The biggest problem I have with "respectability" is: in the eyes of those who care about respectability many others can never be considered "respectable" because of who they are - having nothing to do with what they do, say, or present.
I care about respectability a lot, but for me respectability is solely based on what people say and do (especially wether they do what they say) Everyones idea of what is respectful is based on personal ideals + culture + how you were brought up. For me, greed is never respectable, dishonoring other people is never respectable, being wasteful and polluting nature are never respectable behaviors. I understand that what society seems to deem as "respectable" differs vastly form how I view it, but it doesn't make respectability any less important to me.
The "respect" is only one way in their eyes. Those same people often think that being respectful means kissing their ass and never criticizing their actions
Bingo! Respectability politics is a losing game for any radical! Hell even Jesus didn't care for it when He healed people on the Sabbath! In fact, He used it as a teaching moment for the mislead people. That is what we sbould be doing!
@@kailovi I view it the exact same as you and I personally think that should be the basis for respectability. Unfortunately throughout history respectability has been entirely based on class and religion. We need to fix the schooling system to insert genuine values into people while maintaining their individuality and refraining from indoctrination. Things like real true history need to be taught as well as critical thinking and class consciousness lessons should be added to high school economics classes or introduced as its own class as early as middle school. I grew up poor and was bullied for the clothes I wore. I can't help but think that a class consciousness class could have prevented that because people who have more than others tend to chalk it up to a lack of work ethic or personal choice rather than a legitimate societal issue.
I'm glad this video has been made because sadly a lot of the left hasn't shaken off the 'respectability politics' mindset as seen with the tiring ongoing drama between "essayist" creators and the "debate bros" creators, or half of the time a worker movement forms and gets co-opted by the right because the left finds the heads of these movements problematic like with the gilet jaune situation. Criticism is okay, but outright rejection of many potential allies because they don't fully fit the leftist ideal is more often than not harmful to the movement.
Yes, a healthy dose of pragmatism would bolster the left. Idealism is a wonderful trait, but it also tends to divide the left into many sub groups, somehow finding it difficult to work together. Change is easier to accomplish when you’ve got a bigger group to work with
Yeah it's rediculous how the video essayiests don't understand the concept of diversity of tactics, yet the streamers will promote the video essays because they know they are good, and still get dragged anyway. You don't have to like people who you don't agree with but if they do good let them, unless they are a fascist like Stalin pretending to be leftists and actually causing problems we need all the help we can get
I still struggle with this. As someone who spent most of their life poor, I still resent people who have that much wealth and dislike the idea of allying with them. However, I know that most leftist leaders in history came from privledge and that as someone else mentioned we need to be pragmatic.
@@smileyp4535 I think a lot of video essayists understand the concept of diversity of tactics very well, and know it doesn't neccesarily mean "tell people to watch a stream by someone who gets paid to talk in front of a computer 3 hours a day and therefore inevitably says a lot of dumb, out-of-touch shit". Like calling Stalin a fascist who only pretended to be leftist, which has gotta be the dumbest take I've seen in a while. It feels like everyone involved in this discussion needs to touch some grass. Streams and video essays can be fun, educational and even change some people's minds, but at the end of the day they're just entertainment, nothing more. Politics is made in the real world and having people watch debate streams for hours on end in lieu of actual organizing isn't a net positive.
i listen to actual geopolitical and economic analysts to supplement my job in finance, this is just my deliciously unhealthy dessert after my usual brocoli and boiled chicken.
Sorry, but "thinking outside of the box" is a problematic statement, because it implies that everyone can afford a box in the first place. Please reflect on your words before you hit the reply button. Thanks.
This reminds me of my often sung refrain: “We must be in the fight to END the fight!” Too many people seem to worry (unconsciously, of course) about what it would mean for themselves if the fight were over: if the issues they truly cared about were actually solved. Would they lose their jobs? Their platforms? Their purpose in life? Please: take my job. Take my platform. Take my purpose. It would be worth it. #FreePalestineNow #MedicareForAllNow #FederalJobGuaranteeNow #FreeEducationNow #GreenNewDealNow #DeGrowthNow #MutualAid #GeneralStrike
The world "problematic" became so cringe over the past few years because of how abused it is. But it fits here. For most of the time, I prefer to make my points by behaving properly and respectably however I do think there are times when vulgarity is completely justified. It's been used in Poland in recent years to protest complete ban on abortions. And it fuckin pissed me off how many people were completely missing the point, missing crowd's justified anger because they think that once you say a single curse word, your argument is invalid and you're a bad person. Unsurprisingly, these people are always authoritarians, if not politically then just at heart.
Great video! I love how the French explanation free the term ‘vulgarity’ from objective moral values that give it a negative connotation. The right’s use of the term implies that if someone does not behave and speak like the elites then they are not worth listening to, which is a way to use language to delegitimize people who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy.
Well, even in France the word vulgarity has a negative connotation... but only because of classism and the mindset of "educated" people that look down on normal people
A very interesting political analysis. I think it's important that vulgarity be done well and aim to achieve it's goal. Otherwise it can become more like a specticle, and become damaging to the cause you are fighting for. Also great video as always Alice, Iook forward to more in the future.
if leftist ideology isnt built off moral conviction its not any better over any other, its as respectable as fascism, liberalism etc basing your political views on 'its fun' is some narcissistic, sociopath shit and a breeding ground for the insividualist culture that right wing ideas thrive in
In the Bible, evil didn't just mean immoral; it meant destructive. That's why God describes Himself as evil in some older translations of the books of prophesy; the Israelites had destroyed so much He was about to repay them in kind. It is evil to steal bread, even if you're hungry, since that tends to destroy someone else's livelihood. At the same time, it's evil to forgo charity, since that tends to destroy people too, & it puts them in a position where they must steal bread.
I’m glad you mentioned the casual misogyny of Hassan because I do like watching his videos but sometimes I leave feeling off but not understanding why exactly
The rotation from “we’re the good guys, we just wanna have free healthcare” to “we’re evil, and you need to be on our side (but you still need to know there’s some realllll evil guys that you can’t even joke about supporting)” is hilarious.
"We're the dirty but good guys and we don't do any actual harm, just get to know us better and go fight some cops, burn some cars and make everyone pay for reparations, you're gonna love it! Be bad just for the sake of it, be a martyr of society, be the Joker!"
Your point at the end about how we should design our arguments with the right in mind, to convince them rather than fellow leftists, is an interesting take. One of my lecturers studies radicalisation and the far/alt-right in relation to mainstream politics, and describes the far-right as a reactionary segment of the mainstream, which serves (by design or contingency) centrism and the status quo by distracting the left. We often pour so much energy into reacting to the reactionaries, speaking out against flagrant fascism, racism, sexism, etc., which is important, but not as important as questioning more fundamental, deep-rooted societal norms that are accepted by the majority and allow these 'isms' to manifest themselves implicitly. After all, the reactionaries are a minority. Perhaps we should think more about internal leftist debating, to decide what exactly we're for/against. The left could do with a coherent narrative on what we want, and how we want to achieve it, because a lack of coherency is fragmenting an otherwise powerful critical mass. Anyway, my point is that I think enough people are open to leftist ideas to cultivate an effective movement, and we should focus on (a) how to solicit their support by (b) agreeing on a consistent stance.
You people are the ones who think it's perfectly OK to shove Lupron down the throat of a healthy 10 year old boy. You think eliminating the concept of the rule of law is a great idea. You're all basically anarcho-tyrranists. And yet you call the other side 'radical.' F'ng wow.
The problem with this is that it views politics like a game. Real world is far more complicated than that. Morality, in our times, is becoming subjective. Yes there are things that we all could agree are immoral but when it comes to the little things like donating money to a jobless trans, the left easily divides itself into different levels of leftness. U can not change that. Thats pure human reaction. Its stupid in the first place to categorize everyone into two, left and right. Its even more stupid to try and unite all left and all right in ideology and in moral compass. Thats just naive
i have been giving public comments for over 6 months now at my city council. i have been screaming about police violence (then experienced it, go figure), homelessness, housing, and road design. i have made significant progress over 6 months. i believe on my own as a renter resident this is happening faster than most people could imagine. 9:14 now imagine if there was 5, 10, 50 ppl all in one chambers disrespecting politics. i believe we would either force them to make change or face state violence. unfortunately, either is victory because either you get the change you need or you show their hand. that is a concept people around me are having a difficult time grasping. it is not you that should be worried that what you say or do may receive state violence, but rather the actors of said violence showing what they are truly there for: to oppress ans suppress those that speak by all means necessary. this may be a dangerous and frightening notion to face, but "if you're doing nothing wrong, then what do you have to fear?" is what i always hear. screaming about what you need is not illegal or wrong. it's quite literally the only way to get what you need.
My leftist politics are rooted in my Christian values, so this was an interesting video to me. It challenged me a bit in a good way. Thanks Alice for another solid video. 🙂
I'm with you, but I would also say that what Alice is talking about in this video is itself rooted in some of deepest realities of Christianity. While Christians, and Christianity as a social force, often functions in a way that makes judgments against people based on an objective moral code, the gospel undermines that practice. Jesus constantly violated the moral codes of his day. Christians usually explain this by saying that he was proposing a superior moral code to replace the old one, but this is false. The gospels do not contain a defined moral code from Jesus -- he is constantly challenging that way of thinking. That's why he uses parables and stories. The cross itself represents the ultimate penalty for violating the morality of his society -- and it can't stop Jesus. He's asking his followers to live in a way that doesn't require a moral code, because it's based on intimacy with god through discipleship to Jesus. The writings of the New Testament all struggle to deal with this, to understand it, to put it into words, to figure out how it's related to the presumed moral law. But the idea that Jesus' followers would be outside the moral structures of society, on the side of the sinners (so-called), is always paramount. And Jesus' closest followers throughout history have always done the same thing. Basically what I'm saying is, if you're a Christian, don't be afraid to attend your local fart-in.
I mostly consume "leftist media" and the more I hear the less sense makes to me to have people label as leftist or right wingers. I'm from México, we currently have a leftist goverment, but one that has many consevative policies. So I would like to ask, Do you think that the labels "left" and right" are still valid? and Are this labels beneficial for political discourse?
hi, i'm from france, i can assure you they do, here we got a lot confusionism about "right" and "left" in politic, as a result we got a rise in far-right and authoritarism, you really don't want people to get confused without political compass, trust me ! so if you got a left govt that do opposite compass policies, there is 3 possibility: 1-they are not leftist, they pretend to be leftist, but only to get the power and get popularity, as soon as they got it, they put right wing policies 2-they are "moderate" leftist also called "centrist", they are truelly leftist but still believe in some conservative idea ou hyphotesis 3-they are true leftist but put conservative police out of "real politic" or "pragmatism" (even the left or the right have to be this way to survive) the only way to define wich of the 3 possibility it is, you have to look at if the govt trie to protect everyone or not, true leftist will do their best to put social law that protect the people, moderate will try too but they won't go too far from right wing idea, false leftist don't care at all
I think, the labels "left" and "right" are often misplaced. However, for myself, I've come to the conclusion that it is easy to determine what makes a specific policy "left" or "right": If you have a specific question, you have to wonder: "Which side would a self-serving asshole take?" This side of the asshole is the political "right", the other the "left". Examples: Take serious measures against climate change or protect corporate interests? Should women have the right to choose about what might be growing in their wombs? Should the minimum wage be high enough that a full time working person is above the poverty line? Should wealthier people always be taxed more than poor people?
For the longest time, left wing politicians were quite conservative, this idea of a progressive socialist is something quite recent and is most prevalent western europe and to some extent in north america, in the last 35 years or so. Elsewhere in the world, such as in mexico, politics has to be looked into with a different lens. Also the cultural differences, level of development, inequality, education, corruption and so on, will matter on how the political landscape presents itself! This doesnt mean that there is no progressive political figures iin your country, just means that other (more conservative ) forms of leftism will gain more traction than others. Leftism is far more heterogeneous than breadtube makes it seem, hence the many instances of the leftists disagreeing with each other over social issues or more mundane bullshit like the use of vulgarity in discourse... Left and Right are still valid labels though, since they will be mostly used in a economic sense, rather than in a social sense, for that we have the labels of conservative and progressive. I think they are still beneficial but, in true leftist fashion, opinions may differ.
What a great video. Thank you 🙂 This expectation of being virtuous and respectable is often leveraged against queer people. I think in general you have to already come from a place with a lot of privilege to able to appear respectable. And I'm not against respectability as a tool -sometimes it gets people to listen-, but to expect it from everybody, just excludes a lot of marginalized people.
Thank you for making this point. Being woke isn't the problem, it is being a scold. The things I have seen people attacked for is so gross. This is particularly true for those "dirtbag leftists". If you trace back the attacks against both Keffals and Vaush they were originated by literal Nazis that clipped them out of context. And if you do one little thing that the scolds do not like they keep a list. Lindsey Ellis and Contrapoints were both cancelled by scolds for no reason. I think that most of these attacks and cancellations are instigated by literal fascists that weaponize preformative wokescolds against their own community.
@@karenholmes6565 hm I was more talking about the expectations normal people (also) face. Cancellations are a whole other beast and many other dynamics play into them. And I would like people to talk about them in a more nuanced way than this either black-or-white view of them being either always good or bad. Cancellations are clearly doing a lot of harm... Lindsay Ellis leaving UA-cam only helps right-wingers 🙃 but it's also clear that there is a need for mechanisms of responsibility and feedback for people who have large audiences.
@@livialavendula777 The problem here is people knowing the difference between harm v offense. Someone can give offense to you and they are not harming anyone. No one has to like everyone that is on the left. If they offend you it is easy just to not listen to that person. But to create these massive propaganda campaigns against people because they said a word you don't like (thinking specifically of the R slur, a word that has been applied to me, btw) is gross and unacceptable. Where is the "responsibility" for using vids clipped out of context by actual Nazis to accuse a person of being a child molester? That is actually harming people. That isn't offensive, it is literally a harming thing to do. Where is the demand for responsibility for people that spread lies? Where is the cry for accountability? Now you and I probably have a different view of the concepts of "responsibility" and "accountability".. I don't think mob violence against individual creators is justice. That is nothing but performative leftism. It has no substance. It does no good for anyone. It is actually harming to growing the left. I want more people to join my movement. I don't need these scoldy, judgey, propaganda spreading nitwits to do the job of fascists and spread their propaganda because they are too dumb to research the clips they spread. The left isn't your special social group. We have to attract people that you wouldn't want to sit at your high school lunch table. If we are to win we have to welcome less than perfect people. People you do not like. People that are sometimes offensive. And it ain't our responsiblity to hold anyone to account unless you can show me on the doll where they actually hurt you. I am hoping and praying for Keffals because the amount of pressure that has put on her as literally caused other people to unalive themselves. And if that happens I am going to blame all of these internet vigilantes that confuse the concept of offense v harm
@@karenholmes6565 I'll definitely agree with you that offense is very often called harm, even though it isn't. Especially when it comes to art. Kendrick Lamar's track "Auntie Diaries" is a very good example for that. People were outraged by the lyrics, even though it was something that was really supportive towards trans people. And like I'm definitely a fan of edgy humor. But the "offense vs harm" dialogue is also sometimes used to excuse actual harm. And again I do not like it if people flatten those complex issues to a basic black-or-white view.
@@livialavendula777 The offense v harm is just the tip of the iceberg for the behavior I am talking about. Someone offends a group of people, such as saying some inane thing like "noodles are tasty" in response to a bunch of scoldies saying that white women cannot write books about Asian cuisine. And then they get scolded and told that is racist. This gets added to a list of "harm" the person has supposedly done. And then they debate a fascist with a platform that is unbelievably large, exposing that audience to leftist ideas, and they get accused of platforming Nazis, even though it was the Nazi that platformed her. And then the woke ones dogpile this person for calling a Nazi the R slur. They gang up on the person. Mass report her to a literal fascist named Elon Musk to get her deplatformed because she called a fascist the R slur. She then invites one of these people on to her stream to talk to her about the situation and she finds out WHILE she is speaking to this person they are still trying to get her twitter account suspended, so she calls this person the R word, too and hangs up the call. Then she's mad and talking to her stream and comes up with a joke to blow off steam with her fans. She tells them to make profiles representing different people and to shit post on twitter. She doesn't aim them at a particular person. She doesn't encourage them to harass anyone. She just wants them to create accounts and reply to each other. It is basically a joke. All of these things get clipped out of context because of course they do. They start to paint this person as a racist and a fascist and a basically terrible person. But the other side of this is that this person is suffering. They had to move to another country because they were literally swatted by Nazis. She had a literal law enforcement agent put a gun in her face. She has been terrrorized for months. She has PTSD and she just admitted she has an addiction problem. She suffered all of this because of her pro trans political activism. Does her community research the clips made of her by actual fascists before they spread them around about her? No. They dogpile, send her death threats, turn against her. I have zero respect for that faction of the online left. The people leading them know what they are doing, and they don't care. Because perfomative leftism is more important. Some of them are actually doing it because they are jealous of Keffals. Some of them are angry with her and they don't give a fvck if she offs herself. So excuse me if I weigh harm v offense differently than they do. And they will NEVER take the accountablity they demand from others
I have an unpopular opinion on this. You can never fight fire with fire, and provoking the right will never achieve anything and might just push politics in an extreme direction either way. We shouldn’t be dividing ourselves and instead working together to come to compromises in order to create a society that everyone is happy, comfortable and free to live in. Regardless of their beliefs, religion or political ideologies. You should treat others how you want to be treated and that goes for both sides. Politically a lot of places have become a lot more accepting and aware of minorities and how we can adapt society to suit them. It is far from perfect and there’s a long way to go, but politics (especially in the west) has been going in the right direction, giving people more freedom and looking into the rights of minorities, as it should. This does not mean we should stop the fight now, or start to conform. But we do have to consider that it’s not a left vs right - it is a collective vs the government and the powers that be, and that everyone, regardless of what they believe, should be given the space to believe it, and have the freedom to their own thoughts and opinions based on their upbringing, class or culture. It is okay to disagree with other people, it is okay to disagree with the far right, it is okay to disagree with the far left. Every person is a unique individual with their own ideas and world views. You can’t preach acceptance with out accepting
There's a relation between the message in the video and the power of performance art. Politics is nowadays a game of performances, not of content. Actually content is hidden below clickbait declarations and actions, with a huge focus in antagonism and polarisation. Due to it, it's unthinkable to sit down and settle even things we all agree with.
i have really been enjoying your channel in the last year and finally found the time to comment: your videos are fucking great. i love to listen to your ideas and find myself thinking about things a few days after watching the newest video. thanks so much!
I feel like this argument conflated vulgarity with harmful acts. I love it when we make conservatives & liberals clutch their pearls, but still think we should call out behavior that punches down or otherwise hurts people who don't deserve it. Leftists don't need to be perfect, but we should hold people accountable when they do something harmful until they make amends.
I consider myself Libertarian and pro Free Market Capitalism, but I 100% agree with this take on "political correctness". I hope you guys will be consistent in its application. Cheers.
@@glumreaper8885 She didn't and that's the issue. Very few to the left of the Mike Huckabees of the world take issue with tactical vulgarity. Most of us do, however, criticize lefties that are caught lacking and engaging in regressive BS. For example, Vaush's 'brilliant' pro-trans rights mysogyny or Hasan's tendency to attack people's appearance instead of their arguments. Don't preach and act surprised when your high standards are now applied to you as well. Ironically, it's the right in the last few decades that has had quite a lot of success by embracing vulgarity themselves. From Berlusconi to Trump. Zizek is right, the left should be opposing vulgarity in the political space and push for respectful & polite conduct by all. I'm sorry, leftism/progressivism is the mainstream now and you can't be an edgy cool punk anarchist anymore. I mean you still can be, but then you'd be just as much of a hipster clinging onto a relic of history as tankies.
As a Greek I can confirm, this attitude of anarchy is what satire was about. Satire was about truth to power in a way that makes the powerful laugh so that they won't literally murder them for not accepting their authority. And in Greece many of us are like this and the neoliberals want us to be "bourgeois like" but most of us are not. We are loud as fuck. And vulgar as fuck. And malaka malaka malaka
I don't think I'll ever agree with the 3 variants of leftists fully. I think there's a time and place for all of it, however I get iffy if any of them go too far. I'm stuck in my own morality and views and I'm not sure if I will ever get over that to be honest. There are cases where being too respectful makes you too tolerant of intolerance. There are situations where things get too "woke" or overly sensitive and lose direction and purpose by being too extreme. And then there's times where causing too much chaos or by being too anti politically correct can cause issues as well. I think overall the issues are quite complex with many layers. I'm not sure there's any "correct" way to go about things but I think the left will always be split based on morals whereas the right is always trying to keep focus and keep everyone in line following the leader. I have a difficult time grappling with it all to be honest. At this point I think I'm emotionally and mentally drained by everything in the world. I think we should all be striving to be the best people we can be, but I also think getting too hung up on what flavor of leftist we are is something that we should be aware of as well.
Vulgar politics can sometimes turn into adventurism if one is not continually evaluating what they are doing and why in the sphere of politics (which is everything).
I really enjoyed this video! I definitely find myself too shy or uneducated to comment on many political topics. I feel the need to have all the information, or I think I’ll misspeak or spread false information which I’m really afraid of doing. I definitely think respectability politics are a way to keep people in line. It’s a way to keep very valid emotions at a “normal” level or possibly get called out for being irrational, emotional, or angry.
I agree. We won the culture war and need to take on the responsibility that that entails. The right is vulgar now because they lost, it's how they lost. Let's not make that same mistake.
I throughly enjoy listening to your perspective and topics of choice as well as EVERYTHING about your channel. Thank you for the time you share with us.
What complicates this picture a bit is that some of the far right has seen a lot of success in adopting this vulgarity, Trump being a most well-known example. Even ppl closer to the centrist establishment, like Boris Johnson, play with this image of a deliberate "fool". It's not strictly a leftist thing now. I also think it might be more common when you come from a country where the culture of civility of the establishment is perhaps a bit less strong, like in Eastern Europe.
Vulgarity is not only the domain of the left, right wing populists such as Trump have used vulgarity and sensationalism to great effect as well. Speaking simply and crudely helps the working class relate to any politician as long as that politician is espousing what the individual already believes.
The idea of objective morality isn't necesarily religious actually. A lot of philosophers hold that idea and not incluid any kind of god in their argument. Also it kind of sounded like your implying that the left isn't normally religious?
1:14 I believe ethics are dependent on context, but I also believe that there's absolute good and evil. On a practical level, ethical dilemmas force people to operate in shades of grey. But the outcomes, in my opinion, can be broken down into absolute good and evil like elements in chemical compounds.
Alice so by your assessment you categorized part of the left in three parts (13:40 - 13:58).1)respectable left 2)the wokes 3)the anti political correctness left . Is it possible to put historical figures like Lenin ,Mao, Castro ,Ho chi minh into one of these three categories? If yes which one and why If no ,is it possible that the concept of being in the Left has changed from what it was in 20th century ?.Is it probable that the dominant worldview of approaching everything in an individualistic level had unintentional effect on your analysis? or how you see or define DA LEFT in General ?Does these types of analysis serves the status quo or does it fight the status quo in ideological level at least ? do you believe The Left with these three categories has a chance to change the status quo? Has Left ever achieved any change in history with these three ways you mentioned ?
@@alpacacomentadora413 The only word that I disagree in your comment is "degenerates" ,for the rest you hit the nail on the head .particularly the privileges (economically)of living in the imperial centers.
i think it was simply categorizing rhetoric sort of? not really praxis or anything. but i do admit the analysis is limited to the online sphere of things. with that in mind, i don’t really think it’s useful to talk about lenin et al into those categories due to them not having an online presence in the 21st century. i suppose these analyses have their benefits on engaging the, for the lack of a better word, unsuspecting and more liberal audience, so it does have some uses. obviously it’s far from enough on its own.
One question I always have on that issue is whether going down the vulgar route is not actually playing into a trap set by those who try to keep control of the discourse. When you do something outrageous to make your point, most of the discourse you provoke will be about your outrageous behaviour and not about the point you made. And your detractors in particular will capitalize on the shallow controversy to further obscure your original intent. Thus, doesn't your vulgarity actually give "the establishment" more control over how you are (misre)presented than "playing by the book"? Also, I'm a bit confused about the narrative regarding the morals of leftist influencers' conspicuous consumption. To me, the morals of production and consumption form half of everything that left and right ever argue about. How can one even start to educate anyone else about e.g. the class struggle or sustainability without delving into the moral aspects of who consumes how, how much and at whose cost? Also, how can one effectively oppose conspicuous consumption of, say, the super rich, while doing everything in their (very limited) power to mimic the very same pattern of consumption? Some voices on the matter quoted in this video smell vaguely of the Animal Farm...
You raised an interesting question. In my opinion and experience by "playing by the book," the opposition is basically silencing you into complicity. They can either shut your ideas down on the spot in a respectful manner, or if you continue to oppose, they will find a way to discredit you and not your ideas, whether you were outrageous or not. To them, noncompliance isn't respectful and in itself outrageous. That is why I find this "vulgar route" rather refreshing because it's basically saying, "I'm not gonna waste my time playing by the book because I know it's written by you."
See the downfall of the "progressive" democrats as an example of trying to play respectability politics with the liberal democrats. They all started in opposition of them but in order to get elected had to fall in line with them and in turn either turned into what they said to have opposed or are essentially ineffective at getting anything done.
1. everything is already a trap; capitalism (both pro-capitalist actors and the ideology itself) has invaded our everyday lives. the ruling class will do everything to smear anyone who poses the smallest threat, respectable or not. cf. MLK Jr. And secondly, vulgarity is not mutually exclusive to maintaining some optics. These are simply tactics that leftists desperately need. though yes i suppose it’s a problem that outrageous behavior will provoke sidetracked discourse, though that’s mostly an online thing. 2. there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so it doesn’t quite matter our consumption patterns as long as they are reasonable. next, please realise that individual responsibility talking points such as “(personal) carbon footprint” are just bourgeois logic which we need not heed, because individual solutions are inconsequential in the face of literal global climate catastrophe and global exploitation. i also question your claim that they “[do] everything in their…power to mimic,” because you’re claiming to know their intention, but have no evidence for it (except for hasan being the obvious example). moreover, the left isn’t particularly concerned about consumption (which they view as consequential of) than production (as in the workers who make everything, and the natural environment that supports production). i don’t understand the animal farm reference, but the “voices” quoted in the video seem pretty inoffensive to me, though i have some disagreement
This was a really interesting video. I thought it's gonna be a "look at these extremist evil assholes on the left!" video, but it was an insightfull analysis of a complex concept rarely talked about.
Regarding expressing virtue through consumptive habits, while I agree it often is overly used by many liberals who under value class issues, there are SOME cases where consumptive habits ARE extremely important and actually indicate if you’re a bad person. The primary example being that of CP.
This is very interesting and overall a very well put together video. As always, thanks for making it. I figured I'd share my thoughts just to write it down somewhere and see how what I might thinks fits into what other people might think. I think when many people hear respectability in politics they conflict this with cooperativeness, which is not necessarily the case. I think with certain people who can corroborate ideas this can be very useful. However like Alice said, respectfulness isn't really. I also think we as humans in general should care for not just ourselves, the people around us, humans in general, and the planet that we share with its wildlife, and have an inherent duty to ensure that the problems we inherent and inevitably create are not unfixable for those that come after us. This relates to the conscientious and "woke" section of the modern left, and we should push for the most action out of anyone who can drastically affect it (i.e."big business") However to a degree, attempting to create the perfect lifestyle that would have essentially no negative contributions is completely unrealistic, and most of the average person's action as a consumer should instead be focused on informed decisions, not drastic changes. This also relates to trying to create the perfect morality. I personally try to be what would on the surface look like I pretty moral person, but that's just because I like being as kind as possible cause it's cool. Unfortunately I end up being very middle of the road because I try to see everyone else's perspective and where they got their reasoning from, to a fault. I think everyone should act in a moral way, but not some complex and unnecessarily intricate set of guidelines based on "virtue" or "vice" which inherently vary, nor should there be a simple and unwavering moral guideline like "be kind to all" because not everyone deserves that. I think that we should be as considerate as possible when it helps as many people as possible, but not if the other person wouldn't do so in return. I think people in general should just do what they feel is right, but listen when someone, genuinely trying to help, suggests something else. Be open to change and critique in this uneasy world. Oh, and fuck the people who wouldn't care at all. It's essentially impossible that anyone alive today or ever has the "right" answer for anything. If they say they do, they should really take a step back or get slapped in the face (whichever works better). I myself have fallen into this trap many times (luckily all I needed was a step back). The "answer" to trying to make things better is going to be insanely complex, and the best we can do to make it a little easier is for EVERYONE to remember that we're all just people.
OK, I get the appeal of vulgarity and everything you have said is very valid but I think that you are leaving one very important detail (and it's something that people usually lose sight on when engaging in vulgarity). Has any of it ever produced positive political change? Too many times have I seen people engage in very creative forms of protests but with no political objectives. The goal of these protests is to protest. And your language is very revealing; the Dirty Protests "worked so well" not because it achieved anything politically but because "by mid-1978, 200 to 300 prisoners protested and that attracted a lot of media attention". Or how you conclude the story of Pegasus with "imagine that in the papers, it's just... ". This is the Spectacle, fi. Philosophically, this is more akin to post-modernists line of thoughts than Marxist in the sense that instead of trying to build political victories from the ground up, they settle for performative expressions of their ras-le-bol... and that's something only the privilege have the luxury of doing; notice how of all the examples you mentioned, only the labour movement was the only one operating from prison - because that's what the political voice of the Irish comrades was reduced to - smearing poop on the walls of their cell. I wish we build the revolution by farting in a room full of sullen people but this won't work unless you have a solid political base with concrete political demands. Also you didn't say hi to Hasan :(
I would say there is a difference between vulgarity and shock value. The difference being whether it is generally accepted by the people. PR is something to think about and take seriously, and therefore in some cases you should be vulgar, and in some cases you shouldn't. Insulting politicians, making loud noise during a (counter)protest are all effective, because we are all rude and loud from time to time. Smearing poop on walls is logically gonna put off a lot of people. Everything should be viewed through a practical lense.
I see what you mean, but at the same time, no great improvements in the lot of humankind are possible until a great change takes place in the modes of their thoughts, and in my experience through talking with friends and family, being respectable is the only possible way for change to take place in the modes of thought. Being respectful builds a bridge. Not to mention that once conversation degrades into vulgarity, I would argue it often takes on a more stubborn tone and it's nearly impossible to change someone else's mind without keeping your own open (or at least the facade of it being open). Great video, as always, though!! I loved the point of how if the right were to speak from the heart, a Freudian slip would be inexorable.
Could you maybe do a sequel video on postmodernism and situationism in anti-politically correct leftist discourse? I've seen it done quite a bit in the first wave of British punk music, but I would like to see it applied to a wider context.
the last part when you said about we doesn't have to impress people who might be have the same opinion about us, i still have to learn about left, liberal, conservative, etc but yes... i agree with the part the most.
In Hungary, we currently have schools protesting for better education. Teachers refusing to hold classes, students going to streets and protesting in the hopes of change and there was one highschooler girl who said a slam poetry during a protest with some curse words included, demonstrating how frustrated and angry the people are. After that, the conservative right-wing media went on a complete meltdown about the curse words, how dare this little girl say things like that. The whole government medie was trying to destroy this high schooler. It was both hilarious and disgusting, and also, her Catholic school basically forced her out to study somewhere else.
@@adamschmidt9084 yes according to the FBI “traditional Catholics” are now domestic terrorists but the illegal immigrants at the southern border who do sex trafficking and smuggling drugs are not terrorists. Anyone that displays traditional values and loves the country is evil according to the left media.
Fantastic explanation. I just found your channel when a friend on Twitter sent me a link to this video in response to a request of mine to find a rational liberal commentator. I'm looking forward to learning more from you, because right now, my feed is over-subscribed with more conservative commentators. Keep going!
Your video made me think, the french parliament is one of the most emotional places on french tv, like it can sometimes compete with a reality show or even with TPMP (popular french tv talk show known for being.. emotional), but it's fine cause they are deputies so they have the permission to yell at each other and insult each other because, you know, class. That's why respectability is so dangerous for the low classes, it only serves the most privileged because their status will always protect them from being "vulgar". Even if they yell, insult, don't dialog, don't take showers and stink (that's another exemple but higiene is also part of the respectability politics). That's also why personalities like Nelson Mandela, Dr. King and Gandhi are so idealized by liberals and right wing people who don't know history. Anyways, very interesting topic, there's so much to say.
I think I may have a problem with your definition of political correctness. While I am amused by the frustration, the anger, and the attempt of the conservatives to control our behavior, I don't really think political correctness only censors what is vulgar. Political correctness censors anything that will be deemed "bad" by the peers, the people that surround the person expressing themselves. I consider myself a leftist, yet I know that when it comes to morality, the reddies have their fair share of tension. There is a sense of righteousness expressed by the posture of "doing good". There is a dictation of virtues by the left, it is simply opposed to the right and generally justified by a deep conviction that fighting injustice trumps fighting for hierarchal fuckery and other Fordist wet dreams. The left reacts vehemently when something "bad" is championed around them, and it is a natural phenomenon. And that is why I simply want to add that I do not think the left is self-aware of its inability to fully transcend morality.
Right wing just makes more sense to me. It is called LEFTism for reasons that it always challenge the common sense. I've spent some time with both conservatives and left groups that includes people from different generations. Left wing disagree on many beliefs to each other while the young and the seasoned right wingers tend to understand how their ideals gel together.
You got my like within the first 5 minutes! Such a great video, Alice! Another great piece of evidence you could have used is Swift's Modest Proposal, or really any piece of satire in general--satire is such a great rhetorical weapon.
In my years of comparative politics I've found that across history and political systems, the left is generally more fractured than the right because it encourages innovative thinking and change. How to bring that change and what that change will look like pulls in several different directions simultaneously, posing a problem for the left in first past the post electoral systems. The pragmatic left then work to create a 'big tent' of ideologies and factions in order to stand a chance to win a majority. Meanwhile, conservatives are able to unite around a simpler message in support of the status quo or nostalgia for the recent past. Alice has done a great job of conceptualizing the fissures between 3 pillars of the left along a 'respectability' spectrum: The respectable, pragmatic left - concerned with respectibility and electibility within their system. The "woke" left - concerned with virtuous purity, even at the cost of respectibility and electibility. The anti-PC dirtbag left (south park fans?) - unconcerned with virtue or respectibility, often even disinterested in elections as a method for social change.
As an American, I find myself on the respectable Left mainly because I always vote Democrat every year and believe change happens slow and steady. And that’s why I dislike people like those Climate Activists who defaced the Paintings and the influencers who approve of their methods (Second Thought and Our Changing Climate) because I feel their reckless actions could compromise the entire movement.
This relates to the idea of respectability as discussed here, but I believe another reason for the "fall of the left" currently was (and still is) the methods thay they used required a heavy dose of optimism, which then according to whatever you believe in (or nothing at all) comes a period of rest and calm which is what we're all experiencing right now. For me, I think it was worth reading about emotional intelligence and how to read people's emotions. Personally, because we're in an austerity era, this stuff can seem like "magic" for those who don't know about it. I say this because what we do or don't do end up affecting us in some way, even doing left wing stuff. I personally believe that this is a problem within left wing circles (even though I am still active in them), that the idea of "martyrism" is the only way to do stuff like this without taking a break and reflecting on it. I also believe that this is how our culture (wherever any one of us is born and/or raised in) is going to affect us no matter what, so this is why I believe capitalism is always going to have a grip on us no matter what, unless there's a collective consensus that this is what is really happening. But that's probably not going to happen because of a single thing that haunts humans, that is ... Shame and guilt of past interactions that we may or may not have done...
Great video, love your work!! Im on the margins, but i kind of love it. It just gives you freedom to fight what you believe for but without the crippling fear of making a mistake. Awesome video topic, and very creative!! Keep doing your thing, you are a gem ❤️👌🏾!!
Good stuff! Great to see my favourite leftist little saint joel make a cameo! This was my second vid watched of yours, it's interesting to hear a perspective outside the standard youtube US/UK dominated landscape. Also gives me more to consider on the topic of terminology broadly. I had one minor gripe with your usage of "woke" though I definitely caught your meaning, I'd distinguish that camp as either "performative woke" or, as has been more in vogue of late, "wokescold". Owning labels often used by the right side of the culture wars is pretty important imo, I've always happily embraced "SJW (read: pejorative)" and woke. Just because reactionary channels repeat these terms in a derisive tone doesn't mean we must bow to their framing and seek alternative identifiers, because this pattern will just repeat indefinitely and serves to make leftist discussions more and more inaccessible to the broader culture.
Great little French lesson, I didn't know that. That 'gauche' is a slur on the left/left-handed also blows the mind. Quick English lesson! 'crocheted' is pronounced 'crow-shayed'
Don't remember what video was it, there was some bit somewhere speaking about how (...)the left-wing discourse is harder to be had(...). Spoke to me on a deeper emotional level. Really powerful sentence with great delivery or it was just a right video at a right time. That's roughly when I subscribed I think.
•There are some ideas that don't resonate with me..and that is that being emotional or angry makes you more authentic, and that remaining stoic is just consealing someone's true evil self! We evolved so much from the 60s being in a deputies chambre requires a level of proffesionalism and respect , if a far right starts shouting i'd see them as an angry boomer/ karen why would i see a leftist doing the same thing as more authentic? •DO EMOTIONS MAKE US ETHICAL? i think that if you don't believe in objective religious morality thank you should also question the woke morality where we base how moral something is on how does it make people feel, offensive?or empowered? Which also can be questioned because it's not really a reliable source of morality in my opinion • sometimes i question if we really want to convince the right with our opinions and values or do we just wanna piss them off.. there's nothing that attracts brains more than reason and debate , chaos is just impulsive and i can't defend it
even though i don’t ascribe importance to “being authentic” and such (because it’s very performative), anger and frustration are indeed authentic in a physiological way, when expressed by marginalised people who experience state violence and more subtle violence every day. i don’t understand how you think that morality can be “reliable” in any way, as if there is a “correct” morality (note the tautology) that can be relied on. just my way of thinking. the reason for “woke morality” by the way is because language is a part of culture, and reinforcing a status quo culture is harmful, though i do agree it’s taken to a draconian extreme (perhaps by adolescents?) i personally think trying to convince the right wing that we are the good guys is a lost cause, mainly since pundits and such are funded by oil barons (a quote: “people of different [socioeconomic] classes say different things”). our audience (those whom we want to convince) should be the proletariat themselves, since they are the ones to forge their own future. and i’ve seen a couple of videos on how reason and debate are overrated: the forum can be dominated by rhetoric, susceptible to fascist intrusion, and the feeling (sort of factual) that people don’t watch/participate in debates to be convinced (by other people) but only for entertainment or to speak their thoughts.
There is different between vulgarity and mockery. If we are being vulgar we are doing so to inform masses how to do better, mockery doesnt provide understanding it only pushes away those masses from seeing themselves in same space, pushing them to more extremes. We need to stop doing edgy hogwatches and instead understand how capitalism creates these individuals and as a community what can and cant be done.
But here is where the problem lies: your approach means that the one's in power respect the People, but the reality shows that they DO NOT RESPECT THE PEOPLE AT ALL. So, knowing this, WHY should we, the People, respect the one's who do not show or give respect at all? Respect is EARNED, and the powerful had NOT EARNED IT. So screw them!
little quote from my grandfather fritz schumacher “We must do what we conceive to be the right thing, and not bother our heads or burden our souls with whether we are going to be successful. Because if we don’t do the right thing, we’ll be doing the wrong thing, and we will just be part of the disease, and not a part of the cure.” :)
I don’t agree with Hasan’s take that criticism of consumption is a “liberal” perspective and therefore one that should be rejected. Much of the left’s critiques are deeply rooted in examining exploitative consumptive behavior. That can extend to the individual. I don’t believe that means we should nitpick people’s habits or expect people to be perfect, but I also think we should ask whether hyper consumerism should coexist with leftist politics.
please define “the left” because famously the left (i.e. marxism) is based on analysis of production, not consumption, which is only a consequence of production and the relations of production and all that. consumerism is bad yes, but putting it on the individual reeks of “carbon footprint” individualist (aka bourgeois) rhetoric
the morality of an action being contextual is perfectly consistent with morality being objective, moral objectivism is the dominant view between academic philosophers and the overwhelming majority of these philosophers are non-believers as well, i think there are lots of good argument to think of morality as being objective, and this is to be understood in the minimal sense that what makes an action right or wrong is not constituted by individuals or groups attitudes or preferences towards the action, but rather by the action in itself understood in it's context, to come up with an extreme example, it seems obvious to say that torturing a child for fun is morally wrong, and i am as confident in this claim as i am in the existence of the external world, if not even more confident. Above i was simply gesturing towards the intuition that backs moral objectivism rather than make a philosophical argument in defense of it, if you are interested in reading defenses of it i would recommend the work of the philosopher Derek Parfit , specifically his book volumes "On What Matters". It's also important to note that there are lots of philosophers who defend leftist goals from the perspective of objective morality, for example checkout the works of G.A Cohen, John Rawls, or Mark Lance.
Morality is relative between groups and cultures. The problem with the western left is that it does not see societies as groups but as individuals and individual morality does not exist.
@Alpaca Comentadora morality is in fact relative to individuals because even within people belonging to the same culture or even family there will moral disagreements between individuals, but here the relativity is a matter of believing different things about morality, this doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the objectivity of morality as people diagree about objective matters all the time, hell some people even believe that the earth is flat, that doesn't make it a subjective matter. if a person honestly believes that torturing a child for fun is actually perfectly morally fine and good, then I would question the person's cognitive faculties or atleast their use of them, what I would not DO is conclude "Oh since that persons disagrees with me about the morality of torturing children for fun, I should therefore conclude that it's actually all subjective" that would seem to me to be an uncalled for move.
@@lolroflmaoization That only happens in liberal societies (which are the majority by the way) In Mesoamerica (Southern Mexico and North Central America) anthropophagy was practiced and nobody believed it was immoral. In the past, people were not as individualistic as today, therefore their morality was more related to what the entire community believed to be the right thing to do.
moral objectivity can only be defined in terms of the people who practice that morality (and thus is somewhat fluid), not according to some abstract standard. this is because meaning itself is communal, is “anthopological” to use a jargon. this comes from wittgenstein. the example you pose (child torture) only makes sense because the people who could have disagreed with it have been ostracized (really or ideologically) BY THE EVERYDAY PEOPLE, or stifled in our universal education system. theoretically, it’s not impossible for child torture to be universally permissible, it’s just that we don’t live in that world. the commenter above me presented the mesoamerican example.
if correctness is undermining the possility of exploring/expressing ourselfs (I'm not talking about nazis fucks and homophobic transphobic ideas here) and talking about things that we can work on, yeah it's fucking shit and not an emancipating one. But also I can feel that sometime "vulgarity" can be a way to cope and to not see the problems, for exemple I'm more often with my friends around queer and libertaire/anarchism ideas and way of interacting, but recently I've been in contact with a trotskyist group, and damn there's such a "bro" culture in those commies circles, like even tho they pass it as a joke if you're vegetarian or eating a banana you're automaticly a bourgeois/gay. They surely find confort in what they saw as a tool of the proletaria, but it's f-in limiting and frankly toxic. Anyway it's just a little sample of peoples and it do not represent all communist peoples (ish I might be a communist-libertaire myself). Proletaria might have also what can be called a "bon-goût" specific to itself.
Alice, Have you considered taking segments for your videos and using them to make shorts? I’m worried some of your older videos, like this one, won’t get viewed as much. You may know otherwise of course. But I thought doing shorts of these might bring more views to them :)
I think that the left should on one hand be deconstructive and challenge the ideas of powerfull exploiters, but on the other hand support, rebuilt and renovate leftist self-sustainable sub-cultures or fading international communities, that still uphold critizism and humour of a long lived tradition of underground entertainement. That's a long sentence, but to put it in vulgarized termes; it's like table-football; two lines that try to find weaknesses in the defense line of authoritarian-right action and two lines work in reconstruction and maintenance of the structures already put in place by older generations of left-wing idealists. But anyway, thank you for your effort. Peace, Freedom and Fun for all.
The biggest problem I have with "respectability" is: in the eyes of those who care about respectability many others can never be considered "respectable" because of who they are - having nothing to do with what they do, say, or present.
I care about respectability a lot, but for me respectability is solely based on what people say and do (especially wether they do what they say) Everyones idea of what is respectful is based on personal ideals + culture + how you were brought up. For me, greed is never respectable, dishonoring other people is never respectable, being wasteful and polluting nature are never respectable behaviors. I understand that what society seems to deem as "respectable" differs vastly form how I view it, but it doesn't make respectability any less important to me.
The "respect" is only one way in their eyes. Those same people often think that being respectful means kissing their ass and never criticizing their actions
Bingo! Respectability politics is a losing game for any radical! Hell even Jesus didn't care for it when He healed people on the Sabbath! In fact, He used it as a teaching moment for the mislead people.
That is what we sbould be doing!
We literally just want you to stop trying to sexualize children.
@@kailovi I view it the exact same as you and I personally think that should be the basis for respectability. Unfortunately throughout history respectability has been entirely based on class and religion. We need to fix the schooling system to insert genuine values into people while maintaining their individuality and refraining from indoctrination. Things like real true history need to be taught as well as critical thinking and class consciousness lessons should be added to high school economics classes or introduced as its own class as early as middle school. I grew up poor and was bullied for the clothes I wore. I can't help but think that a class consciousness class could have prevented that because people who have more than others tend to chalk it up to a lack of work ethic or personal choice rather than a legitimate societal issue.
I'm glad this video has been made because sadly a lot of the left hasn't shaken off the 'respectability politics' mindset as seen with the tiring ongoing drama between "essayist" creators and the "debate bros" creators, or half of the time a worker movement forms and gets co-opted by the right because the left finds the heads of these movements problematic like with the gilet jaune situation. Criticism is okay, but outright rejection of many potential allies because they don't fully fit the leftist ideal is more often than not harmful to the movement.
Yes, a healthy dose of pragmatism would bolster the left. Idealism is a wonderful trait, but it also tends to divide the left into many sub groups, somehow finding it difficult to work together. Change is easier to accomplish when you’ve got a bigger group to work with
Yeah it's rediculous how the video essayiests don't understand the concept of diversity of tactics, yet the streamers will promote the video essays because they know they are good, and still get dragged anyway. You don't have to like people who you don't agree with but if they do good let them, unless they are a fascist like Stalin pretending to be leftists and actually causing problems we need all the help we can get
Orthodoxy is complete bullshit.
I still struggle with this. As someone who spent most of their life poor, I still resent people who have that much wealth and dislike the idea of allying with them. However, I know that most leftist leaders in history came from privledge and that as someone else mentioned we need to be pragmatic.
@@smileyp4535 I think a lot of video essayists understand the concept of diversity of tactics very well, and know it doesn't neccesarily mean "tell people to watch a stream by someone who gets paid to talk in front of a computer 3 hours a day and therefore inevitably says a lot of dumb, out-of-touch shit". Like calling Stalin a fascist who only pretended to be leftist, which has gotta be the dumbest take I've seen in a while.
It feels like everyone involved in this discussion needs to touch some grass. Streams and video essays can be fun, educational and even change some people's minds, but at the end of the day they're just entertainment, nothing more. Politics is made in the real world and having people watch debate streams for hours on end in lieu of actual organizing isn't a net positive.
my stepdad and his friends showed their ass to our ministers in the fight against college tuition fees (im portuguese the movement worked btw)
De um Camarada do Brasil:
CU PRA ELES!
Sounds like they are not civilised people.
today i woke up to one of the best political analyses i’ve seen, bravo Alice!
i listen to actual geopolitical and economic analysts to supplement my job in finance, this is just my deliciously unhealthy dessert after my usual brocoli and boiled chicken.
You're an illiterate.
this dropped just after Greta said "we should think outside of the box" and I love it
Sorry, but "thinking outside of the box" is a problematic statement, because it implies that everyone can afford a box in the first place. Please reflect on your words before you hit the reply button. Thanks.
@@thomervin7450 and whos says the left doesn't have a sense of humor lol
Good interview. Shame that the smear campaign against her is so strong.
Outside the box: socialist revolution
@@asdqwe8837 there is no army for that
This reminds me of my often sung refrain:
“We must be in the fight to END the fight!”
Too many people seem to worry (unconsciously, of course) about what it would mean for themselves if the fight were over: if the issues they truly cared about were actually solved. Would they lose their jobs? Their platforms? Their purpose in life?
Please: take my job. Take my platform. Take my purpose. It would be worth it.
#FreePalestineNow
#MedicareForAllNow
#FederalJobGuaranteeNow
#FreeEducationNow
#GreenNewDealNow
#DeGrowthNow
#MutualAid
#GeneralStrike
Nice video.
Here's a bit of vulgarity: Liberals aren't leftists. Neither was Gandhi.
The world "problematic" became so cringe over the past few years because of how abused it is. But it fits here. For most of the time, I prefer to make my points by behaving properly and respectably however I do think there are times when vulgarity is completely justified. It's been used in Poland in recent years to protest complete ban on abortions. And it fuckin pissed me off how many people were completely missing the point, missing crowd's justified anger because they think that once you say a single curse word, your argument is invalid and you're a bad person. Unsurprisingly, these people are always authoritarians, if not politically then just at heart.
I love that you included a Little Joel snippet in this, I’ve been obsessed with his content lately and it kinda felt like a crossover episode lol
Great video! I love how the French explanation free the term ‘vulgarity’ from objective moral values that give it a negative connotation. The right’s use of the term implies that if someone does not behave and speak like the elites then they are not worth listening to, which is a way to use language to delegitimize people who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy.
Well, even in France the word vulgarity has a negative connotation... but only because of classism and the mindset of "educated" people that look down on normal people
The "if it's not done already" energy in this one is strong as hell.
my fvrt part of her videos
A very interesting political analysis. I think it's important that vulgarity be done well and aim to achieve it's goal. Otherwise it can become more like a specticle, and become damaging to the cause you are fighting for. Also great video as always Alice, Iook forward to more in the future.
Counterpoint: any press is good press.
There’s already a word for this: Affirmative Justice. I recommend looking up some videos and articles on it to learn more
i think sometimes people just need to be angry. especially when they are constantly being dehumanized
I was wrong. I got the name wrong. I don’t remember what the term was called. I feel like I got Nelson Mandela’d
If you are not ashamed to be evil, something is wrong with you.
Evil is a spooked moralistic construct. Chaos fun.
if leftist ideology isnt built off moral conviction its not any better over any other, its as respectable as fascism, liberalism etc
basing your political views on 'its fun' is some narcissistic, sociopath shit and a breeding ground for the insividualist culture that right wing ideas thrive in
”Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.“
Romans 12:21
@@alycejasmin6569🥶🥶😡chaos is fun 😈😈😈 just a dark and twisted vision of my reality.
In the Bible, evil didn't just mean immoral; it meant destructive. That's why God describes Himself as evil in some older translations of the books of prophesy; the Israelites had destroyed so much He was about to repay them in kind.
It is evil to steal bread, even if you're hungry, since that tends to destroy someone else's livelihood. At the same time, it's evil to forgo charity, since that tends to destroy people too, & it puts them in a position where they must steal bread.
I’m glad you mentioned the casual misogyny of Hassan because I do like watching his videos but sometimes I leave feeling off but not understanding why exactly
I love the little Joel feature, I was thinking of his video when you talked about Hassan and am glad you showed it!
"Everybody's an asshole to somebody"
Which means everyone's "problematic" to someone.
Well, no one is born with the obligation to please Greeks and Trojans at the same time and all the time...
The rotation from “we’re the good guys, we just wanna have free healthcare” to “we’re evil, and you need to be on our side (but you still need to know there’s some realllll evil guys that you can’t even joke about supporting)” is hilarious.
when was “evil” the topic of discussion in this video?
I don’t understand this comment.
"We're the dirty but good guys and we don't do any actual harm, just get to know us better and go fight some cops, burn some cars and make everyone pay for reparations, you're gonna love it! Be bad just for the sake of it, be a martyr of society, be the Joker!"
@@FlocAud4914 tfw you only watch Fox News
@@FlocAud4914 the workers of Blair Mountain would call you a "Pinkerton stooge"...
Your point at the end about how we should design our arguments with the right in mind, to convince them rather than fellow leftists, is an interesting take. One of my lecturers studies radicalisation and the far/alt-right in relation to mainstream politics, and describes the far-right as a reactionary segment of the mainstream, which serves (by design or contingency) centrism and the status quo by distracting the left. We often pour so much energy into reacting to the reactionaries, speaking out against flagrant fascism, racism, sexism, etc., which is important, but not as important as questioning more fundamental, deep-rooted societal norms that are accepted by the majority and allow these 'isms' to manifest themselves implicitly. After all, the reactionaries are a minority. Perhaps we should think more about internal leftist debating, to decide what exactly we're for/against. The left could do with a coherent narrative on what we want, and how we want to achieve it, because a lack of coherency is fragmenting an otherwise powerful critical mass.
Anyway, my point is that I think enough people are open to leftist ideas to cultivate an effective movement, and we should focus on (a) how to solicit their support by (b) agreeing on a consistent stance.
yes, we need to establish some common ground that we can build a cogent movement upon.
You people are the ones who think it's perfectly OK to shove Lupron down the throat of a healthy 10 year old boy. You think eliminating the concept of the rule of law is a great idea. You're all basically anarcho-tyrranists. And yet you call the other side 'radical.'
F'ng wow.
The problem with this is that it views politics like a game. Real world is far more complicated than that. Morality, in our times, is becoming subjective. Yes there are things that we all could agree are immoral but when it comes to the little things like donating money to a jobless trans, the left easily divides itself into different levels of leftness. U can not change that. Thats pure human reaction. Its stupid in the first place to categorize everyone into two, left and right. Its even more stupid to try and unite all left and all right in ideology and in moral compass. Thats just naive
@@tekashiiiyeah, it’s hard to have a consistent stance when you believe morality is contextual
i have been giving public comments for over 6 months now at my city council. i have been screaming about police violence (then experienced it, go figure), homelessness, housing, and road design. i have made significant progress over 6 months. i believe on my own as a renter resident this is happening faster than most people could imagine. 9:14 now imagine if there was 5, 10, 50 ppl all in one chambers disrespecting politics. i believe we would either force them to make change or face state violence. unfortunately, either is victory because either you get the change you need or you show their hand. that is a concept people around me are having a difficult time grasping.
it is not you that should be worried that what you say or do may receive state violence, but rather the actors of said violence showing what they are truly there for: to oppress ans suppress those that speak by all means necessary. this may be a dangerous and frightening notion to face, but "if you're doing nothing wrong, then what do you have to fear?" is what i always hear. screaming about what you need is not illegal or wrong. it's quite literally the only way to get what you need.
Agreed! I also give comment at my city council every time they meet. Keep up the good trouble!
My leftist politics are rooted in my Christian values, so this was an interesting video to me. It challenged me a bit in a good way. Thanks Alice for another solid video. 🙂
+1 my socialist politics are rooted in religious beliefs first
same i root many of my leftist values from islam
@@amina4647 I root many of my leftist ideas in Islam too.
I'm agreeing with you 100%
I'm with you, but I would also say that what Alice is talking about in this video is itself rooted in some of deepest realities of Christianity. While Christians, and Christianity as a social force, often functions in a way that makes judgments against people based on an objective moral code, the gospel undermines that practice. Jesus constantly violated the moral codes of his day. Christians usually explain this by saying that he was proposing a superior moral code to replace the old one, but this is false. The gospels do not contain a defined moral code from Jesus -- he is constantly challenging that way of thinking. That's why he uses parables and stories. The cross itself represents the ultimate penalty for violating the morality of his society -- and it can't stop Jesus. He's asking his followers to live in a way that doesn't require a moral code, because it's based on intimacy with god through discipleship to Jesus. The writings of the New Testament all struggle to deal with this, to understand it, to put it into words, to figure out how it's related to the presumed moral law. But the idea that Jesus' followers would be outside the moral structures of society, on the side of the sinners (so-called), is always paramount. And Jesus' closest followers throughout history have always done the same thing.
Basically what I'm saying is, if you're a Christian, don't be afraid to attend your local fart-in.
I mostly consume "leftist media" and the more I hear the less sense makes to me to have people label as leftist or right wingers. I'm from México, we currently have a leftist goverment, but one that has many consevative policies. So I would like to ask, Do you think that the labels "left" and right" are still valid? and Are this labels beneficial for political discourse?
hi, i'm from france, i can assure you they do, here we got a lot confusionism about "right" and "left" in politic, as a result we got a rise in far-right and authoritarism, you really don't want people to get confused without political compass, trust me !
so if you got a left govt that do opposite compass policies, there is 3 possibility:
1-they are not leftist, they pretend to be leftist, but only to get the power and get popularity, as soon as they got it, they put right wing policies
2-they are "moderate" leftist also called "centrist", they are truelly leftist but still believe in some conservative idea ou hyphotesis
3-they are true leftist but put conservative police out of "real politic" or "pragmatism" (even the left or the right have to be this way to survive)
the only way to define wich of the 3 possibility it is, you have to look at if the govt trie to protect everyone or not, true leftist will do their best to put social law that protect the people, moderate will try too but they won't go too far from right wing idea, false leftist don't care at all
I think, the labels "left" and "right" are often misplaced. However, for myself, I've come to the conclusion that it is easy to determine what makes a specific policy "left" or "right":
If you have a specific question, you have to wonder: "Which side would a self-serving asshole take?"
This side of the asshole is the political "right", the other the "left".
Examples:
Take serious measures against climate change or protect corporate interests?
Should women have the right to choose about what might be growing in their wombs?
Should the minimum wage be high enough that a full time working person is above the poverty line?
Should wealthier people always be taxed more than poor people?
For the longest time, left wing politicians were quite conservative, this idea of a progressive socialist is something quite recent and is most prevalent western europe and to some extent in north america, in the last 35 years or so. Elsewhere in the world, such as in mexico, politics has to be looked into with a different lens. Also the cultural differences, level of development, inequality, education, corruption and so on, will matter on how the political landscape presents itself! This doesnt mean that there is no progressive political figures iin your country, just means that other (more conservative ) forms of leftism will gain more traction than others. Leftism is far more heterogeneous than breadtube makes it seem, hence the many instances of the leftists disagreeing with each other over social issues or more mundane bullshit like the use of vulgarity in discourse... Left and Right are still valid labels though, since they will be mostly used in a economic sense, rather than in a social sense, for that we have the labels of conservative and progressive. I think they are still beneficial but, in true leftist fashion, opinions may differ.
Hey I'm from Mexico too :)
En toda Latinoamérica la izquierda y derecha de los gringos y europeos no aplica
What a great video. Thank you 🙂
This expectation of being virtuous and respectable is often leveraged against queer people. I think in general you have to already come from a place with a lot of privilege to able to appear respectable. And I'm not against respectability as a tool -sometimes it gets people to listen-, but to expect it from everybody, just excludes a lot of marginalized people.
Thank you for making this point. Being woke isn't the problem, it is being a scold. The things I have seen people attacked for is so gross. This is particularly true for those "dirtbag leftists". If you trace back the attacks against both Keffals and Vaush they were originated by literal Nazis that clipped them out of context. And if you do one little thing that the scolds do not like they keep a list. Lindsey Ellis and Contrapoints were both cancelled by scolds for no reason. I think that most of these attacks and cancellations are instigated by literal fascists that weaponize preformative wokescolds against their own community.
@@karenholmes6565 hm I was more talking about the expectations normal people (also) face.
Cancellations are a whole other beast and many other dynamics play into them. And I would like people to talk about them in a more nuanced way than this either black-or-white view of them being either always good or bad. Cancellations are clearly doing a lot of harm... Lindsay Ellis leaving UA-cam only helps right-wingers 🙃 but it's also clear that there is a need for mechanisms of responsibility and feedback for people who have large audiences.
@@livialavendula777 The problem here is people knowing the difference between harm v offense. Someone can give offense to you and they are not harming anyone. No one has to like everyone that is on the left. If they offend you it is easy just to not listen to that person. But to create these massive propaganda campaigns against people because they said a word you don't like (thinking specifically of the R slur, a word that has been applied to me, btw) is gross and unacceptable. Where is the "responsibility" for using vids clipped out of context by actual Nazis to accuse a person of being a child molester? That is actually harming people. That isn't offensive, it is literally a harming thing to do. Where is the demand for responsibility for people that spread lies? Where is the cry for accountability?
Now you and I probably have a different view of the concepts of "responsibility" and "accountability".. I don't think mob violence against individual creators is justice. That is nothing but performative leftism. It has no substance. It does no good for anyone. It is actually harming to growing the left. I want more people to join my movement. I don't need these scoldy, judgey, propaganda spreading nitwits to do the job of fascists and spread their propaganda because they are too dumb to research the clips they spread. The left isn't your special social group. We have to attract people that you wouldn't want to sit at your high school lunch table. If we are to win we have to welcome less than perfect people. People you do not like. People that are sometimes offensive.
And it ain't our responsiblity to hold anyone to account unless you can show me on the doll where they actually hurt you. I am hoping and praying for Keffals because the amount of pressure that has put on her as literally caused other people to unalive themselves. And if that happens I am going to blame all of these internet vigilantes that confuse the concept of offense v harm
@@karenholmes6565 I'll definitely agree with you that offense is very often called harm, even though it isn't. Especially when it comes to art. Kendrick Lamar's track "Auntie Diaries" is a very good example for that. People were outraged by the lyrics, even though it was something that was really supportive towards trans people.
And like I'm definitely a fan of edgy humor. But the "offense vs harm" dialogue is also sometimes used to excuse actual harm. And again I do not like it if people flatten those complex issues to a basic black-or-white view.
@@livialavendula777 The offense v harm is just the tip of the iceberg for the behavior I am talking about. Someone offends a group of people, such as saying some inane thing like "noodles are tasty" in response to a bunch of scoldies saying that white women cannot write books about Asian cuisine. And then they get scolded and told that is racist. This gets added to a list of "harm" the person has supposedly done.
And then they debate a fascist with a platform that is unbelievably large, exposing that audience to leftist ideas, and they get accused of platforming Nazis, even though it was the Nazi that platformed her.
And then the woke ones dogpile this person for calling a Nazi the R slur. They gang up on the person. Mass report her to a literal fascist named Elon Musk to get her deplatformed because she called a fascist the R slur.
She then invites one of these people on to her stream to talk to her about the situation and she finds out WHILE she is speaking to this person they are still trying to get her twitter account suspended, so she calls this person the R word, too and hangs up the call.
Then she's mad and talking to her stream and comes up with a joke to blow off steam with her fans. She tells them to make profiles representing different people and to shit post on twitter. She doesn't aim them at a particular person. She doesn't encourage them to harass anyone. She just wants them to create accounts and reply to each other. It is basically a joke.
All of these things get clipped out of context because of course they do. They start to paint this person as a racist and a fascist and a basically terrible person.
But the other side of this is that this person is suffering. They had to move to another country because they were literally swatted by Nazis. She had a literal law enforcement agent put a gun in her face. She has been terrrorized for months. She has PTSD and she just admitted she has an addiction problem. She suffered all of this because of her pro trans political activism. Does her community research the clips made of her by actual fascists before they spread them around about her? No. They dogpile, send her death threats, turn against her. I have zero respect for that faction of the online left. The people leading them know what they are doing, and they don't care. Because perfomative leftism is more important. Some of them are actually doing it because they are jealous of Keffals. Some of them are angry with her and they don't give a fvck if she offs herself.
So excuse me if I weigh harm v offense differently than they do. And they will NEVER take the accountablity they demand from others
"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Churchill
as in winston churchill….? 😭😭😭
Two politicians fought with swords outside the french parliament in the 60s is my favorite random fact ever XD
Was anyone seriously injured? What specifically was the duel over- and who won?
I think it’s good that there’s discourse like this. Being left wing should be about real social progress.
I have an unpopular opinion on this. You can never fight fire with fire, and provoking the right will never achieve anything and might just push politics in an extreme direction either way. We shouldn’t be dividing ourselves and instead working together to come to compromises in order to create a society that everyone is happy, comfortable and free to live in. Regardless of their beliefs, religion or political ideologies. You should treat others how you want to be treated and that goes for both sides.
Politically a lot of places have become a lot more accepting and aware of minorities and how we can adapt society to suit them. It is far from perfect and there’s a long way to go, but politics (especially in the west) has been going in the right direction, giving people more freedom and looking into the rights of minorities, as it should. This does not mean we should stop the fight now, or start to conform. But we do have to consider that it’s not a left vs right - it is a collective vs the government and the powers that be, and that everyone, regardless of what they believe, should be given the space to believe it, and have the freedom to their own thoughts and opinions based on their upbringing, class or culture. It is okay to disagree with other people, it is okay to disagree with the far right, it is okay to disagree with the far left. Every person is a unique individual with their own ideas and world views. You can’t preach acceptance with out accepting
This is completely rational. A lot of people believe this.
There's a relation between the message in the video and the power of performance art. Politics is nowadays a game of performances, not of content. Actually content is hidden below clickbait declarations and actions, with a huge focus in antagonism and polarisation. Due to it, it's unthinkable to sit down and settle even things we all agree with.
The problem is the idealism, and ego.
So much ego...
You’re such a good speaker. You referred to someone describing “The dirtbag left” and “brainless individuals”. That’s funny.
No mention of our boy Slavoj, and so on, and so on **sad sniffing noises**
i have really been enjoying your channel in the last year and finally found the time to comment: your videos are fucking great. i love to listen to your ideas and find myself thinking about things a few days after watching the newest video. thanks so much!
I feel like this argument conflated vulgarity with harmful acts. I love it when we make conservatives & liberals clutch their pearls, but still think we should call out behavior that punches down or otherwise hurts people who don't deserve it. Leftists don't need to be perfect, but we should hold people accountable when they do something harmful until they make amends.
What exactly did Alice reference in here that was harmful at all?
I consider myself Libertarian and pro Free Market Capitalism, but I 100% agree with this take on "political correctness".
I hope you guys will be consistent in its application. Cheers.
I only have an issue when it negatively impacts children or where you are doing something "vulgar" to an audience that isn't consenting.
just a question, would you work the kind of leftists that are still not accepting gay rights (ex: stalinist and other "old guard" leftists?)
@@glumreaper8885 She didn't and that's the issue. Very few to the left of the Mike Huckabees of the world take issue with tactical vulgarity. Most of us do, however, criticize lefties that are caught lacking and engaging in regressive BS. For example, Vaush's 'brilliant' pro-trans rights mysogyny or Hasan's tendency to attack people's appearance instead of their arguments. Don't preach and act surprised when your high standards are now applied to you as well.
Ironically, it's the right in the last few decades that has had quite a lot of success by embracing vulgarity themselves. From Berlusconi to Trump.
Zizek is right, the left should be opposing vulgarity in the political space and push for respectful & polite conduct by all.
I'm sorry, leftism/progressivism is the mainstream now and you can't be an edgy cool punk anarchist anymore. I mean you still can be, but then you'd be just as much of a hipster clinging onto a relic of history as tankies.
As a Greek I can confirm, this attitude of anarchy is what satire was about. Satire was about truth to power in a way that makes the powerful laugh so that they won't literally murder them for not accepting their authority. And in Greece many of us are like this and the neoliberals want us to be "bourgeois like" but most of us are not. We are loud as fuck. And vulgar as fuck. And malaka malaka malaka
Being vulgar isn't good though, but for the Greeks it is forgiven.
I don't think I'll ever agree with the 3 variants of leftists fully. I think there's a time and place for all of it, however I get iffy if any of them go too far. I'm stuck in my own morality and views and I'm not sure if I will ever get over that to be honest. There are cases where being too respectful makes you too tolerant of intolerance. There are situations where things get too "woke" or overly sensitive and lose direction and purpose by being too extreme. And then there's times where causing too much chaos or by being too anti politically correct can cause issues as well.
I think overall the issues are quite complex with many layers. I'm not sure there's any "correct" way to go about things but I think the left will always be split based on morals whereas the right is always trying to keep focus and keep everyone in line following the leader.
I have a difficult time grappling with it all to be honest. At this point I think I'm emotionally and mentally drained by everything in the world. I think we should all be striving to be the best people we can be, but I also think getting too hung up on what flavor of leftist we are is something that we should be aware of as well.
Well said. We know what we don’t want, but also don’t necessarily know what we do want
Vulgar politics can sometimes turn into adventurism if one is not continually evaluating what they are doing and why in the sphere of politics (which is everything).
I really enjoyed this video! I definitely find myself too shy or uneducated to comment on many political topics. I feel the need to have all the information, or I think I’ll misspeak or spread false information which I’m really afraid of doing.
I definitely think respectability politics are a way to keep people in line. It’s a way to keep very valid emotions at a “normal” level or possibly get called out for being irrational, emotional, or angry.
I agree.
We won the culture war and need to take on the responsibility that that entails.
The right is vulgar now because they lost, it's how they lost. Let's not make that same mistake.
I throughly enjoy listening to your perspective and topics of choice as well as EVERYTHING about your channel. Thank you for the time you share with us.
loved the avant-garde reference. amazing video Alice thank you ❤
Always a great day when Alice posts, merci! ^_^
What complicates this picture a bit is that some of the far right has seen a lot of success in adopting this vulgarity, Trump being a most well-known example. Even ppl closer to the centrist establishment, like Boris Johnson, play with this image of a deliberate "fool". It's not strictly a leftist thing now.
I also think it might be more common when you come from a country where the culture of civility of the establishment is perhaps a bit less strong, like in Eastern Europe.
Vulgarity is not only the domain of the left, right wing populists such as Trump have used vulgarity and sensationalism to great effect as well. Speaking simply and crudely helps the working class relate to any politician as long as that politician is espousing what the individual already believes.
The idea of objective morality isn't necesarily religious actually. A lot of philosophers hold that idea and not incluid any kind of god in their argument. Also it kind of sounded like your implying that the left isn't normally religious?
yeah that was a weird dichotomy. although leftism would do well to avoid religion seeing as it’s ruling class ideology
1:14 I believe ethics are dependent on context, but I also believe that there's absolute good and evil. On a practical level, ethical dilemmas force people to operate in shades of grey. But the outcomes, in my opinion, can be broken down into absolute good and evil like elements in chemical compounds.
Alice so by your assessment you categorized part of the left in three parts (13:40 - 13:58).1)respectable left 2)the wokes 3)the anti political correctness left .
Is it possible to put historical figures like Lenin ,Mao, Castro ,Ho chi minh into one of these three categories? If yes which one and why If no ,is it possible that the concept of being in the Left has changed from what it was in 20th century ?.Is it probable that the dominant worldview of approaching everything in an individualistic level had unintentional effect on your analysis? or how you see or define DA LEFT in General ?Does these types of analysis serves the status quo or does it fight the status quo in ideological level at least ? do you believe The Left with these three categories has a chance to change the status quo? Has Left ever achieved any change in history with these three ways you mentioned ?
they were antiimperialist left, modern western left are just selfish degenerates who enjoy the privileges of living in the imperial center
@@alpacacomentadora413
The only word that I disagree in your comment is "degenerates" ,for the rest you hit the nail on the head .particularly the privileges (economically)of living in the imperial centers.
i think it was simply categorizing rhetoric sort of? not really praxis or anything. but i do admit the analysis is limited to the online sphere of things.
with that in mind, i don’t really think it’s useful to talk about lenin et al into those categories due to them not having an online presence in the 21st century.
i suppose these analyses have their benefits on engaging the, for the lack of a better word, unsuspecting and more liberal audience, so it does have some uses. obviously it’s far from enough on its own.
If the purpose is not be a good person, what is the point of anything?
One question I always have on that issue is whether going down the vulgar route is not actually playing into a trap set by those who try to keep control of the discourse. When you do something outrageous to make your point, most of the discourse you provoke will be about your outrageous behaviour and not about the point you made. And your detractors in particular will capitalize on the shallow controversy to further obscure your original intent. Thus, doesn't your vulgarity actually give "the establishment" more control over how you are (misre)presented than "playing by the book"?
Also, I'm a bit confused about the narrative regarding the morals of leftist influencers' conspicuous consumption. To me, the morals of production and consumption form half of everything that left and right ever argue about. How can one even start to educate anyone else about e.g. the class struggle or sustainability without delving into the moral aspects of who consumes how, how much and at whose cost? Also, how can one effectively oppose conspicuous consumption of, say, the super rich, while doing everything in their (very limited) power to mimic the very same pattern of consumption? Some voices on the matter quoted in this video smell vaguely of the Animal Farm...
You raised an interesting question. In my opinion and experience by "playing by the book," the opposition is basically silencing you into complicity. They can either shut your ideas down on the spot in a respectful manner, or if you continue to oppose, they will find a way to discredit you and not your ideas, whether you were outrageous or not. To them, noncompliance isn't respectful and in itself outrageous.
That is why I find this "vulgar route" rather refreshing because it's basically saying, "I'm not gonna waste my time playing by the book because I know it's written by you."
See the downfall of the "progressive" democrats as an example of trying to play respectability politics with the liberal democrats. They all started in opposition of them but in order to get elected had to fall in line with them and in turn either turned into what they said to have opposed or are essentially ineffective at getting anything done.
1. everything is already a trap; capitalism (both pro-capitalist actors and the ideology itself) has invaded our everyday lives. the ruling class will do everything to smear anyone who poses the smallest threat, respectable or not. cf. MLK Jr. And secondly, vulgarity is not mutually exclusive to maintaining some optics. These are simply tactics that leftists desperately need. though yes i suppose it’s a problem that outrageous behavior will provoke sidetracked discourse, though that’s mostly an online thing.
2. there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so it doesn’t quite matter our consumption patterns as long as they are reasonable. next, please realise that individual responsibility talking points such as “(personal) carbon footprint” are just bourgeois logic which we need not heed, because individual solutions are inconsequential in the face of literal global climate catastrophe and global exploitation. i also question your claim that they “[do] everything in their…power to mimic,” because you’re claiming to know their intention, but have no evidence for it (except for hasan being the obvious example).
moreover, the left isn’t particularly concerned about consumption (which they view as consequential of) than production (as in the workers who make everything, and the natural environment that supports production).
i don’t understand the animal farm reference, but the “voices” quoted in the video seem pretty inoffensive to me, though i have some disagreement
This was a really interesting video. I thought it's gonna be a "look at these extremist evil assholes on the left!" video, but it was an insightfull analysis of a complex concept rarely talked about.
Regarding expressing virtue through consumptive habits, while I agree it often is overly used by many liberals who under value class issues, there are SOME cases where consumptive habits ARE extremely important and actually indicate if you’re a bad person.
The primary example being that of CP.
i thought what you mentioned was a given for all involved
This is very interesting and overall a very well put together video. As always, thanks for making it.
I figured I'd share my thoughts just to write it down somewhere and see how what I might thinks fits into what other people might think.
I think when many people hear respectability in politics they conflict this with cooperativeness, which is not necessarily the case. I think with certain people who can corroborate ideas this can be very useful. However like Alice said, respectfulness isn't really.
I also think we as humans in general should care for not just ourselves, the people around us, humans in general, and the planet that we share with its wildlife, and have an inherent duty to ensure that the problems we inherent and inevitably create are not unfixable for those that come after us. This relates to the conscientious and "woke" section of the modern left, and we should push for the most action out of anyone who can drastically affect it (i.e."big business") However to a degree, attempting to create the perfect lifestyle that would have essentially no negative contributions is completely unrealistic, and most of the average person's action as a consumer should instead be focused on informed decisions, not drastic changes.
This also relates to trying to create the perfect morality. I personally try to be what would on the surface look like I pretty moral person, but that's just because I like being as kind as possible cause it's cool. Unfortunately I end up being very middle of the road because I try to see everyone else's perspective and where they got their reasoning from, to a fault. I think everyone should act in a moral way, but not some complex and unnecessarily intricate set of guidelines based on "virtue" or "vice" which inherently vary, nor should there be a simple and unwavering moral guideline like "be kind to all" because not everyone deserves that. I think that we should be as considerate as possible when it helps as many people as possible, but not if the other person wouldn't do so in return. I think people in general should just do what they feel is right, but listen when someone, genuinely trying to help, suggests something else. Be open to change and critique in this uneasy world. Oh, and fuck the people who wouldn't care at all.
It's essentially impossible that anyone alive today or ever has the "right" answer for anything. If they say they do, they should really take a step back or get slapped in the face (whichever works better). I myself have fallen into this trap many times (luckily all I needed was a step back). The "answer" to trying to make things better is going to be insanely complex, and the best we can do to make it a little easier is for EVERYONE to remember that we're all just people.
8:27 In the Indian parliament, people do cause chaos (to the point of throwing chairs sometimes) but not always for the best.
This was perfect and broaden my prospective on my political views, thank you for your video!
2:00 And that, children, is called Anthropometry.
Thanks. That final is what I need to hear.
OK, I get the appeal of vulgarity and everything you have said is very valid but I think that you are leaving one very important detail (and it's something that people usually lose sight on when engaging in vulgarity).
Has any of it ever produced positive political change?
Too many times have I seen people engage in very creative forms of protests but with no political objectives. The goal of these protests is to protest. And your language is very revealing; the Dirty Protests "worked so well" not because it achieved anything politically but because "by mid-1978, 200 to 300 prisoners protested and that attracted a lot of media attention". Or how you conclude the story of Pegasus with "imagine that in the papers, it's just... ". This is the Spectacle, fi.
Philosophically, this is more akin to post-modernists line of thoughts than Marxist in the sense that instead of trying to build political victories from the ground up, they settle for performative expressions of their ras-le-bol... and that's something only the privilege have the luxury of doing; notice how of all the examples you mentioned, only the labour movement was the only one operating from prison - because that's what the political voice of the Irish comrades was reduced to - smearing poop on the walls of their cell.
I wish we build the revolution by farting in a room full of sullen people but this won't work unless you have a solid political base with concrete political demands.
Also you didn't say hi to Hasan :(
I would say there is a difference between vulgarity and shock value. The difference being whether it is generally accepted by the people. PR is something to think about and take seriously, and therefore in some cases you should be vulgar, and in some cases you shouldn't. Insulting politicians, making loud noise during a (counter)protest are all effective, because we are all rude and loud from time to time. Smearing poop on walls is logically gonna put off a lot of people. Everything should be viewed through a practical lense.
Moral of the Story: Flatulence…can be free speech.
Talk about getting long-winded! xP
Your whole is really outstanding! Amazing work. If I had to make a list of channels to get yourself educated. This would be on there
Pigasus was an absolutely adorable candidate!
I see what you mean, but at the same time, no great improvements in the lot of humankind are possible until a great change takes place in the modes of their thoughts, and in my experience through talking with friends and family, being respectable is the only possible way for change to take place in the modes of thought. Being respectful builds a bridge. Not to mention that once conversation degrades into vulgarity, I would argue it often takes on a more stubborn tone and it's nearly impossible to change someone else's mind without keeping your own open (or at least the facade of it being open). Great video, as always, though!! I loved the point of how if the right were to speak from the heart, a Freudian slip would be inexorable.
Im so done with the politics in America. I want to go live in the woods. I dont want to be around these people anymore
Could you maybe do a sequel video on postmodernism and situationism in anti-politically correct leftist discourse? I've seen it done quite a bit in the first wave of British punk music, but I would like to see it applied to a wider context.
the last part when you said about we doesn't have to impress people who might be have the same opinion about us, i still have to learn about left, liberal, conservative, etc but yes... i agree with the part the most.
it's whether it is done well or not though, because sometimes it spills over into spectacle + carnivalesque imo, which is just damaging
And who judges if it's well done or not? Success? Morality?
@@jedendve7515 PRETENTIOUS cunts judge it
Perhaps history. (e.g. Jerry Rubin)@@jedendve7515
I believe in ridicule as a weapon against oppressors.
In Hungary, we currently have schools protesting for better education. Teachers refusing to hold classes, students going to streets and protesting in the hopes of change and there was one highschooler girl who said a slam poetry during a protest with some curse words included, demonstrating how frustrated and angry the people are.
After that, the conservative right-wing media went on a complete meltdown about the curse words, how dare this little girl say things like that. The whole government medie was trying to destroy this high schooler. It was both hilarious and disgusting, and also, her Catholic school basically forced her out to study somewhere else.
No different than what the left-wing media are doing to religious people in the USA.
@@Mannyxz what
@@adamschmidt9084 yes according to the FBI “traditional Catholics” are now domestic terrorists but the illegal immigrants at the southern border who do sex trafficking and smuggling drugs are not terrorists. Anyone that displays traditional values and loves the country is evil according to the left media.
@@Mannyxz What do you even mean? According to the FBI? What left wing media? Can you at least provide some context for this nonsense you're saying
Fantastic explanation. I just found your channel when a friend on Twitter sent me a link to this video in response to a request of mine to find a rational liberal commentator. I'm looking forward to learning more from you, because right now, my feed is over-subscribed with more conservative commentators. Keep going!
Your video made me think, the french parliament is one of the most emotional places on french tv, like it can sometimes compete with a reality show or even with TPMP (popular french tv talk show known for being.. emotional), but it's fine cause they are deputies so they have the permission to yell at each other and insult each other because, you know, class. That's why respectability is so dangerous for the low classes, it only serves the most privileged because their status will always protect them from being "vulgar". Even if they yell, insult, don't dialog, don't take showers and stink (that's another exemple but higiene is also part of the respectability politics). That's also why personalities like Nelson Mandela, Dr. King and Gandhi are so idealized by liberals and right wing people who don't know history. Anyways, very interesting topic, there's so much to say.
this is the best analysis i have ever watched!
I think I may have a problem with your definition of political correctness. While I am amused by the frustration, the anger, and the attempt of the conservatives to control our behavior, I don't really think political correctness only censors what is vulgar. Political correctness censors anything that will be deemed "bad" by the peers, the people that surround the person expressing themselves. I consider myself a leftist, yet I know that when it comes to morality, the reddies have their fair share of tension. There is a sense of righteousness expressed by the posture of "doing good". There is a dictation of virtues by the left, it is simply opposed to the right and generally justified by a deep conviction that fighting injustice trumps fighting for hierarchal fuckery and other Fordist wet dreams. The left reacts vehemently when something "bad" is championed around them, and it is a natural phenomenon. And that is why I simply want to add that I do not think the left is self-aware of its inability to fully transcend morality.
Right wing just makes more sense to me. It is called LEFTism for reasons that it always challenge the common sense. I've spent some time with both conservatives and left groups that includes people from different generations. Left wing disagree on many beliefs to each other while the young and the seasoned right wingers tend to understand how their ideals gel together.
You got my like within the first 5 minutes! Such a great video, Alice! Another great piece of evidence you could have used is Swift's Modest Proposal, or really any piece of satire in general--satire is such a great rhetorical weapon.
In my years of comparative politics I've found that across history and political systems, the left is generally more fractured than the right because it encourages innovative thinking and change. How to bring that change and what that change will look like pulls in several different directions simultaneously, posing a problem for the left in first past the post electoral systems. The pragmatic left then work to create a 'big tent' of ideologies and factions in order to stand a chance to win a majority. Meanwhile, conservatives are able to unite around a simpler message in support of the status quo or nostalgia for the recent past.
Alice has done a great job of conceptualizing the fissures between 3 pillars of the left along a 'respectability' spectrum:
The respectable, pragmatic left - concerned with respectibility and electibility within their system.
The "woke" left - concerned with virtuous purity, even at the cost of respectibility and electibility.
The anti-PC dirtbag left (south park fans?) - unconcerned with virtue or respectibility, often even disinterested in elections as a method for social change.
As an American, I find myself on the respectable Left mainly because I always vote Democrat every year and believe change happens slow and steady. And that’s why I dislike people like those Climate Activists who defaced the Paintings and the influencers who approve of their methods (Second Thought and Our Changing Climate) because I feel their reckless actions could compromise the entire movement.
ah yes the neutral, lawful, and chaotic left
Excellent final point. I agree to talk for those who you agree is really talk to yourself.
Damn, Amber Lee Frost, Hasan, Little Joel and a f***** duel. My favourite video so far Alice
videos have clearly been getting better, and this is a gem!
Alice, pardon me, but DAMN YOU LOOK GOOD IN THIS VIDEO 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
The left side of my earphones always burn out over and over
Its a sign 😱
Alice, I’m living for the Preppy Chic Academia Ensemble 👏🏽
Hi im new here but I find your videos so interesting I love the bit with the pig for president haha
This relates to the idea of respectability as discussed here, but I believe another reason for the "fall of the left" currently was (and still is) the methods thay they used required a heavy dose of optimism, which then according to whatever you believe in (or nothing at all) comes a period of rest and calm which is what we're all experiencing right now. For me, I think it was worth reading about emotional intelligence and how to read people's emotions. Personally, because we're in an austerity era, this stuff can seem like "magic" for those who don't know about it. I say this because what we do or don't do end up affecting us in some way, even doing left wing stuff. I personally believe that this is a problem within left wing circles (even though I am still active in them), that the idea of "martyrism" is the only way to do stuff like this without taking a break and reflecting on it. I also believe that this is how our culture (wherever any one of us is born and/or raised in) is going to affect us no matter what, so this is why I believe capitalism is always going to have a grip on us no matter what, unless there's a collective consensus that this is what is really happening. But that's probably not going to happen because of a single thing that haunts humans, that is ... Shame and guilt of past interactions that we may or may not have done...
Great video, love your work!! Im on the margins, but i kind of love it. It just gives you freedom to fight what you believe for but without the crippling fear of making a mistake. Awesome video topic, and very creative!! Keep doing your thing, you are a gem ❤️👌🏾!!
"Today one of the top examples of Left-wing vulgarity is..."
me: Oh no way she's gonna say V-
"Hasan Piker"
vaush is leftist? news to me
Good stuff! Great to see my favourite leftist little saint joel make a cameo!
This was my second vid watched of yours, it's interesting to hear a perspective outside the standard youtube US/UK dominated landscape. Also gives me more to consider on the topic of terminology broadly.
I had one minor gripe with your usage of "woke" though I definitely caught your meaning, I'd distinguish that camp as either "performative woke" or, as has been more in vogue of late, "wokescold".
Owning labels often used by the right side of the culture wars is pretty important imo, I've always happily embraced "SJW (read: pejorative)" and woke. Just because reactionary channels repeat these terms in a derisive tone doesn't mean we must bow to their framing and seek alternative identifiers, because this pattern will just repeat indefinitely and serves to make leftist discussions more and more inaccessible to the broader culture.
Excited to watch this ❤
Wake up babe, new ideology just dropped
Great little French lesson, I didn't know that. That 'gauche' is a slur on the left/left-handed also blows the mind.
Quick English lesson! 'crocheted' is pronounced 'crow-shayed'
What kind of left wing is this? I mean, It has nothing to do with Marx
Edgyism informed by spite for the more successful
Don't remember what video was it, there was some bit somewhere speaking about how (...)the left-wing discourse is harder to be had(...).
Spoke to me on a deeper emotional level. Really powerful sentence with great delivery or it was just a right video at a right time.
That's roughly when I subscribed I think.
•There are some ideas that don't resonate with me..and that is that being emotional or angry makes you more authentic, and that remaining stoic is just consealing someone's true evil self!
We evolved so much from the 60s being in a deputies chambre requires a level of proffesionalism and respect , if a far right starts shouting i'd see them as an angry boomer/ karen why would i see a leftist doing the same thing as more authentic?
•DO EMOTIONS MAKE US ETHICAL?
i think that if you don't believe in objective religious morality thank you should also question the woke morality where we base how moral something is on how does it make people feel, offensive?or empowered? Which also can be questioned because it's not really a reliable source of morality in my opinion
• sometimes i question if we really want to convince the right with our opinions and values or do we just wanna piss them off.. there's nothing that attracts brains more than reason and debate , chaos is just impulsive and i can't defend it
Nicely worded i don't agree with everything but nicely worded and a good rebuttal to the video.
even though i don’t ascribe importance to “being authentic” and such (because it’s very performative), anger and frustration are indeed authentic in a physiological way, when expressed by marginalised people who experience state violence and more subtle violence every day.
i don’t understand how you think that morality can be “reliable” in any way, as if there is a “correct” morality (note the tautology) that can be relied on. just my way of thinking. the reason for “woke morality” by the way is because language is a part of culture, and reinforcing a status quo culture is harmful, though i do agree it’s taken to a draconian extreme (perhaps by adolescents?)
i personally think trying to convince the right wing that we are the good guys is a lost cause, mainly since pundits and such are funded by oil barons (a quote: “people of different [socioeconomic] classes say different things”). our audience (those whom we want to convince) should be the proletariat themselves, since they are the ones to forge their own future.
and i’ve seen a couple of videos on how reason and debate are overrated: the forum can be dominated by rhetoric, susceptible to fascist intrusion, and the feeling (sort of factual) that people don’t watch/participate in debates to be convinced (by other people) but only for entertainment or to speak their thoughts.
Amazing video! You put these concepts into words so eloquently and I completely agree with you. This is the best video I have seen in a long while 👏
There is different between vulgarity and mockery. If we are being vulgar we are doing so to inform masses how to do better, mockery doesnt provide understanding it only pushes away those masses from seeing themselves in same space, pushing them to more extremes. We need to stop doing edgy hogwatches and instead understand how capitalism creates these individuals and as a community what can and cant be done.
But here is where the problem lies: your approach means that the one's in power respect the People, but the reality shows that they DO NOT RESPECT THE PEOPLE AT ALL.
So, knowing this, WHY should we, the People, respect the one's who do not show or give respect at all?
Respect is EARNED, and the powerful had NOT EARNED IT.
So screw them!
One of your best videos.
Really well argued.
little quote from my grandfather fritz schumacher “We must do what we conceive to be the right thing, and not bother our heads or burden our souls with whether we are going to be successful. Because if we don’t do the right thing, we’ll be doing the wrong thing, and we will just be part of the disease, and not a part of the cure.” :)
This was really a fresh outook, thanks Alice
I don’t agree with Hasan’s take that criticism of consumption is a “liberal” perspective and therefore one that should be rejected. Much of the left’s critiques are deeply rooted in examining exploitative consumptive behavior. That can extend to the individual. I don’t believe that means we should nitpick people’s habits or expect people to be perfect, but I also think we should ask whether hyper consumerism should coexist with leftist politics.
please define “the left” because famously the left (i.e. marxism) is based on analysis of production, not consumption, which is only a consequence of production and the relations of production and all that. consumerism is bad yes, but putting it on the individual reeks of “carbon footprint” individualist (aka bourgeois) rhetoric
I really liked the way the video wrapped up. It was just right. 👏🏽
the morality of an action being contextual is perfectly consistent with morality being objective, moral objectivism is the dominant view between academic philosophers and the overwhelming majority of these philosophers are non-believers as well, i think there are lots of good argument to think of morality as being objective, and this is to be understood in the minimal sense that what makes an action right or wrong is not constituted by individuals or groups attitudes or preferences towards the action, but rather by the action in itself understood in it's context, to come up with an extreme example, it seems obvious to say that torturing a child for fun is morally wrong, and i am as confident in this claim as i am in the existence of the external world, if not even more confident.
Above i was simply gesturing towards the intuition that backs moral objectivism rather than make a philosophical argument in defense of it, if you are interested in reading defenses of it i would recommend the work of the philosopher Derek Parfit , specifically his book volumes "On What Matters".
It's also important to note that there are lots of philosophers who defend leftist goals from the perspective of objective morality, for example checkout the works of G.A Cohen, John Rawls, or Mark Lance.
Morality is relative between groups and cultures. The problem with the western left is that it does not see societies as groups but as individuals and individual morality does not exist.
@Alpaca Comentadora morality is in fact relative to individuals because even within people belonging to the same culture or even family there will moral disagreements between individuals, but here the relativity is a matter of believing different things about morality, this doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the objectivity of morality as people diagree about objective matters all the time, hell some people even believe that the earth is flat, that doesn't make it a subjective matter.
if a person honestly believes that torturing a child for fun is actually perfectly morally fine and good, then I would question the person's cognitive faculties or atleast their use of them, what I would not DO is conclude "Oh since that persons disagrees with me about the morality of torturing children for fun, I should therefore conclude that it's actually all subjective" that would seem to me to be an uncalled for move.
@@lolroflmaoization That only happens in liberal societies (which are the majority by the way) In Mesoamerica (Southern Mexico and North Central America) anthropophagy was practiced and nobody believed it was immoral. In the past, people were not as individualistic as today, therefore their morality was more related to what the entire community believed to be the right thing to do.
moral objectivity can only be defined in terms of the people who practice that morality (and thus is somewhat fluid), not according to some abstract standard. this is because meaning itself is communal, is “anthopological” to use a jargon. this comes from wittgenstein.
the example you pose (child torture) only makes sense because the people who could have disagreed with it have been ostracized (really or ideologically) BY THE EVERYDAY PEOPLE, or stifled in our universal education system. theoretically, it’s not impossible for child torture to be universally permissible, it’s just that we don’t live in that world. the commenter above me presented the mesoamerican example.
I wasn't going to watch this video but when the silent preview started playing I knew I had to hear Alice pronounce "Lützerath"
2 seconds later and I can confirm that my already astronomical expectations were indeed exceeded, this is how it should always be pronounced
if correctness is undermining the possility of exploring/expressing ourselfs (I'm not talking about nazis fucks and homophobic transphobic ideas here) and talking about things that we can work on, yeah it's fucking shit and not an emancipating one. But also I can feel that sometime "vulgarity" can be a way to cope and to not see the problems, for exemple I'm more often with my friends around queer and libertaire/anarchism ideas and way of interacting, but recently I've been in contact with a trotskyist group, and damn there's such a "bro" culture in those commies circles, like even tho they pass it as a joke if you're vegetarian or eating a banana you're automaticly a bourgeois/gay. They surely find confort in what they saw as a tool of the proletaria, but it's f-in limiting and frankly toxic. Anyway it's just a little sample of peoples and it do not represent all communist peoples (ish I might be a communist-libertaire myself). Proletaria might have also what can be called a "bon-goût" specific to itself.
I would not allow a human to lose humanity to get anything they want.
I'm a leftist and I'm religious team is here! No, we are not paradoxical.
Alice,
Have you considered taking segments for your videos and using them to make shorts? I’m worried some of your older videos, like this one, won’t get viewed as much. You may know otherwise of course. But I thought doing shorts of these might bring more views to them
:)
I think that the left should on one hand be deconstructive and challenge the ideas of powerfull exploiters, but on the other hand support, rebuilt and renovate leftist self-sustainable sub-cultures or fading international communities, that still uphold critizism and humour of a long lived tradition of underground entertainement. That's a long sentence, but to put it in vulgarized termes; it's like table-football; two lines that try to find weaknesses in the defense line of authoritarian-right action and two lines work in reconstruction and maintenance of the structures already put in place by older generations of left-wing idealists. But anyway, thank you for your effort. Peace, Freedom and Fun for all.