As the author of the "Etiquette of Equality" paper you discuss here, I just wanted to chime in to say the video really is super well done. It captures the idea & spirit of the article extremely well, applies it to new contexts that make me feel old, it's very funny, and I can't believe the number of views (your audience dwarfs the philosophy journal's)! Going forward I'll tell people they could read paper but this video is more fun. 🙂 Thanks! Ben Eidelson
A key fact to consider in any sexual interaction when determining legality is consent. Adults who are gay can consent to sex, however non-human animals and children are considered to not be able to consent because of a lack of understanding and the power disparity between the participating members. This is important for people to understand, since some people seem to truly think pedophilia is simply subjectively bad based on baseless societal norms.
@@someone-jl4sjAdults can consent to a polygamist marriage. Incest between adults is still technically consensual, yes it’s taboo and they shouldn’t have kids, but people will do that regardless of if they have the ability to marry, so yeah it should be legal as well.
@@buffpathfinder3607 That's my position as well (not on polygamy tho) but I don't think that this is going to convince anyone who believes it to be wrong lol. Btw there are some good arguments against polygamy, that shows that polygamy could be bad for society. I'll suggest you to look at that.
That would change real quickly if we passed a law requiring mandatory jail time for violent threats. In most cases, I think we need to decriminalize, but this is the exception.
tldr is a great example of what makes communication today is so difficult. Nobody bothers actually reading things for comprehension anymore… They’re reading to react or to respond. The Internet is a very exhausting place
Personally I try not to offend people intentionally, but I also don't think you can or should always avoid offending others. People will always have different views and opinions, so the best we can do is just try to be respectful and understanding.
And what when your lesser good foot gets put forward? Bad day, hangry, not enough R&O? WE all get angry, emotional and say things we might regret, even intentionally said in these moments. Good communication is a give and take with feedbacks. No one is perfect, making mistakes should not be the end of the world. My shit (& piss [urine, pardon my French] can smell, that's part of life - unintentional and intentional. [Asparagus not Asperger] But we can talk about it's aroma's and how it made you feel - if that makes you feel better, seen and heard. And I will try not to shit all over the place with verbal diarrhea. This type of wording could be found offensive, but it is truthfull and crudely poetic. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, its my art. And how great thou art. It is not up to me to decide what others could find offensive, just to express my self; thoughts, feelings, experiences. And if it is taken as offensive that is on that person to communicate back about.
I wrote a paper on this topic back in my freshman year of college, but basically I said that though it is 100% okay to feel/be offended by things that happen in life, it also needs to be understood that some people will not feel the same about what offended you, regardless of their capability of offering empathy, I argued that its on a spectrum.
But why? What is the person said something racist that offended that other person, but the person who said it doesn’t understand why it’s offensive. So if that person feelings valid???!!! Even tho Person A is the one who said the offensive thing to person B
@@lxlx7941 It's obviously not valid in a moral standards since Person B can be affected by Person A's offensive opinion, it's more due to the person A's ignorance on the topic and the lack of understanding of the concept rather than the person's feeling. In that scenario, it's mostly like that person B would use logic to educate Person A until they understand.
@@oceanbach7188 The whole idea of "I don't need to educate you" is a way to deflect the fact that people don't know everything. Sure, you don't need to educate everyone on everything, and you might not want to, but people don't change if they don't know how. If you decide not to educate someone (because they're being dense, you don't feel knowledgable enough, or any other reason) then you can take refuge in ignoring them, which is okay, but saying that you don't need to educate them does give you a sense of moral superiority before you go ahead and ignore them. Basically, if you don't educate people on why you feel offended (or just explain it) people won't know why you're offended. Educating will not make everyone understand and stop offending you, but it will give them a peek into how you feel and it'll be easier for them to feel empathy, and some may even start taking your side.
from a bi person, our online communities are full of posts hating on bi partners and stuff. it was almost uncanny as a chronically online person to see none of this hate at real-life queer hangouts
@@sithlord5149 I mean why it can't be i don't like xyz person. Why is it have to be i don't like bi person?! Do you say that for hetero people?! I don't like few hetero people.
i think it wasnt her video with the wooden tabs rather the guy who posted that paper made some videos to go with it but I could have interpreted her use of "source" wrong. however, regardless of whose idea to make the wooden tabs thing was, she still put it in her video so still props are due!
Are you a child or something? The wooden pieces added nothing to the video that a diagram in ms paint couldn't accomplish just as well. Seems like you have an attention issue.
21:19 I think a good example of etiquette of equality is how in some places of the world, the word "negro" is seen as offensive, while in others, black is the offensive term, and vice-versa. Here in Brazil, the norm is to say negro, as its perceived by the majority as the "respectable" manner, all the while, there are racial groups who claim the complete opposite, and link the origin of the word negro to "dirty", while black (or preto, in portuguese), as beign associated with good things, like black coffe, or black Friday. edit: Finished watching the video now, you've talked about it already lol, never misses huh
I'm in Canada and native people tell me much the same thing. They'll call themselves Indian, indigenous, native, or Cree/Blackfoot/their tribe. But it's all the same. That said, there is still a big difference from those words and calling them something historically derogatory like redskin, wagon-burner, or savage. Those words are inherently offensive in intention by the speaker and reception.
I think it's important to keep cultural differences in mind, things like etiquette or gestures can be harmless in one country but be offensive in others the same goes for words especially if it's a different language. 'Negro' may refer to race in English but may be simply an adjective in other languages e.g Spanish
In Puerto Rico we called those with darker skins un negro, it means black, like calling an African American black, but when I arrived here in the US mainland I had to switch from saying that to saying Moreno, which is another way of calling people of darker skin apparently? Definitely had to switch my language as to not to offense
The thing really is just cultural differences. In America people got upset with a latin performer for calling herself colored instead of black but in her country they use the word colored and not black... It's all silly goofy imo. We should only really be offended if people are like in harm lol But even with black Americans we have the same talk if we prefer African American or black and personally i find the term African American is very specific and doesn't give room for the many different black identities in america it's a whole silly thing.
Worth mention on the etiquette section, things like holding the door, saying thank you, and other things like that are actually extremely distinct from societal etiquette things like the asking how someone's doing without a desire to receive an actual answer. When something on etiquette is treated as consistently understood, while having directly contradictory meanings involved, it is important to understand that no, it's not actually consistently understood by everyone. Thank yous, and holding the door do not have directly contradictory meanings that a person has to assess when determining how they respond, and therefore are much more reliably recognizable, more broadly, as consistently understood.
Neurotypicals/normies would mostly rather make judgements and believe they know what the person meant and proceed as such than have to think about all the possibilities. And are often not interested in even thinking about how the system works they are participating in. As a male who is ADHD, and logic driven I have 3 advantages here. 1, I analyse everything and am good at it, 2, I'm basically half normie and half autistic so I can really understand both sides, 3, Because of this, I am aware basically every single time someone is being unclear in communication or obfuscating their position and have done that myself. Not sharing feelings or any kind of non verbal cues can be considered this btw. Just as autists processing struggles with non verbal and hidden communication, many sensitive sensing and feeling based people have processing struggles with pure information with no non verbals, they are trying to work out your hidden meaning too. I prefer the more neurodivergent way of communicating myself, but I can do both when needed, and if I'm present I can understand both, although physical and emotional communication takes more effort and focus
One of the problems with the etiquette of equlity is that not everyone is equally aware of encoded signals of offence. IT's one thing to expect someone who is aware of these rules to follow them, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to blame someone who isn't aware of a rule for not following it. I know that in most legal contexts, ignorance is not a valid defense, but there is a large gulf between what is legal and what is ethical.
As a person with autism I wish more people talked about that, I've been socially punished so much in my life for not knowing about social rules and unspoken agreements and cues. People just assume that I'm being deliberately malicious and feel justified in absolutely demolishing me. I'm sure more autistic folks understand this...
One question I have is, what if I don't want to follow one specific groups etiquette of equality? And would rather follow my own? E.g. i am African and have a certain etiquette and don't want to follow the westerns etiquette? (just an example don't hyper fixate on it) I think the natural result is that I cannot be part of that community, unless they change their views to be compatible with mine
@@misterwachulochulo5262 We judge people and expect them to act within the boundries of "norms" we are taught from our birth, that is why people react harshly to missing social cues and similar things. Very few will expect to deal with a person with autism, without prior knowledge, on a daily basis and adjust their behaviours accordingly, you are being treated like everyone else, from my experience (a very small ammount) autism is not something you can see at a glance, so if there is no prior knowledge about your condition how are people to know that you are not just being rude? Unfortunately there is no good way out of this situation, and you'll most likely suffer much more when interacting with people who don't know, since you will either be treated as every other person and held to the same standards, or have to signal somehow about your condition, best in no uncertain terms and hope that people will understand, but it will still be most likely humiliating for you.
@@Clb9000 Well... yes, kind of... this is generally how societies are created and why we have different nations and cultures, people who have similar ideas and world views group together to defend those ideas and worldviews. This is also why most cultural tensions arise, for example the whole situation in western europe, imigration and rise of nationalism, imigrants group together and want to have their own culture with social and cultural norms, but those norms are often in conflict with what is understood as a social and cultural norms by the original people of the region plus there is a feeling of invasion of foreign (most often described as barbaric) culture, "they come to our country, our home and want to change our culture?". The forced diversity policies only heat up the discussion since it's not felt as "give them a chance" but as "they invade us and take away everything we build". Cultures can coexist, and have coexisted for thousands of years, but they never comingled to the extent and with a speed as it is now, look at china, they have diverse cultures in one giant totalitarian empire, yet they do not have artificial ghettos, the cultures are in a gradient smoothly changing from one to another in very small steps, since the mixing happened over many generations. So in short, if you want to live in a different culture than your own (even in a broad spectrum like african or european), you either have to change your views to the culture that you want to join, or at least adapt to living in a said set of rules (many asian imigrants do that, they live in small tightly knited groups but try to raise their kids in dual culture, so their grandkids can fully fit in a society they joined), or be ostricised from the said culture and live there while not fitting in and possibly breaking some laws. The situation is no different than when european empieres invaded Africa and colonised it while forcing their own culture there, and people will fight against such an "invasion", and there is no "it's only right that it happens the other way now", two wrongs don't make right.
@@84elmer This is interesting. I am reminded of how it is very common for some groups to signal their identities now. Like how many lgbt folks will wear pins, etc of their respective identity flag, or will have name tags or pins with their pronouns. Maybe one approach to understanding which culture or group one is in, is with obvious signals? Since etiquette of equality is partly based on which discourses one is involved in, and which group one is presently surrounded by, then it might be beneficial to signal one's identities (and thus one's etiquette values) to all around you. In which case, there would no longer be a benefit of doubt from ignorance and harmful attacks due to ignorance, as one could easily look into and understand which signals are represented. Of course, this idea has many flaws: 1. It doesnt address changing social norms which can be hard to track. 2. Signifying one's identity relations could potentially attract unwanted attention 3. Putting oneself into a box could be seen as unsavory to many folks (one argument is that pronoun pins has the potential to alienate agender folks) 4. The social implications of one signal can be interpreted differently in distinct social groups (like the american flag example), which would necessitate increasing amounts of specification in a signifier; therefore, adding to the level of complexity of this signifier culture. 5. it would be easier for others to try to pander to a specific person/persons by reading their signifiers 6. people might easier form negative connotations with specific groups by the actions of one individual because their obvious signifiers will be readily available to everyone 7. one could fake being a part of a group by simply wearing a signifier 8. some identities are private and one may not be comfortable with everyone outside of their close-knit communities to know (like in the case where one isnt out, or fears being outed) 9. one could abuse a signifier to do something untoward 10. and i'm sure there're others. tl;dr, maybe we could all wear pins signifying the respective identities/values that we want known?
When it comes to the barista example, I typically am very honest to strangers. If im asked how im doing I give them a real answer. While it is unusual, I haven’t ever had any issues from doing this. I think a lot of people actually appreciate the honesty, it shows there’s a real person behind the counter.
@@jkdebate2665 Well, you are in the minority. The social norm is to deliberately obfuscate your true feelings to provide the expected response of "I'm good!" to offer the linguistic lubrication to segue into the true motivation of the conversation. I know, it's really stupid- but this is what we've been conditioned to emulate. It's the main reason why I hate small talk; Like, bro, just spare me the pretense and tell me what you want, lmfao.
@@sheeshnotnice An idealistic perspective, and one I held in the past. But, so long as the world has neurotypical expectations, that won’t change. I firmly believe this change will only happen once the older generations who are implacably set in their ways die off, and the new progressive generations take their place in the public conscious; that then, and only then, will this be feasible.
In my country, one of the most common greetings between friends is (translated) 'Hey wanker!' The contrast between that and 'I acknowledge your dignity as a fellow human being', has made me drop dead in laughter.
" for example the shift from from saying slaves to enslaved persons is impactful because there is tons of research backing how the structure of language affects how we think about people so instead of making enslavement Define the whole person we use language to represent the state of enslavement as separate from the person" yes... and i would add more importantly... "enslaved person" is simply more accurate. it incorporates the power dynamic. it forces the audience to think "by who". "a slave" can be too simply ignored as a position, a 'job', a status.
A slave is by definition an enslaved person though. No one is confused about whether or not slaves are people. If we were talking about firefighters, would you feel the need to stress we are talking about people who fill the temporary position of fighting fires? We aren't defining a whole person by their job, we are identifying a person by their job, because that is what is significant. Calling a doctor a doctor doesn't erase their humanity and reduce them to the function they serve in a hospital.
@@sebaschan-uwu um the confederacy thought slaves were property. we have colonizers propagating the idea that indigenous people were fauna. "Calling a doctor a doctor doesn't erase their humanity and reduce them to the function they serve in a hospital." by you're ridiculous logic... **calling slave a slave doesn't reduce them to their function** ... um... yeah... slave "owners" by definition reduce a person to PROPERTY when they become an owned slave. watch the video again with some empathy and an open mind to progress. instead of a regressive dehumanizing perspective.
I think the slaves would be a lot happier to be freed than having college kids cook up the in their minds least offensive term about their predicament.
Tons of research, but you didn't cite any of it or even explain what was being studied and if you mean research was conducted on your specific example.
i didnt fully understand every concept because i didnt have the captions on and some videos like this are harder for me to prosses as a younger person, but this is so helpful to truly understanding how things become and are considered offensive. sociolinguistic factors (im bringing that up with my friends if this topic ever comes up) are something i didnt ever consider but knew in the back of my mind. im going to watch this again another day to grasp any concepts i missed but this is one of the most interesting videos i have seen.
16:12 As a Chinese American myself, I never really felt offended by other people (or rather white Americans) wearing traditional Chinese clothing. But, this is not really to say that other people can't feel offended about this but rather its an argument for a generational difference (in specifically asians but also in general) to this subject. While you grew up being embarrassed about your culture, I grew up being proud and never really embarrassed about my culture. I ate Chinese lunch every day through 12th grade without a hitch. The more complexion related (squinty eyes) comments never really mattered to me either because at the end of the day I never was treated as lesser. To me, it was taken to the same offense as when other people joke about short people. During the first grade, I remember being excited about dawning silk Chinese traditional clothing to go to school, and my mom gave presentation on Chinese culture. Most if not everyone there thought it was either cool or at the very least sort of interesting. So my default perspective was never to see it as white people "colonizing" the Asian aesthetic. More broadly, most people today are exposed to more Asians in media. Kpop and anime are basically mainstream, and therefore I live in a time where this problem holds less power. All of these examples are really to show I and many younger Asians don't really feel this problem. Such differences shouldn't really invalidate the experiences of those who are older than me, but it does provide a confusing delemna to those who are not Asian: is it offensive or not. A second, more important point is that a lot of these culture appropriation examples hinge on clothing, or whatever item being part of culture, which is true. But to what extent is clothing or items just another part of "an aesthetic" (which I think is possibly an argument you covered in your Asian self-fetishization video). So to what extend does the appreciation of culture does someone need to have to use an item/ wearing a piece of clothing beyond "it seems cool"? anyways this is an awfully lengthy comment for just a subpoint you are trying to make. But yeah
My favorite Disney princess is even Chinese and we were costumes in 3rd grade when we're told to roleplay Disney movies and me and my mom had squinty eyes too
As a non-American (Indian myself), I find the argument against "just for aesthetics" to be weak, particularly when considering the pervasive influence of Western culture worldwide. It seems that non-Western cultures often take a backseat, with little offense taken when Asians enjoy Western stuff like suits or jeans casually(for obvious reasons) but, when it comes to other cultures, there's a tendency to politicise and magnify their presence, hindering their integration into other dominated spaces. She was correct about the desperation of people from other nations to see their culture recognised and integrated, but she missed the point that it's not just about seeking validation from the white majority. It's also about gaining acknowledgment and representation in a world heavily influenced by American and Anglo cultures. The idea that this dominant culture recognizing and integrating our own validates our existence is crucial to many people because they see it as a sign that our culture just doesn't exist in the vacuum of our group, but it also leaks out and can or does have influence.
@@Observer-f5k I think that this is a great point. Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, but I think we agree on the fact that less offense should be taken to other cultures incorporating our cultures even if it is without said cultural context. I'm guessing you would support things like the Japanese and Korean models where they have successfully exported things like their food, music, and fashion while our countries (China and India) tend to be lacking in that sort of cultural soft power department.
@@derekwang2215 yep that is my point even with the flawed way Japanese and Korean soft power has integrated in America has given them some form of nuance to work with while Indian and Chinese counterparts has to deal with western race and ethnic relations from the scratch and also we do see there's much more appreciation and celebration of those culture from white Americans that lacks quite a lot with other ethnicities and when it comes down to actual nationals it kinda just becomes exhausting and boring to do this basics form of cultural integration to westerners and there's some form of envy here too like they(Korean and Japanese) never get framed in this wierd narrative that you see China and India gets which just comes from a gross lack of any kinda of positive representation
@@Observer-f5k wait lowkey Olivia's east asian self-fetishization video kinda touches on this a lil. I think in China's specific case is that their government seems to self-sabotage their own soft power stuff in which the attempt to censor their own work abroad has made Chinese works seem inauthentic. As for the Indian case, I do not know enough about it to talk about it.
I'm definitely a hardcore "free speech is free speech" kind of guy but the analogy about how I'd teach my son to ignore the teasing but also teach my daughter not to tease opened my eyes to some of the counterpoints. I still believe that our right to free speech is paramount, of course, but there is some social responsibility on the offender to try to not be offensive otherwise theres going to be social consequences. Said offences can be inflated some times, and I dont love that the offended can be the judge, jury, and executioner, but the fact remains that its not socially "correct" behavior and thus will be punished. Tl;dr: theres a spot in the middle between hardcore free speech protection and social outrage that I realized because of this video. Thanks!
I think we would all be a lot of more civil if instead we stopped assuming what everyone means with our preconceived notions, expect the best and in case of doubt, ask them, if they meant to offend, they will likely double down, if not, they will gladly clarify you missunderstood, people are afraid of being wrong and recognizing they exaggerated
Exactly. Too often we project all of our past interactions onto people we are interacting with in the present, which leads to assume intent when have no reason to. That is an unfair burden to place on other people as they shouldn't be held responsible for things that other people have done. I also agree that it's best to give the benefit of the doubt first. The way I approach it is based on this famous phrase "hope for the best but prepare for the worst". I assume good faith on other people's part, but am ready if they end up showing evidence that they are not acting in good faith. Also, if I want people to assume the best about my intentions, then I need to do the same.
this is the most real comment.. although of course this doesn't account for statements that are CLEARLY offensive like the american politician and JAKE who were mentioned in the video.
That is overall a good idea but ignores a fundamental problem: if you're part of marginalized group, you will be exposed to hundreds of people who say things ranging from impolite to insanely offensive, and it's exhausting having to clarify with each and every one, especially when clarifying puts you at risk of being hate crimed. Even if I don't get offended most of the time, and I don't because you get to have a very thick skin when you're openly trans for any length of time, offence is not the point, it's just annoying to deal with, and I frankly don't feel like explaining for the 30th time that day that asking about someone's genitals or calling me 'a trans' is, you know, not cool. Thus, I just avoid or ignore those people. And I certainly don't blame anyone who just defaults assumes malice and has a less than understanding response.
I watch your videos because you never fail to challenge me and make me think. Thank you. Please continue to put out such measured and respectful essays.
What’s interesting to me is I’ve never seen anyone get offended by someone saying “pregnant women” (when referring to pregnant people as a whole) but you know someone’s going to take offense whenever the term”pregnant people” comes up. Which is interesting because 50 years ago no one would care because they would just assume you were just talking about women which is because women are in fact people.
Well nowadays it’s a bit different because the assumption would be that you diminish womanhood by not clarifying they’re women who are pregnant, it goes in hand with calling them uterus-havers or whatever because it ignores the experience that women have gone through and history of being degraded for those organs. All this is connected with “womanhood” and it’s offensive for those mad at the term “people” because that term became used when “woman” became offensive since it doesn’t include trans women-who do not experience “womanhood”. I’m not saying any of them are correct I’m just explaining the background, because inclusivity IS the reason people have refrained from just saying women nowadays..
It's because we've come to a fundamental disagreement about reality. We have a side which ties "woman" to a physical, biological attribute, while the other side is entirely social constructionist.
@@pumpyronaldrump_4417 "Pregnant people" and "pregnant women" are essentially the same meaning. When someone refers to "pregnant people", that category automatically includes pregnant women. So what difference does it make? Women that are pregnant are still people that are pregnant. Unless you are implying that women are not people?
@@myheartisomg17 haha cheeky remark at the end there. The point is that these other people you refer to don't actually exist. It's like saying "an invertebrate insect" or "a rhinoceros with a horn".
I think most of the time when the word “offended” is used, it’s to liberal causes, when conservatives are offended, it’s suddenly not being offended but rather it becomes an attack against free speech, suddenly it’s against the law and social norms. For example conservative and lgbt individuals, conservatives are not offended it’s just unnatural. This video is especially helpful during this time, when pro Palestine protest are labeled as anti s€mitic, a Palestinian flag is seen as a thr€at, the kuffiyah is seen as a t€rrorist symbol, a slogan to end an injustice is seen as a g€nocidal. And why is that (aside from how profitable fear mongering is)? it’s cuz ppl are offended by their mere presence, ppl were k!lled, sh0t and paralyzed as a consequence of that weaponized “offended” attitudes.
Okay English isn’t my first language, so I might severely be misunderstanding your last sentence, but are you saying that the people in Palestine are being k!lled because people saw their existence as offensive?
well as u brought about pro Palestinian, i have seen the same attitude towards people who support isreal also i haven't seen people being offended by the people who support Palestine yup there would be people who will act that way if they have different opinion and different side and not being heard at all but pro palestinain people most of the time don't even know the history about it i know you are gonna say it's not the time to know history because of the genocide and we should show humanity but why i think this point is wrong is because people in isreal are also dying so if we should be empathetic towards their people too but people who support palestine aren't even ready to hear ur argument you say something and they will call you anti palestine lol i definitely not support genocide and my heart aches every time i think about it but tbh it's not a time to think being sympathetic but rather systematic i think hamas and isreal government both are being harmful and we should protest in the where hamas and isreal government can't hide their faces (and pardon my English it's not my first language)
@@yourlocaltoad5102no I think op is talking about protesters that sometimes get repressed violently. Even though I haven't heard a case where this has resulted in death so there might be an exaggeration
Thank god you're back I needed this😔 Edit: all my critical thinking is done rooted on your videos, one more of them and I won't have a mind of my own. Excellent closing of this topic btw!
I think I want to add something to the discussion, which is how social media platforms directly hinder people's ability to clearly communicate. Things like the twitter character limit (which I think is a major factor in why twitter is so toxic) and the mere nature of comments on RUclips remove either people's ability to clearly disclose their intention to not offend, or people's willingness to be receptive to said disclosures, which can only aid in the facilitation of being offended and the lack of communication when offense is caused. I even have to recognize that the amount of people willing to read this long comment is gonna be not that big, so yes, communication is hard. Basically what I'm saying is that if you were willing to read this entire paragraph, you are contributing to solving the problem this comment tackled, and you;'re cool for that. Great video as always, love your open-minded approach to these topics.
The only other way to communicate through texts is by the use of capitals to express things like joy, anger, sadness, and confusion maybe in other cases… or by the use of emojis (which in terms of twitter, youtube, and tiktok isn’t really that common when trying to have an actual conversation. Those will give indicators (along with the sentences they say) as to what said person if feeling.
17:45 Actually, something similar happened to me. I am a Slavic person from the Czech Republic and all my childhood I felt kinda ashamed of our post-soviet heritage, because pop-culture is heavily US-centric and I was sad that we can't be as "cool" as the Americans. But a few years ago I found out that some American kids appreciate Slavic culture and especially the Eastern Bloc aesthetic. And this validation helped me to start to feel proud of our culture and heritage. I realized how much I actually love the post-Soviet aesthetic and how glad I am that I can reclaim it. Yes, in an ideal world, I shouldn't need some American kids to give me validation, but actually... it had a positive impact on my perspection of our culture. :) And yes, I started to appreciate even the fact that although we don't have Disney or Pixar, we still have the Goat Story. :D
I think the part on Twitter peeps becoming too focused making sure we speak in "progressive" ways over actual on the ground work is SUPER important. I follow Monique Melton (a black woman activist, educator, life coach, make up artist) on insta and something she said that blew my mind was that focusing too much on correcting white people is still white centering. To me, being white, I felt like calling out other white people was the most important thing for white people to do. I felt like it was what I heard people talking about the most. It really made me rethink how I was doing this work. and made me realize that most of my energy should go towards one of those direct actions, like reparations, protests, mutual aid, and divesting from exploitative businesses. Not to say we shouldn't call people in still, but we should be mindful of much energy is going towards people who have already stated they aren't changing their minds.
Yeah, for sure. I'm a member of a different minority group, but something that I think is true for anyone in any minority group is that we benefit 100% more from tangible improvements to the material conditions of our lives than we do from any amount of dunking that has been performed on the people who hate us. If I get harassed while I'm trying to buy groceries and can't because of some asshole, ruining that asshole's reputation and credibility doesn't change that I still don't have food on my table.
Thank you for articulating this. I think this is one of those rare pieces that really can serve to elevate the quality discourse and communication online and IRL. Honestly, they should be showing this stuff in schools.
“The insight of a man certainly slows down his anger, And it is beauty on his part to overlook an offense” - proverbs 19:11 “Better to be patient than to be haughty in spirit. 9 Do not be quick to take offense, for the taking of offense lodges in the bosom of fools” - Ecclesiastes 7:8-9
I mean, when you have friends or family who are being deliberately starved to death by a genocidal government, politeness and etiquette can go piss off.
Anger is understandable and some ppl don’t deserve politeness and etiquette because they themselves don’t act like this towards other. But by still showing politeness and etiquette towards them despite the deep anger within us that they caused, we are being a good example of how they should be. We are staying true to our values. Also it’s easier to find common ground with etiquette and politeness, it’s easier to get what you want when you make the other party feel “their worth”.
@@MondscheinelfeNo movement of liberation has gone anywhere without strategic violence. Peaceful protest is a form of propaganda to keep people disarmed and distracted. If it that method alone actually worked then our world already be better from the decades of work advocates have put into peaceful protests. Peaceful methods only work if those in power care enough to make them effective. Yes peaceful methods should be step one, but after some time of the powers that be showing no signs on improving anything, uprisings are the only way to make change. Even Martin Luther King understood and acknowledged the validity of riots before he passed, “Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking.”
@@Mondscheinelfethe issue with demanding politeness from victims is that the bullies have essentially expressed their desire to be treated as superior. However, dehumanization itself has not allowed the victim to be respected as a human being. Thus, it is not a bad thing to be angry and forgo the “respectability” framework that perpetrators want to use to frame victims as unreasonable
26:45 I think this more about the stereotype or bias against bi people, saying that they always should ‘pick a side’ or they ‘aren’t really gay’ etc. edit: yep
Agreed, I think part of it is also on how it could be read as feeding into the stereotype/misconception that bi people pick and choose their partners based on gender and can simply decide to switch as is convenient to them.
You're one of the few RUclipsrs similar to my age that I can watch without feeling like I'm wasting my time. Your content is very well thought out and produced, thanks for putting your thoughts out there.
I don’t think anyone should ever go to jail for saying or typing something offensive. Whether we like it or not, freedom of speech means freedom to offend and be offended. What happens if someone that thinks exactly the opposite of we do rises into power and everything we find normal becomes offensive tomorrow? I definitely understand where people are coming from when they say words matter and can really hurt people … but this is a slippery slope I’m not willing to go down. I would rather be offended than to have my free speech, infringed upon.
this is a great idea in theory until you start practicing it in the real world some opinions, like nazi shit, are so intolerable and incompatible with a civil society, that it is straight up harmful to respect those takes Please stop stop stop stop stop the Freezed Peaches nonsense, no one is saying you should go to jail if you get someone's pronouns wrong or something, and you are repeating arguments that are knowingly and intentionally used by extremists to cause harm
" 19:10 , gave her lashings" is crazy work when refering to a black woman being persecuted ,(thought id just find something to be offended abt to stay on theme lol, good video
I loved this! Diving into the nuances of communication and language is always gets the gears turning in my head. Love the post-original-recording clarifications sprinkled through the video btw! They reflect how the learning process is never a finished work-there’s always more we can go over and flesh out ☺️❤️
@@sheeshnotniceI agree 100% with everything you said. It is very clear that people will have different responses to someone feeling offended based on what identity characteristics that person has. It also can vary based on the cultural norms where you live. Conservatives who live in a more liberal state are more likely to be dismissed when they feel offended about something, and liberals who live in a more conservative state are more likely to have their feelings dismissed. Texans aren't gonna resonate with the things that liberals find offensive, and Californians aren't gonna resonate with the things that conservatives find offensive (this ks obviously an oversimplified generalization, but my point still stands). A useful mental exercise we all would do well to engage in is this: if you are trying to interpret if someone is being offensive or not, or if you're trying to determine if a person who feels offended is justified in their offense, ask yourself if your initial reaction would be different if the person was a different race, biological sex, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, level of wealth, etc. If our reaction would be different, then our initial reaction is probably wrong.
@@sheeshnotnice I think social media is largely a dumpster-fire because quite a lot of people are really quite bad at communicating without non-verbals. Maybe everyone, I don't know. But plain text statements are entirely at the mercy of the state-of-mind and mood of the reader. Emojis are actually super helpful in this regard, but even then not everyone interprets them the same.
Real leftists believe political rights should be expanded to the economic realm. If you believe a private company can fire you if 10% of the biggest wimps get offended then you're not a real leftist ie a shitlib. All you can do is complain and hang out with other ppl.
i always try to be as respectful and progressive as possible in my language as much as I can, both online and offline. this just gave me some food for thought and created room for more knowledge to be consumed. yet another massive thank you and a shout-out for continuing to make these great video essays. they've been the best part of my days...
I think there’s a big difference between doing something others happen to find offensive for other reasons and doing something with the intent to offend. For instance I think there’s a difference between someone getting offended because the food they gave you made you sick and someone getting offended because you called them a derogatory name because the former could be done as a way to inform the other person that you can’t eat that type of food with the offense being an undesirable side effect while in the latter case offending the person would probably be intentional. Also speaking of how the word choices we use can make a difference I think marginalized group language, such as “Female Marginalization,” “LGBTQ+ Marginalization,” “Black Marginalization,” etc might be better than privileged group language such as, “White Privilege,” “Male Privilege,” “Straight Privilege,” etc. One reason I say this is that I find that hearing about about the problems another faces tends to make me feel more empathetic than if someone tries to list off advantages I have as the latter comes off more as someone assuming they understand my circumstances better than I do. As an Autistic White Male I think privilege group language can come off as implying that White People, Men, People not in the LGBTQ+ community etc can’t be members of marginalized groups for other reasons more than marginalized group language meaning that the former might be more alienating to groups like Poor White People, Autistic White Men, Black Men, and White Women than the latter. I think privileged group language might also make groups like poor white people, black men, or white women more likely to become conservative than marginalized group language even after the initial political leaning of a poor white person, a black man, or a white woman are accounted for.
Your point about using marginalization language instead of privilege language makes a lot of sense. If we are so concerned about centering ourselves around white narratives and how that negatively affects marginalized people, it stands to reason that reversing our language to center on the people being marginalized will help us focus on what really matters: the people who are hurt.
Why are white people held to a higher standard well asians too but mostly white people why do white people as a group get the most hate but do the most for other groups and help develop other places that are undeveloped White people are(maybe starting to not be as much anymore) the least racist group of people And if you are white and your racist you will lose pretty much everything specially if you work in the media there's alot more consequences for white racists then for racists of other groups Like alot of the sports you have black people openly saying racist things and not many see it as bad instead people usually do the opposite and see it as good maybe even celebrate their "bravery" We have laws in place that give an advantage to black people or minorities but a disadvantage to white people and usually asians to but some how we have a system that systematically racist against black people When those laws literally show the exact opposite Anyone who grew up in a mixed school knows white people being racist is not the problem in fact it doesn't make sense that there aren't more white racists You can't say the same things other can without worrying about people calling you names and making you out to be evil You can't speak on certain things because your white and if you do your words will be ignored or demonized People can call you colonizer and somehow people dont see that as racist even tho I'm being call a colonizer because of the color of my skin(more evidence that you can be openly racist to white people because apparently.. you can't be racist to white people...lmao) Since there are quotes and things like that put in place you know as a white person you are not the favored one but people call you privileged You know as a white person you are less likely to be picked for a job because you are white You are less likely to get support from both the average person and the government because you are white White people actually get more time for the same crime Like when someone that is white attacks someone of A different race it will be considered a hate crime most of the time But someone of A different race attacks someone White most of the time it will not be considered a hate crime And it looks like black people get more time because they are more likely to be repeat offenders not because of some bias And if you say these are in place because of the past then why are Asians effected close to the same way white people are Asian didnt have help or support in the past so why are they also negatively affected by affirmative action and quotas How come these social and systemic disadvantages apply to both whites and asians Because it's not about past racism or past injustice or past anything so what is it about movements aren't about justice or equality or any of that and that's not hard to see just like most of the things I said aren't hard to see stop listening to these liars I got to stop and I know yall probably wont get it and some will just call me names like usual But if you actually want to stand up for what is right And if your actually brave and not acting by just following the next popular social justice movement You would say something about this and that would be real bravery because you will be called racist and other names and you will be demonized but those would be demons trying to demonize you because you would know they are standing for something fake or are just filled with hate and you stand with and for something real and you would make a real change you would get those that feel and see the same things to also speak up and they will stand behind you for you helped them get up to stand
That's a pretty interesting take on this, I hadn't really thought of that at all. I think "X privilege" expressions does serve the purpose of defining what inequality and privilege is, because saying "white privilege" doesn't mean a person's life is good because they are white, it means that their life wasn't made harder by not being white, and that's a thing it's important to be aware of. However it does have the unfortunate consequence of being a bit hard to receive for the first time. It's not a very good way of rallying on your side someone who's hesitating between all the different sides of a debate. For those who already have preconceived notions about "wokism" for instance, hearing someone call them privileged will get them on the defensive instantly. On the other hand, it does serve as a reinforcement to the idea that marginalized groups are tired of accommodating others while fighting for their equality. This language that comes off much more strongly is a way to demonstrate that tiredness, that lassitude, that refusal to manage other's feelings to get what you deserve.
Using privileged vs marginalized group language is kindaa similar to the example OP brought up about the teacher not sure whether to say "persons capable of pregnancy" or "women" in the class discussion about abortion. The problems you detect here are not about offending someone hurt by a particular issue, but rather related to offending someone NOT hurt by a particular issue while trying to convince them about the realities of that particular issue. It's the problem of how to "productively" persuade people not on your side, who make jumps in logic like we all do, to come closer. (Jump in logic: factually, ___ privilege doesn't mean the things you say could be implied, but people just inevitably feel that way sometimes when being presented with these topics.) We must mind the feelings of the person we are trying to convince in order not to trigger a defense mechanism that shuts them off from change. I don't think you were saying to completely get rid of it, but totally abandoning privileged group language is: 1) like the other reply said, somewhat coddling and centering the feelings of those not hurt by the particular issue at hand instead of remedying the injustices faced by those hurt by the issue at hand. It would be kinda ridiculous to center those people's feelings ALL the time, even though it may be productive in some scenarios (one-on-one discussions with people not familiar with these kinds of discussions, or people who are really prone to jumps like that). Baby steps are necessary at certain points but we gotta move on at some point---hard to do that on the internet, though, obviously you can't direct it to people at a certain point or another. 2) less realistic. "Marginalized" can produce an image of general society floating in one "normal" bubble over here, while another group is pushed to the side. "Privileged" points out the reality that this is a hierarchical situation---and in ?some?all?idk? cases, a zero-sum situation. It's not "normal people and disadvantaged Group", it's "one Group is above another Group, even though these Groups are arbitrary". This is linked to my other reply. TLDR: I think both word choices are necessary, but in different situations. Sometimes it's worthwhile to avoid the possibility of cognitive dissonance between "I have many harsh struggles" and "I have intrinsic privileges" being resolved in the wrong direction, but realities of a hierarchical society must be faced.
@@NoiseDay I wouldn't say privileged group language about centering White people. It's about orienting White people within this hierarchical society. Making sure they remember they are part of all this. One of my professors had an assignment where students discuss how race has impacted their life, and White students always struggle to answer the question every year, because they perceive themselves as lacking a race. The dominant group sees themselves as normal and not as its own distinct group, while the other groups are distinct groups, but "race" is not real scientifically---racial groups are defined in relation to each other. I think it's important for people to acknowledge the reality of their position within a hierarchical societal system; however, some people may need to be slowly introduced to this concept later in their journey of learning about a social issue.
This video could also be titled "why Neurotypicals do and say that" Some of these social norms are just plain confusing and what's more if you were never taught the secret code to the language you're doomed to be blamed for their misunderstanding of you. As an autistic adult with Tourettes too often these "norms" are Masks, they are lies we tell each other to be cordial... So basically everyone is lieing all the time and we're all supposed to just pick up on the etiquette and cues Forget meeting people halfway -nope, in this date in time the individualism is too fierce.
To be fair there’s not really a secret code some people just want to assume a lot of things. Neurotypicals are confused about other neurotypicals but just get around it by assuming other things too, it’s confusing 💀. It is especially so in the media than in real life
I agree that we would all profit from loosening up of social norms of politeness. It would be helpful in refocusing on the important ones, that honestly express care and respect for others like holding the door, saying please and thank you, etc. However, we need to make small talk more genuine. Like, we could make sure to be open to an honest response when asking "how are you?". It's normal to not want to actually hear all about someone's day if you're making small talk, but other conversation starters are fun too, like "whatcha doing rn?" Or "so what's your fav color?". In the same line of thinking, you can answer a "how are you?" more genuinely without offering details, like "my god it's been a long day" or "real excited to go home lol", and move the conversation in a direction that doesn't involve one venting to the other. Small talk *can* be a nice whatever thing if we all relax a bit and stay open minded to the other's reactions.
i'm not a social butterfly by any means, so i'm often behind on social etiquette and what is considered acceptable and why. it also seems difficult for my few friends to talk about said topic while still maintaining social etiquette. thanks for this video. really well worded in helping guide people's thinking (like mine) without pushing any values or agendas onto us.
Yes you are absolutely allowed to speak freely (ofc not threats and etc) but it also means you are subject to people’s reactions, offense and their free speech as well.
i took a courses under james o young in my first and second years of philosophy (before i failed out) and it's so crazy to me that you're referencing him. i love your videos and your use of his work is super topical. great video.
I think its important for offensive standard to be tighter or (more importantly) looser in contexts. For example, if we changed the context of the students discussing the law to the judges themselves deciding the case. In that case the concern raised by the second student could result in the wording of their decision being changed to avoid setting an unintentional precedent. Sometimes difficult discussions need to happen. Setting a cultural standard of shutting down anything that causes offense will result in problems that could have been easily avoided otherwise.
I don't know what magical place you and some commenters seem to live under where 'anything that causes offence' gets shut down, or that there is this social movement to push for that outside of like, Twitter. From where I'm standing, in the vast majority of places, people not only are offensive, but take pride in being so with little to no resistance. In fact, any slight pushback gets met with ridicule and mockery.
There isn't a single thing you can say, write, or do that is inherently offensive Offense does not come from the words but from you processing them THAT IS WHY SOME PEOPLE WILL CRY AND OTHERS WON'T CARE
@@mateuszkrytyk5711 calling them not delusional is insane, I've seen similar countries like those described that take offense as pride and many people or marginalized groups face more harassment in those countries because many excuse it as the norm , wdym?
The example the professor gave is flawed because homosexual relationships aren’t comparable to beastiality since both parties can consent in the former but not the latter. You could keep the point about polyamory, but that’s more of a pro-polyamory argument than an anti-homosexuality argument 😂
You are judging appropriate relationships based on consent. People who equal bestiality with LGBTQ relationships almost always are judging appropriate relationships based on their Judea-Christian-Islamic beliefs that not only consider them the same sin but also count being SA as committing the same sin. Consent is irrelevant to their morality. All that matters is that the man and woman are religiously married.
@@la-nyarichardson483 In the Abrahamic religions the sin is fornication, which is when a woman has sex with anyone other than her husband or when a man has sex with someone other than his wife or his female slave or his female prisoner of war. There are degrees of fornication depending on the specific religion and denomination (there are Jewish sects for example that don’t consider lesbian sex fornication because it can’t be sex if there isn’t a penis involved) but the single sin is specifically “fornication,” well and sometimes “lust” as well but that’s not applicable with rape. Being raped outside of marriage is considered fornication. Gay sex is considered fornication. Masturbation is considered fornication. Since each sin is considered equally bad by most followers of the Abrahamic religions beastiality=homosexuality=being raped outside of marriage =consenting unmarried different sex adults having intercourse. That’s why fanatics like Christian Nationalists jump to things like child molestation and beastiality when people mention consensual gay relationships. To them in their faith it’s all the same sin.
27:34 "There are some people who care about signaling their moral superiority rather than actually combatting harmful, offensive content." Nailed it 👏👏
This was an interesting discussion, and I think you played the balance of the two perspectives to this issue really well. Thank you for the great content (:
I always enjoy your discussions. They create thought, which is sometime uncomfortable, but more welcome for that. In the cases of the jailed facebooker and the politician, one thing you didn't talk about in regards to harm was they both minimized the value of someone's life. I think that is a line crossed that needs to be addressed. Being told that you, or anyone like you, doesn't deserve to be alive is, in my opinion, harm and should be treated as such, even if you assume that the person's followers aren't going to take that as a signal to endanger the life of the person, or person like them.
I learned quite a few things from your video, and I'm thankful for that. This is the first of your videos that I've seen and I was prepared to argue at the start of it but I'm glad I stayed in my seat as you gave a fair, comprehensive and nuanced treatment of this difficult topic. I understand not being able to arrive at firm prescriptions; we are at the beginning of the exploration and it's too early for anyone to claim they have all of the answers. But dialogue like this is how we eventually achieve that.
The bottom line with offensive speech is that it reduces the effectiveness of communication, we need people to be less offensive, and we need people to be offended less easily, you have to meet in the middle like you said, if we can’t say anything that might have the smallest possibility to be considered offensive, then we can no longer communicate because we can’t say anything. On the other hand, if we just say all offensive language is ok then people get offended more and we can no longer communicate. We need compromise
The problem nowadays is that people use the feeling of being “offended” in an attempt to make their subjective ideas universally accepted. Doing so makes us forget that objective facts should be considered when deciding if something is good or bad. Think of it this way, liking avocados is subjective and not everyone will or can agree with that. No one should feel offended if someone disagrees with your opinion on avocados. The avocado being a fruit is objective fact, so this should be universally accepted by all. People should absolutely feel obligated to prove this because it is the truth. However, some people feel offended simply because others believe their opinion is objective truth. And so we have this endless cycle of people “offending” each other on the basis of trying to prove an opinion as fact.
"objective facts are the main goal when deciding if something is good or bad" You really need to look up an intro to ethics, this idea is a complete joke both descriptively and prescriptively and rhetorically. It's about as ridiculous as saying 'evolution is only a theory so they dont really know'.
@@blackomega34 Now that I have read my comment again, I worded it pretty bad lol. I would say that it should be heavily considered when debating if something is good or bad. Ethics is definitely a hard subject to debate.
I disagree big time with the qipao dress discussion. As an (admittedly very out of touch) ethnic Chinese, I get the bitterness of "why is my culture now a cool thing when I got bullied for it as a kid?" but acceptance has start from somewhere. Also I remember that qipao prom dress issue from when I saw it on a Philip DeFranco video, iirc she did her research on how to wear it properly. I grew up on my mom's side of the family, (thank God for that as my father's side are the "we've never been on China but we're a 1000% Chinese" types) my grandpa was a Chinese immigrant who sought to assimilate and didn't teach his kids about Chinese culture much, so even if I'm 75% Chinese I do not speak a lick of it and would probably do much worse than qipao prom dress girl lol Especially with the part where you basically said "they just wore it because they think it's pretty"... Again I'm admittedly very out of touch but I don't think there's any reason for foreigners to not wear a qipao. It's not a ceremonial dress or anything, it's just a dress from a certain country. If anything that line of thought makes the qipao seem more exotic than it actually is. I'm from the Philippines and if girls wanna wear a _baro't saya_ they're more than welcome to, tho it's used as formal wear so using it for anything else would look odd. Also I'm very in favor of free speech, for the reason that I wanna use words that nowadays has to be censored or else I get shadowbanned. I like watching videos about true crime and stuff and not being able to use certain words is really annoying. I'm not American so I'd rather not say anything about offensiveness or whatever coz I see it as an American issue, but when your issues affect my non-American self I feel like I have to speak up. A few years back a boyband called SB19 made a tweet that's now notorious to net-savvy locals, "Hello Negros!" and they got flak from Americans. Why did they make that tweet anyway? They greeted a _Province_ called Negros Occidental, known locally as Negros. (There's also another province called Negros Oriental, they're halves of a whole called Negros island) Backstory is that when Spanish ships reached the island they found a tribe there called Aeta and named it after them. The Aeta are an aboriginal tribe with African-like features, black skin and kinky/curly hair. But keep in mind they're not actually Africans... I have to say this as I've seen Black Americans make videos about them calling them "black people in Asia?!" and stuff. Holy crap I got sidetracked. Anyway, idk where I'm going with my comment so I'll just leave my halfbaked thoughts about this video here.
Dang, SB19 was just greeting the people of a certain area (awfully named area, especially when you factor in the history of why it was even named that). Glad it's been cleared up.
Lol I can't believe I read all of it 😅Your comment perfectly encapsulates the web as a whole LMAO. 😭Wok white/black Americans being whiny and controlling about anything that's even slightly related to the word "black."
There was a time when offense was generally a personal matter. Someone made a statement in someone else’s presence to which that person took offense. Then if it was determined that the statement honestly was misconstrued, then no blood no foul. Now we’ve come to a point where a bystander not even part of the aforementioned conversation will take offense and then run with it; it no longer matters how the statement was actually meant. Being offended ( as opposed to offense ) can not always be justified, because if a person is going out of their way to being offended, then they will of course be offended.
This is the first video essay I’ve seen in a while that I watched at full length in normal speed because your video is so well-structured and sensible! Thank you for truly taking a deep dive and making a thoughtful argument
12:20 I hate Lying to answer "how are you" I think there are Socially acceptable negative responses. My favorites are "Iv'e been better" "I have good days and bad days" I think it works because the stranger can ask more or simpler move on from with the conversation. I get that Baristas and flight attendants are paid to look happy, but I use this phrase at work when I am doing landscaping or construction. I think its good to keep an honest mindset if you actually want to connect with new people.
sadly people seem to care more about signalling to others that they're "on the same side" than actually making society better and having any chance of convincing the people on the other side they're wrong, I wish people thought about these things less like a war and more like a collaborative effort to root out false preconceptions and solve the problems affecting us
Communication is hard. By interacting with people you always risk offending someone. But the intention of what someone is doing is more important than avoiding that risk. Actions speak louder than word. Take that risk, justify yourself afterwards, make your intentions clear and you are good to go.
I think the "how are you doing" that does not actually try to ask the question is quite harmful. First of all it makes it a lot harder to actually tell each other how we are doing. On top of that, people who have difficulty reading social or cultural ques are often doing worse and will get in the awkward situation where they give an actual answer to the question and the other person doesn't want to hear it more often. Its just always seemed like something that does more harm than good and seems to be disrespectful to people who just aren't doing well. Because if you're doing between fine and great, you're allowed to be honest and usually even elaborate on it. While if you're not doing so good, you're expected to basically lie and hide your feelings.
Ill preface this with: I'm neurodivergent myself. The issue is that this is literally how the neurotypical human brain is wired to work. People use abstract symbols to represent concepts, and those symbolic practices change with time. Rings for weddings, black for funerals, inquires about general wellbeing for greetings. These are not universalities, but simply the current symbols that communicate important abstract ideas to one another. A good example is the word "howdy." It is just a greeting. It translates directly to "hello". But looking into the word developed you will notice that it is yet another example of how human minds work to naturally create manners. "Howdy" "Howdy do" "Howd'ya do" "How d'ya do?" "How do ya do?" "How do you do?" It's like a kurt bow to demonstrate that you respect and acknowledge the other person's existence. Humans always have and always will do this. Language is amorphous, and constantly shifting and evolving into new forms. We come up with a complex term for something, it gets simplified to make communication easier, it then gets simplified so much it doesn't have a real meaning anymore, then a new complex term is made to redescribe the original phenomenon. To address your point more directly: It doesn't have to make communicating our emotional state harder. All you need to do is say "can I talk with you about how I'm feeling right now?" And they will tell you whether or not they are in the headspace to listen and/or help. While the greeting "how are you" doesn't mean exactly what it says in the tin, it is an impossibility to fix it permanently by changing the phrasing, unfortunately. Omce this simplifies to something like, say, "Harya", a new complex phrase will spring up to mend the vagueness. I struggle with social queues, but it really isn't fair to expect 70% of humanity's brain chemistry to change because mine is different Instead of changing how politeness works, because we can't, it is far better to make it within our social manners to be able to inquire intent without judgement. Depending on the formality of the context (so basically how close you are with the person), you don't even have to "lie". What I have found to work when I'm not feeling great is "I've been better". Of they want to know more, they'll ask, of they don't then the conversation hasn't been halted by a sudden oversharing of emotional information.
@@necroseusI'm not trying to advocate for prescriptive language usage, but rather, creating more acceptance for people who react literally to such a question and in doing so, making people more aware of the effects their word choices have. Though i could've communicated that quite a bit more clearly. If there are 70% of people who's brain chemistry makes them tend towards the current social norms in this way. It wouldn't hurt them to be aware and make reciprocal effort towards the other 30% of people on how to communicate in a friendly and comfortable way. Which the other side of this equation (which from the sound of it we both fall into) already puts a lot of time and effort into. I think your point about inquiring about intent without judgement fits in perfectly. Still, a social majority should be open to be accommodating and making an effort than they feel a social minority is. As the null hypothesis in interactions often boil down to "it takes no effort to be part of the norm".
@@Unsure_Auklet Yeah, I concur. The reason humans are wired to do this is to make communication as streamlined as possible. It frees up cognitive power for focusing on other things. Unfortunately, that is counter to what is productive for neurodivergent people, as putting constant cognitive effort in to make sure we get what they mean is against their nature. It's possibly the reason we are often perceived as annoying. I think that being able to ask about meaning allows us to circumvent this issue, as they will only need to change tact *when* we don't get something, as opposed to always communicating unnaturally. We just need to instill a background expectation of, and comfort with, the questioning into our cultural norms so that the questioning is engaged with, not looked down upon.
@@necroseus This literally has nothing to do with brain chemistry, and ALL people utilize symbols in this manner, not just neurotypicals. The only difference between non NTs and NTs in this regard is that NTs will typically adopt these norms without question out of perceived social pressure and and fear of rejection (so they frequently lack any real justification/reasoning for the act), whereas non NTs don't typically sense this pressure and therefore need the actual explanation as to why these things are utilized and how. Actually, many autistic people get quite hung up on symbolism and tradition once they learn their purposes. I also think there's absolutely no issue with imposing your sense of how things ought to be on others in this way. If someone asks me how I am, I will tell them, because that is the world I would prefer. Now, they will either never ask me again, or they may now feel comfortable opening up. Either way, I have benefitted from not arbitrarily conforming to a silly norm I disagree with
Simply put: the problem is complicated due to the fact that everyone will hold a different standard of what is offensive. This is because there is no clear line between emotional harm and being offended. I find, the easiest way to avoid being offensive is to avoid terminology that is commonly deemed as offensive, or saying things that might, in general, offend people UNLESS you have the time and energy to explain yourself and hear the other person's views
I love this channel so much. The ability to entertain two opinions is so rare nowadays, its refreshing to see people in my age group being able to do so!
They are narcissists trying to control you. And collectivists like this channel want to advocate for a totalitarian government that controls every aspect of our lives because "collectivist victimhood." Dont call Taiwan or Tibet a sovereign nation because that offends the chinese government
Whether they get offended easily is a matter of perspective though, maybe with other people nothing they (whoever they is) say offends. You can't decide someone's intention is just 'looking to get offended', that's such a tired aphorism. How could you possibly know their intention without reading their mind?
@@zzztefanos This comment is a bit silly, no? Proving intent is something we do pretty frequently, like in a court case, for example. You don't need to read minds; you can see a demeanor, tone, and character of a person and infer to a high degree. The more info you gather, the more likely you are to be correct at guessing their intentions
About the aspect of harm to someones goals or whatever from offensive speech. Consider the fact that peoples goals are different and sometimes oppositional to eachother, so how would you solve that in an ideology of punishment for offensive and harmful language? The way I see it its about which side manages to take power first to then punish and stamp out opposition.
Also frankly it is not at all important to create a safe space. Thats like saying its important to allow weakness. No its not. You have no right to not be offended. Thats not a thing and if you think it is youre a naive child.
I really like the idea that through love and genuine interest, one can overcome the offense and strengthen the relationship between other people. It doesn't matter if you offend someone accidentally or can't always show the upmost respect. As Kanye once said "What is the most stressful part of your life when being a kid? Test days. So taking life as a test by always trying to do the correct and appropriate thing just leaves you stressed like a kid in a test." and "My mother used to tell me, there is no woulds, could, ifs, it just is, and we just are, so it is all love." My favorite example of this is the black musician Daryl Davis who through genuine communication and relationshio building, influenced over 200 KKK members to leave the group and abanden their robes. Thats powerful, thats love.
personally I've always offered grace to everyone including myself. If I don't use the right term and someone wants to call me out I honestly don't have a problem with it. and if someone wants to be offensive towards me or others I use my best judgement but mostly ill just decide I don't like them and avoid them. voices online carry such little wight in my opinion, everyone in the comment sections may as well be chat bots. and politicians are often just pandering to their constituents.
You may want to add a little addendum at 1:10 when you say "Socrates said humans are defined as "featherles bipeds"" the text itself you're citing says it was actually Plato. I believe It's a harmless mistake, but still worth correcting.
This was a really fucking good video; lots of fantastic concepts to chew on and some really thoughtful reflection. The other night I went to a drag show at my university (which was amazing) and the different campus orgs that supported the show introduced themselves. One of them was the only queer affirming ministry on campus. The person who spoke (who was amazing) went into depth acknowledging and voicing sadness at the harm others have caused to queer people in the name of the Christian faith. And in the moment, I (as a non-Christian queer person) thought, “why should he feel the need to do that? He shouldn’t have to speak to the harm that other Christians have done.” But this video helped me see why him speaking up about that was so important. A lot of people in the audience had been directly harmed by Christians in the name of the Christian faith, and he needed to explicitly acknowledge that to have any credibility in providing support. So yeah…thanks for another great video!
honestly, i haven't watched a video this well spoken in a long time, and although you used a lot of big words, they were used in a very respectful and also easy to understand approach. I wish I found this video earlier. you earn yourself a new subscriber. :)
In regards to four’s tweet and the ensuing discourse, it’s important to note that regardless of what four intended, or what he thinks it means, that tweet is, as you adressed, inviting biphobia. And bi people are a marginalized group who society sees as abnormal. It is possible to be bigoted against someone and not realize it, and that’s what that was. Yes, four was discussing their insecurities and experiences. No, that does not exempt him from critique. No, that does not mean that he did not word it in a biphobic way.
That part when you describe social norms around dressing for funerals or short social interactions should be seen by people who don't understand what small talk does/how small talk functions. Good video.
this is the first video of urs that ive clicked on and wow... you are one of the best video essayists ive ever had the pleasure of listening to. specifically pertaining to this video, the way you are able to use evidence is perfect and I thank you for your contributions to the commentary space.
The problem with considering sociolinguistic qualities as defining offense is that cultural perception is not universal. Depending on someone's personal background or where they may have grown up, they may view what would be seen by some as offensive, in a completely different light. Thus, I do not believe that we can truly state what should, and shouldn't be called out, though we can choose to act in certain ways depending on who we're with, a point that was brought up in the video. As such, using traditional Chinese clothing as an example, I believe that while it wouldn't be offensive for a white woman to wear a cheongsam, she should at least consider refraining from sharing herself wearing it on the internet, out of respect for the people to whom the action would be seen as cultural appropriation as per the garment's sociolinguistic context. Notice how I said 'consider', because ultimately it is up to the individual to make the decision to abide, or not to abide, by any societal standards; the ensuing consequences from one's actions are decided the moment they choose to say or do anything.
The response to the first scenario is simple. Beastiality is rape since animals cannot consent, and animal cruelty is illegal, therefore beastiality should also be illegal. However, I believe it is hard to prove that forbidding men and women from marrying multiple people is the right thing to do without using morals and subjective opinions. Therefore, polygamy should probably be legal, even though I personally don't think it's good, but not beastiality.
This video popped up on my youtube and since then I’ve been listening to you daily at work. As an overthinker I let my brain think of things that help me learn or bring positivity to me. Listening to you has been very helpful, educational, and practically massages my brain lol. I love your content and hope to see you make many more videos!
I think the problem you failed to mention with the last tweet is just that it presents the scenario as if it applies to all bisexuals. It’s “bi guys” as a whole they are talking about, not one or a certain group of them. If someone says something as if it applies to an entire race, for example, then it seems much more clear to people that it can be problematic and harmful. Some people, as shown in some of the tweets in the video, just ignore that for groups they see as benefitting from the system they are personally oppressed under in any way. The comment was just as biphobic as any other sort of race stereotype is racist (excluding certain escalations of course, we are talking the assumptions about favorite foods, athleticism, etc. that in themselves are not going to legitimately put people in much harm).
I think the tweet was not necessarily biphobic itself, but was supposed to be a confession of the poster's own struggle with biphobia. However, because the poster did not make clear that this was their own emotional baggage and not meant to accurately describe bi people it was inevitable that people read it as biphobic (and either promoted their own biphobia or denounced the tweet as biphobic). Of course this was an interpretation I had after rewatching that part of the video many times because I could not figure out what the poster was trying to convey based on everything they were tweeting until after the first few watch throughs.
@@thebugscome Exactly. I, a trans femme, have personally dated bi men who I suspected would rather be with a cis woman in the long run in order to achieve a traditional standard of "normalcy" - which turned out to be true. I've also dated bi men who truly didn't care either way. It is definitely a valid concern to point out how some bi people may not desire a life-long relationship with someone perceived as being the opposite gender and cis (as well as a lot of straight people who date trans people, who would probably rather not date them long-term - a concern which I feel more valid to voice as a it pretains to a privileged group) - but this of course shouldn't be used as a form of generalization. It's a problem which exists, but doesn't speak for the entirity of the social group it's about - just like there's, for example, a problem about risky s*xual encounters among gay men (as someone who's been and still is often perceived to be a part of that demographic) which obviously doesn't speak for all of them.
The use of language is rarely well thought out when it comes to things like tweets. While the op clearly may not have meant to generalize bi men as having not worked on their internalized heteronormativity, it certainly could be and was read that way by biphobes. It kind of sucks that changing a few words can totally alter the way your message is recieved.
@@mewmew6158that’s how i understood it too. but to be honest, so much of what’s considered offensive is perception itself. ppl are saying it’s make a safe space for biphobic attitudes in the replies, which is true, but if op himself is fighting against those comments, couldn’t we say that any tweet that actual bigots reply to with bigotry is also bigoted because the bigots interpreted that tweet as such? it feels like it’s unfair to put the bigotry of replies on the responsibility of the op.
I just want to put out there that I have been student 2, in the 3-students-scenario. I strongly believed what I said and there was no student 3. Student 1, who actually was gay, was super respectful and patient with me, and that forced me to do the same. After the debate we shook hands, agreed to disagree, even though I really debated hard. This is more than 10 years ago. I still think of that moment. My opinions are a bit more mellow now. I believe that was a very important moment for me in my journey to learn that gay folks are normal people too. Sounds silly to say that, but I really had to _learn_ that. Conversations like this are important, and disrupting it by being student 3 is only negative.
This is why I quantify on a scale of how does this impact two things; Quality of life and longevity (to avoid happiness pump and orgasm button problems. Both are accounted for). If you could definitively prove with all scientific rigor that loving dogs is actually mentally and physically fine to both parties, then it wouldn't be a problem (But peoples instinct reading this is to baulk, which is the point.). The reason we have moral commonalities is because most of us actually work on this "does it harm" ideology, in which case this can be further brought down into the two components of quality of life or QOL and longevity. Does an action, inaction or absence of action cause harm to either part of the equation? If so, does one outweigh the other? By how much? And is the QOL and longevity measurement hampered by the few or the many? Surgery is a fantastic example of this equation at work. Intentional harm or rather damage for specific gain. You trade off a little bit of either in order to maximize the other. Ideally you want temporary discomfort and quality down for increased quality and longevity later, but it's known that this isn't always the case and it's assessed via scientific study and as many examples as possible to tell if the risk of both or one going down is worth the increase it can give or how likely it is to give it. Also, equating polygamy and bestiality, in which the former is consensual between agreeing parties vs a party and another party that we just plain don't know how it's affecting them and therefore can't consent are false equivalencies. But I wouldn't assume that a person bringing those up intends to mean it as such, just that they are saying that moral standards is the barometer we use in a lot of cases like this, both things that can be both considered harmful and therefore not moral, but also things that aren't harmful and are still considered not moral.
Love the video! It’s all about moderation and meeting each other halfway. One should not purposely set out to offending people, but every remark that can be observed to be offending should not by default be assumed to be intended that way.
I think that one should be able to say what they want without fear of being punished by a governing body. However, if somebody says something 'out of pocket' as they say it should be up to the people around them to shun them. Thats just how it works
Why are whte people held to a higher standard well as ians too but mostly whte people why do whte people as a group get the most hate but do the most for other groups and help develop other places that are undeveloped Whte people are(maybe starting to not be as much anymore) the least racist group of people And if you are whte and your racist you will lose pretty much everything specially if you work in the media there's alot more consequences for whte racists then for racists of other groups Like alot of the sports you have blck people openly saying racist things and not many see it as bad instead people usually do the opposite and see it as good maybe even celebrate their "bravery" We have laws in place that give an advantage to blck people or minorities but a disadvantage to whte people and usually as ians to but some how we have a system that systematically racist against blck people When those laws literally show the exact opposite Anyone who grew up in a mixed school knows whte people being racist is not the problem in fact it doesn't make sense that there aren't more whte racists You can't say the same things others can without worrying about people calling you names and making you out to be evil You can't speak on certain things because your whte and if you do your words will be ignored or demonized People can call you colonizer and somehow people dont see that as racist even tho I'm being call a colonizer because of the color of my skin(more evidence that you can be openly racist to whte people because apparently.. you can't be racist to whte people...lmao) Since there are quotes and things like that put in place you know as a whte person you are not the favored one but people call you privileged You know as a whte person you are less likely to be picked for a job because you are whte You are less likely to get support from both the average person and the government because you are whte Whte people actually get more time for the same crime Like when someone that is white attacks someone of A different race it will be considered a hate crime most of the time But someone of A different race attacks someone Whte most of the time it will not be considered a hate crime And it looks like blck people get more time because they are more likely to be repeat offenders not because of some bias And if you say these are in place because of the past then why are As ians effected close to the same way whte people are As ians didnt have help or support in the past so why are they also negatively affected by affirmative action and quotas How come these social and systemic disadvantages apply to both whtes and as ians Because it's not about past racism or past injustice or past anything so what is it about These movements aren't about justice or equality or any of that and that's not hard to see just like most of the things I said aren't hard to see stop listening to these liars I got to stop and I know yall probably wont get it and some will just call me names like usual But if you actually want to stand up for what is right And if your actually brave and not acting by just following the next popular social justice movement You would say something about this and that would be real bravery because you will be called racist and other names and you will be demonized but those would be demons trying to demonize you because you would know they are standing for something fake or are just filled with hate and you stand with and for something real and you would make a real change you would get those that feel and see the same things to also speak up and they will stand behind you for you helped them get up to stand
There's something i love about this channel, and I know it's gonna be true with this video too even though i haven't watch a second of it too. You always manage to be pertinent, your videos (almost) never contain value judgment, just pure analysis. Of course, 0 biais doesn't exist, but i really appreciate the effort in letting the viewers drawing their own conclusions. And i'm sure i probably won't agree with everything that you say, my analyis will differ from yours and that's okay, but the facts stated in the video will be unquestionnable and we can all think from the same base. I have, like everybody, strong opinions about some of the topic that you present. I don't know if that comes from my scientic background but i always try to question my beliefs, and your videos are part of the few who can make me feel like i don't need to put too much energy in being careful about biaises / ideology. Thank you for that.
As for comparing homosexuality to beastiality + having 100 wives. I think most of the time, people objecting to comparisons seem to believe one is equating the two, as if one is saying the things being compared are on same level. One can compare a pencil to a flag pole and find out one is much shorter than the other, while both sharing properties of usually being much longer than they are wide. Some people just get confused about how far similarities apply, and imagine it is implied one intends to equate things cross the board, so that they can protest and show that they are more moral than you.
As the author of the "Etiquette of Equality" paper you discuss here, I just wanted to chime in to say the video really is super well done. It captures the idea & spirit of the article extremely well, applies it to new contexts that make me feel old, it's very funny, and I can't believe the number of views (your audience dwarfs the philosophy journal's)! Going forward I'll tell people they could read paper but this video is more fun. 🙂 Thanks! Ben Eidelson
What! What! is that you for real? Oh man that is infinitely cool if it actually is!
@@aymanachkaj3333 Posted it on his twitter too, so most likely real
Hiiii
Wow, your insight is very good! Awesome
omg this is so cool
A key fact to consider in any sexual interaction when determining legality is consent. Adults who are gay can consent to sex, however non-human animals and children are considered to not be able to consent because of a lack of understanding and the power disparity between the participating members. This is important for people to understand, since some people seem to truly think pedophilia is simply subjectively bad based on baseless societal norms.
What about polygamy and incest marriages then?
EXACTLY
What does power disparity mean here?
@@someone-jl4sjAdults can consent to a polygamist marriage. Incest between adults is still technically consensual, yes it’s taboo and they shouldn’t have kids, but people will do that regardless of if they have the ability to marry, so yeah it should be legal as well.
@@buffpathfinder3607 That's my position as well (not on polygamy tho) but I don't think that this is going to convince anyone who believes it to be wrong lol.
Btw there are some good arguments against polygamy, that shows that polygamy could be bad for society. I'll suggest you to look at that.
"Telling people to k!ll themselves is just a casual sunday morning activity on twitter" 😭😭
then the 'yipee!' sound effect at the end of that section ahhahahaha
They should just make an emoji and move on 😂
That would change real quickly if we passed a law requiring mandatory jail time for violent threats. In most cases, I think we need to decriminalize, but this is the exception.
@@thrawncaedusl717 snowflake
that's really depressing how common it is to see that online
tldr is a great example of what makes communication today is so difficult. Nobody bothers actually reading things for comprehension anymore… They’re reading to react or to respond. The Internet is a very exhausting place
Lol love that I made a typo
100 ✅️ i even see this in myslef
Not the jump scare of my actual prof being one of your sources 😭
That’s a flex and who was it
@@bookworm4276 James Young lol. He works at my uni, I had no idea he does this kind of research!
so this is what Harvard Students watch
Personally I try not to offend people intentionally, but I also don't think you can or should always avoid offending others. People will always have different views and opinions, so the best we can do is just try to be respectful and understanding.
Why not let them be offended 😔
@ville__ source?
And what when your lesser good foot gets put forward? Bad day, hangry, not enough R&O?
WE all get angry, emotional and say things we might regret, even intentionally said in these moments.
Good communication is a give and take with feedbacks.
No one is perfect, making mistakes should not be the end of the world.
My shit (& piss [urine, pardon my French] can smell, that's part of life - unintentional and intentional. [Asparagus not Asperger]
But we can talk about it's aroma's and how it made you feel - if that makes you feel better, seen and heard.
And I will try not to shit all over the place with verbal diarrhea.
This type of wording could be found offensive, but it is truthfull and crudely poetic. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, its my art.
And how great thou art.
It is not up to me to decide what others could find offensive, just to express my self; thoughts, feelings, experiences.
And if it is taken as offensive that is on that person to communicate back about.
@ville__ looked at your channel. your pathetic, i hope you get better.
Agreed and some people get mad for no good reason
i watch your videos at 1x speed on my main monitor. this is the highest honour i can award you
i don’t deserve this
@@oliSUNviaNO YOU DO, THIS VIDEO WAS SOO INTERESTING AND REALLY TALKS ABOUT MODERN SOCIETY
THE TERIS GUY????
@@Yuio___ back to back x3 t spin double
i do 4x speed with my phone turned off
I wrote a paper on this topic back in my freshman year of college, but basically I said that though it is 100% okay to feel/be offended by things that happen in life, it also needs to be understood that some people will not feel the same about what offended you, regardless of their capability of offering empathy, I argued that its on a spectrum.
But why?
What is the person said something racist that offended that other person, but the person who said it doesn’t understand why it’s offensive.
So if that person feelings valid???!!! Even tho Person A is the one who said the offensive thing to person B
@@lxlx7941 It's obviously not valid in a moral standards since Person B can be affected by Person A's offensive opinion, it's more due to the person A's ignorance on the topic and the lack of understanding of the concept rather than the person's feeling. In that scenario, it's mostly like that person B would use logic to educate Person A until they understand.
what about the people who say they shouldn't have to educate someone on something that they had called out for being offensive? @@twstedcre
"It's on a spectrum" is basically a way to say "Well idk, it's complicated"
@@oceanbach7188 The whole idea of "I don't need to educate you" is a way to deflect the fact that people don't know everything. Sure, you don't need to educate everyone on everything, and you might not want to, but people don't change if they don't know how. If you decide not to educate someone (because they're being dense, you don't feel knowledgable enough, or any other reason) then you can take refuge in ignoring them, which is okay, but saying that you don't need to educate them does give you a sense of moral superiority before you go ahead and ignore them.
Basically, if you don't educate people on why you feel offended (or just explain it) people won't know why you're offended. Educating will not make everyone understand and stop offending you, but it will give them a peek into how you feel and it'll be easier for them to feel empathy, and some may even start taking your side.
from a bi person, our online communities are full of posts hating on bi partners and stuff. it was almost uncanny as a chronically online person to see none of this hate at real-life queer hangouts
Hey Bi person is it ok to say I don’t like some Bi people
@@sithlord5149 as long as you don't hate other bi people because of it hehehe
im so sorry for the bi's as a lesbian, like i dont know why so many people in the lgbtq community are so biphobic. being bi doesnt mean ur gonna cheat
@@sithlord5149 I mean why it can't be i don't like xyz person. Why is it have to be i don't like bi person?! Do you say that for hetero people?! I don't like few hetero people.
@@GaganSingh-nx2yv because of the LGBTQ+ community.
I'm glad you made the distinction right from the beginning between "offense" and "harm". I feel like many people forget to do that.
The use of the little wooden tabs and pieces of paper is SUCH a smart engagement with your videos. It honestly engaged me so much straight off the bat
i think it wasnt her video with the wooden tabs rather the guy who posted that paper made some videos to go with it but I could have interpreted her use of "source" wrong. however, regardless of whose idea to make the wooden tabs thing was, she still put it in her video so still props are due!
Are you a child or something? The wooden pieces added nothing to the video that a diagram in ms paint couldn't accomplish just as well. Seems like you have an attention issue.
21:19 I think a good example of etiquette of equality is how in some places of the world, the word "negro" is seen as offensive, while in others, black is the offensive term, and vice-versa. Here in Brazil, the norm is to say negro, as its perceived by the majority as the "respectable" manner, all the while, there are racial groups who claim the complete opposite, and link the origin of the word negro to "dirty", while black (or preto, in portuguese), as beign associated with good things, like black coffe, or black Friday.
edit: Finished watching the video now, you've talked about it already lol, never misses huh
I'm in Canada and native people tell me much the same thing. They'll call themselves Indian, indigenous, native, or Cree/Blackfoot/their tribe. But it's all the same. That said, there is still a big difference from those words and calling them something historically derogatory like redskin, wagon-burner, or savage. Those words are inherently offensive in intention by the speaker and reception.
I think it's important to keep cultural differences in mind, things like etiquette or gestures can be harmless in one country but be offensive in others the same goes for words especially if it's a different language. 'Negro' may refer to race in English but may be simply an adjective in other languages e.g Spanish
In Puerto Rico we called those with darker skins un negro, it means black, like calling an African American black, but when I arrived here in the US mainland I had to switch from saying that to saying Moreno, which is another way of calling people of darker skin apparently? Definitely had to switch my language as to not to offense
The thing really is just cultural differences. In America people got upset with a latin performer for calling herself colored instead of black but in her country they use the word colored and not black... It's all silly goofy imo.
We should only really be offended if people are like in harm lol
But even with black Americans we have the same talk if we prefer African American or black and personally i find the term African American is very specific and doesn't give room for the many different black identities in america it's a whole silly thing.
é bem interessante como no Brasil, "preto" é historicamente mais usado em discursos racistas do que "negro" que tem uma.origem claramente pior
The answer is when I say so
So true
Yes king
technically this is all philosophy in a nutshell
"whos to say whats right and wrong?" me. im to say.
😂
Worth mention on the etiquette section, things like holding the door, saying thank you, and other things like that are actually extremely distinct from societal etiquette things like the asking how someone's doing without a desire to receive an actual answer. When something on etiquette is treated as consistently understood, while having directly contradictory meanings involved, it is important to understand that no, it's not actually consistently understood by everyone. Thank yous, and holding the door do not have directly contradictory meanings that a person has to assess when determining how they respond, and therefore are much more reliably recognizable, more broadly, as consistently understood.
Neurotypicals/normies would mostly rather make judgements and believe they know what the person meant and proceed as such than have to think about all the possibilities. And are often not interested in even thinking about how the system works they are participating in. As a male who is ADHD, and logic driven I have 3 advantages here. 1, I analyse everything and am good at it, 2, I'm basically half normie and half autistic so I can really understand both sides, 3, Because of this, I am aware basically every single time someone is being unclear in communication or obfuscating their position and have done that myself.
Not sharing feelings or any kind of non verbal cues can be considered this btw. Just as autists processing struggles with non verbal and hidden communication, many sensitive sensing and feeling based people have processing struggles with pure information with no non verbals, they are trying to work out your hidden meaning too.
I prefer the more neurodivergent way of communicating myself, but I can do both when needed, and if I'm present I can understand both, although physical and emotional communication takes more effort and focus
@@dxfifaAre you saying women can't use logic?
Jk
Who's here again after Acheeto's commentary?
real
real
Midcheeto's*
One of the problems with the etiquette of equlity is that not everyone is equally aware of encoded signals of offence. IT's one thing to expect someone who is aware of these rules to follow them, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to blame someone who isn't aware of a rule for not following it.
I know that in most legal contexts, ignorance is not a valid defense, but there is a large gulf between what is legal and what is ethical.
As a person with autism I wish more people talked about that, I've been socially punished so much in my life for not knowing about social rules and unspoken agreements and cues. People just assume that I'm being deliberately malicious and feel justified in absolutely demolishing me. I'm sure more autistic folks understand this...
One question I have is, what if I don't want to follow one specific groups etiquette of equality? And would rather follow my own? E.g. i am African and have a certain etiquette and don't want to follow the westerns etiquette? (just an example don't hyper fixate on it)
I think the natural result is that I cannot be part of that community, unless they change their views to be compatible with mine
@@misterwachulochulo5262 We judge people and expect them to act within the boundries of "norms" we are taught from our birth, that is why people react harshly to missing social cues and similar things. Very few will expect to deal with a person with autism, without prior knowledge, on a daily basis and adjust their behaviours accordingly, you are being treated like everyone else, from my experience (a very small ammount) autism is not something you can see at a glance, so if there is no prior knowledge about your condition how are people to know that you are not just being rude?
Unfortunately there is no good way out of this situation, and you'll most likely suffer much more when interacting with people who don't know, since you will either be treated as every other person and held to the same standards, or have to signal somehow about your condition, best in no uncertain terms and hope that people will understand, but it will still be most likely humiliating for you.
@@Clb9000 Well... yes, kind of... this is generally how societies are created and why we have different nations and cultures, people who have similar ideas and world views group together to defend those ideas and worldviews.
This is also why most cultural tensions arise, for example the whole situation in western europe, imigration and rise of nationalism, imigrants group together and want to have their own culture with social and cultural norms, but those norms are often in conflict with what is understood as a social and cultural norms by the original people of the region plus there is a feeling of invasion of foreign (most often described as barbaric) culture, "they come to our country, our home and want to change our culture?". The forced diversity policies only heat up the discussion since it's not felt as "give them a chance" but as "they invade us and take away everything we build".
Cultures can coexist, and have coexisted for thousands of years, but they never comingled to the extent and with a speed as it is now, look at china, they have diverse cultures in one giant totalitarian empire, yet they do not have artificial ghettos, the cultures are in a gradient smoothly changing from one to another in very small steps, since the mixing happened over many generations.
So in short, if you want to live in a different culture than your own (even in a broad spectrum like african or european), you either have to change your views to the culture that you want to join, or at least adapt to living in a said set of rules (many asian imigrants do that, they live in small tightly knited groups but try to raise their kids in dual culture, so their grandkids can fully fit in a society they joined), or be ostricised from the said culture and live there while not fitting in and possibly breaking some laws. The situation is no different than when european empieres invaded Africa and colonised it while forcing their own culture there, and people will fight against such an "invasion", and there is no "it's only right that it happens the other way now", two wrongs don't make right.
@@84elmer This is interesting. I am reminded of how it is very common for some groups to signal their identities now. Like how many lgbt folks will wear pins, etc of their respective identity flag, or will have name tags or pins with their pronouns.
Maybe one approach to understanding which culture or group one is in, is with obvious signals?
Since etiquette of equality is partly based on which discourses one is involved in, and which group one is presently surrounded by, then it might be beneficial to signal one's identities (and thus one's etiquette values) to all around you. In which case, there would no longer be a benefit of doubt from ignorance and harmful attacks due to ignorance, as one could easily look into and understand which signals are represented.
Of course, this idea has many flaws:
1. It doesnt address changing social norms which can be hard to track.
2. Signifying one's identity relations could potentially attract unwanted attention
3. Putting oneself into a box could be seen as unsavory to many folks (one argument is that pronoun pins has the potential to alienate agender folks)
4. The social implications of one signal can be interpreted differently in distinct social groups (like the american flag example), which would necessitate increasing amounts of specification in a signifier; therefore, adding to the level of complexity of this signifier culture.
5. it would be easier for others to try to pander to a specific person/persons by reading their signifiers
6. people might easier form negative connotations with specific groups by the actions of one individual because their obvious signifiers will be readily available to everyone
7. one could fake being a part of a group by simply wearing a signifier
8. some identities are private and one may not be comfortable with everyone outside of their close-knit communities to know (like in the case where one isnt out, or fears being outed)
9. one could abuse a signifier to do something untoward
10. and i'm sure there're others.
tl;dr, maybe we could all wear pins signifying the respective identities/values that we want known?
When it comes to the barista example, I typically am very honest to strangers. If im asked how im doing I give them a real answer. While it is unusual, I haven’t ever had any issues from doing this. I think a lot of people actually appreciate the honesty, it shows there’s a real person behind the counter.
@ville__ ?? im sorry?
@@geetikajain6110just a bot farming engagement
Yeah, tbh when I ask people how they were I've gotten honest responses more than positive ones, so I didn't relate to the barista example at all.
@@jkdebate2665 Well, you are in the minority. The social norm is to deliberately obfuscate your true feelings to provide the expected response of "I'm good!" to offer the linguistic lubrication to segue into the true motivation of the conversation. I know, it's really stupid- but this is what we've been conditioned to emulate. It's the main reason why I hate small talk; Like, bro, just spare me the pretense and tell me what you want, lmfao.
@@sheeshnotnice An idealistic perspective, and one I held in the past. But, so long as the world has neurotypical expectations, that won’t change. I firmly believe this change will only happen once the older generations who are implacably set in their ways die off, and the new progressive generations take their place in the public conscious; that then, and only then, will this be feasible.
Okay, but a world where strangers greeted eachother with
'I acknowledge your dignity as a fellow human being!' would actually kinda slap though 😂
In my country, one of the most common greetings between friends is (translated) 'Hey wanker!'
The contrast between that and 'I acknowledge your dignity as a fellow human being', has made me drop dead in laughter.
@@nickklavdianos5136 hehehehe, okay, I NEED to visit your country at least once in my life 🤣
@@louis-marieokolo41 well, I'm sure Greece will welcome you
@@nickklavdianos5136 😜
@@nickklavdianos5136that kind of phrase is honestly just the sarcastic version 😂
" for example the shift from from saying slaves to enslaved persons is impactful because
there is tons of research backing how the structure of language affects how we think about people so instead of making
enslavement Define the whole person we use language to represent the state of enslavement as separate from the person"
yes... and i would add more importantly... "enslaved person" is simply more accurate. it incorporates the power dynamic. it forces the audience to think "by who".
"a slave" can be too simply ignored as a position, a 'job', a status.
A slave is by definition an enslaved person though. No one is confused about whether or not slaves are people. If we were talking about firefighters, would you feel the need to stress we are talking about people who fill the temporary position of fighting fires? We aren't defining a whole person by their job, we are identifying a person by their job, because that is what is significant. Calling a doctor a doctor doesn't erase their humanity and reduce them to the function they serve in a hospital.
@@sebaschan-uwu
um the confederacy thought slaves were property.
we have colonizers propagating the idea that indigenous people were fauna.
"Calling a doctor a doctor doesn't erase their humanity and reduce them to the function they serve in a hospital."
by you're ridiculous logic... **calling slave a slave doesn't reduce them to their function** ... um... yeah... slave "owners" by definition reduce a person to PROPERTY when they become an owned slave.
watch the video again with some empathy and an open mind to progress.
instead of a regressive dehumanizing perspective.
I think the slaves would be a lot happier to be freed than having college kids cook up the in their minds least offensive term about their predicament.
@@Andre-qo5ek How many slaves did you free by playing with words?
Tons of research, but you didn't cite any of it or even explain what was being studied and if you mean research was conducted on your specific example.
i didnt fully understand every concept because i didnt have the captions on and some videos like this are harder for me to prosses as a younger person, but this is so helpful to truly understanding how things become and are considered offensive. sociolinguistic factors (im bringing that up with my friends if this topic ever comes up) are something i didnt ever consider but knew in the back of my mind. im going to watch this again another day to grasp any concepts i missed but this is one of the most interesting videos i have seen.
16:12
As a Chinese American myself, I never really felt offended by other people (or rather white Americans) wearing traditional Chinese clothing. But, this is not really to say that other people can't feel offended about this but rather its an argument for a generational difference (in specifically asians but also in general) to this subject. While you grew up being embarrassed about your culture, I grew up being proud and never really embarrassed about my culture. I ate Chinese lunch every day through 12th grade without a hitch. The more complexion related (squinty eyes) comments never really mattered to me either because at the end of the day I never was treated as lesser. To me, it was taken to the same offense as when other people joke about short people.
During the first grade, I remember being excited about dawning silk Chinese traditional clothing to go to school, and my mom gave presentation on Chinese culture. Most if not everyone there thought it was either cool or at the very least sort of interesting. So my default perspective was never to see it as white people "colonizing" the Asian aesthetic.
More broadly, most people today are exposed to more Asians in media. Kpop and anime are basically mainstream, and therefore I live in a time where this problem holds less power.
All of these examples are really to show I and many younger Asians don't really feel this problem. Such differences shouldn't really invalidate the experiences of those who are older than me, but it does provide a confusing delemna to those who are not Asian: is it offensive or not.
A second, more important point is that a lot of these culture appropriation examples hinge on clothing, or whatever item being part of culture, which is true. But to what extent is clothing or items just another part of "an aesthetic" (which I think is possibly an argument you covered in your Asian self-fetishization video). So to what extend does the appreciation of culture does someone need to have to use an item/ wearing a piece of clothing beyond "it seems cool"?
anyways this is an awfully lengthy comment for just a subpoint you are trying to make. But yeah
My favorite Disney princess is even Chinese and we were costumes in 3rd grade when we're told to roleplay Disney movies and me and my mom had squinty eyes too
As a non-American (Indian myself), I find the argument against "just for aesthetics" to be weak, particularly when considering the pervasive influence of Western culture worldwide. It seems that non-Western cultures often take a backseat, with little offense taken when Asians enjoy Western stuff like suits or jeans casually(for obvious reasons) but, when it comes to other cultures, there's a tendency to politicise and magnify their presence, hindering their integration into other dominated spaces. She was correct about the desperation of people from other nations to see their culture recognised and integrated, but she missed the point that it's not just about seeking validation from the white majority. It's also about gaining acknowledgment and representation in a world heavily influenced by American and Anglo cultures. The idea that this dominant culture recognizing and integrating our own validates our existence is crucial to many people because they see it as a sign that our culture just doesn't exist in the vacuum of our group, but it also leaks out and can or does have influence.
@@Observer-f5k I think that this is a great point. Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, but I think we agree on the fact that less offense should be taken to other cultures incorporating our cultures even if it is without said cultural context. I'm guessing you would support things like the Japanese and Korean models where they have successfully exported things like their food, music, and fashion while our countries (China and India) tend to be lacking in that sort of cultural soft power department.
@@derekwang2215 yep that is my point even with the flawed way Japanese and Korean soft power has integrated in America has given them some form of nuance to work with while Indian and Chinese counterparts has to deal with western race and ethnic relations from the scratch and also we do see there's much more appreciation and celebration of those culture from white Americans that lacks quite a lot with other ethnicities and when it comes down to actual nationals it kinda just becomes exhausting and boring to do this basics form of cultural integration to westerners and there's some form of envy here too like they(Korean and Japanese) never get framed in this wierd narrative that you see China and India gets which just comes from a gross lack of any kinda of positive representation
@@Observer-f5k wait lowkey Olivia's east asian self-fetishization video kinda touches on this a lil. I think in China's specific case is that their government seems to self-sabotage their own soft power stuff in which the attempt to censor their own work abroad has made Chinese works seem inauthentic. As for the Indian case, I do not know enough about it to talk about it.
I'm definitely a hardcore "free speech is free speech" kind of guy but the analogy about how I'd teach my son to ignore the teasing but also teach my daughter not to tease opened my eyes to some of the counterpoints. I still believe that our right to free speech is paramount, of course, but there is some social responsibility on the offender to try to not be offensive otherwise theres going to be social consequences. Said offences can be inflated some times, and I dont love that the offended can be the judge, jury, and executioner, but the fact remains that its not socially "correct" behavior and thus will be punished.
Tl;dr: theres a spot in the middle between hardcore free speech protection and social outrage that I realized because of this video. Thanks!
"your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"
'social outrage' is not the opposite of free speech, and the only people who want you to think so are trying to foster a victim complex in you.
@@anope9053
Tldr freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences
@@Jankyito it's freedom from judicial consequences.
@@user-mn8lz7gf6d I agree, op was talking about social consequences tho
I think we would all be a lot of more civil if instead we stopped assuming what everyone means with our preconceived notions, expect the best and in case of doubt, ask them, if they meant to offend, they will likely double down, if not, they will gladly clarify you missunderstood, people are afraid of being wrong and recognizing they exaggerated
Exactly. Too often we project all of our past interactions onto people we are interacting with in the present, which leads to assume intent when have no reason to. That is an unfair burden to place on other people as they shouldn't be held responsible for things that other people have done.
I also agree that it's best to give the benefit of the doubt first. The way I approach it is based on this famous phrase "hope for the best but prepare for the worst". I assume good faith on other people's part, but am ready if they end up showing evidence that they are not acting in good faith.
Also, if I want people to assume the best about my intentions, then I need to do the same.
That’s not always possible!! Sometimes a celebrity offended you
this is the most real comment.. although of course this doesn't account for statements that are CLEARLY offensive like the american politician and JAKE who were mentioned in the video.
That is overall a good idea but ignores a fundamental problem: if you're part of marginalized group, you will be exposed to hundreds of people who say things ranging from impolite to insanely offensive, and it's exhausting having to clarify with each and every one, especially when clarifying puts you at risk of being hate crimed.
Even if I don't get offended most of the time, and I don't because you get to have a very thick skin when you're openly trans for any length of time, offence is not the point, it's just annoying to deal with, and I frankly don't feel like explaining for the 30th time that day that asking about someone's genitals or calling me 'a trans' is, you know, not cool. Thus, I just avoid or ignore those people.
And I certainly don't blame anyone who just defaults assumes malice and has a less than understanding response.
this is unfortunately NOT happenjng on twitter
I watch your videos because you never fail to challenge me and make me think. Thank you. Please continue to put out such measured and respectful essays.
What’s interesting to me is I’ve never seen anyone get offended by someone saying “pregnant women” (when referring to pregnant people as a whole) but you know someone’s going to take offense whenever the term”pregnant people” comes up. Which is interesting because 50 years ago no one would care because they would just assume you were just talking about women which is because women are in fact people.
Well nowadays it’s a bit different because the assumption would be that you diminish womanhood by not clarifying they’re women who are pregnant, it goes in hand with calling them uterus-havers or whatever because it ignores the experience that women have gone through and history of being degraded for those organs. All this is connected with “womanhood” and it’s offensive for those mad at the term “people” because that term became used when “woman” became offensive since it doesn’t include trans women-who do not experience “womanhood”. I’m not saying any of them are correct I’m just explaining the background, because inclusivity IS the reason people have refrained from just saying women nowadays..
It's because we've come to a fundamental disagreement about reality. We have a side which ties "woman" to a physical, biological attribute, while the other side is entirely social constructionist.
it's because we've learned and seen that only biological women can get pregnant. that's why everyone assumes "pregnant people" to be about women
@@pumpyronaldrump_4417 "Pregnant people" and "pregnant women" are essentially the same meaning. When someone refers to "pregnant people", that category automatically includes pregnant women. So what difference does it make? Women that are pregnant are still people that are pregnant.
Unless you are implying that women are not people?
@@myheartisomg17 haha cheeky remark at the end there. The point is that these other people you refer to don't actually exist. It's like saying "an invertebrate insect" or "a rhinoceros with a horn".
I think most of the time when the word “offended” is used, it’s to liberal causes, when conservatives are offended, it’s suddenly not being offended but rather it becomes an attack against free speech, suddenly it’s against the law and social norms.
For example conservative and lgbt individuals, conservatives are not offended it’s just unnatural.
This video is especially helpful during this time, when pro Palestine protest are labeled as anti s€mitic, a Palestinian flag is seen as a thr€at, the kuffiyah is seen as a t€rrorist symbol, a slogan to end an injustice is seen as a g€nocidal. And why is that (aside from how profitable fear mongering is)? it’s cuz ppl are offended by their mere presence, ppl were k!lled, sh0t and paralyzed as a consequence of that weaponized “offended” attitudes.
Okay English isn’t my first language, so I might severely be misunderstanding your last sentence, but are you saying that the people in Palestine are being k!lled because people saw their existence as offensive?
well as u brought about pro Palestinian, i have seen the same attitude towards people who support isreal also i haven't seen people being offended by the people who support Palestine yup there would be people who will act that way if they have different opinion and different side and not being heard at all but pro palestinain people most of the time don't even know the history about it i know you are gonna say it's not the time to know history because of the genocide and we should show humanity but why i think this point is wrong is because people in isreal are also dying so if we should be empathetic towards their people too but people who support palestine aren't even ready to hear ur argument you say something and they will call you anti palestine lol i definitely not support genocide and my heart aches every time i think about it but tbh it's not a time to think being sympathetic but rather systematic i think hamas and isreal government both are being harmful and we should protest in the where hamas and isreal government can't hide their faces (and pardon my English it's not my first language)
@@yourlocaltoad5102no I think op is talking about protesters that sometimes get repressed violently. Even though I haven't heard a case where this has resulted in death so there might be an exaggeration
@@yourlocaltoad5102 of course. It’s called longterm ethnic cleansing of an unwanted indigenous population.
@@bonjour7209 Israeli snipers used to target children and the disabled during the March of Return. That you don’t know that is a comment in itself.
"Sympathetic and critical" This deserves it's own book. I'm still not sure if it's possible, but it sounds really good.
Thank god you're back I needed this😔
Edit: all my critical thinking is done rooted on your videos, one more of them and I won't have a mind of my own. Excellent closing of this topic btw!
I think I want to add something to the discussion, which is how social media platforms directly hinder people's ability to clearly communicate. Things like the twitter character limit (which I think is a major factor in why twitter is so toxic) and the mere nature of comments on RUclips remove either people's ability to clearly disclose their intention to not offend, or people's willingness to be receptive to said disclosures, which can only aid in the facilitation of being offended and the lack of communication when offense is caused. I even have to recognize that the amount of people willing to read this long comment is gonna be not that big, so yes, communication is hard. Basically what I'm saying is that if you were willing to read this entire paragraph, you are contributing to solving the problem this comment tackled, and you;'re cool for that. Great video as always, love your open-minded approach to these topics.
Glad to help, and glad to see people are still out there who care about this communication.
@@LiamNajor 👏
The only other way to communicate through texts is by the use of capitals to express things like joy, anger, sadness, and confusion maybe in other cases… or by the use of emojis (which in terms of twitter, youtube, and tiktok isn’t really that common when trying to have an actual conversation. Those will give indicators (along with the sentences they say) as to what said person if feeling.
17:45 Actually, something similar happened to me. I am a Slavic person from the Czech Republic and all my childhood I felt kinda ashamed of our post-soviet heritage, because pop-culture is heavily US-centric and I was sad that we can't be as "cool" as the Americans. But a few years ago I found out that some American kids appreciate Slavic culture and especially the Eastern Bloc aesthetic. And this validation helped me to start to feel proud of our culture and heritage. I realized how much I actually love the post-Soviet aesthetic and how glad I am that I can reclaim it. Yes, in an ideal world, I shouldn't need some American kids to give me validation, but actually... it had a positive impact on my perspection of our culture. :) And yes, I started to appreciate even the fact that although we don't have Disney or Pixar, we still have the Goat Story. :D
When we needed her most, she returned!
You going to try surviving off Royal Farms next?
I think the part on Twitter peeps becoming too focused making sure we speak in "progressive" ways over actual on the ground work is SUPER important. I follow Monique Melton (a black woman activist, educator, life coach, make up artist) on insta and something she said that blew my mind was that focusing too much on correcting white people is still white centering. To me, being white, I felt like calling out other white people was the most important thing for white people to do. I felt like it was what I heard people talking about the most. It really made me rethink how I was doing this work. and made me realize that most of my energy should go towards one of those direct actions, like reparations, protests, mutual aid, and divesting from exploitative businesses. Not to say we shouldn't call people in still, but we should be mindful of much energy is going towards people who have already stated they aren't changing their minds.
Yeah, for sure. I'm a member of a different minority group, but something that I think is true for anyone in any minority group is that we benefit 100% more from tangible improvements to the material conditions of our lives than we do from any amount of dunking that has been performed on the people who hate us. If I get harassed while I'm trying to buy groceries and can't because of some asshole, ruining that asshole's reputation and credibility doesn't change that I still don't have food on my table.
@@morguenmorguen6862 .."tangible improvements to the material conditions of our lives..." This really stuck out to me. I'll remember this!
This is what happrns if you refuse to read marx. Some kind of woke scold power tripping white people who never even thought about material conditions.
The most important thing to do as a white person is to exist, not to call out others. That's not your life mission
@@hits_different to exist? I'm not sure what you mean
Its crazy how you perfectly voiced opinions and thoughts that I’ve held but in much better language and Clarity than I could never provide.
Thank you for articulating this. I think this is one of those rare pieces that really can serve to elevate the quality discourse and communication online and IRL. Honestly, they should be showing this stuff in schools.
“The insight of a man certainly slows down his anger, And it is beauty on his part to overlook an offense” - proverbs 19:11
“Better to be patient than to be haughty in spirit. 9 Do not be quick to take offense, for the taking of offense lodges in the bosom of fools” - Ecclesiastes 7:8-9
I mean, when you have friends or family who are being deliberately starved to death by a genocidal government, politeness and etiquette can go piss off.
Anger is understandable and some ppl don’t deserve politeness and etiquette because they themselves don’t act like this towards other. But by still showing politeness and etiquette towards them despite the deep anger within us that they caused, we are being a good example of how they should be. We are staying true to our values. Also it’s easier to find common ground with etiquette and politeness, it’s easier to get what you want when you make the other party feel “their worth”.
@@MondscheinelfeNo movement of liberation has gone anywhere without strategic violence.
Peaceful protest is a form of propaganda to keep people disarmed and distracted. If it that method alone actually worked then our world already be better from the decades of work advocates have put into peaceful protests. Peaceful methods only work if those in power care enough to make them effective.
Yes peaceful methods should be step one, but after some time of the powers that be showing no signs on improving anything, uprisings are the only way to make change.
Even Martin Luther King understood and acknowledged the validity of riots before he passed, “Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking.”
@@Mondscheinelfethe issue with demanding politeness from victims is that the bullies have essentially expressed their desire to be treated as superior. However, dehumanization itself has not allowed the victim to be respected as a human being. Thus, it is not a bad thing to be angry and forgo the “respectability” framework that perpetrators want to use to frame victims as unreasonable
Exactly
And despite all that, they (mostly) truly remained polite imo.
Sometimes aggressors only respond to other aggressors
26:45 I think this more about the stereotype or bias against bi people, saying that they always should ‘pick a side’ or they ‘aren’t really gay’ etc.
edit: yep
Agreed, I think part of it is also on how it could be read as feeding into the stereotype/misconception that bi people pick and choose their partners based on gender and can simply decide to switch as is convenient to them.
they definitely "aren't really gay" at least like 90% of the time lmfao
@@snail_chan1119 explain some more?
@@snail_chan1119another stereotype
@@snail_chan1119Thanks for proving our point. Bi people are queer, just like everyone else.
Grow up soon 😂
You're one of the few RUclipsrs similar to my age that I can watch without feeling like I'm wasting my time.
Your content is very well thought out and produced, thanks for putting your thoughts out there.
I don’t think anyone should ever go to jail for saying or typing something offensive. Whether we like it or not, freedom of speech means freedom to offend and be offended. What happens if someone that thinks exactly the opposite of we do rises into power and everything we find normal becomes offensive tomorrow?
I definitely understand where people are coming from when they say words matter and can really hurt people … but this is a slippery slope I’m not willing to go down.
I would rather be offended than to have my free speech, infringed upon.
yeah I think the same way, stuff being offensive is just another way to control opinions
this is a great idea in theory until you start practicing it in the real world
some opinions, like nazi shit, are so intolerable and incompatible with a civil society, that it is straight up harmful to respect those takes
Please stop stop stop stop stop the Freezed Peaches nonsense, no one is saying you should go to jail if you get someone's pronouns wrong or something, and you are repeating arguments that are knowingly and intentionally used by extremists to cause harm
" 19:10 , gave her lashings" is crazy work when refering to a black woman being persecuted ,(thought id just find something to be offended abt to stay on theme lol, good video
Exactly what I was thinking 😭
That was kinda diabolical and at that exact moment too 😭😭
I loved this! Diving into the nuances of communication and language is always gets the gears turning in my head. Love the post-original-recording clarifications sprinkled through the video btw! They reflect how the learning process is never a finished work-there’s always more we can go over and flesh out ☺️❤️
i feel so honored to see this the second you post it
theres no objective rules really but youll also have to deal with the consequences, we all live in this world together.
@@sheeshnotniceI agree 100% with everything you said. It is very clear that people will have different responses to someone feeling offended based on what identity characteristics that person has. It also can vary based on the cultural norms where you live. Conservatives who live in a more liberal state are more likely to be dismissed when they feel offended about something, and liberals who live in a more conservative state are more likely to have their feelings dismissed. Texans aren't gonna resonate with the things that liberals find offensive, and Californians aren't gonna resonate with the things that conservatives find offensive (this ks obviously an oversimplified generalization, but my point still stands).
A useful mental exercise we all would do well to engage in is this: if you are trying to interpret if someone is being offensive or not, or if you're trying to determine if a person who feels offended is justified in their offense, ask yourself if your initial reaction would be different if the person was a different race, biological sex, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, level of wealth, etc. If our reaction would be different, then our initial reaction is probably wrong.
@@sheeshnotnice I think social media is largely a dumpster-fire because quite a lot of people are really quite bad at communicating without non-verbals. Maybe everyone, I don't know. But plain text statements are entirely at the mercy of the state-of-mind and mood of the reader. Emojis are actually super helpful in this regard, but even then not everyone interprets them the same.
Real leftists believe political rights should be expanded to the economic realm. If you believe a private company can fire you if 10% of the biggest wimps get offended then you're not a real leftist ie a shitlib.
All you can do is complain and hang out with other ppl.
i always try to be as respectful and progressive as possible in my language as much as I can, both online and offline. this just gave me some food for thought and created room for more knowledge to be consumed.
yet another massive thank you and a shout-out for continuing to make these great video essays. they've been the best part of my days...
I love content like these because no matter what, the comments are always full of arguments
NO there not what proof do you have
I think there’s a big difference between doing something others happen to find offensive for other reasons and doing something with the intent to offend. For instance I think there’s a difference between someone getting offended because the food they gave you made you sick and someone getting offended because you called them a derogatory name because the former could be done as a way to inform the other person that you can’t eat that type of food with the offense being an undesirable side effect while in the latter case offending the person would probably be intentional.
Also speaking of how the word choices we use can make a difference I think marginalized group language, such as “Female Marginalization,” “LGBTQ+ Marginalization,” “Black Marginalization,” etc might be better than privileged group language such as, “White Privilege,” “Male Privilege,” “Straight Privilege,” etc. One reason I say this is that I find that hearing about about the problems another faces tends to make me feel more empathetic than if someone tries to list off advantages I have as the latter comes off more as someone assuming they understand my circumstances better than I do. As an Autistic White Male I think privilege group language can come off as implying that White People, Men, People not in the LGBTQ+ community etc can’t be members of marginalized groups for other reasons more than marginalized group language meaning that the former might be more alienating to groups like Poor White People, Autistic White Men, Black Men, and White Women than the latter. I think privileged group language might also make groups like poor white people, black men, or white women more likely to become conservative than marginalized group language even after the initial political leaning of a poor white person, a black man, or a white woman are accounted for.
Your point about using marginalization language instead of privilege language makes a lot of sense. If we are so concerned about centering ourselves around white narratives and how that negatively affects marginalized people, it stands to reason that reversing our language to center on the people being marginalized will help us focus on what really matters: the people who are hurt.
Why are white people held to a higher standard well asians too but mostly white people why do white people as a group get the most hate but do the most for other groups and help develop other places that are undeveloped
White people are(maybe starting to not be as much anymore) the least racist group of people
And if you are white and your racist you will lose pretty much everything specially if you work in the media there's alot more consequences for white racists then for racists of other groups
Like alot of the sports you have black people openly saying racist things and not many see it as bad instead people usually do the opposite and see it as good maybe even celebrate their "bravery"
We have laws in place that give an advantage to black people or minorities but a disadvantage to white people and usually asians to but some how we have a system that systematically racist against black people
When those laws literally show the exact opposite
Anyone who grew up in a mixed school knows white people being racist is not the problem
in fact it doesn't make sense that there aren't more white racists
You can't say the same things other can without worrying about people calling you names and making you out to be evil
You can't speak on certain things because your white and if you do your words will be ignored or demonized
People can call you colonizer and somehow people dont see that as racist even tho I'm being call a colonizer because of the color of my skin(more evidence that you can be openly racist to white people because apparently..
you can't be racist to white people...lmao)
Since there are quotes and things like that put in place you know as a white person you are not the favored one but people call you privileged
You know as a white person you are less likely to be picked for a job because you are white
You are less likely to get support from both the average person and the government because you are white
White people actually get more time for the same crime
Like when someone that is white attacks someone of A different race it will be considered a hate crime most of the time
But someone of A different race attacks someone White most of the time it will not be considered a hate crime
And it looks like black people get more time because they are more likely to be repeat offenders not because of some bias
And if you say these are in place because of the past then why are Asians effected close to the same way white people are
Asian didnt have help or support in the past so why are they also negatively affected by affirmative action and quotas
How come these social and systemic disadvantages apply to both whites and asians
Because it's not about past racism or past injustice or past anything so what is it about
movements aren't about justice or equality or any of that and that's not hard to see just like most of the things I said aren't hard to see stop listening to these liars
I got to stop
and I know yall probably wont get it and some will just call me names like usual
But if you actually want to stand up for what is right
And if your actually brave and not acting by just following the next popular social justice movement
You would say something about this and that would be real bravery because you will be called racist and other names and you will be demonized but those would be demons trying to demonize you because you would know they are standing for something fake or are just filled with hate and you stand with and for something real and you would make a real change you would get those that feel and see the same things to also speak up and they will stand behind you for you helped them get up to stand
That's a pretty interesting take on this, I hadn't really thought of that at all. I think "X privilege" expressions does serve the purpose of defining what inequality and privilege is, because saying "white privilege" doesn't mean a person's life is good because they are white, it means that their life wasn't made harder by not being white, and that's a thing it's important to be aware of. However it does have the unfortunate consequence of being a bit hard to receive for the first time. It's not a very good way of rallying on your side someone who's hesitating between all the different sides of a debate. For those who already have preconceived notions about "wokism" for instance, hearing someone call them privileged will get them on the defensive instantly.
On the other hand, it does serve as a reinforcement to the idea that marginalized groups are tired of accommodating others while fighting for their equality. This language that comes off much more strongly is a way to demonstrate that tiredness, that lassitude, that refusal to manage other's feelings to get what you deserve.
Using privileged vs marginalized group language is kindaa similar to the example OP brought up about the teacher not sure whether to say "persons capable of pregnancy" or "women" in the class discussion about abortion. The problems you detect here are not about offending someone hurt by a particular issue, but rather related to offending someone NOT hurt by a particular issue while trying to convince them about the realities of that particular issue. It's the problem of how to "productively" persuade people not on your side, who make jumps in logic like we all do, to come closer. (Jump in logic: factually, ___ privilege doesn't mean the things you say could be implied, but people just inevitably feel that way sometimes when being presented with these topics.) We must mind the feelings of the person we are trying to convince in order not to trigger a defense mechanism that shuts them off from change.
I don't think you were saying to completely get rid of it, but totally abandoning privileged group language is:
1) like the other reply said, somewhat coddling and centering the feelings of those not hurt by the particular issue at hand instead of remedying the injustices faced by those hurt by the issue at hand. It would be kinda ridiculous to center those people's feelings ALL the time, even though it may be productive in some scenarios (one-on-one discussions with people not familiar with these kinds of discussions, or people who are really prone to jumps like that). Baby steps are necessary at certain points but we gotta move on at some point---hard to do that on the internet, though, obviously you can't direct it to people at a certain point or another.
2) less realistic. "Marginalized" can produce an image of general society floating in one "normal" bubble over here, while another group is pushed to the side. "Privileged" points out the reality that this is a hierarchical situation---and in ?some?all?idk? cases, a zero-sum situation. It's not "normal people and disadvantaged Group", it's "one Group is above another Group, even though these Groups are arbitrary". This is linked to my other reply.
TLDR: I think both word choices are necessary, but in different situations. Sometimes it's worthwhile to avoid the possibility of cognitive dissonance between "I have many harsh struggles" and "I have intrinsic privileges" being resolved in the wrong direction, but realities of a hierarchical society must be faced.
@@NoiseDay I wouldn't say privileged group language about centering White people. It's about orienting White people within this hierarchical society. Making sure they remember they are part of all this. One of my professors had an assignment where students discuss how race has impacted their life, and White students always struggle to answer the question every year, because they perceive themselves as lacking a race. The dominant group sees themselves as normal and not as its own distinct group, while the other groups are distinct groups, but "race" is not real scientifically---racial groups are defined in relation to each other. I think it's important for people to acknowledge the reality of their position within a hierarchical societal system; however, some people may need to be slowly introduced to this concept later in their journey of learning about a social issue.
This video could also be titled "why Neurotypicals do and say that"
Some of these social norms are just plain confusing and what's more if you were never taught the secret code to the language you're doomed to be blamed for their misunderstanding of you.
As an autistic adult with Tourettes too often these "norms" are Masks, they are lies we tell each other to be cordial... So basically everyone is lieing all the time and we're all supposed to just pick up on the etiquette and cues
Forget meeting people halfway -nope, in this date in time the individualism is too fierce.
Agreed. You can be straightforward without being offensive, I just don't understand how so many people seem to be unable to grasp that.
To be fair there’s not really a secret code some people just want to assume a lot of things. Neurotypicals are confused about other neurotypicals but just get around it by assuming other things too, it’s confusing 💀. It is especially so in the media than in real life
I agree that we would all profit from loosening up of social norms of politeness. It would be helpful in refocusing on the important ones, that honestly express care and respect for others like holding the door, saying please and thank you, etc.
However, we need to make small talk more genuine. Like, we could make sure to be open to an honest response when asking "how are you?". It's normal to not want to actually hear all about someone's day if you're making small talk, but other conversation starters are fun too, like "whatcha doing rn?" Or "so what's your fav color?". In the same line of thinking, you can answer a "how are you?" more genuinely without offering details, like "my god it's been a long day" or "real excited to go home lol", and move the conversation in a direction that doesn't involve one venting to the other. Small talk *can* be a nice whatever thing if we all relax a bit and stay open minded to the other's reactions.
yes, you get it!
I literally thought that how are you was an invitation to spill my guts like vent
i'm not a social butterfly by any means, so i'm often behind on social etiquette and what is considered acceptable and why. it also seems difficult for my few friends to talk about said topic while still maintaining social etiquette. thanks for this video. really well worded in helping guide people's thinking (like mine) without pushing any values or agendas onto us.
Yes you are absolutely allowed to speak freely (ofc not threats and etc) but it also means you are subject to people’s reactions, offense and their free speech as well.
You are one of my favorite youtubers, every single one of your videos has changed my point of view in some way. Never stop doing what you do.
i took a courses under james o young in my first and second years of philosophy (before i failed out) and it's so crazy to me that you're referencing him. i love your videos and your use of his work is super topical. great video.
Thank you for the amount of work you put in your videos 🙏🏽
I think its important for offensive standard to be tighter or (more importantly) looser in contexts. For example, if we changed the context of the students discussing the law to the judges themselves deciding the case. In that case the concern raised by the second student could result in the wording of their decision being changed to avoid setting an unintentional precedent. Sometimes difficult discussions need to happen. Setting a cultural standard of shutting down anything that causes offense will result in problems that could have been easily avoided otherwise.
I don't know what magical place you and some commenters seem to live under where 'anything that causes offence' gets shut down, or that there is this social movement to push for that outside of like, Twitter. From where I'm standing, in the vast majority of places, people not only are offensive, but take pride in being so with little to no resistance. In fact, any slight pushback gets met with ridicule and mockery.
@@photografo9240 australia?
@@ateachi2168any place that is not delusional
There isn't a single thing you can say, write, or do that is inherently offensive
Offense does not come from the words but from you processing them
THAT IS WHY SOME PEOPLE WILL CRY AND OTHERS WON'T CARE
@@mateuszkrytyk5711 calling them not delusional is insane,
I've seen similar countries like those described that take offense as pride and many people or marginalized groups face more harassment in those countries because many excuse it as the norm , wdym?
The example the professor gave is flawed because homosexual relationships aren’t comparable to beastiality since both parties can consent in the former but not the latter. You could keep the point about polyamory, but that’s more of a pro-polyamory argument than an anti-homosexuality argument 😂
At that point, beastiality would not be the offence, rap3 is.
You are judging appropriate relationships based on consent. People who equal bestiality with LGBTQ relationships almost always are judging appropriate relationships based on their Judea-Christian-Islamic beliefs that not only consider them the same sin but also count being SA as committing the same sin. Consent is irrelevant to their morality. All that matters is that the man and woman are religiously married.
@@AngryPug76i am confused because SA is not seen as the same sin as homosexuality. It isnt a sin at all
@@la-nyarichardson483 In the Abrahamic religions the sin is fornication, which is when a woman has sex with anyone other than her husband or when a man has sex with someone other than his wife or his female slave or his female prisoner of war. There are degrees of fornication depending on the specific religion and denomination (there are Jewish sects for example that don’t consider lesbian sex fornication because it can’t be sex if there isn’t a penis involved) but the single sin is specifically “fornication,” well and sometimes “lust” as well but that’s not applicable with rape.
Being raped outside of marriage is considered fornication. Gay sex is considered fornication. Masturbation is considered fornication.
Since each sin is considered equally bad by most followers of the Abrahamic religions beastiality=homosexuality=being raped outside of marriage =consenting unmarried different sex adults having intercourse.
That’s why fanatics like Christian Nationalists jump to things like child molestation and beastiality when people mention consensual gay relationships. To them in their faith it’s all the same sin.
I think you missed the point of the thought experiment.
27:34 "There are some people who care about signaling their moral superiority rather than actually combatting harmful, offensive content."
Nailed it 👏👏
This was an interesting discussion, and I think you played the balance of the two perspectives to this issue really well. Thank you for the great content (:
You have returned - especially at the time that I was studying those topics for my upcoming article omgggg
I always enjoy your discussions. They create thought, which is sometime uncomfortable, but more welcome for that. In the cases of the jailed facebooker and the politician, one thing you didn't talk about in regards to harm was they both minimized the value of someone's life. I think that is a line crossed that needs to be addressed. Being told that you, or anyone like you, doesn't deserve to be alive is, in my opinion, harm and should be treated as such, even if you assume that the person's followers aren't going to take that as a signal to endanger the life of the person, or person like them.
I learned quite a few things from your video, and I'm thankful for that. This is the first of your videos that I've seen and I was prepared to argue at the start of it but I'm glad I stayed in my seat as you gave a fair, comprehensive and nuanced treatment of this difficult topic. I understand not being able to arrive at firm prescriptions; we are at the beginning of the exploration and it's too early for anyone to claim they have all of the answers. But dialogue like this is how we eventually achieve that.
The bottom line with offensive speech is that it reduces the effectiveness of communication, we need people to be less offensive, and we need people to be offended less easily, you have to meet in the middle like you said, if we can’t say anything that might have the smallest possibility to be considered offensive, then we can no longer communicate because we can’t say anything. On the other hand, if we just say all offensive language is ok then people get offended more and we can no longer communicate. We need compromise
The problem nowadays is that people use the feeling of being “offended” in an attempt to make their subjective ideas universally accepted. Doing so makes us forget that objective facts should be considered when deciding if something is good or bad.
Think of it this way, liking avocados is subjective and not everyone will or can agree with that. No one should feel offended if someone disagrees with your opinion on avocados.
The avocado being a fruit is objective fact, so this should be universally accepted by all. People should absolutely feel obligated to prove this because it is the truth.
However, some people feel offended simply because others believe their opinion is objective truth. And so we have this endless cycle of people “offending” each other on the basis of trying to prove an opinion as fact.
"objective facts are the main goal when deciding if something is good or bad" You really need to look up an intro to ethics, this idea is a complete joke both descriptively and prescriptively and rhetorically. It's about as ridiculous as saying 'evolution is only a theory so they dont really know'.
@@blackomega34 Now that I have read my comment again, I worded it pretty bad lol. I would say that it should be heavily considered when debating if something is good or bad. Ethics is definitely a hard subject to debate.
I disagree big time with the qipao dress discussion. As an (admittedly very out of touch) ethnic Chinese, I get the bitterness of "why is my culture now a cool thing when I got bullied for it as a kid?" but acceptance has start from somewhere. Also I remember that qipao prom dress issue from when I saw it on a Philip DeFranco video, iirc she did her research on how to wear it properly.
I grew up on my mom's side of the family, (thank God for that as my father's side are the "we've never been on China but we're a 1000% Chinese" types) my grandpa was a Chinese immigrant who sought to assimilate and didn't teach his kids about Chinese culture much, so even if I'm 75% Chinese I do not speak a lick of it and would probably do much worse than qipao prom dress girl lol
Especially with the part where you basically said "they just wore it because they think it's pretty"... Again I'm admittedly very out of touch but I don't think there's any reason for foreigners to not wear a qipao. It's not a ceremonial dress or anything, it's just a dress from a certain country. If anything that line of thought makes the qipao seem more exotic than it actually is. I'm from the Philippines and if girls wanna wear a _baro't saya_ they're more than welcome to, tho it's used as formal wear so using it for anything else would look odd.
Also I'm very in favor of free speech, for the reason that I wanna use words that nowadays has to be censored or else I get shadowbanned. I like watching videos about true crime and stuff and not being able to use certain words is really annoying. I'm not American so I'd rather not say anything about offensiveness or whatever coz I see it as an American issue, but when your issues affect my non-American self I feel like I have to speak up. A few years back a boyband called SB19 made a tweet that's now notorious to net-savvy locals, "Hello Negros!" and they got flak from Americans. Why did they make that tweet anyway? They greeted a _Province_ called Negros Occidental, known locally as Negros. (There's also another province called Negros Oriental, they're halves of a whole called Negros island) Backstory is that when Spanish ships reached the island they found a tribe there called Aeta and named it after them. The Aeta are an aboriginal tribe with African-like features, black skin and kinky/curly hair. But keep in mind they're not actually Africans... I have to say this as I've seen Black Americans make videos about them calling them "black people in Asia?!" and stuff.
Holy crap I got sidetracked. Anyway, idk where I'm going with my comment so I'll just leave my halfbaked thoughts about this video here.
Dang, SB19 was just greeting the people of a certain area (awfully named area, especially when you factor in the history of why it was even named that). Glad it's been cleared up.
Lmfao. people who operate like this are so selfish and dividing, and can't they just see it? "my culture" 💀💀
Lol I can't believe I read all of it 😅Your comment perfectly encapsulates the web as a whole LMAO. 😭Wok white/black Americans being whiny and controlling about anything that's even slightly related to the word "black."
@mewmew6158 Negro simply means black in Español. Who are you to say it's badly named?
How come I can't say the word "Negro?"
There was a time when offense was generally a personal matter. Someone made a statement in someone else’s presence to which that person took offense. Then if it was determined that the statement honestly was misconstrued, then no blood no foul. Now we’ve come to a point where a bystander not even part of the aforementioned conversation will take offense and then run with it; it no longer matters how the statement was actually meant. Being offended ( as opposed to offense ) can not always be justified, because if a person is going out of their way to being offended, then they will of course be offended.
This is the first video essay I’ve seen in a while that I watched at full length in normal speed because your video is so well-structured and sensible! Thank you for truly taking a deep dive and making a thoughtful argument
12:20 I hate Lying to answer "how are you" I think there are Socially acceptable negative responses. My favorites are "Iv'e been better" "I have good days and bad days" I think it works because the stranger can ask more or simpler move on from with the conversation. I get that Baristas and flight attendants are paid to look happy, but I use this phrase at work when I am doing landscaping or construction. I think its good to keep an honest mindset if you actually want to connect with new people.
sadly people seem to care more about signalling to others that they're "on the same side" than actually making society better and having any chance of convincing the people on the other side they're wrong, I wish people thought about these things less like a war and more like a collaborative effort to root out false preconceptions and solve the problems affecting us
the government doesn’t want that tho. divide and conquer is a strategy as old as time, and it always works
Communication is hard. By interacting with people you always risk offending someone. But the intention of what someone is doing is more important than avoiding that risk. Actions speak louder than word. Take that risk, justify yourself afterwards, make your intentions clear and you are good to go.
I think the "how are you doing" that does not actually try to ask the question is quite harmful. First of all it makes it a lot harder to actually tell each other how we are doing. On top of that, people who have difficulty reading social or cultural ques are often doing worse and will get in the awkward situation where they give an actual answer to the question and the other person doesn't want to hear it more often.
Its just always seemed like something that does more harm than good and seems to be disrespectful to people who just aren't doing well. Because if you're doing between fine and great, you're allowed to be honest and usually even elaborate on it. While if you're not doing so good, you're expected to basically lie and hide your feelings.
Ill preface this with: I'm neurodivergent myself.
The issue is that this is literally how the neurotypical human brain is wired to work. People use abstract symbols to represent concepts, and those symbolic practices change with time.
Rings for weddings, black for funerals, inquires about general wellbeing for greetings. These are not universalities, but simply the current symbols that communicate important abstract ideas to one another.
A good example is the word "howdy." It is just a greeting. It translates directly to "hello". But looking into the word developed you will notice that it is yet another example of how human minds work to naturally create manners.
"Howdy"
"Howdy do"
"Howd'ya do"
"How d'ya do?"
"How do ya do?"
"How do you do?"
It's like a kurt bow to demonstrate that you respect and acknowledge the other person's existence. Humans always have and always will do this. Language is amorphous, and constantly shifting and evolving into new forms. We come up with a complex term for something, it gets simplified to make communication easier, it then gets simplified so much it doesn't have a real meaning anymore, then a new complex term is made to redescribe the original phenomenon.
To address your point more directly:
It doesn't have to make communicating our emotional state harder. All you need to do is say "can I talk with you about how I'm feeling right now?" And they will tell you whether or not they are in the headspace to listen and/or help.
While the greeting "how are you" doesn't mean exactly what it says in the tin, it is an impossibility to fix it permanently by changing the phrasing, unfortunately. Omce this simplifies to something like, say, "Harya", a new complex phrase will spring up to mend the vagueness. I struggle with social queues, but it really isn't fair to expect 70% of humanity's brain chemistry to change because mine is different
Instead of changing how politeness works, because we can't, it is far better to make it within our social manners to be able to inquire intent without judgement.
Depending on the formality of the context (so basically how close you are with the person), you don't even have to "lie". What I have found to work when I'm not feeling great is "I've been better". Of they want to know more, they'll ask, of they don't then the conversation hasn't been halted by a sudden oversharing of emotional information.
@@necroseusI'm not trying to advocate for prescriptive language usage, but rather, creating more acceptance for people who react literally to such a question and in doing so, making people more aware of the effects their word choices have.
Though i could've communicated that quite a bit more clearly.
If there are 70% of people who's brain chemistry makes them tend towards the current social norms in this way. It wouldn't hurt them to be aware and make reciprocal effort towards the other 30% of people on how to communicate in a friendly and comfortable way. Which the other side of this equation (which from the sound of it we both fall into) already puts a lot of time and effort into. I think your point about inquiring about intent without judgement fits in perfectly.
Still, a social majority should be open to be accommodating and making an effort than they feel a social minority is. As the null hypothesis in interactions often boil down to "it takes no effort to be part of the norm".
@@Unsure_Auklet Yeah, I concur.
The reason humans are wired to do this is to make communication as streamlined as possible. It frees up cognitive power for focusing on other things.
Unfortunately, that is counter to what is productive for neurodivergent people, as putting constant cognitive effort in to make sure we get what they mean is against their nature. It's possibly the reason we are often perceived as annoying.
I think that being able to ask about meaning allows us to circumvent this issue, as they will only need to change tact *when* we don't get something, as opposed to always communicating unnaturally. We just need to instill a background expectation of, and comfort with, the questioning into our cultural norms so that the questioning is engaged with, not looked down upon.
Do you need to talk to someone?
@@necroseus This literally has nothing to do with brain chemistry, and ALL people utilize symbols in this manner, not just neurotypicals. The only difference between non NTs and NTs in this regard is that NTs will typically adopt these norms without question out of perceived social pressure and and fear of rejection (so they frequently lack any real justification/reasoning for the act), whereas non NTs don't typically sense this pressure and therefore need the actual explanation as to why these things are utilized and how. Actually, many autistic people get quite hung up on symbolism and tradition once they learn their purposes.
I also think there's absolutely no issue with imposing your sense of how things ought to be on others in this way. If someone asks me how I am, I will tell them, because that is the world I would prefer. Now, they will either never ask me again, or they may now feel comfortable opening up. Either way, I have benefitted from not arbitrarily conforming to a silly norm I disagree with
Exactly, some people just want to show how morally "superior" they feel they are, without any regard for the actual facts.
Simply put: the problem is complicated due to the fact that everyone will hold a different standard of what is offensive. This is because there is no clear line between emotional harm and being offended. I find, the easiest way to avoid being offensive is to avoid terminology that is commonly deemed as offensive, or saying things that might, in general, offend people UNLESS you have the time and energy to explain yourself and hear the other person's views
I love this channel so much. The ability to entertain two opinions is so rare nowadays, its refreshing to see people in my age group being able to do so!
I avoid people who get offended easily because they are usually LOOKING to get offended and stay in that confrontational state.
They are narcissists trying to control you. And collectivists like this channel want to advocate for a totalitarian government that controls every aspect of our lives because "collectivist victimhood."
Dont call Taiwan or Tibet a sovereign nation because that offends the chinese government
@@anitabonghit2758 You're spot on! They seek to control.
Whether they get offended easily is a matter of perspective though, maybe with other people nothing they (whoever they is) say offends. You can't decide someone's intention is just 'looking to get offended', that's such a tired aphorism. How could you possibly know their intention without reading their mind?
@@zzztefanos Pretty easy: look out for the blue hair, nose ring and a bmi over 25. Pretty good clues.
@@zzztefanos This comment is a bit silly, no? Proving intent is something we do pretty frequently, like in a court case, for example. You don't need to read minds; you can see a demeanor, tone, and character of a person and infer to a high degree. The more info you gather, the more likely you are to be correct at guessing their intentions
About the aspect of harm to someones goals or whatever from offensive speech.
Consider the fact that peoples goals are different and sometimes oppositional to eachother, so how would you solve that in an ideology of punishment for offensive and harmful language?
The way I see it its about which side manages to take power first to then punish and stamp out opposition.
Also frankly it is not at all important to create a safe space. Thats like saying its important to allow weakness. No its not.
You have no right to not be offended. Thats not a thing and if you think it is youre a naive child.
Okay, so i've like never commented this before, idek if you'll see it, but you are GORGEOUS, like absolutely stunning 😭
I really like the idea that through love and genuine interest, one can overcome the offense and strengthen the relationship between other people. It doesn't matter if you offend someone accidentally or can't always show the upmost respect. As Kanye once said "What is the most stressful part of your life when being a kid? Test days. So taking life as a test by always trying to do the correct and appropriate thing just leaves you stressed like a kid in a test." and "My mother used to tell me, there is no woulds, could, ifs, it just is, and we just are, so it is all love."
My favorite example of this is the black musician Daryl Davis who through genuine communication and relationshio building, influenced over 200 KKK members to leave the group and abanden their robes. Thats powerful, thats love.
personally I've always offered grace to everyone including myself. If I don't use the right term and someone wants to call me out I honestly don't have a problem with it. and if someone wants to be offensive towards me or others I use my best judgement but mostly ill just decide I don't like them and avoid them. voices online carry such little wight in my opinion, everyone in the comment sections may as well be chat bots. and politicians are often just pandering to their constituents.
You may want to add a little addendum at 1:10 when you say "Socrates said humans are defined as "featherles bipeds"" the text itself you're citing says it was actually Plato. I believe It's a harmless mistake, but still worth correcting.
This was a really fucking good video; lots of fantastic concepts to chew on and some really thoughtful reflection.
The other night I went to a drag show at my university (which was amazing) and the different campus orgs that supported the show introduced themselves. One of them was the only queer affirming ministry on campus. The person who spoke (who was amazing) went into depth acknowledging and voicing sadness at the harm others have caused to queer people in the name of the Christian faith. And in the moment, I (as a non-Christian queer person) thought, “why should he feel the need to do that? He shouldn’t have to speak to the harm that other Christians have done.” But this video helped me see why him speaking up about that was so important. A lot of people in the audience had been directly harmed by Christians in the name of the Christian faith, and he needed to explicitly acknowledge that to have any credibility in providing support.
So yeah…thanks for another great video!
You have never had an original thought in your entire life
@@society_crumbles Care to explain your thought process behind this comment, williamwilson2130?
@DianaSilva.5 seems like willy or whatever hasn't had an original thought themself, because i see that line used a lot to be generally inflammatory.
honestly, i haven't watched a video this well spoken in a long time, and although you used a lot of big words, they were used in a very respectful and also easy to understand approach. I wish I found this video earlier. you earn yourself a new subscriber. :)
In regards to four’s tweet and the ensuing discourse, it’s important to note that regardless of what four intended, or what he thinks it means, that tweet is, as you adressed, inviting biphobia. And bi people are a marginalized group who society sees as abnormal. It is possible to be bigoted against someone and not realize it, and that’s what that was. Yes, four was discussing their insecurities and experiences. No, that does not exempt him from critique. No, that does not mean that he did not word it in a biphobic way.
Easy way to end the debate
If it's not consensual it's wrong
ty omg i was thinking this the entire time
But can a turtle that's 100 years old consent?
I don't consent gay parades.
@@dafindack7166 and women don't consent to being harassed, assaulted and raped by straight men on a daily basis, yet here we are.
thanks for your input, but no thanks.@@dafindack7166
SHES BACK!!!
That part when you describe social norms around dressing for funerals or short social interactions should be seen by people who don't understand what small talk does/how small talk functions.
Good video.
this is the first video of urs that ive clicked on and wow... you are one of the best video essayists ive ever had the pleasure of listening to. specifically pertaining to this video, the way you are able to use evidence is perfect and I thank you for your contributions to the commentary space.
The problem with considering sociolinguistic qualities as defining offense is that cultural perception is not universal. Depending on someone's personal background or where they may have grown up, they may view what would be seen by some as offensive, in a completely different light. Thus, I do not believe that we can truly state what should, and shouldn't be called out, though we can choose to act in certain ways depending on who we're with, a point that was brought up in the video. As such, using traditional Chinese clothing as an example, I believe that while it wouldn't be offensive for a white woman to wear a cheongsam, she should at least consider refraining from sharing herself wearing it on the internet, out of respect for the people to whom the action would be seen as cultural appropriation as per the garment's sociolinguistic context. Notice how I said 'consider', because ultimately it is up to the individual to make the decision to abide, or not to abide, by any societal standards; the ensuing consequences from one's actions are decided the moment they choose to say or do anything.
Finding out you uploaded was the best news of my day☝️😊
YALL GET UP OLISUNVIA JUST POSTEDDD 🤩
no but fr ive missed you
same here
Glazin
The response to the first scenario is simple. Beastiality is rape since animals cannot consent, and animal cruelty is illegal, therefore beastiality should also be illegal. However, I believe it is hard to prove that forbidding men and women from marrying multiple people is the right thing to do without using morals and subjective opinions. Therefore, polygamy should probably be legal, even though I personally don't think it's good, but not beastiality.
Animals also don’t consent to being eaten.
@@harsh3948 and didn't consent to be domesticated in the first place
You genuinely helped me understand that and how social norms and etiquette with no intrinsic value can still be important.
This video popped up on my youtube and since then I’ve been listening to you daily at work. As an overthinker I let my brain think of things that help me learn or bring positivity to me. Listening to you has been very helpful, educational, and practically massages my brain lol. I love your content and hope to see you make many more videos!
I think the problem you failed to mention with the last tweet is just that it presents the scenario as if it applies to all bisexuals. It’s “bi guys” as a whole they are talking about, not one or a certain group of them. If someone says something as if it applies to an entire race, for example, then it seems much more clear to people that it can be problematic and harmful. Some people, as shown in some of the tweets in the video, just ignore that for groups they see as benefitting from the system they are personally oppressed under in any way. The comment was just as biphobic as any other sort of race stereotype is racist (excluding certain escalations of course, we are talking the assumptions about favorite foods, athleticism, etc. that in themselves are not going to legitimately put people in much harm).
I think the tweet was not necessarily biphobic itself, but was supposed to be a confession of the poster's own struggle with biphobia. However, because the poster did not make clear that this was their own emotional baggage and not meant to accurately describe bi people it was inevitable that people read it as biphobic (and either promoted their own biphobia or denounced the tweet as biphobic).
Of course this was an interpretation I had after rewatching that part of the video many times because I could not figure out what the poster was trying to convey based on everything they were tweeting until after the first few watch throughs.
@@thebugscome Exactly. I, a trans femme, have personally dated bi men who I suspected would rather be with a cis woman in the long run in order to achieve a traditional standard of "normalcy" - which turned out to be true. I've also dated bi men who truly didn't care either way.
It is definitely a valid concern to point out how some bi people may not desire a life-long relationship with someone perceived as being the opposite gender and cis (as well as a lot of straight people who date trans people, who would probably rather not date them long-term - a concern which I feel more valid to voice as a it pretains to a privileged group) - but this of course shouldn't be used as a form of generalization. It's a problem which exists, but doesn't speak for the entirity of the social group it's about - just like there's, for example, a problem about risky s*xual encounters among gay men (as someone who's been and still is often perceived to be a part of that demographic) which obviously doesn't speak for all of them.
The use of language is rarely well thought out when it comes to things like tweets. While the op clearly may not have meant to generalize bi men as having not worked on their internalized heteronormativity, it certainly could be and was read that way by biphobes. It kind of sucks that changing a few words can totally alter the way your message is recieved.
@@mewmew6158that’s how i understood it too. but to be honest, so much of what’s considered offensive is perception itself. ppl are saying it’s make a safe space for biphobic attitudes in the replies, which is true, but if op himself is fighting against those comments, couldn’t we say that any tweet that actual bigots reply to with bigotry is also bigoted because the bigots interpreted that tweet as such? it feels like it’s unfair to put the bigotry of replies on the responsibility of the op.
I just want to put out there that I have been student 2, in the 3-students-scenario.
I strongly believed what I said and there was no student 3. Student 1, who actually was gay, was super respectful and patient with me, and that forced me to do the same. After the debate we shook hands, agreed to disagree, even though I really debated hard.
This is more than 10 years ago. I still think of that moment. My opinions are a bit more mellow now.
I believe that was a very important moment for me in my journey to learn that gay folks are normal people too. Sounds silly to say that, but I really had to _learn_ that.
Conversations like this are important, and disrupting it by being student 3 is only negative.
It seems we confuse provocative with offensive and our reaction that confusion is more and more extreme.
This is why I quantify on a scale of how does this impact two things; Quality of life and longevity (to avoid happiness pump and orgasm button problems. Both are accounted for).
If you could definitively prove with all scientific rigor that loving dogs is actually mentally and physically fine to both parties, then it wouldn't be a problem (But peoples instinct reading this is to baulk, which is the point.). The reason we have moral commonalities is because most of us actually work on this "does it harm" ideology, in which case this can be further brought down into the two components of quality of life or QOL and longevity. Does an action, inaction or absence of action cause harm to either part of the equation? If so, does one outweigh the other? By how much? And is the QOL and longevity measurement hampered by the few or the many?
Surgery is a fantastic example of this equation at work. Intentional harm or rather damage for specific gain. You trade off a little bit of either in order to maximize the other. Ideally you want temporary discomfort and quality down for increased quality and longevity later, but it's known that this isn't always the case and it's assessed via scientific study and as many examples as possible to tell if the risk of both or one going down is worth the increase it can give or how likely it is to give it.
Also, equating polygamy and bestiality, in which the former is consensual between agreeing parties vs a party and another party that we just plain don't know how it's affecting them and therefore can't consent are false equivalencies. But I wouldn't assume that a person bringing those up intends to mean it as such, just that they are saying that moral standards is the barometer we use in a lot of cases like this, both things that can be both considered harmful and therefore not moral, but also things that aren't harmful and are still considered not moral.
Love the video! It’s all about moderation and meeting each other halfway.
One should not purposely set out to offending people, but every remark that can be observed to be offending should not by default be assumed to be intended that way.
I think that one should be able to say what they want without fear of being punished by a governing body. However, if somebody says something 'out of pocket' as they say it should be up to the people around them to shun them. Thats just how it works
Why are whte people held to a higher standard well as ians too but mostly whte people why do whte people as a group get the most hate but do the most for other groups and help develop other places that are undeveloped
Whte people are(maybe starting to not be as much anymore) the least racist group of people
And if you are whte and your racist you will lose pretty much everything specially if you work in the media there's alot more consequences for whte racists then for racists of other groups
Like alot of the sports you have blck people openly saying racist things and not many see it as bad instead people usually do the opposite and see it as good maybe even celebrate their "bravery"
We have laws in place that give an advantage to blck people or minorities but a disadvantage to whte people and usually as ians to but some how we have a system that systematically racist against blck people
When those laws literally show the exact opposite
Anyone who grew up in a mixed school knows whte people being racist is not the problem
in fact it doesn't make sense that there aren't more whte racists
You can't say the same things others can without worrying about people calling you names and making you out to be evil
You can't speak on certain things because your whte and if you do your words will be ignored or demonized
People can call you colonizer and somehow people dont see that as racist even tho I'm being call a colonizer because of the color of my skin(more evidence that you can be openly racist to whte people because apparently..
you can't be racist to whte people...lmao)
Since there are quotes and things like that put in place you know as a whte person you are not the favored one but people call you privileged
You know as a whte person you are less likely to be picked for a job because you are whte
You are less likely to get support from both the average person and the government because you are whte
Whte people actually get more time for the same crime
Like when someone that is white attacks someone of A different race it will be considered a hate crime most of the time
But someone of A different race attacks someone Whte most of the time it will not be considered a hate crime
And it looks like blck people get more time because they are more likely to be repeat offenders not because of some bias
And if you say these are in place because of the past then why are As ians effected close to the same way whte people are
As ians didnt have help or support in the past so why are they also negatively affected by affirmative action and quotas
How come these social and systemic disadvantages apply to both whtes and as ians
Because it's not about past racism or past injustice or past anything so what is it about
These movements aren't about justice or equality or any of that and that's not hard to see just like most of the things I said aren't hard to see stop listening to these liars
I got to stop
and I know yall probably wont get it and some will just call me names like usual
But if you actually want to stand up for what is right
And if your actually brave and not acting by just following the next popular social justice movement
You would say something about this and that would be real bravery because you will be called racist and other names and you will be demonized but those would be demons trying to demonize you because you would know they are standing for something fake or are just filled with hate and you stand with and for something real and you would make a real change you would get those that feel and see the same things to also speak up and they will stand behind you for you helped them get up to stand
There's something i love about this channel, and I know it's gonna be true with this video too even though i haven't watch a second of it too. You always manage to be pertinent, your videos (almost) never contain value judgment, just pure analysis. Of course, 0 biais doesn't exist, but i really appreciate the effort in letting the viewers drawing their own conclusions. And i'm sure i probably won't agree with everything that you say, my analyis will differ from yours and that's okay, but the facts stated in the video will be unquestionnable and we can all think from the same base.
I have, like everybody, strong opinions about some of the topic that you present. I don't know if that comes from my scientic background but i always try to question my beliefs, and your videos are part of the few who can make me feel like i don't need to put too much energy in being careful about biaises / ideology. Thank you for that.
Structure & production quality of this video is fire, our girly is a certified influencer 👏🏾
your videos are like reading Plato, its so elegantly put together, and well thought out. Thank you!!
As for comparing homosexuality to beastiality + having 100 wives. I think most of the time, people objecting to comparisons seem to believe one is equating the two, as if one is saying the things being compared are on same level. One can compare a pencil to a flag pole and find out one is much shorter than the other, while both sharing properties of usually being much longer than they are wide.
Some people just get confused about how far similarities apply, and imagine it is implied one intends to equate things cross the board, so that they can protest and show that they are more moral than you.