It sure is weird how difficult it is for a lot of people to just go "I'm not into that, I find it kinda icky, but that's just my preference" instead of twisting it into a public morality issue.
It's definitely something queer people have to deal with all the time. I could try to patiently explain to someone that a gay trans man like myself is not a sign of the end times, but in the past few years I've mainly responded with, "Why do you care?"
Oh yeah, it's a constant for us queer and trans folk. "Why do you care?" and "That's none of your business," are my go to responses. Along with, "We've always been here, we're just not hiding anymore."
I'm a cis het man, and I've been using "What difference does it make to you, cunt!" as my standard challenge queerphobic language. I know it's a bit aggressive, but it's been pretty successful for me.
Hell yeah. I’m straight and cis, but being a woman of color (and a darker skinned one) I am so sick of defending my existence to people who can’t mind their business. I am privileged to not have to defend who I love or how I identify, but I like many people with uteruses am also in danger of losing reproductive rights
freedom has the same paradox as tolerance. it only reaches to the extend where someone else's freedoms or tolerance begin. to that end intolerant people and those who do not respect others freedoms can never be given any power until they fall in line otherwise everyone looses all freedom and tolerance.
Dictators don't have that much freedom as well.( There usually is a group of people who are behind him & telling him what to say & do )...Think of a Banana Republic Rule of one for all
Attacks on Tim Walz’s son: I spent two tours during the Vietnam war and the day I left a number of my fellow soldiers who I spent day and night with for two years saw me off at the airbase to catch my C-130 ride down to Bangkok. As we said our goodbyes, tears were flowing from my eyes. Later in life, I walked my two daughters down the aisle for their weddings. Tears of joy and pride were flowing down my face. In all three instances, these tears were uncontrollable and natural, as natural as breathing. My autonomic nervous system took over and even though I do not have any mental defect that I have been diagnosed with, it was just a human, natural, emotional process.. These people that attacked Tim Walz’s son, must be void of a human heart that can express emotion and love and pride.
Fictional or not, saving someone's soul cannot be accomplished through the law. These so-called Christians say that they believe in God. If that's true, they need to leave people's souls to Him and mind their own business. Legislating morality doesn't work.
I suggest everyone who makes that assertion, to take responsibility for the lives they "saved". Every pro-lifer should have the legal obligation to be financially and morally responsible for all the unwanted children being born.
Yeah, that's the one thing he didn't address. Religion breaks this system. Because when you can claim made up harms that come from innocuous behavior, you can make anything your business. If you believe gay people are punished in the afterlife, then a culture that lets people be gay *is* harming people. And because that punishment is eternal, literally any action is justified to save them from it. If you believe the premise, the rest of the logic is genuinely sound. This is why I think it's important people actually believe in reality. Because it informs our actions and moral judgements.
Pleasepay attention, No other human being can 'Save' another person's Soul. If they could there would be no need for any other relationship with anyone let alone a higher being or power. Stop and think for just a second. Please stop repeating that.
"But think of the baby!!" "You mean the blob of meat that doesn't even have self-awareness yet? You think that is more important than the bodily autonomy and life trajectory of a fully formed, thinking person? Bodily autonomy is so important that you can't even be forced to give _blood_ if you don't want to, and you want to force others to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?"
The sentiment “My freedom to swing my arm in a circle ends at your nose” has been expressed by many social theorists and jurists including J.S. Mill, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Abraham Lincoln among others as far back as 1830.
@@gsp4prez Slight misquote there, it's supposed to be "...Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. " Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper Monticello, February 10, 1814
_“A man is likely to mind his own business when it's worth minding. When it's not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other peoples business.”_ -Eric Hoffer
A huge part of the problem is, a lot of people have very different ideas of what "harm" means. A lot of evangelical Christians would agree with the sentiment "As long as it's not causing harm to someone, mind your own business." The issue is, to an evangelical Christian abortion is causing harm, because you're killing a baby. Homosexuality is causing harm, because you're going to hell if you don't repent. Anything a Christian disagrees with is inherently "causing harm" in their mind, because it's damaging your immortal soul. "Religious freedom" as a concept is completely nullified if you believe you have the one and only true way to salvation and everyone else is going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity, because nobody wants that for their friends and family. No one who truly believes in hell actually wants religious freedom. They want freedom to practice their own religion, and freedom to convert everyone else to that religion. Source: I was one of them for nearly 30 years. I know how these people think because I grew up as one, surrounded by them every day of my life.
@@IstasPumaNevada As a believer, you don't have to break out of it to be reasonable about it. Jesus never told anybody that they needed to try to pass laws or use the government to control other's people's actions. Other people's souls are not a Christian's responsibility to try to save. I believe in religious freedom because God believes in it. If He didn't, He would have a bunch of robots walking around and no one would have free will.
You’re exactly right about the Evangelicals’ reasoning, unfortunately. Congratulations on widening your view of the world. It’s not an easy thing to do. Good luck to you and yours.
How can my soul rotting in hell cause harm to others? If my choices send me to hell (depending on your beliefs), then how does that harm anyone but me?
@@jacquimott386Ah, but when you promote (or, really, just don't castigate) those choices, other people will make them, too! By letting people be gay in peace, we let more people go to Hell. Their own children might eventually be one of those people! A religion with eternal punishment based on benign behavior is incompatible with actual freedom. Because following basic moral logic from the beliefs it imposes still leads to bad outcomes.
When asked to sign a petition to legislate against abortion, I ask them to sign my petition to outlaw tomatoes and eggplant. When they ask why I want to outlaw those two veg/fruits, I tell them "Because I, and many others, don't like them. Very much like your feelings about a woman's bodily autonomy."
Steve, I really appreciate your videos and insight. As someone who has had to step away from the church because of Christian Nationalism, I want to share the justification I often heard. They would claim they wanted to control others out of LOVE because they wanted to SAVE YOU from sin. "If you saw someone about to fall into a ditch, wouldn't you grab and stop them." I was never comfortable with this logic because it has been used to commit so many atrocities. Thanks again for the videos and as a UMD alum, say hi to the flag for me.
Yes, that is a problem with platitudes. They're vague enough that you can twist them to mean whatever you want them to mean, with the right/wrong frame of mind.
Your freedom to wave your fists around ends where my nose begins. The domestic affairs of domestic tyrants are proper matters for law. I'm sure I'm misquoting someone.
Yes; the late, great Sir Terry Pratchett had his Lord Vetinari expound on fredom, which includes the freedom to take the consequences (which many forget).
@@kyleethekelt GNU Sir Terry Pratchett. He always had the most insightful, humane, and sensible takes on every subject he touched, as well as being damn funny. On the topic of buggery, he simply said, "The hedgehog will never be buggered at all."
The correct quote is; "Your freedom to wave your junk around ends where mine rump begins... not that there's anything wrong with that!" -Sir Jerry of the House of Seinfeld
The part of the mind where logic exists is intertwined with the emotional part, rationality takes a shortcut to that part so it's understandable why people make this mistake but they need to be more aware of how their emotions affects their logic.
I'm with you, Steve. As a disabled and a thinking person I am constantly having to advocate for myself on my ability to control my own life, make my own choice and hold agency over my own decisions; and I worry about those who aren't able to self-advocate, whose lives are peopled only with professionals and no actual friends, who may make decisions I would not, but I know they have the right to do so even if the community at large disagrees. Some little stir was caused in Australia (over the ditch from me) some time ago when it was revealed that some disabled people were using their support funds to pay for sex. While I personally wouldn't do that I have no problem with it - knowing that this might be those people's only experience in that regard if their lives are filled only with professional people. However, it caused a huge stink at the time and I have a disturbing notion that many people think we either don't have the same feelings, are not allowed to have the same feelings, or don't feel them to the same depth as other people - that we are somehow less human.
I was actually reading about some brothels in Australia that specialise in providing caring services to the disabled. At least one of the ladies had a masters in psychology. None of my business, but I thought it sounded like really important work.
There are so many examples of this sort of issue in so many parts of life, love, and the bedroom. The way people get about consenting adults sharing a life, love, and sex is just ridiculous. I've experienced it a lot for being polyamorous even though I and my partners cause no hard to anyone else by loving each other, not to mention that we can never get married to each other like we'd want because of anti-mormon polygamy bans. I experienced it many times for just being a trans woman. I've even experienced and seen it so many times for simply loving the "wrong" sort of people, whether it be because of gender, a prior relationship, or a shared background. I will say one thing, though, watching people get so bent out of shape for people causing no harm in any meaningful way taught me to mind my own business and stand up for others when other people stop minding theirs. I simply do not care how or who you share your life, love, or sex with. I only care that everyone is a consenting adult, period.
A passage that I think is an appropriate benchmark on when it's appropriate to make something your business: "But you were always a good man of business, Jacob," faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself. "Business!" cried the Ghost, wringing his hands again. "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
Jim Henson, Frank Oz and Fred Rogers never steered me wrong. I must admit that Dickens did have a unique gift for articulating the virtues of common human decency in both an eloquent and, elegant way.
My absolute favorite Dickens novel. Our family has read it out loud, listened to it, and watched it year after year. As my dad was going through a transfusion because of leukemia, I played one of the recordings I have of it, read by Tim Curry. We couldn’t finish it in December, but when we found ourselves back in the hospital in March, I went back and finished the book with him, reciting out loud together in chorus with Tim - both Tiny and Curry - “God bless us, every one!” I’m so glad I did, because Dad passed in April. And I found the end of that book to be a fitting epitaph for my Dad, who, like Scrooge, had had a major change of heart later in life. He learned to be more kind, and to spread humor and cheer. And when people laughed to see the change in him, he let them laugh. :) I’m glad Walz - another Tim! - understands the value of laughter, and how to mind each other’s business when appropriate, and stay out of it when it’s not. He’s a genuine person and genuinely good guy. We could do a whole lot worse than to have him as part of this next administration. I’m so glad we have the opportunity for some wholesomeness after all this graft and grift from 45 et al.
Yesterday I saw a clip where Charlie Kirk was doing one of his dumb debate me clips against some kid at the DNC and, as usual, he devolved to the absurd question, “what is a woman?” As in your story here, I came to the conclusion that the correct response is, “I don’t care” or “why should I care?” I think it’s important to make them justify why these things are any of their business because that’s almost always the underlying unjustified premise.
The most absurd thing about that clip was that he (Kirk) brought out that question in response to the young person talking about Trump's criminal actions. It was completely out of left field and so transparent that they just do it to troll.
From now on, a good response to that question might be something like, "After all that business about Imane Khelif, it's obvious that you yourself neither know nor care."
If I'm recalling the same clip as this one, I particularly liked the kid's answer: "Why don't you meet one?" (Perfect brush-off for a question asked in bad faith, IMO.)
I simply do not care what others do consensually. It is not my business how they choose to live their lives as long as they do not impact me or my loved ones. Thank you for an interesting dialogue.❤❤❤
My wife and I had this discussion the first time we heard him say this in a speech. We didn't go into buggery, which I now feel was a missed opportunity. Great video! Thank you, Steve!
I like to think that as long as it isn't affecting someone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, it's worthwhile to mind your own business. It feels appropriate in our country for some reason.
For some reason, some people feel the liberty of other people *does* affect their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Maybe they just can't be happy if other people are free to live as they see fit.
@@donaldwert7137 I argue this obsessiveness that conservatives have over seeing others not like them being happy stems from their desire to dominate and control. Conservatism at its core is about maintaining hierarchy, but when those of the privileged class see their “lessers” being happy regardless of the privileged classes interventions, it makes their control seem incomplete and incompetent. And as we’ve seen with many conservative policies, the suffering is the point.
@@donaldwert7137 Additionally, when conservatives see people being happy about things they don’t like (look at Tim Walz being genuinely happy to be Kamala Harris’ running mate), they often view as a threat to that hierarchy as well because it directly shows that their way of life isn’t the only way to pursue happiness.
This is actually really close to my moral code. Respect free will. My free will ends at the tip of my nose, except in cases of children, mentally impaired, or animals…those who lack the full capability to make well informed decisions. And these all require me to allow them the choices they can make, and to help them develop to the fullest extent possible for the individual with loving guidance. Free will does not mean a person who wants my car is free to take it, and I must allow it. Stealing isn’t a free will choice, it is against free will…it is dominating out of selfishness and no one has to put up with dominance. Yes…consenting adults with full cognitive abilities can chose to allow a dominant relationship, but attempts to dominate by trickery or force is allowed to be met with defensive measures. The common ground between us is handled with compromise and respect in a democratic manner. No…I’m not perfect, and do get angry and lash out with disrespectful words at times, but it’s up to me to own my bad choices and bad behaviors. I have to take responsibility for my actions.
Yes. It's going to happen to an extent whether it's legal or illegal. Making it criminal mainly just creates a huge financial incentive for crime and increasing prison populations, while also making it harder for those with a problem to seek help and safety.
Here's the thing - marginalised groups like those with disabilities or significant mental health issues & the LGBTIQ community crucially NEED ALLIES WHO AREN'T MEMBERS OF THOSE COMMUNITIES TO CREATE THE CHANGES THEY NEED TO SEE TO ENTAIL THEM TO FEEL FULLY ACCEPTED. The behaviour you ignore is behaviour you accept. And should such behaviour be accepted? Same goes for policy. The people above - they need your help to get the policies enacted that enable them to get the same life someone not part of those groups takes as a given. Why do I care about this? I'm a carer for an adult son with moderare-severe disability issues. My son sits in the grey zone - too high functioning to fit into standard disability service models but simultaneously too low functioning to fit into standard mainstream service models. Finding the right people to support him is hard. I'm also in the grey zone. I'm agender (happy to present as female, just don't see why we have to assign gender roles) bi & poly & live with chronic medical conditions that require managing. The only mainstream things about me are race & biosex. Both me & my son are grey people trying to live in a social system that much prefers things to be black or white. So while I'd really like it if you kept out of my bedroom & drs office, I NEED you to storm the barricades on my behalf to ensure my life & my son's life is as good & fulfilling as yours is.
We been eatin' good with all these back-to-back Steve drops, keep 'em coming! Still hoping for a "If Republicans Said the Quiet Part Out Loud about Kamala Harris," btw.
I bought a Harris / Walz shirt that say "Mind your own damn business " it's a timeless reminder to Karen's, politicians and religious zealots that our choice is our pursuit of happiness. In context of what it means is your choice that is not nefarious or a threat to health and safety of individuals.
Just because a person believes something is harming them, doesn't make it so. Regardless, people are entitled to their private opinions so long as they extend the same courtesy to everyone else. It is when they decide that their opinion justifies taking actions that harm or otherwise infringe upon others right to make their own decisions or lead their life, that little sympathy is given when they find that actions have consequences. The contemporary urban philosopher O'Shea Jackson Sr. may have best summed it up when he advised one and all to "Check yourself, before you wreck yourself".
The basis for policing people's sexuality almost entirely and always comes down "societal harm." This perceived harm may come in the form of imagined and/or vilified causality, but if you probe the logic of those arguments all that will remain is the God factor. Specifically, a fair and just god who is _super_ into collective punishment - like bordering on obsession. Looking back to when I was a believer, I can't figure out why that never really stood out to me as a red flag. I guess it got swept under the "already living on borrowed grace" rug. However bad the internal, circular logic, it is self-sustaining. What freed me was not catching inconsistency between God's actions and His principles, but rather seeing laid bare what those principles really are. But yeah. When people disagree on whether others are being harmed, there's almost always a side subtly declaring that their god is the one actively causing the harm. Naturally, it's also the reason we should submit ourselves to this god _and_ coerce others to do the same.
This is my thought while watching. I agree with Steve when it comes to things directly affecting another person. But harms like climate change are indirect and temporally diffuse. It is difficult/impossible to discern where the line is drawn, especially when impacts are occuring over decades and lifetimes. I live my life much like any other American, I assume. But I also recognize that the way we live our lives may be harming future generations (some through climate changes, but largely the resultant collapse of ecosystems). Is it just a matter of shrugging it off because it isn't a direct harm?
@@brlopwn I think the moral directive remains the same, it's just tougher to come up with answers/solutions. Global warming is absolutely something that is everybody's business to care about, it's just harder to both decide what to do, and to get those in power to do it. It's also important to remember that individual actions will not solve the global warming problem; it requires top-down policies that are implemented on country- and global-scales. Global warming being the fault and responsibility of individual action is an idea perpetuated in part by the very fossil fuel companies causing the most harm.
Where I will step in and ask for actual, factual evidence. It does exist for things that some people may not agree with - children really are harmed by pedophilia, life on earth really is harmed by the global effects of climate change that can be empirically tied to human causes, etc.
I saw a survey once where about 40% of straight females surveyed had tried it at least once. This compared to about 60% of gay male couples, a number which was lower than I expected.
The best part is there is no way to know if the sister actually likes it, or was just messing with her brother. Either way he just got way more info than he wanted.
I'm good friends with my sister in law and sometimes I forget that certain topics have an ick factor to her that is not reciprocal and I have to apologize profusely for the mental image.
It's quite a good one, but there are still potential gray areas. Like, I could see someone going "But you're harming the _unborn baby_ !" I like The Satanic Temple's seven tenets, which specifically advocate for bodily autonomy. I think they're a great list (though I'd personally adjust the wording on one of them.) (Also note; The Satanic Temple is different from The Church of Satan.)
I recall a statement I made when I was 10(ish): We have the freedom to think, say, and do anything we want, so long as it does not stop others from their right to do, say, or think.
I always say, mind your own. However, when someone is harming another, i feel I have a duty to act. But stop, observe and get a feel for what is happening before acting
I always start watching your videos and wonder where you're going with your thought. Most of the time I'm like, "what's your point already" and then BAM! just like your friend at the end of this particular story, I'm surprised and just love the funny yet serious punchline. Thank you so much for your wise insights, Steve.
For some reason, when you started, all I could hear was Jacob Marley (from the 1951 classic, of course) saying "Mankind was my business". But as for your friend's sister? She's awesome, and gave him a Tombstone.
I don't mind if others like the back door fun, my main reservation is that poo is a big turn off for me. But even that can be addressed with proper preparation. The important things for such dalliances are good communication and consent.
I agree! Though of course even that can come down to opinion on what is "unnecessary" and "cruelty", animal rights are definitely overlooked far too often.
while his video focused on people for examples and such, his definition was more broad and included any and all forms of harm to individuals or groups as the basis of when to get involved. if animals are being harmed in any way, his definition would apply. therefore you cant really add that on since it would be everybody's business without any change to what he said, but its certainly worth clarifying that any life form capable of feeling harm ought to be included. also not sure why necessary cruelty to animals would be exempt or why the word unnecessary was required to begin with. cant think of a situation in which cruelty to animals is ever necessary let alone ought to be ignored. even if there is some scenario in which harm is necessary, there should still very much be some attention and care given to the act so that with hindsight, personal exploration of the self and others, we can reach and achieve better solutions to prevent or avoid harm in the future.
I have been telling people the same thing for years. As long as what your doing isn't harming someone else, I don't care what you do. Do whatever you want as long as it's not hurting someone else.
I think it comes to how people tend to think of the world as spectrums or binary. This analogy is often used in discussing left-right ideas, such the right trying to grin through saying "what is a woman" implying sex is binary, versus people on the left recognizing that even if we accept biology as the only basis for gender identity (which it isn't, and I don't accept that) we're still left with non-binary chromosome possibilities and the hundreds of genes that control sex characteristics and all the different ways environmental factors hormones can combine to create a continuous slider of possibilities that don't even have definite endpoints at traditionally accepted binary genital structures. Where I'm going with this is basically the right sees a cliff where the left sees a slope, and tying it back to where we might all see that. Now for sexual interests, where this comes in is most people have a much more "cliff" version of sexual preferences, whether or not you like something is generally much more cut off. Some positions are fine, others absolutely not. Some body types are preferred, others are outright rejected. This adds up, such that people tend to think of sexual actions by their cutoff points, rather than anything they're willing to engage with up to those points, when comparing their standards to other people. Also because of the personal nature of having sexual preferences, that for the most part need to be shared with at least one other person, there is a strong desire to have matching "cliffs". This creates a feeling in many people that things they like should be that way, and enables that binary thinking, of you're either with me or against me. You share my cutoff point, or you are incompatible with me. Which turns into wanting to project that cutoff point, because even though this process is not always consciously gone through, it still shows up as a comforting way to align the world to their cliff. Sexual things just usually have a sweet spot for most people, where there are perfect ideals, and hard cutoff points. Yes i've met people who will do just about anything they exist, but even people who cast a pretty wide net tend to focus on favorites, specific acts that really excite them, again leading back to thinking of sex in terms of cliffs, which leads back to why this sort of problem you described in the video happens often with disregard for other belief orientations. Funnily enough this topic came up today in a fetish server i'm in, from a girl who does not like the topic of this video, but who likes many other "weird" things, which I like too otherwise I wouldn't be in there. And I wouldn't be able to enjoy those things in a world where people didn't mind their own business. Simple solution to everything i've just described, and as you mentioned in the video, if you see a cliff, walk away. It's perfectly fine to communicate you see a cliff, but plenty of people like to go rock climbing so let them
I see that a lot with this particular example and it's like, my guy, there's nerve endings that make the feel good chemicals. You don't have to do it, but that's why people would actively seek this out.
This anecdote is a great example of how a story hits harder than a lecture. I have never met anyone who disagrees with the theoretical proposition of "Mind Your Own Business" but when it comes to actual cases ... nearly all of us (...and I really mean "us" ...) unthinkingly make exceptions for things on which we have deep convictions. But this story pops us in the nose with a consequence so gentle and so embarrassing that perhaps the lesson will sink in where a further lecture would not.
Roddenberrian Ethics is fully portrayed in Star Trek. As long as what you do does not negatively impact others, you should be able to proceed without intervention.
The problem with platitudes; they're vague enough you can shape them to fit whatever you want them to mean, with the right/wrong frame of mind. "Common sense" is another example.
Yeah, it's not perfect but it's a great start. Check out the seven tenets of The Satanic Temple, I think they are QUITE good and much better guidelines than something like The Ten Commandments, even if I don't 100% agree with the wording on every last one of them. (And also note that The Satanic Temple is a different organization than The Church of Satan.)
I see your comment and raise you this: so long as it doesn't cause harm to others, yourself, or the person doing the deed - mind your own business! If you know if that deed will harm that person, do you have a moral duty to try to prevent that harm?
Was it Martha Nussbaum who said that disgust is not an ethical category? As in, it does not matter if something is gross; it only matters if it is wrong.
Yeah outside of things like domestic abuse (especially child abuse) or emergencies like seeing smoke coming from a neighbors house, mind your own business.
Harm is pretty much the center of my entire moral philosophy. Glad that other people see it this way. Something becomes morally bad when other people are being negatively effected. If not, mind your own damn business. No, thinking something is "gross" doesn't cross that line so, again, mind your own damn business. People who know me think I have this elaborate system that you'd have to read philosophy books to understand. Nah man, just do what makes you happy, but don't hurt anyone. It's as simple as it gets.
I live with pretty much the same philosophy. One's personal rights should not be interfered with unless they violate another's. Hat's off to dude's sister 😂
Not particularly religious anymore, but as a kid, I came up hearing this certain song on the radio nearly EVERY Sunday when my fam & I were getting ready to go to the "chu'uch house". It was by this guy named Professor Charles Taylor. The BEST part of the song is the chorus, "I've got six months to MIND MY OWN BUSINESS & six months to LEAVE YOURS ALONE". I live by those words to this day & I CELEBRATE Gov. Walz's humor, kindness, competence and wisdom. Respect.🙏🏽
That does indeed sound like it was a glorious moment. Never much understood why so many people seem to get themselves all in a twist over things that have absolutely no effect on them. From individuals to entire groups or organizations being hell-bent on enforcing their own issues on literally everyone else and seeming to really believe that is okay. Sadly it also a thing that is as old as time... but I really should like to see people outgrow it in my remaining lifetime. Not holding my breath though.
Yeah… That’s why I’m not on Facebook anymore and I’ve blocked my family on social media accounts. My older sister found out my very liberal opinion on women’s healthcare. Apparently she cried to our dad about fixing me. Next thing I knew he’s inviting me to dinner to reason with me about my political beliefs. They were convinced that I must have been peer pressured into having the same views as my friends. “What friends? Who are you talking about? I haven’t fallen for peer pressure since the fourth grade. The few friends I have know better than to pressure me to do anything I’m not already comfortable with.”
There's a great book abour this calles Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do. It was written by Peter McWilliams, who was awaiting sentencing for possessing marijuana he used to treat non-Hodgkins Lymphoma when he died. This is a perfect example of the kind of thing to mind your own damn business. If it's a consensual activity that's as safe as or safer than driving a car no one has a right to tell you what to do. If you're talking about hurting others or depriving them of their rights i will not mind my own damn business. I will speak out
Mr. Shives is on a roll, pumping out the commentary. Keep on truckin', sir! I certainly appreciated Walz suggesting the gov't stay ot of bedrooms and hop the Dems develop that theme further. Stay out of bedrooms, stay out of doctor's offices, stay out of libraries, stay off school boards, take a light touch in regards to classrooms .... but get WAY the HELL up into churches :D
I was a Republican, and I minded my business too long. Now I am voting for Kamala! Because our business is preserving America!
Solid answer.
Good on you!
I’m proud of you. :) we’re in this together
Thank you!
It sure is weird how difficult it is for a lot of people to just go "I'm not into that, I find it kinda icky, but that's just my preference" instead of twisting it into a public morality issue.
We should bring back the word squick. Squick incapsulated that sentiment of "I'm not into it but I'm not judging you." perfectly.
@@Stephen-FoxBring back? I never heard of it. Maybe I didn’t get out enough.
@@Stephen-FoxWait, it’s gone out of fashion? Really? 😮 When?
It's definitely something queer people have to deal with all the time. I could try to patiently explain to someone that a gay trans man like myself is not a sign of the end times, but in the past few years I've mainly responded with, "Why do you care?"
Oh yeah, it's a constant for us queer and trans folk. "Why do you care?" and "That's none of your business," are my go to responses. Along with, "We've always been here, we're just not hiding anymore."
I'm a cis het man, and I've been using "What difference does it make to you, cunt!" as my standard challenge queerphobic language. I know it's a bit aggressive, but it's been pretty successful for me.
Exactly. What's in my drawers isn't anyone's business.
...At least, not before they take me out for coffee.❤😉
Hell yeah. I’m straight and cis, but being a woman of color (and a darker skinned one) I am so sick of defending my existence to people who can’t mind their business.
I am privileged to not have to defend who I love or how I identify, but I like many people with uteruses am also in danger of losing reproductive rights
Freedom is your own business until it is used to limit my own freedom -- only dictators can have 'unlimited' freedom.
Agreed 😂 h
DICTATORS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM
freedom has the same paradox as tolerance. it only reaches to the extend where someone else's freedoms or tolerance begin. to that end intolerant people and those who do not respect others freedoms can never be given any power until they fall in line otherwise everyone looses all freedom and tolerance.
It’s really this simple.
Dictators don't have that much freedom as well.( There usually is a group of people who are behind him & telling him what to say & do )...Think of a Banana Republic
Rule of one for all
Attacks on Tim Walz’s son:
I spent two tours during the Vietnam war and the day I left a number of my fellow soldiers who I spent day and night with for two years saw me off at the airbase to catch my C-130 ride down to Bangkok. As we said our goodbyes, tears were flowing from my eyes.
Later in life, I walked my two daughters down the aisle for their weddings. Tears of joy and pride were flowing down my face.
In all three instances, these tears were uncontrollable and natural, as natural as breathing. My autonomic nervous system took over and even though I do not have any mental defect that I have been diagnosed with, it was just a human, natural, emotional process..
These people that attacked Tim Walz’s son, must be void of a human heart that can express emotion and love and pride.
They've been told their own emotions are disgusting.
Thus the insidiousness of "saving" someone else's soul. Causing actual harm to someone else under the guise of preventing a fictional harm.
Fictional or not, saving someone's soul cannot be accomplished through the law. These so-called Christians say that they believe in God. If that's true, they need to leave people's souls to Him and mind their own business. Legislating morality doesn't work.
I suggest everyone who makes that assertion, to take responsibility for the lives they "saved". Every pro-lifer should have the legal obligation to be financially and morally responsible for all the unwanted children being born.
That's exactly how so many "witches" lost their lives under the loving ministrations of the church during the Inquisition.
Yeah, that's the one thing he didn't address.
Religion breaks this system. Because when you can claim made up harms that come from innocuous behavior, you can make anything your business.
If you believe gay people are punished in the afterlife, then a culture that lets people be gay *is* harming people. And because that punishment is eternal, literally any action is justified to save them from it. If you believe the premise, the rest of the logic is genuinely sound.
This is why I think it's important people actually believe in reality. Because it informs our actions and moral judgements.
Pleasepay attention, No other human being can 'Save' another person's Soul. If they could there would be no need for any other relationship with anyone let alone a higher being or power. Stop and think for just a second. Please stop repeating that.
My thought about abortion is, “If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one”. It’s very simple.
"But think of the baby!!"
"You mean the blob of meat that doesn't even have self-awareness yet? You think that is more important than the bodily autonomy and life trajectory of a fully formed, thinking person? Bodily autonomy is so important that you can't even be forced to give _blood_ if you don't want to, and you want to force others to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?"
Then I guess you won’t have one…
I agree with you. However, the way that states are not taking care women who need medical abortions for various reasons such as an atopic pregnancy.
I see what you mean but that won't convince anyone who really does think it's murder
@@S.D.323 Until it affects them.
The sentiment “My freedom to swing my arm in a circle ends at your nose” has been expressed by many social theorists and jurists including J.S. Mill, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Abraham Lincoln among others as far back as 1830.
Because if it touches my nose it gets broken.
"It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Thomas Jefferson
Good quote! In this one, he was talking about freedom of/from religion, but it's more broadly useful too!
“Christianity is, not ever was , part the common law.” Founding fathers anti religion quotes are my favorite!
@@gsp4prez Slight misquote there, it's supposed to be "...Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. " Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper Monticello, February 10, 1814
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Minding your own business is the most freest thing in the world. But some folks act like they can't afford it. 😒
Anyone who ever comments “stick to Star Trek” should be sentenced to watch only this video whenever they use RUclips. Well done, Steve.
_“A man is likely to mind his own business when it's worth minding. When it's not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other peoples business.”_
-Eric Hoffer
A huge part of the problem is, a lot of people have very different ideas of what "harm" means.
A lot of evangelical Christians would agree with the sentiment "As long as it's not causing harm to someone, mind your own business." The issue is, to an evangelical Christian abortion is causing harm, because you're killing a baby. Homosexuality is causing harm, because you're going to hell if you don't repent. Anything a Christian disagrees with is inherently "causing harm" in their mind, because it's damaging your immortal soul.
"Religious freedom" as a concept is completely nullified if you believe you have the one and only true way to salvation and everyone else is going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity, because nobody wants that for their friends and family. No one who truly believes in hell actually wants religious freedom. They want freedom to practice their own religion, and freedom to convert everyone else to that religion.
Source: I was one of them for nearly 30 years. I know how these people think because I grew up as one, surrounded by them every day of my life.
I'm glad you were able to break out of that.
And yes, exactly that.
@@IstasPumaNevada As a believer, you don't have to break out of it to be reasonable about it. Jesus never told anybody that they needed to try to pass laws or use the government to control other's people's actions. Other people's souls are not a Christian's responsibility to try to save. I believe in religious freedom because God believes in it. If He didn't, He would have a bunch of robots walking around and no one would have free will.
You’re exactly right about the Evangelicals’ reasoning, unfortunately. Congratulations on widening your view of the world. It’s not an easy thing to do. Good luck to you and yours.
How can my soul rotting in hell cause harm to others? If my choices send me to hell (depending on your beliefs), then how does that harm anyone but me?
@@jacquimott386Ah, but when you promote (or, really, just don't castigate) those choices, other people will make them, too! By letting people be gay in peace, we let more people go to Hell. Their own children might eventually be one of those people!
A religion with eternal punishment based on benign behavior is incompatible with actual freedom. Because following basic moral logic from the beliefs it imposes still leads to bad outcomes.
Goes to show that you should never ask a question that you really don’t want answered.
"i enjoy it."
that, sir, along with your perfect deadpan expression, is the reason for my first big laugh of the day. thank you.
When asked to sign a petition to legislate against abortion, I ask them to sign my petition to outlaw tomatoes and eggplant.
When they ask why I want to outlaw those two veg/fruits, I tell them "Because I, and many others, don't like them. Very much like your feelings about a woman's bodily autonomy."
excellent!
Ask them if they regularly donate time or money into helping orphans or foster kids ..or if they've adopted any kids into their family.
I would never sign your counter-petition.
... unless you changed it to Brussels sprouts. Those vile miniature Devil's cabbages!
THIS!!!
@@amandarusson547or if they have a petition to outlaw Viagra as well.
Steve, I really appreciate your videos and insight. As someone who has had to step away from the church because of Christian Nationalism, I want to share the justification I often heard.
They would claim they wanted to control others out of LOVE because they wanted to SAVE YOU from sin. "If you saw someone about to fall into a ditch, wouldn't you grab and stop them."
I was never comfortable with this logic because it has been used to commit so many atrocities.
Thanks again for the videos and as a UMD alum, say hi to the flag for me.
Yes, that is a problem with platitudes. They're vague enough that you can twist them to mean whatever you want them to mean, with the right/wrong frame of mind.
Well, first of all someone should point out to them that the person more than likely is not choosing to consensually fall into the ditch...
Your freedom to wave your fists around ends where my nose begins.
The domestic affairs of domestic tyrants are proper matters for law.
I'm sure I'm misquoting someone.
Yes; the late, great Sir Terry Pratchett had his Lord Vetinari expound on fredom, which includes the freedom to take the consequences (which many forget).
@@kyleethekelt GNU Sir Terry Pratchett.
He always had the most insightful, humane, and sensible takes on every subject he touched, as well as being damn funny.
On the topic of buggery, he simply said, "The hedgehog will never be buggered at all."
@@kyleethekelt well said.
The correct quote is; "Your freedom to wave your junk around ends where mine rump begins... not that there's anything wrong with that!" -Sir Jerry of the House of Seinfeld
The first line is from Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court. "The right to swing your fist ends at the other man's nose."
Remember folks, It costs absolutely nothing to mind your own business
But don't forget: freedom isn't free. It costs folks like yew and me.
@@seekthevisceraland if we dont chip in our buck-o-five, who will?
@@seekthevisceral
One of my favourite movies. Just watched it last week on a big screen tv.
Your freedom ends where mine begins is a great metric.
"The Brother goes in for the tag! Oh, but what's this?!"
"IT'S THE SISTER WITH THE STEEL CHAIR!"
😂 MY GAWD!! HE IS BROKEN IN HALF!!!!
I have a phrase for this: Someone is mistaking their feelings for fact.
Good one !
The part of the mind where logic exists is intertwined with the emotional part, rationality takes a shortcut to that part so it's understandable why people make this mistake but they need to be more aware of how their emotions affects their logic.
That is very Ben Shapiro of you.
@@yourdad6902
Don't think you're hurting anyone.
Carry on.
When you looked right at the camera and said "buggery", I lost it. Thanks for the belly laugh 🙂
I was confused when he said “the third way”, because I asked what’s the first and second way. 😅 But then it clicked, vaginal and oral! HA!
I went immediately to Hedley Lamar’s list of criminal recruits in Blazing Saddles.
She may have even been saying something that wasn't true... but it still sent the message.
This is why lawyers never ask questions they don't know the answer to.
Excellent video, great advice to avoid a delivery of humble pie.
I'm with you, Steve. As a disabled and a thinking person I am constantly having to advocate for myself on my ability to control my own life, make my own choice and hold agency over my own decisions; and I worry about those who aren't able to self-advocate, whose lives are peopled only with professionals and no actual friends, who may make decisions I would not, but I know they have the right to do so even if the community at large disagrees. Some little stir was caused in Australia (over the ditch from me) some time ago when it was revealed that some disabled people were using their support funds to pay for sex. While I personally wouldn't do that I have no problem with it - knowing that this might be those people's only experience in that regard if their lives are filled only with professional people. However, it caused a huge stink at the time and I have a disturbing notion that many people think we either don't have the same feelings, are not allowed to have the same feelings, or don't feel them to the same depth as other people - that we are somehow less human.
❤
I was actually reading about some brothels in Australia that specialise in providing caring services to the disabled. At least one of the ladies had a masters in psychology. None of my business, but I thought it sounded like really important work.
Mind your own business, except injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Therefore responding to injustice IS minding your own business.
There are so many examples of this sort of issue in so many parts of life, love, and the bedroom. The way people get about consenting adults sharing a life, love, and sex is just ridiculous. I've experienced it a lot for being polyamorous even though I and my partners cause no hard to anyone else by loving each other, not to mention that we can never get married to each other like we'd want because of anti-mormon polygamy bans. I experienced it many times for just being a trans woman. I've even experienced and seen it so many times for simply loving the "wrong" sort of people, whether it be because of gender, a prior relationship, or a shared background. I will say one thing, though, watching people get so bent out of shape for people causing no harm in any meaningful way taught me to mind my own business and stand up for others when other people stop minding theirs. I simply do not care how or who you share your life, love, or sex with. I only care that everyone is a consenting adult, period.
I remember as a kid where "Mind your own business." Was the end all-be all in some completely unfair situations where it truly WAS my business
A passage that I think is an appropriate benchmark on when it's appropriate to make something your business:
"But you were always a good man of business, Jacob," faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.
"Business!" cried the Ghost, wringing his hands again. "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
I trace all the values I still hold dear to 2 sources: Star Trek and the novels of Charles Dickens.
Jim Henson, Frank Oz and Fred Rogers never steered me wrong.
I must admit that Dickens did have a unique gift for articulating the virtues of common human decency in both an eloquent and, elegant way.
My absolute favorite Dickens novel. Our family has read it out loud, listened to it, and watched it year after year. As my dad was going through a transfusion because of leukemia, I played one of the recordings I have of it, read by Tim Curry. We couldn’t finish it in December, but when we found ourselves back in the hospital in March, I went back and finished the book with him, reciting out loud together in chorus with Tim - both Tiny and Curry - “God bless us, every one!” I’m so glad I did, because Dad passed in April. And I found the end of that book to be a fitting epitaph for my Dad, who, like Scrooge, had had a major change of heart later in life. He learned to be more kind, and to spread humor and cheer. And when people laughed to see the change in him, he let them laugh. :)
I’m glad Walz - another Tim! - understands the value of laughter, and how to mind each other’s business when appropriate, and stay out of it when it’s not. He’s a genuine person and genuinely good guy. We could do a whole lot worse than to have him as part of this next administration. I’m so glad we have the opportunity for some wholesomeness after all this graft and grift from 45 et al.
There are so many things that I’m not personally into, but can’t imagine caring about so long as it’s all consensual parties 😂
This feels like true sibling energy.
Yesterday I saw a clip where Charlie Kirk was doing one of his dumb debate me clips against some kid at the DNC and, as usual, he devolved to the absurd question, “what is a woman?” As in your story here, I came to the conclusion that the correct response is, “I don’t care” or “why should I care?” I think it’s important to make them justify why these things are any of their business because that’s almost always the underlying unjustified premise.
The most absurd thing about that clip was that he (Kirk) brought out that question in response to the young person talking about Trump's criminal actions. It was completely out of left field and so transparent that they just do it to troll.
That question deserves a one word answer "irrelevant."
Or if you're feeling cheeky, a four word answer, "irrelevant, just like you."
Why DO they care so much? My suspicion is that, like everything else, it's a matter of fear and control issues.
From now on, a good response to that question might be something like, "After all that business about Imane Khelif, it's obvious that you yourself neither know nor care."
If I'm recalling the same clip as this one, I particularly liked the kid's answer: "Why don't you meet one?" (Perfect brush-off for a question asked in bad faith, IMO.)
People who view their own opinions as superior sometimes assume everyone else *must* share those opinions. Such people can be quite insufferable.
I simply do not care what others do consensually. It is not my business how they choose to live their lives as long as they do not impact me or my loved ones.
Thank you for an interesting dialogue.❤❤❤
My wife and I had this discussion the first time we heard him say this in a speech. We didn't go into buggery, which I now feel was a missed opportunity. Great video! Thank you, Steve!
Let's go down the bugger rabbit hole. British mothers were obsessed. Always accusing by 7:28 hiinnocent children. That and wankers. haha
I like to think that as long as it isn't affecting someone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, it's worthwhile to mind your own business. It feels appropriate in our country for some reason.
For some reason, some people feel the liberty of other people *does* affect their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Maybe they just can't be happy if other people are free to live as they see fit.
@@donaldwert7137
I argue this obsessiveness that conservatives have over seeing others not like them being happy stems from their desire to dominate and control. Conservatism at its core is about maintaining hierarchy, but when those of the privileged class see their “lessers” being happy regardless of the privileged classes interventions, it makes their control seem incomplete and incompetent. And as we’ve seen with many conservative policies, the suffering is the point.
@@donaldwert7137
Additionally, when conservatives see people being happy about things they don’t like (look at Tim Walz being genuinely happy to be Kamala Harris’ running mate), they often view as a threat to that hierarchy as well because it directly shows that their way of life isn’t the only way to pursue happiness.
@@donaldwert7137like the old saying goes, for people who are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression
I'm a firm believer in "exit only", but those are personal beliefs and if you enjoy it, I'm glad it makes you happy. That's my philosophy.
@@BerlinCB So you've never used preparation H or had a colonoscopy?
This is actually really close to my moral code. Respect free will.
My free will ends at the tip of my nose, except in cases of children, mentally impaired, or animals…those who lack the full capability to make well informed decisions. And these all require me to allow them the choices they can make, and to help them develop to the fullest extent possible for the individual with loving guidance.
Free will does not mean a person who wants my car is free to take it, and I must allow it. Stealing isn’t a free will choice, it is against free will…it is dominating out of selfishness and no one has to put up with dominance.
Yes…consenting adults with full cognitive abilities can chose to allow a dominant relationship, but attempts to dominate by trickery or force is allowed to be met with defensive measures.
The common ground between us is handled with compromise and respect in a democratic manner.
No…I’m not perfect, and do get angry and lash out with disrespectful words at times, but it’s up to me to own my bad choices and bad behaviors. I have to take responsibility for my actions.
"Your freedom to swing your fist ends at others noses."
Safe and Consensual as well as Harm Mitigating is the big reason for Drug Decriminalization/ Legalization.
Yes.
It's going to happen to an extent whether it's legal or illegal. Making it criminal mainly just creates a huge financial incentive for crime and increasing prison populations, while also making it harder for those with a problem to seek help and safety.
The poignancy of it coming from his own sister... satisfying. I'm with you on the "not for me, but you do you" side of things
Here's the thing - marginalised groups like those with disabilities or significant mental health issues & the LGBTIQ community crucially NEED ALLIES WHO AREN'T MEMBERS OF THOSE COMMUNITIES TO CREATE THE CHANGES THEY NEED TO SEE TO ENTAIL THEM TO FEEL FULLY ACCEPTED.
The behaviour you ignore is behaviour you accept. And should such behaviour be accepted? Same goes for policy. The people above - they need your help to get the policies enacted that enable them to get the same life someone not part of those groups takes as a given.
Why do I care about this? I'm a carer for an adult son with moderare-severe disability issues. My son sits in the grey zone - too high functioning to fit into standard disability service models but simultaneously too low functioning to fit into standard mainstream service models. Finding the right people to support him is hard.
I'm also in the grey zone. I'm agender (happy to present as female, just don't see why we have to assign gender roles) bi & poly & live with chronic medical conditions that require managing. The only mainstream things about me are race & biosex.
Both me & my son are grey people trying to live in a social system that much prefers things to be black or white. So while I'd really like it if you kept out of my bedroom & drs office, I NEED you to storm the barricades on my behalf to ensure my life & my son's life is as good & fulfilling as yours is.
Yes. Equality of rights for all is everybody's business, period. Some people need more help simply to start on a level playing field with others.
Ty
Absolutely
My philosophy also!
We been eatin' good with all these back-to-back Steve drops, keep 'em coming!
Still hoping for a "If Republicans Said the Quiet Part Out Loud about Kamala Harris," btw.
You’re a great story teller brother
I bought a Harris / Walz shirt that say "Mind your own damn business " it's a timeless reminder to Karen's, politicians and religious zealots that our choice is our pursuit of happiness. In context of what it means is your choice that is not nefarious or a threat to health and safety of individuals.
Whether something is harming another person is sometimes something people don't agree on.
Just because a person believes something is harming them, doesn't make it so.
Regardless, people are entitled to their private opinions so long as they extend the same courtesy to everyone else. It is when they decide that their opinion justifies taking actions that harm or otherwise infringe upon others right to make their own decisions or lead their life, that little sympathy is given when they find that actions have consequences.
The contemporary urban philosopher O'Shea Jackson Sr. may have best summed it up when he advised one and all to "Check yourself, before you wreck yourself".
The basis for policing people's sexuality almost entirely and always comes down "societal harm." This perceived harm may come in the form of imagined and/or vilified causality, but if you probe the logic of those arguments all that will remain is the God factor.
Specifically, a fair and just god who is _super_ into collective punishment - like bordering on obsession.
Looking back to when I was a believer, I can't figure out why that never really stood out to me as a red flag. I guess it got swept under the "already living on borrowed grace" rug. However bad the internal, circular logic, it is self-sustaining. What freed me was not catching inconsistency between God's actions and His principles, but rather seeing laid bare what those principles really are.
But yeah. When people disagree on whether others are being harmed, there's almost always a side subtly declaring that their god is the one actively causing the harm. Naturally, it's also the reason we should submit ourselves to this god _and_ coerce others to do the same.
This is my thought while watching. I agree with Steve when it comes to things directly affecting another person. But harms like climate change are indirect and temporally diffuse. It is difficult/impossible to discern where the line is drawn, especially when impacts are occuring over decades and lifetimes. I live my life much like any other American, I assume. But I also recognize that the way we live our lives may be harming future generations (some through climate changes, but largely the resultant collapse of ecosystems). Is it just a matter of shrugging it off because it isn't a direct harm?
@@brlopwn I think the moral directive remains the same, it's just tougher to come up with answers/solutions.
Global warming is absolutely something that is everybody's business to care about, it's just harder to both decide what to do, and to get those in power to do it. It's also important to remember that individual actions will not solve the global warming problem; it requires top-down policies that are implemented on country- and global-scales. Global warming being the fault and responsibility of individual action is an idea perpetuated in part by the very fossil fuel companies causing the most harm.
Where I will step in and ask for actual, factual evidence. It does exist for things that some people may not agree with - children really are harmed by pedophilia, life on earth really is harmed by the global effects of climate change that can be empirically tied to human causes, etc.
A college friend told me she would never try it. Many years later she told me she had tried and liked it.
I saw a survey once where about 40% of straight females surveyed had tried it at least once.
This compared to about 60% of gay male couples, a number which was lower than I expected.
"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins."
-John B. Finch
The best part is there is no way to know if the sister actually likes it, or was just messing with her brother. Either way he just got way more info than he wanted.
I'm good friends with my sister in law and sometimes I forget that certain topics have an ick factor to her that is not reciprocal and I have to apologize profusely for the mental image.
More storytime with Steve, this was great 😂❤
I needed to hear this. I'm not horrible about it, but I'm still fighting knee-jerk reactionary urges.
I'm not a Wiccan, but I always thought they had a good saying for this: 'An it harm none, do as thou wilt'
It's quite a good one, but there are still potential gray areas. Like, I could see someone going "But you're harming the _unborn baby_ !"
I like The Satanic Temple's seven tenets, which specifically advocate for bodily autonomy. I think they're a great list (though I'd personally adjust the wording on one of them.)
(Also note; The Satanic Temple is different from The Church of Satan.)
Sounds like something Withers would say In BG3
Kudos to his sister! I enjoy it, too.
It's a much more enjoyable way to pass the time than judging what other people do with their bodies!
It was a massive mistake to be taking a drink during the part of the story where the guy tried to rope his sister into the conversation.
I recall a statement I made when I was 10(ish): We have the freedom to think, say, and do anything we want, so long as it does not stop others from their right to do, say, or think.
Perfect
I always say, mind your own. However, when someone is harming another, i feel I have a duty to act. But stop, observe and get a feel for what is happening before acting
I always start watching your videos and wonder where you're going with your thought. Most of the time I'm like, "what's your point already" and then BAM! just like your friend at the end of this particular story, I'm surprised and just love the funny yet serious punchline. Thank you so much for your wise insights, Steve.
For some reason, when you started, all I could hear was Jacob Marley (from the 1951 classic, of course) saying "Mankind was my business". But as for your friend's sister? She's awesome, and gave him a Tombstone.
I really love your openess and honesty. You are braver than I am. But seem to be of a like mind. Thanks
You had me in the first four minutes, but I'm here for the whole sermon all the same.
I don't mind if others like the back door fun, my main reservation is that poo is a big turn off for me. But even that can be addressed with proper preparation. The important things for such dalliances are good communication and consent.
Oh man! That put a huge grin on my face. To each their own. :)
BTW Steve, I love your channel and ALL it's content... Thanks for being here and posting!
Sometimes I envy the sorts of person who can have frank conversations on highly personal topics with their siblings.
This is not one of those times.
I would also add unnecessary cruelty to animals to be in the “that’s everybody’s business” category.
I agree! Though of course even that can come down to opinion on what is "unnecessary" and "cruelty", animal rights are definitely overlooked far too often.
while his video focused on people for examples and such, his definition was more broad and included any and all forms of harm to individuals or groups as the basis of when to get involved. if animals are being harmed in any way, his definition would apply. therefore you cant really add that on since it would be everybody's business without any change to what he said, but its certainly worth clarifying that any life form capable of feeling harm ought to be included.
also not sure why necessary cruelty to animals would be exempt or why the word unnecessary was required to begin with. cant think of a situation in which cruelty to animals is ever necessary let alone ought to be ignored. even if there is some scenario in which harm is necessary, there should still very much be some attention and care given to the act so that with hindsight, personal exploration of the self and others, we can reach and achieve better solutions to prevent or avoid harm in the future.
I have been telling people the same thing for years. As long as what your doing isn't harming someone else, I don't care what you do. Do whatever you want as long as it's not hurting someone else.
I think it comes to how people tend to think of the world as spectrums or binary. This analogy is often used in discussing left-right ideas, such the right trying to grin through saying "what is a woman" implying sex is binary, versus people on the left recognizing that even if we accept biology as the only basis for gender identity (which it isn't, and I don't accept that) we're still left with non-binary chromosome possibilities and the hundreds of genes that control sex characteristics and all the different ways environmental factors hormones can combine to create a continuous slider of possibilities that don't even have definite endpoints at traditionally accepted binary genital structures. Where I'm going with this is basically the right sees a cliff where the left sees a slope, and tying it back to where we might all see that.
Now for sexual interests, where this comes in is most people have a much more "cliff" version of sexual preferences, whether or not you like something is generally much more cut off. Some positions are fine, others absolutely not. Some body types are preferred, others are outright rejected. This adds up, such that people tend to think of sexual actions by their cutoff points, rather than anything they're willing to engage with up to those points, when comparing their standards to other people. Also because of the personal nature of having sexual preferences, that for the most part need to be shared with at least one other person, there is a strong desire to have matching "cliffs". This creates a feeling in many people that things they like should be that way, and enables that binary thinking, of you're either with me or against me. You share my cutoff point, or you are incompatible with me. Which turns into wanting to project that cutoff point, because even though this process is not always consciously gone through, it still shows up as a comforting way to align the world to their cliff. Sexual things just usually have a sweet spot for most people, where there are perfect ideals, and hard cutoff points. Yes i've met people who will do just about anything they exist, but even people who cast a pretty wide net tend to focus on favorites, specific acts that really excite them, again leading back to thinking of sex in terms of cliffs, which leads back to why this sort of problem you described in the video happens often with disregard for other belief orientations.
Funnily enough this topic came up today in a fetish server i'm in, from a girl who does not like the topic of this video, but who likes many other "weird" things, which I like too otherwise I wouldn't be in there. And I wouldn't be able to enjoy those things in a world where people didn't mind their own business. Simple solution to everything i've just described, and as you mentioned in the video, if you see a cliff, walk away. It's perfectly fine to communicate you see a cliff, but plenty of people like to go rock climbing so let them
I see that a lot with this particular example and it's like, my guy, there's nerve endings that make the feel good chemicals. You don't have to do it, but that's why people would actively seek this out.
Doing good and causing no harm, that's your business... hurting and meddling in the lives of others is not your business!
This anecdote is a great example of how a story hits harder than a lecture.
I have never met anyone who disagrees with the theoretical proposition of "Mind Your Own Business" but when it comes to actual cases ... nearly all of us (...and I really mean "us" ...) unthinkingly make exceptions for things on which we have deep convictions.
But this story pops us in the nose with a consequence so gentle and so embarrassing that perhaps the lesson will sink in where a further lecture would not.
Roddenberrian Ethics is fully portrayed in Star Trek. As long as what you do does not negatively impact others, you should be able to proceed without intervention.
The problem with platitudes; they're vague enough you can shape them to fit whatever you want them to mean, with the right/wrong frame of mind.
"Common sense" is another example.
The Wiccan Rede says something like, “Do as you will. Harm none.” That doesn’t prevent meddling, but it covers a lot.
Yeah, it's not perfect but it's a great start.
Check out the seven tenets of The Satanic Temple, I think they are QUITE good and much better guidelines than something like The Ten Commandments, even if I don't 100% agree with the wording on every last one of them.
(And also note that The Satanic Temple is a different organization than The Church of Satan.)
I see your comment and raise you this:
so long as it doesn't cause harm to others, yourself, or the person doing the deed - mind your own business!
If you know if that deed will harm that person, do you have a moral duty to try to prevent that harm?
"Give a rodent's hindquarters."
Was it Martha Nussbaum who said that disgust is not an ethical category? As in, it does not matter if something is gross; it only matters if it is wrong.
Now I want to know what your friend's reaction to his sister's assertion!
Yeah outside of things like domestic abuse (especially child abuse) or emergencies like seeing smoke coming from a neighbors house, mind your own business.
This video went... places, I wasn't expecting.
That truly is glorious.
"The 3rd way" made my Dr.Pepper come out my nose. 😂
That’s the fourth way 😂.
Dude I love this channel. Listening to your videos while doing mundane chores have become my favorite way to spend my time.
Thank you for minding your own business ❤ it helps me live my life normally. I’ll mind mine too so you can keep living well.
Trek on
Harm is pretty much the center of my entire moral philosophy. Glad that other people see it this way. Something becomes morally bad when other people are being negatively effected. If not, mind your own damn business. No, thinking something is "gross" doesn't cross that line so, again, mind your own damn business. People who know me think I have this elaborate system that you'd have to read philosophy books to understand. Nah man, just do what makes you happy, but don't hurt anyone. It's as simple as it gets.
I live with pretty much the same philosophy. One's personal rights should not be interfered with unless they violate another's. Hat's off to dude's sister 😂
Not particularly religious anymore, but as a kid, I came up hearing this certain song on the radio nearly EVERY Sunday when my fam & I were getting ready to go to the "chu'uch house". It was by this guy named Professor Charles Taylor. The BEST part of the song is the chorus, "I've got six months to MIND MY OWN BUSINESS & six months to LEAVE YOURS ALONE". I live by those words to this day & I CELEBRATE Gov. Walz's humor, kindness, competence and wisdom. Respect.🙏🏽
That does indeed sound like it was a glorious moment.
Never much understood why so many people seem to get themselves all in a twist over things that have absolutely no effect on them. From individuals to entire groups or organizations being hell-bent on enforcing their own issues on literally everyone else and seeming to really believe that is okay.
Sadly it also a thing that is as old as time... but I really should like to see people outgrow it in my remaining lifetime. Not holding my breath though.
That was a fun story. Thanks, Steve!
Being the youngest of five, and three sisters being sarcastic, two of them would totally have done that tag. Lol.
I can’t believe he was dumb enough to turn to his sister for help. Was bound to be a smack down 😂
I love the mind your own business! Except when someone needs help. Then it is our business to care for that person. Thanks Steve.
Agreed. There are many things in life that aren’t my jam, but unless you’re trying to force it on me, you do you.
Yeah… That’s why I’m not on Facebook anymore and I’ve blocked my family on social media accounts. My older sister found out my very liberal opinion on women’s healthcare. Apparently she cried to our dad about fixing me. Next thing I knew he’s inviting me to dinner to reason with me about my political beliefs. They were convinced that I must have been peer pressured into having the same views as my friends.
“What friends? Who are you talking about? I haven’t fallen for peer pressure since the fourth grade. The few friends I have know better than to pressure me to do anything I’m not already comfortable with.”
There's a great book abour this calles Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do. It was written by Peter McWilliams, who was awaiting sentencing for possessing marijuana he used to treat non-Hodgkins Lymphoma when he died.
This is a perfect example of the kind of thing to mind your own damn business. If it's a consensual activity that's as safe as or safer than driving a car no one has a right to tell you what to do.
If you're talking about hurting others or depriving them of their rights i will not mind my own damn business. I will speak out
Mr. Shives is on a roll, pumping out the commentary. Keep on truckin', sir! I certainly appreciated Walz suggesting the gov't stay ot of bedrooms and hop the Dems develop that theme further. Stay out of bedrooms, stay out of doctor's offices, stay out of libraries, stay off school boards, take a light touch in regards to classrooms .... but get WAY the HELL up into churches :D
I think you could've heard a pin drop when she said that.
Walz statement was direct. Banning books, who you love and your interactions with your doctor.