Your reactions to these comments reminded me how much I respect you, Mike, for your intellectual honesty. I have yet to find any other place on the internet that fosters such an active, intellectually involved community. You do a great service for us by making interesting, life-enriching ideas and discussion so accessible on the internet.
Sounds good, better than the one he mentions in the video, since he seems not to do that himself. I mean that his preconceived notion that society might be as sexist and whatever he things is causeing people to reject feminism is something he is incapable to question.
Eh. I would say that sounds bad if anyone thinks about it, as channeling means you're getting your ideas from elsewhere, not from your own thoughts. Which, I'm certain was not the original intent of the channel. Might be now with the "Listen and Believe" ideology he's got, but wasn't originally.
It'd be much appreciated if you helped do a little work on the bints in this comment section XD. But in all seriousness, that was a fantastic comment and as it was put in the video, way to put them in their place.
+Drudenfusz They are jerks for their behavior, not for simply criticizing. Constructive criticism is more than welcome. Pointless insults and derogatory dismissals can go suck it.
Comments got pretty harsh on that one. It seemed like, either a lot of the people who watch the channel have opinions I hadn't expected, or it attracted an unusually large nunber of new viewers. I didn't enjoy reading the comments. One thing I've continued to consider since the episode, was does an iud make you a cyborg. I won't discount anyone that feels like yes it is. Me, it felt like a body mod. I have a number of tattoos and piercings, and I count my copper iud among the pieces of metal I've decided to put in my body. Like, sure their is a medical technology there, but emotionally it's a piece of metal I elected to have jabbed into my body. I guess, I feel like I modded my uterus lol.
Like, one of the ways I came to the decision when considering all the birth control options I had, was that hormones were an unknown to me. I didn't know how they would effects me, whether in pill or implant form, but metal, I am familiar with. I already had 11 other pieces of metal in me. I of course did research into the risks and side effects, but all the options have risks, and it was ultimately the most comfortable idea to me.
I had similar thoughts on "do my glasses make be a cyborg" and "is my car really a mech"? What was never touched on (and I'm a little sad on) is that we may never actually reach the level of "cyborg" because a cyborg is a science fiction construction of have phenomenal abilities from an implanted machine but things like IUDs, pacemakers, artificial heart valves, etc are all science fact and not something that really changes who the person is in our mind. It's just a small tweak/choice and something that is.
I guess the question then is: what's the difference? How and/or why is a body mod not cyborgian? Tattoos alter your body for life & can be used to cover up or alter aspects of your body you don't like. Piercings are metal implants that change aspects of your physical form. IUDs are also implants but they cannot be easily removed, which gets us closer to what most people think of when we say cyborg. Are those things not cyborgian just because they're familiar & we expect cyborgs to feel unfamiliar? I think that's a big part of the discussion at hand.
+Lord Infidel I'm not saying they aren't cyborgian. Part of the discussion in the video was, that she felt it was cyborgian, but that others with a similar device might not identify as cyborgs. It doesn't feel cyborgian to me in my body. My comment was more about identity and how I relate to what's in my body, compared to how she relates to what's in her body. From an academic standpoint, call me a cyborg, I won't disagree with you. I relate to my iud in a similar manner to how I relate to piercings and as a modded person. They feel similar to me, I had to deal with them healing in comparable manner, insertion hurt more than some of my mods and less than others, so it fit in my established pain scale, and even the risks are comparable. Poking, tearing ect...
Lol yeah that's the first thing that came to mind too. The second I tough about was Lady Death strike and then the cyber ninjas from mortal combat (so Asian dudes with machine in their meat?) That leads to Genji obviously.
That was my first thought too, since that idea of cyborgs came to me first through DC comics back when I was still a young girl. And still I never looked it as something that is only for men, so I rejected the notion of the last video and if feels like I get insulted here again just for having a different opinion, that I am now somehow a white male and sexist and whathave you. Mike really should interogate his pre-conceived notions on why people might question feminism and the victimhood mentality that feminism breeds.
A lot of people are getting caught up on the difference between conceptual vacuums and representation when talking about the white male default. Yes, there is one cartoon character named Cyborg who conveniently is also a cyborg. There's also examples of a few characters from various animation and film. But that's not what they're talking about. They're talking about the idea that when you use the word cyborg it's like having a noun-adjunct. It's a modifier that isn't applied to anything. It's a cyborg-human. And our mind is left with a conceptual vacuum it fills it in with our default, in this case, for a human. For more people it is the default of society. I like to think that the vitruvian man is the first default most people are exposed to and would apply subconsciously in this situation. This is why we say that when we think of cyborgs we think of wealthy white men. white men as that's the default and wealth because right now that's what you need for advanced technology. We're not thinking about THE cyborg, a definite article. We're thinking of A cyborg, the general. The only thing we conceptualize is the machinery attached to our human boiler-plate and our brain substitutes what ever is comfortable and common for that boiler plate.
If so many people "hated" black people...hmm, how did a black guy get voted in two times in a row in a system that runs on majority vote? If people "hated" black people, mind explaining why "racism" is still an effective weapon? If it was normal to be racist....well...people wouldn't really give two shits. Sure, the weapon's effectiveness is dropping because it is being normalized by the very people who try to claim it. (Which is sad because soon enough those who have legitimate claims of racism won't be able to use it soon) If so many people hated black people...just how were they allowed to mob up and shoot police officers to death? Ironically, those police officers being ones who didn't shoot the blacks for pointing a gun at them.
Please, SangoProductions213, stop spamming the comments. If you want a discussion engage in a discussion. Copy/pasting the same thing in reply to numerous people only serves to stifle discussion. If you want discussion, discuss. If you don't want discussion, close the window. Interrupting other discussion without truly discussing yourself is a sign that you are too insecure to permit other people to have discussions.
+SangoProductions213 I like that your ideology just involves spewing bullshit so that you can feel like you're smart by using big words. Have fun, champ.
I am sorry that the comments section can be so abominable sometimes. I want people to speak their minds, but with kindness and respect and understanding that there is not one correct way to see the world. Thank you for creating this channel. It has enriched my life tremendously.
I'll just start with "I'm a female" since it somehow gives me more voice to speak about this issue. The point is that in reacent years the feminist movement became the movement of being offended by everything and making everything about gender and sexism. I know what the definiton of feminism is. It's just that as a movement it's not defined purely by the definition but rather by the people who create it. I agree that there might be some issues with the society when it comes to gender equality. Unfortunately today's feminists focus on irrelevant things and don't really help anyone (while also spreading misconceptions). People (not just white males) obviously don't agree with this and whenever feminism is brought into things that don't have anything to do with it they'll protest. (sorry for if english)
Except feminism directly has to do with cyborgianism. It is not being "brought into things that don't have anything to do with it". Cyborg theory and discussions of it literally started from a feminist paper years ago. It started from and has always been intimately entwined with feminism. That IS what cyborg theory is.
Corvus Corax The whole point of cyborg theory was to transcend gender. The original author, a feminist, wanted feminism to move away from trying to deal with specific issues with different genders and work toward transcending them entirely to remove all distinctions of gender and thus remove systematic oppression.
Silverizael 1. Wikipedia says otherwise, but that's just wikipedia so: 2. ..source? and 3. It's the feminists that make everything about gender and create problems that didn't exist.
Alright, I'm gonna level with you. I was one of those commenters who disagreed with what Mike and Rose were saying in the original video. I did it in a very thorough yet respectful manner. I'm sure you can find my comment if you look. One of the reasons I come to Idea Channel is because often times, you say things I will disagree with. I'm not here to argue. I'm here to learn and discuss. I think its important to expose yourself to ideas which conflict with your own. So then, I must take issue with the way this particular discussion was handled. Certainly, there were some nasty comments that were just rude and unnecessary and did nothing for the discourse. But there were many which simply disagreed strongly with the message in the video. Like I said, I was one of them. I took issue with the idea that women are said to be non-standard, or that when people think of cyborgs they think of old, rich, white dudes. I took issue with the fact that these ideas were espoused to push an agenda and not to be rationally sound. I took issue with the fact that the terms of discussion were not more strictly defined in order to facilitate a bias. And then this video. It began well enough. "Its ok to disagree, just be polite". By then it began to sound as if you were trying to put down all disagreement. Further, you only chose comments which supported your narrative, which generally I don't have an issue with; after all, you're trying to get a certain point across, you'll choose comments which further discussion to that point. In this instance however I cannot condone it, as the discussion was biased in your favor to begin with, with all presupposition of correctness on your side. I'm not going to stop watching Idea Channel. I enjoy your videos after all, they make me think and face opinions or ideas I might not otherwise. And I know its not like you'll care about me and my single viewership or my opposing opinion or the opposing opinions of the minority here. I just don't like bias in arguments that are said to be unbiased. That's called hypocrisy and I can't stand seeing something I enjoy being ruined by hypocrisy. Thanks for the discussion I guess. Keep making interesting videos.
I agree with some of your points but I think the idea of the default cyborg being a "white male" is bizzare. I mean when I watched Teen Titans as a kid there was literally a black guy named Cyborg and I didn't even bat an eye. he wasn't a "black cyborg" he was just a "cyborg". not to mention that the word can mean a lot of things, which you touched on in your video. I always thought "cyborg" was just some combination between a living thing and some kind of technology, so I personally don't see how being black or a woman would cause a problem.
You my dear human are allot more open and inclusive as to what an [insert group title here] is then 80% of this planet and I thank you for that. on a second note we also need to question what it means to have computer stuff as a part of your body means and what counts and what does that mean for them; that is the heart of what this discussion was meant to be... Before the stereotypes and other... Stuff... Happened
Same here. When he said we think of cyborgs as "powerful white men," I immediately scrunched up my face and went, "do we, though?" Certainly, DC Comics' Cyborg is right near the front of my mind. And, granted, he's a powerful man, but he's also black, and that was quite progressive at the time he was introduced. And that sort of gets to my next point: In my mind, the word "cyborg" IS progressive, by its very nature. It makes me think about futurism, and progress, and scientific advancement. When I imagine cyborgs, at least in the futuristic sense, I imagine a world that is already beyond gender bias where many of our socio-economic issues are already being sorted out. And when I think of cyborgs in the modern sense, I think of pacemakers, prosthetic limbs for amputees, and artifical hips for elderly women. I certainly don't think "powerful white men."
+wolven moonstone ....no. You are just trapped in your own victimhood narrative. Actually, it's not even your own, but one someone else wove for you. If so many people "hated" black people...hmm, how did a black guy get voted in two times in a row in a system that runs on majority vote? ...In a two party system.... If "80%" of people "hated" black people, mind explaining why "racism" is still an effective weapon? If it was normal to be racist....well...people wouldn't really give two shits. Kind of like calling a straight person "straight". Sure, the weapon's effectiveness is dropping because it is being normalized by the very people who try to claim it. (Which is sad because soon enough those who have legitimate claims of racism won't be able to use it soon) If so many people hated black people...just how were they allowed to mob up and shoot police officers to death? Ironically, those police officers being ones who didn't shoot the blacks for pointing a gun at them.
side note: I kinda feel stupid for saying "black or a woman" in that last bit which sounds super racist. I should have said something like "any race other than white or a woman" I mean it's not elegant either but it gets my point across better.
The entire white people are cyborgs was an attempt by idea channel to preemptively shame people who disagree with them. As was the argument about semantics at the start, people who argue semantics are to stupid to understand what they are getting at, or bigoted because they can't get into the shoes of people who have had those experiences... Its the a hole promoting feelings over facts, and it is simply being dishonest, because half of what this channel runs on is simply semantics.
I really appreciate the specific inclusion of the non-white, non-male, non-able bodied scope of ideas. Really fantastic episode. Rose was great and really fascinating to listen to. The only thing is I felt a little alienated as a trans person when the discussion equated the biological functions of periods and birth control with the gender of being a woman. I know its easier to discuss that way, but it especially was a little irksome since you guys did such a fabulous job of making sure to mention and include other oppressed and ignored identities so destinctly idk just something to keep in mind for future episodes that when you're talking about those things to be cognizant of cis-normativity? Thanks! Again, fantastic and interesting episode!
The thing that struck me with the "Females are not the default body" thing, was that a lot of people didn't think that was true and you seem to think it was. That may sound like just a restatement of fact but think about it. If you are right and females are not the default body then those people either should have agreed with you or have a reason to think otherwise. So since they didn't agree and didn't know for the most part that anyone thought that females weren't the default you really need to give them evidence not just say something and expect them to accept it as fact. Your displeasure at people holding a opposite opinion to you with literally no evidence (in the previous video, obviously you referred us in this video) offered is quite counter to the way you generally go about thing on the idea channel. Especially when them not agreeing with you means they are (hopefully) thinking more progressively than the people that think of White males as the default. Most of the others stuff in the comment i cant speak for this was just something that stuck out.
To me it seemed not like people didn't think Male is the Default but that when confronted with that criticize they just went "No I don't" with little introspection. The idea isn't about looking at women and going "what a weirdo" it about how you behave in daily life or when planing things without considering women's needs/differences.
Cognitive dissonance. People can hear the phrase "females are not the default body" and think "well that sounds factually incorrect," while still having absorbed and internalized that idea from their culture. Take the symptoms of an oncoming heart attack: tingling, numbness and/or pain in the left arm. Those are given as the warning signs for everyone in general, but are actually only applicable to men--female symptoms are different. But these are the the symptoms we are taught, because Male is the default body. This is just a single example, but similar things exist all throughout our culture, mostly invisible to us, because the culture we grew up in is just accepted as normal.
There will be youtube commenters disagreeing on ANYTHING (even the fact that the earth is round). But in the end, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that we as a society consider the male body the norm. For example, the French prime minister calling women a minority.
Genetically speaking, women are the default body. They have two of the same type of chromosome (X) while men have one X and a smaller chromosome (Y) that takes the makes tweaks to what the X chromosome has already established. All human embryos start as girls, and then when the Y chromosome activates in those who have it, they experience hormonal changes and their gender goes in the other direction.
Certainly not all, but I'd guess some people, including me, were annoyed by the assertion that "we", thereby including viewers, believe that cyborgs are "powerful white dudes that have machine parts implanted into their meat". It's forcing the viewer into the role of the sexist / racist, ignoring the actual views of him/her. This kind of generalisation is precisely the problem racism / sexism is about. And since almost the whole discussion was based on that assumption, the video seemed pointless to me. That been said, I actually enjoyed the video from a purely informal point of view. EDIT: To actually formulate my opinion: I don't care about who people are. If they make a big fuzz about who they are, I get annoyed (E.g. aggressive, so called, "feminism"). Ergo, I don't like any side of this whole discussion.
I thought that the identity angle was interesting. A lot of dissatisfaction seemed to me to stem from a wish for a show that discussed fields like technical hard- and software engineering developments, as if that was somehow 'more legitimate'. But, while there is a lot of technical future possibilities about the future of cyberisation, we shouldn't overlook related questions and critical analysis of how technological advances interact with culture. I'm willing to credit Idea Channel with the freedom to frame the question any way they like because I get the impression that other avenues of nuanced discussion can get lost otherwise. Just my 2c
hey, thank you a lot for elaborating on your lack of call outs. i really respect idea channels comment section, and i love being a part of it, but last weeks was pretty rough in contrast to the usual fair. and i've often wondered where you are, and why you or yr team isn't stepping up and saying like 'hey, that isn't welcome here.' or whatever, but your explanation makes a lot of sense to me. i will rest easier now, knowing that you're as annoyed by that s*** as me. :p
I only wear solid colour shirts (comes from not wanting to be advertising space for brands and expanded, now I just like it) but I would preorder in an instant like 5 "I did a philosophy" mugs.
On discrimination. You sort of hinted at it but I think it needs a clear statement: I think the biggest problem to overcome even for people who really like to be open minded about it is that we do still consider the "straight white man" as the standard "template". I think even a lot of the discrimination _against _ the "straight white man" comes from this (basically everything apart from the "men should be strong" stuff). I think there's a problem even within our language. We already tend to think as: man, black man and even wo-man. I think we're still far off to the point where we'd have an asian lesbian as a lead character and neither race or sexuality would be considered important.
Thanks for responding to the comments on last weeks video with such grace and patience! I especially appreciated how you encouraged people to consider different perspectives and ideas more carefully. Hopefully you got through to some of them!
I really liked the last comment you highlighted, however I disagree that women have more bodily functions than men. Disregarding the inherent cissexim, I think men and women mostly have just different bodily functions, but women's functions are considered "not normal" and being controlling with technology because the responsibility to prevent pregnancy falls on women, who usually would bear the most significant burden if pregnancy is not avoided. If the majority of child rearing fell on men, you could sure as hell bet that more effective and accessible male contraceptives would be developed.
1:50 My issue is that you assume that everyone assumes that all cyborgs are 'powerful white males.' When someone says cyborg the first thing I think of is Cyborg from the Justice League, a black teenager/man that's more metal than flesh.
That all well and good but it's not changing that powerful white men are western society's de facto default. For every Cyborg there's Batman, Flash, Hal Jordan and Aquaman. Look at Marvel and every time they shifted the mantle of any superhero away from or shared it with a white man. Boycotts get called for, petitions calling for the termination of writers get drawn up and get actual traction. It's right that this is being confronted if you ask me.
Looking forward very keenly to the pre-conceived notions t shirt Mike. I appreciate the comments made at the end as well, and wonder if a video on politics, pre conceptions, and objectivity might be something to consider..? I'd write more but I think I'm more likely to trip over my own words.
Furries are not about "finding their identity", we're about a lot of cutesy art about cutesy anthropomorphic animals. I'm continuously peeved by people buying into the failures of media... this fandom is the poster child for media's shortcomings, and I'm afraid that you unfortunately fell into believing them, Mike. I honestly want to explain the ways, reasons, motives, just sheer pssibility that it happened to such a degree, how laughably indistinct and incorrect the public's notion of furries is, but I already know I'll get hate for this comment... idea channel or no. Just please, even if you're supposedly hearing it from a furry, don't believe everything you hear. Just because it comes from an academic source doesn't mean it's right... in fact, they're more incorrect and biased than you'd expect.
I am not discounting what you have to say. I am only saying that your experience with the furry fandom MAY not correlate with all the fandom. I think most furries are like you, who just love all the cute and fun. And I'm definitely against the media portraying it as nothing more than a kink. I have, however met a number of furries who deeply identify with their fursona, and feel it is more them than their "real" fleshy bodies. One, that I can think of immediately didn't cosplay or anything, it's just the self they saw in their head.
TheCyberwoman I'll apply a valid reply later but I'm busy right now. Just know, the majority of the fandom is outright afraid to talk to news media because of how awfully they misconstrue everything these guys say; in fact, the security at Anthrocon will turn away and threaten to arrest known reporters (and are trained to spot them) because of how god-awful the situation has gotten. Which, in turn, provides less people arguing against the misinterpretations, which, in turn, allows people like you to think things that there are actual, other, not-the-furries fandoms for are more widespread than they actually are; the people you seem to be referring to are "otherkin", and they're actually shunned by the majority of furries.
+Nathan Fleming I look forward to your response. I'm also glad to know the term otherkin. This friend referred to themselves as a furry, but if otherkin is the more accurate term, I accept that.
Furries are really really diverse. I do agree that what he described sounded more like therians than furries, but there is certainly a large degree of identity building in it for a lot of furries. Fursonas can be a great way to re-contextualise different aspects of your personality and explore parts of yourself that you usually shun. I definitely think furries would be amongst the most exploitative bunch as far as identity goes. Also if you're shunning anybody for who they feel they are or how weird they are I'd say you've missed the part of the fandom that's the most important to me. To me the furry fandom has always been about meeting diverse people, being open with them and everybody accepting and appreciating each other regardless of what they subscribe to. Sure furries have had extremely bad media coverage, but trying to ostracise parts of the fandom out of fear of misrepresentation is not the right way to deal with that problem and is just giving into the same pressures that are causing the media personnel to react as they are doing. Check for yourself if you're doing to therians what the media is doing to furries.
i love it every time you mention shadowrun. i have been playing shadowrun for many years now and the gap between what shadowrun tech has and what we(real world) has is closing. hopefully the whole human race don't become chipheads :) roll on Chummer
I'm only commenting because of your shirt. I have the same one, bought it when they did a New Year's show in Boston. (Yeah, they played Ice of Boston after midnight and let the audience on stage.)
For your statement ending at 3:50 - putting ourselves in the shoes of others is the final frontier of the "social justice" paradigm, in a way. We used to live if in a world where the inequity was plain and codified. There were states where women could not vote. There were laws that separated blacks and whites. Now, we've realized that those kinds of official discrimination are wrong. We've also discouraged other kinds of open discrimination. Now, with these easy targets taken down, we are left in a state of disconnect. Those who live as a category of person who "used to be" the victims of discrimination think that there are ways in which their lives are still obstructed by external factors because of who they are. Those who are members of the historically dominant group seem to think that is not the case, largely if not entirely because the objectively detectable sources of inequality are gone. All that is left to do is step into the shoes of those who still experience unwelcoming environments instead of simply tossing their experiences aside because they cannot be objectively verified.
If so many people "hated" black people...hmm, how did a black guy get voted in two times in a row in a system that runs on majority vote? If people "hated" black people, mind explaining why "racism" is still an effective weapon? If it was normal to be racist....well...people wouldn't really give two shits. Sure, the weapon's effectiveness is dropping because it is being normalized by the very people who try to claim it. (Which is sad because soon enough those who have legitimate claims of racism won't be able to use it soon) If so many people hated black people...just how were they allowed to mob up and shoot police officers to death? Ironically, those police officers being ones who didn't shoot the blacks for pointing a gun at them.
Joe did not say anything about anybody hating anyone. I reread his post just to make sure, but it definitely isn't there. Try not to treat all people who you disagree with as simply being a facet of a monolithic entity. Your arguments get dramatically less persuasive when they are a response to an argument that the person you are responding to never said. To an outside observer it looks like you were just having an internal dialogue with yourself and just happened to bump into another person and started directing your self-talk at them as if they were involved somehow.
Also, I wrote that before I realized you were just copy/pasting that post verbatim to multiple different people. That definitely just ostracizes anyone who might otherwise consider what you have to say.
If you think that discrimination is somehow over or doesn't exist anymore, that requires an astounding level of myopia. If you believe these people "used to" be victims but somehow aren't anymore, you are incredibly blind and refusing to express empathy and understanding for other human beings.
Rory Walker And yet another non-sequitur followed by an ad hominem attack, instead of addressing or offering any actual argument. Ah so typical. No one said "discrimination was 'over'" or that it doesn't exist. But wanna explain how if "everyone" was racist, how was a black guy president twice in a row through an economic recession? If everyone was racist, he'd have things extremely heavily stacked against him, even disregarding compounding factors.
Who thinks of white dudes when they picture cyborgs? I can't think of any cyborg fiction where there isn't at least one female cyborg. In fact the female cyborgs are normally more powerful and central than the male ones if they exist at all.
You really shouldn't call people out you have your own opinions and I have your own opinion so clam our rage on other people if they think different. Diversity in opinions and gives you difference in solutions that you're trying to solve. Hope this make sense
I want to say that you should be willing to defend your ideas and the non-derailing discussions in the comments section from those who would go on a sexist tangent, but I also think that there has to be at least a slight hesitation to avoid making this a place where only those who share certain understandings are welcome, because then you risk merely preaching to the choir. So, y'know, maybe get more aggressive with people who are actively polluting the comments discussion, but maybe get more engaged with people who just don't have the background you do when it comes to western medicine &c. being designed and tested for male bodies and the fact that we have a gender-bifurcated history when it comes to things like reproductive health issues.
You can and should call people out when they are being stupid. If doing so jeopardizes your position of "gracious host", then you should not be a gracious host.
How did Ghost in the Shell and Deus Ex not have a bigger role in commentary on possible future consequences of a fully cybernetic future human race? GiTs in particular is all about the social/political as well as species ramifications of mass population cybernetics.
I think this channel's questions are recurrent and are being projected in different ways. (huge fan) But, you guys need to explore stuff to talk about.
But we still could have used more discussion about Trans* peoples it relates to body augmentation for the same reason we should have discussed furs. I mean it's halfway got the same name as transhumanism.
I stand by my criticism that the "Are we All Cyborgs" video veered off course from what is expected of Idea Channel. While you mention "challenging preconceived notions" as part of this video I don't think any of that was done in the cyborgs video. Rather you interviewed someone to put out their own views on your channel. Perfectly acceptable; but also not what a lot of people have come to expect from Idea Channel.
I REALLY think you need to do an idea channel on "is it actually possible to separate ideas from politics". You're political beliefs are bleeding into the channel and your responses to the comments. Maybe that's the evolution of the channel and maybe it's something you want; but it's also hurting your ability to respond to "pre conceived notions". I put up my comment on the original video because I felt Holland Scott Thomas's comment (not sure if I got his name right) went too far to belittle the criticisms of the video; which has a very strong feminist slant. It also did very little to look at different sides of the issue on cyborg vs non-cyborg.
Perhaps, and this is just me speculating, I would posit that all of the idea channel episodes, especially the ones which interview other people, bring their own views to the channel. From Extra Credits views of the mechanics in video games, to Michael Weinberg charting the landscape of 3D printing legalities, all of them, every video brought with it its own notions of the world and political views. It is just when they diverge from the viewers expectations, that then, the viewer regards the video as being "political" As an example, hypothetically, let's say I am strong in my beliefs that, say, American "ideals" are just advertising rhetoric in service to politicians and marketers. Well, I am going to see any video or talk which 1) Don't relate to that political view at all or 2) Discuss that political view in favour to my own set beliefs as apolitical. As just 100% fact, bringing no baggage to the discussion. Because, why would I assume there is a bias, if it supports my preconceived notions. But as soon as a video spins the issue in the opposite direction, as soon as I see people discussing my belief with a sense of scepticism or regard to the opposition, it would make sense for me to go, "Oh, you aren't making an unbiased discussion, you are simply glorifying this person and their views!" Even if, that has been what the program as always been doing, I just agreed with it before. It's why you'll see people who are, say, conservative, tear into videos which take a liberal stance, when most liberals view it as apolitical and "just how the world really is." And vice versa. We are all bringing our baggage to the discussions, we are just blind to that when it reaffirms beliefs we already have.
What is the difference between "challenging preconceived notions" and the act of someone "putting their own views" on something? Aside from the fact that you are not threatened by the former and you are threatened by the latter? Does Mike not put his own views on this channel literally every second he is speaking?
I loved that episode, one of my favorites. But while watching, I asked, why race? Why sex? Why sexuality? Like it took up a majority of the episode while it should have been about what makes a cyborg a cyborg. How is technology going to advance more to fit cyborgs and how is society going to react.
It seemed that a lot of the discussion is that given the definition of "what makes a cyborg a cyborg" that they were using would conclude that things such as IUDs would qualify. The topic statement of "Are we all cyborgs?" seems to deliberately be present tense rather than "Will we all be cyborgs?"
First thing that comes to my mind when someone says cyborg is a person who has been augmented with metal parts, then Teen Titan Cyborg. If you're just thinking white people when you think cyborgs, you might want to think as to why that is.
I think what you're trying to say is that you choose your gender and how you express it but you don't choose to want that gender? that's how I feel. For me gender is as real as Santa, in that Santa does't "exist". He's not a real thing, but you can learn facts about him, you know of him, he's a big staple in society; he doesn't exist but he does /exist/. As far as gender goes, I think gender identity is based on how you want to be viewed by society, which is why it's fluid and why one could say you "choose" your gender because it isn't an inherent trait and doesn't really exist in other forms of life and other species (gender being different than sex) but no one chooses how they want to be viewed, they just feel that way at certain points in their life
I think what people were upset about was that when you think about Cyborgs, you think of humans with cybernetic parts in general, i.e. Cyborg from JL and stuff. I don't think that's really what they were disappointed about, what they were disappointed about was probably the focus on women, which is all well and fine, but even as a gender equality supporter I found it just as slightly cringey as a video with a subtle sexist subtext, whether it accidental or not. This is clearly shown by the comments and your response to the comments discussing more about social equality instead of what a cyborg is and how we are/are not cyborgs. I do believe that you are good-hearted, but I also believe that you should not completely ignore such comments as nonsense, as some of them are valid criticisms.
Well, the focus on women seems relevant to me in that the definition of "cyborg" in use have applied for a long time, especially in a number of ways relevant to the female body in particular. It clearly also applies to men also, like in the cases of calorie tracking or replacement joints or so on, but it would seem like an oversight to me to discuss those without also talking about IUDs, implanted birth control, period tracking, and so forth. I mean, those apply to a lot more of the population than bone-conduction hearing aid implants like a friend of mine has, and so reasonably deserves more focus in a question of are we (present tense) all cyborgs already.
Patrick Johnson I agree, it's just that the tone of both hosts may have been misinterpreted as "having an agenda", in which I'm sure they don't, but they should also take notice of such criticism because it may have some merit. For instance they talked a lot of time about gender equality and such, meanwhile in a discussion about if we are cyborgs that should not be a focus at all, if you get what I mean.
I do appreciate that he outright apologized for one of the things people were calling them out on even though they didn't actually mean the thing people found objectionable. It's very refreshing to me when people acknowledge that they are fallible when it comes to the way they tried to communicate something, and take positive steps to be less misunderstood (even though being perfectly understood is likewise impossible and not a sensible standard to try for either).
My problem with the previous vid was that you didn't deal with any of the interesting aspects of the question, instead getting sidetracked in last centuries tedious arguments about identity. SocJus doesn't make you cutting edge - it's not a radical new idea most people haven't been exposed to - it's a old argument everyone has been exposed to and the vast majority people want nothing to do with because of it's obvious flaws.
When discussing people's perceptions, it's sort of relevant that for every Victor Stone that readily comes to mind (or Motoko Kusanagi, or Geordi La Forge, or Molly Millions) there's a Hank Henshaw and a Tony Stark, a Sgt. Batou and a Paz, a Picard and a Garak, a Case and an Armitage, and so on... The position doesn't seem to be that there is necessarily a lack of non white-male cyborg characters, it's that there might be a perceptual over-representation of the white male Robocop, Terminator, 6 Million Dollar Man, Darth Vader variety.
The gender and identity politics brought up just confuses me, and seems totally beside the point of talking about cyborgs. My idea of a cyborg may be rather simplistic, basically anyone who is part human and part machine, but I totally fail to see how gender makes any difference. I can see how there can be legitimate debate over what it means to be cyborg, and where one might draw the line between cyborg and non-cyborg, but to take that and say that whatever someone decides they are is "right" is to take away all objective definitions and meanings from "cyborg", or for that matter, any other name people are using to self-identify as. If you self-identify as something that you are clearly not, then you're lying to the world, and probably lying to yourself, not withstanding correctable mistakes and misunderstandings. There are limits to what you can self-identify as. If you want to self-identify as a cyborg because you have an IUD in your body, more power to you. But I won't call you a cyborg. In short: The original video could have used more talk about actual cyborg technology and stuff, and less about gender and identity politics. It's the cyborgian stuff that's cool and interesting; gender and identity politics is just boring and tiring and causes divisiveness in the discussions (obviously).
You talk about preconceived notions which is ironic considering all you're doing here is reinforcement of your own. Maybe instead of trying to belittle people's opposing opinions by showing comments of people that agree with you, you challenge these opinions.
This comment tries to distract without answering the criticism. Mike certainly has some preconceived notions, and he might well be reinforcing them here. But that doesn't preclude the people who make critical comments on feminist issues from also having preconceived notions and the criticism that they should challenge their preconceived notions is a valid one, regardless of what notions Mike has.
Jacob Rogers Except that they weren't criticing him about needing to be open minded. And thus they weren't being hypocrites. Not to mention, considering we are talking about an abstract group, it's pretty hard to say they aren't being open minded, and just came to a different conclusion. So, again, your argument falls flat. Is it decent advice? Sure. Do you deserve to be called out when not even you follow your advice? Yeah. Of course, the solution is to change the meaning of "open minded" to mean "not questioning me".
+HolySpitball +SangoProductions213 What you guys are saying is all well and good, except the point still stands that it's a distraction. The fact is that an objective viewing of the cyborg video doesn't show an agenda, so if you're getting upset about it then it's your problem. It's a problem with how you are viewing the world and the video.
this video just left me feeling empty, you only talk about A politicly correctness B current online populare topics that only apply to youtube C simple "cute" stuff this just left me feeling dissapointed because it really showed how shallow your show can be and how "afraid" you seam to piss people off. i strongly believe new ideas can are mostly outside the norm off thinking and this can't be done without pissing some people off, which you carfully avoid... I am sorry but i feel disapointed
It's a comment response video, so it inherently will spend more time discussing the response to the prior video than elaborating on the prior video. There's a reason they split the comment responses into a separate video instead of having them be at the end of the subsequent video like they used to.
I'm just saying that the point of this video was to engage with the discussion that followed the previous video, not to be a standalone idea channel video. They have separate comment response videos so they can A) Easily allow people to skip the comment response segments if they so desire and B) To make the comment response segments more substantial for those who want them. It caters to both sets of people instead of making both compromise for the other.
Patrick Johnson 100% true but that still doesn't adres the quality of comments spoken about in the video... They are all so A simular B politicly correct C about 'current' discussions D from the same corner of the internet (not even going to say the world because we would talking about 0.00000001%)
Its only natural that the comments come from "the same corner of the internet." Because they literally did. That corner is called "the comments section of the original video." It's not a video where they take on general societal opinions on the broader subject, it is literally a video where they respond to the comments made *on* the original video on youtube.
Your reactions to these comments reminded me how much I respect you, Mike, for your intellectual honesty. I have yet to find any other place on the internet that fosters such an active, intellectually involved community. You do a great service for us by making interesting, life-enriching ideas and discussion so accessible on the internet.
+
+
+
+
you might like THUNK
Why not a shirt that says "I channel ideas with Idea channel?
Sounds good, better than the one he mentions in the video, since he seems not to do that himself. I mean that his preconceived notion that society might be as sexist and whatever he things is causeing people to reject feminism is something he is incapable to question.
Eh. I would say that sounds bad if anyone thinks about it, as channeling means you're getting your ideas from elsewhere, not from your own thoughts.
Which, I'm certain was not the original intent of the channel. Might be now with the "Listen and Believe" ideology he's got, but wasn't originally.
Yay! You're welcome :) Love the channel, hate seeing it torn down by jerks.
Just went back to read your comment. That was beautiful - and you are awesome :)
Very classy, calling everyone who criticises you as jerks.
It'd be much appreciated if you helped do a little work on the bints in this comment section XD. But in all seriousness, that was a fantastic comment and as it was put in the video, way to put them in their place.
+Drudenfusz They are jerks for their behavior, not for simply criticizing. Constructive criticism is more than welcome. Pointless insults and derogatory dismissals can go suck it.
Antenox ^ That's exactly it, thank you :)
Comments got pretty harsh on that one. It seemed like, either a lot of the people who watch the channel have opinions I hadn't expected, or it attracted an unusually large nunber of new viewers. I didn't enjoy reading the comments.
One thing I've continued to consider since the episode, was does an iud make you a cyborg. I won't discount anyone that feels like yes it is. Me, it felt like a body mod. I have a number of tattoos and piercings, and I count my copper iud among the pieces of metal I've decided to put in my body. Like, sure their is a medical technology there, but emotionally it's a piece of metal I elected to have jabbed into my body. I guess, I feel like I modded my uterus lol.
Like, one of the ways I came to the decision when considering all the birth control options I had, was that hormones were an unknown to me. I didn't know how they would effects me, whether in pill or implant form, but metal, I am familiar with. I already had 11 other pieces of metal in me. I of course did research into the risks and side effects, but all the options have risks, and it was ultimately the most comfortable idea to me.
I had similar thoughts on "do my glasses make be a cyborg" and "is my car really a mech"?
What was never touched on (and I'm a little sad on) is that we may never actually reach the level of "cyborg" because a cyborg is a science fiction construction of have phenomenal abilities from an implanted machine but things like IUDs, pacemakers, artificial heart valves, etc are all science fact and not something that really changes who the person is in our mind. It's just a small tweak/choice and something that is.
I guess the question then is: what's the difference? How and/or why is a body mod not cyborgian?
Tattoos alter your body for life & can be used to cover up or alter aspects of your body you don't like. Piercings are metal implants that change aspects of your physical form. IUDs are also implants but they cannot be easily removed, which gets us closer to what most people think of when we say cyborg.
Are those things not cyborgian just because they're familiar & we expect cyborgs to feel unfamiliar? I think that's a big part of the discussion at hand.
+Lord Infidel I'm not saying they aren't cyborgian. Part of the discussion in the video was, that she felt it was cyborgian, but that others with a similar device might not identify as cyborgs. It doesn't feel cyborgian to me in my body. My comment was more about identity and how I relate to what's in my body, compared to how she relates to what's in her body. From an academic standpoint, call me a cyborg, I won't disagree with you. I relate to my iud in a similar manner to how I relate to piercings and as a modded person. They feel similar to me, I had to deal with them healing in comparable manner, insertion hurt more than some of my mods and less than others, so it fit in my established pain scale, and even the risks are comparable. Poking, tearing ect...
+Lord Infidel So in essence, you're totally right, I was just discussing how I relate to them.
I had no idea that anyone considered cyborgs "Robo white people." News to me.
Nice to see Mike's "gracious host" persona drop long enough to call out the ever-present, ever-annoying MRA-type morons.
I really admire you tackling those comments head on! Thank you for being so patient and kind.
Hey, my idea of a Cyborg is a powerful *black* dude with machines in his meat!
Lol yeah that's the first thing that came to mind too. The second I tough about was Lady Death strike and then the cyber ninjas from mortal combat (so Asian dudes with machine in their meat?) That leads to Genji obviously.
+
That was my first thought too, since that idea of cyborgs came to me first through DC comics back when I was still a young girl. And still I never looked it as something that is only for men, so I rejected the notion of the last video and if feels like I get insulted here again just for having a different opinion, that I am now somehow a white male and sexist and whathave you. Mike really should interogate his pre-conceived notions on why people might question feminism and the victimhood mentality that feminism breeds.
Agents of shield
And people who have never heard of Cyborg don't think of the same person you do.
A lot of people are getting caught up on the difference between conceptual vacuums and representation when talking about the white male default.
Yes, there is one cartoon character named Cyborg who conveniently is also a cyborg. There's also examples of a few characters from various animation and film.
But that's not what they're talking about. They're talking about the idea that when you use the word cyborg it's like having a noun-adjunct. It's a modifier that isn't applied to anything. It's a cyborg-human. And our mind is left with a conceptual vacuum it fills it in with our default, in this case, for a human. For more people it is the default of society. I like to think that the vitruvian man is the first default most people are exposed to and would apply subconsciously in this situation.
This is why we say that when we think of cyborgs we think of wealthy white men. white men as that's the default and wealth because right now that's what you need for advanced technology.
We're not thinking about THE cyborg, a definite article. We're thinking of A cyborg, the general. The only thing we conceptualize is the machinery attached to our human boiler-plate and our brain substitutes what ever is comfortable and common for that boiler plate.
If so many people "hated" black people...hmm, how did a black guy get voted in two times in a row in a system that runs on majority vote?
If people "hated" black people, mind explaining why "racism" is still an effective weapon? If it was normal to be racist....well...people wouldn't really give two shits.
Sure, the weapon's effectiveness is dropping because it is being normalized by the very people who try to claim it. (Which is sad because soon enough those who have legitimate claims of racism won't be able to use it soon)
If so many people hated black people...just how were they allowed to mob up and shoot police officers to death? Ironically, those police officers being ones who didn't shoot the blacks for pointing a gun at them.
Please, SangoProductions213, stop spamming the comments.
If you want a discussion engage in a discussion.
Copy/pasting the same thing in reply to numerous people only serves to stifle discussion.
If you want discussion, discuss. If you don't want discussion, close the window.
Interrupting other discussion without truly discussing yourself is a sign that you are too insecure to permit other people to have discussions.
Garrett El Programador Ineptos lol. I like how that's the conclusion your ideology leads you to, at merely the disagreement and disprovement of it.
+SangoProductions213 I like that your ideology just involves spewing bullshit so that you can feel like you're smart by using big words. Have fun, champ.
Garrett El Programador Ineptos lol. Nice argument. Can't even address arguments or else your world view falls apart. How sad.
Maybe we should call any kind of safe sex "cyborg sex" from now on.
cybersex...
yo ianrhodes
Well that sounds a bit too digital...
+PauLtus B no man's sky video? we are all a simulation dude... doooooooooooooode
I am sorry that the comments section can be so abominable sometimes. I want people to speak their minds, but with kindness and respect and understanding that there is not one correct way to see the world. Thank you for creating this channel. It has enriched my life tremendously.
I'll just start with "I'm a female" since it somehow gives me more voice to speak about this issue. The point is that in reacent years the feminist movement became the movement of being offended by everything and making everything about gender and sexism. I know what the definiton of feminism is. It's just that as a movement it's not defined purely by the definition but rather by the people who create it. I agree that there might be some issues with the society when it comes to gender equality. Unfortunately today's feminists focus on irrelevant things and don't really help anyone (while also spreading misconceptions). People (not just white males) obviously don't agree with this and whenever feminism is brought into things that don't have anything to do with it they'll protest.
(sorry for if english)
+
Except feminism directly has to do with cyborgianism. It is not being "brought into things that don't have anything to do with it". Cyborg theory and discussions of it literally started from a feminist paper years ago. It started from and has always been intimately entwined with feminism. That IS what cyborg theory is.
Silverizael How "A being with both organic and biomechatronic body parts" relates to feminism?!
Corvus Corax The whole point of cyborg theory was to transcend gender. The original author, a feminist, wanted feminism to move away from trying to deal with specific issues with different genders and work toward transcending them entirely to remove all distinctions of gender and thus remove systematic oppression.
Silverizael 1. Wikipedia says otherwise, but that's just wikipedia so:
2. ..source?
and
3. It's the feminists that make everything about gender and create problems that didn't exist.
Alright, I'm gonna level with you.
I was one of those commenters who disagreed with what Mike and Rose were saying in the original video. I did it in a very thorough yet respectful manner. I'm sure you can find my comment if you look.
One of the reasons I come to Idea Channel is because often times, you say things I will disagree with. I'm not here to argue. I'm here to learn and discuss. I think its important to expose yourself to ideas which conflict with your own. So then, I must take issue with the way this particular discussion was handled.
Certainly, there were some nasty comments that were just rude and unnecessary and did nothing for the discourse. But there were many which simply disagreed strongly with the message in the video. Like I said, I was one of them. I took issue with the idea that women are said to be non-standard, or that when people think of cyborgs they think of old, rich, white dudes. I took issue with the fact that these ideas were espoused to push an agenda and not to be rationally sound. I took issue with the fact that the terms of discussion were not more strictly defined in order to facilitate a bias.
And then this video. It began well enough. "Its ok to disagree, just be polite". By then it began to sound as if you were trying to put down all disagreement. Further, you only chose comments which supported your narrative, which generally I don't have an issue with; after all, you're trying to get a certain point across, you'll choose comments which further discussion to that point. In this instance however I cannot condone it, as the discussion was biased in your favor to begin with, with all presupposition of correctness on your side.
I'm not going to stop watching Idea Channel. I enjoy your videos after all, they make me think and face opinions or ideas I might not otherwise. And I know its not like you'll care about me and my single viewership or my opposing opinion or the opposing opinions of the minority here. I just don't like bias in arguments that are said to be unbiased. That's called hypocrisy and I can't stand seeing something I enjoy being ruined by hypocrisy.
Thanks for the discussion I guess. Keep making interesting videos.
I'm flattered to have my comment read! (I'm Boss1000 and EnduringBeta, for those keeping score at home.)
But still: Troj Bruegel 2016
I agree with some of your points but I think the idea of the default cyborg being a "white male" is bizzare. I mean when I watched Teen Titans as a kid there was literally a black guy named Cyborg and I didn't even bat an eye. he wasn't a "black cyborg" he was just a "cyborg". not to mention that the word can mean a lot of things, which you touched on in your video. I always thought "cyborg" was just some combination between a living thing and some kind of technology, so I personally don't see how being black or a woman would cause a problem.
You my dear human are allot more open and inclusive as to what an [insert group title here] is then 80% of this planet and I thank you for that. on a second note we also need to question what it means to have computer stuff as a part of your body means and what counts and what does that mean for them; that is the heart of what this discussion was meant to be... Before the stereotypes and other... Stuff... Happened
Same here. When he said we think of cyborgs as "powerful white men," I immediately scrunched up my face and went, "do we, though?" Certainly, DC Comics' Cyborg is right near the front of my mind. And, granted, he's a powerful man, but he's also black, and that was quite progressive at the time he was introduced.
And that sort of gets to my next point: In my mind, the word "cyborg" IS progressive, by its very nature. It makes me think about futurism, and progress, and scientific advancement.
When I imagine cyborgs, at least in the futuristic sense, I imagine a world that is already beyond gender bias where many of our socio-economic issues are already being sorted out. And when I think of cyborgs in the modern sense, I think of pacemakers, prosthetic limbs for amputees, and artifical hips for elderly women.
I certainly don't think "powerful white men."
+wolven moonstone ....no. You are just trapped in your own victimhood narrative. Actually, it's not even your own, but one someone else wove for you.
If so many people "hated" black people...hmm, how did a black guy get voted in two times in a row in a system that runs on majority vote? ...In a two party system....
If "80%" of people "hated" black people, mind explaining why "racism" is still an effective weapon? If it was normal to be racist....well...people wouldn't really give two shits. Kind of like calling a straight person "straight".
Sure, the weapon's effectiveness is dropping because it is being normalized by the very people who try to claim it. (Which is sad because soon enough those who have legitimate claims of racism won't be able to use it soon)
If so many people hated black people...just how were they allowed to mob up and shoot police officers to death? Ironically, those police officers being ones who didn't shoot the blacks for pointing a gun at them.
side note: I kinda feel stupid for saying "black or a woman" in that last bit which sounds super racist. I should have said something like "any race other than white or a woman" I mean it's not elegant either but it gets my point across better.
The entire white people are cyborgs was an attempt by idea channel to preemptively shame people who disagree with them. As was the argument about semantics at the start, people who argue semantics are to stupid to understand what they are getting at, or bigoted because they can't get into the shoes of people who have had those experiences... Its the a hole promoting feelings over facts, and it is simply being dishonest, because half of what this channel runs on is simply semantics.
I really appreciate the specific inclusion of the non-white, non-male, non-able bodied scope of ideas. Really fantastic episode. Rose was great and really fascinating to listen to. The only thing is I felt a little alienated as a trans person when the discussion equated the biological functions of periods and birth control with the gender of being a woman. I know its easier to discuss that way, but it especially was a little irksome since you guys did such a fabulous job of making sure to mention and include other oppressed and ignored identities so destinctly idk just something to keep in mind for future episodes that when you're talking about those things to be cognizant of cis-normativity? Thanks! Again, fantastic and interesting episode!
The thing that struck me with the "Females are not the default body" thing, was that a lot of people didn't think that was true and you seem to think it was. That may sound like just a restatement of fact but think about it. If you are right and females are not the default body then those people either should have agreed with you or have a reason to think otherwise. So since they didn't agree and didn't know for the most part that anyone thought that females weren't the default you really need to give them evidence not just say something and expect them to accept it as fact. Your displeasure at people holding a opposite opinion to you with literally no evidence (in the previous video, obviously you referred us in this video) offered is quite counter to the way you generally go about thing on the idea channel. Especially when them not agreeing with you means they are (hopefully) thinking more progressively than the people that think of White males as the default. Most of the others stuff in the comment i cant speak for this was just something that stuck out.
To me it seemed not like people didn't think Male is the Default but that when confronted with that criticize they just went "No I don't" with little introspection.
The idea isn't about looking at women and going "what a weirdo" it about how you behave in daily life or when planing things without considering women's needs/differences.
Cognitive dissonance. People can hear the phrase "females are not the default body" and think "well that sounds factually incorrect," while still having absorbed and internalized that idea from their culture.
Take the symptoms of an oncoming heart attack: tingling, numbness and/or pain in the left arm. Those are given as the warning signs for everyone in general, but are actually only applicable to men--female symptoms are different. But these are the the symptoms we are taught, because Male is the default body. This is just a single example, but similar things exist all throughout our culture, mostly invisible to us, because the culture we grew up in is just accepted as normal.
There will be youtube commenters disagreeing on ANYTHING (even the fact that the earth is round). But in the end, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that we as a society consider the male body the norm. For example, the French prime minister calling women a minority.
Genetically speaking, women are the default body. They have two of the same type of chromosome (X) while men have one X and a smaller chromosome (Y) that takes the makes tweaks to what the X chromosome has already established. All human embryos start as girls, and then when the Y chromosome activates in those who have it, they experience hormonal changes and their gender goes in the other direction.
Holobrine That's true, but it's a very recent scientific discovery. We've had millennia of acting as though the opposite were true.
Certainly not all, but I'd guess some people, including me, were annoyed by the assertion that "we", thereby including viewers, believe that cyborgs are "powerful white dudes that have machine parts implanted into their meat".
It's forcing the viewer into the role of the sexist / racist, ignoring the actual views of him/her. This kind of generalisation is precisely the problem racism / sexism is about.
And since almost the whole discussion was based on that assumption, the video seemed pointless to me.
That been said, I actually enjoyed the video from a purely informal point of view.
EDIT: To actually formulate my opinion: I don't care about who people are. If they make a big fuzz about who they are, I get annoyed (E.g. aggressive, so called, "feminism"). Ergo, I don't like any side of this whole discussion.
Thanks for pronouncing my name right!
I thought that the identity angle was interesting. A lot of dissatisfaction seemed to me to stem from a wish for a show that discussed fields like technical hard- and software engineering developments, as if that was somehow 'more legitimate'.
But, while there is a lot of technical future possibilities about the future of cyberisation, we shouldn't overlook related questions and critical analysis of how technological advances interact with culture.
I'm willing to credit Idea Channel with the freedom to frame the question any way they like because I get the impression that other avenues of nuanced discussion can get lost otherwise.
Just my 2c
Mike, you seem to be the smartest, nicest and least judgmental guy ever. ^_^ thanks for another great video!
I feel like comparing youtube comments to nonsense is an insult to nonsense.
Yeah I definitely went into that episode expecting it to not apply to me...it was an interesting surprise to find that it did
hey, thank you a lot for elaborating on your lack of call outs. i really respect idea channels comment section, and i love being a part of it, but last weeks was pretty rough in contrast to the usual fair. and i've often wondered where you are, and why you or yr team isn't stepping up and saying like 'hey, that isn't welcome here.' or whatever, but your explanation makes a lot of sense to me. i will rest easier now, knowing that you're as annoyed by that s*** as me. :p
Years ago I read that anger is just fear expressed differently. Considering this has often helped me to understand why I or others lash out.
Combining furries and the cyborgian could lead to people basically becoming sentient animatronics. I hope we don't go there
Shadowrun GM?! Oh my god I would pay actual money to witness that.
....... I don't suppose any recorded sessions exist somewhere. c - c
I really want that Tshirt
You should call people out. People shouldn't take everything to a prejudice thing or the opposite
i think i like the comment response videos more than the actual videos
I only wear solid colour shirts (comes from not wanting to be advertising space for brands and expanded, now I just like it) but I would preorder in an instant like 5 "I did a philosophy" mugs.
I'm the opposite, I own my 2 solid colour shirts. but the shirts I own really only boost brands like starwars or are just funny.
You showed a lot of restraint in this episode. Respect.
I always thinks it's the best policy to ignore stupidity. I certainly learn more when my stupidities are ignored than when they are confronted.
On discrimination. You sort of hinted at it but I think it needs a clear statement: I think the biggest problem to overcome even for people who really like to be open minded about it is that we do still consider the "straight white man" as the standard "template". I think even a lot of the discrimination _against _ the "straight white man" comes from this (basically everything apart from the "men should be strong" stuff). I think there's a problem even within our language. We already tend to think as: man, black man and even wo-man. I think we're still far off to the point where we'd have an asian lesbian as a lead character and neither race or sexuality would be considered important.
If somebody tells Spock to wear his friend's shoes:
I fail to understand how exhibiting my accomplice's footwear would help to solve the problem.
*swap accomplice with acquaintance
Great stuff, I really loved the way you and Rose expanded the idea of what it means to be a "cyborg"
Thanks for responding to the comments on last weeks video with such grace and patience! I especially appreciated how you encouraged people to consider different perspectives and ideas more carefully. Hopefully you got through to some of them!
I really liked the last comment you highlighted, however I disagree that women have more bodily functions than men. Disregarding the inherent cissexim, I think men and women mostly have just different bodily functions, but women's functions are considered "not normal" and being controlling with technology because the responsibility to prevent pregnancy falls on women, who usually would bear the most significant burden if pregnancy is not avoided. If the majority of child rearing fell on men, you could sure as hell bet that more effective and accessible male contraceptives would be developed.
I admire you Mike
Single digit views? That is a new record for me.
I got here at 99 and I thought I was special.
no i am just 115 :(
1:50 My issue is that you assume that everyone assumes that all cyborgs are 'powerful white males.' When someone says cyborg the first thing I think of is Cyborg from the Justice League, a black teenager/man that's more metal than flesh.
Ditto, him and Motoko Kusanagi are the first two people who come to mind when someone mentions the term Cyborg to me.
You guys are making good points. Stop that, right now, before you destroy the all-mighty narrative.
Exception doesn't remove the rule.
That all well and good but it's not changing that powerful white men are western society's de facto default. For every Cyborg there's Batman, Flash, Hal Jordan and Aquaman. Look at Marvel and every time they shifted the mantle of any superhero away from or shared it with a white man. Boycotts get called for, petitions calling for the termination of writers get drawn up and get actual traction. It's right that this is being confronted if you ask me.
,
Good job. Tackling tricky subjects and making people think is brave and you guys do a great job. Keep at it.
Looking forward very keenly to the pre-conceived notions t shirt Mike. I appreciate the comments made at the end as well, and wonder if a video on politics, pre conceptions, and objectivity might be something to consider..? I'd write more but I think I'm more likely to trip over my own words.
A gracious host defends their guests
Furries are not about "finding their identity", we're about a lot of cutesy art about cutesy anthropomorphic animals. I'm continuously peeved by people buying into the failures of media... this fandom is the poster child for media's shortcomings, and I'm afraid that you unfortunately fell into believing them, Mike. I honestly want to explain the ways, reasons, motives, just sheer pssibility that it happened to such a degree, how laughably indistinct and incorrect the public's notion of furries is, but I already know I'll get hate for this comment... idea channel or no. Just please, even if you're supposedly hearing it from a furry, don't believe everything you hear. Just because it comes from an academic source doesn't mean it's right... in fact, they're more incorrect and biased than you'd expect.
I am not discounting what you have to say. I am only saying that your experience with the furry fandom MAY not correlate with all the fandom. I think most furries are like you, who just love all the cute and fun. And I'm definitely against the media portraying it as nothing more than a kink. I have, however met a number of furries who deeply identify with their fursona, and feel it is more them than their "real" fleshy bodies. One, that I can think of immediately didn't cosplay or anything, it's just the self they saw in their head.
TheCyberwoman I'll apply a valid reply later but I'm busy right now. Just know, the majority of the fandom is outright afraid to talk to news media because of how awfully they misconstrue everything these guys say; in fact, the security at Anthrocon will turn away and threaten to arrest known reporters (and are trained to spot them) because of how god-awful the situation has gotten. Which, in turn, provides less people arguing against the misinterpretations, which, in turn, allows people like you to think things that there are actual, other, not-the-furries fandoms for are more widespread than they actually are; the people you seem to be referring to are "otherkin", and they're actually shunned by the majority of furries.
+Nathan Fleming I look forward to your response. I'm also glad to know the term otherkin. This friend referred to themselves as a furry, but if otherkin is the more accurate term, I accept that.
+
Furries are really really diverse. I do agree that what he described sounded more like therians than furries, but there is certainly a large degree of identity building in it for a lot of furries. Fursonas can be a great way to re-contextualise different aspects of your personality and explore parts of yourself that you usually shun. I definitely think furries would be amongst the most exploitative bunch as far as identity goes.
Also if you're shunning anybody for who they feel they are or how weird they are I'd say you've missed the part of the fandom that's the most important to me. To me the furry fandom has always been about meeting diverse people, being open with them and everybody accepting and appreciating each other regardless of what they subscribe to.
Sure furries have had extremely bad media coverage, but trying to ostracise parts of the fandom out of fear of misrepresentation is not the right way to deal with that problem and is just giving into the same pressures that are causing the media personnel to react as they are doing. Check for yourself if you're doing to therians what the media is doing to furries.
i love it every time you mention shadowrun. i have been playing shadowrun for many years now and the gap between what shadowrun tech has and what we(real world) has is closing. hopefully the whole human race don't become chipheads :) roll on Chummer
I'm only commenting because of your shirt. I have the same one, bought it when they did a New Year's show in Boston. (Yeah, they played Ice of Boston after midnight and let the audience on stage.)
wow that end was serious
Mike runs a Shadowrun game?! I have a desperate, burning need to know more.
The original video touched on all the things that are technically cyborgian but not really, and are actually quite boring.
For your statement ending at 3:50 - putting ourselves in the shoes of others is the final frontier of the "social justice" paradigm, in a way. We used to live if in a world where the inequity was plain and codified. There were states where women could not vote. There were laws that separated blacks and whites. Now, we've realized that those kinds of official discrimination are wrong. We've also discouraged other kinds of open discrimination. Now, with these easy targets taken down, we are left in a state of disconnect. Those who live as a category of person who "used to be" the victims of discrimination think that there are ways in which their lives are still obstructed by external factors because of who they are. Those who are members of the historically dominant group seem to think that is not the case, largely if not entirely because the objectively detectable sources of inequality are gone. All that is left to do is step into the shoes of those who still experience unwelcoming environments instead of simply tossing their experiences aside because they cannot be objectively verified.
If so many people "hated" black people...hmm, how did a black guy get voted in two times in a row in a system that runs on majority vote?
If people "hated" black people, mind explaining why "racism" is still an effective weapon? If it was normal to be racist....well...people wouldn't really give two shits.
Sure, the weapon's effectiveness is dropping because it is being normalized by the very people who try to claim it. (Which is sad because soon enough those who have legitimate claims of racism won't be able to use it soon)
If so many people hated black people...just how were they allowed to mob up and shoot police officers to death? Ironically, those police officers being ones who didn't shoot the blacks for pointing a gun at them.
Joe did not say anything about anybody hating anyone.
I reread his post just to make sure, but it definitely isn't there.
Try not to treat all people who you disagree with as simply being a facet of a monolithic entity. Your arguments get dramatically less persuasive when they are a response to an argument that the person you are responding to never said. To an outside observer it looks like you were just having an internal dialogue with yourself and just happened to bump into another person and started directing your self-talk at them as if they were involved somehow.
Also, I wrote that before I realized you were just copy/pasting that post verbatim to multiple different people.
That definitely just ostracizes anyone who might otherwise consider what you have to say.
If you think that discrimination is somehow over or doesn't exist anymore, that requires an astounding level of myopia. If you believe these people "used to" be victims but somehow aren't anymore, you are incredibly blind and refusing to express empathy and understanding for other human beings.
Rory Walker And yet another non-sequitur followed by an ad hominem attack, instead of addressing or offering any actual argument. Ah so typical.
No one said "discrimination was 'over'" or that it doesn't exist. But wanna explain how if "everyone" was racist, how was a black guy president twice in a row through an economic recession? If everyone was racist, he'd have things extremely heavily stacked against him, even disregarding compounding factors.
8:10 EE's shadowrun campaign has a prime example of that.
Who thinks of white dudes when they picture cyborgs? I can't think of any cyborg fiction where there isn't at least one female cyborg. In fact the female cyborgs are normally more powerful and central than the male ones if they exist at all.
You really shouldn't call people out you have your own opinions and I have your own opinion so clam our rage on other people if they think different. Diversity in opinions and gives you difference in solutions that you're trying to solve. Hope this make sense
A+ comment given to hollandscottthomas.
I want to say that you should be willing to defend your ideas and the non-derailing discussions in the comments section from those who would go on a sexist tangent, but I also think that there has to be at least a slight hesitation to avoid making this a place where only those who share certain understandings are welcome, because then you risk merely preaching to the choir.
So, y'know, maybe get more aggressive with people who are actively polluting the comments discussion, but maybe get more engaged with people who just don't have the background you do when it comes to western medicine &c. being designed and tested for male bodies and the fact that we have a gender-bifurcated history when it comes to things like reproductive health issues.
Gotta love semantic bleaching. I love you.
You can and should call people out when they are being stupid. If doing so jeopardizes your position of "gracious host", then you should not be a gracious host.
How did Ghost in the Shell and Deus Ex not have a bigger role in commentary on possible future consequences of a fully cybernetic future human race? GiTs in particular is all about the social/political as well as species ramifications of mass population cybernetics.
I think this channel's questions are recurrent and are being projected in different ways. (huge fan) But, you guys need to explore stuff to talk about.
Thank the christ that we clarified the difference between gender and gender expression -_-
But we still could have used more discussion about Trans* peoples it relates to body augmentation for the same reason we should have discussed furs. I mean it's halfway got the same name as transhumanism.
I stand by my criticism that the "Are we All Cyborgs" video veered off course from what is expected of Idea Channel. While you mention "challenging preconceived notions" as part of this video I don't think any of that was done in the cyborgs video. Rather you interviewed someone to put out their own views on your channel. Perfectly acceptable; but also not what a lot of people have come to expect from Idea Channel.
I REALLY think you need to do an idea channel on "is it actually possible to separate ideas from politics". You're political beliefs are bleeding into the channel and your responses to the comments. Maybe that's the evolution of the channel and maybe it's something you want; but it's also hurting your ability to respond to "pre conceived notions".
I put up my comment on the original video because I felt Holland Scott Thomas's comment (not sure if I got his name right) went too far to belittle the criticisms of the video; which has a very strong feminist slant. It also did very little to look at different sides of the issue on cyborg vs non-cyborg.
+
All ideas, as pertaining to society, are political, so no, it's not possible to separate ideas from politics.
Perhaps, and this is just me speculating, I would posit that all of the idea channel episodes, especially the ones which interview other people, bring their own views to the channel. From Extra Credits views of the mechanics in video games, to Michael Weinberg charting the landscape of 3D printing legalities, all of them, every video brought with it its own notions of the world and political views. It is just when they diverge from the viewers expectations, that then, the viewer regards the video as being "political"
As an example, hypothetically, let's say I am strong in my beliefs that, say, American "ideals" are just advertising rhetoric in service to politicians and marketers. Well, I am going to see any video or talk which 1) Don't relate to that political view at all or 2) Discuss that political view in favour to my own set beliefs as apolitical. As just 100% fact, bringing no baggage to the discussion. Because, why would I assume there is a bias, if it supports my preconceived notions. But as soon as a video spins the issue in the opposite direction, as soon as I see people discussing my belief with a sense of scepticism or regard to the opposition, it would make sense for me to go, "Oh, you aren't making an unbiased discussion, you are simply glorifying this person and their views!" Even if, that has been what the program as always been doing, I just agreed with it before. It's why you'll see people who are, say, conservative, tear into videos which take a liberal stance, when most liberals view it as apolitical and "just how the world really is." And vice versa. We are all bringing our baggage to the discussions, we are just blind to that when it reaffirms beliefs we already have.
What is the difference between "challenging preconceived notions" and the act of someone "putting their own views" on something? Aside from the fact that you are not threatened by the former and you are threatened by the latter? Does Mike not put his own views on this channel literally every second he is speaking?
Big question: will we fully end up in technology before we attach so much technology to our body we pretty much become it.
What word about women 'not being normal' can Mike not say?
Can someone summarise me simply why female body is not "normal"? I really don't have time to read book the host of the show recommended.
I loved that episode, one of my favorites. But while watching, I asked, why race? Why sex? Why sexuality? Like it took up a majority of the episode while it should have been about what makes a cyborg a cyborg. How is technology going to advance more to fit cyborgs and how is society going to react.
It seemed that a lot of the discussion is that given the definition of "what makes a cyborg a cyborg" that they were using would conclude that things such as IUDs would qualify.
The topic statement of "Are we all cyborgs?" seems to deliberately be present tense rather than "Will we all be cyborgs?"
First thing that comes to my mind when someone says cyborg is a person who has been augmented with metal parts, then Teen Titan Cyborg. If you're just thinking white people when you think cyborgs, you might want to think as to why that is.
I think what you're trying to say is that you choose your gender and how you express it but you don't choose to want that gender? that's how I feel. For me gender is as real as Santa, in that Santa does't "exist". He's not a real thing, but you can learn facts about him, you know of him, he's a big staple in society; he doesn't exist but he does /exist/. As far as gender goes, I think gender identity is based on how you want to be viewed by society, which is why it's fluid and why one could say you "choose" your gender because it isn't an inherent trait and doesn't really exist in other forms of life and other species (gender being different than sex) but no one chooses how they want to be viewed, they just feel that way at certain points in their life
I think what people were upset about was that when you think about Cyborgs, you think of humans with cybernetic parts in general, i.e. Cyborg from JL and stuff. I don't think that's really what they were disappointed about, what they were disappointed about was probably the focus on women, which is all well and fine, but even as a gender equality supporter I found it just as slightly cringey as a video with a subtle sexist subtext, whether it accidental or not. This is clearly shown by the comments and your response to the comments discussing more about social equality instead of what a cyborg is and how we are/are not cyborgs. I do believe that you are good-hearted, but I also believe that you should not completely ignore such comments as nonsense, as some of them are valid criticisms.
Well, the focus on women seems relevant to me in that the definition of "cyborg" in use have applied for a long time, especially in a number of ways relevant to the female body in particular.
It clearly also applies to men also, like in the cases of calorie tracking or replacement joints or so on, but it would seem like an oversight to me to discuss those without also talking about IUDs, implanted birth control, period tracking, and so forth. I mean, those apply to a lot more of the population than bone-conduction hearing aid implants like a friend of mine has, and so reasonably deserves more focus in a question of are we (present tense) all cyborgs already.
Patrick Johnson I agree, it's just that the tone of both hosts may have been misinterpreted as "having an agenda", in which I'm sure they don't, but they should also take notice of such criticism because it may have some merit. For instance they talked a lot of time about gender equality and such, meanwhile in a discussion about if we are cyborgs that should not be a focus at all, if you get what I mean.
I do appreciate that he outright apologized for one of the things people were calling them out on even though they didn't actually mean the thing people found objectionable.
It's very refreshing to me when people acknowledge that they are fallible when it comes to the way they tried to communicate something, and take positive steps to be less misunderstood (even though being perfectly understood is likewise impossible and not a sensible standard to try for either).
you are a very sweet person
My problem with the previous vid was that you didn't deal with any of the interesting aspects of the question, instead getting sidetracked in last centuries tedious arguments about identity. SocJus doesn't make you cutting edge - it's not a radical new idea most people haven't been exposed to - it's a old argument everyone has been exposed to and the vast majority people want nothing to do with because of it's obvious flaws.
So everyone is a second life character?
when i think about cyborg i think of a powerfull "Black" man with metal in his meat
So? You are not all of society.
+Peardude89 just a dc fanboy
love this one
Under 200! Woo
"Powerful white dudes"? Don't tell Victor Stone...
When discussing people's perceptions, it's sort of relevant that for every Victor Stone that readily comes to mind (or Motoko Kusanagi, or Geordi La Forge, or Molly Millions) there's a Hank Henshaw and a Tony Stark, a Sgt. Batou and a Paz, a Picard and a Garak, a Case and an Armitage, and so on...
The position doesn't seem to be that there is necessarily a lack of non white-male cyborg characters, it's that there might be a perceptual over-representation of the white male Robocop, Terminator, 6 Million Dollar Man, Darth Vader variety.
"Powerful white dude". Sorry to disturb your preconceived notion, but Cyborg is African American, not "white".
The gender and identity politics brought up just confuses me, and seems totally beside the point of talking about cyborgs. My idea of a cyborg may be rather simplistic, basically anyone who is part human and part machine, but I totally fail to see how gender makes any difference. I can see how there can be legitimate debate over what it means to be cyborg, and where one might draw the line between cyborg and non-cyborg, but to take that and say that whatever someone decides they are is "right" is to take away all objective definitions and meanings from "cyborg", or for that matter, any other name people are using to self-identify as. If you self-identify as something that you are clearly not, then you're lying to the world, and probably lying to yourself, not withstanding correctable mistakes and misunderstandings. There are limits to what you can self-identify as. If you want to self-identify as a cyborg because you have an IUD in your body, more power to you. But I won't call you a cyborg.
In short: The original video could have used more talk about actual cyborg technology and stuff, and less about gender and identity politics. It's the cyborgian stuff that's cool and interesting; gender and identity politics is just boring and tiring and causes divisiveness in the discussions (obviously).
I want that shirt please.
You talk about preconceived notions which is ironic considering all you're doing here is reinforcement of your own. Maybe instead of trying to belittle people's opposing opinions by showing comments of people that agree with you, you challenge these opinions.
This comment tries to distract without answering the criticism. Mike certainly has some preconceived notions, and he might well be reinforcing them here. But that doesn't preclude the people who make critical comments on feminist issues from also having preconceived notions and the criticism that they should challenge their preconceived notions is a valid one, regardless of what notions Mike has.
Which...is called hypocrisy, and is rarely looked upon as a positive trait...except when it is coming from someone of your religio...I mean ideology.
My point is that the fact that one person out there is a hypocrite isn't an excuse for everyone else to be too.
Jacob Rogers Except that they weren't criticing him about needing to be open minded. And thus they weren't being hypocrites. Not to mention, considering we are talking about an abstract group, it's pretty hard to say they aren't being open minded, and just came to a different conclusion.
So, again, your argument falls flat.
Is it decent advice? Sure. Do you deserve to be called out when not even you follow your advice? Yeah.
Of course, the solution is to change the meaning of "open minded" to mean "not questioning me".
+HolySpitball
+SangoProductions213
What you guys are saying is all well and good, except the point still stands that it's a distraction. The fact is that an objective viewing of the cyborg video doesn't show an agenda, so if you're getting upset about it then it's your problem. It's a problem with how you are viewing the world and the video.
this video just left me feeling empty, you only talk about
A politicly correctness
B current online populare topics that only apply to youtube
C simple "cute" stuff
this just left me feeling dissapointed because it really showed how shallow your show can be and how "afraid" you seam to piss people off.
i strongly believe new ideas can are mostly outside the norm off thinking and this can't be done without pissing some people off, which you carfully avoid...
I am sorry but i feel disapointed
It's a comment response video, so it inherently will spend more time discussing the response to the prior video than elaborating on the prior video. There's a reason they split the comment responses into a separate video instead of having them be at the end of the subsequent video like they used to.
Patrick Johnson that is still no reason to only talk about 'shallow' comments and subject
I'm just saying that the point of this video was to engage with the discussion that followed the previous video, not to be a standalone idea channel video. They have separate comment response videos so they can A) Easily allow people to skip the comment response segments if they so desire and B) To make the comment response segments more substantial for those who want them.
It caters to both sets of people instead of making both compromise for the other.
Patrick Johnson 100% true but that still doesn't adres the quality of comments spoken about in the video...
They are all so
A simular
B politicly correct
C about 'current' discussions
D from the same corner of the internet (not even going to say the world because we would talking about 0.00000001%)
Its only natural that the comments come from "the same corner of the internet."
Because they literally did. That corner is called "the comments section of the original video."
It's not a video where they take on general societal opinions on the broader subject, it is literally a video where they respond to the comments made *on* the original video on youtube.
experience ≠ understanding, it is closed-minded to think that *oppugnical event* supersedes *reasoned logic*.