicted Tortoise The terms left and right developed from French democracy. The right represented keeping the monarchy in power and serving their wants, the left opposed the monarchy and served the peoples needs. All ideologies nowadays are crammed into these categories and seen through that perspective.
Thanks so much for your videos, they're consistently well done and very much appreciated.
Cheers!
You have wormed my cold dead heart. Thank you. I have had repeated depression triggering obsessions dealing with the futility of rational unity. You have helped me. I appreciate it. Subbed and liked. Take care.
Hi, I recently found this channel and I have to say this:
Even though (or rather, exactly because?) I'm a Christian with a special interest in apologetics, I really like your videos. I would have to lie if I said I agree with all of your views, but you present them in such a calm and objective way that I can actually enjoy having food for thought again - it's unlike the (as I perceive it) often arrogant and condescending way some other atheists present their ideas/attacks on Christianity/religion, which really spoiled the whole discourse for me. After all, every Christian should be open to discussion about their religion in order to progress our understanding of it, find better arguments to defend it and to advance in finding the truth, and its is much easier to stay open to new ideas when you're not presented with Dawkins-like strawman-arguments solely aimed at ridiculing you, but actually feel like you're being talked with instead of laughed at.
I'm a jew and I use these video's to get a more objective view of my religion,and to step closer to the truth.
I'm glad whatever strawmen we made for this man's demographics don't represent him.
Yeah I liked is view on the generational sin. I think unfortunately, because the book is spiritual in nature, many of the concepts, on a merely physical level, are pretty horrible, but taken to the spiritual level, are more understandable and rational. I don’t mean to say those who read it “merely physically” are stupid or less then- I’ll be vulnerable here I guess for the sake of my argument: I am becoming more and more convinced that the Christian relationship with God/Jesus found in scripture has been extremely distorted and “neutered” from its original concept of a guilt-free, loving, trusting relationship with God into a “do good,” “behave,” and “glorify God” mentality promoting, sadly, unintentional hypocrisy and fear of criticism within the “pastor and congregation” church structure as we have known it since the Roman Catholic Church implemented Pagan philosophies into a relationship based faith to gain political support and freedom from persecution.
Anyway, for example, if a father was abused as a child and never was “healed” over the damage done to him, and simply diverts his covered-up pain through drinking, twisting facts against his children and has outbursts of anger towards his children/wife for undeserving matters, he has “passed on” the “sin” of abuse onto his children; now they have to deal with the burdens of their hurting but abusive father because he, the father, never actually dealt with his “sins.” Of course God is still the punisher in this analogy, but why does God punish? Why would a loving God execute judgement on a person for something their father did? I say, a pure and higher form of love- but, imagine with me, you are in “God’s shoes” and are responsible for, and perhaps, actually, “in love with” and “adore” your “children” on earth. You would see destructive patterns of behavior l, like poison, deep into communities that you desire to flourish and grow in love towards each other, and as each parent ignores their own “sins” they only grow and multiply per as many children the parents up-bring. Now, rather then one man struggling with abuse, there are 10, then 50, then 100, all with remnants of the “sin” of the father. God sees the generational damage this causes, and in His patience and understanding that we as humans are imperfect, limited by our own perspectives, and fragile to anything and everything God puts His stamp of ownership on (I.e.; “thus says the lord”), rather then smiting the abuser for his crimes against his children, he gradually “punishes” out the “sins of the father” over many years of patient and loving correction and rebuke, as any loving father would do to their child hitting and kicking other children on the playground.
Of course, there were some matters like rape and incest and witch craft and even worshiping other Gods that earns the death sentence, but again, if you were in “God’s shoes,” and you had a complete and total understanding of how awfully destructive and pain-causing certain “sins” are, and to spare your community of followers the pain of dealing with the added spiritual drama of a witch bringing demonic influence over innocent people and causing so much strife and suffering, you, in the position of God, knowing all, might, in your mercy, spare the group the suffering you know will be brought by the witch and say “put her/him to death.” Now, if my perspective is correct just for arguments sake, it would be most unloving to allow a witch to, in the cover of darkness, to go on performing her/secret arts causing so much discord and division and destruction to your beloved people or “children” that to spare her would be a crime against everyone else in the community.
This is just one example of how we in our own limited understanding and human perspectives misalign the loving plan God had because we lack perspective.
The bigger problem however, and this is something I have deep in my heart and am hurting over personally, is that Christians seem to lack the love and understanding their Father has and so everything else they do, “righteous” or not, now is in vain, as it says in 1 Corinthians 13.
If I am right in my earlier example, then only love will make sense of what seems to be a brutal act of discriminatory genocide against a group of people being free to do what they want to do.
I am so sad and disgusted by how far my family in Christ have gone from the main point of our walk with Jesus which should be to love unconditionally and purely from the heart- but our world doesn’t get nearly the love from our group, more so the fear of angering a screaming and vengeful master in the sky who will throw innocent fools into hell for not signing their soul on the dotted line.
@@JCTBomb really interesting ideas. I like the angle you take. It reminds me a bit of Chesterton's characterisation of Christianity as the only religion that can at the same time fervently battle against what it deems sinful while still being faithful to the ideal of loving one's neighbour, as paradoxical as it may seem.
Quick point on the bible verses quoted about the generational sin issue: For anyone reading them as quoted and thinking, "Wow, that does sound like injustice from God.", let me just put in a good word for using older, more reliable texts and translations. Does the Bible really say what was quoted? Not in the KJV and original hebrew texts. It says, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children" not, "punishing the children for the sins of the father"... "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children" is not a statement of punishment, it is a statement of genetic and behavioral training from parent to child. Alcoholics are more likely to produce children who become alcoholics, abusive parents are more likely to produce children who become abusive as well. Sometimes, it's actual physical effects, like drug-addicted pregnant mothers producing drug-addicted babies, and sometimes it's in the core training of a child - dad always beat mom, so I guess it's OK to beat my wife...?. God told us this long before medicine and science figured out genetics - but you need an accurate translation into english, or reliable source text and the language training to get it - otherwise, it's misunderstood, and taken at an misinterpreted face value, when that's not what was said. Just like the section about someone saying someone else said something, then being put into a group because you are forced to defend what someone thinks someone said, be very careful with taking what someone said God said, and then having to defend it, even if that "someone" produced a bible translation that's commonly used. Just something to think about. What did God really say? You know, that's the same question Satan asked Eve, right at the beginning, and she got it wrong... Food for thought.
Here's my quick take:
Love. Animosity causes fear and dogmatic opposition. If you show love to people you converse with then you will end the animosity, look past your preconceived notions and appreciate the nuance of the "opposing" side.
I love this video. It reminds me how conservatives tend to argue. It's very dogmatic. I wonder if it's because they tend to be more religious.
blud i really hate most conservatives myself, but just because one side does it doesn't mean the other side isn't doing it either.
this video IS NOT supposed to foster feelings of "Ha, my side doesn't do that, we're so smart😎😎", it's supposed to make you look inwards and foster critical thought so that you can hopefully recognize that people in your "tribe" are doing the exact same dishonest and deleterious behavior as the people in the "enemy tribe".
A person who used to be my friend would often distort my words to mean things that they didn't. A simple 'oh, I like this song' would get translated into 'this is my absolute favorite ever!'. "We're still a little on edge about that argument last week" would become "i want you to know that I'm still angry with you, we haven't forgiven you at all". Leaving behind that friendship was a big step in recovering from my depression and anxiety.
Your voice is very soothing. And your videos are very interesting. 10/10
I had to pause at 8:30. The disembodied voice just stated that prejudicial use of emotion ruins discourse and then begins a new example with "Sometimes, a physically violent stripping of membership is promoted. In a memorably graphic tweet..." before text is shown, which already begins the discourse with aggressive bias. Then the voice infers something about Sarsour's statement that was never said: "physical mutilation." I'm looking at the words of a tweet that isn't graphic and doesn't suggest harm aside from wish-fulfillment fantasy of possessing god-tier magical vagina removal powers. In a piece about NOT doing exactly this, this phrasing definitely stood out as stumbling block and felt like the authors inserting themselves. And I'm 100% sure there are more examples of this call for violence on Twitter that better illustrate the point.
Fun fact: A wish-fulfillment fantasy of mutilating somebody is still illustrating a violent wish on the part of the speaker, regardless of whether the person has the ability to carry it out. The statement itself is degrading and threatening, and can encourage others to actually resort to violence.
If I showed you a tweet where an alt-right guy says that he wants feminists to be raped, what is your objection? He isn't saying he plans on hurting anybody, after all, it's just a wish-fulfillment fantasy.
@@badlydrawnturtle8484 Bad faith argument is bad faith argument. One is a crime and that alt-right person is getting twitter suspended. I find it interesting that you gendered the alt-right dude which I think just slipped out because of bias.
@@TheCrippledWerewolf
"Bad faith argument is bad faith argument"
Accusing someone of arguing in bad faith is generally the tool of an ideologue who cannot address the actual argument presented, and so must resort to personal attacks. You are literally saying that I'm dishonest, and so you don't have to seriously address what I say. Your evidence that I am dishonest is solely that you don't want to listen.
"I find it interesting that you gendered the alt-right dude which I think just slipped out because of bias."
I find it interesting that you think me choosing to give a gender to a hypothetical person is interesting. Oh wait, you're not actually interested; you don't even know why you pointed it out. It's just another deflection so you don't have to honestly consider what I've said.
@@badlydrawnturtle8484 Okay, I'll bite. Let's say you are legitimately asking and not "begging the question". My response is this:
both yourself and the video creator have added words to infer violence. The quote is "I wish I could take away their vaginas." And your question is "If I showed you a tweet where an alt-right guy says that he wants feminists to be raped, what is your objection?"
My objection is that the alt-right person has named the type of physical, sexual violence and designated the target group. Aside from being despicable, this would get them suspended on Twitter. No one says they can't say it, only that they will need to accept the consequences of what is deemed hate speech. To address your comparison, the only way that "take away their vagina" can be considered hate speech or a call for violence is if you infer meaning and add words. The actual process of removing a vagina, if we took the comment seriously, is extremely complex. I would deem it reasonable to be labeled "a violent and graphic call for genital mutilation" if the statement had used any specifics. Instead, it is "take away," an innocuous meme-like delivery.
If instead this alt-right individual said "i wish i could take away feminist's vaginas." I'd not want to, but I'd giggle a little and move on. So my challenge is this: figure out a way that the alt-right speaker can state what they did without specifically calling out a violent, sexual act, but with enough implication that I would be offended and I'll back down.
@@TheCrippledWerewolf
"My response is this:
both yourself and the video creator have added words to infer violence."
That you don't see "remove their vaginas" as a violent phrase is the issue, here. It's fantasizing about BODILY MUTILATION. The particular manner in which it is achieved is irrelevant. A mob boss might tell someone to "remove his fingers"; are you going to argue that, because he didn't literally use the word "cut" or "knife", it's not a violent proposition?
These are always so brilliant and well-crafted. Thank you for introducing me to the term "siege mentality".
This should be required viewing for all humans.
I have a small criticism for ThereminTrees on his framing. I would suggest that dogmatism is not inherent to particular ideologies, but rather, a symptom of how any ideology can be handled. A belief can both be true while also defended through dogmatic reasoning as he has described it. I can shame anyone for arguing against my claim that the sky is blue. If I refuse to listen and return their valid point that the sky is mostly black at night, and sometimes yellow or purple at dawn or sunset with an accusation that they are claiming that the sky is never blue, then I have engaged in dogmatism and strawmanning to defend a generally true claim. Therefore, we should all be aware that even if we think we are correct on an issue, our means of arguing our position can still be flat wrong and full of dishonest falsehoods and fallacy.
I like how you can encompass many perspectives in your perceptions.
You give a broad range of viewpoints.
I often watch several times.
I'm starting to think the reason this happens is because we as a society have enforced the idea that being wrong is the worst thing on this planet. It's better to act immoral, dishonest, or murder people than it is to admit you're wrong. And that you can only be wrong once in your life. Make more than 1 bad choice and suddenly society turns it's back on your because you're a terrible person. If we were to promote being wrong as okay and acceptable we could remove the power it has over us. All we ever see in media is perfection, happy, effortless skill/technique/performance. We read about success and ignore the thousands who did the same thing but failed. We deliberately ignore the survivorship bias that permeates all of society. When we as a society can tear down these illusions, we will be able to drop dogma.
I think it's more about maniipulation of right and wrong, morality and dualities that resulted us to be this way.