“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” ― James Baldwin
@@ricktmusicus4852 It's a weaponization of the language of activism. Setting up a framework where, if you disagree with the OP then you're a fascist. So get in line and don't even think about having a different opinion.
To describe democrats as left wing is beyond me. In most countries of Europe the democrats are considered right wing. The left-right wing theory is simplified alright, and it is true that we have a tendency to assign labels to everything and also indulge in tribalism in every aspect of life. But the political truth for me is not in individual policies that we are free to choose what we want without labeling left or right. This is another oversimplification. There are economic theories/philosophies behind some movements that try to explain how the world must work and why. In addition, lets not forget that there are interests that play their significant role in every political decision. Politicians - Media - Justice System - Businesses etc. At the end of the day, for me, everything has to do with interests. When you see a policy just sit down and think who's interests this policy satisfies. Do some research about the matter if possible. So, if a simplification is needed, the only answer is interests.
If anybody is interested about a view (that is not agreeing with the claims here) a french guy thats studies the subject well since long time, out of a strictly US centered point of view.. He made 4 videos about this subject, the name is "gauche droite", from the Tzitzimitl channel...
Don't hire talk talk people to solve issues... hire think think people. Bernie was a think think person.. Then he eventually fell into politics because he was sorta forced into it. DJTurd is a talk talk person. Ofc he will appeal to the crowds that dont think. That's the only people he can reach. Then money reaches some more people then threats and coercion reached a lot more people.. but what caused the dissension is the apps (spam media) and ads (spammed to those susceptible to be influenced by them... in the USA, there's a lot more of those than you may believe). Apps in the USA were among the notorious w a_ r _far e/ tools used by the Ceeceepee that's done this type of psychological attacks for almost a century, now. It started from sending letters which weren't authentic by a general coerced into lying / signing or they just forged his signature while he was away. Then an order came and they took over villages/cities and removed the leaders from there. I don't believe governments should exist anymore... politics has always been (in our parent's lifetime) almost completely obsolete. Policies are made to benefit folks that have learned to exploit others. It was only recently that actually good for goodness' sake Worked. What changed since? What I've studied for decades. I was born in the era of communications and we're at the beginning of the era of technologies. Idc about the garbage title other people pull to rationalize something they aren't grasping. The overview is that of understanding not power. If you see what causes change and know how to bring about solid foundations for it (not lies to cover up more lies that are then covered up by books and history from liars etc)... It's not hard to build something wonderful. Well.. give or take a few decades of understanding these parameters. I believe "The market exit" has begun to see these. This was my first video from him... I hope he keeps trying to dissuade people from considering labels. These labels are useless if you can't understand that you shouldn't use them. If you understand a label, you should bring it back down to what it means when responding. You might shut down all nefarious attempts to manipulate folks around you. Feminism? = once was about equality Socialism? = wish to build a society for people by people, but failed to establish rules to make it work. Capitalism? = exploitation to the limit of the rule of law... and sometimes (often) beyond it. It's a catastrophy waiting to happen and it's just blown in the USA's face for the last time. What follows is ugly. Is there a better system? Better systems require less rules. It requires people that see the parameters to come up with better suggestions. Here's the introduction: we vote for people that are corruptible. Let's vote for ideas instead... then hire people for these specific ideas. Only have interested people (in thinking about which ideas are best) vote for these ideas and explain why they believe they are good ideas. Non intellectual folks can go back to trying to build houses with their hands who gives a crap. Think think people are forced to hear pseudo-intellectual folks spew and spin garbage at them. It's so nonsensical to have to explain that theocracy has always failed (and why is hard when you have a child deflecting and attacking rather than addressing the concerns people have of their position... slavery bad? bla bla bla (yes) bla bla. - No dude, Please go sit in the corner and listen/learn/shush.
His criticism of them is from a leftist perspective. He views them both as right-wing parties. The democrats are not really representative of leftists views in any meaningful way.
There is no such thing as left or right in democracies controlled by the oligarchy. When you look closely at what they offer the public, they are one and the same. Democracy cannot exist in a capitalist society, that’s an oxymoron. Politics and religion are the same in that they both worship money. But use hearts and minds as a ploy to create an illusion.
@Schmopit And Chomsky, with all due respect, is not a representative of the left... (at least of the real left, not the concept that Americans have of it); I would like to remind you that in the 70s he was a denier of the Kmer Rouge (he never apologized btw...) not to mention his political positions he had in the last 3 years on the Ukraine issue... instead of speaking to nonsense about geopolitics, which he clearly doesn't understand, perhaps he should clarify his interactions with Epstein...
@Schmopit With all due respect, I would not take him as a "representative of the left"... (at least of the real left, not of the concept of the left that Americans have); I would like to remind you that in the 70's, he was a denier of the Kmer Rouge (he never apologized btw...) not to mention his political positions he had in the last 3 years on the Ukraine issue... instead of talking nonsense about geopolitics, which he clearly doesn't understand, perhaps he should clarify why he met and frequented a certain Epstein...
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
We got some great, insightful comments. But where is the system change movement platforms? Where is the resistance to the status quo capitalist system? Do you know any? Are you involved in any? At least be educated about options, like seeing the Zeitgeist films and reading books or articles by ecological economists like Jason Hickel or Timothee Parrique, for example.
The left/right divide wasn't just conjured out of thin air, it's more of an observation than anything else. To say that someone is "left-wing", is saying that they hold a certain set of values. I call myself a leftist because I by and large share values with other people on the left. Is it really that surprising that people who hold the same values would also share opinions on different issues? Phrases like "it's not about left or right, it's about up and down" are redundant and naive. People have different ideas of what is "up" and what is "down". Leftists and right-wingers are both unhappy about a lot of the same stuff. We're all living on the same planet, and are affected by many of the same issues. However, the division becomes clear when it comes to discussing the causes of said issues, and by extension, the required solutions.
No, you have it backwards. It's not an observation, and it was conjured out of thin air. Your opinions are clustered together because being left wing gives you a sense of identity which pressures you to hold "left wing" opinions on other things. The political spectrum plays a huge part in deciding your policy positions. It's not some completely passive descriptive tool. People's values might be affected by what they're told. If people are aware of the left right spectrum, that likely affects their values.
@@jacoboc2244The idea that all our problems are caused by some secret society is not new. It's an exciting and simple alternative to the reality, which is boring and complex. It's counterproductive to speculate about the existence of a shadow government or whatever, because it just draws attention away from the real leaders who are committing crimes right out in the open. I'm a big believer in Occam's razor. I also believe that it is important to be open-minded, but not so much that your brain falls out. That's pretty much all I have to say about that, I'm not interested in hearing about your conspiracy theories.
@@ElGoose-ti4qm So what's your solution? Do away with trying to categorise political beliefs entirely? Or do you have suggestion for a model that you think would work better? I did not claim that it was a "completely passive descriptive tool". I do not deny the influence of tribalism in politics, but that does not mean that there isn't utility in labelling and categorising.
Fully agree. I held "leftist" values long before I knew what the left was. I spent most of my life feeling like a political outsider, because here in America we have no major left-wing party. Discovering other leftists online is what finally gave me the sense community that I'm not alone.
The problem is we like to believe we are rational beings and not emotive ones. "Facts don't care about your feelings" is a refrain that's become popular, but the opposite corollary is more likely: that our feelings don't really care about facts. Facts will never overwhelm us. Feelings will. Because emotions are a primal part of us.
Most "facts don't care about your feelings" tends to just be a love of the aesthetic of cold hard facts, and denial that our feelings heavily influence us.
The label "fact" is rather useless. There's data and theories. Labeling something as a fact is just an expression of one's emotional attachment to some data set. Ultimately, it's our feelings that prioritize information as useful to us or not.
Indeed, I do believe we are much better today, but whenever I see never ending wars, killings and violence, tribalism and segregation (even among people claiming to be lifting open and safe spaces) is literally killing us. Things constantly remind me we are still animals, and we must be better than this.
The thing is, feelings are facts. They're just facts about you and your own mental state, as opposed to facts about the external world. Saying things like "facts don't care about your feelings" is just another way to say "you don't matter," which is an entirely emotional sentiment devoid of rational thought.
It reminds me of Tiktok video about an American guy who goes around asking other Americans on their opinion of Donald Trump's actions, however when he describes the action, he starts by saying Joe Biden did this and what are your thoughts on it. He waits for them to give their answer and then says that he made a mistake and it was actually Trump who did it and the person's opinion completely changes. They attack Biden over the actions but defend Trump. An interesting type of thinking.
Yes absolutely, and it works in both ways. Jason Brennan has done some interesting research on this, basically shining light on the fact that most people have an opinion because their party has that opinion. Intuition come first, rational thinking comes after.
@@kristafluit3042 It's definitely a form of group think, total black or white. Biden can do good things, do bad things & the same applies to Trump. But for the "group thinkers", everything Biden does is bad & the reverse applies to Trump. It's interesting & scary.
@@kristafluit3042 You mean emotion comes first, then rational thinking, the Magas are in a constant state of emotions; fear and angry injustice because of Fox News, there are left leaning news channels that do the same, it's all such clickbait now.
Why do we keep referring to American Democrats as left wing? If you make a somewhat theoretical essay about politics I would hope you don't believe Obama or Truman to be left wing. No hate btw the video makes some great points but how can we talk about left-right dynamics if we keep putting centre right politicians on the left of our spectrum?
Anarchists are historically left and they hate the idea of taxation. I get that democrats are right wing. Neo liberals to be exact. They are the party of reaganites and thatcherites. All while claiming to be for the working class. These parties are about survival at all costs. Not representation whatsoever.
Because on the national level they are the "left wing". Comparing left and right between countries/times doesn't make much sense because the situation they are facing are so different. It's one of the reasons the model is so flawed
Calling obama left wing is a extremely american centric pov. This is just one example so i dont know your broader view but the democratic party is not left wing and has almost nothing in common with modern leftist perspectives
Exactly! To add, calling the centrists left is essentially a capitalist anti-social propaganda. Both neocon and neolib tell this story, to obscure attention to what real progressives would support. This issue is cartoonishly obvious in american politics because of the two-party rule. Dems don't really mind handing power to the right, because the capital will still be protected and they expect to gain power back on the bounce sooner or later. If they lost power to real left, they'd never get it back. I'm not talking about a dictatorship, only that people would wake up. Side note. What are dems progressive about really? Marginal issues mostly, that serve the _appearance_ of 'change'. They now most loudly fight for abortio, a fake problem caused by cons just to keep libs busy. They both support american exceptionalism, evil military internationally and social oppression domestically. Dems didn't lose the '24 elections - they just didn't win. They are still the second biggest party. They are still part of the rule. It's very american to think dems lost because they didn't win. Their job essentially is to block the needle from going left for real
A point that by itself completely invalidates the video. Left vs right means egalitarian vs authoritarian, everything else follows from there. It doesnt mean change vs no change and of course people can hold both left and right wing positions, if they are stupid and have no priciples.
he's talking about the "communist" talk you guys love in the US. There is no left in a 2-party system. You'll never have politics for the working class because all you vote for are super rich, that are not interested in making anyone else's life different
@@MrMoorfroschthe video: "the essentialist theory seems wrong and here's why as well as a better alternative explanation" this guy: "it's easy just look at this one essential thing that explains everything" bruh
I'm from Ireland, before Donald Trump's explosion onto the scene we basically never talked in terms of left vs right. I feel like this has really taken off in the past few years. While I don't necessarily believe it's calculated, it still serves to muddy the waters. Instead of looking up or forward, it directs our attention laterally. It keeps us fighting amongst ourselves instead of focusing on the real issues like class.
Ya got that right! Don't forget the ignorant shortsighted low info voters! They have nothing to offer! So they think all they need is their OPINIONS to have something to offer! They think it is ok to use their Bogus ignorant OPINIONS to use to have control over others! So they can find a reason to not simply care~ Because it don't cost'$ them anything! They can't remember anything of the past or they just think they know, with nothing too what matters most~! You have two different kinds of minds/brains~ 1. Is a fearful type of mind~>The other sound minds has no fear! Because they can see in big picture realities~! They know more in value than the fearful minds do! That, have no value~!!! Because money has nothing to do with it! The fearful type don't like common sense change! The fearful mind is afraid of change even if it is for the better~! They can't comprehend simple logic, to be stuck in a reverse reality world in their minds! If it is even in full reality presented to them! You have them same mind types, from that are still here todays~! That You can't trust them,~> Being dumb as a rock, Cro-Magnon Man.. Also having still today The Modern Man to compare with of the two types of humans, mindsets, on Planet Earth~today On purpose we are just mostly educated to just get a nothing to offer, go nowhere JOB~! And to not know much of anything else! We are programed to think we need someone else to do the thinking for us! With not to be thinking for ourselves! BUT ONLY ONLY OF OURSELVES'$ There is a third type of mind & they are your true healing doctors, & the master musicians that are masters of their musical instruments! A football players also falls in with a Musicians etc~! Because they have to use their bodies & minds, with the motor skill of the mind to think & move beyond their noses! With a few small number of scholars & politicians of with only speaking the truth, to be in the mix, also~! Like the commentator in the video! He has simple logic in his words! Easy to see & easy to read~! I'm the only person on the planet that knows how to make all aquatic animals, etc.. Like fish to grow five to six inches a month! LIKE NO OTHER!~ I am the only one to know how to do farming things with the best~! Like with all we need is ~>Aquaculture~! Where you get plants to be in with the mix of the same results~! With only growing more better non~toxic foods for humans~! With way less water & land use!~? I also am a Master Instrumentalist Musician! With my own way of being one! Being all original technique to improvise with my music~!!! My mind is always trying to know better! My mind only cares about what matters most! I care about the planet and its valuable life forms beyond the Humans! To be truly educated by~! With the animals.. If you do not know about the wild animal that can teach us everything being the reason they are all here~! With not just the selfservering broken humans involved~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If all you have is knowledge based off of money! You have no knowledge at all~! Because even a fool knows you can't eat money! It does not work for everything that is needed! It works best for The War'$ with Conquer & /Divide~ reasons only, toda
That is largely due to social media. In order to keep people riveted and clicking on ads. Facebook, Twitter, YT, Insta have all created these systems of profiles that pigeonhole a person. then they feed you ads baed on that and they incorporate all sorts of biases. to top it off in the early 2000's a study was done as to which type of content got the most views and it was found that outrage got the most, so these systems calibrated their signal boosting for anything that created outrage, even if it was something nice. this last bit is why these environments are considered so toxic these days and yet people keep coming back. they're addicts - so people are divded artifically because they don't go outside and just say "hi" - that would destroy everything these companies have worked form
@@tomh5094 it is one of many tools used to divide, though the term itself isn't meant to create a them vs us, but display disagreement and maybe the chance to debate.
The materialist theory of the political spectrum takes a lot of this mysticism out of the equation. If the divide left= socialism right=capitalism and a north south of authority vs libertarian there’s no contradiction between Obama cutting taxes and conservatives raising taxes, those are both policies meant to maintain capitalism.
The issue is that liberal political scientists are continuously trying to frame capitalist/liberal democracy as the only political ideology and that the left and right spectrum is fully contained within liberal democracy and capitalism.
There is indeed a lot of confusion around the left-right spectrum, especially from an international perspective as each country has its own historically motivated conceptualisation. From a leftist point of view though, this video completely misses the point. I believe the French revolution reference is still generally valid, but the point is not to support or reject "change" (change in itself has obviously no political connotation), the point is your stance on the power structures that have historically developed around you. The left believes power concentration should be reduced and wealth redistributed, while the right believes it should be reinforced as the wealthy class generates benefits even for the lower classes. Power structures at the global scale mostly evolved through corporativism and colonialism, which are two faces of the same medal, hence the absolutely valid connection between stances on the economy and migration. For us leftists, the point is to recognise this phenomenon of unbalanced power dynamics that we inherited from six centuries of western colonialism, while the right (and frankly, this video) does everything in their power to pretend it never happened and this is the natural order established by divine forces. You discuss examples of left-right figures using American and British politicians, which from our perspective is complete nonsense, as they belong to the flattest political systems where there's barely any difference in between the parties. Every US president does what is expected from them, regardless of their party, which is to enforce their global economic and military hegemony, and support corporations at any cost. And crush and coup socialism in every country of the world, but I digress. I believe it's absolute nonsense to approach this issue without mentioning even once the concept of wealth/power inequality.
Perhaps. But in the US context, which seems to be the main focus of the video your conceptualisation of the spectrum is still not particularly helpful as there are currently *no* left-wing politicians anywhere in US federal politics. Is there anyone, including Bernie Sanders, who argues consistently that power in the US should be less concentrated? And even wealth redistribution is an idea which lives very, very far from the US political mainstream. When the "left-leaning" (ha) Democratic party raises $1 billion (yes with a B) for a single losing presidential campaign and their candidate leans heavily into her law enforcement experience and gun ownership, and talks at length about empowering small and medium business owners, I think it's fair to say that wealth and/or power inequality fall well outside the bounds of mainstream political conversations.
4 дня назад+14
Perfect! The problem is not in the "left-right system", if we can call it a system, at all. Most/all western/bourgeois democracies have plenty of deep flaws in representativeness(?), transparency and accountability, so it's no surprise that the most people are not motivated enough (when living condition even allows) to study and get informed on each social or economical issue and, when not despise and ignore politics, just pick one representative, party or spectrum to follow (almost blindly, like one cheers for a football team). Sense of fear also reinforces polarization by making you want to be in a strong "tribe", and it's no secret we've been subject to massive fear-inducing campaigns of propaganda and disinformation all around the world.
In all honesty, as with a previous video I saw, some good points are made but very flawed arguments that denote perhaps lack of education on the subject or not understanding it correctly. Anyone who has studied any science ("natural" or "social") is (or should definitively be) aware that categories are simplifications of reality that we as scientists use to classify and study reality. The issue does not really lie in having such but the use that is given. Think about all the "common knowledge scientific facts" people throw around that are gross simplifications of well-researched studies, for example. Therefore, calling the political spectrum a "myth" because it doesn't account for every single nuanced scenario would equate to say I'm a different species because I have a genetic mutation. Good points are made on other things though. The fact that this can and is actually used as a political tool to consciously or unconsciously direct the thoughts of the average citizen. Without really any previous knowledge about the Essentialist Theory or the Social Theory you mention, the Social theory is surely something that makes more sense from what was said in the video. That being said, I see at least three major issues that surely have been pointed out before: First major issue: If you're an American or maybe even Brit, with little political knowledge, you may be forgiven for thinking there's any left parties in either country. It's what you've been fed with. Anyone with any political science knowledge though, should be able to understand that. Not even eurocentrism here but anglocentrism Second major issue: There was no real refutation of left being "pro change" and right "anti change", which is the case for the most part. The fac that political issues change from one side of the spectrum to the other can be very easily explained by a) dialectics and b) the changing interests of the ruling class: a) Dialectics, i.e., issues and societies are not static but always evolving, once a major change of consciousness occurs within society, the positions that once were progressive will turn the statu quo. Additonally, in different cultures different things will be conservative or progressive. b) Changing interests of the ruling class easily explain all of your examples, if we are generous enough to consider your picks to be relevant. The ideologies of presidents/prime ministers have a huge weight in fiscal and immigration policies but the context matters, grossly simplifying with those examples. Israel was conceived and is used as a semicolonial stronghold in the M.E., thus the "leftist" Truman (who in their right mind would consider Truman's Doctrine to be anything but a reactionary right wing imperialist response to the URSS just blows my mind) was interested in making that happen, and Hitler... dude. He was wanting to send them all to Madagascar, so why not Palestine, if someone talked him into it due to strategic convenience? Honestly a very silly example. That being said, there's much more to right wing ideologies and left wing than statu quo. I would argue that, in the last analysis, policies that emancipate people from the oppresion of the ruling class are leftist and that what the ruling class does to hold on to power is right-wing politics. Third, and probably the worst of the issues: You may not be even aware of this, but the advise you give just happens to be very convenient to maintaining the statu quo. The approach of relativizing (let's disagree) every single issue and being "granular" about them is impossible to apply if you really want to learn. Things do not exist in a vacuum, and they are very much interconnected. Alienating yourself to "focus on your own problems" is the kind of atomizing and alienating bs that we're thought we should do to save ourselves and fudge the rest. Unfortunately, my friend, humans need each other, for every single aspect of our lives. You can disagree all you want when you find a single person in the history of the world who've taught themselves how to do anything at all from literally nothing. Bothered to write this whole long thing because I think you're coming from an honest position of trying to educate, so hope it helps :)
These are all good points. The only comment I have is towards the end about taking in less news. This I actually do agree with. It's a "forest for the trees" type situation where you are beaten down so much that you forget that the news you are reading takes a side. Taking a step back and focusing only on that which you actually, truly care about will work better in the long run.
I think that you’ve done a great job of identifying some of the flaws in this essay, but I think that there are many others that could be criticized. And I do believe that this deserves to be criticized harshly because of how this guy asserts to hold the right answer on so many things in which he is clearly biased or simply uninformed. Even his analysis of a potential sponsor was flawed. I do believe that it is well intentioned, but it is so limited, that it’s hard to take any of it seriously. To dismiss astrology as “nonsense” is a clear indication of his biases and lack of knowledge.
It's important to always remember, divide and conquer doesn't just happen, it happens for a reason. Making virtually everything a simple binary choice, us versus them, makes it easy. There are no straight lines in nature, there are none within individuals.
I thought the Julius Caesar haircut made you an imperialist. Loved the video btw! Happy to see someone criticize the left-right dichotomy without falling into radical centrism!
Me, classically centrist. My partner classically liberal. Couldn't be happier and agree on values. Even in places we disagree, it doesn't matter. Because we still agree on the way society must progress. We end realising we're both wrong, and develop a joint idea.
You cannot take US politcs to discuss left and right! Because there is almost no difference between their respective policies compared to other countries!
There are massive differences between the US parties. Pro abortion, anti abortion Pro union, anti union Pro social services, anti social services Increase tax burden for wealthy, increase tax burden for the working class Move towards public healthcare, move towards private for profit healthcare Regulate industry for citizen safety, deregulate industry for profitability Add rights and freedoms for minorities, take away rights and freedoms from minorities Environmental protection, environmental dominance Christian state, secular state And more recently: Pro democracy, anti democracy Law and order, or put the criminals in power Grow allies, oppose allies There is no possible way anyone could actually believe there is no difference between the parties in US politics.
As someone from the US, you are mistaken. There is, but there are almost no major politicians in the US that are actually left-leaning. Most democrats are moderates, many with a lean to the right. The US does not have a representation of the true political left in the establishment of mainstream politics. The issue is mislabeling people (like Obama, who was/is a slightly left-leaning moderate) as 'left' or 'right' instead of properly labeling the ideology as such.
@@TheRealCeeJai Sorry, but just because he was black, does not mean he wasnt a rightwinger. He started "The Dronewars", he was still all like "Snowden is very unpatriotic", and while he said Guantanamo should be shut down... it still exists. There is a lot more, but that's just off the top of my head and im not even from the US... Like, holding multiple opinions that would lessen the suffering of the poor isn't automatically leftwing... basic social security was implemented by conservatives (to quell demands from workers to hand over the means of productions) like Bismarck. Check out Bernies proposed policies, or AOCs policies. That stuff qualifies as left-leaning moderate (or to be mean, conservative with a brain) in the other western nations. You gotta cut out the identity politics, though. Obama only had problems because he was black. And that was good for the republicans game, because they actually supported most of the things he wanted to do, until they decided to gridlock the shit out of him, and then they just kept it going to punish the dems (lol, tribal warfare all over again)
@@MannIchFindKeinName That was a lot of words just to tell us all you completely missed the point of what this video is trying to say. You're trying to attach a handful of policy decisions to whether someone is right or left, rather than looking at them as a whole. Besides that, I didn't say Obama was a leftist, or even left-wing. I *clearly* stated he was a SLIGHTLY left-leaning MODERATE. I don't know how you are misconstruing what I said unless it's intentional.
In regards to consuming less news, I agree. However reducing it completely isn't the goal, but instead paying attention to the news with a critical eye.
"News" is a very broad term. There are global, national and local news. There are opinion pieces and factual reports. Some facts matter more than others, and that is for each person to decide for themselves. Perhaps Socratically. Also, always check the sources. Because the article will often nitpick and sometimes misrepresent the source itself.
To stay current is completely different than keeping up with news. Remember the capture of media institutions allows for focus to be directed in their slight of hand tricks. To be current is far more valuable in my opinion. Now recognizing you only have so much you can focus on, pick trails that serve you well... Which news has never had as a priority since its inception. In my case I've chosen to stay current in the AI space, but there's plenty of paths to follow.
I think part of that critical eye is also realizing that news doesn't just have political biases, but also a profit incentive. For example, in the Soviet Union, the news was always optimistic and ignored negative stories. But in the for-profit free press, scary and negative stories dominate as they keep our attention and let news channels sell more advertisements. Part of why Trump won twice is he sells a lot of ads by capturing attention with negativity, outrage and humor. In professional wrestling terms, he's a fantastic "heel" or villain we love to hate / root for.
12:45 - something that really rubs me the wrong way is that of the 8 different news clips he showed 5 of them are from outlets that have a high factuality/accuracy score (CNBC, CNN, BBC, ABC, TYT-usually). These all have a generally neutral contextualization of the news (except TYT). The other 2 (Rogan, Fox News) have an abysmal factuality/accuracy score and a glaring right wing bias in their POV/contextualization. If he wasn’t so invested in contradicting the left/right social paradigm, he would try exploring why the neutral and left-wing outlets tend to report with more facts and accuracy than the right wing ones.
Left Wing is a state of being; altruistic & humanistic = Socialist. Right Wing is a state of mind; ego-centric & elitist = antisocial_ist. Before gender, skin colour & ideology we're all human beings, divided into two groups. Humanity v inhumanity, we all choose a side it's just a question of perception.
I disagree with the conclusion of this video - tribalism is not what causes division, it is merely the manifestation of it. Ideals, tribes, in-groups, out-groups, are all products of material incentives.
Interesting observation. I think that there are certain differences inherent between individuals, yes, but they don't fit neatly into this left-right dichotomy. And this arrangement into two opposing sides increases disagreement, summoning our tribal instincts that override reason.
The problem is most people don't know the difference between communist, socialist, liberal or progressive conservative. They just call them all "Marxist or Commie" due to a lack of understanding.
The definition of the left-right spectrum that I’ve heard and still find useful is that the left rejects capitalism and the right wants to protect capitalism. Thus, in the U.S., both Democrats and Republicans are right-wing because they both favor capitalism and both parties are funded by or a part of the capitalist class (wealthy property and business owners, heads of corporations, those that own the “means of production” which is just the stuff that makes stuff that we need to survive like food, shelter, and clothes). This has been useful for me, as I don’t like capitalism, however I like your point about bringing nuance to political conversations. You could have a homophobic communist or a gay-friendly capitalist, for example. Humans are so much more complicated than a polar spectrum can contain, and taking away these labels might limit unproductive assumptions that we make about others and help us connect through conversation more. I also really like that you encourage us to disagree and think for ourselves, I think these are really important aspects of political discourse that get lost in tribalism, especially in online spaces. It shouldn’t be an insult to disagree with someone, especially with someone you respect. Disagreement is healthy, inevitable, and useful for stretching what you think. Great video.
I agree but there just a bit extra here. Monarchism/Feudalism defends rejecting capitalism, Right-wing liberalism/conservadurism/far-right defends mantaining capitalism and left-wing defends overcoming capitalism to get to a higher level of society.
But putting the whole US into "right-wing" because the system is capitalist is also problematic, and, to be honest, also systematic of this kind of thinking. We put people into categories based on facts that those people may or may not have in the forefront of their own political identities. The Democrats in the US, for example, favor a more robust social democracy and stronger controls and regulations on corporations. The Republicans virtually no social democracy, and dream of utopian free-market. The spectrum is very different but they are still on it, and it doesn't help their problems by announcing to everyone: you're all right-wingers.
@@aaronhpa Rather than think of right/left as being pro-/anti-capitalism, think of them as being pro-/anti-establishment. Under monarchy, it was the bourgeoisie who were the revolutionaries. 🤘
@@FlanaFugue Reformists are still on the right, because they protect the ruling class from revolution, by appeasing the revolutionaries with concessions. Back in 2016, Dems were saying explicitly that they are _not_ leftists, because they don't support socialist projects such as public healthcare. They haven't really changed their tune since then. If anything, they've just kept following the GOP further to the right. 🤔
You do make a good point honestly, about how useless it is to call something left or right wing based on how we view our own social systems. Homophobic communists were the first communists- Soviet Union was terrible for gay people.
up vs. down describes the modern neoliberal economy very succinctly. we no longer have capitalism, we have parasitism, where money gets sucked upwards.
I'm amazed at this channel. Very few channels I know with this level of critical thinking and quality that you put in the videos. Genuinely coherent, concise and thought provoking. Hope you keep growing and your essence. Cheers from Mexico!
it's not "critical thinking" to completely miss the point. him not even mentioning wealth and power inequality is a blatant mis-representation of information.
The problem is that utopias can't exist. Even the most consistent and realistic ideological beliefs won't play out exactly as desired in practice. Fascism for example has tended to fail despite theoretically being an extremely efficient government structure. True communism is utopian by nature and so is doomed from the start and has failed in its goals. Direct democracy can't exist on a large scale. Modern democracy is bureaucratic and slow making major and quick changes difficult. Etc etc you get the idea. Nothing will ever work to make everyone happy no matter how well thought out it is. Humans are imperfect and so is the system we create.
@ well fascism is authoritarian and they all suffer from the fact that no one likes them so they can only buy time until people clue on, what do you mean by community being utopian?
That’s because actual alternatives to the current system are its greatest threat and must be stigmatized. That’s why congress voted on mandatory teaching of the dangers of communism in schools.
Yes, of course. But I dont attribute this simplistic binary to tribalism, but to the fact that all of western thinking (from the book of Genesis to the computer) is based on binary logic. It is an outcome of monotheism that the Enlightenment was not able to overcome. Western thought is inherently binary. I think one potential way to more accurately reflect the complexity of beliefs and values is to apply the social concept of "intersectionality" to political perspectives.
I generally agree, but somewhat disagree here. I don't think left/right is how much a person wants change. That would be silly, because it implies people want change for its own sake and not for some end. Furthermore, it's generally the case that the center prefers the status quo, and both extremes want change. Left/right rather, is a matter of someone's attitude toward hierarchy. The left wants to raise taxes in pursuit of economic equality. The left opposes Israel because it's a' apartheid ethnostate that puts one group above another. The right believes the "social order" is natural and good. The left supports democracy, the right supports monarchy or authoritarianism. The many unrelated views you list all align on this dimension.
Except, not everyone classified as left wants to raise taxes as the method of achieving egalitarian outcomes - namely Anarchists, who view relying on state mechanisms as ineffectual reformism that reinforces the contradictions of capitalism. If you look at a subject like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there is a rather stark division between MLs who tend to be pro-Russia, and most other Marxist and anarchist factions who are not. It's not a clean spectrum that lends itself to any sort of categorization. Fitting Marxists, dem-socs, soc-dems, Marxist-Leninists, Anarchists, market socialists, progressives, etc, all in the same category is...messy.
This video is painfully close to the point. It's like when right-wing people talk about southern states wanting to strenghten "States Right". Which begs the question: a state's right to do... what? (the answer is... the right to own slaves). My point being, people (wether left or right) don't want change in-and-of itself. they want a change for, what they deem, 'better'.
@XGD5layer He makes his own claims which we can examine critically on their own. He does mention a left / right spectrum based on hierarchy, but dismisses it without examination. Broadly, he describes people as not occupying a single point on a single dimension, and of course I agree. There are many relevant dimensions and people's positions will cluster rather than converge on a single point just as people will measure various forms of inequality differently and with greater sensitivity to their own experiences. People's views are also certainly informed more from the nurture side of the nature / nurture distinction, but none of this means a person's views are arbitrary or do not correlate.
American politics is broken. In the US system, the left only appears left because because the whole organised political essence is further to the right than europe, so I reckon while they're an interstibg social study but you can't use them as a left/right example. I'm a "progressive" proudly extremely "commie"/humanist and I love how people freak out when I thank them for "calling me out. Still, I tend to be a bit of a firestarter 😂 I don't disagree with you, tribalism is a serious problem, but there are flavours of anger that sit on each side and that anger does still, very much fit the model of anger at absence of a kinder, sustainable freer world or anger at the absence a homogenous, wealth exploitative world.
Great video like always! I just wanted to say how much I respect your decision to turn down the GroundNews sponsorship. Honestly, it wouldn’t have bothered me that much if you had taken it-after all, so many creators do. But the fact that you didn’t, and that you prioritized staying true to your message and values instead, is truly admirable. It shows how much integrity you have and sets you apart from other creators who often take questionable sponsors. It’s decisions like these that make your content feel so authentic and remind me why I respect you and your work so much. Keep it up! We truly need more people like you.
I agree. I wouldn’t have criticized him for it, because I do think Ground News is a useful tool for news aggregation. It not only tracks left/right but also ownership (independent/corporate, etc) and can help you see who is reporting what. That being said, it does overly simplify things and I applaud his decision to remain true to his convictions. This channel is quickly becoming a favorite of mine and his integrity on this is really cementing that process.
I think GroundNews is probably one of the few legitimate sponsors of general content providers out there. I've just never really seen the point of them for most people.
Thanks! Excellent video and definitely needed. Mentioning Ground News at the end with the context you provided was PERFECTION. This video was a ray of hope that some people will stand for real “critical thinking” and not using the term as a defense for their tribal thinking. In the USA I fear this is a shrinking minority and this coming from Sweden might be a small confirmation of that.
@clownsleftjokersright7027 to me she came across as someone who's plans were out of touch with the current state of things and that she didn't really want to run.
@@aidanaldrich7795 No not at all, thats why she experienced a notable loss in votes compared to Bidens 2020 turnout. A lot of "leftists" said no way to her because she was a turncoat, not "too left".
I think this is the Christian Nationalist stance right now. They want an ethnostate for themselves and support Israel, because they assume that’s what it is.
I have been telling people to not identify with ideologies for years now. You can have ideals but do not identify with ideologies. The tribalism thing gets people every time. And it makes people unnecessarily angry.
Glad i'm not alone in this. World is becoming more polarized than ever after 2020s. Not sure what was the process, maybe staying home too much made people too "online" than they'd normally be. Well, doesn't matter. Results were clear.
Parties are in my opinion a necessary simplification of political opinions for representative democracies in order to have elections, but left-right is a brutal flattening of the range of possible opinions to have, it undevelops critical thinking as all labels do. The fall of ideologies has brought us here, once there were more shades of possible affiliation when it meant something to be socialist or liberal.
It’s a very solid video! I always felt that left right is an oversimplification and noticed that people do treat politics as a sport. Having strong opinions about things you have no idea about and that doesn’t actually affects you is weird. And people want to feel connected and be a part of something very much. So politicians give them an opportunity to bond over something they can use.
The left/right paradigm doesn't make sense, but it occurs with such monotonous repetitiveness that if you think it's not real, your the one with the analysis failure.
The term "communist" has quite a specific meaning, support for a specific economic system as explained by Marx in the communist manifesto. Correlation between the aspects of this economic ideology is not random coincidence or just due to tribalism, it is because the aspects of a socialist or communist economic model naturally complement each other. Someone being a communist also tells you nothing of their societal, environmental views, so there can be no contradiction there as these aspects of someone's ideology have nothing to do with them being communists or not. There are communists who support a single party dictatorship with gulags and genocides, and communists who support a liberal multi-party democracy with civil rights for all and a focus on protecting minorities. They can both be communists, if they both support a communist economic model. Now, convention has it that economic ideology is the main determinant factor of grouping an ideology on the left, so that communists tend to get placed at the far-left end of the left-right spectrum, but that's not really the point I am trying to make. The point rather is that terms like "communist" or even "socialist", while often just used as inflationary and factually incorrect slurs, are not dependent on the left-right spectrum to be meaningful, because they refer to a very specific and coherent ideology limited to a very specific aspect of politics, namely economics. So while I agree with your point regarding identifying with "the left" or "the right", I don't think there is anything wrong with calling yourself a communist or a socialist if this describes your economic views well.
Yeah, there is an anti-label trend that ends up being just another tribe (even outside politics, I see it a lot regarding sexuality for example). While many times a label might be a misleading oversimplification and generalization, rejecting any definition or grouping for the sake of it is a meaningless posture in practice.
There actually is a basis for left-right ideologies that spans from the French revolution into modern day. The right infers power through a belief that certain types of people and certain individuals inherently possess power or are meant to possess power. The left holds the belief that power is granted by will of the people through merit in an equal society. The right may sometimes pretend their views are based on the latter framework, but basic analysis often exposes their true beliefs.
*The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the collective. Left-wing beliefs are based on the notion that society is best served with an expanded role for the collective in-group (collectivism). People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role - and especially the power - of the government is minimized.*
@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae_ And this is proven false by pretty much every example of right wing extremism. Good try, but it's much harder to sanitize the right wing mentality than that.
You have it completely backwards. During the French Revolution the revolutionaries were called REPUBLICANS. In other words, on the Right. They were against the oligarchs and wanted equality. During the US Civil War the party that fought to end slavery was the Republicans, again the Right. The Democrats, on the Left, wanted to keep slavery. The Democrats wanted to have oppressive power over an entire other group of people while the Republicans saw everyone, regardless of skin color, as equal. To say that the right "sometimes pretend their views are based on the latter framework" when literally hundreds of thousands of people on the Right willingly gave their lives during the American Civil War standing up for equal rights is rather disingenuous.
You mean compassion. They aren’t the same thing. Empathy is understanding, compassion is caring. The left is no more empathetic than the right, often being overly permissive.
@@felixinfrance I feel like the whole point of the Left is that they have compassion for people who aren't themselves; the Left are the ones who care about the rights of marginalized people. The Right seems to only care about themselves individually, and even seems to even lack empathy, as they clearly do not understand *anything* that isn't themselves.
“Divide and rule”🤺 (Latin: divide et impera) is commonly attributed to Roman rulers, such as Julius Caesar or Philip II of Macedon. It reflects a strategy of creating divisions to maintain control, a tactic that still holds relevance in understanding power dynamics today. Let us not fall victim to these divisions created by politicians, but instead think critically about what is best for us, whether from the left or the right, because the world is not as simple or as black and white as it may seem.✌🏻
Don’t trust those well-known politicians or ordinary people who are political manipulators-they are the source of all evil. Trust experts who hold unslanted and non-polarized opinions instead. Why do we even need politicians? They aren’t necessary for nothing….!
this video is misleading in the way the spectrum was described. In American politics we don't have a major leftist party, as our beliefs/society structure have been heavily influenced by red scare propaganda. Tribalism can explain a lot of the inconsistency with what beliefs people hold, but it downplays the active process of miseducating and taking advantage of working class people that has been going on for decades.
i appreciate that he mentions Ground News - and rejects their offer of sponsorship as their separation of News into Left and Right leaning is just playing into the myth the video was made to debunk ☯️🔥
I agree. By looking at something that says “we separate into left-right-center” and then being opposed because you believe that there is no such thing, you discount what they offer. Which is showing their users what the different media ecosystems have to say about any particular topic (based on how those media platforms identify their users). So if all someone consumes is media from “left” leaning media, they might not see stories that the “right” is talking about, or how they are talking about the same story. It’s hard to have a discussion with someone with an opposing viewpoint when you’re each fed different “facts” by your chosen media outlets.
@@davidavard8461 I'm not saying that Ground News and the like aren't useful tools - just that i appreciate that he chose not to accept sponsorship from them and why ☯
At first I was gonna say you’re missing something, but, psychologically and evolutionarily speaking, tribalism gets at the heart of the problem. Great work!
it seems a straw man argument. The fact that people is not exactly divided in two groups of people that think in the same exact way does not mean that right and left are non existant concepts, and there isn't a correlation between the views on different matters. Also, the choice of the example does not seem ideal, the Israel that Hitler hated was a different Israel, with a different role rispect to the Israel that today occupy Gaza.
You’ve ignored the core problem. Tribalism is promoted by legacy media controlled by an oligarchy that attempts to deflect attention from themselves to foment tribal divisiveness. Deliberate and ongoing
Great video, awesome that you pointed out the Left/Right spectrum was just a seating plan and not natural law or a reflection of reality! Wealth uses the left vs right foolball game to distract from the actual fight of Up/Down. To the point I wish the Left would pick another name because it psychologically keeps the matching "Right" alive in perpetuity.
The Left could technically just rename to Down, as it's basically the same. It tries to fight for the liberation of the working class and marginalized groups, against oppressive power structures.
There’s still utility to the left-right divide in my view, not because it reflects some deep psychological essence, but because each set of issues speak to a set of class interests spurred by class antagonisms, especially under capitalism. Being pro-gun is a good example of a position that in some contexts puts you on the right, like the NRA, while in other instances makes you categorically on the left, like the Black Panthers. I like Halim Alrah’s explanation in his video on why all “political compass” tests are trash.
OMG you are the first youtuber i have seen, that shares my skepticality towards ground news' left / right classification. It has really been bothering me, that especially many youtubers whom i think have really good and progressive political things to share (even as the whole channel theme), had an add for ground news without critizing this.
I'm from Australia's capital city from a family that have worked in mid-high government jobs for about 100 years, I've been telling people there is no such thing as left and right (never has been 🔫👨🚀), that ultra wealthy people decide everything and the government only really exists to maintain order and push paperwork around to create a system where the top 0.1% can utilise an every expanding labour and resource market, but no one would believe me (despite having generations of stories about directly witnessing exactly that). Glad to see this kind of idea is starting to get accepted by the general public, but it's sad that it's taken the world getting to this point for it to happen. I'm greatly optimistic about how my generation will handle the world in the future (gen z) it's just a bit sad that most of our effort will have to be focused on damage control so future generations can do anything at all without running out of clean water, air and food half way through from a Roman pincer formation of crises.
Tribalism is a problem but right-wing ideology, specifically it's subscribers are just filled with so many contradictions. Especially here in the US. And it's partly because of the labels of left vs right. There's a poll that shows a far majority of people favor Left politics but only if you do not label and describe it without buzzwords that will identify itself. This is funny because we hardly have a real Lefty representation in the US - Biden, Harris, Clinton's are not Left. Our closest to a real Lefty would be Bernie and AOC. Everyone else is right-wing. RWers are notorious for voting against their own interests and now officially outnumber lefties, at least in voting who gets to lead our country. They'll find out soon enough what they voted for but the damage is done and we tend to forget easily... Even in the age of the Internet. SMH. We live in crazy times.
I really enjoy your content! The videos are often not too long that I have to plan ahead, nor too short and feel it is too simplified. I'm sure the length could be adjusted per the topic and the world events of the moment. I was considering supporting you, but hearing your take on the idea of, and not accepting the sponsoring of, Ground News convinced me to support you. Please continue to keep making interesting and informed content, no matter the topic it is nor the group it might offend. Cheers.
Any video, such as this one, that sincerely encourages independent thought and critical-thinking is a public service that should be promoted. However, I find it hilarious anyone would think Truman, Blair, or Obama were left-wing just because they were Democrat or Labor. We still had Dixiecrats in the US when Truman was president, for Pete's sake. Liberals are not left-wing. I sometimes wonder if they ever were. Progressives..., maybe. But liberals in general? No. Left-right is often used to describe a person or persons' beliefs and policy positions. Not everyone will fit neatly into someone else's idea of what is left or right. And I agree, it can feel a lot like astrology when one's foundation is weak. When one's political knowledge is informed by pop-culture, the left-right dichotomy becomes all too reductive and leads to confusion and frustration. All that means is everyone must do their due diligence and not fall into unthinking, conforming camps like what was suggested in this video.
I personally agree on your assessment of those politicians, but they have all been called left-wing. Perhaps disagreement on the dividing line is another argument against using the left-right spectrum as our primary lens for political analysis - it always depends on where you stand. I remember an article from someone who supported the Liberals in the 70s (the UK's centre party) and hadn't changed his views, but is now regarded as far left.
I cannot understate how relatable this mindset is. Although I personally not just have this opinion on political left/right. But also segregation in general in most things.
As far as Hitler, he would likely be in favor of Israel because it was formed under racist reasons. The idea of a homeland for the Jews was always because of European prejudices and anti semitism.
"Consume less news." Best advice I've been given in awhile. I try not to watch too much but this talk only confirmed the need to stay away from the "news."
Threat of not affording healthcare or food, or facing discrimination? Or threat of immigration, war and economic collapse? None of these axes perfectly capture the left-right issue clustering we see. Just accept it and expand your thinking.
A pertinent topic. The left vs right division, as part of a general black and white approach to the world, is indicative of mass society and its relentless demand for conformity. We live in a sick system but we must never avoid being true to ourselves, no matter what the voice of the masses says.
Rock solid men! 🎉 While I disagree with many of your thoughts in many of your videos, I love that you bring in thought diversity and enrich discussions from your angle! Well done!
I'm at the 3 minute mark, and there's already an error on your video. The right wing position is not anti immigration. It's anti-illegal immigration. There's a big difference. We want immigrants, just not unvetted ones.
What does this even mean? To say someone is "left-wing" or "right-wing" means that they hold a certain set of values. It's not an arbitrary distinction. Leftists and right-wingers believe different things, their ideas are more often than not in direct opposition to one and other. Is that not a reasonable thing to be divided by? Do you expect people to all believe the same thing?
@Schmopitit means that the same person may believe in a set of things that are typically considered "left-wing" and another set of topics that are "right-wing". I can be antimarket and socially conservative (e.g. opposing trans rights). Or I can believe in climate change and that government regulations shouldn't be the answer to it.
Several of the channels I subscribe to promote Ground News. You are the first I have seen to refuse their offer. You do so for the right reasons. I now subscribe to your channel. Thank you for your excellent work!
On the contrary. The denial of the Left-Right spectrum clearly serves the right-wing, as it denies the class character (and the antagonisms inherent to those classes) of our current economic model. It claims that the real solution is merely technocratic, a simple matter of changing the inputs, as something outside of class conflict (which is the engine that drives change). Every time someone denies the existence of the political spectrum, they're doing a favor to the right-wing. Whether wittingly or not. No conscious Leftist would ever deny it.
I'm very pleased to hear your stance on advertising. I wish many more creators would have this kind of integrity. I understand people need to be able to afford to keep producing content, and audiences have to choose between many great content makers. We have less and less to work with as the costs of living continue to skyrocket. It's a difficult choice to make.
"How justifiable do you find property-based heirarchy?" Spectrum ends: Left: not at all Right: entirely Everything else is a distraction, and especially in the USA, groupings of policies carefully selected to most evenly divide the country in half to perpetuate the corporate duopoly. That way, when things don't improve for the working class, democrat and republican voters can point at each other and congressional gridlock doesn't seem so intentional.
I feel like it’s based on change but at the level of Joe Rogan’s intellect. No offense to Joe but his popularity is based not on sides but just what - is.
Deeply validating video! The way I have most often viewed politics is to take what I want or need and leave the rest, and this video explains this very concept so well! Again, thank you for what you do here!
This is the first video of yours that I have watched. I enjoyed it largely because you have me thinking about how to assess the complexities of peoples views and helps me to make sense of how the boxes we draw around political issues never seem to fit. Thank you for prompting me to go on a learning adventure.
"As soon as something is labeled, it will no longer be fully understood." A retort I starting using in my professional life to try and get others to keep an open mind during the actualization of a project. Sadly, tribalism is an inherent safety mechanism, so it takes a lot of energy to be overcome via curiosity and free thinking. History is rife with examples. Good video. I'll need to check out more.
More than 30 years ago I determined that the left-right spectrum was nonsense and even criticized the attempts to place people and policies on a three-dimensional spectrum with a horizontal and vertical axis. Today I see it as a dysfunctional social construct similar to the speaker in this video. He should look at how social constructs are used to define reality and pressure people to adopt the socially constructed perception so of reality rather than the historical, factual and scientific approaches. A dynamic systems approach is superior focused on problem identification and seeking solutions. Taxes should be levied ONLY in connection with a problem to be solved and even here to realize that federal taxes of a sovereign currency issuing nation do not fund that nation’s spending. Money is often cited as a social construct but the beliefs about taxes are also social constructs.
Interesting. I'm a scientist and in scientific training there is nothing like left and right -- only true and false. If you have accepted something as true and then new research shows it to be false, you are not only expected but OBLIGATED to reverse your position. Interestingly, this plays into the abominable view, adopted by many U.S. Republicans, that scientists are "liberal" or "left-wing" or whatever label you prefer.
Fantastic well researched video! The last few minutes and your commentary on Ground news was truly endearing, demonstrating your commitment to principles.
You won a subscription from me when you talked about Ground news at the end. I have been shouting into comment sections all over the internet trying to show how VPN and Media presentation corporations are buying the opinions of those who can sway others on platforms such as this. Thank you for thinking differently.
This is a fantastic video, and very well thought out. Thank you for making this. Just a suggestion, I think the overuse of animations and sound effects is actually a detriment to the video. It makes it sound like what you’re talking about isn’t confidently positioned well enough to not warrant lots of post production. Your thoughts are so good, you don’t need so much post production
Your essays it's one of not many reasons why I open RUclips. Thank you! Don't know do they really can change people ideologies. I hope they do. Also hope that you will have enough of resources to continue be Independent and Creative as you are.
THANK YOU!!!! I have been arguing for the "Tribalist" approach to understanding politics for several years. It just makes more sense... especially how you have presented the dynamic. I thoroughly enjoyed your essay.
So happy to see your well deserved growth with the channel. However don't you think it's time to launch a editing masterclass? This way all of us can benefit.
“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
― James Baldwin
Given what is considered "oppression" nowadays, that's a really stupid mantra to live by.
Yes. This.
What about the oppresssion of other people, such as supporting slavery?
@@uberdonkey9721 I think the quote already answers that based on how it's said
@@ricktmusicus4852 It's a weaponization of the language of activism. Setting up a framework where, if you disagree with the OP then you're a fascist. So get in line and don't even think about having a different opinion.
To describe democrats as left wing is beyond me. In most countries of Europe the democrats are considered right wing. The left-right wing theory is simplified alright, and it is true that we have a tendency to assign labels to everything and also indulge in tribalism in every aspect of life. But the political truth for me is not in individual policies that we are free to choose what we want without labeling left or right. This is another oversimplification. There are economic theories/philosophies behind some movements that try to explain how the world must work and why. In addition, lets not forget that there are interests that play their significant role in every political decision. Politicians - Media - Justice System - Businesses etc. At the end of the day, for me, everything has to do with interests. When you see a policy just sit down and think who's interests this policy satisfies. Do some research about the matter if possible. So, if a simplification is needed, the only answer is interests.
"The Democrat-Republican spectrum".
Some policies should interest us all, and we should start there. But when you're playing teams...
Democrats are leftist tho. They are not racist or evil. Like republicans
💯
Left-wing can't possibly mean the exact same foreign policy as the right-wing.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful."
If anybody is interested about a view (that is not agreeing with the claims here) a french guy thats studies the subject well since long time, out of a strictly US centered point of view.. He made 4 videos about this subject, the name is "gauche droite", from the Tzitzimitl channel...
I like models.....especially when they take their bras off.😂
few are useful.
Don't hire talk talk people to solve issues... hire think think people. Bernie was a think think person.. Then he eventually fell into politics because he was sorta forced into it. DJTurd is a talk talk person. Ofc he will appeal to the crowds that dont think. That's the only people he can reach. Then money reaches some more people then threats and coercion reached a lot more people.. but what caused the dissension is the apps (spam media) and ads (spammed to those susceptible to be influenced by them... in the USA, there's a lot more of those than you may believe). Apps in the USA were among the notorious w a_ r _far e/ tools used by the Ceeceepee that's done this type of psychological attacks for almost a century, now. It started from sending letters which weren't authentic by a general coerced into lying / signing or they just forged his signature while he was away. Then an order came and they took over villages/cities and removed the leaders from there. I don't believe governments should exist anymore... politics has always been (in our parent's lifetime) almost completely obsolete. Policies are made to benefit folks that have learned to exploit others. It was only recently that actually good for goodness' sake Worked. What changed since? What I've studied for decades. I was born in the era of communications and we're at the beginning of the era of technologies. Idc about the garbage title other people pull to rationalize something they aren't grasping. The overview is that of understanding not power. If you see what causes change and know how to bring about solid foundations for it (not lies to cover up more lies that are then covered up by books and history from liars etc)... It's not hard to build something wonderful. Well.. give or take a few decades of understanding these parameters. I believe "The market exit" has begun to see these. This was my first video from him... I hope he keeps trying to dissuade people from considering labels. These labels are useless if you can't understand that you shouldn't use them. If you understand a label, you should bring it back down to what it means when responding. You might shut down all nefarious attempts to manipulate folks around you.
Feminism? = once was about equality
Socialism? = wish to build a society for people by people, but failed to establish rules to make it work.
Capitalism? = exploitation to the limit of the rule of law... and sometimes (often) beyond it. It's a catastrophy waiting to happen and it's just blown in the USA's face for the last time. What follows is ugly.
Is there a better system? Better systems require less rules. It requires people that see the parameters to come up with better suggestions. Here's the introduction: we vote for people that are corruptible. Let's vote for ideas instead... then hire people for these specific ideas. Only have interested people (in thinking about which ideas are best) vote for these ideas and explain why they believe they are good ideas. Non intellectual folks can go back to trying to build houses with their hands who gives a crap.
Think think people are forced to hear pseudo-intellectual folks spew and spin garbage at them. It's so nonsensical to have to explain that theocracy has always failed (and why is hard when you have a child deflecting and attacking rather than addressing the concerns people have of their position... slavery bad? bla bla bla (yes) bla bla. - No dude, Please go sit in the corner and listen/learn/shush.
Libertaryens hate to ear people studying about reality
As Noam Chomsky said, "There is one party in the US, it is the Business Party, and it has two factions--the Republicans and the Democrats."
His criticism of them is from a leftist perspective. He views them both as right-wing parties. The democrats are not really representative of leftists views in any meaningful way.
There is no such thing as left or right in democracies controlled by the oligarchy. When you look closely at what they offer the public, they are one and the same. Democracy cannot exist in a capitalist society, that’s an oxymoron. Politics and religion are the same in that they both worship money. But use hearts and minds as a ploy to create an illusion.
Congratulations kid, you completely missed the goddamn point and are just reinforcing a divisive political abstraction from the opposite angle.
@Schmopit And Chomsky, with all due respect, is not a representative of the left... (at least of the real left, not the concept that Americans have of it); I would like to remind you that in the 70s he was a denier of the Kmer Rouge (he never apologized btw...) not to mention his political positions he had in the last 3 years on the Ukraine issue... instead of speaking to nonsense about geopolitics, which he clearly doesn't understand, perhaps he should clarify his interactions with Epstein...
@Schmopit With all due respect, I would not take him as a "representative of the left"... (at least of the real left, not of the concept of the left that Americans have); I would like to remind you that in the 70's, he was a denier of the Kmer Rouge (he never apologized btw...) not to mention his political positions he had in the last 3 years on the Ukraine issue... instead of talking nonsense about geopolitics, which he clearly doesn't understand, perhaps he should clarify why he met and frequented a certain Epstein...
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
As Ren sings in Money Game part 1:
"There's no left, there's no right
In the middle we sleep"
Well said.
Thanks, Chomsky.
We got some great, insightful comments. But where is the system change movement platforms? Where is the resistance to the status quo capitalist system? Do you know any? Are you involved in any? At least be educated about options, like seeing the Zeitgeist films and reading books or articles by ecological economists like Jason Hickel or Timothee Parrique, for example.
The left/right divide wasn't just conjured out of thin air, it's more of an observation than anything else. To say that someone is "left-wing", is saying that they hold a certain set of values. I call myself a leftist because I by and large share values with other people on the left. Is it really that surprising that people who hold the same values would also share opinions on different issues?
Phrases like "it's not about left or right, it's about up and down" are redundant and naive. People have different ideas of what is "up" and what is "down". Leftists and right-wingers are both unhappy about a lot of the same stuff. We're all living on the same planet, and are affected by many of the same issues. However, the division becomes clear when it comes to discussing the causes of said issues, and by extension, the required solutions.
No, you have it backwards. It's not an observation, and it was conjured out of thin air. Your opinions are clustered together because being left wing gives you a sense of identity which pressures you to hold "left wing" opinions on other things. The political spectrum plays a huge part in deciding your policy positions. It's not some completely passive descriptive tool.
People's values might be affected by what they're told. If people are aware of the left right spectrum, that likely affects their values.
@@jacoboc2244 That would obviously depend on the issue.
@@jacoboc2244The idea that all our problems are caused by some secret society is not new. It's an exciting and simple alternative to the reality, which is boring and complex.
It's counterproductive to speculate about the existence of a shadow government or whatever, because it just draws attention away from the real leaders who are committing crimes right out in the open.
I'm a big believer in Occam's razor. I also believe that it is important to be open-minded, but not so much that your brain falls out.
That's pretty much all I have to say about that, I'm not interested in hearing about your conspiracy theories.
@@ElGoose-ti4qm So what's your solution? Do away with trying to categorise political beliefs entirely? Or do you have suggestion for a model that you think would work better?
I did not claim that it was a "completely passive descriptive tool". I do not deny the influence of tribalism in politics, but that does not mean that there isn't utility in labelling and categorising.
Fully agree. I held "leftist" values long before I knew what the left was. I spent most of my life feeling like a political outsider, because here in America we have no major left-wing party.
Discovering other leftists online is what finally gave me the sense community that I'm not alone.
The problem is we like to believe we are rational beings and not emotive ones. "Facts don't care about your feelings" is a refrain that's become popular, but the opposite corollary is more likely: that our feelings don't really care about facts. Facts will never overwhelm us. Feelings will. Because emotions are a primal part of us.
Most "facts don't care about your feelings" tends to just be a love of the aesthetic of cold hard facts, and denial that our feelings heavily influence us.
@@PauLtus_B It's ironically something people saying trying to be mean, trying to express emotion, not logic.
The label "fact" is rather useless. There's data and theories. Labeling something as a fact is just an expression of one's emotional attachment to some data set. Ultimately, it's our feelings that prioritize information as useful to us or not.
Indeed, I do believe we are much better today, but whenever I see never ending wars, killings and violence, tribalism and segregation (even among people claiming to be lifting open and safe spaces) is literally killing us. Things constantly remind me we are still animals, and we must be better than this.
The thing is, feelings are facts. They're just facts about you and your own mental state, as opposed to facts about the external world. Saying things like "facts don't care about your feelings" is just another way to say "you don't matter," which is an entirely emotional sentiment devoid of rational thought.
It reminds me of Tiktok video about an American guy who goes around asking other Americans on their opinion of Donald Trump's actions, however when he describes the action, he starts by saying Joe Biden did this and what are your thoughts on it. He waits for them to give their answer and then says that he made a mistake and it was actually Trump who did it and the person's opinion completely changes.
They attack Biden over the actions but defend Trump. An interesting type of thinking.
Yes absolutely, and it works in both ways. Jason Brennan has done some interesting research on this, basically shining light on the fact that most people have an opinion because their party has that opinion. Intuition come first, rational thinking comes after.
@@kristafluit3042 It's definitely a form of group think, total black or white.
Biden can do good things, do bad things & the same applies to Trump. But for the "group thinkers", everything Biden does is bad & the reverse applies to Trump.
It's interesting & scary.
@@kristafluit3042 You mean emotion comes first, then rational thinking, the Magas are in a constant state of emotions; fear and angry injustice because of Fox News, there are left leaning news channels that do the same, it's all such clickbait now.
Yes, I think that was Jordan Klepper. It's amazing how these people he interviews turn around 180 degrees and don't even realize and reflect on that.
It's not nearly as pronounced as it is with the MAGA types.. it indicates a cult mentality..😮💨
Why do we keep referring to American Democrats as left wing? If you make a somewhat theoretical essay about politics I would hope you don't believe Obama or Truman to be left wing. No hate btw the video makes some great points but how can we talk about left-right dynamics if we keep putting centre right politicians on the left of our spectrum?
I think you have not understood the point being made.
@@ianhambly3134 I agree
Anarchists are historically left and they hate the idea of taxation. I get that democrats are right wing. Neo liberals to be exact. They are the party of reaganites and thatcherites. All while claiming to be for the working class.
These parties are about survival at all costs. Not representation whatsoever.
Its still a somewhat relevant criticism @@roberttaylor2058
Because on the national level they are the "left wing". Comparing left and right between countries/times doesn't make much sense because the situation they are facing are so different. It's one of the reasons the model is so flawed
Calling obama left wing is a extremely american centric pov. This is just one example so i dont know your broader view but the democratic party is not left wing and has almost nothing in common with modern leftist perspectives
I doubt Swedes like him really classify American democrats as left wing
Exactly! To add, calling the centrists left is essentially a capitalist anti-social propaganda. Both neocon and neolib tell this story, to obscure attention to what real progressives would support.
This issue is cartoonishly obvious in american politics because of the two-party rule. Dems don't really mind handing power to the right, because the capital will still be protected and they expect to gain power back on the bounce sooner or later. If they lost power to real left, they'd never get it back. I'm not talking about a dictatorship, only that people would wake up.
Side note. What are dems progressive about really? Marginal issues mostly, that serve the _appearance_ of 'change'. They now most loudly fight for abortio, a fake problem caused by cons just to keep libs busy. They both support american exceptionalism, evil military internationally and social oppression domestically. Dems didn't lose the '24 elections - they just didn't win. They are still the second biggest party. They are still part of the rule. It's very american to think dems lost because they didn't win. Their job essentially is to block the needle from going left for real
A point that by itself completely invalidates the video. Left vs right means egalitarian vs authoritarian, everything else follows from there. It doesnt mean change vs no change and of course people can hold both left and right wing positions, if they are stupid and have no priciples.
he's talking about the "communist" talk you guys love in the US.
There is no left in a 2-party system. You'll never have politics for the working class because all you vote for are super rich, that are not interested in making anyone else's life different
@@MrMoorfroschthe video: "the essentialist theory seems wrong and here's why as well as a better alternative explanation" this guy: "it's easy just look at this one essential thing that explains everything" bruh
I'm from Ireland, before Donald Trump's explosion onto the scene we basically never talked in terms of left vs right. I feel like this has really taken off in the past few years. While I don't necessarily believe it's calculated, it still serves to muddy the waters. Instead of looking up or forward, it directs our attention laterally. It keeps us fighting amongst ourselves instead of focusing on the real issues like class.
You can thank the media for that.
Ya got that right! Don't forget the ignorant shortsighted low info voters! They have nothing to offer! So they think all they need is their OPINIONS to have something to offer! They think it is ok to use their Bogus ignorant OPINIONS to use to have control over others! So they can find a reason to not simply care~ Because it don't cost'$ them anything! They can't remember anything of the past or they just think they know, with nothing too what matters most~! You have two different kinds of minds/brains~ 1. Is a fearful type of mind~>The other sound minds has no fear! Because they can see in
big picture realities~! They know more in value than the fearful minds do! That, have no value~!!! Because money has nothing to do with it! The fearful type don't like common sense change!
The fearful mind is afraid of change even if it is for the better~!
They can't comprehend simple logic, to be stuck in a reverse reality world in their minds! If it is even in full reality presented to them!
You have them same mind types, from that are still here todays~! That You can't trust them,~> Being dumb as a rock, Cro-Magnon Man..
Also having still today The Modern Man to compare with of the two types of humans, mindsets, on Planet Earth~today
On purpose we are just mostly educated to just get a nothing to offer, go nowhere JOB~! And to not know much of anything else!
We are programed to think we need someone else to do the thinking for us!
With not to be thinking for ourselves! BUT ONLY ONLY OF OURSELVES'$
There is a third type of mind & they are your true healing doctors, & the master musicians that are masters of their musical instruments!
A football players also falls in with a Musicians etc~! Because they have to use their bodies & minds, with the motor skill of the mind to think & move beyond their noses!
With a few small number of scholars & politicians of with only speaking the truth, to be in the mix, also~!
Like the commentator in the video! He has simple logic in his words! Easy to see & easy to read~!
I'm the only person on the planet that knows how to make all aquatic animals, etc.. Like fish to grow five to six inches a month! LIKE NO OTHER!~
I am the only one to know how to do farming things with the best~! Like with all we need is ~>Aquaculture~! Where you get plants to be in with the mix of the same results~!
With only growing more better non~toxic foods for humans~! With way less water & land use!~?
I also am a Master Instrumentalist Musician! With my own way of being one! Being all original technique to improvise with my music~!!!
My mind is always trying to know better! My mind only cares about what matters most!
I care about the planet and its valuable life forms beyond the Humans! To be truly educated by~! With the animals..
If you do not know about the wild animal that can teach us everything being the reason they are all here~!
With not just the selfservering broken humans involved~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If all you have is knowledge based off of money! You have no knowledge at all~!
Because even a fool knows you can't eat money! It does not work for everything that is needed!
It works best for The War'$ with Conquer & /Divide~ reasons only, toda
That's by design.
That is largely due to social media. In order to keep people riveted and clicking on ads. Facebook, Twitter, YT, Insta have all created these systems of profiles that pigeonhole a person. then they feed you ads baed on that and they incorporate all sorts of biases. to top it off in the early 2000's a study was done as to which type of content got the most views and it was found that outrage got the most, so these systems calibrated their signal boosting for anything that created outrage, even if it was something nice.
this last bit is why these environments are considered so toxic these days and yet people keep coming back. they're addicts - so people are divded artifically because they don't go outside and just say "hi" - that would destroy everything these companies have worked form
@@tomh5094 it is one of many tools used to divide, though the term itself isn't meant to create a them vs us, but display disagreement and maybe the chance to debate.
The materialist theory of the political spectrum takes a lot of this mysticism out of the equation. If the divide left= socialism right=capitalism and a north south of authority vs libertarian there’s no contradiction between Obama cutting taxes and conservatives raising taxes, those are both policies meant to maintain capitalism.
The issue is that liberal political scientists are continuously trying to frame capitalist/liberal democracy as the only political ideology and that the left and right spectrum is fully contained within liberal democracy and capitalism.
Could you elaborate on how they are trying to frame it that way and why they would frame it to be contained?
@@forever_noir_2155 It's the only thing that works. Communism never works and that's a fact.
There is indeed a lot of confusion around the left-right spectrum, especially from an international perspective as each country has its own historically motivated conceptualisation. From a leftist point of view though, this video completely misses the point.
I believe the French revolution reference is still generally valid, but the point is not to support or reject "change" (change in itself has obviously no political connotation), the point is your stance on the power structures that have historically developed around you. The left believes power concentration should be reduced and wealth redistributed, while the right believes it should be reinforced as the wealthy class generates benefits even for the lower classes. Power structures at the global scale mostly evolved through corporativism and colonialism, which are two faces of the same medal, hence the absolutely valid connection between stances on the economy and migration.
For us leftists, the point is to recognise this phenomenon of unbalanced power dynamics that we inherited from six centuries of western colonialism, while the right (and frankly, this video) does everything in their power to pretend it never happened and this is the natural order established by divine forces.
You discuss examples of left-right figures using American and British politicians, which from our perspective is complete nonsense, as they belong to the flattest political systems where there's barely any difference in between the parties. Every US president does what is expected from them, regardless of their party, which is to enforce their global economic and military hegemony, and support corporations at any cost. And crush and coup socialism in every country of the world, but I digress.
I believe it's absolute nonsense to approach this issue without mentioning even once the concept of wealth/power inequality.
Up this comment.. well done
Agreed
Perhaps. But in the US context, which seems to be the main focus of the video your conceptualisation of the spectrum is still not particularly helpful as there are currently *no* left-wing politicians anywhere in US federal politics. Is there anyone, including Bernie Sanders, who argues consistently that power in the US should be less concentrated? And even wealth redistribution is an idea which lives very, very far from the US political mainstream. When the "left-leaning" (ha) Democratic party raises $1 billion (yes with a B) for a single losing presidential campaign and their candidate leans heavily into her law enforcement experience and gun ownership, and talks at length about empowering small and medium business owners, I think it's fair to say that wealth and/or power inequality fall well outside the bounds of mainstream political conversations.
Perfect! The problem is not in the "left-right system", if we can call it a system, at all. Most/all western/bourgeois democracies have plenty of deep flaws in representativeness(?), transparency and accountability, so it's no surprise that the most people are not motivated enough (when living condition even allows) to study and get informed on each social or economical issue and, when not despise and ignore politics, just pick one representative, party or spectrum to follow (almost blindly, like one cheers for a football team). Sense of fear also reinforces polarization by making you want to be in a strong "tribe", and it's no secret we've been subject to massive fear-inducing campaigns of propaganda and disinformation all around the world.
well said sir
In all honesty, as with a previous video I saw, some good points are made but very flawed arguments that denote perhaps lack of education on the subject or not understanding it correctly. Anyone who has studied any science ("natural" or "social") is (or should definitively be) aware that categories are simplifications of reality that we as scientists use to classify and study reality. The issue does not really lie in having such but the use that is given. Think about all the "common knowledge scientific facts" people throw around that are gross simplifications of well-researched studies, for example. Therefore, calling the political spectrum a "myth" because it doesn't account for every single nuanced scenario would equate to say I'm a different species because I have a genetic mutation.
Good points are made on other things though. The fact that this can and is actually used as a political tool to consciously or unconsciously direct the thoughts of the average citizen. Without really any previous knowledge about the Essentialist Theory or the Social Theory you mention, the Social theory is surely something that makes more sense from what was said in the video. That being said, I see at least three major issues that surely have been pointed out before:
First major issue: If you're an American or maybe even Brit, with little political knowledge, you may be forgiven for thinking there's any left parties in either country. It's what you've been fed with. Anyone with any political science knowledge though, should be able to understand that. Not even eurocentrism here but anglocentrism
Second major issue: There was no real refutation of left being "pro change" and right "anti change", which is the case for the most part. The fac that political issues change from one side of the spectrum to the other can be very easily explained by a) dialectics and b) the changing interests of the ruling class:
a) Dialectics, i.e., issues and societies are not static but always evolving, once a major change of consciousness occurs within society, the positions that once were progressive will turn the statu quo. Additonally, in different cultures different things will be conservative or progressive.
b) Changing interests of the ruling class easily explain all of your examples, if we are generous enough to consider your picks to be relevant. The ideologies of presidents/prime ministers have a huge weight in fiscal and immigration policies but the context matters, grossly simplifying with those examples. Israel was conceived and is used as a semicolonial stronghold in the M.E., thus the "leftist" Truman (who in their right mind would consider Truman's Doctrine to be anything but a reactionary right wing imperialist response to the URSS just blows my mind) was interested in making that happen, and Hitler... dude. He was wanting to send them all to Madagascar, so why not Palestine, if someone talked him into it due to strategic convenience? Honestly a very silly example.
That being said, there's much more to right wing ideologies and left wing than statu quo. I would argue that, in the last analysis, policies that emancipate people from the oppresion of the ruling class are leftist and that what the ruling class does to hold on to power is right-wing politics.
Third, and probably the worst of the issues: You may not be even aware of this, but the advise you give just happens to be very convenient to maintaining the statu quo.
The approach of relativizing (let's disagree) every single issue and being "granular" about them is impossible to apply if you really want to learn. Things do not exist in a vacuum, and they are very much interconnected. Alienating yourself to "focus on your own problems" is the kind of atomizing and alienating bs that we're thought we should do to save ourselves and fudge the rest. Unfortunately, my friend, humans need each other, for every single aspect of our lives. You can disagree all you want when you find a single person in the history of the world who've taught themselves how to do anything at all from literally nothing.
Bothered to write this whole long thing because I think you're coming from an honest position of trying to educate, so hope it helps :)
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
These are all good points. The only comment I have is towards the end about taking in less news. This I actually do agree with. It's a "forest for the trees" type situation where you are beaten down so much that you forget that the news you are reading takes a side. Taking a step back and focusing only on that which you actually, truly care about will work better in the long run.
I think that you’ve done a great job of identifying some of the flaws in this essay, but I think that there are many others that could be criticized. And I do believe that this deserves to be criticized harshly because of how this guy asserts to hold the right answer on so many things in which he is clearly biased or simply uninformed. Even his analysis of a potential sponsor was flawed. I do believe that it is well intentioned, but it is so limited, that it’s hard to take any of it seriously. To dismiss astrology as “nonsense” is a clear indication of his biases and lack of knowledge.
Progressives are absolute morons, conservatives are scaredy cats… that’s the simplist way to explain it. Anything more is just semantics
@@pincheomarHow should astrology be viewed in your opinion?
It's important to always remember, divide and conquer doesn't just happen, it happens for a reason.
Making virtually everything a simple binary choice, us versus them, makes it easy.
There are no straight lines in nature, there are none within individuals.
"Marxism is when corporations advertise with rainbow flags" - The great political minds of this generation.
Marx died 140 years ago. How much does he really have to say in the present time? Nobody knows because nobody has read him.
Lol whut? Such b-s..
Ie. MAGA dunces.
Why are you pretending to quote somebody?
@@SteveAstronaut It's a satirical quote. Let me guess, you're the genius MAGA sent to sort us lefties out!!!
I thought the Julius Caesar haircut made you an imperialist.
Loved the video btw! Happy to see someone criticize the left-right dichotomy without falling into radical centrism!
"Him? That's not Andreas Acavedo, that's GAIVS ANDREIAS ACAVEDVS of the Roman senate!"
I think you'll find that it is in fact a round head haircut which makes him a staunch protestant and against the king.
@ Good point. I demand answers
😂😂😂
It's a tonsure, which makes him a radical monk.
Me, classically centrist. My partner classically liberal.
Couldn't be happier and agree on values. Even in places we disagree, it doesn't matter. Because we still agree on the way society must progress. We end realising we're both wrong, and develop a joint idea.
You cannot take US politcs to discuss left and right!
Because there is almost no difference between their respective policies compared to other countries!
There are massive differences between the US parties.
Pro abortion, anti abortion
Pro union, anti union
Pro social services, anti social services
Increase tax burden for wealthy, increase tax burden for the working class
Move towards public healthcare, move towards private for profit healthcare
Regulate industry for citizen safety, deregulate industry for profitability
Add rights and freedoms for minorities, take away rights and freedoms from minorities
Environmental protection, environmental dominance
Christian state, secular state
And more recently:
Pro democracy, anti democracy
Law and order, or put the criminals in power
Grow allies, oppose allies
There is no possible way anyone could actually believe there is no difference between the parties in US politics.
As someone from the US, you are mistaken. There is, but there are almost no major politicians in the US that are actually left-leaning. Most democrats are moderates, many with a lean to the right. The US does not have a representation of the true political left in the establishment of mainstream politics. The issue is mislabeling people (like Obama, who was/is a slightly left-leaning moderate) as 'left' or 'right' instead of properly labeling the ideology as such.
@@TheRealCeeJai Said it perfectly!
@@TheRealCeeJai Sorry, but just because he was black, does not mean he wasnt a rightwinger. He started "The Dronewars", he was still all like "Snowden is very unpatriotic", and while he said Guantanamo should be shut down... it still exists. There is a lot more, but that's just off the top of my head and im not even from the US...
Like, holding multiple opinions that would lessen the suffering of the poor isn't automatically leftwing... basic social security was implemented by conservatives (to quell demands from workers to hand over the means of productions) like Bismarck.
Check out Bernies proposed policies, or AOCs policies. That stuff qualifies as left-leaning moderate (or to be mean, conservative with a brain) in the other western nations. You gotta cut out the identity politics, though.
Obama only had problems because he was black. And that was good for the republicans game, because they actually supported most of the things he wanted to do, until they decided to gridlock the shit out of him, and then they just kept it going to punish the dems (lol, tribal warfare all over again)
@@MannIchFindKeinName That was a lot of words just to tell us all you completely missed the point of what this video is trying to say.
You're trying to attach a handful of policy decisions to whether someone is right or left, rather than looking at them as a whole.
Besides that, I didn't say Obama was a leftist, or even left-wing. I *clearly* stated he was a SLIGHTLY left-leaning MODERATE. I don't know how you are misconstruing what I said unless it's intentional.
In regards to consuming less news, I agree. However reducing it completely isn't the goal, but instead paying attention to the news with a critical eye.
"News" is a very broad term. There are global, national and local news. There are opinion pieces and factual reports. Some facts matter more than others, and that is for each person to decide for themselves. Perhaps Socratically. Also, always check the sources. Because the article will often nitpick and sometimes misrepresent the source itself.
To stay current is completely different than keeping up with news. Remember the capture of media institutions allows for focus to be directed in their slight of hand tricks. To be current is far more valuable in my opinion. Now recognizing you only have so much you can focus on, pick trails that serve you well... Which news has never had as a priority since its inception. In my case I've chosen to stay current in the AI space, but there's plenty of paths to follow.
I think part of that critical eye is also realizing that news doesn't just have political biases, but also a profit incentive. For example, in the Soviet Union, the news was always optimistic and ignored negative stories. But in the for-profit free press, scary and negative stories dominate as they keep our attention and let news channels sell more advertisements. Part of why Trump won twice is he sells a lot of ads by capturing attention with negativity, outrage and humor. In professional wrestling terms, he's a fantastic "heel" or villain we love to hate / root for.
"And that's why this video is sponsored by Ground News!" 😂
12:45 - something that really rubs me the wrong way is that of the 8 different news clips he showed 5 of them are from outlets that have a high factuality/accuracy score (CNBC, CNN, BBC, ABC, TYT-usually). These all have a generally neutral contextualization of the news (except TYT).
The other 2 (Rogan, Fox News) have an abysmal factuality/accuracy score and a glaring right wing bias in their POV/contextualization.
If he wasn’t so invested in contradicting the left/right social paradigm, he would try exploring why the neutral and left-wing outlets tend to report with more facts and accuracy than the right wing ones.
Thank you for opening up the door to critical thinking and making the point that we can disagree without being labeled
Left Wing is a state of being; altruistic & humanistic = Socialist.
Right Wing is a state of mind; ego-centric & elitist = antisocial_ist.
Before gender, skin colour & ideology we're all human beings, divided into two groups. Humanity v inhumanity, we all choose a side it's just a question of perception.
Wait… that's not a left wing haircut?! Now I have to go back to the barber! 😢
Haha, the funny thing is that in 2016, people called my haircut alt-right 🤷
Thank you!
@@TheMarketExit you want to believe that so badly
@@TheMarketExit they were saying it's allright
😂That's so funny - especially after reading these serious (but interesting) comments
I disagree with the conclusion of this video - tribalism is not what causes division, it is merely the manifestation of it. Ideals, tribes, in-groups, out-groups, are all products of material incentives.
well said
Interesting comment, but what causes division? I'm curious.
@@coreherring1549natural differences
Interesting observation. I think that there are certain differences inherent between individuals, yes, but they don't fit neatly into this left-right dichotomy. And this arrangement into two opposing sides increases disagreement, summoning our tribal instincts that override reason.
@@rey82rey82 natural differences does not always lead to division. Can you expand on that?
The problem is most people don't know the difference between communist, socialist, liberal or progressive conservative. They just call them all "Marxist or Commie" due to a lack of understanding.
Most people have no idea what FA.....SM is but they gladly label others as such.
The definition of the left-right spectrum that I’ve heard and still find useful is that the left rejects capitalism and the right wants to protect capitalism. Thus, in the U.S., both Democrats and Republicans are right-wing because they both favor capitalism and both parties are funded by or a part of the capitalist class (wealthy property and business owners, heads of corporations, those that own the “means of production” which is just the stuff that makes stuff that we need to survive like food, shelter, and clothes). This has been useful for me, as I don’t like capitalism, however I like your point about bringing nuance to political conversations. You could have a homophobic communist or a gay-friendly capitalist, for example. Humans are so much more complicated than a polar spectrum can contain, and taking away these labels might limit unproductive assumptions that we make about others and help us connect through conversation more. I also really like that you encourage us to disagree and think for ourselves, I think these are really important aspects of political discourse that get lost in tribalism, especially in online spaces. It shouldn’t be an insult to disagree with someone, especially with someone you respect. Disagreement is healthy, inevitable, and useful for stretching what you think. Great video.
I agree but there just a bit extra here. Monarchism/Feudalism defends rejecting capitalism, Right-wing liberalism/conservadurism/far-right defends mantaining capitalism and left-wing defends overcoming capitalism to get to a higher level of society.
But putting the whole US into "right-wing" because the system is capitalist is also problematic, and, to be honest, also systematic of this kind of thinking. We put people into categories based on facts that those people may or may not have in the forefront of their own political identities. The Democrats in the US, for example, favor a more robust social democracy and stronger controls and regulations on corporations. The Republicans virtually no social democracy, and dream of utopian free-market. The spectrum is very different but they are still on it, and it doesn't help their problems by announcing to everyone: you're all right-wingers.
@@aaronhpa Rather than think of right/left as being pro-/anti-capitalism, think of them as being pro-/anti-establishment. Under monarchy, it was the bourgeoisie who were the revolutionaries. 🤘
@@FlanaFugue Reformists are still on the right, because they protect the ruling class from revolution, by appeasing the revolutionaries with concessions. Back in 2016, Dems were saying explicitly that they are _not_ leftists, because they don't support socialist projects such as public healthcare. They haven't really changed their tune since then. If anything, they've just kept following the GOP further to the right. 🤔
You do make a good point honestly, about how useless it is to call something left or right wing based on how we view our own social systems. Homophobic communists were the first communists- Soviet Union was terrible for gay people.
THIS is going in my PIM, thanks.
Well done and thought-provoking.
The real socio-political conflict isn't left vs. right; it's up vs. down.
Exactly! Most other issues is just scapegoats and smokescreens for the 99%
Rich vs Workers
That's what left vs. right is.
up vs. down describes the modern neoliberal economy very succinctly. we no longer have capitalism, we have parasitism, where money gets sucked upwards.
@@cass7448 Yeah, but it's not what it's framed as in the current political climate. Both democrats and republicans work for the rich.
I'm amazed at this channel. Very few channels I know with this level of critical thinking and quality that you put in the videos. Genuinely coherent, concise and thought provoking.
Hope you keep growing and your essence.
Cheers from Mexico!
Yes, but have you seen his video about immigration? :wink:
it's not "critical thinking" to completely miss the point. him not even mentioning wealth and power inequality is a blatant mis-representation of information.
Finally one channel which I watch that does not have a ground news ad.
LOL
What's quite funny is that the only political positions that are self-consistent / well-reasoned are considered 'fringe' and 'radical'.
real real real real
The problem is that utopias can't exist. Even the most consistent and realistic ideological beliefs won't play out exactly as desired in practice. Fascism for example has tended to fail despite theoretically being an extremely efficient government structure. True communism is utopian by nature and so is doomed from the start and has failed in its goals. Direct democracy can't exist on a large scale. Modern democracy is bureaucratic and slow making major and quick changes difficult. Etc etc you get the idea. Nothing will ever work to make everyone happy no matter how well thought out it is. Humans are imperfect and so is the system we create.
@ well fascism is authoritarian and they all suffer from the fact that no one likes them so they can only buy time until people clue on, what do you mean by community being utopian?
That’s because actual alternatives to the current system are its greatest threat and must be stigmatized. That’s why congress voted on mandatory teaching of the dangers of communism in schools.
@@DulcetNuance " not letting our planet die and people to suffer war and poverty because of profits is an utopia"
Yes, of course. But I dont attribute this simplistic binary to tribalism, but to the fact that all of western thinking (from the book of Genesis to the computer) is based on binary logic. It is an outcome of monotheism that the Enlightenment was not able to overcome. Western thought is inherently binary. I think one potential way to more accurately reflect the complexity of beliefs and values is to apply the social concept of "intersectionality" to political perspectives.
I generally agree, but somewhat disagree here. I don't think left/right is how much a person wants change. That would be silly, because it implies people want change for its own sake and not for some end. Furthermore, it's generally the case that the center prefers the status quo, and both extremes want change. Left/right rather, is a matter of someone's attitude toward hierarchy. The left wants to raise taxes in pursuit of economic equality. The left opposes Israel because it's a' apartheid ethnostate that puts one group above another. The right believes the "social order" is natural and good. The left supports democracy, the right supports monarchy or authoritarianism. The many unrelated views you list all align on this dimension.
Except, not everyone classified as left wants to raise taxes as the method of achieving egalitarian outcomes - namely Anarchists, who view relying on state mechanisms as ineffectual reformism that reinforces the contradictions of capitalism. If you look at a subject like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there is a rather stark division between MLs who tend to be pro-Russia, and most other Marxist and anarchist factions who are not. It's not a clean spectrum that lends itself to any sort of categorization. Fitting Marxists, dem-socs, soc-dems, Marxist-Leninists, Anarchists, market socialists, progressives, etc, all in the same category is...messy.
This video is painfully close to the point. It's like when right-wing people talk about southern states wanting to strenghten "States Right". Which begs the question: a state's right to do... what? (the answer is... the right to own slaves). My point being, people (wether left or right) don't want change in-and-of itself. they want a change for, what they deem, 'better'.
He was describing what's claimed by essentialist theory, which he later debunked
@XGD5layer He makes his own claims which we can examine critically on their own. He does mention a left / right spectrum based on hierarchy, but dismisses it without examination.
Broadly, he describes people as not occupying a single point on a single dimension, and of course I agree. There are many relevant dimensions and people's positions will cluster rather than converge on a single point just as people will measure various forms of inequality differently and with greater sensitivity to their own experiences.
People's views are also certainly informed more from the nurture side of the nature / nurture distinction, but none of this means a person's views are arbitrary or do not correlate.
@kyguypi at which timestamp does he mention it based on hierarchy?
American politics is broken. In the US system, the left only appears left because because the whole organised political essence is further to the right than europe, so I reckon while they're an interstibg social study but you can't use them as a left/right example.
I'm a "progressive" proudly extremely "commie"/humanist and I love how people freak out when I thank them for "calling me out. Still, I tend to be a bit of a firestarter 😂
I don't disagree with you, tribalism is a serious problem, but there are flavours of anger that sit on each side and that anger does still, very much fit the model of anger at absence of a kinder, sustainable freer world or anger at the absence a homogenous, wealth exploitative world.
"If a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested."
Tom Wolfe
Great video like always! I just wanted to say how much I respect your decision to turn down the GroundNews sponsorship. Honestly, it wouldn’t have bothered me that much if you had taken it-after all, so many creators do. But the fact that you didn’t, and that you prioritized staying true to your message and values instead, is truly admirable. It shows how much integrity you have and sets you apart from other creators who often take questionable sponsors. It’s decisions like these that make your content feel so authentic and remind me why I respect you and your work so much. Keep it up! We truly need more people like you.
I agree. I wouldn’t have criticized him for it, because I do think Ground News is a useful tool for news aggregation. It not only tracks left/right but also ownership (independent/corporate, etc) and can help you see who is reporting what.
That being said, it does overly simplify things and I applaud his decision to remain true to his convictions. This channel is quickly becoming a favorite of mine and his integrity on this is really cementing that process.
Exactly!!!
is there something wrong with groundnews? i was considering subbing
@ watch the end of the video. It isn’t bad, it just oversimplifies political ideologies
I think GroundNews is probably one of the few legitimate sponsors of general content providers out there. I've just never really seen the point of them for most people.
Thanks! Excellent video and definitely needed. Mentioning Ground News at the end with the context you provided was PERFECTION. This video was a ray of hope that some people will stand for real “critical thinking” and not using the term as a defense for their tribal thinking. In the USA I fear this is a shrinking minority and this coming from Sweden might be a small confirmation of that.
As soon as both my old man and a younger relative said "Kamala was too far left" I knew he didn't know wtf he was talking about
Your right she doesn't know WTF she is! that's one of the reasons she lost.
@clownsleftjokersright7027 to me she came across as someone who's plans were out of touch with the current state of things and that she didn't really want to run.
@@heathercontois4501 She was just following the script. she had no real platform or vision.
Left/Right is relative to the average. Kamala was DEFINITELY more leftist than the average American
@@aidanaldrich7795 No not at all, thats why she experienced a notable loss in votes compared to Bidens 2020 turnout. A lot of "leftists" said no way to her because she was a turncoat, not "too left".
To be fair, it is theoretically possible to be an anti-semitic Nazi and also Pro-Israel, as contradictory as this might sound.
and the opposite (not anti semetic but also anti-Israel)
Isreal is a zion$ist state which is a supremacist political position and therefore in the same political spectrum as Na$is. Try reading the WSWS.
They would essentially have a "not in my backyard" mentality.
Zios and nazis are both fascists, so game recognise game.
I think this is the Christian Nationalist stance right now. They want an ethnostate for themselves and support Israel, because they assume that’s what it is.
I have been telling people to not identify with ideologies for years now. You can have ideals but do not identify with ideologies. The tribalism thing gets people every time. And it makes people unnecessarily angry.
Glad i'm not alone in this. World is becoming more polarized than ever after 2020s. Not sure what was the process, maybe staying home too much made people too "online" than they'd normally be. Well, doesn't matter. Results were clear.
Parties are in my opinion a necessary simplification of political opinions for representative democracies in order to have elections, but left-right is a brutal flattening of the range of possible opinions to have, it undevelops critical thinking as all labels do. The fall of ideologies has brought us here, once there were more shades of possible affiliation when it meant something to be socialist or liberal.
Absolutely agree, I hold the same theory, you explained extremely well
It’s a very solid video! I always felt that left right is an oversimplification and noticed that people do treat politics as a sport. Having strong opinions about things you have no idea about and that doesn’t actually affects you is weird. And people want to feel connected and be a part of something very much. So politicians give them an opportunity to bond over something they can use.
The left/right paradigm doesn't make sense, but it occurs with such monotonous repetitiveness that if you think it's not real, your the one with the analysis failure.
This was the first video of yours that I have seen but it was quite interesting. Thank you for citing the books that inspired you to make it.
The term "communist" has quite a specific meaning, support for a specific economic system as explained by Marx in the communist manifesto.
Correlation between the aspects of this economic ideology is not random coincidence or just due to tribalism, it is because the aspects of a socialist or communist economic model naturally complement each other.
Someone being a communist also tells you nothing of their societal, environmental views, so there can be no contradiction there as these aspects of someone's ideology have nothing to do with them being communists or not. There are communists who support a single party dictatorship with gulags and genocides, and communists who support a liberal multi-party democracy with civil rights for all and a focus on protecting minorities. They can both be communists, if they both support a communist economic model.
Now, convention has it that economic ideology is the main determinant factor of grouping an ideology on the left, so that communists tend to get placed at the far-left end of the left-right spectrum, but that's not really the point I am trying to make. The point rather is that terms like "communist" or even "socialist", while often just used as inflationary and factually incorrect slurs, are not dependent on the left-right spectrum to be meaningful, because they refer to a very specific and coherent ideology limited to a very specific aspect of politics, namely economics. So while I agree with your point regarding identifying with "the left" or "the right", I don't think there is anything wrong with calling yourself a communist or a socialist if this describes your economic views well.
Yeah, there is an anti-label trend that ends up being just another tribe (even outside politics, I see it a lot regarding sexuality for example).
While many times a label might be a misleading oversimplification and generalization, rejecting any definition or grouping for the sake of it is a meaningless posture in practice.
There actually is a basis for left-right ideologies that spans from the French revolution into modern day. The right infers power through a belief that certain types of people and certain individuals inherently possess power or are meant to possess power. The left holds the belief that power is granted by will of the people through merit in an equal society. The right may sometimes pretend their views are based on the latter framework, but basic analysis often exposes their true beliefs.
If you take the Left too far, however, you get Robespierre, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Extremism in either direction results in totalitarianism.
*The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the collective. Left-wing beliefs are based on the notion that society is best served with an expanded role for the collective in-group (collectivism). People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role - and especially the power - of the government is minimized.*
@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae_ And this is proven false by pretty much every example of right wing extremism. Good try, but it's much harder to sanitize the right wing mentality than that.
@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae_ What about Islamism, they're clearly right wing and have nothing to do with individual liberties
You have it completely backwards. During the French Revolution the revolutionaries were called REPUBLICANS. In other words, on the Right. They were against the oligarchs and wanted equality. During the US Civil War the party that fought to end slavery was the Republicans, again the Right. The Democrats, on the Left, wanted to keep slavery. The Democrats wanted to have oppressive power over an entire other group of people while the Republicans saw everyone, regardless of skin color, as equal. To say that the right "sometimes pretend their views are based on the latter framework" when literally hundreds of thousands of people on the Right willingly gave their lives during the American Civil War standing up for equal rights is rather disingenuous.
Nice essay. I was not convinced of left-right typology but I did not found a good thinking and neccesary words until now. Thank you very much.
The major parameter the “essentialist theory” should look at is “does a person have empathy?” People without empathy are often conservative
Well that's stupid
@skeletonknight5429 Seems to be true though.
You mean compassion. They aren’t the same thing. Empathy is understanding, compassion is caring. The left is no more empathetic than the right, often being overly permissive.
@@felixinfrance I feel like the whole point of the Left is that they have compassion for people who aren't themselves; the Left are the ones who care about the rights of marginalized people. The Right seems to only care about themselves individually, and even seems to even lack empathy, as they clearly do not understand *anything* that isn't themselves.
Who the hell is your editor/thumbnail artist? If it's you that's equally impressive. Amazing style and overall education. Thank you, sir!
I agree. It looks so good.
"why left -right thinking is STUPID." Wow, I was happy to hear this
you're right. i'm not "left-wing". i'm an egalitarian anarchist
Anarchism is by definition egalitarian (and imo by definition leftist, though I get that post-left anarchists disagree)
@KarlSnarks agreed. and, hi. nice to meet you, friend
@@robotic_automaton nice to meet you too ;)
Ahh, the step before fascism. Why don't you just skip the middle man?
@@myself2noone lol how does that work? anarchists are among the most determined anti-fascists
“Divide and rule”🤺 (Latin: divide et impera) is commonly attributed to Roman rulers, such as Julius Caesar or Philip II of Macedon. It reflects a strategy of creating divisions to maintain control, a tactic that still holds relevance in understanding power dynamics today. Let us not fall victim to these divisions created by politicians, but instead think critically about what is best for us, whether from the left or the right, because the world is not as simple or as black and white as it may seem.✌🏻
Don’t trust those well-known politicians or ordinary people who are political manipulators-they are the source of all evil. Trust experts who hold unslanted and non-polarized opinions instead.
Why do we even need politicians? They aren’t necessary for nothing….!
"holds relevance" 😂
I'm not sure it could be understated to any greater degree.
RUclips's algorithms send a lot of political stuff my way but this was genuinely inspiring. Thank you
this video is misleading in the way the spectrum was described. In American politics we don't have a major leftist party, as our beliefs/society structure have been heavily influenced by red scare propaganda. Tribalism can explain a lot of the inconsistency with what beliefs people hold, but it downplays the active process of miseducating and taking advantage of working class people that has been going on for decades.
i appreciate that he mentions Ground News - and rejects their offer of sponsorship as their separation of News into Left and Right leaning is just playing into the myth the video was made to debunk ☯️🔥
I had never thought of that, but it's a valid point!
Ground news is awesome and just shows the difference of framing on an issue. It's helpful.
I agree. By looking at something that says “we separate into left-right-center” and then being opposed because you believe that there is no such thing, you discount what they offer. Which is showing their users what the different media ecosystems have to say about any particular topic (based on how those media platforms identify their users).
So if all someone consumes is media from “left” leaning media, they might not see stories that the “right” is talking about, or how they are talking about the same story.
It’s hard to have a discussion with someone with an opposing viewpoint when you’re each fed different “facts” by your chosen media outlets.
@@davidavard8461 I'm not saying that Ground News and the like aren't useful tools - just that i appreciate that he chose not to accept sponsorship from them and why ☯
This may be the best RUclips video I have ever seen. It is informative and visually interesting. Thank you for creating it.
At first I was gonna say you’re missing something, but, psychologically and evolutionarily speaking, tribalism gets at the heart of the problem. Great work!
How can we get you more subscribers? I can't entirely agree with everything you say but your channel is extremely underrated. Keep up the good work!
This should be shown in school government classes in the US on the first day
It won't change anything. Ignorance will prevail.
I like your haircut. But then again I'm nearly bald so what the hell do I know.
Keep up the good work, your effort are highly appreciated.
Then you must be a leftie XP
This is great man. Just found this channel. You are spot on. People are way complicated than Coke or Pepsi.
it seems a straw man argument. The fact that people is not exactly divided in two groups of people that think in the same exact way does not mean that right and left are non existant concepts, and there isn't a correlation between the views on different matters. Also, the choice of the example does not seem ideal, the Israel that Hitler hated was a different Israel, with a different role rispect to the Israel that today occupy Gaza.
You’ve ignored the core problem. Tribalism is promoted by legacy media controlled by an oligarchy that attempts to deflect attention from themselves to foment tribal divisiveness. Deliberate and ongoing
Great video, awesome that you pointed out the Left/Right spectrum was just a seating plan and not natural law or a reflection of reality! Wealth uses the left vs right foolball game to distract from the actual fight of Up/Down. To the point I wish the Left would pick another name because it psychologically keeps the matching "Right" alive in perpetuity.
The Left could technically just rename to Down, as it's basically the same. It tries to fight for the liberation of the working class and marginalized groups, against oppressive power structures.
As I said....it has been refined as an economic scale/spectrum (still very useful)
@JoelER78 it's not useful at all. You can easily have political discussion without categories or a spectrum.
There’s still utility to the left-right divide in my view, not because it reflects some deep psychological essence, but because each set of issues speak to a set of class interests spurred by class antagonisms, especially under capitalism. Being pro-gun is a good example of a position that in some contexts puts you on the right, like the NRA, while in other instances makes you categorically on the left, like the Black Panthers. I like Halim Alrah’s explanation in his video on why all “political compass” tests are trash.
OMG you are the first youtuber i have seen, that shares my skepticality towards ground news' left / right classification. It has really been bothering me, that especially many youtubers whom i think have really good and progressive political things to share (even as the whole channel theme), had an add for ground news without critizing this.
I'm from Australia's capital city from a family that have worked in mid-high government jobs for about 100 years, I've been telling people there is no such thing as left and right (never has been 🔫👨🚀), that ultra wealthy people decide everything and the government only really exists to maintain order and push paperwork around to create a system where the top 0.1% can utilise an every expanding labour and resource market, but no one would believe me (despite having generations of stories about directly witnessing exactly that).
Glad to see this kind of idea is starting to get accepted by the general public, but it's sad that it's taken the world getting to this point for it to happen.
I'm greatly optimistic about how my generation will handle the world in the future (gen z) it's just a bit sad that most of our effort will have to be focused on damage control so future generations can do anything at all without running out of clean water, air and food half way through from a Roman pincer formation of crises.
Tribalism is a problem but right-wing ideology, specifically it's subscribers are just filled with so many contradictions. Especially here in the US. And it's partly because of the labels of left vs right.
There's a poll that shows a far majority of people favor Left politics but only if you do not label and describe it without buzzwords that will identify itself. This is funny because we hardly have a real Lefty representation in the US - Biden, Harris, Clinton's are not Left. Our closest to a real Lefty would be Bernie and AOC. Everyone else is right-wing.
RWers are notorious for voting against their own interests and now officially outnumber lefties, at least in voting who gets to lead our country.
They'll find out soon enough what they voted for but the damage is done and we tend to forget easily... Even in the age of the Internet. SMH. We live in crazy times.
I really enjoy your content! The videos are often not too long that I have to plan ahead, nor too short and feel it is too simplified. I'm sure the length could be adjusted per the topic and the world events of the moment. I was considering supporting you, but hearing your take on the idea of, and not accepting the sponsoring of, Ground News convinced me to support you. Please continue to keep making interesting and informed content, no matter the topic it is nor the group it might offend. Cheers.
It seems you have no idea of statistics
Any video, such as this one, that sincerely encourages independent thought and critical-thinking is a public service that should be promoted. However, I find it hilarious anyone would think Truman, Blair, or Obama were left-wing just because they were Democrat or Labor. We still had Dixiecrats in the US when Truman was president, for Pete's sake. Liberals are not left-wing. I sometimes wonder if they ever were. Progressives..., maybe. But liberals in general? No. Left-right is often used to describe a person or persons' beliefs and policy positions. Not everyone will fit neatly into someone else's idea of what is left or right. And I agree, it can feel a lot like astrology when one's foundation is weak. When one's political knowledge is informed by pop-culture, the left-right dichotomy becomes all too reductive and leads to confusion and frustration. All that means is everyone must do their due diligence and not fall into unthinking, conforming camps like what was suggested in this video.
There definitely have been some liberals inducted into the white allyship hall of fame. Just saying.
I personally agree on your assessment of those politicians, but they have all been called left-wing. Perhaps disagreement on the dividing line is another argument against using the left-right spectrum as our primary lens for political analysis - it always depends on where you stand. I remember an article from someone who supported the Liberals in the 70s (the UK's centre party) and hadn't changed his views, but is now regarded as far left.
Truly amazing video! The writing, editing, content, delivery- all are absolutely top notch! Bravo.
I cannot understate how relatable this mindset is.
Although I personally not just have this opinion on political left/right. But also segregation in general in most things.
As far as Hitler, he would likely be in favor of Israel because it was formed under racist reasons. The idea of a homeland for the Jews was always because of European prejudices and anti semitism.
He considered sending the Jews to Madagascar before settling on the Holocaust
This is true. Hitler wanted mass deportations of Jews and would have loved some place he could have sent them all.
I was going to make the same point myself until I actually looked into it and realised it’s a harmful myth. Hitler was never an advocate for Zionism.
He would NOT be sending them aid or supporting their existence for an ethnicity he hated you are delusional
@@k.umquat8604he sent them to die. He didn't send them to flourish there 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
"Consume less news." Best advice I've been given in awhile. I try not to watch too much but this talk only confirmed the need to stay away from the "news."
It's not change. It's sensitivity to threat.
Threat of not affording healthcare or food, or facing discrimination? Or threat of immigration, war and economic collapse?
None of these axes perfectly capture the left-right issue clustering we see. Just accept it and expand your thinking.
@viinisaari the level of activity in the right amagydala predicts levels of social conservativism to 83% accuracy.
A pertinent topic. The left vs right division, as part of a general black and white approach to the world, is indicative of mass society and its relentless demand for conformity. We live in a sick system but we must never avoid being true to ourselves, no matter what the voice of the masses says.
This video should be the Superbowl halftime show this year. Thank you for what you’re doing and for being so good at it. Bravo.
Rock solid men! 🎉 While I disagree with many of your thoughts in many of your videos, I love that you bring in thought diversity and enrich discussions from your angle! Well done!
I'm at the 3 minute mark, and there's already an error on your video. The right wing position is not anti immigration. It's anti-illegal immigration. There's a big difference. We want immigrants, just not unvetted ones.
Left wingers are also not for tax raises but tax raises for the 1%
I reached this conclusion at a very young age. This just proves all you have to do is wait, and someone out there will act. Well done.
it is one of the biggest thing dividing us
What does this even mean? To say someone is "left-wing" or "right-wing" means that they hold a certain set of values. It's not an arbitrary distinction. Leftists and right-wingers believe different things, their ideas are more often than not in direct opposition to one and other. Is that not a reasonable thing to be divided by? Do you expect people to all believe the same thing?
@Schmopitit means that the same person may believe in a set of things that are typically considered "left-wing" and another set of topics that are "right-wing". I can be antimarket and socially conservative (e.g. opposing trans rights). Or I can believe in climate change and that government regulations shouldn't be the answer to it.
I hate how smug you are. You do have some valid points but being so smug just pisses me off
Several of the channels I subscribe to promote Ground News. You are the first I have seen to refuse their offer. You do so for the right reasons. I now subscribe to your channel. Thank you for your excellent work!
This is exactly what a lefty would say. 😂
On the contrary.
The denial of the Left-Right spectrum clearly serves the right-wing, as it denies the class character (and the antagonisms inherent to those classes) of our current economic model. It claims that the real solution is merely technocratic, a simple matter of changing the inputs, as something outside of class conflict (which is the engine that drives change).
Every time someone denies the existence of the political spectrum, they're doing a favor to the right-wing. Whether wittingly or not. No conscious Leftist would ever deny it.
I'm very pleased to hear your stance on advertising. I wish many more creators would have this kind of integrity. I understand people need to be able to afford to keep producing content, and audiences have to choose between many great content makers. We have less and less to work with as the costs of living continue to skyrocket. It's a difficult choice to make.
"How justifiable do you find property-based heirarchy?"
Spectrum ends:
Left: not at all
Right: entirely
Everything else is a distraction, and especially in the USA, groupings of policies carefully selected to most evenly divide the country in half to perpetuate the corporate duopoly. That way, when things don't improve for the working class, democrat and republican voters can point at each other and congressional gridlock doesn't seem so intentional.
I feel like it’s based on change but at the level of Joe Rogan’s intellect. No offense to Joe but his popularity is based not on sides but just what - is.
Deeply validating video! The way I have most often viewed politics is to take what I want or need and leave the rest, and this video explains this very concept so well! Again, thank you for what you do here!
This is the first video of yours that I have watched. I enjoyed it largely because you have me thinking about how to assess the complexities of peoples views and helps me to make sense of how the boxes we draw around political issues never seem to fit.
Thank you for prompting me to go on a learning adventure.
"As soon as something is labeled, it will no longer be fully understood." A retort I starting using in my professional life to try and get others to keep an open mind during the actualization of a project. Sadly, tribalism is an inherent safety mechanism, so it takes a lot of energy to be overcome via curiosity and free thinking. History is rife with examples. Good video. I'll need to check out more.
The Ground News Story at the End made my day. Simply perfect. Great work!
More than 30 years ago I determined that the left-right spectrum was nonsense and even criticized the attempts to place people and policies on a three-dimensional spectrum with a horizontal and vertical axis. Today I see it as a dysfunctional social construct similar to the speaker in this video.
He should look at how social constructs are used to define reality and pressure people to adopt the socially constructed perception so of reality rather than the historical, factual and scientific approaches.
A dynamic systems approach is superior focused on problem identification and seeking solutions. Taxes should be levied ONLY in connection with a problem to be solved and even here to realize that federal taxes of a sovereign currency issuing nation do not fund that nation’s spending. Money is often cited as a social construct but the beliefs about taxes are also social constructs.
Interesting. I'm a scientist and in scientific training there is nothing like left and right -- only true and false. If you have accepted something as true and then new research shows it to be false, you are not only expected but OBLIGATED to reverse your position.
Interestingly, this plays into the abominable view, adopted by many U.S. Republicans, that scientists are "liberal" or "left-wing" or whatever label you prefer.
so good keep it coming
Fantastic well researched video! The last few minutes and your commentary on Ground news was truly endearing, demonstrating your commitment to principles.
you're truly doing good work in this world, please keep it up!!
You won a subscription from me when you talked about Ground news at the end. I have been shouting into comment sections all over the internet trying to show how VPN and Media presentation corporations are buying the opinions of those who can sway others on platforms such as this. Thank you for thinking differently.
This is a fantastic video, and very well thought out. Thank you for making this.
Just a suggestion, I think the overuse of animations and sound effects is actually a detriment to the video. It makes it sound like what you’re talking about isn’t confidently positioned well enough to not warrant lots of post production. Your thoughts are so good, you don’t need so much post production
Your essays it's one of not many reasons why I open RUclips. Thank you! Don't know do they really can change people ideologies. I hope they do. Also hope that you will have enough of resources to continue be Independent and Creative as you are.
THANK YOU!!!! I have been arguing for the "Tribalist" approach to understanding politics for several years. It just makes more sense... especially how you have presented the dynamic. I thoroughly enjoyed your essay.
So happy to see your well deserved growth with the channel.
However don't you think it's time to launch a editing masterclass? This way all of us can benefit.